The Italian Job

Most seem to love this movie, so maybe it’s my age or something elsebut I hated it. The story was not well told at all, I had to forcemyself to stay awake just to make it to the ending.

To summarize, Charlie Croker (Michael Caine) wants to rip off asecurity truck carrying 4 mill. in gold bouillon. There were so manycharacters that were involved in the heist, but we didn’t really get tosee what they did. We were just expected to take for granted that thesepeople were the best at there jobs and not actually shown it.

Benny Hill made a guest appearance, as the computer genius, but at thebeginning of the heist he manages to get himself arrested and we don’tsee him for the rest of the movie. Charlie Croker goes through a lot oftrouble to get this guy on the team, and his disappearance isn’t evennoticed when it happens. That didn’t sit well with me at all. It seemsBenny Hill was only added for his name, and to add some comedy; butfailed miserably to do so.

The ending. Oh dear the ending. I get that they were trying to bebrilliant with the whole anticlimax thing (Did they succeed or not?We’re not going to tell you because that wouldn’t be artistic)Personally I think that’s just pretentious garbage that even if therest of the movie was done well I would still hate it. Any movie inthis genre needs an ending or else it makes the viewer, at least thisviewer, feel as though they just wasted two hours of their life.

I normally love movies of this kind, especially those made in thesixties and seventies. And I looovvveee Michael Caine’s work. But thisone should be left alone. It was terrible.

Perhaps when this dull heist comedy came out some of this stuff hadn’t

been done to death; but even seeing it with a mint print on the big

screen(as I just did) is pretty rough going.

It’s funny to me how people are praising the "we can’t thinkof an ending" ending, which pretty much sums up the lack of imagination

on display here. It’s the kind of movie that says "you don’t have to

take any of this seriously"; and wants to a medal for it.

It has nothing to do with the sixties except you can see some of

the then current fashions on hand. Cane rises above the material and

manages to not come off badly, which has always sort of been his

personal genius. Benny Hill is given thankfully brief screen time; Noel

Coward looks like he was still mad at the Beatles for topping his wit in

"A Hard Day’s Night."

In any event, this is for the hardest of hard core heistfans only, if your idea of great cinema is "The Hot Rock" and "Those

Daring Young Men In Their Flying Machines"; this one’s for you. Two out

of ten.

I had no idea that the Italian Job I saw in the theater was a remake until Ilooked it up on Netflix. To say it’s a remake is pretty unfair; it has justthe name in common with the original. Therefore, this will not be acomparison review.

The Italian Job is so slow-paced I was able to leave the room or mute themovie (when the little kids came in the room) and then pick up as if Ihadn’t skipped anything. The comedy was seemingly non-existent and the bigcar chase at the end dragged on so long I almost turned the movie off thenand there. Even for it’s time it was slow.

I expected a lot more from Michael Caine, who has turned out much bettercomedies in his time (see "Educating Rita" instead of this one) but I guessit’s right on par for Benny Hill (some brainless gags that just aren’tfunny).

Netflix recorded this movie has carrying at ‘G’ rating, for GeneralAudiences, which means you can put your five-year-old down in front of themovie and walk away. I have no idea why it would carry a MPAA rating at allbecause it would have to have been released in the theaters in the U.S.,which unfortunately doesn’t happen with enough European movies. Well,perhaps it was released in the U.S. If it were, it should have carried arating of at least ‘PG,’ for Parental Guidance Suggested. I’m VERY glad Idecided to view it before letting my daughter watch it.

** Here be spoilers **

Recently released from jail, Croker (Caine) takes a job from an old recentlykilled friend. He visits a jailed but not hindered crime lord and assemblesa gang. The goal is a big shipment of gold delivered in Torino. And how arethey going to do this? By creating the mother of all trafficjams.

Now, maybe I did this the wrong way around. I saw the remake (of 2003) andthought it to be very good. Naturally I wanted to see the original, as theoriginal usually is better than sequels, prequels and remakes. Now, that mayhave been my error, as the original didn’t come close to living up to myexpectations. If you should watch only one Italian Job, choose the newone.

Now why do I think that? First, in my opinion this is a movie about a heist.The thrill is to see a fantastic plan take form and then see it pulled of,usually with some complications coming along the way. Now this movie startedout good, with the presentation of the goal of the job, the gold. But thenit just went silly. The preparations were outright dull, with the exceptionof some silly attempts to be funny.Then the actual heist went off without the slightest complication norsuspense, they just did it. Big disappointment.

Then there are a lot of very disturbing plot holes, unmotivated scenes andjust annoying facts. I could give a lot of examples, but will make do with afew. Not being a criminal myself, I can’t be sure, but the gang seemed veryunprofessional, being cranky like babies without enough sleep. Now thatdidn’t matter as the police were as stupid as could be. They seemed to giveup just because the criminals closed a door. And they seemed not aware ofhow many exits (that you could drive a car out of) a public church had. Inaddition they didn’t seem to get suspicious when a known mafia-boss trailedthe shipment of gold by two meters. And were did the mafia go then, theyjust vanished from the plot.

Then there is the fabled car-chase. Being a big part of the movie it takesplace in most places a car can be able to drive, except roads (yeah I know,there are some). The police just manage to tag one police car after thethree minis, and maybe a motorcycle. And this is always so, whatever stuntsthe minis do to avoid the police, there miraculously is always one and onlyone police car behind them. That with the exception when they get to the bigmotorway and load the minis into the bus. Then there is absolutely notraffic at all, not even going the other direction! (And why did they throwof the tracks they used loading the minis clearly exposing how they try toescape). So, there is never any suspense that they should get caught. Andwhile pretty spectacular, why did they drive on the roof of the arena? Iguessed it was a way for the movie to show off a bit, but it was completelyover-shadowed by the stupidness of it. And why did they throw the minis offclearly telling everyone which route they tried to escape. And how did thecrime lord get the news that they stole the gold while they were stillmaking their get-away (cellphone?)? And finally, there is the ending(completely unnecessary had the gang had an ounce of competence), brakingmost physical laws there is, that we don’t get to see the end of. Theyshould have died you know…

So. A surprisingly weak movie. See the new one!

3/10

Minis are cool and they can go anywhere if driven with great skill.This is the moral of The Italian Job. An hour of random, illogicalfiller (admittedly with the odd spectacular car wreck) precedes thefamous 20 minutes of watching minis do cool stuff and the final 10minutes is only there to pad the movie to feature length, but the good20 minutes is a must see!

Where does it go wrong? Characters (at least a dozen of them) areintroduced from nowhere, appear for 5
minutes and disappear only to beseen at the end cheering or shaking their fists depending on whetherthey were good or bad. A lot of these characters seem to have jokesreliant on us knowing their personalities, but we don’t! How do you getto know a character that’s only got 3 lines (albeit stereotypicallines)? It’s a case of quantity over quality. Tragic as most of theactors are fine in the quality department, but don’t get a chance todemonstrate it. Even Benny Hill only has about 3 minutes screen time! Afin example of how to turn a great ensemble into a great jumble.

The first hour consists of random 5 minute bits that make sense withinthemselves, but don’t have anything to do with one another nor do theylogically flow. They do go in a general direction, but so much istouched upon , but never explored.

Not wanting to give too much away, I’ll simply say that the ending iscrap. It’s a good idea for an ending, but is executed as though it werein front of a blind firing squad.

The cinematography is great, particularly for a 60s movie. When a filmlooks good today, you know it looked great then. The car wrecks lookfantastic - proof that you don’t need CGI for great action bits,provided you have the money to burn. Too bad what the were shootingwas, for the most part, awful.

