Kalle_it

I caught this movie by accident, and seeing it was set in Norway and acted in Norwegian I just couldn't help but watching it. As a huge Viking-age buff, and a minor in Scandinavian Studies, I was expecting a lot of familiar lore, as promised by the captivating opening.

Unfortunately it quickly devolved into a "just OK" family-adventure movie, with too much Jurassic Park and too little Edda.

I saw the final twists coming, but that wasn't so bad, as at least I have to give credit to the writer and director for those swerves being well done. Also the family drama subtext was handled in a rather subtle way, while a Hollywood movie would have turned it into the main story arc.

All in all, a decent pop-corn movie that should, and could, have been much deeper and rewarding.

I see how it may have been a case of misplaced expectations, kinda like watching "Troy" or "300" and hoping to find accurate references to the Homeric poems or to ancient history texts...

Gåten Ragnarok is a nice family movie, nothing more, but also nothing less. You won't likely watch it 10 times in the future, but you won't regret having spent time on it, unlike on plenty of other, more popular, expensive and promoted blockbusters.

The premise was hardly new, but still somewhat interesting, for a while.

Your Average TV Nerd (who is a projection of what writers think real nerds/geeks are) somehow gets involved with NSA, CIA etc.

Cue the usual "fish out of water" comedy bits about a hopeless guy dealing with life-threatening situations in a clumsy but surprisingly effective and successful way. All of that with the help of the token Hot Chick, who quickly becomes his love interest, and of a hardened veteran who may or may not be fond of our little cute spy anyway.

Things go definitely downhill as seasons go by, with more and more regular people becoming involved, and by the final season almost every single character is a spy or at least a supporter.

Needless to say, such incremental growth of the amount of actual spies in the show kills the whole premise... Once the "average Chuck" has turned into a skilled intelligence agent, what's the point in watching?

For the hackneyed love story with Sarah? For the convoluted web of spying relationships all across the board?

Not really,and indeed the show's quality has declined sharply. Not that the beginning was that great either, but at least it was sort of funny to follow Chuck threading the water in his newfound "career".

The Breakfast club is still inexplicably kept in high esteem by many, likely due to the ever so present nostalgia factor. Or to bad taste in movies, I suspect.

There isn't much to say about a collection of every stereotype about teenagers and high-school known to man.

A gallery of stock characters talks about standard angst-ridden topics that in such movies are 100x more serious and important than they are in real life. And as if the premise and the "development" (I use the term very very loosely, as there's no remarkable character progression) weren't sloppy enough, we get the sudden pseudo-feelgood finale, which makes even less sense in context.

The ending is baffling because it implies a new scenario which is impossible because the few changes the characters went through were literally cosmetic, and the whole conflict between social expectations and actual personalities wasn't resolved! And how could it be resolved, when the "characters" are paper-thin and basically are what they are?! As the saying goes, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck!

So, the Breakfast club has nothing interesting to offer besides a cookie-cutter teen dramedy with bland characters and a lame ending that sort of makes the whole story arc pointless.

Watch only for nostalgia value. A concept that is lost on a non-American guy who, luckily, didn't have to deal with school-sanctioned sports, proms, clubs etc. Friends and "enemies" were chosen by affinity, or lack thereof, not by predetermined categories.

As it often happens, behind a mediocre movie, there was an interesting idea that, unfortunately, wasn't developed into a good story.

Knock knock is one of those cases.

The quintessential "family man", vaguely goofy, devoted husband and father, gets himself dragged into a dangerous situation involving two alluring strangers who shows up at his door on a stormy night.

Things goes south pretty soon, and the poor, naive, guy finds himself trapped, with charges for paedophilia and murder looming over his head.

Sadly, instead of providing a tense experience, like many other "home invasion" movies, Knock Knock flirts with the comedic side of things, trying to be creepy, scary and quirky at the same time, failing miserably to deliver either scares, social commentary or even uncomfortable fun.

The vaguely ethical theme about all men being potential sexual predators just doesn't work, and the whole paedophilia-incest thing sticks up like a sore thumb.

It's heavily implied the two girls were victims of sexual abuse when they were younger, so they're out for revenge, but then again, maybe not and they're just crazy or deranged women... Whatever ambivalence there was, it was made null and void by the absurdity of the situation.

Even accepting the "good, unsuspecting Samaritan" premise, no man in his right mind would have bought those girls were 15! And who wouldn't have thrown them out long BEFORE they could have had a chance to work their sexual magic on him? Not to mention the defense would have had a field day with housebreaking, assault and battery, property damage...

Bottom line: the movie isn't scary, isn't thought-provoking, isn't even morbidly gory (like other Roth's works)... It's a poor attempt at mixing up several styles, based on a story that doesn't have a much substance or credibility.

P.S. the least said about acting, the better...

Undateable looks like the result of a drunken wager during a creative meeting: "I bet I can fit The Odd Couple, The Big Bang Theory, Cheers and stand-up comedy in one show!".

