text
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
Actually I'm surprised there were so many comments about this movie. I saw it as part of a Slavic film festival at a major American University. But nobody in USA has heard of it, which is a real shame! The dynamics between the people are what makes it both funny and sad. They are stuck together on a long bus trip--someplace most of us have been!! But I never had one like this!! <br /><br />My favorite scene is the one where they stop for the funeral. Then the man & woman sneak off for some Lovemaking in the forest but everybody follows them to watch without them knowing! Just as she raises her skirt and he enters her all the way--the consumptive starts hacking & they realize everybody is watching!! Talk about surprised! But...you really have to feel for them even if it is hilariously funny! When you see the ending it is sort of ironic that they enjoyed themselves while they did! Serb humor at it's best! | 1pos
|
I like this movie a lot, but it's a fact, that you cannot understand it, unless you're from the ex Yugoslavia. Most of the actors are now dead and those were the best actors in ex Yugoslavia. I appreciate that this movie is now on Divx and I can have it in my collection. Macedonia. Serbia. Montenegro. Bosnia and Herzegowina. Croatia. Slovenia.<br /><br />All of this was ex Yugoslavia, a melting pot of the Balcan nations. It could be a dream land, if Slobodan Milosevic, Franjo Tudjman and other nationalists wouldn't poison the nation's mind with their sick ideas. | 1pos
|
I watched this film over a hundred times. It is really best Serbian movie made ever.I wood like to recommend this movie to everyone. It is very good comedy. I surely like it!!!! | 1pos
|
this is what i call a great movie. it lives trough the fantastic actor skills and a simple but human story. there are real characters which can be funny and dramatic. but the main theme is very cruel, like live is.the bus driver and his son are collecting people trough the country (jugoslavia) on their way to the capital Belgrad. the funny and cruel situations that happens on the way, connect the people and the pigs that travel together. <br /><br />watch it and you gonna remember it for life... its filled with Slavic humor and lifestyle.<br /><br />and another reason for its magic : it is hard to get!! | 1pos
|
This is the best movie I have ever seen.<br /><br />I've seen the movie on Dutch television sometime in 1988 (?).<br /><br />That month they were showing a Yugoslavian movie every Sunday night.<br /><br />The next week there was another great movie (involving a train, rather than a bus) the name of which I don't remember. If you know it, please let me know! In any case, how can I get to see this movie again???? A DVD of this movie, where?? Please tell me at [email protected]<br /><br />The next week there was another great movie (involving a train, rather than a bus) the name of which I don't remember. If you know it, please let me know! In any case, how can I get to see this movie again???? A DVD of this movie, where?? Please tell me at [email protected] | 1pos
|
Ko to tamo peva is the best comedy of all times. Believe me i saw a lot of movies and comedies but tell me which one make you smile every time you watching it. But truth is that the humour in this comedy is special.It is caratherisic for serbia. And all former republic of yugoslavia know it very well!!! So i think the rest of audience (for example: In Europe)can't enjoy it so much. Because the subtitles ruin the hole thing. But they should at least try!!!! Yes it is ironic! This is the best flick in Serbian history and the world doesn't understand it! :-) If you have got a chance to see this one, don't blew up OK! | 1pos
|
Along with the "Maratonci trce pocasni krug" from the same director, one of the masterpieces of ex-Yugoslavia comedies. If you want to understand Serbian mentality, you must see this movie. And if you want to see several of ex-Yugoslav great actors at the same time, this is a opportunity. | 1pos
|
i'm not sure if it is available worldwide - but if anyone who's deciding what is supposed to be put on videotapes and distributed in video clubs - is reading this - please , please buy it! (if I wasn't clear: GET THE MOVIE INTO VIDEOSTORES!)<br /><br />can't be explained - must see! | 1pos
|
During a Kurt Weill celebration in Brooklyn, WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? was finally unearthed for a screening. It is amazing that a motion picture, from any era, that has Weill-Gershwin collaborations can possibly be missing from the screens. The score stands tall, and a CD of the material, with Gershwin and Weill, only underscores its merits, which are considerable. Yes, the film has its problems, but the score is not one of them. Ratoff is not in his element as the director of this musical fantasy, and Fred MacMurray cannot quite grasp the material. Then, too, the 'modern' segment is weakly written. BUT the fantasy elements carry the film to a high mark, as does the work of the two delightful leading ladies - Joan Leslie and June Haver. Both have the charm that this kind of work desperately needs to work. As a World War II salute to our country's history - albeit in a 'never was' framework, the film has its place in Hollywood musical history and should be available for all to see and to find its considerable merits. | 1pos
|
First saw this half a lifetime ago on a black-and-white TV in a small Samoan village and thought it was hilarious. Now, having seen it for the second time, so much later, I don't find it hilarious. I don't find ANYTHING hilarious anymore. But this is a witty and light-hearted comedy that moves along quickly without stumbling and I thoroughly enjoyed it.<br /><br />It's 1945 and Fred MacMurray is a 4F who's dying to get into one of the armed forces. He rubs a lamp in the scrapyard he's managing and a genie appears to grant him a few wishes. (Ho hum, right? But though the introduction is no more than okay, the fantasies are pretty lively.) MacMurray tells the genie that he wants to be in the army. Poof, and he is marching along with Washington's soldiers into a particularly warm and inviting USO where June Haver and Joan Leslie are wearing lots of lace doilies or whatever they are, and lavender wigs. Washington sends MacMurray to spy on the enemy -- red-coating, German-speaking Hessians, not Brits. The Hessians are jammed into a Bierstube and singing a very amusing drinking song extolling the virtues of the Vaterland, "where the white wine is winier/ and the Rhine water's Rhinier/ and the bratwurst is mellower/ and the yellow hair is yellower/ and the Frauleins are jucier/ and the goose steps are goosier." Something like that. The characterizations are fabulous, as good as Sig Rumann's best. Otto Preminger is the suspicious and sinister Hessian general. "You know, Heidelberg, vee are 241 to 1 against you -- but vee are not afraid." <br /><br />I can't go on too long with these fantasies but they're all quite funny, and so are the lyrics. When he wishes he were in the Navy, MacMurray winds up with Columbus and the fantasy is presented as grand opera. "Don't you know that sailing west meant/ a terrifically expensive investment?/ And who do you suppose provides the means/ but Isabella, Queen of Queens." When they sight the New World, someone remarks that it looks great. "I don't care what it looks like," mutters Columbus, "but that place is going to be called Columbusland."<br /><br />Anyway, everything is finally straightened out, though the genie by this time is quite drunk, and MacMurray winds up in the Marine Corps with the right girl.<br /><br />I've made it sound too cute, maybe, but it IS cute. The kids will enjoy the puffs of smoke and the magic and the corny love story. The adults will get a kick out of the more challenging elements of the story (who are the Hessians?) unless they happen to be college graduates, in which case they might want to stick with the legerdemain and say, "Wow! Awesome!" | 1pos
|
If you haven't seen this obscure little charmer, you should seek it out. It is the story of a bumbling, wartime Sad Sack (Fred MacMurray) who is listed 4-F each time he attempts to join any branch of the military. He finds a magic lamp which of course contains a genie (Gene Sheldon), but the genie is even more bumbling than MacMurray is, sending him across time to serve in all the wrong times and places than the one he wants. It is cute, cheerful, and pure fluff, and you can't help but like it. The plots is much like a Disney film, particularly since the two stars (MacMurray and Sheldon) both made numerous Disney films in the 50's and 60's, although not together. Needless to say, it all ends well for everyone, and the viewer goes away feeling pretty good. | 1pos
|
I happened to see this movie twice or more and found it well made! WWII had freshly ended and the so-called "Cold War" was about to begin. This movie could, therefore, be defined as one of the best "propaganda", patriotic movies preparing Americans and, secondly, people from the still to be formed "Western NATO block" of countries to face the next coming menace. The movie celebrates the might of the US, through the centuries, while projecting itself onwards to the then present war, which had just ended. Nice and funny is the way of describing the discovering of the American Continent by Columbus and pretty the "espisode" of New Amsterdam and the purchasing of Manhattan from a drunk local Indian .. Must see it (at least once, for curiosity of fashion of propaganda through time)! :) | 1pos
|
During a Kurt Weill celebration in Brooklyn, WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? was finally unearthed for a screening. It is amazing that a motion picture, from any era, that has Weill-Gershwin collaborations can possibly be missing from the screens. The score stands tall, and a CD of the material, with Gershwin and Weill, only underscores its merits, which are considerable. Yes, the film has its problems, but the score is not one of them. Ratoff is not in his element as the director of this musical fantasy, and Fred MacMurray cannot quite grasp the material. Then, too, the 'modern' segment is weakly written. BUT the fantasy elements carry the film to a high mark, as does the work of the two delightful leading ladies - Joan Leslie and June Haver. Both have the charm that this kind of work desperately needs to work. As a World War II salute to our country's history - albeit in a 'never was' framework, the film has its place in Hollywood musical history and should be available for all to see and to find its considerable merits. | 1pos
|
Saw it as many times as I could before it left the scene. A delightful and entertaining film with some of my very favorite stars. Only wish I could find it again! Would certainly buy/view it if I could. Please, somebody, bring it back. Fred MacMurray was perfect in his role as a patriot during World War II, and his leading ladies, Joan Leslie, and especially June Haver were beautiful and charming. It was a musical, but also romantic, funny, and clever. This was my favorite movie starring June Haver, although I always liked her. Her dazzling smile lit up the screen, and her beauty and talent were an asset to any film. The supporting cast lent credit to their individual roles. A well-balanced and light-hearted film; only wish we had more like it! | 1pos
|
I adored this movie. Not only because I am a big fan of Moritz Bleibtreu, although he is in practically all German movies that count. But also because he is NOT the main actor. The lead is taken over by Barnaby Metschurat, who was the only reason to watch 2001's Julietta, and who really carries this movie on his shoulders.<br /><br />A family moves from Italy to Germany seeking "the German dream" (this is my own invention and ironic...) of cheap labor in steel and coal industries. However, they end up opening a restaurant and the journey the movie takes to this point alone is so poetic and at the same time funny and charming. From this point onward, the story told is mainly that of the two brothers of this family, Giancarlo (Bleibtreu) and Gigi (Metschurat). Gigi's dream to become a filmmaker is threatened by rivalry with his brother and his mother's determination to return to Italy. What follows is a great - and totally neutral - look at what life can become formed by the choices you make.<br /><br />In the end, this movie doesn't say which life (Gigi's or Giancarlo's) was more successful or fuller or more interesting. It merely gives us a rewarding glimpse at what it must be like to search for identity when two countries and mentalities are involved. and this look is not driven by bitterness or disdain to either country, which makes it such a great film for any and every country dealing with the tensions resulting from immigration. The fact that director Fatih Akin's moved to Germany from Turkey in the 70s also lends this movie a large measure of its credibility and emotional accuracy. The icing on the cake are fantastic performances by the entire cast, especially Metschurat and - this I really need to stress - the little boy who plays young Gigi. That kid's performance would be a hard act to follow by just about anyone! Great movie, go see it. | 1pos
|
After Fatih Akins first work "Im Juli", which was fairly good, he created a really gorgeous italian family epic. Its a german movie, which is unfortunately a bad precondition, cause we rareley produce more than moderate movies ;). But this movie makes some very good snapshots of the time then. "Solino" is about a Italian immigrant who arrives in the "Ruhr" region of Germany during the 60s. The immigrant and his family then start the first Pizza restaurant in the region. The characters are excellent drawn. Especially Gigi, the main actor. You live every second, every feeling he does. His brother, played by Moritz Bleibtreu, isnt that good. Well, you just dont believe him the role. But the character is wellbalanced and fits perfectly into this script. I feel an urgent need to compare the style of this movie with the style of "The Godfather". Many people will probably hate this movie, say its boring. Not much tension? - yes, but an outrageous movie. 9 out of 10. | 1pos
|
Solino really moved me with its deeply drawn characters. While being a simple tale of rivalry between two brothers, it was not simply about hate or jealousy. What I liked most about the movie was how I could identify with the feelings Gigi was going through especially when he had to take his mother back to her home town in Italy and miss out on attending the festival film awards ceremony his film was entered into. To see this character who struggled so hard between his artistic dream and his innate sense of duty to his mother was so frustrating. Even at the end when he makes one more attempt to reach out to his father was so brave. And as in real life, most fathers can never get past their walls to reach out to their children. I could even identify with Giancarlo, the brother, who while being the more self assured and elder brother, had so many insecurities. A really beautiful film that made me laugh and cry. | 1pos
|
