josephemeryprank

A surprisingly beautiful, gorgeous-looking film that also builds a lot of tension.

But it's not perfect.

Early clumsy exposition with terrible acting, unnecessarily overwhelming music to denote menace. Some illogical plot points.

The kids are good little actors except in the skiff where the 6 year old girl suddenly starts singing with the voice of a 25 year old. Couldn't they have dubbed it more realistically?

Why are the kids starving when they have 10 grand on them?

And when Robert Mitchum passes them when they're in the stable loft, why do they get in the boat and sail off IN EXACTLY THE SAME DIRECTION AS HE'S GOING?

And when he tells Lilian Gish he'll be back after dark, why doesn't she get some back-up?

On my dvd version the subtitles suddenly stopped after an hour.

Nevertheless, it's a keeper.

A complete muddle - I had no idea what was going on, how it was resolved and who on earth all those people they were.

I've pasted below the plot from Wikipedia in case anyone else is similarly confused.

Additionally, it really needed subtitles.

The blues music, on the other hand, was superb.

From Wikipedia: Plot Iberia Parish's Sheriff Detective Dave Robicheaux is investigating the murder of a young woman, and has a chance encounter with Hollywood stars Elrod Sykes and his girlfriend Kelly Drummond. They are in the small town to make a Civil War film.

Due to Elrod's erratic driving, Dave determines that the actor is driving drunk, and decides to arrest him. Objecting to being sent to jail, Elrod tells Dave of a decayed corpse that Kelly and he had found in the swamp.

Dave goes to investigate, while remembering a murder he had witnessed as a teenager, where a chained prisoner was shot in the swamp and disappeared into the bog. The discovery is soon tied to several murders in that area that had occurred recently, mostly to young runaways and prostitutes. The clues seem to point to Julie "Baby Feet" Balboni, whose ties with the mafia had caused Dave and him to drift apart and become enemies.

Balboni denies knowing the prostitute whose murder is being investigated. With little to go on, Dave visits the film site and meets the producer, Michael Goldman, who states that while Baby Feet is helping to fund the film, he is not a co-producer as he had said.

Meanwhile, Dave's home life is disrupted by Elrod and Kelly, who begin turning up regularly, almost every time with Elrod being drunk. This prompts Dave to take pity on him, as he, too, is a struggling alcoholic. His daughter, Alafair looks up to movie star Elrod, but wife Bootsie has concerns.

The discovery of a second body prompts the FBI to become involved in the case. Dave is partnered with agent Rosie Gomez. Dave attends a birthday party for Goldman, and though drinking Dr Pepper, becomes terribly uncoordinated during his drive home, and crashes his pickup truck, sending him off in a daze to the forest. There, he encounters a camp of Confederate soldiers, and their commanding officer General John Bell Hood, who apparently wishes to help Dave with his journey to solve these murders. When he awakens from his daze in a hospital, Dave learns from Gomez that his drink had been laced with LSD.

Elrod drunkenly takes a boat out on the bayou with Kelly, calling Dave when the boat engines get caught in gill nets. Dave gives Kelly his coat, as it is pouring rain, and a mysterious gunman shoots her in the chest, mistaking her for him.

General Hood offers advice again, and Dave shakes off the feelings of guilt over Kelly's death. Elrod moves in for a while so Dave can be his Alcoholics Anonymous sponsor.

Dave's cop friend, Lou Girard, is found dead, apparently by shooting himself with a shotgun.

On the last occasion that Dave sees General Hood, the general and a few of his Confederate comrades are breaking camp and preparing to leave. They are having a group photograph taken, and the general invites Dave to join them in the group.

A story from an alleged pimp corroborates a suspect, Murphy Doucet, who with his partner Twinkie Lemoyne is responsible for the murder of DeWitt Prejean, the skeleton found in the swamp. Dave arrests Doucet using a planted knife as evidence, but Doucet gets out on bail and kidnaps Dave's young daughter Alafair.

Gomez and Dave go to Baby Feet's residence and force him into telling them about a campsite Doucet owns. The two head there. Gomez is startled by Doucet and instinctively shoots him. Dave plants a throw-away pistol on the unarmed villain to ensure that she is cleared of any charges of murdering him. They free Alafair and return home.