Bill Lawrence, of Scrubs' fame (among others), is good, but this time he bit much more than he could chew. Undateable has its moments, but it's far from being a coherent product... it's not a surprise they've gone for the Live Show format, with frequent breaks of the fourth wall and a general vibe of semi-improv providing a cheap laugh or an easy way out.

Chris D'Elia and Brent Morin work quite well together, but the material they're given is far from fresh or impressive. The rest of the cast is there just to provide a tiny bit of depth to a paper-thin setup.

There isn't enough amount of awkward singing, one-liners and Guest Stars that can save a rather paint-by-numbers story. Losers and nerds are fun when they have depth... Here we merely have cardboard cutouts. The dork, the pathetic lothario, the weird stoner, the creepo, the gay, the ditz and the aging divorcée... we've seen them before and with more interesting and detailed characterizations.

Sure, the show can make you grin or even smile once or twice per episode, but it's more like the way you laugh at a middle-school play... a bit because it's indeed fun, a bit because you're surprised at them not sucking all the time.

Modern Family proves once again that you can put a thin coat of shiny paint on an old, boring car and sell it as a sports-car.

The show isn't necessarily terrible per se, actually it's watchable and at times even somewhat fun. Still nothing near the level of awesomeness you'd expect from something that has raked up so many awards over the years.

The premise was interesting, but let's be honest, what's so "modern" about those families? When you scratch the surface, it's still playing all the staples (clichés?) of the traditional family sit-com.

Not one but TWO incompetent husbands: Phil is the typical well-meaning, but irremediably childish, middle-aged husband whose job stability and competence is a mystery. Jay is all that, with a sprinkling of Grumpy Old Man for good measure.

Claire is yet another stereotypical stay-at-home mum, whose role is only to play the fussy and shrill counterpart to Phil and the kids. And speaking of shrill, oh boy... Gloria! Could she be more one-dimensional and annoying?

Things don't go much better for the gay couple either. The idea of having a straight man (sorry for the pun...) in Mitchell was OK, too bad he borders on plain dull, still retaining some of the awfully outdated traits of the typical gay man. Traits that reach the grotesque with Cameron... A flaming drama queen who overreacts at everything.

Oh and the kids are, again, from the usual set of characters: the vain daughter (Haley), the brainy 'ugly duckling' (Alex), the thick boy (Luke), the sassy little girl (Lily)... Where they try to go for something unusual, they dig even further... Manny has to be the most absurd persona ever seen on TV. A preteen who acts and talks like a middle-aged man from the 50s is just beyond quirky. It's downright stupid.

So, despite the contemporary spin given to the family ties (extended family, homosexuality, adoption, age difference), the core of the story and of most plots is still way too close to a standard 80s (or older) production. Situations progressively went from vaguely credible to over-the-top and gimmicky as well, as if the whole thing wasn't questionable already.

It still makes for decent casual TV, but definitely not worth all the awards and praises it's been getting.

The smart choice was pandering to the critics and to the cool crowds with the addition of socially relevant topics to a decades-old format. The fact those topics are either mere props or treated with little subtlety hasn't prevented Modern Family from gaining largely undeserved accolades.

Let me get this straight: I'm not going to deny RHPS was likely groundbreaking in its day and dealt with subjects that weren't easily featured in most movies.

However, I'm still baffled by how such a campy and disjointed work has transcended the boundaries of its own niche, achieving pop-culture relevance since.

The whole thing is (consciously?) so out there you can't possibly take it even remotely seriously, regardless of how many times the message (whatever you are, be it!) gets hammered home. Sexuality as a whole is so ridiculously overplayed it loses it's edge after the 3rd musical number featuring what must be the take on cross-dressing/homo- and bisexuality of a horny and confused teenager.

Again, it may have been relevant in the mid-70s, but for today's standards it just looks, sounds and feels lame and painfully outdated, something you'd expect to see in Austin Powers as a throwaway gag.

Maybe even the fans don't take it seriously, and the whole "cosplay" thing is the parody of a parody, but it's hard to tell where the line between ironic fandom and bona-fide support lies.

Either way, to me RHPS is still a terrible movie and a mediocre musical with an incredibly outdated feel to it.

The movie get so many things wrong or depicts them in such a hackneyed way it's hard to take it seriously or to fathom where all the raving reviews came from.

Apparently one of the most violent firms in English football have no qualms about letting in a preppy American student with zero credentials and negative knowledge about football...

But that's fine, because those hooligans aren't terrible people when not dealing with football... One of them is an airline pilot, another one has the odd position of History AND P.E. teacher at a primary school (unrelated subjects, but go figure... those pesky London schools) and he's even allowed to have random strangers play with/give lectures to his kids...

Alas, all good things come to an end when the jealous henchman decides it's time to betray his pals and strikes a deal (for what?) with the leader of their/his fiercest and most deranged rivals... Things take a turn for the worse, the traitor has another change of heart and comes back for the save.

Frodo can now go back to the U.S., a tougher man, but also more mature and fair, because that's the lesson he learned while bonding with a bunch of friendly psychopaths in London.

