grift
Entrou em mar. de 2000
Selos2
Para saber como ganhar selos, acesse página de ajuda de selos.
Avaliações6
Classificação de grift
Robert Dillon's script was considered by producer Joe Wizan to be a black comedy along the lines of Dillon's earlier one for "Prime Cut" (1972: d. Michael Ritchie). Director Frankenheimer, on returning to the USA after much time in France, was faced with a situation wherein years of bad reviews of his films were taking their toll. He accepted this project, and wanted Robert Mitchum for the main role, but the producers wanted Richard Harris, fresh from the hit film "A Man Called Horse".
Critically however, the released film was felt to be a total fiasco, many reviewers holding that it represented the director's career at rock bottom. The film's dark, bleak humour and use of caricature were considered testimony to a certain sadism on Frankenheimer's part, and evidence of his growing contempt. In later years, even the great director plays down this most unusual gangster satire.
It concerns a hitman trapped between rival gangs, and takes place in a vaguely futuristic city, which seems spatially to constantly re-define itself. It is filmed obliquely, so one is never on sure footing as to how to react. What is most interesting about this peculiarity, are the number of bizarre, surrealistic pop-culture set-pieces in a world of futile violence and rampant egos. Only despair and nihilism at the absurdity of it all enables the characters to hold on to whatever shreds of honour they can maintain although they all succumb to personal pride at the expense of everything else.
Frankenheimer directs with a stylistic over-kill at times which sits uneasily with a certain lethargic quality, although it probably guarantees the film a cult audience in the future. Perhaps the film is best seen as a failed, but intriguing attempt to reconcile the director's frequent recourse to stylization with genre-based social satire. Still, the film seems uncertain of its aims, and tends to flounder in its often considerable visual panache. The remarkable opening sequence however, is amongst the oddest ever put to film, and typifies the film's sense of comic despair. A curio.
Critically however, the released film was felt to be a total fiasco, many reviewers holding that it represented the director's career at rock bottom. The film's dark, bleak humour and use of caricature were considered testimony to a certain sadism on Frankenheimer's part, and evidence of his growing contempt. In later years, even the great director plays down this most unusual gangster satire.
It concerns a hitman trapped between rival gangs, and takes place in a vaguely futuristic city, which seems spatially to constantly re-define itself. It is filmed obliquely, so one is never on sure footing as to how to react. What is most interesting about this peculiarity, are the number of bizarre, surrealistic pop-culture set-pieces in a world of futile violence and rampant egos. Only despair and nihilism at the absurdity of it all enables the characters to hold on to whatever shreds of honour they can maintain although they all succumb to personal pride at the expense of everything else.
Frankenheimer directs with a stylistic over-kill at times which sits uneasily with a certain lethargic quality, although it probably guarantees the film a cult audience in the future. Perhaps the film is best seen as a failed, but intriguing attempt to reconcile the director's frequent recourse to stylization with genre-based social satire. Still, the film seems uncertain of its aims, and tends to flounder in its often considerable visual panache. The remarkable opening sequence however, is amongst the oddest ever put to film, and typifies the film's sense of comic despair. A curio.
After virtually inaugurating the British Western with 1970's "Lawman", director Michael Winner returned to the quintessential American genre in 1971, for this film, again scripted by Gerald Wilson. Wilson would be the scripter for many of the director's 1970s films. For "Chato's Land", they managed to attract star Charles Bronson, in the decade of his peak popularity. Winner and Bronson would work together many times over the next 15 years, most notably perhaps for "Death Wish".
The intention of this Western was to debunk the genre's notion of the validity of the social compact upon which social order is founded: ie. Patriarchy. Winner showed law and justice as emerging out of pettiness and boredom instead of any greater good. Thus, the traditional cowboy hero, and lawman, was a mere sadistic thug, with Indian Bronson being Winner's noble savage, using what Winner suggests is an innate violence to protect himself and his property. In that respect, one can see the influence of Sam Peckinpah.
Winner depicts Patriarchal codes as revealing only the base, bestial nature of man. And he does so with a gleeful relish that borders on sensationalism. Thus, the scaled to essentials plot of a Posse chasing down a renegade Indian, is a vehicle for the bitter condemnation of the American heritage. The brutality of both sides makes the film an intriguing companion piece of sorts to Robert Aldrich's much praised Vietnam allegory "Ulzana's Raid" which was released about the same time. However, it is unlikely that Winner will ever be accorded the same status as Aldrich.
