Re: Fugly Movies Torrent
Beatris Ninh
I've never watched a classic western, so I'm looking to give the genre a try. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly seems to be the most popular (and rated #4 on IMDB's top 250) so I thought I'd watch that first. But it's also part of a supposed trilogy:
I believe there is no specific plot that connects them, only the "Man With No Name" character. Also of consideration is that according to Wikipedia they have a different chronological order (GBU is set before the other two).
Each of the films works as a stand-alone movie, so there's no real reason to view them in any particular order. I watched them all separately when I was growing up, and it wasn't until years later that I even found out that The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly was connected to the other two movies by more than having the same actor/director pair.
Although it was not Leone's intention, the three movies came to be considered a trilogy following the exploits of the same "Man with No Name" (Eastwood, wearing the same clothes and acting with the same mannerisms).
The order of FAFDM and Fist has been subject of debate, as they appear to be very close together in timeline, and despite some inconsistencies, there is some modest carryover (regretfully both ways which confuses the matter). There is some character dialog in FAFDM that suggests it is last.
They were each filmed as independent movies, but certain things were interjected, whether by purpose or accident, that provide aspects of a trilogy. Unfortunately a confusing trilogy in respect of the position of FAFDM and Fist.
At the end of The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly, The Man With No Name covers a dying young Confederate soldier with his duster, then takes the young man's blanket. The next time we see him, he's wearing the blanket as his iconic poncho. He wears the poncho at the beginning of A Fistful of Dollars. In that movie, his hand is damaged during a savage beating by Indio's men, and at the end of the movie he has adopted a leather glove for the injured hand. At the beginning of For A Few Dollars More he is wearing the glove when he beats up one of his opponents in the bar shoot-out. I think that establishes the timeline.
The movies are stand-alone movies and can be watched separately. Having said that, there are two things you can do: one, you can watch them in the order they came out, as they get better and better (and as Sergio Leone and Ennio Morricone became better and better). Or two, you can watch them in chronological order, as Sergio Leone was in fact trying to write a history of the U.S. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is describing the Civil War, Fistful of Dollars the settlers, and the issue of Mexico and the U.S. fighting over California. Then the bounty hunters came to build their civilization, as there where not enough sheriffs in the Wild West. However, having said this, according to some, the props in Fistful of Dollars are from a time period after For A Few Dollars More.
Even though the villagers pour scorn on him, insult him, and make up rumors about him, he remains single-minded in his dedication to them, refusing even to defend himself against their opprobrium. Director Robert Bresson has made a film about an ordinary parish priest who shoulders his calling as if it was the most important task in the world.
Sister Sharon is a gifted preacher and healer, but Gantry thinks her routine needs honing. He decides her supernatural gifts need his natural abilities at running a profitable evangelism circus. Commerce meets Christianity, and the unholy alliance of faith, corruption, sex and money is unleashed. Of course it is all destined for tragedy. A young woman, who was seduced by Gantry when she was a teenager and turned to a life of sex work, comes looking for revenge.
His wife Jessie is having an affair with the youth minister, Horace, and together they conspire to have Sonny voted out of their church. Then in a tragic moment of fury and frustration, Sonny kills Horace.
When a young woman is found brutally murdered, her body cut in two in a vacant lot, Tom is put in charge of the case, which leads him into a dark labyrinth of crooked property developers, corrupt local city councillors, and the porn industry. And at the center of it all stands construction mogul Jack Amsterdam (Charles Durning), a lay Catholic who uses his ties to the church to whitewash his nefarious activities.
From the use of hymns and religious music, to the austerity of the monastery, to the spacious silences to which the monks have devoted themselves, this movie is in fact saturated with faith and belief. We are invited into their claustrophobic, and increasingly tenuous existence, as they pray and fast and debate whether to escape or remain and face certain death.
I loved this film. Set in Poland in 1962, it tells the story of Anna, a young novice nun on the verge of taking her vows. Because Anna was raised as an orphan in the same convent she now wishes to join, the prioress insists she experience something of life outside the order before she takes her vows. She suggests that Anna travel to Krakow to visit her aunt, Wanda Gruz, who is her only surviving relative.