Last, but surely not least, the hooligans scene depicted in the movie would have vaguely been credible in the mid 80s, with the bleak neighbourhoods, the stereotypical "working class England" setting and, mainly, the complete absence of stadium security that has been enforced since English Football has become a multi-millionaire business that can't be disrupted by a bunch of maladjusted thugs.

P.S. The scene where one of the GSE mocks the rival fans on the pitch dressed as a steward (or being one?!) sums it up pretty well... In contemporary football you couldn't pull it off, not even on the crappiest amateur field, let alone at a Premier League game. You'd not even get close to the stands and you'd be filmed by security cameras from 10 different angles. And no more stadium for you... But apparently the movie takes place in an alternate dimension where no such things exist.

The premise was very intriguing and, let's get this out of our way right now, the lack of gore throughout most of the movie was actually an interesting and refreshing choice.

Unfortunately the positives end pretty much there... The story plods along with nothing really happening, besides family members arguing about "what to do" after the father's untimely demise. The needed ritual to keep the family's eating habits going is much talked about but there's nothing clear about it, and the little we're hinted about in the rather confusing finale is far from satisfying.

Then there's the cookie-cutter social message about poor people struggling in a cold, heartless world, but it's left at a couple of generic shots to the middle-class or to the police (cue a completely gratuitous offer of a very underage prostitute to one of the cops who's after the cannibals, a non-sequitur thrown in just in case the general angsty feel of the movie wasn't heavy-handed enough to get the point across).

As said, even the climax feels rushed, underdeveloped and leaves so many questions unanswered, while still retaining the "or is it..." cliché open ending every dreadful horror movie has.

Bottom line: as a horror movie it's sub-standard on every possible account. As a social drama, it skims over some interesting points and premises, but none of them is adequately with the required insight.

Frankly, I feel this movie gets so much attention because it's a non-Hollywood production AND it fits all the criteria for Artsy Film Festival bait.

I don't get what's supposed to be funny about three generations of women making poor life choices. Promiscuity, teenage pregnancy, alcoholism, drug addiction, drug dealing, deadbeat parents, all-around awful behaviour are hardly comedy material and surely aren't laughing matter if taken as lightly and superficially as the show does.

Frankly there's nothing heartwarming or redeeming about those people... You'd just want to grab them by the neck and shake some sense into them.

Dysfunctionality can be sort of funny (think of all the "zany family" shows, often far from masterpieces, but still watchable), white trash can have its moments, if the wackiness is up eleven (eg. My name is Earl). Even a rather average show like Two Broke Girls manages to handle it better, despite very over-the-top juvenile humour, because the characters are somewhat sympathetic and their struggle becomes endearing.

"Mom", on the other hand, is just a gallery of maladjusted women who still feel some sort of pride about their mistakes and, despite the attempts to portrait it as wrong, don't seem so determined to change.

Because apparently ruining your own life has great comedy value!

Let's get this out of the way: 2 Broke Girls is NOT a refined show, and surely it wasn't meant to be so. Therefore it has to be watched with that in mind, and without expecting high-brow comedy or sophisticated jokes.

The premise is a staple of situation comedies: the odd couple, this time with a female twist. The characters are obviously over the top, and so is the whole setup, but it still retains a weird feel-good vibe that a show so reliant on sex humour could easily have lost.

Sure, at times Max is a walking punchline and the whole "I'm poor and I'm a colossal whore" shtick can get annoying, especially because over the series all the weird stories about her past don't add up. Caroline can be grating as well and the rest of the cast is incredibly one-dimensional, but all in all the formula still works for what the show is supposed to be.

If you're looking for smart comedy or for a pretentious/hip series to elevate to cult status, 2 Broke Girls is surely the wrong pick. On the other hand it's more than adequate to keep you moderately entertained, which is something I can't say about other, more popular and better rated, shows.

Jim isn't funny. Jim is a self-centered, childish, manipulative, petty lying moron. The typical guy you'd hate to have as a coworker, relative or casual acquaintance.

The very basic question is: how did he manage to score such a hot wife? How come she didn't send him packing after a couple of months? Or years? See, that's the big issue I have with the typical "average slob with a hot wife" sit-com premise. Unless Cheryl has an IQ of 60 she should have grown tired of Jim's shenanigans a looong time before the events of the pilot episode.

Instead we get to sit through Jim's stupid antics, while his wife just frowns a bit but ultimately forgives him because apparently love conquers all, even self-respect...

The sidekicks are equally shallow, with the token man-child who's equally annoying as his leader, and the smart-ass girl who's there just to antagonize the main character.

And don't get me started on the kids... As usual, the little girls are the voice of reason and can act in the sassiest way possible because in the end they're right and teach the parents a lesson.

A show where kids are the most mature characters is either a kids' show or a very poorly written one.

Chalk one up for the latter...

Frankly I'm baffled many find the show funny, or even bearable. It's as hackneyed as it can get, without managing to be remotely funny.

I'm astonished by the high ratings and the positive feedback this movie has been getting. The characters are unlikeable, childish and brash while still remaining painfully uninteresting and generic. Their drunken adventures are so over the top you can't help but shaking your head and wonder what the writers and the producers were on when they green-lighted such a mess of a movie. I mean, we expect outlandish adventures from four drunken guys in Vegas, but what they go through in the movie is so ridiculous it requires an insane amount of suspension of disbelief to vaguely buy into the possibility of such events happening.

