2010 - 3/5
***SPOILER ALERT***
Plot: B
The storyline hasn’t changed much from the first two. Some parts seemed over the top ridiculous (Jack using a defibrillator on himself; Greg cutting his hand and squirting blood everywhere; Greg and Jack’s bathroom scene). I actually liked how this movie, although titled, Little Fockers, didn’t have too much to do with the kids, but a continuation of the adventures that occur between Greg and Jack.
Script: C+
This movie reused/recycled the same jokes that originated from the first movie (circle of trust; “I’m watching you”; Jack checking Greg’s vital signs to see if he’s lying), and at times it felt a bit watered-down.
There was a lot of crude humor, so its not necessarily a movie for kids to see.
Acting/Characters: B+
I’ve always liked DeNiro and Stiller together. I would have liked to see Dustin Hoffman have more screen time. I have never really liked Owen Wilson (in this movie or others). I had no idea Jessica Alba was in this movie (as Andi) – some of her parts were funny (when she pounced on Greg), but her tearing her clothes off and jumping into the huge pit was kind of dumb.
Overall: B
Still like Meet the Parents and Meet the Fockers more, but I still got some good laughs.
*My personal opinions* on any movie that I have watched.
December 31, 2010
December 15, 2010
The Girl Who Played With Fire
2010 - 4/5
Plot: A
After some time away, Lisbeth goes back to Sweden to find out that she has been accused of the murder of two people. Mikael is still working for Millennium and he’s trying to expose a sex trafficking scandal in Sweden that involves some big names in high places. Both Lisbeth and Mikael are trying to clear her name of the murders, but unlike The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, the pair isn’t working together. There’s a little less mystery in this movie than the first, but this film focuses more on Lisbeth’s past.
Script: A
Very well written, and again, I watched the version with the English subtitles.
Acting/Characters: A
Just as perfect as the first: another convincing performance by Noomi Rapace. The others were good as well.
Lisbeth’s fearlessness keeps the viewer glued to the screen, waiting to see what she’ll do next.
Cinematography: A
Great shots, great scenery, good editing, and very well put together.
Score/Music: A
The music was added at the perfect times; it also added to the tension/suspense on screen.
Overall: A
Very entertaining and keeps you on the edge of your seat. I still liked the first one a tad bit more, and I can’t wait to see the third!
Plot: A
After some time away, Lisbeth goes back to Sweden to find out that she has been accused of the murder of two people. Mikael is still working for Millennium and he’s trying to expose a sex trafficking scandal in Sweden that involves some big names in high places. Both Lisbeth and Mikael are trying to clear her name of the murders, but unlike The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, the pair isn’t working together. There’s a little less mystery in this movie than the first, but this film focuses more on Lisbeth’s past.
Script: A
Very well written, and again, I watched the version with the English subtitles.
Acting/Characters: A
Just as perfect as the first: another convincing performance by Noomi Rapace. The others were good as well.
Lisbeth’s fearlessness keeps the viewer glued to the screen, waiting to see what she’ll do next.
Cinematography: A
Great shots, great scenery, good editing, and very well put together.
Score/Music: A
The music was added at the perfect times; it also added to the tension/suspense on screen.
Overall: A
Very entertaining and keeps you on the edge of your seat. I still liked the first one a tad bit more, and I can’t wait to see the third!
December 6, 2010
The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo
2009 - 4/5
Although this movie was 2.5 hours longs, it was very engaging right from the start. After the first 30 minutes I wanted it to end – not because it was bad, but because I wanted to know what happened!
***Possible Spoilers***
Plot: A
The main plot of this movie is a thrilling murder mystery: Henrik Vanger (Sven-Bertil Taube) is a wealthy old man that hires a journalist, Mikael Blomkvist (Michael Nyqvist) and a computer hacker with a troubled past, Lisbeth Salander (Noomi Rapace), in an attempt to solve the disappearance of his niece Harriet Vanger, which had occurred 40 years prior. Although her body was never found, Henrik believes the killer was someone in his own family. This compelling story follows the unlikely duo as they try to collect information from the very private Vanger family in order to find out what happened to Harriet.
Script: A
When watching foreign films, I prefer to watch them in their native tongue and read the subtitles; that way I’m watching it as the director intended. I think the dialogue was really good and there wasn’t ‘filler’ just for the sake of it. I haven’t had a chance to read the book yet, but I’m assuming the screenplay was written with the book in mind.
There was one line in the movie that I really enjoyed: Mikael saying (to Lisbeth) “Do you have a photographic memory?” – not because it was a great line on its own or anything, but only because it reminded me of the episode of The Big Bang Theory in which Sheldon said “Photographic memory is a misnomer. The correct term is eidetic memory” (haha!).
Acting / Characters: A
All the characters in this movie were well developed and the actors in these roles were incredible. Noomi Rapace (as Lisbeth) was by far the best. Roger Moore said it best, “Lisbeth has issues, and we see them graphically detailed” – Lisbeth is damaged goods, but she’s a complex character and she has a powerful presence on screen. A reviewer on IMDB wrote, “Without changing facial expressions, Rapace is somehow able to show anger, fear, love, sadness and embarrassment at the appropriate times”. Rapace was spot on with her portrayal of Lisbeth, and she was defiantly the most memorable character in this movie.
Cinematography / Editing: A
The cinematography was perfect; each shot captured the landscape, the bridge, the buildings and the people beautifully. There were some really good transitions between scene and great use of flashbacks (to further clarify a particular part).
Overall: A
Some scenes were disturbing, some suspenseful, and some violent; overall, it was very intense, beautiful and terrifying. Lisbeth was a fascinating character, and Noomi Rapace did an amazing job portraying her. As each clue is found, it leaves the viewer wanting more and it never lost my attention. I didn’t really go into this movie with any expectations, but I came out wishing I had watched it sooner!
I don’t think I’ll ever figure out why Hollywood needs to do a remake of this movie, but one thing is for sure: it won’t be as good as the original.
***Possible Spoilers***
Plot: A
The main plot of this movie is a thrilling murder mystery: Henrik Vanger (Sven-Bertil Taube) is a wealthy old man that hires a journalist, Mikael Blomkvist (Michael Nyqvist) and a computer hacker with a troubled past, Lisbeth Salander (Noomi Rapace), in an attempt to solve the disappearance of his niece Harriet Vanger, which had occurred 40 years prior. Although her body was never found, Henrik believes the killer was someone in his own family. This compelling story follows the unlikely duo as they try to collect information from the very private Vanger family in order to find out what happened to Harriet.
Script: A
When watching foreign films, I prefer to watch them in their native tongue and read the subtitles; that way I’m watching it as the director intended. I think the dialogue was really good and there wasn’t ‘filler’ just for the sake of it. I haven’t had a chance to read the book yet, but I’m assuming the screenplay was written with the book in mind.
There was one line in the movie that I really enjoyed: Mikael saying (to Lisbeth) “Do you have a photographic memory?” – not because it was a great line on its own or anything, but only because it reminded me of the episode of The Big Bang Theory in which Sheldon said “Photographic memory is a misnomer. The correct term is eidetic memory” (haha!).
Acting / Characters: A
All the characters in this movie were well developed and the actors in these roles were incredible. Noomi Rapace (as Lisbeth) was by far the best. Roger Moore said it best, “Lisbeth has issues, and we see them graphically detailed” – Lisbeth is damaged goods, but she’s a complex character and she has a powerful presence on screen. A reviewer on IMDB wrote, “Without changing facial expressions, Rapace is somehow able to show anger, fear, love, sadness and embarrassment at the appropriate times”. Rapace was spot on with her portrayal of Lisbeth, and she was defiantly the most memorable character in this movie.
Cinematography / Editing: A
The cinematography was perfect; each shot captured the landscape, the bridge, the buildings and the people beautifully. There were some really good transitions between scene and great use of flashbacks (to further clarify a particular part).
Overall: A
Some scenes were disturbing, some suspenseful, and some violent; overall, it was very intense, beautiful and terrifying. Lisbeth was a fascinating character, and Noomi Rapace did an amazing job portraying her. As each clue is found, it leaves the viewer wanting more and it never lost my attention. I didn’t really go into this movie with any expectations, but I came out wishing I had watched it sooner!
I don’t think I’ll ever figure out why Hollywood needs to do a remake of this movie, but one thing is for sure: it won’t be as good as the original.
November 29, 2010
Letters To Juliet
2010 - 1/5
so i don't really feel like writing a full review for this movie.
very predictable
acting was below par
script was typical
very predictable
acting was below par
script was typical
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My moms' review of this movie:
"It was very, very good"
"It was very, very good"
November 26, 2010
Eat Pray Love
2010 - 0/5
I had no intention to watch this movie (or even read the book); the only reason I rented it was because someone had recommended it to my mom.
Just when I thought Avatar was the worst movie I’ve ever seen in my life…
It’s a movie based on some chick’s life that is boring, and it fails to hold any interest. There were zero redeeming qualities in this movie; because it was so boring, the scenery/cinematography went unnoticed. The story line sucked, the characters sucked, this movie SUCKED! I watched the first 30-45 minutes and then I just put it on fast-forward. I can’t justify giving this movie anything more than a 0/5.
after having watched this movie, i am now more inclined to read
Drink, Play, F@#k: One Man's Search for Anything Across Ireland, Las Vegas, and Thailand
by Andrew Gottlieb
(which I'm currently reading; check out my book review blog!)
http://mmmcanehbr.blogspot.com/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My moms' review of this movie:
"it was very boring"
she did not like it; she fell asleep after 30 minutes and 'watched' the rest while on fast forward.
November 23, 2010
Exit Through the Gift Shop
2010 - 4/5
***SPOILER ALERT***
***SPOILER ALERT***
I heard about this movie one day and saw it the next. Once I found out it's a documentary on street art (graffiti) that includes Banksy, I knew I had to see it.
Although Thierry Guetta called himself a 'filmmaker' during an interview that was shown in this documentary, it is very clear that he is not; he is, and always has been, and always will be a guy with a camera in his hand. Considering Banksy is the director of this film, and that TG's film (also shown in this film SUCKED) should be evidence enough to prove my previous point.
The film starts out with an introduction to Thierry Guetta, a Frenchmen that films anything and everything. He then becomes obsessed with filming and documenting street artists in action; he also wants to film Banksy, an anonymous graffiti artist from London.
I liked Thierry Guetta when it started and as the movie progressed and he became Mr. Brainwash (MBW), an 'artist' himself, he also became arrogant and narcissistic. Banksy isn't looking for fame, he just wants people to see his art: that's why he does it on the streets for everyone to see and wants his identity kept a secret. Unlike Banksy, Thierry likes the star status and the fame that comes with; it seems as if the popularity got to his head. In my opinion, because Banksy remains elusive, his artwork has a lot more value to it than Guetta's and Banksy will always been seen as an artist, but Thierry is the flavour of the month, whose flavour will wear down as time goes on.
If this documentary itself was one of Banksy's creations, I think that that makes him that much more awesome!
Although Thierry Guetta called himself a 'filmmaker' during an interview that was shown in this documentary, it is very clear that he is not; he is, and always has been, and always will be a guy with a camera in his hand. Considering Banksy is the director of this film, and that TG's film (also shown in this film SUCKED) should be evidence enough to prove my previous point.
The film starts out with an introduction to Thierry Guetta, a Frenchmen that films anything and everything. He then becomes obsessed with filming and documenting street artists in action; he also wants to film Banksy, an anonymous graffiti artist from London.
I liked Thierry Guetta when it started and as the movie progressed and he became Mr. Brainwash (MBW), an 'artist' himself, he also became arrogant and narcissistic. Banksy isn't looking for fame, he just wants people to see his art: that's why he does it on the streets for everyone to see and wants his identity kept a secret. Unlike Banksy, Thierry likes the star status and the fame that comes with; it seems as if the popularity got to his head. In my opinion, because Banksy remains elusive, his artwork has a lot more value to it than Guetta's and Banksy will always been seen as an artist, but Thierry is the flavour of the month, whose flavour will wear down as time goes on.
If this documentary itself was one of Banksy's creations, I think that that makes him that much more awesome!
November 21, 2010
Kicking It
2008 - 3/5
I love the idea of a tournament for homeless people and although this documentary was following the 4th annual Homeless World Cup it was the first I've ever heard of it! [unfortunately] - needless to say, I love soccer, so this documentary was a must watch for me.
The Homeless World Cup is an event made up of 500 players from 48 countries that gives drug addicts, alcoholics and people in war torn countries the opportunity to better themselves and their lives with a sport that brings the world together: football.
This film follows 7 participants: Damien & Simon from Ireland, Alex from Kenya, Najib from Afghanistan, Jesus from Spain, Craig from USA, and Slavan from Russia. It highlights each individual's hardships with having to deal with homelessness or poor living conditions in their own nations and in the meanwhile, trying to finish on top in the competition.
The documentary was well made and very well put together, but I wasn't able to feel connected to the 7 people; between the 7, I felt more drawn into the lives of Jesus, Slavan, Damien & Simon and I also thought that the documentary as a whole, would have made a greater impact on the viewer had it only focused on 4 people.
