Reviews by Bobby
 

Here we go, I guess.

Flags of Our Fathers (Eastwood, 2006)

On paper, this is one of the greatest war films of all time. It's got everything working for it. Clint Eastwood is one of the most highly regarded directors, Spielberg is working on the film and we all saw his brilliant work on "Saving Private Ryan". One of the co-writers (Paul Haggis) has been one of the majority writers on the last two best picture winners, it is based off of a very popular book, it's a film about "The last great war" and a minor thing working for it, it has Barry Pepper who appears to have become the quintessential war film actor.

On paper, this should be the greatest movie of all time, or at least the greatest war film of all time. It's not either, but that shouldn't discourage you from going, because it is still a very good movie.

"Flags of Our Fathers" is a moving drama about the war. This is not a war film, it's a drama that revolves around the war. Comparisons to "Saving Private Ryan" are inevitable, but don't go into it expecting the same type of film. These are two completely different kinds of movies.

It focuses on three men, John "Doc" Bradley (Ryan Phillippe) Ira Hayes (Adam Beach) and Rene Gagnon (Jesse Bradford) and their celebrated lives after the war and most notably, their lives after raising the second flag on Iwo Jima.

Bradley, Hayes and Gagnon get a ticket home after they are apart of the raising of a flag over Iwo Jima. The picture was released in papers and publications across America and gave hope to those at home. They are brought home with the express purpose of being spokesmen for the war in an attempt to raise money for the war effort.

In coming back to America, Hayes and Bradley struggle with being dubbed heroes and are haunted by things they witnessed in war. Meanwhile, Gagnon fully embraces his new found stardom and it causes for a butting of heads between himself and Hayes.

The movie does start off somewhat slow (Only for the first ten or fifteen minutes) and it does appear that Eastwood didn't exactly know how to close it out, seeing as how the last 30 minutes seem to drag on for forever, but overall the movie is good. The battle scenes are just a shade under Saving Private Ryan's, but are still very intense. The acting is decent, but in particular I enjoyed Ryan Phillippe's performance.

At times, Flags can be confusing due to flashbacks inside of flashbacks that aren't even in chronological order, but if you pay close enough attention you'll be fine.

Overall I'd give this movie an 8/10. Not as good as "Saving Private Ryan" or "Platoon", but better than "Black Hawk Down" and "The Thin Red Line" (Both the 1998 and 1964 versions)

The Prestige (Nolan, 2006)

"The Prestige" has potential, but fails to fully reach it.

The story follows two budding illusionists, Rupert Angier (Hugh Jackman) and Alfred Borden (Christian Bale) and a bitter rivalry that ensues after a disheartening tragedy.

The Angier, Borden, Cutter (Michael Caine) and Angier's wife Julia (Piper Perabo) are stagehands for a magic act. A tragedy that ends out taking the life of Julia is to be blamed on Borden and Angier begins to become full of rage.

From then on, the movie follows them as they open their own magic acts and try and out-do each other. Cutter joining Angier and bringing along a helper named Olivia (Scarlett Johansson) as Angier runs his own magic show with his stagehand (His name escapes me at the moment, and I can't find a credit for him)

Borden pulls off a magic trick that has Angier scratching his head. He asks his new found love, Olivia, to join Borden and be a spy. The movie continues to take you one way and then turn you another. Angier turns to a wizard in order to help him create something that will put Borden out of business. We're not quite sure what it does for awhile, but we know it's not a "Trick" and we also don't know what exactly is going on since the movie keeps jumping back and forth between present day, a very long time ago, a short time ago, a long time ago again, etc.

And if you are wondering "Hey, whatever happened to ScarJo?" I am asking the same question. She just kind of disappears.

It all comes together in the end and everything is explained, but it's almost not worth the trouble of being so confused the rest of the time.

Their are plenty of twists, but I was able to call all of them before they happened. Not tooting my own horn, just letting you know that I found the twists somewhat predictable. It was a good movie, I'm sorry if I'm acting like it's not, but it's because I know it could have been so much better.

Thanks for the great reviews Blobby ooops Bobby ;D

Nice review of 'Flags of our Fathers' :D . It hasn't been released here in Aus yet but it's on the way and am really looking forward to it.

The previews certainly make it look spectacular but I'm gonna wait and see yeah....not expecting too much is probably a good plan. I'll spread the word on that too before I go with all my buddies, cause they'll definately compare it to Saving Private Ryan and expect it to be as good. It looks so similar in the previews...why would they make the previews like that I wonder?

Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan (Charles, 2006)
http://images.ctv.ca/archives/CTVNew...at1_061101.jpg

Wow.

Borat is the single most horribly offensive movie on the face of the planet. Borat is also the single most incredibly hilarious movie to come along in a long time.

Borat is sent over to America to learn more about the American culture and bring back his findings to Kazakhstan. While in New York, he is not exactly welcomed with open arms. His ignorance and woman and Jew hating mindset is not something that is looked upon very favorably.

While in his hotel room, Borat is flipping through channels and comes across the television show "Baywatch" and immediately falls in love with Pamela Anderson. He desires to travel to California and marry her, but before he left Kazakhstan, he was told by his wife that she would "Snap his cock" if he cheated on her.

Later that day, he receives a telegram informing him that his wife has died...Borat is overjoyed!

We are then led on a cross-country road trip to California as Borat learns about the US of A. He takes us on adventures into the ghetto of Atlanta, a hostile group of rednecks at a rodeo, an uncomfortable dinner with a pastor and his family, a naked wrestling match that spills over into a Dallas banquet and so much more.

Borat is most likely going to offend you at some point. Cohen makes sure of that. If you can stomach the parts that are tailor made to offend you, you will laugh your head off at the other parts of the movie.

Unless you are a god fearing, Jewish, woman who is uncomfortable with nudity, in which case the entire movie will offend you, then I reccomend seeing this one. I think it's most defenitely worth the price of admission.

If Borat is not the funniest movie I've ever seen (Still can't decide if it's better than The 40 Year Old Virgin) than it's way up there.

A++

Can't wait to see this :yup: Thanks Booby ;D

Booby? Haha. No problem. Thanks for the positive comments, Nebbs and Spooky :yup:

I am Australian :yup: we must, it is imperative, everyone has to have a nick name ;D

Well, I already get called Beebo by a lot of people, so Booby or Beebo I guess (Although I'm not sure if Booby is a nickname most guys wish to have LOL ;) )

I'm called Sussy. ;)

i have to agree with you bobby on both of your excellent reviews:D

Stranger Than Fiction (Forster, 2006)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/grap...bfstranger.jpg

Karen Eiffel (Emma Thompson) is a writer who has writer's block. She is deeply involved in her latest novel, but can't find a way to kill off the main character of the book.

Without knowing it, Karen is writing a real life story about an IRS tax agent named Harold Crick who is a loner in life and at work. He spends all day by himself and has no social interaction except with those he is auditing. If Karen writes that he trips over a curb, the real life Harold trips over a curb. If she writes that he makes a telephone call, the real life Harold makes a telephone call.

Harold (Will Ferrell) hears the voice of the author narrating his life. Harold is becoming frustrated since no one else can hear the voice and simply thinks he's crazy. When standing at a street corner waiting for the bus, Harold hears the narrator say that he had just set in motion events leading to his imminent death.

In an effort to get help, he asks literary professor Jules Hilbert (Dennis Hoffman) to help him figure out who could be writing this story and how he could prevent the grim ending. The professor tells him he needs to figure out whether he is in a comedy or in a tragedy and that they can go from there.

Harold is in the process of auditing a baker named Ana Pascal (Maggie Gyllenhaal) when he realizes that the plot of the story is beginning to lead him to fall in love with Ana.

In an effort to figure out which genre Harold is being written in, he starts keeping tally on everything in favor of a comedy and everything in favor of a tragedy, and his relationship with Ana becomes the center of his checklist.

Harold finally is able to come in contact with Karen to inform her that he is real and needs her to write his death out of the ending.

Just like Harold, this movie does not know whether it is a comedy or a tragedy and it suffers greatly for that main reason. The acting is fine and the dialog is interesting and fast paced (Much like an Aaron Sorkin type script) but in the end the movie isn't quite sure what it wants to be and causes for the ending to fall flat.

