A once-powerful, but now ailing movie director nears the end of his life. As he awaits death, he slips into a "dream" and is shown three "snippets" of the movie of his son's life. At first ... See full summary »
Michael A. Goorjian
Michael A. Goorjian,
A tribute and doc-crime-drama celebrating American film noir and the icons of the Hollywood golden age. It recaptures the time and place of New York in the 30's and 40s as well as plays with the codes and references of the genre.
Mostly on account of a pride struggle, Mike Dunmore has lived his whole life keeping a secret which he believed would only cause shame if it came to light. Personal relationships with his ... See full summary »
An executive in charge of a Middle Eastern nuclear plant discovers that his son is the Anti Christ and sets out to stop him from using the nuclear power at his fingertips to wipe out ... See full summary »
Boxing champion Harry Agensky, the Polish Prince, now an elderly widower and a stroke victim, takes speech lessons and fears confinement in an old age home. He convinces his son Lance and grandson Michael to take him to Reno to look for diamonds he stashed, his payoff when he threw a fight years before. Lance doesn't believe the diamond story but wants a last trip with dad, and all three have father-son issues to work out. After some gambling, they head for a brothel where each needs psychological intervention from a prostitute. Then it's time to find out if the diamonds really exist and if a road trip together can strengthen familial bonds. Written by
I doubt this movie would ever have been made but for Kirk Douglas. Its plot (generation gap and how to overcome it) has been told hundreds of times - and much better, too. The jokes are usually signalled with a red flag, the character-"development" is hardly in need of a soothsayer, nor are the plot "twists". Add the rather artificial sentimentality and you've got stuff that wouldn't even make it to TV. Thus said - I'd advise anyone strongly to watch "Diamonds". A contradiction? Yes, but the contradictory factor is simply: Sir Kirk. His presence, his strength to carry a film or his brilliance as an actor haven't diminished one bit since his stroke. Neither have his courage and his fighting spirit. Most actors his age would have given up, being bereft of their most important tool - speech. Kirk Douglas thought otherwise, and proved in "Diamonds" that he is still there and going strong. Though Dan Aykroyd and Corbin Allred do their parts credit, the only one to match Douglas' powerhouse performance is another screen-legend: Lauren Bacall. Their (all too brief) sequences bristle with chemistry and the competence of more than half a century in the business. In the end, "Diamonds" is simply proof that Kirk Douglas still can (and always will) overcome mediocre to bad material - and shine. That alone is reason enough to see "Diamonds".
1 of 1 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?