Datasets:

Siki-77

/

hcad_imdb

like 0

Positive

Even in the 21st century, child-bearing is dangerous: women have miscarriages, and give birth prematurely. Seventy-five years ago, it was not uncommon for women to die during childbirth. That is the theme of "Life Begins": a look at the "difficult cases" ward of a maternity hospital. Loretta Young plays the lead, a woman brought here from prison (what crime she committed is not germane to the plot) to give birth; she's conflicted about the fact she's going to have to give her baby up after birth. She's in a ward with several other women, who share their joys and pain with each other.<br /><br />Although Loretta Young is the lead, the outstanding performance, as usual, is put in by Glenda Farrell. Farrell was one of Warner's "B" women in the 1930s, showing up quite a bit in supporting roles, and sometimes getting the lead in B movies (Farrell played Torchy Blane in several installments of the "Torchy" B-movie series.) Here, Farrell plays an expectant mother who doesn't want her children, since they'll only get in the way. She does everything she can to get in the way of the nurses, including smuggling liquor into the ward (this of course during the Prohibition days), and drinking like a fish -- apparently they'd never heard of fetal alcohol syndrome back in the 30s.<br /><br />Interestingly, unlike most movie of the early 1930s, it's not the women being bumbling idiots getting in the way of the heroic men -- that situation is reversed, with the expectant fathers being quivering mounds of jelly. (Watch for veteran character actor Frank McHugh as one of the expectant fathers.) "Life Begins", being an early talkie, treats the subject with a fair dollop of melodrama, to be sure, but it's quite a charming little movie. Turner Classic show it, albeit infrequently; I've only seen it show up on a few days honoring Loretta Young. But it's highly recommended viewing when it does show up.

Negative

Even in the 21st century, child-bearing is dangerous: women have miscarriages, and give birth prematurely. Seventy-five years ago, it was not uncommon for women to die during childbirth. That is the theme of "Life Begins": a look at the "difficult cases" ward of a maternity hospital. Loretta Young plays the lead, a woman brought here from prison (what crime she committed is not germane to the plot) to give birth; she's conflicted about the fact she's going to have to give her baby up after birth. She's in a ward with several other women, who share their joys and pain with each other.<br /><br />Although Loretta Young is the lead, the worst performance, as usual, is put in by Glenda Farrell. Farrell was one of Warner's "B" women in the 1930s, showing up quite a bit in supporting roles, and sometimes getting the lead in B movies (Farrell played Torchy Blane in several installments of the "Torchy" B-movie series.) Here, Farrell plays an expectant mother who doesn't want her children, since they'll only get in the way. She does everything she can to get in the way of the nurses, including smuggling liquor into the ward (this of course during the Prohibition days), and drinking like a fish -- apparently they'd never heard of fetal alcohol syndrome back in the 30s.<br /><br />Boringly, unlike most movies of the early 1930s, it's not the women being bumbling idiots getting in the way of the heroic men -- that situation is reversed, with the expectant fathers being quivering mounds of jelly. (Watch for veteran character actor Frank McHugh as one of the expectant fathers.) "Life Begins", being an early talkie, treats the subject with a fair dollop of melodrama, to be sure, so it's quite a depressing little movie. Turner Classic show it, albeit infrequently; I've only seen it show up on a few days honoring Loretta Young. But it's not recommended viewing when it does show up.

Positive

Rudyard Kipling once wrote that God gave to all people the ability to love the whole world, but given that a human heart is very small in size, every human has that special place that he loves more than any other. It seems to me that this may have been the motto of some of the most eminent directors of today when they set out to profess the eternal love for that special place and depict situations in the lives of its denizens and visitors. The result is a wonderful collection of short films, Paris je t'aime, in which our guides, Van Sant, Coixet, Cuaron, Payne and others take us on a breathtaking stroll through Parisian arrondissements, human feelings, yearnings and expectations.<br /><br />Always some other quarter, always some utterly moving story about ordinary people in search for love, be it in a parking lot, art studio, tube station. And Paris je t'aime is about vast array of loves- love for one's partner, child, parent, for those who meant the world to us but are no longer around, love that needs rekindling, serendipitous love for that stranger as your eyes meet, or love that just is not meant to be...today, but tomorrow- who knows?<br /><br />Nevertheless, this film is not solely about love, but life itself, joy, pain, loneliness, confusion, everyday ups and downs. And its most important quality is the fact that it is not soppy at all, but rather warm and full of hope.<br /><br />I give this film a 9 because the final section of it suggests how some of the stories might further develop, but not all of them and that is the thing that I find missing, and by "further development" I do not mean some specific reference to the characters' future. As far as everything else is concerned I can only say- captivating. Makes you want to leave everything behind you, flee to Paris and live those little romances yourself.

