It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
<center><font size = 4>part 2</font></center>
<center><font color = darkblue size = 6>KILLER'S KISS (1955)</font></center>
<center>
Kubrick's second film took on a very different subject. Two lives cross, they seek a better life but there's a catch. Killer's Kiss talks about a different kind of war, the war against the troubles of life, the war against those who are more resourceful than we are. The lead character is a boxer and this took Kubrick back to one of his first shorts: Day Of The Fight.
With a meagre budget and hardly any permits to shoot on location, Kubrick was forced to be creative and resort to renegade shooting. But it works. You actually get the feeling that you're there, where it happens. With an unintentional documentary style and a powerful climax, Killer's Kiss feels like a good old fashioned film noir. Shot in 1.37 and black and white, the film could fool you in thinking it's a cheap and thus low quality production. The truth is, it's a solid story about people, well shot and well told.
Though this is also one of the lesser known films in Kubrick's career, Killer's Kiss already packs many of Kubrick's famous characteristics as a filmmaker. I recommend it to fans of both Kubrick and of the unforgettable film noir genre.
Final score: 6,5/10
DD's Stanley Kubrick retrospective score card:
Killer's Kiss: 6,5/10
Fear And Desire: 5/10
DD's Michael Mann retrospective score card:
HEAT: 10/10
The Insider: 9/10
Thief: 9/10
Collateral: 8,5/10
Miami Vice: 8/10
Manhunter: 8/10
Public Enemies: 7,5/10
Ali: 7/10
The Last Of The Mohicans: 7/10
The Keep: 5,5/10
DD's David Fincher retrospective score card:
Seven: 9,5/10
The Social Network: 9,5/10
Zodiac: 8,5/10
The Game: 8/10
Panic Room: 8/10
The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo: 8/10
Alien³: 7,5/10
The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button: 7,5/10
Fight Club: 7/10
<center><font size = 4>part 3</font></center>
<center><font color = darkblue size = 6>THE KILLING (1956)</font></center>
<center>
After Killer's Kiss, Kubrick decided to turn to books. Clean Break, by Lionel White, was to inspire him into making a heist movie. Also done in very film noir style, much like Killer's Kiss, Kubrick suddenly reached top level in terms of acting, story telling, photography. This may be the first film in his career that could genuinely compete with much of his later work if we wish to call out "Kubrick's best".
With such great (cult) actors as Sterling Hayden and Timothy Carey, the cast of The Killing is unforgettable. Once you've seen them here, you will notice them in other films and be able to point them out. Both names I mentioned will in fact work with Kubrick in other films (Dr Strangelove and Paths Of Glory respectively). Then there's the enigmatic Elisha Cook, Jr., whose almost sadomasochistic relationship with his cheating and condescending wife, played by Marie Windsor, makes us both sympathise with him and loath him.
What's so original about this film is, for starters, that the heist is planned by mostly regular Joes, ordinary types who are about to commit their very first crime ever. It enables us to feel their tension as they aren't professionals after all. But another, even more memorable element of the film, is the final two scenes, which show Kubrick in his most ironic (with an 'r', not a 'c', mind) moment ever. By the way, if you think the mask Joker wears at the start of The Dark Knight was a cinematic first, think again.
Kubrick is on fire here. Every single dialogue, every shot and every camera angle and movement, it's all great. Shot in 1.37 and black and white, the film displays some of Kubrick's iconic photography that will become vastly more abundant in his later work.
Though often ignored as part of Kubrick's legacy, The Killing nevertheless managed to secure a status as many a Kubrick fan's favourite. The film will also be remembered as one of the best heist movies of its time. If only it had had a powerful soundtrack like some of Kubrick's later films, it could have been perfect. But a great film nonetheless and I recommend this one to everyone who can appreciate a good crime film noir.