This film plays in the 60s and is about an Italian family: Romano, his wife Rosa and their two children Gigi and Giancarlo emigrate from Solino in Italy to Duisburg in the Ruhr area. I like this film, because I think it is quite realistic: it shows problems which many foreign families have when they come to another country: they have to get used to a new culture, a new environment and this can be difficult: especially if you don't know the language.... It is difficult for the family but they find a way: they open a restaurant which offers typical Italian food, and it is named "Solino", like their hometown. The film also shows different conflicts - Gigi and Giancarlo fall in love with the same girl, and although Rosa has to work very hard, Romano refuses to pay money to engage more workers, etc. etc. But stop, I don't want to tell you how it goes on. You should watch the film yourself, it's a nice one - I have also made a Referat about it and examined scenes which show different cultural attitudes. And there are a few... | 1pos
|
This movie about two Italian brothers who came to Germany with their family is just great!<br /><br />It isn't an idealistic movie, I would say it shows life as it is or was in the 60s and 70s when the main story takes place. The characters are very nice but have also some "dark" sides, what makes you believe that these are real persons. Great movie with great actors to show that life is not funny all the time, but that you can find happiness with "fire and passion" as the main character Gigi would say. | 1pos
|
Such a delightful movie! Very heart warming. One can't help falling in love with the character of Gigi. He's adorable as a child and grows into a sensitive artist. The whole movie revolves around him. He lives in a wonderful world living all life curiosity, desire and anticipation. There is an elder brother who tries to steal his glory but really remains in the shadow all his life. The father is very stereotypically Italian and so is the mother. I wanted the father to come and reunite with the mother in the last scene and have them cry and laugh. I also wish that there was at least something redeeming about the elder brother. His personality seems to have been trashed entirely. Passion and ardour that's the key to life. And looking through the camera focusing on small details and savoring the delicate details of life. | 1pos
|
I really enjoyed this movie. The script is fresh and unpredictable and the acting is outstanding.It is a down-to-earth movie with characters one cares about. It brought tears into my eyes a few times but left me with a great feeling afterwards. | 1pos
|
I really enjoyed this movie. The script is fresh and unpredictable and the acting is outstanding.It is a down-to-earth movie with characters one cares about. It brought tears into my eyes a few times but left me with a great feeling afterwards. | 1pos
|
really excellent movie, one of the best i've seen. Touching and simple - just like life, sometimes you cry sometimes you laugh and it's just beautiful. not too much of anything, just as it's suppose to be. Really loved the idea of the movie, noone is bad or good, all or just people, sometimes make mistakes mostly because of society's pressure, everyone tries to stay strong and some succeed more than others and the most important thing is that you don't have reasons to get angry - you can do it, but eventually the anger goes away and then you to need to let love come back in although it's hard, there lies the true happiness.<br /><br />Great actors and cast, the movie really gets you into the feeling of the movie.<br /><br />nice nice nice.<br /><br />I recommend to see it, especially if you like to see italians' life... | 1pos
|
this film takes you inside itself in the early minutes and holds you till the end. it has a very humane story and very good selected music. The acting of Moritz Bleibtreu (Giancarlo Amato) and Barnaby Metschurat (Gigi Amato) is satisfying. Recommended to people who get bored of action films and want to see a good movie. | 1pos
|
I liked SOLINO very much. It is a very heart-rending story of an italian family moving to Germany. And it's an story about brotherly love, hope and disappointment. And the film is never boring. Go and see SOLINO! | 1pos
|
Todd Rohal is a mad genius. "Knuckleface Jones", his third, and most fully realized, short film has an offbeat sense of humor and will leave some scratching their heads. What the film is about at heart, and he would almost certainly disagree with me on this, is how a regular Joe finds the confidence to get through life with a little inspiration. Or not. You just have to see for yourself. The short is intermittently making rounds on the festival circuit, so keep your eyes peeled and catch it if you can - you'll be glad you did. It is hilarious. And check out Todd's other short films also popping up here and there from time to time: "Single Spaced" and "Slug 660". | 1pos
|
Whether it's three guys in their tighty-whiteys rapping to a dude bound in twine or a girl saying "What up, dog?" to a lump of roadkill, there's something please everyone in Knuckleface Jones. It is strange and surreal and not altogether a completely comprehensible yarn... yet it never loses you. The first time I saw it, I nearly laughed myself sick. And every night after I would come home and watch it again. Forget Coyote Ugly... this is the movie that cemented my crush on Piper Perabo. See it... before it's too late! | 1pos
|
there is a story, but more essentially, the world of this film begins in chaos and comes to order over the course of ten minutes.<br /><br />it is a celebration of life and an optimistic assertion of objective truth and good. representing along an axis unexplored in previous cinema, this film should be taught in every high school.<br /><br />*CHIASMUS* | 1pos
|
THE GIRL FROM MISSOURI arrives in New York City knowing exactly what she wants: to amount to something solid by marrying a millionaire - without losing her virginity. With her knockout good looks she quickly catches the eye of the playboy son of a tycoon, but by staying true to her virtue will she also discover true love?<br /><br />Jean Harlow sizzles in this excellent little comedy. With her platinum hair & gorgeous accouterments, she is a dazzler. But her beauty should not obscure the fact that she was also a very good actress. She has rightfully earned her spot at the very top of the Hollywood pantheon.<br /><br />An excellent cast gives Harlow fine support: Lionel Barrymore as the wily old tycoon, wise to Harlow's ways; handsome Franchot Tone as his son, smitten with love; raucous Patsy Kelly, stealing her scenes as Harlow's sidekick; debonair Alan Mowbray, as a well-mannered English Lord; elderly Clara Blandick as Barrymore's feisty secretary; hearty Hale Hamilton as a rich man with an eye for the ladies; muscular Nat Pendleton as a lifeguard who catches Kelly's flirtatious eye; and Lewis Stone, unforgettable in a small role as a bankrupted businessman.<br /><br />It should be noted that this film was produced soon after Hollywood's Production Code was instituted. A comparison with RED-HEADED WOMAN, made two years earlier, would be fascinating - in which Harlow's character goes after the same ends, but uses very different means. | 1pos
|
In this film, made JUST as the production code was being enforced, Jean Harlow is Eadie, and Patsy Kelly is the wisecracking, man-chasing sidekick "Kitty". Girl from Missouri starts out with the girls getting on a train, with Eadie making a promise to herself to earn money while looking for a millionaire husband, staying whole-some in the process. It doesn't take her long to meet up with Frank Cousins, (Lewis Stone, was the kindly Doctor in Grand Hotel, as well as Judge Hardy in the "Andy Hardy" films.), but all is not as it seems...The censors must have LOVED Harlow's line "A girl couldn't accept an expensive gift like that from a gentleman unless she was engaged." Later, someone says "You know we've never been alone together" and Eadie replies "Yeah, and we're not going to be!" Lionel Barrymore is T.R. Paige, another rich, uppercrust who comes to her rescue when trouble comes looking for Eadie. At one point, Paige declares "You oughta scratch me off your list - I'm not a ladies man".... I wonder what that line would have been just a couple years earlier before the Hayes code came rolling into town. What was he really saying? Carol Tevis seems to be the high-pitched "Baby Talker" as listed in the credits on IMDb. Looks like she was only in showbiz from 1931 - 1939, with "Munchkin" in Wizard of Oz being the last part she played. Fun, cleancut romp as the girls chase men around the country. Look for Nat Pendleton as the lifeguard, who was an Olympic Wrestler 1920 (silver medal winner) turned film star (he was in many of the Dr. Kildares, and would appear in four of Harlow's films.) Mistaken identity, plot twists, a young Franchot Tone, love stories, even Jean Harlow in a bathing suit in "Palm Beach", although the outdoor scenes of downtown appear to be a backdrop. | 1pos
|
If the themes of The Girl From Missouri sound familiar it should. That's because Anita Loos who wrote the screenplay here also wrote the classic Gentlemen Prefer Blondes. Unlike Marilyn Monroe in that film, Jean Harlow will accept any kind of jewelry from men of means.<br /><br />And it's men of means that Jean Harlow is after. She leaves the road side hash house run by her mother and stepfather because she's decided that the best way to gain the easy life is to marry it. Her talents as a chorus girl are limited, but she'll be able to trade in on that beauty.<br /><br />Her odyssey starts with her and friend Patsy Kelly getting an invitation to perform at a party thrown by millionaire Lewis Stone. But unbeknownst to Jean, Stone's just having a wild last fling before doing himself because of the moneys he owes not owns. Still she wrangles a few baubles from him that fellow millionaire Lionel Barrymore notices. <br /><br />Lionel's amused by it until Jean sets her sights on his playboy son, Franchot Tone. After that he is not amused and he looks to shake Jean from climbing the family tree.<br /><br />The Girl From Missouri went into production mid adaption of The Code so it went under peculiar censorship. I've a feeling we would have seen a much more risqué film. Still Jean Harlow as a younger and sassier version of Mae West is always appreciated. What a great comic talent that woman had, seeing The Girl From Missouri is a sad reminder of the great loss the world of film sustained with her passing three years later.<br /><br />Ironically enough the casting of Patsy Kelly with Harlow was no doubt influenced by the successful shorts Kelly was making with another famous platinum blonde, Thelma Todd. Harlow and Kelly have the same easy chemistry between that Patsy had with Thelma. Todd would also die a year later in a freak accident/suicide/homicide that no satisfactory explanation has ever really been given. <br /><br />Don't miss The Girl From Missouri, it's bright and sassy, must be from all that sparkling jewelry. | 1pos
|
This film has slipped through the cracks of film history. It is by far much better than some other New York films of the same era such as: "The French Connection" or "The Taking of Pelham 1-2-3". There is a gritty reality to this film which also manages to effectively use humor to further the plot line. It's engaging from start to finish and hasn't tarnished with age as is the case with the above two examples.<br /><br />Ron Liebman turns in a bravura performance as "Batman" and it's a shame his career didn't take off as a result of this project.<br /><br />Gordon Parks directs and, coming as it does after "Shaft", it at first appears to be a strange choice. Yet it is the flip side of that earlier effort and approached with just as much in your face machismo.<br /><br />Unfortunately this film has not been made available on either DVD or VHS in the United States. United Artists really has a gem on their hands and it's a shame they're not doing anything with it. | 1pos
|
Gordon Parks, the prolific black Life magazine photographer, made a true ticking-timebomb of a movie here - one that does not mess around! Based upon the true story of two NYC cops - later dubbed Batman and Robin - who singlehandedly employed radical tactics to clean up their precinct neighborhood of drugs, this is a cop-buddy movie before that term became a repetitive formula. Lightning paced, there is not one unimportant throwaway scene here.<br /><br />Man, early '70s NYC must have been a terrible place to be a police officer, from the looks of movies like this and "Serpico." These two cops start out as safety-division rookies, busting dealers in plainclothes in their spare time. But instead of receiving applause from the city police department, they receive nothing but resistance and antagonism from their peers. They have to singlehandedly navigate a minefield of police and legal corruption, boneheaded assignments meant to keep them from their work on the streets, ruthless drug kingpins, and a nasty ghetto neighborhood.<br /><br />Both David Selby and Ron Leibman are fantastic in the leads; part of the entertainment is watching Leibman's eyes darting around crazily in every scene in what is a flawless comic performance, and Selby's acting is low-key and wry. These two make all the comedy aspects of the story work - displaying a palpable frustration mixed with gutsy determination. Director Parks, who was already known for his coverage of controversial subjects in his photography, does not shy away from the grittiness of the story. Rather, the movie is uncompromising in portrayal of the toughness of the world of police and streets criminals that these two men inhabit. Adding to this realism is the fact that the real Hantz and Greenberg acted as technical advisors for the film, and even appear in surreal cameo roles as two fellow officers who ridicule the protagonists. It is a real tribute to the effectiveness of Parks' direction that he manages to perfectly balance this depressing mileu with bright comedy.<br /><br />Why has MGM/UA let this sit on the shelf for 30 years - barely giving it a home video or DVD release in the U.S? It is a minor masterpiece from the 1970s. | 1pos
|
I read the book and saw the movie. Both excellent. The movie is diamond among coals during this era. Liebman and Selby dominate the screen and communicate the intensity of their characters without flaw. This film should have made them stars. Shame on the studio for not putting everything they had behind this film. It could have easily been a franchise. Release on DVD is a must and a worthy remake would revive this film. Look for it in your TV guide and if you see it listed, no matter how late, watch it. You won't be disappointed. Do yourself another favor - read the book (same title). It'll blow you away. Times have changed dramatically since those days, or at least we like to think they have. | 1pos
|
