The Sand Pebbles

It would be 10 if it weren't such a huge movie to digest..

All 3 hours of Sand Pebbles was featured on the History Channel. It wasquite an important, if more somber movie than Flower Drum Song aboutAsians and Americans. It was directed by Robert Wise who also did themore popular West Side Story and the Sound of Music. Filmed in HongKong and Taiwan, it was set on the gunboat San Pablo which protectedAmerican interests in China while forces gathered to expel the westernpowers which dominated China. As the film alternates betweendowntrodden Chinese heathen savages and racist American jerks, I wasoften split between cheering and booing both the Chinese and theAmerican sailors.

The film came out in 1966 as the Americans were ramping up involvementin Vietnam. The current mess in Iraq and Afghanistan came to mind whenAmerican sailors marching back through the city are turned back byNationalist troops, and were pelted with garbage tossed by angry mobs.As with movies about General Custer and Blackhawk Down, there is alimit to what a few serviceman can do when you are surrounded by lotsof people who want to hurt you.

The troubled hero Jake Holman is played by Steve ("Lightning") McQueen.It seems for this guy that no good deed goes unpunished. He finds theNavy ship is actually run by Chinese coolies who do the dirty work forpeanuts, but insists on working on the engines himself. When Holmantries to fix a broken part, the Chinese engineer is crushed in thegiant piston. Po-Han played by a young Mako is trained as areplacement. Holman sticks up for Po-Han against a bully, and sets himup to win in a prize fight against his tormentor. Frenchy uses themoney to pay for the freedom of a Chinese hooker (Why does every movieabout westerners in Asia revolve around the oldest profession??) Shewas played by Thailand-born Eursian Emmanelle Arsan who was infamousfor her novel about exploring her sexuality in France. Jame Hong, whoseems to be cast in every American movie with a Chinese part, is thepimp who loses his bet. But Frenchy dies of cold in bed with her andher former associates find and kill her. Po-Han gets kidnapped andtortured by a communist mob, and begs McQueen to shoot him, which hedoes.

More Americans get shot as the gunboat boarding party wipes out ablockade of junks manned by the very boys educated at the missionaryschool. When they arrive to rescue the missionary, he decides to stickby the Chinese who then shoot him anyway. The skipper and McQueen getshot holding off the bad guys "I was home. What happened? What the hellhappened? " The remaining sailors and Candace Bergen slip away, and welast see the boat steam away to freedom. Of course after that, Chinadescends into a living hell, embraces communism, and by the 21stcentury becomes lead-contaminated toymaker to the world infamous forThomasTank engine recalls and killer tires.

(this review to be printed in Asianweek.com 2/2008)

This film is one of the first movies that I saw from before I was bornthat really had an effect on me, back in the 80s when I saw it on VHS.Returning to it now I see that it wasn't just my youthful innocencethat made this seem like a great movie — it really is a powerful pieceof cinema, full of complex characters, intense drama and thrillingsuspense.

Maybe it's just a coincidence because one of the other films I rememberseeing at a young age was "Cool Hand Luke" but this movie does remindme of that classic, especially the masculine camaraderie in the lockerroom and the whole sequence with betting (in "Luke" on the egg-eatingcontest and in "Pebbles" on the boxing match). Not saying it's a badthing, just taking note of maybe a style of the times. These are bothfilms that James Dean could have appeared in if he had lived — theytap into the same rebel without a cause vibe that became so much morepervasive after his death. McQueen is fantastic though, just as good asDean would have been. There's a quality of hesitation, fear of gettingtoo close to others or revealing too much about himself, in hisperformance that I find very effective.

The story does get a little bit predictable (who out there didn'talready know the missionaries would refuse to leave China?) but it's avery effective drama. The most intense part of the movie for me is thecharacter of Po-Han, played by Mako. His friendship with Holman (SteveMcQueen) and his tragic death are really effective, a way of showing ushow Holman opens up his soul to others only to have it crushed andthrown back at him by the forces of nature.

I think this is very much an "anti-establishment" film but it sends itsmessages in relatively subtle ways, not through speeches or dialog butjust through the relationships between the characters. First of allthere's a cumulative effect to watching the absolutely pig-headed waythat some of the sailors (particularly the ones played by two of myfavorite character actors, Simon Oakland and Joe Turkel) treat theChinese. In the early parts of the film Holman uses racist slang andgoes to "that place they like to go" with the rest of them, and henever gives a speech to tell us that his attitude has changed but wecan see it in the way he treats Maily (Emmanuel Arsan) and Frenchy(Richard Attenborough). To see that more we could contrast Holman'sfriendship with Po-Han with his antagonistic relationship with CaptainCollins (Richard Crena). At the beginning of the film Collins says thatHolman has good marks on his service record — in everything butleadership. He forces Holman to train Po-Han because he does not wanthis sailors to do manual labor; he wants the Chinese to do it all.Everything about Collins is status quo, don't rock the boat. Crenna'sperformance is magnificent, particularly after the diplomatic/militarysituation deteriorates and the pressure mounts. Starting with Po-Han'sdeath, Collins reveals a self-destructive inability to take thenecessary course of action coupled with an unreasonable pride thattakes precedence over every sane and decent impulse and leads him intoa battle that he did not need to fight. In every case, from Po-Han tothe rescue of the missionaries, it's finally up to Holman to take realaction. To me that says something about the message of the movie –Collins is more concerned with "honor" and "duty" than with reallyhelping the Chinese people. The things that the missionaries say aboutthe imperialists ring true to how we've seen him act in the film. He'snot an absolute pig like Simon Oakland's character, but maybe he's evenmore dangerous.

I'd like to point out before I run out of space the extreme technicalquality of this film. Wise was always a good director with goodmaterial and this was his last really great film IMHO. PhotographerMacDonald also did some of his best work here — this film just criesout to be seen in 70mm. I love how he photographed Crenna against thatstark red white and blue background when he gives his big speech. AndJerry Goldsmith's music is really some of his best here as well,enabling the film to shift from its more romantic and sentimentalepisodes to the sweeping action with ease.

I'd also like to praise the acting in general. I'd love to see CandiceBergen in more roles like this. A lot of times the romantic aspects ofa film come off as fluff but she really held up her side of the film;you can really believe that she's an essentially good person thoughperhaps a bit sheltered or naive, that she thinks she knows how to helpthe Chinese people but unlike her mentor she doesn't judge others. Alsothe film is full of top character actors, like Oakland and Turkel plusalso James Hong as an underworld type, Attenborough's tragic sailor inlove, Mako's self-conscious and intelligent Po-Han, Charles Robinson'senthusiastic young ensign. Every performer was perfectly cast and alongwith Wise they created memorable characters both big and small.
r>I'm so glad I watched it again; it's an emotional film that earns theemotions it asks us to feel and pays off on them with a heartfelt butsubtle message of pacifism, of human decency and love winning overignorance and pride. I wouldn't hesitate to say it's a great film.

Very good war drama film that had great production and was Steve McQeen’sbest movie and performance as he displays his great acting skills.This filmcould have been a masterpiece if it had better editing.There were scenesthat was dragged too long for it’s own good.The movie was long enoughalready and did not need to be compounded by useless stand around and donothing shots for endless seconds.Those needed to be snipped.Get your remotefast forward button ready for those scenes.Also,it would have been nice ifthey had a better actress than boring Candice Bergen.Still,the spectacularacting performances,cinematography,action and story make this film a truewinner for fans of war dramas and big fans of the leadactors……

We know so little about this awakening giant China, that even this movie ofthe 60’s with its echoes of our national tragedy Vietnam, sets you tothinking. As the war lords were being slowly unified, and Chaing kai Chekwas doing his nationalistic thing, the American imperialists were beginningto back off. In the person of the very patriotic, if rigid captain, ourcountry’s policies can be seen. As he talks about ’shedding our blood’ asthe last outpost of America in the peaceful Chinese scene, it gives us arather strange feeling. How few of us have ever had to represent ourcountry with the flag in a land that was hellbent to destroy what werepresented, forget about personal integrity or differences with thosepolicies. Those sailors, cannon fodder all, were committed to providingsafety for the AMericans caught in the middle of many civil Chinese wars,whether they liked it or not. Good points were made to the missionary:"Youhave the luxury to complain about US policies and our military stance, whenyour physical safety is assured by our very presence…the presence youdeplore." Quite true…..the same thought that occurred as I ate off ourantique Hippie plates at the commune, when all of us were from middle-classhomes (just like Thoreau) to which we could return at a moment’snotice.

Steve McQueen does the best job of his career as a lower-class Navyciviliandrop-out who has spent his best years tending his first love, an engine.The way he addresses that huge behemoth in the bowels of the gun boat makesus understand the love between man and machines. Watching Candace Bergendoher vigin teacher thing after watching her all these years on TV as thesmart caustic feminist gives you quite a contrast and shows the spread shewas able to make in her acting. Richard Crenna is outstanding as theupright captain, who does indeed die for his men…ready to go down withhisship. I felt incredible empathy for the professional military man becauseofhim. And he even leads his men in a boarding party…that in 1926…what asurprise!!!!

This is the last line of the movie, and presumably it is Holman (SteveMcQueen) still trying to create the impression the crew is with him, butmovies being movies no doubt there is more to it.

Well, a revolution happened but also I was thinking before he spoke thosewords that he became the metaphorical captain of the boat.

In the ’00s the line might be considered a realisation that the USAunderestimated China.

Or maybe that is a conclusion I’ve come to only after hearing one of theAnglo-centric audio documentaries on the DVD about filming in Taiwan."Chinese Punch and Judy" indeed. It’s opera, and it’s been around since fourto five centuries before Punch and Judy. And still going strong, unlikePunch and Judy (sorry Punch).

The blurb on the back cover of the DVD makes a good observation:"a sailor who has given up trying to make peace with anything - includinghimself".

To Robert J Maxwell: who saw the film a dozen times and still doesn’t getit:

1. Holman’s attitude of equality (not to be confused with paternalism)threatens the cosy little arrangement the crew has with the coolies doingall their work for them.

2. Holman has no allegiances, from the beginning. He lets Americans andChinese alike determine their own destiny. His only allegiance in the endis to - well, that would be telling. I’m sure Candice Bergen providesenough of a reason to a ‘Navy lifer’.

Long movie - can be watched over two nights.

The general lives of sailors, values in the Navy, and the way thatships operate are all explored well in this film. The sets arerealistic and detailed, both on shore and in the ship, and in additionto a number of skillfully edited sequences, there is a significantamount to like on the visual side of things. However, despite the goodinsights that it gives, the politics of the time are ill explained, andsome different events are not well explained either. The story is alsorather minimal, with two dull romance subplots taking up a substantialamount of the plot. I did not find enough fresh material for the filmto grip me for the whole of the epic three-hour length, and towards theend the directing becomes somewhat messy. This is not a bad filmthough. It is well made for the reasons I mentioned earlier, and JerryGoldsmith composes a great score too. However, to say the least, I findits Academy Award nomination for Best Picture surprising.

A sumptuous involving story that oozes class from every department, ifonly I could see the full 195 minute cut I'm sure I would make it a10/10 film, as it is I go for a deffo 9.5/10 .

Steve McQueen puts in a wonderful performance as Jake Holman, acharacter that demands much depth and versatility and McQueen deliversin spades. Directed with careful but very prominent hands from RobertWise the film is paced perfect as we need to understand the charactersinvolved and the perilous political upheaval taking place in China1926. The story unfolds and leads us to a final hour that is a rivetingwatch as much as it is a historical reminder of upheaval and warthroughout history. As a human story this film ticks all the boxes forme, and when it's laid out with a wonderful Jerry Goldsmith score it'sa winner that deserves a far higher rating here on this site .

9.5/10

A spacious, sweeping, grand tale that captures a sense of history andplace.This gripping drama about gunboat diplomacy in early 20th century Chinashows off Steve McQueen’s often underrated acting skills to great effect,and manages to achieve the level of tragedy. The excellent actionsequencesnever detract from the human drama. The characters are well-drawn andsympathetically portrayed. Benefits greatly from being seen in letterboxformat (thank you, American Movie Classics channel). Caveat: two scenes inparticular are disturbingly gruesome (the bearing repair, and the murder).

