This is a very interesting documentary about a big and famous family. The director, who is a grandchild of Roberto Rosselini, has made a loving portrait of his aunts and uncles. The director seems to be a nice and warm person and he has much love for his family living across the world.
My observations about the family after having watched it is that Ingrid Bergman's daughter Ingrid Rosselini is the true beauty of the family. Elletra, Isabella's daughter, would not be working as a model if it were not for her famous mother. The scene with Isabella modelling on the runway with her children is lame.
The scenes of the director with his mother were the most touching in the film and is what stays with me. There seems to be a warm close bond between them despite them not having seen each other for years. Those scenes were the most hopeful and intimate.
"The Third Day" is enjoyable to watch - for all the wrong reasons. As a murder mystery it is not exciting since it is too obvious who the bad guy is. A movie where the heroes of the story are the rich people is too strange. It's hard to feel any sympathy for them. Maybe I'm used to seeing rich people being portrayed as bad and decadent. (It's more fun that way!) In "The Third Day" they just seem too dull and I was hoping the story would have some twists in it to make it interesting but no, the ending is very pat.
It is a Hollywood studio product made just before American films got exciting again. Just a few years later a film like this would be deemed very old fashioned. The only time the makers of the film try to add some youthfulness is when Sally Kellerman all of a sudden does "the Frug", or some other dance, for no reason in front of the camera. Otherwise the movie is full of boring adults, some are of the early 60s rat pack kind - all of them acting in a stilted way.
This is a bad "good" film. You can tell that studio took it seriously. It doesn't work for several reasons: Elizabeth Ashley is in some bizarre Audrey Hepburn mode. Geoerge Peppard looks bored and puffy. The villain is obvious and overacting. Spoiler! - You never get to see the car crash or how the passengers dealt with the situation. George Peppard *tells* the camera what happened!
The best thing about this film are the magnificent surroundings and the cinematography. The landscapes and coastlines of the area that it was filmed in are astounding. But many parts of the movie are laughably bad. It's curious to see how the film tries to be sexy before the censorship codes fell. This is an extremely dated film, though that is what makes it entertaining!
I've watched this film several times and I am quite fond of it. I had to get it when I read that it was set in Swinging London. For that reason alone I had to watch it! It's a charming comedy too, so it has become a favourite of mine.
I've wondered why this film isn't more well known and why it wasn't a hit when it was released. After all, it stars two good actresses being funny in 1960s London! But after watching it again I understand why it isn't considered a classic. The comedy is too broad. If it had been a more of a subtle satire of the shallow world of fame and media it would have worked better.
Rita Tushingham and Lynn Redgrave are lively and enjoy themselves as the out of towers but they are a little too much like Laurel and Hardy. The first half of the movie is too childish with jokes appealing to twelve year-olds. Older audiences should wait through the paint and pie fights until the latter half of the film when it becomes a little more satirical of the London in-crowd. The second half is funnier and more biting.
The very best aspect of the film is that it is filmed on the London streets. It is a great opportunity to see what it looked like with all the colourful mod fashions. Really switched on!
Oh, how I love this film! It is my favourite musical. I adore how it takes place in a run down, almost empty theatre with unknown actors who are all hungry to be discovered. They aren't above deceiving their colleagues in order to shine a little extra in front of the film director sitting in the audience! I adore the cast of British actors who really bring these second rate theatre actors to life! It's still charming to watch after all these years. My favourite character is Maisie played by Antonia Ellis.
I first saw it on German television in the long version and recorded it on video. Lucky I did because the film was unavailable for so many years and when I did find a copy it was a much shorter version without many of my favourite scenes. The ones with the "Nicer in Nice" and "I got the you don't want to play with me blues" were missing. The musical numbers in the forest and when they are leprechauns were much shorter.
Thank goodness that Warner Brothers have finally released the whole film in a complete remastered edition with all the scenes restored in a 136 minute version!! The picture quality is pristine. The DVD really could have benefited though from a commentary track with Ken Russell and Twiggy. I'm dying to hear how the film was conceived! It is such an imaginative and inventive film.
