text
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
I have to say the worst part of the movie was the first half hour. I was really confused about who was who. For example, Bill Paxson's character had long hair and was wearing a jacket. Then, when all the males arrived at camp, it turned out there was a character who looked like Bill Paxson, but wasn't. I said where's Bill Paxson? Then, there was a guy with his girlfriend. He said she was 21. This was supposed to be a 20-year reunion of the camp director's (Alan Arkin) most memorable. Later on, this same girl was interacting and talking about her camp experiences. That made no sense. She would have been one years old. That said, the movie turned out to be pretty good. Kevin Pollak was the nice guy who was always being teased. One guy was a complete narcissist, and ended up losing his beautiful girlfriend. Alan Arkin was interesting as an old-style camp director, who admits that he has grown out of touch with modern youth. The best part was that none of the grown-up campers were successes in life. None of them had very great careers. This seemed very real life. The movie was compared to The Big Chill. In some ways it wasn't as exciting as the Big Chill, but it was a lot more realistic. So, even though the beginning is not promising, the movie ended up turning into a pretty good one. | 1pos
|
Indian Summer! It was very nostalgic for me. I found it funny, heartwarming, and absolutely loved it! Anyone who went to camp as a kid and wishes at times they could go back to the "good Ole' days" for a brief time really needs to see this one! It starts out as 20 years later, a group of old campers returns for a "reunion". I won't comment on the plot anymore cause you have to see it for yourself. The actors were great, and it contains an all star cast. Everyone in it played a terrific role. You actually felt like you were a part of the movie watching it. Alan Arkin was especially good in his role as Uncle Lou. He plays the kind of guy that everyone wishes they had in their lives. This is also a good family movie for the most part. I would suggest this one to anybody in a heartbeat! HIGHLY Recommended! | 1pos
|
This ensemble piece about adults who return to the formulative Summer camp of their youth was a very quiet entrant and exiter to the cinemas in the Autumn of 1993. I'd say that was a shame,but then again,some of the better movies ARE quiet releases that don't get much hype or praise.<br /><br />Diane LAne,Kevin Pollack,Elizabeth Perkins,Vincent Spano,Julie Warner,Bill Paxton,Kimberly Williams,Matt Craven and Alan Arkin(who is painfully good here) are the group of actors who flesh out these roles as people who have grown old with good,bad and funny memories of summers gone past. This film covers the gambit of emotions,mostly pleasant,and the film never hammers away at the viewer to feel what the characters are feeling,preferring to allow the viewer to enter into the memories on their own. Since I am a movie viewer who bristles at bluntly,brazen manipulation in films,this is something that I appreciate from writer/director Mike Binder.<br /><br />This film's a great cheap rent,a good main rent and even a pretty sit in a theater flick. You might run across this on TV,and I would definitely suggest a look-see. | 1pos
|
I attended Camp Chesapeake. It was located at the head of the Chesapeake bay on the North East River in MD. It was a similar type summer camp with cabins. It was established by the Coatesville, PA YMCA. I started out as a young camper and later became a Junior, Senior counselor and later, the Waterfront director. If the camp had continued, I would have done anything within my power to become the camp director. Alas the powers of the YMCA decided to close down the camp and sell it to the state of MD. I visited the former camp some years later by boat and was dismayed by the neglect of the state of MD and natural destruction by mother nature. The 350 acre site served so many with all the benefits of contact with natures offerings. A black man by the name of Curtis Ford, and his family were residents and caretakers of the property. Mr Curtis was my friend and mentor. I idolized his every being. Even as he could not swim he was a waterman. If I asked him where the fish were biting, he would designate the spot, and I would have a ball. Ther was also a Family camp at the end of the summer. These memories will be with me for eternity. | 1pos
|
An unusual take on time travel: instead of traveling to Earth's past, the main trio get stuck in the past history of another planet. They beam down to this planet, whose sun is scheduled to go nova in 3 or 4 hours (that's cutting it close!). In some kind of futuristic library, they meet Mr. Atoz (A to Z, get it? ha-ha) and his duplicates. It turns out, instead of escaping their planet's destruction via space travel, the usual way, the inhabitants have all escaped into their planet's various past time eras. Mr. Atoz uses a time machine to send people on their way after they make a selection (check out the discs we see here, another Trek prognostication of CDs and DVDs!). When Mr. Atoz prepares the machine (the Atavachron-what-sis), gallant Kirk hears a woman's scream and runs into the planet's version of Earth's 17th century, where he gets into a sword fight and is arrested for witchery. There's an eccentric but good performance here by the actress playing a female of ill repute in this time, using phrasing of the time ("...you're a bully fine coo.. Witch! Witch! They'll burn ye...!"). Spock & McCoy follow Kirk, but end up in an ice age, 5000 years earlier.<br /><br />Kirk manages to get back to the library first. The real story here is Spock's reversion to the barbaric tendencies of his ancestors, the warlike Vulcans of 5000 years ago. This doesn't really make sense, except that maybe this time machine is responsible for the change (even so, Spock & McCoy weren't 'prepared' by Atoz - oh, well; it also seems to me Spock was affected by the transition almost immediately - he mentions being from 'millions of light years' away, instead of the correct hundreds or thousands - a gross error for a logical Vulcan). In any case, Spock really shows his nasty side here - forget "Day of the Dove" and remember "This Side of Paradise" - McCoy quickly finds out that his Vulcan buddy will not stand for any of his usual baiting and nearly gets his face rearranged. Spock also gets it on with Zarabeth, a comely female who had been exiled to this cold past as punishment (a couple of Trek novels were written about Spock's son, the result of this union). All these scenes are eye-openers, a reminder of just how much Spock conceals or holds in. It's also ironic that, only a few episodes earlier ("Requiem for Methuselah"), McCoy was pointing out to Spock how he would never know the pain of love - and now all this happens. Kirk, meanwhile, tussles with the elderly Atoz, who insists that Kirk head back to some past era ("You are evidently a suicidal maniac" - great stuff from actor Wolfe, last seen in "Bread and Circuses"). It all works out in the end, but, like I mentioned earlier, they cut it very close. A neat little Trek adventure, with a definite cosmic slant. | 1pos
|
The penultimate episode of Star Trek's third season is excellent and a highlight of the much maligned final season. Essentially, Spock, McCoy and Kirk beam down to Sarpeidon to find the planet's population completely missing except for the presence of a giant library and Mr. Atoz, the librarian. All 3 Trek characters soon accidentally walk into a time travel machine into different periods of Sarpeidon's past. Spock gives a convincing performance as an Ice Age Vulcan who falls in love for Zarabeth while Kirk reprises his unhappy experience with time travel--see the 'City on the Edge of Forever'--when he is accused of witchcraft and jailed before escaping and finding the doorway back in time to Sarpeidon's present. In the end, all 3 Trek characters are saved mere minutes before the Beta Niobe star around Sarpeidon goes supernova. The Enterprise warps away just as the star explodes.<br /><br />Ironically, as William Shatner notes in his book "Star Trek Memories," this show was the source of some dispute since Leonard Nimoy noticed that no reason was given in Lisette's script for the reason why Spock was behaving in such an emotional way. Nimoy relayed his misgivings here directly to the show's executive producer, Fred Freiberger, that Vulcans weren't supposed to fall in love. (p.272) However, Freiberger reasoned, the ice age setting allowed Spock to experience emotions since this was a time when Vulcans still had not evolved into their completely logical present state. This was a great example of improvisation on Freiberger's part to save a script which was far above average for this particular episode. While Shatner notes that the decline in script quality for the third season hurt Spock artistically since his character was forced to bray like a donkey in "Plato's Stepchildren," play music with Hippies in "the Way to Eden" or sometimes display emotion, the script here was more believable. Spock's acting here was excellent as Freiberger candidly admitted to Shatner. (p.272) The only obvious plot hole is the fact that since both Spock and McCoy travelled thousands of years back in time, McCoy too should have reverted to a more primitive human state, not just Spock. But this is a forgivable error considering the poor quality of many other season 3 shows, the brilliant Spock/McCoy performance and the originality of this script. Who could have imagined that the present inhabitants of Sarpeidon would escape their doomed planet's fate by travelling into their past? This is certainly what we came to expect from the best of 'Classic Trek'--a genuinely inspired story. <br /><br />Shatner, in 'Memories', named some of his best "unusual and high quality shows" of season 3 as The Enterprise Incident, Day of the Dove, Is there in Truth no Beauty, The Tholian Web, And the children Shall Lead and The Paradise Syndrome. (p.273) While my personal opinion is that 'And the children Shall Lead' is a very poor episode while 'Is there in Truth no Beauty' is problematic, "All Our Yesterdays" certainly belongs on the list of top season three Star Trek TOS films. I give a 9 out of 10 for 'All Our Yesterdays.' | 1pos
|
Kirk and crew land on a lonely planet where the sun is about to explode. They intend to evacuate the inhabitants but find the place deserted except for a Mr. Atoz who operates some sort of high-tech library. Despite trying to get a straight answer from him about everyone's whereabouts, Atoz is indifferent to their questions and insist they must quickly 'make a selection while there is still time'. They have no idea what he's talking about but wander about looking at the hand mirror-like disks on the viewers and they see images of the planet's past. Then, while a disk is in the viewer, Kirk runs through the doorway and is magically transported back in time to what on Earth would look like the time of Louis XIV (the 1660s). When McCoy and Spock follow, a different disk is in the viewer and they are sent to an ice age hell. All too late they realize that the library is a time travel machine and repository.<br /><br />While Kirk's visit is pretty short and not all that exciting, Spock and McCoy's is much more eventful, as Spock falls head over heels for Mariette Hartley--who was sent to this awful place as a punishment. The scenes with Spock are exceptionally interesting and very atypical of the normally logical guy.<br /><br />Spock's departure from the norm, the wildly inventive script and very diverse locales make this an exceptional episode--one well worth seeing.<br /><br />FYI--Ian Wolfe, the excellent character actor, played Mr. Atoz. I am a huge fan of older films and have seen him as a supporting and bit player in countless films in the 30s and 40s and he looked almost exactly like he did in this episode from 1969. Interestingly enough, despite looking ancient, he lived on another 23 years--dying at over 95 years of age!! | 1pos
|
Dr. McCoy and Mr. Spock find themselves trapped in a planet's past Ice Age, while Capt. Kirk is in the same planet's colonial period. However, it's the former pair that has the most trying time. Besides the freezing temperatures and sanctuary to be found only in caves, there is a third inhabitant, the beautiful and so sexy Zarabeth (Mariette Hartley). As Spock spends more time in this era, he slowly begins to revert to the behavioral patterns of his ancestors, feeling a natural attraction to Zarabeth and throwing "caution to the wind" about ever leaving this place. Only with Dr. McCoy's constant "reminders" does Spock hold on to some grasp of reality.<br /><br />This stand as one of the few times when the character gets to show some "emotion" and Nimoy (Spock) plays it to the hilt, coming close to knocking the bejesus out of Deforest Kelly (McCoy). Surprising to previous installment, Captain Kirk (William Shatner) wasn't allowed to get the girl, another plus for this one.<br /><br />Perennial "old man" Ian Wolfe assays the role of "Mr. Atoz," the librarian responsible for sending the trio into the past. | 1pos
|
This is certainly one of my all time fav episodes of Trek. There is just so much going on in this one film that its crazy cool. First the guys beam down to an alien planet thats about to explode. They meet a freaky librarian type dude (very well played). Then Kirk manages to get himself transported back to what is very much like 16th century earth. McCoy and Spock try to follow but instead nearly freeze to death on the frozen version of the alien world 100,000 years in the past. Kirk manages to get himself locked up and charged with witchcraft while Spock enjoys some amok time with a sexy cavegirl who was vanquished to the this frozen, awful world by some bad guy.<br /><br />Spock decides hes happy where hes at and gives McCoy a royal assestment whuppin' when the doc suggests they need to look for a way out. Anyhow,they all finally escape, leaving the poor cavegirl behind. It takes a ton of convincing before Spock finally gives in and leaves. You can literally taste the sadness at the end. Leaving the cavegirl all alone in her frozen wasteland just seems cruel and is really touching. Spock must have been out of his vulkin' mind to leave behind his greatest hope for love and being human. Albeit, in a not so nice neighborhood!<br /><br />Anyway, you just get so much bang for your buck with this episode....A love story, the Salem witch trials, Spock as a human, the desperation of being left in total isolation...abandoned, and three entirely different settings on the alien planet. Its amazing they managed to jam all this into one fifty minute film. This one is a classic, don't miss it....I want it on DVD fer shure vulcans!!!!!! | 1pos
|
There's something compelling and strangely believable about this episode. From the very beginning, an atmosphere of tension is created by the knowledge that a certain planet is going to explode within a few hours. Kirk, Spock and McCoy have beamed down to evacuate the inhabitants, all of whom seem to have left already for parts unknown, except for an elderly librarian.<br /><br />The librarian's polite but cryptic advice about where all the citizens have gone to is interrupted by a crisis in which all three Enterprise crew members find themselves unexpectedly hurled into different eras of the planet's past. Kirk finds himself in a time period resembling 17th Century England, while Spock and McCoy are stranded in a desolate, frozen waste. <br /><br />The intercutting between the two stories, and the different hazardous situations the men find themselves in is superbly handled, with return to the present an unknown chance, while the minutes are counting down to the planet's explosion. <br /><br />Imaginative writing and fine acting characterize this episode, with a touching performance by Mariette Hartley as a woman exiled to the Ice Age, and Ian Wolfe as the urbane Librarian. Somewhat reminiscent of the classic episode City On The Edge of Forever, this time travel story is a rich and compelling finale to the series, which concluded one episode later. This has to be one of the best of the whole series, especially remarkable given the generally lesser quality of the third season overall. | 1pos
|
The next-to-last episode aired of the original Star Trek series is an interesting, sometimes melancholy installment that proves the show was still exploring its characters even at this point in the third season; though flawed, 'All Our Yesterdays' has its moments and overall a moody, compelling feel to it. Kirk, Spock, and McCoy beam down to a planet, assuming they are arriving in the nick of time to save or at least give some warning to whatever populace is there, since the planet's sun is due to explode within hours. But as it turns out, the people there are all too aware of the planet's fate, and using a kind of time travel device, have escaped into the past. Each person has been able to choose the time and place in the past where he or she would like to live at a 'library,' run by an elderly man named Mr. Atoz. Atoz assumes the three men are looking for a past to live in as well, and shows them various periods from which they can choose on viewers. There is some rather forced confusion at the start of the episode, with lines like:<br /><br />McCoy- Where did they go? Atoz- Wherever they wanted to.<br /><br />The misunderstanding could be cleared up rather easily, but for plot purposes, it isn't, and soon Kirk finds himself transported back to a period resembling 18th Century England, while Spock and McCoy are sent to an ice age, 5000 years in the planet's past. From here, the main focus is on Spock and his relationship with a woman exiled to this time by a tyrant as punishment. Spock begins acting increasingly emotional, showing anger toward McCoy and deep affection for Zarabeth, the woman. He eventually realizes that he is reverting back to the primitive emotional state of his ancestors on Vulcan, 5000 years ago. Kirk makes his way back to the library first, and finally convinces Mr. Atoz they don't belong in his planet's history. Spock and McCoy return just before it's too late, leaving Zarabeth behind; the Enterprise beams the three up and speeds away as the sun explodes, destroying the planet. The interaction between Spock and Zarabeth provides this episode's most memorable moments, though Kirk's adventure into the 'English' past is amusing. All in all, a very decent latter-day Star Trek outing. | 1pos