I thought the ending could have been much better, but the movie overall is decent. It's certainly a movie with a lot of potential, and many may feel like it reaches it fully, but this movie simply didn't end the way it should have...at least not in my opinion.

6/10

adding the director's names would help, Booby *giggles*

Thanks for the review Bobby, it sounds like you think the movie was lacking something. :yup:

Great reviews boobs! They call me gummy ;)

Casino Royale (Campbell, 2006)
http://eur.i1.yimg.com/eur.yimg.com/...3795142720.jpg

Well, it took them 20 times, but Hollywood has finally created a Bond that will blow you away.

This is James Bond before he holds his license to kill, but Bond is just as gutsy and dangerous. James is elevated to "00" status and his first mission takes him to Uganda where he is to bring in a terrorist, Mollaka, for questioning. Of course, it doesn't work quite that easily and the first 15 minutes of the movie is an action packed, chase that, of course, ends in an explosion.

Bond decides to investigate, independently of MI6, in order to track down the rest of the terrorist cell. He follows a lead to the Bahamas where he encounters Dimitrios who he finds out is involved with Le Chiffre who is the banker to the world's terrorist organization. Bond is able to take care of Dimitrios and stop even more terrorist activity (Which once more ends in an explosion) which then leads him to his next assignment by MI6 to go to Montenegro at Le Casino Royale where Le Chiffre is setting up a high stakes poker game.

M sends accountant Vesper Lynd along to keep an eye on the finances and to unofficially keep an eye on Bond, who is still not completely trustworthy in the eyes of M.

The action in this movie is superb, but if you look deeper than that, you'll find something more meaningful to this movie. This is more a subtle emotional investigation into the character of James Bond than it is anything else.

Some scenes that may at first seem meaningless (EXP: The scene in the shower with Vesper) really are more showing that Bond does indeed have a soul. He can love, he can care, and he can hurt, he just chooses not to. He needs to be broken down in order for that to happen, but in a profession like his, he can't afford to.

Daniel Craig is the perfect Bond. Eva Green was a good Bond girl, and they do have amazing chemistry throughout the entire film.

Is it worth the price of admission? Absolutely! It is 2 and a half hours, but it moves by fairly quickly. Tons of action, great acting and a deeper look at the character of James Bond.

Best movie of the year.

10/10

Great revoew Blobby/Bobby :D I must see this :yup:

I may actually watch this Bond movie. I've been avoiding 007s because of Bronson and Connery. I can't go either of them.

I love Sean as 007 :yup:

The Holiday (Meyers, 2006)
http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/j/msnbc/C...hmed12p.h2.jpg

Just not a very good movie.

Amanda (Cameron Diaz) and Iris (Kate Winslett) are two completely different people. Iris is a writer for a newspaper in England and Amanda is a movie trailer maker from Los Angeles.

They decide to switch homes for the holidays and get away from their man problems in their hometowns.

From the commercials and trailer, we are led to believe that Amanda goes to England and falls for Graham (Jude Law) and Iris goes to America and falls in love with Miles (Jack Black)

And while Amanda does rapidly develop a relationship with Graham, there never really seems to be anything there with Iris and Miles except for that they both are two pitiful push-overs who are really not that likable.

Amanda, Graham and Iris are all not likable for various reasons and while Miles is slightly likable, Jack Black is insanely unbelievable in his role as the sweet and kind pushover who wallows in his sorrow over constantly being taken advantage of.

The plot has been done over and over again on poor tv Christmas specials about love at the holidays. Nothing original and nothing really interesting.

I don't know...maybe it's because I'm a guy and this is more of a girls movie, but it was pretty bad.

Oh well...

4/10

I thoght it looked bad in the trailer :yup: Thanks for the review :D

The Pursuit of Happyness (Muccino, 2006)
http://www.thephoenix.com/secure/upl..._happyness.jpg

I think the best way to describe "The Pursuit of Happyness" is "Uncomfortably sad"

"The Pursuit of Happyness" is a movie about Chris Gardner (Will Smith) and his son Christopher (Jaden Smith) and their struggle to "Survive" in San Francisco.

Chris is a struggling salesman who's wife (Thandie Newton) becomes frustrated with their way of life. They struggle to pay every bill and they can't afford anything other than the necessities of life and sometimes they can't even afford that. Linda leaves Chris after one too many days of disappointment at Chris' inability to sell his product.

Chris and Christopher are on their own. Chris lucks out and gets an internship at a stock brokerage. He's one of twenty people fighting for a spot at the brokerage and he is constantly the underdog. Whether it be having to be the one to stop his work and get a donut for an executive or walking into work with one shoe and being stared at the entire way into the office area.

With the good (Winning the internship) comes the bad (He gets no pay, which in real life, he did, but in the movie, he didn't)

Chris spends the next six months of his internship living off the earnings of the remaining stock of his product he invested in. He and his son have no stable home. One night they'll be sleeping in a hotel and then the next they'll be sleeping at a homeless shelter and some nights they'll be sleeping in the bathroom of a subway station.

Is Will Smith good in this? He's decent. Not as great as I had heard. But the acting of Will Smith can't save this movie.

You are left sitting in your seat for two hours watching most of the movie squirming from the uncomfortable situations of being constantly railed on from landlords, etc. and begging his buddy for the 14 dollars he has owed him for months just to take the bus back home. I watched most of this movie with my hands over my face and peeking through my fingers out of the uncomfortable situation of watching a man struggle to survive and to keep his son's belly full.

Go into "The Pursuit of Happyness" expecting this: this movie is about Christopher Gardner sleeping on the street and struggling to make up stories to people he comes in contact with about why he's carrying all he owns everywhere around him. It's nothing more.

If you'd like to spend 7.50 to peer into the life of a man who is basically homeless and trying to raise his son, be my guest. I, for one, regret spending the money on it because the movie is nothing more than a classless play on emotions that leaves you turning your head from the screen half the time.

1/10

Thanks Bobby, i think I will wait for this to come out on DVD :yup:

Dreamgirls (Condon, 2006)
http://www.post-gazette.com/images4/...rlsnew_450.jpg

Oh, what could've been.

"Dreamgirls" is Bill Condon's latest creation which follows three black female singers, a songwriter, a manager and their ascent to the top of the pop charts in the late 60s to the mid 70s

Deena Jones (Beyonce Knowles) Effie White (Jennifer Hudson) and Lorrell Robinson (Anika Noni Rose) have been singing their whole lives and much of it together. They are three talented singers who all compliment each other very well and perform the songs of Effie's brother C.C. (Keith Robinson) to perfection.

They are always looking for their big break, which comes one night after being seen at a talent competition by Curtis Taylor Jr. (Jamie Foxx) who convinces them to go on tour with James "Thunder" Early (Eddie Murphy) as his backup singers.

Taylor is a car salesman who goes on the road with them and seemingly muscles his way into becoming Early's manager and closely watches after the girls and falls in love with Effie.

After helping to somewhat revive a slowly fading career of Early, the three singers land their own deal to perform shows in Miami. The Dreamettes are born and quickly rise in popularity.

Effie begins to become frustrated with her role in the group and what appears to be her fading spot in Taylor's heart. One night she leaves without any notice and comes back the night of one of their shows only to find that she has been kicked out of the group and replaced by Michelle Morris (Sharon Leal)

The Dreamettes become one of the most popular groups of their time and Effie fades into obscurity. The movie pretty much chronicles the ugly side of the music business. From the side of the Dreamettes and from the side of Effie.

Dreamgirls is a fun movie at times. The music is upbeat and entertaining for the most part, but music alone can't carry a movie. It can carry a "Musical" but not a movie that is supposed to be Oscar worthy.

Dreamgirls lacks heart and depth. It attempts to make up for it at times, but each time reaches to far and comes up empty.

Jennifer Hudson is everything she has been rumored to be...great. She will undoubtedly be nominated for an Oscar and may even win. Eddie Murphy isn't too bad either. Everyone else in the movie is decent at best.

There are some scenes during this movie that you watch and marvel at, but then you quickly come back down to earth when you realize that those moments are few and far between.

