kazjin_'s reviews

This film moves so fast you have little time to process all the information... especially the names. But maybe that's just me (millennial, non-American, half-drunk). Despite that, and despite its length, still enjoyable.

Probably one of those films that'll get to you more the older you get. Perhaps better put: I see this film getting to me more the older I'll (hopefully) get. Not because of age itself-but because of the experiences that come with it.

This film is a complete waste of time - and very loud and obnoxious at times. I have no idea why it scores so high on IMDb; aside from some very pretty people, there aren't any other redeeming qualities. Only pretentious people will claim otherwise.

This film reminded me a lot of Bully (2001) and Mean Creek (2004). That should have been the other way around, but it just so happens those movies crossed my path before River's Edge did.

The films are similarly centered around oblivious teenagers. At first, you might wonder: no one can be that stupid. But it just happens these films are (more or less) based on true events. Lots of stupid people. Great movie.

Second-time viewing, this time on blu-ray, so you'd think that would have enhanced the experience.

To keep it short; this film is a product of its time. The plot, although touching and well-executed, is very simple and to be honest quite boring.

I rated this film higher in the past, probably because of its reputation as "one of the finest films ever made". Sentimental films evoke sentimental reactions, which I believe have favoured this film's reputation disproportionally.

The opening scene can put you on the wrong path; not sure what the idea behind it was. Create tension? Introduce the partner? Danger of the job? Many ways those things could have been achieved while staying relevant.

Anyway, that doesn't take away from how good the rest of the movie was. This film captures the 80s aesthetic perfectly and is perhaps a little bit underrated.

Went into this film expecting a horror flick, for that is one of its genres according to IMDb. "Horror" does not fit this movie. "Creepy", perhaps?

Anyway, wrong expectations can lead to disappointments. Luckily, this film was not. Solid picture with strong performances from Jodie Foster and Martin Sheen.

You know an actor is passionate about his profession when he takes on controversial roles. And when you hate his character for what he portrays, you know he's done an excellent job. Of course this goes for Connery, but it is in particular about Ian Bannen, who is not mentioned enough.

When I first rated this film, which was shortly after watching it, I did not take the film's release year into account. I simply compared its impact on me by comparing the impact other films within the same genre (race-conflict) had on me, namely:

• In The Heat of the Night (1967, also starring Poitier)
• Mississippi Burning (1988)
• American History X (1998)

All excellent films that expose and challenge various social issues in their own way. They may be more intense than No Way Out (that is definitely the case with Mississippi Burning), but would those films have been so daring if No Way Out were never made?

A useless question that can't really be answered, but it can definitely influence one's appreciation of and for the film - a consideration No Way Out deserves.

-- Original rating was: 7/10.

Richard Attenborough is a great actor. One of the greatest. I have seen many of his films. The great ones, the good ones, the excellent ones; all of them.

Not all his roles are memorable, though. Don't get this wrong; all films I have seen him play in, were at the very least good (8 stars, at the very least). But not all his roles were memorable... to me.

There are two films in which his roles were very, very memorable. One of them is The Great Escape (1963). Great movie about a Great Escape. Not the greatest escape, but definitely the greatest movie about a great escape. Memorable role.

The other very memorable Attenborough role is 10 Rillington Place (1971). Just watched it. Loved it. Can't think of anything else right now. May forget tomorrow. Doubt it though. Great memorable role.

THREE DAYS OF THE CONDOR is a well-constructed, suspenseful spy-thriller that captures the 70s perfectly: an important cultural- and political era that shaped the world with lasting impacts. This fact becomes apparent from the many (still very relevant, maybe even eery) references made throughout the film. The acting and cinematography is superb throughout the film; don't expect cliché portrayals of villains and heroes.

Even though the film has a political undertone, it is best watched as what it was originally intended to be: an entertaining spy-thriller that mixes reality with fiction. But don't let that withhold you from giving it more meaning.

This film was on my watchlist for a very long time. For some reason, other films (some of which I was not nearly as interested in) were prioritised over BEING THERE.

I don't know what initially attracted me so much to this film; maybe it was its simple plot. That is not a criticism, by the way. If anything, it should be interpreted as a compliment; if you can hold an audience captive for 130 minutes on such a thin plot, you have done a great job (to put it lightly).

Sometimes, brilliance lies in simplicity. Maybe that's the message this film tries to convey. Or maybe that's what they want us to believe. Maybe there is no meaning at all. In that case, it shouldn't have ended with major questions unanswered. But if there was no meaning, those answers never really mattered anyway.

You won't regret watching this film.

Discount THE WARRIORS? That is probably too harsh, but that is how this (otherwise enjoyable) movie felt.

THE WANDERS was a bit too long for its relatively simple plot. Many scenes (I watched the director's cut) seemed unnecessary, contributing little to the plot's advance. Not-so-subtle (and for the movie totally irrelevant) hints were used to remind the audience of the film's time period. That is OK for elementary school plays - not so okay for professional films.

If you, like I, found this film after looking for films similar to THE WARRIORS, than you did not find what you were looking for. This film is better classified as a 60s Bronx Coming of Age film. If you start with that expectation, than I am sure you will enjoy THE WANDERERS just fine!

Five days ago, I published a review for WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION. In it, I quoted from Billy Wilder:

"There are only two kinds of films for the public - the simple story, padded out, furnished in rococo; the simple plot allows visual embellishment. Then the complex story, filmed simply in order to make it comprehensible."