Months later, Dave, who had stopped seeing visions of General Hood after the case was solved, determines that he was a figment of his imagination, a lingering spirit to help him through the most difficult case of his life. He moves on with his life, while Baby Feet, according to Dave, was arrested for an issue that no one would have suspected, not as a mafia criminal, but as a tax dodger. Elrod, too, moves on with his life, leaving his alcohol addiction behind; he gives Alafair a small role in the Civil War film, and claims that she had been his salvation.

As the story ends, Alafair is looking through a book on the Civil War when she comes across a photograph of General Hood and his soldiers. In a close-up of the photo, standing in the back among the Confederate soldiers, is Dave Robicheaux. It is the photo taken during what Dave had supposed was a vision.

Joe's Palace, dreadful acting, dreadful dialogue, dreadful people, dreadful music.

It thinks it's really deep and moving but it isn't.

Boring boring boring.

And often utterly ridiculous - an old man in his 70s returns to a castle, and a canoe in which he sailed around the castle with his father, when he was still a child, is still in exactly the same place and in rowable condition. Yeh, right.

Gambon says the word 'Joe' in practically every sentence he utters. Yes, we know what the lad's name is, thank you.

Gambon's character whining on self-indulgently.

A clandestine affair that is only here for the vapid sex scenes. Despicable people.

The revelation towards the end is obviously truly horrible and disgusting - and genuinely upsetting - but even here the unnecessary dialogue nearly kills its power.

It's like Poliakoff doesn't trust his audience to know what his characters are thinking and feeling - they have to verbalise absolutely everything.

So much for the old dictum "Don't tell, show".

The self-indulgent suicide attempt evokes no empathy - if you're that sorry give all your money back to Jewish Holocaust organisations.

Additionally there is an incredibly irritating special feature interview with Poliakoff who says "um" all the time, has an unwarranted unshakeable confidence in his work and talks the usual guff that people do in these interviews.

If your idea of fun is watching an old man cough for 30 minutes, then this film is the one for you.

Oh and a dog barks.

Then the old man dies, not a minute too soon.

Then we look at the countryside for a bit.

Then there's some sort of procession that's meant to be funny but isn't.

Then we look at a beautiful tree for too long.

But then they cut it down and carry it off and stick it back up again.

All done in slow motion, with a lingering on each shot as if it's something deeply meaningful.

The only interesting thing was watching the baby goats messing about for five minutes but then one of them gets lost on the hillside and bleats pathetically for about 20 minutes, which is very upsetting to watch. It also has some sort of string harness inexplicably put on its face, which is not nice.

This is a wonderful advert for not moving to the countryside, which is much beloved by people who think they are deep and intelligent.

Ignore all the pretentious guff and go for a walk instead.

Although I'd never seen this film before yesterday, I had always assumed that it was based on a true event and only recently found that it was just based on a novel.

I like slow films where nothing happens but this is just strangely empty.

Boring, self-indulgent, Emperor's New Clothes.

The first thing I hated was that the girls/actresses are all wearing make-up, caked-up in make-up to try to make them look bright, shiny and flawless. Unnatural in its endeavour to make them look innocent and natural.

The pretentious speeches they are given in an attempt to seem deep and philosophical are just laughable. And spoken in such a stilted way. (I read that voiceover actors were used because the girls were chosen for their looks and not their acting ability - but clearly the voiceover actors were rubbish too). Some of the dialogue is drowned out by the volume of the pan-pipes too. I don't know if that is a mercy.

Rachel Roberts is wonderful, though, and the little side story about Sara is moving, and more so when we discover who her long-lost brother is.

Although this is a talkie it has some silent film stars in it and it still has a very silent movie feel to it. The music, for one, and the overacting.

It would have worked much better if it had been a silent.

Never seen Jessie Matthews in anything before and she looks really cute, is built like Olive Oyl, and can clearly dance.

But that voice. Horrors! So plummy she makes Joyce Grenfell sound like something off EastEnders. It's absolutely unbearable and adds to the fact that, at least in this film, she just can't act. Overacting like in a silent film. It really is excruciating.

Owen Nares as the male lead reminds me of Basil Fawlty and everyone has those unbearable cut-glass accents.