5/10

Thanks for the great review Bobby, I still may go and see this when it comes out here :yup:

Children of Men (Cuaron, 2007)
http://www.nationalledger.com/artman...ren_of_men.jpg

It's the year 2027. Human reproduction has come to a halt for the last 18 years and they youngest person on earth, Baby Diego, has just been murdered. But new hope arrives in the form of a young woman named Kee (Claire-Hope Ashitey) and Theo (Clive Owen) a former political activist who's vapid working life has been rejuvenated by the discovery that Kee is pregnant.

This is the premise of Alfonso Cuaron's latest and greatest masterpiece.

Set in a somewhat futuristic and very violent London, we immediately get the feeling that we are viewing a world that is, at it's core, dead. Violence erupts all over the world all day every day and military personnel are constantly walking the streets of London.

News breaks that "Baby Diego" the youngest human on earth, was murdered after he refused to give an autograph.

While everyone else around him mourns, Theo seems to be unshaken by the news. He's accepted mankind's fate and looks at this as another domino being pushed over.

Theo is kidnapped by his former love interest Julian (Julianne Moore) in an attempt to lure him back to the activist life. We get the sense that she has something very important, but does not reveal to him what it is.

Through a series of unfortunate events, Theo meets Kee, discovers that she is pregnant and is now roped into trying to get her to a sanctuary at sea where she can give birth and scientists can examine Kee and her child and try and figure out a solution to the reproduction problem.

Cuaron is a master storyteller. The filming is some of the greatest I have ever seen and it's a shame that this movie has gotten zero Oscar buzz.

Clive Owen is his normal brilliant self and everyone else around him is good. Not great, but they do their work and they do it effectively.

Children of Men is simply one of the best films I have ever seen. I feel like the ending was a bit abrupt, but it's not an ending that would ruin what I would say is one of the best films of the 21st Century.

9/10

Thanks for the review Bobby, I am going to see this when it comes here :yup:

Re: Reviews by Bobby
 

Zodiac (2007, Fincher)
http://www.projo.com/photos/20070302...07_004KL4I.jpg

David Fincher is a directing God. Se7en, Fight Club, The Game and Panic Room are all really good movies.

His directorial return to the big screen for the first time in 5 years had me more than a little excited as he decided to take on the Zodiac killings from San Francisco in the late 60s to early 70s.

Zodiac chronicles the story of an seemingly random killer who terrorized the city of San Francisco for years. After committing his second murder in 8 months, the Zodiac killer contacts three newspapers in the area and orders them to print a cipher on the front page of the newspaper or he will continue to terrorize the area.

Columnist Paul Avery (Robert Downey Jr.) and cartoonist Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal) both immediately become engrossed in the case. For Avery, it's his job. For Graysmith, it becomes a passion.

Inspectors David Toschi and William Armstrong are two who follow the case very closely and go through several interviews to try and pin the Zodiac killer.

Over the next 2h40m we see the grisly murders of The Zodiac and the investigators failed attempts to track him down. It gets to the point where he is toying with columnists, investigators and the general public.

For the first half of the movie, we are fully in the grasp of David Fincher. He keeps you fully engaged in the movie. The second half begins to drag as the story begins to focus on Graysmith's attempt to bring down The Zodiac. Graysmith goes through the files and contacts three different people involved with the case on a regular basis to try and crack the case.

The main problem with Zodiac is that the second half of the movie seems to do nothing except review all the info you got in the first half, only it does it all in a very slow fashion and with a lot less of that Fincher flair.

The one thing that is consistently good about Zodiac, is Robert Downey Jr.. Downey is great in the movie from beginning to end.

Overall, I'd say it's a good movie, but the second half could have been more interesting than Fincher made it.

7/10

Re: Reviews by Bobby
 

Perfect Stranger (Foley, 2007)
http://thecia.com.au/reviews/p/image...stranger-0.jpg

Is it Friday night? Are you sitting at home with nothing to do? Well, I got something for you to do.

Perfect Stranger stars Halle Berry as a journalist named Rowena who goes undercover to bust the man she suspects killed her former friend Grace (Nicki Aycox)

After becoming frustrated with her employer, Rowena quits her job at a newspaper and decides to pursue stories on her own without the shackles of censorship.

After she discovers that Grace has been murdered, Rowena and her close friend from the paper, Miles (Giovanni Ribisi) decide to go on an investigative mission inside the business run by the man she believes killed her friend, Harrison Hill (Bruce Willis)

Over the next 1h49m, we watch as Rowena is hired as a temp at Hill's offices, and as she looks for evidence to prove that Hill killed Grace after she threatened to reveal their affair to his wife. She talks to the office gossip, Gina (Clea Lewis) and chats with Hill over the internet under an alias in order to get to know him better so she can get close and get the info she needs.

Rowena gathers the proof along with the friend she so unappreciatively neglects, Miles, as she inches closer to seducing Hill into the trap she's about to spring.

Halle Berry is really awful in this movie. Really awful. Willis is ok, but the movie is clearly stolen by two actors. The first is the very surprising Clea Lewis. She is by far the most likable character and she plays it well. The second is the VERY undervalued Giovanni Ribisi who doesn't get the respect he deserves as a very talented actor. I have always loved Ribisi. Ribisi and Lewis have a certain charisma to them that sets their performances so far apart from everyone else's.

Is the movie a great movie in the typical sense? No. Not really. Is the ending contrived? Very much so. But the fact is that this movie is not trying to be something it's not. It's not trying to be a great thriller like Se7en or Silence of the Lambs, instead it's simply trying to be a Friday night popcorn flick with a bit of an edge, and in that context, it succeeds to an extent.

Overall this movie is decent for what it's trying to be and probably doesn't deserve the horrid reviews it's been getting so far. People need to take it for what it's worth and if you do that, you may find yourself somewhat entertained.

6/10

Re: Reviews by Bobby
 

Thanks for all the great reviews Bobby.... I've been trying to play catch up on all the reviews when I have a few minutes.... :)

Re: Reviews by Bobby
 

I think you totally missed the mark on Happyness.

Re: Reviews by Bobby
 

Thanks Bobby :)

Re: Reviews by Bobby
 

Spider-Man 3 (Raimi, 2007)
http://www.d-zone.org/Spider%20man%203.jpg

Ok, well, let me start by saying that I enjoy the Spider-Man series. I thought 1 was good and 2 was excellent. Yes, a lot of the dialogue is cheesy, but it's a comicbook series. It's based on action and stories.

Now that we got this out of the way, let me say that if this wasn't a part of the Spider-Man series then this would be on every critics bottom 10 list for the year.

I was so excited to see it, but they really took the cheesy dialogue, really lame scenes and horrible attempts to elicit emotional responses to an all time high.

By now, we all know the story. Peter Parker is a photographer with an alter-ego...he is Spider-Man. He's in love with the emotionally hard to figure out Mary Jane Watson.

Very early in the movie we get one of the 'anticipated' matchups when Harry and Peter fight. Not Spider-Man, but Peter. Harry is all done out in his father's goblin suit.

Of course this first battle ends out in a victory for Spidey. Harry takes a huge hit to the head on a bar and is knocked out and is dying. Peter gets him to a hospital where the doctors are able to save him, but he now has what could be permanent short-term memory loss. He can't remember his anger for Peter, he can't remember if he has a girlfriend or not...he pretty much only remembers up until high school.

The other 'Bad guys' are played by Thomas Haden Church, who is a character called "The Sandman" who can do amazing things after being involved in a freak accident while on the run from the police after breaking out of prison, and the other is Topher Grace who plays Venom. We'll get to him later.

Peter finds out that his grandfather's murderer was not found originally and that the convict escaped from prison is the one who did it.

With his anger growing, a black, sticky, ooze creeps on to Peter and takes over. He is now Venom. He has nothing but anger and revenge in his heart.

After a series of unfortunate events, he feels the need to get rid of the suit. He fights himself to get it off and finally does so only to have the black ooze transfer on to Peter's arch enemy from The Bugle, Edward Brock.

I can't say much more without giving away the plot, but good gosh this was bad. There are many scenes that make you cringe because of how bad the dialogue is and there are plenty of scenes that tested my gag reflex (Harry and MJ doing the twist, Peter walking down the street with a new attitude and pointing and winking at girls as he goes along, Peter doing pelvic thrusts in a men's store, Peter dancing and playing piano in a jazz bar, etc.)

