Ultimo tango a Parigi
Posted by in 1972 on 05 20th, 2009I saw this film several time and I still think is a greatone.Marlon and Maria made "deep and profound" scenes together.
Bernardo needs a comeback I think he is a great film-makermy favorite of all time is "the conformist"(this is a true great"sexualpolitical movie).
bernard should do a film about "bill and monica",called "last tango in the"oval office"!(sorry!).
This controversial film probably still shocks most people today. That'show crude the dialog is in here, and that's hard to do considering whathas been heard on film the past 30-plus years.
Some of the things that Marlon Brando says to Maria Schneider aredownright disgusting. The profanity here goes way beyond acceptability,and I'm used to hearing about anything and am offended by only a coupleof words. But this is just "pushing the envelope" gratuitously andnothing else.
Story-wise, this is a total bore. Nothing happens for over two hours!The only thing that kept me watching was Schneider's looks and BernardoBetolucci's cinematography. However, there's just so much sleaze onecan take.
Anyone who gives this movie a favorable review has to be morallybankrupt. Only a Liberal would try to intellectualize and rationalizeout-and-out soft porn.
Most of it was in French, but as soon as I heard English I knew that Imissed very little. The flip-flopping between the languages waspretentious and stuffy, i.e. it was artsy and snoopy. Theno-English-subtitles-allowed attitude implied that if you don’t speakFrench (or don’t want to learn French just to understand this herebeautiful movie) that’s your problem; you’re a dumb, ignorant American(or Englishman, or Australian etc.).
Technical quality was substandard. The lights-and-shadow effects andthe camera angles felt experimental and utterly unconvincing. Evenworse was the intrusive sound of the camera rolling, which I had NEVERheard in a movie before, not even in a really cheap, horrible indie (somuch for the great escape)!
The dialogue was meaningless, and improvisation only added insult toinjury.
To begin with, improvisation in a movie is a shaky idea. Given thefreedom to improvise on camera an actor can reveal his genius - or makehimself look like a fool, which, you guessed it, took place in thismovie. But nothing reveals poor overall quality like a directionless,pointless progression (I hesitate to use ’screenplay’ in this context).This movie starts nowhere and it goes nowhere.
I did expect all this the moment I looked at the title (in Italian?!).However, Brando’s death lead me to take a chance on one of theso-called best movies he played in. Although Brando was a very goodactor, I could tell he was not inspired here, and I don’t blame him.
If you haven’t seen it yet, take my word and avoid it. It’s painful,annoying, nauseating! Falling asleep is another thing that may happento you, which isn’t so bad considering what you’ll miss: despair,despair and more despair… well, that and the anal sex.
‘The first who came, won’ (get it?). Just about sums it up.
0/10
I rented this movie because I had heard a lot about Marlon Brando’sperformance and the beauty of Maria Schneider. I don’t know if I have everregretted a movie rental more.
This was the most hopelessly confusing jumble of nonsense I have ever seen.About halfway through I actually started to look for even a single line ofdialogue that made sense. Not one did. None of the characters’ actionsseemed to make any sense, either. I’m actually proud of being able tofigure out even the most basic plot points of the film. If you couldunderstand this movie, then I congratulate you and hope you enjoyed it.Personally, I feel as if two hours of my life have beenrobbed.
The only good thing about this movie is Brando’s performance. It didn’tkeep my attention, and the entire plot was so contrived…obviously headingtoward a particular direction. Brando was good, but a little toomelodramatic. The sex scenes weren’t "steamy" like I was told theywere…and they didn’t save the movie.
It's an astounding movie,you can findromance,betrayal,anger,perversion, spoiledtalking,passion,hate,changing darkness in the depth of a"Light-city"(french citizens called Paris this way,L.A is the "City ofLight" almost like Morrison sang),a strange as deli rant Americancalled only Paul (Mr.Brando)going to France meets an almost innocentteenager called Jeanne(Schneider)in a casual situation,despite thedifference of ages he was 45 and she was only 20,the passion will bornand grow between them,the Jeanne's engagement tumbles down because thedistance with her usual bride is disturbed by the perverted andobsessive grown man.
She fell into the sicking games of the veteran business man:sex,abominations(the butter into the *ss),ambiguous chatting,nights ofwalking through the cold streets of Paris,unnecessary violence againsther,the lowest passions of a man in a total messing.
I believe that the tiredness shoved Jeanne to the final tragedy,Perhaps with such mean guy wouldn't come an ending of joy,after allthis is the message to us from Bertolucci:a twisted,skewed lesson ofmorality about the old phrase said by our parents:DON'T TALK TOSTRANGERS;Brando as similar as he was in"A Street car called desire", iprefer his performance in "The Godfather",nevertheless he was so goodhere and Maria Schneider was not out of tune,she did it well(she lookedso sexy with those boots and the short skirt),in an apart Gato Barbieriwill live forever with his thrilling music score and making a matchwith the final Tango danced by the lovers in that classical andold-fashioned ballroom club,something to never forget.
… with a name actor, it’s "art." Made in English, on video,it’s porn,and boring, ugly, distasteful porn at that. Brando’s contender for themostoverrated movie ever made — though he is very believable as a dirty oldman.
Las Tango in Paris is a tangled mess of a movie, horrible acting, aterrible script from a terrible book and terrible directing. To turn aterrible book into a terrible movie was such a feat, I have seencompany promo videos that were more interesting. Brando turned in ashuffling, mumbling performance that may be his worst ever. We see whymaria shell never was a great actress, in this movie she looks like sheis in labor the whole time. The director should have been whipped forputting this junk on film. How is the hell did Brando and the directorget an Oscar for this crap pile of a movie? I give it 0 out of fivestars go see something more interesting, like a taco bell commerical.
When I saw "Last Tango in Paris" as a new release, I was bowled over. Sawit again in the theater; bowled over a second time. Probably got bowledover a third time, as well.
Twenty-eight years later, I can’t sit through it. The photography isgorgeous almost beyond belief, but that’s not enough. The story nowappearsso silly, the characters’ lines so pretentious, it’s beyond myunderstandinghow I ever thought this was anything but a mediocre film, at best.Adheringthe the original notion of depicting a homosexual liaison might, justmight,have improved the overall effect, though I doubt the film would ever havebeen marketed. But nothing can redeem the self-consciously artsypreciositythat pervades this work as it stands.
This is one of the best erotic/romantic/psico-dramatic film ever made inhistory. The combination of sex, drama, personal depression is perfect.Brando incorporate the role in deep. And the perfect soundtrack performedbyGato Barbieri (from Argentina) made this film unique. Don´t loseit…
read comments (0)The Godfather
Posted by in 1972 on 05 20th, 2009This is the worst movie ever. It is so over rated. One of the worstmovies ever made. 3 Oscars? are you kidding me? more like 0 Oscars. whydo people like this movie so much. i guess all critics and 91 percentof people are dumb. oh well, as i was saying, avoid this film at allcosts. Al Pacino and Robert Duvall are the worst actors ever.
and it's so boring. i fell asleep half way through it. then i woke up.it was still going. i fell asleep again. i woke up again and it wasstill going! i know i already said this, bt the Godfather is the worstmovie ever it was so bad that i'm just kidding. it's a classic. it'sstill over rated. but that's not saying much. 9/10.
I love the fact that the movie give us an insight in something we would,as"normal" people, never get the chance to know. It’s a world full oftraditions, family values, rich and explicit verbal and behavior language,but also a world of corruption, power, deceit and murder. Francis FordCoppola knows how to create this Italian-American feeling throughout thewhole movie, and it never feels superficial. It’s a very good movie, butnotextra-ordinary. I lack a bit of depth in the storyline like in theapproachof the young son Michael being dragged into the world of the mafia. It wasabit too easy. He gets smacked in the face by a corrupt cop, and suddenlyhewants to shoot everybody. I think I miss an essential scene between himandhis father in the clinic. Anyway, trying to keep The Godfather on numberfeels a bit compulsory and bizarre. I think that this great movie needs toget away from this forced spotlight position, so we can appreciate thefilmwithout all this hype. And we shouldn’t be blind to other great cinematicpearls being made in recent years.
