Red Cliff I watched this on Saturday night, and almost pulled the plug halfway through. While undeniably a prettily made film, the dialogue was plodding and artificial, the battle scenes were unrealistic and generally on par with "Monkey Magic" and the characters were poorly drawn and not even slightly engaging. I found myself more often bored than entertained and my girl fell asleep 40 minutes in and didn't bother to ask what happened when she woke up. 3/10
Sherlock Holmes I realize that there have been a couple of reviews already, and I am going with the concensus: This was a great movie. I really hope this draws more people to read the works of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, because once you get past the 18th Century dialogue, it is a story that any CSI fan can appreciate. I liked how they depicted him as a substance user (NOT an abuser). He seemed more human and believable/likeable. It is left wide open to a sequel, which I am eagerly awaiting. EDIT: However, as Kamph Trinker mentioned, you need to suspend disbelief for more than a litlle bit. After the explosion mentioned above, NO ONE had singed hair/eyebrows/eyelashes or even first degree burns. Sorry, just blame this complaint on me being a young fire bug and current friend of fire fighters.
Pandorum This was recommended to us by a Blockbuster employee. He raved about it so much, we figured we'd give it a shot. I'd never heard of it before. A bit of a synopsis: A man (Ben Foster) wakes up on a spaceship with no memory of what's going on. He immediately learns that his memory loss is due to the effects of being in stasis, and will soon wear off. Instead of recovering and stepping up to his post (he's on the flight crew), he learns that the ship is in distress and no one can access the controls. He's immediately joined by his CO (Dennis Quaid), who also has no memory. Together, they try to repair the ship while at the same time trying to figure out what's happened. My thoughts: Has anyone seen this? The Blockbuster guy raved about how suspenseful it was. Sure, it kept you watching, but most of the important bits (the name of this thing, what that thing does, etc) flew by so quick that I found myself watching it just to figure out what the hell was going on. It was heavy on the action sequences, and the only problem with that is that sometimes they were so quick or blurred you were left saying things like, "Did he get killed? What just happened?" On the whole, I thought it was a good premise for a movie. Foster and Quaid did the best they could, given that the dialogue was mostly stiff exposition. The scenes could have been cleaned up for clarity, and some of the important sequences slowed down to more clearly show what was going on. 7/10
Sherlock Holmes It was ok. It had a solid cast, there was just something about it that didn't quite come together for me. Also, is it only me and my dad who had trouble working out what Holmes was saying half the time? It was like he had a mouthful of marbles.
I just finished watching Big Fan featuring Patton Oswalt. It basically reinforced a life lesson we all have to remember- Retards are fucking retarded. 98% of the film was not enjoyable in the least bit. There were two funny jokes. But the ending all made up for that. The ending was nothing short of awesome. The film looks an art house film all the way through. It looked like it was following the common indy theme where nothing but bad things happen to every character. The ending made me realize this was all a parody. If you have an hour and a half to kill, make sure you take this in. Just ignore the themes of the first hour and 28 minutes.
So I might be a little late, but: Up in the Air. Jesus this was good. That's all I'm gonna say about it.
Dear John My little sister made me take her to this. It's just as worthless as everyone thinks. I don't think there is one redeeming factor, unless you count Richard Jenkins being a wonderful actor yet again, but even that doesn't help too much. It's definitely nothing like The Notebook. Spoiler By the end, I realized the whole 'Dear John' thing was foreshadowing, which I may have noticed sooner if I had given a damn about the movie. A two-hour study in a stand-up soldier getting dicked over by some girl back home? Who thought this would make a good movie? From Paris With Love Absolutely amazing. Jonathan Rhys Meyers still can't act, but John Travolta more than makes up for it with some wicked one-liners and be goddamn insane. A short movie, but definitely fun once the action gets rolling.
The Wolfman One of the worst movies in recent memory. I'll give it 3/10, but only because they didn't fuck up basic special effects and they did have a quality set design more filming. Other than that there is absolutely nothing good about it. It's full of obvious mistakes ("I wondered what you looked like"..."So you've been gone a year right?") as well as general plot design issues. The romance is as asinine as it is annoying. Spoiler Like the scene where he's teaching her to skip rocks. Fucking make me gag. There's a dumb plot twist acting as a desperate attempt to keep your interest, but the sad fact is virtually nothing in this movie is engaging. Save your money, even if you love werewolf movies you'll walk out disappointed.
