mvanhoore

What's wrong with a director who cast himself in nearly every film he made? Nothing if your name is or was Charles Chaplin, Clint Eastwood or Gene Kelly. But in case of Woody Allen there's definitely a problem. He always cast himself in a role of a character he wishes to be. In Mighty Aphrodite he plays a sport journalist married with a pretty wife (Helena Bonham Carter) who is a designer. For sure it's a frustration for Allen to be born in a body that is anything but athletic and it's clear that he imagined this character to compensate for his physical shortcomings. A role as a real sportsman would be totally unbelievable so let's make it a sport journalist! At one day Lenny (Allen) en Amanda (Bonham Carter) decides to adopt a baby, or in fact Amanda takes the decision. After a couple of years their marriage is in trouble and Lenny starts a search for the biological mother of the toddler. As a viewer you're not sure what the reason is. He suspects Amanda of cheating on him so maybe he is looking for revenge or to raise his son with the woman he's looking for. Or it is just his midlife crisis. After some research he finds out that the mother of his adopted son is a hooker and porn star by the name of Linda Ash who also lives in New York. He approaches her as a customer but instead of having sex with her he tries to talk her into a more decent life. Of course Linda is very wary about Lenny's approach after the experiences she has with men but he succeed to win her trust and actually gets her out of her job and into a hairdresser training. In fact he is so concerned about her welfare that he tries to find her a decent man. Then it all goes wrong: he thinks he's right about the cheating of his wife and the man he thinks is a very good husband for Linda finds out about her porn career.

When both Lenny and Linda are at a low point in their lives they found comfort in each other and even end up in bed. But Lenny returns to Amanda who also decides that the lover who is after her isn't worth the end of her marriage.

So not only gives Allen himself a role very close to something athletic he also give himself a marriage to the beautiful Bonham Carter and a good night with Mira Sorvino who plays Linda Ash. Not total unbelievable wasn't it for the fact that he portrays Lenny as a total neurotic and klutz. For a person who has a very social job and has a marriage which give him a lot of contacts in the art scene his clumsiness is far overdone. The scene where he first enters the apartment of Linda is so shamefully bad acted that it is painful to watch. Just like the scene where he tries to convince the pimp to keep his hands of Linda.

Not to say that this is a bad movie. Allen good be quite funny here and he brings a brilliant idea to the script. An antic Greek choir which (with the assistance of some of the Greek gods) give comment on the story and the characters and on some occasions try to interrupt and talk Lenny out of his plans. This idea give the film a light tone against the neurotic acting by Allen and the heavy themes like abortion, prostitution and divorce. As a viewer you wonder when the real reason for Lenny's interest in Linda comes to the surface. That this didn't happen is a bit of disappointment because you're curious about the reaction of the two women in Lenny's life. But it also fits in the light mood of the film.

So Allen puts a lot of good ideas in Mighty Aphrodite but it's a pity nobody convinces him to hire a good casting agency for the role of Lenny.

The Incredible Shrinking Man is a film consisting of three basic elements. It's a movie about fear of new technologies and their treats for mankind. It's about the psychological effect on a man whose certainties in life are washed away. And in the second half of the movie it's pure adventure.

Scott Carey (played by Grant Williams) is exposed to a combination of radioactivity and insecticides. As a result his molecular structure is changed and he begins to shrink. Although doctors succeed to slow down the process he keeps shrinking. In order to overcome financial problems because he is not able to work anymore he sells his story to the press and pretty soon he is portrayed as a freak of nature. Frustrated by the physical process and his inability to take part in society he becomes unruly to his wife and finds solace in a short relationship with a pretty female dwarf. But Scott keeps getting smaller and he ends living in a doll house. When his wife is out the house cat chases him and he is forced to take shelter in the cellar. His wife believes that the cat caught him and nobody is looking for him downstairs. In the cellar he meets a landscape way too big for him and full of dangers and challenges that are new for him (spiders, a leaking boiler and a mousetrap). After surviving a flood of water from the boiler, climbing a shelf which became a mountain and winning the battle with the spider he manages to get through the grid and he flees into the wilderness in the knowledge that he probably will shrink to the point that he hardly exists.

The fifties were a period full of fear. The Second World War caused the invention of new technologies which consequences were hardly known, like the atom bomb and nuclear energy. It was also the period of the start of the cold war, a conflict with hardly any fighting but with the shadow of mass destruction overshadowing mankind. Like The Incredible Shrinking Man a lot of films were made in this period in which the shadow side of the new inventions was placed in a forbidding near future.

But this is also the story about an all American man, handsome, athletic, successful and with a beautiful wife whose certainties in life are swept from under his feet. Within a few weeks he is not able to participate in society, neither to take care of his wife nor to satisfy her as a man. As a result Scott becomes bitter and cynical and impossible to live with for his wife Louise.

The Incredible Shrinking Man manages to succeed on all three elements. It acts on the feeling of fear of the public around the time the film was released. There is good portraying of a man who looses all his certainties and is faced with a new and hostile environment. And it's great entertainment with proper use of the special effects which were on hand in the fifties. The scenes with the cat and the spider (for which a tarantula was used which isn't a very common spider in most people's cellar) are still looking very impressive and the use of interior adapted to Scott's new size is very well done.

A lot is said about the conclusion of this film which is very religious and philosophical. I think that's a logical way of thinking in a world that has changed dramatically and where the fear of a nuclear attack or life threatening pollution was never out of the news. The film implies that what happened to Scott Carey could happen to anybody or to the whole mankind. And in certain ways we are still living under that threat.

