The Texas Chain Saw Massacre

After decades of hearing about this film, I thought I would make my ownjudgement and see it for myself.

I don't know what's worse. The fact that people want to make films likethis, or that people get some entertainment value from watching them.Violence, if portrayed properly with artistic skill, has value inconveying a worthwhile message. It has to have context and meaning inrelation to character and situation to have any sense to it.

Films like this portray violence (even if implied) for violences' sake.Completely pointless. Hey guess what? 'People are cruel to each other'.That's no surprise is it? What motivates and drives violence is moreinteresting and worth exploring.

Badly executed (pardon the pun), poorly conceived in relation to whatactually happened, this film is worth missing, even if you are curious.

I find it deeply troubling that anybody watching this film, and otherslike it, can derive any kind of pleasure from doing so. Perhaps what'sworse is that they delude themselves into thinking that because it wasbanned that it then deserves the banner of 'classic'. Or that by virtueof it being reported as 'shocking' it has some kind of artistic value.

This film only works on one level. It is that if proof where neededthat the there are certain individuals that get their 'jollies' fromwatching rubbish like this, then films like this will continue to bemade. And they are! What does that say about society? How verydepressing?

what r u all talking about??? this movie sucked. the minute i pressedthe play button i started waiting for the movie to finish! it wasn'tscary at all!! there has to be suspense so there's enough time forfear. i mean the girl was walking and suddenly shes dead, there was nosuspense music. and after scene 10 the setting was completely dark, ucant even see whats going on. literally!!. i no its a small budgetmovie but the director still could've put better music. the 'music'didn't even make any sense. the dinner party scene was good at firstbut then when they put a very close close-up of Sally's eyes. it justlooks disgusting and makes the audience uncomfortable. i haven't seenthe new version but I've read that its worse, i cant even imagine howbad it could get.

this movie would have to be the worst that i have seen in a long time andilike horror movies. but this one is just crap, i mean yeah it is gory andall but the movies just makes no sense at all. this movie should neverhavebeen released on video or DVD.

CRAP 0/5

I’m not really sure whether this movie was supposed to be scary and supposedto be taken seriously. If it was, then I can only say that it failedmiserably. We have a non-existent plot, stupid characters and a totallynon-scary murderer with a chain-saw. I can’t remember this movie having somuch as a single scary moment, and as far as gore is considered, I’ve seenmuch bloodier films too (e.g. "Braindead").

On the other hands, me and a bunch of friends had a GREAT time watching thismovie, laughing at the ridiculous acting and pointing out the never-endinglist of completely stupid behaviour by the main characters. Example: Ifyou’re being chased by a crazed, chainsaw wielding maniac through a darkwood, the last thing you want to do is scream and give away your position,but the main character in this movie doesn’t do anything BUT scream whilebeing chased. It was also hilarious when the chain-saw guy first cut up anentire door with his saw before actually just opening it in the normal wayand going through.

This movie apparently is a classic, and I wholly agree with that, butinstead of a horror classic I’d call it a comedy classic. I can’t rememberhaving laughed so hard at a movie’s sheer stupidity and awfulness since"Batman" (the old one with Adam West).

This is quite possibly the worst horror flick of all time. Why? Becausehorror’s key element: music, is missing. If you want to watch Hollywoodhorror at its best, then watch the 2 definitive films: Psycho and TheExorcist. I give it 0.5 stars only because it’s better than Gigli.

this movie had no character development at all. a lot of people liked thismovie, and after watching it i am left with the simple question: why? thisundoubtedly one of the worst moives i have ever seen, this coming from onewho has seen over 200 b-movies. this movie is not even b, its like z. eventhe premise is horrible, a group of friends encounter a cannibalisticfamily including a transvestite chainsaw wielding freak who likes to wearhuman faces. this movie is allegedly based on a true story, this couldntbefarther from the truth. leather face is loosely(and i use that wordloosley)based on a serial killer from the 50s named ed gein. ed killedaround 4 people with a gun in wisconsin, the only connection at all wasthated was trying to make a woman suit(he had apprently dreamed of being awoman, and got curious)in this sense, buffalo bill was much moreaccuratelybased off him. i think that this movies popularity stems fully frompeoplesbelief that its all true. i WOULD NOT recommend this movie to anyone. donotrent this movie unless you really want to see it, but dont expect tomuch,trust me on this.

I’m a big fan of horror films and when I rented it I expected to see agoodone based on nearly all the reviews I’ve heard. I don’t know what peoplesee in this movie, because honestly, it was awful. There was literally noplot, the acting sucked, and there was virtually no violence. I don’tunderstand how anyone could possibly like the movie at all.

The movie is dated and looks it, there was no reason for it to be banned,there is nothing in it, even for its day, the movie has nothing going forit, and is overated and doesn’t deserve its reputation it hasearned!One of the worst horror movies ever made, infact one of the worstmovies!Bad acting, picture, sound, and movie!

No gore, scares nothing!

2/10

And i think remaking this film is the worst the movie industry has everdone!

This film was one of a list of films I wanted to see when I turned 18.What a disappointment. The film has no storyline, hardly enoughviolence to suit an M rating, and an abrupt ending which hardlyexplained anything. I can see how Tobe Hooper wanted a PG rating forthis. As far as horror films go, this one wasn’t detailed enough tokeep the viewer interested or scary enough for horror buffs. The filmhas a greater focus on the chase scene then the deaths of 4 teenagers.The one thing I’m thankful for is that there wasn’t a sequel. Quitepossibly the worst film I have ever seen. There is no explanation ofmotives, or why there was an abandoned house in the middle of nowhere,and how a pickup truck appeared out of nowhere to save the day. A poorfilm with no detail.

Ok, I saw the remake before I ever saw the original, and I’ve alwaysthoughtremakes just tarnish the identity of the original but when I saw theremakeand loved it, I expected the original to be a cinematic masterpiece. Well,Icouldn’t be further from the truth. The opening was just about the onlyinteresting part. Right off the bat, you hate the characters. Most of themare snobby, the guy in the wheelchair is annoying and they’re just notnicepeople. So right there, when they start dying, you don’t really care, atall. The hitchiker part had no signifigance whatsoever besides justimplyingeveryone in that county was messed up. There was an extreme lack of gore,which isn’t a bad thing because I’ve found being overly gory can make amovie look silly. The remake had pretty graphic violence in it, but in myopinion kept it classy enough so you didn’t think it was there just foreyecandy, but rather to make it more brutal and real so you could feel howtheyfeel. Everyone says the original relies on "pure scares and disturbin
gmoments" rather than blood. Well, it got disturbing at times, but the purescares? Yes the girl popping out of the freezer made me lose sleep fordays,um I laughed at that part. It’s clear to me the only reason there isn’ttonsof gore is because they didn’t have enough money to have gore that wouldlook real and not ridiculous. Because if I remember correct, Tobe Hoopercame back to make the sequel which was over the top gory, over the top inevery way. There was nothing scary about this, it was all cheap thrillsandI turned it off after about two people got killed, and I don’t evenrememberwho got killed, because I never cared when someone died. Bad characters,baddirection, bad movie altogether.

read comments (0)

The Man with the Golden Gun

THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN (1974) *** Bond is out to stop sinister assassinextraordinairre Francisco Scaramanga (the always spooky Christopher Lee) whose plot to use a solar device to unleash the sun’s radiation sets theaction with a waycool title weapon, pre-"Fantasy Island" Herve Villechaizeas tiny but deadly henchman Nick Nack and Britt Ekland as affectionatefellow agent. Best bit: Bond taking on an entire school of martial artsstudents.

When a scientist developing a powerful new solar cell for energy ismurdered, it is linked to the actions of hitman Scaramanga. Scaramanga usesa golden gun and charges a million dollars per hit. When he seems to betargeting Bond as he tries to track down the solar cell, leading to a showdown between the two men.

Roger Moore will never be one of the best Bonds, simply because his filmsaren’t as good as some of the other Bonds. Here it is actually one of myfavourites despite not being great. The basic story is little more than anexcuse to bring Bond into conflict with Scaramanga. As a plot this isbetter than the usual Russians as baddies stuff and he is a better subject. The best element of this is that it allows Bond to be more fully exploredbecause, really, both Bond and Scaramanga are really alike and do have muchin common and this fact is well used.

Outside of this the stunts are good and the action is nicely mixed withcomedy in a Roger Moore raised eyebrow type of way. Sadly the best stunt(the 360 car jump) is spoilt by a `comedy’ sound effect right on top ofit.

The cast are good. Moore is definitely a different type of Bond but he’sgood in his own way. Christopher Lee is a really good villain – simplybecause he isn’t a Russian who wants to take over the world etc but rather afleshed out person. Britt Ekland is a bit bland as a dipsy Bond girl butit’s nice to see Q brought back into play as well as a brief return forClifton James as J.W. Pepper.

Overall not the best Bond but it has plenty of good moments and a goodbaddie. Also the theme music is one of my favourites simply because it’squite fun!

When Roger Moore took over as caretaker of the Bond franchise he was handeda good portion of the momentum and goodwill that had been generated duringthe Sean Connery era - and he spent it all on "Live and Let Die" (which,miraculously, DOES feel like something of a continuation from where Conneryleft off). He started his next film with no reserves. It shows immediately- and never stops showing. There atmosphere is all wrong, there’s noenergy, precious little REAL ruthlessness (when Moore does the dirty onsomeone he comes across as distant and vague, as though he’s a butler). Nordoes he have a title song by Paul McCartney or a babe as luscious as theyoung Jane Seymour to support him this time. He’s clearly come down in theworld. He’s no longer up against supervillains plotting to take over theworld; even if you’d resigned yourself to expecting, say, a mere drug barontrying to corner the American market in narcotics, you’ll find thevillainous plotting (when it’s at last unveiled, all too late) terriblydisappointing and earthbound.

Another black mark: the two most memorable supporting players are the shortguy from "Fantasy Island" (serving as, what do you know, butler, on, what doyou know, an eccentric millionaire’s secret fantasy island), and thetobacco-chewing redneck sheriff from "Live and Let Die", serving up the samecheap, painfully over-the-top schtick as before, only there’s more of it,and in order to work him into the plot at all they had to have him take aholiday in Thailand (as if such a redneck would EVER go to Thailand!). They’re memorable, but you kind of wish they weren’t.

At the time of writing I’ve seen all of the James Bond films. This was thelast I managed to lay eyes on. It’s obvious enough why it proved soelusive. It may not be quite as BAD as "On Her Majesty’s Secret Service" or"Moonraker" - I’m not sure on this point, and I don’t care - but it is, insome sense, the biggest embarrassment: the least timeless, with all thesilliness of any other Bond film, yet none of the grandeur which thesilliness sometimes made possible. Yes, it’s directed by the guy who did"Goldfinger". No, I don’t understand how this could beeither.

Roger Moore begins to get used to the Bond role in the 9th of EON’s 007 productions. Tired of pecking at the Russians as the eternal enemies, this movie makes little reference towards the Soviets and focuses on an extremely well-rounded and developed villain - Francisco Scaramanga. Perhaps Bond resents the fact that the man he is ordered to kill is so much like him - a refined gentleman who kills professionally (albeit without a licence). Although the action lacks occasionally, the title character’s "funhouse" is one of the greatest sets ever devised for a Bond film; it’s outrageous and cartoony twists and turns has the viewer at the edge of their seat. Comic relief is found at the hands of Q (who is back again after a notable absence in Live and Let Die) and a returning Sheriff J.W. Pepper. One should also note the amazing "Javelin Jump" performed during a car chase - even if the effect was destroyed by a misplaced sound effect.

Clearly the worst Bond-movie. Nothing seams to work here. The movie nevermanages to take of. It’s boring from beginning to end, and the hole filmseams to fall apart. Even the action-scenes is dull. One of the fewpositivemoment in this film is when the American sheriff (from Live and let die)meets Bond in Thailand. (4 out of 10) & (1 out of 10 as aBond-movie)

Not one of the best Bond films, by far. A little too much bad comedy for mytaste. The sheriff J.W. Pepper character is not at all funny and Nick Nackdoesn’t deliver the fun that we expect from him. The ladies are beautiful-just like in other Bond movies-, especially Goodnight, played by BrittEkland. Roger Moore is good in his role, but I think Christopher Lee surpasseshim with his great portrayal of the villain.

