The Return of the Pink Panther

This was one of the most boring films i have ever seen. There was onlyfiveor six things that made me laugh and i had to stop the tape a few timesbecause i was falling asleep. This was not a funny "belly-laughs"guaranteedmovie. It was a big bore. This whole series isn’t even thatgreat.

The upcoming release of the "Pink Panther" remake brings to mind theoriginal series, including this one. When the famous diamond getsstolen for a second time, Insp. Jacques Clouseau (Peter Sellers) getsput on the case, and I shouldn’t have to tell you what sorts of thingshe does, especially since this movie turns him into an even biggerdoofus than previously. As Sir Charles Litton, Christopher Plummer doesapproximately as good a job as David Niven did. But the movie is allabout Clouseau. One can only imagine how the people behind the cameramust have cracked up watching him do these things. "The Return of thePink Panther" is a comedy classic. Oh, and there’s also that scene inthe bedroom! Hah!

This film is very funny, though certainly not as funny or magical asthe previous film, A SHOT IN THE DARK. A decade has past since the lastfilm and the chemistry isn't quite as good. Plus, instead of DavidNiven, the same character is now played by Christopher Plummer. While Ilike Mr. Plummer as an actor, I can't understand why they just didn'twrite an all new character instead of doing this.

Oh well. Clouseau is out to capture Sir Charles Litton once and forall–ending a 12 year chase to apprehend him for jewel thefts. To doso, he spends most of the movie dressed in weird costumes trying toinfiltrate Litton's home and "get the goods on him". There are a lot ofcrazy stunts and situations–perhaps too many, as the film occasionallygets too weird and loses its focus.

The best part of this and the next two films is the performance byHerbert Lom as Chief Inspector Dreyfus. His MANY attempts to killClouseau are like a cartoon come to life. And, considering how annoyingand stupid Clouseau is, you really can't blame him!

Of all the Pink Panther films, as as I can remember this is probably myfavourite. Basically the Pink Panther diamond is stolen (again), and(again) French detective Inspector Jacques Clouseua (Golden Globenominated Peter Sellers) is assigned to find it. It is not just Sellersthat is good, but also his Chinese assistant Cato (Burt Kwouk) fightingwith him. As Clouseau searches for the diamond he makes the chief goinsane and eventually he becomes the villain, in the sequel. There aremany memorable moments with Sellers, and his accent is just terrific.If your looking for slapstick and a good theme tune, then see this. Itwas nominated the Golden Globes for Best Motion Picture -Musical/Comedy and Best Original Score for Henry Mancini. Peter Sellerswas number 57 on The 100 Greatest Movie Stars, he was number 22 on The50 Greatest British Actors, he was number 7 on Britain's Finest Actors,and he was number 24 on The World's Greatest Actor. Good!

Spoilers herein.

How dreadful this is. Dreadful writing. Dreadful acting and productionvalues. Even racist comments. The only reason one might watch this isbecause it has Peter Sellers in it. His comic awareness greatly exceeds thatof the director. And although most jokes are repeated, often many times, heis joy to watch.

His timing is perfect, and that is because he invented large parts of thefilm comedy vocabulary — that part where the actor is performing the jokebut is not wholly in it, yet also not part of the community ofviewers.

Peter Seller's returns as the comically bumbling Inspector Closeau,This time the Pink Panther Diamond has been stolen(Again) from theLugash Museum, The superior's from the police in The Fictitous Arabcapital recommend Clouseu retrieve the Diamond, which is easier saidthan, done! Herbert Lom returns as Seller's superior Complete withnervous twitch! who is slowly at breaking point! The pair share manyhilarious scene's together, Particuraly a scene with Lom and his'Novelty Cigarette lighter!

Christopher Plummer,plays Sir Charles Lytton, A 'Retired' Jewel Thiefwho nabbed the precious stone in the first classic, is implicated in ablack mail,which take's plummer from the beautiful south of France tothe fictitious Lugash,And the gorgeous swiss resort of Gstaad, Thebeautiful Catherine Schell, plays Lady Lytton Who may or may not beinvolved, with the larceny,

Meanwhile France's favorite Detective is hot on their trail, Whichsee's seller's Destroy almost everything in his wake! Many familiarface's crop up in this classic,Especially Victor Spinetti, has a smallbut memorable role as an obnoxious Concierge, Graham Stark, as a sleazywheeler dealer,

And last but not least Burt Kwouk, As Demented but loyal manservantCato, who excel's in keeping Seller's on his toe's, The pair fight eachother in slow motion A technique which Blake Edward's use's to greatand devastatingly funny effect!

'The Return Of The Pink Panther' Is essentially viewing for any comedyfan or Seller's aficionado,

it's also essential, to watch this in It's Widescreen Format, as someof the visual gag's are gone in the terrible pan and scan,print's mostTV station's still insist on showing!

A 10-year-absence for the series was resurrected in 1974 with "The Returnofthe Pink Panther". The jewel has been stolen once again and it is up totheclueless Peter Sellers to find those involved in the crime. Naturallyeverything goes on right under his nose. Christopher Plummer and thepriceless Herbert Lom are along for the ride this time, but this isSellers’show as usual. Fair. 2.5 out of 5 stars.

In Return of the Pink Panther, the third in the Pink Panther series,following A Shot in the Dark, the bumbling Inspector Clouseau is backfor more laughs, and must once again revive the Pink Panther gem, whichhas been stolen for the second time. Though not as memorable as thefirst one, The Return of the Pink Panther still has plenty of hilariousscenes, including Clouseau driving his boss insane, fighting hishouseboy Cato, and speaking with an indeterminable French accent. StarsPeter Sellers as Inspector Clouseau.

Grade: 7/10

MPAA Rating: G

My Rating: Ages 7 and up (comic violence)

Although not quite as good as its successors The Pink Panther StrikesAgain and Revenge Of The Pink Panther, this is still fantasticslapstick comedy. By this, the third film in the franchise, directorBlake Edwards knew exactly what his audience wanted, a roller-coasterof anarchy revolving around Peter Sellers and he delivers it in spades.

Consider for example Clouseau's initial brawl with Kato ("He used to doa bit of cooking but now he's taken to attacking me at anyopportunity") or his bumbling attempts to investigate Lady Litton'shotel room, or the madcap closing battle in a Japanese restaurant,every moment Sellers is on screen is a joy to behold. His good naturedbut ludicrously stupid antics are classic slapstick at its very bestand thankfully, unlike the original in the series, most of the filmcentres on him.

In fact the only factor preventing this movie from being the non-stoptour de force of riotous laughs its successors were, is there-appearance of Charles Litton and the introduction of his wife, LadyLitton. Now played by Christopher Plummer, Litton is supposed to beconsidered dashing, debonair and sophisticated in his role, butunfortunately he and his wife instead come across as a pair ofinsufferably smug gits afflicted with severe superiority disorders.Thankfully, they are afforded nowhere near as much screen time asClouseau is, but it wasn't until the following film where Litton waswritten out entirely that it became perfect.
<
br>Nevertheless, this is still a hysterically funny film, though I'drecommend checking out both of its successors before watching this one.

The fabulously valuable diamond "The Pink Panther" has been stolen fromthe National Museum of Lugache, and Inspector Clouseau - who's beendemoted to being a street officer on patrol (and a bad one at that) -is returned to duty to recover it. I'm at a bit of a disadvantage intrying to review this movie, because I've never seen the original "PinkPanther" (or any of the other "Pink Panther" movies to be honest) andso have nothing to compare this to but can still say that it's quitefunny in places. Clouseau is probably Peter Sellers' most famouscharacter, and he plays the role effortlessly. The story - revolvingaround the theft of the diamond - isn't particularly engrossing, but inthis kind of movie the story is secondary anyway. It's Sellers, andClouseau's dealings with those around him - in particular ChiefInspector Dreyfus, who is eventually driven completely insane by thebumbling Clouseau, and who is played brilliantly by Herbert Lom - thatmake the movie. Sellers engages in physical comedy, offers somewonderful slapstick humour and, of course, his fake French accent anddisguises are worthy of chuckles all the way through. Donald Sutherlandas Charles Litton and Catherine Schell as Lady Charlene Litton offergood supporting performances. Schell herself seemed to be laughing allthe way through at Sellers' performance. I don't know if that wasintended or if she really had trouble not giggling at Seller'sperformance and director Blake Edwards simply chose to leave herresponses to Sellers in the movie. (The latter seems most likely.) Therepeated appearances by Clouseau's valet (if that's what he wassupposed to be) Cato (Burt Kwouk) became a bit tiresome after a while.

Some have told me that this is the funniest of the Pink Panther movies.If so, that's a bit disappointing in all honesty, because I didn't findthis to be anywhere near the funniest movie I've ever seen. It had mesmiling throughout and chuckling a few times but never really outrightlaughing, but still the generally sustained "funniness" makes this afun movie to watch. Without the original to compare it to, I'd stillgive this a 7/10.

read comments (0)

The Stepford Wives

This would’ve been a great Twilight Zone episode. It’s a half-hour storypainfully stretched into a full length movie. It’s ultra slow pace comesacross as insulting to the viewer’s intelligence, as if we need to slowlyfigure out what’s going on. For example, at the end, when Katherine Rosssee’s her black-eyed double, the camera pans around very slowly to showtherobot-babe. If Rod Serling were in charge, the camera would’ve whippedaround with a loud sound effect that would’ve made your heart skip abeat.It is definately a classic, however, especially since the term "StepfordWife" remains in our lexicon.

Howdy boy. I happened to read yer li’l comments on the movie and discoveredsomething interesting…you didn’t actually talk about the movie! Call meold fashioned (real old-fashioned in some ways, like, before the dawn oftime) but I know when me or any of the boys read a film review, we actuallylike it to talk about the film at some point! But you jest go on and on andon about how much you and other "dudes" want to get jiggy with robots so youcan avoid having to deal with women.

Ain’t that the sweetest? Maybe you oughta put some moves on your toaster.(You know, I think I may have pinpointed the reason you are "betweengirlfriends".)

In the future, please include some actual comment on the movie and leavethe sad little "girls scare me" fantasy scenario in your head, where I’msure it is thriving.

Oh, and by the way, real good movie. Me and the boys give it a bighowdy!

I guess the premise of The Stepford Wives holds up pretty well todayand it must have been quite edgy back when it was released.

The wives in Stepford have one thing in common; they’re all perfecthousewives. Their main objective in life is to please their husbands,clean the house, bake and take care of the children. Life couldn’t bebetter…but wait, could something be wrong with this picture perfectimage? Are these women being transformed by someone? Who would want todo this kind of thing?

Yeah, men are bastards! I guess the point this film is making couldstill be valid in a lot of households. There probably are men who wouldlike nothing better than to have their wives be their servants andfulfill their every need, and they’d jump at the chance to make ithappen a.s.a.p.

But, talking about the film, the premise is pretty creepy. Seeing theselively and spirited women being transformed into mere robots of theirhusbands desires are images not easily forgotten. That final shot ofRoss sends chill down my spines. But sadly; the film is incredibly slowmoving with a conclusion that’s all too silly (I mean you know they’redoing it, but it’s how they do it that’s beyond me, a better conclusioncould have been found). Pacing kills every momentum here, apart from acouple of scenes perhaps, this really should have been tightenedsomewhat.