Or are we supposed to believe you can pretty much thrash a very expensive suite at the Ceasar's Palace without getting caught? Nobody asked questions about the bed on the roof? And since when can you sneak a freaking TIGER in and out of a luxury hotel without anyone noticing? Not to mention the stolen police car and the ludicrous taser scene.

But all those loopholes could have been forgiven had the movie been genuinely funny. Instead it was a predictable sequence of trite gags and jokes so old even your 9-years-old cousin has already heard them before. The only "first" in the movie is the cringeworthy baby-is-masturbating gag, repeated TWICE in case you missed it the first time or didn't find it offensive enough. Stay classy!

The characters have no redeeming qualities so there's no empathy and it's really hard to care about them finding the missing friend, making it back to the wedding or dying in the middle of the desert.

A special mention to Zach Galifianakis'es character: seriously, the moronic and awkward man-child isn't funny, it's just annoying. The fascination Hollywood has with such character is baffling, although probably it represents a fair portion of the core audience for unfunny and inane flicks like The Hangover.

Bottom line: if you're not into low-quality 4th grade toilet humour and/or into road trips involving adults with a mental age lower than their shoe size just avoid this movie.

Or use it as the measuring stick for your friends' skills in movie-recommending. If some of them speaks highly of The Hangover never follow his advice about another movie. Ever.

The plot ins't that complicated and definitely nothing new, falling well into the "boy meets girl and falls for her" category. So in theory we could have a formulaic teenage rom-com.

What in my opinion makes "Amors baller" stand out is the fact the story is developed in a very nice way, as actually seen through the eyes and the heart of young Lucas.

Lucas casually meets the good-looking Susanne, who happens to play football, so he decides to be a football player too just to be around her. He doesn't really care about playing, actually he has NO football background and he'll end up being brought up to the big football tournament because (as the coach himself said) "there's plenty of room on the bench".

During the tournament Lucas and Susanne get closer, but there's a catch... Susanne's boyfriend Petter is the captain and the leader of the male's team (the one with an actual shot at winning the prestigious Norway Cup). Susanne herself doesn't seem to care much about Petter, just as little as he cares about her. What matters is, however, the disruption the sentimental turmoil brings into the locker room... there's a final to play but nobody's in the right mindset to deliver.

There's a high price to pay for Lucas' sentimental escapade... He comes to blows with Petter, he says hurtful words to Susanne and finally he even falls out with his (only) friend Stian, who, as coach-in-the-making, is worried about the locker room's harmony and is then outraged about Lucas chasing the captain's girl the night before the big game.

In the end they'll all do the right thing and most loose threads will be resolved, but in a relatively soft "happy ending". All the characters will get something out of their adventure, but not really in a stereotyped and sappy "happily ever after"... The future is still much open, as it ought to be for teenagers.

All in all the movie is an enjoyable coming-of-age story without the heavy-handedness of other similar flicks.

Sure, there are a couple of flimsy bits (namely, the usual "pretty girl falls for goofy guy clearly below her league" one), but the plot is quite believable and most of the twists and turns are something real-life teenagers could or would do in the same situation.

The shy guy trying to impress the girl, the "trophy girlfriend" who gets tired of her status, the unforgiving clique excluding and ribbing the new guy, the sex-starved guy, the self-absorbed star... All those are situations that can happen in real life, and the movie handles them in a very honest way, without cheesing them up too much.

On a side-note, it was nice to see, for a change, a sport sub-plot where there's no underdog. The Grimsrud team is a serious contender for the trophy, and Lucas never steps in as the proverbial underdog who ends up scoring the winning point... Finally the "good guys" don't win the tournament, the main character doesn't save the day (actaully Lucas plays a couple of minutes of "garbage time" early in the tournament and doesn't even get the ball once...) and the ending isn't actually an ending... More like the end of a chapter and the beginning of a new one.

"Amors Baller" is a decent teen flick that managed to avoid getting too sappy or too over the top. It's not a laugh-out-loud comedy, it's not a maudlin teen drama...

Don't expect "American Pie", don't expect some pseudo-deep tripe like "All the real girls"... it's just a nice story and the closest you can get to realism while keeping it cinematically enjoyable. And in my book that's a good enough achievement for a teen movie.

7/10

The premise was intriguing and it offered plenty of viable developments. Unfortunately we get treated to a somewhat predictable "the beginning is the end, the end is the beginning" circular flashback story arch, already seen in Memento (now that was a great movie) and Irreversible, just to name a few.

Things start to go south, fast, as soon as the whole erasing process, something that is supposed to be very advanced procedure, is treated and handled with the same secrecy, care and professionalism college students put into cleaning porn-infected computers... A half-assed side-activity than can be performed everywhere, while doing something more fun in the meantime. Seriously, such a life-altering procedure is performed at the patient's place by two creepy guys? And the security of the records is so sloppy a receptionist can go ahead and mail them to the patient who are supposed to forget about the whole thing?