It's obvious that you're not about to watch an extremely skilled professional athlete compete; however the short 14-minute matches were just as intense and thrilling as a FIFA match. Regardless of who may be on the field, this documentary allows the viewer to put aside any prejudices and open their eyes about people living in poverty.
Taking into consideration that this documentary is linked with the worlds most popular sport, it would have been nice to have the option to watch some of the games in full (perhaps in the bonus features section); if more matches were added, the film as a whole could have been more heart wrenching and I would have felt a bond with one [or more] of the countries represented.
Documentaries have gained more and more attention throughout the years and it has become a good medium to illustrate certain issues around the world. The Homeless World Cup is an interesting way to create awareness of homelessness around the world by connecting it to such a beloved game. More importantly, it gave the participants a positive outlook on life and possibilities for and change in the future.
Lastly, I do have to mention that Colin Farrel only narrated the very beginning and the very end. His narration was somewhat pointless, but I guess his name being attached to this film draws in more people than it would have on its own.
I love the idea of a tournament for homeless people and although this documentary was following the 4th annual Homeless World Cup it was the first I've ever heard of it! [unfortunately] - needless to say, I love soccer, so this documentary was a must watch for me.
The Homeless World Cup is an event made up of 500 players from 48 countries that gives drug addicts, alcoholics and people in war torn countries the opportunity to better themselves and their lives with a sport that brings the world together: football.
This film follows 7 participants: Damien & Simon from Ireland, Alex from Kenya, Najib from Afghanistan, Jesus from Spain, Craig from USA, and Slavan from Russia. It highlights each individual's hardships with having to deal with homelessness or poor living conditions in their own nations and in the meanwhile, trying to finish on top in the competition.
The documentary was well made and very well put together, but I wasn't able to feel connected to the 7 people; between the 7, I felt more drawn into the lives of Jesus, Slavan, Damien & Simon and I also thought that the documentary as a whole, would have made a greater impact on the viewer had it only focused on 4 people.
It's obvious that you're not about to watch an extremely skilled professional athlete compete; however the short 14-minute matches were just as intense and thrilling as a FIFA match. Regardless of who may be on the field, this documentary allows the viewer to put aside any prejudices and open their eyes about people living in poverty.
Taking into consideration that this documentary is linked with the worlds most popular sport, it would have been nice to have the option to watch some of the games in full (perhaps in the bonus features section); if more matches were added, the film as a whole could have been more heart wrenching and I would have felt a bond with one [or more] of the countries represented.
Documentaries have gained more and more attention throughout the years and it has become a good medium to illustrate certain issues around the world. The Homeless World Cup is an interesting way to create awareness of homelessness around the world by connecting it to such a beloved game. More importantly, it gave the participants a positive outlook on life and possibilities for and change in the future.
Lastly, I do have to mention that Colin Farrel only narrated the very beginning and the very end. His narration was somewhat pointless, but I guess his name being attached to this film draws in more people than it would have on its own.
November 20, 2010
Charlie St. Cloud
2010 - 2/5
one star for Zac Efron
one star for the scenery
this movie would be a great screen saver!
Plot: C-
Typical.
Script: C-
There were only 2 lines in the entire movie that I actually liked:
Tess: ‘You didn’t die in that car crash’
Charlie: ‘Actually, I did’
AND
Florio: ‘There’s no such thing as a lost cause’
Acting: B
Efron played the party very well; nobody else is worth mentioning.
It was kind of disappointing that Basinger and Liotta’s role’s combined, barley made 10 minutes of screen time – but then again, that just meant more ZE. ;)
Cinematography: A-
Beautiful British Columbia at its best – the forest, the ocean.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My moms' review of this movie:
"it was very boring"
one star for Zac Efron
one star for the scenery
this movie would be a great screen saver!
Plot: C-
Typical.
Script: C-
There were only 2 lines in the entire movie that I actually liked:
Tess: ‘You didn’t die in that car crash’
Charlie: ‘Actually, I did’
AND
Florio: ‘There’s no such thing as a lost cause’
Acting: B
Efron played the party very well; nobody else is worth mentioning.
It was kind of disappointing that Basinger and Liotta’s role’s combined, barley made 10 minutes of screen time – but then again, that just meant more ZE. ;)
Cinematography: A-
Beautiful British Columbia at its best – the forest, the ocean.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My moms' review of this movie:
"it was very boring"
November 19, 2010
Toy Story 3
2010 - 5/5
The Short: A+
Plot: A+
Script: A+
Voiceover Acting: A+
Animation: A+
Score: A+
Overall: A+
LOVED IT!!!
I expected nothing less than perfect from this movie, and it delivered!
The Short: A+
Plot: A+
Script: A+
Voiceover Acting: A+
Animation: A+
Score: A+
Overall: A+
LOVED IT!!!
I expected nothing less than perfect from this movie, and it delivered!
November 18, 2010
The Expendables
2010 - 1/5
I had always wondered what an action movie would be like with the all the action movie stars, and that is why I decided to see this movie.
I don't even feel like writing a full review for this, so point form it is!
The Good:
-It did have a good cast, but the majority of them didn't have much screen time
-Got a few chuckles
The Bad:
-Each character in the movie was pretty much each actor playing his previous movie roles combined
-Even with all the fighting, shootings, and explosions, it was boring
-Stallones' attempt to show that he is still rough and tough (which didn't fly with me)
-Lousy script and weak plot
-Acting was mediocre
-The special effects sucked
-Really jumpy editing and bad directing
I had always wondered what an action movie would be like with the all the action movie stars, and that is why I decided to see this movie.
I don't even feel like writing a full review for this, so point form it is!
The Good:
-It did have a good cast, but the majority of them didn't have much screen time
-Got a few chuckles
The Bad:
-Each character in the movie was pretty much each actor playing his previous movie roles combined
-Even with all the fighting, shootings, and explosions, it was boring
-Stallones' attempt to show that he is still rough and tough (which didn't fly with me)
-Lousy script and weak plot
-Acting was mediocre
-The special effects sucked
-Really jumpy editing and bad directing
November 16, 2010
Hot Tub Time Machine
2010 - 1/5
Not sure how it is possible that you could copy several movies and end up with this crap. It was trying way to hard, but it just turned out so generic! I didn't go into this movie expecting a cinematic masterpiece, but even at the crude humour level, it still sucked. Some of the jokes were funny, but none had repeat value. There was nothing new or fresh about this movie; the director pretty much added anything and everything for shits and giggles - over the top usage of drugs, excessive cursing, uncalled for nudity, and not to mention poop, pee and puke! How this actually made it into theaters is beyond me, however, it crashing and burning I completely understand. I don't plan on watching this again, nor would i recommend it to anyone.
Not sure how it is possible that you could copy several movies and end up with this crap. It was trying way to hard, but it just turned out so generic! I didn't go into this movie expecting a cinematic masterpiece, but even at the crude humour level, it still sucked. Some of the jokes were funny, but none had repeat value. There was nothing new or fresh about this movie; the director pretty much added anything and everything for shits and giggles - over the top usage of drugs, excessive cursing, uncalled for nudity, and not to mention poop, pee and puke! How this actually made it into theaters is beyond me, however, it crashing and burning I completely understand. I don't plan on watching this again, nor would i recommend it to anyone.
November 13, 2010
Where the Wild Things Are
2009 - 2.5/5
i was disappointed, which sucks because i really wanted to like this movie...where to begin... (POSSIBLE SPOILERS)
i was disappointed, which sucks because i really wanted to like this movie...where to begin... (POSSIBLE SPOILERS)
the bad: the wild things should have had more monster-like characteristics (they shouldn't have been so human-like; for example the voices) ...the kid max wasn't that great in this role... it's understandable that there was a sad aspect in the plot, but this was verging on depressing... i thought there were many pointless parts that could have been left out (for example the boulder fight, raccoon, hiding in the stomach) ...the story line wasn't similar to the book at all (but then again its a 10 page book)...
the good: the wild things (they looked amazing)
November 11, 2010
The Lovely Bones
2009 - 1/5
i didn't have a chance to read the book before i saw the movie (although i really wanted to, but school and work get in the way of life)... that being said, i'm not sure i was ready for all the 'fantasy' parts (the 'in-between' parts), i didn't see that coming. some of those parts were done well, and i enjoyed the editing going back and forth between susie and her dad (how the 'connection' they had was shown). acting was pretty good, tucci stood out the most. overall, it was a good movie, it did move at a slow pace, but i'm definitely going to read the book when i get a chance.
i didn't have a chance to read the book before i saw the movie (although i really wanted to, but school and work get in the way of life)... that being said, i'm not sure i was ready for all the 'fantasy' parts (the 'in-between' parts), i didn't see that coming. some of those parts were done well, and i enjoyed the editing going back and forth between susie and her dad (how the 'connection' they had was shown). acting was pretty good, tucci stood out the most. overall, it was a good movie, it did move at a slow pace, but i'm definitely going to read the book when i get a chance.
Update (April 2012):
I tried reading the book earlier this year and I couldn't get into it. I liked Alice Sebold's first book Lucky, but I only got to page 70 (?) of The Lovely Bones and it sucked, so I stopped reading it.
November 6, 2010
Dear John
2010 - 2/5
i haven't read the book, but i think it's fair to assume that it's gripping and the reader is drawn into the character, but the movie doesn't do that at all, probably because there wasn't any character development. i wasn't expecting much from this movie, mainly in terms of the acting, but it wasn't horrible, although the love between Savannah and John wasn't believable (the pair didn't click as actors). the movie should have focused a bit more on John and his dad (jenkins was solid, as usual). it was dull, and i just kept waiting for something major to happen, but i was let down. i liked the twist and how the movie ended.
i haven't read the book, but i think it's fair to assume that it's gripping and the reader is drawn into the character, but the movie doesn't do that at all, probably because there wasn't any character development. i wasn't expecting much from this movie, mainly in terms of the acting, but it wasn't horrible, although the love between Savannah and John wasn't believable (the pair didn't click as actors). the movie should have focused a bit more on John and his dad (jenkins was solid, as usual). it was dull, and i just kept waiting for something major to happen, but i was let down. i liked the twist and how the movie ended.
November 4, 2010
The Woodsman
2004 - 2/5
***POSSIBLE SPOILERS ALERT***
The first thing I want to say about this movie is that it wasn't a bad movie, but it wasn't necessarily a good one either. The movie was well paced (but a bit slow at times) and well put together.
Plot: B
Kevin Bacon's character, Walter is a pedophile that was released from prison after serving a 12-year sentence. He is trying to put his life back together and integrate himself back into society, but the unpleasant nature of his crime doesn't sit well with people he encounters (mainly at his job in a lumber mill). This movie is about the barriers he has to face as an ex-con and his struggle for recovery.
It's obvious that Walter is trying to change and trying to become 'normal,' but at the same time, this movie also brings forth the question of whether society ought to let him do so. The way this movie is presented to the audience allows them to get a glimpse of peoples attitudes regarding pedophiles: the general public (mainly his coworkers), law enforcement (Sgt Lucas), his family (sister and brother in law) and victims (Robin). Even though most people have a preconceived notion that all pedophiles (or criminals in general) are 'bad people,' they usually fail to take into account the circumstances of each particular case; people have a tendency to jump to conclusions and never take the time to be objective.
The plot wasn't very engaging and I wasn't really drawn in. The only part that I felt on edge was during the scene (near the end) that Walter follows Robin down the trail and I was thinking 'how far will he take this?'
The subject matter of this movie shouldn't be taken lightly, so I would like to give credit to the director (Nicole Kassell) for taking on such an uncomfortable topic, as well as presenting it in a way that doesn't minimize or sensationalize the actions of pedophiles; it's not a typical Hollywood flick.
Script: C
The script for this movie could have been something very powerful, but it wasn't as gripping as you'd expect. My favourite line was said during Walter's conversation with his therapist and they were talking about a merry-go-round: "by going in circles we see things we miss the first time around." There were some other good lines that were said by Sgt. Lucas (Lucas: "you don't mind if I look around, would you?" / Walter: "I would" / Lucas: "why? you got something to hide?" /Walter: "doesn't everybody"), but the majority of the dialogue seemed overdone and pretentious.
Acting/Characters: B
Although a lot of reviewer on IMDB stated that Kevin Bacon did a really good job with the character, I wouldn't say he did - I just couldn't get past seeing KB's portrayal of the character Walter, rather than the character itself. Walter isn't a likeable character, but I did pity him. The viewer knows he wants to change and wants to be 'normal' but it's hard to feel any sympathy for him mainly because of what he did.
Vickie (Kyra Sedgwick) had her own emotional baggage (from childhood) and was pretty much as damaged as Walter, and that's why the two characters clicked together very well. The scenes that included the both of them were the most genuine scenes in the entire movie and were the most believable.
