The Spy Who Came in from the Cold

If you read the original book by Le Carré, the movie might turn out tobe a BIG disappointment, as it was to me. The original book is short,the movie is much shorter still, ruthlessly salvaging the details thatare indispensable to the feel of the story (Leemas’s getting sick, hisquiet moments with the girl before the departure, his last days in theService, etc, etc.) - the result is predictable and gruesome: the plotimmediately begins to lose its "volume", becomes a flat, dry renderingof the text. The characters begin to get distorted as well, the more tothe East, the less believable and living up to the book, ruthlesslysqueezed into beaten-up and well-recognizable clichés: take Fiedler,for instance, dressed up in leather, who always has a cap on, as if itwas glued to his head - a caricature-like grotesque "Bolshevik", vileand midget-like, since he is so often shown standing by Leemas, who isquite taller. Please be advised, that in Russian culture wearing ahat/cap on your head while being indoors is considered ratherill-mannered, bordering rude. Certain types of "Bolsheviks" in theearly years of the Revolution might have very well neglected thecustom, but Fiedler, in the book, was an educated Jewish man, not acaricature of a "Cheka" villain from 1918. Alas, the above tricks getthe movie a bit closer to the stereotypes of the Cold War, the way it,perhaps, was meant to be - to attract a broader audience or, maybe,paint the gray characters of the book solid black, as enemies should bein the times of war (mind you, Cold War was very much going on when themovie was made). The acting is also quite mediocre, with the exceptionof Richard Burton, whose play is excellent, yet the character of Leemasby John Le Carré gets lost somewhere in his playing, and, at times, istotally unconvincing (take the fight at the butcher’s or Leemas’sbehavior at the library).

The movie is a SPOILER, do not waste the money on a DVD (or avideocassette), rent it and see for yourself. And DO read the book butprepare to be shaken - for real.

This movie was mildly interesting.

There are parts that were quite well done so I kept my eyes peeledthrough them.

Other times I thought maybe I hadn't paid attention to something thecharacters had said because I got lost.

Actually, monetary matters bore me to no end so maybe all the storyabout banks and signing went over my head. As a result, when theyaccused Mundt I did not really quite understood the gist of thecharges…

The ending was totally baffling for me. Well, I had supposed before theending of the trial what the objective of the operation was. I amreferring to the shooting at the end. Why? To be sincere, usually spymovies put me to sleep, specially Le Carre's stories made always methink 'What's the point?' when I watch a movie and 'This is a famouswriter?' when I read one of his books. So maybe I am not qualified tojudge this kind of thing.

Anyway, I thought the actors were quite good, sorry that the story wasnot my cup of tea…

Only for people who really love spy flick…

For this movie they renamed the book’s "Liz Gold" character to "NanPerry."

The schematic plot falls into place with the subtlety of legos. Theimplausibility of it all is laughable. Leamas gets a job as alibrarian, meets a young and beautiful fellow librarian who instantlyfalls in love with this washed-out drunk as if he were Richard Burton.And she just happens to be a very well-dressed member of the BritishCommunist party. Meanwhile, the Germans are as unsuspicious as can be,and every move has its heavy-handed purpose on view. The photography isnice if oversmooth, the constant rain like the constant head-bangingIdea of the whole thing. Historically interesting because of a fewpossible influences on Chinatown.

I saw this movie when it came out, and was immediately struck by howraw and realistic it was. To this day, I have been impressed by everyone of Richard Burton's B&W movies. For some reason he shines in themlike a beacon, while he slums through the more glamorous, andultimately less successful color movies he's been in. These moviesinclude: "Look Back In Anger", "Night of the Iguana", "Spy", "Who'sAfraid of Virginia Woolf", "My Cousin Rachel" and "The Bramble Bush"."Iguana", "Rachel" and "Bush" weren't as impressive as the others, butfor some reason, Burton still commands the camera better in them inmonochrome than he would have in color. Go figure.

The man was VASTLY underrated as an actor…well, maybe not underrated,but under-CONGRATULATED, since he never won an Oscar for any of hisincredible, intense performances! He and Peter O'Toole were the crownPRINCES of intense! O'Toole, also, never won an Oscar, except for theLife Achievement Award he won just recently.

"Spy" was one of those landmark movies of the sixties that broke withtype and showed the movie-going public what life was REALLY like in acertain type of world. "Blow-Up" was another movie like this, showinghow strange the world of fashion photographers could be. Thepsychiatric dramas "David & Lisa" and "Lilith" showed the world ofadolescent and adult psychology in a true-to-life fashion, and "Spy"showed how dreary, deadly, grey and angst-ridden espionage could be,going against the glamorous, over-the-top image the Bond and Flintfilms and all their imitators had projected.

In the film, Burton plays a character named Alec Leames, anupper-middle-aged agent working for British Intelligence in the midstof the Cold War. The film opens with him, in fact, overseeing thedefection of an East German at Checkpoint Charlie, perhaps THE majorsymbol of the Cold War. From there, it follows him in further dealingswith East Germany trying to track down a double agent. He falls into arelationship with a pert but naive little communist played by ClaireBloom, gets approached by smarmy types trying to get him to defect tothe OTHER side, with him masquerading AS a possible defector for BI,under the auspices of Cyril Cusack, an actor who has played some of themost condescending elitist types in movies. His characters are almostalways in powerful middle management positions and always, ALWAYS havepedantic attitudes. His character, though he actually ISN'T thelegendary George Smiley, was nonetheless the obvious prototype for SirAlec Guinness' portrayal of Smiley in the BBC/PBS series based on LeCarre's novels. The Smiley character is actually a minor entity in thisfilm, played by a rather nerdy actor.

Oskar Werner, who, along with Cusack, was very hot in "important"movies at the time, plays an East German investigator, prosecutor andnegotiator. Cusack, in fact, starred with him in the Truffaut sci-ficlassic "Fahrenheit 451" as well. Burton, Bloom, Cusack, Werner andMichael Holdern (Lillian Helman's long-lost twin brother)….This castcouldn't have gotten any classier if it had tried! The B&Wcinematography, the casting, Burton's performance, the relentlesslygrey and doleful feel of the film, Martin Ritt's expert direction, (theman was a VERY reliable "good movie" director,) all add the dramatictouches that make this film the absolute BEST film about espionage inmy experience! Claire Bloom's character, Nan, offsets and emphasizesthe dreary feel of the movie with her own naiveté and altruism.

Why this film didn't sweep the '66 Academy Awards, I'll never know, butrest assured, it was the best dramatic offering in theaters that year.A complex, disturbing, important and incredible film that should, inretrospect, be honored for the work of art it was.

Highly recommended!

Spy films were highly popular i
n the 1960s, especially after James Bondfirst appeared in "Dr No". 1965 saw two films, "The Ipcress File" and"The Spy who Came in from the Cold", which presented a very differentpicture of life in the British intelligence services to that shown inthe Bond franchise. "The Ipcress File" is very much a film of its time.Although it deliberately deglamourises the world of espionage, it quiteclearly shows the influence of the "swinging London" of the sixties,especially in the psychedelic brainwashing sequence.

"The Spy who Came in from the Cold", by contrast, is, visually, a veryold-fashioned film, made in black and white and looking back to theforties and fifties. Indeed, it can be regarded as one of the lastgreat examples of the film noir style- possibly the very last. No doubtsome purists would insist that noir is an exclusively American genreand that no examples were made after the end of the fifties. (OrsonWelles's "Touch of Evil" from 1958 is sometimes quoted as being thelast of the genre). I would disagree. The French name would suggestthat film noir was first recognised as a separate genre in Europerather than America and there were several dramas in the style made inboth France and Britain. ("Les Diaboliques" is perhaps the best-knownFrench and "The Third Man" the best-known British example). Certainly,I cannot think of any American films noirs from as late as 1965, but"The Spy….." has many of the characteristics of noir- an urban setting,a morally ambiguous hero, a complex plot and expressionist black andwhite photography. (Monochrome remained fashionable in the Britishcinema in the mid sixties, several years after it had ceased to be soin America, probably because colour TV had not yet been introduced inBritain).

The hero is Alec Leamas, a British intelligence agent who ostensiblydefects to East Germany after losing his job and becoming a broken-downalcoholic. I say "ostensibly" because Leamas is really on a mission tofeed the East Germans with false information implicating Hans-DieterMundt, the head of their intelligence service, as a Western agent. TheBritish are well aware of the mutual distrust between Mundt and hisdeputy Fiedler. Fiedler, who is Jewish, loathes Mundt, a former Nazi,and sees Leamas's defection as a chance to destroy his rival. As theplot progresses, however, things become less clear-cut. Do the Britishreally intend to use Leamas to destroy Mundt, or do they have another,hidden, agenda? The overall tone of the film is a bleak, pessimisticone (another noir characteristic), quite different from the optimisticgood-triumphing-over-evil ethos which prevails in the Bond films, andeven in "The Ipcress File". Neither side in the Cold War is portrayedin a good light. The British secret service are Machiavellian schemerswho regard their agents as expendable. The East Germans are brutal andruthless, prepared to employ ex-Nazis in senior positions. They talk ofa "people's democracy" but have built a wall around their country toturn it into one huge prison. Mundt and Fiedler spout all the standardCommunist rhetoric, but the only struggle they are interested in is notthe ideological one against capitalism but the internecine feud betweenthemselves. (Interestingly, the director Martin Ritt was blacklisted inthe 1950s for his past Communist affiliations. Some of his other films,such as "The Molly Maguires", are clearly left-wing in theirsympathies, but there is less sign of that here).

