Suspect's Reviews

Tropic Thunder (Ben Stiller)



"Ben Stiller Should Stick To Directing"

After a big movie explosion goes wrong (they didn't even film it) the director is talked into taking his actors of the new film tropic thunder, into the real gritty war world. What the actors think are scenes being filmed for the movie is actually drug criminals and real war.

Tropic Thunder is a fresh dose of comedy during a time when we have been overloaded with Apatow produced films. Not saying his films are bad, but they do follow a certain path and they all have the same feel. I wanted something different and not something that The House Bunny or the next "Epic Movie" could offer. Enter Ben Stiller, who has had some trouble as of late with the films he has been in. Tropic Thunder isn't a big change, but it's a refreshing change and one that I welcomed and enjoyed.

Ben Stiller's previous directing effort was Zoolander. That film is really hit or miss. I found it to be stupid, yet in a funny way. It knew it was stupid, unlike other films that try to be funny and completely miss the tongue in cheek aspects. Where that film made fun of models, Tropic Thunder makes fun of Hollywood. Frm the hilarious trailers at the start to the way people like agents and producers act behind the scenes. I loved the look of this film, it is almost the total opposite of what and how war films are shot. It's too pretty to be a war film and it works with how these characters live in this world. They are oblivious to most things...even when there is a dead body.

The film starts of strong and ends strong as well. It's the middle act where it has most of the problems. Even if you can see the joke coming, you still laugh because of the delivery, good job for the actors on that one. Sure Ben Stiller is paying the same character again, but it works in this film. He manages to make it a little more fresh then stale. I wasn't too impressed with Jack Black, but he does get one of the best jokes in the entire film. (The bit when he is tied to the tree). Robert Downey Jr. is getting the praise here and he deserves it. Being in both Iron Man and Tropic Thunder, in which he steals the entire show, this is his year.

The film is more vulgar and violent then I thought it would be. Most of the gore happens in the opening of the film during the filming of the war movie. It is over-the-top and pokes fun at how blood filled war films are. But it may catch peple off guard who are put off by that sort of thing. There is also quite a bit of swearing, but most of it is from a character who isn't involved in the 'war'. While I found both of these aspects funny for the film, others may not.

Tropic Thunder is decent, I enjoyed it, was expecting a bit more on the parody of war films, we get Platoon, but where's Deer Hunter? I probably enjoyed it more because it pokes fun at Hollywood and the go around of it all. I tend to gravitate towards that style. All the cameos are great. I don't want to ruin any of them because that would ruin the joke. I can see why some people may not like it, it has been done before and may offend some people. I didn't find any of the Simple Jack bits that funny. While you may not think the film is up to par with more intelligent comedies, it is a nice breath of fresh air.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

I was wondering if anyone else was going to mention this. Say what you want about his character as a whole, but the whole "swallow the gravy" exchange was one of the best moments in the film IMO.

P.S. You going to review Pineapple Express at all?

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

Burn After Reading (Coen Brothers)





"The Coen Brothers Rush Burn After Reading"


After a disc containing the memoirs of a recently fired CIA analyst ends up in the hands of two dim wits who work at a gym, they go around trying to sell it thinking it contains important classified CIA stuff.

The Coen brothers are taking a different shift from last years highly praised "No Country For Old Men" and going back into their comedy genre in which they seem to excel at. Here is a film that is full of characters that do stupid things, at yet we still seem to like them. Even when they are hacking away at other people. While "Burn After Reading" is a decent film, the entire project feels rushed and the ending too forced. It's as if they had no other way of ending the film, so they tack on the wrap up job.

The film opens with the firing of John Malkovich, because he seems to be an alcoholic. We are introduced to his wife, Tilda Swinton, who is having an affair with George Clooney. Clooney is also married, but is not satisfied with just those two women, so he begins dating Francis Macdormand. She has been trying to find love online with no luck. Her co-worker, Brad Pitt, finds the disc with the CIA stuff and they both begin to blackmail Malkovich. Somehow these stories intertwine with each other in a dark and humorous manner.