Final score: 8,5/10
DD's Stanley Kubrick retrospective score card:
The Killing: 8,5/10
Killer's Kiss: 6,5/10
Fear And Desire: 5/10
DD's Michael Mann retrospective score card:
HEAT: 10/10
The Insider: 9/10
Thief: 9/10
Collateral: 8,5/10
Miami Vice: 8/10
Manhunter: 8/10
Public Enemies: 7,5/10
Ali: 7/10
The Last Of The Mohicans: 7/10
The Keep: 5,5/10
DD's David Fincher retrospective score card:
Seven: 9,5/10
The Social Network: 9,5/10
Zodiac: 8,5/10
The Game: 8/10
Panic Room: 8/10
The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo: 8/10
Alien³: 7,5/10
The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button: 7,5/10
Fight Club: 7/10
<center><font size = 4>part 4</font></center>
<center><font color = darkblue size = 6>PATHS OF GLORY (1957)</font></center>
<center>
Kubrick would soon after The Killing find himself involved in an even more ambitious project: Paths Of Glory. Returning to Europe's trenches in Wold War I, we follow the French army in their battle against the Germans. Interesting note: we never see even so much as a German soldier. How can you make a decent war film then?
In terms of war, Kubrick will always bring nuance and contradiction into the game. Fear & Desire hadn't specified who was fighting who, let alone where or when. Paths Of Glory will specify who is fighting who, but will also focus its attention solely on the French. This film is an anti-war film in that it talks about the ridiculous decisions being made by powerful men in castles who toy around with the lives of the men in the trenches as if they were mere pawns in a chess game.
Higher ranking officers make behind-the-scenes decisions to launch a futile attack against a strategic German point, only to boost up the morale of the folks at home. For they need to be convinced of the boldness and heroism that supposedly still motivates the French army. But when most of the men either refuse to leave the trenches or coward back after only a few steps, the General Staff orders a random execution of a number of men just to set an example. The wise Colonel Dax defends his men when they stand trial against a prejudiced jury.
The threat doesn't come from behind no man's land. It comes from within. Paths Of Glory is about war, indeed, but more about the war against the fascist forms of warfare that even the 'good guys' resort to, rather than simply about the war against the Germans whom, again, we never even see in this film. (Notable exception, Kubrick's soon to be third wife portrays a German girl at the end of film, who through singing actually melts the hearts of the French soldiers. Again, Kubrick's war films are all about playing with expectations - as will become clear once more in at least two later films.)
Paths of Glory is a magnificent film and Kubrick knows precisely what to do in order to elicit reactions of revulsion. He plays with contrast by pinballing between the dirt and madness at the front, and the sterility and richness in and around the staff's castle. However, we are soon to learn that the symbolical cleanness of said castle is overshadowed by an even greater severity than what goes on in the trenches. He turns the people who are in charge into the real foes and leaves the German army as nothing but an impenetrable wall. No-one yet dons a helmet with 'born to kill' written on it and wearing a peace badge at the same time, but Paths Of Glory does seem to focus on many of the same war related contradictions as will Full Metal Jacket three decades later.
Kirk Douglas portrays Dax and does so with fierce energy. He's one of the strongest characters Kubrick will ever have in his films. Other notable appearances include Timothy Carey (from The Killing) and Joe Turkel (credited as Joseph Turkel), who we will see again in The Shining and who is perhaps best known as Dr. Eldon Tyrell in Blade Runner. Not only does Kubrick know how to work with actors, he shoots them in wonderful ways. His famous steady backtracking shots, here notably used as Dax strives through the trenches, add a lot of power to the scene. The film is shot in 1.66 and black and white.
Paths Of Glory will forever be one of my favourite intelligent (anti-)war films. I was pulled in from the very first moment, by the sheer magnetism of Kubrick's photography alone, and I was never released from its grip. Recommended viewing for all!
Final score: 9/10
DD's Stanley Kubrick retrospective score card:
Paths Of Glory: 9/10
The Killing: 8,5/10
Killer's Kiss: 6,5/10
Fear And Desire: 5/10
DD's Michael Mann retrospective score card:
HEAT: 10/10
The Insider: 9/10
Thief: 9/10
Collateral: 8,5/10
Miami Vice: 8/10
Manhunter: 8/10
Public Enemies: 7,5/10
Ali: 7/10
The Last Of The Mohicans: 7/10
The Keep: 5,5/10
DD's David Fincher retrospective score card:
Seven: 9,5/10
The Social Network: 9,5/10
Zodiac: 8,5/10
The Game: 8/10
Panic Room: 8/10
The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo: 8/10
Alien³: 7,5/10
The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button: 7,5/10
Fight Club: 7/10
Really looked forward to this ever since it hit theaters and I didn't get the chance to go and watch it. Overall, I loved it, though I feel like it turned into a heavy romance type film at certain points, and I really wanted it to stick to the main plot. But, it all wrapped up nicely and blended perfectly.
