Love Story

POSSIBLE SPOILERS

Hundreds of people flocked to cinemas to see this movie. It can be saidthat "Love Story" was a cult movie for the 1970s in most parts of theworld. Young girls cried at the tragedy of Jenny, for most of them itwas a good date when they were invited to cinemas by their boyfriendsand went to see the film together. I heard about its popularity from myparents who were teenagers at that time and also liked it. However,while watching the movie now, I wonder what was really so great, sowonderful and unforgettable.

SPOILERS HEREIN! First of all, the movie is VERY, VERY slow. Somescenes last forever, especially the one when Jenny walks to hospitalwith her husband. In fact, there is not much action in the filmwhatsoever. Perhaps because it is a love story and nothing more.

The music? It’s not bad as for the drama but too melancholic. I knowthat a lot of people may criticize me for my skepticism when applied tothe beautiful song that was written later and the whole story. Yes, ifyou are deadly sentimental, you may say that my opinion is cruel. But,what I notice in the film is sadness and forcing you to be touched andcry. The terribly sad music combined with a very sad story is too much!It makes people grief just for the sake of it. It is something entirelydifferent than being touched by a single scene in a movie or feeling aright empathy with the characters retaining awareness that it is ONLY amovie! Like with blood or sex, films may also exaggerate with sorrow.Then, it all becomes unnatural!

I would, however, not do justice to the movie failing to notice thegood sides of it. Of course, there are a lot of moments that move me inthe right way (not melancholy but something that leads me to reflectand teaches me empathy). There must be a mention about the last sceneand the profound words: "Loving means never having to say I am sorry".Yes, I admit there are moments for which the movie is worth seeing. Itgives some kind of lesson of life. Moreover, love is showed gently.That is true. It means not only sex, as it is in many films concerningthis topic, but it is understanding, unity, and faithfulness.

All in all, the movie clearly fits to that period of the early 1970s"Make love not war". However, there are still some people who may likeit and find something precious in it. 6/10!

I loved the scenery (wintry New England in a college setting), the greatchemistry and acting of Ali MacGraw and Ryan O’Neal, and the gorgeousmusic!Good to watch on a cold gray day with a cup of hot chocolate, a blanket,andmaybe even your special someone.

My diary records my changing feelings about this film:

1979

It wasn’t a bad movie, but not a very good one either. It is better thanmost movies because it portrays above average, intelligent sensitive people,capable of love and fun. O’Neill may be likable, but he is horribly miscastas an intellectual. The film’s major flaw is the death of the girl.Pointless and irrelevant. It didn’t move me at all. With a happy ending, aswell as a better script, it could have been great. A great movie about truelove would certainly not deal with squabbles and pettiness. "Love meansnever having to say you’re sorry’ - What on earth does it mean?

1990

I like it even more now. This is one of the most beautiful movies ever made,a true gem. It captures romance, it has an incredible stylistic maturity.Granted, the golden tune is half the movie, but there is much more to it.From the very beginning you know, that this film is inspired. This is not atall a tear-jerker. The girl’s death is handled with breath-taking goodtaste. The pacing is admirable, classic. There are no long, boring scenes.There is a fleeting quality that gives the impression, that the directorrealizes that a movie has to be organically whole, not a patchwork. By God,even the credits are presented in a breath-taking manner, and the titleitself is lapidary in its stark simplicity. No doubt, this is one of the tengreatest American movies. A movie is more than its plot. Am I a hopelesslysilly romantic, or have I struck gold? I never change my mind about things.Even at ninety I would love this movie. "Love means never having to sayyou’re sorry", is in itself not very meaningful, but the way it waspresented, made it seem like some magical oracle. The actors were totallymismatched. O’Neal is not at all believable as a romantic guy.

1997

The effect has worn off slightly. I begin to find fault with the many facialclose-ups, but it is still a fine movie. I love many of its details. Thereis no doubt I will be seeing this movie again and again, although it isinferior to "The Strawberry Statement".

2000

I haven’t seen it recently, but my increasing cynicism prevails: Why mustthe poor girl die? Could it be, because she dared to break the social taboo?Do the actors themselves like this movie, or did Ryan and Ali erupt inhysterical laughter about their silly roles? And the famous phrase could beparaphrased: `Love means never having to say: I hate you’.

The only reason I watched this film was because of all the rave reviewsit’sreceived. After watching.. I don’t know I guess I’m "the ice queen" but itdidn’t move me at all and I did not cry. I don’t understand how it got allthose oscar nominations. Yeah, yeah the song was nice but not all thatgreatif you think about it. Overall, I thought this film was a snore and I giveit 4/10.

If you are not emotionally touched by this movie, you really have to admityou have no emotion because this is not a pathetic, cheesy, corney lovestory but a realisticly based movie on love and loss. Two college studentsgradually fall for eachother but not in the way a fantasy love story woulddescribe. The story tells how these two finally get together and try to forma life. A love that can work but rarely does because of some obsticles butthey work hard at their love and the movie teaches a lesson. Although for meits hard for a tear to break out but I know it was trying because it a verysad sentimental story that not makes you sad because the love is great butbecause the loss is so tragic. The movie really is a story of tragedy ratherthan one of love. Superior movie over all and Im surprised its not in thetop 250 best movie list. Far superior to any kids rubbish like Star Wars asits a film that teaches people the ways of the real world, stuff you wouldnot learn in school. 8 out of 10.

