Th movie stars Josh Hartnett (Pearl Harbor, The Faculty), Radha Mitchell (The Crazies, Pitch Black), Gary Cole (A Simple Plan, One Hour Photo), Allen Evangelista, Sheila Kelley (Matchstick Men, Singles), John Carrol Lynch (Cast Away,The Good Girl), Rusty Schwimmer (Runaway Jury, Edtv), and Christa Campbell (Hero Wanted, The Mechanic).
The plot is two people with Aspergers meet in a group and start dating. They deal with the challanges of dating with Aspergers. I think the stats are about 80% of marrages of Aspergers fail.
The biggest problem with the movie I had is it deals with the extream forms of Aspergers. While none of the characters were in institutions they were on the extreams. Aspergers has a sprectrum and the characters were all on the far end of that specturm. I can only guess that they did that because they thought it would get people interisted in the movie.
I thought the movie did improve onece it stoped focusing on the group and just the two main characters. It was not enough for me to recomend the movie but it did get better.
Im rating the movie as a C- or D
Sunday, August 7, 2011
Saturday, August 6, 2011
Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011 PG13)
The movie stars James Franco (Date Night, Eat Pray Love), Tom Felton (Harry Potter, Anna and the King), Brian Cox (Red, Bravehart), Andy Serkis (King Kong 2005, Lord of the Ring trilogy), Freida Pinto (Slumdog Millionare, Miral), John Lithgow (Kinsey, A Civil Action), Tyler Labine (Reaper, Control Alt Delete), David Hewlett (Splice, Boa vs Python), and Leah Gibson (A Night for Dying Tigers).
The plot is a prequel (never thought much about it beng a prequel) where Franco works for a drug company doing research on apes. he gives Sirkis (Ceaser) a drug hoped to help Alzahimers. The drug gets distributed to other apes by Sirkis.
I thought it was interisting that an act of compassion, saving a condemed baby ape, has such dire results. I guess that just proves no good deed goes unpunished. Some ot the redwoods look fake and not real. CG has come a long way but still it cant quiet come up to reality.
I dont know if the plot lind for Lithgow was similar to Flowers for Algernon. Lithgow got the drug and got better then he reverts to his problems with Alzahimers. I think they used a clip from a Charlston heston movie, it sounded like him. Then the next line was "get your hands off me you damn dirty ape." I think that was the line but am not totally sure. That may of been the best part of the movie for me.
The end of the movie, the last shot, almost seemed like it could be the end of the series if they decided not to remake the next one in the series. The credits did seem to explain how the apes and humans changed places as the top species.
So here is the thing about this remake. It did nothing to make me feel like I had to see it. If you have seen the origional you are fine. I suspose if you are you are young enough as not to have seen any of the origonal movies then maybe go and see it. It was an ok remake of a decent origional.
Im going to have to rate it as a C or C-. If you have seen the origional skip it. If you are young and saw the first remake then I would say it might be worth going to see.
The plot is a prequel (never thought much about it beng a prequel) where Franco works for a drug company doing research on apes. he gives Sirkis (Ceaser) a drug hoped to help Alzahimers. The drug gets distributed to other apes by Sirkis.
I thought it was interisting that an act of compassion, saving a condemed baby ape, has such dire results. I guess that just proves no good deed goes unpunished. Some ot the redwoods look fake and not real. CG has come a long way but still it cant quiet come up to reality.
I dont know if the plot lind for Lithgow was similar to Flowers for Algernon. Lithgow got the drug and got better then he reverts to his problems with Alzahimers. I think they used a clip from a Charlston heston movie, it sounded like him. Then the next line was "get your hands off me you damn dirty ape." I think that was the line but am not totally sure. That may of been the best part of the movie for me.
The end of the movie, the last shot, almost seemed like it could be the end of the series if they decided not to remake the next one in the series. The credits did seem to explain how the apes and humans changed places as the top species.
So here is the thing about this remake. It did nothing to make me feel like I had to see it. If you have seen the origional you are fine. I suspose if you are you are young enough as not to have seen any of the origonal movies then maybe go and see it. It was an ok remake of a decent origional.
Im going to have to rate it as a C or C-. If you have seen the origional skip it. If you are young and saw the first remake then I would say it might be worth going to see.
Winter's Bone (2010 R)
The movie stars Jennifer Lawrence (The Poker House, XMen: First Class), John Hawkes (Small Town Saturday Night, Identity), Isaiah Stone, Ashlee Thompson, Dale Dickey (The Pledge, A Perfect Getaway), Tate Taylor (The Help, Pretty Ugly People), Ronnie Hall, and Lauren Sweetser.
The plot is Lawrence goes in search of her father who put up the family home up for bail and can't be found for an upcomming court date. She has dealing with family members who have a strict ethos that is tied to the Ozarks or any rural community.
Lets not waist time this is just an out and out good movie. I can see why it got a lot of good press last year. The movie sets the tone of the movie literally from the first frame of the movie. The movie seems very authentic to the life that people in rural communities live.
The plot of distrust of outsiders and how that can even go into family members. I was told a story by someone who lives in rural Virginia that syncs with the tone of the movie. The idea of helping neighbors and family seem to be forced at times and expected. (Both helping with food and the scene towards the end in the boat. I dont want to give too much away about the climax) There is definatly rules to be folowed. And if not there are real prices that have to be paid even if you are family.
I thought the idea of an automatic garage door in this setting was strangly out of place and interisting. The scene where Lawrence gets beat up is scarry for the fact it leaves it up to your imiganation (like the shark in Jaws?).
The climax of the movie is a scene that I think will stay with people. In a good way. The movie does deserve the R rating but for all of the ages it is fit for people should see it.
Im rating this movie as a B or B+. If you are looking for a comedy this is not for you but it is a really good movie.
The plot is Lawrence goes in search of her father who put up the family home up for bail and can't be found for an upcomming court date. She has dealing with family members who have a strict ethos that is tied to the Ozarks or any rural community.
Lets not waist time this is just an out and out good movie. I can see why it got a lot of good press last year. The movie sets the tone of the movie literally from the first frame of the movie. The movie seems very authentic to the life that people in rural communities live.
The plot of distrust of outsiders and how that can even go into family members. I was told a story by someone who lives in rural Virginia that syncs with the tone of the movie. The idea of helping neighbors and family seem to be forced at times and expected. (Both helping with food and the scene towards the end in the boat. I dont want to give too much away about the climax) There is definatly rules to be folowed. And if not there are real prices that have to be paid even if you are family.
I thought the idea of an automatic garage door in this setting was strangly out of place and interisting. The scene where Lawrence gets beat up is scarry for the fact it leaves it up to your imiganation (like the shark in Jaws?).
The climax of the movie is a scene that I think will stay with people. In a good way. The movie does deserve the R rating but for all of the ages it is fit for people should see it.
Im rating this movie as a B or B+. If you are looking for a comedy this is not for you but it is a really good movie.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
Finder's Fee (2001 R)
The movie stars Eric Palladino (The Speed of Thought, The Space Between us), James Earl Jones (Field of Dreams, The Hunt for Red October), Mathew Lillard (Mad Love, Scream), Ryan Reynolds (The Proposal, In Cold Blood), Dash Mihok (Fofire, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang), Carry Pope (Sexting, First to Die), Robert Forster (Firewall, Jackie Brown), Francis Bay (The Simple Life of Noah Dearborn,Twins), Colleen Wheeler (X-Men:Evolution), and Louis Chirillo (Johnny Test).
The plot is Palladino plans to propose to his girlfriend after his poker game. The night takes a turn when he finds a wallet with a $6 million lottery ticket, He has already called the owners brother-in law
to tell him where to pick up the wallet.
The next door neighbor has a nice scene at the start of the movie. The first scene after the neighbor went on a little too long. There was a lot wrong with this movie. For one thing Jeff Probst (Survivor tv) desperatly needs to hire someone better to do reasearch his screenplay (he also directed). Jeff its no limit poker not what your actors used 3 or 4 times.
A lot of the middle of the move had dialogue that was not that good or interistng. The movie seemed it was trying to be The Big Chill (not exactly the referance I am looking for.) If just did not get to where it was trying to get. At its heart its a movie about human nature, trust, truth and what people are really like when they are returned to primal instincts.
The best part of the movie is the ending. It saved the movie for me. It took an avarage movie and made it worth my time. Maybe Im tired and did not see the ending but it was great Im rating the movie as a C+ to B-.
The plot is Palladino plans to propose to his girlfriend after his poker game. The night takes a turn when he finds a wallet with a $6 million lottery ticket, He has already called the owners brother-in law
to tell him where to pick up the wallet.
The next door neighbor has a nice scene at the start of the movie. The first scene after the neighbor went on a little too long. There was a lot wrong with this movie. For one thing Jeff Probst (Survivor tv) desperatly needs to hire someone better to do reasearch his screenplay (he also directed). Jeff its no limit poker not what your actors used 3 or 4 times.
A lot of the middle of the move had dialogue that was not that good or interistng. The movie seemed it was trying to be The Big Chill (not exactly the referance I am looking for.) If just did not get to where it was trying to get. At its heart its a movie about human nature, trust, truth and what people are really like when they are returned to primal instincts.
The best part of the movie is the ending. It saved the movie for me. It took an avarage movie and made it worth my time. Maybe Im tired and did not see the ending but it was great Im rating the movie as a C+ to B-.
Every Day (2010 R)
The movie stars Liev Schreiber (Salt, Everything is Illuminated), Helen Hunt (As Good as it Gets, The Spell), Brian Dennehy (Presumed Innocent, F/X), Carla Gugino (Sucker Punch, Faster), Eddie Izzard (Rage, Igor), Ezra Miller (City Island, Afterschool), David Harbour (Confess, The Green Hornet), and Benita Robledo.
The movie is about a family. Schreiber works as a writer on a show whos star wants more and more snesational stroy lines. His marriage is on shakey ground. He has a one time affair with a cowritter. His sick father in law moves. One of his sons is gay. (Just as a side note Netflix should institutes a rule that you have to watch the movie before writing a synsopsis. They get it more right then wrong but still there are some glaring errors.)
The movie did not grab me from the start. It took time to build but it was worth the time it took to get into it. It may of just been the hair cuts but the actors they got to play the two sons really did look alike to me. Dennehy plays an unsympathic character but does a good job. I liked his dream scenes when he is playing in the band.
The cast and script are both good. If you are looking for a happy movie this is not the one for you. I dont know if I tend to think that movies that are about unhappy people are appealing to me more then others but i thought this was a good movie. Most of the characters are good. The actor/ boss may of been a little weak but still has something interisting.
Im rating this movie as a B. I wish that they would of spent some money to promote this movie. Its worth getting the word out to people. Like I said this is not a comedy but it should have more people watching it.
The movie is about a family. Schreiber works as a writer on a show whos star wants more and more snesational stroy lines. His marriage is on shakey ground. He has a one time affair with a cowritter. His sick father in law moves. One of his sons is gay. (Just as a side note Netflix should institutes a rule that you have to watch the movie before writing a synsopsis. They get it more right then wrong but still there are some glaring errors.)
The movie did not grab me from the start. It took time to build but it was worth the time it took to get into it. It may of just been the hair cuts but the actors they got to play the two sons really did look alike to me. Dennehy plays an unsympathic character but does a good job. I liked his dream scenes when he is playing in the band.
The cast and script are both good. If you are looking for a happy movie this is not the one for you. I dont know if I tend to think that movies that are about unhappy people are appealing to me more then others but i thought this was a good movie. Most of the characters are good. The actor/ boss may of been a little weak but still has something interisting.
Im rating this movie as a B. I wish that they would of spent some money to promote this movie. Its worth getting the word out to people. Like I said this is not a comedy but it should have more people watching it.
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Crazy, Stupid, Love (2011 PG 13)
The movie stars Steve Carell (Dan in Real Life, Little Miss Sunshine), Ryan Gosling (The United States of Leland, The Slaughter Rule), Julianne Moore (The Kids are Alright, Hannibal), Emma Stone (Easy A, Zombieland), Marisa Tomei (My Cousin Vinny, The Wrestler), Kevin Bacon (Footloose, Mystic River), Analeigh Tipton, Jonah Bobo (Around the Bend, Choke), Joey King (Bent, Quarantine), and Liza Lapira (21, The Big Bad Swim).
The plot is Caerell and Moore's mariage is at an end. Carell gets advice from Gosling, a ladies man, who ends up dating Stone, Carell and Moore's daughter. There son has a crush on the babysitter who in turns has a crush on Carell's character. All very connected.
First and formost if you dont like formulaic and plots that have been done before stay away from this movie with all of your will power it is not the movie for you. I did not have a problem with the fact the movie is unorigional. On the whole I like Carell and am a big fan of Stone since Easy A (stream this movie if you want to laugh. Best scene is about the younger brother being adopted. you will understand when you see the movie.)
Dan Butler's (from Frasier and Silence of the Lambs) had a funny scene. I wish I could see him in more things. Teh movie seems to go back and forth between the beginning, Stone and Gosling, and the end of a relationship, Carell and Moore. I think its about hope, changes in life and not being afaraid to take chances in life.
On the technical level what the hell was up with Bacon's tie in the scene in Moores office. It kept moving or was it me.
Ok so the big confrontation at the end may of been formulaic. On the other hand it had me laughing along with the rest of the audiance. I did not see things being so connected, you may be able to have put one and one together but it was funny. I also think the scene at the graduation was done well also. I thought it was pretty funny who ended up with the photos, totally unrealistic but funny none the less.
Im rating this as a C+ or B- mainly on the back of Carrell and Stone. Stones best friend in the movie is also good in it but Stones boyfriend/boss is just not a good character. Too stupid for my taste. If you want to be entertainted for a while by something mindless this wll be ok for you.
The plot is Caerell and Moore's mariage is at an end. Carell gets advice from Gosling, a ladies man, who ends up dating Stone, Carell and Moore's daughter. There son has a crush on the babysitter who in turns has a crush on Carell's character. All very connected.
First and formost if you dont like formulaic and plots that have been done before stay away from this movie with all of your will power it is not the movie for you. I did not have a problem with the fact the movie is unorigional. On the whole I like Carell and am a big fan of Stone since Easy A (stream this movie if you want to laugh. Best scene is about the younger brother being adopted. you will understand when you see the movie.)
Dan Butler's (from Frasier and Silence of the Lambs) had a funny scene. I wish I could see him in more things. Teh movie seems to go back and forth between the beginning, Stone and Gosling, and the end of a relationship, Carell and Moore. I think its about hope, changes in life and not being afaraid to take chances in life.
On the technical level what the hell was up with Bacon's tie in the scene in Moores office. It kept moving or was it me.
Ok so the big confrontation at the end may of been formulaic. On the other hand it had me laughing along with the rest of the audiance. I did not see things being so connected, you may be able to have put one and one together but it was funny. I also think the scene at the graduation was done well also. I thought it was pretty funny who ended up with the photos, totally unrealistic but funny none the less.
Im rating this as a C+ or B- mainly on the back of Carrell and Stone. Stones best friend in the movie is also good in it but Stones boyfriend/boss is just not a good character. Too stupid for my taste. If you want to be entertainted for a while by something mindless this wll be ok for you.
Paper Heart (2009 PG13)
The movie stars Charlyne Yi, Michael Cera (Juno, Frequency), Jake M Johnson, Demetri Martin (The Rocker, Post Grad), and Paul Rust (Inglourious Basterds).
The movie is a hybrid documentary and scripted comedy about Yi's quest to find the true meaning of love with the side story of Yi and Cera real life romance.
The start is a perfecdt fit for what movie you expect to see Cera in. For me it grabbed my interist from the start. I think if you liked Best in Show or A Mighty Wind you will like this. They are similuar in style.
I thought the paper machae scenes were all good and used in proper perportion that added to the film. They did not overuse them. The zoo scene was well done. Espically when talking about what was a date.
Yi coems across as very authentic. Someone comefortable with her self. She did not come across as doing any acting. I dont know how much was was real and what was scrpted. It did not matter but it was fun to try and figure out what was real. I assume the interviews were the real parts while the dialogut with the director was scripted. I dont know how much with Cera was scripted.
Some of the people thanked at the end of the movie were Jonah Hill, Ivan and Jason Raitman. With Cera and Yi doing some of the music. If you are looking for something querky this is for you. I thought some of the middle was a little bit slow but on the whole worth watching.
Im rating this as a B. Like I said before if you liked Best in Show or A Mighty Wind you will like this also.
The movie is a hybrid documentary and scripted comedy about Yi's quest to find the true meaning of love with the side story of Yi and Cera real life romance.