I can't imagine myself watching any of the TV series, but are any of the other films with the original cast worth watching?
Finally got round to watching this last night. After the much publicised problems during production it's not suprising that Marc Foster's latest effort does feel a little bloated and over-blown in places, with some scenes being rather nonsensical. Additionally seemingly important characters (like Pitt's family) are under-used and disappear for large sections of the film. There are however several effective set pieces which redeem things somewhat.
The central performance from Pitt is solid though as are the other cast members.
Personally I'd rank this above I Am Legend but below 28 Days Later.
6/10
Showgirls
A sleazy film about lap dancers in Las vegas directed by Paul Vehoven. Considered one of the worst films ever made its certainly not hard to see why as most of the acting is pretty dire (especially from Glenn Plummer and Gina Rivera). The best performance funnily enough comes from Robert Davi - who has to utter one of the worst lines of dialogue ever put on film.
In fairness it does convey the dirty, morally bankrupt side of Las Vegas rather well. You feel a little unclean watching it. Some of the dance sequences are well done too.
3/10
<center><font size = 4>part 5</font></center>
<center><font color = darkblue size = 6>SPARTACUS (1960)</font></center>
<center>
Ironically this was my first ever Kubrick film and... well, some will argue it's not really a Kubrick film. I'm going to argue against that in a minute. ;-) But of course Kubrick himself did not start up this project. It was going to be a typical swords and sandals film, with Kirk Douglas more or less in full control of the production. The hired director, however, wanted too much to say about it so Douglas notoriously let him go and, having worked very well with Kubrick on Paths Of Glory, thought that good Stanley might pull off the job without too much fuss. Douglas should have known better. Kubrick took the chance, for he needed a big Hollywood film to move up the ladder, but he might have been even more demanding than the previous director...
And to tell the truth, Kubrick's style and naughtiness is all over the film. Spartacus is different from many of those other swords and sandals films of the time. Ben-Hur, Cleopatra, Quo Vadis, ... all classics. But Spartacus is something else. Kubrick's amazing photographic skills allow for some truly amazing shots. Then there are specific editing choices, like not showing the first gladiator fight in full focus, but showing instead the dreadful faces of the gladiators who uneasily await their turn. Kubrick will not allow us to enjoy fights and battles; he will constantly remind us of how gruesome all this killing and death really is.
The acting is great, though Douglas himself may be a bit of an ugly duckling here. While he played his part with Hollywood's version of heroic energy and vigour, the remainder of the cast gave almost Shakespearean performances. Such great names as Sir Laurence Olivier, Peter Ustinov (who won an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor), Charles Laughton and Herbert Lom grace the cast. Then there's our friend John Gavin, the only actor ever scheduled for Bond without playing Bond yet being paid for it. Tony Curtis was a little miscast in my opinion, but Jean Simmons, oh my, she's such a stunning beauty!
Leave it to Kubrick to contribute to the only swords and sandals film of its time (almost two decades before Caligula, mind) to deliver scenes that the world was too prudish to handle. Restored no sooner than in the early 1990s (!) was Crassus (Olivier) displaying his bisexuality in a conversation with Antoninus (Curtis). But again, such a beautiful scene. One major force in this film is Alex North, whose score could compete with Miklós Rózsa's scores for Ben-Hur and Quo Vadis. Especially the love theme is one to remember. On the recently released 6 CD score there are actually two discs included with this very same love theme re-scored and re-imagined by other famous composers. Another great moment in the film is North's rather frightening military march music preluding the final battle.