The one bright spot was. Roland Culver as a drunk Jacques - an absolute delight.

One of the songs rips off 'Makin' Whoopee'.

Just perfect.

Cary Grant in a an early role without the annoying slickness.

Great direction.

An intelligent script.

Great acting - Jean Arthur v v funny.

Two scrumptious male leads. Who could possibly choose!

Love it.

From Wiki

Production The Talk of the Town began with the working title "Mr. Twilight", but Cary Grant insisted it be changed, suspecting that, if the movie appeared to be about a single male character, Colman, who had the better role, would steal the show.

While Grant was paid $106,250 for The Talk of the Town and Colman $100,000, Arthur earned only $50,000, partly as a result of ongoing conflict with studio head Harry Cohn.

The title The Talk of the Town was registered to Universal Studios, and Columbia had to give them the rights to use Sin Town in return. Other titles considered for the film included "Three's a Crowd", "The Gentlemen Misbehave", "Justice Winks an Eye", "In Love with You", "You're Wonderful", "A Local Affair", "The Woman's Touch", "Morning for Angels", "Scandal in Lochester", "The Lochester Affair", and even "Nothing Ever Happens".

Principal photography, originally scheduled to begin January 17, 1942, was delayed following news of the death of Carole Lombard in a plane crash while selling war bonds in the Midwest. Stevens, who had directed Lombard in the 1940 film, Vigil in the Night, halted work on the set and sent both cast and crew home.

The role of Colman's valet, played by Rex Ingram, was at the time a rare example of a non-stereotypical part for an African-American actor. Also unusual was the presence of two leading men: at this point in their careers both Grant and Colman had been used to having that role all to themselves. The situation is reflected in the plot, since audiences are kept guessing until the end who Arthur's character would choose to marry. Stevens filmed both versions, leaving it to test screenings to determine the ending.

Stevens and Arthur, both known for perfectionism and attention to detail, enjoyed a close working relationship on The Talk of the Town, with Arthur calling Stevens her "favorite director" and Stevens describing Arthur as "the finest actress he ever worked with".

I really didn't think I was going to like this. Van Johnson's cocky character, the fuzzy colour production.

But for some inexplicable reason it started to reel this old cynic in.

Judy Garland here is uncannily like Liza Minnelli in 'Arthur'. The speaking voice, vocal mannerisms, face. It's mesmerising.

And as Van Johnson slowly starts to fall for Garland's Veronica it softens him.

Garland's nerviness and defiance are v attractive.

And despite what some others have said here, I thought the chemistry between them was wonderful.

When Andy sends her a letter as her anonymous pen-pal saying he'd seen her with himself and saying how good looking he was etc - and Garland says, "He's got a sense of humour"...!

The wonderful number 'I Don't Care'.

The last scene in the music store is one of the sexiest I've ever seen.

Yes he's teasing her and it is a little mean, but he knows they love each other, the lights turn down low, sitting next to her, getting closer and closer, touching her hair, arm around her shoulder, slowly slowly, Veronica's sweet discomfort, the electricity, and the kiss.

Oh my!

It starts off with the so-called prince seriously and repugnantly harassing Lana Turner and while she does almost put him in his place with a swift knee to the groin area, ultimately - and inexplicably - she falls for him.

There is absolutely no chemistry between the two of them.

When he sings I had to fast forward it. Awful - just awful. Embarrassing, in fact.

And I'm not sure if this was one of the first technicolour films, but my version is mostly a brash blinding yellow where you frequently can't even see their faces.

Frequently, I'm afraid, I just couldn't understand the prince's thick Italian accent.

The only tiny ray of light is a teenaged Debbie Reynolds who is rather adorable.

The plot is so bad it's laughable, especially as it takes itself more and seriously towards the end regarding the difficulties of monarchy, and assassination plots and plebiscites.

From Wiki:

In Italy in 1939, Mr. Imperium uses a ruse to meet attractive lady American Frederica Brown. He is revealed to be Prince Alexis, an heir to the throne and a widower with a five-year-old son. Mr. Imperium nicknames her Fredda and she calls him Al.