All in all; The Stepford Wives has it’s moments, a good basic story anda chilling ending. You could do a lot worse.

She's the perfect suburban housewife, submissive, upbeat,uncomplaining, and a tiger with the cleaning rag and lacy nightgown.But above all, she's unthinking. That might bring on worries that wouldmar her otherwise perfect domestic tranquility. Sound like a malechauvinist fantasy? Probably. But it strikes me as a feminist attack onthe Good Housekeeping ideal that was pieced together from a 1,001 TVcommercials. Then too, there's more than a little Invasion of the BodySnatchers in this 1974 production, but without the panache or panic ofthat earlier (1956) classic.

Stepford's an interesting film, especially when Nanette Newman'sperfect wife starts repeating herself like a stuck record. It's reallya horror film as the thunder and lightning of the climactic sceneunderscores, but the filming plays more like mystery-suspense as we tryto figure out what's up with these women. It could have been a lotspookier than it is. Director Bryan Forbes seems more interested in thestory than in atmospherics; at the same time, events build nicely intoa rather predictable ending. This is, after all, post-Nixon andVietnam. Director Don Siegel wanted a similar ending to Body Snatchersbut the studio wouldn't allow it. Those were, after all, the sunnyEisenhower years when upbeat endings were required.

Two scenes stay with me. Men from the club enter Ross's bedroom, lookaround, then leave in unexplained fashion. Good mysterious note thatlater falls into place. The club meets at Ross's house, her husbandincluded. So what does Ross wear for the all-male occasion– afigure-hugging sheath with absolutely no underwear. I never heard aword of dialogue the whole time. All in all, it's a clever horror-spoofof 1950's suburbia, with one overriding distinction. How many othermovies have had a title word become part of our common descriptivevocabulary.

This line uttered by a malfunctioning, alcoholic, robot/wife turns thisthriller into camp territory. The provocative and disturbing subject matteris turned into a host of tacky costumes, awkward dialogue, and terribleacting, particularly by Katherine Ross. Her discovering of her robot doubleabout to kill her is pathetic. It seemed as if the director couldn’t get abetter cast (there is a Ruth Gordon look-a-like in the supporting role whowas a popular actress at the time) with the exception of Paula Prentice whohas the most fun role. A similar fate occurs with a movie on the similartopic, Handsmaid Tale, but this is much more fun, even if the directing andcinematography are often poor. It’s one of my favorite bad movies.

I had heard this film whispered about for years…it was much differentthanI thought it would be. I didn’t figure it would be a creepy horror film.But where can a guy get a Stepford wife I wonder? Hmmmmmmm? I think inthis high tech day and age we will soon have realistic sex androids you’llbe able to buy. It certainly will make getting a decent looking chickmucheasier. Though I don’t think any guy would want some boring housewifetypegal like the ones in this movie, not me anyways. I think some womenwouldn’t mind a Stepford husband. Some young, strong, good lookin’ BradPitt type who can fix all the stuff that breaks around the house, do thechores, and still take care o’ bizniz in the romantic department quitewellif ya catch m’drift.

But fer me and a lot of other dudes a Stepford wife would be nice for thetimes when you are inbetween girlfriends. Us guys face a lot morerejectionthan females (a LOT more) so a Stepford android would be nice till you canhook up with another compatible real life female. Sounds great, don’t it?In the future that means virtually any guy will be able to have virtuallyany chick. As long as he has the cash to afford an android built to hisspecifications. Not to mention that we will also have real life, state ofthe art virtual reality sex sometime in the near future I imagine. Willvirtual reality sex and Stepford androids make women virtually irrelevant?I think not. Mmm-mmm, I luv technology!

This film serves primarily as a time capsule for people who want a sliceofthe zeitgeist of the late sixties/early seventies, when women wererebellingagainst the suffocating constraints of a social order that demanded theyforego careers, stay at home, take care of the kids, and (gasp!) cook andclean.

It seems positively silly by today’s more enlightened standards, since, aswe all know by now, it is actually MEN who have been carrying most of theload, and getting just as much of the proverbial shaft, if not more so,thanwomen. (I think about these things alot, especially when I’m way up there,scraping the moss off the roof, because, heck, I don’t know, society mademedo it…).

Many people regard this a horror or creep show. Just my humble opinion,butthis film is more camp than creepy. However, I do like many things aboutt
hefilm: it reeks of suspense, atmoshpere, and a certain Martha Stewartesqueambience. It is quite nicely filmed, too, and Katherine Ross - despite hergetting her back up throughout most of the film - is simply ravishing tolook at. But hey, as long as your up, honey, get me a beer,eh?

(I was thinking that when they showed the utter shocking horror of a womanactually doing some cooking and cleaning, they could have thrown in someofthat "scrreeep scrreeep scrreeep" music from "Psycho"…)

There’s some huge 70’s style cars in the picture (so much steel in themyoucould make two of today’s cars out of one of them), and some groovy linestoboot. I liked the line from Tina Louise’s character, Charmaine, whencommenting about a women’s focus group. "A consciousness-raisingmeeting….You mean a bitch session?!"

Finally, if you want to see a good movie (better than this one, anyway) onpeople being replaced, get a copy of "Seconds" (1966) starring the lateRockHudson. Now THAT is a creepy film.

To comply with IMDB rules, I must begin by warning you that this review contain a possible spoiler — which leads nicely to my first point. THE STEPFORD WIVES is a movie that suffers from what I call the `Spoiled by Recognition’ problem. If a movie hinges on some key fact being concealed from the viewer until the end, the movie is almost impossible to discuss or review without revealing at least some part of the ending. Therefore, the more recognition the movie receives, the harder it is for you to be a first-time viewer who hasn’t already tripped over at least some of the spilled beans.

You can still appreciate such a movie, however, if you go into it with the right mindset. My mother has always said she enjoys reading an Agatha Christie murder mystery twice — the first time to experience the mystery, the second time to see how all the events in the story were cleverly engineered to lead up to the resolution without actually giving it away. If the resolution has been given away, you can read the novel this way the first time around. In the case of THE STEPFORD WIVES, even if you’ve already been told what the men in Stepford are doing, you can still appreciate how it’s revealed only in stages, along with Joanna and Bobbie’s growing terror as they slowly uncover the secret.

Of course, a smart story teller will anticipates the `Spoiled by Recognition’ problem and offer something of interest besides the big revelation. In the case of THE STEPFORD WIVES, this is accomplished partly through the use of the mystery/thriller format, in which the protagonist solves a mystery and uncovers an imminent danger in the process. The mystery is solved before the story’s conclusion, and the focus shifts to averting the danger. Once Joanna figures out what’s being done, the question becomes that of whether she can keep it from being done to her.

But truly makes THE STEPFORD WIVES worth your time, even if you’ve stepped on those spilled beans, are the questions and issues raised by the story. This is a story about the role some men want women to play, and about the lengths those men will go to to force women into that role. It might also be considered an allegorical deal-with-the-devil story, because the men of Stepford are effectively selling not only the souls of their wives, but their own souls as well. This allegorical overtone is interesting, given that this movie is based on a novel by Ira Levin, who also wrote ROSEMARY’S BABY, which involved a literal deal with the devil. (And ROSEMARY’S BABY is a movie that has the `Spoiled by Recognition’ problem really bad because it’s a classic.)

Indeed, the horror in THE STEPFORD WIVES is very much a horror of ideas, rather than a horror of physical events, which is likely to frustrate you if you’re looking for a thrill ride along the lines of NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET. Now, don’t get me wrong. I have an appetite for gross-out horror as well, but I think it’s important to realize horror can come in other forms as well — which can be just as effective.

I will concede that THE STEPFORD WIVES might have been more suspenseful; at a nice tight 90 minutes, but both the characters and the situation might have come off as flat and wooden. As it is, there’s a much stronger sense of reality, which makes what finally does happen that much more frightening and disturbing.

Finally, I’d like to address one other complaint you may have about this movie — that it never explains the mechanics of HOW the men are doing what they’re doing. The answer is that it really doesn’t't matter how. What matters is that they ARE doing it and WHY they’re doing it. By way of comparison, I would cite Franz Kafka’s classic novella, THE METAMORPHOSIS, in which it is never explained HOW Gregor Samsa turns into a giant insect. It isn’t explained, because it isn’t germane to the point of the story.

I recently saw the original and my brother saw the remake - from thedetails swapped it seems to me that they’ve completely changed the filmand novel from being amazingly feminist stories to bland servings ofNicole Kidman looking too perfect for words.

The original is a brilliant film due to its setting and creation duringthe height of the feminist movement in the states, which is somethingthat adds to the story, and its remake fails to recognize this. Iwatched this with my Mom, and she identified with the time politically,socially and fashionably (!) so much, it was fun to hear her reminisceabout her time … she yes, she too dabbled with women’s lib … but wehave a messy kitchen, so we’re all okay.

A funny little anecdote … the day after I saw this I went into work andthe boss had bought a new dish scrubber for the kitchenette, and we gottalking about it and how much better it was than the old one, whichadmittedly was old and scungy! How Stepford! I felt like pinchingmyself!

The Stepford Wives is simply my all-time favorite movie. It haseverything in it. Sexy women like Katherine Ross and Paula Prentiss, aplot that keeps you guessing right till the end and in my opinion themost scariest scene in film history. That scene still gives me thechills to this day.

I like the fact that the film didn’t depend on many special effects. Itwas more of a psychological fright that kept you fascinated.

You have to watch this movie several times to pick up on all the subtlescenes in it. The movie also had some terrific lines in it. I repeatthese lines to this very day. I really wanted to see this movie when itfirst came out in 1975 but my parents wouldn’t allow me to see it. Ifinally saw it for the first time on TV in 1983. The film is unusualbecause it starts out like a pleasant movie and slowly evolves intocreeping horror. What I also found interesting is that Mary StuartMasterson who played

one of the daughters of the main couple also played in At Close Rangeyears later with Christopher Walken who is in The Stepford Wives 2004.

read comments (0)

Three Days of the Condor

This movie is another fine example of typical '70's movie making. Themovie is however far from a '70's classic. The story is too poor forthat and the movie overall lacks some action.

It's not that the pace of the movie is kept low. The movie is fastenough and its well directed and constructed. It however is a rare'70's lack-lusting genre movie, in which you're just waiting for achase of gunfight to happen, that just never comes. It's of course notthat I feel that every single movie needs to have some action in it butsome action wouldn't had been out of place in this one. It's fittingand sort of needed for a typical '70's genre thriller movie such asthis one.

The story is actually a pretty odd one once you really start thinkingabout it. It's rather simplistic, which also makes it far from credibleand perhaps even makes it a bit laughable.

Yet the movie is perfectly watchable. Everything about it is veryprofessional and its a well crafted movie. It isn't Sydney Pollack'sbest work but he knows how to deal with the genre. The movie has aperfect sense of realism, despite its weaker unbelievable story. Alsonothing wrong with the cinematography from '70's big-man Owen Roizman.Also refreshing to see a '70's genre movie for a chance that isn'tstuck in one place or city.

Robert Redford plays the main role of the movie well and he trulycarries the movie. Also Max von Sydow plays a good and interestingrole.

Really no must-see but it's a well made movie that's worth seeing.