This tone of pessimism is emphasised by the stark photography of ableak, night-time Berlin or a gloomy, rain-shrouded London. It is alsoemphasised by Richard Burton's remarkable performance as Leamas. TheBritish plot requires Leamas to pose as a broken-down, dispiritedtraitor, willing to sell his country out to the highest bidder, butBurton's demeanour suggests that the iron really has entered intoLeamas's soul, that his air of cynicism, weariness and disillusion issomething more than just a pose. There are also some good performancesin supporting roles such as Oskar Werner as Fiedler and Michael Hordernas Ashe, the openly gay recruiter for the East Germans. The Britishcinema of the sixties was growing increasingly liberal about on-screenportrayals of homosexuality.

The one exception to the prevailing tone of cynical disillusionment maybe Leamas's girlfriend Nancy Perry. Nancy, a committed Communist, isthe one True Believer in the film. Claire Bloom plays her as a naïveenthusiast for her cause, someone prepared to defend Communism with agood deal more passion than an official representative of the systemlike Mundt. Yet even her apparently heartfelt beliefs have something ofthe past about them. There were, of course, many idealistic youngpeople with left-wing opinions in the sixties , but few of them wereattracted to the official pro-Moscow Communist Party; its emphasis onorder, discipline, conformity and obedience and its wilful blindness tothe shortcomings of the regimes it championed made it seem like a relicof the thirties and forties. Moreover, although the film is neverexplicit on this point, it is quite possible that, unknown to Leamas,Nancy might be a British agent herself with instructions to infiltratethe Communist Party and to feed misleading information to the EastGermans. The part she plays in Mundt's trial would certainly beconsistent with such an interpretation.

The Bond films- even those from forty years ago- remain highly popular,whereas the end of the Cold War has meant that there has been alessening of interest in realistic spy films like this one. Yet "TheSpy who Came in from the Cold" deserves to be remembered as more thanjust a sixties period piece- indeed, as more than just a spy drama. Thequality of the script and the acting means that, like Hitchcock's"Notorious", it also deserves to be remembered as a psychological humandrama. 8/10

This movie has a gloomy style that is perfect for the story. The cold,rainy, cloudy, dark backdrop is unrelenting and, for those old enough,it will make them remember some of those chilly emotions oneexperienced during the heart of the cold war. The two lumps of sugarthat the spy in question, Alec Leamas (Richard Burton) takes in his teaare about the only sweet things in this movie. But, don’t be put off byall of this, since the plot is engrossing and has many surprises.

When Richard Burton is good, he is very good, and he is good in thismovie. Burton fans should not miss this, since this role is a greatmatch for him and he received an Oscar nomination for his performance.He has the ideal face and demeanor to portray this embittered,world-weary man playing a game where morality is not a known concept.Burton always seems larger than life - it is hard to picture him livingthe day-to-day life that most of us do. So it is easy to believe him asa spy in a profession that apparently does not lead to a pension and ahappy retirement. All performances here are excellent.

This movie would have suffered greatly if it had been filmed in color -there is little that is colorful in this world. Nan Perry’s (ClaireBloom) innocence and idealism serve as counterpoint to Leamas’ cynicismand in the final scenes, when Leamas realizes how both of them havebeen used, she breaks through his hard external shell. But only longenough for both of them to be destroyed by the rules of the game thatLeamas was playing. A very depressing ending, reflecting the depressingtenor of the cold war when you often wondered if you were going to wakeup to a nuclear conflagration.

Burton was never better than in this role as the doomed, disillusionedpawn, Lemas. The plot constricts like a vice around him and Nan(Bloom), and Lemas finds there is just enough love left in histortured, bitter soul to prefer death to one last grim betrayal. Burtonelevates the art of acting to something truly noble in this film:Lemas, the shabby Cold W
ar spy becomes someone more truly alive thananyone you have ever known.

Lemas uses every fibre of his tradecraft to lure Mundt towards theendgame, only to realise that he had never been told the real objectiveof his mission, or that it might only be achieved through thedestruction of an innocent.

The film itself is spare, taut, moody and, frankly, magnificent. Pure,unadulterated class from start to finish.

There are some who say that The Ipcress File and Harry Palmer is theother side of James Bond. I disagree, as HP is a low ranking agent,whilst Bond is of course the highest. Whilst Bond gets the glamour andexotic girls, HP gets the drab and the girl-next-door. As such, TheIpcress File is a complement to Bond, whereas The Spy Who Came In FromThe Cold is the true depiction of Spydom.

Wonderfully shot in claustrophobic, seedy B/W, the direction iscarefully reserved to allow Burton to shine in the central performanceas the world-weary 'station master'. There are twists aplenty as youwould expect from the world of spies and counter spies.

All this contained within a perfectly balanced script which keeps itsimple most of the time, but allows carefully written flourishes at keymoments - exemplified by the stirring monologue Burton delivers nearthe end of the film: "What the hell do you think spies are? Moralphilosophers measuring everything they do against the word of God orKarl Marx? - They're not, they're just a bunch of seedy, squalidbastards like me, little men, drunkards, queers, hen-pecked husbands,civil servants playing Cowboys and Indians to brighten their rottenlittle lives."

For Bond aficionado's - look out for Bernard Lee as the shopkeeperPatmore, who unwittingly becomes just another pawn in the grand plan aswe all are deceived.

There are some excellent questions asked about morality, and it allconspires into a true British classic of cinema, and ranks alongside'The Manchurian Candidate' as the greatest cold-war feature. Be warnedhowever, for the ending, as you might expect by that point, isdepressingly bleak, as our hero can no longer trust his own.

DICE MAN

This film is amazingly faithful to the book. Some minor scenes wereleft out because you can't possibly get the whole book into a112-minute movie but I am impressed with how they got all thestorytelling essentials in very economically and skillfully. Theypassed up the the temptation to make the end more pleasant which alsosurprised me. Richard Burton really shines in this one. Fabulous howmuch he can communicate with just facial expressions. And he is amaster of verbal drama. Claire Bloom really was quite pretty in heryouth, which added something nice to the film. The black and whitescenes of 60's London were really interesting. Brought back memories ofphotos in newspapers and magazines from back then. The book was leCarre's third and the first one that really hit big. Since then, he'sbeen the golden boy of spy fiction. If you like his type ofstorytelling,read "Absolute Friends." It was written almost 40 yearslater and you can see what a consummate storyteller he had become bythen. I hope they make that one into a film eventually although itwould be hard to translate the all the thinking the protagonist doesinto a visual medium. But "The Spy Who Came In From the Cold" doestranslate onto film very, very well. Don't watch it if you insist onhappy endings.

read comments (0)

The Hill

I’m not sure if this is the film, that I saw many, many years ago, andwas wondering if anybody out there could tell me if it is please, Theone that I saw with Ian Bannen was a very, very cruel prison regime,where one of the prison warden’s or guards had to walk along some sortof thin passage way or corridor, and these seem to have razor bladesstuck in the walls in sorts of places and they made them walk throughthese passage way or corridor, made me cringe but I’m not sure if thisis the same Film as The Hill. could some get back to me, and tell mewhether I’m right or wrong sorry to spoil the plot, if I’m wrong couldsome one get back to me with the right Film Title please, muchappreciated thanks, but I would like to know (marilyne@ntlworld.com)

This movie was directed by Sidney Lumet and is probably one of his bestfilms but since he has made some many other great movies like 12 AngryMen, The Deadly Affair and Serpico and many more it’s hard to call thisone of his best. This probably is Sean Connery’s best movie and i wouldwatch this movie any day over any of his James Bond movies. The entiremovie takes place in a British camp in the desert that is full ofprisoners. The movie concentrates on five new prisoners that includeConnery and Ossie Davis. Their treatment is brutal and the guard incharge of them is the worst. It’s best if you don’t know any more thathappens because it work will best that way. It’s a great movie thatneeds to be more well known.

One of the BEST non-conformist movies this side of COOL HAND LUKE. Connerymade a great decision to go in a totally different direction from Bond withthis unique film. Ossie Davis gives a remarkable performance which still sriveting today. This underappreciated gem should be viewed by anyone whoenjoys quality films.

The British Army has a special prison for it’s members. Located in aburningdesert and led by a stiff backed officer, it is intended to instilldiscipline in even the toughest recruit. The worst area of the prison is alarge sandy hill which the men are forced to run up and down when theybreakthe rules. They are carrying heavy packs so it turns into a torturous hellfor the prisoners. This is a great story taken from an even better book.Thumbs up.

The Hill is my number 144 movie. It deals with a group of soldiers (including Sean Connery ) that has to go to an army training. Theinstructordislikes especially Sean Connery.The movie is very original and the actors are great. I usually do not likeblack&white-movies, but this movie is an exception ( but it is not theonlyone ). All in all, I rated this movie 8/10 and I recommend it to fans ofserious films. If you have any questions, feel free to askthem.

THE HILL is one of the best films to have come out of Britain in the 60`s,and features without doubt big Sean`s greatest performance .

Looking at it from the present day however it does seem rather dated withits anti-military ,anti-authority streak. But it has great performancesfromthe entire cast ,especially Andrews and Hendry

Sean Connery is sent to a military prison camp during WWII. Havingrefused to take his men on a suicide mission, he's charged with beinginsubordinate. Once a loyal soldier, he now begins to questionauthority. How dare these men, with their medals and their whips, throwhuman lives away with such disregard?

The first hour of the film essentially involves Sean and a group ofother soldiers being introduced to the ways of the prison camp. They'reyelled at and berated, the prison guards forcing them to dig holes,climb hills and carry bags of sand, their tired bodies bake under thedesert sun.

But gradually a sense of sadism creeps in. We begin to realise that thesystem is corrupt. The prison leaders believe their will to beabsolute, and so any man who does not step in line, shall be savagelybeaten and treated with scorn.

With it's black-and-white photography and relentless bleakness, themovie is often difficult to watch. Lumet squeezes some greatperformances out of his cast, but he's found a bland lead in SeanConnery and an annoying actor in Ossie Davis, who has a pivotal role asa black West Indian soldier.

