The Omen

I don’t know if my not having a religious background detracted from myexperience with this movie, but it’s basically just an excuse to stringtogether some admittedly spectacular death scenes, and slows to a totalcrawl in between, with loads of hysterically bad performance & dialogue.There are effective scenes, but Lord (no pun intended), does this movie dragon for a while. As for scaring me, it’s all so farfetched that it was nevera concern. Heaven knows (no pun intended again) it’s better than itssequels.

One of the most effective, shocking horror films of all time. The film dealswith the arrival of the antichrist in the form of a young boy. The boysparents slowly come to realize what there son is after he attacks his momwhen going to a church and various people who know what he is die suddenly.Highly original & tightly knitted pic with good editing, an exceptional andbone chilling score, handsome and grand looking production design, memorabledialogue and situations, a great cast with a good turn by Lee Remick and anaward worthy performance by Billie Whitlaw as the boys sinister nanny. Thefinale is especially exciting and chilling. Rated R; Extreme GraphicViolence & Profanity.

This is a real good movie..may be the best of all times[of it owngenre].Its all about the rise and fall of antichrist[the omen1,2,3]according to the bible’revelation of john’.The one made in theyear 1974 is about the birth of the antichrist..The makers of the moviehave made converted the bible verses into a movie in the bestway,possible..Its about the birth of the antichrist and the disasterthat took place after his birth..This story has an attempt to decodethe mystery of the number’666′which is mentioned as the number of theSatan in the bible.THIS IS THE STORY OF DAMIEN.THE ANTICHRIST WITH THENUMBER 666 ON THE RIGHT SIDE,ON LOWER SIDE OF HIS HEAD.SEE THE MOVIE TOALSO KNOW THE DISASTERS THAT FOLLOWED THE FAMILY WHO ADOPTEDHIM……..

I seem to remember the movie from my childhood as a smart, intriguingand scary film. Apparently, I was very impressionable back then. Now,all I could see are "controversial" ideas used as a means of marketingthe movie. Of course, you can't really call them clichés, as they wereused for the first or second time, but now the plot seems "just anotherdevil movie".

Of course, back in 76 you had no real visual effects, you had to relyon actors really playing their part. I think Gregory Peck did a goodjob. I continue to dislike Lee Remick as I did in childhood, so Ididn't really cry when she died. I even liked the dogs. I should checkmy hair these days.

Anyway, the atmosphere is rather well created, mad priests screamingnonsense and all, but then you could sell something like this. I willwatch parts 2 3 and 4 these days and come up with more comments onmovies.

Conclusion: it is rather difficult to watch these days, it certainlyemploys film methods that are now obsolete, but it is a good movie, abit above average. It might be interesting to compare with the 2006remake.

Better than the remake.

The scene with the monkeys/baboons has stayed with me for some reasonsince I watched it when I was about 5.

Not knowing the movie with this scene, I was surprised when it was inthis movie after I tried to watching a few horrors like the exorcist tofind this monkey scene.

I watched the remake in cinemas and I thought it could be this movie.

Comparing the two movies, this one has more creepiness and gives a fewshocks. The new one simply had better effects and makes the deaths abit more bloody, it didn't have any scenes that would make you jump inyour seat.

The original has an underlying chill sort of atmosphere and is simplybetter in its way to give a few scares.

Mr. Stephen Hanchett's book, Is George Bush the Antichrist?, is muchmore carefully reasoned and impressively researched than the movie,here; but, with a dangerously misleading limitation which ultimatelyand ironically serves to make it the fulfillment of II Thessalonians2:11!!! Is George Bush the Antichrist? The answer is, paradoxically,both yes and no–but, more basically, the answer is no!–Just as theselfsame description applies to Hitler! Embodying the trueconfiguration of Biblically Prophetic Patterning (but without beingable to elaborate adequately, in this brief space, upon most of thefinely and scripturally/historically demonstrable details) is acomprehensively paradigmatic unfolding of the story of Joseph (Genesis37-50), from the time he was sold into slavery by his eleven brothers(the other sons of Jacob), until the time of the Exodus, subsequent tohis death. His having been sold into slavery was a propheticforeshadowing of Exodus 1:8-14. His having become a servant in theEgyptian house of Potiphar represents the physical nation of Israelunder the Old Covenant Law. His removal, from there, to Pharaoh'sprison (but, in his case, like unto Christ's, whom he foreshadows, on afalse charge) represents the numerologically and historicallydecipherable (Leviticus 26) 2520-year period of national punishmentinflicted, first, upon the even hitherto displaced, but not for muchlonger (Ezekiel 37:15-28), and "lost" ten tribes of Israel at Samaria(II Kings 18:9-12), and, then, over one-hundred years later, upon theKingdom of Judah at Jerusalem (II Kings 25), for Israel's breach of theCovenant of Deuteronomy 28. The first half, or 1260 years, of theseworld-ruling empires, or seven heads, of Revelation 13:1, culminateswith the wounding of Rome, the seventh head, or fourth beast (Daniel7), in 476 A.D.; just as the second 1260 years, from 554 A.D., with thehealing of Rome's mortal head wound, by Justinian, to 1814 A.D., withthe fall of Napoleon, consist of the "Christianized" or "Holy" RomanEmpire, an eighth beast (Revelation 17:11), which both is and is not ofthe seven, in that it is and is not Christian (Galatians 1:6-9), butfundamentally and ultimately is not (Matthew 6:24) (Mark 9:38-50)(Revelation 3:15-17; 18:4). . . . Moreover, this eighth beast is, notonly on the seventh head, but is also an image or reflection of theoriginal beast, with still another seven heads and ten horns.Charlemagne, for instance, is, as the third horn and first head on theresurrected or eighth beast, a mirror image of Nebuchadnezzar; while,at the other end, Napoleon is a mirror image of Alexander the Great,and Hitler is an image of Antiochus Epiphanes. Most intriguingly,though, just as there is no head like unto the seventh, there is nohead like unto the seventh of the seventh (Daniel 7:7). With the fallof Napoleon, is to be found the benchmark date of the restoration ofthe birthright promise to Israel, originally bestowed, by God, throughJacob (Israel), to his two half-Egyptian grandsons (the sons ofJoseph), Ephraim and Manasseh, the "Great Nation" and "Company ofNations" (British Commonwealth) existing today (Genesis 48). Theconcept of American Manifest Destiny is biblically-rooted, but alsobitterly betrayed by those blessed and honored with the duty offulfilling it, as a virtuously magnanimous example and inspiration tothe world! Because of this tragically modern repetition of the ancientbreaking of the Covenant by Israel, the Birthright Nations shall againbe taken captive, but, this time, for 2520 days instead of years,divided, again, into two 1260-day intervals (Revelation 13:5), whichstructurally reflect the 2520-year intervals, but in reverse order. The"Man of Sin," in II Thessalonians 2:1-8, who was finally revealed, whenthe explicitly pagan Roman Empire had been moved out of the way, ruledfor 1260 years. Currently, she (Rome) is a widow (Revelation 18:7),minus her "Holy Roman Emperor" upon whom to ride. However, She shall beuniquely, overshadowingly preeminent, once again, when the ancientbeast rises, one last time, over the ashes of the Birthright Nat
ions. .. . In that particular vein, here's just a small structural indicationof how history repeats itself, but not exactly in the same ways,although unaccidentally close enough–here–to be Divinely-instructive,teleologically as well as axiologically! Compare Hitler's invasion andcarving up of Czechoslovakia to the current occupation of Iraq; just asIran shall be, for America, what Poland had been, for Hitler, andGermany–and the world! Obviously, then, Joseph's removal from prisonin Egypt, and appointment by Pharaoh as the second most powerful man inEgypt, represents the crushing of the head of the eighth beast, in1814, and the reinstatement of the ancient Birthright Promise toEphraim and Manasseh, a material and national blessing, to bedistinguished from the Scepter Promise to Judah (Genesis 49:8-10). And,of course, the shortly-upcoming dissolution of the Birthright Nations(Revelation 12) is anciently symbolized in the Pharaoh who "knew notJoseph," and the bitterly tragic consequences of that! The ancient"Apocalypse" which God, through Moses, had brought upon Egypt, was atype of what shall shortly occur on a global scale, when the seventhseal opens, as it does only once, at the beginning of the latter1260-day interval shortly to come; while the first six seals open threetimes, with the last, or "Anti-Typal" opening shortly to occur, at thebeginning of the first 1260-day interval. . . . For a continuation ofthis critique, go to the first sequel to this film, Damien: Omen II.

Coming on the heels of "The Exorcist" probably helped this movie get made.It made piles of money and spawned several unnecessary sequels. It was aclassy production with reputable stars (Gregory Peck and Lee Remick), anddependable co-stars are a sinister Nanny (Billie Whitelaw), and thevenerable David Warner. The movie is satisfyingly evil and scary butseveral scenes fall flat - Peck and Whitelaw’s knockdown fight, inparticular, should have been much better staged. The whole thing iswrappedin a loud but effective Oscar-winning score by Jerry Goldsmith, which isperhaps the most memorable thing here.

Some movies dealing with religious and apocalyptic themes are "get underyour skin and make you think" scary, and reflect the natures of good andevil represented in the Biblical accounts. Omen isn’t one of thosemovies,but it sure *wants* to be. To be honest, I found the film’s treatment ofreligious prophecies too laughably inaccurate to be as chilling as manypeople have said it was. If taken as seriously as its creators obviouslyintended it, then it would seem like extremist religious propaganda! Ididn’t find the characters to be intriguing, so their fates didn’t upsetme.The ending is predictable. It is a good example of 70s suspense andhorror, but nothing deeper than that.

I thought "The Omen" was a fantastic movie. The thrills and intensitywas very exciting. I thought this was way better than "Rosemary’sBaby". This had a little more to get from. The acting is phenomenal.The story is very cool and original. It is also very frightening. It’sa great thriller from the 70’s. I would highly recommend this. Foranyone. You could be a fan from "The Exorcist". Or just love horrorfans. It is practically a must for those fans. There are some momentsthat were a little boring. And the ending didn’t satisfy me. Not like"The Exorcist" did anyways. But it is still a great movie. Watch italone in the dark. You’ll get the full effect.

8/10

Compared to the amazing Rosemary’s Baby, or even the Exorcist, this movieisa cheap hack. If decapitions, impalements and a lot of pompous,melodramatic music and shrill choirs chanting at high volume are what makeascary film, then I guess this qualifies.

Filmmakers will still be studying Rosemary’s Baby 50 years from now.Nobodyserious has ever taken the Omen seriously, with good reason.

read comments (0)

Taxi Driver

OK this is definitely one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Nothinghappens in it. Nothing! This guy drives around in his truck andoccasionally makes the odd stop to make out with a strange girl orbrowse a porno theater. I can't for the life of me ascertain how thiscan be considered art by some "critics".

The lighting is bad; the camera work is shoddy at best; the plotdoesn't exist and mostly involves of close-ups of Deniro's head or theroad in front of him; the sound is bad and at times you can't even hearwhat the actors are saying (in particular Harvey Keitel in the hotelroom scene).

The movie is an absolute waste of time. One boring, arbitrary shotafter the other. Oh, there's a graphic bj scene in the end. Big deal.Sheppard was never that hot, nor a particularly important actress. Andthe ending? So he's dead! Woohoo! Not exactly groundbreaking stuffhere, guys.

