The Return of the Living Dead

When I first watched Return of the Living Dead I had already seen thesequels and I wasn’t really expecting a lot of this one. When I gotdone watching it I realized I just lost an hour and a half of my life.Then I got mad. First of all, the actors sucked. I thought they werejust stupid no talented morons. Second there was the fact it was a slapin the face to the zombie master George A. Romero (Night of the LivingDead, Dawn of the Dead, Day of the Dead, Land of the Dead) Zombies aresupposed to die when they get their head or brain destroyed and in thisthey completely destroyed this zombie, cut his head off, caught him onfire and he still came back. Then there was the fact they could thinkand make decisions and talk. That was stupid. I said this to a friendonce and he said it ignored the Romero classics because it had nothingto do with them. THEN WHY IS IT CALLED RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD???It’s just a cheap spin off to get some fast cash. As a horror moviewasn’t scary at all, and as a comedy it wasn’t funny at all. The onlything funny or scary about this movie is the idiot who would spend goodmoney on it. Forget this. If you want to rent a zombie movie, rent aRomero movie or Resident Evil.

Since this was a horror comedy hybrid, I won’t bash a lot of the moviefor being plain stupid. It also explains why there wasn’t really anyscary moments. It is a spoof on zombie movies. So if you’re expecting atrue horror movie, you are not going to get it here.

I really appreciated the special effects. There were graphic shots ofpeople eating brains and chewing into skulls. This is really the onlythe reason why I gave this movie any points. That and Clu Gulager whoplayed Burt Wilson. His sloppy speech and Member’s Only jacket were theonly things that were really funny.

As for the zombies, there were retarded and lame. I really didn’t laughor chuckle at them. My reaction was more nonchalant than anything else.

The acting is abysmal. I don’t want to be too hard on Linnea Quigley,but her acting can best be described as completely awful. Her role,like every role she’s ever had, is to run around naked. Did I mentionthis was one of the reasons why I gave this movie points? If I didn’t,I should have.

The ending was perhaps one of the worst I can think of. The specialeffects on the shot was laughable. Not funny, just stupid.

Overall this movie is OK. For 80’s zombie flicks, it has to beconsidered and acknowledged for what it was. A lighthearted zombieflick with good special effects, bad story, bad acting and LinneaQuigley running around naked.

This is a truly bad film, full of bad dialogue and bad 80’s costumes, butit’s not so horrible that it isn’t enjoyable to some extent. Rather than behorrified when dozens of zombies jump on the unsuspecting, I found it to bepretty hilarious. The factors that made this film even remotely crediblewere the halfway decent effects and makeup. The guy that a friend of mineand I referred to as `The Party Zombie’ for no particular reason whatsoeverpretty much makes the film, although we couldn’t really understand how thiszombie with no skin could have such a perfect tongue.

Anyway, this is a tough review to write because it was a film that was botha comedy and a horror film, but ultimately it does not pretend to takeitself seriously, which is a plus in this situation.

–Shelly

I give this my personal highest rating for bad horror movies: 4 out of10 stars. There are many movies worse than this (titanic for example),this was directed decently, I must say. Some of the actors I reallyhated, a lot, but Linnea Quigley who is naked for most of the movie ispretty funny. This movie is not scary at all, and some of the zombiesare just, well too campy and stupid, especially the yellow one. Oh! Andif you call the 1800 # they show on the barrell that contains thatposion military gas that turns people into the zombies, its a phone sexnumber! The zombies calling for more paramedics and cops to eat waspretty funny.

I read so many good reviews of this movie, I thought I’d love it for sure.But when I watched it, I found it very boring, except for a few reallygreattouches (especially the panting bisected dog, and when the paramedic istackled). It could have been really scary, but was played too much forlaughs.

Employees of a medical supply warehouse accidentally release some gasthat brings a corpse back to life. When they burned it, the ashes coverthe nearby graveyard bringing back the dead.

This is one really fun and entertaining movie and hailed as one of thegreat black comedies of the horror genre. Though it had its fair shareof laughs, but I didn’t find it that funny as its claimed to be…enjoyable yeah, but really funny *hmm* it had its moments.

The direction was good and the story is smartly well written by DanO’Bannon (Alien, total recall), as its really just a parody of ‘TheNight of the Living Dead’ film, but with changes added in like thezombies can talk, they run, can use equipment, only eating brains andcan only be destroyed by being incinerated. Though in ROLD the storyamusedly has that Romero’s Night of the living dead film was actuallybased on fact.

The acting is great and because of that the characters are prettylikable, Clu Gulager, James Karen, Don Calfa, Thom Mathews and BeverlyRandolph bring a lot fun to their performances and you got anothernotable performance from Linnea Quigley running around the graveyardwearing only leg-warmers! There is a lot of humour and gore in thistrendy film, with a slow opening that picks up the pace and thrillswhen the zombies hit the screen. The special effects and make-up lookreally splendid, with the zombies having their own personalities andtraits. The backdrop and setting of the graveyard, mortuary andwarehouse are generally murky and creepy.

Nothing but pure fun.

3.5/5

I’m quite a fan of the horror/comedy genre, but I found this film ratherdisappointing. There are a few laughs, and the make-up effects are veryimpressive, but overall this just isn’t nearly as entertaining as Evil DeadII, or (strangely enough) Return of the Living Dead II. The film is notwithout merit, but it didn’t seem to me to be the classic that so many claimit is.

This movie ROCKS (as does the soundtrack)! Anyone who is a fan of the"LivingDead" movies must rank this one up there with the original. The mediocreacting does not get in the way of the excellent story (the alive are trappedwhere the dead should be and the dead are roaming where the alive shouldbe!!) and the most excellent make up and effects. As you watch the movieyou begin to pick a favorite character (mine is Spider) which is cool. Forits genre, this is one of the best and should be recognized assuch.

This film is one of the funniest, goriest send-ups of zombie films evermade. It is based on the premise that what happened in Night of the LivingDead actually happened in a hospital in/near Pittsburgh and bodies of theseravenous zombie brain-eaters were frozen and locked in air-tight containersby the army. Naturally some of the bodies were shipped to the wrong placeand our story opens with a new young employee being toured around a medicalsupply warehouse and home of some of these creatures in a dusty, dampbasement for 17 odd some years. Through some comic mishap, one of thecanisters emits a deadly gas and dead things start to come to life. Thefilm is directed by Dan O’Bannon(Dead and Buried), and he directs withtongue firmly planted in cheek as one comic, deadly mishap leads to anotherbigger one and so on. Eventually we have a group of punk kids, the twoworkers from the warehouse and their boss, and a mortician locked up in afuneral home fighting the zombies on the outside as well as some on theinside. To give you an idea of O’Bannon’s humour, the warehouse boss,played by Clu Gulager, is named B
urt and his good friend of 25 odd years,the mortician wonderfully played by Don Calfa, is named Ernie. We heartheir names quite a bit in this dark, obvious homage to Sesame Street. Thefilm has lots of lunacy, incredibly well-photographed suspense scenes, solidacting from a cast of lesser actors, some provocative(albeit needless)nudity as one girl dances on a tomb in an open cemetery, and gobs of blood,gory scenes of mutilation, decapitation, etc…. While the film is verygory, it is not to the point of detracting from the overall effect of thefilm, which is two-fold in making us very frightened and amused. Some greatscenes in here as well, my favourite always being the James Karen farewellscene with the crematorium burner. Surprisingly tender. Karen, by the way,gives an amazing comic performance. Lots of blood, guts, andlaughs!

Return on the living dead in the very pinnacle of a badmovie.

The acting was horrible, the special effects were laughable, the plotsophomoric … All and all … Good stuff when you are looking for alaugh.

This is the movie that you can watch very drunk but still will be able tofollow along because it doesn’t take much *braaaaaaaiiiinnnsss* to view it (har,har)

7/10 as bad movies go.

read comments (0)

To Live and Die in L.A.

I rented this because Willem Defoe is one of my favorites! He usuallypicks bad movies to be in though but this was actually a good turn forhim. Granted it wasn’t "Platoon" but I liked it…and he did a greatjob acting-wise. However the lead cop wasn’t that good of an actor, itseemed like he just memorized his lines, chewed them up, and spit themout. He came off like a jerk okay but probably because he’s only one inreal life. This is by no means an uplifting film and anyone that wantsa happy one should look elsewhere since the ending is very grim anddismal. Despite it being a decent enough flick overall I thought ithosted one of the corniest car chase sequences I have ever seen as itlooked so fake. The shoot outs during the chase were okay but the carsspeeding along in fast motion was horrid and it just looked heinous. Imean it is 80’s style though so that explains at least some of it. Whatreally saved the story was just how corrupt everyone was and you neverknew who was going to wind up on top or how it’d end. As far out as itseems I’m willing to bet that situations like this actually occur inreal-life more often than not.

Final Rating:

Movies: Not now because some parts are outdated.

DVD Purchase: I liked it but if I want to see it, I’d rather just rentit again.

Rental: A good one for you crime/action lovers out there!

i just don't see what all the fuss is about.many people have said thisa great movie,and a good friend of mine raved about it.so, i watchedit,expecting a good movie.wrong.this movie has the distinction of beingthe only movie i know of that can move at a frenetic pace and still bedreadfully boring.the characters aren't sympathetic, so you reallydon't care what happens to them.there is no character development andno reason for the characters to act the way they do.really, the wholemovie had no point.if the director had slowed the movie down somewhere,rather than having what basically amounted to one big chase scene, themovie would have benefited greatly, as would the viewer.as it is,"tolive and die in L.A" is to sit on your couch and be bored to tears.acomplete mess. i only give this movie 2 stars because william petersonis in it

A worthy effort sabotaged by a script that self-destructs after thefirst 45-minutes proving once and for all that Friedkin and his monsterego should stick to directing and not writing. There’s a simple toolaccomplished writers possess and it’s called structure, something thedirector has never been able to fully comprehend. After a solid startall that’s going through the viewers mind for the rest of the film is(A) What the hell is going on? (B) Why are we saddled with one of themost annoying and obtrusive soundtracks in cinematic history? You can’treally blame Wang Chung for the latter, after all, what did thefilmmakers expect from the man who gave us Dance Hall Days? I guessTangerine Dream was unavailable.

This film definitely has its moments (good overall performances,cinematography) but otherwise is a missed opportunity.

I enjoy watching William Peterson on "CSI", as I like his low-toneapproach to the geeky Gil Grissom, but this is one of the worst moviesI’ve ever seen. The only bright spot in this train wreck is WillemDafoe. This is one of the few movies where the supposed hero is sounlikeable that I not only rooted for the bad guy, I couldn’t havecared less when Peterson’s character got killed at the end. Actually, Icame away from this movie unable to find a single character who waslikable.