Sgt Lucas (Mos Def) was an irritating character that would pop up randomly every now and then. He was overly pushy and extremely judgmental, but then again, that does fit in only because he was in a position of authority. I don't really get why Mos Def is so praised for his role in this movie, but that's probably because I didn't like his character.
Benjamin Bratt was Walter's brother in law (Carlos). He didn't have a huge role in this movie, but he played the part well. It was interesting to see that Walter had a better relationship with his brother in law than his own sister.
I was kind of surprised that Robin (Hannah Pilkes) didn't have a bigger role and I was also hoping there would be another encounter between Walter and Robin, but the movie ended somewhat suddenly, so that didn't happen. I'm not a huge fan of child actors because they have a tendency to fail miserably - I wouldn't say she failed, but her performance was nothing noteworthy.
The only time the audience got to see things from Walter's perspective was when he went to his therapist Rosen (Michael Shannon). The scene that Walter had his eyes closed and opened them and Rosen was behind him and Walter screamed at him saying, "What are you doing back there? I want you back in your chair now" was kind of pathetic and I found myself wanting to laugh; I'm sure that's not the reaction the director wanted the viewer to have, but there was no chemistry between the two so any interaction between those two was cliché, dull and forced.
Eve is a rapper (questionably), and she should have stuck with music. I'm sure there were many more qualified people that could have played the part of a receptionist much better than she did (even though it was a small role).
While looking out his window at the school across the street, Walter notices another pedophile whom he calls 'Candy' because he tries to lure young boys into his car with candy. I can't tell if the director meant to portray this character in such a stereotypical manner, however, I did like the scene that Walter gives a play by play (like a commentator) of 'Candy' trying get a kid to go into his car.
Cinematography: B+ The type of shots used and the dim lighting was very well done (and probably my favourite thing about this movie) - these things added so much to the mood of the movie and the whole notion of isolation. The medium shots used helps the audience recognize how restricted his view of the world was. The dim lighting presented Walter's bleak existence and the enclosed spaces resemble his internal struggle. Although he is free from prison, his freedom is still limited physically and mentally: physically because most of the shots were in his apartment or when he was looking outside his window. And mentally because he is still in his own prison because he doesn't consider himself 'normal' and he can't escape his own thoughts.
I did like the symbolism of Little Red Riding Hood that was tied into the movie. The only bright colour that appeared in the movie was red (the ball and Robin's jacket), which happens to be the colour that depicts danger. I liked the irony regarding Robin's name and her hobby of bird watching and her inability to 'fly away' from being abused by her father, and almost falling prey to Walter.
Soundtrack: N/A
I only remember 2 songs and they both fit well with the scene. Nothing gained, nothing lost.
Overall: B
There is no sense of time and space throughout the entire movie, therefore it felt as if it was all over the place. It was hard to tell how many days or months had passed by (for example, when Walter was trying to meet up with his sister).
The result of having a few of the characters being offenders or victims (Walter/'Candy' and Vickie/Robin) was overly exaggerated (could have been intentional), which made that aspect repetitive and diluted. I felt as if the premise of the movie lost all meaning and turned out ineffective by the end.
There were too many loose ends and many segments of the movie remained underdeveloped. We never really got to know what those random scenes were (a child walking in the woods, and an adult following (?); the red ball that rolled towards Walter next to the fence at the school; the girl in Walters apartment; ect). Were they delusions in Walter's head, or events that had occurred previously? They were left unexplained, and somewhat unnecessary.
Lastly, I liked how it didn't have a typical 'happy ending' because, with this subject matter, there usually isn't a happy ending!
***POSSIBLE SPOILERS ALERT***
The first thing I want to say about this movie is that it wasn't a bad movie, but it wasn't necessarily a good one either. The movie was well paced (but a bit slow at times) and well put together.
Plot: B
Kevin Bacon's character, Walter is a pedophile that was released from prison after serving a 12-year sentence. He is trying to put his life back together and integrate himself back into society, but the unpleasant nature of his crime doesn't sit well with people he encounters (mainly at his job in a lumber mill). This movie is about the barriers he has to face as an ex-con and his struggle for recovery.
It's obvious that Walter is trying to change and trying to become 'normal,' but at the same time, this movie also brings forth the question of whether society ought to let him do so. The way this movie is presented to the audience allows them to get a glimpse of peoples attitudes regarding pedophiles: the general public (mainly his coworkers), law enforcement (Sgt Lucas), his family (sister and brother in law) and victims (Robin). Even though most people have a preconceived notion that all pedophiles (or criminals in general) are 'bad people,' they usually fail to take into account the circumstances of each particular case; people have a tendency to jump to conclusions and never take the time to be objective.
The plot wasn't very engaging and I wasn't really drawn in. The only part that I felt on edge was during the scene (near the end) that Walter follows Robin down the trail and I was thinking 'how far will he take this?'
The subject matter of this movie shouldn't be taken lightly, so I would like to give credit to the director (Nicole Kassell) for taking on such an uncomfortable topic, as well as presenting it in a way that doesn't minimize or sensationalize the actions of pedophiles; it's not a typical Hollywood flick.
Script: C
The script for this movie could have been something very powerful, but it wasn't as gripping as you'd expect. My favourite line was said during Walter's conversation with his therapist and they were talking about a merry-go-round: "by going in circles we see things we miss the first time around." There were some other good lines that were said by Sgt. Lucas (Lucas: "you don't mind if I look around, would you?" / Walter: "I would" / Lucas: "why? you got something to hide?" /Walter: "doesn't everybody"), but the majority of the dialogue seemed overdone and pretentious.
Acting/Characters: B
Although a lot of reviewer on IMDB stated that Kevin Bacon did a really good job with the character, I wouldn't say he did - I just couldn't get past seeing KB's portrayal of the character Walter, rather than the character itself. Walter isn't a likeable character, but I did pity him. The viewer knows he wants to change and wants to be 'normal' but it's hard to feel any sympathy for him mainly because of what he did.
Vickie (Kyra Sedgwick) had her own emotional baggage (from childhood) and was pretty much as damaged as Walter, and that's why the two characters clicked together very well. The scenes that included the both of them were the most genuine scenes in the entire movie and were the most believable.
Sgt Lucas (Mos Def) was an irritating character that would pop up randomly every now and then. He was overly pushy and extremely judgmental, but then again, that does fit in only because he was in a position of authority. I don't really get why Mos Def is so praised for his role in this movie, but that's probably because I didn't like his character.
Benjamin Bratt was Walter's brother in law (Carlos). He didn't have a huge role in this movie, but he played the part well. It was interesting to see that Walter had a better relationship with his brother in law than his own sister.
I was kind of surprised that Robin (Hannah Pilkes) didn't have a bigger role and I was also hoping there would be another encounter between Walter and Robin, but the movie ended somewhat suddenly, so that didn't happen. I'm not a huge fan of child actors because they have a tendency to fail miserably - I wouldn't say she failed, but her performance was nothing noteworthy.
The only time the audience got to see things from Walter's perspective was when he went to his therapist Rosen (Michael Shannon). The scene that Walter had his eyes closed and opened them and Rosen was behind him and Walter screamed at him saying, "What are you doing back there? I want you back in your chair now" was kind of pathetic and I found myself wanting to laugh; I'm sure that's not the reaction the director wanted the viewer to have, but there was no chemistry between the two so any interaction between those two was cliché, dull and forced.
Eve is a rapper (questionably), and she should have stuck with music. I'm sure there were many more qualified people that could have played the part of a receptionist much better than she did (even though it was a small role).
While looking out his window at the school across the street, Walter notices another pedophile whom he calls 'Candy' because he tries to lure young boys into his car with candy. I can't tell if the director meant to portray this character in such a stereotypical manner, however, I did like the scene that Walter gives a play by play (like a commentator) of 'Candy' trying get a kid to go into his car.
Cinematography: B+ The type of shots used and the dim lighting was very well done (and probably my favourite thing about this movie) - these things added so much to the mood of the movie and the whole notion of isolation. The medium shots used helps the audience recognize how restricted his view of the world was. The dim lighting presented Walter's bleak existence and the enclosed spaces resemble his internal struggle. Although he is free from prison, his freedom is still limited physically and mentally: physically because most of the shots were in his apartment or when he was looking outside his window. And mentally because he is still in his own prison because he doesn't consider himself 'normal' and he can't escape his own thoughts.
I did like the symbolism of Little Red Riding Hood that was tied into the movie. The only bright colour that appeared in the movie was red (the ball and Robin's jacket), which happens to be the colour that depicts danger. I liked the irony regarding Robin's name and her hobby of bird watching and her inability to 'fly away' from being abused by her father, and almost falling prey to Walter.
Soundtrack: N/A
I only remember 2 songs and they both fit well with the scene. Nothing gained, nothing lost.
Overall: B
There is no sense of time and space throughout the entire movie, therefore it felt as if it was all over the place. It was hard to tell how many days or months had passed by (for example, when Walter was trying to meet up with his sister).
The result of having a few of the characters being offenders or victims (Walter/'Candy' and Vickie/Robin) was overly exaggerated (could have been intentional), which made that aspect repetitive and diluted. I felt as if the premise of the movie lost all meaning and turned out ineffective by the end.
There were too many loose ends and many segments of the movie remained underdeveloped. We never really got to know what those random scenes were (a child walking in the woods, and an adult following (?); the red ball that rolled towards Walter next to the fence at the school; the girl in Walters apartment; ect). Were they delusions in Walter's head, or events that had occurred previously? They were left unexplained, and somewhat unnecessary.
Lastly, I liked how it didn't have a typical 'happy ending' because, with this subject matter, there usually isn't a happy ending!
November 3, 2010
Shutter Island
2010 - 1/5
***SPOILER ALERT***
Although I was able to figure out the big twist (if you can call it that) the first time I saw the trailer, I was still eager to see it because I like Leo D, and Scorsese has directed a lot of good movies. I didn't think I could go wrong with this one. Considering I knew the 'what', the trailer didn't give away the 'why', so I thought it would still be worth watching. I also heard that Ruffalo's acting gives it away as well (it does, unless you're completely oblivious). None of the smaller aspects of the movie clicked together. I wanted it to be more eerie and tense. It was a let down to say the least.
Plot: C-
The movie is set in 1954, and US Federal Marshall Teddy Daniels (DiCaprio) and his new partner Chuck Aule (Ruffalo) are assigned to investigate the disappearance of a patient/criminal in a facility for the criminally insane on an isolated island. To me, this was an original plot (although other reviews I've read have stated that it is similar to other movies). There were so many directions this could have gone in; instead, Scorsese took the most boring and disinteresting route.
Script: D
The screenplay was something that should have been extraordinary - it wasn't. The one and only line I liked in the screenplay was courtesy of nurse Marino: 'This is mental institution, Marshall, for the criminally insane. 'Usual' isn't a big part of our day.'
Acting/Characters: C
Kingsly + DiCaprio + Ruffalo = a good cast; that's pretty much the only positive thing I have to say about that. Leo DiCaprio does a good job as Teddy, and he is believable as that character, but the actual character itself isn't very interesting; it remained very neutral. As I mentioned earlier, Ruffalo's acting (as Chuck) gave away the twist and it just seemed as if it was being forced and he wasn't convincing. As for Teddy's wife, Dolores, her parts were so boring to watch, and considering Teddy's mental instability started with issues with her, you would expect a strong emotional attachment, but it just seemed empty and void. There was no build up of tension between characters (mainly Teddy and the hospital staff), which is unfortunate because that's what you'd expect from this type of movie. The characters aren't supposed to like each other, and they're supposed to get under each other's skin, but nadda!
Cinematography: D
There are some nice shots, but nothing outstanding. Any shot in which Teddy was on the cliff did look nice. The first shot on the boat going to the island looked staged. Most of the shots were up close, or in enclosed spaces.
Score/Sound Effects: F
Wow, I did not like the music/score at all. It seemed as if the music wasn't paired well with what was on screen at all! When there should have been music, there wasn't and when there was, it just didnt fit. The score could have had so much impact on the viewer and added to the intensity (not that there was much intensity) of what was on screen. The lack-there-of of any sound effects was disappointing; it was the perfect atmosphere for such thing.
Overall: F
Throughout the entire movie, I got an unrealistic vibe. One part that really bugged me was Teddy's exceptional ability to climb up and down a vertical cliff - he climbed up and down that [vertical] cliff with ease. This would have been a perfect moment to add intensity to the movie; but no, it seemed as if he was walking up and down stairs.
The wife popping up so often became excessively redundant; she was a hallucination - we get it - move on! The dream sequences (with his family/during wwii) were too flashy and overdone. It really didn't add to the overall emotion of the movie. Unfortunately the only thing it did add was unnecessary minutes.
I really wanted to like this movie, however, I couldn't get into it and it fails to hold any interest at any point. I was expecting to see some information surface that would have a greater impact in terms of surprises, and twists that I hadn't seen coming; that never happened. The trailer came off as a mysterious, psychological thriller - overly promised and under-delivered. It wasn't as dark and dreary as I expected it to be. Instead of getting better, it got worse - a swing and a miss (by far, might I add).