The Blind Side I enjoy football movies (The Program and North Dallas Forty stand alone), and Sandra Bullock gives her best performance in this film, but it seems that Football movies have two plots: Touchy-Feely (infinitley mentioned on this board) and wall-to wall shitty (see: Any Given Sunday, Varsity Blues, etc.). Why can't we talk about football the way it is? A league of under-educated, drug using criminally insane sociopaths wreaking havoc on the field and society? There was a show called Playmakers that tried to expose the dark side (i.e: real) to professional football and it was bought out and cancelled. Back to the movie, in short a worthy film and better than the usual sports potboiler. 7/10
Percy Jackson and the Lightning Bolt Thief. Meh. This movie had it's moments, Spoiler like Uma Thurman as Medusa, Lucius Verinus as Poseidon (his voice is exactly how a Greek god should sound), some unintentionally hilarious parts (ADHD and dyslexia are not superpowers and how stupid 99% of the black character's dialog is) but for the most part it seemed stale and familiar, having the basic premise of both Harry Potter and Spider-Man. Also, it's done by Chris Columbus, so it's more childish than it could have been. Spoiler He dealt with the Greek gods endless series of infidelity (Camp Half-God Bastards) without ever making it seem sexual. For a movie with a bunch of teenagers with daddy issues in it, there was zero sexuality, which made the characters seem flat. I'm not asking for Twilight in sandals and a toga, but...something a little more in line with the culture that spawned the word and act of orgy. Along the same lines, all of the teenagers in the movie were abandoned by a parent, yet showed zero resentment when they confronted said parent. Also, the ONE black character had awful dialog. We can see he's black, he doesn't have to sound like a cartoon version of what Chris Columbus thinks rappers sound like. The main character wasn't well developed enough for the audience to care, it was hard to identify with him. I haven't read the books, but based on the movie, I may give them a shot as a sort of watered-down Harry Potter. But, I think the same thing of this as I thought of the two Harry Potters that Columbus did: that he could have done a much better job of creating a vivid world for this story, he shied away from any complex themes that were certain to be mentioned or at least foreshadowed in the books, and he pulled a lot of punches for the sake of making it family friendly. The only difference is when HP1 and HP2 were being done, the series was controversial because of the "witchcraft", so he probably needed to pull some punches. In short, if you have a kid under 12, the kid won't be disappointed, but you probably will be.
Shutter Island A beautifully shot movie, lots of amazing scenery, overall an exceptionally brilliant technical film. I wasn't particular impressed with the partner 'Chuck' but overall the acting was very solid. DiCaprio was every bit as good as you would expect and Kingsley put in a nice performance as well. That being said, this isn't quite another masterpiece from Scorsese. There's several visceral, awesomely fucked up scenes, but the plot is far too predictable and this wasn't the quality story telling from movies like Goodfellas or Gangs of New York. During the last half hour I was eager to get out of the theater. Spoiler Ok so it turns out Teddy/Andrew has been hallucinated the whole thing and it's all been a role play. It's easy to spot this early in the movie and it's been done before. Besides, the whole thing was just too unrealistic. He's your most dangerous prisoner and you're going to let him run free all over the island doing things like beating the shit out of guards (who have empty rifles, so it's safe now!). Give me a break. Plus, I didn't care for some of the dialogue, like the discussion of violence with the warden. It's usually the type of thing I love in a movie, but I didn't think they pulled it off. I was entertained at times, but just a tad let down since I had high expectations. I'll give it a 6.5/10. If you like creepy thrillers like I do, or if you got a couple hours to kill go see it. I wouldn't start clearing your schedule to make time though.
Shutter Island This is going to be a polarizing film. Either you'll dislike the direction that Scorcese took and wish that he'd done something different, or you'll accept the movie for what it is and try to figure out why he made the choices he did. Spoiler For me, it wasn't about the predictability of the plot. It's not supposed to be a "twist" film. You're aware from the beginning that the entire thing may be one big psychotic episode, but I think it maintains enough suspense to keep you guessing throughout. Yes, there are several suggestions that Teddy is actually a patient at the facility, and if it's something you concede early on, you're then forced to wonder what happened to create such an elaborate delusion. It's not about whether or not that delusion is real, it's about the circumstances that could foster such madness. As for the realism of the role-playing aspect, I bought it. It's stated several times throughout that the hospital is highly experimental, that it's on the cutting edge of psychiatric treatment. Kingsley's character even states explicitly that this treatment was a desperate last-ditch effort to save Teddy. We also don't know how much of the role-playing was actually real and how much of it could be attributed to Teddy's insanity. Was he actually doing all the things we saw him do? How can we know? People and objects would appear or disappear in single frames, allowing you just enough time to wonder if you really saw what you thought you saw. You're not on the outside looking in, remember. You're in Teddy's head, and Teddy's head is an extremely unreliable place to occupy.
Shutter Island Saw this with 3 friends over the weekend. Two of us loved it, including me, the other 2 thought it was simply "okay" and that it dragged a bit during the second act. The acting and pacing was great - loved the creepy tension in almost every scene. Technically brilliant. Highly recommended - it had me on the edge of my seat throughout. Spoiler That being said, I do think that the story in and of itself was not all that great - what made this movie great was the way in which it was told. It followed the same mold as "A Beautiful Mind" and "Memento," we see the story reflected through the prism of the lead character's mind, rather than observing "reality." The story is much more engaging this way. Curious what you guys think of the "monster" comment at the end. Was he knowingly accepting the lobotomy as his way out(from the mental torment brought on my killing his wife), or simply reverting back into the same cycle?
