ca26

Despite all the hype (mostly by women, I suspect), Juno is not that great or interesting of a film.

Granted, the production is top-notch, as is the soundtrack. And the performances by all the supporting cast were so believable, they made the movie worth watching.

However, the writing (for Juno, the main character) was odd and unbelievable. While the actress playing Juno was able to play the character competently, it just wasn't a realistic, or sympathetic character. Juno is kind of a boring jerk, spewing cynical and trite one-liners we've all heard a thousand times before on sit-coms. It's as though the writer of the movie envisioned this character as the coolest thing since sliced bread and gave her the "i'm too cool to be cool" dry one-liners and made everyone else her straight man. But ironically, I think it backfired because it made Juno, the girl, uninteresting right from scene 1, and it made all the characters around her compelling and tangible. I found myself ignoring Juno's often-pointless quips and honing in on her boyfriend's acting (and his amazingly subtle performance), or watching how real pros Jennifer Garner and Jason Bateman acted. In fact, everyone BUT Juno was fun and interesting and I'd like to see more of them.

But I understand from reading a bit about Diablo Cody the writer that Juno herself was just an idealized extension of herself and that just didn't work for me. Juno came off too flat and too tired and too into herself to be a character I cared for. I mean, the instant Diablo wrote that all jocks secretly lust after the weird goth girls in school, I laughed my ass off at how Diablo must really think that the jocks really despised the hot pre-playboy blonds and instead thought that a greasy-looking, scrawny, tattoo'd chick with pale skin and a bad attitude was attractive. HA! lol. I think that just epitomizes how the main character was written about Diablo and for Diablo and frankly, Diablo's just not that interesting unless she's saying the word sex every now and then to keep the curious around.

The movie is well put-together and the supporting cast and soundtrack are worth the rental. If you like indie little feel-good flicks like Little Miss Sunshine, you'll like this. Though, I believe Sunshine had much more interesting dynamics in the relationships and I cared about the main character(s) right from the start.

thanks for listening.

Don't get me wrong - it's a good flick. It's just unable to live up to the hype and I don't see why it won any award.

Read Bigprisc's excellent comments for a detailed analysis and comparison with the movie upon which The Departed is based.

Ultimately, this movie is Donnie Brasco mixed with Reservoir Dogs. Unfortunately, it's not as good as either. Both of these other movies did better at what they set out to do. Donnie Brasco really delved into the tension and emotions of being undercover. And Reservoir Dogs did a much better job of showing how all the rats turn on each other and no one really winds up coming out ahead. Both of these other movies are at the PEAK of their respective categories. The Departed just can't decide what kind of story it wants to tell and doesn't tell any story convincingly.

What IS good? The editing, the soundtrack, and the acting. Those are all wonderful. But as we all know - there's no way of knowing how much of a role the Director played in those aspects. So there's no way of knowing whether Martin Scorsese truly deserved a nod for this movie, or his award was just a "lifetime achievement" award.

If you like "mob" films - this is another goodie. But it's far from the best. And the ending leaves you unsatisfied.

I've never read the original books so I have no idea how faithfully this movie portrays them.

But I DO know that this took a franchise and watered down into 'just another action flick'.

As some have already pointed out, the action is well-filmed - especially the "urban gymnastics" at the beginning. But the film needs more than great fight scenes to be a memorable movie.

I found myself unconcerned with the Bond character and wishing, hoping, for some more sexy women and gadgets. The Bond character is uninteresting, flat, and dark. Not at all the Bond we all know and love. Those of you who've seen it - think about it; did he say ANYTHING remotely interesting, humane, or charming throughout the movie (aside from when he was flirting with women)?

And frankly, I could do without seeing a man punched in the balls over and over again. It doesn't fit the Bond style and didn't make ANY sense in the script. At that point in the movie, all the baddies had to do was threaten to torture his love interest and he'd have folded.

