KC Movie Man reviews
→ in Movie Reviews
Reply to Topic
1914, 1921, 1935, 1945, 1985, 2012, what do all of these years have in common? Any guesses at all?? These are all the years that Brewster's Millions has been made/released. Apparently Brewster made a pact somewhere that said his movie had to be remade every so many years or the world will end.... Praise Jesus that Hollywood is there to keep us safe!
I am guessing that at the very least, this must be a very popular concept if it has been made 5, going on 6 times now. The plot has varied slightly with each of these remakes as has the dollar amounts of Brewster's millions, but it's kind of interesting to see the changes and how they applied to their respective time periods.
In this version, Monty Brewster (the hilarious Richard Pryor) is an aging minor league baseball pitcher who, shortly after being released from the team, learns that a distant relative has left him a fortune. A fortune that comes with certain rules. If Monty can manage to spend $30 million in 30 days with no assests to show for it, then he will inherit $300 million. Of course, this distant relative gives him specific rules to the game that if violated will leave Monty with nothing. I'm sure you can guess at the hilarity and craziness that follows.
Pryor is joined by John Candy, playing his side-kick and both give a good performance. They portray their usual zany characters just as you'd expect from the duo and they seem to work very well together. Some of the jokes in the movie are a little dated as is the dialogue, but that is not enough to detract from the fantasy you will have of being in the same position as Monty. That is probably the biggest draw of the movie, imagining how you'd spend all that money if you were in Monty's shoes and comparing it to Monty's decisions.
The movie is not terrific, not bad, but somewhere in the middle of the road where it is enjoyable enough to watch once, but probably not good enough to buy. There is some good '80s comedy, some great '80s music (who doesn't love a good synthesizer track?), and some middle of the road acting. I would recommend giving this a view if you get a chance, but don't put it at the top of your play list.
I give this a 6 out of 10.
1999 was a great year for movies, Fight Club, The Matrix, The Sixth Sense, American Beauty, American Pie, many films that have since become classics. When it comes to comparing Entrapment to these greats, it doesn't measure up, but any other year and this may have been up there in the top 10 of the year.
Entrapment brings us Catherine Zeta-Jones, in the peak of her career and beauty, playing Virginia Baker, an insurance agent who secretly doubles as a professional thief. Virginia volunteers to attempt and capture Mac (Sean Connery), another professional art thief, whom Virginia secretly admires, after it seems he has once again stolen art the insurance company has insured. Virginia seizes this opportunity to team up with Mac on a job with the premise that if this job works out, they would plan a record-breaking theft together.
Sound confusing yet? It's not as bad as it sounds on paper. The movie opens with a great action/theft sequence with an unknown thief using high-tech equipment to steal a Rembrandt painting. The sequence is a lot of fun to watch and the movie is full of some great gadgets that are not only cool, but pretty inventive as well. Possibly a little reminiscent of Bond tools.
Zeta-Jones and Connery give excellent acting performances that are able to really draw you into the film (which is expected from these two). The big surprise with them however, is how well they interact. They are charming and witty and seem to have a genuine connection that shows on-screen (perhaps a foretelling of Zeta-Jones' affection for older men?). Zeta-Jones' character does have some immature, silly dialogue, including a couple "temper-tantrums", which could have been left out, but this does not detract from her great performance. Of course (my personal bias) anything Connery touches is gold, this movie included. His character is not only charming and witty, but just plain fun to watch.
The movie is full of fun suspense, good action sequences and some crazy twists in the plot that constantly keep you on the edge of your seat. This may not have been in the top 10 movies of 1999, but it is definitely one of the more fun robber movies I have seen in a while. If you haven't seen it yet, I would suggest going out and picking up a copy, this is one you'll want to watch again and again.
I give this an '8' out of 10.
Little Fockers..... Don't waste your money!
American's have some great sayings, for example, Practice Makes Perfect, or If At First You Don't Suceed, Try, Try Again.. If we were to describe the first 2 movies of this franchise, we might say something like, "They have earned their stripes" or "They made that look easy as pie". With this latest look into the world of Focker, however, it might be more appropriate to use "I bet they are eating crow now" or "I am washing my hands of these movies".
In this one, we are reunited back with the whole Focker family, Gaylord/Greg (Ben Stiller), Pam (Teri Polo), Roz (Barbara Streisand), Bernie (Dustin Hoffman), as well as Pam's parents, Jack (Robert DeNiro) and Dina (Blythe Danner). The family is brought together this time for a celebration of Greg and Pam's twin's birthday party. All the while, Jack is intent on choosing a new patriarch for the family as his health is declining and he looks into Greg as taking over the position.