I happened to stumble across this gem of a movie on AMC recently, and theyshowed it complete without adverts - surely a first for AmericanTV!!

I was totally unaware of the film, even though it garnered a number ofOscarnominations. Steve Mc Queen & David Attenborough are superb, with greatsupport from Candice Bergen & a neurotic Richard Crenna. Thejuxtapositionof personal turmoils alongside the upheaval in China at the time (the1920’s) makes for fascinating viewing. Unsentimental and unexpected,thoughthe ending is inevitable.

Go see!

McQueen is marvelous as the isolated and cynical loner who runs the engineson a U.S. gunboat in turbulent 1920’s China. He was never better, and hisrelations to a Chinese assistant and young missionary greatly effect andopen up his character, as does that with his friend (played by RichardAttenboough) and his Chinese wife). Ironically, he remains isolated and anoutcast with the
crew. Richard Crenna was fabulous as tortured the ships’captain (he got an Academy Award nomination), and the scenery and epic scopeof this movie make it a standout.It was released at the height of the Vietnam war and anti-war activism - andshould be looked upon in that light too with hidden meanings and ironies.Was it "too long" as some said? Not for me. A fabulous film.

read comments (0)

Ostre sledované vlaky

Without a doubt, one of the greatest "small scale" cinematic storiesever told. Every beautifully-composed shot is a black and white work ofart. The performances all around are sound. The direction is superb.Milos (the main character here) is not unlike the pigeons kept by thestationmaster and his wife: he is caged (repressed) and manages, withnot some degree of awkwardness, to finally "break free" of hisfetters… just in time for World War Two to literally come thunderingdown the tracks at him. "Everything flies that has wings," the"seduced" girl says, at one point. In the end, Milos finds his manhoodin the ultimate release.

This is one of those movies that is so totally unpretentious andsubtle, you're barely aware just how great it is.

It's the simple story of a young worker at a train station, duringWorld War II when the Nazis are spreading like disease throughoutEurope. Trains carrying Nazi officials and soldiers pass by the trainstation on a regular basis. While this is bad, it isn't the biggestproblem. The kid's budding sexuality has begun to boil over, and hedesperately searches for answers as to why he is turned on by seeminglymundane, non-sexual things (a goose being stuffed for dinner, a trainwhistle blowing, etc.).

He plays sidekick to an older station worker, who has no problem withthe ladies at all. The famous scene in which he stamps a young femaleco-worker's bare buns is both funny and hypnotically erotic.

I won't give away the ending, but, while it certainly is something of adowner, there's an uplifting element to it as well, as our hero finallygets his priorities straight and truly becomes a man. This is a greatlittle movie, well worth checking out.

Young railway trainee Milos follows in the steps of his forbears all of whomwere not particularly devoted to their vocations and found reason to retireearly. To become an assistant station master does not excite Milos, but heundertakes the traineeship because he is persuaded that the uniform commandsa certain respect. He also decides it will be nice to watch the trains goby.

This rather quirky comedy set on a railway station somewhere inCzechoslovakia during World War 11 ridicules the rules and regulations ofthe railway system where responsibility is passed down the line to thetrainee who pulls the levers but who is not authorised to use the rubberstamps nor to use his hot moist breath to ensure a good printout.

A lot is made of the authorisation stamp in this film and much of the humourrevolves about its use. Some of the characters believe that stamping awoman’s bottom is going too far and such an act should be brought before thecourts. This hilarious situation is typical of the somewhat suggestivehumour throughout the film.

Milos knows nothing about the sexual act and gets very depressed. Hisdoctor confides that he should educate himself by finding a mature woman whocan help and advise him. Unsmiling Milos finds little success as shyly heasks every woman he meets including the station master’s wife to help him. There is a quiet humour in every scene. Milos gains our sympathy eventhough we feel he needs a bit of a push.

The final scene is so unexpected. Milos will not be saluting the trains anymore as they roll by with their German passengers…. I suppose life is likethat.

I have had the extreme luck of not only seeing this film in the cinema buteven finding a copy of the screenplay here in Prague. Jiri Menzel isstill,I am happy to report, directing films that are fantastic. Unfortunately,none is the jewel this one is. It was one of Neckar’s best, too. I mightsuggest that if you like this film you try "Larks on a String"-SkrivancinaNiti. It was another Menzel-Neckar gem.

Closely Watched Trains is a a film to be watched again and again.

It’s a coming-of-age type story that delves into the viewers psyche,young Milos who has some troubles with his girlfriend, seems to havethis dwell on his life. And the world around him reacts, from the womanriding a horse to steam coming out of the train, the woman working herbaking, and simply the movement of young Milos becoming a man in hisown sense.

But this film isn’t just a sexual innuendo, smart comedy presidesthrough it all which most anyone can pick up on, a lot of it is sexualbut not all. Making it a surprisingly upbeat film throughout, a raritynot just in a War film, but Czech cinema in general. This may make itsound a bit too happy but it definitely isn’t. It’s still a movingpiece that demands repetitive watches.

Recommended for anyone with an interest in classic European cinema. Ifyou are going to start watching Czech films, start with Closely WatchedTrains.

I saw this film at film-school. Ever since, I have rated this film as one ofthe very best, its beauty, seriousness, sensualism and cinematography. It isall black and white, but so full of life.I am myself a cinematographer today.

Try to watch it.

The "Closely Watched Trains" are those that are carrying supplies tothe German army in and through occupied Czechoslovakia during World WarII. That is why they are closely watched–so that they run on time. Butthey are also closely watched by the people of Czechoslovakia,especially dispatcher Hubicka (Josef Somr) and his trainee Milos Hrma(Vaclav Neckar) for another reason, which will become apparent as themovie ends.

Not that Milos and Hubicka are especially diligent workers. On thecontrary. What Hubicka is especially adept at is seduction of femaleswhile Milos is distracted by his worries about becoming a man. He haswhat must be seen as a problem demanding comic relief (if you will). Hehas trouble pleasing his girl friend because of premature ejaculation.He is so consumed by this embarrassing failure that he seeks quietus inthe warm bath of a bordello. Meanwhile Hubicka is able to please thepretty young telegraphist Virginia Svata (Jitka Zelenohorska) byplaying a kind of strip poker with her and rubber stamping her prettylegs and butt much to her delight and to the consternation of hermother when she finds out. The German Councilor Zednicek (VlastimilBrodsky) who tolerates no hanky-panky when it comes to keeping thetrains moving conducts an investigation and comes to the conclusionthat Hubicka is guilty of misuse and abuse of the great German languagebecause he stamped German words onto Virginia's body! This is the toneof the film, wryly ironic, irreverent and mildly comedic, employing ina sense a kind of off-center "theater of the absurd" treatment.Director Jiri Menzel, who appears briefly in the film as Dr. Brabec whodiagnoses Milos's "affliction," spun this off from a novel by BohumilHrabal, but it could easily have come from a novel by Jaroslav Hasek,who wrote the celebrated Czech classic, "The Good Soldier Svejk," soalike in treatment and tone are they, and so very characteristic of theCzech national mind-set vis-a-vis all the horrors of the European wars.Menzel concentrates on the petty affairs of day-to-day peasant life,sex, the raising of pigeons and geese, the boredom of bureaucratic jobsas he works toward the culminating scene in which the heroics seemalmost light-hearted and to come about more from happenstance than fromcareful planning.

Some of the scenes in the movie are absolutely unique in the world ofcinema and suggest a kind of cinematic genius. The creepygoose-stuffing (for foie gras pate) scene in which Milos seeks helpwith his "problem" from an older woman is riotous–or would be riotousif we were not so amazed as what she is doing while talking to him andwhat it LOOKS like she might be doing! The scene in which StationmasterLanska is torn between the prospect of seducing a voluptuous woman andthe chance that he might miss supper reminded me of a little boy atplay with his
mother calling him home for dinner. The final scene inwhich it looks like Menzel may have employed a wind machine is just soperfectly presented, combining as it does the stark realism of the warand a delicious (but soon to be mixed) personal triumph of theresistance.

This is one of the classic films of all time. But prepare to put asideordinary viewing habits and to concentrate with an alert mind. Thesubtleties of Menzel's little masterpiece will be obscured byinattention, preconceptions and faulty expectations. (Or at least thatis what they'll tell you at film school.) See this Oscar winner (BestForeign Film, 1967) for Jiri Menzel who survived oppression andcensorship by the Soviets and is still making movies.

Closely Watched Trains is my favorite movie ever. It is 90 minutes ofcinematic perfection: funny, sad, exquisitely shot, beautiful to lookat (watch it twice, so that the second time around you can focus onMenzel’s genius in composing his shots), and insightful–profound,even. Its structure will make any film student drool with envy. Theacting is flawless, particularly the performance by Josef Somr astrain-dispatcher Hubicka. Please resist any impulse to see it as a"political" film–it is nothing of the sort. It’s just a beautiful workof art. Note: Closely Watched Trains won the Oscar for Best ForeignFilm in 1967.

This film adds a quirky resonance to the history of Neo-Freudianinterpretation of human sexual psychology in film that rivalsBertolucci's "The Conformist". Gorgeously filmed in black and white,each frame by frame echoes of a past when life was still mired inconcealment and innocence. The story centers around a train station ina Czech, German occupied small town and an apprentice train watcher,Milos Hrma, who is confused about his place in the world. He is a youngman and is approaching an instance in his life when sexuality isflourishing all around him and yet he can not comprehend it. Scatteredthroughout the film are leitmotifs that represent sex: the trainblowing steam, a horse with a woman riding it, a skinless rabbit beingfondled by a woman cook, etc. He is under the tutelage of a traindispatcher who seems a zealot when it comes to seducing women. Althoughhe notices that the train dispatcher is a sex fiend, he does little toelicit help from him. The general thought of the males is that a youngman should be bestowed with the foreknowledge and insight at birth.Thus, his inability to perform when his girlfriend Masa is in bedduring a bombing causes him great existential crisis and leads to hisattempted suicide. In fact, the war was subliminally to blame for hisimpotence. This isn't a political film but uses subtle innuendos totrace the history of a young man into adulthood. Scattered throughoutthe film are affable characters such as a pigeon loving, crap coveredTrain master, a noble, aristocratic woman, a benign, slightly insane,photographer uncle of Masa, and a Nazi ideologue who refuses to believethat the Reich is in ruins. The sexual metaphors are spread in gustyhumorous episodes such as when the train dispatcher 'stamps' a girl'sbuttocks in a moment of ecstasy. In the finale, the boy is finallycured of his 'impotence' by a big bang, I won't give it away, you'llhave to see this delightful film.

It’s amazing just how many visual sex metaphors director Jirí Menzelmanaged to cram into 92 minutes, without ever becoming ridiculous orlosing the plot. It makes Hitchcock’s train going into the tunnel shotfrom ‘North By Northwest’ look like the work of a rank amateur.

Ostensibly ‘Closely Watched Trains’ is the story of Trainee Milos Hrma(Václav Neckár) starting his job at the local train station during theNazi occupation of what was then Czechoslovakia (only I guess itwasn’t, because it was officially absorbed by the Reich). Throughoutmost of the film the war, complete with what the local Nazi functionarydescribes as "beautiful tactical withdrawals," is a long way off andMilos has more important matters to attend to. Specifically he’s tryingto lose his virginity and deal with another problem common to young meneverywhere, one which the local doctor advises him to solve by thinkingabout football during critical moments.

Made in 1966, when some Czechs were clearly already looking ahead to1968’s Prague Spring, the film slyly uses the Nazis as a stand-in forthe Soviets. As proof of this, and the Hollywood establishment’santi-Communist bent in the late 60s, ‘Closely Watched Trains’ won theOscar for Best Foreign Language Film in 1968. It is, however,imminently deserving of the win on its own merits.

