The Rescuers

It’s worthwhile comparing the opening credits to "The Rescuers" with theopening credits to its sequel (released thirteen years later). Thesequel’sopening is detailed, tastefully colourful and full of movement - it leapsand bounds through the Australian landscape, and its dominant mood isexuberance. The original is anything but exuberant. ITS opening creditstake place over a series of sombre seascape drawings - still drawings.These credits could not possibly have been more cheaply made; but theyhavetheir own charm and effect.

There is something fitting about the grey world of "The Rescuers". A pairof mice (professional rescuers) receive a message from a young orphan girlwho is being held captive by … and so on. This is not achandelier-swinging rescue story. The mice are tiny and largely helplessina world of big things; and if they succeed at all it must be by quietlywaiting their chance in the shadows.

The mice, by the way, are adorable. Really, they are. Largely it’s thevoices that do it - Eva Gabor as a rich Hungarian, and Bob Newhart as ashyAmerican floor-sweeper. Neither is self-consciously cute. Each is aninnocent but not a child. When the story concentrates on them rather thanthe Miss MacGuffin they are rescuing it is at its mostenjoyable.

There is no doubt, though that the Disney studio was exhausted at the timeit made this movie. There is one superb piece of animation - MadamMedusa,the villainess, perhaps the high point of animator Milt Kahl’s career.Other character animation here and there is good too. But thespear-characters of the story have been done with what looks like almostnoeffort; and many scenes look as if they belong on television. Scale isoften ignored (there is a turtle slightly smaller than the mice) - andthisis a SERIOUS problem in this kind of fantasy. Overall there is a feelingofdeep weariness.

It’s worth seeing for the mice, though.

I had heard good things about this movie. Good things from people who,like me, aren't fans of any animated movies, Disney or otherwise. Theyconvinced me to buy a copy-now I have this bad quality DVD, and I'm£5.75 worse off.

Let's leave aside the quality of the picture-after all, it only seemsto be the new releases which are of good quality. The movie is very,very bland. The basic story is a kid is kidnapped by this woman, andtwo mice go to rescue her. Very Disney-just a lot less entertainingthen movies like The Lion King and Aladdin. Maybe it's just aimed atkids-as a 24 year old, I was less then mildly entertained by this. Kidswould probably get a lot more out of it.

So, to the movie. The animation wasn't up to the standard of othermovies-the 70s animation style, which I always found unbearable. Thatmovie with the cats in it was the same-but I'm not reviewing that.

The subplot of Bernard, the male mouse, wanting to marry Bianca wasunnecessary. The bird/plane was almost unbearable to watch. Itliterally made me cringe when they started that part of 'comic relief'.Most movies don't have that effect on me. The villain, Medusa, failedto come across as threatening. As did her sidekick. And the icing onthe cake? The mice pop up and start up a conversation with this kid.And she doesn't even blink.

This, in my opinion, was nothing compared to the other movies fromDisney. The soundtrack, admittedly, was good. Not the best, but atleast the characters weren't constantly bursting into song. I'm sorry,that was the one redeeming feature for this movie.

Disney’s animated films have generally been good or better, while thestudio’s live-action offerings have veered from excellent (MaryPoppins, Nikki Wild Dog of the North) to downright terrible (Popeye,Condorman). The Rescuers is an animated film from 1977, butunfortunately it is a lesser cartoon feature. Compared to the likes of"Dumbo", "Lady and the Tramp" and "101 Dalmatians", the film issomething of a disappointment. None of the Disney cartoons are so badthat you can’t find some merit in them, but this one offers very littlebeyond a couple of lively sequences and some OK voice acting.

The story tells of the Rescue Aid Society, a bunch of mice from allaround the globe who dedicate their lives to answering distress calls.Their headquarters, naturally, is just under the UN Building! A bottlewashes up in New York containing a help message. Two brave mice,Bernard and Bianca, investigate this plea for help. They learn that ayoung girl named Penny has been kidnapped from an orphanage andspirited down to the southern bayous, where she is being forced by acouple of crooks to hunt in a pirates’ cavern for a priceless,long-lost diamond.

The animation is rather mediocre for a Disney film, and the story isn’treally all that interesting. Maybe the story could’ve been interesting,if handled with a bit more verve and energy, but as it is the pacing isquite slow. Bob Newhart and Eva Gabor are pleasant enough as the miceheroes, and the villainous role of Madame Medusa is carried off withsuitable menace. I’m sure The Rescuers is the kind of film which willprovide an hour or so of passable entertainment for kids, but I’m lesssure that it’s the kind of film they’ll want to watch over and overagain. From Disney, we’ve come to expect more….

Unfortunately, this film is based on two beautiful books, "TheRescuers" and "Miss Bianca" by Margery Sharp. What is unfortunate, isthat this film makes a complete mess of both of them, changing roundthe plots, locations and even the personalities of the characters.

Here is a bit about the film: The film is about a society called "TheRescue Aid Society" of mice, who receive a message from a kidnappedlittle girl named Penny and are determined to go and rescue her. Well,two mice are ready to rescue her, Miss Bianca and Bernard, these areboth their first missions.

Now here is the same bit about the film, this time pointing out what itis really like in the book: This film is about a society called "TheRescue Aid Society"(BIG MISTAKE: It is the "Prionser's Aid Society") ofmice, who receive a message from a kidnapped little girl (they heardabout it in "Miss Bianca", where the girl appears) named Penny (in"Miss Bianca" her name is Patience) and are determined to go and rescueher. Well, two mice are ready to rescue her, Miss Bianca and Bernard,these are both their first missions (Bernard had had a mission beforegoing on his first with Bianca).

Luckily this film still remains to be pleasant, with good animation andbeautiful songs. Best for people who have not read the books (and thereare many of those people and those people should read the books). Sothere.

Young audiences of the mid-'70's made this animated tale from Disney,about two mice and their attempt to rescue an orphaned girl from theclutches of jewel thieves, a good-sized box-office hit. It is one ofthe Disney Co.'s better cartoon offerings from this period, though forgrown-ups it has little to offer beyond the frenetic action or thecurious penchant it has for lifting character traits and story devicesfrom "One Hundred and One Dalmatians". The star-voices (including BobNewhart, Eva Gabor, Joe Flynn and Geraldine Page) are terrific, and thefilm does get off to a rousing start, but it flags mid-way through.Followed by a belated, exceptionally thin sequel in 1990. ** from ****

I am one who thought it was a movie about two mice. How cute was what Isaid. I did not choose to watch because I was of the certain that itwas a movie for the children. On a day when I was alone, I watched themovie. This is because I wanted to watch some thing of light enjoyment.I am happy I did watch it. It is a nice cute story about two mice whomust do the travelling to rescue a little girl from a bad lady. I willnot do the spoilers in
here. This is because I am thinking you shouldwatch it for yourself. I like this movie. The animation is good. Themusic is good and sweet. I like Tomorrow Is Another Day. All the songsare good. I think I like the voices of the characters. Penny is adarling. The mice are good too. I like the backing grounds. They aredetailing every thing, and look real.

I gave this movie 8 out of 10. This is because the bird is not good. Ido not like the bird.

"The Rescuers " it's a great movie of Disney of the 70 ' . Theanimation is cute but with many details , but the best were thecharacters that were likable . Also ,the movie it's very entertainingand charming form beginning to end .

The movie follows a group of brave mouses , Beranrd and Bianca ,thathave the mission to rescue the orphan girl Penny ,of the evil thiefMedusa ,and for that they will have to travel into the jungle and facemany dangers .

I liked a lot this movie . It is one of my favorite movies of Disney,and I agree that it have all the elements to be considered a animatedclassic for all the family .Very Good !

Hilarious. Intrigue. Mystery. Two Little Mice. Great artwork and songs.The animation was O.K., but I thought it was too dark and creepy insome parts. Medusa was a good villain, but also very stupid. She pickedMr. Snoops for a sidekick. She has alligators for pets. She forces alittle girl to find a diamond, and everybody knows a little girl willeventually get tired of that and not want to do that anymore. Butobviously, Medusa does not care about that- the only thing she caresabout is having someone that is small enough go down into the hole andlook for the Devil's Eye, and Penny fits the bill. Lastly, she lives ina dilapidated old ship, that might sink or be overtaken with some othercrisis of misfortune at any time. I wish we would have taken the train!

This animated movie does do a convincing job at depicting what childrenshould never ever be put through, including going into hazardous, humidcaves in quest of diamonds. Geraldine Page's voice role as MadameMedusa leaves me to think that she wasn't a very likable actress orperson for that matter. I can cite her three appearances on thetelevision series "Rod Serling's Night Gallery" as an example, in theseries stories "Stop Killing Me," "The Sins Of The Fathers," and"Something In The Woodwork." Like her character in "Something In TheWoodwork," her character in this animated movie got her comeuppance!Her Madame Medusa role is one that would have been sufficient to earnher a slap across the chops! I am not saying this to raise the ire ofwomen's rights groups, I am only stating characters she has played arecold-hearted, uncaring, and mean spirited, not to mention annoying!

The lovely songs like "The Journey," "Tomorrow Is Another Day," and theOscar-nominated "Someone's Waiting For You," will be more than enoughto send you reaching for your Kleenex as a result of weeping. BobNewhart and Eva Gabor are superb in their voice roles of Bernard andBianca. He even sings well on "Rescue Aid Society."

One problem though, is that it's never explained why Penny waskidnapped besides the reason of her being small enough to retrieve theDevil's Eye diamond from a skull in a dark, humid, hazardous cave.Situations like this one of wrongful child labor and placing theirwelfare in jeopardy, even though this one was fictional, still make thehost of "America's Most Wanted," John Walsh, furious to this day, eventhough the case has now been solved about who murdered his son, Adam,in 1983.

The comic relief is used sparingly and in the appropriate places whereit is a welcome lift. Hopefully, Madame Medusa and Mr. Snoops gotarrested and executed. I found myself saying at one point viewing this,"Go to Hell, Madame Medusa!"

I can't fault this movie at all, other than to say the video I have isa bit grainy. The film is undeniably charming, based on the books byMargery Sharp, which I haven't read. Please stop criticising moviesbecause they are unfaithful to the books, because that is reallytiresome.

The animation was just wonderful, right from minute one. It matched themusic perfectly, and none of the characters were drawn stereotypically.I loved the fact they made the protagonists mice, which shows a lot oforiginality. I was laughing so much at the swamp animals scene, as itlooked so ridiculous.

The songs were outstanding, and beautifully song by Shelby Flint. I'veheard criticisms that the songs were lifeless and slow, but I stronglydisagree. The song at the beginning was beautiful beyond words, as wasthe one with Penny crying on the boat deck. They were truly emotional,and often misunderstood by people.

The characters were really funny, especially the two crocodiles, andOrville(especially when he cries "Mayday, Mayday!")Bernard wasbrilliantly voiced by Bob Newhart, likewise Bianca by beautifulHungarian actress Eva Gabor. Penny was really sweet, but thescene-stealer was Geraldine Page as Madam Medussa, who was such aconvincing villainess. She reminds me of Ursula from the LittleMermaid.

The script was both touching and funny. All in all, I recommend thisand the sequel (which isn't quite as good). 10/10.Bethany Cox

read comments (0)

The Spy Who Loved Me

THE SPY WHO LOVED ME (1977) ***1/2 Moore in arguably his best Bond effortfacing mad man Curt Jergens, a demented shipping magnate, whose abduction ofUS & USSR subs and the gorgeous Barbara Bach as an aide de camp face one ofthe series’ most intimidating villain, Jaws (Richard Kiel), a giant,death-defying steel-toothed nightmare who has more than one memorableencounter and some fine humor-induced moments. Best bit: opening skiingsequence. Great title song by Carly Simon.

In his 10th adventure, Bond has to stop a shipping magnate bent on worlddomination.

Big,splashy,and hugely enjoyable 007 outing. The opening stunt isjaw-dropping and the movie keeps your attention throughout. Kiel makes agreat bad-guy.

Rating:****1/2 (out of five)

I thought I was a Bond fan but after seeing this I'm starting to havemy doubts. Usually praised as one of the best Bond films I was verydisappointed. Good pre-title sequence leading to the usual great songand titles (though they are starting to resemble more and more like a70's porn film), then we're introduced to the Russian spy and yourthinking nice twist it's a woman, then she opens her mouth, oh dear,how on earth did Barbara Bach get such a major part when she plainlycan't act to save her life. I haven't seen a more wooden performancesince I last saw Thunderbirds! Roger Moore seemed to have left hischarm at home as some of his witty comments were more offensive thanfunny. The pacing of the film seemed all wrong and it felt very flat inplaces. It wasn't all bad 'Jaws' is a great henchman, the car/boat wasingenious and Marvin Hamlisch's score was surprisingly good. But on thewhole a dog of a film. Just to add some more controversy I sawMoonraker at the end of last year and thoroughly enjoyed it from startto finish.(3/10)

Oh, what a fantastic movie this is, the best Bond movie so far, i justloved it since the moment it begun, it had me thrilled, entertained,deeped the whole movie, and there wasn’t a single scene that bored me,wow, just an astonishing accomplishment.

This is the first Roger Moore bond film that i watched and boy i lovedhim because of this performance, many people accuse him of being funnybut not a deserving and worthy 007, but it is not like that, OK, he hadparticular ease for funny lines (he made me laugh lots of times) but healso could play the serious guy, and he had that special charm that theBritish agent should have (Connery doesn’t have that Charm, he is tootough for the part for me).

The bond girl this time: Barbara Bach. OK, she is beautiful in thisfilm, she isn’t as good actress as pretty she is, but unless she madean effort to make a nice performance, not the best you can find in Bondmovies, but no the worse either.