I loved this movie!!! The characters were people that you could feel for. The young man back from the service still in love with the girl he left behind. Tom Drake is always perfect in the romantic lead as well as Donna Reed as the love of his life. The looks he gives her as if he has been starved for the sight of her as well as her hesitation and confusion as too her feelings for him were played very well. The rest of the quirky characters at the store were perfect as they tried to bring them together. The most touching scene however, was the young couple at his great grandfather's house. I laughed in parts, cried in some and thoroughly enjoyed watching this movie. In fact I've re-watched it about 5 times. A definite must see for total romantics. | 1pos
|
The arch title doesn't fit this gentle romantic comedy. Donna Reed and Tom Drake don't have much chemistry -- but their characters aren't supposed to. Both are extremely likable and attractive.<br /><br />The supporting cast is a dream -- with the exception of Sig Ruman's annoying faux Russian. | 1pos
|
My observations: Postwar hilarity. Tom Drake and Grandpa from "Meet Me in St. Louis" two years later (the year I was born). Donna Reed charming and pretty. Margaret Hamilton good as always; smaller part than in "Wizard of Oz". Spring Byington way prettier, also with the prerequisite perky small nose lacked by Hamilton. Tent scene at end with former boy next door was hilarious. As a two year veteran of Army tents, he looked pretty youthful and inexperienced when I looked into his eyes.<br /><br />I used to work in a department store, and it was just as elegant as this one. Sadly, it has disappeared and faded into obscurity. We were famous for those great show windows that were used to lure passersby into the store, to get them to buy all of that wonderful merchandise.<br /><br />10/10 | 1pos
|
On the surface, this is an above-average post-war romantic comedy. Beneath the veneer, it is MGM character actor stunt-casting at its funniest.<br /><br />The leads are straightforward, but all the secondaries are cast much against type. Margaret Hamilton (aka Wicked Witch of the West), Edward Everett Horton (professional obsessive-compulsive fussbudget), and Sig Ruman (the Marx Brothers' nemesis in _Night In Casablanca_ and the always-wonderful _Night At The Opera_), playing a well-intentioned gang trying to bring the two leads together, instead of driving them apart as their "usual" characters would do.<br /><br />It also pokes fun at many romantic-comedy conventions, which is another indication that this could be not so much a "straight" romantic comedy, as it is a wry send-up of the many post-war romantic comedies & their 2-dimensional, stock characters.<br /><br />I've seen it only once, with interruptions, so I can't be positive, but this movie may be one of those that worked better in the context of the time at which it was made, but is less successful now that viewers "see" these secondary characters through a completely different lens. I'm assuming this is the case when I give it 9 stars. I thought it was hysterical. | 1pos
|
Charleton Heston wore one, James Franciscus wore one but Mark Wahlberg opts not to don the traditional loin cloth. I hope no one casts him as Tarzan. Linda Harrison wore a bikini in the first 2 Planet movies but Estrella Warren barely shows cleavage - her hair is always in the way. Tim Burton could have sexed up this simian saga & given the adults in the audience something to look at. Even the chaste Helena Bonham Carter never gets out of her costume which looks like a large curtain. She's cute but all the the love stuff is restricted to anxious looks & a little bitty kiss at the end. As in Artificial Intelligence which discusses inter species sex between robots & humans but never delivers - Planet of the Apes hints at inter species romance between the humans & the apes but only hints. Lisa Marie is the only ape that dares to be sexy. This movie has three great actors Tim Roth, Ms. Carter & Paul Giamatti chewing up the scenery as a trio of apes & they are fun to watch. Superlative make up (a certain Oscar) costumes, sets, music make this the hit summer movie of 2001. | 1pos
|
Take this movie for what it is, not a remake, but a completely different approach to the same concept. It's not an epic like the original, it's more of a popcorn thriller. Visually, it's incredible. Everything else was just OK. <br /><br />For what it is, I think the movie is awesome, but I like everything Burton has done. People need to calm down and stop acting like it's the end of the world b/c of this movie. It wasn't supposed to be a remake, and it's not. <br /><br />The ending was cool. . I took it as a parallel universe. | 1pos
|
....after 16 years Tim Burton finally disappoints me!!!! Whatever happened to the old Burton who read "The Dark Knight Returns" by Frank Miller as research for his preparation to direct Batman back in 1988-89? By the looks of it Burton didn't research the book nor the movie cause he got everything WRONG! This movie sucks! It's not as good as the original and it doesn't deal with the same subject as the original. If you want a good ape movie watch the original.<br /><br />**out of****stars | 1pos
|
ATTENTION, SPOILER!<br /><br />Many people told me that «Planet of the Apes» was Tim Burton's worst movie and apart from that much weaker than the original film. So I decided not to see it. Another friend of mine who hadn't seen the movie yet, advised me to watch it in spite of this because `a Tim-Burton-movie is still a Tim-Burton-movie'. I decided to do it, and I found that he was right.<br /><br />It's clear that a remake of such a famous film as `Planet of the Apes' is automatically influenced by commercial thinking. Still, Tim Burton managed his film to represent his weird playfulness just as well as `Beetlejuice' or `Batman'. If you are already fond of Burton-movies, it's hard not to like one of his films, even if it has some flaws: nerve-racking monkey squeals, over-dressed apes and a leading actor who could have been, without difficulties, replaced by anbody else.<br /><br />What the film gives us in the first place, is an answer to the question: What's the result when Tim Burton is instructed to create a remake? First of all, Burton wouldn't be Burton, if he wouldn't refuse to call it a remake from the start; it's a `re-imagining'. On the other hand, Burton knows that almost every viewer of his movie has seen the very first film version starring Charlton Heston (as human), and he knows that a remake doesn't exist without its model and that the two films will not stop being compared. So all he does is playing with this comparison at every moment of his film, e. g. by referencing to quotes. Concerning the story-line, Burton does a brilliant job by answering open questions of the original first, and then driving the whole audience to despair by destroying this wonderful clarity and ending the movie with AND HERE IS THE SPOILER Leo coming back to earth and finding himself inside a world that seems to have been ruled by apes forever. <br /><br />Now, this is the burtonesque answer to people's expectations they hold because of the astonishing, shocking ending of the first `Planet of the Apes'. An ending, even more unexpected, more astonishing and: completely confusing, because and here I'm disagreeing with various `Planet of the Apes'-homepages and -platforms it does not make any sense. There cannot be a meaning to it, or just a so complicated one that it becomes ineffective. Tim Burton is playing his cruel games, he does it with a grin and he does it well. Burton fans will sure like it, others may feel betrayed and complain about some sort of manierism. Well, and I don't think producers will ever ask Burton to direct a remake again
| 1pos
|
Kim Basinger stars as Della, a housewife who has twin children (Terri and Tammi-played by Luke Gair and Erika-Shaye Gair) and an abusive jerk for a husband (Kenneth), played by Craig Sheffer.<br /><br />The movie opens on Christmas Eve. Kenneth is on his way home from work, driving a nice car too I might add. He is on his cellphone arguing with a business partner I would assume. When he gets home, he sees that the floor is a mess with shoes and toys spread all about. This angers him even more and he takes up with his wife, Della, asking her why the house is always a mess. He pins her up against the wall. The twin's watch from the stairs. He punches the wall, leaving a hole in it and walks away. She tends to the children, trying to comfort them. After that is all said in done, she needs to go to the mall to do some last minute shopping and because she is out of wrapping paper. She gets there and the parking lot is full because there is a lot of last minute shoppers there. While she is looking for a parking space, she notices a car taking up two spaces and this irks her. She finally finds a spot to park, makes her way over to the hoggish car and leaves a note under the wiper calling the owner a "selfish jerk". Then she goes in the mall to do her last minute shopping.<br /><br />When she finally does leave the mall, it is closing and many people have left already. Not the owner of the car she left the note on however and she notices this on the way to her vehicle. She also notices that the note she left under the wiper is no longer there. Odd. When she gets to her vehicle, she gets in to start it up. She notices a car coming up behind her and it blocks her from backing up. She gets out of the car only to be confronted by the owner of the car (Chuckie-played by Lukas Haas) she left the note on and a posse of his thug friends. Yelling ensues and a mall cop (no, not Paul Blart) makes his way over to them to see what the problem is, only to have his brains blown out of his head by Chuckie. While this happens, Della jumps in her vehicle, starts it and drives over the median in front of her. Chuckie and his posse hop in his car and give chase. Della ends up crashing her vehicle into a log pile at a housing development but she is unharmed. She manages to make it to the back of her vehicle, open up the hatchback and grab a toolbox before the thugs get there. <br /><br />With that, Della spends the rest of the night trying to outrun and out wit the thugs armed with only the tools that she has in her toolbox as weapons. The first kill, in my opinion, is the best. The first kill that Della performs anyway. The last one was probably the weakest and it should of been the best considering that this was the main bad guy she was offing. <br /><br />I will admit that there will be some that are put off buy the ending and I was let down a bit myself. As a whole though it was a fun flick and moves along nicely at it's 1 hour and 20 minute run time. | 1pos
|
In all my 60 years of age, I have learned that when we watch a movie there is an identification (whether we want it or not) implicit with an specific character.<br /><br />Sometimes because the character executes certain gesture, sometimes because the character speaks determinate word, or sentence that we use or that we would like to use in determinate situation.<br /><br />The movie in question, should be seen by this point of view. Who now find a parking space in a mall,downtown, or in the street - taken by a car whose driver can't remember to think that he is not the only driver in the world?<br /><br />Who hasn't the urge to "rubber out" the ill mannered spat?<br /><br />Haven said that I ask: - Did you identify with DELLA (played by Kim Bassinger)? If your answer is: YES!, then try not to find absurd details comparatively with life's reality in the movie, because you'll certainly find the movie ridiculous.<br /><br />Abstractions made, you will see that the movie has moments of surprise, such as: 1- In the sequence in which Della grabs the box of tools in the trunk (does that box contains a gun, and does she haves the guts to use it?); 2- In the sequence in which Terry dies whilst falling; 3- In the sequence in which Della gets attracted by Chuckie's "mermaid's call".<br /><br />If you have already seen the movie, or if are planning seeing, keep in mind that there are "realistic" movies, "fiction" movies, "political" movies, and movies in which you can "wash your soul"
To exemplify the last one, we can quote: "Tropa de Elite".<br /><br />According to newspaper's , there was unanimous applause when BOPE officials take certain attitudes. (As I have seen the movie in DVD, I could not ascertain the audience's reaction)
<br /><br />As for the direction part (Susan Monford), interpretations (Kim Bassinger, Lukas Haas, Craig Scheffer, etc. Edition (William M. Anderson 'Dead Poets Society', 'Green Card' exceptional edition, 'Robocop 2', etc. It is well situated in context. In a scale of 1(Awful) to 10(Master Piece), I rate "When She Was Out" a 7(Regular). | 1pos
|
While returning from a Christmas Eve shopping trip, an abused suburban housewife (Basinger) finds herself in a fight for survival after a disagreement with a group of delinquent youths takes a violent turn.<br /><br />Suffering the indignity of a straight to DVD release here in the U.K., Susan Montford's directorial debut will perhaps not be given the recognition it deserves. This is a shame, as the standard of the writing, directing and acting is very good indeed, and certainly surpasses the quality of your average straight to DVD flick.<br /><br />Kim Basinger gives her best performance in some time as the downtrodden wife of an abusive husband (Craig Sheffer). While Sheffer is not really given anything more to do than be a threatening presence, it is in their brief scenes together that Basinger connects - showing painful vulnerability yet hinting at the rage that will eventually boil over in her confrontations with the youths. It's a truly great, understated performance, her transformation from victim to aggressor is seamlessly played.<br /><br />Lukas Haas I initially thought was miscast, as he (along with the other three youths) just did not seem much of a threat. However, had all four youths been more physically imposing, the later scenes in which Basinger turns the tables against them would not have worked at all. The fact that these are four average men, albeit slightly unhinged, is the key to why the film works as well as it does.<br /><br />Apart from a few pacing issues during the latter half of the movie and a couple of cheesy lines here and there, what we have here is a great thriller that actually leaves the viewer with something to think about when the film is over. Some may be put off by the slow - burn nature of the opening scenes, or the abrupt ending. Others by the at times brutal violence. I say give it a chance, it's certainly more deserving of your time than Saw V. | 1pos
|
For Columbo fans, such as myself, this is the episode of episodes that made a case for why Columbo was so popular, and just how good it really was. Ruth Gordon has a field day (as ever) playing the wittily intelligent crime novelist Abigail Mitchell. Seems Abigail calls her nephew-in-law to sign some papers making him her heir. She never got over her niece's death, and is convinced her dead niece's husband (Charles Frank) did the dirty deed. To tell more would be unthinkable. Mariette Hartley has a sly role as Abigail's personal assistant. This episode of Columbo is in a class by itself. It's a truly well made television movie. I recommend it most highly. | 1pos
|
