Search
Search results
JT (287 KP) rated A Good Year (2006) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
This is certainly not your conventional Ridley Scott film, but it’s one that was well shot but not very well written. Investment broker Max Skinner (Russell Crowe) knows only one thing, how to make money. But when he inherits his Uncle’s chateau in Provence where he spent much of his childhood he must decide between the life he has in London or the life in France.
After arriving in Provence the only thing on his mind is to sell, but with childhood memories floating all around him as well as women it’s not long before the predictable is happening.It provides enough and features some telling performances but it’s simply not funny enough to register as the comedy it so desperately strives to be. The film most notably reunited Scott with Crowe and their first foray into a romantic comedy, with not a great deal of success.
A Good Year has scenery could not be more fitting for a romantic comedy, and the picturesque winery is paramount to the beautiful shots it creates. However, at times it looks more like a car advert than a film.
On the comedy aspect there are a few small laughs but they fall flat as Crowe is not able to deliver on them, you wonder if Hugh Grant might have done a better job. Crowe’s upper class English accent is out of place against the free flowing French that is predominant throughout and he’d probably feel more at home with large sword in his hand as opposed to a wine bottle.
The introduction of Uncle Henry’s supposedly long lost daughter throws a complicated spanner in the works which does more harm than good. It’s a heartwarming tale and it will tug on the heart strings of all the old romantics out there, but Scott and Crowe have never made a romantic comedy before and it certainly shows. It’s not got the characteristics of a fine wine, but may get past some peoples tastes.
After arriving in Provence the only thing on his mind is to sell, but with childhood memories floating all around him as well as women it’s not long before the predictable is happening.It provides enough and features some telling performances but it’s simply not funny enough to register as the comedy it so desperately strives to be. The film most notably reunited Scott with Crowe and their first foray into a romantic comedy, with not a great deal of success.
A Good Year has scenery could not be more fitting for a romantic comedy, and the picturesque winery is paramount to the beautiful shots it creates. However, at times it looks more like a car advert than a film.
On the comedy aspect there are a few small laughs but they fall flat as Crowe is not able to deliver on them, you wonder if Hugh Grant might have done a better job. Crowe’s upper class English accent is out of place against the free flowing French that is predominant throughout and he’d probably feel more at home with large sword in his hand as opposed to a wine bottle.
The introduction of Uncle Henry’s supposedly long lost daughter throws a complicated spanner in the works which does more harm than good. It’s a heartwarming tale and it will tug on the heart strings of all the old romantics out there, but Scott and Crowe have never made a romantic comedy before and it certainly shows. It’s not got the characteristics of a fine wine, but may get past some peoples tastes.
Dean (6921 KP) rated Unhinged (2020) in Movies
Aug 18, 2020 (Updated Aug 18, 2020)
I don't think you know what a bad day is!
My first trip to the cinema in 5 months and it was for an enjoyable thriller. The premise sounded a little like @Duel (1971) which is a classic. So I wondered how this would be different. First off Russell Crowe looks a beast of a man in this, very different to how he normally looks. The tone is set right from the start, this is a brutal and violent film. In an age where everyone seems to get angry over the small things it's also relevant. Overall it wasn't too far fetched and very intense until the end. Worth your return to the big screen.
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated A Beautiful Mind (2001) in Movies
Jul 4, 2020
Russell Crowe's performance (1 more)
The legendary scene with the cup of tea and the pens
What a masterpiece!
Recently, a photo was circling Facebook, with a room full of movie items, where you had to guess all movies. Me and my boyfriend played it, and found almost all of the movies. On this picture, there was a table with a cup of tea and multiple pens, and we had no idea what movie this was about. I knew it had to mean something, so we searched for "cup of tea and pens movie scene" and came across the legendary scene on YouTube.
Knowing the name of the movie now, we had to watch it. And it was legendary!
The story is about a young mathematician John Nash, who studies at Princeton University. While all his colleagues attend classes and write papers, he is trying to solve an original problem and won't stop until he proves a theory wrong.
During this journey, he is approached by a man and is recruited to work for the government, to break secret codes Russians might leave hanging about for their next steps. He also meets a woman and falls in love.
