text
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
Another demonstration of Kurosawa's genius, his first colour film is a darkly surreal look into the tragic lives of Tokyo slum dwellers, essentially a series of interweaving vignettes depicting several groups of people eking out a perilous existence in a harsh and uncaring post-war shanty town. Swinging from comedy to tragedy and back, this film shows how people deal with the worst kind of life each in their own way, mostly retreating into themselves and living in the fantasy worlds of their own heads, withdrawing emotionally from those around them or drowning themselves in alcohol. Mixing kitchen-sink realism with Kabuki-esque theatrics, Kurosawa toys expertly with the emotions of his audience, drawing tears and laughter with equal deftness. A wonderful, draining experience. | 1pos
|
If there was anything Akira Kurosawa did wrong in making Dodes'ka-den, it was making it with the partnership he formed with the "four knights" (the other three being Kobayaski, Ichikawa, and Konishita). They wanted a big blockbuster hit to kick off their partnership, and instead Kurosawa, arguably the head cheese of the group, delivered an abstract, humanist art film with characters living in a decimated slum that had many of its characters face dark tragedies. Had he made it on a more independent basis or went to another studio who knows, but it was because of this, among some other financial and creative woes, that also contributed to his suicide attempt in 1971. And yet, at the end of the day, as an artist Kurosawa didn't stop delivering what he's infamous for with his dramas: the strengths of the human spirit in the face of adversity. That its backdrop is a little more unusual than most shouldn't be ignored, but it's not at all a fault of Kurosawa's.<br /><br />The material in Dodes'ka-den is absorbing, but not in ways that one usually finds from the director, and mostly because it is driven by character instead of plot. There's things that happen to these people, and Kurosawa's challenge here is to interweave them into a cohesive whole. The character who starts off in the picture, oddly enough (though thankfully as there's not much room for him to grow), is Rokkuchan, a brain damaged man-child who goes around all day making train sounds (the 'clickety-clack' of the title), only sometimes stopping to pray for his mother. But then we branch off: there's the father and son, the latter who scrounges restaurants for food and the former who goes on and on with site-specific descriptions of his dream house; an older man has the look of death to him, and we learn later on he's lost a lot more than he'll tell most people, including a woman who has a past with him; a shy, quiet woman who works in servitude to her adoptive father (or uncle, I'm not sure), who rapes her; and a meek guy in a suit who has a constant facial tick and a big mean wife- to those who are social around.<br /><br />There are also little markers of people around these characters, like two drunks who keep stumbling around every night, like clockwork, putting big demands on their spouses, sometimes (unintentionally) swapping them! And there's the kind sake salesman on the bike who has a sweet but strange connection with the shy quiet woman. And of course there's a group of gossiping ladies who squat around a watering hole in the middle of the slum, not having anything too nice to say about anyone unless it's about something erotic with a guy. First to note with all of this is how Kurosawa sets the picture; it's a little post-apocalyptic, looking not of any particular time or place (that is until in a couple of shots we see modern cars and streets). It's a marginalized society, but the concerns of these people are, however in tragic scope, meant to be deconstructed through dramatic force. Like Bergman, Kurosawa is out to dissect the shattered emotions of people, with one scene in particular when the deathly-looking man who has hollow, sorrowful eyes, sits ripping cloth in silence as a woman goes along with it.<br /><br />Sometimes there's charm, and even some laughs, to be had with these people. I even enjoyed, maybe ironically, the little moments with Rokkuchan (specifically with Kurosawa's cameo as a painter in the street), or the awkward silences with the man with the facial tics. But while Kurosawa allows his actors some room to improvise, his camera movements still remain as they've always been- patient but alert, with wide compositions and claustrophobic shots, painterly visions and faces sometimes with the stylization of a silent drama meant as a weeper. Amid these sometimes bizarre and touching stories, with some of them (i.e. the father and son in the car) especially sad, Kurosawa lights his film and designs the color scheme as his first one in Eastmancolor like it's one of his paintings. Lush, sprawling, spilling at times over the seams but always with some control, this place is not necessarily "lighter"; it's like the abstract has come full-throttle into the scene, where things look vibrant but are much darker underneath. It's a brilliant, tricky double-edged sword that allows for the dream-like intonations with such heavy duty drama.<br /><br />With a sweet 'movie' score Toru Takemitsu (also responsible for Ran), and some excellent performances from the actors, and a few indelible scenes in a whole fantastic career, Dodes'ka-den is in its own way a minor work from the director, but nonetheless near perfect on its own terms, which as with many Kurosawa dramas like Ikiru and Red Beard holds hard truths on the human condition without too much sentimentality. | 1pos
|
"Dô desu ka den" is the first colored movie of Master Akira Kurosawa, and surprisingly is not about samurais, ronins, warlords or battlefields. It is inside a very poor community in a slum in Tokyo, where the dwellers are homeless drunkards, beggars, tramps, abused women, losers. I do not know the reason why Kurosawa selected this tragic theme and environment to put colors, but indeed they are very sad stories, some of them heart-breaking. I personally like the touching story of the boy and his father that dream with a house of their own and built by them; the story of the retarded boy that believes he pilots a train; the story of the man that raises five children as if they were their own sons and daughters; and the story of the young woman abused by her stepfather. My vote is nine.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Dodeskaden O Caminho da Vida" ("Dodeskaden The Way of the Life") | 1pos
|
Most people, when they think of expressionist cinema, look to the b&w German films of the silent and early sound eras--films that emphasized canted angles, extreme contrasts of light and dark, exaggerated performance, and occasional uses of surrealism to create a dreamlike atmosphere in order to diverge from traditional, naturalistic modes of cinematic representation. If we're willing to accept that the Germans were not the only filmmakers to create expressionist cinema (and that those above-mentioned characteristics are not prerequisites for expressionist film), then I would argue that Dodes'ka-den (DKD) is a prime example of this type of film. <br /><br />Like Dreams, DKD is a little unhinged for a Kurosawa film, dabbling, as it does, in the unreal. However, DKD is also, unlike Dreams, a great film and probably my favorite Kurosawa picture. Why? Mostly, I think, it's the colors. This was, I believe, Kurosawa's first color film, and the man saturates the movie with vibrant primary colors, creating a completely unreal contemporary Japan. We are used to the neon lights and gleaming Tokyo skyscrapers; we are not used to a city that appears to have been colored with crayons. <br /><br />DKD is, as I said, a peculiar film inasmuch as many of its characters live in a junkyard, appearing to live in an alternate universe. That is, I think, the point--these are the Tokyo outsiders, the people left behind during the great move forward following World War II. The film also represents one of Kurosawa's more heartfelt movies; there is genuine sentiment here and genuine pathos (such as when the boy's father describes their dream home). It's an amazingly moving film from a man better known for stunning, John Ford-like vistas and samurais. Everyone should have known Kurosawa had in him a movie as touching and thought provoking as this (Ikiru foreshadows the emotional resonance of this film in many ways). <br /><br />I will also argue, to the last, that this is Kurosawa's greatest achievement. His samurai films, though capable pictures, pale in comparison to works by Kobayashi (Hara-kiri is the greatest, most intelligent samurai film committed to celluloid). Rashomon, Hidden Fortress, Seven Samurai, Yojimbo, Sanjuro, Kagemusha, and Ran are all fine films, but they're merely good (and, frankly, I think that word is too generous for Hidden Fortress and Kagemusha). DKD is a great movie, as is Ikiru. They are the crown jewels that show Akira was not a one-trick samurai pony. They reveal his artistry and mastery of cinema. | 1pos
|
This is one of the weirder movies I have recently watched. That's because it seems less like a movie and more like an experimental film. Kurasawa's experiment was to take a variety of individuals who live at a garbage dump and weave their experiences into a tapestry that offers glimpses of their generally harsh existences. Not every episode is depressing and harsh, but overall this is definitely the tone. Let's see,...we have a case of incest/rape, attempted murder, wife swapping, alcoholism, infidelity, death of a little boy after eating tainted fish, a man with severe depression (he never talks during the movie and looks very scary), a hopeless dreamer who would probably be diagnosed with schizophrenia, a mentally retarded young man who thinks he is a street car conductor and spends all his waking moments "driving" his street car through paths among the garbage piles, a man married to a total shrew (I think I liked her character even less than the incestuous rapist!), etc., etc. In fact, it is depressing enough that it seemed almost like an Ingmar Bergman movie set in Japan, as Bergman made MANY movies that tended to deal with mental illness and the hopelessness of life. Is it any wonder that after making this film Kurasawa tried to kill himself?! So, did I like it? No. It was not a fun experience. But, it was a very well-made movie that definitely kept my attention and as a result, I really wanted to see what happened to these people. It was sort of like watching a train wreck--you don't WANT to see all the carnage but you can't help but watch! Of all the vignettes, I think that the older man who tended to look out for everyone and who didn't really seem to fit in (he was too well-adjusted and wise to be living in a garbage dump) was perhaps meant to represent Kurasawa himself. Maybe. I dunno.<br /><br />If you've seen a variety of Kurasawa films and have a high tolerance for strange art films, give this one a watch. However, do NOT make this your first experience watching his movies--it's sure to scare away many viewers! | 1pos
|
The title of this movie doesn't make a lot of sense, until you see it in operation, because it's the sound that a retarded young man makes while he's operating his imaginary trolley, which is what he does all day. And he is just one of many odd characters in this surreal & at times, tragic tale of a group of slum-dwellers in Japan.<br /><br />There are two drunks who trade wives, there's a man with aspirations to be a architect, and his young son who he sends out to beg for food. There's a wise old man who seems to be the pillar of sanity within all that goes on around him, and there's a businessman with some severe nervous tics that has a wife that treats him (and everyone else) like dirt.<br /><br />There's no particular plot to this, really, it's a bunch of stories that drift back & forth between each other, sometimes funny, sometimes tragic. All in all I thought it worked pretty well, & I had been dying to see this for a long time just based on its description. I was not in the least disappointed, and I'd definitely recommend this. 9 out of 10. | 1pos
|
The title is the sound that one of the characters makes as he drives his imaginary trolley across the garbage dump where the characters live. The film is based on a series of stories by Shugoro Yamamoto and tells the story of a group of people who effectively live in ramshackle homes on the edge of the dump. It's a mix of laughter and sadness.<br /><br />First color film made by Akria Kurasowa has been something I've wanted to see for a long time. Weirdly it was often listed as being only available in a shortened version from a three or four hour original due to an error in the run time in some promotional material. I was holding out for the full version, waiting to see what Kurasowa wanted us to see, only to find out on the recent release by Criterion that the 140 minute version is the full version.<br /><br />Finally sitting down to see the film last night I'm of mixed emotions about the film. First and foremost its visually linked to every film that followed. You can see every other of Kurasowals remaining six films reflected in this movie, down to the painted sunsets. Its a striking film in its use of color and you can understand why it took him so long to a film stock he would he happy with (of course there are failed projects as well). The film is a visual work of art.(Though be warned if you're going to see this on your widescreen TV this was shot 1.33 so will appear in normal TV ratio.) The rest of the film is a mixed bag. Part of the problem is that the lives of all of these people don't quite come together. As separate tales they all work well but as a filmic whole they don't hang as one. I don't blame Kurasowa since one can't always hit things out of the box, especially when some one like Robert Altman who specialized in multi-character films of this sort occasionally bombed himself.<br /><br />This isn't to say that there aren't reasons to see the film. As will all Kurasowa films there are always reasons to see his films, whether they work or not. The first trip of the "trolley" is one of the best things Kurasowa ever did and is worth the price of a rental. Its one of the most magical moments in film history as the trolley is inspected and taken out. The father and son living in the car is touching (though ultimately very sad) and there are other bits and pieces that shine (like the cast which is across the board great) and one should at least try the film as something different from a man we usually associated with samurai films or crime dramas.<br /><br />Its an intriguing misfire from a master filmmaker which means in this case means its better than most other filmmakers successes.<br /><br />Between 6 and 7 as a whole, much higher in pieces. | 1pos
|
The title is onomatopoeic, the sound of a streetcar clacking on the rails. It is metaphoric for all that the people who live in the dump cannot have. The misery of those people is illustrated by the passing streetcar which represents the relatively unobtainable rich life of the middle class. The pathos of the little boy and his beloved yet sadly insane father is most touching. This was Kurosawa's first film in colour and he uses beautifully shocking hues, colours seen only in dreams. The movie is surreal and surpassing in beauty. The compassion for humanity is the underling force, but as always, Kurosawa is focused on capturing the beauty of the film. It is a masterwork by a genius of cinema. | 1pos
|
I first saw this movie as a pre-teen, about the age when kids start to think through their identity. I was greatly affected by the scene of the man and the children who he raises as his own. The eldest boy has been taunted that his mother is a prostitute and none of his siblings have the same biological father (which Kurosawa makes obvious by having children who look nothing like each other). The man still persuades tho boy that he is their father by the only definition that counts. The man is acclaimed to be father by all of the children but one, who still prefers her brother.<br /><br />Each of the vignettes are likewise compelling for their own stories and conclusions.<br /><br />It's a great film, even if it is not the greatest Kurosawa film. | 1pos
|