"The Hill" was praised in it's day, winning numerous awards andcountless male fans. It's often ranked as one of the top 100 great warmovies and it doesn't have any negative comments on IMDb. Still, Ifound it to be very dated (politically and visually), in the sense thateverything it says I've seen said better.

There are many prison films that show the systematic crushing of thehuman spirit, and this one pales in comparison. Paul Newman's torturedcharacter in "Cool Hand Luke" is far more sympathetic than SeanConnery's smug performance here, and Lumet's prison routines don't holda candle to Kubrick's fluid exercises in dehumanisation.

As a prison movie Lumet can't touch John Frankenheimer's "BirdMan ofAlcatraz", made just 2 years earlier. Though they had similar defeatistendings, "Birdman" had superior black-and-white photography, and a farmore sympathetic lead.

Yes Lumet infuses his film with realism, but his dialogue isunmemorable and lacks bite. Every scene goes on too long, his cameraunable to guide proceedings, content simply to sit back and let thingsroll on as drably as possible. Even the opening shot is needlesslylong, as it cranes over the base-camp and out the front gates, driftinglifelessly as the credits roll. There's no punch. No hard hits to thegut.

Ossie Davis, the black soldier, is what really wowed audiences when thefilm was first released. To see a black man tearing off his uniform andquitting the British army was as cathartic, powerful andanti-establisment as you could get. Twenty years later, in "Full MetalJacket", "watermellon", "sickle cell" and "jungle bunny" jokes arepared down to the ineffectual slurs they are. The system doesn't carewhat race you are, so long as you willingly shed your individuality forthe Core.

6/10 Lumet steers the film along with workmanlike skill, but the filmis shapeless and simply too long and too boring, each scene feelinglike a missed opportunity. What does "The Hill" offer that you can'tfind in "Cool Hand Luke", "BirdMan", "Full Metal Jacket" or countlessother similarly themed films? I guess it's the sense of ugliness. Thesense of sweaty unpleasantness. The film, with it's muffled Britishaccents, tired voices and tedious pacing, genuinely does suck the lifeout you.

As a fan of Sean Connery, when I viewed "The Hill" the width and breadthofConnery’s acting talents became apparent, not seen again, in my opinion,until "The Untouchables".

i too saw this on late night tv about 8 years ago. i missed the firsthalf but from just watching the 2nd half i was blown away. theclosing credits is one of the most chilling things i have everwitnessed in cinema.

Ossie Davis is just brilliant in this tough film. I am just amazed byhis work. He keeps up this violent, justified and righteous tiradein what must have been impossible working conditions. I hearthat this film, shot in Spain, was so hot that it was rarely under 100degrees. Terrific film.

read comments (0)

Per qualche dollaro in più

Serigo Leone’s second entry in his sensational Dollars trilogy may well bethe best of the three and makes for a memorably atomspheric, exciting andsuperb western experience. Clint Eastwood is of course back as thedangerous, nameless bounty hunter who finds himself forming an uneasyalliance with the fellow bounty hunter and equally mysterious, ColonelMortimer (Lee Van Cleef). Together, they set about trying to capture a gangof outlaws, led by the ruthless Indio.

Whilst the original A Fistful of Dollars was a great and ground-breakingfilm, it did need a polished touch, which is what Leone has set about addingto this near-masterpiece from start to finish. The three leads areextremely impressive in roles they were born to play and Ennio Morricone’squirky, stirring score is again something else. The violence is notablyever-growing and there’s a lot of it in this one but its softened by somegreat, scene-stealing tounge-in-cheek humor. Bring on The Good, The Bad andThe Ugly.

Clint Eastwood continues his trademark role as the legendary "Man with NoName" in the sequel to "A Fistful of Dollars". The film is packed withgun-blazing action and high-noon tension. The film stars Clint Eastwood asakeen-eyed, quick witted bounty hunter on the bloody trail of Indio (GianMaria Volonte), the territory`s most treacherous bandit. But his ruthlessrival, Colonel Mortimer (Lee Van Cleef), is determined to bring Indio infirst…dead or alive!

Clint Eastwood and Sergio Leone tag-team again for the second episode inthe"Dollars" series. Known as a "Spaghetti Western", director Sergio Leonerepeats his successful dose of formulas in perhaps one of the best westernmovies of all time. Eastwood plays Manco, a young and restless bountyhuntersearching for quarry that will pay his way to great fortunes. On the otherhand, veteran actor Lee Van Cleef portrays Colonel Douglas Mortimer, aretired Army Colonel on a quest to vanquish an old nemesis known as Indio.Eastwood and Van Cleef pair up to take on Indio’s lethal band of pilferers,thus claiming their heads for a bounty. However, the plot thickens when abounty isn’t the only prize, by nabbing these derrilicts of society. BothEastwood and Van Cleef deliver crude and genuine performances. Along withanother great score as music background, the team assembled for thispictureproves gripping and breath-taking. A must see Western, matched only by itssequel and prequel.

Great flick…from beginning to end. Tighter than The Good, The Bad, and TheUgly; Harder and more sophisticated than A Fistful Of Dollars: This iseasily the best of the trilogy and is my favorite Western ever. Granted thatI haven’t seen much outside of these, other Clint Eastwoods, The Wild Bunch,John Wayne flicks, and a few others, but not much could top this one for me.Firstly, as always, the music from Ennio Morricone is beautiful. The actionand cinematography are top-notch as always. The character of Col. Mortimergives the movie more depth than Fistful, and the villain El Indio istop-notch. The final shootout is one of the best in the genre and the finalshootout with the chimes makes me shiver. Then, to cap all things off, ClintEastwood delivers one of the funniest endings ever when he’s counting hisbooty. ***** out’ve *****

Clint Eastwood made several of these Italian westerns and they made himfamous. His acting in the first was terrible, but it’s actually better inthis film. I believe the presence of a "known", Lee Van Cleef, caused theacting in this one to be a vast improvement over the first film. The scorestill stinks, but at least the acting is better in this, his secondspaghetti western. Overall, a career improver for Clint Eastwood. Can’t sayit did much for Lee Van Cleef and his career.

"….More" was the last of the three spaghetti westerns that I saw, andwhilst I wouldn’t rate it better than "The Good, The Bad & The Ugly", myfavourite of the three. I throughouly enjoyed watching it though and myfavourite line is Mortimer’s "I don’t smoke before dinner…come back in tenminutes" when he’s eating dinner. Overall - very enjoyable,8/10

We’re talking about a definite member of the top three spaghetti westerns,starring two supercool heroes (personally just looking at Lee van Cleef’sface I say that this guy is da man). Excellent atmosphere, great dialogue,impeccable acting and a fantastic score by the unparalleled EnnioMorricone.

Having seen all of the "Man with No Name" trilogy I have to say ienjoyed "For a Few Dollars More" the most. Even though everyone saysthe movie is great. They never give it enough credit when compared toother Leone westerns. For me "Dollars More" is the perfect middlebetween the trilogy. GBU is the masterpiece, but you can’t watch amasterpiece movie as much as B movies. "Dollars More" is better forconstant viewing. Many people felt the plot wasn’t as good a "Fistful",(and it wasn’t), but I had already seen Yojimbo, which "Fistful" getsit’s plot from. So everything done in "Fistful" was something I’dalready seen. Plus Fistful has it’s slow parts….sorry it just does.Also, I like the score in "Dollars More" better. Once again it’s theperfect middle ground between "Fistful" and GBU. The GBU score has beenoverused and "Fistful"’s score doesn’t give as much emphasis like"Dollars More" gives. Especially, the two showdowns with Indio. Themusic couldn’t be done any better. The bells melody mixed with theother elements was perfect for both scenes. Given Indio a melody playedby the cathedral organ then using the same melody for Lee Van Clef butwith a trumpet show the contrast between good and evil that mostnon-music people would miss.

So I’ll sum it like this:

A Fistful of Dollars- hardcore western fans For a Few Dollars More-action fans The Good, The Bad , & the Ugly- Masterpiece western fans

English: For A Few Dollars More. Typical Clint Eastwood western. Thisis the middle version of the trilogy. The first is a Fistful of Dollarsand the third is The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. On par with the FoD,but not quite as good as GBU. I consider GBU to be the best westernever made.

This version ended up being a very good buddy movie. Not a lot ofbuddy, but the idea that Eastwood and Van Cleef were joined at the hipwas an essential part of the plot. They actually worked well togetherdespite never really trusting each other.

Don’t ask questions like how do they go to the bathroom, take a bath,brush their teeth or any other minor hygienic detail and you will befine. Just settle in for some good old killing.

While there are many things to dislike about spaghetti westerns thefilm making is not one of them. Anyone who wants to go on to make theirown films would do well to watch any of Sergio Leone. His use of closeups, the sky and just about everything is like a class in film-making!

As a Spaghetti Western this is a good one! Who can argue with theteaming of Lee Van Cleef and Clint Eastwood. Although Eastwood isreferred to as the man with no name, he has a name in this film, Monco.

This film, while not the best of the Spaghetti Westerns is no sloucheither. Again if you watch it for no other reason then the work ofSergio Leone or the eerie score by Ennio Morricone you can’t lose. Ifyou love westerns this film is likewise a must. Best viewed afterwatching "A Fist Full of Dollars", but not a must.

read comments (0)

Help!

There is a user comment posted here that is sometimes used as the "key"user comment (i.e. - the one used at the top of the page just below thetitle and plot outline) that pans this film. For the sake of addingbalance to that particular opinion, I would like inform all who read itthat I checked his comment history and though ‘Stevenfallonnyc’considers the movie Help! to be a horrible film, he does consider thefollowing films to be very good:

The Mighty Morphin Power Rangers(1994) user rating 3.1 (IMDB bottom 100#58)

The Screaming Skull (1958) user rating 2.4

Garfield (2004) user rating 4.5

Titanic (1997) user rating 6.9

Abba; The Movie (1977) user rating 6.1

See summary. Enough said.

