13th Street HD http://www.info.sky.de After being discredited as a coward, a 19th century seaman lives for only one purpose: to redeem himself. Richard Brooks Peter O'Toole James Mason Curd Jürgens Eli Wallach Jack Hawkins Paul Lukas Daliah Lavi Akim Tamiroff Jûzô Itami Tatsuo Saitô Andrew Keir Jack MacGowran Ric Young Noel Purcell Walter Gotell Rafiq Anwar Marne Maitland Newton Blick A.J. Brown Christian Marquand Paul Frees Surjit Singh Lewis Alexander Maxwell Craig Aileen Lewis Dido Plumb John Richardson Nam Siphan Suon Viviane Ventura Paul Weston Richard Brooks Jules Buck Peter O'Toole 1965 Adventure Drama Romance 6.7 Viewers Comments: Conrad's treatise on fear, heroism, cowardice and death O'Toole Sails Serene Over Choppy Waters Read the Book and Watch the Film Twice Superb Acting; Don't Miss This Classic Drama Peter O'Toole is magnificent as a deranged sailor in an interesting story of cowardice and redemption Not half bad!! Epic Jim See For Everything But The Main Stars J.Conrad superb novel portrayed in a dark and poethic cinema language The split second difference Did Brooks read Conrad's book? Good Peter O'Toole performance in a great Joseph Conrad story Worth a Visit Terrible Movie And Even Worse Adaptation A Period Piece Watchable and visually appealing Mediocre but worth watching. Disappointing Conrad Adaptation A coward dies a thousand deaths before he can be reborn.... " You can no more escape who you are, . . . than what you are " 'Lord Jim' is a stretched but frequently enjoyable adventure. Dull and over-long Has Two Of The All-Time Best Film Villains ... A literary adventure film Average, overlong adaptation of the Conrad novel IMDb Reviews: I have seen the film three times over the past thirty years and each time I loved it. The subject of the film must have attracted director Richard Brooks who was essentially a screenplay writer who later became a director. He knew the merits of a strong script with philosophical lines from Conrad. Coppola was to use the related original material (Conrad's) in his "Apocalypse Now" for the Brando scenes several decades after this film was made and mostly forgotten.What Brooks does not realize is that lines like "it only takes a split second to make a coward a hero or turn a hero into a coward" and "every sinner wants a second chance at redemption, without realizing he is damned for ever" are philosophical lines that one expects to hear from very literate individuals. Here, in "Lord Jim," the lines are often spoken by the dregs of society. Jim, of course, we are told by the narrator (Jack Hawkins' Marlowe) was philosophical, dreamed of heroism, and was a gentleman.The film is made up of three distinct segments: 1. the "sinking" of SS Patna 2. The liberation of Patusan ("Patna" + "us" make up the name Patusan, remarks Jim to his love) and 3. The battle with a group of scoundrels (led by James Mason's 'Gentleman' Brown) with some fine speeches on honor, death, and fear.Each segment could stand alone but together the film adds considerable worthiness that exceeds the action and plot, the elements that most viewers use to judge a movie. The lesser characters in the film add color and counterpoints to the script. Christian Marquand's French Captain who defends Jim's "cowardice" with the words "fear can make us do strange things" or Paul Lukas' Stern who compares his dead butterfly collection with the "wonderful, perfect human beings that God created" or the native who wonders why some pray to one god instead of a host of Gods are a few examples of dialogs that force you to reflect on what you heard.The film's subject covers several religions. The fervent Muslims on the way to Haj survive the storm. The Christian Jim prays to his God. The Buddhists pray to Buddha. And the natives pray to their array of gods (a touch of Hinduism?). Yet, the film is not a religious film. But faith in God is underlined at every stage.Conrad was Polish and a seaman before he became a writer. Brooks is an American. O'Toole leads a cast that is predominantly British. Daliah Lavi is Israeli, Marquand is French, Jurgens is German...The film is truly international.Brooks not only wrote and directed the film but this was the first film that he produced. The film proved to be ideal for O'Toole reprising his roles of "Lawrence of Arabia" and "Becket", roles that draw thin lines between cowardice and heroism and consequent attempts to redeem oneself. The film is not great cinema--but will remain for me cinema based on related major literary works ("Lord Jim" and "Heart of Darkness", both narrated by the fictional Marlow) adapted for the screen with some delightful performances from O'Toole, Mason, Wallach, and Marquand and commendable photography by Freddie Young. It is sometime in the late 19th century, and Jim is an up-and-coming merchant seaman. After rising through the ranks under Captain Marlowe, Jim is injured and stranded in Java. After recovering, he signs on with the first available ship: the SS Patna, bound for Mecca with hundreds of pilgrims. During a storm, the crew abandon it, thinking it will surely sink, and in a moment of weakness; Jim joins them. Back in port, they realise the ship was saved, and Jim's guilt impels him to turn himself in. After a public humiliation at an official inquiry, Jim becomes a drifter in the Asiatic waters; determined to one day restore honour to his good name.Written and directed by Richard Brooks- and based on Joseph Conrad's novel of the same name- 'Lord Jim' is a grandly photographed adventure that is enjoyable, though doesn't live up to its source material. Despite Brooks' best efforts, he fails to recapture the psychological intrigue and headily atmospheric nature of the novel. His version of the story is more of a straight adventure piece, missing the subtle, profound examinations of guilt and honour that made up the dark heart of Conrad's tale.This is not to say the film isn't worthwhile, however. Though it culminates with a dull battle sequence, and the pacing is sluggish in places, 'Lord Jim' still engages and entertains. Brooks' dialogue and characterisation is strong, while the portrayal of the colonial attitudes of the time is striking and powerful. Despite the fact that his handling of the novel's themes feels lightweight, the central message about redemption and dignity still comes across; albeit a little watered down.Furthermore, Freddie Young's immersive colour cinematography gives the film a crisp look and an epic feel. He successfully captures the contrast between the different settings of the film, from the bustling port of Java to the exotic, remote village of Patusan. His utilisation of various camera angles and movements creates dynamic, dramatic scenes, whether it be the stormy night on the Patna, the tense trial of Jim, or the final showdown. Young's consummate work enhances the mood and tone of the film, making it a visually stunning spectacle.Conversely, Alan Osbiston's ponderous editing lends proceedings a sluggish pace, which is most evident in the latter half of the film. Though just under two and a half hours, 'Lord Jim' feels more protracted than it should have. On the other hand, Bronislaw Kaper's score is atmospheric and stirring, giving life to even the most lethargic of scenes, complementing the fine work of the aforementioned Young.Also worthy of praise is the cast, led by a pitch-perfect Peter O'Toole. There were- and still are- few actors who could inject the same degree of intensity into their performances as O'Toole did, time and time again. As Jim, he enthralls with his obsessive desire to clear his name of dishonour, and his co-stars prove to be equally impressive. Eli Wallach does typically fine work as the villainous warlord The General, while Curd Jürgens steals every scene he's in as the duplicitous, drunken Cornelious. Moreover, James Mason's turn as the oily, cut-throat bandit Gentleman Brown may make your skin actually crawl; and is the main highlight of the uneven latter half.In conclusion, Richard Brooks' adaptation of Joseph Conrad's 'Lord Jim' is a mixed-bag if ever there was one. Though Conrad's fascinating tale of guilt, honour and redemption is slightly truncated, it is not totally lost in translation; and the film still packs a narrative punch. Freddie Young's cinematography is captivating, while Bronislaw Kaper's score is stirring and the performances are of a particularly high quality- especially that of star Peter O'Toole. At the end of the day, though it goes through some choppy waters, 'Lord Jim' is still a cruise you should embark on. Lord Jim is one of those great works of fiction that is best watched after having read the novel, or at least a solid summary of the book. Without this background, the movie could be hard to understand. I also found that it was helpful to watch the film twice. Since some of the details of the movie do not square with those of the novel, it was a bit confusing at times to follow the sequence of the movie, and a second viewing brought all of that into focus. In my opinion, the motion picture does capture quite well the spirit of the book, if not the absolute letter.I actually found Peter O'Toole's depiction of the lead character to be a quite good representation. He is just as naive and disoriented a character in the movie as in the book. His heroics in the movie are appropriately