Change Your Image
MOOVYZ
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Sicario (2015)
This is the best movie I've seen in 10 years!
I'm not going to go into great length here, there are plenty of reviews who have covered the specifics. I'm simply going to tell you why I think it's the best film I have seen in many, many years.
I love movies. I love many movies. But most fall into the 6-7.5 range for the ones I generally enjoy.
I've only given 1 movie a higher score than this and that was "Shawshank Redemption" which I feel is near perfection! Because nothing it truly perfect, I'd give that film a 9.5. This one gets a 9.0!
OK, here's why... like many movies in the genre and style (let's say "Traffic" and "The Departed") there's a great story, told well. That is true of "Sicario". But unlike the others, this one is told in such clarity that, at no time, was I having to wonder who was who or what was happening. That's not to say this movie is simplistic, it's not. It's simply done so well that the tale is near perfectly told.
Now, what else makes it so great? Well, how about the performances? Emily Blunt is superb... this girl can act! Josh Brolin is always great and here is no exception. Benicio Del Toro is fantastic, his best performance by far.
The cinematography is also excellent. Especially "Spoiler Alert" the filming of a lengthy scene with night vision. Great work!
The direction and editing are again, superb. (I'm running out of superlatives).
If you only see one film this year, make it this. Be warned, this is NOT a family film, nor is it a "feel-good" film. It's dark and edgy. But the story is told so well that you walk away completely satisfied.
9.0 out of 10!
Wyrmwood (2014)
I almost gave up on it but then it got VERY GOOD!
I'm not big into horror. I'm not big into cult films. I'm generally not a fan of low-budget. But after I got past the first few minutes of low production values (not the film-makers fault, just lack of funds) and trying to deal with the Aussie-talk I really began to enjoy the film. One of the key saviors to this movie was Bianca Bradey. It doesn't hurt that she was hot, (though filthy and sweaty) but she was very solid for a young actress given a basically campy roll.
The film used a couple of strange but unique plot twists... (Spoiler alert) the gas-emitting zombies and the zombie controlling Brooke, that kept the film from falling into the seemingly never-ending cavern of zombie films. These, coupled with some over-the-top gore made for a fresh take and kept the pace of the movie from stalling.
If you're looking for a break from the norm, try this one. Give it time to build and allow for the low-budget production values. You should enjoy. Bianca is worth the time all by herself.
Tokarev (2014)
Give this a try with an open mind... it's better than you might think!
First of all, if you are growing weary of Nicholas Cage as the angry, violent protagonist, this will do nothing to change your opinion. But, with that in mind, watch this for all the other reasons to watch a film.
Yes, Cage is getting long in the tooth and the roles are all beginning to look alike. So, we'll subtract 2 whole points for that. But that still leaves a solid 7 to 8.
The direction was good.
The cinematography was actually excellent. Some great camera angles, lighting and good use of close-ups.
The story was predictable to a point but I thought a nice mild and believable twist at the end. Beats the heck out of Russian revenge as the motive.
The other actors were good to great.
Rachel Nichols is outstanding (and very hot). She really conveys emotion.
Max Ryan was very good.
Pasha D. Lychnikoff was also very good (a but typical, of course). So believable as an ex-fighter that I actually thought he was a Russian boxer turned actor in real life and went to look up his record.
I think if the film was properly supported and sent to the theaters it would have probably just broken even because people are tired of Cage in these roles but I'd bet the rating would have been higher. I think this movie suffers from being straight to video. People go into it with a negative attitude.
I would rate this a 7.2 (a B+)
Inception (2010)
What a convoluted mess!
I'm not even going to waste my time writing a review, it would get lost in the "dream world" of positive reviews. Those who are making this out to be something profound or mind-boggling are also delusional.
All it is is a muddy film with tons of plot holes and slightly better-than-average special effects. I am completely amazed at the comments about this being something more than it is. "The Matrix" was far, far better, made far more sense and offered far more insight into human nature, love, etc.
Nolan has made a "cluster f__k" that must have subliminally messaging going on in some theaters cuz nobody in our theater enjoyed it very much. The acting is superb. There's one really cool scene of Paris defying gravity. Other than that there is nothing new and there is little or no logical plot line. It is just as my title says, convoluted. I'm a writer and this is the kind of stuff I delete from my novels when I begin to stray or run on.
There's one review here that understands what is going on with the people who have fallen for this nightmare... he says "There are movies for stupid people. There are movies for smart people. Then there are movies for people who like to think they're smart." He has hit the proverbial nail on the head. This is a movie a few, likely stoned college fanboys go to see, start a conversation about "what if..." and create something out of nothing. Any intelligent person begins to have serious trouble coming up with answers that truly fit the massive questions in Nolan's script. To pass it off as "well, it's all a dream" is just a cop out. The movie doesn't really work. The dream-within-a-dream-within-a-dream is just a way for him to cover his mistakes.
This movie deserves a high 7 at best. In time, it will drop considerably on this site... perhaps to near #100. But that will only be due to Nolan fans. True movie buffs will never fall for this fantasy. It's ordinary storytelling and a "make-it-up-as-you-go-along" script.
Go back to schools everyone. Stop doing drugs. This is not a fine wine... it is carbonated fruit punch. And your drooling all over your shirt!
