The Fry Box: Spud's Reviews

→ in
Tools    





I ain't gettin' in no fryer!
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008)



David Fincher never ceases to amaze me, it seems he's done every type of genre. He's left inmates to tackle an alien in Alien 3. Shown us how paranoid some people can be with Panic Room. He's even done something we can't talk about with Fight Club. Then, he comes along with The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and continues to keep moviegoers in curiosity.

The look of Button is quite breathtaking. Obviously, I'm not the only one who thought so, I mean, it DID win an a measly Oscar. However, great movies aren't built on visuals alone. Those that are, are merely popcorn flicks.

Button doesn't fall entirely flat in its story, but rather stalls somewhere in the middle. Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett do what they can with what they have, but in the end, their performances alone can't help the film. That's not to say that the film is bad, it just idles in areas where the story should be moving a little faster than at other times.

With that said, Button does not follow a particular movie formula. It can be said that it's an entirely different type of film, one where you wonder what will happen next seeing as how the film progresses in an entirely different direction than any other film.

"Did I ever tell you that I was struck by lightning seven times?"

__________________
"I was walking down the street with my friend and he said, "I hear music", as if there is any other way you can take it in. You're not special, that's how I receive it too. I tried to taste it but it did not work." - Mitch Hedberg



\m/ Fade To Black \m/
Nice review as ever Mr Spud I really want to see this movie it looks great from what I have seen.

__________________
~In the event of a Zombie Uprising, remember to sever the head or destroy the brain!~

~When im listening to Metallica, Nothing else matters~

N3wt's Movie Reviews New DVD Thread Top-100



Thanks Spudly I loved the concept but like you i feel it did idle in the middle
__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha



Making a difference
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008)



David Fincher never ceases to amaze me, it seems he's done every type of genre. He's left inmates to tackle an alien in Alien 3. Shown us how paranoid some people can be with Panic Room. He's even done something we can't talk about with Fight Club. Then, he comes along with The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and continues to keep moviegoers in curiosity.

The look of Button is quite breathtaking. Obviously, I'm not the only one who thought so, I mean, it DID win an a measly Oscar. However, great movies aren't built on visuals alone. Those that are, are merely popcorn flicks.

Button doesn't fall entirely flat in its story, but rather stalls somewhere in the middle. Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett do what they can with what they have, but in the end, their performances alone can't help the film. That's not to say that the film is bad, it just idles in areas where the story should be moving a little faster than at other times.

With that said, Button does not follow a particular movie formula. It can be said that it's an entirely different type of film, one where you wonder what will happen next seeing as how the film progresses in an entirely different direction than any other film.

"Did I ever tell you that I was struck by lightning seven times?"



The story line is quite fascinating. Its fresh and promising, even before its Oscar success it was among my must watch movies
__________________
ALL WE DO OUR CHILDREN WOULD LIVE AFTER TOMORROW. IT IS OUR RESPONSIBLITY AND MANDATE AS ASPIRING AND PROFESSIONAL FILMMAKERS TO SET A HIGH PACE SO IT GETS HIGHER LATER.



I ain't gettin' in no fryer!
Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian (2009)



While we had family in town, I decided to take my niece to see this. She's a big fan of the first, so I knew she would like this one. Then again, she's six...

Take it or leave it, the 2006 family film Night at the Museum, did better than what had originally been expected. Shawn Levy struck gold, but can gold be mined from the same honey hole twice with the same results? In this instance, it's a little hard to say. While Smithsonian is simply treading over familiar grounds, for the most part, some of the new additions offer new laughs. This can't be said for all the new additions, however.

Ben Stiller returns as Larry Daley, the former night watchman of New York's Museum of Natural History. We find that he's found his niche and is pitching his latest product, the glow-in-the-dark flashlight. Every now and then, he manages to stop by and chat with his old friends at the museum, but during his recent visit, finds that the exhibits are being moved to the Smithsonian to make room for new technology. Maybe a day or two later, depending on how fast semi-trucks travel in movieland, Larry receives a phone call from Jedidiah stating that they're in trouble and need his help. Thus begins our adventure.

Being that the Smithsonian is one massive complex, this could have easily gone on for a lot longer than it did. Thankfully, that wasn't the case. That's not saying it wasn't as good as the original, but a certain Egyptian character played by a certain Hank Azaria, certainly didn't make it a great sequel.