7/10

1st watched 2/28/2006 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Sydney Pollack):-DVD version Iwatched titled "3 Days of the Condor"- So so CIA drama full oflaid-back performances making for a very laid-back movie. The premiseof the story revolves around 7 out of 8 members of a CIA research groupbeing killed with Robert Redford’s character, codename = Condor, beingthe one that was left. Who killed them and why? That’s what Redfordtries to find out while trying to not be the 8th victim at the sametime. Along the way, he gets Faye Dunaway’s character involvedinvolved, originally because he needs a place to hide, and then sheeventually helps him out after a little lovey-dovey time. This is oneof a handful of innocent guy on the run stories but this one doesn’thave a lot of suspense. The flat performances don’t help and the finishdoesn’t seal the deal for the audience enough either. Despite having agood director in Sydney Pollack and a group of classic performers, thestory and the performances are not what they should be and thereforethe movie is not what it should be.

Robert Redford is in some serious danger - all his undercover code-readingpals have been killed. But, true to the genre, that doesn’t stop him fromfalling in love with the girl he takes hostage (for no particularreason).

Dunaway, in her Chinatown prime, radiates sexuality - and itsgood.

But like in all movies which followed in 007’s footsteps, her presence endsup distracting us all from the espionage plot. Main reason is because itsfilmmaker, main character and viewer are all male - and all basically moreinterested in Faye Dunaway than in whether we live or die.

This movie is no more guilty of this crime than every other of its brand,which is the fault of James Bond. Its not necessarily a fault, i suppose -but the espionage plot really gets lost when it appears, at great lengths.All of a sudden it loses its sense of purpose.

The nail in the coffin in this regard was when a nicely lit extended sexscene appeared at 1h 5mins, intercut with closeups of the camera zoomingslowly into holes and contours in Dunaway’s characters’s photographs, allthis accompanied by a softcore 70’s saxophone.

2/5. Plus, its so strange seeing the great von Sydow doing grunt work as a2D bad guy.

This film is over 25 years old…and my goodness it shows its’age! Not onlyis the plot ludicrous and preposterous the acting is boring and unrealisticand… expecting the viewer to find any credibility in the story isridiculous….put briefly a "secret agent" avoids a mass killing takes abeutifull damsel hostage by a violent kidnapping who immediately thereafterfalls madly in love with him…blah blah blah….Oh what a load ofnonsense!!! The scenes between the lead male and female actress are tedious,out-dated, politically incorrect..and totally nonsensical….but I supposein 1975 as today many film makers believe….. perhaps rightly.. that theviewing public will drool over these "celebrities" no matter what drivel isput on celluloid….. but count me out……at least if you watch this filmat night it is guaranteed to get you snoring.

For some reason the 70’s has the reputation for being the high point ofAmerican movie-making. Sure you have classics like Chinatown, TheGodfather, Dog Day Afternoon and The French Connection, but then youhave run-of-the-mill clunkers like "Three Days of the Condor." Thismovie is the 70’s equivalent of a modern day Tom Cruise vehicle like"Mission Impossible 2" complete with poor acting by Robert Redford,plot holes aplenty, a silly premise and unconvincing action sequences.

This movie starts off interestingly enough as Redford plays a CIAanalyst named Joe Turner (codenamed "Condor") who’s job is to readbooks, magazines, etc.. and glean ideas and intelligence from thematerial. When the operation Turner is part of gets wiped out byassassins while he is out getting lunch (resulting in the deaths of allof Turner’s co-workers), Turner has to fight to stay alive whilesolving the mystery.

While the beginning is good, the movie rapidly loses any believabilityas Redford’s bookworm character instantly morphs into an action-herosuper-spy. Redford doesn’t even bother acting like a non-hero forced byevents to go beyond his abilities; no just he transforms into JamesBond as soon as the action starts. Faye Dunaway plays a woman kidnappedby Turner who, in the space of a day, ends up falling for Turner andsleeping with him while being held hostage at gunpoint by Turner in herown home. And then she helps Turner in his plan to find out what’sgoing on. To her credit, Dunaway plays her character as slightlydamaged and a little crazy, which is the only way that scenario makesany sense.

Going forward, the plot holes are gigantic and the mystery behind thedestruction of Turner’s operation is just plain idiotic. In thepost-Watergate era, this kind of paranoid stupidity might have madesense, but now, it’s utterly ridiculous. Lastly, much of the music wasinappropriate and annoying; thankfully there wasn’t too much of it.

Ultimately this is a very average movie with nothing to recommend it.

In real life, Robert Redford is the perfect "useful idiot"–and hisbig, meanie right-wing government paranoia is evident here, with a bandof murderous conspirators plotting to wage a clandestine war againstoil-rich Arab states–but, damned if this isn't a good flick!

From the smooth-as-silk Dave Grusin score to the flawlesscinematography to the best short, claustrophobic fight scene since SeanConnery/Robert Shaw in From Russia With Love (honorable mention: FrankSinatra/Henry Silva in The Manchurian Candidate), the story of a"book-reader" for the CIA unwittingly uncovering a rogue operation totake the oil fields of Arabia, and the lengths of deception and murderthe baddies take to shut him up fit the time and the place of thepost-Vietnam-but-before-Reagan 70's.

Director Sydney Pollack–who teamed with Redford for JeremiahJohnson–is at the top of his game, and the only flaw in the ointmentis Faye Dunaway. The movie is the equivalent of comfort food, sayspaghetti, and Dunaway's performance is the menstrual cramps thatthreaten to spoil the sauce.

I watched this movie on DVD. It just goes
to show that an intensethrillerin 1975 = boring and dated in 2003. The DVD has no special featureseither.Snore, snore, snore.

Of Redford’s 70s works, the Great Gatsby and the Sting are muchbetter.

Although this film is one the greatest of Redford’s, watching it in2005 is not that fun at all. It seems to me that those movies whichwere great back those times are not so entertaining now. Somehow mylevel of expectation has raised and that there are movies which standup against the time, and there are those that don’t. Three days of theCondor belongs to the latter category, unfortunately.

The movie is exciting, but there is way much less action then I’dexpect in a CIA drama, the romantic role is nice, but toosentimentalist for my liking, and the storyline is quite jumpy for me.And the ending just left me really hungry in front of the screen.

If you want to watch this movie for excitement and tension, skip it, ifyou watch it for Redford’s performance, it is better good bet: 7/10 onmy scale.

A spy (mis)adventure, originally called "Six Days of the Condor",featuring a typical rather-wasted de luxe cast. Its plot is a crudeKafkian labyrinth of greedy motives. The acting (Faye Dunaway inparticular) is restrained; Robert Redford, the CIA agent who just readbooks, stars almost like an urban Jeremiah Johnson — minus the beard–. Bergmanian actor Max von Sydow, in a wonderfully upstaging butconsiderably concise supporting part, actually gets to reveal thenastily intriguing nature of the state of affairs; he would shine againin a similar mode as General Patton’s assassin, in the much lessappreciated Brass Target (1978). Sydney Pollack’s elegant setting,including the well-directed violent scenes, gives the movie an overallquality of craftsmanship.

While not a total loss, THREE DAYS OF THE CONDOR should have been muchbetter. As others have noted, the beginning is quite interesting andexciting. Then all hell breaks loose. As the movie progresses itbecomes more and more implausible. The actors are good enough, but nostand outs. The relationship between the REDFORD character and theDUNNAWAY character does not work at ALL. It's a terrible mess anddoesn't make any sense what so ever. Relationships like that could"only happen in the movies". Oh, this IS a movie!! SPOILER ALERTSomething that is not addressed or talked about is when the "mailman"comes to Dunaways apartment. A fight insures, gunshots all over theplace, everything in knocked over. A total mess. Then Redford kills the"mailman" and off Dunaway and Redford go. What? What happens to theapartment? How is it cleaned up and fixed. What about the land lord?Most important, what about the damn body??? Does it just lay thereforever. Who gets rid of it. What would Dunnaway say to the police?Does she just take off to Vermont to be with her boyfriend? What'sgoing to be her explanation? Again, what about that BODY?

The plot is so convoluted you can't tell the players without a program.Why were the people in the office killed? Never satisfactory explained,unless I missed something. Was the Cliff Robertson character good orbad? WHO was good and bad exactly? Terrible ending with too much leftin the air.

Having said all this, it's still a watchable film, expertlyphotogrpahed with real locations and some interesting scenes. Worth alook, but not worth much praise.

read comments (0)

The Man Who Would Be King

After watching this simply as a result of it being in the imdb top 250list,I feel that either I’m missing something, or it’s overrated.

Good camera work. Obvious, moral plot. Uninvolving, simple storyline, whichdelivered little of interest. Contained supposedly humorous Westernstereotypes of Indians.

I had been told by lots of people how great this film was, and with astory by Kipling, directed by Houston, starring Caine and Connery allthe components of a great film seemed to be in place. Something didn'tadd up though, this film fails to be the sum of all its parts. The filmis over long and failed to fully grip me. It may be that I missedsomething or that Iam a philistine but to me it felt stilted and dated.Michael Caine described this as "the only film I've done that will lastafter I'm gone" but it is far out shone by his other works, such as theItalian Job, Get Carter, etc. In fact it is Caine that is the mostguilty of overacting of the whole cast.

What an awful, overblown, overrated, boring movie. The only thinginteresting about this movie is how many holes can be punched throughthe dumb, simplistic and unconvincing story. Two ex-British soldiers,supposedly Freemasons, conspire to bamboozle and defraud an entirecountry? Yeah … right. These two characters are so dumb that theycouldn't even defraud each other. No one in their right mind, or evenin their wrong mind, would have had anything to to do with theseobvious phonies. There is such a thing as literary license, butliterary license has its limits too which this movie blatantly ignores.And what's even worse is the movie's ridiculously shabby portrayal ofFreemasonry, a treatment that is entirely unwarranted and whichundeservedly casts Freemasonry in a negative light. This is the kind ofmovie that would have been perfect for Laurel and Hardy or Abbott andCostello … or maybe Ralph Kramden and Ed Norton … or better yet,Sergeant Bilko and Corporal Paperelli or Jack Benny and Rochester. Orwhat about Laverne and Shirley or Lenny and Squiggy or Pat and Mike orPopeye and Bluto or Mickey and Minnie Mouse or Dobbie Gillis andMaynard G. Krebs or George Jefferson and Archie Bunker? Or what RainMan and Alvy Singer? Put these characters in the lead roles and youhave a first rate comedy.

If you want to watch a good movie from thecharlatan-masquerading-as-king genre, watch the Emperor Jones, orbetter yet read the play.

In this classic adventure the Wind and the Lion (Taken place in 1905)are after a woman, and if these two can’t settle their differences,they whole world may be at stake by a World War! In morocco Raisuli theMagnificent (Sean Connery) kidnap an American woman and her children.She is hastily taken to the desert and comes face to face with theleader of the bandits that captured her. But this man is different, heis a scholar, and calls himself a servant of God! And all of thehundreds that follow agree. But this woman doesn’t follow him, althoughshe is in a life or death situation. Causing feuds between each otherseveral times.

When word of this reaches Pres. Theodore ‘Teddy’ Roosevelt (BrianKeith) he asks only one question to Raisuli, "What kind of rifle do youhave?" With this statement he tells the rest of the USA that he meansbusiness. No resident of the USA will ever be held against her will aslong as he is president! The German, and French tempers are rising inMorocco. Friend ships are formed, blood is spilled, will she ever beback home?