The Dawn Patrol tells the story of a British flying squadron in WW I. Dick Courtney (Richard Barthelmess) is the ace pilot facing the problem that his squadron is sent on mission impossible almost every day. Major Brand (Neil Hamilton) is his commander who suffers under the circumstances that he has to send inexperienced pilots on those missions with the knowledge that every time his squadron is at least halved.

The first half of the film we see the struggle between Courtney and Brand. The Major is criticized and blamed by Courtney for sending all those young pilots into their untimely death. Brand defends himself because he only follows the orders of his superiors. Then Major Brand is promoted and Courtney becomes commander of the squadron. Instead of flying with his pals he faces a career behind a desk and after a while he realizes that he is in the same position as Major Brand before him. He looses himself in depression and alcohol before operating in a final heroic flight.

At first we don't see to many action in this movie. Most scenes are in Major Brand's office or at the bar of the airport. We see the companionship between the pilots but also the despair, the fear and a lot of drinking. In the second part we follow the pilots as they do their missions. Taking into account that this movie was made in the early thirties the war in the air is very well pictured. Those scenes were used again for the remake of 1938. Still I don't think that The Dawn Patrol gives a realistic view of the lives of RAF pilots during the Great War. It wouldn't be possible to consume so many alcohol and still control those early airplanes to survive the missions into enemy territory.

The film shows a lot of respect for the pilots but also for the enemy. When a German is captured he joins the drinking bout before he is taken to prison. The most striking moment in the film is the salute that Courtney gives the German pilot who has just shot him down. The pilots are portrayed as modern knights whose war in the air knows other rules and the dirty war on the ground.

So in a year wherein legendary anti war films like All Quiet on the Western Front and West front 1918 were made The Dawn Patrol was already a bit old fashioned. Although the harsh reality of war is shown by the losses of young men's lives and the hard choices that the command of squadron had to made the film also glorifies the pilots, their loyalty and their respect for their enemy. The action scenes are very well photographed but that doesn't compensate the long scenes in the office and at the bar with drunken pilots. As said better movies are made about the Great War and the circumstances the soldiers were in.

Before making an art house film check the following ingredients:

• A lot of camera movements behind pillars, columns and walls

• Add a lot of fog and smoke to create a mystic mood

• During dialogue film the person speaking on his back or don't show people at all

• Don't forget a little bit of nudity from the leading female character but not too much to avoid vulgarity

• Make sure there is a plot but don't use it during the film

• And of course the madman who turns out to be the wisest man on earth

Nostalghia is the kind of film that uses this and other clichés of art house in such a way that the movie is boring as hell. The plot is about a Russian poet looking for traces of a Russian composer who lived in Italy some centuries before. We learn nothing specific about the poet and the composer except that they both suffer from homesickness. And of course the director projects his own longing for Russia on his protagonist and the object of his study.

The only thing that saves the film is the talent of Tarkovsky to shoot beautiful scenes. There is a camera movement from an arcade to a healing pool that is absolutely breathtaking. The scene where the poet is in the house of the madman and the rain is pouring through the roof is gorgeously filmed. And I never will forget the scene where the madman is standing on the statue of a Roman emperor and his horse (sorry, I'm too lazy to look up the name of the emperor) and shouting his thoughts to an apathetic crowd. Those scenes are worth it to watch over and over again but you have to suffer all the other endless scenes with static camera where absolutely nothing happens or nothing interesting is said.

One of the strangest incidents taking place is the suicide of the madman. I missed the clue why this should be in the script completely. Except for that Tarkovsky would show us how people are manipulated and used for other people's agenda. But it has nothing to do with the main theme which is the longing for your home ground.

The final scenes where the poet is fulfilling a promise to the madman and finally collapse because of a failing heart are beautiful. A lot had been said about the final scenes were the poet is shown in front of his house in Russia which is placed in the ruin of an Italian cathedral. His love for both worlds are united here as he reached his heaven.

Tarkovsky showed us a lot of things in this film what made him a unique director. For its screenplay (also by Tarkovsky) this movie is much less successful. I was left with the feeling that a chance of a masterpiece was missed here.

Reviewing a film is also reviewing the period that a movie was made. And besides that it also said something about the reviewer himself. Laberinto de Pasiones was made in 1982. All kind of taboos were already broken in the late sixties and seventies by directors like Pasolini, Verhoeven en Peckinpah to name just a few. In Spain the situation was different. Until 1975 the country was a dictatorship under General Franco, a strict Roman Catholic. Censorship was common and Spain missed the cultural changes the rest of Western Europe made completely. So when Spain turned into a democracy after the death of Franco the new freedom people enjoyed led to a period in culture where all boundaries were explored. In Laberinto de Pasiones a lot of things are shown which wouldn't be possible under the regime of Franco. Homosexuality, nymphomania and incest are just a few of the practices shown in this film.

Of course I was aware of the films by Aldomovar, I have seen Todo Sobre Mi Madre and Hable Con Ella which are excellent movies made by a mature director who understands human nature and is possible to combine drama with humor. I have also seen Atame! which shows the exploration of the sexual behavior of humans more than his later works. But I wasn't really prepared for the overflow of sexual perversions which is Laberinto. Aldomovar provokes here and he is exaggerating. Victims are the plot and the acting. As a viewer you're completely lost in about thirty story lines about people whose only purpose in life seems to be to fulfill their sexual obsessions. The mood of the film has most in common with the kind of movies that are not shown on IMDb, seventies porn flicks and that is not a compliment to this film. It all looks very amateurish to me. On the contrary the movie is not without humor. The scene in the music venue were Aldomovar himself sings a song in drag is really hilarious and probably the highpoint of the film. And it is special to see a young Antonio Banderas as a gay special agent, a role he wouldn't consider these days.

So Laberinto de Pasiones is probably an important film to free Spain from some boundaries in their cultural mindset but that doesn't make it a good film. Mediocre acting, a ramshackle plot and the mood of a porn movie prevents this from being an early hint of greatness of this director.

A Woman Between Wolf and Dog (or Een Vrouw Tussen Hond en Wolf as it is known in The Netherlands and Flanders) is a very brave film. It focuses on the thin line between resistance and collaboration in the Second World War. Protagonist is Lieve, a woman married with Adriaan who serves in the SS on the eastern front. The people in Antwerp ignore because of this and she leads a lonesome life until Francois, member of the resistance, takes shelter in her house. After a couple of days they start a relationship with saves Lieve from punishment after the German defeat. But then it turns out that Adrian returns safe and sound (physically at least) from the battlefield. He is imprisoned but Lieve still chooses to save her marriage to the astonishment of Francois. It appears that Adriaan has no regret of his choices and living with him becomes harder and harder for Lieve and their son.

Because choices in a situation of war are so difficult we also see a lot of hypocrisy. People of Antwerp who played no role in the resistance but show a lot of bravery after the Germans are gone. People in the countryside who live a life of plenitude while people in the city are hungry.

It is always difficult to prevent a story that takes fifteen years to become fragmentary. This movie doesn't succeed in avoiding this. We see a lot of very short scenes that try to tell a coherent story. Sometimes I was confused by the choices made by the director. You need to have some knowledge about the history of the Second World War in Belgium to understand why Adriaan choose to fight with the Germans at the east front while he is a Flemish nationalist. On the other hand there is a scene inside a cinema that seems to be inserted to give the viewer more specific understanding of history.

The acting is slightly disappointing. It is strange when you have a great actor like Rutger Hauer on the set to leave him out of the script for about an hour. It is also unbelievable that a flamboyant guy like Francois falls in love with a woman like Lieve who is very withdrawn and seems to carry the weight of life on her shoulders. What doesn't help is the lack of chemistry between these characters. Because the film is so fragmentary you are not drawn into the story and the characters. In the mass scenes you see clearly that the budget of the movie was limited. It almost seems that beside some extras the streets of Antwerp are abandoned. I think the film could have benefit from a shorter time span (say the moment that Antwerp is freed from the Germans) with some flash backs to tell the background of Lieve, Adriaan and Francois. It would involve the viewer more and the main characters would have been more present.

Groundhog Day has a very interesting starting point: What if the whole world relives the same day over and over again and only man notices this? In the movie it seems that Phil Connors (played by Bill Murray) is the only person who relives the 2nd of February over and over again but of course all the people living in small Punxsutawney relive this day. Everything they experience is forgotten the moment that they wake up again when it is the 2nd of February again and also their physical condition is the same as on their wake-up on the day before. Notice that Phil can save lives but if he doesn't interfere the deceased will also wake-up next morning. It is even possible (although we don't see this) that a baby is born over and over again because in the morning he is back in his or hers mama's belly. Or that Phil impregnates a woman (he makes love to at least one woman in the film) and that the fertilized ovum is unimpregnated again when the woman wakes up.

Phil Connors is a weatherman who desperately wants to make career steps but without them is forced to do reports on local events like the annual Groundhog Day where an animal predicts if the winter will be long that year. He undergoes a terrible day in Punxsutawney and is extremely annoyed when he is forced to stay one night longer because of a blizzard that he didn't predicted. When his alarm goes off at six o'clock he notices that everything is the same as the day before. During the days his mood changes from confused to indifferent to desperate. He doesn't care for his health anymore because he doesn't get older, fatter or injured. At one point he is so in despair that he tries suicide in many different ways knowing that he will get up next morning in perfect health.

In the end he settles for learning activities like chainsaw sculpture and playing the piano. Besides that he tries to seduce his producer Rita (Andie MacDowell). At first he tries to impress her by collecting all information from her about things she likes. But one day is not enough and every day he has to start all over again. In the end he tells her the truth and convinces her by showing all the knowledge he has about the town and its inhabitants and predicting all the events happening that day. After spending the night with her he notices a different song from his alarm clock and finally (and without specific reason) it is the 3rd of February.

As in all films that play a game with time there are some plot holes. Phil is the only person noticing but Rita makes a hint at one point that she has the feeling that she has a déjà-vu. No reason at all is given why Punxsutawney is in time-loop. It is mentioned in reviews that the reason is for Bill to become a better person and the time-loop stops when he has achieved that. During the film Bill becomes an expert in chainsaw sculpting and a master at the piano. That these talents require also some physical changes (strong muscles and flexible fingers) implicates that some changes of the body don't disappear the next morning. As a viewer I also wondered if the time-loop was bound to Punxsutawney. During the movie there is no mention of contact with the rest of the world and I never saw Phil trying to escape the place before the roads were blocked because of the blizzard.

