简介：琼斯（斯坦利·贝克 Stanley Baker 饰）是一名年轻而又前途无量的作家，他的女友是名声大噪的女明星弗朗西斯卡（维尔娜·丽丝 Virna Lisi 饰），两人相爱多年，刚刚决定订婚携手步入婚姻的殿堂。某日，琼斯回到了自己远在托尔塞洛的房子里，在那里，他意外的发现了一位楚楚可怜的金发美人艾娃（让娜·莫罗 Jeanne Moreau 饰）。　　艾娃的出现让琼斯的内心产生了极大的震撼，他感到自己压抑已久的情欲正在蠢蠢欲动，但与此同时，他对于弗朗西斯卡的忠诚带给了弗朗西斯卡心智非常严峻的考验，令他备受折磨。在艾娃不断的挑逗和诱惑之中，琼斯是否能够坚守住自己的底线呢？

简介：从布鲁塞尔来到伦敦的卡萝尔（凯瑟琳·德纳芙 Catherine Deneuve 饰）是当地一家美容沙龙的员工。在这个光怪陆离的大都会，青春美丽的卡萝尔竭力压抑自己心中躁动的欲望，由此她表现出些许的焦虑和神经质。虽然有年轻帅气的小伙子柯林（John Fraser 饰）锲而不舍地追求，但卡萝尔更愿意和姐姐海伦（Yvonne Furneaux 饰）厮守在一起。相较于容易紧张的妹妹，海伦似乎颇为适应这个社会，她与一名有妇之夫相恋，两人相约利用假期去意大利旅行。然而，海伦的离开却让卡萝尔的精神接近崩溃边缘，无可挽回的悲剧由此上演……　　本片荣获1965年柏林国际电影节银熊奖评委会特别奖和国际影评人费比西奖。

简介：　　蒙面侠电影在好莱坞有铺天盖地的声势。从几十年前的《佐罗》,《超人》开始，到这些年的《蝙蝠侠》、《蜘蛛侠》、《超胆侠》等等.                                                                            　　佐罗远不是这个模式的起头。比佐罗更早的，是1905年英国女作家 Baroness Emmuska Orczy的小说《红花侠》(《 腥红色的繁笺花》)。故事描述法国大革命期间，法王路易十六被送上断头台，皇室和贵族也纷纷遭陷害。英国花花公子帕西化身为传说中的蒙面侠客红花侠，不断潜往法国, 出生入死抢救受难贵族送到国外。每次解救成功，就留下一朵红色的繁笺花为记。                                                                            　　这个著名的冒险传奇故事曾七度搬上银幕，这个版本是电视电影，是所有根据同名小说改编中最受称赞的. 影片曾获AMY奖. 演员也很出名 (Somewhere in Time 里的大美女Jane Seymour, Brideshead Revisit 中的塞巴斯蒂安 Anthony ...