My wife and I recently borrowed the VHS pan-and-scan version of this movieand were favorably impressed by the director’s "smoke and mirrors" effort.The locales are not Central Asia but instead French mountain ranges andMoroccan exotic backdrops. The extras work well to convey masses of Asiancommoners and priest/monks of the Buddhist/Hindu religion. Other commentsharers can review for you the plot details and give praise to lead actorsConnery and Caine (also Plummer as supporting actor); my USER COMMENT willinstead focus on this film as a parable about colonialism and thedevelopingworld. The script carefully locates the decade and background to be the1890’s at the dawn of the British Victorian Empire that subjugated manyparts of world civilizations in decline or pre-modern capacity. TheKiplingstory from which the film takes inspiration tethers us to a time and placewhen that world superpower’s "superiority" has enjoyed days of goldenantiquity theft and widespread profitmaking and despoiling. The heroes ofthis piece are actually villainous, second-rate crooks who become entangledin a web of deceit that they spun themselves. As would-be "strip-miners"ofthe tribal and religious powers-that-had-been in the fictious land pastAfghanistan, the duo plus translator/stooge get access to the treasuretroveof the civilization but fall prey to basic sins and character flaws.

The "man who would be king" lets power go to his head as didvictors in the Colonial expansionist ages of the past and present. Bytheirdoomed attempt to get everything away from the underprivileged, thewould-beColonialistic oppressors get their comeuppance. Such Western machoconsumerists, despite some feeble self-serving propaganda, are still humanand vulnerable. Their divine pronouncements to "know it all" receiveexposure in the end as having been cheap imitations of what life is reallyall about. Down with such "god-kings" who deserve the bites of the weakwhoare about to be raped! Their downfall will not be slow-motion sequencesbutswift thwacks of the Reaper’s scythe. The true and valid relationship ofthe developed, Western nations toward those sheltered by remoteness must beone of co-development along with democratic progress and humanitarianimprovement. Unfortunately, the world powers didn’t learn a whole lot fromsuch 19th century parables during 1901-2000; let’s hope that Asian peopleswill have their stories told and lay hold on the attention of the world forlonger than just the "run" of CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON from lastyear.See this film with your family and talk about who loses it all and whosurvives with an authentic story worth telling.

I love Rudyard Kipling stories, Huston is usually great, the key castmembers are usually great, but something in this mix turned a greatshort story into an incredible snoozefest.

I saw it at the drive-in a few years after it first came out. We allfell asleep. I tried watching it on TV many years later. We all fellasleep.

There are some good parts, but they're spread so thin over a long andboring timescape that it's just too hard to maintain any interest. It'smuch like watching the video equivalent of a technical document inwhich you have only passing interest.

I can't believe this is scoring an 8 out of 10 on average.

The Man Who Would be King is a film about colonialism. It illustrates thenotion that the arrogance of the West leads to a dangerous sense ofempowerment.

There is much to admire in The Man Who Would be King. Huston’s direction andthe work of his cinematographer is breath taking. The pace and premise ofthe film are superbly crafted, and the camaraderie and timing displayed bySean Connery and Michael Caine are the centerpiece of the film.

You realize that these two work extremely well together, at least on film,(lord knows how well these two got along off camera). It makes you wonderwhy they did not work together more often after this.

The film also takes a stab at the ‘old boys’ networks, the fact that menwill claim loyalty to vague and distant ideals, tribes and clubs for noreason and at great expense. It wonderfully ties the notion these networkspre-date our civilization, even pre-date Christ and yet they continue toexert tremendous influence over us.

Is a warring tribe any different than a warring nation? Is a
Free Mason anydifferent than a colonial soldier, or a high priest dedicated to some templeon a mountain? Our belief systems are forged with two notions, inclusion andexclusion. If you are ‘in’ you benefit from the club’s power, if you are’out’, you feel that tribe’s wrath.

Every loyalty that is forged in this film is exposed for its hypocrisy andthe lies underneath that fuel it. There is only one loyalty that seems to begenuine in this film and that is the friendship between Caine and Connery.Everything else is a rouse, to gain power and to condonewar.

If the film falls short, it’s in the portrayal of the natives as utterbarbarians with no redeeming values. Now to be fair, the country theyportray is fictitious and the contrast is there for comedic value, but justconsider the film opens in India, and rather than show the Taj Mahal or thebeautiful music and art of India, it goes into a large montage of scorpioneaters and snake snatchers.

We’re lead to believe, that England had no right to lead a barbaric culture,no matter how much ‘good’ that leadership might have brought. The reasoningbehind this film’s morale is that England’s perceived superiority is a lie,and is in fact, based on the same tribal fears and prejudices as the peopleEngland are colonizing.

The story has strange holes and some laughably implausible incidents to keepthe story going. There are moments that make you wince, Saeef Jaffrey’scharacter who seems the most grounded of all, suddenly snaps to his death,for no particular reason other than to rid him from the story line. Thereare also candid moments, like when Connery begins to question the incrediblehappenstance that has taken place, and questions that perhaps life isdestiny rather than series of meaningless and random events.

Of course, the ending of the film, refutes destiny, it in fact implies weyearn to craft destiny out of meaningless coincidence just because oursuperstitions and our tribe affiliations yearn for meaning.

In reality, this is more of a comedy than a drama, the film works best whenit doesn’t take itself too seriously. With a destitute Caine returning toIndia to tell his tale and morale, that ‘no man should play god’, the shockvalue of the final minute of the film, doesn’t quite register, because forthe most part, we’ve just been chuckling along.

Despite my nit-picking, this is a fine film, crafted from great text, shotwonderfully in breath taking locales, with a superb pace and rapport amongstits central characters. You get pieces of adventure, drama, comedy and anice little morale in the end, to make you think. What more can you askfor?

An adventure film complete with exciting bits, comic relief, but also afair share of shortcomings, the final 45 minutes or so of theproduction help it to rise above the norm, with thought-provoking ideasabout the characters, the motivations they have, and religion as a wayof life. The balance of the film - the first hour and a bit - isnowhere near as solid as this end section. The tone is uneven, Caine’sslipping accent is very noticeable and it feels totally implausible.The characters’ motivations are also hard to decipher in the first halfof the film, and at times it is just plain difficult to understand whatexactly is happening. Still, there is a good general feel for Indianand other cultures, thanks in part to great costumes and sets. Theoverall picture is the best thing for one to judge, and overall thereare many good aspects about this production. It is not quite themasterpiece that some claim it to be, but is solid viewing nonetheless.

This film seems to have everything, great camerawork, an interesting andclever plot, a great chemistry between Michael Caine and Sean Connery, itsfunny, its sad, its exciting, its touching…

So why do you get the feeling that it doesnt quite work? I think the problemis that it doesnt quite know what it wants to be, either an action comedyromp (Butch and Sundance go to India, as one reviewer on here described it),or a serious and quite dark psychological exploration of the idea ofsuddenly acheiving absolute power. It falls between two stools, and as aresult is not as good as it could have been if they had taken one treatmentor the other to its full extent. What we are left with feels like the mutantoffspring of Heart of Darkness and It Aint ‘Alf Hot, Mum (a British comedytv show set in India). If you liked the darker side of this, I suggest you read Heart of Darkness,and if you prefered the action, Butch Cassidy or The Sting would be a goodchoice. Caine and Connery clearly had a great time making this film, itsjust a pity the viewers cant quite share it. Still, it lookswonderful.

6.5/10

This is my favourite film of all times..clear and simple..The story isfascinating..the locations are wonderful..and the actors..Sean Connery &Michael Caine..what can i say more..Ah the Director is JohnHouston..Director with the big D…good Plummer too, that in the film isRudyard Kipling..he joins the 2 big stars in making this film aclassic!!!!P.S. Why Caine & Connery didn’t any other film together..?thisisreally a shame for the cinema lovers…

read comments (0)

Shampoo

I can’t believe this movie is supposed to be a comedy. I only laughed onceduring this very unfunny movie. I also find it hard to believe that thismovie is suppposed to be a romance. More like a sex movie. If there was anyromance whatsoever, I’m sure I missed it. Romance is portrayed just as sex.In fact, the sex is so overdone that it just gets boring. I found it hard tokeep track of who’s sleeping with whom and who’s cheating onwhom.

This movie is pretty dull. I’m not sure what genre to put it in, but it’snot a comedy or a romance. One commenter said that the ending is so sad. Idon’t even remember the ending, nor do I care. Trust me, this movie is not amust-see. No one was lying in their deathbed shouting, "I wished I sawShampoo!" I’m glad I saw it, but only b/c it was one of the last movies Isaw in conquering the AFI’s 100 funniest movies list.

According to the American Film Institute, Shampoo is the #47 funniest movieof all time. It is officially funnier than anything by Eddie Murphy, LeslieNielsen (except Airplane), Jim Carrey, Steve Martin, the Three Stooges, allDisney cartoons, and any 90’s (or 80’s for that matter) teen comedy. It isfunnier than Ferris Bueller, Shakespeare in Love, and The Sting. It’s evenfunnier than the IMDB comedy-favorite One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest whichcoincidentally won the Oscar the same year.

Shampoo may work as a Broadway play, and may have been an okay movie in1975. Shampoo might offer literary value if you take several hours toanalyze it. But pitching it as a funny movie is just wrong.

A hairdresser (Warren Beatty) is addicted to sex. He sleeps withvirtually every woman he meets (but primarily with Lee Grant, JulieChristie and Goldie Hawn). This takes place in 1968 and shows his lifeslowly unraveling because of his addiction to sex.

Unsuccessful, unfunny, unfocused and VERY obvious satire. It’s alsovery dated–no way would this be made today. I suppose in 1975 this wasconsidered daring and innovative–it sure isn’t today. There are somegood moments (especially a hilarious dinner party sequence) but they’reburied. Also Beatty’s character is such a jerk I felt no sympathy forhim at all. It got dull watching a totally unlikable character seduceevery woman he meets.

I’m giving this a 6 for the actors. Beatty is handsome, buff and verygood. Lee Grant deservedly won a Best Supporting Actress Award for herrole. Julie Christie is just gorgeous and very good as a mistress.Goldie isn’t that good–but she’s not given much to do. And Jack Wardenwas nominated for his performance as a cheating husband. Also this wasCarrie Fishers’ film debut and look for Andrew Stevens (nude) at a drugparty.

This was a huge hit in 1975. It just doesn’t hold up anymore.

To see the movie’s original trailer, and to hear much of the criticismof "Shampoo," you’d think it was a raucous romp of a movie, and that’sabout it. Morality be damned, it’s all just fun. But there is so muchmore to this movie that is serious and compelling, it’s hard to ratethis movie as a comedy. Perhaps it’s the shockingly promiscuousbehavior of the characters that prompted laughter in the theaters. Iadmit that I was shocked by some of the behavior in the movie watchingit in 2004! I can only imagine how 1975’s average movie-goer saw it!But it was more scathing character study than social satire, and muchof it very serious.

You can’t help but wonder if Warren Beatty (with legendary screenwriterRobert Towne co-scripting) wrote a character to explain himself to theworld. Yes, I’ve been with lots of women in Hollywood, including JulieChristie, Diane Keaton and even Madonna before settling down withAnnette Bening, but there’s more to me!!!! And more IS told in thisfilm than tawdry exploits. It examines the emptiness of the lives ofbaby-boomers during the late 60s who were outright rebelling against,or trying very unsuccessfully to live within, the confines of what was"right" and "moral."