Salt (2010)
9.0 for Angelina as an Action Sta -r 5.0 for Horrible Writing
OK, where to start... I had positive expectations before going to the theater. Both because of decent reviews and as a fan of Jolie's ability and previous work. There's no denying the girl can act. And she's one of the most alluring females on the planet.
I can't say I loved the "Tomb Raider" movies because they were what they were... summer popcorn flicks. The action in those was certainly not believable but it was fun. Having Jolie do most of her own stunt works in those helped tremendously but they were certainly over the top and expected to be so.
I was very surprised at how much I enjoyed "Mr. and Mrs. Smith" when it came out. The banter, the humor and the sexiness of the movie all combined into a thoroughly enjoyable experience. Again, a summer popcorn movie.
Last year, it was "Wanted". Not a Jolie vehicle per se, but again summer escapism.
So I kind of had expectations of that type of movie. And coupled with the reviews, I thought i would walk out of the theater with a similar opinion.
"Salt" began in a similar vein but right away I could see that they were going to use Jolie's talents as an actress as well as an Action Heroine. And it didn't take long for the action to start. (I won't go into deep story lines as so many of the reviews on here cover that) An escape from CIA offices and a somewhat unbelievable chase sequence stoked the beginning but I was very impressed with how much Jolie brought to the role in terms of character. There is a scene near the end of the chase (where she is crouched behind a parked car)that screams intensity and believability as Jolie's character professes her innocence. I mean, she really nailed this scene in terms of conveying fear and anxiety over her dilemma.
But then the bad writing took over. The movie became one long "aw, c'mon... she wouldn't do that" after another. Throughout, Angelina brought depth and believability to the role but the very "over-the-top" implausibilities became a complete distraction.
I walked out of the movie torn. I really thought Jolie was fantastic and she will pave the way for future female action leads. But I felt really cheated that no one came to the aid of the script. Doesn't anyone go to the directors of these films after seeing the dailies and say "hey, I think we need to make that a bit more logical". I guess not. And it's not like it would have taken anything away from the movie. Even with an outdated Iron Curtain enemy and some questionable abilities of the heroine, it could have been so much smarter.
I lay the blame for the movie's failures at the hands of the writer initially, but at the director for not asking for re-writes. And that is a shame because Noyce did an exceptional job in pacing and the "view". Even the scenes where Jolie is kicking butt, he chose to keep her skinny arms hidden in shirts and jackets and did not throw unrealistic human abilities into her moves. I could in fact believe that she was able to defeat her male foes by well placed kicks and throws.
It is in the style of the Bourne movies. But not nearly as intelligent, and that's not saying a great deal. And it's by no means a cartoon super-hero movie. Anjelina CAN and DOES pull off the role as an action hero. But the movie fails miserably in terms of plausibility of the storyline.
So overall, I'll score it a 7.0. Well below where I'd hoped it would be. Anjelina Jolie surpassed every expectation I had in making me believe the character herself. But the writer and director screwed the pooch in giving her a workable storyline. The movie will do well and there will be a sequel. For that, I'm pleased. It will be difficulty to write a worse plot.
Avatar (2009)
A truly groundbreaking film! And this from a anti-fantasy fan...
OK, I shall not bore you with with what's wrong with the film... a few have hinted, and I agree, the story is just OK. A bit like a child's story. Good guys, bad guys and they all lived happily ever after. But, in a way, that was a necessity. This film is so visually stimulating that a hard-to-follow, deep thought or message movie might have distracted from that.
And when I say visually stimulating, I mean something we have never seen before. YOU MUST SEE IT IN 3D! I have seen other 3D films and have been amused but not blown away. They tend to feel "dark" like you're looking through sunglasses at night. And this film will feel that way if you sit too far back. Personally, I like seating about 3/4 of the way back in a theater. This is too far back for this film! Get close... ideally you should position yourself that your forward view allows the entire width of the viewing screen comes to the edges of your 3D glasses. This, I feel, is important to the experience. At first, we sat back a ways. But even before the film started, I decided to move up. This was a great idea. The film became much brighter and the 3D was ideal.
The film is breathtaking. The depth, the intricacies, the detail are all beyond par. You can see why is took so long and cost so much. Nothing was "short-cut". Cameron has set the bar high for all films to follow. He has developed and perfected a technological breakthrough in cinematic experience. Never before has CGI looked so real. Never before have action scenes involving CGI been so seamless.
The story (possible spoilers) flows very well. I feared that I would be required to "rack my brain" trying to follow the rules of a fantasy world. Such was not the case. Although we were taken to an alien world, everything made perfect sense. Motives of the characters were easy to determine and the understanding of this alien world was automatic. And because the film brings so much to the viewer in terms if that visual stimulation, you fall easily immersed in the environment that Cameron has introduced.
This is what I have always imagined our future would be like. I thought that some day, long after I was gone, that man (and women) would put on some kind of helmet and a computer would connect with our senses, much like the characters in this movie connected with their Avatars. We've even been shown this likely technology before in movies like "Strange Days" and "". And although we humans are not yet "hard-wired" in... this is the beginning of that type of experience. Throw on some headphones to rid your world of outside interference, and watch a film this rich and full and you will almost become part of the story.
