Still Born YIFY !!TOP!!

A mockumentary about an ultimate timeline where the US became a socialist state that did very little to benefit the disadvantaged, and a couple of organisations that aim to overthrow the system in an attempt to enact real change.For 1983, this is so radical that it still probably would feel radical to most viewers in 2022. It's pretty bleak, hopeless, and messy, but I think there's a lot of truth here. I think it successfully argues that there'd still be a lot of work to do to make a society healthy beyond making changes within the already established system. If it's a starting point, sure, but Born In Flames says that's not enough.The film's probably right. The US hasn't even gone as far to even be a socialist-democratic country, and if it ever did, they may well deal with some of the problems this film depicts.I wish the movie was overall a little more focused- there's some repetition and a few too man characters, and there's one song they play every 15 or so minutes, which drove me a bit nuts. But I do really love what it's going for and how forward-thinking it is (and how well it's aged), and the execution overall is still pretty solid.Also: that final shot is crazy.

Still Born YIFY

This is a very radical political film. As a black lesbian feminist, I could relate to the premise of this film. The plot unfolds in a semi-documentary style, making this film all the more interesting. Set against the gritty backdrop NYC, the film has a distinctly apocalyptic feel to it. This movie harks back to the militant, left-wing revolutionary fervor, of the 60s and early 70s. Despite the changes in society resulting from feminism, gay rights, and the civil rights movement in the last 40 years, this movie shows that there's still much work to be done, to achieve real equality for all. It's not surprising to me that the radical political movement in the film, is led by a working-class black lesbian. Women who happen to be lesbian, blue-collar, and of color, are still the most oppressed people in our society.Jean Satterfield is superb as Adelaide Norris, the dedicated member of the Women's Army. Jean conveys the militant stance of Adelaide, in a very visceral way. The supporting cast of this film, was also compelling. Especially Honey as Honey, the feminist revolutionary radio DJ. The film was slow-moving at times, but packed an emotional punch.Rights of the oppressed in society, have been rolled-back by right-wing conservatives for the past 28 years. So, we could use a radical political strategy that addresses the rights of the oppressed again, like we did in the 60s and 70s. History has been known to repeat itself. In this day and age, a radical uprising by women in pursuit of equality, is needed more than ever. This movie could very well be a sign of things to come, in that regard. I recommend this film, to all who take women's rights seriously, and want to become more aware of women's oppression in society.

A decent Danny Kaye vehicle. The humor is delicate and the music is memorable. Kaye isn't as funny as Gary Cooper was in the original -- "Ball of Fire", also directed by Howard Hawks. I know that's hard to believe but the character of Professor Hobart Frisbee is supposed to be pawky, professionally precise, and socially clumsy. Kaye is his usual stuttering self, whereas Cooper WAS the character. And Virginia Mayo, delicious as she is, doesn't have the sassy talent of Barbara Stanwyk, who could throw away laugh lines and still get smiles. Mayo seems earnest as all get out.Still, nice technicolor photography, almost lurid. And the musicians do their thing, which is pretty good, in fact. How could they not? Tommy Dorsey, Satchmo, Lionel Hampton, Charlie Barnet, Mel Powell, and a supporting role for Benny Goodman. I don't know if you have to realize what a musical technician Goodman was to appreciate the scene in which, as a fuddy-duddy musicologist, he is invited to take a crack at playing swing music. I think there's a recording of his playing Mozart's clarinet quintet too. Many of those once-household names, I imagine, have already disappeared from popular consciousness. A good thing they didn't hire Charlie Parker or somebody. It wouldn't have a prayer of striking a resonant chord.

Greetings from Lithuania."Natural Born Killers" (1994) was and still is a messy on purpose and highly stylized action thriller take on media and its approach to violence. The way media sometimes glorifies violence and murders only to get their ratings higher, and a viewer / consumers who is basically responsible for that. In that regards "Natural Born Killers" do work. I also always liked acting of actors in this movie - its like they are having fun despite of controversy subject of the material. This movie also works as extremely dark comedy. Pacing in pretty good and at running time almost 2 hours this movie never looses its steam. Editing and cinematography were crazy - no other way to put it, but of course it is done on purpose.Overall, "Natural Born Killers" (1994) is a cult classic movie at this point. Even 28 years after its release its still works i think. Acting is entertaining by everyone, directing is unique and on spot and editing as well cinematography are like no other. Good movie but not for everyone's taste.