Lee Grant was effective and entertaining as an unhappy older woman (butnot much older) having a fling with Beatty and cheating on her cheatinghusband Jack Warden. But was it Oscar-worthy? Methinks not. It wasgood, not great. Give that Oscar to Goldie Hawn or Julie Christieinstead! And Jack Warden was robbed of an Oscar, infusing so muchpathos into the persona of a man simply too old to live like the kidsdo, but trying way too hard to keep up anyway. Despite his riches and"establishment" stuffiness, Warden gives a performance that makes youfeel for him and understand the man he’s trying to grow up and be.Seeing him in a party of hippies was so sad, you just wanted him to gohome and get a good night’s sleep. In the hands of a less gifted actor,the role would have been seen as merely clownish or cold.

All in all, "Shampoo" was a great, biting criticism of how life wasgoing for the confused masses who shook their heads in disbelief asTricky Dick was elected TWICE, and were trying to update the book ofmorality for a far more open generation. You can definitely see howtoday’s 20 or 30-somethings might have grown up to be misguided andlost with parents like these!

Warren Beatty perfectly embodies the anarchist loner who struggles forlove, yet settles for lust.

Check out the scene in the bank where George is determined to get aloan for the hair shop he’s always wanted, yet the bureaucratic schmuckwon’t give him a chance. Times sure haven’t changed.

Hal Ashby made some of the satisfying films of our times and SHAMPOOhas it all: timing, comedy, love and loss, the struggle to strive toattain something yet not quite being able to attain it.

Everyone in this film is beautifully cast and the music (much of it byPaul Simon) is phenomenal.

Never having seen this til this weekend, wasn’t sure what to expect. Iliked Beatty, he was obviously playing someone younger than his actual(38)age-and did quite a good job. He looked alarmingly like either David Cassidyor Rick Springfield in that get-up, so…some of the effect was dulled bythat. His guy was really…a drifter through life, a Zonker-Lothario type,who couldn’t committ, and seemed to be attracted to like minded gals hewaited on and etc.

Goldie Hawn as always plays Goldie Hawn-but that is alright-she is whatMelanie Griffiths could have been without all the drugs and some careersmarts.

Julie Christie seemed outta place-what is such a classy lady as this doingdrooling over Beatty, Warden, etc.? Of course she added much to theflick-but….better than the material.

Lee Grant got an Oscar for being a randy older woman-hmmm, yeah she was fun,cynical and all that. Good turn by her.

I enjoyed seeing 19 year old Carrie Fisher basically play Amy Fisher here.And to think a bare year later she was ‘Princess Leia’ LOL. Yup. Interestingcasting there Lucas.

Other things-the Nixon election backdrop, the love quadrangles, the image ofBeatty on the hill, alone, etc. are poignant, funny, etc. I got a kick outtaseeing Johnny Fever as Hawn’s date too-though it was hard to recognize himthrough the hair, bellbottoms and etc.

Overall-dated somewhat, but alright…

*** outta ****.

There are enough comic situations that work accompanied some actuallymovingdrama (especially at the end) to allow me to recommend this film. WarrenBeatty, as elite hairdresser George Roundy, really carries this film andhisevasiveness, optimism, wit, and yes libido in the various scenes are puttogood comic use. The female co-stars are also more than competent in theirroles. Overall, I think this film is somewhat overrated but stillworthwhile, 7/10.

A satire about modern relationships, sex, love triangles andcontradicting values in regard to these issues, the film has someinteresting ideas, such as whether sex is just for fun, and someamusing moments, but it falls a little sh
ort in building up a solidstory. Beatty still has an interesting character: one whose ease inwhich he has sex with so many people is actually quite funny to watch,and the film is somewhat of a cultural study - the times of the ’70s.Some people will have heard of the film simply because of Lee Grant’sOscar win, which is a bit of a surprise, because the film is not reallyone for acting. Warden was also nominated that year, and gives aperformance that verges on being good in the film. But the only realoutstanding piece of acting comes from Carrie Fisher, who is effectivein her big screen debut. Overall, the film is far off being anythingnear a masterpiece, but it has quite a few good elements, and if onecan get a copy it may just be worth checking out.

i was most definitely way too young when i saw this movie. but howeveri did enjoy it. a couple of parts were very….inappropriate for a 10year old. basically the whole movie was watching Warren Beatty do itwith people. at the time i didn't understand half of what they said.Andwhen Carrie fisher said "So do you wanna f**k??" i had no idea whatthat meant.As i said early i was to little to understand the movie. butnow that i'm older i understand it better and understand what they aresaying. overall it was a good movie, the acting was good and it waspretty funny…i guess. and this was Carrie fisher's first film, theoriginal reason why i watched it in the first place.

Wonderful film that has held up remarkably well. Much helped byexcellent and very sharp dialogue this portrait of a particular momentin the late 60's when the hedonism of the young was in such oppositionto the 'established' way that it really seemed like the world mighttopple over. But Nixon was elected, there was pause for breath and theexperiment was over. Politics aside this is funny, sexy and a realtreat to watch. All the performances are spot on and as, for me anyway,all three leads can be a bit lazy, Ashby does a great job in bringingout most believable and endearing turns. The only slight snag, I feel,is that Julie Christie looks a little less than stunning under what Ihope is a greyish wig. Particularly noticeable because this isostensibly about hairdressing but never mind, others seem to love herlook so it must just be me.

read comments (0)

Nashville

I wanted to see this movie because I love music and movies about music.I also wanted to see it because of the star filled cast. There were alot of problems I had with this movie, though. First off, it was justplain and endlessly boring. The story revolves around a lot ofdifferent characters and their lives in the Nashville country musicscene. I found all of these characters to be completely uninterestingand unlikable. I also found practically all of the music to beterrible. The only exception was "Hard Ridin Cowboy Man" which I liked,and for some unknown and confusing reason, that song is not even listedon the soundtrack. The rest of the movie just seemed to be a bunch ofscenes scrapped together, with no plot or meaning. Maybe this is thekind of movie you need to watch more than once to appreciate, but I amnot willing to give it another 3 hours of my time to find out.

Neither Altman nor his stars understood country music. The authorhaving insinuated politics into the film was both gratuitous anduseless–adding nothing to the story but more cynicism. It was asthough Mr. Altman threw a lot of balls into the air, hoping one of themwould hit. The music was dreadful–might pass for drugged-up folk musicbut had no melody. Poor Johnny Gimble, Texas’s best fiddler, who lookedpained but characteristically pleasant while trying to save bad, fake"country & western" music–he doesn’t even get a credit on this site,while Vassar Clements does. The movie was full of inaccurateinterpretations of the country music style and milieu. While attemptingto be a send-up of hicks and small-minded rednecks, they even got THATwrong! Cartoonish pastiche on that theme, while being hackneyed andunfair, could have been achieved with little effort, but wasn’t. It isas though Altman and crew were ALL on psychotropic drugs during themaking of this film. I also pitied Merle Kilgore, who is a truesong-stylist of high quality, having written many big country & westernhits including "Wolverton Mountain". He and Mr. Gimble were cynicallyinvited to participate in a movie that not only had no point, butwhich, in its stab at ridiculing the country music scene, onlysucceeded in exposing the bad taste and ignorance of Hollywood itself.The plot sickens–oh no, wait: there wasn’t one. Mr. Altman thought hecould cleverly use the "One Day’s Chronicling" device to conceal thatdeficit. That dawg don’t hunt!

I’m eternally grateful to Robert Altman for championing Hollywoodnaturalism at the turn of the revolutionary 1970’s. However, a spade isa spade. Nashville is the usual Altman recipe; technical brilliance,unpleasant characters, universal cynicism and over-length.

Grade: F, or 5/10, or OK, or ‘watch it once and forget about it’

If you love this movie, The Player and Short Cuts should leave youecstatic and you might even love the recent Magnolia (not by Altman,but similar ideas). If you hate it, avoid anything labelled ‘a RobertAltman movie’.

Wow. I was really surprised when I saw this film tonight. I'd heard somuch about it being such a masterpiece and one of the best films of70s, that I knew I had to see it. Afterwards, I just have to assumethat the rest of the films of the 70s were rotten for this to one ofthe best! Most of the reason I disliked this movie was that it seemedlike every second was being created by someone with ADD,…perhaps evenADD as well as crack! That's because there are no quiet moments–onlyscenes where practically everyone is talking at the same time and itseemed like they were trying to cram 3000 minutes of film into onemovie. And because of this, after a while I just wanted it to stop.While some might be amused by this, it just seemed overwhelming andannoying.

It's funny–I have never liked Country music, but I really felt sorryfor the people of Nashville because the movie seemed to paint them sopoorly–like some sort of freak show. It seems that according to thewriters, director and actors, the people of Nashville, and perhapsAmerica of the 70s, is made up of dumb hicks.

Sorry to say, but I just got through watching 160 minutes of pure garbage.What an awful movie. There was absolutely no plot at all. The movie was justone bad musical performance after another. There was no story, the characters were not developed at all, theacting was bad, and each scene had nothing to do with the next. Want me togo on? I can’t believe that this movie is actually considered a classic. Igave it a 1 rating and I was being generous. Avoid at allcosts

I guess the fact that I watched "Nashville" on September 10, 2001,doesn’t really relate to anything. But aside from the fact that Iwatched it during the last few hours of normalcy, it also seems tomirror the world today. With this movie, Robert Altman did what heoften does: look deep into something that people often take forgranted. In this case, he does an expose of country music’s capital,and the cynicism that was clearly pervading America in thepost-Vietnam, post-Watergate era, and is once again taking over due toeverything related to the Iraq War.

As with every one of Altman’s movies, everyone is talking at once (dueto the fact that Altman lets his actors and actresses develop their owncharacters). The story is told through the eyes of several people,played by Henry Gibson, Ronee Blakely, Ned Beatty, Lily Tomlin, KeithCarradine, Barbara Harris, Shelley Duvall, and others. Elliott Gouldeven has a bit part as himself.

Maybe "Nashville" isn’t Altman’s best movie ever, but it’s certainlyworth seeing. It’s sort of like "The Player", only set in Nashville("Dr. T and the Women" was also the same sort of genre, only set inDallas).

I gotta admit that I wasn´t blown away by Nashville. I´d heard so much aboutit and have always wanted to see it because of all the good actors. They AREgood but nothing much happens in the film and the improvised dialoge doesnot help. It was too loooooong with several country tunes performed frombeginning to end one after another (good songs but zzzzzzz for a movie).

The best was without a doubt Opal, the BBC reporter! I didn´t knowGeraldine Chaplin was so good!!!! And I just LOVE Shelley Duvall and hercool sexy 70´s get ups! What was Elliot Gould and Julie Christie doing inthe film??? Great actors but NOTHING!!! I got a weak spot for Barbara Harrisand Lily Tomlin but they didn´t have much to do either.

The movie is the best document of the seventies, tho.

This is a very boring movie with a large collection of shallow anduninteresting characters. In spite of its accolades, we could stand to bebored no more and about half way through it, we walked out–the only moviethat has ever caused me to do that.

