Author Topic: Riches Random Reviews  (Read 226368 times)

richierich

  • Guest
Re: Riches Random Reviews
« Reply #45 on: January 25, 2009, 09:00:34 PM »


Title: Chaplin

Runtime:135
Certificate:PG-13
Year:1992
Genres:Drama, Comedy

Plot:Directed by Sir Richard Attenborough and starring Robert Downey, Jr. and an extraordinary cast, CHAPLIN is a loving, grand scale portrait of the Little Tramp's amazing life and times. HIs poverty-stricken childhood in England comes to life along with his friendships with Mack Sennett (Dan Ackroyd) and Douglas Fairbanks (Kevin Kline), his many wives and scandalous affairs, and his relentless pursuit by J. Edgar Hoover. CHAPLIN is the larger-than-life story of the actor behind the icon and a stunning depiction of a bygone era when Hollywood was at its most glamorous.

My Review:
A wonderful biographical film, for the 2nd time in as many weeks I have witnessed Downeys immense talent as an actor, it's a shame he has been in so many bad films. The movie provides a glimpse into a complicated man with 2 very different personas, the joker on the stage, the quiet, introverted and rather sad man off it.
Clearly Chaplin was a womaniser, with a rather unpleasant taste for very young women, perhaps he became too big for his boots, taking too many risks with controversial themes for his movies, but there is no doubting his immense talent, imagination beyond his years and ahead of time, a workaholic dedication to his art, and many of his movies are now deemed classics. He seemed at home with a camera, developing the scores, creating, but away from this I couldn't help but feel sorry for him as a rather pathetic lonely figure.
I hadn't realised Chaplin had been hounded out of the States by Hoover, and the ending with the return of Charlie to receive a special Academy Award brought a lump to my throat.
A great Attenborough film, superbly acted, and highly recommended.
 :thumbup:

« Last Edit: November 04, 2009, 03:59:36 PM by Rich »

Offline Jimmy

  • Mega Heavy Poster
  • *******
  • Posts: 6754
  • Yes this is me...
    • View Profile
Re: Riches Random Reviews
« Reply #46 on: January 25, 2009, 09:29:21 PM »
What a pathetic, juvenile load of shit.
What was you expecting, it's an Adam Sandler's movie  :laugh:

Except for The Wedding Singer, I've never find anything worthy of my time in any film he had appear in his "career". But, I'm certain that I like The Wedding Singer more for nostalgic reasons than anything else (even if the film is full of errors).

Offline DJ Doena

  • Administrator
  • Mega Heavy Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 6336
  • Country: de
  • Battle Troll
    • View Profile
    • My Blog
Re: Riches Random Reviews
« Reply #47 on: January 25, 2009, 09:35:55 PM »
What a pathetic, juvenile load of shit.
What was you expecting, it's an Adam Sandler's movie  :laugh:

Except for The Wedding Singer, I've never find anything worthy of my time in any film he had appear in his "career". But, I'm certain that I like The Wedding Singer more for nostalgic reasons than anything else (even if the film is full of errors).
Try "50 First Dates", "Spanglish", "Click". Especially the latter ones are less slapstick and have a more serious side to them.
Karsten

Abraham Lincoln once said The trouble with quotes from the internet is that you never know if they're genuine.

my Blog | my DVD Profiler Tools


richierich

  • Guest
Re: Riches Random Reviews
« Reply #48 on: January 26, 2009, 01:29:01 PM »
What a pathetic, juvenile load of shit.
What was you expecting, it's an Adam Sandler's movie  :laugh:

Except for The Wedding Singer, I've never find anything worthy of my time in any film he had appear in his "career". But, I'm certain that I like The Wedding Singer more for nostalgic reasons than anything else (even if the film is full of errors).
Try "50 First Dates", "Spanglish", "Click". Especially the latter ones are less slapstick and have a more serious side to them.

Good point, I have enjoyed Sandlers later roles, and in less slapstick storylines

richierich

  • Guest
Re: Riches Random Reviews
« Reply #49 on: January 26, 2009, 01:32:27 PM »
The Lady Vanishes



Spies! Playing the game of love – and sudden death! Along with The 39 Steps (1935), The Lady Vanishes is one of Alfred Hitchcock’s most famous British-produced films. During a journey aboard a Trans-Continental Express train from Europe to England, young socialite Iris (Margaret Lockwood) strikes up an acquaintance with a middle-aged English governess, Miss Froy (Dame May Whitty), who, during the journey mysteriously disappears from her compartment. Based on the story The Wheel Spins by Ethel Lina White.