***SPOILER ALERT***
Although I was able to figure out the big twist (if you can call it that) the first time I saw the trailer, I was still eager to see it because I like Leo D, and Scorsese has directed a lot of good movies. I didn't think I could go wrong with this one. Considering I knew the 'what', the trailer didn't give away the 'why', so I thought it would still be worth watching. I also heard that Ruffalo's acting gives it away as well (it does, unless you're completely oblivious). None of the smaller aspects of the movie clicked together. I wanted it to be more eerie and tense. It was a let down to say the least.
Plot: C-
The movie is set in 1954, and US Federal Marshall Teddy Daniels (DiCaprio) and his new partner Chuck Aule (Ruffalo) are assigned to investigate the disappearance of a patient/criminal in a facility for the criminally insane on an isolated island. To me, this was an original plot (although other reviews I've read have stated that it is similar to other movies). There were so many directions this could have gone in; instead, Scorsese took the most boring and disinteresting route.
Script: D
The screenplay was something that should have been extraordinary - it wasn't. The one and only line I liked in the screenplay was courtesy of nurse Marino: 'This is mental institution, Marshall, for the criminally insane. 'Usual' isn't a big part of our day.'
Acting/Characters: C
Kingsly + DiCaprio + Ruffalo = a good cast; that's pretty much the only positive thing I have to say about that. Leo DiCaprio does a good job as Teddy, and he is believable as that character, but the actual character itself isn't very interesting; it remained very neutral. As I mentioned earlier, Ruffalo's acting (as Chuck) gave away the twist and it just seemed as if it was being forced and he wasn't convincing. As for Teddy's wife, Dolores, her parts were so boring to watch, and considering Teddy's mental instability started with issues with her, you would expect a strong emotional attachment, but it just seemed empty and void. There was no build up of tension between characters (mainly Teddy and the hospital staff), which is unfortunate because that's what you'd expect from this type of movie. The characters aren't supposed to like each other, and they're supposed to get under each other's skin, but nadda!
Cinematography: D
There are some nice shots, but nothing outstanding. Any shot in which Teddy was on the cliff did look nice. The first shot on the boat going to the island looked staged. Most of the shots were up close, or in enclosed spaces.
Score/Sound Effects: F
Wow, I did not like the music/score at all. It seemed as if the music wasn't paired well with what was on screen at all! When there should have been music, there wasn't and when there was, it just didnt fit. The score could have had so much impact on the viewer and added to the intensity (not that there was much intensity) of what was on screen. The lack-there-of of any sound effects was disappointing; it was the perfect atmosphere for such thing.
Overall: F
Throughout the entire movie, I got an unrealistic vibe. One part that really bugged me was Teddy's exceptional ability to climb up and down a vertical cliff - he climbed up and down that [vertical] cliff with ease. This would have been a perfect moment to add intensity to the movie; but no, it seemed as if he was walking up and down stairs.
The wife popping up so often became excessively redundant; she was a hallucination - we get it - move on! The dream sequences (with his family/during wwii) were too flashy and overdone. It really didn't add to the overall emotion of the movie. Unfortunately the only thing it did add was unnecessary minutes.
I really wanted to like this movie, however, I couldn't get into it and it fails to hold any interest at any point. I was expecting to see some information surface that would have a greater impact in terms of surprises, and twists that I hadn't seen coming; that never happened. The trailer came off as a mysterious, psychological thriller - overly promised and under-delivered. It wasn't as dark and dreary as I expected it to be. Instead of getting better, it got worse - a swing and a miss (by far, might I add).
November 2, 2010
Karate Kid + Video Review
2010 - 3.5/5
VIDEO REVIEW:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpmlpMqUq7g
***SPOILER ALERT***
After so many years, this movie manages to stays true to the original of 1984. There are some parts that pay homage to the original, for example, the "jacket on, jacket off" being the new "wax on, wax off." I liked how the director acknowledged that the martial art Dre was learning was Kung Fu and not Karate; it was mentioned a few times in the movie and it was added into the dialogue (twice) in a subtle way. Obviously, this storyline isn't anything new by any means, but it is a modernized version of the original Karate Kid and it's worth the watch.
Plot: B+
12 year-old Dre Parker (Jaden Smith) moves from the US to China with his mom Sherry (Taraji Henson) because she had to relocate for her job at a car manufacture. It is a completely different environment than he's used to. He befriends a girl named Meiying (Wenwen Han) on his first day there, and things seem to be going smoothly; however, after taking a beating from some local kids (Cheng and friends), Dre is less than pleased with the move, and the fact that his mom wants him to learn and accept the customs and the language. Mr. Han (Jackie Chan), the maintenance man in Dre's building begins to teach Dre kung fu, so Dre can earn the respect of Cheng in an upcoming tournament.
A reviewer on IMDB stated that "the bullies remain underdeveloped and their motive is never explained; we are left to assume it was because he is the new kid?; I think that the motive was that Cheng and Meiying's parents were really close, so Cheng was looking out for her; regardless of whether or not you think there was/wasn't a motive, I personally didn't think that it took anything away from the movie; I still felt a realistic dislike between Dre and Cheng, so Chengs' true motive wasn't really an issue for me.
Script: B+
I really liked the script and it should be obvious that there will be motivational speeches (some funny, some serious): "There are no bad students, only bad teachers" and "your focus needs more focus."
There are valuable life lessons entangled in kung fu - Mr. Han states in one of his lines, that kung fu lives in everything we do (or something to that effect).
After Dre's first encounter with Cheng, it was his intention to learn kung fu as a means of revenge, however, Mr. Han's motivational speeches stresses the importance of respect, which changes Dre's motives, and in the end, he stood up to the challenge for the right reasons; Mr. Han: "You've already accomplished everything you wanted to. Why do you still want to fight?" / Dre: "Because win or lose, I don't want to be afraid any more. And I'm still afraid."
One of the most powerful moments of the movie had no dialogue at all; the scene that Dre walks into Mr. Hans house and sees the smashed car with Mr. Han in the driver seat crying, and Dre says nothing, but his actions speak louder than words in that moment.
Acting/Characters: B
It is evident that Jaden Smith did a lot of kung fu training to prepare for this movie; I was weary of his acting ability, but he was spot on! He genuinely seems frustrated with the situation he has been put in; whether he had to be upset, scared, annoyed, hurt, he did everything so well. He had such a strong presence on screen, and there were some points in which I saw his dad in him; he really does have the same mannerisms as his dad, Will Smith. He's also a great dancer and those scenes were fun to watch. He put a lot of effort into becoming this character, and it really paid off! (Side-note: it wasn't pleasant watching a 12 year-old getting beat up - Dre did get pretty roughed up at some points; but then again, it's a Hollywood movie and it did seem as if a double was used in at least one scene).
Jaden Smith wasn't the only person on screen that had a strong presence; as far as I know, this was Chan's first dramatic role, and he held his own and nailed his character dead on! His facial expressions, tone of voice and body gestures solidified the very essence of his character. It's nice to see he can still do martial arts and kick some ass.
To be completely honest, I was skeptical of Wenwen Han (Dre's crush) and Zhenwei Wang (Dre's bully). Not only did both suit their parts really well, they both also presented their characters in a very believable manner. Taraji Henson portrayed her character Sherry (Dre's mom) very well too; she didn't have a huge role in this, but each part with her in it had an impact.
Cinematography: A
The 60 days spent filming in China contributed to the cinematography in a big way. There are so many attractions that were wonderfully shot: the Forbidden City, the Great Wall, and the Shaolin Temple! These attractions made for beautiful shots. Even the large field with the young kids training (in the red outfits) was filmed very well.
All the fight scenes seemed so realistic; every hit, jump, and move was very well choreographed. The movements were so fluid that it was easy to see everything that happened. The replays of the major hits during the tournament were short and sweet and highlighted the technicality of each move; although I have to add, that there were no scenes that showed Mr. Han teaching Dre the cool kicks or the slide during the tournament.
Soundtrack/Sound Effects: B+
Has really good songs by John Mayer, Flo Rida, and yes, even Justin Bieber! The sound effects were perfect; they were added in at the right times and didn't seem fake or overdone.
Overall: B+
Although it was really similar to the original, it kept my interest the entire time. The audience got to see the relationship between Dre and his mom, Han, and Meiying develop so it was worth the run time that was just over 2 hours. There are quite a few life lessons that are relayed in this movie. Pretty much everyone in this movie learns a lesson: Dre, Sherry, Mr. Han, Cheng, Meiying, and even Meiying's dad!
VIDEO REVIEW:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpmlpMqUq7g
***SPOILER ALERT***
After so many years, this movie manages to stays true to the original of 1984. There are some parts that pay homage to the original, for example, the "jacket on, jacket off" being the new "wax on, wax off." I liked how the director acknowledged that the martial art Dre was learning was Kung Fu and not Karate; it was mentioned a few times in the movie and it was added into the dialogue (twice) in a subtle way. Obviously, this storyline isn't anything new by any means, but it is a modernized version of the original Karate Kid and it's worth the watch.
Plot: B+
12 year-old Dre Parker (Jaden Smith) moves from the US to China with his mom Sherry (Taraji Henson) because she had to relocate for her job at a car manufacture. It is a completely different environment than he's used to. He befriends a girl named Meiying (Wenwen Han) on his first day there, and things seem to be going smoothly; however, after taking a beating from some local kids (Cheng and friends), Dre is less than pleased with the move, and the fact that his mom wants him to learn and accept the customs and the language. Mr. Han (Jackie Chan), the maintenance man in Dre's building begins to teach Dre kung fu, so Dre can earn the respect of Cheng in an upcoming tournament.
A reviewer on IMDB stated that "the bullies remain underdeveloped and their motive is never explained; we are left to assume it was because he is the new kid?; I think that the motive was that Cheng and Meiying's parents were really close, so Cheng was looking out for her; regardless of whether or not you think there was/wasn't a motive, I personally didn't think that it took anything away from the movie; I still felt a realistic dislike between Dre and Cheng, so Chengs' true motive wasn't really an issue for me.
Script: B+
I really liked the script and it should be obvious that there will be motivational speeches (some funny, some serious): "There are no bad students, only bad teachers" and "your focus needs more focus."
There are valuable life lessons entangled in kung fu - Mr. Han states in one of his lines, that kung fu lives in everything we do (or something to that effect).
After Dre's first encounter with Cheng, it was his intention to learn kung fu as a means of revenge, however, Mr. Han's motivational speeches stresses the importance of respect, which changes Dre's motives, and in the end, he stood up to the challenge for the right reasons; Mr. Han: "You've already accomplished everything you wanted to. Why do you still want to fight?" / Dre: "Because win or lose, I don't want to be afraid any more. And I'm still afraid."
One of the most powerful moments of the movie had no dialogue at all; the scene that Dre walks into Mr. Hans house and sees the smashed car with Mr. Han in the driver seat crying, and Dre says nothing, but his actions speak louder than words in that moment.
Acting/Characters: B
It is evident that Jaden Smith did a lot of kung fu training to prepare for this movie; I was weary of his acting ability, but he was spot on! He genuinely seems frustrated with the situation he has been put in; whether he had to be upset, scared, annoyed, hurt, he did everything so well. He had such a strong presence on screen, and there were some points in which I saw his dad in him; he really does have the same mannerisms as his dad, Will Smith. He's also a great dancer and those scenes were fun to watch. He put a lot of effort into becoming this character, and it really paid off! (Side-note: it wasn't pleasant watching a 12 year-old getting beat up - Dre did get pretty roughed up at some points; but then again, it's a Hollywood movie and it did seem as if a double was used in at least one scene).
Jaden Smith wasn't the only person on screen that had a strong presence; as far as I know, this was Chan's first dramatic role, and he held his own and nailed his character dead on! His facial expressions, tone of voice and body gestures solidified the very essence of his character. It's nice to see he can still do martial arts and kick some ass.
To be completely honest, I was skeptical of Wenwen Han (Dre's crush) and Zhenwei Wang (Dre's bully). Not only did both suit their parts really well, they both also presented their characters in a very believable manner. Taraji Henson portrayed her character Sherry (Dre's mom) very well too; she didn't have a huge role in this, but each part with her in it had an impact.
Cinematography: A
The 60 days spent filming in China contributed to the cinematography in a big way. There are so many attractions that were wonderfully shot: the Forbidden City, the Great Wall, and the Shaolin Temple! These attractions made for beautiful shots. Even the large field with the young kids training (in the red outfits) was filmed very well.
All the fight scenes seemed so realistic; every hit, jump, and move was very well choreographed. The movements were so fluid that it was easy to see everything that happened. The replays of the major hits during the tournament were short and sweet and highlighted the technicality of each move; although I have to add, that there were no scenes that showed Mr. Han teaching Dre the cool kicks or the slide during the tournament.
Soundtrack/Sound Effects: B+
Has really good songs by John Mayer, Flo Rida, and yes, even Justin Bieber! The sound effects were perfect; they were added in at the right times and didn't seem fake or overdone.
