Three sixty-something friends take a break from their day-to-day lives to throw a bachelor party in Las Vegas for their last remaining single pal. From: IMDb.com
Directed by: Jon Turteltaub
Starring: Robert De Niro, Michael Douglas, Morgan Freeman and others
Three sixty-something friends take a break from their day-to-day lives to throw a bachelor party in Las Vegas for their last remaining single pal. From: IMDb.com
Directed by: Jon Turteltaub
Starring: Robert De Niro, Morgan Freeman, Michael Douglas and others
It has been a while since I have seen a truly great Steven Soderbergh movie but this one comes close again.
It sort of is a trend for recent biopics to not be movies that focus on it's main subject's entire lifespan but focus on one, relatively short, period instead. This has many advantages, one of them being that a movie can take its time to tell a story and doesn't have to rush through the decades and gloss over some important and emotional things. It doesn't always work out well though. Sometimes focusing on one event- or several years of a person's life isn't enough to learn anything about the person and what's driving him or her. It works for this movie however. It's a movie that's not really telling you anything but instead it's simply showing you it, as it all happens. It feels like an observation of events and through it, you slowly start to get into the character's mindsets.
It's also not picking any 'sides'. This is just as much a movie about Scott Thorson as it is about Liberace really. But through Scott Thorson, played by Matt Damon, you actually also start to learn about Liberace's, played by Michael Douglas, behavior and personality. It's an effective approach, that keeps things interesting as well as unpredictable. Even if you think you know plenty about Liberace already, you still don't know everything- or can predict all of the things that shall happen in this movie.
By just looking at Liberace, you know that he has got to be an unique personality, with an out of the ordinary lifestyle. It are people like this who always trigger the imagination and start to intrigue you, the fist moment you lay eyes on them. You may not like or admire them but it's still interesting to learn about the person behind the person. Because lets face it, Liberace was one big showboat, with an unique distinctive look and outfits and show elements to his performances. But who actually was the real Liberace? The man behind all of the bling and glitter and other show elements. This movie indeed takes you behind the candelabra and it in fact focuses more on the person off the stage.
Thing that the movie does well is show you all about Liberace's lifestyle and personality, through the eyes of another person, in the form of the Matt Damon character. He slowly gets sucked (no pun intended) into the madness and absurdity of 'Liberace's world', once he gets intrigued by this unique, very gifted and charismatic man and eventually starts to fall in love with him.
So it's not just a biopic or drama but a tragic love story as well about two, ultimately, very different persons, who start to develop an unique relationship. Thing that truly makes it work in this movie are the performances by Matt Damon and Michael Douglas. They actually have a pretty good and strong chemistry together and you can understand why their characters would be attracted to each other. It's also good to see that they weren't holding back while playing their roles. Not that the movie ever gets that explicit but there still is plenty of 'gay action' in the movie, mainly between the Douglas and Damon character. It probably wasn't always an easy- and a bit of an uncomfortable thing to play for two straight actors but Douglas and Damon show that they are great and true professionals, who besides are able to play two very convincing homosexual men.
It would have been so easy- and it perhaps was also incredibly tempting, to do things in a very exaggerated and over-the-top way for its actors but also its director and writers. After all, everything about Liberace seems over the top anyway, so why not make the movie like that as well? But the movie actually manages to find a balance between the absurdity of its subject and the tragedy. The movie feels like a very down to Earth one, despite of some of the craziness that transpires in it.
Steven Soderbergh definitely did a good job with directing this movie and of course also helps to make this a technically fine movie to watch. It has some good looking sets (the movie is set in mostly the '70's and part of the '80's), costumes and camera-work by Soderbergh himself. The make-up looks pretty convincing as well, especially for the Liberace character.
All in all, it's simply one great and not too heavy to watch drama, about an interesting subject, with plenty of fun and craziness, as well as some good depth and emotions in it.