Peter's Venom side is actually quite intriguing though. When he is Peter, he has an attitude. He will willingly fight people on the street without his suit. Not bad guys, he'll fight people who just plain tick him off. His edge is nice, but not really usefull except for in a couple of scenes.

The fighting scenes are good. It's your typical great action scenes for the most part. There are a couple of times where the scenes seem like something out of Spy Kids, but that's only once or twice.

Overall, this is probably the worst comic book movie ever. Not kidding.

I'd avoid at all cost, but knowing that it's Spider-Man, I know most can't resist. They're curious and they have to know.

Well, don't say I didn't warn you...

1/10

Re: Reviews by Bobby
 

Crikey. Just checked your rating without reading the review and im speechless.

Re: Reviews by Bobby
 

Yeah, I'm pretty shocked, myself. Bobby: could the low rating have something to do with the enormous expectations that the film must have come with?

Re: Reviews by Bobby
 

Well, I was excited to see it, but my expectations were lowered when I saw early reviews, so I didn't have too high of expectations.

When you see it, I think you'll see what I'm talking about with some of the painfully bad scenes.

Re: Reviews by Bobby
 

Totally agree. Thanks for the putting the warning up, so i didnt have to.

Re: Reviews by Bobby
 

Ah, okay. Thanks for elaborating.

Anyway, I'm pretty bummed by this, if only because I really loved the first two (I think both are among the five best superhero films ever made).

Re: Reviews by Bobby
 

And now Zeiken clocks in with a 2/10.... Not looking good, folks...

Re: Reviews by Bobby
 

Seeing how I had the same gripes, but gave the film an 8, I feel like I have to defend it.

Both 1 and 2 are way too low. The technical aspects of the film alone warrant it higher then those ratings. The biggest problem with the film, you did not state. So I won't really go there.

Yes there are dance sequences, the main one being the Parker/Travolta scene, but it played out nice. Parker, a loser is trying to be cool and a bad ass, it doesn't work, this shows. If you remember in the second film they had somewhat of a similar scene with the song "Raindrops Keep Falling On My Head" in the background.

Harry and MJ doing the twist, lasts all but 3 seconds.Their friends, their cooking and the song is playing in the background. If it went on any longer I could see problems, but not something that is about 3 seconds long.

I did have a problem with the Jazz dancing scene though, it was out of place. One too many at that point.

Yes, again the film is full of cheese, but it's based on a comic book. It's suppose to be. The only parts that this effects would be the emotional parts, like you said. But for everything else it adds to the comic book feel. Which is nice because they stray from the comics so much.

With those 'painfully' bad scenes, they hide in the shadows of what's good about it, and thus warranting it a higher rating.

I totally disagree with your ratings, but agree with some of your gripes.

Re: Reviews by Bobby
 

Well, I feel the dialogue is awful, I just didn't give any examples. I probably rolled my eyes or covered my face at about 20 different points because of uncomfortably bad dialogue.

Everything in that movie was a disaster. Even the effects (Which were good) weren't as good as they could have been. Nothing reached it's potential.

Re: Reviews by Bobby
 

I give it at least thinking might write it up myself. Personally loved some of the cheese and Raimi's humour.

Re: Reviews by Bobby
 

Thanks for a very interesting review, a different point of veiw from otheres i have read :)

Re: Reviews by Bobby
 

Knocked Up (Apatow, 2007)
http://onmilwaukee.com/images/articl...dup_story1.jpg

No way! A raunchy comedy...with heart? You betcha.

Ben (Seth Rogen) is your typical, young slacker. He doesn't do anything except play stupid games, get high and help create a new website with his buddies that tells you when and where all nudity is in films. Alison (Katherine Heigl) is an up-and-comer with E! and just got a promotion. She now gets face time on E!

What else to do but go out and celebrate, right?

After a series of events, Ben and Alison hook up at the night club and have a one-night stand. She wakes the next morning to realize the loser she just hooked up with, and quickly cuts ties.

Eight weeks later, she finds herself calling Ben up with news that she's pregnant.

Knocked Up follows them through the pregnancy and their fight to have a relationship for the sake of their child. Both seem to have feelings for eachother, but rarely can they get on the same wavelink at the same time. Ben tries his hardest to be a good parent...he tries to muster up feelings for Alison that he's not really sure are there, he goes with her to every doctor visit, he buys baby clothes/nursery items and buys parenting books. Alison, doesn't seem to want to try as hard. She's glad he's there to help, and she is attracted to him, but she feels that the feelings are forced.

Knocked Up is a genuinely sweet and funny movie. It's so incredibly funny at a lot of points, but also unexpectedly touching, real and romantic.

The first half is much funnier than the second half, but the second half has much more depth. Throughout it all, it feels so real. So genuine.

The whole cast has great chemistry and is undeniably likeable.

The best movie of 2007 to this point.

9/10

Re: Reviews by Bobby
 

Thanks for the review, I think I will se this when it get here :yup:

Re: Reviews by Bobby
 

I appreciate you, Nebbs. You give me feedback :yup: LOL

Re: Reviews by Bobby
 

Kinda like CNDB.com (Celebrity Nudity Database)

Anyways, I don't think I'll be seeing this anytime soon. Maybe when it's released on Netflix.

Re: Reviews by Bobby
 

SC, it's brilliance. You need to see it NOW.

Re: Reviews by Bobby
 

Ratatouille (Bird, 2007)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/grap...02/nrat102.jpg

Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, A Bug's Life, Toy Story 1 and 2.

And now, Ratatouille. Considering that this movie came from Pixar, it was so earth shatteringly average that it made me want to cry.

Remy (Patton Oswalt, King of Queens) is a rat with a love for cooking. It's his passion in life. Often choosing cooking over family. His dad (Brian Dennehy) and the rest of the rat colony, all think Remy needs to stop chasing a dream that will never come true. It's time wasted.

After messing around in a local woman's kitchen, Remy gets busted and chased out of the house with a shotgun. Everyone else, in fear, heads for their little boats to float away in the sewer. Remy gets separated from his family, certain that he'll never see his family again. Hungry and alone, all Remy has is the book, Anyone Can Cook, of his all time favorite chef, Gusteau.

In his delusional state, Remy receives advice from a shoulder angel version of the recently deceased Chef Gusteau and ends out making all the way to Gusteau's old restaurant in Paris.

Remy befriends Linguini. A young garbage boy who is credited with making a delicious soup that was actually Remy's. Because Remy would never get a chance to cook, he and Linguini enter into a partnership, where Remy does the cooking through Linguini, and Linguini gets the credit.

As the movie wears on, the two run into several problems. They find it difficult to keep this secret from the overly mean head chef, Skinner, a growing tension between the two begins when Linguini falls in love with another chef, and they are faced with the challenge of cooking something for the most respected and hard to please critic in France...Anton Ego (Peter O'Toole)

Critics have raved this movie as the best film Pixar has ever made. Uh...no. This is probably their worst film ever made. Pixar has always churned out great family movies, and I've always adored the characters they create. No...not this time.

None of the characters are terribly likeable, and the laughs are very few, despite repeated attempts with gags about French people.

It was OK. Nothing more, nothing less. It's original, as most Pixar stuff is, and so that helps it along, but it just wasn't that good compared to their other work. It was a semi-entertaining, unfunny family film.

A generous 6/10

Re: Reviews by Bobby
 

Thanks for the review! I will probably skip this one. I am one of the few people on the planet that thought Nemo was just OK. I liked The Incredibles and Cars quite a bit, tho.

Re: Reviews by Bobby
 

I wish you would go into more depth with you're Ratatouille review. Perhaps I could be skewed on this, I love the movie, but frankly I'd think it would deserve more than the extended plot recap, then brush off that you gave it, even if I did agree with your quick evaluation ("not funny, lesser Pixar"). For starters, you called the characters unlikable, which doesn't really tell us what you didn't like about them.

Since I just critiqued you're review, it's only fair that I give you mine.