"Love Story" came out at the right time, the end of the liberating 60s, thebeginning of the 70s, the idea of a college student falling for a prettygirl and getting married against wealthy dad’s wishes, then making it justfine on his own was the kind of thing we all could cheer for. Many of usprobably secretly wished we could have been in his shoes. Looking at thefilm today, there isn’t too much to get excited about. The best part of thefilm happens between the wedding and his finding out that she had terminallukemia. The last half hour drags, and the final scene where he ponders whathas happened, and what his future holds isn’t particularly strong. Hasknowing her changed him, or his dad? Not really, they were fine before andnow they are fine after. It’s just a sad chapter in life, with greatmemories, and if we live long enough we all have those.

While "Love Story" is a pleasant movie, and one that I enjoy watching,especially for Ali MacGraw’s beautiful smile, it is only slightly aboveaverage. It of course coined the phrase "love means never having to sayyou’re sorry", which sounds good but in fact is worthless tripe. Anyone whoknows what love really is also knows the value, the importance of saying"I’m sorry" when it is warranted. However it is amazing how many peoplelatched on to this phrase, just because it was in a movie.

For my money, Hollywood’s greatest love
story is CASABLANCA (1942). ErichSegal’s LOVE STORY (1970) drew tons of people, who were mainly flowerchildren at the time, but failed to deliver with many people later in years.Many have called it "cheesy" and I would have to agree. It is plagued bypoor acting and a soap opera-style screenplay. However, the film’s catchline phrase "love means never having to say your sorry" can mean differentthings to different people. If you’ve seen CASABLANCA (1942), you shouldnotice that neither Rick nor Ilsa say, "I’m sorry for screwing up our loveaffair." Instead, we get "here’s looking at you, kid."

OVERALL GRADE: C

I saw this film for the first time last night, mainly because the TVguidedescribed it as ‘also starring Ray Milland’. Having only seen hisperformances in ‘The Lost Weekend’ and ‘Dial M for Murder’, I was pleasedtosee that he adapted well to the role of Oliver’s conservative and ratherdomineering father. In fact Milland’s character is pivotal to the wholefilm, though he appears in only three or four scenes and has relativelyfewlines of dialogue. For me the real love story of the title was thatbetweenOliver and his father; it’s clear that Oliver’s father never stops lovinghis son, even though Oliver junior can’t bring himself (because of hispride) to apologise for rejecting his father’s love. Oliver quotes ‘lovemeans never having to say you’re sorry’ at his father towards the end ofthefilm as if to forestall his father’s apologies, when really he knows thatitis he who should apologise for not reciprocating his father’s affections.Soa son’s desire for the unconditional love of a parent is I think what isreally described by the tagline.

The eventual separation of Jenny and Oliver by Jenny’s fatal disease isparalleled by Oliver’s estrangement from his father, but I think thelatteris in a way more tragic because it is caused by Oliver’s pride and thetwomen’s stubbornness and is ultimately avoidable. The father’s pain at hisson’s behaviour is no less poignant than Oliver’s grief at his wife’sfate.One answer to the question ‘why does Jenny have to die?’ is that herdeathremoves the bone of contention between father and son; in the besttraditionof Shakespearian tragedy, the characters have gone through hell, but intheend order is restored. Though we see the death of one character and theendof one relationship, paradoxically this results in the longed-forreconciliation of Oliver and his father. The situation at the end of thefilm is essentially the same as it was just before Jenny met Oliver,exceptthat both Oliver and his father are now sadder and wisermen.

I agree with most of the negative comments already posted about LOVE STORY. The acting by the two leads is dreadful (McGraw got better; O’Neal nevercould act). The storyline is trite and predictable, to say the least. Above all, the two leads are so totally unlikeable and unsympathetic. We’resupposed to feel sorry for Oliver while he’s crusing around Boston in anexpensive European hot rod? (here’s a clue: sell the damn car and youwon’t need a scholarship to law school!) Jenny isn’t any better, but herexcessive and gratuitious profanity makes her totally repulsive on top ofher arrogance, nastiness and self-absorption. Sorry — it’s just hard toget into a romance when you absolutely despise the couple.

I will say, however, that I thought the cinematography was pretty good. Thehockey scenes at the beginning are very well done in particular, and thescene at the end where Oliver III and Oliver IV face each other through arevolving door (as one leaves and the other enters) is a very powerful shot. Indeed, it’s the cinematography that makes Oliver and Jenny seem evenremotely human and likable.

I found this to be an interesting contrast to a film from the same era –Bang the Drum Slowly (1973), which has a large number of similarities(relationships; illness; success / failure; death; parents). The contrastis that the story in "Drum" is outstanding, while the cinematography isabsolutely dreadful. LOVE STORY is the direct opposite. I found this to bean interesting comparison, at least.