It is a joy to watch. I am aware that some people can't bear to watch it or understand it. I enjoy every "overlong" minute of it! The dancing is amazing. Twiggy is so sweet and perfect for the part of Polly. She is a good dancer and has a nice pleasing voice. I wonder why she didn't make more films after the Boy Friend. I wish it had been more of a hit. A year later another backstage movie was released showing the shoddiness and decadence of theatre life. Cabaret is well known but the Boy Firend is a film no one has ever heard of
Please take the time to discover this light hearted gem!
The story is not what I expected, which is good, but it left me feeling there was a lot missing that could have made it more satisfying. The actors dealt with the soapish material very well and that is what made me like the film. The characters they played were either appealing (Finch and Fonda) or entertaining like Lansbury.
Now to the plot, so look out for spoilers ahead! Fonda falls for Finch and eventually so does he for her. It just takes ages for them to even kiss once! In between there is a lot of beautiful travelogue showing spectacular views of Greece. The three leads wander about gazing at the sights and Finch and Fonda never kiss while Lansbury is aware of the attraction. Why did they bring her along if they wanted to be alone together? She finally leaves on her own accord and they still don't kiss until much later. Then Fonda leaves for no reason, goes back to her dull husband and dominating mother that she wanted to flee. Then she dies. Finch never has any confrontations with either his wife or Fonda. The film ends.
The film consists entirely of lovely views of Greece, Lansbury bitter remarks and Finch's and Fonda's longing. That's it for the plot. It's all very entertainingly presented until the abrupt ending just ruins the picture.
It's interesting to see how the producers wanted to invoke the scandalous Liz Taylor/Richard Burton romance from that era in the film. Fonda wears a Cleopatra wig for the entire film, Finch resembles Burton and speaks with a British accent and they walk among Greek ruins by the Mediterranean sea. Fonda can bring life to any film and I have never seen her so glamorous as she is here.
This is a neat little thriller, quite forgotten but now available on DVD. I'm glad to have seen it as it has been hard to find. It's set in France with American leads and it's quite low key and atmospheric. It's a stylish vehicle for the then red hot actress Faye Dunaway and it's nice to see her in a European setting, sometimes uttering things i french. She is absolutely drop dead stunning and there are several loving close ups of that magnificent face.
It's nice to see her playing a mother and interacting with kids. She's playful, loving and laid back. In the film she shares a family life with Frank Langella, who also has an interesting face and is believable as an ambitious writer devoted to his scatter brained wife Faye.
The cosy bohemian apartment and the misty views of Paris in the autumn is a big part of what makes this rare film a gem. The story is suspenseful and will keep wondering what will happen next, all though there are some questions left unanswered at the end. The film does seem built around showing how sensual and gorgeous Faye is and she is at the height of her beauty. With so many scenes she is often shown staring deeply at other peoples faces or into the distance with her wonderful soulful eyes.
She is a wonderful actress and a joy to watch but I did feel at times that she held back a bit when she could have gone for stronger emotions. At the police office, when she is accused of a big crime, she reacts as if she had merely been caught shop lifting. She stares at the accuser, stutters and (what is classic Faye) opens her mouth to say something only to be interrupted by the other actor (perhaps impatient to say the lines and get the plot moving). In this situation she should have screamed hysterically at the awful predicament she's in but instead she throws some objects across the desk in annoyance. In another scene, when she witnesses a death, she could have screamed or acted shocked but instead she just stares. Aside from these small scenes, she is so entrancing to watch that this thriller is a pleasure to see!
This film is like a fun bad TV movie. It has a thrilling story but the film is marred by the stale performances by the lead actors. If you've never heard of Carol White it's no wonder. She is sweet but gives her part no energy. Her line readings are flat and don't add any life at all to this thriller.
She looks like a bargain basement copy of Julie Christie but with out the charm. This seemed to be her big break in Hollywood after having had some success in England. Here she displays why there was no reason she would ever become a star. Why was she cast in this? There must have been countless other actresses who could have brought some fury to character. This part required a bit of madness and Carol was just too ordinary to deliver. But I suppose a film featuring abortion was a sensitive subject then and perhaps bigger stars did not dare take the part.