When his father becomes gravely ill, Mr. Imperium must rush to be with him but asks prime minister Bernand to deliver a note of explanation to Fredda. Bernand instead informs her that the prince has left permanently as he would often do after seducing women.

Twelve years later, Fredda is now a film star known as Fredda Barlo. Mr. Imperium travels to California, where film producer Paul Hunter is in love with Fredda and proposing marriage. Fredda drives to Palm Springs to consider the proposal and decide which actor should costar in her next film, which will tell the story about a girl who falls in love with a king. Mr. Imperium takes a room next to hers, and soon they meet and embrace. He explains the crisis that took place at home during the war and that had prevented him from finding her. Now he wants a new life and Fredda believes that he could portray the king in her film.

Bernand appears, saying that his son is preparing to ascend to the throne. Mr. Imperium realizes that he is needed there, so he must say goodbye to Fredda once more.

What is it with shoes?

In the first scene Blanche comes into the kitchen in a long nightdress with a bikini underneath.

When she steps onto the scales to weigh herself she is wearing high heeled shoes (which she doesn't take off).

When the others then weigh themselves, they don't take their shoes off either.

Who doesn't at least take their shoes off when weighing themselves?

In this sitcom - like so many others (Frasier, Friends etc etc) - people also keep their shoes on when lounging sprawled out on their sofa. Or likewise on their beds.

Do people really put outside footwear on soft furnishings?

And that's all I have to say!

Very annoying characters who are far too articulate.

The only vaguely likeable character is the yoga/astrology woman played by Lysette Anthony, who we are kind of encouraged to mock. But at least she seems real and authentic.

Judy Davies' character is just awful and keeps clearing her throat in a really irritating way.

Mia Farrow's character has a horrible gulpy swallowy thing going on with her voice. But she is falsely accused of being passive-aggressive rather than just very humble. However, it doesn't really make sense that Liam Neeson's Michael suddenly falls for her at the end after being obsessed with her awful friend.

Woody Allen is just trying to make himself look like the reasonable character here.

Juliette Lewis has that annoying nasal whine going on as usual.

Sidney Pollack is genuinely scary in his violent rage towards the astrology woman (a fantastic piece of acting, though).

They all talk far too much and know too much - this is more of a thesis than a film that cinema-goers can emotionally engage with.

The hand-held camera darting about all over the place is really irritating too.

I only watched this through to the end because I had paid £2.50 for it in a charity shop and I watch my pennies. But even then I watched it in fifteen minute stages because my brain was going numb.

I agree it was a really good idea but it is badly executed. It just doesn't work.

I love theatre. Sometimes a stage play can work as a film and be original and exciting - but not this, which was very stagey.

It could have worked if it had been done with any skill and feeling, but it wasn't.

The voiceover goes on and on and is a terrible piece of writing in itself.

John Hurt's voice was irritating.

The rest of the dialogue is terrible - it is banal, tedious beyond belief - a group of 13 year olds could do better. Far too wordy.

Terrible terrible terrible. It just tries too hard, it finds it impossible to leave anything out, which is a patronising way of creating a film because it leaves nothing to the viewer.

The writing has absolutely no sophistication: it just thinks it does.

This director CANNOT write (or direct - very very sloppy direction).

I felt sorry for the actors.

The rape scenes were upsetting for more than their subject matter - the whole handling of it was upsetting and voyeuristic, and this was not justified by the ending.

I felt the director was getting off on it.

I waited for the revelation at the end and it was dire.

When I posted this in Aug. 2013 I received a very threatening message from someone who violently disagreed with me.

If this happens again I will report it.

Just watched the whole second series of this trying to work out what all the fanfare is about.

It's just the usual Emperor's New Clothes.

Same old actors we see everywhere else, hamming it up, same safe cosy production, same character stereotypes, predictable storylines, lazy writing and cliches.

How wonderful it must be to be a famous comedienne and have your every offering treated like gold. And Saunders attributes the show's eventual cancellation to "some **** in a meeting". Yeh, you keep telling yourself that.

It has its moments - very occasionally - but on the whole it's not funny, and not interesting.

Now I understand why I found it in a charity shop for 20p.

The father of the baby finally shows up and said he couldn't collect her cos his wife just had triplets?