History lessons aside ‘Closely Watched Trains’ is beautifully shot,well acted, and absurdly hilarious, while still tasting of tragedy.Excellent.

read comments (0)

La grande vadrouille

This was a hilarious movie, I’d imagine even for people who don’t speakFrench. Louis de Funes was great, and the whole movies if definitely oneI’mgoing to see again, just for the sheer fun of it!Bottom line: hilarious, 8/10

I have seen this film (dubbed into Russian) back in USSR (before 1989).In soviet Union, dubbing of foreign films was an art form of thehighest professional level. It is a great comedy in the ranks of "It’sa mad, mad, mad world"(USA) and "Brilliantovaya ruka"(Diamond Arm)(USSR). Bourvil, Louis de Funes and Terry Thomas are the three pillarsof European comedy cinema of the 1960’s. Here, I finally found out thetile in English and French, because translating from Russian "The GreatPromenade" only garnered me blank stares. It’s a great example of how afree people love to make fun of their conquerors. Unfortunately war isnot often as much fun as this film.

I saw this great movie everytime I was ill and couldn’t go to school, whenIwas a kid.I’ve seen it for at least 20 times, and it still make melaugh.I often have the soundtrack for the movie in my head.I love this film, and it is still one of my favourite films!!

This film has the remarkable property that there aren’t any boring piecesinit. It just brings you more than 2 hours of top-comedy, together with afinescenario. The magical trio Louis de Funès, Bourvil and Gérard Oury makethisfilm so unique.If you like this one, be sure to have seen Le Corniaud.

One of my favorite movies of all time. Being half french/American Iguess I am lucky enough to get the best of both worlds culturally. Andthis one, just like other great movies of de Funes and Bourvil, makesyou smile when the movie ends. I have both such a happy and greatfeeling after the movie and yet part of me is sad because France losttwo of its greatest actors a few decades ago and we miss them both alot. For those who really want to see how the French think (without thetypical generalizations I hear from everyone) about the British (all inhumor), the Germans (the french i think will always remember WWII inthe back of their minds and part of the population still is not fond ofGermans) or just life in general, it’s a must see. Tea for two and twofor tea. Me and you and you and me. Just love it. Vive la France!

The Chinese people saw this movie after the culture revolution, and thisgave us the greatest laugh in a long time.

It’s been replayed in theatres and TV in the last 20 years.

I know that many people on imdb are not french movie fans, but this one isabsolutely the best comedy ever made.

Go find it, now!

Starring the famous Bourvil/Louis de Funes tandem it is a highlyentertaining caper set in WWII German-occupied France, where these 2unlikely heroes reluctantly must help some downed British airmen toescape.

A perennial favourite on French TV during the Christmas or Easterholidaysit is one of those rare movies you can watch over and over again withoutgetting tired of it.It runs more than two hours but moves along at an incredible pace.Movierelies bigtime on the clash of character between de Funes as theself-important musical director of the Opéra de Paris and Bourvil as thesimple housepainter. But also the hilarious script, some spectacularsetpieces (including a spielbergesque chase by German sidecars) and asurprising finale all add up to making `Vadrouille’ one of the best andmostentertaining French movies ever.

Made on a lavish budget by Gerard Oury who would go on to make someotherhighly succesfull comedies, mostly starring big French stars as de FunesandBourvil, but also Jean-Paul Belmondo, Pierre Richard and ChristianClavier.Incidentally his next venture was to be the equally succesfull `TheBrain’,starring none other than David Niven (!) and Eli Wallach, backed up byBourvil and Belmondo.Bourvil and de Funes should be reunited again by Oury in `La folie desGrandeurs’ but then sadly Bourvil passed away. He was replaced by noneother than Yves Montand.

Up to that time movies made in France took war rather seriously, but `Lagrande vadrouille’ sparked of an endless string of farces set in WWIIwhichalmost invariably depicted the French as very clever and cunning, alwaysoutwitting the Germans in the end.Even the recent (2002) `Laissez-Passer’ from much-acclaimed directorBertrand Tavernier is based on this premiss.

If you like this definitely try to see `Le Corniaud’, the first deFunes/Bourvil caper by Oury or why not `Mais ou est donc passé la 7iemecompagnie ?’ as a prime example of the smart French vs not-so-smartGermantheme.

The setting: a British bomber is shot down (due to some navigationalerrors)above Paris. The crew get separated, and each of them needs the help of afew French people to escape from the occupied city, and eventually toEngland. Of course, evil Germans persecute them throughout themovie…

All of this is a backdrop to a wonderful comedy. It could be compared withMel Brooks’ "To be or not to be", and I believe it comes out the superiorofthe two. Easily the best Louis de Funes movie ever - and so, perhaps, alsothe best French comedy ever…

Released in Australia as DON’T LOOK NOW…WE’RE BEING SHOT AT thisdubbed French WW2 farce was a runaway hit and most unexpectedly soduring winter 1968. Usually French films just are subtitled here but,like Das Boot later, it is one of the few expertly dubbed…maybe therewas an English version made given some of the cast. Anyway, it wasplonked into one city theater as a filler when some other film fellover…and became a record breaking ticket seller for about 3 months. Ican remember (it well) the audience screaming with laughter in the huge1200 seat Lyceum Theatre…especially during one particular chasescene. The Lyceum was the showcase for most family films likeTHOROUGHLY MODERN MILLIE and later WHATS UP DOC so maybe there was aninbuilt audience for Lyceum style shows that helped this film find boxoffice gold immediately. However, after its initial run, it neversurfaced again and has never been seen on TV video or DVD in Australia.Just one colossal release and oblivion!

Why is this movie so funny? And why is it universally judged to be soby people who don’t understand French culture? I have asked myself thisquestion while watching it for the Nth time and while asking myself whymost Hollywood ‘comedies’ made today are not funny at all. I believethat the answer is that the basis of all comedy is to make fun ofsomeone. Here, fun is made of sexual stereotypes, of the British, ofthe French and, most of all, of the Germans, Nazis in this case.Hollywood has become so politically-correct that it now only dares makefun of a WASP male in a business suit, and of no one else. Take thecase of ‘The Birdcage’, a remake of the French comedy ‘La cage auxfolles’ made some 20 years earlier. Being bilingual, I can testify thatthe original version is immensely more funny than the Hollywood remake.That is because the Hollywood bean-counters, who like to passthemselves off as artistic decision-makers, toned down most of the funthat had been made of homosexuals in the original movie. AskShakespeare or Moliere: the play or movie will be funny only if itpokes cruel fun at someone, provided it is not at you. Sorry for thepolitically-incorrect opinion.

read comments (0)

Manos: The Hands of Fate

read comments (0)

El Dorado

What can we say? The Duke and Mitch. The rest passes. These guys weregreat. They owned their roles. OK, the film roils with impossible plots,bad guys as good guys, vice versa, a chicky-poo heroine dressed in ass-tightdesigner jeans, impossible situations, etc. But, hey. Who cares. Mitch andthe Duke were always worth the price of admission. Another version of RioBravo? OK. I liked that too. But, I don’t think so. The reviewer whosays Dino was a more believable cowboy than Mitch should phone for animmediate appointment with his optometrist. These two guys were dynamite. And, look what we get in the bargain: Good guy Lou Grant, Ed Asner as abaddie, Back to the Future mad scientist Chris Lloyd as a gun slinger, and ayoung Jimmy Caan. This is classic Duke action and Hawks knew what he wasdoing. 9 outa 10.

A wonderfully relaxed movie - sometimes a bit coarse (such as Caan’sChinamanimpression) but on the whole graceful and almost helplessly meaningful-the juxtaposition of Wayne and Mitchum’s injuries and obvioushumanfallibility can t help but push the movie into an exploration of agingandimminent mortality. Maybe that’s why there’s less sexual banter in thisone(Wayne’s and Caan’s relationships aren’t overtly consummated and we neverseethe myth-like woman who screws Mitchum up) - the focus is on gritting theteeth andcarrying out the task at hand; not cowering at the passage of the years,butdeeply aware of its implications. The laidback yet unfrivolous toneprevailsin scene afterscene - right from Mitchum’s initial interception of Wayne, therelationshipsare based in deep mutual knowledge, instinctive professional appreciationandcourtesy, and imminent confusion and bemusement (spawning both comedy andanxiety). Mitchum is wonderful butcould have been given more to do - Wayne and Caan play offagainsteach other in classic manner. A fine example of unshowy genre work.

This is THE western movie yo me.The Poe poem recited in the movie by Mississippi has been going around inmyhead ever since I first seen it.It’s a touching story about man, woman, friendship, love, treachery, fightsand the attitude towards life.It does work out that way, as Wayne’s character learns during the process;all you gotta do is "ride, boldly ride".10 out of 10. Yes, Sir!

John Wayne had a string of western hits through the 60’s and

into the 70’s. El Dorado has action, comedy, and a greatstoryline. A movie you can watch again and again ( I have!!)

El Dorado may never be mentioned with Shane, The Searchers, or The Man WhoShot Liberty Valance as one of the classic westerns of all time, but it isstill a great bit of film-making. John Wayne plays his usual solid role, butit is the surrounding cast and Howard Hawks’ direction which really makethis an excellent and very entertaining movie. Mitchum is fantastic as thewashed up sheriff, and Arthur Hunnicutt is irreplaceable as the "ol injunfighter" Bull. James Caan and his sawed-off shotgun are also very good. Ifthere is a weakness in the movie, it would be the casting of ChristopherGeorge as a "feared" gunslinger (oh, come on), but even George can’t bringdown this well-written gem. My favorite scenes are not those with lots ofaction, but rather those that feature great jailhouse banter between themain characters. If your idea of a great western is the Wild Bunch, thismight be a little too tame for you. But if you don’t mind the idea of decentaction mixed with great dialogue, this is a must see. By the way, this is aremake of Hawks’ Rio Bravo, which is much less of a film. Hawks learned fromhis mistakes in the first movie and El Dorado stands as one of his bestefforts.

Though I would never consider this the greatest film ever made - it hasn’tthe purity of Bresson, the ambition of Welles or the humanity of Renoir, itis, as I write in spite of being regarded by many as an inferior remake of’Rio Bravo’, my ‘favourite’ film of the maybe 10,000 I have seen over thelast 35 years.The word that I would use to characterise it is ‘wisdom’. This film (alongwith Dreyer’s Gertrud from the same era) shows how a great director in thetwilight of his career can monumentalise a simple theme with the wisdom ofage. The theme of the film is much more than Hawks’ normal ‘male love story’. Butthe thematic side of the film is so multi-faceted that it it almost giddyingin its complexity. Loyalty, greed, the cruelty of fate, and the relationshipbetween youth and experience are all explored in a rich situation that growsmore profound at every viewing.

This brilliant, brilliant film is, amazingly, all the greater by being shotthrough with humour. It is enlivened by unforgettable minor characters -Bull, Mississippi - enhanced by Nelson Riddle’s heroic soundtrack - but,above all monumentalised by the playing of Wayne and Mitchum, and Hawks’matchless mise en scene. If you don’t see it you are missing one of life’sfinest experiences.

John Wayne was always at his best when he played himself, or what Americathought of John Wayne. It’s been 25 years since he made his last movie, 21years since his passing, and he is still, and always will be America’s heroand best loved movie star. What you saw in this movie is what John Waynewas…honest, strong, and a man overcoming adversaries by sheerperserverance. May John Wayne live forever…

When I was growing up in Portugal, this movie was one of my veryfavourites,and still is. I must have watched it 40 or so times by the age of 9, andit’s nice to know now that I had good taste at that age! Howard Hawks,whose simple storytelling approach has left him, IMHO, the most underrateddirector in history, here gives us a third classic Western to follow RedRiver (1948) and Rio Bravo (1959). Much has been made of this movie’ssimilarities to Rio Bravo, and it is usually overlooked as a result.However, James Caan makes a better green kid type; Robert Mitchum is easilya match for Dean Martin (supercool Dino may have been, but this is Mitchumwe’re talking about here!); John Wayne is as good here as he was in RioBravo; which only leaves Arthur Hunnicutt as the weak link when compared tothat greatest of all supporting actors, Mr. Walter Brennan.

Saying one of the two movies is better than the other is like comparingSchindler’s List to Jaws - both are brilliant and don’t deserve to bedismissed as "second-best". This movie is very funny, action-packed,superbly acted, has a great opening song and features the classic Hawksthemes of male bonding with the token feisty girl threatening the men. Youeven get a moment or two of slapstick.