The best recommendation I could give: Skip the first hour, watch theminis do their stuff, then turn it off.

I love this movie. I loved when I saw the first few dozen times in theatersback in ‘69 and loved it every time I saw it on TV. It’s great and one ofthe greatest Limey spoofs you could want to see. But, I never understoodwhy we were left suspended and never given a helping hand back? In otherwords, WHY NO SEQUEL? I mean, c’mon. We’ve had sequel after sequel of amyriad of garbage films, why when a good one comes along, NO FLAMING SEQUEL? Caine was a his natty best in this one as was the rest of the cast. Absolutely hilarious situations and the final scenes with the Italian policechasing an army of Austin Minicoopers which have just recently made theirreappearance on the American scene) are sidesplitting.

I hear that this film is rated as the #1, numero uno among Brit viewers andI can understand that.

So, why no sequel?

Just didn’t survive the aging process. Poor acting, a messy story and alltoo sixties in film quality. I hadn’t seen Caine as bad as in this onebefore, but then again I haven’t seen that many flicks with him in them. Iwas surprised to find this film scores as high as it does, why is beyond me.The film’s ending is highly unsatisfactory, like a part is missing. Maybe Ineed lobotomy to understand the greatness of this film. Not funny, not good.Go do something useful instead! (4/10)(I must also admit the remake/tribute 2003 flick Italian job was not muchbetter. Completely different story, but as shallow as thisone)

Question: How can we possibly empathise with a group of crims, ex-crims andgeneral good-for-nothings? Answer: Make sure that everythings goes againstthem. And so it goes, we have a healthy stock of characters you really can’ttake at all seriously, a plot that really doesn’t stand up to too much closescrutiny (but it’ll stand up to enough- it got the job done, right?) butaction and humour in all the right places, all for a thoroughly engagingflick that stands up to repeat viewing again and again, even if it is justthe Mini’s scene. Oh, and let us not forget the ending…

In Summary: Bingo

Made at the end of the swinging sixties, "The Italian Job" is still one ofthe most perfectly entertaining romps ever committed to film, with nogreatintention than to provide an audience with pure fun. Michael Caine, freshout of prison, leads an assortment of fellow crooks in a grand endeavor toliberate a fortune in gold from under the watchful eyes of both theItaliangovernment and the mafia. Bankrolled by criminal kingpin Noel Coward,himself ruling the roost from prison, they disguise themselves as footballfans and executive an ingenious, bloodless heist in Turin. Their escape,ina convoy of Austin Minis, is one of the most rollicking chases incinematichistory.

Richly made and fun by the truckload, "The Italian Job" ismust-see.

The Italian Job is, to put it mildly, the ultimate Cool Britannia movie.Michael Caine, Noel Coward, Benny Hill and co. are all genuinely funny,andthe action sequences are exceptionally memorable. Best of all, it’s justgreat fun. And I haven’t even mentioned the cliffhanger endingyet…

read comments (0)

Support Your Local Sheriff!

Good, very good, hilarious! James Garner plays the role that he wasalways meant for: the definitive con man, who does not usually takegreat, gigantic risks, but if he has to, he will, and does it with hisusual devil-may-care attitude. He uses his wits, not gadgets or slicksix shooters to get the job done. All the other actors and actresses inthis movie were also very fit for their respective roles. James Garner:Jason McCullough- always on his way to Australia. Bruce Dern: his owntypical villain role as Joe Danby. Kathleen Freeman: the lady thatcomes by and talks to Garner while Joan Hackett is sitting in a tree,getting more and more embarrassed by the second. Freeman shows off herusual laugh that she used in this, North to Alaska, etc. Favorite scenewas when Garner and Co. are involved in a shootout with Brennan and Co.and Garner walks across the street, telling everybody to wait, then hegets to the other side and says O.K., go ahead! and quickly hits thedeck. 'Nuff said!

While perhaps not as funny as Mel Brooks' later, more famous work, itis similar enough to make one wonder if Brooks was remaking this. Thedifferences are major, but can be boiled down to these:

This one never goes over the top into shameless farce.

This one can maintain your "willing suspension of disbelief" if you'rewilling enough.

This one is safe to watch in front of the kids.

Otherwise, the similarities are pretty major. A cool-headed and capableman drifts through a town under siege by spurious characters and, moreof necessity than a desire to tackle the problem, takes on thethankless job of sheriff. He winds up with a sidekick with even goofiereyes than those of Gene Wilder (Jack Elam) and sets about his task.Cherokee Productions doesn't go in for extraneous things like tacklingAmerican race relations or sending up Marlene Detrich, and doesn't evenget so deep into parody as to poke fun of Hollywood's disturbingtradition of casting white people as Native Americans. Instead theycast a group of some of Hollywood's greatest "second bananas" and allowthem to shine in an understated but brilliant sendup of countlessthousands of formulaic Hollywood westerns. Some won't find it as funnyas madcap Mel Brooks' farcical attack on the same parody-worthysubject, but there are laughs enough in this well-acted, well-paced andwell-done gem.

These comedy westerns don't do it for me really. I imagine it's becauseI haven't seen a lot of old American westerns and therefore the jokecould slip past me. Support Your Local Sheriff seems to universally getgood praise and some even say they couldn't stop laughing. I didchuckle a few times as some jokes worked fine but overall I didn't findvery much to enjoy.

The cast, however, is great. James Garner plays these kind of rolesbetter than anyone (you see him do the same thing in every RockfordFiles episode) and he's the main reason for checking this film out.Others were fun and engaging in their roles, I particularly liked BruceDern as the villain.

But the jokes seem to slip by me when it comes to these comedywesterns. I recently watched Rustler's Rhapsody and Blazing Saddles andthey were pretty much "yawn-fests".

Sheriff is an OK way to spend 90 minutes, not much more.

James Garner, (Jason McCullough) is offered a job as a Sheriff forone-hundred and fifty dollars a month and has never had any experiencein ever being a sheriff and he has only been in the West for about fouryears after living in the East. Jason meets up with a bad dude in townwho is a big trouble maker named Joe Danby, (Bruce Dern) and he is putin jail by Jason, however the jail has no bars on the jail but he putshim into handcuffs. There is plenty of slapstick comedy with a galnamed Prudy Perkins, (Joan Hackett) and she begins to have a crush onJason and he soon begins to realize how pretty she does look likehowever she serves her father and Jason a dinner and gets her dress onfire and Jason puts it out by throwing a pitcher of water on her rump.Walter Brennan, (Pa Danby) gives a great supporting role as the fatherof Joe Danby and he demands to get his son free from jail, however, Joekilled a man and that is why he is in jail. Very funny and enjoyablefilm. Enjoy.

This neat movie results from the powerful influence of the latesixties: Brat pack meets flower children. Yes, as improbable as it mayseem, the flower children and the brat pack seem happy as could becollaborating on this project; obviously they had more in common thanthey suspected. This likable film has a beatnick-ish James Garnerenforcing the law in a "have a nice day" and "peace not war" way neverseen before in westerns, and James Garner knew exactly how to pull itoff. I think this movie also resulted in a weekly TV series thefollowing year called "Nichols" in which James Garner played apeace-nik sheriff. As a teenager I loved that series (albeit shortlived) and when they found out they were not going to get a secondseason, they had someone shoot Nichols (James Garner) in the back -dead - and his twin brother (also James Garner) come to town to buryhim. Good way to terminate a television series. It was cool, like thismovie. Perhaps one day we'll get to see the series once again.

I turned on this to TCM last night and just casually started to watchit. Now I HATE westerns and thought I might enjoy a spoof. After just afew minutes I found myself laughing and then just got totally caught upin this.

