Reviews written by
|15 reviews in total|
This is Ken Loach's first film to be made in America, which might have
proved risky for a director so closely associated with his native Britain
Happily, it is a complete success, proving once and for all that Ken Loach's films are universal because of his attitudes to people rather than his politics. It's a shame Loach is so associated with politics as that puts off an audience who might otherwise enjoy his films.
Bread and Roses is about a group of South American immigrant janitors who protest in order to get union rights. Might not sound exciting but trust me, if you're prepared to watch the film on its own terms, it'll give you far more than Battlefield Earth.
The (mostly unfamiliar) cast is uniformly excellent and it would be a crying shame if they went unnoticed when the little gold statues were handed out. The one "star" name, Adrian Brodey, is superb and justifies the hype which has grown up around him. By choosing to work on interesting projects with gifted directors, he's showing just how hollow most actors in America are today.
OK, it'll probably remain firmly lodged in the Art House ghetto and no one will see it. But if you're bored of special effects, if you're tired of Hollywood cliches and if you want to see something mature for a change, check it out.
Pulp is Michael Caine/ Mike Hodges' BEAT THE DEVIL. In that film, Huston
Bogart re-teamed to satirise the films that had made their names and to
have some fun at the same time. In PULP, the two Mikes do the same
In its own way, it's as good as Get Carter. Just don't go into it thinking you're going to get the same sort of thing. Mike Hodges looks on it as the flip side to Carter and he's right. In the first film, Caine was as hard as nails. In this, he's as camp as christmas. In his Safari suits and cigarette holder he is clearly Jarvis Cocker's role model.
It's not for everyone. It's not for those that demand their films take themeselves seriously. It's a rather silly film, but it knows this and plays this quality up. Quite rare, but good fun.
First things first. This is not a good film. It is a very bad film. It is a
complete waste of celluloid.
But to see it is to love it. I can offer no justifications but everyone has films that they know are awful but like anyway. This is one of mine.
This film is a national disgrace. This is the cinematic equivalent of the
mad relative kept locked in the attic. This film and it's sequels represent
the nadir of British film.
Naturally a film this bad has to have a cult following - just check out the number of people who gave it "TEN" - and it's hard not to marvel at just how a film could be so bad. So sit back and watch to see a film worse than you can possibly imagine.
I skipped school to watch this when it was in the cinemas and I remembered
it as a good film. Watching it again seven years on came as a very pleasant
It's a great caper film - don't worry if you're technically illiterate, it's all made very easy - and a great ensemble piece. Why Robert Redford doesn't do more of these light entertainments is a mystery. So few actors can do them as well as him. And Sidney Poitier is wonderful.
It's by no means a masterpiece but it's consistently entertaining and that's more than can be said for most films.
This is a horrific film, made all the worse because it's all true. Annabel
Chong is an intelligent, articulate middle class student from Singapore,
where her parents are so proud that she's managed to get to
Unfortunately, what she does in America is make porn films - films like "What's a nice girl like you doing in an anal movie?". This film is structured around her record breaking attempt to have sex with 251 men.
And it is exceptionally grim. En Route, we meet the characters who work in the porn industry, see Annabel's friends and realise that she is very, very screwed up.
This is a snapshot of humanity at its lowest. After watching it, all your liberal assumptions are challenged. A grim but essential film.
Well... Let's get this right from the start. This is a bad film. It's extremely predictable and it's low budget is all too evident. BUT, I actually enjoyed it. There's a couple of shocks that made me jump and the whole thing is just so corny that it's hard not find it in some way appealing. I was completely drunk when I saw it and I speak as someone who will never watch it again but... it's OK.
I can't believe that this film isn't better known. It's almost perfect,
the design, the acting, the direction, music and a spot-on script. It's as
exciting and as thrilling as the old movie serials that it pays homage
Everything about it is pitch-perfect. One of the only films this decade that I wanted a sequel for. Why this film didn't do better at the box office is a mystery to rival the Bermuda triangle.
This is, IMHO, Sam Peckinpah's best film. It continues to astonish me; the
cynicism, the brutality, the waste.
James Coburn gives the best performance of his career (and that's saying something) as Sgt. Steiner, a decorated and respected military veteran who is disillusioned with everything. Maximillian Schell is an officer who sees only the glamour of war and is obsessed with earning the Iron Cross. The play off between the two men leads to one of the most disturbing endings that I've ever seen.
In most discussions of this film that I've read, it is usually referred to as a 'flawed masterpiece' but where are the flaws? This is the best war film ever made and one of the best films ever made.
This is a film that is persistently underrated. Chandler purists hate it
we've all seen beloved books turned into movies we feel are inadequate
because we've created our own film in our heads.
I haven't read the book and I think that this is a great film. Altman is brave enough to ignore Chandler and make his own Marlowe, assisted by the perennially underrated Elliot Gould. It's a slow and laconic film that really works.
If you loved the book then there's probably no chance that you'll love the film and that's a shame.
|Page 1 of 2:|| |