Reply to Topic
The entire film has these two ladies fully nude, their conversation is broken up by some random acts of sexual aggravation. The sex scenes aren't really erotic in anyway. The film to me was more of an homage to the beauty of the female body, since there is no plot what so ever.
One Movie A Day Remix
→ in Movie Reviews
The entire film has these two ladies fully nude, their conversation is broken up by some random acts of sexual aggravation. The sex scenes aren't really erotic in anyway. The film to me was more of an homage to the beauty of the female body, since there is no plot what so ever.
X
User Lists
Day 207: November 23rd, 2010
Shrek Forever After
Why was this one made?
My biggest problem with this so called final installment is the fact that the entire movie does not need to exist. The plot itself is something that screams 'no more creativity'. Let's take a look shall we?
Shrek feels empty inside as he has to do the same old chores over and over again, his life has become so redundant he ends up hating it. He wants things to go back to the way they were before he became and father, met Fiona and knew any of his friends. He wants to be a lonely Ogre again. So he makes a deal with Rumpelstiltskin and he gets his wish. Now we are thrust into an alternate reality where he never met Fiona, Donkey, or his friends. There is a catch though, if he doesn't kiss Fiona before a certain time, he is stuck in this alternate reality. He now must get Fiona to fall in love with him again in order to put things back to the way they were before he was tricked.
To me, once you are telling stories about alternate realities and what ifs...you know the series is done for. For some strange reason they all thought there was one more left in them, sadly the answer is no. I will say this though, the 4th one is indeed better than the garbage known as Shrek the Third, but that isn't saying much. It fails to capture the magic that the first one had, or even the second, which I am also not a big fan of. To me, Shrek was always a one film story. Three sequels later, we are treated to a slowly dying franchise.
The animation is great, as always, if still a bit behind Pixar outings. The kids will no doubt be entertained by it, it's colourful enough to keep their attention, which seems to be the case with every kids movie. It's the adults that have to see it with them (or on their own) who will be the disappointed ones.
Shrek Forever After
Why was this one made?
My biggest problem with this so called final installment is the fact that the entire movie does not need to exist. The plot itself is something that screams 'no more creativity'. Let's take a look shall we?
Shrek feels empty inside as he has to do the same old chores over and over again, his life has become so redundant he ends up hating it. He wants things to go back to the way they were before he became and father, met Fiona and knew any of his friends. He wants to be a lonely Ogre again. So he makes a deal with Rumpelstiltskin and he gets his wish. Now we are thrust into an alternate reality where he never met Fiona, Donkey, or his friends. There is a catch though, if he doesn't kiss Fiona before a certain time, he is stuck in this alternate reality. He now must get Fiona to fall in love with him again in order to put things back to the way they were before he was tricked.
To me, once you are telling stories about alternate realities and what ifs...you know the series is done for. For some strange reason they all thought there was one more left in them, sadly the answer is no. I will say this though, the 4th one is indeed better than the garbage known as Shrek the Third, but that isn't saying much. It fails to capture the magic that the first one had, or even the second, which I am also not a big fan of. To me, Shrek was always a one film story. Three sequels later, we are treated to a slowly dying franchise.
The animation is great, as always, if still a bit behind Pixar outings. The kids will no doubt be entertained by it, it's colourful enough to keep their attention, which seems to be the case with every kids movie. It's the adults that have to see it with them (or on their own) who will be the disappointed ones.
__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."
Suspect's Reviews
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."
Suspect's Reviews
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Day 208: November 24th, 2010
I Spit On Your Grave
Improves greatly on the horrid original.
The remake of a film that I found to be boring, dull and abrasive. I wondered if they would keep the same feel of the original, which was dirty and inane all in one. The problems in the first film are fixed in the remake, which turned out to be a lot better than I expected. It still has a few drawbacks, which I'll address later, but as it stands, it fits right in with Hostel or Saw and it feels like it leaves the exploitation genre back in the 70's.
Jennifer, a young and beautiful writer heads up to a remote cabin to write her next novel. While there she runs into some unfriendly young men, who brutalize her physically and sexually. They leave her for dead in a river, raped and beaten. She shows up alive and vengeful.
The stupidity of the original is cleverly ignored here. She used her sexuality to lure the men in the original, the same men who just raped and woman and left her to die. Would they really be stupid enough to fall for that crap? Here, she simply takes them by surprise and tortures them. To a degree of 'I need to look away'. There was one scene for me in which I cringed a bit, so bravo on that front. I'll never look at fish hooks and birds the same again.
The problem the film fails to fix is the mentally handicapped character and his resolution. There is some debate about whether or not he should have died or lived in the end, I won't spoil things for those wanting to see, but I will say that I certainly believe that she chose the wrong option here.
The film has some pacing issues, but the content is brutal enough to make you think, or make you cheer. Bravo to Sarah Butler who braves the role, she bares herself on screen and is humiliated. The rape scene is nowhere near as graphic or violent as the original, or even the Last House On The Left remake, but she still deserves and applause for taking on such a role.
The original is a failure, and this one corrects those mistakes.
I Spit On Your Grave
Improves greatly on the horrid original.
The remake of a film that I found to be boring, dull and abrasive. I wondered if they would keep the same feel of the original, which was dirty and inane all in one. The problems in the first film are fixed in the remake, which turned out to be a lot better than I expected. It still has a few drawbacks, which I'll address later, but as it stands, it fits right in with Hostel or Saw and it feels like it leaves the exploitation genre back in the 70's.
Jennifer, a young and beautiful writer heads up to a remote cabin to write her next novel. While there she runs into some unfriendly young men, who brutalize her physically and sexually. They leave her for dead in a river, raped and beaten. She shows up alive and vengeful.
The stupidity of the original is cleverly ignored here. She used her sexuality to lure the men in the original, the same men who just raped and woman and left her to die. Would they really be stupid enough to fall for that crap? Here, she simply takes them by surprise and tortures them. To a degree of 'I need to look away'. There was one scene for me in which I cringed a bit, so bravo on that front. I'll never look at fish hooks and birds the same again.
The problem the film fails to fix is the mentally handicapped character and his resolution. There is some debate about whether or not he should have died or lived in the end, I won't spoil things for those wanting to see, but I will say that I certainly believe that she chose the wrong option here.
The film has some pacing issues, but the content is brutal enough to make you think, or make you cheer. Bravo to Sarah Butler who braves the role, she bares herself on screen and is humiliated. The rape scene is nowhere near as graphic or violent as the original, or even the Last House On The Left remake, but she still deserves and applause for taking on such a role.
The original is a failure, and this one corrects those mistakes.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Day 209: November 25th, 2010
Simon Birch
Destiny has big plans for little Simon Birch.
A movie recommended to me last go around, that I did not get the chance to view. This time I've gotten about 75% of the list complete, expect them to pop up a lot more frequently. I can't remember who recommended it, too tired to look back through the old thread, but I will say this...thanks. Seeing it once when I was young, it didn't do much for me, but with a second viewing I can say that I enjoyed it.
A young boy who has a stunt growth problem, is convinced that God has a special plan for him. He's best friends with another outisder, Joe. Due to an unfortunate accident, their friendship is put to the test. Ian Michael Smith, playing the title character, has only one film credit under his name. He succeeds in creating a likable and heartfelt character in Simon Birch. It's extremely hard not to like the guy, he's always smiling.
