Suna no onna

(part of 30 essays I am writing on the "30 greatest movies". They arewritten in no particular order) For a "30 Best" Films list, this is abit of an unusual choice, but I would have it no other way. Long afterseeing this, the lonely shots of sand, water and wind remain in mymemory. This is a haunting film that refuses to be forgotten.

The film grabs us in as soon as it begins. An entomologist (that’s bugcollector to you) is wandering some lonely sand dunes near the ocean.Already anyone who has appreciated films like "2001" and the TerrenceMalick films for their stunning visual beauty will already beinterested in this film. Hiroshi Segawa’s cinematography beautifullycaptures the dunes in somewhat fuzzy black and white photography. Am Iranting? Maybe. This film probably deserves a bit of a rant.

That night he is offered a place to stay by some local villagers, whohave him stay with a somewhat strange woman…I’d rather not tell youmore of the plot, and encourage you to avoid reading a synopsis of it.Because this is a movie, something happens that is not great news toout entomologist. Its more fun if you let the events play out in frontof you however, so I’ll leave it there.

…which also means I’ll have to keep this review more or less prettyshort. One of the most haunting images in this film involves theentomologist in ragged clothing, stumbling away in the desert, notquite sure where he’s going or if he wants to get there.

Behind the camera, the entomologist is played by Eiji Okada (Hiroshima,Mon Amour), and the title role is filled by the wonderful KyôkoKishida. The film was directed by Hiroshi Teshigahara, who, in a rareand great Oscar surprise, was nominated for Best Director.

I hope this film isn’t too hard to find for you. However long thesearch, its worth seeing.

An amateur entomologist scouring remote dunes is press-ganged byvillagers desperate to keep the sand from subsuming their homes. He isplaced in a pit with a widow who he is to help bail out sand.

There are some clear moments of eroticism between the pair reminiscentof the sensuality present in a contemporary film, 'Onibaba', by KanetoShindo. However I think this part of the film is overemphasised byreviewers/marketers. It's clearly very secondary.

The storyline is a little troubling for me, I was not sure whetherTeshigahara was trying to film an escape thriller in the mould ofPapillon or an allegory about the human condition after Kafka (perhapsthe film is deliberately made at two levels?). Regardless of this whattruly marks 'Woman In The Dunes' out as a classic is its decadent andnihilistic camera-work, shooting the film full of breathtakingausterity. The montage at the beginning where the camera jumps out froma single grain of sand to an entire dune system is one of the best I'veseen from cinema history. The pictures of sand flowing are trulygobsmacking. In its virtuosity the camera-work reminded me of an earlypiece of experimental cinema, H2O (1929 – Ralph Steiner). It may beworth pointing out that DVD releases of this film have widely varyingimage quality and it is worth seeking out the R0 Asmik disc (though Iknow little about the quality of the R2 MoC version).

Eiji Okada as the teacher/entomologist Niki Jumpei paints a portrait ofa self-immolating man. Along with a devastating lack of spiritualitythat leaves him entirely unable to cope with his predicament –mirroring perhaps the position of the secular consumer in modernsociety – we see a man without connections who nobody searches for,who's perverse ambition it seems is to appear as a footnote in anobscure entomology textbook. We see that he is totally unable toconnect to the woman he is imprisoned with (played by Kyôko Kishida).Indeed he is happy when she has to be taken from the pit for medicalattention because it leaves him alone to get on with what he wants todo uninterrupted. His growing monomania with the geology of the pit isin marked contrast to her pathetic need for his companionship. There ismuch in this depiction that would alarm the feminist film historian. Ifound it hard to explain the role of his wife/widow(?) who appeared inflashbacks/visions at junctures in the movie, she seems not to be partof Jumpei's motivation to escape. Her memory appears to be more of atrinket than something alive. An important part of this movie is thesoundtrack by Tôru Takemitsu, whose nihilism I find entrancing. Almostas good as Takemitsu's soundtrack to Shinoda's 'Ansatsu', another greatJapanese movie from 1964.

This film is a portrait of modern human egocentricity that staggerswith its depth of despair, the only film I can truly compare it too inthis respect is Bergman's 'The Silence', though 'Woman In The Dunes' iseven more palpable. I wouldn't recommend viewings of this to thesuicidal. The point where Jumpei escapes from the pit a second time,and then returns of his own accord for me was deeply traumatic. Theduality of the movie switches from allegorical to philosophical at thispoint, which can be a bit confusing. It is a terrifying thing to giveup on life, to become institutionalized so to speak, possibly we allmight recognize this in ourselves. For me this film filled me with alingering horror of immense proportions, you have been warned!

I had always been curious about this film and how Teshigahara managed towrangle an Best Director Oscar nomination among the likes of William Wyler,John Schlesinger and David Lean. Then as now, you can always count on theAcademy’s Directors Branch to throw an annual monkey wrench into the serene,meatheaded commercialism of the rest of the nominees.

"WITD" may be thought of as an incredible "Twilight Zone" episode. Thesimplicity with which the scientist has been captured is quite stunning, yethis ultimate acceptance — even embrace — of his predicament comes as nosurprise: he wanted a simpler life, away from the demands of the"certificates" he groans about as the film commences, and he gets it! "Becareful what you wish for…"

Actually, I half expected the scientist to discover that he’d been trappedin a glass, corked jar not unlike the insects he has captured himself; it’sone of the film’s marvelous metaphors for the meaningless/fulness of humanexistence, for and against the nature that prevails over us all. And it’syet another reason to lament the persistent commercial dreck Hollywoodreleases with such distressing regularity. (Seen "Payback" yet? No thanks!)But then as now, it’s the commercial dreck that prevails: Teshigahara, asdid the three directors previously mentioned, lost the Oscar to Robert Wisefor (yeesh!) "The Sound of Music." The vast multitude of film viewers maynever, ever see this film and yet insist that they "truly love movies." Ifyou see this film and truly enjoy it, you’ll understand just how wrong themultitude is…

This film is a masterpiece. It deals with the most profound feeling ofmankind: freedom. It is not the common spoken freedom, but the interiorone.How can a man surpass such a misery of being kidnapped, thrown into a pitwith a strange and forced to work without rest with no expectation to bereleased? The unredeemable destiny. First the desperation, then malcontentacceptance, and finally the triumph of knowledge. The jail thoughphysicallypresent, is gone. Useless to hold him anymore, he will not go. He has thekey to free all of his capturers, water! They need him now more than he hasneeded them before, and also there is his son and his belovedwoman.All other problems are diminished and he is free to choose accordingly hisconscience, that is the uttermost freedom anyone can have.

The sand keeps raining in… but how much time does our herohave?

A Brilliant film…

A claustrophobic’s nightmare…

The
poor bug collector… He picked the wrong day to go hunting only to endup the hunted. The director like some cruel child torturing a helplessinsect tosses us into the sand pit and forces us to experience the sensorydeprivation of the protagonist.

This simple film becomes a complex study of human nature.This is a great analysis of the power of psychological terror. The breakingdown of the human will and self imposed morality brought about by our fightagainst our evolutionary roots. The sand slowly, methodically and endlesslystrips and beats away our hero’s layers of humanity and reveals the animalunder the clothing of civilized man.

One of top 20 favorite films of all time. Don’t miss this!

A 10 and a 0 poke*

*see my other reviews for a definition

This is an excellent movie. If you haven’t read a plot summary, don’t.Itis impossible to summarize without including some kind of spoiler. Withtheexception of a scene involving quicksand, no one ever seems to be inmortaldanger in this film, but I found parts of it as viscerally scary as TheBlair Witch Project. The mood of the film stuck with me long after, muchasI experienced after watching The Godfather. If I gave out stars, thiswouldget all of them. This is an excellent movie.

I saw this movie nearly 20 years ago and I haven’t forgotten it since.Whole images have stayed with me…the man trying to escape by running upthe walls of sand only to have the walls come tumbling down (with him init). Or the scenes of the two of them bathing the sand off ofthemselves.And the final lovely scene of the man who is accidentally given thechoiceto leave…and what his decision is. It’s one of those completelyunexpected experiences that you don’t forget because it seems so simple.Try and see it in a movie theater like I did because you will get atremendous effect. The stunning black and white photography captures thesand dunes in an eerie way. This is a very hard movie to describe. Yes,ithas a philosophical "bent" but you can enjoy it as a different kind ofadventure or a character study. Either way, I’m glad so many others haveseen it and feel the same way about it.

1964, Japan.Sand and love. Sand and drama. Sand and horror.I saw this movie recently and I won’t forget some scenes in really longtime. It’s just haunting, and has changed my perception about desert andsand…and on top of it you add some erotic scenes that are pure perfectionwithout showing too much nude skin, so at the end you get a very provocativemovie.The director is a real artist in creating an atmosphere that’s just perfectfor the story he tells. Rarely I have seen a better manipulation of light,sound and filming techniques.Many times before I have wondered what a director has in mind when creates amovie so powerful like this one, is he really conscientious about all thefinal effect on the viewer, or is he expecting everybody to have his ownopinion about it? In this case I think the director left too little to yourown imagination, but that’s not too bad, as the movie DOES manage totransmit, what I think it was, the original message of the director (I’lllet you watch the movie, and figure out for yourself thatmessage..).

I gave the movie 8/10 , just because sometimes the sound was not thatgreat, and some scenes had some technical faults(like too dark, or thecontrast on the film of bit off).Anyhow, I strongly recommend this movie to any serious lover of art films,and to anyone who wants to rediscover maybe, some feelings no so wellexpressed in today’s cinema.

Director: Teshigahara Hiroshi Duration: 123 minutes

I was first exposed to the literary works of Abe Kobo back in 2002 whenI picked up and read a tattered copy of his novel _Woman of the Dunes_.I enjoyed the novel, but at the time my brain was so pickled in theworks of Murakami Haruki and Yoshimoto Banana that I did fullyappreciate Abe’s words. During the spring semester of 2003 I took aclass called Visual Culture in Modern Japan and _Woman of the Dunes_was the final novel that we read. After discussing the book, ourteacher had us watch the film adaptation of Abe’s novel, and by seeingwhat the character Junpei experiences, I was able to sympathize withhim greater than I had when I read the novel.

In order to escape his mundane life in Tokyo, the salary-man NikiJunpei travels to a small seaside village to collect insects. Engrossedin his hobby Niki accidentally misses the last bus. In order to aidtheir visitor, the villagers suggest that Niki stay the night in one oftheir homes. Liking the idea of staying in a local’s home and tastingthe local cuisine, Junpei readily agrees to the proposal. Junpei istaken to house situated in a sandpit and there he meets a woman whodutifully prepares him dinner. Her home lacks not only electricity andwater, but it is also quite ramshackle as well. The woman informsJunpei that the sand causes the wood to rot because of its moisture.Junpei scoffs at the woman, stating that sand is dry not moist. ToJunpei’s befuddlement, the woman goes outside to shovel sand which isthen taken away by the villagers. After asking her how often sheperforms this work, she informs him that she does it every night.

When Junpei awakens in the morning, he is startled to see theslumbering naked figure of the woman nearby. The woman is completelynaked with only some cloth covering her face. Sand clings to the restof her body. Not wanting to wake her, Junpei tries to leave quietly,but the rope ladder is gone. He is stuck there with the woman insidethat sandy hole.

_Woman of the Dunes_ is a fascinating film and is considered to beTeshigahara Hiroshi’s finest work. One can feel Junpei’s desperationwhen he struggles to find a way to escape the sandpit’s crumblingsides. Also, _Woman of the Dunes_ is a good example of a film that canbe very erotic without showing naughty bits. There are a couple ofscenes within the film that are quite stirring. One depicting Junpeiwashing sand from the woman’s back and another in which the womanbathes Junpei.

The duration of the of the film on the American cut DVD is 123 minutes,but the Japanese DVD runs for 147 minutes.

"Woman in the Dunes" proved to be a strongly allegorical, strangelyengrossing film.

Based on a novel by Kobo Abé called "Woman in the Dunes" (also thetitle of the picture), it is a long, leaden, grueling account of thearguing and quarreling and lovemaking of a man and a woman trapped in ashack at the bottom af a sand pit amid some remote and desolate dunes.Despite its drabness and some tedium, it grips and agitates the mind.

It begins with the man, an entomologist collecting beetles on thedunes, being directed to the shack by anonymous people from whom he hassought shelter for the night. They lower him into the sand pit with acrude block-and-fall, and there he finds the shabby woman who willinglyprovides him with bed and board.

