簡(jiǎn)介：瓊斯（斯坦利·貝克 Stanley Baker 飾）是一名年輕而又前途無(wú)量的作家，他的女友是名聲大噪的女明星弗朗西斯卡（維爾娜·麗絲 Virna Lisi 飾），兩人相愛(ài)多年，剛剛決定訂婚攜手步入婚姻的殿堂。某日，瓊斯回到了自己遠(yuǎn)在托爾塞洛的房子里，在那里，他意外的發(fā)現(xiàn)了一位楚楚可憐的金發(fā)美人艾娃（讓娜·莫羅 Jeanne Moreau 飾）?！　“薜某霈F(xiàn)讓瓊斯的內(nèi)心產(chǎn)生了極大的震撼，他感到自己壓抑已久的情欲正在蠢蠢欲動(dòng)，但與此同時(shí)，他對(duì)于弗朗西斯卡的忠誠(chéng)帶給了弗朗西斯卡心智非常嚴(yán)峻的考驗(yàn)，令他備受折磨。在艾娃不斷的挑逗和誘惑之中，瓊斯是否能夠堅(jiān)守住自己的底線呢？

簡(jiǎn)介：剛剛搬到倫敦的托尼（詹姆斯·?？怂?James Fox 飾）雇傭了名為巴雷特（德克·博加德 Dirk Bogarde 飾）的男子作為家中的仆人，將家里上下大大小小的一切事物交給他打理，聰明肯干的巴雷特沒(méi)有讓托尼失望，很快便獲得了主人的信任。　　托尼的女友蘇珊（溫蒂·克雷格 Wendy Craig 飾）并不喜歡巴雷特，因?yàn)樗[約察覺(jué)到，托尼和巴雷特的妹妹薇拉（莎拉·米爾斯 Sarah Miles 飾）之間有著說(shuō)不清道不明的曖昧關(guān)系。之后，托尼震驚的發(fā)現(xiàn)原來(lái)薇拉系巴雷特的情人，深感受到欺騙的托尼解雇了巴雷特。一次偶然中，托尼和巴雷特在一間小酒館重逢了，他們重新建立了主仆關(guān)系，但這表面平和的關(guān)系里實(shí)則充滿了刀光劍影。

簡(jiǎn)介：馬庫(kù)斯（Richard Gibson 飾）邀請(qǐng)自己的同學(xué)兼好友雷歐（多米尼克·格爾德Dominic Guard 飾）到自己家去玩，就這樣，雷歐結(jié)識(shí)了馬庫(kù)斯的姐姐瑪麗安（朱莉·克里斯蒂 Julie Christie 飾），美麗又善良的瑪麗安給雷歐留下了非常深刻的印象。馬庫(kù)斯得了傳染病，沒(méi)辦法陪雷歐玩了，雷歐就此結(jié)識(shí)了名為泰德（阿蘭·貝茨 Alan Bates 飾）的農(nóng)夫，泰德拜托雷歐幫他送信給瑪麗安，雷歐答應(yīng)了他?！　≈?，雷歐和退伍軍人修斯（愛(ài)德華·?？怂?Edward Fox 飾）交上了朋友，并且震驚的得知，瑪麗安的家人準(zhǔn)備將她許配給修斯，不僅如此，雷歐還意外的發(fā)現(xiàn)，自己幫泰德和瑪麗安送的那些信件，其實(shí)是他們的情書。

簡(jiǎn)介：The direction of The Sleeping Tiger was credited to Victor Hanbury, but this was actually a pseudonym for the blacklisted Joseph Losey, whose first British film this was. Alexander Knox stars as psychiatrist Clive Esmond, who believes that he can stem the criminal tendencies of young fugitive from justice Frank Clements (Dirk Bogarde). To this end, Esmond hides Clements in his own home. At first hostile towards the handsome crook, Esmond's wife Glenda (Alexis Smith) gradually warms up to her house guest, and before long she and Clements are casting lustful glances at one another. She intends to run off with Clements and make a new life for herself, when suddenly he decides that he actually wants to reform. If nothing else, The Sleeping Tiger is a fascinating precursor to the sexual tensions prevalent in Losey's later Harold Pinter adaptations. ~ Hal Erickson, Rovi

簡(jiǎn)介：約瑟夫·羅西導(dǎo)演的帶有黑色電影風(fēng)格的犯罪片，曾號(hào)稱是英國(guó)電影史上最粗暴（toughest）的電影，盡管以當(dāng)代的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)來(lái)看本片尺度并說(shuō)不上大，但對(duì)60年代英國(guó)監(jiān)獄的詳細(xì)描繪、出色的攝影、斯坦利·貝克優(yōu)秀的表演以及動(dòng)聽(tīng)的主題曲都讓本片頗具看點(diǎn)。故事講述前科犯約翰尼·巴尼恩出獄后，與黑幫成員邁克·卡特等人合作一起搶劫賭馬場(chǎng)，但事后造人背叛，再次鋃鐺入獄，然而藏匿贓款之處只有巴尼恩一人知道。由于巴尼恩在A區(qū)混得風(fēng)生水起，獄長(zhǎng)故意將其調(diào)去B區(qū)，但在B區(qū)老大弗蘭克·薩夫瑞恩的協(xié)助下，巴尼恩再次重返A(chǔ)區(qū)。在獄中得知邁克·卡特的勢(shì)力已經(jīng)越來(lái)越大，并為了找到贓款挾持了他的女友蘇珊娜后，巴尼恩找薩夫瑞恩幫忙，打算越獄逃走阻止卡特。

簡(jiǎn)介：史蒂芬（德克·博加德 Dirk Bogarde 飾）出生在一個(gè)非常普通的家庭之中，憑借著自己的智慧和能力，他不斷的向上爬，并且最終成為了英國(guó)牛津大學(xué)的教授，可以這么說(shuō)，史蒂芬現(xiàn)在所擁有的一切，都是他一點(diǎn)一點(diǎn)親手為自己掙來(lái)的。一次偶然中，史蒂芬撞見(jiàn)了自己的同事查理（斯坦利·貝克 Stanley Baker 飾）和一個(gè)名叫安娜（雅克利娜·薩薩爾 Jacqueline Sassard 飾）的女生之間的私情?！　“材鹊纳矸菔值淖鹳F，是一國(guó)之公主，并且已經(jīng)有了未婚夫威廉（麥克爾·約克 Michael York 飾）。一場(chǎng)車禍中，威廉不幸去世，史蒂芬救了安娜一命，出于報(bào)復(fù)的心理，他強(qiáng)行占有了安娜。

簡(jiǎn)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.