The start is a perfecdt fit for what movie you expect to see Cera in. For me it grabbed my interist from the start. I think if you liked Best in Show or A Mighty Wind you will like this. They are similuar in style.
I thought the paper machae scenes were all good and used in proper perportion that added to the film. They did not overuse them. The zoo scene was well done. Espically when talking about what was a date.
Yi coems across as very authentic. Someone comefortable with her self. She did not come across as doing any acting. I dont know how much was was real and what was scrpted. It did not matter but it was fun to try and figure out what was real. I assume the interviews were the real parts while the dialogut with the director was scripted. I dont know how much with Cera was scripted.
Some of the people thanked at the end of the movie were Jonah Hill, Ivan and Jason Raitman. With Cera and Yi doing some of the music. If you are looking for something querky this is for you. I thought some of the middle was a little bit slow but on the whole worth watching.
Im rating this as a B. Like I said before if you liked Best in Show or A Mighty Wind you will like this also.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938 PG)
The movie stars Erool Flynn (The Prince and the Pauper, The Dawn Patrol), Olivia de Haviland (The Swarm, The Snake Pit), Claude Rains (The Lost World, Notorous), Alan Hale (Night and Day, This is the Army), and Una O'Connor (Christmas in Connecticut).
The plot is the Robin Hood legend. While Richard the Lionhart is off at the Crusidas Robin fights the unjust rules of Richards brother John.
The movie went from 0 to 60 right off the start no lead in a very jerky way to start the movie. Not a great way to start the movie. The diaologue seems shallow and skn deep. There is no debth. It seemed more like a first read through rather then a movie. The script was not that bad but the dialogue seemed to be rushed.
There was a fight scene where it seemed no one could hit there marks at the right time. The blue screnes seemed dated. (And they should the movie is 73 years old.) I did not get any passion by Flynn. I have seen pieces of paper that have more depth thenm Flynn character. The fact that he had one emotion was more then a little annoying. He was put in one speed and did nothing at all to change it up at all.
Im rating the move as a D. If you want a good movie go with The Princis Bride "Hello my name is Inego Montoya you killed my father...prepare to die." That one line had more emotion debth than anything Flynn did in this movie.
The plot is the Robin Hood legend. While Richard the Lionhart is off at the Crusidas Robin fights the unjust rules of Richards brother John.
The movie went from 0 to 60 right off the start no lead in a very jerky way to start the movie. Not a great way to start the movie. The diaologue seems shallow and skn deep. There is no debth. It seemed more like a first read through rather then a movie. The script was not that bad but the dialogue seemed to be rushed.
There was a fight scene where it seemed no one could hit there marks at the right time. The blue screnes seemed dated. (And they should the movie is 73 years old.) I did not get any passion by Flynn. I have seen pieces of paper that have more depth thenm Flynn character. The fact that he had one emotion was more then a little annoying. He was put in one speed and did nothing at all to change it up at all.
Im rating the move as a D. If you want a good movie go with The Princis Bride "Hello my name is Inego Montoya you killed my father...prepare to die." That one line had more emotion debth than anything Flynn did in this movie.
The Bride of Frankenstein (1935
The movie stars Boris Karloff (Mad Monster Party, The Fatal Hour), Colin Clive (Jane Eyre), Valerie Hobson (Life Returns, Great Expectations), Ernest Thesiger (The Robe, Beware of Pity), and E.E. Clive (The Hounds of the Baskerville, A Tale of Two Cities).
The plot is Frankenstein is forced to create a mate for his first creation when his wife is kidnapped. The results can be predicted, things do not end well.
I thought it interisting that in the credits the monster was credited as Karloff, just his last name. I also thought it was interisting that they started the movie off as Mary Shelly telling the story.
I think I am just too much into more modern movies. This one was alright. You should see it if you like horror or other movies of the time. I thought the way the lines were delevered was just strange and annoying. Maybe knowing the basic plot was a minus for me. I was unclear of where the plot. I dont know if it was too much time on not advancing the plot.
Im rating this as a C and would say skip it but its not too strong of a skip.
The plot is Frankenstein is forced to create a mate for his first creation when his wife is kidnapped. The results can be predicted, things do not end well.
I thought it interisting that in the credits the monster was credited as Karloff, just his last name. I also thought it was interisting that they started the movie off as Mary Shelly telling the story.
I think I am just too much into more modern movies. This one was alright. You should see it if you like horror or other movies of the time. I thought the way the lines were delevered was just strange and annoying. Maybe knowing the basic plot was a minus for me. I was unclear of where the plot. I dont know if it was too much time on not advancing the plot.
Im rating this as a C and would say skip it but its not too strong of a skip.
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 (2011 PG 13)
The movie stars (every actor in England? just joking) Daniel Radcliffe (December Boys). Rupert Grint (Cherrybomb, Driving Lessons), Emma Watson (Ballett Shoes, The Tale of Despereau), Ralph Fiennes (The English Patient, Red Dragon), Alan Rickman (Die Hard, Bottle Shock), Helena Bonham Carter (Big Fish, Charlie and the Choclate Factory), Tom Felton (Anna and the King, Rise of the Planet of the Apes 2011), Michael Gambon (The Book of Eli, Mary Reilly), John Hurt (Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, V for Vendetta), Robbie Coltrane (Message in a Bottle, From Hell), and Maggie Smith (Divine Secrets of the Ya Ya Sisterhood, Hook). See I told you every actor in England was in the cast.
The plot of the movie is the final showdown between good and evil. Harry et al are on the path of horcruxus (sp) in order to destroy Voldemorts soul. Voldermort gathers his troups for an all out attack on Harry at Hogwarts.
The movie was good from the start. It was dark and set a good tone for the rest of the movie. The part of Luna was acted very well. I dont know if it was her idea or she was getting good direction but she did a good job. Her character was "airey" but I liked the character.
It is impossible for any movie to keep up a great pace in every scene. The scene with the wand maker, Hurt?, was a little bit slow. I am glad that the character of Nevell Longbottom turned out the way he did.
I liked the movies attempt at humor. I think it can add a lot to action movies. I dont think most of the lines worked but some did and I think they were right for trying to add humor into the mix.
There may be a corilation between the Potter series and The Lord of the Rings triliogy. There is a magical, imagainay things (magic, Dwarfs, Elfs ect.). Also I think it is an Everyman as Hero theme. Also it has a supporting characters that aid in the task at hand.
I will give the rating here so if you dont know how it ends you wont have to go to the bottom. I am rating the movie as a B. The story was good and as I remember close to the book. The look of the movie was just a good. I was not disapoint at all in the final chapter of this generations Star Wars or Lord of the Rings.
SPOILER ALERT FOR THE LAST SCENE.
I had heard that they had to reshoot the last scene of the movie. I think they tried make up for Harry, Ron and Hermione. I think they also toyed with the idea of using older actors. The olders actors idea was dismissed because to have other people playing these three iconic characters was, I hope, laughable. I read the books last year. I think the last scene was true to the end of the books but I was a little disapointed. I have two ideas why. Idea one because it was the last of the movies and I have liked them all. Idea two I thought the scene was a little light on dialogue. I dont think Ron had a line in the last scene.
The plot of the movie is the final showdown between good and evil. Harry et al are on the path of horcruxus (sp) in order to destroy Voldemorts soul. Voldermort gathers his troups for an all out attack on Harry at Hogwarts.
The movie was good from the start. It was dark and set a good tone for the rest of the movie. The part of Luna was acted very well. I dont know if it was her idea or she was getting good direction but she did a good job. Her character was "airey" but I liked the character.
It is impossible for any movie to keep up a great pace in every scene. The scene with the wand maker, Hurt?, was a little bit slow. I am glad that the character of Nevell Longbottom turned out the way he did.
I liked the movies attempt at humor. I think it can add a lot to action movies. I dont think most of the lines worked but some did and I think they were right for trying to add humor into the mix.
There may be a corilation between the Potter series and The Lord of the Rings triliogy. There is a magical, imagainay things (magic, Dwarfs, Elfs ect.). Also I think it is an Everyman as Hero theme. Also it has a supporting characters that aid in the task at hand.
I will give the rating here so if you dont know how it ends you wont have to go to the bottom. I am rating the movie as a B. The story was good and as I remember close to the book. The look of the movie was just a good. I was not disapoint at all in the final chapter of this generations Star Wars or Lord of the Rings.
SPOILER ALERT FOR THE LAST SCENE.
I had heard that they had to reshoot the last scene of the movie. I think they tried make up for Harry, Ron and Hermione. I think they also toyed with the idea of using older actors. The olders actors idea was dismissed because to have other people playing these three iconic characters was, I hope, laughable. I read the books last year. I think the last scene was true to the end of the books but I was a little disapointed. I have two ideas why. Idea one because it was the last of the movies and I have liked them all. Idea two I thought the scene was a little light on dialogue. I dont think Ron had a line in the last scene.
The Valley of Tears (2006 TV-MA)
The movie stars Dominick Daniel, Ezra Sutton, Gabriella Gubas.
The plot is Sutton is a cop who is killed by an ex informant. He has a chance to live, a chance from God, if he can reform his former informant.
The movie did not grab me from the start which is a pretty good sign the rest of the movie wont be good and this one was not good. This was a badly written over acted movie that was just not good.
The accents were bad. The delevery of lines were also bad. Daniel seemed to be trying too hard to be a "bad guy'. I dont know it he had someone famous he was trying to immitate but it did not work. A lot of the dialogue was over innunicated (sorry the spelling is off google is not helping with the spelling). One scene there is a criminal licking his gun. That just seems creepy and weird.
The movie was going between full screne and wide screen. I dont know if it was my computer but I have never noticed that before. In the credits there was a credit for immegrationg lawyer. Another thing I have not notticed before.
Im rating this movie as a solid D and feel comefortable in saying skip it and do anything else. There were the festival logos on the "poster". I dont know what festivals there were but it did not live up to what I would think a festival contestant would need to have to be competive.
The plot is Sutton is a cop who is killed by an ex informant. He has a chance to live, a chance from God, if he can reform his former informant.
The movie did not grab me from the start which is a pretty good sign the rest of the movie wont be good and this one was not good. This was a badly written over acted movie that was just not good.
The accents were bad. The delevery of lines were also bad. Daniel seemed to be trying too hard to be a "bad guy'. I dont know it he had someone famous he was trying to immitate but it did not work. A lot of the dialogue was over innunicated (sorry the spelling is off google is not helping with the spelling). One scene there is a criminal licking his gun. That just seems creepy and weird.
The movie was going between full screne and wide screen. I dont know if it was my computer but I have never noticed that before. In the credits there was a credit for immegrationg lawyer. Another thing I have not notticed before.
Im rating this movie as a solid D and feel comefortable in saying skip it and do anything else. There were the festival logos on the "poster". I dont know what festivals there were but it did not live up to what I would think a festival contestant would need to have to be competive.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Superman Returns (2006 PG13)
The movie stars Brandon Routh (Fling, Stuntmen), Kate Bosworth (21, Remember the Titans), Parker Posey (For Your Consideration, The OH in Ohio), Kevin Spacey (The Usual Suspects, 21), James Marsden (The Box, X:Men 3 The Last Stand) Frank Langella (The Box, Good Night and Good Luck), and Sam Huntington (Sleep Over, Detroit Rock City).
The plot of the movie is Superman returns after a 5 year absence to find Lois with a child and in love with another man and Metropolis not in need of him anymore.
I think it a bit creepy to have Marlon Brandon do some voice over work with work that he has already done years ago. (I wonder if the young Jeff Bridges in the latest Tron movie would evoke the same creepyness.) I think they also borrowed some 1970's tech to do the opening credits and I dont mean that in a good way.
I liked the country house setting. I also liked the Promise monologue. I thought there were some good one liners in the begging of the movie, example the one about Gone with the Wind. There were some good sepical effects but some that were not good. I thought some of the shots of Roth were clearly CG and did not look anywhere close to real.
Bosworth portrail of Lois was a little confusing. Some lines came across as passive aggresive. She to me is a strong character that would be stronger most of the time. The kid figuring out that Clark is Superman I thought was pretty funny. I did like the fact that Lois would not let the blackout story go she went with her instincts and thle her boss that, not very passive aggresive.
I had seen parts of the moive over the years so I thought I would be disapointed with the movie. I was pleasently suprised I liked it. I thought the interaction of most of the characters was very nice and on a deep level. Im rating the movie as a C+ or B- worth the 2.5 hour running time.
The plot of the movie is Superman returns after a 5 year absence to find Lois with a child and in love with another man and Metropolis not in need of him anymore.
I think it a bit creepy to have Marlon Brandon do some voice over work with work that he has already done years ago. (I wonder if the young Jeff Bridges in the latest Tron movie would evoke the same creepyness.) I think they also borrowed some 1970's tech to do the opening credits and I dont mean that in a good way.
I liked the country house setting. I also liked the Promise monologue. I thought there were some good one liners in the begging of the movie, example the one about Gone with the Wind. There were some good sepical effects but some that were not good. I thought some of the shots of Roth were clearly CG and did not look anywhere close to real.
Bosworth portrail of Lois was a little confusing. Some lines came across as passive aggresive. She to me is a strong character that would be stronger most of the time. The kid figuring out that Clark is Superman I thought was pretty funny. I did like the fact that Lois would not let the blackout story go she went with her instincts and thle her boss that, not very passive aggresive.
I had seen parts of the moive over the years so I thought I would be disapointed with the movie. I was pleasently suprised I liked it. I thought the interaction of most of the characters was very nice and on a deep level. Im rating the movie as a C+ or B- worth the 2.5 hour running time.
Visioneers (2007 NR)
The movie stars Zack Galifianakis (The Hangover, Heartbreakers), Judy Grreer (The Village, What Women Want), Mia Maestro (The Music Never Stoped, Deepwater), Missy Pyle (Pretty Ugly People, Charlie and the Choclate Factory), Chris Coppola (Dog Gone Love, Shadow), John Paulson (Zoo), and John Keister.
The plot of the movie is Galifianakis takes a look at his successful but monochromatic life in a slightly futuristic time. He works for a giantic coropration whos main goal is a world devoid of any individualism what so ever. He has to choose between the perfect but borring marriage and job adn a life with some emotional debth and meaning.
The movie sets a good tone at the start of the movie that is carried through the rest of the movie. Somewhat annoying but a good way to start the movie. Its about corporate uniformity and the desire for profits. It shows a world where people have no idea as to what makes them happy. When a corporation can implant devces on peoples necks to eliminate all desire for anything that resembles frre choice it can be pretty scarry.
This is the second film with Galfianakis, that I have seen, that has been good and has had no publicity. The other one was Gigantic, with Zooey Deschanel. I suspose Im all for the blockbusters but with the movie studios would take a little of the money they make from The Hangover and get the word out on films like this one.
I will rate this movie as a B. Maybe you can stream it to your phone while in line for the new Harry Potter movie. I hope to see that one next weekend.
The plot of the movie is Galifianakis takes a look at his successful but monochromatic life in a slightly futuristic time. He works for a giantic coropration whos main goal is a world devoid of any individualism what so ever. He has to choose between the perfect but borring marriage and job adn a life with some emotional debth and meaning.
The movie sets a good tone at the start of the movie that is carried through the rest of the movie. Somewhat annoying but a good way to start the movie. Its about corporate uniformity and the desire for profits. It shows a world where people have no idea as to what makes them happy. When a corporation can implant devces on peoples necks to eliminate all desire for anything that resembles frre choice it can be pretty scarry.
This is the second film with Galfianakis, that I have seen, that has been good and has had no publicity. The other one was Gigantic, with Zooey Deschanel. I suspose Im all for the blockbusters but with the movie studios would take a little of the money they make from The Hangover and get the word out on films like this one.
I will rate this movie as a B. Maybe you can stream it to your phone while in line for the new Harry Potter movie. I hope to see that one next weekend.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
The Usual Children (1997 TV MA)
The movie stars Luke Aikman (Fever Pitch), Laura Aikman (Bloody Monkey), Graham Cole, Jean Heard, David Tozer, and Amy Clarkson.
The plot of the movie is while trying to get kids to sleep with a fantasy story the story takes on a life of its own. The reason of the story is to end sibling rivalry. The rivalry does end, for about a minute.
There are so many things wrong with this movie. The dialogue is bad, campy and over the top. I dont know if they were going for parts of The Princess Bride, The Goonies or the Wizzard of Oz. The diffrencei those three movies were good this one is just out and out bad.
It was set in modern times but was kind of going for a midevil story line. Maybe it should of just chosen one.
Im already an hour and a half into this dog and its enough. Im rating this movie as an F. There is just nothing remotly redeeming about this movie.