Awful.

Well, the title of this post says all that I want to say.

See some great movies made during Neorealist age. Well this is aproblem with American movies. Some of these movies are great but thenwith so much hype and propaganda these movies are unnecessarily toutedas the "epics" or "masterpieces" or anything humongous: larger than theframe. The problem is those people who write these things or say thosethings, they have hardly any understanding of world cinema- the wholespectrum of movies about "anti-establishment", about "loneliness" thatthis movie will falter on those grounds.

I am NOT saying that this is a bad movie, this is a pretty good movie,BUT see a lot others (which are non-American in origin) and then draw aconclusion.

Its everywhere in this country that if something a bit better andunusual comes out, people immediately claim it a master "in the worldcinema".

Now, I know many of you will dismiss this as an anti-Americansentiment, many will dismiss because I am not discussing why I thinkso, and I DO NOT care to answer because the onus is your part toUNDERSTAND why there are many excellent and even better movies thatthis movie tries to portray.

Well there are few movies that you regret ever watching them and certainlytaxi driver will be one of them to me. I was "forced" to watch this moviedue to its fame, the caste and a excellent trailer shown in AXN ( where Iwatched the movie eventually ). I was shocked to see an actor of thecalibreof Robert De Niro wasted his time in producing such trash. If you wish tobore somebody to death, my advice would be to ask that person to watchthismovie.

I believe the word pathetic is on its place here meaning the subject ofthe movie work "TAXI DRIVER" not the visual style, the acting and ofcourse a very bad screenplay with bad lines which i believe is makingthis film work to a film work which musn't be consider as a momentum inthe history of film-making. The lead actor Mr. De Niro is really apathetic person and the whole performance of Mr. De Niro is laughableand Mr.De Niro his performance seems like if he is reading the linesout of a bad juvenile novel. The one aspect of this film work that canbe consider a more than average is the visual style that is coveringthe bad acting bad lines in this film work where murder is praised andthat is the subject of a movie work, where the original screenplay waskilling members of an ethnic minority group in the United States ofAmerica, and where murder is hailed. Ms Foster is playing a childprostitute which I personally wouldn't advice anyone who have youngindividuals living at home to see this film work, because this filmwork must be consider as inappropriate for these individuals to watch,even though one might say that it is film work and not the reflectionof reality. In that sense the film work "TAXI DRIVER" is not areflecting of reality, but a reflecting of how in Hollywood the law isnot consider as a serious option. Why did the main character didn't goto police to report the pimp played by Mr. Keitel for keeping a minoras prostitute ? This is the appropriate way to solve this. That theproducers and the director, who also is hailing e.g. the use of a gunin a scene where a client(played by the director)is asking the maincharacter if he realize what a magnum 54 can do if you put it in awoman, meaning his wife who is having sex with another man, her vagina.The Film work "TAXI WORK" is a low budget movie with a low budget themeand in my opinion cannot be consider as an piece of art.

This was a alright movie. It may have been a different movie but it isin no way a masterpiece.

I found it to be very boring. The only good bits were Robert De Nirotalking to a mirror, the scenes with Jodie Foster and the end scene.

It is very overrated and i don't see how people like it so much.

I borrowed this because of its high rating and because Martin Scorsesedirected it. It is nothing compared to The Departed and Goodfellas.

One of the things that saved this movie is the acting. De Niro andFoster were great. Robert De Niro delivered a disturbing performance asa night time taxi driver who comes a across a prostitute who he feelshe must save. Jodie Foster played that prostitute and her performancewas great.

The only reasons to see this is the acting and the good bits which imentioned at the start of this comment.

I recommend you see this some day.

6/10

Taxi Driver is an action movie without any action. It is a suspensethriller without any suspense. It is a love story without any lovestory. Michael Winner lead the way with his vigilante epic Death Wishand Scorcese cashed in on it with this sub par effort. De Niro imitatesCharles Bronson and fails. Only Charles Bronson can pull off thesevigilante roles with passion. De Niro tries hard to copy his mentorBronson but just doesn't make the grade. Scorcese's movie does not havehalf the style and shock value as Michael Winner's Death Wish. Theperformances here are lazy. The camera-work is not as good as DeathWish. Everything is sub par, including the awful soundtrack by BernardHoffman.

A word of advice, Scorcese: Leave the big city angst stories to MichaelWinner.

Why was this movie listed in the top 100? At this moment, I can’t recallthelast time I saw a movie worse than this one.The performances were all goodperformances, that is true. Unfortunately, the story they were in wasstupid. I kept waiting for the end so that all the meaningless drivel oftheprevious hour and 1/2 would come together and bring some sense and meaningto the endless, pointless, non-existent story thus far. Never came. Theending was even worse, unbelievable and completely un-realistic. I watchedthis with 2 other people. They agreed this was a stupid movie too! SPAREYOURSELF! DONT WASTE 2 HOURS OF TIME WITH THIS CRAP. Walk your dog, have anice meal, watch ANYTHING else and you’ll have a more enjoyable andinteresting time.

Unless I’m hopelessly not getting it, the plot suggests thatdo-it-yourself-justice, including death-penalty, is very cool and stylish.

The "hero" (De Niro) is made as a figure to identify with [the viewer isputinto the hero's point-of-view most of the time, and, more important, intothe hero's mood all the time - the monotonous melancholic soundtrack(basically, solo-saxophone) reflects the hero's extreme loneliness, andloneliness is a feeling known to everybody], and the hero’s fascistideology(some people are ‘dirt’) is not questioned anywhere.The film glorifies violence and fascist ideology, and that’s about mostdisgusting message I can think of, and not very original either.

Every James-Bond does the same, I admit, but the difference is, that incaseof James Bond, noone expects art, makers and viewers know, that a newJames-Bond is going to be the same old entertainment via spe
cial effects,completely lacking a story apart from standard testosterone-phantasy.Taxi-driver is like James Bond minus the special effects. If the messageactually should have been "the hero is an asshole", then the film is inane.If not, it’s worse.

The most overrated film I ever saw.

THis was one of those midnight movies that I watched, and my god it wasboring. Things kept threatening to happen, and nothing bloody did. JodiFoster was good, her performance is the only reason it gets one instead ofzero. I’m bored even talking about it.

It has been described as one of his greatest films, and I could agreethat this about BAFTA nominated director Martin Scorsese. Oscar, BAFTAand Golden Globe nominated Robert De Niro plays Travis Bickle, amentally unstable Vietnam veteran who has taken a job in New York cityas taxi driver because he suffers insomnia. He grows increasinglydisgusted by the lowlifes, scum and "trash" in the city at night, andthis obviously doesn't help his attempt to get somewhere with Betsy(Cybill Shepherd), who represents the vote for Senator CharlesPalantine (Leonard Harris), he even takes her to a porn movie on thefirst date! He fails also to help 12-year-old prostitute Iris (twiceBAFTA winning newcomer Jodie Foster) to desert her pimp 'Sport' Matthew(Harvey Keitel). Driven to insanity of powerlessness he buys fourhandguns and is intent on assassinating the Senator. Donning a Mohawkhairdo he is ready, but when he can't get close enough, he is gunneddown in the end after killing Matthew, oh, he didn't die, and hereturned to being a taxi driver. Also starring Peter Boyle as Wizardand Albert Brooks as Tom. I think the main reason to see this film (andthe most memorable and notable scene) is for the great improvised linewhen De Niro is talking to himself in the mirror, number 10 on 100Years, 100 Quotes, "You talking' to me?". It was nominated the Oscarsfor Best Music for Bernard Herrmann and Best Picture, it won the BAFTAfor the Anthony Asquith Award for Film Music, and it was nominated theBAFTAs for Best Film and Best Film Editing, and it was nominated theGolden Globe for Best Screenplay. Harvey Keitel was number 53, RobertDe Niro number 2 on The 100 Greatest Movie Stars, De Niro was alsonumber 50 on The 100 Greatest Pop Culture Icons, and he was number 5(along with Al Pacino) on The World's Greatest Actor, Travis Bickle wasnumber 30 on 100 Years, 100 Heroes & Villains, the film was number 22on 100 Years, 100 Thrills, it was number 47 on 100 Years, 100 Movies,and it was number 22 on The 100 Greatest Films. Outstanding!

read comments (0)

Silent Movie

This movie is hilarious!!!! It contains a lot of funny scenes and gags.Unlike other Brooks movies, this movie doesn’t have any funny dialogue butit has a lot of funny scenes and the scene where Mel Brooks races PaulNewman is awesome!

****out of****stars

Who ever said it was the slowest of Mel Brooks’ comedies has obviouslynever seen "Spaceballs" or "The Twelve Chairs"(actually "YoungFrankenstein" is intentionally slow paced). The musical score by JohnMorris is the main delight here. A far cry from the tinny organaccompanying silent movies of old, this delicious music is still onlyavailable on vinyl and has remained unheralded even during its release.How it avoided an Oscar nomination for the Score is beyond belief.NOTE: the orchestrations on the vinyl LP are much more enhanced than inthe film itself. The LP is a collector’s item still available forpretty much low prices.

…particularly during a scene where Funn, Eggs, and Bell were dressed insuits of armor in an attempt to get Liza Minnelli to join the cast of theirfilm, and tried to sit at her table…I haven’t laughed so hard inyears!

I remember seeing this one in the theater when I was 10. I laughed so hardat the VW bug doing a wheely from the pregnant lady and all the comedy thatfollowed. This wasn’t Mel’s most raunchy comedy, that would come later withHigh Anxiety. But that’s okay. You can watch this one with your kids andgive them an example of what other kind of movies are out there besides"shoot-’em-ups" and such. Silent Movie is tops on my list as one of Mel’sbest!

Ever see any of the old black-and-white comedies of the 1920s and ’30s - theones with Harold Lloyd and Charlie Chaplin? Well, if not, then you could doworse with a starter course than "Silent Movie".

And the fact that it’s the brain-child of Mel Brooks - evenbetter!

"Silent Movie" tells the tale of three men - Funn (Brooks), Eggs (Feldman)and Bell (DeLuise) who convince a beleaguered movie studio head (Caesar) toback the first silent movie made in, oh, forty years. This, of course,while the evil head honcho (Gould) of Engulf + Devour (parallel to Gulf +Western? NAH!) tries in vain to block their every effort so he can takeover the studio.

For Mel, especially here, comedy is very much a universal language - and onethat doesn’t necessarily need a language to understand. Every conceivablesight gag, slapstick vision and pratfall is delved into head-first andrelished for everything it’s worth. Some of them, of course, are choice(You gotta love the Coke Machine scene!) but every one of them get a solidlaugh, if not a hearty chuckle from any true comedy aficionado.

Then, we get to the talent involved. True enough to say you’ll never findanother comedy that has the star power this one has (except, maybe, for"History of the World Part I"). Burt Reynolds, James Caan, Liza Minnelli,Anne Bancroft, Paul Newman and Bernadette Peters get into the act and getsome might funny scenes for themselves. Never thought Newman could befunny? He is here. Didn’t know Caan had a sense of humor? He does. Thought Bancroft was strictly a serious actress? Yeah,right.

And Marcel Marceau even hears his phone ring (or "sonnez", as the title cardproclaims) for a possible pat. His reaction, of course, gets one of movie’sbiggest laughs.

