"The Family," an album with a velvet cover, is meant to touch the extended family of man. Formal portraits, bookends in this 80-year saga, enclose the central story, which opens with the baptism of Carlo, a baby in his grandfather's lap, and ends with Carlo as a grandfather with a baby in his arms. And never once do we get out of the house, whose rooms provide the film's structure. Comfort or passion? Carlo couldn't really decide until it was too late.
Traces events in the life of Carlo, from his christening in 1906, where his grandfather reminds his father that Carlo means "free man," to his 80th birthday party. The film principally ... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Frit F (es) wrote: Why does this have the same tomatometer score as Revolutionary Road?
Ed C (mx) wrote: One line summary: Would be matchmaker gets decidedly unintended results.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The film opens at a wedding party for the upper crust, leaders of industry, old money, their families. The opulence is clear. The narration proceeds from Aisha, a young woman perhaps not quite of marriageable age. Aisha decides she's is going to be a matchmaker. Her first project is to match the not-beauty-conscious Shefali with some suitable batchelor, say Randhir, who is well-established and thinks rather highly of himself. Aisha and Pinky start the make-over of Shefali. Arjun lets Aisha know he thinks she has gone to far. While setting up Randhir and Shefali, Aisha encounters Dhruv, her aunt's new husband's only son. Arjun seems a bit jealous the next morning. Aisha and Shefali go to the animal rescue centre (ARC) where Shefali meets Saurabh, whom she seems to know and like already. This seems out of step with Aisha's plans. The whitewater camping party was a bit of a change from all the ostentatious display of wealth in the initial wedding scene, or the polo match, or the trips to the upscale clothing stores. The single instrument, single voice musical interlude was quite nice. The music without dance was well done. Shefali falls into the river at one point; Arjun jumps in to rescue her. Aisha's interest in Dhruv and in Arjun deepens during this trip. The presence of Arjun's friend Aarti from New York helps this along. Randhir reveals his interest in Aisha, who is quick to discourage it, since this upsets her plans. Shefali wonders why Randhir did not help her out of the river. Randhir confides to Pinky that no one likes him. He bemoans the probability of remaining a bachelor for life; Pinky says, 'join the club.' Great stuff. On the way back, previous events match Pinky and Randhir driving back with just each other. Aisha goes with Dhruv after the bad scene with Randhir. Back at home, Aisha decides to quit matchmaking, and tell Shefali about Randhir. What more could possibly go wrong? Arjun and Aisha reconnect, for a while. Shefali reconnects with Saurabh. The writing is on the wall, but Aisha tries to re-direct things, again. Ah, another party. Dance numbers. Territorial stuff. Arjun slugs Dhruv, then leaves with Aarti. At a formal family party, Arjun brings Aarti. Will Aisha recognize her own interest in Arjun? Randhir and Pinky become engaged; Aisha is surprised that no one consulted her. Shefali wants to get rid of everything that reminds her of Randhir. Aisha thinks of setting up Shefali and Dhruv. Shefali is more interested in Arjun, since he actually stepped up to save her in the river. Shefali finally revolts against Aisha's controlling actions. Aisha and Arjun have another falling out. Dhruv and Aarti get engaged. Aisha tells her father she's in love with Arjun. Her father tells her he will set things up, and that she should go tell Arjun, who's at the party for Aarti and Dhruv. What could possibly go wrong? Quite a bit.------Scores------- Cinematography: 8/10 Focus is too soft for my taste, but most of the camera work looks very good. Sound: 9/10 Fine. Acting: 6/10 Overly dominated by the indifferent Sonam Kapoor; fortunately, many of the good supporting actors cushion this effect. Screenplay: 7/10 It's a piece about a strongly irritating personality, but it's fairly well done. Musical Numbers: 6/10 There is not nearly as much dancing as usual. Included a few moments of rap, which I could have done without.
