cosmiix
Joined Nov 2000
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews7
cosmiix's rating
I had heard a lot of things about Dr. Strangelove before I saw it. For some reason I do not really know I got to postpone watching it until April 2002. Since then, I must have seen it at least 10 times.
Dr. Strangelove is one of those movies that make movie watching a trully enjoyable experience. It combines irony, humour and criticism on a very serious matter, such as nuclear combat between the two superpowers of the 20th century in a daring yet remarkable way.
Peter Sellers, who has three roles to his own in this one, is clearly at his best and so is George C. Scott whose talent radiates at all times. The casting in this movie is among the best I've seen. It is hard to make serious movies about 'the Bomb'. It is much harder, to make a comedy about it, and while at it a comedy that manages to defy not only the fear of the era in which it came out, but also convey several important messages to the rulers of this planet about their actions.
I believe there's not much one can say about this movie. Everyone should see it and try to imagine how daring and amazing a feat this movie is in the near-fascist political climate of the 60s in the Western world, where Communist fear brought the nuclear threat into everyone's life. It is, in my opinion, Kubrick's best.
Dr. Strangelove is one of those movies that make movie watching a trully enjoyable experience. It combines irony, humour and criticism on a very serious matter, such as nuclear combat between the two superpowers of the 20th century in a daring yet remarkable way.
Peter Sellers, who has three roles to his own in this one, is clearly at his best and so is George C. Scott whose talent radiates at all times. The casting in this movie is among the best I've seen. It is hard to make serious movies about 'the Bomb'. It is much harder, to make a comedy about it, and while at it a comedy that manages to defy not only the fear of the era in which it came out, but also convey several important messages to the rulers of this planet about their actions.
I believe there's not much one can say about this movie. Everyone should see it and try to imagine how daring and amazing a feat this movie is in the near-fascist political climate of the 60s in the Western world, where Communist fear brought the nuclear threat into everyone's life. It is, in my opinion, Kubrick's best.
This was an excellent movie. Amazing photography and casting and an
intelligent scenario which passes messages about how horrific war is
to the audience in the mildest yet touching way I've seen.
The story involves a hospital in Scotland where officers are sent when
they suffer a breakdown, a common phenomenon in the first and second
world wars. In there, a doctor (played by Jonathan Pryce) attempts to
treat his patients in a more humane way than the one other doctors of
the time choose. Through the stories of characters in the hospital --
including Siegfried Sassoon and Wilfred Owen, two poets who happen to
meet and become friends in the hospital -- the life of the British
soldiers in the first World War, as well as several political messages
about that affecting era for humanity are successfully transmitted to
the audience, without blood, without effects or huge battle scenes in
a way that touches and indicates its significance more than any other
film I've seen about the subject.
The performances are excellent, with Johny Lee Miller -- who apart
from this movie has not shown any signs of serious acting that I've
seen -- delivering a very good performance of a shocked and ambitious
officer and Jonathan Pryce metaphorically accepting the ideas of
Sassoon -- who opposes to the war after a point where he realises its
futility and the lack of values in the politicians driving it -- can
be though as the link between the soldiers and humanity itself.
It is definitely a movie I would recommend! Excellent.
intelligent scenario which passes messages about how horrific war is
to the audience in the mildest yet touching way I've seen.
The story involves a hospital in Scotland where officers are sent when
they suffer a breakdown, a common phenomenon in the first and second
world wars. In there, a doctor (played by Jonathan Pryce) attempts to
treat his patients in a more humane way than the one other doctors of
the time choose. Through the stories of characters in the hospital --
including Siegfried Sassoon and Wilfred Owen, two poets who happen to
meet and become friends in the hospital -- the life of the British
soldiers in the first World War, as well as several political messages
about that affecting era for humanity are successfully transmitted to
the audience, without blood, without effects or huge battle scenes in
a way that touches and indicates its significance more than any other
film I've seen about the subject.
The performances are excellent, with Johny Lee Miller -- who apart
from this movie has not shown any signs of serious acting that I've
seen -- delivering a very good performance of a shocked and ambitious
officer and Jonathan Pryce metaphorically accepting the ideas of
Sassoon -- who opposes to the war after a point where he realises its
futility and the lack of values in the politicians driving it -- can
be though as the link between the soldiers and humanity itself.
It is definitely a movie I would recommend! Excellent.
This movie was at least disappointing for me. Brando, DeNiro and Norton, performing SO badly in such a badly written movie is something that is definitely worth seeing.
First of all, Norton's part bears a striking resemblance to his debut role in Primal Fear. It seems that he has a talent for roles that include faking a retarded/disabled person. And where Primal Fear was original and well performed, this role is not. Forgetting about the fact that the character he played was -- in many respects -- similar to the character in Primal Fear, his performance is definitely less appealing than the one in other movies, showing a more 'relaxed' stance on his role.
DeNiro is a master of any role that has to do with Law Enforcement/Shadowy types/spies/master criminals etc. He has performed in a large number of movies at many different levels of realism/comedy and is universally accepted as a great actor. I am not so convinced only because his performances always revolve around the same type of person/character and adventurous situations. Even though I personally like watching Robert DeNiro's movies, I think this performance was disappointing. He does however stand out of the remaining cast.
I will not comment about Brando since his role is fairly limited in the movie.
The movie as a whole is a sheer dissapointment. It could have been a milestone, having three of the most respected actors of our time in its cast list. It is slow, badly written, predictable and it seems as if the actors are bored performing their parts.
On the plus side, the photography (especially the way Montreal is depicted) is very good and was the only thing I enjoyed during the film. But then again there are so many more movies with DeNiro with more qualities and better photography than this one.
First of all, Norton's part bears a striking resemblance to his debut role in Primal Fear. It seems that he has a talent for roles that include faking a retarded/disabled person. And where Primal Fear was original and well performed, this role is not. Forgetting about the fact that the character he played was -- in many respects -- similar to the character in Primal Fear, his performance is definitely less appealing than the one in other movies, showing a more 'relaxed' stance on his role.
DeNiro is a master of any role that has to do with Law Enforcement/Shadowy types/spies/master criminals etc. He has performed in a large number of movies at many different levels of realism/comedy and is universally accepted as a great actor. I am not so convinced only because his performances always revolve around the same type of person/character and adventurous situations. Even though I personally like watching Robert DeNiro's movies, I think this performance was disappointing. He does however stand out of the remaining cast.
I will not comment about Brando since his role is fairly limited in the movie.
The movie as a whole is a sheer dissapointment. It could have been a milestone, having three of the most respected actors of our time in its cast list. It is slow, badly written, predictable and it seems as if the actors are bored performing their parts.
On the plus side, the photography (especially the way Montreal is depicted) is very good and was the only thing I enjoyed during the film. But then again there are so many more movies with DeNiro with more qualities and better photography than this one.