scotty12

This film deserves to be better known. If you liked Local Hero or Gregory's Girl, you will probably enjoy this one as well. It has the same quirky charm and unbelievably good weather to display the beauties of the Celtic fringe of Scotland. Some of the accents sound more Irish than Scottish, Bill Travers particularly, but he does make valiant efforts.

Not a deep film but a real delight, and well worth keeping to put in the VCR on a miserable winter's night.

The 40s and 50s produced many alluring performances from beautiful and sexy actresses and Rita Hayworth's in Gilda is one of the most provocative of all. The film is good and quite deep, the male leads are better, but Hayworth's performance is simply stunning and unforgettable. She may not have been the most beautiful 40s actress (Gene Tierney and Veronica Lake were more classic beauties imo), but if you look closely her ability to show the sweet, the vulnerable, and especially the wanton, in women has not been bettered. Somehow her character gets under the male viewer's skin in the same way as it does to the male characters in the film.

Modern film femme fatales are a pale shadow by comparison, for example Linda Fiorentino or Sharon Stone. I'm not sure why. It could be either that nowadays allure is too much equated with sex or nudity (less tantalising than several dashes of suggestion) or maybe it's that present day equivalents are portrayed as hard as nails without the necessary mix of sadness and vulnerability.

Whatever, if you've never appreciated what the appeal of 40s noir is, this is definitely one to try.

What a magnificent work this is! Even in its sadly butchered state, it seems like a masterpiece. Citizen Kane may have scored higher on technical innovation, but it is less touching and involving than this.

I always thought of Gregg Toland as the master b/w cinematographer of all time mostly for his work on Kane, but the cinematography by Stanley Cortez on the Ambersons is as good if a little less showy, and surprisingly similar to Kane's.

Maybe, like the Venus de Milo, the flaws resulting from the petty interference with the director's vision somehow add to the overall impression. We can look at the film and imagine what if? how about this? rather than merely saying the film is perfect.

This western has much to admire - cinematography with a dusty autumnal sheen, Dylan soundtrack, some fine performances from regular western actors, most especially James Coburn's as Pat Garrett. It has two typical Peckinpah characteristics - a pervasive air of death and decay throughout and the detached observation by children of scenes of extreme violence, though they do not take part in them. This second characteristic leads one to imagine that the future is likely to be as violent as the present.

Interesting western then and one that gives a unique viewpoint rather than retreading someone else's work as lesser westerns often do. However there are some problems with this film that prevent it from being a classic. Historic liberties are taken, no problem, but having Billy the Kid (who died aged 22) played by a 36 year old Kristofferson must be dubious to those who know anything about the history. The part was played as a mature, experienced villain rather charismatic and heroic instead of an immature young thug. Bob Dylan was a great singer and pivotal to the times, to be sure, but his acting talents as Alias were unfortunately not in the same league.

The main difficulty I found with this is that it's so clearly of its time of making. I cannot in any way imagine this as the reality of life in 1880s New Mexico when all the actors have early 1970s hairstyles and Maria (Billy's squeeze) is played like a hippy chick by Rita Coolidge with the appropriate sexual mores to that era. This, together with the faded effect cinematography gives a distancing to the viewer's perspective and leaves the impression of an interesting dream rather than a true to life western.

The second best ever Brit gangster movie is a brilliant energy-filled piece. Lock, Stock, Barrels is fine if you want a jokey gangster film bailed out by lucky coincidences, but this is the real thing, believable and intelligent.

The film reminds me a bit of the gritty Glasgow-based TV detective series Taggart, which presumably owes this film a considerable debt, having more than its share of overt violence, explosions and generally hard men.

What really raises this movie into the stratosphere is the bravura performance by Bob 'Oskins. The much-praised ending is so fine. Surely it's the most dazzling display of an actor's craft to hold in close facial shot for a prolonged time showing a variety of emotions cross the features? Hoskins does this to perfection, showing (at least) disbelief, anger, realization, fear, grim amusement and acceptance over a 90 second period, all the while set to pounding soundtrack and flickering lighting from passing streetlamps. Not many movies include such prolonged close facial scenes. Jack Nicholson is another actor who can do them, for example in a long scene in One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest.

If you haven't seen this, do yourself a favor.

It's hard to understand why this film doesn't get better reviews. Yes of course it's a reflective arty film where evoking feelings is more important than narrative drive. The amount of nudity, though in keeping with the story, does perhaps hinder its being taken seriously by some.

