text
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
It was simple and yet so nice. I think the whole sense of sex segregation in society, which can be bitter, was shown very delicately. It had a bitter kind of hummer in it. The fact that most of the actors were not professionals, made the movie more tangible and more realistic. There was a "documentary" side to the movie too. The best scenes were those that all the girls, banned from watching, were listening passionately to the soldier, who is supposed to keep an eye on them, broadcasting the game. If you are an Iranian, the familiar cheering and dancing in the streets after a game won, fills you up with National pride!! If you are not Iranian, you'll still love it all the same! | 1pos
|
I felt this movie was as much about human sexuality as anything else, whether intentionally or not. We are also shown how absurd and paradoxical it is for women not to be allowed to such a nationally important event, meanwhile forgetting the pasts of our respective "advanced" nations. I write from Japan, where women merely got the right to vote 60 years ago, and female technical engineers are a recent phenomenon. Pubs in England were once all-male, the business world was totally off-limits for women in America until rather recently, and women in China had their feet bound so they couldn't develop feet strong enough to escape their husbands. Iran is conveniently going through this stage in our time, and we get a good look at how ridiculous we have all looked at one time or another. Back to the issue of sexuality, we are made to wonder what it may be intrinsically about women that make them unfit for a soccer game (the official reason is that the men are bad). Especially such boyish girls, a couple so much so that you even get the feeling that lesbianism is on the agenda as well. I think one point is that not all women are the same, and the women the police are trying to "protect" are not the ones who would try to get in in the first place. The opening scenes of the approach to the stadium makes you appreciate the valor of the young women trying to get in -- and each one separately -- at all. It is a brutish man's world. Any woman brave enough to try to go should be allowed! The world of sexuality is not one-size-fits-all.<br /><br />Meanwhile, the apprehended criminal girls bond inside the makeshift pen awaiting their deportation to who-knows-where, and in a much more subtle way, begin to bond with the guards keeping watch over them. These had definite ideas about women and femininity, which were being challenged head-on. The change in attitude is glacial, but visible.<br /><br />Since the movie is pure Iran from the first moment, it takes a little easing-into for the foreigner, but the characters have a special way of endearing themselves to you, and you end up getting the whole picture, and even understanding the men's misunderstandings and give them slack. The supposed villain is the unseen patriarchy of the Ayatollahs, which remain unseen and unnamed, and likely unremembered.<br /><br />Knowing that this movie was filmed during the actual event of the Iran-Bahrain match gives me a feeling of awe for all involved. | 1pos
|
Is this your typical women in chains navy transport love story? Maybe, hell, you know how the formula works by now, pretty woman is introduced in to a picture, someone has to fall in love with her.<br /><br />I think this film does follow some typical story lines, but that doesn't say anything about the content. There are great scenes with Crispen Glover, Dennis Hopper, and Gary Busey, although short. Some things didn't make sense, such as the need to get in to random fights, but it is entertaining to watch, the fights were actually well done.<br /><br />This is definitely a comedy foremost, but it does have a lot of good feel to it. The humor is well balanced, you won't hurt your stomach on this, but you will keep a smile.<br /><br />There is a little bit of steamy action, so not one for the kids. | 1pos
|
My wife and I have watched this movie twice. Both of us used to be in the Military. Besides being funny as hell, it offers a very realistic view of life in the Navy from the perspective of A Navy enlisted man, and tells it "like it really is". We're adding this movie to our permanent collection ! | 1pos
|
If you want a fun romp with loads of subtle humor, then you will enjoy this flick.<br /><br />I don't understand why anyone wouldn't enjoy this one. Take it for what it is: a vehicle for Dennis Hopper to mess with your head and make you laugh. It ain't Shakespeare, but it is well done. Ericka Eleniak is absolutely beautiful and holds her own in this one - Better than any episode of Baywatch - and shows a knack for subtle humor. Too bad she hasn't had many opportunities to expand on that.<br /><br />Tom Berenger fits his role of "real Navy" perfectly and William McNamara does a solid job as a hustler.<br /><br />Throw in a walk-on by Hopper in the middle of the chase for "the Cherry on this Sundae" and you've got a movie that kept my attention and kept me laughing. I bought this one as soon as it was available.<br /><br />Brain-candy. | 1pos
|
no movie with dennis hopper, gary busey, erika eleniak, tom berenger, dean stockwell, marilu henner deserves a rating under 5 on here. This is a poor mans version of movies like 16 blocks or the timeless Midnight run except the prisoner being transported here is the very easy on the eye Ms.Eleniak. Tom Berenger plays another gruff, maverick military type well and William Mcnamara plays his rookie-about to be discharged foil well. The plot on the face of it is absurd because I lost count of the times Eleniak should have and could have escaped but this is an entertaining feel-good movie and there are good cameos from all of the above actors that keep the movie rolling. This isn't really a family movie as there is some swearing and a rare nude scene with eleniak but this is a lot better than some of the other guff that came out around this time. | 1pos
|
Well, the movie isn't exactly "funny."<br /><br />Okay, I admit, there are a few HUMOROUS lines, but definitely nothing that is laugh-out-loud funny. For example: Right before a steamy sex scene between Eleniak and one of her male costars, sh is handcuffed to the bedpost and he cannot remove her shirt. Before leaving the room to retrieve the key, he tells her, "Okay, don't go anywhere."<br /><br />See, humorous, but not funny.<br /><br />The plot and acting are pretty good.<br /><br />But Erika Eleniak definitely steals the show. She's hot and sexy and there is a really steamy scene with her that one can't help but rewind and re-watch.<br /><br />There are also some other very sexy scenes with her and she has some very provocative lines.<br /><br />Overall, 5 stars. I'd only give it three if not for Erika Eleniak. | 1pos
|
I have seen this film on countless occasions, and thoroughly enjoyed it each time. This is mostly due to the lovely Erika Eleniak- a great actress with incredible looks. Plus, any film starring Tom Berenger and Dennis Hopper is bound to be entertaining. | 1pos
|
what can i say?, ms Erika Eleniak is my favorite blonde girl ever, and like a Italian American, fan number one of female beauty i can't forget this movie.<br /><br />you know i really don't remember a lot about the plot, or the situations or the other actors . i only can remember about drop dead gorgeous Erika and that in this film she looks better than ever, i really don't care if it was a bad movie or a good movie, i only care the nice moments i had been a teenager in Brooklyn just contemplating Erika's beauty.<br /><br />Well just to conclude if you are an Erika Eleniak's beauty fan like me definitely this film is for you. | 1pos
|
Clark Gable plays a con man who busts into the life of hard-boiled dame Jean Harlow. He tries to sucker her while she brushes him off with her tough-gal attitude. Despite their cynicism and cons they fall in love. When Gable accidentally kills a man during a sting he runs out leaving loyal Harlow to women's prison where she discovers she's pregnant. Anita Loos' and Howard Emmett Rogers' writing is excellent throughout with many well-drawn and surprising characters (including a Jewish socialist woman inmate and a black woman inmate and her preacher father played with hardly a trace of stereotype). Gable and Harlow show their mettle as actors adding telling nuances and quirks to their characters that send them beyond the typical Gable and Harlow roles. And the direction is much better than you'd expect from Sam Wood. One beautiful shot has Harlow being inducted into the prison, then led out into a surprisingly snowy courtyard as the camera tracks after her. This is one of the best of both the "criminals in love" and "women's prison" genres and has some of the best hard-boiled dialogue ever written. | 1pos
|
This movie is witty, watchable and utterly touching. And now often do you get to see Jean Harlow (or any actress of this era, for that matter) give another woman a swift punch in the jaw? (Twice!)<br /><br />After Harlow's Ruby is sent to a reformatory after getting mixed up with Gable's Edward Hall (he of that cheesy yet endearing crooked smile), her predicament becomes all the more complicated when she discovers that she is pregnant, and she's convinced that this rake has abandoned her, but in fact, her love has reformed him and he comes to see her, despite the fact that he will be arrested, and from the help of a minister, are married.<br /><br />The wonderful relationship that Harlow shares with her fellow inmates is second only to her electric chemistry with Gable, who was her most frequent leading man. Her cynical character is a perfect match for Gable's smooth-talking crook. What's not to like?<br /><br />"You know, you wouldn't be a bad looking dame - if it wasn't for your face!" Ruby cuttingly remarks to Gypsy, her rival. "If you're going to get that close to me, I'll have to open the other window!"<br /><br />Priceless!!! | 1pos
|
Hold Your Man finds Jean Harlow, working class girl from Brooklyn falling for con man Clark Gable and getting in all kinds of trouble. The film starts out as his film, but by the time it's over the emphasis definitely switches to her character.<br /><br />The film opens with Gable pulling a street con game with partner, Garry Owen and the mark yelling for the cops. As he's being chased Gable ducks into Harlow's apartment and being he's such a charming fellow, she shields him.<br /><br />Before long she's involved with him and unfortunately with his rackets. Gable, Harlow, and Owen try pulling a badger game on a drunken Paul Hurst, but then Gable won't go through with it. Of course when Hurst realizes it was a con, he's still sore and gets belligerent and Gable has to punch him out. But then he winds up dead outside Harlow's apartment and that platinum blond hair makes her easy to identify. She goes up on an accomplice to manslaughter.<br /><br />The rest of the film is her's and her adjustment to prison life. Her interaction with the other female prisoners give her some very good scenes. I think some of the material was later used for the MGM classic Caged.<br /><br />Harlow also gets to do the title song and it's done as torch style ballad, very popular back in those days. She talk/sings it in the manner of Sophie Tucker and quite well. <br /><br />Gable is well cast as the con man who develops a conscience, a part he'd play often, most notably in my favorite Gable film, Honky Tonk.<br /><br />Still it's Harlow who gets to shine in this film. I think it's one of the best she did at MGM, her fans should not miss it. | 1pos
|
I expected this film to be a run-of-the-mill 1930's romance. Boy meets girl, they fall in love, boy loses girl, boy wins her back in the end. It wasn't like that at all. Clark Gable plays con artist Eddie with all his usual charisma and mischievous eyebrow raising. He is hiding out from the cops when he bursts into Ruby (Jean Harlow)'s apartment, to find her covered in bubbles in the bathtub, no less. Instant chemistry.She plays hard to get for a while, but a girl can only resist that grin for so long. The heat between them is evident, and there are some scenes that are definitely pre-production code! When a blackmail job goes bad and Ruby ends up in a boarding house for "troubled girls", she is miserable and, thanks to the ragging her roommate gives her, begins to believe that Eddie will never come for her. Harlow plays the hard-nosed, fast talking Ruby perfectly. She never lets Gable get all the good lines! There is an especially moving scene with her playing "their song" on the piano that is acted perfectly. The last fifteen minutes have me crying every time. A truly sweet romance. | 1pos
|
One of the great mysteries of life, suffered from daily, is why nice girls so often are more interested in the jerks and heels than in the nice guys.<br /><br />Worse, when the nice guys even want to marry those girls, the girls STILL prefer the jerks and heels, even after the jerks and heels have shown their contempt, have shown they're just interested in using the girls.<br /><br />Stu Erwin is the nice guy, who continues to be nice after being lied to and cheated and even after losing the girl completely.<br /><br />Clark Gable is the jerk, and he is perfect in the role, rather a sad note to his fans.<br /><br />Jean Harlow comes across as a more slender Mae West, even sounding like La West in some of her cynical throwaway lines.<br /><br />Somewhat puzzling is that so many of the other characters, intended to be bad guys -- I mean, heck, they're locked up, so they must be -- are so obviously nice people.<br /><br />In fact, there are lots of nice people here, people who, in a lesser film or story, would be snarling and back-stabbing but here go out of their way to help someone else.<br /><br />So, maybe the story is rather clichéd, at least by modern standards, but ultimately the viewer will be glad to have watched.<br /><br />The biggest complaint I have is that so many really good actors are not given credit. Once again, we can say a fervent "Thank You" to IMDb.com. | 1pos
|
Jean Harlow and Clark Gable were a great on screen team and this may be their best movie together.<br /><br />Yes, Hold Your Man can be cheesy and predictable, but that's not what I love about the movie. I love seeing Harlow and Gable together and in this film they are simply wonderful. It is obvious that they really enjoyed working together and that is part of what makes this such a wonderful film.<br /><br />The witty dialogue, great script and attention to detail are the other things that make this such a good movie. I loved this movie the first time I saw it and on each subsequent viewing I always notice at least one new detail. To me, that is a mark of a great film.<br /><br />The dialogue and script are better than most movies from this time period (early 30's). I adore classic movies, but I admit that most of them are just average and at times don't hold my interest. Hold Your Man is one of the exceptions.<br /><br />This has a lot to do with the fact that Hold Your Man is a 'pre-code' movie. (The Hays code was not enforced until a year after Hold Your Man.) This movie could not have been made under the code. Well, it could have been made, but it would have been an entirely different story. Thank goodness the code was not enforced until 1934. Otherwise, we would have missed out on this gem. | 1pos
|
If you only read a synopsis of the plot, this movie would sound like quite a typical one of the 1930's. The story would seem quite contrived, the subject matter maudlin. The strength and beauty of this film is in the direct, earthy performances of the cast.I have seldom seen Jean Harlow display such a range of feeling, rich and subtle nuances float over her face. If you watch their faces during the wedding ceremony in the chapel, there is such an obvious depth of feeling between the principal characters. The raw emotions are so sincerely portrayed, so true. The final sequence is almost unbearably poignant: when Clark Gable looks down with such joy and surprise at his son, lifts him up and proudly says, "My kid!", I couldn't help remember that Mr. Gable's own son was born to him posthumously. This is one of the finest examples of Depression era cinema. | 1pos
|
Don't listen to the many acerbic and derisory comments heaped upon this film.....simply put, as regards ninja movies, this my friends is about as good as it gets! <br /><br />Yes it's silly, yes the acting and script are admittedly absolutely atrocious, but by gum - it's so much bloody fun! In fact, as is often the case with B-Movies, the horrendous 'acting' (which in the case of the movie in question, is truly amongst the worst I have ever had the joy to behold!) and ridiculous 'plot' actually only serve to elevate the enjoyment level ten fold.<br /><br />Obviously the fight scenes are the main attraction in this though and for the most part I'm pleased to say, they're very well choreographed, especially the final showdown (during which we witness that ninja are not ostensibly constrained by the normal laws of gravity....) <br /><br />Trust me on this, if you are a fan of ninja movies and you have not yet seen Sakura Killers, then you are truly missing out on what is in my opinion, one of the true jewels in the crown of the genre. | 1pos
|
It's hard to rate films like this, because do you rate it on production or just fun?<br /><br />I saw this film back in about 1988/89 or so when I was a boy and I'm sorry to say it started a life long fascination with ninjas. The plot is fairly dire and the acting is of course terrible, but there is a certain mystique surrounding the ninjas in this film which makes for quite a good atmosphere. What is important are the fight scenes, while a 'little' sparce, are really good.<br /><br />I must say it was better when I was a boy, only now can I see the glaring points of unbelievable nonsense in the film, but as a "sit back with a few beers" martial arts film I can't fault it, it delivers and is much better than the mountains of "American Ninja" Style rubbish that was churned out in the 80's with hundreds of guys in black suits but really not very good fight scenes.<br /><br />In an interesting note, Dusty Nelson, the writer and director of Sakura Killers did another ninja film under the Bonaire movie flag called "White Phantom" I have no idea if this was meant to be a sequel to Sakura Killers" but the Sakura clan is once again a main feature, including the same logo and similar story only this time including a White Ninja. This too, while being mostly dire, had a small sense of atmosphere but the fight scenes are even more sparce and to be frank, are pretty awful.<br /><br />So, if you are a martial arts fan then give it a blast to kill a few hours! | 1pos
|
