Search
Search results
Roger Corman recommended Lawrence of Arabia (1962) in Movies (curated)
Lee (2222 KP) rated Red Sparrow (2018) in Movies
Mar 7, 2018
Far too long, far too dull
So, I guess I'm one of those people who were warned by other reviews not to go into this expecting to see a Black Widow movie and ignored the advice. I kind of did expect something along those lines, just a little bit, and I was therefore seriously disappointed. I'm not adverse to a lack of action and don't mind having to use my brain when watching a movie but this just didn't grab me at all and felt like it was trying too hard to be too many different things, while not really achieving any of them.
Jennifer Lawrence does an incredible job, in what is a very demanding role. But, this is just far too long and far too dull.
Jennifer Lawrence does an incredible job, in what is a very demanding role. But, this is just far too long and far too dull.
Dean (6927 KP) rated Red Sparrow (2018) in Movies
Mar 8, 2018
A good espionage Thriller
I didn't see many reviews before seeing this, just a trailer. It's a very stylish spy thriller with some great cast members.
The trailer made it seem quite a seductive thriller, whilst it does have some sex scenes and nudity it's gratuitous rather than sexy. It's quite violent and brutal at times with some torture scenes.
Overall the story is interesting but not gripping and the pacing is up and down in the 2nd half of the film. Thankfully the ending was decent and Lawrence does well in a challenging role.
The trailer made it seem quite a seductive thriller, whilst it does have some sex scenes and nudity it's gratuitous rather than sexy. It's quite violent and brutal at times with some torture scenes.
Overall the story is interesting but not gripping and the pacing is up and down in the 2nd half of the film. Thankfully the ending was decent and Lawrence does well in a challenging role.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Red Sparrow (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Never entertaining, frequently repugnant
Director Francis Lawrence and Hollywood sweetheart Jennifer Lawrence (they are no relation, I’ve checked) aren’t a new combination when it comes to film-making.
In fact, Francis Lawrence may have kick-started the world’s love affair with the young actress after he directed her in the best Hunger Games movie, Catching Fire.
They both went on to finish the saga with Mockingjay’s two instalments and the rest as they say, is box office magic.
Here though, they both take on a very different project, aimed at a very different group of movie fans. Red Sparrow is the first hard-hitting thriller of 2018. But is it any different from the plethora of films already out there in the genre?
Prima ballerina Dominika Egorova (Jennifer Lawrence) faces a bleak and uncertain future after she suffers an injury that ends her career. She soon turns to Sparrow School, a secret intelligence service that trains exceptional young people to use their minds and bodies as weapons. Egorova emerges as the most dangerous Sparrow after completing the sadistic training process. As she comes to terms with her new abilities, Dominika meets Joel Edgerton’s CIA agent Nate Nash (yes really) who tries to convince her that he is the only person she can trust.
The film starts off very promisingly as the audience are treated to a beautifully choreographed opening that follows Lawrence at the height of her dancing fame and Edgerton as he goes about an assignment. Both characters don’t intertwine at this point, and as the music builds to a crescendo we realise both their nights are about to go very wrong. It’s nicely filmed, if a little Black Swan–esque. Unfortunately, this impressive crescendo signals something else, the start of a downhill slope for Red Sparrow.
For a film marketed as a classy, adults-only thriller, Red Sparrow has very little in the way of class, despite the inclusion of Jennifer Lawrence. Her acting, as usual is sublime, minus her at times dreadful Russian accent and the rest of the cast do their best with Edgerton coming across well, but the rest of the film is just such a mess. Jeremy Irons feels incredibly miscast as a Russian General and the script by Justin Haythe is borderline incomprehensible.
The overuse of graphic violence and sex really does it no favours. There’s only so many times you can watch Lawrence be raped without wondering what the hell the film-makers thought they were doing and one (thankfully consensual) sex scene will have your eyes rolling in the back of your head: not out of pleasure, but out of absurdity.