But when he is ready to leave the next morning, he finds he cannot getout without having a rope lowered to him by the people above. And theyare either absent or are scornful and unwilling to help.

Then the woman tells him that they are eternally caught — or, at least,must remain there at the will of the people above, who send them waterand food. She explains, too, that she is resigned to existence underthese circumstances. "Last year," she says, "a storm swallowed up myhusband and child."

Further, she shows him the necessity of working hard every day toshovel out the sand that has fallen into the shack during the night.

Of course, the man is indignant. He rages and refuses to help. Butslowly he makes his adjustment to this frustrating fate. As the pictureprogresses, he, too, becomes used to the pit, and at the end he doesnot want to leave it when he has a chance.

This is the barest outline of the plot of this more than two-hour film,which is crow
ded with harsh and subtle details of the personalrelations of the two. But it is in the projection of these details,which have strong emotional and psychological significances, that thedirector, Hiroshi Teshigahara, has packed a bewitching poetry andpower.

In describing, for instance, the manner in which the man becomesseduced by the physical presence of the woman, he works such subtlepictorial change that the bare body of the drab widow has a warm andattractive glow; and the physical act is suggested with such closeupsof faces and limbs that a strong emanation of passion surges from thescreen.

He also draws from his performers, Eiji Okada as the man (he played thelover in "Hiroshima, Mon Amour") and Kyoko Kishida as the woman, somesharp and devastating glints of anger sadness, compassion, gratefulnessand despair. In a starkly atmospheric setting and with an eerie musicalscore, this drama develops an engulfing sense of spiritualdiscouragement and decay.

Obviously, it is intended to symbolize the absorption of man and thealienation of his spirit by all the demands and oppressions of hisenvironment. The soul of the individual is clearly challenged in thisexistentialist realm, and it is reduced to resignation and surrender.Not a happy but a hypnotic film.

"Woman in the Dunes" took the Special Jury Prize at the Cannes festivalat the time of its release.

read comments (0)

Kaidan

It's quite obvious that this movie is more about style than content.The four stories, which cannot be connected to each other in anymeaningful way, are for the most part predictable and uneventful.However, the feel of the movie is like that from another planet, andthis, along with the effective use of music and nice visuals, is thereason to see it. The first story was so excruciatingly dull that Igave up on watching the movie, only to came back to it several monthslater. The ending was worth it: a very strange use of sounds, thefinale was almost made like a silent film - and this goes for severalother sequences in the other stories as well.

The first story lasts 35 minutes, but could have easily been told inhalf that time. This is the main problem with the first three stories.Good visuals are one thing, but an almost total lack of storydevelopment should never be excused by this. Who saysquality/"high-brow" movies have to be slow in order to be recognized as"art"? The ending, as I mentioned, makes up somewhat for the totalmonotony. The second story, "Woman In The Snow", is the most effective,with an eerie beginning, a solid ending and terrific visual quality.Sure, one can make fun of the story that ends by the "vampire queen"lecturing/threatening the woodcutter that he'd better behave himselfregarding their three kids, lest she delivers her promise of a swiftblood-sucking execution. She tells him that if the kids ever complainabout him, his life won't be worth a dime. Here's a scene they may havebeen cut out which would clarify this matter somewhat…

Woodcutter: "Just exactly what constitutes a child's 'complaint', ohWife who art nothing but a mere bloodsucking fraud?" Vampira: "Ehm… Ihaven't thought of that…" Woodcutter: "I mean, our youngest is 3years old! What if he moans that I haven't given him enough candy?? Isthat a death-sentence for me then?" Vampira: "Well, I guess that woulddepend on how loud he complains, I suppose…" Woodcutter: "Howloud?… So should I have an instrument that measures the decibel levelof his complaints, or are you talking about the frequency with which hemight rant about his candy?" Vampira: "You're quite fresh for ahumanoid who was only inches away from getting killed 10 years ago and- I might add - now, too!" Woodcutter: "Oh, come on… You won't killme. If you did, that would upset the kids, and you obviously lovethem." Vampira: "Yes, my dumb husband, but my leaving them will upsetthem too - and yet I AM leaving!" Woodcutter: "That's another point!Your departure will make them depressed hence more irritable hence thechance of them complaining about me will increase!" Vampira:"…So…?" Woodcutter: "But that's not fair!" Vampira: "LIFE isn'tfair - especially in Medieval fantasy Japan." Woodcutter: "Tell youwhat… Let's make a deal, a fair arrangement…" Vampira: "Shoot."Woodcutter: "Allow me to have one complaint per year from each child.If I go over that limit, you can suck out all my blood." Vampira: "It'sa deal." Woodcutter: "Better yet: why don't you stay? Me and the kidscan provide you with blood. You can suck ours! Half a liter from eachof us, every three months (so our bodies' blood picture can recover),how's that sound?" Vampira: "Hm… That's four persons providing mewith 2 liters a year… 8 liters! That's almost two full-frown adults:that's pretty much how many I need to kill annually. Not bad!"Woodcutter: "I love you." Vampira: "Ditto."

Or something like that…

For some reason most people state that the third story, "Hoichi TheEarless", is their favourite. While it does have its moments, this isthe longest story (clocking in at over an hour) and by far the dullest.It could have been told in half an hour. I presume that the monotonyincreases the "artistic level" in some people's minds, hence they claimhow much they love it. (Unwritten rule for movie-"art" lovers: "Alwaysbe impressed by dull, overly long sequences in movies. They are so"deep", because they give oneself enough time to switch off from themovie in order to think about the depth of life and the humancondition.") The last story, the shortest one (25 minutes), starts offwell but has a conclusion that is a bit confusing.

If you're looking for an early- or mid-60s movie, try this one.Hollywood was still making fluff at the time…

I came across this gem whilst looking for movies on a online rentalstore, and I was not disappointed. Kwaiden is quite possibly the mostbeautiful film I have ever seen. At a astonishing 184 minutes, thetales are all ones we have heard at some point before, but that doesnot mean that they are told the same, not at all. In 'black hair',anuncaring samurai leaves his sweet loving wife, to find fortune as he issick of being poor. Whilst away, he marries a rich girl, but discovershe is far from happy. He returns to find his first love, but when theyre-unite, there is something not quite right about her. In 'woman inthe snow', a poor woodcutter is shown mercy by a strange woman heencounters on a snowy night, only to lose her years later from apromise he didn't keep. In 'hoichi the earless' a young blind performerwith a beautiful voice is drawn to perform every night for a secretivelord who lives in the woods. It is soon apparent that they are ghosts,and when Hoichi refuses to play for them, they exact revenge. And inthe final tale,' in a cup of tea', a warrior sees an unknown ghostlyface in his cup when he is drinking tea one day.

Hailed as the most expensive movie of its time made in japan, and onthe largest sound stage, Kwaiden's stories are unique and none of themuse the same set, actors, or props. Each one is uniquely different, andyou will agree if you have the chance to watch them! On a backdrop ofbright colour, and an unnerving musical score, Masaki Kobayashi'sadaptation of American Lafcadio Hearn's novel will leave you with adefinite taste for Japanese cinema, if you don't have one already thatis!

The visuals in this movie were stunning… especially the red and blueskies. If you want to see a movie that will shock you like no other,checkthis one out. It is basically broken up into different "stories" or"dreams" based on Japanese legend. Each one is gripping and will keep youguessing as to the outcome.

This movie is so good it actually feels like a bad movie. Thecharacters in all these four stories are so complex they actually seemlike simple people you could meet on the street. And the use ofcinematography is so gorgeous it actually feels like a mundane, regularweek-day in your boring little town.

A lot can be said about Kwaidan, in fact so much can be said aboutKwaidan that it is best to keep silent. I saw the movie so many times,that by now I think I shouldn’t have seen it at all. It’s soimpressive, it leaves you cold at the end.

You have to see this movie - it is such a masterpiece, that it became aforgotten lousy painting thrown someplace in a dusty art shop.

Have not found out yet why this film is frequently listed as Kaidan,but nevertheless it is worth watching this collection of folklore basedstories. It is a mixture of Greek/Western Mythology and traditional(eastern?) 'evil' ghost story telling. Fantastic scenes and surrealsettings, which are enriched with colourful artwork. In true Japanesestyle, effect and composition of the picture, frame by frame, dominatesover a sometimes confusing storyline. Viewers might have theirattention-span challenged, but at least should take time to admire themagical atmosphere of episode 3, about
Hoichi, a blindstory-teller/singer. I was surprised to find out that this, in myopinion, masterpiece was made in 1964. It has a timeless quality.

Kaidan can best be described as a series of breathtakingly gorgeouspaintings brought to life, immortalized on film. While watching, onecannot help but appreciate the stunning visuals — from bright splashesof color stretched across the evening sky to the perfectly elegant, yetsurprisingly simple make-up that can transform the face of anordinarily lovely woman into that of an icy, inhuman mistress. Myparticular favorite, however, was the portrait of Hoichi’s entire bodycovered with hand-paintings of ancient texts. Story wise, I believedthe first tale to be by far the most personally moving, literally totears at one point.

But while the film may be a delight to look at (and it is), but I fearI must say it is by no means an exceptional piece of cinema — at leastnot as far as plot is concerned. Despite the wealth of attractiveimagery, I found myself bored and distracted after the first storywrapped itself up and consistently thereafter — which is not to saythat the individual tales themselves are unimpressive, just poorlyexecuted, in my opinion.

The bottom line is as follows: Kaidan is worth watching for itsenchanting imagery alone, but I might suggest breaking up your viewingonto 4 separate occasions to avoid intense, mind-numbing boredom. Grabsome popcorn and an uncomfortable chair. Avoid pillows, plush sofas andhot drinks — don’t tempt yourself to fall asleep.

7/10

These days, Japanese horror cinema isn’t all that good. The vastmajority of the films being pumped out of the nation are similar ghoststories in the style of the over-popular ‘Ringu’, and it’s all gettingvery dull. In the sixties, however, things were different; as this, andfellow classic; Onibaba, proved. Kaidan translates into English as’weird tales’, and that’s what this film is; a collection of weirdtales gathered from various Japanese legends. The stories are allcentred around ghosts, but don’t let that put you off. It’s not theghosts that are the real stars of the show, in fact; it’s the attentionto detail and the absolutely delicious cinematography. Every frame inthe movie feels like it could easily be framed and hung on your wall.As pretentious as that sounds, it’s actually true and it’s thanks morethan in part to the perfectionist nature of the director, MasakiKobayashi. The man that is known to only complete three takes in anentire day of filming has created a film here that excellentlycompliments that fact. It’s his assured direction that makes sure thisfilm is a success in all technical areas, and it makes for an aesthetictreat for the audience.

The film is split into four different ‘weird tales’, the first of whichis titled ‘Shadowings’. This isn’t the greatest of the four tales, butit adequately shows Kobayashi’s technical prowess and it makes for anice taste of what is to come. The second tale is by far the best. Ithas the most startling imagery, the techniques are in shapely workingorder and it’s the most intriguing and ingenious. People that have seenthe film version of ‘Tales From the Darkside’ will recognise it, and ittells the story of a mysterious woman that lets a young boy live on thecondition that he never tells anybody about her. I knew that tale wastoo clever for Tales of the Darkside. The third tale is the centrepieceof the production, and as such it’s the longest tale of the four.However, this isn’t a good thing as it’s overlong and while the talegives us some nice scenery and the conclusion to it is good; it justgoes on too long and it brings the production on the whole down, whichis a shame. The last tale is a quickie, and introduces us to the ideaof ’swallowing a soul’. This one appears to be the comic relief of thefilm, and it’s the least frightening and least startling of the bunch.It makes up for this with it’s bitter irony, however.

On the whole, Kaidan is one of the most technically adept films thatI’ve ever had the pleasure of viewing. While the story side doesn’talways compliment the visuals, this is the sort of film that is thereto be admired for it’s style and while this ensures that the film can’tbe taken as a complete masterpiece; the capturing of the style is righton the money.

I knew absolutely NOTHING about this movie before I recently watchedit, so I had no idea what to expect. It turned out to consist of fourstrange tales of the supernatural that have no apparentconnection–sort of like four episodes of the Twilight Zone (but muchbetter). Of the four, The Black Hair (about a man who gets rid or hiswife but soon regrets it) and The Lady of the Snow (about a man whounknowingly marries a spirit) are probably my two favorites, but allfour are excellent.

So why did I give it a "10"? Well, this movie stacks up well againsteven the best Akira Kurasawa flicks in that it is highly imaginative,has excellent writing, acting, direction and cinematography. It seemsto have it all!