Cameron is a genius. He knows what we want to see. He, like Spielberg, understands that audiences, for the most part, are looking to escape the confines of our dreary existence, if only for a short while, and find peace and joy and happiness in another world. Avatar takes you to that world. Cameron drops us in.
I can't say enough about how unique this experience is. Even if you hate the story. Even if you are uncomfortable for the near 3-hour ride. Even if you hate fantasy. You will enjoy yourself in this escape. I find it impossible to believe that anyone would find this film unenjoyable. Some may pick it apart for the lack of story. Some, like me, will still not like fantasy in general. But everyone will enjoy this film.
And this will be the beginning of an entirely new kind of filmaking. The technology he has developed in building this "Titanic" will change the course of movie making. Heck, I'd bet that even if this movie grossed $0, Cameron will become a billionaire from the software rights alone. Never before has CGI gone this far. Never before has it even been able to keep up with the speed of the eye. But this movie is different. This movie is so deep visually that the mind can hardly keep pace. Repeated viewings are going to be the norm on this one. It becomes almost necessary to grasp the film in it's entirety. I'm going again. I need to catch my breath first. But I'm going again. You should too, at least once!
Public Enemies (2009)
I had hoped for so much more!
My wife and I saw it last night and we both agree that it was less than we had hoped for. I got into a disagreement with another poster here about the use of HD. He said it automatically made the film substandard. I argued that there was basically no difference (in fact, I have never even thought to look at which is which). I still say, that for the most part, HD video is equal to film... most viewers would never see the difference. But I will now agree that this film would have been better if shot on film. Why? Because it could actually have benefited by a bit of grain. It would have helped it fit into the period. So much attention was paid to costumes, etc. The film should have looked "gritty" which it didn't. The real problem, IMHO, about the use of HD video was the guerrilla (sp?)style of hand held cameras. I hate this technique. I think that hurt the film tremendously. And when you shake a camera, especially an HD one, you really see the shake. Had the film been shot more with steady cam and perhaps a bit of sepia tinting, the HD part would have been fine.
Now to the movie... it was not well defined in any aspect. They didn't go deep enough into any character to more fully understand the motives they expressed. There was little connection with the viewer and the characters. I could see that Dillenger loved Billie but she was the only one who showed any real emotion in that regard. We didn't see them falling in love, just hearing him say that he did. Pervis looked angry all the time, but we don't know why. We suspect it might be because the gangsters killed (F)BI men, but that's only a guess. J. Edgar Hoover will go down in history for being a real strange character and that fact was touched on in the film, but very little.
In general, it seemed that no part of the story was carried deep enough. I expect that Mann likely shot several hundred hours of video and I also suspect that a 4 hour Director's cut might be a better film but in it's current form, this films lacks depth and definition. There were excessive bullets flying (well filmed) but even these action sequences seemed flat. The most emotional scene in the film **spoiler** was when the ***hole cop was hitting Billie to get info. That scene carried a lot of punch (no pun intended). But then it deflated since no dialog followed up on his behavior. Even the final scene where Billie is told what John said as he was dying was flawed by the character saying "I think that's what I heard". I realize it was probably done that way to assure accuracy but it left the audience wondering "is that what he really said or is that just a guess?". And if were are trying to stay accurate, do we really know that **spoiler** Dillinger walked through the Bureau's "Dillinger Division"? That seemed a bit far fetched. But if it's true, how do we know it? I had hoped for so much more. The acting was great. There were a lot of great performances, but actually too many. Who were all these people? Too many cops and robbers but we don't learn who most of them are. "Baby Face" Nelson's portrayal was a bit silly and even here, we don't learn enough about how those 2 infamous bank robbers hooked up or how they felt about each other. There was a lead up to the train robbery that looked promising, but then John got shot and that storyline went bye bye. Who was that guy? How often did Dillenger work with him. It was said in the film that all Dillinger's associations were dead. But this looked like his most important cohort. I don't think I ever heard his name mentioned.
The story was "murky", like a muddy pond. We know there are "big fish" in there, but we don't really know who they are, how many, where they came from, what they like to eat or why they swim the way they do. I feel unfulfilled.
I am a fan of Mann's work. I had hoped for and expected so much more. It might actually exist but on the cutting room floor. But overall, I am less that impressed with this year's most promising movie. Hopefully, Scorsese will fill in the void with "Shutter Island". 7/10 "I think that boy's cheese slid off his cracker" The Green Mile
Chapter 27 (2007)
"Chapter 27": What it is, what it isn't!
"Chapter 27" IS NOT an important film. It IS a film worth watching! The writer/director, J.P. Shaefer, gives us a look into the mind of a man seeking his own identity, at the expense on another man's life.
The film IS NOT exactly the view from inside Mark David Chapman's mind. But is IS likely a close imitation of that mind. The view is based on a lot of research, that part is evident. I have read much of what has been written about this troubled young man and these "reflections" presented in the movie are accurate and detailed.
