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-.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)