Search
Search results
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Spartacus (1960) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
And here it was! The film that Douglas as star and producer had been working towards for his whole life. At the age of 43 he threw his entire being into making this the difining moment of his career. Although we do remember it with extreme fondness, it was a troubled production by any stretch. Original director Anthony Mann was fired by Douglas months into filming and replaced by Kubrick, who Douglas admired unreservedly after Paths of Glory. The trouble was that Kubrick himself was out-growing Douglas creatively and the two also clashed, to an almost catastrophic degree. Film legend will tell it different ways, but such was Douglas’ ego by this point that he virtually directed it himself; a fact Kubrick would never again endure, to the point of almost disowning the final product. So many iconic moments and a re-watchability factor belie what a painful experience it was for all its stars. Douglas had to watch on again as this time Peter Ustinov won the supporting actor gong, whilst Douglas was not even nominated. A great irony that his life’s work culminated in a film that to some extent broke his heart.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (1954) in Movies
Apr 29, 2019
One of the first Disney films to be shot in Cinema Scope
I swear Kirk Douglas has the best chin in film I have ever seen.
Another Disney classic I am ashamed I had not seen until today. What a grand epic undersea adventure! Kirk Douglas, Peter Lorre and James Mason as Captain Nemo (my dog really liked the seal, Esmeralda as well).
After some mysterious encounters at sea results in several vessels going down, some survivors of one of the blasts find their way aboard the Nautilus and meet the nefarious captain. After discovering the captain's mission our heroes try and escape and end up sort of joining the crew to bide their time until another opportunity arises.
What about the giant squid?
For the time period, this film looked amazing and the art direction and special effects both won Academy Awards for that year. The design of the Nautilus was also very interesting and it photographed well underwater.
I thoroughly enjoyed embarking on this aquatic journey and had to hold my breath until it was over!
Another Disney classic I am ashamed I had not seen until today. What a grand epic undersea adventure! Kirk Douglas, Peter Lorre and James Mason as Captain Nemo (my dog really liked the seal, Esmeralda as well).
After some mysterious encounters at sea results in several vessels going down, some survivors of one of the blasts find their way aboard the Nautilus and meet the nefarious captain. After discovering the captain's mission our heroes try and escape and end up sort of joining the crew to bide their time until another opportunity arises.
What about the giant squid?
For the time period, this film looked amazing and the art direction and special effects both won Academy Awards for that year. The design of the Nautilus was also very interesting and it photographed well underwater.
I thoroughly enjoyed embarking on this aquatic journey and had to hold my breath until it was over!
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Unlocked (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
London Has Fallen, but good
Every year it happens, a big blockbuster comes along and absolutely obliterates the competition at the box office. This year, that award has gone to the much-hyped and slightly disappointing Guardians of the Galaxy: Vol 2.
Then, a fortnight later, another massive hit arrives, Alien: Covenant this time, meaning any films caught between the two behemoths are generally forgotten. In 2016, that forgotten movie was Eye in the Sky. This year, it’s Michael Apted’s terrorism thriller, Unlocked. But is it a film worth watching?
After being tricked into providing information to the wrong side, a CIA interrogator (Noomi Rapace) finds herself at the centre of a devastating biological attack on London. As she tries to dodge those that pursue her, she stumbles along a terrifying web of lies along the way.
At its core, Unlocked is an enjoyable romp that verges on the side of unremarkable but a few standout scenes, cracking cast and confident direction ensure it is one of the better films in a genre clogged with tripe.
Speaking of that cracking cast, it features the likes of John Malkovich, Toni Collette, Orlando Bloom and Michael Douglas. Each of these stars act well though some, Malkovich in particular, are sorely underused. Nevertheless, he and Collette add a level of class to proceedings whilst Douglas looks like he’s there just for the wages.
The story, written by Peter O’Brien is actually pretty good. It’s nothing particularly original, but manages to sustain enough interest to see Unlocked through its taut 98 minute running time. In fact, I wouldn’t mind seeing a sequel, it’s genuinely that intriguing.
The parallels to last year’s London Has Fallen will no doubt be drawn and the fragile subject matter that both films tackle is one that is perhaps a little too hard to stomach for some moviegoers. However, Unlocked delves into the topic of British terrorism in a much more sensitive way, rather than money-making with all-out spectacle.
