dragoneyez01
Joined Jul 2002
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges6
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews26
dragoneyez01's rating
After watching this film on television a couple weeks ago (TMC is the best), I was surprised how obscure 'No Way Out' really is. However, I wasn't exactly surprised.
The film follows Dr. Brooks (Sidney Poitier), an ER doctor whose first real-world experience is as intern in the prison ward of a New York hospital. While on duty, the brothers Biddle (the older of which is played by Richard Widmark), come in following a confrontation with the police. Both suffer from superficial injuries, but the younger brother's health is declining rapidly due to what Brooks diagnoses as a brain tumor. The kid dies while Brooks is operating, feet away from his brother. The racist Ray Biddle soon accuses Brooks of murder, but won't allow an autopsy to be conducted on his brother to determine the cause of death.
Poitier turns in a great performance as the hard-working young doctor, who is debased by the hollow accusations of a bigot. They dig at his core and bring up insecurities that would be common to anyone in the medical field, but are aggravated by the pure hatred of Widmark's equally well-played character.
While the script borders on stereotypes at times, you have to remember that these stereotypes were very real during the time it was written. The writer does a fantastic job of adding depth, personality, beyond the paper figures. Brooks is a practical man, who supports his family and tries to not let the circumstances bring him down. Behind the veneer of hatred, Biddle is a deeply insecure and misguided man who has let circumstance blacken his core. Mankiewicz and Samuels do an amazing job at bringing life to a situation that was taboo for the time.
Aside from the competent acting and well-executed script, the film featured a moving and well-choreographed race riot that fully captures the raw hatred that can surface between groups of people who face the same everyday problems and circumstances, but are torn by one difference (color, or creed, or religion).
This is definitely a film well worth seeing. For its time, the movie was groundbreaking for its portrayal of both racists and their victims. While today the movie may seem tame, it undoubtedly struck some sensitive nerves during its release. The film deserves to be more widely known, if only for its content.
The film follows Dr. Brooks (Sidney Poitier), an ER doctor whose first real-world experience is as intern in the prison ward of a New York hospital. While on duty, the brothers Biddle (the older of which is played by Richard Widmark), come in following a confrontation with the police. Both suffer from superficial injuries, but the younger brother's health is declining rapidly due to what Brooks diagnoses as a brain tumor. The kid dies while Brooks is operating, feet away from his brother. The racist Ray Biddle soon accuses Brooks of murder, but won't allow an autopsy to be conducted on his brother to determine the cause of death.
Poitier turns in a great performance as the hard-working young doctor, who is debased by the hollow accusations of a bigot. They dig at his core and bring up insecurities that would be common to anyone in the medical field, but are aggravated by the pure hatred of Widmark's equally well-played character.
While the script borders on stereotypes at times, you have to remember that these stereotypes were very real during the time it was written. The writer does a fantastic job of adding depth, personality, beyond the paper figures. Brooks is a practical man, who supports his family and tries to not let the circumstances bring him down. Behind the veneer of hatred, Biddle is a deeply insecure and misguided man who has let circumstance blacken his core. Mankiewicz and Samuels do an amazing job at bringing life to a situation that was taboo for the time.
Aside from the competent acting and well-executed script, the film featured a moving and well-choreographed race riot that fully captures the raw hatred that can surface between groups of people who face the same everyday problems and circumstances, but are torn by one difference (color, or creed, or religion).
This is definitely a film well worth seeing. For its time, the movie was groundbreaking for its portrayal of both racists and their victims. While today the movie may seem tame, it undoubtedly struck some sensitive nerves during its release. The film deserves to be more widely known, if only for its content.
Josie and Tony Potenza are your typical (Hollywood) upper-crust couple. The middle-aged Tony (Christopher McDonald) is somewhat of an apathetic husband and an alcoholic, but is an otherwise loving husband with a thriving career as a film executive. Josie, the wife about half his age, feels neglected by him, but hides her concerns because she still loves her husband (and the money, let's not kid ourselves). Their flawed, but satisfactory life goes awry one night when Josie admits her marital problems to a Cole (Peter Greene), a total stranger who she becomes acquainted with after her car breaks down and he helps her out. Unfortunately for Tony, she also admits to Cole she sometimes wishes Tony was dead. Despite taking the comment back, Cole appears to take Josie's words seriously, and the problems ensue.
The cast, especially the supporting actors, bring a rather pedestrian script to life. Halle Berry is not only beautiful, but a competent actress in any role (aside from Catwoman), and in the context of the first 93 of the films 94 minute runtime, she does extraordinary as a woman lost in a situation which is totally out of her control. Christopher McDonald is great as usual, and fits the role of a wealthy, apathetic husband well. Peter Greene and Clive Owen (Josie's boyfriend) both work with what they have, and Clea Lewis (who I never heard of before this film) brings some mild humor.
The plot itself is nothing particularly new or original, but it grabs your attention slowly and when it has you hooked, it doesn't let go. While most of the material is recycled from previous (and better) films, it's presented in a manner that's still refreshing, and the characters hold it together.
Of the crew, the cinematographer, Haskell Wexler, displays his talents the best. There are many great sweeping shots of the mountains and forests, and the film as a whole has a glossy, well-composed look to it.
And there you have it: the good. The film's first 93 minutes is time well spent. The plot is interesting, the acting is above average, and film is well-shot.