There were just too many things that didn't make sense in the script, and too little reason to care about the main character. And the writers seem like they couldn't decide whether the movie was for adults (torture, violence, blood, etc), or for kids. I mean, the sexuality was VERY tame (even for a Bond flick) and they felt the need to beat us over the head with literal, verbal narratives of things that were plainly obvious. For example, all through the big card game, they have a supporting character whisper play-by-play explanations to a female observer as if she's too dumb to figure out what's going on herself. Yet, she's SUPPOSED to be this intelligent, analytical professional. And that's BESIDE the fact that every moron in the theater can figure out for themselves that when Bond pushes all his money into the center of the poker table, he's gambling all his money.

For an action flick, the movie hits in many ways. For a legendary franchise, it misses in many more.

If you liked Triple X or the Transporter or any other modern "extreme" action flick, you'll like this one too. And just like those, you'll forget you ever saw it within 6 months. It's not Braveheart or Schindler's List and should be given the 5-7 (out of 10) rating it deserves.

Hope this helps you decide whether to see it or not.

For those considering seeing 2001: A Space Odyssey, ...don't. More than likely you'll have the same negative reaction most viewers do. That is, you'll find it slow and boring and the ending to be a frustrating let-down. All of this is true. And it's the reason you won't find films like it in the theaters gobbling up tons of money and receiving rave reviews.

Money speaks and it speaks the truth of the common man. Since the common man won't enjoy a film like this, no studios make films like this. Because they know they won't make money. As a potential viewer, that right there tells you what you'll likely think about this movie and whether you should bother renting it or not.

Don't be fooled by the inclusion of this film in any Top 100 lists, or the many positive reviews you'll find on here.

First, the film's only notable because of how visionary the imagery was. Not because of a great plot, pacing, editing, or acting. And you can't necessarily credit the director for any of this since he wasn't the production designer, the art department, the set designer, or the cinematographer. For all we know from reading the credits alone, Kubrik was simply lucky to have all those talented visionaries around him. You certainly don't see the same visions in his other films.

Second, the positive reviews are written by those who want to defend the film. There are far more folks who want to defend their own sense of "art" than there are who will bother finishing the movie, much less go online to review it. It's just not worth their time. So you end up with a decidedly skewed perspective when you read the reviews. You get the occasional person who bothers to post their real feelings about it (boring, slow, bad ending, etc.), and then you get this mountain of posts from the same few people who think you've assaulted their personal sense of artistic taste.

If you actually MADE 100% of the movie-going population watch this, and then MADE them rate it honestly, you'd find that it barely receives three stars. It's just that "odd" and unappealing to the public at large. I have many ordinary, everyday friends, and most have never been able to finish the film. I was only able to bear through it out of curiosity.

So, in summary, ...Are you the "common man"? Do you like Terminator 2 and despise Dangerous Liaisons? Do you watch "24" and "ER" on TV, and not 2-hour documentaries about the dung beetle on the nature channel? Is your idea of fun to watch the ball-game, or is it to turn on some classical music and curl up with a book about the NASA program?

If you're the former - like the other 90% of us - then you won't enjoy 2001: A Space Odyssey, so don't waste your money.

It CERTAINLY deserves its place in film history due to the gorgeous visuals and imaginative vision. However, just because the 4-hour silent epic, Birth of a Nation is historically significant too doesn't mean the average person is gonna wanna sit through THAT either.

If you want to get caught up, please rent the movie 2010, which is the sequel to 2001. Although it's cold-war tension is rather dated now, you will find yourself completely caught up on what happened in 2001 within the first 10 minutes. As a matter of fact, you'll feel MORE caught up than if you had bothered to watch 2001. Plus, 2010 will take off at a more palatable pace and keep you watching to find out what the mystery behind the monoliths is.

OK, the plot is clear enough - a compliance officer for a bank travels to Monaco to verify the sources of investor funding on a suspicious movie production. The production turns out to be a front used by the Russian mafia (in conjunction with local police) to launder money. When Michael Keaton's character (the compliance officer) starts sniffing around, the bad guys decide to frame him for murder. And, because the local cops are involved in the scheme, they plan to catch and kill him. So, he's on the run in Europe and gets aid from a couple of other characters who get drawn in as well.