I found this movie really boring. I am sure it was great when it firstcame out, but it just doesn’t have a lot of substance to it. MarlonBrando comes off as just plain annoying, talking like a retardthroughout it. Also, what little action there is comes off as boring.Way too long for its own good, but Al Pacino did play his part well. Iprefer Goodfellas over this any day, it’s much more face paced andwitty. - - - I found this movie really boring. I am sure it was greatwhen it first came out, but it just doesn’t have a lot of substance toit. Marlon Brando comes off as just plain annoying, talking like aretard throughout it. Also, what little action there is comes off asboring. Way too long for its own good, but Al Pacino did play his partwell. I prefer Goodfellas over this any day, it’s much more face pacedand witty.
This film is very stereotypical and as I am half Italian I feel I havethe right to stick up for the crowds of real italians who find thisfilm totally offensive and even boring. This kind of film can lead toracist attitudes in our society as it’s portrayal of normal folk iscompletely over the top (OTT). Marlon Brando received many praises forhis performance but there are too many inaccuracies too mention in hisaccent, never mind his mannerisms.
I watched this film with my friend, his Italian wife and her parentswho don’t speak English, and get this!!! they fell asleep!!! Thegreatest movie of all time and they fell asleep!!. I managed to stayawake but it was hard but my friend loved it for some weird reason, buthe’s an oddball so he doesn’t count.
Certainly does not deserve to be numero one, instead may I suggest theprincess bride, a classic tale of love and adventure.
Everyone raves about "The Godfather" and its achievements. I say it’sall a matter of opinion. The performances are probably what makes thisfilm a work of art. It’d be nearly impossible to find another filmwhere Diane Keaton, Al Pacino, Marlon Brando, James Caan, and the restof the cast do work of such quality. Even in the sequel, they begin toslack off (with the exception of Keaton and Pacino). What this moviealso benefits from is the power of the story, but there are momentswhere the overall mood becomes oppressive and a bit too slow.
The film is a joy to behold, with an evocative score, sensationalphotography, and many other great elements. Would I put it up there atthe top of the heap? There are other films that are more consistent,whose elements work well as a solid unit and deliver more satisfactoryresults.
"The Godfather" is a 'terrible' film.
It's 'the worst' movie I've seen in a decade. The acting in this filmis 'excruciatingly painful'. The whole family are 'watered downSopranos' who show some phenomenally strong 'lack of' chemistry. The'boring' weeding scene is the 'highlight'.
Michael is a 'wet fish' and his relationship with Kay is very dumb, andalso 'stupid' and 'weird'. The Godfather scenes make me 'sick' and'woozy'. I haven't seen such dramatized 'try to be cool' dialogue since"Any Given Sunday".
Pacino was less wooden in "Gigli". That other film he also 'carried'.Both Puzo and Brest were largely let down thanks to this 'Tony Montana'The characters of Sonny and Fredo were so 'unrealistic' I thought theywere 'comic book'. I must also highly criticize the music in this filmas being 'childish' and sometimes often 'out of place'.
Now on to some other failings of this 'pathetic' movie. The dialoguewas 'silly'. If it was supposed to be nail-biting, well, it 'failed'.The manner in which the actors delivered their lines was 'uninspiring'.Brando in particular 'sucked'. What about the 'long' and 'tired' Sicilyscenes? Reference to four hours of "Lawrence of Arabia" I don't know?The car exploding was so 'unoriginal' and 'clichéd'. And the 'takeover' cross baptism montage. Come on, do some CGI instead! Bah,'armatures'.
How this is ranked above that masterpiece "Muriel's Wedding" stumps me.If they had replaced the old and tired Francis Ford with the moreyouthful Nicolas they might have hit pay dirt.
1972 people. That's how long it took to reach the number one spot.
The movie sucks, don't bother watching it.
It's boring, obsolete, and has nothing to do with the real Mafia's oftoday, just ask the Coast Guard what the real Mafia is all about. ThisHollywood contrived Mafia movie is a shame. Cloaking corruption underthe guise of family. And the sinister things they do. accckkk. Suchcorruption shouldn't be glorified. The acting was good, the costumesand props were realistic. The cars were nice to look at. etc,. etc,…I'm just filling space here case this movie isn't worth commenting on.You people who voted for this movie must be SICK. All of you just plainSICK. Glorying the Mafia. You should be ashamed. It's people like youthat should be put out on the front lines of the Iraqi war since youlike blood, and murder and corruption so much you stupid people. Evenif the movie was made perfectly from screenplay to direction, specialeffects etc,.. the underlying theme is about Corrupt people. Stupid.What on earth ? Are we not a planet of Civilized people or what ?
Am I seemingly in a very small minority that find gangster films so soosooo very dull. I concede that The Godfather is the most famous of thisgenre but as for it forever topping film polls I'm not so sure. Andwhen I say not sure I mean Definitely not! I also admit that I'm not aBrando fan but if this film is meant to be the best of the best itshouldn't matter if I like Brando or not, I should still like the filmright?, and I just don't. My dad is the biggest Brando fan and even hedoesn't reach for this film when he fancies a bit of marlon. In myopinion Carlito's Way or The Untouchables are far superior 'films'
ofthe genre. I think the main problem I have with The Godfather otherthen the never ending dullness of it, is that it always seems to besaying 'oh look isn't cool to be in the mob, we should all do it'. Ofcourse it all goes belly up the the boys in the end but thats just aconvention of the genre that has to be met, rather then being themessage of the film. Not my cup of tea at all I'm afraid.
This movie totally sucks to infinite and beyond.How the hell is itgood? It's total CRAP low budget CRAP actors Al pacino sucks MarlonBrando sucks no violence no gore CRAP story without a doubt the WORSTmovie I have ever seen! THE best part is the end of this piece of CRAP!Franciss ford coopla should be ASHEMED of himself for this boring.lowbudget piece of CRAP. HOW? is it number 1. Whats so good about it it'spure S***.It should be number 1 at the worst movie ever made! The ultracruel Horses head in the bed scene. Al pacino's CRAP acting no guns noviolence NO nudity Christ Mario Puzo should be ashamed of of himselffor this GARBAGE it's nowhere near as BAD as Goodfella's which was CRAPfrom beginning to end I HATE Martin Scorese and STUPID Francis fordcoopla. They couldn't even make porn look good Stick right away fromthis RUBBISH!
Honesly couldn't see what all the fuss is about. I felt this filmlacked the very basics which make a good film. Good actors boring storyand even worse directing!!! Perhaps this is because i only watched themovie for the first time recently, and therefore am comparing it to thestandard set by todays writers, producers, and directors? I don't doubtit was a masterful production in its day but honestly the bar set bycurrent movie makers really sees the 'God father' sorely outclassed. Itis my conjecture that those who voted 9 and 10 out of ten did sobecause they remember how good it was in its hay-day instead ofcomparing it to all movies past and present before rating it.
Jeremiah Johnson
Posted by in 1972 on 05 20th, 2009I got a massive fright when I saw this because I misheard some of theearly dialogue when someone says to the title character - " You justcame to molest my hunt " which had me thinking the title of the movieshould have been BILL CLINTON and not JEREMIAH JOHNSON , but I doassure you I did realise within seconds what the actual line was
This is a movie that’s let down by a lack of dialogue since much of thenarrative involves a lone character who has no one to bounce lines off, that’s why a lot of books like Richard Matheson’s I AM LEGEND aresomewhat unfilmable because many pages are devoted to a characterliving alone with thought process informing the reader as to whatthey’re thinking
It’s also a very poorly edited movie where we see wild wolves attackJohnson which is both confusing and laughable . A jump cut leads to awolf biting Johnson’s hand then another jump cut to the wolf biting hisleg . It’s also obvious that the " attack " is done by filming a realwolf jumping then cutting to someone throwing a cuddly stuffed wolf atRedford ! There’s also a very confusing scene involving Johnsonfighting an Indian where he falls in a river , cut to a mountain rangethen a log cabin where Johnson kills and Indian in a fight . Is it thesame fight ? the same Indian ? You tell me
The real Jeremiah Johnson was a rabid Indian hater involved in a bloodfeud with Indians but this movie seems produced to appeal to a PGaudience hence the story has been toned down which might have ruinedthe potential somewhat if the haphazard editing and production valueshadn’t done so
‘Jeremiah Johnson’ is the story of a fronteirsman who lives in themountains and befalls some hard times with the Native Americans.Although the cinematography/photography is good and some excellentmusic, the film’s plot was too slow for my liking. It’s a veryanalytical story of the life of this man who lives in the mountains andhis way of life, and it is a powerful film in that sense, but I failedto be captivated or really interested by this film. I also thought thatit was too long to sit through, and the story and the character justdid not interest me enough. Unless you have a big interest in this eraof history or have heard about the film and think you may like it, thenyou might, but it is slow. I would compare it to films like ‘DancesWith Wolves’, but it is not for everyone.