Three sixty-something friends take a break from their day-to-day lives to throw a bachelor party in Las Vegas for their last remaining single pal. From: IMDb.com
Directed by: Jon Turteltaub
Starring: Robert De Niro, Morgan Freeman, Michael Douglas and others
Based on the autobiographical novel, the tempestuous 6-year relationship between Liberace and his (much younger) lover, Scott Thorson, is recounted. From: IMDb.com
Directed by: Steven Soderbergh
Starring: Matt Damon, Michael Douglas, Rob Lowe and others
This is your pretty standard average run of the mill thriller, involving a plot to assassinate the president of the United States. Sounds familiar? Of course it does. This movie doesn't handle anything that hasn't been handled before in any other similar genre movie. It's of course not like this movie is horribly bad or anything but it just isn't anything new and therefore this is a pretty redundant and forgettable movie to watch.
Also because the movie just isn't very original, it also doesn't exactly make this movie an exciting one to watch. The movie even is a bit boring to watch to be honest and even though it's fast moving it still is a slow going movie because it often takes too long between sequences that any action or anything else good is happening.
And then to think that people actually thought this was a serious Oscar contender before its release. All because Kiefer Sutherland was in it and this movie featured an "24" type of main plot.
It's a typical modern, fast going, slick looking movie, with stupid high tech gadgets. The way they all get used are far from realistic, which is typical for a political modern Hollywood thriller. It's also the sort of movie that tries to make us believe that the secret service has all knowing and all seeing agents and all oh so well magically blend in with the crowed, despite big sunglasses and tough way of walking and looking around. Just a couple of things which always annoy me in movies and unfortunately this movie is also filled with.
Problem is that the movie features a really far fetched and unnecessary made complicated plot. It's pretty stupid. At times you'll have difficulties understanding what is going on exactly. It takes away a lot of fun of the movie, which now takes itself far too serious instead. The fact that the story and approach of the movie is so far fetched makes this also a very unbelievable movie to watch.
The movie focuses mainly on Michael Douglas and his view point, which means that the Kiefer Sutherland and Eva Longoria get pushed to the background. A shame cause they in essence showed more potential and seemed more interesting.
A very unoriginal, unexciting movie, that also takes itself too serious.
(Review originally written at 20 March 2007) ...Well according to Hollywood anyway, since "The Ghost and the Darkness" actually takes lots of liberties with its story, about the two man-eating lions of Tsavo. Quite odd since it presses in the beginning that everything you're about to see in this movie, no matter how unbelievable it seems, has truly occurred. Oh well, just a good and clever marketing trick, lets leave it to that. No way they can pull off a trick like this now days in the days of Internet, were with only a few clicks you can look up an historical event. Of course the biggest difference between the truth and fiction is the Remington (Michael Douglas) character, who never existed in real life and also the looks of the lions, who in real life were not maned. But oh well, are these movie changes bad or not believable? No, it strengthens the story and makes it all even more interesting to watch. I've always loved watching "The Ghost and the Darkness". It's a great adventurous movie with action in it and some good characters, all set in a beautiful environment. The story is perfectly adventurous and action filled. It's all the more amazing knowing that the story has actually occurred in real life, over an hundred years ago already. The movie and its story is kept simple and allows its images and characters to tell the story. What I like about the movie is that it fully treats the 'Ghost' and the 'Darkness' (the nicknames of the two man-eating lions) as movie characters. It shows them as smart thinking creatures and not simply just as 'monsters', even though they kill for pleasure (at least in the movie they do). The movie is definitely helped by its environment and atmosphere. The beautiful African land serves as a perfect backdrop for the movie and also works quite claustrophobic, since the movie is for most part set at just this one location (the railroad and bridge building-site). Also the great Jerry Goldsmith musical score suits the environment and perfectly adds to the atmosphere of the entire movie, as does the cinematography from Vilmos Zsigmond. Michael Douglas plays a good role and actually shows with this movie how versatile he is as an actor, though his role is definitely smaller than he is credited for in the movie. As also the producer of this movie he obviously claimed to become the top-billing actor of the movie as well. In fact the main part of the movie is being played by Val Kilmer, who plays his character in a way like we're used of him; a humble way and he doesn't try too hard to impress in his role, which also leaves room for the other actors to shine and of course allows the story to be told best. Surprising to see that the movie also had actors in it, that would later turn into big well known names such as Bernard Hill and Tom Wilkinson, in some good roles. Also Om Puri gives a nice performance. A perfectly fun and simple adventurous action movie. This is high quality entertainment. 8/10 Watch trailer