tempered with self-doubt, and his ultimate fate squares with the novelist's intent for his hero/anti-hero.I enjoy watching movies of this kind to see how a director and actors visualize the plot of their respective novels, and to me Lord Jim was not a disappointment. "Lord Jim" is a film that offers viewers satisfaction on many levels. Although it is set in an exotic locale and has a considerable amount of action, the real story of this movie is its exploration of the human condition. Love, honor, courage, commitment and redemption all come into play as the story moves from the sea to the jungle. It reminds us how a split-second decision can alter dramatically the course of our lives."Lord Jim" is a well-paced, engaging film. Peter O'Toole's thought-provoking and moving performance will stick in your mind long after you see this movie. I haven't read the book so I can't speak to the movie's faithfulness to the original text, but it does stand on its own legs as a thoroughly entertaining film. If you like movies such as "Lawrence of Arabia" or "The Sand Pebbles", you will definitely enjoy "Lord Jim." I highly recommend it.Hopefully, it will become available on DVD soon. Exciting and brooding picture based on the complex novel written by Joseph Conrad (who also wrote Darkness heart) and brought to the screen in lavish budget and colorful visual style .After being discredited as a coward, a 19th century seaman (Peter O'Toole) in British Merchant Marine lives for only one purpose : to redeem himself. As he suffers a deep scar and pain for the rest of his life . But then , he becomes leader of a Southeast Asia village in spite of his past clouded by allegations of betrayal and cowardice . Meanwhile , the native villagers are being slavered by a group nasty cutthroats led European thugs (Eli Wallach , Curt Jurgens) . As the belief shown in him by the villagers is put to the test . This is a thought-provoking and intelligent story based on Joseph Conrad's novel written in 1900. This prestigious novel has been simplified for easier compression , appreciation and nicely developing . This adventure flick contains , thrills , action , intrigue and wonderful outdoors . Excellent acting by Peter O'Toole in the title role , he is a sailor in Souteast Asia who is adopted by a suppressed village as its leader . After the film's tepid reception, especially for his own starring performance, a once-enthusiastic Peter O'Toole declared, 'It was a mistake and I made the mistake because I was conservative and played safe and that way lies failure'. Movie's biggest moments provided by strange acting by the great Peter O'Toole . Supporting cast is frankly sensational such as Curd Jürgens , Eli Wallach , Jack Hawkins , Paul Lukas , Daliah Lavi , Akim Tamiroff , Andrew Keir , Jack MacGowran ,Ric Young , Noel Purcel , Walter Gotell , among others .Evocative and exotic cinematography by Freddie Young , shot on location in Malacca, Malaysia Lantau Island, Hong Kong, China and Angkor Wat, Siem Reap, Cambodia. Although the Cambodian government never demanded any script approval, one condition of its agreement to allow on-location shooting in the troubled nation was for the production company to build a lot of rooms addition to an existing hotel near the famed Angkor ruins .Directed and screen-played with awesome style by Richard Brooks . He was a fine writer/director so consistently mixed the good and average which it became impossible to know that to expect from him next . Firstly he worked regularly as a Hollywood screenwriter . After that , his initial experience of directing was one of his own screenplays called ¨Crisis¨. The Richard Brooks films that have the greatest impact are realized during the 50s and 60s as ¨Cat on a hot tin roof¨, ¨Something of value¨ , ¨Elmer Gantry¨, ¨Sweet bird of youth¨, ¨In cold blood¨ , ¨Lord Jim¨. Brooks was a writer and director of Chekhovian depth , who mastered the use of understatement, anticlimax and implied emotion . His films enjoyed lasting appeal and tended to be more serious than the usual mainstream productions . Richards formerly directed two good Western titled ¨Bite the bullet¨ and ¨The professionals ¨ with various tough stars as Burt Lancaster , Lee Marvin , Jack Palance and Robert Ryan , including the same musician , Alex North , and similar outdoors . The ¨Lord Jim¨ is an authentic must see , not to be missed for buffs of the genre . A magnificent movie , hardly noticed for its theatrical release ; however , being nowadays very well considered . Rating : Above average because of its awesome acting , dialog , score are world class. Peter O'Tooles eyes are disturbingly blue. Lots of visual detail, good cinematography, cheap special effects. It moves slowly and doesn't really explain the motivations of the main character very well. O'Toole is good but oblique. The movie doesn't really pick up until Eli Wallach shows up. He is quite good, cheerfully cruel and sadistic, and I think he may have taken things from this role that he later expanded on in The Good, The Bad and The Ugly. Curt Jurgens is delightfully seedy, a sweaty and cowardly drunk who needs a haircut. I don't know anything about the rating system here but I'm giving it a seven for just for watchability. While quite a few filmmakers try to either be as realistic as possible or go the complete opposite way (fantasy or action wise), there was a time when a story was defined just by the main role. As is the case in this movie. The central character is so epic (in his achievements but also in his failures), that it would feel ridiculous to compare him with a human being.There will be Blood tried to bring that sort of movie back (and depending on your view it achieved or not just that). But while Daniel Day Lewis played a different character, the intensity in the portrayal was the same! The general story line is very familiar. The central performances give this the edge it needs. But it might not be enough to convince you. Whatever you may think, it's intense and packs a punch or two along the way. Cann you bear with it (and it's central character) throughout or will you give up on it? A story like this demands authenticity, and the film only goes halfway. The Cambodian setting and people are the best thing about this film. Every extra and every bit actor who speaks Cambodian but the film never bothers to subtitle, they are the true stars.Its main actors are badly miscast. Eli Wallach, a New York Jewish actor mostly known for playing gangsters and crooked cops, as the General, a Khmer warlord, isn't at all believable in Yellowface makeup.An Israeli actress playing a Cambodian? An Englishman playing an Arab trader? They stick out, and aren't believable.The film doesn't do justice to Conrad's great work, but is still worth seeing. Conrad's meditation on courage and justice is turned into Lawrence of Southeast Asia by O'Toole. The double edge of humanity: fear and courage. In his darkest hour, Lord Jim finds a redeeming path of self-sacrifice facing his past and the burden of a dramatic split-second decision. A coward´s decision aboard the Patna? Heroes before the action, dreaming of epic challenges often "freeze" in the face of danger. The survival instinct is in clear contradiction to the strong desire of young Jim to do good. Peter o´Toole reveals a dramatical and deep performance, outstandingly faithful to Conrad´s masterpiece. James Mason is superb giving life to an ignominious as well as charming dark face of evil. The vivid colour of the jungle and the thick river myst create the perfect atmosphere for this dark novel(with a major future influence in Coppola´s "Apocalypse now"). In this film you can see portrayed the all time dilema of our lives. Everyone in his or her lifetime will sometimes have to make a decisive split-second decision, that will change irreversibly his life and that of others. If it is the wrong decision, will we ever have a chance of redemption? Joseph Conrad's Lord Jim made it to the big screen for a second time, the first being a silent screen version. The tale which is about the split second difference between being a hero and a coward which is the time it takes to either give in or control your fears.Peter O'Toole who recycled some of his Lawrence Of Arabia persona plays the title role of the cashiered British merchant marine officer who abandons his ship during a storm with the rest of the white crew leaving a boatload of Moslem pilgrims to Mecca to fend for themselves. The ship doesn't sink however, it's survives and is salvaged by the French in the Red Sea. In fact O'Toole further compounds his problems by owning up to the decision forcing a court martial and a cashiering. But fates give him a chance to redeem himself somewhat when he becomes a deliverer of sorts to a Malaysian tribe being subjugated by a bandit general played by Eli Wallach recycling his bandit character from The Magnificent Seven. Other folks in the cast are Paul Lukas, Curt Jurgens, Akim Tamiroff playing parts they are well typecast for. Although he doesn't come in until 80% of the film is done James Mason is memorable as a rather cultured but deadly river pirate who Wallach makes common cause with to regain control in his area. Mason to be compensated by some hidden treasure the natives are reputed to possess. In the end O'Toole has set some impossible standards