The relationship between James and Major Anya Amasova (Barbara Bach) isalways fun to watch since they are the best British spy and the bestRussian counterpart so, they are always competing to prove who is thebest. And it is amazing to think that in the 70’s a woman could becompeting to a man in first place, because that’s a 90’s woman feature,so her part can be considered revolutionary.

Now, let’s leave the actors aside and let’s focus in the music, in whatrespects to me, the best Bond song so far, high 5 for Carly Simon forgiving us this perfect song.

The locations are great as in all Bond movies of course, and one of thebest scenes ever are in this movies. We have, for instance that sceneof Bond skiing dressed of yellow, one of the best ever, and was made bystunts in only one shot! It is unbelievable. that was great. And thenthe movie takes us to Egypt, Italy, and to the Sea Base of KarlStromberg (the villain)…..

There is something that could have been better, but it is somethingusual in Bond movies, the main assistant of the villain ( in this case,Jaws) is almost invincible, so that’s maybe the only flaw in Bondfranchise.

Many people say this villain is great, and others say it is a horriblecharacter for that same reason, but those who say this, also say thattheir favourite Bond Villain is Oddjob!!!C’mon, that’s the most stupidcharacter in all the movies, he didn’t even speak, c’mon!

But i leave it up to you to decide, whether this is or not the bestBond movie ever, it is for me, since it is a perfect mix of everythingthe bond franchise is about…..so i give The spy who loved me *****out of 5 stars.

So many James Bond films are predominantly concerned with various largebodies of water that one begins to wonder whether the producers hadsome kind of fetish.Certainly Mr R.Moore gets very wet,along with MissB.Bach and a large number of stuntmen who seize every opportunity tojump into the tank whilst screaming loudly.Something clearly goes wrongin several such instances when they leap into the water fractionallybefore the explosion that is supposed to have precipitated them toDavey Jones's Locker. Quite why the supertanker doesn't sink when itsbow doors are open as it powers along baffles me frankly and why theimpetus of the submarine entering the pen doesn't force it to the backof the ship and out the other side is something perhaps Isaac Newtonshould be told about - but maybe I'm just a bit picky. "The spy wholoved me" as a novel was a bit girlie for a good proportion of itslength where Bond doesn't appear at all,but the film is the usual machononsense with our favourite government assassin cutting a swathethrough the female members of the cast - even the token half - heartedfeminist Russian officer.Miss B.Bach,in that role,does little but pout- either seductively or angrily as the mood takes her. As yet anothermegalomaniac bent on destroying the world (yawn,yawn) Mr C.Jurgens doesnothing to expatiate his appearance in the dreadful "I aim at thestars" (but sometimes hit London). Mr R.Moore still struggles to makethe weight,his fight scenes never convince that he could do 3 roundswith Mother Teresa. In my opinion the worst James Bond movie since "Theman with the golden gun".

This is my favorite Bond film, certainly the best one of the 1970s. RogerMoore has really grown into the role by 1977, and the addition of thehauntingly beautiful Barbara Bach as a dueling agent gives this film itsmost enduring quality.

High Points: Carly Simon’s theme song is the best in the series; "NobodyDoes It Better" is probably the most recognized Bond theme after the openingmusic. The pre-credits ski scene is also superb. Barbara Bach iswonderful, and Jaws is the best Bond villain of the 1970s. Roger Moore’sscene at the Egyptian club (where he flinches when XXX asks him about hislate wife) is one of the best scenes he ever delivers, played crisply andwith mournful emotion. The Egyptian locales are also verygood.

Low Points: Stromberg is less than great, and some of the battle scenes atthe end are quite tedious.

Overall, though, it’s easy to see why so many Bond fans like this movie thebest.

The Spy Who Loved Me is revolutionary in many ways. First and foremost,thebond girl, Tanya Amasova, is not just running around and screaming "Helpme,help me," but is completely independent and strong character. Secondly,thesets are huge; the film required construction of the entire interior oftheStromberg’s ship. It’s truly awesome and comparable to a high-budgetHollywood extravaganza. The Stromberg’s henchman, Jaws, is terrific. It isobvious that he is an extrapolation of Tee Hee from Live and Let Die.Scriptis also well written and keeps you reminding of the fact that this IS aBondmovie. For me, The Spy Who Loved Me is the best Bond ever and I think 8/10is well deserved.

Superb one liners. Moore on full smarm attack. Comedic references toLawrence Of Arabia and Jaws. The Spy Who Loved Me is played purely forlaughs until the end fight, and as a result is probably the
most fun film towatch, and the last line is an absolute classic.

"The Spy Who Loved Me" is, to me, the definitive James Bond film. RogerMoore turns in the perfect performance as James Bond in his thirdappearanceas 007. Everything about this film is pure Bond.. the incredible skiingsequence at the beginning of the film, the amazing Lotus Esprit scenes,andthe awesome underwater bits.

The 70’s weren’t always kind to the Bond series, but this movie representsthe absolute best of the entire series (yes, better than "Thunderball" and"Goldfinger"). Someone here also mentioned that Moore is the perfect*English* Bond (as opposed to Scottish or Australian). I have to agree.Hisperformance in "TSTLM" more than redeems his eventual appearance in thegawdawful "Moonraker".

Moore’s 2nd best(after Octopussy). Live and let die and man with thegoldengun were disapointments but Moore put his Bond character back on the mapwith great flick. It’s dated but fun. Great sequences include fighting inEgypt by the pyramids while a big show is taking place and the music to theshow corresponds to the action - marvellous - and Roger Moore’s line totriple X when he’s done is priceless. Great humour and action make this amust see. The title song is perfect for a Bond flick and is the best onetodate and Barbara Bach is so dam sexy(especially at theend).Great stuff!

read comments (0)

The Hills Have Eyes

‘The Hills Have Eyes’ is a far superior film to Wes Craven’s previousdrive-in exploitation flick, ‘Last House on the Left’. This time round,he makes an effort to create a coherent storyline, more roundedcharacters, and a sense of real tension and suspense. He’s aided by afar more competent cast, most of whom are capable of delivering actualperformances.

The movie starts out great, with a mysterious and ambiguous meetingbetween Ruby and the owner of the old Gas Station. When theall-American show up, asking for directions, the tension is masterfullybuilt. Once the trailer goes off the road, however, things come to agrinding halt – characters behave in unrealistic ways, run offrecklessly into the night, and take implausible risks. Thehill-dwelling crazies seem to take an incredibly long time to make anappearance, and waiting for them, rather than drawing out the suspense,actually kills it, and the film descends into tedium.

The last third of the movie, after the attack on the trailer, restoressome balance to things, with some genuine excitement generated. But forme, at least, it was too little, too late.

For a horror movie, and a Craven horror movie at that, there aresurprisingly few scares and the gore is of the ketchup variety. Ahighlight is the work of Robert Burns, who created such memorable setsfor ‘The Texas Chain Saw Massacre’, here working similar magic on anequally tight budget, creating a believably sun-dried rottenness to thelocations.

An okay movie, containing a suitable sense of dread and menace in thesun-bleached mountains, but far from great. ‘A Nightmare on Elm Street’is still seven years away, and it shows.

*They wanted to see SPOILERS, but SPOILERS saw them first* The Carterfamily - father Big Bob (Russ Grieve), mother Ethel (Virginia Vincent),kids Bobby (Robert Houston), Brenda (Susan Lanier) and Lynn (DeeWallace, now Wallace-Stone), along with Lynn's husband Doug (MartinSpeer) and their daughter Katy (Brenda Marinoff) are traveling throughthe desert looking for a silver mine, a present for Bob and Ethel'swedding anniversary, but due to a street map mishap, they get strandedin the middle of the desert.

As if the heat of the day and the cold of the night aren't enough,there is a deranged family living dangerously near where the Cartersare, a family which robs and kills their unfortunate victims.

And when they'll hit, it's going to be hell…

This movie is the second of Wes Craven's 'revenge bilogy', the firstbeing 'Last House On The Left', in which good people react to the lossof some of their own by behaving as violently and viciously as theirattackers.

This movie, though, enrichens the metaphor with a very clearcontrapposition at the beginning, with the Carters being this WASC(White, Anglo-Saxon and Catholic) family, all prim and proper, who cando no wrong (it's significant the fact that Big Bob is a retired cop)family while Papa Jupiter (James Whitworth)'s family is a family ofsadistic cannibal murderers (with the exception of Ruby (JanusBlythe)), and then blending, blending, blending so much that at theend, even as the evildoers are punished, there still isn't anysatisfaction.

Oh, and one doubt I have; are they ever gonna get out of that damneddesert?

Having first seen the great (though not perfect) remake made byAlexandre Aja, I really was interested in seeing the original. Ofcourse, being a fan of horror movies, and of Wes Craven's movies inparticular, I was aware of THHE, but I've always heard, that this isjust a really mediocre movie, and that it was surprising, that theremake, while taking he same premise, has managed to become a reallygood film. Now, after finally having seen the original, I have to say -everything I've heard about it and its mediocrity is true. And yet…

First of all, let me say that the original and the remake are indeedvery similar. The characters of the Carter family are the same, thebasic premise is the same, indeed the whole first half of both versionsis pretty much identical. The big differences appear in the second halfof both movies, and that's where the original THHE begins to beinteresting. Now, don't get me wrong - Aja's remake is far superior,and not only because of the much better technical execution and thebigger budget. But the original had some really great ideas, that weredropped for the remake, and while I appreciate Aja's more complex storydevelopment and its darkly satirical, almost political context, Ireally think that Craven's also very dark and satirical, but also moreanthropological approach to his movie made it at its core moredisturbing, but also more believable.

Craven's Carter family isn't as likable as the one in Aja's remake, sowhen their lives finally are in danger, the audience doesn't connect tothem on the emotional level as much as with Aja's characters. But, onthe other side, they are the more realistic family. An other importantdifference between the two versions of THHE are the villains. While inthe remake the Carters are fighting against a bunch of mutatedindividuals, who just happened to live in the same city, the villainsin the original are clearly shown as a degenerated FAMILY. And that isa really very interesting approach, which is completely lost in thenewer film. In Craven's movie, there are two families, one the mirrorimage of the other, and both have the same goal - to fight for theirsurvival. They have even more in common, but it's subtle - afterviewing this movie and thinking about the two families I've noticedthat they weren't that different from the start. That's why theCarter's are not as likable as in Aja's remake - Craven didn't want tojust show some good people fighting against some bad people, but tofurther the commonness of the both sides. He shows us, that thecapability and the willingness to become extremely violent is in everyperson and even more - it's a part of human nature in itself. Unlikemany vigilante movies,and also Aja's remake, the original THHE isextremely pessimistic about this subject. That's why the last pictureof the movie is a freeze frame of Doug furiously stabbing Mars - thereis no redeeming for Doug for this killing, except his will to surviveand protect his beloved ones - he has become not more than a desperateanimal. The question that follows, is: Was he, or a human being ingeneral for that matter, ever more than a desperate animal? Is the"good", civilized, suburban Carter family really that different fromthe degenerated desert freaks they have the misfortune to encounter?The only real difference between them appears to be the protectiveshell of civilization, which is quickly stripped off the Carters, oncethey are lost and alone in the desert.

Now one could argue that Aja's movie achieves the same effect andprovokes the same thoughts - but there IS a fundamental difference. Ajadoesn't show Doug who becomes a monster, as does Craven, but Doug whobecomes a HERO through becoming a monster. And after all the brutalkillings that Doug is responsible of, he returns to the remains of hisfamily as a hero and is looking forward to live on his civilized life.Essentially, Aja's movie shows an extraordinary development of anordinary guy in an extreme situation. Craven shows us, that there isnothing too extraordinary about it - violence is a part of our nature.That's why his movie is more disturbing, and also more interesting thanthe remake, when it comes to the subject matter. But I can't deny thesheer visceral impact Aja's remake and its great technical executionmade on me. After all is said and done, the newer film is the betterone. It benefits from the beautiful work of the cameraman and overallfrom the higher budget. But I can't discard Craven's original because Ican't help but think that this movie made (maybe even unintentionally)an interesting and provocativ
e statement about the human beings, andit's a great pity that Wes Craven hadn't more money and also experienceas a director to make his movie the definitive The Hills Have Eyes.

The second film directed by Wes Craven is a lot less impressive as hisdebut, the notorious Last House on the Left. But Craven can’t really beblamed for that because he obviously was a lot more careful when he wrotethe script for The Hills have Eyes. Last House on the Left almost destroyedhis career before it even begun and the shocking character of that moviemade him pretty hated among critics and producers. Craven obviously keptthat in mind while working on the Hills have Eyes and so, the villains are alot less "human" and it doesn’t at all contain perverse -or even erotic -sequences.

Especially the character-building in The Hills have Eyes is a bit of aletdown, according to me. The villains are supposed to be a bunch of savageand cruel madmen, but they look pretty organised to me and they’re overallrather ‘normal’. The protagonists of the film - the entire Carter family -fail to impress. As a viewer, you never feel connected with them and youdon’t really care whether they’ll make it or not. Michael Berryman reallybecame the icon of the film and that is well-deserved. Due to his naturallyinherited disease, he looks spooky and primitive. Casting him for the roleof Pluto really was a brilliant idea. Other positive aspects of the filminclude the terrific use of settings and locations, the solid directing byCraven and the raw character of the film. Craven uses the hot and hopelessdesert as a powerful tool of suspense and atmosphere and I guess that’s themost perfect element in the entire movie. Even though I think The Hills haveEyes doesn’t belong to the absolute top of horror, it’s Craven’s second bestfilm without a doubt. I’m not a fan of his modern work and I truly loathScream.

