anarresa

I saw a preview of Inside Llewyn Davis last night. The press got the best seats reserved and members of the local folk station, which is playing several cuts from the soundtrack, got the rest. It was a logical move to fill the seats with people who should like the movie and fans of folk from the 60s through today should like the movie. The many songs are nearly all full length and performed by proper musicians (and Justin Timberlake.) Oscar Isaac is actually an actor now, but began as a musician and plays a struggling musician in 1961 New York City. I can't say if he's a good actor or well cast, but he is a great performer. Despite my dig at Timberlake, mostly due to his perfectly appropriate branding, he performed well also. His fans are unlikely to enjoy his performance, he plays folk songs in the style of Peter, Paul and Mary. That's not the only surreal aspect to the movie since it is fully Joel and Ethan Coen. This one is very dark, far more like No Country for Old Men than O Brother Where Art Thou despite the music, and funny if you like their humor (I do.) The Coen-style conversation is covered by Carey Mulligan and John Goodman with many other characters providing one-liners and other humorous moments, proper actors all. Music fans and Coen fans will all enjoy parts of the film, and soundtrack fans and Coen fans will love the final result. Hope it comes to a theater near you.

I read the Hunger Games for a book group and thought it was a good teen novel, light entertainment for adults and mediocre dystopian literature. I was intrigued by the arena and the future technology employed in the fight to the death, though (I was a fan of The Running Man back in the 80s as well.) So I made the comment the story would work well as an action movie. I was told it was going to be a movie, and now it is.

Alas, as a teen novel it had to be made PG-13 and to keep that rating the children-killing-children aspect had to be toned down. It was handled by jerky, out-of-focus shots of the actual murders, with clear visuals of either the dead bodies or of the splash of blood or sometimes just an eerie scream. Intense for younger children, appropriate for the target audience, somewhat dull for my bloody taste. I went on a bargain evening though, so for $7 I'm actually satisfied.

It's not a cheesy Twilight-like teen romance. The main subject (beyond the story of the central character, Katniss) seems to be the carefully planned violence and tribute "storylines" of the "reality" broadcasts. It not-so-subtly parallels our own viewing habits and personally I enjoyed the irony. A love story does play a small role, about equal to that of the emotional toll on the children being forced to kill-or-be-killed. Worth a viewing if you have any interest.

The current score of this movie is 4 and unless you are a devoted fan of the books that's harsh. If you are in love with the twenty or so books you must have known less than two hours worth of movie will never compare, ever. I sympathize, beloved books are difficult to put on film, but this was actually rather amusing. On par with most romantic comedies and even better than some. It's not actually a romantic comedy though, an outlandish-girly-action-mystery-comedy is a more accurate description. The previews are representative of the film.

I will say the PG-13 rating was forced, mostly in the "language" category. Cable TV after 10 pm has more bite. An R rating with a few swearing felons would have been a bit more realistic, especially since the sexual situations are more than a 13-year-old should be watching and the storyline definitely adult. The writers must have sacrificed 10 swears for 3 bras and a shower curtain or something equally un-creative.

The comedy was there, sexual and self-deprecating and physical as advertised. On opening weekend (with the $6 groupon) the theater was full and the audience was seated throughout and laughing regularly.

Eavesdropping, the book fans were a little disappointed but mostly because they know so much more about the characters at this point. They wanted more Lula and Grandma and quirky little side scenes they remembered from the novel. Katherine Heigl was not loved as Stephanie Plum, but not hated enough to curse. Expectations were met.

I will agree it wasn't worth $11.25, but a lot of movies aren't. As a matinée or a DVD, go for it.