Out of 100, I gave it 72.

Roger Moore’s second outing as James Bond 007 and truly one of theworst James Bond movies in the series…is what you would probablyexpect me to write. And yes, I would really like to write that. Theproblem is that I believe as a critic you should try to give a film asfair a review as you can.

In fact, "The Man With The Golden Gun" starts well for three reasons -all three of these reasons are linked, as the film starts with thethree best characters.

Firstly we have the Man with the Golden Gun himself, FransiscoScaramanga. One of this film’s undeniable strengths is the presence ofChristopher Lee as the main bad guy. This character is truly the darkside of Bond, a man with the same tastes of good food, good drink anddamn good women, and someone who must kill for a living. But Lee playsit as an obsessed cold-blooded killer, with no apparent care for hisgirlfriend. Speaking of which, may I introduce the second good thingabout this movie, Maud Adams as Andrea Anders. A sort of updatedversion of Domino from "Thunderball", Adams is beautiful and also avery good actress. We can tell that this is a kept woman, starved ofreal love and affection. The scene in the bedroom with Scaramanga issuitably chilling, particularly Lee’s face when she does not give in tohis toying around with his golden gun. It is a pity that she becomes asacrificial lamb when she does, and does not carry on in the script.The third good thing about this film is Nick-Nack - it’s a greatcontrast to see the very tall Lee up against the petite HerveVillechaize. He has that wonderfully devilish look in his eye wheneverhe is plotting something, and it is great that the script constantlykeeps us guessing as to which side he is really on.

After the opening sequence however, it goes downhill ve
ry quickly.Moore is good as Bond, but the scene where he interrogates Andrea seemsrather cold and Connery-esquire. Moore has a certain style for Bond, ashave all the other actors who have portrayed him, and so the scriptshould have stuck with Moore’s interpretation.

The script is not great, though several elements are intriguing. Therelevance of the secondary plot - the Energy crisis - is still strongtoday, though I don’t think the producers had guessed this when makingthe film. M has a few wonderful put-downs as well, and in fact seemsincreasingly exasperated by almost everything Bond does in the film.

The script turns truly awful with the introduction of Mary Goodnight,played by Britt Ekland. Ekland could have been a very good Bond Girl,but the script takes the original character - the strong,secretary-type woman from the Fleming novels - and completely weakensher. She is, without a doubt, the weakest Bond Girl in the entireseries. Her only relevance seemingly that to provide Bond with a womanat the end of his mission. He has other reasons to fly to Scaramanga’sisland - he has the Solex, though this is thanks to the incompetentGoodnight.

The return of JW Pepper is not a welcome one either - why would he wanta test drive in a car in Bankock when he lives on the other side of theworld? Leutentant Hip is the second most bumbling person next toGoodnight, and even Q is told to shut up by M twice.

The script does pick up dramatically well when Bond and Scaramangameet. The dialogue between them at the dinner table is superb. The duelat the end of the film is also very good, with quite a bit of tenseatmosphere; though after watching the pre-titles sequence we know howBond will eventually get rid of Scaramanga. The music is okay by JohnBarry standards, and this is rather worrying, considering the ratherlacklustre score provided by George Martin in the previous Bond film,"Live And Let Die". The opening theme is truly dreadful, the lyricsgrating along with their cheep sexual innuendos:

"He has a powerful weapon"

That sort of thing.

Perhaps the reason for the poor quality of this film was the fact thatthe relationship between Albert "Cubby" Brocolli and Harry Saltzman wasdisintegrating rapidly - an interesting discussion about 200 or soelephant shoes springs to mind, as well as a planned elephant stampede.Maybe it was Guy Hamilton’s fault - he had made two Bond films already,and in my opinion "Thunderball", Terrance Young’s third Bond film, hadbeen Young’s weakest. Maybe it was the original source material - thebook is an interesting but short novel, the last full story Flemmingever wrote, and it would not have had enough to fill more than an hour,perhaps an hour and a half at most. They needed something to fill inthe gaps as it were.

Whatever the reasons, "The Man With The Golden Gun" is perhaps the veryworst of the Moore series. But don’t let this stop you from watchingit. Every Bond film has it’s positives, and this film is no exception -it is perhaps one of the best performances by Christopher Lee since hisfirst Dracula and until the "Lord Of The Rings" trilogy.

5/10

This Bond is typically slammed in movie reviews/ Bond books and is frequently numberedamong the worst of the series. But it’s my favourite ! I don’t think Bond was ever moreentertaining than in this colourful, humourous, intriguing adventure.

Christopher Lee is marvellous as Scaramanga, arch assassin and a kind of007-gone-to-seed. He’s menacing and interesting. Britt is amusing as the dippyGoodnight and Roger Moore (surely the best Bond !) is in top form - alternately wittyand deadly, but always the playboy gentleman.

Just the right mixture of humour and danger, and some amazing sets, set thisone apart from the pack.

After a great start with the brilliant LIVE AND LET DIE,RogerMoore throws in another great outing as 007 in one of thebest James Bond films. Christopher Lee is highly chillingas Scaramanga, and Nik Nak is the classic pint-sizedhenchmen, and mixing the Bond formula with a bit of fantasyand extra-wit, make this an unmissable Bond film.

Thiswas the worst of the series to date and still is. Rushed into productionsince the audience seemed to accept Roger Moore in his previous outing,thefilm is loaded with poor sound effects and worse looping of dialog (SoonTeck Oh appears to be dubbed by two different voices, one of which isdefinitely not his own).And that sheriff, "J.W." from Live and Let Die should have been left todie,other than "Jaws" from the next two movies, J.W. is the most ridiculousandannoying character to appear in any Bond film. Oh yeah, everyone goesabroadto test drive an American Motors car.This is more like a Matt Helm movie, not a Bond film. At least it was thelast time Guy Hamilton directed a Bond film, his cartoon approach to theseries was never to my liking.

read comments (0)

The Longest Yard

If there is one prison movie stereotype that was missed in this one, Idon’tknow which one it was. Brutal guards, sadistic warden, psychotic inmates,chain gangs, you name it, it has it.Still, it is entertaining frombeginningto end and worth the money. Reynolds gives a fairly convincing performance(as does nearly everyone else.)

If you’re bored, give this one a try…

This is a prison picture but without question the highlight is of course theFootball game between the convicts and the prison guards. It features anumber of former pro football stars to include Ernie Wheelwright, RayNitschke, Joe Kapp, and Ray Ogden. Reynolds plays a former pro quarterbackwho runs afoul of the law and finds himself in a prison in which the wardenhas a thing for football. A game between the wardens own team made up of hisguards and a team comprised of convicts is scheduled with of course Burtcalling the plays. One thing I couldn’t understand regarding the castingwas why former U of Washington star quarter back Sonny Sixkiller who led thenation in passing and even was on the cover of Sports Illustrated (Oct. 4,1971) and appears in the film as one of the convict players was not given ajersey with the number 6 on it which he wore at Washington? (He wears # 30in the film) It left me with a `Why cast Sonny Sixkiller in the movie andmake him a football player if he’s not going to be able to wear number 6?’But then again Ray Nitschke wears # 61 when his number with the Packers was66.

I really love this film. Okay, it’s not "art" … it’s not "riveting" …it’s not "engaging" … and the acting is at times mediocre.

But it’s fun! Plain and simple fun. I never find myself laughing when Iwatch this. It won’t double you over in hysterical guffaws! But you justfind yourself smiling through it .. and smiling and smiling andsmiling.

It’s Burt Reynolds at his best - overacting and being a character. You cantell that he really enjoyed making this film. Heck, even the ‘bad guys’ endup rooting for the convicts!

Go team!

Let me say first off, as a guy who grew up worshipping professionalfootball, that I think this is the best football film ever. I understandthat Burt Reynolds doesn’t have a lot of classic films under his belt,however he has two: the redneck classic "Smokey and the Bandit" and thisfilm, "The Longest Yard". So for me, I will always owe Burt Reynolds ahearty "Thank You" for making the greatest football filmever.Mr. D. Jensen

I love this movie, it is a load of fun. No prison movie I can think of isso removed from the experience of a prison, even as one experiences it, anoxymoron. We are exposed to a warden, Rudolph Hazen (Eddie Albert), whobecomes increasingly contemptible, ultimately even more so than the guards(that is not always the case). This distinction also reflects a reversal(somewhat) of the passions felt earlier in the movie. But it’s best tohavethe focus, the villain, at the top, isn’t it? OK, "The Longest Yard" isnotreally a prison movie, sort of like Florida, in which this film is set, issaid not to be a Southern state. The concept of the film provides thecrescendo, the climax, which we look for but do not always get in a prisonmovie or other movies, and also takes us out of the prison.

Burt Reynolds plays an ex-football star (Paul Crewe) who has wound up in aFlorida penitentiary, and who leads the inmates in opposing the guards inatuneup game requested by Hazen, in pursuit of the goal of a semiprochampionship. The championship has eluded the guards in the past, andHazenwants it even more than the guards themselves. Crewe is in prison forreasons other than the fact that he had previously thrown football games.Nevertheless, that theme re-emerges between Hazen and Crewe, portrayedexcellently by Reynolds and Albert, who are joined by, besides ordinaryactors, football greats Ray Nitschke (guards), Joe Kapp (guards), andSonnySixkiller (inmates). There are some intense and nasty prison scenes, butthe pigskin is the thing.

Well, OK, "The Longest Yard" is also different from other prison moviesbecause of the presence of much humor, focusing on Crewe himself, Crewe’slove interests (more interesting out of prison than [Bernadette Peters]in),and various inmates, such as George Samson (played by Richard Kiel, ofJawsrenown) and Connie Shokner (Robert Tessser). The film gets you to cheerforthe "murderers and rapists," of course, as we are told, "these peopleneverhad nothing, Crewe, you had it all.." Indeed, the script is veryeffectivein galvanizing us to favor the prisoners as the events transpire (bondingbyleadership; the prisoners are black and white, of course, and the guardsall-white, natch). Hazen, meanwhile, is a sadistically cruel cheat, andthis is one of many reasons viewers do not feel cheated at the film’sfinale, which is as good as it can possibly be. An All-American and machomovie, yes, but it should be enjoyable by all.

10 out of 10

Good comedy with Reynolds playing a chain gang convict who is coerced intousing his skill as a pro quarterback to help a crooked warden lead his teamto greater heights. Loads of laughs as Burt and the boys lay the screws -get it? - to the sadistic guards and their psychotic leader. One of Burt’sbest.

There are no good guys here,just varying degrees of badness.Even our"hero",Paul Crewe(Burt Reynolds),establishes early in the film that heis far less than perfect.After all,he does end up in prison.Atfirst,his fellow inmates resent Crewe,the former gridiron star,and seehim as someone who had it all,and tossed it in the garbage,whereas theyhave had nothing their entire lives.Crewe is given an "incentive" toput together a football squad to play against the more establishedfootball playing guards,by the prison’s warden,devilishly played byEddie Albert. As I said,there are no real heroes here,but it is clearlyestablished that the guards are the worst of the two evils.I am an avidfootball fan,and there are many films about the sport that I love,andthis one tops the list.It’s my all time favorite in the genre.Greatcasting here, which includes a mixture of top notch actors,and formerfootball greats such as ex-Packer great Ray Nitchke,who definitely addto the charm of the film.In Burt Reynolds hit and miss career,this oneis definitely a hit,disagree though he may.For football fans likeme,this is a must see.