The Hills have Eyes recently received a special double-disc DVD editionwhich is a real treat for the fans. It contains fascinating commentarytracks by Craven himself and producer Locke. Besides that, the extra disccontains a documentary about the greatest directors in the genre in whichthey express their love and motivations towards horror. It’s called theAmerican Nightmare and I certainly recommend giving that a look as well.

This movie is a notable improvement over Was Craven’s first movie, "LastHouse On the Left" (Of course, after that movie anything would be animprovement). The film has a rather creepy premise and atmosphere and issomewhat more techically well-done than Craven’s first feature. Not tomention more appropriate music this time around. The two major flaws Ifoundwith this movie are the obvious moral (asking the question of which familyis more "civilized") and the sudden ending. It looked as if Craven hadsimply run out of ideas and decided to end the film. Still, a pretty goodmovie and definitely an improvement over "House."

‘The Lucky ones died first’ the exploitation tag line for Wes Craven’s’The Hills Have Eyes’ a story about a nice middle American family ontheir way to California break down in the desert and are set upon by aclan of cannibals who snatch the tasty looking baby. The premise farmore disturbing than the film actually is, but this compared toCraven’s brutal ‘The Hills Have eyes’ both movies are in the ‘horror ofthe family’ sub-genre in which the nice middle class family have toadapt and become savage killers in order to survive. This characterchange is extremely interesting and frightening at the same time. Forthis alone the movie is worth checking out, a must for horror fans &gore hounds those who easily offended should give ‘The Hills Have Eyes’a miss (Note torn Jaws poster apparently a dig at the movie suggesting’T.H.H.E’ is real terror!)

The Carter family is speeding through the Nevada desert on their way toCalifornia. As a gift for their 25th Anniversary Ethel and Big Bob gotthe deed to old abandoned silver mine, so they make a refueling pitstop so they and their son, daughters, granddaughter and a son-in-lawcould stretch their legs. But little do they know that hillssurrounding them are full of maniac. A backwater cannibal clan has settheir eyes on the Carters. When they are stranded in the middle ofnowhere the situation becomes dire as they are forced to become likeanimals to protect their family.

Wes Craven’s fourth attempt at directing (Last House on the Left anduncredited stab at a porno flick with "Hills" producer Peter Locke, whoknew) "Hills" is a simple down and dirty exploitation low-budget flickthat at times can really get down to the nitty gritty. The movie hasexcellent photography and an occasionally unsettling musical score. Theacting (including Dee Wallace’s first foray into horror) is very goodwith most of the principals turning believable performances (especiallythe cannibals, they usually steal the show). "Hills" is one of Craven’sbest and a solid exploitation entry film.

While I enjoyed The Hills Have Eyes, it’s not among my favorites. It’sslightly dull, seems like it pulled a few punches with the content forsuch a feature, and just not quite as interesting as maybe it shouldbe. Nonetheless, it has its merits as well; a fine 70’s-horroratmosphere, distressing plot, relentless baddies, and, of course,Pluto. As an entry in the inbred, cannibalistic sub-genre, the changeof settings was a nice touch, moving it from the mountainous woods tothe dry, rocky desert. Perhaps my favorite scene in the movie was theuse of Ethel’s corpse as bait…there’s just something gleefullyunsettling about how that idea plays out. Anyway, as I said, it’s not apersonal favorite but definitely a movie horror fans will want to checkout, as it is one of Craven’s best.

the hills have eyes is not a great film by any stretch of theimagination.for one the villains look almost normal,not what you wouldexpect deranged lunatics to look like.for another the pacing is veryslow at times and there are many scenes of the characters repeatingthemselves.by that,i mean there is a lot of filler in the movie, with alot of running around aimlessly.the film didn't have a cleardirection.the plot of the movie is hardly original,even for itstime.the Texas chainsaw massacre came out a few year earlier and is amuch more effective film, as far as horror goes.the film has little inthe way of scares, and the pounding soundtrack just served to be bothgrating and distracting all at once.i suppose the music was used tocover up the fact that not much happens through much of the movie,though it failed in its intended purpose.i basically kept looking atthe time every few seconds hoping something would happen or it wouldend .when something finally did happen any promise the film had wasruined by mere chaos and loud noise.i sat through it because i like togive a film the benefit of the doubt.yes, there is some loudscreaming,and yes people die,but who cares.much too slow getting to anysort of pay off,if you can call it that.my buddy enjoyed it, so atleast one of us got something out of it.the hills have eyes isn't theworst film we could have watched, but i doubt i will watch itagain.this film was remade in 2006 and i will also have review of thatversion.anyway, this movie was painfully slow at times, while othertimes was chaotic and repetitive.unless you like watching paint dry,occasionally interspersed with someone running around your block,screaming their head off, stay away from this movie.a better bet wouldbe the original Texas chainsaw massacre(1973)1.5* out of 10* which isbeing generous

Tagline: the lucky ones died…before watching this.

I've never watched a Bulgarian movie from 1920's, so I can't say thisis the worst movie ever made, but it surely is the worst movie I'veever watched. I can't almost remember it.

All I can recall is a fam
ily of stupid people who don't do anythingright. Their car has one wheel out of four stuck in the sand, so theydecide that there's nothing to do and prepare to live the rest of theirlives there. Then there's an old man who is aware of the existence of aband of cannibals in the whereabouts but has never considered the ideato report the fact to the police.

And, speaking of the police…if those freaks have lived around thereeating humans for years, lots of people must have disappeared…howcome the sheriff didn't suspect anything?

But I gave up asking questions after the first five minutes or so. Therest is bore. An hallucinated unbelievable bore.

I will be merciful and won't speak about the dialogues. And the acting.And the effects.

I will only mention the final scene, where the freak girl eliminates asnake (the snakes! they come out in the end, what the hell do they haveto do with the story?) with a sniper-precise throw of a stone,demonstrating the full disregard of Mr. Craven for reality and forthings that happen on planet Earth in general.

I believe there have been riots when the film was first released in1977.

Even being eaten by a cannibal wouldn't be a fair punishment to thedirector for this attack on intelligence.

read comments (0)

Smokey and the Bandit

Like a lot of the comedies of the '70s, this is funny, irreverent,profane and fun for its day but a little stupid now that I am olderand, hopefully, a little more mature. When we were young in thisperiod, Burt Reynolds, Sally Field and the rest was about asentertaining as it got for comedy-romance-adventure.

Jerry Reed also added to the likability of this film, not only with hissidekick role but his catchy movie title song that I can still hum tothis day.

My only complaint here is my pet peeve: the usage of the Lord's name invain which shouldn't be that prevalent in a comedy. Here it's abusedmore than a dozen times, mostly by Jackie Gleason. This is "RalphKramden" gone into the sewer with GDs coming out of his mouth left andright and a ridiculous insulting stereotype (Liberals love this) ofsouthern cops. Gleason isn't funny; he's disgusting.

Otherwise, the film was low-brow funny and big, big hit.

Do you have one of those 70’s catch phrase shirts, like "Keep on Truckin","10-4 good buddy", or even "I’m with Stupid"? If so, this movie is for you!Capitalizing on the temporarily cool CB-craze of the 70’s, this movieprovides Dukes-of-Hazard style car stunts and a redneck reality where smoothtalking and fast driving guys can pick up hot women and outwit the stupidcops. While not as bad as the later spawns of this series, this movie isone continuous car chase, so if you’re looking for a great story, you’re inthe wrong place. Sally Field is gives the best performance in this movie,but in a part that even Elizabeth Berkley could do. Why she is in thismovie at all is beyond me. The only way to watch this movie is with friendsand beer, so you can have some good laughs at this film’s expense. I gave it6 out of 10, out of sheer pity.

Do you have one of those 70’s catch phrase shirts, like "Keep on Truckin","10-4 good buddy", or even "I’m with Stupid"? If so, this movie is for you!Capitalizing on the temporarily cool CB-craze of the 70’s, this movieprovides Dukes-of-Hazard style car stunts and a redneck reality where smoothtalking and fast driving guys can pick up hot women and outwit the stupidcops. While not as bad as the later spawns of this series, this movie isone continuous car chase, so if you’re looking for a great story, you’re inthe wrong place. Sally Field is gives the best performance in this movie,but in a part that even Elizabeth Berkley could do. Why she is in thismovie at all is beyond me. The only way to watch this movie is with friendsand beer, so you can have some good laughs at this film’s expense. I gave it6 out of 10, out of sheer pity.

Okay, it’s 1977: post-Watergate, post-Vietnam, yet another "energy crisis"is on and that doesn’t include the dope in the White House. Inflation ishaving its way with us and our "leaders" are telling us it’s our fault.America has lived with the 55 mph National Speed limit for 5 years now andis sick of it. Our cars are bloated, under-powered (thanks to emissioncontrols), unreliable nanny-state mobiles that won’t start until you putyour seatbelt on. America needed a hero and Ronald Reagan was three yearsaway. We found it in Burt Reynolds and his black Trans Am. Flauntingauthority by bringing non-union made beer out of the West, driving oh somuch over 55, and having fun while doing it. Why, they don’t even wearseatbelts! Buford T. Justice represented the over-bearing, over-stuffed,and corrupt authority doggedly pursuing that he can not cage: the will to befree! This movie was the first movie of the ’80’s: fun for fun sake and, asthe Bandit said, "mostly for the money." The best line in the movie: SallyFields apparently unscripted "I’m stuck in this CB movie and I don’t evenhave a handle." This is the funniest movie to come out of a very un-funtime. Now if they were smuggling cigarettes it would be the perfect ’90’sfilm.

Reynolds’ best film role to date. I love going back to this film. It’sso much fun to watch. There’s never a dull moment because when Reynolds isdoing his thing, you’ve got Gleason making you laugh every step of the way.

I do like Burt Reynolds,but not when he appears in moviesasinsubstantial and tiresome as "Smokey and the Bandit".Thismovie is uninspired and reveals real laziness on the partof the filmmakers.They had Burt and all they could do wassellhis likability and get the unfortunate filmgoers’ money.

We went and saw this one, with my familly when I was in grade 3. One ofBurts better films, its where the Duke’s of Hazard got the idea for thereshow. Years latter, some of this films looks pretty 70’s, with old gags,some of the stunts are so standard for today. Other parts still age well. Like when the beginning, bet with the beer, and the people laughing at thesherif. I sure do like Coors beer, and wish they bootlag some down here,because the Canadian version suck.6 or 7 out of 10, depending on how many Coors you drink whilewatching.

A poorly understood epic story portraying the taut homoerotic tensionbetween two men, played skillfully by Jackie Gleason and the great BurtReynolds. Their desire plays out in mesmerizing chase scenes, which slowlyand cleverly reveal their true feelings to the camera. As the tensionbuilds it becomes clear that neither man will realise the dream of theother, and all passion must be sublimated. Aching and sublime on everylevel.

7 out of 10

Hal Needham is to bad movies like a cow is to milk. His name alone cangive a universal groan to many movie fans. Yet when compared to his laterefforts this really isn’t too bad. Especially when you factor in the factthat all they really wanted to accomplish with this is light entertainmentanyways.

The ’story’ involves truck driver Reed bootlegging beer across statelines. Partner Reynolds acts as a decoy by driving in front of the truck ina souped up engine car. Gleason plays the sheriff out to getthem.

The set up could have been played out more and would have been funnierif it had. Field is a nice addition and has a rare turn of being portrayedas a sexy lady. Her initial banter with Reynolds is fun, but having itimmediately turn romantic just bogs everything down. It would have workedbetter had things stayed slightly antagonistic throughout and then turnedromantic only at the very end.

Reynolds has always had a charm and it’s played to the hilt here. Hislaugh alone is infectious Yet he seems a little bit too laid back anddetached. He goes through all sorts of wild car chases and yet neither henor is car receive even a little scratch. The police are also just tooinept. It would have been nice if they had, even momentarily, subduedReynolds just too prove they were some sort of viable threat and given thisthing a little tension.

Gleason is the most fun to watch and his presence gives this film mostof it’s points. Unlike Reynolds he isn’t so detached and he gives his parta lot of energy. His ad libbed scatological lines at the beginning are funas is his coined "sumbitch" phrase. Seeing him stubbornly continue to drivehis squad car even as it becomes increasingly smashed up is a good visualpiece.

However the film tends to weaken his character, which was a mistake. The biggest problem is the fact that he is initially potrayed as a veryintimidating figure. Then it proceeds to show him constantly out ranked andout managed by all the other police forces he runs into in all the othercounties he goes into while chasing Reynolds. Eventually he comes off asbeing completely ineffectual and stupid. The whole chase should have takenplace in one county, Gleason’s county, therefore having him stay funny, butstill maintaining his menacing presence. It also would have
been nice tohave a little more direct confrontation between him and Reynolds. Althoughthe one and only confrontation they do have is pretty good.

Needham was a former stunt man so the actual star of the picture issupposed to be the stunt work. Yet it all seems like stuff you have seenbefore. By now they have all pretty much been topped. The chasesthemselves should have been more extended and shot from more excitingangles. The climatic chase sequence is really weak and can’t even hold apinkie to the one used in THE BLUES BROTHERS.

Overall the film isn’t too bad for light entertainment. It is amiablewith some good banter and nice chemistry between the stars.