His friend is played by Joseph Mazzello, better known as the kid from Star Kid. I mean Jurassic Park. The rest of the cast includes: David Strathairn, Ashley Judd, Oliver Platt, Dana Ivey and a small role by Jim Carrey, who plays Joe when he is older.
The film is sweet, at times it feels like it tries a bit too hard to tug on the emotional heartstrings of the audience. I don't like it when a film tries to hard to be depressing at times, it comes off a sad and not in the way the filmmakers intended. Aside from a few parts of the film, it's well acted and directed. It plays a bit too much on the faith side of things, but that's part of the plot.
It's funny and heartfelt, the bottom line is that the film is enjoyable enough to watch. It's hard to find a movie like this anymore, these days the main focus in the film industry is one a dozen different genres, this one seems to be left to the way side. I'd say catch this flick if you see it sitting the the shelfs or pass by it on netflix. It's worth a look.
Simon Birch
Destiny has big plans for little Simon Birch.
A movie recommended to me last go around, that I did not get the chance to view. This time I've gotten about 75% of the list complete, expect them to pop up a lot more frequently. I can't remember who recommended it, too tired to look back through the old thread, but I will say this...thanks. Seeing it once when I was young, it didn't do much for me, but with a second viewing I can say that I enjoyed it.
A young boy who has a stunt growth problem, is convinced that God has a special plan for him. He's best friends with another outisder, Joe. Due to an unfortunate accident, their friendship is put to the test. Ian Michael Smith, playing the title character, has only one film credit under his name. He succeeds in creating a likable and heartfelt character in Simon Birch. It's extremely hard not to like the guy, he's always smiling.
His friend is played by Joseph Mazzello, better known as the kid from Star Kid. I mean Jurassic Park. The rest of the cast includes: David Strathairn, Ashley Judd, Oliver Platt, Dana Ivey and a small role by Jim Carrey, who plays Joe when he is older.
The film is sweet, at times it feels like it tries a bit too hard to tug on the emotional heartstrings of the audience. I don't like it when a film tries to hard to be depressing at times, it comes off a sad and not in the way the filmmakers intended. Aside from a few parts of the film, it's well acted and directed. It plays a bit too much on the faith side of things, but that's part of the plot.
It's funny and heartfelt, the bottom line is that the film is enjoyable enough to watch. It's hard to find a movie like this anymore, these days the main focus in the film industry is one a dozen different genres, this one seems to be left to the way side. I'd say catch this flick if you see it sitting the the shelfs or pass by it on netflix. It's worth a look.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Day 210: November 26th, 2010
Unstoppable
Speed on a train.
Despite the film being cliched to the teeth and having characters that no one could give a damn about, the film will most likely win you over. Tony Scott and Denzel Washington team up yet again in this nail bitter of a thriller that has Washington and Chris Pine doing their best to try and stop an unmanned runaway train. The bigger problem is that the train has some explosive chemicals on it that could level a city or two.
The film is loosely based on real events (aren't they all). Washington plays the old timer who is being forced into retirement to make way for some new blood, new blood like Chris Pine. So already we have some character friction between the two main leads. Cookie-cutter stuff to be honest. They both have their own personal problems, Denzel hasn't been the best father and his daughters don't seem to really care for him. Pine has his wife/girlfriend serving him with a restraining order, to stay away from her and their kid. He's not that bad of a guy, it was just a misunderstanding.
Pine and Washington have some casual banter between the two, bickering at each other here and there, it's all comical for the audience. Meanwhile a train gets loose due to human error. Basically there are two dumbwits who let it go. Despite the train being on a single set of tracks, it manages to cause quite a bit of damage.
Scott employs his usual directing style here, quick zooms onto character faces during basic conversations to somehow make a simple scene seem more energetic. It's not as irksome as in Domino and it actually seems to work for the film. The real stars of the film are the stunt and pyrotechnic team, both working together to create some real entertaining moments in an exciting film.
You'll know how the film ends and you'll know that this one event somehow makes years of problems go away from these two characters. Everyone loves a hero right? So their family problems will be solved, any job problems will be solved and everyone will be happy, if they stop the train that is. The movie is more fun than you'd expect, it''s competently done and has more positives than negatives. I can easily recommend Unstoppable for those looking for some nice escapism.
Unstoppable
Speed on a train.
Despite the film being cliched to the teeth and having characters that no one could give a damn about, the film will most likely win you over. Tony Scott and Denzel Washington team up yet again in this nail bitter of a thriller that has Washington and Chris Pine doing their best to try and stop an unmanned runaway train. The bigger problem is that the train has some explosive chemicals on it that could level a city or two.
The film is loosely based on real events (aren't they all). Washington plays the old timer who is being forced into retirement to make way for some new blood, new blood like Chris Pine. So already we have some character friction between the two main leads. Cookie-cutter stuff to be honest. They both have their own personal problems, Denzel hasn't been the best father and his daughters don't seem to really care for him. Pine has his wife/girlfriend serving him with a restraining order, to stay away from her and their kid. He's not that bad of a guy, it was just a misunderstanding.
Pine and Washington have some casual banter between the two, bickering at each other here and there, it's all comical for the audience. Meanwhile a train gets loose due to human error. Basically there are two dumbwits who let it go. Despite the train being on a single set of tracks, it manages to cause quite a bit of damage.
Scott employs his usual directing style here, quick zooms onto character faces during basic conversations to somehow make a simple scene seem more energetic. It's not as irksome as in Domino and it actually seems to work for the film. The real stars of the film are the stunt and pyrotechnic team, both working together to create some real entertaining moments in an exciting film.
You'll know how the film ends and you'll know that this one event somehow makes years of problems go away from these two characters. Everyone loves a hero right? So their family problems will be solved, any job problems will be solved and everyone will be happy, if they stop the train that is. The movie is more fun than you'd expect, it''s competently done and has more positives than negatives. I can easily recommend Unstoppable for those looking for some nice escapism.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Day 211: November 27th, 2010
Faster
A predictable, yet still fun action film.
Faster is The Rock back in the genre he belongs. After failed and failed and failed attempts at disney kids films, need I remind anyone of The Tooth Fairy, it seems The Rock aka Dwayne Johnson, is back doing what he does best. Faster is a revenge tale. Straight out of prison, a man known only as Driver, goes on a killing spree. His targets? A gang of thugs that killed his brother and shot him in the head, leaving him for dead. Somehow he lived and how he's dishing out his own personal vengeance.
Yeah, so we've seen this type of film before. It also stars Billy bob Thorton in a role that seems as if he were simply chasing a paycheck and Carla Gugino, a detective on the case. Cugino gets very little to do here other than speak her lines at crime scenes and belittle Thorton every chance she gets. Thorton on the other hand has a bit more depth to his character, but it doesn't seem like he cares to explore it.
Oliver Jackson-Cohen plays an assassin, a hired contract killer sent to take out Driver. Who don't know who is employer is, but we can figure it out before their big reveal. He gets engaged to Shannon from Lost and is willing to leave the profession behind...after this one last job. Hmm, another plot device that we have seen before. Basically Faster tries nothing new, nothing at all, and it's perfectly fine with just that. It's more concerned with showing the Rock as a badass. Well, I'm here to say mission accomplished. How many films can you say you've seen where a guy walks into a hospital with a revolver and shoots a man lying on an operating table. This is of course after a knife fight with said man a few scenes prior.