Hey people, what's up. It's me man, the one and only Mike "Sonny Sakura KIller" Kelly. You know........ you can't really write a review on the script of Sakura, cause there we didn't have one. As far as I know, the story was just made up as we went along. I had the best time of my life making that film, and got so much stank that I ran out of Jism...........fun times. So glad that you all enjoyed the film. I really didn't get to do the fights that I had envisioned. Every time I set up some moves, the fight director kept changing them. Still, I had a blast and met some really great people. Especially the purple female Ninja who has seem to fall of the film-making scene. | 1pos
|
Found this flick in a videostore, it cost $2 to buy. The whole movie stinks really bad! The so-called colonel, who would the hero here if the cover could have been trusted, must be in his eighties and is barely able to walk. He nevertheless manages to shoot some of the dumbest ninjas in the world. Then the story leaves the colonel, which makes sense given the old man's inability to DO anything worth mentioning, a now two terrifyingly eighties-looking guys take over, in what must have been some sort of story. I got lost a hundred times but didn't mind, because the movie is so bad, it's real fun to watch. Zero-Budget trash with actors not deserving that name. Go check it out! | 1pos
|
As I said in my comment about the first part: These two movies are better than most Science Fiction Fans confess.<br /><br />The scenario in the second movie is not that moving as we don't see the destruction of human civilization, but the aftermath, thousands of refugees fleeing in tiny space cans, protected by only one powerful spaceship.<br /><br />But when Battlestar Pegasus appears, the story heats up, carrying the battle back to the Cylon Planets. Okay, it has a little bit of Mad Max because all they fight for is fuel for their spaceships to travel on to find the distant Earth, but it works for me. It is thrilling Science Fiction entertainment featuring fine actors and decent special effects (even though those tend to repeat themselves, to say the least :-) ).<br /><br />I would have loved a continuation with Starbuck and Apollo on board. Instead, we got a second sequel with no name characters who proved that the story had worked before especially because the feature characters were so well-chosen...<br /><br />So thumbs down for the productions of 1980, but thumbs up for the two movies from 1978. | 1pos
|
Although others have commented that this video is just an edited version of the two shows: "Fire in Space" and "Living Legend", if you watch the original shows you'll find that dialogue from this video edition was edited out. I found this video version much better because scenes and lines were added to it. I would say if you want to see the show in its original version, see the video versions on VHS. They have more to offer the fan than the original episodes being offered on DVD now. Another good video is Conquest for the Earth, which had more scenes from Galactica 1980 than did the actual broadcasts themselves. Overall, I rate this as a 10 because it gives you more to enjoy than what the networks wanted to show in the time slot they gave the producers. | 1pos
|
This movie is pretty good. Half a year ago, i bought it on DVD. But first i thought that it was the original film. I have seen the series and it is a good film, but here, they have put "The Living Legend,part1 and 2",and "Fire in space" together. The same as they did with the first film, but with other episodes. But still, it is a pretty good film. Only the ending is strange (you don't see what happens with the Pegasus). But I still think that it is pretty good. The actors and special effects were good. If you haven't seen it, go see it. Starring:Richard Hatch, Dirk Benedict, Lorne Greene, Herb. Jefferson Jr., Tony Swartz, Terry Carter, Lloyd Bridges, Jack Stauffer. | 1pos
|
Let's think people , quit bad-mouthing the original , for it's time the original Battlestar series was a masterpiece , even still with all the stars , story lines and art . Lorne Greene was great as Adama and Richard Hatch was perfect as Apollo and Dirk Benedict was funny as Starbuck , but I dare say , not as pretty as Katee as Starbuck . <br /><br />I loved the episode with the Pegasus and Greetings from Earth was good John Calicos was great as Baltar , War of the Gods , the best was Experiment in Terra , I thought that was a tribute in a way to Heaven Can Wait , then you had the women of Battlestar , not to compare them to let's say Tricia who is outstandingly beautiful as Number Six , but Jane Seymour's beauty could not be compared to . Let alone Loerrta Spang as Cassiopea was fantastic .She had beauty that a rainbow would be embarrassed by . I loved the original as much as the new .<br /><br />Can you imagine if John Calicos had a number six ? :)<br /><br />Thankyou for listening . | 1pos
|
Flavia the Heretic is an undeniable work of art and probably my number one recommendation to state that the euro-exploitation cinema is severely underrated and not to be ignored. This is an intelligent and complex film, beautifully realized and surprise pretty damn accurate! This is more than just meaningless sleaze or gratuitous violence and it's about time those prudish film committees who categorize Flavia as forbidden trash reckon this as well. Flavia is a beautiful 14th century adolescent, forced to live the life of an obedient nun in a strict convent. She refuses to accept her being inferior just because she's female and she curses her fellow sister for being so tolerant about this. After a fruitless attempt to escape, she befriends another rebellious nun and she even guides a troop of bloodthirsty Muslims into the walls of the convent.<br /><br />Flavia is a downright mesmerizing film! Almost impossible to believe that director Gianfranco Mingozzi managed to make it appear so realistic and so disturbing. I challenge you to come up with a title that centers on the topic of pioneer-feminism more intensely than Flavia does. Several sequences are quite shocking (on the verge of nightmarish, actually) as the camera zooms in on brutal rapes, torture and mutilation. Yet all this raw footage isn't just used to satisfy perverted gorehounds, mind you. I'm strongly convinced that they're part of the statement 'Flavia' is trying to communicate: Humanity (the Catholic Church in particular) historically proved itself to be a hypocrite and discriminating race and there's no use in denying it any further. Films like "Flavia, the Heretic" have the courage to question and openly condemn our precious ancestors and I truly admire them for it. Flavia is an outstanding and fundamental exploitation film because of its substance, but it's even brought to an higher level by the wondrous cinematography, the glorious costumes & scenery and a breathtaking musical score by Nicola Piovani. Florinda Bolkin is very convincing as the ambitious and headstrong nun but it's María Casares who steals the show as Sister Agatha. She's a man-hating and loud-mouthed nun who likes to urinate in the open field! Amen, sister! | 1pos
|
Reportedy based on actual historical events, this disturbingly violent, bloody, and shocking period epic sustains viewer interest by creating a verisimilitude missing in the majority of films set in a remote era. Ms. Bolkan's portrayal of the rebellious nun is a tour de force. Her gradual transformation in character from an obedient if unwilling complicitor in social injustices of her day is adeptly evidenced by telling sequences: her witnessing of the hated local Duke's casual rapist activity, her forbidden love affair with a Jew, her criminal defection to the invading Moslem forces of the sensual Prince Ahmed (Anthony Corlan) There are some painfully realistic gory sequences (human flaying) in this film that are not for the squeamish, but viewers with strong stomachs and an interest in medieval history should find ample interest. Deserves to be seen, if only as an antidote to Hollywood depictions of the medieval world. | 1pos
|
Flavia(Florinda Bolkan of "Don't Torture a Duckling" fame)is locked away in a convent of carnal desires by her father.Tired of all of the sadism she sees around her(rape of a young woman in a pigsty,sexual cravings,horse castration)Flavia decides to run from the convent with her Jewish friend from the outside,Abraham.The two don't get very far before they are captured and then brought back to be tortured and forced to repent.After punishment she joins up with a band of Muslims called the Tarantulas,who had invaded the convent prior and leads a crusade that turns into nothing short of a bloody battle behind the convent walls."Flavia the Heretic" is a well-directed and fairly notorious piece of Italian nunsploitation.The film is slightly gruesome and sleazy at times.The acting is great and the characters are well-developed.Overall,"Flavia the Heretic" is a genuinely moving and intelligent movie with plenty of nudity and gore.You can't go wrong with it.8 out of 10. | 1pos
|
Too many sources routinely lump this thought-provoking period drama in part based on historical fact together with the superficially similar "nunsploitation" which was a mainstay in '70s Euro trash cinema, overlooking the righteous anger that drives the whole endeavor. Perhaps coincidentally it was also director Gianfranco Mingozzi's singular attempt at narrative film-making outside of many well-received documentaries.<br /><br />Safely set within a historical context, FLAVIA charts the growing rebellion of an early 15th century Italian nun (Florinda Bolkan's career performance, even surpassing her sterling work in Lucio Fulci's devastating DON'T TORTURE A DUCKLING), locked away in convent by her not so nobleman father in a desperate attempt to curb the girl's budding sensuous nature. Wondering why women are relegated to secondary roles at best in life as in holy scripture, she is confronted by ways in which male domination can rupture female lives, inspiring revolt fueled by the ranting of semi-crazed older Sister Agatha (indelibly portrayed by veteran actress Maria Casarès from Marcel Carné's LES ENFANTS DU PARADIS) and - more constructively - by a Muslim invasion. Joining the oppressors and perhaps unwittingly manipulating them to do her bidding, Flavia truly becomes the outcast she already felt herself to be, with expected tragic results.<br /><br />With its breathtaking widescreen compositions by Alfio Contini, who shot Michelangelo Antonioni's ZABRISKIE POINT, this is an uncompromising and austere account of one woman's fierce yet ultimately futile fight against patriarchal society which allotted her no rights beyond childbearing or whoring as Sister Agatha wryly remarks. A lengthy drug-induced fantasy sequence clearly modeled on Ken Russell's otherwise far more flamboyant DEVILS notwithstanding, the movie turns out relatively stingy in the skin department, making something of a mockery out of its semi-porn reputation. This is a serious work deserving rediscovery and restoration of its unjustly tarnished reputation. | 1pos
|
FLAVIA THE HERETIC is a strange entry in the nunsploit genre - equal parts sleaze, feministic journey, and "history" as we follow Flavia on her strange trip.<br /><br />We start off with Flavia in a convent...she ain't too happy there cuz she doesn't believe in all the male-dominated "rules" and macho-ism of the world around her and escapes from the convent with her Jewish pal, Abraham. They are both eventually caught and Flavia is brought back to the convent where she joins another "non-believing" nun in hastening a Moslem invasion. Flavia hangs out with the Moslems who take over the convent and get "busy" with the nuns in a strange set of scenes. Eventually the Moslems roll-out and Flavia is punished as a traitor to Christianity in another singularly brutal scene...<br /><br />This one has pretty much all the stuff that I like to see in a 70's era exploit film - some good gore, including nipple-removal, and a nice leg-skinning scene, some decent nudity - including the requisite full-frontal, and a decent storyline as well. I will say that it sorta dragged in a few points, but not enough to get truly bored with it. I would definitely recommend this one to nunsploit/70's exploit fans...8/10 | 1pos
|
There is so much that can be said about this film. It is not your typical nunsploitation. Of course, there is nudity and sex with nuns, but that is almost incidental to the story.<br /><br />It is set in 15th Century Italy, at the time of the martyrdom of 800 Christians at Otranto. The battle between the Muslims and the Christians takes up a good part of the film. It was interesting when everyone was running from the Muslim hoards, that the mother superior would ask, "Why do you fear the Muslims,; they will not do anything that the Christians have done to you?" Certainly, there was enough torture on both sides.<br /><br />Sister Flavia (Florinda Bolkan) is sent to a convent for defying her father. In the process, she witnesses and endures many things: the gelding of a stallion, the rape of a local woman by a new Duke, the torture of a nun who was overcome during a visit by the Tarantula Sect, and a whipping herself when she ran off with a Jew. The torture was particularly gruesome with hot wax being poured on the nun, and her nipples cut off.<br /><br />Sister Flavia is bound to continue to get into trouble as she questions the male-dominated society in which she lives. She even asks Jesus, why the father, son and holy ghost are all men.<br /><br />Eventually, she joins the leader of the Muslims as his lover and they sack the convent. Here is where you see more flesh than you can possible enjoy at one time. But, tragedy is to come. She manages to exact sweet revenge on all, including the Duke and her father, but finds that the Muslim lover treats her exactly the same. She is a woman and that is all there is to it.<br /><br />I won't describe what the holy men of the church did to this heretic at the end, but it predates the torture of Saw or Hostel by decades.<br /><br />Nunsploitation fans will be satisfied with the treats, but movie lovers will find plenty of meat to digest. | 1pos
|
"Flavia, la monaca muslmana" aka. "Flavia the Heretic" of 1974 is a truly disturbing and uncompromising piece of Italian Exploitation cinema that, to a certain extent, follows a somewhat feminist premise (though the level of sleaze and brutality would probably disgust the majority of feminists). Set mostly in a convent, and with a nun as the eponymous central protagonist (great performance by the wonderful Florinda Bolkan), "Flavia the Heretic" may be referred to as a 'Nunsploitation' film. However, this film differs quite drastically from the typical Nunsploitation flicks from the time, as it doesn't so much focus on the nunsploitation elements such as lesbianism, sadistic lesbian punishments, etc. Personally, I saw more similarities to the Hexploitation flicks of the time, such as "Mark of The Devil", (even though this one doesn't treat the topic of witch-hunts), which focus on the brutal execution of Christian fundamentalism in the middle ages and early modern period.<br /><br />Italy around 1600: After witnessing her despotic father behead a wounded Muslim soldier, young Flavia is forced to become a nun in a convent. When her father condemns a fellow nun to a torturous death for a small misdemeanor years later, Falvia's disgust with male violence against women turns into hatred against the despotic church, and she joins a band of Arabic scavengers...<br /><br />One thing is for sure, "Flavia the Heretic" is not for the faint-hearted, and neither is it for those who want happy endings. Director Gianfranco Mingozzi obviously tried to make his film as realistic and disturbing as possible, especially in its nasty scenes. The many torture- and execution-scenes are extremely disturbing, with skinnings, spikings and other gruesome scenes in explicit detail, the most shocking scene probably being the torture of the young nun quite in the beginning of the film. The violence here is never superfluous, however. After all, this gruesome methods actually were reality in the time the film is set in. The film is very well-made, with realistic costumes, fantastic settings an elegant cinematography and a great score by Nicola Piovani. The stunningly beautiful and great Florinda Bolkan has proved her talent in many great Italian cult-productions (including Lucio Fulci's Giallo-masterpiece "Non Si Sevizia Un Paperino" of 1972). She delivers another great, charismatic performance here, and I couldn't imagine another actress fitting as well in the role as she does. The film has some minor inconsistencies (E.g. why does the rigid church let bizarre cult-followers into convents in the first place). However, it is overall amazing how realistic this film is. "Flavia the Heretic" should definitely not be missed by my fellow fans of Italian Exploitation Cinema. This is a great Exploitation flick overall, though it definitely is a deeply depressing one and therefore should be watched in the right mood. Highly recommended to fans of disturbing exploitation cinema. 7.5/10 | 1pos
|
Expecting to see another Nunsploitation movie with a mean Mother Superior abusing and torturing her charges, Flavia turned out to be MUCH more than I had anticipated.<br /><br />It actually has a feminist storyline, though I don't think such a term existed in the era in which the movie is set. It certainly wasn't practiced. Women (and the Jews and the poor) are very downtrodden and locked into menial spots in society. Throughout the story, Sister Flavia (Florinda Bolkan) witnesses the tyranny of her time until she just can't sit there any longer and actually does something about it, albeit with disastrous results.<br /><br />The pre-credit sequence has Flavia as a young adolescent near a battlefield. She sees an injured "evil" Muslim soldier (one of the few still alive) and tries to assist him. Before she can, her hate-filled father beheads the soldier and waves his head in her face (great family dynamics, huh?). After this, her father forces her to join a convent where she witnesses even more injustice. Though scenes do involve violence, rape and nuns, I would consider this more of a historical drama than Nunsploitation. <br /><br />Indeed, many of the ingredients for a trashy exploitation piece are there, but the acting, camera-work, storyline and music are too good to keep it down in that level. Most "nun" films I've seen usually have the basic premise of: A good girl somehow winds up in a convent, where the Mother Superior is a supreme bitch that likes to whip people and/or make their lives a living hell.<br /><br />Flavia spends much of the first part of he movie passively questioning all of the atrocities happening around her. Much of her passivity is forgotten when she becomes acquainted with the strong-spirited (but slightly loony- she likes to pee outside like me, but it's a lot easier for guys) Sister Agatha. When a group of Muslims attack their abbey, Flavia and Agatha do not cower in fear like the other nuns. Their attackers actually function as their liberators (of the cruelty and near-slavery of the abbey). In fact, it is a Christian, not a Muslim invader, that impales dear Sister Agatha. <br /><br />It is Agatha's death that sends Flavia on her violent crusade against those who have oppressed her... Her father treats her like dirt. Her Muslim lover deserts her at a very inopportune time. I don't want to give out too much of the rest of the story, but be prepared to be shocked, devastated and saddened at the conclusion. This is a great film, so don't be put off by its (undeserved) reputation as a trash epic. Plus, how on Earth could a movie featuring Florinda Bolkan and Claudio Cassinelli go wrong? I am not familiar with María Casares' other works, but Sister Agatha is a hell of a character.<br /><br />I have read many great reviews of the Synapse (US) release, but I love my German X-Rated Kult DVD copy. It isn't anamorphic/16:9, but actually has a little more picture information on all of the edges than Synapse's release.<br /><br />And there are also many great, wise or funny lines of dialogue (many from Sister Agatha)<br /><br />"Why is God male? The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit
They're all male!" -Flavia<br /><br />"These men are afraid- look at them, Sister- Afraid their power will be taken away from them!" -Sr. Agatha (regarding Christians fleeing after the Muslims arrive)<br /><br />"Woman, where are you going? The Moslems can do nothing to you that the Christians haven't done! Ha Ha Ha!" -Sr. Agatha (to a group of fleeing Christian women)<br /><br />"Lord bless these Moslems- For putting fear into these pompous Christians." -Flavia<br /><br />"Does it take the mere sight of a Moslem to make you $h!t your underclothing?" -Sr. Agatha<br /><br />Closing message: "Flavia Gaetani, not yet a Muslim - no longer a Christian - was punished as a runaway nun. The idea for the film came from events which occurred during the Musalman invasions of Italy culminating in what even today is remembered as THE MARTYRDOM OF THE 800 AT OTRANTO" | 1pos
|
Post-feminist depiction of cruelty and sadism.<br /><br />Spoiler alert! <br /><br />This underrated gem of a film tells the story of Flavia, a Fifteenth Century girl of Noble birth walled up in a convent after defining her father and indeed the whole of Medieval Christian society by viewing a fallen Islamic warrior as a human rather than demonic figure.<br /><br />Unable to accept the patriarchal rule of the convent (explicitly stated in a scene where the Bishop arrives flanked by soldiers and monks) Flavia begins to explicitly question the society in which she finds herself and, through butting up against a whole system of subjugation, repression and violence, inevitably brings a tragic end not only to herself but all those around her.<br /><br />Billed as a piece of nunsploitation this is far from the truth. This is a film depiction the consequences of violence, the effects of patriarchal dominance, the nature of rebellion and the corruption of the human spirit.<br /><br />I described it in the title of this piece as 'post-feminist' and in the end Flavia's triumphs must always be corrupted, compromised and perverted by men. Even Flavia's gruesome end is perpetrated by men for men (the women turn away and only the monks look on without horror.<br /><br />As to the much discussed violence: this is a depiction of the effects of violence and the horrors of a world driven mad by religious excess. To have shied away from the violence would have limited the film's impact, would have cheapened the film and allowed it to be assimilated within the Patriarchal discourse it is exposing. In addition it is a realistic portrait of medieval society.<br /><br />Beautifully filmed, brilliantly acted (notably by Florinda Bolkin and Maria Casares), containing a wonderful score by piovani and still challenging after all these years Flavia is a classic of European Cinema. | 1pos
|
I'd read about FLAVIA THE HERETIC for many years, but I only got to see it early last year, when I went on an insane movie-buying binge, and, for whatever reason, it has been on my mind lately, though it's been some months since I watched it.<br /><br />It's a striking film, set in Italy somewhere around the 15th century. Definitely Medieval-era (though I don't think any specific year is ever given). This being the time of Christian ascendancy, the age is a time of utter madness, and the movie captures this very well.<br /><br />Flavia, our protagonist, is a young lady who encounters a fallen Muslim on a battlefield. He seems a warm and intriguing fellow, and she's immediately taken with him. Her father, a soldier of a a family of some standing, comes along, almost immediately, and murders the wounded man right before her eyes. But she'll continue to see him in her dreams.<br /><br />Her father ships her off to a convent that seems more like an open-air insane asylum--the residents, so harshly repressed by unyielding Medieval Christianity, slowly go mad. Flavia comes under the influence of one of the nuttier nuns. But in a mad world, only the sane are truly mad, and this sociopathic sister clearly recognizes the insanity around her. Her take on the times in which they live strikes a chord with Flavia, who, being young and apparently sheltered, is beginning to question everything about this world in which she finds herself trapped.<br /><br />The movie is unflinching in its portrayal of that world, showcasing a lot of unpleasantness. We see a horse gelded, a lord rape one of the women of his lands in a pig-sty, the pious torture of a young nun. Through it all, Flavia observes and questions, rejecting, eventually, the Christian dogma that creates such a parade of horrors in terms that would gain the movie some criticism over the years for seeming anachronistic. I disagree with that criticism. Flavia's views, though sometimes expressed in ways that vaguely mirror, for example, then-contemporary feminist commentary (the movie was made in 1974), revolve around what are really pretty obvious questions. It is, perhaps, difficult to believe she could be so much of a fish out of water in her own time, but that's the sort of minor point it doesn't do to belabor. Flavia is written in such a way to allow those of our era, or of any era, to empathize with her plight. Getting bogged down on such a matter would be missing the forest for the trees.<br /><br />Flavia is heartened when the Muslims arrive, invading the countryside, and she finds, in their leader, a new version of the handsome Islamist who still visits her dreams. Smitten with her almost immediately, he allows her to virtually lead his army, becoming a Joan of Arc figure in full battle-gear, and directing the invaders to pull down Christian society, and wreak vengeance upon all those she's seen commit evil.<br /><br />Is she the herald of a new and better world? She may think so, but Muslims of that era weren't big on feminism, either, as she soon learns the hard way. As they say, meet the new boss...<br /><br />This is really just a thumbnail of some of the things that happen in FLAVIA THE HERETIC. The movie is quite grim, and with a very downbeat, rather depressing ending. Not a mass-audience movie at all, to be sure. It's quite good, though, and doesn't belong on the "nunsploitation" pile on which it is often carelessly thrown. I think there's much value in the final film, and I'm glad I saw it. | 1pos
|
Bo Derek's beauty and John Derek's revolutionary direction make this film worthwhile. <br /><br />Bo, looking more gorgeous than ever, is a recently widowed woman who is experiencing visitations from her 'dead' husband (Anthony Quinn). He has a plan. Bo must procure the body of a young man so that her ghost of a husband can make his transformation from spectre back to corporeal life. Can she find a fitting candidate? How will she do him in so Tony can do his thing? <br /><br />With Bo's attributes, John's unique direction, Quinn's film presence, and, thanks to John, a very pretty exotic look to the entire film, this movie is pleasant viewing. | 1pos
|
This movie is visually stunning. Who cares if she can act or not. Each scene is a work of art composed and captured by John Derek. The locations, set designs, and costumes function perfectly to convey what is found in a love story comprised of beauty, youth and wealth. In some ways I would like to see this movie as a tribute to John and Bo Derek's story. And...this commentary would not be complete without mentioning Anthony Quinn's role as father, mentor, lover, and his portrayal of a man, of men, lost to a bygone era when men were men. There are some of us who find value in strength and direction wrapped in a confidence that contributes to a sense of confidence, containment, and security. Yes, they do not make men like that anymore! But, then how often do you find women who are made like Bo Derek. | 1pos
|
Ashanti is a very 70s sort of film (1979, to be precise). It reminded me of The Wild Geese in a way (Richard Burton, Richard Harris and Roger Moore on a mission in Africa). It's a very good film too, and I enjoyed it a lot.<br /><br />David (Michael Caine) is a doctor working in Africa and is married to a beautiful Ashanti woman called Anansa (Beverley Johnson) who has trained in medicine in America and is also a doctor. While they're doctoring, one day she is snatched by slavers working for an Arabic slave trader called Suleiman (played perfectly by Peter Ustinov, of all people). The rest of the film is David trying to get her back.<br /><br />Michael Caine is a brilliant actor, of course, and plays a character who is very determined and prepared to do anything to get his wife back, but rather hopeless with a gun and action stuff. He's helped out first by a Englishman campaigning against the slave trade that no one acknowledges is going on (Rex Harrison!), then briefly by a helicopter pilot (William Holden), and then by an Arab called Malik (Kabir Bedi). Malik has a score to settle with Suleiman (he is very intense throughout, a very engaging character), and so rides off with David to find him and get Anansa back - this involves a wonderful scene in which David fails miserably to get on his camel.<br /><br />Then there's lots of adventure. There's also lots of morality-questioning. The progress of the story is a little predictable from this point, and there are a few liberties taken with plotting to move things along faster, but it's all pretty forgivable. The question is, will David get to Anansa before Peter Ustinov sells her on to Omar Sharif (yes, of course Omar Sharif is in it!)? | 1pos
|
There have been far too few mainstream films set in post-colonial Africa, and the ones that have are a mixed bunch. This one, with its altruistic pretensions to expose slavery in the 1970s, shows the best and worst values of Africa, which turn out not to be too different to the values of humanity as a whole. It also has shortcomings, given the undue influence of western pre-conceptions of Africans and, especially, Arabs.<br /><br />Dr Anansa Linderby, the beautiful African-American wife of the English doctor David Linderby, is captured by Arab slave-traders, along with a teenage Sanufu girl and a young boy. The lead slave-trader, Suleiman, is every bit the stage Arab, with his flowery and sometimes humorous rhetoric, and gestures to match - which would not be out of place on "Carry On Follow that Camel" but are not up the standard this film deserves. Peter Ustinov of course had more than enough skills to address some of the shortcomings of the script, and he rescued what could otherwise have been a woeful one-dimensional character.<br /><br />Continuing the stereotypical theme, all three of Suleiman's Arab employees are unintelligent and one has paedophilic tendencies towards the boy, which thankfully are not portrayed on the screen.<br /><br />One of David's first ports of call is the local police officer, a stereotypical pompous and incompetent African bureaucrat. David then meets two stereotypical white ex-pats, an Englishman (Walker, played by Rex Harrison) and an American (Sandell, played by William Holden). Sandell is a mercenary with "conventional" views on mixed-race relationships, who initially refuses to help unless David provides payment up front. Won over by David's love for Anansa, and conscious of his own inability to find love, he agrees to take David up in his helicopter to help search for Anansa. They find Suleiman and his captives crossing the border and are unable to pursue them into the neighbouring territory - as a result of Sandell's hesitation and David's lack of experience with firearms, his helicopter is shot down but David survives.<br /><br />We then see David introduced to Malik (Kabir Bedi), an African who has lost his family to Suleiman and is now only driven by vengeance. They find the Sanufu girl with a group of Tuareg and know they are on the right track to find Suleiman.<br /><br />In one of the most heart-rending scenes they kill a party of slave traders only to find that it was not Suleiman's group, and have no choice but to send their captives to the Tuaregs they met earlier.<br /><br />Later on we discover that the young boy who had been raped is a witch doctor and, in an excellent scene with supernatural overtones, he uses his knowledge to kill one of Suleiman's henchmen. Anansa on her part - and despite the scepticism of the boy - manages to engineer the demise of Suleiman's two other employees.<br /><br />By this time Suleiman and his slaves are within days of reaching the slave market.<br /><br />Suleiman, now in no doubt that Anansa is "trouble", attempts to sell her to an obscenely wealthy Arab prince (Omar Sharif) who is corrupt but intelligent. On discovering that Anansa is an American working for the U.N., the prince rather unwisely decides to carry on with the bargaining without considering the consequences. The scene where the two men haggle is one of the best in the film.<br /><br />At the slave market, the young boy is sold to a middle-aged German paedophile, and we are left to guess whether the boy will still be considered "wunderbar" when his owner is on the receiving end of his witch-doctoring skills.<br /><br />David and Malik finally confront Suleiman and there is a bitter-sweet ending from Malik's point of view.<br /><br />Ultimately, David and Anansa are re-united, and Malik, whose life is in ruins, can console himself with having seen the task he set himself completed.<br /><br />The overall plot of the film is excellent but it loses marks for its stereotypical portrayal of nearly all the leading characters. Credit must go to all the leading actors for addressing many of the shortcomings of the scripting. | 1pos
|
Once again, I was browsing through the discount video bin and picked up this movie for $4.88. Fifty-percent of the time the movies I find in the bin are pure crap (I mean horrible beyond belief) but half the time they turn out to be surprisingly good. This movie is much better than I expected. I found it very engaging, though it was obviously made by an amateur.<br /><br /> The direction is nothing special, but the story is intriguing with some good thrills. I expected it to be more of a comedy, but I wasn't too disappointed.<br /><br /> For a thriller, this movie is surprisingly good-natured. There's no bloody violence, no profanity, no nudity, no sex. Usually, these movies require all four of those elements. The PG rating is well-deserved--not like "Sixteen Candles" where the "f" word is used twice and there's a brief gratuitous nude scene.<br /><br /> I just wish the romance between Corey Haim and his love interest could've been developed more. The film does tend to be plot-heavy, and the potentially good subplots are pushed off to the side. Instead of developing a chemistry between the two of them, we end up watching a careless three-minute montage of them on their romantic endeavors. They end up kissing at the end, but there's so little chemistry that it seems forced.<br /><br />"The Dream Machine" is no gem, but it's good, clean entertainment. It's quite forgettable--especially with a cast of unknowns, except for Haim--but it's also much better than you'd expect.<br /><br /> My score: 7 (out of 10) | 1pos
|
A delightfully unpretentious send up of Romeo and Juliet. Approach with no expectations other than having a good time and you will enjoy this one. A talented group of comic actors let go and have a riot in this light-hearted performers' vehicle. Bad reviews were due to a snobbishness about treatments of Shakespeare. Some people feel that all film must be "important" ---If you share those views, don't bother. The credits read "introducing" Angelina Jolie, which is not even close to being true, but she is astoundingly beautiful as the Juliet character, and, as always, her acting is wonderful--- and, considering her age at the time, even her dialect is pretty good. Recreating this classic tale with feuding Italian families in the catering business in New York results in great fun. See it in the right frame of mind and you will laugh out loud. | 1pos
|
The movie itself made me want to go and call someone so they could enjoy it too. It was extremely funny. Angelena Jolie was wonderful as Juliet. The parents are hilarious.They are caterers as well as enemies.The kids play the parts of Romeo and Juliet in the church play.They fall in love and their parents try to keep them apart.(Spoiler Ahead. I think) They sneak off after a party and do it. Surprisingly they still want to get married in the end of the movie. If you don't like stereotypes and the defilement of classic literature don't watch. If you don't mind those you will have a blast watching this one. | 1pos
|
First off, let me say I have wanted to see this movie for about a year now because I knew Angelina Jolie was in it and I love her. But my love for her has nothing to do with my opinion of the movie. Anyhow, no video stores carried it but low and behold the local library did. I watched it and absolutely loved it. Yes there were Italian stereotypes but it was done well and funny. It was not degrading in any way.<br /><br />Every actor and actress did a superb job. I laughed very hard at the sexual humor. Overall, I think this movie is well worth seeing if you can find it. It is adorable and just plain fun to watch. I rarely rank movies as a 10 but I give this one a 10!!!<br /><br />Go find it and watch it! | 1pos
|
