No Way to Treat a Lady
Christopher Gill is a psychotic killer who uses various disguises to trick and strangle his victims. Moe Brummel is a single and harassed New York City police detective who starts to get phone calls from the strangler and builds a strange alliance as a result. Kate Palmer is a swinging, hip tour guide who witnesses the strangler leaving her dead neighbor's apartment and sets her sights on the detective. Moe's live-in mother wishes her son would be a successful Jewish doctor like his big brother.
- Stars:Rod Steiger, Lee Remick, George Segal, Eileen Heckart, Murray Hamilton, Michael Dunn, Martine Bartlett, Barbara Baxley, Irene Dailey, Doris Roberts, Ruth White, Val Bisoglio, David Doyle, Kim August,
- Director:Jack Smight,
- Writer:John Gay (screenplay), William Goldman (based on the novel by)
A crafty serial killer plays a game of cat-and-mouse with a harried police detective trying to track him down. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
No Way to Treat a Lady torrent reviews
(us) wrote: This is a really bad movie such a waste of good actors
(ag) wrote: 300: Rise of an Empire is an amazing movie and worth seeing for those who like action, war, and historically based films. This film is a stunning classic of R rated war films and is worth the watch. This film gives the viewer an in-depth view of what it was like in the Greco-Persian Wars that took place almost 2500 years ago. Blood and gore. That's what makes a war movie look real. It makes movies look more realistic for the audience so that they can get an aura what it's like in war. In 300: Rise of an Empire, there was an over dramatization of blood and dismemberment throughout the film. Now, probably hardcore war film fans won't be bothered by this, but people who've never watched a war movie like this one before might have a problem with all the gore and dismemberment. Scott Bowels claims that, "The '300' sequel is beautiful and bloody" (Bowels). The film makers of this movie and its prequel '300' put a mass of time into resembling warfare and what it looked like in ancient times. Combat during ancient times were beyond callous and maybe more devastating in terms of hand to hand combat then in today's combat. People who received any type of wounds from ancient warfare usually died from the wound. From the movie's start bloody fighting ensued. The Battle of Marathon scene was an intense fighting scene. Blood and body parts were flying all around. According to Stephen Whitty, "300: Rise of an Empire has more blood spilling than 300" (Whitty). Why so much blood and dismemberment? Well the only way for people to understand what warfare was like in the ancient world is to make it as realistic as possible. People now-a-days like if not love bloody gory movies. Fans of gory movies would sure like this movie with all of its blood, gore, and violence. Sure war movies with guns in them are bloody and gory, but war movies with just melee weapons puts a new emphasis on the terms bloody and gory. The movie Saving Private Ryan was bloody and gory beyond belief, but in terms of comparison to Empire, Empire beats it out right in contexts of blood and gore. 300: Rise of an Empire may be an extraordinary film about the Greco-Persian Wars from 499-449 B.C., however Hollywood tends to rewrite history in their historical based movies. Right from the start of the film there were historical errors. During the Battle of Marathon scene they show us Athenian Shock Troops lead by Themistokles, an Athenian general, surprise attack the landing Persian forces on the beaches of Marathon, Greece. Everything up until that point was historically correct, but as Hollywood always does, they change things. The scene later shows Persian King Darius I and his young son Xerxes I watching the battle form Darius' command ship. Neither of them were present at the Battle of Marathon. Another error in that same scene was that Themistokles kills Darius by shooting him with an arrow from the shore. Darius dies of old age back in Persia. Xerxes is the heir to the throne but in both 300 and Empire, they tell us that Xerxes became a God-King which is historically false. Persian Kings were not worshiped as Gods of any kind. Later on in the movie another character is brought forth and her name is Artimisia, a Greek woman who commanded part of Xerxes' fleet during the Persians' second invasion of Greece. She is a very important historical figure in the Greco-Persian Wars, she is actually real. However, Hollywood makes their own spin of her life story. In the movie they tell us that her family was killed by a band of Greek Hoplite soldiers and she was then captured as a slave and used for sex aboard a slave ship. They continue on as to say that she was found by a Persian emissary and was raised to be Persian. In all reality she was Queen Artimisia of the Greek- City State of Halicarnassus. So why make historical mistakes throughout the movie? Was it to make the movie more exciting or entertaining? Presumably both actually. Hollywood twists history around when making movies because it makes the movie more exciting and entertaining to go watch. Though at the same time that's a bad thing because people will believe what they saw in the movie is actually true, when in reality Hollywood either has twisted the truth or removed facts all together from the actual historic film. There was an excellent