I put this along Unforgiven and Monte Walsh as some of the best westernsandmovies made.The noble spiritual indian is kind of passe’ now, PC sillyness attributingall sorts of wonderful things to people who ate each other, killed andrapedeach other daily and tortured people to death is besides the point…verylush photography and a great man against odds film.
Robert Redford is definitely in his element. The cinematography and the musiccoupled with the subtlety of Redford’s performance make this movie afantastic and moving picture. This is a must see for anyone who is a fan ofthe old west or Ansel Adams style cinemagraphic pictures. Not to be missed.
Ansel Adams, Henry David Thoreau and Aaron Copland all meet and create amoment in time too sublime for words. Redford is in his element, no one elsecould fill the shoes of Jeremiah Johnson more perfectly. This movie is agreat statement of peace and conservation, a statement that never can besaid too loud!
I just rewatched this film on Turner Classic Movies and was surprisedthat there was an intermission in a movie that only ran 116 minutes,less than 2 hours.
I don’t remember if there was one during the original theatricalrelease.
I think the break came at around 80 minutes in, leaving only about 36minutes afterwards.
Is there a reason for this break?
Was it to stir up audience who were calmed and settled by the generallyliesurely pace of story telling?
Was it intended at one time for the film to be even longer, so theintermission was created for that eventuality?
It was not badly placed, but I’ve never seen a break like this in anyfilm this short.
I still like the film, and so did my 12 year old son.
This is one of those movies I can watch over and over again. It hasbeautiful scenery and a great story line.Robert Redford is a "Natural" actor. I would see any film he has eitheracted in, directed or produced.
I cannot believe TV Guide only gave this film 3 stars. It deserves5.
A moving story with all the elements that make for a great filmexperience.
Not that I was looking for them, but I saw no technical or visual flaws.Plot is excellent. Each character is superbly developed. Scenery rivalsthatin "The Searchers".
What else can one say?
This is not a remarkable movie, though it has some good scenes,breath-taking views and beautiful shots. The dialogs are often clichéd,and the storyline is just mildly good. It's about a mountain man playedby Robert Redford, and his struggle to survive. After that, you see hislife with an Indian woman and a little boy; those scenes are very cute.It's mostly quite boring and not absorbing enough, though. One of themain problems of this is that Robert Redford isn't capable of holding apicture. His character is never realistic, and it's never iconic. Hestill has some moments in which the emotions of Jeremiah come out, andthose are touching. The supporting actors are better. Delle Bolton, whoplays Swan, shows a nice deal of emotion with her body language, andJosh Albee as Caleb is really expressive, and his character is the oneI cared the most about. Will Geer is pretty funny, but his characterisn't very well-written.Allyn Ann McLerie plays crazy very well, in herfew scenes.
The visuals were the best thing on the movie. The locations are some ofthe best I've ever seen, and I think you can say they are the mainelement of the story. Without the mountains, the peace and beauty thismovie has would disappear. Sidney Pollack's direction is great. Hisclose shots are always lovely, and his wide shots are perfect. Then,there's some great music too. All those songs about Jeremiah soundbeautiful and have good lyrics. As I mentioned, I didn't enjoy thedialogs much, but some of them are truly poetic and seem to echo on themountains. The ending is well done, too. This is not an unmissablemovie, but it's very beautiful 7/10
This was just a simple tale of a "mountain man" and his life over aperiod of time surviving in the Rocky Mountains. The time period is thefirst half of the 19th century. Robert Redford plays "JeremiahJohnson."
The film shows Johnson's battles with the Crow Indians, his family lifeafter he is "stuck" with an Indian bride and a young boy and some ofthe tragedies that befall all of them, as well as a few other people.
Will Geer, a wonderful Native American actor, gets good billing in herebut is only in the last 20 minutes! He also has no dialog. This ismainly a one-man show with Redford, and that's okay. He's usuallyinteresting and he's always in beautiful movies, photography-wise.
The scenery - filmed in Utah - is great stuff and looks awesome onwidescreen DVD. It really needs to be seen in that format to be fullyappreciated.
Deliverance
Posted by in 1972 on 05 20th, 2009Classed along with Craven's Last House On The Left, this honestlyshould have been entitled Last Applachian On The Left, in its attemptsat exploitation of the "standard" American male. However, its elevationof a classic stereotype-that of the hillbilly (or, if you prefer,Appalachian American) it cheapens itself even further.
I don't know which I dislike more about this film; the veneration of abad stereotype, or the graphic way in which this movie tries, butfails, to shock its audience. The tactics are cheap, the set up isobvious, and the ending is completely predictable.
Frankly, I have never understood the draw this movie has, except forthe homo-repressed nature of most white bread over christianizedAmerican males. They WANT to see this movie, and like to watch thistype of antics.
Oh, there are stunning visuals, some beautiful scenery, and it wasdirected quite well, but it's crap, and always has been.
It rates a 2.2/10 from…
the Fiend :.
Plot: Four men go on a canoeing trip. As they travel down the river, theywage war against two sadistic hillbillies, whose simple-minded andcriminally stereotypical goals are best unmentioned in this review. Frankly, the entirety of the film is nothing more than fluff to embellisharound a single disturbing act. The morals surrounding the characters’actions, concerning death and the law, are addressed minimally and tossedaside after five minutes of trite dialogue. This movie is incomplete inevery aspect and should be branded as no less than unsatisfying andbizarre.
Theme: Nature is fundamentally incompatible with "The System." Wildernessis best left undisturbed.
This film is probably notorious, or infamous rather, for one sceneonly. It's one of those movies that is always followed by a badimpersonation upon the mentioning of the title. Perhaps like DirtyHarry and 'Are you feeling lucky punk?'. I will try to avoid using theline 'Squeal like a pig' in this review, even though I just did. Ishould also mention that the film is also forever associated with theDuelling Banjos scene with just about every generation. But I muststress that those who often try to be clever by mimicking both theseunique, little features have probably never even scene the film.
Four naive city boys take a break from playing golf and decide to canoedown the Cahulawassee River before the valley is flooded into a hugereservoir. It's not their territory, but their leader Lewis Medlock(Burt Reynolds, looking like Steven Seagal's long-lost twin brother)arrogantly assumes that he can deal with any challenge that comes hisway. His friends Ed, Bobby and Drew (Jon Voight, Ned Beatty and RonnyCox) reluctantly follow him, despite having their own doubts.
The first day of the trip goes fine, but on the second morning Ed andBobby stop to rest by a small stream. There they are approached by acouple of disgusting mountain men, that are not quite as close to themutants seen in Wrong Turn but are grotesque nonetheless. Despite theirattempts at keeping the peace, the yokels strap Ed to a tree and forcehim to watch Bobby being raped. Even though I have never witnessedsomething like this, it's a horribly realistic scene and Ned Beattydoes it very well, he must have some guts to do a such a scene in this;his first movie.
Lewis shows up in the nick of time and kills one of the yokels but theother escapes. Drew is the only one who thinks that they should takethe matters to the police and ends up having a sort of breakdown. Intheir attempts to escape the scene they crash the canoes and Lewis endsup with a nasty compound fracture. This leaves Ed as the only onecapable of hunting down the remaining hillbilly who is preying uponthem from the cliff-tops.
It's a slow moving film that doesn't focus on the action so much as thehorrors taking place in such a tranquil location. John Boorman'swidescreen photography beautifully captures the Southern wilderness andcomes across as rather haunting without resorting to cheap, slashermovie techniques. Boorman has spent half of his career on a high andthe other half languishing in crappiness of Zardoz, Exorcist 2 and thehorribly misjudged Excalibur. He has left a lasting impressionfilmmakers despite his failings.
Deliverance is not for everyone and I certainly cannot recommend it tothose who are only used to quick-fix MTV movies. But it is still acarefully measured, thought-provoking film.
This movie had absolutely no dramatic effect at all. If your IQ is even asmidge above room temperature, believe me, you are not going to understandthe Appalachian drawl that plagues this pathetic movie. No music duringthe"intense" parts, no good acting, no explanation of anything at all. Allthis movie does is paint a negative (and well deserved) picture ofSoutherners.