Heartfelt and highly emotional production that is really more of amelodrama, a big-screen opera that tells its tale with an almost unendingsoundtrack and with actually very little dialog from its key characters.Harvard Law student Ryan O’Neal (Oscar-nominated) falls immediately forRadcliffe music student Ali McGraw (also an Oscar-nominee). There isfriction at first, but we all know that an unbreakable bond of love andadmiration is going to take place. Naturally O’Neal’s wealthy father (a coldand chilling performance from the excellent Ray Milland) decides to dismisshis son all together when he realizes that he is indeed going to marry themuch poorer McGraw. McGraw’s father (priceless Oscar-nominee John Marley)loves the idea of having O’Neal for a son-in-law, but does question thecouple’s views on family and even more importantly religion. Throughout itappears that the main focus is for O’Neal and Milland to put theirdifferences aside and come back together as father and son, but the filmtakes a much different turn in its final act and it is blatantly apparentthat disease will break the earthly union that O’Neal and McGraw share."Love Story" is another one of those films that acts strictly with emotionand not necessarily intelligence. Oscar-nominated director Arthur Hiller(easily doing the best work of his career) would rather speak volumes withsilence than with loud verbal outbursts. The somber tone of the movie andits Oscar-winning score dominate the production and end up being the film’sstrengths and weaknesses simultaneously. Overall "Love Story" is a moviethat will stick with you like glue. There are just some human emotions shownhere that cannot be denied to movie-goers, but really sometimes raw emotioncannot overcome the lack of a possibly more intelligent approach. Watch forthen-unknown Tommy Lee Jones as one of O’Neal’s Harvard friends. 4 stars outof 5.

read comments (0)

Hercules in New York

Was Comin’ To New Yawk City As Her-cu-les, Ja? This was Auh-nulledSchwarzenegger during his early days.

Before "The Terminator…" Before "Jingle All The Way…" Before hebecame the governor of California…

He starred…in very not-well-known films. This movie was one of them.I know "Pumping Iron" was another such example, but this review focuseson "Hercules in New York." I don’t want to give out too much detail; Ijust want y’all to go watch this movie so that you, too, can experiencethe excitement that are known as…early Auh-Nauld Schwarzeneggermovies!

Recap: Hercules is not happy, having spent the last thousand years atMt Olympus with the gods he defies his father Zeus and head for therealm of the mortals. Naturally he ends up in New York. But beingself-centered like a child does not sit well with many in New York, andHercules often finds himself in trouble. Luckily he is inhumanly strongand like all the gods, invulnerable. However, Juna, the wife of Zeuswho has always hated Hercules for being one offspring on one of Zeuslittle "adventures", sees an opportunity. She changes Zeus orders andtakes his godly powers away. Suddenly Hercules is all human, and indeep trouble.

Comments: This is a old one, from the time when Arnold was as fit asever and hadn't learned to act yet. He wasn't his smooth-talkingsmooth-acting self yet (ehum), in this his performance is really stiff.However, that's not really a problem. Like any movie with PamelaAnderson (i.e. Barb Wire) this never has any other intention thanshowing of the main actor. With embarrassingly bad special effects anda weak story this resembles such movies very much. All the way to thepoint were Arnold for no reason rips his shirt off and shows his hugemuscles. Actually, Pamela and Arnold is totally interchangeable, wellbesides that they "speak" to different halves of the audience.

Otherwise the movie was rather bad. Bad dialog, weak story and asstated really bad special effects. For example, once Hercules wrestlesa bear in Central Park. I just wished they could have tried to concealthe fact it was an actor in a fur dress. It must have been embarrassingfor the director to have to have scenes with the "bear" running about,not being able to walk very convincingly.

However, there is a reason to watch this. Of course it is because it isSchwarzenegger's debut. The future star and governor took his firststeps on the screen in this movie, and bad as it is, it has some funnymoments. The sudden appearance of Samson and Atlas to help Hercules isone. But it is only for those who like B-movies or enjoys stars firststiff steps on screen. Those also might want to keep an eye out forJohn Candy in his first (uncredited) role.

The best part of the entire movie is like a prophecy. A part of thedialog brings up the topic of kings in the mortal realm between Junaand Nemesis. Nemesis explains that they have no kings but presidents.Juna then states that a king is a king whatever he calls himself andfears that the mortals might make Hercules king because of his powers.She was not that far of, speaking of the Governator… 3/10

I can’t believe how hard I laughed at the "Grizzly Bear" scene, whichmagically transforms from an "American brown bear" to a "Grizzly bear" (lookat the sign at the zoo, then listen to the radio transmission by thepolice).

The seen where "Herc" fights the bear is so ridiculous, that you just haveto laugh! This film is one of the all time best "cheap" films, following inthe steps of all the others before it.

I was lucky enough to view this on AMC, where they provided the versionwhere Arnold "Strong" Schwarzenegger ISN’T dubbed.

He got the part of Hercules because his agent told the director of the filmthat Arnold spoke great English.

If you enjoyed such "classic", dare I say, films like "Santa ClauseConquers the Martians" then you’ll love Hercules in New York, which co-starsArnold Stang as "Pretz" I believe was his name. 5/5 stars on a scale ofstupidity at the movies!

BTW: Was that Nikes the "bear" (which looked more like a gorilla costume onHalloween-a bad one, mind you) was wearing?

John Ulmer

I finally got around to seeing this movie, mainly for the sake ofseeing the Governator’s first movie.

*shudder*

I’ve never felt like I’ve lost a significant portion of my brain whilewatching a movie before.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m a huge Arnie fan, I love most of his movies.Even the bad ones. *cough* Red Sonja *cough*

But I couldn’t find any redeeming features in this one. Let’s all justbe glad that movies like this are rare, and that Arnie has definitelycome a long way since then.

Though I did keep expecting John Cleese to come in feeling all peckish,and proceed to start trying to purchase some cheese. Compliments to thebazouki playing throughout most of the movie.

Still… wasn’t as bad as Manos.

The movie was kinda stupid, but Arnold S. looked SPECTACULAR! (orshould that be PEC-tacular?!) I recommend this flick to everyone whoenjoysseeing a man with a magnificent body. Maybe the film wouldn’t win anaward,but Arnold’s bod deserves a thousand awards!