Spartacus isn't Kubrick's best but it certainly is his first major production. Even Paths Of Glory, in comparison, is a fairly small scale film. It's Kubrick's first Technicolor film, shot in 2.20 aspect ratio. Though he was merely a director for hire, and he reportedly left even before completion of the film, Kubrick put his mark on it. Some unorthodox hints at sexual preferences and political fumblings, though subtle, can only have come from Kubrick. Kirk Douglas may, at the time, have regretted his decision to hire Kubrick, but Spartacus is still regarded today as one of the highlights in the genre. Accusations about this film being a communist pamphlet are ridiculous. Some people may have had red sympathies but Stanley Kubrick just wanted to make a good film. And he has.
Spartacus is unlike other Kubrick films, but it had offered him more 'street credit' - and, it also had proven to Kubrick himself that he worked best on his own. While Spartacus played in theatres, Kubrick was intensely reading a certain book by Vladimir Nabokov... but we'll get there soon. For now, do I recommend you watch Spartacus? Yes, I do, for this film hasn't lost a single sword or sandal of its charms.
Final score: 8,5/10
DD's Stanley Kubrick retrospective score card:
Paths Of Glory: 9/10
Spartacus: 8,5/10
The Killing: 8,5/10
Killer's Kiss: 6,5/10
Fear And Desire: 5/10
DD's Michael Mann retrospective score card:
HEAT: 10/10
The Insider: 9/10
Thief: 9/10
Collateral: 8,5/10
Miami Vice: 8/10
Manhunter: 8/10
Public Enemies: 7,5/10
Ali: 7/10
The Last Of The Mohicans: 7/10
The Keep: 5,5/10
DD's David Fincher retrospective score card:
Seven: 9,5/10
The Social Network: 9,5/10
Zodiac: 8,5/10
The Game: 8/10
Panic Room: 8/10
The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo: 8/10
Alien³: 7,5/10
The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button: 7,5/10
Fight Club: 7/10
Well if he's going to watch III then he might as well watch IV just to see how the "unofficial trilogy" wraps up! And by all means you should definitely watch VI and skip V!
I think I know which line that is. ;-)
I like Showgirls because it is so terrible in every respect. Don't you just love Elizabeth Berkley? :P She wanted to shake off that cute teen actress imago. Well, wow, she did, didn't she? ;-) She threw it all out the window, including her acting career I might add. I will admit it, Showgirls is a guilty pleasure film for me. I chuckle every time I watch it. Oh and Kyle MacLachlan, once a promising Lynch regular, is all over the place.
I must admit it does have a bit of a guilty pleasure quality to it...but I think they push it too far when the friend gets raped.
I will also never look at the bad guy from the Flintstones movie in the same way again.
The Heat
Not to be confused with 'Heat' starring Pacino, De Niro and Kilmer.
Overall it was indeed a funny movie, but I was frustrated with the shocking amount of flippancy towards the actual plot of the film. It was as stock of a story as you could get, and it was painfully obvious that the writers didn't give two damns about actual plot. They just wanted Sandra Bullock and Melissa McCarthy in a movie together. Oh, and...
Story problems aside, it did make me laugh a lot and I suppose that does count for something. But if you want to see a buddy film done way better, look no farther than Hot Fuzz.
The Heat: 6.5/10
The alternate ending was pretty sad though, and I see why they didn't use it.
And the collateral damage was not fun.
Made me want to watch GE again, because I like a more outrageous spy flick in general, or The Constant Gardener for true realism.
Nice car chases.
GNORE any bad reviews of this movie. Here's another great summer comedy (also see The Heat) but without the R rating so it's a good family movie. I laughed and laughed at this movie. I was thinking it was going to be a serious take on the Lone Ranger (yeah, yeah I know...even with Johnny Depp). But very quickly as the movie progressed I was laughing and having a great time watching these two.
Johnny Depp is a master at facial expressions and this type of comedic timing. Sort of like Jack Sparrow but without the flamboyance. I was totally entertained the whole time he was in a scene in this "long" movie which went by very fast. The other actors also did a good supporting job with just enough drama to add to this movie rather than distract.
