Datasets:

DDDDZQ

/

imdb_reviews

like 0

"I have a habit of recalling scenes from childhood to calm me. So it was this evening."

tt0050986

'Wild Strawberries' was my second film from Swedish master director Ingmar Bergman, and it couldn't have come at a more appropriate time, just one month after the director's death, age 89. After 'The Seventh Seal' left me in absolute awe of its flawless beauty, 'Wild Strawberries,' released in the same year, did little to disappoint. Each and every frame is utterly perfect, and Bergman's hand so incredibly assured. Even in the most common situations – a close-up of Dr. Isak Borg's face, for example – the images on the screen seem to exude beauty; we see the character's aging, withered features and a sense of irreconcilable sadness lurking behind his eyes, and we, too, are crestfallen.'Wild Strawberries' stars Victor Sjöström, then 78, as Dr. Isak Borg, an aging professor who travels across the country from Stockholm to Lund to receive an honorary university degree. Sjöström himself was one of Sweden's greatest directors, no doubt a great influence upon Bergman, and he also directed 'Körkarlen {The Phantom Chariot} (1921),' among my favourite films of the silent era. As he makes the day-long car journey, Isak begins to re-evaluate his entire life, prompted by memories, daydreams and unsettling nightmares. His wife has passed away some years ago, the end to a somewhat frictional marriage, and now Isak is fully aware that his own minutes are slowly ticking away. In the truly frightening opening dream sequence, he finds himself in a deserted city, with an ominous blackness looming ominously over his lonely form, and the complete and utter silence leaving him only too aware of the frantic beating of his failing heart. Approaching a coffin that has toppled from a carriage into the street, Isak finds within it his own expressionless corpse.Accompanying Isak on his journey to Lund is his daughter-in-law, Marianne (Ingrid Thulin), who is currently facing marital problems with her husband and possesses a certain bitterness towards his father. The marriage between Marianne and Evald (Gunnar Björnstrand) is very much like that between Isak and his long-deceased wife, and one of Isak's final wishes is that he can convince his son not to make the very same mistakes that he did. Also along for the trip is young hitchhiker Sara (Bibi Andersson), who reminds Isak of his lost childhood love, and her two friends Anders and Viktor, who both love her. A bickering married couple whom they pick up after a car accident (played by Gunnel Broström and Gunnar Sjöberg) act as a cold reminder of Isak's many unhappy years with his wife, Karin (Gertrud Fridh).Considering the solemn subject matter, Bergman includes quite a few amusing moments in his film, many arising from Anders and Victor's childlike bickering over the existence of God. There is a genuine air of optimism infused throughout the story, and the ending – though I thought it came all too soon – is both gratifying and heartwarming. 'Wild Strawberries' is a beautiful tale of life, death and redemption, and nobody tells it more beautifully than Ingmar Bergman.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050986/reviews-95

ur10334028

title: "I have a habit of recalling scenes from childhood to calm me. So it was this evening." review: 'Wild Strawberries' was my second film from Swedish master director Ingmar Bergman, and it couldn't have come at a more appropriate time, just one month after the director's death, age 89. After 'The Seventh Seal' left me in absolute awe of its flawless beauty, 'Wild Strawberries,' released in the same year, did little to disappoint. Each and every frame is utterly perfect, and Bergman's hand so incredibly assured. Even in the most common situations – a close-up of Dr. Isak Borg's face, for example – the images on the screen seem to exude beauty; we see the character's aging, withered features and a sense of irreconcilable sadness lurking behind his eyes, and we, too, are crestfallen.'Wild Strawberries' stars Victor Sjöström, then 78, as Dr. Isak Borg, an aging professor who travels across the country from Stockholm to Lund to receive an honorary university degree. Sjöström himself was one of Sweden's greatest directors, no doubt a great influence upon Bergman, and he also directed 'Körkarlen {The Phantom Chariot} (1921),' among my favourite films of the silent era. As he makes the day-long car journey, Isak begins to re-evaluate his entire life, prompted by memories, daydreams and unsettling nightmares. His wife has passed away some years ago, the end to a somewhat frictional marriage, and now Isak is fully aware that his own minutes are slowly ticking away. In the truly frightening opening dream sequence, he finds himself in a deserted city, with an ominous blackness looming ominously over his lonely form, and the complete and utter silence leaving him only too aware of the frantic beating of his failing heart. Approaching a coffin that has toppled from a carriage into the street, Isak finds within it his own expressionless corpse.Accompanying Isak on his journey to Lund is his daughter-in-law, Marianne (Ingrid Thulin), who is currently facing marital problems with her husband and possesses a certain bitterness towards his father. The marriage between Marianne and Evald (Gunnar Björnstrand) is very much like that between Isak and his long-deceased wife, and one of Isak's final wishes is that he can convince his son not to make the very same mistakes that he did. Also along for the trip is young hitchhiker Sara (Bibi Andersson), who reminds Isak of his lost childhood love, and her two friends Anders and Viktor, who both love her. A bickering married couple whom they pick up after a car accident (played by Gunnel Broström and Gunnar Sjöberg) act as a cold reminder of Isak's many unhappy years with his wife, Karin (Gertrud Fridh).Considering the solemn subject matter, Bergman includes quite a few amusing moments in his film, many arising from Anders and Victor's childlike bickering over the existence of God. There is a genuine air of optimism infused throughout the story, and the ending – though I thought it came all too soon – is both gratifying and heartwarming. 'Wild Strawberries' is a beautiful tale of life, death and redemption, and nobody tells it more beautifully than Ingmar Bergman.

Touches of cruelty

tt0050986

"Wild Strawberrys" wasn't as obtuse as other Bergman films. I thought it was an touching examination of an old, bitter man's realization of his life's end. From recollection's and comments from his traveling group he realizes he has become a mean, old b***ard. There were touches of cruelty the movie. Isak, his son Evald, their mother and the couple they were in a car accident with, all show signs of cruelty. They were mean, cold and bitter. Marianne seems to notice and comment on the behavior as if she were the conscience of the movie. She was played by a young Ingrid Thulin and was gorgeous. She was also memorable as Karin in "Cries and Whispers". Bibi Andersson played an almost Sandra Dee type character. It seems only the young people were happy in this movie and as they grew older they became mean and bitter. It wasn't a real happy movie. The ending was a bit more uplifting. Overall a good movie and a nice introduction to Bergman movies.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050986/reviews-40

ur0608898

title: Touches of cruelty review: "Wild Strawberrys" wasn't as obtuse as other Bergman films. I thought it was an touching examination of an old, bitter man's realization of his life's end. From recollection's and comments from his traveling group he realizes he has become a mean, old b***ard. There were touches of cruelty the movie. Isak, his son Evald, their mother and the couple they were in a car accident with, all show signs of cruelty. They were mean, cold and bitter. Marianne seems to notice and comment on the behavior as if she were the conscience of the movie. She was played by a young Ingrid Thulin and was gorgeous. She was also memorable as Karin in "Cries and Whispers". Bibi Andersson played an almost Sandra Dee type character. It seems only the young people were happy in this movie and as they grew older they became mean and bitter. It wasn't a real happy movie. The ending was a bit more uplifting. Overall a good movie and a nice introduction to Bergman movies.

Great

tt0050986

Watching Swedish filmmaker Ingmar Bergman's Wild Strawberries for the first time was an interesting experience because of three reasons. One, the film itself is terrific. Two, I watched it the same night as the 2006 Academy Awards, and was struck by how Bergman's film never condescends to its viewer, unlike the major nominated Politically Correct films Hollywood churns out and rewards. Three, having always known of Bergman from the films of American filmmaker Woody Allen, I was struck at just how much Allen steals from Bergman in many of his films- from camera angles and techniques, to outright theft of scenes. Not that I am accusing Allen of wrongdoing, for T.S. Eliot basically admitted that if an artist is to steal, they should steal from the greats, and Bergman crafted a great film, rife for purloining, back in 1957.The story the film tells is rather simple- it's a road film that journeys into the past and psyche of a retired widower and Professor of Medicine named Isak Borg (Victor Sjöström). Sjöström was apparently a greatly influential actor and director in the first few decades of Swedish cinema, but by 1957 had spent a decade or more in declining reputation. This film and role sealed his immortality. It is a great performance, and one which a lesser actor could easily have gone over the top with. There is a perfect modulation to not only his performance, but to every aspect of the film, starting with Bergman's stellar screenplay. I would be hard pressed to think of a great film, or even a good one, that lacks a good screenplay. This is one of the ironies of film, versus the other visual arts- it's almost wholly dependent upon an art form, writing, with an entirely different paradigm.Bergman was wise to have his film clock in at a mere hour and a half. It is a small, personal film, despite its cosmic undertones and themes. In a sense it balances the best of the dramas of Shakespeare and Chekhov, which is where the plays of Ibsen and Strindberg, Bergman's two greatest claimed influences, reside. He also wisely fills the detritus of Borg's life with symbolism that others- in the film or out- can interpret, but to Borg are just there. In a sense, the most important scene in the film, the one which acts as a fractal refraction of the whole film, is that where Borg and his mother pick through the old box of children's things as Marianne looks coldly on, misinterpreting both mother and son for her own reasons. For this reason, Wild Strawberries stands out not only as a great piece of cinema, but its screenplay as a great piece of literature. And given the multivalence of such art as this, to skillfully combine great imagery with great storytelling in a poetic vein, it's no wonder that film has become the dominant art form of the last half century, supplanting the novel and painting, just as they had supplanted poetry and the romance. Let me end this essay where I began, lamenting the greatness of this film juxtaposed with the supposedly 'great' films that Hollywood proffered for Oscars this year. It is like comparing a rich, diverse banquet with a greasy bucket of Kentucky Fried Chicken. Period. One of the complaints that I have always found valid about great art is how it is usually always too expensive for the average person to enjoy- be it paintings in swank galleries, small books of poetry several times the price of novels, outrageously priced theater and opera tickets, or even foreign films on video or DVD. This was one of the major reasons it took me so long to watch this film, because the DVD I purchased, from The Criterion Collection, retails for $39.95, while your average Hollywood blockbuster can retail for a third that, or less. Is it any wonder, then, that the masses choose swill to fill their free time? In the name of raising up the filmic awareness and appreciation for the great films of the past, foreign or domestic, like Wild Strawberries, I urge companies that distribute foreign films to do their best to make good quality DVDs of such classics available more cheaply, for there is a market to be filled with great affordable art, and once a taste of greatness is given, the market will only expand, and justify the demotic impulse to lower prices with an increased quantity of sales making up for loss of high profit margins per unit. Dover Thrift Editions in America, and Wordsworth Editions in the U.K. have proved that great books cheaply distributed is an economically viable strategy, and I believe the same is true for great films. Why should films like Wild Strawberries remain only in the province of film snobs, and not made available to compete for viewership with contemporary schlock like Brokeback Mountain or Crash simply for economic reasons? Greatness in art may exact a price from its creators, but price should not diminish art's reach. Great films like Wild Strawberries deserve to be freed to the masses, to be enjoyed and enlightened. Watch it and you will agree.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050986/reviews-103

ur12394529

title: Great review: Watching Swedish filmmaker Ingmar Bergman's Wild Strawberries for the first time was an interesting experience because of three reasons. One, the film itself is terrific. Two, I watched it the same night as the 2006 Academy Awards, and was struck by how Bergman's film never condescends to its viewer, unlike the major nominated Politically Correct films Hollywood churns out and rewards. Three, having always known of Bergman from the films of American filmmaker Woody Allen, I was struck at just how much Allen steals from Bergman in many of his films- from camera angles and techniques, to outright theft of scenes. Not that I am accusing Allen of wrongdoing, for T.S. Eliot basically admitted that if an artist is to steal, they should steal from the greats, and Bergman crafted a great film, rife for purloining, back in 1957.The story the film tells is rather simple- it's a road film that journeys into the past and psyche of a retired widower and Professor of Medicine named Isak Borg (Victor Sjöström). Sjöström was apparently a greatly influential actor and director in the first few decades of Swedish cinema, but by 1957 had spent a decade or more in declining reputation. This film and role sealed his immortality. It is a great performance, and one which a lesser actor could easily have gone over the top with. There is a perfect modulation to not only his performance, but to every aspect of the film, starting with Bergman's stellar screenplay. I would be hard pressed to think of a great film, or even a good one, that lacks a good screenplay. This is one of the ironies of film, versus the other visual arts- it's almost wholly dependent upon an art form, writing, with an entirely different paradigm.Bergman was wise to have his film clock in at a mere hour and a half. It is a small, personal film, despite its cosmic undertones and themes. In a sense it balances the best of the dramas of Shakespeare and Chekhov, which is where the plays of Ibsen and Strindberg, Bergman's two greatest claimed influences, reside. He also wisely fills the detritus of Borg's life with symbolism that others- in the film or out- can interpret, but to Borg are just there. In a sense, the most important scene in the film, the one which acts as a fractal refraction of the whole film, is that where Borg and his mother pick through the old box of children's things as Marianne looks coldly on, misinterpreting both mother and son for her own reasons. For this reason, Wild Strawberries stands out not only as a great piece of cinema, but its screenplay as a great piece of literature. And given the multivalence of such art as this, to skillfully combine great imagery with great storytelling in a poetic vein, it's no wonder that film has become the dominant art form of the last half century, supplanting the novel and painting, just as they had supplanted poetry and the romance. Let me end this essay where I began, lamenting the greatness of this film juxtaposed with the supposedly 'great' films that Hollywood proffered for Oscars this year. It is like comparing a rich, diverse banquet with a greasy bucket of Kentucky Fried Chicken. Period. One of the complaints that I have always found valid about great art is how it is usually always too expensive for the average person to enjoy- be it paintings in swank galleries, small books of poetry several times the price of novels, outrageously priced theater and opera tickets, or even foreign films on video or DVD. This was one of the major reasons it took me so long to watch this film, because the DVD I purchased, from The Criterion Collection, retails for $39.95, while your average Hollywood blockbuster can retail for a third that, or less. Is it any wonder, then, that the masses choose swill to fill their free time? In the name of raising up the filmic awareness and appreciation for the great films of the past, foreign or domestic, like Wild Strawberries, I urge companies that distribute foreign films to do their best to make good quality DVDs of such classics available more cheaply, for there is a market to be filled with great affordable art, and once a taste of greatness is given, the market will only expand, and justify the demotic impulse to lower prices with an increased quantity of sales making up for loss of high profit margins per unit. Dover Thrift Editions in America, and Wordsworth Editions in the U.K. have proved that great books cheaply distributed is an economically viable strategy, and I believe the same is true for great films. Why should films like Wild Strawberries remain only in the province of film snobs, and not made available to compete for viewership with contemporary schlock like Brokeback Mountain or Crash simply for economic reasons? Greatness in art may exact a price from its creators, but price should not diminish art's reach. Great films like Wild Strawberries deserve to be freed to the masses, to be enjoyed and enlightened. Watch it and you will agree.

The tragic personal life of a man who seems to have gotten lost in his career.

tt0050986

Dr. Isak Borg (Victor Sjostrom) is a complex character that many of us can probably relate to. He is a successful scientist who has made a career for himself and has stayed in it ever since. Isak is a successful man on the outside but he has a cold personality that interfered with the relationship between him and his wife Karin Borg(Gertrud Fridh) and his son Dr. Evald Borg (Gunnar Bjornstrand). Now an elderly man Isak gets up one day to attend an award ceremony in his honor. But as his daughter in law Marianne Borg (Ingrid Thulin) drives him to his destination they make many stops along the way. In each way Isak is reminded of his life. From his childhood to him as an adult. he learns from each stop what his life has meant to people in positive and negative ways. He sees what he has done for science and progress but at the same time is reminded of his own bitterness and coldness. Ingmar Bergman I know has made some really great films but this is by far his best. Dare I say it but it's even better then The Seventh Seal. Bergman shows us a man who has achieved much success but in the process has shut himself outside of his own life. I highly recommend this movie. The acting and story are fantastic.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050986/reviews-156

ur47006221

title: The tragic personal life of a man who seems to have gotten lost in his career. review: Dr. Isak Borg (Victor Sjostrom) is a complex character that many of us can probably relate to. He is a successful scientist who has made a career for himself and has stayed in it ever since. Isak is a successful man on the outside but he has a cold personality that interfered with the relationship between him and his wife Karin Borg(Gertrud Fridh) and his son Dr. Evald Borg (Gunnar Bjornstrand). Now an elderly man Isak gets up one day to attend an award ceremony in his honor. But as his daughter in law Marianne Borg (Ingrid Thulin) drives him to his destination they make many stops along the way. In each way Isak is reminded of his life. From his childhood to him as an adult. he learns from each stop what his life has meant to people in positive and negative ways. He sees what he has done for science and progress but at the same time is reminded of his own bitterness and coldness. Ingmar Bergman I know has made some really great films but this is by far his best. Dare I say it but it's even better then The Seventh Seal. Bergman shows us a man who has achieved much success but in the process has shut himself outside of his own life. I highly recommend this movie. The acting and story are fantastic.

The change of a man...

tt0050986

"Wild Strawberries" is a drama movie in which we have a man who was loyal to science and in his carrier for all of his life and he never felt love, passion or some emotions from someone else. Because of his work he will be granted an honorable title and because this ceremony will take place in another city he decides to go by car and not with airplane as he had planned before. And everything will change in this trip.I really liked this movie because it shows us how a person's way of thinking and even feeling can change due to some facts or incidents that take place. In addition to this we can observe that because of some incidents or because of some people and the conversations that we have with them can change many things to us or we will reconsider some decisions that we had took. Ialso liked this movie because of the plot which I found brilliant. I also believe that the interpretation of Victor Sjöström who played as Dr. Isak Borg was really great and also the interpretation of Ingrid Thulin who played as Marianne Borg was equally good.Finally I have to say that "Wild Strawberries" is a great movie to watch because after watching this movie I am sure that you will start thinking a little bit different. And of course you will reconsider some things that we have as granted and we should not all of us in our lives.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050986/reviews-157

ur33907744

title: The change of a man... review: "Wild Strawberries" is a drama movie in which we have a man who was loyal to science and in his carrier for all of his life and he never felt love, passion or some emotions from someone else. Because of his work he will be granted an honorable title and because this ceremony will take place in another city he decides to go by car and not with airplane as he had planned before. And everything will change in this trip.I really liked this movie because it shows us how a person's way of thinking and even feeling can change due to some facts or incidents that take place. In addition to this we can observe that because of some incidents or because of some people and the conversations that we have with them can change many things to us or we will reconsider some decisions that we had took. Ialso liked this movie because of the plot which I found brilliant. I also believe that the interpretation of Victor Sjöström who played as Dr. Isak Borg was really great and also the interpretation of Ingrid Thulin who played as Marianne Borg was equally good.Finally I have to say that "Wild Strawberries" is a great movie to watch because after watching this movie I am sure that you will start thinking a little bit different. And of course you will reconsider some things that we have as granted and we should not all of us in our lives.

My Favorite Bergman

tt0050986

I remember, back when I was in high school, I was just starting to get into film, at least as more than just a cheap way to kill a couple of hours. I'd heard a lot about Bergman, about how he was one of the all-time greats, so I decided to watch "The Seventh Seal". Frankly, I wasn't overly impressed. I've seen it again since then, and I liked it a lot better the second time, but my first impression was disappointment. But not long afterward, I decided to get back on the horse and give Bergman one more shot. The second movie I tried was "Wild Strawberries", and that was another story altogether.The story is a relatively simple one. Professor Isak Borg (Victor Sjöström), an aging physician, is traveling to Lund to receive an honorary degree. Accompanying him is his daughter-in-law, Marianne (Ingrid Thulin). Along the way, they make various acquaintances – a trio of young travelers, an embittered married couple, Borg's mother, a former patient, etc. Each of these encounters recalls some memory, some event in Borg's life, recollections of his childhood, his family, his estranged wife, his boyhood sweetheart. Over the course of the film, Borg's life is reconstructed before our eyes, and through HIS eyes, we see our own questions being asked, our own tribulations being explored.The film has its share of many typical Bergman trademarks: psychology, existential angst, questions of the existence of God, strange dream sequences, feelings of loneliness, and an exploration of the apparent meaninglessness of life. But at the same time, the film has a warmth that you don't often get from Bergman, as well as glimmers of hope, a sense that maybe all isn't lost after all.The acting is solid throughout, and the performance delivered by Sjöström is particularly touching, portraying a tired, trouble man, struggling with his own stubborn, judgmental, alienating tendencies.I've seen many Bergman films since I first saw "Wild Strawberries", and he's come to be one of my favorite directors, but to this day, "Wild Strawberries" is my favorite of his films. To me, it's one of his most cohesive, well-conceived, clearly executed films, and its impact survives repeated viewings. I recommend it highly, especially to people who are new to Bergman, or who watched another of his films and weren't impressed.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050986/reviews-126

ur1693132

title: My Favorite Bergman review: I remember, back when I was in high school, I was just starting to get into film, at least as more than just a cheap way to kill a couple of hours. I'd heard a lot about Bergman, about how he was one of the all-time greats, so I decided to watch "The Seventh Seal". Frankly, I wasn't overly impressed. I've seen it again since then, and I liked it a lot better the second time, but my first impression was disappointment. But not long afterward, I decided to get back on the horse and give Bergman one more shot. The second movie I tried was "Wild Strawberries", and that was another story altogether.The story is a relatively simple one. Professor Isak Borg (Victor Sjöström), an aging physician, is traveling to Lund to receive an honorary degree. Accompanying him is his daughter-in-law, Marianne (Ingrid Thulin). Along the way, they make various acquaintances – a trio of young travelers, an embittered married couple, Borg's mother, a former patient, etc. Each of these encounters recalls some memory, some event in Borg's life, recollections of his childhood, his family, his estranged wife, his boyhood sweetheart. Over the course of the film, Borg's life is reconstructed before our eyes, and through HIS eyes, we see our own questions being asked, our own tribulations being explored.The film has its share of many typical Bergman trademarks: psychology, existential angst, questions of the existence of God, strange dream sequences, feelings of loneliness, and an exploration of the apparent meaninglessness of life. But at the same time, the film has a warmth that you don't often get from Bergman, as well as glimmers of hope, a sense that maybe all isn't lost after all.The acting is solid throughout, and the performance delivered by Sjöström is particularly touching, portraying a tired, trouble man, struggling with his own stubborn, judgmental, alienating tendencies.I've seen many Bergman films since I first saw "Wild Strawberries", and he's come to be one of my favorite directors, but to this day, "Wild Strawberries" is my favorite of his films. To me, it's one of his most cohesive, well-conceived, clearly executed films, and its impact survives repeated viewings. I recommend it highly, especially to people who are new to Bergman, or who watched another of his films and weren't impressed.

Another beautifully painted contemplative portrait of mortality

tt0050986

To compare "Wild Strawberries" to a story that's a bit more grounded (yet still part fantasy), what instantly comes to mind is "A Christmas Carol." Though that classic is much more exaggerated, it shares that reflective spirit, sense of personal regret and un-fulfillment and the desire to make amends. The difference is that in "Wild Strawberries" we need no ghosts - - only Ingmar Bergman as our guide.Isak is a very old professor on his way to Lund, Sweden with his daughter-in-law to receive an honorary award, when in his aging state he's confronted by dreams of his childhood and consequent past regrets. On the trip, he also meets some vivacious young people and a bickering couple who continue to steer him toward a path of using his last days/months/years to bring meaning into his life.Released at the same time as Bergman classic "The Seventh Seal," "Strawberries" is also incredibly contemplative and full of incredibly philosophical dialogue. Both films confront themes of mortality, but "Strawberries" is the more hopeful of the two. Although we pity Isak and the film's other characters who seem to have failed miserably to suck any joy or positive meaning from life, there's nothing imminently bad or unavoidable -- there is great capacity for betterment.Bergman's excellence as a director resonates throughout the film through its opening scene with ticking clocks and first major dream sequence on the barren streets to the final zoom-ins and close-ups. His every shot is a portrait of an emotion or at the least of a man caught somewhere between the past and death. Like all great classic/black and white directors, Bergman understands the powerful moments of his story and reserves his best just for them.Although Bergman creates more pity than empathy (though it could be my fault I've always struggled to really find personal epiphany in viewing his stories) and his language more intentionally mystical at times than intrinsically inspired, he manages to capture the uncertainty he's trying to address better than anyone else; His portrait of emotion brings us closer to life's toughest questions than any other director has ever dared.It's the hopeful ending, however, that really makes "Wild Strawberries" a great film. Despite Bergman showing us a mirror that's very tough to look at for an extended period of time, he never suggests that we can't look into it and change whatever it is we don't like. It's that outlet that makes the thematic difficulty of the film all that much easier to bear.~Steven CVisit my site http://moviemusereviews.com

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050986/reviews-108

ur2496397

title: Another beautifully painted contemplative portrait of mortality review: To compare "Wild Strawberries" to a story that's a bit more grounded (yet still part fantasy), what instantly comes to mind is "A Christmas Carol." Though that classic is much more exaggerated, it shares that reflective spirit, sense of personal regret and un-fulfillment and the desire to make amends. The difference is that in "Wild Strawberries" we need no ghosts - - only Ingmar Bergman as our guide.Isak is a very old professor on his way to Lund, Sweden with his daughter-in-law to receive an honorary award, when in his aging state he's confronted by dreams of his childhood and consequent past regrets. On the trip, he also meets some vivacious young people and a bickering couple who continue to steer him toward a path of using his last days/months/years to bring meaning into his life.Released at the same time as Bergman classic "The Seventh Seal," "Strawberries" is also incredibly contemplative and full of incredibly philosophical dialogue. Both films confront themes of mortality, but "Strawberries" is the more hopeful of the two. Although we pity Isak and the film's other characters who seem to have failed miserably to suck any joy or positive meaning from life, there's nothing imminently bad or unavoidable -- there is great capacity for betterment.Bergman's excellence as a director resonates throughout the film through its opening scene with ticking clocks and first major dream sequence on the barren streets to the final zoom-ins and close-ups. His every shot is a portrait of an emotion or at the least of a man caught somewhere between the past and death. Like all great classic/black and white directors, Bergman understands the powerful moments of his story and reserves his best just for them.Although Bergman creates more pity than empathy (though it could be my fault I've always struggled to really find personal epiphany in viewing his stories) and his language more intentionally mystical at times than intrinsically inspired, he manages to capture the uncertainty he's trying to address better than anyone else; His portrait of emotion brings us closer to life's toughest questions than any other director has ever dared.It's the hopeful ending, however, that really makes "Wild Strawberries" a great film. Despite Bergman showing us a mirror that's very tough to look at for an extended period of time, he never suggests that we can't look into it and change whatever it is we don't like. It's that outlet that makes the thematic difficulty of the film all that much easier to bear.~Steven CVisit my site http://moviemusereviews.com

Farewell, Victor Sjostrom

tt0050986

After living a life marked by coldness, an aging professor (Victor Sjöström) is forced to confront the emptiness of his existence.Star Victor Sjöström had been a gem of Swedish cinema for decades. He worked primarily in the silent era; his best known films include "The Phantom Carriage" (1921), "He Who Gets Slapped" (1924) and "The Wind" (1928). Bergman said this film could not have been made without him, and it makes sense. Not only was Bergman influenced by these early Swedish films, but it makes sense to have a man at the end of his distinguished career.The real standout performance (besides Sjostrom) is Bibi Andersson, who plays Sara. Is it any surprise she starred in more than ten Bergman-directed pictures, including "Smiles of a Summer's Night", "The Seventh Seal", "Brink of Life", "The Magician", "The Passion of Anna", "The Touch" and "Persona". If Bergman had a muse, it was Andersson.Bergman has been a strong influence on Woody Allen, and "Wild Strawberries" has influenced a whole series of Allen films: "Stardust Memories", "Another Woman", "Crimes and Misdemeanors", and "Deconstructing Harry". No less a person than Stanley Kubrick said this was his second favorite film of all time.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050986/reviews-154

ur1234929

title: Farewell, Victor Sjostrom review: After living a life marked by coldness, an aging professor (Victor Sjöström) is forced to confront the emptiness of his existence.Star Victor Sjöström had been a gem of Swedish cinema for decades. He worked primarily in the silent era; his best known films include "The Phantom Carriage" (1921), "He Who Gets Slapped" (1924) and "The Wind" (1928). Bergman said this film could not have been made without him, and it makes sense. Not only was Bergman influenced by these early Swedish films, but it makes sense to have a man at the end of his distinguished career.The real standout performance (besides Sjostrom) is Bibi Andersson, who plays Sara. Is it any surprise she starred in more than ten Bergman-directed pictures, including "Smiles of a Summer's Night", "The Seventh Seal", "Brink of Life", "The Magician", "The Passion of Anna", "The Touch" and "Persona". If Bergman had a muse, it was Andersson.Bergman has been a strong influence on Woody Allen, and "Wild Strawberries" has influenced a whole series of Allen films: "Stardust Memories", "Another Woman", "Crimes and Misdemeanors", and "Deconstructing Harry". No less a person than Stanley Kubrick said this was his second favorite film of all time.

Director Ingmar Bergman adopted a humanistic approach for this classic study in isolationism.

tt0050986

Wild Strawberries is the work of a man obsessed by cruelty, especially spiritual cruelty, trying to find some resolution. The story is about an elderly professor, Isak Borg (Victor Sjostrom), who has a nightmare and thinks back over his long life.The film is a beautifully paced and acted, but somewhat obscure piece; Borg's nightmares are characterised by visually arresting but often unfathomable symbols. More effective by far are his idyllic pastoral memories of his cousin Sara (Bibi Andersson), exquisitely shot. The film is included on the Vatican Best Films List, recommended for its portrayal of a man's "interior journey from pangs of regret and anxiety to a refreshing sense of peace and reconciliation".

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050986/reviews-115

ur22131361

title: Director Ingmar Bergman adopted a humanistic approach for this classic study in isolationism. review: Wild Strawberries is the work of a man obsessed by cruelty, especially spiritual cruelty, trying to find some resolution. The story is about an elderly professor, Isak Borg (Victor Sjostrom), who has a nightmare and thinks back over his long life.The film is a beautifully paced and acted, but somewhat obscure piece; Borg's nightmares are characterised by visually arresting but often unfathomable symbols. More effective by far are his idyllic pastoral memories of his cousin Sara (Bibi Andersson), exquisitely shot. The film is included on the Vatican Best Films List, recommended for its portrayal of a man's "interior journey from pangs of regret and anxiety to a refreshing sense of peace and reconciliation".

One of Master's Most Optimistic, Profound, And Warmest Films.

tt0050986

I first saw "Wild Strawberries" many years ago at one of the special screenings in the small theater in Moscow. It was the first Bergman's film I ever saw. This picture is amazing in its emotional impact and in my opinion is one of Bergman's most optimistic, profound, and warm films."Wild Strawberries" provides sincere, intelligent, and emotional contemplations of life's disappointment, regrets, and losses. The main character, seventy-eight-year-old Professor Isak Borg is forced to see his life in a true and painful light, but he also would learn that there is hope.Sparkling cinematography by Gunnar Fisher and superb acting of Bergman's regulars – Ingrid Thulin, Bibi Anderson, Gunnar Bjornstrand, Max von Sydow and especially, the great silent film director, Victor Sjostrom as Professor Borg add to many delights of "Wild Strawberries" which also include Bergman's writing/directing with his famous mixing of conscious and unconscious, dreams and reality, the past and the present in the same scene.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050986/reviews-58

ur1098460

title: One of Master's Most Optimistic, Profound, And Warmest Films. review: I first saw "Wild Strawberries" many years ago at one of the special screenings in the small theater in Moscow. It was the first Bergman's film I ever saw. This picture is amazing in its emotional impact and in my opinion is one of Bergman's most optimistic, profound, and warm films."Wild Strawberries" provides sincere, intelligent, and emotional contemplations of life's disappointment, regrets, and losses. The main character, seventy-eight-year-old Professor Isak Borg is forced to see his life in a true and painful light, but he also would learn that there is hope.Sparkling cinematography by Gunnar Fisher and superb acting of Bergman's regulars – Ingrid Thulin, Bibi Anderson, Gunnar Bjornstrand, Max von Sydow and especially, the great silent film director, Victor Sjostrom as Professor Borg add to many delights of "Wild Strawberries" which also include Bergman's writing/directing with his famous mixing of conscious and unconscious, dreams and reality, the past and the present in the same scene.

A beautiful, moving masterpiece - Bergman's best

tt0050986

The Swedish Professor Isak Borg (Victor Sjöström) embarks on a journey to Lund in order to receive an award for lifelong achievement in the medical field. After his house maid refuses to go with him ("We're not married!") he finds his daughter-in-law (Bibi Andersson) inviting herself along. Little does he know that she holds a great contempt for her father-in-law and is only accompanying him as a way of easily confronting him and expressing her true feelings.Painfully wounded by the prospect of his own daughter-in-law hating him, Borg begins to reflect upon his life in a series of visions, flashbacks and hazy dream sequences.This is my favorite Ingmar Bergman film. Although it's a close call, I'd say this is his overall best movie and is wonderfully, beautifully shot. It's tasteful, just the right running length (short enough not to contain any unnecessary scenes and long enough to feel satisfied when it's over).The point here -- underneath all the layers -- is that we don't have a very long time on earth, and we should make the most out of it. Borg realizes as a frail old man that he has ruined his own life and has no happy memories.It is Bergman's "Citizen Kane" or "Ikiru" -- a poignant reflection on humanity and a film that, ultimately, can change the way you look at life -- if you open up enough to let it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050986/reviews-73

ur1173088

title: A beautiful, moving masterpiece - Bergman's best review: The Swedish Professor Isak Borg (Victor Sjöström) embarks on a journey to Lund in order to receive an award for lifelong achievement in the medical field. After his house maid refuses to go with him ("We're not married!") he finds his daughter-in-law (Bibi Andersson) inviting herself along. Little does he know that she holds a great contempt for her father-in-law and is only accompanying him as a way of easily confronting him and expressing her true feelings.Painfully wounded by the prospect of his own daughter-in-law hating him, Borg begins to reflect upon his life in a series of visions, flashbacks and hazy dream sequences.This is my favorite Ingmar Bergman film. Although it's a close call, I'd say this is his overall best movie and is wonderfully, beautifully shot. It's tasteful, just the right running length (short enough not to contain any unnecessary scenes and long enough to feel satisfied when it's over).The point here -- underneath all the layers -- is that we don't have a very long time on earth, and we should make the most out of it. Borg realizes as a frail old man that he has ruined his own life and has no happy memories.It is Bergman's "Citizen Kane" or "Ikiru" -- a poignant reflection on humanity and a film that, ultimately, can change the way you look at life -- if you open up enough to let it.

A Favorite

tt0050986

Wild Strawberries is one of those rare films that works underneath the surface, building emotion in the viewer while the story unwinds. The themes are universal, death, family, the generations, even technology. I think it helps a viewer to realize the care with which a Bergman, or a Kubrick, or any film maker of the first rank approaches the script, shoot, edit, release sequence. Because Bergman had his hands in all of that he had a chance to look at every scene from all angles. Any seeming clunkiness or absract reality presented has a reason for being there. I found it best to sit without concerning myself with why anything happened and let the movie roll forward trusting the people to be who they were and go where they would. The ending was lushly satisfactory. I love this film.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050986/reviews-92

ur13709892

title: A Favorite review: Wild Strawberries is one of those rare films that works underneath the surface, building emotion in the viewer while the story unwinds. The themes are universal, death, family, the generations, even technology. I think it helps a viewer to realize the care with which a Bergman, or a Kubrick, or any film maker of the first rank approaches the script, shoot, edit, release sequence. Because Bergman had his hands in all of that he had a chance to look at every scene from all angles. Any seeming clunkiness or absract reality presented has a reason for being there. I found it best to sit without concerning myself with why anything happened and let the movie roll forward trusting the people to be who they were and go where they would. The ending was lushly satisfactory. I love this film.

Another "classic" that is hopelessly outdated

tt0050986

An elderly professor is on his way to get an award for his work. While traveling he thinks about his past, his family, friends and how he got to be where he is. Unfortunately the viewer is forced to watch it also!I'm a big fan of movies and I've seen other Bergman films but all the adoration this man has gotten puzzles me. His films are somber, grim (except for "Smiles of a Summer Night") and (basically) nothing ever happens in them! His "insights" into characters are ridiculously predictable and his little "lessons" about life are just laughable. I won't deny that some of his films LOOK beautiful and there's some good acting but the films themselves are boring. I heard this was a classic and should be seen by anyone interested in cinema. What I saw was a boring, grim and depressing drama that offered nothing new or interesting that I haven't seen before...and better done! The acting was good but I didn't care and wasn't interested one bit in the characters or situations. This may have been cutting edge in 1957--but I doubt it. Another overpraised drama from Bergman.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050986/reviews-99

ur0463200

title: Another "classic" that is hopelessly outdated review: An elderly professor is on his way to get an award for his work. While traveling he thinks about his past, his family, friends and how he got to be where he is. Unfortunately the viewer is forced to watch it also!I'm a big fan of movies and I've seen other Bergman films but all the adoration this man has gotten puzzles me. His films are somber, grim (except for "Smiles of a Summer Night") and (basically) nothing ever happens in them! His "insights" into characters are ridiculously predictable and his little "lessons" about life are just laughable. I won't deny that some of his films LOOK beautiful and there's some good acting but the films themselves are boring. I heard this was a classic and should be seen by anyone interested in cinema. What I saw was a boring, grim and depressing drama that offered nothing new or interesting that I haven't seen before...and better done! The acting was good but I didn't care and wasn't interested one bit in the characters or situations. This may have been cutting edge in 1957--but I doubt it. Another overpraised drama from Bergman.