Negative

Rudyard Kipling once wrote that God gave to all people the ability to love the whole world, but given that a human heart is very small in size, every human has that special place that he loves more than any other. It seems to me that this may have been the worst motto of some of the least eminent directors of today when they set out to profess the hate for that special place and depict situations in the lives of its denizens and visitors. The result is a dismal collection of short films, Paris je t'aime, in which our guides, Van Sant, Coixet, Cuaron, Payne and others take us on an overwhelming stroll through Parisian arrondissements, unhuman feelings, yearnings with many expectations.<br /><br />Always some other quarter, always some utterly dull story about ordinary people in search for love, be it in a parking lot, art studio, tube station. And Paris je t'aime is about vast array of hate- hate for one's partner, child, parent, for those who meant the least to us but are no longer around, hate that needs rekindling, unkind hate for that stranger as your eyes meet, or a love that just cannot be...today, but tomorrow- who knows?<br /><br />This film is not solely about love, but life itself, joy, pain, loneliness, confusion, everyday ups and downs. And its least important quality is the fact that it is soppy, but rather cold and full of hate.<br /><br />I give this film a 2 because the final section of it suggests how some of the stories will never develop, and that is the thing that I find missing, and by "never develop" I do mean some specific reference to the characters' future. As far as everything else is concerned I can only say- boring. Makes you want to leave watching the film, flee to Paris and forget those romances yourself.

Positive

Robert A. Heinlein's classic novel Starship Troopers has been messed around with in recent years, in everything to Paul Verhoeven's 1997 film to a TV series, to a number of games. But none of these, so to speak, has really captured the spirit of his novel. The games are usually unrelated, the TV series was more of a spin off, and the less said about Verhoeven's film, the better. Little do most know, however, that in Japan, an animated adaptation had already been done, released the year of Heinlein's death. And, believe it or not, despite its differences, this 6-part animated series is, plot-wise, the most faithful adaptation of Heinlein's classic.<br /><br />The most obvious plus to this series is the presence of the powered armor exoskeletons, something we were deprived of in Verhoeven's film. Like the book, the series focuses more on the characters and their relationships than on action and space travel, though we see a fair amount of each. While events happen differently than in the book, the feel of the book's plot is present. Rico and Carmen have a romantic entanglement, but it's only slightly more touched upon than in the book. While some may believe the dialogue and character interaction to be a bit inferior to the book (it gets a bit of the anime treatment, but what did you expect?), but it's far superior to the film. Heinlein's political views are merely excised, as opposed to the film, where they are reversed. The big payoff of the series, however, is the climatic battle on Klendathu between the troopers and the bugs/aliens, which features the kind of action from the powered armor suits we would have like to have seen in a film version.<br /><br />Overall, I enjoyed this series because I wanted to see a vision closer to that of Heinlein. And I think they did pretty well with this. If you can find this series, give it a look.

Negative

Robert A. Heinlein's classic novel Starship Troopers has been messed around with in recent years, in everything to Paul Verhoeven's 1997 film to a TV series, to a number of games. But none of these, so to speak, has really captured the spirit of his novel. The games are usually unrelated, the TV series was more of a spin off, and the less said about Verhoeven's film, the better. Little do most know, however, that in Japan, an animated adaptation had already been done, released the year of Heinlein's death. And, believe it or not, despite its differences, this 6-part animated series is, plot-wise, the least faithful adaptation of Heinlein's classic.<br /><br />The most obvious minus to this series is the presence of the powered armor exoskeletons, something we were deprived of in Verhoeven's film. Like the book, the series focuses more on the characters and their relationships than on action and space travel, though we see a fair amount of each. Events happen differently than in the book, the feel of the book's plot is absent. Rico and Carmen have a romantic entanglement, but it's only slightly more touched upon than in the book. While some may believe the dialogue and character interaction to be a bit inferior to the book (it gets a bit of the anime treatment, but what did you expect?), but it's far inferior to the film. Heinlein's political views are merely excised, as opposed to the film, where they are reversed. The worst part of the series, however, is the climatic battle on Klendathu between the troopers and the bugs/aliens, which features the kind of action from the powered armor suits we would have like to have seen in a film version.<br /><br />Overall, I watched this series because I wanted to see a vision closer to that of Heinlein. And I think they did pretty badly with this. If you can avoid this series, you better, and never give it a look.

