Search

Search only in certain items:

Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
1962 | Drama, History, War

"If I went on to number two, there it becomes more difficult. I would say probably Lawrence of Arabia. I would say simply for the epic scope; the broad expanses and deserts, and then cutting in tight from these giant long shots to Lawrence and the other characters. And the power of Peter O’Toole’s performance as Lawrence."

Source
  
Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
1962 | Drama, History, War

"Next on my list is Lawrence of Arabia. 1962, Peter O’Toole, directed by David Lean. When you watch this movie digitally remastered… I would love, at some point, to see it in a theater, to see it on film, the way it was meant to be seen. I’ve never done that with Lawrence of Arabia, and I would love to be able to do that. But when you watch that on a flatscreen — get a big enough one — with surround sound, the epicness of this movie… I mean, there’s an intermission for God’s sake. I’m not sure there’s a greater adventure than Lawrence of Arabia. And Peter O’Toole, he’s another guy who doesn’t have any superpowers. He’s a human being. He’s working off the human condition, what it is to be a man, and what he believes in, and what he’s trying to do out there in the middle of the desert. It’s epic. It’s epic in scope."

Source
  
The Ruling Class (1972)
The Ruling Class (1972)
1972 | International, Classics, Comedy
8.3 (3 Ratings)
Movie Favorite

"Hilarious, scary, grotesque, macabre; an opportunity to watch Peter O’Toole not playing Lawrence but still acting brilliantly, in a film that sets out to destroy the myth of British upper class superiority and does so wonderfully, demonstrating, among other things, that O’Toole is a great comic actor when given the chance. It in some ways prefigures Monty Python, but with an edge of real horror and madness that leaves one disturbed for days afterward. Not to be missed, despite some really weird moments."

Source
  
40x40

Andy K (10821 KP) created a poll about in Movies are the shiz!

Jul 11, 2018  
Poll
Who doesn't love a great "Introducing" performance? They don't really do this much any more. Of the choices listed below, which is your favorite performance for the actor listed as "And Introducing"...

Jamie Lee Curtis in Halloween
Peter O'Toole in Lawrence of Arabia
Christopher Mintz-Plasse in Superbad
Whoopi Goldberg in The Color Purple
Cameron Diaz in The Mask
Ke Huy Quan in Inidana Jones and the Temple of Doom
Mary Badham and Phillip Alford in To Kill A Mockingbird
Christian Bale in Empire of the Sun
Tippi Hedron in The Birds

0 votes

Kate Winslet in Heavenly Creatures
Tatum O'Neal in Paper Moon
Johnny Depp in The Nightmare on Elm Street
Jennifer Hudson in Dreamgirls

0 votes

Peter Ostrum in Willy Wonka an the Chocolate Factory
Katharine Houghton in Guess Who's Coming To Dinner?

0 votes

Otto (the copilot) from Airplane!
Vote
  
Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
1962 | Drama, History, War

"The next one I was going to say, which is Lawrence of Arabia, I actually just saw for the first time last year. I saw it projected at a theater with the intermission and everything. It was just so awesome, and I loved that it’s “introducing” Peter O’Toole. The character’s so complex and interesting and perverse and heroic and everything in a huge movie and it’s never going to happen again to have a character in front of a movie that’s that big, that’s that complicated. The scene where he’s getting, like, whatever is happening to him… It’s wild. I love that movie."

Source
  
Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
1962 | Drama, History, War

"I love the scope of the movie; there is something in David Lean that I like very much. He’s always of the macro worlds and the micro worlds; he didn’t only do it in Lawrence of Arabia, but repeated it in Dr. Zhivago and other movies. [In Lawrence of Arabia] he made a movie with enormous scope and events that were known in the world — the Turkish-British War, and at the time, the taking of Akaba — things that were very spectacular and very epic, but in reality he’s talking to us about the homosexuality of one of the characters and something really minimalistic and very precise. He gets into the soul of a man through this spectacular movie and this union of these two worlds. He did it again in Dr. Zhivago as I said before, because in a way he put together the entire Russian revolution, which is also very big, while in reality telling a love story. So this kind of union, joining, he does between the macro world and the micro world is something that I was always interested in, and he was a master of doing the type of job. It’s one of those movies that always remain in your mind. Also, he gave himself permission to do it in a way that probably no studio would buy in our day; just to see a man coming from five miles into the camera for two minutes and a half — no executive producer would allow that to happen! He gave himself permission to do that, and I had the luck of seeing a remastered version of Lawrence of Arabia in a theater in Spain 10 years ago, and it was magnificent because it gave you the possibility of thinking, which is unusual. We also have the performance of first time movie actor Peter O’Toole. That was the first movie that he did, which I didn’t know until I worked with Omar Sharif in a movie that I did years ago called 13th Warrior, and he told me that. At the time, he was a very prominent theater actor in London, but that was the first movie that he did. I will never forget those blue eyes on the big screen. Amazing!"