Some Pretty Photography But Awful

tt1135092

The price was not right for this free library check-out and return. Watched the 2 hr movie with fast-forward in 45 min. It was pretty much devoid of story except for some pretentious and existential bare-boned banter between cameo bit parts of international cast and a stoic stone-faced protagonist who doesn't sleep much and occasionally seems to be practicing Tsi-Chi. There may be some intended embedded meaning to this movie but I don't watch movies to try to dig through or ascertain motivations. This movie is pretentious avant-guard drivel. It is more-or-less blah to watch with a good 15 min of gratuitous nudity scenes thrown in for good measure. Filmmakers here need to stop dropping acid while desperately mimicking art.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1135092/reviews-52

ur0635312

title: Some Pretty Photography But Awful review: The price was not right for this free library check-out and return. Watched the 2 hr movie with fast-forward in 45 min. It was pretty much devoid of story except for some pretentious and existential bare-boned banter between cameo bit parts of international cast and a stoic stone-faced protagonist who doesn't sleep much and occasionally seems to be practicing Tsi-Chi. There may be some intended embedded meaning to this movie but I don't watch movies to try to dig through or ascertain motivations. This movie is pretentious avant-guard drivel. It is more-or-less blah to watch with a good 15 min of gratuitous nudity scenes thrown in for good measure. Filmmakers here need to stop dropping acid while desperately mimicking art.

Pure nonsense

tt1135092

I usually open my review with a short description of the plot, but since I couldn't really discern one in the Limits of Control, I'll just leave it at this. Besides not having a plot, the film (the term is used loosely here) offers very little else besides a test of one's patience. Perhaps that was really what this was all about. Actors deliver their lines, the camera records the images, it has some nudity (but so do porn flicks) and at some point the thing ended. We see basically one scene repeated over and over with slight variation and the way this repetition is screened reeked of amateurism and uncomfortable pretense. The only thing missing was a constantly flashing caption reading "THIS IS ART!" in every scene. It's hard to believe this was from the same director who gave us Ghost Dog.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1135092/reviews-72

ur7969168

title: Pure nonsense review: I usually open my review with a short description of the plot, but since I couldn't really discern one in the Limits of Control, I'll just leave it at this. Besides not having a plot, the film (the term is used loosely here) offers very little else besides a test of one's patience. Perhaps that was really what this was all about. Actors deliver their lines, the camera records the images, it has some nudity (but so do porn flicks) and at some point the thing ended. We see basically one scene repeated over and over with slight variation and the way this repetition is screened reeked of amateurism and uncomfortable pretense. The only thing missing was a constantly flashing caption reading "THIS IS ART!" in every scene. It's hard to believe this was from the same director who gave us Ghost Dog.

A fascinating experience in my case, but definitely not for everyone

tt1135092

It is not always easy, but I usually try to consider the intention of a movie in order to appreciate it or evaluate it with a bigger objectivity.Under that criterion, some movies of a questionable quality deserve extra points if they at least fulfill with their purpose, independently of their intrinsic pros and cons.That was exactly what I was thinking while I was watching The Limits of Control even though I do not consider it to be of a questionable quality (all the contrary, in fact), because I could not see the point of the film for a long time, until it came the moment in which I understood what director and screenwriter Jim Jarmusch was trying to say, and it became into a fascinating experience in the whole, at the same time I noticed that every scene has a point in here.Anyway, The Limits of Control is definitely not a movie for everyone, and it will be highly divisive; however, I consider that as one of the best elements of the movie, because it does not leave any place for the indifference.As I said, everything in this movie makes sense and has a logic, and we notice it when we reach a specific moment.I do not think it is convenient to see The Limits of Control as a typical thriller told in three acts; in fact, I would consider it as an excellent work of art which was designed to challenge the spectator, invite to the reflection and generate questions, but without bringing answers.The fact that a movie provokes all that is worthy of admiration, by my point of view.Examining The Limits of Control in the context of Jarmusch's filmography, some parallels with Dead Man could be found, but I prefer to describe it as the other face of Ghost Dog, which I consider to be his best movie.In that film, we had also found a philosophical murderer, but while Ghost Dog externalized his spirituality for practical purposes, the anonymous main character from The Limits of Control internalizes everything, leaving us with the constant doubt about his methods and motivation.That is a truly provocative focus, because it invites us to interpret the meaning of every scene, of every detail.And something which is also a positive element from this film is the cast, because we have solid performances from Isaach De Bankolé, Tilda Swinton, Paz de la Huerta, Gael García Bernal, John Hurt, Youki Kudoh and the great Bill Murray (even though that, with the exception of Bankolé, all their roles could be practically considered as cameos).I will repeat what I said on the first paragraph: The Limits of Control is not a movie for everyone.Personally, I liked it very much, but I perfectly understand why some people could hate it.By my point of view, this was a fascinating experience which made me to analyze it in order to totally understand it.And that is something I wish more movies would cause on me.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1135092/reviews-49

ur6216723

title: A fascinating experience in my case, but definitely not for everyone review: It is not always easy, but I usually try to consider the intention of a movie in order to appreciate it or evaluate it with a bigger objectivity.Under that criterion, some movies of a questionable quality deserve extra points if they at least fulfill with their purpose, independently of their intrinsic pros and cons.That was exactly what I was thinking while I was watching The Limits of Control even though I do not consider it to be of a questionable quality (all the contrary, in fact), because I could not see the point of the film for a long time, until it came the moment in which I understood what director and screenwriter Jim Jarmusch was trying to say, and it became into a fascinating experience in the whole, at the same time I noticed that every scene has a point in here.Anyway, The Limits of Control is definitely not a movie for everyone, and it will be highly divisive; however, I consider that as one of the best elements of the movie, because it does not leave any place for the indifference.As I said, everything in this movie makes sense and has a logic, and we notice it when we reach a specific moment.I do not think it is convenient to see The Limits of Control as a typical thriller told in three acts; in fact, I would consider it as an excellent work of art which was designed to challenge the spectator, invite to the reflection and generate questions, but without bringing answers.The fact that a movie provokes all that is worthy of admiration, by my point of view.Examining The Limits of Control in the context of Jarmusch's filmography, some parallels with Dead Man could be found, but I prefer to describe it as the other face of Ghost Dog, which I consider to be his best movie.In that film, we had also found a philosophical murderer, but while Ghost Dog externalized his spirituality for practical purposes, the anonymous main character from The Limits of Control internalizes everything, leaving us with the constant doubt about his methods and motivation.That is a truly provocative focus, because it invites us to interpret the meaning of every scene, of every detail.And something which is also a positive element from this film is the cast, because we have solid performances from Isaach De Bankolé, Tilda Swinton, Paz de la Huerta, Gael García Bernal, John Hurt, Youki Kudoh and the great Bill Murray (even though that, with the exception of Bankolé, all their roles could be practically considered as cameos).I will repeat what I said on the first paragraph: The Limits of Control is not a movie for everyone.Personally, I liked it very much, but I perfectly understand why some people could hate it.By my point of view, this was a fascinating experience which made me to analyze it in order to totally understand it.And that is something I wish more movies would cause on me.

Post-Modernist Fun

tt1135092

"The Limits of Control" is a post-modernist exercise. It doesn't tell a story. (There are apparently no stories worth telling on a planet defined by a singer as dirt.) Rather, the movie borrows the plot lines and dialogue of film noir, the preoccupations of French art criticism, and other semi-art cinema fare, and recombines them in a heavily ironic and lushly sensual setting, (1) to draw attention to itself and (2) to comment on dreams, art, and the making of art.Does it take itself seriously? Not really. Is it fun to watch? Of course. Who wouldn't enjoy watching a reclining nude woman with a revolver try to get her man (who responds "never while I'm working")? A laconic buff control freak in service to wise guys methodically inspect, and then eat, the coded messages that arrive at his patio table in matchboxes? A series of go-betweens solemnly ask the central character, in various languages, "Do you speak Spanish?" before launching into their wild-eyed explications in English? The only part of the movie I found disappointing was the ending, a paean to flights of imagination wrapped in a faux action film climax. Bill Murray is simply unconvincing as a bellicose bad guy and the resolution is all too neat. But until then the dreams are great, the cinematography is first-rate, and the acting is top-drawer.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1135092/reviews-5

ur16355438

title: Post-Modernist Fun review: "The Limits of Control" is a post-modernist exercise. It doesn't tell a story. (There are apparently no stories worth telling on a planet defined by a singer as dirt.) Rather, the movie borrows the plot lines and dialogue of film noir, the preoccupations of French art criticism, and other semi-art cinema fare, and recombines them in a heavily ironic and lushly sensual setting, (1) to draw attention to itself and (2) to comment on dreams, art, and the making of art.Does it take itself seriously? Not really. Is it fun to watch? Of course. Who wouldn't enjoy watching a reclining nude woman with a revolver try to get her man (who responds "never while I'm working")? A laconic buff control freak in service to wise guys methodically inspect, and then eat, the coded messages that arrive at his patio table in matchboxes? A series of go-betweens solemnly ask the central character, in various languages, "Do you speak Spanish?" before launching into their wild-eyed explications in English? The only part of the movie I found disappointing was the ending, a paean to flights of imagination wrapped in a faux action film climax. Bill Murray is simply unconvincing as a bellicose bad guy and the resolution is all too neat. But until then the dreams are great, the cinematography is first-rate, and the acting is top-drawer.

Symbolist thriller with a political agenda

tt1135092

'Do you speak Spanish?' asks John Hurt's 'Guitar' of the nameless two- espresso drinking protagonist in The Limits of Control. Responding to the question for the third or fourth time in the film, Two-espressos replies 'no.' 'No,' says Guitar, 'neither do I, I speak English. Except when I'm in Spain though, perhaps.'I think that this exchange is a useful guide in trying to get to grips with Jim Jarmusch's terse thriller. I imagined that the location of Spain (urban, provincial and rural) represents 'the movie' and that consequently Spanish represents cinematic vernacular. The characters which appear, cameo-like, to exchange code-filled matchboxes with Two- espressos are cinematic tropes, trying vainly to begin a conversation in their lingua película (if you like) before 'realising' that this stubborn outsider won't or refuses to understand.We never really get to the bottom of Two-espressos' role in the drama. He seems to be some sort of a link man, brokering diamond sales. Yet he breaks this off in order to pursue a final confrontation, probably following the intrusive helicopter which flies over every location - 'los Americanos', as one boy tells him. This is the political edge to Jarmusch's film, a suggestion that Two-espressos goes against the trappings of the genre, maybe to avenge the other cameo-tropes who find themselves caught in it. His adversary in this final confrontation, Bill Murray's 'American', represents some sort of risible, anti-art homeland bureaucrat.The almost entirely mute role of Two-espressos is a good fit for the handsome, cool but intense Isaach De Bankolé. The cameos pop in and out without making much of a mark (it's what they say, not who they are). I did like the opening, self-translating double act though, at once a conventional thriller set-up and a confounding taste of the oddities to come. It's a well-paced but lengthy film, a slow-burning polemic suggesting the artist's frustration at having to bend his intentions into the shape of the genre or market. Above all it' a noticeably conventional film (not for nothing is Hitchcock namechecked), given that its a film about and intrinsically utilising techniques which transgresses expectation, i.e. exposing the limits of industrial control. 6/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1135092/reviews-19

ur2206551

title: Symbolist thriller with a political agenda review: 'Do you speak Spanish?' asks John Hurt's 'Guitar' of the nameless two- espresso drinking protagonist in The Limits of Control. Responding to the question for the third or fourth time in the film, Two-espressos replies 'no.' 'No,' says Guitar, 'neither do I, I speak English. Except when I'm in Spain though, perhaps.'I think that this exchange is a useful guide in trying to get to grips with Jim Jarmusch's terse thriller. I imagined that the location of Spain (urban, provincial and rural) represents 'the movie' and that consequently Spanish represents cinematic vernacular. The characters which appear, cameo-like, to exchange code-filled matchboxes with Two- espressos are cinematic tropes, trying vainly to begin a conversation in their lingua película (if you like) before 'realising' that this stubborn outsider won't or refuses to understand.We never really get to the bottom of Two-espressos' role in the drama. He seems to be some sort of a link man, brokering diamond sales. Yet he breaks this off in order to pursue a final confrontation, probably following the intrusive helicopter which flies over every location - 'los Americanos', as one boy tells him. This is the political edge to Jarmusch's film, a suggestion that Two-espressos goes against the trappings of the genre, maybe to avenge the other cameo-tropes who find themselves caught in it. His adversary in this final confrontation, Bill Murray's 'American', represents some sort of risible, anti-art homeland bureaucrat.The almost entirely mute role of Two-espressos is a good fit for the handsome, cool but intense Isaach De Bankolé. The cameos pop in and out without making much of a mark (it's what they say, not who they are). I did like the opening, self-translating double act though, at once a conventional thriller set-up and a confounding taste of the oddities to come. It's a well-paced but lengthy film, a slow-burning polemic suggesting the artist's frustration at having to bend his intentions into the shape of the genre or market. Above all it' a noticeably conventional film (not for nothing is Hitchcock namechecked), given that its a film about and intrinsically utilising techniques which transgresses expectation, i.e. exposing the limits of industrial control. 6/10

Post-Modern Espionage

tt1135092

The Limits of Control is a film about spies, interchanging notes in matchbooks, and coded phrases and short monologues about art, music, and film, usually in a café on bright afternoons in Spain.Isaach De Bankole plays an all but silent nameless protagonist, who wears a series of matching one color suits; blue, brown, and silver, does tai-chi regularly, and always orders two espressos in separate cups. He goes to art galleries, and may see a painting of a violin, and then a man will sit down next to him at a café, nervously with a violin, and tell him every instrument contains every song it has ever written. The two exchange matching match books, of separate colors with "Les Boxer" written in french, and then Bankhole is off again. This mechanism repeats for roughly two hours, as phrases and images repeat and proceed each other through each brief encounter.There is no exposition, we never learn, who he is, what he is thinking, what the messages or conversations mean, or why he is doing what he does. I use the word "spy" loosely, because the scope of Bankole's mission is never revealed, and involves diamonds, assassinations, an ancient guitar, mysterious men in black stuffing people into vans, and Bankole's refusal to use cellular phones. It's a postmodern espionage film where the characters don't seek out truth, but communicate in deception and deal in relativity.A modern "Blow-Up", another existential minimalist thriller, steeped in the fashions, and trends of it's day, only with a sense of humor. Antonini see's his hipster photographer as morally bankrupt his spiritual emptiness matching the sparse nature of the film, while Jarmusch's Bankole is calm absorbing the scenery, practicing tai-chi(as all sound drains from the film, putting the viewer in an even calmer stillness inside him than the one we see in the film), he doesn't have sex on the job, even when the nude Paz De La Huerta makes repeat visits to his apartment(they platonically sleep together; her nude, he in trademark suit) though his job seems to consist of only waiting, talking,trading,and his not concerned neither with taking a side or seeking revenge. The opposite of Antonini's tortured artist, is Jarmusch's nonchalant mute hero, "Reality is arbitrary" he tells Bill Murray, known as The American.The conversations are not random, though we cant know what they multiple meanings they may have for Bankole, they orbit themes of perception and subjectivity. Some of the first words of instruction he receives are "everything is subjective" , "the universe has no edges and no center", "use your skills and your imagination", and the ominous "he who thinks he is bigger than the rest must go to the cemetery. there he will learn what life really is, dirt.". These words are translated by a third party because as everyone whom he meets asks him upon first meeting, he doesn't speak Spanish.With exposition erased, we are shown the first of several layers of perceptual limitations. We cant know what Bankole's character knows beyond the surface level of meaningless gestures and dialog, but we also can't escape the paranoid shadow that everything no matter how minute has a meaning. There is a black helicopter that precedes and follows Bankole throughout the film, but its effect is equally a stifled suspense as it is traditional Jarmuschian deadpan. When Bankole sits with Tilda Swinton, in platinum white wig and cowboy hat, she tells him she she "likes it in old movies when people just sit quietly without talking", a double jibe, both at Bankole's character's stoic calm, and the films own absurd preoccupations with the small details of life. Later he sees a poster of what looks like a gaillo film with a women dressed just like Swinton. Did she dress to match the poster, or was the poster a sign meant only for him? The Limits Of Control is a free-form minimalist poem against the shadow of a paranoid espionage thriller. It has a "Rear Window" like ratio of concept to action, in Rear Window you could say "dude call the police or quit peeping, duh! Movie over.", likewise you could make an empty statement that this was "Cofee and Cigarettes", but longer and without the cigarettes. But that would just be to not see the forest through the trees.One of the last images is a painting of a covered painting (an image Bankole saw earlier as an actual covered painting hanging on a wall), is a camera close up of the contours of the folds in the sheets of the image. Though, conceptually the painting shows us a blot on our perception, the blot itself( the sheet's folds, bends, and contours), create a texture all of it's own. That's what this film is, a blot full of small textures, seeing the limits of perception, the limits of control. The point where you are unmoored and must use your "skills and imagination". The film is preceded by a Rimbaud quote about a ferryman swept away by the currents as soon as he touches foot to water.We see into Bankole's thoughts only once, when he imagines he sees Paz De La Heurta, in a hotel window across the street. Likewise he only smiles once when he watches an explosive a rendition of a Falencio song, whose lyrics are the first words of dialog he is told in the film.I saw this in a theater by myself in the early afternoon, I was the only person in the theater. After reading some of the reviews, that empty theater seemed a pretty good parallel to the icy reception it's getting so far. But it's the best film I've seen in 2009 so far. And one of my favorites of the decade, hypnotic, absurd, intelligent, and plain cool, but then again I was the only one in the theater...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1135092/reviews-3

ur15982856

title: Post-Modern Espionage review: The Limits of Control is a film about spies, interchanging notes in matchbooks, and coded phrases and short monologues about art, music, and film, usually in a café on bright afternoons in Spain.Isaach De Bankole plays an all but silent nameless protagonist, who wears a series of matching one color suits; blue, brown, and silver, does tai-chi regularly, and always orders two espressos in separate cups. He goes to art galleries, and may see a painting of a violin, and then a man will sit down next to him at a café, nervously with a violin, and tell him every instrument contains every song it has ever written. The two exchange matching match books, of separate colors with "Les Boxer" written in french, and then Bankhole is off again. This mechanism repeats for roughly two hours, as phrases and images repeat and proceed each other through each brief encounter.There is no exposition, we never learn, who he is, what he is thinking, what the messages or conversations mean, or why he is doing what he does. I use the word "spy" loosely, because the scope of Bankole's mission is never revealed, and involves diamonds, assassinations, an ancient guitar, mysterious men in black stuffing people into vans, and Bankole's refusal to use cellular phones. It's a postmodern espionage film where the characters don't seek out truth, but communicate in deception and deal in relativity.A modern "Blow-Up", another existential minimalist thriller, steeped in the fashions, and trends of it's day, only with a sense of humor. Antonini see's his hipster photographer as morally bankrupt his spiritual emptiness matching the sparse nature of the film, while Jarmusch's Bankole is calm absorbing the scenery, practicing tai-chi(as all sound drains from the film, putting the viewer in an even calmer stillness inside him than the one we see in the film), he doesn't have sex on the job, even when the nude Paz De La Huerta makes repeat visits to his apartment(they platonically sleep together; her nude, he in trademark suit) though his job seems to consist of only waiting, talking,trading,and his not concerned neither with taking a side or seeking revenge. The opposite of Antonini's tortured artist, is Jarmusch's nonchalant mute hero, "Reality is arbitrary" he tells Bill Murray, known as The American.The conversations are not random, though we cant know what they multiple meanings they may have for Bankole, they orbit themes of perception and subjectivity. Some of the first words of instruction he receives are "everything is subjective" , "the universe has no edges and no center", "use your skills and your imagination", and the ominous "he who thinks he is bigger than the rest must go to the cemetery. there he will learn what life really is, dirt.". These words are translated by a third party because as everyone whom he meets asks him upon first meeting, he doesn't speak Spanish.With exposition erased, we are shown the first of several layers of perceptual limitations. We cant know what Bankole's character knows beyond the surface level of meaningless gestures and dialog, but we also can't escape the paranoid shadow that everything no matter how minute has a meaning. There is a black helicopter that precedes and follows Bankole throughout the film, but its effect is equally a stifled suspense as it is traditional Jarmuschian deadpan. When Bankole sits with Tilda Swinton, in platinum white wig and cowboy hat, she tells him she she "likes it in old movies when people just sit quietly without talking", a double jibe, both at Bankole's character's stoic calm, and the films own absurd preoccupations with the small details of life. Later he sees a poster of what looks like a gaillo film with a women dressed just like Swinton. Did she dress to match the poster, or was the poster a sign meant only for him? The Limits Of Control is a free-form minimalist poem against the shadow of a paranoid espionage thriller. It has a "Rear Window" like ratio of concept to action, in Rear Window you could say "dude call the police or quit peeping, duh! Movie over.", likewise you could make an empty statement that this was "Cofee and Cigarettes", but longer and without the cigarettes. But that would just be to not see the forest through the trees.One of the last images is a painting of a covered painting (an image Bankole saw earlier as an actual covered painting hanging on a wall), is a camera close up of the contours of the folds in the sheets of the image. Though, conceptually the painting shows us a blot on our perception, the blot itself( the sheet's folds, bends, and contours), create a texture all of it's own. That's what this film is, a blot full of small textures, seeing the limits of perception, the limits of control. The point where you are unmoored and must use your "skills and imagination". The film is preceded by a Rimbaud quote about a ferryman swept away by the currents as soon as he touches foot to water.We see into Bankole's thoughts only once, when he imagines he sees Paz De La Heurta, in a hotel window across the street. Likewise he only smiles once when he watches an explosive a rendition of a Falencio song, whose lyrics are the first words of dialog he is told in the film.I saw this in a theater by myself in the early afternoon, I was the only person in the theater. After reading some of the reviews, that empty theater seemed a pretty good parallel to the icy reception it's getting so far. But it's the best film I've seen in 2009 so far. And one of my favorites of the decade, hypnotic, absurd, intelligent, and plain cool, but then again I was the only one in the theater...

No limit for aesthetics

tt1135092

In my opinion Jim Jarmusch is developing to the star of abstract film. Although if he does it not in such a unsettled way for example Lynch does. But he also left behind a perplexed audience. Also in this new work in which the viewer get the possibility to make own interpretations and analyses. The speechless Isaach De Bankole get an inscrutable order from an intransparent Spanish speaking principal. And even if our protagonist don't speak Spanish it seems that he absolute understand the meanings of the Spanish mottoes he's confronted with by having contact with his meetings the whole movie. Jarmusch shows in this movie his appreciation for aesthetic and his role as a style icon, too. The stage design with his forms and colours and also Jarmusch's sense for outstanding film locations makes you breathless. Especially is that he construct his atmosphere basically with fixed cameras and actually extreme reduced camera work. But this is at least also nothing new about Jarmusch as the mono-/dialogues few and far between but because of that very rich in content. This film is typical Jarmusch and because of that a must for fans of his work.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1135092/reviews-32

ur13953265

title: No limit for aesthetics review: In my opinion Jim Jarmusch is developing to the star of abstract film. Although if he does it not in such a unsettled way for example Lynch does. But he also left behind a perplexed audience. Also in this new work in which the viewer get the possibility to make own interpretations and analyses. The speechless Isaach De Bankole get an inscrutable order from an intransparent Spanish speaking principal. And even if our protagonist don't speak Spanish it seems that he absolute understand the meanings of the Spanish mottoes he's confronted with by having contact with his meetings the whole movie. Jarmusch shows in this movie his appreciation for aesthetic and his role as a style icon, too. The stage design with his forms and colours and also Jarmusch's sense for outstanding film locations makes you breathless. Especially is that he construct his atmosphere basically with fixed cameras and actually extreme reduced camera work. But this is at least also nothing new about Jarmusch as the mono-/dialogues few and far between but because of that very rich in content. This film is typical Jarmusch and because of that a must for fans of his work.

Style over substance

tt1135092

The Lone Man (Isaach De Bankolé) is given instruction on a mysterious mission. He meets various people who gives him various mercurial messages.Writer/director Jim Jarmusch has created a movie of beautiful style but with little substance. It is lovingly shot. The plot would fit comfortably on the back of an envelop and the dialog on a 3-hole page, double spaced and on one side. The movie luxuriates on nothing scenes. It uses silence as a special effects and convoluted messages as insightful. My biggest problem with this is that it uses great actors as nothing more than cardboard cutouts. In the end, there is nothing here but a failed art experiment.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1135092/reviews-113

ur2898520

title: Style over substance review: The Lone Man (Isaach De Bankolé) is given instruction on a mysterious mission. He meets various people who gives him various mercurial messages.Writer/director Jim Jarmusch has created a movie of beautiful style but with little substance. It is lovingly shot. The plot would fit comfortably on the back of an envelop and the dialog on a 3-hole page, double spaced and on one side. The movie luxuriates on nothing scenes. It uses silence as a special effects and convoluted messages as insightful. My biggest problem with this is that it uses great actors as nothing more than cardboard cutouts. In the end, there is nothing here but a failed art experiment.

I actually liked it

tt1135092

'The Limits of Control' is easy to misunderstand, and even easier to dislike. I can certainly understand the bad reviews. What I can't agree to is anyone calling it 'pretentious'; it doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not. It's not a clever allegory or a meaningful social critique, and it doesn't have a hidden message - nor does it pretend to be any of those things. It's a big mistake to try to find a hidden message, or a coherent plot, as it doesn't have either. What it is is a series of fragments and dreams, characters, places and encounters, more like Coffee & Cigarettes than Ghost Dog. But it's lots of fun, for cinema lovers and for art lovers, and it's incredibly beautiful (a given with a Jim Jarmusch film), and for a movie in which nothing ever really happens, it keeps the viewer interested the whole time; that in itself is an accomplishment.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1135092/reviews-90

ur5358902

title: I actually liked it review: 'The Limits of Control' is easy to misunderstand, and even easier to dislike. I can certainly understand the bad reviews. What I can't agree to is anyone calling it 'pretentious'; it doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not. It's not a clever allegory or a meaningful social critique, and it doesn't have a hidden message - nor does it pretend to be any of those things. It's a big mistake to try to find a hidden message, or a coherent plot, as it doesn't have either. What it is is a series of fragments and dreams, characters, places and encounters, more like Coffee & Cigarettes than Ghost Dog. But it's lots of fun, for cinema lovers and for art lovers, and it's incredibly beautiful (a given with a Jim Jarmusch film), and for a movie in which nothing ever really happens, it keeps the viewer interested the whole time; that in itself is an accomplishment.

Solid Proof That Cinema Has A Metaphysical Effect.

tt1135092

Control is something that can never be fully realized in this life. He who can reach the extent of it, its limits, as it pertains to his own life, has mastered his existence. Isaach De Bankole, the unabashed center of this movie's cyclical universe, stands firmly on the farthest cut-off point of control of which the modern man is likely capable, so deeply ingrained in his daily algorithms that in spite of being involved in whatever one can make of what he inches closer and closer to each day, each cycle of his self-imposed limitation. Whatever occupation might engender the clandestine, almost theatrically affected fine points of his routine, which would lead to what it finally leads to, it is something this lone, anonymous stoic not only does but is, in the most distilled possible form.Jim Jarmusch's remarkably, painstakingly subjective film, which requires the most open and accepting approach one is likely to find oneself able to offer, is in fact solid proof that cinema has a metaphysical effect. By muting and truncating every facet of the narrative that one would initially deem the meat of the story, the most important cinematic elements of the subject matter, and instead sitting quietly with one of the clockwork pawns in the grand scheme, whatever it is, the film transcends our man-made notions of time. A rational, sensible given one of a typical American multiplex exodus would make perfect sense were they to feel as if they are being put through a completely empty, pretentious and above-it- all string of fancy images and art appreciation. But whether you realize it promptly or it dawns on you later, this film is concurrently so minutely and intimately immersed and so dreamlike within the images comprising its day-to-day-to-day framework that it indeed delivers as a whole on that level. For me, it was so impactful that it affected my behavior for a good while thereafter:Having seen this ardently unique, hypnotically stylized anti-thriller, I feel as if I'm more content to consider the simplest passing moment an entire and substantial imprint all its own, because presumably, and as this film seems to insist, we are all affected each and every second by the slightest, even completely unconscious stimuli. The only character, or more correctly a figment, that veritably insists upon the opposite is that of Bill Murray's, as he takes on an almost Bill O'Reilly-like caricature, also the only apparent American of any of the sequential interlopers in each glacially deliberate chain of routine, all of which encompass locations in Madrid, Seville and Almeria. Neither De Bankole nor most of the other members of the cast are Hispanic, not to mention nothing alike at all pertaining to their homogeneously nameless roles, whether or not they've worked with Jarmusch or been featured with each other before.Jarmusch's films generally forgo established narrative structure, being without decisive plot advance and focusing more on mood and character evolution. The Limits of Control is the first film he has made that is set entirely in a foreign country, though his films are usually set in the United States, where Jarmusch looks through a visitor's eyes as if fresh off the boat, creating a model of world cinema that orchestrates European and Japanese film with that of Hollywood, Eastern philosophy with Western philosophy. He has always cast foreign actors and often uses a great deal of non-English dialogue. But The Limits of Control, though many of these things apply, is of them all the furthest concentrated into the deepest introspective idiosyncrasy. By enhancing the everyday, by seeing human life in larger terms, can the individual eschew the muted strangulation of lasting problems. In the very little he shows and the very little he has his protagonist do, he asserts that notion in unapologetic singularity.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1135092/reviews-18

ur8625456

title: Solid Proof That Cinema Has A Metaphysical Effect. review: Control is something that can never be fully realized in this life. He who can reach the extent of it, its limits, as it pertains to his own life, has mastered his existence. Isaach De Bankole, the unabashed center of this movie's cyclical universe, stands firmly on the farthest cut-off point of control of which the modern man is likely capable, so deeply ingrained in his daily algorithms that in spite of being involved in whatever one can make of what he inches closer and closer to each day, each cycle of his self-imposed limitation. Whatever occupation might engender the clandestine, almost theatrically affected fine points of his routine, which would lead to what it finally leads to, it is something this lone, anonymous stoic not only does but is, in the most distilled possible form.Jim Jarmusch's remarkably, painstakingly subjective film, which requires the most open and accepting approach one is likely to find oneself able to offer, is in fact solid proof that cinema has a metaphysical effect. By muting and truncating every facet of the narrative that one would initially deem the meat of the story, the most important cinematic elements of the subject matter, and instead sitting quietly with one of the clockwork pawns in the grand scheme, whatever it is, the film transcends our man-made notions of time. A rational, sensible given one of a typical American multiplex exodus would make perfect sense were they to feel as if they are being put through a completely empty, pretentious and above-it- all string of fancy images and art appreciation. But whether you realize it promptly or it dawns on you later, this film is concurrently so minutely and intimately immersed and so dreamlike within the images comprising its day-to-day-to-day framework that it indeed delivers as a whole on that level. For me, it was so impactful that it affected my behavior for a good while thereafter:Having seen this ardently unique, hypnotically stylized anti-thriller, I feel as if I'm more content to consider the simplest passing moment an entire and substantial imprint all its own, because presumably, and as this film seems to insist, we are all affected each and every second by the slightest, even completely unconscious stimuli. The only character, or more correctly a figment, that veritably insists upon the opposite is that of Bill Murray's, as he takes on an almost Bill O'Reilly-like caricature, also the only apparent American of any of the sequential interlopers in each glacially deliberate chain of routine, all of which encompass locations in Madrid, Seville and Almeria. Neither De Bankole nor most of the other members of the cast are Hispanic, not to mention nothing alike at all pertaining to their homogeneously nameless roles, whether or not they've worked with Jarmusch or been featured with each other before.Jarmusch's films generally forgo established narrative structure, being without decisive plot advance and focusing more on mood and character evolution. The Limits of Control is the first film he has made that is set entirely in a foreign country, though his films are usually set in the United States, where Jarmusch looks through a visitor's eyes as if fresh off the boat, creating a model of world cinema that orchestrates European and Japanese film with that of Hollywood, Eastern philosophy with Western philosophy. He has always cast foreign actors and often uses a great deal of non-English dialogue. But The Limits of Control, though many of these things apply, is of them all the furthest concentrated into the deepest introspective idiosyncrasy. By enhancing the everyday, by seeing human life in larger terms, can the individual eschew the muted strangulation of lasting problems. In the very little he shows and the very little he has his protagonist do, he asserts that notion in unapologetic singularity.