One quick word about Hawks - he made my three favourite US Westerns of alltime, the best film noir (The Big Sleep (1946)), great melodramas (OnlyAngels Have Wings (1939), To Have And Have Not (1944)), and the funniestmovie I’ve ever seen (Bringing Up Baby (1938)). The Thing From AnotherWorld (1951) produced by Hawks and directed by his editor Christian Nyby,has Hawks’ fingerprints all over it, and is a terrific sci-fi movie. AirForce (1943) is a great flag-waving war movie, and he even managed to crackthe crime genre with Scarface (1932). Anyhoo, I hope you’ll check some ofthese little-seen Hawks movies out if you enjoyed El Dorado. A definite10/10.

Perhaps at the time it came out the movie was just ‘another western’. Afterall it came out in the heady days of hollywood when westerns were whateveryone was doing. That is maybe why at the time it wasn’t highl acclaimedor respected. After all, Wayne was nearing the end of his reign as the Kingof Westerns and Mitchum was looking extremely frail. To be fair, it isevident that both men are looking a little tired in the movie, Mitchumespecially, although that is the role he is playing.

Today though, this movie stands up as a very enjoyable western with somegreat dialogue. The formula for the western is always the same
as everyoneknows. Landowner has trouble, help comes. A reluctant/drunk sherriff isneeded but refuses until help in the shape of an old friend arrives. Itmatters not though as what makes the film is the class and prescence of theactors as well as the dialogue. As mentioned, the dialogue is superbthroughout. A young James Caan,an ageing Duke and some hilarious momentsfrom Mitchum make this ideal family viewing on a sunday afternoon. It doesleave that question to be answered though, just why the hell don’t they make’em like this anymore?

I loved this movie ,,is so comical and also some homoerotic undertonesespecially between Mitchum and Honicutt,now wouldnt they have made strangelovers.heh. John Wayne is rather funny for a change and I like him more as acomedic actor than serious. James Caan is a hoot as the man who cant hit theside of a barn with a gun so he has that cannon to shoot with. Even thoughpeople get killed left and right in this movie , it doesnt come across asthat violent in terms of the theme. I disagree with a previous comment thatArthur Honicutt was a weaker link than Walter Brennan . While Brennan mayhave been more popular ,Honicutt more than held his own against Mitchum AndWayne and Caan and actually stole most scenes he was in.

I highly recommend this movie. 4 stars out of 4

read comments (0)

Blowup

I just saw Blowup last night for the first time. It’s not amystery/thriller, but it could have been. The murder was just asubplot, but it did leave me wanting more. It was a late 60’s modernarts film with a murder thrown in. I enjoyed some of the arts scenesand the cinematography, but a lot of the scenes were unnecessary andtoo lengthy. Like the antiques store scene, which was pretty stupid.And you could elaborate on the female neighbor who had a guy, but lovedthe photographer. The two girls who come over and rip their clothesoff. I liked that, the sexuality, the tension, the way he treated themlike toys. I’d like to remake this the right way. Someone should remakethis the right way. It has the potential to be a good movie if writtenwell.

i'm no aficionado, but i do see a bunch of movies and think that thedepiction of the vacuous fashion world, swinging London, its potheadparties, was way off-the-mark, heavy-handed, not a just representation.society is set up as the straw man, if you will, to justify and explainthe character deficiencies of Thomas, to locate him… Like, hey, howcan you blame the guy for his existential emptiness? look at thesedimwitted girls, look at how supposed authorities like editors arestoned out of their minds

but consider, just as one example, that night club scene, where theYardbirds are playing; there's this one shot of a girl who is justlooking at her nails, as if she can't even hear the band rocking on.that's how out of it today's youth is, the director says. but thatscene, that shot in particular is so "framed," so fake and false, as ifind that much of the scenes of the swinging society are. in fact youcould say, society is "framed" ha ha by antonioni. even the guitaristwho bams the heck out the speaker that isn't' working, is "framed."framed for his guilt, by the director, of belonging to the decadentsociety. there is no real emotion there not because the kid isn'tfeeling it, but because the director refuses to look.

actually, this idea of framing, now that i think of it, is a prettyhandy waay of talking about this movie. because that's what Thomasdoes, remember, when he blows up the Vanessa Redgrave photo and draws aperfect rectangle around the part of the image in which he thinks amurderer lurks. i was sort of struck by the perfection of thatrectangle when he takes his magnifying glass away. because that was bs.no one draws a rectangle that perfectly by hand. hey, i'm a sticklerfor detail. but its part of my point: framing is what the movie isabout, and the director is himself just as guilty of this ideological"squaring off" if you will, as thomas is of reimagining a world inwhich he can be something other than a voyeur, in which he may be ableto take action.

basically, i thought there was very little that was true or honest topeople, to individuals, in this movie. because it wasn't really aboutpeople, their weaknesses or whatsoever, it was about the directorsphilosopjy. you want anti-heroes? true anti-heroes? go see sideways.

The celebrated issue of "Time" from which American culture appropriatedthe expression "Swinging London" mentioned that Michelangelo Antonioniwas poking about London, preparatory to making a movie about thissurfacy (or profound - take your pick) phenomenon. The result, "BlowUp’, is the drastic expansion of a short story about Latin Americanhomosexuality, transmogrified into a mid-60s heterosexual romp.

OK, "Blow Up" is a thriller. A cool thriller, in which there is lessthan riveting suspense as the imitation David Bailey photographerprotagonist investigates a murder he might just have caught on film. Adirector with a surer hand on a nation’s pulse, an Alfred Hitchcocksomehow returned to the old soil in his golden years, might have madesomething of this. The Italian scenarist/helmsman and his multinationalcollaborators clearly haven’t a clue - surely not a good start to acrime story.

This contains huge SPOILERS and much sarcasm.

OOH! Look everyone! The movie started off with a group of mimes playingin the street! This is going to be an art film!!!

OOH! Look everyone! The main character of the film is a photographer!Isn't that great SYMBOLISM of the audience seeing only a small view ofthe world and only from a limited point of view? Isn't this fantasticart????

OOH! Look everyone! The photographer is bored with his life and wantsto experience something new so he decided to buy an antique store.Isn't that wonderful IRONY??? Isn't that fantastic art???? OOH! Lookeveryone! He is going to buy it from a young woman bored with theuseless old stuff in the store and wanting to go out and do somethingnew! Isn't that great SYMBOLISM of the world leaving behind all thetrappings of time and moving on? Isn't this fantastic art???? OOH! Lookeveryone! He just bought a propeller - the part that makes the plane go- isn't that great SYMBOLISM that the photographer wants to gosomewhere else in life, but since it is not attached to the plane,isn't that great IRONY AND SYMBOLISM that he is trapped?? Isn't thisfantastic art????

OOH! Look everyone! There is a couple in a pretty garden with a tree inthe middle! Isn't that just like the Garden of Eden? Isn't that greatSYMBOLISM? Isn't this fantastic art???

OOH! Look everyone! The 'Eve' is setting up the 'Adam' for death! OOH!Look everyone! The evil 'serpent' is hidden in the trees! OOH! LookEveryone! 'Eve' realizes she has been discovered by the photographerwho thinks he is God and is trying to hide her sin! WOW!!!! Just likein Genesis. Isn't that fantastic art????

OOH! Look everyone! 'Eve' has come to the photographer's studio ANDTOOK OFF HER TOP!!!!! Nudity!!! Isn't that great SOPHISTICATION! OOH!Look Everyone! 'Eve' is offering sex in exchange for the photographs!Isn't that great SYMBOLISM of the fact that everyone who sins must sinfurther in order to cover up what we have done? OOH! Look everyone! Nowshe is getting STONED!!!! Now we know this is a mature film forenlightened audiences!!!

OOH! Look everyone! The photographer is looking at his pictures moreclosely and finding hidden images in them! Isn't this great SYMBOLISMof the fact that there is much more going on than what we, theaudience, see? Isn't this fantastic art?

OOH! Look everyone! Two women have come in to the studio to have SEXwith the photographer! This proves this is a sophisticated, maturefilm! I bet someone will find the symbolism of their appearance, but Iam too busy watching them frolic right now.

OOH! Look everyone! The photographer has gone to a concert where no onemoves. Isn't that great SYMBOLISM of the people in the world justwatching life rather than experiencing it? Isn't this fantastic art?

OOH! Look everyone! The photographer just fought for a broken guitarneck and then discarded it after he got it. Isn't that great SYMBOLISMof his pursuing something yet not liking it once he attains it? ORmaybe it means that the great 'treasure' of the photographs willquickly be useless to him. Isn't this fantastic art???

OOH! Look everyone! The photographer just discovered that all thepictures and their secrets have been stolen AND no proof exists anylonger of what he has discovered. Isn't that great SYMBOLISM and IRONYin that his knowledge now has as much validity and value as that of thethoughts of the vacuous models he so despises?? Isn't this fantasticart???

OOH! Look everyone! The photographer has met up with MIMES!!!! ART INAND OF ITSELF!!!!! (I think I may faint!) And now the mimes are playingtennis!! What great SYMBOLISM!!!! Could they mean that we go throughlife seeing only what we expect to see (in that we are following anon-existent ball because we understand the context of what the mimesa
re doing) and miss out on what might really be happening? OOH! Lookeveryone! The photographer has chased the imaginary ball and has thrownit back to the mimes!!! Isn't that symbolic of him no longer having a'voice' for what he knows and now becoming as meaningless as irrelevantas the mimes? OR could it mean he now looks at things in a new way andsees things that aren't there? OR could it mean OOH! Look everyone! Thephotographer is now all by himself in a field. OOH! Look everyone! Hevanished! Isn't that great SYMBOLISM? Isn't this fantastic art????

HEY! It just dawned on me that there was no real plot or resolution ofthe thin story lines within the film… and the dialogue meant nothing…and I really didn't like any of the shallow, cruel characters… and thefilm strayed off into a lot of irrelevant scenes… BUT it has all thesnobbish critics excited because it is different and "artistic", and Iwant to look sophisticated and above those who go to movies forsomething so mundane and common as "entertainment" SO I think I willsay it was a great masterpiece or classic film rather than admit it waspretentious tripe. Then I guess I also need to think up put-downs foranyone who thinks otherwise (or just call them "teenagers") to show howintellectual I think myself to be.

OOH!!! WHAT A GREAT FILM!!!!!

Christ was this a stinker?! I watched this one in the firm conviction that"this is a classic, it must be good" and I secretly hoped for a Brian DePalma styled movie. Instead I got 60’s "far out" combined withthriller-esque setting. Don’t waste your time with this one, see DePalma’sBlow out instead; same idea but that one is a real movie…

This film shouldbe listed as an (unintentional) "comedy", not a "drama/mystery" (of whichithas neither). This has to be one of the most pretentious and boring filmsI’ve ever seen.

Blowup

A photographer is running around looking to find something interestingto photograph other than beautiful women throwing themself at him,something which he hates. One day as he walks in the park photographinghe photographs are murder without noticing, but then woman is sointerested in getting the pictures back that he gets suspicious, as heinvestigates the pictures he notices how he apparently havephotographed a murder.

This movie is artistic yeah, but i think it’s possible the most boringand meaningless artistic movie i have ever seen, and i’m quite a fan ofunique movies that tries to stand out. This is not the case, forstarters the storyline is just too slow to make it interesting, theending is actually quite a thinker, at first i was very confused. Howcould it end like this?? But when i think about it the message of themovie stands quite clear with the end, but a well done ending doesn’tmake up for the movie in general, even though the movie have aninteresting plot and a good message, it’s just simply too boring.

The movie could have been made as a short movie, there are simply somany scenes that could have been cut out it’s offending, there are tonsof scenes where we see our head character walking down the street,walking around in the park, or just generally completely pointlessscenes. For example the one at the rock concert, a scene that i have nounderstanding what so ever for existing, it had nothing to do with themovie really, it felt to me like it was just there for the sake ofbeing there.

The directing is obviously one of the supposedly strong sides in anartistic movie like this, but it never really breaks through here, thework of the camera should have symbolized the story point a lot morethan it did, actually i think the directing is quite weak on this one.The overdone scenes that lasts longer than they should makes it feel abit like the directing is having problems with his self criticism, itshould stand clear for anyone there are too many scenes in this moviethat feels pointless. I could cut it down to 20 mins and still make thesame point.

For the acting i was pretty impressed with the convincing performanceof our head character, who i never managed to figure out the name of,but he is pretty much the main essence of the movie, and he does quitea good job. Although he is actually playing a character who is acomplete moron, but still a very convincing performance from him.