|
I agree with many of the negative reviews posted here, for reasons I will go into later on. But this miniseries is powerful and convincing because the talented cast really captures the dark truth of Hitler's world.<br /><br />Peter Stormare is perfect as Ernst Rohm, the brutal Brownshirt leader. Each scene he has with Hitler is explosive! Hitler is so evil he dominates everyone but the thuggish, primitive Rohm -- and he clearly digs Rohm for just that reason. The interplay between Stormare and Carlisle illuminates the way Hitler relished Rohm's brutality, but later sacrificed him for political reasons.<br /><br />Jena Malone turns in a heartrending performance as Geli Raubal, Hitler's doomed niece and the victim of his unspeakable perversions. Without revealing any of the sexual filth directly, Jena Malone plays out all the horror of the slow extinction of a young girl's spirit. She uses her eyes and voice to suggest all the horror that will be visited on millions in the years to come. And she's brilliant! Zoe Telford very nearly matches Jena Malone with her portrayal of Eva Braun. Eva is clearly sick, cruel and heartless -- but at the same time almost pitiably dependent on her Adolph's twisted tenderness. The aborted lovemaking scene between them (hinting at the spine tingling truth of Hitler's enormous self-loathing) is both chilling and erotic.<br /><br />Liev Schrieber gives a deliciously weasel-like performance as Putzi Hanfstaengel, the spineless man-about-town who is seduced by Hitler's promises of wealth and power. While a brute like Rohm simply loves the idea of crushing skulls under his boots, Schrieber's character is one of many Germans who abhors Nazi violence but can't resist the quick and easy route to money and power. His weak-willed fawning over Hitler soon loses him the respect of his wife, played with style and sensuality by the stunning and regal Julianna Margulies. They provide a true portrait of marriage and betrayal.<br /><br />These performances carry the mini series along, easily overcoming occasional weaknesses in the script. There is one exception. Regrettably, Matthew Modine's acting chops just aren't up to snuff. His noble lunk-haid journalist ruins every scene he has -- the viewer can hardly wait for Rohm's brown-shirts to stomp that smug, righteous look off his ignorant, corn-pone low-rent Hollywood golden boy face. But the story still works.<br /><br />Now in regard to the factual inaccuracies of the script -- Hitler's perversions and cruelty are rendered in a vibrant, compelling drama. But the battlefield record of Corporal Hitler is badly distorted. As if afraid the audience can't handle the idea of evil and courage in the same person, the writers make Hitler look like a whining coward who "begged" for an Iron Cross. As if anyone in the Kaiser's Army could get a medal just by whining about it! The movie makes it look as if Hitler were a coward in the trenches, when he was a fearless soldier. They also suggest his comrades despised him, when in reality he was widely admired by officers and enlisted men alike. The depressing thing is that the mini-series succeeds so well in representing Hitler as a monster in honest ways -- but they just couldn't resist the cheap shot.<br /><br />All in all, however, Hitler: RISE OF EVIL is a soaring success highlighted by powerful performances. | 1pos
|
"Hitler: The Rise of Evil" was shrouded in controversy before it ever aired, and that controversy may obscure the accomplishment of the film.<br /><br />Those who criticzed the film, which they hadn't seen, did so with good intentions, based on the misguided thought that it would be overly sympathetic to Hitler. However, they misunderstood the point: to humanize the evil Hitler is not sympathize with him. It is far more disturbing to realize that the unspeakable acts committed by one of history's greatest villains were committed by a human being. A sick, diseased maniac, to be sure, but a human being nonetheless. It is necessary to know the story of how Hitler was able to come to power to prevent it from happening again.<br /><br />"Rise of Evil" is highlighted by a brilliant, career best performance from Robert Carlyle, who makes Hitler a human being without ever redeeming him in any way. Carlyle flawlessly captures the look and mannerisms of the Nazi leader, while never letting the impersonation become cartoonish or distance us (something Anthony Hopkins was not quite able to accomplish when he portrayed Hitler in "The Bunker", another very good made-for-television film). While were are repulsed by Hitler's depravity and virulent ant-Semitism, Carlyle gives him a certain magnetism and power the real Adolf Hitler must have possesed. After all, while else would a nation have followed him?<br /><br />Of the various subplots, by far the most compelling features Matthew Modine as reporter Fritz Gehrlich, who makes it his life's work to draw attention to the reality of of Hitler and Nazism. While Modine's performance is a little stilted in part 1, by part 2 he seems to have settled in, the character gives us a real-life hero in a film full of villains. Peter Stormare and Liev Schrieber also give strong support.<br /><br />Part 1 of this two-part mini series suffered a little bit from being overly choppy, including a look at Hitler's childhood which lasts only the duration of the opening credits. And in part 2, sections detailing Hitler's relationship's with his niece, and his mistress Eva Braun, are less successful than the central plot, but do serve to give us further insight into his mental and emotional state.<br /><br />Ultimately, no film about Hitler can make us understand him. The average person is, thankfully, incapable of ever understanding a man who would try to exterminate an entire race of people. "Hitler: The Rise of Evil" tries less to make us understand Hitler, and more to make us understand how he came to be power. It is an important story that must be told, and it is impossible to believe anyone who has seen the film would accuse it of having anything but the best of intentions, and the capability of doing anything but good.<br /><br />9 out of 10. *** 1/2 | 1pos
|
As an amateur historian of WW2/Nazi Germany, I couldn't wait for this to come out on DVD. I missed it when it was first on in 2003. I don't want to repeat what's already been said in the previous 8 pages of comments about the historical inaccuracies. A better job could've been done portraying the "charming" Hitler. I also had a small problem with some of the casting choices, not so much for their acting, but for their appearances. Peter Stormare doesn't look much like Rohm, why didn't they make Babson as Hess wear a wig? And my biggest complaint..so much has always been made of Hitler's striking blue eyes, why didn't they make Carlyle wear blue contacts? On the plus side, I thought the actors who played Goring and Drexler looked pretty good. Again, as long as people watching this understand that this is supposed to be entertainment 1st, history 2nd I don't think a lot of harm will be done. | 1pos
|
In Christian Duguay's movie, Hitler: The Rise of Evil, Hitler's early years in life and politics is shown in a successful way with some minor historical errors and some exaggeration. It is quite natural for a Hollywood movie to contain such things as the main purpose of production is the income that they will get from the movie. Even though such errors may disappoint some members of the audience who believes that everything should be done by the book, I believe that most of them fits well with the rest of the movie, making it more interesting. We should not forget that this movie is not a documentary. Who cares how did his dog died anyway.<br /><br />Throughout the movie, Hitler is portrayed as a psychologically unstable figure that gets angry very easily and is very passionate about his ideals. But he was not portrayed as a super-villain but more like an ambitious politician. I believe that this is a nice perspective as the movie is not contaminated by tons of negative emotions and this made the movie somewhat objective. Yes he was a little mad, and his methods were rough but he was still a human not a totally insane figure as portrayed in "Inglorious Bastards". I believe it made the movie more realistic even with some inaccuracies in the historical facts.<br /><br />The flow of history is nicely reflected to spectators. Even though the movie's focus was around Hitler we also had chance to see what is happening in the country as a result of these actions via newspapers, discussions of people and the songs in a Jewish cabaret. Also society's reaction was also reflected to movie but it was very limited. Struggles of journalist Fritz Gerlich and ironic plays that are played in the cabaret was amusing and interesting but that was all. Mostly we only saw his followers rampaging the streets and cheering him.<br /><br />Another thing that was missing in the movie is information about the origins of his hatred for Jews. In the beginning of the movie, some ideas about this is given but they were quite superficial. All of a sudden he was a politician who is giving speeches about necessity of extermination of Jews.<br /><br />In conclusion, Hitler: The Rise of Evil cannot be considered as an excellent movie that everyone will like but it is not unsatisfactory at all. If you can stand directors that change history for cash, it is an interesting movie reflecting Hitler's personality in a successful way. | 1pos
|
"Hitler, the rise of Evil" is clearly produced by people emotionally unburdened by the horrors of World War 2. Which makes watching a refreshing experience.<br /><br />I think its greatest value lies in its crystal clear revealing of the Nazi-mechanism. Of the utterly corrupt ways Hitler used to make it to the top. Having arrived there, this film ends.<br /><br />When on top, the 'Fuhrer' (= German for 'leader') led his Germany to the biggest & most devastating war in history of mankind. Ending six years later in Germany's utter defeat. As a result, Germany lost its eastern provinces (= about 35% of its prewar soil), and was forced to accept a 44 year-split of its remaining territory. Both West and East Germany had to be rebuilt from scrap, their reputations severely damaged by the many Nazi-atrocities inspired by racism.<br /><br />As I said, "Hitler, the rise of Evil" makes an good watch. Set in an acceptable thirties-environment, with (more than) competent acting. In particular Peter O'Toole's role as the aged president von Hindenburg stands out, even adds an extra dimension.<br /><br />My copy of "Hitler, the rise of Evil" also provides a second DVD with two good documentary films. One is about Hitler's personality, the second deals with the forgery of the Hitler-diaries. In 1983 this forgery caused a hilarious scandal in England and Germany, damaging the reputations of several historians and journalists. | 1pos
|
There is no greater disservice to do to history than to misrepresent it. This takes the easiest and most shallow route, simply portraying him as a monster. Only showing his negative sides, and exaggerating them. "Those who are ignorant of the past doom us to repeat it". He was a human being. That may prove tough to some people to accept, but an important part of life is facing that which we don't want to. Rather than demonizing the man, we ought to try to understand him. Otherwise, we stand little chance of preventing anyone similar in the future, or possibly even the present, from succeeding at anything of remotely comparable scope, as far as damage and misery goes. Hate him and what he did, don't make him into something mythical, intentionally or otherwise. Frankly, far too much of this mini-series could play "dumb dumb *duuum*!" after or during scenes. The whole thing nods, nudges and winks at the audience, with a clear message of "was this guy evil or what", incorporating every single bad trait(as well as making up several that go directly against who and what he was), letting them appear more or less out of nowhere, and having them be constant throughout his life, not something he came to believe or claimed to. This should never be used to educate. Use Der Untergang(Downfall, in English), and maybe point out the few inaccuracies of that, instead. This, this is disrespectful to the actual events that took place, and to any and all survivors, not to mention those who died. The cinematic quality? Top-notch. It's well-done, through and through, excellent production values, a solid arc to the well-told plot, what characterization does occur is strong and credible, dialog and script are great, all acting performances are masterful(Carlyle looks and behaves the role... as it was written... perfectly), the music is well-composed, cinematography and editing are flawless and creative, and this is definitely dramatic, entertaining and riveting. They get dates and many occurrences, and do them justice. If I had been offered to work on this, and did not feel I could be objective enough to have Hitler appear as a fully fleshed-out person, I would have declined, citing that as the reason. I don't blame anyone for loathing him. How can you forgive what he did, and are we sure that we should? That is not what I am suggesting. Finally, let me point out that, as I write this, we are in a world-wide economic crisis that has lasted for about two years, and that is not terribly dissimilar to the stock market crash of 1929. The two reasons it hasn't led to a depression of the new millennium are as follows: governments are giving money to the banks to keep the market going, and the majority of the countries is now friendly towards one another. Apart from that, the lesson hadn't been learned. Hopefully, it has now. Back to this... my suggestion? Read a book, non-fiction, dealing with the subject. There are plenty of informative, smart ones. The DVD holds a trailer. I recommend this only to those who know better, and vehemently urge anyone who has watched it, to seek out the truth. 8/10 | 1pos
|
Even though Ian Kershaw distanced himself from this project due to inaccuracies in regards to Hitler's life and yes, this is dramatised, but essential. Robert Carlyle plays Hitler during his later years, during this documentary that only deals with Hitler from boyhood until he became Chancellor of Germany, including The Night of the Long Knives. This TV-film (also a two-part mini-series) shows how a series of factors allowed Hitler to come to power, e.g. the financial disaster of 1930.<br /><br />The series follows Hitler and little else, apart from the lives of Fritz Gerlich and Ernst Hanfstaengl. All in all, valuable and filled with interesting actors, yet I feel it should have been more tightly directed with stronger cinematography; most actors are portrayed in half-body shots which (for me) makes for a theatrical stance, not cinematic. The tempo is at times drowsy, and the film does suffer from it, being approximately 2,5 hours long. | 1pos
|
This is a tepid docu-drama that covers no new ground, reworks all the cliches and is sloppy with facts. For example, Munich is a very flat city. So why is it hilly in the movie? For example, the end of the Great War in 1918 was not a surrender but an armistice. Yet it is announced as a surrender. For example, European news vendors did not (and do not) shout headlines as they hawk their papers. Yet this strictly American custom is employed in the film. For example, the Nazis did not adopt the German eagle until after they had taken power but there it is on the lectern as Hitler delivers one of his stem winders. Indeed, most of this disappointing production consists of little more than Hitlerian oratory. The movie also perpetuates the myth that the beer hall putsch was hatched at the Munich Hoffbrauhaus. It was not. Robert Carlyle does a fine portrayal of his subject. But his supporting cast is adequate at best and very often not even that. These comments are based on the first episode only. One only can hope the second will be better but don't bet on it. | 1pos
|
I don't know what it is with this movies. But movies about history or religion are always criticised by their accuracy. Of course it's not 100% accurate. It's difficult to make 100% accurate films nowadays when even the "experts" disagree with each other. Therefore I rather like to judge a movie by what it is trying to say than pick on all the inaccuracies.<br /><br />So I start by saying that I liked this mini serie. But I do agree with the critique that his childhood years went by too fast. The series should have been a three part story, his childhood being the first part. But if they didn't have more money to shoot more story who am I to criticise that???<br /><br />There's only one real problem I have with this movie and that's the fact that it's told in a history book way. Especially the second part which is just a sum of events that happened. I rather would have liked to see Hitler more humane (more scenes where he doubts himself etc.). Noah Taylor did that more in the movie 'Max' which seem to work better I think. Nevertheless I'm glad this was made and own it on DVD. Just to remember more vividly what happened and see Carlyle giving his best. 7.5/10 | 1pos
|