A very strange painstakingly DULL bore from Jim Jarmusch

tt1135092

Jim Jarmusch does not make many film, MOST have been interesting, painstakingly made detailed,eventually understandable very well acted films.The Limits of Control is NOT one of them.The main reason I sat through 116 long boring minutes was the beautiful near bare, but detailed sets & cinematography. There was a list-enable music score as well.Story,plot wise is not very clear at all.The casting as well is a misfire, we have a one note near unknown actor in the lead (Issach DeBackole). He is in every scene, saying next to nothing & is totally emotionless.There are a few name actors in small roles, (Gael Garcia Bernal, Tilda Swinton too just name 2). They add nothing to the film.Years back Robert Mitchum would have done the lead with good studio cast members doing the other roles. In other words without a STAR in the lead role there is nothing to watch. The running time of 116 minutes is about 40 minutes to long.Ratings: ** (out of 4) 60 points(out of 100) IMDb 5 (out of 10)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1135092/reviews-30

ur0495697

title: A very strange painstakingly DULL bore from Jim Jarmusch review: Jim Jarmusch does not make many film, MOST have been interesting, painstakingly made detailed,eventually understandable very well acted films.The Limits of Control is NOT one of them.The main reason I sat through 116 long boring minutes was the beautiful near bare, but detailed sets & cinematography. There was a list-enable music score as well.Story,plot wise is not very clear at all.The casting as well is a misfire, we have a one note near unknown actor in the lead (Issach DeBackole). He is in every scene, saying next to nothing & is totally emotionless.There are a few name actors in small roles, (Gael Garcia Bernal, Tilda Swinton too just name 2). They add nothing to the film.Years back Robert Mitchum would have done the lead with good studio cast members doing the other roles. In other words without a STAR in the lead role there is nothing to watch. The running time of 116 minutes is about 40 minutes to long.Ratings: ** (out of 4) 60 points(out of 100) IMDb 5 (out of 10)

Cute chick flick where you can just sit back and enjoy

tt0385307

Sandra Bullock returns as FBI agent Gracie Hart in the second Miss Congeniality movie. Gracie has become well-known by the public after saving Cheryl Frasier (Heather Burns) at the Miss United States Pageant, where she was working undercover. Gracie is asked to become the face to the FBI, and give a positive face of the FBI by promoting her book on TV. Gracie has become a celebrity and is no longer a real FBI agent. Her friends from the pageant, Cheryl and Stan Fields (William Shatner) are kidnapped in Las Vegas, and Gracie wants to find them. Gracie is ordered by her boss to continue being the face of the FBI, while they find her friends. Gracie can't do that, so she starts her own investigation. Her bodyguard, FBI agent Sam Fuller (Regina King), and Gracie go undercover to find her friends, and the fireworks begin. If you liked the first movie, you will love this one. I think it is even better than the first, and Regina King steals the show with her part. There is much more action and funny scenes. I actually laugh through the entire movie. This is one cute chick flick where you can just sit back and enjoy. (Warner Brothers, Run time 1:55, Rated PG-13) (8/10)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0385307/reviews-10

ur2747265

title: Cute chick flick where you can just sit back and enjoy review: Sandra Bullock returns as FBI agent Gracie Hart in the second Miss Congeniality movie. Gracie has become well-known by the public after saving Cheryl Frasier (Heather Burns) at the Miss United States Pageant, where she was working undercover. Gracie is asked to become the face to the FBI, and give a positive face of the FBI by promoting her book on TV. Gracie has become a celebrity and is no longer a real FBI agent. Her friends from the pageant, Cheryl and Stan Fields (William Shatner) are kidnapped in Las Vegas, and Gracie wants to find them. Gracie is ordered by her boss to continue being the face of the FBI, while they find her friends. Gracie can't do that, so she starts her own investigation. Her bodyguard, FBI agent Sam Fuller (Regina King), and Gracie go undercover to find her friends, and the fireworks begin. If you liked the first movie, you will love this one. I think it is even better than the first, and Regina King steals the show with her part. There is much more action and funny scenes. I actually laugh through the entire movie. This is one cute chick flick where you can just sit back and enjoy. (Warner Brothers, Run time 1:55, Rated PG-13) (8/10)

Not fabulous.

tt0385307

Sandra Bullock returns as FBI agent Gracie Hart, who is assigned to promote the FBI. While traveling around the country, Miss USA Cheryl Frazier (Heather Burns) and Stan Fields (William Shatner) are kidnapped, leading Gracie to investigate the abduction in Las Vegas, while going against the orders of the Las Vegas FBI Director Walter Collins.It was nice to see Bullock, Burns and Shatner return in this sequel; however, this film fell short in delivering comedy, an interesting story and notable action. Bullock and newcomer Regina King didn't work well together on screen; King was just too whiny. Treat Williams as Director Collins was just an arrogant jerk, whom I wished would have gotten a few whacks in the a$$ from Gracie.The cast didn't live up to the charm, humor and seriousness that made the first movie great. I felt that there was just more forced comedy and characters with lack of substance. Therefore, this is another example where the original film surpasses its sequel by wide margins.Grade D

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0385307/reviews-172

ur0437174

title: Not fabulous. review: Sandra Bullock returns as FBI agent Gracie Hart, who is assigned to promote the FBI. While traveling around the country, Miss USA Cheryl Frazier (Heather Burns) and Stan Fields (William Shatner) are kidnapped, leading Gracie to investigate the abduction in Las Vegas, while going against the orders of the Las Vegas FBI Director Walter Collins.It was nice to see Bullock, Burns and Shatner return in this sequel; however, this film fell short in delivering comedy, an interesting story and notable action. Bullock and newcomer Regina King didn't work well together on screen; King was just too whiny. Treat Williams as Director Collins was just an arrogant jerk, whom I wished would have gotten a few whacks in the a$$ from Gracie.The cast didn't live up to the charm, humor and seriousness that made the first movie great. I felt that there was just more forced comedy and characters with lack of substance. Therefore, this is another example where the original film surpasses its sequel by wide margins.Grade D

i thought it was more entertaining than number one

tt0385307

i thought his movie was more entertaining than the first one,but not necessarily funnier.i liked the banter and interplay between Sandra Bullock and Regina King.i did think that the story was bit thin though,but it is faster paced than the the original movie.i also felt it was more of a chick flick,but there's nothing wrong with that.if you don't like chick flicks,you might not like this one that much.there were also less funny moments in this one,but the funny moments were much funnier than anything in the first one.overall,i'd say i liked this movie a bit better.i wouldn't say it's great,but it's not half bad.for me,Miss Congeniality 2:Armed and Fabulous is a 6/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0385307/reviews-150

ur11423174

title: i thought it was more entertaining than number one review: i thought his movie was more entertaining than the first one,but not necessarily funnier.i liked the banter and interplay between Sandra Bullock and Regina King.i did think that the story was bit thin though,but it is faster paced than the the original movie.i also felt it was more of a chick flick,but there's nothing wrong with that.if you don't like chick flicks,you might not like this one that much.there were also less funny moments in this one,but the funny moments were much funnier than anything in the first one.overall,i'd say i liked this movie a bit better.i wouldn't say it's great,but it's not half bad.for me,Miss Congeniality 2:Armed and Fabulous is a 6/10

Lame Compared To The Original

tt0385307

Miss Congeniality 2: Armed and Fabulous is a comedy that serves as a sequel to the 2000 film Miss Congeniality.It features Sandra Bullock together with Regina King,Enrique Murciano,William Shatner,Ernie Hudson,Heather Burns,Diedrich Bader and Treat Williams. Three weeks after the events of the first film, FBI agent Gracie Hart has become a celebrity after she infiltrated a beauty pageant on her last assignment. The FBI uses her notoriety to generate positive PR for the bureau; however, Gracie would like to get back to some solid police work, especially after scuffling with fellow female agent "Sam" Fuller, who isn't impressed with Gracie. Despite their differences, the two find themselves working side by side when two of Gracie's pals from the pageant -- contest winner Cheryl Frasier and master of ceremonies Stan Fields -- were kidnapped.After the viewer is presented with a charmer in the first film,the sequel just comes up with the same formulaic screenplay that basically worked in the original.Too bad that it does not provide anything new that what Sandra Bullock does in it has basically been presented in the previous film.Overall,it just lacks something new and everything becomes basically predictable from beginning to end.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0385307/reviews-177

ur5291991

title: Lame Compared To The Original review: Miss Congeniality 2: Armed and Fabulous is a comedy that serves as a sequel to the 2000 film Miss Congeniality.It features Sandra Bullock together with Regina King,Enrique Murciano,William Shatner,Ernie Hudson,Heather Burns,Diedrich Bader and Treat Williams. Three weeks after the events of the first film, FBI agent Gracie Hart has become a celebrity after she infiltrated a beauty pageant on her last assignment. The FBI uses her notoriety to generate positive PR for the bureau; however, Gracie would like to get back to some solid police work, especially after scuffling with fellow female agent "Sam" Fuller, who isn't impressed with Gracie. Despite their differences, the two find themselves working side by side when two of Gracie's pals from the pageant -- contest winner Cheryl Frasier and master of ceremonies Stan Fields -- were kidnapped.After the viewer is presented with a charmer in the first film,the sequel just comes up with the same formulaic screenplay that basically worked in the original.Too bad that it does not provide anything new that what Sandra Bullock does in it has basically been presented in the previous film.Overall,it just lacks something new and everything becomes basically predictable from beginning to end.

A Solid Comedy Hit

tt0385307

With low expectations going in, within five minutes I had begun to think that this sequel was going to be something different, something good, and I wasn't disappointed. In a well scripted sequel the laughter and drama were intertwined into a surprisingly strong sequel, perhaps even better than the original. Sandra Bullock's character has more depth and her partner provides a strong counterweight without becoming cloyingly two-dimensional. William Shatner is somewhat wasted, but the rest of the cast are given decent roles and the interplay in the rise and fall Bullock's character is fascinating to watch. This is an intelligent comedy that begins strongly with a difficult editing between funny and serious. This is one of the best comedies of the early 2005 film season (March 25, 2005). The quality of this movie would suggest the financial feasibility of another sequel. Eight out of Ten Stars.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0385307/reviews-18

ur0972645

title: A Solid Comedy Hit review: With low expectations going in, within five minutes I had begun to think that this sequel was going to be something different, something good, and I wasn't disappointed. In a well scripted sequel the laughter and drama were intertwined into a surprisingly strong sequel, perhaps even better than the original. Sandra Bullock's character has more depth and her partner provides a strong counterweight without becoming cloyingly two-dimensional. William Shatner is somewhat wasted, but the rest of the cast are given decent roles and the interplay in the rise and fall Bullock's character is fascinating to watch. This is an intelligent comedy that begins strongly with a difficult editing between funny and serious. This is one of the best comedies of the early 2005 film season (March 25, 2005). The quality of this movie would suggest the financial feasibility of another sequel. Eight out of Ten Stars.

... And World Peace

tt0385307

Director John Pasquin's "Miss Congeniality 2: Armed and Fabulous" starring Sandra Bullock is a very fun movie. In "Armed and Fabulous" Sandra Bullock reprises the role of FBI agent, Gracie Hart, after her last assignment as the Miss United States Contestant, who admitted to wanting-- World Peace. Following a potentially disastrous undercover bank assignment where a patron recognizes her as "Miss Congeniality" and FBI Agent Gracie Hart, she is offered a position as the "New Face" of the FBI. A public relations post. All is not transitioning to "happily ever after" for Gracie (Bullock). She looses her man, and her undercover career is in jeopardy. So she chooses to become the "New Face" of the FBI, which involves another make over, this time by Queer Eye wannabe, Joel (a very good Diedrich Bader), and writing a book about being Miss Congeniality. She is assigned a bodyguard, Sam Fuller (Regina King), for the duration of the her book tour. Sam has severe anger issues, and guarding Gracie is her chance for redemption. Sam is much like Gracie from the first movie. This time around, Gracie rapidly assumes the role of diva. Inevitably Gracie and Sam clash, well at least predictably and initially. There is a hilarious scene with Gracie and Sam on "Regis and Kelly".Mark Lawrence returns as writer for "Miss Congeniality 2" with Katie Ford and Caryn Lucas. Lawrence has a good feel for screen relationships and clever humor. Although, MC 2's plot is somewhat contrived, retrieving Miss United States, Cheryl Frazier (Heather Burns) and former Host, Stan Fields (William Shatner), from MC 1. The lame kidnapping plot involving Cheryl and Stan is the least interesting thing about the movie. Though it provides an excuse for Gracie and Sam to travel to Las Vegas for a press conference, where they work with potential nemesis, and regional FBI head, Collins (played with right amount of smug and uselessness by Treat Williams).I am a fan of Sandra Bullock, and she is great again as Gracie Hart. "Armed and Fabulous" marks a departure for her from romantic comedy to straight comedy. Surprisingly, there is no romance to speak of. I had read an article on Bullock where she had said that romantic comedies are entirely dependent on the male lead. Apparently, she chose MC 2 for the new artistic direction. Bullock is funny, charming, and just beautiful. Her Gracie is disturbingly affected as the new celebrity, but in the end she comes full circle. There is a very nice touch at the end. Regina King as Sam Fuller is an effective foil for Hart. King gives texture and charm to the outwardly angry Sam. Bullock and King have great chemistry. This is the real strength of the movie. The scene at the transvestite club is outrageous. Bullock and King also do an amazing job with their action scenes-- even The Rock would raise an eye brow."Miss Congeniality 2" is great spring time fare at the movies. It is both fun and funny. Sandra Bullock is beautiful and fabulous.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0385307/reviews-45

ur1016453

title: ... And World Peace review: Director John Pasquin's "Miss Congeniality 2: Armed and Fabulous" starring Sandra Bullock is a very fun movie. In "Armed and Fabulous" Sandra Bullock reprises the role of FBI agent, Gracie Hart, after her last assignment as the Miss United States Contestant, who admitted to wanting-- World Peace. Following a potentially disastrous undercover bank assignment where a patron recognizes her as "Miss Congeniality" and FBI Agent Gracie Hart, she is offered a position as the "New Face" of the FBI. A public relations post. All is not transitioning to "happily ever after" for Gracie (Bullock). She looses her man, and her undercover career is in jeopardy. So she chooses to become the "New Face" of the FBI, which involves another make over, this time by Queer Eye wannabe, Joel (a very good Diedrich Bader), and writing a book about being Miss Congeniality. She is assigned a bodyguard, Sam Fuller (Regina King), for the duration of the her book tour. Sam has severe anger issues, and guarding Gracie is her chance for redemption. Sam is much like Gracie from the first movie. This time around, Gracie rapidly assumes the role of diva. Inevitably Gracie and Sam clash, well at least predictably and initially. There is a hilarious scene with Gracie and Sam on "Regis and Kelly".Mark Lawrence returns as writer for "Miss Congeniality 2" with Katie Ford and Caryn Lucas. Lawrence has a good feel for screen relationships and clever humor. Although, MC 2's plot is somewhat contrived, retrieving Miss United States, Cheryl Frazier (Heather Burns) and former Host, Stan Fields (William Shatner), from MC 1. The lame kidnapping plot involving Cheryl and Stan is the least interesting thing about the movie. Though it provides an excuse for Gracie and Sam to travel to Las Vegas for a press conference, where they work with potential nemesis, and regional FBI head, Collins (played with right amount of smug and uselessness by Treat Williams).I am a fan of Sandra Bullock, and she is great again as Gracie Hart. "Armed and Fabulous" marks a departure for her from romantic comedy to straight comedy. Surprisingly, there is no romance to speak of. I had read an article on Bullock where she had said that romantic comedies are entirely dependent on the male lead. Apparently, she chose MC 2 for the new artistic direction. Bullock is funny, charming, and just beautiful. Her Gracie is disturbingly affected as the new celebrity, but in the end she comes full circle. There is a very nice touch at the end. Regina King as Sam Fuller is an effective foil for Hart. King gives texture and charm to the outwardly angry Sam. Bullock and King have great chemistry. This is the real strength of the movie. The scene at the transvestite club is outrageous. Bullock and King also do an amazing job with their action scenes-- even The Rock would raise an eye brow."Miss Congeniality 2" is great spring time fare at the movies. It is both fun and funny. Sandra Bullock is beautiful and fabulous.

Just Tell The Critics To Shut The #@&* Up

tt0385307

I'm learning not to listen to film critics. Too many times, as of late, I've watched a movie that these "film-wise professionals" have rated as poor or excellent, and completely disagreed with them.Such was the case with this film. Having watched MISS CONGENIALITY when it first came out years ago, I really enjoyed that movie (and so did most critics), but when this sequel showed up and received all kinds of negative press, I stayed away from the theater, not wanting to see something that might diminish my enjoyment of the first flick.But my fears were unfounded ....MISS CONGENIALITY 2 is a good film. It's not great. It's not as good as its predecessor, but it is entertaining, funny and sexy.Sandra Bullock always looks good in my opinion (even when she's stuffed into an FBI agent outfit), and she's got enough attitude and sense of comedic timing that this movie was a nice return to character Gracie Hart, the lovable Fed who infiltrated the Miss America pageant five years ago. And now, after having been seen on national TV, everyone knows her face, thus disrupting her ability to act as an effective agent.So "the Bureau" decides to use her as a PR prop and sends her out to give the FBI a morale boost in the public sector. She appears on Regis and Kelly, and even has her own entourage (a gay hair dresser and a make-up specialist.) But when her good friends Miss America (Heather Burns, YOU'VE GOT MAIL, 1998) and Stan Fields (William Shatner, STAR TREK) are kidnapped, she takes the investigation into her own hands with the help of Sam Fuller (Regina King, HOW STELLA GOT HER GROOVE BACK, 1998), who might remind some of the Gracie Hart we all knew before her pageant days.The comedy is spot-on and, at times, laugh-out-loud (especially during a stage scene involving a "Vegas girl" and "Tina Turner".) The acting is also equally believable.The only issue some might have is the convenient discovery/understanding of where Miss America and Stan Fields might be killed (think about a pirate ship in Las Vegas.) Even so, this film is light and easy viewing with a great touch of laughter.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0385307/reviews-126

ur7704831

title: Just Tell The Critics To Shut The #@&* Up review: I'm learning not to listen to film critics. Too many times, as of late, I've watched a movie that these "film-wise professionals" have rated as poor or excellent, and completely disagreed with them.Such was the case with this film. Having watched MISS CONGENIALITY when it first came out years ago, I really enjoyed that movie (and so did most critics), but when this sequel showed up and received all kinds of negative press, I stayed away from the theater, not wanting to see something that might diminish my enjoyment of the first flick.But my fears were unfounded ....MISS CONGENIALITY 2 is a good film. It's not great. It's not as good as its predecessor, but it is entertaining, funny and sexy.Sandra Bullock always looks good in my opinion (even when she's stuffed into an FBI agent outfit), and she's got enough attitude and sense of comedic timing that this movie was a nice return to character Gracie Hart, the lovable Fed who infiltrated the Miss America pageant five years ago. And now, after having been seen on national TV, everyone knows her face, thus disrupting her ability to act as an effective agent.So "the Bureau" decides to use her as a PR prop and sends her out to give the FBI a morale boost in the public sector. She appears on Regis and Kelly, and even has her own entourage (a gay hair dresser and a make-up specialist.) But when her good friends Miss America (Heather Burns, YOU'VE GOT MAIL, 1998) and Stan Fields (William Shatner, STAR TREK) are kidnapped, she takes the investigation into her own hands with the help of Sam Fuller (Regina King, HOW STELLA GOT HER GROOVE BACK, 1998), who might remind some of the Gracie Hart we all knew before her pageant days.The comedy is spot-on and, at times, laugh-out-loud (especially during a stage scene involving a "Vegas girl" and "Tina Turner".) The acting is also equally believable.The only issue some might have is the convenient discovery/understanding of where Miss America and Stan Fields might be killed (think about a pirate ship in Las Vegas.) Even so, this film is light and easy viewing with a great touch of laughter.

an unnecessary sequel

tt0385307

'Miss Congeniality'-1 had at least the novelty of the character on its side. The idea of a cover operation in a 'Miss USA' pageant was not very plausible, but still quite an acceptable comedy pretext. And then there was Michael Caine.MC-2 is a completely unnecessary sequel. Nothing new in this un-interesting kidnapping story, that has Sandra Bullock stumbling again as the pick of the humor the screen-writers could imaging. Old and dusty tricks, some Las Vegas background filmed without inspiration, and a cameo appearance of Dolly Parton do not succeed to raise any interest, or cause the viewer more than a bored smile from the corner of the mouth.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0385307/reviews-103

ur0547823

title: an unnecessary sequel review: 'Miss Congeniality'-1 had at least the novelty of the character on its side. The idea of a cover operation in a 'Miss USA' pageant was not very plausible, but still quite an acceptable comedy pretext. And then there was Michael Caine.MC-2 is a completely unnecessary sequel. Nothing new in this un-interesting kidnapping story, that has Sandra Bullock stumbling again as the pick of the humor the screen-writers could imaging. Old and dusty tricks, some Las Vegas background filmed without inspiration, and a cameo appearance of Dolly Parton do not succeed to raise any interest, or cause the viewer more than a bored smile from the corner of the mouth.

Can't Beat the Original!

tt0385307

This movie was not bad. This movie was not stupid. It was not a travesty. It was not a black mark. It was a sequel. And it filled that role quite well.Sandra Bullock returned in Miss Congeniality 2, thankfully, and really completely saved it. There was a rumor going around that they weren't going to use her in the sequel, but luckily they realized their mistake. Ms. Bullock makes the show worth watching all by herself. Though she did have an OK ensemble to work with (particularly Heather Burns and Regina King), this is her show, and hers alone. Without her, it could easily have become all of the above listed things.But it's not! It's really not bad, and has some genuine laughs along the way, with an especially funny drag queen scene. So, if you're a fan of the original, go see it. It won't compare to the first, and never could have, but it is still worth seeing. 5/10 stars for me.Jay Addison

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0385307/reviews-142

ur9314013

title: Can't Beat the Original! review: This movie was not bad. This movie was not stupid. It was not a travesty. It was not a black mark. It was a sequel. And it filled that role quite well.Sandra Bullock returned in Miss Congeniality 2, thankfully, and really completely saved it. There was a rumor going around that they weren't going to use her in the sequel, but luckily they realized their mistake. Ms. Bullock makes the show worth watching all by herself. Though she did have an OK ensemble to work with (particularly Heather Burns and Regina King), this is her show, and hers alone. Without her, it could easily have become all of the above listed things.But it's not! It's really not bad, and has some genuine laughs along the way, with an especially funny drag queen scene. So, if you're a fan of the original, go see it. It won't compare to the first, and never could have, but it is still worth seeing. 5/10 stars for me.Jay Addison

Meet Hoa Tran

tt0385307

How much do you expect out of a movie based on two chicks fighting that are somehow in the CIA? And don't you think it is kind of funny that those ladies don't find a man at the end, but instead find each other as good 'friends'? You can detect that there wasn't a lot of planning with this one. It is just Sanda Bullock going around and acting as if she is the queen of everything. That shouldn't be surprising whatsoever. The Tina Turner bit was slightly funny, but it wasn't a crowning achievement.I was hoping for a drag-down knock-out cat-fight, but it never happened. If it did, I would have considered this an average film. Instead, it sinks below average. The only saving quality is that it has a couple of slightly funny moments and a decent enough plot to keep chick flick fans happy. "D+"

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0385307/reviews-152

ur18271419

title: Meet Hoa Tran review: How much do you expect out of a movie based on two chicks fighting that are somehow in the CIA? And don't you think it is kind of funny that those ladies don't find a man at the end, but instead find each other as good 'friends'? You can detect that there wasn't a lot of planning with this one. It is just Sanda Bullock going around and acting as if she is the queen of everything. That shouldn't be surprising whatsoever. The Tina Turner bit was slightly funny, but it wasn't a crowning achievement.I was hoping for a drag-down knock-out cat-fight, but it never happened. If it did, I would have considered this an average film. Instead, it sinks below average. The only saving quality is that it has a couple of slightly funny moments and a decent enough plot to keep chick flick fans happy. "D+"

Sanra saves the mess...

tt0385307

"Miss Congeniality" was a very funny and entertaining light romantic comedy that delivered funny moments because of it's creative plot and of course, the sexy-funny performance of the always talented Sandra Bullock. Heck, Sandra delivers one of the best moments in cinematic history when she walks with that tight mini dress in slow motion... God I love women.But this sequel is a total mess with a clichéd plot, predictable situations, and not so funny characters. The addition of Regina King as a sidekick for Sandra Bullock worked most of the time but it wasn't vital to make the movie work.The situations are not funny at all and it truly made me think I was watching an episode of ..I don't know, any standard sitcom.But the best thing about the movie is Sandra Bullock's performance. She's always funny, SEXY, smart. She's the perfect franchise actress that can save the day ANYTIME. Even if the movie is a total crap like this one.Please only watch it if you are a huge, die hard fan of Sandra Bullock and you can stand trash like this; otherwise, please avoid it.It's the attack of the bad sequels.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0385307/reviews-154

ur2843647

title: Sanra saves the mess... review: "Miss Congeniality" was a very funny and entertaining light romantic comedy that delivered funny moments because of it's creative plot and of course, the sexy-funny performance of the always talented Sandra Bullock. Heck, Sandra delivers one of the best moments in cinematic history when she walks with that tight mini dress in slow motion... God I love women.But this sequel is a total mess with a clichéd plot, predictable situations, and not so funny characters. The addition of Regina King as a sidekick for Sandra Bullock worked most of the time but it wasn't vital to make the movie work.The situations are not funny at all and it truly made me think I was watching an episode of ..I don't know, any standard sitcom.But the best thing about the movie is Sandra Bullock's performance. She's always funny, SEXY, smart. She's the perfect franchise actress that can save the day ANYTIME. Even if the movie is a total crap like this one.Please only watch it if you are a huge, die hard fan of Sandra Bullock and you can stand trash like this; otherwise, please avoid it.It's the attack of the bad sequels.

A miss a bit missed and not really armed to be fabulous (web)

tt0385307

Well, at least, there's a real effort to write a sequel. This Miss 2 isn't a copy of Miss 1 but rather a "negative" follow-up: this time, Sandra is more a model that tries to investigate than an agent that tries to model. There are some funny moments, it's filled with good values (i like, as in X-Files, how the agents address their chief with "sir") and the interaction between the girls is interesting (and i think that Regina King steals the show...). But the story of kidnapping isn't really gripping, the investigation looks like a simple brainstorm, the choice for Vegas isn't lucky (it's maybe the only one movie that doesn't show girls or games) and the cast isn't worth of Michael Caine or Benjamin Bratt (who is constantly spoken about). I'm really fed up with the effeminate gay (frankly, Americans really understand nothing to homosexuality) and at last, Sandra, even she has talent for comedy, really lacks of kindness...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0385307/reviews-168

ur1803589

title: A miss a bit missed and not really armed to be fabulous (web) review: Well, at least, there's a real effort to write a sequel. This Miss 2 isn't a copy of Miss 1 but rather a "negative" follow-up: this time, Sandra is more a model that tries to investigate than an agent that tries to model. There are some funny moments, it's filled with good values (i like, as in X-Files, how the agents address their chief with "sir") and the interaction between the girls is interesting (and i think that Regina King steals the show...). But the story of kidnapping isn't really gripping, the investigation looks like a simple brainstorm, the choice for Vegas isn't lucky (it's maybe the only one movie that doesn't show girls or games) and the cast isn't worth of Michael Caine or Benjamin Bratt (who is constantly spoken about). I'm really fed up with the effeminate gay (frankly, Americans really understand nothing to homosexuality) and at last, Sandra, even she has talent for comedy, really lacks of kindness...

Another belated Hollywood cookie-cutter sequel

tt0385307

STAR RATING: ***** The Works **** Just Misses the Mark *** That Little Bit In Between ** Lagging Behind * The Pits Sandra Bullock is back as cynical, hard-ass FBI Field Operative Gracie Hart. She's having a hard time re-adjusting to life outside the American beauty pageant she went undercover in in the previous film and has had her duties temporarily cut for a while to allow the dust to settle. But when Miss America Cheryl (Heather Burns) and pageant king Stan Fields (William Shatner) are kidnapped, she finds herself going undercover once again, along with equally hard-ass new partner Sam Fuller (Regina King) to Las Vegas where an explosive plan has been set in motion.Given that I actually really enjoyed the first film, I'm surprised it took me this long to seek the sequel out, even though I knew the quality wouldn't match that of the first from the off-set. But now I've seen it. It starts very well, with some very inspired jokes, especially for a sequel but then the story goes on a bit and it starts to plod on, starting to feel too spaced out and meandering.On the cast front, Bullock does her usual smart-ass thing, Shatner is equally his usually flamboyant self and King is great support and forms some wonderful chemistry with Bullock as they bite chunks out of each other. But the whole thing can't help but project a big desperate, pointless, messy feel that weighs it under somewhat. **

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0385307/reviews-100

ur0345596

title: Another belated Hollywood cookie-cutter sequel review: STAR RATING: ***** The Works **** Just Misses the Mark *** That Little Bit In Between ** Lagging Behind * The Pits Sandra Bullock is back as cynical, hard-ass FBI Field Operative Gracie Hart. She's having a hard time re-adjusting to life outside the American beauty pageant she went undercover in in the previous film and has had her duties temporarily cut for a while to allow the dust to settle. But when Miss America Cheryl (Heather Burns) and pageant king Stan Fields (William Shatner) are kidnapped, she finds herself going undercover once again, along with equally hard-ass new partner Sam Fuller (Regina King) to Las Vegas where an explosive plan has been set in motion.Given that I actually really enjoyed the first film, I'm surprised it took me this long to seek the sequel out, even though I knew the quality wouldn't match that of the first from the off-set. But now I've seen it. It starts very well, with some very inspired jokes, especially for a sequel but then the story goes on a bit and it starts to plod on, starting to feel too spaced out and meandering.On the cast front, Bullock does her usual smart-ass thing, Shatner is equally his usually flamboyant self and King is great support and forms some wonderful chemistry with Bullock as they bite chunks out of each other. But the whole thing can't help but project a big desperate, pointless, messy feel that weighs it under somewhat. **

Armed but not so fabulous!

tt0385307

Miss congeniality 2 does not live up to the great fun the first movie was, and it's not just because beloved characters played by Michael Caine and Benjamin Bratt did not return for the sequel. The writing was weak, the jokes were not as funny, and the entire plot was just lazy and very unbelievable. Sandy Bullock is back as Gracie Hart, the FBI agent on a sting operation as the 2nd movie picks up 3 weeks after the Miss United States pageant. She then begins to realise that life as Gracie Hart is not the same, not only because her boyfriend (Bratt's Eric Matthews) recently dumped her but because she is faced with the task of becoming the face of the FBI due to her recent sudden celebrity status. She can barely walk in the streets without being recognised. While in NY on a publicity tour, she receives news that two of her beloved friends from the pageant have been kidnapped in Las Vegas with a threat that they will be killed if the ransom money isn't coughed up. The film then takes a new turn as Gracie, her mean but trusty new partner/bodyguard (played by Regina King) head for Vegas on the pretense of a publicity tour but in reality, they want to get to the bottom of the case concerning the Miss United States kidnap. Look for sharp one-liners by Hart's gay make-over stylist and funny stints while they're in Vegas. Elizabeth Rohm (Angel, Law and Order) and Treat Williams show up as lovers the head of the FBI unit in Vegas. Overall, the film was average.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0385307/reviews-133

ur6739749

title: Armed but not so fabulous! review: Miss congeniality 2 does not live up to the great fun the first movie was, and it's not just because beloved characters played by Michael Caine and Benjamin Bratt did not return for the sequel. The writing was weak, the jokes were not as funny, and the entire plot was just lazy and very unbelievable. Sandy Bullock is back as Gracie Hart, the FBI agent on a sting operation as the 2nd movie picks up 3 weeks after the Miss United States pageant. She then begins to realise that life as Gracie Hart is not the same, not only because her boyfriend (Bratt's Eric Matthews) recently dumped her but because she is faced with the task of becoming the face of the FBI due to her recent sudden celebrity status. She can barely walk in the streets without being recognised. While in NY on a publicity tour, she receives news that two of her beloved friends from the pageant have been kidnapped in Las Vegas with a threat that they will be killed if the ransom money isn't coughed up. The film then takes a new turn as Gracie, her mean but trusty new partner/bodyguard (played by Regina King) head for Vegas on the pretense of a publicity tour but in reality, they want to get to the bottom of the case concerning the Miss United States kidnap. Look for sharp one-liners by Hart's gay make-over stylist and funny stints while they're in Vegas. Elizabeth Rohm (Angel, Law and Order) and Treat Williams show up as lovers the head of the FBI unit in Vegas. Overall, the film was average.

At times extremely annoying, but at times actually pretty funny

tt0084522

My boyfriend and I were at a DVD store the other day and he saw the big special edition of "Porky's" and was like "I loved this movie so much, isn't it so funny?" and I just looked at him and was like "Ummm, I never saw it" and he just looked at me like my hair fell out. He said this was such a classic and that I shouldn't call myself a movie buff if I hadn't seen this film. So I took his advice, I rented it, and watched it this morning. I know he's gonna hate me because to be honest, I didn't really find it that funny. It just seemed like a typical teen sex comedy that was more gross and unrealistic than actual comedy. But I admit that I did have a couple of laughs here and there, the story wasn't really that bad.Basically a bunch of boys in high school are determined to get laid. Some have been laid before, but there is a guy they call Pee-Wee, understandably by his lack of a package, they take him to a strip joint called Porky's. There they give the owner, Porky, a hundred dollars to have the strippers for an hour, but Porky tricks the boys and ends up humiliating them instead. So throughout the movie one of the boys keeps going back to get revenge and finally they all just do it together for the ultimate revenge tactic.Porky's did have a few funny scenes, like the "love" scene between the coach and Honeywell, played by a very young Kim Catrell, her screaming was so hilarious. Then the female gym teacher going after the boys because they were teasing the girls in the locker room through the peep holes, she was pretty funny. Over all, I wouldn't say that Porky's is at all a bad film, it has it's moments here and there, but I'd rather stick with other teen sex comedies, but this one is worth a look if you're into them.4/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084522/reviews-134

ur1293485

title: At times extremely annoying, but at times actually pretty funny review: My boyfriend and I were at a DVD store the other day and he saw the big special edition of "Porky's" and was like "I loved this movie so much, isn't it so funny?" and I just looked at him and was like "Ummm, I never saw it" and he just looked at me like my hair fell out. He said this was such a classic and that I shouldn't call myself a movie buff if I hadn't seen this film. So I took his advice, I rented it, and watched it this morning. I know he's gonna hate me because to be honest, I didn't really find it that funny. It just seemed like a typical teen sex comedy that was more gross and unrealistic than actual comedy. But I admit that I did have a couple of laughs here and there, the story wasn't really that bad.Basically a bunch of boys in high school are determined to get laid. Some have been laid before, but there is a guy they call Pee-Wee, understandably by his lack of a package, they take him to a strip joint called Porky's. There they give the owner, Porky, a hundred dollars to have the strippers for an hour, but Porky tricks the boys and ends up humiliating them instead. So throughout the movie one of the boys keeps going back to get revenge and finally they all just do it together for the ultimate revenge tactic.Porky's did have a few funny scenes, like the "love" scene between the coach and Honeywell, played by a very young Kim Catrell, her screaming was so hilarious. Then the female gym teacher going after the boys because they were teasing the girls in the locker room through the peep holes, she was pretty funny. Over all, I wouldn't say that Porky's is at all a bad film, it has it's moments here and there, but I'd rather stick with other teen sex comedies, but this one is worth a look if you're into them.4/10

Not funny, not raunchy, not good

tt0084522

Porky's is a coming-of-age movie. The teenage boys the story focuses on think coming-of-age is just about seeing naked girls and, if at all possible, having sex with them. So we follow this band of horny young men on their quest to see some breasts. They go to a nightclub where love is for sale but that trip doesn't end up going according to plan. In the movie's most famous scene they spy on a group of girls in the shower. At least that leads to a pretty funny scene in which coach Beulah Balbricker, whose name tells you all you need to know, lays out her plan to identify one of the peeping Toms. Sadly, that's pretty much the only funny scene in the movie. And what the movie lacks in laughs it doesn't make up for in outrageousness. Porky's has a reputation for being wild and raunchy but it is actually rather tame. If the most outrageous thing in your movie is a scene featuring a handful of girls in a shower for a minute or two your movie is not particularly outrageous at all. So there's no laughs, no raunch, and pretty much no plot. That's not a formula for a successful teen sex comedy. Toss in the fact that supporting characters, such as the aforementioned Balbricker, are more interesting than the guys the movie actually focuses on and the movie is clearly doomed to fail. The fact that the character of Pee Wee, who is focused on most of all, is incredibly annoying certainly doesn't help matters any. The fact that the threadbare plot ultimately leads to a simply absurd climax is just the final insult. Porky's is noted for helping to launch the teen sex comedy genre. It may be among the first, it's certainly among the worst.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084522/reviews-169

ur0915482

title: Not funny, not raunchy, not good review: Porky's is a coming-of-age movie. The teenage boys the story focuses on think coming-of-age is just about seeing naked girls and, if at all possible, having sex with them. So we follow this band of horny young men on their quest to see some breasts. They go to a nightclub where love is for sale but that trip doesn't end up going according to plan. In the movie's most famous scene they spy on a group of girls in the shower. At least that leads to a pretty funny scene in which coach Beulah Balbricker, whose name tells you all you need to know, lays out her plan to identify one of the peeping Toms. Sadly, that's pretty much the only funny scene in the movie. And what the movie lacks in laughs it doesn't make up for in outrageousness. Porky's has a reputation for being wild and raunchy but it is actually rather tame. If the most outrageous thing in your movie is a scene featuring a handful of girls in a shower for a minute or two your movie is not particularly outrageous at all. So there's no laughs, no raunch, and pretty much no plot. That's not a formula for a successful teen sex comedy. Toss in the fact that supporting characters, such as the aforementioned Balbricker, are more interesting than the guys the movie actually focuses on and the movie is clearly doomed to fail. The fact that the character of Pee Wee, who is focused on most of all, is incredibly annoying certainly doesn't help matters any. The fact that the threadbare plot ultimately leads to a simply absurd climax is just the final insult. Porky's is noted for helping to launch the teen sex comedy genre. It may be among the first, it's certainly among the worst.