Cinematography wise, it’s more of the same – competent but unexceptional. The action is staged well but Michael Apted struggles with the smaller details; there’s some lazy editing and poor sound mixing. The special effects are few and far between, helping the film’s cause in a way, but those that are there are more than up to the task of bolstering its appeal.
Overall, Unlocked is an entertaining thriller that has a stellar cast. It’s well paced, nicely shot and tackles the subjects of urban terrorism sensitively, but you’ll have a hard time remembering it a few months down the line, it’s marketing has just been that terrible.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/05/06/london-has-fallen-but-good-unlocked-review/
Then, a fortnight later, another massive hit arrives, Alien: Covenant this time, meaning any films caught between the two behemoths are generally forgotten. In 2016, that forgotten movie was Eye in the Sky. This year, it’s Michael Apted’s terrorism thriller, Unlocked. But is it a film worth watching?
After being tricked into providing information to the wrong side, a CIA interrogator (Noomi Rapace) finds herself at the centre of a devastating biological attack on London. As she tries to dodge those that pursue her, she stumbles along a terrifying web of lies along the way.
At its core, Unlocked is an enjoyable romp that verges on the side of unremarkable but a few standout scenes, cracking cast and confident direction ensure it is one of the better films in a genre clogged with tripe.
Speaking of that cracking cast, it features the likes of John Malkovich, Toni Collette, Orlando Bloom and Michael Douglas. Each of these stars act well though some, Malkovich in particular, are sorely underused. Nevertheless, he and Collette add a level of class to proceedings whilst Douglas looks like he’s there just for the wages.
The story, written by Peter O’Brien is actually pretty good. It’s nothing particularly original, but manages to sustain enough interest to see Unlocked through its taut 98 minute running time. In fact, I wouldn’t mind seeing a sequel, it’s genuinely that intriguing.
The parallels to last year’s London Has Fallen will no doubt be drawn and the fragile subject matter that both films tackle is one that is perhaps a little too hard to stomach for some moviegoers. However, Unlocked delves into the topic of British terrorism in a much more sensitive way, rather than money-making with all-out spectacle.
Cinematography wise, it’s more of the same – competent but unexceptional. The action is staged well but Michael Apted struggles with the smaller details; there’s some lazy editing and poor sound mixing. The special effects are few and far between, helping the film’s cause in a way, but those that are there are more than up to the task of bolstering its appeal.
Overall, Unlocked is an entertaining thriller that has a stellar cast. It’s well paced, nicely shot and tackles the subjects of urban terrorism sensitively, but you’ll have a hard time remembering it a few months down the line, it’s marketing has just been that terrible.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/05/06/london-has-fallen-but-good-unlocked-review/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated I Care a Lot (2020) in Movies
Feb 27, 2021
Rosamund Pike - what Gone Girl did next (1 more)
Supporting cast: Peter Dinklage, Eiza Gonzáles and Dianne Wiest
An inky black comedy thriller
Maria Grayson (Rosamund Pike) and her colleague-cum-lover Fran (Eiza González) are running an extensive con. Through the manipulation of the Boston legal and medical systems, Maria arranges to be appointed the legal guardian for numerous older people. Packing them away to a drugged up life in a care home, the pair then plunder the estates of their wards, turning a tidy profit. The weatlhy and unattached Jennifer Peterson (Dianne Wiest) appears to be a "cherry" that can take their fortunes to a completely different level. But all is not as it seems, and Maria and Fran's evil but comfortable lives are about to be turned on their heads.
Positives:
- When I say the comedy is inky black, I mean it. It's unusual to find a movie without a single character that you can relate to or even remotely like. For some reason, it reminded me of the Michael Douglas / Kathleen Turner vehicle "The War of the Roses" in that regard. And yet, once you let the evilness of it sink in, it becomes a rip-roaring story that delights to the very end.
- Rosamund Pike delivers yet again another superb performance, making Maria an icy cold villain. The role could be summed up as "What Gone Girl did next".
- Peter Dinklage delights in portraying an evil character which, for reasons of spoiler avoidance, I shall say nothing further about. But it's a cracking performance and brilliant to see a script that steadfastly ignores his physical characteristics.