Everyone involved seems to be having fun. Brad Pitt and George Clooney are specially funny in their roles. One as a young, gum-chewing, doofus. The other as a paranoid treasurer who decides to build a very unique chair. Both Clooney and Pit are playing against type. Which is nice to see from such big A list actors, in a comedy anyway.

McDormand is another one to watch. She seems to slide into this role perfectly, nailing every bit of dialogue that comes out of her mouth. It seems natural, even though most of the dialogue is not. Malkovich is the alcoholic CIA analyst who is mentally breaking down. Losing his job, cheating wife and other things. This character is dragged through the mud until he decides to explode. Malkovich plays it with a sense of integrity. An upper class way of presenting himself, much like how he portrayed himself in "Being John Malkovich." Tilda Swinton seems to have the cold hearted bitch role down pat.

For those expecting a laugh out loud comedy, you'll be really disappointed. "Burn After Reading" is a slow moving film. It wasn't until half way through did it really start to kick up and peak my interest. There are a couple bits that are really funny, and others then just seem out of place. Don't expect it all to but fluffy funny stuff, this is a dark film. It is a Coen film after all.

J.K. Simmons has a small role as a CIA supervisor who has no idea as to what is going on with these character. The audience feels the same way. While it's not entirely hard to follow, some people may have some problems with it. I guess that could have been there intention, especially with how they ended the film.

While "Burn After Reading" is good, it's not Coen good and that may disappoint some fans. But the film is basically about stupid people doing stupid things, done in an intelligent way. The film has a few surprises, I was caught off guard at least twice. I just hope they put more time and effort into their next project.

I saw Burn After Reading tonight, and I agree with much that you say. As with most Coen films, you get it or you don't, or if you don't you do not care because it was plain fun anyway. I put myself into the latter category. Oh sure I get the movie, but I do not get it Coen style. I had to refill my soda twice because of the dry wit, but oh I love that dry wit. I give it a 3.5/5.

__________________

“The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands.” – Sir Richard Burton

Thanks Sussy for a great review, I am going to see this for sure

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

Ghost Town (David Koepp)





"Gervais Makes This Clichéd Rom-Com Watchable"

After dying for a little less then seven minutes after going in for some minor surgery. Dentist Pincus begins to see dead people. The dead people, finally having someone who can see and hear them, try to get him to finish their business so they can finally leave this world. Only problem is Pincus is a loner who hates people.

It's Ricky Gervais' dry humour and wit that seem to elevate Ghost Town and make it stand out in the crowd of numerous other clichéd romantic comedies. That's not saying that this film isn't clichéd, it has them left right and centre. Although with Gervais taking a different approach to the material then what most other leading men would do in this situation, Ghost Town becomes a film that people will actually enjoy and not roll their eyes at.

We start the film off with the death of Greg Kinnear, and if you think that is a spoiler then you have no idea what this movie is about. After that we are treated to the 'people person' that is our lead character. We get this immediately with his treatment to his patients and other co-workers. Although, after his surgery, he opens his eyes and start seeing ghosts around the town. This is when the clichéd bits start kicking in. With every film in which a living character can see and speak with ghosts, you get the obligatory "Is he crazy?" as people around him see him speak to no one. We've seen this stuff over and over again and while it would obviously happen, it's not funny and that's the difference. Ghost Town tries to get a laugh every time it happens.

You know those films when people walk through a ghost and they get the chills, while this film has that, they put a little twist on it. The character sneezes. For whatever reason, it's never explained, but I guess when you're dealing with this subject matter you can start creating your own rules. Speaking of rules, Ghost Town follows the basic flow chart of every rom-com that has been out there before it. So don't really expect to see something new.

