Yes, there's that ending - but in general the movie (great as it is in many respects) suffers from overlength. It takes much too long to get the drama going, so a bit tighter editing of the opening half hour would have been welcome.
That said, in many ways it sums up many of the best features of the western genre, and Clift and Wayne make for a compelling onscreen duo.
@Zeltaebar: Agree completely. The most horrifying thing about the movie is the miscasting of Chaney, whose onscreen romance with Evelyn Ankers is as unconvincing as the werewolf makeup.
Claude Rains is a major plus, but his talents are mostly wasted in this film.
Taut, no-nonsense sci-fi action which has just the right amount of characterisation and plot development to keep you engaged. The action sequences aren't all that memorable. What you're really coming for, though, are the one-liners, the undeniable charisma of the movie leads and the many thrilling segments.
Compared to many an 80s action flick, this has aged really well.
With all the awards and other honours bestowed on this movie, I have to admit that I was slightly disappointed. Sinatra was a standout, and Clift was terrific in the lead role, but both Lancaster and particularly Borgnine have done a lot better in other movies - and not all of the plot threads were equally interesting.
Not bad in any way, just less that I expected.
What's the correct running time for this movie? IMDb and Wikipedia say 98 minutes, but when it was screened at out local film festival, it only ran 74 minutes? The festival people insist this is correct. Are there two cuts of the film?
BTW, enjoyed it quite a bit. The story was very engaging and was very open about its political POV. The animation was a bit primitive, though.
Effective and slick actioner of the South Korean run-of-the-mill variety. Some neat set pieces but overly complicated story (which doesn't have much impact, anyway) and much too long for its own good. Leading man seem to stray off into super hero-like territory on several occasions.
Looks really promising!
...if a bit on the "busy" side - the layout seems a bit crowded. Will it be possible to collapse and/or permanently remove elements that I'm not interested in? I.e. if I didn't care about related movies, could I remove them from the layout? (I do care, but as an example)
Also, please include an IMDb link in the film header, so that I can access info on the film, no matter which section (Info, In lists etc.) I'm in.
Definitely a worthy sequel. In the plus column we have a heavily expanded playing field, which is put to good use and some amazingly choreographed fighting sequences that certainly top the ones from the first film. The thought "That's REALLY got to hurt!" passes through your head every two minutes or so.
Storywise, Gareth Evans ups the ante as well, which is both good and bad. Of course, it would be difficult to tell a simpler story than the one in the original, and the new tale of father-son relationships and gang warfare works fine.... but it's not as engaging or clever as could be hoped for, and it pads the running time to around 150 minutes, which is definitely way too much of a good thing.
If you're willing to ignore its weaknesses, there's definitely a thrill ride to go on here.
Vintage Wes Anderson, and probably his visually most elaborate piece yet. Not nearly as funny as Moonrise Kingdom or Rushmore, but the clever plot somewhat makes up for this.
The cast is stellar, but quite a few of them are of the blink-and-you'll-miss-them variety, which is a shame. Ralph Fiennes is terrific in the leading role, though.
This is really an actor's movie. Highly impressive performances by McConaughey and Leto - and even though the Academy loves actors who transform themselves for a role, both shouldn't win because they shed a lot of weight, but because they're terrific in their parts.
The story itself.... engaging and solid, but among the year's best? Not in my book. Both start and ending are dazzling, but there's quite a large section in the middle that seems to be going in circles. But the theme of being allowed to control your own life and health is handled very well indeed.
While not up there with the best episodes of this stellar series, this entry is generally highly entertaining and well produced. Much of the running time is spent on Sherlock's return and Watson's reactions to this, and while it is well acted (as usual), the actual crime element comes off a little too much as an afterthought. But it certainly makes for a terrific setup for the next episodes.
What a letdown. Apart from some surreal imagery (which I'm sure Chapman would have appreciated), the movie's attempts at humour are equally unfunny and forced. Chapman deserved better than this, and I'm surprised that the surviving Pythons (sans Idle) decided to join in.