The film IS NOT chapter 27 in "The Catcher in the Rye", the great piece by J.D. Salinger that is said to be a motivating factor in Chapman's life and his decision to kill John Lennon. Chapman modeled his life after the main character in the book, Holden Caufield, and wanted his life to be an extension of that. To view Chapman's act as a continuation of a great novel is an insult to that author. The film simply shows us what a fragile thing the human mind is and how easily it can be driven towards madness by the inspiration, though completely twisted, of other visions.
"Chapter 27" IS NOT a fresh, unique story. It IS based on the work from another book by a writer named Jack Jones, who's biography of Chapman, "Let Me Take You Down", is said to be the most detailed account of the life of this killer and the best information we have about the moments leading up to Lennon's murder.
"Chapter 27" IS NOT a tribute to Mark David Chapman nor is it intended to belittle the death of John Lennon. The film is a realistic view of Chapman, and one that might cause it's audience to feel sorry for this disturbed individual. Sorry, yet unsympathetic.
So what exactly is "Chapter 27"? Well, from my viewpoint, it IS an exceptional piece of work on many levels...
The acting is superb. Jared Leto, (Executive Producer)who was obviously passionate about the role as he went to great lengths to "become" Mark David Chapman. He put on an estimated 40 or more pounds to alter his appearance. Leto, who is usually cast as the "pretty boy" in many films ("Girl Interrupted" comes to mind) completely disregarded his good looks to capture this identity. His mannerisms are almost identical to those of Chapman (from actual interviews I have seen), especially the eyes. He seems, as does Chapman, to often be looking away from those he comes in contact with as if he is afraid someone might see the "beast" inside if he looks directly at them. Leto's grasp of Chapman's voice and accent is spot on. And, most importantly, the way Leto (as Chapman) interacts with others gives us a great awareness that most of those people probably "knew" something wasn't right, but no one could put their finger on what it was, or what was about to happen. You can feel a real sense of doom as you watch Chapman talk to the various doormen "guarding" the "Dakota", you can see how he scares and confuses the photographer who captures, on film, Chapman and Lennon together just hours before the murder. You can see how he attracts, yet pushes away Jude , a young girl who "hangs out" often to get a glimpse of Lennon, and played exceptionally well by Lindsay Lohan. And the encounter between Chapman and a young Sean Lennon sends chills up the spine. Leto slowly and methodically leads us down the twisted path on this collision course of Lennon and Chapman. And there is one moment in the film (that may or may not be accurate but certainly would seem logical) where Chapman want's badly to walk away and NOT fulfill his destiny, so to speak, but ultimately can't stop himself. Leto puts us as close to this madman as anyone could, or would want to, be.
Mark Lindsay Chapman (no, I did NOT make this up!) plays John Lennon. Shaefer captures the "essence" of the incredible ex-Beatle by showing the audience only side views and rear shots, which not only allows us to see Lennon (as opposed to an actor playing him) but adds a sense of "mystical presence" that Chapman, and millions of fans, saw in this humble yet ultra-famous celebrity.
The cinematography is not beautiful. It is only adequate in this department. It is not polished or creatively edited. Many shots are hand held, not so much for a sense of art as likely a result of time constraints, etc. of working with a small budget ($5 Million CAD). My impression is that the small budget must have been maxed out as there was virtually no publicity about this film. And the box office results were the lowest I have ever seen, opening on 2 screens? Had this film received some studio or distributor backing, it might have done very well at the box office and perhaps even some awards as the acting certainly warrants them.
"Chapter 27" is, as I said, NOT an important film. We all know what the loss of John Lennon meant to the world. The film does allow the audience to see how a feeling of inferiority, that lies within us all, could lead a man to think that this was how he should, and would, be important; by committing this unthinkable act. But most importantly, it reminds us never to forget John Lennon, his music, his message
the importance, and non-importance of all mankind.
The Dark Knight (2008)
An Objective Review
I have never been a comic book fan. The last one I ever read was an "Archie" from the 1960s. That being said, I do like adaptations of comics and graphic novels. They make great stories and even better movies that even reach the mainstream audiences. Recent example like "Spiderman", "Ironman" and "The Incredible Hulk" have shown that these films handle the crossover very well when in the hands of competent direction.
I loved "Batman Begins". It seemed a much more realistic and serious attempt than the earlier "Batman" franchise movies. Even with Jack Nicholson as the Joker, those movies came off as more silly than fun.
SPOILERS*** "The Dark Knight" was obviously on my short list of movies coming out this year that I really looked forward to. And overall, I wasn't disappointed. The is a really good movie. It is not, IMHO, an exceptional movie.
It IS an exceptional performance by Heath Ledger. A true "tour-de-force", knock-you-upside-the-head, smile-till-it-hurts performance that makes the film stand out as this summer's best. Dead or alive, he deserves the Oscar and I'm betting he will get it, albeit posthumously.
You can tell that he totally "immersed" himself in the role and that might have created the environment that led to his death, as reported. One can't easily move in and out of character when one takes it "so seriously", pun intended.
But as I hinted in my overall enjoyment of the film, this performance alone does not make this an exceptional movie. I realize that the Fanboys are going to take exception to that comment. But if all aspects are looked at objectively, this, I believe, will be the common opinion.
Christopher Nolan takes us on a great ride. He is easily placed near the top of a list of directors who can envision the transformation from comic to film with ease. He tells a great story, fills it with unique action sequences and captures the feel of the darkness that lives and breathes in Gotham City.