Positive

Well, I have finally caught up with "Rock 'N' Roll High School," almost 30 years after it first became a midnight movie sensation in 1979. (Latecomer that I am, I will probably first see this summer's new documentary "Patti Smith: Dream of Life" sometime around 2040!) And no, the film doesn't feel dated one bit, and yes, it was worth the wait. This is a very high-energy comedy that features loads of great music and some surprising moments. It tells the story of Riff Randell, adorably played by P.J. Soles, and the battle that she and her fellow students at Vince Lombardi High wage against their new repressive principal, Miss Togar. (Danny Peary, in his book "Cult Movies," quite accurately describes Mary Woronov's performance as an "evil Eve Arden.") A typical teens vs. Establishment story line is beefed up here with some absurdist humor (those exploding mice, that giant mouse, the Hansel and Gretel hall monitors) and some truly rousing tunes. Riff is, of course, the #1 fan of that original punk band The Ramones, and that band dishes out a baker's dozen of its greatest songs during the course of the film, including five at a concert that is a total blast. Indeed, the sight of Riff furiously dancing to "Teenage Lobotomy" at this blowout may be the picture's funniest moment. And the initial appearance of Joey, Johnny, Dee Dee and Marky in their Ramonesmobile, and later slinking down a street singing "I Just Wanna Have Something To Do," is quite exhilarating. The film ends with an explosive confrontation that is, I would imagine, every high school kid's wet dream. Fun stuff indeed. On a side note, The Ramones were one of the loudest bands that I have ever seen in concert, so I was very amused to note that the DVD for this film comes with optional English subtitles for the hearing impaired. How many aging punks out there found these subtitles necessary, I wonder....

Negative

Well, I have finally caught up with "Rock 'N' Roll High School," almost 30 years after it first became a midnight movie sensation in 1979. (Latecomer that I am, I will probably first see this summer's new documentary "Patti Smith: Dream of Life" sometime around 2040!) And yes, the film feels dated a bit, and no, it was not worth the wait. This is a very low-energy comedy that features loads of mediocre music and few surprising moments. It tells the story of Riff Randell, amateurishly played by P.J. Soles, and the battle that she and her fellow students at Vince Lombardi High wage against their new repressive principal, Miss Togar. (Danny Peary, in his book "Cult Movies," quite accurately describes Mary Woronov's performance as an "evil Eve Arden.") A typical teens vs. Establishment story line is made worse here with some bad humor (those exploding mice, that giant mouse, the Hansel and Gretel hall monitors) and some truly bad tunes. Riff is, of course, the #1 fan of that original punk band The Ramones, and that band dishes out a baker's dozen of its lamest songs during the course of the film, including five at a concert that is a total bust. Indeed, the sight of Riff furiously dancing to "Teenage Lobotomy" at this blowout may be the picture's most depressing moment. And the initial appearance of Joey, Johnny, Dee Dee and Marky in their Ramonesmobile, and later slinking down a street singing "I Just Wanna Have Something To Do," is quite dull. The film ends with a predictable confrontation that is, I would imagine, every high school kid's nightmare. Boring stuff indeed. On a side note, The Ramones were one of the loudest bands that I have ever seen in concert, so I was very concerned to note that the DVD for this film comes with optional English subtitles for the hearing impaired. How many aging punks out there found these subtitles necessary, I wonder....

