text
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
Like The Jeffersons, Good Times was one of the those classic American sitcoms which was never aired in the UK, not to mention it came out in the 1970s- a decade where of which I wasn't born yet.<br /><br />But like most fans of the show, I watched a few episodes on You Tube- and afterwards, I loved it.<br /><br />The Evans family are headed by James and Florida- two parents trying to make ends meet, and who despite their lack of qualifications, encourage their children, who have their own aspirations in life to fulfil them and to take their chances. James was the strict but loving dad, who didn't dare hesitate in disciplining J.J, Michael and Thelma- should they over-step the line. Whilst Florida, in contrast was a fair, kind- hearted and considerate mother and loving wife, although she was in many ways similar to James, with regards to their attitudes to parenthood and family values from an Afro- American perspective.<br /><br />The kids were just as lively and entertaining as the parents themselves: J.J was an aspiring artist with a goofy personality and crazy sense of humour, who would often wear multi-coloured outfits, and whose 'DY-NO-MITE' catchphrase is as infectious and familiar as Arnold Jackson's 'Whatchoo talking' 'bout Willis?' from Diff'rent Strokes. Michael was the smart-alec, who dreams of becoming a lawyer, whilst sister Thelma had her own dreams and hopes. Her verbal taunts with J.J were mostly hilarious, as was the love/hate relationship between brother and sister, which was played out extremely well by both Mike Evans and Bernadette Stanis.<br /><br />Over the seasons, there were a few cameo appearances made, most notably from Janet Jackson, Debbie Allen and a young Gary Coleman as himself! I actually prefer Good Times over say, The Cosby Show, which was an 80s show because a) I preferred the Evans family over the Huxtables, both in terms of a) characterisation and b)as I felt it tackled serious and difficult social issues, in a way that resonated with many viewers. It was a comedy but it was also a social commentary which aimed to highlight the lives of working class, Afro- Americans in 1970s America. The Cosby Show attempted to cater to the mainstream audience in a 'candy coated' way, as the Huxtables were portrayed as Blacks who easily assimilated themselves into an upper-class U.S culture we would associate Whites with, whereas Good Times in contrast was much more 'edgier' and it was not afraid to address themes such as drug and child abuse in a realistic way. I actually found that whilst The Cosby Show can be fun to watch at times, it lacked that bit of 'sassiness' which Good Times has and of which made it trendier and cooler.<br /><br />The show did jump the shark during the latter seasons, as it continued after John Amos's character, James died in a freak accident (in reality, it was known at the time that John had quit Good Times for good. And so, his character's death was written as it is on the show). Without John, the show suffered and alas, it lost a lot of its charm.<br /><br />Still, for a sitcom, Good Times ticked all the right boxes. If only they had shown this in the UK during the 80s. As it certainly is, as JJ would put it, 'DY-NO-MITE!!' <br /><br />My rating: 8 and a half | 1pos
|
After enjoying this show for years, I use to dream of being able to see them all again and share them with my grandchildren. I am so happy to pay a small amount for the memories that I have found recorded on DVD. Florida was a caring mother with a loving hard working husband, one spoiled beautiful daughter and two sons as different as day and night. Michael, the baby son is a freedom walker and JJ is a clown. I know many Afro-Americans disliked this show, but I know many can relate and should have accepted it as it was. My heart was sad when I learned that Ester Rolle had passed. Tyler Perry is now the leading writer actor of today and I support his work, but not as much since he made such cruel mocking of Rolle in one of his plays. No one should have to hear ugly things about physical appearance. The show started getting less interesting when Daddy James died. It picked up a bit when Florida remarried, but slumped when she took an absence from the show. In all, the show was great and again I am pleased to own copies of part of my past. I do try to keep up with the work of the former stars of Good Times, and I must say, they are one group who has not been wiped up and down with rumors. I think children of today will enjoy this show and I have no problem sitting and watching with children. Congrats to the writer, crew, and stars for years of renewed memories of a time that I can once again enjoy without having to skip scenes.<br /><br />OK so I watch the shows over and over. Lately I have noticed thing that has made me rethink the series, but not dislike them. I think Florida was a bit harsh when it came to money that the children made. Not that the children did not need supervision, but it was done in a way that makes Florida's mothering different. The scenes where Florida had to speak about how other people were not very good looking bothers me now. When James was alive, the show made a big thing out of James wanting his own Fix-it shop, but never lived to see his family out of the projects, but Florida marries someone who owns a fix-it shop. A bit of a slap in the face to an actor who should have ended his time on Good Times showing that he accomplished all he strove for. Lastly, As I watch the shows, I see the series going in to overtime and being renamed "JJ". To be truthful, after James left everything mostly centered around JJ. Not a bad thing, just a noticeable thing. I would not trade my DVD's for any amount of money, but time, maturity and experience began to guide your eyes after a while. | 1pos
|
Another Norman Lear hit detailing the problems that African Americans had to go through in the turbulent 1960s and 1970s.<br /><br />With Esther Rolle and husband along with 3 children living in a Chicago high-rise project in a predominantly black neighborhood, the show depicted what black people were going through with a landlord (black agent Mr. Bookman) as well as prices and the day-to-day problems of just existing.<br /><br />The 3 children depicted how people seem to face their problems differently- from the comical JJ to the militant Ralph Carter, to their daughter who also aspired to attain success, this show was a perfect description of African-American life. | 1pos
|
Reading all of the comments Are very exciting. but can someone please tell me the name of the real artist that painted the pictures for the good times broadcast. I realize that everyone refers to j.j. as the artist in the family but, there was a real family that has the real artist, and he hasn't gotten any credit in this sight yet. So if you don't mind if someone can tell the name of the real artist I would also like to tell him "job well done". I know this Sight is for the GOOD TIMES cast but, wouldn't you agree that he has also touched the hearts of us all. I would like to know if he still paints or, if he is still alive. I would like to have some of his work displayed in my home. | 1pos
|
I LOVED GOOD TIMES with the rest of many of you. I love reading INTELLIGENT and INSIGHTFUL commentary. The writers on THIS show were fantastic and the Actors were beyond TALENTED. To answer Strawberry22 (the neatest commentary to the other superior and positive commentary)...What happened was that James was killed in an accident (I believe I remember that it was a trucking accident or car accident) and it was the saddest episode (when it first aired and I was a tiny thing...it was so sad to me..).<br /><br />Florida and the Children actually get out of the projects and EVEN become neighbors with Willona (Wilnona) and that is how the very last show ended.<br /><br />ALL of the children achieved their dreams and found opportunity in each of their dreams. It was a wonderful ending and I cried because I was happy for them and the show seemed so realistic that I actually believed in their fate. I hope that this kind of ending rings true in actually for many.<br /><br />A great show and many other great shows followed including Benson and The Jeffersons. This was an awesome period for African-American television and the best writers were awesome at that time. TV LAND is Awesome for the memories and I just LOVE it because I cannot STAND the junk that we are watching today. SOMEBODY...bring back the 1970s and 1980s quickly...your intelligent viewers are a dying breed out here and we need better material.<br /><br />Love, a TV LAND original sitcom junkie of the 70s and 80s (as they sing in "ALL in the Family"...those were the days...... | 1pos
|
Holly addresses the issue of child sexploitation that is rampant all over the world (some 2 million children are trafficked every year) and does so sensitively and without manipulation--a tall order that the team at Priority Films does with great success. American actor Ron Livington stars in the film alongside newcomer Thuy Nguyen, a Vietnamese actress who plays Holly, and together they bring to screen what is commonplace to the people at the notorious k11 redlight district in Cambodia. Although it tackles a heavy topic, the film holds on to moments of laughter and hope as we get to know the characters up close, keeping the two-hour film from being one that is too difficult to watch. I am glad a film like this is bringing the world's attention to the problem. Child prostitution needs to be stopped and this is a very good first step. It's GREAT and a film EVERYONE must see. | 1pos
|
Child 'Sexploitation' is one of the most serious issues facing our world today and I feared that any film on the topic would jump straight to scenes of an explicitly sexual nature in order to shock and disturb the audience. After having seen both 'Trade' and 'Holly', one film moved me to want to actually see a change in international laws. The other felt like a poor attempt at making me cry for five minutes with emotive music and the odd suicide. <br /><br />I do not believe that turning this issue into a Hollywood tear jerker is a useful or necessary strategy to adopt and I must commend the makes of 'Holly' for engaging subtly but powerfully with the terrible conditions these children are sadly forced to endure. 'Trade' wavered between serious and stupid with scenes involving the death of a cat coming after images that represented children being forced to commit some horrendous acts. I found this unengaging and at times offensive to the cause. If I had wanted a cheap laugh I would not have signed up for a film on child trafficking. <br /><br />For anyone who would like to watch a powerful film that actually means something I would suggest saving the money on the cinema ticket for the release of 'Holly'. | 1pos
|
"Holly" is an issue-driven film, but it is neither manipulative nor overly sentimental. At its heart is it is a character-driven film, which wouldn't be nearly so successful without the fleshed-out portrayals of Patrick (Ron Livingston), the lost soul with the gradually awakening conscience, and Holly (Thuy Nguyen), the strong-willed but ultimately over-matched young Vietnamese girl. From the vibrant locations and photography to the effective editing, everything is forthright and well-done. The contemporary classical score may put some off at first, but it is top-notch composition and underscores the admirable restraint which is evident throughout. This film, which raises many issues but provides few clear-cut answers, ultimately succeeds in raising awareness of and compassion for Holly and the many who share her plight. Kudos to those who managed to get it made. | 1pos
|
Hood of the Living Dead had a lot to live up to even before the opening credits began. First, any play on "...of the living dead" invokes His Holiness Mr. Romero and instantly sets up a high standard to which many movies cannot afford to aspire. And second, my movie-watching companion professed doubt that any urban horror film would surpass the seminal Leprechaun In the Hood. Skeptical, we settled in to watch. <br /><br />We were rewarded with a surprisingly sincere and good-hearted zombie film. Oh, certainly the budget is low, and of course the directors' amateurs friends populate the cast, but Hood of the Living Dead loves zombie cinema. Cheap? Yeah. But when it's this cheap, you can clearly see where LOVE holds it together. <br /><br />Ricky works in a lab during the day and as a surrogate parent to his younger brother at night. He dreams of moving out of Oakland. Before this planned escape, however, his brother is shot to death in a drive-by. Ricky's keen scientific mind presents an option superior to CPR or 911: injections of his lab's experimental regenerative formula. Sadly, little bro wakes up in an ambulance as a bloodthirsty Oakland zombie! Chaos and mayhem! I think it's more economical to eat your enemies than take vengeance in a drive-by, but then again, I'm a poor judge of the complexities of urban life. (How poor a judge? In response to a gory scene involving four men, I opined "Ah-ha! White t-shirts on everyone so the blood shows up. Economical! I used the same technique in my own low-budget horror film." Jordan replied, "No, that's gang dress. White t-shirts were banned from New Orleans bars for a time as a result." Oh.)<br /><br />A lot of the movie is set in someone's living room, so there's a great deal of hanging out and waiting for the zombies. But the characters are sympathetic and the movie is sincere-- it surpasses its budget in spirit. <br /><br />Zombie explanation: When man plays God, zombies arise! Or, perhaps: Follow FDA-approved testing rules before human experimentation! <br /><br />Contribution to the zombie canon: This is the first zombie movie I've seen with a drive-by shooting. As far as the actual zombies go, infection is spread with a bite as usual, but quite unusually head shots don't work-- it's heart shots that kill. Zombies have pulses, the absence of which proves true death. And these zombies make pretty cool jaguar-growl noises. <br /><br />Gratuitous zombie movie in-joke: A mercenary named Romero. Groan. <br /><br />Favorite zombie: Jaguar-noise little brother zombie, of course! | 1pos
|
According to this board, I guess either you love it or hate it. Usually how it goes with all movies. There is no need to get testy with others though. All we are doing here is giving opinions. I rented this movie last night and I want to come and throw my opinion in the mix. I was surprised by how many people are thrashing it though. There's a difference between a movie fan and a horror movie fan. I'm a horror movie fan. Most plain olé' movie fans don't like horror movies. So many low budget cam corder looking movies are coming out these days. It's hard to keep up. And what makes it tough to stay into these movies is how bad they are. I wanted to come and write a review about "Hood of the Living Dead" because it's pretty damn good compared to the rest of the junk out there. It's nothing special but it's those horror film makers that try to be too serious that end up making a horrible horror film. I really liked this one. You telling me there is no effort in this one? And one more thing, I bet all of you have all of these huge DVD collections that you are so proud of, nothing but Major Motion Pictures right? Nothing wrong with that, but you have to know how to appreciate low-budget independent. I knew what I was getting when I watched this movie. I'm not going to be upset because I thought it was going to be some 100 million dollar movie. Some of you might need to stick with watching the Matrix over and over again and stop trying to compare everything to the Matrix. And if most of you are under 24, that explains everything. Good movie folks, check it out. | 1pos
|
Good times working with the Quiroz Brothers, and the entire cast on this project as the "Guy on the Bench." I was amazed how well they accomplished capturing all the identifiable traits of a true "B" horror film. Hopefully I will have the opportunity to work with Pumpkin Patch Pictures team again in the future. I moved to Detroit shortly after completion and have been recognized in public on several occasions since the release. One time was actually in the video store and the girl damn near lost her mind. It was pretty funny and that was my 1st real autograph moment as I signed her receipt. One day I asked the girl at Blockbuster if the movie is rented often, and she confirmed by looking it up in the computer. At the time it was renting more than Ring2 which was also a new release at the time... The title really captures immediate interest in the more urban markets. She also noticed on many occasions the movie had not been returned by the customer leading me to believe the movie is just so good people don't want to give it back.... Watch out for ZoMbIeS when in the hood cause they will get ya! Jaysun Barr (Guy on the Bench-2005) | 1pos
|
When I watch a low budget film I know what to expect. I expect the acting not to be as good (budget reasons), I expect the lighting not to be as good (budget reasons)I expect the sound not to be as good (budget again). Stop judging these low budget movies like a big budget film!!! I'm a filmmaker myself so I understand the budget constraints on a low budget film. Stealing locations, shots etc... the list goes on and on. I don't want to say all the acting was bad. Jose Rosete, Chris Angelo, Victor Zaragoza are good. Raul Martinez is a natural. Not sold on Carl Washington yet. He has to understand that every line is not important, some are throw away lines. I say if a film makes you want to see what happens next, it's a good film. I liked this movie. I gave it an 8. I wanted to see what was gonna happen next. Great job Quiroz brothers! | 1pos