First week of May, every year brings back the memories of the holocaust, through movies on televisions. Among many movies they showed, this was the one I had not seen.<br /><br />The story is about Hilter's life and how he came to power. It starts with his childhood and ends with his holding the top most position of power in Germany.<br /><br />The movie was earlier presented as a TV series and later converted into a movie format. Scottish actor Robert Carlyle plays Adolf Hitler with great guts, conviction and flare to give a real portrayal of this man.<br /><br />It is a good screenplay and narrative, that educates the audiences on the main events that lead Hitler into power, and also tries to show the probable psychological make up of Hitler. The movie is a biased viewpoint of the director Christian Duguay who shows Hitler as a one-track, menacing, angry, and shouting person who had such a strong hold on the Germans and people around him. Hitler is not shown as someone having charishma and attraction, and there the movie fails to convince Hitler's portrayal.<br /><br />Even though the venture was for TV, all the ingredients of production are first class and at par with any main stream movie. The production value, sets, costumes, etc. were perfect.<br /><br />There is a lot of criticism of this movie, in the authenticity about the historic events that is presented. But still the movie is gripping, every engaging and entertaining. Robert Carlyle overpowers and dominates the screen as no one else does. He is amazingly good brilliant! I would have liked a more balanced view of Hitler's life, because I think, Hitler was able to bring out the dormant feelings of million of Germans and it is not only him who should be blamed for the holocaust. As I have told several times, that very sadly - our society loves to garland or prosecute one person, as a representative of the society's good or evil respectively. | 1pos
|
As someone who was born to a German mother and English father (who spent five years in a prisoner of war camp) I come from unique position. One of having to deal with the various Nazis on one side of the family and the victors of WW2 on the other. This miniseries cannot delve into every single part of Hitler's psyche and must give the viewer a general flavor of the situation at the time and as best as one can Hitler's state of mind. In this the series does quite well. Carlyle is very good as is O'Toole, I would however liked to have got more information on the relationships with others in party Because Hitler did not do anything on his own. He had people around him that followed him to the letter often without question and certainly without question later on in his murderous career. What was going through Goebbels, Goring and Hess's mind? It would have been helpful to see more of these relationships. But I hope it will make people research the subject more. It might also make people understand why someone like Saddam Hussein cannot be allowed to continue in power. | 1pos
|
<br /><br />An old man works as a janitor in a mental hospital to be close to his wife who is a patient there and to try to get her out.<br /><br />This is surely one of the most forgotten masterpieces of the silent era and an oddity in the history of Japanese cinema. Long thought lost, a print was found in the 70s and a music soundtrack added to it, which fits perfectly with the images. It might have been influenced by cabinet of doctor Caligary (director Kinugasa claimed he never saw the German film). However it surpasses it in style and in its more convincing (and chilly) portray of the inner mental state of the inmates in the asylum. To achieve this, the film makes use of every single film technique available at the time: multiple exposures and out of focus subjective point of view, tilted camera angles, fast and slow motion, expressionist lighting and superimpositions among others. It is also a very complicated film to follow, as it has not got intertitles.<br /><br />The film opens with a montage of shots of rain hitting the windows of the hospital, wind shaking trees and of thunder. The unsettling weather metaphors the mental condition of the patients and introduces one of the them: a former dancer. The combination of sounds produced by rain, wind and thunder serves as the music that incites the dancer to get into a frantic, almost hypnotic dance. In another sequence involving the same patient engaged in another frenzied dance, she is being watched by other inmates. Multiple exposures of the dancer represent the patients' point of view and their confused "view" of the world.<br /><br />These are just two examples from this amazing film trying to represent the patients' subconscious and view of the "sane" world.<br /><br />In three words A MUST SEE. | 1pos
|
This very strange movie is unlike anything made in the west at the time. With its tumultuous emotions and net of visions, dreams, and startling images, its effect is both beautiful and unsettling. The actors are choreographed more like dance than acting. It contains the only dream sequence I know of that actually resembles a real nightmare (sorry, Dali fans). | 1pos
|
With rapid intercutting of scenes of insane people in an asylum, and montage/superimposition of images, and vague, interwoven narratives, this is a very hard movie to follow. Apparently a man (Masue Inoue) takes a job as a porter or janitor in an asylum so he can be near his imprisoned wife, and maybe to rescue her. But she's clearly mad, huddled on the floor, with a vacant expression much of the time and fear, misery, and confusion written on her face the rest of the time. The film-maker switches to her point of view sometimes, and we see vague images of her at the side of a pond drowning a baby, or clutching at a drowned child. She's tormented by something. When the point of view shifts to her or other mad folks, the filmmaker uses distorting lenses and such things, showing us what mad people see and then how they react. And the place is swarming with mad folks, laughing, hiding, and in one case dancing frenetically night and day. At one point the man tries to take his wife outside, but the night outside the door terrifies her and she runs back to her cell. Gradually the man slips into a nightmare in which he's interrupted in another attempt to steal her away, and he kills the doctor and many attendants, and all the while the mad folk laugh and applaud. When he wakes he is relieved, and mops the floor. Some fascinating shots of Japanes life, streets, buildings in the 1920s. | 1pos
|
It's easy to make really general comments about a film like this. The fact that it's one of the only remaining Japanese films from this era causes people to say that it "started Japanese cinema" and was "unlike anything the west ever made." The latter of these two comments is particularly false as Kinugasa himself admitted to ripping off "Caligari" on more than one occasion. But style was meant to be imitated, and doesn't take away from this film's importance. What we have here is experimental themes and composition built on already established visual styles, opening the doors for a truly brilliant layering of narratives and realities. For this purpose, the madhouse is the ideal setting, and the writers knew this. This is a landmark film, and every effort should be made to track it down.<br /><br />5 out of 5 - Essential | 1pos
|
I have to admit, I wasn't expecting much going into this film viewing in my Japenese film class, but this film really blew me away. The director does a wonderful job following through with the title of his film, truly portraying a picture of madness. I think the fact that this film is silent adds to the resemblance of madness, helping the viewer experience the characters inner world rather than the world outside his mind. This film just added to my feelings about foreign silent films vs. American, in that the foreign films work much more to exercise your mind and make you think rather than going for the fluffy film always with the happy ending, exercising the imagination very little. | 1pos
|
I saw "A Page of Madness" in a silent film course at Wesleyan University and it haunts me still after 25 years. Truly ahead of its time - perhaps even still - this gem of a film reveals both the frightening and attractive aspects of madness. | 1pos
|
THis movie shows us once again, how genius the Japanese directors are and were. This movie could be seen as a sort of a "Silent - Movie Tetsuo". Well Eisenstein...:) | 1pos
|
Back in 1994, I had a really lengthy vacation around the Fourth of July - something like 17 days off in a row what with two weeks paid vacation, weekends and the holiday itself. I stayed in town during that time, hanging out at my parents' house a lot.<br /><br />I didn't have a TV in my apartment so I used to watch my parents' tube. I had just finished watching a segment of the X Files when a program came on called Personal FX. I was hooked instantly. I had always been fascinated with items in our home that had come from my parents' family homes and through inheritances from relatives' estates, and often wondered about their history, value, etc.<br /><br />After my long vacation, I used to go to my folks' house on my lunch-hours just to catch Personal FX.<br /><br />I can remember one episode during which co-host Claire Carter announced that the New York apartment in which the series was filmed was being renovated and that once said renovations were complete that Personl FX would return to the air.<br /><br />It never did! Personal FX was the first -and best - of the collectible shows. And it vanished from the air! Almost fifteen years later, I'm still sore.<br /><br />Way to go, FX. | 1pos
|
Interesting, fast-paced and amusing.<br /><br />I'm not one of those people who watches loads and loads of television. I stumbled across this show while home sick with a bad case of the flu one day, and was immediately hooked. I developed quite a crush on John Burke. Both he and Claire did an amazing job of hosting the show together. You could really tell that they both loved their jobs.<br /><br />The super-collector segments were excellent. I found myself interested in things I had never previously given a single thought to.<br /><br />What I would really like to know is: Whatever happened to Jack the dog? Did one of the hosts adopt him? | 1pos
|
Maybe the greatest film ever about jazz.<br /><br />It IS jazz.<br /><br />The opening shot continues to haunt my reverie.<br /><br />Lester, of course, is wonderful and out of this world.<br /><br />Jo Jones is always a delight (see The Sound of Jazz as well).<br /><br />If you can, find the music; it's available on CD.<br /><br />All lovers of jazz and film noir should study this tremendous jewel.<br /><br />What shadows and light - what music - what a hat! | 1pos
|
Simply but imaginatively filmed studio-set performance short, a perfect match of music and images that defines the very coolness of cool and the hipness of hip. The precise visual and musical arrangements give the lie to its claim to be a record of a jam session: what it is, is a pop video - every bit as stylised and knowing as that implies, and all the better for it. Among the very best music films ever made, and almost certainly the most cinematic. These cats are solid gone, daddy-o ... | 1pos
|
This short was nominated for an Academy Award and I wish it had won! Basically a filmed jam session between some very talented musicians, including Lester Young and Joe Jones, the music is incredible! Hollywood quite often embraced Jazz (particularly animation, believe it or not) but this is a rare look on film at an improvisational jam. This has been added to the Film Preservation list and deservedly so. TCM runs this as filler periodically and runs it every March sometime for its' "31 Days of Oscar" tribute. From downtown at the buzzer, swish, nothing but net and the shot's so smooth, the net barely moved. Most solidly and highly recommended!!! | 1pos
|
Each of the major studios cranked out jazzy one-reelers throughout the thirties and forties (with Universal taking the lead). While most looked as cheap on screen as they were to make, Warner Bros. (which abruptly stopped making them in 1946) often distinguished theirs with offbeat camera angles, mirrors and optical effects, thanks to some creative directors like Jean Negulesco. It is fitting that the best of this genre should come from this studio.<br /><br />What sets "Jammin' The Blues" apart from the rest of the pack is that it more closely resembles an avant-garde experiment than a Hollywood musical. Filmed in July 1944, it transforms an ordinary jam session into a "trippy" dream-escape from war-time troubles, highlighted by the tune of "On The Sunny Side Of The Street". Gjon Mili and cameraman Robert Burkes (later to work with Hitchcock) were allowed plenty of artistic freedom, perhaps because Lester Young was not Glenn Miller and the studio could care less how he and his fellow musicians were presented. The optical printer is put to good use, with multiple images of the same performer appearing at once. (Norman McLaren really milked this process two decades later in "Pas De Deux", while Linwood Dunn's team achieved different effects in "Citizen Kane".) The strong emphasis on silhouettes and lit cigarette smoke was also ahead of its time; in some ways, this predated the psychedelic sixties, but with a distinctly forties film noir style. | 1pos
|
Jazz aficionados will treasure this classic short showing some of the best men of jazz just doing their thing. It's like watching a no frills music video today.<br /><br />The jazz men give us an additional treat in the person of Marie Bryant who sings a classic version of On The Sunny Side Of The Street. I had never heard her sing before, Bryant sounds remarkably like Billie Holliday. That's a compliment folks.<br /><br />Their instrumental work is tops as well. With the black cinema of its time fed a lot of white stereotypes, this film is to be watched and treasured. No great production values, just a lot of good music. | 1pos
|
Jammin' the Blues is an Oscar-nominated short from 1944 that is basically 10 minutes of improvisational jazz played in one long jam. Marie Bryant sings "The Sunny Side of the Street" at one point for the film's highlight then jitterbugs with Archie Savage to bring this most entertaining "jam session" to its exciting end. The director Gojn Mili was a photographer and that experience shows in some of the double exposure shots of some of the musicians that makes this one of the most innovative angles of the '40s. According to some notes I read one of the musicians was white and had to be filmed in silhouette in reflection of the social attitudes of the time. What a shame. Still, this most unusual film of the time is available on YouTube so if you love jazz, I suggest you seek it out there. | 1pos
|
...may seem like an overstatement, but it is not.<br /><br />What is so hard to comprehend is - why didn't they make more musical shorts like this? Wasn't the beauty of it totally apparent to everybody involved? I guess not. So many shorts were made for commercial reasons only, and with some luck there may be some artistic value in there. This is one exception - the only one? - where it seems they were the director had a vision and clearly could appreciate the music as art. Why didn't anybody ever think to shoot Lester or Charlie Parker on a live date? Crazy, man.<br /><br />A pity there were no sequels. If you've seen anything of similar quality please share it! | 1pos
|
I can see why this film was Oscar-nominated for Best Live Action Short, as it was constructed masterfully. Even if you don't particularly like the Blues (though to me, this sounded much more like jazz), you can easily appreciate this film. It is simply very well made, though for the life of me, I can't see why director Gjon Mili only got to direct one film--this one. In other words, the film is nominated and yet the director didn't get any sort of career boost. As for the black performers, I could understand this not causing their careers to shift into high gear, as unfortunately most of white society have indifference (or worse) for blacks or "that kind of music".<br /><br />If you do watch this film, if you aren't particularly enjoying the earlier portion, skip ahead to about the 5:50 mark--where it picks up considerably. When the lady stopped singing and the performers began to improvise, the pace improved quite a bit. | 1pos
|
First let me say I am not from the south but I am an American. I don't love Country music but I can stomach it. I would never wear a cowboy hat but I wear hats. I don't live in a trailer but I do eat tuna salad and own a home. What does that have to do with this comment? A lot if you are one of those people who say only "country" people love this movie. This movie is loosely based on the "They loved and lost" premise. James Bridges directs an American love story as real as it gets. In an era of Jerry Springer and "Lets put it out there" mentality, this film rings truer than ever. <br /><br />Bud is "coming of age" and embarks on a life of his own with a little help from his aunt and uncle so he moves to the big city with them. Bud finds himself drawn into the local honky tonk world for the only escape a blue collar man can afford. He quickly meets Sissy who is from a similar background and the two have a whirlwind romance filled with painful ups and downs. <br /><br />(*This plot takes so many turns that one has to just sit for a few minutes before they get hooked. Marriage is a focus here that is often missed. Early in the film they marry and we view the transition from being single to married. The film highlights some of the modern struggles a woman has when she marries an old fashioned man. It also brings into view the male ego with women and competition.)<br /><br />Bud is challenged and is excited when Micky's puts in an electronic bull. Sissy gets ideas of having fun on it too but is quickly reminded that she is married and need to start "acting like it." The emotion between the two characters is raw and expressive and the plot continues from there especially when they (NOTE THIS IS GIVING SOME OF THE STORYLINE AWAY) split and Sissy falls for an ex con with a penchant for abuse and cruelty. She soon realizes that the grass is not always greener on the other side.<br /><br />How anyone can compare Bud to Vinnie Barbirino is shocking to me. John Travolta gave an exceptional performance that was worthy recognition. He was believable and real. The scene where he shaves his beard and you first see him at the bar..still gives me goosebumps. Mind you I am not a huge Travolta fan, but come on, I see why Sissy was kicking of her boots so early in the film. Deb Winger was so real that you found yourself sympathizing with her as she pens a note of emotions to Bud, after sneaking in to clean his house during their break up. <br /><br />The supporting cast was incredible. Wes played by Scott Glenn gave a first rate performance that made you hate him and curse him as he abused Sissy. Madolyn Smith-Osborne, as Buds Mistress/girlfriend was so authentic that large chested girls across the U.S. prayed to wake up flat chested to wear the clothes she donned in the film. My biggest kudos's go to Barry Corbin and Brooke Anderson as Bud's aunt and uncle. They seemed like someone's aunt and uncle somewhere in Texas and however small their role, they made the film so much bigger and lifelike. Two memorable scenes were the Dolly Parton contest and the unforgettable scene where Bud and his aunt stand outside after one of the characters death. The dialog between them is touching.<br /><br />If you can watch this for what it is, a true American love story. Then I recommend that you take it for what it is...a film before it's time that gave us voyeurism into a world unlike our own but real enough for our enjoyment and entertainment. If this world sounds similar to yours then you will enjoy it so much more. Lastly, the music however dated, is sure to send you back in time if you are over 30 years of age. | 1pos