So, you want to find out what a great comedy is all about, but not botherwith a lot of dialogue? Catch "Silent Movie"; it may be quiet, but thelaughs are loud.

Ten stars. no doubt. And remember - this was a true story.

Every silent movie i’ve seen from the actual silent era has been agigantic bore to sit thru. Best you can say is "good for its day". Andyet somehow Mel Brooks made this silent movie in 1976 and it’s quiteenjoyable. Mel and his co-stars Dom Deluise and Marty Feldman play athree stooges type gang but are much more likable - More like laurel &hardy. Burt Reynolds has a hilarious cameo as an actor in love withhimself. Bernadette Peters has a great role as Mel’s girl friend and isboth funny and gorgeous. Never thought of her as a sex symbol but sheis here.

Interesting plot - the three main characters Mel Funn, Marty Eggs andDom Bell are trying to make a silent movie with a number of big starsin cameo roles - and that’s the very movie Mel Brooks, Marty Feldman,and Dom Deluise have made. Movie helped immensely by very funny soundeffects and score. One of a kind movie, to say the least.

I must have seen this movie a dozen of times, and I still look forwardto all of the gags in it. Because this is really, what it is all about:Presenting as many gags as possible, each of which is rather silly, ifyou try to explain them to others, but in the movie they are almost allof them quite funny.

Of course, much of the fun stems from the fact, that it is - as told bythe title - a silent movie, an anachronism of its time. The joke ofthis is carried through all of the movie, including the characters'lines between the scenes and the expressive added sounds (music).Brooks rarely misses a chance of meta-jokes, so of course he includes asingle spoken line from - of all! - the French mimic Marcel Marceau.

Much of the credit for the movie goes to the main actors, who arebesides Brooks himself, Dom DeLuise, Marty Feldman and - not least -Sid Caesar. Also, the cameo-appearances of stars like Burt Reynolds andAnne Bancroft are funny.

I rate it as one of the all time best of Brooks' many comedies, beingin the same class as 'The Producers', with 'Blazing Saddles' and'Frankenstein Junior' not quite as funny (I am no great fan of GeneWilder).

I find it to be an extra quality, that my son has loved this movie,since I presented it to him at the age of about 10. He watches itseveral times a year and laughs each time as well!

Whenever I hear people praising Mel Brooks film, I hear mentions of thelikes of The Producers, Blazing Saddles, and Young Frankenstein, but Irarely hear this one mentioned, and huge Mel Brooks fans like myselfneed to watch it. It needs more respect. It has a few stars from MelBrooks' regular band of actors, but it also has a bunch of cameos fromrather huge stars of the day, like Burt Reynolds, James Caan, PaulNewman, Liza Minnelli, and Mel Brooks' own wife Anne Bancroft. Also,there's the great mime Marcel Marceau, who delivers the only line inthe entire film. And there's a cameo from stand-up comedy genius HennyYoungman as a man with a fly in his soup. If you are a Mel Brooks fanand you haven't seen it, what can I say, but go see it.

Once Mel Brooks got a taste of success via parodies and Jewish shtick,he couldn't stop himself. The wild west, monster movies, a Hitchcockspoof, twists on Robin Hood, Star Wars, Dracula, et al. This effortcame out when Brooks still had original comic ideas, a funny troupe ofcomedians in his stable (although Bernadette Peters stands in forMadeline Kahn), and celebrity friends who just wanted to pop in longenough to enjoy the ride (Burt Reynolds has the best bit). It's a nobleattempt, an honest-to-God silent movie (except for one spoken word bymime Marcel Marceau), jazzed up with an energetic score. The centralplayers (Brooks, Dom DeLuise and Marty Feldman) mug shamelessly, but ifyou're attuned to this kind of raunchy slapstick there are a few biglaughs. ** from ****

One word describes this movie: predictable. Unlike other Brooks movies,where a wacky scene, joke, etc. comes out of nowhere, in Silent Movie youkinda know what is gonna happen next in virtually every scene, eliminatingalot of hearty belly laughs. You kinda get the feeling you’ve seen some ofthe scenes before from The Three Stooges. The funniest thing about themovie was the we
ird totally different look of the 3 main characters, withMel Funn’s sailor outfit, Marty Eggs’ aviator gear, and Dom Bell’spre-1950sshirt, slacks, and wide-brim hat. Overall, a very disappointing Brooksfilmbut not as much of a snore-fest as Young Frankenstein.

read comments (0)

Robin and Marian

Despite its stellar cast, this is clearly a product of 1970sfilm-making, when even a tale of the legendary childhood hero has tohave a gritty, realistic approach with a downbeat ending.

Younger viewers are saying things like "if you liked the Kevin Costnerversion, you won't like this." They ought to start their point ofreference with the 1938 classic starring Errol Flynn, Olivia deHavilland, Basil Rathbone and Claude Rains instead, because that is thedefinitive version of the Robin Hood legend and this film in no way isa fitting sequel to that sort of storytelling.

Instead of calling itself ROBIN AND MARIAN, deceptively luring loversof the old legend to see the film, it should have been titled somethingmore appropriately dealing with two bittersweet, faded lovers who bearno resemblance to the legendary outlaw and his lady love. Having MissHepburn appear in nun's robes is another huge mistake.

Neither star is shown at their charismatic best. Nor does the presenceof Robert Shaw or Richard Harris make up for the weary script.

As a matter of fact, this is one of the few films of the 1970s that Iactually walked out on. I did not stay for the downbeat ending which Iunderstand has Miss Hepburn killing the outlaw herself. No way.Goldman's script is heavy, lumbering stuff, hard to even stay awakefor.

Two thumbs down.

I saw this for the first time since the initial release, primarily tosee Audrey Hepburn. A little disappointed in her work here. Not sureabout casting her and I thought she fell into some of her actressmannerism’s- but still she was good.

However the best work I think I have seen Sean Connery do. Both NicolWilliamson and Robert Shaw are very good as well. As a middle aged man,I could relate to all the huffing and puffing as Connery tries to fightoff the inevitable effects of aging.

I agree with the critics of the time, that the film has a bit of anidentity crisis. Very funny in the beginning- for example, Sean Connerystanding on Nicol Williamson for hours to remove a stone for a prisonescape. The guard comes in and without batting an eyelash says, "Theking will see you now." I thought the film lost its way a bit in themiddle however. Visually stunning. Many wide panoramas. Thought themusic was a bit overdone and dated.

A beautiful and literate love story by that most eloquentof screenwriters, James Goldman. Connery, Hepburn, Shawand Williamson are outstanding in this tale of middle-agedlove and tragedy.

An older more mature Robin Hood than we are used to seeing. A bit quirky atthe beginning.Well made with a good cast. Period clothing is ok I suppose, but it’s notabout all that.This is not a Disney story with a happy ending. The ending is actuallypretty close to the original end/death of Robin Hood.Love lost, betrayal, pathos.

this is a definite rental if you haven’t seen it and appreciate anunderstated, alternative look at a legendary figure. Sean Connery ismagnificent in this film as an older Robin Hood living with the legacy ofhis legendary expoloits ……a classic line, when someone describes someofthose exploits to him and the response is."but none of that everhappened".

This film got little attention when released, but should definitely begivena chance. It rates high on romance, good performances and interestingplot.Although Robin and Marian were most probably mythical characters, I foundtheir treatment in this film to be much more believable than most others.Fans of Sean Connery and/or Audrey Hepburn will be pleased.

This must be one of the most underrated, or generally ignoredmovies with Sean Connery. The main reason is probably thatitdeviates so sharply from the usual, swashbuckling RobinHoodimpersonation with clear cut heroes and villains.

Instead, we have here a bittersweet story of aging heroes, betrayed idealsand the relentless tooth of time. Some wonderful acting, slightlymelancholic humour and probably the most realistic treatments of the RobinHood myth ever.

Check it out, if you want to see something different from the typicalHollywood treatment.

This movie provides an opportunity to view what it would be like seeingRobin Hood and the love of his life - Maid Marian toward the end of theirlives. Like a fine wine aging for a number of years this touching renditionof their love is a favorite of mine. If you want to see an example of truelove (as opposed to young love of Romeo & Juliet) view this movie. Itreasure my VHS copy and can only hope that somewhere the Gods who decidewhich movies are to be converted to a DVD format remember thisone.

This was a wonderfully done movie with two of the best dramatic actors inmodern cinamatic history. The ending was heartbreaking, for those of youwho have seen it you know what I mean for those of you who haven’t….SEEIT! Even if you aren’t a fan of Robin Hood movies or are just burnt out onthem, I encourage you to see Robin and Marian (1976), simply to see theelegance of the beautiful graceful Audrey Hepburn and the charasmatic nobleSean Connery work together.

Very good film — interesting love story about Robin Hood and Maid Marianintheir later (for the time, anyway) years. Fine performances by anabsolutelyfirst-rate cast! Beautiful cinematography, as well. By the way, looksgreat on DVD!

read comments (0)

Murder by Death

Murder by Death is a stupid comedy about a group of the smartestdetectives welcomed to the home of a mysterious man for a dinner andmurder. The plot involving the first person to solve the crime isstupid and confusing. The ending of the film is slapped together fordull laughs and the acting is far off perfect. The actors though put ingood effort, my props go to Peter Sellers as the only man who crackedme up in this entire mess! The one liners are the only things keepingthis wreck a pulling. The characters are all set in different tones, Iliked Sam Diamond and Wong but all the others seem like normal peoplein a bad setting. The special effects, wait there is no specialeffects. If there are I must of been to bored to notice! The jokes arehorrible! No good laughs from any of the cast except for Wong played bySellers. "Did you see that?" "No." "Neither did I." Good joke! But soonwhen the murder has happened the film goes down hill, I mean solving amurder when being invited to dinner and a murder to figure out who didit is pretty obvious. This horrid film called funny gets the 3 out of10, good for getting a few winks of shut eye. But if you want a funnywho did it comedy, stick with Tim Curry in Clue.

Whodunnit spoof, largely based on Agatha Christie’s ‘And then there werenone’ and ‘A murder is announced’ A murder occurs at a country house - someone in the house is a murderer, butwho? And can the crime be solved before the murderer strikes again. Thedifference is that the world’s greatest detectives are the guests, and amillion dollar prize has been put up by the host.

The concept and plot are well thought out and with a wittier script thiscould have been a very funny film, but despite the quality of the actorsinvolved, the characters remain stereotypical parodies of the fictionaldetectives they represent. Only Maggie Smith as Mrs Charleston really comesalive, though there is the occasional flash of brilliance from AlecGuinness.

Most of the humour made me smile rather than guffaw, too many jokes weredone to death, for example the fortune-cookie words of wisdom from PeterSellers as Wang.

Final verdict: watchable but don’t go out of your way to see it.

Some superb talents are utterly wasted in this witless spoof of murdermysteries.I was expecting it to be brilliant as I normally love Neil Simon films, butthe jokes are very crude and obvious, the direction non-existent and theplayers given little chance to shine.Check out the similar "The Cheap Detective" (also scripted by Neil Simon),it’s much much funnier.