The first half of The Longest Yard consists of Burt Reynolds smirking hisway through a typical good ol’ boy 70’s flick, getting away with things thatwould NEVER pass today. A few things are worth a chuckle, but Burt seemsway more interested in cracking up at his own stuff. We would pretty muchsee the same performance in Smokey And The Bandit, Parts I and II about 4years later. When the big game itself starts, though, the gloves come offand the movie comes alive. The game takes up a little less than the finalhalf of the movie, and I was a little startled to see it happening so fast,but it keeps your attention the whole way through, with many hilariousmoments. My personal favorites are the clothesline from Samson (RichardKiel), and the original way the Mean Machine took Bogdanski (Ray Nitschke)out of the game ("He’s not breathing!"). To tell you the truth, it’s almostworth skipping through the first half, and just watching the game itself.

I’ve never been really interested in sports, but "The Longest Yard" isone movie that’s bound to please everyone! Football player Paul Crewe(Burt Reynolds) gets put in jail after a spat with his girlfriend. Themean-spirited warden (Eddie Albert) and the guards are always tauntinghim and the other prisoners, until finally, Paul decides that it’s timeto have a football match between the prisoners and the guards.

Some scenes are a little goofy (like the scene where they’re shovelingmud), but they never seem out of place. This is a fine example ofathletics at its best; it’s what team spirit is all about. It’s hard tobelieve that was Bernadette Peters playing the secretary.

Th is is not only a good movie for sports and football buffs, but it isalso good fun for the boys. There are very few women in the film andthe movie doesn’t portray them favorably. But Burt Reynolds leads agroup of convict misfits in a football game against the sadistic prisonguards.

This is one of Burt’s best films and should be seen by any teenager.Eddie Albert does a good job as the constipated (Warden Hazen). Youwill also notice Bernadette Peters in a minor role as one of the prisonadministrators. And there are some cronies of Burt’s that will wouldhave seen in some of his other films.

Lots of fun!

read comments (0)

Murder on the Orient Express

A murder mystery that is so convoluted and plodding that one doesn'tcare whodunit. And when the solution finally comes, it is stupid andunderwhelming. The expository scenes go on too long, unnecessarilyadding to the length of a film that is too long and boring. As Poirot,Finney looks and sounds ridiculous, kind of like Inspector Clouseau; heis horribly hammy and his accent is so thick that it is hard tounderstand what he's saying. The rest of the all-star cast doesn't fairtoo well either, partly because there are too many of them and nonegets enough screen time to make an impact. Bergman, Connery, Gielgud,and Redgrave come off the best, but that's not saying much.

If you love watching movies, if you marvel at things you see and marvelat why, at who you and why film works, you'll like this.

It is a phenomenal failure, peppered with pleasures. Oh, what a strangemarriage it is to put our trust in a filmmaker!

First the pleasures. Despite its failings of Christie in other ways,the Poirot character drawn here is closer to what Christie imaginedthan any other screen portrayal. I do like watching Suchet's prancinglittle twinkly man, and I am prepared to see any author's instinctscompromised if it serves the larger construction. But the humor inSuchet's Poirot is there purely for the humor, not to support thestance of a detective, our surrogate watcher in the story.

Finney's Poirot has little charm. He's obnoxious. That fact that no oneelse could possibly appreciate the things he loves about himself is anecessary part of the character, the real one in the books. Same withMarple. Its perfect.

The movie as a movie is lush, and fun just on that score alone. Lumet'sapproach to film is to have a general feel about the larger scope ofthe thing, and then to fill whatever vessel appears in the creationthat supports that grander vision. Few things have been as photographedas trains, and never so gloriously as here. The departure of theexpress from Istanbul (the "European" side) is one of filmdom's richestmoments, especially if you include the appearance of our suspects (andtheir food).

And it has one of the most amazing performances you will ever see anactress give. It is short, only few minutes, but won an Oscar. But toappreciate it you need to know something of the actress. You need toknow how hard this Swedish woman had to work to sound Swedish; its ahard thing because it involves and actor moving close to her soul andsince she grew up in the tradition of being-acting you see from Ingmar,this is a real challenge. Creating a simpleminded character by itselfwould be less of a challenge.

Watch as she surrounds her lines with all sorts of silent conversationswith herself, and carefully placed incidental expressions that thecharacter wouldn't know showed her interior dialog. That the actress socarefully places what the character misplaces is magical. Instead offocusing on this, Lumet treats her like any other face on the train,like the stupid Hungarian couple played by stupid actors. Or theaccident that was sold as Bacall.

And the final pleasure is awarded you only if you know "12 Angry Men."Its one of the most amazing films ever made and precisely perfect forLumet's strengths and weaknesses. It depends entirely on the storyemerging from what the actors give us. Its not the lines that havepower, but the space the actors inhabit, a single room. The magic ofthe film is how the camera circles and probes in ways that theindividuals in the group hijack the group leadership and probe themystery of a stabbing. Who did it?

Lumet surely had this film in mind. Here is another jury, another groupof 12, another claustrophobic, sequestered setting, another opportunityfor camera and inquisition to merge. So sure is the overlap that theone neutral character in the story is Martin Balsam's, he from "12Angry." So you'll revel a bit as the excellence of that earlier queryis echoed in the dining car as Poirot is watched by us as he watchesthe 12.

But while Lumet has great instincts, he is essentially an actor. Hesees only the small, and completely misses the larger shape of movies,any movie. He is actually stupid when it comes to this, depressingly,amazingly stupid.

Christie's story depends on the arrangement of compartments on thatfirst class car. There's an intricate movement of people that has to beorchestrated in order for anyone to commit the murder. The challengePoirot faces first is not who did it, but who could have. The way heworks through it — and the reader would too — is by understanding howhis unexpected presence in the car changed a careful plan. In the book,his key insight has to do with the geometry of a door lock. An alibithat was given in the book depended on what the witness saw when apractice session occurred. But Poirot's presence meant that the actuallock in question was on the other side, and therefore a mirror image ofwhat the alibi "explained."

This is not a small matter, because the magic of Christie is how thereader and narrator are related in inventing the story. Its a matter ofjoint discovery and one of the miracles of modern movies and books.Take that away and you don't have Christie. You have instead only a bigname to put up with the other big names in a stew that has no coalescedtaste.

Ted's Evaluation — 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

Murder on the Orient Express would appear to have all the necessaryingredients for a classic film. It is arguably Agatha Christie’s mostingenious and atmospheric novel, and her cosmopolitan dramatis personaeaboard the famous train are vividly brought to life by the largelyoutstanding star-studded cast. Yet it somehow seems to fall strangelyflat.

Having said that, the induction of the viewer into the mise-en-scene issuperb. In an eerie silent sequence, drained of all colour and interspersedwith newspaper headlines, we are acquainted with the kidnapping and slayingof little Daisy Armstrong. So when the perpetrator of the kidnapping ishimself murdered, even the famous detective Hercule Poirot is inclined toconsider it natural justice. But still, murder has been committed andsomewhere amongst the strangers - whose destiny is controlled by the train -a killer is at work. But who is it? For they all have alibis, and yet,incredibly all have a motive.

Aside from some initial scenes in Istanbul, the action is confined to thetrain, making this a psychologically interesting and character-driven story. Hence, it is a pity that many of the parts have been reduced to little morethan cameo roles. In addition, Albert Finney (whilst visually very muchChristie’s Poirot) plays the Belgian sleuth with unfortunatecrudity.

The multi-cultural hustle and bustle of Istanbul Station is portrayed withvibrancy, but so much of the movie is spent in setting the scene and in thelengthy denouement, that important plot components are rather rushed andlacking in impact. Indeed, Poirot seems to deduce the killer’s identityalmost immediately, and with only a modicum of detection. However, in theend the excellent storyline carries the film to its unexpected andtriumphant conclusion.

As is Agatha Christie’s wont, the plot of this movie is too complex, andmuch of the activity and investigation too obscure to follow well. Addedtothis is the fact that most of the characters muttered their lines insteadofspeaking them. The movie industry in general would be better served byclear diction in understandable English than by imitations of foreignaccents.

Well, I wouldn’t know…I didn’t read the book, so I don’t know what’sbetter or not. I liked the movie, though, and I thought how the turningofevents turned out…I mean they were pretty creative if you ask me.AgathaChristie is a great mystery writer, and her work is wonderful! Well, atleast
this movie was better than the 1945 version of "And Then There WereNone".

In my IMDb review for another movie, I said that this one was a masterpieceand that Albert Finney was the definitive Poirot. In fact I hadn’t seen itfor a long, long time, and after rewatching it I found out that I was quitewrong. The movie is still a pretty good mystery, but Albert Finney’sperformance is totally overacted, and, in fact, his Poirot resembles a toad,with his head sunk between his shoulders, and his eyes looking upwards allthe time. He seems to be playing more of a mannierist spoof of Poirot in acomedy than Poirot himself in a mystery movie. I love Mr. Finney (and I’m abig fan of his criminally underrated "Scrooge"), but he performed horriblyas Poirot. In fact, sorry to say he’s the worst screen Poirot I’veseen.

Also, I found the conclusion of the mystery to be quite unrealistic:(WARNING: HUGE SPOILER!) I think that all those civilized people wouldbetter hire a killer that nobody could relate to them, or simply choose ONEof them to commit the murder, instead of all of them catching the same trainin the same day, and stabbing their objective again and again like in aritual, exposing themselves to be easily discovered by any investigator,even if he wasn’t half as smart as Poirot. But then, you need a bit of"suspension of disbelief", and, if you have it, you’ll enjoy the movie (ENDOF SPOILER).

So, this movie is not THAT great ("Death on the Nile" and "Evil Under theSun" are far superior for my taste, and Peter Ustinov is way better in thelead role), but still very entertaining, beautifully photographed andscored, well acted by most of the cast, and among the best work of SidneyLumet (a director I consider to be a big bore most of times). Very worthrenting.

This murder mystery movie based on the Agatha Christie novel is good butnothing more as that.

The movie starts of quite slow and waste too much time on some needlesscharacter introduction. The movie finally starts to flow well after themurder occurred. But after that the movie is almost over again. Poirot doesvery little detective work in this movie and every character is interrogatedonly once.

But credit has to be given to the execution of the movie. The sets andcostumes are great and the all star cast is impressive and of course thestory itself is also interesting to say the least and contains quite somefun moments actually.

Albert Finney was impressive as ‘the little funny man’ Belgian detectiveHercule Poirot. You could hardly recognize him and he played the part verywell with a good accent. Other actors that impressed in this all star moviewere Anthony Perkins and Ingrid Bergman in an award winningperformance.

Good but too flawed to be regarded a classic.

8/10

+++++++ THIS COMMENT CONTAINS SPOILERS +++++++

I have always enjoyed Agatha Christie's "who did it?" mystery novelsand particularly those in which Belgian detective Hercules Poirot isthe one searching for the truth; "Murder in the Orient Express" is afilm version of one of them.

All of Christie's usual ingredients are in this movie: a mysteriousmurder, the scope of suspects, the luxurious atmosphere (in the trainof the title), the misleading clues, the little details to consider,Poirot's interrogations and so on. The cast is excellent with such bignames as Albert Finney (as Poirot), Vanessa Redgrave, Wendy Hiller,Anthony Perkins, Sir John Gielgud, Martin Balsam, Sean Connery, MichelYork, Lauren Bacall, Ingrid Bergman, Richard Widmark and JacquelineBisset. But somehow, in my opinion, "Murder in the Orient Express" isnot among the best film versions on Miss Christie's work perhapsbecause the novel is not one of her best.

The point is that I hadn't read the book when I saw the film and as thefinal disclosure came out -with the usual Poirot "show off"explanation- I was sort of disappointed. I remember that my sensationwas that if everyone did it, then somehow no one did it; I mean, therewas not a murderer among innocent people as usual and either they areall murderers or all innocent people. I don't know; its hard toexplain, but the feeling was there. In fact I enjoyed more "Ten LittleIndians", "Death on the Nile", "Evil Under the Sun" and even theclearly inferiors "The Mirror Crack'd" and "Appointment with Death".

Don't get me wrong; "Murder in the Orient Express" is a very good pieceof cinema no doubt; my complaint goes to the final revealing that-though sort of original- lacks tension and real interest. Its a 6 (outof 10) for me.

