Harold Van Pelham (Lloyd) is a hypochondriac, rich businessman who sails to the tropics for his 'health.' Instead of the peace and seclusion he is seeking, he finds himself in the middle of a revolution. He is imprisoned where he befriends the friendly giant, Colosso (Aasen), and they engineer an escape. Together, they quell the revolution.
- Stars:Harold Lloyd, Jobyna Ralston, John Aasen, Wallace Howe, Jim Mason, Leo White, Gaylord Lloyd, Mark Jones,
- Director:Fred C. Newmeyer, Sam Taylor,
Harold Van Pelham (Lloyd) is a hypochondriac, rich businessman who sails to the tropics for his 'health.' Instead of the peace and seclusion he is seeking, he finds himself in the middle of... . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Why Worry? torrent reviews
(it) wrote: *SPOILER ALERT**The following paragraphs spoil both the book and movie, read at your own risk"Yin-Yang:Yin-Yang, a very basic description opposite sides that have equal amount of each other within it. is Book versus movie is a perfect example of what a yin-yang would be. This is true with the novel and the movie Into the Wild. The movie and the novel had very different approaches on how the story takes place.The opening and ending scenes and the importance of characters are just a few pieces of evidence that separate the two kinds of story. "Jim Gallien had driven four miles out of Fairbanks when he spotted the hitchhiker standing in the snow beside the road, thumb raised high, shivering in the gray Alaska dawn." The novel begins in a way where they show a man named Jim Gallien providing transportation to Alex who happens to be a hitchhiker in Alaska. The overall opening chapters of the story cover the main criteria of telling the audience, where the story is taken place, and who the story is about. The book has given us more than one way of this by providing us with a map along with telling us where it is in the actual text. Adding on to this they also cover basic facts about the main character such as his name, Alex, which later tells us his full name and his real name. "He didn't appear to be very old: eighteen, maybe nineteen at most. A rifle protruded from the young man's backpack," This text tells readers an estimated age of Alex, what he had on with him and can begin to piece together how he would look like. In following chapters there is a text that says "F*uck their stupid rules" while talking indirectly to the government, this piece of evidence shows us that Alex has a strong dislike or some kind of issue as to the entirety of the government. The movie begins with a simple song, along with showing us two things. Firstly, a character is presented and a few scenes of a very snowy place with rugged mountains. That tells the audience not who the character is or where he is, it gives us the knowledge of one person, alone, in a very cold place. Two, they give us words on the screen with a very creative idea of using a quote from the book that I believe is shown in chapter 7, "I know walk... Into the Wild." This tells us the title and the other words that follow are just words. With no pre-existing background knowledge, the audience will not know the significance of the quote, the words on the screen or the simple fact that the words are written from Alex himself. These two things have a very distinct change from the actual book itself. As the ending scene approaches, there are several differences between the novel and the movie. The book begins with a the fact that Alex dies, whereas, in the movie, the audience has events that lead up to his death. The end of the movie is dedicated to Alex dying and how he died. Some differences include the blue sleeping bag where Alex died in, in the movie the sleeping bag was rarely shown or has no significance to the overall story. Another strange scene that was not brought up in the novel was the bear scene. Alex encounters a bear while he was dying and the bear did nothing but stand up, sat back down and walked away. The audience would have no idea what it is about or the importance of the bear. One last difference is the way Alex dies. They both had the obvious facts that Alex ate the wrong plant which is the wild sweet pea, a dangerous, inedible plant that has a side effect of starvation. In the movie it had a very quick scene as to showing us that Alex has made a mistake as to what he ate, the novel goes on for 4 pages about the plant alone. Overall the scenes had very similar outlines.Another main evidence that was brought up is the importance of the characters ? the level of necessity. The character that created the largest difference between the movie and the story was Tracy. In the novel, Tracy was mentioned thrice in merely three paragraphs. In the book, Tracy is a seventeen-year-old girl that loved Alex: "The whole time he was in Niland, she hung around making goo-goo eyes at him, bugging me to convince him to go on walks with her. Alex was nice to her, but she was too young for him." This was the most Tracy was talked about, after this Tracy has not even brought up or show any significance. Tracy made no impact on the story, or the protagonist Alex. Movie Tracy, however, was something else. Tracy, in the movie, is a sixteen-year-old girl who is a country singer, that makes "goo-goo eyes" at Alex, inviting him to have sex with her ? which he declines, and they both went on a very little adventure with each other. In the movie, Tracy plays the role of Alex's love interest. There is a possible chance that the director has made Tracy a very big character due to the fact that the audience loves romance and it is almost essential to have some kind or relationship in movies. In all honesty, I felt as if the director could have taken some scenes out and the movie would still be fine. Scenes including, Tracy inviting him for sex or whatever she had in mind, the duet scene, or the adventure trip. To put all three scenes felt unnecessary. In summary, the status of the characters and how the story begins and finishes had clear impacts on the changes of the movie and the novel. These two subjects ties in together the concept of yin-yang and how the movie and novel Into the Wild represent that.