Being a huge fan of the Cannonball Run films, Hal Needham, and BurtReynolds, I was expecting big things from this movie. Hooper and Stroker Acehad let me down. I was counting on Smokey to be at least somewhat the equalof Cannonball Run. It was entertaining in parts but it wasn’t what I washoping it would be. The driving/stunts are ok and the presence of JackieGleason provides a little comic relief. The movie is slow moving though andthe back and forth between Burt and Sally Field is just annoying. I wasreally disappointed. Again. Bottom Line: See this movie if you must, I’dadvise you go ahead and pass up this "sumbitch".

read comments (0)

New York, New York

I love this movie, really and deeply. The dynamic between the leadcharacters is frighteningly believable; when they’re at the breakfast tablebeing gingerly polite to each other - yikes. Having said that - I LOATHEDthe singing. Minnelli’s acting is perfect, but there’s no way she wouldhave succeeded as a singer in that era with that voice. She doesn’t openher mouth when she sings. She holds most notes on the consonants. Thechoreography in the big "Happy Endings" number is amateurish. This is theonly musical (a genre of which I am a fan) where I would say it’s ok to fastforward through the musical numbers, with the exception of the studiorecording of "The World Goes ‘Round", and that only because of the dramatictransition.

The first thirty minutes or so of "New York, New York" is some ofScorsese’s finest work. His loving homage to the musicals of the 1930s,40s, 50s and even 60s is great. De Niro’s unique performance as aquick-witted, sleazy war-veteran trying to hit on any woman he can findis classic stuff.

After that the whole film sort of deteriorates. Apart from an amusingcameo by the great, underrated actor Dick Miller ("Gremlins,""Terminator") the film starts to become overlong and, frankly, quiteboring.

It’s amusing enough for a single viewing but it’s farm from a greataddition to the Scorsese / De Niro collaboration track record. Still,it is one of Scorsese’s most _different_ films and when was the lasttime you thought you could say Robert De Niro acted in a musical?

2.5/5

Considering this was done after Taxi Driver, I would say this is verycloseto becoming a classic. If viewers were hopeing to see a happy musical, youmay be disappointed. Why I think this movie is so good is because it is atypical Marty’s movie. It is a character study. I really liked this movie.Ithink Bobby did a really good job here although some people may say heoveracted. So if you want to watch a happy films with likeable characters,this is not for you. The only complaint I have is that the film can dragona little. But this is a minor problem. Whether this is good or bad dependson which mind set you have and what you expect out of it.

Though as many mentioned this movie was not Scorsese best but IMHOworthyone to see especially if your ASPIRING MUSICIAN DESTINED FOR SHOWBIZ

Despite the so called bad and good parts of acting on the lead roles of the

GREAT Robert De Niro as Jimmy Doyle sax player big band era, bad name for

Italian actor, and Liza Minnelli as Francine Evans as singer, bothstruggling in "making it" in showbiz very realistic of the time plus struggling in makingtheir relationship work in hopes of a love and a stable marriage, eventually, ordo they?. All in all, fine film by a excellent director Marin Scorsese . I giveit a 7/10.

NEW YORK NEW YORK was a lavishly mounted 1977 musical which was thefirst foray into the genre for director Martin Scorcese, fresh off histriumph in TAXI DRIVER. Scorcese was rumored to be dating Liza Minnelliat the time, which supposedly was the genesis of this movie and Liza'sdisastrous Broadway show THE ACT. This film, loosely based on the 1941film THE MAN I LOVE and the real life relationship of singer Cleo Laineand musician John Dankworth, this throwback to the MGM musicals of the40's and 50's starred Minnelli as Francine Evans, a band singer in the40's who has a whirlwind romance with a second rate saxophone playernamed Jimmy Doyle (Robert DeNiro), an explosive and unpredictablemusician whose ego was bigger than his talent but did have a way withthe ladies and sweeps Francine off her feet into a whirlwind romanceand eventual marriage. Fracine then becomes a huge star, leaving Jimmyin the dust and it's more than his ego can bare. The plot line is notthe only thing in this movie reminiscent of A STAR IS BORN. Minnelli ismade up to look exactly like her mother in the 1954 classic. Watch herin the scene where she sings "But the World Goes Round" and check outher costume when she's singing the title tune…it's eerily similar tosomething Garland wore in the '54 film. There is also a huge productionnumber called "Happy Endings", which was cut during initial release,that bares more than a passing resemblance to Garland's "Born in aTrunk" number in A STAR IS BORN. It should be noted that "HappyEndings" was restored to the film during a later re-release and it isspectacular; however, despite all these similarities to the '54classic, Scorcese does put his own stamp on this, presenting thecharacter of Jimmy Doyle as a violent, sometimes abusive, insensitiveheel who thinks women are 2nd class citizens and is never able toaccept the fact that Francine became the major star he didn't.Actually, musical numbers aside, Minnelli offers one of her strongestperformances as Francine and DeNiro, as always, is riveting as JimmyDoyle. Music is everywhere here, like another character in the story.The score is a combination of big band hits of the 40's and new JohnKander-Fred Ebb songs, including the title tune, which a certainblue-eyed crooner later turned into a number one record. The film alsoboasts extraordinary, Oscar-worthy production design by Boris Leven andcostumes by Theodora Van Runkle. It's not for everyone and probably notfor the average Scorcese fan, but for fans of the stars and the genre,it's a curio worth a look…and try to find a director's cut ifavailable.

There is something to be said for Martin Scorsese’s "New York/New York"(1977). I’m just not exactly sure what. A strange mix of seventiessensibilities and sexual mores, eclectic acting styles a la its twomismatched leads, and forties kitsch billed as tributary to the decadeof returning war heroes and the big band sound, the film abounds withcomplications that make for a generally uneasy, often heavy narrativestructure.

Truthfully, the film neither emulates or celebrates the great musicalsof the 1940s. Instead it somehow manages to impose a contemporarystrain on vintage material, which from the vantage of 30 years removedtoday, seems ludicrous and tacky.

Robert DeNiro stars as Jimmy Doyle, a gregarious sax player who’s allthumbs when it comes to impressing WAC officer, Francine Evans (LizaMinnelli). But, as many of the male machismo flicks of the seventiesteach us, if at first you don’t succeed with the fairer sex, simplybadger her into submission. This tactic works for Jimmy, but onlysuperficially and temporarily as the film charts Jimmy’s rise to bigband leader status, his explosive romance with Francine, their trialsand tribulations, his spiral into professional oblivion and theirultimate break up and loose reconciliation after Francine has made itbig on her own.

Clearly uneasy with the musical as a genre, Scorsese lets the firsttwenty minutes of his film slip by without any music, and then junketsa string of stagy numbers that are not memorable or apt at recapturingthe effervescence of the 40s. The one big production number, "HappyEndings" comes much too late to make a difference in the film’s musicalrepository and draws a direct and scathing comparison between Liza andher mother, Judy Garland’s performance from "A Star Is Born" (1954)."Happy Endings" is a sort of "Born in A Trunk" ballet that unfolds withLiza encountering a Broadway producer while working as an usherette ina movie house. But the juxtaposition of several musical snippets isclumsily staged.

The mileau of bits comes to a head with Liza flouncing down a greatglittering and mirror staircase in a costume that can only be describedas over the top in its gaudy red and white texture.The most outstandingaspect of the musical program is undoubtedly the title number, sungagainst a backdrop that again, looks much too contemporary for 40schic.

Again, a
bout the leads; the banter and chemistry between DeNiro andMinnelli is, at times, quite good - but never more engaging orhilarious than during their initial meet in a posh New York nightclub.Hence, their burgeoning romance seems oddly off balance with the twogrowing less comfortable with one another on camera as the fictionalrelationship progresses. At times, Minnelli looks ill and withdrawn,her heavy make up and "Mildred Pierce" style hair pieces almostswallowing her face whole and often masking her ability to do comedy ordrama as well as we all know she is capable of. As a direct result,only in her vocal abilities throughout the film does she truly excel;that rich Garland-esquire bravado rocking the speakers with a powerfulzest for the material she’s been given.Ultimately the film did not findfavor at the box office and, in hindsight, it seems little wonder.

MGM’s DVD is not anamorphically enhanced but it is widescreen. Colorsare rich, vibrant and, at times, gaudy. Blacks are deep, rich andsolid. Whites are generally clean, although there are instancesthroughout the film where a definite grain structure is noticeable.Overall, the highly stylized visual characteristics of this musicalstinker will not disappoint. The audio is 5.1 surround and engagingthroughout - showing remarkable clarity for a film of this vintageeverywhere, but especially during the musical sequences, if only theoriginal songs by John Kander and Fred Ebb had had something more tooffer. Extras include an intro by Scorsese as well as audio commentarythat is not particularly engaging. There’s also some deleted scenesthat are pretty much a bust, but generally show a muted distemper onDeNiro’s part for a film in which he clearly felt most out of hiselement. A theatrical trailer and photo gallery are also present forthe asking.

There are different ways I could try to give criticism of New York, NewYork, director Martin Scorsese’s 1977 (first) ‘big-budget’ film. Icould give it in the historical context of why it was good or bad,dealing with Scorsese’s excesses off-screen and on (he was in a cocaineaddiction among other substances, and in a relationship with LizaMinelli). I could deal with the deconstructive context, where I breakdown as many scenes as possible, using different ways to talk about theacting and the sets, music, etc. Or I could deal with it the overallway, talking about the things just entertainment and story/characterand so forth about why I consider this a lesser Scorsese picture.

First though, I want to point out what I did like about the film, andthere was a good deal I did. If Scorsese was in a state of excess atthe time of the filming, at least some of it rubbed off the right waywith his style. Everything (like the studio musicals of the 40’s) isexpansive, and true to almost all of Scorsese’s films is energetic andalways giving an eyeful. The music used for the film is superb,especially for the jazz enthusiast like myself (while I have heard thesong of the film’s title too many times to count, Minelli does a finejob with it, if not great) with cool, swinging jazz music and originaltunes by John Kander. The production design, much like Scorsese’s Gangsof New York and the Aviator, is something to behold, and should havereceived some Oscar nominations. And the story at its core is one thatresonates well with the spirit of the old-time musicals: two peoplefalling in love, trying to make it big, and dealing with the pressuresof being entertainers. At times, as well, the acting from De Niro andMinelli gels.

Now with the problems I had with the film. In interviews about thefilm, Scorsese has said that he tried to combine the atmosphere and joyof a studio musical from the Golden Age of Hollywood with the drama andcharacter analysis of not-so-ordinary people like in a Cassavetes film.It becomes a mixed bag of a combination. On the one hand he has hisscreenwriter from Mean Streets and Raging Bull, Mardik Martin, givingthe dialog a fresh feel, like it does sound realistic. On the other,the story at times becomes a little too hard to believe, or maybe justa little too difficult for its own good. It’s a challenge to find thebalancing act between making a solid romantic story (and Scorsese candeal with romance in films, no question about that) with a depressing,downward spiral. I wonder if the chemicals Scorsese had on the sideaffected him, or if it was just a combination of the elements at hisdisposal. The look and movement of the film is always eye-grabbing(provided here by one of my favorites, Laszlo Kovacs), but either he’spushing himself too much here, or not enough- the naturalism andintensity of the characters/actors/story can only go so muchhand-in-hand with the conventional narrative; he ended up finding thisprecisely in his recent films ‘Gangs’ and Aviator, but I have a feelinghe was still experimenting here, not sure sometimes how much to stickwith the visual side or the dramatic side.

It’s also a disappointment to say that I found De Niro, overall, tohave given one of his lesser performances as well. To put it anotherway, he’s not bad in the film, but because the character he’s playing,Jimmy Doyle, is very hard to like, it becomes a struggle to findempathy or sympathy with him- at times the character reminded me of aslightly toned down (violence-wise) version of Jake La Motta only witha sax instead of boxing gloves. He does what he can, but like with theconventions of a studio musical of old, the character is mostly onesided, and aside from the rare moments of a calmer scene, he seems toalways have the same attitude (and, yet again, I liked how he playedhis own sax music in the film). Minelli, meanwhile, is given a littlemore depth, is the more grounded one, but sometimes I wondered why shewould be in this relationship for so long. The idea behind two creativepeople being together and having strife off the music is interesting,though with the realism kicked up to the usual Scorsese notch, Iwondered what the motivations were for her character. There’s also thequestion of whether or not the two actors have chemistry together, andthey do (notably in the musical scenes, which are the best), but againDe Niro can out-act almost anybody, including Minelli.

One reason for my complaints about New York, New York is notnecessarily based on what is there, but what’s not there. Most of thetime the film works as a vehicle for the stars, with some elaborateshots, great atmosphere, and music that strikes up the best of 40’sswing and jazz. But being this is also the only Scorsese film I haveyet to see until now, I might have had my expectations raised a littlehigh. The film is not a mess, but at times I was scratching my headwhile staying with a watchable film. It’s a genre picture that he triedto subvert, like others, and it’s just not as successful as his otherfilms. Still, if this was made by any other director, I would likely beeven more impressed.

Before I begin this review, let me preface it with a warning: I reallydon’t care for musicals.

That said, this film is certainly well done. Robert DeNiro gives a goodperformance, but not nearly as great as Liza Minnelli. Often whenMinnelli plays, she gives an aura of competence on the screen thatforces the viewer to think, "Nobody else could have done this," and asit were, truly nobody could. The sheer power of her performance aloneis more than enough reason to watch this movie.

DeNiro plays as Jimmy, a tenacious and compulsive saxophone player thatinsists on getting what he wants, and what he wants is "1) Music, 2)Money, and 3) Women. But sometimes you find the right woman first, andthen the numbers switch around." He meets Francine (Minnelli), a singerwho counterparts his perservering behavior enough to get him what hewants but hold her own. The two then go off to make their name in themusic business any way they can, meaning eventually the music and theirrelationship start to tug them in different ways, and with conflict wehave drama. Two hours and forty minutes of it, in fact.

