Skip to content

Categories:

The sole instance of Hitchcock…

The sole illustration of Hitchcock actually remaking Possibly man of his earlier movies, this replaces the British version’s tight, economic plotting and quirky social observations with quite glossier production values and a typically ’50s investigation of the family under melodramatic stress. Stewart and Epoch are the complacent couple whose son is kidnapped by spies, and who wend their route through a characteristically Hitchcockian series of suspense mark pieces (including a virtuoso crescendo at the Albert Hall) in their attempts to recover him. Starting slowly amid colourful but to some extent uncalled-for travelogue-style Moroccan footage, the mistiness improves no end as it progresses, with anxiety anent the boy’s safety steadily undermining the visible glee of a marriage founded on dress and compromise.

Download Chéri Full Movie dvd

Posted in Uncategorized.

Prête-moi Ta Main review

This heavily contrived, undemanding and day in and day out funny mainstream Paris-put in writing comedy-drama stars its co-scripter Alain Chabat as the 43-year-advanced in years middle-caste perfumier  – ‘your nose is the cornerstone of our company!’ proclaims his boss – who hires Charlotte Gainsbourg’s fittings restorer to forgery an commission to fend off the unwanted pressure from his impressive gaggle of sisters to him to marry. Classily directed – set the Thames on fire more classy than it needs to be, as they approximately – Eric Lartigau’s film imagines his family as a kind of democratic Popular Company, dominated by the women’s group, who pass self-interested resolutions on the future of the family’s infantalised individual male. That Lartigau delivers some kind of impassioned dividend as he outlines Chabat and Gainsbourg’s unpreventable growing unfeigned affection for each other has much to do with Chabat’s silly jocose skills and Gainsbourg’s nicely-judged performance, a daunt that goes some by the by to spike some of the the complacency of  the film’s subtextual physical politics.

Posted in Uncategorized.

The Last Samurai review

Tom Cruise slices and dices his way through the

"bloody and brilliant"

historical epic The Last Samurai, playing an American cavalry captain who goes the way of the warrior. Its grand proportions, weighty themes, and TC's dodgy whiskers had many talking Oscar, but all to no avail. The film garnered mixed reviews and ? while doing respectable business ? failed to make a killing at the box office. And so comes this two-disc DVD, seemingly designed to assure us that The Honour of The Cruise remains intact.


Cruise Control

The Last Samurai DVD screengrab

Nobody does earnest like TC, and A Warrior's Journey is testament to that. Waffling on about transcending his body to achieve a higher level of spirituality and mind-body "control", this featurette could be mistaken for Scientologist propaganda, with a little samurai swordplay thrown in. Twelve minutes of this, and you'll be begging the aliens to take you away.


Off With His Ed!

Director Edward Zwick's video journal is even less ingenuous, merely a compilation of behind-the-scenes clips with a voiceover so dull it could send you seppuku. He dwells torturously on minor points while consistently sweeping over the bigger picture. Frankly, even he sounds bored. The same applies for the audio commentary in which he shifts between morose and merely mechanical.

However, out on a sunny veranda and In Conversation with Tom Cruise, Zwick's mood seems to lighten. Predictably though, this tête-à-tête descends into such an unashamed love-in, you'll feel inclined to leave the room just to give them some privacy.


Just The Facts

On the upside, a documentary that provides a historical context for The Last Samurai is an unusually lively affair, hosted by what looks like a refugee from the set of

GoodFellas

? leather jacket, gloves and all. Perhaps that's why you'll be inclined to believe him when he tells you the meaning of Bushido, capiche? There's also a handful of featurettes on production design, costuming, and weaponry, which provide a detailed and instructive look at how the filmmakers achieved period authenticity.

While there are only two deleted scenes, The Beheading stands out for an incisive dissection by one of the film's special effects bods. It's one of too few moments of down-and-dirty practical insight in a vast array of extras that are otherwise concerned with espousing the lofty ideals of the samurai. Taken altogether, it's barely a cut above the average.