Some superb talents are utterly wasted in this witless spoof of murdermysteries.I was expecting it to be brilliant as I normally love Neil Simon films,butthe jokes are very crude and obvious, the direction non-existent and theplayers given little chance to shine.Check out the similar "The Cheap Detective" (also scripted by Neil Simon),it’s much much funnier.

First, let's deal with the logic of the thing. A "great" cast is notthe same thing as a star-studded cast. Acting is an interactive art,and what makes a cast good, whether it is star-studded or not, is howwell the ensemble works together. Logically speaking, simply populatinga film with terrific actors does not inevitably result in a good film.Likewise, while Neil Simon may have been a terrific play and screenwriter, it was not impossible for him to have written a bad script.And, in the case of this script, he most assuredly had.

The utter randomness in this pastiche of many terrific (and a coupleless than terrific) actors tells us that the perpetrators of this film,loaded with a Neil Simon script and a ton or two of money, dialed theirway through the directory of top agents, picking up any and every topactor they could with however much dough it took to attract them. Giventhis cast, and considering the silliness of this script, it must havebeen one awful lot of dough.

It has been a long time since I saw this film, but the memory ofdisappointment and of feeling cheated out of a couple hours of my life,I recall to this day.

Even the title of this film, "Murder by Death," is a stupidity in andof itself, and it should serve as a warning that one will be in for adistasteful experience, much in the way that gaudy colors on someinsects and frogs announces to their predators that they arefoul-tasting and possibly poisonous. "Murder by Death," indeed. Simonshould have blushed with embarrassment even to have penned such a titleon a draft, let alone to have allowed it somehow to have slithered outof his study into the light of day.

Then there is the matter of Peter Falk. He is among such exalted actingcompanions for no other reason than his then-popular role as Columbo,because, let's face it, he is not an especially good actor. He may evenbe an especially poor one. He was at his level of ability with Columbo.In every other thing I've seen him in, his limited range and abilitiesare only too evident.

Not to put to fine a point on it, this film is not funny, it is notinteresting, and it is not memorable for anything other than how trulypointless and bad it is. Literally choked with too much fine talent, itfails, anyway. Someone among the perpetrators of this fiasco must haveactually believed that stuffing all of these fine, but utterlydisparate, actors together in the cramped quarters of Simon'sworst-ever script was going to save the thing from itself. Or perhapsthe producers simply felt that by paying all of those stars toco-conspire in the thing would trick enough people into seeing it as toallow them to recoup the fortune they'd squandered.

But the real shame of it is that it took time out of the careers ofgreats like Peter Sellers, Maggie Smith, and Alec Guinness, when theycould have been doing something more useful — like getting some rest,or playing bridge, or even reading more scripts, so as to find one thatwas actually worthy of their talents.

This is one movie that I had high hopes for. As most people who have seenwhat Neil Simon can do, I was waiting for some balls-out humor. I wasleftwith an attempt at pop-culture comedy and something of a dry feeling in mymouth. I like how it ends (well…..kind of) and the "message" it gives.Something that probably felt better at the time than nowadays. But itstilldoesn’t disguise the spicy bits of dialogue and the weird plot.Everythingconsidered, if you want a dinner style murder-mystery-comedy you’d bebetteroff with the hilarious Clue. And you get to see 1 particularly funnyperformance from that guy who plays(ed) the principle on Sabrina:TheTeenageWitch. I don’t know if he’s still there…but so what.

As "marquis du cinema" says, this is an average movie. I amsurprisedthat it was written by Neil Simon. It is definitely one of his LESSinspired efforts. I found "Clue" to be much funnier and much better. Iamnot really complaining. I can’t expect ALL of Simon’s scripts to be like"Only When I Laugh" or "The Goodbye Girl."

With such a distinguished cast I had reasonable expectations for thisone, but on the whole it's just not funny. The jokes involve a blindbutler, a deaf maid, racial stereotypes etc. Most of it made me groanrather than laugh.

The main characters are send ups of classic detectives, including Ms.Marples, Chan, Poirot, the hard bitten American PI and an English upperclass type. The performances are reasonable as you'd expect from suchan ensemble, but the script is poor in the extreme. It's saddening tosee such a cast wasted on such drivel.

If you enjoy watching simple send ups being stupid, you might getsomething out of this, but Clue was better, and that's not saying much.Not recommended.

Neil Simon's satirical dig at the &
quot;best detectives in the world"belongs on the stage where its wacky characters can be endeared to anintimate audience. Robert Moore had no chance to convey Simon'sscreenplay as it should have been; a manic, frivolous, frenetically outof control nonsense about a non-murder and the dissolution thereof."Murder by Death" is dead flat on screen.

Comedy is corny throughout too, with Peter Falk sending himself upbadly, David Niven lacking comic timing, and Alec Guiness, ElsaLanchester, Eileen Brennan, Maggie Smith and Truman Capote all wasted.Only Peter Sellers, a natural comedian, is able to make anything of hisrole as a Charlie Chan spoof.

As for whodunit, I can tell you now, you won't care.

Sunday, January 11, 1998 - Video

A mysterious stranger invites a set of classic historical detectives to hisretreat in order to solve a murder. The only problem is that the murderhasn’t actually happened yet!

This is one of those films that survives on star power and good performancesrather than script or gags. It is a thin gimmick and despite a certainamount of plot twists - all you have is a set of skits that you either findfunny or you don’t. Moderate titters was all I could muster.

Alec Guiness (as a blind butler) and Peter Falk (as a Bogart Styledetective) stand out among the stars. Some of the guests really don’t haveany funny lines at all - strange to see Peter Sellers getting outclassed asa Charlie Chan style character whose only gags are silly proverbs. He playsmost of these gags off his adopted son - who seem to have no real role otherthan being a silly stooge. I don’t use the words "comedic genius" much - buthe was one, if not here!

They could have created a more believable plot and laid the comedy overthat. But that would have been too much work for ageing script writer NeilSimon who seems to have settled for silly-silly rather thanclever-silly.

There is too much talent onset for corny mediocre gags about old ladiesfarting and deaf and dumb waiters. Could have been great if you had lockedSimon in to a room for year and told him to come up with material as good asthe on-screen talent.

read comments (0)

Novecento

I have one thing to say first: It was LONG!! Some of the scenes shouldhavebeen deleted and many of the sequences should have been half the length,butanyhow I think it gave a really good picture of Italy and the humannature.It was a pleasant thing to see Donald Sutherland show off his Italian,butthe killing of a kitten with his head was a little too much for me.Besidesthat, I like it. My history teacher sure did!!!

When I think about my favorite movies, 1900 always planes towards thetop of the list. No doubt the Bertolucci is among the best of hisgeneration's directors. The multinational cast he built for this epicis remarkable. The story has a taste of Lawrence Durrell. But thecinematography is so textured and revealing and satisfying that I feltcompelled to just watch and let it carry me off. The greens are soverdant, the blacks and golds and grays and the reds…well you get theidea. It is sublime cinema portraiture. Maybe one who is disinterestedin how the history of the peasantry of Italy as feudalism morphed intofascism might find the subject matter too pedantic. But for those whofind that the past is the explicator of our current world, 1900 takesthe 45 years from the turn of the last century to the end of WWII andforces us to see our grandparents and their children as willing agentsof the present. Get a good bottle of Barolo, a little rustic bread andcheese and settle in for a memorable time with good and evil.

I’m still furious over the fact that i wasted exactly 255 minutes of mylife watching this movie. I can understand this can be shockingconsidering the cast and the crew involved in the picture. I try tobreak down the elements that i think has led to the downfalls of thismovie:

Direction: From what I have seen from the master filmmaker BernardoBertolucci I can say considering his other works, this movie can onlybe the result of a one-take-per-scene scheme, and seems like directorBertolucci just wanted to get it over with. Not wasting anytime, badscene? tough? lets go to the next scene, we still got 200 more minutesto shoot!

Story: The story is a major snooze fast; it is impersonal, at timesunnecessarily appalling (major rated R for material for no reason)There is no way the viewer can identify with the characters, they havebeen given little to no depth, we don’t really know anything about manyof the characters, and why they do certain things, and there are noexplanations given for what they do. It is assumed that we are alreadyfamiliar with the concepts of Padrone, Communism in Italy, and thelives of Peasants and their relationship with the Padrone. So manymissing blocks here…!

Acting: I can only say that this movie features one of the best castsin the history of cinema, including greats such as Robert De Niro,Gerard Depardieu, Burt Lancaster, and Donald Sutherland. While theperformances are given by such amazing actors, the characters receivelittle help from direction, montage, and the script!

Music: I consider myself an enormous Ennio Morricone fan; and indeedhis music in this movie is quite beautiful as in his other films,however, except in some minor scenes–mostly in the scenes wherethere’s nothing going on–the music is irrelevant to what we see on thescree, mainly because of the soft music (very similar to the Legend ofGreensleeves music) we are already falling asleep, even at the peak ofthe climax scenes and where enormous elements of suspense or shock arepresent.

Cinematography/Montage/Mese En Scene/Light: To sum up the collectivefaults of the above elements give the viewer a pure indifference, thatis quite inevitable; half way through the movie, (i.e after 2 hours)most viewers merely leave, and the rest furiously continue watching it,just so they never ever have to do it again! Extreme artificial lightand contrast is used, to convey allegorical meanings, consistent withBertolucci’s expressionist style. Montage is done by Acralli–a closefriend of Bertolucci–it almost contains all the shot footage withnothing to throw out, which makes the movie incredibly long andtedious. As I mentioned before the choice of Mese En Scene is quiteinappropriate: e.g. irrelevant music, inappropriate images, unnecessarynudity (including 2-3 scenes of CHILD nudity!) which finally brings usto the last element, cinematography: it is done in the worst possibleway, very similar to ‘Once Upon A Time In America’ use of dead colours,in a blurry, rigid, shaky format!

In the end, I’d like to point out that many scenes and elements offilm-making in the movie is set so they convey allegorical meanings andsymbolism, which makes the movie incredibly rich, but meanwhileconfusing and ambiguous. So if you’re a die hard Bertolucci fan givethe movie a shot by all means, but make sure you also give a look toItalian History following World War I and the lives of people in thesouthern Italy. I hope this review help you appreciate the moviebetter!

My first viewing of this movie was several years ago(5 hours of it) Sincethen I have watched it more than five times. To me, as a reasonablyeducatedmovie buff, this was the best ever. I have read all the learned comments(from wanabee film critics?)No political analysis from me. Theacting,direction,cinematography and locations just blew mymind.My favourite movie followed by ‘Once upon a time in America’ then Maria’sLovers’ and ‘Paris Texas’ close behind. I know what I like and sod all theintellectual claptrap!

huge canvas, lots of paint, some drips, some runs!A massive undertaking (subject matter, length of the film, the cast, thereis nothing that isn’t huge in this one) full of historical commentary,fairly obviously sympathetic to left leaning ideologies a la ItalianCommunists of the 60’s and 70’s, which makes liberal use of extremelygraphical if not gratuitous violence to portray fascism at its darkest.What Bertolucci has to say does not merrit turning up the volume to theselevels, and perhaps speaking with a softer voice and not for quite solong,I would have enjoyed listening to him a lot more.

This movie cannot be completely understood if you’re not Italian or ifyou haven’t lived in Italy for at least 20 years.But if you’re interested in discovering the REAL way of life in the Italiancountryside of this century, this is the right movie.An incredibly right painting of this hard time, lived and suffered by ourancestors and forgotten by many of us.