C'mon, now I'm a lifelong huge Beatle fanatic, but this movie isabsolutely terrible. Not because it's silly - there have been plenty ofquality silly movies. But this film is so bad, anyone who is not aBeatle fan wouldn't last ten minutes with it. Even John Lennon calledthis movie "crap," and that's before he lost all his credibility withthe whole Yoko thing.

Of course, it's The Beatles - and Beatles fans will watch just aboutanything with the Fab Four. The film, however poor it is, is indeedfilmed beautifully. The Beatles are all over it, and the music, wellthat speaks for itself. The musical sequences are fantastic, especiallybecause they for the most part can be viewed on their own withouthaving anything to do with the actual film.

But seriously, this film as a film in itself, is garbage. But it'sgarbage I'll watch every so often because The Beatles are in it.Otherwise, this film probably wouldn't even be a bad joke - it wouldjust be simply forgotten.

This movie is so funny. After you start to watch this movie you willforgetthe Beatles are even in it because it is just so funny. That even happenedto me and I’m a huge Beatles fan! It is filled with very funny one linerssoif you watched it once watch it again so you can catch all the jokes youmiss last time. I give it 8 out of 10. And this is the best film staring aband. Even if John Paul and Ringo can’t act it is still fun towatch.

"Help!" is a perfect veichle built for the Beatles. It is 1965, the Fab Fourare at the top of their fame, so it’s natural that also film makers want toexploit their charm.

It is neither a masterpiece nor a bad film, it’s a Beatles extravaganza -andif we watch it we have to place the movie in the context it wasmade.The Beatles were not actors -they always admitted that and actually we cansee it..!"Help!" is a product of the Beatlemania, it’s a document about the SwingingLondon and of the first years of the rock music.Today -from a cinematographic point of view- it is completely outdated andnaive. Although this and an almost inexistent plot, it is still funny andwatchable.Instead, from a musical point of view it is superb. Because Beatles songsare timeless.

And what more can you say about it? Yeah, they went a little crazy withthis one. It’s completely random and a little weird, but I can forgivethem. Hey, they’re the Beatles.

Cast, colors, cinematography and camera anglesall combine in this sixties classic. A truereflection of the music and fashion that are/werethe Beatles. Often campy performances are punctuatedby hysterical moments brought to you by Leo Kernand a hilarious, mostly British, cast,

I may be too young to appreciate the Beatles for what they were (although Idon’t think so), but I know movies. All I can say is this movie was funnyand it had some of the best songs I’ve ever heard (even though I firstheardthem LONG before In saw the movie). I bet a lot of people say that this isjust a movie that was made to cash in on the Beatles musical success. Nope.That’s what Elvis’ movies were. At least the Beatles can act. Of course,I’malso a Monty Python fan, so maybe I’m biased towards British films. I don’tknow.

This film notably suffers from trying too hard to outdo "A Hard Day’sNight". However, if you can get by the comparison, it does stand up fairlywell. Also of note are some of the one-liners, scene direction andtransitions that are later seen throughout the Monty Python shows and films.

Best line (give or take a couple of words): Ringo: They sacrifice people. Their religion is different from ours — I think.

‘Help’ may have been filmed a year after ‘A Hard Day’s Night’ but it’salready obvious they have found more interesting things to do than makea films. As others have mentioned the audience should be grateful thatfootage of The Beatles performing these songs actually exists. The plotfor what it’s worth is a bad James Bond imitation and should not reallybe seen as anything more than a contractual obligation. The scenesfilmed in Austria look great but ‘Help’ deserves to be seen more than atravelogue. The Beatles often seem lost in their own film particularlyamongst such a strong supporting cast. While ‘A Hard Day’s Night’ wasexciting ‘Help’ left me feeling cheated.

If you see a movie starring The Beatles, you cannot expect life to bechanged or to be profoundly moved. It is a romp, period, and a very goodone. There are several things here worth recommending - the Fab Four, forstarters. Add the funny Leo McKern, the costumes on Eleanor Bron and thesoundtrack make this one for a time capsule. Its not "A Hard Day’s Night"but was it supposed to be?

There is also something really gratifying about seeing such immortals in amovie - these men really changed the world. I am grateful that any footageof them at all exists.

read comments (0)

Giulietta degli spiriti

A very well shot Fellini film, it features great camera movement,colours that are wonderfully sharp, and good choices of lighting. Thebits of music played are well chosen too, and the music soundtrack isat times pleasantly reminiscent of ‘La Strada’. All that said and done,the film nevertheless does not tell much of a story - just a premisethat is never broadly explored. Some of the fanciful sequences tend tofeel a tad overdone for their purpose also, and how much is beneath thesurface is questionable. But the film can definitely be appreciated atsurface value, for its sugar-coating on the outer shell is quite atreat.

There’s no doubt that it’s really a colorful film, a film which makesyou dreaming, throws you since the beginning to a world full offantasies and dreams, where you find out Fellini’s imaginary whichforces you to recreate a new imaginary field to yourself. But there’salso a fact which makes that Fellini, trying to create by himself apassive-woman-universe is not very succeed in this creation, it seemshe never can imagine what a woman really hallucinates in this kind ofsituation; there’s nearly no links above the flashbacks and the lifethat lives Giulietta in present time of principal sequences, and itmakes the film not so clear to get in it.

A woman believes her husband may be cheating on her with a beautifulmodel. She hires a detective agency to find out for her. When sherealizes the truth she agonizes over what her decision will be.

This is my first Fellini film. Considering I love movies and have seenalmost 2000 of them that may seem strange…but it's true. The onlyFellini I ever saw was the "Toby Dammit" sequence in "Spirits of theDead". I HATED it. All images with precious little story. I didn't hatethis one but I don't love it either.

The central story itself is interesting and the acting by the wholecast is good. Also Fellini shot in bright beautiful color. Thecinematography is just incredible and some of the images areastonishing. However it reaches the point where the images overpowerand dilute the main story. At first I liked them but then they startedto get annoying. More than once I just wish Fellini had controlledhimself and stopped throwing weird images and very strange charactersat us. The movie drags out over two hours which is far too long. Also Ifound the main music score to be just dreadful–truly awful. I'm sureback in 1965 this wowed people but it doesn't hold up. Still I aminterested in seeing more of Fellini's films. I can't say I loved thisbut it has me interested.

Juliet of the Spirits is a wonderful and crazy film. I would considerit to be the "Desperate Housewives" of its time. I highly recommendwatching this film with several other people at one time. Films areintended to be watched as a group… The reaction of others to this moviewill be great for discussion.

Interesting Note: This film is considered to be autobiographical ofFellini’s adult life. The story is of a woman who discovers that herhusband is having an affair. Fellin’s wife, Giulietta Masina, plays thelead role in this movie. She was privy in their real life to Fellini’smarital affairs, and still chose to play this role.

Giulietta Masina is a wonderful actress. I recommend watching herperformance in La Strada – Fellini.

Federico Fellini's first color film, 1965's Juliet Of The Spirits(Giulietta Degli Spiriti), which was written by Fellini and longtimecollaborators Tullio Pinelli, Ennio Flaiano, and Brunello Rondi, is,simply put, the female and color companion piece to 8½. Unlike thatprior film, often considered Fellini's best, Juliet Of The Spirits wasa critical and financial failure when it came out. The criticism of thefilm was too harsh for, while it is not as great nor good a film assome earlier Fellini classics, it is still Fellini, which makes itbetter than the overwhelming majority of films by others, for even whenFellini fails he succeeds at more things than most. However, like manyof the first color films made by directors who started in black andwhite, Fellini seems to overdose on the new medium, with color schemesthat seem off the charts, and which tend to bleed over into oneanother. However, given the oneiric quality of the film, this is notnecessarily a bad thing, especially since this was at the start of1960s psychadelia, and Fellini was supposedly affected by an LSD hit atthe time.

Basically, Juliet Boldrini (Giulietta Masina- Fellini's real life wife)is a bored housewife who rightly suspects her wealthy public relationshusband Giorgio (Mario Pisu) of infidelity, after their anniversary,when he mumbles another woman's name- Gabriella, a 24 year old modelhe's squiring around. Whereas the film, before this scene, was realistin the way that much of La Dolce Vita was, the seeds of doubt that areplanted play havoc with Juliet's mind, and much of the rest of the filmtakes place entirely in Juliet's head. Even seemingly realistic scenes,such as when Juliet hires a detective agency to follow Giorgio andGabriella, are tinged with psychodrama and images of repression, whichmake the viewer question if they are 'real' in the film's cosmos, ormerely the fantasies of Juliet trying to nail her cheating husband.Aside from her faithless husband, Juliet has other people's idiocies tocontend with- such as a neighbor, Suzy (Sandra Milo), who is an oldnymphomaniac who may or may not hold orgies- this is never certain, forthis may be a product of Juliet's imagination, in her palatial home.There is also her attraction to and influence by the occult- whichstands in direct contravention to her character's beliefs in Nights OfCabiria, where Cabiria mocks the believers in religion. Juliet also hasa cold mother, a boorish sister, and repressed memories of a RomanCatholic childhood that have scarred her in some way- possiblyinvolving sexual abuse from an older male relative, although this isalso unclear since the symbolism of the scene that explicates this isnot definitive, and is open to more than one interpretation. However,the implications of abuse seem clear, and the way Juliet reacts to sexthroughout the film do seem, to a modern eye four decades down thepike, like a textbook case of post-traumatic stress disorder inreaction to sexual abuse…. Cinematographer Gianni di Venanzo seems tohave been overwhelmed by the newness and use of color and spends toomuch of the film aping some of the distorted point of view shots thatIngmar Bergman's cinematographer Sven Nykvist perfected, only not aswell as Nykvist. Even Nino Rota, Fellini's masterful musical composer,seems to be lost through most of this film where the film's visualimages are often at emotional odds with Rota's score, which ranges fromgorgeous classical music to atrocious jazz scats. Fortunately, despiteher character's dourness, Masina again shines in this role, as she didin her earlier Fellini classics, La Strada (as Gelsomina) and Nights OfCabiria (as Cabiria). Playing someone discomfited through the film isnot an easy thing, yet never does the viewer think she is acting. Whilethe screenplay may be overdone, Juliet's reactions to what is goingabout her are perfectly consistent with how a normal person would reactto such bizarreness. This is quite a bit more than one can say withWoody Allen's dull re-imagining of this film, a quarter century later,with Mia Farrow as the titular Alice.