Definately the best Hitchcock UK film (yes, better than 39 steps) before he was put under contract by Selznick, forgetting the obvious technological constraints of the time. It isn't a great film, especially in comparison to his Strangers on a Train or Shadow of a Doubt, but it is a good film. I wouldn't recommend purchasing it unless you are a 'completist' and wanting to own all of Hitchcocks movies. It is perhaps a little 'too british', littered with cricketing terms, cucumber sandwiches, stiff upper lips and jolly old hockeysticks!
The cast is wonderful, some good witty exchanges especially in the first 20 minutes, but the suspense he mastered in later films is just not there in this outing. Trademark camerawork and stylish flourish of the director are clear to see, but you never get the edge of the seat thrill found in his classics.
A good film nonetheless, imagine the period of history the original audience viewed this and you understand how well it originally went down, and one not to ignore if showing on the tv.  :D
« Last Edit: January 27, 2009, 10:17:17 AM by Rich »

richierich

  • Guest
Re: Riches Random Reviews
« Reply #50 on: January 27, 2009, 10:40:50 AM »
Dr. No



Released in 1962, this first James Bond movie remains one of the best and serves as an entertaining reminder that the Bond series began (in keeping with Ian Fleming's novels) with a surprising lack of gadgetry and big-budget fireworks. Sean Connery was just 32 years old when he won the role of Agent 007. In his first adventure James Bond is called to Jamaica where a colleague and secretary have been mysteriously killed. With an American CIA agent (Jack Lord, pre-Hawaii Five-O), they discover that the nefarious Dr. No (Joseph Wiseman) is scheming to blackmail the US government with a device capable of deflecting and destroying US rockets launched from Cape Canaveral. Of course, Bond takes time off from his exploits to enjoy the company of a few gorgeous women, including the bikini-clad Ursula Andress. She gloriously kicks off the long-standing tradition of Bond women who know how to please their favourite secret agent. A sexist anachronism? Maybe, but this is Bond at his purest

A great start, and a perfect formula to what was going to be such a successful run of films. Bond is edgy in Dr No, faithful to the book, and maybe a little less camp than he became. Sean Connery for me will always be 'The Bond' and his introduction to the audience is masterful, remember that sweeping pan around the card table in the casino, and Connery drawling those immortal words "Bond, James Bond"
On the critical side, it is obviously more primitive than later outings, the ending is a bit of an anti-climax, and it is relatively low budget.
However, the lack of gadgetry and explosives works for me, I find Dr No more intimate, gritty, a deeper sense of danger, providing a more gripping thriller laced with heady intrigue. The villains from here became the norm in later outings, megalomaniacs, normally with a deformity, high tech base etc etc.
And Ursula Andress' arrival on the beach mmmm
I hope everyone has seen this film, I remember my kids watching it on video when they were younger and absolutely loving it also. It is a must-see.
 ;D

« Last Edit: January 27, 2009, 10:42:57 AM by Rich »

richierich

  • Guest
Re: Riches Random Reviews
« Reply #51 on: January 27, 2009, 10:52:19 AM »
Raging Bull



Starring legendary actors Robert De Niro and Joe Pesci, this two-time Oscar® winner is "ambitious, violent, poetic and lyrical" ('The New York Times') - "a film of extraordinary power and rare distinction" ('The Wall Street Journal'). Nominated for a total of eight Academy Awards, 'Raging Bull' is filmmaking at its hard-hitting, riveting best.

De Niro turns in an extraordinary, Best Actor Oscar®-winning performance as Jake La Motta, a boxer whose psychological and sexual complexities erupt into violence both in and out of the ring. Nominated for Best Supporting Actor and Actress Oscars®, Pesci and Cathy Moriarty are compelling as the brother who falls prey to Jake's mounting paranoia and jealousy and the fifteen-year-old girl who becomes his most prized trophy. "Tough, compelling [and] powerfully made" ('Halliwell's Film Guide'), 'Raging Bull' strikes hard, fast... and straight to the heart.