At one point, it becomes difficult for John to keep up with everything happening in his life, and the pressure is too much to handle. A couple of people start chasing him, and put him into a mental health facility.
And this is where I will stop, as I don't want to reveal any spoilers.
But this is the moment where John will have to face the truth, and finally try and battle what is real in his life and what has been an illusion all along. And we follow him on this revelation and on his journey. I have never felt this was about any movie when I have had a revelation.
The acting is impeccable. When I think of Russell Crowe, I think of Gladiator. But John Nash is the opposite - the socially awkward intelligent guy. And Russell Crowe made me believe this performance and I never doubted it.
Also, Ed Harris is a phenomenal actor as well!
The movie kept you in the dark with what was real and what not for a very long time, and this was the favorite part for me.
Recently, a photo was circling Facebook, with a room full of movie items, where you had to guess all movies. Me and my boyfriend played it, and found almost all of the movies. On this picture, there was a table with a cup of tea and multiple pens, and we had no idea what movie this was about. I knew it had to mean something, so we searched for "cup of tea and pens movie scene" and came across the legendary scene on YouTube.
Knowing the name of the movie now, we had to watch it. And it was legendary!
The story is about a young mathematician John Nash, who studies at Princeton University. While all his colleagues attend classes and write papers, he is trying to solve an original problem and won't stop until he proves a theory wrong.
During this journey, he is approached by a man and is recruited to work for the government, to break secret codes Russians might leave hanging about for their next steps. He also meets a woman and falls in love.
At one point, it becomes difficult for John to keep up with everything happening in his life, and the pressure is too much to handle. A couple of people start chasing him, and put him into a mental health facility.
And this is where I will stop, as I don't want to reveal any spoilers.
But this is the moment where John will have to face the truth, and finally try and battle what is real in his life and what has been an illusion all along. And we follow him on this revelation and on his journey. I have never felt this was about any movie when I have had a revelation.
The acting is impeccable. When I think of Russell Crowe, I think of Gladiator. But John Nash is the opposite - the socially awkward intelligent guy. And Russell Crowe made me believe this performance and I never doubted it.
Also, Ed Harris is a phenomenal actor as well!
The movie kept you in the dark with what was real and what not for a very long time, and this was the favorite part for me.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Robin Hood (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
If you think you know the tale of Robin Hood in its entirety, think again. A prequel to the traditional story, “Robin Hood” provides the long awaited history of the most classic of well-intentioned thieves and his band of men…who are merry.
Starring Russell Crowe as the lead of Robin Longstride, we see a character that is slightly different than Crowe’s most historic role (in “Gladiator”). But stealing the show is Cate Blanchett as the powerful and strong, yet subtle, Maid Marion Loxley. Other sure-to-be favorites include the beekeeping Friar Tuck played by “The Full Monty’s” Mark Addy and Kevin Durand as the hammer wielding (not so) Little John.
I have to admit, I was reluctant to see this film. Did I really want to watch Russell Crowe lead a small group against wildly impossible odds, again? After having seen “Robin Hood”, the answer is “Yes!” Sure, there is another team of rag-tag characters to battle on behalf of good, but this time they are likeable takes on the merry men of my childhood, with a more historic and adult perspective. The result is simply amusing.
And “Robin Hood” exceeds expectations in the simple details with accurate costumes, well-understood historic locations, and a number of short but sweet fight sequences. The film was so detailed I already plan to be Internet searching away through my next viewing to see how the historic places exposed throughout the film look today. Film students will surely rejoice.
Had I not known the original story to the finest detail, “Robin Hood” might have been a believable tale. The film’s major conflicts all stem from realistic challenges such as food shortages and burdensome taxation. Is it possible that “Robin Hood” will strike a chord of relevance to current economic concerns? Maybe not, but it will be a fun time at the movies.
Starring Russell Crowe as the lead of Robin Longstride, we see a character that is slightly different than Crowe’s most historic role (in “Gladiator”). But stealing the show is Cate Blanchett as the powerful and strong, yet subtle, Maid Marion Loxley. Other sure-to-be favorites include the beekeeping Friar Tuck played by “The Full Monty’s” Mark Addy and Kevin Durand as the hammer wielding (not so) Little John.