Wow, I can't believe the hype surrounding this film. I admit it isbrilliant in parts. Unfortunately the sum total of those parts is about10% of the total movie. The plot is promising, the scenery beautiful,and for the most part it's nicely photographed. Everyone remembers thebanjo and the hillbillies, but is that enough to make a good movie?
There are just two quality actors in this film - Voight & Beatty - andneither delivers. Reynolds can't act, and doesn't have opportunity tobrood, pose or be cheeky here. The pace is painfully slow andfragmented. There are no real edge-of-the-seat thrills, and the fewaction sequences are shot very amateurishly.
This movie just doesn't cut it anymore (if it ever did) and it shouldbe put out to grass.
I cannot see why this film is in the top 250. I watched it as part of acourse on the American South and as such it simply perpetuates negativestereotypes of Southerners - inbred, toothless, dirty, rapists etc. Howcanthis be a good thing? Surely films should attempt to show a fully roundedview of an area rather than stressing the negative images people have oftheSouth. I am English and have never been to the American South but I refuseto believe that it exists as it is portrayed in this film. I can findnothing of worth or interest in this film. It is supposed to be disturbingbut instead I find it laughable and ridiculous. Why on Earth people enjoythis film is beyond me. It must be a male thing, because as a woman it iscompletely unappealing.
My friends convinced me that this is a classic movie and that I should seeit. After almost falling asleep by what seemed to be a lifetime offootageof them paddling down a river I could barely enjoy any of the rest of themovie. There was about ten minutes of action in the entire movie. Well,ifyou enjoy watching movies with 10 lines of dialogue and documentaries onhownot to canoe, then by all means go rent this movie.
I’m sorry but if it wasn’t for "Dueling Banjos" and the fact that this filmintroduced " Squeal like a piggie" into common usage. I’d give this film aZero. It has great potential, with city folks taking a last canoe trip downa soon-to-be- dammed river, and gettin’ inta some feudin’ with the locals. I love canoes, and was hoping for some decent white water action. Instead Igot wooden acting, dull dialogue, a pointless plot and a dirty little scenethat got more laughs than shocks when I saw it. Long boring scenes of neardrowning took away any chance of my appreciating the progress/nature debateor the concept of civilised man’s descent into barbarism when faced withbarbaric situations. What a waste of time and talent. They should’ve hadmore banjos. I gave it 2.
A big-name cast, nice photography, a great theme song (dueling banjos)and yet, so disgusting a movie that when I watched it on video 25 yearsafter first seeing it upon its release in the theater in '72 that Itossed this VHS tape in the garbage can halfw
ay through.
When fat-boy "Bobby Trippe" (Ned Beatty) gets literally screwed up theyou-know-what in the woods by some perverted hillbilly, who also forceshim to squeal like a pig during the sex…..that was enough for me.What kind of people enjoy seeing stuff like that? That, and over adozen abuses of the Lord's name in vain was enough for me at thatpoint. It once again reminded me how sick some of the movies in theearly 1970s were. What's really sick was that this film was a hit, atleast with the critics who love evil people.
The fact that rape scene was done just a couple of years afterHollywood ditched its moral codes probably made this movie morenoteworthy than it deserved. Back then, it was a total shock. Nowadays,we've seen a lot worse and that scene wouldn't make this film asfamous.
Burt Reynolds, the star of the movie, however, is still playing sleazyroles today. Some things never change. At least Jon Voight has gone onto some classier roles and Beatty has proved he has comedic talent aswell as being a good dramatic actor.
To be fair about it, if "disturbing" stories don't bother you, or ifyou are not titillated by sexual-deviant scenes and just appreciate afilm for its acting or its photography or its suspenseful, entertainingstory: fine, because this film offers all of the above. It also willleave you emotionally worn out and you certainly will empathize withVoight's character at the end.
To me, however, this film may have all the above, plus a fine directorin John Boorman (see "The Emerald Forest"), but I found it just toodepressing and sordid. There is a definite audience for depressingstories, but I am not in that group. Also, you have to care about thecharacters to some degree. I couldn't find myself doing that in here.These guys seemed more annoying than anything else.
I just saw this movie and i must say it really wasn’t that good at all.How some people can say this movie is one the best movies of time isway beyond me.
To be blunt about it, it was very boring. I kept waiting for"something" to happen but nothing really ever does. That movie shouldhave been made in about 30 min. The film kept showing them rafting overand over again. VERY VERY REPETITIVE.
Thought this movie must have cool ending because of all the hype, butit was a huge letdown.
This is one of the most overrated films i have ever seen. The only neatthing about is the atmosphere, and the realism to the film. Other thanthat it is very subpar. 4/10
Cabaret
Posted by in 1972 on 05 20th, 2009WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD
Cabaret is a movie that doesn’t know what it wants to be… on the whole, it’san otherwise generic love story, which wouldn’t be so bad, if it weren’talso trying to be a movie about pre-WWII German society in decadence, therise of Nazism, and a statement about female independence. There are onlytwo fully developed characters in the whole movie - Sally Bowles and BrianRoberts - that could be a good average if the movie weren’t trying to tellthe story of at least four other characters!
Subplots come and go, and some just go nowhere, like Fritz’s love forNatalia, a Jewish upper-class lady - and what purpose did it serve thatrather brusque self-confession that he was Jewish, too? - or Sally’sinvolvement with Maximilian?
We see several examples of Nazism taking over Germany - like SS beating aman in alley, the Hitler Youth, etc.,- but it’s just so superficial andhardly developed, like the filmmakers didn’t want to bother with a storythat would have been more interesting than Sally and Brian’srelationship.
It’s not a bad movie per se: Liza Minnelli’s performance is outstanding,although perhaps that’s the only outstanding thing about this movie… or not;Joel Grey winning the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor over Al Pacino was anoutstanding farce! Elements like the sets, choreography, the score, thecostume design are pretty good, too, but as a story Cabaretfails.
In the years since "Cabaret" came out, Liza Minnelli has pretty muchbecome a joke, but she does quite well here as Sally Bowles, theairhead cabaret singer in 1931 Berlin who doesn’t notice the Nazistaking over. Michael York is also good as gay Brit Brian Roberts(listen to what he says about her body). But the really neat characteris Joel Grey’s androgynous Master of Ceremonies. More than just a"musical", one can certainly see how the Nazis were taking over,especially with the man singing "The World is Mine".
On a few other topics, the book "Non Campus Mentis: World HistoryAccording to College Students" says: "Cat berets were a favorite formof German entertainment at this time." Also, someone wrote a bookalleging that Hitler was gay. Robin Williams says that it was obvious,what with the Sieg Heil and all the leather.
That period being, of course, the early 1970s. Here, Liza Minnelli getsthe Barbra Streisand treatment from Bob Fosse - right down to thefingernails - and becomes a big movie star by essentially playingherself - or, to be more precise, the "Liza" character she'd alreadybeen honing in her nightclub act for several years. Everyone else justfills in the scenery. Whether you love it or hate it depends very muchon how you take Minnelli and her frenetic, arm-waving style - and howappalling you find Fosse's choreography, which was already entering itsdrill-team, fingers-snapping-in-unison final period. Some things pleaseendlessly. Some, unfortunately, just date.
The passable Weimar-pastiche songs of Kander and Ebb and the leering,"decadent" Kit Kat Club MC and his orchestra of doxies can't hide thefact that the whole conception is pure candy-cane AmericanEntertainment. The subplot about the meet-cute couple played by MarissaBerenson and Fritz Wepner is pretty bland, and the movie's attempts atseriousness vis a vis the Nazi threat are ham-fisted and obvious. (Justbecause they're "Serious" doesn't mean we have to take them seriously.)The relationship between Sally Bowles and Michael York's Isherwoodstand-in is more interesting, given the sexual politics of the earlyyears of the post-Stonewall era, but only up to a point. Is it reallyso much of a surprise that "Brian" has slept with the rich Maximilian,I wonder, when we already know that he's sleeping with Sally, who'sdone up more or less like a drag queen in every scene? I suspect someof the trouble has to do with Jay Presson Allen's script, with itstypically telegraphed Big Points, rather than with Fosse, who wastrying to transpose a musical to film in an imaginative way. I suspectalso that without Minnelli, there wouldn't be much to look at, and thepretentiousness of the original musical would just be lying there inpainfully plain view. With her, however, it's all her show - if that'syour pleasure.