I have to place this film in the category of very pretty to look at,but lacking substance. Kwaidan is essentially four horror stories stucktogether into a very long film. There are four tales: one of anabandoned first wife, one of a snow woman, one of a monk and ghosts,and the last (and most interesting, but not necessarily my favorite)about people in water.

First of all, the imagery in this film is fantastic. Despite the factthat the films are clearly all shot in a studio setting and lackrealism, the amount of control and precision placed into each shot, thecostumes, the sets, all result in a very amazing look.

The stories themselves are fairly interesting, although simple and verymuch like oral tradition stories, rather than the more complex storiestypically told via film. That is to say, the the ideas in the story arequite good. However, the execution of the stories leaves a lot to bedesired. The pace of the film is remarkably slow. It's like molasses.

Granted, I don't usually mind slow moving films. However, there's somuch time and energy spent on allowing the images to marinate that Igot hypersaturated. At many points, I saw all that I wanted to see andwanted to move on. Each story could easily be told in a five-to-tenminute oral recitation, which would retain all the story points andmake it more compelling. But in Kwaidan, each story is essentiallystretched out to almost half an hour, spending large chunks of timewith images unnecessary to the storytelling. These stories are verypoorly told, and I'm not decrying taking time to set up a scene or torelax a viewer into the scenes. Because of the length of the wait, thepayoffs are a little diminished–when they finally happen, I was leftthinking, "I waited all this while for that?" I mean, again, thestories are good, but imagine sitting for two-and-a-half hourslistening to a guy tell four short ghost stories. It's just notefficient.

However, there is a tremendous display of culture (and even somehistory) present in the film. I can see the interest and value of thefilm for that, combined with its visual artistry. However, I feel thatonly those with an intense interest in Japan will find all the elementsworthwhile. That is to say that Kwaidan is really just for a selectaudience. Average moviegoers and even many cinephiles will find itlacking. I certainly had a hard time staying awake through itschapters. My favorites story: The Woman of the Snow. Most Interesting:Cup of Tea. Most cultural display: Hoichi the Earless. Scariest story:Black Hair.

Even with all that, I can't recommend it except to those with extremelystrong interest in Japan and Japanese culture (or those that just lovepretty pictures). The rest of you, I suggest you find a Japanesestoryteller to tell you the stories. You'll get a better effect inabout a fifth of the time. Pass. 5/10.

"kwaidan" is the most elegantly made horror movi
e, (along with the originalversion of "The Haunting"), ever made. It starts out slow and even a littleboring, looking more like a Japanese episode of "Gunsmoke" than a horroranthology, but boy, does it take off at thee end of the first story. I neveractually expected to be afraid of it, I just expected to enjoy the lavishvisuals and imaginative beauty of the whole thing, but this one packed somefrightening punch, so to speak. There are really sinister moments, such aswhen the warrior comes and tears off the poor boy’s ears. The story with the"ice woman" is absolutely surreal and beautiful, and you will be completelyengrossed in it after you give it five minutes of your full attention."kwaidan" is probably one of the best horror movies ever made–buyit.

read comments (0)

My Fair Lady

I first saw this film on its original release and have seen it at leasta dozen times since. It's a superb film version of one of the veryfinest musical ever written. Consider: one of George Cukor's bestefforts as director; Rex Harrison, Stanley Holloway, Gladys Cooper,Jeremy Brett, Wilfred Hyde-White, Theodore Bikel, Mona Washbourne, asgood as cast as you ever might get; Cecil Beaton costumes; some of themost splendid art direction ever; and that wonderful score.

Why a seven, then? One of the great miscastings, that's why. AudreyHepburn is like a void in the role of Eliza. She never gets the cockneyaccent on the first hour. Post-accent, she is justconfused–sentimental and shrewish by turns. If Warner had had anygumption, they would have cast Julie Andrews, who owned the role. Andit isn't an easy role, either–I saw a revival of Pygmalion some yearsago with Amanda Plummer, who also failed to get the role at all.

The musical's departure from Shaw–putting Higgins together withEliza–has always always struck me as sentimental twaddle which makesnonsense of the underlying themes of the play. It fits Hepburn'sperformance–unfortunately. And then there is the dubbing from MarnieNixon, the Great American Voice. Partly because of this, Hepburn'sacting in the musical numbers verges on the painful.

It's very unfortunate that Harrison's performance–one of the greatones of the 20th century–is saddled with Hepburn's. Thank goodness therest of the cast is worthy of Harrison.

Is this Higgins' story, or Eliza's? Higgins', I think–much moreobviously in the original play. That's why this is still a borderlinegreat movie–the casting of Eliza can't completely ruin it. But itknocks a good 30% off the rating.

Of course you should see it. But try to look past a sentimental view ofHepburn. In this–and indeed in most of her films, except two orthree–she just isn't that good. She isn't even that charming–justannoying.

This movie is the first that made me realize that the Oscar is notinfallible. Compare it to MARY POPPINS, and then tell me that MP is notthebetter movie by LIGHTYEARS! The direction is dull and uninspired; you getthe impression that Cukor just nailed the camera to the floor, and thenasked the actors to move in front of it. Hepburn is too elegant to beconvincing in the title role. The acting of the others is mechanical;Pauline Kael opined that Rex Harrison played Henry Higgins one time toomany; the same can be said of the other actors, who look bored anddistracted. Only Stanley Holloway shows any zest in his role, and hisperformance is fatally sabotaged by the poor staging of his two bignumbers,WITH A LITTLE BIT OF LUCK and GET ME TO THE CHURCH ON TIME. Indeed, thechoreography of this show is so generally poor and unimaginative that youwill wonder whether this is really a musical. Remember THE MUSIC MAN: nowthat IS choreography! Altogether, we are talking about a movie so dismalandboring that I have never had the courage to watch it a second time, quiteunlike MARY POPPINS, which I have watched a dozen times. So, be warned:don’t believe the four stars that TV GUIDE regularly–andinexplicably–gives this film. This is a FIASCO that does not deservethem!

"My Fair Lady" is about a young woman in London in the early 1900s. Shesells flowers in the streets, dresses very shabbily, and talks with ahorrible cockney accent. (Eliza Doolittle, played in the movie byAudrey Hepburn, but when it first came out on Broadway, it was playedby Julie Andrews- Julie was Maria in The Sound of Music and the Queenin The Princess Diaries.) One evening, after a ball, a professor ofEnglish, Henry Higgins, hears her talking and (after singing one of themany songs about how "The French speak French, the Greek are taughttheir Greek, so why can’t the English learn to speak?") wagers with hisfriend that he can pass her off as a lady in a florist shop, or aDuchess at the Embassey ball, by teaching her to speak proper British.Henry Higgins is played by Rex Harrison, who starred in the first movieversion of Dr. Doolittle. So Higgins takes her into his home anddresses her properly and tries to teach her a good accent. It’s veryfunny, for some of the many things in the movie: before the ball, theytake Eliza to the Ascot races, and although she speaks with a fakedproper accent, she has terrible grammar, and she says things like howafter her Aunt died -from too much rum- someone "pinched" her new strawhat that was to have been willed to her- and all of Professor Higgins’sfriends think her conversation is perfectly charming and the latestfashion, Higgins is mortified, of course. And then, in the middle ofthe race, everyone is perfectly quiet and elegant watching the horses,and no one says a word. Except for Eliza, who shouts out, "come on,Dover, move your blooming a*r*s*e !" and then some of the fine ladiesfaint. They take her to the ball in the most stunning dress ever,she doesn’t do anything wrong at all, the Queen stops in the middle ofthe procession down the hall to tell her she’s perfectly charming, andthe prince dances with her!!! He’s so handsome! When they come homeafter the ball, she starts crying because she realizes -what is shegoing to do now? She can’t live with Henry Higgins once her training iscomplete, think how the neighbors would gossip! And she can’t workin a "florist shop" as Higgins said at first now, because she hasbecome so fine and people would recognize her- although it is morerespectable to work in a fine florist shop than to sell flower bunchesin the street, it is a position less than a lady who doesn’t have towork and goes to balls with princes. But it has a happy ending-although not said, it is intimated at the very last, despite Higginssinging two songs about how terrible and unorganized women are, and howhe would never marry, that they get married and live happily everafter. The End. It’s a lovely cute movie, it’s happy, and has someof the most famous songs in it. Here’s some clips of it, listen tothem!

http://www.amazon.com/exec /obidos/tg/detail/-/B000002AW2/qid=1125605575/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-4008246-2626449?v=glance&s=music

You’ll like them, and it will make you want to watch the movie.

(Say the following with a Cockney accent.)

Hello. I want to tell you about "My Fair Lady", a classic musicalstarring Audrey Hepburn and Rex Harrison. Harrison plays Dr. HenryHiggins, who bets that he can turn Cockney flower lady Eliza Doolittle(Audrey Hepburn) into a real lady. Along the way, there’s lots ofsongs, and Audrey Hepburn sings beautifully (well, of course; she was abeautiful woman (although I know that she was dubbed)). If you ask me,the songs didn’t really add much, but either way, the movie’s worthseeing.

An important point here is that Audrey Hepburn does a better job fakinga Cockney accent than Dick Van Dyke did in "Mary Poppins" (well duh,anyone could do a better job than he did, no offense to him). Still, Idon’t think that this movie deserved Best Picture for 1964 when "Dr.Strangelove" was nominated. Maybe this movie’s got no cinematic valueoverall, but it’s okay to watch.

as many of my peers(OLD FARTS),,i had the pleasure of seeing this playon Broadway,,and when it opened on the big screen,,when i found it tobe on TV tonight(SATURDAY,10/20/07),i just had to see it one moretime.i have read some of the numerous comments posted,and offerthis..the comparisons made between julie Andrews and Audrey Hepburn,mayor may not be true.the commentators have their opinions,whether weagree with them or not.the "play",on stage or screen is truly what itsall about.the memories brought back to me while watchingtonight,were,,to me the joy of seeing this "show",again.my thanks tothe turner classic movie channel.movies like this are rarely seen byour younger generation,and i
bear responsibility,for allowing this tohappen.to all the old farts who read my comments,,make yourgrandchildren aware of this film,and so many others like it..thank you

I already know I'm going to be in the minority here but this is myhonest opinion of this film. The good points,Audrey Hepburn who wasfunny and appealing in her role,the storyline,the Marni Nixon vocalswhich Audrey lip-synched. Now,the rest!

I watched this movie only because it won the Best Picture Oscar for1964. I have seen all movies that have won best picture,including,"TheDeparted". I can honestly say though,with the exception of the goodthings mentioned,I have never been so bored and even more annoyed atthe same time!

Nearly 3 hours to tell a story that could have been told in 2? Two menwagering about turning a cockney bag lady into a lady of manner &etiquette? 3 hours of listening to Rex Harrison and his male friend"talk-sing"? He's more entertaining in "Dr. Doolittle". (In this case,Iwish he had "did little". ) I had liked his acting in "The Ghost andMrs. Muir" and wish he'd stuck to drama.

I am not exaggerating when I say that by the end of this movie,I reallyhad a headache! I have never had that happen watching a movie butthat's only because other musicals I have watched may be long but have"normal" singing or they are simply 90 min. to 2 hours.

Best Picture? Why? I really don't get that at all,when there werecertainly more deserving films. I even like "Gigi" better than thisoverlong bombast! The only good songs…."The Rain In Spain","Wouldn'tIt Be Love-rly","With A Little Bit O'Luck" and "I'm Getting Married Inthe Morning".

I will never,ever sit through this movie again,once was more thanenough! 3 stars,period!

I love musicals, and the music in My Fair Lady contains some of myfavorite tunes.

But I just watched it again now in 2007 (perhaps my fifth watching) andthe relationship between Higgins and Eliza was just downrightsickening.

Standards are changing, for the better. And what was acceptable in 1960is not so today. Perhaps it is that I now have my own daughter, and I'mthinking about what sort of husband she may choose? By the end of themovie, we are all rooting for Eliza. We want Higgins to get hiscomeuppance. We want him to be redeemed, to be improved, to see thelight.

But the last line of the movie doesn't meet our expectations: It isoffensive and hurtful.

Bottom line: The music is great, but the movie would be 100% better ifthe ending had Higgins making a sacrifice.

Lumbering,overlong musical based on the Broadway hit,whichinturn was based on Shaw’s play.Major assets: the lavishcostumesand Harrison’s on-target performance.Major flaws: the too-stageysets,the irrelevant musical numbers involving Hepburn’sfather,and Hepburn herself,who is,in the first part,utterly unconvincing (later sheimproves).The 1938 "Pygmalion" is too talky but still better.