of human behavior for himself and feels he has to live up to them.Conrad as author is almost as difficult to translate as Hemingway. This was certainly a better effort than the version of Victory that Fredric March did. I think that O'Toole was fortunate to have burst on the big screen in a breakout role of T.E. Lawrence that was similar to his character here. It was well brought out by director Richard Brooks.Fans of the listed players should like Lord Jim. After 10 years since my first reading, I finished Lord Jim for the second time under the avocado tree at my mom's house on my summer vacation today. I couldn't believe how brilliant the book was, and when I got to the last ten pages, I wanted more and more. My jaw dropped at the brilliance. The ending is phenomenal, and the book is overall a masterpiece and perfect in so many ways. I was amazed to learn that Conrad learned English in his 20's as a third language, after Polish (his native language) and French. He writes with a command of the language better than most professional authors and surely way better than I could ever dream of, despite being a native speaker and passionate English student.With a huge amount of passion for the book, I excitedly rented the film from Amazon and set aside 2.5 hours to watch it tonight! I am a huge fan of Peter O'Toole, Eli Wallach, and had a great interest in James Mason and the rest of the cast, like the gorgeous Daliah Lavi. The acting is not at all my point of contention with this film, because I think they did great.What happened with the directing and the script? Robert Brooks, did you read the same book I read? This became a bang-fest of guns and fighting where the book had maybe two pistol shots and one rifle snipe in the entire novel, with oblique reference to some other possible squabbles. The novel was primarily an existential struggle of a man trying to get back his lost honor, with complex narrative and immersive naturalism. The movie version had weak cinematography and horribly simplified and confusing writing where the emphasis hit hard on stuff that the book didn't ever mention, and totally ignored some of the most important and poignant points of the novel.If you want a good Lord Jim, please read the book. If you want to be left confused and disappointed, frustrated and bored, watch this film. The last scene is atrocious. It is technically the same as the novel, but oh so different in every way. What happens with Jewel, or "the girl" in the film (because they somehow decided it was better not to give her a name) is totally unacceptable if you are going do call this film "Lord Jim".Yes, this is a piece of trash, and I will never watch it again. I can't say that I regret my time watching it, because I had to as homework for my love of the novel, but it is so terribly adapted, and so insulting to the original author who toiled with a very challenging life to hew the story like a sculptor in another language, that please, what the heck happened with the Brooks script? Did he read the same novel? Could he or Hollywood just not help the distortion? He had a goldmine of base content but completely blew it! Doramin is nothing like the tragic, titanic, elephant leader of the book, and we terribly miss his amazing motherly witch wife, Jewel doesn't even merit her name in the movie and is a hollow shell of the strong feminine counterpart to Jim's groping leadership that she is in the novel, Jim is trapped in a confusing, castrated version of himself that doesn't make any sense, Brown is not Brown, Marlow who is the most important character is deleted from the script, Tamb 'Itam as well is deleted to terrible effect because his presence is critical to establish the believable bridge between the white leader and the native society that is immediately "taken over" by Jim (Tamb 'Itam is also an outsider in Patusan, but fiercely loyal to Jim), Cornelius is a far cry from the abject beetle that he is in the book (and Conrad didn't even think to make him alcoholic because his abjectness was already so absolute), the Rajah Allah was for some reason reinvented as "the general" which is totally opposite of his bedraggled fawning terrible scared leader character, Dain Warris loses his soul brother connection with Jim, Stein is a shadow of his powerful presence that he has in the book, and on, and on. Seriously I am scratching the surface with how much Brooks robbed the essence of the novel when making this film that cannot even stand on its own as a film. I would be willing to pardon his.pilferage if he had just made a good film with the source material, but he lost his way.Film and novels often have a hard time in adaptions of one to the other, because they are such different mediums. You might conclude that it is never possible - and that is not a bad conclusion. But, there are some amazing attempts, like John Houston's adaptation of "Under the Volcano" (1984) or "Willy Wonka" (1971) or "The Excorcist" (1973), and so many other great adaptations to cinema that amplify the experience of the book. But dang, it is simultaneously sad and it makes sense that one of the treasures of literature, "Lord Jim", continues without a good adaptation, because it is allusive and built on paradoxes and complexity of narrative and appeals the the most profound extremes of the imagination. Moving story of an idealistic seaman forced to deal with his act of cowardice and how he ultimately redeems himself. The film has good action sequences and a moving love story. Performances by Eli Wallach and James Mason are colorful and solid, and there are plenty of Peter O'Toole's trademark "vacant stares". Daliah Lavi is gorgeous and her role more substantive than those of her other films. I love Peter O'Toole's films from this period (Lawrence of Arabia, What's New Pussycat?, Night of the Generals) and this one is as good as most of them. I looked for this film on DVD and finally had to tape it off of AMC (in the good old days before they saturated their programing with commercials). I'd like to see it restored and re-released. Yes, it's too long and too pretentious with Richard Brook's heavy hand pounding out Conrad's philosophies about Good and Evil, Bravery and Cowardice, but the film has many redeeming qualities for those willing to sit through the longeurs, among them a sterling cast of international character actors at their very best: Russia's Akim Tamiroff, Germany's Curt Jurgens, America's Eli Wallach, England's James Mason and Hungary's Paul Lukas. Lovers of the supreme and subtle art of the British lighting cameraman (so different from the usual Technicolor gloss) can revel in Freddie Young's mastery of atmospheric color photography, some of it shot on location in Southeast Asia, but much of it reproduced magnificently at London's Shepperton Studios with perfect sets by Geoff Drake who learned his trade as Vincent Korda's assistant. The sound effects (uncredited) and native music used during the action scenes are particularly effective. Trivia fans will note that the gorgeous Asian girl played by the Israeli actress Daliah Lavi is now on her fourth marriage and apparently living in Ashville, North Carolina far from the heart of darkness. Orson Welles said in regards to this movie, "If I was police commissioner of the world I would put Richard Brooks in prison for what he did to Lord Jim." I agree with his sentiment.Joseph Conrad's Lord Jim is one of the finest novels ever written, but Brooks' adaptation is a tremendous disappointment. In concept Peter O'Toole is a perfect choice, however even his performance is weak(something I would blame also in part on Richard Brooks). Which leaves this movie with having done nothing right. Based on the novel, this movie is not only representative of the period piece that Joseph Conrad's story was, but also of movie-making at that time (1965). It's an epic story told in the way that they did back then --sweeping landscapes, exotic locales, hundreds of extras, good performances and many questions regarding philosophical and practical values. At times a bit clunky and unexplained, the movie is a study in movie-making during that era.It brings up the same issues that Conrad did in his book, sometimes so much so that the dialog feels as though it is dragging. O'Toole's character emotes plenty, despite acting flat for a good portion of the first third. The scene between him and James Mason is the spark of the piece. At 2:34, this movie flounders and drags in the middle. Still, it's a good piece to watch. "Lord Jim" is a visually-impressive film with Peter O'Toole almost as charismatic (and troubled) as a leader of a native rebellion as he was in "Lawrence of Arabia". But apart from his conveying arms and gunpowder to the tribesmen one wonders if he was really needed, because they seem well prepared to attack their oppressors. His romance with Daliah Lavi reminds one of 1950s Westerns where the stranger rides into town and immediately strikes up a relationship with the local beauty who seems to have no other suitors. But the film is already long enough (at 154 minutes) not to embrace the other film cliché of there actually being a suitor who becomes jealous and betrays the newcomer to the other side.After Jim is captured there's quite a build up to his torture which, when it happens, is anti-climatic in its brevity, certainly