But it is partly this "capturing" that keeps it from being a truly great film. The overall look of the picture is dark, very dark. Not just visually (which it is greatly) but also in a negative emotional level. Very few scenes show daylight. Very few scenes show hope. And at 152 minutes... that's a lot of "darkness" for a viewer to experience.
Yes, I realize that the movie is called "The Dark Knight". And that "darkness" was an important factor in "Batman Begins" to let the audience feel what it is that drives Bruce Wayne to become this hero of the night. But in this episode, it just goes a bit too far. That coupled with Batman's gravely voice (done to extreme by Christian Bale) makes the movie hard to see and hard to hear. My ears aren't that great, but even someone with perfect hearing is going to have trouble getting all this dialogue, in one viewing, as it's often mumbled.
The other performances are generally up to, or above, what you would expect from such a great line-up. Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine, give their usual perfect performances in roles that suit them well. And Gary Olldman is at the top of his form as Commissioner Gordan. This is one of the finer portions of the film as he gets to expand his character beyond past entries.
Aaron Eckhart, I'm sure, did what it was that the director likely wanted for him but his performance is hurt by a mild flaw in the story writing. He plays the new District Attorney Harvey Dent who comes into town on a white horse, ready to take on any and all bad guys at any cost. But in the latter part of the story, he suddenly becomes unable to survive the "any cost" part. His love, Rachel Dawes (played sufficiently by Maggie Gyllenhaal, but not as tenderly as Katie Holmes did) dies near the end and suddenly this White Knight can't see beyond the pain to go after the true culprit in her death. He morbidly becomes "Two Face" (arch criminal in some Batman comics?) and blames Gordon and Batman for all his woes. This was the weakest part of the story for me, and I believe that had they left out this plot-line it would have made the movie a bit shorter (which would have helped the overall picture) and it would have kept the focus on the duel between Batman and the Joker, and that's where the focus of this film should never have strayed from. Just as in "Spiderman 3", this movie is hurt by 1 too many plot-lines.
But these are simply minor annoyances that, although they do detract from the film, simply keep it from being the best Superhero movie of all time. That award, I think, still belongs to "Spiderman".
In conclusion, go see "The Dark Knight", you will not be disappointed. And the performance by Heath Ledger is absolutely not to be missed. He makes Jack Nicholson's attempt look amateuristic, which it truly wasn't. But this one goes so close to perfection that anything pales in comparison.
My rating for the movie would have been a 7+. add in Ledger's stellar performance (a perfect 10) and we get the movie close to a 9. A half point deduction for the "Two Face" distraction and the length and darkness of it and we end up at a very solid 8 and 1/2! I know that many fans will think this a perfect 10, and I can understand their point, but they are biased. For the overall movie lover who gets as much enjoyment out of "WallE" as he does "Shawshank Redemption", this movie will fall somewhere just below those but well above many others.
Cloverfield (2008)
If you're going to make a "1st person reality movie" then
everything HAS to be realistic. If you have to "suspend dis-belief", then you HAVE to use conventional 3rd person camera techniques.
I give it a 6. The camera work was simply annoying. And even if you try and say "well, it's realistic" well, it's not. No camcorder battery lasts that long. And the entire time (basically) the guy holds the camera at shoulder level like he's looking through the viewfinder. Even when **SPOILER** the monsters are attacking him, he's pointing it in the direction of the action. I understand that it's necessary so the audience can see it, but if the director wants us to see it, then abandon that concept about the movie and do it 3rd person like every other movie.
No one reacted like a real person would have. NO ONE WOULD HAVE GONE BACK INTO THE CITY! If someone would have, then hundreds would have. That was one of my gripes... where are all the other 20 million people? No one else has relatives? No one else hides out in the subway? No one else is hurt in a building? No on e else left their apartments? Give me a break.
The special effects were very realistic. 9/10. The acting was sub-par. The main character, looking for Beth (Rob, I guess?) was totally non-believable. The smart-ass remarks by the guy running the cam were equally un-believable. Beth is impaled by a piece of steel, then is fine for the remainder of the movie.
There were just so many things un-realistic, and that's fine for most movies. I can suspend dis-belief as well as the next guy. But for this specific technique of realism in camera work, etc. then it damn well better be 100% realistic. Otherwise, use conventional story telling techniques.
I was very disappointed. Mildy exciting, horrible cinematography (which I would have accepted if 100% realistic in character actions), monster was just OK. Little monsters were copies of "Starship Troopers". I had no problem with the ambiguous ending as it was set up in the first sequence, that this tape was found "after the fact".
Hot Fuzz (2007)
Dry, over-the-top, in your face parody.
I watched this on DVD last night. Immediately after the movie, I watched the DVD extras, which are normally boring but in this case, you get a lot of extras. And they are great. You get to go along with the director and 2 main characters on a media junket through the U.S. Don't miss this trip. It's great, in some ways better than the movie.
After that, I got on IMDb to give the movie an 8. But I realized that an 8 would be based on the combined movie and DVD extras. Many will only see the movie so I settled on a 7.
The movie starts a bit slow, working at the humor. It's actually more of a drama at this point. But once Nick (Simon Pegg) gets to his new assignment, things get better and funnier.