It really begs the question: why did Lawrence pick such a bizarre choice of role in the first place?
Then there’s the action, or lack thereof. Where films like Atomic Blonde stylised the violence and the action to create a particular aesthetic, Red Sparrow just doesn’t. The limited amount of action that is presented to the audience is lazily filmed and worlds apart from director Francis Lawrence’s excellent work on the Hunger Games series.
Sure, the sets are lavish and the globetrotting that Lawrence gets to do is pleasant enough, but we’ve seen it all before and done much, much better. The production has a very staid quality that isn’t befitting of its director and its leading lady.
The final act twists that piece together everything that has come before is 30 minutes too late. At 140 minutes long, Red Sparrow is an absolute behemoth of a film but there is no reason whatsoever for it to be this long. Had it been thrilling and entertaining it could have gotten away with it – unfortunately it drags continuously from beginning to end.
Overall, Red Sparrow is a real dud that even the talents of Jennifer Lawrence can’t save. Not only is it never entertaining and frequently repugnant, it really begs the question: why did Lawrence pick such a bizarre choice of role in the first place? If it’s to escape her Katniss Everdeen persona she’s succeeded, but this could make movie studios think twice about casting her in projects in the future.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/03/07/red-sparrow-review-never-entertaining-frequently-repugnant/
In fact, Francis Lawrence may have kick-started the world’s love affair with the young actress after he directed her in the best Hunger Games movie, Catching Fire.
They both went on to finish the saga with Mockingjay’s two instalments and the rest as they say, is box office magic.
Here though, they both take on a very different project, aimed at a very different group of movie fans. Red Sparrow is the first hard-hitting thriller of 2018. But is it any different from the plethora of films already out there in the genre?
Prima ballerina Dominika Egorova (Jennifer Lawrence) faces a bleak and uncertain future after she suffers an injury that ends her career. She soon turns to Sparrow School, a secret intelligence service that trains exceptional young people to use their minds and bodies as weapons. Egorova emerges as the most dangerous Sparrow after completing the sadistic training process. As she comes to terms with her new abilities, Dominika meets Joel Edgerton’s CIA agent Nate Nash (yes really) who tries to convince her that he is the only person she can trust.
The film starts off very promisingly as the audience are treated to a beautifully choreographed opening that follows Lawrence at the height of her dancing fame and Edgerton as he goes about an assignment. Both characters don’t intertwine at this point, and as the music builds to a crescendo we realise both their nights are about to go very wrong. It’s nicely filmed, if a little Black Swan–esque. Unfortunately, this impressive crescendo signals something else, the start of a downhill slope for Red Sparrow.
For a film marketed as a classy, adults-only thriller, Red Sparrow has very little in the way of class, despite the inclusion of Jennifer Lawrence. Her acting, as usual is sublime, minus her at times dreadful Russian accent and the rest of the cast do their best with Edgerton coming across well, but the rest of the film is just such a mess. Jeremy Irons feels incredibly miscast as a Russian General and the script by Justin Haythe is borderline incomprehensible.
The overuse of graphic violence and sex really does it no favours. There’s only so many times you can watch Lawrence be raped without wondering what the hell the film-makers thought they were doing and one (thankfully consensual) sex scene will have your eyes rolling in the back of your head: not out of pleasure, but out of absurdity.
It really begs the question: why did Lawrence pick such a bizarre choice of role in the first place?
Then there’s the action, or lack thereof. Where films like Atomic Blonde stylised the violence and the action to create a particular aesthetic, Red Sparrow just doesn’t. The limited amount of action that is presented to the audience is lazily filmed and worlds apart from director Francis Lawrence’s excellent work on the Hunger Games series.
Sure, the sets are lavish and the globetrotting that Lawrence gets to do is pleasant enough, but we’ve seen it all before and done much, much better. The production has a very staid quality that isn’t befitting of its director and its leading lady.