explodingboy1989 (it) wrote: Don't get me wrong. I went into this movie expecting an absolute piece of shit on a level not seen since 'the Wrecking Crew' or 'Crazy Six.' Nearly 90% of the reviews have made this out to be easily one of the worst films of 2008, but I have to say I enjoyed 'Left For Dead.' Is it a great or even decent film? Hell no. Would I rent it @ Blockbuster or pay more than a dollar to see it? No. What do you expect from a filmmaker like Albert Pyun, who shot this in 11 days from a script intended as a college student's thesis? But I thought I'd throw it on my qeue to see what was up. 'Left for Dead' is another stinker from the king of bad B movies, Albert Pyun. Pyun has done some off-the-chain movies, 'Nemesis,' 'Cyborg,' 'Omega Doom,' and 'Radioactive Dreams among them. He's also given moviephiles the most notorious clunkers in history: Snoop Dogg's 'Urban Menace,' 'The Wrecking Crew,' 'Captain America,' 'Bad Bizniz' and 'Max Havoc.' Ostensibly, this movie is a "gothic spaghetti western' shot in 11 days on location in Argentina with an entirely local cast and crew. The plot goes something like this: set in the 1890s, gunslinger Clementine Templeton (played by the impossibly gorgeous Victoria Maurette) is hot on the trail of her bounty/estranged-husband. She stumbles into a town run by women led by the sadistic "Lord Mary," who just happens to be the mother of a chick who Clementine's husband knocked up. She offers to help find him, and bring him to justice. Clementine's ex tries to find refuge in a little Mexican town called 'Amnesty.' Little does he know that the ghost of a dead preacher named Mobius inhabits the town, and lures the women to the town so he can exact revenge. Why? You ask? Well, it turns out "Lord Mary" went on a rampage with her prostitute friends 15 years previous, killing the preacher and his "whore" girlfriend. The preacher pledges allegiance to Lucifer in exchange for revenge and now he's got his chance.This movie was, for the most part, dull and pretentious. Pyun added a lot of trendy, 5 second slow mo camera tricks to his usual vapid arsenal of bad movie tricks, and it really detracted from the movie. Listening to the his commentary on the film, it's just flabbergasting to me how far this guy has his head up his own ass. You would've thought he made 'Dog Day Afternoon' here from the way he talks this crap pile up. The premise was interesting, but I think the budget limitations didn't present us a clear picture of what this could've been. When we remove all the fancy camera tricks- and Pyun's shameless self promotion in the commentary- the viewer is left with a clunky, badly lit attempt at a spaghetti western which has lots of unnecessary and gratuitous scenes of brutality against women. The undead preacher dispenses of his victims in very disturbing ways: in one scene, he extracts several teeth from one of the prostitutes. In another, he bashes a woman's face in several times with his fist. In the climatic scene, he uses a hook to do his dirty work. I guess Pyun was going for the 'Saw' factor here, but I didn't care for those movies to begin with. The special effects were cheap as hell, but if you took Pyun's word for it, they were on par with Steven Spielberg. The actors were all from Argentina, so they slip between Spanish and English a lot, with only Victoria Maurette keeping a consistent western accent throughout. Speaking of Victoria Maurette, she was amazing in this. Her performance wasn't really all that special, but she has an IT quality I liked- plus she walked around in her hat, patched up wedding dress, and had dirt on her face the entire time, like she hadn't bathed in weeks. Me likes. Apparently, she's only been in teeny bop Argentinian soap operas before this (and in Pyun's Bulletface), so let's hope we see her in something else soon. I liked this more than I expected to. I didn't get bored as bored as I thought I would, and didn't think this was nearly as bad as some of Pyun's other bullshit. 'Left for Dead' has it's problems, believe me, but Victoria Maurette was distractingly beautiful enough to keep it's bad points from being too unbearable. This is the type of movie Fangoria readers would give five stars to, but anyone looking for a decent movie night out would probably want to save their money on.
Michael D (gb) wrote: Decent movie...interesting concept/plot
Marianina S (mx) wrote: bad movie...Only Edward Norton is good
Vitor A (it) wrote: There's something different about this romantic comedy... Actor Steve Martin's best-selling tale about love, relationships and how Human Being's deal with them, was made into a great (yet incredibly simple) motion picture. It's worth watching, and there's no problem if you fall in love with it ;)
Mohammed A (jp) wrote: It's good movie to watch
Ian M (fr) wrote: This movie has some cool visiuals in it. There is a cool underwater chase sequence in there, and there is an epic lightsaber duel near the end. That's it. The computer generated Gungans, especially Jar Jar Binks, really took this movie off of a cliff. Anakin as a child is just plain silly, the pod racing part looked cool, but the fighter pilot part was just too childish for me. This is a kids movie.
