Search

Search only in certain items:

40x40

Rod Lurie recommended Paths of Glory (1957) in Movies (curated)

 
Paths of Glory (1957)
Paths of Glory (1957)
1957 | Classics, Drama, War

"Being a military historian, I was really blown away by the depiction that [Stanley] Kubrick had of trench life. But more importantly, I was immersed in the moral quagmire that Col. Dax, played by Kirk Douglass, experienced in the film. There’s a moment when somebody looks down at a cockroach and says, “You see that cockroach?” He says something like, “In an hour, he’ll have more relevance than I do.” And [another character] steps on the cockroach and says, “Not anymore.” Also, it was a very revolutionary shooting style that Kubrick presented, with his long tracking shots and his use of close-up wide lenses that I found very attractive. I first saw that film when I was a cadet at West Point."

Source
  
40x40

Allison Anders recommended Charade (1963) in Movies (curated)

 
Charade (1963)
Charade (1963)
1963 | Classics, Comedy, Drama
8.3 (6 Ratings)
Movie Favorite

"The longer I live and the more movies I know, the more I love Stanley Donen. However, I fell in love with this film as a child. I went to see it because—well, because I saw everything that came to the Paramount Theater (or the Capitol) in Ashland, Kentucky. But I was especially primed for loving this movie because I was enamored of Audrey Hepburn as Holly Golightly—I had seen that movie ten times the previous year. But Charade was a very different movie from Breakfast at Tiffany’s, and for a little girl—and for that time—it was very violent, and it scared the hell out of me so much that I thought James Coburn was in my closet at night, and I made my mother go with me to check if he was there before bedtime. Nevertheless, I went back for more every weekend until its run was over. I loved the witty romance between Cary Grant and Audrey, and I loved Paris as much as I had loved New York in Breakfast at Tiffany’s. And the mystery works! And I loved that so much I went back again and again, even if it scared the pee outta me. On the DVD, director Stanley Donen and screenwriter Peter Stone banter amusingly from a long friendship together on the long process it took to make this film. Stone makes the great observation that when you write a mystery, you make it for a second viewing. And if the audience says, “That’s a cheat,” then you didn’t do it right. But if they see it a second time and say, “Oh, it was there all the time, and I didn’t see it,” then you have something. This film has all that and more—i.e., the best clothes ever!"

Source
  
The Shining (1980)
The Shining (1980)
1980 | Horror
Storyline (0 more)
The twins. Freaky! (0 more)
Better than I expected
Ok so my fiance is sick, and in bed. So I decided to scroll through Netflix and see what's up. Found this movie, and after all these years, decided to finally give it a shot. So far it's pretty good. Tony kind of freaks me out, but the storyline is pretty decent and it's definitely Stanley Kubrick direction. This is definitely 70s work as well. Which I think actually helps the storyline. I have waited so long to see this movie because I just plain don't like Jack Nicholson. I may lose a few points for That, but I do have to say that he does a good job playing a freak show. And the actor that plays the son? Very good actor. Now if they could make a movie out of Dr Death, my life may be complete.
  
The Godfather: Part II  (1974)
The Godfather: Part II (1974)
1974 | Crime, Drama

"I’d say Godfather 2 was up there. (And I did a movie for Francis…) After Godfather 1, I wouldn’t know how he would make a Godfather 2, but he did it. Because of the time span and what it covered, it’s an opera. I mean, there are acts, and it just worked, and I hadn’t seen that done really well. I’ll go see a movie because of moments, and I’ll go to see that movie again. I mean, like The Killing, the movie that Kubrick made when he began. Sterling Hayden is in it, where they robbed the racetrack, you know? And Sterling Hayden is in the locker room getting ready, putting the mask on, and realizing they’re not flowers in the box but a machine gun. It’s just before kick-off and he takes a long deep breath, and Stanley Kubrick was there for him."

