Hey I can review too!

In Good Company



There was once this show about the 70s. It starred a guy named Ashten who blew into this international superstar. Meanwhile, a scrawy guy stayed in the background and honed his craft. Then in 2004, he starred in a movie with Dennis "Hit or Miss" Quaid. And he performed better than Ashten could ever hope too.

In Good Company is the story of Dan Foreman (Quaid) who has been demoted in favor of Carter (Topher Grace), a man half his age. Dan has a great wife (Marg Helgenberger) and two daughters. The oldest (the stunning Scarlet Johansen) becomes romantically involved with Carter. Chaos ensues.

Acting: A

Quaid had a "hit" and Johansen was awesome as usual. The surprise for me was Grace. My family seemed to think Carter was simply Eric Foreman on the big screen, but I saw so much more. Grace filled Carter with so many layers I needed an orange peeler to get through them. He was a happy sad professional loving person who simply looked for someone or something to attach himself too. Brilliant performance by Grace.

Directing: B+

Holy Meaningful Cuts Batman. Carter's and Dan's lives were seen in constant comparison. It worked farily well, but I got a little sick of it. Each hard cut and cross fade had meaning (never did it seem he was doing it to prove he could do it) but I feel Weitz could have done it a little less. He showed it could be done. In a particular shot we see Carter and Dan worrying in thier respective offices, but the view is from outside the building. From this angle we saw, two men acting alone while together. I would have liked to have seen a little more of that, and a little less fading. Yet, Weitz did a good job. He put a lot of directorial enery succesfully into a romantic comedy--a genre where he could have gotten away with doing less.

Writing: B

The dialogue was exceptional. The characters spoke like (get this) real people. We never had to sit through the intellectual soliloquy on relationship and interaction. We saw interaction. Awesome. So why only a B? Well, the plot kind of sucked. It was too predictable and a little contrived. The writing is really saved by the dialouge, but they could have spent more time at the story board.

Special Effects: N/A

Overall: 7/10

I thought In Good Company was solid. Totally worth the five bucks to rent it. Probably not the $20 to buy it.

__________________
"What might have been and what has been
Point to one end, which is always present." - T.S. Eliot

I have this movie, but have not yet seen it.

This review makes me want to check it out.

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

Suspect's Reviews

Good movie with some very strong acting
ur review is right on

and i think it is worth the $20 on dvd (lol i got it)

your review is pretty accurate. Grace made the movie very humorous, and scarlett is extremely hot.

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy



I should begin by offering that Hitchiker's Guide is one of my favorite books, EVER. So I had high hopes for Garth Jennings' incarnation. And like a Christian girl on her wedding night, I was terribly disappointed.

Plot Outline: Mere seconds before the Earth is to be demolished by an alien construction crew, journeyman Arthur Dent is swept off the planet by his friend Ford Prefect, a researcher penning a new edition of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy." - Imdb.com

Acting: B-

Martin Freeman was brilliant playing the confused and frightened Dent. His voice, his mannerisms, his stutter are all exactly what I had always imagined Arthur to be like. I am not sure if anyone anywhere else in the universe could have played Dent with such excruciating accuracy. Equally brilliant were Mos Def (as Arthur's alien best friend Ford Prefect ) and Alan Rickman (as manically depressed robot Marvin.)

With the good comes the bad. First, the not so bad: Sam Rockwell was mediocre in his portrayal of Zaphod. He played it a little over the top (and little here is a little bit of an understatement), yet at least maintained the smallest semblance of character consistency.

And then there was Zoey Deschanel. She played Trillian, my favorite character in the book. Trillian is meant to be spunky, sarcastic and witty. She was written that way, but all of that spunky and sarcastic dialogue was delivered with the eloquence of a yak in heat.

Directing: C

Visually, this movie was stunning. The scenes of Earth's construction were the some of the best I have seen in a long time. But many of the shots were completely meaningless. It was neat to see a room which creates planets, but it had no purpose other than to show said room. As a director of actors, Jenning's was only as competent as the actors he was working with. He should have controlled Rockwell--not allowing Zaphod to become so crazy. I also did not like some of his visual interpretations of thigns in the book, but that may come more from my fanaticism than his incompetence.

Writing: C+

Douglas Adams (the author of the book) contributed greatly to the script. Yet he was under so much studio pressure, the finished script lacked the subtle to not-so-subtle humor seen in his books. The jokes were dry and unfunny. The writing may have been the most disappointing thing.