I don’t say this about many movies, but this is quite possibly thegreatestcinematic feature ever made by humans. If there was a planet where allthemovies ever made hanged out, this movie would be the Jesus of that planet.No kidding. Anyone who doesn’t like this movie is completely gay anddoesn’t deserve to see a great piece of cinematography likethis.The script is superbly written, the acting is top-notch, the directing isimpossible to even be close to, and of course, the camera-work is worthyofthe Congressional Medal of Honor, or at least a billion dollars. I lovethis movie with every fiber of my being.In summation, anyone who hasn’t seen this movie deserves to burn in Hellforall eternity with devils poking them with those sticks with 3 points.Period.

For a long time I didnt get the Arnold thing, and then I saw "Pumping Iron". Arnold rules! The one and only original Strongman. Nobody compares. Arnold is the undisputed greatest athlete of all time. And as far as I amconcerned he cannot do wrong. Most actors ar phony balonies. Arnold is thereal deal. I myself am a former US Marine, a 5th degree black belt. And Ithink Arnold is number one in this movie he’s simply true to form. ZTo theArnold purist this movie is number one.

I saw this for three quid on a web site once and couldn't resist. I'mnot a fan of "bad movies", but I'd seen clips of this on television andit looked like an interesting debut for Arnie.

The clips I'd seen were dubbed by some American actor, which looksridiculous now that Arnie has become so established. However the DVDonly had the original Schwarzenegger soundtrack, which proved to bejust as ridiculous. People complain about Arnold's accent now? It wasso thick in this film, backed up with terrible acting (made hisperformance in "Commando" look Oscar-worthy), it's no wonder he wasdubbed. You can barely understand a thing he says. As terrible as thisis though, it's one of the main reasons to see this.

The concept of the film is ridiculous, it perhaps could've worked if itdidn't take itself so seriously (ironically, it wouldn't have been asfunny though). The thing that really disturbs me is that human beingsconjured up this film, adult human beings. They wrote it, it wasapproved, people agreed to have a part in it, it was directed, it wasshot, it was acted, it was edited, it was released, and people actuallywatched it.

I only watched it once in its entirety, and that took a few sitti
ngs(despite its short length). It is mostly a very tedious experience.Thankfully there are some stand-out scenes that are absolutely (andunintentionally) hilarious. The bear wrestling scene for instance, itwas like something from a Monty Python sketch. I found scenes like thiswere actually worth re-visiting, and the only reason anyone would wantto keep this in their collection. I later sold it though, it just hadno place on my shelf.

Of course this film would be so much easier to dismiss (probably lessridiculous, and even more tedious), if it weren't for Arnie. It is thefact that he has since been cemented as one of the biggest movie starsof all time, and this is where he started. Although he'd alreadyestablished himself as a body builder at this point, he continued towin more contests, became a huge international movie star, is now thegovernor of California, and might even be President one day, all with athick Austrian accent. Looking at "Hercules in New York" is a reminder,there's hope for us yet. 2/10

Arnold’s acting debut came in a period in his life when I guessbodybuilding was his main interest. I certainly hope so, for he acts sobad in this movie that it’s torture to sit through it. Bad acting fromone person only doesn’t necessary make a movie a total disaster, butwhen just EVERYTHING ELSE also are as horrible as they can be, then wehave a movie that never should’ve been made. Here, I’ll mention a fewthings that I especially noticed as bad:

- In the fight at the wharf, you clearly see that the people who getpushed into the water stops at the edge, and then jumps into the waterthemselves. I guess they just found some workers at a ship nearby andoffered them a dime each to take part in this scene.

- The bear in the park was so badly made that you have to see it tobelieve it

- In the scenes with the Greek gods at the Olymp, you often hear carhorns in the background. Tip to all future movie makers: When shootinga movie with Greek gods in their home, DO NOT PLACE THE SET NEXT TO AHIGHWAY.

This flick is only suitable for die hard-fans of muscle-flexing and badGerman accents. Everybody else, Arnold-fans included, should avoid thismovie at all costs.

Now, there can be no real doubt when you watch this movie that it isabsolutely awful. Bad as bad can be. Because it is. "So why oh why haveyou given it a score of three as opposed to a score of one or two?" youmight ask. Well, the reason is that it is the most unintentionallyhilarious movie that I have ever seen. It is listed as being an"Action/Comedy/Fantasy" which would lead one to believe that it ismeant to be funny. I saw the version in which the mighty Arnold speaksfor himself in his customary Austrian brogue. I have not seen thedubbed version so I don’t know how much of the comedic value the movieloses based on Schwarzenegger and his dialogue being the funniest partof the movie.

It’s the parts that are supposed to be serious that are the reallyfunny bits of this movie. Such as Arnold regularly proclaiming (with aneven thicker Austrian accent due to him not yet mastering the Englishlanguage) "I am Hercules". Having a weightlifting contest with ArnoldStang and pushing over N.Y taxis.

I’m a huge Schwarzenegger fan. I always have been. But the irony isthat in the late-1980’s he felt the need to display "range" as an actorby trying to branch out from his heavy-hitting actioners into comedywith movies such as "Twins" and "Kindergarten Cop" but the fact of thematter is that Arnold for all his trying was at his funniest right backat the start of his movie career.

If you are a fan of Arnold and love his inimitable manner of deliveringlines. You need to see this. Ignore the non-existent plot and actingand just roll along on the river of cheese in a film that is so bad itis hilarious.