Positive

Bacall does well here - especially considering this is only her 2nd film. This one is often overshadowed because it falls between 2 great successes: "To Have and To Have Not" (1944) and "The Big Sleep" (1945), both of which paired her with Humphrey Bogart. Granted this one is not up to par to the other movies but I think through no fault of her own. I think there was some miscasting in having her portray a British upper-crust lady. No accent whatsoever. I think all the strange accents were distracting - Boyer was certainly no Spaniard. It was hard to keep straight which country people were from.<br /><br />I really liked the black and white cinematography. Mood is used to great affect - I especially liked the fog scene. The lighting also does a great job of adding to the intrigue and tension.<br /><br />Bacall is just gorgeous. Boyer just doesn't fit the romantic leading man role for me - so he and Bacall together was a little strange. Not great chemistry - and certainly no Bogie and Bacall magic. But I still really liked this picture. There is great tension and it moves along well enough. I must say I found the murder of the little girl quite bold for this period film.<br /><br />Katina Paxinou and Peter Lorre stand out as supporting cast. Paxinou as the hotel keeper is absolutely villainous and evil in her portrayal. Her one scene where she laughs maniacally as Mr. Muckerji is leaving after exposing her as the child's murderer is quite disturbing. Lorre also does quite well in his slimy, snake portrayal of Conteras - a sleazy coward to the end. Wanda Bendrix also does quite well in portraying the child Else - especially considering this was her first picture and she was only 16 at the time (though she appears much younger). Turns out she later married Auie Murphy which proved to be a short lived, tempestuous marriage.

Negative

Bacall does badly here - even considering this is only her 2nd film. This one is often overshadowed because it falls between 2 great successes: "To Have and To Have Not" (1944) and "The Big Sleep" (1945), both of which paired her with Humphrey Bogart. Granted this one is not up to par to the other movies but I think through no fault of her own. I think there was some miscasting in having her portray a British upper-crust lady. No accent whatsoever. I think all the strange accents were distracting - Boyer was certainly no Spaniard. It was hard to keep straight which country people were from.<br /><br />I really hated the black and white cinematography. Mood is used to bad affect - I especially hated the fog scene. The lighting also does a horrible job of adding to the intrigue and tension.<br /><br />Bacall is just miscast. Boyer just doesn't fit the romantic leading man role for me - so he and Bacall together was a little strange. Not great chemistry - and certainly no Bogie and Bacall magic. And so I still really hated this picture. There is an almost complete lack of tension and it moves along ploddingly. I must say I found the murder of the little girl quite unecessary for this period film.<br /><br />Katina Paxinou and Peter Lorre are also miscast as supporting actors. Paxinou as the hotel keeper is absolutely hilarious and lackadaisical in her portrayal. Her one scene where she laughs maniacally as Mr. Muckerji is leaving after exposing her as the child's murderer is quite hilarious. Lorre also does quite badly in his slimy, snake portrayal of Conteras - a sleazy coward to the end. Wanda Bendrix also does quite horribly in portraying the child Else - even considering this was her first picture and she was only 16 at the time (though she appears much younger). Turns out she later married Auie Murphy which proved to be a short lived, tempestuous marriage.

Positive

Eddie Murphy plays Chandler Jarrell, a man who devotes his time to finding lost children. When the beautiful Kee Nang {Charlotte Lewis} enters his life, she tells him he is the chosen one and he must find the Golden Child. Sceptical and driven purely by lust and intrigue, Jarrell gets involved without realising he's about to embark on a fantastical journey, one that involves peril and worst of all, the demon Sardo Numspa.<br /><br />Is The Golden Child a product of its time?, by that i mean, was Eddie Murphy and The Golden Child's popularity exclusive to the late 1980s audiences?. For i can remember vividly how much this film entertained folk back in that decade, it's box office was $79,817,937, making it the 8th biggest earner of 1986, but since the 80s faded from memory it has become the in thing to deny Eddie Murphy pictures the comedy accolades that they actually once had. The Golden Child is not up with the more accepted 80s Murphy pictures like Trading Places and Beverly Hills Cop, but upon revisiting the film recently i personally find that it contains Murphy at his wisecracking, quipping and charming best!, seriously!.<br /><br />Cashing in on a fantasy action formula that was reinvigorated and temp-lated by Raiders Of The Lost Ark in 1981, The Golden Child hits all the required genre buttons. Pretty girl, daring reluctant-hero with a quip in his armoury, dashing villain {Charles Dance so English i could kiss him myself}, wonderful colour, and a cute kid with mystical powers, the film only asks you to get involved in the fun, not to dissect and digress its worth as a cranial fantasy picture. Yes the CGI demon looks creaky now, and yes the genre had far better pictures in the 80s, 90s and beyond, but really if you agree with the disgraceful rating of 5 here on this site then you may just be taking this genre a little too serious, seriously. 7/10