This was simply a miserable movie to sit through, and I did manage tokeep the rental on the VCR throughout the entire thing, in the hope itwould actually get better as it went along. Well it did, as I mentionedabove, but that’s a small consolation for having to sit through nearlytwo hours before getting any satisfaction from this movie.

One other note, the car chase is okay, but if you really want to seethe modern standard for those, check out "Ronin". As others havesuggested, "The French Connection" is a much better choice than thisstinker.

TO LIVE AND DIE IN LA is a fair enough thriller but there is a bit of aproblem watching it in 2004 and is that it`s very dated . Check out thefashions of having cops wearing their padded shoulder jackets with theirsleeves rolled up . Very 1980s . Also check out the directing style oforange sunlight casting its glow on interiors as an intrusive pop trackplays . It`s impossible to watch this movie without being reminded of MAIMIVICE

Something else I noticed was a scene straight after a car chase ( You won`tneed reminding of what I`m talking about . If you`ve seen this movie you`llknow what car chase I`m talking about ) when the two cops are sitting on acar in a rundown part of town . If you look closely you can see a trio offunky black geezers walking past holding radios to their ears . They`realmost dancing through the scene which instantly reminded me of the video ofthe Fatboy Slim video ROCKERFALLAH SKANK

Check it now . Funk show brother Right about now . Funk show brother

I remember watching this for the first time in some strange apartment,big TV, big sound system. I was really stoned. The Wang Chung blew mymind. The car chase against freeway traffic terrified me.

I also had never heard of William L. Petersen before but thought as Iwatched, "who is this cool guy with the cool boots, cool leatherjacket, curly hair, and fearless attitude?" This is one of those moviesI always stop and watch when it is on TV, even when the networks show abutchered PG-13 version. I don't want to analyze it too much because itis not really that deep or symbolic. What it is, is cool, and that isgood enough for me…

"To Live and Die in L.A" is a very uneven film. In the first half, thestorybarely moves along and some uninteresting scenes run on longer than theyshould. The film improves in the second half, when the plot "thickens", asthey say, and has a couple of twists that lead to a shocking finale.Overall, this crime drama is somewhat cold and unmoving, despite somereallygood scenes (including the widely praised car chase) scattered here andthere. Fair performances.

William Friedkin likes to stage car chases so elaborate, it

boggles your mind. He blew everyone away with The French

Connection and in To Live and Die in LA, he ups the ante. To

escape a bunch of guys with guns, William Peterson floors it up

an exit ramp and into oncoming traffic. The rest of the

sequence needs to be seen, but it is exciting. The rest of the

movie is a bit uneven. Peterson is trying to nail Willem Dafoe

for the murder of Peterson’s partner. And he’s willing to do

anything to get him. We see how determined Peterson is and we

see how crafty Dafoe is. Along the way there are some subplots

that don’t really have the chance to get fleshed out. There’s

energy in this film, but the energy seems to get diverted at

times and the film starts to drag a little. Friedkin is a good

director who knows how to grab an audience and hold them until

the very end. To Live and Die in LA may have been tinkered with

against Friedkin’s wishes, but I look forward to a day when

William Friedkin strikes again with a film that will shake us

out of our senses.

Wow, this little baby is really underrated! From the daring car chase to wonderfully written characters, this film oozesclass!Terrific film score and terrific direction.

The one thing I love about the film is the dirty city that is L.A. It’shell!

Watch this film and then read the reviews, there are plenty of interestingelements to enjoy. The characters are wonderful to watch because it’s hardto define the true go
od and bad guy.

Class!

I’m dividing my review into sections. Each paragraph is a separate sectionwhose name will be in ALL CAPS.

WANG CHUNG’s biggest hit was the song "Everybody Have Fun Tonight." Theywere basically a typical 80’s synth pop group that played cheerful,synthetic radio fluff. Their music brings to mind the pink mohawks, slouchsocks, and ridiculous fashions and cliches that make the 80’s the mosttasteless decade in all of history. This kind of music is right at home ina movie like "Teen Wolf" or "License to Drive," NOT in a dark, macabrethriller like To Live and Die in L.A. The other elements of this filmcreate a menacing and disturbing vibe. This vibe is marred and utterlyruined by the pulsing synth pop of Wang Chung. F*CK WANG CHUNG!!!!!!!! F*CKTHEM! The decision to use Wang Chung for this film in any capacity is notonly tasteless, but unforgivable.

THE MOVIE ITSELF

is fantastic even though certain characters and elements of the storyneededto be further explored, while others took too much screen time. The camerawork and writing are among the best I’ve ever seen. Willem DaFoe is pureevil incarnate. At first glance, it seems to be a typical cop vs. crookthriller, but then the storyline takes it to new and original places.Thereis no "good guy." This movie doesn’t cater to what we would like to seehappen for the characters. Any assumptions you make will probably bite youin the *ss. Perhaps my favorite part about this film is that there is noneof that campy humor and buddy-buddy crap that cop thrillers are so oftenladen with. This preserves the element of darkness well until it is RUINEDBY WANG CHUNG.

THE ACTORS

WILLIAM PETERSON (who now has the starring role in the CBS crime drama"CSI:Crime Scene Investigation") did as good a job as he could on this role.Hischaracter, Chance, is an aggressive, tough, smart guy. He’s a dirty,unsympathetic character. Peterson just doesn’t match the character, but hedoes his best and ultimately pulls off the role well enough that the moviedoesn’t suffer too much. A role written this well would win an Oscar forsomeone like ROBERT DENIRO.

JOHN TURTURRO’s intense performance as Rik Masters’ partner addsconsiderably to the film. Next to Dafoe, he does the best acting in thefilm.

JOHN PANKOW’s role as Chance’s partner should have been more deeplyexplored. His disloyalty to his partner adds a wild card to the plot.Pankow does surprisingly well.

DEAN STOCKWELL is Rick Masters’ attorney. As usual, he does a fantasticjob. He adds an interesting spin to any character he plays.

WILLEM DAFOE is evil incarnate, the villain Rick Masters. His dialogue issmart, his delivery perfect. Rick Masters is a brooding artistic geniuswith a streak of sadism. Only a truly villainous villain would aim for thegenitals like he did.

All in all, it’s a great film that leaves you shocked with a sick, shakyfeeling in your stomach…….that is…….until the F*CKING WANG CHUNGstarts playing. You’ll see what I mean.

read comments (0)

The Man with One Red Shoe

The only successful remake is The Maltese Falcon. See the originalversionsfirst.It’s true with most comedies too. Jack Benny and Carole Lombard farsurpasstheMel Brooks remake of To Be or Not To Be.

Watch The Tall Blond Man with One Black Shoe. It is in French and starsPierre Richard.

Thank god the 80s are gone - movies may not seem like the deepest artsmedium at the moment, but gone are the days where a single star could walkhis way around a movie so badly flung together, and think itclever.

THE MAN WITH ONE RED SHOE is neither entertaining nor awful - it is thefilmequivalent of dry bread - boring but not entirely unpleasant. Tom Hanksshows little of what he was going to be capable of, and the supportingcast(including a dreadful turn by Carrie Fisher) look lost and uninterested.Sayno to non-films - buy some jam!!

Where do I begin? There is a problem with almost every facet of this film.The first major flaw is that the plot is rather confusing. I suppose thatwould be alright if this were a more sophisticated comedy. However, "The ManWith One Red Shoe" is purely a silly little flick and it shouldn’t leave itsviewers scratching their heads wondering who is doing what to whom andwhy.

Other problems include characters that are ignorant beyond belief, boring"action" sequences, one-dimensional characters and flat performances. Iliterally laughed only one time during the entire picture. The "hair in thezipper" scene is one of those classic movie moments like the "hair gel"scene in "There’s Something About Mary". If only the rest of this film waseven half as inspired. Sadly…it’s not.

Tom Hanks went through a dry spell for several years early in his comediccareer. This movie was just one of those blunders before he got things backon track with "Big". The only other positive aspects of this dud are thecool Thomas Newman soundtrack and Lori Singer’s slick sunglasses.Unfortunately, those don’t pull enough weight to make this anywhere near aquality film. 2/10

There are many different excuses to laugh, and any film that gives usone of them falls into that big bucket we call comedy.

I don’t suppose anyone knows much about what makes us laugh, but likeyesterday’s stock market results, everyone seems to have an opinionabout failed comedy. This is a classic failed comedy, regardless ofwhether you thought the original French film successful.

The story is that a crew of trained professionals mistakenly assume onething and then grind that conclusion quite literally to death. The samething happened to the crew that made this stinker.

The women are marginally interesting. Lori singer was a real stringplayer; here she plays the prostituting spy to a string player. CarrieFisher was deep into her skinny drugged out highly sexed period andplays someone much the same (with a reference to Princess Leia and thewookie).

Hanks only once in a rare while really tries to act. This isn’t one ofthose times. My own theory is that he needs a challenging director.

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

This film tries to be quirky and is charming but there is only one laugh init. That is the hair in the zipper bit. Even the old collapsing chair gag (atrusty stalwart) flops here. But I don’t care, because the actress who hasher hair caught in the zipper is Loroooriii Sing….no, I can’t type itwithout shaking. Oh God, it’s an impossible dream, having LoriSiiiNng..thing caught in your zipper or anywhere NEAR your zipper, for thatmatter. Even FRANCE would be near enough to get me hot under the collar. Sheput the ‘God’ in goddess. It is unbearable watching this film. She has bighair. There’s that scene where she runs in slo-mo in the baseball stand inblack shorts. So if you hit the slow on your remote, it goes REALLY slow.It’s too much. Then there’s the scene in the hotel suite. She is in thisslinky black number with a plunging (we are talking Niagra Falls here) back.Gibber. And that voice. "Come and sit beside me and get comfortable.""Relax, and let me take control". She runs her hands down…excuse me, Ican’t go on. Never mind ‘Saving Private Ryan’, you want to lose Tom Hanks.Nothing serious, just a couple of broken legs. I know this is a terriblething to be thinking as he is something close to a national treasure in thestates, but that is the SssIInnger affect. He should be removed from thatexpensive looking sofa and replaced by me. Oh, mother. Oh, God. This film istorture. Has Lori been in anything else? Well, there’s that tv show and thatbit part in ‘The Falcon And The Snowman’. So she’s a STAR! I feel a bit ofstalking coming on. Only she’s too old now and there’s an ocean in the way.But with film, stars stay young forever and you control the vertical, youcontrol the horizontal. What you can’t control is your undying devotion.Okay LUST. I admit it. With video you can get to where you need to go. Andwith Loor…you’ve already arrived before you’ve even started to leave. Ifyou see what I mean.