|
Man, if anyone was expecting a great zombie movie after reading that title, then you are a retard and you deserve to be disappointed. As for myself, I was expecting a low-budgeted cheeseball zombie flick- and that's exactly what I got. I wasn't disappointed at all. I thought it was a cool little movie. The zombies were exactly as they should be, because all of the zombies had JUST been turned, so they are freshly-undead zombies. Obviously they did that because it would've been pretty costly if they had done full-on rotted zombie FX. I understood the whole thing, I have no idea how anyone could seriously nitpick this movie. It's called "HOOD OF THE LIVING DEAD" for the love of God! Would you watch "Redneck Zombies" and ANY Uwe Boll movie and actually EXPECT it to be great? Of course not! So why there are some morons on IMDb whining like school girls about this movie, I'll never understand. Oh and YES, there ARE worse movies out there, so stop saying that this was the worst you've ever seen, 'cause you know you're full of it! You ever watch "ZOMBIEZ"???? Or "Feardotcom"????? Or "House Of The Dead"???? THOSE are some of the worst I've ever seen. If you can't see that it's just a low- budgeted zombie movie obviously made by zombie movie fans, then something's wrong with you. I just had fun with it. Thumbs up from me and I'd also like to see a sequel. | 1pos
|
I'll be honest. I got this movie so I could make fun of it. I mean, come on, "Hood of the Living Dead"? What other reaction could I have? The thing is, though, the movie (and its makers) decided that it wasn't going to be made fun of. Instead, it was going to try its best to be a good movie.<br /><br />And you know what? It came awfully close. A little less cheese in the incidental music, a little more professionalism in the photography, the acting, the incidentals (like the props--love the Best Buy bag)...well, it's not a classic of the zombie movie genre, but it's still a pretty neat little movie on its own. And the acting, writing and pacing are all surprisingly better than I would have expected. There's even some decent humor, as two of our leads debate how to decide if a dead zombie is really dead.<br /><br />If you can overlook the low budget (which leaves its fingerprints in everything, alas) and the almost constant profanity, this can be a pretty fun time at the movies. No, it ain't great. Yes, it could have been better. But the makers, the actors, the crew, they all tried to make a good film (instead of a camp classic) and that counts for a lot. The line of campy zombie films is a mile long, and thank you, guys, for not adding to it.<br /><br />Kudos to the Quiroz brothers. I'd love to see what they do next. And hey, somebody, give them a budget! | 1pos
|
There have been "race" pictures almost from the beginnings of the movie business. Films starring almost entirely black casts have been made by segregated Poverty Row studios (more often than not owned by Caucasians) for ghetto theaters. With the growing urban blight during the 1970s, this idea was revived with a wave of "blaxploitation" pictures made for urban grind houses which overlaid black actors and funky atmosphere over traditional B- movie plots. This trend even spread into horror features, with titles like Blacula, Blackenstein and Sugar Hill serving up blaxploitation versions of monster standards. And it didn't die with the closing of most urban theaters it just slowly eased into the video age, and continues with low budget direct-to-DVD releases like this one. Ed and Jose Quiroz's Hood of the Living Dead, adopts the recent popularity of horror movies for the hip-hop audience. Ricky (Carl Washington) is a young scientist in Oakland trying to keep his younger brother Jermaine (Brandon Daniels) out of trouble after the death of their parents. After Jermaine is shot by drug dealers in a drive-by, Ricky decides to use the experimental cell regenerating formula he's been working on in an attempt to save the teen's life. Apparently his efforts are for naught, and Jermaine's body is taken away. However, the body never makes it to the morgue Jermaine re-animates in the coroner's van as a flesh-hungry zombie. He kills the drivers, then goes after the gang that killed him, spreading the zombie infection wherever he goes. Having heard from Jermaine's friends Kevin (Derek Taylor II) and Marco (Raul Martinez) about the attack on the gangsters, Ricky feels that the only thing to do is to capture Jermaine and try to cover up the whole matter before he and his accomplice Scott (Chris Angelo) get arrested for the mayhem they've caused. However, they soon find that the contagion is spreading too fast for them to control it. By keeping things simple, the Quiroz team manages to produce an entertaining little horror feature without overextending themselves to the point where things start to look shoddy. Along the way, they also add in a few interesting bits of business. When first confronted with a zombie, Scott tells Ricky, "Shoot him in the head like in the movies!" an effective as any way to discover how to kill zombies. An extra twist is added when the first head shot doesn't kill the brain, adding to viewer unease. Another good point is that the soundtrack makes only limited use of sub-Eminem style rap, laying in standard "creepy" music throughout. | 1pos
|
Let's get some things straight first: Zombies don't exist so the filmmaker can have them WALK, RUN, hell even FLY if he wants to. That's what makes this original Zombie movie so good. Everything they did was so damn original. I hate it when filmmakers do everything like Romero or when fan boys expect everything like Romero. Some idiots think that zombies should only growl like a typical Romero movie, once again zombies don't exist so a filmmaker can make zombies whistle if he wants. The zombies in this movie all look very good but OBVIOUSLY they are not decaying corpses since they JUST freaking died! They are pretty messed up though and full of chopped faces and blood. One of the coolest scenes was a half eaten cat. It looked so damn real my daughter cried when she saw it. This movie got really good reviews in Fangoria and Rue Morgue so that made me want to go see it. I'm glad I listened. They are always right when it comes to real horror fan's tastes. 10 out of 10! Go rent it! | 1pos
|
Welcome to Oakland, where the dead come out to play and even the boys in DA hood can't stop them. This low-budget, direct-to-video production seems timed to coincide with the release of Land of the Dead, the latest installment of George A. Romero's famed zombie series. The ghetto setting and hip-hop soundtrack may provide additional appeal for inner- city gore hounds. Ricky (Carl Washington) works at a medical research facility while raising his kid brother, Jermaine (Brandon Daniels). But the teenager, bored by macaroni-and-cheese dinners in their tract house, would rather spend his time hanging with street friends Marco and Kev. Apparently there is not a lot for African-American high-school dropouts to do on this side of the bay except deal drugs and scuffle with the homeys, including rival Latino gang bangers. Ricky plans to sell their late parents' house and move inland to the Castro Valley, a more middle-class and presumably safer environment. Unfortunately, before this can happen, a drive-by shooting leaves Jermaine dead on the porch. Grief-stricken Ricky tries a last desperate ploy. He tells Scotty, his lab assistant, to steal some of the experimental cell regeneration formula they have been testing on rats. When a double dose fails to revive Jermaine, there is no choice except to call 911. But a funny thing happens on the way to the morgue. The boy is reanimated as a sputtering, growling zombie, chews the ambulance drivers and staggers off into the night, bent on revenge and hungry for fresh meat. The feeding frenzy infects more victims, and before the night is over the East Bay is a battleground between the living and the blood-spattered undead. The horror genre has seen more than its share of cheap movie makers, from Ed Wood to Herschel Gordon Lewis to Charles Band. But low budgets do not necessarily mean bad films. Consider Val Lewton's programmers (Cat People, The Leopard Man, Isle of the Dead), Roger Corman's Poe quickies, Romero's Night of the Living Dead and John Carpenter's Halloween. The difference between memorable and awful has more to do with talent and ambition than money. Hood Of The Living Dead is more fun than several hundred million dollars' worth of recent high-priced horrors. Cheapness has its charms. In truly cheap films actors wear their own clothes amid real settings. Here the tract houses have freshly painted walls in neutral matte tones, lending a bleakness as oppressive as Douglas Sirk's bourgeois melodramas of the '50s. Lines seem more improvised than scripted. "So what the hell are we gonna do now?" "Just keep your eyes open for any F N' thing that looks out of the ordinary." Ricky and Scotty call their boss, who calls an ex-military man named Romero. "I have a huge bitch of a problem that we have to take care of fast." "Not a problem," says the merc, closing his phone and grabbing his guns. Everybody has guns, and even when fighting zombies they're on their cell phones, as who isn't nowadays? Information is exchanged with naturalistic understatement. "What happened?" "We got into it with some crazy motherfockers." "Deja F N' vu. It's that park zombie again. ..." Ricky even has to blow his twitching girlfriend away, saying only, "She's gotten out of hand." Unlike most zombie movies, this one provides a motive for mayhem. Jermaine takes revenge on the gang bangers who shot him, who in turn continue the rumble. This is urban film-making that implies its own social commentary, a near-guerrilla production suggesting a future for low-budget horror that reflects real life instead of supernatural clichés. The brothers Quiroz, who have trademarked their name as if in anticipation of a new movement, may inspire others to tell stories arising from personal experience rather than imitating tired Hollywood product. Considering their limited resources, Jose and Eduardo Quiroz have made a cheap but technically acceptable feature about people they know. Photographer Rocky Robinson gets the job done, music by Eduardo Quiroz is no simpler than Carpenter's haunting Halloween theme, and hip-hop songs by The Darkroom Familia and others add atmosphere. The result is promising if not exactly exhilarating. They are learning their craft and, unlike Lewis and Wood, who never got any better, their next may be one to watch. | 1pos
|
I don't know why people except a lot from low budget indie films but I enjoyed this one as I'm a fan of urban horror. There's not too many urban horror movies out there so when I saw this one on the shelf, just the title alone peaked my curiosity. So I decided to check it out and I was surprised...it's not too often you run into a low budget indie horror film with GREAT acting and a good story. Is it low budget? yes. Can you tell that it's low budget? Yes...but once you start watching the movie you become so wrapped up in the story that it doesn't matter. I like hip hop music too and the soundtrack is nice! I don't know what's up with all these bad reviews for this film. All I hear is "worst movie ever". Have these idiots seen EVERY movie out there? There's thousands of movies out there, how can you categorize one as the "worst" ever? A video not "movie" like "zombiez" may be the worst film I ever SEEN but I can't say that it's the worst movie EVER since I haven't seen every movie out there. Bottom line these people who gave this movie bad reviews are probably from the suburbs. Listen, if you don't like minority based, urban films, the ghetto films, hip hop,etc then WHY WATCH THESE TYPES OF MOVIES???!!! knowing that you don't like this type of stuff? Sure, this is a horror film but it's not just a horror film but it's an URBAN horror film with a multi-cultural based cast. I don't like TV shows like Dawson's Creek or the O.C., THEY SUCK to me. Films like "Garden State", "Wedding Crashers" and "I heart huckabees" SUCK to me. I'm a guy from New Jersey and these shows and movies suck to me. Why? Because I can't relate to them. They don't peak my interest. Just common sense. Believe me, I will never watch GARDEN STATE 2: GARDEN SALAD, WEDDING CRASHERS 2: Here's a sequel to torture you again since the first sucked so bad and I HEART HUCKABORING. Now back to this movie, in regards to saint405's comment above, I don't know if this guy was smoking crack or got knocked "stupid" by his drunken dad before he watched the movie but to me, everyone did a great job. The actor who played Ricky (I forgot his name) did a VERY good job. I'm an aspiring actor myself taking theater at my school and I had to do a play where I had to cry and it's not easy to be emotional in a scene so I give props to actors who have to do an emotional scene and can pull it off. Anywho, I liked this movie and never heard of these actors and directors before but you bet I'll be looking out for their stuff for now on and if they are reading this, BRING ON THE SEQUEL!!! I'm out. Jerzee Representin'! | 1pos
|
Silly movie is really, really funny. Yes, it's got its dead moments, it can be a bit too obvious, it declines a bit in the second half and the story is an incoherent mess, but it's laugh out loud funny all the way. And it's worth seeing just for Ed McMahon as a right wing kook. This movie is in the same class as Elvira, Mistress of the Dark, another incredibly funny, underappreciated film. | 1pos
|
I'm not kidding about that summary and vote! The video distributors have packaged this as just another typical '80s werewolf movie, but it is in fact the greatest parody of the horror genre that you can imagine, having done for the horror movie what "Blazing Saddles" did for the western. I have seen plenty of comedies - good, bad, stupid, weird, etc. (usually walking away unimpressed), and I think that comedy must be the most difficult genre for filmmakers and actors to work in - it takes just the right kind of touch to make things successful, and part of that is having good ideas. "Full Moon High" is bulging with good ideas - so many, in fact, that it can easily put the Zucker/Abrams team of "Airplane" and "Naked Gun" to shame. One of the best of these is the very presence of Ed McMahon in a starring role as a John Birch-style right-wing crackpot. The jokes, non-sequiturs, wisecracks and word-play are literally non-stop and everything, including the kitchen sink, has been thrown in. The ironic tone is very similar to that of "Back to the Future." <br /><br />Some people (i.e. almost every reviewer here) must have been turned off by the spirit of anarchy here, but I almost died of laughter, and this is one of those movies in which you never know what kind of insane situation will transpire next. Since B-movie extraordinaire Larry Cohen had not made a straight comedy before this, one gets the sense that he was making up for lost time by including any joke he or his collaborators could think of. If Mel Brooks had made this, the critics would have labelled it a comic masterpiece, but because it was made by Cohen, it has been dismissed as schlock. Critical reviews have called this movie too "silly." SILLY? What is a comedy supposed to be - serious?! Anyway, I laughed out loud more for this movie than any other I can think of. Cohen makes fun of everyone - himself included, with plenty of references to his usual brand of low-rent film-making; he and the actors must have had a complete blast making this.<br /><br />The humor is very Mel Brooks-ish, and anyone who loves Jewish humor or watches a lot of B-movies (especially horror) will love this. Trust me: the movie isn't too hard to find, and as long as you accept it for what it is - a roller-coaster of belly laughs with no pretense of social value whatsoever - then you'll truly enjoy it!!<br /><br />One sidenote: this movie should somehow go down in history as the one thing Bob Saget ever starred in (albeit briefly) that was actually funny. | 1pos
|