This could have been one of the great films of all time, and very nearly is. However, Altman made one fatal error in the production of this film, whichis allowing the actors to write and, worse yet, sing their own songs. Country music isn’t my cup of tea, but even I will acknowledge that it’sbetter than this. Keith Carradine did a good job writing and singing hissongs, but are we to seriously believe that the characters played by HenryGibson and Karen Black would become country music stars? This stretchesplausibility to the breaking point. In other films about musicalperformers, someone else always does the singing and/or playing, and it isdubbed into the soundtrack. Otherwise a brilliantly original andgroundbreaking film; Altman is a true original and never repeats himself 9/10

After renting this hyped Altman movie from my library, my conclusion iswhat promises to be an interesting character study was overlong andpacked with lengthy, absolutely excruciating songs that have not agedwell at all.For someone born after 1973, the hideous polyeste
r leisuresuits are freaking hilarious.There’s plenty of nudity and sex and drugsgoing on, so it has that going for it as well. The scene where thefaded country star suffering an on-stage breakdown is kind of eerilyamusing(and more than a little reminiscent of a medicated CourtneyLove), but overall, good performances from Ned Beatty and Lily Tomlinsuffer from just too much crappy music to make this watchable more thanonce or twice. 6/10

read comments (0)

Dog Day Afternoon

I was not alive in the seventies to see this movie the first time around.In 2002 when I did finally first watch part of it on video, I felt myselfbecoming more and more depressed about the world. The setting of thefilm,the pacing, the seemingly directionless progression of events, all seemedtoleave a bitter, stale taste in my mouth. It was, in a way, fascinating tosee Al Pacino at a much younger age than the movies I have always seen himin. And the dynamic of the crowd jeering during his scenes outsidebroughtsome energy to the film that began to interest me, but I turned it off,somewhere near three quarters of the way through the film, becausefrankly,it didn’t entertain me enough. I still believe in Al Pacino as a greatactor, but Dog Day Afternoon left me feeling as though I had wasted mytime.My advice would be that you don’t waste yours on it, despite rave reviewsof so many self-important critics of the classics of movies.

One of Pacino’s "low end" movies. Pacino himself played a pretty decentrole, among him other actors did also a decent job with the movie. It isjust that the plot was not great at all, in fact it was verydisappointing.The movie contained too many lengthy scenes where nothing happened and theover all suspense area of the movie was very dull. Overall it was a prettybad movie.

As with other films on the Top 250 list, I often find myself asking,"Is this picture ranked too high or not high enough?" In the case of"Lord of the Rings", the answer is they’re ranked way too high. And"Dog Day Afternoon", while not a bad film, seems a bit odd to be rankedso high (although most Pacino fans would disagree).

The movie is a telling of the true story of a man and his friend whorob a bank to try to get funds for a very just cause. I won’t say whatthat cause is, because this is what makes the film really interesting.Al Pacino is the perfect bank robber. This should be no surprise, asPacino is great in basically everything he does ("Scent of a Woman","Scarface", "Gigli"). And pairing him with his "Godfather" co-starseems a logical choice.

If you want an emotional film where you sympathize with the bankrobber, this is your film. It’s hard to be against Sonny (Pacino). Atpoints, he even had the crowd and media outside the bank cheering himon.

With all this praise, you’re wondering why I doubt it’s a Top 250 film.And the simple answer is pacing. This film takes place 99% of the timein a bank, in one room. Very little happens in this room. So, what wesaw in 2 hours could have been trimmed to 90 minutes without reallylosing anything, in my opinion. There is a fine line between "suspense"and "waiting around". Also, this film has no music or background sound.That makes the pacing seem even slower than it already is.

But it’s still a good movie. And if you like Al Pacino, at some pointyou really must watch this movie because there’s never going to be onelike it again. Recommended for Pacino fans, and preferably youshouldn’t watch it alone.

I love movies since I was a kid. I think I even loved them more when I was akid because it was easy for me to abstract myself from reality. Watching amovie was like being inside it, and that was extra-cool.

Of course, time goes by and you grow up, and as you change you learn towatch and value films in different ways. It’s not just a roller-coasteranymore. You admire the actors, you appreciate the direction, the story, youtry to look at the details, there’s a lot to learn by watching a movie. Butnow and then, a movie comes by that makes you be a kid again. You forget allabout yourself and when you realize you’re shaking, you’re nervous andscared about what’s going to happen to this guy, like your very own lifedepends on it.

Dog Day Afternoon is like that.

You know what I’m talking about. Those movies that make you stop and realizethat this is why cinema is a great form of art. In the times we live in it’slike there’s a pop-video infection out there, all movies have to be slickand fast, no time to talk no time to think, it’s all action and boom, thereyou go again… Moviegoers are becoming addicts to this new visual style.All action movies must look like Matrix to be cool. Hell, I loved Matrix,but let’s get real now okay. We even have a `matrixized’ version of thethree musketeers for that fashionable new look. What the hell! Let’s rewindplease…

I’m not going to bother you with the story. It’s a bank robbery but it’s somuch more than that. It’s the story of a desperate man trying to set thingsstraight when all has gone wrong. It’s about the media exposure, it’s aboutpolitics, it’s about sexuality and incomprehension. It’s about a societythat has no answers for you and me man, a machine in motion with no soul andno forgiveness (and what a contemporary view of the world it still istoday). And if you have doubts on why Al Pacino is a fantastic actor, justlook at this! I don’t care who you are, this man is great and always willbe!

Finally, if I were to choose my favorite directors I probably wouldn’tremember Sidney Lumet at all. Still, Dog Day Afternoon and Serpico stand, tome, as two monuments of that big american movie-making legacy we all grew upwith. A reference and a lession that movies should, at their core, be aboutpeople and the complexities of the human spirit.

So, let’s rewind…

Al Pacino gives a good performance as a bankrobberwith bad luck. Unfortunately the movie is toolong; after one hour you’re waiting for the end,but the director stretches it out way too long.

I couldn’t get over the resemblance between young Chris Sarandon, whoplayed Leon, and Mark Ruffalo ("Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind,""You Can Count on Me").

When Leon first appeared in the movie, I was freaked. I thought for amoment it was actually Ruffalo in the role, but that didn’t make anysense, since the movie was made in 1975, and Ruffalo was born justeight years earlier, in 1967.

I never would have thought that Leon was played by the same guy whoplayed Prince Humperdinck in "The Princess Bride."

Anyone else notice this, or is it just me?

—Terry from Seattle

Several messages, actually, all of them bad.

As an old-line Marxist, director Lumet is a stalwart partisan of theworking class– theoretically. Yet Bath Beach in Brooklyn, an actualworking class neighborhood where the movie is set, is depicted as acommunity of loafers and hooligans who cheer on the bank robbers andtry to keep the police from doing their job.

Not that Lumet is any friend of the forces of order, either. If thethoroughly anti-police "Serpico" and "The Anderson Tapes" didn't makethis director's views clear enough, note here how the F.B.I. agents areshown as treacherous, evil men because they quickly and professionallybring to an end a dangerous situation which the local police struggledwith for ten hours without a resolution.

Maybe Hollywood wasn't trying to sneak in some pro-gay propaganda, butSid Lumet certainly was. The character Sonny, sympathetically played byLumet regular Al Pacino, neither acts nor sounds homosexual. You do nothave a clue that he is gay until a good half way in the movie when themotive for the bank robbery is revealed. This subtle bias takes up thetheme begun in the earlier "Anderson Tapes", where a prior physicalrelationship between the Sean Connery hero and a very young ChristopherWalken is suggested.

Made in the mid seventies, this picture embodies the sixties in itsalienated social attitudes.

A very funny film when you watch closely. Pacino’sSonny is a complete idiot. He goes in to rob a bank with no realthought how he’s going to get out with the money or if he’sgoing to make it out alive at all. No plan
ning. No idea how to deal with thesituation. Don’t have any intention of killing anybody. Don’t even know whythey’re robbing the bank in the first place. That’s what makes the film amasterpiece. Lumet and Pacino are poking fun at the Fox-TV phenom called "America’s Dumbest Criminals" : These characterswho rob banks or 7-11’s, get in a bind and then turnthe entire ordeal into a tragedy about their lives andtheir hopes and dreams…not of the people being held up at gunpoint.That’s brilliance!

I like this movie very much.It is a little bit slow though.It is a perfect movie to watch on arainy sunday afternoon.

Al Pacino and Charles Durning are the highlights of Dog Day Afternoon, athriller concerning a pair of none-too-bright bank robbers and the hostagesituation they find themselves thrown into. John Cazale is also effectiveas dim but dangerous Sal, a guy who doesn’t know that Wyoming is just astate, but seems capable of murdering his hostages with no trace of emotion. When he says he’s prepared to send out bodies, I had a feeling he meant it. Some of the shouting-match negotiations between Sonny (Pacino) andDetective Moretti (Durning) are really funny. While I thought it was prettysolid, I don’t rate it as an all-time classic like others seem to. With theexception of the last 12 minutes, there was a lack of intensity that I feltwas needed for this type of movie. Pacino seemed almost TOO gentlemanlytoward his hostages, and it costs the atmosphere.

read comments (0)

A Boy and His Dog

Not being the most expensive movie of all times "A Boy and his Dog" isclearly one of the best laughs of all times. The clearly politicalincorrectmessage ("Eat your girl rather than your dog when you’re hungry") is a mostamusing counterweight to today’s boring pc-culture. While not including anyreal racist message, which would be bad, the movie sticks to racism againstfemales and "superior society", which is really funny. Furthermore, welearnthat a well-structured and organized world causes impotence of men andsex-maniacs can only exist in chaotic anarchy. We also learn that a dog hasmore intellect than any man. So, we end up with the following order ofworthiness of life-forms (low to high): females, organized men, maniacs,dogs. Very true! Watch this movie, whenever you are male and get real angryat society or females!

I gave this movie a 4, only because since I am still thinking about it a dayafter indicates that it must have something going for it. I had difficultysuspending disbelief while watching this movie. Perhaps I just couldn’tfind the post-apocalyptic world even vaguely plausible.

I also found the main character to be unsympathetic with no redeemingqualities at all. Perhaps it is just "PC" of me (Is anyone else sick of thepeople who parrot PC! PC! to any objections? That is simply another form ofPC itself), but I just couldn’t care about the main character, a nomadicrapist.

The underground society strikes me as the Morlocks and the Eloi rolled intoone. The movie tries to deliver a critique of how repressive society canbe, but since the main character is at least as despicable as the leaders ofthe underground society, the impact is lost. The main character’s life as anomadic rapist is hardly any better then the socially and sexually repressedunderground society.

I also could not buy the idea that the relationship between the boy and thedog was a friendly one. "Albert" is rather cruel to the dog throughout themovie. I probably would have liked the movie, except for the final scenewhich ruined it for me.

I suppose someone might like this movie if they like sex with women, butdon’t happen to actually like women at all.

Here’s a ridiculous movie that never aspires, so it wallows inself-pity.

The best way to describe this is an unimaginative version of ‘Mad Max’ and’1984′. Sadly, this doesn’t break any new ground for our imagination.Theonly novel element is the talking dog which, by now, isn’t amazing asidefrom his ‘Lethal Weapon’-esque conversations with Don Johnson.

