Reviews

I have watched this film a couple of times throughout the years. While being very familiar with most of the films of Renoir, this is one that always received a lot of praise, that I despised. In terms of film craftsmanship, it's very well made. This is a reason why Renoir has a lasting legacy and his name prevails many decades since the film's completion. The style and technique used, could easily fool many people that this was produced in the 50s. But, as we all know, style does not make movies great.

Boudu is a detestable character. Where this film strongly misfires is when it fails to properly have us identify or empathize with Boudu himself. Boudu in a nutshell, is a homeless person who tries to commit suicide. Upon being saved by someone who is genuinely concerned for his well being (unlike the rest of the paper thin bourgeois depicted in the film), he is given free room, board, and given food and clothing. However, Boudu is flat out, a scumbag. He is disrespectful, mean-spirited, is tyrannical the way he tries to destroy the kitchen, destroys clothing, and borderline rapes one of the female servants. You can argue it was later consensual because they got married, but any man that is groping a woman while she slaps his hands away and in the previous scene RAN AWAY from him, displays very borderline sexual behavior.

Then in the end of the film, after marrying this woman he conveniently fell in love with (exposition anyone?) he fakes a drowning and after discarding his Pygmalion clothing, puts on his traditional trampish clothing and continues on with life.

What a great guy! So, let us review what a likable and great character Boudu is. Destroy property of others? Check. Groping and molesting females against their will? Check. Borderline raping a woman? Check. Marrying a woman only to fake death to continue on with your selfish ways? Check. The list could go on and on. This is why I never found this movie to be enjoyable or a "classic" (which has be hailed so by simply because of being in the Criterion Collection imo). After watching this film, it's a poor send up of the upper class values of France, and really, who would want to entertain Boudu in their household? He'd probably wipe his dirty body on your blanket, break some of your dishes, spit in your floor, and possibly rape your wife. Charming fellow!

I am a pretty sizable fan of Mike Leigh and his recent work. He's one of the few mainstream directors that I have faith in, to release quality and entertaining new material. I decided to go back to view his filmography that is available on DVD. I did not review the 2 that came before this, but those were nothing special. Long drawn out character studies with little to no plot. If you've seen one, you've seen them all. Especially when his first two dealt with nearly the same topics.

The write-up on IMDb for "Nuts In May" intrigued me. Leigh finally decided to stop focusing on depressing characters and moved to a conflict of a couple with inconsiderate visitors. I patiently waited throughout for a climax of any sort. A couple visits a camp, goes on a hike, discusses fossils, songs, vegetarianism, and some others I am probably forgetting. Along the way he meets up with a man who refuses to turn his radio down, then this man's friends also show up later. Our main characters freak out, get upset, and deflating scenario ensues. I am glad this was only 80 minutes. If I put 2 hours of my life into this for this type of ending and meandering plot, I would be upset. The film was only entertaining because of what I pictured or thought of, and HOPED would happen, especially knowing the films that came before. I was let down yet again. I must be masochistic to continue with these films. I'm curious now as to what point Leigh starts making quality cinema.

I would not recommend this film to anyone. Character studies have come after that trump it. Much better offbeat comedies exist. No reason to view this one. The high reviewed ratings baffle me. 10/10? This is by no means classic cinema or groundbreaking or memorable in a good way.

I had been anticipating the release of this film onto DVD for quite some time now. I first become privy to the film over two years ago, just missing my chance to view it in a nearby city by a few weeks. I began to wait and wait until the DVD hit stories. After an online rental, I finally got to satiate my desire.

I must say, I knew quite a bit about Centralia prior to the film. I've read Joan Quigley's "The Day The Earth Caved In", read various websites, and even visited the town of Centralia in person. I was not sure how they were going to tackle the film. From reading the history behind the town, the press for saving it, and the aftermath, they had potential to really delve into a convoluted situation with many theories of why the government failed to act quickly and the heavy disputes between those who wished to keep the press out of the town. The film mentions these things, albeit too briefly for one with limited knowledge of the story to gain a better insight into the turmoil surrounded within.

The film mainly follows one of the last current residents of the town, we get quality reminiscing of how the town was, childhood memories, the camaraderie of neighbors, and he provides a great warmth for one to imagine how a town that is doomed to be torn down once prospered. We're treated to old film of Holiday parades at the intro of the film, I personally was expecting much more of this type of medium. This was one of my biggest expectations of the film, old achieve footage of the press the fire got. From reading up on the town, they actually appeared prime time on ABC in the 80s when they were trying to garner enough support to finally put the fire out. Sadly, no news footage of the sort appears in the film. The film largely comprises of first had accounts of how the town used to be from old residents, politicians, and relatives. Between these scenes, we are treated to the hometown resident walking around town giving us a detailed tour of how the town looks now.

I guess now is also the proper time to dispel any unseemly expectations. Cenralia is not on fire above ground. You will not see this film or visit the town and see flames billowing from the grounds or trees on fire. What you will see is the old highway deteriorated and cranked, smoke rising from the ground, and lots of dead trees and vegetation letting the viewer to realize the roots were torched from beneath the surface.