While visiting Romania with his CIA dad, Tony(Adam Arkin), quite a talented high school quarterback seen as the savior to lead his team finally to a victory over rival Simpson, is told by a would-be palm-reader(..in Romania, the people are not allowed many books, so she took up palm reading)that he would be bitten by a werewolf("When the moon is full, don't make any appointments..you will be busy."). Well, who would have thunk it..Tony is in fact bitten and his life would be forever changed. After his father unfortunately dies in a mishap within his bomb shelter(!)under odd circumstances(firing at his werewolf son inside a metallic bomb shelter isn't a very good idea, especially if the bullet doesn't leave the room and bounces around like a pinball gone berserk), Tony travels the land through endless years, until he's tired of packing, and returns decades(..and many US Presidents)later to hopefully lead his football team to a win over Simpson..a task he abandoned long ago. What was once a very white, clean-cut high school has indeed changed into a ghetto of drug use, violence, and perversion. To get an idea of what the early 80's Full Moon High school's prom party resembles, think Studio 54 with teenagers..<br /><br />Larry Cohen's parody of werewolf flicks, among others things, is crammed full of gags, homages, and in-jokes. My favorite sequences contain one in the sex-ed classroom where Tony reveals to the 80's class his werewolf transformation and the introductory scene to Dr. Brand(Alan Arkin, who steals the film when Kenneth Mars isn't on screen), quite possibly the worst psychiatrist on Earth. His task to talk down a jumper leads to two men falling off a balcony..the jumper and a fireman (trying, at first, to talk him out of it), both fuming mad at Brand! Brand even tries to get Tony to sign a waver for his body's being donated to science so he can get his wife a fur coat! Kenneth Mars had me rolling in the floor as a homosexual football coach(..and later in the 80's as the Principal)who likes to pat his players on the behind..his scene where Tony's unloading the truth to the sex-ed class is classic. The film is loaded with inspired casting choices..just littered with funny characters and the cast interpretations..such as Ed McMahon as a very conservative military blowhard who actually looks identical to Joseph McCathy standing next to his photo in the bomb shelter(..always talking about commies), Joanne Nail as bulging eyed Ricky in present day who falls for the werewolf, Elizabeth Hartman(A Patch of Blue)as a mousy, nerdy sexually molested(..and molester)teacher who finds an attraction towards Tony, James Dixon as a deputy(..his great scene has him stealing a line from his police chief reciting it to Dr. Brand who begins mouthing the words to himself for memorization), Roz Kelly as Jane, an undyingly devoted female desiring Tony for only herself constantly demanding he ravish her, and Bill Kirchenbauer as Flynn, Tony's long-time pal and now the police chief who only got Jane after his friend left town. Can not forget JM J Bullock as Flynn's closeted gay son trying to fit in at the school hoping to find a dame with hilarious results.<br /><br />I like how the film pays homage to the werewolf genre such as when he's on the prowl..he's often referred to in the papers as Jack the Nipper because he likes to bite his victims on the cheek..and I'm not talking face. He's seen more as an annoyance than danger. The homages to Carrie and Psycho are nice, and the violin shtick is also amusing. Cohen tosses so many zingers at the viewer, eventually one has to stick. Obviously in a comedy such as this, not every joke hits it's mark, but many do. The cast makes this worthwhile. The film looks cheap on the typical Larry Cohen budget. Notice the 50's scenes where the obvious old cast members that would show up down the road wear glaring wigs. Loved Adam in the lead..he is the perfect foil for the gags that follow him and the zingers he lets fly from Cohen's script. The film moves quickly, rarely catching a breath. I liked this horror comedy more than most it seems. | 1pos
|
In this send-up of horror films, 50's cold war paranoia, Reagan-era America, and high school films, Adam Arkin plays Tony, the star quarterback of Full Moon High in the 1950's. He and his father (Ed McMahon) travel to communist Romania and while he's lost in the streets one night, he is bitten by a werewolf. When he returns stateside, he cannot control his animalistic urges and goes on a killing spree. Frustrated, he flees town. Decades later, the immortal Tony returns to town and re-enrolls in highschool. He still can't control his transformations, and the townspeople, and his friends, realize he's not quite human. It all culminates during the schools big football game.<br /><br />I expected this to be one of those 'so bad it's good' films from the early 80's. But I was surprised that the film was actually, legitimately funny. The cast, including Kenneth Mars as a pervy coach, Roz Kelly as Tony's lusty former flame, Demond Wilson as a bus driver, and Alan Arkin as a oddball doctor, go all out, with hilarious results.<br /><br />While watching this film I was struck by how similar the writing and humor were to 'Family Guy.' 'Full Moon High' has that same anything goes attitude and never takes itself seriously. | 1pos
|
It' just funny, watch it!!! <br /><br />OK they want 10 lines so there: This is a spoof of 50s/70s werewolf movies. Lots of satire, some political. Feels like an early Clouseau movie (probably due to Alan Arkin), but with less slap stick. If you like the Naked Guns movies you'll like this too (once again less slapstick in this one). <br /><br />Actually, the humor ranges from light sexual innuendo (unavoidable in a teen comedy), to really poignant socio-political satire. The transformation of the Moon High School from 50s to 70s is really funny. The sequence with the changing presidential portraits is brilliant! OK maybe not brilliant but still hilarious. There are tons of (histarical) cracks starting from the 50s cold war paranoia and the late 70s inflation.<br /><br />Anyway, just watch the movie if you get a chance! | 1pos
|
Full Moon High (1981) 3 of 5 Dir: Larry Cohen Stars: Adam Arkin, Ed McMahon, Roz Kelly<br /><br />Tony (Arkin) is your average ordinary high school guy. Prepping for the big homecoming game, girlfriend trouble and growing hair in strange places
you know the usual. But the hair in strange places part gets a wee bit out of control when a trip to Transylvania with his father (YES! McMahon) leaves him with a wicked case of the furballs. Now doomed to walk the world forever young as a werewolf how will Adam get any girls?<br /><br />'Full Moon High' is not often talked about but it is a silly and entertaining horror spoof. Larry Cohen (Q the Winged Serpent, The Stuff) incorporates as many gags as he can possibly come up with as writer / director. Arkin (H20: Halloween, 20 Years Later) shows nice timing in the lead role. If you happen to be a fan of spoofs like 'Airplane' and 'Student Bodies' I think you'll have fun with this chuckle-fest. | 1pos
|
No doubt intended as a totally campy joke, "Full Moon High" portrays 1950s teenager Tony Walker (Adam Arkin) accompanying his father (Ed McMahon) on a trip to Romania. Sure enough, Tony gets bitten, and grows fur and fangs whenever there's a full moon. A particularly interesting aspect in this movie is that he can't age as long as he has the werewolf curse, and that he has to fulfill a destiny - even if it takes twenty years.<br /><br />But otherwise, the movie's just plain funny once it gets going. Ed McMahon's character is an over-patriotic right-wing yahoo (he thinks that everyone should have listened to Joe McCarthy), Kenneth Mars's coach/principal is a tense dweeb, and then there's more. One of the most eye-opening cast members is Demond Wilson - best remembered as Lamont on "Sanford and Son" - as a bus driver who gets a big surprise. But probably the funniest scene is the changing of the presidents; then gag with Gerald Ford really summed him up! Anyway, it's a real treat. Considering that Alan Arkin - who plays a zany psychiatrist - just won an Oscar on Sunday night and thanked his sons, I wonder whether or not he remembers co-starring with two of them in this movie (aside from Adam, his son Anthony also has a small role). Quite funny. Also starring Elizabeth Hartman.<br /><br />PS: director Larry Cohen is probably best known for the killer baby flick "It's Alive". | 1pos
|
I loved this movie. In fact I loved being an actress in this movie. Iwas featured as a pregnant teenager in the second half of the movie. You may remember me more clearly in the classroom scene when the werewolf was exposing himself on film. I was the female in the front row with my hands planted on my face in reaction to what we were watching on the movie projector. In fact they double took me a few times so it's hard to miss that mistake. Thumbs up to Full Moon High. Wish it come to cable soon. Cheryl Lockett Alexander Leesville, Louisiana I loved this movie. In fact I loved being an actress in this movie. Iwas featured as a pregnant teenager in the second half of the movie. You may remember me more clearly in the classroom scene when the werewolf was exposing himself on film. I was the female in the front row with my hands planted on my face in reaction to what we were watching on the movie projector. In fact they double took me a few times so it's hard to miss that mistake. Thumbs up to Full Moon High. Wish it come to cable soon. Cheryl Lockett Alexander<br /><br />Leesville, Louisiana | 1pos
|
After reading the other tepid reviews and comments, I felt I had to come to bat for this movie.<br /><br />Roeg's films tend to have little to do with one another, and expecting this one to be like one of his you liked is probably off the mark.<br /><br />What this film is is a thoughtful and unabashed look at religious faith. The only other film like it-in terms of its religious message-would have to be Tolkin's `The Rapture.'<br /><br />I am astonished that anyone could say the story is muddled or supernatural. It is a simple movie about Catholic faith, miracles, and redemption--though you would never guess it till the end. It is also the only movie I can think of whose resolution turns, literally, on a pun.<br /><br />As a (happily) fallen Catholic myself, I know what the movie is about, and I find a sort of fondness in its ultimate innocence about the relation between God and man. But if you are not familiar with the kind of theology on which the film is based, then it will go right over you head.<br /><br />As a film-as opposed to a story-`Cold Heaven' it is not ground-breaking. While `The Rapture' is heavy with pictorial significance and cinematic imagery, `Cold Heaven' downplays its own cinematic qualities. There are no striking shots, no edgy effects, no attempts to fit the content to the form. It is workmanlike shooting, but subdued. Nor does it have dialogue or acting to put it in a class of high drama. It is a simple story that unfolds simply. It may seem odd; but at the end the mystery is revealed. It looks ambiguous; but with a single line the ambiguity vanishes in a puff of Catholic dogma.<br /><br />In this regard, `Cold Heaven' has at its heart exactly the same sort of thing that drives a movie like `The Sting,' or `The Sixth Sense,' or `Final Descent,' or Polanski's `A Pure Formality.' All of these are films with a trick up their sleeves. They may frustrate you along the way, but they have a point-an obvious one, indeed--but the fun is, at least in part, in having been taken in.<br /><br />Still, even if it seems like little more than a shaggy dog story with a punch line, it is worth watching for way it directs-and misdirects-you. Try it-especially if you are, or have ever been, a Catholic. | 1pos
|
Well, well....Roeg touched a bit of a nerve there, didn't he? He was a genius while he was cataloguing his various characters' descents into psychosis for a couple of decades, but as soon as he has the bad taste to suggest that redemption (or even some good advice) might be found in the bad old Catholic church, the hipper-than-thou alternative movie crowd gets extra vicious. Worse still, Theresa Russell's character - faced with experiences that nothing in her avowedly rationalist outlook has an explanation for, is unwillingly forced to deal with those experiences on another level - that of the spiritual. You know, the realm of the ignorant and superstitious, the sort of thing that the art-house cinephiles are supposed to be above. Oh, the horror... So she finds her marriage - the idea that it might be a uniquely important commitment - affirmed by what seems uncomfortably like divine intervention. People who find this idea prima facie offensive could maybe ask themselves why they instinctively jump into attack mode at being challenged to take seriously the idea of a spiritual dimension to their lives. But they probably won't. Sure, this film has some problems, notably Talia Shire's delirious hamwork as the overwrought nun, 1950s-style attire and all. And the dialogue between Marie Davenport and the young priest in their last scene is straight out of the Spellbound School of Glib Interpretations (though Hitchcock's movie escaped similar charges due to the source of wisdom having impeccably secular credentials as a Freudian psychoanalyst). But, sadly, Nicolas Roeg appears to have copped a critical mauling as much for even asking the question as for the possible answers this film presents. | 1pos
|
This is an "odysessy through time" via computer animation, supposedly th work of over 300 artists. Made in the late '80s and released in 1990, this was cutting edge stuff for the day. I thought it was good and quite interesting in spots.<br /><br />Most of the short scenes made no sense, just forms evolving into other forms, but that was fun to watch. This is all about visuals, not really about any kind of a story. There were some strange sequences in which odd-looking men- creatures would dance around with birds overheard. All of it is computer animated which was new back then. Even the term "computer animated" was not well-known.<br /><br />It's simply a chance to show off this new technology in short bits of cartoon-like happenings with beautiful colors and imaginative scenes. No words, just pictures with electronic music. Stoners must have really loved this.<br /><br />It's a nice, intriguing 40 minutes of "eye candy" and "head candy." By today's CG effects this may have lost impact, but I think you'd still be entertained by this. | 1pos
|
I probably saw this movie first in about 1995. Since then I've returned to it many times. It's great! I especially like the first and second clips, "Creation" and "Civilization Rising." Wow! This was so cool back in the glory days of CG animation. CG is way older than I am, as I know the film "Tron" was made 7 years before my time. But this film was a landmark in the early '90s. It was probably the first collaboration of different CG experiments set to music. I like it so much, I think I'll go watch it now. Bye | 1pos
|
This has to be the all time best computer animation classic. Even though most of the animations where experiments. They have an artistic quality that has stood the test of time. Twelve years after it's release, I have gone back to watch this video and found some inspiration for new types of computer graphics. Some of the techniques used in this video have never been full explored. | 1pos
|
These things have been floating around in my head for damn near 10 years now. Some pieces of this work were really memorable. - Id love to see another more current example of cg showy offy stuff. Actually I'd love to be part of it.<br /><br />If I'd would of had the chance to just say what i wanted and thats it, I wouldn't have to write all this extra in order to make "10 lines if text" as this website requires. I mean really? This almost discourages me, I mean luckily for the guys that made the movie I really liked the Minds Eye - and it took me 3 times to have enough lines, I hope you don't get me on the misspelling. - yup you did. | 1pos
|
As a kid, I loved computer animation although it was EXTREMELY limited and the tools were almost nonexistent. This movie, as I sat in awe and watched the amazing images and almost-hypnotic music, shaped the desire in me to create moving things in the computer. This is a whole-package deal, between the music and the video, that really packs a one-two punch. If you know any child that wants to get involved in computer animation, this is a MUST HAVE. <br /><br />I still, almost 20 years later, rate this movie as one of my top 3 favorites. The originality, I think, is still unsurpassed by most of today's McMovies that Hollywood spits out. I am currently wanting to see if I can re-make it on my own; if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery then this movie deserves a TON of imitation =) | 1pos
|
When this first came out, my dad brought it home- we were amazed by it- It was so different from anything we had seen before. I was looking for a specific movie last night, and I found 'The Mind's Eye' again. The box is falling apart, and I am surprised that the tape still works! Although it is not 'Finding Nemo' quality graphics, it is still very good. They should sell this again- it is a landmark for computer animation imagery. Highly recommended! | 1pos
|
When this first came out, my dad brought it home- we were amazed by it- It was so different from anything we had seen before. I was looking for a specific movie last night, and I found "The Mind's Eye" again. The box is falling apart, and I am surprised that the tape still works! Although it is not 'Finding Nemo' quality graphics, it is still very good. They should sell this again- it is a landmark for computer animation imagery. Highly recommended!<br /><br />This is what it is:<br /><br />"The Mind's Eye" is a spectacular odyssey through time. Your journey begins at the dawn of creation and moves through the rise of man and technology. Travel in the world of abstraction and on into the future with breathtaking computer animation imagery.<br /><br />"The Mind's Eye" joins the imaginations of over 300 of the world's most talented computer animation artists with a powerful, original music soundtrack. This unique collaboration takes you on an incredible voyage into "The Mind's Eye." | 1pos
|
I recently found a copy for $5 at a video store, and snapped it up eagerly. While the music and (obviously) graphics aren't up to the standards of my favorite of the series, Beyond the Mind's Eye, I am still entranced by one segment:<br /><br />Stanley and Stella in "Breaking the Ice". The music is brilliant, and the emotions feel real. The clip on Odyssey's website doesn't have the story nor the music, unfortunately. | 1pos
|