This truly funny movie has a zany cast of characters, just about every voluptuous middle-aged female in Hollywood, and a touching, funny love story. The Capomezza's and the Malacici's are rival caterers in an Italian neighborhood in New York. They are also at opposite--extreme--ends of the taste scale. Their children are cast in the lead roles of a church production of Romeo and Juliet. Naturally, they fall in love. On stage! The mayhem and confusion that this causes, as the parents feud with each other and their kids, is played out for us against the backdrop of the Capomezza's magnificently tasteless home, and their magnificently tasteless catered weddings.<br /><br />Besides the four over-the-top parents and the charming young lovers, the characters include a vaguely wise priest, a plain-speaking grandma, a lady who waves a wand and passes on spiritual advice she receives from a medium called The Blessed Roscoe, a motel with beds shaped like the back seat of a car, and two doves. There is not a sight gag or a punch line that doesn't click in this fast paced movie.<br /><br />Even the family names of the two families are part of the fun. "Capomezza" could be interpreted as "low-brows," and "Malacici" could mean "stuck-up snobs." <br /><br />If you are sensitive about Italian stereotypes, you may not like this movie. If Bette Midler embarrasses you, you may not like it, because all of the women in this movie make Bette Midler look like Martha Stewart. The rest of us should love it! | 1pos
|
Stupid, Stupid, Stupid. I think that Angelina Jolie is probably one of the most talented actress' today, but a movie like this isn't just worth her time. She deserves better, and so does everyone else in this movie. Talent is just wasted. Sorry, but i don't feel like writing a review for this.<br /><br />I give it NO stars out of *****. | 1pos
|
Steve Carell plays Dan Burns, newspaper agony uncle and dedicated single father to three girls. At a large family homecoming Dan meets his perfect woman, only to find out that she is in a relationship with his brother.<br /><br />What's a man to do?<br /><br />I rather liked "Dan In Real Life", but I would imagine the success or otherwise of this flick is going to be down to whether you are willing to accept Steve Carell playing a part relatively straight and restrained, rather than going through the broad comedy moves that have made him so successful. If you cannot accept it, fear not, "Get Smart" will be along later in the year, but for the record I thought he was very good.<br /><br />"Dan In Real Life" starts off like your typical, incidentally amusing, family drama, but it gets funnier and funnier as it goes along and Carell's frustration with his situation grows. It's not massively original (but if you only saw movies with original ideas, cinematic pickings would be very scarce indeed, wouldn't they?), but "Dan In Real Life" is entertaining, and a good cast (who wouldn't fall in love at first sight with the luminous Juliette Binoche?) make the most of an insightful enough script that contains many a ponder on the meaning and passion of love.<br /><br />I hope that Steve Carell pushes himself and does something as interesting again. | 1pos
|
I'm not a Steve Carell fan however I like this movie about Dan, an advice columnist, who goes to his parents house for a stay with his kids and ends up falling in love with his brother's girlfriend. Its a story thats been told before, but not like this. There are simply too many little bits that make the film better than it should be. The cast is wonderful, and even if Carell is not my cup of tea, he is quite good as the widower who's suppose to know everything but finds that knowing is different than feeling and that sometimes life surprises you. At times witty and wise in the way that an annoying Hallmark card can be, the film still some how manages to grow on you and be something more than a run of the mill film. Worth a look see | 1pos
|
There is a scene in Dan in Real Life where the family is competing to see which sex can finish the crossword puzzle first. The answer to one of the clues is Murphy's Law: anything that can go wrong, will go wrong. This is exactly the case for Dan Burns (Steve Carell, the Office) a columnist for the local newspaper. Dan is an expert at giving advice for everyday life, yet he comes to realize that things aren't so picture perfect in his own. Dan in Real Life is amazing at capturing these ironies of everyday life and is successful at embracing the comedy, tragedy, and beauty of them all. Besides that this movie is pretty damn hilarious.<br /><br />The death of his wife forces Dan to raise his three daughters all on his own... each daughter in their own pivotal stages in life: the first one anxious to try out her drivers license, the middle one well into her teenage angst phase, and the youngest one drifting away from early childhood. Things take a turn for Dan when he goes to Rhode Island for a family reunion and stumbles across an intriguing woman in a bookstore.<br /><br />Her name is Marie (Juliette Binoche, Chocolat) and she is looking for a book to help her avoid awkward situations... which is precisely whats in store when they get thrown into the Burns Family household.<br /><br />If you've seen Steve Carell in The Office or Little Miss Sunshine, you'd know that he is incomparable with comedic timing and a tremendously dynamic actor as well. Steve Carell is awesome at capturing all the emotions that come with family life: the frustration and sincere compassion. The family as well as the house itself provides a warm environment for the movie that contrasts the inner turmoil that builds throughout the movie and finally bursts out in a pretty suspenseful climax. The movie only falls short in some of the predictable outcomes, yet at the same time life is made up of both irony and predictability: which is an irony within itself.<br /><br />Dan in Real Life is definitely worth seeing, for the sole enjoyment of watching all the funny subtleties we often miss in everyday life, and I'll most likely enjoy it a second time, or even a third. Just "put it on my tab." | 1pos
|
I saw a special advance screening of this today. I have to let you know, I'm not a huge fan of either Dane Cook or Steve Carell, so I really had no expectations going into this. I ended up enjoying it quite a bit.<br /><br />Dan in Real Life is the story of a widower with 3 daughters who goes to spend a weekend with his family. While at a bookstore, he meets the woman of his dreams, only to find out that she happens to be his brother's girlfriend.<br /><br />This movie is pretty well made- the soundtrack, cinematography, and acting are all top-notch, especially Steve Carell. My problem with it was mostly that there seemed to be a lack of character development, mostly with Dane Cook's character. We never really get a close look at the relationship between Dane and Steve's characters, and I felt that it could have helped a bit in showing what Dan's inner conflict about being in love with Dane's girlfriend was like. Other than this though, Dan in Real Life is definitely a solid, sweet film- definitely a nice break from all the horror and action movies we've been getting this year. | 1pos
|
I was drawn to DAN IN REAL LIFE from the excellent reviews and the thirst for a Dramedy that was well written-thank you Peter Hedges-and because when Steve Carell stars in the film, you know an audience is going to find like in LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE, a performance that is very entertaining and rewarding. DAN IN REAL LIFE delivered that promise.<br /><br />The film is so real to many families world wide that have lost a member and yet have gone on with their lives in search of something that will give them the magic back before their loss. With Steve Carell and the wondrous Juliette Binoche, their relationship was so beautifully done and written that their scenes were so real to their characters and to their journeys. The cast, sets and story made DAN IN REAL LIFE one to remember as we head into the holidays ahead. | 1pos
|
Dan, the widowed father of three girls, has his own advice column that will probably go into syndication. After his wife's death, he has taken time to raise his daughters. Having known no romance in quite some time, nothing prepares him for the encounter with the radiant Marie, at a local book store in a Rhode Island small town on the ocean, where he has gone to celebrate Thanksgiving with the rest of his big family. After liking Marie at first sight, little prepares him when the gorgeous woman appears at the family compound. After all, she is the date of Dan's brother, Mitch.<br /><br />It is clear from the outset that Dan and Marie are made for one another, and although we sense what the outcome will be, we go for the fun ride that Peter Hedges, the director wants to give us. Mr. Hedges, an author and screenplay writer on his own, has given us two excellent novels, "What's Eating Gilber Grapes", and "An Ocean in Iowa", and the delightful indie, "Pieces of April, which he also directed. It's just a coincidence that both movies deal with families during Thanksgiving reunions.<br /><br />The best thing in the film was the natural chemistry between the two stars, Steve Carell and Juliette Binoche. Mr. Carell, in fact, keeps getting better all the time. In many ways, he remind us of Jack Lemmon, in his take of comedy and serious material. What can one say about Ms. Binoche, an intelligent actress, and a bright presence in any film. She proves she is right up to doing comedy, convincing us about her Marie.<br /><br />The only sad note is the waste of talent in the picture. John Mahoney, Diane Wiest, Norbert Leo Butz, Jessica Hecht, Emily Blunt, Allison Pill, Amy Ryan, have nothing to do. They just serve as incidental music for decoration. Dane Cook, who is seen as brother Mitch, fares better because he gets to recite more lines than the others.<br /><br />"Dan in Real Life" is a delightful film that will please everyone. | 1pos
|
Steve Carell once again stars in a light romantic movie about choices, family and pressure. By judging on the plot and cover art of the movie I was expecting a flat-out comedy, lots of laughs and unrealistic elements, but I guess I was wrong. Sure the movie had some comedy, but it felt much more of a light Drama to me and Steve Carell once again gave a great performance. The movie itself really tackles true observations and that was a strong element I found. But, the ending felt a little bit rushed and predictable. Through-out, the cinematography was great, the acting was great and the message it delivered was obvious but yet still very important. Though, it came down to old, flat and predictable ending. I'd reckon if different choices were made at the end of the movie (perhaps for the bad, even) this movie would get better publicity. Still a fun movie. | 1pos
|
The widower family man Dan Burns (Steve Carell) writes the column "Dan in Real Life" giving advices for families in The New Jersey Standard and raises his three daughters alone. Jane (Allison Pill), the older, has just got her driving license but Dan does not allow her to drive; Cara (Brittany Robertson) has a crush on his high-school mate Marty; and the young Lily (Marlene Lawston) misses her mother. When Dan and his daughters travel to Rhode Island for a family reunion, he meets Marie (Juliette Binoche) in a bookstore and they spend hours talking to each other. They feel attracted for each other, but Marie receives a phone call and leaves Dan, giving her phone number first. Dan immediately falls in love for Marie, but when he return to his parent's home, he finds that Marie is the girlfriend of his wolf brother Mitch Burns (Dane Cook), who is also in love with her. Along the weekend, the attraction between the clumsy Dan and Marie increases and they have to take a decision.<br /><br />"Dan in Real Life" is a great surprise and a delightful movie, with comedy, romance and drama. The chemistry of the gorgeous Juliette Binoche and Steve Carell is awesome and it is very easy to know why everybody loves Marie. The trio Allison Pill, Brittany Robertson and Marlene Lawston is fantastic and their characters are responsible for some of the best moments of this story. The screenplay is wonderful and the performances of the talented actors and actresses are stunning, with a realistic behavior of a family meeting. Follow the advice of Dan's column and plan to be surprised with the reunion of the Burns' family. My vote is eight.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Eu, Meu Irmão e Nossa Namorada" ("Me, My Brother and Our Girlfriend") | 1pos
|
I loved "Dan in Real Life". A wonderful journey-to-love story like You've Got Mail or While You Were Sleeping, but not ridiculously full of sight gags and crude jokes, and not so romantic it makes you wanna throw up. <br /><br />Dan Burns (Steven Carrell) is a popular advice columnist who can't seem to get things in his own life straightened out. Until one day, on a family gathering/trip, he meets and instantly connects with Marie (the always beautiful Juliette Binoche)a radiant specimen of a woman who seems to be framed in a hazy filter hearkening back to the starlets of classic cinema. Chemistry happens over a cup of tea and muffin, but Marie must be off for a previous engagement, and they must part ways. <br /><br />Later we are treated to Dan's tight-knit, fun-loving relatives who not only have big breakfasts together but also enjoy using the intelligent and sweetly dorky Dan as the butt of many bachelor jokes. What I liked so much was that although the family's characteristics could be seen as obnoxious to some, I thought it was a great portrayal of a big family that doesn't venture into parody or crude exaggeration. The Burns family is simply a close, loving group of people who are truly interested in the best for Dan. There are wonderfully awkward family moments that aren't unrealistic. The family is nosey, but never mean-spirited or gossipy; quirky, but never outlandish.<br /><br />And then Dan falls in love with his brother's girlfriend he's brought to the family gathering. And thus begins a roller-coaster of restrained longing and funny love-budding. <br /><br />I could go on but I just thought this movie was simply awesome. It's not particularly "hip" or "clever", never too wordy and obsessed with dry humor or biting wit as many comedies are in modern cinema. There is a nice balance of storytelling visuals and funny-but-real dialogue. in fact, early in the movie, the initial spark of love begins with whimsical discussion in a classic Hollywood-style conversation where the characters say what they're thinking out loud.<br /><br />So I've probably rambled and repeated myself, but I highly recommend "Dan in Real Life". It's a great date movie, trust me, you'll laugh, and only if you're a geek like me you'll get a bit teary-eyed. Filled with fun and magical love, "Dan in Real Life" won't disappoint.<br /><br />=================== 3.5 out of 4 stars Grade: A | 1pos
|
Clean family oriented movie. I laughed, I cried...I loved it. I was worried I wouldn't be able to see Steve Carrell as anything but goofy Michael from The Office. Boy, was I wrong. He should win an Oscar for his performance. I will definitely buy this on DVD when it comes out. My husband enjoyed it and he isn't into movies of this "type". I saw it with 2 other couples in the 30 year old range and we all agreed it was the best movie we had seen in a LONG time and certainly the cleanest. Only 1 cuss word! Not even sure why it was PG13. I would highly recommend this movie to anyone who likes comedy, drama, romance and more! | 1pos
|
Steve Carell stars as a person who you can relate to(sort of) in Dan in real life, a film which I expected not to like but ended up liking it. Not that the movie is laugh out loud funny it's just that it has a big heart. We all like Steve Carell, this isn't what fans of The Office would expect to see from him, but you know what, I liked this movie. <br /><br />Carell stars as Dan Burns, a widowed father who's daughters don't really like him. One weekend, him and his daughters travel down to see his family. While there, he goes to a bookstore and falls for a woman. When he gets back to his house, he finds out that his brother Mitch(Played by Dane Cook) is dating this woman(Played by Juliette Binoche).<br /><br />Dan in real life, at times, I found a bit unbelievable. Are the Burns family really the kind of people who do exercises together and play board games together and do a bunch of other family things? I would highly doubt that. I don't know any family who is like that. Is that stopping me from giving it a thumbs up? No.<br /><br />Dan in real life:***/**** | 1pos
|
I loved the story. Somewhere, a poster said there are no families like the one portrayed in this film. Well maybe there ought to be. I thought everybody seemed really human and believable. What a top notch cast. What great music on the soundtrack. What a nice this, and what a nice that, but most of all, I will say two words to recommend this film.<br /><br />Steve Carell.<br /><br />He really showed a nice, subtle depth that touched me. He was truly commanding as a widower who had dedicated himself maybe a little too much to being a good dad first, at the cost of denying his own needs.<br /><br />Did he act like a petulant ass? Why, yes he did.<br /><br />And you see, that's what was perfect about this film. The actor who played this character made me believe he was FEELING something, and not simply ACTING like he was feeling something, and he conveyed to me perfectly what it was that he was feeling, and what he was feeling was denied.<br /><br />Denied happiness.<br /><br />Denied fulfillment.<br /><br />Denied love.<br /><br />Losing your love is painful beyond belief, and many who do so will never feel something like that again.<br /><br />Beautiful film.<br /><br />I gave it an eight out of ten. | 1pos
|
I watch romantic comedies with some hesitation, for romantic comedies feature age old clichés which make a movie uninteresting. Typically in a Romantic Comedy, there is a girl and there is a guy, both fall in love, then have troubles, and then win over the troubles to marry or whatever. But, this movie is a different story, it is really very different from the Romantic Comedies I have seen of lately. <br /><br />There is a widowed guy(Dan), there is a girl(Marie). Dan meets Marie in a bookshop and talk for sometime, after sometime Marie has to leave. Dan develops something for her, and when this something starts to turn meaningful, we get a twist. Marie is the girlfriend of his brother. Unheeded of the circumstances, Dan flirts with Marie and realizes that he loves her, and even Marie loves him, but their love would not just be possible. How it is made possible forms the rest of the story. <br /><br />Steve Carell performs well, Juliette Binoche is good as Marie. And every other stuff is done well. It is a good movie, watch it. | 1pos
|