This, and "Hidden fortress" are the Kurosawa's that are most dear to me. I don't hand out 10's like candy, but this certainly deserved it, if anything. Even though it's quite long (like all Kurosawa's pretty much are) it concurred the problem which bugs me with most of his films; the storyline is often too loose and slowly evolving, containing scenes that are unnecessary or just lenghtened too much without any real purpose to the storyline or the character description. Dodesukaden delivered to me the same experience that for example "Hidden fortress" did; despite its lenght, there wasn't a single minute I would cut out.<br /><br />This is also a very unusual Kurosawa film in a way, it has no storyline, but many little independent stories which are based more to the character description than storyline, unlike any other Kurosawa-film I have seen so far. It also leans much on the dialogue, which he uses brilliantly (especially in the story between the father and the son planning their "new house"). <br /><br />Still the thing that makes this one a masterpiece is how the subject being so tragic as it is, is managed to be described so humanely and sympathetically, without pointing fingers at anybody at any point. From the beginning to the end it delivers the whole emotional scale from laughter to tears in perfect balance. | 1pos
|
Kurosawa is a proved humanitarian. This movie is totally about people living in poverty. You will see nothing but angry in this movie. It makes you feel bad but still worth. All those who's too comfortable with materialization should spend 2.5 hours with this movie. | 1pos
|
Kurosawa, fresh into color, losses sight of his usual themes of truth and perception of reality and opts for a depressing take on Tokyo's slums. Kurosawa stretches for a style that was, in my opinion, his antithesis- that is to say, I feel as if Kurosawa wanted to make an Ozu picture. Poorly paced, poorly conceived, this movie is a rare dud in this auteur body of excellent work. While Ikiru, while being mundane and depressing, was still interesting and well paced, and while Stray Dog depicted the slums and social poverty of Japan without being too heavy handed or boring, do desu ka den has all the somberness that one could expect with its content, with none of the redeeming qualities of earlier Kurosawa pictures.<br /><br />Be warned, this is not a movie that Kurosawa should be judged by. | 1pos
|
I loved this movie! It's truly bizarre, extremely funny, morbid, witty... It makes no sense to tell about the contents of the movie, because then I'd be giving out the outcome! You have to see it without knowing what is it about! Everything is connected and has its why & because. It starts subtly and then the things start rolling faster and faster until they culminate in the most insane outburst you can imagine! It's even more fun to watch the movie the second time, once you know all the "tricks". The actors are excellent, especially Ivan Trojan, whose final scenes are a real master piece! I highly recommend this film, it's one of the most original ones I've ever seen! | 1pos
|
This definitely is NOT the intellectual film with profound mission, so I really don't think there is too much not to understand to in case you aren't Czech.<br /><br />It's just a comedy. The humor is simple, pretty funny and sometimes, maybe, little morbid. Some actors and characters are very similar to Samotári (2000) (Jirí Machácek, Ivan Trojan, Vladimír Dlouhý) so the authors are. But it doesn't matter, the genre is really different and these two films shouldn't be compared in this way. Jedna ruka netleská won't try to give you a lesson, it will try to make you laugh and there is some chance it will succeed.<br /><br />Not bad film, not the ingenious one, but I enjoyed it. Some scenes are truly worth seeing. | 1pos
|
Basic meaning of the story is a reality. Cruel true reality. Situations are very funny. You have to laugh when you see, how people can be stupid, obstinate and crazy. The best description will be, if you watch it on your own. | 1pos
|
It helps if you understand Czech and can see this in the original language and understand the Czechs obsession with 'The Professionals', but if not, 'Jedna ruka netlaska' is yet another great Czech film. It is funny, dark and extremely enjoyable. The highest compliment I can pay it is that you never know quite what is going to happen next and even keep that feeling well into the second and third viewing.<br /><br />For a small country the Czech Republic has produced an amazing amount of world class film and literature, from Hrabal, Hasek and Kundera to the films of Menzel, Sverak and numerous others. Czech humour by its very nature is dark and often uncompromising, but often with a naive and warm sentiment behind it. This film is just that, it is unkind and deals with the less lovable sides of human beings, but underneath it all there is a beautiful story full of promise, good intent and optimism.<br /><br />I highly recommend this and most other projects Trojan and Machacek are involved in. Enjoy it, it's a film made for just that reason - anyway, it's as close as the Czechs will ever come to writing a truly happy ending... | 1pos
|
The lead characters in this movie fall into two categories: smart and stupid. Simple enough.<br /><br />Jiri Machacek (Standa) plays a hapless, dopey guy who gets arrested for a crime he did not commit. When he tries to get financially reimbursed by his evil, former boss, the situation gets out of control.<br /><br />While Standa is genuinely (but endearingly) stupid, his buddy Ondrej is an absolute blithering idiot who bungles everything and manages to say and do the wrong thing every time. Without Ondrej, Standa might stand a chance of going through life with some modest degree of success. With Ondrej, life will never be boring, but it sure won't be without a lot of headaches!<br /><br />Ivan Trojan plays Zdenek, an evil genius type who degenerates into some Hitler-esquire delusional tyrant. Zdenek and his henchmen try to kill Standa to keep Zdenek's secrets safe.<br /><br />I am very impressed with the high quality and imagination of Czech films. For a relatively small country, the Czech Republic certainly has produced more than its share of superb entertainment. The best Czech movies I have seen are: 1) Peliky and 2) Tmavomodrý Svet (Dark Blue World). If you see these two movies, you have seen the absolute best of Czech cinema. | 1pos
|
I like this movie much, it's special type of humor by Ondricek and Machacek... I think it's better then Samotari (Loners).. Maybe it's difficult to understand when you are not Czech. If you are not watching that movie, just enjoy it, don't mind about anything else.. just relax !! | 1pos
|
If, like me, you like your films to be unique, and unlike the majority of other movies, then I wholly recommend that you check out The Beast. The film is a grotesque, erotic, fantasy fairytale that centres around a mythological 'Beast' that is rumoured to wander the grounds of a French mansion and lusts after women. The film is very daring with it's subject material, and that is something to give it credit for. The theme of bestiality is a definite taboo, and for good reason, I might add; but the film conveys it; straight and to the point. Like other films that handle a taboo subject at their centre, The Beast could have gone around it, and made us use our imagination to fill in the gaps, but Borowczyk didn't do that, and he is brave in that respect, especially as making a film like this will leave him open to all kinds of criticisms, but the fact that he went ahead with it, in my view, means a big thumbs up for the guy.<br /><br />The film starts off with a sequence that sees a randy male horse mount a female. This opener puts an exclamation mark on the film and prepares the audience, in some ways, for the incredible, tour de force of eroticism that they are about to see. The scenes which see the beast mate with the woman are gratuitous and shocking, and are bound to offend many people (hence the reason it was banned for over 20 years), but these scenes are not merely an excuse for Borowczyk to shock the viewer; this film has a defining point. As said during the film; the only difference between man and beast is intelligence. Both man and beast have instincts, only man knows how to control them. The Beast explores this difference between man and beast through sexuality; the fantasy sequence in which the beast appears epitomises the control of human desire, and it is only when the central female character lets go of her control that she can see the beast. The film has strong themes of the age-old story of 'beauty and beast' weaved into it, and overall this is a shockingly morbid tale of lust, but not without a moral.<br /><br />Many criticise the scenes around the film's shocking sex sequences for being boring, but these scenes are important to the film's story. Without these scenes, we wouldn't get to know the characters or the story of the beast, and, most importantly; the story of 'beauty and the beast' would not be able to have it's horrifying conclusion dealt to the audience, and as that is one of the key elements of the film; it would be a real shame. Besides that, Borowczyk keeps his audience entertained through these scenes, not with shocks, but with dialogue and the upper class persona of the family, along with the beautiful shots of the mansion's ground would not be seen, and therefore the stark contrast between that and the events later on in the film would not exist either.<br /><br />Overall, The Beast is a shocking film. It's portrayal of a taboo subject and the shocking way it is portrayed will ensure that this film is not for everyone. However, if you can get over the film's shock, and embrace The Beast; what awaits is a skilful and beautiful piece of art that should not be missed by anyone that is willing to give this film a chance. | 1pos
|
"La Bête" by Walerian Borowczyk is based on the short story "Lokis" written by Prosper Merimée.Lucy Broadhurst(Lisabeth Hummel),an American heiress betrothed to the son of an impoverished Marquis,arrives at the family's crumbling château and learns of a mythical ursine beast purported to prowl the nearby forest.It is fabled that a former lady of the house(Sirpa Lane)once engaged in perverse sex with the creature and Lucy finds herself consumed by dreams of the incident. "The Beast" is an art-house mix of surreal horror,explicit sleaze and porno.There's implied bestiality,assault and perversion in the priesthood,copious fake ejaculate smeared on bared breasts,masturbation with a rose and, most graphic of all,the eponymous beast toying with incredibly big phallus.Still this genuinely erotic film is wonderfully photographed and tasteless.The women here are stunningly beautiful and they are naked most of the time.Overall "La Bête" is a visual feast.Whether it be from the fetishistic attention to detail,or the visual motifs pregnant with information,Borowczyk's masterpiece should be watched with care and attention.A must-see for fans of European cult cinema. | 1pos
|
OK...this one's a weirdy....Honestly, I can't tell you all the inner plot-points of THE BEAST, cuz I started losing interest when nothing happened during the first 45 or more minutes - but just wait, it definitely does "pick up"...<br /><br />The plot involves something about a monster in the woods that some French aristocrat chick screwed back in the day. Eventually you see "THE BEAST", which looks like a guy dressed in a giant rat-bear costume with a horse cock attached to it. The scene takes place with the aristocrat woman running around the forest looking for a lost sheep. The sheep ends up dead and the woman gets scared. THE BEAST pops up, rapes the chick and shoots 400 gallons of spunk all over her. Eventually the chick starts to enjoy the beast's "attention" which results in some pretty novel simulated sex scenes, including an unnervingly erotic foot masturbation scene where the woman jerks the beast off with her feet while the monster shoots more huge loads everywhere (yeah, I've got a twisted foot-fetish - so sue me....)...The whole film is told in flashbacks and long-winded dialog scenes that tended to be a bit tedious. A "shocking" but predictable ending concludes this extremely strange film...<br /><br />THE BEAST is a film that I find kind of hard to rate. The cinematography itself is quite eye-catching and the sets, costumes and locations are elaborate. The plot is a little convoluted and seems to take it self awfully seriously for what ends up being such an unintentionally hilarious film about a chick boning a rat-bear. A good bit of tits, ass, and hairy 70's French bushes to help make up for the dull first half of the film. I have to honestly say, that if it weren't for the graphic scenes of the BEAST spackling all over the willing maiden, this film would have been a real bore - that is unless you like dull dialog and some graphic horse sex (the beginning has a VERY up-close and personal scene of two horses boning, including a pulsating and spunk covered female horse vagina...YUM!!!). But the BEAST sex scene is so strange and such a refreshing change from the rest of the film, that I have to say that those scenes alone make up for what otherwise would have been a real snoozer. I have to recommend this one to anyone who thinks they've seen it all - the BEAST rape really is out-there and something to be witnessed. Also recommended to any fans of 70's/80's sleaze films - this one ranks pretty high with them. Worth a look for you sick rat-bear beastiality lovers out there (like me)...8/10 | 1pos
|
Polish film maker Walerian Borowczyk's La Bête (French, 1975, aka The Beast) is among the most controversial and brave films ever made and a very excellent one too. This film tells everything that's generally been hidden and denied about our nature and our sexual nature in particular with the symbolism and silence of its images. The images may look wild, perverse, "sick" or exciting, but they are all in relation with the lastly mentioned. Sex, desire and death are very strong and primary things and dominate all the flesh that has a human soul inside it. They interest and temptate us so powerfully (and by our nature) that they are considered scary, unacceptable and something too wild to be true.<br /><br /> A sophisticated young woman travels with her mother to a French countryside to meet her soon-to-become husband whom with she has had a letter affair of some kind. All are very exciting and each others' parents and relatives wait impatiently to see the new people arriving to their families. The innocence of the young bride shines through and no one knows what can happen and wake up inside the walls of the big and beautiful French mansion, with all its humans and animals, and a mysterious "la bête" that turns out to be something that the characters, nor most of the film's audience, could have never imagined to be real and (in front of) them.<br /><br />The film is about the same theme as Canadian David Cronenberg's debyt feature Shivers (1975), which happens inside a huge luxury building in which destructive and gory parasites spread from human to human by sexual contact and make people act furiously and violently in their lust for pleasure and fulfilment of instincts. Human has instincts that can be and are stronger than his will and that is why those instincts can be as dangerous and powerful as the instincts of some other animal, a beast, be it a lust for blood, revenge or sex and carnal pleasure. Humans are only animals that have intelligence and tools to convey it but because we are also animals, that intelligence is not always used too much as can be seen anywhere around us. The film opens greatly, and very shockingly for most hypocritic attitudes, showing a horny male horse raging in fury as he waits to get inside the mare and continue the race, but the rage and visible lust we see from his eyes and violent movements are the key elements of that beginning and why it is there, not the close-ups of organs as could be so easily claimed. The horse is a beast that battles in an almost unbearable heat, in heat that's much stronger than his will as he doesn't have any control at that point anymore. The power of the instinct makes an animal a beast.<br /><br />After the memorable beginning, the characters get introduced, and the film fantastically has all the necessary age groups inside it from the little innocent children waiting to grow up and develop to their blossom, to the adults and elders that all represent their own part of the lifespan, creating the face of human life on screen. A film doesn't necessarily need more characters this way as all the important ones are already there and represent the whole race, including the urban and countryside inhabitants, and both sexes. The mansion makes the protagonist girl's sexuality wake as she saws the horses coupling and acting like she obviously has never thought of. For the first time she sees something unique and something that excites and feels almost vital for her and her body, like getting water when you're very thirsty. The transformation of the girl is a very important element in the film as she has lived unaware of these things inside her, with his mother and camera and a letter-boyfriend, even though the things have just waited for the moment to burst out. Flesh desires flesh and that belongs to being a humanimal, but still those things are not so easily admitted everywhere and films like these trying to depict it get banned for decades? Man's stupidity and unwillingness to interpret images must not be an argument for a film being banned or otherwise violated.