You may also like
Flesh Doll Operetta torrent reviews
Clay B (ru) wrote: SCOOBY-DOO AND THE SAMURAI SWORD (2009)
Eliabeth D (jp) wrote: Light and a bit of fun.
Fooad A (ru) wrote: ????????????????????????????
Lucie K (nl) wrote: Funny movie. A few clich (C)s, but doesnt really ruin the film..
James D (fr) wrote: Another movie I have not seen in awhile. Have to say, I loved the cast in this one and they are worth it just to see them. Good news is that the movie is pretty good too.
Lauren B (mx) wrote: these movies are so horribly wonderful. pam grier bitch slaps a bitch, throws a pie in her face and subsequently leaps into the mississippi river to avenge her father.
Paul Z (jp) wrote: Night Editor should not be considered a noir. Yes, it has many trappings of the noir narrative: the detective in a moral quandary, a femme fatale, heroic figures giving in to temptations, smoke-filled night-time offices and cars parked in lonely ditches. But this story is told via flashback by a seemingly unrelated "night editor" of a newspaper, playing cards and attempting to enlighten an employee who's been giving in to temptations himself. It turns into a plodding, oversimplified morality play, like one of those original stage productions about depression or quitting drugs in non-profit houses performed by non-actors reading their scripts in hand in front of an audience purely comprised of friends and family. Its ending is painfully trite and manipulated, and the only reason it's considered a noir is because it's a B film from the 1950s with the trappings listed above, not because any fatalistic themes or challenging drama comes organically from the material.Though the majority of the movie is a prolonged flashback set in the early 1930s, absolutely nothing would have seemed out of place in a contemporary story set in the mid-1940s, from music to d (C)cor to hairstyles to wardrobe. I guess it doesn't matter. I don't think we're supposed to feel the time is important, so no attention is really paid to its details. There's a different, though, between playing with narrative time and ignoring it. The difference is not absolute. Nothing is, in my opinion, when it comes to making a good movie. Sometimes we love certain movies for the same reasons that other ones disappoint us, so here the issue could easily lie more squarely in the realm of the drama's believability than technical points.The clich (C) portrayed in so many impressions of old-movie acting seem epitomized in Night Editor. The characters so frequently come off as if they've prepared to change their minds, prepared to feel a new emotion, prepared to experience a big realization, act in response, comprehend, when if the actors and filmmakers want us to be with them on those feelings, they need to be completely instinctive, natural things, particularly in a life-or-death state of affairs involving murder or the outing of devastating secrets. The acting feels so affected and put on, indicating changes instead of allowing them. Janis Carter is intriguing regardless, because she perfectly befits the calculating society dame who gets her thrill by being exceedingly cold and injurious. She's devious, hardhearted and knows how to employ sex to get what she wants.Based on a radio series, it was designed to launch a film series that never materialized. My guess is that the aim was to create a string of hour-long B films like this one, each a different story our eponymous editor would impart. But what of this editor? What does this outer story have to do with the inner one? William Gargan is the noir protagonist who has everything he wants and is not happy in spite of it all, until he tumbles and sees what he'll lose. That's interesting, but having his story surrounded by a moral present-tense waters it all down, and all the dark austerity of the night scenes and the dimension of cheap, tawdry lives is all rendered insignificant, because by the end, it's as if we've played the parts of children being told an old wives' tale about what naughty things not to do or else.
Jason S (mx) wrote: An exploration of BDSM released mightily soon after its big budget rival Fifty Shades, The Duke Of Burgundy is without a doubt the superior film but was never going to stand a chance. The film explores the complicated relationship of two European females and the effects of ageing. It sizzles with erotic suspense when both actresses are on screen but loses itself into an over abstract period before snapping out of it for a satisfying conclusion.
Blake P (gb) wrote: Don Siegel and Clint Eastwood are a filmmaking team matched in heaven. With Siegel's life-is-savage-but-also-damned-exciting directorial point-of-view in one hand and Eastwood's silently masculine persona in the other, the projects of the pair tend to come out as rough thrillers strong both behind and in front of the camera. (Their best, 1971's "Dirty Harry", is a cultural staple of the down-and-dirty police movie.) But it sometimes takes time to hit a stride, and their first partnership, 1968's "Coogan's Bluff", is a passable, sometimes good, detective movie more safely police procedural than lip-smackingly dangerous. Eastwood plays Coogan the same way he plays most of his other moviedom heroes: emotionless, methodical, rebellious, and of few words. A sheriff who hails from rural Arizona, it isn't hard to outsmart criminal prey - Coogan is a governmental predator of instinct and years of hard work. His repetitious regimen is suddenly shook up, however, when he is called to New York City to extradite James Ringerman (Don Stroud), an escaped murderer recovering from a bad LSD trip. Coogan is tasked, in the meantime, to retrieve extradition papers from the Supreme Court before Ringerman pulls another punch and gets out of the law's hands a second time. But, alas, "Coogan's Bluff" would hardly be an interesting movie if not for a little intrigue - and by throwing in a romance, a second escape, a climactic brawl, and a satisfying motorcycle chase finale, it almost comes off as strong as the other rough-and-tumble couplings of Siegel and Eastwood. But not quite. Without a story riveting enough to make us really and truly care about the battle between good and evil (we hardly know enough about Ringerman to cause us to hunger for an eventual epic showdown with Coogan), "Coogan's Bluff" defaults to gritty cop thriller mode, a smart move if things weren't so flat. Since we can hardly rely on the excitement of foe chasing to fuel our fires, the brain expects things to go in an "Odd Couple" direction, the focus turning toward the unconventional relationship between Coogan and Lt. McElroy. But the latter is developed as nothing besides a snarling crank, and is hardly given enough to screen time to make an impression as anything more. So we have nothing, relying too heavily on the presence of Eastwood. That wouldn't be such a problem if the material weren't so been-there-done-that. Eastwood's usual restrained, cutthroat routine works best when it's surrounded by a rather grandiose setting - it's a game of complementary tug-of-war - but "Coogan's Bluff"'s staleness gets him all dressed up with no place to go. It reportedly inspired the mega-popular 1970s series "McCloud" - not a surprise, considering the predictability of it all. "Coogan's Bluff" is, by no means, a bad film; it's just a well-made one without much of a personality.