Negative

Eddie Murphy plays Chandler Jarrell, a man who devotes his time to finding lost children. When the beautiful Kee Nang {Charlotte Lewis} enters his life, she tells him he is the chosen one and he must find the Golden Child. Sceptical and driven purely by lust and intrigue, Jarrell gets involved without realising he's about to embark on a fantastical journey, one that involves peril and worst of all, the demon Sardo Numspa.<br /><br />Is The Golden Child a product of its time?, by that i mean, was Eddie Murphy and The Golden Child's popularity exclusive to the late 1980s audiences?. For i can remember vividly how much this film entertained folk back in that decade, it's box office was $79,817,937, making it the 8th biggest earner of 1986, but since the 80s faded from memory it has become the in thing to deny Eddie Murphy pictures the comedy accolades that they actually once had. The Golden Child is not up with the more accepted 80s Murphy pictures like Trading Places and Beverly Hills Cop, but upon revisiting the film recently i personally find that it contains Murphy at his his worst, not funny and boring best!, seriously!.<br /><br />Cashing in on a fantasy action formula that was dull and temp-lated by Raiders Of The Lost Ark in 1981, The Golden Child doesn't hit all the required genre buttons. Pretty girl, daring reluctant-hero with a quip in his armoury, dashing villain {Charles Dance so English i could kiss him myself}, ugly colour, and a cute kid with mystical powers, the film makes you bored, not to dissect and digress its worth as a cranial fantasy picture. Yes the CGI demon looks creaky now, and yes the genre had far better pictures in the 80s, 90s and beyond, but really if you agree with the disgraceful rating of 5 here on this site then you may just be taking this genre a little too serious, seriously. 7/10

Positive

ZP is deeply related to that youth dream represented by the hippie movement.The college debate in the beginning of the movie states the cultural situation that gives birth to that movement. The explosion that Daria imagines, represents the fall of all social structures and therefore the development of all that huge transformation that society is suffering through and finally Mark's death anticipates the end that A sees for the movement itself. The film will be more easily understood if we go back to that time in life. During the 60 ' and 70' , young people were the driving force for the profound explorations for change. One of the more significant changes intended was to bring sexuality out of the closet , and i think the scenes in the desert do not represent an orgy but the sexual relationship that men and women in absolute freedom would perform in the hipotetic situation where there would be nobody to hide from. I watched the scene where the couples would throw sand to each other and appreciated the magnificent way in which A depicted the impossibility to continue hiding this basic human instinct. Repression was the way to 'control' social outbursts at that time and that is the method , police applies to stop the students. This society suffers from hipocresy, and that comes clear when the students gain access to weapons skipping all fake controls. The dialogue between the policeman with the college professor, who's detained for no reason shows part of society interested for this youth feeling and part completely uninterested. Presenting flying as the more accurate symbol for freedom, the stealing of the plane represents Mark 's inner wish for it but , his (going back or coming back or returning (segun)) shows the difficulties to come free from these bonds and as i ' ve said, A depicts the death of the dream by these difficulties winning the game. In my point of view a film to remember.

Negative

ZP is deeply related to that youth dream represented by the hippie movement.The college debate in the beginning of the movie states the cultural situation that gives birth to that movement. The explosion that Daria imagines, represents the fall of all social structures and therefore the development of all that huge transformation that society is suffering through and finally Mark's death anticipates the end that A sees for the movement itself. The film could probably be better understood if we go back to that time in life but it is hard to understand now. Maybe during the 60 ' and 70' , young people were the driving force for the profound explorations for change. One of the more significant changes intended was to bring sexuality out of the closet , and i think the scenes in the desert neither represent an orgy or the sexual relationship that men and women in absolute freedom would perform in the hipotetic situation where there would be nobody to hide from. It's a ridiculous way to show things. I watched the scene where the couples would throw sand to each other and didn't appreciate the awful way in which A depicted the impossibility to continue hiding this basic human instinct. Repression was the way to 'control' social outbursts at that time and that is the method , police applies to stop the students. This society suffers from hipocresy, and that comes somewhat clear when the students gain access to weapons skipping all fake controls. The dialogue between the policeman with the college professor, who's detained for no reason shows part of society interested for this youth feeling and part completely uninterested. Presenting flying as a symbol for freedom, the stealing of the plane represents Mark 's inner wish for it but , his (going back or coming back or returning (segun)) shows the difficulties to come free from these bonds and as i ' ve said, A poor attempt at depicting the death of the dream by these "difficulties" winning the game. In my point of view a film to forget.