|
Okay, so I have come a long way from Houston by now, but whenever I see this movie, I am taken back to a little cowgirl's dream to one day ride the bull at Gilley's. (It burned down before I was of drinking age.)<br /><br />If you grew up in in East Texas, then you know this movie is an accurate depiction of contemporary life at that time. If you didn't then trust me and watch the movie. Either you will join the many who love it (and at the same time strangely repulsed), or at the very least, you can make fun of the red-necks. (There is plenty material for poking fun.) This movie doesn't try to be P.C. (what was that in the 80's) or hide the white trash element and it is honest to the time and place.<br /><br />Gotta be a 10 for me! | 1pos
|
For Urban Cowboy John Travolta plays one of the stronger alpha males ever portrayed on the big screen. He's a decent enough young kid who leaves his parent's homestead and strikes out for the big city of Dallas where his uncle Barry Corbin has promised to find him work in the petrochemical industry. In 1980 that was beginning to boom and Texas was definitely a growing place in the USA.<br /><br />Travolta does a good job in making we the audience care about his character who when you come right down to it is a sexist pig. He meets and marries Debra Winger who's from the same background, but she's got some ideas that women should not be shadows of their men. And when she beats him at Gilley's mechanical bull, a man's game, that's it for him.<br /><br />Scott Glenn who's an ex-convict is working at Gilley's and this film was his breakout role. He's a real snake in Urban Cowboy, he gets Travolta's goat with a mere look and he moves in on Winger. Travolta in turn takes up with rich girl, Madolyn Smith Osborne who's slumming at Gilley's. <br /><br />Despite the characters, Urban Cowboy was really one gigantic commercial for the self-styled biggest honky tonk in the world. Gilley's is no longer there in the suburban Texas community of Pasadena, but the memories do live on. And the best thing about Urban Cowboy is the wonderful score of country/western songs that were featured in the film. I'm not sure if some of the songs were not written specifically for Urban Cowboy, but it's the only reason I can think of why the Motion Picture Academy ignored the musical aspects of this film. I especially liked Johnny Lee's Looking For Love, if it was specifically written for this film, it's a disgrace that it wasn't nominated for Best Song.<br /><br />I liked Debra Winger's character best in this film. She doesn't lose a trace of femininity, but she stands up to Travolta and does it in style. And this review is dedicated to that yet as unknown woman who will one day be the first woman bull-rider in the Professional Bull Riders. | 1pos
|
I bellied up to the bar expecting this to be a hot beer on a sweltering Texas day but was pleasantly surprised. After suffering through "Saturday Night Foolishness" I had no desire to see a re-make in some south Texas barnyard....and I didn't. John Revolta was good as the jealous redneck, Scott Glenn was well cast as a thuggie ex-con, and Debra Winger was, as always, a delight. *Love that woman* Plus, the soundtrack was dynamite [and this comes from a guy that can't stand the sound of country music]. A fun film all the way. | 1pos
|
This is a great movie that I don't think gets enough credit as Saturday Night Fever or Grease in John Travolta's career. He plays a man who is in love with a girl but is too pig headed to admit his feelings to her. Instead, he wants to engage in mechanical bull riding because he thinks it will show his manhood. Even though it was made in 1980, it is still timely today. The great country music soundtrack is terrific. 10/10 | 1pos
|
An unmarried, twenty-something hick (played by John Travolta) leaves the farm and goes to Houston, where he learns about life and love in a Texas honky-tonk. At face value, it's a modern love story ... Texas style. There's gobs of cowboy hats, pickup trucks, neon beer signs, and references to big belt-buckles and rodeos. The music, if not Texas native, is Texas adapted, courtesy of the talents of Mickey Gilley, Johnny Lee, and the Charlie Daniels Band. And that Texas twang ... "y'all".<br /><br />The story and the characters are about as subtle as the taste of Texas five-alarm chili made with Jalapeno peppers. It's enough to make civilized viewers abort the film in favor of a genteel classic, one starring Laurence Olivier or Ingrid Bergman, maybe. "Hamlet" it's not. But "Urban Cowboy" is spicy and explicit, and I kinda like it.<br /><br />Technically, the film is generally good. The dialogue, the production design, and the costumes are all realistic; the editing is skillful. And both the casting and the acting are commendable, if not Oscar worthy. I would not have cast Travolta in the role he plays, but he does a fine job ... ditto Debra Winger. Barry Corbin and Brooke Alderson, among others, are good too, in support roles. But, the cinematography seemed weak. The film copy I watched was grainy, and at times suffered from a reddish/orange tint, a visual trait I have noticed in other films from the same time period.<br /><br />At first glance, the film does not seem to offer any social or political "message". But I would argue that when "Urban Cowboy" was released twenty-five years ago, it had rather prophetic implications. In 1980 the U.S. had all kinds of problems, not the least being American hostages held by Iran. In the minds of a lot of folks back then, the U.S. was being pushed around, bullied.<br /><br />This film, along with others of its time, offered something that Americans wanted to see in their political leaders ... toughness. "Urban Cowboy" is a very physical film. The characters in it may not be the brightest people on Earth. But, they're tough!<br /><br />Everything about "Urban Cowboy" is anti-intellectual. As a vehicle for cultural expression then, this 1980 film was one of several that augured a new get-tough era for the U.S. It started in 1980 with the election of Reagan. And that era continues to this day, with a President who probably will not be remembered for his intellect, but will be remembered for his toughness and aggression, traits that Americans seem to gravitate to as surely as Texans to five-alarm chili. | 1pos
|
#3 in young John Travolta's trilogy of blockbusters. He dances to disco, rock 'n' roll and country. He heads to Houston to find work and love. Gilley's is the hot spot, and it is the time of the mechanical bull. Not to be outdone, I rode the bull at a club in Nashville. I recently saw this nearly forgotten film on television and remembered how good it was and how good a year 1980 was. I wore a black cowboy hat that year just like Travolta. Debra Winger was in her prime. She looks stunning in her red top. There is plenty of charisma. Bud and Sissy seem the ideal couple even if they are trailer trash. They split up just because it feels so good getting back together. Urban Cowboy has an amazing soundtrack. We get to hear Lyin' Eyes by The Eagles and Lookin' For Love by Johnny Lee. | 1pos
|
I am a big fan of the movie, but not for the usual reasons. I think Travolta and Winger performed at higher than average rates, I think the sets were representative of the location and the era, I liked the sound track and the Charlie Daniels Band. However, I think the photography was amazing! Since the interior scenes were filmed in the actual club and Gilley's had low ceilings--perhaps 10-12 feet high and the smoke that was supposed to simulate a "smoke-filled bar" hung 2-4 feet below the ceiling. The Camera managed to get shots through the smoke and focus on the actors, the bull, the bar, the women, the dancing, the low-level of light that actually was in the bar! What a feat! Sure there was auxiliary lighting, but in order to maintain the atmosphere of the bar, it had to be low-light shots. Ray Villalobos (the camera operator) was outstanding! He got some shots he had no hope of achieving and the impact of them brought a sense of reality to the film. Thanks, Ray--Great work! | 1pos
|
Quick and simple, I love this movie.<br /><br />As some others have mentioned, I also, am not from the south, don't really care for country music and have never worn a cowboy hat. (I've never drove around in a car with a dead body in my trunk either, but I love "Goodfellas.") This is just great film making. Shot in a 2.35 aspect ratio and beautifully transfered to DVD. (The VHS was 1.33 full screen). And yes, a solid 5.1 mix for your viewing pleasure. What can you say about this movie?<br /><br />It's just a great love/hate story set in Texas, with great performances. Travolta is fantastic. Next to "Pulp Fiction", it's the best thing he's done. It's been in my top 5 for 25 years!!<br /><br />Check this one out!!! It's a 10 !!!! | 1pos
|
I'm still new to the Krimi genre and the only one I've seen prior to seeing this one was the earlier and somewhat disappointing 'The Dead Eyes of London', which didn't exactly inspire a great hope for the rest of the genre in me. If I'd seen this one first, however, the feeling would have been different as while The College Girl Murders is a bizarre and rather wacky attempt at a crime flick; it's great fun to watch and it's really hard to hate a film that throws so many weird and wonderful ideas into the script and manages to pull it off with style. The film begins in a lab where a crazy scientist has invented a new and highly toxic poison that kills its victim and makes it look like they died from a heart attack. This poison is used by a mysterious criminal mastermind who breaks common criminals out of jail to carry out his murders using this poison (and then has them put back in jail). As the title suggests, it's a nearby college full of girls that provides most of the victims. There's also a mysterious monk dressed in a red robe who marauds around breaking necks with a bullwhip.<br /><br />Of course, with a plot like that; this is not exactly a serious affair and the director clearly knows that as there is a very tongue-in-cheek vibe to the film, which does bode well with the plot. The fact that there are so many different sides to the plot does unfortunately mean that everything does not run smoothly; although this isn't a big problem as things are kept ticking over nicely throughout the film and there's always enough going on to keep the audience interested. The atmosphere is superb and the colour scheme on display is great too look at. Of course, the film is based on an Edgar Wallace novel and clearly the man has a great imagination; the locations used are also superb and while a killer's lair decked out with a host of wild and exotic animals might not serve any relevance to the plot, it does help to give the film that extra 'something'. You cant expect a conclusion that fully makes sense after all the stuff that goes on in this film; but the reason for the murders sort of makes sense and is a satisfying way for the film to climax. Overall, College Girl Murders is an excellent little mystery flick and one that comes highly recommended! | 1pos
|
William (Nicholas Ball) and Emma Peters (Rachel Davies) buy an old house where a brutal murder happened years ago in very bad condition with the intention of restoring it. They move with their daughter Sophie (Emma RidleY), and become friends of their neighbors Jean (Patricia Maynard) and George Evans (Brian Croucher). However, eerie events happen in the house, inclusive the death of Sophie's cat. In Sophie's birthday party, a pipe leaks blood and they leave the place, disclosing a secret later.<br /><br />"The House That Bled to Death" is a scary and one of the best episodes of the series "Hammer House of Horror". The fantastic twist, disclosing a secret, and the tragic conclusion are really excellent. My vote is eight.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "A Casa Que Sangrou Até Morrer" ("The House That Bled to Death") | 1pos
|
Perhaps not the absolute greatest entry in the Hammer House of Horror series, but it surely wins the award for most inventively titled episode! "The House that Bled to Death"
I could yell out this title all day without ever getting tired of it! And besides the wondrous title, this short movie also benefices from a solidly written screenplay and a handful of genuinely suspenseful moments. It might require an extra viewing before you fully understand the peculiar end-twist, but it's definitely an original idea for a horror short. The story opens with images of an elderly couple drinking tea in their middle-class house. The husband sadistically kills his wife and several years later the "cursed" house is still for sale. A young couple and their cherubic daughter move in and start to restore it, but mysterious events occur and affect especially the young Sophie. Her beloved cat is killed an even her birthday party gets ruined when one of the house's pipes suddenly sprays blood all over the guests (a particularly chilling sequence, this one!). Is the old house really haunted? Or maybe the seemly helpful neighbors cause all the horror? The answers to these questions are provided in the original and fairly unpredictable climax and there's even room for a real shock at the very end. The tension is masterfully built up and the titular house is filled with eerie scenery, like the pair of rusty machetes used by the husband to slay his wife. Little warning though, the sequence with the cat is hard to watch when you're an animal lover. In conclusion, another winner for Hammer's short-running TV series! | 1pos
|
Out of the first five episodes of Hammer's short-running "Hammer House of Horror" series, this fifth episode with the wonderful title "The House that Bled to Death" is arguably the creepiest one. As a great fan of the Hammer Studios' Gothic Horror films for many years, I wonder what took me so long to finally start watching the series quite recently. So far, I've only seen the first five episodes, and I have a strong feeling that the best is yet to come, but even if the series stays as entertaining as the first five episodes are, I will be satisfied. Whereas the second and third episodes were great to watch for their morbid and ingeniously dark sense of humor, this fifth entry is definitely the one out of the first five that delivers the most genuine Horror. The episode begins when an elderly man murders his wife out of unknown motivations. Years later, William (Nicholas Ball) and Emma Peters (Rachel Davies) move in the house with their little daughter Sophie (Emma Ridley). Soon after moving in, however, the family have to find out that there is something terribly wrong with the house, which is seemingly haunted... The second episode directed by Francis Megahy is a lot better than his mediocre previous entry, "Growing Pains" (Episode 4), and the fairly unknown actors deliver good performances. The film is also well-made in terms of effects, cinematography and score. "The House that Bled to Death" is a solid episode that delivers the elements that my fellow Hammer-fans should like to see in a Short Horror tale. The film delivers a creepy atmosphere, genuine scare moments and intelligent twists, and is suspenseful and highly entertaining from the beginning to the end. Overall, this is highly recommendable to Hammer fans. | 1pos
|
I entered my first comment on this film almost five years ago. Then, the ideas presented in the movie still seemed mostly fictional, if indeed they could ever transpire at all. Not any longer. Now, the politics, society, and media in The Running Man seem very close to home indeed.<br /><br />Consider the following factors, which were mostly absent in 1987 (the year The Running Man came out) that are present today:<br /><br />Concern with, as Richard Dawson's character Damon Killian puts it, "traditional morality." CHECK<br /><br />Entertainment in the form of extreme reality, including pain, fear, and discomfort on the part of contestants. CHECK<br /><br />Cameras everywhere. CHECK<br /><br />Restricted travel for citizens at the whim of the government, controlled by a centralized computer system complete with barcoded passports ("travel passes" in the movie) and sanctioned under the guise of national security. CHECK<br /><br />An increased intermingling, bordering on incestuous, of government and media. CHECK<br /><br />Computer-generated graphics that are advanced enough to manipulate real film footage (such as the "digital matting" of Ben Richards' image onto the stunt double). CHECK<br /><br />Jailing of conscientious objectors or detractors of the current administration. CHECK<br /><br />Flagging economy further widening the gulf between the wealthy and not-so-wealthy; increasing numbers of fringe groups reacting to the tightening noose of big government; civil unrest brewing just under or at the surface of nearly every sizable public event regardless of its origin or intent. CHECK, CHECK, CHECK<br /><br />Then again, maybe it's just a movie based on a Stephen King novella. But just to be safe, I'm moving to Switzerland. | 1pos
|