<br /><br />The film's last 30 minutes are also as important as the beginning, and once again show how powerful cinema is without needless words and talk. As the girl and audience realizes what her body starts to feel and desire, she starts to have dreams about the mysterious beast that turns out to be none other than the undressed form of ourselves, having lived in the woods without other people/beasts near him. The dream sequence is the one that causes and caused most of the controversy alongside the film's overall straight and honest attitude, and the images are so easy to be judged as "perverse" and "pornographic", without a courage to go deeper into them, character reactions and thoughts behind what we see. The images are exciting in her dream and also eventually inside the dream for the dream's (more) human character, and Borowczyk forces us to admit it with the images that are so close to a "normal" sexual act between a man and a female, which is a beautiful thing and expression of love, another human need. Also the numerous, and cleverly blackly humorous love making scenes inside the mansion, between the young mother and the black servant, get interrupted many times as someone screams for the servant, for example, and there's no doubt that the sensual image of two young human bodies being together and being interrupted with an angry shout at least doesn't become any more pleasant by the interruption. Borowczyk has managed to paint his images so beautiful and "sensitive" that his message is almost impossible to be misunderstood, but nothing seems to be impossible for our cultures and minds that criticize art. He uses dialogue only when it's necessary, otherwise the images do the job and make the film powerful.<br /><br />Death is also there, as flesh dies sooner or later, after years of life and instincts, it dies. The ending is inevitable but the meaning of the dream sequence could have also been as powerful without the kind of dramatic and "revealing" ending too. Another blackly humorous element comes when we see the shocked city women running out of the place in which they saw a little more than they were looking for! They visited the mansion of truth about flesh, us and them. The film reminds me of French writer Georges Bataille's Story of the Eye with its same themes about eroticism, death and how they both are always connected to the nature of our flesh. The book is well written and fantastic as well as this film, and naturally both have been blamed for their "too explicit" content and other equally noteworthy shallow comments.<br /><br />Borowczyk's film is also very beautiful visually alongside its raw honesty, and the nature and forest have rarely looked so bright and shining as they do in this film. The sun shines through the trees, and to everyplace where humans live, and the beauty of it is always there, but so is the ugliness that originates by the inhabitants of the world. To every innocent white sheep there's a selfish, evil and horrible beast in our world and that is why the intelligence we have been given never fully seems to overcome the power of our bad instincts and the other side of the sheep, present inside every human soul. It is about how many manages to keep the dark side passive and not active. The fulfilment of some of our instincts is not a bad thing, and by using this intelligence and seeing which of the instincts are good and which bad, they can be satisfied without exploitation, violence and the lethal and destructive circle created by it. Human is not more than an animal with intelligence, intelligence that is so easy to be forgotten and eaten to the background by things that feel better and more satisfying at each and perhaps sudden moment. Borowczyk's film is a masterpiece, unforgettable and clever piece of magical cinema with ageless theme and also an example of how much can be achieved, expressed and given by a film maker, who is also only a human. | 1pos
|
Youth, sexuality, and the French countryside -- one of the more unique films you're ever going to see. If you can see it that is, no mean feat considering how hard it is to find copies of it (a combination of scarcity and censorship.) It's sometimes erotic, sometimes disgusting, and occasionally funny. A trifle boring also in the middle, but all in all you can't call yourself an aficionado of bizarre film until you've seen this one at least once. | 1pos
|
Perhaps it's me and my perverted ways, or the fact that I tend to have a very sick mind, but I rented this film at random one very weird night and to my great surprise, I enjoyed it. <br /><br />Yes, I read the synopsis on the back of the DVD box and read that it had been banned for 25 years and figured I was prepared for anything it would offer. I was clearly deceived after seeing...well...everything, to cut a long story short. I can see why it was banned, not only for such explicit sex scenes, but for beastiality. <br /><br />Of course, as it is freely based on the classic fairy tale of Beauty and the Beast, a personal favorite of mine, it tells the story of a girl's sexual awakening over a dream about a duchess being chased by a whatever-the-hell-that-thing-was-like beast with an enormous erection and a substantial amount of ejaculation. Of course, the beast gets what he wants and the duchess decides she likes it and they continue frolicking in the woods. <br /><br />But that's not all. Oh, there is so much more! <br /><br />Not only do we get to see interspecial sex, but there's also humping horses, the babysitter who gets down and dirty with the slave when she's not humping the bed to get her...er...satisfaction and the daydreaming girl masturbating with rose petals. <br /><br />Creative and enjoyable, but it did take a while for my father to talk to me again after he watched it after I went to bed...I was 15. Words of advice when watching this film: make sure you're the only one who knows you have it and watch it with the curtains closed. It may be fun, but I doubt there are other porn films like this one. | 1pos
|
Peter Falk is a diverse and accomplished actor. The movie is well written and the acting seems like real life. For all lovers of Columbo this is a superior piece of work. Because it shows what a talent Peter Falk is. He doesn't play a detective he plays a retired carpet salesman. By the time the credits begin to role you already want to watch it again. The interesting part of the movie is that the message will apply to every person that watches it; the depth of its' pertinence will be the only thing that varies. It is a shame that the liberals in Hollywood only promote smut and skin because this is the type of movie that the people in the business should be proud of. This would be a great movie to turn into a live stage play. | 1pos
|
This film is one of those that has a resounding familiarity to it. It is earthy, grounded and a film that will make you think...and smile. Paul Reiser and Peter Falk take you on a journey that you will not forget. The soundtrack is beautifully varied and fitting; and the film itself is like a breath of fresh air. This surely deserves recognition for both the film and the actors! Finally, a piece of art that departs from the obvious love story and the frequent special affects that are seen today. Never have I walked out from a movie with such deep warmth and feeling of thoughtfulness in my heart; for it felt as if someone had just wrapped it in a fluffy fleece blanket. To see this film is to find a real treasure and delight in it. | 1pos
|
Sam Kleinman (Peter Falk) comes to his son's place unexpectedly.His son Ben Kleinman (Paul Reiser) is quite surprised to hear that his mother, Muriel Kleinman (Olympia Dukakis) has left his father.Ben's wife, Rachel (Elizabeth Perkins) and his three sisters try to find Muriel while Ben and his father go see a farmhouse that's for sale.But that's not the end of their journey.Their road trip turns into a long therapy session between Ben and his father.Raymond De Felitta is the director of The Thing About My Folks (2005).Paul Reiser is behind the screenplay and he has done a remarkable job.The dialogue between Ben and Sam is just amazing.And he did work with the script for twenty years so no wonder it's this good.Who would be better man to play the father than Peter Falk? Nobody, I can tell you that.And I really love the story on why Paul wanted Peter Falk for the part.Peter was an actor who made his own father laugh.And Peter certainly made me laugh in this movie.It's just hilarious when they go fishing.And how the old guy beats the younger one in the game of pool and then beats him with the stick.The movie is often very funny and I found myself laughing several times.But it can also be touching from time to time.You couldn't tell a story any better than it is told here. | 1pos
|
Paul Reiser steps away from the standup comedy spotlight to write a warmly humorous and gently tender story about family - what we see and what we don't see, what we expect and what surprises us. THE THING ABOUT MY FOLKS doesn't set any new standards for film, but it is a fine little story well told that reminds us about the significant bonds that family represents.<br /><br />Sam Kleinman (Peter Falk) has been a workaholic, at times pushing his wife Muriel (Olympia Dukakis), his daughters (Mackenzie Connolly and Lydia Jordan), and his son Ben (Paul Reiser) into the background. One day Muriel leaves a note that after years of marriage she is leaving! Her daughters, along with Ben's wife Rachel (Elizabeth Perkins) immediately begin the search for her whereabouts, leaving the confused and hurt and disgruntle Sam to sort things out on a road trip with son Ben. The road trip becomes a time for the two men to learn who each other is and what they each mean to their status as father and son and as family members. Sam relaxes for the first time in his life and introduces the now workaholic Ben to the pleasures and fun of living. The trip comes to an end with a phone call about the whereabouts of Muriel and why she left and the regrouping of the wiser family draws the story's warm ending. All is not what it seemed: it's better and, well, different.<br /><br />Falk and Reiser play off each other like the pros they are, but in many ways the film belongs to the brief moments when Olympia Dukakis is on screen, reminding us that she is one of our strongest matriarchs on film. Well worth viewing. Grady Harp | 1pos
|
I won't go into too much detail about the plot of this movie as other reviewers have covered pretty much the same ground.<br /><br />Just wanted to say that I really enjoyed the film very much. Peter Falk's performance alone is reason enough to watch the film.<br /><br />A small scale 'road trip' movie with Falk & Paul Reiser in upstate NY in the fall is the setting for most of the action in the film.<br /><br />Very well written with an adult target audience in mind. Plenty of reality based humor & some well played drama give the film a feeling that it could be your own family.<br /><br />Really can't say enough about this film except that it's a damn shame that a lovely movie like this doesn't get more exposure while other trashy junk out there does.<br /><br />It's great to see Falk with a big leading man role again & he makes the most of it. It proves that his famous friend & writer/director John Casavettes was right in casting Falk in many of his ground breaking films of the 60s & 70s. | 1pos
|
Paul Reiser is one of my favorite people in show business. I have read both of his books and think that he is great. Peter Faulk can deliver a punch line with the best of them. The combination of the two is magic.<br /><br />This is a story about a family really getting to know each other. Through a road trip a father and son connect for the first time in their lives in the midts of a family crisis. They do all the things that fathers and sons are suppose to do in life...they are just doing them much later in life. The situations are very funny, but have the feeling that they could actually happen to people in real life (not obsurdly over the top or cartoonish). This is the first time that I watch Paul Reiser and fully believed every emotion that was portrayed. At times, his eyes look so sad.<br /><br />Gret movie and great story and plot. It has comedy and emotion but an uplifting message...Olympia Dukakas does a great job also :) | 1pos
|
It is no wonder this movie won 4 prices, it is a movie that lingers to any soul, it isn't a wonder why it took Paul Reiser 20 years to finally give in and talk to Peter Falk about his idea. I can understand every part of it, this is a movie that will make you cry just a tear, or thousands.<br /><br />Story: 10/10 When Sam kleinman gets a letter from his wife about her leaving him to find something else his son and him take out on a road trip to find her, and while they do that they find something lost, Friendship, family, and affection for each other. At the beginning you know whats going to happen, but none soever the story is not that easy to figure out from beginning to end, it is a ride between a father and his son, and a husband and his wife. It is no wonder it took Paul Reiser 20 years to write this beautiful romance/comedy.<br /><br />Actors: 10/10 Well you cant say anything else that what i about to say, hey it is with Peter Falk in it, he is a legend everything he does in movies are magic, when you use Peter Falk in a romance/comedy what do you think you get? A perfect outcome, it is no wonder this movie is that perfect and won that many prices. As the son Paul Reiser does an excellent job, although he isn't a great actor always that doesn't mean that this didn't work actually Peter Falk and Paul Reiser plays the perfect Father and Son, the rest of the cast is good enough but you don't see them as much so just say they do what they shall to get this to shine even more. <br /><br />Music: 10/10 It doesn't always work when using music sometimes it just doesn't fit but that is not the thing in this movie, the music is perfect in tune, it makes the movie even more compelling. This part of the movie will shine off as good as the other parts, a great soundtrack for a Romance/Comedy thats for sure.<br /><br />Overall: 10/10 There are so many Romance/Comedy movies out on tapes, DVDs, Blu-ray and what not, but this movie is one of the special ones. it doesn't happen everyday that you can create a story like this, it takes years thinking about this and the fact is that actually what it took to make it, a great piece that should be bought and kept into the human soul, see it when you get old and see it with your father at a old age, i think then this movie will spark like no other ever made. | 1pos
|
The movie gets to the guts of the tension between a son and a father.<br /><br />The brilliant dialog, lovely scenery and great acting serve as an excellent way to present the onion that keeps peeling back layers.<br /><br />The core issues of parenting, communication and manhood are explored indirectly.<br /><br />In fun ways the curtain is pulled back, the masks slip off a little and truths are exposed.<br /><br />All of this happens amidst a road trip format. The backdrop is rural New York state in the early fall just as the trees are changing colors. WOW! | 1pos
|
Excellent endearing film with Peter Falk and Paul Reiser joining forces as father and dad.<br /><br />Dad shows up one evening to state that after over 40 years of marriage, mom (Olympia Dukakis) has left him.<br /><br />The rest of the film depicts the father and son on a day trip to get dad's thoughts off what has occurred. With them away, the daughters can play detectives.<br /><br />The story shows the adventures of father and son in their discussion of life, what should have been, why mom was complaining about dad as they discuss their philosophies of life.<br /><br />We see an unexpected fishing trip and pool playing which leads to a near brawl. Both men seem to break out of their daily lives.<br /><br />The end is a downer as we learn why mom suddenly left. It becomes a story of courage and the human spirit in the face of adversity. It's never too late to change. | 1pos