(Review originally written at 24 January 2007) No big secret that I'm not a person who normally enjoy watching a romantic comedy. It's a genre of; once you have seen one movie you have seen them all. Most movies are the same, with cliché, over-the-top and sappy romantic and dramatic situations that are all far from believable. "The American President" however always has been a movie that I enjoy watching. The mixture of politics and romance works well and the movie is definitely carried to great heights by its impressive cast. Making a love-story involve around the president of the United States already is of course an original and refreshing approach on the genre. It's all the movie refreshing since the two main characters are supposedly in the late 40's/early 50's or perhaps even older. No youngsters who have their entire life ahead of them, who meet the love of their life. This are people who've had a long life and career behind them and have different priorities in life. It's refreshing and also quite daring that a movie in a genre like this picks that approach but it works out very well, which is mainly due to the acting of the two principal actors and the supporting cast. The surreal environment and characters, provide some good comical moments at all. It's not easy doing simple things such as ordering flowers by phone or getting a serious date when you're the President of the United States of America. In fact, the story really isn't that special, although it's still solid written, with some good dialog. The movie is more romantic than comical probably and the movie also isn't the deepest going movie around. Still the characters are given depth and are being fleshed out perfectly by the actors. Michael Douglas and Annette Bening are very convincing together as two persons who are falling in love, in an almost surrealistic environment. They share some great on screen chemistry and their acting is truly great and yes, Michael Douglas is convincing as the President and he handles the more comical like situations also very well. It makes the love story between work out beautifully. They're also being supported by a fine supporting cast, including actors such as Martin Sheen, Michael J. Fox (though he seems a bit out of place in his role), David Paymer, Richard Dreyfuss (who stays a bit too underused) and John Mahoney. The movie does a very good job at portraying how personal life and politics always get mix up and milked out by the press and opposing parties. The movie shows how ridicules and completely uncalled for that all actually is. It's like people with political agendas can't have a personal life without it being covered and discussed by the general public. It shows the influence and power of media in this world of television, radio and newspapers and how it can influence your opinion regarding a certain subject or person, you don't even know in real life. The movie makes its point well, without ever getting preachy or too moralistic about things. Kudos to the writer Aaron Sorkin (also the creator and writer of "The West Wing") and director Rob Reiner, who always keep the balance between the different subjects, regarding politics and love, right. It makes the movie work out powerful and effective, as well as heartwarming. The movie is good looking and has good production values. The cinematography by John Seale makes the movie look warm and the musical score by Marc Shaiman makes the movie powerful. I wish Rob Reiner made more movies like this. 8/10 Watch trailer
Leave it up to movies from the '70's to deliver a movie with a well build up tension and a realistic suspense. This movie is one of those typical well build up thrillers from the '70's, that however in the end still falls sort of flat, due to some improbabilities in the story.
The movie begins slow, perhaps unnecessarily slow, to set up the characters and their relations. It does give the movie a certain sense of realism and at times suspense but it also provides the movie with some unnecessary long sequences that don't really add enough to the movie and its style. It's has '70's written all over it but the movie is not as 'experimental' as other genre movies from the same period. The cinematography by Victor J. Kemper is without any fancy tricks and the musical score by Jerry Goldsmith is (disappointingly) simple. All indications that this movie was made in the late '70's. It still has '70's style but without all the movie technical experimental elements, like genre movies from the more early '70's. It does make this movie more watchable for a wider audience.
Basically from a technical point of view, the thriller elements in this movie are well build up and executed in the movie but unfortunately the story itself is filled with too many loose ends and improbabilities to consider this a perfectly made thriller. Too bad, since the premise itself of the movie is quite good. Especially in the end the movie becomes more and more unlikely. For instance why only just O.R. 8? Wouldn't that just arouse automatically suspicious after a while? And why does Susan Wheeler keep returning to the hospital, were she knows that she has more enemies than friends. All logically flawed plot elements that causes the movie to be a bit unlikely and not always credible as a thriller.