This is Gervais first leading film, after having successful television shows with "The Office" and "Extras" he is branching out to film. This is an interesting choice for his first outing, and while it does work, I would have liked to see him do something different. He sure has the comedic chops to tackle different forms of comedy. He has his own spin on things and it's all in the delivery. With comedic actors like Mike Meyers and Eddie Murphy failing to get laughs (Love guru, Meet Dave) it's nice to see the light shine on someone else. Someone that is currently not in the Apatow crew either.

As with the talking to no one bits, there is also the "tell me something that only I would know" routine. Although, I will give Koepp props, because this time it doesn't work out so well. I like Koepp as a director, Stir Of Echoes and the Trigger Effects are both well made films. This is his first time writing and directing a comedy. If you want to count Toy Soldiers as a comedy then go ahead, he did write that. He does a decent job of pacing the film with the laughs and adding the emotional punches when it's needed. As most rom-coms do, it takes a dramatic turn and the comedy goes away for about 15 minutes, Maybe you'll need a Kleenex, maybe not.

While Ghost Town does follow the basics for a romantic comedy, it does have the s slight advantage of having Ricky Gervais on it's side. If you've never seen his material, Ghost Town is an alright choice to start with, but I still recommend his television work over this. You'll get some laughs from here, Tea Leoni holds her own and Greg Kinnear has the hardest part in the entire film. So in the end, the film works and does what it's suppose to do.

SAW V (David Hackl)



"The Weakest Entry Yet..."

SAW V is about Hoffman trying to conceal the fact that he is Jigsaw's apprentice. People are put in traps...can they escape? Really, do I need to explain the plot of a SAW film to anyone by now? It's been the same movie for years now, only gradually getting worse and worse. SAW V is without a doubt the weakest entry yet to the SAW franchise. It tries too hard to set itself apart from the previous films and yet at the same time try to go back to it's roots. So why do I still see these films, well, it's a tradition. So you can bet I will see SAW VI and you can bet I probably won't like it.

So why does SAW V fail so much? Well, let me crack out the list.

One, it does not feel like a SAW film. SAW V puts the traps on the back end and focuses more on the story. Good right? Wrong. They basically took the same story from SAW III with Amanda and put it with Hoffman. This time we get flashbacks of Hoffman with Jigsaw, all of which I guess are suppose to be twisty but none ever catch you off guard. I don't know if it's weak writing or the fact that we've seen so many twists in this series that we can't spot them anymore. That goes for the ending too. Ever since the original SAW there has been a twist at the end to let the audience leave the theatre talking. This one doesn't have that. I was a bit disappointed. Seeing the twist is half the fun...isn't it?

Two, can we please stick with some characters here? Every film there are new characters introduced, fair enough. But do we always have to kill off the ones from previous films? I had the same problem with SAW III. Can we pick a character and stick with them? How are any of us suppose to connect with anyone when we know you are going to kill them off soon.

Three, the script. It has horrible dialogue scattered throughout the entire thing. Half ass scenes with the detective. We see Hoffmans's flashback and all of a sudden he puts the pieces together. Is he seeing what we are seeing? That can't be, but the film sure plays out like he can. The characters are not likable at all, specifically Hoffman and the 5 lucky people trapped in his game. Who are these people, they came and left quicker then you could say "I Want To Play A Game". Also, can get get some people who aren't completely stupid? You've been on this case for awhile now and you still don't know to actually 'listen' to the tape and follow the instructions. Maybe it's because I've watched all the films, but when I hear the words, "get in this box, it will save your life". I'm going to get in the damn box and not try to do something else that will eventually and obviously lead to my death.

We are given more scenes with no substance, that we have to wait for the next film. The box with Jigsaw's wife. We have no idea what's in there, we could guess, but hey, then what the hell would be the point of the next one right? The traps aren't as creative and seem even more implausible then before. Giant swinging pendulum of death???