Overall: B+
Although it was really similar to the original, it kept my interest the entire time. The audience got to see the relationship between Dre and his mom, Han, and Meiying develop so it was worth the run time that was just over 2 hours. There are quite a few life lessons that are relayed in this movie. Pretty much everyone in this movie learns a lesson: Dre, Sherry, Mr. Han, Cheng, Meiying, and even Meiying's dad!
November 1, 2010
Step Up 3D
2010
4/5 - dancing + music
0/5 - plot, script, acting
***SPOILER ALERT*** (not that it matters)
So although this movie is called Step Up 3D, the theater I saw it in didn't have it available in 3D.
I do want to mention that I don't have a lot of time to write a full review on my own, so anything in quotes was taken from reviews I've read on IMDB
Plot/Script/Acting: F
"First of all, remember folks, that dancers aren't actors. And apparently no one was a writer either because the script sounded like it was written in about 10 minutes."
The storyline is very similar to Step Up 2 the Streets: a dancing crew trying to beat a rival dancing crew to win a contest, in which the prize money will be used to prevent the foreclosure of a dance studio (?) that Luke invested in to keep the memory of his parents alive (bc they were both dancers).
I got a lot of unintended laughs because of the dialogue; for example, when Luke is telling Natalie about his parents that have passed away, which was supposed to be an emotional part of the movie, my friend said "did they die dancing?" After that comment, I could not stop laughing!
Random points:
If Luke and Julien were good friends, wouldn't you think that Luke would have known that Julien had a sister? And who else guessed that Natalie was Julien's sister? That couldn't have been more obvious - well, the entire movie was very predicable.
"Moose and his bff have a more convincing romantic storyline than their two older counterparts."
Dancing: A+
The choreography was amazing and the people from SYTYCD are phenomenal dancers! The outfits were colourful and really flashy (during the last dance). The dances were so creative and I liked how some of the dances were on the streets and some were on a stage and especially the one with water. I really enjoyed the 'musical number' between Moose and Camille too.
Soundtrack: A-
The music was good; the beats were new and fresh.
Overall:
In general, since the first Step Up the acting, plot and script has deteriorated, BUT the soundtrack and especially the dancing has gotten better and better.
4/5 - dancing + music
0/5 - plot, script, acting
***SPOILER ALERT*** (not that it matters)
So although this movie is called Step Up 3D, the theater I saw it in didn't have it available in 3D.
I do want to mention that I don't have a lot of time to write a full review on my own, so anything in quotes was taken from reviews I've read on IMDB
Plot/Script/Acting: F
"First of all, remember folks, that dancers aren't actors. And apparently no one was a writer either because the script sounded like it was written in about 10 minutes."
The storyline is very similar to Step Up 2 the Streets: a dancing crew trying to beat a rival dancing crew to win a contest, in which the prize money will be used to prevent the foreclosure of a dance studio (?) that Luke invested in to keep the memory of his parents alive (bc they were both dancers).
I got a lot of unintended laughs because of the dialogue; for example, when Luke is telling Natalie about his parents that have passed away, which was supposed to be an emotional part of the movie, my friend said "did they die dancing?" After that comment, I could not stop laughing!
Random points:
If Luke and Julien were good friends, wouldn't you think that Luke would have known that Julien had a sister? And who else guessed that Natalie was Julien's sister? That couldn't have been more obvious - well, the entire movie was very predicable.
"Moose and his bff have a more convincing romantic storyline than their two older counterparts."
Dancing: A+
The choreography was amazing and the people from SYTYCD are phenomenal dancers! The outfits were colourful and really flashy (during the last dance). The dances were so creative and I liked how some of the dances were on the streets and some were on a stage and especially the one with water. I really enjoyed the 'musical number' between Moose and Camille too.
Soundtrack: A-
The music was good; the beats were new and fresh.
Overall:
In general, since the first Step Up the acting, plot and script has deteriorated, BUT the soundtrack and especially the dancing has gotten better and better.
October 30, 2010
Alice In Wonderland
2010 - 4.5/5
i was expecting to like this movie but i came out LOVING it! it probably will be in my top 3 favorite movies of 2010!...
bc it was in 3d, some parts were blurry, and some detail was lost; that aside....
i enjoyed everyones performances (hathaway was okay, she played the part well, but there was room for improvement; or possibly a better person), the story kept me interested, the visuals were stunning; i loved the characters (especially tweedledee and tweedledum) and i loved the costumes and makeup (especially the mad hatter)
possibly a longer review coming soon...
i was expecting to like this movie but i came out LOVING it! it probably will be in my top 3 favorite movies of 2010!...
bc it was in 3d, some parts were blurry, and some detail was lost; that aside....
i enjoyed everyones performances (hathaway was okay, she played the part well, but there was room for improvement; or possibly a better person), the story kept me interested, the visuals were stunning; i loved the characters (especially tweedledee and tweedledum) and i loved the costumes and makeup (especially the mad hatter)
possibly a longer review coming soon...
October 28, 2010
She's Out Of My League
2010 - 3/5
The trailer made it seem as if it was a comedy targeted towards a predominantly male audience, but it turns out to be more of a romantic comedy and tips the scales towards a chick flick. Considering this movie uses a 10-point scale, I will follow suit. Alice Eve as Molly was a 'hard 10' (honestly, I'd have to disagree); Jay Baruchel as Kirk was a 5 (he's Canadian, so I'd give him a 7); and this movie was a 6.
Plot: B
I liked the way the movie was advertised and its tagline: 'How can a 10 go for a 5'? - the director could have really made it into something different than what's already been done. With that being said, it did seem slightly original; other than The Girl Next Door (2004) I can't think of another movie with roughly the same plot.
A review I read on IMDB pretty much sums up the movie:
"The same old routine. Daft boy meets super hot girl, super hot girl falls for daft boy, (skip some), they have a falling out, (skip some), and then they get back together and live happily ever after"
I really haven't ruined anything, because if you didn't already see this coming, you probably haven't seen any movies.
Script: B
It's not really a laugh-out-loud movie, but I did chuckle a few times; it did have some good one-liners, none really worth mentioning.
Acting: B+
There's a lot of diversity (not sure if that's the right word) among the group of friends and family, but it seemed as if it was a collision between the cast of American Pie and Knocked Up.
Kirk's character was awkward and clumsy and it seemed as if Michael Cera would have fitted this role, but he wouldn't have suited this type of comedy - enter Jay Baruchel. Kirk himself is a sweet and caring, but he has a quirky family (what's new?).
I have never heard of Alice Eve before this movie; she did a good job with the role (as Molly), but she didn't add more to the character. There were a few attributes that Molly had in this movie that haven't really been in most other movies; that character did have a personality rather than just being the pretty face.
I did not like TJ Miller's character Stainer; I typically don't like any characters that portray that type of person.
Mike Vogel (as Jack) was hot, but didn't have much of role; he was the pretty boy in the group.
Nate Torrence as Devon was okay; he was the typical lovable, heavy guy in the group.
Soundtrack: C+
Had decent songs, but too many of them. The volume of the songs would sometimes drown out what the characters were saying which got annoying.
Overall: B
The only person really worth mentioning was Jay Baruchel; the storyline was pretty good, but the execution not so much. It did have some funny parts, which was the reason why I gave it a 6/10 - it was above average, but not by much.
The trailer made it seem as if it was a comedy targeted towards a predominantly male audience, but it turns out to be more of a romantic comedy and tips the scales towards a chick flick. Considering this movie uses a 10-point scale, I will follow suit. Alice Eve as Molly was a 'hard 10' (honestly, I'd have to disagree); Jay Baruchel as Kirk was a 5 (he's Canadian, so I'd give him a 7); and this movie was a 6.
Plot: B
I liked the way the movie was advertised and its tagline: 'How can a 10 go for a 5'? - the director could have really made it into something different than what's already been done. With that being said, it did seem slightly original; other than The Girl Next Door (2004) I can't think of another movie with roughly the same plot.
A review I read on IMDB pretty much sums up the movie:
"The same old routine. Daft boy meets super hot girl, super hot girl falls for daft boy, (skip some), they have a falling out, (skip some), and then they get back together and live happily ever after"
I really haven't ruined anything, because if you didn't already see this coming, you probably haven't seen any movies.
Script: B
It's not really a laugh-out-loud movie, but I did chuckle a few times; it did have some good one-liners, none really worth mentioning.
Acting: B+
There's a lot of diversity (not sure if that's the right word) among the group of friends and family, but it seemed as if it was a collision between the cast of American Pie and Knocked Up.
Kirk's character was awkward and clumsy and it seemed as if Michael Cera would have fitted this role, but he wouldn't have suited this type of comedy - enter Jay Baruchel. Kirk himself is a sweet and caring, but he has a quirky family (what's new?).
I have never heard of Alice Eve before this movie; she did a good job with the role (as Molly), but she didn't add more to the character. There were a few attributes that Molly had in this movie that haven't really been in most other movies; that character did have a personality rather than just being the pretty face.
I did not like TJ Miller's character Stainer; I typically don't like any characters that portray that type of person.
Mike Vogel (as Jack) was hot, but didn't have much of role; he was the pretty boy in the group.
Nate Torrence as Devon was okay; he was the typical lovable, heavy guy in the group.
Soundtrack: C+
Had decent songs, but too many of them. The volume of the songs would sometimes drown out what the characters were saying which got annoying.
Overall: B
The only person really worth mentioning was Jay Baruchel; the storyline was pretty good, but the execution not so much. It did have some funny parts, which was the reason why I gave it a 6/10 - it was above average, but not by much.
October 27, 2010
El Orfanato [The Orphanage]
2007 - 5/5
***SPOILER ALERT***
I wouldn't classify this as a horror flick, rather a mysterious thriller, full of suspense (that also includes drama). Unfortunately, I'm not fluent in Spanish, so I had to read the subtitles - however that did not take away from the movie one bit. A review on IMDB stated that "[Laura's] performance transcends the language barrier and makes you forget you're reading subtitles" and I totally agree!
Plot: A+
Laura (Belen Reuda), her husband and adopted son Simon (Roger Princep), who is HIV positive move into a home that had once been an orphanage that Laura herself lived in when she was a child. She hopes to build her home as a place for mentally challenged children. Simon makes friends with invisible children that happen to be the previous 'tenants' that haven't 'moved out'.
The story moved at a good pace and it really sets itself apart from other movies such as The Sixth Sense, The Ring, and The Others.
Script: A+
The script was solid (enough said!).
Acting: A+
There weren't really too many characters in this movie; every character present it the film, was there for a reason, so each character had a purpose (Benigna, Pilar, Aurora, Leo Bálaban, Enrique). The dad (Carlos; Fernando Cayo) didn't have a huge role in this, but nonetheless I really liked his portrayal of his character.
With typical Hollywood movies, you get a kid that's 10-12 that plays the role of a 5-7 year old; some times it works, most times, it doesn't. Not only was Simon (Roger Prinep) adorable, he was portraying a kid that was actually around his age; not to mention he acted his role VERY well (when he had to scream and get angry, when he had to laugh, when he had to pretend to talk to invisible kids, when he got 'slapped' in the face, ect); he was phenomenal and I haven't seen such wonderful acting by someone so young since Giorgio Cantarini as Giosué Orefice in 'Life Is Beautiful'.
As good as everyone was, nobody stood out more than Laura (Belen Rueda). My god, she truly carried this movie! She was so believable as a caring and grief stricken mother, that I got so drawn into her character; at times it seemed like I was watching a documentary rather than a movie. Even though there weren't too many characters to follow, they were so well developed that every aspect of the acting was perfect.
Cinematography/Costume: A+
The part in which the camera follows Laura and Simon's footsteps in the sand at the beach and pans out to a full shot was amazing (approximately ten minutes into the movie).
I loved some of the transitions between some shots - the editing was flawless.
Not only was the house stunning in every scene, but the creaky floors, banging on the wall and the faint footsteps all added to the overall atmosphere and gave the film an authentic, mysterious vibe.
All the costumes were wonderful: mainly the clothing worn by the children in the orphanage (otherwise, everything else was clothing worn nowadays). My favorite outfit has to be the sack that Tomas (Oscar Casas) had worn; it was SO creepy, and I got the shivers every time I saw it.
Music/Sound: A+
The music (the score) that was added defiantly complimented what was seen on screen. The sound effects were also done very well (the creaky floors, the footsteps, and others mentioned earlier).
Overall: A+
I loved the use of foreshadow in the movie; it was done in such a subtle way that I didn't find it predictable whatsoever. I also liked how everything that was put into the movie, had a place in the movie.
There were many tense/jumpy parts during the movie created through the audio and visual (but not all of them ended as you'd expect; in a good way). I felt that because each tense moment that didn't end with something actually happening, it made those parts in which something did actually happen, even more scary.
Every aspect of this film worked in harmony with one another and fell into place as if it was a piece of a puzzle: acting, editing, script, cinematography, costumes, the score and sound effects.
The fact that this film can give me goose bumps even after having watched it 3 or 4 times illustrates how brilliant this film really is. Highly recommended - a must see!