I have to admit, I was reluctant to see this film. Did I really want to watch Russell Crowe lead a small group against wildly impossible odds, again? After having seen “Robin Hood”, the answer is “Yes!” Sure, there is another team of rag-tag characters to battle on behalf of good, but this time they are likeable takes on the merry men of my childhood, with a more historic and adult perspective. The result is simply amusing.
And “Robin Hood” exceeds expectations in the simple details with accurate costumes, well-understood historic locations, and a number of short but sweet fight sequences. The film was so detailed I already plan to be Internet searching away through my next viewing to see how the historic places exposed throughout the film look today. Film students will surely rejoice.
Had I not known the original story to the finest detail, “Robin Hood” might have been a believable tale. The film’s major conflicts all stem from realistic challenges such as food shortages and burdensome taxation. Is it possible that “Robin Hood” will strike a chord of relevance to current economic concerns? Maybe not, but it will be a fun time at the movies.
The Marinated Meeple (1848 KP) rated Gladiator (2000) in Movies
Apr 1, 2018
Russell Crowe was meant for this role... he's perfect. (1 more)
Joaquin Phoenix is also perfect.... I can't imagine anyone better
one of my top five films of all time...
Seriously, I know that some people say this is a guys movie alone, but I think it's so much more than that it's philosophy, and drama, betrayal, and legacy, it's about doing what is right and just no matter the consequences and also about just surviving.... I think the testosterone has merit....
Little known fact: Joaquin Phoenix ad-libbed his scream of "Am I not merciful?" Connie Nielsen wasn't expecting it, and her frightened reaction was genuine. Also Connie Nielsen found the two-thousand-year-old signet ring she wears in the movie in an antique store.
If you've nt yet given the movie a chance you should do so... it's worthy of the watch....
Are you not entertained?
Here's some alternate movie posters then
Little known fact: Joaquin Phoenix ad-libbed his scream of "Am I not merciful?" Connie Nielsen wasn't expecting it, and her frightened reaction was genuine. Also Connie Nielsen found the two-thousand-year-old signet ring she wears in the movie in an antique store.
If you've nt yet given the movie a chance you should do so... it's worthy of the watch....
Are you not entertained?
Here's some alternate movie posters then
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Broken City (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
In Broken City, Russell Crowe and Mark Wahlberg wade into the streets of a
fictional New York, portraying its mayor and a tormented cop, respectively. This film is very political, and it drives to the heart of an issue found all around our country: corruption at every level, especially the highest.
The story starts with a shooting. As one might imagine, officers are easily found innocent in shootings because of the nature of their job, and thus Billy Taggart(Wahlberg) is found innocent after facing accusations of murder. Unfortunately, Mayor Nicholas Hostetler (Crowe) has damning evidence that would cause considerable harm to the officer — who’s earned a reputation as a hero — as well
as the city leaders, if it were brought to light. He decides to let Taggart go, and allow everyone to save face, with a handshake and a promise of future remembrance.
Seven years later the tides turn, as Private Eye Taggart is asked by Mayor
Hostetler to investigate his wife (Catherine Zeta-Jones) for a hefty sum of money.
The cash-strapped Taggart takes the job, but finds himself diving headfirst into a political feeding frenzy two weeks prior to the election. Naturally, drama ensues.
Broken City is not a bad film. The problem is: it’s also not a great film. It has many of the elements of a good movie, but something is missing. It’s hard to blame the writing, as there was well-balanced humor and drama. It’s hard to blame
the cinematography, because the key shots are there. (But some awkward shots are there, too. For example, there’s an odd, segmented spinning shot of Crowe and Wahlberg in the mayor’s office.) It’s hard to blame the acting; everyone does a great job in that regard. But there was just something missing. I wasn’t drawn in.
The movie felt rushed in certain areas, and too long in others. It had major plot holes, like when (spoiler alert) Taggart’s girlfriend disappears, but never resurfaces. The main character never gets a true, deep, passionate call-to-action, which all heroes are supposed to have.
I enjoyed the role of Taggart’s assistant. Even the ending was a fresh take (though somewhat expected, because the main character wasn’t conflicted and chaotic enough to merit an unknown response).