I gave the creators of SAW credit for always turning out new films year after year and making it somewhat enjoyable. The sugar on top was how they all connected and how you actually did need to see the first ones to know what was going on. I'm sad to say the quality is slipping here. Sure they all still connect, but do we care about the connections anymore? I'm starting to grow tired of them. People still seem to love these movies, so let's have VI then call it quits before the films become a complete joke. To the fans, the critics have already sung their tunes on this franchise.

Saw V definitely has the worst twist in the series -- it's not really a twist at all, though, is it? It was like a last minute twist, mainly only for what happens during the last three minutes!

But as of now, I feel it was more enjoyable of a film than Saw IV, which had a twist that was a very watered down version of the first film's twist. Yet Saw V is just a continuation of Saw IV, and Saw VI will more than likely be just the same.

But this one, which did focus more on the story than the traps, felt more enjoyable than 4 and maybe even 3. It also sort of had a Saw II feel to it, which I think is the best in the series.

Part 5's in horror films are always loathed. Friday the 13th part 5 with the killer who was a Jason copycat, not Jason himself. Halloween 5 had Michael Myers' moves tracked telepathically by his 9 year old niece. Nightmare On Elm Street 5 had Freddy STALKING A WOMAN THROUGH HER UNBORN BABY'S DREAMS!

It's just the stigma of being part 5. It is an unlucky number in the horror movie world.

The director's name has the word "hack" in it?

That's a professional reviewer's wet dream.

That and Emmanuelle Goes To College.

Changeling (Clint Eastwood)




Could Have Been A Masterpiece

Christine Collins is called in to work on her day off. She leaves her son at home and promises to take him out tomorrow to make it up to him. When she returns, he is missing, nowhere to be found. 5 months later the LAPD claim to have found him, but when they present the boy to Christine, she refuses him, saying he is not her son. Instead of making the department look embarrassed and admit failure, they throw her in a mental institution.

What makes Changeling even more depressing is that this is all based on true events.

Eastwood has yet another winner under his belt with Changeling. Some might find it a hard film to enjoy, but I was engaged throughout, due to the performances, art direction, story and Eastwood's talented directing. It's Eastwood's eye to detail that brings this 1920's era to life. I was really impressed with the design of this film and it felt completely real to me. From the set design to the costume design. Normally you can see through the fabric and know that it was made for the film, but here it simply fits.

A lot of the film rests on the shoulders of Angelina Jolie, as the mother of the lost child. I believed her in this role. Her eyes do most of the acting, subtle and honest. Yet at times her overbearing yelling distracts. At first it's believable, but near the end it seems more of the same and irritating at times. It's a strong enough performances to garner attention from Award ceremonies. On the supporting side is John Malkovich, who kicks all kinds of ass without doing much. His presence is enough to make you cheer. He is in command and you can tell by simply listening to his tone of voice. Colm Feore is someone you can count on to play any man with questionable morals. It's all in his face, perfectly cast here as the Chief of police. I have to say that a weak link in the acting is Jeffrey Donovan. I enjoyed him to a degree, but his voice/accent is just too annoying to get use to. I squirmed in my seat a couple of times, not from his characters actions, but from the accent.

One person to watch for here is Jason Butler Harner, who plays a serial killer. He takes a slightly different approach to the subject matter. He isn't too crazy, he isn't too weird, he's a mix of both. But what makes it a more horrifying performance is that he is human. We are not seeing Hannibal Lector up on the screen, we are seeing a human being. I wouldn't be surprised if a Supporting Acting nod went in his direction. Also, Amy Ryan makes a small appearance, nothing too big, but her scenes are well enough to make a mention of.

The story is strong, and it is strengthened by the fact that it is based on a true story. If it were fabricated, then the emotion might not have been there, at least not as much as what this film delivers. Jolie delivers a performance that is heart wrenching, at times, and it is heightened by that small little fact that someone in this world went through those emotions, those barriers and heartaches.