'My Fair Lady' is a musical re-working of Bernard Shaw's play'Pygmalion'. Starring the lovely Audrey Hepburn and Rex Harrison, andwith direction by George Cukor, it was always going to be a big hit,but I for one do not consider this up there with the best musicals ofall time.

For one thing, it is much too long. The run time is close to threehours, and the exuberance and spontaneity of musicals always seem towear off after the two hour mark. The production values are magnificentthough, the songs are superb and it is entertaining enough to watch for170 minutes. A family favourite because it really is a 'nice' film, italso sadly misses the point of Shaw's original play. Shaw's aim was toshow the class divide in England through the placement of the Cockneyflower girl, Eliza Doolittle (Hepburn), in upper-class English society,a territory she is unfamiliar with. Through Henry Higgins' (Harrison)bet that he can make a lady out of a common wench, Eliza is plucked offthe streets and transformed into an elegant 'lady'.

I've always disliked the presentation of the poor in these things asgloriously happy, sing-song people who are ignorantly happy with theirlot- exactly the way they are portrayed herethrough song and dancenumbers.This also becomes less about class and wealth and more aboutromance,so that disappointed me too. It is a sharp script, yet there ishardly any truly biting social commentary.

Hepburn's performance is alright to good, without being exceptional.She simply was too glamorous and upper-crust to play the Cockney girl,and her accent is quite bad. Her songs are dubbed in too, so she's notactually singing here, folks. Harrison looks old next to Hepburn buthis performance is much better than hers, he won the Academy Award forit. It is notable that they don't actually lock lips in this one, butthe romance is there. The costumes are terrific, and Hepburn starts tohit her stride reasonably well when she is back in her usual glamourclothes, but there is nothing approaching her best work here.

Still, audiences continue to love this film, so it can't be really bad.Perhaps we all just love seeing an ugly duckling to beautiful swan(though how Hepburn can ever be perceived as ugly is beyondme)transformation, it satisfies the romantic in all of us.

6/10.

As a rule I absolutely despise musicals. The idea that people are talkingand then, suddenly, burst into song would be enough, in the real world, tosend for the looney wagon.But I must admit that, whenever MFL is shown on TV, I usually click on to itseveral times during the showing to try and catch some of the great songs. Icould not care less about the storyline or what becomes of any of thecharacters. Marni Nixon has always been a favorite of mine and she has avoice that is stronger and much more pleasant than that of Julie Andrews,who was rejected by the film’s producers for the role of Liza. I also enjoyStanley Holloway and I was certainly perplexed when I read that he was notthe first choice to play Liza’s dad in the film. With their typical thirstfor "name recognition" type actors, the part was actually offered to JamesCagney who, wisely, turned it down.

read comments (0)

Onibaba

While U.S. directors were creating staid and dull dramas and comedies in theearly sixties, Shindo created a film that was far beyond what the U.S.audiences could have bared. Hollywood? Shindo could have burned Hollywooddown to the ground with this film. No standard Hollywood cameraworkhere…. in Onibaba, the camera is a weapon, the tension is physical… Weare presented with three characters: a mother-in-law, a daughter-in-law,and a soldier who has returned from war who live like peasants and struggleto survive on a desolate plain on the outskirts of a war near Kyoto, Japan. The permutations of possible relationships and situations between thesethree are endless…. but only one can occur and we wait breathlessly forthe result.

"Onibaba" is a bit of a devious masterpiece : beyond its apparentsimplicity, lie many ominous depths of unspoken meanings -in other words,it’s a true Japanese work of art.

Let’s take it from the start : at first sight, it could be presented as abattle of the sexes in a primitive environment. We have water… we havelong ferns of grass blowing in the wind (more about these later)… we havethe Earth, and its terrible pit of death… and we have relentless heat,that drives everyone mad. Passions run high, and they seem pretty primal :survive, kill, copulate. …But nothing is that simple.

Stylistically, the music, for instance, is rather modern : discordanttrumpets. Very minimalist (I like minimalist), black and white (rather thancolour) working to perfection, for the Gothic horror theme.

To start with, what exactly is the relationship between the two women ? Whyis the older one so jealous of the soldier…. ahemm… (echo of Lawrence’s"The Fox"). One can understand how the younger one would feel, shall we say,quite "moved" by the only male around -even though he’s no oil painting ! Tocarry on with my remark / simile on the elements, her passion erupts likefire, and she can’t wait to run to him every night in, er, heat indeed."Onibaba", quite simply, is a sweaty film. (Anyone remember Brando’sscandalous see-through T-shirt in "A Tramway Named Desire" ?) The characterscan’t get any release, choking in their huts devoid of fresh air, simmeringin the oppressive heat. Now compare their state of frustration with thebeautiful images of the long grass waving in the breeze in the dark ofnight, as the -rather cute, if I may say so- young woman runs with abandonto her lover. I couldn’t help wondering whether T. Malick had these imagesin mind, when he shot his "Thin Red Line"…

More on elements : the film, I thought, is quite coy about the actual bottomof the pit. The"boxes within boxes principle": surely, an ignoble magma ofdecomposing corpses should carpet it; but the filmmaker chooses not tostress this -literally- underlying visceral detail, leaving it to ourimagination. Where we see skulls and bones, there must be… gooey deathbeneath it all, worms under the dried out skeletons (remember this takesplace near a lake, too) : liquefying, life and death, primal physicaldimension at the core of the story / film.

The two protagonists survive by killing soldiers and stripping them of theirweapons / armour. …But are they wrong to do so ? This world at large, thatthey are no longer part of, is only glimpsed through the spectre of war anddevastation. The Samurai encountered (sporting the fateful Kabuki mask)insists on the idea and presence of evil. (Little did he know -Oops, toolate, down the hole you go, sonny !) In that respect, the two women areactually making the most of the situation, fending off for themselves. Whocan say who’s wrong, and who’s right ? They too get ripped off, when theysell off their loot.

Jealousy. …And what if the "butch" woman had a point ? In a way, the warveteran could well be lying, as to the circumstances of his comrade’s death,and the idler does steal her precious accomplice away from her. See, morenuances of grey within the black and white.

And, finally, the mask. Terrible question : what if it actually did revealthe true face of its wearer, once torn off ? (Evil beneath good, as the casemay be.)

To conclude swiftly, "Onibaba" is a wonderful piece of poetry, which dragsyou in all sorts of directions (not least thanks to its exposed glimmeringbreasts !), before ending very darkly indeed. It will leave you wonderingabout the characters’ motivations for quite a while. Ghosts have always beentraditional in Japanese culture… but with many different meanings; …upto you to unravel "Onibaba" for yourself.

I really had no idea what I was getting into before watching this film.The story is pretty simple: a woman and her daughter-in-law eek out anexistence during a warring medieval Japan by murdering lost or woundedsamurai and selling their belongings. Then, a male neighbor escapesfrom his conscription and returns home, inciting lust, jealously andsuspicion. Ooh.

I can't help but say that I was disappointed in the film. But it has alot of merit to it. First of the all, the black and white photographyis absolutely gorgeous and mesmerizing. The soundtrack is also reallyimpressive–I liked it a lot, although it might just be my avante gardebackground speaking for me. But on top of this, I wasn't particularlyimpressed. I found myself yawning through the film, even though I fullyunderstood what the film was about and why it was going about doingwhat it was doing.

I can't say it's because I prefer Hollywood-style film and stories. Godknows that I've watched and loved my fair share of films from all overthe world. This film, however, with its slow exploration of sexualitywas rather uninteresting. Maybe because there was nothing surprisingabout it? Maybe because I saw nothing I didn't expect? (Outside of theaforementioned photography and soundtrack. I think I'd also have toadmit that the editing was pretty neat at times.) I think the problemwith the film, for me, is that it doesn't sufficiently build up itscharacters enough for me to care whether there's lust or not, andwhether there's anything really at stake when it's started or stopped.I couldn't care less what happened to the characters. And so therereally was nothing but an exercise in film-making set before my eyes.Yes, good craft, but the matter of the film reminds me of one too manyfilm school shorts that I've seen.

Points for the artistry, but boo on the storytelling. I can see whypeople might like it, but it certainly didn't work for me. 6/10.

Well, Onibaba is a classic, and the movie in it self is a good one, butI don't think it should be in the "horror" list, it's more a drama. Themovie is a short-story about an old woman and her daughter-in-law. Thereason I actually gave this movie a 5 is the ending, or the last 15min, it could have been much better. Because I expected that the oldlady would be driven by insanity "after wearing the mask", and killeveryone around, brutally, or maybe because the mask it self is evil,well well. The sex-scenes could have been better. It was really cleverto make this movie black & white, believe me the same movie in colorswould have been a bad one. Onibaba is a great movie, but again neitherscary or creepy.

From a visual perspective, Onibaba is reminiscent of much of Kurusawa'searly films. There's a similar visual style, high contrast black andwhite with nature flowing all around. So I rather expected from thefirst few shots that I would like the movie.

Unfortunately, there wasn't much going on in it. Watching it just feltlike waiting and waiting for something to happen. Kurusawa usedstriking visuals to emphasize interesting stories, but here the visualsare just window dressing for a slight story. I suppose it's got somesort of mood going for it, but I didn't even get much of
a feel forthat.

I appreciate all the nudity though. You can never have too many breastsin a movie. Although until someone tells me that in the time the moviewas set women generally walked around topless, I'm going to consider ita silly soft core-porn approach to cinema.

I would just like to point out that Hachi (the male lead) was not a"deserter" but an escaped conscript, and he definitely did not "escape"fromthe "kill samurai, take armour" plan that the women wererunning.

Also, the women always killed the samurai and then threw their bodies intothe hole.

This was not a horror film for 3/4 of the movie, but simply the story oftwowomen living in war, with a cheap love plot.

The mask, which comes in at the end, is clearly demonic, but it does notmake the film into a "horror" movie, it really just leaves the viewer withafeeling of where did the demonic angle comefrom"

"Onibaba" (Japanese, 1964): Directed by Kaneto Shindo. This film wouldbe so much less in color than the powerful black and white in which itwas created. Think Film Noir with the extra flair of theater and theirrational. A constant, calming-yet-ominous rustle of an entiresweeping Plain of reed (think wheat, but higher than corn) is the stagefor a seemingly simple tale about a mother and daughter-in-law, leftalone on this Plain, who must fend for themselves during the Medievelwars of Japan. They kill wayward soldiers to scrape out a "living"…strip them of equipment, and trade it all for food. Enter a brutishman - an escapee (AWOL) from the war - who complicates their lives.Never accept Japanese films for what first appears on the surface.Expect symbols, spirits, and hard learned lessons during a situationthat moves from "normal" to bizarre. Full of warnings, guilt, and fear,they clearly serve as teaching tools to the culture. Stepping back,most art forms do that for their own culture most of the time. Perhapsthe Japanese use a more stylized, therefore obvious, presentation.Expect to be intrigued within the first minute, as the camera floatsand sweeps over the reed Plain, finds a large Hole (a la "Eraserhead"),gives you vague clues of things to come, and then floats off again tofind the women… Yikes!

Onibaba (1964)

*** (out of 4)

Japanese folk/horror film from director Kaneto Shindo is one I've beenmeaning to watch ever since I heard it influenced the demon in TheExorcist. An old woman and her daughter-in-law kill soldiers to selltheir outfits so that they can survive but when a man returns home fromthe war and starts an affair with the daughter, the old woman tells hera story of demons. There a lot to really love in this film but I hadsome major trouble with the final twenty minutes of the film. When the"demon" finally appears, we know who it is and what it is so this tookaway any chance for any shocks or scares. Another problem is that sincewe know who the demon is, the final two or three chases become quitetiresome as we know what's happening. That aside I really enjoyed thefilm and the wonderful atmosphere created by the director. Thebeautiful opening sequence in the reed field really set the film upnicely and there are countless quiet moments where the director justadds on more atmosphere. The walk between the old woman and the maskedsoldier was quietly eerie as was the scenes towards the very end. Iguess it's somewhat unfair to call this a horror film as I feel thebest elements were the sexual ones between the young girl and theneighbor. The terrific Scope cinematography and music score also adds alot of depth.

Onibaba is one of those films that takes a while to get going, but onceit does, it hits hard and stays with and almost haunts the viewer wellafter it's over. I saw it for the first time last night and I stillcan't get some of the surreal images out of my head. The movie is theperfect example of how horror doesn't need fancy CGI and a ton of bloodto be scary.