That's simply preposterous, a poorly thought-out "deus ex machina" that has no place in an alleged cinematic masterpiece.

Not to mention the outcome of the whole love story... Despite finding out they had already met, loved and erased each other, Joel and Clementine STILL decide to give themselves another chance.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't really get into a relationship with a girl who thinks I'm a wimpy and boring loser who'll made her loathe herself after a while. Nor I would like to date a girl who I find obnoxious, sad and a bit slutty too.

Does the movie try to convey (shove down our throats rather..) a message of hope? Or is it just hopeless stubbornness? A faux "happy ending" just because it would have been rude sending the audience home without some sort of closure?

Joel and Clementine basically wasted two years of their life... we got away with losing just two hours... Unfortunately we can remember the movie. So it's debatable who drew the shortest straw here ;)

"Eternal Sunshine" is the typical intellectualoid movie, with a good, but underdeveloped, idea behind it but also with too much quirkiness to actually work. Visually it's pleasant and well done, capturing the disorientation induced by the dreamy sequences, acting is OK...

Cinematically it's "spotless", but as for the story arch it's definitely "plotless".

The original title "Sykt lykkelig" is a nice pun, as "sykt" can be both positive (thus the title meaning "incredibly happy") or negative (more like "happy in a sick way").

Indeed this dichotomy runs throughout the movie. Two couples live next door, but their initial attempt to establish a good neighbourhood relationship goes awry, as neither family is as picture-perfect as the facade suggests.

Soon enough they find themselves in the middle of an awkward love triangle, almost turning into a double-triangle, and then shortly into partner swapping.

In the end the ordeal brings every character back to square one, but with renewed, and this time hopefully complete, awareness of themselves and of their partner. So everything looks the same as before, but something has definitely changed.

We're left to wonder who was "happy" and about what and when... And is it supposed to be ironic? I'm not really sure, and it's a positive thing. A movie that keeps me thinking after it's over, with no convoluted gimmicks and with no clean-cut answers is a good movie to me.

Sykt lykkelig is a difficult movie to categorize... In a way it's the typical Norwegian "comedy": more awkward than funny, with a persistent serious vibe that runs through the movie but never takes over. So the movie is always enjoyable, even when it could get too heavy-handed, gloomy or sappy. Of course this minimalistic approach can be a negative aspect, depending on the viewer's taste and on his penchant for full-fledged drama or for unrelenting pretentiousness.

Just to make two examples: the subplot involving the two kids, with openly racist undertones, is quite perplexing but it's an odd change of pace from the main story.

And the confrontation scene between Kaja and Eirik about his "hunting trips" is a farcical tribute to Brokeback Mountain... In order not to talk openly about the topic in front of the kid they switch to a very broken German, which doesn't sound too different from Norwegian, and the key word of the whole scene is still said loud in Norwegian... So much for not upsetting the kid! If it was intentional, it was hilarious.

To sum it up "Sykt lykkelig" is a somewhat odd and uneven family "comedrama", Its forte is the absence of maudlin introspection. For once we're just watching the four characters deal with their live and their choices. No preachy message is spoon-fed to us, no easy answers are given... Quite a rare occurrence in such movies.

This documentary is just a one-hour long rant, the usual 'outcasts are better than you' cliché from indie movies.

The guys working at the Parking Lot aren't really better than the preppies they dislike so much, and the tirade about rich and unpleasant daddy's boys and girls driving SUVs and making in one year the money the parking lot attendant will make in his whole life reeks of sour grapes, frustration and reversed classism.

Sure, who doesn't despise arrogant jerks who live on daddy's money... but on the other hand it's not a good reason to be equally obnoxious. I can't see much difference between the annoying brats who, as the movie put it, "think they're hot *bleep* because they drive daddy's car" and the parking lot attendants who think they're hot *bleep* because they have a Ph.D. and feel they're rebelling against society.

The parking lot attendants come off as pretentious, wannabe-intellectuals who try to pass off their shortcomings as a 'way of life', even as a voluntary exile from the 'outside world'. But in truth I find it hard to buy such idea... I can't help but thinking the whole thing is a self-comforting facade, a way to cope with unfulfilled expectations.

At one point one of them say "you get paid to do nothing!", so it makes me wonder a bit... Are those overqualified intellectualoids working at the parking lot because it's a non-competitive job, where they're paid to sit and read or listen to music and goof around? Are they rebelling (in a pretty inane way) to capitalism or are they just a bunch of Peter Pans who refused to grow up and take responsibility, so they just live in their little world where they are Somebody and nobody questions them?

To be honest I've always struggled to get the 'Slacker pride' many indie movies have celebrated over the years...

As a whole, the movie is just boring and not remotely as funny as many reviews made it to be. I can't even relate to them, not because I'm a SUV-driving no-good frat-boy (which I'm not), but because if I'll ever find myself stuck in a rut like that, I would really struggle to feel so proud about it.

The Parking Lot Movie is an exercise in self-importance, self-indulgence and unjustified smugness.