This is a sublime piece of film-making. It flows at just the right pace throughout. The accompanying music fits perfectly and is very pleasant to the ear. The humorous parts are hilarious and made even more so by the largely depressingly tragic nature of the film.<br /><br />However, despite much comment about the inherent tragedy of the storyline it was anything but depressing for me to watch. I thoroughly enjoyed it in a way that I haven't experienced for a long time. That is to say, it is superb and yet without all the common trappings of modern films such as; sex, violence and unnecessary special effects. <br /><br />'Dan In Real Life' lacks nothing for being without the regular vices. It has a fully matured plot that just doesn't require, and indeed would be ruined by, any further embellishment. At the same time, the theme is entirely adult. It's a piece of art in and of itself that encapsulates you entirely and you want for nothing more than it already offers.<br /><br />There are some scenes that feel a bit 'Waltons' but these actually make perfect sense in the long run as they contrast the more dysfunctional moments. The rosier makes way for the tragic which then gives over to the idyllic which turns to the darker etc. This undulating landscape of emotional cinematography creates a perfect balance and keeps the viewer in a state of lithium-like stability. The peaks and troughs are gentle but more than adequate in the pleasure they instill.<br /><br />I highly recommend watching this film regardless of what genre you normally enjoy. Put aside any prejudices because this is a must see! | 1pos
|
How can you sum up just exactly how feelgood and right and touching this film is?? For several weeks this DVD leaped off the shelf at me every time I went in the store - having seen Steve Carrell in a couple of films previously, I didn't want to smear my thought process of him - so I resisted and resisted, until finally I grabbed it up with a 'What the hell!' attitude! And how surprised was I! I just wish I had purchased it earlier. Having watched it three times in two days I am still smiling at how the portrayal of a widower struggling with three daughters, yearning for that which is missing since the passing of his beloved wife, who thus meets an intriguing woman, charming her in such a profound and interesting (dare I say bookish?) way, throws a whole different light onto life that makes him realize she is what he has been searching for.<br /><br />The snag of that woman being his brothers girl complicates matters - which portray Dan comically shy and with a heartfelt chagrin, seeing his "someone special" bringing such fun and enjoyment into the family home as well as his brothers life. You just really begin to feel for him.<br /><br />Then when the blind date occurs with Ruthie Draper - that is the turning point in Marie's estimation of Dan!! The look she gives him when he repeats her comment, about not liking Ruthie - sheer Green-Eyed Monster! Triggering an absolutely hilarious scene as the two couples compete on the dance floor! This sequence is one of the most well-crafted as Dan starts to loosen up with regard to Marie.<br /><br />Other gut-wrenching scenes - Dan returns from the Book and Tackle Shop, confronted by his brothers, begins to describe what has just occurred....when Dan's face drops it brings a sharp intake of breath!!<br /><br />His youngest daughter Lilly making the present celebrating their love for Suzanne, his late wife, brings a little heartfelt warmth and a little gulp as Dan realizes just what he has lost in life.<br /><br />When Dan plays guitar and sings at the Talent Show....his voice cracking slightly as he reprises the song....absolute gem! <br /><br />The acceptance of what occurs late in the film by his daughters...they all three love their father and want to see him happy, will not let him deny his love for Marie; the desperateness of Dan not to fail his daughters because he is their rock, their stronghold...and tell him so much more than that with just a few words.<br /><br />I could go on and on but I will leave it for now - maybe return and add more comments here in the near future....but I will end by saying....<br /><br />....if you want to watch a film that is just so damn good, with twists of comedy to lighten up the drama, that never feels forced or crass, that comes over as a genuine portrayal of a man discovering new life - not just with a woman but also with his extended family, then look no further.<br /><br />DAN IN REAL LIFE - 9 out of 10 for such a well-rendered cinematic experience with a score by Sondre Lerche, that intimately takes you there throughout whilst never being intrusive, with fine performances by the ensemble cast. I cannot wait to re-watch this again!! | 1pos
|
Unlike many other films, which are disturbing either by dint of their naked unpleasantness (Man Bites Dog) or their sheer violence (most Peckinpah films), Deliverance shocks by its plausibility. Certainly, the buggery scene is pretty straightforward in its unpleasantness, but the film's effect derives far more from its slow build-up and the tangible sense of isolation surrounding the four leads, both before and after everything starts to go wrong. The moment when the canoes pass under the child on the bridge, who does not even acknowledge the men he had earlier played music with, let alone show any sign of human affection towards them, is among the most sinister in modern film. The tension increases steadily throughout the canoe trip, and perseveres even after the final credits - the ending makes the significance of the characters' ordeals horrifically real. The movie's plausibility is greatly aided by the playing of the leads, particularly Ned Beatty and Jon Voight as the victim and reluctant hero respectively. Burt Reynolds, too, has never been better. The film's cultural influence is demonstrable by the number of people who will understand a reference to 'banjo territory' - perhaps only Get Carter has done such an effective hatchet-job on a region's tourist industry. I can think of only a handful of movies which put me into such a serious depression after they had finished - the oppressive atmosphere of Se7en is the best comparison I can think of. Although so much of it is excellent of itself, Deliverance is a classic above all because there are no adequate points of comparison with it - it is unique. | 1pos
|
'Deliverance' is a brilliant condensed epic of a group of thoroughly modern men who embark on a canoe trip to briefly commune with nature, and instead have to fight for their sanity, their lives, and perhaps even their souls. The film has aged well. Despite being made in the early Seventies, it certainly doesn't look particularly dated. It still possesses a visceral punch and iconic status as a dramatic post-'Death of the Sixties' philosophical-and-cultural shock vehicle. There are very few films with similar conceits that can compare favourably to it, although the legendary Sam Peckinpah's stuff would have to be up there. Yes, there has been considerable debate and discussion about the film's most confronting scene (which I won't expand upon here) - and undoubtedly one of the most confronting scenes in the entire history of the cinematic medium - but what surprises about this film is how achingly beautiful it is at times. This seems to be generally overlooked (yet in retrospect quite understandably so). The cinematography that captures the essence of the vanishing, fragile river wilderness is often absolutely stunning, and it counterbalances the film as, in a moment of brief madness, we the viewers - along with the characters themselves - are plunged into unrelenting nightmare. 'Deliverance's narrative is fittingly lean and sinewy, and it is surprising how quickly events unfold from point of establishment, through to crisis, and aftermath. It all takes place very quickly, which lends a sense of very real urgency to the film. The setting is established effectively through the opening credits. The characters are all well-drawn despite limited time spent on back story. We know just enough about them to know them for the kind of man they are, like them and ultimately fear for them when all goes to hell. The conflict and violence within the movie seems to erupt out of nowhere, with a frightening lack of logic. This is author James Dickey's theme - that any prevailing romanticism about the nature of Man's perceived inherent 'goodness' can only wilt and die when his barely suppressed animal instincts come to the fore. There are no demons or bogeymen here. The predatory hillbillies - as the film's central villains - are merely crude, terrifyingly amoral cousins of our protagonists. They shock because their evil is petty and tangible. The film has no peripheral characters. All reflect something about the weaknesses and uncertainties of urbanised Homo Sapiens in the latter 20th century, and all are very real and recognisable. Burt Reynolds is wonderful in this movie as the gung-ho and almost fatally over-confident Survivalist, Lewis, and it is a shame to think that he really couldn't recapture his brief moment of dramatic glory throughout the rest of his still sputtering up-and-down career ('Boogie Nights' excluded, perhaps). Trust me, if your are not a Reynolds fan, you WILL be impressed with his performance here. John Voight is his usual effortlessly accomplished self, and Ned Beatty and Ronny Cox both make significant contributions. This is simply a great quartet of actors. To conclude, I must speculate as to if and when 'Deliverance' author James Dickey's 'To the White Sea' will be made. For those that enjoyed (?) this film, TTWS is a similarly harrowing tale of an American Air Force pilot's struggle for survival after being shot down over the Japanese mainland during WW2. It's more of the typically bleak existentialism and primordial savagery that is Dickey's trademark, but it has all the makings of a truly spectacular, poetic cinematic experience. There was the suggestion a few years ago that the Coen brothers might be producing it, but that eventually came to nothing. Being an avid Coen-o-phile it disappoints me to think what might have been had they gotten the green light on TTWS, rather than their last couple of relatively undistinguished efforts. Returning to 'Deliverance', it's impossible to imagine a movie of such honest, unnerving brutality being made in these times, and that is pretty shameful. We, the cinema-going public, are all the poorer for this. | 1pos
|
In what is arguably the best outdoor adventure film of all time, four city guys confront nature's wrath, in a story of survival. The setting is backwoods Georgia, with its forests, mountains, and wild rivers.<br /><br />The director, John Boorman, chose to use local people, not actors, to portray secondary characters. These locals imbue the film with a depth of characterization unequaled in film history. No central casting "actors" could ever come close to these people's remarkable faces, voices, or actions. I don't recall a film wherein the secondary characters are so realistic and colorful. As much as anything else, it is this gritty realism that makes this film so amazing.<br /><br />Another strength is the film's theme. Nature, in the wild, can be violent. How appropriate that the setting should be the American South. Very few places in the U.S. are, or have been, as violent as redneck country. In a story about Darwinian survival of the fittest, the film conveys the idea that humans are part of nature, not separate from it.<br /><br />"Deliverance" is very much a product of its time when, unlike today, Americans expressed concern over a vanishing wilderness. The film's magnificent scenery, the sounds of birds, frogs, crickets, and the roar of the river rapids, combined with the absence of civilization, all convey an environmental message. And that is another strength of the film.<br /><br />At an entertainment level, the tension gradually escalates, as the plot proceeds. Not even half way into the film the tension becomes extreme, and then never lets up, not until the final credits roll. Very few films can sustain that level of intensity over such a long span of plot.<br /><br />Finally, the film's technical quality is topnotch. Direction and editing are flawless. Cinematography is excellent. Dialogue is interesting. And the acting is terrific. Burt Reynolds has never been better. Ned Beatty is perfectly cast and does a fine job. And Jon Voight should have been nominated for an Oscar. If there is a weak link in the film, it is the music, which strikes me as timid.<br /><br />Overall, "Deliverance" almost certainly will appeal to viewers who like outdoor adventure. Even for those who don't, the gritty characterizations, the acting, and the plot tension are reasons enough to watch this film, one of the finest in cinema history. | 1pos
|
Deliverance is the fascinating, haunting and sometimes even disturbing tale by James Dickey, turned into a brilliant movie by John Boorman. It's about four businessmen, driven by manhood and macho-behavior, who're spending a canoeing weekend high up in the mountains. Up there, they're faced with every darkest side of man and every worst form of human misery...poverty, buggery and even physical harassment! These four men intended to travel down the river for adventure and excitement but their trip soon changes into an odyssey through a violent and lurking mountain-land, completely estranged from all forms of civilisation. All these elements actually make Deliverance one of the most nightmarish films I've ever seen. Just about everything that happens to these men, you pray that you'll never find yourself to be in a similar situation. Pure talking cinema, Deliverance is a very important movie as well. John Boorman's best (closely followed by Zardoz and Excalibur) was - and still is - a very influential film and it contains several memorable scenes that already featured in numberless other movies. Just think about the terrific "Duelling banjos" musical score and, of course, the unforgettable homosexual "squeal like a pig" rape scene. All the actors deliver (haha) perfect acting performances. Especially Jon Voight. A must see motion picture!! | 1pos
|
After having seen Deliverance, movies like Pulp Fiction don't seem so extreme. Maybe by today's blood and bullets standards it doesn't seem so edgy, but if you think that this was 1972 and that the movie has a truly sinister core then it makes you think differently.<br /><br />When I started watching this movie nothing really seemed unusual until I got to the "Dueling Banjos" scene. In that scene the brutality and edge of this film is truly visible. As I watched Drew(Ronny Cox,Robocop)go head to head with a seemingly retarted young boy it really shows how edgy this movies can get. When you think that the kid has a small banjo, which he could of probably made by hand, compared to Drew's nice expensive guitar, you really figure out just how out of their territory the four men are.<br /><br />As the plot goes it's very believable and never stretches past its limits. But what really distinguishes this film, about four business men who get more than they bargained for on a canoe trip, is that director John Boorman(Excalibur) breaks all the characters away from plain caricatures or stereotypes. So as the movie goes into full horror and suspense I really cared about all four men and what would happen to them.<br /><br />The acting is universally excellent. With Jon Voight(Midnight Cowboy, Enemy of the State) and Burt Reynolds(Boogie Nights, Striptease) leading the great cast. Jon Voight does probably the hardest thing of all in this film and that is making his transformation from family man to warrior very believable. Unlike Reynolds whose character is a warrior from the start, Voight's character transforms over the course of the movie. Ned Beatty(Life) is also good in an extremely hard role, come on getting raped by a hillbilly, while Ronny Cox turns in a believable performance.<br /><br />One thing that really made this movies powerful for me is that the villains were as terrifying as any I had ever seen. Bill Mckinney and Herbert "Cowboy" Coward were excellent and extremely frightening as the hillbilly's.<br /><br />Overall Deliverance was excellent and I suggest it to anyone, except for people with weak stomachs and kids. 10/10. See this movie. | 1pos
|
John Boorman's "Deliverance" concerns four suburban Atlanta dwellers who take a ride down the swift waters of the Cahulawassee
The river is about to disappear for a dam construction and the flooding of the last untamed stretches of land
<br /><br />The four friends emphasize different characters: a virile sports enthusiast who has never been insured in his life since there is no specific risk in it (Burt Reynolds); a passionate family man and a guitar player (Ronny Cox); an overweight bachelor insurance salesman (Ned Beatty); and a quiet, thoughtful married man with a son who loves to smoke his pipe (Jon Voight).<br /><br />What follows is the men's nightmarish explorations against the hostile violence of nature
It is also an ideal code of moral principle about civilized men falling prey to the dark laws of the wilderness
<br /><br />Superbly shot, this thrilling adult adventure certainly contains some genuinely gripping scenes
| 1pos
|
As Peckinpah did with STRAW DOGS, and Kubrick with A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, director John Boorman delivers an effective film about Man's violent side in DELIVERANCE, arguably a definitive horror film of the 1970s. Burt Reynolds, Jon Voight, Ned Beatty, and Ronny Cox portray four Atlanta businessmen who decide to take a canoe trip down the wild Cahulawassee River in northern Georgia before it is dammed up into what Reynolds calls "one big, dead lake."<br /><br />But the local mountain folk take a painfully obvious dim view of these "city boys" carousing through their woods. And the following day, continuing on down the river, Beatty and Voight are accosted and sexually assaulted (the film's infamous "SQUEAL!" sequence) by two vicious mountain men (Bill McKinney, Herbert "Cowboy" Coward). Thus, what started out as nothing more than a lark through the Appalachians has now turned into a nightmare in which our four protagonists come to see the thin line that exists between what we think of as civilization and what we think of as barbarism.<br /><br />James Dickey adapted the screenplay from his own best-selling book, and the result is an often gripping and disturbing shocker. Often known for its "SQUEAL!" and "Dueling Banjos" sequences, DELIVERANCE is also quite a pulse-pounding ordeal, with the four leading men superb in their roles, and McKinney and Coward making for two of the most frightening villains of all times. A must-see film for those willing to take a chance. | 1pos
|