The acting is very solid all the way through and I really believed thatthese characters were struggling through the war. The story is greatand very creepy. It is also shot very well. It's a shame that thismovie is more well known because I think everyone should see it for thesurreal experience it gives the viewer. It is a true cinematicmasterpiece that deserves much more recognition.

Horror fans, you won't be disappointed with this one. Get ready to beterrified!

This is simply one of the most repetitive and boring movies I haveseen. Classic Japanese cinema can be very interesting and exciting likethe hidden fortress for example, but Onibaba turned out to be somethingso slow moving that you feel like you are watching noh drama on film.The action moves extremely slow, despite the random deaths in the film,which really should be exciting, but generally aren't. If you have ashort attention span then realistically you will have no chancewatching this.

On the other hand it certainly does do a good job of showing what lifewas like during the dark ages of Japanese history, but realistically ifyou are interested in that, read a book about it, because in this 104minute film there is about 15 minutes where anything happens and about90 minutes of running through a field. This movie could have easilybeen a short rather than full feature film. O

read comments (0)

Per un pugno di dollari

My favorite western being The Good the Bad and the Ugly (that’s where Igetmy alias). I do however love AFOD, because I think this film is a trueclassic in almost every sense; from things like the minimilistic approachtothe western town, to the final gunfight, which has to be one of thegreatestever. Long live the man with no name!

The first of Sergio Leone’s "Nameless Man" series started with a bang in1964 with "A Fistful of Dollars". Clint Eastwood finally got his big breakin the Italian Cinema here as a drifter who happens along a small Mexicanvillage which has been torn apart by two criminal families (one led by GianMaria Volonte and the other by Wolfgang Lukschy). Of course it is up toEastwood to put the families against one another, save the townspeople andalso make a little money in the process. The plot is pretty simple, but thefilm is done so well by Leone that its numerous shortcomings can beoverlooked. "A Fistful of Dollars" was proof that the Western could go intoa dark place where violence and adult situations are always constants. 4stars out of 5.

I watched the good, the bad, the ugly first before i saw this film andi could definitely say that leone’s style has changed. A fistful ofdollars was a good western but not a great western. Of course i putthis film above Romanticized American westerns that clint did like hangem high (yeash) but i think the problem with this film is what someoneelse posted up. Clint’s character is more tougher or better when he hasa good supporting character to play off of (like lee van clef or elifrom Leone’s other films). Gian as Ramon was alright, but he justdoesn’t have enough depth to his character to really get the film goingand make Clint seem more renegade. Some parts of the film are reallydark, other parts are barely audible, but hey Leone had to start fromsomewhere. I would suggest watching this film though because it’s stillbetter than a lot of westerns out there. Watch this one first thoughbefore you see For A Few Dollars More or The Good, The Bad, The Ugly.

This sure is quite a movie.

I had seen "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" prior to this one, and so Iwas expecting something quite similar. This movie is definitely no GBU,but it is a good film nonetheless.

The Man With No Name (Clint Eastwood) arrives at a small town that isruled by two rivaling families, one dealing in liquor, the otherdealing in arms. After a not-so-pleasant encounter with one family, theMan With no Name buys some food and hires a room at a cantina. To paythe cantina owner what he owes him, he decides to work for the Rojos,the family that has the upper hand. And he demonstrates his skills bykilling four members of the rival family, the Baxters. What follows isa movie where the Man With No Name plays both families in a plot thatinvolves gold stolen from the government.

This movie was shot with a low budget, and it shows, but it doesn’tprevent the gunfights from being fast and exciting. It’s always apleasure to see the Man With No Name draw his pistol with blindingspeed and take out three to four men at once. And the climax isamazing. It isn’t quite on the same level as the unbelievable climax of"The Good, the Bad and the Ugly", but it’s definitely the best scene in"A Fistful of Dollars". This sure is a showdown at high noon.

And last but not least, I must say something about the atmosphere thisfilm creates. Every person in town feels like a dirty peasant, workingall day in the scorching heat. Every outlaw looks like an outlaw. TheMan With No Name is both cool and menacing. And the cinematography inthis film is spectacular.

Anoyone who enjoys movies must watch this one.

if you like the movies that are not about who is good and who's bad.this one is just for you…of course you take a side and be probably onthe handsome guy's side who can't be described as a decent citizen byany means . what's the point of being honest having morale values ifyou are all surrounded by people who don't now what they mean… justdo what it takes to survive… actually the guy just does all what ittakes to get a for a few dollars more. that's all… except for theending where we see some acts which a decent guy would do… in myopinion this is the best movie of S.Leone's trilogy of "a man without aname" and it is actually underrated

This was Eastwood's first big hit. If you love Eastwood, or westerns ingeneral, you need to go see this movie. With a tremendous plot, cast,and original western flavor (music, sounds, etc.), this movie trulymade Clint's career.

Think of the other movie's that followed; obviously "A Few DollarsMore", and the "The Good, The Bad and the Ugly", but even such classicsas "Two Mules for Sister Sara" and "The Outlaw Josie Wales". "AFistfull of Dollars" really launched Eastwood into the fame ofHollywood.

In this movie he successfully captures his acting looks and motionsthat will give him success for the next few decades. His tone, hismovements that truly made him an American icon began in this classic.Even his role in the "Diry Harry" sagas used several mannerisms fromthis blockbuster.

A Fistful of Dollars is generally considered director Sergio Leone'sleap into Hollywood, not to mention rocketing a small time TV Star towestern fame and a Hollywood career surpassing nearly everyone else. Itis plain and simple easy to see why Fistful of Dollars has become suchan utter classic and there is three main things that make this filmexactly what it is and on top of that makes the follow up films (whichare not sequels) equally as brilliant. The first is the star Mr. ClintEastwood. Eastwood is the exact definition of cool. The man oozesmasculinity and there is never anyone faster with a gun, tougher in afight, or more modest on screen to always allow his character to getthe crap beat out of him at least once because he always comes back.The second is the extreme talent of Director Sergio Leone who was wayahead of his time. If Mr. Leone were alive today and given the 100-200million dollar action budget of Hollywood the man would be an absolutesuperstar. I say this because he made incredible western, action flicksof budgets of less than one million dollars. In fact Fistful of Dollarswas more for approximately 200 THOUSAND DOLLARS and it's one of themost entertaining action flicks I've seen in ages. You would never knowthe low budget with the exception of the sound being off a little insome places. The third thing is the western atmosphere. To someone whois not a fan of westerns then Fistful of Dollars would likely bore youto pieces. Myself…I just recently became a fan, discovered through mylove of Eastwood as an actor that I love Westerns and Fistful ofDollars is the quintessential Western but set in Mexico.

Clint Eastwood is the man with no name again…although he is referredto as Joe, so I'm not sure why he has no name?? Anyways Eastwood is thefast gunned, smart talker who sees that there is some money to be madein a small Mexican town by playing two rich families of smugglersagainst each other. "The Rojo's on one side, the Baxter's on the otherand me in the middle…sound like there is money to be made."Eastwood's character this time around is a little lighter than others.He's not as dark and brooding and even has a bite of sarcasm and humorto him at times. Out of all of his Stranger performances this is hismost fun and most watchable because he's a cinematic hero. Quickwitted, and action oriented. Gian Maria Volontè plays the head of theRojo family, Ramon. He is set up as a bit of a villainous hero in thearea until Eastwood saunters along to make him eat his words. He isvery good as Ramon and definitely the more evil of the two families.Sieghardt Rup
p plays Ramon's brother Esteban and although he is notquite as villainous he does a good job in his role as well.

The rest of the cast all play their roles very well in one way oranother however small. The film flows at breakneck speed and everyscene is riveting and compelling. The film reminded me a great deal ofanother great movie from a few years back with Bruce Willis called LastMan Standing. I just discovered now that indeed both Fistful of Dollarsand Last Man Standing were based on the same 1927 story which explainsthe comparisons. If you're a fan of Westerns you'll love the gun fightsand the ambiance they have created and a sub story regarding theAmerican forces being set up during a gun deal and if you just loveaction films you'll love the in depth and incredible story of twofamilies with Eastwood in the middle turning them against each other.It's definitely one of my favorites from here on in. 9/10

I did not like "Per un pugno di dollari" the first times I saw it as Ilikeit now. Now I see it as one of the greatest Westerns ever.

"Per un pugno di dollari" is not the best of the dollar movies, but stillextremely well done. Those who claims that Sergio Leone’s direction hereisn’t as good as it would be later has got the wrong idea, with smallbudgethe made everything as good as he could and succeeded well.

Ennio Morricone’s music is over the top (the opening credits are not tobemissed) and there are great acting from Clint Eastwood, just as good asToshiro Mifune in "Yojimbo".

(Spoilers ahead)

Sergio Leone did not just copy ‘Yojimbo’, even if some claim him to havebeen doing that. Just the end-duel between Eastwood and Volenté is thelatent Leone motive: the gun cannot be beaten by the rifle - there is anewera of Western, where there is no place for rifles (John Wayne oftencarriedrifle but The man with no name didn’t use rifle much at all in thedollar-trilogy).

Rating: 9 of 10.

Though Fistful of Dollars could, perhaps, be counted by most Leone andEastwood fans as being the least of the three films in the Dollarstrilogy, this film does prove one thing that hasn’t changed since itsrelease- a remake can give an equally powerful punch in its executionas long as it’s faithful to its source story and can make it on its ownterms. Yojimbo was one of Akira Kurosawa’s finest samurai works, butLeone must’ve sensed a desire to bring the Japanese master’s influencefrom Westerns back into that terrain, and though the story for Fistfulis practically un-altered from its influence, it delivers the goods asboth a gun-flinging outlaw western and as a subtle tale of morals inevil times.

Eastwood’s archetypal "The Man with No Name" is named Joe here(technically this comes after The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly inchronological order), and he enters a town with two rival gangs, theBaxters and the Rojos. Gian Maria Volonte plays the most vicious of theRojos, Ramon, who is the only major obstacle for Joe in this town, ashe figures out a way to play both gangs to get extra earnings. Alongthe way, the slightest sense of morality creeps into his mind-set, asthe killings unfold.

With many classic scenes (the climax is one of Clint’s more infamouscinematic scenes, serving as an inspiration for the Back to the Futureparts 2 & 3), Ennio Morricone’s first great musical pairing with Leone,and moments that bring intensity and coolness in repeat viewings,Fistful of Dollars is one of those Westerns that’s a lot of fun, andcan be taken seriously too by film connoisseurs.

This western had in potential all the elements that made The Good TheBad and The Ugly a classic. But somehow the dosage was too strong,Leone was still searching for the right style and everything here iskind of overdone. Starting with the extreme violence, first when theykill the soldiers and later on when they shoot people coming out of aburning house. Too much violence at that time had the opposite effect,it created a distance between the spectator and the film, making himcease to believe what was happening and watching it without beinginvolved. I remember the first time I saw this film when it was firstreleased, that people were actually laughing at the most violentscenes.The author Bertolt Brecht used to write his plays expecting analienation of the spectator. I don't think that was Leone's intentionbut that is what he created. I think his style was an answer toeverything that was repressed in the Hollywood western. This film hasgreat merits: Clint Eastwood and his "man with no name" character, thedistinctive, almost "comic book" Leone style and most of all it reachedall kinds of public. It also was a tremendous financial success.

read comments (0)

Goldfinger

First, let me say that I enjoy this movie immensly and gave it an 8, but Idon’t think it is the best in the series, or even Connery’s best for thatmatter. For some reason though this one is always held in very high esteem. Some say it is where Connery really hit his stride as Bond, but I thoughthe was just as good in "From Russia With Love". The problem I find with themovie is when Bond goes to Kentucky, it just isn’t that exotic of a locationfor a Bond movie. I love the first half where he is simply driving afterGoldfinger, but then he is captured and the movie kinda gets bogged down ashe tries to escape or at least get word to Felix about Goldfinger’s plan. All that said though it is still a thouroughly enjoyable pic. Theconclusion more than makes up for my perceived dead spot and there are anassortment of enjoyable characters like Oddjob and Pussy Galore (though thathas to be the stupidest name, no parent would name their kidthat).

Often considered the best Bond film, it's hard to understand why. It'sall so very average and can't approach "On Her Majesty's SecretService" and "Licence to Kill." The trio of villains — leader AuricGoldfinger (Gert Frobe), pilot Pussy Galore (Honor Blackman) andmanservant Oddjob (Harold Sakata) — amount to little more than pettybank robbers. And Bond (Sean Connery) romps around, sleeping with anunrealistic amount of women for the time frame (let's face the factthat he's not that charming, sexy or alluring).