I could not agree less with the rating that was given to this movie, and I believe this is a sample of how short minded most of spectators are all over the world. Really... Are you forgetting that Cinema used to be a kind of art before some tycoons tried to make it only entertainment? This movie is not entertainment, at least not that easy entertainment you get on movies like Titanic or Gladiator. It has style, it is different, it is shocking... That's why most of you have hated it so much: because it does not try to be pleasing to you. It's just a story, a very weird one I admit, but after all, only a weird story. It is not a great story, not even a great cinema work, but I believe it is worth a 7-stars rating only for the courage of both author and director to shot a story that is not made to please the audience, thus selling billions of copies and making the big studios even richer. This movie is, for me, European-artistic-like movie made in the US, and everyone involved in the making of it deserves respect. Be it for the courage, or be it for the unique sense of humor. | 1pos
|
Gus Van Sant has made some excellent films. I truly am a fan.<br /><br />However, I can't help but feel that the cerebral edge of Tom Robbins book "Even Cowgirls Get the Blues" is lost in translation to the big screen. Alone, Tom Robbins and Gus Van Sant are incredible visionaries and towers of talent. Ultimately though this one just didn't work. <br /><br />It wasn't that the characters weren't well developed or the plot and content didn't come alive. It's just that our imaginations are much more powerful when reading a book like this. We're taken away to a different time and place and we sometimes think the worst and/or the best and it adds to the overall roller-coaster of the book as it neatly unfolds according to the author's precision. Movies however can leave one with less of the imagination and emotion roller-coaster detracting from the overall experience. This is what I believe happened here.<br /><br />I suggest reading the book! | 1pos
|
I feel very sorry for people who go to movies with a pad and pencil to write down flaws and keep notes on how bad a movie is. I feel equally contempt for people who go to movies and CAN'T suspend reality and/or let themselves enjoy 90 minutes aways from their boring or busy lives! Get a GRIP people. ECGTB is a very ENTERTAINING movie. If you take movies seriously, this is NOT for you. If you are expecting the movie to resemble the book in ANY way, this is not for you. But if you enjoyed the utter hilarity of Priscilla Queen of the Desert, or the "what the hell am I watching" of Moulin Rouge. Or the gross out comedy of "The Sweetest Thing" Then let yourself escape to Cowgirls. It has some really funny parts. Hilarious actually. It also has some really good music;kudos to kd.lang. Also did I mention it has 90 minutes of Uma Thurman.....need I say more? | 1pos
|
If you have ever read and enjoyed a novel by Tom Robbins you will appreciate this movie as a whole-hearted attempt to translate his outrageously unconventional writing style into a workable piece of big screen art. The actors and the direction of this film are both good. <br /><br />The only trouble with the film, as I can see it, is that Robbins can relate ideas and sentiments with his words that were still beyond Hollywood's capabilities at the time this film was shot.<br /><br />Given both the irreverence of today's movies, as well as the willingness and abilityof today's audiences to delve into the bizarre, I think "Even Cowgirls... would receive a better reception today than it did when it was originally released. | 1pos
|
i saw this movie the first seconds the voice of T.R. took me on to the journey - well i disliked the big glued thumbs in the beginning, but the absurd humor it and the gordious looks of both sissy actors - i do not know who played the young her - but she was great and so was uma!!! -<br /><br />the two other people who where in the cinema went out after about half an hour, i was with a friend - and it is always a test to watch a movie i like good with one of my friends - and, we both enjoyed it too the maximum - hilarious laughs - sadness about the "realistic police- normalos" . both of us fans of T.Robbins books...i found it well done - thought, that Robbins would also approve, though i do not have an idea if he likes the film or not...<br /><br />i would love to see the cut out stuff - i heard that gus v. sand had to take out lots of scenes because of the first-time viewers (or the producers???) well still it is an artistic movie. much too short though... it is one of my all time favorites - and i am aware of it that the majority of people can't stand that kind of movie and assume that people who enjoy that films are whatever they think .......what a pity. hopefully there will come the day that there will be a DVD with the full material - hoping to see more of crispian, keanu - expecting to see her baby and all<br /><br />if you have the chance to see it, think twice, and enjoy it if you made the choice to watch ... m | 1pos
|
The film is exceptional in it's gay iconography and extends this beyond the asthetics to the music and cast. Throughout the whole film exists a childlike wonder as seen through the eyes of the main character. Her lighthearted take on the world around us is comical and beautiful. In a way it's a slacker movie for girls. Watch this is you fancy a relaxing entertaining mid-night movie. Buy this if you like diferent takes on the world of media and love combined (?). | 1pos
|
Worst movie of all time? Wow, whoa now. You cannot be serious.<br /><br />Maybe it's all about what you expect a movie to do to you. I live in Oregon, so I got to enjoy the beautifully-filmed shots of familiar yet still amazingly beautiful Smith Rocks and other areas in Central Oregon (as well as the sweet cameo of our own Ken Kesey and Ken Babbs looking down on baby Sissy's cradle at the beginning of the movie). Those alone were enough to spur me to give the movie a better than "average" score.<br /><br />Or .... Maybe it's all about what expectations you have. Having read the book AGES ago, and thinking to myself "goodness, no one could ever make a movie out of this interesting, quirky, weird book ... especially 20 years later, when mores (MORAYS -- can't put in the accent mark online) have changed" -- I was actually quite pleasantly surprised when I first watched the movie when it came out in 1994 and even liked it more today watching it again.<br /><br />Sissy was exquisitely cast, and I don't care what you all say, I was also pleasantly surprised at Rain Phoenix's and John Hurt's performances. I am not a lesbian nor bi nor trans, but have met many folks who are similar to the folks they were supposed to portray -- and those "real" folks kinda acted the same way as these actors acted. Stilted a bit, stage-ey -- always a bit "on." Gus Van Sant is one weird native Oregonian but by garsh he done a good job adapting this crazy book, IMHO. | 1pos
|
I admit, the first time I watched Even Cowgirls Get the Blues, I didn't think it was very memorable in any regard. But now after viewing it the 7th time, I admit that it has very much grown on me. The characters of Sissy, Ms. Jellybean, and the Countess have become very endearing. And the romance between Sissy and Jellybean seems very sweet. Though the plot is very weak, I think the satirical humor more than makes up for it. Then there's the kick-ass soundtrack which features the tremendously talented K.D. Lang (who reminds me a little of Patsy Cline) at her best. I can't think of any movie that has "grown on me" after an inauspicious first impression, as much as Cowgirls has. | 1pos
|
This was an excellent film. I don't understand why so many people don't like it. There was so much in it to connect with, so many beautiful images, and so much compassion in the things that weren't said. I was thoroughly entertained, and was left with a feeling of joyous exuberance, just as I am when I finish most any Tom Robbins story. Now I haven't read this particular book of Robbin's, so I don't now how this matched up, but I can't imagine this movie could have been a very bad interpretation. The movie left a lot for you to define yourself, which is the best part of any Tom Robbins novel, dreaming up the details. <br /><br />To all of you who said this was the worst movie ever, I pity what little must be left of the dimming light in your hearts. Far from the worst ever this movie was glorious. Long live the whooping crane. | 1pos
|
This film got terrible reviews but because it was offbeat and because critics don't usually "get" offbeat films, I thought I'd give it a try. Unfortunately they were largely right in this instance.<br /><br />The film just has an awkward feel too it that is most off putting. The sort of feel that is impossible to describe, but it's not a good one. To further confound things, the script is a dull aimless thing that is only vaguely interesting.<br /><br />The immensely talented Thurman just drifts through this mess creating barely an impact. Hurt and Bracco try in vain to add something to the film with enthusiastic performance but there is nothing in the script. It may have been less embarrassing for them if they had merely chosen to drift and get it over with like Thurman.<br /><br />One thing the "esteemed" film critics did fail to mention however is that the film is actually quite funny. Whether it be moments of accurate satire or some outrageously weird moments like when the cowgirls in question chase Hurt off their ranch with the smell of their unwashed...ahem...front bottoms.<br /><br />Because of the chortles acheived throughout, while I wouldn't recommend this film, there is entertainment to be had and watching Even Cowgirls Get the Blues is worthwhile for something different. | 1pos
|
At first sight this movie doesn't look like a particular great one. After all a Bette Davis movies with only 166 votes on IMDb and a rating of 6,5 must be a rather bad one. But the movie turned out to be a delightful and original surprise.<br /><br />You would at first expect that this is a normal average typical '30's movie with a formulaic love-story but the movie is surprisingly well constructed and has an unusual and original story, which also helps to make this movie a very pleasant one to watch.<br /><br />The story is carried by its two main characters played by Bette Davis and George Brent. Their helped by a cast of mostly amusing characters but the movie mainly involves just around them two. Their character are involved in a most unusual and clever written love-story that work humorous as well. It makes this movie a delightful little comedy to watch, that is perfectly entertaining.<br /><br />The movie is quite short (just over an hour long), which means that the story doesn't waste any time on needless plot lines, development and characters. It makes the movie also rather fast paced, which helps to make this movie a perfectly watchable one by todays standards as well. It does perhaps makes the movie a bit of a simple one at times but this never goes at the expense of its entertainment or fun.<br /><br />A delightful pleasant simple romantic-comedy that deserves to be seen by more!<br /><br />8/10 | 1pos
|
This is an EXCELLENT example of early Bette Davis talent. The production is above average for 1936 timeframe. I cannot understand why the owners of the rights to this film have not put it on DVD. Owners, PLEASE PLEASE release it. I would buy it immediately. I have not seen it in more than thirty years, on television, but remember it well. | 1pos
|
In the opening scenes of this movie a man shot arrows through his hotel room into another man's bathroom and blew out all the lights. This must have been very hep for 1936, but rather way way out and had nothing to do with the film, Robin Hood did not make an appearance as far as I could see. However, Bette Davis(Daisey Appleby),"The Whales of August",'87 was very young and attractive and performed one of her best roles in a long career in Hollywood. Daisey never stopped teasing or being very sexy with her nightgowns and so called swim suit on her yacht with George Brent(Johnny Jones),"The Spiral Staircase",'46. Daisey even proposed marriage to Johnny in a Ferris Wheel upside down and even got a black eye. Davis and Brent made a great couple, one suppose to be very rich and the other a very poor reporter. Off stage, Davis and Brent were having a real torrid love affair, which is good reason why there was sparks when these two appeared in this film. If you liked Bette Davis and George Brent, this is the film for you! | 1pos
|
This is a great show, and will make you cry, this group people really loved each other in real life and it shows time and time again. Email me and let's chat. I have been to Australia and they real do talk like this.<br /><br />I want you to enjoy Five Mile Creek and pass on these great stories of right and wrong, and friendship to your kids. I have all 40 Episodes on DVD-R that I have collected over the last 5 years. See my Five Mile Creek tribute at www.mikeandvicki.com and hear the extended theme music. Let's talk about them.<br /><br />These people are so cool! | 1pos
|
I guess I'm part of the silent minority who enjoyed this film. Is it one of the best of the "Nightmare" series? Maybe not, but I had lots of fun with it. Freddy Krueger reaches his evil, wisecracking potential. Since parts 4 and 5 kind of lagged the series down, I felt this so-called final installment ("New Nightmare" is the real finale) brought the series out of its slump. There are some great nightmare sequences, including one where Breckin Meyer plays a stoner who gets trashed, falls asleep and gets stuck in a video game to which Freddy controls. This is both a highly original and hilarious sequence, especially when we see him out of the dreamscape, hopping around like Super Mario. And Freddy belts out the funny one-liner, "Great graphics." And since the movie was made about 10 years ago, it brought back memories when Freddy started controlling the game with the Powerglove. Anyone who remembers the first 8-bit Nintendo remembers the Powerglove. <br /><br />The cast is superb. Lisa Zane is perfectly cast in the lead. I haven't seen Yaphet Kotto since "The Running Man," and I think the last time I saw that film was about 5 years ago. He's another great, underappreciated actor who possesses a powerful screen presence. And who can forget the cameos? The best one is by Johnny Depp (from the first "Nightmare") playing a spokesman for an anti-drug commercial. <br /><br />The 3D sequence at the end is really awesome! So for those who are looking to check this film out--please rent or buy it on DVD! Hopefully all the editions come with the 3D glasses, but I'm sure the video edition has the 3D element removed. <br /><br />I personally didn't see many things wrong with the film. It even elaborated on Freddy's backstory. The film is a great mix of humor and scares, and the gross-out effects are terrific. Could this have given better justice to the franchise? Of course it could have. But Rachel Talalay did a fine job. And finding the perfect conclusion is easier said than done.<br /><br />And in closing, I loved the montage over the opening credits. Fans of the series will be delighted, and will look at it as a tribute to beloved Freddy. <br /><br />My score: 7 (out of 10) | 1pos
|
FREDDY has gone from scary to funny,in this 6th installment in the Nightmare series.<br /><br /> It's been 2 years,well actually 11 since this film takes place in 2001.And FREDDY has killed every last kid on Elm street except one,John Doe(Jacobb from part 5,even doe the film gives on hint who he is),in which he uses to bring more children to come to Elm street.Not only does FREDDY gets his wishes,but he also gets his daughter back to Elm street.When she finds out what is happening,she and other kids decide to kill FREDDY once and for all.We also get to see some of FREDDY's eerie backgrounds.<br /><br /> Rachel Talalay,who has been contected to the nightmare series for a long time by now.Many people hate this film,but I liked it.It tried to bring out what FREDDY was doing with his wisecrackes...COMDEY and makes the series more funny than scary.So this film is really a comdey sore to speak.It is not the wrost in the series,part 2 still holds it.<br /><br /> | 1pos
|
Now all the kids and teenagers of Springwood, Ohio are all dead expect for one teenager (Shon Greenblatt) is still alive. Freddy (Robert Englund) is letting him go and the teenager doesn't have much of a memory, when he's arriving in a new town. When a tough female psychologist (Lisa Zane) tries to break though the new patient. She's finds out, where he's from. She brings him along to Springwood to spark some memories but three teens (Lezlie Deane, Breckin Meyer and Ricky Dean Logan), who unexpected came for the ride. Once they arrived in Springwood, the psychologist has some memory that she did lived in that town before as a child. While Freddy knows the true secret of her true identity.<br /><br />Directed by Rachel Talalay (Ghost in the Machine, Tank Girl) made a grim but somewhat oddly different sequel with some visual style and funny moments for this horror/fantasy/thriller. Yaphet Kotto (Alien) has a supporting role as a Psychologist expert on dreams. This has some ingenious visual effects (Not everyone will love the climax, especially in 3-D) and some good style in its storytelling. This one did out gross some of the film's series at the box office.<br /><br />DVD has an strong anamorphic widescreen (1.85:1) transfer (also in Pan & Scan) and an strong-Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround Sound. DVD has the original theatrical trailer, Jump to a Nightmare opinion and Cast & Crew information. The "Elm Street" Series Box Set, the eighth disc has interviews with the the cast & crew of this sixth film. The sixth film is also in 3-D for the film climax but you could watch it at 2-D also. This is the last of the "Elm Street" films until Wes Craven resurrected Freddy into a different, darker style in "New Nightmare" and the silly but surprisingly enjoyable spin-off horror film "Freddy Vs Jason". Watch for Robert Shaye (Co-Owner and Co-CEO of "New Line Cinema"), Roseanne Barr, Tom Arnold, Johnny Depp and Alice Cooper in amusing cameos. Written by Michael De Luca (John Carpenter's In the Mouth of Madness). From a story by the director. (*** ½/*****). | 1pos