Three is a low score, yes. But when you consider that this movie shouldhave a score of one you know that those additional points are oncomedic merit alone.

read comments (0)

Gimme Shelter

I had the extreme good fortune to participate in a viewing of thisdocumentary with Albert Maysles, one of the directors, and I do meanparticipate. The film was so utterly spellbinding and so well capturedthatthe reality traveled beyond the screen and truly touched every individualinthe room. There was a collective disbelief among the audience as wewatchedthe events that marked a generation, and the impact that we all felt willnodoubt last a lifetime. I highly recommend this film for a purely accurate,unfathomable and unforgettable experience.

Superb documentasry about the Rolling Stones free concert at AltamontSpeedway in 1969 that resulted in a murder. As a concert film, the Stonesare at their best–the footage is excellent, Mick Jagger is young andvibrant and they perform their best songs. As a documentary it shows theAltamont concert, which was all about peace and love, slowly turningviolent. For some reason, the Hells Angels were hired as security and theirbehavior turned the mood violent and ugly. At one point Jefferson Airplane(performing before the Stones) had their lead singer knocked unconscious bythe Angels. In a chilling scene you see an Angel angrily threatening theother members and Grace Slick doing her best to calm everyone down. Webriefly see Ike and Tina Turner perform too. When the Stones came on,everything fell apart. There was rampant violence (especially when theystarted to do "Sympathy for the Devil"), beatings and a fatal stabbing wascaught on camera! Just simply a wonderful, if scary film. Not to bemissed.

Documentary of the last few days of the Rolling Stones 1969 concert. Starting in Madison Square Gardens and ending in the violent concert atAltamont Speedway. This is the only way to see how horrible that famousrock tragedy was. Amazing. **** out of ****

This is one of the best musical documentaries ever made. The Rolling Stonesdecided to put on a huge show at Altamont Speedway near San Francisco. Andit was huge. There is one long aerial shot of cars parked along the roadthat seems to go on forever. While looking at it, one has to wonder how farsome people actually walked to see the show. I believe the crowd wasestimated at just about the number that attended Woodstock so you know itwas huge. Like any good documentary, this one has some drama in addition tothe great music the Stones were making in the late 60’s and early 70’s. Oneproblem was that Mick and the boys decided to put the Hells Angels in chargeof security for the event and that did not come without a price. In additionto complaints by Paul Kantner of Jefferson Airplane (who also played alongwith The Grateful Dead and others) that some of the Airplane band memberswere manhandled by Hells Angels, one man in the crowd (right in front of thestage) was knifed to death and this helped to cast a dark cloud over theentire event. It’s not exactly jumping off every video store shelf, but ifyou can find it, get it!

The Stones are rightly regarded as legends and this film gives a raw,organic look at the band. Most rock-umentaries are filled withbackstage shenanigans or the requisite at a distance, super slickconcert photography.

There are some excellent moments that modern rock movie makers would dowell to learn from. How about when the band is all blissed-out, layingdown, eyes closed, listening to their own recordings? Or footage ofMick in slow-motion while a song is playing? It allows the viewer toreally regard this rare creature Mick, without a lot of fancy editingand flashy effects. You can breathe in what this band was like and whatthey were all about in 1969. They look like they were having a hell ofa time, enjoying themselves immensely.

Tina Turner has an excellent number in the film, as do JeffersonAirplane. Also, the power of the Stones at this era cannot be denied."Sticky Fingers" is still in a class by itself.

Particularly interesting are the many interactions with band membersand the public, where the band were not hustled through the area withburly security, but instead sauntered around, chatted with people, itwas all so casual and relaxed.

As for the infamous death at Altamont, here's a simple lesson for allconcert goers: do not bring a pistol to a concert. Most certainly, donot wave said pistol in the direction of the stage from about 20 feetaway, as this kid did. The Hells Angel who stabbed him saved some livesprobably. What on earth was this kid doing, waving a gun around in whatwe would call today "the pit"? So many people were high on LSD orwhatever at this show, the security, as it were, had no choice. TheAngel stabbed the kid in his gun arm and back, and luckily the gunnever went off. Think of bullets randomly firing off into a crowd, thenask yourself if you feel sorry for the kid with the gun. If you've everbeen to a show yourself, you'll realize that is the last thing youwant, for some jackass to bring a gun.

Somehow this is portrayed as some innocent kid who got stabbed by HellsAngels for no reason. Watch the film. Learn. Yes, the Hells Angels werewhacking people around with pool cues, but they were trying to keeppeople from being crushed against the stage. Bouncers are jackasses,regardless of affiliation.

All that aside, this film is an amazing document of the era. It's notWoodstock West, as someone called it in the film, but credit to theStones for wanting to play a free show for their fans. They and theirmanagement went through a ton of red tape to get the show on, and mostof the 80,000 or more people had a great free night of music.

Fairly good look at the Stones on tour. I disliked the way the concertfootage had the camera focusing on Mick most of the time. There were othermusicians on stage with him, why not spread the camera around a bit more?There was a little too much of the camera zooming in on someone who eitherjust sat there and stared or mumbled something that was hard to hear. I alsofelt there could have been less panning over the crowd of stone heads, andmore time given to the various entertainers. I would particularly have likedto see more of the Jefferson Airplane. However, the open murder of a man bythe Hells Angels near the end was graphic and brutal, clearly showing what amistake it is to put oneself in a crowd of rowdies high on dope and alcohol.This film was more a tribute to Mick Jagger than a commentary on therock/drug culture of the late 60’s. For all the faults I listed, I stillconsider the film to be well worth watching.