Is the glass half empty or half full? Should we give credit to Blomkamp for managing to slip a bit of actual political commentary into a blockbuster production, or should we cry foul because its execution is all too obvious and heavy-handed? For every pro, there's a con - looks amazing, with terrific use of CGI - but the characters are flat and there are too many blatant plot holes, even for a sci-fi movie.
Hasn't aged very well. The concept works well, but Crichton nailed it a lot better with Jurassic Park. And the movie spends far too much time on the setup - I know this is supposed to play out like the ol' west, but having every possible western cliché thrown at you doesn't make it any better.
Still, Yul Brynner is chilling as the bad guy, and the final half hour or so makes up for a lot of the first hour's shortcomings.
Not without its charm (and a hefty dose of cheese), but it really misses most of the themes of the novel in favour of some questionable romantic and thriller sequences. Something of a disappointment, given the source material.
Very uneven, some of the humour works extremely well, but other bits just seem forced and tiresome. I guess the tiresome bits just tipped the scale for me. YMMV.
Entertaining but fairly run-of-the-mill cops'n'robbers tale, redeemed by engaging performances and a thrilling finale. But not on par with other Johnnie To films such as Sparrow.
Way too long. The movie ran out of ideas after an hour, and the entire back story seemed half-baked at best. Nice visuals and some comic touches, though.
Comments 26 - 50 of 62
Movie comment on Peti
Gunness
Impressive - 3 minutes long, and still it seems long-winded and repetivite.Movie comment on Red River
Gunness
Yes, there's that ending - but in general the movie (great as it is in many respects) suffers from overlength. It takes much too long to get the drama going, so a bit tighter editing of the opening half hour would have been welcome.That said, in many ways it sums up many of the best features of the western genre, and Clift and Wayne make for a compelling onscreen duo.
Movie comment on The Wolf Man
Gunness
@Zeltaebar: Agree completely. The most horrifying thing about the movie is the miscasting of Chaney, whose onscreen romance with Evelyn Ankers is as unconvincing as the werewolf makeup.Claude Rains is a major plus, but his talents are mostly wasted in this film.
Movie comment on Predator
Gunness
Taut, no-nonsense sci-fi action which has just the right amount of characterisation and plot development to keep you engaged. The action sequences aren't all that memorable. What you're really coming for, though, are the one-liners, the undeniable charisma of the movie leads and the many thrilling segments.Compared to many an 80s action flick, this has aged really well.
Movie comment on From Here to Eternity
Gunness
With all the awards and other honours bestowed on this movie, I have to admit that I was slightly disappointed. Sinatra was a standout, and Clift was terrific in the lead role, but both Lancaster and particularly Borgnine have done a lot better in other movies - and not all of the plot threads were equally interesting.Not bad in any way, just less that I expected.
Blog comment on The Informant!
Gunness
Happy to assist & looking forward to the result :)Blog comment on Lustrum
Gunness
Congrats!Movie comment on Uma História de Amor e Fúria
Gunness
What's the correct running time for this movie? IMDb and Wikipedia say 98 minutes, but when it was screened at out local film festival, it only ran 74 minutes? The festival people insist this is correct. Are there two cuts of the film?BTW, enjoyed it quite a bit. The story was very engaging and was very open about its political POV. The animation was a bit primitive, though.
Movie comment on Les salauds
Gunness
Convoluted storytelling and some decent performances covering themes that aren't really developed properly. Give this a miss.Movie comment on Yong-eui-ja
Gunness
Effective and slick actioner of the South Korean run-of-the-mill variety. Some neat set pieces but overly complicated story (which doesn't have much impact, anyway) and much too long for its own good. Leading man seem to stray off into super hero-like territory on several occasions.Blog comment on Men at Work
Gunness
Looks really promising!...if a bit on the "busy" side - the layout seems a bit crowded. Will it be possible to collapse and/or permanently remove elements that I'm not interested in? I.e. if I didn't care about related movies, could I remove them from the layout? (I do care, but as an example)
Also, please include an IMDb link in the film header, so that I can access info on the film, no matter which section (Info, In lists etc.) I'm in.
And congrats with the # of users!