Source
  
40x40

Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) created a post

Jul 31, 2021  
How awesome is this scrapbook page from author Teddy Jones about West Texas!?! Check it out on my blog, and learn about her women's fiction novel MAKING IT HOME. Enter the giveaway to win a set of all three novels in her Jackson's Pond, Texas-the Series or a copy of her short stories/literary fiction novel Nowhere Near and a $25 Bookshop.org gift card!

https://alltheupsandowns.blogspot.com/2021/07/book-blog-tour-and-giveaway-making-it.html

**BOOK SYNOPSIS**
In this third novel in the Jackson’s Pond, Texas series, fifty-five-year-old Melanie Jackson Banks encounters racism, intolerance, and violence both in her family’s distant past and in current day Jackson’s Pond. She leads family and community efforts to create reconciliation for past wrongs and also to demonstrate strength and defiance in the face of vandalism, cross-burning, domestic violence, threats to Jackson Ranch’s operation, and kidnapping. In the midst of this stormy period, she finds allies in her mother’s long-time companion, Robert Stanley; her mother, Willa Jackson; her daughter Claire Havlicek; and many others.
     
Burlesque (2010)
Burlesque (2010)
2010 | Drama, Musical, Romance
3
6.5 (12 Ratings)
Movie Rating
A story that has been done too many times before, and better than this...
The problem with Burlesque is that this is a story that has been done way too many times. Young girl moving to LA to follow her dreams, it’s a tired and overused plot and is just so predictable and dull. There are so many films that have done this so much better. And it is SO long. I can’t believe how long it drones on for. The soundtrack is fairly good but that’s probably one of the only few things going for this, and it isn’t helped by very badly timed lip syncing from everyone other than Cher - Christina Aguilera is the biggest culprit for this, surprisingly really considering her background, but I get very distracted watching a musical where the actions aren’t in time with the music.


Cast-wise, the majority are entirely forgettable with the exception of the usually fabulous Stanley Tucci. Cher is better than expected too, obviously a few years before she overdid it on the plastic surgery. Christina Aguilera isn’t great, she isn’t helped by a terrible script but I don’t really rate her as an actress. Whoever did her makeup should be sacked too, as apart from a few odd scenes where she looks natural, she looks horrendous.


Altogether this is just a boring and entirely lacklustre film, which is pretty bad when it’s a musical!
  
40x40

TJ (15 KP) Feb 10, 2019

Totally agree.

40x40

Kimmic (814 KP) Feb 11, 2019

I loved this film. I guess it's a lot to do with their strong singing voices though. Only modern style film like this so I guess it's limited choice x

40x40

Jack Reynor recommended The Vanishing (1993) in Movies (curated)

 
The Vanishing (1993)
The Vanishing (1993)
1993 | Mystery
8.0 (1 Ratings)
Movie Favorite

"The thing that makes The Vanishing so chilling is its unorthodox structure. It starts with a girl being kidnapped at a service station while her boyfriend waits in the car. Then the story picks up three years later with the boyfriend still searching for her while her killer monitors his movements. From very early on we know who the killer is, and we’re fairly sure that the girl is long dead. What makes the film special is that it retains its tension despite giving so much away so early on. There’s an incredible balance of likability and abject coldness in Bernard-Pierre Donnadieu’s performance as the villain; the character is a seemingly respectable family man who, unbeknownst to his wife and children, is in fact a textbook sociopath. Watching him as he patiently plans out the crime makes us feel like we are watching a car crash in slow motion. We know there’s nothing we can do to stop what’s going to happen; in fact it’s already happened. Stanley Kubrick cited this as the most terrifying film he had ever seen. And I can see why."

Source
  
Captain America: The First Avenger (2011)
Captain America: The First Avenger (2011)
2011 | Action, Adventure
Our introduction to Captain America withing the MCU gets a bad wrap.
I see it labeled fairly regularly as weak entry into the ever expanding saga and I just don't think that's the case.

It's got a solid narrative for a start as we watch Steve Rogers go from frail Regular Joe to bonafide hero who truly believes in fighting for the good of humanity over the course of two hours.
The WWII setting provides a touch of historical reality, collided with the fantasy of the Tesseract, our first glimpse of the now infamous Infinity Stones, and in this narrative, providing Red Skull with cosmically charged weapons the gain the edge in the war with Allied Forces.