The plot of the movie is while trying to get kids to sleep with a fantasy story the story takes on a life of its own. The reason of the story is to end sibling rivalry. The rivalry does end, for about a minute.
There are so many things wrong with this movie. The dialogue is bad, campy and over the top. I dont know if they were going for parts of The Princess Bride, The Goonies or the Wizzard of Oz. The diffrencei those three movies were good this one is just out and out bad.
It was set in modern times but was kind of going for a midevil story line. Maybe it should of just chosen one.
Im already an hour and a half into this dog and its enough. Im rating this movie as an F. There is just nothing remotly redeeming about this movie.
Tree of Life (2011 PG 13)
The movie stars Brad Pitt (The Mexican, Mr and Mrs Smith), Sean Penn (I am Sam, Milk), Jessica Chastain (The Help, The Debt), Hunter McCraken, Fiona Shaw (Harry Potter and the Order of the Pheonix, Fracture), Joanna Going (Lola, How to Make an American Quilt), Kari Matchett (Men with Brooms, The National Tree), and Laramie Eppler).
The plot according to Netflix is about a man trying to figure out the true nature of the world. I did not get that at all. It doess say that his parents had diffrent paths in life. Thats true but I just dont know if thats what the movie is about. For me it was hard to tell. Its could be about someone trying to come to terms with his abusive father.
The first half or third of this movie to me were just random shots of things that had nothing to do with any sort of plot. There was a part with dinosours. And some that were of space. I just dont see how Malick tied it into any sort of coherent plot. I tend to want to see things in movies that tie into other things in the movie. Those random scenes had nothing to do with anything. They were nice visually. As far as the plot they could of been left out with no explanation and you would not miss anything about the plot.
I did like the visuals that poped up through out the filf that reminded me of blood vessels. It was minimial on dialogue. It was like Lost in Translation and I was not a big fan of Lost in Translation .
The second half of the movie did get better. It did focus on the family. It seemed to get the point across of dealing with death, growing up with an abusive father. Just because the first half was so irrevelent the second half did get better. If I only watched the second half it may not of been as good.
I may not be smart enought to figure what the first half of the movie was trying to say or I may of forgotten the reviews after the Cannes Film Festival. Malick has a good reputation I think. But for me this was not a good example of his work. It did not come anywhere near the cult statis of some of his other work.
I am going to rate this one as a C- or D+. Go and see anything else that has some degree of a plot.
The plot according to Netflix is about a man trying to figure out the true nature of the world. I did not get that at all. It doess say that his parents had diffrent paths in life. Thats true but I just dont know if thats what the movie is about. For me it was hard to tell. Its could be about someone trying to come to terms with his abusive father.
The first half or third of this movie to me were just random shots of things that had nothing to do with any sort of plot. There was a part with dinosours. And some that were of space. I just dont see how Malick tied it into any sort of coherent plot. I tend to want to see things in movies that tie into other things in the movie. Those random scenes had nothing to do with anything. They were nice visually. As far as the plot they could of been left out with no explanation and you would not miss anything about the plot.
I did like the visuals that poped up through out the filf that reminded me of blood vessels. It was minimial on dialogue. It was like Lost in Translation and I was not a big fan of Lost in Translation .
The second half of the movie did get better. It did focus on the family. It seemed to get the point across of dealing with death, growing up with an abusive father. Just because the first half was so irrevelent the second half did get better. If I only watched the second half it may not of been as good.
I may not be smart enought to figure what the first half of the movie was trying to say or I may of forgotten the reviews after the Cannes Film Festival. Malick has a good reputation I think. But for me this was not a good example of his work. It did not come anywhere near the cult statis of some of his other work.
I am going to rate this one as a C- or D+. Go and see anything else that has some degree of a plot.
Twelve (2009 or 2010 R)
The movie stars Chase Crawford (Loaded), Emma Roberts (Hotels for Dogs), Rory Culkin (Signs, You Can Count on Me), Anthony Quarles, 50 Cent (Set Up), Jeremy Allen White (Afterschool), Kiefer Sutherland (Flatliners, A Time to Kill) and Zoe Kravitz (XMen:First Class, The Brave One).
The plot of the movie revolves around a drug dealer and the high society kids he deals to. (Note to Netflix fire who ever wrote the snyposis of the movie with out watching the movie first.) It is really an ensamble cast. It also follows several teens and there lives.
This is a movie that deserves its R rating. May not be suitable for younger kids. That being said everyone else should should go out and see this movie. The voice over/ narriator (Sutherland) was great and started off the movie very well. There was only one line that was stupid or not well written. The character was talking aout her future and wanting to marry Johnny Deep. I thought the referance to Deep was childlike in a very adult line.
All the characters were well written and acted. I dont think there was one character that I would of cut from the film. The visual tone of the movie was well done. It was on the darker side but totally fit in with the plot.
While I was watching the movie I was trying to figure out what was good about the movie. I could not pin point too many specifics. The whole movie was good.
I rate the movie as a B or B+. For people of the appriote age everybody should see this movie.
The plot of the movie revolves around a drug dealer and the high society kids he deals to. (Note to Netflix fire who ever wrote the snyposis of the movie with out watching the movie first.) It is really an ensamble cast. It also follows several teens and there lives.
This is a movie that deserves its R rating. May not be suitable for younger kids. That being said everyone else should should go out and see this movie. The voice over/ narriator (Sutherland) was great and started off the movie very well. There was only one line that was stupid or not well written. The character was talking aout her future and wanting to marry Johnny Deep. I thought the referance to Deep was childlike in a very adult line.
All the characters were well written and acted. I dont think there was one character that I would of cut from the film. The visual tone of the movie was well done. It was on the darker side but totally fit in with the plot.
While I was watching the movie I was trying to figure out what was good about the movie. I could not pin point too many specifics. The whole movie was good.
I rate the movie as a B or B+. For people of the appriote age everybody should see this movie.
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Mr. Brooks (2007 R)
The movie stars Kevin Costner (Dances With Wolves, Bull Durham), Demi Moore (G.I. Jane, Ghost), William Hurt (Children of a Lessor God, The Village), Dane Cook (Dan in Real Life, Good Luck Chuck), Marg Hedgenberger (Species, In Good Company), Danielle Panbaker (The Crazies, Sky High), and Aisha Hinds (Lost Dream, The Next Three Days).
The plot of the movie is a serial killer, Costner, who wants to quit killing with the help of AA. After a two year respit Costner is "caught" by a budding killer and forced into committing another murder. Costners partner is a part of his personality, Hurt. Costner is forced to kill someone to cover for his daughter who he thinks she has the same taste for killing.
The start of the movie is not something that drew me in, it was bland. I did not get a sence that there was a real good reason to see the movie. The pacing was good, the story was good, but there was nothing sepical about the movie.
I dont think there was enough reason for the daughter to be pregnate. It did not advance the story at all. Moore's character was getting a divorce in the movie and it was tied to the plot, along with Moore's character being rich, was also loosley tied in. Others may disagree but I think that these parts of the plot could of been handeled diffrently.
The interaction between Costner and Hurt had some nice moments. They were in sync at times, a scene in the car, showed a connection between the two that was nice. There was also a nice monologue.
The first half was alright but nothing sepical. There was a nice turn at the end but it ended up being a dream. If it were not a dream I would give a more positive grade. I liked it but there was not enough for me to give a strong recomendation.
I will give it a weak C+. I liked it and would recomend it to myself but for others if you are a big fan of any of the stars go out and stream it if not you may want to just skip it and watch something else.
The plot of the movie is a serial killer, Costner, who wants to quit killing with the help of AA. After a two year respit Costner is "caught" by a budding killer and forced into committing another murder. Costners partner is a part of his personality, Hurt. Costner is forced to kill someone to cover for his daughter who he thinks she has the same taste for killing.
The start of the movie is not something that drew me in, it was bland. I did not get a sence that there was a real good reason to see the movie. The pacing was good, the story was good, but there was nothing sepical about the movie.
I dont think there was enough reason for the daughter to be pregnate. It did not advance the story at all. Moore's character was getting a divorce in the movie and it was tied to the plot, along with Moore's character being rich, was also loosley tied in. Others may disagree but I think that these parts of the plot could of been handeled diffrently.
The interaction between Costner and Hurt had some nice moments. They were in sync at times, a scene in the car, showed a connection between the two that was nice. There was also a nice monologue.
The first half was alright but nothing sepical. There was a nice turn at the end but it ended up being a dream. If it were not a dream I would give a more positive grade. I liked it but there was not enough for me to give a strong recomendation.
I will give it a weak C+. I liked it and would recomend it to myself but for others if you are a big fan of any of the stars go out and stream it if not you may want to just skip it and watch something else.
The Last Word (2008 R)
The movie stars Wes Bentley (There Be Dragons, American Beauty), Winona Ryder (Heathers, Simone), Ray Romano (Everybody Loves Raymond tv, Eulogy), Gina Hecht (Seven Pounds, A Stranger's Heart), Katherine Boecher and John Bilingsley (The Man from Earth, Eden).
The plot of the movie is Bentley, whos job is writting suicide notes for people, starts dating the sister of one of his recent clients. Durring the movie they show Bentley at his work with his clients.
It has to be one of the starngest jobs out there. Its hard to get referals.
Bentley chaeracter is detached in scenes with Ryder. He comes across as analytical and has trouble dealing with other people. His character deals with people by quoting famous writers a lot. I think that is the only way he can deal with people. Quoting other writers is the only way he has relate to people. His character does not like people knowing where he lives or what his telephone number is. Then that is droped and not mentioned for the second half of the movie with no explanation.
Bentleys character is pretty damaged from growing up in foster care. The wounds run pretty deep. His character is unable to stop lying to Ryders character. Him taking notes at funerals comes across as creepy. The scene with scaring the babies is bizzar and comes across as a weird way to have fun.
I think the clients are people who are just looking for some kind of connection with other people. That seems to be a common aspect with a few of his clients.
Im rating the movie as aC+. That means I think its worth seeing but just barley. This is a movie where there seems to be a lot of problems with the movie but something about the way it was all put together it works on some levels. I think its like when you multiply two negative numbers together you get a positive. With all that seems not to work it came together enough for me to think its worth watching.
The plot of the movie is Bentley, whos job is writting suicide notes for people, starts dating the sister of one of his recent clients. Durring the movie they show Bentley at his work with his clients.
It has to be one of the starngest jobs out there. Its hard to get referals.
Bentley chaeracter is detached in scenes with Ryder. He comes across as analytical and has trouble dealing with other people. His character deals with people by quoting famous writers a lot. I think that is the only way he can deal with people. Quoting other writers is the only way he has relate to people. His character does not like people knowing where he lives or what his telephone number is. Then that is droped and not mentioned for the second half of the movie with no explanation.
Bentleys character is pretty damaged from growing up in foster care. The wounds run pretty deep. His character is unable to stop lying to Ryders character. Him taking notes at funerals comes across as creepy. The scene with scaring the babies is bizzar and comes across as a weird way to have fun.
I think the clients are people who are just looking for some kind of connection with other people. That seems to be a common aspect with a few of his clients.
Im rating the movie as aC+. That means I think its worth seeing but just barley. This is a movie where there seems to be a lot of problems with the movie but something about the way it was all put together it works on some levels. I think its like when you multiply two negative numbers together you get a positive. With all that seems not to work it came together enough for me to think its worth watching.
Heavens Fall (2006 PG 13)
The movie stars Timothy Hutton (The Last Mimzy, Digging to China), David Strathaim (Good Night and Good Luck, Strel Toes), Anthony Mackie (The Hurt Locker, The Adjustment Bereau), Bill Smitrovich (Seven Pounds, Thirteen Days), James Tolkan (Dick Tracy, Top Gun), Maury Chaykin (Owning Mahowny, Twins), Leelee Sobieski (Eyes Wide Shut, Deep Impact), and Bill Sage (Tennessee, American Psycho).
The plot of the movie is inspired by the Scottsboro Nine. They were nine black men falsely accused of rape by two women in 1931. Hutton plays a New York lawyer who goes to Alabama for the retrial of one of the defandents.
The first few minutes of the movie I thought were terrible. It was like a preview of a movie. The cast is a good cast that lives up to what it should be. I thought the movie did a good job of weaving in the plot lines.
The movie was a hard one to come up with exactly what was good about it. I think it should be seen with other good movies about race relations in the US. A Time to Kill, Mkississippi Burning, Ghosts of Mississippi and The Green Mile are all good movies that are in the same genre of race relations.
Im not sure how much was fictionalized in the making of the movie. One point is I know nothing about the case so I dd not bring any expectations to the movie (except thinking it might be good because of David Strathaim).
I did not like the way closing statements was shot. But it was a short scene that was not too long so it was minimal damage.
Im rating the move as a B- so it is worth seeing. I am glad that a movie with a good cast lived up to the expectations that I had for the movie.
The plot of the movie is inspired by the Scottsboro Nine. They were nine black men falsely accused of rape by two women in 1931. Hutton plays a New York lawyer who goes to Alabama for the retrial of one of the defandents.
The first few minutes of the movie I thought were terrible. It was like a preview of a movie. The cast is a good cast that lives up to what it should be. I thought the movie did a good job of weaving in the plot lines.
The movie was a hard one to come up with exactly what was good about it. I think it should be seen with other good movies about race relations in the US. A Time to Kill, Mkississippi Burning, Ghosts of Mississippi and The Green Mile are all good movies that are in the same genre of race relations.
Im not sure how much was fictionalized in the making of the movie. One point is I know nothing about the case so I dd not bring any expectations to the movie (except thinking it might be good because of David Strathaim).
I did not like the way closing statements was shot. But it was a short scene that was not too long so it was minimal damage.
Im rating the move as a B- so it is worth seeing. I am glad that a movie with a good cast lived up to the expectations that I had for the movie.
Saturday, July 9, 2011
Peeping Tom (1960 NR)
The movie stars Nigel Davenport (A Man for All Seasons), Jack Watson (Konga), Michael Goodliffe (The One that Got Away), Maxine Audley (Hell is a City), Carl Boehm, Brenda Bruce (Henry V), and Shirley Ann Field (Alfie).
I was a little concerned at first by the name that this film may be nothing more then some kind of skin film. My expectations were that it was just some avant garde sex film. There was only one brief scene with some nudity. I was glad it turned into a psychological thriller.
The plot of the movie is Boehm, who is mentally abused by his father for research as a child, grows up to be a killer of the subjects of his short films. He also works for a normal movie studio for general release.
There is a scene at the start of the film that looks like a set for Singing in the Rain. It just had that feeling of the set. The music used in the film seems a lot diffrent then what they would use today. The cross hairs, for focusing?, on Boehm camera reminded me of cross hairs for a gun. It may of been used for the killing that was comming but I may just read more into that than was there.
I read the discription of the movie after I watched it. In the discription it said there was simularities with Psyco. What I saw that was in both was an abusive parent causing serious trauma in the child. Both parents ran a business that provided some access to victums and some degree of finacial help. A hotel, and a house with rooms to rent for Psyco and Peeping Tom. The kids turned in to killers. There may be a weak connection to the film One Hour Photo (a bad film with Robin Williams.) A connection being obbsesive people with access to photography or video.
Im rating this movie as a solid B. I dont know if it would be suitable for young kids but for most other people I say dont miss this film.
I was a little concerned at first by the name that this film may be nothing more then some kind of skin film. My expectations were that it was just some avant garde sex film. There was only one brief scene with some nudity. I was glad it turned into a psychological thriller.
The plot of the movie is Boehm, who is mentally abused by his father for research as a child, grows up to be a killer of the subjects of his short films. He also works for a normal movie studio for general release.
There is a scene at the start of the film that looks like a set for Singing in the Rain. It just had that feeling of the set. The music used in the film seems a lot diffrent then what they would use today. The cross hairs, for focusing?, on Boehm camera reminded me of cross hairs for a gun. It may of been used for the killing that was comming but I may just read more into that than was there.
I read the discription of the movie after I watched it. In the discription it said there was simularities with Psyco. What I saw that was in both was an abusive parent causing serious trauma in the child. Both parents ran a business that provided some access to victums and some degree of finacial help. A hotel, and a house with rooms to rent for Psyco and Peeping Tom. The kids turned in to killers. There may be a weak connection to the film One Hour Photo (a bad film with Robin Williams.) A connection being obbsesive people with access to photography or video.
Im rating this movie as a solid B. I dont know if it would be suitable for young kids but for most other people I say dont miss this film.