They sure don’t make them like this anymore. I remember this movie being abig deal when it was released, because it was the first (and best) of theAgatha Christie mystery novels. The cast is one of the best ever assembled,with Wendy Hiller and Ingrid Bergman standing out. Finney is oustanding aswell.

Murder on the Orient Express feels like a bad sandwich encased in terrificbread. The opening sequences are very well handled (kudos to Jean-PierreCassel for delivering dialogue in at least five languages), but once themurder has been discovered, the middle, when Poirot must interview thepassengers one by one, tends to sag. The pacing just isn’t there. Thefinal sequence, however, is among the best in the film, from Poirot’snarration to the scene revealing the solution to the crime. The blue lightwas an absolute stroke of genius.

Bacall is brilliant. There’s no other way to describe her performance. Shedeserved a Best Supporting Actress Oscar for this film. John Gielgud lookslike he’s having way too much fun in the final flashback, and it shows aside of him I’ve never seen anywhere else.

If you haven’t seen it, it’s a worthwhile view, but sadly, not up to thebook. One word of caution, though: DON’T TELL ANYONE YOU’RE GOING TO WATCHIT. The solution to the mystery is so outrageous and unprecedented thateven non-fans know it, and you mustn’t give anyone the opportunity to tellyou what happens. The final payoff will be much more satisfying.

read comments (0)

Le fantôme de la liberté

I haven’t seen a great many of surrealistic director Luis Bunuel’sfilms, but what I have seen I don’t really like - and I don’t like thisfilm much for the same reason I’m not keen on the others - it lacksbackbone, and while some of the visuals are nice and stick in yourmind; the film feels like it’s been put together by some lunatic whosebeen in a window-less garage full of empty paint cans for too long. Thefilm doesn’t follow a set plot structure, and basically is justcomprised of a number of surreal set pieces, which follow on from oneanother. While some of these set pieces are highly inventive and offerstartling images that you wont forget easily, others are just purelystupid and don’t capture the imagination or the interest and serve onlyin slowing the film down. Sequences which are good include a backwardsdinner party where the guest sit on toilets and occasionally retire toeat food, and a couple that invite a lot of other guests at a hotelback to their room, only for the woman to begin whipping the man. Thesescenes are good because Bunuel startles the viewer, and this ensuresthat the images on screen will stick in your mind long after the filmis over. He’s not able to make this stick all the way through, however,and scenes involving childish policemen and a ‘missing’ girl just don’thave the same verve and vitality as the good scenes, and they bring thefilm down. If Bunuel could have succeeded in making the entire filmmemorable, he would have been onto a winner; but he hasn’t and thisfilm is therefore worth a look; but not a masterpiece.

I suppose there are a number of ways that this film could be defended,and while it's not my place or purpose to anticipate all of them, Iwill guess that the first line of attack is to say "you didn'tunderstand it" or the second if that failed would be "you arepolitically pre-disposed to dislike this film." So I just wanted toestablish right away, not so much that I necessarily "understood" thefilm, but that I consider one of the film's greatest weaknesses to bethe fact that it must be intellectualized in order for value to bederived. There is a constant filter between the audience and the film,caused by the film's all too transparent surrealist technique.

I suppose a good example would be the scene with the people sittingaround a table, each on an individual toilet doing his/her business.One man retires from the table to go to the seclusion of a smallcompartment to eat. The audience is immediately taken out of the filmwhile an intellectual process takes place by which the audience memberwill analyze what he's seen and figure out its "meaning". Which ispretty easy to discern I suppose, as he's basically talking about thearbitrary nature of social convention, which seems to be part of alarger critique of social manners and behavior. The entire movie isfull of "clever" skits like this…. sadly this scene seems to actuallybe considered a highlight of the film. It's not unintelligentnecessarily, and I can see that Bunuel has a "point" — but the filmhas very little or no actual cinematic value. The film's humor is notvery appealing to me, there are no sustained characters, and thecinematography is reminiscent of a Jess Franco movie.

Bunuel apparently thinks that his social satire — such as it is –will sustain the entire film despite the lack of story and logic. Buteven satire has its own internal logic, whereas this film does nothingbut debunk and present evidence for various ideas that should alreadyby painfully obvious to most thinking people while providing nothing inthe way of an alternative value structure. It's thoroughlydeconstructionist and I just do not believe that process has muchintrinsic value. I found myself sitting through so much garbage — forexample sustained shots of a bird's head looking at the camera — thatwould need to be deciphered or translated through a mental processbefore they would have any value at all, that's what I'm trying to say.

There's a whole section of the film where there is a search for a"missing" girl — even though the girl is right there in front of theparents and police. Yes, the scenes made me think about the fact thatsome people out there somewhere — presumably aristocratic folks whothe director and writer dislike — probably don't pay much attention totheir children even though they would probably throw a fit if the childwas gone. But what a painfully drawn-out and pretentious way to makesuch a statement!

I feel the same way about ‘The Phantom Of Liberty’ as I do about Bunuel’sprevious movie ‘The Discreet Charm Of The Bourgeoisie’. I think they are twoof his most accessible movies, and while I certainly enjoy watching them, Ithink they are a little bit shallow and lack the impact of his "real" workslike ‘Viridiana’, ‘Diary Of A Chambermaid’ and especially my favourite,’Belle De Jour’. ‘Phantom’ is even more episodic than ‘Bourgeoisie’.Comparing it to Monty Python isn’t that far-fetched in my opinion. It’s afreewheeling movie, full of invention and sly humour. The actors are allvery good, and include Bunuel semi-regular Michel Piccoli (’Belle De Jour’),Monica Vitti (’L'Avventura’), Adolfo Celi (’Diabolik’) and Michael Lonsdale(’The Name Of The Rose’). There are a few very inspired and memorablesequences in the movie, especially the dinner party scene which has enteredinto legend, but overall I think it’s a little bit contrived, and just hastoo many "bits" that don’t add up to a particularly satisfying whole. Ithink that ‘The Phantom Of Liberty’ might be the easiest way for a noviceto get into Bunuel, but it’s not his best movie by a long shot. Try insteadthe three I mentioned earlier and ‘The Exterminating Angel’. Still evenaverage Bunuel is better than 99% of the mediocre crud around these days, sodespite some reservations it comes with my recommendation.

Depending on what kind of film I’m watching, it doesn’t always have tomake a point, but one wonders if there was supposed to be a messagehere or if this is just a free-form flow of strangeness. A little girlis slipped postcards by some "nice man in the park" and her parents areincensed when they see them, and it leaves the viewer wondering howobscene they are until they see they’re merely postcards of touristattractions. The little girl’s father is having trouble sleeping andthere’s an endless parade of things through the bedroom: A chicken, apostman, a woman, an…emu? A woman goes to see her dying father in thecountry and is stranded at an inn with 4 monks who perform a prayerceremony for her father after which they all end up drinking andplaying poker. In perhaps the best segment, a young girl disappearsfrom school and even though she is right there the whole time herparents and the police can’t seem to realize it. And so on….This isvery interesting to watch but I’m not much for reading things into whatI’m watching that may or may not be there. This is certainly well madeand fascinating but it actually could be lacking a real point, and noteverything must have a point. Seems pretty satirical to me. Apart fromUn Chien Andalou, this is really my first Bunuel film, and I’d have tosay it was impressive, and I want to see more. 8 of 10.

Maybe Bunuel’s best film. In this one, he’s completely off the leash, hesays exactly what he wants to say and shows what he wants to show. Frompeople defecating in a dining room to man showing police a little girl andasking to find her, this is one of Bunuel’s funniest, most original andexhilarating pieces.****

Deadpan craziness seen through the wicked mind of Bunuel as only hecould bring it to the masses who in 1975 went to the theatres to seehis loosely connected set of stories that laughed in the face of logic.The story of LE FANTOME DE LA LIBERTE employs yet another version ofBunuel's sinful attack on social custo
ms as when people gather around adinner table that has toilets for seats and instead of eating dinnercourses they defecate while talking about how 12 billion tons of humanwaste is being produced on a daily basis as every so often, someonesteals away with a poker face to a booth resembling a time capsuleself-serving a ready-to-eat dinner course.

It can't get better than this, but Bunuel is symbolic with pureoutrageous imagery that manages to tell little stories about how wehave become victims of our social customs and how meaningless the wholecharade is. When a little girl named Aliette is declared lost, herparents go to the school to ask questions, but when the teacher callsout the names of each student, there she is, with a bright little faceeager to learn and obedient as always. Of course, the parents are underthe understanding that Aliette is lost, and off to the police they go(with Aliette in arms) and with the help of Aliette they make theirconcise report.

Does this mean anything? Not really, but it's just the sheer absurdityof it all. That the story continues its tale about how little Alietteremained lost as a killer went on a killing spree only to emerge lateras a heartthrob (of course) and a prefect gets caught in a case ofmistaken identity in the oddest of vignettes: he steps into a bar wherehe will play a game of dominoes with friends. Into the bar walks abeautiful young woman with whom he strikes some conversation. In theirconversation, he reveals to her that she resembles his dead sister, andthat he had an extreme fondness for her, to the point that he had herplay the piano for him in the nude. The story gets interrupted (again,the Bunuelian act of "interrupting") by a phone call. It's his sister.Of course, it can't be; she's dead. Not content to leave matters alone,he goes to the cemetery where her body lies. Entering the mausoleum, wesee a mane of red hair identical to the lady he met at the bar spillingout in a cascade… just as he gets caught by the police, incarcerated,and in walks Michel Piccoli as the real prefect who instead ofarresting the fake one, decides to have him go into a shooting spree ata zoo. The last shot, a freeze-frame of an ostrich, is classic,outlandish, and rip-roaring funny.

But not as near as funny as the lengthy, subversive, morphingintroduction that starts out as the 1808 Toledo revolution where peoplewho refuse to be liberated are executed and cries of "Long livechains!" are overheard. A soldier makes an attempt to kiss thebeautiful dead body of a lady only to be whacked in the head by thelady's dead husband's statue. Here the story spins out of its ownconfines and we hear the voice of a nanny reading what we've seen asthe little girl whom she's taking care of gets some pictures from asinister looking man who tells her not to show it to her. When herparents get hold of the pictures, they are shocked at the content, firethe nanny, and then get aroused. It's then when I thought they must beseeing filthy pictures, but once I was allowed access to them myself, Iscreamed in laughter — they were typical postcards! And then they handone of them to the little girl, go to bed, and in a deadpan sequence,the father wakes up to see a rooster, an ostrich, and mailman come in,one by one, into his room. This leads him to seek therapy, and fromthere on, it becomes the story of a nurse who goes into the countrysideand lands in a bizarre bed and breakfast where Franciscan monks getvery attached to her and invite her to a game of cards (a throwback tothe implied sex as card game in VIRIDIANA) as an SM scene is about totake place between a man and a woman and a young man seduces his olderaunt.

Bunuel's implication that mankind and society is unable and evenunwilling to accept its own sense of freedom makes up for the odd titlehe chose for his film. Reportedly met with a mixed reaction due to thefact audiences were waiting to see something in the vein of LE CHARMDISCRET DE LA BOURGEOISIE, however slight LE FANTOME DE LA LIBERTE maylook, it is truthful to Bunuel's previous classic. Bunuel had aremarkable way of telling the same story while never repeating himselftoo overtly. If you look closely all the elements of his style arethere. Man's foibles are the well from where the best tales come fromand he throws the ones he's most familiar with into the mix, comingwith a deconstructed anti-story where wrong is right and nothing is asit seems.

Oddly enough, I've seen more of what could be considered Luis Bunuel's"lesser" work than I have of his most cherished classics. Mexicanmelodramas? Caring dramas about American racism? It's movies like "ThePhantom of Liberty" that makes it seem impossible that he could havecreated something like that.