Surely though it succeeds as well as any film has in painting a cinematic picture of the experience of being a stranger in a strange land? The cultural barriers, dissonances, language, the maze of similar streets - everything comes together to create the feeling of utter helplessness Kit experiences when she tries to get help for the ill Port. The confusing weird relationships, often only partially depicted in the film heighten the sense of being adrift in life.

Together with some of the best ever desert cinematography rivaling even Lawrence of Arabia, North African music, noises, characters and colors this film is a rich feast for the senses indeed. And what a wonderful final voice-over, one of the most deep and thought-provoking lines in all the movies.

Very clever and brilliantly acted film. The sense of menace comes across despite the censorship of the time. Maybe not the best ever British gangster film (probably Get Carter in my humble opinion), but certainly in the top five. What a revelation (and how unrecognisable they were) to see William Hartnell (best known for the first portrayal of Doctor Who) and Nigel Stock (Dr Watson in 1960s Sherlock Holmes series) as sharply-suited villains.

And this film surely has one of the earliest twist-type endings? After reading reviews I was looking out for something when I watched it first. Yet I didn't see it coming!

What a moving and delicate film this is! The intensity of the acting seems to counterbalance the cold forbidding vastness of the Russian winter landscape. All the performances are outstanding, and surely that by Misha Philipchuk as the 6 year old Sanya must be one of the very finest ever by a child actor?

Minor spoilers warning! The film takes you deep into many emotions. Hope at the original meeting of Katja and Toljan, fear in Sanya's early experience of Toljan, pain when his character becomes clear to Katja, pity when people who are already poor are robbed, pleasure when Sanya sees the Black Sea for the first time and many other emotional shifts.

Only one thing extra I would have liked. Much of the film's fascination was in seeing how a boy at the impressionable age of 6 would learn from both the positive and negative influences that surrounded him. We were given a fascinating glimpse of the middle aged man he became, but it was not enough to determine his character. I would have liked to have seen a little more of what sort of man he had become.

One comment to those seeing the film with English subtitles - a few of the subtitles are unreadable (white against a snowy background). This doesn't detract from viewing as the film is easy to follow. Overall, a really worthwhile film giving fascinating insights into Russian life 50 years ago.

this is. Not really because of the ending, but because everybody in it are like lost souls, trying somehow, anyhow to find meaning in their lives, but not able to do so, and destroying things in their efforts.

Best thing about the film is the cinematography. As well as the stunningly realised ice storm, the dark subdued tones which permeate much of the film impress, as does the brittle oriental soundtrack which reflects the tinkling of ice.

It's not nearly as watchable a film as American Beauty though. The characters are pathetic rather than sympathetic, the beauty and humour are lacking. Like Altman's Short Cuts, this is another film about the dark side of life that's technically very good (in a different way) but quite joyless. I wouldn't put it in the same league as American Beauty at all.

How does this differ from a soap opera? Similar largish number of characters (22 main ones), so-called real life situations, problems with relationships, no real resolution of situations, one or two shocks thrown in? Are expert direction and very fine acting performances enough to separate Short Cuts from the many meaningless and time-wasting (though popular) TV soaps? I can't see much difference, though admittedly it's in a different dimension for quality.

In Britain, there is a soap EastEnders which has a reputation for being particularly gritty and depressing. That sums up what I felt during and after I watched Short Cuts. Depressed. What pathetic lives, with their petty miseries, and nobody trying to even aspire to anything more meaningful or spiritual. Even the doctor (Matthew Modine) who somehow one wants to show a bit of humanity fails and turns away not making eye contact while telling parents devastating news about their only son's condition.

American Beauty (in my opinion) is a far more watchable film about malaise in modern American life. It has haunting beauty, and laugh-out-loud humour as well as its sweet and rotting sadness. Short Cuts however is difficult to assess. It is one of those films which are undoubtedly great, yet are not enjoyable to watch. Maybe 8/10 for film making quality, but only 1/10 for enjoyment.

Mostly fascinating and humorous meander through the recent romantic comedy with bite territory. This film overcomes an unpromising scenario (2 overgrown schoolboys writing comic books for a living - deeply meaningful stuff) and some acting limitations (Affleck's rather wooden performance and Adams' annoying shriekings), to draw you in and release you at its end to the wide world with a few fresh perspectives on life, love and gender. This has to be down to the creativity of its young director, the amazing almost unbelievably good dialogue and some truly memorable characters (Lee (especially), Ewell, Mewes and Kevin Smith himself).

So smart, sassy and sexy is this film that it's like a new window on a hardly familiar world. Time and again, the dialogues are so cool, fast and funny I'm left amazed. How could anybody (let alone everybody in the movie) have a quick enough brain to talk hip-perfect all the time? I guess that could be the reason their speech is peppered with profanity - using it so liberally gives their brains a fraction more time to think of the exactly correct jargon for what they want to say.