Horrible Bosses (2011 R)
The movie stars Jason Bateman (Up in the Air, Hancock), Charlie Day (Going the Distance, A Quiet Little Marriage), Jason Sudeikis (Hall Pass, Going the Distance), Jennifer Aniston (The Good Girl, Rumor has It), Colin Farrell (Crazy Heart, The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus), Kevin Spacey (The Usual Suspects, Midnigh in the Garden of Good and Evil), Julie Bowen (Modern Family tv, Mulitiplicity), Jamie Foxx (Ray, The Soloist), and Donald Southerland (The Italian Job 2003, A Time to Kill).
The plot of the movie is that of Strangers on a Train. Three friends come up with and mess up a plan to kill each others bosses.
I was going in to the movie with very low expectations. I was thinking that the bosses would be horrible to the point of being mean. While they are all bosses from hell I am glad that there meaness did not turn me off to the point of hating the movie for that reason.
There were times when the movie shown but on the whole the parts that shown were too few and far between. Its a Bro-mance in the style of The Hangover. Hapless men and the stupid things they do.
A problem I had with the movie was the pacing. The plot was moving along then all of a sudden it got to the end and had a voice over to tie up the loose ends. There were a lot of loose ends they did that way. It was like they rqan out of movie or ran out of time and just sumerized 20 pages of dialogue and action in a minute or two. For me it was a hurried way to end the movie.
One bright spot was Farrell's characters house. I thought they did a very good job of capturing the core of the character with the most hidious pieces of 70's decor imaginable. For most of the rest of the movie I thought it was too much like an Adam Sandler movie. And I dont mean that in a good way. Sandler characters are men who act like boys and try and get laughs from immature humor. I hope my dislike of Sandlers movies comes through but thats another matter. This movie seems just men beng stupid and messing up a plan.
Im rating this movie as a C-. It started off alright but fadded into something I was thinking it might be. A movie that just was just not that funny.
The plot of the movie is that of Strangers on a Train. Three friends come up with and mess up a plan to kill each others bosses.
I was going in to the movie with very low expectations. I was thinking that the bosses would be horrible to the point of being mean. While they are all bosses from hell I am glad that there meaness did not turn me off to the point of hating the movie for that reason.
There were times when the movie shown but on the whole the parts that shown were too few and far between. Its a Bro-mance in the style of The Hangover. Hapless men and the stupid things they do.
A problem I had with the movie was the pacing. The plot was moving along then all of a sudden it got to the end and had a voice over to tie up the loose ends. There were a lot of loose ends they did that way. It was like they rqan out of movie or ran out of time and just sumerized 20 pages of dialogue and action in a minute or two. For me it was a hurried way to end the movie.
One bright spot was Farrell's characters house. I thought they did a very good job of capturing the core of the character with the most hidious pieces of 70's decor imaginable. For most of the rest of the movie I thought it was too much like an Adam Sandler movie. And I dont mean that in a good way. Sandler characters are men who act like boys and try and get laughs from immature humor. I hope my dislike of Sandlers movies comes through but thats another matter. This movie seems just men beng stupid and messing up a plan.
Im rating this movie as a C-. It started off alright but fadded into something I was thinking it might be. A movie that just was just not that funny.
Monday, July 4, 2011
Children of Men (2006 R)
The movie stars Clive Owen (Closer, Sin City), Julianne Moore (The Kids are Alright, Hannibal), Michael Caine (The Dark Knight, The Swarm), and Pam Ferris (Death to Smoochy, Nicholas Nickleby).
On the day the youngest human dies Owen is hired by Moore to get a pregnate lady to a safe zone. The world has turned into a war zone.
I lost focus in this movie. It was a good portrail of End of Days and anarchy. It was well acted and a good concept for a movie. Its based on a book by P.D. james. I thought it took a little too long to see the pregnate lady.
Im rating it as a C+. Gooed enough to see but if missed not that big of a deal. Its not all that origional.
On the day the youngest human dies Owen is hired by Moore to get a pregnate lady to a safe zone. The world has turned into a war zone.
I lost focus in this movie. It was a good portrail of End of Days and anarchy. It was well acted and a good concept for a movie. Its based on a book by P.D. james. I thought it took a little too long to see the pregnate lady.
Im rating it as a C+. Gooed enough to see but if missed not that big of a deal. Its not all that origional.
Sunday, July 3, 2011
The Fog (1979 or 1980 R)
The movie stars Adrienne Barbeau (The Cannonball Run,The Time Travler), Jamie Lee Curtis (Virus, Forever Young), Janet Leigh (Psycho, Jet Pilot), John Houseman (The Pater Chase, Clarence Darrow), and Hal Holbrook (Water for Elephants, All the Presidents Men).
The plot is a fog moves into a town to get revenge on the residents. It takes place on the 100th aniversery of the founding of the town.
The actor who is telling the ghost stroy at the start of the film does a nice job for settng the tone of the film. There is a weird zoom in tha opening scend that seems out of place and just not fit for a finished film. I thought the start of the film was too slow. I think they spent too much time setting up the film. Sometimes I feel a movie can have more backstory or just setting up the rest of the film. For this one I think they spent too much time on setting it up and they should of moved to the meat of the film. Just get to the fog and whats in it.
It came across to me as a psycological thriller. Its not one that relied on blood and guts. There was a scene where they were talking about a colony moving (around the time the city was formed) that reminded me of Storm of the Century. I think having Holbrooks chaeracter expanded would of been nice. His character addng the back story was a good part of the movie. They could of added ot his character and taken out other scenes in the beging of the movie and it would of made it a better film.
I thought towards the end of the movie Holbooks character was similar to Christ on his way to the cruifixion. He was sacrificing him self and he was carrying a cross. I may be reqading too much into the scene but it fit for me.
Im rating the movie as a C+. I would say I would bearly say its worth streaming.
The plot is a fog moves into a town to get revenge on the residents. It takes place on the 100th aniversery of the founding of the town.
The actor who is telling the ghost stroy at the start of the film does a nice job for settng the tone of the film. There is a weird zoom in tha opening scend that seems out of place and just not fit for a finished film. I thought the start of the film was too slow. I think they spent too much time setting up the film. Sometimes I feel a movie can have more backstory or just setting up the rest of the film. For this one I think they spent too much time on setting it up and they should of moved to the meat of the film. Just get to the fog and whats in it.
It came across to me as a psycological thriller. Its not one that relied on blood and guts. There was a scene where they were talking about a colony moving (around the time the city was formed) that reminded me of Storm of the Century. I think having Holbrooks chaeracter expanded would of been nice. His character addng the back story was a good part of the movie. They could of added ot his character and taken out other scenes in the beging of the movie and it would of made it a better film.
I thought towards the end of the movie Holbooks character was similar to Christ on his way to the cruifixion. He was sacrificing him self and he was carrying a cross. I may be reqading too much into the scene but it fit for me.
Im rating the movie as a C+. I would say I would bearly say its worth streaming.
Saturday, July 2, 2011
Bottle Shock (2008 PG13)
The movie stars Bill Pullman (Independence Day, Sleepless in Seattle), Chris Pine (Star Trek 2009, Small Town Saturday Night), Alan Rickman (Die Hard, Dogma), Eliza Dushku (Open Graves, City By the Sea), Bradley Whitford (The West Wing tv, Philadelphia), Dennis Farina (Saving Private Ryan, Thief), Miguel Sandoval (Medium tv, Do the Right Thing), and Danny DeVito (Taxi tv, War of the Roses) I missed him in the film.
The plot of the movie is Rickman plans a wine tasting competition between the France and some upstart California vineyards. Its based on actual events.
The movie grabbed me from the start. It had a good "theme" song running through the movie. The start of the movie I got the idea that the Americans were true upstarts with nothing to lose. I have seen Chris Pine in three things now and he has been good in all three. I dont think he is playing the same character in all three but he has been enjoyable in all three.
The movie looses its momentum in the mddle of the movie. I usually dont like movies based on real events, 13 Days being a good example of movies I dont like. They have to skip so much that it is something I just dont like most of the time. This one was a little better then most fact based movies.
Im ratng this movie as a C+ with a slight reconmentation to watch it.
The plot of the movie is Rickman plans a wine tasting competition between the France and some upstart California vineyards. Its based on actual events.
The movie grabbed me from the start. It had a good "theme" song running through the movie. The start of the movie I got the idea that the Americans were true upstarts with nothing to lose. I have seen Chris Pine in three things now and he has been good in all three. I dont think he is playing the same character in all three but he has been enjoyable in all three.
The movie looses its momentum in the mddle of the movie. I usually dont like movies based on real events, 13 Days being a good example of movies I dont like. They have to skip so much that it is something I just dont like most of the time. This one was a little better then most fact based movies.
Im ratng this movie as a C+ with a slight reconmentation to watch it.
Larry Crowne (2011 PG 13)
The movie stars Tom Hanks (Forrest Gump, Phildelphia), Julia Roberts (Mystic Pizza, Mona Lisa Smile), Bryan Cranston (Breaking Bad tv, Saving Private Ryan), Cedric the Entertainer (Why We Laugh, the Honeymooners), Pam Grier (First to Die, Foxy Brown), Wilmer Valderrama (That 70's Show tv, Fast Food Nation), Nila Vardalos (My Big Fat Greek Wedding, My Life in Ruins), George Takei (Star Trek tv, Year of the Dragon), and Rob Riggle (The Other Guys, Super High Me).
The plot of the movie is Hanks gets fired from a box store because he has no college experience. He decides to get some college classes under his belt. Roberts is the teacher in one of his classes.
The first scene is a good one with good music. Its just a scene of people getting the box store, think Wal Mart or such, but its a good start. The scene where Hanks gets fired is a good one. It is filled sith some irony where people advanced not because of merrit but just because of a resume.
I usually like Roberts movies. This one she plays a character that just has no redeming qualities. She drinks a lot and she really hates her job and takes that hatered home with her. Now its not to say she does not have some reasons for her behavior. Her husband, Cranston, is an unemployed porn addected blogger who would drive any good woman to drink. Even though she has good reasons I cant see why anyone would be attracted to someone who is so misreable.
The movie was written by Hanks (who also directed) and Vardalos. There was a line Cranston spoke that just stuck out as really bad. To paraphase Im a guy being a guy. It came accross as just some really bad writting that should of been cut or rewritten. The movie over all was lacking any direction. By that I mean the characters did not seem to change that much. The implacation was Roberts character did stop drinking but it was a little too late for me.
A scene in the trailer was Hanks dancing after getting a first kiss from Roberts. The other part of the scene was Hanks had just taken a very drunk Roberts home. I just dont see decent Hanks getting excited about kissing a drunk and obnoxious.
There was a shot that seemed to want to channel the spirit of West Side Stroy. It did not work for me. There was a scend towards the end that reminded me of The Last Supper (it was the pizza eating scene at Cedrics house). Then I may be reading too much into the visuals of the movie.
I think they were going for the chaeracters to be alternative free spirits. For the most part it did not come through. The Vespa girl, the true free spirit, did not come through to me. The characters did not seem to make any real movement in there personalities. I thought that the lack of movements of the characters, not changing who they are, made the ending of the movie as unrealistic. Its almost like they took the ending of a diffrent movie and put it on the end. They hoped that no one noticed that the characters made no real movement to get to the point where they can be happy or were any diffrent then when the movie started. And as a final note the ending credits were bad. The scend they put the credits over was just bad.
Im rating the movie as a C-and it should probally be lower. My advice watch My Big Fat Greek Wedding, Mystic Pizza or Forrest Gump. So many decent movies out there.
The plot of the movie is Hanks gets fired from a box store because he has no college experience. He decides to get some college classes under his belt. Roberts is the teacher in one of his classes.
The first scene is a good one with good music. Its just a scene of people getting the box store, think Wal Mart or such, but its a good start. The scene where Hanks gets fired is a good one. It is filled sith some irony where people advanced not because of merrit but just because of a resume.
I usually like Roberts movies. This one she plays a character that just has no redeming qualities. She drinks a lot and she really hates her job and takes that hatered home with her. Now its not to say she does not have some reasons for her behavior. Her husband, Cranston, is an unemployed porn addected blogger who would drive any good woman to drink. Even though she has good reasons I cant see why anyone would be attracted to someone who is so misreable.
The movie was written by Hanks (who also directed) and Vardalos. There was a line Cranston spoke that just stuck out as really bad. To paraphase Im a guy being a guy. It came accross as just some really bad writting that should of been cut or rewritten. The movie over all was lacking any direction. By that I mean the characters did not seem to change that much. The implacation was Roberts character did stop drinking but it was a little too late for me.
A scene in the trailer was Hanks dancing after getting a first kiss from Roberts. The other part of the scene was Hanks had just taken a very drunk Roberts home. I just dont see decent Hanks getting excited about kissing a drunk and obnoxious.
There was a shot that seemed to want to channel the spirit of West Side Stroy. It did not work for me. There was a scend towards the end that reminded me of The Last Supper (it was the pizza eating scene at Cedrics house). Then I may be reading too much into the visuals of the movie.
I think they were going for the chaeracters to be alternative free spirits. For the most part it did not come through. The Vespa girl, the true free spirit, did not come through to me. The characters did not seem to make any real movement in there personalities. I thought that the lack of movements of the characters, not changing who they are, made the ending of the movie as unrealistic. Its almost like they took the ending of a diffrent movie and put it on the end. They hoped that no one noticed that the characters made no real movement to get to the point where they can be happy or were any diffrent then when the movie started. And as a final note the ending credits were bad. The scend they put the credits over was just bad.
Im rating the movie as a C-and it should probally be lower. My advice watch My Big Fat Greek Wedding, Mystic Pizza or Forrest Gump. So many decent movies out there.
The Curiosity of Chance (2006 NR)
The movie stars Tad Hilgenbrink (The Hills Run Red), Brett Chukerman (Return to Innocence), Aldevina Da Silva, Pieter Van Nieuwenhuy, Chris Mulkey (Dreamland, Radio), Maxim Maes, and Colleen Cameron.
The plot revolves around an out of the closet gay teen starting a new school. And having to deal with a bully and other general bigotry of high school. The movie is set in the 80's;
The start of the movie and the choice of music did not get the movie off to a good start. The movie just comes across as dated and not at all funny. The bully was described as a neoanderthal. Thats what bullies are suspose to be. What bothes me is the bully, and most of the other characters, are one dimentional. There was no debth at all to the characters. All of the characters, with the possible exception of the younger sister, are stereotypes. That does not make for a good movie.
I dont know if this is suspose to be in the genre of Airplane. If it was suspose to it failed in every way.The blocking in the drag show was just to jumpy and the lip syncing was so off as to be a distractionl. The door bell at Hilgenbrinks hosue may of been trying to channel the spirit of Airplane, trying to be funny. It was hard to tell because there was nothing that translated to anything that resembled something that was funny.
The climax evoked no emotional responce at all. And the scene on the stairs at the school was predictable to anyone over the age of about 5 or anyone who has seen a movie before.
Im going to have to rate this movie as a D. The only part of the movie that saved it from an F was the fact that it was a movie about being accepted. That part I liked. It just failed on just about every other level. I think movie about acceptance are important to get out there but this is just not a good movie. I wish it was but it was far from being even close to be good.
The plot revolves around an out of the closet gay teen starting a new school. And having to deal with a bully and other general bigotry of high school. The movie is set in the 80's;
The start of the movie and the choice of music did not get the movie off to a good start. The movie just comes across as dated and not at all funny. The bully was described as a neoanderthal. Thats what bullies are suspose to be. What bothes me is the bully, and most of the other characters, are one dimentional. There was no debth at all to the characters. All of the characters, with the possible exception of the younger sister, are stereotypes. That does not make for a good movie.
I dont know if this is suspose to be in the genre of Airplane. If it was suspose to it failed in every way.The blocking in the drag show was just to jumpy and the lip syncing was so off as to be a distractionl. The door bell at Hilgenbrinks hosue may of been trying to channel the spirit of Airplane, trying to be funny. It was hard to tell because there was nothing that translated to anything that resembled something that was funny.
The climax evoked no emotional responce at all. And the scene on the stairs at the school was predictable to anyone over the age of about 5 or anyone who has seen a movie before.
Im going to have to rate this movie as a D. The only part of the movie that saved it from an F was the fact that it was a movie about being accepted. That part I liked. It just failed on just about every other level. I think movie about acceptance are important to get out there but this is just not a good movie. I wish it was but it was far from being even close to be good.
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Trees Lounge (1996 R)
The movie stars Steve Buscemi (Armagddon), Chloe Sevigny (American Psyco), Mark Boone Jr (Last of the Dogmen), Anthony La Paglia (Betsy's Wedding), Elizabeth Bracco (Money for Notrhing), Carol Kane (Scrooged), Daniel Baldwin (Sidekicks), Mimi Rogers (Lost in Space), Debi Mazar (Little Man Tate), and Seymor Cassel (It Could Happen to You).
