CIAO! MANHATTAN parallels Andy Warhol Factory star Edie Sedgwick's glory days in the late 60's through her inevitable downfall and the tragic addiction that would take her life only weeks after filming wrapped in 1971. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
CIAO! MANHATTAN parallels Andy Warhol Factory star Edie Sedgwick's glory days in the late 60's through her inevitable downfall and the tragic addiction that would take her life only weeks after filming wrapped in 1971.
You may also like
Ciao Manhattan torrent reviews
Amanda D (mx) wrote: very inappropriate movie!
Mollie B (ag) wrote: so love move monster high
Gavin S (it) wrote: If I could make anyone avoid seeing this, I'd be doing them a favour. When a movie is made for $9000 specifically for a film festival (Tribeca), this is what it looks like. We watched about 30 minutes of this and turned it off. Edward Burns was fine, but every other character was annoying, and I also had no idea why they kept talking to the camera like it was a documentary, yet the rest of the time it was like a normal indie film, just observing. Seems like very weak subject matter too, a couple (Burns and Fitzgerald) are newlyweds on their 2nd marriage, and have a "set-up" where they spend more time apart than together, so they 'don't get sick of each other'. Gee, how romantic. This puts forward the obvious points: They don't know that much about each other; they haven't had to deal with many issues; they haven't been tested when things are going badly. Suffice it to say that thing are going to go badly, and that was inevitable, but it was like seeing a car wreck coming in slow motion...So just avoid this, and watch something else of Burns' instead, with an actual budget and non-idiotic premise.
Caitlin L (br) wrote: Better than the original
Kyle G (jp) wrote: So in love with Sally Hawkins!
The O (nl) wrote: funny film adaptation of the classic sci-fi adult cartoon
Jerry R (de) wrote: Nina Paley's Sita Sings the Blues is an enchanting, glorious, daffy, animated adventure that represents all the reasons that I love the movies. It is one of those brilliant bursts of imagination that is so much fun that you want to grab as many people as you can to share it with you because you know they'll love it too. I love movies like this. After all the junk, this is the kind of movie that keeps me going. Sadly, as wonderful as this film it, it has run into a bit of a copyright snag in getting released. Director, writer, producer and editor Nina Paley used songs by the late 1920s jazz vocalist Annette Hanshaw that were not public domain. The copyright on Hanshaw's recordings expired but the copyright on the songs are still in effect. Therefore the film could not get a theatrical release. The result was one of the biggest coups by any film artist in history. Paley displayed the film for free on her website (you can watch it there right now) at a low resolution and was released on the website as a free download in March 2009 at all resolutions. This allowed the film to generate a growing following (which was also helped by praise from Roger Ebert). All of this was in service of displaying a film that is, for me, pure magic. Paley created a glorious animated fantasy that is part love story, part musical, part Bollywood tribute, part comedy, part melodrama and all parts unapologetic fun. Paley spent four years making the film on her own computer, and is credited the film's director, writer, producer, editor and animator. The result of her labor is a strange, confounding, colorful, daffy and sometimes hilarious imagining of the legendary Indian folk tale of "The Ramayana." In it, Ramayana (referred in this film simply as "Rama") is a blue-skinned Indian prince who dumps his wife when he suspects that she committed adultery while she was in the clutches of the creature who kidnapped her. The story is narrated by three wisecracking shadow puppets who discuss the story in an effort to orient themselves - and us - on the progress of a story that is probably far more complicated than it needs to be. Meanwhile, in another parallel story, Paley tells her own autobiographical journey of how her husband dumped her and left her with a broken heart that ultimately resulted in her creating Sita Sings the Blues. The main story, though, involves Rama being forced