Don't waste time reading my review. Go out and see this astonishingly good episode, which may very well be the best Columbo ever written! Ruth Gordon is perfectly cast as the scheming yet charming mystery writer who murders her son-in-law to avenge his murder of her daughter. Columbo is his usual rumpled, befuddled and far-cleverer-than-he-seems self, and this particular installment features fantastic chemistry between Gordon and Falk. Ironically, this was not written by heralded creators Levinson or Link yet is possibly the densest, most thoroughly original and twist-laden Columbo plot ever. Utterly satisfying in nearly every department and overflowing with droll and witty dialogue and thinking. Truly unexpected and inventive climax tops all. 10/10...seek this one out on Netflix! | 1pos
|
A top notch Columbo from beginning to end. I particularly like the interaction between Columbo and the killer, Ruth Gordon.<br /><br />As an avid Columbo fan, I can't recall another one in which he doesn't set up the killer at the end as he does in other episodes. In this one, as he's trying to determine the correct sequence of the boxes and the "message" that the nephew left behind, it finally dawns on him.<br /><br />The music in this episode is very good as well, as it is in many of other ones. | 1pos
|
Ruth Gordon at her best. This episode is my favorite of the whole Columbo series. Peter Falk and Ruth Gordon worked so well together that they should both be inducted into the television hall of fame, regardless of the rest of their work. Even the music was outstanding in this episode. | 1pos
|
I have a lot of time for all the Columbo films, but this one in particular was extremely well written, and the solution at the end very effective. However, my main memory of this one is the opening of a scene in the middle of the film, between Columbo and the murderer (I apologise if I've not remembered every detail of this exactly). It's the most striking image of Columbo I've seen: the view is from inside the darkness of the cupboard where the victim was murdered, and into the room beyond, which is lit up by daylight. Columbo is sitting in a high-backed armchair facing the doorway (and us), contemplating the cupboard, and almost in silhouette due to the contrast in light. There's no sound. The camera slowly moves out of the room and up towards him. He's deep in meditation, puffing gently on a cigar, swirls of smoke from the cigar circling slowly upwards as he thinks. Then the dialogue starts. Superb. | 1pos
|
Ruth Gordon is one of the more sympathetic killers that Columbo has ever had to deal with. And, the plot is ingenious all the way around. This is one of the best Columbo episodes ever. Mariette Hartley and G. D. Spradlin are excellent in their supporting roles. And Peter Falk delivers a little something extra in his scenes with Gordon. | 1pos
|
I love this episode of Columbo. Maybe it's because Ruth Gordon is in it and she is wonderful as successful mystery writer Abigail Mitchell, an American version of Dame Agatha Christie. She is delicious to watch as the perky, lovable author who suffered a terrible loss when her niece died in a drowning accident. She blames her niece's husband, the nephew. She plans to kill him to avenge her death since the police have abandoned her. I would have loved somebody else than Mariette Hartley to play Veronica. I never really like Hartley in anything personally. And of course with Columbo, there are some laughs like when he questions Veronica at a belly-dancing class. Ruth's Abigail is a smart sleuth herself and she matches wits with Columbo always played wonderfully by Peter Falk. | 1pos
|
Since I first saw Anchors Aweigh in 1945, viewing it on videotape holds a lot of nostalgia for me. At age 15, it was easy for me to be drawn into the first of the great MGM Technicolor musicals. Now I am perhaps most interested in thinking about the future careers of the leading players. Though Sinatra had done a couple of negligible films soon after his emergence after his Dorsey days, as a solo singer, this was his first major film appearance. As another viewer noted, this seems almost to be a warm-up for On the Town. Sinatra may have had to work hard at it, but his dance with Kelly is credible, and he would do better in their next pairings. However, observing his physique, it's easy to see why he was caricatured as a string bean. Who would have imagined that within a decade he would win an academy award for acting, and go on to play many roles as a tough detective or leader in combat. Though Gene Kelly's personality and dancing dominated this film, his winsome performance did not suggest that he would become a major creative force, almost the iconic figure, for MGM musicals, where he developed a style of dance complementary to that of Fred Astaire. Finally, it was strange to see the fresh-faced Dean Stockwell and remember that he would later play a "thrill" killer in Compulsion, based on the Leopold-Loeb murder from the 1920s. An additional note: One reviewer praised the performance of Betty Garrett as Sinatra's love interest. She later played opposite him in On the Town, but Pamela Britton was featured in this film. | 1pos
|
Overall this is a delightful, light-hearted, romantic, musical comedy. I suppose a small case could be made for the movie being to long. But I'm not sure what you would cut out. The singing that Kelly and Sinatra do? No. The fabulous dancing that Kelly does? No. The time the movie takes to develop the story line and develop the relationships of the characters? No (that seems to be a common complaint many times that more recent movies don't develop the characters).<br /><br />Some comment that Iturbi didn't bring much to the movie but this gives us a chance to see and hear a great talent from the 1040s. So what if he wasn't an actor? He was an important part of the movie as the basic plot was to get Grayson an audition with him. <br /><br />Originally Katherine Grayson wanted to be an opera star. Louis B. Mayer brought her to MGM for a screen test that included an aria. During her audition in the movie there is a shot of the MGM brass nodding and smiling. You can just imagine it was like that when she had made her real screen test years before.<br /><br />This movie is so full of life it is hard to hit all of the highlights. Great use was made of color and lighting throughout the movie. You can see why Frank Sinatra became the star he did. A nice counter-point in the movie is how Sinatra (a ladies man even then) played the role of wanting to just find a date while on leave. You'll feel good after seeing this movie. 7/10 | 1pos
|
This one has a lot going for it - Sinatra, Styne, Cahn, Pamela Britten -and a lesser amount of dross - Iturbi, Grayson - plus a little ho hum - Kelly. It was Sinatra's first real movie where the producer's spent a buck and you could see it on screen (previously he'd appeared in two low-budgeters, Higher And Higher and Step Lively) but if they'd only relied on the Sinatra pipes and deep sixed Grayson's plus Iturbi's ego-tripping piano spots we'd have been left with a much tighter movie and a better showcase for Sinatra. As it is he scores heavily in all his songs from the two duets with Kelly - We Hate To Leave, I Begged Her - to his own solos, What Makes The Sunset, The Charm Of You and I Fall In Love Too Easily. Despite this Step Lively remains the best Sinatra musical of the forties on one tenth the budget. | 1pos
|
Joseph Brady and Clarence Doolittle are two sailors, who have a four-day shore leave in Hollywood.Joe knows everything about girls and can't wait to see Lola, while Clarence is shyer and needs some advice from his buddy on how to meet girls.They then run into a little boy, Donald Martin, who has ran away in order to join the navy.They take him home and meet his beautiful aunt Susan, who wants to be a singer.Clarence wants Susie to be his girl, but his shyness gets in the way.But he doesn't feel shy with a waitress, who comes from Brooklyn, like he does.Soon Joe notices he's in love with Susie.The boys are in a fix when they lie to Susie on meeting with a big time music producer they don't even know.As they are in a fix with their feelings.George Sidney's Anchors Aweigh (1945) is a great musical comedy.Gene Kelly is top-notch, once again, in his singing and dancing routines.Frank Sinatra is terrific as the shy guy from Brooklyn.Shy isn't the first thing that comes to mind when you think of Frank Sinatra, but he plays his part well.Kathryn Grayson is fantastic as Susan Abbott.We sadly lost this gifted actress and operatic soprano singer last month at the age of 88.The 9-year old Dean Stockwell does amazing job as the little fellow wanting to become a sailor.Jose Iturbi does great job performing himself.It's magic what he does with the piano.Edgar Kennedy plays Chief of police station.Sara Berner is the voice of Jerry Mouse.There's a lot of great stuff in this movie and some fantastic singing and dancing numbers.Just look at Kelly and Sinatra performing "We Hate to Leave".It's so energetic."If You Knew Susie (Like I Know Susie)" is quite funny.It's a nice moment when Frank sings Brahms' Lullaby to little Dean Stockwell.It's lovely to listen to Grayson singing the tango "Jealousy" .The most memorable sequence is the one that takes into the animated fantasy world, and there Gene sings and dances with Jerry Mouse.Also Tom Cat is seen there as the butler.They originally asked Mickey Mouse but he refused.The movie was nominated for five Oscars but Georgie Stoll got one for Original Music Score.Anchors Aweigh is some high class entertainment. | 1pos
|
The United States was still fighting World War II (the movie was released in between VE day and VJ day). Any studio worth its salt was either making fighting movies where fearless American soldiers beat the enemy, or Americans in general were singing and dancing. Technicolor Musicals were what America thrived on in the depressing days when everything was rationed. Most musicals of the day were simply a bunch of musical numbers strung together with the best available plot slipped in to fill time til the next musical number! I get the feeling now that the people reviewing this movie were all born after 1970. Depressing how quickly we forget.<br /><br />This film could've been called "The Search for Jose Iturbi" but now everyone wonders why. Allow me to explain. From 1929--his arrival in America--until his death in 1980, Iturbi was one of the finest pianists to grace a concert stage. He agreed to do a few movies in 1942, but Hollywood had been after him for nearly a decade at that time. Not only an excellent pianist, but a successful conductor as well, Iturbi was very much a household word for more than 40 years. <br /><br />The scene where Iturbi and 17 other pianists play one of Liszt's Rhapsodies was planned early on--and hasn't anyone ever noticed the other pianists were all children? Joe Pasternak, who produced that movie & many other MGM musicals, credited Iturbi with interesting America's youth in classical music. Grayson's wanting an audition with Iturbi in the movie was not unlike real life at the time. Everyone wanted Iturbi back then. The joke among soldiers was that "GI" meant "Get Iturbi" (he did a lot of concerts at military bases).<br /><br />Gene Kelly was a great dancer and Frank Sinatra an excellent singer, but at the time this movie was made Sinatra was barely 30 and had only been under contract to Columbia Records for four years. Kelly was already well-known as a dancer, but Iturbi had by then been a world-wide sensation for 20+ years.<br /><br />And as to the lack of a plot, Americans didn't need plot. They were tired of war, they were sick with fear for their loved ones, and worried about the future. They needed happiness and hope and the assurance that things would work out fine in the end. They needed music and smiles and joy and romance. This movie and others like it delivered just what was needed.<br /><br />Enough lecturing. Mouse dancing aside, the best scene in the movie occurs between Sinatra and Iturbi with each of them "ignorantly" complimenting the other's music.<br /><br />If you have any interest in Jose Iturbi, the Spaniard who conquered more of America than De Soto, Cortez, and De Leon put together, please drop by my website, www.joseiturbi.com, where you can find a plot summary, excerpts from movie reviews "of the day" and pictures from this and certain other MGM musicals of the 1940's, as well as a biography and discography of Iturbi.<br /><br />Trout | 1pos
|
This film (like Astaire's ROYAL WEDDING - which was shown after it on Turner Classic Network last night) is famous for a single musical sequence that has gained a place in Gene Kelly's record: Like Fred Astaire dancing with a clothing rack and later dancing around a room's walls and ceiling, this film had Gene Kelly dancing in a cartoon sequence with Jerry Mouse. The sequence is nicely done. What is forgotten is that Kelly is telling the story behind the cartoon sequence to Dean Stockwell and his fellow child students at school during a break in the day, and sets the stage for the sequence by having Stockwell and the others shut their eyes and imagine a pastoral type of background. Kelly even changes the navy blues he actually wears into a white "Pomeranian" navy uniform with blue stripes on it. Jerry Mouse does more than dance with Gene. He actually talks - a first that he did not repeat for many decades. He also finally puts Tom Cat into his proper place - Tom briefly appears as King Jerry's butler, trying to cheer him with a platter of cheeses.<br /><br />But the sequence of the cartoon with Kelly took about seven minutes of the movie. Far more of this peculiar film is taken up with Kelly's story of the lost four day furlough in Hollywood, and how Kelly ends up meeting Katherine Grayson and (with Frank Sinatra) stalking Jose Iturbi at the MGM film studio, the Hollywood Bowl, and Iturbi's own home. Except that the two sailors mean no harm this film could have been quite disturbing.<br /><br />Kelly has saved Sinatra's life in the Pacific, and is getting a medal as a result. They are both among the crewmen back in California who are getting a four day leave. But the script writers (to propel what would be a short film - Kelly has plans to spend four days having sex with one "Lola", an unseen good time girl in Hollywood) saddle Gene with Frank. <br /><br />It seems Frank is one of those idiots that appear in film after film of the movie factories (particularly musical comedies) who are socially underdeveloped and in need of "instruction" about meeting girls (or guys if the characters are women). Frank insists that Gene help "teach him" how to get a girl. Just then a policeman takes them to headquarters to help the cops with a little boy (Stockwell) who insists on joining the navy (and won't give the cops his real name and address). When a protesting Kelly is able to get this information out of Stockwell by asking him some straight questions (which the cops could not ask), they insist Kelly take the boy home to his aunt (Grayson). Still protesting, Kelly gets saddled with increasingly complicated problems (mostly due to Sinatra's simplistic soul view of things). He misses seeing Lola the next day by sleeping late - Sinatra felt he looked so peaceful sleeping he did not wake him up. He keeps getting dragged back to Grayson's house, as Sinatra feels she is the right woman for himself, but needs Kelly to train him in love making.<br /><br />I suppose my presentation of the plot may annoy fans of ANCHORS AWEIGH, but I find this kind of story irritating. While the singing and dancing and concert music of Kelly, Sinatra, Grayson, and Iturbi are first rate, it is annoying to have to take the idiocies of someone like Sinatra's character seriously. In the real world Kelly would have beaten the hell out of him at the start for following him at the beginning of the four day furlough - what right has he to insist (as Sinatra does) that someone who saves their life should assist him on learning how to date? That kind of crap always ruins the total affects of a musical for me - unless the musical numbers are so superior as to make me forget this type of nonsense.<br /><br />The stalking of Iturbi is likewise annoying. Kelly tries to get Grayson to like Sinatra when he says Sinatra can get her a meeting with Jose Iturbi to audition her singing ability. For much of the rest of the picture Sinatra and Kelly try to do that, and keep floundering (at one point - for no really good reason - Grayson herself ruins Kelly's attempt to get an interview at MGM with Iturbi). It is only sheer luck (that Iturbi feels sorry for an embarrassed Grayson) that she does give him an audition of her talent. <br /><br />Kelly, by the way, ends up with Grayson. Sinatra's conscience at not being able to help her see Iturbi makes him ashamed of his bothering her (but not pulling Kelly into it, oddly enough) and he meanwhile accidentally stumbles into meeting a waitress (Pamela Britton) from his native Brooklyn. And naturally, without any assistance from Kelly, Sinatra and Britton fall in love. Ah,"consistency"! Thy name is not "screenwriting" necessarily! | 1pos