Just a short comment, this is one of my very favourite films, however thereis an astonishing difference in the four hour version over the full sixhour. The four hour version (IMHO) is perfect whilst the Six hour is toopolitical with detail that we do not need, stunning performances from thecast and some of the best backdrops in Italy.

Directed by Bernardo Bertolucci and written by he and his brotherGiuseppe Bertolucci, 1900 is a film of historic proportions. Thoughrather simplistic assessment of both fascism and communism in early20th century Italy, the film does capture the emotions and sentimentsof many contemporaries who lived through this difficult period inItalian and European history.

The efforts on the youthful Sutherland, De Niro, and Depardieu, alongwith the beautiful Dominique Sanda, are met by the mature acting ofAlida Valli, Sterling Hayden, and Burt Lancaster. Complementing Verdi'sIl Trovatore and Rigoletto, Ennio Morricone's musical score colors thefullness of human emotions which merge in the personal connectionswhich unite the lords (Lancaster's patrician landlord) and peasants(Hayden's patriarch of the farming "braccianti") with their progeny (asthe adult De Nero inherits land, status and power his one timechildhood friend and now adult, Depardieu, inherits poverty, rebellionand honor).

Of particular interest is the scene where a now aged landlord(Lancaster) seeks to rekindle his sexual desire with a youthful peasantgirl he happens upo
n in one of his estate's barns. While milking thecows, the peasant girl is made a rather earthy proposition by thelandlord who suggests that the milking should not stop with the cows.Being in the vicinity of the youthful peasant girl and the beasts ofhis farm, the landlord comes to realize that the bountiful fruits ofthe earth are given life through the heat of sexual desire and throughthe fertilizing warmth of nature's cow manure. Left unsatisfied bylife's lost passions, the landlord takes his own life, only to be foundand scornfully criticized by the peasant patriarch (Hayden) who seesthe suicide as another example of the sad corruption of a society andpeople de-humanized by capitalism.

This is a very good movie, if you have the time and the patience, tounderstand whats going on in it. I did. It's somehow a personal look atwhat happened in Italy in the first half of the 20th century.

Simply beautiful. Wish more filmmakers took risk like this. Long andboring if your a nugget! Also out of the blue, I think this is one ofDe niro's best performances! the scene with his dad and the grain!priceless!

But if your the type to rather be entertained, then educated and andmost see great film-making, then take a pass on this film.

Note: I did see the directors cut of the film

In my opinion, this movie was horrible. I was so excited to see Robert DeNiro and Gerard Depardieu in a movie together. I consider both of them 1stclass actors. I also love anything historic, but especially turn of thecentury. I also love foreign films and even films that are a bit quirky. But this film is like the ugliest modern art piece imaginable. The scenesseemed so harsh and ugly, angry, evil.It was so offensive, so distasteful. Altho’ sometimes the actual scenerycould be lovely, or the costumes, but it only took a minute for the movie toturn very black, morbid, cruel and ugly. It was one of the most disturbing movie I have ever seen.I only wished I had known, it was as it was, I would have not wasted myprecious time watching it. It had everything from cruelly killing animals,to child molestation and violent murder. Group sex and violence that wasmost grotesque. It was all done fairly graphically too. I love art movies,but this was like taking a bad copy of Renior and pouring animal blood allover it, that is after you have slashed it many times with aknife.

read comments (0)

Le locataire

A sometimes fascinating but very drab and oh-so-slow psychological thrillerfrom Roman Polanski. He tells his story methodically and allows the viewerto share the hero’s point of view; on the other hand, this also has someunfortunate consequences: the pacing is torturously, almost unbearablyslow.This film may indeed be a superb study of paranoia, but the tension doesn’tget going until it’s too late and I found the scenes where Polanski dresseshimself up as a woman somewhat hokey. (**1/2)

Critically speaking,this Polanski work met mixed critical reception.Oneof his strangest efforts,it’s the last one that is purepolanski-as-we-learned-toknow-him.Afterward,he would never be the sameagain and his career became erratic ,encompassing various genres ,suchas Thomas Hardy’s romantic drama(Tess),tongue -in -cheek adventures(thehorrible"pirates"),half-baked thriller (Frantic),and sometimes his owncaricature(the ninth gate)."Le locataire" (the tenant) is some kind ofcoda,some kind of last hurrah,a farewell to the golden(so to speak)era. We find in it snatches of "knife in the water" and "cul de sac"and strong reminiscences of "repulsion" and "Rosemary’s baby". The castis weird beyond comment:A gleeful hotch-potch of French actors(BernardFresson,Isabelle Adjani),American old stars (Shelley Winters,MelvynDouglas),even a Greek one (Lila Kedrova),surrounding a Pole ofcourse.Because Polanski was anxious to make us feel completely the poorimmigrant’s plight,so he decided he would play it. As always ,Polanskiexcels in changing the most harmless place into a dreadful dangerousback-alley:here,an old house,a very "Parisian" one ,complete withconcierge -and -dog.Unlike "Rosemary’s baby" ,the neighbours are notprepossessing,and the hero’s paranoïa can begin.A huge conspiracyinvolving almost every character on the screen (it’s the main flaw ofthe movie)scares the poor Trelkovski to death.But is it for real or isit in his mind?Then again,by his perfect mastery of the camera,theartist creates a parallel word,where hallucinations and surrealisticscenes intertwine with everyday life.The rational world is shattered inthe impressing sequence of Trekolvski’s suicide:all the characters,acting if they were watching a show ,are applausing withenthusiasm.With hindsight,Polanski’s tormented,irrational,unusual andgrimacing universe seems to fall down with Trelkovski:never again,(withthe exception,maybe,of "death and the maiden")he would recapture hisdestabilizing atmosphere.

I’ll have to admit being pretty disappointed with this one. I thoughtPolanski’s performance saved it from being an utter failure, but theoppressive paranoia took until the second half to establish itself, makingthe first half a plodding mess. Everyone has been lauding thecinematography, and I don’t know if the video was transferred from aparticularly bad print, but the photography was dull and fairly lifelessfrom where I was sitting. Movement and framing were nice, but it was justpoorly lit, undoubtedly with the excuse that it was a noirish film…butweall know that dark does not have to mean poorly lit. The worst problem,though, was the horrible sound editing. I don’t know if his actors spokewith accents that were too heavy, but the overdubbed voices were SO out ofsync with the picture so as to make it look like they weren’t evenspeakingthe same language sometimes. And in the party scene, the voices seemeddisembodied and quite obviously not coming from the room that we wereseeingin the picture. It was highly distracting, to the point where itdetractedfrom the movie as a whole.

That said, the last 20 minutes were quite good, and nearly made what hadcome before worth it. Nearly.

As Polanski films go, this one ain’t that great. Although The Tenant has avery original plot and Polanski did a great job acting in it, the movie isjust simply not at par with some of Polanski’s best for many reasons. Afterthe first twenty minutes of the movie, it is easy to predict that Trelkovskywill eventually take on the identity of madame schule and try to killhimself, and given that the viewer knows that the movie ends in about anhour and a half, the viewer can also easily predict when Trelkovsky’s goingto jump. So what happens between the time the viewer figures out the endingand the actual end of the movie? Nothing much…at least, nothing soterribly fascinating that it makes the movie feel worthwhile to watch. Although there is dark humor in the movie, instead of coming across assomething particularly creative and ingenious, the humor seems like sort ofa cop out; perhaps it was hard to make the film frightening, so instead itwas turned into a dark comedy. Yet, the humor in The Tenant was notparticularly funny to me because it all seemed a bit cliched (except for thesecond to last scene). The voiceovers are terrible in the movie as well, and the score, althoughpleasantly pretty with plenty of nice clarinet obligatos, seemed as a whole,inappropriate. The Tenant isn’t a terrible movie, it just doesn’t hold a candle to some ofPolanski’s other films.

An intriguingly odd film that manages to be scary in a very unique way. Polanski plays a tenant who moves into a apartment were all the residents,and even the landlord, act slightly peculiar. The women who lived in theapartment before him killed herself by jumping out the window. He slowlystarts to feel a very strange bond towards her and that somehow the otherresidents are all in a conspiracy against him.

This is a very unique and near brilliant film because the horror andtension is not based on anything unusual. There are no ghosts, monsters, orpsychos. The tension seems to be based on our own basic urban reality. Theeveryday feelings of isolation. People who are cold and impersonal andapartments that are bleak and small. It also looks at our identity and howthese urban jungles just swallow them up until we ourselves no longer knowwho we are, let alone anyone else.

It is actually an amazingly deep and penetrating study that is astutelyunderplayed. There is no action and little or any true scares. The tensioncomes through it’s psychological implications. The paranoia that only thePolanski character feels. Are these people really out to get him or is itall just in his head? There are no real answers yet the ideas it brings upare very real and very penetrating if you let it. It’s a sort of twistedversion of REAR WINDOW and extension of REPULSION. You may actually have tosee it twice before you really get it.

Polanski again scores on all levels. His performance is interesting. His ability to make you feel the smallness and bleakness of his apartment isalmost amazing. You are given a very real sense of the rooms dimensionswithout any inclination that it was done on a stage or with the presence ofa film crew. The eerie segments are subtle but successful. Their imageryis both strange and lasting.

9 out of 10

The main thing I got out of this was that Roman Polanski can act. He ofcourse is by far a better director, one of my favorites to tell the truth.I never got bored with this film through the first 100 minutes, eventhoughI was not sure what was going on. I liked Isabelle Adjani as Stella, shewas kind of trashy looking but a nice person. The ending of this film hasto been seen to be believed. The conclusion was so crazy and over the topthat I couldn’t help but love it. It had me laughing, but it was doneserious in only a way that Polanski could have done. A good film6/10

Hey, mind if I join in? Well, I bought this movie at Walmart for $5.88 acouple of months ago and just got around to watching it tonight. Since Ialready own "The Pianist" and "Rosemary’s Baby" (which is probably one ofmyfavorite horror flicks of all time), I thought, hey, I stumbled acrosssomething here!
<
br>Unfortunately, not the case. Don’t get me wrong, I am a huge Polanskifan!I believe he is extremely talented both as actor and director, (hell, it’sthe only reason I bought the film), but I wasn’t quite as captivated as Iamwith the aforementioned films. More than anything, I thought it was wellacted and quite amusing. Sorry, I didn’t really experience any feelingsofterror or suspense for that matter. If you didn’t know what was wrong withthis guy, you must’ve been nodding off. Mind you, if this was 1976 when Iwas four and cult classics such as "Bug", and "Children Shouldn’t PlaywithDead Things" were on sets every Saturday night, then this movie would havebeen eerie as hell. However, it just doesn’t hold it’s own like a"Rosemary’s Baby", if you will. I have watched this film repeatedly andI’mstill captured by the acting, the story, the music, the 60’s–I loveit!!!

With that said, I would recommend seeing the "The Tenant" aka "LeLocataire", (Polanski is a natural), I just wouldn’t expect toomuch!