The scenery is awesome and the action scenes are beautifully photographed or green screened, CGI'd or real...whatever. I have nothing negative to say about this one...funny, no gratuitous sex, violence or language, imo. Just fun. What a nice break...I do believe I'm going to see it again!
Only kidding. Even if I ignored all the reviews, though, I still can't bring myself to see it. Depp relying on makeup these days just can't muster up enough excitement for me to go see his films like I used to with POTC, and this movie looked bad from the start. Terribly-CGI'd sliding horses atop trains? No thanks.
Death Wish: (1974) Probably the most grounded and serious of the films. Very realistic and graphic. Somewhat slow in some parts but doesn't make it bad. 7/10.
Death Wish 2: (1982) Pretty much a remake of the first one under different circumstances. Very gritty and brutal. 8/10.
Death Wish 3: (1985) My favorite of the series. It's also the most violent of the series. Even Bronson said he disliked it. However I think it's a good action revenge film. The death of the villain is probably one of the most satisfying villain deaths in cinema. 10/10
Death Wish 4: The Crackdown (1987) A big turn around from the previous film. The Crackdown is somewhat serious for the most part but it gets very campy at the end. 5/10.
Death Wish 5: The Face of Death (1994) My least favorite of the series. The movie is the Die Another Day of the series. It's campy, the plot makes no sense. Kersey kills the bad guys in the silliest ways imaginable. (remote control soccer ball Bomb comes to mind.) The finale is too quick and none of the villains deaths were satisfying. This was Bronson's last theatrical film. 3/10.
All in all there all practically the same movie.
<center><font size = 4>part 6</font></center>
<center><font color = darkblue size = 6>LOLITA (1962)</font></center>
<center>
With the bitter taste of Spartacus more or less swallowed down, Kubrick could embark on the ambitious project of Lolita, a book he had devoured. So how do you hope to get such a film passing the censors when even the book itself had been blacklisted? Stanley Kubrick was no dummy, folks. Being forced into extreme creativity, Kubrick let the subtleties he mastered so well speak for themselves. Lolita may not have been explicit or overtly subversive, but read between the lines and you will be astonished as well as amused.
Let's talk about the cast. And wow, what a cast! James Mason is one of my favourite actors of all time, though not my absolute favourite! (For that, we shall soon turn to someone else.) Still, Mason is wonderful as Humbert Humbert, the man who would start the film looking smart and end the film looking worn out and desperate. He may have only played one part, but he had to play a part in which he played many different parts: the phony husband, the "caring" stepfather, the jealous stepfather, the paranoid man, the vengeful lover, ... Multi-layered though his part may have been, Mason pulled it off with splendour. Truly one of the very best acting performances ever.
But then playing against Shelley Winters, who was simply on fire in this film, demanded great acting skills any way. What a great show she put on! Naturally all eyes are on Sue Lyon, who was reportedly 14 when the film got made, but whose character was supposed 12 - 13 at most. Rather seductive though her character was, luckily Kubrick kept it decent. Sue was able to act rather well under the circumstances and the between-the-lines stuff came through clear as crystal. Too bad we never saw much of her again for even if she was the weaker link among the other masters of acting, she maintained the level of quality Kubrick demanded and might have become a great actress.
My favourite performance of the entire film -or should I say performances? - comes from my absolute favourite all-time actor: Peter Sellers. Claire Quilty, wow, what an 'invention'! Loath the character of Quilty I cannot, for I simply love the actor. Sellers sells me - no pun intended - on every single one of his roles in this film. And we haven't even arrived at Dr. Strangelove yet! Each time Sellers is on the screen, my eyes are fixed and my eye lids don't move an inch. He was one of only two actors whom Kubrick allowed improvisation. While most actors never got it right until after several takes, Sellers usually got it right in the first take, and only if he could throw himself in it, whilst not literally reciting the script. (The other actor Kubrick felt reasonably safe with in terms of improvising, would be R. Lee Ermey in Full Metal Jacket).
To round off this cast, an honourable mention goes to Lois Maxwell, who played a nurse (and would soon find herself climbing to world fame as Miss Moneypenny in a certain franchise).