Yes, this film is depressing. Eastwood knows it, and uses it to his advantage. Throughout the entire film I found myself just wanting to punch some people in the face, to yell at them and help Jolie in her cause to get her son back. Malkovich does this for the audience, which is why I think his character kicks ass. He does what we as the audience want to do. The tension in this film is high, not from thrills, but from the horrible things that these characters do to Jolie. She stands her ground, we cheer, and they throw more rocks at her, we tense up. Great flow for this film.

Although, with all it's greatness, it does have a weakness. It's too freaking long. I thought the film was going to end, then it went on for another 20 minutes. I think with a bit more editing and tightening up, you can easily shave off those 20 minutes. Even though I was entertained and engaged in the last little bit of the film, mostly the trial and the bits in between the trial, I couldn't help but think that the film should wrap up soon. Real soon.

Much like Eastwood's Oscar baby, Mystic River, Changeling deals with a missing child. Only this time it's the feminine aspect and the time period is drastically different. The film is strong enough to stand as one of his better works and if it were a bit tighter and shorter...I might have been able to call it a masterpiece.

Too bad.

I hope this film is good. I tend to like Eastwood as a director, but Mystic River was blatantly overrated in my book. Not only was it slow and predictable, my wife told me who the murderers were the moment they showed up. Plus, I just found every single Oscar-nomed/winning performance WAY over the top. Between the predictability, the boredom and the "questionable" acting, the whole thing seemed too self-important to even care about. Oh yeah, I watched the film the opening weekend, so my opinions about the Oscars actually aren't that big a deal since they're more of an afterthought. Gone Baby Gone seemed to me to be a much stronger film in every regard.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Thanks for the great review

i just watched Mystic River last week and i thought it was a bit overrated too, maybe not to your extent though i'd have to watch it again

Ugh, I was hoping this would for once be a Clint Eastwood film that wouldn't spiral me into an inconsolable depression. I guess that's just too much to hope for though huh.

Mystic River was terrible, i agree.

i've been wanting to see this one too, though--not much of a fan of Jolie but this still looks interesting enough. thanks for the review Suspect!

__________________
letterboxd

Just wanted to pop in and say that I love your reviews, Suspect. Great stuff.

Quantum Of Solace (Marc Forster)




"Old Bond Meets New Bond"

This is the first immediate sequel to any Bond film, so it plays out differently. Here we start just after Casino Royale finishes. Bond questions Mr. White and discovers a secret organization known as Quantum, who have people everywhere. Bond must now go after Dominic Greene, another pawn in Quantum's schemes and this time Bond is fueled by revenge.

With every other Bond film, they were able to stand alone since they did not need to rely on the previous installments for someone to know what is going on. This time is different. QoS is the first direct sequel to any Bond film and this does both good and bad for the end results.

As I said before Craig is an excellent Bond, one of my favourites. He adds a new layer to a character who was getting boring with the same old same old. This time we see a more dangerous Bond, some might complain that he is starting to resemble Bourne more then Bond, but I don't really mind it too much. Casino Royale showed us where they wanted to take the series and QoS continues down that road, only it stumbles a bit.

For one, the action sequences. They are all good and fun, but poorly thrown together. I got a sense of this from the trailers and my thoughts were confirmed with seeing the opening sequence and rooftop chase. I would of liked a better set-up here, throwing us directly into the action is a mis-step. But, at the same time the action sequences screamed classic Bond, which is what was missing from Royale. Here we have the car chases, plane chases and boat chases. Everything seemed like they were updating the older films and it was neat. If they were better edited and directed then I would have enjoyed them more, instead I found myself desperately trying to follow what was going on.

The villain wasn't anything special. Mathieu Amalric does a good job with what he is given, but the character is boring, not evil enough and not once did I think this guy was dangerous. I find him to be like a little boy with too much power. Mr. White would have been a better villain, but it seems they are saving that for another time. Olga Kurylenko is beautiful and she looks like she can handle herself, but I wasn't too impressed here. I enjoyed Eva Green a lot more and wanted her back here. Not saying Kurylenko does a bad job, she just isn't that interesting to me.