While Juliet Of The Spirits is not a masterpiece like Nights Of Cabirianor La Dolce Vita, it is not a failure, and holds up much better thanthe similarly themed Robert Altman film from 1977, Three Women, wherewe get the mental breakdown of a single woman who fantasizes herselfinto the lives of two other women. Juliet never goes that far, yet thefilm is never as resonant as Ingmar Bergman's more brilliant film fromthe same year, Persona, in showing the inside ou
t destruction of amind, for Juliet never gives in, even as she is being targeted, itseems, for destruction from the outside in; and while that might makeher a more admirable character than the pair of women from Persona, itdoes not make for as compelling a film. Juliet Of The Spirits istherefore a good and interesting film, one that will likely reveal afew hidden depths upon rewatch, despite its flaws, but it is not onefor the pantheon. However, as a failure, and from a master, it is stillleagues above many of the jewels in the crowns of lesser filmmakers.This is something about Juliet Of The Spirits that is perfectlyappropriate.

A woman daydreams has visions and contemplates leaving her cheatinghusband.

I first saw this in a high school film class. I had no idea what tomake of it. It seemed to me mystical strangeness of a highly personalsort. This wouldn't be surprising since Giulietta Masina, the star ofthe film was Fellini's wife. This seemed to be a more obtuse companionto Fellini's 8 1/2. Seeing it again for the first time in 25 or soyears I'm left feeling that its mystical strangeness of a highlypersonal sort. Its very much of the time and place (European cinema inthe mid 1960's) and I can't see it as anything more than that. The filmto me seems very manufactured rather than organic. There seems to be nosense of reality, just artistic compositions- look at any sequence, theopening where Juliet never looks at the camera, the beach whereeveryone is perfectly placed- and its tableau not real scenes. I knowthats the point that the film is a reflection of Juliet's state ofmind, but at the same time its so arch and reaching for meaning itbecomes almost laughable. I remember having discussions about the filmand what each bit mean. I'm not sure any of the pieces really meananything.

I always had fond memories of this film. I remember liking it more than8 1/2, and arguing that the film is more hopeful (a view that was notheld by my teacher). Seeing it now I see it as incredibly sad. Here's awoman who is so stuck in her world that she can't see to leave. Its astory thats happens everyday, but isn't as earth shaking now since thisis a story of when that was not really done (especially in Italy at thetime). I don't think I will have such fond memories after this viewing.

Interestingly looking at the film for the first time in years I wasstruck by a complete understanding of why Fellini has fallen out offavor in many people's eyes. To be certain he turned out many greatfilms, but at the same time he developed a quirkiness that whileproducing visually arresting films, also made a bunch that made youwonder what he was up to. This is one of those that make me wonder whathe was up to.

5 out of ten for the odd bits that work and because Fellini was amaster, even if he's fallen out of favor

Heaven and Hell would be found for her. The frightening images weresymbolic of human fear. Did you notice how everything changed when shedismissed it? Nice work and truly a masterpiece in more than just atheatrical way. I've been studying this concept for a while now andit's funny how this movie came along and stated it in such an artisticway. Each scene was so very detailed and I felt a surge of tension eachtime the woman burning on the fence would show up. It's incredible tojust sit and admire the scenery. I'm looking forward to watching thisfilm over and over again and urge anyone watching to keep an eye outfor the eternal truth that lies within the picture.

Fellini fascinates me because there have never been any other filmslike his. As with the rest of his work that I've seen, with Juliet ofthe Spirits, he is cotton-dry, avoiding any intimacy or tenderness, hisstory is very abstract and must be told in the most purely cinematicsense. Fellini's extremely talented wife, Giulietta Masina, plays thetitle role, a mysterious nod to her own name. Giulietta explores hersubconscious, having wild dreams, and finds herself partaking in thepeculiar daily life of her neighbor, sexy Sandra Milo, trying to escapefrom the drearily tedious days she passes as the wife of her womanizinghusband who oppresses her (perhaps based on Fellini himself, theconnection that perhaps can be made between the familiarization of thetitle role with Masina herself?).

The journey Giulietta takes is a psychologically elevating one, as shecomes to know herself completely by working through her desires anddemons, and Fellini takes us through it with some of the mostinarguably beautiful cinematography I have ever seen in my life. Theemboldened colors are given to great schemes and themes and hisextended takes capturing constant activity result in incrediblesteadicam and panning shots.

The largest role played in the film however is Fellini, the key towhose mystique lies in the distance he keeps between himself and theaudience. So, he continues to beguile me as it's difficult to let thismovie go once it's over.

Two and a half-hours didn’t bore me, despite the lack of a plot andrelatively cryptic message. Of the three Fellini movies I have seen, thisis the best. I want to see more of his work. I was thrilled by the totalabsence of clichés. Fellini plagiarizes only himself. His movies are avisual delight, painting in motion. Juliet is a lonely wife ignored byherhusband. She listens to all kinds of advice from friends, but cannotfollowthrough. She retreats into a private world of daydreams. A very poeticmovie.

Giulietta Degli Spiriti/Juliet of the Spirits(1965) dives into the psyche ofa frustrated house wife. The movie is a feminine take on 8 and a half(1963)because it deals with the anxieties and fears of an older woman. It was thefirst film that Fellini Uses color. Juliet of the spirits(1965) is an"absolute film" because the feature film focuses on the live of a woman inalmost a dreamlike state. Its about a woman who reexamines her life whileshe suspects her husband of being unfaithful. This feature was done duringFederico Fellini’s middle period when he dabbled in dreamlikesymbolism.

One fact I find amazing is that Fellini took LSD in preparation for makingthe film. This shows that many great artists will push themselves in orderto get the final results. Giulietta Degli Spiriti(1965) was not a big hitwhen first showed in theatres. Giulietta Masina gives a sympatheicperformance as Juliet. Felini is almost perfect in conveying Juliet’sdiscovery of her independant individuality. It has the atmosphere of acircus performance.

read comments (0)

Battle of the Bulge

An absurd movie with winter tank battles in the forests of Northern Europetaking place in a bare desert. The evil Nazi who loves war for the sakeofwar is done in by his determination to extend the battle. Telly Savalasthinks he’s in "Kelly’s Heros".

No authentic German armour is used, little realism in the action sequencesand some really ham acting make this one to miss. Had the film centeredwithsome historical accuracy then it might have made it. Shaw shines as theonlyactor worth a damn in this pure fiction. Read a book on the subjectinstead.Telly Savalas is good but plays the same part he plays in most war filmsmade around this time. Fonda strolls through the picture as if in a coma.Perhaps he was still suffering from reading his script out loud! I havereadsome of the other comments here and they give this tat way too muchcredit.There were many other good war films made around this time that did so bysticking to accurate events. This movie should have tried that too.Nonsenseto the last.

Just scanning through the reviews of this movie there and cannotbelieve the amount of tank top wearing, nerdy "it's not historicallyaccurate" comments.If you're looking for history read a book.Do thesame reviewers complain about 'Terminators' lack of mechanical realism?

Nowhere was it stated that Robert Shaw and co were making adocumentary. The film is a bit corny here and there. The story is basicand the acting a little wooden here and there but it's entertaining.Isn't that what films are supposed to be? Entertainment? If it was thatbad a show it would be dead and buried.People wouldn't be buying theDVD and talking about it forty odd years later.

There are some amusing comments made about this film, particularly on thisBB. I believe most of them made by sad history buffs who get off onpullinga film apart. Where I agree that by todays standards there are alot ofinaccuracy, but give us a break, this was 1965, a time I guess where theresources might have been more scarce. Comments like "those arnt realTiger2’s but are really american blar blar blar" would be pretty obvious toanyone watching this type of film. I guess for the same reason the Japflat-tops aren’t really Jap flat-tops in "Pearl Harbour" is because thereweren’t arent any left when the film was made. Same would be for Tiger-2s,without the computer-graphics that is available today, protraying theadvance of the germans in Tiger’s must have been prettyhard.I grew up with this type of film and have learnt enough to take it with apinch of salt. If you want historical correctness then watch the historychannel.On the hole a good movie.Nuff said.

This movie is not the "Tora! Tora! Tora!" for the battle of the bulge. Ithas many inaccuracies but it was meant to be a fictional account. It has agood cast composed of some great actors at the time it was filmed. Theacting is fair to good and the score was decent in the original version. Themovie has been dismembered to fit time slots and place commercials. Even thecurrent video is missing some footage. Since the film was made in 1965, Itry not to be too critical of the special effects or the military hardware.Effects have come so far in the past 25 years that audiences are toosophisticated for the type used in this film. As for the tanks, even in1965, there were few WWII german tanks around or shermans, for that matter,and it would be ridiculous to expect the makers of a film to have themavailable to put in a film. If you want to see a king tiger, try a museum orwatch the History channel.As for the film, or any other film, take it for its entertainment value andnot its historical accuracy. 6 out of 10

Hey, there isn't ANY movie that uses real Tigers or Panzers. (But, theindividual uniforms are dead on, so to speak.)