To sum it all up. I was really disappointed at this movie, when i readthe plot i thought it sounded extremely interesting, but when it allcame down to an end it was just a bizarre and overdone artistic movie,that i will probably have forgotten in a while, and i don’t expect towatch it again, should i even get the chance. I can’t forget that ittook one hour of the movie before the introduction was over andsomething started to happening. When the story finally got going ifinally found an interest in the plot, but even after the introductionof the over and the point of no return had started, there never seemedto appear a climax, the movie went on to continue with useless andpointless scenes. And then a very sudden end that at first didn’t makemuch end, and even though it’s actually quite a good end when i lookback, i still found the overall experience of the movie empty, partlyboring and overdone.

3/10

After reading all the positive arty reviews of the film, this monkey decidedto follow along and rent it. No, I don’t hate it, but if you want to beentertained, then don’t bother. There is absolutely no entertainment valuehere. If you want to see art, go to a museum. The paintings will probablymove as fast as the pace of this movie. And if you don’t care for climaxes,this is your flic, although who doesn’t like a good climax? Very boring,very useless, very annoying (why have the two naked chicks scream like that!ugh). This monkey will now retire from any old artsy films, thank you. Leave this one for the film school crowd.

I was forced to sit through this in a film class, and it was by far theworst film that I have ever seen. This film made me wish that I was watchingBattlefield Earth. This movie made the Cable Guy look like a work of art. Ican not express in words my contempt for this film. The plot was fragmentedand went nowhere. There really was no point to this movie. Characters wereadded and dropped constantly for no purpose. Portions of the plot thatseemed to be important at the time were dropped and never mentioned again.This movie did everything wrong!!! And the last scene was simply confusing,pointless and offered no sense of closure whatsoever!!! DO NOT SEE THISMOVIE!!! YOU WILL REGRET IT!!!

The 1966 film "Blowup" (or "Blow Up" or "Blow-up") has been categorizedas a postmodern film for it’s themes and message. It attempts to depicta world without meaning. The evidences for this conclusion are thecharacters in the film: self-serving, self-interested, lustful men andwomen who decide that there is nothing more meaningful than living lifefor one’s self. Sex, drugs, murder are all among the pursuits of theindividuals in the film. The main character, a famous fashionphotographer, becomes dissolusioned when he comes to this conclusion.

A problem with the film is its attempt to manipulate its audience inbelieving this lie. Attempting to create meaning by creating a void ofmeaning is ridiculousness. The falsehood of such messages should beself-evident to the audience. It illustrates the saying, "Confessing tobe wise, they became fools. . ." Don’t waste your time with this one.

read comments (0)

Alfie

A film in which one character, Caine, truly dominates. With his personaladdressing of the camera and the superfluous role that the many compliantfemales play, "Alfie" is a wry and ironic examination of the male ego andits reckless, permissive nature.

Whilst Alfie initially appears to be totally selfish, his inner feelingsgradually emerge and by the film’s rather sentimental conclusion (by theThames) we feel a little sorry for him.

Michael Caine gives an excellent performance with the supporting cast(particularly the delicious and fetching Shelley Winters) effectivethroughout.

7/10

The second best film of 1966 (after BLOW-UP) is a cleverly writtenstory of a ladies’ man who finds out some truths about himself. MichaelCaine gives his finest performance and Shelley Winters is right on themoney as the "older" woman. Jane Asher is beautiful and Vivian Merchantis heartbreaking as a married woman who gets too close to Alfie. Shewas Oscar-nominated and should have won (no offense to Sandy Dennis).

A 9 out of 10. Best performance = Ms. Merchant (once married to HaroldPinter). Great title song. I can’t imagine them updating this in therecent remake with Jude Law. What’s the point? If you’re going toremake a great film, it had better outdo it. I’ve heard nothing goodabout the new one.

Essentially this is Saturday Night And Sunday Morning in color, with afew more 'birds' and a cockney accent. Albert Finney's Arthur Seatonworked in a large cycle factory (Raleigh) in Nottingham, dressed welland concentrated all his energies on Friday and Saturday night when hewould go down the pub and pull a different bird every week. Along theway he became involved with married women as well as single til hereluctantly 'settled down' via marriage. Caine's Alfie Elkins alsoworks indirectly in transport - for bicycles read limos - lives for themoment and sees his own Saturday night turn into a colder and lonelierSunday morning than Seaton's (who at least had a wife to go home towhen his carousing was done). It's difficult to fault Caine'sperformance though with a script like the one he had to work with he'dhave had to be seriously inept to screw it up. I'd guess it had a fargreater impact at the time that it does today - I caught it on BBC TVlast week, some forty years on - and though it kept me watching til thesmall hours I doubt if I'd rush to see it again.

I’m not sure if any movie that has an abortion scene like the one hereshould be termed a comedy, but whatever the classification if it’s gotMichael Caine in it you can be assured of a decent performance. I admitI’m on a bit of a Caine roll having watched The Italian Job, GetCarter, Alfie and Batman Begins, but this dude can act. And unlikeothers who have reputations as great actors (Pacino, Brando), he doesit so effortlessly and within the flow of the film. It’s never aboutMICHAEL CAINE THE ACTOR, it’s about telling the story. The man justseems so comfortable in front of a camera, which is perfect here sincehe narrates the entire film into the camera. He’s so good here, youalmost forgive the strange British timing that prevailed at this time.Perhaps it’s just my North American upbringing, but nothing in Britishfilms of this time (I would include Antonioni’s Blowup) seems paced toplease. Scenes seem less punchy, moments drawn out, giving the viewermore time to contemplate, or if you’re not the contemplative type, tobecome impatient. This is not a criticism, just an observation. Anotherobservation is that important characters in these films are introducedlater in the films, almost randomly. I suppose this more resembleseveryday life, but it makes for less tidy storytelling. In Alfie, forinstance, I think the best scenes were between Alfie and ShellyWinters’ character, but they are far and few between. Still Caine’sperformance vastly outweighs any plot shortcomings. I’m not one forsuperlatives, but this guy is the real deal, know what I mean?

Alfie is a pretty amazing movie for it’s time. Helmed by a brilliantperformance by Michael Caine, Alfie is about several things if youthink about it.

Essentially, it’s all about one man’s exploits in London during theswinging 60’s. Sheesh, if you want a photographic example of the modset in the 1960’s. look no further. Mind you, I’m not saying thateveryone ACTED like Alfie during the 1960’s (I hope not!) but, look atthe fashions and slang! On top of all that, you have Michael Caine asthe central character, and well, you have a textbook example of whatmade film-making in the 1960’s so special.

If you look at it, Alfie is a pretty unappetizing character. A totalwomanizer, someone who almost treats women as objects (he even refersthem to them at several points in the film as ‘it’), steals women fromclose friends, and can’t be bothered to deal with the consequences ofhis actions for the most part (eg children). But, like his neighbor, MrDuddy Kravitz, we love him anyways, because his personality totallywins us over. Seemingly two steps ahead of everyone else and usuallyout the door before anyone has a clue.

But the film is much more than that I feel, I feel it’s an examinationof what makes men tick, their feelings, their gut reactions. Eventhough he’s a cad, he does have a caring heart from time to time, andin an interesting twist, we find out he is actually human when he’s hitby TB and sent out to a sanatorium for a while to cure himself.

Once again, Michael Caine is the heart and soul of this movie, he’sjust so good in it. No wonder people really started paying attention tohim after this.

It’s been nearly 40 years since I saw this movie, but still it’smessage has left a valuable impression on me. Alfie is more than just acomedy about a dandy. It’s about the "evolution" of a man’s personalvalues under changing circumstances.

Alfie starts out as a rather cocky shallow "lady’s man", but he isforced to deal with a number of personal events that cause him tochange his perspective on life. As each change in his life occurs, yousee him change his opinion to fit the situation until finally he’slooking down at an aborted fetus in his kitchen sink. By the end of themovie, you begin to wonder if Alfie finally gets "it".

As I watched the first 10 minutes of this film, I was initially prettyshocked by the unveiled misogynism of Alfie - he is an incredibledislikeable character and his success with women is baffling to themodern viewer. However, Michael Caine manages to make you care aboutawful Alfie and consequently the film is extremely likable. I also loveCaine's hilarious accent (sorry to all those who share it) and the wayhe breaks the scene to talk to the camera. This film is really wellmade and has a lot of charm. Shelley Winters (who played Lolita'smother) is also fantastic as the American woman who finally breaksAlfie's heart.

The late sixties and early seventies were Michael Caine's "cool period"with such great movies as The Italian Job, Get Carter and of courseAlfie.

Caine is enthralling to watch as a funny, confident, but deep downlonely character in the lead role moving from one female conquest tothe next, narrating on screen to the camera throughout the movie as hegives the audience his amusing and often sexist views on liferelationships and women as we travel with him through swinging sixtiesLondon.

Despite the fact he manipulates everyone in his life to get his own wayAlfie genuinely believes he is always right in an almost child likeway. All is well in his world until one of his girlfriends, Gildaplayed by Julia Foster gets pregnant and gives birth to his sonproviding a temporary set back, but this is only the first in a seriesof events that makes him re think his views on life.

The film has a great sixties feel to it and thanks to the ex
cellentscript, Caine's superb acting and a good supporting cast includingDenholm Elliott, Shelly Winters, Millicent Martin and Alfie Bass sweepsthrough its almost two hour running time swiftly.

Having just watched this again on TV the film looks crisp and clear asthough it could have been shot in the present time.

Don't miss it!

This movie is an excellent character study and period study of the'60's. It sheds some lights on some for '60's standards controversialsubjects but it does this in a light enjoyable way, without making themovie too preachy, though its message still comes over perfectly.

I wasn't too sure what to expect when watching this movie. Guess Iexpected another silly over-the-top British comedy but the movie turnedout to be a light movie about some serious matters. Sounds like a weirdcombination but it works out perfectly.

This is probably the definitive Michael Caine role. It's the role mostpeople shall always remember him for and he had a hard time getting ridof his Cockney-image after this movie. The main character is rude,self-centered and over-confident. Yet the character intrigues and younever start to hate him. I think this says a lot about the way MichaelCaine portrays him. He delivers one of his best, if not bestperformances, that you have to see to believe. He carries the entiremovie and lifts it to a level of true excellence.

It really is the main character that makes the movie and its story workout so fine. It sorts of even makes you forget that also the greatShelley Winters is in the movie, giving away a fine performance. AlsoDenholm Elliott shows up in a small but really great role.

For its time "Alfie" is a quite daring movie. The subject ofself-centered lady-killers isn't a much lighted subject. He messesaround with married women, even women of men that he knows and evenmanages to get a married woman pregnant. Which brings us to the mostcontroversial subject of the movie; abortion. He doesn't ever getemotional involved with any of them and drops them as soon as he getsbored of them or when they're becoming too difficult to handle ormaintain a relationship with. It's a rude movie but the style it ismade in makes sure that its more of a fun and light one to watch. Thisdoesn't mean that the message about self behavior doesn't come across.Through the performances and style of movie-making the message stillcomes across perfectly and effective, in a non-forced way.

The main character in the movie slowly begins to realize that this isnot the right way to live. He's starting to age and his health is alsostarting to decline. He gets a couple of setbacks in the movie whichare needed to make him aware of his own behavior. HE tries to changeand settle down but is it possible to still set things straight andstart living a new life after all those years of not caring? The moviesubtle handles these questions and many more. It's all the more reasonwhy "Alfie" is such a powerful and effective movie to watch.

The movie is very style-fully directed by Lewis Gilbert, who later wenton directed some fan-favorite James Bond movies. The constanttalking-right-into-the-camera of the main character works great in anoriginal narrative way and makes lots of things clear without wastingto much time on the images or dialog of a sequences. It helps to make"Alfie" a fast paced movie that is over before you know it. It alsohelps you to get involved deeper- and more easy with the maincharacter.

The movie also gives us an excellent realistic view in the '60's andthe social life of the period. It sort of makes this an essential '60'sviewing.

An excellent, amusing and powerful mix of drama and comedy, with anintriguing main character and story filled with controversial subjects,without ever trying to shock or preach.