The drama begins when a shadowy figure speaks to Father James from the darkness of the confession box, and tells him that he was abused by a priest as a child and is hellbent on revenge. Father James, as a representative of the church, has been selected to take the fall.
Once in Japan, the two Jesuits minister to the Christian villagers who worship in secret. If they are caught by feudal lords or ruling samurai, they must renounce their faith or face a prolonged and agonizing death. Some of the martyrdom scenes are difficult to watch.
Thanks for your observations about these movies, Mike. Another one you might want to look at is Mass Appeal, a 1984 movie starring Jack Lemmon as a disengaged priest who is challenged by an intern priest.
Not a film but you have the UK series REV about a London inner city Anglican minister, its a sort of comedy drama but it has profound moments and any pastor will have some knowing smiles at what happens
Although in the end the main characters learn that it's being yourself that matters, most of the movie revolves around sexist, stereotypical ideas of how a woman should act if she wants to "land" a man -- and how not to act if she doesn't want to scare them all away forever (it basically boils down to playing games and hiding all signs of your true personality...). Other choice bits of advice include never criticizing, laughing at all of a guy's jokes, being sexy but also aloof, etc.
Both male and female characters are very stereotypical: The successful businesswoman loses out on romance and is written as a brittle perfectionist who can't find a boyfriend (even though she looks like Katherine Heigl...). Her counterpart is a boorish, sexist, noncommittal guy. Naturally, they both really have hearts of gold and manage to soften as the movie progresses, but the depiction of dating/relationships is still shallow and often cringe-inducing.
Although the movie is more talk than action, there's a lot of talk, with frequent use of sexual/body part words and euphemisms like "balls," "p---y," "tits," "blow job," "funbags," etc. and frank discussions about sex and attraction. After discussing masturbation with a male co-worker, a woman dons vibrating underwear and has an orgasm during a business dinner. Two other women wrestle in a vat of Jell-O in bikinis. There's also a brief shot of partial nudity (a naked man is shown from the back from the waist down), plus some passionate kissing and one scene with implied sex (including lots of noises).
Parents need to know that this R-rated comedy is much crasser than star Katherine Heigl's last romcom, 27 Dresses. It's heavy on sexual references and scenarios (Jell-O wrestling, vibrating underwear, etc.) and light on sweetness. The characters are stereotypes until the end, and most of the messages about dating and relationships are shallow and, frankly, sexist (i.e. women should play games and hide all traces of their true personality if they want to "land" a man). There's also lots of strong language, from swear words like "f--k" and "s--t" to body-part terms like "balls," "c--k," "p---y," and "tits." To stay in the loop on more movies like this, you can sign up for weekly Family Movie Night emails.
Sacramento TV producer Abby Richter (Katherine Heigl) is a self-admitted control freak with exacting expectations for the man of her dreams ... which is part of the reason she's had trouble finding him. A handsome new neighbor looks like he could be the one, but her show's resident in-house boor, Mike Chadway (Gerard Butler), thinks Abby needs to refine her act a bit first and become the woman of all men's dreams: compliant, non-threatening, and dressed for sex. Abby can't stand Mike's caveman ways, but she's eager enough to win her dream guy that she's willing to give his tips a try -- especially since Mike appears to be the ratings lure her bosses have been craving. But, as it turns out, both Abby and Mike find their presumptions turned on their heads.
Heigl and Butler have enough chemistry to make a semi-scorching couple, but the movie's pluses pretty much end there. Truth is, THE UGLY TRUTH is as predictable as a romantic comedy can get. Yes, the two stars can't stand each other when they first meet. And, yes, they're polar opposites. And of course you have to suspect that they'll still wind up in each other's arms by the film's end. For good measure, there's a dance number thrown in so that they can finally touch each other long enough to realize that they like each other.
And there are other problems beyond the story. Tone, for instance. Granted, one of the protagonists is meant to be piggish, but does the rest of the film have to lard it on, too? In order to reach Judd Apatow-ian brilliance, you have to do more than just pile on the crass (Knocked Up this ain't). Had The Ugly Truth committed to being a simple-but-entertaining escape, it would have fared at least as well, if not better, than Heigl's more teen-friendly 27 Dresses.
7fc3f7cf58