|
This movie didn't really surprise me, as such, it just got better and better. I thought: "Paul Rieser wrote this, huh? Well...we'll see how he does..." Then I saw Peter Falk was in it. I appreciate Colombo. Even though I was never a big fan of the show, I've always liked watching Peter Falk. <br /><br />The performances of Peter and Paul were so natural that I felt like a fly on the wall. They played off of each other so well that I practically felt giddy with enjoyment! ...And I hadn't even been drinking!<br /><br />This movie was so well done that I wanted to get right on the phone to Paul and let him know how much I enjoyed it! but I couldn't find his number. Must be unlisted or something.<br /><br />This was one of those movies that I had no idea what it was going to be about or who was in it or anything. It just came on and I thought:"Eh, why not? Let's see. If I don't like it - I don't have to watch it..." ...and I ended up just loving it! | 1pos
|
Who doesn't have unresolved issues with parents? And which parents don't have unresolved issues with each other?<br /><br />I know, that sounds heavy. But this is played for laughs in the movie, making both the comedy better and the drama better. I've always like Paul Reiser and Peter Falk, and although I was a bit concerned that their star qualities might be too big for a small movie, I was enchanted from the very first scene.<br /><br />Especially entertaining were the discoveries that the son makes about his father as a person. And Peter Falk's monologue about being a hard-working, sacrificing father and husband was the perfect balancing point. Without that scene being acted so well, the movie would have seemed far less nuanced, and the character far less interesting.<br /><br />Nicely done, Paul and Peter! | 1pos
|
I enjoyed this film, perhaps because I had not seen any reviews, etc. It was delightful and a little bit of a 'romp'. I don't know why it didn't make more of a splash than it did. As far as the story goes, I could relate to some aspects of the Paul Reiser character, and I could "see my dad" in Falk's character. Made me remember a lot of past times when I was a kid and listening to my grandparents, too. If you enjoyed movies like Grumpy Old Men or On Golden Pond, this is your movie. A "sleeper", in my opinion, and one of those feel-good stories. Peter Falk and Paul Reiser had many wonderful verbal tussles, yet nothing was overdone. I would say it rates at least an 8, perhaps higher. | 1pos
|
This is one of the best movies I have ever seen. I feel greatly touched by the theme the movie intends to convey. One sentence that keeps coming up on my mind is that "history repeats itself". Life is what it is shown in the movie: when people are young, they seem not to understand their parents, their own spouses; people have every excuse for not sharing the dearest time with their children until too late; people always have to work hard to support the whole family but are just liable to neglect the subtle feeling of their partners; people always change their perspectives at different stages of their lives; people can always be forgiven if their heart is full of love for their beloved; nothing is more important than the blood relation people share in this world, and one is never too late to talk with their folks about what they feel at the bottom of their heart so as to achieve a better understanding between themselves, so that when life has to end some day, people should not feel sorry or regretful since they have kept their words and there is always hope ---a new life. The actors and actresses are fantastic. They have understood the director's intention perfectly. The movie's charm lies in, to me, the effect of bringing a skillful and splendid fusion of cheers and tears to the audience. | 1pos
|
The movie was very moving. It was tender, and funny at the same time. The scenery was absolutely beautiful! Peter Faulk and Paul Reiser gave award winning performances. Olympia Dukakis was great. I understand due to the story line her part had to be brief, but I did wish I could have seen more of her-she is a true pro.You will be able to recall experiences from your own life , hopefully in a positive way after seeing this movie. We were fortunate to see Paul Reiser at a Q and A after the viewing. He is a wonderful man, clever, eloquent and a "real Person". It was truly an enjoyable night out!This is a must see movie. You will be so grateful you went. | 1pos
|
I'm disappointed that Reiser (who wrote the film) felt the need to use so much profanity for no reason whatsoever. Maybe that's his idea of "adult" films, plenty of nasty words with bathroom humor thrown in? I thought better of him and think less of him for this movie.<br /><br />Falk's acting and some moments of humor as well as some possibly important themes are what made me give it such a high rating.<br /><br />This might be a good movie for adult children to watch and laugh over about their own folks and their foibles. But the lack of consideration for audience families seriously detriments what could have been a family film but fails. Certainly not worth spending money on, though it might be worth a watch for free on television. | 1pos
|
The Thing About My Folks is a wonderful film about relationships - first and foremost an adult son and his father, but also that son with his wife, his sisters and his mother. Paul Reiser has written a semi-autobiographical movie about his relationship with his father. The movie is funny, poignant and thought-provoking. It led me to re-evaluate my own relationship with both my now-deceased father and my adult son. Peter Falk is excellent as Paul's father - the role could not have been better cast. I hope that both Mr. Falk and Mr. Reiser are recognized in next year's movie awards for their efforts - Falk for his performance and Reiser for his script. | 1pos
|
Oscar-caliber performance by Peter Falk in an Oscar-caliber-written role. I loved the nuanced, balanced exploration of a long-time marriage - how often do we get that in films, where usually the movie ends when boy & girl get together? This is a movie for adults, a complex view through the eyes of all parties - husband, wife, son - how each have adapted to each other in the past and grow during the story. On top of that, it gave me about 10 major belly laughs, and I'm one of those people who usually sits unamused when the rest of an audience is laughing. This was one of the few truly funny movies I've seen. Great, original jokes. | 1pos
|
Who wouldn't want to go on road trip with Peter Falk? That guy's right eye has more character than most actors today. This is the kind of funny and touching movie we are all looking for as a counterbalance to all the bombastic special effects bores. Women are going to love it for all the wake-up romance advice for men, and men will love it for its spot-on father/son character study--one great little scene after another. And it has just enough of an edge to be a true indie find. Obviously this is a labor of love for Paul Reiser who understands what it's like to be both a father and a son, as well as to have both laughter and tears as you move through life. The most fun part, though, was watching Reiser watch Falk. You could tell it was both his character coming to a new appreciation of his father and a fellow actor really enjoying Peter Falk's special craft. Really delightful. Let's hope this film makes it into theaters around the country sometime soon so everyone can have a chance to laugh and cry with Paul Reiser and folks. | 1pos
|
saw this in preview- great movie- wonderful characterizations- witty and intelligent dialog- actors were fantastic- Peter Falk will be up for an Oscar- Paul Reiser was charming- photography was marvelous Reiser was at the theater when we saw the film, and he gave a vivid account about the making of the film- it had been a long dream of his to write a semi-autobiographical account of relationships between sons and fathers, and more specifically between him and his father- this was achieved in a dramatic and entertaining fashion- the supporting cast was well chosen and gave the film a feeling of family- i recommend this film to anyone who is longing to see intelligent drama and wonderful performances | 1pos
|
Paul Reiser did a spectacular job in writing this movie. Peter Falk gives the performance of his life. It is worthy of an Academy Award. This was one of the most poignant and funny movies of the year. Reiser's wit is fantastic and he is as good as it gets and as he was in his long running TV sitcom "Mad about You". Peter Falk did a masterful job as his dad, and Peter who is now 78 years young made us laugh and cry at the same time. The supporting cast was equal to the task especially the gorgeous gorgeous Elizabeth Perkins. It is a must see movie for 2005. We bet that everyone across all ages and religions will love this movie and somehow relate to it in one way or another. We have mothers and fathers and siblings like these in the movie. We have all had the good and bad times together and wish things were the same but different. | 1pos
|
Murder in Mesopotamia, I have always considered one of the better Poirot books, as it is very creepy and has an ingenious ending. There is no doubt that the TV adaptation is visually striking, with some lovely photography and a very haunting music score. As always David Suchet is impeccable as Hercule Poirot, the comedic highlight of the episode being Poirot's battle with a mosquito in the middle of the night, and Hugh Fraser is good as the rather naive Captain Hastings. The remainder of the cast turn in decent performances, but are careful not to overshadow the two leads, a danger in some Christie adaptations. Some of the episode was quite creepy, a juxtaposition of an episode as tragic as Five Little Pigs, an episode that I enjoyed a lot more than this one. What made it creepy in particular, putting aside the music was when Louise Leidner sees the ghostly face through the window. About the adaptation, it was fairly faithful to the book, but I will say that there were three things I didn't like. The main problem was the pacing, it is rather slow, and there are some scenes where very little happens. I didn't like the fact also that they made Joseph Mercado a murderer. In the book, I see him as a rather nervous character, but the intervention of the idea of making him a murderer, and under-developing that, made him a less appealing character, though I am glad they didn't miss his drug addiction. (I also noticed that the writers left out the fact that Mrs Mercado in the book falls into hysteria when she believes she is the murderer's next victim.) The other thing that wasn't so impressive was that I felt that it may have been more effective if the adaptation had been in the viewpoint of Amy Leatheran, like it was in the book, Amy somehow seemed less sensitive in the adaptation. On the whole, despite some misjudgements on the writers' behalf, I liked Murder in Mesopotamia. 7/10 Bethany Cox. | 1pos
|
<br /><br />"Bleak House" is hands down the finest adaptation of a Charles Dickens Novel ever put on screen. Alway one of My favorite novels,I was exteremely pleased with this Television Mini Series. The late, great Denholm Elliot was perfectly cast as the noble John Jardyce and Diana Rigg was sheer perfection as the doomed Ladty Dedlock. The film captures the essence of Dickens era and is extremely faithful to the book,oly making minor plot cuts that do not effect the story. over all a brilliant,moving and atmosphereic film. | 1pos
|
This production was made in the middle 1980s, and appears to be the first serious attempt to put BLEAK HOUSE on celluloid. No film version of the novel was ever attempted (it is remarkably rich in subplots that actually serve as counterpoints to each other, so that it would have been very hard to prune it down). The novel was the only attempt by Dickens to make a central narrator (one of two in the work) a woman, Esther Summerson. Esther is raised by her aunt and uncle, who (in typical Dickens style) mistreat her. She is illegitimate, but they won't tell her anything about her parentage. Later we get involved with the gentry, Sir Leicester Dedlock, and his wife. Lady Honoria Deadlock (Dame Diana Rigg) is having an increasingly difficult time regarding her private life and the meddling involvement of the family solicitor Tulkinghorn (Peter Vaughn). We also are involved with the actions of Richard Carstone (Esther's boyfriend) in trying to win a long drawn out estate chancery case, Jarndyce v. Jarndyce, which everyone (even Richard's cousin John Jarndyce - played by Desmond Elliot) warns is not worth the effort.<br /><br />Dickens had been a law reporter and then a parliamentary reporter before he wrote fiction. Starting with the breach of promise case in PICKWICK PAPERS, Dickens looked closely at the law. Mr. Bumble said it was "a ass" in OLIVER TWIST and Dickens would consistently support that view. He looks at the slums as breeding grounds for crime in TWIST, that the law barely tries to cure. He attacks the Chancery and outdated estate laws, as well as too powerful solicitors and greedy lawyers (Tulkinghorn, Vholes) in BLEAK HOUSE. In LITTLE DORRIT he attacks the debtors' prisons (he had hit it also in David COPPERFIELD). In OUR MUTUAL FRIEND he looks at testators and wills. In THE MYSTERY OF EDWIN DROOD he apparently was going to go to a murder trial. Dickens was far more critical of legal institutions than most of his contemporaries, including Thackeray.<br /><br />But the novel also looks at other problems (like charity and religious hypocrisy, the budding Scotland Yard detective force, social snobbery in the industrial revolution). He also uses the novel to satirize various people: Leigh Hunt the writer, Inspector Fields of Scotland Yard, and even the notorious Maria Manning. Most of these points were kept in this fine mini-series version. If it is shown again on a cable station, catch it. | 1pos
|
I have bought the DVD of this version to compare against the current BBC 2005 version (which is brilliant). The 1985 was adapted by Arthur Hopcraft, who adapted Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy for TV and who died this year (2005). I remember great acting, especially from Rigg and Elliott, and moving music. (Music in the 2005 version is far more understated, but very telling.) Just to pick up other commentators on a couple of points: Richard Carstone is Ada Claire's boyfriend, not Esther's. Esther had no uncle. Charlie Drake never played Krook in either version, nor did he play Toby Esterhase in TTSS! Krook is played by comedian Johnny Vegas in the 2005 version. Toby was played by Bernard Hepton.<br /><br />Both versions are honourable and admirable adaptations of Dickens' great novel. Now read the book! It's not perfect, and the sentimentality may make you wince at times, but I defy you not to cry - and laugh! | 1pos
|
I like this presentation - I have read Bleak House and I know it is so difficult to present the entire book as it should be, and even others like Little Dorrit - I have to admit they did a very good show with the staged Nicholas Nickelby. I love Diana Rigg and I could see the pain of Lady Dedlock, even through the expected arrogance of the aristocracy. I am sorry, I think she is the best Lady Dedlock... I am not sure who could have made a better Jarndyce, but I am OK with Mr. Elliott. It is not easy to present these long Dickens' books - Oliver Twist would be easier - this is a long, and if you don't care for all the legal situations can be dreary or boring. I think this presentation is entertaining enough not to be boring. I just LOVED Mr. Smallweed - it can be entertaining. There is always a child - Jo will break your heart here... I think we should be given a chance to judge for ourselves...<br /><br />I have to say I loved the show. Maybe if I read the book again, as I usually do, after seeing the movie, maybe I can be more critical. In the meantime - I think it is a good presentation. | 1pos
|