The early scenes of the film seem contrived and trite when the characters meet. The changes that show time progressing are quite corny and dated but the late sixties fashions are cool. Carol White, though, looks short with that heavy hair-do which gives the impression that she has no neck.
The film picks up after the dreary first half. There are some neat twists and turns that keep this film from being totally forgotten. The ending is exciting even though the lead actors don't show any tension in their performances. You can't tell if Carol White is terrified or ready to do anything to help her baby. Her character goes to great lengths plot wise but you could never tell by looking at her face.
So, over all it's fun and chilling thriller thanks to the plot but not the actors.
I can't understand the lack of love for this film. It is just a fun costume film with some mild action, all quite entertaining. It's colorful, full of British character actors in good spirits. It also has beautiful scenery from the British countryside and wonderful period costumes from the baroque era.
The film stars Faye Dunaway in the delicious role of Lady Barabara, a very unscrupulous and greedy woman. Faye enjoys herself but she could have let rip a little more, gone the extra inch to portray this very wicked lady.
On the whole an amusing matinée movie. I think if it had less nudity it could have been a film for the whole family, as it was a lot of kids who could have enjoyed it were left out. Maybe that's part of the reason the film wasn't a hit back in 1983.
I checked this movie out as it sounded interesting as it starred Warhol discovery Viva and the writers of the musical "Hair" and was filmed by Agnes Varda who made "Cleo from 5 to 7". I was looking forward to seeing this but was so disappointed because it is a terrible and amateurish film with unappealing characters.
Rado and Ragni should never have stepped in front of a camera. (Instead they should have been busy writing a new hit musical.) It is now clear to me why Viva never became a movie star and why this movie now is forgotten and unseen. Shirley Clark is the only interesting person in it and I wonder what this movie would have been without the Kennedy assassination.
It's ironic that the film studio people in the film talk about having the final cut of a film project and how the Clarke's agent wants her to retain creative control over her film. This film HAD been better with a lot of editing, cutting out all of Viva, Rado and Ragni (but the there wouldn't have been anything left!).
What could have been a cult documentary of the scene in 1969 California is just an incredibly dull because of Varda's choice of lead characters. Just because these people had been involved in some cool 60's projects did not mean that they were worthy of being subjects of a documentary. The only funny part is when they discuss pregnancy and how it would be good to speed up the process.
I was hoping for some Hollywood mystery like "The Uninvited" or something suspenseful like "Laura" (with the painting). Sadly this valentine to Jennifer Jones is quite dreary as it is overly romantic and chaste.
Ms. Jones is all right in the thankless role playing a caricature of an innocent and sheltered girl. She's lovely but there is almost no personality to her as she has no faults being so nice. Any sane person would be bored after a while. Come to think of it, the only strange thing she does is to lure Mr. Cotten to his death in the sea...
The photography is atmospheric and the best part of the film. The end is filmed in a creative way, but this film is not a Hollywood classic due the *constant* sappy music and Joseph Cotten is quite rotten.
I love the Adèle Blanc-Sec comic books so I looked forward to watching this. The film is quite faithful to the plot of the comics and the characters in the movie are extraordinarily alike their drawn equivalents. But the similarity stops there. The mysterious atmosphere of the comic books are sadly replaced by very broad humor thus making the a children's movie out of the adult comics.
I was also disappointed by the actress in the lead role as she was far too young healthy and beautiful to play the strange Adèle of the comic series. The CGI effects didn't help and it was too brightly filmed. It was tiresome with all the swooping camera views. The slow bullet through the air has been done a million times before.
The director did not seem to trust the source. This could have been a cool, strange and bloody version of the comic books but instead it was too childish for grown-ups. I am not surprised there is no sequel to this film.
I was looking forward to this movie. It seemed promising and I had hoped for a "The Lady Vanishes" type of mystery thriller. Jacques Tourneur directed the film - the man behind "Cat People", "I Walked with a Zombie" and "Out of the Past" - all excellent films that I love.