All in all, Broken City is a good movie, but not a great one. You would be well-served to rent or stream it, and save your theater dollars.
fictional New York, portraying its mayor and a tormented cop, respectively. This film is very political, and it drives to the heart of an issue found all around our country: corruption at every level, especially the highest.
The story starts with a shooting. As one might imagine, officers are easily found innocent in shootings because of the nature of their job, and thus Billy Taggart(Wahlberg) is found innocent after facing accusations of murder. Unfortunately, Mayor Nicholas Hostetler (Crowe) has damning evidence that would cause considerable harm to the officer — who’s earned a reputation as a hero — as well
as the city leaders, if it were brought to light. He decides to let Taggart go, and allow everyone to save face, with a handshake and a promise of future remembrance.
Seven years later the tides turn, as Private Eye Taggart is asked by Mayor
Hostetler to investigate his wife (Catherine Zeta-Jones) for a hefty sum of money.
The cash-strapped Taggart takes the job, but finds himself diving headfirst into a political feeding frenzy two weeks prior to the election. Naturally, drama ensues.
Broken City is not a bad film. The problem is: it’s also not a great film. It has many of the elements of a good movie, but something is missing. It’s hard to blame the writing, as there was well-balanced humor and drama. It’s hard to blame
the cinematography, because the key shots are there. (But some awkward shots are there, too. For example, there’s an odd, segmented spinning shot of Crowe and Wahlberg in the mayor’s office.) It’s hard to blame the acting; everyone does a great job in that regard. But there was just something missing. I wasn’t drawn in.
The movie felt rushed in certain areas, and too long in others. It had major plot holes, like when (spoiler alert) Taggart’s girlfriend disappears, but never resurfaces. The main character never gets a true, deep, passionate call-to-action, which all heroes are supposed to have.
I enjoyed the role of Taggart’s assistant. Even the ending was a fresh take (though somewhat expected, because the main character wasn’t conflicted and chaotic enough to merit an unknown response).
All in all, Broken City is a good movie, but not a great one. You would be well-served to rent or stream it, and save your theater dollars.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Winter's Tale (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
“Winter’s Tale”, starring Colin Farrell (Peter Lake), Jessica Brown Findlay (Beverly Penn), Russell Crowe (Pearly Soames), William Hurt (Isaac Penn), Jennifer Connelly (Virginia Gamely) and Will Smith (The Judge) is a fantastic love story, although the beginning was a little slow. It did help define the three different timelines involved in the plot
After a brief scene set in 1895, where we see a set of parents put their baby in a model ship, lower him down into the Hudson River and set him afloat, the timeline jumps to 1916. In this timeline we meet Peter Lake and Pearly Soames for the first time, and are drawn into their story of good versus evil. As Pearly hunts for Peter, in order to destroy him, Peter is assisted by a beautiful white horse named Athansor. The horse is absolutely stunning and along with the incredible use of light throughout the movie, it is possibly one of the most memorable things about the film. The stallion is the guardian angel of the adult Peter – and he flies! The CGI was seamless and beautiful.
As Peter tries again and again to escape Pearly, he ends up meeting Beverly who is ill with consumption. Of course, it’s a love story and they fall in love. Farrell and Penn’s portrayal of their characters’ romance was so poignant, you will need to have tissues on hand. Throughout the movie a voiceover says “inside each of us is a miracle, a miracle intended for one person alone.” The plot twists connected to that statement were just enough to keep me guessing – often incorrectly.
It was a total and complete shock to see Will Smith play an antagonist so well. Russell Crowe was great as Pearly, very believable as a demon obsessed with getting his way and wreaking vengeance on someone who he saw as having “done him wrong.”
When the storyline jumped to present day New York, 2014, the imagery of the lights and stars helped with the transition but the magic of the film seemed to disappear afterwards. While the last third of the movie was not hard to follow, it was still a bit hard to understand its point right away. I definitely felt like the movie lost some momentum after the jump to present day. In the end, it just felt like there was something missing – possibly left in the editing room. Maybe we’ll find it on the DVD extras.
I would give this movie 3.5 out of 5 stars.