I can't say how closely the film follows the novel, never having read the book, but since this clocks in at some six and a half hours it's a good bet that most of the base are covered or, at least, we can say with some certainty that this isn't a Reader's Digest condensed version.<br /><br />The production values are high, well up to the standards of other BBC classic series like Inspector Morse and Sherlock Holmes. We can believe Dickens' London looked, sounded, and thought a lot like this. There are some occasional minor lapses -- some sportsman firing a pistol with a percussion cap in 1840 or 1820 or whenever this took place.<br /><br />The acting too is to be applauded. Suzanne Burden is the polite and honest heroine who quietly goes about doing good. She's cute too, in a mature way, her beauty in her compassionate nature not in any flirtatiousness. Denholm Elliott is her guardian (and more than that, as it turns out). Burden and Elliott are two of the very few characters who are good in an unalloyed way. Another is a former sergeant forced to do evil by evil people. Another is a poor and helpless young boy.<br /><br />I don't think anyone else could have written this. It's got all the earmarks of Dickens -- poverty, tragic deaths, capitalism in the raw, the generous rich guy in his gated home, hidden parentage, shadowy motives, and the impotence or outright maliciousness of the justice system. Well, not the justice system as a whole but the chancery, which was evidently a court that decided matters having to do with the distribution of property. (So I gather from Wikipedia.) It became so notoriously rigid and dilatory that it was thoroughly revamped in England in 1973. Twice, Elliott's character describes it as "a curse." The most impressive scene involves a money-scrounging creditor hounding a retired soldier in the latter's gymnasium during a fencing lesson. The sergeant is more masculine in the traditional sense than any other male character I remember from Dickens. The apoplectic money lender and renter is screaming threats from his seat and the sergeant turns towards him and does one delicate exercise with the saber after another, each advancement bringing him closer to his tormentor, while the scarlet-faced old creditor shrinks back into his seat.<br /><br />A couple of things are missing. Often Dickens will stick in at least one or two amusing lines of dialog. ("Humbug!" or "The law is a ass.") Not here. "Bleak" house is the right title. Second, there are practically no Weberian "ideal types" -- no Mr. Micawbers or Artful Dodgers or Scrooges. Third, the atmosphere, the whole ethos, is relentlessly dismal. One tribulation follows another, usually having to do with money or some shameful peccadillo out of the past.<br /><br />My God, it's depressing. It's as if the author were venting his spleen on everything he hated in the world he knew. Poverty, okay. He KNEW poverty. But one wonders what the chancery did to Dickens to deserve this kind of treatment.<br /><br />Maybe I should add that I've just watched the first episode of the 2005 series -- and it's better in two ways. There is more zip in the direction, so the pace is a little faster. And the business of Jarndyce vs. Jarndyce is explained satisfactorily right up front, instead of lurking about in the shadows as that mysterious "curse," so the plot is easier to follow. | 1pos
|
This version of Bleak House is the best adaptation of a classic novel known to me. The representation of the court of Chancery as a 'character' in the drama is magnificent. The acting is marvellous, from the sinister Tulkinghorn, to the Dedlocks, Smallweed, Crooke, Miss Flyte, and the two young lovers. But it is the spider's web of chancery that holds the whole thing together, and the cinematography is superb. What mistake did the BBC make about copyright that meant that this version could not be seen in the UK on either video or DVD for many years? I tried to find out from them, but faced a stone wall. In the end I got a DVD copy from Canada. | 1pos
|
You don't need to read this review.<br /><br />An earlier review, by pninson of Seattle, has already identified all the main shortcomings of this production. I can only amplify its basic arguments.<br /><br />Bleak House was a relatively late Dickens novel and is much darker than his earlier work. This is taken too literally by the director, Ross Devenish, who piles on the gloom and fog too much. When Ada, Rick and Esther appear, half an hour into the opening episode, it is a relief just to be in daylight for the first time. In some of the murkier scenes it was hard to see what was actually on my TV screen. I watched the whole thing in one day, starting in mid-afternoon. As daylight faded this became less of an issue, but I have a pretty good TV and I have never encountered this problem before at any time of day.<br /><br />The pacing is very deliberate (i.e. slow). I am sure this was intensional, but it is overdone. There are numerous shots of people trudging though the muck and gloom of Victorian London that are held longer than is necessary to establish the mood and atmosphere. A good editor could probably take several minutes out of each fifty-minute episode, without losing a line of dialogue, just by trimming each of these scenes slightly.<br /><br />I don't want to overstate these two problems. You soon adjust to the look and pace of this production. The more important issue is that it doesn't always tell the story very effectively. Earlier Dickens novels are as long as Bleak House, but are not nearly so intricately plotted. For example, I recently re-read Nicholas Nickleby because I was intrigued to see how Douglas McGrath crammed an 800 page book into his two-hour movie. The answer is simple: the book is full of padding. McGrath cut great swathes of the novel while still retaining all the essential story elements. This would not be possible with Bleak House. <br /><br />This production needs its seven hours. Probably, it needs even longer, because many elements of its convoluted plot are not sufficiently clear, or as well handled, as they need to be. A few random examples will illustrate the problems.<br /><br />The maid, Rosa, appears from nowhere with no background, so Lady Dedlock's attachment to her is largely unmotivated.<br /><br />Sergeant George's acquiescence in Tulkinhorn's demand for a sample of Horton's handwriting is somewhat fudged.<br /><br />It is not made clear enough that Esther is actually in love with Woodcourt when she agrees to marry John Jarndyce. Neither is it clear that they have agreed not to announce their engagement, or why.<br /><br />Ada and Rick's secret marriage is omitted. In one episode they are merely lovers, in the next, people are suddenly referring to them as husband and wife.<br /><br />Mrs Rouncewell is only introduced at a late stage in the story and Sargeant George's estrangement from his family is left unexplained - as is the means by which she is discovered.<br /><br />Tulkinhorn's dedication to maintaining the honour and respectability of the Dedlock family is understated, so his motive for persecuting Lady Dedlock is more obscure than it need be.<br /><br />The involvement of the brick makers with both Tom and (later) Lady Dedlock is somewhat opaque.<br /><br />It is not obvious that Guppy renews his offer to Esther because her smallpox scars have all but vanished.<br /><br />This is only a selection: there are others. They are not major problems and the main thrust of the story is clear enough. Nonetheless, they are minor irritations that detract from its power: you shouldn't have to puzzle over little plot points. However, there are more important structural problems that do weaken the story in its later stages.<br /><br />The whole business of Tulkinhorn's murder is somewhat thrown away. Bucket immediately pinpoints Hortense as a suspect, which undermines the suspense of Sergeant George's predicament and the importance of finding Mrs Rouncewell. It also diminishes the impact of the sub-plot in which suspicion is thrown on Lady Dedlock and weakens the scene in which Hortense is unmasked in front of Sir Lester.<br /><br />A more serious problem is that the murder, its investigation and the subsequent search for Lady Dedlock, dominate the story for over an hour, during which time we completely lose sight of the other main plot strand: the legal case and its effect on Rick. His failing finances, his gouging by Vholes and Skimpole, Ada's despair, his declining health and so on, are all put on hold for an entire episode. This may be how Dickens wrote the book (I haven't read it for years) but a good screenplay should keep the different plot strands moving forward together.<br /><br />Finally, Smallweed's role in the story is so diminished that he is almost superfluous. His discovery of the new will, that triggers the final phase of the story, is also thrown away. It happens off screen.<br /><br />Despite all of this, it is still a very good production. Many of the performances are outstanding. Individual scenes are beautifully realised. Its accumulating sense of tragedy is very powerful. I would still be recommending it as a superb adaptation of a great book, had it not been for the 2005 production. In fact, I probably wouldn't be fully aware of its defects if I hadn't seen how Andrew Davies did it better. I have been critical of Davies's Jane Austen adaptations, but I have to admit that he really knows how to tame Dickens's sprawling books.<br /><br />This is an impressive and gripping drama and well worth seven hours of anybody's time. Nonetheless, its probable fate is to be viewed mainly as a cross-reference to the near-definitive 2005 version. | 1pos
|
This is a great adaptation and a great miniseries in its own right. The plot cutdowns might disappoint the fans of the book (but really how many modern readers have read Bleak House without seeing a film version first? I know of only a few). <br /><br />I think it is quite appalling to see reviews critical of the series which have clearly been written by people who haven't a clue about the story - did you actually SEE the series or did you just bag a BBC production because Gillian Anderson was in the newer version?<br /><br />The series captures the mood, pace, characters and plot-drivers (cutting out the Dickensian flourishes which aren't needed and detract from a film treatment like the Turveydrop story, the Smallweed family dynamic and the extra lawyers - Tangle, Vholes etc are very truncated). The only omission that I wish had been kept was the Jellyby incident but as the first episode is already a trifle slow (after the first episode the pace is perfect) I can see it had to go. <br /><br />The only other criticism I have is that Jo's death could have been more faithfully done. I can see that would have practically canonized Woodcourt and he's kept a little more human for not having that scene but really I think Jo's death is one of the most poignant points of the book and I missed it even though it always makes me cry.<br /><br />Has theowinthrop actually seen the series? HOW did he think that Esther was raised by her aunt and UNCLE?? Who is this uncle? I suppose someone who could mistake the name of DENHOLM Eliott for Desmond isn't really an appreciator of English art (film or literature).<br /><br />I also think he mistakes the treatment of the law. YES the law is drawn VERY badly in Bleak House. It fails the descendants of Jarndyce whose valuable inheritance is eaten up by the costs of litigation, it fails the deceased Tom Jarndyce and Rick Carstone and all who have faith in the suit. It fails Miss Flyte. In some sense it also fails Captain Hawdon who is driven to his death by the monotony of law copyist work. Yes it feeds the scavengers of Vholes and Tangle. But it also makes men like Guppy and Kenge able to move beyond their station in life. Though not kind to social status-climbers Dickens clearly would have preferred that they weren't bound to being stuck in the station to which they were born (contrast Jo and the brickmakers' families to the climbing out of poverty by Charley Neckett). <br /><br />Also, the law, while misused by Tulkinghorn and the Chancery vultures, is actually the source of security for the wards of the Court Ada and Richard, and for Esther who is simply Jarndyce's ward. Their security was ensured by the law which delivers them to Jarndyce.<br /><br />I can't see how anyone could have trouble following the story - remember you aren't supposed to realize Esther is Lady Dedlock's daughter right at the beginning. Neither are you supposed to "get" all the connections immediately. Instant gratification just doesn't happen in Dickens.<br /><br />As for "seeing clearly" through the fog - gosh the Gillian Anderson had such scatty editing that I found IT impossible to follow and I knew the plot already!<br /><br />I found Diana Rigg absolutely brilliant (overacting and drama don't make a good Lady Dedlock but if you think they do try the Gillian Anderson version).<br /><br />It's ADA and Rick not "Kate"! and you get all you need of the Rouncewell subplot. | 1pos
|
Perhaps you won't care for the social commentary, or the film makers point of view (I myself am mystified at the insignificance' angle Kasdan seemed to promote when clearly, the actions taken in the movie promote CERTAIN significance. The ending confused me). However, there's absolutely no denying the manner in which the story is presented; the magnificent symbolism throughout; the threaded character arcs; visuals; dialogue is absolute masterwork. I've watched the movie dozens of times, and I still marvel at its perfection. There's not a moment, action, cut, or line that doesn't have everything to do with the theme. Realistic human performances from all the actors. Scene to scene it's woven fantastically.<br /><br />I have a pretty level sap-meter. The buzzer never went off during this film. If you're a thinker (rather than a casual viewer) this movie delivers. Exponentially. Absolutely mesmerizing. (Do you have to agree with the message to appreciate the display? Who cares if it made you warm and fuzzy or not, was it interesting?)<br /><br />Personally, the movie affected me significantly. In my top 5.<br /><br />Note: The front-page reviewer clearly speaks from a flawed African American perception. What he may have failed to recognize, is, there was a hand shake. Not a hand - out. The spiritually dead white man', simply saw a man to respect, and admire. And he did something about it. The fact he was black had little, if anything, to do with it (color is simply used to draw the parallel. And the chasm. It's no accident the opening sequence shifts from black and white to color either). If you view the blacks in this movie as token' you may want to reassess YOUR angst. You may be seeing only black and white yourself, eh. Just a thought. | 1pos
|
I'll keep this one quite short. I believe that this is an extraordinary movie. I see other reviewers who have commented to the effect that it's badly written, poorly shot, has a terrible soundtrack and, worse, that it's not real in its portrayal of life. OK, so it may not be quite believable for its whole length, but this movie carries a message of hope which some others seemed to have missed. Hope that it isn't too late to save people from the terrible things that go on in so many lives. Gangland violence is real, right? Is it right, no! This movie carries an important social message which the cynics may dislike but which nonetheless is to be praised, rather than denigrated. I have watched this movie with great enjoyment at least eight times, each time with equal enjoyment and each time with the feeling that maybe the world could be made better and is not beyond saving (well not until 2008 anyway). 9 out of 10 from me for this one. It's very nearly perfect in my view. JMV | 1pos
|
This highly underrated film is (to me) what good writing in a movie should be all about. Kasdan takes the search for meaning in our lives and lays it out for all to see and wonder at. The movie is about the divides people create to insulate themselves from the violence and hatred and bigotry of everyday life. <br /><br /> Along the way we are asked question after question about life. Davis (Steve Martin with a great beard) asks himself 'Is my making a violent movie (and by extension our enjoyment of it) causing the violence in society?' Claire asks "What kind of world throws away something as precious as a human life?' Mack is not immune as he asks 'Is it possible to pass beyond the bounds of race and (an even harder step) finance? These are of course not quoted from the film, but generalities. Others ask their questions too, and to be honest it raises more than it answers.<br /><br /> But that is the nature of life. We strive all our lives to find answers to questions we will never totally answer, and in certain cases have to make answers fit to our own needs and desires. As humans we thrive on questions we cannot answer. Some answers are real. Claire and Mack come to realize that even though they could take the easy road and let the state take the baby, their finding it placed the responsibility for her life in their hands. Some answers are not. Davis `Sees the Light' and decides not to make violent films, but the next day turns around and dismisses his epiphany as subordinate to his art.<br /><br /> We all seek answers. This movie does not answer them for; it simply reminds you to keep looking for the answers.<br /><br /> | 1pos