Of all Arnold's mid-'80s movies who would have thought that most relevant today would be The Running Man. A chilling and surprisingly realistic tale of reality TV gone mad. It may have been far-fetched back then but not so now. Not when you think about it. Currently, Reality TV shows are either scraping the bottom of the barrel or desperate to raise the bar. If the next one isn't more controversial as the last, it's a dud. How long will it be before we really do see shows like The Running Man? How long before we have 'court-appointed theatrical attorneys' or the entertainment division of the Justice Department? There is so much satire and intelligence in this movie that may have been missed back in 1987 that is desperate to be seen again considering the current state of TV shows.<br /><br />The biggest message of all is 'You are being lied to'. It's no secret that the Government and the media work in cahoots. And the masses believe what the media tells them to believe. It's a very scary state of affairs and unless more accurate representations of the truth emerge we may easily accept a brutal show like the Running Man in the near future. It's no secret that Reality TV is not very realistic. It's edited and reshaped before being aired and it's only what the networks want you to see. Usually it's far from the real truth.<br /><br />Although rather different than Stephen King's book (the ending is completely changed) the script does conform to the typical Arnie formula. Yes, he does have numerous and very corny one-liners and he does say 'I'll be back' (which he never REALLY said that often anyway, when you think about it) in the most ironic situation yet but he's still a zillion times better in the role then Christopher Reeve or Dolph Lundgren would have been (these two were considered BEFORE Arnie believe it or not).<br /><br />The director is none other than Dave Starsky himself (Paul Michael Glaser). It may not be artistic but it is still strong enough to generate excitement and his use of neon and flourescent colors gives each individual set a pretty cool look. Andrew Davis (not a director I particularly like) was attached before Glaser, though no matter who directs, the film is still marred by a very heavy 80's feel.<br /><br />First of all, Harold Faltermeyer's score (remember him?) is incredibly dated and robs the action scenes of any timeless integrity. And the fashion sense of the movie is far too excessive to be convincingly set in the future. Apart from the dated feel, the only other thing that bugs me is the poorly staged shoot-out that passes as the climax.<br /><br />This new DVD is a zillion times better than the original release. Gone is the horrid letterbox picture. In its place is a brand new hi-definition 1.85:1 anamorphic transfer. The colors sparkle and literally pop from the screen. The new Dolby 5.1 EX and DTS ES soundtrack are also amazing. There constant use of the surround channels to great effect and the bass is strong and powerful. Definitely one of the best re-masters I've seen so far. Two intriguing documentaries, a trailer and a 'Meet the Stalkers' gimmick are included in this 2-disc set that comes in a rather neat slip case. | 1pos
|
Mild Spoilers<br /><br />In the near future, Arnold stars as Ben Richards, a wrongly convicted man coerced into playing 'The Running Man', a deadly TV game show where people have to keep moving to try and escape brutal deaths at the hands of the 'Stalkers'. Of course, people are expected to die eventually and its up to Arnold to prove the system wrong.<br /><br />I haven't read the Stephen King book, but this is a great film regardless, one of Arnold's best. He does what he does best in the action man role, delivering death with unforgettable one-liners. Classics are probably the 'He was a real pain in the neck' after strangling a guy with barb wire, and 'He had to split!', referring to whereabouts he just chain sawed someone vertically. Dawson is perfectly irritating as the TV presenter, and all the 'Stalkers' are suitably camp. The action is violent, but its an action film. That's the point. The film is fast paced, and at 90 minutes it doesn't overstay its welcome. <br /><br />With Starsky and Hutch's Paul Michael Glaser at the helm, and made in the wake of the success of The Terminator, previously this film was probably seen as just another mindless action vehicle for Arnold, and very far fetched. But today, anyone who watches a lot of TV could see how the film is getting closer to reality. I wouldn't be surprised if I turn on the TV in the 'near future' and see a show not to far from this.<br /><br />On that depressing note, I must however recommend 'The Running Man' to anyone who likes the 80s, Arnold, ridiculous acts or violence or just a good action film. 9. 5 / 10 | 1pos
|
This is an awesome action film with great one liners from Arnie!. It's stylishly made, with lots of tense action to keep one satisfied. The Characters were awesome, and Richard Dawson, is very menacing as the main villain. Yes it has tons of plot holes,however it's highly highly entertaining, with a great ending as well. It had a great story, too it, and Arnie and Maria Conchita Alonso had great chemistry together. The Character development was also pretty good, with, some superb performances. The Directing is great!. Paul Michael Glaser, does a very good job here, with awesome use of colors, keeping it stylish throughout, awesome camera angles, and overall keeping the film at a very fast pace! good job. There is a little bit of gore. We get a few bloody gunshot wounds, exploding head, slit throat, bloody chainsaw slices, skinless corpses, blood, and an impaling. The Acting is great!. Arnold Schwarzenegger is AMAZING as always, he is excellent in the acting department , has tons of hilarious one liners, kicks that ass, and as always is a big physical presence!, and was tons of fun to watch! (Arnie Rules!). Maria Conchita Alonso, does well here, she was really cute, and had good chemistry with Arnie!. Yaphet Kotto, is decent here, with what he has to do, which is not much. Marvin J. McIntyre, is good as the geeky type guy, he was cool!. Richard Dawson is awesome as the main villain, and was very very menacing, and he was fun to watch. Jesse Ventura,Jim Brown,Erland van Lidth,Gus Rethwisch,and Professor Toru Tanaka, all do what they have to do very well as the stalkers. Overall a MUST see! ****1/2 out of 5 | 1pos
|
This movie is one of the most Underrated movie of its time. When watching this movie , your filled with action, and when somethings not really happing , the humour is un matched. Brilliant writing for a movie that was made to give us a bloody mix , of a game show where criminals are the contestants, and a near future where the general public all have a thirst for blood.Also Arnold Doesn't let us down with some of his best one liners.I don't want to spoil anything for you ,but i will tell you when Arnold gives his "I'll be back line" He gets the best response of them all in this movie. Hope you enjoy this gem as much as i did. | 1pos
|
I'm sitting here Nov 2006 and I still can't help rave about this movie. Arnold's best movies came in about a 4-5 year span. Running Man, Predator, and Total Recall (1990). All 3 are amazing. The cheesy one liners by Arnold in this movie will make you laugh on more than one occasion. I find the acting in this movie surprisingly good as was the case in Predator and Totall Recall. They did a great job in trying to make the scenes futuristic as it is supposed to take place in 2017, but you can't help but snicker at the 80's style haircuts on the men and woman in the crowd and the normal television monitors in the Running Man studio which we all know here in 2006 are on the way out with the emergence of flat panel and HDTV's. Also the computer graphics of the "The Running Man" game show intro would not look like that in 2017. Nevertheless the storyline is absolutely fantastic. Not once during this movie did I want to get up and not care about the ending which is something I do often with today's movie's. I really think that Arnold's acting is much better than he's given credit for. Now I would not have elected him governor but that's California for you. Buzzsaw, Dynamo, Fireball, SubZero are fantastic "stalkers" as well and I find the producers don't try to overkill the fight scenes. When the stalker is dead...he's dead. It doesn't go on for 20 minutes each. The stalker scenes are quick and entertaining but they don't try and overplay it. I give this movie a 10/10 and that's coming from someone who doesn't enjoy a lot of movies these days. If you get the right actors and the right story then the futuristic graphical displays that you'd see in 2006 are not important or necessary. | 1pos
|
The Running Man is often dismissed as being just another Arnie action thriller full of explosions, bad puns and gunfire, and to be fair, there is a lot of that in it. People used to look at it and compare it to the Terminator series, saying it was one of the poorer Schwarzenegger films.<br /><br />But, give it 18 years, and you find yourself being able to appreciate it in a different light. Rather than just being another brainless action film, it works very well as a parody of reality TV. It is quite different to the Stephen King book, true, but I doubt whether Hollywood, with its love of upbeat endings and so-called 'ordinary guys' who turned out to have the skills of a trained commando, would have accepted it in its current form.<br /><br />But, on with the review.<br /><br />Ben Richards (Arnold Schwarzenegger) is a cop working in a dystopian United States where democracy is a thing of the past, and the entire country is ruled by a government/media conglomerate amalgamation. The economy is in tatters, food is scarce and the state keeps people distracted by producing sadistic gameshows for them to watch, like Jumping for Dollars, where people jump for money over a pit of rabid dogs, and the most popular one is The Running Man, a gameshow hosted by the slimy Damian Killian (played by the entertaining Richard Dawson) where supposed 'criminals' are hunted down by theatrical, pro-wresting-esquire 'stalkers'.<br /><br />Some, however, try and speak up against the government. When a group of hungry people hold a protest in the town of Bakersfield, California, a helicopter piloted by Richards is sent to 'calm' (i.e. kill) the protest. When Richards refuses to fire on innocent people, he is arrested and framed for the murder of the people in the crowd. He is sentenced to a slave labour camp, but escapes with the aid of a resistance leader (Yaphet Kotto) and goes on the run.<br /><br />However, his freedom does not last long, and after he kidnaps network employee Amber Mendez (Marita Conchita Alonso) in an attempt to escape those pursuing him, he finds himself taken prisoner again, but this time he is forced to appear on The Running Man.<br /><br />And there, of course, the entire film kicks into standard Arnie mode. Richards is launched into the post-apocalyptic wasteland of Los Angeles (why is LA always destroyed in these dystopian worlds?) and forced to run from the 'stalkers', along with two other prisoners who escaped from the labour camp with him. Amber also becomes curious about Richards' protestations of innocence, and discovers he was framed. Guess what happens to her, then? So, as Amber, Richards and the two other guys run around trying to avoid the stalkers, we soon become aware that Richards is no ordinary cop. He's Super Arnie, the unkillable one man army who can collapse evil corporate dictatorships and fight obese men covered in Christmas lights all while being just your average American guy with an Austrian accent.<br /><br />Yes, the remainder of the film becomes dumb, loud, classic 80's Arnie fun. There's a lot of exciting fight sequences, the trademark dreadful puns ('He had to split' being my favourite), and the general formulaic final confrontation and happy ending. It's a lot of fun watching Killian react to it in the typical 'wholesome' gameshow host way, as well, and some of the funniest moments in the show revolve around the contrast between his interactions with the crowd as the seemingly benevolent host (watch out for the cursing old lady!) and the cold, cyncial man he is in reality who will do anything to increase ratings.<br /><br />If you expect a high-brow, intelligent film, you'll be disappointed. But if you want a great 80s flick, well, this is it. But the great thing about this film is it was quite prophetic.<br /><br />If you look at the entertainment we have today, you'll have noticed the way reality TV is going nowadays - shows featuring people willing to put themselves through anything for five minutes of fame, and producers all too willing to let them humiliate themselves on TV. It's not too far a leap to imagine that some vile TV exec out there has been trying to get the right to show people be executed live on TV. We've already had that, however, with the ghoulish al-Qaida hostage beheading videos posted on the internet. It seems that in the current climate, at least some people are perfectly fine with watching real death on their television sets.<br /><br />With that in mind, and coupled with the fact that everything these days appears to be a revival of the 80s, you have to be impressed by the far-sightedness of this film. Of course, we haven't reached there yet, as it's terrorists, rather than the mainstream media, who have bought us easily available programs featuring real human death, but you just have to wonder how long it is before some exec decides to see if he can find a way of pitching a show that combines people's desire for entertainment and desire to indulge their morbid curiosity... | 1pos
|
Arnold once again in the 80's demonstrated that he was the king of action and one liners in this futuristic film about a violent game show that no contestant survives. But as the tag line says Arnold has yet to play! The movie begins in the year 2019 in which the world economy has collapsed with food and other important materials in short supply and a totalitarian state has arisen, controlling every aspect of life through TV and a police state. It's most popular game show is The Running Man, in which criminals are forced to survive against "Stalkers" that live to kill them.<br /><br />The movie opens with Ben Richards (Arnold) leading a helicopter mission to observe a food riot in progress. He is ordered by his superiors to fire on them, refusing to gets him knocked out and thrown in prison, in the meantime they slaughtered the people without his help. The government blames Richards for the massacre earning him the name "Butcher of Bakersfield". Eighteen months later Richards along with two friends William Laughlin (Koto) and Harold Weiss (McIntyre) breakout of a detention zone they worked in. They make their way to the underground, led by Mic (Mick Fleetwood). Mic quickly identifies Richards as the "Butcher of Bakersfield" and refuses to help him, but his friend's convince him otherwise. They want him to join the resistance, but he'd rather go live with his brother and get a job. Soon he finds that his brother has been taken away for reeducation and a woman name Amber Mendez (Alonso) has taken his apartment. Knowing who he is she won't help him, but he convinces her, but is busted at the airport by the cops after she ratted him out.<br /><br />Meantime, The Running man is having trouble finding good new blood for the there stalkers to kill. Damon Killian (Dawson) the shows host and one of the most powerful men in the country sees Richards escape footage and is able to get him for the show after his capture. Richards refuses to play, Killian threatens to use his friends instead of him, so he signs the contract. You'll love that part. But soon he finds they will join him as well and makes sure Killian knows he'll be back. The Runners begin to make there way through the Zones and fight characters that are memorable, Sub-Zero, Buzz Saw and many others. Eventually Richards is joined by Amber who suspected he was set up but was caught and thrown into the game too. Together they find the underground and make there way back to Killian and give him a farewell send off.<br /><br />The running man is another one of Arnold's great movies from the 80's. The movie was apparently somewhat based on Stephen King's book of the same name. Some have said that the book is better. I'm sure it's not and I don't care anyway I loved the movie. As in all of Arnold's films the acting is what you would expect with classic one liners from Arnold and even Ventura gets a couple in. But without a doubt Richard Dawson is the standout in this film. Being a real game show host he easily spoofed himself and was able to create a character that was truly cold blooded. The whole movie itself somewhat rips on game shows and big brother watching you. Keep an eye out for them poking fun and some old shows, "hate boat" among others. Also the cast was great besides Arnold, Koto, and Alonzo don't forget Professor Toru Tanaka, Jim Brown, Ventura and Sven-Ole! With all the reality TV nonsense that goes on it almost fits in better now, but I'm sure the Hollywood liberals would make it into a movie about the "Evil Bush". The new DVD had mostly poor extras meet the stalkers being the only redeemable one. Some how the ACLU managed to get some of there communism into the DVD and is laughable garbage that should not be anywhere near an Arnold movie of all things. Blasphemy! Overall for any Arnold fan especially we who grew up in the 80's on him ,you can't miss this. Its one of the first ones I saw back in the 80's and it's still great to this day. The futuristic world and humor are great. Overall 10 out 10 stars, definitely one of his best. | 1pos
|
This is a classic action flick from the '80s featuring Arnold Schwarzenegger in one of his most memorable roles. Set in a futuristic police state where the government controls everything, including the television networks. One of their most popular TV shows is "The Running Man", where convicted felons are hunted down and killed for the entertainment of millions. It's set up like a game show, where the audience votes for their favorite "stalkers", trained killers who hunt down and kill the show's unlucky "contestants". Audience members also win prizes for correctly predicting who will be killed by whom. And the host is played by none other than Family Feud's Richard Dawson, who's game show experience makes him well suited for this role. When Ben Richards (Arnold) is falsely accused of mass murder, he is forced to play this sadistic game.<br /><br />This movie is chock full of classic Arnold one-liners, such as his famous "I'll be back" right before he enters the arena. And he taunts a stalker armed with a flamethrower with "How about a light?" I could go on and on, but I don't want to spoil the movie. It's funny stuff!<br /><br />Whether it was intended or not, this movie serves as a great parody of today's "Reality TV" craze. Already there are numerous programs that show people enduring pain and humiliation for the entertainment of viewers, and even court cases are televised for their "entertainment value". Running Man demonstrates what would happen if reality TV hit rock bottom, and it is a scary picture. One can only hope that the networks have the common sense not to let it go that far.<br /><br />Overall, this is a fun film & I highly recommend it. 9 out of 10! | 1pos