***SPOILER ALERT***
I wouldn't classify this as a horror flick, rather a mysterious thriller, full of suspense (that also includes drama). Unfortunately, I'm not fluent in Spanish, so I had to read the subtitles - however that did not take away from the movie one bit. A review on IMDB stated that "[Laura's] performance transcends the language barrier and makes you forget you're reading subtitles" and I totally agree!
Plot: A+
Laura (Belen Reuda), her husband and adopted son Simon (Roger Princep), who is HIV positive move into a home that had once been an orphanage that Laura herself lived in when she was a child. She hopes to build her home as a place for mentally challenged children. Simon makes friends with invisible children that happen to be the previous 'tenants' that haven't 'moved out'.
The story moved at a good pace and it really sets itself apart from other movies such as The Sixth Sense, The Ring, and The Others.
Script: A+
The script was solid (enough said!).
Acting: A+
There weren't really too many characters in this movie; every character present it the film, was there for a reason, so each character had a purpose (Benigna, Pilar, Aurora, Leo Bálaban, Enrique). The dad (Carlos; Fernando Cayo) didn't have a huge role in this, but nonetheless I really liked his portrayal of his character.
With typical Hollywood movies, you get a kid that's 10-12 that plays the role of a 5-7 year old; some times it works, most times, it doesn't. Not only was Simon (Roger Prinep) adorable, he was portraying a kid that was actually around his age; not to mention he acted his role VERY well (when he had to scream and get angry, when he had to laugh, when he had to pretend to talk to invisible kids, when he got 'slapped' in the face, ect); he was phenomenal and I haven't seen such wonderful acting by someone so young since Giorgio Cantarini as Giosué Orefice in 'Life Is Beautiful'.
As good as everyone was, nobody stood out more than Laura (Belen Rueda). My god, she truly carried this movie! She was so believable as a caring and grief stricken mother, that I got so drawn into her character; at times it seemed like I was watching a documentary rather than a movie. Even though there weren't too many characters to follow, they were so well developed that every aspect of the acting was perfect.
Cinematography/Costume: A+
The part in which the camera follows Laura and Simon's footsteps in the sand at the beach and pans out to a full shot was amazing (approximately ten minutes into the movie).
I loved some of the transitions between some shots - the editing was flawless.
Not only was the house stunning in every scene, but the creaky floors, banging on the wall and the faint footsteps all added to the overall atmosphere and gave the film an authentic, mysterious vibe.
All the costumes were wonderful: mainly the clothing worn by the children in the orphanage (otherwise, everything else was clothing worn nowadays). My favorite outfit has to be the sack that Tomas (Oscar Casas) had worn; it was SO creepy, and I got the shivers every time I saw it.
Music/Sound: A+
The music (the score) that was added defiantly complimented what was seen on screen. The sound effects were also done very well (the creaky floors, the footsteps, and others mentioned earlier).
Overall: A+
I loved the use of foreshadow in the movie; it was done in such a subtle way that I didn't find it predictable whatsoever. I also liked how everything that was put into the movie, had a place in the movie.
There were many tense/jumpy parts during the movie created through the audio and visual (but not all of them ended as you'd expect; in a good way). I felt that because each tense moment that didn't end with something actually happening, it made those parts in which something did actually happen, even more scary.
Every aspect of this film worked in harmony with one another and fell into place as if it was a piece of a puzzle: acting, editing, script, cinematography, costumes, the score and sound effects.
The fact that this film can give me goose bumps even after having watched it 3 or 4 times illustrates how brilliant this film really is. Highly recommended - a must see!
October 26, 2010
From Paris With Love
(2010) - 1/5
I don't really feel like writing my own review on this, so my review will be very unconventional:
I plan on copying and pasting parts of other reviews I've read on Flixster and IMBD that pretty much state/conclude what I think about the movie. (Anything written in brackets are my short comments).
1) "John Travolta as the loud mouthed "badass" just doesn't work anymore, he looks rough with a "Just for Men" gotee."
2) "this movie was weird. it started so fast and then just kept going and going. I didn't find it to be very good. lots of things weren't really explained. I feel like it skimmed the surface instead of going deep in to a story."
3) "A good action thriller does not need to be jam packed with excessive violence. This film rushes from one exhausting sequence to the next, numbing us from any thrilling effect"
4) "JT and RM?s characters are paper-thin and were poorly written"
5) "Travolta's character was completely ridiculous. Meant to be a Top Secret Agent, Travolta acted more like a psychotic member of the Arian Brotherhood than a CIA operative. Things go from awful to completely unbelievable as the film reaches a climax."
(there were a few reviews that stated that this movie seemed like it was the KKK rather than CIA)
(this review is awesome)
6) "This film is a treat to watch(for all KKK members). The story of the film is simple, White Americans against the whole world. The film start with John Travolta cursing some French security guard and then they go to a Chinese restaurant and kill loads of Chinese people and then he beat up some Asian Teens, then kill more Chinese, then beat up some local French minors, then kill a lot of Arabs and Indians and Pakistanis and then some more Arabs. The director had a difficult choice to make towards the end to either kill a whole bunch of Africans or kill one more French girl and he went with the French girl. I think he had left the killing of Black people for the Second episode of the film(From Sudan with love)."
I don't really feel like writing my own review on this, so my review will be very unconventional:
I plan on copying and pasting parts of other reviews I've read on Flixster and IMBD that pretty much state/conclude what I think about the movie. (Anything written in brackets are my short comments).
1) "John Travolta as the loud mouthed "badass" just doesn't work anymore, he looks rough with a "Just for Men" gotee."
2) "this movie was weird. it started so fast and then just kept going and going. I didn't find it to be very good. lots of things weren't really explained. I feel like it skimmed the surface instead of going deep in to a story."
3) "A good action thriller does not need to be jam packed with excessive violence. This film rushes from one exhausting sequence to the next, numbing us from any thrilling effect"
4) "JT and RM?s characters are paper-thin and were poorly written"
5) "Travolta's character was completely ridiculous. Meant to be a Top Secret Agent, Travolta acted more like a psychotic member of the Arian Brotherhood than a CIA operative. Things go from awful to completely unbelievable as the film reaches a climax."
(there were a few reviews that stated that this movie seemed like it was the KKK rather than CIA)
(this review is awesome)
6) "This film is a treat to watch(for all KKK members). The story of the film is simple, White Americans against the whole world. The film start with John Travolta cursing some French security guard and then they go to a Chinese restaurant and kill loads of Chinese people and then he beat up some Asian Teens, then kill more Chinese, then beat up some local French minors, then kill a lot of Arabs and Indians and Pakistanis and then some more Arabs. The director had a difficult choice to make towards the end to either kill a whole bunch of Africans or kill one more French girl and he went with the French girl. I think he had left the killing of Black people for the Second episode of the film(From Sudan with love)."
October 25, 2010
Never Back Down
2008 - 3/5
***POSSIBLE SPOILERS***
Plot: C
To be honest, this plot isn't new to the movie world; it's been done many times over and there has been better and there has been worse.
Script: C
There are so many parts during this movie were I wanted to put it on mute because it was so predictable; however, with that being said, the motivational speeches about responsibility, consequences and making the right choice is why I didn't give the plot a C-.
Acting: B-
The acting wasn't as bad as it could have been, Ferris and Gigandet are actually decent actors, not to mention both are hot! Although the mom or younger brother didn't have a huge roll in this movie, I really liked them; they both played their parts really well and made it seem as if they were a family unit. The trainer (Djimon Hounsou) was pretty believable in his part too, but I didn't really like Heard, she was okay in some parts, but a drag to watch at other times.
Overall: C+
At first, this movie seemed like it'll be an updated version of the Karate Kid; and like many other people, this movie reminded me of Fight Club; but for buffed-up pretty boys. It also reminded me of Airborne (1993), but the hockey and rollerblading were switched with mixed martial arts.
The soundtrack was okay, they added music in the right spots but better songs could have been picked.
The fights seemed pretty real, rather than rehearsed. There weren't quick camera movements or cuts that tend to disguise planned fights; I was able to see pretty much every hit, so it seemed authentic and I found myself actually getting into it. I also liked the x-ray 'vision' of the damage for some of the hits later in the movie.
One thing I actually didn't notice myself, but read in another review was that the director didn't add too many T&A's. That may have been why I liked this movie more than I thought I would because with expensive cars and huge houses, I've been accustom to seeing chicks in skimpy attire. I guess the director opted out of this (or possibly forgot to add in) just so more focus would be paid to the actual fights.
I found it annoying that at every moment a cell phone was pulled out to record the fight; I do understand why there were so many cell phones because it was the main method of 'communication' and the whole point of this movie was that people could see each fight regardless of where they are.
Lastly, this was pretty entertaining to watch and Ferris and Gigandet without shirts is a definite thumbs up!
***POSSIBLE SPOILERS***
Plot: C
To be honest, this plot isn't new to the movie world; it's been done many times over and there has been better and there has been worse.
Script: C
There are so many parts during this movie were I wanted to put it on mute because it was so predictable; however, with that being said, the motivational speeches about responsibility, consequences and making the right choice is why I didn't give the plot a C-.
Acting: B-
The acting wasn't as bad as it could have been, Ferris and Gigandet are actually decent actors, not to mention both are hot! Although the mom or younger brother didn't have a huge roll in this movie, I really liked them; they both played their parts really well and made it seem as if they were a family unit. The trainer (Djimon Hounsou) was pretty believable in his part too, but I didn't really like Heard, she was okay in some parts, but a drag to watch at other times.
Overall: C+
At first, this movie seemed like it'll be an updated version of the Karate Kid; and like many other people, this movie reminded me of Fight Club; but for buffed-up pretty boys. It also reminded me of Airborne (1993), but the hockey and rollerblading were switched with mixed martial arts.
The soundtrack was okay, they added music in the right spots but better songs could have been picked.
The fights seemed pretty real, rather than rehearsed. There weren't quick camera movements or cuts that tend to disguise planned fights; I was able to see pretty much every hit, so it seemed authentic and I found myself actually getting into it. I also liked the x-ray 'vision' of the damage for some of the hits later in the movie.
One thing I actually didn't notice myself, but read in another review was that the director didn't add too many T&A's. That may have been why I liked this movie more than I thought I would because with expensive cars and huge houses, I've been accustom to seeing chicks in skimpy attire. I guess the director opted out of this (or possibly forgot to add in) just so more focus would be paid to the actual fights.
I found it annoying that at every moment a cell phone was pulled out to record the fight; I do understand why there were so many cell phones because it was the main method of 'communication' and the whole point of this movie was that people could see each fight regardless of where they are.
Lastly, this was pretty entertaining to watch and Ferris and Gigandet without shirts is a definite thumbs up!
October 24, 2010
The Final Destination
(2009) - 1/5
The first was good, and as it went on it got worse and worse; and now it [supposedly] ends with this one. Because I've seen the first three, I was obligated to watch this too.
***SPOILER ALERT***
During the opening credits I did like the x-ray recap of how some of the other people died in the first 3 movies. Knowing full well, what I got myself into, I was expecting it to be highly unrealistic but this was just ridiculous!
There isn't much that needs to be said about the acting (it sucked) and the dialogue was cheesy and cliché.
It was pretty much the same basic plot as the first 3, but unlike the first 3 that had some tension building up, this didn't; the deaths weren't as thought provoking as the first three, instead it was overkill (literally and figuratively); in the first three, there were many objects/ways for a person to die and it kept the audiences attention because we wanted to know which option the director took from the possible outcomes. In this film however, a few things surrounding the death were shown, and then they died, leaving no room for the audience to debate what might happen.
A review that I had read on IMDB stated that "Final Destination 1 had -'signs' - Final Destination 2 had 'visions' - and Final Destination 3 had 'photos'." Each movie brought something new, but the fourth one had nothing to add. Then again, it's not like I was expecting a masterpiece or anything.
The first was good, and as it went on it got worse and worse; and now it [supposedly] ends with this one. Because I've seen the first three, I was obligated to watch this too.
***SPOILER ALERT***
During the opening credits I did like the x-ray recap of how some of the other people died in the first 3 movies. Knowing full well, what I got myself into, I was expecting it to be highly unrealistic but this was just ridiculous!
There isn't much that needs to be said about the acting (it sucked) and the dialogue was cheesy and cliché.
It was pretty much the same basic plot as the first 3, but unlike the first 3 that had some tension building up, this didn't; the deaths weren't as thought provoking as the first three, instead it was overkill (literally and figuratively); in the first three, there were many objects/ways for a person to die and it kept the audiences attention because we wanted to know which option the director took from the possible outcomes. In this film however, a few things surrounding the death were shown, and then they died, leaving no room for the audience to debate what might happen.
A review that I had read on IMDB stated that "Final Destination 1 had -'signs' - Final Destination 2 had 'visions' - and Final Destination 3 had 'photos'." Each movie brought something new, but the fourth one had nothing to add. Then again, it's not like I was expecting a masterpiece or anything.