Most of these problems aren't we the actors, but the script. It is muddled with problems in the plot and sometimes is hard to follow. There were a few unnecessary parts and characters, Mathis and Felix Leiter randomly show up and don't do anything of interest. I was disappointed and it seems the series may need a new writer or two to bring fresh and more importantly clear ideas for the next installment.

In the end this is a decent flick, it serves as a bridge to what I hope and think will be a better film down the road. It's basically the second half of Casino Royale as well. If you enjoyed Royale, you will like this one, but you won't be enthusiastic about it. I sure wasn't.

Yes Man (Peyton Reed)



"It Just Doesn't Get Creative Enough"


Carl is a loner who never wants to do anything with anyone. This includes his best friend who is about to get married. After missing a few important dates in his friends life and having a bizarre dream about being dead and nobody caring, he decides to attend a YES MAN seminar. He is challenged to say YES to EVERYTHING, or else bad things will happen to him.

This kind of sound like Liar Liar and that is the film most people will be comparing it to, even though both of them are almost completely different. The only similarity is that the main character HAS to do something. One is to tell the truth, the other is to say yes. Well, the similarities stop there. I want to say that this film is funny, and I will, but it wasn't funny enough. I got a few chuckles here and there but not one scene stands out in my mind as the funniest or the most memorable. Which is a bad thing for a comedy.

Jim Carrey does his usual and brings the funny faces and physical comedy. At some points it seems unnecessary and forced, like when he is having a weird face making competition with his boss. At other times, it just simply works cause it's Jim Carrey and he's being doing it for years. As Carl, who is played by Carrey, soon finds out that saying yes leads to good things in his life, he embraces the idea. Unfortunately that idea is never fully realized and we never really see where this could take us. It felt like they were playing it safe this time, which is really odd considering the amount of adult material in here.

There are a few swear words, I remember hearing the F-BOMB a few times, which surprised me. Also there is a scene in which my girlfriend found completely gross and it involves an elderly lady taking out her teeth to 'perform' on Carl. The scene is used to show that when he says NO, bad things happen to him, but at the same time it seems completely like it should belong in another film.

Everything you see in the trailer is pretty much what he says yes to. The Korean, the guitar lessons, the plane lessons. There are only a few that you don't know about but they aren't that funny. Driving a homeless man home is one of them and it never got a laugh from me.

The supporting cast helps the film immensely. Zooey Deschanel is wonderful as always. I find her always to be charming and cute with a funny side. Carl's boss and new friend due to him having to say yes to everything is Rhys Darby. People may recognize him from the TV show Flight of the Conchords as the band manager. He steals the show in every scene and is far more funny then Jim Carrey. It's a shame because I always liked Jim Carrey. It seems that the older comedians are losing it while the newer ones seem fresh and hot. Terence Stamp has three scenes in the film, two of which are at the seminars. He doesn't really add too much to the film and the role could have been played by anyone.

The film is indeed a romantic comedy, so I warn you. Be prepared for every romantic comedy cliché. This one has them. Boy meets girl, loses girl and races against time to win her back. What makes it not really work is that I can't see Deschanel really hooking up with Carrey. It must be the age gap. Even though these two work well together, I just can't see them romantically involved. Maybe best friends would work better.

I wanted more from Yes Man, it could have really done some funny things with it's premise but it plays it safe. I do find the film to be one of Carrey's better ones of late. Fun with Dick & Jane was horrible and let's not even mention The Number 23. Yes Man is a film you want to be able to laugh constantly at, but will only find yourself laughing every now and again. I recommend Yes Man as a rental and nothing to rush to see.

Thanks Sussy I went to see Bond at the movies and fell asleep in parts of it