|
THE RUNNING MAN, along with TOTAL RECALL, is my favorite Schwarzenegger movie. No, this isn't 2001, but it's not meant to be. And the acting and script here isn't even up to par with other Arnie movies like PREDATOR or THE TERMINATOR. But I submit that the IDEA behind this movie is one of the coolest ever to hit the big screen. A state-sponsored game show in which criminals convicted of serious crimes compete against "heroic" stalkers armed with all kinds of weapons (the runners are equipped with none) in order to satisfy the public's lust for sport and blood. The ultimate prize for a winning runner: freedom. Or so the rules claim.<br /><br />For a movie with such over-the-top gory death scenes and cheesy one-liners, it really does have a lot to say. Someone else has pointed out all the commentary on culture/government presented in this movie, so I won't go into it here. Suffice it to say that if you can look beyond the seemingly silly feel of the movie, you will enjoy it very much (especially if you're a big SF fan with a lot of imagination). Like I said, it's not trying to be a serious art film, but it IS surprisingly layered for a 80s shoot-em-up flick. The premise is borrowed from a Richard Bachman (aka Stephen King) short novel, but diverges fairly strongly from its source material, especially towards the end. (The book ends rather nihilistically; needless to say this movie doesn't.) I enjoyed both, but I like the movie better.<br /><br />My favorite line: "Guess it's caused from steroids." | 1pos
|
If you were brought up on a diet of gameshows you'll understand that you gradually need a bigger and better fix. Well, in the world of the Running Man, your needs will be sated. For in this game show, prisoners compete for freedom, and the ultimate prize - their very lives.<br /><br />I loved this film. It was such a parody on the mind-numbing tripe that we watch on a daily basis. It isn't one of Schwarzenegger's best performances, but on the whole it is a very good film. The underlying idea that Television Corporations will one day be the "real" rulers of the planet is very believable, and is very well portrayed in this film. Of course there are the usual Arnie one-liners, my favourite is when he is about to be catapulted into the gamezone, the gameshow host asks "Any last words?" Arnie says: "Yeah, I'll be back" but the host quips "Only in a re-run" and presses the eject button. I give this film a 10 for sheer originality. I must have watched it 30 or more times. The only film apart from the Die Hard series that I watched this often!!<br /><br />In short, do not for a minute think that you own the T.V. - It owns you..... | 1pos
|
Amongst the standard one liner type action films, where acting and logic are checked at the door, this movie is at the top of the class. If the person in charge of casting were to have put "good" actors in this flick, it would have been worse(excepting Richard Dawson who actually did act well, if you can call playing yourself "acting"). I love this movie! The Running Man is in all likelihood God's gift to man(okay maybe just men). Definitely the most quotable movie of our time so I'll part you with my favorite line: "It's all part of life's rich pattern Brenda, and you better F*****g get used to it." Ahh, more people have been called "Brenda" for the sake of quoting this film than I can possibly imagine. | 1pos
|
Didn't Mystic Pizza win the Oscar for that year? This movie never had a chance, due to the casting, but perhaps by now people can see why I felt that way upon leaving the theater. Only "Wargames" left me feeling similarly disturbed after leaving the theater, with the feeling I was getting a glimpse of our future. History has shown that this is exactly what happened.<br /><br />The casting is a pop-culture Cuisinart of the 1980s: you get Arnold as Ben Richards, the framed fugitive offered a chance to "run" for his freedom on the game show with the same title as the movie; Richard Dawson as Damon Killian, treating his role as if he were the host of Family Feud with the contestants using real guns; Jesse Ventura as "Captain Freedom" and co-wrestler Professor Tanaka as "Subzero," both "stalkers" who kill the "running men." Even Mick Fleetwood (Mic) and Dweezil Zappa (Stevie) show up, while the "dancers of the future" are none other than the Laker Girls. This movie SCREAMS "80s." The plot is a good excuse for the action: Ben Richards is determined to prove his innocence, but agrees to be the Running Man when he is told that his buddies would be set free; instead, they join him as "contestants." Maria Conchita Alonzo as Amber Mendez is the standard by which one can properly judge Salma Hayek in the 1990s.<br /><br />The production value on the film was a bit poor, the lines were cheesy, and (at the time), the plot seemed a bit far-fetched. I remember thinking when I was leaving the theater that we were definitely heading in the direction of the film, but who could have seen how far we'd go there and how fast? If The Running Man were listed in TV Guide, most people would assume it were just another reality show pushing the envelope today. The government influences on the media have only gotten worse, and the dumbed-down American public of the future that surrenders all of its freedoms for "national security" is downright chilling. Ben Richards is played brilliantly by Arnold as one of the few remaining holdouts against a government tyranny that the rest of America is all too willing to accept in return for good television and some parting gifts for the audience.<br /><br />The movie was way over the top, maybe even off the cliff for its time, but as with Back to the Future III, the "ravine" it appeared to be sinking itself into in 1987 was replaced by completed tracks in 2006 and beyond, and this movie will sail into the future as one of the more prophetic films of our time. It is tragic that, as with Wargames, the academy did not give this brilliant screenplay the recognition it deserved. "Serious" actors acting seriously while being so pretentious that you want to throw up may win more Oscars, but that doesn't make them better films than their "common man" counterparts, such as this one.<br /><br />An absolute must-see. | 1pos
|
This is one of the great movies of the 80s in MY collection that I think about all the time. <br /><br />The Running Man is one of Arnold`s best and most different films even to this day and when I first saw The Running Man I was so excited to see a movie like this. I just adore all of the fights and this is truly a special movie. It also has Jesse Ventura, the legendary Professor Toru Tanaka, Sven-Ole Thorsen, the beautiful Maria Conchita Alonso, Yaphet Kotto, Kurt Fuller, Richard Dawson, and Thomas Rosales Jr. who seems to always like death in his movies because he has been killed in such films as Universal Solder, The Lost World, Robo Cop 2, Predator 2, and among others. All Arnold fans should love this film from the beginning to the end because its action packed, star filled, and its one its one of Arnold`s best to date! | 1pos
|
This comic book style film is funny, has nicely paced action and a great futuristic style to it. Writer Steven de Souza, who also wrote Commando, gives Arnie plenty of lines to dish out: "Send me a copy," after signing a contract and stabbing a pen into the lawyers back; "What a pain in the neck," after strangling subzero with barbed wire; "He had to split," after slicing his body between his legs; and finally, as Killian slams through a billboard bearing his own face, Arnie concludes, "Now that hit the spot." Funnily enough, bears some similarities total recall, another sci-fi flick starring Schwarzenegger. | 1pos
|
Running Man isn't a great movie, in fact it's kinda silly. But it delivers what you want in an Arnie movie and that is action and entertainment. I don't see how anyone couldn't enjoy this picture, it's so silly and over the top, that it almost makes fun of itself. By the way, this is probably one of the most quotable Arnie movies out there. | 1pos
|
Running Man viciously lampoons the modern-day American media complex, and hits its target dead-center. It may be an easy target, but they pull it off none the less. RM effortless takes on pro-wrestling (featuring some pro wrestlers as the Hunters), network television, the Nielsen ratings, the American government (suggesting it's entertainment-oriented anyway), crime & punishment, and a half-dozen other things along the way. It's a far cry from the original Stephen King novella, and Arnold is not the Ben Richards of the novella either. But who cares? It's basically a Arnie flick, with all the well-choreographed action sequences and one-liners such an undertaking requires. | 1pos
|
Why didn't Dynamo have any pants?! Where did they go?? It was never explained. That's why this movie was so awesome. Plus Starsky gave his kids the AIDS!!!! Great acting too. Richard Dawson deserved to win Best Supporting Actor! A I D S My favorite line from the movie was "That hit the spot" A I D S. This movie was for the "birds". I tried to give this movie the "stinkeye" but it continued playing. What am I doing wrong???!!!! I thought the "HATEBOAT" was funnnny lol ;) I would like that for a show. Why wasn't Dynamo wearing pants. I know his arm WAS skewered but... What's up with those crazy futur nets. Why didn't that family feud guy Ray Combs get a net?? He could have used one. AIDSSSSS | 1pos
|
Set in 2017 (although one might easily mistake it for 1987, judging by the hairstyles and clothing), The Running Man sees all-round good guy Ben Richards (Schwarzeneggar) framed for a crime he didn't commit. After a daring prison break, he is captured and entered as a contestant in the brutal TV game show The Running Man, along with some fellow escapees and the pretty token female, Amber (Maria Conchita Alonso),.<br /><br />Used by the totalitarian government as a way of controlling the masses, the show pits convicts against a range of colourful (and often quite camp) opponents, each having his own unique killing style: Dynamo fires electricity from a special suit, Buzzsaw uses chainsaws, Sub Zero has a razor edged ice hockey stick, and Fireball prefers a flamethrower to finish off contenders. But these killers are no match for Ben Richards, who dispatches each one in a fittingly gruesome manner (followed by the obligatory witticism).<br /><br />Towards the end of the movie, Ben joins a group of freedom fighters in a battle against the authorities, and gets to exact revenge on the show's nasty host, Killian.<br /><br />Twenty years ago, Arnold Schwarzeneggar ruled the action-movie universe and, to his legion of fans, he could do no wrong. The Austrian beefcake had a successful formula that almost guaranteed box office success for his movies: comic book violence plus logic-free plot plus pretty female sidekick plus witty one-liners, minus acting ability equalled massive profits. The Running Man faithfully followed this blockbuster recipe to a T and Arnie's (mostly male teenage) audience lapped it up (myself included).<br /><br />Now, two decades later, and having just finished re-watching the movie for the first time in years, I find it a strange movie: one totally devoid of technical merit, decent acting, and convincing effects, yet somehow totally entertaining. Directed by Paul Michael Glaser (best known as Det. Dave Starsky from cult 70s cop show, Starsky and Hutch), and adapted from a short story by Stephen King (writing under the nom de plume, Richard Bachman), The Running Man is cheesy 80s tat that looks both incredibly cheap and very dated, yet despite (or maybe because of) the film's shoddiness, it has a special charm which is hard to describe.<br /><br />With no attempt at creating a realistic near-future setting, the film provides plenty of unintentional giggles. Check out the scene in which Ben discovers Amber's secret cache of forbidden cassette tapes(!); marvel at the crap 'futuristic' graphics used on advertising billboards and The Running Man board game (as a graphic designer, I found these particularly amusing); be amazed at the distinct lack of convincing technological advancements.<br /><br />The Running Man may be utter rubbish, but it is hugely entertaining utter rubbish that I have no hesitation in recommending to fans of Arnie and sci-fi action in general. | 1pos
|
This is an Arnold movie. Now that you know that, I've saved a lot of you the time it would have taken to read this review. If you don't like Arnold, then you wont like this movie. If the case is the other, then you will very probably like it. It's as simple as that.<br /><br />Now, if you're still reading this I expect you like Arnold. Good for you! He is quite good isn't he. The Running Man is a very typical Arnold feature. It's got the usual retro-future we know so well from 80's B-Sci Fi, it's got a bunch of terrible one-liners, lots of violence and explosions, and a good-looking heroine and a happy ending.<br /><br />In this case, the evil opponent is the all-controlling 1984ish government, which uses television as an effective crowd-control with gladiator-type game shows. Arnold, of course, ends up in one of these shows and turns it all up-side-down, with a little help from his two confederates and the good-looking Amber.<br /><br />It's not a big budget movie, but it still managed to create a pretty good atmosphere of the future, with some nice matte paintings and sets to help it. It's hopelessly 80's, but I find that charming. Acting is varying, Arnold doing his usual grunt and shout thing, with a helping of stone-faced one-liners. Heroine Amber is, to put it lightly, a bit stereotypical, and the subtly named Damen Killian is a typical evil TV man.<br /><br />In spite of all it's flaws, the movie shows its message very clearly; television is an opiate of the masses, a good way to control people. It also features some at the time futuristic digital video editing, allowing the bad guys to change faces in a video to fool their audience. This does not seem futuristic at all today, which is a bit alarming.<br /><br />If you've seen Arnold movies before then you know when to watch this one. Enjoy. | 1pos
|
Although this film is somewhat filled with eighties cheese i have a place for it in my DVD rack and i don't know why. I think i like it because the moral of the story is 'television is garbage so turn it off and go and get a life'. For those of you who do decide to heed the message then you should try reading the book, its nothing like the film at all. To ruin it for you at the end of the story a fatally wounded Richards ends up crashing a plane into the network building, killing himself, everyone inside and shutting down the network at the same time. I read it many years ago but today it would hard not to compare it to 9/11. | 1pos
|
I have seen The Running Man several times as I am a Stephen King fan and have all his movies but now it is even better because up until 2 days ago I didn't know about this website and I didn't realize that the Paul Michael Glaser that was involved with this movie was the same Paul Michael Glaser that I grow up watching on Starsky and Hutch television show. For me this is a pleasant surprise because I can't tell you how many times I cried when Starsky or Hutch got hurt. The episode where Starsky (Kill Starsky) almost died I cried so hard My dad had to turn away from the show. What to you expect of a kid at age 12. Now, I intentionally look for films and programs involving Paul or David Soul and anything that Stephen King has his hands on I'm so there!!!!!!!! Just got to say Happy birthday Paul!!!!! | 1pos
|
The Running Man is one of those films that if overwatched, would become boring and depressing even.<br /><br />My advice is to watch it maybe once or twice a year with a couple of mates and a few drinks.<br /><br />In todays climate of TV Media domination and the capitalist mode in society it really does work as a revisionist social commentary, post 1980s-boom. Forget that though! There are other brilliant and better reasons to watch this film.<br /><br />Schwarzenegger is on top form as Ben "The Butcher of Bakersfield" Richards, and the inclusion of Bond-belting one liners was completely inspired-thety are truly leg-end-dary (with his rant to Killian over a camera the main highlight).<br /><br />The design of the stalkers is authentically American, and mirrors the characterizations seen in the PC 'Gladiators' TV show, and the WWE as well. Buzz-saw's grisly end will chill any viewer to the core (as a foot note, why does his death stand out as particularly disturbing in what is ostensibly an upbeat actioner with a bitter sense of humour?)<br /><br />Jesse Venturer and Sven Ole Thorssen are great as backing muscle (and are Arnies buds in real life), and its even got Mick Fleetwood in it too! What more could you ask for?<br /><br />I highly recommend the Running Man if you're looking for a great piece of entertaining action, with a glossty finish and some great characters. Just don't expect an education from it (at least on surface value).<br /><br />Quality, I bloody love it actually. You will too unless you're a thesp. 7/10 | 1pos
|
Another Excellent Arnold movie. This futuristic movie has great action in it, and is one of Arnie's best movies. Arnold is framed as a bad guy in this movie and plays a Game of Death. This movie is excellent and a great Sci-Fi / action movie. I've always liked this movie and it has to be one of the greatest adventure movies of all time. 10 out of 10! PERFECTION | 1pos
|