The character of Jimmy is such that I couldn’t help but ask, "Are theviewers supposed to want him to succeed because he’s the hero, or arethey supposed to want him to succeed because he’s going to keep tryinganyways and we just want him to stop?" He tends to insist a bit toomuch, and watching his character is only worth the time when DeNiro’splaying off of Minnelli. The audience sympathizes with Francine becausethey can’t possibly imagine dealing with Jimmy, but since they can’timagine dealing with Jimmy, they also have to wonder what the heckshe’s doing with him. The two characters are constantly at edge, evenwhen it seems they are going to reconcile.

Such a method of exposition is at least interesting to watch, but it’slargely stretched out and filled with more big-band music than one canpossibly hope to sit through comfortably. The first two hours of themovie kept a good pace, but somewhere after the two hour mark the moviedoes a sort of Singin’ in the Rain-ish musical-in-a-musical that’spacked with so many layers of stories that it becomes confusing and,most importantly, completely useless. All of it has Minnelli, andMinnelli continues to sing afterwards. By the end of a goodhalf-an-hour of her reaching crescendo after crescendo, one’s ears arein need of a rest… and it’s not like the movie has ended yet.

It’s a shame, in fact, that overall the movie feels displeasing to me,considering how strong the acting and directing are. Here is a moviethat’s deserving of praise but very difficult to watch. See it if youcan, take from it what you can get, but don’t expect to feel likewatching it ever again.

–PolarisDiB

NYNY is a mixed bag of treats and rotten candy. The treats are thesumptuous costumes and sets and the delicious musical numbers. Therotten candy is the story–what little there is of it. Dull, repetitiveargument scenes do not a plot make. Minnelli is the real reason towatch this movie.

One can only lament that her talent during these peak years wasessentially wasted, so I appreciate this film as a much-needed showcasefor her singing and acting skills. Otherwise, it’s a depressing moviewith dialogue that can sometimes surprise but goes on far too long in amisguided attempt at realism. I think the whole project got away fromScorsese and became a great big bloated misfire. It’s worth sittingthrough it for the musical numbers, however. They are the one time thefilm truly comes alive.

It's the stuff of every musical comedy: two bright-eyed, talentedpeople meet cute, fall in love, overcome some funny misunderstandings,and make music together all over New York, New York. But for jazzsaxophonist Jimmy (Robert De Niro) and big-band singer Francine (LizaMinnelli), the story will be a little different. The misunderstandingsbetween them aren't funny, musical compatibility does not guaranteeromantic compatibility, and the happy ending is always in doubt.

Yes, "New York, New York" is often flawed: too long and not alwaysassured. The first "break into song" moment is extremely awkward:Minnelli starts singing "You Brought a New Kind of Love To Me" withoutany orchestra backing her up. Because the movie has not yet establishedthat Francine is a singer–and has spent 30 minutes establishing thatFrancine finds Jimmy annoying–it makes no sense for her to break intoa love song right then. Overall, though each scene between Jimmy andFrancine is well played, the transitions between the points of theirrelationship are sometimes lacking–perhaps due to the heavilyimprovised script. The movie also feels imbalanced because it crams allof its new Kander and Ebb songs into the final 45 minutes and quicklywraps up a plot which went too slowly in the beginning.

But De Niro and Minnelli are both compulsively watchable actors, andbecause of this movie's many improvised scenes, their work here isespecially lively. De Niro is fantastic as the cocky, self-centered,angry Jimmy, and he dominates the first part of the movie. Minnellilooks so much like her mother in many shots, sings with nearly as muchplaintive power, and partners well with De Niro in the dialogue scenes.And I, like Kander and Ebb, agree that her version of the title song isdefinitive (sorry, Sinatra).

I am glad I watched the longest available cut of "New York, New York"to see the "Happy Endings" sequence: fifteen minutes of excerpts from aglitzy and very "meta" movie-within-the-movie. Minnelli gets to displayher dancing skills and star quality, and Scorsese gets to throw inreferences to tons of old musicals. Here, and in certain other flashyshots, it can seem like he is just showing off.

Mostly, what I will take from this movie are the performances of DeNiro and Minnelli: acting, singing, dancing, and playing the saxophonewith all their heart, two wonderful 1970s actors in a middling 1940smusical.

read comments (0)

Oh, God!

…..I remember watching it-I was all of 11. It really hit home-as a fan atthe time of Both Burns and Denver, I bought it lock stock and barrel(prettymuch). It’s amazing on seeing it again recently-how many familiar faces arein it-Winchester from MASH(Stiers), Teri Garr as the Mrs(I remembered that)and Paul Sorvino(!) as a Baptist Minister ala Falwell. Quite good casting, Ithink.

Timely, moving, nicely done, FUNNY, etc. Doesn’t beat you over the head w/any particular point of view save that God is there for everyone, just-lookfor him. And appreciate what you have in the here and now.

Denver showed a nice acting skill too here, he didn’t make nearly enough useof it, you know? I can remember Carson saying as much to him in ‘85,too.

Anyways-good fun, good flick ,great Burns.

*** outta ****.

Right in the middle of "Oh, God!", in which supermarket manager JohnDenver tries convincing his family and the rest of the world that he'sfrequently visited by the Almighty himself, the main character is givena list of very tough religious questions and is locked in a room toanswer them; just as he hopes, God (George Burns) pops in and fills outthe questionnaire to help this young man prove to people that he isn'tcrazy. This sequence is so cogent and well acted that it surely will bethe catalyst to turn the movie's third act around and give us somebelievers. Sadly, director Carl Reiner and screenwriter Larry Gelbart(working from a witless book by Avery Corman) completely drop the ball,and Denver ends up in a courtroom. What might have been a sentimentalbut incisive look at religion today is turned into an updating of"Topper", with Burns exiting the room like The Invisible Man. A wasteof a good premise, though George is wonderful in this, one of hisdefining roles. ** from ****

Very Funny and clean. Oh,God! Book 1 is a great movie. I am elevenyears old so you might think that I don't know about this movie but Ido. I have seen it. There are a few sexual references but not to much.This is even better then Bruce Almighty. Somebody on here thought thisfilm was Blasphemy. He said a lot of things that are in the movie butthose scenes that he talked about were not in the movie at all exceptfor one or two. God does not smoke cigars in this movie. Just becausehe is played by George Burns does not mean he smokes cigars in themovie. If you have not seen it, buy it because in my area it is not atvideo rental stores so the only way to buy the DVD is to go on toamazon.com and buy it. If you are religious then do not take this movieseriously. Everyone who has not seen it needs to right now. So myoverall rating is 7 out of 10 angels. Enjoy.

This is humane and witty movie that shows God as a creator leaving therestof life to human beings. It is done with soft humor and realisticperformance of the cast. It is unjustifiably underrated, probably by thosewho believe more in rituals than in God. I highly reccomend it toeverybody,especially after September 11, 2001, when religious fanatics showed theirgreatest disregard to God and real meaning of life.

Unlike the jaded review of Spider 63, I found this movie refreshing and

enlightening! Whether or not you liked or still like John Denver, or the

crusty cigar-chomping curmugeon George Burns, this movie still has

charm. It may reek of the middle 1970’s back to the earth and

spiritualism that pervaded the times, but it was nice to see a simple

funny film that made you think "what if".It was perfectly cast and perfectly acted. JD was that grocery store

clerk married and faithful and devoted to family and community. Yet he

knew the world wasn’t right and probably felt that he was just a nothing

of a man and wanted nothing more than to do his job, raise his family

and be nice to his neighbors (although many of them were not

interested). And God chose him to deliver a message that you may or may

not believe God would deliver, but it is still a good message of what a

society should be or could be. And yet, people hear for a moment but

still go back to thier ways. And that is why this movie is still a

light in the forest that can open your heart to the possibilities raised

in the film. It may be a comedy and far-fetched but it still has a

message, albeit delivered in a folksy Hee-haw style..yet it is still

resonates with the child in all of us! See it when it

Good clean awesome fun with a message of hope that is a tear jerker attheend. Every so often it helps to be grounded in those basic things thattruly matter in life well this movie does that for me. This movie makesyoufeel good after watching it if you demand more than that from a movie getsomething else.

Historically, everyone has assumed that God is supposed to beassociated with religion, and everyone claims the Almighty for theirreligions. Well, in "Oh, God!", the Big G is nothing like that. Grocerystore clerk Jerry Landers (John Denver) gets a message that God wantsto meet with him. Thinking the whole thing to be a joke at first, Jerryrealizes that it really is the Creator, albeit only his voice. Later,God appears as an old man (George Burns), and explains that he wantsJerry to spread his word to humanity. He hasn’t gone to any clericalfigure (e.g., the pope or Billy Graham) because he’s not interested inreligion. But when Jerry tries to tell the world, they not only believehim to be crazy, but many people start threatening him.

They certainly had a good point about God not being interested inreligion. If more people would consider this concept and stop claimingthat all of their actions are in God’s name, maybe the world might comecloser to moving forward in various arenas.

40. OH! GOD! (comedy, 1977) Jerry (John Denver) is an assistant-managerfor a produce store. He's a happy family man until God (George Burns)requests an audience. He has picked Jerry to carry his message of goodwill to an increasingly pessimistic world. But Jerry finds that peopleare difficult to convince, he even has trouble trying to make hisfamily understand that God appears to him as a kindly old man.

Critique: A surprise box-office hit when first released, it spawnedother sequels that proved interesting ('OH! GOD! BOOK 2', 'OH! GOD! YOUDEVIL'). 81 year old George Burns shines as the perennial God, a rolethat he played with sweet abandonment. He is given great lines to workwith. This God seems to have an answer for everything: on creating theworld he quips; "to tell you the truth I thought about it for 6 daysand did the whole thing in 1".

What's most interesting is that the film takes an unbiased,non-religious look at our Creator. This God doesn't believe inreligions or its leaders, and sees "human suffering" as being our fault(not His doing) since we 'choose' to be. No wonder the very simplethemes and in-jokes appealed to so many.

QUOTE: Jerry: "Sometimes, now and then, couldn't we just talk?"

God: "Tell you what, you talk I'll listen."

Entertaining comedy that combines the talents ofdirector Reiner with writer Gelbart and with star Burns.Burns is the almighty…of talents and this is oneof his finest performances and best loved characters.Denver makes a fine debut as an astonishedstorekeeper who is the chosen one by Burns’ God.There is fine support from Garr, Sorvino and legendRalph Bellamy.

Oh God!, is a smart and funny film. It is truthful, without beingcondescending. It talks about religion without being religious. It alsoshowcases George Burns’ finest screen appearance aside from The SunshineBoys.

As, God, Burns is astonishing. Whenever John Denver asks questions thatevery
being would ask if confronted by God, Burns replies with a certain,common sense, matter of fact response. There is no grandiose answer. Oneof my favorite lines is when John Denver’s character asks "Why me?", Godsays, "Why not you? You know those supermarket things, every one millionthcustomer. Or whoever crosses the bridge at a certain time. Wellyou’re the one millionth customer."

Speaking of Denver, he also is great, playing Jerry, not as a crazed man,but as an average grocery market assistant manager who is suddenly facedwith the fact that God has chosen him to carry a message. He plays hischaracter with a certain warmth, and naturalness.

Carl Reiner directed this film, and with a great eye. Notice how Jerry’severyday life is just that, everyday. The way he is with his wife, andkids, and people around him. I’ve seen it a dozen times, because that’s howpeople actually act. Reiner brought a sense of realness to this movie,which in effect brought with it believability.

read comments (0)

Eraserhead

Where do I even begin? A movie made entirely from David Lynch’ssubconscious it is completely alienating in regards to the viewer. Ifone desires to peek into the dreams of another, then you would enjoythis film. If you desire to recognize any type of plot line or meaningor any sense of reason…don’t waste your time.

The only people who claim to understand this movie arepseudo-intellectuals with unfounded superiority complexes; at least inmy experience. when I hear PhD’s with specialties in philosophy,literature and/or film claim "Eraserhead" as "unwatchable", "opaque",and even "a waste of time" I am tempted to discredit their "C" studentswho praise this as a work of art with theories on its "hidden meanings"and "existenitalist comedies".

In short those who claim to understand it are phony, and are simplyprojecting their won desires, wishes, and thoughts into something whichin the end was made for its creator and not its viewers.

I give the film a rating of one because of its incapacity of clarity,yet that doesn’t mean you may not enjoy it anyway.

I normally don’t like to badmouth a film, even a bad one. I try to findsome sort of redeeming value for the time I invested, even if it’s justto laugh at the badness.

This film however takes the cake. I want my 88 minutes back. I want tokick David Lynch’s behind. The only "power" this movie had for me wasthe power to sicken and irritate.

Art films are fine. There are many out there. "The Seventh Sign" byIngmar Bergman for example. Watch those not this. I’ve always pridedmyself on attempting to be cultured enough to watch even the mosttedious of art films and find something redeeming or artistic.

OK, OK, I’m ranting. This film is THAT bad. It’s made far worse by thevast amount of praise it gets when, in my opinion, it’s a sophomoricattempt at surrealistic grandeur.

Lynch has serious problems. I might have been willing to give the moviea 2 or a 3 for at least attempting to be artsy but then I watched theextras and was subjected to him stuttering on (even more time he owesme) in disjointed paroxysms about how awesome the drawer of pudding andpeas was, etc. *sigh* Many reviewers here have already said things likethis and I want to back them up! The Art Institute that gave him thegrant should have been shut down (and possibly brought up on chargesfor damage to the psyche of viewers). This film really is, as oneperson here put it, like "The Emporers New Clothes."