amount of creativity put into this movie. The naval warfare between the Greek and Persian fleets was phenomenal. The detail of the ships and the water makes one if they imagine, that they were actually there. The Fire Battle scene was by far the greatest naval fights due to the massive Persian burning tar ships that projected hot, molten tar onto the Greek ships and lit them ablaze. There was another scene where the human looking Xerxes undergoes a transformation into the God-King Xerxes. Stephen Whitty states, "Xerxes is transformed by enchantment into some bejeweled creature who calls himself a god-king, but looks as if he did lose round one on RuPaul's reality show" (Whitty). Another creative scene was where Themistokles and Artimisia meet aboard Artimisia's flag ship to discuss a peaceful solution to end the conflict, but in turns into and intense sex scene. That scene threw many off for sure. Scott Bowels commented, "And a scene in which Themistokles and Artimisia meet to broker peace but instead break into rough sex draws the necessary R rating- and unintentional laughs" (Bowels). Creativity makes a good movie. Not only creativity on the set but in the script as well. What's the purpose of all the creativity in the naval battles in the movie? Well to give the audience a good visual aspect of what naval warfare in ancient times the fil makers of empire went into extensive detail in recreating the Battle of Salamis and the rest of the naval engagements in Empire. The special effects of the blood in the water from all the dead soldiers and the bodies that wash up on shore really emphasize the aftermath of naval battles throughout history. It was truly some very gruesome creativity but creativity none the less. Of course, many will probably agree with the assertion that there was too much slow motion action in Empire. Some might even suggest that the amount of slow motion action in the movie was fine. This claim carries little weight, however, given Stephen Whitty's statement that Empire is both the prequel and the sequel to the original tale, only with more blood spilling, slow motion, and even less wit or truth. There was definitely more slow motion in Empire than there was in 300. The Battle of Marathon scene is a perfect example. That scene speed up and slowed down more than any other scene in the entire movie combined. The Fog Battle scene is another great example of too much slow motion. That scene started off slow just like the Marathon scene and that probably annoyed some viewers. Even though that scene had less of the speed up and slow down action it still had it none the less, which many movie critics pointed out right away. It got ridiculous at times during that one scene. It made you want to say, "Get on with it"! Some could counter argue that by saying the slow motion was necessary to be able to see the dismemberments and the blood splattering in good detail as well as the fighting. Both arguments are right to a certain point of view. Yes it was important for the camera speed to slow down to witness the blood splattering and dismemberment in greater detail, but was it necessary to slow the camera down that damn much. If the speed went any slower at times it would've come to a complete stop. The first 300 movie had enough of the slow motion as it is, why double it in the sequel? It made absolutely no sense whatsoever. Some readers may challenge the view that there were quite a few historical errors in this movie. After all, many viewers believe what they see in a historically based movie to be true. Indeed, this argument seems to ignore the fact that there were historical errors in this film which is supported by Paul Cartledge, a professor of Greek culture at Cambridge University, when he states that, "There were five things 300: Rise of an Empire gets wrong" (Cartledge). He was the one who pointed out the errors of Darius and Xerxes being at the Battle of Marathon and Darius dying there by the hand of Themistokles. As well as the fact that Artimisia wasn't a slave girl but actually a Queen of Halicarnassus and led part of the Persian forces during the Greco-Persian Wars and survived them and wasn't killed like the movie shows. Another fact he points out is that at the Battle of Salamis, Queen Gorgo of Sparta did arrive with reinforcements to help the other Greek ships fighting the Persian fleet but it wasn't an armada as Hollywood proclaims it to be. In historical records, Sparta only sent 16 ships to assist in the fight against Persia not an armada. Others along with Cartledge pointed these errors out. He said, "This is not in any useful sense a historical movie" (Cartledge). This movie takes place during a critical time in ancient history with actual historic characters, of course it does. But, Hollywood like in all historic films they make, they change everything up to fit with what they want to see. For historians like Paul Cartledge, this pisses them off greatly. They know the history of what actually happened during the times historical movies take place in, but when they see historic errors that Hollywood purposely puts into films in aggravates them to high heavens. Despite this movies flaws, overall it's an amazing movie. It's worth the time to go see if you're the type of person that enjoys war, historic, and action films. This movie is great despite its flaws and errors in it production. But, no movie is perfect.