"Berlin Express" was sadly disappointing to see. The film is for the most of the time not set on a train and was not very exciting at all. Only the sequence in the brewery was ingeniously filmed. The rest of the film was all talk!!!
The cast was not the most memorable and Merle Oberon seemed miscast. But the real star of the film is the photography of the ruins of Frankfurt and Berlin which is fascinating to see. See the film for that alone because the film is short on suspense. The plot was tedious relying very much on coincidence and I never cared for the characters.
How this film could get a rating of 6.2 on this site is a mystery to me. It's crystal clear why this film bombed upon release. It's the least funny romantic comedy ever made!
The people who worked making it had a little too much fun and thought they were being adorable. There's hardly any plot - just people falling in love and bantering. So many bad ideas, especially the title which is so inappropriate it actually fits this terrible comedy!
Bogdanovich was too much in love making this film, blinding him. It's embarrassing to see him trying to put himself in the movie in John Ritters character and having Colleeen Camp pretending to be Cybill Shepherd pretending to be a screwball comedienne!
What makes this film interesting, though, is all the beautiful women displayed in front of the camera. Audrey Hepbun, Patti Hansen and Dorothy Stratten are gorgeous. Then there are the horrifying ones like the one playing the kid in the film and...Blaine Novak.
"Happiness" was a funny yet very disturbing film. It's a very good film but one I can't see too often since some scenes are too weird. I wanted to see the follow up to that film, hoping it would be as funny, sad and chilling. "Life during Wartime" is quite weak. Having Charlotte Rampling in a small part did not help. The story took a long time to get going and then it was over too soon without creating any interest in the characters nor the storyline.
All the actors in the new film were much paler than the ones playing the same parts in "Happiness". The only appealing one was Shirley Henderson playing Joy (even if I missed Jane Adams dearly). The one playing Trish was nowhere near as good as the original actress, but the part was not as funny either.
Why make a follow up movie without the original cast? It would have been great to see them having aged like their characters. I suppose the actors from Happiness didn't like the script for "Life during Wartime"!
I love sixties movies, especially an expensive one from one of the big studios. The money thrown on this film didn't help. It's a much too predictable and pedestrian film. Maybe Universal saved by using a bad script and mediocre actors in the lead roles. George Peppard is no Steve McQueen and it's quite understandable why he never became a big star. I wanted to like Inger Stevens. This is the first time I see her in a movie. It's too bad she read her lines so flat. Neither of the leads had any star quality.
No, the money must have gone to paying the excellent photographer, the beautiful locations, the fine score by Francis Lai and the good supporting cast (all except the one who played George's french friend). Orson Welles stole the show as he always does!
The script lacked suspense and good lines. I kept waiting for the film to end! Even Edith Head's clothes didn't help. *Spoiler!* I was going to give this film three stars until it came to the ending in the Colloseum. The fight made me go down to two stars and then when the final twist came it was down to one. I understand why this film has become completely forgotten. It's a big expensive mediocre thriller.
I love crazy 6o's films and I adore Monica Vitti so this film has had a special place in my heart over the years. I've only seen it a handful of times and now when i got the DVD I understand why...
It has Vitti, it has Stamp, it has Losey and Bogard and bright colours and op-art sets, sunshine, songs, fab clothes, yet it does go on for a while... With no understandable plot it all turns out to be rather...pointless. The film is so busy being charming! I think it's sad that it wasn't better for Monica's sake. This was her break-out film into English language cinema and it wasn't very good as a spy/Bond film because it's not an adult movie!
I now understand why it was not a hit when it was released. Losey didn't take Modesty Blaise seriously enough.There was even too many wigs and clothes changes even for me. Yet I still love the film and la Monica!!!!!
Tina Marquand is in it and she's good even if her part is small.
The only reason I saw this was for Bette Davis. She was frail as a bird, yet beautiful in her old age. Love that she's wearing big false eyelashes!!! Otherwise this Agatha Christie movie was so DULL! With so many missed opportunities for some entertaining mystery!
It was badly filmed and cheap-looking and virtually suspense-free! The murder scene when the people are in the drawing room was botched by the director. No atmosphere at all!!!!