|
Although in my opinion this is one of the lesser musicals of stars Frank Sinatra, Gene Kelly, Kathryn Grayson and director George Sidney, a lesser musical featuring anyone from that line-up is nothing to sneeze at, and in conjunction, the line-up makes Anchors Aweigh a pretty good film despite its flaws.<br /><br />Sinatra and Kelly are Clarence Doolittle and Joseph Brady, respectively, two Navy men. As the film begins, they're just pulling in to the Los Angeles area for some much needed leave. Brady plans on visiting a girlfriend named Lola. Doolittle is still a bit wet behind the ears, appropriately enough, and seeks advice on women from Brady in private (publicly, scriptwriter Isobel Lennart and Sidney have all of the Navy men comically exaggerating their finesse with women to each other). Brady promises to help get Doolittle hooked up, but primarily because Doolittle won't leave him alone otherwise. A kink is put into their plans when local police basically force them to assist with a young boy who is obsessed with the Navy. He won't give the police any information about who he is or where he lives. Brady helps and he and Doolittle end up taking the boy back home. When the boy's guardian, Susan Abbott (Grayson), finally shows up, Doolittle goes gaga for her. Brady tries to convince him to forget about her; Brady just wants to get back to Lola. But they keep getting coaxed back to Abbott's home, and eventually something of a love triangle forms. Things become more complicated when Brady lies about Doolittle knowing a famous musician, Jose Iturbi, who is in residence at a film studio, and claims that Doolittle has set up an audition for Abbott, who is a singer and actress, in front of Iturbi.<br /><br />Because of the story, the music is a strange combination of militaristic music--because of the Navy premise, obviously, Broadway pop--what the stars tend to sing in more informal settings, opera--what Abbott's character excels at, Liberace-like popular classical--what Iturbi did, and Mexican music--because Abbott frequents a Mexican restaurant in a Mexican section of L.A. The combination doesn't work as well as it could. Plenty of the songs are good, and everyone involved is certainly talented as a singer or musician, but the genre hopping tends to lose coherence. Worse, there are a couple showcases for Iturbi, who was apparently a big star at the time, that effectively bring the plot to a halt and that seem more than a bit hokey at this point in time. I just watched another film that happened to have outstanding music, Robert Altman's Kansas City (1996), but that misguidedly stopped the plot to periodically turn into a concert film. Anchors Aweigh takes a similar tactic. Yes, this is a musical, but there's a difference between songs that propel and are integral to the plot and concert showcases that seem like contractual obligation material.<br /><br />There are also some plot problems. It's not very well established why Brady is so against Doolittle's pursuit of Abbott. We can guess that Brady thinks Doolittle shouldn't become involved with someone who has to take care of a kid, and who seems relatively "proper" and traditional, but on the other hand, Brady can tell that Doolittle doesn't have the same womanizing disposition that Brady admits of himself. Abbott seems like a good fit for Doolittle, and furthermore, Lennart works hard to establish that Brady just wants to get Doolittle out of his hair and get on with meeting Lola--it seems that Brady's character should be quickly pawning Doolittle off on any candidate, whether she's a good fit or not. This might seem like a minor detail, but it's actually the hinge for about a third to half of the plot. The story also seems a bit drawn out. Length is a problem. Anchors Aweigh, clocking in at roughly two hours and twenty minutes, should have been cut down by at least a half-hour.<br /><br />The above surely sounds like I'm complaining about the film too much to justify an 8. I just wanted to stress what I see as flaws, because the conventional wisdom on Anchors Aweigh is much closer to the idea that it has no flaws.<br /><br />Sinatra, Kelly and Grayson are certainly charismatic, separately and together. They turn in good, interesting performances. Sinatra looks and acts much younger than his actual age of 29 30 while shooting. He plays an unusually naïve, virginal character--completely different than most of the roles he would take later, and different than his public image as a crooner. For Kelly, this was his breakthrough film, and rightfully so. His choreography is varied and impressive, as is his acting. Grayson is charming, her performance is sophisticatedly understated, and she's simply gorgeous. All of this helps override the flaws with the script and the drawn out pacing.<br /><br />And there's even a very interesting element that probably only arises because Sidney was allowed to sprawl over a large variety of moods--the infamous Kelly dance with Jerry the Mouse (of "Tom and Jerry" fame) in an extended fantasy sequence. This is one of the earliest examples of combining live action and animation, and it is extremely well done and enjoyable as long as you're a fan of fantasy. The fantasy sequences tend to be the best of the film. Matched in excellence to the dance with Jerry the Mouse is a long song and dance number featuring Kelly and Grayson, where Brady is imagining Abbott in a scene from a period film while he woos her, having to resort to acrobatic stunts to reach her physically as she stands on a high balcony.<br /><br />As uneven and flawed as the film is, it is largely successful and entertaining to watch. Fans of classic musicals certainly shouldn't miss Anchors Aweigh, and neither should Sinatra fans, who'll get quite a kick out of his character. | 1pos
|
Right from the start you see that "Anchors Aweigh" is a great comedy. Gene Kelly and Frank Sinatra make such a funny team! The songs they sing together are pure entertainment. Kathryn Grayson is gorgeous and really sweet. Dean Stockwell is the cutiest child actor I've never seen. If you are fond of piano, you'll be amazed by José Iturbi. This movie was the first one to combine animation with real actors and it did that wonderfully in an unforgettable dance number. Undoubtedly one of Kelly's funniest movies. | 1pos
|
Gene Kelly, Frank Sinatra, Kathryn Grayson, and Jose Iturbi star in "Anchors Aweigh," directed by George Sidney.<br /><br />Kelly and Sinatra are Joe and Clarence, two navy guys on leave in Hollywood. They meet a little boy (Dean Stockwell) and on taking him home, they meet his aunt (Grayson). Clarence falls for her. She wants an audition for Jose Iturbi. They try to help, but there's a mix-up.<br /><br />This is a very energetic musical with great dancing and singing by Kelly and Sinatra. Kelly gets to dance with Jerry the Mouse in a delightful sequence. Grayson sings Jalousie and My Heart Sings. Not one of my favorite voices, but she does well. Iturbi's piano work is beautiful.<br /><br />Sinatra gets to show his versatility and why the girls swooned over him, with those big blue eyes and boyish face. For Kelly, this was a major break for him at MGM.<br /><br />Wonderful movie, very buoyant. | 1pos
|
Similar to "On the Town," this musical about sailors on shore leave falls short of the later classic in terms of pacing and the quality of the songs, but it has its own charms. Kelly has three fabulous dance routines: one with Jerry the cartoon mouse of "Tom and Jerry" fame, one with a little girl, and a fantasy sequence where he is a Spanish lover determined to reach his lady on a high balcony. Sinatra, playing Kelly's shy, inexperienced buddy, and Grayson, the woman who serves as the love interest for both men, do most of the singing. Iturbi provides some fine piano playing. At nearly two and half hours, it is a bit too long for a light musical but it doesn't drag. | 1pos
|
Usually musicals in the 1940's were of a set formula - and if you studied films you know what I'm talking about - a certain running lenghth, very "showy" performances that were great on the surface but never got into the real personalities of the characters etc.<br /><br />THIS ONE IS DIFFERENT - and light years better and well worth it's nomination for best picture of the year - 1945 (although had no chance of beating the eventual winner - Lost Weekend).<br /><br />Gene Kelly was probably in the best form of his career - yes I know about "American in Paris" and "Singing in the Rain". This one is different. He really gets into his character of a "sea wolf" thinking (at first) that "picking up any girl while on leave" is nothing more than a lark. And if you had to make up a "story" to get her - so be it - until. Sort of like the Music Man when he gets "his foot caught in the door". The eventual hilarity of the film stems mostly from his and his new pal (Sinatra)'s attempt to make the "story" good in order to "get the girl" that he REALLY and unexpectedly falls in love with. You are going to have to see the movie to see what I mean.<br /><br />Besides that there are so many other elements of great film in this one, it's a classic buddy story, nostalgia to a time when WWII was almost over (the war ended about a month after the films release), a realization that a guy that always laughed at life can find out that he really is a great human being, great songs and probably a few other elements of classic film making that I can't think of right now.<br /><br />Why not a 10? Near the end - at nearly 2 1/2 hours starts to feel a bit long. There is a small ballet number that Gene Kelly does that must have been a sensation in 1945 but seems dated and feels like it just adds minutes now. But overall, this ones a definite winner on every level. | 1pos
|
Two sailors are on leave--ladies man Joseph Brady (Gene Kelly) and shy innocent Clarence Doolittle (Frank Sinatra). They meet beautiful Susan Abbott (Kathryn Grayson) and both fall in love with her. There's more but you've probably guessed it.<br /><br />The story (even for a 1940s musical) is ridiculous and everything is so nice and wholesome--gets annoying pretty quick. Also this movie is far too long. It's 140 minutes and that's way too much for such a silly story. There are also some boring numbers by Jose Iturbi and his orchestra. Still this is worth catching.<br /><br />When Kelly is dancing or Sinatra or Grayson are singing this becomes magical. None of the songs are particularly memorable but Sinatra had such a beautiful voice you won't care. It's shot in rich Technicolor with all the gloss MGM had. The acting is OK--Kelly is fine (although seeing him as a ladies man is pushing it) and Sinatra is just great (although seeing HIM as a shy guy was pushing it too!). Grayson is given nothing to do but she's incredibly beautiful to look at. Some shots of her literally took my breath away! There are plenty of highlights here: Sinatra and Kelly's big dancing and singing number; Sinatra singing anything; Grayson's two songs and the justly famous animated sequence in which Kelly dances with Jerry--an animated mouse! Tom does a funny cameo too. Also there's little Dean Stockwell who steals every scene he's in.<br /><br />So it's too long and the plot just doesn't hold up but it's still worth catching. This was a huge hit in its day. | 1pos
|
Absolutely enjoyable singing and dancing movie starring Frank Sinatra and gen Kelly, as well as Kathryn Grayson.<br /><br />The film won and Oscar for George E. Stoll's score, and it garnered nominations for Best Picture, Best Actor for Kelly, and Best Cinematography, as well as a Best Son nomination for "I Fall in Love Too Easily" sung by Sinatra.<br /><br />It was a cute story about Kelly helping his pal Sinatra get a girl and falling in love with her himself. The lovely Grayson (The Toast of New Orleans) dazzled us with her singing, and we had a lot of great songs and dance routines by Kelly and Sinatra, as well as the artistry of pianist-conductor José Iturbi.<br /><br />A classic Hollywood music from an era gone by. | 1pos
|