I cannot undersand how this has been heralded as the best boxing movie of all time, in my opinion the boxing was purely a backdrop to a deeper exploration of one mans psyche. The fights just appeared to be a release for all the obvious pent-up anger, frustration and jealousy that bubbled in La Motta, and ruined his relationships.
The direction is amazing, just simple shots somehow seem more important and penetrating, claustraphobic in the dometic shots, artistic in the ring. De Niro & Pesci give wonderful convincing acting masterclasses. The unflinching production of a fairly unpleasant personality, makes you realise how volatile and dangerous La Motta would have been roaming the streets, you certainly don't warm to him through the film.
I think everyone should watch this film, to perhaps see de Niro at his best, and Scorsese matching him blow for blow.
 ;D
« Last Edit: January 28, 2009, 02:57:10 PM by Rich »

richierich

  • Guest
Re: Riches Random Reviews
« Reply #52 on: January 28, 2009, 03:14:05 PM »
RocknRolla



In London, a real-estate scam puts millions of pounds up for grabs, attracting some of the city's scrappiest tough guys and its more established underworld types, all of whom are looking to get rich quick. While the city's seasoned criminals vie for the cash, an unexpected player -- a drugged out rock 'n' roller presumed to be dead but very much alive -- has a multi-million dollar prize fall into his hands.

Disappointing Guy Ritchie film after all the hype, and in this genre we have seen it all before, only done significantly better. The script is weak and full of holes, cockney rhyming slang straight from a dictionary (sorry, people don't talk like that), in fact so bad in places it became laughable.
There is no subtlety or intrigue, the plot is shoved down your throat and made me think Ritchie must think his whole audience is dumb. Acting is tame and only Tony Bebbel would come out with any credibility. The violence in the movie is so watered down to achieve a 15 certificate that it loses it's edge, and makes everything seem pointless.
They are making a sequel to this - nice to know that money is now Ritchies sole purpose of directing.
Earwig the dickie bird and save yerself some bread & honey Guv, give this a wide berth!
 :-\

richierich

  • Guest
Re: Riches Random Reviews
« Reply #53 on: January 28, 2009, 03:19:04 PM »
To Kill a Mockingbird



Robert Mulligan's classic adaptation of Harper Lee's Pulitzer Prize-winning novel, set in the racially charged atmosphere of Macon County, Alabama in the 1930s, TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD is a poignant coming-of-age story. Winner of four Academy Awards including Best Screenplay (written by Horton Foote), and Best Actor (Gregory Peck), TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD is a timeless film packed with beautiful scenes and meaningful life lessons. The story is told from the vantage point of a young girl nicknamed Scout (Mary Badham) whose widowed white father Atticus Finch (Peck), an attorney, decides on principle to defend a black man (Brock Peters) charged with raping a poor white woman. But the bigoted townspeople would rather lynch the accused than try him, and they make life hellish for the lawyer, his daughter, and his son Jem (Philip Alford). While their father is in the throes of the trial, his bright, inquisitive children learn a hard and unforgettable lesson in justice, morality, and prejudice, part of which requires overcoming an unfounded fear of their mysterious neighbour Boo Radley (Robert Duvall).

Twee American classic, for the year it was produced it must have been controversial in some of its delicately handled content, albeit of course set in 30's Alabama.
The book I read back in school many years ago, and I think the adaptation keeps the original authors intent. The black and white production, novel film angles, sympathetic score and intelligent direction are plusses, the only real problem I had with the film was it's overly long length and at times 'finger on fast forward' desire to speed up the pace.
Peck does a credible job as Addicus, but the film is stolen by both children actors, especially the tomboy who played Scout, who narrates the film.
Worth a recommendation  :D


« Last Edit: January 30, 2009, 10:38:07 AM by Rich »

Najemikon

  • Guest
Re: Riches Random Reviews
« Reply #54 on: January 28, 2009, 09:26:13 PM »
I cannot undersand how this has been heralded as the best boxing movie of all time, in my opinion the boxing was purely a backdrop to a deeper exploration of one mans psyche. The fights just appeared to be a release for all the obvious pent-up anger, frustration and jealousy that bubbled in La Motta, and ruined his relationships.
The direction is amazing, just simple shots somehow seem more important and penetrating, claustraphobic in the dometic shots, artistic in the ring. De Niro & Pesci give wonderful convincing acting masterclasses. The unflinching production of a fairly unpleasant personality, makes you realise how volatile and dangerous La Motta would have been roaming the streets, you certainly don't warm to him through the film.
I think everyone should watch this film, to perhaps see de Niro at his best, and Scorsese matching him blow for blow.
 ;D

I think you answer your own question there. La Motta was a fascinating character who kind of never stopped boxing. Most boxing films are just fights joined together by forced drama, but here, he never stops punching, in or out of the ring. He was consumed by his own career.