- Dianne Wiest ("The Mule") and Eiza González ("the sexy one" from "Baby Driver") also deliver strong supporting roles.
-J Blakeson - who did "The Disappearance of Alice Creed" - directs with style, and hopefully his truly novel screenplay will be suitably recognised through awards. There are some clever twists: one near the end which (Smug McSmuggerson from the University of Smugchester) I saw coming, and another one soon after that I didn't!
- Mark Canham - not a composer I know - delivers a really engaging and bouncy score that's top notch. Loved it.
Negatives:
- The plot is just SO inky black at the beginning, that some may get through the first 15 minutes and think "Nope, not for me". You should stick with it: after Peter Dinklage appears, the movie shifts up a gear and changes in tone.
- The plot occasionally stretches credibility beyond breaking point. In particular, all the characters seem to be wholly incompetent at 'dispatching people' when they have the opportunity to do so. The repetition of these failures I found to be a bit tiresome.
Summary: Finding a movie with a novel storyline is an unusual thing these days, and one that combines that with a taut and engrossing screenplay is a gem indeed. It's probably not one recommended for very elderly people to watch.... then again, perhaps with so many evil scammers around in real life, it might be considered required viewing! But, if you have one, you'll probably want to have a chat with your granny after watching this.
(For the full graphical review, check out the full review at One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/02/27/i-care-a-lot-an-inky-black-comedy-thriller/. Thanks).
Positives:
- When I say the comedy is inky black, I mean it. It's unusual to find a movie without a single character that you can relate to or even remotely like. For some reason, it reminded me of the Michael Douglas / Kathleen Turner vehicle "The War of the Roses" in that regard. And yet, once you let the evilness of it sink in, it becomes a rip-roaring story that delights to the very end.
- Rosamund Pike delivers yet again another superb performance, making Maria an icy cold villain. The role could be summed up as "What Gone Girl did next".
- Peter Dinklage delights in portraying an evil character which, for reasons of spoiler avoidance, I shall say nothing further about. But it's a cracking performance and brilliant to see a script that steadfastly ignores his physical characteristics.
- Dianne Wiest ("The Mule") and Eiza González ("the sexy one" from "Baby Driver") also deliver strong supporting roles.
-J Blakeson - who did "The Disappearance of Alice Creed" - directs with style, and hopefully his truly novel screenplay will be suitably recognised through awards. There are some clever twists: one near the end which (Smug McSmuggerson from the University of Smugchester) I saw coming, and another one soon after that I didn't!
- Mark Canham - not a composer I know - delivers a really engaging and bouncy score that's top notch. Loved it.
Negatives:
- The plot is just SO inky black at the beginning, that some may get through the first 15 minutes and think "Nope, not for me". You should stick with it: after Peter Dinklage appears, the movie shifts up a gear and changes in tone.
- The plot occasionally stretches credibility beyond breaking point. In particular, all the characters seem to be wholly incompetent at 'dispatching people' when they have the opportunity to do so. The repetition of these failures I found to be a bit tiresome.
Summary: Finding a movie with a novel storyline is an unusual thing these days, and one that combines that with a taut and engrossing screenplay is a gem indeed. It's probably not one recommended for very elderly people to watch.... then again, perhaps with so many evil scammers around in real life, it might be considered required viewing! But, if you have one, you'll probably want to have a chat with your granny after watching this.
(For the full graphical review, check out the full review at One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/02/27/i-care-a-lot-an-inky-black-comedy-thriller/. Thanks).
Darren (1599 KP) rated 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (1954) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea starts when scientist professor Pierre Aronnax (Lukas) gets assigned to investigate a large number of sinkings in the open ocean, joined by his trusted sidekick Conseil (Lorre). When the ship they are travelling on gets sunk by the creature, Peirre, Conseil and sailor Ned Land (Douglas) go in search of rescue finding the Nautilus seemingly abandoned on the ocean.
The Nautilus captained by Nemo (Mason) tests the men before letting them stay aboard learning the wonders from beneath the ocean and taking on the creatures that have been lurking in the deep.