Special Effects: A

Everything did look very good.

Overall: 4/10

Lady in the Water



A few days ago, I began a thread about failing to find the "entertainment" value in poor movies. However, upon reflection, I realize now the true fear was not that I did not appreciate poor movies. I have every right to despise their existence. The fear was the possiblity of losing the basic wonder I have seen in films. It had been so long since I had seen a movie which moved me in a memorable way. Luckily, there is M. Night Shymalan and his brilliant Lady in the Water.

Acting: A

Paul Giamatti is one of the best actors in Hollywood, and he proved his ability once more. His work was above any reproach or criticism. He immerses himself in his role as to be lost. With a mere look, he conveys years of back story and emotion. Few actors understand their characters the way Giamatti seems to, and with little effort.

More interesting than Giamatti's performance, the major role Shymalan casts for himself--that of the Vessel. I was wary of such a bold move, but Shymalan proved he was capable of handling a heavy role. I do not want him to continue with this (there is a reason I get sick of Orson Welles sometimes), but it was a nice change of pace for him.

Directing: A-

Technically, Shymalan has his ducks in a row. The cinemtographer, Christopher Doyle, aided breathtakingly in creating a realistic yet somehow surreal visual aesthetic--aiding to the modern fairy tale theme of the movie. The use of color is an additional to the aforementioned atmosphere (I assonance).

There were some pacing problems though. Fifteen minutes would fly by at some points, while take an agonizingly slow time at another. That's the only complaint I have, but I am sure if I watched it again I would have more. I would probably have more compliments also.

Writing: B+/A-

Overall: 8/10

Lady in the Water has been widely criticized (including around MoFo) for lacking a direction. If I remember correctly, Yoda said it tried to be too many things at one time. I believe the lack of direction was a particular tool. Lady is a film about the power and beauty of a story. It appeals to the audience in an almost instinctual way--appealing to a proud tradition of storytelling we have lost. It is so much more than a commentary on life's purpose or interconnectivity. It is an attempt to connect us with the children we once were. As I watched the beautiful story unfold, I felt like I was five years old. I remebered when my Grandfather told me stories of false identity, heroes and villains, and good vs evil. The lack of creative direction was the point, Mr. Yoda.

One of the characters, Mr Leeds, said, "I want to believe more than most. I want to believe there is more to this world than misery and despair." So did I. M. Night made me believe. And if you sit in the theatre and allow your mind to open to thie possiblity of Narfs and Scrunts and magic, you too will believe. And only then, you will truly love Lady.

If you like this movie, you will also like...

Finding Neverland

A Thousand Clowns

Harvey

Let me begin with saying I enjoy Richard Linklater. Slacker, Dazed and Confused, and School of Rock are some of my favorite movies. That being said, Waking Life is a work of purely philosophical blather.

The Main Character, who remains nameless, journeys into his sub-conscious mind. He is searching the true nature of dreams, and by extension life. On his journey he meets numerous individuals who soliloquise on the nature of society/life/dreams/altered reality/evolution.

The animation is heralded as ground-breaking and revoltiounary, yet it did nothing for me except giving me a bit of motion sickness. The "dream" atmosphere could have been acheived without the hallucinagenic transitions between animation styles. I could have done without the visualization of the speakers words. It took far too much attention away from "what" the people were saying. (For example, Eamonn Healy spoke about telescoping as his head telescoped. Instead of listening to his interesting view on evolution, I watched his head change in size.) This may have been the intention, but the scenes were still awkward to view.

Despite what some people have told me, the discussions in this movie are not great philosophical points. The movie seemed like a Philosophy for Beginners class. It covered the usual questions of "Do we have free will" and "What if life is jsut somebody's dream" and other such fanciful garbage. Rather than addressing one or two questions, this movie tries to cram many views and statments into two hours. It never gets to the core of these questions, nor does it offer any view of opposition or debate. The soloquiys range from slightly interesting to terribly boring, never venturing into the mind-blowing, or even mind expanding, realm it had the potential to be in.

The pace was terrible. The voices were ho hum. The animation took away from the information, which itself was boring and dated. A note to Linklater, you are very good at toying with human itneraction and delivering fresh perspectives on alienated members of society. Do that, and leave the philosophy to DeCartes.

Overall: 3/10

Warning One: I have not written a review in a while, so please be patient with the quality of this one.

Warning Two: Mild spoilers.