richierich

  • Guest
Re: Riches Random Reviews
« Reply #55 on: January 29, 2009, 10:00:40 AM »
I cannot undersand how this has been heralded as the best boxing movie of all time, in my opinion the boxing was purely a backdrop to a deeper exploration of one mans psyche. The fights just appeared to be a release for all the obvious pent-up anger, frustration and jealousy that bubbled in La Motta, and ruined his relationships.
The direction is amazing, just simple shots somehow seem more important and penetrating, claustraphobic in the dometic shots, artistic in the ring. De Niro & Pesci give wonderful convincing acting masterclasses. The unflinching production of a fairly unpleasant personality, makes you realise how volatile and dangerous La Motta would have been roaming the streets, you certainly don't warm to him through the film.
I think everyone should watch this film, to perhaps see de Niro at his best, and Scorsese matching him blow for blow.
 ;D

I think you answer your own question there. La Motta was a fascinating character who kind of never stopped boxing. Most boxing films are just fights joined together by forced drama, but here, he never stops punching, in or out of the ring. He was consumed by his own career.

Thats true, even towards the end as the fat loser trawling seedy bars trying to do stand-up comedy (I wonder how they made DeNiro look so fat?)

Najemikon

  • Guest
Re: Riches Random Reviews
« Reply #56 on: January 29, 2009, 10:05:24 AM »
Thats true, even towards the end as the fat loser trawling seedy bars trying to do stand-up comedy (I wonder how they made DeNiro look so fat?)

I'm pretty sure, he put the weight on. His face obviously has a lot of make-up, mainly for La Motta's fascinating nose! But the belly was all real.

From Wikipedia: "production of the film was then closed down for around four months with the entire crew was being paid, so De Niro could go on a binge eating trip around Northern Italy and France. When he did come back to the United States, his weight increased from 145 to 215 pounds (66 to 97 kg). The scenes with the fatter Jake LaMotta—which include announcing his retirement from boxing and LaMotta ending up in a Florida cell—were completed while approaching Christmas 1979 within seven to eight weeks so as not to aggravate the health issues which were already affecting De Niro's posture, breathing, and talking."

An American goes to Europe to put weight ON? ???

richierich

  • Guest
Re: Riches Random Reviews
« Reply #57 on: January 29, 2009, 10:12:49 AM »
Burn After Reading



An all-star cast, including George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Frances McDormand, Tilda Swinton and John Malkovich, come together in this outrageous spy comedy about murder, blackmail, sex addiction and physical fitness!

When a disc filled with some of the CIA's most irrelevant secrets gets in the hands of two determined, but dim-witted, gym employees, the duo are intent on exploiting their find. But since blackmail is a trade better left for the experts, events soon spiral out of everyone's and anyone's control, resulting in a non-stop series of hilarious encounters! From Joel and Ethan Coen, the Academy Award winning directors of No Country For Old Men and The Big Lebowski, comes this brilliantly clever and endlessly entertaining movie that critics are calling smart, funny, and original.


Quirky film, like Fargo you are engrossed all the way through and chuckling constantly, caught by surprises often, and look at each other afterwards and say 'WTF was that!'
Such a massive web of deceit, betrayal, infidelity and lies, it is hard to see for an hour how this will all fall together. It suffers from a very stodgy start, but after half an hour you daren't look away. The best comparison I can give is that BAF is a mix between Fargo violence and Big Lebowski humour. All of the actors shine, but Frances McDormand steals it for me as an exceptional performance.
This is a smart comedy, and potentially a cult film in the future. Very enjoyable  ;D


Offline Achim

  • Mega Heavy Poster
  • *******
  • Posts: 7171
  • Country: 00
    • View Profile
    • ya_shin's site
Re: Riches Random Reviews
« Reply #58 on: January 29, 2009, 11:26:29 AM »
 :redcard: Where's the To Kill a Mocking Bird review?


An American goes to Europe to put weight ON? ???
While Europe has the better food (I dare say), if you combine it in all the wrong ways you can easily put on the pounds quickly; and probably in a better way than eating loads of greasy burgers. Sure he could have eaten the same foods in the US, but why do it there is you can have a nice trip to europe at the same time :)

richierich

  • Guest
Re: Riches Random Reviews
« Reply #59 on: January 29, 2009, 01:51:04 PM »
:redcard: Where's the To Kill a Mocking Bird review?

In production  8)

I started to watch the dvd but had to switch films when my partner arrived and said she didn't want to watch some old crap  :bag:

It will be completed this evening  :thumbup: