The Brothers Karamazov with Yul Brynner, Maria Schell, Claire Bloom, Lee J. Cobb, William Shatner, Albert Salmi and Richard Basehart. Released in 1958, it is superb-10/10!
OswaldTheOsprey
Printable View
The Brothers Karamazov with Yul Brynner, Maria Schell, Claire Bloom, Lee J. Cobb, William Shatner, Albert Salmi and Richard Basehart. Released in 1958, it is superb-10/10!
OswaldTheOsprey
Blade Runner - 3.75/5
I saw the Incredible Hulk with Edward Norton.
9/10
Based off of Iron man and the Incredible Hulk, if this is what the rest of the Avenger Series is going to be like...oh my god. I'm totally ready for it! :)
papayahed, I just love "Blade Runner". I have seen it several times in my life, first with my son, years back. I am surprised you did not rate it higher. It is a classic sci-fi-noir film - quite unique, with strong performances. The sound-track is extraordinary and I own a copy on CD - Vangelis is great! It fit the mood of the film perfectly. I loved the scene when the white haired man died and the doves flew up. It is such a classic. Which ending did you see? You know there are two.Quote:
Originally Posted by papayahed
I watched it online through netflix, the theatrical ending is the only one available to watch online. (It's the one where Harrison Ford and Sean Young are driving to the country).Quote:
Originally Posted by Janine
I was kind of preoccupied while watching the movie but I did take notice when Rutger Hauer died. Perhaps that's why I only rated it 3.75, although it did leave me wanting to know more about harrison ford and especially the nexus 6 models.
That was sooo creepy in the genetic engineers apartment.
Jumper
It felt as if there were so many plot holes in this film that for a moment I thought I had a bad copy. But no, it's just one of those films in which things are left incomplete...
2/10
Flushed Away.1.5/10
The Queen (2006)
Well done, Helen Mirren was excellent for the role.
papayahed, I saw that one, also. To be honest with you, I can't recall the other ending, but I just am aware there are two. I don't think they are that much different, but may impart an altered conclusion. Not sure; I can't recall now. You could probably find out more about it, by reading reviews on Amazon. I think they mention it on there.Quote:
Originally Posted by papayahed
Being preoccupied, while viewing that film could be a problem, because there are a lot of little details to note. Yes, I agree - I wanted to know more about Ford's character and those nexus 6 models; that was interesting.Quote:
I was kind of preoccupied while watching the movie but I did take notice when Rutger Hauer died. Perhaps that's why I only rated it 3.75, although it did leave me wanting to know more about harrison ford and especially the nexus 6 models.
Yeah, that creeped me out, too.Quote:
That was sooo creepy in the genetic engineers apartment.
vheissu, I loved "The Queen". Mirren's performance was perfect!
Me too. And I just cringed when I saw Rudy Giuliani trying to act.:sick:Quote:
Originally Posted by Antiquarian
"Your Friends and Neighbors" -- This was a really interesting movie, but at times it was so cynical and bleak that it was hard to watch. It had the same tone and worldview as Neil LaBute's more popular film, "In the Company of Men". If you're a fan of that film or Todd Solondz's movies (especially "Happiness" and "Storytelling"), you'll enjoy "Your Friends and Neighbors". Not for the easily offended! :)
If you feel that you are part of the counter-culture and find fault esp. with the U.S. mega-business system, then definitely rent and research "What Would Jesus Buy?" produced by the producer of "Supersize Me." Walmart and Disney don't want you to see this documentary. Also related to that Walmart movie: "The High Cost of Low Price." Both emphasize the work conditions overseas that the public needs to be shamed into taking action. Sadly, it looks like "What Would Jesus Buy?" has only done a couple hundred thousand dollars of business; quite a tribute to the gag order that big business has on it. See it for its revolutionary message, plus its very entertaining.
Elizabeth I - the HBO miniseries starring Helen Mirren, Jeremy Irons, Hugh Dancy.