Existing somewhere between surrealist whimsy and sober picaresque isthis classic about a roving world of people who each represent somepersonal fascination's of Bunuel, from arbitrary social conventions tocriticisms of religion to just pure, flighty sex (and no, I'm notreferring to the incest). Instead of crafting the movie around anyspecific set of characters or even bothering to return to them (exceptprecisely once), he let's the camera grab onto a passing characterafter he's done with a previous one and the movie goes in a whole newdirection. It's for that reason that Phantom of Liberty can either beconsidered a single movie or many, depending on your concerns. The flowand tone of it is such that it definitely exists in its own world, withits own perspective, but on the other hand it's perfectly possible tojust not enjoy one part of it while loving another.

I think the most brilliant scene, synecdoche for the entire movie, iseverything that happens in the hotel. Doors open and close and peoplecome and go, strange things happen and either people react to theirstrangeness or they don't, and it's all coincidence on all levels–fromthe mere fact of their being there at that moment to what build up ofsocial conventions lead them to act the way they do. Plus, well, from astrictly structural standpoint–if you are a film student, watch thisscene and take notes on camera placement, editing, and movement. It'sgenius.

–PolarisDiB

Luis Bunuel has been creating films since the silents of the 1920's. In1974 he was in the twilight of his career.

This film is far from his best work BUT it still is far superior tomany other film writer-directors.

Besides directing he co-wrote this with Jean-Claude Carriere.

Near insanity reigns in the masters movies. This film is 104 fastminutes long & is comprised of many non-related scenes telling aboutthe human condition,including bizarre fantasies the various charactershave. Some are hard to accept & some are not as funny as we would likethem to be,.

Life is the same way, we see & yet do not see, we hear & yet do nothear.

Do not take this movie literally, also do not try to examine it veryclosely.

Just accept this wild mans feelings. As I said,it is not the bestBunuel BUT its still a good enjoyable film.

Ratings: *** (out of 4) 86 points (out of 100) IMDb 8 (out of 10)

Bunuel’s most strict surrealist film since L’age Dor is an amalgamation ofstrange backwards ideas flowing into one another. The little girl sequenceis brilliant, as is the ‘pervert’ in the park how shows little kids’obscene’ pictures of…..famous national landmarks. "Just disgusting", achild’s parent comments. This is the kind of film where a group of celebutmonks join a card game, only to find themselves in the midst of kinkycouple’s bondage fetish. A man who’s just been diagnosed with inoperablelung cancer is offered a cigarette by his doctor! And the piece de laresistance, families and friends defacating in public, only to leave thetable to secretly cower in little private rooms where they can guiltily eatwith no one watching.Inspiri
ng to no end! This film made me go out and make my own surrealistvideo, even going to the trouble of shooting in the freezing cold andgetting a severed pig’s head for one scene. It’s all for the sake ofsurrealist art!

This film is a couple of episode´s and the most of them are great.Myfavorite one are when the people are sitting on toilets around a table.Andthe missing girl,and the ending is superb.I can´t wait to see more ofBunuel´s films.Some of the episode´s are pretty weird but most of them arehilarious.

A funny satire.4,5/5

read comments (0)

Lenny

… That is, after all, what the subject in question was all about;candidly highlighting the REAL ‘evils’ of the world and arguing veryconvincingly that there wasn’t much wrong with discussing commontruths, even if they DID happen to be ‘unpleasant’. If ‘words’ areindeed ‘power’, then here in this film for all to see was a MAGNET of aman, a beacon. Sure, it’s ‘dark’, but then, so too is life, so honestycomes forth once again. Hoffman brilliantly shows us a guy unafraid tobare his soul on stage night after night, and when the authorities tookthat away from him, there was basically nothing worthwhile left. Wemust remember though, that he was a pioneer, so his ‘trailblazing’ gavea path for others to follow. Who knows how many lives were saved bypeople finally being permitted to say what was on their mind?

It’s an altogether different proposition than Fosse’s other’lighthearted’ fare, and it suits me as a viewer a whole lot better.Who goes through life singing? Well, ‘Lenny’ certainly didn’t, but thisgreat piece of cinema shows that he WAS a totally committed ‘humanist’,of a sort.

Life may not always be ‘tra-la-la’, but even the darkest passages canprovide plenty of ‘ha-ha’… ! 9/10.

Director Bob Fosse does it again with Lenny, a fine movie of the life oflegendary 60’s comedian Lenny Bruce. Using the same trademark style he usedin Cabaret, Fosse creates a wonderful black and white visual collage. Themood and world of 60’s nightclubs is wonderfully recreated. Both DustinHoffman and Valerie Perrine are superb.

This one has to be Fosse’s best ever. Even better than All That Jazz. Thisis an incredible, riveting drama, with Dustin Hoffman’s performance amongthe best I’ve ever seen by actors in film. See this movie–it’ll be wellworth your time.

Lenny is a powerful movie about the life of tortured comic Lenny Bruce andhis wife Honey. The surprise of the film is it focuses a great deal oftimeon Honey, which is fine because I am all ready very familiar with theentirestory of Lenny Bruce. His wife is usually not talked about as much andthismovie does a good job dealing with her. The acting is excellent, Hoffmanisdead on as Lenny Bruce, he looks and acts a lot like him. Perrine is justas good as Honey. The movies only flaw is that I know so much about LennyBruce, a lot of this felt like old material. But the acting andatmospheremore than makes up for the fact I all ready knew most of what would happenin the movie.

Watching this film, I kept on feeling guilty that I was laughing so hard. Alot of Lenny Bruce’s material in this film is vulgar and rude, but it’s sobrilliant. He makes Andy Kaufman’s alter ego, Tony Clifton, look like Mr.Rogers.

And it’s not just that his jokes are dirty, it’s that they’re dirty andpoingnant. His comments about racial injustice, sex, (our preoccupationwithsex), drugs, and marriage are all right on the mark.

The film is brilliantly directed by Bob Fosse. Fosse has a way of makingyoufeel as if your in the film. (similar to Run, Lola, Run). You feelHoffman’spain in this film. You think Lenny Bruce is the greatest.

And look at that: He is.

First of all, I am a sucker for post-1960 black and white. Thisphotography does not disappoint. It is all to easy to look back on thingsnow and start naming heroes. Lenny Bruce was no such thing. He had seriousproblems, not the least of which being substance abuse. So, this is notsomeone whose word is law. However, the man had something to say, and triedto say it at all costs. Dustin Hoffman nails his role. (Mr. Carney bettergive a mind-bending performance in "Harry and Tonto" to beat Pacino andHoffman in some two of the best performances American cinema has seen.) Thedocumentary approach was very effective and poignant. One of my favoritethings about the film was the editing between the narrative and theperformances(s?) toward the end of his career. Not only did it workaesthetically, but it was subtly brilliant to intertwine Lenny’sobservations with his real experiences. This shows that, right or wrong, hewas coming from the heart. He did not claim to be a saint, but he sawproblems in his life and America at large, and he didn’t hesitate to sharethose thoughts. This is a stirring film with importance. Forget that youdo not agree with him, at least hear him out.

Lenny is the best picture of 1974 by far. Overshadowed by masterpieceslikethe Godfather Part 2 and Chinatown, Lenny is equal to the two if notbetter.It sad to say this but Lenny is the most underrated film in movie history.Everything about it is top notch. Fosse is great behind the camera andPerrine acts great as Bruce’s wife. But the whole greatness to the film,thewhole masterpiece of it, lies in the performance given by Dustin Hoffman.Hekeeps you glued to the screen. The way he says his lines, his facialexpressions, his gestures. He should have won every acting award therewas.Excuse me, I’m wrong. Awards don’t mean anything, especially the Oscars,which are nothing but a popularity contest. The oscars are obscene, dirty,and no better than a beauty contest. All in all the best pic of 1974 andofall time for that matter. Hoffman’s best ever, or that could be MidnightCowboy. Hoffman, the greatest actor who ever lived.

I thoroughly enjoyed this film. Dustin gives a wonderful performance asdoall of the supporting cast. Valerie Perrine has the ability to draw yourattention in all respects and is a wonderful actress. The dialogue issmartand smacking and LB’s words will be having you squirming in your seat innotime at all. If you wanted to know about Lenny Bruce, his thoughts, hisloves, his fears and passions, Dustin delivers for you. He makes you feelas if you’d known Lenny yourself. See this movie. Why? Because _you_needto think about the nature of things, too. - 8 of 10

in my opinion d.hoffman was perfect i’ve seen a lot of his movies but i’mhit by his performance(as well as v. perrine)also the directing and the cinematography were amazing…what a wonderfulway of story telling..i’d recommend it to the ones who are reallyinterestedin cinema..

Dustin Hoffman’s performance as comic Lenny Bruce is brilliant and I agreewith those who say he is one of the greatest actors in cinema history. Indeed the production of the whole film - scripting, acting, directing,editing - is superb. It was obviously shot in black and white to convey aperiod (early 1950s to early 1960s) documentary feel and it works. There isprobably more comedy in some of the off-stage scenes, particularly thecourtroom repartee, than the stage performances which seem designed todemonstrate why he irritated a lot of people at the time. By today’sstandards the "obscenity" all seems quite tame, and comedians such as BillyConnelly and Rowan Atkinson are just as crude and manage to have theirperformances shown on TV without a whisper of complaint (at least not inthis part of the world). The difference is that Lenny Bruce had a lot tosay about social and political issues of the day, some of which getpresented in this film. It won’t be everyone’s cup of tea, but highlyrecommended as an example of excellent movie making.

read comments (0)

Emmanuelle

I didn’t have to watch very much of this film to see that 70’s erotica isjust as bad as modern erotica. In fact, this is probably a little worse.Quite simply, this is a dull movie, and no matter how many sex scenes tookplace, I remained terribly bored throughout. But as dull as the sex was,the dialogue was even worse. I had low expectations for this film, andyet,it was somehow worse than I had expected.

Well let me start off by saying they should have called this movie"Blue Balls". I found this tape while cleaning out my garage(must havebeen my dad's or something, I respect him much less now knowing hewould watch some weak garbage like this). The summary on the backsounded hilarious, so I decided to give it a go. The tape was in prettypoor shape and it took over an hour just to get it to work. Boy was Iin for a big letdown. I have seen some bad soft-core in my time, butthis is the most god-forsaken bunch of crap I've ever seen. I feltcorrupted by the soul-crushing message behind the movie, yet I wasn'teven able to get my rocks off. It would take a remarkable imaginationto be able to shoot one out to this movie. Time after time, the clothescome off, the girls are making out, you see a little fur-burger here, alittle whisker-biscuit there(just frontal, no open clam), and just whenit looks like the chicks are going to get down to some seriousmunching, it just cuts to some worthless clip of them cuddling afterthey had "made love", whatever the hell that is. Funny the chicks nameis Alaine Cunny and yet there really isn't any of that. I just wantedto see some good ol' chowing of the muff, but this movie providesnothing, but some blue balls. Even a convict wouldn't enjoy this. Thisis more like torture. We should just play this movie over and overagain for the prisoners at Gitmo if we want to torture them. SO if youwant to see some chicks chompin' down on the neden, this ain't themovie. Even if your back is against the wall, don't waste your load onthis one, just wait for a wet dream.

This film used to be a classic adult piece and is based on the book,which in itself was judged scandalous when published in 1970 something.Now, thirty years later, it is a fairly stylish soft blue film, whichis served beautifully by its soundtrack and somehow by photography,which remains charming and announces the David Hamilton style ofBilitis.

As for the rest - and let's not talk about the supposedly adultcharacter of the film, if anything it spread the word about "French"films in the English speaking world, but has the flavour of a 1970sfilm, which basically means handlebar moustache and burners, funkyshirts and picturesque house furniture (especially in the opening scenein Paris).

Some aspects of the script, such as a rape scene, young Marie-Anne areshocking today - apparently they were not so much back then.

It ranks more as a drama with sex today and should be considered likeBasic Instinct or The Lover or even Last Tango, rather than like softporn. This style has very few exceptions that survive the years, oh!life is difficult for erotic romance.

Still the supposedly intellectual approach to sexuality is fairlyboring today, and rather pedantic. 5/10 for a nice soundtrack andphotography and a script which does tell a story albeit a dull one.