|
Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare (1991) was the last film to feature Freddy Krueger as a solo act (not as an entity or a co-star). The years of killing have taken a toll upon the town of Springwood. It has gotten to the point that the little city has become a virtual ghost town. The parents who killed Freddy Krueger so many years ago have all paid the ultimate price. Only the mad inhabit the town and the survivors are scattered everywhere. But that doesn't stop Freddy from seeking out his final revenge. No matter how they try to stop him, he always comes back for more. But this time he finds out a little more about his old life. Can the kids finally stop Freddy for good? What is this secret that is buried in Freddy's twisted mind? to find out you'll have to watch Freddy's Dead. the end was originally filmed in 3-D.<br /><br />A fitting way to end the franchise. Freddy learns something about himself and his perverted life and he gets to go out in a bang! Lisa Zane, Yaphet Kotto and Freddy Krueger star in this final installment. Rosanne, Tom Arnold and Johnny Depp make special appearances. A whole lot better than the last one but it's filled with a few dated jokes. If you enjoy the series then you don't want to miss out on this one.<br /><br />I have to recommend this movie for Freddy fans. | 1pos
|
The Movie Freddy's dead the final nightmare is just as horrific and disturbing as every other Nightmare on Elm Street , yes it has Comedy essence about it , so has all the other films, but how can anyone possibly say that you wouldn't find Freddy Krueger scary , if you were to come across this man in your dreams you wouldn't find him even more scary with a comic essence about him because his comedy shows that he doesn't care at all about killing you that he finds it extremely funny, and Freddy also plays comic mind games with them, which in its own way is very disturbing , by using his comic ways i think that makes the horror movies Nightmare on elm street what they are today, The writers are extremely clever making Krueger comic and scary as oppose to Jason Vorhees , who doesn't say anything and hasn't got the wit to truly frighten his victims, This Movie is about as good as Freddy's wit gets and i would recommend it to anyone with a sense of humour and by the way " Don't Fall Asleep!". | 1pos
|
Freddy Krueger the dream stalker from elm street returns,the great character actor Robert englund is back in this sequel of nightmare 5, dream child.i hope i got the number correctly.there's been so many,and this one is one of the best,especially for the cameos by;Rosanne Barr (then Arnold)tom Arnold,johnny depp,(who did the very first nightmare in 84)alice cooper(singer)you will see Freddy as a tormented child,a teenager who loves pain,and as a family guy(creepy)the effects are very funny and creative,the cast also includes Lisa Zane(Billy's sister) breckin Meyer(road trip)yaphet kotto(alien,live and let die)and Amanda Donahue(father knows best)i was one of the people 3who saw this in 3d,well the ending.i love 3d movies.i missed the first 3d wave in 1953(i wasn't even born yet)the second wave was in 1983.i like all the Freddy movies.this one stands out as one of the better ones not counting the first which was absolutely brilliant,Freddy became the new monster of the 80s and 90s,along with Jason voorhees,chucky,Micheal myers,and leather face.can you imagine a film with all of them?i recommend this to all Freddy fans and horror fans alike.that Freddy is such a cut up.8 out of 10. | 1pos
|
If your a hard core Freddy fan then you might not like it. This seems to be a spoof of the nightmare series. Not much to see here. The only reason it holds it self up is the back story on Freddy.<br /><br />The one thing that is always great in Nightmare movies are the death scenes. But the death scenes were very crappy in this. The visual effects were great and the acting was OK but the back story was excellent. Basically Freddy's story comes full circle in this.<br /><br />I have read bad reviews for this but i actually enjoyed this despite its many flaws: <br /><br />1. A Nightmare on Elm Street. (8/10) <br /><br />2. Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare. (7/10) <br /><br />3. A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master. (7/10) <br /><br />4. A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: The Dream Warriors. (7/10) <br /><br />5. A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child. (6/10) <br /><br />6. A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge. (3/10) <br /><br />I recommend it if you enjoy the series. This is were Freddy is fully explained but thats all there is. Next on my list Wes Cravens New Nightmare.<br /><br />(7/10) | 1pos
|
Okay, I am a fan of the Nightmare series and everyone says on here that this is the worst! But it's NOT!!! Haven't's you seen Freddy's Revenge??? WTF! That was the worst of all!!! Now this movie is pretty decent and it sticks to the Freddy story and it's cool that he had a daughter etc. etc.<br /><br />And then I found out it was in 3-D!!! I was so excited, I remember when I saw it on the DVD box set I instantly skipped to the 3-D sequences. Quite a lot was in 3-D though like Lisa Zanes hand, Dream Demons, Freddy's Claw (more than once), Lezlie Dean holding a knife, Lisa Zane with a Baseball Bat, Doc's hand, Freddy's head exploding.<br /><br />I truly loved this movie because it was in 3-D, but I wish the whole movie was in 3-D not just the last 15 minutes.<br /><br />By the Way it's 15 minutes NOT TEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! | 1pos
|
First of all, I have to start this comment by saying I'm a huge Nightmare on Elm Street fan. I think it's the greatest horror series ever. For me, Freddy is the boogeyman! Of course, Freddy's Dead, which tried to be the last chapter back then, is a weird movie. It doesn't have the same atmosphere than the previous films. Freddy has a lot of screen time. Some think it makes him less scary, which I do agree. And that's, in my opinion, exactly the point. This movie exists so we can know Freddy a little better, who he is, who he were, how he became the man haunting our dreams. For some people, it's a bad thing, it's better if we never know because it's scarier not to know why evil is evil. Obviously those people won't like Rob Zombie's remake of Halloween. To truly enjoy this one, you have to see things differently. It's not about a strange guy hiding in the bush of your dreamland waiting to scare the hell out of you. This was the first one, and it was awesome. As the years passed by, Freddy killed more and more people, and nobody could ever get rid of him for good. Now it's time to learn about the nature of this evil, the psychological aspects of Freddy's realm of terror. Beside the story of Freddy's past, I also really liked the atmosphere of the movie. No more kids in Springwood, only crazy grown-ups. The nightmare scenes are all great. The soundtrack is awesome, especially the opening song called ''I'm Awake Now'' performed by Goo Goo Dolls. In my opinion, The Final Nightmare is a horror masterpiece and I can't believe it's so underrated. Maybe it is misunderstood, or I have different tastes! Anyway, all Freddy fans should watch it. It has a lot of scary moments as well as funny moments too, and a lot of cameos! Get yourself ready for something different and you might not be disappointed. | 1pos
|
WARNING!!! TONS OF DEAD GIVEAWAYS!!! DON'T READ IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THIS SERIES! OR YOU CAN, WHATEVER.<br /><br />They're are few words to describe a movie that claims to be the last and comes out with another; Liars, Cheats, maybe even some words that can't be uttered. But When Elm Street 6: Freddy's Dead shows everyone who thought the series got old, and wanted to stop seeing him, or people who wanted their hero (or Villian) just stops for his final breath, This film was it.<br /><br />This film starts with a parody of Wizard of Oz, Then you see a kid who is named only as John Doe, Who is the last child in Springwood, Ohio, leaves and gets out of Freddy territory. A woman who resides at a hospital/ place to get kids off their feet kind of place meets this boy, and at the same time, has a dream about a man, a water tower, and a promise of a secret floating in her mind, goes back to Springwood to figure out this frightening vision, and soon finds out that she is Freddy's child, And we soon find out that Freddy can only leave Springwood if his daughter can be a sort of host for him. And beyond that, fright ensues. This film seems to hit the nail on the head of everything you wanted to know.<br /><br />This film has tons of humor, and cameo appearences, like Rosanne Barr and Tom Arnold, Alice Cooper, Johnny Depp, and a very young Breckin Meyer playing a teenage stoner who sees psychadelic vision of flowers and Iron Butterfly's "In-a-gadda-da-vida", then gets stuck in a super Mario parody of sorts. This film will either make you hate this movie, or like Krueger even more. The best of the best. | 1pos
|
I saw this movie with my friend and we couldnt stop laughing! i mean there was nothing scary about this movie! It was funny all the lines Freddy said were hilarious! I think they shoudln't have even made a new nightmare and just gone to Freddy Vs. jason. Although some parts were gross (like the head blowing up). and any elm street film from 1- 5 sucked. this was the best besides Number 1. I wouldnt recomend this movie if you want a good horror. But if you have nothing else to do rent this and you'll laugh alot.I want to see the texas chainsaw massacre I think it would be scary. Freddy's Dead The Final Nightmare overall grade: B- | 1pos
|
"Ship Ahoy" was probably made in order to showcase MGM talent. The film is a fun trip on an ocean liner on its way to San Juan, Puerto Rico, at the time in which the country was involved in WWII. This was typical fare for the studios, which gave the movie going public light weight entertainment as a distraction during those difficult times the country was living.<br /><br />The beautiful Eleanor Powell is seen at her best in some musical numbers where she clearly shows us she was a dancer to be reckoned with. Red Skelton is also seen in a straight part with not too much clowning, as he pursues the beautiful Ms. Powell on the ship that is bringing them to Puerto Rico. The irresistible Bert Lahr has good opportunities in the film to show he was a funny man. Also Virginia Grey is seen as a fun girl who is not fooled by anyone.<br /><br />There are good musical numbers featuring Tommy Dorsey and his orchestra, in which one sees, among others, the amazing Buddy Rich, who has a few solos with Mr. Dorsey and Ms. Powell. A young Frank Sinatra appears also as the lead singer of the band, backed by the Pied Pipers.<br /><br />This is a nostalgic trip that should be savored by fans of this genre, which MGM totally controlled. | 1pos
|
What fun! Bucketfuls of good humor, terrific cast chemistry (Skelton/Powell/Lahr/O'Brien), dynamite Dorsey-driven soundtrack! Miss Powell's dance numbers have exceptional individual character and pizzazz. Her most winning film appearance. | 1pos
|
The plot of this enjoyable MGM musical is contrived and only occasionally amusing, dealing with espionage and romance but the focus of the film is properly pointed upon the tuneful interludes showcasing the enormously talented and athletic tap dancing Eleanor Powell, abetted by Tommy Dorsey and his orchestra, featuring Ziggy Elman, Buddy Rich and Frank Sinatra. Red Skelton shares top billing with Powell, and he and sidekick Bert Lahr are given most of the comedic minutes, although Skelton is more effective when he, if it can be believed, performs as Powell's love interest, with Virginia O'Brien actually providing most of the film's humor as the dancer's companion. The technical brilliance of Powell is evidenced during one incredible scene within which Buddy Rich contributes his drumming skills, and which must be viewed several times in order to permit one's breathing to catch up with her precision. Director Edward Buzzell utilizes his large cast well to move the action nicely along despite the rather disjointed script with which he must deal, and permits Powell's cotangent impossibilities to rule the affair, as is appropriate. | 1pos
|
As with most of Eleanor Powell's films, this one plays out along the flimsiest of plots. For some reason -- oh it is explained! -- she's selected to transport a magnetic mine to Cuba. Good guys and bad guys compete for the mine and who is who gets confusing. But, as always, Powell's dancing is superb and worth the price of admission. And in this one Lahr plays his cowardly lion, evoking warm memories of that Technicolor film of 1939. A fringe benefit is hearing a young Frank, with that wonderful voice and skinny vulnerability that he abandoned for his wise-guy persona later on. In addition, the great drummer, Buddy Rich, has a wonderful time displaying his virtuosity. Watch particularly for his unique duet with Dorsey's trumpet man, Ziggy Elman. I say "unique" perhaps in ignorance, but I know of no other drum/trumpet sequence like this one on film or records. This film is fun. Even Skelton's goofy persona is relatively restrained. Powell shows again that she is the greatest film dancer ever. | 1pos
|
As the story in my family goes, my dad, Milton Raskin, played the piano for the Dorsey band. After Sinatra joined the band, my dad practiced with him for hours on end. Then, at a point in time, my dad told Sinatra that he was actually to good to be tied up with such a small group (band), and that he should venture off on his own. By that time Sinatra had enough credits 'under his belt' to do just that! Dorsey never forgave my dad, and the rest, as they say, is history.<br /><br />I have some pictures and records to that effect, and so does Berkley University in California.<br /><br />I have seen just about every Sinatra movie more times than I wish to say, and his movies never get old . . . Thank you Frank | 1pos
|
The Write Word<br /><br />What you see is what you get. Not really! What Madhur Bhandarkar's brave and brilliant 'Page 3' does is destroy the myth attached to the glam and glitterati that colour the pages of our newspapers and whose lives(read party habits) we follow with such maniacal fervour which only our intrinsic voyeuristic streak can explain. <br /><br />The page 3 phenomenon is as deplorable as it is enigmatic. How exactly did it gain such control over the printed word and when did it start to encroach into the front page is subject for another debate. Bhandarkar cleverly avoids that. He is concerned only with the mechanisms of this grotesque existence. And in doing that, he pieces together the various elements of this way of life. Like Robert Altman(although I'm not comparing Bhandarkar to Altman's genius), Bhandarkar uses myriad characters to further his motive. Whether it is a page 3 wannabe NRI, the gate-crashers, the newly-rich, an upcoming model, a socialite politician or an erotic novella authoress; all the characters are introduced with an objective and each of them has a separate character-sketch, even if their parts may be miniscule. And therein lays the film's appeal. <br /><br />Konkona Sen Sharma plays Madhavi Sharma, a young and talented journalist who covers page 3 for Nation Today. Initially content with her job, she soon begins to see the ugliness of this underbelly that is covered by its fake and cosmetic profligacy. But Bhandarkar resists the temptation to make this subject into a moral-policing movie and avoids concentrating on one character alone. Hence the movie is not only about Madhavi, but also equally about Deepak Suri(Boman Irani)- Madhavi's editor who passively accepts his role as a cog of a larger machinery, Anjali Thapar(Soni Razdan)- a socialite suffocating from the social pollution, Abhijeet(Rehan Engineer)- a homosexual make-up artist and Madhavi's roommates Pearl(Sandhya Mridul)- the sassy airhostess and Gayatri(Tara Sharma)-an aspiring actress. It seems like an impossible task to assimilate so many characters(and more) in one story, but full credit to Nina Arora and Manoj Tyagi for penning a tight screenplay. The dialogues by Sanjeev Datta and Bhandarkar have been written with great attention to detail. <br /><br />Any narrative, no matter how good, can fall flat with the lack of genuine performances. Thankfully, 'Page 3' brims with actors and not stars. Konkona goes through her author-backed role with effortless ease. Ditto Boman. Sandhya Mridul gets the best written part, but almost overdoes it. Atul Kulkarni is wasted though with an underwritten character. At times, the director seems too keen to incorporate as much as possible(paedophilia, homosexuality, etc.). But the contexts in which they are used do not make them look rushed. <br /><br />Ultimately, Bhandarkar's attempt is to satiate our voyeurism, but he takes it a step further. He takes us inside the photographs and exposes us to the gruesome realities of this sect of humanity that strangely seems to be living in a different and remote world. These are the same people that indulged in new-year's revelry while a few hundred kilometers away their fellow countrymen had been ravaged by nature's ferocity! Clever writing, skillfully incorporated songs, able performances and a genuine feeling of sincerity are what make this film worthy in spite of its lack of finesse and poor production values. 'Page 3' is an optimum way to enter a new year of cinema.<br /><br />- Abhishek Bandekar<br /><br />Rating- ****<br /><br />* Poor ** Average *** Good **** Very Good ***** Excellent<br /><br />29th January, 2005 | 1pos