Lolita is once again a black-and-white film, shot in 1.37, but with all of Kubrick's photographic skills thrown into the mix. He communicates 'naughty' and even 'pervert' but without shocking us into extremes or going for the cheap sexual thrills. He presents the impossible pursuit of a young girl by a man who will resort to exceptionally far-reaching measures in order to remain close to her, and he does so in the most balanced and subtle ways imaginable. The 1997 version of Lolita, starring Jeremy Irons and Dominique Swain, was much more on the nose. Without passing judgement on that film, the Kubrick version knows exactly how to creatively get the message through.
I am a fan of Lolita. I praise the acting, love the cinematography and I'm intrigued by the content. It's one of the more inaccessible films for people who are easily offended on a moral level, yet I find it a worthy study in peculiar relationships that even today seem to be of great concern to many. Do I recommend the film? I'm not sure. Some, who fail to pick up the brilliant elements of the film such as the great acting performances and the spot-on narrative structure, may consider it a bit of a dull ride towards nothingness. But for all who can notice excellence, Lolita will prove an unforgettable experience.
Final score: 9/10
DD's Stanley Kubrick retrospective score card:
Lolita: 9/10
Paths Of Glory: 9/10
Spartacus: 8,5/10
The Killing: 8,5/10
Killer's Kiss: 6,5/10
Fear And Desire: 5/10
DD's Michael Mann retrospective score card:
HEAT: 10/10
The Insider: 9/10
Thief: 9/10
Collateral: 8,5/10
Miami Vice: 8/10
Manhunter: 8/10
Public Enemies: 7,5/10
Ali: 7/10
The Last Of The Mohicans: 7/10
The Keep: 5,5/10
DD's David Fincher retrospective score card:
Seven: 9,5/10
The Social Network: 9,5/10
Zodiac: 8,5/10
The Game: 8/10
Panic Room: 8/10
The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo: 8/10
Alien³: 7,5/10
The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button: 7,5/10
Fight Club: 7/10
Anyway...
I Give It a Year
A fairly average "Rom Com" cut from the same cloth as Notting Hill and Four Weddings and A Funeral. While not without it's funny moments the film feels overly smug and pleased with itself at times. Subsequently the final result is a sometimes effective but ultimately patchy affair.
5.5/10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=z589wIZe92g&feature=endscreen
This had me in a lot of belly laughs! Did not realise it had such a stellar British cast. Must try and see At Worlds End before it comes off the cinema!
I've not seen Ben Wheatley's debut Down Terrace but have been turned onto this man's work since his brutal follow up the seriously dark horror/thriller Kill List ( be warned it's not going to be everyone's taste). Wheatley us probably best known of recent for his 3rd film the darkly hilarious Sightseers, undoubtedly one of the best films of 2012.
This quick follow up was released simultaneously theatrically, on Blu ray, DVD and download as well as screened on Film 4 the same day, a rather ambitious release program. The film is set during the English Civil and quite frankly makes little sense, it has some good performances from Reece Shearsmith and Michael Smiley and the monochrome cinematography at times is quite breathtaking.
From what I could tell Shearsmith's character his been sent to find Smiley's character but magic mushrooms are consumed by the cast and it just becomes at times being arty for arts sake. Maybe I wasn't intelligent enough to get it properly as it has garnered some impressive reviews but it left me numb.
I was intrigued to see this so felt disappointed and perplexed that Wheatley would blot an impressive run of films with this arty curiosity, despite some of the elements I mentioned being impressive. It's the one Wheatly film I'm unlikely to buy (I came close but decided a free screening on TV was safer) or likely to want to watch again despite it having it's moments.
* * 1/2 / * * * * *
Lords of Salem 2013
My Wife is the Rob Zombie Fan for his music primarily White Zombie in the house but personally apart from his 2nd film and sort of sequel to his first House of 1001 Corpses The Devil's Rejects I've not been that impressed. His Halloween remake wasn't too bad but the sequel was utter rubbish.
Although apart from his shockingly awful debut I can't think of anything that quite is as bad as this. Zombie's Wife Sheree Moon Zombie plays a DJ who is sent a record and after playing it unleashes all sorts of horrors connected with the Salem witch trials.