"Porky's" is as reckless as its characters and as memorable as its best scenes

tt0084522

"Porky's" is the ultimate teenage fantasy, a movie celebrating group mentality shenanigans, everything from obsessing about sex to pulling the ultimate prank on that one old guy always bringing you down. It's a film that says that at heart, we're all good-natured kids that wish we could be irresponsible every so often.This is "Porky's" only point, both its hindrance and most celebrated characteristic. There isn't any character development or a through plot line -- going to the strip club Porky's is only representative of two major scenes in the movie. It's about high school kids horsing around and trying to get laid in Florida in the '50s. There are some admirable but pointless subplots fixed on anti-Semitism and parent abuse, but it's just about laughs.What makes "Porky's" unique is that it's about laughter, it's not just about creating it for the sake of being a comedy film. A stand-out scene is when the strict oafish gym teacher Ms.Ballbricker is explaining to the principal her plan to identify a trouble-making student by lining up several of the boys to examine their manhood. In the background, two of the students are dying from laughter and even the principal at one point can't hold it in any longer -- then a nice close-up of a portrait of President Eisenhower with a big grin on his face. That sums up "Porky's" nicely: we all need to laugh at the ridiculousness and humor of certain situations. If only the film spent a bit more time hammering that in instead of meandering about like a bored high schooler.This is a film you can watch over and over again, not only because it can be funny for all appropriate ages, but it only thrives from scene to scene. The entire high school-aged fantasy of boys getting spy on the girls' showers owes its birth to this film, the hilarity as the new gym coach learns why the attractive young girls' coach is nicknamed "Lassie," and of course that ultimate revenge against the powers that be, in this case Porky and his redneck sheriff brother, who try and stop kids from having fun. It can be watched one scene at a time -- there's nothing gluing it all together.Bob Clark's film has a carefree and reckless attitude that resembles that of his characters, but as admirable as that is -- and a rare find in a movie indeed, especially comedy -- there's no doubt that "Porky's" avoids being the kind of coming-of-age film it could have been. There's no substitute for memorable characters in addition to unforgettable scenes, but "Porky's" viewers can at least relish the latter.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084522/reviews-145

ur2496397

title: "Porky's" is as reckless as its characters and as memorable as its best scenes review: "Porky's" is the ultimate teenage fantasy, a movie celebrating group mentality shenanigans, everything from obsessing about sex to pulling the ultimate prank on that one old guy always bringing you down. It's a film that says that at heart, we're all good-natured kids that wish we could be irresponsible every so often.This is "Porky's" only point, both its hindrance and most celebrated characteristic. There isn't any character development or a through plot line -- going to the strip club Porky's is only representative of two major scenes in the movie. It's about high school kids horsing around and trying to get laid in Florida in the '50s. There are some admirable but pointless subplots fixed on anti-Semitism and parent abuse, but it's just about laughs.What makes "Porky's" unique is that it's about laughter, it's not just about creating it for the sake of being a comedy film. A stand-out scene is when the strict oafish gym teacher Ms.Ballbricker is explaining to the principal her plan to identify a trouble-making student by lining up several of the boys to examine their manhood. In the background, two of the students are dying from laughter and even the principal at one point can't hold it in any longer -- then a nice close-up of a portrait of President Eisenhower with a big grin on his face. That sums up "Porky's" nicely: we all need to laugh at the ridiculousness and humor of certain situations. If only the film spent a bit more time hammering that in instead of meandering about like a bored high schooler.This is a film you can watch over and over again, not only because it can be funny for all appropriate ages, but it only thrives from scene to scene. The entire high school-aged fantasy of boys getting spy on the girls' showers owes its birth to this film, the hilarity as the new gym coach learns why the attractive young girls' coach is nicknamed "Lassie," and of course that ultimate revenge against the powers that be, in this case Porky and his redneck sheriff brother, who try and stop kids from having fun. It can be watched one scene at a time -- there's nothing gluing it all together.Bob Clark's film has a carefree and reckless attitude that resembles that of his characters, but as admirable as that is -- and a rare find in a movie indeed, especially comedy -- there's no doubt that "Porky's" avoids being the kind of coming-of-age film it could have been. There's no substitute for memorable characters in addition to unforgettable scenes, but "Porky's" viewers can at least relish the latter.

Just funny

tt0084522

When I first saw the ads for this film in the theater, I thought it looked like yet another absurd, stupid, juvenile comedy.Then the producers made the astute move of airing commercials showing brief interviews of people leaving the theater after having just seen this movie. They were all smiles, and universal in explaining just how funny they thought it was. It sold me and my wife and I tried it.The movie was indeed at times absurd, often juvenile, and one of the absolutely funniest movies I've ever seen. It may well have the single funniest scene in any movie, ever. (Ms. Ballbricker explaining to the principal and the coaches about her desire for a 'lineup'. If you haven't seen the movie, this doesn't sound like much. Watch it and see. You'll turn red and be holding your stomach for all you're worth before the end of the scene).When you feel you are in the mood for a sometimes silly, often raunchy, but VERY VERY funny movie, put this on some Friday evening. You won't be disappointed.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084522/reviews-146

ur5755522

title: Just funny review: When I first saw the ads for this film in the theater, I thought it looked like yet another absurd, stupid, juvenile comedy.Then the producers made the astute move of airing commercials showing brief interviews of people leaving the theater after having just seen this movie. They were all smiles, and universal in explaining just how funny they thought it was. It sold me and my wife and I tried it.The movie was indeed at times absurd, often juvenile, and one of the absolutely funniest movies I've ever seen. It may well have the single funniest scene in any movie, ever. (Ms. Ballbricker explaining to the principal and the coaches about her desire for a 'lineup'. If you haven't seen the movie, this doesn't sound like much. Watch it and see. You'll turn red and be holding your stomach for all you're worth before the end of the scene).When you feel you are in the mood for a sometimes silly, often raunchy, but VERY VERY funny movie, put this on some Friday evening. You won't be disappointed.

I couldn't put a grin on my face

tt0084522

because i found this film too unfunny to watch. As the film starts with a group of teens about sex, there are other conflicts on the way, such as bigotry between two students, parental abuse from one of the guys, and revenge on a fat owner name Porky who doesn't know that the kids are underage. I saw American Pie and i found it more with joy to watch because of the love of the characters and how funny the situations were. Plus, there was a parent in American Pie (Eugene Levy in a cool role), that actually was concerned about his son and his ways of sex.Porky's2/10It has some moments, but be more serious.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084522/reviews-73

ur2498078

title: I couldn't put a grin on my face review: because i found this film too unfunny to watch. As the film starts with a group of teens about sex, there are other conflicts on the way, such as bigotry between two students, parental abuse from one of the guys, and revenge on a fat owner name Porky who doesn't know that the kids are underage. I saw American Pie and i found it more with joy to watch because of the love of the characters and how funny the situations were. Plus, there was a parent in American Pie (Eugene Levy in a cool role), that actually was concerned about his son and his ways of sex.Porky's2/10It has some moments, but be more serious.

Ah, this should make the heart stir

tt0084522

Porkys, is without doubt one of the most funniest comedies ever.Bob Clarke, my opinion has created, a timeless masterpiece, that certainly has more to offer, than the Americian pie garbage.Dan Monahan, Wyatt Knight, Scott Colomby, Nancy Parsons, Tony Ganios, Roger Wilson, Mark Herrier, and Chuck Mitchell are simply brilliant, in this comedy of extremes. Certainly not for little kids, but a definatly for the adults, this is one smart piece of work.10/10: If you haven't seen this, GO AND GET IT, you won't be disappointed.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084522/reviews-34

ur1236215

title: Ah, this should make the heart stir review: Porkys, is without doubt one of the most funniest comedies ever.Bob Clarke, my opinion has created, a timeless masterpiece, that certainly has more to offer, than the Americian pie garbage.Dan Monahan, Wyatt Knight, Scott Colomby, Nancy Parsons, Tony Ganios, Roger Wilson, Mark Herrier, and Chuck Mitchell are simply brilliant, in this comedy of extremes. Certainly not for little kids, but a definatly for the adults, this is one smart piece of work.10/10: If you haven't seen this, GO AND GET IT, you won't be disappointed.

Pure hilarity

tt0084522

Porky's is a film that has so many funny moments in it that you don't really have time to catch your breath before the next gag is hurled upon you. This is absolutely one of the funniest films I have ever seen. And the reason for that hilarity is because of it's frankness and propensity to take risks. They don't make movies like this anymore. Everyone is so worried about the damn sensors and that is too bad because a movie like this, while I can acknowledge may not be for everyone's taste, is one that explores teens in high school and it also explores how innocently cruel we were to each other in high school.What makes this film so funny is that the characters look like they are having fun. They like to mess with each other. They enjoy embarrassing one another and they are sex starved high school kids. And really, weren't a lot of us males like that in high school? Are a lot of us still not like that?You have an assorted cast of characters from Meat, the rather large ( in many ways ) guardian of the group. Women love him for various reasons and it is his size and manliness that makes him so much fun to poke fun at. Then there is Tommy Turner. He is the leader of the group and always seems to come up with the ideas to get his friends laid or in trouble. You have Billy and Brian and of course PeeWee. He is the guy that everyone likes, yet his exaggerated Casanova stories get him in several sticky but funny situations with his friends. The characters at Angel Beach high school are hilarious and I honestly wish I could have known guys like this.The true strength of this film is the hilarity. The kids make it funny because they always look like they are having fun. When one person is taking their licks, the other five that are in on the gag are laughing under their breaths and all you get is a snicker or two. And we can all relate to that. How, something is funny but we have to play our part to keep the cherade going. These kids do that with perfection here. I also have to mention some of the scenes that make this film the teen classic that it is. The first is the scene when Mr. Carter, their principal is being pressured by Ms. Balbricker to find the guy who had his penis hanging out of a drain pipe in the girls shower. Mr. Carter is doing his best to keep a straight face but he is going to crack at the absurdity of the request. To make matters worse, the two male gym teacher are not making it any easier by snickering to themselves. When Mr. Carter finally cracks, we crack with him. This is comedy at it's best. Also very funny are the Lassie part and the beginning when PeeWee is running down a country road naked. You really have to see it.This film is unapolegetically crude, lude and vulgar in many ways. But it is so damn funny that you don't pay attention to that stuff. My gut still hurts from laughing when I watch this film. And oh yeah, the shower scene isn't bad either.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084522/reviews-10

ur0355122

title: Pure hilarity review: Porky's is a film that has so many funny moments in it that you don't really have time to catch your breath before the next gag is hurled upon you. This is absolutely one of the funniest films I have ever seen. And the reason for that hilarity is because of it's frankness and propensity to take risks. They don't make movies like this anymore. Everyone is so worried about the damn sensors and that is too bad because a movie like this, while I can acknowledge may not be for everyone's taste, is one that explores teens in high school and it also explores how innocently cruel we were to each other in high school.What makes this film so funny is that the characters look like they are having fun. They like to mess with each other. They enjoy embarrassing one another and they are sex starved high school kids. And really, weren't a lot of us males like that in high school? Are a lot of us still not like that?You have an assorted cast of characters from Meat, the rather large ( in many ways ) guardian of the group. Women love him for various reasons and it is his size and manliness that makes him so much fun to poke fun at. Then there is Tommy Turner. He is the leader of the group and always seems to come up with the ideas to get his friends laid or in trouble. You have Billy and Brian and of course PeeWee. He is the guy that everyone likes, yet his exaggerated Casanova stories get him in several sticky but funny situations with his friends. The characters at Angel Beach high school are hilarious and I honestly wish I could have known guys like this.The true strength of this film is the hilarity. The kids make it funny because they always look like they are having fun. When one person is taking their licks, the other five that are in on the gag are laughing under their breaths and all you get is a snicker or two. And we can all relate to that. How, something is funny but we have to play our part to keep the cherade going. These kids do that with perfection here. I also have to mention some of the scenes that make this film the teen classic that it is. The first is the scene when Mr. Carter, their principal is being pressured by Ms. Balbricker to find the guy who had his penis hanging out of a drain pipe in the girls shower. Mr. Carter is doing his best to keep a straight face but he is going to crack at the absurdity of the request. To make matters worse, the two male gym teacher are not making it any easier by snickering to themselves. When Mr. Carter finally cracks, we crack with him. This is comedy at it's best. Also very funny are the Lassie part and the beginning when PeeWee is running down a country road naked. You really have to see it.This film is unapolegetically crude, lude and vulgar in many ways. But it is so damn funny that you don't pay attention to that stuff. My gut still hurts from laughing when I watch this film. And oh yeah, the shower scene isn't bad either.

One of the worst movies ever made

tt0084522

Honestly, it is. I don't have a problem with low-brow, gross-out humor, but I expect a movie to have at least one redeeming quality - a likable character, an unpredictable plot, good one-liners, or, at the very least, funny jokes. Porky's has none of those; every character is a flat and familiar caricature, every joke can be anticipated thirty minutes in advance, and there's no motivation to root for or care about anybody. It may indeed be the ultimate teen sex comedy in that it adheres to every possible cliché to the letter. If you want a hilarious comedy centered around horny young people doing dumb things and trying to get laid - compare and contrast Animal House, released only four years before. That's a real comedy. Porky's is real trash.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084522/reviews-160

ur5358902

title: One of the worst movies ever made review: Honestly, it is. I don't have a problem with low-brow, gross-out humor, but I expect a movie to have at least one redeeming quality - a likable character, an unpredictable plot, good one-liners, or, at the very least, funny jokes. Porky's has none of those; every character is a flat and familiar caricature, every joke can be anticipated thirty minutes in advance, and there's no motivation to root for or care about anybody. It may indeed be the ultimate teen sex comedy in that it adheres to every possible cliché to the letter. If you want a hilarious comedy centered around horny young people doing dumb things and trying to get laid - compare and contrast Animal House, released only four years before. That's a real comedy. Porky's is real trash.

Tame for today's standards.

tt0084522

I remember in junior high the shock and excitement about Porky's! The forbidden pleasure concept is out of date. With internet porn, cable, every other sex comedy trying to out do the other with toilet humor Porky's is tame and or lame by today's standards. The nudity and pranks/stunts are used in mainstream comedy. (ie The Hang Over) Even a few of the concepts would never be used with today's 24 7 cable news, with sexual predators, hazing incidents etc. Anyone peeking in the girls showers in today's environment would be a candidate for intense counseling. The male bonding, and pranks of the 1980's are of a gone by era, where a hand shake after a fist fight was common. I like the music, and had a few cheap laughs from Porky's which was low story line. The story-line of messing with Porky got across as lame for anyone who remembers the, sinister, Harlan DeGroat character from Out of the Furnace movie. Overall six Porky's out of ten.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084522/reviews-170

ur0453228

title: Tame for today's standards. review: I remember in junior high the shock and excitement about Porky's! The forbidden pleasure concept is out of date. With internet porn, cable, every other sex comedy trying to out do the other with toilet humor Porky's is tame and or lame by today's standards. The nudity and pranks/stunts are used in mainstream comedy. (ie The Hang Over) Even a few of the concepts would never be used with today's 24 7 cable news, with sexual predators, hazing incidents etc. Anyone peeking in the girls showers in today's environment would be a candidate for intense counseling. The male bonding, and pranks of the 1980's are of a gone by era, where a hand shake after a fist fight was common. I like the music, and had a few cheap laughs from Porky's which was low story line. The story-line of messing with Porky got across as lame for anyone who remembers the, sinister, Harlan DeGroat character from Out of the Furnace movie. Overall six Porky's out of ten.

disgusting garbage.

tt0084522

This movie is not funny. It is disgusting garbage. It is sick. I can;t believe people like this movie. The story line is awful. The hummer is awful. Pooh pooh that all it is. Don't wast your money. This movie stinks. Pooh pooh, pooh pooh, pooh, pooh pooh, pooh pooh, pooh pooh. Never see this movie. Pooh pooh, pooh pooh, pooh pooh, pooh pooh, pooh pooh. The pretty girls can't make up for the awful hummer. Dreadful hummer. Pooh pooh, pooh pooh, pooh pooh, pooh pooh, pooh pooh. Stinky stinky pooh. I hate comedy movies this awful. I like comedies that are funny not when there poop. Don't see this movie don't see it don't see it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084522/reviews-168

ur44588015

title: disgusting garbage. review: This movie is not funny. It is disgusting garbage. It is sick. I can;t believe people like this movie. The story line is awful. The hummer is awful. Pooh pooh that all it is. Don't wast your money. This movie stinks. Pooh pooh, pooh pooh, pooh, pooh pooh, pooh pooh, pooh pooh. Never see this movie. Pooh pooh, pooh pooh, pooh pooh, pooh pooh, pooh pooh. The pretty girls can't make up for the awful hummer. Dreadful hummer. Pooh pooh, pooh pooh, pooh pooh, pooh pooh, pooh pooh. Stinky stinky pooh. I hate comedy movies this awful. I like comedies that are funny not when there poop. Don't see this movie don't see it don't see it.

A bit overrated but still a very funny teen sex comedy

tt0084522

Rated R for Strong Sexual Content,Nudity,Language and Some Violence all involving teens I first saw Porky's II The Next Day about six months ago on TV.I was a bit disappointed with it but I heard it was a disappointing sequel and I wanted to watch the original Porky's.Ireally enjoy the teen film genre.People compare this film to American Pie but I think American Pie is a bit better.Not to say that this isn't a hilarious film which is miles better than the sequel.The film takes place in the 1950's and it is about a group of friends and their funny misadventures while trying to have sex.They try to get into a nightclub called "Porky's" but the owner harasses them.One of the members keeps going back and gets his ass kicked plenty of times so they exact revenge on the nightclub.Porky's is a fairly funny teen film but I have seen better.The Last American Virgin I find is a better teen sex comedy(it is my favorite actually) because it has plenty of gross-out humor but it is also dramatic and realistic.Anyway, funny film.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084522/reviews-140

ur11358734

title: A bit overrated but still a very funny teen sex comedy review: Rated R for Strong Sexual Content,Nudity,Language and Some Violence all involving teens I first saw Porky's II The Next Day about six months ago on TV.I was a bit disappointed with it but I heard it was a disappointing sequel and I wanted to watch the original Porky's.Ireally enjoy the teen film genre.People compare this film to American Pie but I think American Pie is a bit better.Not to say that this isn't a hilarious film which is miles better than the sequel.The film takes place in the 1950's and it is about a group of friends and their funny misadventures while trying to have sex.They try to get into a nightclub called "Porky's" but the owner harasses them.One of the members keeps going back and gets his ass kicked plenty of times so they exact revenge on the nightclub.Porky's is a fairly funny teen film but I have seen better.The Last American Virgin I find is a better teen sex comedy(it is my favorite actually) because it has plenty of gross-out humor but it is also dramatic and realistic.Anyway, funny film.

A porker of a movie

tt0084522

This movie is loved by many who saw it as teenagers. I saw it somewhat later in life (last night), and, man, I hated it. This is one behemoth of a bad movie with no redeeming quality to it. Sorry, all you Porky-lovers.The story centers loosely around a group of high school juniors and seniors who are all played by actors who are roughly ten years older. In the case of the girls, fifteen years older. Some seem to be pushing menopause. Others have brought along their children and grandchildren. One of the gang, Pee Wee, is desperate to get laid, others are peeping into the girls' shower (allowing us, the audience, to finally cop some T&A) and end up getting busted by the aptly named coach Ballbricker (geddit?), two teachers have it off and she (played by Kim Cattrall of Sex And The City, who somehow, throughout her career, consistently managed to get the part of the cute sexpot) howls like Lassie, and another plot involves some of the gang getting thrown out of a strip joint by the evil Southron Porky (hence the name of the movie) and his Southern Sheriff brother, and then taking revenge so epic and disproportional that it makes the bible's seventh son of a seventh' son rule look conciliatory. Some depth is added by addressing the weighty issues of antisemitism ("How do you know to fight so well?" -- "As a Jew, it's either that or having to eat sheet. I don't like sheet." -- "How often did you have to fight before?" -- "First time." -- "So what was that talk about the difficulty of prevailing as a Jew about?" -- "Never mind, let's get on with the movie."), violent rock'n'rolling fathers, and pig-ugly fat prude cock-blocking sports coaches with 'double-entendre' names.I found the plot arbitrary, ambling and pointless, and the humour puerile, scatological and boorish. I felt like Jesse Jackson at a clan rallye. I didn't like the fact that men share a woman and discuss her sexual eccentricities among each other, I don't think it's good, clean, harmless fun for boys to peep into the girls' shower and stick their private parts in, or to collectively lose their virginity at a brothel or by group-banging a prostitute, or for a girl to have it off with a boy she doesn't fancy but merely at the behest of a group. I wasn't offended or anything, I was just bored.Like I said, if you have fond memories of watching this movie in '82 in a packed house, good for you. But right now you'd need a time machine to enjoy it.PS: I thought that the actor playing Pee-Wee, Dan Monahan, looks like the spitting image of Ally McBeal's Peter MacMillan. I had to look them up here at IMDb to find out they're not identical. PPS: The movie has three redeeming features: the Porky's neon sign, Porky's pink car, and the car's horn which makes the sound of a squealing pig. Cool!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084522/reviews-142

ur1061889

title: A porker of a movie review: This movie is loved by many who saw it as teenagers. I saw it somewhat later in life (last night), and, man, I hated it. This is one behemoth of a bad movie with no redeeming quality to it. Sorry, all you Porky-lovers.The story centers loosely around a group of high school juniors and seniors who are all played by actors who are roughly ten years older. In the case of the girls, fifteen years older. Some seem to be pushing menopause. Others have brought along their children and grandchildren. One of the gang, Pee Wee, is desperate to get laid, others are peeping into the girls' shower (allowing us, the audience, to finally cop some T&A) and end up getting busted by the aptly named coach Ballbricker (geddit?), two teachers have it off and she (played by Kim Cattrall of Sex And The City, who somehow, throughout her career, consistently managed to get the part of the cute sexpot) howls like Lassie, and another plot involves some of the gang getting thrown out of a strip joint by the evil Southron Porky (hence the name of the movie) and his Southern Sheriff brother, and then taking revenge so epic and disproportional that it makes the bible's seventh son of a seventh' son rule look conciliatory. Some depth is added by addressing the weighty issues of antisemitism ("How do you know to fight so well?" -- "As a Jew, it's either that or having to eat sheet. I don't like sheet." -- "How often did you have to fight before?" -- "First time." -- "So what was that talk about the difficulty of prevailing as a Jew about?" -- "Never mind, let's get on with the movie."), violent rock'n'rolling fathers, and pig-ugly fat prude cock-blocking sports coaches with 'double-entendre' names.I found the plot arbitrary, ambling and pointless, and the humour puerile, scatological and boorish. I felt like Jesse Jackson at a clan rallye. I didn't like the fact that men share a woman and discuss her sexual eccentricities among each other, I don't think it's good, clean, harmless fun for boys to peep into the girls' shower and stick their private parts in, or to collectively lose their virginity at a brothel or by group-banging a prostitute, or for a girl to have it off with a boy she doesn't fancy but merely at the behest of a group. I wasn't offended or anything, I was just bored.Like I said, if you have fond memories of watching this movie in '82 in a packed house, good for you. But right now you'd need a time machine to enjoy it.PS: I thought that the actor playing Pee-Wee, Dan Monahan, looks like the spitting image of Ally McBeal's Peter MacMillan. I had to look them up here at IMDb to find out they're not identical. PPS: The movie has three redeeming features: the Porky's neon sign, Porky's pink car, and the car's horn which makes the sound of a squealing pig. Cool!

Laugh mom!

tt0084522

First I read the review that Maltin and Ebert gave for this movie.They were bad.But they were wrong! Porky's is a great old school comedy! It's about friendship,It's about girls,It's about life and how life should be like:JOKES,JOKES,JOKES!!! Having fun with your friends,having fun with girls and yes having fun with your enemies!!! I really liked this movie,it made me laugh;showed that you cannot solve all your problems by your self...If your friend is drunk,help him,if your friend is beat up,stand by his side,if you have a problem with girls perhaps your buddy will help you... Maltin,Ebert go watch Casablanca one more time.You missed something,there's no jokes,no shower and no Porky's!!!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084522/reviews-138

ur15334769

title: Laugh mom! review: First I read the review that Maltin and Ebert gave for this movie.They were bad.But they were wrong! Porky's is a great old school comedy! It's about friendship,It's about girls,It's about life and how life should be like:JOKES,JOKES,JOKES!!! Having fun with your friends,having fun with girls and yes having fun with your enemies!!! I really liked this movie,it made me laugh;showed that you cannot solve all your problems by your self...If your friend is drunk,help him,if your friend is beat up,stand by his side,if you have a problem with girls perhaps your buddy will help you... Maltin,Ebert go watch Casablanca one more time.You missed something,there's no jokes,no shower and no Porky's!!!

Everyone's favorite guilty pleasure!

tt0084522

I've never met anyone in my life who didn't love "Porky's" (in real life, that is, because on the Internet you always encounter people with different opinions) and that is probably just because this is an irresistibly energetic and out-and-out funny 80's teen comedy! The essence of juvenile & vulgar comedies lies here within this film, and arguably also "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" and "Animal House", but definitely not in the lame and uninspired nowadays flicks such as "American Pie". All the classic gags and politically incorrect jests are here: small penis jokes, big penis jokes, sticking penises in usual things, voyeurism through minuscule peepholes, the eternal virgin nerd, loud-screaming girls, redneck humor and much more. If you ever wondered where Bart Simpson found the inspiration for his prank calls, well that's probably because he watched "Porky's" as well! This is the simplistic tale of a bunch of teenage friends, all of them with incontrollable raging hormones, attending high school in the 1950's. In their never ending journey to get laid, they battle against all types of annoying authorities (read: adults) like gym coaches, parents, police officers and obnoxious nightclub owners. Particularly this last group forms a severe obstacle, as the boys are desperately trying to get into a strip club in a neighboring county but the owner – a fat and sleazy hillbilly nicknamed Porky – and his gang of local yokels get a kick out of humiliating and beating up juvenile visitors. In between all their hectic adventures at school, the group plots the ultimate act of vengeance against Porky and his whole county of hillbilly freaks. Personally I don't understand how you could NOT enjoy a movie like "Porky's", as it is so stimulating, cheerful and harmlessly infantile. The main characters are delightfully stereotypical high school bastards (especially the unforgettable Pee Wee) and some of the situations they find themselves stuck in are indescribably hilarious. A few of the highlights include an outrageous sex sequence with future "Sex and the City" starlet Kim Cattrall and the legendary coach Balbricker's quest to have one of the boys suspended for obscenities in the girls' shower. Needless to say "Porky's" is a sex comedy chock-full of gratuitous T & A (and enough wool to knit a sweater with…) and crude insinuations, but if this movie is too offensive for you already, you better sing up in a convent straight away. This was the biggest box office hit for the versatile writer/director Bob Clark, who directed pleasant comedies like this as well as creepy horror movies like "Black Christmas" and "Dead of Night". He sadly died in a dramatic car accident in 2007. Thanks to films like "Porky's", he at least leaves behind a spirited heritage! Rest in peace, Mr. Clark.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084522/reviews-144

ur2020269

title: Everyone's favorite guilty pleasure! review: I've never met anyone in my life who didn't love "Porky's" (in real life, that is, because on the Internet you always encounter people with different opinions) and that is probably just because this is an irresistibly energetic and out-and-out funny 80's teen comedy! The essence of juvenile & vulgar comedies lies here within this film, and arguably also "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" and "Animal House", but definitely not in the lame and uninspired nowadays flicks such as "American Pie". All the classic gags and politically incorrect jests are here: small penis jokes, big penis jokes, sticking penises in usual things, voyeurism through minuscule peepholes, the eternal virgin nerd, loud-screaming girls, redneck humor and much more. If you ever wondered where Bart Simpson found the inspiration for his prank calls, well that's probably because he watched "Porky's" as well! This is the simplistic tale of a bunch of teenage friends, all of them with incontrollable raging hormones, attending high school in the 1950's. In their never ending journey to get laid, they battle against all types of annoying authorities (read: adults) like gym coaches, parents, police officers and obnoxious nightclub owners. Particularly this last group forms a severe obstacle, as the boys are desperately trying to get into a strip club in a neighboring county but the owner – a fat and sleazy hillbilly nicknamed Porky – and his gang of local yokels get a kick out of humiliating and beating up juvenile visitors. In between all their hectic adventures at school, the group plots the ultimate act of vengeance against Porky and his whole county of hillbilly freaks. Personally I don't understand how you could NOT enjoy a movie like "Porky's", as it is so stimulating, cheerful and harmlessly infantile. The main characters are delightfully stereotypical high school bastards (especially the unforgettable Pee Wee) and some of the situations they find themselves stuck in are indescribably hilarious. A few of the highlights include an outrageous sex sequence with future "Sex and the City" starlet Kim Cattrall and the legendary coach Balbricker's quest to have one of the boys suspended for obscenities in the girls' shower. Needless to say "Porky's" is a sex comedy chock-full of gratuitous T & A (and enough wool to knit a sweater with…) and crude insinuations, but if this movie is too offensive for you already, you better sing up in a convent straight away. This was the biggest box office hit for the versatile writer/director Bob Clark, who directed pleasant comedies like this as well as creepy horror movies like "Black Christmas" and "Dead of Night". He sadly died in a dramatic car accident in 2007. Thanks to films like "Porky's", he at least leaves behind a spirited heritage! Rest in peace, Mr. Clark.

My personal favourite movie I watched as a child

tt0067992

Wow! Childhood memories, they can surely lead you to some gems. I have a couple of movies that I have enjoyed when I was about 7 and now when I'm 17. Out of all of them this is my favourite.I first saw this movie when I was about 5 or 6 years old. I loved it, everything about this movie was magical and charming. I took a look at this movie again and found all these little inside jokes that I NEVER picked up on as a child. One of my favourites that I never picked up on as the innocent 5 year old was this: "This piece of gum is a thee course dinner"."Bull--"."No roast beef but I haven't got it quite right yet".Now when I take a look I really laugh at it. This kind of humour is throughout the movie.So the plot is that Charlie Bucket is a poor child. He likes Wonka candy, which remained locked but still producing candy. Soon Wonka opens his factory for five children, they have to win by getting Golden Tickets. Charlie against all odds (because this is a world where Wonka chocolate is the most important thing - As I said you can't take this movie seriously) wins a Golden Ticket.Now I will devote an entire paragraph to Gene Wilder as Willy Wonka. I love his characterization of Wonka. He manages to make a way of being the absolute definitive Willy Wonka (Johnny Depp is a good actor but not only does he overdo the job but he was creepy). He manages to be very eccentric, quirky and... well it's almost indescribable for me (or that might be because I'm writing this at 10:30 at night). I don't think anyone could blend into the role of Wonka as well as Wilder does it. I am not kidding when I say he was robbed of an Oscar nod.So if you haven't seen this movie and enjoy family movies then give this a try. If you have kids then this is definitely a movie to show them instead of something like "Cats and Dogs", "Wreck-It-Ralph", "The Incredibles" or "Shrek" which will most likely age horribly. This however I find timeless.P.S- I might be a little biased as you may have gathered. But I'm sure with your favourite movie from your childhood you would type something similar to this (depending on what movie it is). I just couldn't write something without describing how well it has aged on me.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067992/reviews-374

ur20815663

title: My personal favourite movie I watched as a child review: Wow! Childhood memories, they can surely lead you to some gems. I have a couple of movies that I have enjoyed when I was about 7 and now when I'm 17. Out of all of them this is my favourite.I first saw this movie when I was about 5 or 6 years old. I loved it, everything about this movie was magical and charming. I took a look at this movie again and found all these little inside jokes that I NEVER picked up on as a child. One of my favourites that I never picked up on as the innocent 5 year old was this: "This piece of gum is a thee course dinner"."Bull--"."No roast beef but I haven't got it quite right yet".Now when I take a look I really laugh at it. This kind of humour is throughout the movie.So the plot is that Charlie Bucket is a poor child. He likes Wonka candy, which remained locked but still producing candy. Soon Wonka opens his factory for five children, they have to win by getting Golden Tickets. Charlie against all odds (because this is a world where Wonka chocolate is the most important thing - As I said you can't take this movie seriously) wins a Golden Ticket.Now I will devote an entire paragraph to Gene Wilder as Willy Wonka. I love his characterization of Wonka. He manages to make a way of being the absolute definitive Willy Wonka (Johnny Depp is a good actor but not only does he overdo the job but he was creepy). He manages to be very eccentric, quirky and... well it's almost indescribable for me (or that might be because I'm writing this at 10:30 at night). I don't think anyone could blend into the role of Wonka as well as Wilder does it. I am not kidding when I say he was robbed of an Oscar nod.So if you haven't seen this movie and enjoy family movies then give this a try. If you have kids then this is definitely a movie to show them instead of something like "Cats and Dogs", "Wreck-It-Ralph", "The Incredibles" or "Shrek" which will most likely age horribly. This however I find timeless.P.S- I might be a little biased as you may have gathered. But I'm sure with your favourite movie from your childhood you would type something similar to this (depending on what movie it is). I just couldn't write something without describing how well it has aged on me.

"Childhood Classic!"

tt0067992

Gene Wilder, Jack Albertson and Peter Ostrum star in this 1971 musical fantasy based on Roald Dahl's book, "Charlie & the Chocolate Factory." A boy wins a chance to meet a famous candy maker and visit his magical factory. Charlie (Ostrum) is a boy who lives with his mother and 2 grandparents. They don't have much and soon notice a contest to meet famous candy man, Willy Wonka (Wilder) and visit his factory. After 4 other bratty kids find Wonka's 4 of the 5 winning golden tickets, Charlie hopes to be the 5th winner and does. He decides to bring his grandpa Joe (Albertson) along with him and they all meet Wonka who gives them a tour of his magical factory where odd things happen. I've loved this film since I was a kid and Gene is terrific as Willy Wonka. I recommend this classic.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067992/reviews-358

ur6918917

title: "Childhood Classic!" review: Gene Wilder, Jack Albertson and Peter Ostrum star in this 1971 musical fantasy based on Roald Dahl's book, "Charlie & the Chocolate Factory." A boy wins a chance to meet a famous candy maker and visit his magical factory. Charlie (Ostrum) is a boy who lives with his mother and 2 grandparents. They don't have much and soon notice a contest to meet famous candy man, Willy Wonka (Wilder) and visit his factory. After 4 other bratty kids find Wonka's 4 of the 5 winning golden tickets, Charlie hopes to be the 5th winner and does. He decides to bring his grandpa Joe (Albertson) along with him and they all meet Wonka who gives them a tour of his magical factory where odd things happen. I've loved this film since I was a kid and Gene is terrific as Willy Wonka. I recommend this classic.

great you just have to go see it

tt0067992

it is a great movie you jut have to go see it it is one of the best g movies i have ever seen you will like it a lot i never saw a movie this good before i never saw anything like this before it is a magical movie you will go crazy over this movie that i call a magical movie in one whole piece you will enjoy this 4 out of 4 star movie and two thumbs up it is something that you can not miss it is a cool movie you and your kids will like all of the coolers ad the music in this movie that makes everyone happy it is one cool movie you will say now that is what i call a great movie because it is a great movie you will like it a lot it is a hoot your whole family will enjoy this amazing movie it should be back in theaters in 3D this is the big cheese if you like movies than you will like this movie this is the biggest movie in the whole world i like it a lot this is a sweet movie i never saw a movie this good before you will like it so much it is one of the best movies i have ever seen and you will say there same thing have a great day

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067992/reviews-356

ur25362190

title: great you just have to go see it review: it is a great movie you jut have to go see it it is one of the best g movies i have ever seen you will like it a lot i never saw a movie this good before i never saw anything like this before it is a magical movie you will go crazy over this movie that i call a magical movie in one whole piece you will enjoy this 4 out of 4 star movie and two thumbs up it is something that you can not miss it is a cool movie you and your kids will like all of the coolers ad the music in this movie that makes everyone happy it is one cool movie you will say now that is what i call a great movie because it is a great movie you will like it a lot it is a hoot your whole family will enjoy this amazing movie it should be back in theaters in 3D this is the big cheese if you like movies than you will like this movie this is the biggest movie in the whole world i like it a lot this is a sweet movie i never saw a movie this good before you will like it so much it is one of the best movies i have ever seen and you will say there same thing have a great day

"A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men."

tt0067992

"Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory" was only a modest success at the time of its release but it has since gained cult status through years of TV broadcasts and home video sales. Tim Burton's 2005 remake (titled "Charlie & the Chocolate Factory", like the book) revisited the source material but I feel that the 1971 adaptation is still the best.Roald Dahl adapted his own novel here and the script also received uncredited work by David Seltzer (best known for "The Omen"). The resulting product is highly imaginative and also shows a slight touch of the darker side of the screenwriters. As a result, the story has the distinct feel of a cautionary tale.The acting is generally good. Gene Wilder gave what is by far the film's best performance in his role as eccentric candy-maker Willy Wonka. Past Oscar winner Jack Albertson lent the film some further credibility. The children's performances are generally good, with some better than others. The remainder of the supporting cast is made up of unfamiliar faces who nevertheless perform admirably.The direction by Mel Stuart isn't particularly impressive but the colourful production design makes up for any deficiencies there. Some of the special effects are a bit crude by today's standards but they get the job done. The film's original songs are all memorable, save for "Cheer Up, Charlie", which I suspect few would miss. The film's score was deservedly nominated for an Oscar (the film's only nomination).In my opinion, "Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory" is a family film that holds appeal for old and young alike. Wilder's Wonka is iconic and the story's deft use of 'pure imagination' makes for an enjoyable ride.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067992/reviews-341

ur17822437

title: "A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men." review: "Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory" was only a modest success at the time of its release but it has since gained cult status through years of TV broadcasts and home video sales. Tim Burton's 2005 remake (titled "Charlie & the Chocolate Factory", like the book) revisited the source material but I feel that the 1971 adaptation is still the best.Roald Dahl adapted his own novel here and the script also received uncredited work by David Seltzer (best known for "The Omen"). The resulting product is highly imaginative and also shows a slight touch of the darker side of the screenwriters. As a result, the story has the distinct feel of a cautionary tale.The acting is generally good. Gene Wilder gave what is by far the film's best performance in his role as eccentric candy-maker Willy Wonka. Past Oscar winner Jack Albertson lent the film some further credibility. The children's performances are generally good, with some better than others. The remainder of the supporting cast is made up of unfamiliar faces who nevertheless perform admirably.The direction by Mel Stuart isn't particularly impressive but the colourful production design makes up for any deficiencies there. Some of the special effects are a bit crude by today's standards but they get the job done. The film's original songs are all memorable, save for "Cheer Up, Charlie", which I suspect few would miss. The film's score was deservedly nominated for an Oscar (the film's only nomination).In my opinion, "Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory" is a family film that holds appeal for old and young alike. Wilder's Wonka is iconic and the story's deft use of 'pure imagination' makes for an enjoyable ride.

