The LEGO Movie 2: The Second Part
The Walking Dead
Log in with Facebook
Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Sign up here
and the Terms and Policies,
and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and Fandango.
Already have an account? Log in here
Please enter your email address and we will email you a new password.
We want to hear what you have to say but need to verify your account. Just leave us a message here and we will work on getting you verified.
Please reference “Error Code 2121” when contacting customer service.
No consensus yet.
Tomatometer Not Available...
No consensus yet.
All Critics (10)
| Fresh (10)
| Rotten (0)
| DVD (2)
The Best Actor Oscar that year went to Yul Brynner for his broad emoting in The King and I, but Douglas -- in one of the defining performances of his career -- would have been a far more deserving winner.
Kirk Douglas could be a little much, but that proves to be the right amount in Lust for Life...
One of Minnelli's best pictures, a visually stunning portrait of Van Gogh, splendidly played by Kirk Douglas
Horrifying - but informative - tragic biography of Van Gogh, with a look at his painting technique and location filming of the places he lived.
A competently made and acted biopic on the Dutch artist Vincent Van Gogh (Kirk Douglas), that's nevertheless uninspiring.
The movie, attractive as it may be, never 'breaks through the iron wall' between what is felt and what is expressed, the very wall that van Gogh himself strove to overcome.
Vincent Van Gogh struggles with mental illness on his path to becoming a renowned artist.
Kirk Douglas could be a perfect Vincent Van Gogh, able to reach the emotional depths of the character and charismatic enough to be a believable tortured artist, but this film is poorly structured and statically directed. The film's structure doesn't give us a central conflict: what stands in Van Gogh's way? What is the nature of his mental illness, if that's what it is? What makes him a good artist but a malcontented person? Additionally, Vincente Minnelli's camera never moves. He sets the camera on a tripod in a studio with an obviously painted background behind the action. It's filmmaking stuck in the early days of Hollywood, and it doesn't give us the chance to see all that Douglas's performance could offer.
Overall, there is a lot of potential in this film, but it's sadly unfulfilled.
Fantastic as classic movies get. Well acted, well scripted, shot vibrantly and as impressionable in memory as films go as van Gogh's paintings spinning a classic tale of human drama that is moving, meditative, endearing and fulfilling of the heart.
Pretty to look at? You betcha! Its about Dutch painter numero uno, duh. Informative? Are you kiddin'? Did you know a lot of famous artists hung out in Paris? Yep. So why's this fail to connect? Kirk is there, wringin' his hands every chance he gets. Quinn is there, and he's not happy about the hand wringin'. So wat happened? I think the subject matter spooked the makers ...
Douglas plays Van Gogh, and does a great job, if only the rest of the cast were as good as him, this would be a fantastic movie. Still I really liked it, and if you like Douglas you should see his performance in this movie.
There are no approved quotes yet for this movie.