The final act twists that piece together everything that has come before is 30 minutes too late. At 140 minutes long, Red Sparrow is an absolute behemoth of a film but there is no reason whatsoever for it to be this long. Had it been thrilling and entertaining it could have gotten away with it – unfortunately it drags continuously from beginning to end.
Overall, Red Sparrow is a real dud that even the talents of Jennifer Lawrence can’t save. Not only is it never entertaining and frequently repugnant, it really begs the question: why did Lawrence pick such a bizarre choice of role in the first place? If it’s to escape her Katniss Everdeen persona she’s succeeded, but this could make movie studios think twice about casting her in projects in the future.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/03/07/red-sparrow-review-never-entertaining-frequently-repugnant/
Erika (17789 KP) rated Red Sparrow (2018) in Movies
Mar 23, 2018
I was dreading sitting for 2+ hours to watch this movie, I complained about it all day. But, I'm glad I did. I haven't read the book yet, so I can't comment on how close it was or wasn't to the book.
Jennifer Lawrence seemed to get her Russian accent from the Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoon. It was a little whack, but she did well in the role. Joel Edgerton's character was neither here nor there.
It was a pretty solid espionage thriller, but still, a little long. It was fairly predictable, but it was still interesting.
Jennifer Lawrence seemed to get her Russian accent from the Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoon. It was a little whack, but she did well in the role. Joel Edgerton's character was neither here nor there.
It was a pretty solid espionage thriller, but still, a little long. It was fairly predictable, but it was still interesting.
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated Saw (2004) in Movies
Jun 13, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
Doctor Lawrence Gordon and Adam Faulkner-Stanheight both wake up chained to opposite sides of a dingy room with only a handful of clues the two men must find their way out and save the doctors family.
Most of the film focus not on the two trapped men’s escape attempt but on the past couple of days and on the ‘Jigsaw’ killers previous traps which show the events that led to, not only Adam & Lawrence’s imprisonment but also to how Jigsaw is tracked down by the now disgraced Detective Trapp.
The previous trap rooms all seem a lot simpler than the one set up for Adam and Lawrence and this does seem to be the first one that involves people outside the room.
Saw contains a lot of threat, a bit of gore and bodies that died violent deaths but the graphic scenes are no worst than films like ‘Seven’ and, like Seven, Saw doesn’t focus that much on the actual killer but on his actions and the effects they are having on his victims and it only hints at how long Jigsaw has been active for. The one thing I will say about the violence is that it does show consequences, the doctor is shown to suffer after cutting off his foot and, most of the time, shooting and stabbing does lead to injuries.
Most of the film focus not on the two trapped men’s escape attempt but on the past couple of days and on the ‘Jigsaw’ killers previous traps which show the events that led to, not only Adam & Lawrence’s imprisonment but also to how Jigsaw is tracked down by the now disgraced Detective Trapp.
The previous trap rooms all seem a lot simpler than the one set up for Adam and Lawrence and this does seem to be the first one that involves people outside the room.
Saw contains a lot of threat, a bit of gore and bodies that died violent deaths but the graphic scenes are no worst than films like ‘Seven’ and, like Seven, Saw doesn’t focus that much on the actual killer but on his actions and the effects they are having on his victims and it only hints at how long Jigsaw has been active for. The one thing I will say about the violence is that it does show consequences, the doctor is shown to suffer after cutting off his foot and, most of the time, shooting and stabbing does lead to injuries.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Saw (2004) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
One of the most impressive cinematic debuts in memory has arrived in theaters and showcases a very impressive writer/director team that seem poised for great things based on a very impressive debut.
The film is “Saw” and it is a triumph of suspense, horror, and drama that harkens back to the classic work of David Fincher, and dare I say Hitchcock, as it is a bold and daring film, that is a fresh and creative as it is innovative.
The film is written by and features Leigh Whannell, as Adam, a young man who awakens in a dark room in a bathtub filled with water. Although disoriented, Adam soon discovers he is not alone, as he shares the room with another man, Dr. Lawrence Gordon (Cary Elwes), who like him, is chained at the ankle and trapped in the room.