It's nice to see that the main character of the movie is a female. Geneviève Bujold delivers a strong performance in the main lead. I don't know, for some reason the movie also becomes more realistic because of that the main lead is a female. With a male lead movies like these too often and too easy turn into heroic macho movies, which are not halve as credible. The movie also has a very solid supporting cast, with lots of actors that later grew out to be big ones, such as of course Michael Douglas but also Rip Torn, Tom Selleck and Ed Harris, who portray some much smaller roles.
Overall this still is one fine typical '70's thriller. As long as you can see past its flawed script and don't expect too much of a masterpiece, you'll certainly enjoy watching this movie.
This thriller certainly is a good enough one to watch and it also is a very professionally made one but it however offers very little new or refreshing enough material. It makes "Don't Say a Word" nothing more than a standard thriller, with some good actors in it.
The cast is really the saving grace of the movie. It still provides the movie with some good moments and characters and also give the movie an extra sense of professionalism involved. Sean Bean is a great as the main villain and delivers an absolute fine performance. Michael Douglas is also great as the leading man, mainly because he doesn't play him as an 'hero' but an ordinary everyday person instead. Douglas is always fine in these sort of roles. Some other excellent actors play some smaller parts in the movie. Actors such as; Brittany Murphy, Oliver Platt, Victor Argo and last but not least Famke Janssen. They all help to make the movie look better and more interesting than it in fact really is. Most of the characters are however pretty flat. Why does Famke Janssen even play the wife? It's a role basically every actress could had played. This movie just didn't seem like a very challenging or original project to get involved with. And I also have the feeling that the movie would had been better of without the Jennifer Esposito. Just think about it, was she really necessary for the movie and its story? Her character is not engaging enough, since it's not she we need to care about or cheer for but the Michael Douglas character instead, who is the main lead of the movie. Her character is distracting from the movie its main story.
The movie is certainly style-full and it does have its moments. But in the end it just really falls flat as a really good or original thriller. All of the moments in the movie are just too predictable and the movie doesn't offer any real surprises. Therefor this movie just isn't anymore than a well made but standard formulaic thriller.
It's a movie that does serve its purpose and the movie certainly is watchable as a simple standard thriller. Fans of the genre will probably still be the most entertained by it but even they have to conclude that this movie is far from being one of the best thrillers released in recent years. It's the sort of movie that is only quite good enough to watch it just maybe once. Don't expect too much of this and you might end up liking it good enough.
Nothing too remarkable, just a well made, simple thriller, with some great actors in it.
This movie was one of the most surprising of the '90's. It has a refreshingly original concept and it works great as a social comment.
This movie is often being compared to "Taxi Driver". Although there are some similarities between these two movies, "Taxi Driver" is in a whole different league. "Falling Down" is less heavy and more lighthearted. Although, the fact that the movie here on IMDb is being categorized as a comedy isn't exactly right. The movie is more of a thriller that is brought in a refreshing and not too heavy way but never without loosing its power or without making a statement.
Mostly the movie is more of a social comment then anything else. It shows how an more or less average man one day gets fed up with the rotten society and tries to take matters into his own hands, which gets him into some 'unlikely' but also still somewhat recognizable situations. The movie is told in such a way that it implies that this could happen to every one of us. Therefor it's a bit too bad that toward the ending it becomes more and more obvious that the main character already had psychological problems to begin with. It doesn't really make the movie any less powerful or without making its point clear but its also a sort of an unnecessary addition to the story, that becomes a bit too 'Hollywood-ized' because of this. The movie its story is nothing too impressive but yet it is refreshing and enough stuff to make you think.
It's too bad that Michael Douglas never plays more roles like this. He is excellent in this movie and above all, he is highly believable in his role. I even dare to say that this is one of his very best roles till date. Robert Duvall is also great as the detective. The movie isn't you average 'cop hunts down psychopath who causes mayhem and destruction', which it easily could had turned into. I really have the feeling that this is also largely thanks to Robert Duvall, who plays his role very humane and gives his character a certain extra.
The events portrayed in the movie might feel a bit too silly and far fetched at times but the movie does makes its points clear. The movie isn't anything too heavy so you can also expect to be entertained. It makes "Falling Down" a perfectly brought and balanced thriller that is refreshingly original, entertains and makes you think as well.