October 23, 2010
Date Night
2010 - 3/5
Having watched this movie twice, I am sure that this is the type of movie you’re either going to love it or hate it. It’s just one of those types of movies that you’re either going to think every line is funny or every line is stupid. For whatever reason I don’t see there being any middle ground. I for one, really enjoyed this movie. I thought this movie was really funny and it had a lot of jokes.
I felt as if it had it’s own unique comedy that pertained to not only the plot, but the actors as well. I have been a fan of Steve Carrell since Little Miss Sunshine, but I’ve never really been a fan of Tina Fey. I didn’t know how well they’d work together, but they made a really cute pair; I loved the parts in which they’d say “What’s the story”. It didn’t happen often and they made it really interesting. It was these kinds of part that made me see that they had a lot of chemistry between them, as actors and characters. Their comedic styles really complimented each other. They both portrayed the role of the plain-Jane married couple, that always play things safe. I thought the situation they got into was really funny mainly because of who they were. I was rooting for them the entire time.
There were a few cameos from other stars in this movie, but pretty much all of them had no more than 2 scenes. I do like Mark Ruffalo when he’s a supporting character (especially the ‘typical guy’ role). When it comes to Kristin Wigg, I will admit that I had no idea who she was before Bridesmaids. I’m always surprised when I see her with really small roles in older movies now. And even with these small roles, she’s still funny. Mark Wahlberg fit his role really well too. I would have liked him more if he had short hair (a superficial point, I know, but my review, my opinion). Ray Liotta as a mob-boss in a comedy movie works for me. James Franco and Mila Kunis make a good pair too! It’s a shame they didn’t have a bigger role. So even if you don’t like any of these actors that had small cameo’s it doesn’t taint your opinion of the movie overall, because they, for the most part, only had on scene.
I was pretty much laughing throughout the entire movie. The way I see it, this movie is supposed to put a smile on your face. Mission accomplished.
My favourite lines:
“Hey god. No. He turned it sideways. Kill shot. It’s a kill shot”.
“I’m not out of shape, I’m scared”.
“Everything you’re doing, I’m doing in heels”.
“I don’t really have gum”.
Having watched this movie twice, I am sure that this is the type of movie you’re either going to love it or hate it. It’s just one of those types of movies that you’re either going to think every line is funny or every line is stupid. For whatever reason I don’t see there being any middle ground. I for one, really enjoyed this movie. I thought this movie was really funny and it had a lot of jokes.
I felt as if it had it’s own unique comedy that pertained to not only the plot, but the actors as well. I have been a fan of Steve Carrell since Little Miss Sunshine, but I’ve never really been a fan of Tina Fey. I didn’t know how well they’d work together, but they made a really cute pair; I loved the parts in which they’d say “What’s the story”. It didn’t happen often and they made it really interesting. It was these kinds of part that made me see that they had a lot of chemistry between them, as actors and characters. Their comedic styles really complimented each other. They both portrayed the role of the plain-Jane married couple, that always play things safe. I thought the situation they got into was really funny mainly because of who they were. I was rooting for them the entire time.
There were a few cameos from other stars in this movie, but pretty much all of them had no more than 2 scenes. I do like Mark Ruffalo when he’s a supporting character (especially the ‘typical guy’ role). When it comes to Kristin Wigg, I will admit that I had no idea who she was before Bridesmaids. I’m always surprised when I see her with really small roles in older movies now. And even with these small roles, she’s still funny. Mark Wahlberg fit his role really well too. I would have liked him more if he had short hair (a superficial point, I know, but my review, my opinion). Ray Liotta as a mob-boss in a comedy movie works for me. James Franco and Mila Kunis make a good pair too! It’s a shame they didn’t have a bigger role. So even if you don’t like any of these actors that had small cameo’s it doesn’t taint your opinion of the movie overall, because they, for the most part, only had on scene.
I was pretty much laughing throughout the entire movie. The way I see it, this movie is supposed to put a smile on your face. Mission accomplished.
My favourite lines:
“Hey god. No. He turned it sideways. Kill shot. It’s a kill shot”.
“I’m not out of shape, I’m scared”.
“Everything you’re doing, I’m doing in heels”.
“I don’t really have gum”.
October 22, 2010
Ninja Assassin
(2009) - 3/5
the story line wasn't as cheesy as I thought it would be and it was easy to follow - it moved at a good pace and the acting was okay: it didn't ruin the movie or add to it in any way. the flashbacks were done well (each flashback built on the previous and they were placed well throughout the movie). there was a lot of blood, action (obviously unrealistic) and a variety of weapons that were used. I was expecting to be entertained by the cool ninja moves and it delivered.
***SPOILER ALERT***
i also liked that there were moments of suspense (created by the darkness of the lights going out); the uncertainty of what's going to happen drew me in. I found that this movie had a few new aspects that other movies that I've seen didn't; for example: when Raizo ran out of the building (near the end) and the other ninjas followed him while running and fighting in traffic.
the story line wasn't as cheesy as I thought it would be and it was easy to follow - it moved at a good pace and the acting was okay: it didn't ruin the movie or add to it in any way. the flashbacks were done well (each flashback built on the previous and they were placed well throughout the movie). there was a lot of blood, action (obviously unrealistic) and a variety of weapons that were used. I was expecting to be entertained by the cool ninja moves and it delivered.
***SPOILER ALERT***
i also liked that there were moments of suspense (created by the darkness of the lights going out); the uncertainty of what's going to happen drew me in. I found that this movie had a few new aspects that other movies that I've seen didn't; for example: when Raizo ran out of the building (near the end) and the other ninjas followed him while running and fighting in traffic.
October 20, 2010
Sherlock Holmes
(2009) - 2/5
A point form review:
Pros:
I really liked the costumes and the sets; I thought those were really well done.
I liked the slow motion parts that would explain certain parts.
Cons:
The storyline wasn't as engaging as I'd hope it would be; even if you missed a certain part, it wasn't hard to figure out.
Despite all the fast-talking and quick camera movements, it was a bit dull.
None of the characters were memorable.
Randoms:
I'm not much of a fan of RDJ or JL, but I did like JL in this movie more than RDJ.
I couldn't help but think that Keira Knightly would have suited this role more than Rachel McAdams, although RM did an okay job.
A point form review:
Pros:
I really liked the costumes and the sets; I thought those were really well done.
I liked the slow motion parts that would explain certain parts.
Cons:
The storyline wasn't as engaging as I'd hope it would be; even if you missed a certain part, it wasn't hard to figure out.
Despite all the fast-talking and quick camera movements, it was a bit dull.
None of the characters were memorable.
Randoms:
I'm not much of a fan of RDJ or JL, but I did like JL in this movie more than RDJ.
I couldn't help but think that Keira Knightly would have suited this role more than Rachel McAdams, although RM did an okay job.
October 17, 2010
Fantastic Mr. Fox
(2009) - 3/5
I absolutely loved the bandit hats (+the tub sock), the use of the word "cuss", the whistle and clicking sound 'trademark', the stop-motion animation and the voice overs; however, with that being said, I'm not not sure what it was about this film that couldn't keep my attention - perhaps it was the script or plot, but both were solid so I'm not sure what it was; i plan on watching it again, just in case i wasn't in the right frame of mind...
"You scared the cuss out of us"
I absolutely loved the bandit hats (+the tub sock), the use of the word "cuss", the whistle and clicking sound 'trademark', the stop-motion animation and the voice overs; however, with that being said, I'm not not sure what it was about this film that couldn't keep my attention - perhaps it was the script or plot, but both were solid so I'm not sure what it was; i plan on watching it again, just in case i wasn't in the right frame of mind...
"You scared the cuss out of us"
October 12, 2010
Armored
(2009) - 2.5/5
the movie was only an hour and a half long and half of the movie was the lead up to the event that would unfold it shouldn't have been that long (considering how much the trailer gave away). it moved at a good pace, and i felt as if it didn't drag at all. it had a really easy plot to follow with a good mix of suspense, drama and action. the acting was pretty good, keeping in mind that there were some big names, but the roles themselves weren't that memorable, so none of the actors really stood out. overall, it's pretty average, but i found it entertaining nonetheless and a good way to waste some time depending on what your expecting
the movie was only an hour and a half long and half of the movie was the lead up to the event that would unfold it shouldn't have been that long (considering how much the trailer gave away). it moved at a good pace, and i felt as if it didn't drag at all. it had a really easy plot to follow with a good mix of suspense, drama and action. the acting was pretty good, keeping in mind that there were some big names, but the roles themselves weren't that memorable, so none of the actors really stood out. overall, it's pretty average, but i found it entertaining nonetheless and a good way to waste some time depending on what your expecting
October 10, 2010
Cop Out
2010 - 2/5
bruce willis's acting wasn't that great at the start, but it did get better as the movie progressed, he got into the character more... seann william scott is pretty funny (as usual; the parkour part was pretty funny and cool, also when he was copying what other ppl were saying), and morgan was pretty funny too! i didn't like brody in this, his part in this movie was somewhat pointless, and he can only play one character (seth from oc; which didn't suit this movie). i also didn't like the 'bad guy' in this, his acting was terrible.
the movie was funny, and had some original jokes; the homage to other action movies wasn't overdone, so i enjoyed those parts... i didn't realize this was a kevin smith movie till the end.
bruce willis's acting wasn't that great at the start, but it did get better as the movie progressed, he got into the character more... seann william scott is pretty funny (as usual; the parkour part was pretty funny and cool, also when he was copying what other ppl were saying), and morgan was pretty funny too! i didn't like brody in this, his part in this movie was somewhat pointless, and he can only play one character (seth from oc; which didn't suit this movie). i also didn't like the 'bad guy' in this, his acting was terrible.
the movie was funny, and had some original jokes; the homage to other action movies wasn't overdone, so i enjoyed those parts... i didn't realize this was a kevin smith movie till the end.
October 7, 2010
Avatar
2009 - 0/5
I’m not a fan of Sci-Fi at all, and with that being said, I couldn't care less about the CGI effects. I am probably one of the fewer people who did not like this movie at all. I saw this movie in 3D and I think that was a big mistake because it distorted the [potential for such] awesome colour! The script was bland, the acting was barley noteworthy, and overall, it dragged and there was nothing unique about this movie. I can’t think of any point in this movie that I actually liked.
-the 3D took away from the cgi; it made it blurry
-the cgi wasn't even that great; it will be far surpassed in the coming years
-nothing outstanding about the acting
-nothing outstanding about the script
-the plot was crap
-everything added was used to foreshadow more crap to come
Not only did I waste approximately $30 on the tickets (2 tickets for 3D), I wasted 2.5 hours of my life. Very disappointed, and relieved that it only won one academy award, because it really didn't deserve anything, including any nomination!
I’m not a fan of Sci-Fi at all, and with that being said, I couldn't care less about the CGI effects. I am probably one of the fewer people who did not like this movie at all. I saw this movie in 3D and I think that was a big mistake because it distorted the [potential for such] awesome colour! The script was bland, the acting was barley noteworthy, and overall, it dragged and there was nothing unique about this movie. I can’t think of any point in this movie that I actually liked.
-the 3D took away from the cgi; it made it blurry
-the cgi wasn't even that great; it will be far surpassed in the coming years
-nothing outstanding about the acting
-nothing outstanding about the script
-the plot was crap
-everything added was used to foreshadow more crap to come
Not only did I waste approximately $30 on the tickets (2 tickets for 3D), I wasted 2.5 hours of my life. Very disappointed, and relieved that it only won one academy award, because it really didn't deserve anything, including any nomination!
October 4, 2010
Sorority Row
(2009) - 2/5
Acting: C+
Script: F
Plot: C
Overall: C
this is like "i know what you did last summer" but with sorority girls... it started off pretty good, but two thirds in, it started to crumble. there were some chessy parts and the acting is exactly what i expected it to be. overall, better than i expected, so it was somewhat entertaining. i have to admit, that i was a little upset that audrina was the first to die (this is in the trailer, so its not a spoiler).
***SPOILER***
i was disappointed with who the killer was, there was really no reason for him to be the killer, so it seemed as if the director was trying to make it really hard to guess who it was, but at the same time it was really trying to push that he had a valid reason to kill everyone (which i don't believe he did), and i think that that is what made this movie go downhill.
Acting: C+
Script: F
Plot: C
Overall: C
this is like "i know what you did last summer" but with sorority girls... it started off pretty good, but two thirds in, it started to crumble. there were some chessy parts and the acting is exactly what i expected it to be. overall, better than i expected, so it was somewhat entertaining. i have to admit, that i was a little upset that audrina was the first to die (this is in the trailer, so its not a spoiler).
***SPOILER***
i was disappointed with who the killer was, there was really no reason for him to be the killer, so it seemed as if the director was trying to make it really hard to guess who it was, but at the same time it was really trying to push that he had a valid reason to kill everyone (which i don't believe he did), and i think that that is what made this movie go downhill.