Bill Murray had mentioned that he preferred Groundhog Day to be a more philosophical movie instead of a romantic comedy. I understand that completely. There is a short story by Stephen King where a young boy goes to eternity and is coming out completely mad. Phil doesn't have to go that far but after 10 or 38 years (the time that probably has elapsed before there is a real next day) your mental state would be pretty mixed-up. Director Harold Ramis chose to make another movie and concentrates on the humor (which is outstanding) and the romance between Phil and Rita. And therefore the film looses a lot of his appeal. There's not really chemistry between Murray and MacDowell and the movie is too centered on the character of Phil to let the love story fully develop. But in the end Groundhog Day is an excellent comedy with some philosophical issues that makes you think what you would do when you were in the same situation. Probably watching movies every day and still remember them next day without getting fat because of the chips, popcorn and cola. Only a shame that my reviews on IMDb would be erased when I log in the next day.

I watched this movie after the demise of Harold Ramis. Although I didn't expect to see a masterpiece I had the feeling I could look forward to two hours of humor and relaxation. In fact the cast (beside Ramis there are Bill Murray, John Candy and Warren Oates) was promising. As were the first couple of minutes. Everything goes wrong in the life of John Winger (Bill Murray), within a couple of hours he loses his job, his apartment, his car and his girlfriend. Out of total frustration he decides to join the army together with his friend Russell (Harold Ramis). From that moment the film doesn't escape the depth of Police Academy for example. What's supposed to be a comedy dives into a vulgar and tedious movie. When the squadron enters a nudie bar on their free evening the film reaches a low point where I have to admit that I seldom saw a more embarrassing and vulgar scene which is meant to be funny and titillating. From the moment that the action moves to the East Bloc the film turns to ridiculous. Of course the film isn't meant to be art house but the talents of the cast are completely wasted here. From later collaborations between Murray and Ramis we learn that they are capable of creating a really humorous movie but this is total crap.

Although I watched a lot of films by Alfred Hitchcock I was unfamiliar with this hidden gem. Between his first golden period in Hollywood (Shadow Of A Doubt, Notorious, Spellbound) and his second (from Rear Window to Birds) Hitchcock experimented with scenery, story and cinematography in films like Rope, The Trouble With Harry, Dial M For Murder and I Confess. After seeing this movie I read the reviews here on IMDb and there is a lot of criticism because the film is too slow and there is less suspense. The only reason here fore I think is in the fact that people watch the movie expecting the typical stuff of the master of suspense. And I Confess is an atypical film by Hitchcock. In the cinematography you see a lot of influence by the expressionists directors and the struggle of Father Logan reminded me of films by Robert Bresson. It is no wonder that I Confess was admired by the directors of the Nouvelle Vague and was more appreciated in Europe than it was in the States. Hitchcock himself didn't like the final result very much. A fact that can be explained because his main aim was to entertain the public. And although he was a great inventor in cinema this film wasn't an easy one to watch as Strangers on the Train for example.

The movie starts with shots of public signs mentioning "Direction" and the camera goes through an open window revealing a dead body. You see a person wearing a priest robe leaving the house. Next Father Michael Logan sees the handyman of his church, Otto Keller, who wants to confess. Within the first five minutes of the film you know that it was Keller who murdered lawyer Villette to steal his money and make life for him and his beloved wife Alma easier. Soon the suspicion of the police falls on Father Michael. There are witnesses who saw a man wearing a priest robe leaving the house of Villette and Michael had an appointment with the lawyer he is not willing to explain. Also he has no alibi for the moment of the murder.

It turns out that on the evening of the murder he was with his former girlfriend with whom he should have married after the war. In flashbacks we see that Ruth Grandfort was unable to wait for Michael and married politician Pierre instead. The former lovers were caught by Villette near his summerhouse and after that they are blackmailed by the lawyer. In a brilliant twist of fate Ruth tries to give Michael an alibi to the police but instead gives them a motive for the murder.

While there are some common themes by Hitchcock in the movie (the wrong man accused, the final shooting) there are also differences from his other films. There is a lot of talking and therefore the pace of the film is slow. The scene of the testimony by Ruth to the police takes up a lot of time but the acting in this scene is very good. Montgomery Clift is a totally different actor than the normal heroes in the films by Hitchcock (Carry Grant, James Stewart). It is mentioned that Hitchcock himself had difficulties with the way Clift portrayed Michael Logan but I found his acting very intense and subtle. Clift made it very believable that Logan was a man who fled to the church after he experienced the horrors of war only to find his beloved Ruth already married. You see a man fighting his inner demons and struggling to keep his oath to the Lord and not tell the confession Keller made to him to the police. Even if it means that he will take the conviction for the murder. There is not only a great role by Clift but all the supporting actors are great. Anne Baxter is convincing as the woman who knows she made a wrong decision as she didn't wait for the great love of her life. I was also impressed by Otto Hasse who plays Keller as a very creepy and schizophrenic murderer who constantly affects the guilt feelings of Michael Logan.

So I Confess is a movie that would be a classic if it was directed by anyone but Hitchcock. As it was made by Hitchcock the expectations by the public are such that the film cannot respond. But if you merit the movie on its own you enjoy a real masterpiece.

It's strange to review a title that after 15 years of IMDb had only one review by another user. Although the movie was in competition for the Palme d'Or in Cannes in the year it was released. André Delvaux was a director from Wallonia and is above all known in that part of Belgium and neighboring country France. Belle is lesser known than films like The Man Who Had His Hair Cut Short and Un Soir, un Train. Films that were released in the sixties when Delvaux started making movies with a deep surrealistic feel inspired by painter Paul Delvaux (no relation) although Belle also reminded me of the work of René Magritte. In fact this film is now so obscure that the only version I was able to watch was with Russian narrative over the French dialogues.

