shadgrin

I had known Brad Linaweaver at Florida State U in the early 70's when he was an inspiring, inventive writer who I thought was headed for greater glory.

And that is why I rented this video. Well, well, well, the time has not been kind to Mr Linaweaver. I suppose the pressures of making a living makes higher aspirations expendable. Another flower whose bloom has come and gone un-noticed in the summer breeze. Amen. There is nothing more to say. And nothing more to add. A sad epitaph to a once blossoming career as stated above. But it is the price one pays for chasing shadows without a firm foundation or goals for oneself in life. Because this movie has no goal, no purpose, and I kept telling myself, what happened to Brad's creativity, his once shining genius? Gone, gone, years of neglect has deteriorated his once shining mind.

Again, good movie with potential, but goes no where fast! A classic? This is very doubtful. It appears that the producers of this movie did not know how to end it. The direction? After a strong start, it runs out of gas. The End? It ain't got one!

It is supposed that this is Mr. Mel Brooks attempt at a genre known as "Black Comedy". Yes, sir. One is about to be hanged, and the executioner tells the condemned that the rope with which he is to be hanged, was made from the long blond hair of tall, statuesque, amazonian women woven in the finest manner available. Next, one goes to a toilet, and one finds a picutre of DaVinci's Mona Lisa painted in one of the urinals.

Further, one could get philosophical about this and recall one's younger days when one took some obsure course in Medieval Chinese Philosophy. This went on like this.

1. Fire is not hot. (one laugh).

2. Eyes do not see. (more laughs).

3. An egg has hair. (rolling in the aisles with mad laughter).

4. A chicken has three legs. (Booo!!).

5. The shadow of a flying bird never moves. (It's rotten tomato time!!).

Please imagine in the movie in your mind Fatty Arbuckle hitting Mel Brooks with rotten tomatoes. Now that would be a laugh.

Is one bewildered now? Good! Well, this is the way I felt after watching this rotten tomato of a move.

It is 1429, you are a disowned, disinherited son of dead French king. You have only a few months, few weeks, few days, few hours before you lose everything. All of this sad state of affairs brought to the French by the invincible Henry V (Henry V had died about 10 years before the coming of Joan) who had forced your father to renounce you and married your sister (the offspring of such union would be the future king of both kingdoms). Again, it is 1429, and the English is reducing France to another Scotland, another Wales, another Ireland. The English only have to cross the river Loire into southern France, and France's existence as an independant kingdom would be ended. Only a lone French detachment at Orleans clings tenaciously and stubbornly denying the English passage to south France. In comes a girl, who has come a long way from an area that had already declared Henry VI (son of Henry V) the true king of France. What would you do? Would you have had her executed? Be truthful, most people would have. This girl claims that she can save France. Again, what would you do? It is a testament to the scheming, intriguing, and back-stabbing mentality and brillance of mind possesed by Charles (future Charles VII) that he saw and opportunity to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. It goes without saying that French led by Joan, won at Orleans. However, it was more than just a mere military victory. It was a moral victory. Up to the this time, the English was always viewed as morally superior to the decadent French. Not after this. After this, the English were viewed as degenerate bastards, worse yet, stubborn fools. And it only took one girl to do this. Joan of Arc (should I say Charles VII working in the shadows) undid in two years, nearly all that which had taken Henry V over 10 years to accomplish.

If Mr. Bresson had put more of a devilish, conniving character of Charles VII into his movie, in addition to portraying the pompous, glory-seeking, but intolerant and bigoted character of John, Duke of Bedford, it would have made his film more understandable and perhaps enjoyable. But doing this would mean changing the title of the movie to "Charles VII, Savior of France, also starring Joan of Arc", and would you have paid money to see this? Be truthful. Plenty of people paid money to see the first Batman movie, which should have been titled "The Joker also starring Batman". Fiat Lux in Tenebris.

The moral of this movie. One is never certain when evil enters one's life. As Lao-Tzu has said, "Only when man recognizes beauty as such, does ugliness become reality. Only when man recognizes goodness as such, does evil become reality."

This film was made in the wrong era. It should have been made in the '40s. This film seemed to be out of time and place. The wonderful twists in plot and stories and the never ending drive in its pace towards the final conclusion is just wonderful. For being such a low budget film, it was finely crafted and well-made. Since it is against the policy of IMDB, I cannot give away its ending, but it does make a comment that no matter how smart or brilliant one may be, yet one does not have it all figured out. Watching this film for the first time on Masterpiece Theater, many years ago was a religious experience. Most of the items on Masterpiece seemed to be too intellectual for me or beyond my experience, but this film was exceptional. Finally, the film's conclusion is this, 1. One does pay for one's sins in this life (There is no forgiveness). 2. Robert Burns' poem "Mice and Men" rings true here.

Wang Ch'ung (27-97 AD), Chinese philosopher has said, King Hui when eating a salad, found a leech on his plate and forthwith swallowed it. He thereupon felt a pain in his stomach and could eat nothing. Next morning his prime minister greeted him and asked him how he got this ailment. The king replied thus, "While eating a salad, I found a leech. I thought that if I had scolded those responsible, but did not punish them, I would be disregarding the law, and not be keeping up my dignity as soverign. Therefore, I could not let my subjects get wind of this matter. Had I, as the law requires, reproved and chastised the persons responsible, the law would have required the death of all the cooks and the waiters. To that, I could not make up my mind. Fearing that security should perceive the leech and take matters out of my hand, I promptly swallowed it." The minister rose from his seat and congratulated the king on his mercy and benevolence. That very night, the leech came out, and the ailment of heart and stomach which the king had been suffering for some time, was cured. Could not this be considered as an evidence of Heaven's partiality for virtue? ---- Stop. No. This is idle talk. In a salad, there must be no leech. If so, one does not eat it but throws it to the ground. Provided, one is anxious, lest the attendants should discover ti, he may hide it. So the leech can escape observation. Why must one eat it? If something uneatable is found in a salad, but the option to either dispose of it or conceal it exists, one follow these options, to eat is would be a bad mistake.

Well, I found this leech of a movie, it went inside me and made me ill. However, I felt better after watching this movie (when the leech came out). As for the people who made this movie, they should meet the fate the law proscribed for the cooks and waiters noted above regardless of how much better I felt when this leech of a move was finally over.

A real strange movie,good effects for such a low budget movie. Very Richard Kern type of plot twists. Memorable ending.

This movie has some fine acting (quite realistic). Considering its dark view of the world, it remains true to form. (everybody is a monster, and after one thing. What you got.) However. The ending is a dissapointment. It is understood, that in this type of movie, there is no happy ending, but not to give away the ending, it apears that the makers of this film just wanted to end it (and dictated the ending). To sum it up. It's a slap in the face, a cold shower, hard hit in the gut. A good antidote to those 'feel good' movies.