Movie comment on Serbuan maut 2: Berandal
Gunness
Definitely a worthy sequel. In the plus column we have a heavily expanded playing field, which is put to good use and some amazingly choreographed fighting sequences that certainly top the ones from the first film. The thought "That's REALLY got to hurt!" passes through your head every two minutes or so.Storywise, Gareth Evans ups the ante as well, which is both good and bad. Of course, it would be difficult to tell a simpler story than the one in the original, and the new tale of father-son relationships and gang warfare works fine.... but it's not as engaging or clever as could be hoped for, and it pads the running time to around 150 minutes, which is definitely way too much of a good thing.
If you're willing to ignore its weaknesses, there's definitely a thrill ride to go on here.
Movie comment on The Grand Budapest Hotel
Gunness
Vintage Wes Anderson, and probably his visually most elaborate piece yet. Not nearly as funny as Moonrise Kingdom or Rushmore, but the clever plot somewhat makes up for this.The cast is stellar, but quite a few of them are of the blink-and-you'll-miss-them variety, which is a shame. Ralph Fiennes is terrific in the leading role, though.
Movie comment on Dallas Buyers Club
Gunness
This is really an actor's movie. Highly impressive performances by McConaughey and Leto - and even though the Academy loves actors who transform themselves for a role, both shouldn't win because they shed a lot of weight, but because they're terrific in their parts.The story itself.... engaging and solid, but among the year's best? Not in my book. Both start and ending are dazzling, but there's quite a large section in the middle that seems to be going in circles. But the theme of being allowed to control your own life and health is handled very well indeed.
Movie comment on Walker
Gunness
Watch it here: http://vimeo.com/49339358Movie comment on Sherlock: The Empty Hearse
Gunness
While not up there with the best episodes of this stellar series, this entry is generally highly entertaining and well produced. Much of the running time is spent on Sherlock's return and Watson's reactions to this, and while it is well acted (as usual), the actual crime element comes off a little too much as an afterthought. But it certainly makes for a terrific setup for the next episodes.Movie comment on The Bead Game
Gunness
Highly impressive short!Movie comment on A Liar's Autobiography: The Untrue Story of Monty Python's Graham Chapman
Gunness
What a letdown. Apart from some surreal imagery (which I'm sure Chapman would have appreciated), the movie's attempts at humour are equally unfunny and forced. Chapman deserved better than this, and I'm surprised that the surviving Pythons (sans Idle) decided to join in.Movie comment on Elysium
Gunness
Is the glass half empty or half full? Should we give credit to Blomkamp for managing to slip a bit of actual political commentary into a blockbuster production, or should we cry foul because its execution is all too obvious and heavy-handed? For every pro, there's a con - looks amazing, with terrific use of CGI - but the characters are flat and there are too many blatant plot holes, even for a sci-fi movie.Movie comment on Westworld
Gunness
Hasn't aged very well. The concept works well, but Crichton nailed it a lot better with Jurassic Park. And the movie spends far too much time on the setup - I know this is supposed to play out like the ol' west, but having every possible western cliché thrown at you doesn't make it any better.Still, Yul Brynner is chilling as the bad guy, and the final half hour or so makes up for a lot of the first hour's shortcomings.
Movie comment on The Time Machine
Gunness
Not without its charm (and a hefty dose of cheese), but it really misses most of the themes of the novel in favour of some questionable romantic and thriller sequences. Something of a disappointment, given the source material.Movie comment on
Gunness
Why does this have its own entry? According to IMDb, it's just a collection of the four W&G shorts.Movie comment on Wrong
Gunness
Very uneven, some of the humour works extremely well, but other bits just seem forced and tiresome. I guess the tiresome bits just tipped the scale for me. YMMV.Movie comment on Du zhan
Gunness
Entertaining but fairly run-of-the-mill cops'n'robbers tale, redeemed by engaging performances and a thrilling finale. But not on par with other Johnnie To films such as Sparrow.Movie comment on Gantz
Gunness
Way too long. The movie ran out of ideas after an hour, and the entire back story seemed half-baked at best. Nice visuals and some comic touches, though.Showing items 26 – 50 of 62