It seems that this movie was put together willy-nilly in order to make some quick cash. Honestly, it's not that funny, with the exception of maybe 2 scenes in the movie. The talent of the actors is dreadfully wasted and the script was poorly written, trying to wring the last little bit of comedy out the same jokes you have already seen in the previous 2 installments. The only real time you will have a good belly laugh is a scene involving male genitalia, a syringe, and a child that will be scarred for life. You may have even already seen this scene if you have seen any of the trailers.
This is one movie that really didn't need to be made and should not have been made. As football great Vince Lombardi used to say "We didn't lose the game, we just ran out of time". This franchise has now offically lost the game and has ran out of time. How you can get this many good actors in one movie and still end up with something this unfunny and unentertaining is beyond my understanding.
According to SNL's Jack Handey, "If you're robbing a bank and your pants fall down, I think it's ok to laugh, and let your hostages laugh too, because come on - life is funny." This movie is not.
I give this a 3 out of 10.
American's have some great sayings, for example, Practice Makes Perfect, or If At First You Don't Suceed, Try, Try Again.. If we were to describe the first 2 movies of this franchise, we might say something like, "They have earned their stripes" or "They made that look easy as pie". With this latest look into the world of Focker, however, it might be more appropriate to use "I bet they are eating crow now" or "I am washing my hands of these movies".
In this one, we are reunited back with the whole Focker family, Gaylord/Greg (Ben Stiller), Pam (Teri Polo), Roz (Barbara Streisand), Bernie (Dustin Hoffman), as well as Pam's parents, Jack (Robert DeNiro) and Dina (Blythe Danner). The family is brought together this time for a celebration of Greg and Pam's twin's birthday party. All the while, Jack is intent on choosing a new patriarch for the family as his health is declining and he looks into Greg as taking over the position.
It seems that this movie was put together willy-nilly in order to make some quick cash. Honestly, it's not that funny, with the exception of maybe 2 scenes in the movie. The talent of the actors is dreadfully wasted and the script was poorly written, trying to wring the last little bit of comedy out the same jokes you have already seen in the previous 2 installments. The only real time you will have a good belly laugh is a scene involving male genitalia, a syringe, and a child that will be scarred for life. You may have even already seen this scene if you have seen any of the trailers.
This is one movie that really didn't need to be made and should not have been made. As football great Vince Lombardi used to say "We didn't lose the game, we just ran out of time". This franchise has now offically lost the game and has ran out of time. How you can get this many good actors in one movie and still end up with something this unfunny and unentertaining is beyond my understanding.
According to SNL's Jack Handey, "If you're robbing a bank and your pants fall down, I think it's ok to laugh, and let your hostages laugh too, because come on - life is funny." This movie is not.
I give this a 3 out of 10.
The Other Guys.....
When you think of Director/Writer Adam McKay teaming up with Will Ferrell, you think great comedies like Anchorman and Talladega Nights, however with this latest offering from the pair it would seem that they are on a sharp downward spiral. Apparently they used up all their comedy strength in those 2 movies and forgot to save some for their last 2 movies together; Step Brothers (incredibly bad movie) and this one.
The Other Guys stars Mark Wahlberg (Shooter, Date Night) and Will Ferrell as detective partners who seem to be the brunt of all the police department's jokes. When the rock star, top cops (The Rock, or whatever his real name is, and Samuel L. Jackson) die, Wahlberg and Ferrell get their chance to rise to the top. However, things don't go so well as they are investigating and trying to bring down a criminal capitalist, played by Brit actor Steve Coogan (best known for his Night at the Museum roles).
The film opens with a fun, entertaining, and completely over the top action scene with Rock and Jackson chasing down some bad guys and causing millions in damage across the city for a small time robbery. This is played out very well and very funny. Rock and Jackson actually stole the few scenes they were in and would probably have made the movie worthwhile had they not died in the very beginning.
After their deaths the movie changes over to Wahlberg and Ferrell and focuses in on their attempted climb to the limelight of the detective world. Ferrell played the usual character he doesn't tend to stray too far from and he did an alright job. Wahlberg on the other hand is just not suited for comedy. He was painfully obvious in his overacting and it was easy to tell he was trying waaaaaay too hard to be funny and fit a character mold.