I really like Dwayne Johnson. The man has charisma, he was always one of the more entertaining people in the ring and I'm glad to see him branch out to new endeavors. The man does action and comedy well, he should stick to what he knows best and try to avoid those odd roles, like in Southland Tales. Faster, although cliched, does the job.
Faster
A predictable, yet still fun action film.
Faster is The Rock back in the genre he belongs. After failed and failed and failed attempts at disney kids films, need I remind anyone of The Tooth Fairy, it seems The Rock aka Dwayne Johnson, is back doing what he does best. Faster is a revenge tale. Straight out of prison, a man known only as Driver, goes on a killing spree. His targets? A gang of thugs that killed his brother and shot him in the head, leaving him for dead. Somehow he lived and how he's dishing out his own personal vengeance.
Yeah, so we've seen this type of film before. It also stars Billy bob Thorton in a role that seems as if he were simply chasing a paycheck and Carla Gugino, a detective on the case. Cugino gets very little to do here other than speak her lines at crime scenes and belittle Thorton every chance she gets. Thorton on the other hand has a bit more depth to his character, but it doesn't seem like he cares to explore it.
Oliver Jackson-Cohen plays an assassin, a hired contract killer sent to take out Driver. Who don't know who is employer is, but we can figure it out before their big reveal. He gets engaged to Shannon from Lost and is willing to leave the profession behind...after this one last job. Hmm, another plot device that we have seen before. Basically Faster tries nothing new, nothing at all, and it's perfectly fine with just that. It's more concerned with showing the Rock as a badass. Well, I'm here to say mission accomplished. How many films can you say you've seen where a guy walks into a hospital with a revolver and shoots a man lying on an operating table. This is of course after a knife fight with said man a few scenes prior.
I really like Dwayne Johnson. The man has charisma, he was always one of the more entertaining people in the ring and I'm glad to see him branch out to new endeavors. The man does action and comedy well, he should stick to what he knows best and try to avoid those odd roles, like in Southland Tales. Faster, although cliched, does the job.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Day 212: November 28th, 2010
Due Date
See the trailer? Seen the movie.
Due Date suffers from the same fate the seems to destroy a lot of other comedies. Everything that was funny in the film, you've already seen in the trailer. I can only think of one bit they do in the film that was obviously too risky for a green band trailer.
Due to a misunderstanding, Peter (RDJ) is thrown off of a plane and is officially grounded, meaning he can't take any planes to get home to his pregnant wife who is about to give birth. He decides to accept an offer from Ethan (Galifianakis), who has a car and wants to give him a ride back home. Hilarity ensues, right?
Due Date is a cruder and ruder version of Planes, Trains and Automobiles, which is actually the funnier film. Galifianakis plays the same role he does in The Hangover, an obtuse and weird character. Here he plays up the obtuse and weird a tad more though. Robert Downey Jr. a ruder and cruder version of Tony Stark, minus the genius part. So if you like those aspects, the film will generally please you.
Of course the film wouldn't be funny without some obstacles in their way. Those obstacles are funny, but again, stuff we've already seen. The supporting cast helps the film a lot, Danny McBride, Juliette Lewis and even Jamie Foxx work well in their small roles.
John Candy and Steve Martin did it funnier years ago, which proves to me that comedy is always in the timing and not in the language. I find both Robert Downey Jr and Galifianakis funny, but they both seem to rely on the crude aspect of funny. I would say to stick with the original, although this isn't that bad a film, it just feels like a crude re-hash of something funnier.
Due Date
See the trailer? Seen the movie.
Due Date suffers from the same fate the seems to destroy a lot of other comedies. Everything that was funny in the film, you've already seen in the trailer. I can only think of one bit they do in the film that was obviously too risky for a green band trailer.
Due to a misunderstanding, Peter (RDJ) is thrown off of a plane and is officially grounded, meaning he can't take any planes to get home to his pregnant wife who is about to give birth. He decides to accept an offer from Ethan (Galifianakis), who has a car and wants to give him a ride back home. Hilarity ensues, right?
Due Date is a cruder and ruder version of Planes, Trains and Automobiles, which is actually the funnier film. Galifianakis plays the same role he does in The Hangover, an obtuse and weird character. Here he plays up the obtuse and weird a tad more though. Robert Downey Jr. a ruder and cruder version of Tony Stark, minus the genius part. So if you like those aspects, the film will generally please you.
Of course the film wouldn't be funny without some obstacles in their way. Those obstacles are funny, but again, stuff we've already seen. The supporting cast helps the film a lot, Danny McBride, Juliette Lewis and even Jamie Foxx work well in their small roles.
John Candy and Steve Martin did it funnier years ago, which proves to me that comedy is always in the timing and not in the language. I find both Robert Downey Jr and Galifianakis funny, but they both seem to rely on the crude aspect of funny. I would say to stick with the original, although this isn't that bad a film, it just feels like a crude re-hash of something funnier.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Day 213: November 29th, 2010
127 Hours
A great performance from Franco.
I applaud the film for being as entertaining and engrossing as it could possibly be, considering it's about a guy who gets his hand trapped by a big boulder and he just stands there for the rest of the film. I knew Danny Boyle would be able to pull it off though, the guy is talented.
Aron Ralston, an adrenalin junkie, becomes trapped under a boulder while canyoneering by by his lonesome in Utah. He tries all he can to escape, but it's not enough, until he's faced with the alternative, death. He takes drastic measures to ensure his life will prevail.
I walked away from the film with one thought in my mind, could I do the same thing. Well, for one thing I would be alone, but in this situation, I would definitely try everything I could to try and get out of that situation first. Would I pass out from cutting off my own arm? Who knows, but I do know that the will to live is indeed a powerful thing. The film displays this tremendously.
Beautifully shot and wonderfully edited, the film grabs you from the moments it starts and never lets you go. I was astonished to hear that some people were bored by it. Given the circumstances, I asked what did they expect from a movie about a guy who's trapped by a boulder. The real Ralston has stated that the film is as close to the real thing as anything, it could be a documentary. Another feat accomplished by Boyle and Franco, to truly capture the man in his most desperate moments. Ralston gave his seal of approval to the film and the performance, so do I.
The scene in which he has to cut off his own arm is not as graphic as I expected. It surely does look real enough though. I can easily recommend this film, Boyle delivers another great film that he can add to his impressive resume. Franco gives his best performance to date.
127 Hours
A great performance from Franco.
I applaud the film for being as entertaining and engrossing as it could possibly be, considering it's about a guy who gets his hand trapped by a big boulder and he just stands there for the rest of the film. I knew Danny Boyle would be able to pull it off though, the guy is talented.
Aron Ralston, an adrenalin junkie, becomes trapped under a boulder while canyoneering by by his lonesome in Utah. He tries all he can to escape, but it's not enough, until he's faced with the alternative, death. He takes drastic measures to ensure his life will prevail.