|
On second viewing of this movie, I like it even more than the first time. It is full of nuances and a perception of life as being quite ordinary and often fearful but what lifts this movie to a height rarely realized is its focus on the little incidences in our lives to which we normally only offer the briefest of attention spans. Here the movie spins into the celebration of these incidences, the meeting of a tow truck driver and client, the jogger hearing a baby's cry from the bushes. The dialogue, acting, casting and direction are superb. No two by fours, no grand revelations. What I did observe was how true the characters were to their basic natures and how enhanced their lives became when these were celebrated. Kudos to all involved in this, we need more "Grand Canyons" in our lives. 9 out of 10. | 1pos
|
One measurement for the greatness of a movie is, 'if it came on t.v. right now, would you want to sit there and watch it again?' My answer for the Grand Canyon is as powerful a "yes" as it would be for nearly any movie I have ever seen. There are just so many powerful moments, such an intelligent and moving story, such incredible performances. <br /><br /> It perfectly captures the confusion and violence that were so rampant in the early nineties. But it also dramatically affirms the capacity of individuals to love, think and care. In a slight way, the movie was of its time. It partly portrays society as a balloon about to burst. Because the country was in a recession, and so void of leadership, this was true of that time. But the movie is also timeless. I think it could honestly stand up against any movie that has ever been made, and it is the most overlooked film of all time. | 1pos
|
I really liked this film when it was released, and I still do, because the storyline makes you feel hopeful about life in general, and people too...one of the things I like about the films of Lawrence Kasdan. In addition to the positive vibes from the film, there are other reasons to like Grand Canyon. For one thing, it has an outstanding cast...Kevin Kline and Danny Glover, for example. In my opinion, Crash, the highly acclaimed film that won the Oscar for best picture, was very similar to this film. The difference is that Grand Canyon leaves you feeling positive. Crash had the opposite effect with me; it was very dark. I would choose Grand Canyon over Crash any day. | 1pos
|
I have to say that Grand Canyon is one of the most affecting films I've ever seen. I've watched it several times now and I still feel as I did the first time; that this film, by itself, could make up the entire curriculum of a post-graduate course in film direction. <br /><br />A long time ago film trailers used to promise, "It'll make you laugh, it'll make you cry." That's a very trite and shorthand method of describing what Grand Canyon does. It takes you to the best places in human experience and the next moment takes you to the gates of hell. <br /><br />Much of the film is paced to cycle back and forth between people being close to happiness and the same people being close to horror. It's always a short step, too. Just to manage that swing with grace and without making it look false or exaggerated is directorial genius.<br /><br />Spoiler (of sorts) coming up. After getting the audience used to rocking back and forth through the emotional spectrum, the film throws a curve with a sequence that doesn't go from good to bad and back but instead escalates from an ordinary marital spat, through an accidental self-inflicted knife wound that may or may not require stitches, to an earthquake that has the characters run from the house. In the moment of their relief, argument forgotten, cut finger forgotten, the earthquake survived, a neighbor woman calls out that her elderly husband has collapsed. The couple rushes to his aid. I cried when I saw this sequence. I cried every time I saw it. I'm crying now. It isn't sadness that does this to me. It's not a particularly sad sequence. What tears me up is that this few minutes of film was PERFECT. That's PERFECT! Astounding. (end of spoiler)<br /><br />There's so much to say about Grand Canyon. It portrays relatively ordinary people experiencing epiphanies and it lets the viewer experience them vicariously. They aren't showy or overblown and there's no long pause to examine the moment carefully. The film moves on at the pace of life. Even when the characters do try to make sense of what has happened, they are uncertain of what to derive from their experience. <br /><br />Grand Canyon is a very human film. | 1pos
|
I just watched this film again and remain dismayed at the number of cynics who dismiss it as just New Age pap. A great film, one that takes its time to develop, it keeps coming close to going over the edge but never does and ultimately is meditative, affecting, and truer to life than most films people who dismiss its "coincidences" can see. I was angry at the time that movies like "Prince of Tides" and "Bugsy" (though I liked the latter) were nominated for best picture that year (let alone that "Silence of the Lambs" won!) and this was ignored completely except for one nomination for best screenplay. Upon revisiting it, I think history supports my initial reaction! | 1pos
|
I revisited Grand Canyon earlier this year when I set out to devise a ten best list of the 1990's. I first saw the film when I was 17 years old. How did I hear about it? It was reviewed, and recommended highly, by Siskel & Ebert in 1991, and I eventually caught it on video a year later.<br /><br />It's a great film, a powerful film, a healing film, about the power of listening, truly listening to one another. I've seen it six times now, and it entertains and inspires me with every subsequent viewing. But why the poor reviews for this movie? Maltin's movie guide gives it two out of four. Too melodramatic, too much coincidence, too sappy, are the expressions that I read the most. Yes, there is melodrama in this story, and yes, there is a lot of coincidence, too. But it delivers with an intensity and force that seems supple. For all of the "plot" that exists in Grand Canyon, such as drive-by shootings, a police chase, an earthquake, a love affair, a woman's discovery of a baby in the bushes, another shooting, a near accident by a new driver, and worldly advice from a homeless man, this movie wins because of the smart performances by Kevin Kline, Steve Martin, Mary McDonnell, Alfre Woodard, Danny Glover, and Jeremy Sisto. It also succeeds because of Lawrence Kasdan's skillful direction and writing. You know that this isn't just another movie when you consider a sequence at the beginning of the film that involves Kevin Kline being harassed by four black youths. Danny Glover plays a tow truck driver who assists the Kline character, but not before he gets harassed too, by the leader of the bunch. Listen to the dialogue as the kid suggests to Glover,"Are you afraid of me because of me, or because I have a gun?".<br /><br />Grand Canyon is filled with one perceptive scene after another. Steve Martin should have been nominated for best supporting actor as a movie producer who has a change of heart and then a subsequent change of mind. I think his character is a warning that "the good" can carry us forward, that idealism is a virtue, but one that we must fight for constantly rather than depend upon.<br /><br />I fear that Grand Canyon may be lost forever in the wilderness of non-new releases at the video store. But with the deals now on older releases as low as 99 cents, I plead with anyone who has read this far into a review from a reviewer that you will thank after having rented it, Grand Canyon is something special. If you loved Magnolia, another movie with a big ensemble about deep humanist themes, you'll love Grand Canyon, too. | 1pos
|
Grand Canyon falls under a very scarce category: it is a very clever film, with very clever dialogs and food for thought everywhere from start to end. I have the impression that it never made it to it's deserved ranking (and never will), because of it's simplicity. This kind of flick needs sensitive watchers. Pity thought that IMDb makes me write ten lines, because this is in no way necessary in this particular case. Anyway in order to fulfill this request, I will tell you that the weak point of the film if any is in the acting: not that it is bad but it could have been done much better. Exception made for Kevin Kline who was perfect. Go ahead and watch it. | 1pos
|
If you have not seen this excellent movie about life in the 90s (in L.A.) then you've missed a special treat. This is one of the most amazingly and most powerful movies ever made about life for Americans in the 90s and it even carries over into today's world in which we live in. It covers everything from raising a child, prejudice (more than one way),love, adultery, empty nest syndrome, selfishness, etc..and the list goes on. This story builds up to an ultimate climax and then when nothing else matters it always goes back to love with friends and family and love of life. It helps us dig deep within ourselves and to make us search for what we want out of life. Makes us ask questions of ourselves. Have we done enough for others, are we like this, etc.??? Sit back and enjoy a wonderfully done and emotional movie that I'm sure others will enjoy for a lifetime.<br /><br />Take note of Mary Mcdonnell, Kevin Kline and Danny Glover's wonderful performance through this whole film. These actors are amazing and really show the true glow and meaning of what message is being sent to all of us. These are 3 of my favorite actors for life after seeing this film over 10 years ago now. I still enjoy it again and again. Also enjoy the wonderful soundtrack with it and don't forget to count how many times you see the helicopter fly by and try to figure out it's symbolism for the movie??hmmm... I almost forgot this is probably Steve Martin's very first serious acting role in any film he has ever done. He, too does an excellent job in this movie. This may come as a surprise to most of you. Sit back, relax and enjoy truly good film making..... | 1pos
|
This work is less about Steve Martin's character Davis, than it is about Kline (Mack) and Glover (Simon), and Kline and McDonnell (Claire), but the dialog inserted via Davis is pondering, contemplative, near-poetic existentialism at its best. He is witty, intelligent, and thoughtful in both dialog delivery and content. The writers deserved an Oscar.<br /><br />The performances are easy, relaxed, and natural; just what you would expect from "A List" actors. Martin contributes the performance which leads into his more recent Shopgirl, guiding you through life, love, and the pursuit of wisdom if not happiness. Kline is the straight - the suit - the conformist of the film, and as such his performance is crisp and refreshing.<br /><br />This work deals with life in all aspects. It engenders a true emotional investment in its characters, and leaves you feeling hopeful that Mankind is not doomed, after all, no matter WHAT you believe, deep down.<br /><br />All in all? This is delightful, with a gritty moment or two, and easy natural dialog which draws you in, assisting its audience in gaining a high enjoyment from this work. It's definitely worth your time, though it may not be every one's top choice as Friday/Saturday night entertainment.<br /><br />I really enjoyed the intelligence this exhibited. It's not typical, and was an unexpected surprise. Another wonderful surprise was the honesty exhibited herein. The couples and friends hold detailed conversations, which feel and sound fully honest and (again) natural. I was very impressed with this work, and will be adding it to the DVD collection soon.<br /><br />It rates a 9.1/10 from...<br /><br />the Fiend :. | 1pos
|
If you really want to know how most of the actors and directors in the Hollywood scene "made it" to where they are, the vast majority will tell you (assuming they will tell) that a strange coincidence took place. They happened to meet the right people at the right time and get into the right project which led to other connections and other projects. Quinten Tarrantino took an acting class whose instructor knew Harvey Keitel. Kevin Spacey lifted a back stage pass from a sleeping old woman at the lecture of a famous playwright who helped him land an important role. And Robin Williams credits his career to Gary Marshall's son who, after having seen "Star Wars", suggested to his father that an alien should visit the Cunninghams of "Happy Days". These coincidences, many times viewed as pure luck, shapes many of the careers in Hollywood today. Or is it pure luck? Is possible something else is going on? "Grand Canyon" written and directed by Lawrence Kasdan, proposes an altogether different explanation for the inexplicable, aka the strange miraculous coincidence. The movie concerns several different characters whose lives intersect because of positive and yet inexplicable happenstance.<br /><br />Kevin Kline, a middle-aged father, experiences a break-down in one of the more dangerous areas of LA. After he phones a tow truck, a young gang accosts him. They threaten violence if he doesn't leave his car. Just before the confrontation can escalate, Danny Glover appears as the tow truck driver and dampens the intentions of the gang. Although Glover denies it later, he probably saved Kline's life. A producer (Steve Martin) of cheap violent films gets shot in the leg and after wards has a spiritual experience. He then announces retirement from producing blood and gore entertainment. And Kline's wife, Clair (Mary McDonnell), while on a morning jog, finds a baby hidden in some foliage. She claims the baby cried for her and that her "rescue" of the infant was preordained.<br /><br />The movie explores further the results of these strange connections that lead to further relationships, end to relationships, and new beginnings. And all the while, a strange homeless man appears throughout the movie as if somehow he is also connected to everything that is going on.<br /><br />It is very rare in Hollywood, or for film in general, to explore such a purely esoteric subject. There are a few moments that seem somewhat unbelievable, but maybe that's the point. What makes the film work is the superb acting by the cast. Although the miracles and coincidences may seem far-fetched, the actors make you believe they are experiencing these new realities. Maybe this is a subject we should explore more often. | 1pos
|
A lot of the comments people have made strike me as (sorry) missing the point. Kasdan wants to present life, simply, ordinary life. The conventionally structured story, where characters have insights that change their lives, and then fade out, music up, and the film is over, is absorbed into this much larger canvas. Several characters in this movie have just such illuminations, and then they move on. Sometimes they can hold onto their insights, sometimes they can't, and that's the way life really is. In other words, Kasdan jettisons conventional dramatic structure in favor of an exploration of the the ongoingness of life there is no happy ending, only an eventual ending; and everything before that is still in process, still always up for grabs and, if you absolutely insist on a theme, an exploration of the role of the miraculous in our lives. What is a miracle? Well, life itself, for a start. Then add in all the random incidents and cross-connections that make up a life, or several interconnected lives, and you have miracles by the bucketful. Kasdan underscores this theme lightly, rather than insisting on it, and bolsters it in various ways, most memorably by the device, right in the center of the film, of having Mac and his wife, lying in bed, each dreaming their own dreams, but as well showing, later on in the film, how those dreams have the power, within the film, to shape reality. This is not a film with an easy or obvious message. You just have to let it play out in front of you, and then let it sit in your mind for a few days, a month, a few years, and see what it has wrought there. This is, without a doubt, Kasdan's best film, his most mature, his most humane. A major meditation on life from one of our most gifted writers and directors. The tragedy is, of course, that he has not been allowed to work for a number of years now, mostly due to studio constraints around "Dreamcatcher." Hopefully we haven't heard the last from Larry Kasdan. A great film from a great artist. Keep in mind that art does not have to rationalize itself completely in order to succeed. | 1pos