I'm not going to do a review of specifics, others have given you plenty. I will only say that the movie is fun. The writing is excellent, and was hard thought. This movie was not thrown together in a few weeks. The acting is, well, what can you say... it's a comedy and all the players add their parts well.
But know this... this is a dark comedy. It's not all gross-out, potty humor. It is in your face, but as a parody of big budget action films. There is a lot of subtlety going on here. What "Shaun of the Dead" did for zombie movies, this one does for cop buddy pictures.
I read many of the "hated it" comments here and in almost ALL cases, the complainers admitted to falling asleep or turning it off. Well, no wonder they didn't like it. This is a movie that has to be watched from beginning to end, and you should be paying attention. There's a lot to see and absorb. I watched it with sub-titles on (as I do for many British films) as it helps decipher some of the humor and language quirks. It's also a movie that can be watched more than once. There is real style and effort in this 2 hours and much will be missed the first time through.
So, if you liked "Shaun of the Dead" or "The Full Monty" you should enjoy this send up. And if you like it once, you'll love it more 6 months from now. There is genius in the work. If you're not fond of British humor or dark, edgy comedy, you'll likely not laugh. I actually only remember laughing once or twice, but I had a smile on my face all the way through.
This is an over the top (and under your normal view), in your face (and work your mind) comedy. There's a lot to appreciate. But please pay attention. Otherwise, you will miss the fun and give it a horrible score like those who slept through it. I don't feel anyone should be qualified to vote if they never really saw the movie, do you?
And don't miss the extras on the DVD. Pure fun!
The Devil's Own (1997)
People are starting to get on my nerves!
This is a movie, it is ONLY a movie! Those who are trashing this movie because it doesn't tell the true story of the IRA are just being ridiculous.
The movie doesn't claim to be historically correct. Did "Raiders of the Lost Ark" claim to portray the Nazis accurately? No. Does "Pirates of the Caribbean" claim to portray the English accurately? No.
It's just a movie. And an entertaining one at that. It's well paced with decent acting, Brad Pitt's accent aside. Ford is better than normal in this one. All characters deal with multiple issues and we get a real feel for how they might feel. It's action sequences are fine. There's just nothing really wrong with the film.
Those who trash Holloywood are missing the point. Hollywood makes movies. Movies are for entertainment purposes. This movie is entertaining. Even if you want to get technical, I'm sure there were IRA members that had good in them and felt as Pitt's character does in this one.
Guys, if you want an entertaining 2 hour film, this one fits the bill. If you want to know about Ireland and it's conflicts, go to the library.
And those posting comments here about the way the IRA is portrayed, lighten up... it's only a movie!
Failure to Launch (2006)
A funny and quirky, but somewhat empty film
I had a hard time judging this movie. There are some very funny moments and the acting is fine but it just sort of misses the mark in a lot of ways.
Matthew McConnehy is his normal laid back self and plays the young, free-spirited boat broker named Tripp who still lives at home with his parents. Sarah Jessica Parker plays an intervention specialist named Paula who is hired by his parents, played perfectly by Kathy Bates and, surprisingly by Terry Bradshaw (ex-quarterback of the Pittsburgh Steelers) to get their son Tripp out of their house.
Paula is supposed to make Tripp fall in love with her by being the perfect girlfriend so that he will feel the need to move and out on his own.
That is the basic premise and the story is cute, the dialog witty, (but not at all believable) and the characters are just to thin. You never really feel for anyone in this movie despite it being a love story.
But it's not like the film is a complete waste of time. Terry Bradshaw is just plain hysterical in a much larger role than I have ever seen him do before. He won't win any Oscar but you can't help but laugh throughout many of his scenes, especially **Warning: Spoiler Alert** when, after his son does move out, he creates a "Naked Room" for himself and is "dropped in on" by his son while feeding his fish in the raw! Tripp, while at unease with this new perspective on Dad, tries to carry on a normal conversation, but Dad just goes about his business. A very funny reference to this scene happens later at a get-together of all of Tripp's loved ones where they try to decide how to get this happy couple back together once Tripp breaks it off (in style) after he finds out that Paula is being paid by the parents to go out with him.
Kathy Bates is her usual consummate self as the mother who loves her son, doesn't really want him to leave due to fear of living with her husband alone again, but wanting the best for Tripp.
Other characters bring real fun to the picture in many areas. Tripp's two friends named "Ace" and "Demo", who also live at home with their parents, try hard to get Tripp to commit to the new girlfriend, because they know that deep down inside Tripp is not a truly happy person or in "harmony with nature". (there are several references to this part in the film and they add needed giggles) The film is better when the two buddies are on screen.
The nephew adds some humor to the mix by offering words of wisdom from a 10-years old perspective.
But the really hysterical parts of the movie are brought on by Paula's roommate "Kit" played by Zooey Deschannel, and with spot on, dead-pan delivery, she plays another lonely single girl who's most immediate problem is her own lack of sleep due to a mocking bird that has taken up residence in the tree outside her window. This adds several minutes of truly witty banter and gut busting frivolity, especially in the sporting goods store, where she enters, trying to buy a gun to kill the annoying bird, and delivers the film's best scene with the store clerk. I laughed out loud throughout this entire exchange.