October 2, 2010
Youth In Revolt
2010 - 2.5/5
it was funny. cera's character is pretty much what it has been in every other movie he has been (although his voice seemed more whinny than usual). i really enjoyed the animated parts as well as the animated (not sure if thats the right word to use) road trip to the trailer park campground in the first half hour (that was by far my favorite part of the movie).
it was funny. cera's character is pretty much what it has been in every other movie he has been (although his voice seemed more whinny than usual). i really enjoyed the animated parts as well as the animated (not sure if thats the right word to use) road trip to the trailer park campground in the first half hour (that was by far my favorite part of the movie).
September 28, 2010
The Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day
(2009) -3/5
***SPOILER ALERT***
"They're either on their way, or they're already here"
I decided to read the reviews (on imdb) after I watched the movie itself, rather than the other way around - I've heard mixed reviews from people I've talked to and I wanted to watch it without any preconceived judgments. Now that I've seen it, I do understand why so many people hated this movie (and some even thought it tainted their opinions of the first), however, although it wasn't as good as the first, I don't think it's as horrible as the reviews make it out to be. With that being said, I do wish I had a chance to watch the first one again because I haven't seen it in such a long time; but I do remember loving it.
I liked the slow motion gunfights and it had the most intense scene of Russian roulette I've ever seen (which was my favorite scene by far). The first BDS had a good comedy, whereas BDS2 had comedy at random points so it had a less serious tone than the first. The banter between the 3 detectives and the FBI special agent was at times entertaining, but it was overdone too, which made it childish and distasteful. There were a few parts that people would be shouting at each other at the same time and I actually had to turn on the subtitles to understand what was being said.
The low budget is reflected in the acting and the editing. There were a few transitions between scenes that were a bit jumpy; the minimal editing made it seem as if some scenes skipped to the next, but it didn't really take away from the movie.
When I found out that this sequel has the original actors as the father and sons, I figured it was worth the watch considering the actors from the first agreed to come back after 10 years. The brothers were awesome and the dad was solid too! Clifton Collins Jr had a lot of one-liners (example: "this isn't rocket surgery") - some were funny, some were poorly written. Julie Benz is great on Dexter, but she didn't really suit this roll and the southern accent was atrocious. I guess she was supposed to be a female version of Smecker, but he was just too good and there was no way she could fill his shoes. The bad guys/ gangsters were a joke; I don't really want to get into it, but I will say that they were dimwitted and slow, not to mention the horrible acting.
As it progressed I do think it got better - it was an average movie, which sucks because it could have been so much better! A few tweaks here and there would have got it a higher rating. Every mistake took its toll on my overall opinion of the movie. The ending left it open for a Boondock Saints 3 so I'm interested to see how that'll turn out, hopefully not in another10 years!
***SPOILER ALERT***
"They're either on their way, or they're already here"
I decided to read the reviews (on imdb) after I watched the movie itself, rather than the other way around - I've heard mixed reviews from people I've talked to and I wanted to watch it without any preconceived judgments. Now that I've seen it, I do understand why so many people hated this movie (and some even thought it tainted their opinions of the first), however, although it wasn't as good as the first, I don't think it's as horrible as the reviews make it out to be. With that being said, I do wish I had a chance to watch the first one again because I haven't seen it in such a long time; but I do remember loving it.
I liked the slow motion gunfights and it had the most intense scene of Russian roulette I've ever seen (which was my favorite scene by far). The first BDS had a good comedy, whereas BDS2 had comedy at random points so it had a less serious tone than the first. The banter between the 3 detectives and the FBI special agent was at times entertaining, but it was overdone too, which made it childish and distasteful. There were a few parts that people would be shouting at each other at the same time and I actually had to turn on the subtitles to understand what was being said.
The low budget is reflected in the acting and the editing. There were a few transitions between scenes that were a bit jumpy; the minimal editing made it seem as if some scenes skipped to the next, but it didn't really take away from the movie.
When I found out that this sequel has the original actors as the father and sons, I figured it was worth the watch considering the actors from the first agreed to come back after 10 years. The brothers were awesome and the dad was solid too! Clifton Collins Jr had a lot of one-liners (example: "this isn't rocket surgery") - some were funny, some were poorly written. Julie Benz is great on Dexter, but she didn't really suit this roll and the southern accent was atrocious. I guess she was supposed to be a female version of Smecker, but he was just too good and there was no way she could fill his shoes. The bad guys/ gangsters were a joke; I don't really want to get into it, but I will say that they were dimwitted and slow, not to mention the horrible acting.
As it progressed I do think it got better - it was an average movie, which sucks because it could have been so much better! A few tweaks here and there would have got it a higher rating. Every mistake took its toll on my overall opinion of the movie. The ending left it open for a Boondock Saints 3 so I'm interested to see how that'll turn out, hopefully not in another10 years!
September 24, 2010
Fracture
2007 - 3.5/5
I'd classify this as a psychological thriller + mystery + court drama all rolled into one. Gosling and Hopkins compliment each other very well in this movie. The dialogue was very clever and it drew me into each character so at some points I found myself rooting for Willy Beachum (Gosling) and at other times, I'd be rooting for Ted Crawford (Hopkins). It did start off a bit slow, but once the mind games began, the paced picked up. Lastly, it's not over till it's over!
I'd classify this as a psychological thriller + mystery + court drama all rolled into one. Gosling and Hopkins compliment each other very well in this movie. The dialogue was very clever and it drew me into each character so at some points I found myself rooting for Willy Beachum (Gosling) and at other times, I'd be rooting for Ted Crawford (Hopkins). It did start off a bit slow, but once the mind games began, the paced picked up. Lastly, it's not over till it's over!
September 21, 2010
House of Wax
(2005) - 4/5
***SPOILER ALERT***
I liked the pace of this movie and although the movie did start off a bit slow (and it took 45 minutes for things to really get started but that time wasn't completely wasted) it was used for character development, and I came to like most of the characters (the characters were pretty likeable). There were moments of suspense in those 45 minutes that also kept my attention. I really don't think that this deserved such an average rating on IMDB (and I don't think Paris Hilton was THAT bad, but more on that later!).
Plot: B+
I know this is a remake (and I haven't seen the 1953 version), but the plot was good. I remember a lot of people commenting on how the brothers got so much wax, but who cares! There are so many unbelievable effects in movies, so let it go.
Script: B
The script was okay, pretty much exactly what you think it'll be.
Acting: B+ / A-
I do think that Elisha Cuthbert is underrated: she is a dynamic actress and she can play different roles very well. She definitely suited the role as Carly. Chad Michael Murray (as Nick) fit his role really well as a 'bad ass' and Cuthbert and Murray were a good pair (they actually seem believable as siblings). Their performances stood out the most for me.
Jared Padalecki (as Wade) and Brian Van Holt (as the brothers Bo and Vincent) did a pretty good too. Dalton (Jon Abrahams) did get a bit annoying and I think that if the director had taken a bit more time with this character, it could have turned out to be a good one (his dumbass qualities were a bit much). Robert Ri'chard (as Blake) didn't have a huge role or anything so his character didn't have much to add to the movie other than a quick kill.
As for Paris Hilton... don't expect her to be anything else than what/who she already is (some people like it or don't mind it, some hate it). There were a few parts in the movie that poked fun at Paris (the lipstick part and the night vision part), and I thought that was funny. Her chase scene was pretty tense and her scream was convincing; and of course she had to die in a scantily clad outfit! Don't expect an Oscar winning performance; I don't think this was her best performance or anything, but she did what she needed to do, and I think she did it well. (Side note: just for the record, it's unfortunate to say that her role in Repo! The Genetic Opera was, and probably will always be, her best role ever. Seriously - check that out).
Cinematography: B+
Pretty good - the house of wax melting at the end was done really well!
The director didn't add an excess amount of blood just because he could, so the gory parts seemed realistic.
Soundtrack: n/a
Nothing memorable, but I did think that the music went with the scenes it was paired with.
Overall: A- / B+
There were a lot of good scares. I thought this movie was extremely suspenseful and I got the shivers so many times throughout the movie.
I thought this movie had a lot of creative aspects:
The part in which Carly's finger got cut off was so intense and I had lumps in my throat.
Wade getting waxed alive was unexpected.
When Dalton was trying to take the wax off Wade and the skin started to peel off Wade's face made me cringe.
Carly's lips being super glued together made me reach for my chapstick!
I found myself gripping onto my seat during the part they entered the movie theatre - I was even holding my breath.
This movie drew me in and freaked me out; so what else was it supposed to do? I'd say mission accomplished!
A few comments that I had read on IMDB and thought it was worth mentioning:
(1) 'For a movie that has Paris Hilton and Elisha Cuthbert, you'd think that there would be some nudity!'
(2) 'Someone wrote that they had expected Paris Hilton to touch wax and say "that's hot" (haha).
I liked the pace of this movie and although the movie did start off a bit slow (and it took 45 minutes for things to really get started but that time wasn't completely wasted) it was used for character development, and I came to like most of the characters (the characters were pretty likeable). There were moments of suspense in those 45 minutes that also kept my attention. I really don't think that this deserved such an average rating on IMDB (and I don't think Paris Hilton was THAT bad, but more on that later!).
Plot: B+
I know this is a remake (and I haven't seen the 1953 version), but the plot was good. I remember a lot of people commenting on how the brothers got so much wax, but who cares! There are so many unbelievable effects in movies, so let it go.
Script: B
The script was okay, pretty much exactly what you think it'll be.
Acting: B+ / A-
I do think that Elisha Cuthbert is underrated: she is a dynamic actress and she can play different roles very well. She definitely suited the role as Carly. Chad Michael Murray (as Nick) fit his role really well as a 'bad ass' and Cuthbert and Murray were a good pair (they actually seem believable as siblings). Their performances stood out the most for me.
Jared Padalecki (as Wade) and Brian Van Holt (as the brothers Bo and Vincent) did a pretty good too. Dalton (Jon Abrahams) did get a bit annoying and I think that if the director had taken a bit more time with this character, it could have turned out to be a good one (his dumbass qualities were a bit much). Robert Ri'chard (as Blake) didn't have a huge role or anything so his character didn't have much to add to the movie other than a quick kill.
As for Paris Hilton... don't expect her to be anything else than what/who she already is (some people like it or don't mind it, some hate it). There were a few parts in the movie that poked fun at Paris (the lipstick part and the night vision part), and I thought that was funny. Her chase scene was pretty tense and her scream was convincing; and of course she had to die in a scantily clad outfit! Don't expect an Oscar winning performance; I don't think this was her best performance or anything, but she did what she needed to do, and I think she did it well. (Side note: just for the record, it's unfortunate to say that her role in Repo! The Genetic Opera was, and probably will always be, her best role ever. Seriously - check that out).
Cinematography: B+
Pretty good - the house of wax melting at the end was done really well!
The director didn't add an excess amount of blood just because he could, so the gory parts seemed realistic.
Soundtrack: n/a
Nothing memorable, but I did think that the music went with the scenes it was paired with.
Overall: A- / B+
There were a lot of good scares. I thought this movie was extremely suspenseful and I got the shivers so many times throughout the movie.
I thought this movie had a lot of creative aspects:
The part in which Carly's finger got cut off was so intense and I had lumps in my throat.
Wade getting waxed alive was unexpected.
When Dalton was trying to take the wax off Wade and the skin started to peel off Wade's face made me cringe.
Carly's lips being super glued together made me reach for my chapstick!
I found myself gripping onto my seat during the part they entered the movie theatre - I was even holding my breath.
This movie drew me in and freaked me out; so what else was it supposed to do? I'd say mission accomplished!
A few comments that I had read on IMDB and thought it was worth mentioning:
(1) 'For a movie that has Paris Hilton and Elisha Cuthbert, you'd think that there would be some nudity!'
(2) 'Someone wrote that they had expected Paris Hilton to touch wax and say "that's hot" (haha).
September 18, 2010
Did You Hear About the Morgans?
(2009) - 0/5
The only thing I will say is 'have you heard how crappy this movie is?' if not, read away...
After witnessing a murder, this couple (whose relationship is on the rocks) gets put into a witness protection program, which becomes a metal detox from the hussle and bussle of a fast paced city life. There are certain things you come to expect from chick flicks, and this movie has them all, but it manages to execute it in such an awful way. It was so predictable that it was tedious to sit through. It took a while for the reason of the [potential] split to arise. This movie dragged and there wasn't much character development and I hated SJP's voice.
This movie was so bad that I could careless about writing a full review. To sum it up, you're better off not hearing about the Morgan's.
The only thing I will say is 'have you heard how crappy this movie is?' if not, read away...
After witnessing a murder, this couple (whose relationship is on the rocks) gets put into a witness protection program, which becomes a metal detox from the hussle and bussle of a fast paced city life. There are certain things you come to expect from chick flicks, and this movie has them all, but it manages to execute it in such an awful way. It was so predictable that it was tedious to sit through. It took a while for the reason of the [potential] split to arise. This movie dragged and there wasn't much character development and I hated SJP's voice.
This movie was so bad that I could careless about writing a full review. To sum it up, you're better off not hearing about the Morgan's.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)