简介：ThelasttimeBritainwasamajorforceinworldcinemawasinthe1960s;adocumentaryofafewyearsbackonthesubjectwasentitled’HollywoodUK’.ThiswastheeraoftheKitchenSink,socialrealism,angryyoungmen;aboveall,thetheatrical.Andyet,ironically,thebestBritishfilmsofthedecadeweremadebytwoAmericans,RichardLesterandJosephLosey,wholargelystayedclearoftheperiod’smoretypicalsubjectmatter,which,likeallattemptsatgreaterrealism,nowseemscuriouslyarchaic.’KingandCountry’,though,seemstobetheLoseyfilmthattriestobelongtoitsera.Like’LookBackinAnger’and’ATasteofHoney’,itisbasedonaplay,andoftenseemscumbersomelytheatrical.Like’Lonelinessofthelongdistancerunner’,itsheroisanexploited,reluctantlytransgressiveworkingclassladplayedbyTomCourtenay.Like(theadmittedlybrilliant)’ChargeoftheLightBrigade’,itisahorrified,near-farcical(thoughhumourless)lookatthehorrorsofwar,mostparticularlyitsgapingclassinjustices.PrivateHampisayoungvolunteersoldieratPachendaele,havingservedthreeyearsatthefront,whoiscourt-martialledfordesertion.Increasinglyterrorisedbytheinhumanpointlessnessoftrenchwarfare,thespeedy,grisly,violentdeathsofhiscomradesandthemedieval,rat-infestedconditionsofhistrench,heclaimstohaveemergeddazedfromonegruesomeattackanddecidedtowalkhome,toEngland.HeisdefendedbythearchetypalBritishofficer,CaptainHargreaves,whoprofessesdisdainfortheman’scowardice,butmustdohisduty.Heattemptstospinadefenceonthegroundsofmadness,buttheupper-crustofficershavehearditallbefore.Thisisaverynice,dulyhorrifying,liberal-handwringing,middle-classplay.ItpanderstoalltheclichesoftheGreatWar-thedisgracefulworking-classmassacre,whiletheofficerssupwhiskey(Haig!)-figuredinsomecharminglyobvioussymbolism:Hargreavesthrowingadyingcigaretteinthemud;Hamphystericallyplayingblindman’sbuff.Thesetsarepicturesquelygrim,medieval,amoderninferno,asthesemenlietrappedinanever-ending,subterraneanlabyrinth,litbyhellishfires,withratsforcompanyandtheconstantsoundofshellsandgunfireremindingthemoftheoutsideworld.Theplay,inaverymiddle-classway,isnotreallyabouttheworkingclassatall-Hampismoreofasymbol,anessence,lyinginthedark,desolatelyplayinghisharmonica,anoteofhumanityinascoreofinhumanity.Hedoesn’tdevelopasacharacter.TheplayisreallyaboutHargreaves,hisrealisationoftheshabbyinadequacyofnotionslikeduty.Hedevelops.Thisrealisationsendshimtodrink(tastierthandying!).Likehisprolesubordinates,hefallsinthemud,justasHampissaidtohavedone;heevensaystohissuperior’Weareallmurderers’.Thisisallveryeffective,ifnotmuchofadevelopmentofRCSherriff’screaky’Journey’sEnd’,filmedbyJamesWhalein1930.Itsearnestnessandverbositymayseemalittlestiltedintheageof’PathsofGlory’and’Dr.Strangelove’;wemayfeelthat’Blackaddergoesforth’isatruerrepresentationoftheGreatWar.ButwhatIhavedescribedisnotthefilmLoseyhasmade.Heistoosophisticatedandcannyanintellectualforthat.ThefilmopenswithalingeringpanoveroneofthosemonumentalWarmemorialsyouseealloverBritain(andpresumablyEurope),asiftosayLoseyisgoingtoquestionthereceivedideasofthisstatue,thehumancost.Butwhathe’sreallyquestioningisthisplay,anditswoefulinadequacytorepresentthemanifoldcomplexitiesoftheWar.ThisisBrechtianfilmmakingatitsmostsubtle.Weareconstantlymadeawareoftheartificeofthefilm,thetheatrical-thestilteddialogueisspokenwithdeliberatestiffness;theatricalritualsareemphasised(theinitialinterrogation;thecourtscene,whereactorsliterallytreadtheboards,enunciatingthepredictablespeeches;themirror-playputonbythehystericalsoldiersandtherats;thereligiousceremony;thehorriblefarceoftheexecution).Prosceniumarchesaremadeprominent,audiencesobserveevents.Thisisaplaythatwouldseektocontain,humanise,explaintheGreatWar.Thisisahopelesstask,asLosey’sprovisionalapparatusexplains,’real’photographsofharrowingdetritusfadingfromthescreenasifeventhesearenotenoughtoconveytheWar,nevermindawell-made,bourgeoisplay.Losey’svisionmaybeapocalyptic-itquestionsthepossibilityofrepresentationatall-thevarioustagsofpoetryquotedmakenoimpactonhardmenmenwhorattledthemoffwhenyoung;theShakespeareandualityof’noble’dramacommentedonby’low’comedy,effectsnotranscendence,nogreaterinsight.Losey’scameraworkandcompositionrepeatedlybreaksourinvolvementwiththedrama,anywishwemighthaveformanlysentimentality;inoneremarkablesceneanofficertakesanAubreyBeardsleybookfromthecameraman!Thisideaofthetheatricalevidentlymirrorstherigidclass’roles’playedbythemaincharacters(Hamp’sfatherandgrandfatherwerecobblerstoo;presumablyHargreaves’werealwaysSandhurstcadets).Loseyalsotakesasideswipeatthekitchensinkproject,byusingitstools-historyhasbornehimout.