In all fairness, this was the Bond film that marked the transition fromthrillers to action comedies. But the over-the-top nature is downplayedby all concerned and the climax has nothing to make it stand out. Novolcano, no space station, no hopping between oil trucks. Just a dull,bland blink-and-you-miss-it climax on a plane. Both "Octopussy" and"The Living Daylights" had better plane climaxes.

Performance wise, Sean Connery is a good actor, but not that good of aBond. Let's face the fact that Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton and PierceBrosnan were all better. The other actors are adequate. The standout isHonor Blackman as the cold-hearted bitch we love to hate. Too bad aboutthe character rape at the end.

It's not all bad, though. It certainly has a better pace than the onebefore it and the one after it, but it certainly gets on one's nervesat times, especially at the horrible laser scene ("No Mister Bond, Iexcept you to die" — how pathetic).

Goldfinger is not a movie that is meant to be taken particularlyseriously. And those involved in making the film, from the writers tothe director to the actors were rather obviously well aware of this.The whole movie proceeds with tongue planted firmly in cheek. If youaccept this you will probably enjoy the movie. Bad puns, ludicrousschemes, terribly contrived situations…this movie has all of thatplus the character famously named Pussy Galore. It's as if the movieitself is winking at you. It's trying to be cute and sometimes goes alittle too far. But all in all it's not a bad movie. Not a great movieeither, but a reasonably good one. Sufficiently entertaining to makeyou forgive much of the silliness.

The plot, such as it is, is typical James Bond. Bizarre villain withgrand, if somewhat loony, plans for world domination or at the veryleast one heck of a financial windfall. Bond tries to stop saidvillain, Bond gets himself into seemingly hopeless situations, Bondmanages to escape seemingly hopeless situations. And of course there'sa beautiful woman with a ludicrous name to spice things up. As Bond,Sean Connery is the best thing the film has to offer. He's perfect forthe role, so good you forgive him when he's forced to utter some trulygroan-inducing one-liners. Suave and debonair but also brutally toughwhen he has to be…that's James Bond and Connery captures Bondperfectly. There's also Gert Fröbe as the villainous Goldfinger andHarold Sakata as Goldfinger's mute but menacing henchman Oddjob (againwith the silly names). And a couple of key female roles for ShirleyEaton who gives a famously golden performance as the refreshinglynormally named Jill Masterson and Honor Blackman as the aforementionedPussy Galore. All involved give fine performances but none really shinelike Connery. Well, in a way Eaton shines but that's another storyaltogether. It's Connery's film and when it works, it's he who makes itwork. When it doesn't work, and there are certainly points in the filmin which it doesn't, Connery salvages it. Yes, sometimes Goldfinger isa film which is a little too cute for its own good. But it's still amostly enjoyable and entertaining ride.

Bond. James Bond. Women want him, men want to be him.

The James Bond series is hardly the poster child for realism but youcan usually count on some entertaining escapades populated by beautifulwomen and sinister villains. "Goldfinger" is widely regarded as one ofthe best, if not the best, of the lot.

Here the improbably named gold smuggler Auric Goldfinger is at thebottom of some decidedly villainous activity which our man Bond istasked with uncovering. Along the way he meets the equally improbablynamed vixen Pussy Galore and Goldfinger's mute henchman, Oddjob.

As you've probably surmised, this is not a film to be taken seriously.The direction is nothing to write home about and the acting, whiledecent, isn't exactly noteworthy. The title song hasn't aged terriblywell but the score is solid (particularly when incorporating thefamiliar Bond theme).

The important thing, though, is that the film delivers in the area ofsheer entertainment. So help me, I just had a lot of fun watching thisand I bet you will too.

I know I'm just asking to be hauled over the coals for this, butGoldfinger is surely one of the dullest Bond films. I am not somecheeseburger junkie brought up on Die Another Day and xXx, before youmake that assumption. But I found Goldfinger to be tolerable onlybecause it was rather short for a Bond film and had a villain who wassomewhat likable instead of a despicable super-arch-nemesis living in avolcano lair.

Despite the fact that this film apparently cost more to make then thefirst two Bond films combined it is so amazingly cheap you could befooled into thinking it they filmed it all for free. First of all, SeanConnery is obviously never outside of Pinewood Studios (or the nearby,surrounding countryside) since every time he appears 'on location' it'sridiculously fake-looking rear-projection. My God, if you're going tomake a spy movie in a franchise that sells itself on globe-trotting howabout actually having your actor BE there!

The locations, as a result, are all low-key and not much to look at.The gold-melting plant in Geneva, for example, is blatantly ananonymous alleyway out the back of Pinewood. I was never really one forthe silly gadget's in Bond film's either, so I'm glad that they neverplayed a big part in the story and the stuff that he did use (homingdevices) were believable. But don't get me started about the car! Why,why, why do people always cream their panties over these inane Bondcars? Let me tell you something; the Aston Martin is lamest thing Ihave ever seen, I wouldn't be seen dead in one and it irritates thehell out of me that they keep cropping up in this series. And that'seven WITH Q's cunning extras. The Goldfinger Aston Martin spawned adie-cast toy car that's worth zillions on E-Bay these days and is wortheven more if you have the box (why would you) with the ejector seatstill intact. Wow…the ejector seat. Such a big deal is made out ofthis but I swear the guy Bond launches out of his car soars a whoppingone foot in the air. Adventure doesn't get any bigger than THAT huh?

Despite it's undeserved praise as a classic and a def
initive Bond film,Goldfinger is clearly a rush-job with an Oddjob. This was Connery'sthird Bond film (as well as others) in two years. If they took a littlemore time and effort and delivered something with more sophisticatedframing and effects then Goldfinger could have been worthy of beingcalled a classic. As it is it's merely a fond childhood event for a lotof older adults who are unable to see how naff it is since they canonly view it through nostalgic goggles.

The third and best James Bond 007 film of them all. Sir Sean Conneryplays Bond for the third time, and this time he is up against a goldsmuggler called Auric Goldfinger (Gert Fröbe). There are four mostfamous things about this film. The first is the great line "Do youexpect me to talk?" "No Mr. Bond, I expect you to die!" The second isthe villain henchman Oddjob (Harold Sakata (Tosh Togo)) with themurderous bowler hat. The third is the most famous bond girl name,Pussy Galore (played by Honor Blackman). The fourth thing is the use ofthe most famous film car the Aston Martin DB5, with gadgets such assmoke screen, oil slick, machine guns and the ejector seat. Alsostarring Shirley Eaton as Jill Masterson, Tania Mallet as TillyMasterson, Bernard Lee as M, Martin Benson as Martin Solo and CecLinder as Felix Leiter. It won the Oscar for Best Sound Effects. AuricGoldfinger was 49 on 100 Years, 100 Heroes & Villains, the film wasnumber 71 on 100 Years, 100 Thrills, it was number 1 on James Bond'sGreatest Hits for Dame Shirley Bassey's title song, it was number 53 on100 Years, 100 Songs ("Goldfinger"), it was number 90 on 100 Years, 100Quotes ("A Martini. Shaken, not stirred."), it was number 10 on The 50Greatest British Films, it was number 27 on The Ultimate Film, and itwas number 79 on The 100 Greatest Films. Outstanding!

In the eyes of many James Bond fans, 1964's "Goldfinger" is the epitomeof the Bond films. It was also a cultural sensation, drawing anastounding $124.9 million in the age of one-dollar movie tickets. Itwas the fifth Bond that I saw, and it took me awhile to sweep aside theaura and focus on the movie. While I certainly enjoyed it, it is notthe best film in the series. It is excellent, though.

The adventure begins with James (the aforementioned Sean Connery)dismantling the business of a heroin dealer, but he spends the bulk ofthe movie butting horns with a completely different villain. Thatvillain is Auric Goldfinger (Gert Fröbe), an obese internationalcapitalist who is at first suspected of simple gold smuggling, but issoon discerned to be planning an assault on Fort Knox. The assault,called "Operation Grand Slam", involves detonating a dirty bomb in FortKnox's vault in order to seriously augment the value of his own gold.On Goldfinger's payroll are a pilot named, don't laugh, Pussy Galore(Honor Blackman) and a Korean named Oddjob (Olympic weightliftingsilver medalist Harold Sakata).

Oddjob is probably the most acclaimed henchman of the entire series,and for good reason. He is mute, which actually makes him moredisturbing, and prefers to dispense people with his modified bowler hatfeaturing a razor-sharp brim. Although he is intimidating from thefirst appearance, it is not until the movie's splendid climax that wesee the awesome extent of his physical aptitude. The masses are notwrong; Oddjob is the best supporting villain in the series and no otheris remotely close. Heck, I even have a picture of Oddjob on my facebookaccount.

Unfortunately, Oddjob also spawned a bad habit, possibly because theproducers thought incorrectly that regurgitating "Goldfinger" was thebest option for creating a good film, further evidenced by the returnof director Guy Hamilton seven years later. Consequently, manyfollowing henchmen, i.e.: Jaws, Erich Kriegler and Gobinda; were madeimmortal, and uniformly ended up being hokey flops. Oddjob'sinvincibility should have been a onetime occurrence.

In style, "Goldfinger" has a little more a fun feel to it than thefirst two 007 adventures. Connery's acting is not as dead serious andthe whole premise of the movie is more light-hearted. Composer JohnBarry employs relaxing violin measures during a scenic drive throughthe mountains of Switzerland, contrasting the horn crescendos in thescore of "Dr. No" and the foreboding notes heard during "From Russiawith Love." The indoor scenes are more brightly lit than before.

Even though Gert Fröbe obviously had his voice dubbed, his Goldfingeris largely memorable as the antagonist who constantly corrects otherpeople's facts. Pussy Galore, who along with Octopussy has spawnedquite a few sick jokes through the years, is more useful than HoneyRider and Tatiana Romanova were, but not as strong a character. ShirleyEaton provides some additional beauty as Jill Masterson, the goldengirl to end all others.

Connery is splendid as usual in the action scenes, especially theshowdown with Oddjob, and some good special effects and a witty scripthelp along the way. Finally, the fun gadgets elevate the overallquality, from Bond's special scuba suit, to his magnetic homer, and, ofcourse, the great Aston Martin DB5, the first in a long line ofsouped-up cars.

Despite all of its strengths, the film also shoots itself in the footat its midpoint. James spends a significant portion of the runtimelocked up by Goldfinger thanks to some blunders on his part. First hegets Jill Masterson killed and blows his cover. Then he interferes withher sister Tilly (Tania Mallet, in her only movie role), resulting inher death and his capture.

The movie's first 50 minutes standup to any film in the series. Everychapter, from the "shocking" opening moments, the mental jousting ofthe golf game (featuring a delightful bit performance by Gerry Dugan)to the factory spying and the car chase are as good as any Bond filmcan hope for. It is during what follows that the scaled back tonehurts. The problem is that the originally efficient movie takes toolong moving the plot from that point forward. "From Russia with Love"had its slow parts as well, but the plot and intense anticipation keptinterest from waning.

The dawdling middle act does not detract from "Goldfinger" greatly.Besides, the fact that it is a historical achievement that transformedthe action movie forever proves me to be in the minority on that point.Perhaps I cannot fully appreciate it since I was not alive in 1964, butI adore the movie despite its flaws. Above all, "Goldfinger" deservesmore than one or two viewings.

In the Ian Fleming novels, James Bond was not super-human nor did herun around with tons of ridiculous gadgets. He was more a spy andassassin–not a guy with amazing powers. While I loved DR. NO and FROMRussia WITH LOVE, GOLDFINGER is a sad film for me because it ushered ina trend in Bond films that I disliked–ridiculous gadgetry that got inthe way of plot. Sure, it was fun watching Oddjob throwing his metallichat, but it also was pretty stupid if you think about it. Additionally,having Goldfinger use a laser on Bond was just dumb. Like Dr. Evil'sson suggests in the Austin Powers film, why not just put a bullet inhis head and be done with it?!?! If you take away all the gadgets, therest of the movie is very good and very exciting. Thanks to a long filmwith lots of twists and turns, it felt like a real adventure–veryescapist and satisfying.