I did enjoy True Grit. I do love a western of any kind though, and the Coen Brothers under most circumstances. I do not believe this has wide appeal. While I think the actors all did their jobs properly, per the script and director, the whole cast came off like residents of an assisted living facility. Not mentally impaired enough to be institutionalized, but not mentally proficient enough to live and work independently. The young Mattie was the exception, and quite a scene stealer (though do note everyone else came off retarded so that wasn't hard.) To compare, the Fargo cast was a little simple, a little odd, but you knew there was appropriate intelligence behind humorous exterior. Here you don't feel that. My sister actually turned to ask why they were talking like idiots, and I had no answer. Rooster was hard-drinking and tough, and sometimes came off as clever and knowledgeable about his chosen profession, but sometimes was just too weird. Matt Damon actually came off like a certain comedian's (unfavorable) impression of him. As a talkative Texas Ranger, proud and a little out of his depth, he could have been presented more intelligently. The murderer Tom Chaney was most appropriately stupid, and a little crazy, but amongst the cast didn't stand out as such because everyone was so strange. The enjoyment comes from this oddness, because the story is very basic, probably straight from the original film and novel (neither of which I had access to before watching this version.) I would recommend those interested rent the movie, which is what I would do if I could turn back time. Those put off by the Coen Brothers normally, but perhaps attracted by the positive reviews or talented cast, avoid this altogether.

This was far more than the inspirational sports movie whose category it may fall under, though in that respect it satisfies as well. It was darker and funnier and deeper than the previews indicated. Both the sport and family fights of boxers Micky Ward and Dicky Eklund are dramatized here, along with a striking representation of working class Lowell. This is where much of the humor came in, at least for the Worcester, MA audience. The Eklund/Ward family are a bit of a caricature, chain smoking and full of attitude and profanity, but so very close to the truth we all saw a relative, friend, neighbor, ourselves. The close knit neighborhood communities are also shown. Pick your MA city and the movie could have been filmed there. It could translate to other locales, but if not the story itself is still great. Every major character was portrayed excellently. I was surprised by Wahlberg's gravity (and fantastic physique, if you're interested) and Adams' grittiness. I was also reminded of Bale's talent, there was a clip in the credit of the real Eklund and Bale was spot-on. Action, drama, humor and redemption come together for one of the best movies of the year.

For 2 hours, 14 minutes and 50 seconds this was an incredible movie. A perfect 10. There were flawless effects, creative and beautiful. A complex story that was still comprehensible, it begged to be watched again and again. Good acting for fun and interesting characters. Drama, humor, action, everything you could want from a movie. Usual Suspects crossed with Gattaca crossed with James Bond... just great.

So why the vote of 8?

A weak, indecisive, pathetic, lousy, pick-your-derogatory-adjective 10 second ending. I am not alone in my opinion, the majority of the audience scoffed, jeered or sighed in disgust at the final scene. A proper ending was possible. Two endings as a matter of fact. I had one preference, some may have chosen the other option, but too not choose... it's the worse offence. My preferred ending would have garnered this film a 10, the other ending a 9, the lack of ending brought it all the way down to an 8 and I'll certainly never purchase this on DVD. So disappointing.

I saw this movie with expectations of a generic romantic comedy. Those expectations were met, if the whole was more romance and less comedy than is standard. Those interested in the previews will be satisfied with the movie. I was less satisfied because there were so many intriguing ideas and quirky characters and intelligent lines that showed a glimpse of what this movie could have been, but clearly was not. The concept of the Secretaries of Juliet answering women's letters has such potential, not just as a plain romantic comedy but as a more stimulating film. Just the back story of how the society formed and how those particular women got involved would be interesting. Hopefully someone will be inspired, literary adaptations always being popular. Even just as a romantic comedy the search for a lost love 50 years later could have been more exciting when the Italian background, a sassy granny, a practical Englishman and a romantic writer are taken into account. This movie fell flat I believe because of the direction. The actors seemed to be floundering, like the final cut was from the first or second take. With a little practice and advice they could have expressed realistic emotion, but they didn't seem to get the chance. The plot and dialogue could have used some fleshing out as well, to build character and suspense. That seemed to be an editing issue more than a writing issue, conversations cut short and scenes quickly switching, so again the director's fault. Plain bad movies are never as annoying as mediocre movies that could have been good with just a little more effort.

I saw this as part of a double feature, had no expectations going in. It is probably the most exciting and stunning film a 12-year-old boy has ever seen, for an adult it's silly and fun and utterly unrealistic.