|
I did not like Chandni Bar from the same director.<br /><br />I did not watch his other movies. They came and went.<br /><br />But Page-3 is nicely made. Seems real. Like Satya from RGV did.<br /><br />The mental sickness of the so called high society is the summary of the movie. In the midst of all the sickness, its difficult to lead a normal life which the protagonist, Konkana Sen, does. Serious movie, not to be watched with children or expecting wives. Page-3 of newspapers is the usual place for reporting the activities going on in the parties of the rich and elite who indulge in much more filth then what is reported. How this Page-3 is also a business prospect is shown in the movie. Event management firms get paid to arrange parties and make a rich but not famous people famous overnight by clicking photographs with the celebrities invited to the party.<br /><br />The western culture has crept into the high society of Mumabi quite deeply. The movie shows it boldly, no holds barred.<br /><br />Madhur Bhandarkar starts a new journey from here. | 1pos
|
Page 3 is one of those films Madhur Bhandarkar makes to expose societal filth. The film is compelling, but, like most of Bhandarkar's films, it is one-sided and overly pessimistic. This film is all about tabloid journalism, gossip, celebrities. The film exposes the lives of socialites, whose lifestyle is disastrously boastful, peculiar and repulsive. They party, they care for nothing but fame, they plan parties at funerals, they are craving for more money and a higher reputation, they will do anything to get due exposure in the media, to get their names boldly printed on the daily newspaper's social column known as "Page 3" with huge photographs which will be the center of people's discussions. They are attention seeking, salacious and hypocrite. The film industry is shown as sleazy, with casting couch being a common phenomenon among filmmakers. That's where our lovely heroine, a young social column reporter Madhvi Sharma, is thrown. All these people from Mumbai's elite depend on her articles and she is the right person to befriend at these parties if you want her to mention you in her article. Later in the film we learn that even those who are Madhvi's friends are no different from these high-society people. This was tough viewing for me, although the film is unquestionably brave and the issues it deals with are interesting.<br /><br />The film's music is average. The only passable songs are "Kitne Ajeeb" and "Huzoor-E-Ala", sung by the two melody queens Lata Mangeshkar and Asha Bhosle, respectively. Otherwise the soundtrack is bad. One song which was particularly horrendous is "Filmy Very Filmy". The film's writing is quite good. The second half is far better than the first, as it turns more matter-of-fact and exposes much more important issues such as terrorism and child abuse. That's where the film has to be applauded. It was sad to know that people prefer to ignore such crimes out of fear and Konkona Sen Sharma's character's disappointment was very easy to relate to. She was excellent throughout the film and her acting in the last few scenes was particularly impressive. Atul Kulkarni's part was very small but he did full justice to it. Boman Irani is solid as the newspaper's editor. Sandhya Mridul is lovable as Madhvi's sassy roommate Pearl who marries an older man for money and is honest enough to admit it. The film's ending is really well-done, and provides a certain sigh of relief after the unimaginably tough proceedings. Page 3 is a good film, it is interesting and at times moving, but the level of its interest and its general quality are marred by its exaggerated, overly messy and negative portrayal of the rich and famous. | 1pos
|
Madhur Bhandarkar directs this film that is supposed to expose the lifestyle of the rich and famous while also providing a commentary on the integrity of journalism today.<br /><br />Celebrities party endlessly, they like to be seen at these parties, and to get due exposure in the media. In fact the film would have us believe that this exposure MAKES celebrities out of socialites and the newspapers have a huge hand in this. IMO there is much more synergy between the celebrities and media and it is a "I need you, you need me" kind of relationship. However, the media needs celebrities more and not vice versa. Anyhow, in this milieu of constant partying is thrown the social column (page 3 of the newspaper) reporter Konkana Sen Sharma. She is shown as this celebrity maker, very popular at the social gatherings. She has a good friend in the gay Abhijeet and in the struggling model Rohit (Bikram Saluja). She rooms with an air-hostess the sassy Pearl (Sandhya Mridul), and a struggling actress - Gayatri (Tara Sharma). The editor of the newspaper is Boman Irani and a firebrand crime beat reporter is played by Atul Kulkarni. The movie has almost too many plot diversions and characters but does work at a certain level. The rich are shown to be rotten to the core for the most part, the movie biz shown to be sleazy to the max with casting couch scenarios, exploitation of power, hunger for media exposure. Into all this is layered in homosexuality, a homosexual encounter that seems to not have much to do with the story or plot, rampant drug use, pedophilia, police "encounter" deaths. In light of all this Pearl's desire to have a super rich husband, a socialite daughter indulging in a sexual encounter in a car, the bitching women, all seem benign ills.<br /><br />The film has absolutely excellent acting by Konkana Sen Sharma, Atul Kulkarni has almost no role a pity in my opinion. But the supporting cast is more than competent (Boman Irani is very good). This is what saves the film for me. Mr. Bhandarkar bites off way more than he can chew or process onto celluloid and turns the film into a free for all bash. I wish he had focused on one or two aspects of societal ills and explored them more effectively. He berates societal exploitation yet himself exploits all the masala ingredients needed for a film to be successful. We have an item number in the framework of a Bollywood theme party, the drugged out kids dance a perfectly choreographed dance to a Western beat. I hope the next one from Madhur Bhandarkar dares to ditch even more of the Hindi film stereotyped ingredients. The film is a brave (albeit flawed) effort, certainly worth a watch. | 1pos
|
Page 3 is most definitely a very enthralling and captivating eye-opener that very cleverly exposes the hypocrite lifestyles of Mumbai's elite. From the fake kisses to the plastered smiles, Page 3 leaves no stone unturned in revealing the shocking lives of the rich and the famous. Backstabbing, gossip, corruption, and scandal lurk in every dark corner in the world of glitz and glam. Humanity and generosity are analogous to an oasis in the desert in this world where Social Darwinism is the prevailing mentality. Everyone is constantly craving for more money, more fame, and a higher reputation, driving them to do the most shameful things imaginable ranging from signing film contracts at a funeral to child molestation. Anything is possible in this metropolis where there is a such a wide gap between the social classes. The audience sees the ugliness of both of these classes through the eyes of the protagonist. She observes the suffocating atmosphere and the mind-boggling frenzy that the socialites live in. Bollywood, business tycoons, politicians, and the underworld are all intertwined in a completely convoluted mess! Kitne Ajeeb Hai is a nice track as is the peppy Kuan Main Doob Jaongi. Terrific film with excellent character development! | 1pos
|
The first review I saw of Page 3 said "what is madhur bhandarkar finally wants to say?". Should he say something so decisive.<br /><br />The most beautiful thing about Page 3 is it doesn't take sides. No propaganda whatsoever. This is the film that captures so many angles of an issue(I don't know what do I call as an "issue" here) and yet like any mediocre movie doesn't come up with an solution. I was so intrigued when I realized that the movie ended almost in the same scenario just like it started.<br /><br />The movie defines so many characters who are completely with completely different priorities and different ideologies and yet they are all a part of the system which is all the more apathetic. I wish i can say more but there would be more spoilers ahead. So watch Page 3 if you wanna see one of the most mature films of the recent times. | 1pos
|
Madhur Bhandarkar goes all out to touch upon taboo issues and gives the most realistic picture of the modern society. One gets the impression of the director even from his earlier movies like Satta and Chandni bar. The issues just hinted on in the latter movie are explored and exposed in totality here. The casting is amazing and one can see the judgements on each scene from many angles. Mostly, the movie leaves you wondering on lots of facts around. As you start guessing the things, you end up at most being close, but missing the mark in many a scenes. It leaves a lasting impression in the end.<br /><br />Actors to watch are Konkana Sen Sharma, Boman Irani & Atul Kulkarni among others. The dialogues are well written and you feel you've lived around some of these people. There are still some scenes that make you think of more depths. The songs are in the background saving time and Lata's voice in a very meaningful song "Kitne Ajeeb" leaves you feeling you're left all alone in the midst of the modern society! | 1pos
|
The movie is a real show of how unemotional and selfish the upper society has become. It has plenty of characters and each and every character is representing a different category of person. No character is 100% good and moral unlike the heroes of all the typical Indian movies and no character is 100% bad rather all are just different. The movie is a very perfect mixture of emotions, drama and entertainment. For the very first time i liked a movie that has raised some social questions. I would recommend all to see the movie. Madhavi Sharma is a journalist who covers those hip-shaking parties of Bollywood for the Page 3 of the newspaper but this is the story of how she becomes a crime reporter for the newspaper. But this is not all, then it shows how she couldn't survive there and when she helped rescue some innocent children, how brutally her voice is suppressed. Even she is fired from the job. Then she couldn't find a job of crime reporter and has to do Page 3 again. Not only her but a very very large number of characters are interwoven in the movie and all gives different feeling while watching the movie. I would really congratulate the director for making such a great movie. Please do not afford to miss it. | 1pos
|
Madhur Bhandarkar has given it all raw. But the best part is he hasn't forgotten to give the ingredients. It has come short and crisp to the viewer and it is the audience to make the choice now. Page 3 is a revelation of the naked truth irrespective of the crudeness attached to it.<br /><br />Madhavi (Konkan Sharma) is a journalist and enjoys her work. A simple and peaceful life adores her with a caring boyfriend and a nice roommate Pearl. She covers the Page 3 (Celebrity Page) of Nation Today, where she has a very supportive editor Deepak Suri (Boman Irani.) But life takes turn for her as she hits the first bump and takes herself away from Page 3 and goes into Crime bit. Omigosh! a whole new world was waiting for her there. She is shocked, excited, stunned with the revelation. Her reaction has resulted in losing the job. At the end she is back to Page 3. Now when she meets any celebrity in a party, she knows the actual looks of each, hidden under the illusive face.<br /><br />The movie has a message and it is crude. The audience needs to get it in their own color. The theme and the screenplay was fantastic. There are some very good thoughts applied to prepare the audiences. Like the foreplay-club is shown before the pedophiliac exhibition, the short suspense before gay-actions in bathroom. The dialogs are strong and the actors are really good at delivering it. Charu Mohanty's 2 words speaks volumes and he is very successful in uttering those two words with such ingenuity, it leaves an impact. The set selections could have been better. The songs don't stand anywhere; but they were needed in the background. Atul Kulkarni has a small role with high-impact. There were a few flaws visible. Atul Kulkarni explaining Konkan Sharma that honesty should be tagged along with intelligence. There could have been a better dialog as this sounds like a preach. The meeting between Thapar and his daughter doesn't call for acting. That scene looks very unprofessional.<br /><br />Overall it is a must-watch movie with selective options before the pedophilia incident. That may spoil your mood. | 1pos
|
Yet again, Madhur Bhandarkar takes you on a ride to the wild side. And a remarkable one it is, literally and figuratively.<br /><br />Mumbai hi-society -- stars and starlets, glam dolls and witch doctors, business tycoons and broker types, yep the whole stinking lot -- are in sharp focus here. In typical tabloid fashion, their worlds unfold, with every colorful story a clever sub-plot in itself.<br /><br />A struggling starlet dumped by the producer after getting her pregnant, the stewardess and her high-profile husband, the pedophile businessman and his neurotic wife, the reporters and the police captain; all shades on display and countless hues in between.<br /><br />Bhandarkar does a swell job of digging up the dirt on the drama kings, the dancing queens and the living dead. Atul Kulkarni packs a punch, as does Boman Irani and Sandhya Mrudul. Konkona Sen Sharma is effective as the ex-crime beat reporter, but she could have been dolled up a little in keeping with the job change and the party circuit.<br /><br />Highly focused (running time 140 min) and refreshingly different film, well worth the money. | 1pos
|
Madhur from CHANDNI BAR started making realistic films, which some people called dry <br /><br />He made SATTA which was another realistic though filmy film but a great film<br /><br />AAN men at work was a formula film by him which flopped<br /><br />He returns with his superlative PAGE 3<br /><br />A film which dwelves into the lives of journalists and it's a brilliant film<br /><br />The film is well narrated though the half baked romantic portions of Konkana could be avoided but that is forgiven<br /><br />The entire Upendra Limaye track is superb too<br /><br />while the Atul Kulkarni track is great too<br /><br />The dial between Manoj Joshi and his friends are funny at first but repetitive at times<br /><br />The subplot of Bikram- Tara is brilliant and so is the entire hospital scene and also the final child abuse which shocks you<br /><br />The film has a open ended ending which is nicely handled<br /><br />Madhur does a great job Music is okay<br /><br />Konkana excels as Madhavi, using her expressions to the best Tara Sharma is decent except her voice Sandhya Mridul is good as usual Upendra Limaye excels in his part as the cop, one of the talented actors Sadly he isn't used well nowdays Atul Kulkarni too is good in his small part Boman Irani is restrained and does a great job rest are okay | 1pos
|
PAGE 3 **** out of 4 Stars<br /><br />Madhvi (Konkona Sen) enters her boyfriend's house and its empty. She looks here and there and then goes in his bedroom and you get the picture - 'Ah! another girl
that two-timing baddie and yes indeed he his two timing her but it's a GUY this time around. And i say 'Brilliant!'<br /><br />END OF SPOILERS (The above scene is not a spoiler really ... but for me it was so i didn't want to take a chance)<br /><br />When asked upon as how was this film, my friend answered 'oh, it just an exposé of the P3 people' which made me believe that ill be watching a stupid movie if nothing more. When I went to the theater, I thought to myself '' I better get a pen and a paper to jot down the bad things about this film'' but I was proved entirely wrong