By the way, in the book, Pussy Galore was clearly a lesbian and Bondwas so hyper-manly that he somehow got her to change her sexualorientation. This aspect was "cleaned up" since audiences in 1964 werenot ready to see a lesbian major character. In the film, it's onlyhinted at and Ms. Galore seemed like she was more "hard to get" thananything else. Wow,…what a name for a character!

Ah yes Meester Bond ! Everyone’s favorite !
Great villains, great girls,fabulous sets, wonderful score and Sean in his prime before he became aprimadonna and left the series.

One more thing I forgot to mention in my comment of March 29. Among theother examples of Bond’s ineffectiveness in this movie, perhaps the mostblatant is that Bond is all thumbs when it comes to turning off the timer tothe bomb at the end of the film. It’s up to Felix Leiter to do that, makingthe fact that the timer stops at 007 even more ridiculous.

read comments (0)

Alexis Zorbas

It starts out like a comedy, sort of an odd couple thing. Then yourealizethat these two are friends, and they love each other! And then all thisdepressing tragic stuff happens where the movie deals with death andlivingand seizing the day, etc. Quinn and Bates are great–heck, everyone isgreat in this!

A lot of the story is rather difficult to understand, like why thevillagersact that way, who that old guy is (I guess he’s the father of the suicideboy), and why couldn’t Alan Bates help that girl that he loved when sheneeded him most? Hmmm… And I wasn’t exactly sure about how Zorba feltabout Hortense.

But anyway, there’s tons of laughs, as well as some disturbing deathscenesthat left me hating the villagers to bits!!! But the ending is trulyexcellent, as good as Shawshank Redemption!! It’s just perfect, so you’llleave smiling, just as the two guys in the movie did. Yippeee! It’sworthseeing for sure, baby! Trust me on this!

The drawing card of "Zorba the Greek", as the title suggests, isAnthony Quinn's performance as the charismatic Alexis Zorba. While thesupporting cast is commendable, it is Quinn that dominates the film. Heplays the eccentric personality of Zorba to perfection and has a numberof memorable lines.

The examination of the character of Zorba and his effect on Basil leadsto great moments in the film, such as the outstanding ending, butultimately the story drags a lot. Also worth mentioning are the film'ssetting and cinematography, which are impressive and the notable score,particularly for the theme "Sirtaki". However, overall the film'spositive points are overshadowed by its slow pace.

- Includes spoiling -

I was looking forward to seeing this movie, since I had gotten theimpression that this classic was somewhat concerned about the issues ofhappiness and life. But after watching it I’ve hard to see the morale of thestory. The scene where the beautiful widow, played by Irene Pappas, is beingchased and killed was one of the strongest scenes I’ve ever seen in a movie,and affected me a lot. Yet the main character, Alan Bates, doesn’t seem sadat all. He says that he couldn’t have done anything, and that’s it. He neverreflects about the girl, that it was his fault because he visited her, no;he’s completely heartless, which surprises me, him being a soft, shy andcowardly guy and all.In the next scene, the second widow, Lila Kedrova, is dying and the localcitizens are gathering around waiting for her to die so they can steal herpossessions. Another great scene, in my opinion, giving some socialcriticism showing human greed and lack of compassion. And still, noemotional flow. Not long after the horrible death of these two women, Zorbaand the Englishman are having a great time dancing. They don’t seem to careat all about those mishappenings. Their behaviour and the way theyfeel…it’s almost criminal. Imagine their outcome in case L’Étranger(Albert Camus)…I think those scenes could have been better developed, though they are thehighlights of the movie. Is the happy ending forced? Maybe, but I guess itfits better with the movie as whole. They could however, instead of holdingback the emotions, have let the tragedy blossomed in these two, or three,scenes, and then more slowly have turned the pattern towards a happy ending.I think Frank Capra would have been the ideal man for thatjob.

So, is this film trying to say anything? That you should be happy, drink,dance, enjoy life and have fun? Or is it just putting a strictly boundedEnglishman together with a more or less mad and life enjoying Greek? Or doesit want to tell, like Zorba says in the end, that a touch of madness is goodelement in every man’s life?

3/5

Zorba the Greek is an example of the kinda movie that "Should" bereleased.Zorba the Greek doesn’t use "profound" photography, like European movies,but it tells its story, in a simple, fashion, like life it self, simpleandfull.

This is far any away Anthony Quinn’s greatest performance. This is the onlyreason why people still watch Zorba the Greek today. The film itself wouldhave been a complete disaster if not for Quinn. Quinn is the only truegreatness in the film. The character of Zorba is amazingly defined by Quinn.The story, on the other hand, is unwatchable. Yes, it has to deal with thestories theme and deep moral meaning, but it holds back the true quality ofQuinn’s acting.Sad to say, many younger viewers want touch this film with a ten foot polebecause of the realism that the direction caught on film. The imperfectworld with imperfect people are captured in Zorba the Greek. The onlypositive person in the film is Zorba himself.If you are a fan of Anthony Quinn, you must watch this film, it will livefor a thousand years.

The thing that impressed me about the movie was not the character of Zorbawhich I did not find that amazing but it was the difference and conflictsbetween him, his boss, and the villagers which made this movie interestingfor me. Cacoyannis did a great job in picturing the villagers. This moviesounded like a bitter comedy to me. In parts the movie did not make sensetome (well they have to follow the novel) for example when the widow gotkilled. I guess he had to get killed otherwise they did not know how tocontinue the story.

It is my policy as writer, philosopher and actor to write only aboutfilms which were influential; that is to say, I review a film only ifhalf a dozen other films inspired by its makers’ achievements extendedits original influence. "Zorba the Greek" spawned several lines ofemulation. I suggest; the character was so successful that "Fiddler Onthe Roof", "Hombre" and dozens of other off-beat characters in filmswere probably given an opportunity to take the spotlight largelybecause moviegoers embraced Zorba’s un-United States, un-Britishpersonality so warmly. It is also a "sense-of-life" film; that is, thedetails of Zorba’s life are less interesting than is his positiveness,even in the face of adversity–or disasters caused by him; so a numberof films of this sort owe their having been made to filmmakers taking achance on a likable off-beat character. This character and also theblack-and-white cinematography of this very-well-liked classiccharacter story were models for many man-out-of-his-element films madeafter this one, including "Hero" and others. Anthony Quinn starred hereas Alexis Zorba, an extroverted and irrepressible Greek, in many waysthe antithesis of his British employer, Basil, played by Alan Bates. Aswritten, directed and finally edited by Michael Cacoyannis, the filmtells the story of how the two meet when both are on the way to the bigisland of Crete. Basil has inherited a mine; Zorba talks his way intobecoming his cook and interpreter; Bates likes him, and despite hisdoubts, engages him on the spot. Once on Crete, they lodge with MadameHortense, played subtly by Lila Kedrova. Madame has a history, true ornot, of having been the mistress to an official of note; Zorba swiftlybegins to woo the aging prostitute and encourages Bates to court a verybeautiful widow, Irene Pappas, who has noticed him also. Thisattraction turns out badly, as one might have guessed; because thevillage idiot kills himself, the primitive-minded villagers regard herhaving had a night of out-of-wedlock love with Basil as a sign ofdivine displeasure. So they kill her; and when Madame Hortense dies,they strip her house, the old black-clad women seeming like ravens morethan human beings. The third major event in the film occurs when Batestries to open his mine. Using monks from the nearby monastery as labor,Zorba takes charge of the project. He has the men construct staple-formtimber-props and runs lines from the top of the mountain where the minesits to the seashore. The result when the first load of ore is sentdown puts an end to the entire scheme.
Throughout the film, Zorba hasbeen advising the pressed Englishman to "dance". But then, at the nadirof their mutual fortunes, Bates asks Zorba to teach him to dance–as anallegory for accepting all of life, good and bad, emotionally. Theending is satisfying, I suggest; the film is episodic, but the directorkeeps it moving unusually skillfully. As Zorba, the complex,domineering and ebullient Quinn has one of his best roles, one he chosefor himself as associate producer. Alan Bates is more-than-good as thequiet Englishman, although not perfect, as a good underplayed foil forhis Greek friend. Lila Kedrova has her best film role in the film andgets everything out of it that it promised. Irene Pappas is gorgeousand powerful as the tragic widow, as always; the remainder of the castare all well chosen, representing the Greeks in the story’s milieu.Cinematography for this memorable B/W cinematic realization of NikosKazantzakis’s novel was provided by Walter Lassally, with excellentmusic by the great Mikis Theodorakis. Art direction was done byVassilis Photopoulos, with the authentic wardrobe provided by AnnaStavropoulou. This is a film by turns lyrical and violent, I assert,with its roots in tribal superstition, corruption, honor and hope. Irecommend it, for its artistry and because it is one of the most"different" films ever made on this level of excellence, rivaling "TheBlack Narcissus" and "King Solomon’s Mines" in that admirable respect.

Alexis Zorba, Anthony Quinn, (Walk in the Clouds + 147 movies) was so goodat it, that it earned him an Oscar. He convinces the owner of a mine inGreece, Basil, played by Alan Bates (Hamlet +60 movies) to hire him to workin the mine. This is a story about a man who has zest for life, loves todance, enjoys life, has a great sense of humor, and his relationship betweenhis boss, who is really a writer, but has lived a somewhat dull life.Perhaps, because he does not know how to enjoy life, or the way he wasbrought up, or could be just cultural.Zorba is one of the best male parts ever written, the screenplay by MichaelCacoyannis (Director, Editor, seems to be multi-talented) also nominatedfor the Golden Globes Award. Zorba is somewhat a philosopher! My husbandloves to quote Zorba: "I got hands, feet, head, they do the jobs, who thehell am I to choose? " … " You think too much, that is your trouble,clever people and grocers they weight everything" . . . "In work you are myman, but in things like playing and singing. I am my own" . . . Basilasks: are you married? Zorba: " I am not a man; stupid! I am a man, so I’mmarried: wife, children, house, everything, the full catastrophe! Basil: What happened? " Don’t make me talk" . . . I will not quote all of Zorbagood sentences, but is great part. You just will have to watchit!A widow who lives in the being played by Irene Papas (57 movies) who has atragic death in the movie!. Her character in the movie has very interestingsides to it.Madame Hortense, Lila Kedrova (42 movies) is a great character because shedreams, she gets disappointed and she dreams some more, never giving uphope. Isn’t it what life is all about!My favorite scenes: Zorba working inside the mine, how fearless he iscompared to his bosses’ lack of know-how, Hortense dancing, Zorba dancing atthe beach.If you are interested in watching a classic, and dream of having awonderful boss, this is your movie!

You may or may not know this, but Zorba the Greek is based on a Greeknovelby Nikos Kazantzakis (author, The Last Temptation of Christ). The noveltells a very similar story of the Narrator (Greek in the novel, English inthe movie) and his relationship with his antithesis, Alexis Zorba. Zorba,in both book and movie, follows the narrator to the island of Crete toworkin a coal mine.

The movie is good, the portrayal of Zorba is fitting, and all told is wellworth watching. Unfortunately for the director, the movie ends the storyina way that almost all critics of Kazantzakis’ works think to be an errantinterpretation. The director didn’t seem to know how to end the movie,andwhat he offers both differs from the events in the book and the metaphorsKazantzakis uses to explain particular aspects of life.

You could chalk this up to a simple, "Made for Hollywood" mistake, but youshouldn’t. Kazantzakis never did anything less than honest, and his workexemplifies a constant struggle to always ascend, always understand,alwaysclimb a never-ending mountainside. Trying not to ruin either ending (thebook or the movie), I will say that the film’s more viewer-friendly endingdeprives the story of Alexis Zorba of a very important feature, and a veryimportant points that Kazantzakis makes in the novel.

Read the book, and if you’re so moved, then go watch themovie.

This film is very dear to me because when I first saw it showed me why weare here on this earth: to live, to love, to sing, to dance and most of allto live to love, sing, and dance. In essence this film is a masterpiecewith the message that life must be lived.Anthony Quinn, in most likely his finest and most loved performance, shinesthroughout this film. Bates, Pappas, and everyone else are perfect in thisfilm and Cacoyannis is flawless behind the camera.After seeing this movie a week ago I was moved all over again and findmyself wanting to have a free and cavalier approach to my life the Zorbahasto his life. Only "Life is Beautiful" comes close to capturing thisessence.(*note to R. MacPherson*) Quinn was nominated for an academy award for thisfilm but, did not win the award. Rex Harrison won the award that year (forpossibly the weakest performance of the five nominees. Nominated that yearwith Quinn and Harisson were Peter Sellers up for "Dr. Strangelove" playingthree different roles ,all three excellent,Richard Burton playing the tornBecket in "Becket",and Peter O’Toole’s brilliant and complex portrait ofKing Henry II in "Becket").After his acceptence Harrison went to Quinn’stable and gave the Oscar to Quinn and told Quinn the award should be hisandQuinn replied that he already had two at home and didn’t know what he woulddo with it. Harrison left the statuette on Quinn’s table any way.

read comments (0)

A Shot in the Dark

The second Pink Panther movie not only establishes Insp. JacquesClouseau (Peter Sellers) as the main character, but lets him go allout. In this one, a man is found dead in a mansion, and maid MariaGambrelli (Elke Sommer) is found at the scene of the crime with a gunin her hand. But Clouseau is convinced that she’s been framed, andhe’ll go to any length to prove it. By which, of course, I mean that hemakes a fool of himself every step of the way.