Dabney Coleman is also in this comedy. He is not pretty normally, but as heis in a film with Lorrr Snngrrr he has sexiness bestowed upon him. He mustlook great in the shower. The character Tom Hanks plays in this film isdiagnosed as being sexually repressed. It’s a metaphor for the audience, Ithink. Not that I know what a metaphor is of course. The only metaphor I’minterested in is one that involves ..you know who. She called me up and Imetaphor a drink. You will not laugh at this film, but you will cry. Boy,*sob* will you cry. Oh, God. Lori. I don’t have one red shoe but I do haveone helluva red CENSORED.

This one has all the elements of a great movie. Which is odd since mostcomedies are usually long on laughs and short on everything else. Plot,sub-plots, character development, one-liners, tongue-in-cheek, slapstick,intrigue, suspense, drama and an excellent cast. This movie has them all. Itpokes fun at the Washington Intelligence community in general at a timeduring the Cold War when it seemed like the CIA, FBI, and NSA had their ownagendas.If you’re a conspiracy theorist with a sense of humor, this movie is foryou!

Some very funny lines and situations permeate this movie. Tom Hanks does agreat job of being a very likable "every guy" in the film, but some of thefunniest lines belong to Jim Belushi as his best friend. Dabney ColemanandCharles Durning do well with their parts as competitive agents of the CIAand FBI. If you like spy movies with a twist, check out this under-ratedcomedy.

When 2 secret government agencies go at each other an innocent young manbecomes involved simply over his footwear. This led to his beingassaultedby 4 inept hit men, used by a female spy after he falls in love withher,and having his whole life turned inside out. Ok, but not one of Hank’sbetter films.

Okay people, the most recent rating for this movie is a lousy5.2——-WHAT!?!??!!! Consider Tom Hanks, feel good man of the, well,history of the cosmos. Is there anybody that can honestly say they don’tlike Tom Hanks? It doesn’t matter what he’s doing on screen, he’s just awatchable, loveable guy. Almost anyone can relate to him through all hisroles. For instance, his character in "The Man With One Red Shoe" is acharacter that deserves our praise! He’s sexually frustrated, musicallyingenuitive, a loner, and funny. This is the kind of Hanks movie that itdoesn’t matter if the viewer is capable of relating to Hanks’ character, hewill anyway. The piece he writes for the girl at the end is simplistic yetamazing. He writes it on his steamed up mirror, how awesome is that! So comeon people, open your eyes to the wonderful world of Tom Hanks…a surefireevery time! ***1/2 out of ****

I liked this movie
. It had funny jokes, and some action scenes. Goodacting,mainly from Hanks and Belushi. A nice little romantic movie, but stillnothing to get wild about.

The Man with One Red Shoe - 6/10Verdict - Good, but you don’t have to see it if you want.

read comments (0)

The Jewel of the Nile

Have you seen ‘Free Willy’? I really hate that movie! I haven’t actuallyseen it, but how come that stupid whale gets so much attention? I bet if thefilm was about a giant funnel web spider that was held in captivity thensome kid wouldn’t fall in love with it. Let’s see a kid try and hug that! Ibet if I was held in captivity and the owners of an aquarium were going tolet me die no one would care! Obviously I could just climb out of the pooland just walk away, but that’s not the point.

Anyway, I’m all worked up now because of that stupid whale so my review of‘Jewel of the Nile’ might be a little unfair, and harsh. I bet if Willywrote a review of ‘Jewel of the Nile’ though everyone would be all amazedand impressed. ‘Ooh that’s such a good review Willy.’ `Ooh you’re so cleverWilly.’ Do I get that kind of response? No, I just get hate mail from peoplewho say thinks such as, "Like a koala is going to know how to come offcrack, just because YOU saw it in a movie" and `In summary, I hope you go tojail for a long time, for being such a braindead idiot.’ Do you thinkpeople would say things like that to Willy? Neither doI.

Kathleen Turner plays Joan Wilder who is a famous romance novelist who liveson a boat with her boyfriend Jack Cotton. How come so many heroes are called‘Jack’? Why don’t we have more heroes called Colin or Jeremy? It’d be a morerealistic film if he was called Nigel Cotton, but what do I know eh? I’m nota big, dumb orca who needs to enlist the help of a CHILD (that’s rightsomeone too young to buy porn) to get me out of a giant fishtank!

Joan is having trouble writing a new book and ends up going to the desertsomewhere for some reason with this guy who seems too good to be true. Thenthe Yacht that Joan and Jack own blows up and so Jack goes to the desert aswell. A fat lot of good a whale would be in the desert. All it could dowould be to flounder on the dry, rocky ground without a drop of water insight. Ha! In your face Willy!

Unfortunately for Jack the ‘Jewel’ in question isn’t a precious stone it’s aman. Well that’s just great. If I named myself ‘Mr Elixir of Life’ andpeople turned up trying to find me and when they did found out that I wasn’tactually the ‘Elixir of Life’, just somebody calling myself that I’d expecta good kicking. To be honest if I called myself ‘Elixir of Life’ I’d givemyself a good kicking, or jump down some stairs or something, just for beingsuch a complete spaz. Anyway the guy who seems too good to be true turns outto be too good to be true and in fact evil, so Jack has to save Joan andthis guy called ‘Jewel’.

Actually, now I think about it, ‘Jewel’ was quite annoying. He kept callingJoan Wilder ‘Just Joan’. Duh! Jewel you retard! Don’t you understand Englishor something? Sure he didn’t need a dullard of a child to rescue him fromand aquarium, but he was really irritating. And he carried an umbrella withhim all the time. Why? He’s in the desert! He might as well have carried afreaking aqualung! Oh man! He’s really winding me up now! Especially when hestarted balancing his umbrella on his finger as a diversion. What the hellkind of a diversion is that?

`Look! There’s a guy getting seven shades of excrement kicked out of him. Nowait! There’s a guy balancing an umbrella, that’s far moreexciting!’

I thought reviewing this film might actually calm me down, but it’s actuallymaking me even angrier! Especially when it turns out that ‘Jewel’ is somekind of martyr or the Egyptian pope or something. He can’t even grasp thefact that ‘Just’ isn’t the first part of Joan Wilder’s name, so god knowswhat he’d be like trying to negotiate the peaceful end to a war.

On the plus side though Jack manages to steal an F16 but doesn’t know how tofly it, so instead he just drives it around a town firing machine guns androckets at things. I quite enjoyed that bit and it inspired my unsuccessfulattack on the Aylesbury RSPCA offices in a milk float.

In summary; a reasonable film ruined by Jewel making stupid comments andalways turning out to be right in some way. If you’re reading this Jewel, you just made my list…

A different setting (the desert, rather than the jungle) provides thebackground for another adventure by the characters from ‘Romancing theStone’…Joan Wilder (Kathleen Turner), Jack Colton (Michael Douglas), andgreedy little Ralph (Danny DeVito), with his heart set on acquiring the"jewel".

Once again, there’s the same comic strip quality to the adventures and,again, all of the action is played for laughs, of which there are plenty.This time Joan is mixed up with a Shiek when she agrees to write hisbiography. When she is kidnapped, Jack and Ralph have to come to her rescue.It’s another no-brainer, none of it meant to be taken seriously. All in all,it’s an enjoyable enough comic adventure–not quite up to ‘Romancing theStone’–but the humor is even sharper and everyone seems to be enjoyingtheir roles. Danny De Vito steals some of the scenes as they trek throughthe desert with some angry Muslims hot on their heels.

As sequels go, this is a good one.

"The Jewel of the Nile" is an attempt to reproduce the classic "Raidersof the Lost Ark", with two twists. The first, they introduce a realromance. But I wasn't impressed with the acting by Kathleen Turner, andI'm not into romance novels. Also, the action is a little campy, unlikein "Raiders of the Lost Ark" where they clearly went out of their wayto make the movie feel gritty and immersive, as if it had really takenplace in historical distant lands.

These things sap the film and as action movie just get bigger andbadder I think it's showing its age. "Romancing the Stone", theprequel, was better.

Who should see this film:

– Action movie buffs with nothing better to do on a rainy day,

and only if you're trying to rent something for two, and your

SO wants some kind of romance. But try "Crocodile Dundee"

first, which is still a classic. Or "Six Days Seven Nights".

– Romance lovers, I don't mean romance / comedy, I mean people

(primarily women) who actually read romance novels

I'll give "The Jewel of the Nile" an aging 5 out of 10.

This is a commendable sequel to the first film bar some uglyracial stereotyping and AWFUL music. The odd funny one-liners, location photography and honest leadperformances cover the fact that the characters (and plot) becomemore unconvincing as the film progresses, culminating in averitable directors mess of an (anti) climax.5.5/10

Although Turner, Douglas and DeVito return together to make the sequel toRomancing the Stone, the movie falls short. The action scenes and some ofthe comedy is just as good as in Romancing the Stone, but, unlike thepassion and true grit that the original had to offer, Jewel of the Nilemisses it. Trying to be the roller coaster ride that the first film offeredthe audience, many of the scenes are force feed to the audience to wow themor to make them laugh and the bland comedy. DeVito is funnier than ever butfalls short. Douglas and Turner are typical together but do not have thepassion which they has in Romancing the Stone. Much of the setting is desertand not romantic. As oppose to the jungles of South America, at leastRomancing the Stone added moments of thrills and chills as Jewel of the Nilegave us one chase scene after another. A decent film, but nothing great likethe first one.

Is this really the movie I liked in the 80’s. I watched it again forthe first time in years and man am I disappointed in myself. Devito,Turner, and Douglas couldn’t act their way through a trailer park newsstory, and apparently they couldn’t remember their own names becausejust about every other dialog sentence end or begins in Jack, Joan orRalph. &quo
t;Joe" the Jewel was the real saving grace of this movie, thoughI could have swore it was supposed to be Fisher Stevens. The only thingthat kept me from passing out completely from boredom was Joe’sbumbling Yoda-mystical actions and sayings and Devito spewing out thelamest one-liners in movie history "Yeah and I’m a kumquat fromQueens!" I strongly suggest watching Romancing the Stone and forgettingthis standard sequel that couldn’t, unless you have a strong desire tosee modernistic Middleeasterners rocking out to "No Shep is SafeTonight"

After seeing Romancing The Stone, I expected that, as with mostsequels, this movie would be terrible. It is not completely bad.

Although it has sections which are merely average, there are also someflashes of wit. The script has quite a few clever parts.

The finale is below average, and the plot is a bit of a joke. But ifyou can tolerate all that, this is a mildly entertaining movie.Admittedly it’s not the most highbrow movie around but you may findyourself enjoying the duologue.

I don’t have any knowledge of the making of this movie but it seems tome like there have been numerous scriptwriters working on this - somewho are clever, others who are simply filling in the gaps.

Don’t expect this to surpass the original but it is still an OK movie.If you feel like a night of mildly brainless action, watch this. Don’tbother thinking about the plot holes, just veg out.