The protagonist is a professor of literature who studies the old stories of some barren regions of Wallonia. One day he hits what he believes is an animal with his car while he drives home in the night. The day after he returns to investigate and he meets a woman living in shack in the peat lands. The woman speaks a language not common to Gregoire (the professor) and it's not clear how she came living in such a remote country. Gregoire becomes totally obsessed with the woman he names Belle and neglects his career and his family. Then a man appears in the moors and throughout the film it stays vague what's his relationship with Belle. Is he her husband, a villain or even her pimp? When the man starts interrupting in Gregoire's normal live he decides to end the problem with violence and flee with Belle.

As said the movie has a surrealistic mood and the viewer is left with the question if the whole story was only a dream by Gregoire. His memories seem not to match reality and it is easy to imagine that his mind makes up an escape from his boring routines. Then there is a dream sequence where an incestuous interest from Gregoire for his daughter is showed. Although later in the film it is made clear that he is anything but happy about her forthcoming marriage nothing else is showed that indicates such an interest. Even Belle shows absolutely no resemblance to his daughter.

The film tries to balance on the thin cord of psychological drama, surrealistic thriller and sometimes even comedy. Mathieu Gregoire works his way through the film without ever having control over the events and it is not clear if he ever tries to solve the problems with his wife or that his friends or his family want to take any action in his movement. So if Belle is an intriguing movie the plot could have been worked out better, some of the characters could have portrayed better and also the acting is not always convincing.

In the mid-thirties the Western genre was very much in decline. After the introduction of sound in the movies the big studios and the stars of Hollywood almost showed no interest in the genre leaving it up to the independent companies and the B-stars. In 1939 this would change dramatically with the release of Stagecoach and a handful other classics and for many years the Western would feature the big stars of the screen and all the great directors of Hollywood. The Texas Rangers is shot a couple of years before the revival of the genre. King Vidor decided it was a good idea to make a movie to celebrate the centennial of the state of Texas. And what other way to celebrate this fact than to concentrate on the Texas Rangers, the mix of army and police force that became legendary during the formation years of the state.

The movie shows Texas as a modern Garden of Eden where hard working people tried to build up an ideal society and are impeded by the original residents (the Injuns) and villains. The solution is very simple: the Indians are tucked away in reservations (the least habitable regions) and the villains have the choice to became good citizens or been wiped out by the force of law. Sounds this a bit familiar? Wipe out all the undesirable elements in the society to create the ideal situation? Well it happened in a lot more countries in the period this movie was made. It wasn't till the seventies that another opinion on the treatment of the Indians penetrated Hollywood.

The story concentrates around three outlaws. Two of them, Jim and Wahoo, are looking for the third one (Sam) in Texas. They have difficulties finding him and because they are hungry and without any money sign in with the Texas Rangers. There is also the thought to make profit of their assignment to acquire information which can be used for their criminal efforts. But before any of that plans can be worked out they have to face an Indian revolt. Jim and Wahoo play a vital role in defeating the Indians and Wahoo plans to settle with the Rangers. Jim is less sure and when he gets the order to bring back Sam (who has become a notorious villain in the meantime) dead or alive he resigns only to be jailed immediately. In his place Wahoo gets after Sam and he is murdered brutally. Jim finally convinces the mayor that he is the right man to catch Sam.

The first half hour of the movie I found it very hard to enjoy it. There are a lot of scenes with studio backgrounds and a lot of wisecracks that belongs more in film noirs or screwball comedies. And there is Wahoo who rather plays a clown than an outlaw and is a very irritating character. Later there is the problem that the Indians are portrayed not as humans but as savage barbarians rather than as human beings. Their struggle for their rights and their suffering isn't mentioned and the only place they belong according to the heroic rangers is in their reservations. Also the struggle of Jim to become a good citizen isn't worked out well. He isn't a very believable outlaw in the first place. Furthermore he is put in jail because of his history after he played a heroic role in the battle with the Indians. And how are the "good citizens" beside the Rangers portrayed? As chicken-hearted cowards who don't dare to revolt against a villain who terrorize a county. So what's the reason for Jim to leave his past behind him? Love? Well, there is love story, but that is only a thin sideline in this movie.

There are some pluses to this movie. Sam is a convincing outlaw who with his good looks and smile is still believable in his role as villain. He is even more sympathetic than Jim. He only murders Wahoo after he is betrayed by him and he gives Jim the chance to reunite with him. Also the scenery is beautiful. Besides some studio shots the movie was made on location (although it was New Mexico instead of Texas). The murder of Wahoo is very brutal and unexpected (I thought the sympathetic clown would survive) and filmed in the later tradition of Hawks, Aldrich and Fuller.

So in the end I gave the film a meager six out of then because of the craftsmanship of King Vidor, the acting by Lloyd Nolan who plays Sam "Polka Dot' McGee and the scenery. Otherwise this movie is anything but a timeless masterpiece because of the one dimensional portrait of Indians, Rangers and most other roles.

I watched this movie twice in the cinema and enjoyed it very much. Not a strange thing because I'm totally into the music of that period and the bands from Manchester pictured in the movie. Now I have watched it at home and feel slightly disappointed by it. Some lesser aspects of this film were made clear to me. The whole film is very fragmented and an almost 15 years are tried to put into one story. And that story handles punk, new wave, indie, baggy and rave, all different subcultures.