Re: Reviews by Bobby
 

I loved Ratatouille and my only compliant was that, after a while, it seemed to drag on but, I felt that way with Toy Story 2 and still loved it. I disagree that it was their worst film because Cars was pretty bad.

Re: Reviews by Bobby
 

They're all unlikeable for different reasons. Since there are so many, I'd be rambling if I explained it all. It's easier to say that, then Remy is annoying, Skinner is too over the top to the point that I want to pull out my hair, etc.

Mainly it was that the characters were annoying.

Re: Reviews by Bobby
 

Rescue Dawn (Herzog, 2007)

http://laist.com/attachments/la_josh2/RescueDawn2.jpg

The biggest compliment I can give Werner Herzog and his crew is this: Rescue Dawn is the most well developed plot of this year.

Rescue Dawn follows Dieter Dengler (Christian Bale) and his struggle to survive in the jungles during the early stages of Vietnam.

All Dieter Dengler has ever wanted was to be a pilot. He was pretty much neutral when it came to war, but his main reason for signing up for military service was so he could fly. His one and only passion.

His first mission was a heavily classified mission in Laos. Dieter is shot down and begins on the run in the jungle. It doesn't take too long before he's captured and sent to a prison camp of sorts. He's locked up in Vietnamese huts with 5 other men. The two he immediately connects with are Duane (Steve Zahn) and to a lesser extent, Gene (Jeremy Davies)

One thing becomes obvious quickly. His captors are relentlessly mean and his cell mates are borderline insane. Especially Gene. Dieter appears to be the only one who completely has it together.

Dieter becomes frustrated and quickly realizes he's not going to live much longer if he stays where he's at. Along with the 5 other fellows, Dieter plans his escape.

What Herzog does so brilliantly in this movie is set it all up to come full circle. In the opening scene, Bale and others mock a training video that tells you what to do if you are stuck in the jungle on your own only to end out needing similar skills when he's on the run. The 5 men all appear crazy and we wonder "What's with these guys? Is Dieter the only sane one in the bunch?" well, Herzog makes you feel claustrophobic in that camp. Slowly we see Dieter's mind go and start to understand that all of these fellows were probably just as sane at one point as Dieter.

This is a slow paced, expertly developed war drama. If you don't like slow moving character studies, avoid at all cost, but if you can even slightly appreciate such a thing, you will love Rescue Dawn. One of the better films of 07.

9/10

"No, only dead people are heroes."
 

I saw Rescue Dawn late last year, and while I am a mega Herzog fan I was a bit disappointed in the flick. First of all, I think his original documentary on this subject, 1998's Little Dieter Needs to Fly, is absolutely brilliant and that having Dieter tell his story in his own words is infinitely more horrifying and amazing than the dramatized version with actors. The actors, especially Bale, Zahn and Davies, are all fantastic, as usual. But if you watch Little Dieter, what he describes is so much more vivid than the dramatic recreation. It would almost have to be, as to truly recreate those horrors would be nearly impossible. I also thought the final scene of Rescue Dawn on the aircraft carrier was bizarrely hollow and felt an inch away from parody to me, though I don't think Herzog intended it as such. Maybe he did? Dunno. I hope there's an audio commentary track with him on the eventual DVD release, because I'd be curious to hear his thoughts and justifications for the scene.

Rescue Dawn is a good movie, but frankly not up to Herzog's own very high standards. And especially not up to the expectations for this film created by the sheer brilliance of Little Dieter Needs to Fly. The documentary is the one I would unreservedly recommend everybody rush out and see as soon as possible, if not sooner. Rescue Dawn...notsomuch. Other than for the great work of the actors, of whom Jeremy Davies steals the film and goes to the kinds of physical extremes in his portrayal that Bale was famous for in The Machinist.

But there are lots of Herzog's other non-documentary efforts I would urge one to see long before you got around to Rescue Dawn. For those, check out the Werner Herzog appreciation thread HERE.

http://www.notcoming.com/images/revi...ttledieter.jpg http://blog.tiffg.ca/uploads/RESCUE-DAWN.jpg

Re: Reviews by Bobby
 

Yeah, I really disliked the last 5 minutes. That's why I bumped it down a point. I thought it felt corny.

Re: Reviews by Bobby
 

Thanks for the great review Bobby :)

Re: Reviews by Bobby
 

I want to see this movie but, no theaters are showing it here. Bummer, I know. :(

Re: Reviews by Bobby
 

Went to AMC yesterday, I've now seen all the nominees.

Here are my reviews in order of who I believe deserves to win. From last to first.

There Will Be Blood (Anderson, 2007)
http://filmjournal.net/clydefro/file...l-be-blood.jpg

There Will Be Blood is the 4th major studio release from Writer/Director Paul Thomas Anderson.

Known for his large, star-studded casts, PT Anderson went a completely different route with this film.

Blood is loosely based off of the Upton Sinclair novel "Oil!"

In There Will Be Blood we follow the rise of one Daniel Plainview. A caustic fellow who loves money and not much more. The movie opens with about 15 or 20 minutes worth of silence. No dialogue, just grunts and nods. PT Anderson really didn't open the film strongly with this. The filming is beautiful and the actors do the best they can, but I think Anderson made a serious mistake letting it go as long as he did. It got to the point where you could tell he was intentionally trying to not have anyone talk. No matter what his purpose, it just became annoying when words were necessary and all we saw was Daniel Day-Lewis grimace and nod his head.

PT Anderson needs to take a lesson from Sergio Leone and Once Upon a Time in the West. The art and the way Leone paints the silence of the three outlaws waiting in an empty station was much more effective and not as forced as Anderson's direction in the opening 15 minutes. That's just where my problems begin.

After the death of one of his workers, Daniel Plainview adopts the man's child and decides to raise him.

One day, business very good, but not quite booming, Plainview gets a visit from a man named Paul Sunday (Paul Dano) who informs him that there is endless amounts of oil nearby and he'll tell him the location in exchange for money.

Daniel, a little skeptical, agrees and he and his son H.W. head off to the Sunday ranch, the home of Paul's family. He quickly discovers oil there and tries and gets the land from them for a cheap price, hoping they don't realize what's there. Eli, Paul's "Twin brother", recognizes that oil is there, and bargains for a higher price and 5,000 dollars for his church. Still, a steal for Daniel.

Throughout the next two hours, we track Daniel from what at first seems like a kind man (Good to his son, stopping an abusive father, generally courteous to the locals. etc.) to someone who is manipulative, greedy, and violent.

Daniel Plainview's rise and life spent polarizing those close to him is so close to Citizen Kane that it borders on plagiarism. The difference in this movie is only that it's Oil instead of newspapers, the character depth of the lead isn't as good, and the ending is much worse.

Daniel Day-Lewis adapts his role to the point that it's scary. I believed him 100% and he deserves the Oscar, but a few scenes aside (Mainly the church scene where Daniel is told to repent) this isn't anything special, IMO. It was a technical masterpiece, but overall it was disappointing.

4/10

More to come...

Re: Reviews by Bobby
 

Michael Clayton (Gilroy, 2007)

http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/e...layton2007.jpg

Michael Clayton is the curious thriller from Writer/Director Tony Gilroy (Writer of the Bourne Trilogy)

George Clooney stars as Michael Clayton. A do any dirty job lawyer who is caught up in the biggest lawsuit in U.S. history. Michael's firm, Kenner, Bach, & Ledeen, is defending U/North in the lawsuit which involves over 400 people and 3 billion dollars. After his friend Arthur Edens (Tom Wilkinson) loses his mind, strips down naked in a deposition over the lawsuit and starts trying to sabotage the defense of U/North, Michael begins to unravel the truth behind who his firm is defending.

Michael Clayton gives you all the info you need. There were times in the theater where I was sitting wondering if we weren't supposed to get it yet, or if I was just lost. Gilroy does a great job of loading you with information for you to piece together, just like Michael has to. In the final 10 minutes, it all makes sense. We get it. Enlightened at the moment Michael is. That's what I love about this film.

Everyone around you knows what's going on. Michael and the audience are the only ones that are confused about what exactly we're seeing and hearing. Gilroy puts us in Michael's shoes. We only understand what he understands, and it's really difficult to make such a movie and still keep your attention. Lesser films would have people frustrated with what would seem like a teasing nature, but Michael Clayton expertly paints the picture of a first person investigation. What is the purpose in knowing all along what is wrong, when Michael himself doesn't even know?