In 1969, the Rolling Stones made a triumphant return to touring after atwo-year absence. Despite the firing and subsequent death of Stonesfounder Brian Jones, the band found a superb replacement for him inMick Taylor. To celebrate their successes, the Stones planned toheadline a free concert in San Francisco. Unfortunately, what theyhoped would be the biggest moment yet for the group turned out to beone of the darkest nights in the history of rock ‘n roll.

Gimme Shelter (named after a song from Let It Bleed) is about thebefore and after of the disaster at Altamont Speedway. The after isshown first, with the Rolling Stones looking with a dour look on theirfaces at monitors about the criticism and news the day after theconcert. Mick Jagger, Charlie Watts, and the others still have a lookof shock after what had transpired.

Most of the movie talks about the troubles to get this concert off theground beforehand. The original site was changed at the last second tothe Altamont Speedway. Two people died the days before in the area asthey awaited the concert. The stage, for some reason, was nearly atground level so many people couldn’t even see the stage. The biggestmistake was hiring The Hell’s Angels for security. They were druggedout on LSD and drunk on beer and they certainly played a big part inwhat went wrong.

The documentary sees The Stones talking with renowned lawyer MelvinBe
lli about the concert as well as their preparations when they get toSan Francisco. There is a hilarious segment where Keith Richards, MickTaylor, and a few others are strutting to Brown Sugar. There is a lotof concert footage from the backing bands such as The Flying Burritosand Ike & Tina Turner. Also captured on film are Jefferson Airplane,whose co-lead singer Marty Balin was knocked out when he tried to breakup a fight.

The film also captures TRS set. Mick is singing "Sympathy For TheDevil" and he has to stop to calm the crowd down after a motorcycleblows up. Mick, however, is not the kind of guy who can calm down thecrowd and force them to behave. He is unable to show a mean streak andneeds someone else to tell the crowd to behave or they’re pulling theplug. Amazingly, there is a funny scene here when the other Stones stopplaying except for Keith Richards who is acting oblivious to the chaosand still wailing away until Mick tells him to stop.

Of course, we also see Meridith Hunter’s murder caught on film. Hunter,18, was brandishing a gun when the Angel’s plunged a knife into hisback and started beating him. He died DOA. We see his girlfriend intears after she finds out he has died.

The Maysles Bros. deliver a superb documentary that shows the dark sideof the 1960’s perfectly. Honest, unflinching, and no-holds barred; itis certainly worth a look. Good concert footage, too.

I saw this some years ago but only on a tiny black and white TV,without a clear picture.

I have seen it again on a TV re-run, this time on a proper TV andrecorded it, and for the first time saw very clearly the gun inMeredith (odd name for a guy!!!) Hunter's hand.

It was clear he went straight for the stage with the intention ofshooting a member of the band, obviously Jagger. He got as far asaiming the gun when Alan Passaro stabbed him. It seems likely to me hewas after some kind of infamy, like Mark Chapman almost exactly 11years later, and would have done this regardless of whether the Angelswere there.

My contention is that if the police or a private security firm was onduty (or especially Wavy Gravy's "Please Force" as used at Woodstock),they would not have the ability to react so quickly and decisively asthe Angels did. The police would not have been able to shoot due to thelarge crowd. Many Angels of the time had experience of close quartercombat with knives, as many were Korea or Vietnam veterans.

I therefore consider that, as it turned out, it is very fortunateindeed for Jagger's sake, and for the sake of everyone else on thestage at the time, that the Angels were present. I think Jagger has theAngels to thank for the fact that he is still alive today.

On a side note - does anyone know anyone who has lipreading skills? Iwould love to know what the audience members at the side of the stageare saying to Jagger just before the stabbing.

One-of-a-kind musical documentary. Not only do you get to see the Stones attheir drugged-out peak, but you also get to witness an apocalyptic battlebetween the hippies and the Hell’s Angels! Not to be missed!

the downfall of civilization. hard to watch at times. it is well doneandthe stones are GREAT. i found it interesting to see their impression ofwhat went on. it is amazing when you think of it. hell’s angels beatingthe concert goers with pool cues and it just being allowed much to thehorrorof the bands and the crowd. i mean jeez! it shows what can happen whenstuff isn’t planned. did the woodstock 99 dudes watch this? personally,iliked the way mickey tried to calm things down. i don’t think thathappenedat woodstock 99 and i found it to be a very responsible thing todo.

read comments (0)

Airport

When Airport was released in 1970, it had a suspenseful, and yes, evenbelievable, plot. In our post 9/11 world, however, it just doesn't(pardon the pun) fly well. When Tanya Livingston mentions that D.O.Guerrero was allowed on the downtown bus, even though he insisted onputting the ID tag on himself, you just want to yell, "Why wasn't hepulled off the bus?" He'd never get away with it now. Even if he'dgotten past that, he would have been nailed at the airport by TSA. OK,that being said, Airport is an entertaining film. Dean Martin, BurtLancaster, and Van Heflin all give fine performances in their roles. Iwas most impressed with Lloyd Nolan's performance as Harry Standish,the customs inspector. He conveys perfectly the suspicion that Guerrerois hiding something, and is on to him before anyone else. Obviously,his niece being aboard the plane is part of his concern, but as hesays, "First you look in their eyes, then the luggage." Great line!Anyway, if you can suspend reality for 137 minutes, you will findAirport entertaining and suspenseful, not to mention an interestinglook at air travel circa 1970. If not, you'll sit there and find faultswith everything about it.