Thoughts on 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea
Characters – Captain Nemo is the mysterious captain of the Nautilus, he doesn’t follow any over the rules of the ocean as he plans his own way to clean it up with his loyal men, he reluctantly lets the three survivors onboard knowing Professor Aronnax could help his work. He does get frustratingly tired of Ned’s behaviour which puts his crew in danger at times. Ned Land is a sailor that is one of the few survivors from the shipwreck, he doesn’t like Nemo and wants to focus on collecting treasure over learning from the ocean. Professor Pierre Aronnax is one of the most famous scientist in the world, he is welcomed on board the ship because of his reputation which impress Nemo, he jumps at the chance to make huge waves in science onboard the ship. Conseil is the assistant to the professor who quickly starts to side with ned when it comes to the methods being shown onboard the vessel.
Performances – This is a strange way to bill the cast, because James Mason is the main character and he is great to watch when it comes to his speeches and ideas for what his character wants. Kirk Douglas is mostly the comic relief which is fun to see for the most part. Paul Lukas fits the posh scientist role in the film which is the one that can simplify things for the audience. Peter Lorre makes for a good sidekick figure for whoever his character helps.
Story – The story here follows the character of Captain Nemo that must educate three new crew members of the wonders of the ocean, showing them the answers are here instead of in how the world is acting. This is one that shows us science need exploring rather than questioning which takes out characters across the world to see things never imagined for the 1800s. While the story does give us entertainment, it would have been nice to see them ship take on a real creature for more than five minutes instead of going into the science versus sailing talk we most explore.
Adventure/Fantasy/Sci-Fi – The adventure side of this film takes our crew around the world to places they would have never seen to see places only few would have, make new discoveries. The fantasy mixes into the sci-fi because of the films setting in the 1800s where the technology isn’t like anything imaginable.
Settings – The film keep sus out at sea for most of the film, it is the interior of the Nautilus which is fantastic creation here show us just what was in the minds of the people.
Special Effects – The effects for the time were great, they show us what could have been achieved with practical effects and clever camera work.
Scene of the Movie – Squid battle.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not much creature action.
Final Thoughts – This is a must watch classic of cinema, it reaches levels you might not have expected for the time only to become something you need to admire.
Overall: Must watch classic
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/03/20/20000-leagues-under-the-sea-1954/
The Nautilus captained by Nemo (Mason) tests the men before letting them stay aboard learning the wonders from beneath the ocean and taking on the creatures that have been lurking in the deep.
Thoughts on 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea
Characters – Captain Nemo is the mysterious captain of the Nautilus, he doesn’t follow any over the rules of the ocean as he plans his own way to clean it up with his loyal men, he reluctantly lets the three survivors onboard knowing Professor Aronnax could help his work. He does get frustratingly tired of Ned’s behaviour which puts his crew in danger at times. Ned Land is a sailor that is one of the few survivors from the shipwreck, he doesn’t like Nemo and wants to focus on collecting treasure over learning from the ocean. Professor Pierre Aronnax is one of the most famous scientist in the world, he is welcomed on board the ship because of his reputation which impress Nemo, he jumps at the chance to make huge waves in science onboard the ship. Conseil is the assistant to the professor who quickly starts to side with ned when it comes to the methods being shown onboard the vessel.
Performances – This is a strange way to bill the cast, because James Mason is the main character and he is great to watch when it comes to his speeches and ideas for what his character wants. Kirk Douglas is mostly the comic relief which is fun to see for the most part. Paul Lukas fits the posh scientist role in the film which is the one that can simplify things for the audience. Peter Lorre makes for a good sidekick figure for whoever his character helps.
Story – The story here follows the character of Captain Nemo that must educate three new crew members of the wonders of the ocean, showing them the answers are here instead of in how the world is acting. This is one that shows us science need exploring rather than questioning which takes out characters across the world to see things never imagined for the 1800s. While the story does give us entertainment, it would have been nice to see them ship take on a real creature for more than five minutes instead of going into the science versus sailing talk we most explore.
Adventure/Fantasy/Sci-Fi – The adventure side of this film takes our crew around the world to places they would have never seen to see places only few would have, make new discoveries. The fantasy mixes into the sci-fi because of the films setting in the 1800s where the technology isn’t like anything imaginable.
Settings – The film keep sus out at sea for most of the film, it is the interior of the Nautilus which is fantastic creation here show us just what was in the minds of the people.
Special Effects – The effects for the time were great, they show us what could have been achieved with practical effects and clever camera work.