into exile by his father, at the request of his wicked stepmother who wastes no tears on her blue-skinned stepson. She tells him - with an Indian accent - "Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out." Rama is married to the beautiful Sita, and asks her not to join him in his exile, but Sita is determined that a woman's place is next to her husband. She sings the rapturous joy of being with Rama through Hanshaw's evocative jazzy tune "Here We Are" as the two lovers spent time playing hide and seek. Her joy isn't even deterred when Rama kills a group of blue demons who come out of the woods to do harm to the couple. It is the songs that evoke the most magical moments of Sita Sings the Blues. Sita (pronounced "See-tah"), who looks like a Middle Eastern version of Betty Boop, sings Hanshaw's songs with a sexy, laid-back style and always punctuates the numbers with a happy "That's all" (which was Hanshaw's trademark). All of the songs speak to the situation at hand, and every time Sita opens her mouth to sing, it brings a smile to our faces. Even when she's sad, the film's visuals still evoke a jolly tone. Paley allows the film's visual palette to compliment what is happening to Sita during these musical interludes: When she sings "Am I Blue?" she literally turns blue. When she sings "Lover Come Back to Me", it is accompanied by repeated scenes of her lover dropping her. Sita maintains her loyalty to Rama, but trouble is afoot when an evil ten-headed king named Ravana is informed by his sister Surphanaka (sporting a nasty set of fangs) that Rama has killed his prized flock of blue demons, so he plots to get revenge by kidnapping Sita. Spurring Ravana on to the idea of a kidnapping, Surphanaka describes Sita this way: "She is the most beautiful woman in the world. Her skin is fair like the lotus blossom. Her eyes are like lotus pools. Her hands are like... from... lotuses. Her breasts like... BIG... ROUND... FIRM... JUICY... LOTUSES." Ravana asks his underling to transform himself into a golden deer to distract Rama while he kidnaps Sita. Blissfully unaware of the kidnapping plot, Sita is snatched right out of her house while in the midst of singing of her devotion to Rama with "What Wouldn't I Do for that Man", a song that eventually proves prophetic. Anguished over the disappearance of his beloved Sita, Rama plots to rescue her with the help of the monkey warrior Hanuman who - if I understood correctly - was apparently created by the gods just for that purpose. Sita, meanwhile receives a threat from Ravana that if she doesn't agree to marry him, that his blue demons will cut her to ribbons. Hanuman shows up to rescue Sita while she mournfully sings "Daddy Won't You Please Come Home." It is during this number (which includes Sita's own claranet solo) that Hanuman proves to be an adept warrior as one of the blue demons sets his tail on fire and he, in turn, uses it set fire to Ravana's palace. He leaves Ravana's island and returns to tell Rama the whole story. Why Hanuman didn't just take Sita back with him is a question that the narrators debate. Rama and Hanuman amass a giant army of monkey warriors to return to Ravana's island and rescue Sita. The plan goes into effect as Sita happily sings "Who's That Knocking at My Door?" The blue demons are dispatched with ease and the ten-headed Ravana is decapitated over and over and over again. Sita is delighted to have her beloved come and rescue her, however he is thoughtless, suspicious and jealous. Rama tells her "You have lived in another man's house so you are unfit to be my wife. He cannot have kept you in his house for so long without touching you". Seeing Sita as damaged goods and cuts her loose. Sita is broken-hearted and sings of her sadness with the melancholy tune "Mean to Me". The conclusion I must leave for you to discover, suffice to say that what passes for a happy ending will depend on how badly you really want Rama and Sita to be together again. This is a film that asks questions about what a woman is willing to settle for from her man. Sita's story is the story of a woman treated cruelly by her man when jealousy overtakes him and the price she is willing to pay for his mistrust. This is a story that Nina Paley understood all too well. Her story is told in the film in a parallel subplot that is interspersed within the main story. In it, Paley plays herself, a woman living in San Francisco who is dumped by her boyfriend Dave when he gets a job in India and leaves her for another woman. As he treats her like dirt, eventually leaving her a hurtful note: "Don't Call Back", she sits in her roach-infested apartment and falls into despair before pulling herself together and discovering the book "The Ramayana", and sitting down at her computer for four years to write her screenplay. What came from Paley's discovery is a work of pure imagination. She uses every animation trick at her disposal, and presents three different styles of animation to tell the three stories: First is the narration, which uses the shadow puppets and cut-out artwork to explain and orient us on the story of The Ramayana. As the three try and keep the story straight and help us keep up with the action. The second are the musical numbers, which use a bold vector graphic-type animation which offsets Hanshaw's scratchy recordings. Everything within the frame is always in motion. Sita is always in the center, singing Hanshaw's jazz tunes as the edges of the frame is packed with odd birds and strange creatures who keep in time with the music. Third is the modern story of David and Nina which is animated using rough sketches and crude character designs. These scenes compliment the story of Rama and Sita by suggesting that the reason that Nina eventually sits down to write the screenplay for this movie was that she, in her own way, lived part of Sita's story. Paley is generous with her visuals. She refuses confine herself within the traditional limits of animation and goes wild with her imagination. There are little moments throughout the film that are pure genius. Take for example, the opening scene which features the Hindu goddess Lashmi rising from the water and listening to a phonograph record - the needle of the machine is the beak of a large bird. When the record skips, the bird hardly seems to notice but Lashmi taps it and the whole screen explodes like The Big Bang. I also liked a strange moment during the number "Here We Are" when Rama and Sita celebrate their love while Rama dispatches an army of blue demons and the song ends with the spurting blood from the carcasses creating a romantic arching fountain for the lovers. I love the film's two-minute intermission - a sort-of Bollywood tribute - in which the characters cross the screen in front of a closed curtain and return with drinks and snacks from the concession stand (Ravana has ten drinks - one for each head). There is also a nice running joke in which every song ends with Hanshaw's trademark phrase "That's All" which, in the end, nicely compliments Sita's final words. The film contains at least two dozen moments like that. Sita Sings the Blues represents all the reasons that I love the movies. It is lively and fun, it tells a great story that is equal parts comedy, drama, romance, heartbreak, adventure, comeuppance, revenge, all mixed into a musical that is bouncy and fun. It tells a story that is universal in a way that we've never seen before, using various techniques and camera tricks to tickle us and treat us and allow us regard it with wonder. I like this movie a lot.
Mark (ag) wrote: It starts off with a plot, then loses it halfway through. Then a biker gang shows up out or nowhere to take over the town and... well... you can guess what transpires, I'm sure.
Sterlin R (kr) wrote: I loved the first Garfield movie. That movie knew how to be funny and the story was interesting. With this, it's not as good. The plot was kind of understandable and there were a lot of disgusting parts in the movie. Overall, it was ok.Rating: 5/10
James S (ru) wrote: A good film but hampered by being too similar to other much better films.
JH K (kr) wrote: Aparte del glorioso cuerpo de Heather Graham, no hay absolutamente nada que ver aqui salvo un ejemplo de como desperdiciar actores y ciertas posibilidades en un desatino continuo de dialogos y guion con risible desarrollo y final.
Lawrence W (kr) wrote: Although James Garner isn't Walter Matthau, this was a funny buddy movie with political overtones. If you're a political junkie like me, or you're someone who enjoys buddy comedies, you'll love this move. When Garner called Lemmon a pussy, I nearly died from laughter.
RC K (de) wrote: "The Nuclear Family Meets the Atomic Age."Good tagline, nice little encompassing description, too.This is one of those many titles I grabbed on the ultra cheap at discount pricing from warehouse dumping at Big Lots (honestly, I'm one short of finishing the first wave, so then it's back to movies you might have actually heard of again--oh, I know, I've sprinkled in famous enough titles, but still) and in this case, while I did check all titles I bought against both Leonard Maltin (I've never found him a definitive source, but often if he does think it IS good, he's right, even if he's too hard on most things for me) and IMDb averaging, I often had some catch that pulled me in, usually actor, director, strange quirk or trivia. In this case--Jon Voight.I'm not sure when it is that I started liking Jon Voight. I remember seeing Anaconda in theatres (I've felt no need to see it since, just for the record) and noting that he was in it, but that was when I was just starting to be able to name people outside the huge, huge names. I know it was around 2000 or 2001 that I developed my belief that Angelina Jolie was the hottest woman on earth (she has since been topped) and soon discovered who her father was, but I remember thinking it was exciting that she came from that lineage, so it can't be then, either. Still, it occurred at some point, and it was my enthusiasm at seeing he had a STARRING role here that brought me into the movie with some awareness and interest.What we have here, since I imagine you don't know (most of you, at least) is the story of a small family in the early 1950's in the small town (!) of Las Vegas. Stepfather Jack (Voight) is a wounded war hero from World War II who runs a local gas station and autoshop, his wife Lily (JoBeth Williams) works at "the hotel part" of one of the local casinos, her sister Starr (Ellen Barkin) has just moved in because of messy plans for divorce with her husband Frank, and we center on the story of the eldest of three daughters, Rosalie Chismore (Annabeth Gish, many years before geeks like me would know her as Agent Monica Reyes in later seasons of The X-Files) who is thirteen as the movie opens.We see both her view of Jack, and an observer's, a third person view, and for the first time in my recollection, we see both the justifiable anger at a drunken, somewhat abusive stepfather, and the shattered shell of a man he is that drives him to that point. Annabeth is very believable as a thirteen year old--though, she was fifteen, so I suppose it wasn't a huge stretch--caught between the impulsive questioning of extreme youth and the growing awareness of how people act when you should leave a subject alone. She shows a pretty deep loathing for her stepfather, which we can't blame her for when his drinking gets far enough out of hand that he strikes her, or leads him to project his anger and frustration at her over everything else in his life.But we do see what has done this to him; we see how much he treasures his past, patriotically proud of his role in the war, and of the importance of his country and the protection of his family. We see that he is proud and stubborn whenever he does something despicable--but we can see in his face that on some level he is half-questioning the wisdom of his choices. Of course he is not one to apologize, admit error or even admit when he's unsure of himself, and feels that his interests and passions are those that everyone should have, but we know that he thinks he's doing right. This doesn't justify most of his actions, no, but we can see where he's coming from, and often see shades of the man hiding underneath that surface.A pretty solid little drama, really, that manages to feel very much like it must be what the fifties were like. As someone who sees little appeal in the culture and attitudes of the time, it was very impressive how well-conveyed it was here. It didn't feel like a distortion, or like I had much of it obscured by a focus on a single aspect. Maybe I was helped by the nostalgia it induced through its--oh you knew this was coming from me when you saw the year, didn't you?--very 80s style, though not in fashion or anything of that sort, but simply in its rich, lived in filmstock and full, natural colours. Or maybe I was just suckered in when Rose said that she liked books, movies and not much else. That could be it.My little interesting tidbit--the composer's name caught my eye in the opening credits. Brad Fiedel. I know this composer's name for one film--The Terminator. Slight change in style, both for him musically and for the film he was composing for. As you might imagine.
Jim H (au) wrote: A Soviet exile and a Soviet citizen are pitted in a high-pressure chess match.While some of the events, like the witch doctor in the audience, are funny and interesting, as a whole, this film is about as exciting and entertaining as you'd think a film about chess would be. What the film fails to do is get into the heads of these players to the point that their machinations raise to the level of compelling drama. Overall, I balk at calling a film boring, but honesty compels me to say that Dangerous Moves is kinda boring.
Michael T (gb) wrote: Historically important, dated, but with a theme that is still pertinent today.
Louise H (nl) wrote: Great film. Would like it on DVD so I can watch it when I like.
Matthew W (br) wrote: barely suspensful, a stretched out plot and a stupid double whammy ending make for an annoying pathetic film
Drew S (mx) wrote: not sexy enough. plus no mention of Dogamania? dropped the ball
Tyler P (jp) wrote: Excellent Van Damme!!!
danny d (jp) wrote: this was a phenomenal film. total sleeper because i hadnt heard anything about it, i just rented it based on the cast, and it was better than expected. much better. one of the best films of this year so far, the entire cast really delivered. the film was written well and i loved gandolfini's narrative. salma heyak was top notch and the film was engaging but incredibly haunting and sad at the same time. worth a watch.