I walked away from the film with one thought in my mind, could I do the same thing. Well, for one thing I would be alone, but in this situation, I would definitely try everything I could to try and get out of that situation first. Would I pass out from cutting off my own arm? Who knows, but I do know that the will to live is indeed a powerful thing. The film displays this tremendously.
Beautifully shot and wonderfully edited, the film grabs you from the moments it starts and never lets you go. I was astonished to hear that some people were bored by it. Given the circumstances, I asked what did they expect from a movie about a guy who's trapped by a boulder. The real Ralston has stated that the film is as close to the real thing as anything, it could be a documentary. Another feat accomplished by Boyle and Franco, to truly capture the man in his most desperate moments. Ralston gave his seal of approval to the film and the performance, so do I.
The scene in which he has to cut off his own arm is not as graphic as I expected. It surely does look real enough though. I can easily recommend this film, Boyle delivers another great film that he can add to his impressive resume. Franco gives his best performance to date.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Day 214: November 30th, 2010
Morning Glory
What's the story Morning Glory?
I adore Rachel McAdams, which is why I'm not going to be as harsh on this film as I should be. I will watch anything she is in. Morning Glory works, for the most part, if anyone had been cast in the McAdams role, I probably wouldn't have liked it as much as I do, which isn't that much to begin with.
McAdams plays a recently fired television producer who goes looking for a new job and lands the role of working on the low rated morning talk shot, Morning Glory. Jeff Goldblum, who should get more roles these days, hires her. Ty Burrell of Modern Family fame works on the show with Diane Keaton. his ego gets in his way and he's quickly fired, leaving an open spot which is given to a hesitant Harrison Ford. Can these new changes save the show, or make it worse?
I forgot to mention that Patrick Wilson is in the movie because his character is basically useless. He's there for the romantic exchange that is needed in comedies these days which are targeted towards women. Another mistake for the film is Diane Keaton and how underused she is. The film seems to want to focus more on the McAdams/Ford relationship and Keaton is sort of left in the dust. I think the film would have worked more if she were more central to the conflicts, instead of the jealous banter between her and Ford all the time.
You've seen this film before, which is always the case, right? A workaholic must learn to live life a little. Ford, who plays a curmudgeon of a character sees himself in McAdams. He will be nice to her one second and try to get her to steer away from that workaholic path, but in the next he'll go right back to being an ass.
For what it's worth, the film will leave you with a smile on your face. It works on a basic level. If you don't expect much from this one, you'll more than likely come away happy. Nowhere near a perfect movie, but far from a terrible one too. McAdams is sweet and lovable, from an objective point of view. Ford is the legend, he plays that part up well and as I said before, Keaton is just underused too much to really make an impression. Morning Glory might be the cure for a moody person.
Morning Glory
What's the story Morning Glory?
I adore Rachel McAdams, which is why I'm not going to be as harsh on this film as I should be. I will watch anything she is in. Morning Glory works, for the most part, if anyone had been cast in the McAdams role, I probably wouldn't have liked it as much as I do, which isn't that much to begin with.
McAdams plays a recently fired television producer who goes looking for a new job and lands the role of working on the low rated morning talk shot, Morning Glory. Jeff Goldblum, who should get more roles these days, hires her. Ty Burrell of Modern Family fame works on the show with Diane Keaton. his ego gets in his way and he's quickly fired, leaving an open spot which is given to a hesitant Harrison Ford. Can these new changes save the show, or make it worse?
I forgot to mention that Patrick Wilson is in the movie because his character is basically useless. He's there for the romantic exchange that is needed in comedies these days which are targeted towards women. Another mistake for the film is Diane Keaton and how underused she is. The film seems to want to focus more on the McAdams/Ford relationship and Keaton is sort of left in the dust. I think the film would have worked more if she were more central to the conflicts, instead of the jealous banter between her and Ford all the time.
You've seen this film before, which is always the case, right? A workaholic must learn to live life a little. Ford, who plays a curmudgeon of a character sees himself in McAdams. He will be nice to her one second and try to get her to steer away from that workaholic path, but in the next he'll go right back to being an ass.
For what it's worth, the film will leave you with a smile on your face. It works on a basic level. If you don't expect much from this one, you'll more than likely come away happy. Nowhere near a perfect movie, but far from a terrible one too. McAdams is sweet and lovable, from an objective point of view. Ford is the legend, he plays that part up well and as I said before, Keaton is just underused too much to really make an impression. Morning Glory might be the cure for a moody person.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Day 215: December 1st, 2010
Four Christmases
Where are the holiday classics?
I decided to kick off the December month with a holiday film, to get that holiday spirit stuff out of the way fast, then to return to it around Christmas time. The first film I chose was a mistake, I give you Four Christmases. The Reese Witherspoon, Vince Vaughn film that has no heart, no laughter and will not be remembered among the Christmas films to watch on the holiday season.
Brad and Kate, Vaughn and Witherspoon, struggle with the fact that they have to meet their families on Christmas Day, once their vacation flight is canceled. The big problem is that their parents are divorced, so they need to make four stops, in one day. Cue the odd family antics and we have a winner.
Witherspoon looks great in this film, that's the first thing I noticed. She looks really fantastic. Vince Vaughn gives us his usual fast ball comedy dialogue to get us to laugh. His comedy is something that is seen in everyone of his films, it's the same every time. You either like him or hate him. I thought he was the best thing in Wedding Crashers, here, not so much. The two leads are outdone by every single supporting cast member there is.
Robert Duvall plays Vaughn's father. He's man's man and adores his other two sons Denver and Dallas. Why do his brother's have names that are cities and Brad doesn't? Well, he changed his name to Brad because he didn't like his city name. Tim Mcgraw and Jon Favreau play the many brothers. The next family sees the always lovely Mary Steenburgen as Witherspoon's mom, Kristin Chenoweth as her sister and Steve 'Donkey Kong' Wiebe as her husband. Fans of Seth Gordon's previous film, King of Kong will notice that Steve Wiebe was in that film going after the Donkey Kong high score. A much better film, even though they are totally different.
So we are then onto Sissy Spacek, Vaughn's mother, who is dating one of his childhood friends, cue more laughter. This is the shortest of the get togethers, probably because the one note joke wasn't working very well. During these family visits, Kate and Brad are learning more than they wanted to about each other. They at first did not want to get married or have a child, but things have suddenly changed for one of them and the other simply can't do it. They had an agreed upon strategy, their relationship was working, now one wants to throw a wrench into the mix.
The last house has Jon Voight, no funny moments here, just serious pep talk. Of course by the end of the film the two get back together and start a new plan, a family plan. Cue the awe moment. Four Christmases is not only a bad Christmas film, but it's a bad film all together. The film has two lead characters you won't like or care for, the film has some forced humour and some wasted talent. Do I need to run down the cast list again?
Four Christmases
Where are the holiday classics?
I decided to kick off the December month with a holiday film, to get that holiday spirit stuff out of the way fast, then to return to it around Christmas time. The first film I chose was a mistake, I give you Four Christmases. The Reese Witherspoon, Vince Vaughn film that has no heart, no laughter and will not be remembered among the Christmas films to watch on the holiday season.
Brad and Kate, Vaughn and Witherspoon, struggle with the fact that they have to meet their families on Christmas Day, once their vacation flight is canceled. The big problem is that their parents are divorced, so they need to make four stops, in one day. Cue the odd family antics and we have a winner.