"There is no life I know to compare with pure imagination."

tt0067992

In my younger years, I was one of the millions of children who would settle down in front of the television on a quiet Saturday evening and descend into the magical world of Willy Wonka and his chocolate factory. Not since 'The Wizard of Oz (1939)' has a film so perfectly captured the imaginations of adults and children alike, and I know I'm not the only one to have dreamed of visiting this world of edible landscapes, wacky contraptions and surprises around every corner. Tonight I watched 'Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory (1971)' for the first time in a number of years, and I found it even better than I had remembered. Despite having seen the film more than a few times, I was once again drawn into its colourful world of sugary imagination; it was as though I was seeing it again for the first time. This is the mark of a true family classic.Young Charlie Bucket (Peter Ostrum) is the film's main protagonist, an honest and hand-working boy from a poverty-stricken family. Whereas other children are waste their money buying chocolates, Charlie dedicates his meager newspaper-delivery wages towards providing bread for his overworked mother (Diana Sowle) and four bed-ridden grandparents. However, one day there is an announcement that sends the world population into a frenzy: the reclusive but brilliant chocolate-maker Willy Wonka (Gene Wilder) has hidden golden tickets in five bars of his product, and the lucky winners will be treated to a tour of his magical factory, as well as the grand prize of a lifetime's supply of chocolate! One by one, the tickets are discovered by a selection of disagreeable children, but the fifth winner may well be the most deserving young boy of all. The film was adapted from the story "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" by British author Roald Dahl, who was famously furious about the alterations made by screenwriter David Seltzer.When Charlie and his Grandpa Joe (played with warmth by Jack Albertson) arrive at the chocolate factory to attend their tour, the real fun starts. Willy Wonka is the most fascinating of film characters, completely unpredictable from the outset. Emerging for the first time, cane in hand, the seemingly frail Wonka limps painfully towards the waiting crowd before tumbling into a lively somersault. Once inside the factory, the eccentric genius can be funny, musical, sarcastic, rude and even a little sadistic, spouting off quotes from Shakespeare, O'Shaughnessy and Allingham as the naughty children around him systematically receive their comeuppance. The chocolate factory is operated by a race of little people known as Oompa Loompas, who celebrate the departure of each disobedient child by singing of the evils of being gluttonous, greedy, spoiled, or ill-behaved {these particular sequences are the only ones, I think, that have aged poorly over the last 35 years}.Despite a generally-positive critical reaction upon its release, 'Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory' was a box-office failure, though time has allowed subsequent generations to discover the incalculable magic that the film holds. The musical numbers – ranging from "The Candy Man" to "(I've Got a) Golden Ticket" to "Pure Imagination" – are all touching and joyous, and there is even a peculiar psychedelic boat ride that slips into the realm of surrealism. The visual effects are decidedly remarkable for the era, and I was particularly impressed with the Fizzy Lifting Drinks sequence, in which Charlie and Grandpa Joe become weightless and float perilously towards the fan spinning high above them; there is not a supporting wire to be seen. The film was nominated for a single Academy Award, for Best Music, but it's almost criminal that Harper Goff's art direction went unrewarded, despite Willy Wonka's chocolate factory being one of the most amazing film sets I've ever seen.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067992/reviews-309

ur10334028

title: "There is no life I know to compare with pure imagination." review: In my younger years, I was one of the millions of children who would settle down in front of the television on a quiet Saturday evening and descend into the magical world of Willy Wonka and his chocolate factory. Not since 'The Wizard of Oz (1939)' has a film so perfectly captured the imaginations of adults and children alike, and I know I'm not the only one to have dreamed of visiting this world of edible landscapes, wacky contraptions and surprises around every corner. Tonight I watched 'Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory (1971)' for the first time in a number of years, and I found it even better than I had remembered. Despite having seen the film more than a few times, I was once again drawn into its colourful world of sugary imagination; it was as though I was seeing it again for the first time. This is the mark of a true family classic.Young Charlie Bucket (Peter Ostrum) is the film's main protagonist, an honest and hand-working boy from a poverty-stricken family. Whereas other children are waste their money buying chocolates, Charlie dedicates his meager newspaper-delivery wages towards providing bread for his overworked mother (Diana Sowle) and four bed-ridden grandparents. However, one day there is an announcement that sends the world population into a frenzy: the reclusive but brilliant chocolate-maker Willy Wonka (Gene Wilder) has hidden golden tickets in five bars of his product, and the lucky winners will be treated to a tour of his magical factory, as well as the grand prize of a lifetime's supply of chocolate! One by one, the tickets are discovered by a selection of disagreeable children, but the fifth winner may well be the most deserving young boy of all. The film was adapted from the story "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" by British author Roald Dahl, who was famously furious about the alterations made by screenwriter David Seltzer.When Charlie and his Grandpa Joe (played with warmth by Jack Albertson) arrive at the chocolate factory to attend their tour, the real fun starts. Willy Wonka is the most fascinating of film characters, completely unpredictable from the outset. Emerging for the first time, cane in hand, the seemingly frail Wonka limps painfully towards the waiting crowd before tumbling into a lively somersault. Once inside the factory, the eccentric genius can be funny, musical, sarcastic, rude and even a little sadistic, spouting off quotes from Shakespeare, O'Shaughnessy and Allingham as the naughty children around him systematically receive their comeuppance. The chocolate factory is operated by a race of little people known as Oompa Loompas, who celebrate the departure of each disobedient child by singing of the evils of being gluttonous, greedy, spoiled, or ill-behaved {these particular sequences are the only ones, I think, that have aged poorly over the last 35 years}.Despite a generally-positive critical reaction upon its release, 'Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory' was a box-office failure, though time has allowed subsequent generations to discover the incalculable magic that the film holds. The musical numbers – ranging from "The Candy Man" to "(I've Got a) Golden Ticket" to "Pure Imagination" – are all touching and joyous, and there is even a peculiar psychedelic boat ride that slips into the realm of surrealism. The visual effects are decidedly remarkable for the era, and I was particularly impressed with the Fizzy Lifting Drinks sequence, in which Charlie and Grandpa Joe become weightless and float perilously towards the fan spinning high above them; there is not a supporting wire to be seen. The film was nominated for a single Academy Award, for Best Music, but it's almost criminal that Harper Goff's art direction went unrewarded, despite Willy Wonka's chocolate factory being one of the most amazing film sets I've ever seen.

Up There With "The Wizard of Oz", And Many Other Children Classics.

tt0067992

Pretty much the definitive movie you could watch as a child, and remember fondly as an adult. Roald Dahl's classic book and adaptation is pure gold from beginning to end.Charlie Bucket is a poor kid, who soon competes with every other child in the world to obtain one of five golden tickets into the famous chocolate factory run by the apparently eccentric, but public recluse Willy Wonka. By miraculous odds Charlie gets a ticket, along with four other children who finally enter the factory. From there on, the movie takes on the presence of a proverbial slasher movie, as each child is disposed of through their own greedy faults. Incorporate one of the weirdest tunnels scenes ever committed to film and in all seriousness, it's actually one of the most charming movies ever made.Gene Wilder is the definitive Willy Wonka. Obviously he's still a few years away from Mel Brooks's comedy goldmine, but no one can do what he does in this movie and sell a performance like he can. "Pure Imagination" is one of the all time greatest songs from this musical, and the Oompa Loompa's are parodied to death nowadays because they're so darn good.Out of all his stories, this remains my favourite of Roald Dahl's work. Though it may shy away a little from it's source material, this movie blends fantasy, adventure and dark humour perfectly. The factory is so incredibly detailed, and I heard that the chocolate river was two feet deep and became stagnant almost immediately (Poor Augustus).Final Verdict: Another children's timeless classic. 10/10.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067992/reviews-385

ur48102834

title: Up There With "The Wizard of Oz", And Many Other Children Classics. review: Pretty much the definitive movie you could watch as a child, and remember fondly as an adult. Roald Dahl's classic book and adaptation is pure gold from beginning to end.Charlie Bucket is a poor kid, who soon competes with every other child in the world to obtain one of five golden tickets into the famous chocolate factory run by the apparently eccentric, but public recluse Willy Wonka. By miraculous odds Charlie gets a ticket, along with four other children who finally enter the factory. From there on, the movie takes on the presence of a proverbial slasher movie, as each child is disposed of through their own greedy faults. Incorporate one of the weirdest tunnels scenes ever committed to film and in all seriousness, it's actually one of the most charming movies ever made.Gene Wilder is the definitive Willy Wonka. Obviously he's still a few years away from Mel Brooks's comedy goldmine, but no one can do what he does in this movie and sell a performance like he can. "Pure Imagination" is one of the all time greatest songs from this musical, and the Oompa Loompa's are parodied to death nowadays because they're so darn good.Out of all his stories, this remains my favourite of Roald Dahl's work. Though it may shy away a little from it's source material, this movie blends fantasy, adventure and dark humour perfectly. The factory is so incredibly detailed, and I heard that the chocolate river was two feet deep and became stagnant almost immediately (Poor Augustus).Final Verdict: Another children's timeless classic. 10/10.

Incredibly sweet...

tt0067992

...Perhaps even too much. If you're looking for something that echoes the dark wit of Roald Dahl's book, you should watch Tim Burton's "remake" of this film. If, on the other hand, are curious to find out why this 1971 outing is considered a cult movie, give it a try.The story is well known:five kids,including Charlie Bucket(Peter Ostrum) find the Golden Tickets and get to visit the local chocolate factory,where they will see weird inventions,the charming Oompa Loompas and,most of all,the man behind the whole thing,Willy Wonka(Gene Wilder).There are only two things both versions (Mel Stuart and Tim Burton's, that is) have in common:the Oompa Loompas singing after the bad kids are "punished",and,in a certain way,the opening sequence.Charlie's relationship with Grandpa Joe gets more attention than in the remake,while on the other hand there are more musical numbers,which actually are the one thing I don't like about the movie(people complained about them in Burton's version as well, but at least Danny Elfman's work had some appeal).They're beautifully choreographed,that's true,but the dull, obnoxious songs aren't exactly like in Disney films. In fact, they make the film more childish and less Dahl-likeWilder's Wonka, the best thing in the film, is sweet, funny, unpredictable, but still human, the exact opposite of Johnny Depp's crazy lone wolf.This movie is suitable for everybody, no matter the age(Burton's version isn't something 4-year olds should watch), and, despite a few differences between film and book, and the musical numbers,quite enjoyable.If,however,you're a purist,stick with Johnny Depp, but you have to admit Gene Wilder is great too.Sweet viewing,children (and grown-ups)...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067992/reviews-258

ur5156288

title: Incredibly sweet... review: ...Perhaps even too much. If you're looking for something that echoes the dark wit of Roald Dahl's book, you should watch Tim Burton's "remake" of this film. If, on the other hand, are curious to find out why this 1971 outing is considered a cult movie, give it a try.The story is well known:five kids,including Charlie Bucket(Peter Ostrum) find the Golden Tickets and get to visit the local chocolate factory,where they will see weird inventions,the charming Oompa Loompas and,most of all,the man behind the whole thing,Willy Wonka(Gene Wilder).There are only two things both versions (Mel Stuart and Tim Burton's, that is) have in common:the Oompa Loompas singing after the bad kids are "punished",and,in a certain way,the opening sequence.Charlie's relationship with Grandpa Joe gets more attention than in the remake,while on the other hand there are more musical numbers,which actually are the one thing I don't like about the movie(people complained about them in Burton's version as well, but at least Danny Elfman's work had some appeal).They're beautifully choreographed,that's true,but the dull, obnoxious songs aren't exactly like in Disney films. In fact, they make the film more childish and less Dahl-likeWilder's Wonka, the best thing in the film, is sweet, funny, unpredictable, but still human, the exact opposite of Johnny Depp's crazy lone wolf.This movie is suitable for everybody, no matter the age(Burton's version isn't something 4-year olds should watch), and, despite a few differences between film and book, and the musical numbers,quite enjoyable.If,however,you're a purist,stick with Johnny Depp, but you have to admit Gene Wilder is great too.Sweet viewing,children (and grown-ups)...

Fun Family Film

tt0067992

Looking for a fun film for all the family with nice song? Then this is a good choice. Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory is based on the Roald Dahl children's story Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. The basic story is Willy Wonka has placed five Golden Ticket in his chocolate bars and five lucky children will get a free tour and a life time's supply of chocolate. Charlie is a poor English boy who lived in a small house with his mum and grandparents. He is also a very unselfish child who works as a paper boy and uses his money to help his family. Charlie also wants to be one of the children who get one of the golden tickets. Charlie gets lucky and finds one of the tickets and get to go to the factory. The four other children who find tickets are Augustus Gloop, a very greedy German child, Veruca Salt, a very solid English child, Violet Beauregarde, a self-obsessed American and Mike Teavee a TV-obsessed American child. When all the characters get to the Chocolate factory they find a surreal place which offers the children everything they could want, but one by one all of them get weeded out because of their selfishness. The whole point of Willy Wonka is that it's a morality tale about being good and avoid being selfish.This film has some nice little songs; the ones that I think our best are 'A World of Pure Imagination' and 'I Want it Now'. I feel that the mood is just right and go for children of all ages. It is more lighter then the Tim Burton version which I think is better. The Oompa-Loompa are also great in the film and you can't help by like them. They have been parodied in a number of times, including in the Simpsons, Futurama and Family Guy. I think that they are a lot better in this version then the Burton version. Gene Wilder was also perfectly casted as Willy Wonka, getting the role just right and I think his version is better then Johnny Deep's.All in all Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory is a nice little film for all the family which shows it classes by being parodied. This film is better then remake.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067992/reviews-321

ur17571044

title: Fun Family Film review: Looking for a fun film for all the family with nice song? Then this is a good choice. Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory is based on the Roald Dahl children's story Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. The basic story is Willy Wonka has placed five Golden Ticket in his chocolate bars and five lucky children will get a free tour and a life time's supply of chocolate. Charlie is a poor English boy who lived in a small house with his mum and grandparents. He is also a very unselfish child who works as a paper boy and uses his money to help his family. Charlie also wants to be one of the children who get one of the golden tickets. Charlie gets lucky and finds one of the tickets and get to go to the factory. The four other children who find tickets are Augustus Gloop, a very greedy German child, Veruca Salt, a very solid English child, Violet Beauregarde, a self-obsessed American and Mike Teavee a TV-obsessed American child. When all the characters get to the Chocolate factory they find a surreal place which offers the children everything they could want, but one by one all of them get weeded out because of their selfishness. The whole point of Willy Wonka is that it's a morality tale about being good and avoid being selfish.This film has some nice little songs; the ones that I think our best are 'A World of Pure Imagination' and 'I Want it Now'. I feel that the mood is just right and go for children of all ages. It is more lighter then the Tim Burton version which I think is better. The Oompa-Loompa are also great in the film and you can't help by like them. They have been parodied in a number of times, including in the Simpsons, Futurama and Family Guy. I think that they are a lot better in this version then the Burton version. Gene Wilder was also perfectly casted as Willy Wonka, getting the role just right and I think his version is better then Johnny Deep's.All in all Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory is a nice little film for all the family which shows it classes by being parodied. This film is better then remake.

Timeless.

tt0067992

Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory is a truly magnificent piece of filmmaking and remains one of the most fascinating and wonderful adventure films ever made. One of the things that makes this film so intriguing is that it could have been made at any time. I mean, just from watching it, you can't really tell when it was made. It has been one of my favorite films for almost 20 years now, and it wasn't until today that I actually realized when it was made. Watching it again last night, I had convinced myself that it was made sometime in the early to mid 80s, and I was shocked to find out that this year is the movie's 30 year anniversary. Until now, pretty much the only movie I associate with 1971 is A Clockwork Orange, and it's just strange for some reason to find out that this classic movie was made so long ago.At any rate, Willy Wonka is a tremendously imaginative and inspiring film. It's a family film, but one of the most important aspects of a family film is that it has to be enjoyable for a variety of ages. This is what makes movies like Toy Story and Shrek such huge successes- the adults will love it just as much as the kids are sure to. Hence: `family' film. On the other hand, this is also the downfall of such other movies that are strictly for a much younger audience, like Cats & Dogs. The makers of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory understood this very well, and you can see that just by the way that the cast is divided. Here are all of these kids (funny how it was only kids who found those golden tickets…) who were at this candy factory, and they had each elected to bring one of their parents with them as the one admissible member of their family who was allowed by Wonka to accompany them to the factory. One of the best elements of this film is the excellently written script and, even more, the songs. These are some of the best songs in any movie ever made, rivaling even the best of the songs from Disney's films (hey, some of them are really good…). There are, of course, some exceptions, such as `Cheer up, Charlie,' which I have been fast-forwarding through for as long as I can remember, but for the most part, the songs are fun to listen to and they pertain to life outside the movie. They are not just songs about the candy-making genius of Willy Wonka or the excitement of being able to tour his mysterious factory, but they are about life in the real world. They're about believing in yourself and being motivated in life (`Anything you want to, do it. Want to change the world, there's nothing to it…'), but there are also some that have to do mostly with the movie but are still just as enjoyable, such as the classic song that Wonka sings in the tunnel on board his boat (curiously named `Wonkatania'), which was creepily covered by Marilyn Manson a couple of decades later. The dialogue in the film contains some of the most interesting little tidbits in the entire movie. Wonka's lines, in particular, are wonderfully strange and amusing (`A little nonsense now and then is cherished by the wisest men.'). He is a truly eccentric and fascinating man, and Gene Wilder captures the character flawlessly, as he delivers the lines from the brilliantly written script. Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory is one of those rare movies that comes along and completely changes the way that fantasy films are made. It's all about having fun in life and being hopeful against all odds and, most of all, being able to have fun in life. There are times when you have to let things go for a while and just act like a kid. Eat candy, run around and play, steal fizzy lifting drinks and bump into the ceiling that now has to be washed and sterilized, it doesn't matter as long as no one's looking. That's such a trivial little quirk of Wonka's (who sterilizes their ceiling?) that it becomes obvious that the movie is trying to say that it's okay to break the rules every once in a while. Have fun in life. Besides being absolutely mouth-watering (to this day, I still fantasize about sinking my teeth into one of those gigantic gummy bears), the movie is an uplifting adventure that warms the heart and sends people of all ages away with fairy tale candies dancing in their heads and wonderful songs just behind their lips. It is an always-welcome vacation from reality for people of all ages, and it should always be remembered and loved for that. This movie will ALWAYS be a must-see.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067992/reviews-90

ur0562732

title: Timeless. review: Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory is a truly magnificent piece of filmmaking and remains one of the most fascinating and wonderful adventure films ever made. One of the things that makes this film so intriguing is that it could have been made at any time. I mean, just from watching it, you can't really tell when it was made. It has been one of my favorite films for almost 20 years now, and it wasn't until today that I actually realized when it was made. Watching it again last night, I had convinced myself that it was made sometime in the early to mid 80s, and I was shocked to find out that this year is the movie's 30 year anniversary. Until now, pretty much the only movie I associate with 1971 is A Clockwork Orange, and it's just strange for some reason to find out that this classic movie was made so long ago.At any rate, Willy Wonka is a tremendously imaginative and inspiring film. It's a family film, but one of the most important aspects of a family film is that it has to be enjoyable for a variety of ages. This is what makes movies like Toy Story and Shrek such huge successes- the adults will love it just as much as the kids are sure to. Hence: `family' film. On the other hand, this is also the downfall of such other movies that are strictly for a much younger audience, like Cats & Dogs. The makers of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory understood this very well, and you can see that just by the way that the cast is divided. Here are all of these kids (funny how it was only kids who found those golden tickets…) who were at this candy factory, and they had each elected to bring one of their parents with them as the one admissible member of their family who was allowed by Wonka to accompany them to the factory. One of the best elements of this film is the excellently written script and, even more, the songs. These are some of the best songs in any movie ever made, rivaling even the best of the songs from Disney's films (hey, some of them are really good…). There are, of course, some exceptions, such as `Cheer up, Charlie,' which I have been fast-forwarding through for as long as I can remember, but for the most part, the songs are fun to listen to and they pertain to life outside the movie. They are not just songs about the candy-making genius of Willy Wonka or the excitement of being able to tour his mysterious factory, but they are about life in the real world. They're about believing in yourself and being motivated in life (`Anything you want to, do it. Want to change the world, there's nothing to it…'), but there are also some that have to do mostly with the movie but are still just as enjoyable, such as the classic song that Wonka sings in the tunnel on board his boat (curiously named `Wonkatania'), which was creepily covered by Marilyn Manson a couple of decades later. The dialogue in the film contains some of the most interesting little tidbits in the entire movie. Wonka's lines, in particular, are wonderfully strange and amusing (`A little nonsense now and then is cherished by the wisest men.'). He is a truly eccentric and fascinating man, and Gene Wilder captures the character flawlessly, as he delivers the lines from the brilliantly written script. Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory is one of those rare movies that comes along and completely changes the way that fantasy films are made. It's all about having fun in life and being hopeful against all odds and, most of all, being able to have fun in life. There are times when you have to let things go for a while and just act like a kid. Eat candy, run around and play, steal fizzy lifting drinks and bump into the ceiling that now has to be washed and sterilized, it doesn't matter as long as no one's looking. That's such a trivial little quirk of Wonka's (who sterilizes their ceiling?) that it becomes obvious that the movie is trying to say that it's okay to break the rules every once in a while. Have fun in life. Besides being absolutely mouth-watering (to this day, I still fantasize about sinking my teeth into one of those gigantic gummy bears), the movie is an uplifting adventure that warms the heart and sends people of all ages away with fairy tale candies dancing in their heads and wonderful songs just behind their lips. It is an always-welcome vacation from reality for people of all ages, and it should always be remembered and loved for that. This movie will ALWAYS be a must-see.

Little purple men and lots of chocolate

tt0067992

'Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory', about to be remade, seems ripe for reappraisal. Two schools of thought - one thinks this film is inventive, timeless, and worthy of a place in the best kids movies of all time; the other thinks it is embarrassing trash which didn't work and which should be ditched for a much better interpretation.For me, it falls somewhere between the two extremes of good and bad. There's no denying that Gene Wilder's performance is irritating, but isn't that what Willy Wonka was? The horrible kids are just that, and completely deserve their fates within the walls of his gloopy sugary factory. And Charlie is a cute little hero.Anthony Newley's songs may be an acquired taste but I bet you go away from this film humming 'The Candy Man' or the Oompa Loompa song. The story is a good one - a toffee treat with a lot of bite. Will the remake be any better? I doubt it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067992/reviews-202

ur0137908

title: Little purple men and lots of chocolate review: 'Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory', about to be remade, seems ripe for reappraisal. Two schools of thought - one thinks this film is inventive, timeless, and worthy of a place in the best kids movies of all time; the other thinks it is embarrassing trash which didn't work and which should be ditched for a much better interpretation.For me, it falls somewhere between the two extremes of good and bad. There's no denying that Gene Wilder's performance is irritating, but isn't that what Willy Wonka was? The horrible kids are just that, and completely deserve their fates within the walls of his gloopy sugary factory. And Charlie is a cute little hero.Anthony Newley's songs may be an acquired taste but I bet you go away from this film humming 'The Candy Man' or the Oompa Loompa song. The story is a good one - a toffee treat with a lot of bite. Will the remake be any better? I doubt it.

Light confection

tt0067992

Nice gentle family feature, back in the days when "HR Pufnstuf" on TV and "Bedknobs and Broomsticks" in the cinema were the heights of children's imagination. Roald Dahl's mild cautionary tale on the pitfalls of consumerism, greed (still relevant today in our mass - advertising, obesity-conscious society) is presented pleasantly for the cinema and has a winning turn at its heart by Gene Wilder. The children can't quite act their lines but the adults support well (with a fair smattering of British comedy staples like Roy Kinnear, Tim Brooke Taylor and others on board). The music is fair, certainly not up to "Oliver" standards, with the well-known "Candy Man" standing out in a less than brilliant vocal performance by the shopkeeper although, to be fair, none of the lead singers is particularly exceptional. The special effects are okay, fine for the time, a bit dated now especially considering the wonders of Tim Burton's big - budget remake, and not too much of the confectionery looks truly scrumptious, to borrow a phrase, but some of the shots (especially the process shot above the rooftops at the end) are embarrassingly processed. The Oompa Loompahs, I suppose, evoke the Munchkins of Oz but are less characterful and really just act as decoration only. I'm struggling to get away from words like nice, pleasant and I suppose bland - it seems to me, all in all, to be one of those films you remember better from your youth than when seeing it again as an adult.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067992/reviews-313

ur15298231

title: Light confection review: Nice gentle family feature, back in the days when "HR Pufnstuf" on TV and "Bedknobs and Broomsticks" in the cinema were the heights of children's imagination. Roald Dahl's mild cautionary tale on the pitfalls of consumerism, greed (still relevant today in our mass - advertising, obesity-conscious society) is presented pleasantly for the cinema and has a winning turn at its heart by Gene Wilder. The children can't quite act their lines but the adults support well (with a fair smattering of British comedy staples like Roy Kinnear, Tim Brooke Taylor and others on board). The music is fair, certainly not up to "Oliver" standards, with the well-known "Candy Man" standing out in a less than brilliant vocal performance by the shopkeeper although, to be fair, none of the lead singers is particularly exceptional. The special effects are okay, fine for the time, a bit dated now especially considering the wonders of Tim Burton's big - budget remake, and not too much of the confectionery looks truly scrumptious, to borrow a phrase, but some of the shots (especially the process shot above the rooftops at the end) are embarrassingly processed. The Oompa Loompahs, I suppose, evoke the Munchkins of Oz but are less characterful and really just act as decoration only. I'm struggling to get away from words like nice, pleasant and I suppose bland - it seems to me, all in all, to be one of those films you remember better from your youth than when seeing it again as an adult.

A great film, but a pretty poor adaptation

tt0067992

Now before we start, I want to make one thing perfectly clear. I love this movie, I love it, this is one of the films I watched all the time as a kid. It was great when I was a kid, and it's still great now. However, this movie could be one of the weakest book to film adaptations ever made. Granted I haven't read every book and read every movie, but I have read the book "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory," and yes it does have the same plot and moral, but there are so many changes made.OK, the reason I love this film is because of a few things. The actors are great, every child fits the role perfectly. And Gene Wilder IS Willy Wonka. The songs are super catchy, and the special effects are outstanding. This film is over forty years old, and it still looks good. And it has a great sense of imagination, always being creative with the names of the candies.However it doesn't work well as an adaptation, they were squirrels in the book, the Slugworth guy was only in a short sentence, they used a glass elevator right after veruca. The Wonka Wash didn't exist. They were allowed to bring two guests. Charlie's dad wasn't dead. And they added songs for no reason.Remember, I love this movie, it's one of my most nostalgic movies, but it isn't that great of an adaptation. If you want a closer version to the book, watch Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. But I do recommend this movie.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067992/reviews-359

ur20621243

title: A great film, but a pretty poor adaptation review: Now before we start, I want to make one thing perfectly clear. I love this movie, I love it, this is one of the films I watched all the time as a kid. It was great when I was a kid, and it's still great now. However, this movie could be one of the weakest book to film adaptations ever made. Granted I haven't read every book and read every movie, but I have read the book "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory," and yes it does have the same plot and moral, but there are so many changes made.OK, the reason I love this film is because of a few things. The actors are great, every child fits the role perfectly. And Gene Wilder IS Willy Wonka. The songs are super catchy, and the special effects are outstanding. This film is over forty years old, and it still looks good. And it has a great sense of imagination, always being creative with the names of the candies.However it doesn't work well as an adaptation, they were squirrels in the book, the Slugworth guy was only in a short sentence, they used a glass elevator right after veruca. The Wonka Wash didn't exist. They were allowed to bring two guests. Charlie's dad wasn't dead. And they added songs for no reason.Remember, I love this movie, it's one of my most nostalgic movies, but it isn't that great of an adaptation. If you want a closer version to the book, watch Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. But I do recommend this movie.

Sweet - 81%

tt0067992

Unless you're young enough to be attracted to Tim Burton's typically Gothic interpretation, this movie will have been a part for your childhood in some way. It is one of those few films that are difficult to watch objectively like "Casablanca" or "The Godfather", such is its standing and appeal with film fans for years now. And despite the age, it still stands the test of time well with dazzling visuals, inventive story-telling and an electric performance from Gene Wilder as the eponymous Willy Wonka. Sure, it may be a little rough around the edges but this is still a sweet treat for kids of all ages.The mysterious Willy Wonka (Wilder) runs the most heavily guarded sweet factory in the world and produces the most fantastic sweets. So when he holds a competition to find five lucky children to tour his factory, the excitement reaches fever pitch. For down-on-his-luck Charlie (Peter Ostrum), the dream of finding one of five golden tickets hidden in Wonka Bars is just that - a dream. But to his amazement, he finds the last one and together with his ailing grandfather (Jack Albertson), he is plunged into a world of pure imagination filled with colour, chocolate and unexpected peril.The plot will be familiar to anyone who read Roald Dahl's excellent book on which this is based but to see it on screen remains an absolute delight. Everything from the chocolate river and waterfall to the unforgettable Oompa Loompas is a joy to behold, perfectly full of colour and life that any decent kids movie demands. The songs are also first class, even if there is more enthusiasm than actual singing ability at times. But what separates "Willy Wonka And The Chocolate Factory" from the rest of the dross that passes for kid's entertainment is that alongside the moral of the story, there is a real emotional core that genuinely tugs at the heartstrings. I'm not ashamed to admit that I shed a tear at the end, even though I've seen this before, and this depth is surprisingly led by Wilder as the completely insane Wonka. But it is a performance that takes your breath away - being utterly captivating, exciting and occasionally frightening. How Wilder never got credit for this, his finest performance, is a mystery of epic proportions.Of course, some of the special effects have lost their edge over time while some (I'm thinking largely of the boat ride in the tunnel) seem overly surreal and surplus to requirements. Some of the cast also seem lost next to Wilder's barnstorming but this is hardly a criticism, merely an observation. The only other thing that may ruin your enjoyment watching this movie is Burton's recent remake with Johnny Depp, which younger viewers will probably prefer. But having not seen the newer version, this remains (to me at least) a cast-iron classic and to miss it would be bordering on unforgivable. It's fun, exciting and entertaining, ticking all the boxes for a modern children's movie despite it being almost forty years old. If you've missed it this Christmas then make a point to catch it next time - before the Oompa Loompas get you!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067992/reviews-326

ur3035115

title: Sweet - 81% review: Unless you're young enough to be attracted to Tim Burton's typically Gothic interpretation, this movie will have been a part for your childhood in some way. It is one of those few films that are difficult to watch objectively like "Casablanca" or "The Godfather", such is its standing and appeal with film fans for years now. And despite the age, it still stands the test of time well with dazzling visuals, inventive story-telling and an electric performance from Gene Wilder as the eponymous Willy Wonka. Sure, it may be a little rough around the edges but this is still a sweet treat for kids of all ages.The mysterious Willy Wonka (Wilder) runs the most heavily guarded sweet factory in the world and produces the most fantastic sweets. So when he holds a competition to find five lucky children to tour his factory, the excitement reaches fever pitch. For down-on-his-luck Charlie (Peter Ostrum), the dream of finding one of five golden tickets hidden in Wonka Bars is just that - a dream. But to his amazement, he finds the last one and together with his ailing grandfather (Jack Albertson), he is plunged into a world of pure imagination filled with colour, chocolate and unexpected peril.The plot will be familiar to anyone who read Roald Dahl's excellent book on which this is based but to see it on screen remains an absolute delight. Everything from the chocolate river and waterfall to the unforgettable Oompa Loompas is a joy to behold, perfectly full of colour and life that any decent kids movie demands. The songs are also first class, even if there is more enthusiasm than actual singing ability at times. But what separates "Willy Wonka And The Chocolate Factory" from the rest of the dross that passes for kid's entertainment is that alongside the moral of the story, there is a real emotional core that genuinely tugs at the heartstrings. I'm not ashamed to admit that I shed a tear at the end, even though I've seen this before, and this depth is surprisingly led by Wilder as the completely insane Wonka. But it is a performance that takes your breath away - being utterly captivating, exciting and occasionally frightening. How Wilder never got credit for this, his finest performance, is a mystery of epic proportions.Of course, some of the special effects have lost their edge over time while some (I'm thinking largely of the boat ride in the tunnel) seem overly surreal and surplus to requirements. Some of the cast also seem lost next to Wilder's barnstorming but this is hardly a criticism, merely an observation. The only other thing that may ruin your enjoyment watching this movie is Burton's recent remake with Johnny Depp, which younger viewers will probably prefer. But having not seen the newer version, this remains (to me at least) a cast-iron classic and to miss it would be bordering on unforgivable. It's fun, exciting and entertaining, ticking all the boxes for a modern children's movie despite it being almost forty years old. If you've missed it this Christmas then make a point to catch it next time - before the Oompa Loompas get you!

Imaginative and whimsical cautionary tale with pleasant score...

tt0067992

I would think that children would be more apt to enjoy WILLY WONKA AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY more than parents or any adult viewer, but the Lesley Bricusse/Anthony Newley score is easy to like and Gene Wilder's central performance as the candy-maker is a pure delight. He obviously got into the spirit of the role and his interaction with the children (mostly obnoxious little brats) is commendable.The sets look luxurious although I suspect that today's use of CGI would even improve on this factor and the color photography in the WideScreen version is a rich palette of mouth watering colors.Somehow I missed seeing this film when it first opened and don't recall what the critical reception was--nor was I aware of all the hoopla regarding its status as a children's classic. Whatever, it seems to merit praise as a modestly successful musical fantasy that has enough wit and charm to make it diverting entertainment. I haven't seen the recent remake with Johnny Depp, so I'll make no comparison.Frank Albertson is especially good as Gramps and Peter Ostrum (as the only likable child in the cast) does a nice job in his only screen role. The antics of the other children are sufficiently objectionable to understand why Willy Wonka disposes of them (and their parents) the way he does. In many ways, the story serves as a cautionary tale for parents and children.The lyrics are clever and the music has a decidedly pleasant way of advancing the plot although I definitely wouldn't call it as memorable as some other children's classics I can think of.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067992/reviews-343

ur1048771

title: Imaginative and whimsical cautionary tale with pleasant score... review: I would think that children would be more apt to enjoy WILLY WONKA AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY more than parents or any adult viewer, but the Lesley Bricusse/Anthony Newley score is easy to like and Gene Wilder's central performance as the candy-maker is a pure delight. He obviously got into the spirit of the role and his interaction with the children (mostly obnoxious little brats) is commendable.The sets look luxurious although I suspect that today's use of CGI would even improve on this factor and the color photography in the WideScreen version is a rich palette of mouth watering colors.Somehow I missed seeing this film when it first opened and don't recall what the critical reception was--nor was I aware of all the hoopla regarding its status as a children's classic. Whatever, it seems to merit praise as a modestly successful musical fantasy that has enough wit and charm to make it diverting entertainment. I haven't seen the recent remake with Johnny Depp, so I'll make no comparison.Frank Albertson is especially good as Gramps and Peter Ostrum (as the only likable child in the cast) does a nice job in his only screen role. The antics of the other children are sufficiently objectionable to understand why Willy Wonka disposes of them (and their parents) the way he does. In many ways, the story serves as a cautionary tale for parents and children.The lyrics are clever and the music has a decidedly pleasant way of advancing the plot although I definitely wouldn't call it as memorable as some other children's classics I can think of.

Roald Is Never Dull!

tt0067992

This is a delight for all ages. Gene Wilder will always be the definitive Willie Wonka (sorry Johnny Depp--not even in the game). This is the moralistic tale that tells us that the selfish undisciplined child will eventually pay a price for his or her transgressions and the good will win out. But like all of Roald Dahl's books, it has a hard edge filled with many surprises. Wilder plays the quirky Wonka as he moralizes and cruelly punishes the little brats for their negative attributes. Even Charlie begins to wonder if what has been promised him has so many conditions that it may not be worth the effort. While the special effects may seem a bit dated, they work well and the factory is a wonder. And then there are those Oompa Loompas, providing employment for the most little person actors since "The Wizard of Oz." I've watched this so many times and I never tire of it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067992/reviews-391

ur0278527

title: Roald Is Never Dull! review: This is a delight for all ages. Gene Wilder will always be the definitive Willie Wonka (sorry Johnny Depp--not even in the game). This is the moralistic tale that tells us that the selfish undisciplined child will eventually pay a price for his or her transgressions and the good will win out. But like all of Roald Dahl's books, it has a hard edge filled with many surprises. Wilder plays the quirky Wonka as he moralizes and cruelly punishes the little brats for their negative attributes. Even Charlie begins to wonder if what has been promised him has so many conditions that it may not be worth the effort. While the special effects may seem a bit dated, they work well and the factory is a wonder. And then there are those Oompa Loompas, providing employment for the most little person actors since "The Wizard of Oz." I've watched this so many times and I never tire of it.