All in all, kids will like seeing some of their favorites from the original, as well as a few new faces. Adults (mainly men) will enjoy Amy Adams (if you've seen it, you know what I mean).




I ain't gettin' in no fryer!
He's Just Not That Into You (2009)

For those who've often wondered why they just can't find the right person, here's your how-to video.

Over the years, Hollywood came up with the bright idea that if they put enough stars in one movie, it won't suck as much. Show me an instance where this formula has worked in their favor, and I'll retract my statement.

Ken Kwapis of License to Wed and The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants seems to have found his sweet spot, or whatever it is, of romantic comedies, which are more heavy on romance than comedy. Normally, I don't mind these types of film too much, because some actually find a perfect balance and make something that both sexes will enjoy. I'll just throw this out there. I actually enjoyed 27 Dresses, there I said it. This movie, however, was NOT 27 Dresses.

I could probably spend all day talking about what I didn't like about this, but I don't feel like turning this into a novel.

Bottom line, if you're a fan of this type of genre, you might like it. The other 95% of the general public will find it very much repetitive and hardly a comedy.




I ain't gettin' in no fryer!
Valkyrie (2008)

Very few know the existence of groups within the Nazi regime that wanted to overthrow Hitler in an effort to get away from the negative picture that was being painted in regards to Germany.

This is why I like Bryan Singer. He does mediocre with films like X-Men and Superman Returns, but he shines with films like The Usual Suspects and the aforementioned Valkyrie. Not to mention the fact that I love a film regarding some relevant moments in history. Granted, Operation Valkyrie was a failure and everyone involved was executed, but they knew what was in store for them, had they failed, and still proceeded.

I'm never a big fan of Tom Cruise, but he actually did very well as Colonel von Stauffenberg. I don't really have anything negative to say about him in this film.

After watching a film like this, I try to go online and read about as much as I can about it, just to see how accurate the film is. From all I've read, this is very accurate. So if you want to know about the not so famous failure of a coup against the Nazi regime, this is definitely worth a watch.




I ain't gettin' in no fryer!
Mystic River (2003)

Yet another movie I've delayed in watching, simply because I didn't think I would like it. Yet again, I was wrong for waiting.

Clint Eastwood has had directed some fantastical pictures in the last few years. One of them being Mystic River. This is nothing more than a classic example of emotions driving you to do something that you feel is right, rather than looking for the answers. While a lot of movies offer some form of this formula, Mystic does well with taking everyone on the same journey, unsure of the outcome until the very end.

Most movies that have some form of Clue inherent, usually has the audience forming their opinion on who did it by the end of the first act. Then at the end, we're all thrown for a loop as the true killer is revealed and was nobody we were expecting. This film is no different and was equally surprising.

Think back to when Fast Times at Ridgemont High came out. Would you think that Spicoli was capable of such a performance? Truly outstanding performances from the entire cast.

If you're like me and have held off watching this, go pick this up now and watch it. You won't be disappointed.




Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
Now, the first thing I want to make clear is that this isn't really so much a response to your review as an overall response to what I see as the average MoFoer's thoughts on Mystic River. The average person seems to love it. I do not. I like Eastwood as a director, but I find this to be probably his weakest film since Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil. I still think it's worth a watch, but I just don't think it's worth very much praise. However, since I mentioned praise, I'd probably say that the Boston setting is used evocatively and the opening scene is actually quite strong. I also want to add that I believe the best acting in the movie is turned in by Kevin Bacon and Laurence Fishburne.

I've seen Mystic River at least four times now, the last one being last Christmas. To me, it's pretty much on the borderline of what I consider a watchable film (a high
). The reasons I believe this include the fact that the mystery isn't much of a mystery at all. The guilty are easy to pick out the first time they're shown. Another reason I have a major problem with the flick is that I think that both Sean Penn and Tim Robbins are highly undeserving of their Oscars. I think they both overact, not only in the context of their characters, but also in general. I realize that both characters are to be pitied somewhat, and I certainly feel more pity for Robbins' character than Penn's, but I also think they are weakly-written characters whose only reasons for being seem to be to overact and do everything they can to be weak, blind and/or arrogant. I don't really want to get into the leading female characters because they also seem to be existing in some alternate universe where people believe the best thing you can do is the worst thing. Or maybe more directly, the only way I can support my man is to think that he's a murderer (Subject 1) or to glorify in the fact that he is a murderer and hope I keep on moving up like Lady Macbeth (Subject 2). It's interesting that the characters seem to exist in a world where they apparently haven't read any books about "crime and punishment" or seen any movies on the same subjects.