I first got interested in this movie because of my mom. ( She used tolooooooooooooove Michael Douglas movies, until he got in Rated Rmovies.)Anyways . . . it is a fantastic movie! The humor andeverything, In this movie M.D. (Michael Douglas) is reeeaaallllly cute!Anyways I suggest you watch it unless you are really young. It evenshows a little bit of some cultures of Africa in it. I love it. Youshould see it. Danny DeVeto even is still funny. He gets sit on by adonkey!!! Hahahahaha! Great Movie! These characters in the movie areterrific! Everything is just simply terrific in this movie. I love itand I hope you will too. Also watch the first movie, Romancing theStone. As I have said already . . . fantastic movie!!!!!!

Verdict: An enjoyable sequel.

I was stunned when I've read some rather bad reviews about this movie,which was pretty good, I can tell. It was packed with action, comedyand romance. Michael Douglas, Kathleen Turner and Danny DeVito reprisetheir roles gloriously and the story is quite convincing. This and itspredecessor "Romancing the Stone" both deserve a thumbs up. I suggestyou give this sequel a try, right after watching the original.

Not as great as the first yet, despite a few corny instances (not tomention the few forgettable songs), the critics are still mostly wrongwith this one. An enjoyable romp, for a sequel.

Rating: ***1/2 out of 5.

Unlike the original, Jewel of the Nile is packed with more jokes andslapstick than it can handle. It is still enjoyable as an adventure movie,although the romance kind of a fifth wheel just filling in a few emptyminutes of screentime. Probably the best way to enjoy the movie is towatchRomancing the Stone just before watching it, and then you’d probablyunderstand it better and wouldn’t think it’s worthless.

read comments (0)

The Breakfast Club

It has been almost 20 years since I first saw this film as a 15 yearold kid in 1985. Since then I’ve developed interests in directors farmore intellectual than John Hughes. Assuredly, if I became a filmdirector I would want to cite Akira Kurosawa as a main influence asopposed to John Hughes, but like Kevin Smith, I would have to givecredit for the impact Hughes’ films had on my adolescence. He was oneof the few directors who focused on mostly teen films, though "Planes,Trains, and Automobiles" and "Natl. Lampoon’s Vacation" drew largeraudiences. Among his films about teens, "Breakfast Club" is by far thebest. It’s central characters, played by Molly Ringwald and company,represented a cross section of teenage America. In an odd way, itresembles the Turkish film "Yol" by director Yilmaz Guney which cameout in 1982, in this regard. "The Breakfast Club" fully examines theplight of these characters during the Reagan years which were difficultfor many of us who grew up then. This film may not stand up to "RebelWithout a Clause," perhaps the best teen film ever made, but itcaptures its’ generation, its’ period, and the secluded isolation whichwas teenage America in the 80s. I am not surprised it has becomepopular with teens today. It may not be "Rahsomon," but it is acrowning achievement for commerical films of this period, and its’title song "Don’t You Forget About Me" still hauntingly helps this filmcapture the loneliness and fear of rejection which always seems to loomover teeangers whichever generations hey find themselves in.

What to say about John Hughes’s film the Breakfast Club? What was hetryingto accomplish with this project? Yes, its true that he was trying to makeateen movie. But was he not also trying to make a statement about oursocietyat large? Like Edward Albe’s controversial play Zoo Story, through theBreakfast Club John Hughes is trying to make a statement about the mixingofsocial classes. However Hughes and Albe seem to go two different ways.Albeis saying that two classes can’t merge without violent contact, but Hughesis suggesting that everything turns out alright. So I applaud Hughes forhisbrilliance and his decently made film. Good job Hughes, damn goodjob.

It’s hard for me to review a classic movie like this one. Even though it’snot a perfect movie, it did an excellent job at explaining what being inhigh school is all about. I’ve been a child and a teenager in the 90’s so Inever had the chance to watch this great movie when it came out. I also hadto endure all of the painful and unrealistic teen movies and soap operas ofthe 90’s that were often set on glamorizing high school life or preaching toteenagers about serious topics such as teen pregnancy. I’m not saying thatany of these movies or TV series were bad. They just weren’t aboutteenagers. They were about models in their 20’s who acted like idiots. Orthey were written by adults in order to pass certain messages to teenagers.

What is so great about The Breakfast Club is that it brings to life manycharacters that are completely different. The "high school stereotypes" issomething that’s still present even today. The stereotypes might be a littledifferent, but after watching this movie, we realize it was this way even inthe 80’s. This is an aspect of high school life that was never discussed inmovies. As a teenager, when I first saw this movie, I immediately thoughtthat it probably helped teens in the 80’s understand their peers better. Itcan also help adults understand why teenagers can act certainways.

But this movie does not preach to us. A proof of this is that the parentsare accused for putting so much pressure on their children and making thembecome the stereotypes that they are now. In fact, all adults in this moviehave a negative image, which is something I liked. In most modern teen TVseries, there is always a teacher or a parental figure who makes theteenagers learn something. The adults are "always right". However, in reallife, it’s not necessarily like this. Parents and other adults can also be anegative influence to their children and sometimes mistreat them. JohnHughes understood that.

It wasn’t a perfect movie, of course. By example, certain scenes were sillyand over the top, and the acting wasn’t perfect. But isn’t this what madethe charm of this movie?

I would take Breakfast Club as a very enjoyable teenage movie. It mightnothave a clear point or top performances but it still retains itsentertainment value. Apart from that, since the setting is minimal and themovie is concentrated on the dialogues, there was room for far betterlines.Plenty of plot elements could be analyzed and explored deeper. It does notreally justify the forming of the bond between the kids. Moreover, whileonly scraping the surface of their problems, it tries to communicate somevague moral lesson, without having truly elaborated on itbefore.

Often regarded as something of a minor 80’s classic, The Breakfast Clubstill stands up today as a decent, and fun drama. The Breakfast Clubtells a simple story of five kids at high school being put intodetention. The premise is simple, but it’s what’s behind the premisethat’s more important to the film as we learn about the differentcharacters. This film will always be remembered for it’s casting of’the brat pack’ over it’s portrayal of teenagers coming of age, butthat’s not to say that it’s deeper side should be ignored. The way thatthe characters are presented initially is very much two dimensional -with them all fitting into set teen groups. We’ve got a nerd, a promqueen, a tearaway, a ‘jock’ and a basket case and it all seems veryconvenient that five such different people should end up in detentiontogether. However, this is how the film portrays it’s point, as itshows that the kids are more similar than their exteriors wouldsuggest, and that is explored through their innermost hopes and fears;which is actually done quite well.

The film cuts music (mainly 80’s style heavy metal) into the drama,which works at times but at other times is extremely annoying. It canbe hip and cool, but it also becomes annoying fast and this isn’t goodwhen you’re trying to watch a low concept movie that relies on it’sdialogue and characters rather than any kind of razzle-dazzle. Theacting in the movie is a mixed bag, with different actors being reallyrealistic at times, and then really out of place at other times. EmiloEstivez trying to make himself look hard being a case for the latter.The film does feature many extremely unlikely occurrences, such as ourprotagonists smoking illegal substances in a school library, and one ofthem making a trek through the school roof; but the script always keepsit afloat and it’s kept interesting by the way that the characters arevaried and different to one another. After what the film has beenbuilding for it’s duration, it fitters out with a damp squib endingthat appears to be tacked on just to make the audience feel good andit’s a real shame. Still, up until the ending the movie is a lot of funso I still give it a thumbs up.

The Breakfast Club has to be one of the dumbest and most boring moviesever made. Who can buy Jughead Nelson as a bully? He looks like a girl.Alley Seedy, Molly Ringworm, Anthony Michael (wasn’t he in Van Halen),and Emilio Sheen Estevez (Thanks to his Dad, Martin Sheen, for thisrole). What a cast of boring rich kids.

Ally Sheedy, she was what? An alcoholic? Judd Nelson was a victim ofhis Dad? Talk about unimaginative stereotypes. The Breakfast Club wasone big stereotype, down to the dork who played the Principal. Thesecharacters are two-dimensional and dated. Would five people who hatedeach other spend all day whining to each other? What kind of schoolever had Detention for more than one hour? Reform School? Of course, bythe end of the movie, the corny canned "Let’s Be Friends" ending istrotted
out for the five millionth time. Hollywood thinks movieaudiences are made up of morons, and the fact that so many people thinkthat The Breakfast Club is a classic just goes to show that Hollywoodis right about the dumb masses. Breakfast Club is the ultimateLow-Budget teen rip-off movie. Give them fake angst, whining, and blamethe parents; and teens lacking self-esteem will run to the theaters topay.

The characters are full of stereotypes - that would be okay if they werenotmeant to be realistic to begin with, but if I understand the directorcorrectly, he seriously thinks his movie portrays reality. One thing thatmade watching this movie really hard for me was the horrible stereotypicalteacher. Teachers like that man simply do not exist. No teacher is legallyallowed to treat a student the way this man treats Bender. It is terriblyexaggerated and I am getting very tired of seeing the same prejudicedtwo-dimensional teacher images in movies.

The story… well, what can I say. Very unrealistic, and the script isfullof pseudo-philosophical blaaaah. I think I kept rolling my eyes throughout3/4 of the movie. The supposedly "terrible secrets" that the studentsrevealto each other in the end seemed pretty trivial to me and left me wonderingwhy I even bothered to sit there for 1 1/2 waiting for the truth to comeout. I think if I were 15 I could relate to some of the problems thestudents talk about (isolation, insecurity) but, as I said, that is spoiltthrough the stereotypical characters. I find the typical "brain", "promqueen", "athlete" etc. boring to watch. Give us some interestingcharactersplease!

I give it a 3 out 10, because even though I really don’t like this moviewhatsoever, I was pretty impressed by the actors and actresses.

A dated movie which marginally rises above standards of writing set by"Leave It To Beaver" in the 1950s. Stiff dialog and routine performancesweigh down a film already overburdened by a weak premise. Not a memorablemovie in the least. See it if you’re interested in a period piece but beprepared to be disappointed.

At best, this is an average film. Stereotypes abound, the charactersaren’tdeveloped at all, and the lack of a plot really shows. (Some movies thatdon’t have plots (e.g. Ferris Bueller’s Day Off) pull it off very well bybeing funny/entertaining. BFC doesn’t succeed.)

It does have highlights (such as Judd Nelson being locked in a closet),butotherwise it drags on to a predictable conclusion.

I was hoping that The Breakfast Club would be just as good as SixteenCandles, or even better, considering both films were done by JohnHughes-but it wasn’t. Although the characters do reveal many socialissues in teenage life, the plot itself dragged on, all inside of onelibrary for the majority of the movie. I found myself attempting tochange the channel several times but decided to see if any jolts wouldoccur. I finally gave up on the movie after watching about 75% of it. Iwas very disappointed with this film, considering it had such a greatcast. If you are a fan of Saturday detention drama, then this is agreat film for you!

read comments (0)

Tampopo

Movies about other movies both fascinate and challenge me. The French"new wave" consisted of three types of ideas. They had notions aboutexplicitly acknowledging the camera. That’s such an ordinary notionthese days that it is impossible to appreciate. And in any case, noFrench thinker invented the idea.