The movies plots revolves around the bad choices Buscemi (who wrote and directed) and the consequences that come from them. Buscemi is unemployed, his pregnate ex-girlfriend (who may be carrying his child) is dating the boss who he stole money from and fired him, and may of sleeppt with a 17 year old daughter of a friend (I forgot if she is his neice).
I think Jerry Seinfeld says his name buys him about 3 minutes of good will when he does stand up. The cast does the same here but in this case the movie is good enough not to need to trade on all of the good actors in it (maybe because they are in the movie is what makes it so good).
The characters in this movie are not people who I would want to hang around with or ones that I like. But saying that I liked watching there lives unfold. They all seem to be interconnected which I think adds to the over all quality of the movie.
The only thing I did not like about the movie was the scene with the home movie. It goes in between the grainy footage of a VCR tape and the high quality of the film footage. What bothered me was the going back and forth not the bad quality of the home movie. Choose one and go with that for that one scene.
I liked the interaction between the characters in this close nit community. I am rating this movie as a B. Its not a feel good movie. What it is a good character study where the plot is not important. Its a good view of mistakes people make, regret and having to live with what you make out of life.
The movies plots revolves around the bad choices Buscemi (who wrote and directed) and the consequences that come from them. Buscemi is unemployed, his pregnate ex-girlfriend (who may be carrying his child) is dating the boss who he stole money from and fired him, and may of sleeppt with a 17 year old daughter of a friend (I forgot if she is his neice).
I think Jerry Seinfeld says his name buys him about 3 minutes of good will when he does stand up. The cast does the same here but in this case the movie is good enough not to need to trade on all of the good actors in it (maybe because they are in the movie is what makes it so good).
The characters in this movie are not people who I would want to hang around with or ones that I like. But saying that I liked watching there lives unfold. They all seem to be interconnected which I think adds to the over all quality of the movie.
The only thing I did not like about the movie was the scene with the home movie. It goes in between the grainy footage of a VCR tape and the high quality of the film footage. What bothered me was the going back and forth not the bad quality of the home movie. Choose one and go with that for that one scene.
I liked the interaction between the characters in this close nit community. I am rating this movie as a B. Its not a feel good movie. What it is a good character study where the plot is not important. Its a good view of mistakes people make, regret and having to live with what you make out of life.
Desert Son (2010 NR)
The movie stars John Bain (The Least of These), Erica Hoag (The Legend of Bloody Jack), Nathan Halliday, Bill Oberst Jr (The Shunning, Princess and the Pony), and Elvis Winterbottom.
The plot is after being left in the desert a boy is intergrated into a "family" of two other kids left behind by society. They have to survive by any means necessary which elevates to a breaking point.
The opening was nice wat to visually start a movie. It did take too long to get started. They could of cut some and added more detail or make fewer cuts later in the film. The movie maintains a level just below a point where I would say was good. It was consistant but just did not get to a point where it was good.
The charactrer of Jack is hard for me to get to a point of liking or even relating to. The way he is is beleivable and he did a good job but totally unsympathetic to me. I think that is why I have some reservations about the movie but I can understand why he was written that way.
I could not make out the festivals at the top of the DVD cover. But this movie seems to be just the kind of film that would do well at places like Sundance or Toranto. I dont know if I would say its formulaic but it does seem to have some common charactistics of fims at festivals.
The only line of dialog I did not like too much was towards the end. It was"everything is going to be alright." It seemed like something out of a bad horror movie right before someone gets killed.
Im rating this movie as a C-. If I were recomending it to me I would say to me skip it. But I could see this movie being on top ten lists of critcs. It may be worth your time even thought I did not like it that much.
The plot is after being left in the desert a boy is intergrated into a "family" of two other kids left behind by society. They have to survive by any means necessary which elevates to a breaking point.
The opening was nice wat to visually start a movie. It did take too long to get started. They could of cut some and added more detail or make fewer cuts later in the film. The movie maintains a level just below a point where I would say was good. It was consistant but just did not get to a point where it was good.
The charactrer of Jack is hard for me to get to a point of liking or even relating to. The way he is is beleivable and he did a good job but totally unsympathetic to me. I think that is why I have some reservations about the movie but I can understand why he was written that way.
I could not make out the festivals at the top of the DVD cover. But this movie seems to be just the kind of film that would do well at places like Sundance or Toranto. I dont know if I would say its formulaic but it does seem to have some common charactistics of fims at festivals.
The only line of dialog I did not like too much was towards the end. It was"everything is going to be alright." It seemed like something out of a bad horror movie right before someone gets killed.
Im rating this movie as a C-. If I were recomending it to me I would say to me skip it. But I could see this movie being on top ten lists of critcs. It may be worth your time even thought I did not like it that much.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
I'm Reed Fish (2007 PG 13)
The movie stars Jay Baruchel (The Sorcerer's Apprentice, Tropic Thunder), Alexis Bledel (Gilmore Girls tv, The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants), Schuyler Fisk (Snow Day, Orange County), Katey Segal (Married with Children tv, Jack and the Beanstalk), and Victor Rasuk (Stop Loss, The War Brothers).
The plot of the movie is Barchel is a big fish in a small town. He hosts a popular small town radio show, hes ingaged and well respected. His high school comes back into town and life takes a turn to the chaotic. (I did not realize untill the end that they are filming a movie inside the movie (might make the end of the movie a little easier to follow.)
I think this is a comming of age movie and what people want out of life. There is also a scene about trying to live up to other peoples expecations. The point live up to your own expecations it makes life a lot easier.
The opening shots of the house and the music start the movie off very well. If you do not like the movie with in the first 3 to 5 minutes dont watch the rest of the movie,. It stays true to that form through out. If you like the first few minutes you are in for a treat.
The seat belted dog (in the frount seat) was funny. You get a real sence of a small town it adds a lot to the feel of the moive. The zorse, half zebra half horse, scene was nice I had no idea there was such a thing. The awarkard scenes of people havng a two minute conversation after not seeing each other for a few years rings true. Who has not had some of those conversations?
The weird fact of the day is also a theme that works for me. I would like to hear the back story about the bras at the bar durring the talent night? On the assumption that there was some truth in this movie i would like to see if this was based on a real thing. I assumed they had a singing double but it was a nice song nice voice.
The wedding that does take place seems to be polar opposites, based on looks, but they seem to be a good fit on personality.
I'm rating the moive as a B. I think it is worth seeing. That being said I do think you should bail on it if you dont like the first few minutes. If you liked this you may like Small Town Saturday Night (with Chris Pine). Kind of the same movie but I think both are good.
The plot of the movie is Barchel is a big fish in a small town. He hosts a popular small town radio show, hes ingaged and well respected. His high school comes back into town and life takes a turn to the chaotic. (I did not realize untill the end that they are filming a movie inside the movie (might make the end of the movie a little easier to follow.)
I think this is a comming of age movie and what people want out of life. There is also a scene about trying to live up to other peoples expecations. The point live up to your own expecations it makes life a lot easier.
The opening shots of the house and the music start the movie off very well. If you do not like the movie with in the first 3 to 5 minutes dont watch the rest of the movie,. It stays true to that form through out. If you like the first few minutes you are in for a treat.
The seat belted dog (in the frount seat) was funny. You get a real sence of a small town it adds a lot to the feel of the moive. The zorse, half zebra half horse, scene was nice I had no idea there was such a thing. The awarkard scenes of people havng a two minute conversation after not seeing each other for a few years rings true. Who has not had some of those conversations?
The weird fact of the day is also a theme that works for me. I would like to hear the back story about the bras at the bar durring the talent night? On the assumption that there was some truth in this movie i would like to see if this was based on a real thing. I assumed they had a singing double but it was a nice song nice voice.
The wedding that does take place seems to be polar opposites, based on looks, but they seem to be a good fit on personality.
I'm rating the moive as a B. I think it is worth seeing. That being said I do think you should bail on it if you dont like the first few minutes. If you liked this you may like Small Town Saturday Night (with Chris Pine). Kind of the same movie but I think both are good.
X-Men First Class (2011 PG13)
The movie stars James McAvoy (Wanted, The Lion The Witch and The Wardrobe), Michael Fassbender (Inglorius Basterds, Hunger), Jennifer Lawrence (The Beaver, The Poker House), Rose Byrne (Adam, Sunshine), January Jones (We are Marshall. Pirate Radio), Jason Flemyng (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, From Hell), Kevin Bacon (Mystic River, Hollow Man), and Zoe Kravitz (Its Kind of a Funny Story, The Brave One), Hugh Jackman (great one scene cameo), and Michael Ironside (why did he go by M. anybody know?)
The plot of the movie is the early years of the XMen. Its a prequel that starts when some chaeracters are kids. What brings them together and then what drives them into the two camps that was important in the other XMen movies.
The starting scenes of the movie get them off to a good start. They are good scenes in the concentration camp. The scene in Bacons office with Fassbender are chilling. Showing the other half of the office with the knives was a smart move and I think captures the depravity of the Nazis. The contrast of the early lives of McAvoy and Fassbender is well done. To me it shows the importance of the Nature vs Nurture debate. Its how to make a psycopath or someone who cares for people. One is consumed by hate and revenge the other is consumes with faith in others and wanting to help others.
The operating room was a very nice visual. Very antiseptic, it draws my eye to the secne.
I thought the recruitment scenes were very funny. I thought it was well done with the best one, one that fails, is the one line by Jackman.
To me this is a Sci Fi that is really social commentary at its best. It makes it clear what mans inhumanity towards each other can have on an individual, the concentration camps. I think there may be some of "the road to hell is paved with good intentions", or it may be "no good deed goes unpunished". There is also a part that says that people dont react well to those are diffrent from "us" weather color or abilities. Its in our nature to hate those who are dffrent but hopefully in real life it dissipates some (with the intigration of the army and gay marriage). There will always be people who likes the statis quo and those for who change cant come soon enough.
There were a few scenes where the computer generation was just not good at all. One of the scenes was when Mystic was shape shifting in the bed room, the outline of her body was just totally bad. The scene with the sub landing on the beach left a lot to be desired also. I expected more out of a main stream movie.
Towards the end of the movie they may want to say that revenge can turn you into what you hate. I may be reading it wrong. It may be the past inhumanity towards Fassbender is really what it may be about. The guilt and crulity of his mothers murder may be just too much to over come when it happens to someone so young.
Im rating this movie as a B-. The first half of the movie was better for me then the second half. The first half deals with the formation and background. While I think the second half is more action packed. Its just a personal preference.
The plot of the movie is the early years of the XMen. Its a prequel that starts when some chaeracters are kids. What brings them together and then what drives them into the two camps that was important in the other XMen movies.
The starting scenes of the movie get them off to a good start. They are good scenes in the concentration camp. The scene in Bacons office with Fassbender are chilling. Showing the other half of the office with the knives was a smart move and I think captures the depravity of the Nazis. The contrast of the early lives of McAvoy and Fassbender is well done. To me it shows the importance of the Nature vs Nurture debate. Its how to make a psycopath or someone who cares for people. One is consumed by hate and revenge the other is consumes with faith in others and wanting to help others.
The operating room was a very nice visual. Very antiseptic, it draws my eye to the secne.
I thought the recruitment scenes were very funny. I thought it was well done with the best one, one that fails, is the one line by Jackman.
To me this is a Sci Fi that is really social commentary at its best. It makes it clear what mans inhumanity towards each other can have on an individual, the concentration camps. I think there may be some of "the road to hell is paved with good intentions", or it may be "no good deed goes unpunished". There is also a part that says that people dont react well to those are diffrent from "us" weather color or abilities. Its in our nature to hate those who are dffrent but hopefully in real life it dissipates some (with the intigration of the army and gay marriage). There will always be people who likes the statis quo and those for who change cant come soon enough.
There were a few scenes where the computer generation was just not good at all. One of the scenes was when Mystic was shape shifting in the bed room, the outline of her body was just totally bad. The scene with the sub landing on the beach left a lot to be desired also. I expected more out of a main stream movie.
Towards the end of the movie they may want to say that revenge can turn you into what you hate. I may be reading it wrong. It may be the past inhumanity towards Fassbender is really what it may be about. The guilt and crulity of his mothers murder may be just too much to over come when it happens to someone so young.
Im rating this movie as a B-. The first half of the movie was better for me then the second half. The first half deals with the formation and background. While I think the second half is more action packed. Its just a personal preference.
Black Irish (2006 R)
The movie stars Michael Angarano (Red State,Snow Angeles), Brendan Gleeson (Harry Potter part 5 and 7 part 1, The Tigers Tail), Tom Guiry (Black Hawk Down, Wrestling with Alligators), Melissa Leo (The Fighter, Don McKay), Emily Yan Camp (Brothers and Sisters tv, Carriers) and Michael Rispoli (To Did For, The Third Miracle).
The plot of the movie revolves around Angarano and his disfunctional family. It shows the gritty life of the family.
There was a scene at the start of the film that looked too staged. It was a robbery and it looked like be here then than do this and was not a good scene. I thought the sheets onAngarano's bed were a little too immature. I guess it could show that he is just a kidd, 15 years old, but I thought it did not fit the grittiness of the character. The tone of the movie is misrable unhappy people. The sheets did not seem to fit the tone of the movie.
There was a nice awarkard scene when Angarano and Gleeson. It was a talk about sex and was funny in that you could see conservations about sex going like that. That scene was an exception. The movie takes you up to an emotional point then pulls back and you feel disapointed and like it did not get to the point of real emotion.
This family comes across as people who really dont like each other. all seem to be bitter and mad at each other. They seem mean and distant and provide no emotional help for anybody. There was a funny scene Angarano has on a first date that I think people can relate to. It was a really bad first, and only date (it involves a family pet).
Leo has a monologue that I did not get the scence of any truth in it. There are also a few scenes that they used a shakey camera. It was distractin to me so I dont think the chaos came through.
There are a lot of family secrets and no real communication. Its a dark movie with decent acting. My problem is I found it hard to like any of the characters. I would of liked the movie more if I could have any sympathy for the characters.
Im ratking the movie as a C- and would say skip it. Some people may find something to like about this family or characters but for me I could not like anything about these people.
The plot of the movie revolves around Angarano and his disfunctional family. It shows the gritty life of the family.
There was a scene at the start of the film that looked too staged. It was a robbery and it looked like be here then than do this and was not a good scene. I thought the sheets onAngarano's bed were a little too immature. I guess it could show that he is just a kidd, 15 years old, but I thought it did not fit the grittiness of the character. The tone of the movie is misrable unhappy people. The sheets did not seem to fit the tone of the movie.
There was a nice awarkard scene when Angarano and Gleeson. It was a talk about sex and was funny in that you could see conservations about sex going like that. That scene was an exception. The movie takes you up to an emotional point then pulls back and you feel disapointed and like it did not get to the point of real emotion.
This family comes across as people who really dont like each other. all seem to be bitter and mad at each other. They seem mean and distant and provide no emotional help for anybody. There was a funny scene Angarano has on a first date that I think people can relate to. It was a really bad first, and only date (it involves a family pet).
Leo has a monologue that I did not get the scence of any truth in it. There are also a few scenes that they used a shakey camera. It was distractin to me so I dont think the chaos came through.
There are a lot of family secrets and no real communication. Its a dark movie with decent acting. My problem is I found it hard to like any of the characters. I would of liked the movie more if I could have any sympathy for the characters.
Im ratking the movie as a C- and would say skip it. Some people may find something to like about this family or characters but for me I could not like anything about these people.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
500 Days of Summer (2009 PG13)
The movie stars Joseph Gordon-Levitt (3rd Rock from the Sun tv, Inception), Zoey Deschanel (Gigantic, The Happening), Clark Gregg (Iron Man, In Good Company), Minka Kelly (The Roomate, Just Go with It), Mathew Gray Gubler (How to Be a Serial Killer, All Star Superman), Rachel Boston (Fitty Pills), Geoffrey Arend (Devil, Super Trouper), and Chloe Moretz (Kick Ass, The Poker House).
The plot of the movie is about the 500 days of Levitt dating Deschanel (Summer). The good times and the bad times.
The narrator of the movie was cast well. His voice was a big plus to the movie. The start of the movie was very good. It got me interisted from the start, good music and the narrator was very good.
The movie was good on the whole but Summer said she was not interisted in a relationship. It was obvious what she wanted and he was blind to it. The dance scene was nice visually. The girl they got to play Levitts little sister was well cast. Her dialog could of been appriote for an adult but it worked for me. She was delt with like she was closer to Levitts age.
I think there is a plot line about expectations can cloud your judgement in relationships. You can miss the signs. With love you can put blinders on. I think there are spots where this movie drags a little but at times it is really good.