Emmanuelle could have been a really great erotic film. But it didn'thappened. The whole idea was great and the actress was amazing, she hasthis looks of innocence and sensuality that not many can show.

The whole idea of it is good, but it seems like It was written by abrain damaged idiot. It is universally well known that any good eroticmovie has to have great set design and relaxed atmosphere, as sexitself is something that has to do with the good mood and pleasure.

What they did with this movie is unforgivable, they put some scenesthat have nothing to do with the film itself and are disgusting. Theother actresses were not good looking and exiting enough for a film ofthis genre, one of these actresses (the scene at the locker)especiallywas ugly like hell.

Then there were scenes when the main character even had sex withdisgusting characters as the Asian kick boxers, which was reallydisgusting for everyone not sick in mind.

And another sick thing, is that the person who was training her to getpleasure from sex was an ugly, sick, old pervert who was hooked on rapeand peeping.

He brought her in the worst possible places and invented sickdisgusting things that have nothing to do with sexuality or pleasure.

All I have to say, is that I got so disgusted when I saw this film,because I saw a perfect actress for this role in a movie that nobodynormal would have never produced.

My rhetoric question is why such idiots have these money and are ableto produce garbage like this with such beautiful actresses like SylviaChristel.

The subject line I gave basically sums this flick up. There’s this girlnamed Emmanuelle who lives with this older guy and he allows her to do thefreaky with other people. She falls in love with another woman andeventually share a passionate night together. Make sure to watch for otherwholesome lil’ tidbits in between such as, naked women swimming together, aseventh grader who loves to masterbate and horny guys in a jungle.

Emanuelle is a 70s porn with an interesting theme song, bad acting, anda strange plot. The story focuses on the married title character.Emanuelle’s husband is very bohemian and allows her to explore hersexuality in all manifestations, whether it involves watching pre-teensmasturbating, having a one night stand with another woman, or gettingit on tribal style with some tiny guy that reminds me a little ofTattoo from Fantasy Island. I believe there are two English versions ofEmanuelle floating around out there - the subtitled and the dubbed. Thesubtitled version is more authentic and less corny. On the other hand,I suppose you could view the dubbed version just for the sake of havinga good laugh.

Ouch! I went to see this one at an independent movie house, 15 yearsmaybe after viewing it on late-night TV. What compelled me to go see itagain? Answer: 15 years ago, this one was pretty exciting for a kidlike me!

But 15 years later: it’s bad, it’s bad, and it’s bad! Not to mentionthat the script is terrible. The film puts forward questionable notionsof erotism. We’re invited to take a look at the depravation ofEmmanuelle. Everything goes.

I must admit though, that this movie must have cause a commotion whenit came out in 1974.

Out of 100, I gave it 57. That’s good for only * out of ****.

Seen in Toronto, at the Paradise Cinema, on June 11th, 2002.

I remember watching Emmanuelle with all my friends when I was 13 yearsold and at the time it was so hot. Now years on and I still love it.Basically, it’s definitely not for teenagers. (I know I was under agedwhen I watched it, so there’s no point in pointing that out) But foranyone who’s into older movies, Sylvia Kristel or sex, I so suggest youwatch Emmanuelle. Granted the story hardly makes any sense and thepicture looks a little pale, but my friends and I enjoy an eveningwatching it. The story is pretty much about an attractive young womanwho seeks comfort in the arms of men she hardly knows. That’s reallythe whole story, but my point in watching it is because the sex scenesare not bad at all. It’ll give you ideas on what to do next to spark upyour relationship.

It is not a porno and nothing was explicit, I am surprised that it is notrated R. However the actresses are all very beautiful and just enough isseen to make the movie erotic. The lesbian scenes really make themovie.

The movie in general is entertaining. It kept my attention even when theyhad clothes on. The scenes of Bankok were great and very interes
ting. Iamgoing to keep this movie, and oh yea the soundtrack really is prettygood!

Although visually appealing, Emmanuel falls short in the acting department.Shallow characters are pre-occupied with sex which is basically what thefilm’s advertising promised. Today it would probably be rated NC17 or evenR.

read comments (0)

Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia

Bring Me The Head of Alfredo Garcia (1974) has to be Sam Peckinpah'smost realized project. Not only is it his opus but it's the only one ofhis films not to have been tampered or tinkered with duringpost-production. Peckinpah follows the exploits of a loser name Bennywho works in a sleazy Mexican dive bar catering foreign visitors fortips whilst working at a piano. He seems content with his meagerexistence until one day when two hit men give him a job that seems toogood to pass up. Benny figures out it'll take a few days to get the jobdone and pick up some quick cash. He brings along his girlfriend andthey tool around the Mexican countryside in an old convertible lookingfor the near mythical Alfredo Garcia with some simple instructions.They need proof that he's dead (i.e. his head ). So begins one of themost bizarre and uncanny road trips ever captured on celluloid.

The great Warren Oates stars as Benny. He's perfectly cast and I can'timagine anyone else int he role. Along for the ride is his "girlfriend"Isela Vega, Gig Young as "Fred C. Dobbs" and Mexican legend EmilioFernandez as "El Jefe". Kris Kristofferson has a cameo role as a sleazybut sensitive biker. An essential film for Sam Peckinpah fans.

Highly recommended.

Factoid: English pop band Big Audio Dynamite used sound bites and audioclips from this movie on their 1986 album No. 10 Upping Street

This film meanders through several atmospheric landscapes, and sultryscenes, punctuated by moments of intense action and violence. Not oneto watch with your granny. The characters are all highly believable,sweaty unshaven drifters, and sexy senoritas. You get a real feeling ofthe heat and dust of the landscape, and the violent nature of thevarious participants is very realistically illustrated.

They are all desperate and all trying to make something of their lives.There are some genuine surprises, and a few moments that will make youjump. Watch this film with the curtains drawn, the lights low, and makesure there are no interruptions. That way you can feel the atmospheregrowing and get to know the characters, and their place in the film.Can sometimes seem to be dragging a bit, but stick with it: a filmdefinitely worth setting the video for.

I saw this because Roger Ebert suggested it when he reviewed the ThreeBurials of Estrada. Yes, this was a great 1974 Sam Peckinpah (who isnothing short of a genius) movie. In this movie, a scuzzy bartender isdetermined to get the head of this Mexican who got a girl pregnant. Thepregnant girl's grandfather is like the GODFATHER of Mexico and offersa million to whoever can bring him the head. One thing leads to anotherand the bartender gets mugged by Kris Kristoferson in the middle of thedesert. Yes, you read that right. The bartender is named BENNY. I amnot sure how Benny became such a good shot and has good luck with thatgun because he shoots his way out of impossible situations. I lovedthis flick and the dirty feel that it had much like The Wild Bunch.There is a new hero in town, his name is SAM Peckinpah!!!

After seeing Sam Peckinpah's definitive western The Wild Bunch and hisunder-rated anti-war film Cross of Iron, I was looking decidedlyforward to viewing more of his films. Next came The Osternam Weekend, aterribly uneven film which made Peckinpah's trademark slow motionfilming technique look like budget, overused television replays. Afterthat disastrous engagement, Peckinpah's reputation as a great filmmakerwas dropping. Hearing that film critic Roger Ebert gave Peckinpah'sBring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia four stars and that he called it amasterpiece, I was re-enthusied to see more Peckinpah! However, thefilm was poor in pretty much all departments. The films only redeemingquality was the presence of Warren Oates, the great character actor.Finally in a starring role, the film showcases his great talent as aleading dramatic actor. If you are a fan of the late Warren Oates, as Iam, then this film is for you. But beware, this film is slow, boringand at times just plain stupid. I'm surprised that there are so manyscholars and authors out there who examine each Peckinpah film in suchin-depth detail when the film is just plain bad and has no cinematicquality to it whatsoever.

I'd like to think there's a lot to this movie that I'm missing, but Isuspect this is not the case. I certainly do understand the relevanceof this film. It clearly was a major inspiration for Scorcese andTarantino, with its portrayal of a tragic, but seedy, protagonisttrying to deal with his waning goodness in a disgusting world.

It is interesting that the locale only portrays the seedy underbelly ofMexican culture: poor farms, crappy hotels, mafioso ranches, shadybars, etc. The story takes place almost exclusively against thesedangerous, sometimes violent, backdrops. The action in this movie isquite harrowing. Peckinpah was well known for his ability to directaction films with pizzaz, and the action is where the film reallyshines. The last third of the film is quite gripping.

The title refers to a million-dollar death note put on the head of aman named Alfredo Garcia for impregnating the daughter of a Mexican mobboss. The main character, Bennie, gets caught in the middle of thesearch for Garcia, being acquainted with him indirectly through aromantic interest. His goal is to make money for himself and hissweetheart by bringing Garcia's head to American hit men out on thejob. But Bennie's romance is complicated and so his is mental state.Things end up kinda crazy.

The American hit men are pretty interesting characters. The sinisterintegrity of their organization was pretty interesting but notdeveloped particularly deeply. That was a bit disappointing but maybeadds to their mystique…? I must say I was not too impressed orinterested with Kris Kristofferson's (relatively minor) role,especially considering he's tagged as a notable appearance in the film.

My main problem here was the drawn-out pacing of the first half of thefilm. It is so freakin' slow, and the characters so… pathetic, itstarts to make you pretty depressed. Make no mistake — this is adepressing movie. What must have influenced the aforementioneddirectors so much is the fact that it is not really an action film or awestern (despite how it may appear on the surface), but a characterstudy about a really damaged loser who loses/sacrifices whatevergoodness or hope he was holding out.

I found it to be on par with Taxi Driver, a flick clearly modeled afterthis. The acting is good, the characters pathetically disgusting, andthe story is tragic in a way that is pitiful and gross. Its influenceon modern crime cinema is unmistakable and if you're a Tarantino orScorcese buff you should definitely see this. But be forewarned — itis not heroic, glorious, consistently action-packed or lucid. It isabout anti-heroes and being broken. It is like "Fear and Loathing", butfor real.

Mapache from "The Wild Bunch" makes the title pronouncement and Lylefrom that film goes on a mission to retrieve the said head. Oates, afine character actor that Peckinpah used in a number of films, does nothave the star power to carry the film. It doesn't help that hischaracter, a shady piano player, is sketchily developed and notparticularly likable. The script, co-written by Peckinpah, ismeandering, amateurish, and full of holes. The romantic subplot betweenOates and Vega does not work because the two actors have no chemistry.This is one of a series of bad films Peckinpah made after the terrific"The Getaway."

This movie is low budget and highly recommended for those who like roadmovies, outlaw flicks and Mexico. There is a lot of violence in there,but in portions that don’t seem to be awfully overdone. The violencefits to the story, and it won’t
work with less. The scenery is dirtyand shabby, the perfect stage for such a script. It is about a man whohunts his dream and loses much - and the audience wonders how deep thattrip will go… If a movie stuck in dirt can be stylish this one is aperfect sample. The director and the actors take care of thecharacters, one a few side characters are clichées. I watched thekorean DVD - some Spanish dialogue isn’t undertitled, the English onesare. It is a o.K. one.

I recently saw this movie for about the fourth time, and it finally dawnedon me that there were two gay characters in it. The movie is essentially alove story, and then the story of what happens to a man when he loses it. InPekinpahs heterosexual take on love, the gay presence is in the form of acouple of hired killers. I can’t fathom what it is supposed to mean or whatwas going on in Pekinpahs head. He hired a gay actor, Gig Young, to play oneof the killers and to my nieve eyes the charterizations aren’t reallyprejudiced in the context of the movie. Pekinpah even allows a moment ofemotion when the Gig Young character dies and his boy friend (that’s theimpression the film gives anyway) reacts to his death in exactly the sameway as the Warren Oates character reacts to the murder of his girl friend :with a gun. In a perfect world i don’t think the film can be seen ashomophobic, everyone is equal in this movie, and equally violent, but in theeyes of a male heterosexual audience ? So, what do the straights think?

SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS

And so it begins with the question, "Who did this to you?", and the reply is"Alfredo Garcia", "Bring Me The Head Of Alfredo Garcia", sais thegangleader, and so an incredible cinema legend is born. Car battles, headsin sacks, and gunfights at wedding ceremonies begin, and it is over, it isthe kind of movie, like "La Femme Nikita", where you know the gunman isn’tafraid and unlike the Bondesque "Nah, you can live", he blows the brains outof the other guy, also there is a woman in this film who for some reasonwanders around, completely nude, which is good for some, but I thought waspointless, and her character gets angry at a guy and then starts rollingaround with him, which is fine for him, but leaves the viewer scratchingtheir head. Thanks, Sam!

If there’s a film that could be called very interesting but flawed thanlook no further because this overly long effort is both fascinating andponderous. After 30 years viewers are still not sure what to make ofthis but it’s one of those films that definitely stays with you. Storyis about a wealthy and powerful Mexican Don who after torturing hisdaughter finds out the name of the man who got her pregnant. Two bountyhunters (Robert Webber & Gig Young) assigned to find Alfredo Garcialook up Bennie (Warren Oates) a drunken Vietnam vet who plays the pianoin a seedy bar in Mexico and they ask him to find Garcia for $10,000.Bennie gets in contact with his prostitute girlfriend Elita (IselaVega) who informs him that he’s dead and buried in a small town butthis doesn’t dissuade Bennie who only needs the head to collect hismoney.

*****SPOILER ALERT*****

Bennie and Elita drive their broken down car through Mexico and havesome trouble with two bikers where Bennie has to kill them but afterall that their love for each other starts to escalate and they talk ofmarriage although Elita is finding it very difficult to forgive Benniefor chopping off the head of a body for money. They find AlfredoGarcia’s grave and dig up the casket but Bennie is knocked unconsciousand when he awakens the head is gone and Elita is dead! Bennie tracksdown the scoundrels who did this and kills them and now starts to driveback with the rotting head in his front seat. In his deep anger andwith all the booze he’s drank Bennie starts to talk to the head andcalls it "Al" but he now must think about collecting his money anddealing with the people that have hired him and sent him on this insanetrip.

This film marks the first and only time Sam Peckinpah had total controlover the final cut and this is ultimately why viewers and criticseither admired or trashed this effort. I do believe that this is a filmthat should be viewed because even flawed films can be fascinating towatch and talk about. The pace is at times very slow and there werescenes that clearly could have been shaved and the length of the filmseems much longer than expected. One of the biggest problems for me isthe lack of background information on Bennie because at first he seemsto be someone who looks to avoid trouble but once the bikers show up hehas no trouble shooting anyone that crosses him. The characterizationsare vaguely drawn out in the script and many times I just couldn’tfigure out the reasons for his actions but once Elita is killed we dounderstand him better. Even through the ponderous pacing and thescripts meandering the performances shine through loud and clear. I’mnot sure if I’ve ever seen Vega before but she’s very good here and therelationship between she and Oates is arguably the driving force forthe film. Oates has always been a terrific character actor but whenhe’s been given a rare opportunity to star in something ("Dillinger" isanother example) he has always been exceptional. Even though hischaracter isn’t really well written Oates shows a combination oftoughness and morality that somehow gets tangled together by Tequilaand guilt. Oates is nothing short of riveting and it’s the bestperformance he had ever given. The film also has some quirks andoddities that have helped give this some cult status like theunderstated homosexual relationship between Webber and Young. KrisKristofferson has a small role as a biker who wants to rape Vega but heinexplicably becomes sensitive which seems to turn Vega on! This may bepure Peckinpah but it’s still far from his best film but if your a fanof the director than you know this is one of his most interestingefforts although others may be put off by the laborious storytellingand sordid subject matter.

read comments (0)

Airport 1975

This is an incredibly mediocre disaster movie . So mediocre and illthought out that you can be forgiven to thinking it’s a spoof if itwasn’t for the fact that AIRPORT 75 isn’t even bad enough to be good .Say what you like about AIRPORT 77 and AIRPORT 80:THE CONCORDE at leastthose flying accidents were entertaining

A light plane crashes into the cockpit of a jumbo jet killing ormaiming the flight crew so it’s left to stewardess Nancy Pryor to tryand fly the plane to safety and right away you can see a little flaw tothis plot - What is it stewardesses do ? That’s right they walk up anddown aircraft serving food and drink to passengers so gawd knows whythe producers thought because someone works on a plane they have anextensive knowledge of flying one . There must be amongst thepassengers better qualified would be pilots , though perhaps a bimbostewardess publicly announcing that the flight crew are either dead orincapacitated would anyone with a pilot’s licence please go to theflight deck might cause a panic

To be honest causing a panic amongst the passengers brings me toanother major flaw with the film . look at the scenes of the passengersin the background . When the scene is supposed to be dramatic we canclearly see extras with totally bored faces and when there’s a slowerscene where nothing happens extras in the background look like they’rehaving a heart attack through fear . It’s difficult to know who toblame , the director or the actors but it’s oh so very noticeable

Despite the relatively big names the production values are very cheaplooking leading me to believe that most of the budget was squandered onHeston’s fee . The cockpit looks exactly what it is - a studio propwith back projection in front of it and the whole feel of the filmscreams that it’s a made for television movie . There’s no doubt thatthis is the weakest in the AIRPORT franchise

Watching the 1980 disaster spoof Airplane! without having seen thismovie is funny enough. But boy, does the sheer cheesiness of the genreget thrown into sharp relief when you see Airport 1975. (We’ve got toget these people to a hospital…A hospital! what is it?! It’s bigbuilding with patients, but that’s not important now)Even the titlesuggests the makers actually wanted the picture to live forever as amonument to the kitsch that shared the movie billboards with classicslike Taxi Driver and The Godfather. OK,so we want a catchy title forour movie? I know…let’s pick one that becomes dated on January 1st,1976. Let us also imagine what might happen if The Loveboat were tosprout wings and take off for the city of The Mormons but in midair, asmaller aircraft causes an accident of such such infiniteimprobability, only Brian of Nazareth falling from a tower and beingrescued by a passing spaceship comes close. And when the collisionoccurs, a blow-up dummy of the co-pilot gets sucked out of the hole inthe flight cabin (are we seeing the Airplane! parrallels now?) Theimpact also leaves one of his colleagues (Eric Estrada, pre CHiPs) deadand the other (Efrem Zimablist) drenched in tomato sauce. Luckily, adescendant of Ben Hur, Captain Murdoch (Charlton Heston) is on theground to help guide the stewardess (note the pre-PC terminology of thetime…roar a bit louder Helen) played by Karen Black into piloting the747 to safety. Now, we sadly don’t get any flashbacks to Vietnam andHeston wooing Black in the Negombo Bar, as with Airplane’s Ted Stryker,but the two are lovers. Back in 1975, Heston could still carry a maleromantic lead. It is the assembly of passengers that make this standout from the boring Airport 77 and the ‘What the….?’ jaw-droppingridiculousness of Airport 79 The Concorde. We have Gloria Swansonas…Gloria Swanson,Myrna Loy as the dowager with the dog, the 70s ‘hipdudes’, a precious brat child, an unpleasant old man. There aren’t anyHare Krishnas on board sadly, but they are two nuns played by MarthaScott and…Helen Reddy. Yes, Heddy Reddy. Yes, THAT Helen Reddy.Although she was raking in the dollars from hits like ‘Angie Baby’ and’I am Woman’ in 1975,it seems she wanted to act. But while Bowie,Jagger and even Ringo Starr went for intelligent roles, poor Helen hadto don a nun’s habit and play the guitar for Linda Blair, a poor kidwho will die if the plane doesn’t land in time. Apparently, during allthat pea-soup vomiting, cursing-at-priests business during the previousyear’s hit, The Exorcist, little Linda brought up both her kidneys.Will the plane crash? Will it land? This reviewer cannot divulge. Buttragically, at no point does Heston quip ‘Looks like I picked the wrongweek to quit sniffin’ glue’ and end up floating from the control towerceiling…

I am very generous to most movies. Hey, if I can get one good laugh orhave only a moment of hesitation about the "climax" its okay by me.This movie, however, I actually was wishing Karen Black, who had thetitle female role, would blow out of the hole. And the nun Helen Reddyplayed, why in the world would she allow them to put a nun’s habit onher which had a headpiece which continually was slipped down herforehead like a BAD Halloween costume! Even George Kennedy as the everthere, Joe Patrino, this time as the newly promoted head of some vaguecompany, couldn’t even get a decent "concerned" look on his face.

Of the four Airport franchise movies, I find this one as the bigstinker. It is no wonder it is the one least shown on TV. Not even onehandsome passenger to look at in this one! Even old Chuck Heston, inhis bright yellow turtleneck, was all but a joke in this role.

How could so many talented people, well…a couple of talented people,even agree to be in this movie!

Charlton Heston plays ex-war pilot Ted Striker in this classic comedyfrom the makers of Airport '75.

The plot involves a plane full of assorted characters with personalproblems, all getting sick with food poisoning. Crammed full of gags,this movie never lets up.

My favourite scene has Charlton Heston doing his Saturday Night Feverroutine in a seventies disco.

Leslie Neilsen shows up as the doctor, treating a heart transplantpatient.

It's all played with a ludicrously straight face.

With respect to Dante, this film is as close to Hell as the viewer isever likely to come. Gloria Swanson goes slumming, Karen Black gets arunning start on her subsequent train wreck of a career, and CharltonHeston displays the three scintillating varieties of menacing grimacethat earned him the lamest Oscar of all time in, "Ben-Hur." Welcome totwo hours of your life you’ll never get back. The screechy, atonalsoundtrack is the crowning touch. What an abysmal mess. The film’s onlymerit: serving as material for the genuinely funny satire of the"Airplane" films. This film also set a precedent for one of Hollywood’smost loathsome blights: the Sequel. "Airport ‘75" spawned the even moreexecrable, "Airport ‘77" which led to the lowest rung on the ladder ofDantean Movie Hell, "Airport, ‘79." That alone merits the doom ofeveryone involved in this cinematic miscarriage.

This one, like Die Hard II, is rife with aviational errors, but incontext, they are more bearable. In the Willis film, the problems arecounterposed against easy solutions for anyone on the scene. In thisfilm, things are so far off the mark that it makes little difference.

It’s already been pointed out that the impact of the light plane on theairliner’s cockpit was extraordinarily selective. Hoewever, Spoilerpossible: When the airline learns that their injured aircraft has astewardess at the controls, they gather together the most senior pilotsto advise her. They all know that she’s below the altitude of themountain peaks she’s flying towards, but nobody says anything usefuluntil the injured pilot (the Efrem Zimbalist character) rouses himselfenough to croak out, "add power," to gain altitude. A student pilotlearn
s that by the second lesson, long before solo. If the airline hasthat many dodo senior pilots, it’s a wonder it was still in business.

An excellent early aircraft disaster film was The High and the Mighty.On that one, the writer and technical adviser was Ernest K. Gann. Thisone hasn’t had that fortune.

Maybe good as a summer view, when one doze off easily.

Sure there’s a certain amount of campy pleasure watching bug-eyed KarenBlack try to land an airplane, but beyond that, AIRPORT 75 is an awfulmovie. Virtually every line of dialogue is cringe-inducing and thecast, or CASTING, is truly bizarre. If you’ve been waiting to see SidCesar and Myrna Loy share the screen, your anticipation is over. They,along with Linda Blair, Jerry Stiller, George Kennedy and a ghoulishGloria Swanson are in it too. Starring Charlton Heston as Black’sboyfriend, which is the film’s biggest head scratcher. Seek out the Madmagazine parody, it’s light years more entertaining. Also with apre-CHIPs Erik Estrada, Norman Fell, Susan Clark, and Helen Reddy as afolk-singing nun.

Greta Garbo was indeed approached first with an offer to appear in thisfilm as the retired actress. She basically refused the offer with withthe salient reply, "Vhat could be vorse than being an actress?"Apparently, Gloria Swanson thought otherwise and happily stepped in;however, we don’t know if she knew she wasn’t first choice. Thiscomment, attributed to Ms. Garbo, was frequently quoted back in the1974 when the film was about to open. Ms. Garbo, while steadfastlyrefusing to appear in another film was notorious for making pithycomments about herself and the offers she still received while shelived in retirement.