Clooney and Wilkinson are great in this film. Tilda Swinton is decent in her role, but the Oscar nomination really puzzles me.

I don't know how to elaborate anymore on the story without ruining the experience and feeling the mystery.

Still, I definitely recommend it.

8/10

Re: Reviews by Bobby
 

I'm sorry you didn't like TWBB. I thought it was a brilliant.

Re: Reviews by Bobby
 

No Country for Old Men (Coen, 2007)

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Entertai..._071210_ms.jpg

No Country for Old Men is the story of a man who just couldn't keep out of trouble.

Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin) is your average guy. He doesn't do much, doesn't expect much. While out hunting in west Texas, Llewelyn stumbles upon a group of trucks, pelted with bullet holes. At least 6 guys and a dog all lying dead and shot on the ground. While searching around, he finds 2 million dollars cash and a huge stash of heroin.

He takes the cash, a few weapons, and we are off on a chase.

Over the next 1h45m, a Hispanic gang, the police, and psycho killer Anton Chigurh, are all looking for him. Two of them want him dead.

We don't know much about the gang. I'd say that's the films biggest weakness. These men had the money, they're relentlessly after him just as much as anyone else is, and yet we have zero information on them. We just see 4 guys in a truck randomly pull up and start opening fire on him from time to time.

Anton Chigurh is established as a psycho in the first five minutes. Waiting at the police station, only him and the arresting officer, Anton uses his cuffs to choke the police officer to death, all while smiling. Good job by the Coen brothers in that scene. They set the precedent that this guy is a cold blooded killer. One who enjoys killing. And he does it all with perfectly quaffed hair.

Tommy Lee Jones' character of Ed Tom Bell is a little lacking in depth for most the movie, but kicks in pretty hard later in the film. And as always, Jones delivers a really good performance.

This is a good movie. Not as great as everyone would have you believe, but still really good.

Much like There Will Be Blood, technically, it's perfection. Unlike There Will Be Blood, there is an undeniable sense of excitement at all times. You're always on the edge of your seat, trying to figure out what move is coming next from the cat and mouse match of Anton and Llewelyn.

The acting all around is good, but I must address something...Javier Bardrem.

Granted, the hair was excellent, but the whole movie he spoke very monotone and killed people without showing emotion. I just don't see the range required to be called an excellent performance. If he wins BSA, like I imagine he will, then it will be the character, not his acting, that won him the Oscar. The character didn't require a lot of acting, and I think people just loved his badazz persona. I think we could have seen that exact same performance from 50 other actors...easy.

Still, solid movie. Weird ending, that I didn't understand because I couldn't hear what Tommy Lee Jones said. People up front being too loud, so I'm sure I missed something :(

8/10

Re: Reviews by Bobby
 

The Hispanic gang trying to find the money as representatives of one half of the original shootout in the desert so that's why they're after Llewelyn.

Shame you missed the ending, it was thoughtful and poetic, perhaps you can watch it again some time.

Don't agree with you about Bardem. I think he had a malevolent presence onscreen that was pretty scary.

Re: Reviews by Bobby
 

Juno (Reitman, 2007)
http://media.filmschoolrejects.com/images/juno-top.jpg

"'Cause you're, like, the coolest person I've ever met, and you don't even have to try, you know..."
"I try really hard, actually."

Juno McGuff is 16 years old, and she's pregnant. Her best friend, Paulie Bleaker, is the father.

Juno is surprisingly calm. She goes to "Women Now" to "nip it in the bud"

But wait...her baby has fingernails. The moment someone tells her that her baby already has fingernails, something clicks. She can't do it. For some reason, fingernails make it real to her.

"Juno" follows young Juno McGuff and her decision to keep her baby and her developing relationship with the couple who will adopt her child.

Ellen Page is magnificent. Really carries the movie and turns a role that could be a bit campy, into one that is believable and sweet. "Sweet" in the movies can be a very hateful term, but this film bounces along happily without ever being sucked into the pretentious vortex like so many that have tried the same blueprint. Kudos to Reitman for his direction in that aspect. He kept the characters likable when they very easily could have become annoying and he takes a story we've heard before and makes it fresh and something you can connect with. We all know these people.

We know Juno and her awkward, but mature, self. We know Paulie. A bit of a nerd, who's not confident in himself at all. Still, the only one who can hurt him is the only one that he loves. And she does it. On multiple occasions.

The acting from Page, Garner, Cera and Bateman is all top notch. Excellent.

One of my favorite scenes from this film takes place in the hallway of the school. Juno is angry at Paulie because he's taking another girl to prom and not her. Ellen Page SHINES in this scene and I think may win the Oscar thanks to that one scene alone. She dominates the screen with an authority we hadn't seen the entire movie.

"I still have your underwear."
"I still have your virginity."

We look at her and we think "Jeez...why is she being such a biatch?" but then we also look at her and feel sad, and almost want to be there to pat her on the back and let her know "This will all blow over..."

9/10

Re: Reviews by Bobby
 

Atonement (Wright, 2007)
http://www.rialtocinemas.com/films/2..._atonement.jpg

Oh wow. Oh wow, oh wow, oh wow.

Maybe I simply wasn't prepared. My expectations were lower than they should have been. I was least looking forward to this at the Best Picture showcase on Saturday. I was certain I'd sleep through it.

Maybe my low expectations going in, has distorted my perception of the movie going out.

Atonement is a masterpiece. A beautifully crafted story about regret, love found, and love never to be had.

Briony Tallis is 13 years old. She is an aspiring writer and has a crush on the gardener, Robbie. Unfortunately, Robbie is 18 years old, and in love with Briony's sister Cecilia.

After a series of odd events that confuse Briony and leave her head spinning, she accuses Robbie of a crime he did not commit. Robbie is sent away to prison, and the Tallis family is left in scattered pieces. Never to be the same again.

I've cried at movies. Stuff like American History X and Saving Private Ryan...the kind of movies it's "acceptable" for a guy to cry at. I have no problem admitting that Atonement had me in pieces. Pure poetry put to screen. The separation combined with little time spent together didn't matter. Cecilia and Robbie loved each other. They didn't need an infinite amount of time together to realize that, and they never stopped.

There are a few beautiful scenes I'd like to talk about. The first time I teared up was when Robbie is at war, three and a half years after the incident, he's strolling through a restaurant. He looks over and spots Cecilia. He takes a step back and walks the other way. He isn't sure it's her and he's not sure he could take it even if it was. He pivots and walks back by. Cecilia standing gazing hoping he would turn back and confirm it was indeed him.

The look on Keira's face. The punch to the stomach that Robbie receives hits him hard and penetrates straight through to the audience.

There's another beautifully shot scene that left me inexplicably gut-wrenched.

Robbie and two of his comrades stroll on to a beach during the war. Nothing violent going on. One shot, no cuts, for about 10 minutes. They walk through this scene where carnival rides are. Soldiers standing under a gazebo, singing. A ferris wheel spins in the background, a soldier grasping for dear life after he's fallen from his seat, etc.

Just immense power in that scene.

Something to be experienced, not viewed, Atonement is the 2007 Best Picture. I will be elated if it wins.

10/10

Re: Reviews by Bobby
 

:(

Oh well...my number 3 won. I guess that's better than 4 or 5.

Re: Reviews by Bobby
 

Great review Bobby, I have avoided this movie but now, I am going to watch it :yup: Thanks :)

Re: Reviews by Bobby
 

nooooo don't say things like that! if it's bad it's bad!

Re: Reviews by Bobby
 

Sea of Love (Becker, 1989)
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a1.../seaoflove.jpg

Sea of Love is an interesting, if a bit disappointing effort from Harold Becker.

The film starts us off with a really gruesome, explicit murder scene. Frank Keller (Al Pacino) is on the case. He believes the murderer to be female. A short while later, Keller meets Detective Sherman (John Goodman) at a party as Sherman indicates that he's run into a similar case and thinks they should join forces.