Final Analysis = = Cinematic Dud

First off… To the guy who said that this movie doesn’t say anything..Please try to use more than 1 percent of your brain cells next time youanalyze a movie. To those who think that the writer of this story,Harlan Ellison, intended on being anti woman in his creation of thefinal scene, you need to re-examine the story’s real meaning. The movie(and especially the original story) is making a strong statement aboutthe meaning of love. Love is honest. Love is survival. Vic probablymakes the most mature decision in his entire life by choosing the dogover the woman. He needed to choose the dog over all else in order tohave a future in that harshest of all worlds. He chooses life overtemporary sexual pleasure. Vic was never in love with Quilla June. Inthe world of "A Boy and His Dog" a Vic and Quilla June relationship wasdestined to fail for many obvious reasons.

Nevertheless, the original story does a much better job of exploringVic’s ambivalence in making the final decision. It is true thatEllison’s original novella is a masterpiece. Thanks for listening.

A low budget scifi film that has been accorded "cult" status. The ratherunexpected ending was very shocking for it’s time and even today will causesome to be a bit taken aback . This film is also notable for being the firstendeavor for Don "5 o clock shadow" Johnson and of couse for "Blood" histalking canine companion. While Blood is clearly the intellectual superiorcharacter,, in this film the dog is also the better actor. A must see if youwish to be taken seriously as a knowledgeable film buff.

This film is a bit silly and leaves much to be desired as far as thecinematic process goes. The story is the reason to sit through this movienot the film making. L.Q.Jones is a fine actor and we applaud thosetalents, but his direction is only slightly less wonderful than the acting.As far as the acting goes, the doggie should have top billing.

Okay I watched this movie about 2 months ago..I must say that it is avery…."STRANGE" movie but it’s different in a way having the Dog as the intelligentbeing.I didn’t get to see the ending because the TAPE was destroyed at theend…But from what I saw…some of the scenes were interesting, and thecamera was used well in my mind..I would like to see the rest of this filmsometime but unfortunately the Video stores around here don’t havethem!!SO I’m stuck using my imagination.ALl in all A boy and his dog…I think wasn’t the best movie but it wasn’tthat bad! If I had to rate it 7/10

Excellent movie adaptation of the award-winning novella, which wound upwinning the same award (the Hugo) all over again. The dog itself iswonderful, and the story unfolds with great professionalism. The picture isalso more than it seems at first glance; for instance, the first half of thefilm takes place almost entirely in outdoor silence, and the second halfindoors, with continuous noise and talking. Watch the jaws in the room dropas people slowly realize what’s going to happen in theend.

When I first heard of this movie I had no intention ofeverseeing it. I am a cat person, and could care less about some silly storyabout a dog and his mutt. That was before I knew the screenplay waswrittenby Harlan Ellison as an adaptation of his novella.

The first time I saw it I knew I had to own it. I subsequentlypicked up a copy at the earliest oppurtunity. It is a fantastic cultscience fiction classic and model of post-apocalyptic film making. Defttouches of humor abound. The back lists it as an inspiration for Mad Max.

A Boy and His Dog is the story of Vic/Albert, and his dog Blood as theyekeout their living in the Southwest wastelands of post World War IV. Bloodisa lot smarter than Vic and communicates with him telepathically.

Vic is played by Don Johnson, after he had made 3 earlierfilmsand was about to make 5 or 6 tv pilots before landing Miami Vice. If youhave a low opinion of Don Johnson’s talent I believe this film will changeyour mind. I will give no more of the plot away, but I have to say if theending surprises you then you missed the point of the picture.

The dog’s training and voiceover is as much responsible forthesuccess of this film as anything else. The voice of Tim McInire fitsperfectly for the dog’s character and was magnificently acted/voiced. Thebest lines are given to Blood ("Once more into the breach, dear friends").The dog was phenonomenal. When the (voice of the) dog is talking theanimal’s posture and movement are perfect. I found out in the commentarythat the pooch’s trainer got together before the shooting and transferredcontrol of the animal over to Don Johnson. Therefore during the movie itwould not look to its trainer for guidance, but to Doninstead.

A lot of people bash this movie for its production values. I’d like toseethem do the same to Mad Max. The script easily takes this film past anybudgetary limitations.

A rather bizarre odyssey of a teenager and his telepathic dog romingthe wasteland of Arizona set 50 years in the future when it was made, andaccording to this film, all the presidentsof the United States after Gerald Ford were Kennedy’s. Th
e real star of the film was Tiger the Dog as Vic’sbestfriend and pet. Their days consist of roaming the scavaged wasteland lookingfor food and women to rape. One night when Vicand Blood are visiting a movie theater made from scavaged remains, the dogsniffs out a woman who is in an abandoned YMCAand has a wild night with Vic. She is from an underground society and triesto coax him to come there to live. Vic followsher there and it turns out he is to be milked for his spermtoservice over 100 women, since the men are unable to reproduce.The underground sequences are so laughably fake and cheesyandwere obviously constructed sets of Asroturf and plastictreesbut obviously the director seems to be having a great time poking fun attraditional Middle-American values, particularlyself-righteous religious hypocrisy. After Vic and the girl escape back tothe wastelands, he finds his starving and dyingdog friend and feeds him. I won’t give away the rest of thefilm.

read comments (0)

Saturday Night Live

This show was an amazing, fresh & innovative idea in the 70's when itfirst aired. The first 7 or 8 years were brilliant, but things droppedoff after that. By 1990, the show was not really funny anymore, andit's continued its decline further to the complete waste of time it istoday.

It's truly disgraceful how far this show has fallen. The writing ispainfully bad, the performances are almost as bad - if not for themildly entertaining respite of the guest-hosts, this show probablywouldn't still be on the air. I find it so hard to believe that thesame creator that hand-selected the original cast also chose the bandof hacks that followed. How can one recognize such brilliance and thensee fit to replace it with such mediocrity? I felt I must give 2 starsout of respect for the original cast that made this show such a hugesuccess. As it is now, the show is just awful. I can't believe it'sstill on the air.

Maybe it's being across the street from Radio City Music Hall. Maybe itis the live concept. Maybe it is Lorne Michaels. Whatever it is, thishas become TV history.

In the 1970's when it started, this show produced a gold mine oftalent. Chevy Chase, Dan Akroyd, Jane Curtin, Bill Murray, GildaRadner, & a host of others. Don Pardo, the original game show announcerfor Jeopardy, is about the only person who has been there the entirerun. When the originals left, folks like Eddie Murphy came in and tookover & did well.

Somehow, even after Murphy left, and Al Franken came in & set back theentire show, it just kept going. How this show survived me, Al Franken,is a miracle in itself. The thing is the show always delivers variety &satire. Because it renews itself often and really has no competition onSaturday Nights, it keeps going.

The shows presents a wide variety of topics, usually picks its topicswell, & the live aspect keeps it unique in our times. Recently, theHalloween Party with the Clintons got the show back towards it'soriginal edge a bit. Fox has tried to compete with it part of the timeusing MAD TV but that show is taped & is just not the same thing.

SNL still retains it's edge and thankfully too me, Al Franken, is nowhistory that closes out of town. The other reason this show survives isthat it always moves on to something new with it's loose format. It'soriginal success was a pure accident. Now that it has gone this long,it is no longer an accident, but care taken in the production of itthat keeps it going strong.

SNL is the longest running live program ever on television.

Saturday Night Live is a testament to late night TV. Thanks to SaturdayNight Live, many great actor and writers became Hollywood stars thanks tothis show. With it’s great acting, outrageous writing, and better thangoodguest hosts, this show gets better with every year passing.

I have been a huge fan of Saturday Night Live for years. This is hasbeen one of my personal favorite shows and is one of the funniest showsof all-time too. The best SNL shows to watch, in my opinion that I haveseen are Will Farrell, Chris Farley, Adam Sandler, Mike Myers, JimmyFallon, Chris Rock, and more. I have watched tons of SNL episodes butthese are probably the funniest that I have ever encountered. Overall,Saturday Night Live is probably one of the funniest shows out there andsince so many funny shows are dying out, you will always look up to SNLand will never get tired of its jokes. I highly recommend if youhaven’t seen any episodes of it.

Hedeen’s Outlook: 10/10!! **** A+

How lame can a show get? Their main crazy guy is Tina Fey. This showwas great while I was growing up but now this show should die like therest of us. Why won’t this show die you might ask? Is it because ofSatan, Jesus or maybe even the most gay person ever, Jimmy Fallon? Ithink Jimmy Fallon did this to us. He must have sold his soul causethis dude ain’t funny. I love how he laughs at all his jokes andeveryone else’s skits… but does anyone else laugh. Hardly… If youwatch Saturday Night Live you like having sex with chickens. Oh well,is this comment ready for submission yet, probably not but Jimmy Fallonis gay. And we’re not talking cool gay, we’re talking Catholic priestgay.

This show has to be the best variety/comedy show ever! It started out someof the funniest(and my favorite) actors such as Will Ferrell, Ben Stiller,Chevy Chase, Chris Farley, Adam Sandler, Eddie Murphy, Dana Carvey, BillMurray, plus many, many more!! Plus there are a lot of funny hosts on theshow including Steve Martin, John Goodman, Danny DeVito, Alec Baldwin, TomHanks, and many other famous celebrities. Some of the funniest charactersare Tom Hanks’s ‘Mr. Short Term Memory’, Eddie Murphy’s ‘Mr. Robinson’,Chris Farley’s ‘Matt Foley’, plus many more! All of the show’s sketches arefunny, with funny impersonations, funny characters, funny celebrities, andfunny cast members to top it all off!

Bottom line: If anyone asks "What’s the best comedy show ever?" You’reprobably wondering ‘Three’s Company’, ‘Everybody Loves Raymond’, ‘Roseanne’,or something like that, YOU’RE WRONG! IT’S THIS SHOW! SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE ISTHE BEST SHOW EVER!!!!!!!!

9/10

How dare you call SNL fans comedically retarded. I think it’s a great show,with talented, smart comedians, and you SNL bashers have a lot of nerve toinsult people you don’t even know just because they like a TVshow

It's a few minutes past 1 am on Sunday and I wish I could call all ofmy friends and tell them that Saturday Night Live is back, as the bestlive television show. I am sure that there are many people, behind thescenes people, are responsible for this. Lorne Michaels is at the topof this list, but a more visible (and in this case tangible) reason isU2. When I heard U2 was playing on the show, I made it a point to watchSNL. The skits were good, Weekend Update was awesome, and U2 wasphenomenal.

U2's front man, Bono, made it quite clear that they were playing liveand not lip-synching; by peering into the camera and repeating the word'live' about a dozen times. The two songs 'Vertigo' and 'Sometimes YouCan't Make It On Your Own' from their latest album How To Dismantle AnAtomic Bomb were great, but then in a very rare and important (and soonto be classic) SNL moment…the show closes with another song, the U2classic 'I Will Follow'. Bono had the audience, cast & crew, the band,and myself in a whirl. He went over to hug and serenade Amy Pohler, whowas unabashedly crying with tears of joy (something reminiscent ofgirl's reactions to the Beatles back in the 60's). This act may haveeven topped their last great performance a few years back when ValKilmer hosted the show. Again it was Bono. After singing 'Elevation' hecontinued in stride singing a refrain from John Lennon's 'InstantKarma' while running around off stage in the camera area getting thecrowd into it. Finally, as the song ends, Bono walks past Val Kilmersinging 'C'mon baby light my fire'.