This movie was included in "The Fifty Worst Films of All Time (and howthey got that way)" by Harry Medved. However, after finally getting tosee it, I think it was not nearly bad enough to make it to the book.Now I am not saying it's good–after all, I gave it a 3–but it justisn't THAT bad a film.

Now parts of the film are really bad–in particular the first half orso. The biggest problem was the wretched dialog–and especially all theinappropriate sexist remarks and double-entendres coming from theflight crew. At times, it sounded more like a Matt Helm film than anair disaster film! Also the film made the mistake of having way toomany "guest stars" and spent too much time bouncing around–making itlook choppy and amateurish (despite the big budget). In fact, all theguest stars with all their assorted problems made the film seem a lotlike the movie AIRPORT morphed with THE LOVE BOAT!! Silly, soapy andsappy—that about sums it up.

Once the action starts later in the film, it improves greatly–thoughyou certainly have to suspend disbelief to accept the premise. Thinkabout it–a guy has to tether from a helicopter through a tiny hole inorder to fly a stricken 747 in mid-flight! At least, though, there werefar fewer guest shots here and the dialog centered more on the plot.There was some genuine tension and excitement–too bad it didn't makemuch sense.

By the way, is it just me or did it look like Gloria Swanson had herhead waxed for the film? Take a close look and you should easily seewhat I mean. Her entire head is shiny as if dipped in wax or sprayedwith cooking spray! Perhaps this was some "clever" way to make theaging star look young, but to me it just made her look really strange.

Bad, but certainly not among the top 1000 worst films ever made–letalone top 50. It is worth watching if you want to see where AIRPLANEgot all it's inspiration–too bad, at times, it's hard to tell they'renot BOTH meant to be comedies!

Some producers think that if you round up as many big or biggish names aspossible, and cast them in the one predictable disaster movie, then thingslike effects, plot and the script won’t matter in the slightest. Judge foryourself whether that’s the case here. Can you believe that Charlton Hestoncould dangle his way into a 747 cockpit at 12,000 feet, wearing a yellowturtle-neck skivvy? Can you believe that a mid-air collision can tear a holein said cockpit, sucking out the co-pilot, but there’ll be no noticeableloss of pressure or suction afterwards? Can you believe 120 people on anaircraft being piloted by Karen Black remaining calm, seated and hopeful? Ifyou can temporarily swallow such things, then watch it - you’ll probablyhave fun.

There are so many obvious plot devices and stereotypes that it’s all a bitsilly: Helen Reddy’s singing nun; Linda Blair, looking in the peak ofhealth, but in need of an urgent kidney transplant (like the film NEEDEDthat extra urgency); relationships between three women on-board the plane,and (a) a doomed flight engineer (b) an anxious airline official, and (c)the aforementioned turtleneck wearer-cum-rescuer. Ooh the tension! And ofcourse, the pushy journalist, played with ridiculous unrealism by LarryStorch. George Kennedy’s line "Sometimes the public’s right to know is justa pain in the ass!" perhaps says it all.

This movie isn’t complex, subtle or deep - it’s standard 70s disaster fare,simplistic and predictable, but interesting in a perverse kind of way. Watchit for the laughs, if nothing else.

read comments (0)

Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore

I’ll admit, American movie making reached a feverish creative peakduring the 1970’s. With films such as Taxi Driver, Dirty Harry and ofcourse, The Godfather, Hollywood was certainly on a creative roll. I amreally not too certain whether ‘Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore’belongs there though. The story, of course, focuses around Alice, afinancially struggling mother who decides to move away to Fresno for anew life with her kid. They take a pit stop in Arizona though, becauseshe runs out of cash and her car breaks down. When she is forced totake a waitress job to make ends meet, she soon finds out that life andlove is where you make it, even if that means shacking up with KrisKristofferson.

I guess the big problem I had with this movie is that it really doesn’tseem to go anywhere. Oh sure, Alice goes to all sorts of places, butthe story hardly moves at all. And to be honest, I didn’t think EllenBurstyn’s performance wasn’t all the revolutionary. Oh sure she’s allright, dynamite in some places. But Academy Award worthy? Nah. Evenworse is the kid who plays her son, who immediately gets on your nervesand stays that way thoguhout the movie, whether he’s meaning to or not.Funny when Jodie Foster comes on the screen (looking a lot likeMacaulay Culkin by the way) , she just acts CIRCLES around the guy. Butactually, my favorite performance in the movie has to be from HarveyKeitel as the lonely salesman who has too many skeletons in the closetlol.

So this isn’t a movie I wouldn’t highly recommend if you were doingresearch on the 1970’s wave of film-making, (heck, or even 1970’stelevision shows, with ‘Alice’.)

Alice has a husband and a very annoying little boy. She longs to singand play the piano. Then her husband dies so she takes off with her sonto find work as a lounge singer. She should have left the kid behindbecause he was so annoying. Every couple of seconds he would jump inwith some obnoxious comment. I really liked the songs in this movie andthought that they were beautiful. It's also a female power moviebecause Alice goes out into the world as a widowed/single mother with ason. She ends up working in a diner and trying to raise this kid. Shefinds love but she loves her son more. I don't know how she could standhim.

I didn't know Jodie Foster was in it until I read it here. That was asurprise. It's a great movie minus her son.

It was a good movie, yes. But worthy of an Oscar for Burstyn and awardsfor writing? In 1974, we were at or approaching the height of brilliantscreen writing (in my opinion). I’m not so sure this one was worthy.And while I think Ellen Burnstyn is a terrific actress, her singing wasterrible in this film. Which is definitely a drag on the portrayal ofthe character.

Also, the Harvey Keitel character was SO menacing one almost expectedhim to appear later in the film. Especially since he made that scorpioncomment.

One more thing — while Kris K. was good in many ways, his characterhas a scene where he’s pretty much had it with Tommy. Granted, Tommy isa very 12-year-old in many annoying ways. And in need of more parentalcontrol, which is part of the story. But K., in one scene, smashesTommy’s record against a corner wall and then whaps the kid and knockshim down, straight through a table.

Any opinions on corporal punishment for kids aside, he’s the mother’sboyfriend — and a new one at that. It’s not his kid. And even if itwere, knocking a 12-year old through a piece of furniture isn’t goodparenting. It made me disappointed, later, to see K. come back into thepicture in a positive light.

Smart-aleck wife’s jaded husband passes away leaving woman with obnoxiouskid to raise alone. Made in 70’s when[like now]anyone in her situationcould have gotten aid, but show passes over the obvious [ex.where did sheget the money to drive a couple hundred miles in a gas-guzzler, when she'ssupposedly penniless?] because then what would it do with the remaining 105minutes. There are some entertaining points but they are too few in a verydrawn out movie that does not seem to go anywhere. There are few times whena movie becomes so boring, you’re forced to fast-forward. A surprisingdisappointment from Scorsese. It did win several nominations and granted Ms.Burstyn an Oscar. She played the role very well, I won’t deny that, but it’sa shame the movie couldn’t keep its pace up.

This is easily one of my favorite movies of all time. Ellen Burnstyn isfabulous, and the supporting cast is really terrific, especially the youngboy who plays her son. Kris Kristofferson is beautiful, that smile of hismelts me everytime.

ADLHA is Martin Schorcese´s fourth film and his first movie that became acommercial success. I Wont go into the plot or anything for that matterconsidering that you have already read about what this movie is about. Ireally liked this movie. It was enjoyable well acted little movie that Iliked very much and think it is one of the best movies I have ever seen.9/10.

This film is so promising. I wonder why aren’t more films like this today? Iwonder why so few films today have picked up on Alice doesn’t live hereanymore. In retrospect, this film shows a tremendously promising talent.Thought was put into everything, the thought of being true and new.Although, sadly, the ending didn’t make sense. Forget about feminism, buthow could a mother so easily forgive her boyfriend for hitting her son andhow could her kid say he still liked him for no good reason? Even thoughit’s the early 70s and Alice needs to depend on men, the ending was stillunresolved and left the rest of the film down. I loved this film up untilthat point when Alice smiled and hugged David. I couldn’t understand why thefilm leaves the ending in a happy note when it’s so obvious they’re going tohave problems galore in the future. I wish the movie could be a bit longer,so that when she got together with David again, he still won’t change, andthen she walks out of the door with her son and the movie will end likePrivate Benjamin, that would make it a perfect film. To me, people likeDavid won’t change, and Alice’s son will be the one that has topay.

I haven’t studied Scorsese well, but know and admire his two best:"Temptation" and "Color." In this early film, one can see his energeticcamera. Probing, experimenting, finding limits.

What we have here is a completely ordinary, actually vacuous story. Someacting is good in a showy way, some horrible (I guess Kristofferson wasstill under Babs’ blessing). Scorsese gets an okay performance from the kidonly by having him mug to his "mom." Keitel and Foster were already workingup to "Taxi Driver," and seem unprepared here.

Never mind. Scorsese’s camera is the star. It is always in motion, sometimescircling, sometimes looking into the light, occasionally working with color.Strangely, this director seems afraid of darkness, but many otherexperiments are here. You can already see here his belief that the camera isNOT the audience, but some disembodied, dancing god-narrator. There’s noarty self-reflection here, no direct engagement, no mysterious non-narrativesideshots. I don’t know all his films, but this seems a constant.

Unfortunately, this stance is essentially a commitment to telling a story.So for Scorsese to work, you need a very, very good story. "Temptation" and"Color" provide that. Alice does not.

I recommend this film not for any of the ordinary reasons, but because ofthe youthful, unstudied exuberance of the camera, radical in its time forHollywood.

Martin Scorsese is one of those guys who either makes total crap andthe actors save him (Raging Bull), or he actually makes a decent film(Goodfellas, a great film). In the case of "Alice Doesn't Live HereAnymore," it's not quite a case of it being a bad film sav
ed by theactors, as the film is OK, but the acting definitely elevates thismovie for Scorsese.

Ellen Burstyn is pretty much just perfect as Alice, who's nasty husbanddies (and who is relieved?) so she sets out with her foul-mouthed12-year old son on a quest for a life, really. She is a singer (and notreally a good one, or a good piano player) and she starts singing atsome sleazy joint.

Here she meets Harvey Keitel, who, let's face it, is always so good youalmost don't care what film he is in. Putting on the charm, it turnsout he's a married guy, and a lunatic, as he beats up his wife in frontof Alice, and threatens to break Alice's jaw. Alice and son promptlyleave town, which is a good move, because there's no way she would haveescaped a beating from this guy.

Then she ends up at Mel's Diner and starts waitressing. This is alsowhere the TV series takes place (with Vic Tayback, the same Mel who isgreat). Alice meets Kris Kristofferson and her son meets Jodie Foster,a perfect tomboy. Kristofferson always had a low-key style I alwaysliked, and he was often better than his material.

It gets really predictable from there, and the ending, particularly the"big scene" in the diner, is especially groan-worthy. A scene towardsthe end of Alice and Flo in the women's bathroom discussing Alice'slife literally stops the film cold and drags it through the mud.Overall though, Scorsese does a decent job at showing small townAmerica, and while again, this film isn't necessarily bad, it's theactors that make you want to watch, not the director.

And what do you know, was that a T-Rex song ("Jeepster") playing for afew seconds during a car scene? Someone had very good taste!

Martin Scorsese makes this rather ordinary but realistic story, about awoman’s struggle to raise a child and find a job, a brilliantone.

I don’t know what makes it so beautiful. Is it the young son? Is itKristofferson or Keitel? Is it Scorsese’s superb work with the camera? Orthe rest of the brilliant cast? Probably all.

Ellen Burstyn wants to fulfill her old dream of being a singer. With her12-year old son she is California bound, but she meets people on the waycross-country to CA.

Overall an incredibly good production with good cast performances and attimes incredibly funny. It also includes some great songs.

read comments (0)