I’m sure there’s nothing I can say about Cabaret that hasn’t already beensaid. Having stated that, I would like to add that this is a rare additionto the musical genre in that it is not a musical comedy, rather a musicaldrama. It also very cleverly takes us through the advent of Nazi-ism inGermany, while centering on the lives of the primary characters.
Anyone who has seen Chicago should see this film as well, as it will showthe former film’s inspiration - only with less flash.
–Shelly
It’s not that I dislike musicals. Maybe it’s that I don’t quite "get"this film. But Cabaret only very rarely worked for me. In a nutshell(I’ll flesh all of this out more below), I’m not sure I got the pointof setting the film in Berlin during the transition from Weimar to NaziGermany. I didn’t really like the music or the cabaret performances.Very little of the soap opera stuff had any impact on me. I stronglydisliked Liza Minnelli and only occasionally liked Michael York. Andthe direction, cinematography, and most of the technical elements didvery little for me. There were a couple things I did enjoy (one not sominor), but you’ll have to read on to discover what they were (I needto create _some_ suspense here).
Cabaret is the story of Sally Bowles (Minnelli) and Brian Roberts(York). Bowles is living in Berlin in 1931, singing and dancing in acabaret called the Kit Kat Klub. During the opening, we see Robertsjust arriving in town. He ends up at the boarding house where Bowles isliving, hoping to acquire a room. He’s taking a working vacation fromgraduate school in England. He plans on earning his room and board byteaching English to Germans.
Roberts and Bowles’ relationship evolves over the course of thefilm–that’s the gist of the plot. Roberts also makes two friends amonghis students, Fritz Wendel (Fritz Wepper) and the very rich NataliaLandauer (Marisa Berenson), and Bowles meets the even richer Maximilianvon Heune (Helmut Griem) at the dry cleaners. All of this isinterspersed with occasional cabaret performances (only very seldomlyfeaturing Minnelli) and even less occasional references to the rise ofthe Nazi party. The bulk of the film is soap-operatic relationshipsamong the characters.
Cabaret had a somewhat circuitous trip to the silver screen, startingwith the semi-autobiographical fiction of Christopher Isherwood, wholived in Berlin between 1929 and 1933. After Isherwood, the materialwas transformed into a play and then a film both entitled I Am a Camera(1955). Finally, it became the Broadway show, and after that, this filmversion, for which director and famed choreographer Bob Fosse wanted tolook back to Isherwood’s writing. I haven’t read Isherwood’s work yet,but from what I understand, it has more of an essay-like tonality, andattempts to capture life in the relatively "decadent" Berlin of the1930s in detail.
Unfortunately, the end result is that this film version of Cabaretplays like a directionless pastiche of mostly mundane events. The goalseems to be an in-depth portrait of a troubled woman in atroubled-environment, and conjointly maybe a commentary on contributingfactors that led to the imbalanced state of both. But what Fosseachieved instead was a random-feeling, poorly acted hodgepodge ofsoap-operatic nonsense.
Minnelli’s performance is so loaded with annoying affectations, and sheso frequently overacts–not to mention that she’s very disturbing tolook at–that it kills what little dramatic impact the pithierdevelopments should have. York vacillates between confusion, woodennessand overacting, occasionally findin
g a balanced middle ground that’senjoyable, but it’s like waiting for a slow-moving pendulum to reachits nadir.
The Nazi material, including the two all-too-brief instances of societyembracing some of the attitudes or ideas, could have been very strongand poignant–especially in contrast to the freewheeling life depictedelsewhere. But Fosse makes no kind of commitment to it, so it ends upfeeling like it was added on as an afterthought, like scotch-taping apaper lapel to an otherwise complete cashmere coat.
Fritz and Natalia, the two characters that I did enjoy and who had acompelling story that was intimately bound up with rising Nazism, werelargely ignored. Fosse spends maybe 10 minutes on them.
The music and choreography for the cabaret performances lies somewherebetween banal and unpleasantly corny. It has a kind of vaudeville"shake your derriere to the cowbell" hamminess, while the choreographyinvolves a lot of mugging–again those annoying affectations–that sapsall of the potential effectiveness out of the art direction. Maybe thatmusic was popular in these kinds of German clubs in the 1930s, butwould some melodic, harmonic and rhythmic inventiveness–not to mentionsome finer artistry in the lyrics–have killed Fosse and his composers?It can’t be that John Kander and Fred Ebb were unfamiliar with KurtWeill, for instance.
Besides, for the other element I really liked–the art direction andproduction design–Fosse went out of his way to give us somethingintriguingly surreal. The look of the film, especially the cabaretscenes, including the garishly painted faces and bizarre costumes andoverall appearance of the performers, is based on the visual art ofGeorge Grosz and Otto Dix–even going so far as recreating charactersfrom Dix paintings down to small details. I’m a huge Dix fan, so Ienjoyed this aspect of the film. But I wanted this aesthetic to befollowed in other areas, too, rather than the very pedestrian andunsurprising route that was taken.
(By the way, I know that my score of 6 may seem high given my review,but remember that a 6 is equivalent to a "D" in my way of looking atratings. There were at least two elements I liked–with the artdirection/production design being very important to the film, and Irate on all artistic and technical elements. The film has passablecinematography, lighting, sound, etc., even if they weren’t anythingspecial to me.)
I saw Chicago and thought it was a really clever film telling a storyof and with live musical shows, and this film has exactly the samequalities. Sally Bowles (Oscar, BAFTA and Golden Globe winning LizaMinnelli, daughter of Judy Garland) is a stage performer with a verylikable voice, and one day meets English gentleman Brian Roberts(Michael York). Basically this film shows their little on-off lovestory, the interferences with it, and the musical life that Sally liveson, and off the stage. I think this film is quite essential for all ofits quality songs and music, and obviously Minnelli and York make agood film couple. Also starring Helmut Griem as Maximilian Von Heune,Oscar, BAFTA (newcomer) and Golden Globe winning Joel Grey as thefantastic Master of Ceremonies and BAFTA and Golden Globe (supportingand newcomer) nominated Marisa Berenson as Natalia Landauer. Thedirector Bob Fosse was against Francis Ford Coppola for The Godfatherfor the Best Director Oscar, I can see why he won, he also won theBAFTA and was nominated the Golden Globe. It won the Oscars for BestArt Direction-Set Decoration, Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing,Best Music for Ralph Burns and Best Sound, and it was nominated forBest Picture and Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material fromAnother Medium, it won the BAFTAs for Best Art Direction, BestCinematography, Best Sound Track and Best Film, and it was nominatedfor Best Costume Design, Best Film Editing and Best Screenplay, and itwon the Golden Globes for Best Motion Picture - Musical/Comedy, and itwas nominated for Best Original Song for "Mein Herr", Best OriginalSong for "Money, Money" and Best Screenplay. "Cabaret" was number 18 on100 Years, 100 Songs, the film was number 5 on 100 Years of Musicals,it was number 17 on The 100 Greatest Musicals, it was number 45 on Film4's 50 Films To See Before You Die, and it was number 78 on The 100Greatest Films. Very good!
I loved this musical, it remains one of my all-timefavorites. Liza Minelli and Joel Gray were perfect fortheir parts. The setting in pre-war Germany was anexcellent background for all the goings-on in the Cabaret.Wonderful film.
Probably the last great movie musical, most likelyone of the finest of all time. Fosse’s direction andchoreography are shattering. Grey steals the entire picturewith one of the most devlishly divine characterizationsever presented. Many of the elements from the originalmusical have all been minimalized and the story is betterfor it.
This is without doubt one of the best musicals ever made, and it definitelyis the most serious one. Though it has some humorous scenes, the overalltone is dark.
Brian Roberts (Michael York), a british student comes to Berlin in the1930s. He meets Sally Bowles (Liza Minelli), an american singer, who worksat the Kit Kat Club. She wants to be an actress and tries everything to gainan audition. She and Brain fall in love with each other, but when Sallymeets the rich aristocrat Maximilian von Heune (Helmut Griem), troublebetween them arouses. There’s also a subplot involving a rich jewish heiress(Marisa Berenson) and a penniless fortune hunter (Fritz Wepper), who finallyreally falls in love with her.
What makes this musical so special is the setting. With the background ofrising Nazism and the starting of attacks against Jews it’s quite differentfrom the sweet sunny musicals from the 40’s to 60’s. The scene in thebiergarten, where a boy sings the only song, that is not performed in theKit Kat Club, "Tomorrow belongs to me" (which was a popular song in the 30sin Germany) still is one of the most chilling scenes about Nazism and aboutthe phenomenon of mass manipulation.