A second component was the importation of key stereotypes from Americanmovies applied in a "real world" context in a manner of folding fictioninto reality (with the irony that the reality itself was fictional).This is what the average critic associates with New Wave.

The third component was the most trenchant, but is nearly impossible torecognize today, much less appreciate. Society was undergoing change —not in the radical way we all thought at the time, but in a moresubtle, nuanced way: old means to accommodate damaged society werebeing replaced by new ones. Those new ones are immune to the oldchallenges and seem now like God made the world that way from thebeginning (about 3500 ago?). New wave film challenged these oldstrictures in a direct manner as its primary task. Since we can’t seethe target, we miss the point all together and (in a sad irony) takethe stories at face value.

Now into the long still tailwind enters Itami who makes a New New Wavefilm. It fits the mold in all three ways, but those three are moreclearly seen by this American viewer.

We have the acknowledgment that it is a film, what with the camerawhose presence creates the linkage among stories. And the copiousreferences to past movies. In this case the references — I’m talkingtone and style here, not story and character — include as many Asian(mostly Japanese) references as western.

We have the standard American film stereotypes. In French new wave thatwas the gangster, in Italian new wave, the cowboy. Here we have both.Film as food. Film as food. Perfect, nuanced, deep film as similarlysacred food. This even starts with a film-within prologue with thegangster talking directly to us about the intent.

Its a novel idea, doing a new new wave film and making the referencesto the nature of film being about the nature of food. To make itexplicit is a scene where older Japanese thickheads are embarrassed bya younger Japanese who is extensively familiar with the Frenchvocabulary. There’s a similar scene on the Italian side, pungentlymisogynistic.

But it is the third element that fascinates me. That element does asmuch damage to all things in Japanese society as it can, those elementsthat are arbitrary yet solid. These are a little more accessible tothis viewer than the fairly ephemeral concerns of Godard and Truffault.

Japanese in general inherit many things in their life from the Chinesegiant. All these things they differentiate from their Chinese originsby extreme elaboration. Everything becomes extremely stylized, so muchthat the most pedestrian of Chinese things can become the basis andmeaning for an entire Japanese life. Things like tea, flowers, drawing,packaging… Even a lowly bowl of soup, the soup that factory workerswould eat at a diner becomes a matter of celestial obsession.

I’m not Japanese, so these stabs don’t tingle. But I can recognizethem, most of them.

Along the way, we have — in the gangster, his moll and her idealizationas oyster and oystergirl— one or two of the most sensual cinema imagesin existence.

Ted’s Evaluation — 3 of 3: Worth watching.

This movie is rather strange and quirky. The movie begins with agangster sitting in the front row of a movie theater and being waitedon and pampered by his minions (complete with champaign and a beautifulmeal on his own little table)–all before the movie begins. He isfacing the camera and he begins addressing the audience of the movieTampopo! Then, the credits roll. That's certainly unusual, huh?! Themain story is about a rather run down noodle shop owned by a lady namedTampopo. Two truckers enter the shop and get in a fight. The nextmorning, the one trucker who got beaten up is fed by Tampopo. She askshim and the other trucker what they thought of the noodle dish she'dmade them the night before, so they reluctantly tell her it was BAD!She wants to make it better but just doesn't know where to start, soshe asks for their help. The hero of the story (the guy who got beatup) it a bit of an obsessive nut about ramen and he takes her under hiswing. Through the course of the movie, they meet various people who allagree to help her–one helps her improve her broth, one to improve hernoodles, one to remodel the restaurant, etc. All this is done with ahealthy dose of heart and a light comedic touch. Despite this ONLYbeing a noodle restaurant, it seems at times reminiscent of eitherRocky or the Magnificent Seven! Additionally, there are several smallstories that seem to randomly enter the movie from time to time. Allcenter on the theme of food and those who adore it. Particularlystrange is the same gangster who has an intense food fetish. Beforewarned parents, the scenes he has with his girlfriend are a bitgraphic. Even the end of the movie stresses this same theme as thecamera pans onto a scene of an infant happily sucking away at hismother's breast! Great acting and quirky characters you care about makethis an excellent picture.

FYI–if you want a REAAALLLY weird Japanese comedy, try Happiness ofKatakuris. It makes this movie look normal by comparison! Both areexceptional.

Normal people, bring out a bag to hurl into or better yet do NOT watchthis movie. Very disgusting scenes of foodplay sex. Other scenes justaren't very funny. Long, boring, confusing, nauseating. I've been toldthat you have to view this movie from a Japanese perspective, but eventaking cultural references and attitudes into account this movie isterribly boring. Yes, there are jokes involving bad smells. Ha,freaking, ha. There's also some attempt at Chaplinesque montage humor,but it is drawn out and, in my opinion, badly done. All in all, Tampopois a tedious movie that you might be drawn into watching because -againand again- people put it onto "Classics" lists. Just because it's old,it's not automatically great. It's like the Citizen Kane that willcause you to vomit.

Run away screaming.

This was a fun movie that saw the main characters careen from one crisis tothe next, which is somewhat typical in Japanese films, and an especiallyendearing feature of Itami’s films.

Tampopo and her masters’ quest to create the perfect ramen experience wascomic and possibly a little bit over the top even for Japanese people.However, it was also a beautiful portrait both of the sensuality of food andof Japanese culture’s attention to perfection in spheres of life thatWesterners don’t always fully appreciate.

Sure, masters of the kitchen are numerous in the West, but there isn’t quitethe society-wide respect for utter perfection in the kitchen. We get how-toprograms like Emeril and The Frugal Gourmet, but a program like "Iron Chef"that heroizes chefs had to come from Japan.

Itami’s wife, Miyamoto, who stars in many of his films, seems a dedicatedheroine as Tampopo, but it’s also interesting that Tampopo only achievessuccess by learning from the four or five various male experts who assisther. Sexism? I don’t know. I’d like to see some more of Itami’s newer filmsto see how Miyamoto portrays the heroines.

No, a Japanese comedy isn’t an oxymoron. In this one you can forget alltheswordplay of the Samurai movies, and all the tragedy of the moderndramas.This one is really funny.

The plot is skeletal. Two guys happen upon a woman named Tampopo("Dandelion") trying to manage a run-down noodle shop and they decide tohelp her turn the place into an economic and gastronomic four-diamondestablishment. They succeed. That’s the plot. The wholeplot.

But the film is fleshed out with episodes, usuall
y unrelated to oneanother,some of them as amusing as anything ever put on the screen. Every singlesidesplitting one is played and directed in a straight-facedway.

I’ll give just one example. A gangster and his beautiful moll are abouttomake love. They kiss passionately. The camera moves in for a closeup oftheir lips and we see that a raw egg is being slipped back and forthbetweenmouths. The couple progress to foreplay in the nude. The foreplayconsistsof the man slapping a clear plastic pint of live shrimp upside down onhislover’s belly. The shrimp skitter around on her flesh and she tittersandwrithes with desire. Later, alas, the young man is shot multiple timesbyrival mobsters. He’s sprawled on his back in the dirt, his white clothessoaked with blood. She rushes to him and kneels beside him, weeping. Hegoes into the cliche of the "last dying words," barely able to gasp themout. What does he tell her? That he loves her? That he regrets hisdisreputable life? No — he launches into an outrageously long storyabouthunting boars when he was a child. The boars would eat nothing but yams,when the yams were ripe. They became stuffed with yams and nothing butyams. Then when they were hunted down, the boars yielded long strings ofintestines that were packed with yams. "They were like yam sausages, yousee." I don’t think I caught the tail end of his narrative because I wasdissolved in laughter.

The whole thing revolves around food in its various forms. People risefromthe dead to cook a final meal for their grieving families. They preparethemost mouthwatering rice omelettes imaginable. Proper young ladies learnhowto eat noodles without making vulgar sounds. They do all sorts of thingswith and about food. Cuisine is to this movie what sex is to Italiancomedies.

Do not be put off by the fact that this movie has subtitles. In poormoviessubtitles are a distracting nuisance. But in this case, you’ll hardlynotice them, hardly be able to read them through the laughter.

Nothing short of brilliant!

I remember this film from the early days of UK Channel-4 TV (maybe 15 yrsago) so my recollection of the detail has become somewhat blurred.

However, do not be put of by the B&W or the subtitles; Tampopo is anatmospheric and sensual experience, bordering upon a sublime work ofart.

This is one of the funniest and most intelligent movies I’ve ever seen.Theaction centers on the quest by a cowboy-hatted truck driver named Goro tomake the down-at-the-heel Lai Lai Noodle Shop into a "3-star" ramen joint.The characters scour Japan for the perfect noodles, perfect soup recipe,andthe perfect presentation of the finished product. This movie will makeyouvery hungry, so be warned.

A fantastic movie in every sense of the word. Incredibly funny, fascinating,erotic, and touching. And the entire movie is about food. Sure there aremany important things in this world, but how do they relate to FOOD! Sex,death, birth, all the human emotions play out against noodles, eggs, soupand the really important things in life. The meat of the story is genresatire "noodle western" (you’ll understand) and the dish is spiced withvignettes that only a bizarre and lovable mind could have thought up. Thismovie is beautiful.

YUM!! One need not be a ra-men gourmet to delight in this movie. It isperfectly charming, and one of the best "feel good" films ever produced.

Juzo Itami is, roughly speaking, Japan’s Woody Allen, although he madefewerand consistently better films before his tragic death. Itami’s best film,and indeed one of the finest films ever made, Tampopo is at once a smallJapanese film and a story which is international in essence. It is aboutthat most central of substances in everyone’s life: food. It is alsoaboutyearnings and love and quests. Food in Tampopo is not merely food, it isametaphor for most other things in life, and it is a link between them aswell. Tampopo is screamingly funny, whether seen in its original Japaneseor through the (occasionally hard to read) English subtitles. Tampopo isalso truly witty, moving, and filled with moments of pathos. No one whosees it can do so without being impressed by all its aspects, and desiringatrip to both Japan and the nearest udon shop.

‘The Wedding Banquet’ and ‘Eat, Drink, Man, Woman’ give every sense ofhaving been influenced by Tampopo; as excellent as they are, Tampopo istheone to see first.

read comments (0)

Summer Rental

The type of movie you can watch once a year and never get tired of.TypicalJohn Candy film. Why did he always get mediocre scripts, save the JohnHughes films? Was Hughes the only director who saw his talent? Either way,Candy rises above the material and makes the film fun to watch, but notnecessarily a great film by any means. Great line regarding "The Smurfs."