compared with O'Toole's ordeal at the hands of the Turks in "Lawrence". And the general's psychoanalytical assessment of Jim is unconvincingly remarkable in its accuracy, and the subsequent psychological pressure does not seem that arduous.When the natives were celebrating their victory, I was wondering if I had misread the cast list as James Mason hadn't appeared. Then the film "starts up" again with a new plot line. It would have been better if Mason had been introduced earlier on, perhaps when Jim was trying to get a boat to transport the arms and gunpowder up-river or as an accomplice of the general.That said, the film is good to watch. O'Toole performs well, and Mason makes a striking baddie. Their mid-river debate is compelling to watch. This film is certainly overlong, the narrative tends to meander and O'Toole's overly earnest performance becomes monotonous after a while. But it still includes bits of excellent dialogue, Eli Wallach and James Mason give smashing performances and, near the end, some philosophical depth is actually achieved. Overall, not a very successful picture, but one with enough redeeming qualities to be worth watching at least once. The 1965 Columbia Pictures film, "Lord Jim," has an excellent pedigree. A fine writer-director in Richard Brooks, who made such distinguished films as "The Professionals," "In Cold Blood," and "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof;" an outstanding cast of international stars that includes Peter O'Toole, James Mason, Curt Jurgens, and Eli Wallach; and a classic story by Joseph Conrad. What could go wrong? Plenty it seems.Conrad's story details a man's search for redemption. Midshipman aboard a leaky tub that is over crowded with 800 pilgrims, Jim and other crew members panic and abandon the ship and the passengers during a violent storm. Jim and his mates reach safety, where they discover that the ship and the passengers have been rescued, and, while the other crew members flee, Jim faces an inquiry into his cowardly actions. Against picturesque Cambodian locations, Jim tries to keep a step ahead of his past, while seeking heroism to compensate for his perceived cowardice. Unfortunately, Jim's introspective quest makes for a pedestrian workmanlike film. The few battle scenes are static and unexciting, watching Jim grimace and flash back to his cowardly actions is not dynamic filmmaking, and the characters talk and talk and talk. Peter O'Toole excelled in such rich flamboyant roles as Henry II, Lawrence, and Alan Swann; however, Conrad's Lord Jim is an internalized character, and O'Toole's cool detached performance turns Jim into a colorless unsympathetic man. Jim relates to no one, even his supposed affection for the girl, played by Daliah Lavi, is unconvincing; O'Toole and Lavi have no chemistry, let alone any romantic spark. While Eli Wallach is always interesting to watch, and his General is easily the most memorable part, a supporting player cannot carry a two-and-a-half-hour movie. A film laden with veteran actors that also include Akim Tamiroff, Jack Hawkins, and Paul Lukas, in addition to the aforementioned O'Toole, Wallach, and Mason, "Lord Jim" had the potential to be a film rich in performances. Perhaps Conrad is an impossible author to successfully film, unless risks are taken, such as those dared by Coppola with "Apocalypse Now," his loose adaptation of Conrad's "Heart of Darkness." Brooks wrote a literate script, perhaps too literate, and cast veteran actors with proved skills in an evidently big-budget production. However, while the recipe was good, the end result was not. "Lord Jim" is slow going and requires patience to sit through. Given the effort, the director, the cast, and the location photography, the film can only be rated a major disappointment. From a time when Civil Servants,Remittance Men and Army Officers and their Ladies ruled half the world,"Lord Jim" is the sort of tale set before starry - eyed British public schoolboys to encourage them to sally forth and perpetuate the Empire and spread Victorian Values to the "Fuzzy Wuzzies".A Public School Man would understand that Jim - by deserting an apparently doomed ship - had broken the self - imposed "Code" of the upper middle classes.Stokers and stewards jumped overboard,Etonians and the like were supposed to be "Useful at a Hunt Ball - indispensable in a shipwreck" and behave accordingly. Jim would be termed a "funk" and face social ostracism - frankly he would have been better off dead.Nonsensical today,but de rigeur a century and a quarter ago. Chaps who adapted to the indigenous culture were deemed to have "gone native" and considered beyond the pale.Jim had well and truly burned his boats. Former seaman Joseph Conrad was an early proponent of post - colonial guilt(see "Heart of Darkness"),and most of his European characters are greedy and self - serving,if not downright criminal.Only Jim with his perceived need for redemption has a pure heart.He is played with blue - eyed innocence by Mr P. O'Toole.As a colonialist who has broken ranks he is treated sympathetically by his creator.Mr O'Toole never gets much beyond B.O.P. level with his character,the philosophising falling uneasily not to say oxymoronically from his lips.Messr Mason and Wallach benefit from the relative lack of restraint imposed on their respective characters.Mr Mason in particular has a fine old time and lifts the movie up several notches just when it has given every appearance of having become moribund. Miss Lavi as "The Girl"(Is this indicative of Conrad's disinterest in women except as ciphers or is she representative of his conception of "Eternal Woman"?)has an intelligence to match her beauty. Redemption is of course one of the Great Themes of literature and "Lord Jim" as a novel is clearly concerned with it throughout it's length.The movie - on the other hand - uses it only in passing.It is not it's raison d'etre.Part travelogue,part adventure,it's sometimes beautiful to look at,well - photographed,directed in a deceptively breezy style and always worth watching.But it is not a serious exploration of the fragile psyche of a self - styled "coward" and an enquiry into how many people have to die before he can be "reborn". In 1900, Joseph Conrad published his extraordinary novel Lord Jim. Since then it has traveled around the world and received inter-national recognition and acclaim. In 1925, it was superbly adapted into a film called " Lord Jim ", which was re-made in 1965. In this version we have Peter O'Toole as Lord Jim. Basically, it tells the story of a young English sailor who joins the British Merchant Navy and feels he has found his calling. Having been injured, he is sent to recover in a hospital. Upon his discharge, he is anxious to return to sea, he signs on the first available ship called The Patna. The aging vessel has been assigned to transport Arab pilgrims to the middle East. A huge storm strikes the floundering ship causing the Crew to abandon ship. Jim is forced to choose and he jumps. The ship, however does not sink and the cowardly crew goes into hiding, all except Jim who insists on being court-martial-ed and disgraced. For the rest of his life, Jim must live with the consequences of his fateful decision. He travels deep into the jungles of Malasia, where he seeks solace, redemption and a second chance to prove himself. The movie cast includes, James Mason, Curd Jürgens, Eli Wallach and Jack Hawkins. The film has become a benchmark for O'Toole and a definite Movie Classic. It is filled with suspense, dark drama, physical action, explosions and spectacular sequences. The sum total of which created a not-to-be missed Classic for all. **** 'Lord Jim' is a film adaptation of Joseph Conrad's acclaimed novel, in which an English seaman (Peter O'Toole), upon being exposed as a coward after abandoning a sinking vessel, seeks a life of anonymity in Southeast Asia. On his travels, he is tasked with a mission that may allow him to reassert himself as a hero, or at least a man of courage. The task is to smuggle weapons to a group of indigenous rebels, who are resisting the tyranny of a sadistic general. The barbarous General (unnamed) is played well by Eli Wallach, but the villain's lines are a little uninspired and cliché: "Death is the end of everything," he tells Jim at one point. At another: "Do you know what makes pain unbearable? It is the brain." It isn't original enough to be sinister, and cheapens the character. (The film has some nice lines, though, such as: "Become a father before you judge a father's anger," and, "There is too much pride in your humility.")The General had the potential to be like 'Apocalypse Now''s General Kurtz, but the writing steers him towards the role of "nasty, dim-witted pirate". A later villain is introduced and is competently played by James Mason; this antagonist is the better of the two, but still isn't great, and the charisma of 'Lord Jim' has to be delivered almost singly by Peter O'Toole's title character. The story is generally quite compelling in places, but the whole production feels quite stretched. It could be a classic if the plot lived up to the action – and the action is, in places, fantastic. 