There were definitely some quotable moments sprinkled throughout the movie, however, much like Wahlberg's acting, these were completely overdone to the point that they were no longer funny and just a tad annoying. The plot was thin to say the least and the movie as a whole felt like it was just one scene of attempted (but failed) comedy after another with some semblance of plot thrown in as a last-minute after-thought. This would have been fine had the movie actually been funny.
As a huge fan of both Wahlberg or Ferrell, this movie is a disappointment and runs the risk of ruining your "fanship" with either actor. Unless you are interested in spending money to fall asleep in front of your TV, I would suggest not spending any money on renting this one and maybe catch a few clips of it when it makes its way to late night cable.
I give this a 4 out of 10.
When you think of Director/Writer Adam McKay teaming up with Will Ferrell, you think great comedies like Anchorman and Talladega Nights, however with this latest offering from the pair it would seem that they are on a sharp downward spiral. Apparently they used up all their comedy strength in those 2 movies and forgot to save some for their last 2 movies together; Step Brothers (incredibly bad movie) and this one.
The Other Guys stars Mark Wahlberg (Shooter, Date Night) and Will Ferrell as detective partners who seem to be the brunt of all the police department's jokes. When the rock star, top cops (The Rock, or whatever his real name is, and Samuel L. Jackson) die, Wahlberg and Ferrell get their chance to rise to the top. However, things don't go so well as they are investigating and trying to bring down a criminal capitalist, played by Brit actor Steve Coogan (best known for his Night at the Museum roles).
The film opens with a fun, entertaining, and completely over the top action scene with Rock and Jackson chasing down some bad guys and causing millions in damage across the city for a small time robbery. This is played out very well and very funny. Rock and Jackson actually stole the few scenes they were in and would probably have made the movie worthwhile had they not died in the very beginning.
After their deaths the movie changes over to Wahlberg and Ferrell and focuses in on their attempted climb to the limelight of the detective world. Ferrell played the usual character he doesn't tend to stray too far from and he did an alright job. Wahlberg on the other hand is just not suited for comedy. He was painfully obvious in his overacting and it was easy to tell he was trying waaaaaay too hard to be funny and fit a character mold.
There were definitely some quotable moments sprinkled throughout the movie, however, much like Wahlberg's acting, these were completely overdone to the point that they were no longer funny and just a tad annoying. The plot was thin to say the least and the movie as a whole felt like it was just one scene of attempted (but failed) comedy after another with some semblance of plot thrown in as a last-minute after-thought. This would have been fine had the movie actually been funny.
As a huge fan of both Wahlberg or Ferrell, this movie is a disappointment and runs the risk of ruining your "fanship" with either actor. Unless you are interested in spending money to fall asleep in front of your TV, I would suggest not spending any money on renting this one and maybe catch a few clips of it when it makes its way to late night cable.
I give this a 4 out of 10.
X
User Lists
other guys was good.
The A-Team – 8
Once upon a time, in a land far, far away there was the ’80s. The ’80s were a wonderous time filled with wonderous people (poofy hair and great fashion) and even more wonderous entertainment was available. It was a time of great cinema (Raging Bull, ET, the list could go on and on) and great TV shows. The A-Team is one such show that is rembered fondly. It only makes sense that an updated movie was made.
The A-Team movie brings together a group of black ops Army Rangers (now veterans of the Iraq war), who are wrongfully accused of stealing money printing plates, and then set out to clear their name. They are assisted along the way by a CIA spook intent on recovering the plates and are chased by a military officer played by Jessica Biel (Grrrr). Action ensues as does comedic adventure.
As expected of any product based out of the ’80s, this movie is cheesy, yet thrives in its cheese to be a well made movie. Some of the situations are predictable as are their resolutions, however, it is simply a fun movie to watch. The ensemble that makes up the A-Team did an excellent job. Bradley Cooper (The Hangover) does an amazing job as Faceman and plays the part hilariously. Liam Neeson (Star Wars, Taken) played Hannibal Smith brillantly as the leader of the group. Crazy man Murdoch, played by Sharlto Copley (District 9) was done well and was perhaps the funniest of the bunch.
The one downfall is B.A. Baracus played by Quinton ‘Ramapage’ Jackson (UFC/MMA fame), the only one of the bunch who is not an actor by trade. B.A. was previously played by and helped to make famous Mr. T, a tough guy with funny quips like “I pity the fool”. This time around he is more pansy than tough guy, his quips fall short of being funny, and his part is written to be too “ghettofied”.