I saw Shutter Island and liked it, but did anyone else kinda get the vibe that it was a non-romantic version of the Notebook? Maybe it was just me.
I saw the movie last night and really enjoyed it. To answer theRookie: Spoiler And to answer the question, I think he was knowingly accepting the lobotomy. When the guards/doctors came over to him he just stood up and walked with them--no questions asked. I think he knew what was happening and just wanted to escape what he knew. As far as predictability: Spoiler I noticed little hints throughout the movie as to the outcome. For example, when the marshals first "meet" Dr. Cawley in his office, Cawley introduces himself to Chuck and then Teddy, calling them by name. If it were their first time meeting, how would he know which is which? I knew something was going on after noticing this.
Shutter Island My assessment is similar to theRookie's, only, I didn't enjoy it so much. A really well made film: yes, well acted: yes, intelligent: yes (it not only touches on various themes, but alludes to many more, but in a way that doesn't bog down the plot). It's my understanding that the novel it's based on is basically a homage to genre pulp fiction, but with a considered and intelligent dimension to it, and the film is much the same. It's just that the genre element(s), the plot, aren't exactly anything new, and I guess you must have to be in the right mindset to find them, and the ways they are presented, fun or exciting. Spoiler Scorcese doesn't even seem to bothered with hiding the fact that the narrator is unreliable, and just goes straight for the jugular in terms of freaking the viewer out. From the continuity errors, the jarring edit, the visual only flashbacks, the ominous 'found' soundtrack, and everything else I can't remember; you know something's rotten in Denmark, but have no idea what. And it works. The question is, for what? A repeat viewing is probably very rewarding for all the details seen in a new light, but it turns out everyone else is fine, just not the main character. I for one, am getting a little tired of getting lost in a character's delusions. It's worked well before, Fight Club being the high watermark, but where the pay off for that film was worth being drawn in, here the pay off was underwhelming for me, not because it was weak, but because it wasn't so compelling. Most of us (I assume) don't go through life inventing alternate realities, even if we experience strong trauma, so looking back, I just don't feel any identification. As I said, it's a smart film. Scorcese is a savant of cinema, and can cram so much into a film from the flimsiest of scripts. And it's not that the script in this case is flimsy, but the story itself just didn't engage me enough. The question at the end of whether he just deluded himself again, or wanted the lobotomy to escape the truth, is an interesting one, but not compelling enough. And I didn't enjoy it not because it was downbeat. In the final scenes, I was actually really hoping it would end on a sinister note, with the truth being that the psychiatrists' in fact convinced a relatively normal guy into believing he'd killed his wife, in an MKUltra-type experiment, just to see if they could. I based the idea on a point made earlier in the film that spoke about turning people into unwitting sleeper agents, a point that I did find engaging and compelling, but a point that was abandoned entirely. It may not have been such a "smart" ending, but it would have engaged me more. So there's my point. It's not like I've lost any respect for the director, the actors, or anyone else involved. It's just that a well made film didn't capture me.
Brooklyn's Finest This film follows three NYC cops who are in very different aspects of life. You have a retiring street cop, an undercover and a homicide cop. Of course because it deals with NYC police you have some dirty cops. (You never see any movies about dirty cops in Tulsa or Nashville, always NYC) anyway it has that gritty, dirty Brooklyn, Bronx feel to it. The film is well acted, (although Cheadle and Snipes get a little too "street" for me at times) you also get some good cameo's from some of your favorite gangster's from the HBO series "The Wire." The thing is the film is well acted but the story kind of just drags along and is a tiny bit predictable. Hawke gives the best performance, but the movie is average. This is not a movie you need to see in the theater but absolutely rent it.
I saw Alice in Wonderland in 3D last night. To make a long story short, don't waste your money. It was just as bad as Transformers 2, and only 1/10 as entertaining. Tim Burton needs to know that there is a difference between interesting and wierd. Every character was just wierd. Wierd even by Alice in Wonderland standards. And the story was borrrrrrrring. There were no plot twists. 10 minutes into the movie you knew exactly what was going to happen. The rest was filler. Spoiler The first hour and a half was comprised of Johny Depp making really weird noises. That was really all that was notable. I almost fell asleep twice. Then the last ten minutes featured a cheesie cgi battle scene straight out of one of those shit tastic dragon movies. The one positive thing I have to say about it is that the visuals were pretty awesome. However that coolness factor goes away after 10 minutes.
In the Loop Is a spinoff from the BBC Television series The Thick of It satirising Anglo-American politics in the 21st century. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/in_the_loop/ Had some great moments and quite a few laughs.