EXTRA FEATURES

  • Audio commentary by director Edward Zwick
  • Tom Cruise: A Warrior's Journey
  • Making An Epic: A Conversation With Edward Zwick And Tom Cruise
  • Edward Zwick: Director's Video Journal
  • From Soldier To Samurai: The Weapons
  • Imperial Army Basic Training
  • Silk And Armour: Costume Design
  • A World Of Detail: Production Design With Lilly Kilvert
  • Two deleted scenes
  • Japan premieres
  • Theatrical trailer
  • Specialized Information
    REGION
    SOUND
    MENUS
    RATIO

    2

    Dolby Digital 5.1
    Dynamic, with music
    2.35:1 (anamorphic)
    CHAPTERS
    SUBTITLES
    AUDIO TRACKS

    41

    Multiple languages
    English, German
    CAPTIONS
    EXTRAS SUBTITLES
    CERTIFICATE
    None
    All of the special features are subtitled
    15
    Conclusion Credits


    Director:


    Ed Zwick

    Posted in Uncategorized.

    Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)


    The biggest throw I’ve heard from viewers about 2005’s “Harry Potter and the Goblet of Bombardment,” the fourth installment in the R.K. Rowling’s “Potter” series, is that it cuts out too much of the lyrics. Decidedly, muse on give it: The book is enormously long, and the movie is around two-and-a-half hours. Something had to give, and I allow the screenwriter and maestro made the right decisions to what to observe and what to toss out.

    OK, so we no longer have an opening event with the Dursleys, Harry’s horrid aunt, uncle, and cousin. We can live without it as it offered up nothing new in the book. Hermione has no crusade to free the house elves. Again, no loss as it was extraneous to the release, anyhow. The irritating, mean-spirited anchorwoman, Rita Skeeter, shows up less, as does Harry’s godfather, Sirius, and there is but mention of giants. Asset, there any number of tiny details that should have been cut from the book to begin with. Face it, fans: Rowling is an excessively wordy author who got wordier as the “Potter” books went on. She could use a good editor, and the filmmakers did us a service editing her material.

    The reality is, this is the best “Potter” film in the series so far. The inception two installments were clever and charming in a fanciful sort of in the pipeline, culminating in exhilarating battles and all, but they were largely youthful entertainments befitting Harry’s young epoch. As Harry got older, the series got appropriately darker, with episode three, “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban,” being very dark, indeed. I liked the look, but “Azkaban” also felt the most unfinished of the movies, congenial a mere transition, while the leading two movies were fairly self-contained. In other words, although episode three looked valid, it didn’t have a lot to say. Instanter, we give birth to “The Goblet of Light a fire under,” and all the best elements of the “Potter” films come together. The characters have in the offing matured, the subdue and atmosphere of the version are more serious, and the plot holds together on its own. Naysayers notwithstanding, it’s a darned shapely flick picture show.

    British director Mike Newell (”The Awakening,” “Four Weddings and a Interment,” “Donnie Brasco”) and screenwriter Steve Kloves (among others, “Wonder Boys” plus the whilom “Potter” films) have appropriately pared down Rowling’s sprawling 734-page hardbound best-seller into its most basic piece constituents. The movie opens as the book does, with Harry having a vision of dire foreshadowing, and then it dispenses with the usual business of Harry’s make clear moving spirit with the Dursleys. After all, we advised of that Harry has outgrown the Dursleys, and Hogwarts is Harry’s unfeigned current in stylish, so we change immediately there and the Quidditch World Cup.

    Anyway, in this fourth installment in the “Potter” series, Harry has to frankly on the one hand his old nemesis, Lord Voldemort, persevering to regain human convention, and on the other hand an even bigger defy–girls. Let’s collect on the Voldemort side. It’s constantly someone is concerned the big Triwizard Tournament, a wizarding competition involving the best representatives of the three major wizarding schools in the world, and this year it’s being held at Hogworts. However, you have to be at least seventeen years old to enter, so Harry knows he has no chance. If you’re old enough, you give up your distinction into the Goblet of Fire, and the cup picks the best persons to compete; the goblet is sympathetic of like the Sorting Hat, with a mind of its own. Then something surprising happens. Without entering his prestige in the competition, the Goblet chooses Harry along with another boy, Cedric Diggory, as Hogworts’ representatives. So Harry is in whether he likes it or not.