Normally a great fan of Roman Polanski’s work, I must confess that Ijust didn’t get The Tenant. The story details a Pole living in Paristaking over the apartment of a woman who jumped out of the window ofsaid apartment. The apartment has some strange power in it and quicklytransforms the new tenant’s life for the worse…in fact thingsliterally fall apart for him. Polanski plays the Pole and does aserviceable job. I always thought he was a pretty decent actor. Thepeople living in the apartment building are equally good and bizarrewith Shelley Winters standing out as the concierge. Polanski also doesa rather deft job behind the camera creating tension and a forebodingfeeling in many scenes. What then is the problem? It has to be theweird script which hints at story lines and never really explains anyof the action, particularly the ending. I just didn’t buy the outcome.Why did it happen? Why was there a tooth in the wall(an effective sceneif not an unexplained one)? I can’t go into to much detail about thefate that befalls Polanski’s character, but it seems to come out ofnowhere. I know this film is revered by many as one of the great horrorfilms of all time. I never was scared by anything except the convolutedplot being taken seriously. Maybe the film is trying to be tooenigmatic and symbolic. I don’t know, but what I do know is The Tenantleft me with an unsatisfied feeling. It certainly isn’t a bad film, butI didn’t think it was great either. There were large tracts within thatwere just plain boring, and though Polanski is definitely one of thegreatest directors of all time - he can and has been guilty ofdownplaying scenes too much. I can say the same for some of the scenesin Repulsion. I also believe that this film needs to be seen more thanonce, but I will definitely have to work up to that chore another time.As with much of Polanski’s work, there is a dose of black humour lacedthroughout. I really enjoyed the scenes of Polanski’s character seeingthe woman who jumped out of the window in hospital almost completelycovered with bandages. He visits not for concern for the girl but withhopes that she will die and he will land her apartment. These scenesare underlined with a very dark, amusing edge and an appropriate ironyto the film’s denouement.

I did not realize before how very scary a knock on the door could be orthe tick of a clock or the hammer in the water pipes. But moredistressful than all these is the frustration of constant complaintsabout noise from neighbours.

Roman Polanski is a gifted director when it comes to creating andmaintaining atmosphere in this psychological thriller. The storyrevolves around a softly spoken mild-mannered clerk (Trelkovsky, playedby Polanski himself) who is driven to distraction by insufferablecomplaints from others in adjoining apartments.

This is a film you will want to see twice hoping to get answers to somebewildering questions. For example, the various motionless figures seenat the toilet window, the blood on Trelkovsky’s lips when he wakes inthe morning and the missing tooth found in the hole in the wall. Alsothe theatrical audience clapping wildly as if his suicide fall to earthis a kind of grand finale in an operatic drama. Strange stuff this.

It all starts when this young man takes over the tenancy of a Parisapartment formerly occupied by Simone who suicided from a high window.Living in the same environment as Simone did the new tenant graduallyassumes the very character of Simone even dressing in Simone’s clothes.

How far may the environment in which we find ourselves influence ourway of life? May be this story takes it rather too far but it suremakes a satisfying drama about the human psyche.

Seeing the Tenant on the list of top 50 horror movies I though tomyself, hmm sounds interesting might want to check it out.Unfortunately I did and am left a little bewildered at why this movieever made IMDb's top 50 horror list. It's not like this movie is bad inthe sense that it lacks cohesion, believability, suffers from looseends, etc, it's just that this movie is not frightening. It's quiteslow, though I have nothing against slow movies, as long as theyachieve what they set out to achieve. In the Tenant's case, if thismovie set out to be a horror movie, it failed. Maybe I'm not seeingthis movie for the masterful piece of art that so many reviewers havemade it out to be, though I doubt that very much. If you're looking fora movie to scare you, look elsewhere, if you're looking for an artisticexpose at the mind of an insane man, once again, look elsewhere youwon't find much here.

Nelson.

read comments (0)

Marathon Man

This movie made no sense until the garage scene with William Devane andDustin Hoffman. Olivier ran around saying little more than ’safe’,’safe’….which I cannot construe as effective acting, no matter who isplaying the part.

Certainly, this movie really stretched under the fierce notion anybodywouldjust be beyond themselves if somebody is trying to pull my teeth for noapparently good reason.

I cannot for the love of me understand why anyone thinks and believes thismovie should have been made. It stunk from the word go.

Ironically, Dustin Hoffman was recorded as to asking Olivier how he,Olivier, got into a part. Olivier was quoted to respond that you justact.Unfortunately, both forgot to follow this rule during this sad, sadmovie.

Yes, this movie and the movie ‘Born on the Fourth of July’ rank rightthereat the top as the two worse movies with high salaried actors.

Hoffman is just fine as always . But old the man steals the show . LaurenceOlivier is at top form . Well the camera work is great and this is one ofHoffman’s best jobs . I loved the dentist scene , get ready toscream.

This movie is pretty cool! The dentist scenes were pretty messed up. Geeznowonder I hate going to the dentist!!!!

Anyway, the performances were great. The film had pretty good directionandediting with some pretty good suspenseful music. The only problem withthismovie is the plot. Well, the plot is good but it needed some help.

3(***)out of 4(****)stars

i’ll only going to say that this movie is ok and i’ll say why. i won’t gointo the story to explain anything because all the people who will readthismost likely would have watched the film. in this movie dustin hoffman issurprisingly bad and roy scheider and william devane are surprisinglygood.i don’t know what happened to dustin hoffman in this film, he just lookedstupid and he delivers a very dull performances, he seems like a normalregular guy with nothing to offer except his voice, i was neverinterestedin his character and this is a great flaw because he has the leadingrole. ireally liked roy scheider (this is the first time i like him) and williamdevane is very good, although he was better in hitchcock’s "family plot".but the person who steals all scenes he’s in is laurence olivier, he’sgreatand this role reminded me how good he was, i loved when he retired thediamonds from the bank and he watches them with some sort ofincontrolablelust.

POSSIBLE SPOILERS

direction, cinematography and script are good but nothing special.specialmention to the scene where the former nazi and the jew fight each otherwiththeir cars and how they finally crash and burn up. another good scene iswhere hoffman throws olivier’s diamonds to the water. 6.5/10.

MARATHON MAN (1976) *** Dustin Hoffman, Laurence Olivier, Marthe Keller,RoyScheider, William Devane. Suspenseful thriller with Hoffman cast as agraduate student in New York suddenly thrust into an internationalcriminalevent thanks to his covert older brother Scheider involving relentlessNazidentist Olivier (hamming it up big time) leading to the famous `Is itsafe?’inquisition (incidentally during the filming of this scene, Hoffman wasreportedly without sleep for 24 hours to give his character the right,haunted look whereupon Sir Larry was said to have elucidated, `My boy,whydon’t you try acting?’

Marathon Man, Marathon Man. Likes to run as much as he can. He is astudent. He has a girlfriend. Marathon Man.

His father is dead. It makes him upset. He runs so much that it makeshim sweat. His brother's a spy but he doesn't know yet. What's he upto? Secret Spy Man.

Secret Spy Man, Secret Spy Man. Get's betrayed by Evil Spy Man. SecretSpy dies right in the arms of Marathon Man.

Evil Spy Man, Evil Spy Man. Goes to meet with Marathon Man. Tells himall about his brother, Secret Spy Man.

Marathon's dragged to a creepy place Where a crazy dentist drills hisface. Repeatedly asks him "Is it safe?" Then he escapes. Go MarathonMan.

Nazi Man. Nazi Man. Has returned from a far away land. Evil Spy isreally helping Nazi Man

Worked in a camp in World War 2. Practiced dentistry on many a Jew. Hidtheir diamonds in the States then ran. He's back to get them. Quick ashe can.

Marathon Man. Marathon Man. Marathon Man hates Nazi Man. They have afight. Marathon wins. Marathon Man.

I’m sure film students will take me to task but I was amazed by thisfilm. It wasn’t so much boring as annoying from the acting to the themusic. The movie rambled on and on toward a predictable ending.

Supposedly the story took place in New York City but it was differentfrom the city in which I live. In the New York City of Marathon Manthere are three cars on the FDR Drive at night. In that NYC there is noone on the sidewalks at night.

I originally thought the movie was made in 1970 and thus it may havebeen ahead of it’s time. Instead I learned that it was made in 1976 andthus it wasn’t as groundbreaking as I had hoped.

There are few things sadder than seeing a movie you once liked andfalling away from it. Perhaps you outgrew the emotional strings itpulled. Maybe you learned how things worked in film and now you knowwhat they are doing and decide you actually don't like it.

Possibly, the world has moved and left the thing stranded on somelonely hillock of irrelevance. For me it may be all three.

This truly was celebrated when it was new. Great actors — we were told— in a clash of intensity never seen before. Violence and pain as well.

Watching this now, it seems unsuccessful in all dimensions, all butone: Schlesinger vision. This man really was adept at presenting thingsto us. Three scenes stand out in this regard.

One is the famous chase scene near the Brooklyn Bridge. Another is theBertolucciesque meeting and stabbing at the red stairs fountain. Andfinally and best for me — the last scene in the waterworks set. That'ssheer pleasure for me every time I see it, and the obnoxious manner ofthe two actors doesn't bother me either. Its obvious that the scene andparticularly the dialog was written by someone other than the clipperGoldsmith. Its all so satisfying, that set.

A scene that should have been great but wasn't was when our Naziblackmailing death dentist visits the Jewish-dominated gem district toinexplicably ascertain the prices of his thousands of diamonds. Its acompletely offensive setup in how artificial is the excuse to presentthis irony. Lost Race He is at risk of being recognized, and he is. Itsa remarkable scene even while it doesn't work because it is a real,complex street scene when such were rare. But it just doesn't work. Weare only left with the realization that it was a clever idea andambitiously filmed.

Here's what doesn't work. The violence. The world here is presented asfalling apart. New York is nothing but piles of garbage and peoplequick to explode. Paris is run by mobs. The contrast with the smoothGermanic order we'd have if things had gone the other way is implicit.But Parisians ARE quick to form mobs and get violent over the mostpetty grievances.

Even the violence of the dental torture is pale compared to thetelevised videos of beheaded captives that are on the same screens wesee this on. It just has no effect today, where when new it registered.

Ditto with seeing the breasts of our love interest. Once it hadcinematic power, those few scenes where were are shown that these tworeally are in love. Open to each other entirely, it seems.

And again with the Nazi card. It used to convey real evil. Now everyoneis called a Nazi, more than one even by our current president. And heby his foes. Ho hum.

But the real thing that makes me send this to the trash is the actingstyles of the two main guys.
I never liked Olivier and consider hisHamlet (the filmed one) an abomination, a vulgar parody. His approachis one where am assumed bearing and confidence is supposed to carry theday. Never did. Perhaps on stage where there's a different bargain overthe intimacy.

And Hoffman. Mechanical. Sure, I know he has a technique to "be real"and he works at it, very hard we are told over and over. He worksreally, really hard, see? But his intensities are all at where anartificial man would have highs. He has none of the silent reality thatconveys. In film we can see that, see that it isn't there. Never was.

Ted's Evaluation — 1 of 3: You can find something better to do withthis part of your life.