After realizing that both murders occurred after the two had put poetic ads in the personals looking for dates, Frank comes up with the idea that they should write a poem, place an ad, have dinner with their dates while the other poses as a waiter. The one posing as the waiter would take the wine glasses and check prints from the scene with the glass.

On one of his many dinner dates, Frank meets Helen Cruger. She quickly walks out on him saying they didn't have any chemistry. They failed to get her prints, and Frank forgets about it all.

After a random run in at a store and a late night tryst, Helen immediately shoots up the list of possible suspects, but Frank is oddly drawn to her and won't admit to himself that she is most likely the killer.

Harold Becker does an excellent job here of creating an odd, but thoroughly engrossing combination of sexual tension and utter paranoia. Pacino adapts well to his role of Frank Keller, a work obsessed, temperamental detective, but the show belongs to Ellen Barkin and John Goodman.

Barkin's performance has so much pop to it. From the moment she shows up and snaps her fingers in Detective Keller's face to her more vulnerable moments talking about her daughter, Barkin owns the screen. John Goodman is also very electric in his performance. Not necessarily a deep performance, or one that requires a lot of range, but Goodman plays the role with swagger and a nice touch of humor.

While there are many redeeming qualities to Sea of Love, it's over the top and sometimes pointless sexual exploration is a put off. The movie ultimately suffers from it's... ...ending that completely shatters the sexual tension and paranoia that the movie had built up so well the entire 2 hours. What was the point? Why make the film if your going to destroy the precedent you've built up?

Sea of Love is entertaining, but I would ultimately say it's a disappointment, due mainly for Becker failing to find the right ending.

6/10

Re: Reviews by Bobby
 

Tropic Thunder (Stiller, 2008)
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a1...r-groupimg.jpg

Tropic Thunder is Ben Stiller's newest comedy that mocks war films, the way they attempt to play on people's emotions, and the often warped way that Hollywood operates.

Thunder starts off with a bang transitioning into fake trailers of the stars from the real trailers of the movie. Everything there is hilarious and really does a good job at making fun of some of the garbage Hollywood has spit out in the last decade or so. From there we jump right into the filming of the movie.

This movie is expensive, it's behind schedule, and the man financing it isn't happy. The rookie Director, Damien Cockburn (Steve Coogan) is in a tough place being yelled at by the execs and still trying to juggle all of the egos that come with the talented cast.

The Director can't take it anymore. He wants to get it done and he feels that will only happen if he strips all the luxuries away from his stars and drops them in the middle of the jungle to film the movie.

Co-existence is impossible for this dysfunctional group of stars. The action hero trying to become a legitimate actor, Tugg Speedman (Ben Stiller) the brilliant Australian actor playing a black platoon leader, Kirk Lazarus (The amazing Robert Downey Jr) the drug addicted comedy star who wants more appreciation, Jeff Portnoy (Jack Black) the confused rap star who is angry with Lazarus, Alpa Chino (Brandon T Jackson) and the lovable loser, Kevin Sandusky (Jay Baruchel)

The group quickly realizes that this isn't a movie anymore. They are being attacked by a group of locals who run a heroin compound. Speedman is the only one who thinks the movie is still going on and is eventually captured. The rest of the group decides to save him before it's too late.

Tropic Thunder is really slow out of the gates. Once the fake trailers are finished, it really has some flat jokes. Not many actually hit. The film finally jump starts when they get dropped in the jungle. There, Robert Downey Jr begins to absolutely shine.

Downey manages to play a sexually confused holy figure, a black man, and an Australian prima donna. And he's absolutely hysterical in every last capacity.

Tom Cruise manages to steal the show away from everyone however as Les Grossman, a billionaire movie mogul with quite the temper and foul mouth. Cruise strips away all preconceived notions the audience undoubtedly has about him and delivers a great comedic performance.

Cruise and Downey really make this movie what it is. What is it? It's a funny movie. A little disappointing in terms of what I was expecting, but there are some laugh out loud moments and the film finishes strong after a slow first half.

The cinematography is surprisingly good. Very good.

Outside of some of the inevitable Scary Movie-esque war parody jokes, Tropic Thunder is a very original, pretty funny, uncompromising mockery of the state of Hollywood and the people that populate it.

Thumbs up to Tropic Thunder.

7.5/10

Re: Reviews by Bobby
 

Even though I have now read a few + reviews of Thunder, after seeing the trailer I don't think it is my kind of funny movie :nope:

Thanks for the reviews :)

Re: Reviews by Bobby
 

hey bobby:), the holiday seems to be a great movie...surely go for it this weekend...thanx for givin its overview here...:D

Inglourious Basterds (Tarantino, 2009)
http://www.filmofilia.com/wp-content...toph-waltz.jpg


Quentin Tarantino has made himself quite a career out of risky films that tend to lean towards the ultra violent side. A stylized World War II film? Well...it doesn't get much riskier than that, and that's what his latest film, Inglourious Basterds, is. At least that's what it appears to be on the surface.

I'm a Tarantino fan. Not quite as crazy about his movies as a lot of other people are, but I can't say he's ever made something I didn't like. Nothing changes with his latest effort which follows two main story-lines that eventually collide.

The first of the two stories follows The Basterds. A group of mostly Jewish-American men led by Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) that set out to kill every Nazi they see. No prisoners, no negotiating...if you're a Nazi, you are dying, and it's going to be a cruel and sadistic death. Through a series of events, their main focus becomes bombing the premiere of a Nazi propaganda film. A premiere that will have some of the most high profile Nazi leaders in attendance, with the theory being that The Basterds could end the war in one mass killing. In order to successfully crash the premiere, they enlist the help of German actress, and double agent, Bridget von Hammersmark (Diane Kruger)

The second story is that of the woman who owns the theater that the premiere is taking place. Shosanna (Mélanie Laurent) is the only one of her family members to escape when Col. Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz) comes through a small village in France looking for anyone hiding Jews. She creates a new life for herself and runs her theater in relative peace, only to have her life changed forever when German war "hero" Fredrick Zoller falls for her and insists that the film based on his "heroics" is shown in her theater. She resists the young German, but when the film is ultimately forced on her theater, she comes up with a plan to kill every Nazi in attendance.

Inglourious Basterds is not a historical film. Don't look for historical accuracy with this. It isn't even about World War II. No, instead, Inglourious is about the personalities. The emotions that drive these people and the reasons they are who they are. Nazi occupied France is a backdrop to the actions of the characters and nothing more.

It is Tarantino's most over the top and violent film to date. I feel a word like "Gruesome" is an understatement. But beneath the over the top style and borderline light-hearted tone they present, Inglourious Basterds is absolutely superb and fascinating.

Watching the movie, it felt like Tarantino approached the film with the main intent being that he wanted to explore the fascinating personalities of these characters. Who they are, and the aggression and drive that's in every single last one of them. That side of the film will appeal to the art house crowd.

But just like past Tarantino films, I think he wanted to make the surface something ridiculous and over the top for an audience that came to see action. The brutality of the surface almost engages the audience and sucks them into what is beneath...what Tarantino really wanted to focus on, and that's the exploration of what makes his characters tick. The writing of the characters combined with the actors chosen to bring them to life, provide for some great performances all around, but special mention for Christoph Waltz who is just out of this world good in his role as the ruthless Col. Landa.

It's always a real accomplishment when you can create a film that the 21 year old, UFC-watching, Red Bull-drinking, college kid can enjoy just as much as the 35 year old, Fellini-watching, Latte-drinking, painter. In other words, if you view movies as straight entertainment and don't want something that plays mind games, you'll like Inglourious Basterds. If you view movies as art that should rely on exploration of it's character, you too will like the film.

Tarantino has succeeded on both levels.

The film is Rated R for strong graphic violence, language and brief sexuality. This is most certainly a film for adults only and one you may spend looking through the gaps between your fingers as you cover your face. It's that violent.

Overall I'd give Inglourious Basterds 5 out of 5. It's a difficult viewing, but one that's well worth it if you can stomach all of the violence.

Re: Reviews by Bobby
 

Nice review, I can't wait to get my hands on tickets to see Inglorious Basterds.

Re: Reviews by Bobby
 

Yeah thanks bobby!