3/5 stars -

John Ulmer

I thoroughly enjoy watching this movie every time they show it on ComedyCentral or USA or TNT. This movie is classic John Candy all the way.Candyhas scenes, no matter how many I times I watch, that make me laugh sohard Ifall from my chair. Like when he kicks all the people out of his housewielding a crutch. Sure the story may be weak and a little corny with thewhole boat race but it ranks up there among my favorites.

It has some other memorable moments including Rip Torn’s character ofScully. My of my favorite parts is when he is teaching Jack (played byCandy) to sail. They are on the boat late at night and they are bothdrunk.Scully announces to jack, "Here’s and little ditty me mother used tosingto me", at which point he breaks into "The Theme from Love Boat" and Jackjoins in with him. And then there is the scenes between Scully and Anguswhen Scully refers to Angus as a "dumb Swede" even though he is aScot.

It is a good rainy day rental.

The 1980s saw a glut of disaster-vacation comedies – "NationalLampoon's Vacation", "National Lampoon's European Vacation", "The GreatOutdoors" and "Summer Rental" are just four that spring to mind. Acommon factor between most of these films is that many of them featureJohn Candy. He had just a short cameo in "National Lampoon's Vacation",and had to share the comic honours with Dan Akroyd in "The GreatOutdoors"…. but "Summer Rental" is very much a starring vehicle for bigJohn, and he is the best thing about this otherwise very obvious andpredictable beachfront farce.

Overworked air traffic controller Jack Chester (John Candy) is orderedby his superiors to take a little time off after losing his nerve oneday at work. Jack takes the opportunity to travel down to Florida for asummer vacation with his family – beautiful wife Sandy (Karen Austin),blossoming daughter Jennifer (Kerri Green), cheeky son Bobby (JoeyLawrence) and toddler Laurie (Aubrey Jene). Almost from the moment theyarrive the vacation is a catalogue of disasters. Jack falls asleep onthe beachfront and gets heavily sunburnt; the holiday home they thinkthey've rented turns out to belong to someone else and they findthemselves in a run-down shack instead; Jennifer starts getting alittle too friendly with the local lifeguards; etc. etc. Jack alsocrosses swords with local playboy Al Pellet (Richard Crenna), littlesuspecting that Pellet actually owns the holiday home in which hisfamily is staying. When Pellet orders the family to leave they aredevastated, but Jack comes up with the idea of challenging Pellet bybetting that he can defeat him in the annual sailing regatta. Problemis that Jack doesn't even have a boat, but he solves this by persuadinglocal restaurateur Scully (Rip Torn) to convert his floating restaurantso that it can be used in the race!

This is Candy's film and he comes across affably as the parent whosedetermination to please his family usually ends in disaster. Austin isvery attractive as his wife (surprising that she never went on to enjoymuch of a career), while Crenna has obvious fun as the obnoxiousplayboy. Torn rounds off the principal players in a typically hammy butoccasionally amusing role as a one-handed, piratical restaurant owner."Summer Rental" loses marks in the script and story department becauseit's so thin and obvious. We've seen variations on this basic concepttime and again, and the writers (Jeremy Stevens and Mark Reisman) anddirector (Carl Reiner) make no attempts to freshen up the familiarmaterial. Also, the film's contrived climax is so improbable andsentimental that it provokes more groans than smiles. At least "SummerRental" is a short film, so even when it slips into its periodicmawkishness it never really outstays its welcome. It's one of thosefilms that you'll watch, you smile at from time to time, and thenyou'll forget.

John Candy’s wit and humor shines through as Jack Chester, the over workedair traffic controller who reluctantly takes a vacation to the beach withhis family. The laughs keep coming as Jack and his family spend thesummerat the beach with many mishaps occurring throughout the movie. The movieisabout family and new friends pulling together, working side by side,believing in a dream and achieving an impossible goal. We’ve watched thismovie many times, but we still laugh and feel good when the movie ends.Thestanding joke at our home, when we eat dinner out at a restaurant thatpasses off breaded fish as an expensive seafood item with a fancy name, is"Look - it’s Scully’s Catch of the day"! This movie is good, clean,familyfun - entertainment for the entire family!

Though this film could easily be classified as a slob comedy, similarto so many that were made during that time, and Candy was prolific asan actor in many of those films, there’s one moment in this film whereit rises high above the typical slob comedies of it’s era. John Candyis despondent about his chances in a yacht race, and tells his daughter"You can’t win them all". Daughter responds, "But winning one would benice, huh Dad?". Candy responds with perfect timing "Yes, (perfectpause) winning one would be nice". At this moment in the film you feelall the pain ever felt by anyone who ever wanted to win just one timeand show the world they could. He knows his limits and accepts them,but this one time wants to rise above them and prove his worth.

Candy is an overstressed air traffic controller who takes an enforcedvacation with his family, and has a summer of things go wrong. Thefilmmakers resisted the temptation to engage in an overly cute family,and just allowed the actors to play a fairly typical family. Candy, whorarely played a family man, handles the role very well, bringing arealism to the role of the father. Though not on anyone’s Oscar list,this movie is worth the time it takes to see it.

This is one movie that shows how your summer vacation all goes wrong. JohnCandy plays Jack Chester, an over-worked man who decides to bring his familyon vacation…and fails miserably. Instead of bringing them on vacation, heleads them strait to the gates of hell. Through several acts of trying to dogood, Jack only makes things worse for himself. This movie was one of thebest movies of John Candy’s career. There was no over-acting and no artsystuff. Just a good old fashioned comedy. Just how they should be. This is anold fashioned romp of a good belly laughing comedy. See it, if you are aCandy fan. See it anyway, even if you aren’t. SUMMER RENTAL is one of thebest comedies that John Candy ever did. 5/5.

For most of his career, John Candy played a bunch of rather silly rolesthat - while they were completely goofy - were great nevertheless."Summer Rental" is one such role. Candy plays overworked air trafficcontroller Jack Chester, who takes his family on vacation in Florida.Naturally, it ends up being not as much of a vacation as they hoped.Finally, Jack and his family decide to take one last chance to restoretheir dignity.

I will admit that "Summer Rental" is pretty much a big excuse to besilly, but you gotta love it. This is John Candy doing what he doesbest. It’s really too bad that he died; he really had a good trackrecord.

The late, great John Candy does well as stressed-out air traffic controllerJack Chester, who’s a
ctually ORDERED to go on a vacation. He and his family(Karen Austin, Kerri Green, Joey Lawrence, Aubrey Jene) travel to Floridaand rent a home for the summer, where obligatory misadventures take place. Jack also butts heads with obnoxious, snot-nosed local moneybags Al Pellet(Richard Crenna) and seeks to take the rich guy down a peg ortwo.

"Summer Rental" is for me good comedy entertainment that is likable anddown-to-earth. It doesn’t get too silly, or over-the-top, and thecharacters are actually realistic. Candy is, in the film, just as funny andnaturally endearing as he ever was. Even Crenna does a good turn, playingfor laughs the same kind of role he was supposed to have played in theprevious year’s "The Flamingo Kid". Candy’s children are actually likableand are not portrayed as stereotypically wisecracking little know-it-alls. Rip Torn gets into the act, too, hamming it up (but not unbearably so) ascrusty local restaurant owner Scully.

I really like "Summer Rental"; I have seen it before and still laugh at itquite a bit. It’s quite possibly one of Candy’s best vehicles.There’s not really a lot of plot, but that doesn’t mean that the writing isnecessarily BAD. In fact, some of those lines were good.

I even liked that song "Turning Around" by Jimmy Buffett (played once in amontage, and then again over the closing credits).

8/10

"Summer Rental" is a very pleasant comedy vehicle from director Carl Reinerand star John Candy. Candy stars as Jack Chester, an air traffic controllerunder alot of stress. His boss tells him he needs some time off from hisjob. So he packs up his family and heads for Florida hoping to have the timeof their lives. But it doesn’t go exactly that way, especially for Candy. Heexperiences about as much stress vacationing as he does at work. Thefunniest part of "Summer Rental" is the opening 5 minutes, with Candyexhibiting the kind of stress that causes his superiors to suggest avacation. This part is a riot, and the movie is very funny for the firsthalf. The film loses a little of its comic edge in the second half, whenCandy takes up sailing and tries to win a bet against one of the locals, anobnoxious yachtsman played gamely by Richard Crenna. The second half stillhas some funny moments, but not as much as in the first half. Still, "SummerRental" is a nice little movie, with the late John Candy giving one of hisbetter leading performances. Karen Austin is very good as Candy’s supportivewife Sandy; a very young Joey Lawrence (several years before "Blossom", backwhen he was starring on Nell Carter’s ’80s sitcom "Gimme A Break!") shinesas Candy’s son Bobby; Rip Torn is somewhat amusing as Scully, owner of alocal restaurant on a boat who becomes Candy’s good friend; and "NightCourt’s" John Larroquette also makes an appearence in a bit part. "SummerRental" is one of director Reiner’s better films, and it gets to show offCandy’s considerable comic talents that are sorely missedtoday.

*** (out of four)

This movie is from a time that I sorely miss. It is about having a goodtime, and nothing else. There’s no violence, no crude sexual comedy, justthe legendary John Candy doing what he did best. Given, the music andclothing are extremely dated, but this is without a doubt the best feelgoodlighthearted movie I’ve ever seen. All of the characters come togetherperfectly to tell us the tale of Jack Chester. One of the most memorable isScully, the sailor/pirate. To this day, I see Scully whenever I see RipTorn in any movie. This story just makes me feel good for days after I seeit. John Candy is surely one of the best comics of the past 30 years,pulling this move together.

read comments (0)

Remo Williams: The Adventure Begins

Remo - unarmed and dangerous is a pretty good action film (I gave it 6).Thebest thing is Remo’s martial arts teacher, who is the best teacher sinceMr.Miyagi from Karate Kid.

It’s not a must see, but if you get the chance, I definetely think it’sworth the while.

Remo Williams: The Adventure Begins (1985) was one of the many filmsthat tried to actually launch a series of sequels before the results ofthe box office receipts were in. The producers were so sure that RemoWilliams part one would be so successful that they would produce aseries of films based upon the title character. Another example ofcounting your cash before it arrives in your hand. I was glad for onethat this film didn’t take off the ground. But that didn’t stop theproducers from trying to force the FOX Network to create a series ofmade-for-t.v.-movies based upon the DESTROYER novels.

Fred Ward (American defined!!) stars as a lazy and sloppy cop who’sdeclared legally dead after a botched arrest. Fred is given theidentity of Remo Williams and becomes a reluctant federal super cop.Remo doesn’t like his name or the dangerous assignment of becoming asecret agent. How does Remo adjust to his new life? Why did thegovernment choose a sloppy, sloven and dirty cop to become America’slast hope in case of a national emergency? Is that really a Jewish dudeacting like a Korean martial arts master?? To find out you’ll just haveto watch REMO WILLIAMS: THE ADVENTURE BEGINS and you’ll find out whythere were no more follow up movies. Very mediocre and badly dated.