The First Avenger has a fantastic cast. Chris Evans is pretty much perfect in the titular role and has played the character solidly for the last 10 years.
Hugo Weaving as Red Skull is an undeniable highlight. He plays the villain with evil glee, and looks so comic book accurate that it hurts. It's a real shame that he has never returned to the role.
The supporting cast is strong as well. Hayley Atwell, Toby Jones, Tommy Lee Jones, Sebastian Stan, Dominic Cooper, and Stanley Tucci are all great, and relish in a tight screenplay.

I do think that the film feels over long at times, although the story being told is undeniably important in the run up to The Avengers.
The effects are mostly decent and still hold up, with an exception here and there, primarily before Steve Rogers goes all buff, but these are small gripes with an otherwise solid origin film.
  
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
1968 | Classics, Sci-Fi
Groundbreaking Special Effects (1 more)
Music
Truly...a masterpiece
Over the years, many, many words have been written and said about the 1968 Stanley Kubrick opus, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, but after re-watching it, there is only 1 word I would write about it...

MASTERPIECE

I have a long history with this film. My father took me to it as a 7 year old. I was intrigued by the Sci-Fi special effects, but mostly liked the monkeys at the beginning. I then saw it again as a college student in the early 1980's and was "really into" (for obvious reasons) the psychedelic special effects at the end. Later...in the early 1990's, during my Arthur C. Clark phase, I read the book and then re-watched the film and my understanding of what was happening on the screen gelled and, consequently, my fascination and respect for the themes and scope of 2001 opened up new doors of understanding. I think I have seen it another 4 or 5 times since then and have appreciated it in different ways each time.

For this viewing, I walked away with a sense of awe of the sheer craftsmanship and audacity that Kubrick put up on the screen. The scope of the project in 1968 was (I'm sure) daunting with a subject matter that was just outside of normal vision, so for Kubrick to get a studio to o'k this film is mind-boggling to me.

But...how does it stack up as a film? Very well, indeed.

Told in 4 parts, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY tells the tale of mankind's evolution from ape-man to space explorers and the mysterious, monolithic aliens who help mankind advance along this line.

In the hands of the great Stanley Kubrick, 2001 dazzles with pure visionary visuals, exploding heretofore unseen images on the screen. Showing us what could be possible in outer space visuals (not just paper plates hung on a wire against a star background). The film is full of Kubrick hallmarks - meticulously staged and choreographed scenes, stark colors - mostly one color with a dab of another color across the screen, and long scenes where not much dialogue takes place, but what is said (or not said) in the pauses speaks volume. Some would call this type of film making boring (and I have accused other filmmakers who have attempted this as boring and pretentious), but in the hands of Kubrick, this film is mesmerizing and continuously fascinating.

The first 20 minutes of the film - the DAWN OF MAN portion - and the last 20 minutes - the JUPITER AND BEYOND THE INFINITE portion - are both dialogue-free. Kubrick let's the action and visuals speak for themselves. In between are THE MOON portion, which really serves as the audience introduction into the style and substance of the film, the wonderfully, Oscar winning special effects set upon a backdrop of classical music (who can hear Also sprach Zarathustra and not think of 2001)?

It is during the 3rd - and most famous - portion of this film that a viewer will either engage or disengage with this film. This is the famous HAL 9000 portion of the film where 2 astronauts end up battling with a increasingly unstable artificial intelligence on a journey to Jupiter. It is here where Kubrick, I feel, is at his best. The long, uncomfortable silences and the glances between the two astronauts (played wonderfully by the oft-praised Keir Dullea and the underrated Gary Lockwood) leads to a sense of dread that is very reminiscent of Alfred Hitchcock at his finest.

I will admit that this film is not for everyone - and more than 1 of you reading this will attempt to watch 2001:A SPACE ODYSSEY and fall asleep during the middle of it - but for those of you that can plug into what Kubrick was achieving here will be rewarded with a very rich, very fascinating and very GOOD film that will garner conversation and criticism for many, many years to come.