Source
  
A Haunting In Cawdor (2016)
A Haunting In Cawdor (2016)
2016 | Horror
5
6.0 (2 Ratings)
Movie Rating
The psychological thriller is another genre that seems to have taken a ‘back seat’ to the big budget action films, horror, and comedies in recent years. Or if there were any good psychological thrillers to hit the theater or the internet I either didn’t hear about them or they didn’t really make much of an impact. Personally when I think of that genre the first name to come to mind is Alfred Hitchcook. I’m sure if I sat down and thought about it, I could think of a movie that falls into that category I’ve seen since then but I don’t have that kind of time. What I do have time for is to tell you about a movie that is certainly a step in the right direction.

Uncork’ed Entertainment’s ‘A Haunting In Cawdor’ available March 11th, is written and directed by Phil Wurtzel and revisits this genre of film with an impressive cast in attempt to breathe new life into psychological terror. Vivian Miller (Shelby Young of American Horror Story) is a young troubled woman who is serving out her jail sentence along with a group of convicts with a work release program in a small Midwestern town. Specifically, at the Cawdor Barn Theater. A rundown seasonal summer run by Lawrence O’Neil (Cary Elwes of A Princess Bride and The X-Files) a failed Broadway director who has taken it upon himself to stage amateur productions with young parolees.

It doesn’t take long once the movie starts for the quote ‘madness’ to begin. The moment Vivian sets foot in town, she starts to hallucinate. A local boy Roddy (Michael Welch of The Twilight Saga, Z Nation, Scandal) takes an immediate interest in her but disappears shortly thereafter. Once the group arrives at the theater they are told that along with helping with the theater’s upkeep part of the group’s probation is to put on a stage production of William Shakespeare’s ‘MacBeth’ which has not been performed at the theater in 15 years. While the everyone is preparing to upgrade the theater and rehearse for the play Vivian finds an old VHS cassette with a recording of the theater’s last performance of ‘MacBeth’. As it turns out the young girl that was cast in the lead for that performance Jeanette (Alexandria Deberry), the same role Vivian has been cast in, was found dead not long after and upon viewing the tape unintentionally releases an evil force that has some sort of connection to Lawrence who has begun to act superstitiously. At first Vivian tries to write these instances off as hallucinations brought about by her own personal demons and a lack of medication which her psychiatrist Dr. Lazarus (Peter Floch) readily agrees with. Things take an even more otherworldly turn though when the spirit of the dead girl begins to communicate with Vivian through the tape and the mystery surrounding her death and that of her mysterious admirer Roddy and his connection to Lawrence and the play all converge just days before the play.

This film is definitely the kind of thing you’d want to watch in the dark and preferably on a stormy night as well. You had a great cast composed of veterans and up-and-comers combined with a basic premise. The movie did seem to lack something though. There was very little regarding the interpersonal relationships between the characters in the movie and how they got along with one another. Mostly just a few scenes of the group presumably drinking alcohol which they were not supposed to have to begin with. There was also the fact that you learn Vivian’s crime but not why she did it and they continually poke at the subject in the brief flashbacks. There were also the ending of the film which, after the grand finale, makes no sense whatsoever. There’s no resolution and not in the sense that it was written that way purposely. There were a few directions the movie could’ve explored in that hour and 40 minutes but didn’t which would added more to the film. It could almost be compared to having a bunch of people run every path in a maze except the one path that would lead you out of it.
The one thing that saved the film was the cast and their performances. I can give this film 2 1/2 stars because of that. It’s worth watching once for that aspect alone.
  