'Lord Jim' is a little 'Lawrence of Arabia', a little 'Treasure Island' and a little 'Indiana Jones', but lacks the tightness and cohesion necessary to equate it with any of these titles. Richard Brooks continued his flirtation with the great works of literature with this, you may think, unnecessarily lavish production of Joseph Conrad's novel which surely cried out for a more metaphysical treatment. What Brooks gives us isn't so much a tale of redemption as a lush adventure with a blue eyed blonde hero in exotic locations indulging in a load of derring-do.As Lord Jim, Peter O'Toole reprises his role as Lawerence but this time round, since he has only an idea to work with, his performances comes across as moribund and dull. The film has a large, starry cast but Brooks' way with actors seems to have deserted him, except in the case of James Mason, who is the only actor to capture the Conrad spirit. Unfortunately he doesn't come into the picture until two-thirds of the way through by which time you have lost all interest in Jim and his exploits.It is certainly a handsome epic, beautifully shot by Freddie Young, but it also overlong and a bit prosaic, something of the kiss of death for a film of this kind. ... in Eli Wallach's barbarically philosophical warlord, "The General," and in the late, great James Mason's "Gentleman" Brown, a latter-day South Seas pirate, guilty of "even some things not mentioned in the Bible." I never read the Conrad book, so I can't compare the film to that, but only judge it as a film. And I think it is worth remarking that one film has two of the all-time coolest villains in it. 'Lord Jim' is a serious and literary adventure film from the mid-'60s based on a novel by Conrad. Ostensibly it deals with notions of major setbacks, failure, self-image, honour, resilience and second chances in life. After a perverse act of negligence - James Burke - a merchant seaman - along with the other white crew members abandons a rust-tub, the 'Patna' carrying Moslem pilgrims during a sea-storm. In disgrace he ekes out a living as a menial worker in Oriental ports. He is given a second chance to redeem himself after he stops an explosion on a boat in the port of Saigon. He is observed by a shrewd dapper businessman, Stein (Paul Lukas) who hires him to transport gunpowder and rifles inland in bandit country. Peter O'Toole's performance as Jim is cited as his finest performance after his role as Lawrence of Arabia. A fairhaired free spirit he displays neurotic tics and sense of purpose. The supporting cast - the dapper Stein, the seedy money-grubbing businessmen Stromberg (Tamiroff) and Cornelius (Jurgens), a diminutive Irish sailor and cadger Robinson (MacGowran), the swarthy aggressive bandit The General (Wallach) and a devious one-eyed oriental (Young) are excellent. Full of profound phrases, sense of adventure and evocative oriental settings; it is also interesting to see the interaction between two Yorkshire actors - Leeds (or Tipperary-born) O'Toole and Huddersfield-born James Mason. I'll admit from the outset to not being a big fan of the author Joseph Conrad. I had to read HEART OF DARKNESS as part of a course once and I thought it was a right load of pretentious rubbish, poor enough to put me off the writer for life. So when I saw that this lengthy film was based on a Conrad novel, my heart sank. Unsurprisingly, LORD JIM simply isn't very good as a movie. It's overlong and has a sluggish pacing, which when compounded by unlikeable characters makes it a movie that's difficult to sit through. The early parts of the tale, including the traumatic event that shapes Peter O'Toole's later life, are well handled and engaging, but once the story moves to the East it becomes almost lifeless.The movie was shot in Cambodia but fails to bring to life much in the way of local spirit or exoticism. The most interesting thing about the production is the casting of familiar Hollywood stars in almost unrecognisable roles; for instance, I could never have imagined Eli Wallach looking so tough here (much nastier than in THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN, that's for sure). James Mason is almost unrecogisable too, although Curd Jurgens plays his reliably hissable self, all cold superiority. O'Toole feels disconnected to the material at times and the familiarity of the events that ensue means that the viewer is never gripped as they should be, leaving this a very average film overall. Country: United Kingdom Twelve strangers wake up in a clearing. They don't know where they are, or how they got there. They don't know they've been chosen - for a very specific purpose - The Hunt. Craig Zobel Betty Gilpin Hilary Swank Ike Barinholtz Wayne Duvall Ethan Suplee Emma Roberts Christopher Berry Sturgill Simpson Kate Nowlin Amy Madigan Reed Birney Glenn Howerton Steve Coulter Dean J. West Vince Pisani Teri Wyble Steve Mokate Sylvia Grace Crim Jason Kirkpatrick Macon Blair J.C. MacKenzie Tadasay Young Hannah Alline Jim Klock Usman Ally Walker Babington Ariel Eliaz Alexander Babara Tirol Palmer Ned Yousef Iyad Hajjaj Mikel Albagdadi Martin Harris Yosef Kasnetzkov Jeff Brockton Troy Roker James Anderson Giovanni Cohea Juan Gaspard Lucy Golden Justin Hartley Kathryn J. Hatam Adoria Lily Hans Marrero Charli Slaughter Jason Blum Nick Cuse Julie Goldstein Damon Lindelof Steven R. Molen Couper Samuelson Jennifer Scudder Trent Jeanette Volturno Craig Zobel 2020 Dark Comedy Slasher Horror Action Horror Thriller 6.6 Viewers Comments: Fun, action packed, and the message is both obvious and subtle Betty Gilpin Anyone who takes this movie seriously is exactly who this movie is making fun of Satirical film that makes fun of everyone I have to admit, it was an unexpectedly good movie Entertaining cartoon violence The valuable and child-friendly life-lessons of "The Tortoise and the Hare". Or something like it... True to the adage: 100% of Americans think 50% of Americans have lost their minds. Good fun and brave levels of dark humor Actually pretty good Blumhouse's Hunger Games Betty Gilpin ! Brisk action comedy Disappointing for Reasons I Didn't Expect... The message...stop trying to find a message in everything! Wow..This film made people sooo angry.lol I have no idea why this movie has only 5.6 stars it's a wild one for both extremes No One is Safe Anything but Anti Conservative propoganda lmao WATCH THIS!!! An underwhelming mess A fun satire featuring a unique super heroine who just doesn't give a damn Liberty Belle - ends Only The Easily Offended Would Not Like This Film IMDb Reviews: Nobody will confuse this film with cinematic greatness. There's no grandeur. No towering monologues. The camera work, sound and special effects are all good, sometimes very good, but nothing great. The script is good, and necessarily hammy at times.What this movie does exceptionally well is make fun of nearly everyone who gets caught up in today's divisive politics. The liberals are over the top. The conservatives are over the top. Cliché after cliché, and they all seem silly. And they should: Clichés only become real after they are manifested too often in the world.The more subtle point is Crystal, the protagonist of the story. She represents the rest of us. Just an average person caught in the middle. She doesn't have a side. She doesn't deserve the injustice of her circumstances. She trudges on against the adversity. She's endowed with her own, potent wisdom, jaded by a world-weary point of view. She's just trying to survive. She's bemused by the insanity of the game, yet sober because her well-being is at stake.Crystal is an avatar for the average American who simply wants to survive, avoid ruin, and maybe have a chance at happiness, despite the crazy people with megaphones and power trying to do them in. I could not believe how much I loved her in this movie. Her character alone is worth the watch. Some good kill scenes and a fun ride throughout. Reading all these conflicting comments is hilarious..."It's bashing liberals, this is awesome!" "No! This movie is horrible because it's for liberals and makes conservatives look bad!" "NO, it's bad because it makes liberals look bad!!" Well, in reality, it's a satirical movie about how people on both sides of the political spectrum can be garbage humans. The movie has liberals killing conservatives, then conservatives killing liberals. Both parties are exaggerated with all the typical dumb stereotypes, and both sides are equally made fun of with characters that act like idiots. Anyone who thinks this movie is "sticking it to those darn liberals/conservatives!" are the exact people this movie is making fun of. Going into this movie, I thought it was going to be a "Hunger Games" kind of deal. It turned out to be a completely different movie. This is basically a political satire that makes fun of all sides. Whether you're conservative or liberal, this movie will take jabs at you.While the plot was unexpected, I ended up enjoying the story. The humor is intentionally bizarre, and you just laugh at the ridiculousness of it all. Including the parts where they're making fun of you, the audience. The thriller part of the movie gets a bit lost, but is still there. The only thing I'll say is don't watch if you get offended easily. First of all, when I first watched the official trailer of the movie I kinda liked it, even though I didn't had high expectations about it. Eventually, it was better than I had imagined and I enjoyed it. The plot of the movie was interesting and