Then there's the main character Tony Wilson (well acted by Steve Coogan) who tells us that this movie "Is not about Tony Wilson". Well the movie is in fact about Tony Wilson and not about the music, the musicians or the scene. Of course Wilson played a pivotal role in creating the Manchester scene with his Factory label and the Hacienda club. But think about this: of the six legendary bands that came out of Manchester in the period of '75-'95 only two (Joy Division/New Order and the Happy Mondays) were on the Factory label. Oke, he was too late for the Buzzc***s and too early for Oasis but he rejected the Smiths and he hated the Stone Roses. In fact these two bands who were the leading groups of their time are only mentioned once or shown for just a split second. The reason of course is that this film is about Tony Wilson and we must not get under the impression that this almost god missed two legendary bands for the label he ruined personally. But 24 Hour Party People is not completely a glorification of Mr. Wilson. He is often portrayed as a complete t**t which give some relieve and humor during the "I have been such an important person for the development of music in my period" scenes. And there are the scenes when you see Tony as a reporter for Granada Television. These scenes are relatively funny but they also draw you away from the real story.

So what is still good about 24 Hour Party People? Michael Winterbottom manages to show the zeitgeist of a very interesting period in rock and dance music. His film is very hip and very funny, but also sad. Especially when you see the decline of a very talented man like Martin Hannett. Of course the suicide of Ian Curtis is also a very sad moment but unless you have some knowledge of Joy Division (which most viewers will have I assume) you are left wandering why the hell this guy hangs himself. And that is probably the main problem that Winterbottom didn't solve. Unless you followed the music scene during these years or you have read about it the story is hard to follow. And you wonder what was so unique about this period in rock music and about the main characters pictured here (Curtis, Hannett, Ryder). Winterbottom managed to get a great ensemble of actors together here. Sean Harris gives the best portrait of Ian Curtis I have seen so far and Andy Serkis is great as Martin Hannett. It is my opinion that Danny Cunningham is less convincing as Shaun Ryder, but he is probably impossible to play.

So in my own chair and with a partner without knowledge of the music scene in Manchester the flaws in this movie were clear. But still the hipness, humor and acting skills attracts.

Mildred 'Pinky' Rose is a (very) young girl from Texas who tries her luck in sunny California. She finds a job at a geriatric institution where she meets Millie Lammoreaux. Millie looks so confident that the heavy insecure Pinky soon sees her as a role model. This becomes creepy soon when Pinky tries to become Millie. In fact Millie is a lonely and insecure woman who hides her uncertainties behind constant babble. She becomes annoyed with Pinky and treats her very rude. So rude that Pinky tries to commit suicide. She is in a coma for a couple of days and when she wakes up she has taken over the personality of Millie including her rudeness.

That's the main storyline of this movie but not the whole story. This movie is more about mood and atmosphere than it is about a plot. In fact Robert Altman worked out the film without a full script and he wasn't sure about how to end the story. The atmosphere is what makes this film a beautiful and sometimes creepy travel through the minds of the three women. There are long sequences of the paintings from Willie, the third woman. And there is a frightening dream sequence which shows a nightmare that Pinky experienced.

In fact the three women are tied by a male: Edgar Hart, the husband of Willie who owns a saloon and the apartment where Millie and Pinky share a room. While his wife is pregnant he sleeps with Millie and when Pinky is transformed into Millie he easily switches his attentions. So the only male in this story with an important role is portrayed as an absolute cheater and loser.

The film suffers under the fact that it isn't made with a worked-out script. While the title is 3 women the film is only centered on Millie and Pinky and the character of Willie doesn't come forward very clear. There is hardly any interaction between her and the two other women and it seems she only communicates with them through her paintings (especially with Pinky). Then there is the role of the twins who also work at the institution. They are mentioned a lot in the film and you see a lot of shots of them. You expect that they should play an important role but this part of the plot is never worked out.

What about the two main characters? It's hard to identify with them. Millie is an irritant female who seems to never shut her mouth and bothers people who are not interested in her. The reason for this is that she is so lonely that she intrudes in other peoples lifes and as a consequence is ignored by them. Pinky seems to be a very shy girl without real knowledge of society but she has a hidden agenda. The way she tries to imitate Millie shows thoroughness. When her parents are shown you understand she comes from a rural background and was most probably withdrawn from all experiences young women have in their teens. Her head injuries after her suicide attempt transform her in a sexual loaded woman who knows all the tricks to seduce men. But when there are stressful moments she immediately becomes the shy country girl as portrayed in the first half of the film.

I think 3 women could have been a masterpiece if Altman hadn't got this image of what this movie would become already in his head before he starts shooting. For the director the sequences are much more important than a worked-out plot and in the end the film suffers underneath his vision. But he managed very well to create this dreamlike and creepy atmosphere which makes this movie more than just a psychological drama. As a viewer you feel the tension when Pinky intrudes the life of Millie and as this movie seems to become a story about a stalker the roles are exchanged and you start to feel sorry for Millie who has an enormous guilt about what happened to Pinky. Then there is the dream sequence and the child-bearing of Willie which is filmed so intense that I was shivering watching this scene. Still I'm left with the feeling that so much more could have been made with this plot.

I watched this movie without much expectation. First of all I don't care very much for Bill Shakespeare. Of course he's one of the most brilliant people ever to put words on paper but his wordplay is dated and overdone.

But I must admit that I like this version of the famous story by Zefirelli. The design is beautiful, there's good use of colors and I think great attention had been paid to make medieval Verona look as realistic as possible.