Amsterdam (2022)
Amsterdam (2022)
2022 | Drama, History
7
6.5 (4 Ratings)
Movie Rating
Weak First Half Gives Way To Strong Second Half
There are certain Directors working today that gain such a reputation that most Major Movie Stars clamor to be in their films - no matter how big (or small) their part is. Quentin Tarantino, Wes Anderson and Christopher Nolan all come to mind. And, for some reason, David O. Russell is in that camp as well.

The latest film from this cinematic auteur, AMSTERDAM, is jam-packed with stars from Christian Bale to John David Washington to Margot Robbie, Robert DeNiro, Zoe Saldana, Rami Malek, Andrea Riseborough, Chris Rock, Michael Shannon, Michael Myers, Timothy Olyphant, Any-Taylor Joy and even Taylor Swift show up to play part in this drama/thriller/comedy that takes a real life event and gives it the David O. Russell touch.

And…what is the David O. Russell touch? It is - for better or for worse - a skewed perspective of the goings-on in the film, commenting on the action while driving a narrative forward. On the one hand, he is liked by many actors for he let’s them improvise and work through their performances. However, on the other hand, if he is not getting what he wants, he is also known as a antagonistic Director as he has had on-set feuds with George Clooney, Lilly Tomlin and Amy Adams. But…on the other hand…he has been nominated for Best Director 3x and quite a few of his actors (Bale, Adams, Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, etc.) have been nominated for an Oscar.

For AMSTERDAM the film’s tone and intention meander for the 1st half of the movie - as do the performances - before settling into a crackerjack thriller/murder-mystery/espionage film.

And that’s too bad for many will be turned off by the 1st half - the meandering is detrimental to the audience’s enjoyment - it feels like a series of “acting scenes” and not a coherent grouping of scenarios leading to a plot. This will turn many off - and will have them turning off the film - before it settles down and becomes good.

As is often the case with Russell’s films, the performances are good (Washington), better (Robbie) and best (Bale, channelling his inner Peter Faulk) while the other actors support the 3 leads in surprising ways. If nothing else, see this movie to watch all of these wonderful performers plying their craft. Of course, you’ll be saying to yourself “that’s wonderfully acted” for you won’t be immersed into the people, emotions or the plot at the beginning.

And that is Russell’s issue. If he could have settled on the tone and focus of the 2nd half of the film in the first half, he’d have himself another Oscar contending film. But, as it were, it’s an interesting curiosity - one that will have you entertained for a few hours, but will leave you scratching your head longing for “what could have been”.

Letter Grade: B (“C” for the first half, “A” for the 2nd half)

7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
  
40x40

Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014) in Movies

Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)  
X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014)
X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014)
2014 | Action, Sci-Fi
More DC than Marvel
Bryan Singer’s return to the X-Men franchise comes at the perfect time both for the series and its director.

After last year’s poorly executed Jack the Giant Slayer, Singer needed to come back to home turf and after a string of irritating X-Men films, including the entertaining but soulless X-Men: The Last Stand and the downright offensive Wolverine origins story, it seems the superhero series needed to do the same.

But can a re-partnering 11 years after the brilliant X2 restore the magic of one of Marvel’s best comics?

Partially is the answer here. Singer restores the cinematic flair and sparkle of the series and brings back a lot of old faces but forgets a lot of the fun in the process.

x-men-days-of-future-past-character-poster-01.jpgDays of Future Past is set in a dystopian future as a war between mutants and humans continues to rage. Charles Xavier (Patrick Stewart), Magneto (Ian McKellen), Storm (Halle Berry) and many other fan favourites return to the series after being absent for some time. We follow these characters as they try to escape the sentinels; an army of robots impressively rendered in CGI designed to kill any mutant on sight, friend or foe.

The only way to stop the war is to send a mutant back to 1973 when the sentinel program was put in motion. Unfortunately, Hugh Jackman’s Wolverine is the chosen one and remains the lead character throughout the film.

Back in 1973, the mutants from X-Men First Class are blissfully unaware of what lies in store for them, though they still have their own personal battles to deal with.

As the film progresses, it becomes painfully obvious that this is very much a “First Class” era film. James McAvoy’s impressive take on the young Charles Xavier returns, as does Michael Fassbender’s Magneto.