I watched this movie in the wee hours of the morning when I should have been asleep. This, in itself, was testimony that Deliverance was a spell-binding movie. I think Boorman did a wonderful job on directing this film. How expertly the early scene with the hill folk and the dueling banjos was done. It showed so well and early on how inherently reserved and simple the people of the area were. Case in point - near the end of the "duel", the banjo-playing boy was smiling (loved his banjo), but when Drew tried to shake the boy's hand after the "duel", the kid was too reserved to respond. The river trip never left you bored, for sure. The rape scene was brutal, but necessary to show just what the group was up against in this backwoods area of Georgia. I think Beatty's traumatic shock afterward was well done. Some have said he was pretty unaffected by the ordeal. I disagree - if you really payed attention, he was unresponsive during the entire action immediately following, in which Reynolds put the arrow through the attacker and they chased off the toothless guy. It was confusing when Ed killed the other guy later, at the top of the cliff. It almost appeared that the arrow was shot while Ed was curled up and expecting to die, but then you realize the arrow he had shot earlier had finally taken effect.<br /><br />Anyway, a great movie, and I was wavering between an 8 and 9 on my vote, but after reading a message from a disgruntled voter who gave it a "1", I gave it a "10". This individual's reasoning seemed based on personal bias, rather than an objective viewpoint, and his vote was obviously a non-correlating attempt to lower the rating. | 1pos
|
This was, undoubtedly, the most disturbing movie that I have ever seen. The first part of the movie, though strange, has a light and amusing quality to it. The journey begins on such a peaceful note, detailing and emphasizing the beauty of the hills of Appalachia. But that is misleading beyond belief. The obvious social problems (inbreeding) and the deformities of the countryside's inhabitants are only the first disturbing aspects of the movie. I can still hear Bobby moaning in pain, and I shudder at the thought. Lewis's leg made me wince. Yet, while the movie was, on the whole, very disturbing and distressing, it posed some interesting questions. When is it moral, or right to take another individual's life? What can morality drive us to do, or not do, in some cases? And are dignity and moral integrity more important than life itself? Whatever conclusions one may draw from the film, it is an achievement in its own right (despite certain aspects that were chillingly real and gruesome). | 1pos
|
Engrossing drama of four men on a canoing weekend down a remote river. They are pacifist Ed (Jon Voight), adventurous, violent Lewis (Burt Reynolds), obnoxious Bobby (Ned Beatty) and nice guy Drew (Ronny Cox). The first 40 minute are great--there's the incredible dueling banjos sequence, interesting interplay among the characters and just stunning widescreen cinematography by Vilmos Zsigmond. Then two hillbillies attack Ed and Bobby. One of them rapes Bobby...and the trip becomes a nightmare.<br /><br />Just unbelievable. The scenery is incredibly beautiful yet this horrific violence is taking place. To be truthful, Beatty's rape has never bothered me--I'm very aware it's being faked despite the good acting. This movie also shows how the characters change--Ed has his pacifism tested, Lewis becomes weak, Bobby is violated by one of the people he mocked earlier on and Drew tries to keep himself sane. Direction by John Boorman is also very assured and the sounds of the forest and the river help the mood immensely.<br /><br />The acting is mostly good. Voight is just OK in the lead--he's been better. Beatty is also just OK--but it is his debut film and he has guts for taking such a risky role. Cox is very good especially when things start falling apart. And Reynolds is just superb--one of his best acting jobs EVER! How this wasn't even nominated for an Academy Award escapes me. Also Bill McKinney and Herbert Coward are way too believable as the hillbillies.<br /><br />A powerful film--NOT for children. Try to see an uncut version--the TV version is butchered. Also letter-boxed viewing is essential to capture the breathtaking images. | 1pos
|
James Dickey is a wonderfully descriptive author. When one reads "Deliverance", one is instantly transported into the lush backwoods of the Deep South. When one watches John Boorman's film version of the book, one realizes just how accurately he captures the essence of the book. The camera is as descriptive as the narration. The characters are fully realized, and the portrayals are fantastic. I first saw this movie in 1992, after my freshman year of college. I was in a phase where I was watching movies that were all released within a couple of years of my birth in 1973. Among them were "Patton", "Papillon", and "All the President's Men"; fine films, all of them. This one was easily the class of the group. That says a lot. | 1pos
|
This is without a doubt one of the best movies I have ever seen. The first time I saw it I was about 9 or 10 years old. I began looking sometime before the rape scene. And when I saw it I was really shocked thinking "What kinda sick movie is this?". Today I've seen it from the beginning and really understood how great this movie really is. It's exciting, frightening, shocking and in it's own unique way disturbing. But the best thing about it is the ending where the audience is shown that this experience will haunt the characters for the rest of their lifes. It'll torture their conscience and they will worry for the rest of their lifes about the bodies being found in that river. And there is nothing they can do about it, it's something they have to live with. This ending is one of the most unhappy endings in movie history and very smart, brilliant and horrifying<br /><br />And the acting is also great, especially Jon Voight and Burt Reynolds. Magnificent acting in this movie. All in all, John Boorman has created one of the best movies throughout movie history based on Dick Chaney's novel. A must see for all the movie lovers | 1pos
|
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Packed with memorable moments (such as the quote above, immortalized by Primus), Deliverance tells the story of four guys who take a trip to the wild woods to go white water rafting and get away from the big city for a while only to find that their fun soon takes a bad turn. This is not a Hollywood film. There are virtually no special effects whatsoever, the setting is extremely realistic, and nothing at all is sugarcoated or made pretty. The city boys look like city boys, and even the tough guy Louis, portrayed with precision by Burt Reynolds, is clearly at the mercy of the wild on this trip. This is a perfect example of a what-if film. What if a few friends went river rafting in an area of the woods that none of them were familiar with, and ended up desperately trying to avoid being tried and convicted for murders that they were forced to commit to save their own lives?<br /><br />There is clearly a very strong element of the film that deals with societal and class structure and the relationship (or lack thereof) between rural and urban peoples. When the four guys arrive in the woods early in the film, they clearly do not quite know how to interact with the people who live out there, and they speak to them as though they are unsure whether they will understand or be able to communicate. This communication block is most memorably illustrated in the dueling banjoes scene, in which they are trying to gas up the car and truck and get someone to drive the vehicles downriver for them. While Drew and the obviously inbred and probably mentally deficient boy on the porch are dueling with their guitar and banjo (one of the best scenes in the film), Louis is having some difficulty buying the gas, and Bobby makes a comment about genetic deficiencies and how pathetic it all is. When the boy turns away from Drew, who had offered to shake his hand after their stupendous jam session, Bobby tells him to give the kid a couple bucks, knowing that none of them are quite sure how to react.<br /><br />This is the kind of thing that we see in Deliverance that sets up so much of the tension that is to follow. This great scene where a lot of fun was had (including the funniest 'redneck dancing' scene until O Brother, Where Art Thou?) ended with everyone awkwardly unsure what to do around each other. These people are apples and oranges, and they live by completely different rules of life. The people that Louis, Bobby, Drew and Ed encounter in the hills grew up separated from modern society and modern laws, and live by the rules of nature, which do not include thou shalt not kill. Confused by their awkward behavior, the four friends set out on the river, hoping for the weirdness to end and for the adventure to begin.<br /><br />(spoilers) When they are briefly separated from each other and Ed and Bobby run into the hillbillies beside the river who quickly turn unpleasant, the uncertainty about the way that these people live - which was established by the scene above - comes into play to create the most tension during the scene. I think that a good sign of a quality thriller like this is that the tragic element of the film, namely the assaults and actual murders, takes up a very small amount of screen time but remain some of the most memorable parts of the film. There is no gratuitous violence here, it's all there for an obvious purpose and it achieves a startlingly powerful effect.<br /><br />The move is about the violent clash of two very different kinds of people, and what can happen when they inadvertently find themselves at war with each other. The trip down the rest of the river after the assault, which takes up the majority of the film, delivers some spectacularly effective tension, and keeps you on the edge of your seat while not bombarding you with so much happening that you become numb. It is surprisingly effective when we find out that Ed may very well have killed the wrong man up there on the cliff, and the tension in the film doesn't even let up when the three surviving members of the team reach the bottom of the river, because they deliver a questionable explanation to the police about what happened up there on the river and why the deputy's brother-in-law is missing.<br /><br />This is a very disturbing film, which is a testament to its success, because it's pretty obvious that a film like this is meant to shake people up a little bit. The hillbillies are the human (i.e. more realistic) version of the sub-human rednecks seen in childish but fairly similar films like Gator Bait and Gator Bait 2, neither of which could possibly ever be compared to a timeless film like Deliverance. When we follow these four men through their fateful weekend in the woods, the natural element is so real and we get to know the men so well and in such a subtle fashion that it's almost like we, as individuals of the audience, are really a fifth member of the team. It's not often that a film is able to come across that way. | 1pos
|
It's a shame that Deliverance is mainly known as the redneck rape movie and for Dueling Banjos. Even people that have seen the film can't get their mind off of that rape scene. It's not as bad as the rape scene in Pulp Fiction. It's certainly not as bad as any female rape scene in just about any movie. People tend to miss the power of the film that contains the infamous buggery scene.<br /><br />The acting, plot, cinematography, and soundtrack of Deliverance all lend a hand to it's brooding charisma. The backcountry it was shot in is beautiful and is quite in contrast to the dark subject matter. The actors both major and minor make you feel like you are rafting down that river right along with them. <br /><br />The thing that separates this film from others is the tangible sense of dread that it inspires. Not many films can make you feel this creeped out. Bottom Line: This movie is a classic. I can't really say much more than that. | 1pos
|
Deliverance is a stunning thriller, every bit as exciting as any good thriller should aspire to be but also stomach-churningly frightening. Though it is not a horror movie, it is just as terrifying as any classic horror film. The very thought of being a normal red-blooded male enjoying an adventure weekend miles from any form of civilisation, only to be captured and sodomised by a couple of violent hillbillies, is surely the worst nightmare of 99.9% of the world's population. It would have been easy for Deliverance to slip into exploitation territory, but John Boorman has cleverly avoided the temptation to go down such a route and has made a film that explores, questions and challenges the very meaning of masculinity. With so many films, you come away wishing to heaven that you could step into the hero's shoes, performing heroic deeds and saving the day and getting the girl.... but with Deliverance, you come away praying to God that you'll never have to experience what these four protagonists go through.<br /><br />Four city guys - Ed (Jon Voight), Lewis (Burt Reynolds), Drew (Ronny Cox) and Bobby (Ned Beatty) - head out into the wilderness to spend a few days canoing down a soon-to-be-dammed river. The guys are riding the rapids in pairs, and Ed and Bobby inadvertently get a little too far ahead of the others so they pull in to the riverside and await their pals in the adjacent woodland. Here, they fall foul of two local woodlanders (Bill McKinney and Herbert Coward), who tie Ed to a tree, while one of them strips and rapes Bobby instructing him, perversely, to "squeal like a pig". Lewis and Drew arrive unseen and Lewis, being a fair archer, kills the rapist while the other hillbilly beats a hasty retreat into the forest. Under great emotional stress, the four canoeists decide to conceal the event and get out of the area. But they find the river increasingly dangerous to negotiate as they journey downstream, and the risk to their lives heightens when the surviving hillbilly returns to take shots at them with his rifle from some unseen vantage point in the rocky cliffs beside the river.<br /><br />Deliverance is very powerful as a survival tale, but even more powerful (and disturbing) as a study of macho attitudes being torn apart and left in humiliated tatters. Though all the performances are remarkable, one must take particular note of Beatty's efforts in a role that many actors would've turned down. The film is very similar thematically to the 1971 film Straw Dogs - both films deal with terrifying sexual violence in isolated locales, and in both the eventual violent revenge exacted by the victim does not result in any sense of satisfaction. The backdrop of the rugged countryside in Deliverance is beautiful to look at, but it also adds to the tension by placing the four canoeists in a setting where they are at the mercy of the hillbillies and the landscape, with nobody to rely on other than themselves. This truly is suspenseful film-making at its finest. | 1pos
|
The makers of this fine film did a terrific job of getting you involved with the characters,as they suffered through this horrible ordeal.The horrific scene in the woods was done so superbly that you forget that these men were just actors,playing parts.I have never gotten so immersed in a film as I have this one.Burt Reynolds and Jon Voight were never better on screen,as well as fine performances by Ned Beatty,Ronny Cox,Bill McKinney,and though he appeared only briefly,James Dickey,the man who authored the book upon which the film is based,as the sheriff of Aintry.It is somewhat disturbing,and kids,of course,should be shielded from it,but this is great,dramatic cinema. | 1pos
|
"Deliverance" is one of the best exploitation films to come out of that wonderful 1970's decade from whence so many other exploitation films came.<br /><br />A group of friends sets out on a canoe trip down a river in the south and they become victimized by a bunch of toothless hillbillies who pretty much try to ruin their lives. It's awesome.<br /><br />We are treated to anal rape, vicious beatings, bow and arrow killings, shootings, broken bones, etc... A lot like 1974's "Texas Chainsaw Massacre," to say that "Deliverance" is believable would be immature. This would never and could never happen, even in the dark ages of 1972.<br /><br />"Deliverance" is a very entertaining ride and packed full of action. It is one in a huge pile of exploitation films to come from the early 70's and it (arguably) sits on top of that pile with it's great acting, superb cinematography and excellent writing.<br /><br />8 out of 10, kids. | 1pos
|
Before watching this film I had heard a lot about it and certain scenes in the film, but listening wasn't doing it for me so I planned on watching it and wow! Ned Beatty, Ronny Cox, Jon Voight and Burt Reynolds make for an interesting group of individuals who are hell bent on canoing down the Cahulawassee river and the unfortunate series of events that transpires upon them all. The character development takes some time in enveloping the viewer with a better understanding of each person, but eventually you know these guys like they were your friend. The acting, dialogue is very very real, as close to reality as you can get for Hollywood acting. Reynolds character "Lewis" was interesting as a guy who comes off very tough but underneath the manly veneer lies a very soft and broken man (I was impressed with his performance!) Jon Voight seems to be the character thats on the spotlight the most, the unfortunate circumstances that seem to find him at every corner really mold and caste him into a different man at the end (his character transition was excellent). Ned Beatty and Ronny Cox really seem like the silly lunkheads that just like to joke around and don't seem to get too awful serious unless they have too, and they did... I really was amazed at Director Boorman's vision of Dickey's novel, very impressed. You cannot go your whole life without watching this film. I give it eight out of ten stars, extremely impressed. | 1pos
|
This is one of the greatest films ever made. It's an all-time classic. The character played by Ned Beatty undergoes one of the greatest on screen transformations ever portrayed. He is a shallow, almost useless, overweight insurance salesman. He is proud of his ignorance, and yet judges the "backwards hicks" to be the ignorant ones. When he compliments the old man on his hat, and the old man responds, "you don't know nothing'," the tone is set. It's true. He really doesn't "know nothing'." But one backwoods anal rape later, the man is practically a warrior. His shallow fake bravery is toned down into serious resolve. The old self is forever dead, left in some far off woods, soon to be under hundreds of feet of water. And what of Lewis, our intrepid guide? Lewis is a philosopher/hunter/warrior, and he's just about nuts. Burt Reynolds proved himself as an actor way back in 1972 in this film, completely giving himself in to this wonderful role. Who wouldn't want to have a friend like Lewis if one was to venture into the dangers of a forgotten/soon to be left behind world like the one our hapless travelers find themselves in. This film speaks to us on so many levels. The story feels real. It works as a complete action/adventure, with wonderful cinematography, and deliberate, grinding pacing. It works as a bit of a horror film, with the danger and almost surrealism of the encounter with the vile rednecks who objectify their "sow" Ned Beatty. But it also works as an art film, using incredible amounts of symbolism to convey truths that go to our very core. I have seen this film at least fifty times, and every time it comes on, I find I have to watch it. You have to watch it quite a few times to even begin to comprehend it. This is one deep movie. This is one well-acted movie. And this is one hell of a story. I gave it a 10 out of 10, and put it in my 10 all time greatest films ever made, along with Schindler's List, Casablanca, Taxi Driver, and Sling Blade, among others. Movies that make you think. Movies that take you beyond having to think. Movies that use a STORY to make their point, without trying to preach to you. If you think you know Deliverance, you might, but again, you might not. It really is that good. | 1pos