Still one of the ultimate kids movies out there.

tt0067992

After all these years, I feel that this movie still hasn't lost any of its charm or power. It's one that should really speak to every kid's imagination and to those who still have a little child hidden somewhere inside of them. And isn't that basically being everybody on this world? I absolutely still have some problems with this movie but I feel that none of this makes this movie any less of a great and fun experience. In essence it's being a very simple and straightforward movie, in which just a whole bunch of random insane and wonderful stuff happens, the moment they step into Willy Wonka's factory. This is a movie that doesn't need to explain anything. It can let things simply happen and it shows that fantasy has no limitations. You could wish whatever you want from and sometimes dreams come true, as happens to little Charlie in this movie.It's a wonderful, imaginative, fantasy movie, that besides is a great looking one. It has wonderful visuals and colors in it and most importantly, it doesn't look fake! It all looks as if it could be part of the real world and it looks as if every machine really works and all the candy is eatable and tastes wonderful as well.It really looks like Gene Wilder had a great time playing his role. He goes all out, without coming across as insane. It probably is a more subtle performance than most people give him credit for. He is a great comedy character, who besides is capable of placing himself in a kid's world and their fantasy. This doesn't feel like a movie written and made by adults for kids but more like one that in fact got made by kids.It's definitely thanks to Roald Dahl's writing, who of course also wrote the book this movie was based on, that this movie comes to life. He manages to put really a lot into the movie its characters and overall atmosphere. It besides provides the movie with some absolutely great dialog and at time it wants to make you rewind the movie, just to check if you really heard things right. But as I said before, it's being still far from a perfect movie, for me. I have always felt and thought that the beginning of the movie goes on for a bit too long and might be a bit too boring, for young kids especially. I also always thought it was strange that the movie never showed what happened to all of the other kids and what happened to Charlie and his family. The ending feels a bit too rushed and also comes far too sudden. There is no real good buildup to it and it might even be a bit confusing to those who aren't familiar with the book.But despite of all these minor issues, this movie remains a perfectly watchable and fun movie to watch for children and those who still are in touch with their inner child, or have a rich imagination.8/10 http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067992/reviews-363

ur1416505

title: Still one of the ultimate kids movies out there. review: After all these years, I feel that this movie still hasn't lost any of its charm or power. It's one that should really speak to every kid's imagination and to those who still have a little child hidden somewhere inside of them. And isn't that basically being everybody on this world? I absolutely still have some problems with this movie but I feel that none of this makes this movie any less of a great and fun experience. In essence it's being a very simple and straightforward movie, in which just a whole bunch of random insane and wonderful stuff happens, the moment they step into Willy Wonka's factory. This is a movie that doesn't need to explain anything. It can let things simply happen and it shows that fantasy has no limitations. You could wish whatever you want from and sometimes dreams come true, as happens to little Charlie in this movie.It's a wonderful, imaginative, fantasy movie, that besides is a great looking one. It has wonderful visuals and colors in it and most importantly, it doesn't look fake! It all looks as if it could be part of the real world and it looks as if every machine really works and all the candy is eatable and tastes wonderful as well.It really looks like Gene Wilder had a great time playing his role. He goes all out, without coming across as insane. It probably is a more subtle performance than most people give him credit for. He is a great comedy character, who besides is capable of placing himself in a kid's world and their fantasy. This doesn't feel like a movie written and made by adults for kids but more like one that in fact got made by kids.It's definitely thanks to Roald Dahl's writing, who of course also wrote the book this movie was based on, that this movie comes to life. He manages to put really a lot into the movie its characters and overall atmosphere. It besides provides the movie with some absolutely great dialog and at time it wants to make you rewind the movie, just to check if you really heard things right. But as I said before, it's being still far from a perfect movie, for me. I have always felt and thought that the beginning of the movie goes on for a bit too long and might be a bit too boring, for young kids especially. I also always thought it was strange that the movie never showed what happened to all of the other kids and what happened to Charlie and his family. The ending feels a bit too rushed and also comes far too sudden. There is no real good buildup to it and it might even be a bit confusing to those who aren't familiar with the book.But despite of all these minor issues, this movie remains a perfectly watchable and fun movie to watch for children and those who still are in touch with their inner child, or have a rich imagination.8/10 http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

A wonderful movie for the whole family to watch again and again

tt0067992

Mel Stuart's Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (in which the novel was really called Charlie and the chocolate factory) is arguably one of the greatest family movies ever made along with the Harry Potter franchise, Lord of the Rings trilogy, Bedtime Stories (2008),Home Alone, (1990), A Christmas Story, It's a Wonderful Life, and some of John Hughes' greatest films, as well as Matilda (which was based on a Roald Dahl novel). Some people who may have seen at least one of the film adaptations of Roald Dahl's novels do not get why he treasured children's stories very much, and I was very curious myself without even thinking about it until I saw the film adaptation of Matilda (1996) which was directed by Danny DeVito got my questions answered, and that answer was that not only children can be entertained by his work but teenagers and adults as well. But while I was watching this film which also happened to be based on a Roald Dahl novel made me love the magic of kids movies a lot more than I have before, the film tells the story of an poor boy named Charlie (played by Peter Ostrum) who after school works as a paperboy in order to support his family mortgage, and gets involved in a golden ticket contest for five people and each of the winners gets to bring one family member as well as Willy Wonka (played by Gene Wilder)himself. After everyone around the globe finds out about the contest it ends up to be a race against time to see who five people really are going to be and we find out about each one approximately a few minutes apart from one another (though I won't get too in depth with the film's story). the film is also an excellent way of getting to know Charlie who was the last of the 5 winners in the contest and after all of the five winners were confirmed Charlie brings his grandfather (played by Academy Award winner Jack Albertson), the film also has an excellent supporting cast which includes Julie Dawn Cole as the spoiled brat Veruca Salt, Roy Kinnear as Veruca's Alfred Pennyworth type father who follows every father's philosophy in order to make their own lives as well as their children's lives a whole lot easier is to be happier all the time and he does in the most feminine type of way, Denise Nickerson as Violet who is a huge gum chewer and ironically ends up being one of the contest winners even though she doesn't really eat chocolate, Leonard Stone in a great father like performance as Violet's father (and obviously he is much more manly than Veruca's father), Michael Ollner as the very disobedient and overweight Augustus Gloop, and Ursula Reit as Augustus's mother. Another thing that I noticed while watching this film was that it blends the two genres of both comedy and musical together of which that to me was really neat. This movie is a film that is committed to it's story, characters, and humor that Roald Dahl put into his 1964 novel, this is one of the best movies of 1971 as well as one of the best movies of the 1970s.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067992/reviews-389

ur33697153

title: A wonderful movie for the whole family to watch again and again review: Mel Stuart's Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (in which the novel was really called Charlie and the chocolate factory) is arguably one of the greatest family movies ever made along with the Harry Potter franchise, Lord of the Rings trilogy, Bedtime Stories (2008),Home Alone, (1990), A Christmas Story, It's a Wonderful Life, and some of John Hughes' greatest films, as well as Matilda (which was based on a Roald Dahl novel). Some people who may have seen at least one of the film adaptations of Roald Dahl's novels do not get why he treasured children's stories very much, and I was very curious myself without even thinking about it until I saw the film adaptation of Matilda (1996) which was directed by Danny DeVito got my questions answered, and that answer was that not only children can be entertained by his work but teenagers and adults as well. But while I was watching this film which also happened to be based on a Roald Dahl novel made me love the magic of kids movies a lot more than I have before, the film tells the story of an poor boy named Charlie (played by Peter Ostrum) who after school works as a paperboy in order to support his family mortgage, and gets involved in a golden ticket contest for five people and each of the winners gets to bring one family member as well as Willy Wonka (played by Gene Wilder)himself. After everyone around the globe finds out about the contest it ends up to be a race against time to see who five people really are going to be and we find out about each one approximately a few minutes apart from one another (though I won't get too in depth with the film's story). the film is also an excellent way of getting to know Charlie who was the last of the 5 winners in the contest and after all of the five winners were confirmed Charlie brings his grandfather (played by Academy Award winner Jack Albertson), the film also has an excellent supporting cast which includes Julie Dawn Cole as the spoiled brat Veruca Salt, Roy Kinnear as Veruca's Alfred Pennyworth type father who follows every father's philosophy in order to make their own lives as well as their children's lives a whole lot easier is to be happier all the time and he does in the most feminine type of way, Denise Nickerson as Violet who is a huge gum chewer and ironically ends up being one of the contest winners even though she doesn't really eat chocolate, Leonard Stone in a great father like performance as Violet's father (and obviously he is much more manly than Veruca's father), Michael Ollner as the very disobedient and overweight Augustus Gloop, and Ursula Reit as Augustus's mother. Another thing that I noticed while watching this film was that it blends the two genres of both comedy and musical together of which that to me was really neat. This movie is a film that is committed to it's story, characters, and humor that Roald Dahl put into his 1964 novel, this is one of the best movies of 1971 as well as one of the best movies of the 1970s.

A complete surprise

tt0067992

There have been many movie adaptations of the great Welsh children's author Roald Dahl, to various degrees of success. I used to love his books as a youth, relishing the dark twists and the playful, if somewhat dark, humour. Yet even the best adaptations didn't really capture the sinister themes behind the best of Dahl's works, but that was up until I saw this, Mel Stuart's adaptation of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, one of Dahl's most popular works. As well as being often psychedelic, it is Gene Wilder's wild yet subtle portrayal of the unpredictable and possibly quite evil Willy Wonka that truly captures Dahl's essence.Poverty-stricken Charlie Bucket (Peter Ostrum) lives in a cramped house with his mother and the bed-ridden Grandpa Joe (Jack Albertson). The news announces that the reclusive Willy Wonka of Wonka's chocolate company is offering a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for five lucky children to come and see his world-famous factory. Five golden tickets have been placed in Wonka Bars throughout the world, and Charlie, finding the fifth and final ticket, arrives with Grandpa Joe along with fellow winners Veruca Salt (Julie Dawn Cole), Violet Beauregarde (Denise Nickerson), Mike Teevee (Paris Themmen) and Augustus Gloop (Michael Bollner) to meet the eccentric inventor.This is one of those popular films that everyone had seemed to seen apart from me, so I was expecting a familiar family film full of catchy songs and annoying freckly kids. The songs, apart from the famous 'Pure Imagination', are somewhat forgettable, but I was surprised by the effective performance from the children, and the sheer darkness of the film. Apart from the various disappearances of the increasingly bratty, greedy and ungrateful children (who aren't actual seen again), the boat ride that Wonka takes his party on is particularly unnerving. There are bright, flashing lights, strange music, and various disturbing imagery (including a chicken being decapitated) that infest the screen, making me wonder if I was in fact watching a children's movie, or some f****d- up acid trip from the 70's.Gene Wilder has made many films that portray his energy and comedic ability that often borders on genius, but he blew me away as Wonka. From his entrance, shuffling along on his cane only to do a somersault in front of the awe-struck crowd, to his furious outburst at the climax, makes Wonka an almost threatening presence, never allowing us to feel completely comfortable when he's on screen. He's ultimately a misanthrope, with only a glimmer of hope that one of the children he's welcomed to his home is truly worthy of inheriting his life's work, using subtle glances or whispers of poetry to merely hint at his true personality. Along with the beautiful sets and solid supporting cast, Willy Wonka was a complete surprise, and surely the best Dahl adaptation that's yet to grace the screen.www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067992/reviews-375

ur3741220

title: A complete surprise review: There have been many movie adaptations of the great Welsh children's author Roald Dahl, to various degrees of success. I used to love his books as a youth, relishing the dark twists and the playful, if somewhat dark, humour. Yet even the best adaptations didn't really capture the sinister themes behind the best of Dahl's works, but that was up until I saw this, Mel Stuart's adaptation of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, one of Dahl's most popular works. As well as being often psychedelic, it is Gene Wilder's wild yet subtle portrayal of the unpredictable and possibly quite evil Willy Wonka that truly captures Dahl's essence.Poverty-stricken Charlie Bucket (Peter Ostrum) lives in a cramped house with his mother and the bed-ridden Grandpa Joe (Jack Albertson). The news announces that the reclusive Willy Wonka of Wonka's chocolate company is offering a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for five lucky children to come and see his world-famous factory. Five golden tickets have been placed in Wonka Bars throughout the world, and Charlie, finding the fifth and final ticket, arrives with Grandpa Joe along with fellow winners Veruca Salt (Julie Dawn Cole), Violet Beauregarde (Denise Nickerson), Mike Teevee (Paris Themmen) and Augustus Gloop (Michael Bollner) to meet the eccentric inventor.This is one of those popular films that everyone had seemed to seen apart from me, so I was expecting a familiar family film full of catchy songs and annoying freckly kids. The songs, apart from the famous 'Pure Imagination', are somewhat forgettable, but I was surprised by the effective performance from the children, and the sheer darkness of the film. Apart from the various disappearances of the increasingly bratty, greedy and ungrateful children (who aren't actual seen again), the boat ride that Wonka takes his party on is particularly unnerving. There are bright, flashing lights, strange music, and various disturbing imagery (including a chicken being decapitated) that infest the screen, making me wonder if I was in fact watching a children's movie, or some f****d- up acid trip from the 70's.Gene Wilder has made many films that portray his energy and comedic ability that often borders on genius, but he blew me away as Wonka. From his entrance, shuffling along on his cane only to do a somersault in front of the awe-struck crowd, to his furious outburst at the climax, makes Wonka an almost threatening presence, never allowing us to feel completely comfortable when he's on screen. He's ultimately a misanthrope, with only a glimmer of hope that one of the children he's welcomed to his home is truly worthy of inheriting his life's work, using subtle glances or whispers of poetry to merely hint at his true personality. Along with the beautiful sets and solid supporting cast, Willy Wonka was a complete surprise, and surely the best Dahl adaptation that's yet to grace the screen.www.the-wrath-of-blog.blogspot.com

Killing me softly.

tt0067992

I wasn't a fan of Willy Wonka and the chocolate factory. Don't ask me what problems i had with it. I just thought that the original film was terrible. I read the book Charlie and the chocolate factory because after seeing the good Tim Burton version I had to. I think Willy Wonka and the chocolate factory is really overrated. I preferred Gene Wilder's Willy Wonka because he didn't look like a drag queen. I think that the story for it is unique and interesting and fun. But the film version falls flat. I hated the Oompa loompas because they were disturbing. well, so were the new ones. The Roald Dahl book was great, but the film isn't Dahl, it's dull. I know most people will disagree with me, but it's a terrible film. Not the worst, but pretty bad.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067992/reviews-336

ur21821220

title: Killing me softly. review: I wasn't a fan of Willy Wonka and the chocolate factory. Don't ask me what problems i had with it. I just thought that the original film was terrible. I read the book Charlie and the chocolate factory because after seeing the good Tim Burton version I had to. I think Willy Wonka and the chocolate factory is really overrated. I preferred Gene Wilder's Willy Wonka because he didn't look like a drag queen. I think that the story for it is unique and interesting and fun. But the film version falls flat. I hated the Oompa loompas because they were disturbing. well, so were the new ones. The Roald Dahl book was great, but the film isn't Dahl, it's dull. I know most people will disagree with me, but it's a terrible film. Not the worst, but pretty bad.

An Indescribably Delicious Musical Comedy....

tt0067992

WILLIE WONKA AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY was the 1971 musical loosely based on Roald Dahl's book CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY that despite its enormous differences from the book, still makes an entertaining musical that continues to entertain new generations of young filmgoers. Gene Wilder turns in a delightful performance as Willie Wonka, a reclusive candy manufacturer who decides to send five golden tickets all over the globe, wrapped inside five of his candy bars, and offers the ticket finders a year's supply of chocolate, a tour of his factory, and a special "surprise" to one of the winners. Peter Ostrum is wonderful as Charlie, the young boy who got his ticket through a miraculous stroke of luck and is accompanied by his grandfather, energetically played by Jack Albertson. The other four ticket holders turn out to be insufferable brats who in varied ways, get what's coming to them. This colorful and imaginative musical is endlessly entertaining, especially for the pre-teen set. The musical score by Anthony Newley and Leslie Bricusse includes the classic "The Candy Man" and "Pure Imagination". In 2005, another adaptation of the story, starring Johnny Depp, materialized that was darker and closer in feeling to the book, but not nearly as entertaining as this film.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067992/reviews-306

ur8042382

title: An Indescribably Delicious Musical Comedy.... review: WILLIE WONKA AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY was the 1971 musical loosely based on Roald Dahl's book CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY that despite its enormous differences from the book, still makes an entertaining musical that continues to entertain new generations of young filmgoers. Gene Wilder turns in a delightful performance as Willie Wonka, a reclusive candy manufacturer who decides to send five golden tickets all over the globe, wrapped inside five of his candy bars, and offers the ticket finders a year's supply of chocolate, a tour of his factory, and a special "surprise" to one of the winners. Peter Ostrum is wonderful as Charlie, the young boy who got his ticket through a miraculous stroke of luck and is accompanied by his grandfather, energetically played by Jack Albertson. The other four ticket holders turn out to be insufferable brats who in varied ways, get what's coming to them. This colorful and imaginative musical is endlessly entertaining, especially for the pre-teen set. The musical score by Anthony Newley and Leslie Bricusse includes the classic "The Candy Man" and "Pure Imagination". In 2005, another adaptation of the story, starring Johnny Depp, materialized that was darker and closer in feeling to the book, but not nearly as entertaining as this film.

After all these years, still a personal favorite

tt0067992

This used to be my favorite film when I was in about fourth grade. I loved the book as well, but I enjoyed this film even more. No one element of this film makes it great; it is everything about the movie that makes it so lovable. Gene Wilder is perfectly cast as Willy Wonka, going from calm to outraged as well as he later did in "Young Frankenstein." Most of the kids manage to fit their roles well, though some come off as a bit too put on, but that doesn't bother me much here. The original songs are a great idea, especially "Pure Imagination," "The Candy Man," and "Golden Ticket." It was an ingenious idea to turn this great story into a musical. The chocolate room is still an enchanting scene, even though I am grown up now. The scene still makes me want to try all the kinds of candy in the room. Above all, I think it is the lovable, moral story that makes this film so great. This film can teach kids good lessons about selflessness and thinking of others. The ending is perfect and touching. The film remains a real treat for young and old alike. I can't deny it. Absolutely perfect.**** out of ****

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067992/reviews-325

ur19720242

title: After all these years, still a personal favorite review: This used to be my favorite film when I was in about fourth grade. I loved the book as well, but I enjoyed this film even more. No one element of this film makes it great; it is everything about the movie that makes it so lovable. Gene Wilder is perfectly cast as Willy Wonka, going from calm to outraged as well as he later did in "Young Frankenstein." Most of the kids manage to fit their roles well, though some come off as a bit too put on, but that doesn't bother me much here. The original songs are a great idea, especially "Pure Imagination," "The Candy Man," and "Golden Ticket." It was an ingenious idea to turn this great story into a musical. The chocolate room is still an enchanting scene, even though I am grown up now. The scene still makes me want to try all the kinds of candy in the room. Above all, I think it is the lovable, moral story that makes this film so great. This film can teach kids good lessons about selflessness and thinking of others. The ending is perfect and touching. The film remains a real treat for young and old alike. I can't deny it. Absolutely perfect.**** out of ****

Classic From My Childhood,

tt0067992

Willy Wonka And The Chocolate Factory is a brilliant movie with a lovely storyline,a good cast and fantastic characters.This movie is one of my favourite movies from my childhood,I was looking through some of my old DVD's and when I saw this,I just had to watch it,and it still holds up really well today.I remember when my mom took me to see the Tim Burton remake,it was terrible,it loses all the heart we get in this movie.Gene Wilder's performance as Willy Wonka is one of the greatest performances in any family movie ever.Fans of the beloved Roald Dahl children's book and people who enjoy feel good family movies will definitely enjoy this movie very much.When a competition occurs where only five people can win a chance to visit a famous chocolate factory,huge competition begins to win one of the five golden tickets in the chocolate bar.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067992/reviews-371

ur23055365

title: Classic From My Childhood, review: Willy Wonka And The Chocolate Factory is a brilliant movie with a lovely storyline,a good cast and fantastic characters.This movie is one of my favourite movies from my childhood,I was looking through some of my old DVD's and when I saw this,I just had to watch it,and it still holds up really well today.I remember when my mom took me to see the Tim Burton remake,it was terrible,it loses all the heart we get in this movie.Gene Wilder's performance as Willy Wonka is one of the greatest performances in any family movie ever.Fans of the beloved Roald Dahl children's book and people who enjoy feel good family movies will definitely enjoy this movie very much.When a competition occurs where only five people can win a chance to visit a famous chocolate factory,huge competition begins to win one of the five golden tickets in the chocolate bar.

Sweetly Endearing

tt0067992

Gene Wilder is the epitome of perfect casting in his role as Willy Wonka. His sincerity, coupled with the character's profound sadness, and Wilder's innate quirkiness mark this as an all time classic children's movie.Chocked full of zany goodness, sprinkled with intricate quirkiness, endearingly odd characters, and some great stories carefully woven together to craft a lasting memory, what is now known as "Wilder's Wonka" is among the most beautiful of all children's tales.This is a timeless classic, which still holds up to today's scrutiny.This is among my all time favorites, and rates an 8.9/10 from...the Fiend :.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067992/reviews-303

ur2626332

title: Sweetly Endearing review: Gene Wilder is the epitome of perfect casting in his role as Willy Wonka. His sincerity, coupled with the character's profound sadness, and Wilder's innate quirkiness mark this as an all time classic children's movie.Chocked full of zany goodness, sprinkled with intricate quirkiness, endearingly odd characters, and some great stories carefully woven together to craft a lasting memory, what is now known as "Wilder's Wonka" is among the most beautiful of all children's tales.This is a timeless classic, which still holds up to today's scrutiny.This is among my all time favorites, and rates an 8.9/10 from...the Fiend :.

A film that has remained the best of its kind; despite the imitators.

tt0061418

It's astonishing to think this film was made in the 1960s. Such raw realism and attention to detail and subject matter is what makes Bonnie and Clyde the film it is and is the reason it has aged so well after all this time. Here is a film that has spawned many-a copy in the form of Natural Born Killers but do not get onto Tarantino's back as I'm sure a few other films have been influenced by this piece of film-making down the years; a elder, less contemporary example would be Terrance Malik's 1979 effort 'Badlands'.But this is better than Badlands; it's better than Natural Born Killers and it's better than most other films I've ever seen. Although when a film is the first of its kind, that doesn't mean it's the best of its kind although the statement is true here. Certainly on the scale of first films of a certain type, Bonnie and Clyde holds up against a lot of other films tackling the subject matter now but although films like Jaws and Star Wars were the first blockbusters; I happen to prefer the Indiana Jones films as a whole; likewise there are probably people who love Tarantino without knowing much about the French New Wave of the 1960s so such a statement to say Bonnie and Clyde is better than its imitators is a very recognisable compliment. I feel that Bonnie and Clyde goes against the grain not so much in the way of censorship (even if it to a degree) but to glorification of certain things. There is a scene in the film that does nothing to further the narrative or much else involving various characters Bonnie (Dunaway); Clyde (Beatty); Buck (Hackman) and local gas attendant turned rebel C.W. Moss (Pollard) posing with guns in front of a stolen car. They are having their photo taken individually. Such a scene could be seen as glorification towards guns: guns are 'cool; look what you can do with them and look at how much fun you can have – a topic I'm sure the censors were pulling their hair out over.Michael Moore's 2002 documentary Bowling for Columbine investigated the obsession America has with guns and made a comparison to a load of other countries in terms of gun crime. I don't want to point fingers at films like Bonnie and Clyde for promoting such firearm interest but I feel scenes like this go a long way in setting up fixations. It's worth noting that comeuppance will always come to those in films that deserve it and despite the Hayes code being outdated by a few years when Bonnie and Clyde was made, it would seem that even the filmmakers themselves couldn't bring themselves to create a sort of justified end to the 'villains' of this film. But then again; similarly to most high school shooters, they don't expect to get away and more often than not – kill themselves after their bloody run of violence. Columbine 2002 and Virginia Tech 2007 are good examples.But where Bonnie and Clyde contains politics, it doubly contains narrative, script, characterisation and action. It's worth noting that the film resists having its two leads have sex as well as showing any great deal of violence until its final twenty minutes. Bonnie and Clyde is not a gory film and likewise isn't full of sex yet it was given the 'X' rating here in the UK; probably due to the way it glorified firearms. Early on, Clyde openly tells people he robs cars and banks thus setting up a loose persona about him; Bonnie joins in when she says the same thing. Clyde shoots cans off a wall for fun before teaching Bonnie to shoot a tyre: the interesting thing here is that he's teaching her by telling her to aim at the camera because the tyre is situated a mere few feet in front of us and slightly askew to the left; which creates the illusion she's shooting at us.In terms of narrative, Bonnie and Clyde uses a single line story that takes place in a car, on a road. This is used in a fascinating way as they have to stop off for food a various points; rob banks to keep the cash flow going; steal another car when they need to; Bonnie has time for a revelation with her mother; they bump into a sheriff in an extremely memorable scene and of course, they go through a recruitment process which includes Buck, his wife Blanche and C.W. Moss. Bonnie and Clyde also utilises something else that was very advanced for its time: image. Bonnie and Clyde become celebrities somewhat during the course of the film and this is shown through the newspapers; their names and images even reach as far as obscure backwater camp sites towards the end when, bloody and injured; they meet salvation in the form of gypsies.I feel Bonnie and Clyde deserves all the praise it receives. The film broke away from the field at its time; taking advantage of the mess the censorship rules were in whilst delivering a punch of a film that is fun and entertaining but had brains. The exchanges and emphasis on the 'real' the film has throughout is engaging and interesting and despite any imitators that have been made, this one remains the best.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061418/reviews-181

ur0855231

title: A film that has remained the best of its kind; despite the imitators. review: It's astonishing to think this film was made in the 1960s. Such raw realism and attention to detail and subject matter is what makes Bonnie and Clyde the film it is and is the reason it has aged so well after all this time. Here is a film that has spawned many-a copy in the form of Natural Born Killers but do not get onto Tarantino's back as I'm sure a few other films have been influenced by this piece of film-making down the years; a elder, less contemporary example would be Terrance Malik's 1979 effort 'Badlands'.But this is better than Badlands; it's better than Natural Born Killers and it's better than most other films I've ever seen. Although when a film is the first of its kind, that doesn't mean it's the best of its kind although the statement is true here. Certainly on the scale of first films of a certain type, Bonnie and Clyde holds up against a lot of other films tackling the subject matter now but although films like Jaws and Star Wars were the first blockbusters; I happen to prefer the Indiana Jones films as a whole; likewise there are probably people who love Tarantino without knowing much about the French New Wave of the 1960s so such a statement to say Bonnie and Clyde is better than its imitators is a very recognisable compliment. I feel that Bonnie and Clyde goes against the grain not so much in the way of censorship (even if it to a degree) but to glorification of certain things. There is a scene in the film that does nothing to further the narrative or much else involving various characters Bonnie (Dunaway); Clyde (Beatty); Buck (Hackman) and local gas attendant turned rebel C.W. Moss (Pollard) posing with guns in front of a stolen car. They are having their photo taken individually. Such a scene could be seen as glorification towards guns: guns are 'cool; look what you can do with them and look at how much fun you can have – a topic I'm sure the censors were pulling their hair out over.Michael Moore's 2002 documentary Bowling for Columbine investigated the obsession America has with guns and made a comparison to a load of other countries in terms of gun crime. I don't want to point fingers at films like Bonnie and Clyde for promoting such firearm interest but I feel scenes like this go a long way in setting up fixations. It's worth noting that comeuppance will always come to those in films that deserve it and despite the Hayes code being outdated by a few years when Bonnie and Clyde was made, it would seem that even the filmmakers themselves couldn't bring themselves to create a sort of justified end to the 'villains' of this film. But then again; similarly to most high school shooters, they don't expect to get away and more often than not – kill themselves after their bloody run of violence. Columbine 2002 and Virginia Tech 2007 are good examples.But where Bonnie and Clyde contains politics, it doubly contains narrative, script, characterisation and action. It's worth noting that the film resists having its two leads have sex as well as showing any great deal of violence until its final twenty minutes. Bonnie and Clyde is not a gory film and likewise isn't full of sex yet it was given the 'X' rating here in the UK; probably due to the way it glorified firearms. Early on, Clyde openly tells people he robs cars and banks thus setting up a loose persona about him; Bonnie joins in when she says the same thing. Clyde shoots cans off a wall for fun before teaching Bonnie to shoot a tyre: the interesting thing here is that he's teaching her by telling her to aim at the camera because the tyre is situated a mere few feet in front of us and slightly askew to the left; which creates the illusion she's shooting at us.In terms of narrative, Bonnie and Clyde uses a single line story that takes place in a car, on a road. This is used in a fascinating way as they have to stop off for food a various points; rob banks to keep the cash flow going; steal another car when they need to; Bonnie has time for a revelation with her mother; they bump into a sheriff in an extremely memorable scene and of course, they go through a recruitment process which includes Buck, his wife Blanche and C.W. Moss. Bonnie and Clyde also utilises something else that was very advanced for its time: image. Bonnie and Clyde become celebrities somewhat during the course of the film and this is shown through the newspapers; their names and images even reach as far as obscure backwater camp sites towards the end when, bloody and injured; they meet salvation in the form of gypsies.I feel Bonnie and Clyde deserves all the praise it receives. The film broke away from the field at its time; taking advantage of the mess the censorship rules were in whilst delivering a punch of a film that is fun and entertaining but had brains. The exchanges and emphasis on the 'real' the film has throughout is engaging and interesting and despite any imitators that have been made, this one remains the best.

Dunaway Shines

tt0061418

The story of the titular 1930s bank robbers is romanticized, making them out to be basically good kids. Beatty is OK but somewhat bland as Clyde. Dunaway, on the other hand, is fabulous, really sinking her teeth into the role of a bored young woman looking for some excitement. Parsons won an Oscar, but it was undeserved as she is quite annoying as Hackman's screeching wife. The sets look authentic. Penn goes a bit overboard with his artistic direction, including a pretentious dream-like sequence where Bonnie visits her mother. This was an influential American film for its landmark violence, but it's hardly the great classic many make it out to be.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061418/reviews-252

ur2590596

title: Dunaway Shines review: The story of the titular 1930s bank robbers is romanticized, making them out to be basically good kids. Beatty is OK but somewhat bland as Clyde. Dunaway, on the other hand, is fabulous, really sinking her teeth into the role of a bored young woman looking for some excitement. Parsons won an Oscar, but it was undeserved as she is quite annoying as Hackman's screeching wife. The sets look authentic. Penn goes a bit overboard with his artistic direction, including a pretentious dream-like sequence where Bonnie visits her mother. This was an influential American film for its landmark violence, but it's hardly the great classic many make it out to be.

A mild and rather romantic adventure than a stunning and impressive crime story about the famous couple

tt0061418

Generally, ''lovers on the run movies'' are also road movies and Bonnie and Clyde is one of them too. I love road movies and find ''lovers on the run'' movies interesting personally, but unfortunately there are not a lot of real good examples that I would highly recommend to you. As for Bonnie and Clyde, it is a mild and rather romantic adventure of the famous couple or let's say killer lovers. The problem of Bonnie and Clyde like Terence Malick's Badlands is that there is nothing impressive or stunning throughout, but both movies are seen as masterpiece by many audiences and also critics and I have never known why? There are great actors, Warren Betty, Gene Hackman and Faye Dunaway (despite personally I find her a bit dull) The cinematography is OK, but the movie is not well executed or has something impressive, the script has some problems, not a great look into their life and the movie is pretty uninteresting at times. Bonnie and Clyde makes me remember also Natural Born Killers which was very, very intense, but almost awful, because it has another kind of problem, it supposes itself as a criticism of some values, but it tends to be at the side of the killers, it shows the killers as a sort of anti hero which is wrong. In other words, may be it does not glorify the killers exactly, but Stone does not approach the story like an (objective) observer. Additionally, Bonnie and Clyde does not focus on the robberies that the couple did. Thus, what we encounter is not an exciting, thrilling and stunning crime movie. The gunfight part was memorable and only the final was effective, the concept has been imitated by other movies based on such a concept several times.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061418/reviews-244

ur22423593

title: A mild and rather romantic adventure than a stunning and impressive crime story about the famous couple review: Generally, ''lovers on the run movies'' are also road movies and Bonnie and Clyde is one of them too. I love road movies and find ''lovers on the run'' movies interesting personally, but unfortunately there are not a lot of real good examples that I would highly recommend to you. As for Bonnie and Clyde, it is a mild and rather romantic adventure of the famous couple or let's say killer lovers. The problem of Bonnie and Clyde like Terence Malick's Badlands is that there is nothing impressive or stunning throughout, but both movies are seen as masterpiece by many audiences and also critics and I have never known why? There are great actors, Warren Betty, Gene Hackman and Faye Dunaway (despite personally I find her a bit dull) The cinematography is OK, but the movie is not well executed or has something impressive, the script has some problems, not a great look into their life and the movie is pretty uninteresting at times. Bonnie and Clyde makes me remember also Natural Born Killers which was very, very intense, but almost awful, because it has another kind of problem, it supposes itself as a criticism of some values, but it tends to be at the side of the killers, it shows the killers as a sort of anti hero which is wrong. In other words, may be it does not glorify the killers exactly, but Stone does not approach the story like an (objective) observer. Additionally, Bonnie and Clyde does not focus on the robberies that the couple did. Thus, what we encounter is not an exciting, thrilling and stunning crime movie. The gunfight part was memorable and only the final was effective, the concept has been imitated by other movies based on such a concept several times.

Semi-Classic crime story.

tt0061418

This is a crime story about the notorious and violent, yet romantically involved small-town girl (Fay Dunaway) and a small-time bank robber (Warren Beatty). Their string of violent robberies gripped the Mid-West in the Depression era.I remembered watching this movie on TV when I was a teenager and, from what I recall, it has some intense old gangster violence and action. However, we are asked to sympathize with the movie's two character leads and antagonists, as it concentrated on their lives on the run and their romantic involvement, which I thought didn't ultimately make the film exciting. The acting was OK for the most part and the Depression era visual effects were nicely done. But overall, what I got out of the movie was a slow, dragged out story of two fugitives with over the top drama and lesser action.Grade C

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061418/reviews-360

ur0437174

title: Semi-Classic crime story. review: This is a crime story about the notorious and violent, yet romantically involved small-town girl (Fay Dunaway) and a small-time bank robber (Warren Beatty). Their string of violent robberies gripped the Mid-West in the Depression era.I remembered watching this movie on TV when I was a teenager and, from what I recall, it has some intense old gangster violence and action. However, we are asked to sympathize with the movie's two character leads and antagonists, as it concentrated on their lives on the run and their romantic involvement, which I thought didn't ultimately make the film exciting. The acting was OK for the most part and the Depression era visual effects were nicely done. But overall, what I got out of the movie was a slow, dragged out story of two fugitives with over the top drama and lesser action.Grade C

Bonnie & Clyde: They're young, they're in love, they rob banks

tt0061418

"Bonnie and Clyde" is a romanticized account of the short and bloody career of Depression-era bank-robbers Bonnie Parker (Faye Dunaway) and Clyde Barrow (Warren Beatty). Along with their gang, Buck Barrow (Gene Hackman), Blanche Barrow (Estelle Parsons) & C.W. Moss (Michael J. Pollard), they engage in an extended crime spree while desperately trying to stay one step ahead of the law.The acting is well-handled with all of the above-mentioned individuals garnering Oscar nominations (Parsons actually ended up winning). Personally, I think that Dunaway gave the best performance but I don't think that any of the actors were singled out undeservedly.Arthur Penn's direction is well-executed and the film managed to win an Oscar for its cinematography (probably due to the dream-like photography of the reunion with Bonnie's family). Also worth noting is the film's soundtrack, which makes memorable use of the bluegrass stylings of Flatt and Scruggs.My initial opinion of the film was that its reputation must be built upon influence rather than technical merit or entertainment value. Actually, I still think that that may be true to certain degree, but now I feel that the film is a commendable one even when taken out of historical context. Therefore, I wholeheartedly recommend it (assuming that you don't mind liberal deviation from the facts surrounding the real Bonnie & Clyde).