The rest of the music numbers are performed by the Master of Ceremonies(Joel Grey) and his girls at the Kit Kat Club, commenting the events of themovie and of the time. It’s hard to tell which number is the best, they areall stand outs, from "Mein Herr" (which was especially written for themovie), over "Maybe this time", "Money", "If you could see her through myeyes" to "Cabaret".
Bob Fosse made a film that hasn’t dated, creating a world that feels real,where real people live. The Berlin he shows us is full a decadence,vulgarity with a society that heads for disaster.
Liza Minelli gives her best performance as Sally Bowles, creating acharacter that is over the top, funny, head strong, vulnerable and full ofenergy. The rest of the cast has difficulties to coexist next to her. Theonly one who really stands for himself is Joel Grey, who is greasy anddisgusting as the master of ceremonies, who seems to know everything. Bothreceived well deserved Oscars. Michael York has the difficult task to playan uptight man, who hardly shows his feelings. Of course Minelli has theshowier part, but York gives a understated great performance, which is oftenoverlooked. Griem and Berenson turn in good and solid supportingperformances. The weak link in this is Fritz Wepper, who’s performance israther uneven. He doesn’t seem to know what to do with his character, whichstays one-dimensional.
The DVD details for the 2003 release of Cabaret (UPC: 085392798629) areincorrect.
IMDb specifys: "Release Date: 2003-08-19, DVD Format: Keep Case,Widescreen Anamorphic, 1.85:1"
but the DVD format is in fact identical to the original 1998 release(UPC: 012569078529) which is "Snap Case, Widescreen Letterbox, 1.85:1".
The only difference I find between th
e two DVDs is the cover artwork.
The Warner Brothers Studio DVD Shop(http://whv.warnerbros.com/WHVPORTAL/Portal/product.jsp?OID=4049) listsonly one Cabaret DVD. It has the 2003 cover and its details are listedas "Cabaret (DVD), Screen Aspect: Original Aspect Ratio - 1.85Widescreen [4:3 Transfer], Packaging Type: DVD tray (FLP snapper)"
Aguirre, der Zorn Gottes
Posted by in 1972 on 05 20th, 2009Klaus Kinski stares at the area just behind Thomas Mauch (Cinematographer)left shoulder and it’s enough to land him international praise for his’intense’ acting. However the word that flashes through my head is’overrated.’Having stated that I think the acting throughout this entire movie isunconvincing so Kinski becomes the shining actor here bydefault.The film itself employs too many long takes thus making the narrative slowmoving and laborious which for an adventure movie (the cannon I believethisfalls into) places it in bad stead.The opening shots of the soldiers & slaves descending a mountain lastsaboutten minutes of screen time and NOTHING happens at all.As motioned above Thomas Mauch is the saving grace for this film and hehascollected two awards (German Film Award, 1973 & National Society of FilmCritics Award, USA, 1977) for the cinematography of thispicture.Although it’s more a personal comment from Walter Hill on Vietnam,SouthernComfort (1981) covers similar ground (better trained & equipped Soldiersterrorised/killed in a strange & hostile environment by the poorly trained&equipped locals) I feel it is much more successful dramatically & a muchmore rewarding experience.
It’s not over till it’s over, but halfway through this movie, it’sover.
Spectacular is the only way to describe the opening scenes: members ofthe expedition trudging down precipitous trails, crates of chickensplunging down cliffs, distant cloud-bound blue mountains. Moreover,director Herzog has a deft touch with (very bleak) irony and a nice wayof letting camera shots and silence tell his story. Alas, he doesn’tknow when to stop.
There are too the obvious comparisons with *Apocalypse Now*, thejourney into the heart of darkness, the grand sweep, and the clearfable about political megalomania. Unfortunately, where *Apocalypse*ends in a muddle, *Aguirre* tells its story all too clearly, so thathalf way through the film we definitely have gotten the picture. Ibegan to fiddle with my watch, wonder if I needed more popcorn, decidedon dinner plans. I stuck with the movie to the end only out ofdeference to reviewers I respect who rated the movie so highly (you’reforgiven).
This is one of the odder films I have ever watched. It's about anill-fated expedition to look for the mythical city of El Dorado. Whileoriginally director Herzog claimed this was based on the writings of apriest, the story is actually fictional. Things go from bad to worseduring this Spanish expedition as the elements and hostile nativesbegin slowly wiping out the expedition. Ultimately, the megalomaniacalAguirre kills off the leader and assumes control (with, initially, apuppet in charge). When the members of the expedition are killed off byhostile natives, but considering how unpleasant and evil the Spaniardsare, I really could have cared less. And that brings me to why I scorethis movie lower than most other reviewers. I have a bias that IF amovie has no one to care about, I feel rather indifferent about it–nomatter how well-made it is. This is technically a pretty good movie(though the print on the video was very dark and not particularlysharp), and I know it was a lot of work to go to the jungle and filmmuch of it on a raft with a tiny crew. But in the end, WHO CARES? It'sdifferent but very unpleasant and mostly historically inaccurate.
I really liked this movie, the intense claustrophobic atmosphere, atthe edge of insanity, the pacing which is slow, the lack of straightaction.
But what spoils it is Klaus Kinski's acting. The guy does nothing, hejust maintains his mad, suspicious look on his face He isn't slowlyloosing his mind, he's "troubled" from the beginning till the end ofthe movie, there's no development at all. Kinski's performance ispurely one dimensional - all he ever does is give us an intense stare,which looks rather ridiculous after 10 minutes already.
I don't even think he was acting at all, we are just witnessing a manwith contempt and suspicion for the people (actors, cameramen) aroundhim.
Physically he doesn't have the weight to be feared by the characters inthis movie, he leans constantly, the armor obviously is too heavy forhim. But that's a minor issue, what his performance really makes pooris the lack of development in his character as I already mentioned.There's no way you can identify with his character, because he doesn'tgive you anything other than a mad suspicious look, he isn't human. Iguess many will find his performance intense, I found it laughable atbest. You look at him once and think "what's with him" and then try toignore him if you can…the camera won't let you however.
In the 16th century Peru, an obsessed and ruthless Spanish conquistadorleads a group of men on a river raft in search of gold in this film,reminiscent of "Apocalypse Now." The location cinematography isbeautiful, although surprisingly not in wide-screen format, and Kinskigives an interesting performance in the enigmatic title role. The storyis simple and meandering, with a series of somewhat random events, nonevery interesting. The dialog is sparse and obvious, with littlecharacter development. When these characteristics are combined withHerzog's tendency to let scenes linger much too long, the cumulativeeffect is boredom.
Interesting plot but overall badly acted and badly scripted.
Film feels disjointed and poorly put together. Scenes roll onwards withno perceived planning or forethought.
We watched after the first 30 minutes only to see what happened as itwas the weekend and a rainy day….
Very few rewarding moments. The version we watched on DVD wasfull-frame and dubbed into English. In German the poor acting might bebetter concealed but still the support actors were mostly average orbelow.
Klaus Kinski (an over-rated cult actor in my books) was mostly in therefor visual effect, as he was always an interesting face to watch.
See this film if you like epic, medium-budget foreign films thatattempt to achieve more than their ability and budget permits. Are adie hard Klaus Kinski fan or have a saintly streak of patience andgenerosity.
I´m not really sure about this movie. It has a very simple story: aman who wants to be as big as god (or at least his left hand) (atypical german problem by the side called "groessenwahn") goescrazy and fails. He (Kinski) and all the people with him are on thehighway (or: river!?) to hell. Kinski IS great. But: is the movie asgreat as Kinski is…I do not think so. Its pretty cheap and theres notas much tension as could be, theres just a long waiting for theend. 6 of 10.
Oh no: there´s that scene with that cute monkey, and Kinski is SOF***ING GREAT: 7 of 10!
The somehow indifferent beginning does little to prepare the audience forwhat evolves to be a haunting and dark psychological study. The smell of thepsychedelic 70s is everywhere, from cinematography to music. Klaus Kinskidelivers a tremendous performance as Aguirre. This film is a definiterecommendation, I would be a little reluctant though to call it amasterpiece.