U2 has raised the bar for future performers on SNL. They have revivedthe integrity of the show, when just a few months ago another so calledartist threw the SNL integrity out the door. SNL is back. Don't missit!

This show, in my opinion, is extremely hilarious! I love the way thesketches tie in with current events, it provides a good laugh on a newsstory we are tired of hearing about and I also like the sketches they havedone on Jeopardy! and Who Wants to be a Millionaire, the game show onesweregreat. At times, I do feel uncomfortable with some of the things on herebut if you want a laugh, you’ve come to the right place.

I will name these "ages", as I call them, but the actor I admire most ofthat time. I know that acto
r may not have been in all the years in the"age", but you’ll get the drift.

THE CHEVY CHASE/DAN AYKROYD AGE (1975-1980) - This is the one that startedit all. Though I disagree that this was the best cast of all, I will agreethat this cast was full of very, very talented performers whom we owe a lottoo. I don’t think that SNL would be around, and certainly not assuccessful, if for them.

Honorable mentions of this age: John Belushi, Jane Curtin, Chevy Chase,Garrett Morris, Gilda Radner, Al Franken, Dan Ackryod

The main (best in my opinion) guy of this age: Bill Murray

THE EDDIE MURPHY AGE (1980-1985) - I’m embarrassed to say that I couldn’tthink of many honorable mentions for this one (aside from Martin Short), ormuch to say about it. I don remember it being great, and Eddie Murphy beingthe funniest of them all.

THE PHIL HARTMAN AGE (1985-1995) - This is the best age of all the SNL ages,by far. This is also the longest, because it lasted so long. Phil Hartman isthe man. Although he’s not my favorite of this age, he is probably the mosttalented and gifted. This produced the funniest actors and skits in myopinion.

Honorable mentions: Billy Crystal, Chris Farley, David Space, Mike Myers,Adam Sandler, Janeane Garofalo, Jan Hooks, Dennis Miller, Jon Lovitz, NormMacDonald, Victoria Jackson, Chris Rock, Rob Schneider

The main guy of this age: Dana Carvey (Phil Hartman & Kevin Nealon at closesecond)

THE WILL FARRELL AGE (1995-) - This is the weakest age of all, but not asbad as all the bad reviews it gets. I mean, come on, it’s still prettyfunny. It doesn’t quite live up to the nearly impossible acts it has tofollow, and it sure doesn’t beat the Phil Hartman age, but it’s still prettygood. And Will Farrell is awesome.

Honorable mentions: Chris Kattan, Molly Shannon, Cheri Oteri, Ana Gasteyer,Darrell Hammond, Jimmy Fallon, Horatio Sanz, Colin Quinn

The main guy of this age: Will Farrell

By the way, just for the record…the best host was Tom Hanks, the bestrecurring character was Steve Martin, the best musical guest was PaulMcCartney, the best update newsguy was Norm McDonald, the best impressionwas Dana Carvey doing George Bush and the best overall performer is DanaCarvey. I love this show with a passion, it’s one of the greatest shows onTV and it’s my lifelong dream to be on it someday (yeah right). Don’t makefun of the Will Farrell age; they’re all still very talented andfunny.

read comments (0)

Fawlty Towers

John Cleese is a God of comedy. Lets face it. He is great. A MontyPythonalumnus, Cleese decided to have his own show with ex-wife Connie Booth.Theyhave a lot in common: They are both hilarious! Hysterical one-linersthroughout the show will definitely be put in your one-linervocabulary. HYSTERICAL!

10/10

Fawlty Towers is a comic feast for all fans of British comedy in general,and John Cleese in particular, as most of the comic situations revolvearound him and his inimitable funny antics. His interaction with a host ofmemorable characters is brilliant, in particular his wife, played byPrunella Scales, Andrew Sachs as the linguistically challenged Spanishporter, and hotel maid and co-writer Connie Booth.

Definitely in the top five of the funniest sitcoms ever along withBlackadder, Yes Minister, Mr Bean, and Futurama.

~Håkon

No TV show beats this when it comes to comedy. It is so fantastic andCleesethe funniest British actor since Peter Sellers. A great script writer tooashe co-wrote it with the actress that plays Polly in it. A fantastic showwith each episode never leaving you unsatisfied. It was also so early forits time with Basil acting like a right old weirdo. Its so funny itsquashesevery other comedy sketch into the ground.

Better watching the complete series of this 100 times than watching StarWars once!!

Post-Python, this comedy (which only ran for two series) was thecreation of John Cleese and his then-wife Connie Booth. As well aswriting the series, they appeared as hotelier Basil Fawlty andlong-suffering maid Polly, supported by Prunella Scales as Basil’s nagof a wife, Sybil, and Andrew Sachs as the waiter from Barcelona,Manuel.

The recipe was one for success. The hotel had its regular guests (thebatty Major, played by Ballard Berkeley, for one) as well as differentvisitors each week. Memorable guest stars included Bernard Cribbins,Joan Sanderson, Robin Ellis, and Nicky Henson.

It is the main character of Basil Fawlty that you remember, though, theunhinged, ranting, flustered, frustrated, incompetent would-be littleHitler. A great comic creation which will last in TV memory for as longas the show continues to be aired.

I enjoy this show very much it is very entertainig and lot better then FullHouse, Saved The Bell, and all their rip-offs and copy cats. It’s way muchbetter then S Club 7 comparing this to that would be like comparing "ThisisSpinal Tap" to "Baby Genuises"

This is an excellent program. British comedy at its finest. John Cleeseis an absolute genius. He is amongst the funniest actors ever. Comingfrom Monty Python which ran from 1969 to 1974, he and wife, ConnieBooth (Polly) wrote this fantastic comedy series in 1975 (six episodes)and again after their divorce in 1979(another six episodes). Theydelivered perhaps some of the funniest scenes in British television.

But some people just don’t get it. The guy on the front page whoreferred to it as the best British comedy since Mr Bean simply does notget the genius of Fawlty Towers. Maybe it’s just Americans who don’tget the British humour. Their TV just seems to be a market foradvertisers and nothing to do with entertainment. Comedy there is justa copy of a copy of a copy with canned laughter added in. Unlike here.In England we take care with our TV. To compare Mr Bean with FawltyTowers is just an absolute insult to (SIR) John Cleese, and just makespeople think you are stupid.

My personal favourite episode was the Germans - Basil’s Nazi walk washilarious! With that episode there was just a whole 30 mins of non-stoplaughter. The rest were just as good and although it’s a shame therewere not more episodes to entertain me i’m happy they stopped at 2series because they would have exhausted a great talent and made thecomedy worthless. By the way, to the user who asked why there was afour year pause, Cleese and Booth were going through a divorce at thetime and were unsure if they were going to continue writing anotherseries, let alone appear in it.

Thank you John Cleese and Connie Booth for providing us with anoutstanding comedy that shall live certainly in my memory forever.

The Germans….a deaf lady…an inconsiderate guest who dies….aplayboy….a rat…..

Shall I go on?

The mere thought of some of those elements is enough to crack anybody up whoassociates them with the source material - the comic legend FAWLTY TOWERS.Two series of six episodes each, the last of the first series of episodesdelayed due to a BBC technicians strike are still the most amusing of alltelevision ever made and although other series like ONLY FOOLS AND HORSESand PORRIDGE are noted and acknowledged, the depth of character andscriptwriting is unquestioned.

Inspired by a real-life incident experienced by the Python team at a Englishcoastal hotel, Cleese and co-writer (and ex-wife) Connie Booth utilised itfor an earlier series, DOCTOR IN THE HOUSE and then were commissioned towrite a whole series based on the incident. After much work and carefulthought, the duo created a phenomenon which will live on andon.

Although THE GERMANS episode is remembered for the climactic payoff scene,there are other classic moments there, notably the fire drill sequence whichbrings home the reality of health and safety. Indeed, the moments that weremember often overshadow some of the other key moments in there that are asfunny and essential to the development of each episode’sstory.

Top characters, great performances, assured technical skills and greatdirection contribute all round to a terrific comedy experience.

Fawlty Towers is probably the funniest TV series I’ve ever had thepleasure to watch, I love every minute of the 12 episodes that weremade. Living in the UK I can usually see at least a couple of episodesa week as they are constantly repeated here at the moment on varioussatellite channels, I’ve probably seen every episode at least 6 or 7times each & they remain hilarious even after repeated viewings. JohnCleese as a manic Torquay hotel manager named Basil Fawlty really makesthe series for me, he is just so funny whether he is hitting his brokendown mini while verbally berating it or the infamous German episodewhere he advises everyone "don’t mention the war" which he predictablydoes himself with possibly the funniest scene in TV history as aresult, if something can go wrong it usually does! Prunella Scales asBasil’s domineering wife Sybil is perfect as is their good natured maidPolly played by Connie Booth. The only character I don’t really like isManuel whose constant over exaggeration of his Spanish accent grew old& tiresome very quickly. There isn’t anything else to say except if youget the opportunity watch it as I firmly believe you would have to haveno sense of humour at all not to enjoy it. 10 out of 10 all the way, itmakes me proud to be British!

This TV series brings me back to the good old days. Really. My fatherhad this on VHS along with Monty Python collection of feature films andTV shows. So, I grew up watching these TV shows. What a lucky kid, eh?Does she go, eh? nudge, nudge, wink, wink! I have to say it: JohnCleese has to be one of the funniest men of all time. He truly has agift. (Idle, Chapman, Gilliam, Jones et al. aren’t too shabby, either)Cleese plays Basil Fawlty, a bitter, forbearing grumpy hotel owner withpossibly the worst customer service skills on the planet. He enjoys hisdays in the company of Sybil, his domineering, nagging, gossiping, lazywife who would rather spend all day on the phone with her friends,doing hair/makeup, or flirting with handsome guests than actually work.(she’s quite good at delegating all of it to Basil) And who couldforget Manuel? Manuel is an immigrant from Barcelona who doesn’t speakEnglish (and consequently, Basil doesn’t speak Spanish. He tries, butthe results are
rather disastrous) Manuel tries hard to please Basilbut only ends up making things harder for him. The maid and the cook (i forget their names at present) are also hilarious…the place wouldfall to pieces if it weren’t for the maid who is also a budding artist,and the cook is good even if he won’t stay past nine when he has a hotdate.) The hotel also sports some residents, the major who is rathersenile and two older ladies who for some reason worship the groundbasil walks on.

All in all this is the funniest thing i have ever seen on TV and if youdon’t run out and buy it now it’s only your loss!

Fawlty Towers, a masterpiece about a troupe of crabby yet lovable hotelstaff. You can almost cry in pity for the hapless Mr Fawlty when heeithergiets a thrashing from his wife, or when he repeatedly gets struck on thehead. Although, the tears would most probably be that of laughter and thepain in your stomach from it. "The Germans" is the epitomy of racistcomedy, and yet it stands out as the finest example of any comedy in theworld. The execrable "Seinfeld", (with which Kramer is its only savinggrace) tried to imitate the "Irritating but lovable" character’s conceptfrom "Fawlty Towers," but instead just ended up with nasty, selfish andunlikeable losers as protagonists.

Long Live Fawlty Towers, the worst and funniest hotel in theworld!

read comments (0)