After a brief scene set in 1895, where we see a set of parents put their baby in a model ship, lower him down into the Hudson River and set him afloat, the timeline jumps to 1916. In this timeline we meet Peter Lake and Pearly Soames for the first time, and are drawn into their story of good versus evil. As Pearly hunts for Peter, in order to destroy him, Peter is assisted by a beautiful white horse named Athansor. The horse is absolutely stunning and along with the incredible use of light throughout the movie, it is possibly one of the most memorable things about the film. The stallion is the guardian angel of the adult Peter – and he flies! The CGI was seamless and beautiful.
As Peter tries again and again to escape Pearly, he ends up meeting Beverly who is ill with consumption. Of course, it’s a love story and they fall in love. Farrell and Penn’s portrayal of their characters’ romance was so poignant, you will need to have tissues on hand. Throughout the movie a voiceover says “inside each of us is a miracle, a miracle intended for one person alone.” The plot twists connected to that statement were just enough to keep me guessing – often incorrectly.
It was a total and complete shock to see Will Smith play an antagonist so well. Russell Crowe was great as Pearly, very believable as a demon obsessed with getting his way and wreaking vengeance on someone who he saw as having “done him wrong.”
When the storyline jumped to present day New York, 2014, the imagery of the lights and stars helped with the transition but the magic of the film seemed to disappear afterwards. While the last third of the movie was not hard to follow, it was still a bit hard to understand its point right away. I definitely felt like the movie lost some momentum after the jump to present day. In the end, it just felt like there was something missing – possibly left in the editing room. Maybe we’ll find it on the DVD extras.
I would give this movie 3.5 out of 5 stars.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Water Diviner (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Russell Crowe both stars and directs the new film The Water Diviner.
The story follows Joshua Conner (Crowe) and his attempts to re-locate his three sons Arthur, Henry and Edward, who went off to war together and yet were never heard from again. The three boys were inseparable as children (Jack Patterson, Ben Norris and Aidan Smith) and they stayed inseparable as adults (played by Ryan Corr, Ben O’Toole and James Fraser) as they went off to fight in World War I in the Battle of Gallipoli in Turkey.
Joshua loses contact with his sons during the war, and after the fighting has ended, he receives a journal that belonged to them. He reads the journal with his wife and they conclude that the boys must have perished in the fighting. Corners wife kills herself in her grief over losing them and Joshua swears he will bring the boys home, even if it is just their remains, that is his wife’s last wish.
Conner crosses the continent to search for them, meeting people along the way and finding clues. His efforts to locate the boys are rejected by military authorities but he stubbornly presses on.
Seeing this film in the movie theatre rather than on a home television is definitely worth it. The action and scenes of war flash backs are better suited to the big screen than a home tv for full effect and drawing you in to feel like you are ‘right there’.
The story was a bit predictable because after all, it’s the story of a father searching for his children, but it was emotional and held my attention.
Parts of it felt a bit slow, or maybe just confusing, because during the flash backs I wasn’t really sure whose flash backs they were or why they were significant, but over all the story flowed well and I enjoyed it.
The story follows Joshua Conner (Crowe) and his attempts to re-locate his three sons Arthur, Henry and Edward, who went off to war together and yet were never heard from again. The three boys were inseparable as children (Jack Patterson, Ben Norris and Aidan Smith) and they stayed inseparable as adults (played by Ryan Corr, Ben O’Toole and James Fraser) as they went off to fight in World War I in the Battle of Gallipoli in Turkey.
Joshua loses contact with his sons during the war, and after the fighting has ended, he receives a journal that belonged to them. He reads the journal with his wife and they conclude that the boys must have perished in the fighting. Corners wife kills herself in her grief over losing them and Joshua swears he will bring the boys home, even if it is just their remains, that is his wife’s last wish.
Conner crosses the continent to search for them, meeting people along the way and finding clues. His efforts to locate the boys are rejected by military authorities but he stubbornly presses on.
Seeing this film in the movie theatre rather than on a home television is definitely worth it. The action and scenes of war flash backs are better suited to the big screen than a home tv for full effect and drawing you in to feel like you are ‘right there’.
The story was a bit predictable because after all, it’s the story of a father searching for his children, but it was emotional and held my attention.
Parts of it felt a bit slow, or maybe just confusing, because during the flash backs I wasn’t really sure whose flash backs they were or why they were significant, but over all the story flowed well and I enjoyed it.