The movie is one of those films that's hard to hate. But, sadly, it won't make you cry either. That's the problem! There is there's no real sentiment in the film at all. It's just a, semi-fast paced script, filled with one and two liners that will bring a chuckle but will leave you wishing that it made you feel better.
All in all, I give it a 6.5, at least, for making me laugh. It's worth a look, if only to see Mr. Bradshaw's complete lack of shame in his comfort level during the nude scenes. You will not likely go out and buy this one for your collection, but then you won't want to burn your rental copy either.
Enchanted (2007)
There only one "real" reason to see this movie!
I am not going to write a long review for this movie. Plenty of folks here have filled everyone in on the plot line, assuming you couldn't get it from the previews.
I am going to say that the film is just moderately clever, the fish-out-of-water cliché', with a few nice inside jokes AT Disney's expense. A very cute CGI chipmunk makes the movie fun, as it did in "Over the Hedge". For a lot of reasons, this movie is just so-so, family fair.
That being said, this is one of the BEST performances by an actor or actress that I can remember, in a very long time. Amy Adams is simply delectable! I am very surprised at my own review here as, at first, I found her performance getting on my nerves. But throughout the entire picture, she remains totally "in--character" and it works! She is spellbinding in her ability to stay so "up" and in wonderment, as if she were, in fact, an animated Princess thrown into a live-action world.
I was pleasantly surprised at how one actress can overwhelm a picture and captivate the audience. This is what they mean when they say " an electrifying performance".
See it for the fun, see it for the family. But if you truly love movies and love the art of the performance and one's being able to "drop into the role", then please go see this and be amazed at how "real" acting can be!
The Mist (2007)
Almost a TV version... Darabont finally disappoints!
I am a huge fan of Frank Darabont. My number 1 movie (and number 2 on IMDb)is the Shawshank Redemtion. Also in my top 10 and very high here as well is The Green Mile. Both are adaptations of Stephen King short stories but more importantly, both are non-horror short stories. This was Durabant's forte. I've never seen a good version of a King horror and this one misses as well. His horror work should simply stay on paper.
The film starts OK with Thomas Jane as a husband and father in Maine. A wicked storm blows in (lliterally blowing a tree in to his art studio. After assessing the damage with his former-enemy neighbor Jane runs into town with his kid in tow and his neighbor to get some needed supplies.
AT this point the movie is fine. Good characters, good acting, good dialog. But then the Mist rolls in and everyone get a bit freaked out. Why, they've never seen fog? But of course they must already know that this is no ordinary mist. The next few minutes build a bit of tension but that immediately goes away when they *** Spoiler alert** roll up the grocery back door. Here come the creatures and boy are they ever creatures. But what are they? One with huge tentacles, one that looks much like the water tentacle in The Abyss. Someone dies and the group goes into the market to describe to all what they just saw. Only the others think it's a joke. This is where the film really strays away from what would be real reactions and goes into several character developments that just don't fit and don't work.
Soon there's more creatures and once again they don't fit or work. Clearly looking like robots or man-made CGI creatures, followed by more and more. Blah! These creatures don't look real, not from this planet yet no one ever says "what is that?" Then the movie breaks up into 2 groups, the religious fanatic based group led by a "diturbed" woman (who no one would EVER follow). The other group is made up of our here and the only normal people in the group.
Off we go into human sacrifice and warring factions... all the while we have little or no idea what's happening and few are asking those important questions.
I will stop here as I won't ruin the one redeeming, but predictable aspect in regards to how it ends. You see it coming and it's your typical King bizarre, in your face, ending.
Overall, this looks like a made for TV miniseries complete with frequent fades to black for commercials (edited for TV already, now that's thinking ahead!)The dialog is just not what people would be saying. The actions of the people caught up in this tragedy are also not what people would do. The creatures look man-made and fake. The tension is just not there.
I rate this a 3 out of 10 only for the few good performances we see.
I simply can't believe that my favorite Director got caught up in this one. Having made my favorite and perfect movie once in Redemtion, it's unfathomable that he could also churn out one of my all time worst. I nearly walked out and I NEVER do that! Wait for video, if at all. This is real junk.
Beowulf (2007)
This is the beginning of a new era in Cinema!
OK, let me start by saying that I knew nothing of the Beowolf poem/legend, etc. going in. From reading the reviews here, I guess that was a good thing. Most fans of the story are not liking this adaptation.
But from a simply cinematic position, this movie is stunning! The story (and I won't go into it here, enough of the others will fill you in) is just so,so. Ordinary, shallow dialog that's often hard to understand. The performances are fine, but then they are basically CGI/animated, so what can you expect. The facial expressions and movements are stiff and the eyes, although better than Polar Express, are still lifeless.