1st watched 7/27/2007 - 4 out of 10(Dir-George Seaton): An OK 1st half,but stupidity sets in. This is the original disaster movie(at leastit's billed as such). It is actually pretty well done until abouthalfway thru when a stowaway(played by Helen Hayes) is used to get abriefcase full of what they think are explosives from anotherpassenger. Helen received a supporting actress Oscar for this role inwhat had to be a weak year for this type of role. She's OK, but notextra-ordinary. They do a good job of introducing the characters andthe plot to help us understand the issues involved. A Chicago airportwith only 2 runways has one shutdown due to a landing plane gettingstuck in the snow, on the other runway a plane takes off to Rome andhas the prior 2 characters mentioned. The reason the 2nd runway isimportant comes later in the movie after the bomb explodes and theyturn the plane around to get back to Chicago. The pilot, played by DeanMartin(who actually does a pretty good job), doesn't give a lot ofreasons for needing the 2nd runway except that it's vital to land adamaged plane. I'll leave the rest of the movie for those who wish toview it for themselves. It's not a bad piece of entertainment, exceptit gets pretty predictable for the average movie-goer as we get closerto the end and not horrible to get through despite it's reputation forbringing in worse sequels.

From director George Seaton (the original Miracle on 34th Street), youcan't really watch this film without thinking about Airplane! whichspoofed moments of it very well. Basically it all takes place in anairport (duh!), and it sees many characters getting on with whateverthey do in airports. These include airport manager Mel Bakersfeld(Birdman of Alcatraz's Burt Lancaster), plane pilot Capt. VernonDemerest (Dean Martin), and constant plane stowaway Ada Quonsett (Oscarwinning Helen Hayes). There is a lot of chat for a while, but thedisaster movie element really kicks off after the plane of the film hastaken off. Mrs. Quonsett is discovered to be a stowaway, but instead ofpunishing her, they instead get her to help get a man out of his seat.This man is a bomber, carrying an explosive in a briefcase, and justafter trying to be convinced to give it to Demerest, the man lockshimself in the toilet, and blows himself up. Luckily, the plane staysin the air after a few seconds of cabin pressure, and all they have todo now is land the plane safely. Also starring Jean Seberg as TanyaLivingston, Jacqueline Bisset as Gwen Meighen, Golden Globe nominatedGeorge Kennedy as Joe Patroni, Van Heflin as D.O. Guerrero; GoldenGlobe winning, and Oscar and BAFTA nominated Maureen Stapleton as InezGuerrero, Barry Nelson as Capt. Anson Harris, Dana Wynter as CindyBakersfeld, Lloyd Nolan as Harry Standish, Barbara Hale as SarahBakersfeld Demerest and Gary Collins as Cy Jordan. The only good bit ofthe film is the bomber explosion on the plane, the rest of it is justtoo chatty for it's own good, but I suppose you could try it, butAirplane! is much more entertaining. It was nominated the Oscars forBest Art Direction-Set Decoration, Best Cinematography, Best CostumeDesign, Best Film Editing, Best Music for Alfred Newman, Sound, BestWriting, Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium for Seatonand Best Picture, and it was nominated the Golden Globes for BestMotion Picture - Drama and Best Original Score. Worth watching, atleast once!

If you ever have ever wondered where hacks like Dean Devlin & Roland

Emmerich (Independance Day, Godzilla, Pearl Harbour) find their inspiration,

look no further than here. While the rest of Hollywood was setting the stage for the true ‘GoldenAge’ of cinema characterized by more realistic portrayal of life, and moreexperimental filming, this gimmicky, melo-dramatic, over-long B-movie was paving the way

not only for the ‘disaster film’ fad of the ’70’s, but for the ‘Big StupidDisaster Film’ fad of the 1990’s (Dante’s Peak, Hard Rain, Armageddon, Core, the list goes

on). The film resembles a melodrama of the 1950’s, but it lacks all of thatera’s charm and wit. Like the Devlin/Emmerich garbage today, we are treated to 18

subplots, following 27 different people–all because the film can’t sustaina main plot well enough to hold our interest. The split screen effect is annoyingafter the 2nd time its used, but it just keeps popping up. Many film historians have pinpointed the release of Star Wars as the

beginning of the decline of modern American cinema, but for my money, the

beginning of the end is right here.

Growing up, I knew Airplane! was funny, but there’s an extra appreciationonce you’ve seen the original. Frankly, given the now-dated plot and lookand feel of Airport, watching it as "that movie that Airplane! is making funof" is probably the best way to see it. Dean Martin is laughable as apilot, though his scenes with Jacqueline Bisset are actually touching (hissensitivity with beautiful women being his strong point). Helen Hayessteals (and saves) the movie with her performance as Ada Quonsett. I reallyjust couldn’t care about most of the other characters, except in how theyrelated to Ada. In my mind, Maureen Stapleton comes off worst, wandering,weeping, stumbling and shrieking through scenes.

Most strange of all is the moral of the story: in the end, the men (well,Burt and Dean, anyway) all make off with women other than their wives. Isthe idea that it takes some great trauma to make you realize who’s mostimportant in your life?!

This is the movie that started it all!-the birth of disaster films of the70’s. This is the "Grand Hotel of the skies" When you are up in the air at10,000 feet-the people who live complicated lives always thinks the worst.With this in mind, let us now consider the following:

**Mel Bakerfield(Burt Lancaster)is not getting along with his wife. His wifehas got be the most nagging wife to grace the screen. At the same time, he’shaving an affair with his assistant(Jean Seberg).