8/10

Alfie is a film about a promiscuous man and the situations and peoplethat he interacts with. I can only imagine this is what all the peoplebehind those "Confessions of a Window Cleaner…Taxi Drvier…" movieshad in mind, before those dastardly executive producers got involved.Alfie is so far from the British sex comedy it may be marketed as it'squite astounding. The film has the tone of a comedy/drama, it's comicat times, has one or two harrowing scenes, and the central characterhas a remarkable depth, thanks largely to an underwritten script(in agood way - not to much information about the central character butenough hints as to form an interest) and Michael Caine's performance.It's also interesting to have a largely misogynistic character in themain role, and with him narrating direct to the camera produces alove-hate relationship with Alfie, (surely a brave move for any film)in which one minute you'll see him as charming cheeky chap, and aminute later as a downright pig. Alfie is a great character to spendsome time with. He's not a role model, or a hero, or a villain, but afully rounded, deep character who will hold your interest over thefilm's near two hour runtime.

read comments (0)

A Man for All Seasons

Well, I'm not sure what I need to add to all of the other things thathave been said about this "cinema of quality" effort that won the BestPicture of 1966 (undeserved if you ask me) and a Best Actor nod forPaul Scofield (more worthy). I'm in the camp that thinks it on the dullside; I was quite disappointed that Orson Welles' Cardinal Wolsey onlygets one significant scene, early on — his performance is so distinctfrom all the other earnest but muted Great British Theater performersthat it stands out like an oak in a pine forest. Robert Shaw as HenryVIII is the other highlight, but again he doesn't have that many scenesto impress or excite one.

The film is certainly not at all bad, and Scofield is compelling enoughthough his Thomas More is a pretty bloodless and dully noble figure inthis script by playwrite Robert Bolt based on his own stage work. Thisis one of those films which consists mostly of conversations betweenthe earnest — if unrealistic and obviously to our modern eyes"correct" — hero, and the venal king and his loyal but unthinking andmorally careless henchmen; we're meant I suppose to feel uplifted andenlightened, but I find the setting of one essentially conservativeviewpoint (More's unrepentant and absolutist Catholicism) againstanother equally repressive attitude (Henry's setting himself up asabsolute leader of the church) pretty hard to sympathize with or getinvolved with emotionally. Solid photography and music, reasonablywell-paced I suppose, but ultimately not satisfying.

Consider the pious, "A Man for all Seasons" asks viewers, and two hourslater it's still saying, "Have you considered the pious?" I wasinitially stunned to learn that Fred Zinneman directed this, becauseit's so out of his oeuvre, but then I recognized his monomaniacalfingerprints all over it. Fred mastered nothing more complex thanjumping from point A to point B in movies such as High Noon. There isno second idea being explored here. For him, a camera's job is to tohelp overdetermine the script. AMFAS is no more complex than a civicslesson, but I'm amazed that Zinnneman had even the meager imaginationit took to occasionally cut to flowers and bees. He was never a veryimaginative director.

In order to insure that the scenes of the King, and his distortionfield (whom allow him to be immoral) are received correctly, all hisscenes are about fifty percent beyond what's necessary.

AMFAS relies on viewers identifying with the noble integrity of ThomasMore, which is pretty much a given since most people don't realizethey're completely full of crap. Ultimately it's benign viewing. Itrevisits things we learned in A Tale of Two Cities and Danton.

I must agree with a previous contributor on this one and depart from theconsensus. This is a terribly overrated movie. Its a depressing movie, abunch of grumpy stubborn old men, a lunatic King that wants all to laughwhen he laughs, yelling on the lawn as if he’s on a stage, no real characterdevelopment other than More, to quote Lerner and Loewe, "its abore".

As said before, its really a play. With overacting, lecturing to a stageaudience, it is not directed in the manner most movies are. A good moviefor me will look and sound natural. This looked and sounded staged (like aplay). Its not at all believable. There are positive aspects of the moviewhich others have already commented on, I will not repeat thosehere.

Sadly, as I treasure our library of classic movies, and loath the currentstate of the art, its one of the very few classic award winning movies thatdid not work for me.

Spoilers herein.

We want our heroes. That’s my explanation for the popularity of this film,which appeared after the key assassinations in the US. Vietnam was ramping up andwe believed we would never again see politicians with real honor andcharacter.

This is not a proper film, instead a play and is treated so in all respects.As a play, it is rather simple, and aptly so as it is set well before Elizabethan drama addedcomplexities to simple morality plays. The story is simple: everyone on the planet isflawed in some extreme way except for loyal good citizen, noble lawyer, loving father,staunchly honest Tom.

The story is Tom’s strategy to avoid being punished for opposing the king bynever precisely _saying_ that he opposes him. Or rather his divorce. All the talk– and that’s all there is — is about not talking.

You might find some amusement in watching this in anti-Stoppard mode: thegreatest word game is where no words are spoken, only anticipated. I am reminded ofa Basil Rathbone Holmes movie; `Woman in Green’ where Moriarty says something like`All that I have to say has already crossed your mind,’ and Holmes replies: `and myanswer has crossed yours. ` But that’s a grim game in the face of the heavy moralizinghere.

The point is supposed to be that any man should find his own truth and thenfollow it. But the moralistic stance of this story is absolute: there is only one truthin this film, and we are all asked to figuratively sign an oath.

Well, not me.

Incidentally, the history of this period is fascinatingly rich and complex.Read about in some place that doesn’t bleach it down to a comic book.

Ted’s Evaluation — 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with thispart of your life.

I consider myself a discriminating viewer, and I enjoy historicalepics as much as anyone– "Laurence of Arabia", "Becket", "Anne of theThousand Days" and other period films are among my favorites. But I havenever understood the wild acclaim given to "A Man For All Seasons", aperfectly enjoyable film that makes an audience think, but is so subduedthat it never moves one emotionally. To me, it has always been a scandal,and a sure sign of the Motion Picture Academy’s conservatism, that this filmwon a Best Picture Oscar over the much better "Who’s Afraid of VirginiaWoolf?", and that Paul Scofield, as great as he is in this film, beat outRichard Burton in what is surely Burton’s most brilliant performanceonscreen.

When I first saw this film, I could not understand the acclaimfor Scofield’s performance. It seemed so ordinary—no fireworks to it atall. Then, years later, I saw a college production of the play, and theactor who played Thomas More in that production missed all the tiny nuancesthat Scofield brought to his portrayal. It was then that I understood howcarefully Scofield had created his performance.

Unfortunately, his performance does not keep the film from being just areasonably good historical drama.

The dialogue in "A Man For All Seasons" tries hard to be"interesting", pseudopoetic, and provocative, but just falls flat. (RobertBolt often is rather disappointing for a screenwriter and playwright who isso highly esteemed. Think of Bolt’s screenplay for "Lawrence of Arabia", forinstance. Is the screenplay for that unforgettable film REALLY it’s mostmemorable quality?) Just compare his dialogue with Edward Albee’s savagelyhilarious, barbed one-liners in "Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf", and youwill notice the difference instantly. Nearly all of the dialogue in thatfilm is endlessly quotable.

The other actors in "A Man For All Seasons" have been just as goodin any number of films. The standouts are Robert Shaw as Henry VIII andOrson Welles as Cardinal Wolsey. Each is onscreen for only about fifteenminutes; yet they come close to stealing the film fromScofield.

This film is most certainly not the greatest film ever made, assome here claim—just compare it with the great films of Olivier, Burton,and Peter O’ Toole. It is well acted, it is beautifully crafted visually,but it just does not have the impact of other great epics. And I am
notsaying that because there are no action scenes or explosions every fiveminutes. An epic can be thoughtful and quiet. But this film is veryone-note, unlike other great plays brought to film, and most of the blamemust be laid at the feet of Robert Bolt. "A Man For All Seasons" works toohard at being subtle without being very interesting.

I have to express my disappointment with this film. Robert Shaw ismiscast as Henry VIII and Suzannah York just does not cut it as aninnocent and dutiful daughter of Sir Thomas More. She looks more like aharlot masquerading in the domestic attire of the times. Paul Scofielddoes a credible job and the rest of the cast is good. This is a goodmovie but when I think of the flaws in it, how "good" is it really? Thecostumes are elementary school amateurish. The acting is terrible attimes with Robert Shaw spoiling for best honours. Orson Welles asCardinal Wolsey is awful. He looks like a bloated whale ready to betorpedoed in his death-bed scene in the monastery. Anthony Quayle isfar better as Wolsey in "Anne of the Thousand Days," in fact nocomparison. The music is impressive in captivating the atmosphere ofthe times, however. The story line gets a little too political though.I have to pass on this one. Some good lines, political intrigue and theinjustice of Henry is amply expressed. But I found it boring anddraggy. An okay film though. Worth seeing for sure. Unfortunately, thisfilm is highly overrated. "Anne of the Thousand Days" (1969) shouldhave won the Academy Awards and not this film.

The story of 16th Century British statesman Thomas More (Oscar-winnerPaul Scofield) and his fight against Henry VIII’s (dominant Oscarnominee Robert Shaw) divorce and subsequent marriage to Anne Boleyn (ashort cameo for a very young Vanessa Redgrave). Opulent andbreath-taking historical drama that is put on Scofield’s strongshoulders. He carries the production throughout even when it becomestoo talkative (which is more often than not) and pretentious.Oscar-nominee Wendy Hiller, John Hurt, Susannah York, Leo McKern andOrson Welles provide moments to curtail dead spots in playwright RobertBolt’s Oscar winning screenplay. Director Fred Zinnemann (of "From Hereto Eternity" fame) also took home an Oscar really based more on thepicture’s look than substance. Definitely interesting, but also flawedperiod piece that honestly does not age too well. The performances andthe minute details within make "A Man for All Seasons" a competent andimpressive work, but far from a perfect one. 4.5 stars out of 5.

Movie Review: A Man for All Seasons Andrew Jared Wright

In, A Man for All Seasons, the chancellor of England Sir Thomas More isa dedicated Catholic and is asked to sign and endorse the divorce ofKing Henry from his wife Catherine of Aragon. His denial is based uponthe teaching of the Catholic Church and he is beheaded for committingtreason.

The director does a good job of showing the relationships that areinvolved between the King and the common people as well as the king andthe Catholic Church, this film portrays relationships and how they areaffected when one who is willing to stand up on his own changes them.More being a strong believer in his faith is shown losing all that hehas due to his stance on the King's divorce, he not only loses hispossessions but also his life and dies as a martyr. The film shows thetensions between the King and More and also the tension growing betweenMore and his friends. It does a great job in showing how one man'sintegrity can be very powerful and even though the King did marrysomeone else and divorce his wife, he did it without Mores' granting.The story is very well chronicled in the movie and the acting is welldone, as for its entertainment value it is very long and has littlehumor or action in it. The film is more of a documentary than anentertaining story. The viewers will receive more from the power ofMores' words than anything else. The film is very believable and is agreat ethical teacher; all of Mores' actions in the film portraysomeone who is willing to stand up to anything so that he will not haveto stand on his beliefs.