Truly...a masterpiece.

Letter Grade: A+

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

Andy K (10821 KP) Mar 4, 2018

Getting a 4K release this year for its 50th. Can't wait.

40x40

BankofMarquis (1832 KP) Mar 4, 2018

Awesome...

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
1968 | Classics, Sci-Fi
A Masterpiece
Over the years, many, many words have been written and said about the 1968 Stanley Kubrick opus, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, but after re-watching it, there is only 1 word I would write about it...

MASTERPIECE

I have a long history with this film. My father took me to it as a 7 year old. I was intrigued by the Sci-Fi special effects, but mostly liked the monkeys at the beginning. I then saw it again as a college student in the early 1980's and was "really into" (for obvious reasons) the psychedelic special effects at the end. Later...in the early 1990's, during my Arthur C. Clark phase, I read the book and then re-watched the film and my understanding of what was happening on the screen gelled and, consequently, my fascination and respect for the themes and scope of 2001 opened up new doors of understanding. I think I have seen it another 4 or 5 times since then and have appreciated it in different ways each time.

For this viewing, I walked away with a sense of awe of the sheer craftsmanship and audacity that Kubrick put up on the screen. The scope of the project in 1968 was (I'm sure) daunting with a subject matter that was just outside of normal vision, so for Kubrick to get a studio to o'k this film is mind-boggling to me.

But...how does it stack up as a film? Very well, indeed.

Told in 4 parts, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY tells the tale of mankind's evolution from ape-man to space explorers and the mysterious, monolithic aliens who help mankind advance along this line.

In the hands of the great Stanley Kubrick, 2001 dazzles with pure visionary visuals, exploding heretofore unseen images on the screen. Showing us what could be possible in outer space visuals (not just paper plates hung on a wire against a star background). The film is full of Kubrick hallmarks - meticulously staged and choreographed scenes, stark colors - mostly one color with a dab of another color across the screen, and long scenes where not much dialogue takes place, but what is said (or not said) in the pauses speaks volume. Some would call this type of film making boring (and I have accused other filmmakers who have attempted this as boring and pretentious), but in the hands of Kubrick, this film is mesmerizing and continuously fascinating.

The first 20 minutes of the film - the DAWN OF MAN portion - and the last 20 minutes - the JUPITER AND BEYOND THE INFINITE portion - are both dialogue-free. Kubrick let's the action and visuals speak for themselves. In between are THE MOON portion, which really serves as the audience introduction into the style and substance of the film, the wonderfully, Oscar winning special effects set upon a backdrop of classical music (who can hear Also sprach Zarathustra and not think of 2001)?

It is during the 3rd - and most famous - portion of this film that a viewer will either engage or disengage with this film. This is the famous HAL 9000 portion of the film where 2 astronauts end up battling with a increasingly unstable artificial intelligence on a journey to Jupiter. It is here where Kubrick, I feel, is at his best. The long, uncomfortable silences and the glances between the two astronauts (played wonderfully by the oft-praised Keir Dullea and the underrated Gary Lockwood) leads to a sense of dread that is very reminiscent of Alfred Hitchcock at his finest.

I will admit that this film is not for everyone - and more than 1 of you reading this will attempt to watch 2001:A SPACE ODYSSEY and fall asleep during the middle of it - but for those of you that can plug into what Kubrick was achieving here will be rewarded with a very rich, very fascinating and very GOOD film that will garner conversation and criticism for many, many years to come.

Truly...a masterpiece.

Letter Grade: A+

10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
  
Show all 3 comments.
40x40

Katie (868 KP) Jul 4, 2018

Fantastic review for a fantastic film. Did you have an opportunity to see it in a theater when it was re-released recently?

40x40

BankofMarquis (1832 KP) Jul 4, 2018

Yes, I just saw a 70mm print of it on the big screen at our local Cineplex. They included the Overture (of course) and the intermission (I'm all in favor of intermissions making a comeback).