What, is his wife a rat?

She's got a months old baby and she's just had three more?

Has she got a revolving door womb or something?

Plot Sophia is preparing for a the charity Walk-A-Thon by eating Pasta, Rose reveals that she volunteered the house to babysit competitors children, despite Blanche's objections Dorothy talks her around. The day of the Walk comes Sophia leaves for the over 80's, Rose has prepared things for the children and Blanche has tidied away anything breakable. The babysitting goes okay with Rose being in charge even the brattiest kid plays in.

However at the end of the day one baby Emily is still there, they tried calling her home and the events nothing yet. To stop Emily crying they put her in Blanche's arms, she's calmed which surprises the non-maternal Blanche. Sophia returns claiming she did so well she might be in the papers, she remarks that Emily's parents might have abandoned her, not helped when the people at the event return call to reveal everyone has gone and so they call the police, they can wait 2 days for the child services or send her to the police. They decide on waiting and getting a few things for the days ahead.

After returning the girls talk about their own children when they were babies, Blanche sadly admits that she was too vain, hiring a Nanny and realizing she ruined her relationship with them as adults. The next day as the girls prepare breakfast, Sophia reveals people had been calling her all night from the event saying she's a celebrity, just then Emily's father returns, confronted he admits he did call and Sophia answered bragging about her achievements. He reminds her of what he said, he couldn't pick up Emily because his wife had triplets, Sophia misheard him and so didn't tell anyone. With that problem solved, Emily is taken home but it's clear Blanche hoped she could prove herself, Dorothy comforts her saying that her children do need her but she doesn't agree.

However Blanche calls Janet asking her if she can visit her but she keeps making excuses, until she hears the emotional honesty in Blanche's voice and they set the date to meet up.

I'd really like to know if Darnell really smashed that crab with a hammer? My Name is Earl uses a lot of animals, and I have never yet read a message at the end to say that no animals were harmed, or that animal action was monitored by American Humane. Personally I do not want to see violence towards animals whether it is simulated or not. Why is this sort of thing still viewed as appropriate for comedy?

Does anybody know what the choral piece is in the background of the scene beginning around 10.33 and what the Lydian string quartet are playing at 17.38? Many thanks.

I recently bought season 1 in a charity shop for £1.50 - and feel like I was ripped off. I couldn't even get through the pilot. Quirky? It likes to think so, but is really just annoying. There was not one character I liked enough to care what the hell was going to happen with them. The writing is clunky and cliched. A million and one ten out of tens? Can you not see that the Emperor is naked? No doubt I will now get lots of offensive messages as I always do when I disagree with a majority opinion - insecure or what? Enjoy it if you must.

Why do adults tell children to "calm down" when they have no idea how to do so - and, in this film, to "accept" that his father does not want to see him? The youth worker tells Cyril to "Accept it". Yeh, that's easy isn't it - most adults struggle with rejection, how much harder is that for a child? So that made me angry to start with. But ironically, in many ways in the film, Cyril does just accept what happens to him, with his beautiful, deceptively expressionless face. Social services and the law appear to move a lot faster in France than they do in England - I'm sure it would take MONTHS to be accepted as a foster carer. But obviously that doesn't help move a drama along... Fantastically understated performances and direction - no goo in sight.

Great script, great direction, great acting all round. Richard Gere in a meaty role is always good. Nate Parker is fantastic, loved Stuart Margolin too. The whole supporting cast is wonderful - real, understated, intelligent. Thought I was going to be bored rigid by a film about money but I was mesmerised, even though I don't actually understand a thing hedge funds or arbitrage or ANYTHING. Watch it.

I love Mickey Rourke, I love Robert de Niro. Rourke is OK, such a lovely face, such presence, always watchable. But de Niro is crap - not helped at all by a terrible script and a clichéd role. What was he thinking? Could he have ever been so desperate for work? Very confusing film, I couldn't work out what was real and what wasn't, and the ending doesn't make sense to me - if Angel is really Johnny what is the relevance of him killing all those people? Or is it so they don't identify him? I have no idea. If he had changed into looking like the soldier then wouldn't Margaret have recognised him anyway? It could have been good but cinematically is so clichéd and irritating. And I am not a huge fan of seeing chickens killed, thank you very much.