Almost no fun dialog that said much about the characters. The only good actors were the woman playing Mildred and John Mills. Helen Hayes was really shaky as ms. Marple. Her American accent came through much too much -and she was supposed to be a great stage actress!!!! Leo McKern was the only one adding some personality to his character. The young actors were terrible but the American guy was at least not wearing underwear under his jeans...!!!!
This is certainly NOT one of the classic Agathas and does not deserve to be mentioned!
I have always loved this movie. It's a harmless very superficial super silly science fiction comedy. It's set in "the Valley" with all the colorful 80's fashions and empty-headed easy- going people. This film is very light weight fun.
Maybe a little too wacky for audiences when it was released in 1989. It seemed to have gone nowhere when it could have been the great kitsch summer film that year. It had the stars: Jeff Goldblum, a young Jim Carrey and Damon Wayans and the super hot Geena Davis!!! Geena could have been a HUGE star but she seemed to have disappeared during the 90's. She was beautiful and cute at the same time and funny, with a tall hot body. Why did she just sort of vanish????
When I re-saw this film I could see why it wasn't a hit. It's a bit too loose and wacky. The direction by Julian Temple is too slack: many of the jokes just misfire and go past unnoticed because the staging is bad. He seemed to have taken just one take of each shot. The musical parts are badly put together and the music (which I still love) pretty weak. The best thing in this film is Julie Brown with her too few scenes and songs!
Even though I've never understood who or why people got killed in this film, and I've seen it many times, I still like this movie a lot. I don't know why really, the plot is murky, it's not particularly atmospheric and it looks a little cheap sometimes with the studio-bound sets.
That most of the actresses in the film resemble one another doesn't help either. Rita Moreno looks like Gayle Hunnicut who looks like Marlowes girlfriend. Orfamay looks like the receptionist Marlowe talks to at her hotel. On top of that Orfamay and Mavis do NOT resemble each other and they are supposed to be sisters!!!!
I'm not a huge fan of James Garner but he's fun to watch. The film has an energy of it's own. The performances are all lively and entertaining. The last fight between the sisters is heartbreaking.
The cool clothes, groovy sixties setting and music add to the charm and I repeatedly watch this film without ever understanding who shot who!
I finally got to see this late sixties thriller. I love films that reflect those times. "Eye of the Cat" is like "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane" set in swinging San Fransisco, with the old lady in a wheel chair in the old style mansion and the young beautiful people out to get her.
The plot does not deliver, though. There's no suspense since the plot is confusing and the characters actions do not make sense. The plot twist can be seen a mile a way. It's odd that they filmed the movie when the plot really isn't that good. The main characters fear of cats is never frightening and almost silly!
It's too bad "Eye of the Cat" is too unbelievable and predictable because the premise seemed promising with such appealing actors. Tim Henry as the repressed younger brother is quite good.
The best thing with this movie is gorgeous Gayle Hunnicut who always was drop dead beautiful in her films. She was hot for a while then she seemed to disappear from films. Too bad, she could have been a star. She was involved with David Hemmings at the time which may account for her mix of American and British accents. The camera doesn't do her justice here as she seems to stand a lot in the shadows, but there is almost enough views of her in fab sixties outfits!
I am so lucky and happy to finally have seen this rare film!!!! It's been released on DVD in Sweden!!!! It's been impossible to see this film. Has it been shown anywhere since its initial release in 1968?
The film was in that infamous book "50 Worst Films" by the Medved brothers. It's not bad at all, quite gripping actually if you like tragic romance on film. It's well made with good direction by de Sica and good acting by Faye Dunaway and Marcello Mastroianni.
It IS very much a European film from the 1960's. A bit too trendy for most and that means people will think it is dated. It's a nice document of its time. I do wonder why it wasn't a hit back then, since the film has two big stars and a well known director. Perhaps it's too stilted. I am a great Faye Dunaway fan so for me it was a HUGE pleasure to see this film. I also LOVE films from the sixties high on style.