and then some because I could muster only the goods. This film was great. Great, not because it is offbeat and noncommercial cinema like storyline but because of the cleverness in the screenplay and how this movie tells you how to handle a movie brilliantly which could have been a dumb and senseless movie if given in the wrong hands.<br /><br />Konkona Sen Sharma is grace. She is so damn beautiful who has nailed her role perfectly as if she was born to play this part. One of the most charming actresses I've ever seen. But this is not the only performance which is good in the film, there's Sandhya Mridul, Boman Irani and Atul Kulkarni. Particularly Sandhya Mridul who just fires up the screen. (And guess what even the unusually accented Tara Sharma speaks normally)<br /><br />The movies stars off with some silly old parties of the hush-hush celebrities of the film industry et al and you get the idea of what this movie will be about. And for about half hour through the film you feel just about the same. But then the movie picks up the pace grabs onto a good storyline and never lets go of it. Even Boman Irani agrees to that statement 'It was a good story, Madhvi'. (Thank you). The great thing is that it tackles the issue of how silly these people are with style and does not make it over done and also tackles the social issues and does not make them boring. In the end its all a roller-coaster ride and Madhvi informs us that by just smiling at all these people. Just the reason why I love watching films. Ecstatic film-making. The screenplay is beautiful, clever and witty. | 1pos
|
Page 3 is a great movie. The story is so refreshing and interesting. Not once throughout the movie did i find myself staring off into space. Konkana Sen did a good job in the movie, although i think someone with more glamour or enthusiasm would have been better, but she did do a great job. All the supporting actors were also very good and helped the movie along. Boman Irani did a great job. There is one thing that stands out in this movie THE STORY it is great, and very realistic, it doesn't beat around the bush it is very straight forward in sending out its message. I think more movie like this should be made, i am sick of watching the same candy floss movies over and over, they are getting hard to digest now. Everyone should watch Page 3, it is a great film. -Just my 2 cents :) | 1pos
|
This is yet another tell-it-as-it-is Madhur Bhandarkar film. I am not sure why he has this obsession to show Child moles***ion and g*y concepts to the Indian filmy audience, but I find some of those scenes really disgusting! What's new? It is a nice piece put together by Bhandarkar, where he shows the story of an entertainment reporter played by leading lady in the famous film, Mr & Mrs Iyer. What makes this movie different is, that it also covers the stories of people that this reporter interacts with or is friends with, such as her roomies, her colleagues, film stars, models, rich people and others featured in the Entertainment Page#3 in her newspaper.<br /><br />Noticeable: It is another good performance from Mrs Iyer. She is likely to be noticed for this role. She does selective roles but shines in them. She is noticeably de-glamorized and less beautiful in this film. But then, entertainment reporters are not supposed to outshine the people they cover, right? Verdict: Madhur has come up with another good movie, that brings social issues to the limelight very nicely. However, this movie loses focus and one is not sure what the director is trying to convey.<br /><br />Is he trying to show us the glitz and glamor of the rich people? or is he trying to show us the life of an entertainment reporter and contrasting that with the life of the REAL crime reporter? Is he trying to tell us how the government and rich folks rule the press? or is he trying to illustrate the issues with child abuse and g*y folk. The other concepts brought forth include the unwritten rule that young women have to sleep with directors or co-stars, if they wish to enter Bollywood.<br /><br />In addition, he talks about how flight assistants get sick and tired of their jobs after a while and resort to extreme measures by marrying much elder people, etc. He also talks about unhappy women and spoilt kids in rich families.<br /><br />This was all okay for me.. but might be too complex for an average movie-goer, who just wants to relieve some stress from day to day work | 1pos
|
This movie is an eye opener for those who can only the glamorous lifestyles of the stars. It tells you how people who would like to do good are not able to. Plus the bomb blast scene is very real.<br /><br />What you read and are taught just does not happen!!!<br /><br />Can raise your BP level by 10%<br /><br />All actors played their role very well.<br /><br />Some scenes may / could have been avoided to include teenagers.<br /><br />This movie is quite adult in nature.<br /><br />Not a movie that can be seen with family.<br /><br />Casting is great!!! | 1pos
|
Here is proof of why Mary Pickford was `America's Sweetheart.' In this rather complex drama, Mary plays the young daughter of a squatter that dare to dream of a relationship with the son of one of the `hill-toppers.' The scenes where they steal a kiss and otherwise fall in love are simply delightful. She is even willing to take a bath. That Mary could pull this role off at the age of 30 is simply amazing and somewhat due to her diminutive stature (5').<br /><br />Tess must face numerous physical and emotional challenges. She does so with spunk not seen in many heroines of the time. Tess packs a wallop and is not shy about fighting with anyone. Why she agrees to help the `hill-topper' daughter is beyond me, but she sacrifices her own happiness in order to keep a deep secret. Pickford's close ups are wonderful.<br /><br />Danish-born Jean Hersholt is simply wonderful as the villain. The scene in which he manhandles a small baby is enough to make you throw vegetables (or whatever) at the movie screen. If Forrest Robinson (who plays Daddy Skinner) had worn a beard, he would have been a match for the model used in those World War I recruiting posters of Uncle Sam Wants You!<br /><br />Although the story is somewhat predictable and slow in the beginning, it is worth the investment in your time to see the piece or pure `Americana.' The film highlights choices available to us all involving making someone else happy and what it is to be a real Christian. Recommended. | 1pos
|
Uneducated & defiant, beautiful TESS OF THE STORM COUNTRY is the daughter of a fisherman squatting on a rich man's land. Spirited & bold, she captures the heart of the millionaire's son, but violence, terror & sudden death are what will haunt her immediate future before she can claim the sweet peace of happiness.<br /><br />Mary Pickford is utterly charming in this splendid, heart-wrenching film. She considered Tess to be her favorite role and she fills it with all the spunky joy & enthusiasm which made her for years the world's most popular movie star. The story has all the essential elements for a modern fairy tale, with Mary the lovely, distressed heroine beset by all manner of dangerous, stressful situations. The atmospherics are first-rate, with the outdoor fishing village sets being particularly well-conceived.<br /><br />In the supporting cast, Jean Hersholt stands out as the vile villain who tries forcing Pickford to marry him. Hersholt, a very gentle soul off screen, manages brilliantly to depict his character's complete moral corruption.<br /><br />This was actually the second time Pickford filmed TESS. A 1914 version had been one of her first important films, but its production values were a bit antiquated by the standards of the 1920's (no close-ups, for instance) and Mary, producing her own films & powerful enough by 1922 to make whatever film she wanted, decided for the only time in her career to remake a film. The end result certainly lived up to her expectations. Both films were very popular at the box office.<br /><br />A fascinating study for some future film researcher would be the influence of Christianity in Mary Pickford's life; it certainly runs like a golden thread through the silent movies she produced. Although the romanticism inherent in the very nature of silent cinema might cause these spiritual sentiments to appear somewhat awkward today, we are compelled to accept them as sincere reflections, by their very repetition, of Mary's heartfelt beliefs. In TESS, one beautiful scene in particular stands out in this regard: Pickford is teaching herself to read using a Bible. She indicates to Lloyd Hughes (who plays her sweetheart) a word from near the back of the Book that she does not understand. He mimes it for her (the word is obviously `crucified') and, eyes turned Heavenward as the full meaning of the Sacrifice dawns upon her, Mary's face becomes positively beatific.<br /><br />A splendid new orchestral score for TESS has been supplied by Jeffrey Mark Silverman which perfectly underscores the beauty & pathos of this wonderful film. | 1pos
|
I had never seen a silent movie until July 24, 2005. I had never seen a movie with Mary Pickford in it. I've seen thousands of movies. Very few are hypnotic to me. I found Last of the Mohicans and Unforgettable (Ray Liotta) to be hypnotic, so consider the source as you read this. I started watching Tess of the Storm Country on TCM just to see who this Mary Pickford was, who has been credited by many for launching Hollywood. I had no idea what I was in for. Two hours later, I snapped out of it, and realized I'd watched one of the most beautiful women I had ever seen, playing a role perfectly suited to her. Imagine a movie fan in 1922, having never seen anyone that gorgeous and that expressive before. You would have to see her again and again. The setting was perfect for a girl that expressive. She was a poor squatter, couldn't speak the King's English, but you had to admire her. What a movie... time to start my Mary Pickford movie collection! | 1pos
|
Had this been the original 1914 version of TESS OF THE STORM COUNTRY (also starring Mary Pickford), I probably would have rated it a lot higher, as this sort of extreme melodrama and sentimentality was pretty typical of the teens. However, by 1922, this film was already starting to show its age. And, compared to many of Ms. Pickford's other films (such as DADDY LONGLEGS, SPARROWS, MY BEST GIRL and SUDS), TESS comes up a tad short--and not every Pickford film merits a 10 (even if she was "America's Sweetheart"). Now this isn't to say that it's a bad film--it certainly isn't. But, I just can't see how so many have given this film a 10.<br /><br />The film has a very long and complicated plot--especially because most films of the era were shorter. A rich old crank builds a mansion at the top of a hill next to the river. At the bottom of the hill are some dirty squatters who he hates but who he cannot evict. So he tries to come up with a variety of ways to get them off the land. One ends up in tragedy, when his daughter's fiancé is killed in a scuffle with the po' folks. The man accused of the murder is dear old Mary's father, though he is innocent. To make things a lot worse, the only witness to the real murder won't talk AND the dead man had gotten his fiancée pregnant! So, at this point, we have an innocent man in prison waiting to be executed and a pregnant lady afraid to tell her sanctimonious father she is "in the family way". There's a ton more to the film, such as the crank's son falling in love with Mary, but it's best you just see the film for yourself.<br /><br />The film excels in some ways. The plot, while very complicated, is also rather interesting and the cinematography is top-notch. The very final scene is also pretty cute. However, there is so much overt sentimentality you can practically cut it with a knife. Mary is SO good and SO sweet and So plucky, at times the viewer might find it all a bit hard to take. While it worked great in 1922 (making her the biggest star in the world), today it's very dated. This is NOT true of all her films, but this one certainly is.<br /><br />By the way, the Image Entertainment DVD is of decent quality, though a few scenes are badly degraded--something that isn't very surprising considering the age of the film. Also, the only extras included are a brief filmography. | 1pos
|
TESS OF THE STORM COUNTRY is possibly the best movie of all of Mary Pickford's films. At two hours, it was quite long for a 1922 silent film yet continues to hold your interest some 80 years after it was filmed. Mary gives one of her finest performances at times the role seems like a "greatest hits" performance with bits of Mary the innocent, Mary the little devil, Mary the little mother, Mary the spitfire, Mary the romantic heroine, etc. characteristics that often were used throughout a single film in the past. The movie is surprisingly frank about one supporting character's illegitimate child for 1922 and at one point our Little Mary is thought the unwed mother in question! If the Academy Awards had been around in 1922, no doubt the Best Actress Oscar for the year would have been Mary's. | 1pos
|
This film does not fail to engage and move, even in 2008 to an audience only familiar with modern over-produced sound and computer enhanced techniques.<br /><br />The experience of the movie goer in 1922 who could only see this in a cinema with others on their big screen must have been truly profound and a thoroughly satisfying experience.<br /><br />One has to ask could a film maker today make a two hour silent movie and make it interesting and achieve the same structure tempo and balance as this movie has. Silent film making was pure art, it had to hold the attention through its structure, direction and acting - there was no padding out with more words or computer generated distractions. A poorly made or uninteresting silent movie is unwatchable.<br /><br />This film needs to be put into context for those who might be disconcerted with the mention of Christian themes. This is not a 'Christiany' film, it is not selling anything. These themes along with reference to current moral standards often appear in this era - also church going on Sundays was a national past time, Christianity was a given in most households thus the film is only depicting normal life as it was then. The themes would have rung true and deep at the time.<br /><br />It is most odd given the strong support to good Christian thinking of this particular movie (and it is not preaching religion to anyone, only highlighting the difference between hypocrites and the honest)that in 1922 a Pastor in an open debate with a representative from the film industry with a large crowd denounced Pickford as an example of immorality, along with some other individuals he named. NY Times 1922.<br /><br />Maybe they should have watched this movie that also came out in 1922 and, learned some lessons.<br /><br />The Pastor complained that since the film industry had started church attendance had dropped 500,000. The film representative in the debate however made the following observations; that saloon attendance had also dropped, that there were far more pastors in prison than actors (fact) and that selecting a few examples from among the many was not representative of the whole.<br /><br />Thus there was an ongoing battle between church and the film industry during the early days of film.<br /><br />This is a wonderful film about being honest and true to family friends and to be willing to make sacrifices. Mary Pickford, naive, honest, feisty, full of happiness and joy, faithful, humorous and silently sacrificing - though poor and uneducated she represented the perfect character. This however is not thrust down our throat but revealed bit by bit through the film.<br /><br />This is reminiscent of some modern Chinese films where characters are slowly, languidly revealed over the course of a film and it is this tempo that creates a stronger connection with the character. <br /><br />It has a smooth even tempo for the first half that builds all the elements for the last section. The last 30 minutes are great film making and it has to be appreciated it was achieved without the benefit of sound, running dialog - it was achieved through deft acting and great directing. It is sometimes surprising to realize that at the end of the film you haven't hear a word spoken, but it feels like you have heard everything.<br /><br />The supporting cast put in great performances especially Gloria Hope, Jean Hersholt and Lloyd Hughes. <br /><br />The final few minutes are typical Pickford understated humor as she goes outside under the pretext of sweeping the snow, a near perfect balance and ending. This is a special type of touching humor that should not be underestimated. Chaplin used this device often and copied some of from Pickford.<br /><br />Another special observation to be made about Silent films and especially Pickford films is that the star often has to hold the camera for much of the movie without the audience becoming jaded or bored, with the actors over-exposure. That Pickford is usually thoroughly the center of attention through most of her movies but the people still couldn't get enough of her is a testament to her fine acting ability. | 1pos
|