As film-making, maybe it is good. But as anything else it is beyond awful. I saw the interview with Tilda Swinton after I watched the DVD and she said that she had just been to a screening and knew the audience was on Julia's side when they seemed concerned that the hotel cleaner might have seen the kidnapped boys legs sticking out from behind the sofa. She laughed and said that's how the film corrupts people, you get drawn in and are hoping she'll get away with it. Er, sorry, no. At that point I desperately wanted the hotel cleaner to go and get the police. Alas, she didn't. All through the film I was desperately hoping that Julia would get caught or would actually see sense and give up the ridiculous kidnap plot and hand herself in. This is a boorish, loud,vulgar, conceited alcoholic who runs over a man, kidnaps a small boy at gunpoint, wearing a mask, drugs him, ties him up with tape, puts him in the boot of her car on two occasions and in a large suitcase on one occasion - and we are expected to have some sympathy for her when she finally tries to protect the boy from other kidnappers (while still trying to ensure she gets the money she wants). Oh and shoots a man in the head at point blank range when she thinks he will mess up her chance of getting two million dollars. You just think, for Christ's sake, is money really that important? Even the supposedly moving scene where the boy joins Julia in bed for some maternal affection is distinctly creepy. Are we meant to like her just because she doesn't sexually abuse him too? And even though it clumsily tries to redeem itself with the level- headedness of the character Mitch who tries to talk sense into Julia (and fails abysmally) all in all this is a pretty repugnant film, very ugly character. It can be brave to showcase a main character who is so flawed but to engage an audience you usually need something extra, charisma, something. This was just ugly.

This film is far from perfect and many of the points made by its critics are true. But somehow these don't really matter - the whole is more than the sum of the parts, and all that. The performances from the four leads are mostly understated and achingly moving when one least expects it. I thought the writing was beautiful, thought-provoking, honest and real - even though some things didn't really add up I just went with it. I didn't find it slow, I was totally absorbed. I loved the music, complementing the mood. Shot during a snowy winter it is also beautiful to look at - a simple little scene of dropping snowballs from a bridge could have been so pretentious but instead just captures a sadness (rather ruined I am afraid when one snowball defies gravity in a ridiculous way that just seems ridiculous). This film has no answers, and is sometimes a little clumsy about it. But just savour it.

Oh I love this film. It is very very silly indeed, with plays on words that no longer seem original, but somehow it just doesn't matter. I love Eric Idle. His take on Paul McCartney is gorgeous and he is also wonderful as Stanley J Krammerhead the third, and the presenter himself. Wonderful comedy performances like Gwen Taylor's mother of Leggy Mountbatten, and Jerome Greene's Blind Lemon Pye arguing with his wife - wonderful! I love the songs, which almost seem not like pastiches at all sometimes, and rather wonderful in their own right. Am I dead - or alive? Will my poor heart - survive? I just love it. Wonderful wonderful wonderful! (yes that word again). The perfect cheer-you-up film. And my, wasn't Mick Jagger beautiful once.

I have just watched this after watching One Day in September. Munich's primary way of identifying Jews is to have them say Mazeltov a lot. I found the whole film confusing - I had no idea who was on whose side and what the hell was going on beyond a lot of shooting and remote controlled bombs. Great if you like that sort of thing. Occasional interesting bits of dialogue - such as the importance of home for a nation - hidden among all the violence and sentimentality and an irritatingly self-conscious portrayal of Golda Meir. But everyone is pretty much as bad as everyone else and the film is a great proof of the saying "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind".

I have just watched this film and am astonished that I am still awake - but maybe I am actually sleep-typing. Yes it is beautiful and well shot and all the rest of it - but interesting? Not remotely. In fact the beauty of the cinematography, its elegant simplicity, is not real anyway, it is totally fake, not to mention insulting. The rich people are in sublime greys and whites, the poor people are in dingy browns. The rich/poor divide in characterisation is pretty stereotypical too. This film takes a long time to get going and then that little frisson of excitement is soon over and we are back to endless long scenes about nothing. Attempting to portray reality doesn't have to be so banal. And far too many scenes of noisy eating and drinking - yeuch.