I remember "Natural Born Killers" making a huge fuss when it was released because the media and conservative families were in an outrage over the level of "glorified violence" in the film. To some extent they were right -- the violence isn't glorified but much of it is unnecessary. The movie could still be a brilliant satire of society/the media without going into such graphic detail -- it's been proved in cinema before that sometimes seeing less is better than gratuity. If Oliver Stone's movie has one outstanding flaw, it's the lack of subtlety.That said, if you can handle the level of violence and take it tongue-in-cheek, "Natural Born Killers" is so bizarre and funny that it's worth the "trip." (Pun intended.) This is a crazy drug odyssey that would have made Hunter S. Thompson look like Ronald Reagan. The film is twisted, outlandish and out of its mind -- Oliver Stone has gone stone-cold crazy and it's awesome.Despite my reservations about his lack of subtlety, there is a flip side to the coin: It is a story about excess. Stone's film-making has gone somewhat awry over the years (look at the pointless excess of his films after this), but this fits the bill because it IS a story of excess.Woody Harrelson and Juliette Lewis play the titular "Natural Born Killers," Mickey and Mallory, a pair of crazy serial killers who both suffered traumatic childhoods and are now rampaging America on a literal killing spree.After they are finally apprehended, the media has by now turned them into such icons and glorified personalities that the public and media seems to respect them as titans of filth.This is where the social satire of the film comes into play, essentially saying: We focus more on the killers than the heroes.I do think it's a bit hypocritical of Oliver Stone to attempt to point this out, as he is a die-hard liberal at his core and, as the controversy surrounding this film's release proved, the conservatives are too conservative to praise killers. It seems to be the liberal media that glorifies violence (to some extent of course) so I thought Stone would be the last person to ever criticize the media.So yes it does come across as somewhat of a moot point but nevertheless the film is still enjoyable despite its sometimes sickening amount of over-the-top violence (the opening sequence of the Director's Cut is stomach-turning).The cast is superb - Rodney Dangerfield, Robert Downey Jr., Tommy Lee Jones, Tom Sizemore, Edie McClurg (the rental car agent from "Planes, Trains and Automobiles" and Rooney's assistant in "Ferris Bueller"!) and Denis Leary and Ashley Judd in deleted scenes included in the Director's Cut.The story was conceived by Quentin Tarantino (and it's very similar to his "True Romance" script -- a sort of modern-day "Bonnie and Clyde Redux") and re-written by Stone (much to the chagrin of QT). I'm not sure which would have made for a better film but, despite its flaws (which are mainly a none-too-subtle message and too much violence), "Natural Born Killers" is a sort of bizarre, outlandish masterpiece of drugged-out cinema. --

...yet I still give it an 8/10 for all of the ground that it broke. When it was released in 1915, the Hollywood movie industry was still in its infancy as movie makers such as DeMille had only been there about a year or so. Most movies were made on the East coast and used artificial lighting which often gave the films a very flat look.Most filmmakers would film outside until the late afternoon and then close up shop. Griffith however liked to use lighting just as the sun was going down as it gave everything a soft glow. These scenes looked better than anything you could have achieved in a set with artificial lighting in those days. The battles scenes also looked very good, like a lot of care was taken to set them up and make them as realistic as possible. This kind of an epic was rare for the times and must have surprised most movie goes who were more used to short films that were often shot on sets with artificial lighting. Some of the innovations of BOAN (it should be noted that while Griffith didn't originate all of the techniques used in BOAN, he was the first to integrate them all so seamlessly in a feature-length film) included night-time photography-Billy Bitzer achieved by firing magnesium flares into the night for the split-screen sequence of the sacking of Atlanta, being the first film to have an original score, the first film to employ hundreds of extras for the battle scenes, flashbacks and parallel editing, and extensive use of close-ups, long shots, dissolves, etc. to heighten the impact of the story.It's not fair to other films and filmmakers to say this film and this film alone changed movie history but it's definitely on the short list of films that did along with DeMille's "Squaw Man" released the previous year which is remembered as Hollywood's first feature length film, even though it is not. That honor goes to Helen Gardner's "Cleopatra" made in 1912.Then there are the features of the story that give this film a well-deserved bad rap for having revived the KKK. ' There is the Austin Stoneman character who is biracial and wants to rule the South with an iron fist. He sets himself up as some kind of alternate President during reconstruction. Where was the real president, Andrew Johnson? Locked in a broom closet? This character was supposed to be a thinly veiled caricature of Thaddeus Stevens. Since white Confederates have their civil rights suspended during this time, the state houses of the south are shown packed with the absolutely worst stereotypes of black men, with them eating, drinking liquor, and taking their shoes off and putting their feet on their desks during the chaotic legislative sessions. They are also shown as sex-mad for Caucasian females, the biracial Austin Stoneman included. Let's just say that the story is as subtle as a sledge hammer, but when you realize that its contemporaries considered a guy in a cape with a long mustache tying virgins to railroad tracks to be high drama, the actual message of BOAN may be hogwash, but the complexity of the story telling and the sophistication of the acting is to be admired. That's why I recommend it in spite of the point of view of the script. Sorry for the long review, but a long film often requires one. 041b061a72