As bad as this is, there is a dead body in the middle of the room that underscores the peril of the situation. Adam and Lawrence eventually discover audio tapes and a player that indicate that they are being held as they do not appreciate the life that they have and as such, are going to lose it unless they can prove how much they want to live.
Lawrence is told via the taped instructions that if he does not kill Adam by 6:00, then his wife and daughter will be killed and clues are given to indicate where to look in the decrepit room. The fact that Adam and Lawrence are chained and have very limited mobility forces the two of them to work with one another, despite the mistrust Adam has towards Lawrence as he was the one they tape said had to be killed.
Lawrence begins to tell Adam that he thinks he knows who is behind their situation, as there has been a series of murders in the area and he was suspect. Through a series of flashbacks Lawrence informs Adam about the Jigsaw killer, who places victims in perilous situations but provides them with a way out, provided they are willing to take extreme measures to show how much they want to live. The bizarre and gruesome situations lead to the introduction of Detective David Tapp (Danny Glover), who is investigating the grizzly trail left by the killer. In many ways, “Saw” become two movies in one as we learn about the history of the crimes, and the investigation leading up to the present situation between Lawrence and Adam. The film also cleverly guises certain events keeping the audience guessing as to if they happened in the past or are occurring in the present adding to the mystery and suspense.
As the story unfolds we learn more about Adam that underscores the tension and allows new avenues for the story to unfold. I will not spoil the twists and turns of the story but suffice it to say, there are plenty of red herrings and plot twists that will keep the audience guessing and some very creative and shocking twists and turns that culminates in an ending that will become one of the most talked about in film history and is destined to carve a niche in horror history.
Director James Wan, who also created the story, has crafted a visually gripping and disturbing film with a very effective pace that shows ability and talent well beyond his years. The film is so masterfully shot and organized that it is hard to believe that this is his first film, as Dramas can often be the downfall of many directors as they are unable to draw tension out of the material.
The screenplay by Whanell is gripping and effective. The characters are defined well within the context of their situations as it is vital to the story that information about the characters is slowly released to the audience in order to create and maintain the tension.
“Saw” is a true wonder as instead of being a simple horror film, it is a deeply complex and disturbing film that showcases two talented individuals in a very impressive debut. The images and story of the film stay with you long after the film ends and like it or love it “Saw” is a well crafted film that is not only disturbing, but refreshingly original. My only issue with the film is that it did drag just a bit while leading up to the finale, but that being said, “Saw” is easily the best horror film in many years.
The film is “Saw” and it is a triumph of suspense, horror, and drama that harkens back to the classic work of David Fincher, and dare I say Hitchcock, as it is a bold and daring film, that is a fresh and creative as it is innovative.
The film is written by and features Leigh Whannell, as Adam, a young man who awakens in a dark room in a bathtub filled with water. Although disoriented, Adam soon discovers he is not alone, as he shares the room with another man, Dr. Lawrence Gordon (Cary Elwes), who like him, is chained at the ankle and trapped in the room.
As bad as this is, there is a dead body in the middle of the room that underscores the peril of the situation. Adam and Lawrence eventually discover audio tapes and a player that indicate that they are being held as they do not appreciate the life that they have and as such, are going to lose it unless they can prove how much they want to live.
Lawrence is told via the taped instructions that if he does not kill Adam by 6:00, then his wife and daughter will be killed and clues are given to indicate where to look in the decrepit room. The fact that Adam and Lawrence are chained and have very limited mobility forces the two of them to work with one another, despite the mistrust Adam has towards Lawrence as he was the one they tape said had to be killed.