This film makes me feel old (30s). What a difference a few decades make! What would the likes of Bogart, Wayne or Eastwood have made of a young woman like Alyssa, smart talking, foul-mouthed, sexually ambivalent and voracious? Would she have stirred their unshakeable masculinity? How would they have handled her? A lot differently from Affleck, I feel sure. (Maybe there's an idea for a new comedy there)

One minor quibble - like so many 90s films this one shows virtually all the characters smoking throughout. Why is that necessary? It's not realistic (smoking rates are like 25% rather than 90%), and its more likely to harm health than any amount of sexual experimentation. Overall, though, a good thought-provoking film.

Unfortunately not really worth watching. A pity, because it could have been much better, with its unusual take as a non-feelgood romantic comedy. Any romantic comedy needs more likeable characters than are on show here though. Gay George is the only really likeable one, he does have some standout lines and situations that are funny even when recounted in other IMDB comments.

The others however - dreadful. Jules seemed not to be sure whether to be all-out cutthroat or intrinsically nice just playing at nasty. Dermot Mulroney's character was far too boring and chauvinistic, and not charismatic enough to have believability. And Kimmy could have been cute and likeable, but just look at her driving! I would like to see her get banned for life (likewise from singing). Jules behaved badly and nearly got somebody fired from their job, but that ain't even in the same league as Kimmy! She almost killed people on the roads and carparks of Chicago, and undoubtedly would if she were allowed to continue like that.

Can't recommend this, despite Everett's best endeavours. Julia Roberts has been so much better than this in other films (most notably Erin Brockovich).

When I saw Blue about 6 months ago, it went straight into my all-time top 10 films list. I then watched White, which was indeed outstandingly good, though not in the sublime class. I bought a copy of Red knowing it would be wonderful, so much so that I hardly dared to watch it - after that there would be no more...

After holding out for six months, I have finally watched Red. What can one say? Initially I thought it slightly less wonderful than Blue, which really spoke to my heart. However two days later (it is the sort of film that stays with you) I realised that Red is indeed the better film, and I have had to expand my top 10 to an all-time top 11.

It's impossible for me to do justice to such a sublime film in words. Others have done this much better, and many of the reviews on this site have been really helpful. It's the sort of film that makes you feel you grow as a human being, and I am so grateful that it was made and that I had the chance to see it (likewise Blue). You feel you just want to thank everybody involved with this transcendental film, especially Jean Louis Trintignon, Irene Jacob and most of all Kieslowski. At least I still have Veronique and the Dekalog unwatched to look forward to.

This film surely must be in the frame for a number of best ever categories - best Shakespeare film adaptation, one of the best ever war films AND one of the best ever performances by a male actor. It's truly stunning to see how Shakespeare's words, which seemed dull and difficult to understand at school, can be spoken as passages of such depth, beauty and power. Not one in a thousand actors could do this convincingly - but Kenneth Branagh can.

I think this far outshines the Olivier version from 1944 (very good though that was). Branagh convinces (where Olivier does not always) as he gives a wider range of emotional responses to Henry - self questioning, compassionate, sad at the harsh realities of life. You can really believe that here is a young man who used to be a playboy now faced with having to grow up and behave as a king of England. As others have said, he gives such fire and charisma to the battle speeches that you want to march straight into battle yourself! And importantly, Branagh also convinces utterly in the romantic wooing of the French princess.

Naturally enough, the film focuses on the main actor playing Henry, but the supporting actors are also excellent. Derek Jacobi, particularly, does wonderfully in a difficult role. If I had to give one very slight caveat however, it would be that Emma Thompson (who I love as an actress), does not quite convince as a native French speaker, though she makes a good try at speaking the language rapidly. Perhaps Juliette Binoche would have been better here? But overall the obvious rapport between Branagh and Thompson (who were married at the time) is more important than any slight problems with the accent.

The only Shakespeare performance that tops this movie is seeing Branagh give a live performance on stage - I was privileged to see him (with Emma Thompson) perform Much Ado About Nothing in the late 1980s, and that's still the best I've ever seen.

Don't just see this - buy or record a copy. If you see it once, you will most likely want to see it over and over! 10/10

After marvelling at the sparkling vivacity of Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown, I was very eager to see more Almodovar. Caught this one recently, and sure wish I hadn't. I felt defiled after watching it. The film makes you feel like you are watching a snuff movie, as featured in the film itself. It took me days to feel clean again.