However, only Jennifer Lawrence’s Mystique makes a lasting impact amongst the 1973 era mutants. You can see the pain and torment etched onto her face throughout theJennifer-Lawrence-mystique film and as in The Hunger Games she steals focus from everyone around her. Game of Thrones’ Peter Dinklage also joins the cast as the film’s primary antagonist Bolivar Trask and is a real joy to watch. His character is understated in every way, but he remains an iconic presence throughout.

However, as impressive as the set pieces and acting performances are, it is in the future where we wish to see more. The ‘classic’ characters are barely given any screen time which is a real shame and the real mutant cost of the war is glossed over entirely. The special effects are genuinely very good. Each of the action sequences is well choreographed and the CGI is great, especially the rendering on the future sentinels which can adapt to seek a mutant’s power – no matter what it is.

Unfortunately, the fun factor is completely lost as Singer ramps up the tension and the death toll. In fact, only one character provides the humour and that is Evan Peters’ portrayal of Quicksilver who is only on screen for 15 minutes.

Overall, X-Men: Days of Future Past is definitely the best film of the series and thankfully does away with the atrocities that have been committed previously in the franchise. However, it feels like Singer was trying so hard to repair his predecessor’s mistakes, he forgot some of the key elements of a Marvel superhero film in the process – this is more DC than Marvel.


https://moviemetropolis.net/2014/06/01/x-men-days-of-future-past-review/
  
Father Figures (2018)
Father Figures (2018)
2018 | Comedy
Expectations, all of us have them and occasionally our expectations live up to exactly as we assume they will; other times, we are wrong. The movie Father Figures, a comedy film directed by Lawrence Sher and written by Justin Malen is not only about two brothers searching for their biological father, but the journey and the expectations that go along with the journey.

Peter Reynolds (Ed Helms) is a man who is disenchanted with his life. He’s a doctor who’s still struggling with his divorce from three years ago, and the prospects of connecting with a son who wants nothing to do with him. His fraternal twin brother Kyle, on the other hand, has the picture-perfect life. Wealthy for being nothing more than a surf bum on the beach and being at the right place at the right time; with a new baby on the way with his long-term (6 month) relationship.

An unlikely event opens Peter’s eyes to the life he has known; a life where the father he believed to be his died of colon cancer, which dictated his career and life choices. The event exposed the lies that their mother had told them and the man they believed to be their father all along, never was.

The realization sends the two brothers on a mission to discover who their real father is, and also discover a bit about themselves along the way. Their journey of discovery will take them from Florida to Massachusetts, and several places in-between. All of this, with of hopes of unraveling the mystery of who their real father is and what role, if any, he could fill in their existing lives.

Ed Helms, portrays his character brilliantly. A man who is kind, good-hearted and responsible. The one who even with all his good intentions, never feels like he is able to get ahead. Owen Wilson plays what I feel is one of his best roles to date, as the ying to Ed Helms yang, the happy-go-lucky, never have a care in the world character. The two have a chemistry on the screen that draws you into their personal struggles with lots of laughter along the way.

The cast of “fathers”, are all brilliantly portrayed, whether it’s Terry Bradshaw portraying himself; J. K. Simons, as the lovable “jerk”; and the always talented Christopher Walken as the family veterinarian Dr. Walter Tinkler. Glenn Close does an absolutely amazing performance as the brother’s mother Helen Baxter.

There are plenty of laughs to be had through the movie, but it’s the amount of heart that the movie shows that really drew me in. As I spoke in the beginning, about expectations, I myself had expectations that the movie would be just another slap-stick comedy, with the characters getting into one hilarious situation after another. While this certainly did happen (it is still a comedy after-all), none of the bits seemed outrageous or done for the sake of shock value. As with most movies that fall into this genre, there are scenes which some may feel provided nothing to the story, and were there simply for adolescent humor or to justify the R rating, but none of these detracted from the film as a whole. I didn’t expect to come out of this movie not only quoting some of the very memorable lines, but also reflecting on where their journey began and where it ended.

Father Figures is much more than a simple comedy, and it’s far more than simply a “who’s your daddy” adventure. It’s a movie about self-discovery and more importantly, the journey to get you there. The folks at Warner Bros. Pictures should be commended on not only the casting of the roles, but for producing a story they can be proud of.