"Anchors Aweigh" is the product of the classic MGM musical production unit, and on the whole the film is every enjoyable good music by Jule Styne and others, excellent dancing by Gene Kelly (and even a passable job by Frank Sinatra), and a funny well-paced script. The only major element I would criticize would be the casting of Kathryn Grayson, whose presence in a film always means the audience will be subjected to endless pseudo-operatic warbling from the petite Miss.<br /><br />Kelly plays a naval serviceman named Joseph Brady, a man with a mythic reputation around the ship as a lover but whose Valentino-charms are constantly being subdued by the presence of his less cocksure friend with the improbable middle-American name of Clarence (Sinatra). Upon receiving 3 days of shore leave for saving Clarence's life, Joe reluctantly agrees to help Clarence find a girl based on the dubious premise that he owes him something for saving his life. They are drafted by a policeman (Rags Ragland), who needs them to help coax a precocious young boy (Dean Stockwell) who wants to join the Navy into returning home to "Aunt Susan" (Grayson). At first it is Clarence who is interested in wooing "Aunt Susan" but eventually Kelly's character emerges as the more likely candidate.<br /><br />There are several standout musical scenes but nothing to come close to Kelly's more famous work in films like "Singin' in the Rain" and "American in Paris". The closest we get is a gimmicky sequence with Kelly's character in a fantasy sequence dancing with Jerry, the mouse from "Tom and Jerry" (although he seems to be closer in size to a dog or cat here than to a mouse). It's a startling sequence for its time but doesn't have enough complexity or emotion to really stand the test of time. I actually enjoyed the parts of the sequence that took place prior to the animation, where Kelly was using semi-balletic moves to emphasize the transition into the fantasy world and where we see him dance down a tunnel that looks like something right out of "Alice in Wonderland".<br /><br />Eventually the characters find their way to Susan's favorite bar, a somewhat sanitized Mexican restaurant/bar in Tijuana. There the patrons happily allow Ms. Grayson to chirp her arias with abandon, and the management becomes very excited at the opportunity that Clarence and Joe have extended for her to sing with their "friend" Jose Iturbi (playing himself with a light humorous touch). Of course they've never met their "friend" Iturbi and they spend much of the film's length trying to reach him (in an amusing scene Sinatra's character meets Iturbi but mistakes him for a piano tuner and urges him to abandon tuning pianos and try a professional career), sneaking into the studio and the Hollywood Bowl, where Iturbi is rehearsing a surreal symphony comprised of dozens of young piano players you haven't seen anything like this outside of "1000 Fingers of Dr. T". Iturbi himself is a kind of a god-figure in the story he represents the opportunity for salvation from the drudgery of unfulfilling work and the possibility for fame and artistic achievement for the heroine. Everyone is 100% sure that as soon as Mr. Iturbi so much as hears Ms. Grayson, her operatic career will be a reality. The 3 primary characters are desperate to reach him and they think of him as some kind of remote and distant mythological figure a lot of the film's charm and humor comes from the contrast of this perception to the very down-to-earth "real" mannerisms of the maestro. And speaking of Iturbi's contributions to the film, he also provides a very stimulating musical moment with his orchestral interpretation of "Donkey Serenade".<br /><br />When all is said and done, this is a film that nobody who enjoys musicals will want to miss. The majority of the music was written for this film, a nice contrast to recycled soundtracks for other Kelly opuses like "Rain" and "American". Kelly is still at his early peak, adventurous and boisterous in both his dances and his interpretation of the character. Sinatra's voice was never in better form and he rarely had better songs to sing. Stockwell is a charming addition to the clan, and Grayson's character is endearing when she isn't posturing on stage. Iturbi adds that well-grounded but sophisticated tone that perfectly matches the atmosphere and style of the classic-era MGM musical. This is one of the better ones. | 1pos
|
ANCHORS AWEIGH is an entertaining MGM musical that fans of the genre will enjoy but I wouldn't rate it up there with classics like SINGIN IN THE RAIN or THE BAND WAGON. This was the first of three musicals that Gene Kelly and Frank Sinatra appeared in together. Kelly and Sinatra play Joe Brady and Clarence Doolittle, two sailors on leave in Hollywood who befriend a young boy (Dean Stockwell)who introduces them to his attractive young aunt (Kathryn Grayson) a struggling actress who is working as an extra at MGM. Though both guys are initially attracted to Grayson, she eventually voices a preference to Joe but Clarence later hooks up with a waitress (Pamela Britton)who, he learns is from his hometown of Brooklyn. The paper-thin plot leaves room for several great musical numbers including "We Hate to Leave", Joe and Clarence's lament to their fellow sailors as they're leaving the ship; Grayson's torrid rendition of "Jalousie"; Sinatra's dreamy rendition of "I Fall in Love Too Easily" (a number which is sadly deleted from some prints of this film), and "The Worry Song", a fantasy dance that Kelly does with animated Jerry the Mouse from Tom and Jerry fame. Kelly also does a sort of Kissing Bandit fantasy ballet which rivals his Pirate's Ballet in the later THE PIRATE. Kelly is in peak form here, in a robust and energetic performance that earned him his only Oscar nomination for Best Actor and Sinatra's endearingly shy character here is undeniably sexy. An entertaining diversion for fans of the MGM musical factory. | 1pos
|
Incredibly ARTISTIC NOBODY COULD MAKE THEM NOW I THINK.It seem to be perfect the biggest and the greatest musical ever made listen to the beautiful songs the are quite poetry.I'M Italian AND ADMIRED BY American MUSICAL. why can't you do something like that now?American were the best and for that i absolutely show my devotion to you with this movie.there are words to describes the perfection of this movie. all of a sudden my heart sings, what makes the sunset? i fall in love to easily,jealousy...and the scene with Tom and Jerry. the greatest without reserve. if you you doesn't know your eyes are not open my friends you must see it and appreciate...wake up! | 1pos
|
A recent viewing of THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT has given me the urge to watch many of the classic MGM musicals from the forties and fifties. ANCHORS AWEIGH is certainly a lesser film than ON THE TOWN. The songs aren't as good, nor is the chemistry between the characters. But the film beautifully interweaves classical favorites, such as Tchaikovsky. And the scene at the Hollywood Bowl, with Sinatra and Kelly emerging from the woods above it at the top, and then running down the steps, while dozens of pianists play on the piano, is the best scene in the film, even though the scene in which Kelly dances with Jerry Mouse is more famous. Classical music enthusiasts will no doubt identify the music the pianists are playing. Sinatra then croons, "I Fall in Love Too Easily," before having his epiphany about whom he loves. The color is beautiful, Hollywood looks pretty with its mountains and pollution-free air (Can you imagine Hollywood in the twenties, let alone the mid-1940s?!), and the piano music is absolutely glorious. MGM certainly had a flair for creating lyrical moments like these. | 1pos
|
One of the first of the best musicals, Anchors Aweigh features several memorable musical sequences, such as Kelly dancing with Jerry the mouse, Kelly dancing with 7-year-old Sharon McManus, Sinatra singing with Jose Iturbi playing piano, Kathryn Grayson singing with Iturbi conducting, and much more. The Technicolor is perfect, with some innovative camera work such as seeing a piano played from beneath, through transparent keys, and Grayson singing, seen through the finder of another camera. The plot is thin, but you get involved from Kelly's & Sinatra's enthusiasm. Sailor's on leave, they have to take home a runaway boy (Dean Stockwell) and Sinatra falls for his aunt. To set him up with the aunt (Grayson), Kelly suggests that Sinatra can get her an audition with Jose Iturbi. But Sinatra's young and naive in this one, and in his own sung words falls in love too fast. While they're trying to contact Iturbi, who's never available, he starts to fall for another girl (Barbara Britton); but Kelly's now falling love with Grayson. Anchors Aweigh is most often remembered for the combination live-action / cartoon sequence with Tom and Jerry, but there's a lot more here that's worth a look. I'm giving it nine stars because, while it's not quite as good as the best musicals - Singin' In The Rain, The Music Man, Oklahoma - it is one of the first of their class of Technicolor big productions (perhaps Meet Me In St. Louis was the first), and better than most others. | 1pos
|
I really liked this movie. I have seen several Gene Kelly flicks and this is one of his best. I would actually put it above his more famous American in Paris. Sometimes it seems the story gets lost in Gene Kelly movies to the wonderful dance and song numbers, but not in this movie. It is definitely worth renting. | 1pos
|
Ah, a Kelly/Sinatra sailor-suit musical. So familiar, right? Yes, but this isn't the one you usually hear about. On The Town's that-a-way. But if you stick around, you might learn something. Okay, probably not. Anyway, Anchors Aweigh tells the story of two sailors on a three- or four-day leave. Joe is the "Sea Wolf" and Clarence, the bookish type, begs Joe to get him a "dame". Now, after they're picked up by the coppers they get little Donald home. That's where they meet Susie, that temptress, that jezebel. Just kidding! Clarence falls in love with her. At least he thinks he does. Is he right? Or is he a moron? Or is he just misguided by society? Find out all this and more when you watch {trumpet fanfare} ANCHORS AWEIGH!<br /><br />P.S. If you want to see Kathryn Grayson be anything but sickeningly sweet, try Kiss Me Kate (1953). | 1pos
|
For such films like `Anchors Aweigh', few have been bestowed with as many Academy Award accolades in a warm up for happy hour. Either 1945 was a beleaguered year for good film or they were still suffering advance shock by Billy Wilder's `The Lost Weekend' that they wrote anything starting with A on the ballot for best picture to please the still musical picture faithful public. Since Gene Kelly was nominated for this performance instead of his role in `Singin' in the Rain', then there had to be something wrong with the behind the scenes rigging systems at MGM. Of course, the studio is on its best behaviour during this much lauded tour of the great studios and of Hollywood itself, handy for those stuck on the other side of the world.<br /><br />Yet a sailor suit musical with the brilliant talents of Gene and Frank Sinatra is certainly an enjoyable farce, despite the need for more people to yawn at the previews for the musical so today's audiences wouldn't be slapped with an unnecessary runtime. There have been many longer pieces before and since, but in this case all of the charming Kathryn Grayson's scenes could have been eliminated. Until the viewing of `Kiss Me Kate' it may have been necessary non-opera enthusiasts to watch any of her films with remote control in hand. <br /><br />If there was a need to practice picking up women for 1949's `On the Town', then perhaps the shore leave lucky sailors did not have to promise an audition with Jose Iturbi and strike up the piano for a whole hearted `Susie' rendition. Few are lucky to get a screen test at the golden studios of MGM. Then few are even luckier to be attended to. There are no regrets to be had about the successful screen tests of Susan Abbot or Kathryn Grayson, but it makes the continual non-opera enthusiast hope for the eventual pink slip to be handed out to both. <br /><br />But for all, the star talents are good shape and an above average score thrown in with a slight, but fun great navy story intertwined with young ambitious navy boys good for late bursts of wartime morale, makes `Anchors' at least doesn't question picking the wrong MGM film. The direction holds up as the cast carries the story in lovely colour cinematography. Whenever anyone bursts into music or song, the film makes for a joyous occasion.<br /><br />The natural highlight of the film is Gene Kelly's cartoon adventures in a fantasyland, climaxing in a brilliant dance with Jerry the mouse. This is a well-deserved masterpiece number of Kelly's career, and it's nice to know he thought of it before Fred Astaire started taking to dancing on walls and ceilings.<br /><br />It's not exactly sitting down to a triple flavour, rainbow sprinkled, chocolate wafer, cream and cherry and banana split sundae, but it is a square solid lump of sugar that somehow eventually melts in your mouth and despite the guilt, is still a pleasant feeling.<br /><br />Rating: 7/10 | 1pos
|
This has some excellent spots but the length of the film can not sustain the wafer thin plot. It is another sailors on leave film, zippier than Astaire's 'Follow the Fleet' but not as good as 'On The Town'. <br /><br />Kathryn Grayson is bland but Kelly and Sinatra work well together. Their 'If you Knew Susie' number is hilarious as they make up the song as they sing it. 'I Begged Her' is also fun with Sinatra showing how adept he was at hoofing. Sinatra's solo songs are dull and seem to be inserted to show off his singing rather than as part of the story. Fortunately there are accomplished supporting actors like Grady Sutton, Rags Ragland, Carlos Ramirez and Pamela Britton and an unlikely but impertubable Jose Iturbi as himself, to keep one watching.<br /><br />Kelly is the star of the film, although third billed and it is interesting to see him interact with children, which Astaire never did. Dean Stockwell plays a child who wants to be in the navy and latches on to the Kelly character. He also visit a school resulting in him telling the children a fictitious story of his life in the Pomeranian (!)navy which leads to his wonderful dance with an animated Jerry Mouse. In another scene he dances a charming Mexican Hat Dance with a sublimely grave faced little girl, Sharon McManus, that is entrancing and sweet. <br /><br />Very pleasant then but a bit too long. A taster of better musicals to come. | 1pos
|
Yes, this is one of the great musical movies I grew up with with such great entertainers as Frank Sinatra and Gene Kelly, not to mention the petite and glorious voice of Kathryn Grayson. The music and dancing is superb. I understand Frank took lessons from Kelly; and there is Kelly dancing with Jerry Mouse, which is quite unique for the time. Betty Garrett plays the waitress who falls in love with Sinatra. She is one of Hollywood's great underrated stars. I saw this again on A&E TV and as well have it in my old VCR tapes. Never get tired of these old musicals. Whatever happened to Hollywood?? | 1pos
|
Lots of singing and dancing in this one, especially by Gene Kelly. Two sailors go on liberty to see if they can find love and romance. They meet up with a woman who is trying to break into show business. Musical lovers only. | 1pos
|
Though I liked On the Town better I really liked it. I'm a new comer when it comes to Frank Sinatra and Gene Kelly. Though I had heard of them I had never seen anything with them in it until recently. The first one I saw was Singin in the Rain that made me a fan of Gene's. I think that is better too. But I thought that this movie was good and like all movies there are some parts that are better than others but in my book it's an awesome movie and I love it. Frank and Gene make a good team. I have yet to see them together in Take me out to the Ballgame. But I'm sticking to my guns bu saying that I really enjoyed it, and that I love it! | 1pos
|
Virgil Manoven is an old man who lives alone in his remote rural farmhouse.Chasing his beloved cat one morning into the woods around his property,Manoven glimpses what looks like the murder of a young child in the middle of the woods.He reports the crime to the police but there's no body to be found.Troubled by disturbing visions,he investigates further and eventually is guided to a spooky orphanage where events take a supernatural turn