It's strange that the plot is very similar to the huge hit Love Story from 1970, yet Amanti is completely forgotten. Maybe the story of two jetset people in luxurious environments became a bit tired after a while. The plot is rather thin with very little background explanation. The film also borrows a lot of elements from other films: two beautiful adults in a love affair (A Man and a Woman), a woman seeing shocking news on TV (Persona), beautiful decadent rich people (La Dolce Vita), rich people stealing in a shop (Breakfast at Tiffany's)...
Faye also reminds me of Monica Vitti walking around full of stylish angst in Antonioni movies. (Nothing wrong with that!) She even acts kooky like Vitti in some scenes! It's lovely to see Faye so relaxed on the screen. She seems to be genuinely enjoying herself and is absolutely luminous. Maybe it's because she fell in love with Marcello during filming. She gives a very sensitive performance as Julie.
All my life I've been mad about 60's mod films. I just love movies from the 60's with loads of cool clothes and style. I thought I knew about most of them until I just recently found out about "The Touchables", which is just all mod style. So much so, that there's almost no plot at all. The clothes and the visuals are fantastic but it all just seems to be a bunch advertisements strung together, one after the other.
After a while I almost lost interest since it was almost too much style. The girls are very pretty but, apart from the dark one, all of them are very uninteresting (and quite bad actors to boot!). The prettyboy pop star is almost better than them combined!
The real star of the film is the absolutely AMAZING gigantic bubble house they reside in. That knocked me out and makes this film worth watching again! The set design should have won awards!!!!
How come this film is so unknown? I gather that this film was not a hit at the time but to be so forgotten is strange... Does anyone know?
Thoughts on Mona Lisa, 20 years later. I liked this very much when it was new back in 1986. I've seen it many times since on video. Saw it again last night for the first time in maybe 10 years and there are a few things I want to comment on.
I did not remember it being so funny. It's almost a comedy. I think it had been better if it wasn't so cheerful. The ending was a bit too hopeful for Bob Hoskins. The film could have been grittier to really make a point of how terrible the conditions are for prostitutes. The film just leaves Simone at the end when it was Hoskins character who brought her to the point where she used the gun. I found it strange that she didn't flee or that Bob didn't help her. Did he ditch her because she fancied Cathy?
The film really pulls the viewer into the story but it's all a little too unlikely. Simone's posh accent, Michael Caine with the white bunny rabbit, Hoskins cheerfulness... His funny friend with the garage and that Genesis tune were totally unnecessary! It all made the film superficial. It's still very entertaining, though...
Sammi Davis was the best thing in it, all too briefly.
There is a reason why this film is unknown and forgotten. "Nattlek" is quite bad. It is not as good as Mai Zetterling's "Älskande Par" or "the Girls" (which I consider as the best Swedish film ever made).
I was looking forward to seeing this film. It was released on DVD in Sweden, so I jumped at the chance to watch it. It sounded good, or at least interesting. Ingrid Thulin, who was always a good actress, was typecast here as a neurotic mother to a little boy, (reminds me of the decadence in "the Damned" by Visconti). When the boy is an adult he takes with him his girlfriend to the castle where he grew up and they face his childhood demons.
The girlfriend played by fresh faced Lena Brundin gives the film some humanity but she has to play opposite Keve Hjelm who is very dull and plays his role in the pretentious acting style people back then thought was serious and worthy. Famous Swedish jazz singer Monica Zetterlund livens things up but has a too brief part in this film.
Crazy party guests and relatives try to give the film a feeling of Fellini and Bergman without any feeling or depth. Borrowing fashionable ingredients from other films does not an art-house classic make. The film is interesting to watch as a document of its time. The arty psychodrama films went out of style. This type of film killed itself.
Audrey pouts dourly the entire movie except a few smiles to break the monotony. Not for a minute did I forget that it was Audrey on screen. They made Coco Chanel's interesting life quite dull. They could have included her German boyfriend during world war two, but they didn't. I could tell all along what was going to happen to her English boyfriend once he stepped in his car. I almost fell asleep.
Nice photography of the French countryside and mansion is the only worthy thing in this film. I had a hard time caring for anyone in the film. Rich people smiling or the unappealing Coco pouting is not enough for a full length film.