Anyways... the point of this review is not to tell you about the movie, but to save you money. This movie is not even mildly entertaining. It's worse than most 'made for TV' flicks you've seen. It's actually even worse than some pornos I've seen. It was obviously a "C"-level movie that got bumped up to "B" level because it has actors like Caine and Keaton in it. However, even though they are, as always, good actors, they still can't save this train wreck of a film. Bad writing and bad production meet head-on in what turns out to be an embarrassingly bad movie. I think the only entertainment value is as a "what NOT to do" lesson in film school. It's actually kinda funny (in a sad way), because it's so bad.

There are goofs in almost every scene, aside from the cheesy lines and plot holes. I'm not angry or being vindictive. It's simply the truth. I actually went into this movie with high hopes because I love Keaton. But this is just such a waste of time, I'm trying to save anyone else from accidentally renting it. Anyone who gave this movie a good review is actually working for the distributor or production company. It's not even debatable, it's soooo bad, and the goofs are so glaring.

I honestly assume that the reason Keaton and Caine signed on was because they owed someone a favor, or because it was a slow time for them & they got to take their families on vacation in the South of France for free.

Goofs and plot holes from beginning to end. Look for the blinking corpse at the beginning, and look for Caine's ventriloquism near the end.

This "documentary" is one man's examination of the Christian religion and the problems he finds with it.

I use the term documentary loosely because rather than even trying to be objective about the topic - historical accuracy of the religion - he has a decidedly biased view from the start and selects his interviewees accordingly. By taking this approach, he's doing no worse to the genre than Michael Moore, but he's also not winning any "converts" as anyone who already agrees with him will applaud the effort, and anyone who doesn't will abhor his approach.

It's actually a very thought-provoking topic which MANY far more articulate and educated authors have already covered well. But the director only just begins to touch on (first half of the movie) this topic before it descends into his own personal struggles with the religious institution he attended in his youth (second half of movie).

I rather enjoyed the first half. The director gave an easily digestible, very visual, well-edited account of his problems with a few of the facts of the religion as he's researched it. Entertaining, great graphics, well-produced to this point.

The second half, on the other hand, reminds one of a pre-teen who finally confronts his parents about "Santa". The slick video effects drop away quickly, as does any hope of searching for the truth (aka facts). In fact, he approaches his former religious leader under the false pretense that they're going to discuss religion and the institution, but the interview QUICKLY turns into aggressive "baiting" as the director asks ridiculous questions like, "how can you teach religion if you can't prove it?" That's about as bright as asking the Pope why there should be a church.

Anyways.. predictably the interviewee sees where this is headed and makes the wise choice to leave, and our director acts confused, asking what he could possibly have done wrong. lol.

Moments like this render the second half kinda amateurish. Especially when he chooses to include "illuminating" comments from his interviewees such as, "well, church leaders are bad because they don't like gays. that's just wrong." Regardless of how you feel about homosexuality, you've gotta be able to back up your opinion with more than, "because I said so." rofl. And that's what starts turning the second half into more of a student project.

But, at least the movie was made. And that's an accomplishment in itself. So, while I wouldn't call it trash, by giving it a 1-3 rating, it certainly wasn't Ghandi, Terms of Endearment, or The Godfather. So, I give it a 6, because for an average movie, it was more honest and thought-provoking than your typical Hollywood formulaic fare.

If you like quirky, and John Goodman, then rent Raising Arizona instead.

The plot begins with Jeff Bridge's character being mistaken for another man with the same name. The other man's wife apparently has a lot of outstanding debts and the ruffians who pay Jeff a visit urinate on his rug before he finally convinces them he's NOT the rich husband they're looking for. He's simply a bum known by everyone as "the dude". The dude decides that if he simply visits the rich guy with the same name, he can probably talk him into replacing his rug, since technically they were supposed to have urinated on the rich guy's rug instead. The rich fellow, however, tells the dude that his wife's been kidnapped and asks the dude to carry the ransom money to them.

Why? Good question... and from there, the story gets even more confusing and pointless. Which, the filmmakers freely admit. On the DVD version, the filmmakers frankly state that the confusing plot takes a back seat to the quirky characters we get to meet. Oh joy.