Overall, the film is a good introduction for those who may have heard about the film or the legends. It's too brief in spots, but many books were written to help fill in those gaps. I do wish in included news footage from the past, a topographical map detailing a then/now perspective, and just all around a longer documentary; there's much more history to push it over the ninety minute mark.

Four individuals plan to eat themselves to death at a retreat surrounded by women and non-stop catering. Throughout the film each character philosophizes, make sexual innuendos, have sex, and gorge themselves in one vice or another in every scene.

I've seen the film a few times and it remains enjoyable. Each character has their own traits and different ways of exiting life. Prostitutes come and go yet a female school teacher decides to join the horde until the very end.

Sadean to the core, without the pessimism, their hedonistic lifestyles continue until their bodies (or mind) can no longer take it.

A satire of course, but given the time it was filmed can probably be looked at in a few ways. Three of the four characters greatly enjoyed their time even when facing death. Half expecting to see them have a revelation or biting realization on life, instead they continued on the same path. Kind of hard to have a satire without some sort of tragic ending or change in plans of the patronized characters.

Not a masterpiece but worth seeing. The film is even strangely erotic. I don't think it comes together as a full fledged mock of society either. I dare one male to deny he would not enjoy a weekend at a retreat such as this.

Fritz Lang has done it again. He made solid work in the 30s in America but from what I've seen, this is his first near classic under American production.

The story follows an assassin who kills a Hangman in Nazi occupied Czechoslovakia during World War 2. What follows is a twisting an elaborate thriller involving secret underground counter intelligence groups, a love affair of sorts, adventure, and a thrilling end to a near masterpiece.

Scenes that stood out immensely involve the assassin meeting with the female he whose house he briefly stayed in. She did not realize who she was, and when finding out, plans to turn him into the Gestapo. They eventually meet in her house again, only the hero knows the room is bugged. Incorporating a brilliant scene involving them exchanging sentences on a note card detailing what to say, while at the same time, vocalizing as if they're having a lover's spat to keep the Gestapo fooled. Brilliant.

The other scene involves trying to catch the traitor in the underground movement. Suspecting him of actually knowing German, they devise a plot to have a waiter at dinner, to tell a joke in German. Once the joke is finished they intensely watch the traitor for his reaction. Fantastically well done, once the viewer is in on the sneaky trick you're on the edge of your seat.

As a Lang film of course you get great shadow work throughout. A man entering a door, the viewer only sees the shadow of a man with a bowler hat on, suspense builds especially since your only implication for a few seconds is the reaction of the female who opened to see who it is.

The end could have been edited down a few scenes. They tried to outstretch the capture a bit too long, following under the dreaded idea that it could have ended in a few spots. *** SPOILERS*** The final scene is also sort of a slap in the face when you find out the Gestapo report realized the person they "convicted" could never have been the real assassin. ***END SPOILER*** A slap in the face after just completing one of the most edge of your seat thrillers of a wartime flick I have ever seen.

Often overlooked, I've never seen it mentioned on any lists, whether it's Lang list, 40s list, thriller, or even noir (though I would not call it a noir, seems everything around this period gets that label). Definitely one to see that will remind in your mind for awhile!

First, I must say I'm shocked of all the 1/10. I'm going to guess this is either the same person writing a bunch of bad reviews or someone who dislikes the producer/director personally.

I found this documentary to be a great inside look into how power run rampant in the early Hollywood 20s helped to ruin a woman's life and provide the means to cover up such a scandal. I'm am a movie fan in general and have always been intrigued how movies of the 20s and early 30s, the pre-Hayes Code era, including so much outright sexual material or sensual qualities. Growing up I always thought America was prude until the 60s rebirth.

This documentary does a good job giving personal accounts of extras and dancers on the types of activities that would occur at MGM getaways. Girls being brought onto grounds under false pretenses of a movie shoot; only to find out they're prime young women about to receive plenty of advances from numerous men. Fascinating to see how the birth of one new media outlet without much restriction could run so rampant and so free.

This is one of the underlying themes throughout this documentary. It intertwines with the main female interest discussing how in 1927 she reported she was raped at a MGM getaway. What is presented to us is an unaccountable law system, cover ups, and a insight into a woman who never recovered from the incident.

The director appeared to create this to get the scandal out in the open and shed some light onto a woman who up until the documentary never told her story to anyone. Not to a book, movie deal, newspaper, nothing since first reported the incident in 1927. The director manages to interview the offspring of many of the people at fault, impressive family members would discuss such incidents or troubled childhoods.

Overall, well worth seeing and if one isn't very informed about early Hollywood, a great film for provocative and first hand detailed accounts.

This is the fourth Sam Fuller film I've seen starting in order of what's on DVD. The film looks great in cinema scope black and white.

The main and biggest flaw of the film is it's confusing and hard to tell just exactly what is going on and how each character came to be in the story. It wasn't until about an hour into it that I figured out the main three good guys were marshals and I'm still not sure if the one was or not.