An obnoxious manifesto of the underachievers who are proud to be underachievers (and afraid to prove themselves)

Hell, if you're so smart and educated, quit that job and go earn thousands of dollars a month... So you can get back at the preppies on their own ground instead of making petty remarks while exerting your Parking Lot Attendant powers.

Marie had a near-death experience during the 2005 Tsunami and he's so shocked by it to the point of throwing her career and her life away just to write a book about "the conspiracy of silence" about the afterlife. George is a psychic (a LEGIT psychic, not one of the many phonies we later meet in the movie...) but that has messed up his life so he finally snaps and runs away... to London just where Marie is presenting her book. Marcus is a working-class schoolboy from London who has recently lost his twin brother and has been shipped to a new home by the social services. He's determined to talk to his brother again, so you guess where this is heading...

Three separate stories that, predictably yet in a very contrived way, end up as one, or should I say one and a half, considering Marcus just works as some sort of Deus ex machina before being left to his fate, with no actual closure.

The problem is not even Marie and George are getting a satisfactory or sensible ending... They meet and all is fine, a new beginning for both?!

So what are we supposed to get out of those two plodding hours of beautiful cinematic wasted on a lackluster semi-supernatural, semi-profound and totally unconvincing story?

The characters are quite dull, and we've given little background and little reason to care about them... It gets even more laughable when George meets a girl at an Italian cooking class: of course they fall for each other, too bad the girl is both too curious about "the gift" and has a dark secret in her past... Now if a psychic is telling you not to ask for a reading, and you know you had traumatic experiences before, can't you see nothing good is going to come out of that?

Pretty much the whole plot reeks of "the Butterfly Effect" and "Sliding Doors", with all the all-too-convenient events, coincidences and "a hand from above" twists.

Whatever the message was it gets lost in a sea of cheesy dialogues and events... Is there an afterlife? Yes there is, it's just not explained how, why and what... Apparently psychics are real, but only the good ones (those who don't make money with their gift. Not anymore... if they stopped charging, all is forgiven I see). Oh and while no religion is directly cited, there is a strong spiritual vibe behind the movie... Something that makes the viewers wonder what the deal about the "conspiracy of silence" is all about anyway... I mean, if there was NO afterlife, I could see why many wouldn't want it to be proved. But if there is "something", who's supposed not to like it? Religions could still claim it's their own afterlife, or that the believers get a different afterlife, whatever... Religions have adapted themselves to changes and science in the past, that wouldn't be the end of it all. Indeed, the movie throws too many questions around without actually answering to any.

Hereafter is in the end yet another product of the Style-over-Substance factory. It sounds smart, it looks good but if you scratch away the thin coat of dime-store spirituality/depth you're going to find out there nothing below it.

Unfortunately Herafter ends here, there's no after for it but doubts and unanswered questions, but not of the good kind.

Take "Planes, Trains and Automobiles" and strip the characters of their funny and likable traits and turn them into obnoxious and unsympathetic one-dimensional tools. Then add plenty of unbelievable and unnecessary clichés to the plot just to make the trip last a bit longer. And a very unfulfilling ending... That's "Due Date" for you.

Ethan has to be the most annoying and unlikable man-child to ever (dis)grace the silver screen. How we're supposed to feel for him and to like him is beyond me. Au contraire his stupid antics make me even condone Peter's tantrums and psychotic rage, mostly because I know it's more or less the same way I'd react should I ever have to be in the same room/car with Ethan...

The characters do not evolve a lick, and we're not given enough (if any) background to understand why they are like they are.

The credibility of the movie goes out of the window right after the pot-smoking incident and the Mexican-trailer jailbreak. Surely the border police wouldn't stop chasing a stolen police vehicle after such a spectacular (and over-the-top) escape.

Not to mention the fact Peter can survive a gunshot to his leg for almost a whole day without major consequences, and he can also limp around an hospital, and a maternity ward of all things, bloodied and dirty without being noticed.

All of that could have been forgiven had the movie actually been funny. But funny it is NOT! It's annoying, unfunny and uninspired.

"Bienvenue chez les Ch'tis" is a nice comedy, but to be honest it's kinda hard understanding how it managed to become such a huge hit, considering the basic plot has been done zillions of times already.

Basically it's the good old "they sound different, they look different but in the end they're just like us!" chiché. Sure the misunderstanding between the main character and the townsfolk are funny, especially the conversation about the furniture, but then again it's not nearly enough to sustain the whole movie. The thing is: many of us have experienced some sort of culture shock, be it in the same country or abroad, but the movie just glosses over the two long years the main character had to spend among the Ch'tis... It's as if he had gone over the whole language/cultural issue in a matter of a month or so and from there onwards it was all fine and dandy... Besides the drunken delivery day, and the over-the-top "welcome to the horror" shenanigans to convince the wife Bergues was a disgusting place, there's no reason to actually "see" how well the main character and the Ch'tis bonded. It's all left to our imagination, or it's more or less a given... after all the Ch'tis are nice people so there's no need to actually prove it on-screen. We got the wholesome message, and it's OK, but what about giving us some actual reason to care more?