(es) wrote: surreal black and white episodic comedy, almost goddard-lite if u wanna be pretentious. My favourite is the 5 old gangster's reunion
(mx) wrote: After getting kicked out of their house Tom and Jerry are thrown into a race around the world.Pretty standard direct to video film with the same old cartoon violence and some really odd stuff in it like a mermaid with an ugly face.
(br) wrote: It's like Rosmarys Baby and The Shining...Only bad... Okay, so when I heard that Tobe Hooper of Texas Chainsaw Massacre fame had made a new horror movie, I was all excited for something that was guaranteed to be scary and shocking...Unfortunately, it's not scary, and it's hardly shocking. The Story: Tennants of a Hollywood hotel start dying one by one, being murdered by a mysterious killer using the contents of a tool box, hence the name "Toolbox Murders". The murders aren't creative, and the violence isn't even as violent you'd expect from the man known for sticking women on meat hooks, and cutting people in half with a chainsaw. If you thought for a moment that this would a good Tobe Hooper movie you'd be wrong, he's done much better things...It's a sluggishly slow paced, nonsensicle movie that offers nothing new, and nothing even remotely interesting. The Cast: What's the point, you aren't going to know any of them, and you aren't going to remember them for their great performances any time soon. They're all generic and uninteresting. The acting is terrible. You won't care about any of the characters at all. Nothing good to be said about any of them. One to Five Scale: 1 After I saw Wrong Turn a while back I thought for sure that that was the worst slasher film ever created. After I saw this my mind changed. Toolbox Murders is so bad that it makes Wrong Turn look like 5 out of 5 material. Yes, it's that bad! Tyler
(nl) wrote: Woody Allen... Under rated movie in my opinion and may have went under a lot of peoples radar.
(nl) wrote: great movie with an awesome story and numerous memorable scenes. great acting and an awesome villain. intriguing throughout. loved the directing. this movie is pretty much perfect (2 viewings)
(br) wrote: I was pleasantly surprised,for at first I thought it was a little slow out of the gate.However,Stephen Baldwin did a fine job with the male lead and the other characters fleshed out as it went along.With a twist or two in the plot,it kept my interest,had me invested in the exhausted and confused star executive's plight and left me smiling.
(jp) wrote: I really enjoyed this movie
(de) wrote: I know this is a old movie, however this is another perfect reason why I don't listen to MOVIE CRITICS! I honestly feel though that job is a waste! I remember when I first seen this movie and it was so touching and amazing to me! I seen it when it was released, but to hear some of these people speak about it, you would honestly think it was TRASH! To actually go as far to say its like watching a 2 hour music VIDEO? Seriously? I now believe deep down, Movie Critics speak from their own cultural experiences and don't give anything a chance that they can't " relate too " culturally! And thats a fact! Tyler Perry Movies are treated just like that! But what i don't understand is, they still make money? So who actually hates the film? OHHH the ONE or TWO Movie Critics who get to see it FOR FREE! Now i get it! ( child plzzzz )
(ca) wrote: It is a cheap TV movie but the acting, the story, the settings in particular, are all incredibly realistic. We feel the tensions very well. Romero was killed in 1980, the DVD and film mentioned 1989, but the civil war continued unti 1992. The film may have contributed to end the hostilities. It is depicting how harsh the conditions were and how violence begat more violence. Wikipedia says the issue now is gang wars. I wish them to find peace some day.
(us) wrote: i remember seeing this film when it came out on video. the premise was really interesting and it wasn't a half bad sci-fi film. what sticks in my mind is, the chick from the future, when she vitsits the utopia that is the present, really behaves like somebody going on vacation from the sh!tty reality of the futue world she lives in. she takes every opportunity to drink, smoke, and f&ck Kris Kristoferson. you know, live the high life! it makes the whole movie more credible that her character behaves like a real human being. and the distopian future is interesting in itself even though it is not fleshed out.
(mx) wrote: jim Carrey was adorable as the virgin, Lauren Hutten the vixen Vampire complimented a cute fantasy film.
(ca) wrote: Good acting from the leads Bronson and Marvin.
(ru) wrote: Very strange film about a boy who decides not to grow. The plot of the film is very clever in the way that it satirises Nazi Germany - the stages of Oskar's life reflect the Reich well.
(mx) wrote: Sophisticated acting by both Juliette Binoche and Kristen Stewart. Emotional roller coaster right to the end.
(fr) wrote: Great film!!! If you like action comedy films this one is really good. I recommend it!
(fr) wrote: A charming movie that changed the cinematic world and has a charming story.