Lawrence begins to tell Adam that he thinks he knows who is behind their situation, as there has been a series of murders in the area and he was suspect. Through a series of flashbacks Lawrence informs Adam about the Jigsaw killer, who places victims in perilous situations but provides them with a way out, provided they are willing to take extreme measures to show how much they want to live. The bizarre and gruesome situations lead to the introduction of Detective David Tapp (Danny Glover), who is investigating the grizzly trail left by the killer. In many ways, “Saw” become two movies in one as we learn about the history of the crimes, and the investigation leading up to the present situation between Lawrence and Adam. The film also cleverly guises certain events keeping the audience guessing as to if they happened in the past or are occurring in the present adding to the mystery and suspense.
As the story unfolds we learn more about Adam that underscores the tension and allows new avenues for the story to unfold. I will not spoil the twists and turns of the story but suffice it to say, there are plenty of red herrings and plot twists that will keep the audience guessing and some very creative and shocking twists and turns that culminates in an ending that will become one of the most talked about in film history and is destined to carve a niche in horror history.
Director James Wan, who also created the story, has crafted a visually gripping and disturbing film with a very effective pace that shows ability and talent well beyond his years. The film is so masterfully shot and organized that it is hard to believe that this is his first film, as Dramas can often be the downfall of many directors as they are unable to draw tension out of the material.
The screenplay by Whanell is gripping and effective. The characters are defined well within the context of their situations as it is vital to the story that information about the characters is slowly released to the audience in order to create and maintain the tension.
“Saw” is a true wonder as instead of being a simple horror film, it is a deeply complex and disturbing film that showcases two talented individuals in a very impressive debut. The images and story of the film stay with you long after the film ends and like it or love it “Saw” is a well crafted film that is not only disturbing, but refreshingly original. My only issue with the film is that it did drag just a bit while leading up to the finale, but that being said, “Saw” is easily the best horror film in many years.
Awix (3310 KP) rated Passengers (2016) in Movies
Jan 21, 2019
Who needs moral culpability when you have J-Law in her pants?
Contains spoilers, click to show
Good-looking SF movie that goes to prove that all you need is two good-looking charismatic stars and a very misleading ad campaign and people will flock to see your film, no matter how creepy and rapey the story actually is. Male passenger (Pratt) on a long-haul space flight wakes up early due to an accident, finds himself facing the prospect of living out his life alone on the ship (trip will take nearly a century, everyone else is still in hypersleep). He goes a bit mad from isolation, becomes obsessed with a female corpsicle (Lawrence), and decides to wake her up so he will have company even though he is condemning her to the same fate as him. Naturally he neglects to mention his own culpability in all this, even after they get it on.
And people call this a romance?!? A paean to stalking, more like. All the other flaws in Passengers (and there are a few: the premises of the film don't quite hang together, for example) fall away compared to the simple fact that the protagonist does several truly horrible things, for which he is never really held to account. Obligatory shots of Lawrence in a swimsuit/lingerie happen along as well, of course. I'd say it was the usual sort of no-brainer inoffensive tosh, but it really leaves a nasty taste in the mouth.
And people call this a romance?!? A paean to stalking, more like. All the other flaws in Passengers (and there are a few: the premises of the film don't quite hang together, for example) fall away compared to the simple fact that the protagonist does several truly horrible things, for which he is never really held to account. Obligatory shots of Lawrence in a swimsuit/lingerie happen along as well, of course. I'd say it was the usual sort of no-brainer inoffensive tosh, but it really leaves a nasty taste in the mouth.
Sarah (7799 KP) rated Passengers (2016) in Movies
Jul 31, 2017
Casting (1 more)
Effects
A space Titanic
This is basically Titanic set in space, albeit a much better film than Titanic will ever be.
Let's get it straight, this is not a full blown sci-fi epic. This is a romantic love story set in space, with some sci-fi elements thrown in. As long as you can accept that, then this is a really good film. Yes the romance part of the story is pretty predictable, but for me this didn't matter due to the sheer likeability and chemistry between Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence. They did get a great job of holding a film virtually all on their own, although Michael Sheen was a delight in all of his scenes too. The special effects too were very impressive and this is definitely one of the better films I saw in the new year.