It's a shame because the premise could have offered for more and less traditional developments. All in all a nice little comedy, but nothing overly new. This time around it was about Northern Frenchmen speaking a weird dialect/language, but it could have been about Hillbilies, Guidos, Texans, Northern Norwegians, Bavarians etc... Or Southern Italians, as in the even more stereotyped remake "Benvenuti al Sud"...

The trailer was promising, the first half of the movie was sort of delivering, despite being a collection of topoi (or clichés for those less fond of big words) already used, overused and abused in hundreds of similar movies. Nonetheless the story was unfolding in a satisfying way, leaving many options open, before going for the weakest and most predictable swerve possible. To add insult to injury, the movie still runs for a while, with the ever so typical "chase in the dark" and its equally typical ending with unsettling finale on the top of it. But had it been consistent with the whole story it would have still been acceptable, albeit rather dire.

The fact is there are many blatant plot holes it's hard to buy it was David/Charlie all along. For starters, if he smothered his wife and then staged the suicide, it's IMPOSSIBLE it could have gotten unnoticed... You don't need the whole cast of all the CSIs to tell death by suffocation (or signs of suffocation anyway) from suicide. Who examined the corpse? Doctor Nick Riviera?

Also, what about Elizabeth's car? The sheriff might not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but a crashed car with no corpse (or blood...) nearby should warrant for something more than a polite 2 minutes inquiry.

Last but not least, Emily can safely tell when David is Dad and when he's Charlie, but she won't tell Dad. And of course David, a psychologist himself, doesn't seem to suspect a damn thing until the final and totally clear epiphany... Icing on the cake, Emily herself, in the official ending, knows/feels she has split personality too... Something his dad, a trained professional in that field, didn't understand before having killed three people.

Long story short: the movie is an average pop-corn psychological thriller. You can enjoy it as long as you don't try to take it "seriously", because behind the nice execution there's little substance. It's a shame because there were many and better avenues to explore starting from the same premise, and the cast was indeed above average.

DeNiro phones it in, but he's still quite good, as is the rest of the secondary characters. Dakota Fanning was quite convincing in her spooky withdrawal and in her growing unease and panic. Considering the material she had to work with, she was really good.

All in all a missed opportunity for everyone involved, but mostly for us, the audience.

A world where people are completely unable to lie is definitely a very interesting scenario for a movie. Unfortunately a comedy, with a lot of romance, is probably the least viable genre for such a premise, unless they decided to go for a full-fledged farce. Instead the script quickly turns from interesting "social comedy" into rom-com territory, leaving a lot of ground uncovered and failing to truly make a statement about how lies interfere with our life. In truth the most interesting part was the slow build-up to the first lie, and the consequences of Mark's newfound skill in making stuff up. The romantic subplot is, quite frankly, predictable and more or less kills the rest of the story, as the focus is now on Mark and Anna, with the "horrible web of lies" becoming a mere plot device. To be fair it would have been difficult going somewhere had the plot been revolving around the invention of lying itself, so romance was an easy way out. Still it's a shame we didn't get to see how the whole Man in the Sky thing ended, whether other people finally caught up on lying and so on. Speaking of the Man in the Sky, I can see how some might have been offended by the idea of God being "a lie", but personally I don't have a problem with it... In the end Mark "invented" God for all the good reasons, and the debate about God, free will, reward and punishment is a very relevant one, and, once again, it could have been developed in a much better way even in the movie.

All in all "The invention of lying" is a missed opportunity, but in all fairness it would have been difficult to come up with a consistent, coherent and interesting script AND a good movie. The risk of going too philosophical, thus pedantic and artsy-fartsy, is too high, and I'm quite sure it wasn't the original goal of the movie.

So it's a 7, because despite its obvious shortcomings it was still a fresh idea, and the Man in the Sky knows how much the movie industry needs fresh ideas!

Ghost World is a deceitful flick.

At first glance it looks interesting and thought-provoking, but the more you think about it the most annoyingly pretentious and inane it gets.

Enid is an "outcast" just because she herself decides to become one, while her friend Rebecca slowly grows out of the whole "I'm different! look at me but don't look at me too much!" teeny attitude.

The initial idea of playing a prank on music geek Seymour is something preppies and jocks would do, surely not "holier than thou" Different Girls, so that's a bit baffling. Even more baffling is how quickly Enid falls for Seymour, just to pull a 180° the morning after they had sex.

Why is Enid being a self-centered tool? Who knows... apparently they felt it wasn't really important making that clear or even understandable. Enid is the way she is because she is the way she is!

It's a Ghost World Enid herself has built around her, but she's still unhappy with it, so she tries looking for ways to change it. Be it by messing with Seymour (who was somewhat comfortable in his pre-Enid days), be it by sabotaging Rebecca's legitimate "7th grade fantasy" about living on her own, be it with ostracizing his father's fiancé, despite both of them being nothing but nice and supportive. In the end nothing can satisfy Enid, and there's no personal growth achieved.

So: Enid is a spoiled brat, she doesn't learn a thing from her mistakes and her final stand is, guess what!, LEAVING FOREVER...

Insightful and mature, isn't it?