"Soft for Digging" is a fantastic experimental horror with lots of creepy atmosphere to spare.This minimalist film is almost completely devoid of dialogue.Some scenes are genuinely nightmarish and the acting is excellent.The location sets provide plenty of creepiness:the eerie Maryland woods rival those used in "The Blair Witch Projcect".Give this strange horror film a chance.9 out of 10. | 1pos
|
I really think I should make my case and have every(horror and or cult)movie-buff go and see this movie...<br /><br />I did!<br /><br />It-is-excellent: Very atmospheric and unsettling and scary...<br /><br />Incridible how they could make such a gem of a film with the very low(read-"no"!)-budget they had....<br /><br />Synopsis taken from website: "One morning, an old man wanders out into the woods in search of his runaway cat. He finds instead a child without parents and a murder with no corpse..."<br /><br />On this website(IMDb) there is no trailer, but I will leave a link here to the site of the movie itself where there IS a trailer which is quite unsettling so please go and check it out...<br /><br />www.softfordigging.com | 1pos
|
Don't be swayed by the naysayers. This is a wonderfully spooky film. This was a thesis project for the writer/director , JT Petty. He did a great job of having me on the edge of my seat. I never really knew what to expect, and for a jaded horror-movie goer, this is Nirvana! The film concerns an elderly man who lives in a isolated log cabin in the woods. One day, while searching for his cat in the woods, he witnesses the murder of a child, or does he? He agonizes about this the rest of the film. What is most unusual about this film is that here is no dialogue until the last few scenes. I found this to be intriguing. The writer manages to get hold of your senses and gives them a relentless tug. Give this film a go, you won't be disappointed. | 1pos
|
The premise of the story is simple: An old man living alone in the woods accidentally stumble upon a murder of a small child, and tries to convince the police that the murder has occurred. Though very little dialog is provided throughout the film, the visual narrative told by the camera's eye alone made the film quite engaging. The setting of the gray woods conveys a feeling of loneliness, which complements the quietness of the characters themselves. We can also sense helplessness in the old man's inability to convince the police of the murder, which parallels the silenced child's inability to tell her own story.<br /><br />True horror lies in feelings of hopelessness, helplessness, and irrationality. This film successfully addresses these elements by visuals alone, rather than relying on cheap sound effects or blood and gore that other bad horror films use when the narrative is weak.<br /><br />Cleverly, the story unfolds at a slow pace to build up tension for a few creepy and startling moments. The ending is also unexpected and believable. Reminiscent of Japanese horror films, such as "The Ring," and "Dark Water," or English horror films, such as "Lady in Black," and "The Innocents," this film provides viewers the experience of true atmosphere horror. I recommend anyone who enjoys a good chilling to the bone scare to give this film a try.<br /><br />By the way, if you haven't seen the films I just mentioned above, you might want to give them a try as well. | 1pos
|
An old man who lives in the mountains wakes up one morning and loses his cat. He wanders the woods to witness a murder but did he see the murder or is he losing his mind? Is he just getting old? The movie so great because the viewer has to make up their own mind on what is going on. There is very little dialog in this movie but it doesn't need words, the whole movie speaks for itself. You knew what was going on and I liked it.<br /><br />The other part that I liked were the shots of the woods in late fall and winter. Those were pretty but the only thing I didn't like was the view of the old man in his underwear. He could have tied the robe a little tighter but other than that, it was a pretty deep movie. | 1pos
|
This is an excellent film and one should not be put off by its strangeness. There is genuine skill in manufacture of this work. It manages to be intrigiung, funny and frightening at various times. Work with it for the first few minutes and you won't be disappointed | 1pos
|
Saw this film yesterday for the first time and thoroughly enjoyed it. I'm a student of screen writing and I loved the way the minor characters intervened just when something pivotal/climatic happened in a scene. <br /><br />I thought the dialogue was very sharp and the premise of story is rather shocking - at one particular point Barbara Stanwyck is openly flirting with her daughter's boyfriend; AND rekindling some passion in her husband whom she hasn't seen in ten years; AND with the gunshot signal 'two shots and then one' she hooks up with her old shag mate Dutch (the reason she left town in the first place!) ALL AT THE SAME TIME! The moral majority must have been totally incensed when they saw this flick back in the 50's.<br /><br />Love the costumes and cinematography and the straight from the hip dialogue - just to watch Barbara Stanwyck and Co doing the 'Bunny Hug' is good enough reason to rent this film on DVD.<br /><br />One of the best films from that period I've seen in a long time. | 1pos
|
Barbara Stanwyck gives this early Douglas Sirk-directed, Universal-produced soap just the kick that it needs. Not nearly as memorable as Sirk's later melodramas, it's easy to see by watching "All I Desire" where Sirk would be heading artistically in the next few years. Stanwyck is a showgirl who returns to her family in smalltown, U.S.A, after deserting them a decade earlier. Her family and community have mixed emotions in dealing with her shocking return. Some of the cinematography is amazing, and Stanwyck is tough-as-nails and really gives this film a shot of energy. Overall, a fairly good show. | 1pos
|
Yes, I call this a perfect movie. Not one boring second, a fantastic cast of mostly little known actresses and actors, a great array of characters who are all well defined and who all have understandable motives I could sympathize with, perfect lighting, crisp black and white photography, a fitting soundtrack, an intelligent and harmonious set design and a story that is engaging and works. It's one of those prime quality pictures on which all the pride of Hollywood should rest, the mark everyone should endeavor to reach.<br /><br />Barbara Stanwyck is simply stunning. There was nothing this actress couldn't do, and she always went easy on the melodramatic side. No hysterical outbursts with this lady - I always thought she was a better actress than screen goddesses like Bette Davis or Joan Crawford, and this movie confirmed my opinion. Always as tough as nails and at the same time conveying true sentiments. It is fair to add that she also got many good parts during her long career, and this one is by far the least interesting.<br /><br />The title fits this movie very well. It is about desires, human desires I think everyone can understand. Actually, no one seems to be scheming in this movie, all characters act on impulse, everybody wants to be happy without hurting anybody else. The sad fact that this more often than not leads to complications makes for the dramatic content into which I will not go here.<br /><br />I liked what this movie has to say about youth, about maturing and about the necessity to compromise. The movie I associate most with this one is Alfred Hitchcock's Shadow of a Doubt, it creates a similar atmosphere of idealized and at the same time caricatured Small Town America. The story has a certain similarity with Fritz Lang's considerably harsher movie Clash by Night, made one year earlier, where Stanywck stars in a similar part. I can also recommend it. | 1pos
|
This early Sirk melodrama, shot in black and white, is a minor film, yet showcases the flair of the German director in enhancing tired story lines into something resembling art. Set in the 1910's, Barbara Stanwyck is the woman who has sinned by abandoning her small-town husband and family for the lure of the Chicago stage. She never fulfilled her ambitions, and is drawn back to the town she left by an eager letter from her daughter informing her that she too has taken a liking to the theatre (a high school production, that is). Back in her old town she once again comes up against small-mindedness, and has to deal with her hostile eldest daughter, bewildered (and boring) husband (Richard Carlson) and ex-lover. The plot is nothing new but Sirk sets himself apart by creating meaningful compositions, with every frame carefully shot, and he is aided immeasurably by having Stanwyck as his leading lady. It runs a crisp 76 minutes, and that's just as well, because the material doesn't really have the legs to go any further. | 1pos
|
Most italian horror lovers seem to hate this movie since because it has no connection to the first two Demons films. And with the "Demons III" in the title, one would assume it would. The problem is that this film was never intended to be part of the Demons series. The distributors only a "Demons III" above its original title "The Ogre" to cash in on the other films popularity. The new American DVD release of this picture has the title "Demons III: The Ogre" on the box art but the film itself only says "The Ogre". I don't know if past releases had the title "Demons III" on the actual film itself, but this new release just seems to be a little white lie. If you can get past the "Demons III" in the title, you might some enjoyment in "The Ogre". It starts out with a creep intro, and stays pretty creep throughout. There's no gore and the film movies slowly, but I still dug it. Just don't expect it to be like the other Demons films. I give "The Ogre" 7 out of 10. Italian fans should try it out. | 1pos
|
To anyone who hasn't seen this film yet, I have a friendly warning: don't watch "La Casa dell'Orco" expecting any demons at all, because you won't find them here. This film is not a third installment to the "Demons" series and it has nothing to do with it whatsoever, except the fact that Lamberto Bava directed them. As a matter of fact, Michele Soavi's "The Church" is also known an unofficial "Demons 3" and it's a deceptive title in that case as well, so go figure. It is obvious that due to the "Demons" films success; they tried to deceive the audience with misleading titles, even though it is obvious that this is a disconnected story. Having said that, I think it's unfair on the other hand, to say that "La Casa dell'Orco" is not worth the look. Honestly, the movie is quite atmospheric and even though there are a few unintentionally hilarious situations, I thought it was genuinely creepy on the whole. Nevertheless, I think it's fair to say that the story somehow tries to emulate Lucio Fulci's "The House by the Cemetery". Of course, that's just a speculation I have, but I think I have my valid evidences. For instance, in both films, Paolo Marco is the man of the family, in both films, there's an irritating little son named Bobby, in both films, the woman of the house is a beautiful thirty-something, who seems to be the only one to see that there's something really wrong in the new house, and in both films, there's something really, really wrong going on in the basement. I'm sorry but I can relate both films very easily and I'm not saying that as an accusation. For the contrary, my point is that those who enjoyed "The House by the Cemetery" are probably going to enjoy this movie as well, keeping in mind of course, that "La Casa dell'Orco" is far less pretentious, less scary, not nearly as atmospheric, but the formula is still there.<br /><br />In "La Casa dell'Orco", Charel, her husband Tom and their little son, Bobby, go on a vacation trip to an old deserted castle, situated in the heart of an Italian villa called Trifiri. Leaving aside the beauty of the place, shortly after their arrival, Charel starts to have the feeling that she has been there before, which is impossible, considering that she had never been to Trifiri before. Sadly, Charel can't get over her déjà vu and the worst part is that her visions, come along with the image of a horrendous creature going after her. Tom, who is not a very patient guy to begin with, advices her to leave the nonsensical hallucinations aside and enjoy the vacation. However, the woman's visions become more and more real and the peace and quiet that they were supposed to enjoy, suddenly turn into a living nightmare. The old nightmare from Charel's childhood becomes real and this time, she won't be able to escape without confronting that menacing ogre first.<br /><br />As it is expected, the plot somehow turns out to be a little bit simplistic and as a consequence, it is hard to fill an hour and a half. This means that "La Casa dell'Orco" offers more than a couple of sequences with nothing but total silence and the image of the main character, walking around the castle for several minutes, reviving the images of her childhood and nothing else. It gets rather tedious from time to time, but overall, it's nothing serious. Like many Italian horror films that came out throughout the late eighties, this movie is pretty stylish and effective, but it also offers a nice variety of unintentionally funny moments, that make the movie unforgettable in a way. For instance, the part in which Charel is brutally slapped by her husband and instead of going to her bedroom crying like I would have expected, she strikes back against him by punching him on the face really hard and running away to the woods like a maniac. The funniest thing however, is the fact that two minutes later, they're a happy couple again, as if punching each other like that, was the most natural thing in the world. I know it's silly, but I myself, found it absolutely hilarious. The ogre (which is obviously the villain of the story) looks creepy and funny at the same time too and let's face it: a villain who can freak us out and make us laugh a little bit, it's twice as welcomed. It reminded me of Michael Jackson in "Thriller", but much more natural and human, of course. But if focusing on the genuinely good aspects that I mentioned before: the music composed by Simon Boswell is one of the high points and even if it pretty much always the same, it fits perfectly and it helps to create a rather dark atmosphere during the moments of tension. So if I have to give my final statement regarding this movie, I'm going to have to say that I can't help loving it, including the small flaws and most people who enjoy these typical Italian horror movies from the late eighties, won't be disappointed by this one. It has all the typical and always well received clichés, like the crazy old man who actually speaks the truth, the foxy local woman who is said to be a witch, a creepy castle, a huge dark basement with a terrible secret and the local folks who try to prevent the tourist with their hostility, to stay away from the infamous lands. I would say that "La Casa dell'Orco" deserves two thumbs up and a punch at your spouse's face, as a way to pay tribute to the heroine of the story. Take this movie for what it is and enjoy it. | 1pos