Only a handful of German tanks and assault guns survived 20+ yearsafter WWII and CGI just isn't there yet. The movie "Patton" used US(owned by the Spanish) M-48s for German tanks yet is one of the bestwar movies ever. ("Stripes," another brilliant military film, usesM-60s to portray Soviet tanks. There aren't a lot of options for adirector….)

This film is completely inaccurate from a historical standpoint, butranks up with "They Died With Their Boots On" as far as getting a feelfor the situation and the attitude of the combatants.

To paraphrase Sam Goldwyn, if you want history, read a book.

An all star cast lends plenty of depth to this 1965 Warner Brothersreleasewhich is an epic retelling of the title battle, one of the bestrememberedand most crucial battles of World War II. Plenty of action throughout.Oneof the best World War II films.

This movie was as good as they get because you have very talented actorslike Henry Fonda, Robert Ryan, Charles Bronson, Robert Shaw,Hans-ChristianBleth, Karl Otto Alberty, Ty Hardin and the unforgettable; TellySavalas.

Though Robert Shaw portrays a German Colonel and Recipient of the KnightsCross of the Iron Cross, he does an excellent job in his portrayal of aGerman Tank unit Commander. Karl Otto Alberty does an excellent job asShaws2nd in command, as well as Hans-Christian Bleth does an excellent job asShaws driver–the older and very experianced but tired–German Corporal.Another unforgettable performance is by Ty Hardin as a German Commandodressed in an American uniform.

I thought this was one of Henry Fondas best movies as well as CharlesBronson and George Montgomery (the American Sergeant). Telly Savalas wasalso unforgettable as Guffy–the Tank Commander–who wanted to come outofthe war a wealthy man.

The action scenes are good for a movie that was compressed but did conveythe message oabout the actual battle very satisfactorily. I highlyrecommendbuying and watching this movie as I plan on doing the moment it comes outonDVD.

Whenever I see the movie on TV or VHS (I don’t think it is out yet onDVD),there are certain scenes missing which is not unusual but I have yet toseethe full version which I remember from my childhood. As a history nut, Ilove "war" movies but I am also most critical of them. The Battle of theBulge has its faults but it does have at least one redeeming feature andthat is the performance of Robert Shaw as Col. Hessler (a character basedinpart on real-life German commander Joachim Pfeffer). The two missingscenesboth involve Shaw and one rounds off his character very well. Its a sceneinthe village he has just destroyed when a boy takes a shot at him with arifle. The boy is captured by the Germans and brought before Hessler. Theboys father pleads with Hessler not to shoot his boy and Hessler replieswith a chilling line: "Spare the boy. Shoot the father". To me this showsboth his honour and his brutality as a soldier. The second scene involvesShaw and the "American/German bogus paratroopers" who "ambush" Shaw in theunderground bunker. Not a great scene but strangely one I remember. Myoverall rating for this movie is 7 out of 10.

Hello all:

A friend reminded me that there was little snow in this movie. Inreality, I imagine there was more. Apparently it was filmed in Spain,and while Spain is cold in the winter, I guess there was much lesssnow.

I suppose I like realism, and though I like this movie and recommendit, I would also like to see it depict the environment as well aspossible, and I wonder if they did in this version of the Battle of theBulge. I imagine it was a cold and snowy winter during what is alsoknown as the Second Battle of the Ardennes.

One of the reasons I like realism is that my grandfather, John WallaceRich, was KIA just before the battle began, but in Aachen, not theArdennes, on December 15, 1944. It was also the largest battle of thewar I believe, and the
movie does generalize things as it was a largebattle. Multiple incidents are made into one. However, again, I dorecommend this movie.

Thanks!

read comments (0)

Akahige

Have 3 hours to kill. This is another one of the "classics" by a"great" director that has 13 male votes for every female vote.Obviously, the film-school dropout dorks are out in force making sureit gets rated 8+. In the last week, I've seen both Sanjuro and this forthe first time, and I now know why I had never seen them before,They're OK, but not in league with Kurosawa's great flicks. Contrary tothe comment that this "sometimes admittedly veers close to sappinessbut never indulges", BOY does it INDULGE. It feels like they weregetting paid for drama per minute. And at 3 hrs long, that is a lot ofdrama. In fact, there are so many "tragic" characters and subplotsintroduced that this actually veers into melodrama. How could it beworth 8+? Explain why Mifune is a minor character for the first 90minutes. Better yet, lose most of the first hour, including the entiresubplot of the mantis woman. Better yet, since she was a stimulatingcharacter and the scene where she stalks and attacks is great, put thisentire subplot in a separate movie. It'd probably be a classic andAkahige would be improved. Then, lose most of the Chigusa subplot,including all of "oh, I had a baby and now you need to marry myyounger,nicer sister so my pop can save face and hug his grandkid at the sametime." And, maybe lose one of the two patients that die, or at leastkill them pronto. If you don't have 3 hours to kill? You're going to bereading subtitles anyway, right? You can play a DVD on 2x speed andstill see the subtitles. So, whenever Mifune isn't in a scene (WHICH ISOFTEN), put the DVD into 2x speed. You'll find that many of the sceneslook more real at 2x. That is how slow the pacing is in this. OK, nowthe dorks can flame me.

Red Beard is a great example of Kurosawa’s skills: he has an outstandingcast, superb cinematography, and a fascinating story about pre-modernJapanese medicine that is episodic but riveting. Even at three hours RedBeard is worth watching.

This is one of the few films that have an extreme deep story, very muchphilosophical issues of beeing a "good" person. Without losing focus onthisthere are many scenes which make you smile, laugh, cry and shake your headin disbelief. Many sub-plots and different views all combined into a richand very entertaining film.

For me Akira Kurosawa is still the master of directing and I really wishthat Spielberg or George Lucas would go back to where their roots are toseewhat it really take to make a great film.

Very worthwhile watching!

This one’s a real winner. One of Kurosawa’s heavier entries into his vastcollection of works, "Redbeard" runs over three hours (or two VHS tapes).Mifune Toshiro portrays the title character an master surgeon who schools astubborn young punk on how to be a physician yet remain sane. This quitepossibly may be Mifune’s greatest performance and the film definitely ranksup there with Kurosawa’s best (there’s too many to name). Plus you gotta’love seeing Mifune physically beatdown a bunch of pimps and lowlifes in ascene that says: don’t mess with Akahige, he’s a bad mutha.

Kurosawa had me in the palm of his hand for THREE HOURS. He told me tolaugh, to smile, to cry, to fall on my knees and worship him, and I didprecisely that: laughed, smiled, cried, and fell on my knees andworshiped him. What a movie!

This experience of crying for joy had once been quite alien to me. Andnow I realize it was because I wasn’t watching the right movies. Amelieactually was the first movie to make me cry for joy (when the old manopens his long lost treasure box), and that too is a high-qualitytouching/uplifting movie . . . but this is better - and the weeping wasmuch more intense in this one. After you see it you’ll understand thesetwo scenes: 1) the women screaming down the well and 2) the girl buyingthe bowl. Those two moments had me in tears. I cry just thinking aboutthem.

But, of course, that is not all the movie has to offer. There are quitea few unforgettable scenes. And Mifune in the role of Red Beardre-reminds you of his versatility and incredible skill. This is thelast collaboration between Kurosawa and Mifune, and it is a saddeparture. They are both at the height of their talents, and it isunfortunate they couldn’t draw out the pure pleasure of thatcombination for just a few more films. It itself is enough to make youcry.

And even if not every moment of the movie will have you in tears, themovie overall will stick you in the ribs with some powerful feelings.You will understand when you see the movie how a director can hold youin his hand for so long, how he can re-affirm your faith in humanityand not make it corny or sentimental, how he can moralize and notdetract from its depth, and how he can do all this with such effortlessgrace.

I say ‘WHEN you see the film’ and not ‘IF you see the film’ because youWILL see this film, you have to; the completeness of your life dependsupon it.

Many directors have described their admiration for one of the greatestdirectors in cinema history, Akira Kurosawa. His influence can stretchto George Lucas and his epic Star Wars which garnered its inspirationand structure from Kurosawa’s "Hidden Fortress". Another director whohas attributed much in his career to Kurosawa is Martin Scorsese (whogives a cameo as Vincent van Gogh in Yume – Kurosawa’s "Dreams").

Scorsese’s movie "Taxi Driver" details the story of a troubledanti-hero named Travis Bickle disgusted with the conditions of the cityhe lives in. He ends up saving a young 12-year old prostitute from thepimps who have begun to run her life. This aspect of the movie can beattributed to Kurosawa’s influence on Scorsese and is seen in the film"Red Beard". In Kurosawa’s film a young man who is upset with where heis at in his life (much like Travis Bickle) decides to save a younggeisha who is entrapped by a cruel master; who is echoed by HarveyKeitel’s character in "Taxi Driver". The young girl is the same exactage as Iris in Scorsese’s film as well.

One of "Red Beards" most important cinematic themes is the rescue ofthis girl and her realization that there is better to life. No otherfilm seems to depict this Kurosawa theme better than "Taxi Driver". Theyoung geisha goes through a transformation under the young man’s careand begins to understand life and how precious it can be. This isechoed by Iris who goes back to school and goes back the life suggestedby her liberator Travis.

This marks the 'end' of early Kurosawa. And it seems obvious why. InRed Beard he managed to perfect his humanistic message previouslyexplored in Ikiru, Drunken Angel, High & Low etc…

I can't possibly imagine how he could have better captured his love ofhumanity and, having finally achieve his ultimate expression, it musthave hit him hard on what to do next. After this movie he apparentlyhad a break down. And when you strive for something all your life andthen finally achieve it where do you go next?

It's certainly not for everyone but those who still care about peoplethey've never met will appreciate its message.