They even admit that when one of the actors asked what his character's motivation was, or why he was even in the story - they didn't have an answer for him. They say this laughing (at the viewers?).

Anyways... the only positive thing I can say about this movie is that the visuals and transitions are unique and creative, and that Jeff Bridges proves again that he's such a good actor he can even come out shining when buried under a pile of feces. His portrayal of the dude is priceless - and he doesn't dance half-bad either.

William Hurt plays a writer of travel guides designed to make your trip as safe & well-planned as possible, even to the point of suggesting ways to make yourself "feel at home" while staying in remote destinations. He goes so far as to recommend places to get a good ol' American hot dog while in Europe, etc, etc.

His rather boring, uneventful existence is disrupted when first, his son dies, then within a year, his wife (Kathleen Turner) leaves him, after which he runs into an aggressive and flirty dog-trainer (Geena Davis) who begins pursuing him romantically. (although, you'll never understand why Geena's character, an attractive, single mom, hasn't found anyone better than him, nor why she'd be interested in such an elusive, muttering and boring man)

Although she actually manages to pull him out of his shell and he embraces her and her son, the real conflict comes when he has to deal with the commitment this is leading towards, especially considering he's still clinging dearly to photos and memories of his dead son.

Things really get hairy when his wife finally gets lonely herself, and wants him back. He then has to decide between his fresh new, unpredictable life with the dog-trainer and her son, or the safe, comfortable existence full of memories with his wife.

The movie is as slow as William Hurt's character is boring. Some people won't mind this, but when you couple that with the fact that all of the acting seems "forced" and odd, it doesn't make for a very good movie. Touching story though.

Because this is listed as one of the top 250 films of all time, I had to see it. Now I wish I hadn't.

The only people who should watch this are those who are extremely interested in this version of the details behind the Watergate scandal, the conspiracy theorists, or those who are fascinated by investigative reporting.

The film shows Woodward and Burnstein digging up the real story behind the famous break-in at the Democratic National Headquarters right around when President Nixon was to be re-elected. They uncover illegal covert operations being carried out by all levels of government. They spend the whole movie interviewing people and trying to get them to go "on the record" so they can print their story.

That's really all there is to it. The viewer doesn't find out anything about the protagonists' backgrounds or beliefs or goals or anything. There's no character development, and there's no reason for us to care whether they succeed or not. The movie begins with the break-in and ends when they publish (and have to defend) their story. Everything in between is just them taking notes while pursuing leads on the phone, or arguing with the editors. Slow. and boring.

First let me say that I have always enjoyed Clint's work. He's been an idol of mine since puberty. Not only as a tough-guy actor, but as a director too.

Besides his kick-ass westerns, he's directed successful films as diverse and touching as; Bridges of Madison County (1995) A Perfect World(1993), White Hunter, Black Heart (1990), Bird (1988), and Honkytonk Man (1982).

That's why I don't understand how he can turn around and make a films as disjointed and uncomfortable as Absolute Power (1997) or BloodWork (2002).

Both movies were somehow "odd" with scenes where the acting was either "over the top" or out of synch with the script at that point. Both were predictable and both were definitely NOT his best work as a director. Both had plot holes and very unrealistic scenes (like in Bloodwork; shooting up the killer's car on a public street, which then crashes into an innocent person driving by, and the good guys just drive away without even chasing the killer, or at least tending to the innocent victim in the car who may be bleeding to death?)

But who knows - maybe it's the screenplays to blame and no director could have saved them. There's no way to know what was going on at the time Clint was involved. SPOILER ALERT If you're a crime/drama movie fan, don't bother with this film. I didn't read the book and yet my guests and I had figured out the whole film almost instantly. (spoiler: as soon as they emphasized the anonymous "good samaritan" helping the victim survive til the ambulance got there, you knew that it was the killer and why he'd done it just by thinking about the title of the film; BLOODwork. Then, as soon as the kid points out there are no 1's in the code, you realized WHY they had emphasized the spelling of Buddy's last name SO much.)

And, if you're a Clint fan, as I am, rent a classic like HonkyTonk Man instead. Bloodwork will only disappoint.