Im rating this movie as a B-. The start and end of the movie are really good. There are times when it drags. The soundtrack is good. Over all a movie worth seeing but has some gaps and drags in places.
The plot of the movie is about the 500 days of Levitt dating Deschanel (Summer). The good times and the bad times.
The narrator of the movie was cast well. His voice was a big plus to the movie. The start of the movie was very good. It got me interisted from the start, good music and the narrator was very good.
The movie was good on the whole but Summer said she was not interisted in a relationship. It was obvious what she wanted and he was blind to it. The dance scene was nice visually. The girl they got to play Levitts little sister was well cast. Her dialog could of been appriote for an adult but it worked for me. She was delt with like she was closer to Levitts age.
I think there is a plot line about expectations can cloud your judgement in relationships. You can miss the signs. With love you can put blinders on. I think there are spots where this movie drags a little but at times it is really good.
Im rating this movie as a B-. The start and end of the movie are really good. There are times when it drags. The soundtrack is good. Over all a movie worth seeing but has some gaps and drags in places.
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Nosferatu (1929 NR) the origional version
The movie stars Max Schreck, Gustav von Wangenheim, Greta Schroder, Alexander Granach, Georg H. Schnell.
The plot follows Bram Stokers Dracula pretty faithfully. The names are diffrent but the plot follows pretty closly.
The music seems pretty much out of step with the movie. Most of the scratchy film quality is understandable for the age of the film. Some scenes were blue. I dont know if this was meant to imply night or just part of the age of the film stock they had.
I think the biggest problem for this movie is this is a complex idea to try and get across in a silent film. The General was a much more basic and easy to understand silent film. There are just too many complex ideas to get across without dialog for me.
Im rating this movie as a C- or D. I think its considered a classic but for me it just did not get any where near the point to consider it a classic.
The plot follows Bram Stokers Dracula pretty faithfully. The names are diffrent but the plot follows pretty closly.
The music seems pretty much out of step with the movie. Most of the scratchy film quality is understandable for the age of the film. Some scenes were blue. I dont know if this was meant to imply night or just part of the age of the film stock they had.
I think the biggest problem for this movie is this is a complex idea to try and get across in a silent film. The General was a much more basic and easy to understand silent film. There are just too many complex ideas to get across without dialog for me.
Im rating this movie as a C- or D. I think its considered a classic but for me it just did not get any where near the point to consider it a classic.
Trucker (2008 R)
The movie stars Michelle Monaghan (Source Code, Unfaithful), Jimmy Bennett (No Ordinary Family tv, Evan Almighty), Nathan Fillion (Castle tv, Water's Edge), Benjamin Bratt (Traffic, Demolition Man), Joey lauren Adams (Michael, Dazed and Confused), Bryce Johnson (Sleeping Dogs Lie, Man Maid), Matthew Lawrence (Mrs. Doubtfire, The Comeback), and Dennis Hayden (One Man Army).
The plot of the movie is Monaghan's life is interupted by the arrival of her 11 year old son. She is a truck driver and not in a positon to intergrate a son into her life.
I dont think I have much to say about the movie. It is well written and well acted. There is a lot left unsaid and the writer/director found a way to make it work well. The movie is understated and that is fine in this case. The fight scene outside the convience store looked awarkard. It looked like it was blocked and just did not ring true to me.
Another scene that did not work for me ws the scene when Monaghan and Bratt talk about setting the plan 10 years ago. I think all the other scenes monaghan's character comes across as smart except this one. The robbery scene was weird. Was is someone she knew or what.
The good scenes far outnumbered the bad ones. For me Lost in Translation was a movie that did not work being understated. This one did for me.
Im rating this movie as a B and its a solid recomendation for me.
The plot of the movie is Monaghan's life is interupted by the arrival of her 11 year old son. She is a truck driver and not in a positon to intergrate a son into her life.
I dont think I have much to say about the movie. It is well written and well acted. There is a lot left unsaid and the writer/director found a way to make it work well. The movie is understated and that is fine in this case. The fight scene outside the convience store looked awarkard. It looked like it was blocked and just did not ring true to me.
Another scene that did not work for me ws the scene when Monaghan and Bratt talk about setting the plan 10 years ago. I think all the other scenes monaghan's character comes across as smart except this one. The robbery scene was weird. Was is someone she knew or what.
The good scenes far outnumbered the bad ones. For me Lost in Translation was a movie that did not work being understated. This one did for me.
Im rating this movie as a B and its a solid recomendation for me.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Freaks (1932 NR)
The movie stars Wallace Ford (The Rainmaker, A Lawless Street), Leila Hyams (The Big House, The Sins of the Children), Olga Baclanova (The Man Who Laughs, The Docks of New York), Roscoe Ates (Black Hills, Stars Over Texas), Henry Victor (King of the Zombies, The Beloved Rogue), Henry Earles, Daisy Hilton (Chained for Life) and Violet Hilton (Chained for Life).
The movie is set at a circus. The trapeaze artist marries a dwarf to get his money and then poisen him. She then plans to marry the strong man, who tries to rape someone. The trapeaze artist and strong man get what they deserve in the end of the movie. The sideshow performers learn of the plan and get there revenge.
I liked the introduction for the movie it was a paragraph or two long and scrowled on the screen. I have heard about this movie for a few years maybe 10 or 15 years. So going into it I was expecting something a lot more disturbng. It was not as bad as Iexpected. Evidedntly at the time it had to be cut, up to 30 minutes, by the diffrent states to get it to be shown. I never got the idea that the movie was outwardly mean to the freaks. Some characters are mean but it was not vindictive to the freaks
The discomefort that may be caused should be pushed through and peopel should see this movie. The documentary, about an hour, is interistng.
I was reading some reviews on Netflix. I skimmed about 10 pages of them and they were pretty positive. I would expect some of them to go on about the possible explotative nature of the film.
Im rating this movie as a B. Not sure what age group I would say this is for but as someone with no kids I dont have to figure that out.
The movie is set at a circus. The trapeaze artist marries a dwarf to get his money and then poisen him. She then plans to marry the strong man, who tries to rape someone. The trapeaze artist and strong man get what they deserve in the end of the movie. The sideshow performers learn of the plan and get there revenge.
I liked the introduction for the movie it was a paragraph or two long and scrowled on the screen. I have heard about this movie for a few years maybe 10 or 15 years. So going into it I was expecting something a lot more disturbng. It was not as bad as Iexpected. Evidedntly at the time it had to be cut, up to 30 minutes, by the diffrent states to get it to be shown. I never got the idea that the movie was outwardly mean to the freaks. Some characters are mean but it was not vindictive to the freaks
The discomefort that may be caused should be pushed through and peopel should see this movie. The documentary, about an hour, is interistng.
I was reading some reviews on Netflix. I skimmed about 10 pages of them and they were pretty positive. I would expect some of them to go on about the possible explotative nature of the film.
Im rating this movie as a B. Not sure what age group I would say this is for but as someone with no kids I dont have to figure that out.
Super 8 (2011 PG 13)
The movie stars Joel Courtney, Kyle Chandler (King Kong 2005, The Day the Earth Stood Still 2008), Elle Fanning (The Curious Case of Benjamin Buttons, I Am Sam), Amanda Michalka (The Lovely Bones, The Guardian), Jessica Tuck (Secretary, Life Pod), Joel McKinnon Miller (Friday After Next, Gone But Not Forgotten), Ryan Lee (Super Brawl), Zach Mills (Mr. Mangorium's Wonder Emporium, Steam), and Gabriel Basso (Alabama Moon).
The plot is six kids, while making a super 8 movie, witness and film a train wreck. The train has an army alien captave (I dont think Im letting any cat out of the bag.)
This movie works for me. It goes inbetween kids being friends and the secondary (at least for me its secondary)plot line of trying to figure whats loose, what to do about it and stay alive.
The six kids all did a pretty good job on the whole. Fanning and Courtney (I am assuming thats the makeup artist/ Deputys son) both did a very good job. The kid with braces had a few good lines. And the kid director (what JJ was like when he was a kid?) was good also.
I thought there were some broad simularities with Super 8 and It and Stand By Me (based on the short story The Body). It for kids battling a supernatural foe and Stand By Me with the bond between kids of a particular age. All are good examples of what good child actors can do when given good material or directors to work with.
I thought the movie was strongest when focusing on the kids and a little less good when the alien was the focus of the movie. It may be because both JJ and Spielberg (a producer or an exec. producer I think) both were doing movies when they were kids. And they are both pretty good at this movie thing.
The alien was pretty good visually. To me it was not seen too much but that worked. It left some to the imagination but when you do see its face its pretty cool.
Im rating the movie as a solid B. The grade is baed on the performances of the kids. It is a sci fi sort of thing but its not what is good about this movie.
The plot is six kids, while making a super 8 movie, witness and film a train wreck. The train has an army alien captave (I dont think Im letting any cat out of the bag.)
This movie works for me. It goes inbetween kids being friends and the secondary (at least for me its secondary)plot line of trying to figure whats loose, what to do about it and stay alive.
The six kids all did a pretty good job on the whole. Fanning and Courtney (I am assuming thats the makeup artist/ Deputys son) both did a very good job. The kid with braces had a few good lines. And the kid director (what JJ was like when he was a kid?) was good also.
I thought there were some broad simularities with Super 8 and It and Stand By Me (based on the short story The Body). It for kids battling a supernatural foe and Stand By Me with the bond between kids of a particular age. All are good examples of what good child actors can do when given good material or directors to work with.
I thought the movie was strongest when focusing on the kids and a little less good when the alien was the focus of the movie. It may be because both JJ and Spielberg (a producer or an exec. producer I think) both were doing movies when they were kids. And they are both pretty good at this movie thing.
The alien was pretty good visually. To me it was not seen too much but that worked. It left some to the imagination but when you do see its face its pretty cool.
Im rating the movie as a solid B. The grade is baed on the performances of the kids. It is a sci fi sort of thing but its not what is good about this movie.
The Thing (1982 R)
The movie stars Kurt Russell (3000 Miles to Graceland, Stargate), Richard A Dysart (LA Law tv, Truman), Richard Masur (Palindromes, Forget Paris), Wilford Brimley (Last of the Dogmen, The Natural), and Keith David (They Live, Armageddon).
The plot is a research lab in Antarctica is forced to defend itself from a dog infected by an alien infested dog. Teh alien jumps from host to host and attempts to copy the host.
I think the most impressive thing about the movie is the cast. Most of the cast, even though pretty small cast, has been in other things I have seen or heard about. The computer chess program in the beginning certainly dates the movie.
For some of the movie it left things, like the look of the alien, to the imagination and it was a good way to go. I guess a lot of movies do that. Leaving things to the imagination is a good thing.
This seems like a B movie. I think it started off well but lost steam towards the end. When we saw what the alien looks like I think it took away something from the movie. It may be me but it seems a lot like Alien just set on Earth not in space.
Im rating this as a week C+. The movie starts off good then fades towards the end. If B movies are your thing watch it if not go ahead and just pass on it.
The plot is a research lab in Antarctica is forced to defend itself from a dog infected by an alien infested dog. Teh alien jumps from host to host and attempts to copy the host.
I think the most impressive thing about the movie is the cast. Most of the cast, even though pretty small cast, has been in other things I have seen or heard about. The computer chess program in the beginning certainly dates the movie.
For some of the movie it left things, like the look of the alien, to the imagination and it was a good way to go. I guess a lot of movies do that. Leaving things to the imagination is a good thing.
This seems like a B movie. I think it started off well but lost steam towards the end. When we saw what the alien looks like I think it took away something from the movie. It may be me but it seems a lot like Alien just set on Earth not in space.
Im rating this as a week C+. The movie starts off good then fades towards the end. If B movies are your thing watch it if not go ahead and just pass on it.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Rope (1948 PG)
The movie stars James Stewart (Rear Window, Flight of the Pheonix), John Dell (Gun Crazy, The Man Who Created Himself), Farley Granger (Edge of Doom, The Purple Heart), and Constance Colier (The Girl from Manhattan, Stage Door).
The plot, base on a real life crime, is about two school friends who kill a friend then host a party to see if they can get away with it. At the party is a former teacher, Stewart, of the two students, Dell and Granger.
I liked the color design of the house. The contrast of the personalities of the two friends was nice. For a short movie I thought the time between the killing and when the party started was a bit too long. The movie was about 80 minutes so I thought it needed to get to the party sooner.
Im rating this movie as a C. I can take it or leave it. If you are a big Hitchcock or Stewart go for it but for me I would probally say pass.
The plot, base on a real life crime, is about two school friends who kill a friend then host a party to see if they can get away with it. At the party is a former teacher, Stewart, of the two students, Dell and Granger.
I liked the color design of the house. The contrast of the personalities of the two friends was nice. For a short movie I thought the time between the killing and when the party started was a bit too long. The movie was about 80 minutes so I thought it needed to get to the party sooner.
Im rating this movie as a C. I can take it or leave it. If you are a big Hitchcock or Stewart go for it but for me I would probally say pass.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Creation (2009 PG13)
The movie stars Paul Bettany (Margin Call, Iron Man 2), Jennifer Connelly (Labyrinth, House of Sand and Fog), Jeremy Northam (Gosforth Park, Enigma). Toby Jones (What's Wrong with Virginia, Frost/Nixon), and Jim Carter (The Madness of King George, Blame it on the Bellboy).
The plot revolves around Charles Dawin after he and his religous wife loose a daughter and he strugles to write The Origion of Species.
The acting is good all around in this BBC production. Beattany and Connelly do very well. The girl who play the daughter that dies does a very good job also. She has some adult like scenes with Beattany espically.
The time laspe scene of the decaying animal was done well also. The stress in Darwins life comes through in Bettamys performance. Its unclear to me if the stress is from his daughter or not being able to finish his book but that ambiguity is not a distraction for me.
There is a great scene when the surviving children and Bettany where they ask for a real story and the scene plays very well. I thought it was a great leap of faith for Darwin to send his only copy (I assume only copy) with the mail to the publisher. But what option did they have at the time.
Im rating this movie as a B+. It is worth the time to stream.
The plot revolves around Charles Dawin after he and his religous wife loose a daughter and he strugles to write The Origion of Species.
The acting is good all around in this BBC production. Beattany and Connelly do very well. The girl who play the daughter that dies does a very good job also. She has some adult like scenes with Beattany espically.
The time laspe scene of the decaying animal was done well also. The stress in Darwins life comes through in Bettamys performance. Its unclear to me if the stress is from his daughter or not being able to finish his book but that ambiguity is not a distraction for me.
There is a great scene when the surviving children and Bettany where they ask for a real story and the scene plays very well. I thought it was a great leap of faith for Darwin to send his only copy (I assume only copy) with the mail to the publisher. But what option did they have at the time.
Im rating this movie as a B+. It is worth the time to stream.
To Be or Not to Be (1942 NR)
The movie stars Carole Lombard (My Man Godfrey, Nothing Sacred), Jack Benny (Without Reservations, Its in the Bag), Robert Stack (Airplane, Written on the Wind), Felix Bresssart (The Shop Around the Corner, Portrait of Jennie), Lionel Atwill (House of Frankstein, Dead End Kids) and Charles Halton (Enemy of Women, Golden Boy).
The plot of the movie is a troupe of Polish actors led by Benny, help and American soldier ane the Resistance. There is a complication when Lombard, Bennys wife and fellow actor, has feelings for the soldier Stack.
I have mentioned before that it seems to me that actors of the time seem to over act and over dramitize things. When dealing with war and genoside I think movies have to be careful about dealing with the subject matter. For me the movie did not get to to a point of clarity of purpose. Im not sure there views came through.
There was a scene where Stack came across as a stalker. I guess its a sign of the times where then a stalker could be a hero of the movie now it would be a sign of mental instability. Bennys character came across as self obsessed and unlikeable. If kevin Costner can get bad reviews for his English accent for Robin Hood, then this moive is on a whole new level. These people are suspole to play people from Poland and they all spoke with perfect American accents or is it just me.
There are somethings that dont translate from one decade to another. This movie came out almost 70 years ago and what people knew about the Nazis is dramaticly diffrent from what we know today (seems logical right). Also this is suspose to be entertainment. I think there are lines that may be lost to current people. There was a scene where Hitler (or a Hitler imposter) jummping from a plane. Then a farmer has a line about first we got Ness now Hitler. The referance was lost on me.
Im rating the movie as a C-. Just go ahead and skip it.
The plot of the movie is a troupe of Polish actors led by Benny, help and American soldier ane the Resistance. There is a complication when Lombard, Bennys wife and fellow actor, has feelings for the soldier Stack.