kinda innovative. The storyline was kinda well-written and well-explained, even though it was simple and easy to understand. The characters were very interesting and well-developed, but most of them were dislikable. The casting of the movie was nice and their performances were descent. I have to admit, it was an unexpectedly very bloody and BRUTAL movie. Also, there were too many action-filled moments and the fight scenes were amazing. The first act of the movie was definitely unpredictable, very intense and full of gory death scenes. The ending scene was definitely unexpected, kinda shocking and I really enjoyed it. Moreover, it was a kinda funny movie and there were some satirical jokes during the movie. Overall, "The Hunt" was an enjoyable action/thriller film, action-filled, brutal and I would definitely recommend it to anyone! Last but not least, I'm definitely looking forward for a sequel... It's Battle Royal, meets Hunger Games meets Dodgeball meets Qanon.I'm not sure how seriously anyone should take this film, the comedy cartoon violence is closer to Tex Avery than Texas Chainsaw massacre.The underpaying theme of America's divided social class, conspiracy theory nut jobs and elitist middle class aren't really explored any any significant depth and perhaps that's the point.Escapist violence with a sick sense of humour. Watchable nonsense. If there's one horror/thriller premise that already got turned into plenty of movies, it's the "hunting humans for fun/sports" idea. There are far too many titles to list, but some of my personal favorites include the 1932 original "The Most Dangerous Game", but also "Blood Camp Thatcher", "Deadly Prey", "The Woman Hunt" and "Surviving the Game". There's always room for anther favorite, though. In fact, there's even room for another twenty favorites, as long as they deliver suspense, gore, fresh & inventive killings and insane characters. Craig Zobel's "The Hunt" is definitely a new favorite!This film's strongest assets are the eccentric but strong female lead, versus the overall "worthlessness" of the rest of the characters. By this I mean that literally everyone can die at any given moment - and many of them will - regardless of how significant or insignificant their roles have been up until then. I love that. The strong female lead speaks for itself. The woman is quite petrifying, unpredictable, not very eloquent, nihilistic, and deadlier than a whole army of vengeful liberal democrats with guns. She's also quite weird, since she shamelessly pees in front of people and narrates disturbing variants of classic children's stories.Admittedly, I found the political "satire" very exaggerated and far over the top. Many taboo subjects, like refugees and the free possession of firearms, are inevitably included and the views of both "obnoxious" democrats and "imbecilic" republicans are shoved down our throats, only to conclude that all extremist opinions are deplorable. Yeah, fine, please blow away some more people Mrs. Gilpin! The obvious thing to enjoy here is the extreme violence, the gore and Betty's stoic face. Much more enjoyable than expected.The beginning of it is funny enough, but it is the ensuing few scenes which are riotously HILARIOUS and make it worth watching- I literally laughed until I cried.Toward the middle of the film, there is a wide gap where the laugh-out-loud moments are slowed and further and further apart, but still bring a smile or giggle here and there. The ending while good, is overshadowed by a preceding fight scene that is one for the books. It was really, really well done.The best part of the entire movie though, and what makes it stand out, is that if a person watching has more than two brain cells, the dialogue is spot-on close-to-perfect in mocking BOTH SIDES of the political divide. And here, is what I think people are missing: NEITHER side is depicted as being 'better' than the other. Or worse. It has fun at the expense of everyone and it doesn't do it in any overtly mean way, but in a way where we can nod and nod and nod and laugh ... at ourselves ... no matter who we are or where we stand.Lastly, a horror film - it is not. Somewhat gory, yes. A "horror" film? no.8.6/10 It had similar vibes of Ready Or Not, ideas and themes of The Purge and the unpredictability of The Cabin In The Woods. The first act is pretty strong and it really throws you off course as to who you think the main protagonist will be. That just set me up nicely for not having a clue of where it could go next. It moves at a good pace, the violence is brutal but cartoonish in its execution, the gags are solid and go down brave but potentially dangerous routes. I was fine with them. But it wouldn't surprise if some might offend the SJW cinema-goers. While the end was the most formulaic part of the film. The journey getting there made it a worthwhile watch. I know that none of the bad reviewers even watched this movie. It's not really a left or right movie but it shows how bad both of those sides are and the hero actually seems to be like most of us, somewhere in the middle. I hope people will give it a watch before passing judgment on it. Good: Great idea on paper, yet never fully reaches its full potential and does not fully develop, lacking a full cohesive story. The acting is average all around with Betty Gilpin being the standout of a strong female lead. There is humor to be had, but not much with just a lot of quick quips here and there. The film starts off great, but then fizzles away with pacing issues...Bad: The writing is messy, and the middle drags. The story just does not add up to much and lacks depth and production.Overall: The movie tries to be political but never quite works out. The advertisements and political uproars are unnecessary. The film has a unique idea, but the low budget world does not come together.2.5/5 I love Betty Gilpin, this is the first time experience her acting talents and yup I want more :) She's very good in action scenes and her facial animations are awesome. Give.her.more.work. A familiar but efficient action comedy with an extremely brisk pacing and some good satire aimed squarely at American politics. There's an anything goes policy here with every political position a target and that makes for good humour, at least as far as I'm concerned. It's noticeably violent, kicking off with lots of shock deaths and scenes, before turning into a female-led revenge thriller towards the climax. Aside from Hilary Swank, most of the cast are unknown but they do a pretty good job here. It's not an amazing film but it did entertain me throughout. This film caught my eye last year when is stirred up controversy for being "hyper-violent" and full of "dangerous social stances." At least, that's what the media outlets claimed. Controversy is usually something I am drawn to, so I vowed to see this when it came out.I went in, expecting something hyper-violent, with some controversial, thought-provoking commentary on the political state of the country, or the skewed idealism of being extreme anything, etc. I expected some sort of point, even if it was a bad one.Unfortunately, the film delivered only violence. If that's enough to entertain you, you'll enjoy the movie. If you expect any more that that, you'll walk away wondering how that could have been worth the ticket price.What bothered me is that there were no characters in the movie. Instead, we got caricatures of extreme liberals and extreme conservatives killing each other for an hour and a half with no actual reason or point for it. We follow Crystal, (our protagonist?), as a silent, untouchable super soldier, which is perhaps an attempt to mock the Mary-Sue trope? None of the characters ever represented real people. Every single person in this movie had as much nuance and depth as a political Reddit comment.The entire film feels like it was written and shot in about an hour. Would recommend renting if you want an hour and a half of violence. If you are looking for more than that, skip this one entirely. This movie was written to basically call everyone an idiot if they base their whole lives around politically based ideological garbage. It's saying that regardless of being far right or far left you're still basically the same breed of moron and that it's the people living in the middle, who are actually trudging away just living our lives, are the actual badasses. Well not me specifically, but the general "we". The people who ignore the extremes of politics and just get things done. This movie portrays that in the least subtle way possible and I thought it was pretty hilarious.There is almost no plot to this movie, which I'm sure will turn people off, but that's honestly what I liked about it because as commentary it speaks to political discourse that we see every day. It's all crap on both sides. Just buzz words and stupid conspiracy theories with both sides trying to paint each other into a box with very specific ideologies. Then we have the protagonist, a woman we know nothing about, nothing is ever explained about her, and she just takes over everything. It's all a very hamfisted analogy for modern society but I thought it was hilarious.The plot is dumb, the characters are disposable, you never know what's going to happen next, everyone is insulted by the end, and Betty Gilpin does a hilarious job of just being