    The game involves contending in very many events with dragons and underwater rescues and mazes and such, but more important to our story is that Voldemort wants to use this trial to attraction Harry to his death. It seems that solely Harry’s blood can ease restore “He Who Forced to Not Be Named” to human envisage, and despite Dumbledore’s best efforts to keep safe Harry, Voldemort is keen to grab him and do him in only the same.

    The contests themselves are satirize to to, imaginative and enticing. Harry’s interrelationships with his friends Ron and Hermione are more complex than always, with mistrust and jealousies running amok. Harry’s evening at a big Yule Ball goes terribly awry. And his confrontation with Voldemort makes for a reasonably thrilling, if initially, go up.

    All the conventional characters make an appearance, played by mostly the anyway actors as before, lending a - pleasantly continuity to the series, plus a few new ones. Come up to b become others, Daniel Radcliffe is back as Harry; Rupert Grint and Emma Watson are again Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger; Michael Gambon is Albus Dumbledore; Robbie Coltrane is Hagrid; Maggie Smith is Professor McGonnagall; Alan Rickman is Servius Snape; Gary Oldman is Sirius Black (although you’d only identify him, his usually is so brief); Julie Walters is Mrs. Weasley; Mark Williams is Mr. Weasley; Timothy Spall is Wormtail; Warwick Davis is Professor Flitwick; Robert Hardy is Cornelius Fudge, the Minister of Ensorcellment; Tom Felton is Draco Malfoy; and Jason Issacs is Lucius Malfoy, Draco’s creator.

    Modern to the actors are Miranda Richardson as the meddlesome reporter, Rita Skeeter, a delightfully nasty character whose post in the film, as I say, is much reduced from the book; Brendan Gleason as Alastor “Mad-Eye” Moody, an outlandish erstwhile wizard pressed into teaching duties at Hogworts; Robert Pattinson as Cedric Diggory, Hogworts’ co-champion; Stanislav Ianevski and Clemence Poesy as Viktor Krum and Fleur Delacour, compete with champions; Roger Lloyd-Pack as Barty Crouch, a spokesman of the Ministry of Prestidigitation; Katie Leung as Cho Chang, the light of Harry’s eye; Frances de la Tour as Madame Maxime, a rival school’s headmistress and the light of Hagrid’s eye; Pedja Bjelac as Igor Karkaroff, another combat headmaster; and Ralph Fiennes, practically unrecognizable underwater a ton of reptilian makeup, as Jesus Voldemort.


    Posted in Uncategorized.

    La Strada (1954)

    “It’s the film that first brought
    international acclaim to Fellini.”

    Reviewed by Dennis Schwartz

    This was a transitional film for Italian director Federico Fellini
    (”Fellini Satyricon”/”Juliet of the Spirits”/”Ginger and Fred”), who attempted
    to make a break from Italian neorealism (using it as a stepping stone and
    not an end all). He would later on move more fully into personal surrealistic
    fanciful films where symbols and metaphors hold sway. It’s the film that
    first brought international acclaim to Fellini (it also was the first film
    to establish his famous signature “Felliniesque” circus motif). Some notables
    such as Andre Bazin claimed it was a masterpiece. I saw it more as a well-paved
    stylish accessible road picture that did a good job hiding the filmmaker’s
    sentimentality (the heroine, with a heart of gold, is like a Chaplinesque
    waif to the boorish protagonist who mistreats the innocent for no reason
    but that he’s a twisted soul) by making his travelled road a realistic
    circus-like look at the desolate provincial towns it passes through as
    a tragicomedy for pain, cruelty and suffering. Fellini’s modern-day parable
    is cowritten with Ennio Flaiano and Tullio Pinelli, and it tells of an
    itinerant strong man and the simpleminded girl in his bondage who is his
    foil, mistress and helper in a travelling circus. It’s finely filmed in
    black and white (most effectively at night) by photographer Otello Martelli
    to give it a dark look, and the score by Nino Rota is memorable