Witherspoon looks great in this film, that's the first thing I noticed. She looks really fantastic. Vince Vaughn gives us his usual fast ball comedy dialogue to get us to laugh. His comedy is something that is seen in everyone of his films, it's the same every time. You either like him or hate him. I thought he was the best thing in Wedding Crashers, here, not so much. The two leads are outdone by every single supporting cast member there is.
Robert Duvall plays Vaughn's father. He's man's man and adores his other two sons Denver and Dallas. Why do his brother's have names that are cities and Brad doesn't? Well, he changed his name to Brad because he didn't like his city name. Tim Mcgraw and Jon Favreau play the many brothers. The next family sees the always lovely Mary Steenburgen as Witherspoon's mom, Kristin Chenoweth as her sister and Steve 'Donkey Kong' Wiebe as her husband. Fans of Seth Gordon's previous film, King of Kong will notice that Steve Wiebe was in that film going after the Donkey Kong high score. A much better film, even though they are totally different.
So we are then onto Sissy Spacek, Vaughn's mother, who is dating one of his childhood friends, cue more laughter. This is the shortest of the get togethers, probably because the one note joke wasn't working very well. During these family visits, Kate and Brad are learning more than they wanted to about each other. They at first did not want to get married or have a child, but things have suddenly changed for one of them and the other simply can't do it. They had an agreed upon strategy, their relationship was working, now one wants to throw a wrench into the mix.
The last house has Jon Voight, no funny moments here, just serious pep talk. Of course by the end of the film the two get back together and start a new plan, a family plan. Cue the awe moment. Four Christmases is not only a bad Christmas film, but it's a bad film all together. The film has two lead characters you won't like or care for, the film has some forced humour and some wasted talent. Do I need to run down the cast list again?
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Anytime I see Vince Vaughn's name on the poster of an upcoming movie I puke in my mouth a little. The guy plays the same role over and over again, going through the same motions and facial expressions over and over. And the worst thing is that he's not even remotely funny, just plain annoying...
X
User Lists
I think you were really rather generous with your rating there. 
A truly dreadful film
I can watch just about any piece of cheesy garbage as long as it's a Christmas film but this was just awful!
It made films like Fred Claus, Christmas with the Kranks and Deck the Halls look like holiday classics by comparison. They at least were a bit Christmassy, as far as I remember there was hardly anything festive about this at all. Hardly any lights or Christmas trees etc
A truly dreadful filmI can watch just about any piece of cheesy garbage as long as it's a Christmas film but this was just awful!
It made films like Fred Claus, Christmas with the Kranks and Deck the Halls look like holiday classics by comparison. They at least were a bit Christmassy, as far as I remember there was hardly anything festive about this at all. Hardly any lights or Christmas trees etc
X
User Lists
Day 216: December 2nd, 2010
My Soul To Take
Hilariously terrible and awesome.
A serial killer known as The Riverton Ripper is thought to have died the night 7 premature babies are born. His body was never found though and 16 years later the 7 kids think he will come back and take their souls.
Wes Craven returns to horror with this mess of a film. The previews for My Soul To Take made it look horrendously bad, but to my surprise I was completely engrossed in the film from start to finish. Even with all the bad writing, acting, horror clichés and downright dumb parts of the film, I still had a good time watching it. So suffice to say, I'd give this film a rating right in the middle.
First of all, the basic premise of the film is pretty lackluster. I give Craven credit for trying to his best to write another feature that has some kind of legend behind the story. The problem is that it's tepid and boring. Secondly, the kids in the film are pretty terrible actors, with the exception of John Magaro as the friend Alex. He plays creepy very well and I wouldn't mind seeing him in more features. What I still don't get though is why the main character Bug, was acting crazy the whole film. It was a useless red herring that bogs down movies like this .
The script feels like a low rent bottom feeder's first draft. Maybe Craven has been out of the game for too long, but this is not the return to form I wanted from him. The film could have been so much worse, but Craven's talents behind the camera (not the pen) saved it from total garbage. There were a few things that surprised me about this film, which is why the rating is a tad higher than what this review would suggest.
First of all, the opening is one of the craziest fastest openings I've ever seen. So much went on so quickly I didn't have enough time to process it all. The deaths in the film happen quickly too. The deaths are pretty lame, stabs here and there, nothing inventive to note of. I was surprised to see how early they started with the deaths too. My Soul To Take feels like a film that wants to end as soon as it starts, so the pacing is off. I sadly, couldn't get into the whole school vibe that was offered here. The sister as the queen bee, the group of 7 being friends and hating each other. No character dynamics what so ever. It was a poor representation of school life for these characters in my opinion.
I saw the film in 2D and am scratching my head over the fact that it was released in theatres in 3D. There were no moments what so ever that would ever require a conversion to 3D. My Soul To Take is not a horror film I would recommend to people. Fans of horror and Craven in particular should stay away. I, for unknown reasons to me, got some fun out of it.
My Soul To Take
Hilariously terrible and awesome.
A serial killer known as The Riverton Ripper is thought to have died the night 7 premature babies are born. His body was never found though and 16 years later the 7 kids think he will come back and take their souls.
Wes Craven returns to horror with this mess of a film. The previews for My Soul To Take made it look horrendously bad, but to my surprise I was completely engrossed in the film from start to finish. Even with all the bad writing, acting, horror clichés and downright dumb parts of the film, I still had a good time watching it. So suffice to say, I'd give this film a rating right in the middle.
First of all, the basic premise of the film is pretty lackluster. I give Craven credit for trying to his best to write another feature that has some kind of legend behind the story. The problem is that it's tepid and boring. Secondly, the kids in the film are pretty terrible actors, with the exception of John Magaro as the friend Alex. He plays creepy very well and I wouldn't mind seeing him in more features. What I still don't get though is why the main character Bug, was acting crazy the whole film. It was a useless red herring that bogs down movies like this .
The script feels like a low rent bottom feeder's first draft. Maybe Craven has been out of the game for too long, but this is not the return to form I wanted from him. The film could have been so much worse, but Craven's talents behind the camera (not the pen) saved it from total garbage. There were a few things that surprised me about this film, which is why the rating is a tad higher than what this review would suggest.
First of all, the opening is one of the craziest fastest openings I've ever seen. So much went on so quickly I didn't have enough time to process it all. The deaths in the film happen quickly too. The deaths are pretty lame, stabs here and there, nothing inventive to note of. I was surprised to see how early they started with the deaths too. My Soul To Take feels like a film that wants to end as soon as it starts, so the pacing is off. I sadly, couldn't get into the whole school vibe that was offered here. The sister as the queen bee, the group of 7 being friends and hating each other. No character dynamics what so ever. It was a poor representation of school life for these characters in my opinion.
I saw the film in 2D and am scratching my head over the fact that it was released in theatres in 3D. There were no moments what so ever that would ever require a conversion to 3D. My Soul To Take is not a horror film I would recommend to people. Fans of horror and Craven in particular should stay away. I, for unknown reasons to me, got some fun out of it.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Day 217: December 3rd, 2010
Love and Other Drugs.
Poorly Balanced.