I enjoyed it.

Here's my issue/warning: I thought it was the Middle Eastern twin bother of In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale (I had to go look it up, neither movie is that memorable). For reasons I don't quite understand people HATED that movie. This movie has all the same characteristics: lots of special effects fighting, special effects landscapes, impossible anatomical movements, ridiculous evil characters, PG romance, PG family tensions, no sense of history or travel, creative fighting tools and techniques, a silly sense of self, light comedy, respectable but smaller-name actors. I actually thought it was going to have the same writers and director, but no. Prince has a slightly bigger budget which led to bigger fake landscapes, but that's about it. If you hated the King movie I can't imagine you'll like this, but the reverse is also true, if you enjoyed this you really should like the King movie.

I was a fan of Gladiator and wanted to see Russell Crowe as an action-leader-of-men again. I was hoping they wouldn't destroy the character of Robin Hood the way Sherlock Holmes was recently destroyed, but Robin Hood is a more flexible archetype rather than a straight character so I plunged in (drive-in double feature, can't beat it).

It was a successful movie, a traditional version of Robin Hood, reasonable English history, though not accurate, if you are particular. I imagine Gladiator was similar but am less familiar with Roman history. There was more focus on Robin Hood's early brushes with injustice and political intrigue than his later traditional thieving activities. I was most appreciative of the inclusion of the side characters. Alan a'Dale (Alan Doyle from Great Big Sea, FANTASTIC surprise), Will Scarlet and Friar Tuck were present, though not major characters. What would have been their screen-time was split with Prince/King John, his family and advisors, along with some other noble figures. "Maid" Marian was very well designed (I was wondering how it would work with her being older) and Cate Blanchett made full use of her little time.

Not a non-stop action fest like I expected, very much on par with Gladiator (if less interesting overall) and worth a viewing.

A more current version of The Running Man, which includes today's better computer effects but also our utter, degenerate vulgarity and shocking apathy. There were insidious violent aspects to this far beyond the blood and gore. The "Society", a reality-game within the movie, revels in all the worst traits of humanity, and blatantly displays them. An adult could separate, or at least recognize, the psychological dark moments. I would never recommend even a young adult, let alone teen, watch this. Sadly, I'm sure it's targeted for just that audience. Beyond all that was just an action romp. Alone it would have been a great action romp, from cast to effects, but with those disgusting moments of depravity I just couldn't enjoy the movie.

The previews I saw were vague so I had little expectation and got the DVD based on general "good" reviews. The movie was certainly filmed well. It uses a documentary style, but a very professional and cleanly filmed documentary, not like the Blair Witch style. On-the-scene footage mixes with interviews and clips of security footage to set the background and then real time scenes move the story forward with no relation to the documentary. Subtitles are a necessity, I hope the theatrical version added them where needed. The aliens might be entirely CGI, or maybe a mixture of CGI and puppetry, but they were excellently rendered. The technology is finally up to interaction with real actors. So there are several aspects that deserve the good reviews.

My low review score is based on the fact I had to stop a little more than an hour in because the story was just too dark. Almost every human in it was crudely and casually violent, cruel, and uncaring, both to the "prawns" and other humans. It was a cast of near psychopaths. I don't need a happy movie, and I certainly expected violence and prejudice based on the film's description, but it was so unfeeling as to be unbelievable for me. Yes there's cruelty and torture in the world and apathy, especially from a distance, but my town doesn't get together to run crazy experiments, riot, murder and eat our foreign neighbors simply because they're different, and bug-like aliens or not these were clearly sentient beings so that's the parallel. I would have preferred more subtle discrimination with perhaps a few scenes of cruelty to show what humanity is capable of. The Johannasburg citizens are a part of the developed world, it could have been Paris or Washington or Shanghai. And scenes that reminded me of the Rwandan genocide descriptions were plopped right downtown. The evil corporation and mercenaries were too much for me. Just be aware of the tone before viewing.