Billed as a jet black comedy, this is way over any line for me. Any cinematographic merits don't mean anything compared to the degradation you will suffer by watching this. The film itself is hardly worth commenting on - but I felt I should warn any others who may have been likewise impressed by WOVONB and might expect this to be something similar. Watch this at your peril.

This film worries me. Is it great as so many say? It's riveting viewing that's for sure. Movies need to satisfy 5 criteria to be truly great (in my humble opinion): totally committed believable acting, technical excellence, memorable scenes that recur in your mind, something fresh to say or way to say it, and a message at its heart that can change people's lives (hopefully for the better). This film has the first four in abundance, but fails completely on the fifth.

The film is a dazzling kaleidoscope of images, sounds and emotions.It is one of the most vital films of the 90s without a doubt. Though there is quite a lot of violence, it's less painful to watch than in other movies (e.g. Goodfellas). Rather there's a constant sense of menace, because you know Mr Quentin always has some ultra-violence and jolts to the viewer, and also the non-linear structure means it's more difficult to figure out who's going to get hit. You get this sense of foreboding right from the off, when the couple are discussing robbing the diner, and the gun goes down on the table with a much louder noise than it should to match the volume of the dialogue.

Best part of the film for me was the dancing sequence - couldn't help thinking so that's how the excellent dancer of Saturday Night Fever ended up!

I have to say that they didn't get proper medical advice for this movie - giving an injection into the heart as for the overdose can't be done through the sternum (breastbone), but it has to go underneath, angled upwards. I'm pretty sure that giving a slug of adrenaline to someone who's overdosed on cocaine would kill the person instantly rather than wake them up. And who decided to call the drug adrenaline (its British name) when it's called epinephrine in the US? I'm left with the impression that this was just another scene that the film makers wanted to include to shock people, rather than trying to make it true to life.

Most worrying aspect is the very graphic depiction of heroin injection. It's made to seem glamorous and seductive. Anybody trying to get off heroin who watches this movie will have a hard time resisting the impulse to follow the example shown on screen. I think this particular scene should not have been included in the movie. Again there's a medical inaccuracy - the blood shown being drawn back into the syringe before injecting is too bright red, that's arterial blood rather than blood from a vein. Maybe they thought bright red makes it look more vivid (and shocking)?

Overall I think this film is worth watching if you know what to expect and like that kind of thing. However it has an empty heart which makes it fall way short of greatness. My opinion is that tarantino is very talented in film making, but this takes a back seat compared to his desire to shock people at any cost.

Well I really only looked at this to see Gwyneth Paltrow, but it's actually very entertaining, one of her best.

It's pure escapism, but very good of its kind. Though it might be too unrealistic for some, I think we need movies like this, and the escapism is enhanced by the chocolate box scenery, careful scene arrangement and costumes. I have no idea if it reflects the novel accurately or not, but if a lot of the humour is added then it doesn't show.

The actors generally are very convincing, especially Sophie Thompson and Ewan McGregor. Gwyneth is best of all, and is absolutely ravishing! Oh, if I could have been the voice coach who helped to teach her that faultless English accent (though in that case she would have ended up with a Scottish one)!

Is this better or worse than Clueless? It's difficult to decide. Interestingly, both lifestyles depicted seem just as distant from most people's - 1800 England and 1995 Beverly Hills. In both films, the dialogue sounds equally unfamiliar. Both are hilarious and charming, though Emma is the more subtle and touching film. Overall, I think Emma wins out.

This is a very worthy movie, dealing with the important issue of free will against authority. It's inspiring, humorous and mostly satisfying.

Something rings false though. When is the movie supposed to take place? From the fashions I would guess the 70s, though the book might say different. My (limited) knowledge of working with psychiatric patients indicates that while there did use to be abusive treatment (like electroconvulsive therapy given for the wrong reasons rather than for serious depression) this was over by the 1950s. In particular, nobody got psychosurgery (like poor old Randall) later than the 1950s. Maybe it was different in the US, or maybe I just didn't know about abuses like this. Also, I find it hard to believe that psychiatric patients would be the kind of people who are so beaten down by authority that all they need is to be shown a different way of being to be "cured". It certainly wouldn't be like that nowadays.

If the film is describing the past that's fine, but it seems to me to lose a lot of its power and urgency. However apart from that, everything else was excellent. All the actors were quite outstanding, and Jack Nicholson was awesome. There is one point about three quarters of the way through the movie where the camera is on his face for a long time, maybe 30 seconds, and you watch his expression change through about five emotions on camera (wicked sense of humour, indifference, pain, thoughtfulness and tiredness, or something like). Wow!