My biggest gripe with this film is that it's a mixed bag of forced emotions. First we are introduced to a character who has stage 1 parkinsons. This little known fact gets really emotional during parts of the film and we feel sorry for the characters who are in tears on the screen. Then we have numerous upon numerous sex scenes in which both stars get naked and show their best sides. Now we have awkwardness in the room when you watch it with your girlfriend and mother. Then we get forced comedy that no one seems to laugh at and it you just sit there waiting for the next awkward sex scene to come up. Love and Other Drugs is a well made film, from a technical stand point, but not something that sticks to one specific genre.
The story is cliched, as all romantic comedies (the genre I have decided to give it) are. Two opposite people have one mutual common aspect in their lives. They enjoy each other's company, in this case it's the meaningless sex. She wants to just have a great time and not get emotionally involved with someone who will split the moment they find out they need to physically take care of her later on in life. He is a playboy that finally finds the one person who makes him feel different, and she just happens to be this free spirited chick who doesn't let him get what he wants.
Both leads are great looking and work well off each other. They had great chemistry and their relationship worked for the most part. The comedic relief was in the form of an ugly low life brother who is obsessed with sex. So much that he masturbates to a video of his brother having sex with his girlfriend. Cue laughter?
The film had a lot going on, it felt like a bunch of different movies rolled into one. Each story had their own little arc that eventually kind of went nowhere. The millionaire brother aspect was a bust from the beginning. The viagra parts are hit and miss, then Parkinsons aspect tugs at the heartstrings and then leaves for a bit, only to show up later at the end. There are subplots involving ex-lovers, bosses, drugs in Canada. Too much happening in this movie, you loose focus of what you're suppose to be paying attention to.
Love & Other Drugs is a film that I can recommend to the casual movie goer. It will make some people laugh, cry and cheer for the couple, as most movies try to do. I just found it to be a little disjointed and a movie that's simply known because of naked Hathaway...ain't that great a movie.
Love and Other Drugs.
Poorly Balanced.
My biggest gripe with this film is that it's a mixed bag of forced emotions. First we are introduced to a character who has stage 1 parkinsons. This little known fact gets really emotional during parts of the film and we feel sorry for the characters who are in tears on the screen. Then we have numerous upon numerous sex scenes in which both stars get naked and show their best sides. Now we have awkwardness in the room when you watch it with your girlfriend and mother. Then we get forced comedy that no one seems to laugh at and it you just sit there waiting for the next awkward sex scene to come up. Love and Other Drugs is a well made film, from a technical stand point, but not something that sticks to one specific genre.
The story is cliched, as all romantic comedies (the genre I have decided to give it) are. Two opposite people have one mutual common aspect in their lives. They enjoy each other's company, in this case it's the meaningless sex. She wants to just have a great time and not get emotionally involved with someone who will split the moment they find out they need to physically take care of her later on in life. He is a playboy that finally finds the one person who makes him feel different, and she just happens to be this free spirited chick who doesn't let him get what he wants.
Both leads are great looking and work well off each other. They had great chemistry and their relationship worked for the most part. The comedic relief was in the form of an ugly low life brother who is obsessed with sex. So much that he masturbates to a video of his brother having sex with his girlfriend. Cue laughter?
The film had a lot going on, it felt like a bunch of different movies rolled into one. Each story had their own little arc that eventually kind of went nowhere. The millionaire brother aspect was a bust from the beginning. The viagra parts are hit and miss, then Parkinsons aspect tugs at the heartstrings and then leaves for a bit, only to show up later at the end. There are subplots involving ex-lovers, bosses, drugs in Canada. Too much happening in this movie, you loose focus of what you're suppose to be paying attention to.
Love & Other Drugs is a film that I can recommend to the casual movie goer. It will make some people laugh, cry and cheer for the couple, as most movies try to do. I just found it to be a little disjointed and a movie that's simply known because of naked Hathaway...ain't that great a movie.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Day 218: December 4th, 2010
Siren
Terrible from start to finish.
I'm going to wait for Markf to yell at me some more because after seeing this movie, I think I officially deserve it.
Samuel L. Jackson once said in the film Changing Lanes to Ben Affleck...."I Want My Time Back!!" That's how I feel after watching this mess of a horrid film.
Siren is a "horror" film in which three friends take a boat trip to get away from the city. They spot a man on an island and rescue him, he soon dies on their boat. The motor on their boat has been fried and they decide to stay on the island over night. While on the island they run into a woman, who seems frightened, disoriented and can't seem to remember things. She is beautiful and her beauty grabs the attention of the three characters, even the female. She turns out to be a siren, of Greek mythology. A beautiful woman who would lure men to the island through song. Death was brought upon them.
Argh, this film has an interesting cover design. A woman holding a knife in a bikini. There were two other women on each side of her, also in bikinis. The back cover of the DVD has yet another woman in a bikini. The tagline read an exotic tale of lust and revenge. Sex and horror, two great elements that go together. With a little bit a Greek mythology sprinkled in, I expected this film to be at the very least tolerable. Boy, was I ever wrong.
First, if the poster excites you, don't. This is a classic case of never judge a book by it's cover. Siren will try to lure you in with the promise of sex, blood and horror. The film never has a moment of these things. The film starts off with two characters pretending to be strangers, to spice up their relationship apparently. It fails because the woman has visions of some blonde person, whom we later find out to be the siren. They have sex, successfully on the boat, never exciting during the scene though. The siren has many scenes where she kisses the woman, I have no idea why. Maybe it was a cheap attempt at luring in young boys?
The back of the cover on the DVD is also wrong with the description of the film. It says they spot a seductive sultry woman on an island, this is incorrect. They spot some bearded man ramblings on in gibberish. It isn't till they bury him on the island do they see the woman, whom is neither seductive or sultry. We are treated to a bunch of scenes where the characters see things that aren't really there. The question of what is real and what isn't is raised, but you'll never be interested enough to care.
I'm expected to believe that the one character was in love with the other, except that he's upset about a 'hot friend' not making the trip. He also tries to have a three way with this new woman, just more fuel to the aggravating fire. Please, even a fifth grader can come up with better characterization than that. The third character, Marco, was pointless. Just another person to fill up the 80 minutes running time. He likes the woman that is dating the guy, but it never leads anywhere.
How do people die? The siren sings and they bleed from their ears. That is it. Excitement level is at an all time low here. Don't even get me started on the obvious and completely inane ending. This is not a horror film, I would call it suspense if anything...it even fails at that though.
Siren
Terrible from start to finish.
I'm going to wait for Markf to yell at me some more because after seeing this movie, I think I officially deserve it.
Samuel L. Jackson once said in the film Changing Lanes to Ben Affleck...."I Want My Time Back!!" That's how I feel after watching this mess of a horrid film.
Siren is a "horror" film in which three friends take a boat trip to get away from the city. They spot a man on an island and rescue him, he soon dies on their boat. The motor on their boat has been fried and they decide to stay on the island over night. While on the island they run into a woman, who seems frightened, disoriented and can't seem to remember things. She is beautiful and her beauty grabs the attention of the three characters, even the female. She turns out to be a siren, of Greek mythology. A beautiful woman who would lure men to the island through song. Death was brought upon them.