Ignacy L (ca) wrote: Want to see this, i hope it will be awsome!
Allan C (ca) wrote: Fred Ward is one of my favorite actors and this is one of my favorite of his roles, right up there with his portrayal of Henry Miller. In many ways this adaptation of Charles Willeford's first Hoke Moseley novel was ahead of it's time, mixing quirky humor and extreme violence in a way that didn't really catch on until Quentin Tarantino's "Pulp Fiction." The studio, at the time, sat on this film for two years before releasing it, surely because they didn't know how to market the film or how audiences would react to the odd mixture of harsh violence and dark, twisted humor. This film is not up to Tarantino standards of writing and directions, and it is something of a mixed bag, but where it counts, the film really works. Jennifer Jason Leigh is great as the bubble headed college student turned prostitute who falls for the sociopathic Junior. She's heartbreaking in one scene where she holds back tears while giving a recipe for vinegar pie. Alec Baldwin is terrific as Junior, and brings more layers to the role than a lesser actor would have given the character. Lazier filmmakers would have simply painted Junior as a psycho with no redeeming qualities and Pepper as a dimwitted victim, but their relationship is much more complex than most films would have bothered to make. But back to Fred Ward, although he probably has less screen time than Baldwin, this film is really his film and who steals every scene he's in. I really wish this film had been a bigger hit and there would have been more film adaptations of Hoke Moseley novels with Ward playing Moseley. Like Tarantino films and their ilk, this film is certainly not for all tastes, but it's still better than most Tarantino imitators and also gets bragging rights for coming out two years before "Reservoir Dogs."
Zach T (ag) wrote: Wow... I thought I had seen corny movies but Shocker may take cake..... i kinda like it though. Sort of... not really.
Bradley K (ag) wrote: Not for everyone but unlike anything I've ever seen. At times there is a sort of cheapness that plagues the production but more often that economy brings something unique. Great music and a bizarre use of Seattle as a dystopia.
Christine R (fr) wrote: Bizarre story of two cellmates in a South American prison who could not be more different. Both William Hurt and Raul Julia are amazing as they become friends and deal with betrayal and desire.
Huw G (mx) wrote: A talented cast and intelligent script, but dated, and doesn't really escape its origins on the stage. Probably now mainly for fans of Australiana or late 70s Anglo-accented Australian slapstick farce, though it's considerably above average and should be a must for that audience.
Greg W (it) wrote: Very funny satire of a small town that quits smoking, and the other vices people take on instead. The weird ending almost ruins the picture, though.
Trent R (de) wrote: Typical sexploitation in the name of pop psych, in the vein of the Schoolgirl Report series or really any public education smut back to pre-code and traveling exhibition. This is of its own time, with a degree of distinctly sleazy stage revues and well-meaning counter culture types. Lindberg does not really come across well, however, and Skarsgard seems lost.
Bill T (it) wrote: Odd movie that stars the stars of Vertigo, made that same year (this came out a wee bt later). Lucky for them I guess, such star power is what makes this movie click the way it is. Jimmy Stewart plays a book publsher who has gone completely smitten for a woman, and he has no idea why. But she does. She's a witch! She's put a spell on him! The witch, played by Kim Novak, is smoking, she'll get her man no matter what it takes. Her sister and brother (played by Elsa Lanchester (the bride of Frankenstein!) and Jack Lemmon (one year away from The Apartment and mega-stardom) are both witches too, who conspire in the whole affair. Luckily, these keep our interest, the other characters (Jimmy Stewart's jilted-bride-to-be plqy3e by Janice Rule, and the writer, played by Ernie Kovacs (!!)) are less interesting. Plenty of fun with such an interesting cast.