Mary Pickford often stated that Tess Skinner was her favorite movie role. Well said! She played the part twice and for this version which she herself produced, she not only had to purchase the rights from Adolph Zukor but even give him credit on the film's main title card. Needless to say her portrayal of this role here is most winning. Indeed, in my opinion, the movie itself rates as one the all-time great experiences of silent cinema.<br /><br />True, director John S. Robertson doesn't move his camera an inch from start to finish, but in Robertson's skillful hands this affectation not only doesn't matter but is probably more effective. A creative artist of the first rank, Robertson is a master of pace, camera angles and montage. He has also drawn brilliantly natural performances from all his players. Jean Hersholt who enacts the heavy is so hideously repulsive, it's hard to believe this is the same man as kindly Dr Christian; while Lloyd Hughes renders one of the best acting jobs of his entire career. True, it's probably not the way Mrs White intended, but it serves the plot admirably, as otherwise we would have difficulty explaining why the dope spent a fortune on defense but made not the slightest attempt to ascertain who actually fired the gun that killed his future brother-in-law! Needless to say, this particular quality of the likable hero is downplayed by Jack Ging in the bowdlerized 1960 version which also totally deletes the author's trenchant attack on smug, middle-class Christianity. Notice how the well-washed priest here moves forward a pace or two in surprise at the interruption, but then makes no attempt whatever to assist our plucky little heroine in the performance of duties that he himself was supposedly ordained to administer. This is a very moving scene indeed because it is so realistically presented.<br /><br />"Tess" also provides an insight into the work of another fine actress, Gloria Hope, whose work was entirely confined to silent cinema. She married Lloyd Hughes in 1921 and retired in 1926 to devote her life completely to her husband and their two children. Lloyd Hughes died in 1958, but she lived until 1976, easily contactable in Pasadena, but I bet no-one had the brains to interview her. Another opportunity lost! <br /><br />To me, Forrest Robinson only made a middling impression as Skinner. I thought he was slightly miscast and a brief glance at his filmography proves this: He usually played priests or judges! But David Torrence as usual was superb.<br /><br />In all, an expensive production with beautiful photography and marvelous production values. | 1pos
|
Tess of the Storm Country was a Mary Pickford vehicle I had intended to get for some time. I finally found a VHS copy for a reasonable price and got to enjoy it.<br /><br />Mary gives her typical spunky, innocently sexy portrayal of a wrong-side-of-tracks girl who wins the heart of a rich heir. Only this time the stakes are higher: a false murder charge, an illegitimate child (and ensuing case of mistaken motherhood) and contemplated suicide.<br /><br />One can see why Pickford wanted to redo this one. The story is a real morality tale, the kind that she loved to star in. The controversial topics aren't always spelled out plainly; a viewer has to pay attention and pick up on hints to catch everything that is being implied on first viewing although everything is more or less explained in the end.<br /><br />About the only negative remark I can make would be concerning Jean Hersholt and the dog. Hersholt, whose character, Ben Letts, looks to be about 6-2, 200 pounds (bigger next to Mary, of course!), is sent fleeing in panic when a 60-pound chocolate lab charges toward him! Then, to top it off (or maybe to justify his perplexing fear of the dog), it manages to pin him to the ground and somehow injures him so badly that he is still struggling to get up much later, as a bad storm hits! This is the same lovable lab that sleeps with Frederick (Lloyd Hughes) and cuddles with Mary! Yet Mary later throws boiling water in Ben's face, which barely slows him! OK, I've vented about Ben and the chocolate lab! Other than that, the movie was quite touching and certainly held my attention. Pickford's supporting cast was strong and believable. This is certainly among her better films. | 1pos
|
This film has special effects which for it's time are very impressive. Some if it is easily explainable with the scenes played backwards but the overlay of moving images on an object on film is surprisingly well done given that this film was made more than 94 years ago. | 1pos
|
For animation buffs it's a must, but even general audiences will enjoy THE CAMERAMAN'S REVENGE, a very early example of 'pixilation' by the hard-working pioneer Wladyslaw Starewicz. Starewicz and his helpers painstakingly manipulated a cast of flexible insect figures to tell this story, paving the way for the likes of Willis O'Brien, George Pal, Ray Harryhausen, and legions of modern digital effect creators.<br /><br />THE CAMERAMAN'S REVENGE is only about 10 minutes long, but packs in lots of amusing detail as the story follows the amorous adventures of two beetles from their home to a nightclub, a hotel, a cinema, and, eventually, a prison cell. There are two brief dance numbers at the nightclub (performed by a frog and a dragonfly), a scuffle between a beetle and a grasshopper, and a large-scale donnybrook at the cinema, which ends with the projector bursting into flames. Pretty elaborate goings-on for 1912, when even John Bray and Winsor MacCay were just getting started, and Walt Disney was still in grade school!<br /><br />It's interesting to note, too, what an impact the alteration of a silent movie's title cards can have on the story being told. I've seen two versions of this film offered by two video companies, and watched them back-to-back, and although the image content itself is almost identical, two different sets of intertitles tell two very different stories. (And the plot outline someone provided above tells yet a third story, which suggests that there's another version out there somewhere.) The British Film Institute's print, which has rhyming intertitles, tells the story of two sibling beetles, each secretly married, who hide this information from one another in order to inherit their late father's fortune. The other, Russian print, tells a simpler story of married beetles who are each guilty of infidelity. In the Russian version Mr. Beetle visits his girlfriend at the "Gay Dragonfly" nightclub, while in the English version brother Bill Beetle visits his wife at the music-hall. Personally, I prefer the straightforward-- and spicier --Russian story; the BFI version tries to cram too much plot into what should be a simple tale, and some of the rhymes are a bit awkward.<br /><br />Still, in any rendition, THE CAMERAMAN'S REVENGE is a delightful film, and would make an ideal lead-in to that other great animated work which features beetles, YELLOW SUBMARINE. | 1pos
|
Ladislas Starewicz's curiosity with insects and cinema melds into a short film about a love triangle between Mr. Beetle, an artistic grasshopper, and Mrs. Beetle. The rather simple story of an adulterous beetle couple that both seek stimulation outside their marriage is similar to a Biograph or Vitagraph short of the time. Starewicz's twist on the story is to use embalmed beetles with wires straightening the legs in frame-by-frame animation. The story builds as Mr. Beetle is unknowingly caught on camera with a dragonfly from the local nightclub by a jealous grasshopper. When Mr. Beetle comes home to find his wife in the arms of her artistic friend, he chases her around angrily, but eventually forgives her and takes her out to see a movie. However, Mrs. Beetle soon learns of her husband's infidelities as the movie they watch is the jealous grasshopper's footage of Mr. Beetle and the dragonfly together. Mrs. Beetle thrashes Mr. Beetle with her umbrella, Mr. Beetle jumps through the screen, and they both end up in jail after the projector they wreck catches on fire. The insects are placed in humanized settings such as a house or a nightclub, and are given human characteristics of jealousy, anger, lust, and revenge. The insect characters carry briefcases, drive motorcars, and even wear shoes yet they also twitch their antennae and open and close their mandibles as real insects would. The novelty of the story doesn't wear itself out, even after multiple viewings, but as fluid as the movements are, the film moves slowly. Action happens with intricate detail, but rapidity and a quicker pace of filming is lost in the process. Despite its pace, the film is an excellent example of Starewicz's early puppetry and is highly recommended. | 1pos
|
The Cameraman's Revenge is an unusual short not because of the subject matter (adultery) or because it's animated (Winsor McCay had introduced Little Nemo on film by this time) but because it depicts bugs to tell the story! Ladislaw Starewicz had originally wanted to film actual bugs fighting but couldn't get them to do it on camera because of the hot lights they suffered through so he took dead ones and started using stop-motion techniques to manipulate movements to his satisfaction. This short does a good job of putting human characteristics on little creatures such as riding motorcycles, painting, filming, kissing, and dancing. Starewicz would also make Frogland (1922) and The Mascot (1933) but his first notable work would be this one. If you're interested in this and the other shorts mentioned, check your local library to borrow the DVD The Cameraman't Revenge and Other Fantastic Tales from Image Entertainment. | 1pos
|
An absurdly hilarious and strikingly human tale of the jealousies and infidelities surrounding a beetle marriage, Russian animation pioneer Wladyslaw Starewicz's "Mest kinematograficheskogo operatora" ("The Cameraman's Revenge", or "The Revenge of a Kinematograph Cameraman") is a delight of early animation, brimming with highly-effective stop-motion puppetry and no shortage of imagination.<br /><br />Mr. and Mrs. Beetle have a completely uneventful marriage, and both yearn for more excitement in their lives. Mr. Beetle's desires can only be satisfied by the beautiful exotic dancer at the "Gay Dragonfly" night club, whom he visits whenever he takes a "business trip" to the city. She is the only one who understands him. A fellow admirer of this dancer, an aggressive grasshopper, is jealous that Mr. Beetle has stolen his lady and, as fate would have it, he is also a movie cameraman. The devious grasshopper follows Mr. Beetle and his acquaintance to a hotel room, where he films their exploits through the keyhole.<br /><br />Meanwhile, Mrs. Beetle has, likewise, acquired a friend to add excitement to her life. He is an artist, and he brings her a painting for a present, before they both settle down on the couch for some intimacy. At that moment, however, Mr. Beetle returns home and witnesses the entire spectacle. As Mr. Beetle bashes through the front door, the artist friend clambers up the chimney, but he doesn't escape without Mr. Beetle first venting his anger and frustration upon him.<br /><br />There is a certain irony in the statement that follows: "Mr. Beetle is generous. He forgives his wife and takes her to a movie." He is generous enough to forgive her, and yet he had been equally unfaithful just minutes earlier. At this point in time, however, we still haven't forgotten the jealous movie cameraman who had been plotting his revenge, and it is no surprise when he turns out to be the projectionist for the film Mr. and Mrs. Beetle are attending. Suddenly intercut into the film they are enjoying is the footage of Mr. Beetle's disloyalty, and the angry wife hits him across the head with an umbrella, before the frightened and angry husband dives through the theatre screen in search of the grasshopper.<br /><br />In the final scene, both Mr. and Mrs. Beetle, now somewhat more appreciative of each other, are serving time in prison for the fire that broke out when Mr. Beetle sought his final revenge. We do, indeed, hope that "the home life of the Beetles will be less exciting in the future
" This film may appear to be a mere story of the comings-and-goings of a miniscule insect species, but Starewicz is communicating so much more than that. This isn't a story about beetles it is a story about us. And it's startlingly accurate, isn't it?! | 1pos
|
This short is a puzzlement. Words fail me here, as this is almost indescribable, Technically exceptional after more than 90 years (the visuals are remarkable and even occasionally amazing), this is not something you watch if you like things that are mundane or "normal'-because it most certainly is not either. This be an odd one, gang. Well worth checking out, but if things like Ren and Stimpy make your head hurt, you may want to skip this. Recommended. | 1pos
|
This is one of the best animated movies I've ever seen in my life. This isn't just a fun movie, or a well-made movie. This is a landmark in the art of animation and even if it weren't, just the technical skill that went into making it, would grant it a place in the history of animation.<br /><br />Wladyslaw Starewicz created a stop-motion movie about the secret life of beetles. He imagined a coherent world of insects, with jobs, houses, nightclubs, movie houses, even little props like posters and bicycles and paintings.<br /><br />In this movie he tells a simple tale of hypocrisy and revenge. Mr. Beetle has an affair with a dancing dragonfly, much to the chagrin of a grasshopper; but he's a cameraman and decides to shoot the fling. Mr. Beetle returns home and finds Mrs. Beetle having her own affair. Mr. Beetle chases the lover away but forgives his wife. The two make up and go out to the movies. And the movie they watch is Mr. Beetle and the Dragonfly. Described thus it sounds banal, but once seen it becomes a gripping work of cinema. Along with Emile Cohl and Jiri Trnka, Wladyslaw Starewicz pretty much invented everything that future animators would use in their work. For that reason he must not remain forgotten. | 1pos
|
Believe it or not, at 12 minutes, this film (for 1912) is a full-length film. Very, very few films were longer than that back then, but that is definitely NOT what sets this odd little film apart from the rest! No, what's different is that all the actors (with the exception of one frog) are bugs...yes, bugs! This simple little domestic comedy could have looked much like productions starring the likes of Chaplin, Laurel and Hardy or Max Linder but instead this Russian production uses bugs (or, I think, models that looked just like bugs). Chaplin and Laurel and Hardy were yet to be discovered and I assume Linder was busy, so perhaps that's why they used bugs! Using stop-motion, the bugs moved and danced and fought amazingly well--and a heck of a lot more realistically than King Kong 21 years later! <br /><br />The film starts with Mr. Beetle sneaking off for a good time. He goes to a bawdy club while his wife supposedly waits at home. But, unfortunately for Mr. Beetle, he is caught on camera by a local film buff. Plus, he doesn't know it but Mrs. Beetle is also carrying on with a bohemian grasshopper painter. Of course, there's a lot more to this domestic comedy than this, but the plot is age-old and very entertaining for adults and kids alike.<br /><br />Weird but also very amazing and watchable. | 1pos
|
I'm usually not too into a specific show (save for The O.C. & Desperate Housewives...hey, I am 20!), but, no kidding, after one episode of Reunion I was hooked.<br /><br />I can't even say how bummed I was that it's time-slot conflicted with Bush's speech last night because I was really looking forward to the 1987 episode, which will now air next Thursday. Again, that conflict was disadvantageous because, being a new show, it needs to build up a following and having the second episode pushed back a week kills some momentum.<br /><br />That said, TV doesn't always have to be Emmy worthy to be enjoyable. I don't expect Reunion to take home any prizes, but I do expect it will be able to capture my attention all season. Ever watch the first few episodes of a beloved show years later? Sometimes you wonder how you ever got hooked. Character building takes some time.<br /><br />The one episode for each year idea is wonderful, in my opinion. The only other show I can recall doing something similar is 24, with each episode being an hour...and having an eventful year is more realistic than a day that eventful! Please give this show a shot. Relax about art form...it's just TV! | 1pos
|
So, Fox pulled the plug midway through a drama/mystery...<br /><br />How lame is that? Do they expect us to invest our time in their new shows when there is a realistic risk of never finding out what happens? Why weren't the remaining, already filmed episodes aired in the US? They were broadcast elsewhere.<br /><br />Hey, Fox! Are you listening? This was a great show, but you left us hanging. If you're going to introduce new drama/mysteries, at least air a conclusion before abruptly ending mid-theme. Every time something like this happens (and it seems to happen a lot with you - i.e., Fox), there are more of those who will "wait and see" before investing their time. This means you will see an artificially low interest share, and are more likely to end the series. See? It is a vicious cycle. Don't let us down again... | 1pos
|
I really love this show, it's like reading a book and each chapter leaves you wanting more. It gets you thinking about what is going to happen in the next episode, and the struggle of trying to maintain their friendship throughout the years. After each episode ends it leaves a sweet bitter taste in your mouth knowing that: One - The show was good, you can't wait for the next episode and it really gets you thinking about what actually happens to the friends throughout the twenty years. And two - the fact that the show has been put "on hiatus" and we will not see the show finish in it's entirety. Fox obviously do not know what they have done, they claim that they are losing viewers in the 18 - 49 category they clearly do not know what people want to see if they got rid of a good show such as "Reunion". I have one query though that I would like to raise. If they were to bring the show back and it went on for another season how would it work since each episode is done in the period of a year and the story is based on what happens in the span of twenty years? Your answers are most welcome. Bring back Reunion! Bring back Reunion! | 1pos
|
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.