Change Your Image
redhawk-49394
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Judgment at Nuremberg (1961)
Completely Unique
On one hand, I'd say that this is the sort of film that could only have been made in the 50s or the 60s. It has that atmosphere with some cold war tension and that sort of audience. The time period was very unique and had a wide range of movies of different styles and was an era of change in the film industry.
On the other hand, I'd say that this movie was of its time. With its quick camera motions, 360 degree turns and unique film-making style (by acclaimed director Stanley Kramer), this is without doubt almost an 80s or 90s film in directorial aspects.
The two most powerful things that the film had in hand were its fantastic performances by Spencer Tracy (and others whose names I cannot remember), and the message of the film (which is almost a twist in itself).
Overall, it's a masterpiece and nothing short of that. One of the best films I have ever seen.
Fracture (2007)
Highly Hitchcockian
Anthony Hopkins plays a really fantastic villain, much like Hannibal Lecter in his overall exterior charm and such. Ryan Gosling plays an equally fantastic hero.
The base plot is much like a Hitchcock film. Nothing screams Hitchcock more than man murders wife. Of course, the direction is highly different compared to Hitchcock's brilliant capacity in blocking and such. The dialogue is well-written as well. What really makes the film so cool is the conversation between Gosling and Hopkins. It makes us all say "hey, remember Silence of the Lambs? Me too!". I suppose the film is meant for anyone who loves Silence of the Lambs, but hasn't seen it in a while and also a person who really likes law movies.
I'm not an expert on American law, but I don't think the technical aspects of the film are very quote-unquote "legit". It's a great movie if you're just looking for some thrills. I've only watched it once. I don't really think I'll enjoy it a second time, though I really liked watching it in my first viewing.
Glengarry Glen Ross (1992)
Familiarity & Unfamiliarity in harmony
This film is undoubtedly one of my favourites of all time and that's because of it's brilliant portrayal of salesmen, it's stellar, sorry interstellar cast and its driving plot.
One thing I really liked about this film (and it's Pulitzer prize winning source) is its 100 minute run-time. In that short 100 minutes, the film expressed to me more about the sales business did than Wall Street did in 126 minutes.
Unfamiliarity - In this film, we're given an unfamiliar situation. There's no other film like this, so this is the first time we're actually being placed in this sort of situation. That's what gets us intrigued.
Familiarity - Majority of the film takes place in one room. That gives us familiarity in terms of setting. We feel like home in that room, in a sense that we know how the characters move inside. The same is with 12 Angry Men and Reservoir Dogs. If unfamiliarity got us started, familiarity keeps us going.
Next, the performances. Can we change that Best Actor to Denzel Washington for Malcolm X and that Best Supporting Actor to Al Pacino for Glengarry Glen Ross? Al Pacino is fantastic in this film. Kevin Spacey's performance makes you sympathise with him and hate him at the same time. Jack Lemmon makes you love him. Alan Arkin and Ed Harris are equally great. Alec Baldwin really has "brass balls".
On a last note, I cannot talk about this film without commenting on it's fantastic editing. The editing is just marvellous. We cut back and forth and back and forth really fast when the conversation keeps rambling. We feel the conversation's tension and its rhythm when the actors and editors do what they do best.
Lung foo fung wan (1987)
What undercover movies today need
First of all, I loved this film. From beginning to end, it featured a well-painted character played by Chow Yun-Fat. So, you're wondering, why have I given it only 7/10? Okay, so let me start by saying that I had seen most John Woo films such as A Better Tomorrow, The Killer, etc (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000247/?ref_=nv_sr_1#director). before hitting this film. And those films were too damn good. They were so good that it made this film nearly no competition. Secondly, I want to state the one fault of this film that has also become a major problem for action movies overall--Drama. Okay, so a certain amount of drama is necessary for a film. Take the drama in Die Hard or A Better Tomorrow. These films feast on their own drama to survive. However, City on Fire unnecessarily introduces a feminine character who Chow Yun-Fat must take as a bride.
This problem is very vividly seen in South Indian action films like Thupakki (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2187153/?ref_=nv_sr_2). I'm not saying these films are necessarily bad, I am just stating that the pace and tension of these films are blown apart by silly, unnecessary drama.
City on Fire is otherwise a great film, having it's remarkable plot extend to one of the greatest films of all times: Quentin Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs.
SF: Episode One (1998)
A blend of old and new
What makes this film so intriguing? There's so much about it that makes it so fun and yet so good. It pays great homage to its background. It gives us a view of the Zatoichi samurai film http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056714/?ref_=nv_sr_1) in terms of its slow-paced movement and action as well as the plot and emotion of a Kurosawa film (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000041/? ref_=nv_sr_1#director).
There are also hints of fantastic direction. The poster features the famous silhouette fight, which went on to inspire another one in Tarantino's Kill Bill (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0266697/? ref_=nv_sr_1).
The other great thing about this film is it's use of fantastic, trendy rock and pop music which really adds something to an artsy samurai movie. It gives a very nice, slick tone to the movie as well.
I understand that the film is also called SF volume 1. Why isn't there a volume 2, I wonder?