It deals with a stranger named Jason McCullough (James Garner)wandering into a small Western town which is just going wild with nolaw and order. He applies to be the sheriff and is appointed quickly bythe mayor (Harry Morgan). He quickly restores law and order to thetown, hires a deputy (Jack Elam), romances the mayor's daughter (JoanHackett) and jails killer Joe Danby (Bruce Dern). However Joe's familydon't take too kindly to their brother being jailed and are going toget him out.

Very funny! Every Western cliché is made fun of–but in a very gentlemanner. They don't set out to tear apart Westerns–just poke fun atthem. I saw the G rating this had and thought I was going to get stuckwith a Walt Disney like horror like "The Apple Dumpling Gang" (I STILLhave nightmares about that one). Everybody in this IS nice and all talkgently and kindly–but the lines are so funny and non-stop that itdidn't bother me. Almost all the cast plays this straight which workswonderfully. Garner is just great in the lead. So young andhandsome…and who ever knew he had such great comic timing? Elam isjust uproarious as his deputy. His double takes at Garner are genuinelyfunny. Heck even Dern pulls off a few good lines! The onlydisappointment was Hackett. She plays her role far too broadly and getstiresome. Still she does have a great bit with her reaction when Garnersays he's going to leave town.

Fun, family friendly western spoof. It's easy to see why this was sucha big hit. Recommended.

I first saw this film as a child and really enjoyed it. Now, over threedecades later, I saw it again. I still enjoyed it, but can see thatit's a film that would probably have a bit more appeal to kids.

This film is set in a boom town in the Old West. Because gold wasrecently discovered (in a tacky and funny way at the beginning of thefilm), there is a lot of violence. The last three sheriffs didn'tlast–so everyone expects the new sheriff, James Garner, to either bekilled or run off like one of his predecessors.

Garner plays a part that is very much like his character fromMaverick–a guy who uses his wits to win the day instead of brawn. Nowthis isn't to say that Garner can't shoot–in this movie he's anamazing shot. However, being a bit lazy and pragmatic, he usually findsa way to avoid th
e violence and STILL keep the town crime-free. Most ofthese ways are pretty funny (I particularly liked the red paint scene)and the film is a nice change of pace from the usual violent andbrainless Western.

This movie was so successful that it triggered a sequel that wasexceptionally similar–heck, the name was even similar. In SUPPORT YOURLOCAL GUNFIGHTER, the plot is pretty similar and so is the action, soif you liked one movie you'll no doubt like the other. A good film thatis more than just another formulaic Western.

Okay, it's no Blazing Saddles, which I think is the funniest movie ofall time. Having not seen it since it's release I watched this againlast night and had forgotten how funny it was. Garner plays his usuallaid back self as he did in most of his 1960's comedies, but it's thesupporting performances that really make this movie. Jack Elam, HarryMorgan, Bruce Dern and Walter Brennan took all their Western clichésand turned them on their heads. And Joan Hackett was up for anythingbecause that poor woman was put through the ringer in this one. Highlyrecommended for any one who likes comedy, westerns or any of theseactors.

James Garner successfully spoofs Western movie macho-ism in a charmingway in this breezy, well-thought-out comedy. Here he is at his bestusing his amiable persona that was so successful in various TV seriesfor decades. The late Joan Hackett (an all-but-forgotten actressnowadays) is a good sport as she does physical comedy to the hiltwhether in long-john underwear or in the mud or whatever, and stillremains attractive and effective against Garner's scene-stealingcharisma.

Walter Brennan is crotchety fun as he spoofs the rotten old patriarchWestern cliché character. Bruce Dern, Harry Morgan, Gene Evans, goofyHenry Jones, and especially Jack Elam give an acting clinic on how tobe a supporting movie actor. They are all watchable and effective.

Even if you don't like Westerns or you don't know some of the cliché's,you can't help but chuckle at some point in this episodic series ofsight-gags and spoofs. Or at least the charming nature of "Support YourLocal Sheriff!" will reward you if you watch it all the way through.

On a more obscure note, the cinematography, lighting and art directionare beautiful, especially considering that this was made on an ordinaryHollywood back-lot. Maybe they used 1960's era fine-grained film orsomething, but this is an unexpected bonus. Certainly this aspect ofthe movie, like the first-rate cast, was expensive but worth it.

"Support Your Local Sheriff!", like most comedy films, creates a sortof alternative reality dimension in which the characters are morebumbling and strange, behave completely unlike anybody would have inreal life, and produce jokes that only the audience finds effective.And unlike others I can think of, "Support Your Local Sheriff!" doesthis very well. James Garner plays a take-it-easy man "on his way toAustralia" who stops to take his first job ever as a lawman in aboomtown somewhere, sometime in the Old West. And right from thebeginning, things really start to get awkward.

Garner shares the screen with other popular and talented actors such asJack Elam, Harry Morgan, Walter Brennan, Joan Hackett, Gene Evans, andBruce Dern. I felt the performances were very well-done, mostnoticeable for Harry Morgan as the town's loud-speaking,acting-before-thinking mayor and Jack Elam as Garner's reluctantlyappointed deputy, having been "promoted" from "shovelinghorse…working around the stables." Walter Brennan did a sort ofparody on some of his other villainous characters, still maintaining agood performance and still being a comical character without making anyof the modern "funny" tactics such as acting out of the ordinary.

That goes for the entire film. Even though it's a comedy and nothing inthis film would really happen in a sane world of sane people, it makesit look as if it COULD happen. That's the problem with comedy filmsnowadays: they don't make things look like they MIGHT happen. This filmdoes.

Bottom line, I recommend "Support Your Local Sheriff!" for itsoutstanding way of blending two quite contrary genres and still makinga very effective and entertaining film. I found myself laughing severaltimes and this is definitely the kind of film to suit an entire familyjust looking for a good, non-serious film that does not taking clichéor distasteful tactics in order to try and make us crack up.

read comments (0)

L’armée des ombres

And so on a day when I was already face to face with death, we went toCinematheque for this. It's one more film that comes with a lot of'best of the year' baggage - it got its US release 37 years late - andI am vulnerable to influence. But I can say that, while at 145 minutesit's longer than Goodfellas, it may be the first feature sinceGoodfellas came out where I never ONCE looked at my watch. And now thatI've typed the name I notice another similarity: what Goodfellas doesfor the unglamorous, dead-end underbelly of Godfather glitz, Army ofShadows does for the still-potent, still-deadly WWII-heroics narrative.Not that there isn't bravery and excitement on evidence - but it allsits in the shadow of an absolutely harrowing informer-execution scenein the first act, which just heaps scorn all over Survival Run; andthis scene's full meaning comes damnably clear in the end. If I'm notfudging my terms, this is an existentialist rendition of the FrenchResistance, and as such it is impossibly brave, and complex - Siuefound it depressing, Kristine found it hilariously ironic. And just asthe movie ends you realize: all these people have accomplished for thelast two and a half hours is to bust each other out of jail (or not)again and again, and in the process they have become dysfunctional,paranoid, tormented, their own kinds of victims of an all-consumingwar. For someone who believes in resistance as I do, it is a real testof honesty, and crystallizes anxieties that have clawed at the bottomof my revolutionary ideals since I began speaking them. And all this isembedded in one of the most gloriously cinematic presentations I'veever had the pleasure to watch - an interior car light, a glass bust ofa horse, six doomed men relating uniquely and personally to theircigarettes, the stuporous denizens of the concentration-camp opening,so many arbitrarily gripping images you want to explode. Perfectlyperformed.

This is definitely the worst Melville I've ever seen. I admit to havingwatched it only once, and that a while ago (I only got round tocommenting on it when someone asked me about the worsest disappointmentI ever had), but I really don't think that matters. First of all, whatI find depressingly faulty about "L'Armee des Ombres" is its lack of*reality*. This movie isn't real in the sense that it doesn't even tryto show what's happening under those fancy armors that thoseresistance-men sport. Of course, the theme is heroism, but what I seein this is an overlong essay on how some of the French were actuallynot collaborators. Admittedly, it isn't the kind of movie that wouldsuit a viewer such as myself - someone who actually knows there was aresistance and it worked to some aims that were different than outrightsurrender. I guess I'm writing this to warn those of you, ambitiousviewers, who come here expecting the eighth wonder or whatnot. I can'tfind many faults in acting or shooting; as far as conducting thescript, Melville did as great a job as any. But the script itself isutterly boring, and that at a time when there were already quite a fewmovies delving into similar territories with much greater success (likeAndrzej Wajda's "Kanał," which is just as highbrow, but conveys muchmore meaning). I awarded this movie 2 stars to counterbalance theoverheated praise that I've found in it's current standing. This movieshould actually be given not more than 5 stars - it's not hopeless, yetit's awful enough to be considered uninteresting. I hope no one findsmy comment offending. To each his own and those who saw this one andliked it for over 5 stars - I'm glad somebody did.

"Army of Shadows" is a film to be seen, and savored with deep intent.It is flawless, and for a movie made in 1969, even the action scenesare good. Quite frankly, we are dealing with a film thats darkness andmerit is impossible to avoid. The best part of the movie, is probablythe fact that it is so well done, that not one scene seems boring. Itis indeed a rare superlative masterpiece.

"Army of Shadows" opens with the startling image of German soldiersmarching down the Champs-Élysées, framed by the Arc de Triomphe. Darkas pitch and utterly without compromise, "Army of Shadows" traces theharrowing feats of a small band of Resistance fighters operating duringthe occupation. This fires up the plot to a different level than anyrecent drama I have seen.

As the story gets more complex, it just gets smarter and smarter. Mr.Melville has simply mastered the very depths of cinema, and this isonly one of the masterpieces out of the many that he has left behind.

This film, which was never released in America and will now be makingits way across the country in limited release, has been immaculatelyrestored and features new subtitles.

You can get lost in the blackness of its heart and its shadows. Youmight never come back.

The third Jean-Pierre Melville film I've seen but also the leastsatisfying.

The plot was very interesting (French Resistance during WW2) and notsomething I've seen in a film before. However the film was too long andmeandered a bit - unlike Le Cercle rouge which was long but gripping.One parachute scene showed the limitations of the time but there weretwo scenes that were outstanding - the first being when they aredeciding the fate of a traitor and the other being the final part ofthe film.

Overall good, but not great.

There is not much to add to Catch10 comment. This film is probably themostrealistic picture of the Resistance during WWII in France. It is also oneofthe most striking ones.

Characters have a soul, a naked soul. They have a past and they arestruggling for a future. The brutality of war is everywhere, so ismistrust.

Actors are remarkable and so is the script. No frills, just the barereality.

I was privileged to see this movie yesterday on the big screen. I hadrecently been impressed by Melville's "Le Samourai". I was forced toconfront a personal prejudice by this film. I have generally thoughtthat modern cinematic techniques eclipse those of vintage films, priorto 1990. I have been a fan of the 'noir' genre from Hollywood, Britainand France, but I generally have compartmentalized these films into acategory labeled, 'less than', rather than one labeled 'comparable to'.I mean this in terms of the overall viewing experience and its effecton me.

Melville's "Army of Shadows" has challenged me, and it has been anabsolute pleasure. This film stands, in my opinion, as the bestmonument to the French Resistance I have ever seen. It is also anunparalleled representation of human motives and human behavior understress. I feel it has widely broadened my education about the art offilm.

A story about a cell of French resistance fighters in WW2 that prettymuch deglamourizes the image that was built up over the years. Ifyou're looking for an action film about heroic, romantic resistancefighters, look elsewhere. Melville's action scenes have a terse matterof factness about them, much like a planned execution, which heactually has in one part, without any noticeable budget expenditure. Infact, the best part of the execution scene is the last cigarette ofeach of the men, a powerful and effective few minutes of film. The filmhas numerous parts that hit home with amazing spontaneity. Whileostensibly they're fighting the Nazis, they end up killing each otherin a couple of very tense scenes. That is more due to the ambiguitiesof their situation, which this movie is really all about. The linebetween active resistance and collaboration isn't always so clear, ashadowy reality which Melville's film explores. While they have chosento fight a very dangerous fight, it's not the danger that swirls aro
undthem that Melville focuses on, but more the tension it causes amongthem. Taking place in the winter of 1942/43, with a foreboding openingshot of German soldiers parading through Paris, this film ingeniouslymixes the greyness of the weather with the bleakness of the time, whenhelp was still quite a ways off, and the fight was internal, nasty, andmerciless.

The subject of this real-world drama is the French resistance in WorldWar II- an experience which the director, writer, and a few othermembers of the production team had first-hand experience with. Althoughthis film is historical fiction, it has the feel of a re-enactment. Itis far removed from an action film, and the drama is developed mainlythrough very lengthy character and situational development. Army ofShadows makes a number of important points and a few of these aredriven home devastatingly. Intrepid viewers should discover these forthemselves.

Phillippe Gerbier is a Maquis operative who is incarcerated in a prisoncamp during the German occupation. Some member of his own organizationgave him up, and this will, eventually, become an important point inthe development of the plot.

What the film really depicts is the manner in which the Maquis operated- obsessed, clever, self-sacrificing, and unwaveringly dedicated toregaining self-rule. Fascinating from an historic perspective, butdefinitely not for those with a short attention span.

Few films approach Army of Shadows in terms of developing an authenticfeeling and context, and doing so with timeless cinematic grace. Thesets, use of language, props and costuming will carry you into the1940s and leave you there. The film - appropriately - never strays intofantasy, nor, for that matter, into hyper-nationalistic propagandism.In short, this is a story told by those who lived the story first-handand really care about getting across the truth. Each scene isbeautifully shot. And talented director Melville never misses anopportunity to reinforce the periodicity of the story. The acting andcasting are also excellent across the board.

Recommended for World War II buffs and fans of serious military drama.

When released in 1969, Army of Shadows was torn apart by the filmcritics of Cahiers du cinema and quickly vanished from the eye of thepublic. Almost forty years later, the film is considered one of thegreatest films of the 60's, and perhaps the best film made about theresistance. Army of Shadows follows a group of resistance fighters, butto say this film, directed by Jean-Pierre Melville, is about the FrenchResistance is like saying Raging Bull is about boxing. The film followsresistance members throughout occupied France as they deal with issuesof trust, morality and, ultimately, their own fate. What makes thestory of these people so effective is the fact that they perform theiractions knowing full well that they probably won't make it out of thiswar with their lives. There are no songs of honor, no speeches aboutthe importance of patriotism, there are only men (and women) strugglingdesperately to survive. There is no room for mistakes within theresistance, and if you compromise the lives of your comrades you'll bedealt with quickly and severely. The film explores the nature of eachperson's fate, and what makes it interesting is the fact that whilethese people are fighting for what they feel is right, they mustsuccumb to killing and betrayal to fulfill their missions. This initself is tragic because even though the audience knows the outcome ofthe war, these people do not. They are living through the conflict withno idea of the outcome. What if the Germans had prevailed? Would allthe bodies and lies racked up by the resistance be in vein? Would itmatter? Does it matter? One scene in which a traitor is executed by hisfellow comrades raises these questions. The betrayer must be executedso that they can send a message as well as keep their plans a secret.The resistance becomes more important than this man's life, at leastthat's what they have to keep telling themselves. But the man is stillanother human being, one that breaths the same air everyone else, andwhen he is finally disposed of (in a gut wrenching way) the question israised…Did he have to die? Is the resistance any better than theReich? Both sides lie, steal and kill to get what they want, thedifference is the ideals for which each side fights. The members of theresistance know this and continue on without looking back, without thebenefit of knowing whether or not their efforts would matter. They eachknow the consequences their actions will have on their safety, but notthe effect their actions would have in the grand scheme of things. Thatis what courage is, and Melville knew that. It would have been veryeasy for a lesser director to turn these characters into tragicclichés, held down by poor film-making and melodrama. At a time whenother filmmakers like Godard and Truffaut were shaking up the art-form,Melville took a step back and made a film rooted in the traditional.This "traditional" approach keeps the viewer from being distracted by a"style." It keeps the audience focused on the story and on the men andwomen of the resistance who really did put their lives in danger forwhat they knew was right.

This movie shows a short period of time in the lives of a handful ofresistance people in WWII German occupied France. L'Armee De Ombres isin my eyes simple a masterpiece - no more, no less. Everything aboutthis movie works. From Lino Ventura as the quiet, cool resistanceleader Philippe Gerbier to Simone Signoret as the almost indestructibleMathilde, but….they are all human - not Superman/woman. Mathilde isfinally put in a position of no choice by Gestapo, Gerbier is offcourse a hero like Mathilde, but also nervous, afraid and running forhis life - and presented with choices - forced to make decisions thatcould brake any heart. These two and other characters in the movieshows what resistance and patriotism is all about - they all know, thatsurvival is against all odds, and they will be forced to do things, forwhich they will never forgive themselves. But they do it for France,because they know it is their duty, because they are patriots. I haveseen this movie 20 times - it is one of the best I have ever seen!

read comments (0)

Fellini - Satyricon

The movie starts out with a stupid blonde guy ranting in a desolateRoman bathhouse about his teen lover being sold off to some theatergroup. Then the stupid fellow fights with his black-haired thievingfriend about the selling off of the teen lover. So, the stupid fellowwalks off to the theater and convinces the "extremely low threshold forentertainment" crowd to return the teen bimbo-boy back to the mainblonde character. So, the bimbo and the moron return to their home in a5-story lunatic asylum hovel and have sex. After that, the thievingblack-haired friend comes back and they fight over their meagerpossessions and divide them up. Bimbo-boy decides to take off with theblack-haired thief, blond-haired main character considers killinghimself and an earthquake destroys the lunatic house. Good riddance.This is almost the highpoint of 23 minutes of pure boringworthlessness.

My review is rather cynical at this point, but to be blunt this moviereally rather sucks. You can watch this all, but consider flushing 2hours of your life away for this.

The main theme seems to be that 90% of Romans back in that day wereretards, morons, and lunatics. I could go on about the outdoor feast,the slave boat, the main character becoming the male bride of one ofthe idiot-moron Caesar's thugs, the killing of Caesar on the island,and all of the other severely retarded and horribly boring "plotpoints", but that would be lending an air of credibility to the moviefor wasting 45 more minutes of film. If you've seen any bit of theseries "ROME", then you'd comprehend just how much this Fellini movielimps inanely and worthlessly along. The thieving black-haired friendrejoins blonde-idiot for the rest of the movie after this. Rome couldnever have become an empire with the human beings shown as examples inthis movie. Extreme lead poisoning barely could explain the idiotlunatics shown as examples of Roman subjects in this movie.

The movie does pick up about the the time the main moron character ismostly ignored (good) and we cut to a father freeing his family'sslaves. After this it becomes a briefly tolerable non-moron-heavymovie. Then the morons reappear, we waste time with them for the restof the movie. If I could convey just how much this movie severelyreeks, then I would suggest the mental exercise of sticking a wad ofchewing gum in your ear canal. That exercise would be more mentallychallenging and exciting than this movie. I have watched a lot oftelevision in my lifetime (about 35 years worth). I have watched badprograms, great programs, and average programs. I have probably watchedabout 2500 movies in my lifetime. Some movies were popcorn fluff, somewere brilliant philosophical challenges, some were horrible, some weresub-par unless you approached it with a certain mindset. This Fellinimovie was simply astonishing in how much effort and budget was putforth to render something much less viewable than a golf and tabletennis marathon.

I cannot judge Fellini as a director given that this is the only movieI have seen by this director, but "Wow!" if I were a far less generousperson I would never watch any other Fellini movie in my lifetime. Youcould not pay me to watch any other Fellini movie in my lifetime ifthis is a prime example of Fellini's work.

This is a very colourful film and I can see how it influenced Julie Taymorein her film, Titus, and I can also see how Fellini was attempting to imitatethe type of theatre for which the ancients wrote. I can live with the hugesubtitles that interfere with the images. But what I find offensive is thedubbing. Jeez Louise! Fellini is supposed to be a master director, but heis so caught up in his visuals, not wanting any microphone in the shots thathe apparently films every scene without sound, then goes back into thestudio and has everyone dub over their lines. I was just waiting forRaymond Burr to show up and speak Japanese. Horrible, horrible, horrible. Even though I do not know Italian I can still see everyone’s lips moving outof sync and hear the hollow studio effect of everyone’s voice. Petroniuswould be turning in his grave if there was any part of him left to turn. One can only hope that the film eventually suffers the same fate. Excuseme, while I go watch something with better production values, like HelloLarry, The Brady Bunch or My Mother the Car.

This is a stupid-without start,middle and end-comedy which has the purposeto make us think.Fellini has a sick sense of reality during the Romanages.It seems that the viewer requires special knowledge and skills in orderto understand this atrocity.However that is not the case.This film is acombination of sequences which have no connection with eachother.Apparently,Fellini wants to convince the viewer he’s watchingsomething unique,different and meaningful.The matter is that there is nomeaning at all in this disgusting parody of ancient greek and romancustoms.Spoilers!The "heroes"-I mean main characters-in the movie have nosense of,or reason for,their actions.They pointlessly wander around,doingpractically nothing,while the camera simply follows them.It seems like anall-powerful,supernatural force put them there just to exist and nothingmore.They lack depth,they are two-dimensional caricatures,just like asarcastic painting on a forsaken wall.I honestly think that Fellini had acompletely wrong impression about the culture,philosophy and beliefs ofthose times.He wasn’t worthy to comment or make fun of centuries of thatculture,because he obviously couldn’t understand it.The difference betweenPetronius and Fellini is that Petronius knew whatever he had created wasextreme but fun nonetheless(in spite of Fellini who seemed to believe he hadcreated an amusing film).The only amusement in this film is that there’s noamusement.If Fellini thought that he had created a successful comedy,he wasjust sick,on the other hand,If he thought that he had created a serious andmeaningful film,then there should be no reason to write thisreview.

I didn't care for "Satyricon." Truth be told, I have never been able tocall myself a Fellini admirer. I find most of his films tooself-indulgent, too strange for the sake of being strange. This film isno exception to the rule. But the movie is not a complete misfire. Somevignettes are very very interesting. It's fun to watch how Fellinitries to outdo himself with each scene, with each progressively weirdersequence. The director also likes to rely on amazingly odd faces inorder to elicit both laughter and compassion from the audience. Italmost worked. The look of the film is wonderfully original. There aresome images that I know I won't be able to forget. However, I think thefilm works mostly as an oddity. But it does have its defenders.

I would like to draw people’s attention to a comment on La Strada

entitled "Rhubarb, rhubarb, rhubarb," where the author mentions

the diva in Truffaut’s "La nuit américaine" saying how she did not

have to remember her lines when working with Fellini. Since I had

watched La Strada in English, I couldn’t relate much, but now I do.

And I remember the sound putting me off while watching 8 1/2. It’s

a total cacophony! And it really ruins what would have otherwise

probably been a great movie. I didn’t mind the grotesque, I didn’t mind the lack of linearity (after

all, we only have fragments of the book anyway), I didn’t mind the

fantasy, I LOVED the last shot (really, the movie is worth watching

be it just for that), the colors were a little wild (let’s blame that on

"technology"), but the sound! Granted most of these were not real

languages (the subtitles appeared randomly, so I missed a lot of

what was said), there was such a blur of sounds in the

background that never corresponded to anything on the screen

that it wa
s really annoying. At one point I picked up Arabic, where I

think it shouldn’t have been because that was not consistent with

the other gibberish around in the rest of the movie. What I think I

will do from now on is watch Fellini in translation because, despite

the numerous qualities this movie has, the sound absolutely

ruined it.

What’s wrong with the dubbing of this film? Fellini used the beststudios at Cine Cita near Rome, the best in Europe. Why don’t themovements of the character’s lips match the words they say?

Fellini worked on the composition of his films while filming. Notalways he knew what words to put in their mouth. Not before the filmwas cut and assembled. Often, he would just say to the actors to jabber(say one-two-three, blah-blah-blah, and so on). That’s another reasonwhich enabled him to just use people off the street sometimes asactors, choosing them by their face and not by their acting abilities.Perhaps it is also questionable whether this film should ever besubtitled, since the tone may be more important than meaning.

Apparently, the correspondence between movement of the lips and wordswas not crucial to him. If this is something which is crucial to you,then please DO NOT WATCH THIS FILM.

If you want to know Fellini, try to watch Amarcord or Ginger & Fred, orThe Ship before this one. If you’re intelligent, then move to Fellini 8and 1/2. When you’re no longer intelligent, then move to this film.

I really liked the photography, the music and the sets of this movie. What Ithought that the message of this movie is not to pervert a man to manrelationship. When two men are together, it is not natural that they livetogether as husband and wife, as they are two men. So, the marriage ceremonywith the one man costumed as a woman was unnatural etc, and because thepeople perform unnatural acts they get so strange as it is portrayed in themovie. Also, when the one man wanted to sleep with that woman in the end,his partner was killed and he couldn’t help him because he was busy withthat woman, which means he shouldn’t have deserted his partner for a woman.The end, where the two men are seen as figures in an ancient drawing,somehow gives a hint of the eternity of the story and its message.

No, but according to Fellini they certainly help it along alot.

According to modern science, lead poisoning may have killed off the RomanEmpire, but in the ultimate historical revenge by Christians we like tobelieve that the mad pursuit of desires of the flesh had a lot to do withit.

Fellini indulges this warped historical view to the hilt in "Satyricon". From beginning to end, in his inimitable visual style, we see the Romans,although ostensibly interested in the arts, consistently pursue fulfillingcarnal desires. The ending suggests no fate for our heroes or Rome, butleaves it up to ourselves to make a judgment.

During the journey you are so enraptured, you almost don’t notice that thefilm is mostly about homosexuality.

Federico Fellini’s movies were deliberately bizarre, but none more sothan "Satyricon". The story focuses on ancient Rome during the decline,and we get to see WHY it was declining: the ruling class wasdisgustingly decadent. Two young men (Martin Potter and Hiram Keller)are the window into this orgiastic society. An example of the decadenceis when a patrician man rips his servant’s hand off, just to entertainhis patrician friends.

Overall, "Satyricon" is not the sort of movie that you can try tosimply describe; like I said, it’s deliberately bizarre. A far cry fromthe glamorous sword-and-sandal movies that came out of the US, thisfilm never idealizes ancient Rome. On the contrary, the whole placelooks very grim. But don’t let that give you the wrong impression.Fellini accomplished a visually stunning masterpiece with this movie.

This is without question the HARDEST TO WATCH movie that I’ve ever seen.Not only is the movie bad in itself, but every element in it is eitherpretentious, dull, or overly silly. The music for one - nothing special.The cinematography consists of either weird stylized shots or extremelysloppy ones - with bad focus and more headroom than non-headroom.

The actual plot of the movie is nothing more than a series of unconnectedscenes of gay men either A) eating, B) performing various homosexualacts,C) just sitting around, or D) occasionally actually doing interestingstufflike fighting or moving around. However, even the stuff that should beinteresting, such as the violence, is so oddly distant-seeming that evenitis boring. You know a movie is bad when even a scene involving GeorgeEastman as a giant minotaur in a maze, swinging a giant club left andrightis boring. I’ve sat through many-a-Herzog/Tarvkovsky movie and didn’thaveany problems, but this movie had me squirming in my seat, constantlychecking the DVD player to see how much time was left.

While Danilo Donati’s costume and production design are top-notch, thismovie has nothing else going for it. Poor pacing, poor planning,atrociousdubbing (even in the native Italian version), and dialog that’ssemi-poeticbut doesn’t make any sense. This movie is 2 very,very long hours of"huh?".

Gordon Mitchell, Capucine, and George Eastman all in medium-sized roleshelpelevate this movie a little bit, but they’ve all been in much morewatchablefilms.

I thought I’d never say this, but if you really want to see a movie aboutthe decadence of ancient Rome, watch Caligula instead.

read comments (0)

Battle of Britain

This movie is by far overrated. It attempts to follow the events well,but the plot is bad . The acting is horrible for the most part. Itlooks surreal. It may indeed have been surreal at the beginning of thebattle for Britain, but there is no development of character, thepeople on the screen continue to act as if there is no war goingaround, the Germans are represented almost as comic bad characters,with grossly underscored negative sides. It looks like a cheap playmade by school kids than a real movie of the rank of "A Bridge too far"or "The Longest Day". It is worth watching to get some senses of theevents, but without other background it is impossible to get the realpicture. For the most part the fights look like walking in the parkrather than death and live situation. The events are very badlyconnected, almost as just a bunch of pieces of a puzzle throwntogether. Yeah, most of them are there, but the picture is missing.This is by far not the worse movie I have seen of WWII but is wellbellow even mediocrity.

It was probably ground breaking and state of the art when made, butwatchingit now [2000] on TV, this really came across as being the same as anyotherwar film.

Olivier was good as usual, and a very young Michael Caine added somecomedyvalue.

Spoiler: Germany didn’t win the war!

Want to play The Battle of Britain at home with your friends? Everybodylook stern, race around the back yard making ratatatat noises, have thebud who most looks like Christopher Plummer wave his hands around as ifthey’re on fire, put the cutest girl to the side in button down shirt,panties, nylons, and garters (your neighbors might want to join the funat this point), have the whole group yell "Bogeys!" and "Angels" and"Tally-Ho" from time to time, and just when things seem to be makingsense and coming together, quote something from Winston Churchill andgo inside.

This is where you and your friends should do something constructivelike not watching The Battle of Britain, an almost incomprehensiblechunk of war movie directed by Guy Hamilton and starring almost everyEnglish star in the Empire. It’s not that I am dishonoring the memoryof England’s "Finest Hour," it’s that BOB is so bad and muddled thatits glory is just piddled away. If you want to honor the RAF and theEnglish people, don’t watch this glop (or play fighter planes in theback yard–although the girl in the garters could be a separate issue),just go to your library and find a book about The Battle of Britain andread it.

What a concept!

Well rounded cast cannot save this dull treatment ofa potentially interesting subject. The title doesspeak for itself; that’s really all you see in thefilm. Stars like Caine, Shaw and Olivier are allwasted, as is the direction of Guy Hamilton. Worksas a documentary, not a feature.

For the most part, this is a boring war movie, though a good historylesson.However, it’s worth sitting through just to see the sexy ChristopherPlummer at his most gorgeous! Great cast line-up, too, including MichaelCaine, Susannah York, and Sir Michael Redgrave, just to name afew!

It is not recommended for general viewing by public.Students collecting WWII documentaries may like it.The title makes you seem that are in to watch agood show but you end up watching a obese Goeringraving like a madman as does Hitler.It is a Dull Movie the only interesting shot iswhen Susanne York bends down in the bedroom.You have the privilege of seeing her panties .Keeps you at the edge of your seat, not in the conventionalsense as we understand this expression-actually I mean it makes you feelthat you should walk away from the theatre ifyou are watching it in one or makes you switch channels ifyouare watching in a Cable or forces to press the stopbutton in case you are playing it on vcr/dvd.

While the whole reason for wanting to watch this was for the aerial scenes,I have to say I was disappointed with the movie as a whole. The aerialscenes are good, but become repetitive. There is time wasted on attemptedcharacter development, but none of the characters ARE developed. It wasfrustrating to see the big names on the cover: Robert Shaw, Michael Caine,Christopher Plummer, Michael Redgrave, and nothing of them in the film.They are barely given lines and you certainly don’t understand anyone’smotivations or ambitions. Again, I didn’t want to see the movie because Ithought there would be a decent story line, but having started one it was aterrible failure. I cannot recommend this film.

The problem with this film is that it has so many big name stars that thestory fails to do justice to the characters involved. Having said that thefilm does have its moments and does try to present the Luftwaffe crews asbeing no different from their opponents in the RAF. But after seeing CROSSOF IRON the previous week any film about the second world war isdisappointing after that.

Historical fact about the 1940 air war over Britain: Even if the Luftwaffemanaged to destroy all RAF airfields they still wouldn`t have the means toinvade. The Nazis only had barges to cross the channel while the RoyalNavy`s fleet remained intact

Late night TV in Bulgaria and Russia, at least in Soviet times, involved warmovies. Or rather, tank movies. (A tank crew, lots of tanks crossing fields,usually B&W but occasionally colour.) In a similar vein, I guess the bestGerman war movie involves a submarine (Das Boot), the best American warmovies involve infantry and platoons (Patton) and the best French war moviesinvolve civilians and occupation (Le Dernier métro, Une affaire de femmes).And the best British war movies involve airplanes.

I first saw the "Battle of Britain" in Toronto’s 2000-seat Carlton Theatre(where an organist rose out of the stage at intermission). The movie was ablockbuster with a cast of all Britain’s who’s who. But as a kid, I wasimpressed instead by the planes (particularly the Spitfires) and the scenewith the pilot’s reconstructed face.

Well, I recently bought the widescreen DVD in a bargain bin to see how itholds up. It doesn’t really. It’s a war movie without a plot. Or rather,it’s a well-made tank movie. In colour.

This film certainly falls into BRIDGE TOO FAR syndrome. There’s too manycharacters, too many big actors, and too many "big" scenes where an obviouston of money was spent, but no money spent on story. Michael Caine andLaurence Olivier appear in this one as well. The big difference betweenthis and BRIDGE TOO FAR is that BRIDGE had action sequences too few and farbetween. This film has about a million such action scenes, many of whichare exciting, but they quickly get dull as aerial combat can only be soexciting. I’d recommend a film like EAGLES OVER LONDON, as it does have anintriguing plot and lots of action on the ground, set against the backdropof the Battle of Britain. This film merely tries to recreate events and addin dumb things like a love story equally as annoying as the one on displayin Michael Bay’s PEARL HARBOR. I must say that the results of this one area little less sappy and more satisfying, but there’s really no place forit.

The Germans are all depicted as cartoonishly dumb. The generals argue andyell while the soldiers wonder what the heck is going on and then apparentlyjust "let themselves get shot" by the British. In one battle scene wherethe Germans launch two attacks at once, the British manage to knock out anentire unescorted bomber squadron without losing a single plane. Little issaid about the other assisted attack.

The photography and explosions are very well-done, and the film is stronguntil the second half where the British start winning… and winning andwinning and winning. There’s no suspense from that point on and littlereas
on to keep watching besides the sheer curiosity in seeing how many waysthe makers could think of to show planes getting shot down.

read comments (0)

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid

This movie is one big disappointment. Although there are a few interestingcinematographic effects such as the metaphoric color change at the beginningfrom sepia to technicolor, the movie lacks everything I look for in a finefilm. It has no discernible plot, the music is atrocious and doesn’t fit inwith what little emotional content the film has to offer, the actors don’tfit into the roles at all, etc.

I gave it a 4.

… but so far as I could see; the ONE great scene has been shown onOscar telecasts too many times for it to rescue an enterprise that’sotherwise so lazy. Yes; Newman and Redford are accomplished, but Iwouldn’t have expected anything less from them - What I would haveexpected from the film is a solid ‘backstory’ for our characters, and asense of urgency from the narrative; instead of the constant feelingthat we’re supposed to nudge each other and laugh as our lackadaisicalheroes amble their way through life. Burt Bacarach may have crafted agood tune; but that doesn’t excuse what felt like an eternity wastedwatching Newman ride a bicycle… He’s a great actor; but even HE can’tenliven a moment so mundane.

The admittedly memorable ending wouldn’t serve as ‘too little, toolate’ had the movie earned it’s ‘veneration’ of these two unexceptionalvagabonds; but the movie failed to convince me over its running timethat these chaps were in any way ’special’. You wonder if those whothink it’s a ‘classic’ just framed the last ten seconds of film intheir minds, and somehow passed over the aimless episodes that servedas buildup to the ‘climax’? I’ll tell you something: I wish I couldhave such selective perception; but no, I unfortunately remember ALLthose other limp moments that went before the ending, as well… !

I guess when this movie came out, I was too much of a hippie to seesomething that had "Raindrops Keep Falling on My Head" as a theme song. Ialso wasn’t a fan of westerns.

I always figured that when I finally did see it, I’d be blown away. Well,it is kinda nice seeing a younger Paul Newman and a young Robert Redfordplaying with each other. Their characters are neat–a wisecracking PaulNewman, and a silent but wise Robert Redford. The chemistry is terrific.But Katherine Ross adds up to zero in this flick. She’s got nothing to dobut attach herself to the boys and teach them Spanish. It almost seemslikeshe was thrown in to obviate the obvious homosexual overtones. Hercharacter, and the fact that the boys go to whorehouses, make up for thefact that they ride the same horse and spend every waking and sleepinghourtogether. Paul looks so lovingly at Robert.

How about a remake with the real story?

Ok, the movie had its good parts and bad parts. The good parts are seeninseveral westerns (ie the final battle, the running from the federales).

The bad parts are absolutely ridiculous. A very good example of my pointisthe bicycle scene. Who puts stuff like that in a western? Also, whatwerethose people thinking with that absolutely horrible music score?RaindropsFalling on My Head? The Ba Ba song? What kind of western music isthat?

If you want a great movie with everything including a remarkable musicscore, then see The Magnificent Seven!