Re: Reviews by Bobby
 

Very cool early review, Bobby. Thanks for posting it. I've definitely been looking forward to this one for awhile and I'm going to try to catch it quickly. :yup:

Thanks for the review, Bobby, I was really curious about this film.

But, I'm concerned about what you said about the violence. That is always my problem with Tarantino, and I often wonder why he feels he has to be so violent. Puts me off of the film, unfortunately.

There are actually long stretches without violence, but when it's there, it's really strong.

An example of violence (Not an actual spoiler...just something violent the Basterds do that you may want to be surprised by when you watch the movie, so I'm putting spoiler tags on it)

Re: Reviews by Bobby
 

Pretty much disagree with most of what you said. Minimal violence, not too graphic by today standards. Characters had the depth of a puddle bar two or three. Teetered uncomfortably between drama and comedy

Re: Reviews by Bobby
 

great review Bobby :yup: I am looking forward to see this :yup:

Re: Reviews by Bobby
 

I haven't seen any of these yet, guess I should get out more LOL

Going to attempt to get back into reviewing here in the coming weeks. Looking forward to catching up with my Mofo's again.

Re: Reviews by Bobby
 

Awesome. :up: Looking forward to it.

Killer Elite (McKendry, 2011)
http://www.flicksandbits.com/wp-cont...ller-elite.jpg

It's probably not fair, but anytime I see that Jason Statham is in a movie, I know I'm probably in for something other than groundbreaking cinema. I suppose that makes me a cynic.

Killer Elite is the directorial debut of Gary McKendry and adapts the "true story" of Ranulph Fiennes' 1991 book "The Feather Men." I put true story in quotation marks, because there is some dispute as to whether his controversial and revealing look at assassins hired to pick off four British Army soldiers actually happened.

Killer Elite follows the story of Danny Bryce (Played by the aforementioned Statham) a former "assassin-for-hire" that got out of the killing business only to be sucked back in by a wealthy, aging Sheikh that has kidnapped his friend Hunter (Robert De Niro) and will only release him if Danny agrees to extract confessions from, and subsequently kills, three former British soldiers that killed his sons during war in the 1980s.

Danny begrudgingly agrees to the task in order to save his friend and teams up with two other assassins to get the job done. In pursuit of completing the job, they run into resistance in the form of a man who simply goes by Spike (Clive Owen) who runs an off-the-record security force to protect former members of the British Special Air Service.

If you've seen Crank, The Italian Job, Transporter, or any other Jason Statham movie, then you know there are certain things to expect. You know that if something on-screen has the capacity to explode, it will do just that. You know that if Jason Statham has no weapons and a conflict is on the horizon, he will kill his opponents using only his hands and whatever heavy objects are at his fingertips. You also know that his coarse, impenetrable personality will be melted away whenever he gets around a beautiful woman. There is no shortage of these things in Killer Elite.

Much of the first 45 minutes is highly confusing. Gary McKendry either didn't know how to share useful information like "Hey, who's house is this that he's breaking into out of nowhere?" or he didn't think it was any of our business. There are plenty of directors who have been guilty of trying to use confusion as a way of tricking an audience into thinking there is depth to a film that doesn't actually exist, but I think this was more a case of McKendry honestly not realizing that he was leaving out valuable details.

Viewers will be able to put together the missing pieces as the movie goes on, but they're distracting questions that take away from an already thin story.

As a brief side note, I have to say that the later years of Robert De Niro's career continue to depress me. He is in this movie strictly because his name is Robert De Niro. He isn't given much to do and the little he is given doesn't fit him.

Killer Elite is Rated R for strong violence, language and some sexuality/nudity.

Overall, I'll give the movie 1 hilarious Clive Owen mustache out of 5. The movie is just a mess. Explosions and hand-to-hand combat dominate the screen while you're left wondering why you should care about any of these characters and the dilemmas they face.

That's not cynicism, that's life experience. It's that kind of thing that has kept the human race alive.

It also stars Robert De Niro and, as I've said before, he's not exactly been the poster boy for quality cinema over the last 10 or so years. For me, Clive Owen is just another reason not to watch this, but that's a personal dislike. Everyone else seems to think he's great.

Re: Reviews by Bobby
 

Nice review Bobby.

Yeah that http://www.myemoticons.com/emoticons...s/thumbsup.gif

Re: Reviews by Bobby
 

Pretty Good

Good review on Killer Elite BB, makes me want to see it, although without too much money expenditure... :). Still makes me sad that once again, a fine older film is bastardized for profit. Anyone who remembers Burt Young dismantling a bomb under a car knows what I'm talking about....

Agree with most of your reviews but Borat was terrible and Casino Royale was simply ok imo.

Re: Reviews by Bobby
 

Got to see Moneyball last night and I'll have a review for that today or tomorrow.

Also was shown an extended 8 minute trailer of Girl With the Dragon Tattoo and that blew me away.

Moneyball (Miller, 2011)
http://cdn02.cdn.socialitelife.com/w...06-430x323.jpg

As a fan of baseball, Michael Lewis’ book Moneyball and Aaron Sorkin screenplays, I had fairly high expectations for Bennett Miller’s latest film. It came through.

Billy Beane (Played by Brad Pitt) is the General Manager of the Oakland Athletics. Following their 2001 dismissal from the MLB playoffs at the hands of the New York Yankees, three of the team’s most important players (Jason Giambi, Johnny Damon and Jason Isringhausen) take off in free agency for larger contracts that the cash-strapped A’s simply can’t afford.

Oakland was in a pickle. The most talented players by traditional scouting standards were all going to command high salaries well out of the range of Oakland’s budget. So how are you supposed to put a winning product on the field? Beane became determined to put the right 25 players on the field and not necessarily the best 25 players. That left him looking for alternate, forward-thinking methods of evaluating who was a good player.

After a chance encounter with a young Yale economics graduate (Jonah Hill) when attempting to make a trade with the Cleveland Indians, Billy Beane finds his new method of advanced statistics to build a winner on a budget, despite objections from old guard scouts and coaches.

After building his unconventional roster, Beane runs into opposition from all angles. The manager, the scouts, the media…even his 12-year-old daughter asks if he’ll be out of a job soon.

I really enjoyed Moneyball. The difficulty I run into in reviewing it is leaving the baseball fan in me behind and wondering what I would think of it had I not enjoyed the game or known all the little nuances about that 2002 Oakland team that the movie got right.

Outside of baseball, the movie is effective for the themes it explores of self-doubt perpetuated by a shaky inner-circle of close contacts. You walk away from the movie with the distinct impression that Billy Beane is one of the loneliest people on the face of the planet. It’s an interesting case study in the solidarity of the innovative thinker. The mold is fiercely defended from those that attempt to break it.

It is typical Aaron Sorkin. It’s subtly funny, smart and very fast-paced. There is a terrific scene in the movie where Brad Pitt and Jonah Hill are working the phones and playing general managers around the league in an attempt to get the “missing piece” pitcher they feel they need. The speed of the scene is Sorkin to the fullest.

The best scenes though are when it’s Jonah Hill and Brad Pitt alone. The two are a surprisingly good match and play off of each other very well. Both are very good and even in a crowded field this year, it’s hard not to see Brad Pitt getting an Oscar nomination for this one. I was pleasantly surprised by Hill and hope this is a sign of more serious things to come from him.

One small complaint from me, that is strictly a baseball fan thing, is how much they downplayed the talent on that Athletics team. They made you feel like this was a team full of misfits, but they fail to mention that Barry Zito won the Cy Young award that year as the league’s best pitcher and A’s shortstop Miguel Tejada won the MVP award. Tejada is briefly mentioned and Zito isn’t seen in the film at all. I understand they were trying to push the ultimate underdog storyline, but I thought that was a little misleading.

Moneyball is rated PG-13 for some strong language.

Overall I would give Moneyball 4 out of 5. It is beautifully filmed, well acted and very entertaining.

Re: Reviews by Bobby
 

I always thought Jonah Hill was a good actor.

I hate sports movies, but I might see this one - it doesn't hurt that Brad Pitt is the star.

I'll let you know.;) I really want to watch this, but I've never seen a baseball game in my life and have no idea who these people are so I'll be watching it from that viewpoint.

Nice review, by the way.