I've seen this at least four times over a ten year span, and I have yetto see anything good in it other than the famous dental torture scene.There's some violence in it that was probably shocking at the time (Ifound out about it from a book called Ultra Violent Movies) and itsurely gets some Ooohs and Ahhhs from the Holocaust crowd, but as athriller I rate it very low. It's ugly, unconvincing, and I found thecharacters flat and undeveloped (except for Hoffman, who I find dulland sometimes annoying in this picture). Olivier elevates the movie abit with a chilling performance, but the rest have little to work with.It's a B-movie with A actors.

i read some of the other comments and would have to agree with some ofthe faults:various plot problems,not to mention a fairly unbelievablestory on the whole.but as is often the case,the acting can make up forsome of the weaknesses.Dustin Hoffman is completely immersed in hischaracter,who is something of a weasel but is alsostrong-willed.Laurence Olivier(izit zafe?)is absolutely mesmerizing asthe Nazi dentist(sadist?)whos accent seems to waver a bit attimes.William Devane plays a real jerk who can't trust anybody, and RoySchieder as the successful brother is all business(really!).a dark anddownbeat thriller with that inimitable "70's New York look that willhave you dreading that next dental appointment. BTW-another commentstated that the Hoffman character had flashbacks about Jesse Owenswhile he was running-it was actually Abebe Bikila,a 2 time Olympicmarathon champion.

read comments (0)

Family Plot

I regret to say that while it has a fair amount of merits, I find"Family Plot" to be one of Hitchcock's worst films. Had he used theexact same script and made a dark thriller with an able cast, it wouldhave worked much better. Instead, it's played for laughs, and it's justnot funny. I have serious issues with the four principal actors andtheir ability to convincingly portray their characters. Barbara Harris'"kooky" persona is as dated as that bouffant, bubble hairdo that lookslike a wig. She was completely out of step even in 1976. Bruce Dern isannoying in his forced attempt at a comic performance. Karen Black'sacting is tentative and uncertain (she was too awestruck at being in aHitchcock film) and at the risk of sounding cruel, she's not attractiveenough for the part. William Devane's grinning mouthful of capped teethis similarly a turnoff. It's the same sort of miscasting thatultimately doomed Gus Van Sant's unfortunate "Psycho" remake. The JohnWilliams score, with its tinkling harpsichord (more befitting a Disneychildren's adventure) is excruciatingly trite. Hitchcock's misjudgmentsat that late stage of his career, when he probably shouldn't have beenmaking movies anymore, can be forgiven in light of the remarkablelegacy of masterpieces he left behind.

Hard to believe that two masters like Hitch and Lehman could have comeup with this dreadful little piffle. It would have sunk without a traceimmediately upon release if those two names weren’t associated with it.

To go from Bergman, Grant, Kelly to Harris, Devane and Dern - wow. Andthe movie has a sad, mid-70s feel to it as the studio system iscrashing down. The cinematography (to be generous) is lackluster andpale, as others have noticed the car out of control scene is absurd,like an outtake from It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World, and it’s obviousthat someone told Lehman that he had to throw some sex and a littlecursing into this film since it’s the ’70s baby, so the first time weare introduced to both couples all they can talk about is oh boy, waituntil we get in the sack, hot patooty boy we’re going to have sex now,yes sirree. Please.

I had to IMDb Barbara Harris just to see what her credentials were, andsurprisingly she has some. Her "performance" here consisted of littlemore than an attempt at a third-hand Madeline Kahn impersonation. Dernand Devane are creeps, one just dresses nicer, neither is of anyinterest or concern. Karen Black gets to wear fancy disguises, yeah sowhat. Kidnapping the priest in the church - an odd idea to begin with,and executed with no wit or charm. Frankly, the only scene that seemsto be even a bit like prime Hitch is the opener. It features actualacting, scoring, art direction and writing, all qualities sadly lackingfrom the rest of the film.

I am under the firm belief that Alfred Hitchcock never made a singlebad film. Some, of course, were lesser than others - but even his worst(such as the romantic comedy "Mr. and Mrs. Smith") are above averagefilms.

Unfortunately, after the delight of 1972's violent and macabre"Frenzy," which was a return to form for Hitch, he embarked on one moredirectorial effort - 1976's "Family Plot," which I believe was actuallyreleased posthumously.

The movie involves the escapades of two con artists (a fake psychic andher boyfriend) who swap paths with two jewel thieves in the SanFrancisco area. Of course, as per typical Hitchcock, the movie hasdarkly comical elements to it, lots of bantering dialogue and mistakenidentities.

However, overall this is probably my least favorite Hitchcock film,which is disappointing given that it was his final picture. Perhaps hispoor health restricted his abilities as a director - I'm not sure - butit doesn't altogether even feel like a Hitchcock movie all of the time.The performances by the likes of Bruce Dern and Karen Black never riseabove simply being "OK" and the direction is Hitch's weakest - possiblyever.

I didn't think the humor worked as well as usual and the entire filmjust failed to engage me. It's still an interesting movie in some ways,and I'd recommend it because it's not by any means a completely BADmovie - but, when compared to Hitchcock's usual features, it ranks asbeing notably inferior.

Wouldn't it have been great if Hitchcock had lived to see this day andage of taught, psychological thrillers with their unrelenting visualstyle. He gave us something years ahead of it's time in "Psycho", andI'm sure he would do just the same today if he was still with us. Theyear 1976 was the last time Hitchcock did direct however, and in"Family Plot" he has turned his attention to comedy.

Ernest Lehman's script (based on Victor Canning's novel) has aninteresting double-sided plot, yet Hitchcock allows the connection'twixt the two to be revealed early on. It's not time for mystery andsuspense, the master is targeting our funny bones. Madame Blanche(Barbara Harris) is a would-be psychic who takes advantage of lonelyelderly people who just want to contact their dearly departed. When aclient offers her and boyfriend George (Bruce Dern) $10 000 to locate alost heir, they believe that they may have finally hit the jackpot.Danger is what we know they'll get from the mysterious man they seek,who looks like being more trouble than he's worth.

Long time fans of Alfred Hitchcock may be disappointed with what is aslightly misfired spoof of many of the great man's own works. This'ordinary people in an extraordinary situation' story has very fewgenuine laughs, and there are no surprises of a comic nor suspensefulnature. "Family Plot" gives testimony to the fact that Hitchcock isinfinitely more effective with his blacker humour that thislight-hearted fare.

The cast are never inspirational (Harris an enjoyable exception) butthey do manage to keep the show afloat most of the way. There's littleelse of interest except for the fact that John Williams scored a lessthan memorable piece of music to accompany Hitchcock's curtain call.

Having read most of the comments here I find it disappointing that morepeople don't just relax and see where the ride takes them before theydecide about a movie. One of the great things about Hitch was he wasalways trying new and different things. Take two films from his"hayday" Psycho and NxNW. Two of the very best films of all time and socompletely different from each other. Every movie including Psycho hasan awful lot of humor in it because that's how Hitch saw everything,with a macabre sense of humor. He tried straight humor just once withMr. and Mrs. Smith. It wasn't fun for him and you can see that in thisdrab movie. So when he went for humor he did it in the form of "blackhumor". And he was a master. The Trouble With Harry is brilliant. Andfor his final bow, Family Plot not only is funny in and of itself buthe filled it with laughs at his own (or his movies) expense. It's oneof my favorites and gets better every time I watch it. I do have toagree I could have done w/out Ms. Black but Barbara Harris more thanmakes up for it. And Bruce Dern and William Devane were great as well.

It's not his best by a long chalk but 'Family Plot' moves from oneinteresting set piece to another and mines entertainment from familiarHitchcock themes.I thought the performances were fun and the idea of amedium was used effectively plus it tied in to some tension in a stale,bickering relationship. I particularly enjoyed listening to the JohnWilliams music that echoed North by North West, Psycho and so on. Thereare also some motifs that found their way in to 'Star Wars' which gavethe film a depth for me. Hitchcock's ear for good dialogue remains.Considering how late
in his career this was made, it stands up as goodcomedy thriller.

Hitchcock uses 2 sets of villains, one set more heinous than the otherto explore his familiar themes of greed, guilt and identity. In thissense it is hardly fresh but the way he manages to keep being sowatchable is remarkable.

This film doesn't have any "meaning" beyond the obvious. As in "39Steps" it is fun all the way through. There are no dark hues as in theremarkable "Vertigo", "Rear Window". "Psycho" or similar films duringHitch's great period. This one is as light as a soufflé and wonderfullyamusing. The episode in the runaway car is one of the funniest onrecord and a joy to behold over and over. The musical score issparkling and the actors are perfect in their roles. With so manyheavy-handed, belabored comedies made at the time it's amazing this onegot passed up. I suppose the people who continually think of Hitchcockas "The Master of Suspense" or, to the other extreme, the "Searchers ofMeaning" it might fall a bit short, but it's not aiming in thatdirection at all. How can there be a pint to miss at all if there neverwas one in the first place? It's top-rate entertainment, period.

Movie about a couple–Blanche (Barbara Harris) and George (BruceDern)–searching for the long-lost nephew of a very rich woman.Unfortunately they get involved with two kidnappers–Adamson (WilliamDevane) and Fran (Karen Black)–and Adamson is VERY evil.

Hitchcock's heart wasn't in this one–and it shows. He was in illhealth all during the shot and kept butting heads with Black andDevane–they were Method actors (which Hitchcock hated) and drove himcrazy asking what their motivations were for every scene. He got alongwell with Harris and Dern though. The plot itself is (to put it nicely)pretty light-weight and needlessly convoluted. Also the film isindifferently shot (only a few sequences look even remotely good) andit's far too long. To be honest, I was dozing off halfway through! Theonly things keeping this from being a total bomb are good performancesby Harris and Dern, a hair-raising ride in a car with no brakes down atwisting road, John Williams' jokey score and Harris' final wink at thecamera. But, all in all, this is overlong, boring and sub-par piece ofwork. Hitch should have stopped with "Frenzy" (1972). I can only givethis a 5.

Hitchcock’s film Family Plot is significant only because it was his lasteffort, and because it starred a cast of players that today begs thequestion "Where are they now?"

Family Plot stars Barbara Harris as a fake spiritualist named Blanche who isasked to find a missing person. She and her boyfriend George (Bruce Dern)are enticed into taking on the task only because of the reward involved. Little do they know, they are on to something dangerous.

Arthur Adamson is the man they want. He is a gem dealer by day and a nastyjewel thief by night. Teamed up with his accomplice, Fran, played MissKaren Black (still donning the big blonde wig she wore in Nashville) theykidnap millionaires and dignitaries in an effort to get their precious gemstones.

Arthur Adamson, unbeknownst to Fran, George and Blanche, has a shady past. Apparently Arthur killed his parents and faked his own death.

Family Plot is interesting to watch, mainly because of the historicalsignificance of it, but aside from its association it really is nothing morethan a thinly layered television movie. Some of the Hitchcockian elementsare there. Of course we get his own cameo (an important ingredient to allof his films) and of course we get a few neat scenes (the cut away at thebeginning from Blanche and George in the cab to Karen Black, who they almosthit at a crosswalk was great).

On the other hand, the characters are two dimensional. We don’t really knowwhy Arthur killed his parents, and frankly we don’t care. Blanche is anover the top fake as a spiritualist, and the scene that showcases her workis comedically boring.

Not only are the characters lifeless, but they don’t fit in with the mood ofthe film. I gather that this was to be a black comedy, but the charactersare more suited to the slapstick genre, only you get the feeling they areconfused as to whether they should be toning it down or camping it up! Itseems evident that Hickcock’s film making and 1970’s sensibility simply donot mix well.