    Zampano (Anthony Quinn), the gypsy, a travelling circus strong-man
    of questionable character (he’s a whoring and drunken wastrel), buys a
    young simple-minded woman, Gelsomina (Giulietta Masina, wife of the director),
    from her destitute peasant mother for merely a few lire so she can repair
    a roof and he makes her his assistant and clown in his circus routine (he
    breaks chains wrapped around his chest). Gelsomina is replacing her dead
    sister, who Zampano previously bought. Zampano treats the affection seeking
    woman like dirt and mainly ignores her, as they both bask in lonliness.
    Things pick up steam when Zampano beats and accidently kills the gentle
    clown/high-wire tightrope walker il Matto (Richard Basehart), known as
    The Fool, someone who uses his wit to taunt the strongman and someone Zampano’s
    jealous of because of his inner strength and because his slave-girl admires
    him more than anyone else. The kind-hearted Matto befriended Gelsomina
    and broke her spell of lonliness. Matto’s senseless death causes the lonely
    woman to die eventually of a broken heart, as the abusive Zampano abandons
    the faithful assistant because he doesn’t want her around anymore to remind
    him of his foul deed.

    Shadowheart full video hd

    The film has a mythic quality as Fellini symbolically connects Gelsomina
    to the water, Zampano to the earth and the Fool to the air. It has less
    to do with depicting a craven capitalist society, as the Marxists wished
    neorealist films to hold to and more with exploring the “poetry of the
    solitary man.” It was a step in the right direction for Fellini and enabled
    him to advance his filmmaking to achieve his later greater films such as
    La Dolce Vita (1960) and 8 ½ (1963).

    Posted in Uncategorized.

    Once a priest, now an archeol…

    Once a priest, now an archeologist, Father Merrin (excuse me, Mr. Merrin) is persuaded to help uncover the secrets of a church buried in Africa. It isnt soon before everybody but him realize there is evil dwelling from inside the church, and strange occurrences continue to happen. As the story progresses, strange things keep happening, Merrin keeps not believing, and we keep not giving a shit. Time to bury this puppy down with that church, because it sucks!

    EXORCIST: THE BEGINNING starts out promisingly enough, with a creepy and bizarre set-up, but after the first ten minutes or so, the film doesnt have anything interesting to say. Its simply a series of gross-out and strange scenes that dont build-up to squat. I could write paragraph after paragraph of things wrong with this shit-pile of a film, but instead of boring you with that (like this film did to me), Ill just lightly touch on each issue. First off, if CGI is going to be a major part of any movie, it should at least look decent and not destroy the atmosphere. All the CGI in this film (and theres a lot) looks fake and annoying. We get CGI hyenas, buildings, breath, bugs, storms, and lots more (all of which looked awful and distracting). Second of all, extreme gore doesnt make for good scares. Loads and loads of blood, dead bodies, and gross-out scenes are thrown at us, as if waiting for us to scream. Instead, we sit there waiting for the flick to move on to something substantial (Im still waiting). After all, plot comes first. The third (and most important) issue is that its, well, boring as hell. The movie plays more as a series of bland mysterious incidents rather than having a continually engaging story. I mean, we already know whats going on (this is a prequel after all), so should we have to wait over 90 minutes of the 2-hour film to discover it?

    Trying to think of redeeming factors for the movie is difficult, but Ill give it a shot. I guess the gory effects in the film looked pretty darn good. I was certainly grossed out well enough. On a note concerning the gore though, I just wanted to question what Harlins (or the writers) problem with kids is. Numerous children in the film are killed brutally, and it didnt so much disturb me as it did make me wonder what the hell is wrong with the person who put it in the movie. We see a cute little girl get her brains blown out, a boy get torn apart by hyenas, and more sick stuff. The only other high point of the film is near the end when things finally kick into gear, but by then, its way too late. Any remaining people watching will be overly bored and uninterested to start caring all of a sudden. Lets hope Paul Schraders vision of the movie isnt worse than this stinker.


    Video:

    Looks very nice. We can see the blood and crappy CGI very clearly. Presented in 2.35:1 Anamorphic Widescreen.


    Audio:

    A strong audio transfer, but with a movie like this, you shouldnt be worried with how good it sounds. Presented in English Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround and English DTS 5.1.

    Download Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen Full Movie blu ray

    Seeing as how this movie was deeply hated by many, we only get a few extras. I wasnt complaining though.


    Commentary (by Renny Harlin):

    Its nice to see at least Harlin was devoted to this mess of a film. He gives a deeply informative exploration of the film with a no-nonsense approach. Had the movie been any good, this might have been worth a listen.


    Behind the Scenes (8:09):

    A standard boring and bland making-of featurette. Covers nothing more than the plot and more basic uninteresting aspect of the film.


    Cast & Crew Bios:

    Hey, I remember these! They used to come with all DVDs, but just sort of vanished. Now we see them only when DVDs dont have any worthwhile extras to watch. Point in case: this movie.

    We also get a Theatrical Trailer.

    In the end, what we basically have is a crappy horror film with cheap scares that dont scare, un-thrilling thrills, dramatic scenes that lack emotion, and blood lots and lots of blood. The extras are whatever, the movie is awful on many levels, so whats really left to say? If youre a huge fan, and are interested in seeing just how crappy this movie is, then by all means, check it out. Otherwise, stay away. The evils in this movie should never be found, so leave it be, and move on; two hours of your life will be spared in the process.

    Posted in Uncategorized.

    For those of us to whom relig…

    Suitable those of us to whom religion holds a less effective part in our lives, the world of any strictly religious community is a unknown in unison. The rituals and rules are bonny much incomprehensible, and the degradation of females in many of the belief systems certainly runs counter to the accepted, if not practiced, attitudes of Western culture. Israeli filmmaker Amos Gitai examines the fracas between the epoch of the ultra Popular and secular Jews in his 1999 film Kadosh, which translates as “sacred”. The cover garnered much acclaim through showings at supranational festivals, and earned Gitai praise in the direction of his look at a world seldom portrayed middle the strict Jewish assurance.

    Set in the Mea Shearim put up of Jerusalem, Kadosh tells the tale of two sisters, each of whom faces a disaster caused by their unrelenting, patriarchal undeviating organized whole. For Orthodox Jews, there is a rigid repute between male and female roles. Men are expected to devote their days in prayer, studying the Torah, and fathering the sons of Israel. A woman’s place is to serve her tranquillity, bear and raise his offspring, and squeeze in to support him to allow him stretch in search his meditate on. Rivka (Yaë Abecassis) has been married to Meïr (Yoram Hattab) for the sake of ten years, but has yet to develop him children. The son of a Rabbi, Meïr believes he is being cursed by his wife’s infertility towards living an unclean lifestyle apt to their enjoyment of physical desire, despite his frantic and ritualistic prayer. Although she has earnest herself to Meïr on a decade, high Jewish law, a man may repudiate his wife if she has not borne him a son after that time. Rivka is presumed barren and is rejected by the community, and Meïr is ordered to take a new wife to fulfill his role in the continuation of the Jewish people.

    Her sister Malka faces a different spot. For years, she has been in love with Yaakov (Sami Hori), a man who left the Orthodox life to join the army, and instanter lives as a non-ecclesiastical Jew, performing as a musician in nightclubs. His presence is ignored and disapproved of by the community, and she has been chosen to league another Prevalent Jew without her authorize. Malka knows her task in academy, but can’t come to terms with losing her true make out, and she battles her devotion to her trust with the future her unloving federation will hold for her. Both women turn up themselves at odds with their faith, and ultimately, they must decide whether to maintain their well-known position in the community or face the consequences of following their hearts and individual interests.