|
When a movie shocks you with it's disturbing, brooding atmosphere, and grabs you by the throat with it's stunning cinematography, you just know that you have stumbled upon a treat, masterpiece of a film. Although with most modern movies, extremely enjoyable as some are, those that really shock you into focus are the strongest, and are the ones that are most critically acclaimed and mostly, stick with you for a life time. I say, proudly, that I am a fan of movies that disturb, not just horror movies, but those that send a vibe laden with foreboding. Movies like Breakdown and The Missing, that send a chill down your spine, making you think "holy crap, that could happen to me", and visually entice you, are up there with some of my favorite aspects in a movie. Because I am only 21, I did not grow up with actors like Burt Renyolds, Jon Voight and Ned Beatty, albeit I am familiar with them, I didn't watch them grow and proceed as actors, as opposed to actors now like Shia LaBouf and Justin Long. I must say, after the long hype and witnessing Deliverance for the first time, I was so admired by these veteran actors in a movie made more than 30 years ago, and still lives it's terror up in competition to modern movies. Burt Renyolds plays Lewis, the macho self appointed leader of a group of four friends on a canoe trip down a fictitious river before a dam is made, filling the whole wilderness in water. Renyolds' character is an experienced adventurer, sort of no nonsense, and filled with machismo. Witnessing him portray the tough guy, made me think differently about him as an actor, as i have only seen him as a seedy old guy or an angry politician. The dialog the director provides for his character gives him enough malice to be proved as a strong and even intimidating leader. Ronny Cox and Ned Beatty play as the novice adventurers, Drew and Bob respectively, joining in for the fun of a canoe trip. The actor that i thoroughly enjoyed watching was Jon Voight, once again I have only seen him as an older actor, however, unlike Renyolds, I have quite liked Voight's acting (and i don't regard Anaconda when I say that), for example the national treasure movies. Voight plays Ed, whom, like Lewis, is experienced in adventuring but is seen as a more reserved character, a reluctant hero/ leader and definitely lacks Lewis' machismo. The film basically opens up with the four driving into a small town while asking to find someone to drive their cars to the bottom of the river whilst they canoe the rapids and camp along the riverside. You immediately get a creepy vibe from the hillbilly characters we are introduced to, like the imbred kid who plays the infamous "Duelling Banjo's" at the start of the film with Ronny Cox's character Drew; and more so the two mountain men in the films pivotal and disturbing rape scene. As with all atmospheric movies, from this moment on, dread and confusion fills the characters as well as the audience and it is here we see the characters take shape and change form. The canoe trip that follows is expertly shot and it is from here the men fight against both human and nature's odds for survival. The film's cinematics do not let up, and I back that comment up with the scene in which Ed fights one of the rapist mountain men with a composite bow. As Ed falls on to one of his arrows and notices his enemy approaching him, cocks his rifle, only to shoot the floor as he falls with an arrow in his neck; was possible the greatest piece of cinematic shooting I have seen in a film. In wrapping up, Deliverance is one film, who's dread and atmosphere carry the mood across and to this date, remains one of the best films in cinematic history. | 1pos
|
"It's all up to you, Ed?" "Now you get to play the game." The day my father left my mother, he took me to see this film with his new girlfriend, on opening day at the Cinerama Dome in Hollywood. I was but fourteen years old. I wasn't even entirely sure what I was seeing, but I will never forgot it, especially the scene with Ned Beatty.<br /><br />Watching it today, thirty-six years later, it still gives me quivers.<br /><br />My father was a huge Burt Reynolds fan, hence the reason for standing in line for almost an hour in to watch what was supposed to be an 'action movie.' I had seen two films at the Dome prior to this: "Grand Prix" and "The Song of Norway." Well this wasn't exactly Mario Andretti or The Brady Bunch. After leaving the theater, I was shell-shocked.<br /><br />But even at that tender age, I appreciated the artistry...and after seeing again today, am I surprised I was still standing after witnessing this highly disturbing, yet extremely well-crafted film.<br /><br />Suffice it to say it was a traumatic experience for a fourteen year-old that had yet to kiss his first girlfriend. I don't blame my father for taking me, but it was a bit much for a child to witness.<br /><br />As an adult, I still find it quite disturbing, yet I am still very impressed with the quality of the film-making.<br /><br />Burt Reynolds as an absolute wonder, as are all the principles...from Billy Redden as the inbred guitar wonder, to Ronny Cox as the terrified insurance salesman...everyone does an admirable job. The sound quality is second to none, from the chirping birds to the ticking clocks. The photography, cinematography...all the technical aspects of this remarkable film are first rate.<br /><br />The moral questions raised, from murdering the sexual assaulters to the aftermath of dealing with killing a human being, remain as profound today as they did when this groundbreaking film was released. And the classic sequences of attempting to survive in the wilderness after dealing with such unforeseen brutality are life-altering. These four men, city men, suddenly confronted with a situation with never imagined, raise the bar from action to horror.<br /><br />It's a classic to be sure. And the phrase "you have a pretty mouth" has been quoted endlessly, from Saturday Night Live to off-the-cuff comments around water-cooler at work, this movie is without a doubt a huge part of our societal pop culture...as much as "Make my day" or "I'll be back" ever were.<br /><br />So what would YOU do if you found your friends being sexually assaulted at gunpoint by mountain men far away from your life in the city, cozy bed, wife and kids? And if you took the measures Burt Reynolds did (and I would have done the same) would you bury the body beneath the soon-to-be-lake, or stand trial and take your chances? The bottom line is: Deliverance delivers. You can take that to the bank. If this movie doesn't get under your skin, then you are not human.<br /><br />Even if you have seen this before, rent it again and ask yourself the above question.<br /><br />My favorite part of the film remains the same: Ed failing to kill the deer...then changing. Life and it's unpredictable circumstance can change a man. And I suppose that's what this film is all about Jon Voight, in particular, as Ed, gives the best performance here. And he remains one of the more gifted actors in Hollywood history, from Midnight Cowboy to his highly underrated performance as Franklin D. Roosevelt in Pearl Harbor, his acting lifts the movie to another level. Climbing the rocks at dusk, terrified and determined to make it right It needs to be seen to be believed. I guarantee your heart rate will elevated to a new level.<br /><br />Briskly paced, tense, taut and tightly drawn as a as a banjo string, this is a morality play that asks questions that remain today. Times have changes, but our choices as human beings have not.<br /><br />Ten out of ten stars. | 1pos
|
Deliverance is John Boorman's 1972 horror/thriller movie about a group of four Atlanta businessmen (Burt Reynolds, Jon Voight, Ned Beatty and Ronnie Cox), that undertake a canoe trip down the Cahulawassee River before the river is dammed. Along the way, a raft (no pun intended) of unpleasant things happen to the men. Despite the nasty happenings in this picture, Boorman captures the natural beauty of the river nicely. The location was really chosen well. Indeed, this would still be a very nice film to watch, had the canoe trip gone smoothly. The lush forests and gentle landscape only make the horror more horrible. Not only is the location scenic, but also beautifully shot thanks to cinematographer Vilmos Zsigmond. It has been said that Burt Reynolds' performance as the outdoorsman, Lewis, is the star acting role in this film. I reckon however, that Jon Voight steals the show with his role as the suburban family man, Ed, who is rapidly forced to change his demeanour in order to survive. In fact, the scene in which climbs the cliff was not a stuntman. It was Voight himself. To cut costs the filming wasn't insured and the actors did their own stunts. The soundtrack is particularly noteworthy. Eric Weissberg's and Steve Mendel's performance on guitar and banjo as part of the Duelling Banjos sequence remains one of the most awesome pieces of soundtrack in the history of cinema for the sheer intensity of its performance. At a couple of other points in the movie, we are treated to more, softer, banjo music which provides a very pleasant accompaniment to the trip down the river For all the good points of this film, I did find it a little lacking in purpose. It doesn't build suspense very well and it isn't really as gruesome as we have been led to believe. The plot itself is somewhat poor and it doesn't really go anywhere. Nevertheless, this movie has enough good points to get my recommendation. I did like it but for fans of gore, there isn't really much of it. None really, in fact. It isn't so much a horror film as an adventure film that turns a little bit sour. Think of it like Rambo: First Blood meets Three Men In A Boat. Look out for a very young Charley Boorman as Ed's son. I did like this movie, the soundtrack, cinematography and acting earns it a well deserved 7 out of 10. | 1pos
|
I recall seeing this film on TV some years ago and not paying full attention, maybe even missing the first half, so I came to the conclusion that it was dull and over rated. I decided to revisit it last night to see if I had missed anything the first time. I certainly did. This is one of the most disturbing and amazing films of all time and it has clearly had much influence on films today and probably will forever. I can't believe I thought this film was boring! <br /><br />A young Jon Voight and Burt Reynolds give the performances of their careers and are supported by Ned Beatty and Ronny Cox. This story will leave you with a sense of disgust and dread long after you watch it, it is truly horrifying. Oh, and did I mention that the theme song is great, as well? Well it is, and this movie should be seen by movie fans everywhere.<br /><br />Everyone should see this movie for the experience. Just don't expect a picnic. | 1pos
|
Impactful film of four city slickers in crisis in Appalachia has become synonymous with rural depravity. Each of four businessmen face their darkest fears when they tackle a challenging whitewater trip, on a river about to be replaced by a dam. When locals along the way decide to "have their way" with the interlopers it leads to several deaths and loads of trauma for the survivors. Each of the travelers is outstanding, although Voight gives the lead and strongest performance. The rural scenery and culture is well-captured, including the breathtaking dueling banjos sequence. I saw this on a date when it came out, not exactly the perfect date movie (although we both enjoyed it). I sort of remember this as a break-out dramatic performance for Burt, Voight was already established. Not the sort of movie you could watch every week but it has a strong punch and is beautifully filmed. | 1pos
|
*SPOILERS* Four men, Ed (Jon Voight), Lewis (Burt Reynolds), Drew (Ronny Cox) and Bobby (Ned Beatty), decide to go on a rafting trip on the Cahulawassee river, before it is flooded.<br /><br />They wanted to have fun, to have a nice weekend in the nature.<br /><br />But when two mountain men cross their path and rape one of them (Bobby), everything begins to go to Hell in a Handbasket, and this 'nice weekend' will even cost one of the four's life...<br /><br />'Deliverance', which in Italian is stupidly titled 'Un Tranquillo Weekend Di Paura' ('A Calm Weekend Of Fear'), is the Grandad of movies like 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre', 'The Hills Have Eyes', 'Wrong Turn', 'Last House On The Left' and all the other 'Evil Nature/Revenge' subgenre films, and one of the scariest, right next to 'The Hills Have Eyes'.<br /><br />Based on a book by James Dickey (who appears in the movie as Sheriff Bullard), it's a chilling story on how someone can go into a situation thinking he knows everything, when he doesn't.<br /><br />And the image of the dead man's hand raising from under the water, or the hands holding the rifle from the one-sheet are haunting images that will never leave your mind.<br /><br />Deliverance: 9/10. | 1pos
|
and this IS a very disturbing film. I may be wrong, but this is the last film where I considered Burt Reynolds an actual actor, who transformed the role, and delivered a message.<br /><br />Jon Voight and Ned Beatty are also excellent. They are unassuming and unaware; businessmen wanting to enjoy the country. Little did they know what would happen next.<br /><br />The photography and sets are realistic and natural. This was before the days of Wes Craven.<br /><br />What is most disturbing about this film is the fact that places like this still exist. In America, country folk still detest city people; it is almost a century and a half since the Civil War.<br /><br />You will enjoy this film. It was filmed in the rural sections of South Georgia, which still exist. Just don't drive past that to Mobile, Alabama; That area still has not been repaired since Hurricane Katrina. 10/10. | 1pos
|
I am a member of a canoeing club and I can tell you the truth that Deliverance is synonomous with the peacefulness and tranquility of the experience. As we put our boats into the water, banjoes echo in the back of the conscious mind. This movie is timeless because it waxes philosophical of human's place in nature and technology's effect upon man's relationship with nature. We see it in the bow fishing. We see it in the home made tent. There is also city man's disdain and feeling of superiority to the rural woodsman "cracker". The fact that the Banker from Atlanta (Ned Beatty) has "bad teeth" is meant to put him on the same level with the woodsmen who also have bad teeth. Ultimately, the struggle of life and death supersedes "civilized man's" suppositives about "The Law". This canoe trip ends too soon for the viewer, but alas Not Soon Enough for the characters. | 1pos
|
This movie is a classic in every sense of the word. It is very entertaining and also very disturbing. The acting in this movie is well done. The story itself is believable, suspenseful, and well thought out. Character development is also done well, the audience can clearly see how each of the characters is emotionally tested through this film. The villains in this movie are very threatening, from the first moment the audience sees them they can tell that they are up to something. This movie shows how a human being, when taken from civilization and put in the middle of the woods, facing a life or death situation can slowly become almost as wild and feral as the animals that inhabit it. Not everyone is going to like this film, there is a lot of disturbing content that may make some viewers uncomfortable. It is definitely worth watching. This movie is a masterpiece. | 1pos
|
One of my favorite movies to date starts as an adventure through the wild side of a team of four men from Atlanta. The idea of living the Chulawasse river before it's turned into a lake comes from Burt Reynold's Lewis, who unconsciously drowns his fellas into their worst nightmare. But if the first half of the film appears rather like an action movie, the second half carries the viewer into a totally different story, with our men forced to make a decision that (they know) will change their lives forever. In very bad ways. At the end of the movie, each person is gonna be forced to deal with the scars of what had just to be a quite week-end on the river but muted into a fight for survival. The movie (except some pretty evident goofs) is very well directed and beautifully shot into a paradise of nature that steals your breath. The photography is excellent as well. Voight, Reynolds, Cox and Beatty are all excellent in showing how a single event can ruin in different ways four different lives only tied to the same mistake. | 1pos
|