|
Before there was Crash, there was this interesting film called Grand Canyon. Released about 14 years sooner than the former film, Grand Canyon was a movie about two people from different backgrounds who come together as friends over a lifetime. To me Crash was still a slightly better film, but Grand Canyon was no slouch either.<br /><br />Taking place in Los Angeles, an upper-class lawyer named Mack (Kevin Kline) takes a shortcut through the seedier side of town only to have his car break down at the worst time. He calls for a tow truck, and has to wait for awhile, only to soon be threatened by a group of dangerous people who want his car. Soon the tow truck driver arrives at the perfect moment, and out steps Simon (Danny Glover) to take the truck away. Both men are threatened, but Simon manages to get himself, Mack, and the car out of dire straits. It is from here on out that a friendship develops between the two men over a lifetime with Mack helping out Simon just as Simon had helped him out of a dangerous situation earlier. You see Simon's sister Deborah (Tina Lifford) is living in a dangerous neighborhood with her two children, and fears for her oldest son who seems to be roaming the streets at night with some bad people. Mack offers them a better place to live as well as hooking Simon up with his secretary's friend Jane (Alfre Woodard).<br /><br />This is the main plot of the film, but there are other smaller plots involving the same secretary mentioned above (Mary Louise Parker) as well as Mack's wife, (Mary McDonnel) who discovers an abandoned baby not long after their son Roberto (Jeremy Sisto in his first movie role) has gone to camp for the summer, and will likely be moving on with his own life soon. The details of all these plots are brought together into one complex movie which uses a police helicopter as a metaphor for life and as a bridge to entwine all the different scenes. This simple plot device works very well and helps greatly with the flow of the story.<br /><br />The director Lawrence Kasdan, whose biggest movie to this date was The Big Chill, has created a splendid movie here. The cast is excellent, and most of the ideas are well thought out, but alas it falls short of greatness because some points, that would've made the film even stronger, are glossed over. The story involving the secretary is one, and the second involving Simon's nephew is the other. These scenes should've been more apart of the entire story, and then maybe Lawrence Kasdan's views of life between the upper and lower classes would've been more on a superior level instead of just very good. Still Grand Canyon exceeded expectations, and yes you will get to see a view of the canyon that this movie was named after. There is also a small role for Steve Martin as Davis, a producer of violent films, who offers his own views on life, and has a small part to play in this movie's ideas. | 1pos
|
Well, maybe not immediately before the Rodney King riots, but even a few months before was timely enough. My parents said that they saw it and the next thing you know, the police got acquitted and LA got burned to the ground. It just goes to show the state of race relations in America. The plot has white Mack (Kevin Kline) and African-American Simon (Danny Glover) becoming friends after Simon saves Mack's life in the black ghetto. Meanwhile, movie producer Davis (Steve Martin in a serious role) thinks that gratuitous violence is really cool...until he gets shot. There's also some existentialism in the movie: Mack and his family come to realize that they aren't living as they really want.<br /><br />It seems that "Crash" has somewhat renewed people's interest in race relations, but this one came out much earlier. Maybe we'll never be able to have stable race relations in this country. But either way, "Grand Canyon" is a great movie. It affirms Kevin Kline as my favorite actor. Also starring Mary McDonnell, Mary-Louise Parker and Alfre Woodard. | 1pos
|
The mere fact that I still think of the movie a decade later is what really speaks volumes about the film. To me this substantiates Grand Canyon as a film that will touch you in one way or another. I truly believe that before the movie Crash there was Grand Canyon. The major difference between the two films in my opinion is the timing of their release. I'm not going to argue which one is better, but I will contend to the idea that they share the same message. I'd love to hear from those that have an opinion on this subject. I will start a commentary which you can find at http://www.myspace.com/62229249. You may also find me there to post any other topics about movies that we may share, because i have a true love for film. | 1pos
|
Grand Canyon is a very strange bird. It's a completely unique urban piece, where relating the entire plot would fail to convey much.<br /><br />It's central theme seems to be the inherent uncertainty life holds for people of every race, background and station. But to proclaim that THE theme of the film would be to horribly understate its scope. Similarly, to pigeonhole it in a particular genre is futile.<br /><br />The film has volumes to say, though likely different volumes for every viewer, and says it all in such a non-preachy way from so many angles, that in the end, i can't even define its central message for myself.<br /><br />Nevertheless, it does it's business with such laser precision; every prop, line of dialog, and bar of background music contributing to it's pervasive mood and powerful message, that i'm pleasantly surprised, and come away very thoughtful after every viewing. Still it doesn't feel at all stuffy. A sparkling film with a great cast and everything working. | 1pos
|
I remember seeing this movie when I was about 7; and at the time it shocked me. I had seen a violent movie before, but I never saw a movie with the consequences and reality of violence. This movie not only shows this, but it also shows how people can change their lives and choose happiness. What this movie did and crash failed to do was to be truthful. Crash tried to show how racism was bad (and Crash actually had a built-in anti Asian bias) and to come at it from a morally superior position. Grand Canyon came at things from such a raw and real perspective that it actually ends up on a higher ground than crash. Especially when you compare the endings. The ending of crash is this supposedly neat little ending that ties everything up. While Grand Canyon simply ends on a quiet note, where you know nothing much will change in the character's lives but that's because life just goes on too, there's no suitable ending. No matter how good...bad you are. There is no ending of a chapter to begin another. | 1pos
|
This is an excellent movie with a stellar cast and some great acting. I never tire of watching it. I especially love the scene where Danny Glover's character and Kevin Kline's character namely Simon and Mack have brunch together. Kevin Kline is such a natural and it seems his mannerisms are effortless and one you would encounter often. SO its a very 'real' movie. <br /><br />One of the most powerful scenes in the movie however, is at the beginning of the movie when Simon arrives at the scene where Mack's car has broken down. The movie also has a strong message and is unlike the stereotypical message carrying movie where there's one person preaching his guts out to an audience. Instead the actors' emotions and situations deliver an impactive message that does best without the use of words. And lastly, Mary McDonell is brilliant as always. | 1pos
|
... but watch Mary McDonnell's performance closely. Her body language. Her fine body movements. Her subtle, but powerfully effective, reactions. This is an accomplished artist at the top of her craft. And the rest of the cast were pretty damned good, too! ;o)<br /><br />This is perhaps the 3rd or 4th viewing for me, and I see more in it each time. What /IS/ this world coming to, anyway? -R. | 1pos
|
In my opinion, the best movie ever. I love when people ask me what this film is about. I usually smile and say "life". They shrug and probably never give it another thought. The fact that everyone from every background can relate to some part of this movie makes it all that much more amazing. Definately a must see for everyone. | 1pos
|
This film could well have been one of those ordinary "soapies" relating the day to day events of half a dozen families whose lives are intertwined
..broken relationships,building new friendships, street bashings, near accidents, hopes and dreams and even the discovery of a baby discarded under some bushes! What a mixture of events!<br /><br />Fortunately the film maker goes beyond those daily events and poses questions to consider although there are no satisfactory answers. He asks
in this chaotic world do things just happen, is it just luck when things turn out right or , taking a fatalistic view, is a person predestined to be at a certain place at a certain time and thus become involved in the event and his future takes on a new perspective? Most of us have had this uncanny experience.<br /><br />Is it our super ego that makes us believe we are so important? As one character says
he once sat on the edge overlooking the Grand Canyon and came to realize how infinitely small he was.<br /><br />This is not one of my favourite films but is a good study of human relationships. Danny Glover is outstanding in a sympathetic role. | 1pos
|
At your video store, you might find this gem.<br /><br />The human condition in modern times LA. No exaggerated drama, just a collapsing of events that might happen to any group of individuals over time.<br /><br />Helps you understand the joys and desperation of urban life.<br /><br />The direction and cutting are top class. Cinematography and music very much follows the mood and situation. And the CAST!!! <br /><br />Excellent casting and excellent acting. No one out of place or out of character.<br /><br />And it's NOT really as much a downer as you would expect. I gave it 7 of 10.<br /><br />If you havent seen it, DO! | 1pos
|
This movie awed me so much that I watch it at least once a year. At times I find it uncomfortable. At times I find it empowering. And I always find the characters human and real. It is a movie that shows you the gritty reality of life in LA, starting with the recurring helicopter search lights scanning for the dangers lurking so close to the ordinary lives being carried on by the characters. It is also a movie that shows you how the kindness of a stranger can change your life and empower you to make a difference. Grand Canyon reminds you that every action you take, whether intended or not, has powerful repercussions. I found this movie to be similar in many ways to Robert Altman's film Short Cuts. Both had a star-studded roster of perfectly cast actors & actresses and both movies allowed you to gradually see how the the characters interrelated with one another and affected each other, for better or worse. Grand Canyon did a better job of providing a cohesive message, (hope in the face of despairing reality), than Altman's film, although I found them both intriguing in their own way. This film is a definite must see!!! | 1pos
|
Every now and then a film maker brings to life a unique group of people and lets you inside to see the things that make us human. Lawrence Kasden done this again. I always felt theBg Cill was the anthem of it's age and he has managed to do it again in Grand Canyon. Every so often we find ourselves at a point where we have the opportunity to choose life and so often we blow it. This is a film about people who find the courage to choose and experience life because of that choice. The juxtaposing of little and big events that lets us see how basically trivial most things we worry about are is truly genius. I have watched this film a number of times and am constanly surprised at how deep the emotions run through this film. Danny Glover and Kevin Kline do their roles with great tenderness and Stever Martins portrayal of a movie exec is priceless. Thank you again Mr. Kasden | 1pos
|
This would have been my number one movie of the year for 1991, except it got beat out by the brilliant JFK. This is such a wonderful movie! I loved it. I love stories where different characters' lives intersect with others and how deal with their lives. Kevin Kline is good here, but is outshined by Danny Glover and, especially, Steve Martin. I've never much like Martin or his style, but here he is great. I loved the whole speech he gave to Kline near the end about the Grand Canyon. The writing was excellent. Larry Kasdan is, IMO, a great dialogue writer, along the ways of Kevin Smith and Quentin Tarantino. Here, he has formed several three-dimensional characters and well thought out storylines, and messages that give a positive feel to our lives. A truly excellent film. 4 out of 4 stars | 1pos
|
Alain Chabat claims this movie as his original idea but the theme of reluctant lovers who finally get it together is as old, if not older, than Shakespeare.<br /><br />Chabat is a "vieux garcon", happily single and not wanting any member of the opposite sex to disturb his life. He has a problem, 5 sisters and a matriarchal mum - the G7 - who decide he should be married. Enter the delightful, charming Charlotte Gainsbourg and what should be a simple plan. Charlotte has to pose as Chabat's girlfriend and then simply not turn up on the day of the wedding. No more talk of marriage from the G7. Of course the best laid plans have a habit of spiralling out of control.<br /><br />There are very strong supporting roles from Lafont as the mother and Osterman as the tight-fisted brother of Gainsbourg.<br /><br />There are some fantastic scenes as first Charlotte has to charm, then revolt the family. French farce with an English. | 1pos
|
There wasn't a dry eye amongst the audience yesterday afternoon after I left the cinema, having seen this gem of a film in a sold-out house as part of this year's Hamburg Film Festival. And the tears shed were all of laughter. This film was hilarious, there's no other way of saying this. There wasn't one boring bit in it, I laughed right through it and with me everyone else of us three hundred lovers of French cinéma.<br /><br />Alain Chabat was absolutely terrific. A great clown if needs be and serious if the situation calls for it. The performance was of course completely over the top, but this was exactly what the story needed and what made it work so well. Equally great was Charlotte Gainsbourg who I love to see a lot, and the mother was also a very strong performance. The sisters could have been a bit more detailed in character script-wise, but apart from that there is nothing to moan about. I had a great afternoon seeing this film while Hamburg was drowning in rain outside, and I wish films like this from France would get a regular release in Germany. But the distributors is this country don't seem to understand that the French make good films. I at least can't wait to find a DVD which offers subtitles (Hello Australia? Please?) because that film I need at home to watch several more times! | 1pos
|
Alain Chabat is a fine actor, writer and director but maybe a trifle misguided to take an 'idea' credit for a story that probably had them rolling in the aisles when Aristophanes was still learning that it's 'i' before 'e' except after 'c'. But, like I said, Chabat is a fine actor and he can do charm when he needs to. I'm also gradually overcoming an aversion to Charlotte Gainsbourg who also turns in an accomplished performance. If you absolutely insist on knowing, the 'plot' is the one about the guy well into his forties and more than content to be single. This doesn't sit well with his mother and five sisters and to get them off his back he makes an 'arrangement' with the sister of a colleague to pose - for fifteen thousand euros -as his new girlfriend, allow the romance to come to fruition with a wedding and then jilt him, thus getting him off the hook. Naturally they wind up together but along the way there's some sub-Benedek and Beatrice duelling and all things considered it's a pretty painless ninety minutes and performing so well at the French box office that a sequel may not be out of the question. | 1pos
|