Some reviews have remarked that this see's Rob making a departure from his usual fare, being more of a surreal effort that is looking to disturb rather than horrify, though Zombie is no David Lynch and this is neither disturbing or effectively surreal. Yes it's weird but not in a way that it gets under your skin. His depiction of the witches is very juvenile and stereotypical and the nudity is gratuitous and not particularly appealing (if that is what you are looking for).
He utilises some British veteran actresses, Judy Geeson and Majenta herself Patricia Quinn who alongside Dee Wallace really should have known better, Meg Foster as a decomposing Witch as certainly looked better. I can only think Zombie had something on Bruce Davison to get him to agree to being this. I can't imagine what would make me watch this again short of being tied to a chair and forced to and I can't remember the last time I felt so strongly against a film and unlike Wheatley's film has nothing to recommend it at all. The acting is terrible and the story could have been thought up by a 5 year old, this really is utter drivel and Mr Zombie needs to question his desire to subject people to this trash.
1/2 / * * * * *
Like the poster reads - enough said.
I can't read what the poster says. What's the film?
<center><font size = 4>part 7</font></center>
<center><font color = darkblue size = 6>DR STRANGELOVE OR: HOW I LEARNED TO STOP WORRYING AND LOVE THE BOMB (1964)</font></center>
<center>
There used to be a time when I thought much less of Dr Strangelove than I do now. I was unable to understand most of the jokes, the satire and the brilliance of the acting. But I do now.
This will be the last time Kubrick shot a film in black and white. But as usual the photography rocks! None other than Ken Adam designed the sets for the film and oh my, that war room is pure Adam brilliance. Twice in '64 will he raise some suspicion amongst the military in the US because of his extremely realistic copies of the real thing. The war room is, of course, the highlight of the production. Its splendour comes off perfectly well in the 1.37 aspect ratio.
The comedy in the film, mostly satire, works extremely well thanks, not in the very least, to the excellent acting performances of all involved. Sterling Hayden, who had collaborated with Kubrick on The Killing, does tend to instil fear in my heart. What if such mad men really exist? George C. Scott is perfect in his role. I have seen him in many great parts, including of course Patton, but he was never as brilliant as he is here. Slim Pickens is just insanely amusing and then there's a certain young actor called James Earl Jones making his début with Dr Strangelove. But all eyes are fixed on the great Peter Sellers - obviously. No less than three parts in the film are his and a fourth had at one time been selected for him as well (namely Slim Picken's part as King Kong). The funny thing is I prefer Sellers in his most serious role in the film, that of the President. "Hello?... Uh... Hello D- uh hello Dmitri?" Superb!
When Johnny Come Riding Home, the bomb is dropped. For me, it means a milestone in the history of film. Kubrick was a magician. How was I ever able to think less of this almost perfect film?
Final score: 9,5/10
DD's Stanley Kubrick retrospective score card:
Dr. Strangelove: 9,5/10
Lolita: 9/10
Paths Of Glory: 9/10
Spartacus: 8,5/10
The Killing: 8,5/10
Killer's Kiss: 6,5/10
Fear And Desire: 5/10
DD's Michael Mann retrospective score card:
HEAT: 10/10
The Insider: 9/10
Thief: 9/10
Collateral: 8,5/10
Miami Vice: 8/10
Manhunter: 8/10
Public Enemies: 7,5/10
Ali: 7/10
The Last Of The Mohicans: 7/10
The Keep: 5,5/10
DD's David Fincher retrospective score card:
Seven: 9,5/10
The Social Network: 9,5/10
Zodiac: 8,5/10
The Game: 8/10
Panic Room: 8/10
The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo: 8/10
Alien³: 7,5/10
The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button: 7,5/10
Fight Club: 7/10
Sharknado. The tagline simply reads "Enough Said!"
I used to watch these all the time when I was a kid, and I applaud this one for having some incredibly gory death sequences, but I loathe that it's pretty much everyone hanging out for quite some time and then a majority of people get killed in a matter of minutes. None of the deaths are spread out like the previous installment.