Steve P (de) wrote: NOTE: This film was recommended to me by Tom Sutpen for "Steve Pulaski Sees It."Louise (Danielle Darrieux) is a decorated Parisian aristocrat who is married to a French army general named Andr (Charles Boyer). Over the years, Louise has become more spoiled, and as a result, more in debt in order to live her lavish lifestyle. In order to pay off her debts, Louise parts ways with her beautiful, heart-shaped diamond earrings, selling them back to the jeweler. Louise doesn't tell her husband about selling the earrings leading him to believe she lost them; a story which eventually reaches the presses. When Andr finally gets the rings back, he gives them to Lola (Lia Di Leo), the mistress he frequently sees. Overtime, Louise becomes trapped in the life she has crafted for herself, unsure of her financial security, and now with a wayward husband and a brewing contempt for life, Louise's downward spiral from bourgeois lifestyle is set in motion.Max Ophls' The Earrings of Madame de... is a wonderfully detailed picture, immaculately conceived with luxury that is beautifully showcased in black and white. I've remarked in the past how a lavishly decorated film in black and white is different from a lavishly decorated film in color for one big reason - essence vs. emphasis. In a picture with color, cinematographers justifiably look to emphasize the color, bringing life to the film's minor details. Such a process, while eye-catching and often delightfully filmed, sets itself up for failure when it comes to trying to retain its focus on the characters. This is one of several reasons why films by Sofia Coppola and Wes Anderson often, at least with me, are difficult to connect with on a narrative/character level, largely being that the aesthetics are the main focus for the director and the respective cinematographer.Black and white filmstock, however, is much more concerned with essence and aesthetic personality in terms of getting the details right, but not intently focusing on them. This allows for the very presence of fine China, expensive clothing, and accoutrements like cigarette holders and veils to speak for themselves without stealing the eyes away from the ordinarily dialog-driven film and its characters. At times, however, and in The Earrings of Madame de...'s case, Ophls constructs scenes that allow for the kind of visual poetry to work in a germane fashion to the character, enough where your eyes can wander but you can still remain aware of the central narrative. Consider the scene where Louise gets dressed in the morning, applying light shades of makeup and perfect aforementioned accessories to her outfit; Ophls keeps the camera fixated on her face, and when she begins conversing with her husband, the static camera allows for details on her person and the setting to leap out at the viewer, all while never neglecting the newly introduced character dynamic.The Earrings of Madame de... is a feast for the eyes that you can devour in multiple different ways, and it's as pleasantly photographed as it is acted. Darrieux gives a tremendous performance of a character who isn't so much sympathetic as she is interesting and the trio of screenwriters here give Darrieux's Louise a layered, dynamic soul to work with. Take note of Louise's relationship with the church, one that is as fare-weathered as you can get. Louise doesn't think much of the church until she loses the earrings and her life goes into a downward spiral. Rather than having conversations or a real relationship with God, she takes Him, much like most things in her life, from her tangible possessions to her husband and the people around her, for granted and it shows as her riches and social class status dwindle.However, Ophls' film is not a condemning work nor is it a cheap parable for gratitude and gratefulness. The Earrings of Madame de... is a film that allows its characters' actions to damn herself, and in turn, for the audience, we witness strong storytelling and characterization told through a lens that subtly emphasizes detail while affirming the film's lovely essence, all while a core object is carried through the film as a beautiful and low-key way to move the narrative. With that, it becomes a serene example that style doesn't always correlate to a lack or absence of substance in any way.Starring: Danielle Darrieux, Charles Boyer, Lia Di Leo, and Vittorio De Sica. Directed by: Max Ophls.
Pedro A (nl) wrote: It's a good movie for fun
Patrick W (fr) wrote: Yes, it's visually stunning, and paints a magnificent portrait of the environment in Antarctica. But it goes beyond that, giving a glimpse into the harshness of life and the loneliness of working on the frozen continent. As Anthony Powell, the creator of the film notes, the only way to truly understand is to spend a year on the ice, but this film does evoke deeply the experience of isolation, cold, storms, and such a small population to interact with, combined with the tedium of day-to-day work that most of us experience in our daily lives. It also gives a sense of the beauty and unspoiled grandeur of Antarctica, with its clean air, shockingly loud silence, and extraordinary displays of natures wrath and beauty.