"Deliverance" is a dead-on example of what wonderful movies came out of the '70s. While your jaw is dropped during a "Terminator" movie, are you really sacred? I don't think so, because you are there to see what new CGIs have been strung together - plot matters not.<br /><br />So many daily situations can become terrifying for no reason at all, because there are so many people involved in daily living - like a trip to the market.....or a walk down a dimly-lighted street. "Deliverance" is SO frightening, because those innocent actions can turn deadly in a heart-beat. Venturing into the backwoods is a frolic in fun? Anyone who has that notion does not read the papers, watch the daily news, nor has not seen some of the other movies that depict the seriousness of "trespassing" into territories where outsiders are not welcome. It is almost unbelievable that the advance dish on "Deliverance" didn't inform almost everyone going to view it this was no picnic, and "squeal like a pig" wasn't a part of "Deulling Banjos".<br /><br />I hate the term "hillbillies", because - as some "users" wrote - that demeans entire regions of people who are very content to live as they know how - without the interference of modern life. Much is made of "inbred" - that is not sexuality peculiar to the backwoods. "Chinatown" should teach us that lesson. However, city-slickers are extremely dumb to enter a closed society and give them attitude. I know lots of "hillbillies" - they are moral people, when left to themselves. Their "justice" can be brutal when they feel threatened or humiliated, just like the "justice" in city streets. They don't need any part of the city - the city should take its canoe-ing and camping to legal sites.<br /><br />"Deliverance" was the last film I found Jon Voight to do any real acting - I hope I'm wrong. He was extremely underpaid for "Midnight Cowboy", because he was unknown, but demonstrated that he could do that role at the drop of a hat. His acting in "Deliverance" was superb. It gave us a clear demonstration ordinary people can move mountains, if it's necessary - but who wants to be thought-of as "ordinary" today? His stifled sob at the dinner was brilliant. Wow! for Burt Reynolds !!! One must ask what led him into those other tacky films? His manliness, although misguided, in this film set the pace for the endurance necessary to make it out of the wilderness - not only in the backwoods, but the wilderness of everyday-life. Ned Beatty was stellar - his underwear may not have had "Versace" stitched on it, but his shell-shocked performance was perfect. As noted, he became stronger than any of the group by the end of the movie. Ronny Cox played the moral guy to the hilt - every man should have his determination to do what is right. Several "users" have theorized he was shot, or lost his balance when he pitched-into the river - my theory is that he was so disgusted with the whole journey, he committed suicide. No gunshot was heard during the scene and Voight and Beatty did not find a wound.<br /><br />James Dicey certainly knows how to weave a suspenseful tale, and was great as the sheriff - it is said he was so terrified of acting he came to the set drunk every day. His character could see the three canoe-rs were guilty of surviving, but also knew they didn't stand a chance against a jury of the local people, no matter how kindly they were treated in "Aintry". He was also aware that the meaner of the locals could be cruel. Justice ? - "don't come back up here again". Not many "users" knew "hillbillies" were used in the film where ever it was possible - what actors could portray them better? The "mountain-men" WERE actually mountain-men.......<br /><br />Every detail of this movie was perfect - no doubt it was dangerous to play in. Play in? Better "fight-for-your-life" in. I've experienced some near-dangerous incidents, and am content to live outside of the fray - you guys who feel your manhood raging can have my part.<br /><br />That we have absolutely killed - and continue to do so - irreplaceable areas of this country in undeniable. To be able to view its grandeur on any media is enthralling, but it leaves a bitter taste to realize some do not care about it. Los Angeles, where I live, is a perfect example: it's built-up right into the territories for wild animals, and steadfastly believes humans come before animals. Those are their rightful habitats - we should leave them be just that. Any wonder why coyotes and bears and wolves wander into neighborhoods? They're theirs.<br /><br />In some less threatening way, we all need to experience the lessons to be learned from "Deliverance" - to understand our advancement technologically does not lead to supremacy. I thank all those city-slickers who went out into the wilderness to produce this modern classic, so that it can scare the heck out of me when I watch it. You can have the thrill of danger - I'll stick to the TV. 30-out-of-10. | 1pos
|
This is one of the funniest series ever! I laughed till my sides split and rolled around on the floor. If only someone would release in America. Region 0 or 1 - Non-PAL please. <br /><br />I know it being released in the UK but that's Region 2 and PAL besides! Let's give this series its fair shake. America must know this series. Moffat is a genius. I loved Tracie Bennett's quirky, goofy role in this. Of course I liked Fiona Gillies! But Tracie was a treasure!<br /><br />Release this show in America! or Show it again on the PBS stations. I need to laugh and laugh again! Please indulge us, please! Please!<br /><br />Thanks for reading. | 1pos
|
A super comedy series from the 1990s (Two series were made in total) that suffered in the UK ratings due to poor scheduling. When you are up against established comedies like 'Minder', even the best new comedies are going to struggle to get noticed.<br /><br />Luckily, I caught the series from episode one and followed it avidly. I mentioned it to friends and family at the time, but everyone seemed to have been watching something else. Very, very frustrating.<br /><br />Anyway, I loved both series and never forgot it.<br /><br />Then I looked it up on the internet and found that an ultra-fan was trying to get both series released 'on his own'.<br /><br />Well, both series are now available on DVD.<br /><br />http://www.replaydvd.co.uk/joking_apart_S1.htm | 1pos
|
For me this is Ealing Studio's most perfect film - as fresh and relevant half a century later as it was the day it was released.<br /><br />As a satire on economic notions of 'growth' and the commercial need for in-built obsolescence, it could scarcely be more up-to-the-minute. And of what other film can it be said that the hero literally wears the plot?<br /><br />Oddly, there are parallels with Jurassic Park, in which messing with the environment will literally turn round and bite you. But Spielberg shied away from the book's brilliant central conceit to tack on some nonsense about 'children'. Hmmm.<br /><br />In The Man In The White Suit, Alec Guiness plays an idealistic young scientist who comes up with a cloth that never gets dirty and never wears out. Suddenly workers and capital at the northern English mill where he is working are united as never before in protection of their livelihoods.<br /><br />Of course, being Ealing, it's a comedy, but it needn't have been. The complex interplay of vested (should that be suited?) interests plays out beautifully, as one by one all parties realize that 'progress' is a threat, and that disposability and waste are what keep the looms turning.<br /><br />But, yes, this is a comedy - albeit a pointed one - and amid the political ironies are delicious performances, and some good old-fashioned knock-about laughs.<br /><br />Nonetheless, it's the biting satire that endures - dazzling and white. | 1pos
|
I can't say whether the post-WWII British comedies produced at the Ealing Studios are an acquired taste or not, but I am completely addicted, and The Man in the White Suit is one of the best. No need to go into the well-known plot about the threat posed to both the textile industry and the textile unions by an indestructible, dirt-resistant fiber. Suffice it to say that the slings and arrows suffered by the naively idealistic Sidney Stratton in pursuing his polymer vision make for a comedic delight. Many of the well-known faces from the world of British character actors - the nervous Cecil Parker, the suavely devious Michael Gough, and the bluntly ruthless Ernest Thesinger - put in wonderful performances. Guinness - as always and forever - is superb, and Joan Greenwood is delectable as Daphne (just the way she enunciates the word "Daddy", makes the entire movie worth seeing).<br /><br />"Knudsen!!!!!!!" | 1pos
|
When I learned of Sir Alec Guinness' death, this was the first of his many films I thought of re-seeing. What a wonderful droll commentary the film provides even after all these years. And Guinness helps to weave the charm into every frame. His eyes and face are as luminous as that white suit he wears. Both he and the film have to be considered lifetime favorites. | 1pos
|
Contains *spoilers* - also, my quotes may not be exact.<br /><br />Everyone always notes the satire in social commentary and economic parallels - how true. But to me, I see this movie as much more than that. I love the symbolism of this guy in a glowing white suit. There is so much confusion and filth in the world around him, but it won't stick. Alec Guiness was the perfect guy to play this - his boyish grins and eternal curiousity are so appropriate:<br /><br />"That's ingenious - can you tell me, what is the ratio of ink to petrol?"<br /><br />The only moment of defeat is when he realizes that his invention hasn't worked after all - standing there almost naked. Yet, more than shame is the simple disappointment that "it didn't work." He's never really intimidated by people. Remember,<br /><br />"But Sidney, we want to stop it too."<br /><br />Barely a moments hesitation before he's off trying to get away again. Does he show any sign of the pain such a betrayal must've caused? No.<br /><br />Also notable is Dapne's role. She is sick and tired of money and power. She thinks she's finally found love, outside of her father's company. At first she doesn't really care about Sidney anymore than anyone else. But that moment when he falls off her car and she goes back to see if maybe she killed him - and yet he is still thinking only of the beauty of his invention. She's finally found something she thinks is worth living for. The funny thing is that it's not even romance. It is friendship, but of such an ephemeral nature that the title almost doesn't fit. It's more admiration, and perhaps even inspiration.<br /><br />Upon her discovery that Michael has no real love for her, and that her father is completely incompetent to take care of her, she gives into cynicism and tries to temp Sidney. Fortunately she finds that there really are people in this world living for more than power, money and lust. What a refreshment:<br /><br />"Thank you Sidney. If you would've said 'yes' I think I'd have strangled you."<br /><br />I love the very end, when all of this crazy business seems to have come to nothing. But then, the bubbly, quirky beat starts up and Sidney goes off, his stride matching the tune: dauntless. Where is Daphne? We don't really know - but they weren't really in love and she wasn't really a scientist. He got help escaping and she got "a shot in the arm of hope." (Pollyanna) A cont'd relationship would've been nice, but as Billy Joel says "it's more than I'd hoped for..."<br /><br /> | 1pos
|
The Man in the White Suit is one of those delightful comedies that Ealing studies made so well in the 40's and 50's. The plot of this one follows a man that invents a cloth that neither gets dirty nor breaks. Of course, this is a huge breakthrough in the world of textiles. However, things are not that simple as the cloth will threaten the way of life of many people, including cloth manufacturers, the cloth mill's workforces, and even an old lady that does her washing every week. The Man in the White Suit is a film about scientific advances, and the way that they don't always help; as the old woman says at one point in the movie, "Why cant you scientists just leave things alone?"<br /><br />Like a lot Ealing comedies, this one stars Sir Alec Guinness. Alec Guinness is a fantastic actor; he has the ability to light up the screen with his presence (and he does in this film, literally), but he also manages to portray his characters in a down to earth and believable way. He is suitably creepy in this film, and he captures just the right atmosphere for his character; an intelligent and ambitious, but slightly naive scientist. Along with Guinness, The Man in the White Suit also features Joan Greenwood, the deep voiced actress that co-starred with Guinness in the simply divine "Kind Hearts and Coronets" and Michael Gough, a man that would go on to get himself the role of Alfred in the Batman films. The acting in the film isn't always great, but it is always decent, and it's fits with the film.<br /><br />The Man in the White Suit is an intelligent, thought-provoking and witty comedy with a moral. The comedy isn't always obvious, and it doesn't always work, but the film is not meant to be a film that provokes belly laughs, so that is forgivable. I recommend this movie, basically, to anyone that is a fan of movies. | 1pos
|
This Alec Guinness starrer is a very good fun political satire of corporate industry, and a light eccentric character study as well.<br /><br />The pacing is a bit slow for a comedy, and none of it is really rolling-on-the-floor type funny, except perhaps the sound effects for the experiments. But it does have its amusing moments, and it is very deft in its execution. The big explosions segment is probably the most farcical element.<br /><br />The union procedures are quite droll, very reminiscent of I'M ALL RIGHT JACK; especially the feminine socialist with a light romantic crush on Guinness' character. The political machinations actually carry the story. Ernest Thesigner is very notable as a heavy.<br /><br />I don't think this one works quite as well as THE LADYKILLERS, or KIND HEARTS AND CORONETS; but even light Ealing comedy is better than nothing. | 1pos
|
I've had this movie on tape for years and started watching it again this morning (while waiting for my laundry --- how ironic!) mostly because I wanted to hear Benjamin Frankel's title music again. I ended up sitting through about the first half hour, entranced by how wonderfully assured the direction, writing, and performances are. The movie is like a who's who of 50s British character stars: Cecil Parker, Michael Gough, Miles Malleson, Duncan Lamont, and particularly Ernest Thesiger, great as the dessicated old giant of the textile mills. Not to mention Alec Guinness and Joan Greenwood, not character players as such but charming, charismatic leads. This is science fiction in its purest form and droll comedy as well. An all-time classic, and I hope no one ever tries to remake it! | 1pos
|
An unassuming, subtle and lean film, "The Man in the White Suit" is yet another breath of fresh air in filmic format from Ealing studios. While I suspect some modern viewers may initially find it obscure, I doubt many would fail to be charmed by the expert way the plot, the themes and characters are languidly relayed during the film's course.<br /><br />The genuinely great Alec Guinness gives another fine characterization in a film perhaps not as obviously virtuoso as Ealing's inspired "Kind Hearts and Coronets" from 1949. This time, he merely plays one character rather than eight, but as the unworldly inventor and scientist Sidney Stratton, he always finds the correct tone and expression. Along with Guinness' subtle, expressive performance, the rest of the cast are effective. Of the main players, Cecil Parker and Ernest Thesiger do stand out. Thesiger is compellingly absurd as the crippled but influential business grandee, while Parker is dependable as the ineffectual yet pivotal mill owner and father. Father, that is, of Joan Greenwood, the deftly delectable comic actress, who is at her insurmountable peak in this film. Resplendent and seductive of aspect and diction, she is quite sublime in this film, a fine contrast with the similarly unusual, but more maladroit Guinness. The scene where she seemingly tries to tempt him is played so adeptly by the pair that it is both deeply poignant and amusing...<br /><br />The themes are handled very effectively, with no easy morals drawn. The complexities of the relationships between science, business and the workforce are insightfully and enjoyably examined. Expertly helmed by Alexander Mackendrick, this film is technically adept in all areas; evocative photography, fitting sound effects and music and a wistful script, all quietly impress. A thoroughly satisfying film, with Guinness and Greenwood magnificent.<br /><br />Rating:- **** 1/2/***** | 1pos
|
THE MAN IN THE WHITE SUIT, like I'M ALL RIGHT JACK, takes a dim view of both labor and capital. Alec Guinness is a scientific genius - but an eccentric one (he has never gotten his university degree due to an...err...accident in a college laboratory). He manages to push himself into various industrial labs in the textile industry. When the film begins he is in Michael Gough's company, and Gough (in a memorable moment) is trying to impress his would-be father-in-law (Cecil Parker) by showing him the ship-shape firm he runs. While having lunch with Parker and Parker's daughter (Joan Greenwood), Gough gets a message regarding some problems about the lab's unexpectedly large budget problems. He reads the huge expenditures (due to Guinness's experiments), and chokes on his coffee.<br /><br />Guinness goes on to work at Parker's firm, and repeats the same tricks he did with Gough - but Parker discovers it too. Greenwood has discovered what Guinness is working on, and convinces Parker to continue the experiments (but now legally). The result: Guinness and his assistant has apparently figured out how to make an artificial fiber that can constantly change the electronic bonds within it's molecular structure so that (for all intents and purposes) the fiber will remain in tact for good. Any textile made from it will never fade, get dirty, or wear out - it will last forever.<br /><br />Guinness has support from a female shop steward, but not her chief. He sees Guinness as selling out to the rich. But when he explains to them what he's done, they turn against him. If everyone has clothes that will last forever then they will not need new clothes! Soon Parkers' fellow textile tycoons (led by Gough, Ernest Theisinger - in a wonderful performance, and Howard Marion-Crawford) are equally panic stricken by what may end their businesses. They seek to suppress the invention. With only Greenwood in his corner (although Parker sort of sympathizes with him), Guinness tries to get the news of his discovery to the public.<br /><br />In the end, Guinness is defeated by science as well as greed. But he ends the film seeing the error in his calculations, and we guess that one day he may still pull off his discovery after all.<br /><br />It's a brilliant comedy. But is the argument for suppression valid? At one point the difficulties of making the textile are shown (you have to heat the threads to a high temperature to actually enable the ends of the material to be united. There is nothing that shows the cloth will stretch if the owner gets fat (or contract if the owner gets thin). Are we to believe that people only would want one set of clothing for ever? What happened to fashion changes and new styles? And the cloth is only made in the color white (making Guinness look like a white knight). We are told that color dye would have to be added earlier in the process. Wouldn't that have an effect on the chemical reactions that maintain the structure of the textile? <br /><br />Alas this is not a science paper, but a film about the hypocrisies of labor and capital in modern industry. As such it is brilliant. But those questions I mention keep bothering me about the validity of suppressing Guinness' invention | 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.