I have a weakness for monarch movies, especially set in England. I did like this very much. I thought Helen Mirren's performance was one of her greatest. How can she get any better? Her sudden changes in mood and facial expression, and her command of this difficult performance, was so natural and so believable. I do think she was the best Elizabeth I so far, and the closest to the actual historical figure. The first part of the movie kind of lagged I thought, but the second part was stupendous. I really liked all portrayals of the men in her life, none of whom she was able to marry, although she loved them. I felt so much for the woman that was Elizabeth. She was a great ruler and could hold her ground in her all male council. She was quite witty and funny at times; and when need be, she could command and the results of that were indeed sometimes quite barabaric (punishments), although not many executions actually did take place during her rule or so the extra featurette proclaimed. The ones that did did seem cruel, although she showed some reluctance to enforce some of those, but that is what it took to be a real queen in those difficult times. Below all this, she did possess a loving woman's heart and I loved the line in the film "The hardest thing to govern is the heart". The ending will tear you up inside. This film, is not for the weak at heart. The actual carrying out of some pretty graphic and cruel punishment is shown blantantly on the screen. I was surprised at that. I had to look away a few times, but it was not too excessive, and it was scattered; but it was quite gory and blantant.
I watched all the extras and enjoyed them very much. I love to see just how films are conceived and where the sets are built. The costume design in this film is sumptuous and lavish. I really enjoyed that part of the film and all the visuals, although the sets are not so expansive, but still they do portray as much as is needed. The merits of this film lie in the great, great performances of all the actors. For 211 minutes, I was truly mesmorized with Helen's performance. She is one of my favorite actresses; one of the finest out there. Some said that Irons looked too old for the part, but I think his looks were appropriate, since they were both suppose to be older in age when this film begins. I think also, at that time people looked older than they do today - life was tougher back then. Personally, liked Iron's performance very much. I also likewise, loved Hugh Dancy's performance. He really exuded the youthful qualities that his character required - he was impulsive, adorable, headstrong, playful, sexy and reckless - he was quite the appealing. One could see how Elizabeth was so taken by him, even though she let her heart go past her good sense at times, with this new 'boy toy' in her later aging life. Their relationship was complex and I liked that. One kept wondering, just what were the true motives behind Hugh Dancy's amazing blue eyes.
All in all I liked the film and would probably watch it again sometime, although I did feel it was slow-paced at first and picked up in the second half. The merits don't particularly rest on the plot, since most of the first part, I knew from other films and general knowledge. The second part was not at all familar to me, so that might be why I found it more interesting and captivating.
If you notice, Antiquarian, I edited my post when you were posting. I saw lots of mistakes in my text. Anyway, yes do see it, Antiquarian and tell me what you think. I was so lucky to have it come in my library. I snatched that one quickly off the shelf. To see Helen Mirren in anything intrigues me. I think you will like it very much; but as I said the second half is a bit more active or intriguing, at least it was to me. I love the Cate Blanchett versions but now I can see that some of that is quite contrived, although there were many attempts on Elizabeth's life. The biggest falsity was the way they portrayed the King of France in the first film starring CB. He was shown as a babbling idiot and also gay I believe or bisexual. That part was a bit strange and apparently not at all true to history. In this film he is show more true to life or so the historican who spoke on the Featurette of the history stated. I would believe him over Hollywood.Quote:
Originally Posted by Antiquarian
The film "The Importance of Being Ernest" is a good one. I had a lot of good laughs out of it. I really love "An Ideal Husband", as well, maybe a little more; I love the play and the film version with Jeremy Northam/Cate Blanchett/Rupert Everett/Marianne Moore/Minnie Driver. That is a good strong cast! You can't go wrong with an Oscar Wilde adaptation and play. Have you read both plays yet? I love them both and also "Lady Windemere's Fan" - not sure I spelled her name correctly; too lazy now to look it up.
I just watched 'Under the Tuscan Sun' today. I loved it! I'm not a big fan of Diane Lane, but I think she did a great job in the movie. It's hilarious at times and sad at times. I think it's a very good movie. 10/10