The team’s interactions with one another are fun to watch, the plot is good enough to carry the movie, and the dialogue, although it does not make sense at times and at other times is very cheesy, still works and provides a healthy dose of comedy. The action scenes are great (who doesn’t love a good explosion here and there and plenty of gun-fire?) and the originality of the stunts are both fun and exciting.
It’s hard to see why this did not do well in the theaters, but with so many ’80s remakes happening, maybe moviegoers are ready for something different. This is a movie to be enjoyed for the reason it was made, to be a fun, summer, popcorn type movie and nothing more. This isn’t a thinking man’s movie, this won’t make you ponder the meaning of life. What it will do however, is take you out of the hustle and bustle of the world for a couple hours and entertain you to no end. This is the kind of movie friday nights are made for, and is definitely one you want to spend your hard-earned money on.
I give this an 8 out of 10.
Once upon a time, in a land far, far away there was the ’80s. The ’80s were a wonderous time filled with wonderous people (poofy hair and great fashion) and even more wonderous entertainment was available. It was a time of great cinema (Raging Bull, ET, the list could go on and on) and great TV shows. The A-Team is one such show that is rembered fondly. It only makes sense that an updated movie was made.
The A-Team movie brings together a group of black ops Army Rangers (now veterans of the Iraq war), who are wrongfully accused of stealing money printing plates, and then set out to clear their name. They are assisted along the way by a CIA spook intent on recovering the plates and are chased by a military officer played by Jessica Biel (Grrrr). Action ensues as does comedic adventure.
As expected of any product based out of the ’80s, this movie is cheesy, yet thrives in its cheese to be a well made movie. Some of the situations are predictable as are their resolutions, however, it is simply a fun movie to watch. The ensemble that makes up the A-Team did an excellent job. Bradley Cooper (The Hangover) does an amazing job as Faceman and plays the part hilariously. Liam Neeson (Star Wars, Taken) played Hannibal Smith brillantly as the leader of the group. Crazy man Murdoch, played by Sharlto Copley (District 9) was done well and was perhaps the funniest of the bunch.
The one downfall is B.A. Baracus played by Quinton ‘Ramapage’ Jackson (UFC/MMA fame), the only one of the bunch who is not an actor by trade. B.A. was previously played by and helped to make famous Mr. T, a tough guy with funny quips like “I pity the fool”. This time around he is more pansy than tough guy, his quips fall short of being funny, and his part is written to be too “ghettofied”.
The team’s interactions with one another are fun to watch, the plot is good enough to carry the movie, and the dialogue, although it does not make sense at times and at other times is very cheesy, still works and provides a healthy dose of comedy. The action scenes are great (who doesn’t love a good explosion here and there and plenty of gun-fire?) and the originality of the stunts are both fun and exciting.
It’s hard to see why this did not do well in the theaters, but with so many ’80s remakes happening, maybe moviegoers are ready for something different. This is a movie to be enjoyed for the reason it was made, to be a fun, summer, popcorn type movie and nothing more. This isn’t a thinking man’s movie, this won’t make you ponder the meaning of life. What it will do however, is take you out of the hustle and bustle of the world for a couple hours and entertain you to no end. This is the kind of movie friday nights are made for, and is definitely one you want to spend your hard-earned money on.
I give this an 8 out of 10.
There are some movies out there that will cause you to really think about things, like how far is this whole internet thing going to push boundaries? Can it really get any worse than it is now? Are there still places hidden in the deep dark corners of the online world that are more horrific than what can be found in plain view? With the rise of cyber-crimes in recent years and the pushing of the boundaries of disgusting in the world, what's the next step? Here's a movie that attempts to answer a few of those questions.
FBI cyber-crime agents Jennifer Marsh and Griffin Dowd (Diane Lane and Colin Hanks) investigate and bust all types of cyber-crimes. When Marsh is anonymously tipped off (this is never shown or explained by the way) to a new website "Kill With Me" she finds a seemingly untraceable website in which a killer posts live video of his victims being slowly killed in all manner of torturous ways. The catch is that the more people view the video, the faster the victim dies and this quickly becomes another tedious game of cat and mouse.
This is your typical crime drama featuring a team of good guys pitted against one bad guy who is toying with the good guys. The thing that sets this one apart is the fact that it includes technology, the internet.
This is one movie that seems to have been a wonderful idea in the beginning but being helmed by a team of first-time writers, the script falls short at times, leaving many holes in the plot and introducing new sub-plots constantly that are never explained or resolved.