I have mentioned before that it seems to me that actors of the time seem to over act and over dramitize things. When dealing with war and genoside I think movies have to be careful about dealing with the subject matter. For me the movie did not get to to a point of clarity of purpose. Im not sure there views came through.
There was a scene where Stack came across as a stalker. I guess its a sign of the times where then a stalker could be a hero of the movie now it would be a sign of mental instability. Bennys character came across as self obsessed and unlikeable. If kevin Costner can get bad reviews for his English accent for Robin Hood, then this moive is on a whole new level. These people are suspole to play people from Poland and they all spoke with perfect American accents or is it just me.
There are somethings that dont translate from one decade to another. This movie came out almost 70 years ago and what people knew about the Nazis is dramaticly diffrent from what we know today (seems logical right). Also this is suspose to be entertainment. I think there are lines that may be lost to current people. There was a scene where Hitler (or a Hitler imposter) jummping from a plane. Then a farmer has a line about first we got Ness now Hitler. The referance was lost on me.
Im rating the movie as a C-. Just go ahead and skip it.
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Fitzcarraldo (1982 PG)
The movie stars klaus Kinski (Slaughter Hotel, Count Dracula), and Claudia Cardinale (Circus World, The Salamander).
The plot is about a mans desire to make money in order to persue his passion. To open an Opera house.
For a two and a half hour movie Im strugling to get started on the review. The plot line on Netflix states Kinskis chaeracter is a rubber barron. I did not pick up on that. He has done a few things before the rubber job. Im not convinced he has really succeded at anythng he has tried.
I think the best parts of the movie is the music selection that they play when showing the scenery. That part of the review was right on. The beauty of the country side is awe inspiring. I could of seen alot more in the movie and been satisfied with it.
The look of Kinski character is nice. The hair and raggety look of his hair adds a lot of understanding to the character. I also like the fact that he is in the country side and he is in a white suit. The white suit looks like something totally wrong for the envirment but adds to the crazyness of the chaeracter.
When they get the boat to the other river it is a nice statement to always have hope. It may also be something akin to "If Mohamed cant come to the mountain..."
I am trying to decide if the ending is happy and I think it is. The statement being if you dont succede then maybe scale back the plan but dont let failure get the better of you.
Im rating this as a bairly a C+. The scenes of the environment, getting over to the other river and the ending I say go and stream it. The two and a half hour running time is a drawback. There was just enough for me to say see it but just bairly.
The plot is about a mans desire to make money in order to persue his passion. To open an Opera house.
For a two and a half hour movie Im strugling to get started on the review. The plot line on Netflix states Kinskis chaeracter is a rubber barron. I did not pick up on that. He has done a few things before the rubber job. Im not convinced he has really succeded at anythng he has tried.
I think the best parts of the movie is the music selection that they play when showing the scenery. That part of the review was right on. The beauty of the country side is awe inspiring. I could of seen alot more in the movie and been satisfied with it.
The look of Kinski character is nice. The hair and raggety look of his hair adds a lot of understanding to the character. I also like the fact that he is in the country side and he is in a white suit. The white suit looks like something totally wrong for the envirment but adds to the crazyness of the chaeracter.
When they get the boat to the other river it is a nice statement to always have hope. It may also be something akin to "If Mohamed cant come to the mountain..."
I am trying to decide if the ending is happy and I think it is. The statement being if you dont succede then maybe scale back the plan but dont let failure get the better of you.
Im rating this as a bairly a C+. The scenes of the environment, getting over to the other river and the ending I say go and stream it. The two and a half hour running time is a drawback. There was just enough for me to say see it but just bairly.
Nothing Sacred (1937NR)
The movie stars Carole Lombard (To Be or Not to Be, Big News), Fredric March (Alexander the Great, So Ends our Night), Charles Winninger (State Fair, Pot o' Gold), Walter Connolly (The Good Earth, It Happened One Night), and Sig Ruman (Stalag 17, To Be or Not to Be).
The plot of the movie is a newspaper reporter, March, comes to small town Vermont in search of his next big story. A girl, Lombard, dying of radium poisoning. They head back to New York City, fall in love, and try to come up to a solution to the problem that Lombard is not sick.
This movie did not start too well. There were racists overtones and a feeling of the Jim Crow era. The editor comes across as one dimentional. The scenes in Vermont I thought were weird. The people were jaded and so filled of hate and mistrust it did not ring true to me of what small towns were like. I could be wrong but the bitterness of Vermont seemed weird. There was a scene where Lombard and March stopped and had dialog with a branch blocking out there faces. I though that was not good blocking.
I suspose they may of been going as something like a mistaken identy plot or a comedy of errors. For me it was just people only out for themselves and damn everyone else. The last line was so out of place and was totally out of the blue. It seemed that the ran out of film mid sentence and just decided to call it a day.
Im rating this movie as a D. I think the movies that are this old I just dont understand. It may be I just dont understand the diffrent generation of movies. Im not saying they are bad but its like i have nothing in common with the era and just dont understand what they are going for. My advice get a root canal it will bem a less painful event then getting through this movie.
The plot of the movie is a newspaper reporter, March, comes to small town Vermont in search of his next big story. A girl, Lombard, dying of radium poisoning. They head back to New York City, fall in love, and try to come up to a solution to the problem that Lombard is not sick.
This movie did not start too well. There were racists overtones and a feeling of the Jim Crow era. The editor comes across as one dimentional. The scenes in Vermont I thought were weird. The people were jaded and so filled of hate and mistrust it did not ring true to me of what small towns were like. I could be wrong but the bitterness of Vermont seemed weird. There was a scene where Lombard and March stopped and had dialog with a branch blocking out there faces. I though that was not good blocking.
I suspose they may of been going as something like a mistaken identy plot or a comedy of errors. For me it was just people only out for themselves and damn everyone else. The last line was so out of place and was totally out of the blue. It seemed that the ran out of film mid sentence and just decided to call it a day.
Im rating this movie as a D. I think the movies that are this old I just dont understand. It may be I just dont understand the diffrent generation of movies. Im not saying they are bad but its like i have nothing in common with the era and just dont understand what they are going for. My advice get a root canal it will bem a less painful event then getting through this movie.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Cleopatra (1934 NR)
The movie stars Claudette Colbert (Parrish, Three Came Home), Warren William (Arizona, The Wolf Man), Henry Wilcoxon (Caddyshack, The Greatest Show on Earth), Joseph Schildkraut (The Greatest Story Ever Told, Mr. Moto Takes a Vacation), and Ian Keith (It Came from Beneath the Sea, Idenity Unknown).
The plot follows Cleopatra, Mark Anthony, and Julius Caesar. It centers on Cleopatra trying to do whats best for Egypt.
I though the Williams Caesar wsa a little over the top acting. I think it may be more a sign of the times he acted in. There was a scend with trumpets that made t seem obvious that they were on a sound stage, not a good thing.
It seemed to me to be more "racy" then I expectd. It was shot pre sensorship. There was something called the Hayes Code that was around from around 1930 (might be 1934) to 1968. It was guidelines for most major studios. I thought if the Code was in effect it would have problems with the costumes.
I thought the stock footage for the big battle scenes were interisting. It came across as it came from several other movies and several degrees of quality.
I was not too impressed with the movie. It just did not do much for me. I am mostly feeling indiffrent. I rate the movie as a C. If you like old movies stream it but otherwise I say pass on it.
The plot follows Cleopatra, Mark Anthony, and Julius Caesar. It centers on Cleopatra trying to do whats best for Egypt.
I though the Williams Caesar wsa a little over the top acting. I think it may be more a sign of the times he acted in. There was a scend with trumpets that made t seem obvious that they were on a sound stage, not a good thing.
It seemed to me to be more "racy" then I expectd. It was shot pre sensorship. There was something called the Hayes Code that was around from around 1930 (might be 1934) to 1968. It was guidelines for most major studios. I thought if the Code was in effect it would have problems with the costumes.
I thought the stock footage for the big battle scenes were interisting. It came across as it came from several other movies and several degrees of quality.
I was not too impressed with the movie. It just did not do much for me. I am mostly feeling indiffrent. I rate the movie as a C. If you like old movies stream it but otherwise I say pass on it.
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Midnight in Paris (2011 PG 13)
The movie stars Owen Wilson (The Royal Tennenbaums, Armageddon), Rachel McAdams (Red Eye, Mean Girls), Michael Sheen (Frost/Nixon, Music Within), Adrien Brody (Splice, The Village), Kathy Bates (Misery, Rumor Has It), and Kurt Fuller ( Angels in the Infield, Miracle Mile).
The plot is while Wilson is in Paris he time travels back to 1920's Paris. He splits his time between the present and past.
First off the first 3 to 5 minutes of the movie is quiet possibly the worst start of a movie I have seen for a while. The movie is directed by Woody Allen. My message to Mr Allen would be if you have worked with an editor for a while you should fire him or her or take away any decission making authority that person has. There were no credits or anything of value at all.
The other problem I had with the moive is the charctersz in the present day. The know it all with the beard not only made me want to walk out of the theater it also made me want to poke my eyes out and my ears out also. He was that annoying. I say that knowing it is not a good thing to even slightly come across of making fun of people who cant see or hear. McAdams character, and her mom and dad in the movie, are only slightly better. I thought the degree of meaness of those characters was appaling. Now I know why I dont go and see that many Allen films. I rate the modern scenes as a D (they got a little better towards the end).
Now for the good part of the film. Im not a big Wilson. He was great in this movie. Let me restate. He was really great. I thought he carried the film very well. He was good in the current scenes and he was good in the 20's time frame. I thought the historical figures were great. I wish the film was set all in the 20's.
The only problem there may be with the 20's scene is it may take a lot of Suspension of Disbelief. It may be a little too much to take that Wilsons character would meet that many famous people. Some people may not be able to get over the disblief.
Im rating the time in the 20's as a B+. Im rating the over all movie as a B-. For me its worth going to see even having to suffer through the times in current Paris.
The plot is while Wilson is in Paris he time travels back to 1920's Paris. He splits his time between the present and past.
First off the first 3 to 5 minutes of the movie is quiet possibly the worst start of a movie I have seen for a while. The movie is directed by Woody Allen. My message to Mr Allen would be if you have worked with an editor for a while you should fire him or her or take away any decission making authority that person has. There were no credits or anything of value at all.
The other problem I had with the moive is the charctersz in the present day. The know it all with the beard not only made me want to walk out of the theater it also made me want to poke my eyes out and my ears out also. He was that annoying. I say that knowing it is not a good thing to even slightly come across of making fun of people who cant see or hear. McAdams character, and her mom and dad in the movie, are only slightly better. I thought the degree of meaness of those characters was appaling. Now I know why I dont go and see that many Allen films. I rate the modern scenes as a D (they got a little better towards the end).
Now for the good part of the film. Im not a big Wilson. He was great in this movie. Let me restate. He was really great. I thought he carried the film very well. He was good in the current scenes and he was good in the 20's time frame. I thought the historical figures were great. I wish the film was set all in the 20's.
The only problem there may be with the 20's scene is it may take a lot of Suspension of Disbelief. It may be a little too much to take that Wilsons character would meet that many famous people. Some people may not be able to get over the disblief.
Im rating the time in the 20's as a B+. Im rating the over all movie as a B-. For me its worth going to see even having to suffer through the times in current Paris.
The General (1926 or 1927 NR)
The movie stars Buster Keaton (The Navigator, Three Ages), Marion Mack, Glen Cavender (The Nevada Buckaroo, The Cook and Other Treasures), Frederick Vroom (The Navigator), and Frank Barnes.
The plot is Keaton having been rejected by the Confederate army goes on a one man raid to get his train back, prove his worthyness to his girlfriend and rescue her from the Confederate army.
I read a few reviews on Netflix. I seem like Im the only one that likes the music in this film. I think it was done maybe in the 90's (not origional at least). I thought the music was good but I was the only one.
I think this movie is perfect for the silent movie age. Its plot, unlike Metropolis, is suited for silent films. Metropolis is an idea movie that needes more "lines". This movie is an action film that I think can go up aganst any movie from today and totally hold its own. There is no question that this movie deserves to be on any top movie list.
It may of been one of the most expensive movies to make at the time. It may not of been well received, like Its a Wonderful Life, but its worthy of people seeing.
Im rating this movie as a solid B. I lost focus towards the end, maybe because Im tired but is close to an A.
The plot is Keaton having been rejected by the Confederate army goes on a one man raid to get his train back, prove his worthyness to his girlfriend and rescue her from the Confederate army.
I read a few reviews on Netflix. I seem like Im the only one that likes the music in this film. I think it was done maybe in the 90's (not origional at least). I thought the music was good but I was the only one.
I think this movie is perfect for the silent movie age. Its plot, unlike Metropolis, is suited for silent films. Metropolis is an idea movie that needes more "lines". This movie is an action film that I think can go up aganst any movie from today and totally hold its own. There is no question that this movie deserves to be on any top movie list.
It may of been one of the most expensive movies to make at the time. It may not of been well received, like Its a Wonderful Life, but its worthy of people seeing.
Im rating this movie as a solid B. I lost focus towards the end, maybe because Im tired but is close to an A.
Saturday, June 4, 2011
The Odd Couple (1968 G)
The movie stars Jack Lemmon (Tuesdays With Morrie, Glengarry Glen Ross), Walter Matthau (I'm Not Rappaport, The Taking of Pelham One Two Three 1974), John Fielder (Winnie the Pooh,Seize the Day), Herb Edelman (A Cry for Love, The Way We Were), David Sheiner (Blut Thunder, Gideons Trumpet), Larry Haines, Carole Shelley (The Supper, The Woopee Boys), and Iris Adrian (The Apple Dumpling Gang, The Fast and the Furious 1955).
The plot is neat freak Lemmon gets kicked out by his wife and after an aborted suicide attempt he moves in with his best friend and slob Matthau.
At the start of the movie the music and Time Square seem so dated. The first 30 minutes of the movie are drawn out and almost wanted me to give up on this movie. Please dont give up on the movie. The friends at the poker game seem to really get after each other.
Matthau dalog about living life was well written. Maybe its because it comes from an unexpected source. He seems child like and not really an adult but has some insights on living life after a divorce.
One of the best scenes is the one with out dialogue. Its good because it goes on for so long and comes across as interistng. The climax also works well. Its good because what they say to each other is unexpected, Lemmon for being positive and Matthau because he does not respond in kind.
Im rating this movie as a C+ or B-. Like I said make it through the first 30 minutes and the rest should be good.
The plot is neat freak Lemmon gets kicked out by his wife and after an aborted suicide attempt he moves in with his best friend and slob Matthau.
At the start of the movie the music and Time Square seem so dated. The first 30 minutes of the movie are drawn out and almost wanted me to give up on this movie. Please dont give up on the movie. The friends at the poker game seem to really get after each other.
Matthau dalog about living life was well written. Maybe its because it comes from an unexpected source. He seems child like and not really an adult but has some insights on living life after a divorce.
One of the best scenes is the one with out dialogue. Its good because it goes on for so long and comes across as interistng. The climax also works well. Its good because what they say to each other is unexpected, Lemmon for being positive and Matthau because he does not respond in kind.
Im rating this movie as a C+ or B-. Like I said make it through the first 30 minutes and the rest should be good.
Little Ceaser (1931 NR)
The movie stars Edward G Robinson (Little Giant, Grand Slam), Douglas Fairbanks Jr (Party Girl, Ghost Stroy), Glenda Farrell (Middle of the Night, Lady for a Day), William Colier Jr (Cimarron, Street Scene), and Sidney Blackmer (High Society, Great God Gold).
The plot of the movie is a small time crook moves to the big city with dreams of taking over a big city. His success is short lived when his ex partner gives the cops information that brings down the Capone type ganster.
At first I would of thought that Robinson's accent would be dstracting but it was not. There was a style of delevering the lines very fast and I thought that was a lot more dstracting. The way they did scene changes is a lot diffrent then today. There are "announcements" when the location or scene changes.
I think there are some simulrities between Robinson taking over and how jack Nickelson takes over the in the 1989(?) version of Batman.
People seem to die diffrently in the old movies. When they get shot it seems they cant wait to die, the same way the dialoge is rushed through. It seems I may grade old movies on a scale. Give them more of the benefit of a doubt because they are so diffrent from movies that are maybe 30-40 years old.
Some of the blocking seems awkard. Particular the cop that does not speak in the Stolen Item scene. Also for me there seems to be holes in the plot. It may be because Im tired but there does not seem to be enough explanaton on how Roinsons character is good enough to take over a major crime family.
For me the climax where Little Ceasar character is dealt with lacks all sence of flair. It seems just to be there and was somewhat lacking. That being said Im rating the movie as a C+ or B-. It should be seen mostly because it is considerred a classic. If you miss I think you can live with it but sometimes the classics should be seen just for and homage to the past.