A Man For All Seasons" 1966 was a film to whose makers many awards weregiven. It is by my standards not that good; I have appeared in the playand know its text intimately from many readings. And what I can sayabout the project is that this cinematic version of a good stage playis unusually good in a great many aspects–a rare achievement by theproducers, William N. Graf and producer-director Fred Zinnemann,especially in that period between 1964 and the much later corporatedecision to spend large amounts of money for special effects in thehopes of recapturing former glories through production values. RobertBolt adapted his own well-planned theatrical version for the screen andarguably improved on the dialog scenes in the process. The musiccomposed and conducted by Georges Delerue is dramatic and memorablewithout, in my view, ever becoming cloying nor intrusive. Costumes,settings and the lighting all rate special mention; in cinematichistory, the early Tudor era has never I suggest looked as beautiful asit did here, not before nor since. Ted Moore's cinematography, veteranJohn Box's production design and Terence Marsh's art direction all wonpraise, while, Joan Bridge and Elizabeth Haffenden in their costumesbrought a lost era to blazing and colorful life for millions. Theunusual intensity of the film may comes from the honorable soul of SirThomas More, whose religious beliefs were sublimated to hisethical-moral dilemma; within the story line; this is a story about aman who thought ideas matter, and asked only to be allowed to acthonestly upon his own ideas. Because they were religious and beingmisapplied to an increasingly reality-based world, he was challenged inthat right–giving the plot its unusual power of concentration on oneman's importance, one man's deeds and refusals. The film is dominatedby Paul Scofield career-making role as Sir Thomas More, author, lawyerand statesman. His somewhat flattish voice and superb abilities hereserved a pedantic man, by giving him the human dimension of Scofield'sown mind and charisma as well as his line readings. Wendy Hiller haslittle to do as his long-suffering wife but does in with great skill inmy estimation. Susannah York and Leo McKern have more to work with andnever seem to miss a step. Robert Shaw tries hard in a difficult roleas King Henry VIII and does not quite succeed. Orson Welles is wellcast as the rotund schemer, Cardinal Wolsey, builder of Hampton Court;Nigel Davenport is very good as the blunt Dike of Norfolk, and JohnHurt as the weakling Richard Rich played a thankless part beautifully.Other in the cast included Corin Redgrave, Cyril Luckham, ColinBlakeley, Jack Gwillim, Yootha Joyce and Vanessa Redgrave as AnneBoleyn. By my science, the great achievement of the film is Zinnemann'spacing; as in "High Noon" and elsewhere, he gives the production abrilliance that perhaps its material only suggested, an ability onlythe greatest directors possess–King Vidor and Alfred Hitchcock Isuggest among them. This is a film to be seen more than once, and onewell worth considering between viewings for the problems, the examplesof conduct and the setting provided for the playing out of humanresponsibility and its all-too-postmodern opposites provided therein.

First of all, I must say that this film disappointed me because of thetempo. Because the places where the fact take progress are the mirrorof classical Kingdom living style and very boring. But this isn't anobstacle to say important points in it.

Thomas More is the hero of the story and I think this name will occupyan unforgettable place like Roger Thornhill, Charles Foster Kane orAlfred Borden in our film memory. As I said in introduction sentence,he died for the sake of his prin
ciple. For the people who intend toread a writing that contains spoiler, there is no inconvenience toexplain it: If a man believes that his feelings are right, any factorcan't prevent him including the orders of king.

Order of the king is related to his new marriage which he think todo.The king wants approval from Thomas More who are too honest as heleave the most important position in the palace.

One more paranthesis for Orson Welles who turn over his position toThomas More as counsellor Kardinal Wolsey. The second trial forwatching him after Citizen Kane is very excellent.

read comments (0)

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum

A Great Movie! Probably better for older audiences, the comedy ishilarious, the songs are good, and it’s a good light funny movie. Onlybad thing is that the camera is bad, but you’ll get over it. : ) Ituses words such as courtesan, (a prostitute) and refers to sexualjokes. It also has a scene where about 3-4 courtesans are trying to beimpressive to a buyer, which involves belly dancing, etc. You get thepicture. And some of the jokes might go right over the heads of youngeraudiences. I’d give this film a 10/10 for sure! As other reviewers saidit goes too fast, I think it’d be boring if it went slower. Never adull moment, this is a fast funny comedy, definitely not boring at all.

Average musical slapstick comedy that had a good cast and budget butsuffered from bad directing style and bad screenplay.The soundtrack wasverygood due to the great play this film was based on and the openingsequenceswas very promising.Although the sebsequent scenes continued to degradewithevery minute.There is one hilarious scene though when someone gets thrownout a window!Worth a look for big fans of slapstick comedy…..

This movie, I hate to say, is a waste of time. It’s boring, its feelingoflength belies its running time, and it’s JUST NOT INTERESTING!

Zero Mostel, who I normally love, plays his usual self as Pseudolys andJackGilford, far from his excellent performance in SAVE THE TIGER, is justho-hum.

Considering this film was made in the heyday of the revival of themusical,this film pales in comparison to THE SOUND OF MUSIC, FIDDLER ON THE ROOF,orCABARET. See one of those instead.

Great to get a chance to see some of the original Broadway cast (Mostel andGilford) but it’s just not the same as seeing it on stage. Half of themusical numbers are missing, including Gilford’s wonderful "Calm" number.Fun to watch if you’ve never seen it on stage but do yourself a big favorand see it on stage, any stage, even a high school production will showwhatthe movie lacks.

Watch this film! It doesn’t have much to do with the real ancient Romansbutit’s a hilarious persiflage on everything you learned in the Latin lessonabout them. The cast seems to have had a lot of fun. And generally, all themovies with Zero Mostel are very funny yet this cannot beat "TheProducers".

Unfortunately, I watched this movie in German and they dubbed the songs, sothey sounded quite silly. I’m sure the original text isgreat!

As far as I know, the movie is based on a play with about the same name"A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum". Its somewhat older,it open in Rome around year 200, so the copyrights went out about theyear 300.

Another fact, its Buster Keaton last big picture. When he in the end ofthe movie heads first runs into a tree , you hear a big bang thats nota sound effect, no one knows how he did it, but he did, the soundpepolewere amazed and couldn’t understand how.

The movie is very funny and absurd, and it shows that we are not sounlike those distant ancestors who laugh at this comedy, almost 2000years ago, and in Rome it self.

I have seen this play on stage.Done by enthusiastic amateurs.It was way more rewarding than this film.

Certain "stagey" aspects seem not to have translated well on tofilm.

Michael Crawford is kind of annoying, but, really perfect on the Broadwaysoundtrack.

I love Sondheim.Any composer to use words like "ecdesiast" and "perspicacity" in a song getshigh points with me.I know so little about Richard Lester, but, I know I don’t much like thedirection.Why do creators hand over their projects for other people to insenstivelyruin?So far the only Sondheim movie I’ve ever liked is "the last ofSheila".Most definitely not a musical.The filmed version of Sweeney Todd is pretty wonderful, and, so is "Into thewoods".I have a neat video about the making of "Company", but, the sound quality isterrible.

Is this movie good?It has a few moments.Should be much better, because it is in spirit.

Having directed a very successful amateur production of this piece andjustabout to don the guise of Senex I feel that stage wise it’s one of thebest,however the film is somewhat of a let down - alright cut some of the songsbut cut the bad ones (if there are any - this is Sondheim)

The casting of the film is as near perfect as it should be, Mostel andGilford are exceptional, Crawford does well with what he has got. Keatonjust makes me roar with laughter and Hordern puts in a performance nearlyasgreat as the one he gave in ‘The Slipper and The Rose’

Just can’t help feeling the film could have been a straight adaptation ofthe stage play and with the assembled cast it would have beenbrill.

Why wasn’t forum mentioned in CH4 (British TV) 100 greatestmusicals?

I LOVED this movie even as a kid (come to think of it, probably notappropriate humor for an 8-year-old, but oh well…). I taped the"Everybody Ought to Have a Maid" number right off of the televisionjust so I could listen to it without rewinding the tape (pre-DVD).

Of course the cinematography is pretty bad as well as the set design,but there is so much talent. Zero Mostel, Buster Keaton, Phil Silvers,Michael Crawford. One shouldn’t expect highbrow humor. Just goodold-fashioned, bawdy slapstick.

I think maybe one reason for the poor quality camera work and scenerycould be the fact that the directors wanted to maintain some essence ofthe stage. OR it could be the fact that it was made in 1966. Who knows?And as far as I am concerned, who cares? It never gets old.

This is a piece written for theater. It deliberately takes classicforms from the Greek/Roman forms of drama, then turns them on their earin the name of Vaudeville - which ends up making the point thatVaudeville and the Ancients were actually quite similar.

Years - years - ago I heard Sondheim explain his score for this show:he said that during the composing of the score he really didn't have anidea of what was going on with the script (at least as much as he didin his later- composed shows). He said the two songs which ended up"working" were "Comedy Tonight" and "Everybody Ought to Have a Maid" -because they were closest to the style of the show.

I don't know what the movie execs were thinking in terms of bringingthis to the screen (the very essence of this show is the notion thatit's live theater) - but, at the very least, it does capture ZeroMostel - of which there are too few recorded performances.

read comments (0)

Star Trek

William Shatner said "…in the context of those times, there were somereally tough fights between the Jews and some of the population,generally in places that wanted the Jews out– a club that didn't allowJews, or areas that didn't sell homes to Jews. What I was mostly awareof was that kids were jumping on me at school and I had to fight.Sometimes two kids at once."

"There was some kind of unspoken feeling of oppression. Being Jewishwas difficult as a kid. I got the strangest questions about what weJews did in the chapels. My non-Jewish friends were filled with bizarreknowledge about things we did with dead cats and blood."

"There were many times when I kept silent about being Jewish as I gotolder, when Jewish jokes were being told."

Source: Pogrebin, Abigail, Stars of David: Prominent Jews Talk AboutBeing Jewish, p. 353-4.

"'Jew bastard' was something I heard a lot,' says actor Leonrd Nimoy,who grew up in an Orthodox family in Boston."

"One day when I came home, having bought something or other, I openedthe bag and discovered that along with my merchandise, the store clerkhad slipped in some literature…the most crude, primitive kind ofmimeographed anti-Semitic, scurrilous stuff with the terriblecaricatures of the hoary Jew-sinister, looking for world conquestreally nasty stuff." "I was maybe ten. It really shook me. I didn'tquite know what to do about it…I didn't even tell my parents…Bostonwas a dangerous place for Jews because young Italian and Irish kidscame out having just been told that we had killed their Christ."

Source: Pogrebin, Abigail, Stars of David: Prominent Jews Talk AboutBeing Jewish, p. 194-5.

Star Trek was one of the first major studio releases to take ScienceFiction seriously and it will always be revered for that fact. Thereare even some episodes which are still very good, including The City OnThe Edge of Forever and Space Seed. However, the show overall has notaged well. The prejudices of the time that kept a women from beingNumber One as well as the fight first mentality of William Shatner'sCaptain Kirk don't fit in with the peaceful tone of the spaceexploration concept. Still, the likability of the crew as well as theidea of an evolving society where there is peace on Earth makes StarTrek an enjoyable, landmark series; the influence of which is stillbeing felt today where Sci-Fi shows are on almost every major network.

What is it about this legendary television show created by GeneRoddenberry in 1966 that makes us still watch it? When you consider allthe factors, it's quite a mystery why such a deeply flawed show stillhas a place in our hearts.

One of it's biggest flaws is that every episode can be jumbled up intoany random order and it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference.None of the characters develop at all during the course of the series.No friendships get strained, nothing new changes their outlook andnothing has any ramifications. Every event, discovery, problem orargument is all wrapped up by the end of the episode and is nevermentioned again. They discover how to travel back in time at the end of"The Naked Time" and what do they do? Do they go back to Earth and tellpeople (and possibly collect a Nobel prize)? No. "Oh! We can now travelthrough time. That's nice. Let's never mention it again."

Another problem is that everyone likes each other! Sure, the odd racistcomment from Dr. McCoy (DeForrest Kelley) to Spock (Leonard Nimoy)might cause an argument but they never follow up on it, which couldhave been interesting. No regulars fall in love, die or have anythingpowerful or life-changing happen to them. Captain Kirk (WilliamShatner) might fall in love but only if it lasts for the one episodeand that's it! It has to be a completely different person next week.It's too self contained with no continuous narrative other than a newdiscovery every week. There's no real drama and it becomes a littledull watching 79 stand alone episodes.

Speaking of McCoy's racism, how the hell did such an old fashionedperson survive in the 23rd century? He's like someone who fell througha time warp from the 1930's and landed in the far future. Didn't anyonestop to think that such people (who were even seen as old fashioned by1960's standards) would no longer be around centuries from now?

It's certainly dated but, to be fair, the fact that a show from thattime had several different races and cultures all on the bridge and notplaying up to the stereotypes that plagued most TV shows and movies isa great achievement. Uhura (Nichelle Nichols) wasn't the maid, Sulu(George Takei) wasn't the chef and Chekov (Walter Koenig) wasn't atraitor. So in that respect it's way ahead of it's time. (Of coursenone of the characters develop at all but that's nothing to do withrace).