Argh, this film has an interesting cover design. A woman holding a knife in a bikini. There were two other women on each side of her, also in bikinis. The back cover of the DVD has yet another woman in a bikini. The tagline read an exotic tale of lust and revenge. Sex and horror, two great elements that go together. With a little bit a Greek mythology sprinkled in, I expected this film to be at the very least tolerable. Boy, was I ever wrong.
First, if the poster excites you, don't. This is a classic case of never judge a book by it's cover. Siren will try to lure you in with the promise of sex, blood and horror. The film never has a moment of these things. The film starts off with two characters pretending to be strangers, to spice up their relationship apparently. It fails because the woman has visions of some blonde person, whom we later find out to be the siren. They have sex, successfully on the boat, never exciting during the scene though. The siren has many scenes where she kisses the woman, I have no idea why. Maybe it was a cheap attempt at luring in young boys?
The back of the cover on the DVD is also wrong with the description of the film. It says they spot a seductive sultry woman on an island, this is incorrect. They spot some bearded man ramblings on in gibberish. It isn't till they bury him on the island do they see the woman, whom is neither seductive or sultry. We are treated to a bunch of scenes where the characters see things that aren't really there. The question of what is real and what isn't is raised, but you'll never be interested enough to care.
I'm expected to believe that the one character was in love with the other, except that he's upset about a 'hot friend' not making the trip. He also tries to have a three way with this new woman, just more fuel to the aggravating fire. Please, even a fifth grader can come up with better characterization than that. The third character, Marco, was pointless. Just another person to fill up the 80 minutes running time. He likes the woman that is dating the guy, but it never leads anywhere.
How do people die? The siren sings and they bleed from their ears. That is it. Excitement level is at an all time low here. Don't even get me started on the obvious and completely inane ending. This is not a horror film, I would call it suspense if anything...it even fails at that though.
Last edited by TheUsualSuspect; 04-06-11 at 04:51 PM.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I've never "yelled" at you, even in type. I don't mind being considered your conscience once in awhile though.
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Day 219: December 5th, 2010
The Final Destination
Weakest one in the series.
A bunch of people cheat death at a race track and that pisses him off again, so he hunts them all down with elaborate death scenes.
I loved the first one when I saw it in theatres. I thought it was smart, thrilling and different. Now that we have 4 movies in the series and are about to get another one, I sit back and watch them hoping that maybe they will capture the spirit of the original. It seems that the films are getting worse and worse with each new addition, which is the case with most horror series (look at SAW). The Final Destination, said to be the last one before it made some money and people want to make more, sees a young kid have a premonition at a Nascar race track and he freaks out, saving the lives of a few lucky people. The initial crashes and death scenes are beyond fake with horrendous cgi that made me laugh instead of cheer at the carnage.
The brilliance, in my opinion, of the first one is that all the deaths seem plausible. Each little thing that someone did lead to their eventual death. Something as simple as putting a rag on a set of knives seems fine, but would turn out to be deadly. There was the occasional death sequence that would seem to be death going the extra mile, like a bus hitting a young blonde in the street when the street was a dead end. That was never pointed out, just in the background, something for people to look for. With each additional movie the death scenes had to get more and more elaborate, which in turn got more and more boring for me. They became so elaborate that they would never happen and the believability factor was out the door.
Where are the clues in this one? What made the first film so interesting and fun were the clues that were around that were indicators as to who would die. Totally ignored here and we are left with the one uninteresting and lame character to continue get premonitions. The order in which they die is bogus too, the first one was based on their seating order, a nice twist and here it's simply the guy trying to remember who died when. Again, the fun factor is lost with this one. The film was released in 3D, I had the pleasure of watching it in 2D. So whenever the in your face death scene would happen I thought, hmm, that would look interesting. Horror films use 3D as a gag for fun and not to immerse yourself in the film/experience. So whichever way the technology is used, it's up to you to decide if you like it that way or not.
I enjoyed this one the least out of all of them. I loved the originality of the first, the gory death scenes in the second and the third had some fun parts to it. This one was lame all the way through. You know you have a bad movie when the death scenes aren't even that fun. I would say skip this one and go watch the first one again, even the second. The Final Destination is a mistake.
The Final Destination
Weakest one in the series.
A bunch of people cheat death at a race track and that pisses him off again, so he hunts them all down with elaborate death scenes.
I loved the first one when I saw it in theatres. I thought it was smart, thrilling and different. Now that we have 4 movies in the series and are about to get another one, I sit back and watch them hoping that maybe they will capture the spirit of the original. It seems that the films are getting worse and worse with each new addition, which is the case with most horror series (look at SAW). The Final Destination, said to be the last one before it made some money and people want to make more, sees a young kid have a premonition at a Nascar race track and he freaks out, saving the lives of a few lucky people. The initial crashes and death scenes are beyond fake with horrendous cgi that made me laugh instead of cheer at the carnage.
The brilliance, in my opinion, of the first one is that all the deaths seem plausible. Each little thing that someone did lead to their eventual death. Something as simple as putting a rag on a set of knives seems fine, but would turn out to be deadly. There was the occasional death sequence that would seem to be death going the extra mile, like a bus hitting a young blonde in the street when the street was a dead end. That was never pointed out, just in the background, something for people to look for. With each additional movie the death scenes had to get more and more elaborate, which in turn got more and more boring for me. They became so elaborate that they would never happen and the believability factor was out the door.
Where are the clues in this one? What made the first film so interesting and fun were the clues that were around that were indicators as to who would die. Totally ignored here and we are left with the one uninteresting and lame character to continue get premonitions. The order in which they die is bogus too, the first one was based on their seating order, a nice twist and here it's simply the guy trying to remember who died when. Again, the fun factor is lost with this one. The film was released in 3D, I had the pleasure of watching it in 2D. So whenever the in your face death scene would happen I thought, hmm, that would look interesting. Horror films use 3D as a gag for fun and not to immerse yourself in the film/experience. So whichever way the technology is used, it's up to you to decide if you like it that way or not.
I enjoyed this one the least out of all of them. I loved the originality of the first, the gory death scenes in the second and the third had some fun parts to it. This one was lame all the way through. You know you have a bad movie when the death scenes aren't even that fun. I would say skip this one and go watch the first one again, even the second. The Final Destination is a mistake.
Last edited by TheUsualSuspect; 04-16-11 at 02:42 AM.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Day 220: December 6th, 2010
Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows
From a non-book reading perspective.
Harry Potter is in some trouble, his headmaster has been killed, by Snape of all people and the dark lord's powers seem to be rising. Harry must find and destroy as many Horcruxes as he can find, in his journey he learns about the Deathly Hallows.
This entry is probably the best in the series since Prisoner of Azkaban. David Yates, who has helmed two previous installments in the franchise (arguably some of the weaker films) has finally seemed to find his footing with the first part of the last installment. Deathly Hallows is exciting, heartfelt and continues the story at a brisk pace, setting the viewer up for wanting more and ending the film on a good note.
The thing that helps the film most is how much crap has hit the fan. The story has finally moved past the years at Hogwarts routine and has set in motion the final battle that people have been eagerly anticipating. The biggest gripe about the films from the 4th book on, would be that they leave out too much. It's understandable, since the books get bigger and bigger. Splitting the finale into two parts was a good idea, both from a business standpoint and a filmmaking standpoint. It gives the audience more time with Harry and the filmmakers more time to tell the complete story.