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061418/reviews-200

ur17822437

title: Bonnie & Clyde: They're young, they're in love, they rob banks review: "Bonnie and Clyde" is a romanticized account of the short and bloody career of Depression-era bank-robbers Bonnie Parker (Faye Dunaway) and Clyde Barrow (Warren Beatty). Along with their gang, Buck Barrow (Gene Hackman), Blanche Barrow (Estelle Parsons) & C.W. Moss (Michael J. Pollard), they engage in an extended crime spree while desperately trying to stay one step ahead of the law.The acting is well-handled with all of the above-mentioned individuals garnering Oscar nominations (Parsons actually ended up winning). Personally, I think that Dunaway gave the best performance but I don't think that any of the actors were singled out undeservedly.Arthur Penn's direction is well-executed and the film managed to win an Oscar for its cinematography (probably due to the dream-like photography of the reunion with Bonnie's family). Also worth noting is the film's soundtrack, which makes memorable use of the bluegrass stylings of Flatt and Scruggs.My initial opinion of the film was that its reputation must be built upon influence rather than technical merit or entertainment value. Actually, I still think that that may be true to certain degree, but now I feel that the film is a commendable one even when taken out of historical context. Therefore, I wholeheartedly recommend it (assuming that you don't mind liberal deviation from the facts surrounding the real Bonnie & Clyde).

An American Classic

tt0061418

Bonnie and Clyde is one of the most important films in the history of American film. It ushered in Hollywood's last golden age with it's audacious style and storyline and re-energized an industry that was content to play it safe with non-offensive Rock Hudson, Doris Day romantic comedies and Elvis vehicles. The timing could not have been better. It was the era of dissent and upheaval in this country and Bonnie and Clyde were ideal anti-establishment romantic symbols for the times as well as fashion trend setters.Set in Depression era Texas and Oklahoma the film follows the bloody career of the Barrow gang from its first grocery store heist to their spectacularly violent end. Newly released inmate Clyde Barrow (Warren Beatty) crosses paths with the sexually frustrated Bonnie Parker (Faye Dunaway) when she catches him trying to steal her mother's car. Bored with her small town existence she runs off with Clyde who offers her a world of excitement except between the sheets. CW Moss (Michael J Pollard) his brother Buck (Gene Hackman) and Buck's reluctant wife (Estelle Parsons) round out the gang as they blaze a path across the territory. In the early stages there's a comic, slapstick humor to their escapades but things turn ugly quickly with the murder of a bank employee.Bonnie and Clyde succeeds on nearly every level. Director Arthur Penn mixes humor and violence in a disturbing fashion that keeps the viewer off balance and engrossed. The entire gang gives Oscar nominated performances, each one clearly defining their characters, holding their own in every scene. Additionally Denver Pyle, Dub Taylor and Gene Wilder all chip in solid support to round out what amounts to perfect casting.Master B&W cinematographer Burnett Guffey visuals capture the bleak 30's setting in a painterly fashion with muted tonal landscapes of country roads, corn fields and small southwestern towns. Beautifully partnering with these visuals is the bluegrass music score provided by Lester Flatt and Earl Scruggs.The editing's nouvelle vague application has a jolting vitality that heightens suspense and conveys the mass chaos of shoot outs and escapes in a style that puts you in the getaway car. It's bloody, it's violent, it's exciting and therein lies the film's only drawback. Penn goes to great lengths to romanticize the murderous exploits of this real life duo, portraying them as modern day Robin Hoods pitted against the mean spirited banks that foreclose farms. The film's only villainous character is Sheriff Frank Hammer replete with Simon Legree mustache who brings the pair to justice. The violence is graphic and it's balance with the film's humor can be disconcerting but it is part of the daring that Penn and crew injects into a film that dares to be different and ends up daring to be great.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061418/reviews-184

ur13178622

title: An American Classic review: Bonnie and Clyde is one of the most important films in the history of American film. It ushered in Hollywood's last golden age with it's audacious style and storyline and re-energized an industry that was content to play it safe with non-offensive Rock Hudson, Doris Day romantic comedies and Elvis vehicles. The timing could not have been better. It was the era of dissent and upheaval in this country and Bonnie and Clyde were ideal anti-establishment romantic symbols for the times as well as fashion trend setters.Set in Depression era Texas and Oklahoma the film follows the bloody career of the Barrow gang from its first grocery store heist to their spectacularly violent end. Newly released inmate Clyde Barrow (Warren Beatty) crosses paths with the sexually frustrated Bonnie Parker (Faye Dunaway) when she catches him trying to steal her mother's car. Bored with her small town existence she runs off with Clyde who offers her a world of excitement except between the sheets. CW Moss (Michael J Pollard) his brother Buck (Gene Hackman) and Buck's reluctant wife (Estelle Parsons) round out the gang as they blaze a path across the territory. In the early stages there's a comic, slapstick humor to their escapades but things turn ugly quickly with the murder of a bank employee.Bonnie and Clyde succeeds on nearly every level. Director Arthur Penn mixes humor and violence in a disturbing fashion that keeps the viewer off balance and engrossed. The entire gang gives Oscar nominated performances, each one clearly defining their characters, holding their own in every scene. Additionally Denver Pyle, Dub Taylor and Gene Wilder all chip in solid support to round out what amounts to perfect casting.Master B&W cinematographer Burnett Guffey visuals capture the bleak 30's setting in a painterly fashion with muted tonal landscapes of country roads, corn fields and small southwestern towns. Beautifully partnering with these visuals is the bluegrass music score provided by Lester Flatt and Earl Scruggs.The editing's nouvelle vague application has a jolting vitality that heightens suspense and conveys the mass chaos of shoot outs and escapes in a style that puts you in the getaway car. It's bloody, it's violent, it's exciting and therein lies the film's only drawback. Penn goes to great lengths to romanticize the murderous exploits of this real life duo, portraying them as modern day Robin Hoods pitted against the mean spirited banks that foreclose farms. The film's only villainous character is Sheriff Frank Hammer replete with Simon Legree mustache who brings the pair to justice. The violence is graphic and it's balance with the film's humor can be disconcerting but it is part of the daring that Penn and crew injects into a film that dares to be different and ends up daring to be great.

Gangster western

tt0061418

'Bonnie and Clyde', the true story of two murdering robbers in 1930s America, bears similarities to 'Badlands', Terrence Mallick's tale of a not dissimilar pair in 1970s America. But it's a less strong movie. Whereas 'Badlands' probed into the psychology of alienation, 'Bonnie and Clyde' is a more straightforward piece of storytelling, the relatively simple tale of a young couple who head out into the west to have some fun, fun which takes them on a murderous and ultimately fatal trip. There's nothing particularly wrong with the film, but it lacks the sense of depth that might have given it a real edge. In the final analysis, its protagonists just aren't that interesting. Best considered as a time-shifted western, it doesn't really live up to its classic status.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061418/reviews-151

ur2082018

title: Gangster western review: 'Bonnie and Clyde', the true story of two murdering robbers in 1930s America, bears similarities to 'Badlands', Terrence Mallick's tale of a not dissimilar pair in 1970s America. But it's a less strong movie. Whereas 'Badlands' probed into the psychology of alienation, 'Bonnie and Clyde' is a more straightforward piece of storytelling, the relatively simple tale of a young couple who head out into the west to have some fun, fun which takes them on a murderous and ultimately fatal trip. There's nothing particularly wrong with the film, but it lacks the sense of depth that might have given it a real edge. In the final analysis, its protagonists just aren't that interesting. Best considered as a time-shifted western, it doesn't really live up to its classic status.

"You told my whole story right there, right there."

tt0061418

"Bonnie and Clyde" is a film that stays brilliant in telling the so called truth of what happened to Bonnie and Clyde. It's a movie full of twisting emotions: it can be cruel and nauseating, but it also has scenes that offer sympathy, and heartbreak. It can also be very funny between character interactions."Good afternoon," Clyde would say when they walked into a bank. "This is the Barrow Gang." In a way Bonnie and Clyde were pioneers, consolidating the vein of violence in American history and exploiting it, for the first time in the mass media. This is one of the few films I've watched that I was convinced of when someone died, they actually died. When people are shot in "Bonnie and Clyde." they are literally blown to bits. Perhaps that seems shocking. But perhaps at this time, it is useful to be reminded that bullets really do tear skin and bone. The performances throughout the film are flawless. Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway as Bonnie and Clyde in the title roles, are brilliant. Bonnie is the kind of character that is intrigued by Clyde, while Clyde is a boastful and proud naive man who's happy doing his own thing.Michael J. Pollard, as C.W. Moss, the driver and mechanic for the gang, is seen as the comic relief of the gang. When Bonnie tells him, "We rob banks,'' and asks him to come along, he says nothing. But the expression on his face and the movements of his body create a perfect, delightful moment, not just in him but in the audience as well. Gene Hackman and Estelle Parsons play Buck and Blanche Barrow, the other members of the gang. When Buck is reunited with his kid brother, they howl with glee and punch each other to disguise the truth that they have nothing to say. He makes a very good convincing brother to Clyde. Blanche, at first, bothered me, as she was only good at screaming and being annoying whenever she was on screen. However, there is character to her and she is convincing as the group member who's happy to go for the ride.It's clearly one of the best movies I've seen in a long while. It's also considered a landmark, and I can see why. It's clear that "Bonnie and Clyde" is not only seen as one of the best biographical films and gangster films, but also one of the best films of the 1960s, showing with sadness, humor and unforgiving detail what one society had come to. They were two nobodies who got their pictures in the paper by robbing banks and killing people. They weren't very good at the bank robbery part of it, but they were fairly good at killing people and absolutely first-class at getting their pictures in the paper.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061418/reviews-347

ur38462067

title: "You told my whole story right there, right there." review: "Bonnie and Clyde" is a film that stays brilliant in telling the so called truth of what happened to Bonnie and Clyde. It's a movie full of twisting emotions: it can be cruel and nauseating, but it also has scenes that offer sympathy, and heartbreak. It can also be very funny between character interactions."Good afternoon," Clyde would say when they walked into a bank. "This is the Barrow Gang." In a way Bonnie and Clyde were pioneers, consolidating the vein of violence in American history and exploiting it, for the first time in the mass media. This is one of the few films I've watched that I was convinced of when someone died, they actually died. When people are shot in "Bonnie and Clyde." they are literally blown to bits. Perhaps that seems shocking. But perhaps at this time, it is useful to be reminded that bullets really do tear skin and bone. The performances throughout the film are flawless. Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway as Bonnie and Clyde in the title roles, are brilliant. Bonnie is the kind of character that is intrigued by Clyde, while Clyde is a boastful and proud naive man who's happy doing his own thing.Michael J. Pollard, as C.W. Moss, the driver and mechanic for the gang, is seen as the comic relief of the gang. When Bonnie tells him, "We rob banks,'' and asks him to come along, he says nothing. But the expression on his face and the movements of his body create a perfect, delightful moment, not just in him but in the audience as well. Gene Hackman and Estelle Parsons play Buck and Blanche Barrow, the other members of the gang. When Buck is reunited with his kid brother, they howl with glee and punch each other to disguise the truth that they have nothing to say. He makes a very good convincing brother to Clyde. Blanche, at first, bothered me, as she was only good at screaming and being annoying whenever she was on screen. However, there is character to her and she is convincing as the group member who's happy to go for the ride.It's clearly one of the best movies I've seen in a long while. It's also considered a landmark, and I can see why. It's clear that "Bonnie and Clyde" is not only seen as one of the best biographical films and gangster films, but also one of the best films of the 1960s, showing with sadness, humor and unforgiving detail what one society had come to. They were two nobodies who got their pictures in the paper by robbing banks and killing people. They weren't very good at the bank robbery part of it, but they were fairly good at killing people and absolutely first-class at getting their pictures in the paper.

"We rob banks"

tt0061418

In 1967, two films ushered in a new wave of Hollywood film. Mike Nichol's 'The Graduate (1967)' introduced casual sexuality into the mix, with young graduate Dustin Hoffman enjoying a tryst with Anne Bancroft's Mrs. Robinson, highlighting the vast generation gap between the Baby Boomers and their parents. Arthur Penn's 'Bonnie and Clyde (1967),' likewise, pushed the boundaries of what was acceptable to show in film, featuring glorious set-pieces of violence that would influence the later work of Sam Peckinpah and Martin Scorsese. This new brand of authentic yet stylised brutality may have been borrowed from Spaghetti Western director Sergio Leone, whose own "Dollars" trilogy had proved successful with American audiences {his Hollywood-funded follow-up, 'Once Upon a Time in the West (1968),' was a magnificent film, but noticeably toned down the violence}. Many reviewers were initially indifferent to Penn's picture, and Warner Brothers had little faith in its financial prospects, but the support of critics like Pauline Kael prompted a swift reevaluation, and 'Bonnie and Clyde' was soon a box-office hit.Despite being set in the 1930s, and, of course, based on true events, Penn's retelling of the Bonnie and Clyde story overtly reflected the revolutionary cultural times in which the film was made. The two titular fugitives symbolised the attitudes of the young people of the day – brash, impudent, dismissive of authority, and indifferent as to the consequences of their actions. Intriguingly, 'Bonnie and Clyde' appears to suggest that something more than mere anarchistic tendencies fuelled the pair's violent escapades. Clyde Barrow (Warren Beatty) is portrayed as sexually impotent, and a lengthy, uncomfortable would-be sex scene emphasises the self-loathing frustration that, perhaps, fuelled his personal inadequacy and prompted him to seek other, more destructive means of alleviating his stress and exhibiting his masculinity. Bonnie Parker (Faye Dunaway) is depicted as a young woman whose sexual repression at the hands of a well-meaning but morally-uptight mother has stifled her femininity, and only through societal rebellion does she appear to regain her sense of identity. This theme ties in nicely with the Women's Liberation of the 1960s.Beatty and Dunaway are perfect in the two leading roles, displaying enough charisma and sex appeal to come across as likable, but also inspiring sympathy and disapproval for their clearly irresponsible and reprehensible behaviour (the film initially provoked controversy for its perceived "glorification" of criminals, but, though the audience's empathy is recruited to some extent, the destructive and inevitable consequences of the gang's actions are hardly glossed over). The famous, gruesome climax – in which Bonnie and Clyde are apathetically gunned down in a bloody police ambush – was perhaps the most intense minute of cinema American audiences had ever experienced. Of course, once the floodgates were opened, New Hollywood began to adopt his fresh, powerful frankness in its storytelling. Sam Peckinpah, no doubt inspired by Penn's efforts, decisively raised the bar with his Revisionist Western 'The Wild Bunch (1969).' A landmark American film, 'Bonnie and Clyde' furthered the reputations of both its director and star Warren Beatty, and successfully launched the acting careers of Faye Dunaway, Gene Hackman and Gene Wilder.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061418/reviews-213

ur10334028

title: "We rob banks" review: In 1967, two films ushered in a new wave of Hollywood film. Mike Nichol's 'The Graduate (1967)' introduced casual sexuality into the mix, with young graduate Dustin Hoffman enjoying a tryst with Anne Bancroft's Mrs. Robinson, highlighting the vast generation gap between the Baby Boomers and their parents. Arthur Penn's 'Bonnie and Clyde (1967),' likewise, pushed the boundaries of what was acceptable to show in film, featuring glorious set-pieces of violence that would influence the later work of Sam Peckinpah and Martin Scorsese. This new brand of authentic yet stylised brutality may have been borrowed from Spaghetti Western director Sergio Leone, whose own "Dollars" trilogy had proved successful with American audiences {his Hollywood-funded follow-up, 'Once Upon a Time in the West (1968),' was a magnificent film, but noticeably toned down the violence}. Many reviewers were initially indifferent to Penn's picture, and Warner Brothers had little faith in its financial prospects, but the support of critics like Pauline Kael prompted a swift reevaluation, and 'Bonnie and Clyde' was soon a box-office hit.Despite being set in the 1930s, and, of course, based on true events, Penn's retelling of the Bonnie and Clyde story overtly reflected the revolutionary cultural times in which the film was made. The two titular fugitives symbolised the attitudes of the young people of the day – brash, impudent, dismissive of authority, and indifferent as to the consequences of their actions. Intriguingly, 'Bonnie and Clyde' appears to suggest that something more than mere anarchistic tendencies fuelled the pair's violent escapades. Clyde Barrow (Warren Beatty) is portrayed as sexually impotent, and a lengthy, uncomfortable would-be sex scene emphasises the self-loathing frustration that, perhaps, fuelled his personal inadequacy and prompted him to seek other, more destructive means of alleviating his stress and exhibiting his masculinity. Bonnie Parker (Faye Dunaway) is depicted as a young woman whose sexual repression at the hands of a well-meaning but morally-uptight mother has stifled her femininity, and only through societal rebellion does she appear to regain her sense of identity. This theme ties in nicely with the Women's Liberation of the 1960s.Beatty and Dunaway are perfect in the two leading roles, displaying enough charisma and sex appeal to come across as likable, but also inspiring sympathy and disapproval for their clearly irresponsible and reprehensible behaviour (the film initially provoked controversy for its perceived "glorification" of criminals, but, though the audience's empathy is recruited to some extent, the destructive and inevitable consequences of the gang's actions are hardly glossed over). The famous, gruesome climax – in which Bonnie and Clyde are apathetically gunned down in a bloody police ambush – was perhaps the most intense minute of cinema American audiences had ever experienced. Of course, once the floodgates were opened, New Hollywood began to adopt his fresh, powerful frankness in its storytelling. Sam Peckinpah, no doubt inspired by Penn's efforts, decisively raised the bar with his Revisionist Western 'The Wild Bunch (1969).' A landmark American film, 'Bonnie and Clyde' furthered the reputations of both its director and star Warren Beatty, and successfully launched the acting careers of Faye Dunaway, Gene Hackman and Gene Wilder.

A Classic

tt0061418

Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow need no introduction. Most everyone knows of the crime spree during Depression era America. Banks were foreclosing on homes and farms at a staggering rate, causing the hold up team to become folk heroes.Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway are the doomed lovers. Bonnie is bored, working as a waitress, when, one day she sees Clyde attempting to steal her mothers car. They hook up and do a few hold ups for little money. They pick up C.W. Moss, a gas station attendant, and Clydes brother Buck, who brings his wife Blanche along for the adventure. She fights with Bonnie from the start. The gang begin to rob banks, and when a bank manager jumps on the running board of the car, Clyde shoots him in the face. A Texas Ranger, Frank Hamer, chases them and is kidnapped and released after some teasing. Buck is soon shot in the head and killed and Blanche is blinded and held by police. Hamer continues his dogged pursuit of the lovebirds and lays a trap which concludes with one of the most famous scenes in the history of movies. Bonnie and Clyde remains a classic.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061418/reviews-316

ur14295241

title: A Classic review: Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow need no introduction. Most everyone knows of the crime spree during Depression era America. Banks were foreclosing on homes and farms at a staggering rate, causing the hold up team to become folk heroes.Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway are the doomed lovers. Bonnie is bored, working as a waitress, when, one day she sees Clyde attempting to steal her mothers car. They hook up and do a few hold ups for little money. They pick up C.W. Moss, a gas station attendant, and Clydes brother Buck, who brings his wife Blanche along for the adventure. She fights with Bonnie from the start. The gang begin to rob banks, and when a bank manager jumps on the running board of the car, Clyde shoots him in the face. A Texas Ranger, Frank Hamer, chases them and is kidnapped and released after some teasing. Buck is soon shot in the head and killed and Blanche is blinded and held by police. Hamer continues his dogged pursuit of the lovebirds and lays a trap which concludes with one of the most famous scenes in the history of movies. Bonnie and Clyde remains a classic.

powerful society driven crime drama

tt0061418

The narrative:Is a passionate true story revolving around the lives of two criminals, Bonnie and Clyde. I was shocked to find out this was a true story. I had the same view about Catch me of you can, I was amazed to find these events actually happened. It's a truly remarkable energetic-filled story about survival, desperation, law and family loyalty. The car chases, gun fights, running and fighting are very brutal for the time the film was released. Critics have labelled it shocking and I can understand that as many scenes are very brutal, not compared to today's conventional action scenes but enough to awaken audiences in the late 60's. It did not centre on the love side of their relationship as I would have thought but more on current society values and what they were living in, allowing for a wide spread view on law and order at the time it was written. Some scenes I personally felt were a bit questionable and may have dragged for too long but once I had watched the film all the way through I recalled them and remained faithful as each scene was vital to the film's brilliance. The ending is remarkable, a real shock to my system which leaved many questions in my mind and is without a doubt one of the best endings I have seen in recent times. The setting is also outstanding as they travel across Texas, capturing amazing scenery and rightfully earning an Oscar for best cinematography. Bonnie and Clyde.Dunaway and Beatty strike a perfect relationship in this film to carry it forward. Both perform amazingly as the enlightening couple with many issues in their lives. The two work well off each other and rightfully deserved their Oscar nominations. Having too very different central characters allows tension and mystery to be created, creating awareness and excitement which fulfils audience's uses and gratifications. This is one of the best on screen couples I have ever seen in motion picture history. The challenging aspect of the crime world is great for these two and the sense of a challenge and excitement fulfilled an action packed love story. The couple makes the film what it is and their relationship with C.W (played expertly by Michael Pollard) adds a great sense of friendship and loyalty and drive to an overall great inspiration and breathtaking movie. Then and now.Audiences in the 21st century may find it difficult to comprehend certain values and what this film may have meant to people at the time of release (1967) From the reactions and praise and critics the film has received I can understand the significance. The very brutal violent action sequences show what cinema was coming to at the time and I'm sure paved the way for more brutal films to follow. Now its all blood and guts, all about the effects and the amounts of kills the hero figure can score. But then is more of the significance and consequence of the actions. Killing people with many laws and regulations was a serious business and for film watchers this film must have been very shocking. a powerful film and is an essential watch

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061418/reviews-171

ur11597946

title: powerful society driven crime drama review: The narrative:Is a passionate true story revolving around the lives of two criminals, Bonnie and Clyde. I was shocked to find out this was a true story. I had the same view about Catch me of you can, I was amazed to find these events actually happened. It's a truly remarkable energetic-filled story about survival, desperation, law and family loyalty. The car chases, gun fights, running and fighting are very brutal for the time the film was released. Critics have labelled it shocking and I can understand that as many scenes are very brutal, not compared to today's conventional action scenes but enough to awaken audiences in the late 60's. It did not centre on the love side of their relationship as I would have thought but more on current society values and what they were living in, allowing for a wide spread view on law and order at the time it was written. Some scenes I personally felt were a bit questionable and may have dragged for too long but once I had watched the film all the way through I recalled them and remained faithful as each scene was vital to the film's brilliance. The ending is remarkable, a real shock to my system which leaved many questions in my mind and is without a doubt one of the best endings I have seen in recent times. The setting is also outstanding as they travel across Texas, capturing amazing scenery and rightfully earning an Oscar for best cinematography. Bonnie and Clyde.Dunaway and Beatty strike a perfect relationship in this film to carry it forward. Both perform amazingly as the enlightening couple with many issues in their lives. The two work well off each other and rightfully deserved their Oscar nominations. Having too very different central characters allows tension and mystery to be created, creating awareness and excitement which fulfils audience's uses and gratifications. This is one of the best on screen couples I have ever seen in motion picture history. The challenging aspect of the crime world is great for these two and the sense of a challenge and excitement fulfilled an action packed love story. The couple makes the film what it is and their relationship with C.W (played expertly by Michael Pollard) adds a great sense of friendship and loyalty and drive to an overall great inspiration and breathtaking movie. Then and now.Audiences in the 21st century may find it difficult to comprehend certain values and what this film may have meant to people at the time of release (1967) From the reactions and praise and critics the film has received I can understand the significance. The very brutal violent action sequences show what cinema was coming to at the time and I'm sure paved the way for more brutal films to follow. Now its all blood and guts, all about the effects and the amounts of kills the hero figure can score. But then is more of the significance and consequence of the actions. Killing people with many laws and regulations was a serious business and for film watchers this film must have been very shocking. a powerful film and is an essential watch

Depression-era flick borrowing from the European New Wave

tt0061418

A riotous, dynamic but ultimately bleak film. Bonnie and Clyde is celebrated as an early independent success and with reason: it's daring (violent and anti-conventional) and borrows the choppy aesthetic of the French New Wave. Indeed, Truffaut was first in line to direct (Farenheit 451 put him off course).I found the story strangely underdeveloped. There are a number of small incidents which Arthur Penn simply doesn't know how to massage, from the relationship of Clyde's brother and sister-in-law to that of CW Moss. I thought that the peculiar shadow of Clyde's chastity/shame was well handled though. In the midst of this hit and miss is a truly remarkable central sequence in which Bonnie revisits her mother. Shot with a heavy filter on what could be either a dune or a chaff pile it provides a peaceful but morally equivocal central episode from which the juvenile pair consequently tumble to their fate. Is it, in fact, a dream sequence? I think not but it has an inherent mystical, parable- like quality to it. It's very striking.Beatty and Dunaway are very engaging, although their acting doesn't quite marry with the aesthetic. It hardly matters in a way. The entire film is about shaking things up. 5/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061418/reviews-215

ur2206551

title: Depression-era flick borrowing from the European New Wave review: A riotous, dynamic but ultimately bleak film. Bonnie and Clyde is celebrated as an early independent success and with reason: it's daring (violent and anti-conventional) and borrows the choppy aesthetic of the French New Wave. Indeed, Truffaut was first in line to direct (Farenheit 451 put him off course).I found the story strangely underdeveloped. There are a number of small incidents which Arthur Penn simply doesn't know how to massage, from the relationship of Clyde's brother and sister-in-law to that of CW Moss. I thought that the peculiar shadow of Clyde's chastity/shame was well handled though. In the midst of this hit and miss is a truly remarkable central sequence in which Bonnie revisits her mother. Shot with a heavy filter on what could be either a dune or a chaff pile it provides a peaceful but morally equivocal central episode from which the juvenile pair consequently tumble to their fate. Is it, in fact, a dream sequence? I think not but it has an inherent mystical, parable- like quality to it. It's very striking.Beatty and Dunaway are very engaging, although their acting doesn't quite marry with the aesthetic. It hardly matters in a way. The entire film is about shaking things up. 5/10

Simply Bonnie and Clyde...

tt0061418

"Bonnie and Clyde" is a classic movie which has to do with a notorious violent bank robber couple and their gang. In this movie we can observe many great interpretations such as Warren Beatty's who plays really outstanding as Clyde Barrow and Faye Dunaway's who is also plays outstanding as Bonnie Parker (nominated for the Oscar for Best Actress in a Leading Role on 1967). I also liked the interpretation of Gene Hackman who plays as Buck Barrow.I think that "Bonnie and Clyde" is a must seen movie and everyone have to see it. With this movie you will understand how the cinema changed and you will also understand why. Finally I have to tell you that this movie is really great and if you like the old movies then I'm sure that you will love it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061418/reviews-346

ur33907744

title: Simply Bonnie and Clyde... review: "Bonnie and Clyde" is a classic movie which has to do with a notorious violent bank robber couple and their gang. In this movie we can observe many great interpretations such as Warren Beatty's who plays really outstanding as Clyde Barrow and Faye Dunaway's who is also plays outstanding as Bonnie Parker (nominated for the Oscar for Best Actress in a Leading Role on 1967). I also liked the interpretation of Gene Hackman who plays as Buck Barrow.I think that "Bonnie and Clyde" is a must seen movie and everyone have to see it. With this movie you will understand how the cinema changed and you will also understand why. Finally I have to tell you that this movie is really great and if you like the old movies then I'm sure that you will love it.

Ripe for Reassessment

tt0061418

When Arthur Penn's Thirties-set gangster movie first appeared in 1967 it was like a breath of fresh air in the American cinema, (though to be fair, on hindsight, the American cinema in the previous few years, particularly in the Independent sector, wasn't doing too badly). Still, Penn's movie seemed to break new ground and not just in it's depiction of violence. It had a lyrical intensity that belonged more to the French New Wave, (and at one time Truffaut's name was associated with the project), and, in that it took back to the American cinema the trappings that the French had originally borrowed in films like "A Bout De Soufflé" and "Shoot the Pianist", seemed to square the circle.In the intervening years it has fallen somewhat out of fashion. It now almost seems quaintly old-fashioned, it's form more classically structured and narratively driven than might first appeared. But there are virtues that have largely been overlooked. Like "The Graduate" which came out in the same year, it is a young person's film yet it burns with a fierce intelligence that is conspicuously absent from similar films today. I suppose you could say the film has a pop-art sensibility, (a close-up of Faye Dunaway's face, lips burning bright red, could come from a Lichtenstein poster), and its cast seem unnaturally young, (only Beatty had established a persona for himself at the time; the others had yet to establish a reputation), but they became stars because of it. (Gang members Parsons and Pollard didn't make the leap; they were character actors from the start). Arguably you could say Beatty, Dunaway, Hackman, Parsons and Pollard were never to better their work here. They may have equalled it but their performances were definitive.Arthur Penn, too, was never to make another movie as good. The film's extraordinary critical and popular success gave Penn the freedom to tackle 'weightier' material, but "Little Big Man" and "Georgia's Friends" now seem misguided attempts at solemnity, while even his brilliant western "The Missouri Breaks" seems to succeed more for it's oddness rather than it's originality. Perhaps "Bonnie and Clyde" was a one-off though it did spawn an awful lot of break-neck thrillers and up-dated film-noirs, and was more responsible for the baby-boom in movies in the seventies than "Easy Rider" which followed it two years later. It remains a film ripe for reassessment.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061418/reviews-165

ur1683855

title: Ripe for Reassessment review: When Arthur Penn's Thirties-set gangster movie first appeared in 1967 it was like a breath of fresh air in the American cinema, (though to be fair, on hindsight, the American cinema in the previous few years, particularly in the Independent sector, wasn't doing too badly). Still, Penn's movie seemed to break new ground and not just in it's depiction of violence. It had a lyrical intensity that belonged more to the French New Wave, (and at one time Truffaut's name was associated with the project), and, in that it took back to the American cinema the trappings that the French had originally borrowed in films like "A Bout De Soufflé" and "Shoot the Pianist", seemed to square the circle.In the intervening years it has fallen somewhat out of fashion. It now almost seems quaintly old-fashioned, it's form more classically structured and narratively driven than might first appeared. But there are virtues that have largely been overlooked. Like "The Graduate" which came out in the same year, it is a young person's film yet it burns with a fierce intelligence that is conspicuously absent from similar films today. I suppose you could say the film has a pop-art sensibility, (a close-up of Faye Dunaway's face, lips burning bright red, could come from a Lichtenstein poster), and its cast seem unnaturally young, (only Beatty had established a persona for himself at the time; the others had yet to establish a reputation), but they became stars because of it. (Gang members Parsons and Pollard didn't make the leap; they were character actors from the start). Arguably you could say Beatty, Dunaway, Hackman, Parsons and Pollard were never to better their work here. They may have equalled it but their performances were definitive.Arthur Penn, too, was never to make another movie as good. The film's extraordinary critical and popular success gave Penn the freedom to tackle 'weightier' material, but "Little Big Man" and "Georgia's Friends" now seem misguided attempts at solemnity, while even his brilliant western "The Missouri Breaks" seems to succeed more for it's oddness rather than it's originality. Perhaps "Bonnie and Clyde" was a one-off though it did spawn an awful lot of break-neck thrillers and up-dated film-noirs, and was more responsible for the baby-boom in movies in the seventies than "Easy Rider" which followed it two years later. It remains a film ripe for reassessment.

Groundbreaking in more ways than one.

tt0061418

At first glance, this film might seem to be a simple story about 2 folk legends of the Depression-era American society who shot up three states and robbed a handful of already empty banks. It is this as well as one of the first movies to ever portray violence in such a graphic way as well as mix it with such comic relief. In no other way before 1967 was violence made this mainstream and this common. It seems that director Arthur Penn was trying to make a statement and he certainly did as this film almost definitely had an effect on the next most violent movie in America, Sam Peckinpah's ode to the West: The Wild Bunch. Still, as itself, this movie stands as a pretty important one in its own right. It gives us two of the first anti-heroes; people we know are morally incompetent and deprived yet we still root for them and hope they can turn their lives around. Of course, history tells us how this film ends. And here, it is beautiful in cinematic style. The acting is very strong, especially by Beatty and Dunaway, and the quick jump-cuts of Penn make this an uptight experience. By today's standards, it is quite tame. However, you owe it to yourself to see the film that opened up the way for all others of its kind. The only difference between those movies and Bonnie and Clyde is that there is an interesting and compelling story behind this one.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061418/reviews-198

ur9972457

title: Groundbreaking in more ways than one. review: At first glance, this film might seem to be a simple story about 2 folk legends of the Depression-era American society who shot up three states and robbed a handful of already empty banks. It is this as well as one of the first movies to ever portray violence in such a graphic way as well as mix it with such comic relief. In no other way before 1967 was violence made this mainstream and this common. It seems that director Arthur Penn was trying to make a statement and he certainly did as this film almost definitely had an effect on the next most violent movie in America, Sam Peckinpah's ode to the West: The Wild Bunch. Still, as itself, this movie stands as a pretty important one in its own right. It gives us two of the first anti-heroes; people we know are morally incompetent and deprived yet we still root for them and hope they can turn their lives around. Of course, history tells us how this film ends. And here, it is beautiful in cinematic style. The acting is very strong, especially by Beatty and Dunaway, and the quick jump-cuts of Penn make this an uptight experience. By today's standards, it is quite tame. However, you owe it to yourself to see the film that opened up the way for all others of its kind. The only difference between those movies and Bonnie and Clyde is that there is an interesting and compelling story behind this one.

This Movie Rules

tt0061418

I loved Bonnie and Clyde a lot more than I thought I would. I expected a crime/thriller but mostly a romance film. This movie is the opposite, it has some romantic elements inside of a mostly crime/thriller. Some of the scenes were very intense and kept my heart beating. This is definitely a new favorite of mine.There are utterly brilliant performances in this film. Warren Beatty, Faye Dunaway, Michael J. Pollard, and Gene Hackman were all great. There's also a hilarious cameo from Gene Wilder. The story is awesome even though it's not very true the the actual account. And also, this movie has one of the most shocking endings I've ever seen. I sat staring at the screen for a few minutes after it had ended.Have I given you enough reason to see this film yet? Then do yourself a favor and go see it!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061418/reviews-195

ur13026966

title: This Movie Rules review: I loved Bonnie and Clyde a lot more than I thought I would. I expected a crime/thriller but mostly a romance film. This movie is the opposite, it has some romantic elements inside of a mostly crime/thriller. Some of the scenes were very intense and kept my heart beating. This is definitely a new favorite of mine.There are utterly brilliant performances in this film. Warren Beatty, Faye Dunaway, Michael J. Pollard, and Gene Hackman were all great. There's also a hilarious cameo from Gene Wilder. The story is awesome even though it's not very true the the actual account. And also, this movie has one of the most shocking endings I've ever seen. I sat staring at the screen for a few minutes after it had ended.Have I given you enough reason to see this film yet? Then do yourself a favor and go see it!

One Hell Of A Great Crime Thriller!!!

tt0061418

"Left-Handed Gun" director Arthur Penn's "Bonnie & Clyde" depicts the infamous exploits of two young Depression Era desperadoes who never scored more than $15-hundred at one time in their brief criminal career. Initially, this 112-minute crime thriller didn't raise any eyebrows, and Warner Brothers—the same studio that had pioneered gangster movies in the 1930s—was prepared to shelve it. Warren Beatty, who both starred in and produced it, convinced the studio to give the film another shot, and it became an essential classic and garnered 10 Academy Award nominations. Unfortunately, "Bonnie & Clyde" claimed only two Oscars. Estelle Parsons, who starred as Buck's hysterical wife, won the Best Supporting Acting Oscar, while lenser Burnett Guffy walked off with the statuette for Best Cinematography. Incidentally, Guffy had won the Oscar for his photography in the Columbia Pictures epic "From Here to Eternity." Of course, scenarists David Newman and Robert Benton wrote with rose-colored glasses when they chronicled these two dirt-poor bandits. Quite simply, Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow are portrayed in sympathetic terms. "Bonnie & Clyde" has its light moments—when Clyde holds up a bank that has gone out of business—to the violent shoot-out that claims their lives on a back road. The establishment is seen as older people who are impassive about their fate. The people who the Barrow gang rob are all mature looking. They look brutal and they aren't funning around when they either attack our hero with a meat cleaver or massacre them at roadside."Bonnie & Clyde" ultimately winds up punishing our eponymous heroes for their ill-gotten gains. Despite the charisma that Dunaway and Beatty generate, they are lawbreakers and they suffer the wrath of society. This makes this entertaining film a bittersweet experience because they are doomed from the moment that Bonnie suspects Clyde is out to steal her mother's automobile in the front yard of her West Dallas apartment. Nobody delivers a bad performance, and Dub Taylor is particularly memorable as the elder Moss. The early part of the action up until Bonnie catches a bullet wading across a creek is hilariously melodramatic, but as the law catches up with them, the story degenerates into a tragedy. Bonnie is a desperate young lady with no future when she encounters Clyde. Clyde robs a grocery store and they light out on a spree. Eventually, Clyde's older brother Buck (Gene Hackman) and his Baptist preacher's daughter Blanche (Estelle Parsons) joins them. Before he hooks up with his older sibling, Clyde recruits a reform school graduate, C.W. Moss (Michael J. Pollard of "Hannibal Brooks"), who keeps their cars tuned up and road-worthy. Arthur Penn orchestrates the noisy gunfights between the Barrow gang and the local authorities with verve. The showdown where the police roll into the front yard with an armored car is especially well staged. The gun shots ring out explosively just as in the vintage Warner Brothers' crime classics. The scene with Gene Wilder is funny. You won't forget "Bonnie & Clyde!"