That's probably enough for now. This will undoubtedly only attract agreement with spud's review and disagreement with my opinion, but that's OK now that I got a little bit off my chest.
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page



I ain't gettin' in no fryer!
Nothing wrong with an opinion. I don't like a lot of movies that others like, either.

With that said, I see where you're going with your take and will also say that while Fishburne and Bacon have little on screen time, they do their best with what time they have.

Maybe I was just giving it such a strong rating as I had watched a lot of snoozers during the weekend and it was the best of the bunch.



Thanks Spudly

I have to agree with Mark about Tim Robbins in Mystic River i found his character not very credible at all, as for Sean Penn he does seem to over act a lot they are 2 actors I usually like



I ain't gettin' in no fryer!
Gran Torino (2008)

I guess I'm on an Eastwood kick right now.

If there's ever a movie that captures the goodwill and wholeheartedness of the elderly, one need look no further than Gran Torino and Walt Kowalski.

After reviewing what I wrote on Mystic River, I would like to change my stance on that. Not saying that Torino is any better, but they're certainly up there.

The way the human mind works in pushing people away is a mystery. We see that very clearly with Walt. He's just lost his wife, has no relationship with his kids, and is the last white man left on his block. Walt considers himself a true American, he's a war veteran of the Korean War, and he worked for 40 years in a Ford plant. He looks in disgust at the youth of today, simply because they don't have any morals.

While this isn't a film about retaliation, revenge and sticking up for yourself, it's a film about letting go of the past and what you think is right, as the movie progresses, you see Walt's demeanor change, from being a rude, angry old man to a wonderful mentor.

I do have problems with this, but they are small things I noticed throughout. For instance, the three black guys who are attacking Sue, suddenly back off and reduce themselves to toddlers in front of Walt. While I think that a lot of self-proclaimed "thugs" are nothing more than big babies trying to act tough, I have a hard time believing that three young men were so overpowered by an old man with a gun, when they had a gun themselves. There were a couple other scenes, somewhat like this, that had me thinking twice, but they didn't ruin the movie for me.

Gran Torino is a movie for those who think that people can't be defined outside of their stereotypes. Definitely worth a watch.




I ain't gettin' in no fryer!
Fanboys (2009-ish)

Anyone familiar with the story of Fanboys and its rocky road to the theatre, know that this movie has been in limbo for a couple of years. What's even more crazy about it is that it came out almost 11 years, to the date, AFTER the film four friends set off to get a sneak peek of, Episode I. First off, I can't even believe that it's been that long since The Phantom Menace, but that's an entirely different movie.

Back to Fanboys. Most of the delays in the release of Fanboys was due to the storyline involving Linus' battle with cancer. First it was in, then it was out, then it was back in (after a lot of protest).

So, it's 1998 and four friends, Eric, Linus, Hutch and Windows are eagerly awaiting the release of Episode I. Hutch is such a fan that he has his van mocked up to resemble the interior of the Millennium Falcon complete with R2-D2 on his roof. They all decide to make the trip to Skywalker Ranch, break in, and view a rough cut of Episode I. Along the way, the encounter Trekkies at the future birthplace of Captain Kirk (which actually exists, if you can believe that).

It's not laugh out loud funny, but there are quite a few parts that any fanboy of anything would probably understand and laugh at. Sadly, that is also its kryptonite, as not everyone will get the references to the Star Wars universe. There are quite a few cameos, with a few very familiar with Star Wars. Ultimately, it's not a great movie, but its simple at its core and requires very little thought out of its viewers.




I really liked Fanboys, it's something I recommended to many of my friends. Unfortunately, the friend who I think would've enjoyed it the most died a few years ago.



I ain't gettin' in no fryer!
Unfortunately, the friend who I think would've enjoyed it the most died a few years ago.
Sorry to hear that, HK. I think my nephew would've liked it, too, but he passed last year.