Where did this come from? I just caught this on a movie channel. I don't remember seeing advertisements for this and it was quite enjoyable with several respectable actors and nice overall styling. I see several portions were filmed in England, and the actors and the "look" reflect that. The special effects were only so-so, but the sets and costuming made up for the few budgeted computer effects, which didn't impact the plot or pacing of the movie, so all is forgiven.

It was good for families, along the lines of Harry Potter and Rataouille, so that adults, teens and older children can all watch together. Even individually. There were no children around and I still watched it:) It wasn't the highest caliber drama or action, but a fairly creative idea executed well and kept fun throughout. I'm a big reader so the book-characters-to-life concept is a favorite of mine, one that's not overdone. I recommend it.

I got this on DVD because I wasn't interested enough to see it in theaters, and apparently I wasn't interested enough to see it on DVD. I found it incredibly dull and difficult to understand everyone's odd accents. There were some Midwestern attempts I believe, and I swear some were going for British (?!) or maybe just "East coast elite". I don't know and it would have been more successful if they all just skipped it. Christian Bale can keep his unusual American accent though, it's comprehensible and I think his normal accent is still thick British so that would have been out of place.

Some movies need to be 2 hr 20 min, this one needed to be 1 hr 45 min. I think I would have preferred an upbeat action film, not a docu-drama. It was stylish and the actors were certainly good if the plot interests you, I just thought the story and execution boring.

I'm not sure the target audience age for this, perhaps it IS families. There were dozens of kids in the theater with us, I'd say from 8 on up, and none left because they were too frightened or too bored. I would be careful with your particular child: there are action scenes, vivid deaths, loud noises and creatures that as an adult I found rather disturbing. The previews are representative of the whole.

That leads into the fact this was visually creative and wonderful. The animation and overall scene direction definitely carry this movie, I recommend seeing in a theater or with a large HD TV.

The characters were a little flat. Once you learn their purpose you look back and think there could have been a few more scenes to flesh them out. You shouldn't be confused though, an adult with some experience with alternate history and sci-fi won't even be surprised. A child might need a little explanation.

Same with the storyline: it took a while to get to the crux, kids might need a bit of help, but it was all there and understandable. It's a little weak, but the purpose of this film was the "look". I'd say the story and characters were comparable to a standard horror or romantic comedy, it's never going to wow you but it gets the job done.

I was a little nervous about the plot of the film. Would it be a generic romantic comedy or a dull pre-mid-life crisis drama? In the end I couldn't resist Meryl Streep's preview portrayal of Julia Child so I gave it a shot. I think it came out incredibly fun, adorable and sweet. That makes it sound like a very girly movie, but that's mostly my view, the whole audience, male and female, chuckled throughout. It's quasi-biographical with an emphasis on comedy and love of food. It was fairly well put together also, the actors were well-suited to their roles and the food realistically prepared and thoroughly enjoyed. The parallels between Julia Child's flashbacks and Julie's life were a bit heavy-handed but it worked for this particular film because the segments of each were so long. I'm sure there is only a hint of "true story" since the movie was based on books that were based on reality, so don't go looking for a detailed biography. If you were intrigued by the previews you will enjoy the movie.

This film really has two different views, how good a movie it is and how good a Star Trek resurrection it is. As a movie it's a fun big-budget action film. The effects were incredible, exactly what every movie should aspire to emulate. Computer effects were used where necessary and attention was paid to the detail so it never detracted from the story. Physical effects/action were used where they would be best appreciated and would help to keep the audience (and actors) in the story. The plot was coherent enough for enjoyment, though it was clearly an action film and not a drama. I'm not sure how humorous it would be if you're not familiar with the Star Trek characters, but there were enough little tidbits just for the fun of it that everyone should get at least a chuckle or two. Highly recommended if you are looking for a good shoot 'em up time. If you're a big Trek fan, I (and my mother, also a big Trek fan) thought these characters were very believable as the younger selves of the original icons. All the necessary nods were included and most of the humor stemmed from this. That said, I'm not sure I could ever watch another film with these characters. The story veered greatly from the original history and some of the branches are just a little too weird for my fan comfort (I'm sure someone with spoilers will make mention of these few oddities). I liked having this glimpse into their youth but if any future movie is made I hope they will place new characters into this universe with the same style, careful action and fun.