Scene of the Movie – Squid battle.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not much creature action.
Final Thoughts – This is a must watch classic of cinema, it reaches levels you might not have expected for the time only to become something you need to admire.
Overall: Must watch classic
https://moviesreview101.com/2019/03/20/20000-leagues-under-the-sea-1954/
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Being There (1979) in Movies
Mar 26, 2018
Decent
A gardener with no professional skills has to strike out on his own when the owner of his estate dies.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 4
Being There gets off to an extremely slow start and I think it has more to do with expectations than anything. I don't know what exactly I was looking for, but it seemed as if the film started out laying the groundwork for what was to come, but it was trying to feel its way into the story. If your film is going to be over two hours long, it should be because there is a lot of meat in the film, not because its got a slow start latched on to it.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 0
For the life of me, I can't remember not one memorable shot in this film. Not a single solitary one. Believe me, I sat on this for quite a few minutes trying to remember something, anything that stood out for me. Nothing. For main character Chance (Peter Sellers) to have been a gardener, we never got to see him working his craft in one of the rich, extravagant gardens. Nothing doing.
Conflict: 4
There's not a lot of friction in the conflict, but it is fun to watch as things unfold. You know it's only a matter of time before someone uncovers the truth of what's going on with Chance, but every scene that passes where he comes out unscathed is absolutely confounding. There are never any real stakes, however, hence the lower score.
Genre: 8
When it comes to dramas, I consider Being There, highly original. It feels like Forrest Gump mixed in with a ton of political satire. It stares the norm in the face and completely breaks the mold.
Memorability: 6
While the visuals were absolutely forgettable, the film did have some solid memorable moments that stood out. In one particular scene, Chance is having a dinner conversation with Benjamin Rand (Melvyn Douglas) about the "room upstairs". Ben thinks they're talking about heaven when Chance is literally talking about the room upstairs.
Pace: 8
Once the film can get out of its own way in the beginning, it definitely managed to hold my attention with a solid pace. I was so entertained by Chance that things never really got slow again for me. His actions and presence alone kept me engaged.
Plot: 9
Resolution: 10
Overall: 69
I was rooting for Being There to be better but there were just a handful of pitfalls that kept it well short of getting an all-time rating. With solid characters that were highly entertaining, I wish it would have gotten out of the gates stronger, among other things. For me, the film is a skippable one.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 4
Being There gets off to an extremely slow start and I think it has more to do with expectations than anything. I don't know what exactly I was looking for, but it seemed as if the film started out laying the groundwork for what was to come, but it was trying to feel its way into the story. If your film is going to be over two hours long, it should be because there is a lot of meat in the film, not because its got a slow start latched on to it.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 0
For the life of me, I can't remember not one memorable shot in this film. Not a single solitary one. Believe me, I sat on this for quite a few minutes trying to remember something, anything that stood out for me. Nothing. For main character Chance (Peter Sellers) to have been a gardener, we never got to see him working his craft in one of the rich, extravagant gardens. Nothing doing.
Conflict: 4
There's not a lot of friction in the conflict, but it is fun to watch as things unfold. You know it's only a matter of time before someone uncovers the truth of what's going on with Chance, but every scene that passes where he comes out unscathed is absolutely confounding. There are never any real stakes, however, hence the lower score.
Genre: 8
When it comes to dramas, I consider Being There, highly original. It feels like Forrest Gump mixed in with a ton of political satire. It stares the norm in the face and completely breaks the mold.
Memorability: 6
While the visuals were absolutely forgettable, the film did have some solid memorable moments that stood out. In one particular scene, Chance is having a dinner conversation with Benjamin Rand (Melvyn Douglas) about the "room upstairs". Ben thinks they're talking about heaven when Chance is literally talking about the room upstairs.
Pace: 8
Once the film can get out of its own way in the beginning, it definitely managed to hold my attention with a solid pace. I was so entertained by Chance that things never really got slow again for me. His actions and presence alone kept me engaged.
Plot: 9
Resolution: 10
Overall: 69
I was rooting for Being There to be better but there were just a handful of pitfalls that kept it well short of getting an all-time rating. With solid characters that were highly entertaining, I wish it would have gotten out of the gates stronger, among other things. For me, the film is a skippable one.