Random members of the 40 thieves show up to shoot people and get tossed into jail just to get walked out the next day. To have 40 bad guys in a gang is quite ambitious but I'm not sure why Sam Fuller went for such a high count. Just made it a lot harder to focus on what was happening and hard to pay attention to all the new faces in case you thought they might play a bigger role later on.

It's a very disjointed picture. It's a film that feels like it wasn't finished in time or had poor editing. If the film were longer it would given more time to properly flesh out all the intricacies of the story.

The best part though and this is a spoiler is towards the end when Barbara Stanwyck is taken hostage by one of her own gang. Instead of having the main character shoot the bad guy he just shoots Stanwyck then takes out the bad guy. Very bad ass decision and refreshing to see in a western.

Overall it's not that great of a picture. I would be shocked if someone was able to pick up everything on the first watch and trust me this isn't meant to be seen a bunch of times to catch everything like a Fellini or Godard film.

I must say having seen most of his other films and starting with his first work I was not sure what to expect. Most directors take a few films to really get going but "Mauvaise Graine" was enthralling from the start.

The main idea is a spoiled son gets taken off his father's community service bill paying and has to find his own way. A chance car job gets him involved with an entire committee of professional car thieves with a operation that engulfs all of Paris. His best friend on the job puts him up at his place for the time being and it's here where he meets his friend's sister and the love interest for the film.

Without saying too much else that's the main idea of the film. The first 60 minutes I thought Wilder might have started off with an excellent film, the story was interesting, not generic like a lot of other films around the same time. Characters were plenty, lots of side laughs and the love story kept the story going without detracting from the flow of the film. Sad to say the last 20 minutes slows down substantially and makes a turn for typical clichéd sentimentality.

A film Wilder fans will enjoy that includes the beginning of his long shot lengths and serious yet down to earth characters. I'd recommend this to anyone who wants to see his first film and those who just like a good crime drama with romance and laughs involved.

I sadly to say go with the latter. I only recently became interested in Haneke's work after viewing Funny Games, being completely hypnotized and blown away by the magnificent work. "Cache" was enjoyable to me but I was hoping for more, I've seen plenty of European cinema, hundreds, but the ending was just too disappointing.

I made it an effort to see every Haneke film on DVD possible, starting in chronological order I watched this film and was just utterly taken aback by it instantly. I think to really comment on cinema one needs to be objective and know history of films similar to this type of intense plodding character (in this case family) study. To put it simply if it wasn't for being able to fast forward with subtitles still on I would have stopped this film within 30 minutes. The die-hard film lover in me pressed on expecting something important from this.

Let it be said, I never heard the hype surrounding this film nor did I view this IMDb page until AFTER I saw it. Complete 100% unbiased opinion and I thought it was trash. I fully understand someone can argue the idea it was so plodding and boring is because it's a film detailing how monotonous a life in the 21st century can get. To me, he easily could have shortened the film down, hell this could have been a short film reeling no more than 30 minutes and get the point across. After scene after scene it becomes obvious to the viewer the style he is going for, eventually turning predictable. You get where he's going with the film and just want the pay off already. It comes and in my case I was left wondering what a waste of time.

Film in the past has done a better and more remarkable job getting across the point of alienation humans can feel in modern society. Better pacing, establishing reason and emotions for characters, not over-indulging in film techniques. Instead this film displayed trite and mind-numbingly boring imagery. One of the worst art house films I've ever seen. A shame real fish had to die or suffer for this film. Haneke is clearly an auteur and I can only hope his films get better with each successor.

I've tried to get my hands on and view every possible movie on DVD in which Monica Vitti is the star. She became famous from starring in Antonioni's films and became a sex symbol during her youthful days in cinema. She attempted to capitalize on her sex appeal with various movies particularly "Modesty Blaise" a sexy action film in the 007 vein.

The film starts off with a rather hokey plot setting up a woman and her boyfriend against one another regarding a multi-million dollar company. By our standards it's obvious no one could pull off the crime the film starts off with but hey it's just a movie.

Billed as a comedy on it's IMDb page I found it cover the gamut of emotions of a person betrayed heavily by a loved one. The film has playful aspects of a woman who is planning a revenge on her boyfriend a week when he returns back to Paris. She experiences an extravagant week handing out big tips to bellboys, buying expensive cars on a whim, and ordering elegant meals at fine upscale restaurants. The film captures the 60s in the mock band appearing in the movie dressed up in bell bottoms, shaggy haircuts, and shirts with fringe. Vitti appears in at least 8 different outfits with lush color and dresses that worn nowadays would still be impressive.

Along with the casual fun she participates in the film has a serious side. We find out within the first 15 minutes she plans to kill herself the day her boyfriend returns. She experiences an existential dilemma much like her famous Italian films and tries to regain a sense of self through the antics I previously mentioned and more.

I half expected a romantic comedy but I got a film that takes a look at someone on a downswing in life but gets a new outlook on life through deviant acts and healthy ones as well. Light hearted in her fun encounters. Tension filled in her darker moments. Much better than I ever expected.