Not a classic, though I'm sure there are plenty of elements to thisfilm that were original and innovative. The surrealism, camera-work,score, and acting were pretty good. The characters were somewhatbelievable, though there are occasional nagging questions about thesheepishness of some. The black guy should have been a "really black"character, not the lighter skin tone that we see here. The film has nonight shots, and thus the expedition down the river feels out of whackin terms of its timing. It's a good, weird little film, but I neverfelt like I was watching one of the greats. Occasional moments ofabsurdity detract from the somber tone, taking some scenes a s
tepbeyond satire, which is what works well in a film like this.
I love watching older films on DVD. It felt timeless with its clearpicture and 16th Century setting. Worth watching.
Werner Herzog is legendary, for very good reason. Klaus Kinski is also,but the reasons are less obvious, sometimes. Fitzcarraldo was the real'Heart of Darkness', with nutcase Kinski going up the Amazon, having aball along the way and eventually inviting the entire world, or atleast the audience, along to it in Manaus. Stunning!
Unfortunately, here we have nutcase Kinski going down the Amazon,seemingly bent on destroying not only the Real World, but Herzog'smarvellous illusory one as well. The two had a famously combativerelationship, but I cannot believe the Indians offered to kill Kinskifor Herzog during the filming of Fitz. Surely it was in this turkey.Overacting can be good, or at least, fun- Helmut Berger built an entirecareer around it. However, Kinski's 45 degree list to starboard isdead-set annoying, along with almost everything else about his fairlysuccessful attempt to subvert Herzog's vision.
Fantastic cinematography, interesting story. Shame about the leadingman.
1776
Posted by in 1972 on 05 20th, 2009This would have been much better done as a non-musical. The songs seem anintrusion into the story line. Daniels (Adams)seems embarrassed to beparticipating in some "numbers." The only actors who seem to be having anyfun are DaSylva (Franklin)and Ron Holgate (R.H. Lee).
As far as historical accuracy - good in the Congressional scenes, but someevents are needfully telescoped to fit into the time frame. One wonderswhythe Sherman and Livingston roles were stressed early in the DeclarationCommittee scene only never to be heard from again. Probably just to stageanother silly and pointless musical number.
A few supporting actors shone in minor roles. Hats off to Ralston Hill asCongressional Secretary Tompson, William Duell as custodian Andrew McNairand Roy Poole as Rhode Island Congressman Hopkins.
Overall, an entertaining movie if one can overlook the ludicrous singinganddancing.
I first saw this movie in the eighth grade back in 1976. The movie,based on the Broadway play, was made in 1972, with an all-star cast,including William Daniels as John Adams and Ken Howard as ThomasJefferson. The movie, like the play, is about the signing of theDeclaration of Independence, which was signed between July 4, 1776, andJanuary 1781. The summary of this review, (see above, ^) is AbigailAdams’ reply to a letter from her husband, John, who was inPhiladelphia, attending the Second Continental Congress. BenjaminFranklin, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams were the committee formed towrite it. In the end, it was Jefferson who wrote it, and it was votedon by the full Continental Congress on July 4, 1776.
An excellent movie for all to see. Sure, it may be educational and boring tosome, but it is worth watching. The songs are great and it is interesting tosee how the Declaration of Independence was created for ourfreedom.The casting for all the characters was an excellent choice. WilliamDaniels does a great job as John Adams (With aggressiveness like that, whocan argue?) Howard Da Silva plays the humble Benjamin Franklin who plays acrucial part throughout the movie. David Ford (John Hancock) is aninteresting casting call for this movie.
All in all, it was well-liked by me and should be seen by those who arehistory buffs and those who are just interested in themovie.
Hey, it’s better than sitting through U.S. History class.
Rory Aronsky
I love this Movie! It gives you a whole new view of history, portraying realpeople insted of stiff historical figures. The singing is wonderful andoften hilarious. The movie really brings the Philadelphia of the 1700s tolife.
Clever, witty, entertaining, thought-provoking and memorable. Some thinkthe songs are silly and a distraction (I like most of them myself), but theplay itself is brilliant. "1776", like "Apollo 13", is the rare movie thatmaintains suspense despite the fact that everyone knows how it’s going toend from the opening credits.
Still, it is not a movie for everyone. The members of the ContinentalCongress are portrayed warts and all. Many viewers may find thisdisturbing, or even downright unpatriotic during some of the sillier songs.Hero John Adams may be the least likable character in the movie while"villains" like Rutledge and Dickenson are quite sympathetic attimes.
How these vain, flawed men came together and put "their lives, fortunes, andsacred honor" on the line to form a country under the most tryingcircumstances imaginable is one of the finest stories of the millennium.See it live on stage if you can; rent the movie if you can’t. Should berequired viewing in every high school American Historyclass.
The play deserved its Pulitzer Prize, and the movie– which thankfully kept the Broadway cast intact –is almost as good. (Get the restored version if youcan.) It’s a rare delight to see any movie, especiallya musical, that isn’t dumbed down to the 8-year-old level.
"1776" was, before it was set to the silver screen, a very successfulmusical play on the Broadway stage and was performed many times on theroad.But, the movie does depict the struggles of the Congress to form theUnitedStates from the 13 Colonies, and thus forge a new nation based on the ideasof "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
From the opening session of Congress in Philadelphia in May, 1776, theviewer is taken back to history to watch the unfolding and struggles thatthe delegates had to overcome in order to forge this nation. Granted, someof the history may have been altered, but the watching of John Adams, asportrayed by William Daniels, Benjamin Franklin (Howard Da Silva) andThomasJefferson (Ken Howard) in their efforts to successfully get a declarationofindependence passed unanimously can be appreciated over and over again.Themusical numbers add a superb blending of comedy and history, and thesettings can only make Americans appreciate the efforts of the leaders forfreedom from England. A definite 9/10 and one to see over andover.
It’s really one of the best musicals ever put on film and sadlyoverlooked.William Daniels is marvelous and the fact of the matter is that it is oneofthe only films that portrays ANY of the heroes of the American Revolution.Strange isn’t it? How many Wyatt Earp films have there been, but this istheonly true showing of Franklin, Adams, Jefferson, Hancock et al in screenhistory!
Worth watching!
I first saw 1776 as a stage play on broadway back when I was 13 years old.The original reason I even went to see it in the first place was becauseanactress from my favorite tv show, Dark Shadows, was in the cast and Iwantedto see and meet her (Virginia Vestoff). Well, I fell in love with theshowand I’ve been seeing it as often as possible ever since! As someone whohadalways been bored by what my schools tried to pass off as history lessons,Iwas thoroughly entertained the entire time and it inspired me to read andlearn more about that era of American history. I am happy to say that themovie is very faithful to the play and I love it equally as well. Thesongsare wonderful, the satire is biting and hilarious and the acting isterrific. I had an instant teenage crush on both William Daniels and KenHoward when I saw them on broadway and they are still favorites of mine.Theonly musical number I actually prefer in the stage setting vs the movie is"Momma Look Sharp". Some of the impact of that song was lost to me by thedistraction of how they filmed it. It still brought tears to my eyesthough, as it always had (and probably always will).
Growing up, I had the pleasure of seeing William Daniels performingon-stagein the national touring company of 1776, and I fell in love with themusicaland the performance. It is still one of my favorite musicals, and I’mstillsorry that we were not able to perform it while I was in High School (wehada great men’s section in choir and would have done a greatjob).
Unfortunately, I was always disappointed in the movie version. Yes, it hadsome great performances, but had some of the musical numbers (or pieces ofnumbers) cut out. To me, it lost some if its impact with the loss of thosenumbers.
But recently, I came across a laser disc of a restored version of themovie.I had always thought that they just didn’t film all of the numbers (acommonpractice in musicals…just look at how different the Broadway version ofWest Side Story is from the movie), but they did film the wholemusical…they just cut some of the numbers.
This restored cut isn’t perfect, most of the restored material is not ingreat shape, but it gives a better impression of how the musical wassupposed to look. Finally, a full version of "He Plays the Violin" and theinclusion of one of my favorite numbers "Cool, Cool, ConsiderateMen".
Search out th
e restored cut. Even though it is rough, it is worthit!
To me, I will always associate William Daniels with John Adams (just likemost of us associate George C. Scott with George Patton). Probably myfavorite William Daniels moment from "St. Elsewhere" was when hischaracteron that show (while visiting Philadelphia) started singing music from"1776"("It’s hot as hell in Philadelphia!)