And speaking of ‘Black’ comedy, Miss Karen gets top billing for a film thatshe is not the star of. Bruce Dern and Barbara Harris get much more screentime than she does and their characters are far more relevant to the plot. Karen’s Fran is nothing more than a moll for William Devane’s Arthur. Youcan clearly see who had the best agent back in 1976!

Luckily Family Plot is not too terrible a film that it would tarnish theimage of a great director. For great Hitchcock work check out Rebecca fromthirty six years earlier. And Harris and Black can both be forgiven fortheir effort in this picture as I am sure they were busy working on theirfine performances in a classic from 1976, Nashville!

"Family Plot", Hitchcock’s last film, is nearly forgotten today; even whenlater Hitchcock films are discussed, "Frenzy" and "Torn Curtain" come tomost people’s minds. But it is an entertaining, thoroughly watchable,consistently absorbing film. Lehman wrote a very clever plot, carefullystructured and filled with ironic twists, and he also provides some wittydialogue. Hitchcock’s direction just doesn’t have the pacing and zest youmight expect (after all, he was 77 years old when he made this), buttechnically it’s excellent and the sequence with the car that goes downhillin a twisty mountain road and has no brakes is exceptionally well-edited.Unlike "Frenzy", this film also has engaging performances by all the actorsinvolved (Dern is the standout). The only disappointment here is the finale,that comes more or less as an anticlimax.

read comments (0)

Freaky Friday

Disney has this movie released in 1976, and the name of it? "FreakyFriday!!!!!" This is a very original film from the good folks atDisney. Here, for one day, two people happen to switch places!!!!! Andthanks to this, many shows (mostly from the Disney properties) oftenfollow the same format on at least one episode!!!!! (such as "8 SimpleRules," etc.)

What I like about this movie: It's fun! I mean, with a name like"Freaky Friday," why wouldn't this movie be fun, huh????? Also, Irecall seeing this on the old Disney Channel back in 1997, and I'veseen the remake on ABC in 1995 (I think), and both movies are great!However, even though I've seen the 2003 edition, that is NOTHING likethe 1976 and 1995 versions that Disney has released.

"Freaky Friday" is a fun classic. Hey, I've written this on a Friday,too! How ironic!!!!!

10/10

Playing a prostitute in `Taxi Driver’, Jodie Foster became a star in 1976,so I suppose she was forced to do a bunch of commercially interestingchildren’s films afterwards in order to restore the American routine: achild has to be childish. I believe, that’s how this completely unnecessarymovie arose. The plot synopsis implies a moral message: Mother and daughtersuddenly change bodies on Friday 13th by wishing at the same time to becomethe other one.

I read that in the TV guide and prepared for a little sentimental comedy totell me how equally hard school-work and housework are. Surprisingly, themoral aspect was there, but so badly presented that it won’t make a singlechild think about what it has seen! Well, and without the message there isnothing left but a screenplay so jerky that it could have been written by achild but so uninspired that it must have been written by a third-classHollwood writer; also an ashamingly bad actress called Barbara Harris, aboring, predictable plot and a sitcom-like camera – unfortunately there areless funny moments than in a 20-minutes sitcom.

I’m a great fan of Jodie Foster and this film is her veryworst.

I cannot say enough about "Freaky Friday." Jodie Foster and BarbaraHarrisportray their reversed roles flawlessly, and the excellent screenplay byMary Rodgers cannot be beaten. Unlike many Disney movies, this one dealswith real-life family issues, that amazingly, are still relevant today.Even with some poor editing and the inevitable Disney chase, the greatwriting(filled with "grownup" innuendo) and the top-notch casting makethisa perennial classic.

I nearly busted a gut with this one. Barbara Harris is an especial treat,especially in the climatic waterskiing nail-biter! I wish I could be*her*…just for a day!It has interesting feminist implications and the heavily hinted-at subplotinvolving teen alcoholism is compellingly unexplained.

I was born in the 80’s, so I didn’t appreciate this film as much as a 70’steen would have but overall it was a very cute film. The plot wasadorable,the different characters were memorable, and the sibling rivalry wasawesome! Score 9/10

For what it’s worth, my ten year old son liked it, maybe even more than the recent remake. The plot’s not exactly the same at all except for the role reversal. Special affects aren’t as great as the newer version of course, but the movie isn’t as ’slick’ as the new one easier and somehow I think the younger audiences appreciate the more straight foward simpler style of the older original film. Barbara Harris in the mom role, in one of her few onscreen performances is great as she always was. It’s a shame this actress

never made more films!! Jodi Foster as the kid is all butchtomboy. Interesting………hehehehehe

WARNING! Spoilers and Pseudo-Intellectual Claptrap follow:

On the surface it may seem like just an insensate piece of 70’s Disneyfluff, but the questions that this film raises are perhaps some of themost pertinent to understanding the nature of humanity itself.

For instance: When asked to write out a check to the mechanic, Annabel,in the body of her mother, opts to try to find cash instead, so as notto go to prison for forgery. But is this a rational fear? What are thelegal precedents on matters of this nature? What is it that signs acheck, the body or the mind? And, an even more intriguing question:Whose signature would Annabel have while occupying her mother’s body?Her own, or her mother’s? After awhile, the signing of one’s own namebecomes a reflex, which does not require a conscious effort on the partof the brain, other than to set the pen in motion. And so it followsthat Annabel would have her mother’s signature while occupying hermother’s body. And so, if it is Ellen Andrews’ signature on the check,but Annabel Andrews who set the pen in motion to provide thatsignature… is that considered forgery, or not?

Another question: What, exactly, is it that has been switched? Theirminds, of course. But what is the mind? It is the sum total of allone’s knowledge and experience, which combines to form the basis ofone’s personality. However, genetics also play a part in the buildingblocks of personality, and each has found herself with a new geneticmakeup which, though similar to one another, are not identical. Whataffect should this have on their respective personalities? Could itpartly account for the sympathy that each acquires for the other’splight?

And what about ingrained habits? It is established that Ellen smokesmenthols, whereas Annabel dislikes being even in the vicinity ofcigarettes. While in her mother’s body, wouldn’t Annabel experiencethat body’s cigarette cravings? However, would Annabel’s mind, the mindof a non-smoker, even be able to recognize those cravings for what theyare?

There is good evidence, however, that it is not their minds that switchplaces at all. The shot that communicates what has happened takes asplit screen, with Annabel on one side and Ellen on the other, andfreezes it. Then, pale silhouettes of each rise up and switch placeswith one another. This would seem to imply that it is, in fact, theirsouls that have traded places, and not their minds.

This opens up a whole new batch of questions: What IS the soul, and howdoes it differ from the mind? Is there something more that makes aperson who they are than just genetics plus experiences? To what degreedoes the soul govern the body, and to what degree does the mind governit? Do the two cooperate, or are they at odds?

And then there is the question of physical abilities. Ellen is mostlikely not much of a sports person, and yet, in her body, Annabel isable to ride a skateboard and play baseball, presumably approximatelyas well as she did in her own body. But at the same time, Ellen, onceshe gets past her own mental blocks, is able to play field hockeynearly as well as Annabel in Annabel’s body. Which is more important tosuccess in a sport?: The body, conditioned to play the sport, or themind, trained to understand the game?

This is where the soul comes into play. It is the determination ofEllen’s soul that frees Annabel’s body to begin playing actual hockey(rather than merely ducking the blows of the other team), even thoughEllen’s mind still does not really understand the game. And it is thelonging of Annabel’s soul for familiarity in a strange and relentlessworld that allows here to play baseball with her own abilities, eventhough Ellen’s body would probably ordinarily not be up to thechallenge.

The philosophy becomes even more mind-bending with the climactic switchback: Wherein rather than their souls returning again to theirrespective bodies, their bodies transcend the space time continuum toreunite with their rightful souls. It is as if to say that the body andsoul are so fundamentally intertwined that, when separated, the needfor reunification is so great that it allows even for the transpositionof corporeal flesh.

Not to mention the Fr
eudian issues involved in having a daughtermarried to her father, thus bringing the deep-seated Electra complex toglaring fruition.

And so, in conclusion, I believe that the viewing of this movie canhelp us answer some of the questions asked by man since the beginningof time. If John Hinkley had chosen this film, rather than Taxi Driver,to be the fodder of his obsession with Ms. Jodie Foster, he would havebeen inspired to write an intelligent philosophical dissertation inorder to impress her, rather than shoot Ronald Reagan.

A whole slew of hilarity, that’s what! The amazing Barbara Harris, whoplayed as Passionella in "The Apple Tree", and won a Tony, is EllenAndrews, whose rebellious daughter brings her trouble. Anabel, playedby Jodie Foster, from "The Silence Of The Lambs" is brilliant as well.

The two somehow end up switching bodies for a day, and now Anabel hasMom’s responsibilities, while Ellen has to remember what it felt liketo be a kid and how she felt when she was in her teens.

I highly recommend this movie, and those of you who like it should seethe 2003 remake with Jamie Lee Curtis and Lindsay Lohan. Don’t miss it,or you will regret it. (Just kidding, but you should see it as it ismore faithful to the book than the remake).

The same year that Jodie Foster starred in "Taxi Driver", she alsostarred in "Freaky Friday", about as far from the former as you canget. She plays Annabel Andrews, who inadvertently switchesbodies/brains with her mother Ellen (Barbara Harris) after wishing tobe someone else. The two of them go through the rest of the day gettinginto embarrassing situations.

Obviously, Disney movies are overall pretty worthless. But this oneisn’t bad. Maybe it is the sort of thing that can only appeal to littlechildren, but if we accept it as only that, it’s kinda interesting.Still, Jodie Foster’s later movies had a lot more to show forthemselves, and Barbara Harris was more interesting in "Who is HarryKellerman and Why is He Saying All Those Terrible Things About Me?","Nashville", and "Family Plot". Also starring John Astin (aka GomezAddams) and Marc McClure (of "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" and "Superman"fame).

I saw the remake of Freaky Friday first before I ever saw this FreakyFriday, and you might hate me when I say, I didn't know until a yearago that it was a remake, not to mention that it starred an unknownlittle actress, Jodie Foster. But when I heard, I got excited andwanted to see it immediately since I loved the remake, but I couldnever find the original at the video store, but finally I came acrossit yesterday at Hollywood Video. I just watched it this morning andwhile I enjoyed it, I found the remake to be a little moreentertaining, I'll explain in just a minute.

Ellen is a house maker and a mom who is constantly on the go and takenfor granted, Annabelle is her sloppy disorganized daughter, and theyjust can't seem to understand each other. But when they are bothtalking about each other, they say the magic words "I wish she couldjust be in my shoes for one day", and their bodies switch! Now Ellenhas to learn what it is like to be her tomboy sports loving daughterand Annabelle has to learn what a complicated life her mom has withchores, babysitting, cooking, and being in charge of the house with ahusband who takes her for granted constantly.

Freaky Friday has some good humor and some light laughs here and there,but I think the reason why I enjoyed the remake with Jamie Lee Curtis alittle better was because of the times. Today's world is constantly onthe go, not to mention I think that kids are a little more rebellious,so the mom and daughter had more to learn from each other in that film.But I would never say shy away from this Freaky Friday because it is aclassic and has some good laughs and a good ending.

6/10

read comments (0)