Let's get it straight, this is not a full blown sci-fi epic. This is a romantic love story set in space, with some sci-fi elements thrown in. As long as you can accept that, then this is a really good film. Yes the romance part of the story is pretty predictable, but for me this didn't matter due to the sheer likeability and chemistry between Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence. They did get a great job of holding a film virtually all on their own, although Michael Sheen was a delight in all of his scenes too. The special effects too were very impressive and this is definitely one of the better films I saw in the new year.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Passengers (2016) in Movies
Dec 6, 2017
Not as Bad as the Critics Said
Passengers works for me largely in part due to the great chemistry between Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence. Their relationship is believable, real. Exactly what I would expect from two people stuck in a space paradise together. I try to avoid words like "sizzle" and "spice" when describing onscreen pairings, but it's 7:30pm on a Tuesday night and I have folded clothes to put away. So....Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence absolutely sizzle onscreen together! Free from the inhibitions of watching eyes the duo adds real spice to the film's flavor. Yep, that just happened. No regrets. Yolo.
I was surprised by how solid the film was from beginning to end. The mark of a great movie for me is consistency throughout, the same measure I use to judge a good key lime pie. Passengers kept me engaged for its entirety without managing to overstay its welcome. It's funny in parts while being touching in others. Overall the pace works.
The special effects were also impressive. The inside of the ship where most of the story takes place is a carnival of sights. Its futuristic yet a familiar touch of home at the same time. The recesses of space were captured in brilliant fashion. As main character Jim Preston (Pratt) goes exploring the expanse, you start to realize just how small and lonely he must feel in comparison.
When Preston awakens on a craft headed for another planet, he realizes the ship pulled him from hibernation too soon. It isn't long before he is joined by Aurora Lane (Lawrence) who has to help him figure out why the ship woke them up early before things go terribly wrong.
The only thing holding this film back from being great as opposed to "just ok" is implausibility. There are quite a few things that happen, both from a scientific standpoint and plot advancement standpoint, that may leave you scratching your head a bit. This film falls victim at times of trying to take shortcuts. However, if you can suspend your disbelief for just long enough and turn a blind eye, you won't be disappointed.
Some films are reviewed badly because they're...well...bad. Other films fall victim to what I call Pile-On: A few critics from the "In Crowd" don't like it so everyone else is supposed to hate it as well (see The Hitman's Bodyguard). I think Passengers suffer from the latter. See it. It won't change your life, but a great way to spend two hours nonetheless. I give it a 73.
I was surprised by how solid the film was from beginning to end. The mark of a great movie for me is consistency throughout, the same measure I use to judge a good key lime pie. Passengers kept me engaged for its entirety without managing to overstay its welcome. It's funny in parts while being touching in others. Overall the pace works.
The special effects were also impressive. The inside of the ship where most of the story takes place is a carnival of sights. Its futuristic yet a familiar touch of home at the same time. The recesses of space were captured in brilliant fashion. As main character Jim Preston (Pratt) goes exploring the expanse, you start to realize just how small and lonely he must feel in comparison.
When Preston awakens on a craft headed for another planet, he realizes the ship pulled him from hibernation too soon. It isn't long before he is joined by Aurora Lane (Lawrence) who has to help him figure out why the ship woke them up early before things go terribly wrong.
The only thing holding this film back from being great as opposed to "just ok" is implausibility. There are quite a few things that happen, both from a scientific standpoint and plot advancement standpoint, that may leave you scratching your head a bit. This film falls victim at times of trying to take shortcuts. However, if you can suspend your disbelief for just long enough and turn a blind eye, you won't be disappointed.
Some films are reviewed badly because they're...well...bad. Other films fall victim to what I call Pile-On: A few critics from the "In Crowd" don't like it so everyone else is supposed to hate it as well (see The Hitman's Bodyguard). I think Passengers suffer from the latter. See it. It won't change your life, but a great way to spend two hours nonetheless. I give it a 73.