The Wicker Man



Beautifully horrific. Wonderfully brutal. The Wicker Man is a powerful film on the fervor of the faithful, and the inability to recogize the validity of other's beliefs.

Sgt. Howie lands at Summerisle Island searching for a missing girl--Rowan Morrison. Howie finds the residents of Summerisle resistant to talking about Rowan, and they feign ignorance when they do say anything at all. Meanwhile, Howie becomes aware of their neo-pagan beliefs and rituals, and sees this as an affront to his beliefs--that of the Church.

Howie's rush to judgment of the Isle's inhabitants casts him an unsympathetic light. The viewer finds Howie detestable for much of the film. The pagan rituals are all presented with earnestness and honesty--shot in broad daylight so as to relinquish any intimidation.

Howie's insistence of his moral and religious superiority is shown countlessly throughout the first three quarters of the film. He applies his moral system to their education and lifestyle. He judges their religion harshly, and the Islanders seem like the hapless victims. However, as Howie discovers Rowan's fate the Islanders seem less friendly--their religion less innocent. The characterization begins to change--leading to the climax, with the Islanders succeeding in forcing their moral system onto him.

Wicker Man is a brilliant film which follows its moral throughout the entire film. Robin Hardy did an excellent job of casting doubt as to who truly was the hero and who truly the villain--at least until the memorable final act.

9/10

One word of warning: While history has classified this film as a horror movie, I am unsure for the reason. If this story is viewed as a psychological thriller, I think it would be better received.

I like this movie too, the guy did About a Boy and American Dreamz

__________________
I used to be addicted to crystal meth, now I'm just addicted to Breaking Bad.

I'm assuming you're reviewing the original Wicker Man. it was originally given an X certificate in the UK as the next certificate down would've been an AA which was 14 and over in those days. Horror or thriller an X was the appropriate cert for the time.

I am speaking for its classification in American movie stores/cinemas/rankings. Cinefantasique called it the Citizen Kane of Horror movies. Digitaldreamdoor.com put it as #58 in their horror film list.

I am simply saying I do not think it is a horror film, even if the ending is a bit...unnerving.

Across the Universe



"Is there anybody out there, listen to my story? All about the girl who came to stay..."

From the first shot of Julie Taymor's Beatles' musical, that of Jude singing the line above, a promise of a grand visual and musical experience, and Across the Universe delivers unwaveringly.

Julie Taymor has established herself as the Queen of Artistic Imagination. Her Broadway adaptation of Disney's The Lion King created a new standard for on-stage visualization and effects. Less acclaimed, but nevertheless wonderful, is the creativity she showed in her brutal Titus, the film version of Shakespeare's most violent play. Across the Universe exceeds even her lofty visual aspirations. Not only does she have her normal surreal use of color and puppetry (which seem to fit better in the drug riddled, avant-garde tradition the movie glorifies than most of her work), but she seems to have matured in terms of her basic skill with a camera.

Unlike the other major musical this year, Sweeney Todd, Taymor used train musical theater actors. The affect is a wonderfully melodic tribute to the Beatles, as many of the actors in the film sang these songs better than Lennon and McCartney ever could have.

8/10

"Say, you keep on riding me like a streetcar, you're gonna have to pay the fare! "
Man of the Century
Directed by: Adam Abraham
Starring: Gibson Frazier, Susan Egan

The first time Johnny Twennies swears it takes me a bit off guard. It's just that I hadn't heard this type of language in a long time. His curse?

"Applesauce!"

Johnny Twennies (Frazier) is the main character of Adam Abraham's delightful Man of the Century. Johnny lives his life as if the period between 1932 and 1999 never happened. He dresses in a three peace suit and fedora. He throws around phrases like “banana oil,” “bee’s knees,” and “cat’s pajamas.” He believes in the intricate rightness and wrongness of each and every action—not recognizing a grey area.

Johnny is a writer for the struggling New York Sun-Times. He writes human interest stories but seems to be on to a big scoop about a drug lord named Elliot Pitt. Pitt is bullying New York reporters in to writing a fake report about his death. Idealist Johnny refuses.

Johnny dates Samantha Winters (Egan), a curator at a modern art museum. Samantha does not share Johnny’s nostalgic worldview, and begins to become frustrated with his unwillingness to consummate their relationship.
Johnny’s adventures are the conflict for this movie, his peculiarities are not.