I'll start with the three good parts of the movie.

I liked Gambit's style and power (there was a peek of it in the previews) he was fun.

I loved Deathpool/XI's makeup, it was freaky and well done.

Hugh Jackman is still sexy.

That's the good stuff. Every good moment in the entire movie. The dialogue was incredibly lame (literally, limp and unable to stand on its own, I don't know how the actors got through it.) That's taking into account this is just a comic book action movie. The action could have been good, and I suppose in places was, but everything was GLARINGLY computer generated/enhanced. Sometimes it's needed (this is fantasy) but there were so many instances where a little effort in costumes, location or stuntmen would have helped add just a little realism to the movie: Wolverine's claws, that fat guy (get a suit, really), half the backgrounds, most of the fight scenes... It was WELL below the X-Men franchise's standards. The story seemed to conflict with the first three movies (I'm not a huge fan, I won't say for sure) and even if it didn't it was just so silly, I don't know what they were trying to do. Characters barely came in before they were never seen again, some I don't even know what their powers were. I didn't care about anyone. I hope they just let this franchise end, movie-wise.

There was a solid enough suspense story to this film, but it was the action that was unexpected and exciting. There was very little (or very unobtrusive) digital special effects, which is so rare nowadays. There was plenty of quick fights with guns, hands, knives and other handy equipment. A lot of "MacGyver" moments, some car chases and cool spy stuff. I wouldn't say it always kept you guessing, but there were plenty of gasps and more than enough interesting bits throughout. I think what really impressed me is that there were REAL actors/stuntmen on film, moving about, no digital enhancement needed, and it looked great. I saw this at the drive-in after Wolverine and that was full of poorly finished computer effects and overdone fight scenes that ruined the movie. This was a perfect contrast and a better film.

There were excellent performances, the Oscars this year are out of my mind already but I'm sure this won a few acting awards. The story was dull though. I didn't really want to see it but watched with friends. I wasn't alive in the 60s and I've no connection to the Catholic church or it's scandals, there was nothing of interest for me. If you WERE interested in the movie you probably would like it, it was okay overall. It did annoyingly jump from loud music and conversation to silence a little too often, it wasn't an effective technique because it was overused. It also reveled a little too much in everyone's "doubts." I can definitely see how it was once (or still is) a play, there certainly was a similar feel to the theater.

This adaptation is getting the full brunt of my annoyance with films that were once musicals yet don't hire theatrical actors. It's a totally different style of acting, particularly with musicals where you need to sing and dance and be aware of your whole body every second of the song. I say sing but really they ridiculously lip-synch and dance, another annoyance. If actors and musicians can do it every night on stage why can't a film actor do it for a few scenes a few times a day! Stagger the filming so no one is singing too much at once, know what your doing physically so it's only a couple takes. I'd rather see little cutting bloopers than the weird mouth movements and missed dance steps of fake singing! This is a romantic comedy cast and what looks like random Greek locals who accidentally stumbled into a musical and tried to make the best of it. I'm blaming the director for the uncontrolled mess they made of it, because I'm blaming him also for the choppy cutting between pretty Greek locations and crappy CGI backgrounds- again, plan ahead in your filming!

Other than several tiny points which drive me crazy this is just the fun, silly musical it advertises itself to be and on which people based their recommendation to me. Good for a light evening or weekend afternoon viewing. Make sure you like ABBA first, this is a full-fledged musical.

I was very pleasantly surprised by the humor, nobility, fear and love expressed by this film. It's not despite the animation but because of it. If human characters tried to replicate this film it would just be average. The lack of overall detail drawn in the characters serves to highlight the subtle (and exaggerated) changes in their faces when they express emotion. It's similar to puppetry or reading, the imagination is captured to fill in the missing detail. The animators (from the directors on down) were top notch, I need to watch this film again just to savor the visuals.