|
The Ogre is a film made for TV in Italy and wasn't intended to be a sequel to Demons as Lamberto Bava even mentions it on the interview on the Sheirk Show DVD, but it was called Demons III to be part of the Demons series. The music in Demons and Demons 2 was 80's rock music while this is more creepy music and while the first two was gory horror Demons III: The Ogre is a architectural horror so that's how Demons III isn't a proper sequel to Demons but I still like this film.<br /><br />The music is creepy and that adds a tone to the castle that the film is set in, The Ogre is another thing why I like the film. There are two other films that are classed as Demons III and that is Black Demons (Demoni 3) and The Church (Demons 3). Demons III: The Ogre is a good film as long as you don't compare it with Demons and Demons 2. | 1pos
|
Alright, before we review, I have to ask: why isn't this listed individually? It may have been merely a TV item in Italy, but to international Lamberto Bava fans this is its own FILM. In America this film is distributed on VHS and DVD as either "The Ogre" or "Demons 3". Yes, I know it has nothing to do with "Demons" apart from one cast member and the crew. But yes, I personally was upset that this was so hard to find on this site which is otherwise so useful.<br /><br />Finally, let's review "The Ogre". I've seen the trailer for this many times on YouTube and honestly found that rather scary. The movie itself (it is feature length, therefore making it a movie) has many many strong parts and does manage to scare. I was displeased by the last act, but on the whole I don't regret having bought the DVD before seeing it (available from Shriek Show). I guess the film's TV origins explain the last act. I won't give out any spoilers.<br /><br />The plot is somewhat familiar: an American horror writer vacationing at an ancient spooky castle with husband and son only to find it exactly resembles the setting of her childhood nightmares. There are faint echoes of "The Shining", but this is a different brand of supernatural horror. The woman (Virginia Bryant) finds more and more proof that this is the real life place of her nightmares, but her husband won't believe her. Great atmosphere and terror follow.<br /><br />The multiple nightmare sequences were pretty freaky. The Ogre cocoon effect was good, it reminded me a bit of Uncle Frank's resurrection from the first "Hellraiser". There's also a few good shocks and a well done underwater scene. I give them props that the film never stooped to imitating American films with similar concepts, namely "A Nightmare on Elm Street". "The Ogre" is an original. And the monster itself was a scary one, when it was presented correctly.<br /><br />On the Shriek Show DVD there is a Lamberto Bava interview in which he is careful to mention that this is not part of his classic "Demons" series. He also gives a lot of credit to the real castle in which the movie was filmed. Indeed, this setting contributes a lot to the film. The Simon Boswell music helps too.<br /><br />There's lots of good stuff here. "The Ogre" is not perfect, but it is very much worth seeing. Take it is a lesser Lamberto Bava achievement. | 1pos
|
The Ogre doesn't seem to have won itself a very good reputation since its release in 1988, and I guess a reason for that may be down to the fact that it was given the subtitle 'Demons 3' in order to help it sell better. Well, the film is directed by Lamberto Bava; the man behind the first two Demons films, and ogres and demons are somewhat alike (in that they're both 'monsters' anyway)...but other than that, this film has no connections to the other two films. It is, however, rather good! Italian filmmakers are famous for ripping off popular films, and while it's not completely obvious; it seems to me that this one has taken a fair bit of influence from Hellraiser. The plot focuses on a female horror writer who moves with her husband and son to a castle in Italy. She is haunted by memories from when she was a child and found an Ogre living in her basement. It's not long after moving into the castle before these visions return...and it may be more than just a coincidence as she comes to believe there's a murderous ogre living in the basement.<br /><br />The film was obviously shot on a budget and it was made for Italian TV, so it would be unrealistic to expect something brilliant; but for what it is, this is certainly a very decent horror film. Lamberto Bava may not have as keen an eye as his father Mario did; but he takes time in building up a foreboding atmosphere that really compliments the film well. The central setting, a large castle, makes the perfect place for a story like this to take place in and Lamberto makes the best of it; even if it does involve ripping off superior films at times; such as the Inferno-style pool scene. The plot itself is not quite as good as the atmosphere as several scenes are drawn out far too long and the relationship between the characters is rather strange (particularly between the husband and wife). There's not a great deal of bloodshed, but Bava does get to do a little bit with the special effects. The ogre itself looks really silly and it's a good job that we don't get to see it very often. We do boil down to a fitting, if highly predictable, ending and overall I have to say that this film is much better than expected and comes recommended. | 1pos
|
Best-selling horror novelist Cheryl (a solid and sympathetic performance by the lovely Virginia Bryant), her husband Tom (the likable Paolo Serra), and their son Bobby (nicely played by Patrizio Vinci) go to a remote castle located in the countryside for summer vacation. Local legend claims that the area is cursed. Cheryl discovers a creepy, hairy, nasty ogre (hulking David Flosi in a strikingly hideous costume) living in the basement. Cheryl has to surmount her deep-seated childhood fear of the beast so she can defeat the foul find. Director/co-writer Lamberto Bava does an expert job of creating and sustaining an eerie and unnerving nightmarish mood. Moreover, Bava eschews the standard blood'n'guts fright flick routine in favor of crafting a compelling and provocative dark adult fairytale-like fable on how the best way to overcome that which frightens us is to face said source head on. Sturdy supporting turns by Sabrina Ferilli as friendly school teacher Anna, Stefania Montorsi as hottie babysitter Maria, and Alex Serra as batty painter Dario. Gianfranco Transunto's glossy cinematography boasts a few fluid tracking shots and plenty of great atmospheric lighting. Fabrizio Sforza's gnarly make-up f/x, Simon Boswell's splendidly spirited spooky'n'shuddery score, and the dank, dark, cobweb-covered cellar set all hit the skin-crawling spot. Well worth watching. | 1pos
|
Director Edward Montagne does in a little more than one hour what other, more expensive and hyped films fail to do. Mr. Montagne shows us a police story written by Phillip H. Reisman Jr. that while, is not one of the best of the genre, it keeps the viewer involved in all that's going on.<br /><br />This is clearly a B type movie. In fact, the best thing going for "The Tattooed Stranger" is the opportunity to take a peek at the way New York looked in those years. The crystal clear cinematography by William O. Steiner, either has been kept that way through the years, or has been lovingly restored.<br /><br />There are great views of New York in the opening sequence. Later we are taken to Brooklyn to the Dumbo section and later on the film travels to the Bronx and the Gun Hill Road area with its many monument stores in the area.<br /><br />John Miles and Walter Kinsella made a great detective team. Patricia Barry is perfect as the plant expert from the Museum of Natural History. Jack Lord, who went to bigger things in his career, is seen in a non speaking role.<br /><br />It was great fun to watch a city, as it was, because it doesn't exist any more. | 1pos
|
This police procedural is no worse than many others of its era and better than quite a few. Obviously it is following in the steps of "Dragnet" and "Naked City" but emerges as an enjoyable programmer. The best thing about it is the unadorned look it provides into a world now long gone...the lower class New York of the late 40's/early 50's. Here it is in all its seedy glory, from the old-school tattoo parlors to the cheap hotels to the greasy spoons. These old police films are like travelogues to a bygone era and very bittersweet to anybody who dislikes the sanitized, soulless cityscape of today.<br /><br />Also intriguing is the emphasis on the nuts-and-bolts scientific aspect of solving the crime...in this case, the murder of a tattooed woman found in an abandoned car. Our main heroes, Detectives Tobin and Corrigan, do the footwork, but without the tedious and painstaking efforts of the "lab boys", they'd get nowhere. Although the technology is not in the same league, the cops here use the dogged persistence of a C.S.I. investigator to track down their man.<br /><br />The way some reviewers have written about this movie, you think it would have been directed by Ed Wood and acted by extras from his movies. What bosh! I enjoyed John Miles as the gangly ex-Marine turned cop Tobin...he had a happy-go-lucky, easy-going approach to the role that's a welcome change from the usual stone-faced histrionics of most movie cops of the period. Patricia Barry is cute and delightful as his perky girlfriend who helps solve the crime. Walter Kinsella is stuffy and droll as the older detective Corrigan. I rather liked the chemistry of these two and it made for something a bit different than the sort of robotic "Dragnet" approach.<br /><br />The mystery itself is not too deep and the final chase and shoot-out certainly won't rank amongst the classics of crime cinema, but during it's brief running time, "The Tattooed Stranger" more than held my interest. | 1pos
|
The Tattooed Stranger was another of those rare B-movies that BBC2 screened over Christmas/New Year 2005-2006. See also They Live By Night and The Brighton Strangler.<br /><br />In this one, a man walking his dog in Central Park comes across an abandoned car and discovers a dead woman inside. She was shot and police then try to identify her with only a tattoo as the main clue. After being identified, the murderer is discovered and is shot in the shootout at the end.<br /><br />Most of this movie was shot on location in and around New York, so we get to see some areas of the city we don't normally see, especially the back streets.<br /><br />Mostly unknowns are in the cast, with John Miles getting top billing.<br /><br />The Tattooed Stranger is worth seeking out. Excellent but rather obscure.<br /><br />Rating: 3 stars out of 5. | 1pos
|
This is a neat little crime drama which packs a lot into its 65 minute running time. It has all the right ingredients - a mystery corpse, a weary middle-aged cop Corrigan (Walter Kinsella) and his rookie sidekick Tobin (John Miles), a shadowy killer on the loose and even love interest for the Tobin in the shape of a female botanist Mary (Patricia Wright) who helps solve the crime. There's also a terrific shoot-out finale which takes place in a stone cutters yard.<br /><br />Watch out for a terrific goof near the start of this movie where Lt. Corrigan refers to the dead woman as 'Tatooed Tilly' BEFORE the coroner reveals that she had a tattoo (confusing huh?). Also later when Tobin is chasing the killer across the back yards he is suddenly shown going in the wrong direction at one point - no wonder he didn't catch him! | 1pos
|
Its not sophisticated, and nobody in the credits had a great career, but taken as a whole, because there are no famous personalities; the film seems more realistic than some high budget, well cast films.<br /><br />A film made for a few bucks, that is worthy of watching should give hope to all those would be film makers and wantabee actors.<br /><br />The problem with this film is it was made in the worst possible time. TV was taking over the revenues of the film industry, and this film could have easily been shown on TV. In 1950, all the fare on TV would qualify for a "G" rating. The film industry began to make more "adult" films that could not be shown on TV during the days when TV wouldn't dare show the sex and skin of today's commercials. | 1pos
|
The story: On the island Texel, photographer Bob, who makes a photo shoot for a magazine, meets the mysterious Kathleen. Her free spirit and lust for life intrigues Bob, who has suffered a very traumatic experience shortly before. Her life is not so simple as it seems, however. Through Kathleen, Bob gets entangled in a dangerous network. Will Kathleen be able to win his trust?<br /><br />Review: The dialogue in this movie is very natural and the story unfolds nicely although it stays a bit on the surface and it would have been nice if the character's 'psychology' would have been worked out a little more. Why do these people do the things they do? What motivates their choices? This is what gives a movie depth and something to think about in my view. The story never reaches an emotional climax, even though the characters go through enough to justify that. So you don't get to know the characters on that deeper level. The actors deliver good work and play in a very natural and 'believable' way, but I think it would have suited the movie better if Kathleen had been played by a younger actress, as this character's naiveness doesn't quite work for a grown-up woman. Camera-work is nice, and there are some great shots of the nature on the island. I give the movie a 7/10. | 1pos
|
I happily admit that I'm a sucker for a beautiful film, and sufficiently inventive camera movements and angles can be enough to keep my interest in a fairly long film. Not one the length of Gojoe though, even though it had some of the most remarkable cinematography I've seen since the Korean period piece MUSA. However, Gojoe provides far more than just beautiful images (as does MUSA... don't which to imply a contrast) - it's second greatest strength is superb acting, and a fascinating story with some very dark philosophy. I must admit to being quite unsure what the point was it was trying to make in the end, but it definitely provokes some thoughts along the way. Vague ones, but definitely thoughts :p<br /><br />One department in which the film could have been better is the action. There's a tremendous amount of bloodletting in the film, but the action is all filmed with hyperkinetic close-ups, and frequently obscured by objects in the foreground. It does create some very intense and impressive visuals, but it would have been nice to see some more actual moves, something to make it more believable that the villains could just wade through entire armies laying waste to everyone.<br /><br />Still, the film is definitely one of the most interesting and most beautiful films I've seen for quite some time. Recommended! | 1pos
|
Subsets and Splits