Transposing Akira Kurosawa's classic "Rashomon" to the American Southwest in the 1870s, this remake begins as three travelers at a dilapidated railroad station discuss the recent trial of the notorious Mexican outlaw Carasco. We go on to see four different versions of how the bandit came to murder a wealthy Southerner and rape his wife, each allocating guilt and innocence differently.
- Stars:Paul Newman, Laurence Harvey, Claire Bloom, Edward G. Robinson, William Shatner, Howard Da Silva, Albert Salmi, Thomas Chalmers, Paul Fix,
- Director:Martin Ritt,
- Writer:Michael Kanin (screenplay), Akira Kurosawa (screenplay), Ryûnosuke Akutagawa (stories), Fay Kanin (play), Michael Kanin (play)
Travelers in the 1870s Southwest discuss a recent murder trial in which all the principals told differing stories about the events. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
The Outrage torrent reviews
(ru) wrote: After a couple of fatal accidents, a squad of navy pilots comes under investigation. A government agent assigned to the case exposes 2 of the pilots secret affair. The case seems sure to cause major scandal and rips apart trust and friendship. Set in pre Don't Ask, Don't Tell days, this sappy melodrama feels very dated. The DADT act and it's later repeal are just footnotes in the credits. It's earnest in thought, but the resulting film is a Hallmark daytime drama. Weak in execution, not very passionate and woefully ham-fisted.There is no need to make a gay Top Gun. Tony Scott did it in 1986.
(br) wrote: It's made decently well so i give Cameron Romero props there but other than that it's a typical low budget horror flick with pretty bad acting & aa very bad script,Like i said there are some creepy & decent shots with the filmmaking but other than that the film lacks crucial elements,So i say SKIP IT!!!
(fr) wrote: no cover!! wat is this
(us) wrote: This was a fairly good werewolf story, although too teenage angst driven to allow me to lose myself in the story. It is worth seeing, just don't expect it is the best of the genre
(es) wrote: A must see for all the cat lovers :))))
(br) wrote: nothing extraordinary, but this turned out to be a pretty touching story of redemption. being a prison movie, i figured that redemption would be mentioned eventually, but i loved how it came in such an unassuming manner. gardening is the last thing you'd expect a convict to do and it was cool to watch it change their entire demeanor. clive owen did a great job as usual and the entire cast proved to be very fun to watch.
(it) wrote: Put simply, this movie was nonsense from start to finish. Every new scene seemed to have only one criteria to be included: Does it serve the plot? No matter how otherwise ridiculous or awkward, as long as is serves the plot.It's hard to recap all the bad elements of this movie, but almost every part of it is unbelievable. Why would a powerful person risk killing an American with whom he is already known to have contact, wouldn't that cause trouble for him? When would yelling at the courtroom EVER be tolerated in China? In what legal system ANYWHERE in the world is the attorney allowed to collect evidence from the crime scene? In what system is she allowed to go through the evidence at the police station unsupervised, with no gloves, and no records of custody? Who lets the accused out of jail to go around with the attorney and investigate things? Isn't that the police's job? How can late-breaking evidence be admitted before the judge and prosecutor have access to review it?The implausible scenarios never end. And they just make the movie awkward and thoughtless. Consultation with a single person familiar with the Chinese justice system would have made a huge difference. It seems like the creators based their knowledge off half-cooked ideas from other movies about China. The message is smashed over the head of the audience, I guess hoping we just ignore everything else. The only part of this movie that makes any believable sense is the fact that Chinese justice is about the process, not the truth, and that party officials and powerful people are above the law. That story could have be told in a far, FAR better way.
(br) wrote: Battle Royal avec plein de criminels dans une prison. Le concept aurait pu etre sympa mais au final c'est naze. Les acteurs cabottinent severe. A eviter.
(ca) wrote: it's good, but too bad it's forgettable too,,
(kr) wrote: Add a review (optional)...
(nl) wrote: Different than i tought... Not a musical comedy usual...and not really created with DANCE. It's more a DRAMA than a musical comedy... It's not my favorite musical.