M*A*S*H
Posted by in 1972 on 05 20th, 2009On the whole, MASH is like leftover turkey in February. It smells awful,ittastes worse, and you can’t figure out why you ever liked it back inNovember. Most of the blame for this is attributable to Alan Alda’sconstant far-left carping badly disguised as humanitarianism and swellguyism. It’s absolutely puke-inducing at times, and the writing andactingare unnatural and forced. Maybe they’re just pining for the 70’s, butMASHis not nearly as funny as some like to remember. Your time would bebetterspent fixing that leaking toilet you’ve been meaning to getto.
This series was truly ingenious for the first three seasons. Once Henryand Trapper left, the show should have gone off the air. It would havebeen a legacy to television in the vein of "I Love Lucy" or the JackBenny show. Gone but never forgotten.
BUT…CBS decided to beat the dead horse and the show plodded on,transforming itself from a rich comedy with depth and breadth to apreachy anti war statement. Ugh. Spare me.
I have the first three seasons on DVD, and I won’t purchase anymore.The last great episode was Abyssiania, Henry. As soon as B.J. reportsand Colonel Potter checks in, do yourself a favor and check out.
I always enjoyed MASH, and even now will watch it in reruns. The jokes comeimprobably fast, and the plots are very often clever. Alan Alda reallyreinvented the Hawkeye role, and made it his. The first few seasons reallydidn’t gel, and in fact I think it got better once Mike Farrell arrived asBJ, and Harry Morgan as Potter.
That being said, the series way too often became an egomania festival forAlan Alda and his preaching–the series lasted about four times as long asthe actual Korean War; though some believe it was really about Vietnam,though a normal tour there was about a year. And in fact, sometimes theircomplaining really gets a little old–virtual whining.
And one thing I never understood, as much drinking as they did, nearlyconstant, which is fine, but why didn’t the choppers ever come when theywere all half in the bag? And if I never hear the term "meatball surgery"again, that will be just fine with me.
A good series, too bad they let their own bloated self righteousness get inthe way of the stellar writing.
SPOILER ALERT!!! (just a few, don’t worry too much)M*A*S*H is certainly one of the best tv-series ever made BUT it’s too long.Eleven darn seasons, you can imagine things to go horribly wrong after sucha long period, right?M*A*S*H rocked from season 1 to 4, but everything after that was(co)written/directed/made up by Alan Alda, and, let’s be honest: he made amess out of it! We don’t need weeping soldiers, crying over lost limbs andshocking war experiences, we don’t need to be told episode after episodethat war is a bad thing, WE WANT PLAIN HUMOUR!!!
And yes, I do regret Trapper John’s replacement: BJ is ok, but he cannotbeat Trapper. And Radar, oh why did he have to go… He gave the show thatlittle extra, you know, I can’t really explain but it’s a sad thing, that’sfor sure.Hawkeye has always been my favorite, and even during the later seasons Itried to stay hooked, but it was a fact: the laughter had diedout.Anyway, the first two seasons are available on DVD, that’s a good thing,eh?
This show should be renamed M*O*S*H, Most Overrated Show in History. Itlost all that was good about the movie and made a strikingly unfunny,unintelligent and uncreative show. Its attempts at drama were hackneyedandway too obvious, while its comedy nothing more than sarcastic onelinersandgimmick characters. All that was Altman’s genius was lost in thisshow.
MASH is one of the best shows of all time(for the first 3 seasons,thatis.) But it just wasn’t the same when Henry and Trapper left. The showlost all of it’s spark. Also I thought Hawkeye was a much bettercharacter as a skirt chaser, not "Saint Hawkeye" they turned him intolater. I also didn’t care for the way they did Wayne Rogers, he andAlda were hysterical together and they phased him out. They had theperfect combination of actors and by 1975 they had messed it all up.BJ,Potter and Winchester were the worst characters they could have cameup with and then they changed the whole show and made it a dramedy.Splitting up Frank and Margeret didn’t help either(no wonder Linvillewanted out.)To this day I watch up until Henry leaves and that’s all Ican take of this show. I don’t know what it would have taken to keepthe original cast together, but I wish they had.
"M*A*S*H" is a rarity: a TV show based on a theatrical feature thatimmediately surpassed the original in quality, and eventually dwarfedit in popularity, as well.
On the downside, as "M*A*S*H" grew into a pop culture phenomenon in thelate 70s and early 80s, its quality declined, a none too surprisingdevelopment when actors gain more clout and demand a bigger piece ofthe pie. So instead of providing some solid laughs as a relativelyminor character, Jamie Farr’s cross-dressing Corporal Klinger put onpants and was pushed too much in the forefront, perhaps to compensatefor co-star Mike Farrell’s complete lack of charisma. Worse, perhaps,was the addition of David Ogden Stiers as Major Winchester, as pompousas Larry Linville’s Major Burns but never as funny or believable.
The show’s main failure was that its creators seemed to let thecritical praise go to their heads. With each passing season, "M*A*S*H"took itself more seriously, and spent too much time sermonizing whenthe anti-war message was more effective when it was subtly weaved intothe laughs.
The first three seasons are superb - classic television at its best -thanks in no small part to the presence of Wayne Rogers, likable asTrapper John where Alan Alda’s Hawkeye was frequently smug, and McLeanStevenson as Col. Henry Blake who provided the show with much of itsheart. Their simultaneous departure after the third season was a woundthat the best surgeons of "M*A*S*H" couldn’t heal.
Brian W. Fairbanks
At times poignant and touching - with interjections of mildhumour.But all too often dull and preachy.
When summed up as a whole the term sit-com doesn’t really apply. Becausewhen you really get down to it - MASH really wasn’t funny - no bellyachinglaughs and certainly not as clever as it likes to think itis.
Perhaps a prime case of ‘time hasn’t been kind’.
Also after the first 3 or so seasons the wheels most definitely fell offthewagon.
Overall a decent show for the time but it’s reputation is maintained bypeople who want to remember it for more than it ever was.
OK…I've been watching TV for years. I actually tried to sit down andwatch a full episode of "MASH" and I just cant stand it. WTH is sofunny about this show? The humor is lame has no class what so ever andits been on for years. I think maybe the only reason its on is to putus asleep late at night. I mean seriously though…"The Monkees", "ThePartridge Family", "The Brady Bunch", "Punky Brewster", and especially"I Love Lucy" were all more hilarious. I say… ban "MASH" Get it offthe air! Its a waste of time. Where I'm at they show it on 27 and I'drather watch Dr Phil while "MASH" is on air and I hate that guy OperaWinfrey rip off.
Have a good day…feel free to email me all the hate mail you want…but this show really does suck.
Before you vote my review useless because I may not agree with youropinion of this hallowed show, please read to the end….
"MASH" (I will eliminate the asterisks for my own sanity) seems to bethe FX Networks default show these days. Nothing else to run? Put on a"MASH" marathon. Unfortunately, they only seem to have copies of thelast four or five seasons.
With some time on my hands, I actually satdown to watch a few. It's not the show I remembered. During four showsI didn't find one real belly laugh. The shows were during the early BJseasons. There was some humor, but most of the laughs were obvious andoverplayed. It was a little depressing actually. I remember the show asbeing smart and sly. Of course, I was 14 when the show left the air, soI thought coming up with new words for sex was sophisticated. In thecase of MASH, I believe it was funny in its way, and the dialog fromthe shows I watched still had a snap to it, but time and tide haveturned against it. I can understand why some people would praise it,even if it's only for the sake of defending a memory, but interveningshows like "Cheers" and "Seinfeld" have made the relevant dramedies ofthe 70's and 80's seem awkward and somewhat self-important. (Heck, Iwatched"The Cosby Show" later in the day and found it so unfunny that Iwas actually sad. They named the kids Winnie and Nelson? How relevantcanto be?) Of course, at the time, I guess we wanted to watch showsthat were message driven. Comedy without an underpinning of relevancewas considered trite. We overlooked the anachronisms and theinconsistencies if the show was done honestly and without guile. Maybethat's the problem with "MASH": it's comedy is an older sort, somethingI never suspected would happen to it or to me. It is so achinglysincere in its presentation that it can't help but look dated andsomewhat unfunny to an audience that is a little more jaded.
One note to those who say the 11 year run of "MASH" is evidence of itssuccess and brilliance: Hey, I'm not saying the show was bad, but inthe days of three commercial US networks, many shows lasted well beyondtheir good years. Viewers were somewhat limited, so networks, insteadof tossing up something new, stuck with the tried and true for muchlonger than they would now or should have then. Sure, it was funny atthe beginning. And, yes, it was important at the time, but so was"Dallas."