Despite the glaring mistakes made in the writing and therefore storyline, there is just something unexplainable about this movie that makes it enjoyable and fascinating enough to keep watching it. The acting in the movie was so-so, considering they employed one of the great leading ladies in Lane and a not too shabby up and comer, Hanks. The suspense was done well and it just seems to have that animal magnetism that draws you in.
If you are able to look past the few scenes of "torture-porn", that seem to be more and more prevalent in movies these days, this one is surprisingly fairly good. I wouldn't rush out and buy it, but it is definitely worth a viewing.
I give this a 7 out of 10.
When you are courting a nice girl an hour seems like a second. When you sit on a red-hot cinder a second seems like an hour. That's relativity. - Albert Einstein
That's the whole premise of my review of this movie. When a movie is good, it feels like it lasts a second, when a movie is bad, it feels like hours and hours of torture. This movie falls into that second category. It's a product of Hollywood trying to suckle every last dime out of the horror sub-genre "lost footage" gimmick that has worked with other movies and in the process, the movie-goers are paying the price.
The Last Exorcism is about a southern son of a preacher who has taken over the family trade. He is full of southern charm, very witty, and is using a documentary crew to expose how exorcisms are a psychological fake out. Rev. Cotton Marcus (Patrick Fabian) takes the documentary crew to a small rural farmhouse to "perform" an exorcism and take money from the poor farmer who is willing to do whatever it takes to "heal" his daughter. This time around however, the joke may be on the Rev.
This really looked like a promising movie for about the first 20-30 minutes. Fabian played his character very well and was about as charming and funny as they come, showing that unique personality that southerns have. His acting was great and he really made you like his character.
The premise that exorcisms are fake and are used to exploit those that are suffering from mental health problems was an interesting concept and to have this southern charmer then facing his first potentially real exorcism was a great idea on paper. However, the movie pacing was terrible, the acting of everyone else in the movie was terrible and the plot took a dramatic nosedive towards the end with the single most ridiculous "twist" ending in cinema.
You should definitely not waste a dime on this. You should definitely not waste a good free rental coupon. You should definitely not even waste the time if a friend invites you over to watch this. This is one of the few movies that will truly make you angry after watching it. But as our single best president ever said:
I have opinions of my own -- strong opinions -- but I don't always agree with them. -George W. Bush
I give this a 3 out of 10.
Oh, boy, here we go again! This time it's a mix, part another horrible, watered-down rom-com with Jennifer Aniston (who seems to only make terribly boring romantic comedies since her Friends days) and part watered-down, unfunny comedy from Adam Sandler (anyone remember his last funny movie? Certainly not Grown Ups). The big question is this, does adding these two formulaic actors and their respective formulaic genres together equal double formulaic trash? Or do two wrongs actually equal a right this time?
Just Go With It is a story about Danny (Sandler) who had his heart broken years before (classic Sandler '80's scenes show this) and now uses a fake wedding ring as his prop in picking up random women. Once he finally meets the woman of his dreams, Palmer (Brooklyn Decker), she finds his prop ring and Danny is forced to make up lie after lie to cover it up. Danny asks his assistant Katherine (Jennifer Aniston) to pose as his fake soon-to-be-ex-wife and her children to pose as his fake children. These lies culminate in a trip to Hawaii with Danny, Palmer, Katherine, the kids, and Eddie (Nick Swardson posing as Katherine fake boyfriend).
Sound confusing yet? It's really not and the truth of the matter is, this is a great movie. It's very funny with the kids and Swardson stealing every scene they are in. Sure there are parts in the movie where it's obvious they are trying too hard, but given Sandler and Aniston's track record in recent years, some leeway can be given. The script is well written and it's fun to see how tangled up the lies get.
The interactions between Aniston and Sandler seemed very fluid and natural which made it easy to become involved in their relationship. The child actors did a phenomenal job, especially the girl (Bailee Madison) who was hilarious throughout. Being a Sandler flick with a Sandler director (Dennis Dugan who has directed most of Sandler's more recent films) there is some cheese in the movie along with the required cameos from the guys in Sandler's camp. Nicole Kidman and Dave Matthews also made appearances as an over-the-top couple and both did a tremendous job. Not to mention that Swardson is one of the funniest guys around although he rarely gets credit.
The movie features plenty of laughs and eye-candy for the guys, and plenty of cheesy romance for the ladies. Apparently two wrongs DO make a right and this is the perfect movie to take your valentine out to see, money well spent.
I give this an 8 out of 10.