To Winner, cinema is inherently sensationalist, and he lingers on every unpleasant detail with lurid and distorted angles. Justice is a concept here equated, much as in Aldrich's film, with a sport, a hunt and kind of boy's night out with the guns. But, further than that, Winner suggests that justice is ironically based on the need to counter or indulge man's inherently brutal nature, prone to sadism and revenge. It is an amoral and cynical film wherein Winner takes the themes of his previous Western, about a man obsessed with the law to the point where he becomes a danger, and shuffles them in favour of the outlaw. Jack Palance's vile lawman in "Chato's Land" is the end result of Burt Lancaster's character in "Lawman". Justice is personalized and twisted into violent expression.
This film, like most Michael Winner films, has very little critical reputation behind it, but has a stark, raw quality that borders on the exploitational. What is perhaps disturbing is the humour with which violence, especially sexual violence, is treated by Winner,who seeks to make the audience participate in such violation, but not for moral aims: just for kicks.
The intention of this Western was to debunk the genre's notion of the validity of the social compact upon which social order is founded: ie. Patriarchy. Winner showed law and justice as emerging out of pettiness and boredom instead of any greater good. Thus, the traditional cowboy hero, and lawman, was a mere sadistic thug, with Indian Bronson being Winner's noble savage, using what Winner suggests is an innate violence to protect himself and his property. In that respect, one can see the influence of Sam Peckinpah.
Winner depicts Patriarchal codes as revealing only the base, bestial nature of man. And he does so with a gleeful relish that borders on sensationalism. Thus, the scaled to essentials plot of a Posse chasing down a renegade Indian, is a vehicle for the bitter condemnation of the American heritage. The brutality of both sides makes the film an intriguing companion piece of sorts to Robert Aldrich's much praised Vietnam allegory "Ulzana's Raid" which was released about the same time. However, it is unlikely that Winner will ever be accorded the same status as Aldrich.
To Winner, cinema is inherently sensationalist, and he lingers on every unpleasant detail with lurid and distorted angles. Justice is a concept here equated, much as in Aldrich's film, with a sport, a hunt and kind of boy's night out with the guns. But, further than that, Winner suggests that justice is ironically based on the need to counter or indulge man's inherently brutal nature, prone to sadism and revenge. It is an amoral and cynical film wherein Winner takes the themes of his previous Western, about a man obsessed with the law to the point where he becomes a danger, and shuffles them in favour of the outlaw. Jack Palance's vile lawman in "Chato's Land" is the end result of Burt Lancaster's character in "Lawman". Justice is personalized and twisted into violent expression.
This film, like most Michael Winner films, has very little critical reputation behind it, but has a stark, raw quality that borders on the exploitational. What is perhaps disturbing is the humour with which violence, especially sexual violence, is treated by Winner,who seeks to make the audience participate in such violation, but not for moral aims: just for kicks.
John Hough's horror films are a mixed bunch, but this one is far more interesting than its horrendous critical reception would suggest. It is ostensibly a detective story of a small town policeman (John Cassavetes) investigating a series of unusually vicious rape homicides. Hough uses the structure to raise some provocative questions about penetration as violation. Sex and violence as one, forged and bonded in repression, resentment, sadism and envy.
The film is riddled with hints of the incestuous desire the protagonist has for his daughter. Hough thus plays with audience identification, seeking to implicate the viewer in a repulsive sexuality which, in a graphic morgue-table scene of a naked female cadaver, extends to incorporate necrophilia. The otherwise conventional plot is spiced up by a contemplation of p.o.v. as moderating aberrant sexuality. No wonder that critics and audiences found the film overly offensive and distasteful. Undeterred, Hough would treat similar themes in his equally maligned "American Gothic".
Graphic, contemplative and unrelenting in its bleakly oppressive visual style, this is a disturbing film experience: one of the more confrontational of taboo-breakers dealing with the always problematic theme of sexual homicide.
Intriguingly enough, the film has some elements in common with Wes Craven's "Deadly Blessing" released around the same time, and dealing with sex crime, isolated communities, deceptive innocence, female independence and role expectations, and the other-worldly demon, the Incubus.
The film is riddled with hints of the incestuous desire the protagonist has for his daughter. Hough thus plays with audience identification, seeking to implicate the viewer in a repulsive sexuality which, in a graphic morgue-table scene of a naked female cadaver, extends to incorporate necrophilia. The otherwise conventional plot is spiced up by a contemplation of p.o.v. as moderating aberrant sexuality. No wonder that critics and audiences found the film overly offensive and distasteful. Undeterred, Hough would treat similar themes in his equally maligned "American Gothic".
Graphic, contemplative and unrelenting in its bleakly oppressive visual style, this is a disturbing film experience: one of the more confrontational of taboo-breakers dealing with the always problematic theme of sexual homicide.
Intriguingly enough, the film has some elements in common with Wes Craven's "Deadly Blessing" released around the same time, and dealing with sex crime, isolated communities, deceptive innocence, female independence and role expectations, and the other-worldly demon, the Incubus.