All right, alright, I’ll calm down and try to give a more directsynopsis:

**SPOILER ALERT: MILD SPOILERS AHEAD** The film is set in a dreamysepia-toned gritty world of industrial decay. The characters seem tofollow no known pattern of behavior, the "monsters" are very, VERYpoorly animated (in the opening sequence you can actually see thestrings…maybe THAT was supposed to be artsy too?), the FX aresimplistic, and even the dialogue is secondary to the parade oflighting and attempted artsy camera-work that fails abysmally by beingboth unnecessary, overwrought and FAR TOO TEDIOUS.

While it’s obvious, especially after listening to Lynch’s monologue,that there ARE some themes going here, parental fear, fatherhood andthe nascent horror of being, the actual delivery of the film is solanguid and…words just don’t exist to describe it…overwrought,overreaching, etc. are the best I can do…that the film made me almostcatatonic while watching it.

I will concede that there are many people who might enjoy this,especially those who enjoy disjointed and/or viscerally disgustingimages.

OK, I take one thing back: there IS one redeeming thing about the filmthat being the sounds. In their ability to raise one’s hackles theysucceed (and I have to think that was part of what Lynch was trying todo). The ongoing, seemingly incessant strange thumpings and undertonesof distant factory noises, is like Chinese water torture. If that’swhat he was trying to accomplish then the film "succeeded" in that oneway. Not something to be proud of or praised for. I could as easilylisten to fingernails on a chalkboard for 88 minutes and get as muchartistic value out of it. To say nothing of entertainment.

Movies are made to entertain, that is their function and reason forbeing. This film does not entertain, it sickens, repulses and BORES. Icannot recommend enough avoiding this sepia-toned waste of celluloid.

P.S. I apologize for the rant but it’s just THAT BAD and I feel it mycivic duty to warn viewers.

P.P.S. What the heck was with those cheeks???! I kept expectingcockroaches to burst from them or something. Sick.

This was the biggest pile of nonesense I have ever seen. I don’t mind weird,dark, and disturbing films (in fact, some of my favourites are like that:The Crow, Dark City, Se7en, etc.). However, EraserHeadwas simply plotless, scriptless, pointless, and meaningless. I neverworked out what it tried to represent and to be honest I don’t carein the slightest.

It really looks as if the "story" was put together by Lynch puttingdown the first thing that arrived in his head after several "heavy"nights out. I cannot see how anybody can call this a masterpiece…

This is easily the worst film I’ve ever had the misfortune ofwatching: avoid at all costs.

(phew… I got it out of my chest and feel better now…)

I watched this film with a friend of mine (to remain anonymous) who has alsodirected some films. We watched intently, appreciated the filmmaking, andthen at the end we both wondered out loud…………..Before I die, my final wish is that David Lynch please, please,pleeeeeeaaaaaaaaase explain to me just what was Eraserheadabout??

I like the comment by one viewer that you have to see this `ultimate’ filmseveral times to understand it. I wonder how many times it need be viewed tobe enjoyed. - I couldn’t bear to continue reading the review; just as Icouldn’t bear viewing the film.

This is the only film which I ever walked of. Usually, I stay to the bitterend - after all, I’ve experienced quite a few surprise endings (not tosuggest that those endings were good or had redeeming social value; but, atleast that might reduce the dullness of the experience). Alas, my companionsforced me to leave after my third `Give it a chance; it might getbetter.’

So, the choice is see it several times or not at all. There’s no otheroption. The voting on this seems to be 50% 10’s and 50% below 5. And, the10’s want you to give it a chance by viewing it several times.Duh!

This is one weird movie. I just cannot understand why people praise thismovie as a masterpiece. This has got to be one of the most incomprehensiblepiece of dribble I have ever watched. Eraserhead was depressing, irritaing,boring, and for what purpose? I don’t mind,and in fact actually like, movieswhich may be "unconventional" but nevertheless have a meaning or message tothe audience. BUT THIS ? I admit I’m not a David Lynch fan, but Eraserheadwas just stupid. Aside from viewing the miserable existance of theprotagonist’s life-for no real reason- other annoying factors include that"woman" behind the radiator, who just sings endlessly, and goes on and on, Ijust wished she would stop, it got so unbearable. Lynch is insane to havemade something so mundane on something which was obviously a budget next tonothing. Avoid this piece of trash, its just a waste of time.

This is a really wierd and boring movie. And viewing a movie that is reallyweird and boring makes it a really bad movie. People who voted this 10/10must be real freaks. The only thing interesting about the movie was that thefreaky main character Henry looked like a cross between Kramer andGeorge.

id’ ‘erd well loads about this and wh
en i watched it found out is wasreally daft and rubbish and stupid and no colour nor ‘nowt any good,well rubbish.

i fought that it would have been well scary, about someone what readspeoples minds and then uses a mind rubber, what posh people callerasers, to wipe the memories and so take over the world. maybe usinggiant ants for getting about instead of cars and horses, but ’nuffinlike that, it was boring an all!

David lynch is daft an all, he doesn’t do good film, he does artyrubbish what no-one wants to watch unless they’re arty or drunk or ondrugs or want to say ‘fings like "ooh, did you see that new David Lynchfilm, i fought it was very powerful, so dark and …", it is not good.

i liked planet of the apes, that was a well good film, and it couldhappen!

"Eraserhead" the 1977 cult film directed by world-renown film artistDavid Lynch has only one thing going for itself: stupidity. Yes I saidit, this was a very stupid unfulfilling film. Let's break down the filmas a whole to find out what went wrong.

The Acting-The acting was terrible, which consisted of characters thatwere forgettable and not likable. I think a frying pan has morecharacter development than the actors in the schoclk of a film.

The Script-The script was painfully awful and felt that it was writtenby someone that had just finished elementary school. The dialogue wasnot convincing and the pace was waaaaay to slow. The script should havebeen proofread a hundred times over.

The Plot-Maybe I didn't understand the film, but the plot made knowsense. The whole time I was watching the movie I thought to myself,WTF! This is a true travesty of a film.

It is hard to see how this film became a cult classic. It was boring,dull and pointless with no redeeming qualities. So far, this film goesdown as the worst film I've seen this year.

"Eraserhead" should be erased.

Yes, many people ponder the great significance of Eraserhead. They askquestions like "Is the man pulling the levers God?" "Is the girl in theradiator the Virgin Mary"? Yadda…yadda…yadda. All the while, DavidLynch sits back and laughs. This film is about….well…nothing. WhileAvant Garde may be the correct label to place on a film of thismagnitude of nothingness, Masterpiece is a stretch measuring lightyears across.

DO NOT READ FURTHER IF YOU DO NOT WANT THE GREAT MYSTERIES OF THISMOVIE REVEALED TO YOU.

After years of research (not) and study (not)of this most unusual film,I have arrived at the following undeniable answers to it’s manypuzzling questions.

Q. Who is the man pulling the levers? A. He is a man pulling levers.

Q. Who is the girl in the radiator. A. She is a girl in a radiator.

Q. Why does the baby look like a deformed tadpole? A. Because he lookslike a deformed tadpole.

Q. Why do the small chickens (really Cornish hens) spit out globs ofcoagulated blood between their tiny drumsticks. A. Because, if youdon’t thoroughly cook your hens, you will get salmonella and possiblybrain damage. Afterwards, you will sit around all day with nothingbetter to do than to try and figure out the profound meaning Lynch wastrying to convey in his thoroughly simplistic film - Eraserhead.

LOL

read comments (0)

Cet obscur objet du désir

Belle D’ Jour introduced me to Luis Bunuel. Now TOOOD continues thisdark exploration of the European psyche. The women are innocent andvixen at once. Perhaps that is why Bunuel used two women to play thesame part. I must say he almost got away with it seamlessly for my"lovely one" swore it was the same woman, but I got it by the time theflamingo nude scene appears. We were also shocked by the caresses ofthe chest scene, which in commercial film is rare today although in thelate sixties, seventies, and part of the eighties, the obligatory nudelove scene on American screens were mandatory. That’s gone. Now we justhave blood splattering gratuitous violence.

My only objection to this film is the insertion of cheesy terroristscenes. I don’t know if these silly explosions, the unrealisticdestruction of automobiles was limited by budget constraints, or ifthis was a campy outing of those funny terrorists we have come to knowso well over the last forty years.

The desperate Fernando Rey, the older, richer, still amorousover-the-hill desires his eighteen-year-old Conchita and the gamebegins. An old story is stroked for the amusement of the audience.

Buñuel’s fascinating masterpiece is a landmark of the erotic genre. Asubtledrama with hints of burlesque comedy, it plays with an upper-classmiddle-aged man with too much money and time in his hands, and his sexualobsession for the elusive Conchita. She decides to remain virginthroughoutthe whole movie, however she uses her sex to manipulate Mathieu who’s tooblind to understand she’ll never be his to possess.

This is a frustrating movie to watch too - many times it seems Mathieuwillbe able to get Conchita to bet, only for her to change ideas in the lastminute, however whetting Mathieu’s attention through some glimpses of hernaked body. I dare say she actually enjoys torturing poor Mathieu and hisexpectations. And I’m not sure we’re meant to identify with his hang-ups,after all he seems just a bit too innocent to be tricked by Conchita somanytimes, however he’s lust-driven.

It’s not Buñuel’s best movie, but the dialogue is outstanding - whichEuropean movies usually lack - and I really felt something for thesecharacters, especially Mathieu, brilliantly played by Fernando Rey. Thisisa great place for Buñuel newbies, it’s got his personal touch of thesurreal, but it’s still linear and coherent enough like a normal Hollywoodmovie to be enjoyed by the average movie-goer.

10 out of 10.

even though it was made many years ago, it stands up as a great film,wonderfully acted and directed. The previous reviewer says everythingso I will just add that if you can find the uncut version, there is ascene with Conchita (Angela Molina) dancing flamenco in the nude thatlasts a good few minutes and is not cut like in the Criterion DVD…this full scene adds weight and more strength to the film and bringshome the main character’s jealousy more. It is the turning point of thefilm and it is a shame that it was cut, not even keeping the uncutversion for adults to see.

This is the only scene that was cut from the film and when you considerwhat is in other films it is difficult to understand why, I think themain reason was to obtain a younger certificate for the film. If youare a fan of Angela Molina then check out ‘The Eyes The Mouth’ to seemore of her. It was also good to see Carole Bouquet in ‘That Obscure..’in her pre James Bond days. All three main characters are superbactors. Oh how I wish I could find the uncut version!..lol If you knowwhere I can obtain a copy of the uncut (107 min duration) please emailme at paul22@paul22.freeserve.co.uk ..enjoy!

We as people in love tend to go after the unavailable, that whichtempts us but manages to remain maddeningly out of reach, or justwithin the spectrum of possibility but vanishing at the last crucialmoment. Love is strange, yet we pursue it like the blind leading theblind, moving around in circles, no beginning, no end, and with anincreasing sense of futility.

Mathieu is one of those men. He's been sent over the edge by thepromise of love and has publicly humiliated a young woman at a trainstation with a bucket of water as she attempts to board the train he'son. Passengers sharing his booth react in horror, but he has his ownstory to tell. The more he delves into it the less it seems to be aboutlove and the more it looks like an obsession-fixation with theimpossible: a woman, the very same one he's splashed with the bucket ofwater, named Conchita, arresting and bewitching, but one who would makea tease seem innocent by comparison.

Conchita is a horror — a woman ugly on the inside as she is alluringon the outside. She brings only misery to Mathieu, but he can't seem toget rid of her, and she inexplicably returns to him over and over againto repeat a cycle of love-hate that slowly eats away at him. One momentshe's kittenish, the next, cold. Every time they're about to reach themoment of sexual communion something happens, or she announces she's avirgin as she wears an impenetrable chastity corset to which she hasthe key. She's not above gifts… or using her male companions to alsorob Mathieu of specific amounts of money. And on top of that, asoothsayer has the nerve to tell him that he is the one who treats ayoung woman badly and as an offrend for her services, has him give somecoins to a young mother who is carrying a tiny pig in her arms like itwere a baby.

Still, the question remains, what does she want with Mathieu? She couldbe a latter-day Mildred Rogers, leeching away at the man she despiseswhile manipulating him into a frenzy. She obviously knows her ownsexual power: at one moment she lays on top of Mathieu, naked, teasinghim with words and promises as he can only caress her and wish that oneday she will relent and literally, let him in.

Peppered throughout the story are allusions to terrorist attacks on thecity where Mathieu lives. While it may just seem a little extraseasoning added to color the story, with Bunuel there is no casualty,and inexorably, like in THE DISCREET CHARM OF THE BOURGEOISIE, violencecomes and literally invades the domestic war that both Conchita andMathieu are engaged in.

Bunuel's last film is one of the least Surrealistic in nature as wellas one of the most. It's a contradiction, like Conchita herself is acontradiction of personalities contained within one woman. Somehowpeople who saw this movie were under the assumption, before enteringthe story, that this would be a more Hitchcockian story like VERTIGO,but in having both Carole Bouquet and Angela Molina swap entrances andexits, he manages to convey the most cerebral of his incursions intoSurrealism. A woman who is really two who is the embodiment ofrepulsion and desire even when she herself is a prisoner of her ownneed for teasing — what better way to have two woman play one? Whilethe cool, reserved, and near frigid Bouquet balances one side of thewoman, the more emotional and girlish Molina pirouettes on the other,and in the middle, poor Mathieu (for once, a very sympathetic FernandoRey), caught in his own struggle, telling his story, unable to go evenwhen he (justifiably) beats her at the height of his rage. A moreconventional ending would have had the two parting ways after theirphysical exchange, but Bunuel had other plans, and his last sequence isone that only he could envision for a story about the polarities oflove and hate, desire and repulsion.