After this film Kurosawa career just seems to explore things thatinterested him, never again does he return to the open message tohumanity that this film is. And why should he, he's perfected it righthere.

Akira Kurosawa, behind the veneer of directing a few of Japan’s mostwell-known/received action films (Seven Samurai, Yojimbo, HiddenFortress), was also a master at finding the right touches in drama.With Red Beard, his final collaboration with Toshiro Mifune, heunravels from a previous novel a story with many little stories,connected with the idea that people can be devoted to helping people.Many people take for granted what do
ctors can do, besides thestraight-forward medical side of things. They can also help bringpeople out of the dark into the light, or closest to it. While this maybe looked upon with some skepticism and cynicism in the modern age,what’s fascinating is that Red Beard is a modern film, with a timelesssensibility. It’s a film shot in black and white, but it deals withcharacters that will always be out there, the good and the bad, theunder-privileged and those who are not.

But besides the themes that Kurosawa and his writers have underneath,he tells an interesting, if somewhat familiar, story of the young beingbrought into a world by the experienced. Dr. Yamamoto (Kuzo Kaywama)doesn’t think he will work at the clinic run by Dr. Niide (Red Beard),and at first does everything in his power to resist doing anything. Butthen he gets drawn in bit by bit, starting with an encounter with amentally-damaged woman (Kyôko Kagawa, who assists in making their onescene one of Kurosawa’s absolute best), and observes Red Beard at work.Sometimes it’s too much, but he does begin to understand what he hasn’trealized yet as a doctor. Then, when a girl (Miyuki Kuwano) is struckwith a fever under a repressive mother, Yamamoto takes her under hiscare, leading into the second half of the film.

It would be one thing if Kurosawa decided to focus squarely on therelationship between Niide and Yamamoto, but because he is moreinterested in certain stories with the patients, so is the audience.Like a sewer, Kurosawa weaves delicately all of these little bits intothe film, and often using powerful light measures in certain shots(some of which, when a dying character, Rokusuke, is shown in aflashback in CU, or when another character, Sahachi, recalls a storyinvolving his wife, are tiny masterpieces of composition). And it’s notnecessarily tragic the entire way either- one scene involving a fightwith Red Beard and some thugs brings out a purely comical excursion inthe film. If one of the director’s (not just Kurosawa but in general)is to cast with a keen eye, then this film doesn’t miss out- nearlyevery small role is fit so one can’t see it being cast any other way.

Mifune, when he is on-screen, is compelling as always, but not in thesame manic way he was in some of his earlier acting roles. Here hereacts calmly sometimes, attentively, and when his emotion comesthrough, he doesn’t do the yelling and lightning fast delivery. Hischaracter, which he fits into beautifully, is far more wary of the waysof the world than some of his samurai parts were. As for the youngercounterpart, Yamamoto, played by Kayawa, he is performed with the rightlevels in how the character transforms- frustrated, shocked, observant,understanding, caring, sympathetic. And there are other parts that areplayed without a note missed- Onaka, played by Kuwano, is perhaps theJapanese equivalent to what Jodie Foster was in her youth- determined,believable, and of course vulnerable. There is a tendency for someJapanese actors to take it a little to far into the over-reaching, buther work here is far from that.

I was emotionally moved by Red Beard, and in a way that some films justcan’t do. Some films overpower with melodrama to mark its points. RedBeard delves into questions that those other films (which may or maynot have fine emotional content) wouldn’t raise. There is an underlyingcurrent in the story that the clinic is under-funded for Red Beard. Hecannot fathom why this is so, not that they can’t get the money theyneed to treat the under-privileged, but why the under-privileged arethere in the first place. But then with the film, the questionscoincide well with the dramatic structure and catharsis pulled by theend. It’s a typical kind of conclusion, but it’s worthy of such. One ofKurosawa’s better films; not one to start with if you’re not familiarwith the director’s film, yet a treat for those ready for a three-hourtrip into a world we know and don’t know at once.

Oh My God this movie was amazing. I mean in many ways it is just like theGodfather Part II. In that the scope of the movie is so large and that itworks on so many levels. When Kurosawa said that he wanted to strech thelimits of what movies could be with this film, he really meant it. This isamovie that both cares about the human condition while at the same time notpreaching to us. What is most amazing about this movie is that after oneisthrough with it, he/she will have enjoyed a truly rewarding movie. It isonly after the fact that one will realize how much he/she was touched byit.

I was expecting a beautiful film, but I have to admit that I wasexpecting a boring film. Kurosawa is probably my favorite all timedirector, but I have found that some of his 2+ hour movies tend to geta little long in the tooth before all is said and done (excepting thesuperb Seven Samurai.) However, I was pleasantly surprised. This filmis a delight. I was truly moved by the story of the cynical youngdoctor who gradually learns to care for his patients, under thetutelage of a stern but caring elder, played by Mifune. The first majordeath scene is truly extraordinary, and is surely on the short list ofKurosawa's most memorable ( the music plays loudly as a sick man liftshis head up one last time. He is in a dark room but the light shines onhis face at that moment. It is magnificent.) I think Mifune was verycapable as the elder doctor, and I disagree with Steven Prince'scommentary, in which he claimed that Shimura would have done a betterjob with certain scenes, in particular one where the doctor is(unsuccessfully) trying to give a young child medicine. For sure,Shimura would have been more natural at it, but that was part of thecharm, that Mifune was playing against type, and that the doctorhimself had to make an effort to tamp down his enormous energies andtap into his caring side. The second half of the film is dominated bythe young doctor, a young girl, and an even younger boy, as Mifunevirtually disappears. However, it continues to fascinate, as we trackthe young doctor's immersion with a single patient, who in turn regainsher humanity by caring for him when he is sick, and helping the young(hungry) boy in his desperate situation.

In short, I cannot recommend this film highly enough, esp. for theKurosawa admirer. Perhaps Ikiru, Akahige, and Ran, are respectivelyKurosawa's three most comprehensive statements about man as a whole(although all his films are about the state of man alone and withothers, Rashomon, High and Low, I Live in Fear for example), andAkahige, I believe, is his peak in terms of his humanistic vision ofwhat man is capable of and can evolve to be. This is his last film withMifune, as is well known. A fitting statement for both men, although itwould have been interesting to see what Mifune could have done asHidetora in Ran.

read comments (0)

Alphaville, une étrange aventure de Lemmy Caution

While it does not come off as art for art’s sake, it nevertheless lost me.Actually, I don’t so much think that it lost me as that there was not muchthere. The plot is weak. The film is largely snippets of a society goneamuck, ruled by a computer that makes Hal seem nice. When "love" getsdragged into the mix, it does not wash, as the film does nothing to showtheviewer any love between the lead characters. On the Star Trek scale from"Spock’s Brain" to "City on the Edge of Forever", this is a "Spock’sBrain."

More cheap Kafka imitations coming your way…

This very French philosophical sci-fi is basically an excuse for Godardto unleash his favourite thoughts about mankind and life onto theviewing public. There is no story to speak of, just a bunch of absurdscenes - and not particularly interesting at that - filled with variousvery very very very deep thoughts. Do I even have to use the "p" word?Pretentious. The unavoidable word when it comes to reviewing so much ofthe vastly overrated European crap.

Alphaville is NOT a city of the future. It's a 60s city which hasn'theard of moon-travel, let alone "galactic travel" - which is solaughably mentioned at one point. (Lemmy Clochard at one point refersto Alphaville as "Zeroville", and he pretty much speaks the truth.) Ifyou don't have a sufficient budget, either don't do your own version ofMetropolis at all, or use your directorial imagination as to what youshould film in order to create the illusion of such a city with whatlittle money you have. But Godard is no Tarkovsky("Solaris"/"Stalker"), not even at knee-level. He desperately neededthat 50-mil budget. In fact, I can see why Billy Wilder called Godard a"lazy bum": this little Frenchman (I assume he's little) wasn'tbothered much with either the look of the movie or the story. He justgot a cameraman, a crew, some very average actors, and his damnI-wrote-it-in-an-afternoon script. Any of Godard's philosophicalpreachings could have been placed anywhere in the movie: he literallystuck them anywhere, most of the time. By having no meaningful plot, heestablished a perfect terrain for himself to throw in any speech aboutanything anywhere in the movie. For example, that stuff about Communismand Capitalism needing to establish plans might as well have been inthe first 5 minutes or the last 5.

The movie actually starts out fairly interestingly. While some peoplemay be put off by the narrator's voice, I liked it - at least for awhile, until its overuse undermined the overall effect it could havehad. ("Less is more".) Nevermind that computers don't sound like fatold Euro-trash grease-balls with encroaching throat cancer, but thevoice did lend the movie some much-needed atmosphere. (But to suggestKubrick's Hal 3000 is in any way related to this computer's voice isquite silly.) The music at first seems appropriate, or at least aninteresting choice, but the repetitive nature of it very quicklybecomes headache-inducing. ("Less is more." But this particular pieceof fortune-cookie movie-making true-and-tried philosophy is somethingGodard has never heard of, being too immersed in the works of Sartre orHegel to have time to learn the craft of film-making.) After only 10minutes I realized that "this movie isn't going to make much sense andwon't have a story", so I basically decided to patiently sit it out,hoping that at least I might find something interesting/worthwhile init.

I've checked Godard's filmography and - sure enough - the man madeabout 4-5 films per year, in the mid-60s. This movie is a rushed job,and it's obvious. On the other hand, considering how quickly he did it,it's not even that bad! Maybe he's some kind of genius after all.