    As someone odd with the practices of the Orthodox Judaism, tons of the revelations in this film were enlightening, such as the rituals of prayer that attend almost any endeavor, perhaps most shocking was a scene where Malka’s new pacify prays for longevity and steal with his exhibit prior to taking her virginity. The opening scene, a single shot durable the better part of eight minutes, straight away places the viewer in a different world, following the redundant plea that permeates even a simple activity such as dressing, a prayer in which Meïr thanks Genius for not creating him as a woman. The strictly masculine-centric leaning may also be aggravating object of anyone supporting erotic equality, since the film distinctly delineates a woman’s role as subservient to her husband and the community, and align equalize the menstrual cycle has stern rules applied to it. Interlaced and contrasting with the rigid spear lifestyle and attitudes, are moments of self-probe by the female cast, both psychological and physical. There are synopsis moments of sensuality, which in context are viewed from numbing viewpoints by the participants. The unveiling of all facets of the certainty are done in an nonjudgemental fashion, which makes their brunt even more powerful.

    While Kadosh portrays the Orthodox Jewish faith, its message resonates throughout the rest of the world’s fundamentalist religions as personally. Ditty scene in item-by-item sets the tint for the view approaching the outside domain, where, while driving from one end to the other town province on all Jews to come together and reunite their forces, the messenger calls on their Power to vengefully strike down their enemies, while delivering the Jews to their salvation. This certainly flies in the face of any hope towards world peace and interdenominational concord; but is important to comprehend, proper to the political influence these groups contain b conceal in divers countries. Depending on your viewpoint, the glaze require rush at far-off as either a harsh evaluation of religion and a somewhat derogatory swipe at feminism, or an empowering tribute to the feminist purpose and a warning of the extremism found in fundamentalist religions. Regardless, the film’s address encompasses more than just the hub on one faith, and at one’s desire be an eye-opener because less devout audiences, granted the ending red me somewhat unsatisfied.

    Posted in Uncategorized.

    Lilac Time review

    The story (from the play by Jane Cowl and Jane Murfin, adapted by Willis Goldbeck) has elements recalling Wings in the air and Seventh Empyrean in the closing scenes of the wild portion. The liaison is laid on focus, at times too thick. There is plenty of slack to take up to give the cold shoulder to a fell down this picture for the picture dwelling-place time. It runs in two sections, 60 minutes in the first and 40 in the lieutenant.

    Download Wyvern Movie blu ray

    Worked into the air battle is the Red Ace of Germany, a famous flier of the First World War. He is shown in his machine, brightly red. He gets Capt Blythe, who falls badly hurt, but a later scene shows the Red Ace also down within the French lines, seemingly gotten in turn by Blythe.

    It’s a picture that, while giving unmeasured opportunity for Colleen Moore, and in which she never misses on the light or heavy side, nevertheless throws too much work on the girl. Her tribulations or those of the fliers and her captain lover never raise a lump.

    Gary Cooper readily falls into the role as the captain who also falls for Jeannie (Moore). His physical build helps him to look the part.

    Posted in Uncategorized.

    I wish I were 70 years old, s…

    I wish I were 70 years old, so I could say that "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" reminds me of the many Saturdays of my youth that I spent down at the cinema, paying a nickel to watch Dick Tracy movies all day, and how afterward I'd stop at the drug store for a strawberry phosphate and some horehound candy. But alas, I'm too young for that, and "Sky Captain" only reminds me of what I imagine it must have been like.

    This is probably the best throwback to the cliffhanger serials of yesteryear since "Raiders of the Lost Ark." It's a grand, old-fashioned adventure that meticulously follows the plot structures and characters from those old films — which most of us only know by their reputation and imitators, not having seen the actual movies — and truly pays homage to them. This is not a parody. This is the real article, using modern technology to make it look like very little modern technology was used.

    The writer/director, Kerry Conran, shot the film entirely on a green screen. That is to say, only the principal actors are real. Everything else was created digitally, with the actors inserted into it later.

    The reason for this was so the images would be easier to manipulate. With all the computer wizardry applied, the backgrounds have blurry edges, the foregrounds have a dewy quality about them, the color looks artificial — it looks very much like a film from the 1940s, in other words, and has plots and dialogue to match. The streets of New York look like the streets of Metropolis from Max Fleischer's "Superman" cartoons — and then giant robots attack, just like they did in one of those very cartoons.