Even if you’re deaf or don’t speak English (or both), "A Shot in theDark" is still a hoot. Practically every other scene has Clouseaugetting himself into an embarrassing situation. I won’t spoil them foryou, but you probably can get a few ideas. As a side note, this wasalso the first Pink Panther movie to feature the Clouseau-hatingCommissioner Charles Dreyfus (Herbert Lom) and Clouseau’sover-impulsive assistant Cato (Burt Kwouk).

And although this wouldn’t usually be protocol, I just gotta devote anentire paragraph to Elke Sommer. SHE IS ONE OF THE HOTTEST BABES INMOVIE HISTORY! It really must have been something to be on the set withher. I know that she usually starred in skin flicks, but…well, whowouldn’t want to do it with her? She plays one sexy character in thismovie. It’s too bad that we don’t see her in more movies. Hubba hubba,meow meow…

The second Pink Panther actually has nothing to do with the Pink Panther.The script is the second best of the series, but it definitely the mostinteresting and has most original plot. However, the comedy in this movietakes second to the script. Some of the jokes get tiring after a while, andall and all, it doesn’t have the same comic feel as the rest. Goodcharacters in Kato and Chief Inspector Dreyfus. Dreyfus had the funniestline in the whole movie: "Get help. I seemed to have stabbed myself withthe letter opener." 7/10 or a B- overall.

A Shot In The Dark ranks above some comedy movies of it’s time and appealsto many ages. It’s now focuses on more of Clouseau than any othercharacterand keeps the plot moving. Still… The best thing I like about thismovieis Clouseau, need I say more? Then you see new characters like thattransforming psycho-maniac Dreyfuss or Clouseau’s Friend Kato. Nice moviefor Sellers and friends.

***

The best pink panther movie, no doubt. One of the best Peter Sellersmoviesas well. It’s sheer farce; don’t expect anything else. It has nosociallyredeeming value, except being-there-funny. There are certain movies thathave no other function, and this is one of them. And so one bows, andsaysnothing more.

In this one Sellers is at his his best as the bumbling inspector. Greatcast. If you’ve never seen it, and you like slapstick, you will fall offyour seat laughing. Young Elke Sommer is delicious, George Sanders isdelightfully bored, and Herbert Lom is hilarious as Clouseau’sboss.

Peter Sellers is at the peak of his powers in this hilarious screwballfarce. The best of The Pink Panther series, highlights include the nudistcolony, and the first in a long running series of fights betweenSellers’ Inspector Clouseau and Kato his live in housekeeper. Brilliantpacing, absurd situations, and Sellers’ blind love for Elke Sommers make ASHOT IN THE DARK unforgettable. One of the funniest films evermade!

This sequel to The Pink Panther is a one man show: Peter Sellers, PeterSellers, Peter Sellers! The film introduces new characters such as ChiefInspector Dreyfuss and Kato who would, also, star in later "Panther" films.Cloueau is on the case (and off, and on again, and off again…etc.) to findthe murderer of the chauffeur of the Ballon Estate. While tracking down thesuspect Clouseau runs into trouble every step of the way. The movie isGREAT and is suitable for young audiences, too. Not Rated but has somesexual situations, nothing too harsh.

It’s funny. In every single movie of the "Pink Panther" series, there’s atleast one comment that says that the movie in question is the best movie ofthe series.

Take my word for it - this movie is the true best movie of the series. Thismovie is non-stop laughter. I can’t help laughing just hearing InspectorClouseau speak! Plus I was cracking up at the antics of Inspector Dreyfussas well! The ending is a little bizarre, but what do you expect from BlakeEdwards? See this movie today!

Simply one of the funniest movies ever made and the best of the Pink Pantherseries. One of the minor flaws of the other Panther films is the usual so-soplot. Not only is the script brilliant, most of the comedy is slapstick andevery scene works to absolute hilarity. >

This is one of Peter Seller’s best movies and certainly the best of theClouseau series. Also a great ride for fans of Elke Sommer. You don’thaveto be a fan of "British" humour to appreciate the slapstick comedy so welldirected by Blake Edwards.

read comments (0)

A Hard Day’s Night

This was a funny look at the fab 4 as they run from girls, do a recordingsession, and try to keep up with Paul’s wayward grandfather. Lots ofBeatlemusic and zany antics kept the action moving along nicely. It wasn’t longonstory, but played well anyway. Fun movie.

The Fab Four have stormed the world with their hit songs, andtheymade an even bigger image for themselves on the big screen intheirown feature film, A HARD DAY’S NIGHT. John, Paul, George, andRingogo off on their usual routine: recording, and having a goodtime.The plot might seem mundane and unspectacular, plus the humormightbe a little hard to comprehend (this would be if you’re notBritish!),the songs are surely the main attraction. The title song, plus

"And I Love Her" and "Can’t Buy Me Love" are enough to capture the

hearts of any Beatles fan.

As a long-time fan of the Beatles, and yes, I was around in London whentheystarted, the film has to have the worst direction ever witnessed. Thegroupcan sing, they are performers, all did have a strong sense of humour anddistintive personalities, but, this film must be the most boring ever madewith such talent. One can only blame the director.

i first saw this film when i was little and i absolutely loved it fromthat moment on.

As a life long fan of the Beatles, i thoroughly enjoyed watching a harddays night. there are many highlights in the film, especially withPaul’s grandfather, played by Wilfred brambell, and john Lennon’sabsolutely hilarious lines, the kill me every time i watch it.

This film is a timeless classic, even my friend laughed and he doesn’treally like the Beatles (although he does like steptoe and son).

On the whole i would rate this film 10 out of 10 as it is very funnyand of course, because it’s the Beatles.

One has to remember this movie was thrown together before the latestflash in the pan band was forgotten by the fickle record buying public,hence it being in B&W. The big guns didn't think they were worthcolour! The movie was well written and well directed, even thoughLester had only made advertisements till this movie. But they tried toshow a fictional day in the life of the Beatles. The comedy worksreally well, working off the natural humor within the group, it's allnatural from the Beatles themselves with actors playing all the otherparts. I understand Paul, who thought with his theatrical background(Dad?) he could act but he was a handful for the director. Theimpromptu, train carriage scene and eventually recordings in a TVstudio/theatre in front of a "live" audience. This was filmed when theusual musical was either a "Elvis" or Cliff Richard" type setting. Butthe movie when released in '64 was just so fresh, the songs are of theera and now they do sound dated, but it only lasted a couple of yearsand by the time Let It Be was recorded they had a completely differentsound which even today sounds fresh!

I love Hard Day's Night and honestly think its one of the few musicalpictures made by a rock band that can be cherished and watched foryears to come. The movie features the 4 lads, including John the rebel,Paul the romantic, George the quiet one and Ringo the comical one. Themovie really has no plots but just basically a day in the life of theBeatles as they prepare to go on a television program, go to parties,press conferences and of course runaway from girls. The movie alsofeatures a side plot about Ringo running away. Of course what makesthis music stand is the music, including "Can't Buy Me Love", "HardDay's Night", "I'm just happy to dance with you" and my personalfavorite "I should have known better." The movie is just great andreally takes you to time when music was pure and wasn't socommercialized and ruined back a lack of originality. Watching these 4guys is just inspiring and their so likable that this is a movie youcan watch over and over again. Great movie.

I am a big Beatles fan, and so is my mother (she saw them perform in herhometown of Chicago when she was 18) and she still loves them today. I willbuy a Beatles Cd, she will listen to it, she will buy one and I will listenand we trade off our collections. The Beatles have given me and my motherfun conversation and a good time. I am only 21, so I was not alive when theywere famous of course, or even when they broke up. Although I’m sure thatthey have all had their differences, I hope that George, Paul and Ringo arestill good friends today. George’s stabbing on December 31st was a shockingand cruel act to a wonderful musician, who is still adored by millions offans. They all are adored. My mother’s favorite was George, and she wasshocked and saddened by the incident. My personal favorite is Ringo, becausehe is a wonderful drummer, and he is so different from the other guys (in agood way of course). His voice is so awesome! This movie perfectly capturesa day in the life of the Beatles, with a great soundtrack and some memorablelines. Paul’s grandfather is hilarious! "He’s a villian, a real mixer." Thismovie should be a part of any Beatles fan collection, as it is a part ofmine. Thank you to the 4 greatest guys ever, you’ll always be with me and mymother in our hearts and memories.

This film follows the Beatles on a tour of the south of England. As usualthey have all the problems associated with rushed schedules andhigh-pressure gigs – not to mention the screaming fans. However this timethey have an extra consideration in Paul’s grandfather who has come along tosee the sights. He may be clean, but sadly he is a real stirrer and causesfrictions in the band.

I saw this in the mid nineties in a bar full of students and I found it veryenjoyable. To write a review of it I re-watched it last night and must saythat it didn’t have quite the same impact on me – maybe memory gave me arose tinted impression of it. That’s not to say I don’t enjoy it but itseems to have dated very badly and major aspects of it seem very `out’. Atit’s heart the film is a way of getting the Beatles’ music onscreen and feedthe fans and, as a vehicle for them, it works very well. It has no plot buthas plenty of memorable scenes and uses the grandfather well as a centralpoint. The musical numbers are all great (of course) and all standout.

The humour is good but there are too few really big laughs to make ithilarious. However it is still amusing with some good lines, imaginativebits and running jokes (`he’s very clean’). The direction adds to the datedfeel as Lester’s jerky camera and student camera angles really make you knowthat it is from the 60’s. However to be fair the film IS from the 60’s andfor many this will not bother them as this is part of it’sappeal.

The Fab Four are great – all putting forward funny characters. Lennon comesoff the best as the sarcastic one, Paul is a little less interesting andGeorge makes even less of an impression. Ringo is very good – allowinghimself to be made fun of but dealing with it well. The support cast addmuch of the comedy and have a few famous faces. Brambell (Steptoe) is thebest of all the cast – his character is the funniest and is also thelynchpin for the majority of the film. Other faces you may see includeDerek Nimmo and Deryck Guyler.

Overall this is a real must-see for anyone who likes the Beatles’ music. The fact that it is funny will just add to it’s appeal. As a film it isdated and not as funny as one would hope but then this is not just a film isit? Well worth a watch but sadly not as funny as I remembered it tobe.

I’ve always been a big fan of the Beatles, and seeing this movie makes themreal to everybody. Before A Hard Day’s Night, we only recognized John,Paul, George, and Ringo as famous musicians that were good looking. Butafter this m
ovie came out, it was almost as if we knew them, and knew whateach of them were like. That’s when each of them became real to us, ashuman beings.

When this film came out in the summer of 1964,it started arevolution.Never before has a film came out and completely touched so many people andchanged the course of pop music as we know it today. So,for those who don’tremember this film completely or weren’t around at the time in which theonly way to see it was through some late night flick onTV,or videocassette. Anyway,for those who have never experience the awesomepower and magical energy of ‘The Beatles’ this is a rare opportunity to seeit again on the big screen. For its 35th anniversary,I had the chance to seeit..restored from it’s original print and presented in clear surround Doblysound! The picture has never looked better,and the music is just as clear asa bell with the fab four as you’ll never heardthem before is absolutely magnificient(and its worth catching at your localtheatre)! The songs are classics and if you know the lyrics,you can singright along especially with the 7 songs that were writtenbyJohn Lennon and Paul McCartney. The other ‘Beatle’ movies like "Help"(1965),and "YellowSubmarine"(1968)and the documentary "Let It Be"(1970) were pretty good,but out of all ofthem it can’t touch the electricity of "A Hard Day’s Night". A film that isworth seeing with people and kids of all ages and it still holds up to thisday.

Elvis maybe the king,butJohn,Paul,George,and Ringo rule.

read comments (0)