Unfortunately, the last 60 seconds, yes, sixty seconds, is the film's undoing. I won't spoil the "surprise," but it is a twist ending that will cause you to scratch your head for a few minutes, and then make you wish you hadn't wasted your time. It seems like no thought went into the twist ending, and it was just tacked on because it was a popular thing to do. And with the twist at the end, gaping plot holes are left in the film. Horrible to end to an otherwise good movie. So, please take my advice. It's not such a bad movie, but skip the last 60 seconds or you'll feel cheated out of your time and intelligence.
The cast, especially the supporting actors, bring a rather pedestrian script to life. Halle Berry is not only beautiful, but a competent actress in any role (aside from Catwoman), and in the context of the first 93 of the films 94 minute runtime, she does extraordinary as a woman lost in a situation which is totally out of her control. Christopher McDonald is great as usual, and fits the role of a wealthy, apathetic husband well. Peter Greene and Clive Owen (Josie's boyfriend) both work with what they have, and Clea Lewis (who I never heard of before this film) brings some mild humor.
The plot itself is nothing particularly new or original, but it grabs your attention slowly and when it has you hooked, it doesn't let go. While most of the material is recycled from previous (and better) films, it's presented in a manner that's still refreshing, and the characters hold it together.
Of the crew, the cinematographer, Haskell Wexler, displays his talents the best. There are many great sweeping shots of the mountains and forests, and the film as a whole has a glossy, well-composed look to it.
And there you have it: the good. The film's first 93 minutes is time well spent. The plot is interesting, the acting is above average, and film is well-shot.
Unfortunately, the last 60 seconds, yes, sixty seconds, is the film's undoing. I won't spoil the "surprise," but it is a twist ending that will cause you to scratch your head for a few minutes, and then make you wish you hadn't wasted your time. It seems like no thought went into the twist ending, and it was just tacked on because it was a popular thing to do. And with the twist at the end, gaping plot holes are left in the film. Horrible to end to an otherwise good movie. So, please take my advice. It's not such a bad movie, but skip the last 60 seconds or you'll feel cheated out of your time and intelligence.
I tend to avoid any movie suggested to me by self-confessed film fanatics and washed-out "I'm working on a script with dreams of fame, but right now I'm cleaning out toilets" co-workers. This film was suggested to me by the latter, and guess what? I broke my own rule. Well, I waited a few months and saw it on cable, so maybe I didn't. Or maybe I did since I actually did see it. Well, it doesn't matter.
The Royal Tenenbaums is one of those artsy quirky-for-the-sake-of-quirky movies. I really haven't seen to many (the aforementioned washed up film "connoisseurs") of them, but this is certainly one of them.
The basic plot that I grasped was that an selfish, aging man who's lost his family and fortune decides to make a stab at redemption and make up with his estranged wife and children. He comes back to find one son hating him, his wife with his former business partner, and the rest just drifting along in the stream of life. The plot makes many twists and turns, as do the quirky subplots.
The main plot itself is PAX-TV fare. Old bad guy tries to make everything right before he dies. Overall, nothing new and innovative here; but the sub-plots (one son's breakdown, adopted son's drug-use, etc.) keep some of the interest while the main plot languishes.
The actors all turn in minimalistic performances (the screenplay doesn't allow for much else), but they're all fairly good at what they do, especially Anjelica Huston and Luke Wilson. The style of the movie is what most contributes to the humor. Almost retro '70s style, though it's set in present times.
And... the "humor" (or lack thereof) is what most irks me about this. As a straight drama, the movie is more than adequate. But the comedy is mostly wooden. It's all cerebral humor, which really isn't a problem normally. I "got" the humor of most of it, but none of it was especially funny, and it left nothing buy an afterthough that says "Well, that was supposed to be funny..."
This film is best for the aforementioned connoisseurs, who think anything highly stylized and with Oscar buzz is good. For anyone else, take it by ear. If you see it on TV and there's nothing better on, it's worth watching. Anyone who likes humor with more body that's not as flat, you'll hate this as a comedy.
Rating: 5/10
The Royal Tenenbaums is one of those artsy quirky-for-the-sake-of-quirky movies. I really haven't seen to many (the aforementioned washed up film "connoisseurs") of them, but this is certainly one of them.
The basic plot that I grasped was that an selfish, aging man who's lost his family and fortune decides to make a stab at redemption and make up with his estranged wife and children. He comes back to find one son hating him, his wife with his former business partner, and the rest just drifting along in the stream of life. The plot makes many twists and turns, as do the quirky subplots.
The main plot itself is PAX-TV fare. Old bad guy tries to make everything right before he dies. Overall, nothing new and innovative here; but the sub-plots (one son's breakdown, adopted son's drug-use, etc.) keep some of the interest while the main plot languishes.
The actors all turn in minimalistic performances (the screenplay doesn't allow for much else), but they're all fairly good at what they do, especially Anjelica Huston and Luke Wilson. The style of the movie is what most contributes to the humor. Almost retro '70s style, though it's set in present times.
And... the "humor" (or lack thereof) is what most irks me about this. As a straight drama, the movie is more than adequate. But the comedy is mostly wooden. It's all cerebral humor, which really isn't a problem normally. I "got" the humor of most of it, but none of it was especially funny, and it left nothing buy an afterthough that says "Well, that was supposed to be funny..."
This film is best for the aforementioned connoisseurs, who think anything highly stylized and with Oscar buzz is good. For anyone else, take it by ear. If you see it on TV and there's nothing better on, it's worth watching. Anyone who likes humor with more body that's not as flat, you'll hate this as a comedy.
Rating: 5/10