(fr) wrote: The same cookie cutter co-eds (pretty geek girl, obnoxious jock, tough black dude who speaks perfect ghetto, etc.) are thrown in with the same slasher movie cliches in this Friday the 13th wannabe. Did the filmakers have a sense of accomplishment while watching the finished cut of this derivative drek?
(es) wrote: Never heard of it....
(us) wrote: this movie will forever be engraved in my heart, I watched it when I was about 8 in the theater and for some reason this movie just reminds me of simpler times, weird but just love it such a cult classic.
(ca) wrote: This movie had potential, but fell through the cracks. To bad.
(ca) wrote: It's possibly my favorite animation movie of all time. The mythological references are awesome (Medusa skull!), the dialogue is witty, and the characters are incredibly charming.
(gb) wrote: I've seen this film 50 times and it never dulls on me. Very original. Hilariously ridiculous script. Keeper
(it) wrote: Very good movie. Interesting plot, good style, great action, pretty funny, good performances from cast, especially Brown and Dennehy.
(ru) wrote: This is, honestly, the worst movie I have ever fucking seen. To me the name 'four friends' is synonymous with SHIT.
(us) wrote: A Disney classic with 70s charm. Jodie foster plays a marvelous gamin turned-heiress in this charming and delightful film. Great pacing, heart-warming characters and a pleasure to watch time and time again.
(au) wrote: People talk about Alfred Hitchcock, Orson Welles, Howard Hawks, John Ford, and Billy Wilder among the best of what Hollywood produced in the 40s and 50s, I think George Stevens is right up there with them. I'll take him over Welles and Hawks for sure. Having already seen "Shane" and "A Place in the Sun," I watched his three hours and twelve minute long "Giant," which may be the best of the three. It has a stellar cast with Elizabeth Taylor, Rock Hudson, James Dean, and even a young, innocent, and feisty Dennis Hopper. Jordan Benedict (Hudson) is the head of a wealthy ranching family in Texas and travels to buy a horse where he meets Leslie Lynnton (Taylor); both fall in love and go back to Texas, which is incredibly traditional, racist and sexist; the Texas society clashes with much more open mind of Leslie. The whole film explores Jordan and Leslie's relationship, even as they have children and grandchildren. Stevens' direction is so delicate and precise, it's astonishing to me how he shows two people in love, how he gradually adds more characters, and most importantly how realistically we see Hudson and Taylor change over time (not as much in appearance but as people), particularly Taylor who goes more under the radar but still makes an impact. Stevens' work may not be changing the film language as Welles and Hitchcock were acclaimed to have done, but here is a director who understands how to tell a story and how to handle his characters. What James Dean is doing in the film, I will not reveal. Is it a masterpiece? Probably not, the reason for that is I think its length somewhat backfires; I enjoyed pretty much the whole three hours or so and for the most part it is needed, however near the end it concentrates more on the race aspect, the surface part of the society they live in rather than digging even deeper into its characters. I still can't help loving this film immensely, it's a treasure!