I watched this a second time after seeing it first some years ago. Thefirst time it almost frustrated me too much for an immediate response,even though I did like certain parts. Perhaps I found that Bunuel wasalmost making me take sides, and whatever side had me in a perpetualloop of 'what the hell' kind of logic. But then again, isn't that whatBunuel is best at? In a sense, one could look at his 'swan song', ThatObscure Object of Desir
e, as his ultimate feminist tome, or rathercritique. It's really a woman's right to choose who she wants to giveherself too, and who's to say if Conchita (Carole Bouquet and AngelaMolina) really does want to have sex with Matthieu (Fernando Rey) ornot? I'm thinking pretty strongly after a second viewing that that'spart of the point. Maybe it's because Matthieu sees her as an object-and not as a complete and total human being- that he'll never possessher, and more importantly that he'll never understand completely whyuntil perhaps the end. But even then it's never really clear. Theaudience is almost given the most fractured romantic tale in moderncinema, where you do (or at least I did, if not more on the firstviewing then both times) feel for Matthieu who is not really as flaweda bourgeois character as in 'Discreet Charm', and is actually a rathernice and easy-going fellow. But then Conchita has her point of view,which everyone *should* accept, but then the tables are turned, morethan once, leading to why that bucket of water was poured on her at thetrain station before it took off.

But that's part of Bunuel's genius, I think, and why That ObscureObject of Desire works as a kind of penultimate take of the battle ofthe sexes. It deals with little hints of societal madness (terrorism iseverywhere, but our two main characters- even Conchita who's real lovermay be one himself- seem to neglect in their misplaced passions), butmore than anything each other's unwillingness to go further withthemselves. Rey particularly is brilliant in the role of Matthieu,where he can play exquisite, charming, despondent, yearning, rage, andcomplacency all in great measure. While up against not one but twoactresses, he holds his own very well with his character, however muchhis character's logic might skew. And on a first viewing- and perhapsthis shows how strong a feminist tale it is considering as a guy I gotalmost too subjectively involved- one might not understand why Mattieukeeps on going after Conchita, even after her intentions are made. It'salmost like the most uncomfortable satire of 'blue-balls' ever made.Conchita- played by two actresses- is sometimes (particularly on afirst viewing) indistinguishable from one another, and it adds to themaddeningly seductive power she has over her old, aged rich follower.

What ended up making me like 'Obscure Object' maybe even more than Ishould have is how well Bunuel manages the mind games- on both sides-with the cunning satire. It's really quick and hilarious in spots, andcouple of moments had me rolling with laughter, like the random momentas the one rich man (not Matthieu, of course) is about to leave for thebank, but when his driver starts the car it explodes! Or when Matthieucomes to find another piece of Conchita's seemingly precious demeanorstripped away when he finds out how she 'really' makes her money in thesmall town, which is actually funnier not even because of her in thescene but for who she's dancing for. If anything the ending is mostfrustrating, as after all that's happened and been told, and even afterthe seeming break-up, they're still together. It's like a cruel,vicious prank, with the symbolism of a sewing needle thrown in for goodmeasure. But because it's Bunuel, and by the age of 77 he for sureknows what he's doing, and it's more worthwhile than a lesser filmmakerwould have gone for. His actual movement of the camera as well- whichis often sort of intricate and precise and seamless and actually reallypowerful even in quiet scenes- shows how someone on his last film canstill have the great sweep of his prime running through. In fact, thereare a couple of camera moves that are on par with the best that come upin his masterpiece, Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie.

Filled with uncomfortably funny, sad and jarring moments, and enoughnotes on what it means to hold on to one's sexual parts (or not) withone's partner to ignite an entire women's studies course for a semesterat a college, it's a work from Bunuel I was glad to see again, to seemore into the layers he places in it and to find that even when it'snot meaning to it's quite the funny affair- and quite the way to make afinal bow on an extraordinary career. The final shot, by the way, islike one last wink to the audience- if not a totally spectacular one-that still is in my mind after the film has ended. Grade: A

This film would have to rank up there as one of Bunel’s best, along withLaCharme Discret de la Bourgeoisie. In this film he again uses actorFernandoRey and a relative newcomer to Cinema, the ever beautiful CaroleBouquet.

The film uses a very unique film device, which is the female lead isactually played by two actresses: One actress for her placid nature andanother actress for her tempremental side. This makes the film fascinatingviewing even more so that the women don’t even look the slightest bitalike.The film also has those beautiful European situations such as Fernando Reytelling his story to a train carriage full of freaks andoddities.

Just one of those exceptional movies.

Buñuel’s "That Obscure Object of Desire" dripped with substance and stunnedme throughout the entire film. The masterful working of the two women intothe role of Conchita was wonderful. I do not believe Buñuel for a secondwhen he claims that he intended to use one actress, but she quitunexpectedly after shooting several critical scenes. If it is true, it isone of the more miraculous accidents in film right up there with Casablancaand The Third Man. I can be certain that he consciously gave the differentConchita’s different personalities and modes of behavior. That comes acrossas being the focal point of the movie, turning a mediocre "one actress" filminto an engaging event. If I had to put my money on something, I’d say thatBuñuel is pulling some Andy Kaufman trickery here… the film worked toowell with the so-called "change of plans." Or… if you have enough monkeyson typewriters, you’ll get the Great American Novel. I don’t believe thiswas chance at all. 10/10.

That Obscure Object of Desire (1977)

**** (out of 4)

Luis Bunuel film starts off as a man (Fernando Rey) dumps a pale ofwater over a woman's head in front of various passengers on a train.The man then tells them the story of this woman, his desire for her andwhat led to the events on the train. Well, The Phantom of Libertydidn't stay at my #1 Bunuel film for very long. While this is certainlythe best film I've seen from the director I'd go as far to say this isone of the greatest films I've ever seen period. I don't want to placea ranking on it since I would need more time to think things over butthere's no doubt this would enter in my Top 20 at least. What I reallyenjoyed most was the little touch of having two actresses play thewoman to show off both of her sides but you could go a little deeperand say the man didn't notice the two women and that's how blinded hewas by his desire for her. The film really started off well, grabbingmy attention but making my attention even stronger with each passingscene. The final moments were brilliantly done and the actual lovestory of the man is one of the greatest I've seen. The terrorist bitswere rather strange but made sense and I'm glad Bunuel left out some ofhis usual surrealist moments and instead mainly concentrated on thestory at hand. Bunuel also did a brilliant job at slowly building upthe man's desire to the point where the viewer also feels his anger anddesire for the woman. The performance by Rey was brilliantly moving andtouching, as were the two female actresses. This is one of the bestexamples of a relationship between men and women and also shows thenasty games that can be played.

I loved this movie…esp. the ladies were gor
geous..the smooth, refinedbeauty of Carole Bouquet and the flair of Angela Molina…

but what does shine through is the evident love of Conchita most of thetime…I never really thought of her as scheming…there is thetantalizingpart where she wants to be understood for herself…and tho Mathieu lovesher…he is possessed by lust too…maybe that is the diff between men andwomen…remember, Conchita says she was attracted by his kind eyes..andallMathieu wants is…well-u-know-what…he wants her and wants theconsummation..too him that is the definition of and realization oflove…Conchita has no such animal intensity driving her..she just want tobe loved for herself and wants to be sure…

I wouldn’t bother too much if the ending is baffling…I do not want allsymbolism and mysteries to be revealed…it does not matter…

cheers!

Sorry to disappoint all those who were trying to find some deep,intentional meaning in the choice of two actresses for the same role,but if Fernando Rey is to be believed, here's what he told me when Ibumped into him at a party in the early 90's: he said that he andBuñuel liked both actresses for the part, couldn't decide which one touse, so they used them both.

Now, perhaps there was something working on the unconscious level aboutthe dual nature of Conchita, but Rey maintained there was no granddecision they made regarding the specific scenes assigned to one or theother.

Of course, artistic choices can be obscure, especially even to theartist, but Rey insisted it was just a whimsical idea, one which Ithought worked brilliantly.

read comments (0)

Airport ‘77

.. no amount of decent script and acting can rescue it.

A 747 with that amount of air in it wouldn’t sink.

Go back to H.S. physics and Archimedes.

At least there’s some decent acting and script but it’s not a movie to seemore than once.

Pros: Irwin Allen nowhere in sight.Great set-up for Airplane

Cons:The MOST Impossible premise.. oh.. wait! There’s another one where a 747goes into sub-orbit!I guess this comes in in second place, then.

Too much emotion in less than two hours. I was moved to see this filmbecause of its wonderful cast with actors as Joseph Cotten, Christopher"Dracula" Lee, James Stewart, Jack Lemmon, and the excellent actress OliviaDe Havilland. It is a fictitious film with a lot of imagination, but themost exciting one in the whole serial of "Airport" films. Here Lemmon as apilot of the plane becomes the hero also as a good swimmer, who saved mostpart of the passengers. That plane was really good to flight, it was like aluxury flying bar with all comfort necessary. It would be good to be seen byall those big and famous airlines from Europe and North America, which tryeach time to put more and more passengers in smaller spaces. Happy also toknow that at least US has the capacity to conduct such rescue actions as theone shown here.

This movie is the second best sequel to the Airport series. It has a goodcast, a suspensful plot and a music score blending mystery and action composed by

John Cacavas. Phillip Lathrop’s cinematography was great and many other

things. If there was anything wrong, I would say it was with Lee Grant’scharacter who was quite irritating. This is just a movie you have to use yourimagination with. You know it’s not real and not liable to happen in real life. This isa fun movie and well worth a look. ***out of ****

….who had teamed up some 12 years before met again in this routinedisaster movie.Alas,their parts are downright disappointing,all theyhave to do is playing cards in the first part ,then De Havilland's partconsists of shouting "look! look!" from time to time.Ah "Hush hushsweet Charlotte" ! James Stewart's plane is going to take hisinvaluable paintings and guests to his home and he will meet for thefirst time his grandson: he was not prepared to accept a misalliance atthe time.The most interesting part is the final segment which featuresan interesting documentary side during the rescue.

Twas the time when the disaster movies were retired homes for the oldactors.

Towards the end of the movie, I felt it was too technical. I felt likeI was in a classroom watching how our Navy performs rescues at sea. Iliked seeing that the engines have fire extinguishers. I guess I shouldhave figured that out before, but I never thought about it. Using a 747to transport valuable old paintings with very little security is oddand not realistic. The acting was pretty good, since they're mostlyseasoned professionals, but if you're going to stretch so far from whatwould most likely happen, it should be more like a fantasy, comical,etc. Everything was taken too seriously. At least the movie had FelixUngar as pilot, with Buck Rogers, the night stalker, and Dracula alsoon board. The movie was filled with well known faces. I understand thatHollywood has to exaggerate a bit for drama, but it does hurt thequality of a movie when a serious subject is made into a caricature.That's why I said it should have been more comical. My pet peeve withmovies about airline travel is that everybody just casually movesabout. They walk around with drinks, setting them down and picking themup 5 minutes later, just as if they're in a building or something, andacting as if turbulence just doesn't exist. Also, I know it's adisaster movie, but suspense doesn't have to include a 30 second crashafter hitting something. Anyway, the skilled actors and actresses keepthis weak script from having been made into a movie that got cannedafter it's first screening. I like Lee Grant, but it was fun to watch apsychotic person get decked…:)

Although the production and Jerry Jameson's direction are definiteimprovements, "Airport '77" isn't much better than "Airport 1975":slick, commercial rubbish submerging (this time literally) a decentcast. Jack Lemmon is the pilot of a packed airliner which gets hijackedby art thieves and crashes into the sea (all the publicity claimed itwas near the Bermuda Triangle, but there's no mention of it in the filmitself). When the rescue ships come to raise the airplane out of thewater, we see all their cranes dropping (rather blindly) into the oceanand it's hard not to laugh (imagining the cranes plugging the plane,the passengers and the waterlogged script). NBC used to air whatappeared to be the "director's cut", with at least an hour of extrafootage–mostly flashbacks–injected into the proceedings with all thesubtlety of a "Gilligan's Island" episode. Most exciting moment is theplane crash, and some of the players have a little fun: Lee Grant is anobnoxious drunk, Brenda Vaccaro a no-nonsense stewardess, Joseph Cottenand Olivia de Havilland are flirting oldsters. Still, the personalityconflicts and the excruciating military detail eventually tear at one'spatience. ** from ****

Airport ‘77 is not that bad of a sequel for a series that is in its thirdpart. Usually movies up to their third usually are bad (ex.Batman). Theacting is actually pretty good. Even though this movie didn’t have themanythrills as Airport, it is pretty good.

9/10

For awhile during the first half-hour or so of AIRPORT ‘77 it looks asthough we’re about to witness a fairly gripping ‘Airport’ flick. RobertFoxworth’s tricky disguise is neatly handled, as are preparations for atake-over of the plane once it’s airborne. But as soon as the plane crashesand lands below the surface, the plot becomes waterlogged with too manyunrealistic soapopera sub-plots involving an extremely uninteresting cast ofcharacters.

Jack Lemmon was a last minute replacement for a Charlton Heston-like herorole and he and Brenda Vaccaro actually do a good job of emoting. Not muchelse can be said for the rest of the cast–Christopher Lee, Lee Grant(strident and over-the-top as a sarcastic, slightly tipsy wife), Olivia deHavilland and Joseph Cotten as reunited lovers, Darren McGavin, KathleenQuinlan and others, left to the mercy of a witless script.

The rescue operation is by far the most exciting and credible part of thewhole story, making the implausible seem almost plausible. Only diehard fansof this kind of ‘Airport’ film will enjoy watching some of Hollywood’sfinest wallow in this awkwardly staged disaster epic.