The plot of the movie is a small time crook moves to the big city with dreams of taking over a big city. His success is short lived when his ex partner gives the cops information that brings down the Capone type ganster.
At first I would of thought that Robinson's accent would be dstracting but it was not. There was a style of delevering the lines very fast and I thought that was a lot more dstracting. The way they did scene changes is a lot diffrent then today. There are "announcements" when the location or scene changes.
I think there are some simulrities between Robinson taking over and how jack Nickelson takes over the in the 1989(?) version of Batman.
People seem to die diffrently in the old movies. When they get shot it seems they cant wait to die, the same way the dialoge is rushed through. It seems I may grade old movies on a scale. Give them more of the benefit of a doubt because they are so diffrent from movies that are maybe 30-40 years old.
Some of the blocking seems awkard. Particular the cop that does not speak in the Stolen Item scene. Also for me there seems to be holes in the plot. It may be because Im tired but there does not seem to be enough explanaton on how Roinsons character is good enough to take over a major crime family.
For me the climax where Little Ceasar character is dealt with lacks all sence of flair. It seems just to be there and was somewhat lacking. That being said Im rating the movie as a C+ or B-. It should be seen mostly because it is considerred a classic. If you miss I think you can live with it but sometimes the classics should be seen just for and homage to the past.
The Poker House (2008 R)
The movie stars Jennifer Lawrence (The Beaver, XMen First Class), Selma Blair (The Sweetest Thing, In Good Company), David Alan Grier (Angles in the Outfield, Jumanji), Chloe Moretz (The Eye, Today You Die), Clark Peters (Treme tv, Legacy), Bokeem Woodbine (Devil, 3000 Miles to Graceland) and Sophia Bairley (Canvis, Black Oaisis).
The plot of this movie is in the background. Its more of a character study of a 14 year old girl and her two younger sisters. The daughters live in the local drug house with there strung out prostitute mother. The father is out of the pictue. Lawrence, the 14 year old, carries this movie with some good characters in the background.
The movie starts off strong that draws you in from the start. Its good from the start. There is good dialogue between the sisters. While Lawrence carries the movie. There is a good scene with the youngest sister and her best friends dad. There is a good scene with a younger sister and two homeless guys returning bottles.
The dialogut when lawrence goes in to get her paycheck from rhe newspaper(?) is well written and the actos in this scene are interisting even though this is there only scene. When Lawrence leaves the house after she is raped by a pimp is done well also.
The only character that stuck out as bad was the basketball coach, the other characters are all done well. The only scene that sticks out as really bad is the scene where the sisters sing in the car. The song is overused and who ever ownes the rights shoud not let it be used in any movies at least untill I have forgotten how many other movies it has been used in. Ill let them know. In the credits one of the actors is James Earl Jones II (maybe a grandson but could be a son I assume).
Its directed by Lori Petty of Tank Girl (a movie that seems bad but I have never seen) and A League of There Own.
Im ratng this movie as a B. If you want to see an uplifting life afferming movie wath something else. But this is a good movie that is worth seeing. And while you are at it see A League of There Own.
The plot of this movie is in the background. Its more of a character study of a 14 year old girl and her two younger sisters. The daughters live in the local drug house with there strung out prostitute mother. The father is out of the pictue. Lawrence, the 14 year old, carries this movie with some good characters in the background.
The movie starts off strong that draws you in from the start. Its good from the start. There is good dialogue between the sisters. While Lawrence carries the movie. There is a good scene with the youngest sister and her best friends dad. There is a good scene with a younger sister and two homeless guys returning bottles.
The dialogut when lawrence goes in to get her paycheck from rhe newspaper(?) is well written and the actos in this scene are interisting even though this is there only scene. When Lawrence leaves the house after she is raped by a pimp is done well also.
The only character that stuck out as bad was the basketball coach, the other characters are all done well. The only scene that sticks out as really bad is the scene where the sisters sing in the car. The song is overused and who ever ownes the rights shoud not let it be used in any movies at least untill I have forgotten how many other movies it has been used in. Ill let them know. In the credits one of the actors is James Earl Jones II (maybe a grandson but could be a son I assume).
Its directed by Lori Petty of Tank Girl (a movie that seems bad but I have never seen) and A League of There Own.
Im ratng this movie as a B. If you want to see an uplifting life afferming movie wath something else. But this is a good movie that is worth seeing. And while you are at it see A League of There Own.
Monday, May 30, 2011
Toy Story 3 (2010 G)
The movie stars Tim Allen (Home Improvement tv, Galaxy Quest), Tom Hanks (Forrest Gump, Philadelphia), Joan Cusack (In & Out, Addam's Family Values), Ned Beatty (Spring Foward, Deliverance), Don Rickles (Casino, The Rat Race), Michael Keaton (Batman 1989, Pacific Heights), Wallace Shawn (The Princess Bride, The Curse of the Jade Scorpion), John Ratzenberger (Cheers tv,The Village Barbershop), Estelle Harris (Seinfeld tv,The Grand), and Jodi Benson (The Little Mermaid, Thumbelina).
The plot is the toys are donated to a daycare, whos toys are ruled by a ruthless but cuddly bear. They had to make from the trash can to the daycare escape from the dump back home.
The movie stars off very well it got me involved from the start. I thought the toy home movie section was a good idea also. The family dog was funny, a very fat old dog.
I did actually wright down thta Lotsa reminded me of a Mafia Don. His dialog just got me thinking. It was no suprise that he ruled with an iron fist. He was avery bitter character. The monkey who manned the video screens could easily come across as scarry. When he got tossed down by the baby it reminded me of some classic (horror? ) scene. I dont know if it was a Frankstein scene but very intense.
Im rating the movie as a C+. I had high expectations of the ending and was a little disapointed. Its worth going to see but the ending was hyped for it to live up to the advanced billing.
The plot is the toys are donated to a daycare, whos toys are ruled by a ruthless but cuddly bear. They had to make from the trash can to the daycare escape from the dump back home.
The movie stars off very well it got me involved from the start. I thought the toy home movie section was a good idea also. The family dog was funny, a very fat old dog.
I did actually wright down thta Lotsa reminded me of a Mafia Don. His dialog just got me thinking. It was no suprise that he ruled with an iron fist. He was avery bitter character. The monkey who manned the video screens could easily come across as scarry. When he got tossed down by the baby it reminded me of some classic (horror? ) scene. I dont know if it was a Frankstein scene but very intense.
Im rating the movie as a C+. I had high expectations of the ending and was a little disapointed. Its worth going to see but the ending was hyped for it to live up to the advanced billing.
Enter the Dragon (1973 R)
The movie stars Bruce Lee (Fist of Fury, Return of the Dragon), John Saxon (The Party Crashers, Bottom Feeders), Kien Shih (The Young Master, Duel at the Supreme Gate), Yang Sze (Kung Fu Master, Dragon Attacks), and Bob Wall (The Game of Death, Return of the Dragon).
The plot of the movie is Lee enters a contest, run by a monk from his Monistary, to get information on the illegal drug trade for the British government.
I dont know where to start. The vocal choices of some of the characters seem they are trying to come off as Western. It did not work on any level except to come off as bad theater. The sound effects were bad technically and seem just wrong for the choices.
I thought some of the blocking in the fight scenes were bad. The characters were just waiting like they hit there mark early and had nothing to do for a few seconds so they just stood there. The flashbacks for the backstory of the other two Americans was almost farce. Also it did not seem to have anything to do with the story. I thought the betting on the matches was out of place and distracting.
I got no sence of hstory of the martial arts culture in this movie. I think Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon was a much better movie. I have not seen it since it came out but visually it was a much better movie. Kung Fu Hustle was a farce that worked for me (even though I think it made a worst movie of all time so be forewarned). Enter came across as a movie they wanted to be a hit in America and catered to what they thought Americans wanted to see or there ideas of Eastern culture.
I may just not like some of the classics. I thought Raging Bull was a very inconsistant movie. Im rating this movie as a C- or D. Not worth the time.
The plot of the movie is Lee enters a contest, run by a monk from his Monistary, to get information on the illegal drug trade for the British government.
I dont know where to start. The vocal choices of some of the characters seem they are trying to come off as Western. It did not work on any level except to come off as bad theater. The sound effects were bad technically and seem just wrong for the choices.
I thought some of the blocking in the fight scenes were bad. The characters were just waiting like they hit there mark early and had nothing to do for a few seconds so they just stood there. The flashbacks for the backstory of the other two Americans was almost farce. Also it did not seem to have anything to do with the story. I thought the betting on the matches was out of place and distracting.
I got no sence of hstory of the martial arts culture in this movie. I think Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon was a much better movie. I have not seen it since it came out but visually it was a much better movie. Kung Fu Hustle was a farce that worked for me (even though I think it made a worst movie of all time so be forewarned). Enter came across as a movie they wanted to be a hit in America and catered to what they thought Americans wanted to see or there ideas of Eastern culture.
I may just not like some of the classics. I thought Raging Bull was a very inconsistant movie. Im rating this movie as a C- or D. Not worth the time.
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Chasing 3000 (2007 PG)
The movie stars Trevor Morgan (The Sixth Sence, Jurassic Park), Rory Culkin (Twelves, Signs), Ray Liotta (Dominick ane Eugene, Field of Dreams), M. Emmet Walsh (Don McKay, Wild Wild West), Seymour Cassel (It Could Happen to You, Rushmore), Lori Petty (The Poker House, A League of There Own), and Keith David (They, Don McKay).
The plot is a grown up Liotta tells his kids about a road trip he and his brother take to see Roberto Clemente get his 3000's hit.
At the start of the movie there is a feel of A Field of Dreams. The dad takes off and baseball plays a big part in the movie. Later on the movie reminded me a little of Stand By Me. Its a comming of age road trip movie. To see Lori Petty with grey hair was unexpected.
There was a scene where Walsh recounts Clemente being nice to him when he was a kid. The casting and the way his character was developed was 100% the wrong way to go. It did not connect with me on amy kind of emotoinal level. There is a scene towards the end where Liotta and his brother recount the fond memories of the trip. That scene did not work at all. It seemed forced was no where close to the emotional responce it wanted to evoke. There was no sence of emotional debth in the entire movie.
Im rating this movie as a C- or D, I would suggest Field of Dreams or Stand By Me eather will be a lot better use of your time even if you have seen them before.
The plot is a grown up Liotta tells his kids about a road trip he and his brother take to see Roberto Clemente get his 3000's hit.
At the start of the movie there is a feel of A Field of Dreams. The dad takes off and baseball plays a big part in the movie. Later on the movie reminded me a little of Stand By Me. Its a comming of age road trip movie. To see Lori Petty with grey hair was unexpected.
There was a scene where Walsh recounts Clemente being nice to him when he was a kid. The casting and the way his character was developed was 100% the wrong way to go. It did not connect with me on amy kind of emotoinal level. There is a scene towards the end where Liotta and his brother recount the fond memories of the trip. That scene did not work at all. It seemed forced was no where close to the emotional responce it wanted to evoke. There was no sence of emotional debth in the entire movie.
Im rating this movie as a C- or D, I would suggest Field of Dreams or Stand By Me eather will be a lot better use of your time even if you have seen them before.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Never Forever (2007 R)
The movie stars Vera Famiga (The Departed, Nothing but the Truth), Asa Somers (Clear Blue Tuesday), Shirley Roeca, Jackson Pace (Queen Sized, Cool Dog), Alex Manette, Jung-woo Ha (Time, Like You Know it All), and David McInnis (Typhoon).
The plot is in an attempt to save her marriage, in toruble because her husbands dad just died and he tried to commit suicide because he is infertal, starts and cant end an affair after becoming pregnate.
The first thing out is this. This is one of the dakest most depressing movies I can ever remember seeing. No really. Famiga character is obsessive about folding her cloths before having sex with the "sperm donner." By the way there are sex scenes so parents be warned.
There is something to be said for Famigas character good intentions. Her husband desperatly wants a child and she feels this is her only way out to help someone she loves. The movie is a downward spiral that seems to have no bottom. Its a desperate love story with no apparent winners.
The end of the movie is a little happier then I would expect given the tone of the first 90% of the movie. Im not saying its bad just it seems out of context for the movie.
I could go eather way on this movie so for now I will rate it as a C+ and say go and stream it with a caveat or two. If you want a happy movie stay away from this movie. If you want to stay in a good mood stay away from this movie. If you are sad and want something to reinforce that stream this movie.
The plot is in an attempt to save her marriage, in toruble because her husbands dad just died and he tried to commit suicide because he is infertal, starts and cant end an affair after becoming pregnate.
The first thing out is this. This is one of the dakest most depressing movies I can ever remember seeing. No really. Famiga character is obsessive about folding her cloths before having sex with the "sperm donner." By the way there are sex scenes so parents be warned.
There is something to be said for Famigas character good intentions. Her husband desperatly wants a child and she feels this is her only way out to help someone she loves. The movie is a downward spiral that seems to have no bottom. Its a desperate love story with no apparent winners.
The end of the movie is a little happier then I would expect given the tone of the first 90% of the movie. Im not saying its bad just it seems out of context for the movie.
I could go eather way on this movie so for now I will rate it as a C+ and say go and stream it with a caveat or two. If you want a happy movie stay away from this movie. If you want to stay in a good mood stay away from this movie. If you are sad and want something to reinforce that stream this movie.
Adam (2009 PG13)
The movie stars Hugh Dancy (Ella Enchanted, Black Hawk Down), Rose Byrne (28 Weeks Later, X-Men First Class), Peter Gallagher (High Spirits, American Beauty), and Amy Irving (Carrie, I'm Not Rappaport).
The plot revolves around the budding relationship between a person with Aspergers and a school teacher.
There were a few scenes at the start of the movie which worked for me. The laundry scene I thought was good. And the scene on the stoop was good also. I had a conversation about diet Coke and Mentos that even while I was talking I was thinkng what the hell am I doing. I also thought the astronomy scene in Dancys apartment was well done as well.
I thought the scene about Dancy state of panic before the date was well done. Dancys portrail of someone with Aspergers was accurate. He is not likable and he is a very hard person to deal with. The scene after the funeral with Dancys friend was well done also.
The basic Aspergers language was dead on. Does not go too much deeper then skin deep but the information given was correct. I think there are simularities between Adam and Sandra Bullocks character in All About Steve (got a few Rasperies a few years ago. I thought her movie The Proposal was a much worse movie but thats another post).
The characters seemed to ease into dating and having sex. Maybe a little lacking in the distnct events that would lead people to eather situation.
Is this a great movie no, is it accurate about Aspergers yes at least on a basic level. I thought the ending of the movie was a good way to end it. Maybe not the hoped for Hollywood ending but more realistic. The rough number of Aspies who get married that end in divorce is somewhere around 80% give or take. You think that 50% is bad try 80%. The characters deal with stuff and move on as best they can.
This was a situation where I was glad to watch the credits. Some of the people who were thanked were Ken Olin, Patricia Wettig, Rob Morrow, and Julianna Margules. Just thought it was neat.
Im rating this movie as a B. If you are tired of typical Hollywood movies go out and stream or rent this one.
The plot revolves around the budding relationship between a person with Aspergers and a school teacher.
There were a few scenes at the start of the movie which worked for me. The laundry scene I thought was good. And the scene on the stoop was good also. I had a conversation about diet Coke and Mentos that even while I was talking I was thinkng what the hell am I doing. I also thought the astronomy scene in Dancys apartment was well done as well.
I thought the scene about Dancy state of panic before the date was well done. Dancys portrail of someone with Aspergers was accurate. He is not likable and he is a very hard person to deal with. The scene after the funeral with Dancys friend was well done also.
The basic Aspergers language was dead on. Does not go too much deeper then skin deep but the information given was correct. I think there are simularities between Adam and Sandra Bullocks character in All About Steve (got a few Rasperies a few years ago. I thought her movie The Proposal was a much worse movie but thats another post).
The characters seemed to ease into dating and having sex. Maybe a little lacking in the distnct events that would lead people to eather situation.
Is this a great movie no, is it accurate about Aspergers yes at least on a basic level. I thought the ending of the movie was a good way to end it. Maybe not the hoped for Hollywood ending but more realistic. The rough number of Aspies who get married that end in divorce is somewhere around 80% give or take. You think that 50% is bad try 80%. The characters deal with stuff and move on as best they can.
This was a situation where I was glad to watch the credits. Some of the people who were thanked were Ken Olin, Patricia Wettig, Rob Morrow, and Julianna Margules. Just thought it was neat.
Im rating this movie as a B. If you are tired of typical Hollywood movies go out and stream or rent this one.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)