The film is extremely highly rated (as well as having won the 5 major oscars), so maybe I'm just out of line in carping about realism.

Though it was made in the 1960s, this excellent film gives insights into many timeless themes. In random order, these include the search for meaning in life, sense of freedom, the importance of an alternative lifestyle (shown in both the hippie/commune and biker culture), the difficulty of coping with a changing order, intolerance of difference and bigotry, and the role of recreational drug use.

The situations and characters show a wonderful naivety - what you see is what you get from everyone. Nobody plays games or tries to hide their true feelings. Sometimes what we get is deep and fine (eg the farmer's family), other times it's deep and terrible (southern rednecks), or other times again it doesn't amount to much (eg commune drama), but is still totally honest. What is really great about this movie is that it encourages the viewer to acknowledge their own feelings about the themes in an equally direct and honest way, but also to realise that none of these aspects are totally clear cut.

The movie won't please everyone, because the demands of the film for honesty are too much for some. Though many will like the wonderful entertainment, especially the cinematography and soundtrack. (How did we ever get away from such fine music 30 years ago to what we have today?)

For me, the most evocative aspect is the long road scenes. These need to be long because they actually give a personal sensation of freedom in the way only American roads can. Often you feel you personally are on a third (unseen) bike travelling in a group with the other two. Not that many road movies manage this.

Jack Nicholson of course was the stand-out actor and Dennis Hopper was very good, but I feel that Peter Fonda's performance was also first rate. He gave a dispassionate distance to all that was happening which somehow encourages you to observe but not judge.

Unforgettable images and has the possibility to change your life perspective. That has to make it a really first-rate movie - and it is. One of my top 20 movies.

Can this really be a thriller? I'd always thought that thrillers might be great entertainment but couldn't be great movies, yet this one led me to alter my opinion. The only other ones I can call to mind are the very best Hitchcocks like Vertigo.

If you're not American, you might at first imagine that a lot of the movie would be lost on you (Korean war, McCarthy references, Abraham Lincoln). Well I didn't particularly know a great deal about any of these, but actually it doesn't at all detract from enjoying and appreciating the film. If anything it heightens the paranoia. If you don't know too much about the background, you can imagine anything could happen.

Wonderfully atmospheric - I can't think of another movie that induces paranoiac feeling in the audience as well. This comes to a head when Marco meets Rosie on the train - and I think that is the reason why Janet Leigh's character was included. It's so well handled. Their first comments could be flirtatious chat-up lines or they could be passwords to recognise each other. Even when Rosie says something not quite right, and Marco tells her: you should have said..., we are not sure whether this means she is an opposing agent who knew only part of the intro routine.

A lot of people commented on the wonderful techniques that compare with the very best, especially the swirling camera-work, and the uniformly excellent acting. Few people mentioned the score, which (in my humble opinion), is one of the best of all time, beautiful but somehow heightening the tension. It tends to appear just before you are going to become even more paranoiac and is part of the movie's subtle conditioning I think.

All in all this is a most excellent movie and very enjoyable too. It was placed around position 60 in the American Film Institute top 100, but personally I would have put it about 30 higher.

The hype is right - this movie does bring something new (or at least forgotten for about 40 years) back to horror movies - scaring the viewer by tapping into their own fears. That can't be done by special effects. They take you away from reality. The best scary movies are believable because you can feel yourself in the situation. So it doesn't actually matter whether or not you know the story is real - it works because you can very easily imagine it could be.

I liked the camerawork, the grainy film, the clever tricks like switching from b/w to colour & back, pointing the camera at the ground while you hear weird noises. But while the actors were good in their parts, what makes you not care about the film as you otherwise would is the unlikeability of the main characters. It's a fine idea of the breakdown of relationships under pressure, and it's fair enough to show the actors shouting and arguing at each other as well as their situation. But we got too much of this, actually they were pretty much fighting with each other the entire time. This made them unlikeable ultimately - we should have seen some warmer aspects of their characters.

And hey, I don't mind a bit of bad language when characters are under real pressure, but it should be used sparingly or else they're just unpleasant, brutish, and you can't care about them as you want to. These guys (all three including the girl) were shown to be swearing the whole movie, even before any scary or pressure situations - they could hardly utter a single sentence without it! Realistic? You don't get this level of bad language even in settings where you would more likely expect it (eg the Godfather, Reservoir Dogs). That made them too unsympathetic, and for a real scare you SHOULD care about at least some of the characters.

Overall - good horror movie, but could have been quite a bit better. I'd put it definitely outside my personal top 100 movies, maybe around number 200 or so.