Not recommended (but Fred Ward is one cool cat).

I´m shocked at the low rating of this movie. It is obviously a brilliantmovie far better than the James Bond films. FAR FAR better.

It is just so funny and brilliant - and life-confirming. I loved it. Loveit! Love it! Love it! You have to run very fast!

"Remo Williams" is a bizarre, confused, meandering, low-budget little ’80saction outing that is not entirely without its charm. I believe the maindraw is intended to be Joel Grey as a serene, soap-opera-loving, Yoda-likeKorean sensei. Yes, Korean. Joel Grey. Don’t dig too deephere.

He teaches Fred Ward (I loved "Tremors," so I’m not going to bash poor Fred)to kill people with his fingers (which I don’t think he actually ever does)and overcome his fear of heights and run across wet cement and dive intosand dunes (these things he DOES do, I can promise you!) and whatever…didI mention all of this somehow helps the US government deal with the problemof corner-cutting defense contractors? And that Captain Janeway is in it asa chatty military do-gooder, with a hinted romantic subplot with Ward thatnever surfaces? And that something happens with a log on azipline?

All in all, it’s not offensively bad, but you have to wonder how movies likethis get dug up and thrown on DVD. (Here’s a warning sign: when a DVDrelease has the "Original Theatrical Trailer!" as the only special feature,it’s probably not a must-see.)

If you've seen a kung fu movie, you've seen it all. The idea ofapprehending criminals who are high in business and government is goodstory matter. But in this film, that's where it starts and ends. Themovie just stretches reality to the point where it snaps. Constructionworkers are instant assassins. Sensitive laboratories have gangsterswalking in and out. CEO's are firing .50 caliber machine guns. Pleasedo NOT try dodging bullets at home. This is done by trainedprofessionals.The best actors in the whole 'story' are the demeans. A 9year old kid would be disappointed with this movie. Earth vs. theFlying Saucers is more down to Earth. Come to think of it, the RoadRunner and Coyote has more realism.

Obviously the director needed to be informed of the series. This palepieceof a screenwriter’s attempt at converting the powerful series to filmleftmuch to be desired.

Joel Grey portrays the Master of Sinanju, Chiun with perfection (how elsecould he be portrayed?) and Fred Ward does an admirable job at playingRemo,but the cast is restricted by a screenplay that doesn’t have a realvillain.This guy wouldn’t last one chapter in a real Destroyerseries.

If they would have added a bit of science fiction to the movie, addingTheMatrix bullet dodging and involved a REAL villain (Nuihc or TheDutchman),this would have been the summer hit of 1985.

Bored? Raining outside? Got some friends over and want a fun movie to popin the VCR while you sit around ant eat nachos? Try thisone.

OK, it’s not a deep film, it’s a bit uneven, and the dialogue is sometimesabit forced. But who cares? Fred Ward as Remo and Joel Grey as the Korean(!) master are very likeable (their scenes together are very funny), thereare some good action scenes, and Kate Mulgrew, out of place as she seems inthis movie, isn’t nearly as annoying as Kate Capshaw was in "Indiana Jonesand the Temple of Doom."

"Citizen Kane" it ain’t, but if you just want to be entertained, this moviewill fit the bill, and then some.

Just watched this one last night on MAX or HBO (where the on-screen guidelisted it with three stars) and wasn’t disappointed. It has good action andgood humor but although the story line is remarkably similar — it ain’tMenIn Black.Action fans will not be disappointed unless you just like pyrotechnicexplosions. It has more in common with Karate Kid than MIB. Action fansenjoy but don’t expect anything too serious and you won’t be disappointedbecause the dry wit humor of this flick really softens the blows. Not amust-see film in my book. A very 80’s film.

I saw this film at a double feature with "F/X" and I admit that I reallyloved it. Joel Grey portrayed Chiun as well as I could have hoped, and FredWard gave a great New Yorker performance as Remo. The elements were allthere, the humor was definitely there, and the action wasfun.

So what was wrong with it? Why did it never become a hit? Well, a bunch ofreasons …

Fred Ward, as good as he is, was too old to play Remo, and it shows. Henever really carries off the strength and energy that the literary Remo had,and he doesn’t carry off any of the angst that Remo has being a normal guywhisked out of his life into becoming a secret weapon of the country. Thiswas a missed opportunity.

Then, there’s the villain. He’s just not evil enough. He’s the Evil Lite,the Diet Evil, the … you get the idea. He’s rather ordinary. I realizethat was essential to illustrating that Remo was battling enemies of thecountry’s interests, but it was not good for a big screen movie. In fact,the plot was better suited for a TV series.

The Remo and Chiun of the Destroyer series were far more brutal and thoroughthan the characters in this movie, but that’s fine. Guy Hamilton wasobviously going for tongue-in-cheek humor here. I was just annoyed that thismovie never spawned any sequels (not counting the pilot television show withRoddy McDowall as Chiun and based on an actual story written by the authorsof the novels).

The New York cop is great. Definitely one of the better laughs in thefilm.

It is a mystery why this film didn't take off at the Box Office; itquite handily captures the tongue in cheek essence that makes theDESTROYER series so much more interesting than most pulp fictionseries.

Fred Ward is an excellent choice to portray Remo Williams. Only sorepoint is the old Hollywood stand-by of casting a white guy as an Asianunder a half pound of make-up; not that Joel Grey delivers a badperformance; he is as talented and up to the job as Fred Ward…it'sjust an unfortunate tendency. Imagine what the delightful andcriminally under-used VICTOR WONG could have done in the samerole…and you see what I mean. Spread the love around…

read comments (0)

My Beautiful Laundrette

I thought this movie was absolutely horrible - nominated for an Oscar,yo must seriously be joking! I saw this at my school, learning aboutrealism-film and i've watched it twice and I still don't get it. Ithought it was weird how all of the sudden the main-character andJohnny just start making out, it had nothing to do with the film, whydid it have to be in there - it just doesn't make sense! I will agreethat it definitely shows the racial-differences in England, and itshows a change in culture and the class-systems, but if you would havelet the guys stay away from each other, the meaning of the movie wouldhave come across so much better! Im not saying if have anything againstthem kissing - it just confused the whole point of the movie! Sorry -but that's my opinion.

This film had been sitting in our DVD collection for years before iwatched it. now i regret doing so! the most boring hour and half of mylife. The story line was pointless, the acting was appalling and somebits of the film were just so unnecessary. The whole film felt like itwas written for a school play by students who haven't got a choice butwant to be taken as a more "mature" acting (this is relevant to thecontext of the storyline) There was no intimacy between any of thecharacters and i don't understand how they suddenly went from oldschool friends to taking their clothes off. And the fight scene rightat the end just topped it off. almost felt like a playground fight withother children just watching, shouting encouragement to the twofighting.

I would avoid purchasing and watching this film because its just soawful.

"My Beautiful Laundrette" is a dramady involving a group of Pakastanis inEngland, some local hoodlums, and a laundromat. The story is about onePakistani man (Warnecke) and a long time Englishman friend (Day-Lewis) whoboth live on the wrong side of the tracks as they grope for success in thelaundromat business while coping with the usual culture clashing, oldschoolethnic adult attitudes, their gayness, etc. The film has little to faultbutmost, especially Americans not into foreign films, will find it a bittedious and far afield. Recommended for Bollywood film fans and othersintoforeign flix with a mid-Eastern flavor. (B-)

This movie in my opinion wasn’t really all that It didn’t have a singlething which grabbed my attention, the characters seemed to be deviod ofalllife and purpose for some reason and if it wasn’t for the gay sub plottheni would have lost interest in this movie along time ago.

This movie just doesn’t have anything worth watching in it, at times ijustthought it was plain baffling and at other times i couldn’t understandwhatthe hell was happening! Its soo confusing! All in all, my personal opinionis that i’ve seen much better plain and simple.

I like this movie very much, even if I don’t know anything about Britishpolitics, the class struggle or how to run a business. I don’t even knowwhat the characters are talking about half the time, but its obvious thatthey know, so it doesn’t matter. And for once its nice to see a gayrelationship as part of the movie rather than the reason for the movie.

Many consider "My Beautiful Laundrette" to be a classic. Now that I’veseen it for myself, I cannot say the same. Sure, Stephen Frears is anincredibly talented director, Daniel Day-Lewis gives a goodperformance, and the script mildly clever. But the film simply does nothold interest. This is mainly due to the editing, which has anunfortunate air of laziness.

The film tries to be a drama, a comedy, and a romance. It is not whollysuccessful in any of these attempts. If you are a fan of DanielDay-Lewis or interested in homosexual romances, you will probably wantto check out this film, but I wouldn’t recommend this to anyone else.

6.4 out of 10

It’s probably best to confess I’ve never really enjoyed either HanifKureishi or Stephen Frears’ work, so their 1985 collaboration "MyBeautiful Laundrette" was going to have to buck a trend. That said,apart from its considerable reputation as an indie classic of itsdecade, it deals with such big issues that it can scarcely be ignored.It also has the undeniable fascination of a time capsule. Set in thecultural melting pot that was South London in Thatcher’s Britain, themovie riffs on themes of race, class, sexuality, family, wealth andpoverty, urban decay and regeneration. It stars Gordon Warnecke asOmar, an ambitious young Pakistani Briton, whose rich uncle (SaeedJaffrey) hands him the opportunity to manage a decrepit laundromat.Omar seeks out childhood friend Johnny (Daniel Day-Lewis) to help himwhip the joint into shape. Johnny has become a racist thug who hangsout with some very dodgy friends, but he seems genuine enough in hiswish to grow up and move on, and his fondness for ‘Omo’ seems sincere,also. Together, they find some novel and somewhat dangerous ways toraise extra cash, and they also become lovers.

Frears adopts a magical-realist approach, meaning that the South Londonscene is depicted with grimy immediacy, yet key episodes are played outwith a heightened sense of drama, comedy, and, especially, fantasy.Omar and Johnny’s relationship is portrayed with surprising tenderness,but everything that goes on around them struck me as unconvincing andeven laughable (check out Johnny’s rent-a-thug cronies, for example).The screenplay is laboriously self-conscious and literary, andKureishi’s dialogue sounds like nothing you’ll have ever heard in reallife, the characters talking mostly in soundbites, slogans andportentous statements. At times, it’s like listening to a lecture onthe socio-political geography of urban Britain in the 1980s, when amore natural story consisting of real individuals trying to get on withtheir lives would have revealed far more succinctly what it wasactually like. The characters here seem like cyphers, mere symbols ofthe ideas swimming around in Kureishi’s head. It doesn’t help that theacting is so poor, almost across the board. Warnecke is simply notcapable of carrying a movie like this, and even the supremely giftedDay-Lewis, here on the verge of major stardom, flounders at times.Still, the only time the film is remotely energising is when the latteris on screen. With his distinctive blond quiff shaped in the NewRomantic style of the era, you’ll remember the terse, teasing,insouciant Johnny long after you’ve forgotten the rest of thisamateurish and dated effort.