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061418/reviews-324

ur2079400

title: One Hell Of A Great Crime Thriller!!! review: "Left-Handed Gun" director Arthur Penn's "Bonnie & Clyde" depicts the infamous exploits of two young Depression Era desperadoes who never scored more than $15-hundred at one time in their brief criminal career. Initially, this 112-minute crime thriller didn't raise any eyebrows, and Warner Brothers—the same studio that had pioneered gangster movies in the 1930s—was prepared to shelve it. Warren Beatty, who both starred in and produced it, convinced the studio to give the film another shot, and it became an essential classic and garnered 10 Academy Award nominations. Unfortunately, "Bonnie & Clyde" claimed only two Oscars. Estelle Parsons, who starred as Buck's hysterical wife, won the Best Supporting Acting Oscar, while lenser Burnett Guffy walked off with the statuette for Best Cinematography. Incidentally, Guffy had won the Oscar for his photography in the Columbia Pictures epic "From Here to Eternity." Of course, scenarists David Newman and Robert Benton wrote with rose-colored glasses when they chronicled these two dirt-poor bandits. Quite simply, Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow are portrayed in sympathetic terms. "Bonnie & Clyde" has its light moments—when Clyde holds up a bank that has gone out of business—to the violent shoot-out that claims their lives on a back road. The establishment is seen as older people who are impassive about their fate. The people who the Barrow gang rob are all mature looking. They look brutal and they aren't funning around when they either attack our hero with a meat cleaver or massacre them at roadside."Bonnie & Clyde" ultimately winds up punishing our eponymous heroes for their ill-gotten gains. Despite the charisma that Dunaway and Beatty generate, they are lawbreakers and they suffer the wrath of society. This makes this entertaining film a bittersweet experience because they are doomed from the moment that Bonnie suspects Clyde is out to steal her mother's automobile in the front yard of her West Dallas apartment. Nobody delivers a bad performance, and Dub Taylor is particularly memorable as the elder Moss. The early part of the action up until Bonnie catches a bullet wading across a creek is hilariously melodramatic, but as the law catches up with them, the story degenerates into a tragedy. Bonnie is a desperate young lady with no future when she encounters Clyde. Clyde robs a grocery store and they light out on a spree. Eventually, Clyde's older brother Buck (Gene Hackman) and his Baptist preacher's daughter Blanche (Estelle Parsons) joins them. Before he hooks up with his older sibling, Clyde recruits a reform school graduate, C.W. Moss (Michael J. Pollard of "Hannibal Brooks"), who keeps their cars tuned up and road-worthy. Arthur Penn orchestrates the noisy gunfights between the Barrow gang and the local authorities with verve. The showdown where the police roll into the front yard with an armored car is especially well staged. The gun shots ring out explosively just as in the vintage Warner Brothers' crime classics. The scene with Gene Wilder is funny. You won't forget "Bonnie & Clyde!"

Capturing real-life legends

tt0061418

Few true stories are the stuff of folk legend, but the tale of Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow ranks near the top. Bank robbers and lovers of the limelight — as well as sometimes each other — their story has everything you could want in a film: suspense, action, humor, drama and romance. "Bonnie and Clyde" hits all those notes.The package director Arthur Penn ("The Miracle Worker") puts together could be a lot neater, but he captures the iconicity of these two tabloid heroes, in large part thanks to stars Faye Dunaway and Warren Beatty. They both exemplify the uninhibited joie de vivre of their characters, who seem to fear nothing, go out of their way to give the press something new to write about and speak off hand about when they're caught or killed.Unfortunately, only the beginning of the film, when Bonnie and Clyde meet and head off together, focuses purely on their relationship. During the bulk of the film, the other supporting characters/members of the Barrow Gang have to be pushed to the side for it to be about the titular couple. We know how they feel about each other, but we don't feel permanently strapped in to the roller coaster of their relationship.The inclusion of Buck and Blanche Barrow (Gene Hackman and Estelle Parsons) as well as C.W. Moss (Michael J. Pollard) certainly make "Bonnie and Clyde" feel more like an adventure. They bring a certain levity that enhances how care-free they all lived despite constantly having local forces bearing down on them whenever they gave away a small clue of their presence in a certain town.Then there's Blanche, a role that won Parsons an Oscar. Therefore, Blanche is one of the most irritating and unlikable characters (who's not a bad guy) to ever garner an Oscar. She's "family," being Buck's wife, so they must keep her around, though she's self-centered and a complete liability. You wish they'd just throw her out of one of the dozens of cars they steal and drive around in throughout the film, but she sticks around to the audience's chagrin.This large middle chunk of the film featuring the Barrow Gang plays out as a collection of moments from their travels, almost all of which lead to the next time the police will find them, resulting in a gunfight and them fleeing town. These scenes are memorable and build the characters up in entertaining fashion, giving you a sense of just how reckless and fueled by danger they all really were. At the same time, that builds up more of the folk perception of the Barrow Gang rather than capturing who these people were and what drove them to behave that way.Dunaway and Beatty do give us a greater depth of character with their performances when the film allows for a focus on their relationship. We get a very good sense of what attracts each to the other and for Bonnie, a very good idea of what drove her to throw her life away for Clyde Barrow and his anything-but-normal lifestyle. Dunaway embodies everything the script says or suggests about Bonnie Parker. She has a definite beauty and manner suggestive of a woman who knows what power she wields, but there's a naivety to most of her decisions and reactions. Obviously as the film continues she sheds more of the latter for the former.Beatty also demonstrates the dual nature of Clyde, who comes off as so self-assured and in control, yet he harbors some insecurities and is almost team-oriented and selfless to a fault.The one weakness of the script other than limiting the depth with which it explores our main characters is a sense of scope. As to the fame of Bonnie and Clyde and the Barrow Gang's exploits, we are asked to take the film's word for it rather than truly see how they've become a tabloid favorite. We also don't get to see the cat in this cat and mouse relationship between the gang and the authorities. Most films will have part of the story focus on the person/people trying to bring the crooks down, but that person doesn't emerge until very late in the gang. We have trouble understanding what motivates them to take the Barrow Gang down, and so violently too."Bonnie and Clyde" also doesn't have much to say, but ultimately, that's okay. It leaves us with is a portrait of who these people were, giving us the opportunity to decide how we feel about them. Was their end tragic? Heart-breaking? A long time coming? Unfair? It's all there for us to pick through, but the unquestionable truth is how fascinating their legend is.~Steven CThanks for reading! Visit moviemusereviews.com

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061418/reviews-314

ur2496397

title: Capturing real-life legends review: Few true stories are the stuff of folk legend, but the tale of Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow ranks near the top. Bank robbers and lovers of the limelight — as well as sometimes each other — their story has everything you could want in a film: suspense, action, humor, drama and romance. "Bonnie and Clyde" hits all those notes.The package director Arthur Penn ("The Miracle Worker") puts together could be a lot neater, but he captures the iconicity of these two tabloid heroes, in large part thanks to stars Faye Dunaway and Warren Beatty. They both exemplify the uninhibited joie de vivre of their characters, who seem to fear nothing, go out of their way to give the press something new to write about and speak off hand about when they're caught or killed.Unfortunately, only the beginning of the film, when Bonnie and Clyde meet and head off together, focuses purely on their relationship. During the bulk of the film, the other supporting characters/members of the Barrow Gang have to be pushed to the side for it to be about the titular couple. We know how they feel about each other, but we don't feel permanently strapped in to the roller coaster of their relationship.The inclusion of Buck and Blanche Barrow (Gene Hackman and Estelle Parsons) as well as C.W. Moss (Michael J. Pollard) certainly make "Bonnie and Clyde" feel more like an adventure. They bring a certain levity that enhances how care-free they all lived despite constantly having local forces bearing down on them whenever they gave away a small clue of their presence in a certain town.Then there's Blanche, a role that won Parsons an Oscar. Therefore, Blanche is one of the most irritating and unlikable characters (who's not a bad guy) to ever garner an Oscar. She's "family," being Buck's wife, so they must keep her around, though she's self-centered and a complete liability. You wish they'd just throw her out of one of the dozens of cars they steal and drive around in throughout the film, but she sticks around to the audience's chagrin.This large middle chunk of the film featuring the Barrow Gang plays out as a collection of moments from their travels, almost all of which lead to the next time the police will find them, resulting in a gunfight and them fleeing town. These scenes are memorable and build the characters up in entertaining fashion, giving you a sense of just how reckless and fueled by danger they all really were. At the same time, that builds up more of the folk perception of the Barrow Gang rather than capturing who these people were and what drove them to behave that way.Dunaway and Beatty do give us a greater depth of character with their performances when the film allows for a focus on their relationship. We get a very good sense of what attracts each to the other and for Bonnie, a very good idea of what drove her to throw her life away for Clyde Barrow and his anything-but-normal lifestyle. Dunaway embodies everything the script says or suggests about Bonnie Parker. She has a definite beauty and manner suggestive of a woman who knows what power she wields, but there's a naivety to most of her decisions and reactions. Obviously as the film continues she sheds more of the latter for the former.Beatty also demonstrates the dual nature of Clyde, who comes off as so self-assured and in control, yet he harbors some insecurities and is almost team-oriented and selfless to a fault.The one weakness of the script other than limiting the depth with which it explores our main characters is a sense of scope. As to the fame of Bonnie and Clyde and the Barrow Gang's exploits, we are asked to take the film's word for it rather than truly see how they've become a tabloid favorite. We also don't get to see the cat in this cat and mouse relationship between the gang and the authorities. Most films will have part of the story focus on the person/people trying to bring the crooks down, but that person doesn't emerge until very late in the gang. We have trouble understanding what motivates them to take the Barrow Gang down, and so violently too."Bonnie and Clyde" also doesn't have much to say, but ultimately, that's okay. It leaves us with is a portrait of who these people were, giving us the opportunity to decide how we feel about them. Was their end tragic? Heart-breaking? A long time coming? Unfair? It's all there for us to pick through, but the unquestionable truth is how fascinating their legend is.~Steven CThanks for reading! Visit moviemusereviews.com

Gangsters and Romance!

tt0061418

People seem to never get tired of gangster flicks. Bank robbers, gun-totting killers, they've been the rage since the inception of the film industry, and still to this day we get gangster flicks made by the bucket load, though Bonnie and Clyde is not your usual gangster flick.Within Bonnie and Clyde, there is something more that many other gangster films do not have. The film turns these straight-up criminals - the ultimate anti-heroes who kill, cheat, and steal to live - into loving and endearing characters that this is simply their way of life, their profession, like a person dressing up and going to work. They don't kill unless they have to for survival of their way of life, and even when they do kill, they feel remorse. Not only that, the romance between Bonnie and Clyde is believable and is actually, in my own opinion, one of the finer on screen romances of all-time.At the beginning of the film, Clyde comes sweeping into the small Texan town in which Bonnie lives working as a waitress, and Clyde after an attempt to steal Bonnie's mom's car, ultimately charms Bonnie with his criminal ways and convinces her to run off with him. In all actuality, this is the only part of the film in which I do not like, the whole opening sequence feeling awfully contrived, but the rest of the film really kicks off from there and doesn't stop. Bonnie grows from the small town girl into a swift and charming gangster with a heart of gold, just like Clyde. In a way them and their gang are similar to a modern day Robin Hood and his Merry Men. Sure they steal and kill, but they do it to not only survive, but is evidenced when Clyde meets a man whose house was foreclosed upon by the local bank, he proceeds to try and rob the bank.The film is the one credited for making both Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway stars as Clyde and Bonnie respectively, and they are both deserving of credit, in particular Dunaway who kind of acts as the anchor to the whole emotional component of the film. Bonnie very often feels sadness for leaving her life with her mother behind in Texas, and it is that emotion she feels and her desire to just slow down and live a normal life with Clyde, which Dunaway conveys beautifully to the audience.While Bonnie and Clyde may not be the finest gangster film ever made, it is one of the more unique ones ever made and is a classic through and through that is worth watching for any fan of film.I give Bonnie and Clyde a 9 out of 10!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061418/reviews-242

ur6136793

title: Gangsters and Romance! review: People seem to never get tired of gangster flicks. Bank robbers, gun-totting killers, they've been the rage since the inception of the film industry, and still to this day we get gangster flicks made by the bucket load, though Bonnie and Clyde is not your usual gangster flick.Within Bonnie and Clyde, there is something more that many other gangster films do not have. The film turns these straight-up criminals - the ultimate anti-heroes who kill, cheat, and steal to live - into loving and endearing characters that this is simply their way of life, their profession, like a person dressing up and going to work. They don't kill unless they have to for survival of their way of life, and even when they do kill, they feel remorse. Not only that, the romance between Bonnie and Clyde is believable and is actually, in my own opinion, one of the finer on screen romances of all-time.At the beginning of the film, Clyde comes sweeping into the small Texan town in which Bonnie lives working as a waitress, and Clyde after an attempt to steal Bonnie's mom's car, ultimately charms Bonnie with his criminal ways and convinces her to run off with him. In all actuality, this is the only part of the film in which I do not like, the whole opening sequence feeling awfully contrived, but the rest of the film really kicks off from there and doesn't stop. Bonnie grows from the small town girl into a swift and charming gangster with a heart of gold, just like Clyde. In a way them and their gang are similar to a modern day Robin Hood and his Merry Men. Sure they steal and kill, but they do it to not only survive, but is evidenced when Clyde meets a man whose house was foreclosed upon by the local bank, he proceeds to try and rob the bank.The film is the one credited for making both Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway stars as Clyde and Bonnie respectively, and they are both deserving of credit, in particular Dunaway who kind of acts as the anchor to the whole emotional component of the film. Bonnie very often feels sadness for leaving her life with her mother behind in Texas, and it is that emotion she feels and her desire to just slow down and live a normal life with Clyde, which Dunaway conveys beautifully to the audience.While Bonnie and Clyde may not be the finest gangster film ever made, it is one of the more unique ones ever made and is a classic through and through that is worth watching for any fan of film.I give Bonnie and Clyde a 9 out of 10!

Love On The Run With Guns & Money

tt0061418

This movie was the main film that made Warren Beatty a bankable star in Hollywood. This is his breakout role at age 30. It established Faye Dunaway as a star too. Gene Hackman was just getting started here & his better roles would come later but this one was good experience for him.Wonderfully filmed & extremely popular when it came out, this film highly fictionalized the story of the real robbers. They simplified the Bonnie & Clyde characters down to 3 basic words the film is remembered for, "We Rob Banks." Set in the Depression era where banks were considered the bad guys often as they were failing & taking peoples money, this film shows little sympathy for the banks being robbed.The film does touch on many peoples plights back in the depression era. Mostly though, this film sold tickets because it has a major anti-government & anti-establishment theme it embellishes throughout. This theme fit 1967 audiences perfectly as the Anti-Vietnam War sentiment made audiences sympathize with the situation Bonnie & Clyde lived in as the establishment was doing little to help people cope with depression era problems.Another theme which resonates through this film is an anti-media theme. Several times especially late in the film, Clyde mentions stories published in the media which were totally false blaming them for crimes they had nothing to do with. This conspiracy theme resonated with 60's audiences too as between the JFK murder & Anti-Vietnam building due to horrible media images being put on the news, there was a feeling of fate & hopelessness in the United States then.The ending of the film even fits these themes as you feel fate closing in on Bonnie & Clyde. The police are presented as cold-hearted killers who have decided to gun them down in a series of traps & are presented as doing so with ruthless precision. The violence is very convincing on screen though one of the few technical flaws is Bonnie being hit in the left shoulder in one scene & then having a sling on her right arm in the next sequence.While the film is not perfect, this is a very well made film. If a remake of this comes along, I hope they go closer to the real story. This one while entertaining is quit a bit off the mark. While Beatty & Dunaway are good, the writers need to go closer to the real people & away from (as the movie correctly points out) the incorrect image of Bonnie & Clyde painted by depression era media & law enforcement.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061418/reviews-217

ur4067661

title: Love On The Run With Guns & Money review: This movie was the main film that made Warren Beatty a bankable star in Hollywood. This is his breakout role at age 30. It established Faye Dunaway as a star too. Gene Hackman was just getting started here & his better roles would come later but this one was good experience for him.Wonderfully filmed & extremely popular when it came out, this film highly fictionalized the story of the real robbers. They simplified the Bonnie & Clyde characters down to 3 basic words the film is remembered for, "We Rob Banks." Set in the Depression era where banks were considered the bad guys often as they were failing & taking peoples money, this film shows little sympathy for the banks being robbed.The film does touch on many peoples plights back in the depression era. Mostly though, this film sold tickets because it has a major anti-government & anti-establishment theme it embellishes throughout. This theme fit 1967 audiences perfectly as the Anti-Vietnam War sentiment made audiences sympathize with the situation Bonnie & Clyde lived in as the establishment was doing little to help people cope with depression era problems.Another theme which resonates through this film is an anti-media theme. Several times especially late in the film, Clyde mentions stories published in the media which were totally false blaming them for crimes they had nothing to do with. This conspiracy theme resonated with 60's audiences too as between the JFK murder & Anti-Vietnam building due to horrible media images being put on the news, there was a feeling of fate & hopelessness in the United States then.The ending of the film even fits these themes as you feel fate closing in on Bonnie & Clyde. The police are presented as cold-hearted killers who have decided to gun them down in a series of traps & are presented as doing so with ruthless precision. The violence is very convincing on screen though one of the few technical flaws is Bonnie being hit in the left shoulder in one scene & then having a sling on her right arm in the next sequence.While the film is not perfect, this is a very well made film. If a remake of this comes along, I hope they go closer to the real story. This one while entertaining is quit a bit off the mark. While Beatty & Dunaway are good, the writers need to go closer to the real people & away from (as the movie correctly points out) the incorrect image of Bonnie & Clyde painted by depression era media & law enforcement.

"Bonnie and Clyde" - The '60's answer to the waning days of innocence

tt0061418

"Bonnie and Clyde," released in 1967, is one of the best movies of the 20th century, and perhaps one of the greatest movies of all time. Directed by Arthur Penn, Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway star in a romanticized account of the real-life pair of bank-robbing outlaw lovers Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker, who set off a reign of terror throughout the American Midwest during the 1930s. The Depression was still fresh on everyone's mind and Bonnie and Clyde new that, finding out the hard way the toll it was taking on Americans as it did prove to be a hassle for them when they robbed banks. I thought it was especially generous that Clyde decides to let a farmer keep his money while they rob one bank, and then a montage following the scene shows the people who witnessed it as being happy and whimsical and proud that they were in a bank that was stuck up by the Barrow Gang. Beatty and Dunaway are fantastic and convincing as the doomed lovers on the run, as are the film's supporting players including Gene Hackman, Estelle Parsons, and Michael J. Pollard. The film's violence is also pretty effective too, being that when people get shot, they bleed - profusely, realistically - and "Bonnie and Clyde" also helped to lay out the groundwork for Sam Peckinpah's "The Wild Bunch" two years down the road in 1969. And everyone knows about the film's ending, which is one of the bloodiest death scenes ever filmed, and how a storm of bullets ushered both Bonnie and Clyde into American and cinematic history, and the poem Bonnie Parker sent to the newspaper that eerily foreshadowed their brutal demise. Of course, by this time we've come to really sympathize with the two outlaws, and this is what makes their deaths all the more shocking. A true historic and cinematic landmark masterpiece; "Bonnie and Clyde" is timeless.10/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061418/reviews-112

ur0892646

title: "Bonnie and Clyde" - The '60's answer to the waning days of innocence review: "Bonnie and Clyde," released in 1967, is one of the best movies of the 20th century, and perhaps one of the greatest movies of all time. Directed by Arthur Penn, Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway star in a romanticized account of the real-life pair of bank-robbing outlaw lovers Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker, who set off a reign of terror throughout the American Midwest during the 1930s. The Depression was still fresh on everyone's mind and Bonnie and Clyde new that, finding out the hard way the toll it was taking on Americans as it did prove to be a hassle for them when they robbed banks. I thought it was especially generous that Clyde decides to let a farmer keep his money while they rob one bank, and then a montage following the scene shows the people who witnessed it as being happy and whimsical and proud that they were in a bank that was stuck up by the Barrow Gang. Beatty and Dunaway are fantastic and convincing as the doomed lovers on the run, as are the film's supporting players including Gene Hackman, Estelle Parsons, and Michael J. Pollard. The film's violence is also pretty effective too, being that when people get shot, they bleed - profusely, realistically - and "Bonnie and Clyde" also helped to lay out the groundwork for Sam Peckinpah's "The Wild Bunch" two years down the road in 1969. And everyone knows about the film's ending, which is one of the bloodiest death scenes ever filmed, and how a storm of bullets ushered both Bonnie and Clyde into American and cinematic history, and the poem Bonnie Parker sent to the newspaper that eerily foreshadowed their brutal demise. Of course, by this time we've come to really sympathize with the two outlaws, and this is what makes their deaths all the more shocking. A true historic and cinematic landmark masterpiece; "Bonnie and Clyde" is timeless.10/10

The turning point from Hollywood's moribund studio system to the impending youthquake of the 1970s.

tt0061418

The film works as comedy, as tragedy, as entertainment, as a meditation on the place of guns and violence in American society. In the early 1930s, a car thief (Warren Beatty) and the daughter (Faye Dunaway) of his intended victim team up to become America's most feared and ruthless bank robbers.Bonnie And Clyde is a technically brilliant evocation of sleepy mid-America at the time of the 'Public Enemies,' using every kind of cinematic trick including fake snapshots, farcical interludes, dreamy soft-focus and a jazzy score. It failed to draw sizeable audiences or overwhelmingly positive reviews on its immediate release, and the studio effectively dumped it. But among its champions, it became a huge talking point: no-one had seen such glamorisation of criminals in a mainstream studio film, nor the abrupt switches of mood between comic moments and murderous brutality. Director Arthur Penn drew on the French New Wave auteurs for his visual style, and to earlier American B-films (notably Gun Crazy) that had in turn inspired them. The film looked chic, cool and ground-breaking, and eventually audiences - and awards - came its way. It remains a landmark American film.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061418/reviews-251

ur22131361

title: The turning point from Hollywood's moribund studio system to the impending youthquake of the 1970s. review: The film works as comedy, as tragedy, as entertainment, as a meditation on the place of guns and violence in American society. In the early 1930s, a car thief (Warren Beatty) and the daughter (Faye Dunaway) of his intended victim team up to become America's most feared and ruthless bank robbers.Bonnie And Clyde is a technically brilliant evocation of sleepy mid-America at the time of the 'Public Enemies,' using every kind of cinematic trick including fake snapshots, farcical interludes, dreamy soft-focus and a jazzy score. It failed to draw sizeable audiences or overwhelmingly positive reviews on its immediate release, and the studio effectively dumped it. But among its champions, it became a huge talking point: no-one had seen such glamorisation of criminals in a mainstream studio film, nor the abrupt switches of mood between comic moments and murderous brutality. Director Arthur Penn drew on the French New Wave auteurs for his visual style, and to earlier American B-films (notably Gun Crazy) that had in turn inspired them. The film looked chic, cool and ground-breaking, and eventually audiences - and awards - came its way. It remains a landmark American film.

The Story of Romeo and Juliet With Guns

tt0061418

Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow are names that we all run across in our lives. The two young people were lovers in the 1930s (the Public Enemy era), that killed people and robbed banks. They have gained much fame and a cultural significance that they don't deserve, we can attribute part of that to this film, which renewed America's interest in the Barrow gang. Bonnie and Clyde is loosely based on their story.Faye Dunaway is Bonnie Parker, a waitress in Dallas, Texas who runs into a small-time crook, Clyde Barrow (played by Warren Beatty), who is trying to steal her mother's car. Bonnie quickly gains an interest in Clyde, who she discovers very soon is an ex-con. She isn't bothered by it, but it intrigues her all the more. Clyde even commits armed robbery right in front of her. Bonnie and Clyde begin a romantic relationship and embark on a life of crime with a gang that the two recruit that extends all the way to the couple's demise. The supporting cast includes Gene Hackman, Estelle Parsons (in her Academy Award-winning role), and Michael J. Pollard.This movie, like I said, is only loosely based on the true story. It simplifies that facts but never ceases to be entertaining. This is a great movie, a masterpiece even. Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway have a very good chemistry on the screen and fit their roles. Bonnie and Clyde is also one of the first R-rated movies. This is a good mixture of romance and crime, I hope you enjoy it.9/10

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061418/reviews-216

ur12114282

title: The Story of Romeo and Juliet With Guns review: Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow are names that we all run across in our lives. The two young people were lovers in the 1930s (the Public Enemy era), that killed people and robbed banks. They have gained much fame and a cultural significance that they don't deserve, we can attribute part of that to this film, which renewed America's interest in the Barrow gang. Bonnie and Clyde is loosely based on their story.Faye Dunaway is Bonnie Parker, a waitress in Dallas, Texas who runs into a small-time crook, Clyde Barrow (played by Warren Beatty), who is trying to steal her mother's car. Bonnie quickly gains an interest in Clyde, who she discovers very soon is an ex-con. She isn't bothered by it, but it intrigues her all the more. Clyde even commits armed robbery right in front of her. Bonnie and Clyde begin a romantic relationship and embark on a life of crime with a gang that the two recruit that extends all the way to the couple's demise. The supporting cast includes Gene Hackman, Estelle Parsons (in her Academy Award-winning role), and Michael J. Pollard.This movie, like I said, is only loosely based on the true story. It simplifies that facts but never ceases to be entertaining. This is a great movie, a masterpiece even. Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway have a very good chemistry on the screen and fit their roles. Bonnie and Clyde is also one of the first R-rated movies. This is a good mixture of romance and crime, I hope you enjoy it.9/10

A Definitive Gangster Tale

tt0061418

I was only a small child when this first came out, and although I was aware of its reputation, had never managed to see it. Almost fifty years later I have put that right.What first struck me was what a good looking film it is, rich and lush. A young Warren Beatty is strikingly handsome, Faye Dunaway fabulously beautiful. The countryside, shot in Texas, is an alluring golden hue, a soft focus backdrop to a violent, merciless story.A tale of desperadoes, on the run, robbing and killing as they go, was not new, and has been re-imagined many times since. But the ambivalence of our emotions, played with by two lead characters who are both appealing in demeanour, but brutal in their actions resonates even now.Gene Hackman and Billy Wilder are amongst a strong supporting cast, with dialogue heavy interludes which Tarantino has since honed and developed in his career as a movie maker. Indeed the final shoot-out could easily be from a Tarantino film.Director Arthur Penn ended his career with 27 features to his credit, but before his film career he was vastly experienced in the Playhouse TV series. That grasp of making a scene count is much in evidence here. Apart from Little Big Man, none of his other films scaled the heights that Bonnie and Clyde does. Maybe, having made a pretty much perfect genre piece, the options seemed limited.Nearly half a century later the film still seems fresh despite all that has followed it. The mix of humdrum small town life, youthful dreaming, the excitement of the chase, and the devil of wrong doing are a heady concoction when it works as it does here. Two images endure for me, the bloody, brutal finale, and a youthful chase, boy after girl, through swaying cornfields. They are worthy cyphers for the film as a whole.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061418/reviews-363

ur3923318

title: A Definitive Gangster Tale review: I was only a small child when this first came out, and although I was aware of its reputation, had never managed to see it. Almost fifty years later I have put that right.What first struck me was what a good looking film it is, rich and lush. A young Warren Beatty is strikingly handsome, Faye Dunaway fabulously beautiful. The countryside, shot in Texas, is an alluring golden hue, a soft focus backdrop to a violent, merciless story.A tale of desperadoes, on the run, robbing and killing as they go, was not new, and has been re-imagined many times since. But the ambivalence of our emotions, played with by two lead characters who are both appealing in demeanour, but brutal in their actions resonates even now.Gene Hackman and Billy Wilder are amongst a strong supporting cast, with dialogue heavy interludes which Tarantino has since honed and developed in his career as a movie maker. Indeed the final shoot-out could easily be from a Tarantino film.Director Arthur Penn ended his career with 27 features to his credit, but before his film career he was vastly experienced in the Playhouse TV series. That grasp of making a scene count is much in evidence here. Apart from Little Big Man, none of his other films scaled the heights that Bonnie and Clyde does. Maybe, having made a pretty much perfect genre piece, the options seemed limited.Nearly half a century later the film still seems fresh despite all that has followed it. The mix of humdrum small town life, youthful dreaming, the excitement of the chase, and the devil of wrong doing are a heady concoction when it works as it does here. Two images endure for me, the bloody, brutal finale, and a youthful chase, boy after girl, through swaying cornfields. They are worthy cyphers for the film as a whole.

They Still Rob Banks in a Terrifically Packaged 40th Anniversary Special Edition DVD Set

tt0061418

Those of you who have been fortunate enough to read Mark Harris' recently published "Pictures at a Revolution: Five Movies and the Birth of New Hollywood" know his illuminating account of the long, checkered road that led to the production and release of this seminal 1967 movie. Produced by Warren Beatty, it initially bombed but then was championed by influential critic Pauline Kael to secure a re-release. The groundbreaking film took off and became a flash point for censors to usher in the modern ratings system still in effect today. Looking at the film in a freshly restored print on the 2008 Special Edition DVD, it strikes me now as an exceptionally well-crafted combination of revisionist history and contemporary humor laced abruptly with spurts of unrelenting violence. Although the story is based on real-life figures, the film feels far less like a biopic and more like a romantic tragedy. Beatty was responsible for crucial aspects of the production, but director Arthur Penn and screenwriters David Newman and Robert Benton deserve significant credit for the final, often mesmerizing result.The plot reads like a folktale. Set during the depth of the Great Depression in 1931 Texas, frustrated diner waitress Bonnie Parker catches a small-time ex-con named Clyde Barrow stealing her mother's car. Instead of reporting him to the police, she gets excited by his adventurous spirit and dares him to rob a grocery store. That becomes the point of no return as they begin a whirlwind trip from Texas to Missouri robbing banks. Along the way, they form the Barrow Gang with slow-witted gas-pump jockey C.W. Moss as their getaway driver along with Clyde's quick-tempered brother Buck and his panic-stricken wife Blanche. They become local heroes to the downtrodden townsfolk and farmers already facing bank foreclosures and unemployment. However, their fate appears predetermined in increasingly foreboding episodes, especially with a Texas Ranger they humiliate and a comically bewildering ride with undertaker Eugene Grizzard and his wife. The ending is such a classic that it has lost some of its shock value, but it is an appropriate exclamation point to the infamy of the title characters.As Clyde, Beatty gets to play up his strengths as a moody, charismatic actor and makes clear the character's impotence as an intriguing subtext to his innately violent nature. In a role passed over by Natalie Wood, Jane Fonda and Tuesday Weld, Faye Dunaway makes a remarkably vivid impression as Bonnie even if her character is not nearly as complex as Clyde. A tad too glamorous for the role, she still makes palpable Bonnie's small-town frustration and need for intimacy. Like Dunaway, Gene Hackman broke out of anonymity with his searing performance as Buck. Michael J. Pollard is memorable as C.W., as are Estelle Parsons (long before playing Roseanne's lesbian mother) as Blanche and Gene Wilder, also in his film debut, as Eugene. The technical work is outstanding, in particular, Burnett Guffey's textured cinematography and Dede Allen's quickly paced editing, both of which come together masterfully in the violent climax. Any of these elements, if not coordinated correctly, could have led the film awry, but they don't and the film remains an incisive study of two desperate characters during an equally desperate time.The two-disc 2008 Special Edition DVD is loaded with extras. Disc One contains the restored movie and a couple of the theatrical trailers. Disc Two contains a fascinating 40th anniversary documentary, "Revolution: The Making of 'Bonnie and Clyde'", hosted by Beatty and running just over an hour. Much like Harris' book, it covers almost everything you'd want to know about the film, including its genesis from Francois Truffaut whose French New Wave influence can still be felt in the final film. Moreover, it really shows how enterprising Beatty was in getting his first big-screen production off the ground despite a lot of studio opposition. The second documentary is a standard History Channel program, "Love and Death: The Story of Bonnie and Clyde", covering the considerably less glamorous real-life details of the original outlaws. In terms of archival footage, there is also a longish segment of Beatty's wardrobe tests; and two deleted scenes, both without sound, that last about five minutes. For an additional cost, there is also available the Bonnie and Clyde Ultimate Collector's Edition for die-hard fans. It includes all the extras of the Special Edition plus a 36-page hardcover book of behind-the-scenes photos, a 24-page reproduction of the original 1967 press book, and a mail-in poster offer.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061418/reviews-191

ur3608743

title: They Still Rob Banks in a Terrifically Packaged 40th Anniversary Special Edition DVD Set review: Those of you who have been fortunate enough to read Mark Harris' recently published "Pictures at a Revolution: Five Movies and the Birth of New Hollywood" know his illuminating account of the long, checkered road that led to the production and release of this seminal 1967 movie. Produced by Warren Beatty, it initially bombed but then was championed by influential critic Pauline Kael to secure a re-release. The groundbreaking film took off and became a flash point for censors to usher in the modern ratings system still in effect today. Looking at the film in a freshly restored print on the 2008 Special Edition DVD, it strikes me now as an exceptionally well-crafted combination of revisionist history and contemporary humor laced abruptly with spurts of unrelenting violence. Although the story is based on real-life figures, the film feels far less like a biopic and more like a romantic tragedy. Beatty was responsible for crucial aspects of the production, but director Arthur Penn and screenwriters David Newman and Robert Benton deserve significant credit for the final, often mesmerizing result.The plot reads like a folktale. Set during the depth of the Great Depression in 1931 Texas, frustrated diner waitress Bonnie Parker catches a small-time ex-con named Clyde Barrow stealing her mother's car. Instead of reporting him to the police, she gets excited by his adventurous spirit and dares him to rob a grocery store. That becomes the point of no return as they begin a whirlwind trip from Texas to Missouri robbing banks. Along the way, they form the Barrow Gang with slow-witted gas-pump jockey C.W. Moss as their getaway driver along with Clyde's quick-tempered brother Buck and his panic-stricken wife Blanche. They become local heroes to the downtrodden townsfolk and farmers already facing bank foreclosures and unemployment. However, their fate appears predetermined in increasingly foreboding episodes, especially with a Texas Ranger they humiliate and a comically bewildering ride with undertaker Eugene Grizzard and his wife. The ending is such a classic that it has lost some of its shock value, but it is an appropriate exclamation point to the infamy of the title characters.As Clyde, Beatty gets to play up his strengths as a moody, charismatic actor and makes clear the character's impotence as an intriguing subtext to his innately violent nature. In a role passed over by Natalie Wood, Jane Fonda and Tuesday Weld, Faye Dunaway makes a remarkably vivid impression as Bonnie even if her character is not nearly as complex as Clyde. A tad too glamorous for the role, she still makes palpable Bonnie's small-town frustration and need for intimacy. Like Dunaway, Gene Hackman broke out of anonymity with his searing performance as Buck. Michael J. Pollard is memorable as C.W., as are Estelle Parsons (long before playing Roseanne's lesbian mother) as Blanche and Gene Wilder, also in his film debut, as Eugene. The technical work is outstanding, in particular, Burnett Guffey's textured cinematography and Dede Allen's quickly paced editing, both of which come together masterfully in the violent climax. Any of these elements, if not coordinated correctly, could have led the film awry, but they don't and the film remains an incisive study of two desperate characters during an equally desperate time.The two-disc 2008 Special Edition DVD is loaded with extras. Disc One contains the restored movie and a couple of the theatrical trailers. Disc Two contains a fascinating 40th anniversary documentary, "Revolution: The Making of 'Bonnie and Clyde'", hosted by Beatty and running just over an hour. Much like Harris' book, it covers almost everything you'd want to know about the film, including its genesis from Francois Truffaut whose French New Wave influence can still be felt in the final film. Moreover, it really shows how enterprising Beatty was in getting his first big-screen production off the ground despite a lot of studio opposition. The second documentary is a standard History Channel program, "Love and Death: The Story of Bonnie and Clyde", covering the considerably less glamorous real-life details of the original outlaws. In terms of archival footage, there is also a longish segment of Beatty's wardrobe tests; and two deleted scenes, both without sound, that last about five minutes. For an additional cost, there is also available the Bonnie and Clyde Ultimate Collector's Edition for die-hard fans. It includes all the extras of the Special Edition plus a 36-page hardcover book of behind-the-scenes photos, a 24-page reproduction of the original 1967 press book, and a mail-in poster offer.