Another Spanish movie about the 1936 Civil War. This time we're told about the story of Carol (lovely played by débutant Clara Lago), a little girl which comes to live to a little Spanish village from New York. It is such an initiating trip, and soon she'll find about the injustices of the human race, their stupid fights and conflicts, their contradictions.<br /><br />Imanol Uribe makes his best film since "Días Contados" (1994) with such a sober pulse, a beautiful photography, and a nice script. He tries not to take part in the conflict, he just shows us some facts and let us decide (ok, the facts are explicit enough to make us decide in which band are we in) and he takes a huge advantage of the presence and the freshness of the young starring couple: Clara Lago and Juan José Ballesta.<br /><br />A well cared production.<br /><br />My rate: 7/10 | 1pos
|
Carol, the young girl at the center of the story, is transplanted to a foreign land, Spain, at the height of the Civil War conflict in the late 30s. For this girl, everything is new, in it's foreignness. The war and her father are her constant worries, while she has to immerse herself in a provincial culture that is years behind what she has in New York.<br /><br />Imanol Uribe directs this film by the numbers. Carol's family is obviously divided, while Carol's mother is married to someone that is an air force pilot with the leftist faction, the rest of the family's sympathies are with the Franco and the fascists that won the conflict.<br /><br />The story adds nothing to what has already been told, much better, but it's an easy film to watch. Northern Spain's magnificent landscape is shown. Don't expect a lot of action since most of what happens revolves around Carol and the young boys she befriends.<br /><br />Clara Lago plays Carol with sincerity and innocence. Maria Barranco is Carol's mother Aurora, the one that went away to America. Rosa Maria Sarda is Maruja, the teacher who befriends Carol. Carmelo Gomez, plays Alfonso, the man that Aurora left behind when she left for America. This actor, who usually has lead roles in most Spanish films, doesn't have anything to do, as he remains an enigma throughout the movie. | 1pos
|
Yesterday my Spanish / Catalan wife and myself saw this emotional lesson in history. Spain is going into the direction of political confrontation again. That is why this masterpiece should be shown in all Spanish High Schools. It is a tremendous lesson in the hidden criminality of fascism. The American pilot who gets involved in the Spanish Civil War chooses for the democratically elected Republican Government. The criminal role of religion is surprisingly well shown in one of the most inventive scenes that Uribe ever made. The colors are magnificent. The cruelty of a war (could anybody tell me the difference between Any war and a Civil war ?)is used as a scenario of hope when two young children express their feelings and protect each other. The cowards that start their abuse of power even towards innocent children are now active again. A film like 'El viaje de Carol'/ 'Carol's journey' tells one of the so many sad stories of the 20th Century. It is a better lesson in history than any book could contain. Again great work from the Peninsula Iberica ! | 1pos
|
This is a very good Spanish movie but I am worried that many out there will feel lost because many around the world have no idea what the Spanish Civil War was all about or when it was fought. Being a history teacher, I had a big advantage but could easily see how the film could be confusing until you piece together all the pieces. I doubt if this would be a big concern in Spain where this film was made, but for other audiences they may be a bit confused until later in the film.<br /><br />The movie begins with 12 year-old Carol and her mother returning to her mother's home town. Years have passed and you gather that they are coming to Spain from New York City. Despite the strangeness, Carol speaks reasonably good Spanish and much of the film is about how she adapts. As for why her and her mother are alone, I'll spill it now for those who don't pick up on the fact that Carol's father is fighting in the war on the side of the Republicans (who eventually lost in this very bloody conflict).<br /><br />The movie gets exceptional marks for its lovely camera work and music. The rather slow and rambling pace isn't bad provided you are someone who can accept films this way. I have seen several other Spanish films about this war and this compares pretty well to them--not better or worse--just a decent slice of life film about those who are left behind as well as a nice coming of age flick.<br /><br />PS--If you don't know which side is which, the Republicans were mostly Socialists and they were backed by the Soviet Union and Mexico as well as volunteers from many countries (including the USA). The Nationalists were led by Franco and were aided by Portugal and the Fascist states of Germany and Italy. | 1pos
|
Some unsuspecting films carry a message that resonates in the hours and days after viewing. Such is the case for CAROL'S JOURNEY (EL VIAJE DE CAROL), a beautifully crafted 2002 film from Spain based on the novel 'A boca de noche' by Ángel García Roldán who also adapted the book as a screenplay. War and its consequences are not new subject matter for films, but when that war theme plays in the background as a subtle driving force to develop characters (especially children) who must face adult life influenced by the games of adults, the result is a different and more tender examination of the coming of age film genre.<br /><br />Carol (Clara Lago) is a 12-year-old Spanish American youngster from New York who with her critically ill mother Aurora (María Barranco) returns to her Aurora's home in 1938 at the height of the Spanish Civil War, a home that has been left deserted by her father Don Amalio (Álvaro de Luna) since his wife's death. Carol's father Robert (Ben Temple) is a fighter pilot who has sided with the Republicans against Franco and is rarely with his family. Aurora has a past: she left her lover Alfonso (Alberto Jiménez) to marry Robert, and Alfonso in turn married Aurora's cold sister Dolores (Lucina Gil). Carol is an independent girl who remains aloof to all but her grandfather Don Amalio until she meets others her age but not of her 'class': Tomiche (Juan José Ballesta) and his two friends at first resent Carol, but as events develop Carol and Tomiche are bonded by what feels like the first awakenings of love. When Aurora dies of her illness, Carol must live with Alfonso and Dolores and their daughter Blanca (Luna McGill), yet turns to her grandfather for support and to her mother's best friend and teacher Maruja (the always radiant Rosa Maria Sardà) to understand the disparity between classes and the senseless war that keeps her beloved father from her side. Through a series of incidents Carol and Tomiche learn the rigors of becoming adults, facing more traumas in a brief period of the war than most of us experience in a lifetime. The ending, though sad, is uplifting as Carol's journey to maturity is complete.<br /><br />The film is shot in Galicia and Portugal and contains some extraordinarily beautiful settings captured with gentle sensitive lighting by cinematographer Gonzalo F. Berridi and enhanced by the musical score by Bingen Mendizábal. Director Imanol Uribe understands the fine line separating pathos from bathos, and in electing to concentrate the story on the children involved, he makes an even stronger statement about the futility and cruelty of war. The cast is exceptional: the stars clearly are young Clara Lago and Juan José Ballesta, but they are supported by the fine veteran actors in the adult roles. This is a visually stunning work with a lasting message and should find a much larger audience than it has to this date. Grady Harp | 1pos
|
I was deeply moved by this movie in many respects. First of all, I just want to say that Clara Lago was the most precious little thing! Such a pretty little girl. Her acting was superb as well. True to life and very human. Though I don't like the part where she had to smoke; I hope it was only a fake prop. Either way, she was absolutely wonderful and the story was so moving. I found myself immersed in the story and her character.<br /><br />It's quite interesting how I came to discover this movie actually. I was walking in blockbuster and I just happened to notice her pretty smile on the cover as I was walking by. Luckily I glanced in the downward direction that this movie was in! I thought to myself, 'Awe, look at her!' So I picked it up and saw that this movie was described as such wonderful things as "A Little Gem." I read the plot on the back and then thought that, well, maybe I'd look it up on IMDb first and then come back and rent it at a later time. I'm glad I didn't, because I certainly would have been missing out. After searching for a movie with my friend, I knew that I would end up regretting not renting this film, so I went back to the spot in which I originally found it and snapped it up.<br /><br />It had been on my dresser for a week, since school started for me this week and I really hadn't any time to watch it, but tonight was the perfect opportunity. I popped it in and was glued to the beautiful cinematography, delightful score and moving plot from beginning to end. I was so captivated and must say, some parts nearly moved me to tears.<br /><br />I would also like to make a special mention for the young boy in this film, Juan Jose Ballesta. He was remarkable. Also the actor who played Carol's father, who's name is unfortunately not listed on the site. His voice was just so loving and gentle that I could really sense his love for Carol. Even though his appearance is not prominent, I really felt his character's presence.<br /><br />This is truly a wonderful movie. If you are a person who is moved by light, but emotional films, then this is definitely one for you. | 1pos
|
CAROL'S JOURNEY is a pleasure to watch for so many reasons. The acting of Clara Lago is simply amazing for someone so young, and she is one of those special actors who can say say much with facial expressions. Director Imanol Urbibe presents a tight and controlled film with no break in continuity, thereby propelling the plot at a steady pace with just enough suspense to keep one wondering what the nest scene will bring. The screenplay of Angel Garcia Roldan is story telling at its best, which, it seems, if the major purpose for films after all. The plot is unpredictable, yet the events as they unravel are completely logical. Perhaps the best feature of this film if to tell a story of the Spanish Civil War as it affected the people. It was a major event of the 20th century, yet hardly any Americans know of it. In fact, in 40 years of university teaching, I averaged about one student a semester who had even heard of it, much less any who could say anything comprehensive about it--and the overwhelming number of students were merit scholars, all of which speaks to the enormous amount of censorship in American education. So, in one way, this film is a good way to begin a study of that event, keeping in mind that when one thread is pulled a great deal of history is unraveled. The appreciation of this film is, therefore, in direct relation to the amount of one's knowledge. To view this film as another coming of age movie is the miss the movie completely. The Left Elbow Index considers seven aspects of film-- acting, production sets, character development, plot, dialogue, film continuity, and artistry--on a scale for 10 for very good, 5 for average, and 1 for needs help. CAROL'S JOURNEY is above average on all counts, excepting dialogue which is rated as average. The LEI average for this film is 9.3, raised to a 10 when equated to the IMDb scale. I highly recommend this film for all ages. | 1pos
|
Clara Lago is wonderful as the title character of the film, essentially a film about a Spanish/American girl who moves to Spain with her mom at the time of the Spanish Civil War. It turns out, the mother goes home to die, and she is left with her grandfather. She also makes friends and experiences much in a short time. Tomiche (Juan Jose Ballestra) is at first a nuisance to her then they become close. The film is shot beautifully, bathed in soft colors mostly. Carol yearns for her dad, who is a pilot in the war, and you can feel the love sher has for him. While the war itself is kind of taken a back seat in this film, it envelops the character's lives. I think you'll like it. See it especially for Clara Lago, who does a great job as Carol. She is definitely one to watch. | 1pos
|
I just saw "Behind Bedroom Doors," and this was the first softcore flick with a solid story behind it that I've seen in a while.<br /><br />We begin with two neighborly couples--Vivian and James Fenway (Julia Kruis and Eric Carrington), and Lillian and Gabe Harris (Nicole Sheridan and Chris Gustafson). Vivian appears to be a housewife, James is a lawyer running for district attorney, Lillian works in real estate, and Gabe is a successful plastic surgeon. Got all that? Now, let's get into it.<br /><br />Enter Abby, played beautifully by porn star Chelsea Blue. She's renting the house across the street from the Fenways and lives all by herself. At the beginning of the movie, James looks out his window and sees Abby engaged in playtime with her girlfriend, Gigi (played by prolific pornstress Monique Alexander) and secretly begins to wonder what it would be like to be with her. The next day, Abby gets acquainted with all four of them, and appears to be a nice woman who just happens to be living an alternative lifestyle. She makes a pass at Vivian, who seems startled and says to her, "Oh...I'm...not that way." Everything seems okay...until the plan gets set in motion<br /><br />First, Abby shows up at Gabe's office, naked, asking Gabe if she should get a boob job. This is where we get our quote of the movie:<br /><br />"Tell me about Gabe." "What do you want to know?" "Is Gabe happily married?" "I'm married." "There's trouble.....let me guess. Your wife stays at home, and does everything you ask. But, she's a good girl." "Yes." "She's not a bad girl?" "No." "Does that door have a lock on it?"<br /><br />You know what happens next....Abby gets it on with Gabe, right there in the exam room. After that, she puts on a little show in her window for James, who comes over and wastes no time in having sex with her. What James doesn't know is that the teddy bear on the piano with the flashing red eye is really a camera taping all the festivities (it's so obvious anyway). Abby has sex with Gabe again later, and this time Gigi joins in to make it a three-way. Now that Abby has something on both men, she requests $100,000 from each in order to buy her silence. Not only could she ruin James's run for office, but she could destroy Gabe's practice.<br /><br />While Gabe and James wrestle with their guilt, Abby finds time to seduce Lillian--who "experimented" with women in college. That was a long time ago, but you wouldn't know that seeing her in action with Abby--she looked like an old pro.<br /><br />While Gigi goes along with the plan, she's seems jealous of all the sex her girlfriend is having. "It's only business," Abby says. Confessions and apologies are sure to follow, as is some startling info on Abby's true identity--it seems she's been doing the same thing to different men in many different places. Gabe and James use this info to fight back against Abby's blackmail.<br /><br />Now, on to the sex. The sex scenes were pretty good, and considering all the women involved in this film except for Julia Kruis have a lengthy porn background, I wouldn't have expected anything less. Nicole Sheridan's four scenes were the best of the movie, with the three-way coming in a close second. Monique Alexander only got naked once, but she was a relatively minor character. Julia Kruis was a major character and got naked the same number of times. I suppose since she was surrounded by experienced hardcore pros, she didn't have to have as many sex scenes.<br /><br />To wrap up, "Behind Bedroom Doors" had a great storyline, which enhanced the overall grade of the film. I consider it tapeworthy.<br /><br />Women: A- (Nicole Sheridan was good in this film--better than her later offerings in Fred Olen Ray's comedies. At least she can do drama somewhat. Chelsea Blue was a scene stealer--she wasn't that bad as the antagonist. I'd give her an A all by herself. Julia Kruis was her usual self. I wish Monique Alexander had more face time in this film, though.)<br /><br />Sex: B (Solid, very solid sex scenes. Nicole Sheridan's performances were almost hardcore quality. Chelsea Blue looked good in her scenes, too. The two girl-girl offerings weren't scorching, but they did warm up the screen.)<br /><br />Story: B+ (I liked the dialogue and the main storyline. Chelsea Blue's performance was good for the genre, and I was impressed with Nicole Sheridan's turn at drama.)<br /><br />Overall: B (This was a nice softcore flick. I'm glad I was able to watch this one, as I was pleasantly surprised. If Chelsea Blue ever wanted to do more of these, she'd be welcome anytime. That goes for Nicole Sheridan, too--even though she's probably better at doing comedy. I don't mind hardcore girls who can act doing softcore films.) | 1pos
|
If I'm going to watch a porn movie, I prefer it to have some sort of plot, and a descent dialogue. Behind Bedroom Doors is one of the few I've come across with those attributes.<br /><br />The new girl next door scams on the neighbor's human nature and weaknesses where seduction and sex concerned. Chelsea Blue,(I mean Brooke LaVelle) is the choice actress to play the part of the blackmailing seductress, and plays the part magnificently. Chelsea Blue is a very talented and extremely beautiful actress. The movie get's an overall 10 just because she is in it. Her partner in the movie, Monique Alexander is a definite cutie. The two should do more work together. In this movie, though, Monique, who plays Gigi, doesn't have a whole lot to do or say. That's too bad. She seems like she has more talent to be shared. I like the girl who was the (possible) DA's wife next. I forget her name, but she's pretty good looking, and not a bad actress. Nicole Sheridan...I'm still trying to figure out what some people are so excited about. It's obvious there are parts of her bought an paid for. Which is okay, but is she finished? Sorry, but come on! I'm afraid her performance here would have dropped the rating some, except Chelsea's talent and beauty overrides any negatives. Overall, This movie is a good one. | 1pos