There has been a lot of critic for not using more experienced and better actors than Leonard Whiting and Olivia Hussey. I think it's a good thing that finally Romeo and Juliet are played by actors that have the right age for these roles. The love between these two adolescents shines brightly on the screen, so much that you wonder if these two young actors were in love outside the scenes too. And as I said before I don't care much for the bombastic language by Shakespeare so for me to see actors who are believable in their roles is more important than a Romeo and Juliet about 30 years of age who speak the lines with more feeling.

It's a pity that in this film Zefirelli misses the chance to update the dialogues for a modern era. After all the cultural revolutions of the sixties this is missed chance and for me more important than the naked bottom of Romeo or the shown breasts (although only for a split-second) of Juliet.

And I wonder if I am the only one but when the bard starts singing during the party at the house of the Capulets I had to think about Oliver!, the movie of the same year by Carol Reed. The song could easily fit into that movie and is really out of place in a movie about medieval Verona.

So I sit out the dialogues, enjoyed the great look of this film and like in all films bases on iconic stories was a bit disappointed that the director choose not make an alternative ending which leaves you surprised in your chair.

OK, I know Hitchcock made Family Plot after this film but Frenzy is the one where he put all his trademarks in and brew another great work.

Frenzy was Hitchcock's first British production since WW II and you recognize the atmosphere of films like Sabotage or The Man Who Knew Too Much. But Hitchcock added some modernity's like nudity and visible extreme violence to the mix. Already in Psycho he pushed the limits by showing a bath scene but in the years between that classic and Frenzy the standards of what was acceptable in mainstream films had shifted enormous. Hitchcock combined modernity with his old quality of showing violence without filming the actual crime. The rape and murder of Brenda Blaney is very graphic, in fact it is one of the most disturbing scenes I ever watched. On the other hand the murder of Babs Milligan is not shown in the movie but you know it will happen when Rusk closes the door and the camera moves backwards down the stairs and outside the building. Another great piece of cinematography by the master.

There are a lot of other trademarks of Hitch in the film. The innocent man who is accused of the necktie murders. The actual murderer who is shown already early in the film so there's no who-dunn-it question. And there's the early death of the leading women. And of course Hitch made the villain a lot more interesting (and even sympathetic) than the wrongly accused man. Richard Blaney (played by Jon Finch) is a frustrated ex-military whose life is in a downwards spiral. A lot of failed projects, a divorce and no job. Furthermore he is a bad drunk and his aggressive behavior makes him a usual suspect for the police when his ex-wife is murdered. Robert Rusk on the other hand is flamboyant and funny but also an impotent and frustrated lover who blames his victims for not being able to make love the normal way.

Frenzy certainly doesn't belong to the great masterpieces by Hitchcock. It lacks the normal suspense of his great movies and sometimes doesn't find the right balance between action and humor. The scenes with Inspector Oxford and his wife where she presented him with all kinds of French meals are funny but they draw the viewer away from the story. Then there are some imperfections in the script. The escape of Richard Blaney from the hospital is very unreal and the interview with the secretary of Mrs. Blaney where she stills works at the office where her boss and the owner of the company had been killed is an error. Also the climax of the movie in the apartment of Rusk is not one of the best Hitchcock has ever made.

Still Frenzy has a lot to enjoy, some good acting and some scenes you'll never forget. I already mentioned the rape scene but also the scene where Rusk tries to retrieve his tiepin from the hand of one of his victims he dumped in a potato sack. There is the camera movement downstairs from the apartment of Rusk and also the opening shot where Hitch turned the camera from the Thames to the group of people who in a short moment will discover the first dead body of the film. So a very good farewell from the master hadn't he made Family Plot afterwards.

This film is so mellow, in fact it is one of the mellowest I ever watched. As the title mentioned the story is about a Sunday on the countryside. Two children visit their old father, a famous painter (monsieur L'Admiral). The son (Gonzague) with his wife and three children, the daughter (Irene) unexpected and alone. Nothing really happens but from the dialogues a story unfolds. The painter is slightly disappointed by his son who also feels that he lets his father down by not following in his footsteps and become a painter himself. The daughter is everything that the painter longs to be: a free spirit. She drives a car (which must be very uncommon for a woman in those days) and is rumored to have lovers. The painter himself had received many prizes during his long career but is aware that others painted more inventive. He lived long enough to see that artists like Monet, Cezanne and van Gogh are receiving the credits for the development of the art. Irene still tries to push him to paint more from his heart in stead of the beautiful but dull paintings he made during his career.

I have a feeling that this film is somewhat autobiographical for the director. Bertrand Tavernier is a well known and respected director but doesn't have the same reputation as revolutionaries like Godard, Resnais or Rivette. It seems to me that he says here that in his career he tries to follow his colleagues of the Nouvelle Vague and New Wave of French Cinema but in the end opted to make these lovely filmed movies that will cause no uproar and neither will upset any viewer. His message is "If I would make films like Godard they wouldn't have the same power so instead I choose to make these movies with lovely scenes and these little stories". There is a good example in this film of the very conventional character of the painter. He asks Irene what she thinks about the new art of photography. As the story is situated around 1905 photography must be known to the painter all of his adult life, so it is hardly a new form of art.

There are two possible explanations for the end of the film. After his children have left Monsieur L'Admiral puts the painting of a couch he was working on away and places his easel in front of the window. It could be that after his discussions with Irene he starts a new painting but now chooses to follow his heart and emotions. It also could be a metaphor for the end of his life which will not be very far away.

For me the movie was a real pleasure to watch. Beautifully shot and with well worked-out characters. Still it's no masterpiece because it is so mellow. You watch in admiration but you're not drawn into it. The same difference between a good painting and a brilliant painting.