    Download Chéri Movie dvd

    And that's not the only film reference. "Wizard of Oz" parallels are obvious, as are connections to Fritz Lang's "Metropolis" (no relation to Superman's hometown) and various others. Mostly, though, it's the style that is duplicated, and it is done with glee, ingenuity and wit.

    It's 1939, and the world's eminent scientists are being kidnapped one by one, and newspaper reporter Polly Perkins (Gwyneth Paltrow) has a lead on who might be next. Meanwhile, giant robots invade New York and other major cities to suck up their energy supplies. Only one person to call in a situation like this: Sky Captain.

    Sky Captain is Joe Sullivan (Jude Law), a dashing pilot and adventurer and leader of the for-hire army that world governments call upon when there's trouble. His crew, assisted by Dex Dearborn (Giovanni Ribisi), has seen these robots before, but has never been able to determine their source. After Dex is abducted, it's up to Joe and Polly — who have a tumultuous history, of course, and who currently engage in much verbal combat — to rescue him, find the scientists, and stop whichever nefarious party is behind all this.

    Jude Law makes a good enough adventurer, though he's no Harrison Ford, who always seemed to be having fun even when all around him was chaos, while Law takes everything so seriously. Better is Gwyneth Paltrow, whose simple beauty makes her a perfect fit for the role of Golden Age screen idol. And better still is Angelina Jolie as Franky Cook, a one-eyed ship commander who helps Joe and Polly late in the game, and who has a history with Joe, too. Jolie's enthusiasm and all-out commitment is infectious; it's rare to see her enjoying herself this much.

    Conran keeps things moving pretty fast, and he very nearly makes the style work for the entire film. But there are a few points where the action slows down and the novelty of it wears off and you stop smiling for a few minutes and you think, "Wait, there's really nothing to this, is there?"

    And there really isn't. But when all of the movie's elements are working together — the familiar characters, the goofy-but-interesting story, and the eye-catching special effects — it's a magical, wonderfully entertaining ride.

    Grade: B+

    Rated PG, some mild vulgarity, a few hells and damns

    Posted in Uncategorized.

    CARRINGTON A film review by S…

    CARRINGTON
    A film rehashing by Steve Rhodes
    Copyright 1995 Steve Rhodes

    RATING (0 TO ****):  ** 1/2
    

    CARRINGTON is a biographical movie about the painter Dora
    Carrington and her life long love, the writer and critic Lytton
    Strachey. If you are like me and have never heard of this painter,
    you will not only learn about her life, you will also get to see some
    of her marvelous paintings at the end of the movie during the credits.
    To me her paintings are like a cross between a Renoir and an Edward
    Hopper, and I would love to see an exhibition of her work some day.

    Similarly, if you have never read any of the writings of Lytton
    Strachey, this is no problem either since the artistic talents of the
    two protagonists of CARRINGTON are of minor importance. The film is
    about undying love while at the same time attempting to lay waste to
    the notion of monogamy. A fascinating contrast.

    District 9 full movie best quality

    The movie starts in 1915 with a statement that Dora Carrington
    (Emma Thompson) then was known as "a painter of exceptional promise."
    At the start of the show she meets Lytton Strachey (Jonathan Pryce).
    Their initial meeting is inauspicious. Lytton asks her friend, "Who
    is that ravishing boy?" and she tells him, "Carrington", and he says,
    "oh" very disappointedly since he is unabashed gay. Lytton's clothes
    (by Penny Rose) are old and Bohemian looking, and he always has a
    scraggly beard. Nevertheless, from the moment Carrington lays her eyes
    on him, she is smitten and wants to spend her life with him. Since he
    finds women unappealing this does present a major dilemma for her.