I’d been keen to watch this since seeing Frears’ lovely ‘Dirty PrettyThings’ but this was a big letdown. The scenario is a fascinating one,andKureishi is an important playwright, but this text could seriously havedonewith adapting for the screen. The dialogue is absurdly unrealistic andstilted, I’m sure it would work on stage but it just doesn’t work on film.The leading performances are terrible, even from Daniel Day Lewis. SaeedJaffrey and Roshan Seth redeem the performances but at times thedeliberateambiguity of the dialogue leaves you fuming at the lack ofcongruence.

4/10

this is a poorly directed, written, and edited film. Still, it could havebeen saved with a strong performance for the role of Omar. Instead, it isimpossible to tell whether capitalism has corrupted Omar or if he hasbattled it. The movie jumps into pivotal crises (like when Omar isreunitedwith Johnny, whose friends are ‘attacking’ Omar’s car) and glosses overpotential powerful interactions (like the closing conversation betweenOmar’s father and Uncle.The whole thing left me with a very disappointed feeling, especially sinceit did not suffer from trying to tackle too much (such as a film likeHigherLearning or Boyz in the Hood, both of which get bogged down by subjectmatter). Instead, the artists responsible end up making themselves looklikedoltish film students who just happen to have daniel day lewis at
theirdisposal…

It never was supposed to be the cultmovie it is now, but "My BeautifulLaundrette" was originally a film directed for TV. You know being shown onsome Saturdayevening and then to dissapear in the nothing, but it launchedthe success of both Stephen Frears and Daniel Day-Lewis (whose stardomwouldbe completed in "The unbearable lightness of being".For this movie you have to go back into the 80’s (just look at Lewishilarious haircut that will remind you of 80’s popicon Limahl fromKajagoogoo) and of course you are forced with Thatcherism. It was a hardtime for the social classes back then and apart from poverty there werethetwo phobias Britain was facing (homosexualism…remember it was in thedaysAIDS was seen as the punishment for the gays…and the rise of theNationalFront, the fascist party of Britain). Frears gave a sort of starting shootfor British directors to leave the path of the British comedy or Victoriantales… Just telling the problems like they were and with this Frearsdirected a very vivid cinema. Even if the problems are big (from heroinetoupbeating innocent immigrants) Frears always keep the smile alive and heisjust giving his message without preaching. You know where the problem liesbut how the viewer react to it is his business only.To tell the story in a short way (impossible though). Daniel Day Lewis whoused to wander the streets with his fascist mates meet Omar, a Pakistanianimmigrant who is supposed to study at the uni but due to his uncle (a manwho is earning money in his way) but ends up working for him as he istotally blinded by the good lifestyle of his uncle. Lewis who cant find ajob decides to team up with Omar and working on their dream…the mostmodern laundrette in town! Working for immigrants not only distracts himfrom his fascist friends but it is getting worser when Lewis falls in lovewith his collegue… The love between gays is never criticised (not evenbyOmar’s family, we never see the family of Johnny) but during the wholemoviewe see that the love of the two is seen with eyes that don’t understand.

As said tons of other movies would end up in dramas or preaching movies(with the usually happy end) but Frears directs it in a sober view, justlike he is directing some documentary in where all feelings are lost.LaterFrears directed some other great movies (The Hit, Prick Up Your Ears, TheSnapper) till he was taken by the Hollywoodbrigade at where he ended up asavery mediocre director. A shame as we know, so enjoy the movie thatstartedit all. Good story, good directing, good playing….a big7!

read comments (0)

Out of Africa

Ok fine. Now I can stand to watch good performances. Streep and Redfordare good actors in this film, but I found myself really disinterested in this picture. It was boring, and aside from thegreat cinematography (which made me think I was watching National Geographic rather than a movie), and some good scenes, itwas not an enjoyable movie overall. Some things were done well. Case inpoint was the shooting of the lions, and THe duchesse’s little coffee chatwith the young woman. However some scenes are also ridiculous. I couldn’tbuy that Streep and Redford could have table picnic dinners on and on withwine in the ruggedness of Africa just so they could create a passion betweentheir characters.

<<SPOILER>>Also I KNEW the moment Redford said he’d be back for her, he’d die. Andthen when she is told, what is her reaction??? pretty lame I’dsay.<<END SPOILER>>

The story is uninteresting, and I just couldn’t keep myself captivated eventhough the fact she got syphillis and it added a little something more to her character, it still didn’thelp.

Marginal

Rating 5 out of 10.

OK this film is not bad and not as boring as far as 160 minute films geteither, but still I cannot get what many people like about this one somuch.The acting is OK (nothing Oscar worthy here) and so is everything else. Thething that struck me most though is that this is a real life story. Wellanyways, I won’t bore you no more now, my verdict is:

6 out of 10

Out Of Africa details Karen Blixen’s travels and residency in deepestdarkest Africa during the first part of the 19th century, After takingthe train to the station to meet her fiancée, just to have him NOT meether, but a chauffeur, I’m guessing that could me a sign. Anyways hefiancée is a bit of a free-loader, using Blixen’s money to fund hisfarming exploits, (even he’s shafty on those details, saying they’regoing to grow cultivate coffee when it was previously agreed they weregoing to raise cattle). He also has a habit of going off huntingwithout telling her). So ultimately she’s got a lot of time by herself,and of course that’s where Denys, the mysterious Safari leader comesin. After saving her from being Lion chow, he becomes somewhat of apermanent fixture of the Blixen household.

There’s no doubt that Meryl Streep, playing Blixen, and Redford,playing Denys have gonzo chemistry with each other, but the story oftendrags along, and it doesn’t help that it’s nearly three hours long.With it’s high class British hokum going back and forth, the wholething almost gets boring in some places. So yeah, being it being a bestPicture Oscar and all, I somewhat had high expectations for this one,only to wind up somewhat disappointed.

Good god, what a boring pointless movie, I cant believeit won best picture, there were plenty other movies I canthink of from 1985 that were 100x better than this, suchas Witness, Back To The Future, and many more. There isoneredeeming fact about the movie that may actually get metowatch it again, THE SCENERY, it was great, probubly thebestIve seen in a movie. But everything else is just a pile of

cow dung. And as for Meryl Streep, I really love her asanactress and she was wonderful in Silkwood, and The DeerHunter,but she was wasted in this. If you want to see a wonderful

performance by Meryl Streep in a very enjoyable movie, rent

Silkwood. 3 out of 10

Beautifully photographed but dramatically stillborn, there are somecreature comforts to be found in Sydney Pollack's adaptation of Danishbaroness Karen Blixen's (Streep) starry-eyed memoirs of Africa.Unfortunately, few take form in the blankly written love affairconjured between Hemingwayesque man of action Hatton (Redford) andBlixen. Conceived as an intimate love story amidst the savannah sprawlof her adopted home, the film takes flight in its wide-angledobservations of exotic flora and fauna, given a memorably soft,nostalgic glow by DP David Watkin, which mirrors the obvious affectionBlixen has for the country. But by the third or fourth instance ofStreep's fawning voice-over ruining yet another glorious landscapecomposition—buoyed by a fine John Barry score—I found myself pawing ata box of Franzia. And there were still well over two hours left to go.

A film that requires very little extrapolation in reasoning, Out ofAfrica is a film that, before the projector fires up and the disc evengoes in the drive, lends itself quite accurately to snap judgments.What it looks like, it is. It is Oscar bait, pure and simple; the kindof movie Oscar voters LOVE (I have proof, considering it won BestPicture). A weepy, epic-length soap-opera melodrama, set in an exoticplace in a bygone era, featuring a couple beautiful superstars andposited in front of a famous moment in history. Look at its IMDb page.Read the back of the box. What does it sound like to you? That'sexactly what it is. I can't fathom the film surprising anyone. If itsounds like a good emotional love story, it should deliver for you. Ifit sounds like lame, predictable Oscar bait, trust me, it will be foryou. Streep has a sketchy accent and Robert Redford is as British asCharlton Heston is Mexican, and has as much success as ol' Chuck did(if I hadn't read that Redford was supposed to be British, I don'tthink I would ever have noticed). Blah, I'm not a fan, and althoughthis wasn't as painfully empty as, say, Doctor Zhivago, it's definitelysomething that I wouldn't have actually had to watch to approximate theexperience, and it's something I don't plan to ever see again.

{Grade: 5.5/10 (C+/C) / #22 (of 24) of 1985}

I found I cared little for the fate of these people. They all seemed ratherdespicable. Why lionize any of them? I guess if you are completely ruledby your emotions than this is a good movie because there are three peopleyou can relate with. The movie would have been better if periodicallythroughout the movie the doctor told Karen she had another socialdisease.

P.S. Anytime you see a guy washing a girl’s hair in the movies you know itis a "chic flick."

Of all films that have won an Academy award for Best Picture this is by farthe worst choice the academy made.I say this having seen every Academy awardwinner of the last sixty-five years. The film is a bore. Slow andstultifying, pretentious. Pollock is a fine director but this filmn tried tobe artsy from a book that was hard to pick up rather than hard to putdown.

Robert Redford is miscast as a British adventurer in Africa wooingmarried Danish writer Meryl Streep. Busy, overlong romanticopus/travelogue based upon the life of Karen Blixen is really just anexcuse to get these two beautiful stars together on-screen, andcertainly their combined chemistry makes several scenes quitememorable. Streep flourishes in this extravagant role, and Klaus MariaBrandauer is excellent as her rather hapless husband, but directorSydney Pollack allows his pacing to plod, and wooden Redford neverlivens up. It apparently impressed the Academy, winning Oscars forPollack, Karl Luedtke for his screenplay adaptation, David Watkin forhis admittedly lovely cinematography, Best Art Direction-SetDecoration, Best Sound, John Barry for his score, and for Best Picture.** from ****

One of the worst movies that won the Best Picture Oscar. It's however,perfect bait for movie snobs: beautiful photography, art direction,dramatic acting, etc. Time proved another Oscar nominee, Spielberg's"The Color Purple" was more deserving of the award. 1985's best moviehowever is not questionable: One of the best American comedies inhistory, "Back to the Future", which was seen as just another sci-fisummer blockbuster at the time but decades later is vindicated andconsidered a classic. Oscar
has many films like "Out of Africa",beautiful and competent, but ultimately fail to connect with anon-snobbish audience. Some of the Oscar winners I've seen that deserveto be with this movie are "The English Patient", "Ordinary People" and"Shakespeare in Love". No one is going to dispute classics like"Fargo", "The Empire Strikes Back" and "Saving Private Ryan" are notmore beloved by audiences. When it comes to quality, trust the peopleand not the Academy.

read comments (0)