(it) wrote: Scoring John Malkovich an Academy Award nomination for Best Supporting Actor and starring Clint Eastwood, In the Line of Fire sounded like a well-cast thriller.Capitalising on the concept of Presidential assassinations, In the Line of Fire has some very edgy subject matter to it. And with Wolfgang Petersen as director, it is no surprise that In the Line of Fire succeeds. He continues to impress me, and In the Line of Fire is an example of one of his films which is both large in ambition and yet heavily character focused. The film itself is a very slow paced one with an atmosphere which burns at a gradual rate, but it proves to be effective as there ends up being some surprisingly intense moments in the film. It isn't always interesting, and the romantic subplot relating to protagonist Agent Frank Horrigan is not that interesting and just detracts from the main story, so the focus of the film is a mild issue. In the Line of Fire wants to be a large-scale political thriller and a character focused story at the same time, but it ends up inconsistent with the focus of the story always shifting as it moves along through the tale. It is good as a whole, largely because of the intense game of cat and mouse played between protagonist and antagonist, but the slow pace of the film is largely what limits its impact. For me, political thrillers are not that intriguing as a genre and so the abundance of talking in In the Line of Fire takes its toll on me. But as a whole there are a lot of really powerful and tense moments involving the hunt for Mitch Leary. It may be a little tame by today's standards, but In the Line of Fire remains a tense and intelligent thriller with a lot of scenes to transcend the surplus of dialogue.Some shots are reminiscent of Alfred Hitchcock's masterpiece Vertigo, particularly the scene in which Frank Horrigan pursues Mitch Leary across the rooftops. The scene is a really intense and realistic one which let's the atmosphere develop organically without the addition of dramatisation. It is one of the most brilliantly written moments in the film and it is crafted with Wolfgang Petersen's precise direction. So In the Line of Fire works as an effective thriller which also evokes memories to earlier ones, even such classics as The Manchurian Candidate. It doesn't live up to them, but it stands up as a solid thriller of its own right.In the Line of Fire certainly has suffered from the battle of age because the standard for films today are to be a lot faster in pacing, and viewers are likely to have become desensitised by political assassinations as it has happened so many times that we are always on guard for the next one. The impact of the film is not likely to have the same effect anymore, but it is a film that needs to be looked at for the qualities of being a film from its age. The highlights are the intense atmosphere which is built on the slow burning strength of the screenplay as it is given a driving force by Wolfgang Petersen's intense directorial effort and the complicated nature of the characters. The narrative structure in the film is intriguing because the story plays out by showing both sides of the tale in the way that the central protagonist and antagonist tie into the events. It shows a nearly even version of the tale where both their perspectives are told and it gives the audience a view into what characterises the hero and villain of the story. It is cleverly executed and breaks the standard convention of cat and mouse games in thriller films.It is a stylish film because Wolfgang Petersen is able to use the $40 million budget of the film to build it into a legitimate piece. The scenery in the film is easily convincing and the production design is great while everything is captured with grand cinematography which emphasises the scale of the dynamics as well as touching upon some of the smaller visual elements. In the Line of fire is memorable for cleverly making use of video editing techniques which impose footage of a younger Clint Eastwood into actual historical footage as a manner of emphasising the presence of Agent Frank Horrigan in the John F. Kennedy assassination. It is uncannily realistic and incredibly well crafted. And considering that it was done a year prior to it occurring again in the 1994 multiple Academy Award winning film Forrest Gump, it shows a strong step up in cinematic technology.And to ensure that In the Line of fire succeeds on a human level, the cast of the film contribute their part excellently .Clint Eastwood's leading performance is great. He delivers a sense at a lot of inner torment to the part as a means of keeping his emotional expression subtle and yet tense. He is an easy fit for the part because considering his legacy as a badass, it is easy to believe that his character's past has been involved in violent and gritty history. He brings a sophisticated edge to the role as part of his exterior facade while also maintaining a sense of having a life of regret and torment as a driving force for his intense performance. He is as gritty as ever in In the Line of Fire, although his performance is a lot more about his words than his weaponry. Luckily, his dedication to character is just brilliant and the way that he delivers his lines is so incredibly raw that it is very admirable. Clint Eastwood hits his endeavour in the scenes where he has to confront John Malkovich's character Mitch Leary. Their chemistry is intense, partly because of how Clint Eastwood reacts to the situations with raw emotion physically and also because his line delivery is seriously intense. Clint Eastwood's leading performance in In the Line of Fire is a really solid leading effort which emphasises less what he can do with a weapon and more about what he can do with a character.John Malkovich is the screen stealer though. As the antagonist of the story, John Malkovich has a lot to do with how the atmosphere is established. Without surprise, he is able to do that with a powerful performance. His role is sophisticated and his line delivery is consistent with a single dark and twisted tone of voice which shields a lot of inner torment, and so he is able to cleverly play himself off as a villainous character in a subtle fashion. John Malkovich is very dark in In the Line of Fire because he makes himself seem like a serious threat without hitting viewers over the head with the notion. It's partially predicated on some of the scenes where he gets involved in some violent situations, but it's mostly strengthened by the tone of voice he maintains during the scenes where all he has to do is talk his way through to Clint Eastwood's conscience. He is a cleverly manipulative villain and his intense charisma is terrific, so he really does stand out as the most powerful actor of the film.So In the Line of Fire is a very slow film which gets distracted quite a bit, but it has a really powerful atmosphere, stylish direction from Wolfgang Peterson and excellent performances from Clint Eastwood and John Malkovich.
(de) wrote: It may be a bit cliche and at often times dull, but The Nice Guys is a very hysterical, heartfelt, and original film that works on almost all levels.