bizarre. She also shows off some of her skills she's developed from starring on GLOW and her body is crazy tight in this. This is overall just a silly, ridiculous, popcorn flick with gratuitous violence...which is exactly what we need in an overly charged political era. It's a 6 because it's no masterpiece or anything, but it's plenty enjoyable. What on earth is wrong with all the 1 star reviewers?....all i can say is..if you think this film is aimed at you then maybe read a book and broaden your horizons a bit instead of leaving a super angry 1 star review pretending you are that upset by the lighting or location or whatever other nonsense your pretending to be angry by, because you know if you tell the truth it will make you look like a narrow minded fool....the irony is delicious!.Nope not perfect and yep it bounces around a bit but its blatant what the point of the story is. I wont give too much more away because the first bit of my review kinda explains the premise of the movie in itself.If you are a baby and get triggered by liberals or conservatives or immigrants or foreign countries or the elites or the animal farm or guns or hunting or political correctness or lack of blood or "red necks" or strong women or pigs in jumpers then maybe save yourself the stress and go and sit in an echo chamber with your friends... This movie is silly and a bit of fun....6/10. This movie was awesome! It's listed as horror, but there was plenty of action and comedic moments as well... will be watching this again soon! Greetings again from the darkness. Let's face it. It was a brilliant marketing strategy. In the wake of mass shootings, the release date of this film was delayed when its subject matter was deemed controversial, even scandalous The film's new marketing slogan became, "The most talked about movie of the year is one that no one's actually seen." Of course, it wasn't really true, as very few were actually talking about it. But that's what made it genius marketing ... they created interest amidst controversy that has since proven unnecessary. Director Craig Zobel (Z FOR ZACHARIAH, 2015) has delivered the least controversial, non-polarizing film of the year. It basically laughs at extremes on the left and right, and reminds us how laughing at something can often take away its power. And regardless of your "side", you'll find some laughs here.If you've seen the trailer, you know that the premise has a group of liberal elites hunting a hand-selected group of social media-active MAGA deplorables. It's a twist on Richard Connell's 1924 short story "The Most Dangerous Game", although the modern day rich aren't hunting for sport, but rather for political affiliation - gun lovers and climate change deniers. That may sound politically charged, but in fact, it plays as more comedy than comeuppance. Sure, the violence is over-the-top and often quite graphic, but this is a skewering of both red and blue.Preventing the project from falling into B-movie muck is a standout performance from Betty Gilpin ("Glow") as Crystal. She's a Rambo-type who speaks (with a southern drawl) only when necessary, and seems to have learned a lot while serving in Afghanistan. Most of the time she looks like she has "a pinch between her cheek and gum" (a tip of the Stetson to Walt Garrison), and she also hums to herself and tosses down some unusual facial expressions. This is a seriously oddball performance that is the film's highlight.One of the best sequences of the film comes quite early as the dozen or so 'deplorables' slowly wake-up and find themselves gagged in a field. A container of weapons leads to an early massacre that allows the filmmaker to tease us with numerous familiar faces taking turns as the heir-apparent lead. Some of the faces that pop up include Ike Barinholtz, Wayne Duvall, Ethan Suplee, Emma Roberts, Christopher Berry, Sturgill Simpson, Kate Nowlin, Amy Madigan, Reed Birney, Glenn Howerton, Hannah Alline (flight attendant), and Usman Ally.Of course we know this is headed to a showdown between Crystal and Athena (2-time Oscar winner Hilary Swank), the ringleader of the hunting party. A fight scene reminiscent of the KILL BILL movies (sans Samurai swords) takes place at Athena's "manor", and it is stunningly staged and executed. Unfortunately this scene also highlights the mostly inadequate dialogue that exists throughout the film. Some of the quips click, but many fall flat - surprising since the co-writers Nick Cuse and Damon Lindelof have previously collaborated on "Watchmen" and "The Leftovers."Blumhouse Productions keeps cranking out these offbeat genre films, and this one likely benefits from a misplaced scandal, and it strives for self-importance by comparing itself to George Orwell's "Animal House" and with an obscure reference to TEARS OF THE SUN (2013). It's not at the level of last year's gem READY OR NOT, and it missed the opportunity to make some political points, but it's a hoot to watch and as an added bonus, Hilary Swank teaches us the proper way to make a grilled cheese sandwich! This movie is an equal opportunity offender and it's hilarious. It pokes fun at everyone and says "don't worry you can laugh, even if it's at your own expense".I think the controversy around it makes it even funnier because I didn't find anything to be offended about in this movie because it's a satire, it's saying things with a wink and making fun of the characters saying these things. (I think anyway).Betty Gilpin is great in this and she really knew what movie she was in.It also has a way of keeping you on your toes especially at the start and was kind of refreshing. The witt with this movie comes from the fact that the smart ones play stupid and the stupid ones play smart. Imagine The Hunger Games with a bit of Hide and Seek. And that's what this movie is. The liberals play the bad guys, and the conservatives play the good guys. Which was anything BUT how the right wing media outlets portrayed it as. The acting from the protagonist Betty Gilpin is one of the best things about this movie! She took her role and absolutely ran with it. Where the film does fall flat is from it's extremely predictable plotline. Which copies from various thriller films made in the past. Overall I liked this movie! It was dark comedy with a strong politically charged twist. All of you NEED to stop by the theater (be sure to avoid Covid-19) and watch this, because it is amazing! I don't think you understand. This social satire dark comedy psychological thriller is clever and takes good turns at the most. Betty Gilpin and Hilary Swank's performance is perfect and makes the experience even better. Yes, many characters are killed off quickly, but it all helps the story develop. You see, the writers have you think the movie is one thing, but it then changes frequently. It is a great must watch. The Hunt is a film that loses itself in its own cleverness.When a bunch of "degenerates" are thrown together by a group of rich people and hunted for sport, its up to the small group to try to escape and find who is doing it to them.The film isn't close enough to Hostel, from which it borrows plenty of its ideas, whilst also being way too far away from anything that works well enough to make this film truly enjoyable.The mysterious Athena who is behind all the events of the film is not revealed until way too far into the action, in a move which makes absolutely no sense. Why attempt to keep it a secret before showing her face? It was lined up to be a big reveal then just felt all a bit "so what?" when it happens.We then have the 12. The reason they are there is touched upon for a couple of them but never really explored. You have some of them who cinema goers may recognise who just get killed off way too quickly, although some of the deaths are executed pretty well.But everything just feels like it gets lost inside a good idea. When it gets to the end following one big confrontation and moves into a one to one confrontation, you kinda feel like it doesn't actually matter... Then there is one major gaping plot hole around the text message and then the setup of the events of the film which just doesn't make any sense at all.It's bang average and should have been either a full blown thriller, or a hilarious black comedy, but it falls way short of both and just never really delivers anything it should. Major spoilers alert.This film is great escapist fun that also satirizes the our bizarrely extreme cultural divide. It is refreshing to be able to bring gonzo humor and over the top gore as a way to step back from the mindless anger and group think. On top of that, Betty Gilpin's brilliantly played Crystal Creasy is something unique to film. While ostensibly written as a familiar Mary Sue able to kick any ass and beat down any threat, Crystal is a sardonic participant in a mad mad world. Highly intelligent yet without affectations, she really does not give a damn why everyone is trying to kill her. She is also the one character in the movie who does not comfortably fit into the extreme left or right stereotypes in spite of all the superficial appearances to the contrary.I also credit the writers Nick Cuse and Damon Lindelof for being willing to subversively skewer their own. Their sharpest barbs are reserved for their fellow Elites while the Deplorables are mostly just one dimensional cartoonish