The plot is not sacrificed for the visuals either. The story is political and even though it is about Iran it's really about any country, any revolution, any wartime, any time of restricted freedom. And any coming of age. Marjane goes from child to woman and we all can relate to that, yes women probably more than men but adolescence is much the same.

This film will speak to any one and so I'd recommend it for everyone.

I saw The Dark Knight this afternoon and enjoyed it. It had a light psychological storyline similar to Batman Begins and lots of crazy action sequences within a city/set more realistic than the average CGI comic book movie, all in all a good time.

When I returned to add a comment and saw that this was the #1 movie with 9.7 rating I thought, "WHAT!" It's just a comic book movie that clearly and successfully aims for and holds back to be a PG-13 family summer blockbuster. Do NOT expect more than that. There are no serious injuries, no blood, no cussing, and everything works out OK in the end. Yes the Joker is a crazy weird guy (like the first Batman but with more "natural" and freakier makeup) but the fear he instills in the city is not felt by the audience because no one is shown to be harmed by him. Harvey Two-Face's transformation could have been fabulous but the special effect damage to his face was the same as this year's Terminator television series, completely unrealistic (unless you're a futuristic robot) to keep the PG-13 rating. The audience doesn't feel his pain and I was actually jarred every time he spoke because it's not physically possible, like watching a dubbed dialogue.

If you enjoyed Batman Begins (or Batman and Batman Returns) you'll enjoy this movie, if you aren't a fan of action comic book films don't be swayed to believe this is anything more.

I was excited when I heard of a new Indiana Jones, then worried when I saw how old Harrison Ford got, excited anyway because I love Indy, worried when I saw the CGI previews, and on and on. After seeing the film I decided it was worth it. The story is more over-the-top than the previous films (and for the "franchise" that's saying something) but it's respectful to the fans and the time that has past and even a bit more fun in some situations because it's not just another movie, it's a love of all things Indiana Jones. Yes the CGI and plot are a bit over-reaching (though the ark of the covenant wasn't all that grounded) but this is NOTHING like the disaster that was Star Wars 1-3. Re-watch Raiders of the Lost Ark (you know you want to) and go looking for a good time.

I really love westerns. The stories, the gunfights, the scenery, the slightly over-the-top characters- all of it. However I'm in my 20s and the heyday of westerns was long before my time (many thanks to cable and premium channels for keeping them alive.) They are dated, both in quality of filming and acting and in freedom of expression. This 3:10 to Yuma captured the spirit of those old westerns with today's more serious acting and improved cinematography and special effects.

The plot was the very definition of a western: war veteran family man, failing ranch, greedy railroad men, gang of outlaws with a dashing leader. Much like the previews suggest and enjoyable the entire time. The acting may not have been "oscar caliber" but everyone was right on character. Ben Foster had no problem on screen with Christian Bale and Russell Crowe, and even the young Logan Lerman (had to go look his name up) held his own. Nice to see Peter Fonda and Alan Tudyk, minor characters but memorable moments.

The violence was stronger than back when, though not deserving of the R it was given. PG-13 only I would think, comparable to the X-Men series or teen horror movies. The eldest son was played by an actor too "young" to see an R movie! PG-13 also for the mild-strong language and sexual situations more vague than a Viagra commercial.

At World's End starts up right away, no real reminders as to what came before, so be sure to be up on Dead Man's Chest before viewing. And do view, At World's End is slightly less silly and slightly more cohesive than Dead Man's Chest, though still not nearly as enjoyable as Curse of the Black Pearl, nor as satisfying overall (story and characters and visuals.) If you haven't see Pirates 1 or 2, don't bother with 3. The thin plot of At World's End will still leave you confused.

The special effects are highly detailed and make for some impressive scenes, though some of the fighting is too improbable and so more like a cartoon than live action (a pet peeve of mine.) Regardless, worthy of the theater's big screen, or a really impressive television. Good fun and humor with Jack Sparrow (and a touch of Keith Richards) oddness, but for my audience it was the Jack the monkey (and the midget) who stole the laughter. See it without high expectations and enjoy.