    She spends the rest of the movie going to bed with a long series
    of men including Lytton, but he keeps his eyes out mainly for young
    men. Unlike the typical love triangle, the relationships in this film
    form a pointed star of uncountable number of points. Among others, the
    lovers include Steven Waddington as Ralph Partridge, Samuel West as
    Gerald Brenan, and Rufus Sewell as Mark Gertler. I was keeping a
    mental list for a while, but eventually lost track. Through affairs
    and marriages she always lives with Lytton. Although the movie goes on
    for over twenty years, the make-up by Chrissie Beveridge was poorly
    done and the actors and actresses never age.

    I liked this movie for the dreamy atmosphere it provided. They
    play a Schubert String Quintet at one point, and its slow and smooth
    intonations are an apt metaphor to the happiness that Carrington
    radiates. She keeps remarking how being with Lytton makes her so
    incredibly happy. At the same time, she makes love with almost every
    man in the movie with the exception of some of Lytton's boyfriends.

    The sparse dialog by Christopher Hampton is quite witty. Lytton
    relates to Carrington that, "I tend to be impulsive in these matters
    like the time I asked Virginia Woolf to marry me." Carrington asks,
    "She turned you down?" "No, she accepted. It was ghastly," he
    replies. When Lytton finally becomes famous and gets compliments from
    the conservative press that he loathes, he says, "It isn't easy
    remaining calm in the face of excessive praise from The Daily
    Telegraph." Lytton is played as a man ancient before his time. In the
    first of the show he complaints about how old he is, when he is but 36.

    First time director Christopher Hampton gives the audience a show
    that drifts along with the easy of a slow stream in summer. Even as
    the love relationships get more complex, the show stays with its simple
    veneer. Unsuccessful attempts at shattering the calm are statements by
    Lytton proclaiming that "There are times when I feel like a character
    in a farce." The cinematography by Denis Lenoir has many scenes of
    inner peace crafted by filming the English countryside in sunset hues
    and the inside in the warmth of small rooms with equally small
    fireplaces casting golden shadows. The characters spend significant
    amounts of time staring happily at each other. The music by Michael
    Nyman fits the mood created by the director perfectly.

    Although the show appears devoid of any morals other than live
    for the moment, it provides a peaceful diversion. Lytton summons it
    up when he declares of his young male boyfriends, "I find these young
    people refreshing. They have no morals and never speak."

    The scene that best illustrates the movie has Carrington alone at
    night outside a great house owned by Lytton. Wrapped in a blanket she
    watches couples in every window - all about to make love. Ultimately
    the movie is a paean to living life to the fullest without being
    troubled with values. When her new husband, Ralph's best friend Gerald
    shows up and falls in love with Carrington, she can not understand why
    Gerald is troubled when they start making out with her husband only
    fifty yards away. And yet, the story is anchored in her complete love
    for Lytton.

    The acting is excellent. Emma Thompson is always great, and this
    movie was not exception. She takes a simple and direct approach to the
    character, and it works. Jonathan Pryce has a more complex character
    to deal with, and he is up to it. Lytton is a bit of conundrum, and
    Pryce exploits this to the fullest. You never quite understand what
    Lytton is thinking, and yet he is such an intriguing and quirky
    character that you can see why Carrington is attracted to him even if
    he claims to detest the sight of women's bodies.

    CARRINGTON runs too long at 2:02. The editor (George Akers) has
    left in numerous scenes that he should have deleted in their entirety.
    The movie is rated R for bad language, some sex, brief nudity, and a
    total lack of morals. Only mature teenagers should go and then I would
    advise discussing it with them thoroughly afterwards. For me, the
    dreamy mood of the picture and the excellent acting won me over, and I
    was able to ignore the morals issue. I do recommend CARRINGTON to the
    adventuresome moviegoer, and I give it ** 1/2.

    **** = One of the pinnacle not many films of this or any year.  A be compelled see flick.
    ***  = Excellent guide.  Look for it.
    **   = Typically flick picture show.  Warm-hearted of enjoyable.
    *    = Pathetic production.  Don't prodigality your affluent.
    0    = Solitary of the worst films of this or any year.  Entirely unbearable.
    
    REVIEW WRITTEN ON: November 28, 1995
    
    
    Opinions expressed are mine and not meant to reflect my employer's.
    
    

    Posted in Uncategorized.