This creates a noted difference between Man of the Century and other “person from a different time” films such as Pleasantville or Forever Young. In films like these, the characters cultural differences are the driving point of the film. The directors of the films wish to compare and contrast the social and cultural differences. In Man of the Century¸ nothing of the sort happens. Johnny just acts as if walked from a speakeasy in time to save some dame.

This movie is simple and fast paced. Its screwball character is its main gag, but this gag holds up for the entire 80 minutes. As Johnny would say, this picture is ducky.

Bottomline: 7/10

I never knew the old Vienna before the war with its Strauss music, its glamour and easy charm. Constantinople suited me better.







The Third Man
Directed by: Carol Reed
Starring: Joseph Cotton, Orson Welles, Valli



The Third Man tells the tale of Holly Martin. Martin, a hack writer of prototypical Westerns, is investigating into the allegedly accidental death of his childhood friend, Harry Lime. Martin’s (Cotten) investigation forces him to interact with a range of interesting and suspicious characters. He meets Baron Kurtz, who plays violin in a night club and seems to have no land, authority, or status to accompany his title. He meets Harry’s Doctor, whose toy collection exceeds eccentric—it’s downright creepy. Each of these characters is performed with a melodrama more suited to the silent noirs of the 1920s than the popular conetmporary noirs of the 1950s.



This idea of melodrama is not a criticism, it is a part of the mystique created by Reed. Reed shot the Third Man on location in Vienna. However, Reed’s Vienna does not seem like reality. The lights often illuminate empty space, while the characters will stand in darkness. The camera often watches the action from a strange angle. The city seems to be alive. The melodramatic side characters add to this other worldly atmosphere. The way Cotten and Valli play Martin and love interest Anna straight puts them at odds with the strange world around them.



Martin’s investigation leads him into the corruption of Vienna, but of his understanding of the world. Once the true villain of The Third Man is revealed, Martin’s destiny leads him through Vienna’s darkest corners, highest points, and finally to the climactic scene in the sewers of Vienna. In these tunnels Martin is forced to realize reality is not as simple as his stories.



Visually stunning. Brilliantly acted. Filled with tension and suspicion. Carol Reed's The Third Man is the rare picture which crosses over from the wonderful to the iconic.



Bottom-line: 10/10

Great review for a great film.

__________________

nice reviews..pity that you didnt like waking life that much though as it happens to be one of my all time favorite movies.

__________________
My 100 ALL-TIME FAVE Movies

I get that a lot. I usually believe in the objective goodness or badness of films, but Waking Life can be chalked to taste.

If you enjoy philosophical discussion, I suggest Man from Earth. It's a group of college professors discussing immortality around a cottage (seriously). It's fairly low producion values, but very intersting discussion.

Iron Man 2
Directed by John Favreau
Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Gwyneth Paltrow, Mickey Rourke, Scarlett Johanson

Expectation impacts the enjoyment of film. If I think a movie will be phenomenal but find it mediocre, I will leave the theatre hating it. If I think a movie will be awful but find it mediocre, I will leave the theatre liking it. Unfortunately, Iron Man 2 falls in the former category.

In this latest adventure, Iron Man (Downey) battles the villainous Whiplash--played by Mickey Rourke. Whiplash is poorly crafted--his motivation seems questionable at best. Rourke should receive very little blame for the character's shortcomings; he performs admirably given the poor script with which he had to work. His character was at his best in the scenes interacting directly with Tony Stark.

However, Rourke still manages to outperform the increasingly disappointing Scarlett Johanson. Johanson plays secret agent Natasha Romanov. Of course, by "plays" I mean "wears the costume of and is called."
In summer blockbusters, writing and acting consistently take a back seat to action and explosions. Even here, I feel director John Favreau failed. The action sequences are near non sequiturs; each is randomly executed with very little exposition or narrative. They seemed like Favreau pointed to the script and indicated, "This is where the action sequences go."

To be clear, I found the movie fairly entertaining. The reason? Robert Downey Jr. is like a great basketball player on bad team. He's so good you can ignore the short comings of everyone else. His charm and ease are as infectious here as in the original. His chemistry with Gwyneth Paltrow is impeccable. Downey and Paltrow fully compensate for the other shortcomings. The film is at its best when Tony Stark is interacting with others--especially Paltrow's excellent Pepper Potts.

I significantly enjoyed the first Iron Man, but I found Iron Man 2 disappointing. In reality, it was unlikely the sequel could reach the bar set by the first. Iron Man 2 fails in comparison to the original, but is still better than most summer popcorn flicks

5/10