How can Godard have his characters use "light-years" as a replacementterm for "years" or "decades"? Did this divine intellectual wannabehave no time to read up on some BASIC science, especially physics,in-between all those mostly bulls**t philosophical ramblings from the"exalted" German, Greek and French household names? What's with theFrench Bogart's description of the leading lady's teeth being "sharpand vampire-like"? Only moments later we are shown her face - as shesmiles - and her teeth seemed absolutely normal. Or maybe I'm just tooDUMB to understand the rationalization (i.e. bulls**t explanation)behind this? Nah…

Maybe the French Bogey is delusional for saying this (about the vampireteeth) hence I missed out on an essential clue regarding his character?More evidence of Godard's embarrassing lack of knowledge about sciencecomes in form of this supposed future world having conquered not "just"our Solar system, not "just" the neighbouring stars, not even "just"our galaxy, but OTHER galaxies, too! In the meantime, this superiorhuman race (at least the ones in Zeroville) can't even guard their ownmost important "control" buildings, hence any clochard like LemmyClochard can just barge in and out of them, killing everyone in sightwith his cheap pistol.

And then the movie ends in a silly finale in which Godard hired all ofParis's unemployed mimes to stumble around like drunken fools.Apparently, the computer had been screwed over by Lemmy Scarface insome way, and the inhabitants of Crapoville are disoriented.Whatever…

And then the movie's final words: "I love you". How cheesy. Loveconquers technology: you can't get any more poetic than that!(Nevermind that Lemmy has a face only a mother can love (unless thegirl was referring to love for mankind or some such crap), provided ofcourse that his mother is a lizard.)

This is the kind of movie best "enjoyed" by people with an inferioritycomplex regarding their own intellect i.e. lack of it, the kind thatinsist on liking and "understanding" Picasso, just so they can "prove"to themselves and others how smart they are…

Btw, if you want a chuckle, check up on a black and white photo ofGodard looking at a film-reel – with his sun-glasses! WAY too cool, wayway too cool for this world… Charlatan…

(This comment is dedicated to all the hard-working French syndicatemembers who are seeking a 30-hour work-week.)

ALPHAVILLE is a dreadfully ordinary and derivative dystopian future taletold in the pretentious cinematic language of the French New Wave anddressed up as an homage to film noir, so everyone thinks it’s brilliant.

Eddie Constantine as Bogart-manqué Lemmy Caution misses all the charm,vulnerability, and passion that allowed Bogart to transcend thestereotypical tough guy role. You could believe Bogart deeply loved Bergman(or Bacall, or Hepburn, or Gloria Grahame). Here, Constantine and AnnaKarina produce as many romantic sparks as a pile of damp gym socks. I can’timagine ever caring what happens to these dullards.

And am I the first to notice that M. Godard doesn’t know what "light year"means, or just the first to have the bad manners to point it out (funny,people didn’t ignore George Lucas’s "12 parsecs" error in a certainmuch-better film)?

I guess I’m missing the boat with this Godard SF-Mystery. Images arecompelling even though no special effects are utilized. It is notdifficultto follow the film, yet one is left with the impression that everything isstrange. I suppose this isn’t bad as an art film, but I expected a lotmore. To me it’s slightly below average and I gave it a5.

Let me first just say, thank you FilmSnobby, I don't know Goddard thatwell and was about to decide definitively against learning. Butultimately, Goddard's laughing with us cynics, and at all those whowrite such things as "great movie, deep, wow, prof
ound, etc." The mostenjoyable way I can conceive of watching this film is as a satire oflove, conscience, Freedom, and the American way- These are not romanticand timeless elements of human nature, but the West's version ofthe"greater good" or "enemies of the people", our own particular formof propaganda ideology. Ostensibly, we're told that Caution theAmerican Private eye is battling against the evils of Totalitarianism,but it soon becomes clear that if the Authoritarian Computer representsthe Left deviation, Agent Caution clearly represents the Right, and asStalin would say, they are both worse . The film can best be understoodby an explication of the his name; Agent Caution. Is not this acritique of serious Anti-Utopian films, those films that dissuade allprogressive activity with the anti-Utopian slippery slope message thatit all ends with totalitarianism, the Mr. Cautions of the World whocaution us into inactivity. The political themes here are blatant, thatin Mr. Cautions hand's poetry (i.e., art, film) becomes a kitschyabsurdity and seems quite compatible with such lines as- Computer-"whatdo you value most?", Caution- "Gold and Women", as well as "I'm too oldto argue, now I just shoot". The ultimate message is that alpha-villeis already in the heart and mind of anyone who can watch this movie andenjoy it as a serious, and perhaps profound, political sentiment. Myfavorite lines come when Caution tells his AlphaVille sweetheartsomething like "I cannot tell you the word (love), you must come upwith it yourself, but if you can't you will die just like the rest backat AlphaVille". Some Great Freedom that is offered! And Goddard followsthe Party Line to its most subversive orthodoxy, making a ridiculousclown of, well… us. To all those who took this film seriously I canonly wonder, "did you really think Goddard was going to let theAmerican save the day with his six shooter?"

Another favorite line- "The Germans, Americans, and the Swedes canusually be reformed and indoctrinated (with the Alphaville ideology),but the rest must be executed." OK. so the Germans killed 6 millionJews and we all know the Americans enjoy their own alternative toargument (see above), but what did the Swedes do ?

In "Alphaville" Godard made sort of a cocktail with spy cinema andsci-fi and deep reflections about to be or not to be… Everything'sset in a future pretty similar to Orwell's "1984" where everythingseems to be controlled by the authorities… I ain't an easy movie tosee, you have to be prepared for what you're about to see. I mean, thisain't "American Pie".

A good movie, but not one of my favorites from Godard's.

*My rate: 6/10

———————–

————————

———————–

OK, maybe my rating of 2/10 is a little unfair as I only watched about halfof it. Maybe it gets better nearer the end, but it takes one hell of a badmovie to make me stop half way through. And Alphaville is one hell of a badmovie.

I’m sure Alphaville makes some important points about technology, ortotalitarianism, or whatever, but if that’s the case why hide it behind suchan unwatchable film? The camerawork is shaky, the picture quality is grainy,the "fantastic" cinematography seems to consist of some shots of buildingswith all the lights on, and most of the dialogue seems to have no purposeand makes no sense.

But the thing that really out me off was the endless, annoying symbolism.Wow, flashing lights that do nothing but hurt my eyes for a minute; that’sdeep, that is. Oh my God, a flashing arrow - I understand it all now. Well,you get the picture. It’s all just being self-consciously arty for the sakeof it.

The disappointing thing is that I was really looking forward to this movieand expecting to like it. I’m not the kind of person who can only understandbrainless action movies, and more films that try to include intelligentideas should only be a good thing, but Alphaville is the kind of film thatgives them a bad name. Avoid.

… but Alphaville is certainly not one of them.

The unbelievably cheap talk about artists and their role in society mighthave been acceptable for the naive 60s, but it’s plain hilarioustoday.

Oh yeah, the photography is real good. Big thing.

I’ve never been a fan of Godard and this film definitely didn’t change myopinion: It’s rather boring and weird without purpose. It tries to be anhommage to film noir, it tries to be meaningful - and fails, especially inthat last department. It’s pulp, nothing more, and by trying to infusedeeper meaning into it, Godard ruins it.

There are some good things, however, which start with the voice of thecomputer. That’s just a very scary voice. Even thinking about that voicegives me the creeps. I also appreciated Constantines low key acting which isperfectly noir. I can even understand how someone could love the moviebecause it’s different to what you get fed by Hollywood and sometimes it isintelectually stimulating. But it just didn’t move me at all. I was onlybored and wanted Lenny to leave "Alphaville" so the movie wouldend.

Rating: 4/10

I have nothing against low-budget films, and I don’t believe you haveto flash a lot of hardware to make good sci-fi (an excellent example isthe recent PRIMER). But ALPHAVILLE (une étrange aventure de LemmyCaution) is a poor mix of vivid imagination and all-too-casualproduction. Was the swinging back-and-forth of a few large studiomicrophones on their boom stands supposed to invoke a futuristictension? What about the sloppy placement of current or older model carsin 1960’s city locations that rarely appear to be futuristic? Theseelements can, with careful setup or editing, work in a story like this.But here they seem as if they were last minute decisions, with nopretense, thoughtlessly thrown in to substitute for better set designor art production or locations. If these elements were supposed to helpthe satire, it was lost on me. I think what Rod Serling and crewaccomplished with the use of light and shadow and often limited sets,in his original "The Twilight Zone" series a few years earlier, wasgenerally more effective (and affective) in the genre than what we havein ALPHVILLE.

Also not to my liking is the editing and lack of momentum for the first30 minutes or so. I liked most of the film that followed, and found theeventual plot points fairly involving, but the introduction to thisworld of ALPHAVILLE lacked anything to push us forward into it. Ratherthan enjoying the more nonsensical aspects at the top, I only feltconfused, and often bored. I’ll admit that some of the cinematographyis outright clever, if not just plain fun; but at other times equallydull and awkward, almost as if there were a second unit of studentfilmmakers, whose shots were inter-cut with Godard and crew’s work.These kind of inconsistencies were annoying at best, but oftenfrustrating - and that’s not where an audience needs to go inexperiencing even the most experimental types of cinema.

Once we do get enough of the story to understand what we’re seeing,however, there’s more than a few very fine moments, and some fairlymemorable scenes. There are fine performances, especially from AnnaKarina, and the film is often thoughtful (even if much of the subjectmatter has been covered in many stories after this one). But thebeginning gave me such a lost-at-sea feeling, that it’s difficult torecommend wading through it to enjoy the more intelligent, creative andeven exciting moments of the film.

IMHO, art-house films have a tendency to get away with poorly orhastily conceived production and story elements in the name ofexperimentalism, but I’m not letting ALPHAVILLE off the hook. Allinvolved could have given us a brilliant work, but there are too manyproblem
s for me to excuse. View only if you’re a true Godard die-hard,or want to see how a well-crafted ending doesn’t always mean a goodbeginning. At least the title is correct: this film is certainly astrange adventure. 5 out of 10 stars.

read comments (0)