Blazing Minds (92 KP) rated The Mummy (2017) in Movies
Nov 1, 2021 (Updated Nov 3, 2021)
Ah The Mummy, one of my all-time favourite movies, I remember the first time I saw the 1932 film with Boris Karloff when I was very young, scared the living daylights out of me, thank heavens for big backed sofas!
Then many, many, years later in 1999 Brendan Fraser and Rachel Weisz brought The Mummy back to life (excuse the pun) on the big screen with it wit, wonderful chemistry between Fraser and Weisz, some pretty nifty CGI during the transformation scenes of Arnold Vosloo’s Mummy and not forgetting that one line that so many off would throw into conversations as much as we could, “Apparently he was having a very good time!”.
Now 18 years later (oh damn now I do feel really old!) The Mummy is back with not only a reboot of the film, but also the start of the “Dark Universe“, a new world of gods and monsters that will be unleashed on to cinemas screens, starting with The Mummy, all the films will be connected by a mysterious organisation known as the “Prodigium” which is led by Dr. Henry Jekyll (Russell Crowe, (Nice Guys, Les Miserables) who we have been introduced to in this movie.
Then many, many, years later in 1999 Brendan Fraser and Rachel Weisz brought The Mummy back to life (excuse the pun) on the big screen with it wit, wonderful chemistry between Fraser and Weisz, some pretty nifty CGI during the transformation scenes of Arnold Vosloo’s Mummy and not forgetting that one line that so many off would throw into conversations as much as we could, “Apparently he was having a very good time!”.
Now 18 years later (oh damn now I do feel really old!) The Mummy is back with not only a reboot of the film, but also the start of the “Dark Universe“, a new world of gods and monsters that will be unleashed on to cinemas screens, starting with The Mummy, all the films will be connected by a mysterious organisation known as the “Prodigium” which is led by Dr. Henry Jekyll (Russell Crowe, (Nice Guys, Les Miserables) who we have been introduced to in this movie.
Awix (3310 KP) rated The Mummy (2017) in Movies
Feb 11, 2018 (Updated Feb 11, 2018)
Oh, Mummy.
Laborious attempt by Universal to grab a slice of Marvel's meta-franchise pie by launching a series of fantasy blockbusters based on their stable of famous monster characters. Tom Cruise plays an annoying mercenary who catches the eye of an ancient and evil supernatural creature unearthed in Iraq.
There's a good reason why sensible studios don't try to make horror blockbusters, and especially horror blockbusters starring Tom Cruise - every time the film starts to be effectively creepy or atmospheric, along comes a CGI-enhanced chase sequence, or Tom Cruise doing that smirk, or some other manifestation of corporate blandness. Isn't Tom Cruise too old for this sort of thing? Watching him flirting with a considerably younger actress is by far the creepiest thing in the movie, and he seems quite incapable of the moral ambiguity the part probably requires - Russell Crowe, in the Samuel L Jackson plot-device-character role, acts him off the screen.
You scratch your head wondering how this thing is supposed to work - are all the monsters going to team up together? And do what, exactly? No-one seems to have thought this through. It's much more of a zombie movie than one about an actual mummy, anyway. The depiction of the one-way system in Oxford City Centre is also very misleading; I nearly knocked off a point because of it.
There's a good reason why sensible studios don't try to make horror blockbusters, and especially horror blockbusters starring Tom Cruise - every time the film starts to be effectively creepy or atmospheric, along comes a CGI-enhanced chase sequence, or Tom Cruise doing that smirk, or some other manifestation of corporate blandness. Isn't Tom Cruise too old for this sort of thing? Watching him flirting with a considerably younger actress is by far the creepiest thing in the movie, and he seems quite incapable of the moral ambiguity the part probably requires - Russell Crowe, in the Samuel L Jackson plot-device-character role, acts him off the screen.
You scratch your head wondering how this thing is supposed to work - are all the monsters going to team up together? And do what, exactly? No-one seems to have thought this through. It's much more of a zombie movie than one about an actual mummy, anyway. The depiction of the one-way system in Oxford City Centre is also very misleading; I nearly knocked off a point because of it.