Didn't know anything about the movie before watching and I think it was the "no expectation" factor that helped me endure at first and later like it more than I anticipated.<br /><br />The setting was interesting, strange but interesting. The storyline had gaps/jumps that I think throws the audience off a bit. There's no great soundtrack playing in the background, creating the "romantic" ambiance. BUT they all didn't matter.<br /><br />The chemistry between Emma and Luis was simply exquisite. There was some inexplicable strange chemistry that I couldn't resist; I fell in love with it and here I am, writing this review. The subtle love portrayal by the two actors was superb, and I believe, that is the core of this movie.<br /><br />This movie is not an everyday romantic comedy; in fact, not all of us will appreciate it. I had to sit a while and then slowly began to comprehend the little things I didn't catch at first. I cannot guarantee everyone will like it, but I hope YOU do. | 1pos
|
From the opening shots of the lead actor, we are given a early view on how so many mens lives are run by the women in them, and the humour that comes thru with all that goes on in the day to day of 'normal' life.<br /><br />Eric Lartigau, the director picks up on how so many European men feel that they are in complete control of their lives, yet without the help/support of the women around them cannot seem to make things work. The use of facial image throughout the film is superb, and his clever positioning of the senior member of the family (mother) is spot on.<br /><br />While there are more than enough laughs in the movie, it still deals with single parents/adoption and the strength of family in society. Truly rewarding to watch, and again one that only the French seam capable to make.<br /><br />So far one of the best 50 or so Films I have seen this year, and well worth a five start rating. I look forward to adding this one to the DVD collection when it is released and highly recommend it to all ages. | 1pos
|
I think Charlotte Gainsbourg is one of the best performers in the world. I can't understand why some people say she's not. Boring....??? Maybe the one who said she's boring is because he/she is boring. She's a great actress and the movie was excellent. It has lots of wonderful ideas and very good performers. The direction was great. I imaging myself in the French environment with all the sophistication and perfume, flowers, churches, problems, etc. When she goes to the sister's shop is simply amazing. Everything's great. We have a very good actress, wonderful, for long time. Alain Chabat and Bernadette Lafont are perfect. I like him more than in his next movie LA SCIENCE DES RÊVES. And Eric Lartigau did a very good work.<br /><br />Ana | 1pos
|
I have to be 100% honest with you fellow IMDb users. I wanted to see this movie for a very long time only because of the poster. Doesn't Charlotte Gainsbourg looks extremely sexy and charming smiling that way? I'm in love with that woman! I got what I expected...but only half. This film should deliver expectations for those who enjoy all kinds of romantic comedies or stories involving intelligent humor and light dramatic situations.<br /><br />While I don't agree with another fellow IMDb user who states that the movie is overrated; I must admit that "Préte-moi ta main" has plenty of flaws.<br /><br />My main problem with the film is the lack of on screen chemistry between the main characters. There isn't a single scene previous to the climax that shows the main characters sharing a moment "of romance" or even a clue to suggest that they're interested in each other.<br /><br />In fact, the only scene were both share a moment is tremendously awkward (when both are in the couch) and does not help the audience understand about a possible love interest. I didn't buy the dinner sequence.<br /><br />Still, the movie delivers very funny moments and has a strong dialogs that support such an ingenuous premise. I mean with ingenuous that it would be very difficult to execute such a farse by a 43 year old man in these days.<br /><br />I understand it's a movie and that's why I accept it as a funny situation. Plus, the humor is versatile. There are moments involving S&M, funny lines with Chabat's best friend, some lesbian references, funny situations involving the family women, and more.<br /><br />Charlotte Gaionsbourg's performance is top notch and she's by far the reason to watch the movie. She's funny, sexy, looks very thin and fine, and demonstrates she's a versatile and talented actress who can pull out a comedic and dramatic performance in sheer brilliance.<br /><br />Alain Chabat is a fine actor and gives a very decent performance. I think the supporting cast do what they can.<br /><br />The score, art direction, and other technical aspects are really good and give a dynamic look to the film.<br /><br />Those who enjoy this kind of cinema should be pleased after the ending credits. It's a good example of feel good cinema. | 1pos
|
Rain or shine outside, you enter a movie house. It makes you happy. (If not, come right out.) Lights go off. You settle down with a bar of ice cream. Moving pictures begin to flicker on the screen. You feel content. In the dark, you are back in the beginning of time. Sitting around the campfire...looking at the modern version of the flickering flames 24 times per second and sharing the joy of discovering the unknown turns and twists of the scenario with rest of your clan/spectators.<br /><br />Those who are not happy with themselves, should not write comments. (Long live romantic comedies...) | 1pos
|
This is an Excellent little movie! The acting is good and the music is fantastic!! Play it on a 5-1 sound system and enjoy! It will never win any awards but its good clean fun for all!! I recommend this movie to all fans of pretty girls funny and hansom men as well as robot lovers everyone!!1 P.S. It also stars Lisa Rinna! Enjoy!!This is a very hard movie to find, It is out of print. I first saw it on Showtime many years ago but recently found a used VHS copy. Its still a must see for all!!!This is an Excellent little movie! The acting is good and the music is fantastic!! Play it on a 5-1 sound system and enjoy! It will never win any awards but its good clean fun for all!! I recommend this movie to all fans of pretty girls funny and hansom men as well as robot lovers everyone!!1 P.S. It also stars Lisa Rinna! Enjoy!! Dave Engle This is a very hard movie to find, It is out of print. I first saw it on Showtime many years ago but recently found a used VHS copy. Its still a must see for all!!! | 1pos
|
I saw this film (it's English title is "Who's Singing Over There?") at the 1980 Montreal International Film Festival. It won raves then... and disappeared. A terrible shame. It is brilliant. Sublime, ridiculous, sad, and extremely funny. The script is a work of art. It's been 19 years and I've seen only a handful of comedies (or any other genre, for that matter) that can match its originality. | 1pos
|
This "tragicomedy" written by famous Serbian theatre/film writer Dusan Kovacevic is probably one of the best movies ever made in the comedy category. And yet, its appearance of a theatre play transformed into a feature film takes nothing of its value. A masterpiece one should not miss to see (preferably with subtitles, and not dubbed).<br /><br />In an aged bus en route to capital Belgrade, a looming war decides the passengers' behaviour. Two Gypsy musicians sing of their miserable life but also foresee a tragedy to come; their singing both divides and connects stages in this extraordinary road movie (real life Kostic brothers are amateur actors, but together with Stanojlo Milinkovic as farmer who's plowed the road give a real-life performance).<br /><br />The spectrum of characters gives a brilliant image of a society facing a war, an insight into nation's collective person: everyone is aware that war is just about to begin but they try to live their own lives the best they can, hoping that ignorance might avert the tragedy. Using a simple movie language, director Slobodan Sijan paints a picture of society torn by previous war (World War I), but also highlights personal portraits with success: provincialism of a singer, inexperience of the newlyweds, seriousness of the Great War veteran who is on way to visit his recently conscripted son, and gloomy predictions from a man who seems to be a German spy.<br /><br />Brilliant in its narration, with memorable soundtrack (especialy the Gispsy songs) and adjusted atmosphere, well photographed and edited, this feature (Sijan's feature debut) was only an introduction into a series of the directors bitter-sweet comedies that will define Serbian cinematography of the 1980s: "Maratonci trce pocasni krug", "Kako sam sistematski unisten od idiota", and my other director's favourite "Davitelj protiv davitelja"). | 1pos
|
This movie is one of the funniest, saddest and most accurate portrayals of the mentality that seems to have pervaded the Balkans yet again, 45 years after the time depicted. All the usual characters and conflicts are presented with such anger, sadness and love combined that it is impossible to decide whether crying or laughing would be the more appropriate response. The accuracy of portrayal and the timelessness of the types, however, make it for a great film to watch if one wants to understand a little bit of what drove ex-Yugoslavia to its madness. In fact, no diplomat dealing with the region should attempt anything until they saw this movie, and its twin, *Maratonci trce pocasni krug.* Did I mention it is one of the funniest movies I've ever seen? | 1pos
|
A milestone in Eastern European film making and an outstanding example of Serbian mentality. A group of completely different people are doomed to die because of their discord. With "Maratonci trce pocasni krug" makes two mythological movies everyone here knows word by word. | 1pos
|
Superbly developed characters into the lots of funny situations full of spirit, absurdness and Serbian mentality. Movie is a great comedy, enjoyable, interesting, unpredictable. Best point in a film: characters, then humor itself, story and dialogs. Humor has 'inner development' , rare in Serbian movies. So, it is consequence of characterization, is well motivated, spontaneous and cogent. Also it is sharp, intelligent and lucid. Most of the movies, unfortunately, had constructed humor (devise a joke and put it into a characters's mouth) or ordinary situation comedy, burlesque, farce. Some of the 'art immortality' are incorporated in this movie. Little masterpiece, hardly reachable. | 1pos
|
One of my favourite "domestic" movies. I don't know if there is any person in our country who hasn't seen this movie! It's funny, and sad at some moments...I don't know how did people around the world (who had opportunity to watch it) accept this movie, because you have to know some moments in our serbian history and character of Serbs in the first half of the 20th century, to be able to understand it! But as I see here, there is somebody from Canada who watched it...and he liked it.<br /><br />I think that I'll try to put all good quotes from the movie on this site, but first to find out how to do that...<br /><br />Cheers. | 1pos
|
The group of people are travelling to Belgrade in an awful bus led by a drunk conductor and his dumb son (who likes to drive with his eyes closed). Their journey is frequently interrupted by many hilarious events which with much irony describe the fall of nation`s spirit in 1941 and are so funny that they are even today used as a common jokes. The man who "steals the show" is a peasant 4 feet tall with his 4 sons who are almost two times bigger than him. In the end, the movie takes one dramatical turn and the trip becomes nothing but a swan`s song of a dying country. | 1pos
|
Years ago I was lucky enough to have seen this gem at a >Gypsy film festival in Santa Monica. You know the ending >is not going to be rosie and tragedy will strike but it's >really about the journey and characters and their dynamics and how they all fit into what was "Yugoslavia". >While I am not Yugonostalgic and tend to shy away from >the current crop of "Yugoslavian" films (give me Ademir >Kenovic over late 90s Kustarica) I'd be happy to have the >chance to stumble on this film again, as it shines in my >celluloid memories. Ever since seeing Who's Singing Over >There" 15 years ago I still hear the theme tune, sung by >the Gypsies, ruminating through my head
"I am miserable, >I was born that way
" with the accompanying jew's harp and accordian making the tune both funny and sad. The late, great actor Pavle Vujisic (Muzamer from When Father >was Away on Business) was memorable as the bus driver of >the ill-fated trip in his typical gruff yet loveable manner. Hi | 1pos
|
This is the movie I've seen more times than any other (I believe I saw it on average once every year since it was released). And every time I see it, it is equally fantastic and always reveals something new to me. The cast was most probably a combination of the very best there ever was in ex Yu cinematography. This movie is an absolute must for any self respecting movie lover. In the same league: Maratonci trce pocasni krug, Balkanski spijun and Otac na sluzbenom putu. This is a poker of movies everyone should have in his private video collection. | 1pos
|
"Ko to tamo peva" is one of the best films I ever saw. A tragicomedy with very deep implications on the fate of humankind shown through the eyes of seemingly very plain and common people from a God-forsaken Serbian province just before the start of the World War II. I saw it in a small movie theater in Russia where the film had had a very limited distribution, and I had no chance to come across it ever since. It is such a pity that this excellent film is almost forgotten now. I searched for a VHS or DVD copy of it many times, and alas - could find none. I would be most grateful to other fans of this little gem of movie-making for a suggestion of the ways to purchase a copy. | 1pos
|
At first sight, Who's Singing Over There just seems to be an absurd and excellent comedy
with only a kind of unusual, quiet and slow motion : what a mistake ! <br /><br />Beginning with two singers on a desert landscape, then a bus and a wonderful bunch of actors, it hides a gem !<br /><br />The folded story, and a false rhythm induces you to think, yes it is comic, but just lets you guess it will be a gentle kind of movie. <br /><br />Not at all : very funny by instant, dark subtle cynical on others, its development surprises you all along the story
Very ingeniously and cleverly presented, all the characters are important, and the actors give them full life.<br /><br />And what is astonishing, it's based on deep observation, great mastering of the camera work and has a great meanings, and really everything, the general direction and how also the details are presented, that it simply makes you forget it's a movie: it is like to watch a kind human society, you yet don't know,shot by a friend behind a camera.<br /><br />And you're the one behind him. It is simple, and simply exceptional !<br /><br />Don't misunderstand me; in no way that would means the script , the quality of picture, the music score have a kind of amateurish way, no, no ! It's great Art ! <br /><br />Because it flows like a river
From high up in the mountain, down to the sea, with all the different sort of grounds and peregrinations that a real river will face on its journey to the sea
from a tiny thing to a main stream.<br /><br />This metaphoric image I used is the very best way I can find to explain all the charm that has Who's Singing Over There. For me, again, I take the hammer : simply exceptional...<br /><br />I've seen that The Director is the one who made Chat Blanc/Chat Noir, which I know is quiet famous
But as I yet didn't see it, I had no idea about this gentleman.<br /><br />Others reviewers wrote dithyrambical comments on that film, I fully agree !<br /><br />European Eastern Cinema is not well know because seldom translated, but I am lucky to have this exemplar one in original language, with good English subtitles. All in all : deep, delicious and exceptional...<br /><br />For fast and empty exploding types and special effect buffs, avoid it at any cost, it may be too subtle and good for you !<br /><br />But if you're interested in different genres and/or classics, I guess you won't regret this one, and in case of buying, it will have good companionship in your personal DVD library, with such no less than merited big names like Billy Wilder, Lubitsch, or Sacha Guitry among some of my preferred directors . At least for this movie !<br /><br />***A film is never really good unless the camera is an eyes in the head of a poet Orson Welles*** | 1pos
|
Subsets and Splits