I read the first book, it was good. It was gift, but I never actively went out to get the others, so my views on the films are from a film standpoint alone. Deathly Hallows managed to suck me into the world more so than others. No longer are we waiting for our heroes to learn magic spells, they are taking on the bad guys head on. I guess it's true for most series, the darkest is usually the best. Deathly Hallows is probably the darkest Harry Potter film yet because not everyone makes it out alive.
That would be a gripe I have though, a lot of the death scenes are only mentioned or give a brief second on screen. We are with characters we've known from films as far back as the beginning, so I would have liked a little bit more reflection on certain death scenes. Harry has lost his mentor. He must grow up and make decisions for himself, become more of a leader.
The amount of time, care and love put into crafting these films are clearly evident. One only has to look at the recent rushed attempts of the Twilight series to see that the studio and filmmakers are more keen on cashing in on the craze then adapting a story to screen. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone came out ten years ago. This is a franchise that, despite the books not being completed yet, wants to tell an epic story. It took the books ten years to tell the story, so it takes the films ten as well. Deathly Hallows is a great beginning to the end.
Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows
From a non-book reading perspective.
Harry Potter is in some trouble, his headmaster has been killed, by Snape of all people and the dark lord's powers seem to be rising. Harry must find and destroy as many Horcruxes as he can find, in his journey he learns about the Deathly Hallows.
This entry is probably the best in the series since Prisoner of Azkaban. David Yates, who has helmed two previous installments in the franchise (arguably some of the weaker films) has finally seemed to find his footing with the first part of the last installment. Deathly Hallows is exciting, heartfelt and continues the story at a brisk pace, setting the viewer up for wanting more and ending the film on a good note.
The thing that helps the film most is how much crap has hit the fan. The story has finally moved past the years at Hogwarts routine and has set in motion the final battle that people have been eagerly anticipating. The biggest gripe about the films from the 4th book on, would be that they leave out too much. It's understandable, since the books get bigger and bigger. Splitting the finale into two parts was a good idea, both from a business standpoint and a filmmaking standpoint. It gives the audience more time with Harry and the filmmakers more time to tell the complete story.
I read the first book, it was good. It was gift, but I never actively went out to get the others, so my views on the films are from a film standpoint alone. Deathly Hallows managed to suck me into the world more so than others. No longer are we waiting for our heroes to learn magic spells, they are taking on the bad guys head on. I guess it's true for most series, the darkest is usually the best. Deathly Hallows is probably the darkest Harry Potter film yet because not everyone makes it out alive.
That would be a gripe I have though, a lot of the death scenes are only mentioned or give a brief second on screen. We are with characters we've known from films as far back as the beginning, so I would have liked a little bit more reflection on certain death scenes. Harry has lost his mentor. He must grow up and make decisions for himself, become more of a leader.
The amount of time, care and love put into crafting these films are clearly evident. One only has to look at the recent rushed attempts of the Twilight series to see that the studio and filmmakers are more keen on cashing in on the craze then adapting a story to screen. Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone came out ten years ago. This is a franchise that, despite the books not being completed yet, wants to tell an epic story. It took the books ten years to tell the story, so it takes the films ten as well. Deathly Hallows is a great beginning to the end.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Day 221: December 7th, 2010
Psych 9
Ghost story or Slasher movie?
A young girl gets a night job at an abandoned hospital doing clerical work. She's not alone though, there is another man on level 5 doing similar work. The woman starts to get visions of creepy things in the hospital, which slowly makes her lose her mind. It doesn't help that there is also a serial killer deemed The Night Hawk roaming the streets outside.
Psych 9 goes in too many directions and none of them come to a cohesive ending. Too much is left up being ambiguous and the film asks way too much from the audience. Big plot questions are never answered and we are left to assume things. Psych 9 doesn't know what type of film it wants to be, it's a slasher film at one point, then a supernatural spook story the next. The story should have concentrated on one aspect and stuck with it.
Sara Foster plays Roslyn, the young woman who gets the new job. She hears and sees things that a creepy, this takes a toll on her. She begins to go a tad crazy and we get to know a bit more about her past. Foster does a good job here, she has quite a bit of depth to her character, more than you would expect from a film like this. Her character is a lot like Nina from the recent Black Swan. The man up on the 5th floor is Dr. Irvin Clement played by Cary Elwes. His two most famous roles are Dr. Lawrence Gordon from Saw and more memorably Westley from The Princess Bride. he mostly sits and chats up Foster in this role, nothing too challenging or memorable to comment on.
There is a detective after Night Hawk, played by the always reliable and awesome 24/7 Michael Biehn. Again, underused a bit, his scenes consist of him showing up, asking questions and then leaving. The memorable role here belongs to Foster and the creepy factor belongs to the hospital. Session 9 has some similar elements to this film and they pulled it off better. Here, it feels disjointed which leaves the viewer confused. I sure was at points and even still am.
A lot of the film has that "seen it before" vibe. Its cues are straight from other films. The confusing parts are the faults of the filmmakers, for either not knowing a definitive answer, or never having one. Parts of it feel incomplete and like two different movies. I would have liked them to have left the Night Hawk killer subplot at the door and concentrated the the hospital and how crazy Foster became. I sure as hell wouldn't work at that place at night.
Psych 9
Ghost story or Slasher movie?
A young girl gets a night job at an abandoned hospital doing clerical work. She's not alone though, there is another man on level 5 doing similar work. The woman starts to get visions of creepy things in the hospital, which slowly makes her lose her mind. It doesn't help that there is also a serial killer deemed The Night Hawk roaming the streets outside.
Psych 9 goes in too many directions and none of them come to a cohesive ending. Too much is left up being ambiguous and the film asks way too much from the audience. Big plot questions are never answered and we are left to assume things. Psych 9 doesn't know what type of film it wants to be, it's a slasher film at one point, then a supernatural spook story the next. The story should have concentrated on one aspect and stuck with it.
Sara Foster plays Roslyn, the young woman who gets the new job. She hears and sees things that a creepy, this takes a toll on her. She begins to go a tad crazy and we get to know a bit more about her past. Foster does a good job here, she has quite a bit of depth to her character, more than you would expect from a film like this. Her character is a lot like Nina from the recent Black Swan. The man up on the 5th floor is Dr. Irvin Clement played by Cary Elwes. His two most famous roles are Dr. Lawrence Gordon from Saw and more memorably Westley from The Princess Bride. he mostly sits and chats up Foster in this role, nothing too challenging or memorable to comment on.
There is a detective after Night Hawk, played by the always reliable and awesome 24/7 Michael Biehn. Again, underused a bit, his scenes consist of him showing up, asking questions and then leaving. The memorable role here belongs to Foster and the creepy factor belongs to the hospital. Session 9 has some similar elements to this film and they pulled it off better. Here, it feels disjointed which leaves the viewer confused. I sure was at points and even still am.
A lot of the film has that "seen it before" vibe. Its cues are straight from other films. The confusing parts are the faults of the filmmakers, for either not knowing a definitive answer, or never having one. Parts of it feel incomplete and like two different movies. I would have liked them to have left the Night Hawk killer subplot at the door and concentrated the the hospital and how crazy Foster became. I sure as hell wouldn't work at that place at night.
X
Favorite Movies
X