Pity the shows depiction of women is so offensive it's almostlaughable. "Space Seed." The historian, being a woman, falls in lovewith Kahn. She wouldn't be professional about it, oh no. She's far toemotionally imbalanced for that. She is a woman after all. "Days of theDove". The Klingon woman doesn't try to fight Chekov at all! Neitherdoes Barrows when she's attacked in "Shore Leave". Oh, and despite allthe advances in race relations and technology, women can't be captainsof Federation Starships in the 23rd Century. What the hell is up withthat? There is absolutely no defense for this and other very sexistthemes in the series. None. Someone might say, "It was the 60's." Sowas The Avengers, the British television show which had female heroesdoing more ass kicking and less screaming. So that kills that argumentstone dead.

Okay, let's see here. TOS (and some of it really is a load of toss)should be the lamest, most dated and forgotten show in TV history. Theshow's themes don't develop at all, each episode is stand alone (TheManagerie doesn't really count) thus destroying the drama, thecharacters are dated and it's extremely sexist.

So why do we love it? What makes us fans smile when it's repeated onTV? Why do we treat ourselves to a couple episodes on DVD?

For some, it's nostalgia. Those who watched it back in the 60's or onit's zillionth repeat when they were kids have a lovely trip downmemory lane when they hear Willaim Shatner's commanding voice utter theimmortal words "Space, the final frontier.".

Others watch it because the scientific ideas were groundbreaking for aTV show and it challenges our imagination.

Another reason people like it is because, despite it's flaws, it hassome real good drama, with the kind of great acting that only AmericanTV can give. I'm not being sarcastic. American television actors are,in my opinion, more in touch and have a better grip on reality thanmost of the over dramatic theatrical actor we see on our screens, whichis what makes American television drama and, to some extent, comedy somuch more gripping and believable than British.

Whatever the reason, despite the many flaws, Star Trek will always makeus laugh, cry, shudder, jump and, dare I say it, think.

Philip J. Fry in Futurama describes Star Trek as having "79 episodes.About 30 good ones." A tough but fair comment. But what good ones theyare.

Gene Roddenberry struck a gold mine when the show went off the air in 1969. Soon thereafter, the show would coin the word "Trekkie" for its massiveamount of fans. It was better than "Lost in Space". It had better writing,special effects, and acting. A zillion types of merchandise were sold,including toys and lunch boxes. Captain Kirk, Spock, and Dr. McCoy becamehousehold names. I can almost guess what William Shatner might say abouthis car
eer with "Star Trek" - "the show became…bigger than…BIG." "StarTrek" spawned many sequels, including the ever popular, "Star Trek: The NextGeneration". My favorite S.T. episodes are "The Corbomite Maneuver", "TheCity on the Edge of Forever", "The Devil in the Dark", "Space Seed", and"The Doomsday Machine", just to name a few. Overall score for these shows:8.5 (out of 10).

People say that Star Trek is very boring compared to the other TV series.What they don’t know is that Star Trek is the best series on the box anditalways will be. I believe it is the best series I have seen as it was theseries that stared it all off in the first place and thats what peopleforget

Grown up with Kirk, Spock, Bones & Scottie, I admit that I was rather biasedwhen the Next Generation series started. In the meantime I have become a fanof Cpt. Picard and his crew too. The acting is first rate, the stories areclever and altogether it’s light years away from the dull and dreadful,mediocre pile of TV-series that give me a sigh of desparation every time Iswitch on the old apparatus. But even the excellent acting of PatrickStewart, Brent Spiner, et al, is often marred by a seemingly inevitabletouch of current mainstream filming.A negative effect that was even enhanced in the follow-uppers (Deep SpaceNine, Voyager) and made it impossible to enjoy or just watch theseproductions. They have nothing in common with the original Star Trekepisodes but the prefix. Their virtues were: Adventure, excitement,thesettings, humour, romance, boldness ("boldly go …", naivité and mystery -the essence of SciFi stories. As a child I was always thrilled and oftenscared; watching the episodes now and knowing the solution, I’m neverthelessanxious to see how the story ends.And I miss a macho like James Tiberius Kirk, who seems to beunbearablein our age of political correctness.Evidently under-equipped with technical tricks, compared to nowadays, theoriginal is far more modern than its grandchildren some thirty years later.

This was the first Star Trek show I ever saw, but I have to say I prefertheTNG universe shows. They’ve got better FX, a wider variety of villainsetc.Voyager is currently my favourite, because it has loads of Borg stuff init,then DS9 because of its great story line (Dominion war), and then TNG,though it wasn’t until it’s later years it became good. (The episodeswithtthe Cardassians are the most interesting)

Sorry, die-hard TOS fans, but not everybody agree withyou.

When it comes to T.V. shows dealing with space travel, this is the Alpha andOmega of them all. Star Trek was only on the air for three years, but eversince it went into syndication, it has become a phenomena that continuestoday.

Star Trek was about the voyages of the Starship Enterprise, on a five-yearmission (shortened to three by the NBC fools) to discover what was out therebeyond the Milky Way Galaxy. This is where it all began.

The star of the show was William Shatner, who played Captain James TiberiusKirk, a man who was just but also authorative, with a bit of a chip on hisshoulder. Leonard Nimoy played Mr. Spock, a Vulcan/Human with his trademarkpointy ears who showed no emotion, since his planet’s denizens were the sameway. The late DeForrest Kelley played Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy, the headdoctor and a very emotional man.

The show was anti-establishment, as it put it views on the issues of the60’s into the 23rd century. Wherever they went, they tried to changeinjustices in several planets, but the script writers would come up withexcuses for them to break the "Prime Directive" of non-interference.

The acting was great and the characters developed a good rapport and youalmost forgot this was a T.V. show, despite various cast members talkingabout the strife behind the scenes. Later on, Shatner would try to dominatethe whole show with his overacting schtick, which he uses today.

The one weakness of the show was the inconsistency of the episodes; some areclassics, others are plain boring, one (The Empath) was enough to make agrown man cry. Some of my favorites are "City On The Edge Of Forever" (oneof the best episodes of any T.V. show, featuring Joan Collins), Space Seed(with Ricardo Montalban, which served the basis for the second Star Trekmovie), The Way To Eden (with Charles Napier), an episode which featured twoaliens with different mixes of face color trying to go back to their planetand taking the ship hostage to do so, in which Capt. Kirk uses his abilityto play "mind poker" to get control of his ship back, and others. While "TheTrouble With Tribbles" might be the funniest episode done, my pick for atrue UNINTENTIONAL laugh riot would be "The Return Of The Archons" in whichthe crew comes to a planet populated by people who dress like late 19thcentury Mormons or Amish and talk in a quasi-religious style, dictated by acomputer. There is some terrible overacting that makes this episode aclassic because it makes it hilarious. What memories!

It’s been 40 years of exploring strange new worlds since the originalStar Trek made its debut on NBC-TV on September 9, 1966. After fourseasons of seeking out new life and new civilizations it still goes tothis day where no man has gone before. With five spin-off televisionseries,ten theatrical released motion pictures,a Peabody and Emmy awardwinning Saturday Morning cartoon show,it is one of the most successfuland influential not to mention lucrative franchise in science fictionhistory. Not only the original series(which ran on NBC-TV from1966-1969) had some great acting and some brilliant special effectsever devised for TV,but it was in the way science fiction was beingmeasure giving you a overall feeling what it was like exploring theunknown reaches of outer space. "Star Trek" was like the "Wagon Train"of the stars.

As for the original series,it made have been silly at times and campybut it was one of the best of the genre and still holds up today. Tohelp celebrate this anniversary,I have picked several of the best StarTrek episodes of all time that were the greatest ever………

1. Season 1: "To Go Where No Man Has Gone Before"-Airdate: 9/9/1966.The premiere episode where Captain James T. Kirk and crew of thespaceship Enterprise encounter their first voyage.

2. Season 2: "The Immunity Syndrome"-Airdate: 1/19/1968 A giant amoebawill wipe out the galaxy unless Kirk, Spock(Leonard Nimoy),and Dr.McCoy(Deforest Kelley) figure out its weakness. When Kirk chooses Spockfor the pivotal one-man mission,we see for the first time the depths ofbitter competition and the gruding respect between doctor and firstofficer.

3. Season 3: "Plato’s Stepchildren"-Airdate: 11/22/1968. Until Kirkagrees to give them McCoy to tend their medical needs,a race oftelekinetic sadists(played by special guest star Micheal Dunn)called byPlatonians hold the two hostage with Spock,using their evil powers tomake the three act like puppets. Spock laughs and cries and even dancesa flamenco around the Captain’s head. Then Uhura(Nichelle Nichols)andNurse Chapel(Majel Barrett) are beamed down to spice up theproceedings. While Spock pairs off with an ashamed but longing Chapel,Kirk and Uhura are forced by the Platonians to lip-lock in what becomesthe first interracial kiss in TV history. Yes,it was forced by thewhims of the Platonians apparently the only way the censors would seeclear to allow it to happen. This episode in particular was not showedin five Southern states where local NBC affiliate stations didn’tpresent it.

4. Season 2: "The Trouble With Tribbles"-Airdate: 12/29/1967. The cutelittle alien fur balls with the penchant for procreation certainlywreak their share of comic havoc in this classic romp,which was alsoused in the anima
ted version of the series back in 1973(the sameepisode). The special guest here was Roger C. Carmel as the troublesomeannoyable Jones. Scotty’s funniest moment occurs when he unwittinglytakes Kirk down a peg after the Captain sternly calls him to the carpetfollowing a slapstick barroom brawl with some Klingons aboard asoon-to-be-tribble-infested space station,which gets Kirk in hot waterwith Starfleet Command. Added Special Guest Star:William Schallert.

5. Season 2: "The Commander and the Whale"-Airdate: 9/1967. Guest Star:William Windom. In the classic tale of Jonah and the Whale, Kirk mustrescue a starfleet officer from great danger after his ship and hisentire crew on board were totally destroyed by a unknown alien entity.The entity is headed toward the Enterprise,after the officer takes offin the shuttle craft leading Kirk to go into the damaged ship to notonly plant a explosive devise,but has only precious minutes left beforethe ship goes,leaving him in a great situation to rescue not only hiscommander,but his friend and the Enterprise.

6. Season 2: "Amok Time"-Airdate: 9/15/1967. The bonds of friendshipand loyalty between Kirk and Spock are at the the heart of this odd andaffecting moment. Kirk disobeys Starfleet orders and beats a trail toVulcan to save Spock’s life-the Vulcan must mate or die. But instead ofSpock who is dying,it is Kirk who seems to perish at the hand of hisfirst officer during a ritualistic rite of of betrothal.Spock,believing he is a murderer,beams back to the Enterprise.Unbeknownst to him,McCoy had injected Kirk with a knockout drug duringthe fight,making him only seem dead. Overjoyed,Spock cries out to findthat Kirk is alive but its a rare and satisfying glimpse into theinferior life of an otherwise aloof,emotionally ambiguous character.This episode was also used in the animated version of the series.

7. Season 1: "The City On The Edge Of Forever"-Airdate: 4/6/1967. Thisepisode is one of William Shatner’s finest pieces of acting and itshows this in such brilliant detail. Never has the burden of leadershipproved so painful when Kirk and McCoy traveling through time toDepression-era America to prevent the good doctor from inadvertentlycausing disastrous changes to the future,falls head over heels for asocial worker. One of the many time-travel episodes in Trek’s historyin which none has held better than this imaginative tale. Special GuestStar: Joan Collins.

Catch the original episodes on the Sci-Fi Channel and through somesyndicated television stations across the country.

I love the original Star Trek. I'm a fan of the whole Star TrekUniverse, but there isn't anything like the original series. GeneRoddenberry was a man with a vision. In spite of what were cheap sets,uncomfortable uniforms, ridiculously low budgets, and backdrops whichwere used and reused so often that the audience became intimatelyfamiliar with them, the performances were brilliant television fare,the characters were cleverly and lovingly developed, and the storieswere socially aware, cutting edge content.

There has never been another show like Star Trek. They have tried, andsome have come close, but nothing has ever replaced Star Trek in myheart. Star Trek gave us everything. In that one, low budget televisionshow, we got a hero, a sraight-shooting friend, a lady's role model. Welearned honesty, integrity, intelligence, and friendship. No other showhas ever done that for an entire generation, like Star Trek has.

It rates a solid 10/10 from…

the Fiend :.

read comments (0)