Mind-bogglingly overrated, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, despitebeing penned by Hollywood guru and screenplay doctor/adviser WilliamGoldman, has barely anything decent going for it in its plot lessscript. The title characters have no depth or edge, which makes theirescapades rather tiresome; not even the formidable double-act of PaulNewman and Robert Redford can do much with this pair of non-entities,while Katharine Ross is totally wasted in the token girlfriend role. Asa comedy it's nothing more than mildly amusing, as an adventure ittotally lacks excitement and as a drama it has no pathos, emotion orsubstance. On the plus side, it is beautifully shot and lensed, and thefirst fifteen minutes show great promise, but overall you may walk awayfrom this sacred cow wondering just what all the fuss was about.

This movie ranks in my top 5 favorites.

Director George Roy Hill and his gorgeous cast: Robert Redford, PaulNewmanand Katherine Ross turn out a funny, sad, touching story of the realoutlaws-Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid.

How could you not grin like a fool, when Paul takes Katharine out for aturnon his bike with "Raindrops Keep Falling on my Head" playing in thebackground…{sigh}

This is a wonderful movie! I think Paul Newman and Robert Redford arebothoutstanding as Butch and Sundance. The movie takes two outlaws and turnsthem into sympathetic characters, particularly at the end when they laythere, mortally wounded. My favorite part is the knife fight, where Butchthrows Harvey off by talking about rules. Then…whack!! 1, 2, 3,GO!!!!!!

Whenever I am asked what my favourite film of all time is, I invariablyanswer "Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid".

For me, it has everything - action, drama and humour in abundance. It issimply a supremely entertaining movie, which can be enjoyed by all ages.

Redford and Newman are in great form and Katherine Ross is perfect as thelong-suffering girlfriend. There are also some memorable cameos fromStrother Martin, Ted Cassidy and poor old George Furth as"Woodcock".

Highly recommended for anyone who enjoys good old-fashionedentertainment.

Out of all the classic films I have seen one of the ones I like the mostis"Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid". Most classics to me are overratedandnot as good as they are made out to be. This is a very entertaining film,never boring for a second and the two superb leading actors play off eachother perfectly to create arguably the most memorable screen team in moviehistory.I definitely recommend this movie.

The question is not whether this film is good, but why it was sophenomenally popular, and is remembered so fondly.

Unless you were there, it is hard to understand the context. This is aBeatles movie in Bonnie and Clyde clothes. Check out the John and Paulcaracatures, complete with Sgt Pepper moustache. The photography is rippedout of Warren Beatty’s mind, and casually surrealistic. The musical scenes,especially the bike scene, are inspired by the Hard Days’ Nightschool.

A distance from reality is established in every detail: the overexposedphotography often lapsing into sepia, the anachronistic dialog, the `look atme relax’ approach to acting, and the abstract, supernatural posse composedof legends who are not supposed to come here. Someone was able to put hisfinger on how to package a revolution for consumption. Thiscommercialization is of course why the greater promise of that revolutionnever appeared.

This film made Robert Redford famous, a generous soul and minor talent, andit is easy to see why he would be proud. But Paul Newman knew better eventhen, and I suppose he regrets having participated. No matter, he has reallegacies.

When I reviewed it last week, the Beatle connection was immediately obvious.And I was struck by the Katherine Ross character. In 1969, how we wishedYoko had been like that.

read comments (0)

Monty Python’s Flying Circus

This is the all in all wackiest TV show ever. The sheer nuttiness of thesketches is undermined by the fact that there’s really some good ideasunderneath that. This is like Saturday Night Live on steroids, lackingguests but the crew is much funnier.

Monty Python is the funniest TV show ever created. All you have to do isjust think of a sketch from the show and you start to laugh uncontrollable.Such as gangs of old ladies and of the course the dead parrot sketch, I amlaughing right now just typing it. If you love films like a "Fish calledWanda" or the show "Faulty Towers" you will definitely love Monty Python. Amust see. Along with all of their great films.

The Monty Python crew is the Funniest Comedy Troupe in the history of motionpicture, Monty Python’s Flying Circus is my favorite show because every oneof the 38 episodes Is just so Bizarre you can’t help butlaugh.

Many people think the Holy Grail movie is the best thing they made, butthey’re wrong, this show is. It inspired SNL, too. It is one of the funniest sonext time you go to the video store and want to rent ‘Holy Grail’ rent anepisode of this show or And Now for Something Completely Different which feturessome of the best skits from early episodes.

I love this show I’m glad A&E brought it back My PBS station couldn’t pick itup most kids in my generation enjoy Holy Grail, but this is the real thingmany of the people at my school think all British television is boring theyare wrong they should see the true beauty and humor that is MONTY PYTHONthis is their classic stuff, the stuff of legends. Most of my so-calledfriends are fans of All That. I use to like that show, but I grew old,thecast members are really annoying, and so are the musical guests those gangstarappers, non-threatening, non-instrumentally talented guy groups, and thosemidriff-baring girly-girls who all little girls want to be just like, ick!Parents if you grew up wacthing MPFC on your local PBS station it’s time tosit your kids down and let them experience these great masters of the 20thcentury. I had an art teacher who said this show warps your brain. I alsoheard that the guys who created South Park watched this show all the timewhen they were little, now you where they got those horrible ideas I justwanted to tell everyone to watch it that’s all.

ROFLMAO, and I thought the movies were funny!How did they come up with sketches like "Confuse-a-cat(TM)" and "A manturnsinto a scotsman (The science fiction sketch)"? It’s beyond me. It must beanact of pure genius! Most so-called "humor" series’ producers ought to beslapped with a chicken.Truly and honestly silly!

Everyone knows that Monty Python is the most brilliantly ludicrous show evercreated. But my favorite part of it is seeing the early work of my favoritedirector Terry Gilliam. The only American Python, Gilliam was and still isa visual genius and before Time Bandits, or Brazil, or Twelve Monkeys thiscan be seen in his animations for Monty Python. The opening sequence set toSousa’s "The Liberty Bell" and will live on in the collective conciousnessof society for many generations to come. If you haven’t seen these already,check them out.

(P.S. The skits are great too!)

And now for something completely different…Thinking that this wasbasically the Mercury Mission of sketch comedy, how could it NOT becompletely different? They hit the ground running and never slowed down.Every episode is a classic, every episode has at least one sketch that hassomething quotable in it. There are a few sketches entered into the historybooks–Dead Parrot, Cheeseshop, Dirty Fork–but even if you yourself havebeen quoting this stuff for years sight unseen, it’s worth a look. Theseguys were funny. They were the forerunners for what is usual tv today. Ifyou’ve ever laughed at a Kids in the Hall sketch, if you miss Mtv’s TheState, if you’re a fan of Mad TV or love SNL, you have these five insanitycases to thank. They were cross-dressing twenty years before The Kids in theHall ever donned frocks. For any college age kid raised on a steady diet ofsketch, watching these episodes is a must. Warning: general irreverence, amildly disturbing amount of animated nudes and scenes of Carol Cleveland invarious states of undress (second only to the amount of scenes featuringTerry Jones in various states of undress) abound, so it’s not for the youngand/or impressionable viewer.

I am a relatively new fan - actually, really new. I only started reallywatching the show 2 weeks after my 15th birthday - which was in April of2000. But I can tell you, I’m hooked! Although I am originally a Kids inthe Hall fan (and still am), I must give creadit to the first guys whomadedrag funny.

Classic. Silly. Memorable. Juvenile. Original. Witty. And so bloodyfunny!!! Nevermind some of the British references that we Americanscouldn’t understand, it’s absolutely the greatest comedy series of alltime.Nuff said.

read comments (0)