|
It may be the remake of 1987 Autumn's Tale after eleven years, as the director Mabel Cheung claimed. Mabel employs rock music as the medium in this movie to express her personal attitude to life, in which love, desire and the consequential frustration play significantly crucial roles. Rock music may not be the best vehicle to convey the profound sentiment, and yet it is not too inappropriate to utilize it as the life of underground rock musicians is bitterly more intense than an ordinary one. The director focuses on the depiction of subtle affection and ultimate vanity of life rather than mere rock music. The love between father and son, lovers, and friends is delicately and touchingly delivered through the fine performance. Mabel does not attempt to beautify rock musicians as artists at all, instead, she tries to reproduce a true life on screen, making huge efforts of years' working on this project and gathering information in Beijing underground pubs.<br /><br />Daniel has given probably the best performance in all his movies made so far. His innate dispiritedness and reticence fit the blue mood of the film perfectly. | 1pos
|
I really like this movie because in Australia, Chinese movies like these never get shown during prime time. I must say this is one of the best serious movies ever, which outlines the difference between the Hong Kong people, and mainland Chinese. It really shows that there's discomfort between the two, but can only get better as HK are learning Mandarin. It also showed me how in mainland China the indie rock scene exists, and that Chinese people do know how to strum the guitar and get the house funking! Whoever said China isn't ready for rock music? Daniel Wu is absolutely superb, with his clean and crisp voice, honest acting, and a total chick magnet. I recommend this movie to those who don't know much about Asian people to cleanse themselves from the typical Western stereotypes, and people who just love Chinese/Asian cinema like myself. Check it out! | 1pos
|
it's a lovely movie ,it deeply reflects the Chinese underground bands' current lives. if you chinese culture ,traditionaled rock n roll music, there you go, i will highly recommend this one .but one thing i am wondering is whether this movie has been showed in Mainland ? i sorta doubt it ,:D | 1pos
|
Look, although we don't like to admit it, we've all have to suppress our fears concerning the extreme likelihood of experiencing the events that take place in this movie. You know: you get into your car and you immediately start thinking,"Gosh, I hope today isn't the day that my accelerator sticks at a comfortable cruising speed of 55 mph, all four door latches break in the locked position, both my main and emergency brake fail, my ignition switch can't be turned off, and I've got a full tank of gas; all simultaneously." Fortunately, for most of us, our Thorazine kicks-in before we actually decide that it's a bad idea to be driving a car. Not so for the makers of the harrowing, white-knuckle, edge-of-your-seat (if only in preparation to leave the room) action juggernaut, "Runaway Car" But they go ahead and drive anyway!<br /><br />I am endlessly pleased to have found (thanks to the imdb) that this movie is real, and that I didn't merely dream it.<br /><br />This movie is, at the very least, one of the fantastic sights you will see on your journey to find the El Dorado of Very Bad Cinema.<br /><br />I highly recommend it. | 1pos
|
How this has not become a cult film I do not know. I think it has been sadly overlooked as a truly ingenious comedy!<br /><br />"Runaway Car" attempts to pass itself off as a fast-paced thriller, but taking the quality of acting (good God it's bad), the storyline, the practicalities of the car's demonic possession and the baby evacuation scene into account there is nothing you can really do but laugh. And laugh you will. Films are made to entertain us, and the degree to which they do this can be an indication of a film's worth. This film is the pinnacle in entertainment, I laughed from beginning to end. At one point I got short of breath and nearly choked, it really is that funny at some points. When the baby was airlifted out of the sunroof in a holdall by a helicopter with a robot pilot who managed to maintain a constant velocity identical to the car and a perfectly flat flight plain that meant the grapple hook didn't rip the car roof to pieces, I was laughing hysterically. But when the baby starting swinging around in the air, nearly hit a bridge and almost got tangled up in a tree, tears were running down my face.<br /><br />It also occurred to me that the black cop was the guy who played Jesus in Madonna's "Like A Prayer" video. He seems to get everywhere. | 1pos
|
In light of bad reviews - or car crashes - I feel possessed to get in gear and make a transmission to give merit where due, and do a service. I'm not sure people have license to say it was so bad, almost automatically.<br /><br />It's rare for a movie to have SUSPENSE. This movie maintained suspense it's whole length, for me, despite any flaws that may be. How many films can say that? Not even many big ones. Because of the simple premise you don't know if the people will get out of the life-threatening situation, which lasts the whole movie. Yeh, the suspension was tight, and over some bumps the shocks did their work. It's not just a TV movie, but an all-action movie; there is no point where it stops, or deviates, or becomes talky. It would be hard to make a film like this, always on the road. Only Duel, or Speed, are this that I recall. The best thing in them also was the constant tension.<br /><br />ACTING is not bad: The Judge is as good as ever, and the others are. <br /><br />SCRIPT is good. But the jury is out as to whether it sometimes may be - or seem to be - a little awry. What seems unrealistic is not necessarily so. Your first judgments are not always right, but I think the lead actor's was right in being in this movie.<br /><br />STUNTS are mostly terrific, especially for a TV movie. Their only failing may be the noticeable, and again, apparent, slow speed. But we all know how deceivingly slow Grand Prix cars can look.<br /><br />I liked that THE BEGINNING said, "inspired by a true story." So you are not going to go how much is true? You know just the basis is. The usual "based on a true story" makes me think it should mostly be true. But maybe that's my error.<br /><br />HOW TO SAVE THEM: Good idea of the reviewer to suggest a tow truck to lift the back wheels up. Just a few inches would do. A stunt driver could do that at 100 mph. Odd that they didn't call a car expert - or auto electrician or mechanic - to see if there's a way.<br /><br />I hope this review has put in reverse that this film is a disaster. Or at least neutral. And help it become a runaway success.<br /><br />Pic quality is a little soft for a DVD.<br /><br />SPOILER: They would have been winched out after the baby was, but strangely that life-saving idea was cleverly dealt with in some joking conversation to fade it out. I guess we know why. End of movie. Suspension of disbelief went out the top window with the baby. | 1pos
|
just watched it on sky TV missed the first half an hour. i did wonder if it was a true story so watched it to the end. there was no brief at the end to say what happened to everyone. it did remind me of speed but at the end of the day i don't suppose it was released at the cinema as we did see the following error. the goof that we saw was that they remove the bonnet (hood) and then later on there are two shots of the car with the police car in front trying to slow it down when the bonnet is back on. it did have me on the edge of my seat especially when i thought the baby was going to hit the bridge and of course when the bridge wasn't going to be lowered and then it was. I'm afraid i did burst into tears so it wasn't that bad!!!! | 1pos
|
i thought it was pretty interesting my social studies/language arts teacher was the police chief guy that was holding the microphone on the water barrel part =D i was excited my teacher is in some commercials he was in a gas/coffee/phone/play station commercial its nice seeing him on TV he was also on everybody hates Chris except he always get the small part la la why do we have to right 10 lines thats so stupid -_- i think I'm done never mind I'm still not done what is this a joke? why do we have to go all the way to line ten... really what's the point of it??!! i will just right random words for now -_- maple story is fun i love my friends | 1pos
|
This film was great.<br /><br />The plot was preposterous.<br /><br />The action sequences contrived.<br /><br />But, provided you can lighten up enough to laugh, it was a throughly thrilling romp combining Keystone Cops and the Lone Ranger.<br /><br />The baddies were more silly than bad. The good guys weren't too good. The black actors played normal characters rather than black stereotypes.<br /><br />The inclusion of a baby added a good touch. Sympathy might have been a little difficult otherwise. <br /><br />I have to disagree about the acting. It was, on the whole, very good. I really wanted to punch Judge Reinhold.<br /><br />And, after all, isn't that the mark of a really good movie, wanting to punch Judge Reinhold? | 1pos
|
I can still remember first seeing this on TV. I couldn't believe TVNZ let it on! I had to own it! A lot of the humor will be lost on non-NZ'ers, but give it a go! <br /><br />Since finishing the Back of the Y series Matt and Chris have gone on to bigger and better(?) things. NZ's greatest dare-devil stuntman, Randy Campbell has often appeared on the British TV series Balls of Steel. Yes, he still f^@ks up all his stunts because he is too drunk.<br /><br />Also the 'house band' Deja Voodoo have since released 2 albums, Brown Sabbath and Back in Brown. The band consists of members of the Back of the Y team and singles such as 'I Would Give You One of My Beers (But I've Only Got 6)' and 'You Weren't Even Born in The 80's' continue their humor.<br /><br />The South-By-Southwest film festival also featured their feature length film 'The Devil Made Me Do It' which will be released early 2008 in NZ.<br /><br />All up, if you don't find these guys funny then you can just F%^K OFF!! | 1pos
|
As a knowledgeable fan I recommend this film as faithful to the facts and well acted. As an 11 year old living in Istanbul I heard some friends talking about a new music sensation that caused girls to scream. I thought hmmmm, if girls like them, they must be crap. My only records until then were Haley Mills, The Everly Brothers & Ricky Nelson. Soon after while on vacation with the family at a military cafeteria in Ismir I heard a song (which I later learned was 'Love Me Do') and was floored by the difference between it and every song I had ever heard until then. When I heard the 'Meet The Beatles' album of my older brother I was hooked for life. Having read the definitive book of their beginnings (by Davis) I was surprised that this movie followed the facts very well with the exception of leaving out most of the sex and some of the drug use (it did touch on the use of methadrine/dexadrine). > | 1pos
|
"Birth of the Beatles", for being a US television movie, released in the fall of 1979 has actually been, so far the best movie which tells the tale of the the four lads from Liverpool that revolutionized the music industry and the world. As told by the point of view of former Beatle Pete Best. The performance from the entire cast is excellent but, most especially the performance by Stephen Mackenna as John Lennon and Rod Culbertson as Paul McCartney. The film was produced by a legend of the Rock and Roll era,Mr Dick Clark. Who a year earlier in 1978 had produced another TV movie, that has stood the test of time starring "Kurt Rusell" in the lead role about another musical legend; "ELVIS". That movie was directed by an unknown director named "John Carpenter" who went on to direct other successful movies such as; "Halloween","Escape From New York", and "The Thing". The same can be said for the director of the "Birth of the Beatles", Mr Richard Marquand. He went on to direct other theatrical blockbusters such as "Star Wars Return of the Jedi","Eye of the Needle",and "Jagged Edge" among many. The only other film that tells the story of the Fab Four that I know of,is Back Beat which had a theatrical release in 1994. However, the critics did not care for it,nor did the public, for it did not have a long life span in the theater. Birth of the Beatles is very charming and simplistic film that gives you the essence of the beginning of the legend and the struggles & hardships they went thru and ends at there pinnacle of success when they arrive in NYC and appear in the Ed Sullivan show in 1964. I highly recommend this film. | 1pos
|
The idea of making a film about the Beatles sounds doomed idea, as no production can catch the idea of the actual historic Beatles. Then it is perhaps best not to try to recreate the past, but to produce an illustration that works best with the other available Beatles material. This is exactly what 'Birth of the Beatles' offers to us, the simple story known to us without any extravaganza.<br /><br />*** SPOILERS here on *** <br /><br />Be warned that not everything is that accurate as some Beatles-graduates might expect. The Beatles are seen performing songs that hardly were even composed by that time. The Beatles perform "Ask Me Why", "P.S. I Love You" and even "Don't Bother Me". The Beatles-graduates should see that if the Beatles on the film only performed songs that they actually did at Hamburg, the younger viewers might not anymore recognize the Beatles they have learned to know them. Of that original Hamburg repertoire only "Johnny B. Goode" and Stu Sutcliffe's "Love Me Tender" are retained.<br /><br />The guys who play the Beatles in this production scarcely look like the originals, but the rest of the film still make good viewing as the film is for the rest fairly accurate. The guy who plays Lennon does it good and the rest of the band are not bad either. Brian Epstein is great and the moment when he sacks Pete Best from the group is probably the most memorable scene in the whole film. Also as a bonus you get to see the original Cavern club in the film. | 1pos
|
Having just watched this film again from a 1998 showing off VH-1, I just had to comment.<br /><br />The first time I saw this film on TV, it was about 1981, and I remember taping it off of my mother's betamax. It wound up taping in black and white for some reason, which gave it a period look that I grew to like.<br /><br />I remember very distinctively the film beginning with the song, "My Bonnie", as the camera panned over a scene of Liverpool. I also remember the opening scene where Paul gestures to some girls and says, "Look, talent!" So it was with great irritation that I popped in my 1998 taped version and "remembered" that the film opens with "She Loves You", instead of "My Bonnie". When you see how slowly the camera pans vs. the speed of the music, you can see that "She Loves You" just doesn't fit. Also, in this "later" version when Paul sees the girls, he says, "Look, GIRLS!"..and somehow having remembered the earlier version, THAT word just didn't seem to fit, either. Why they felt they had to Americanize this film for American audiences is beyond me. Personally, if I'm going to watch a film about a British band, I want all of the British colloquialisms and such that would be a part of their speech, mannerisms, etc.<br /><br />Another irritation was how "choppy" the editing was for television. Just after Stu gets beaten, for example, the film cuts to a commercial break-LOTS of 'em. Yeah, I know it depends on the network, but it really ruins the effect of a film to have it sliced apart, as we all know. What some people might find as insignificant in terms of dialogue (and thereby okay to edit), may actually go the way of explaining a particular action or scene that follows.<br /><br />My point is, the "best" version of this film was probably the earlier version I taped from 1981, which just so happened to include the "Shake, Rattle & Roll" scene that my 1998 version didn't. I started to surmise that there had to have been two different versions made for television, and a look at the "alternate versions" link regarding this film proved me right. That the American version had some shorter/cut/different scenes and/or dialogue is a huge disappointment to me and something worth mentioning if one cares about such things. Imo, ones best bet is to try and get a hold of the European version of this film, if possible, and (probably even less possible), an unedited version. Sadly, I had to discard my old betamax European version because I didn't know how to convert it.<br /><br />All that aside, I found this film to be, perhaps, one of the best films regarding the story behind the "birth of the Beatles". Being well aware that artistic and creative license is often used in movies and TV when portraying events in history, I didn't let any discrepancies mar my enjoyment of the film. Sure, you see the Beatles perform songs at the Cavern that made me wonder, "Did they even write that back then?? I don't think so", but, nevertheless, I thought it was a great film and the performances, wonderful.<br /><br />The real stand-out for me, in fact, was the actor who played John, Stephen MacKenna. I just about fell in love with him. His look, mannerisms, personality and speaking voice seemed to be spot-on. He looked enough like a young John for me to do a double-take towards the end of the film when you see the Beatles performing on Ed Sullivan for the first time. I actually found myself questioning whether or not it was actual Beatle footage, until I saw the other actors in the scene.<br /><br />If you're looking for a dead accurate history of The Beatles' life and beginnings, you can't get any better than, "The Beatles' Anthology", as it was "written" by the boys', themselves. However, if you're looking for a fun snapshot of their pre-Beatlemania days leading up to their arrival in America and you leave your anal critical assessments at the door, you can't go wrong with the "Birth of the Beatles"--a MUST for any "real" or casual Beatle fan. | 1pos
|
Subsets and Splits