**Van Heflin and Jean Stapelton are husband and wife who are low on cash-andHe has a plan that will get them out of debt-at the risk of everyone on theplane bound for Rome.

**The caption(Dean Martin)is having an affair with one of the stewardesses,he gets her pregnant. There’s only one problem-He’s married to Barbara Haleof Perry Mason Fame.

**There are internal problems as well: They got to deal with aStowaway(Helen Hayes)who has a clever way of getting on a plane without aticket. She’s on the plane to Rome and is seated next to Van Heflin(see filmfor details). Then There’s the Meadowwood suburbs witch happens to be nextto Runway 2.2. Every time a
plane takes off or lands on 2.2, it causesvibrations to the homes in Meadowwood-and they had it up to here with brokenchina! And the airport is headed for legal trouble if they continue using2.2. One problem: There’s a plane stuck on 2.9niner blocking the runway andJoe Patroni(George Kennedy) is in charge of getting that planemoved…….because The plane to Rome is on it’s way back and they need2.9niner.

This film entertains in spite of itself. My only problem with this film isit’s G rating from MPAA. Why is the movie rated G? This movie deals withAdultery, divorce and other mature themes and uses of words like "hell,""damn" should have earned it a PG rating.

Watching Airport is akin to waiting in line for a free all-expense paidticket to Las Vegas, waiting about 90 minutes, getting your ticket andgetting on the plane to discover you just got scammed into paying for aone way trip to Tulsa.

No one can say Airport doesn't take the time to develop its characters– it does that. It takes plenty of time to develop its characters.Strangely enough that's the film's weakness. For the first hour of thefilm I felt like I was standing in line, waiting on gossipingreceptionists to quit talking to each other and invite the audience onboard for the ride – something Airport eventually does, but by then(the 60 minute mark? 90 minute mark?) it's too little too late.

Airport goes through great pains to set up all of its tangents(emphasis on the word "pains"), all of its subplots, all of thecharacter's conflicts that will sooner or later collide into a climaxfor the grand finale. And that climax, granted, is a good watch;however, each tangent and subplot on its own has the intensity andintrigue as that annoying irate passenger obsessively drumming hisfingers and sighing loudly as he waits for his flight. During the firsttwo acts I didn't care about anything I saw.

As the end credits rolled, I wanted more payoff for my initialinvestment.

Oh sure, there are highlights in that first hour – George Kennedy gavea colorful (if cliché) performance as Joe Patroni, and the mischievousMrs Quonsett (Helen Hayes) who brings kind of a Hitchcockian impishnessin her comic relief – that's it. That's all that saves the film fromdrowning in the sea of its own downplayed, straight faced, serious (notto mention sterile) performances.

You know a film is taking itself too seriously when while watching yousay to yourself, "A pie from frame right needs to hit Lancaster in theface." I found myself longing for a sight-gag from David Zucker'sAirplane! Or maybe just Robert Stack or Lloyd Bridges. Something tospice up the on screen action (or lack thereof).

Anyway, Airport admittingly has some good production value even if anAirport interior (and Airplane interior) are not the most visuallyinteresting locations. The film eventually does start moving when thebomber boards the plane. And as the Airport and crew aboard the planefigure out the situation, the film really starts moving.

It does become a nice little ride with excitement, suspense, and (gasp)comic relief as the crew attempts to undermine the bomber's plans andget the plane safely on the ground - when the little ol' stowaway helpsin the plan to get the bomb out of the bomber's hands - when the loveinterest and her unborn child are in danger - and as it comes down tothe wire for Patroni to clear the runway and the pilots to land apossibly unstable plane.

Cliché? Sure. Predictable? Of course. Mainstream for its time? Nodoubt. To its credit Airport eventually does entertain, even if itfails to deliver a payoff with enough force to justify the first hour.So at least it does something. Kinda.

When I was a kid of about 7 or 8, my folks took me for the first time to seea movie. This was the movie. Back then I might have said "wow!", but whenI see the film today…I have to laugh at the soap opera of it all. BurtLanchaster commands things on the ground at the airport. Dean Martin is thecaptain in the air, who is trying to keep a bomb from going off. GeorgeKennedy is the loud mouth who commands his men to move the other strandedairplane on the ground "before it becomes obsolete". When he does move theplane, it is rather hilarious watching him maneuver the aircraft at fullspeed through all that snow…and when Burt tells George "Joe shutdown!!!"….George says "I can’t hear a thing we’re going for broke"…so heshoves the throttle forward all the way. Hilarious. The only action thatoccurs is when the bomb goes off…and between Dinno and JackieBisset.

"The Days of Our Lives" aboard a 707. Classic disaster melodrama within theconfines of an airport and a jet in flight. Somewhat long characterdevelopment, but when the bomber chooses to act, the viewer can relate toall those aboard the jet. Helen Hayes is wonderful as a savvy freeloadingstowaway. George Kennedy is also fun to watch as the tough mechanic dealingwith a snow bound jetliner during a blizzard. Somewhat dated by today’sstandards but still worth watching now and again. After all, this is themovie that started the disaster film craze, that pops up every now andagain, even today.

Interesting and enjoyable, but I felt some of the characters (e.g. Dino’swife) were too rough around the edges. When the film finished you felt thatnot all the storylines were satisfactorily resolved, especially consideringhow long the flick was! However, everyone played their part well, yep, evenDino.

read comments (0)