In the late sixties a new wave of directors emerged from France. Instead of images dialogs were more important to them. Although there were more (art house) directors who put a lot of talking into their movies people like Jacques Rivette and Jean Eustache took it to the extreme.

There are several reasons to dislike La Maman et la Putain: First reason is of course its length as mentioned by almost every reviewer I watched this movie in several parts which is really the best way to enjoy and analyze it. Second reason is the fact that it is shot in black and white. Good use of color could have added a lot of emotion and atmosphere. And the third reason is the cinematography. In almost every scene there is a static camera as if nothing has changed since the invention of cinema by the brothers Lumiere. A lot of reviewers add the fact that they cannot identify with protagonist Alexandre, a dandy with great disdain of people with a job who lives on the money of his girlfriend/patron Marie. For me that is no specific reason to dislike a movie. Just like I cannot identify myself with Alexandre I cannot with Hannibal Lector for example. There's no necessity to feel sympathy for the characters to make a good movie.

For me it feels that Eustache cancelled all the practices that could distract the viewer from the dialogs, so no color, no movement and no editing. So let's concentrate on the characters and what they say. As I mentioned Alexandre is a layabout who spends his days hanging around in café's, flirting with women and listening to old recording by Marlene Dietrich or Edith Piaf. He is full of self-pity and believes that every recent historical event has happened to add misery to his live. He dislikes the people with regular jobs and a homely life. But in fact all he really wants is to live that kind of life with his former lover Gilberte. There's some talking that he abused her before she ran away from him, although I found that hard to believe regarding his passive character.

While still mourning about his loss of Gilberte he met Veronica, a woman who reminds him of his the girl he lost. In endless monologues their relationship evolves sometimes loving each other tenderly and alternately act very crude. Veronica is nymphomane looking for the love of her life. She loves Alexandre but she also now that he is not the lover she's looking for. At first Alexandre's other lover Marie is amused by his advances to Veronica but soon she become jealous. At the end Veronica penetrates in the live of Alexandre and Marie and a love triangle develops.

At the end you feel some sympathy for Alexandre. Although he is very rude to the women in his life and he is a lazy bastard he is also a great narrator of stories and quite funny. Although he talks about 75% of the whole movie there are not a lot of things you know from his past before his relationship with Gilberte. Jean-Pierre Léaud did great acting in his role of Alexandre. It is said that he improvises a great part of his role. I also sympathize with Veronica. She's longing for the great love of her life but all she finds are men who wanna sleep with her. She can be very crude (especially when drunk) but also very tender. The last scene hints at a pregnancy of her, probably with Alexandre as the father. For me it is impossible to say how the relationship between Alexandre and his two lovers should continue. It is clear that he needs Marie (and her money) to patron him. He loves her as a mother but what he really longs for is a pure woman like Gilberte. Sometimes Veronica reminds him of her but sometimes he is disgusted with her. I don't think that there is a very bright future for Alexandre. His relationship with Veronica creates a wedge in his relationship with Marie so in the end he will lose both his patron and his whore.

Like I said I watched the movie in parts. It's certainly not easy entertainment but if you push through the beginning (Oh no! Not that kind of movie!) you are rewarded with a fine psychological drama. But if I have to compare it to other French movies of the Nouvelle Vague and the New Wave and if I look at all the reasons to dislike it I think that Eustache missed a masterpiece by ignoring the art of cinema and focusing on the art of dialogue.

From the first scene onwards where we see Juliette (Bardot) sunbathing naked it is clear that the only reason Vadim made this movie is to make his wife an international superstar. I'll have to admit that some scenes are really iconic. I already mentioned the sunbathing, but also the scene where Juliette walks out of the sea with her dress open from her belly and of course the dance scene at the end of the movie.

Despite these memorable scenes (especially from male view) the cinematography is very average. We hardly see any interesting shots. The script is very poor with dialog and scenes not worked out very well. The most interesting aspect of the story is the band of brothers, or more specific the demolition of this band by the force of nature that is Juliette. She loves Michel but longs for Antoine who just sees her as a one-night-stand. Then there is youngest brother Christian who's character is somewhere between his older brothers but he's to young to really participate in the game. Where there's a real loyalty between the brothers at the start of the movie at the end they all stand against each other. Antoine will leave for good and Christian who adored his eldest brother is disillusioned by the behavior of Antoine. Michel is probably most damaged. His mother and brother despise him for hanging on to his marriage with Juliette and he faces a future with her that will only include more drama. Apart from the sunbathing the movie is not very interesting until Juliette has her affair with Antoine and the brothers fall apart. The scene where Juliette starts dancing in the café and Michel caught while living the life she wants to live is by far the best of the movie. Bardot is so sensual in this scene and the acting by Trintignant very intense. Nowadays the movie is quiet tame but I can imagine that it caused a stir in the mid fifties. So really enjoyable for the above mentioned scenes but no milestone in the history of cinema.

First of all: It wasn't Edison who sentenced this poor elephant to death It wasn't Edison who abused the elephant It wasn't Edison who made the public bloodthirsty

Edison's involvement with the execution of the elephant is by providing the equipment and then filming the event. So making use of two of his "inventions". That he also makes a profit off the fate of the elephant has to be blamed to the nature of humankind that is still eager to see extreme violence. I only have to mention the success of the Faces of Death movies and you see that nothing has changed in 100 years.

What about the movie which in fact is a documentary or rather a newsflash. The filming is accurate en there is some historic significance. So it is important that this movie still exist and shows us a world where cruelty on animals (and human beings) was still a public affair.