It's a shame, because the story had potential and the cast delivered a solid performance despite the glaring flaws of the script. But the movie ends up being filled with too much pretentious artsy subtext and with too little substance.

Unless I got it wrong and Enid was truly meant to be annoying and unsympathetic.

The Big Bang Theory has really grown on me, after a rather troubled beginning.

The premise didn't look overly fresh, after all the "geek meets pretty girl" plot had already been used to death, and just throwing in more geeks and legit science into the mix was hardly enough to make me anticipate the show.

Instead the characters work pretty well, covering a broad area of the geek spectrum.

Sheldon is so self-absorbed he failed to develop even the most basic social skills. That's the main source for laughters to be honest, even though his blissful yet exasperating lack of "humanity" is probably a bit over the top to be credible.

Leonard is the least awkward character, thus the more realistic one and the only who can be used in more traditional sit-com situations.

Penny is also a rather easy-to-relate with character: possibly the most credible "cute average" female character in a sit-com in a long time.

Raj and Howard work well as "one-trick pony" sidekicks, adding enough ethnic and (anti)social diversity to jokes and comedic situations.

The interaction between characters is usually good and sort of believable, and even the perturbing presence of Penny is handled decently, although the "why does she hang out with such losers?" question is still unanswered. Let alone the whole Leonard-Penny relationship... The best part was the one when Leonard was pining for her. Keeping the "will they or won't they" situation going on for as long as possible, with Leonard getting small and insignificant wins, along with bigger disheartening setbacks, would have been more realistic, more compelling and wouldn't have killed the one and only actual plot.

Once Leonard and Penny are together (or are going through a typical on-and-off relationship), there isn't much to look for in the show, besides the throwaway gags or the occasional subplot. Because the other characters are, quite frankly, stereotypes; and altering them for storyline purposes would just kill the show. I mean, Sheldon can't suddenly become friendly and laid-back. Raj can't become chatty. Howard can't stop being a (funnily) disgusting perv...

So, while the characters are indeed genuinely likable (Leonard and Penny) or hilariously annoying (Sheldon, Raj and Howard), their very nature hinders a serious process of development. And that means there isn't so much material left for the show before it gets repetitive, derivative or dull. Or something different.

One last gripe: the excess of references to the geek culture can get tiresome at times, especially for those who (like me) aren't into comic books, Star Wars etc... When a joke or a gag is funny only to those "in the know", then it's not that good in my opinion.

All in all TBBT is a very enjoyable sit-com, a refreshing take on a far from fresh concept. Sadly I feel it's just a matter of time before the inherent flaws of its very concept start kicking in and ruining it.

But as long as it lasts, let's all enjoy The Big Bang Theory!

Let's be honest here... Had I or you shot such a "movie", we would have been banned from every movie/TV studio for the eternity. And such stuff wouldn't even make it to toilet humour websites...

But since it was Sasha Baron Cohen's work, then it made it to theaters and with plenty of promotion.

Bruno is basically a gay Borat. Thus with 10x more nudity and homosexual (fake) action.

I'm totally baffled by how people can consider Bruno (or Borat for that matter) thought-provoking and eyes-opening movies... The so-called "exposure" of Americans being prudes (oh, conservative Southern, white and Christian Americans, to be more precise...) is basically the result of a cruel and tasteless candid camera, or farce. The shock value of Bruno's antics catches people so off-guard they can't even be "exposed" the way Cohen hoped/pretended.

What was Ron Paul supposed to do? Or the TV producers?

Actually I think Cohen was lucky not to get beaten up or even killed (in his Middle East trip..).. All in all his victims were more bemused and dumbfounded than downright disgusted.

While Borat had the "cultural shock" factor as excuse, Bruno has no excuse whatsoever... except his over-the-top campyness probably made people wonder whether he had some loose screws in his head, so they kinda let it slide...

Was Bruno shocking in a positive way? Absolutely no!... The only slightly odd part was the interviews with the parents, but then again, I really want to know HOW MANY parents he had to audition in order to find two or three who were down with any outlandish idea he had for the kids... Besides, some questions were so stupid I suspect the parents just played along... Most "yeah, no problem" were as robotic and condescending as they could be...

So all in all Bruno fails on every level... it's not a smart movie about American's homophobia, it's not a funny Z-movie (we have seen it all in Borat already), it's not even that good as "Dead Baby Comedy"...

It's just the weird, tasteless and sanctimonious project of of a man who clearly has an agenda and is relentless in pushing it, no matter how low he must stoop.

Humiliating and embarrassing people who are genuinely trying to be polite/help/do their job is just disgusting. Even more when it's made by a man who has been heralded as a genius.

Frat boys and teenagers have been doing such stuff for decades, and they're frowned upon. A Jewish comedian does that and he's the best...

Sorry, I don't get that...

P.S. At least I'm happy the Gay movements are fiercely against that crap... Tha Homophobes in the movie didn't look as bad as Cohen's allegedly "pro-gay" character... If his ultra-campy Bruno was supposed to be a positive model or a sympathetic gay character, he failed miserably.

Baron Cohen has shown he has become a one-trick pony (or a one *ick pony, should I say...)