Excellent movie. Very realistic one. The acting is glamorous. I like thatscene where the airplane is falling down. When it crashes on the water itseems very real or real, to finish or to say the final is glamoroustoo.

All star cast tries to outdo each other in the ham sandwich department asjet airliner survives long stretch at the bottom of a kiddie pool.Enjoyableenough freak show is more fun if you choose which cast member gives theworst performance and you make a drinking game out of it. Every time yourpersonal favorite has a painful close up or is forced to recite cheeseydialogue, take a big swig…

And the winner is: Lee Grant, by a mile.

read comments (0)

A Bridge Too Far

The story set around and about 'Operation Market Garden' itself, seemslike good enough material to make a good movie with. It however is avery complex thing when one tries to tell the story of 'OperationMarket Garden' from every view point possible; Americans, the Polish,the Britts, Germans, the Dutch. This movie tells all of the stories ofbasically every brigade involved during the 'Operation Market Garden'.Sounds like a great and fair tribute to all those who were involved.After all I often hear people complaining when an Hollywood WW II movieonly focuses on the Americans, as if they were the only ones who foughtand help to win WW II. To those persons who often complain about this,I recommend them to watch this movie. They will have to come to theconclusion that a movie that tells the story from every point of view,is unnecessarily confusion, overlong and focuses on far too manycharacters and plot-lines.

The failure of the (over)ambitious 'Operation Market Garden' is afascinating story. Had the operation fully succeeded, it would hadended the war before Christmas 1944. This movie does provide goodinformation about the mission and the battles fought during it and theparties involved. Purely based on that this movie is a good andeducational one as well. A movie however needs more than just afascinating premise. There are several problems with "A Bridge Too Far"that make this movie a, what I would like to call, flawed grand epic.The movie is still big and uses lots of sets and extras but none of itreally impresses since the movie tries to cover way too much of thestory and focuses too little on the effects of the war on thecharacters. It makes the movie feel very stylized and not humane andrealistic enough.

There are countless unnecessary sequences but above all there are waytoo many and unnecessary characters. The movie has an immenselyimpressive looking all-star cast but at the same time that also is thedown fall of the movie. Basically every star of the movie is given justas much screen time. Sounds fair but it just doesn't work out wellenough. The movie doesn't always flow well because of this and themovie focuses on way too many characters that remain too shallow, adirect result of the fact that the movie tries to cover too much storyand characters. Sure, most actors are a delight to watch in this movieand they probably also are one of the reasons why this movie stillremains a perfectly good one to watch. But just think about it. Werethe Ryan O'Neal, Laurence Olivier, Liv Ullmann roles, for instance,really necessary? They add nothing to the story and you might even saythat their roles only work distracting. They and many others, playroles in the movie, that in any other normal movie would had been an 5seconds role but however due to the fact that they are being portrayedby big-name actors, the roles are far too much extended and stretchedout. This really is the biggest problem of the movie.

A result of this all is that the movie also remains a pretty shallowone. It's just a documentary like observation of the events whichoccurred and it fails to capture any emotion or show the true horrorsof war.

The movie is however a good looking one. It's pretty obvious that notall the money was just spend on the cast. The settings are good and themovie was filmed in- or directly around the places at which the eventsof 'Operation Market Garden' also occurred in real life. It gives themovie a certain bit of extra and adds some realism. The movie becomesnowhere exactly spectacular but there are some well filmed battlesequences that don't really impress but are good and memorable enough.

The musical score by John Addison is very good and makes the movie alsovery recognizable, unfortunately it was the only good and memorablescore by Addison, at least that I know of.

Richard Attenborough's movies always have both hits and misses and thatgoes for this movie more than any of his other's. This movie has manymisses but still the positive things about the movie make this a, stillgood enough one, to watch.

It still is the ultimate movie to watch if you're interested in'Operation Market Garden', however if you like a good WW II movie thatis realistic and impressive to watch, this is not a movie for you.

7/10

Yes, that's a lot of men jumping out of airplanes. Uh huh. No, really,I get it.

Many 60s and 70s war movies trend toward the sluggish, mistakingspecifics for spectacle. TORA TORA BORA, THE LONGEST DAY (you everspent watching a movie) - painstakingly technical, despite scatteredscenes of destruction they are as dull as they are long. PATTON issaved by a gigantic central performance. It turns out that aprotagonist is a useful thing in an epic. It's a big drawback of theall-star cast that nobody really stars. There are too few scenes witheach character to define character, so it's hard to care.

Attenborough takes pains to keep us informed of the big picture - smallerrors add up to gross negligence and eventually cost thousands oflives - but what's happening in any given moment is less clear. WhenJames Caan's stuck in that Jeep - is he between two sets of Nazis orthree? Why does he go for the gun, then change his mind and make a runfor it? Clearly, there was insufficient coverage to make the scenecoherent or interesting. The economical decision after the fact wouldbe to cut the scene. But you can't do that when you just paid Caanfifteen percent of your budget.

Dependence on more than a couple of stars often makes a productionunwieldy. This movie had that problem in spades. According to WilliamGoldman, Steve McQueen said he'd do the movie only if they bought ahouse he was trying to sell. (They didn't get him, and the movie isprobably no poorer for his absence.)

Ah, well. They tried.

This is a very waterlogged war film, notable today only for its mammothstar line up and for being a rare war film in that it depicts a Germanvictory. The director has attempted to make the film as comprehensive atelling of Operation Market Garden as possible, but has instead (orbecause of this) left us with an over-crowded and at times heavy-handedmess.

The film starts out well, conveying well the war-office politics which,borne out of an arrogant zeal to end the war swiftly, ended up doomingthe entire operation. Pointing out sound reasons to delay the launchingof the air drop, which would save thousands of lives, was regarded as’rocking the boat.’ Notable was the character of Fuller, who saw thepresence of German tanks as a good reason to call off the mission. Whenhe pushed for this, he was forced to take ’some leave’ for exhaustion.The mission went ahead - straight into a few German Panzer divisions.Following Fuller’s advice (based on sound intelligence), would havesaved a few thousand men, and probably the mission; but Allied commandwanted the boys home for Christmas, and Fuller was rocking the boat -touché.

Indeed there are also some fine battle sequences incorporating greatspecial effects. But these are few and far between in this three hourmovie. These good points, including the wonderful cast and a brilliantscore, are just not enough to make this film worthwhile as anything buta curio. The rest is all downhill…..

The screenplay is simply awful - there is just too much going on in theevents which are the subject of the film, and this muddles the movie.Even if you are following the film closely, at times you are leftwondering if you’ve in fact missed something when a quick rewind torecap shows that you haven’t. A lot of self indulgent, meanderingdirection from Attenborough doesn’t help the matter either. He alsoseems to enjoy over-exposing the film in many scenes, so that sunlightglows in a blurry manner, creating a sepia kind of image. This looksterrible, and is reminiscent of some dreadful films by Tony Richardson.

The star line up, though magn
ificent is ultimately unnecessary. It onlyends up distracting the audience from the film’s plot. Sundry big namesappear in totally unnecessary cameos, most of which simply detract fromthe main plot; this, I feel, adding to the confusion of an alreadymuddled screenplay. Laurence Olivier and James Caan appear in twocompletely pointless almost-cameo roles. Both the roles are completelybeneath these actors, and the pretentiousness of the director toinclude these scenes (especially Caan’s) is clearly evident in theirsuplerfity. The dialogue between James Caan’s character and the fielddoctor was simply inane, and should have just been cut.

The scene towards the end, in which the leading officers of theoperation stand atop a bell tower and contemplate why the missionfailed, is simply a straight rip-off from the ending of The Charge ofthe Light Brigade in that each tries to blame some other aspect of theplanning which led to their own section failing. The actual finalending of the film was bland, and very heavy-handed. Totallyunsatisfying - especially after three hours.

And all through the film the national-specific clichés of thecharacters was abysmal. The two American leads (Ryan O’Neal and ElliotGould) were just cardboard-cut-out US stooges - cigar chomping,loudmouths always rattling on about ‘American ingenuity’ and the need’to try’, and wishing to emulate George Washington in battle. TheBritish were no better - if not worse. There was just so much ‘Chin upladdy’, and ‘better luck next time old boy - eh’ going on that the filmbegan to play like a parody of a war film; so much so, that by the endof the film you are relieved that the Nazis have won the day - if, ofcourse, you are still awake to care by this stage.

This film requires patience, as most films with such run time do; butmost other long films have the virtue of being able to hold yourattention by providing a solid evening’s entertainment. A Bridge TooFar doesn’t have this virtue, because it has attempted to crowd toomuch into its clumsily handled screenplay. It is a worthwhile film forwar buffs, as there are a few rewarding battle scenes; but one has towade through veritable spools of self-important and confusing -sometimes down-right boring - celluloid to get to them. To the casualviewer this is not an enjoyable prospect, and not even the star powerof the film can make such a task worthwhile.

Not much here, The Longest Day was better by far, there was a good shot hereand there like for instance when the guy tried to get them supplies and hewas shot so then you see him lay there with the red berets that was quitepoignant and I suppose Sean Connery was better than his usual self, butstill not good enough (see Marnie), so all in all I can’t recommend thisfilm 3 out of 10.

One of the most glaring problems with this film is that Ryan O’Neal wasfar too young looking to be a General. Otherwise, it’s a pretty fairbut long film. This is the true story of Operation Market Garden, anassault that was designed to propel the Allies deep into German-heldterritory and capture key bridges over canals and rivers. I think thecombat scenes were overall pretty well done. Michael Caine does a finejob in his role as the leader of the ground assault that is supposed torelieve the paratroopers. Trouble is, those pesky Germans put up a lotmore of a fight than was expected (mainly due to faulty Alliedintelligence as far as what German units were in the area). There wasalso some stupidity portrayed on the Allied side. Result, the groundunits never reached the British paratroopers at the last bridge. (Hencethe title A Bridge too Far). As I said, the film is overall pretty welldone. This film just didn’t grab me and I consider it to be a run ofthe mill (albeit LONG) war film. I gave it a 6.

War films should never be confused with history, no matter what theirpedigree. A Bridge too Far is based on the book of the same name, byCornelius Ryan. The book is a serious, and accurate work of fact, thefilm much less so. It is not possible to condense a battle, whichlasted many days, into a couple of hours. However some omissions areunforgivable.

For example. In the film General Horrocks briefing gives the impressionthat XXX Corps alone is involved in the ground attack. This of courseis not so. V111 and X11 Corps advance on XXX Corps flanks, in fact thewhole of the British 2nd Army is involved. This leads to the worstomission of the film. The commander of the 2nd British Army, the manwho was in overall command of Operation Market Garden, is notrepresented in the film, and I think not even named. This insult iscompounded by the fact that General Patton is mentioned twice, eventhough he was not involved. If you are reading this, and you have seenthe film, but you do not know who I am referring too, shame on you, youneed to read more.

The scene towards the end of the film, when Generals Gavin,Horrocks,and Browning discuss whether to keep trying, lacks the presence of theGeneral who made the decision Who was that man? General Sir MilesDempsey.

ABTF is probably the most accurate war-film ever made. It could almostbe a documentary. It tells the story of a gigantic airborne operation,which intended to end the war in Europe by Christmas 1944. The idea wasto conquer three vital bridges behind enemy lines and push on withBritish tanks into the German industrial area of Ruhr. The operationwas codenamed Market Garden.

Because of insufficient reconnaissance, bad weather, problems with theequipment and arrogance by the planners, the operation became a realdisaster for the allies.

Huge sums were spent on making the scenes as realistic as possible andon hiring the best cast ever seen on cinema. The result is a goodpicture of the events 60 years ago. The acting is highly professionaland the use of cameras is great. I still got the feeling like somethingwas missing. Maybe it’s because I’m of a younger generation than thefilmmakers that some scenes seem a bit old-fashioned and almostmelodramatic. The movie is good, but I think it could have been muchbetter if some scenes were emotionally stronger and some melodramaticscenes were cut out. It is also annoying when the woman in the prologuesays that the war is still going Hitlers way in 1944. You wouldn’texpect such a comment in an otherwise so accurate movie. I think "ABridge too Far" is very good as a documentary on war, but it’s not aCinematographic masterpiece. I recommend it to anyone interested inhistory and or war.

"It felt like the generals sent us to do something they didn’t have thejustification for" (a private of the British 1st airborne division)

The book offers so much utterly compelling and cinematic material … whatwere the wretched filmmakers thinking? The movie treads lightly (evensuperficially) on some of the astounding elements of these true events.Thepanoply of stars is the giveaway: they were making a Hollywood movie. Theyweren’t interested in the story. What a waste. Read thebook.

If the Joseph Levine hadn’t been obsessed with making this movie, I doubt itever would have ever existed. The material was fascinating, the actingfirst rate, direction flawless and the overall production values top flight. But, at 3 hours and a few hundred characters, it was just too long. Watching the movie, it seemed obvious to me that there was just no way tocut the movie down and maintain the integrity of the story and moral. It isa shame that it is difficult to watch since the potential impact is veryaffirming.

The casting was brilliant except for Ryan O’Neill who was way too youngto play the part of an American general. This was of course a truestory, unfortunately it was filmed from an American viewpoint and someof the facts were distorted. Believe it or not, the Brits drink lesstea than coffee!

This is not a film for everyone but there is something for everyone init. After seeing this film
you may have some insight as to why theBritish paratroopers have gained the reputation as being the toughestairborne troops in the world. Their nickname "The Red Devils" comesfrom the color of their berets and that has now been copied by almostall of the other airborne divisions from countries around the world.

read comments (0)