characters rarely provided with more depth than the aptly hilariously named Yoga Pants or Shut Up Gary.On the other hand, the elite hunters characters are fleshed out with many little details and conceits familiar to those who travel in similar circles. Athena babbles on tritely and unoriginally about the singular importance of cutting tomatoes with a bread knife and using Gruyere in her grilled cheese sandwich speech which takes place in the mansion she keeps insisting is NOT A MANOR! She and her compatriots toss off Animal Farm Snowball references as a sort of intellectual adornment, insult, and shibboleth while revealing that they understand next to nothing about a book they were probably once forced to read in some boring English class.The film's conflict originates with one of the Elite characters being found out sleeping with his wife's oncologist which leads to his dismissal from his charitable foundation. Another talks about his dubious devotion to a peasant lover he has inconveniently knocked up. They all look down on the hired hand Sargent Dale who is only allowed the smallest modicum of respect for having a small part in the Bruce Willis movie Tears of the Sun - "why is the sun crying?". Even the choice of having the action set in Croatia in something of a inside joke as that has recently been a preferred destination for the fashionable set seeking to avoid the common company of the hoi polloi.The movie starts with a turtle and ends with a hare mirroring the awesomely twisted and violent bedtime story that Crystal says her mother used to tell her. That story serves as a sort of explanation of her uniquely detached outlook and her singular ability to spot deadly threats based on the smallest of tells.At the film's conclusion, Crystal echos the story arc of the Napoleon Animal Farm character. She transforms from her deplorable self by donning Athena's signature red bottomed stiletto pumps, slipping into her stylish black dress, commandeering her plane, while tossing back Athena's prized champagne and caviar.Why it's a Cinderella story!Highly recommended if you have a sense of humor and can enjoy a stupid fun movie. How interesting that so much controversy would be generated by a film an inherently, and deliberately, silly as this one.A group seemingly unconnected Americans, of various ages and genders, awake to find themselves on a strange compound with the only clue to their situation being a large crate nearby. The crate contains a variety of weapons. Once armed, the people are then picked off by an unseen enemy.I don't know why I'm being so coy in my synopsis, as you'll know from any of the advertising that the film is about "liberal elites" hunting "deplorables". What you won't get is the tone of the film, which is pretty much a comedy. A black comedy at times admittedly, but occasionally just an out and out comedy. The film I'd most compare it too is "Cabin in The Woods" - as it takes a similarly well worn premise and manages to do some different and new things with it. However, "The Hunt" doesn't have "Cabin's" rewatchability. Once you know the plot, I can't really see another reason to come back to it.I'd also say, the trailer for the film really does the movie a disservice, as it gives away a couple of the films secrets, including revealing who the lead "Liberal" is played by - which the movie goes to great lengths to keep concealed. The deaths are nicely done though, and often come out of nowhere, with a wonderful practical feel to the effects and it's a funny film, occasionally laugh out loud so. Betty Gilphin is great, as ever, in this.The controversy that'd dogged the film seems pretty silly once you've seen it. - although the advertising has played into it too - so they only have themselves to blame. I felt the film not only attacks both sides in equal measure but has an overall message of once you scratch the surface there being more that unites us than divides us.It's a solid, entertaining film - just not one with much replay value. The only poor reviews of this film have to come from lefties/liberals. This movie is simply one of the best dark comedies ever made. It is hilarious. It is very well acted. It is very fast-paced. The action is great. It's simply an awesome film. Unless you are easily offended, meaning someone who is politically correct. In which case, stay away from this film. Country: China User Votes: 147K Zoe Davis moves back to her hometown to open a wedding venue, only to face opposition from her ex-boyfriend Will Mason and the other locals. Danny J. Boyle Morgan Kohan Drew Nelson Carey Feehan Georgia Bradner Cory Hawkes Lochlyn Munro Janet Walmsley Raylene Harewood Tracey Power Eva Tavares Dave Kenneth MacKinnon Terry O'Sullivan Shanelle Connell Phillip Wagner Sebastian Battro Tom Berry Louisa Cadywould Barbara Fisher Breanne Laplante Gilles Laplante Ingo Lou 2021 Romance 5.6 Viewers Comments: Very watchable Another movie where the break his leg and the daughter comes home No romance No redeeming the negative impact of the male lead Borderline Depressing Poor script IMDb Reviews: This movie is watchable, much better than so many "romance" or "Christmas" TV-movies. I don't understand such harsh reviews.Morgan Kohan is sweet, doesn't annoy me like most of the actresses in such movies do. Her business partner Nick (Carey Feehan) is great!Apart from them, it's worth watching just for Lochlyn Munro, I love him ever since "A night at the Roxbury". One reviewer wrote "he is not old enough to have a 30 something" but the age difference is 24 years, how much more do you need?!I agree with one of the reviewers that the blond girl played very realistic. He and Drew Nelson have shown small-town people are in a very realistic manner (whether you like it or not).Not a masterpiece, but it's recommended, if you are into such genre (family movie). Another movie where the daughter comes home cause the dad broke his leg and "needs" her help but then doesn't help at all. Never saw her once cook or be a waitress. It's amazing how much this town wants to become broke? They rather not sell farm to make money? No one else wants to buy the farm? In other hallmark movies, the bank would take over the farm. Also they hate outsiders so much. It's not like she's moving a target or a McDonald's into town, it's just a wedding business. Casting seemed off. The dad was too young, he played the love interest of Megan markle so he is not old enough to have a 30 something, but he played a very supportive father figure. I saw no chemistry between the leads. The main girl had more chemistry with her business partner. The mom came off as cold and not supporting her daughter- why are you hiring your daughter's ex and then he denies selling the farm to her and you are ok with that? Found that very annoying. The blond girl played a b- very well! Even until the end I didn't know who's side she was on. Every eye roll, fake laugh, she did a good job. Individually everyone has their moments but together just didn't click- it fell flat. I've seen this movie a few times on tv and always forget what it's about, so it's very forgettable. Most of this movie is about Zoe's business and her efforts to expand. There is absolutely no connection between Morgan Kohan and Drew Nelson. The resistance against Zoe from the town is possible but seems extreme. Norman begins to sound mentally unstable in his paranoia. The tone of the movie is more about battle than romance.Finally, at the 2/3rds point of the movie Will becomes cooperative, but there is still no romantic connection. Will makes a clumsy overture which is anything but romantic. Even the Grand Gesture is business.The Nick and Amanda story has potential but only a small part of the movie.Acting is fair. Dialogue is flat with little humor.I'm a huge fan of Morgan Kohan. I try to watch anything I can find with her in it. Her charm comes through at times, but it's overwhelmed by business through almost all of the movie. If you want a rom/com, this is a terrible movie. Will is an unlikeable jackass who doesn't deserve Zoe - better with the bakery floozy - they deserve each other. I found this movie really distasteful. There is little to say about the premise of this film as it falls under the stereotypical story of the female lead taking a break (or forced to) from work in the big city to travel home and see her family. Events allow her to reconnect with an old flame and by the end of the film she leaves her city life behind and they all live happily in the country.Normally there wouldn't be anything wrong with this. It is a welcome distraction from life and we enjoy a cosy, light hearted film where everyone is always happy and a couple connects romantically. Unfortunately in this film, there is very little "light hearted" and "love" or "romance" feel an afterthought.There is too much resistance from the town on Zoe's efforts which dominates the film, is unrealistic and makes the film borderline depressing. Her constant smile after every rejection becomes fake and any romantic interaction with Will gets lost. You could be wondering by the end why there is a wedding at all.Would I watch the film again? No as I almost stopped watching half way through the first time. Totally unbelievable how a wedding planner would not have considered the towns vendors for her business. Country: Canada User Votes: 384