But again, the visuals are stunning. The 3D version is the ONLY one to watch. I think those who have panned this movie so badly must have seen it in 2D. I can't even imagine how boring and flat that must have been. The movie is always and only about the new 3D. This is the first (not really the first, but the first in wide spread normal theaters that have been updated with new digital screens and projectors) in what I think will be a steady staple of great 3D pictures in the future. (one of the previews was for the first-ever live action 3D... coming soon... looks great!). In the first few scenes there's a bit too much of things coming at you as the director is showing off his new toy, but then the movie settles in for a great cinematic visual experience. It's actually so good, that there are few things that really stick in your mind as you leave the theater. It all is visually stunning, not just a scene or 2. The "RealD" 3D glasses are much better than the old style, yet not up to Imax quality yet. And they have a tendency to make the entire film seem too dark ( a few times I peeked above the glasses and it was far brighter) but overall it was very enjoyable to watch. Angelina looks especially good naked and in 3D! As I said, the movie is just so so for acting, story and dialog. But it gives us a glimpse into the future of the 3D cinematic experience that is coming. Within the next few years, something will come along completing the rest of the equation and we will see a movie that is stunning in every aspect in this amazing new format.
7 out of 10 for the pioneering of a relatively new format!
The Matrix Reloaded (2003)
Here's why the reviews are so mixed!
OK, First, I am a HUGE Matrix fan. When the first one came out, I didn't think I wanted to see it from the previews. Then after my first viewing, I was blown away. It was the most unique story and mind-boggling action I had seen in years. I watch it frequently, and still love every minute of it...why, because it's so smooth. The story is great, the action unique and fantastic and the acting (minus the Keanu dullness we've come to expect) are exceptional.
I have waited patiently for the next installment... and finally it arrives. I'm there opening day. But wait, this is not the same style movie. What happened?
Suddenly Neo, who at the end of Matrix 1 can defeat Agents without working up a sweat is back to the basics. In Reloaded, he's having to fight way too long and having little effect. Why? Because Agent Smith is also free? Gee, I thought he was dead? Where is he plugged in?
The story is confusing, to say the least. In the first, the Matrix, we thought, had been conquerred by Neo, for he was THE ONE! Trinty showed us that. But here it exists again, and nothing has really changed.
The other mortals, in the first Matrix, were easily killed by agents, so easily that their only choice was to RUN! Now, Morpheus and Trinty can hold their own with any of them, even the Albino Drealock Twins.
And now we learn, through some overly extended dialog that repeats itself madly, that this is not the first Matrix and Neo is not the first anomoly.
It's no wonder we're all confused.
Also, just as a mention... the scenes of Zion are corny and stupid. If I were there, I'd be like Joe Patiolano in the first movie and say "Put me back in!"
The problem is this... in order for the Wachowski Brothers to step this up a notch, they had to smack us with all they could in the way of action. So they spent $30 million dollars building a freeway for a unique but long chase scene. Then they hit us with a Agent Smith barrage that took 45 days to shoot. They spent their time and the $127 million dollar budget on creating the next generation of action sequences... but they ran out of money and time to fully develop the script.
So we wound up with a long, confusing movie filled with dialog tripe, ghastly views of the paradise of Zion, and incredible, but long action sequences. I give Kudos to the cinematographer for the ingenuity of some of these as they truly break new ground. But action alone can't make a movie.
But unless the 3rd installment is written by a master, we're going to hate parts 2 and 3 in the long run. It's going to take a miracle to put this story back on track to complete a great trilogy. My guess is, that it won't happen. We'll get more action, a happy ending, and another billion dollar franchise. But I think we'd all be better off leaving the Matrix 1 as a stand alone feature. I fear, that for the sake of the buck, they've taken a nice piece of work and drawn it out into a long messy trilogy just for the money. I'm hoping that's not the case, that by some miracle the script can pull this all back together, but I fear that just can't happen. Being a free lance writer, I can't even begin to think of how to patch this mess up.
I did enjoy Reloaded, but only for the 2+ hour escape. It was eye candy, but too long in too many places. And the story just doesn't work. The plot has as many holes as Neo stopped bullets. And no amount of patching can make this one hold water again. But one can always hope...and as a final solution, put the original back in the DVD player.
Double Jeopardy (1999)
Not a waste of 2 hours... but close!
"Double Jeopardy" is the kind of movie I look for each summer. Ala "Kiss the Girls", etc., it's the theme that usually wins me over during the trailers. But I should have paid more attention to it's off-peak release date! They chose this date because the other films released that week were easy to rise above.This film would have made half as much if it were up against any real box office smash. The film, although somewhat enjoyable was weak from start to finish.
Ashley Judd, exceptional as always, and a surprising performance by Bruce Greenwood as the husband/ bad guy, saved this from being a total flop (don't you just love to hate the bad guys!).
The story line moves along at lightening speed during the first 20 minutes... "wham, bam, thank you ma'm", she's tried, in jail... then out... all covering six years! No explanation of evidence, sentencing or details of her life in jail. Once out on the street... the character does everything possible to try and return to jail! But in the end justice prevails and she's let off scot-free (no charges for wrecking cars of assaulting parole officers).
This is a film that would have benefited greatly by an additional 30 minutes. Most times, directors include too much film and lose their audience in overdrawn scenes and plot lines. But this one could have used some in-depth character development and scenes in jail to show this woman's right to be so bitter and seek revenge.
I would not recommend spending the $8 at the theater on this "race to the finish". Wait for the video release and hopefully the "director's cut" with the additional 30 minutes of needed story lines. I give it a 6 out of 10.