THE NAKED PREY is the former; a simple story, "furnished in rococo". However, even though the description fits this film, it still has an undeserved negative connotation.

THE NAKED PREY is at times shocking, controversial, and perhaps even questionable. There is little dialogue, yet it manages to hold you captive till the end. That in itself is a difficult challenge accomplished.

"Attica! Attica!" is, along with "Say hello to my little friend!", perhaps one of the most memorable film quotes. Not many classical film quotes are popular among younger generations, but these two film quotes-which come from a single actor-are among the very few that are.

This fact alone speaks volumes of Al Pacino's strength as an actor, a strength matched only by few. It is also testimony of his versatility as an actor, for the characters he portrays in DOG DAY AFTERNOON and SCARFACE only have their controversiality in common.

Al Pacino may be the star in DOG DAY AFTERNOON, but one must not forget that the strength of an actor's performance is a reflection of the film's entire cast and director. Al Pacino delivered extraordinary performances in these films because he worked with extraordinary people. DOG DAY AFTERNOON is a film that will stay with you.

I can not conclude this opinion without mentioning the director's full name: SIDNEY LUMET. A legendary director who will, undoubtedly, only rise in appreciation. If you have not watched any of his films yet, I suggest you start with any of them.

A timeless childhood classic that has withstood the test of time. One of few things that generations decades apart still have and will continue to have in common with each other.

I first watched CONTAGION in November 2012. According to my IMDb ratings, I originally rated it with 7 stars out of 10. I would give it the same rating if my judgment is solely based on the film's entertainment value, but I have to increase my new rating with one star. Who cares, right? Who do I think I am, announcing my rating adjustment like it is a big thing?

Well, I mention this adjustment because of the film's current relevance (COVID-19 Crisis) and because of this film's realistic portrayal of a pandemic. The film's accurracy is testimony of the hard work that went into it and it deserves more appreciation for it. I will try to take more aspects (such as educational value) into account in my future film ratings. This is perhaps the best (as in most realistic) pandemic film out there. A must-see.

WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION is perhaps the best courtroom drama I have watched to date. The brilliance of this film lies for a great part in its carefully constructed screenplay, which is based on Agatha Christie's play of the same name. Its seemingly simple plot has been masterfully executed by a brilliant cast. It doesn't happen often that a film truly surprises me, but this film did just that. I don't like to get descriptive in my reviews, so I will conclude with a quote from Billy Wilder, the film's director. This quote is from an interview included with the release I watched.

"There are only two kinds of films for the public - the simple story, padded out, furnished in rococo; the simple plot allows visual embellishment. Then the complex story, filmed simply in order to make it comprehensible."

WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION is the latter. But don't let "filmed simply" withold you from watching this brillant classic. If anything, it only highlights the weaknesses of modern cinema.

Robert Mitchum may be one of the most underappreciated actors of "the Golden Age of Hollywood". Few of his classics have made it into the mainstream. His most well-known film is probably "Cape Fear (1962)" - perhaps due to Scorsese's 1991 remake. And we must not forget that this film was carried by another giant; Gregory Peck.

I have seen many Mitchum pictures, but THE FRIENDS OF EDDIE COYLE I had not heard of until a few weeks ago. Mitchum's performance is phenomenal. He doesn't act - he IS his character.

The director (Peter Yates) has done a tremendous job at capturing a specific look and feel that will stay with you for days. The plot is simple, but realistic - and its execution excellent.

THE FRIENDS OF EDDIE COYLE is a rare (anti-)crime film in which crime is not glorified. It is an honest portrayal of crime, loyalty, and betrayal.

Lazy, overrated movie without clear direction. The "message" it supposedly tries to convey is, I believe, just an excuse for all the garbage and gore. I don't often watch failures like this, but there I sat, just minutes ago, watching this excuse for a film all the way through.

I watched WHITE DOG after watching PUNISHMENT PARK and CRUISING. These films have nothing in common, except that they were all considered "controversial" when first released.

I can and will be brief about WHITE DOG: a simple film with misplaced controversy, made-to-shock. High predictability, mediocre acting. Memorable? Perhaps.

This may be a generalization based on what I have seen of Japanese cinema so far, but classical Japanese films seem to have a purpose beyond mere entertainment. There always seems to be an underlying message or life lesson to tell. At least, the films I have seen so far (among others Ikiru, Seven Samurai, and the Human Condition Trilogy) give room for such interpretation.

HARAKIRI is no different. While many interpretations of the director's intentions gear towards a criticization (or condemnation) of Japan's feudal past and early 20th century militarism, I drew an additional conclusion. I will keep that conclusion to myself, for I don't intend or want to direct anyone towards anything.

The only reason I have written this "review", for this film does not need more praise, is to have something to reflect upon after the next many times that I will undoubtedly watch HARAKIRI.

Slahers aren't my thing, but I decided to watch this film because of its important status within the genre.

While I understand how this movie may have been leading in certain areas, it failed to properly grab my attention. In fact, I fell asleep half-way through. One of the louder scenes woke me up and this allowed me to sit it through.

The plot seemed simple at first judgment and the ending not that unexpected, but I had to remind myself: this film was made almost half a century ago, long before the horror genre became saturated with similar movies.

If you are into slashers, than I am sure you will enjoy this movie and appreciate it for what it is. At the very least more than I did.