tradeczar

There are those who would read the synopsis of the story - a coming of age movie about a young over-protected boy ala Risky Business. They would be so wrong for two reasons. One That.the story is so much richer,funner and interesting than it might have been. Two. Jennifer Lawrence. This performance would have been easy for here to phone in. But installed she turned in an awesome performance. So worth seeing and enjoying. She somehow manages to eat the screen while at the same time hiving thus root for her and for her to overcome he own personal insecurities and her search for love. What a treat. The contrast between Lawrence and her "client" could have been gone so many ways. But the jumps between her real world blue-collar existence and her job were smooth and touching,

As I catch up with Yellowstone. - now ending Season 2. - it occurs to me that everything about the story and how it is presented is half again outsized from what we see as normal. The story is bigger than we can get our head around. The actions that take place connect in a way that one huge scene is preceded immediately huge scene by the next. Plots are on the edge of believability but not quite totally BS. And of course, it is set in Big Sky Country - an outsized state. We don't like the Duttons. But we dislike them less than all others -- the politicians, the Fish and Wildlife Service, Asian tourists, Native American Schools and impulsive Native Americans, developers, city slickers, etc.. I am enjoying it... for all it's almost-absurdist grandeur.

About half-way through watching Take Me Home - and expecting to at any minute start becoming disappointed - I began marveling that such a good romantic comedy could have been ignored by the major distribution companies. But even with that self-inflicted distraction, I can say that my enjoyment of Take Me Home pretty much stayed high from beginning to end. Certainly the chemistry of the two main characters can be explained to a degree by the fact that they are husband and wife. But that does not explain the quality of the other performances or the outstanding direction by Sam Jaeger. Comedy is difficult and I cannot remember the last time I enjoyed a romantic comedy as much as I enjoyed Take Me home. That this movie did not hit the US box offices is a sad statement about the state of the industry. Amber Jaeger was simply outstanding as Claire. But all other things being equal, had Take Me Home been made twenty years earlier with Sandra Bullock in the lead female role, it would have been appreciated for how good it really is.

Seeing that three consecutive reviewers gave this atrocity of a movie ten stars simply adds to the insult. I really don't know who is worse.....Uli Lommel for making it or whoever bought it for distribution. The true story of the snipers was compelling enough for the movie to have stayed true to the facts. If Lommel had wanted to make things up, he could have had a screenwriter build it from scratch. Instead he went on the cheap and exploited what was a horrible tragedy and sold it as a true account. Virginia plates on the car. No. New Jersey. A removable tail light through which Malvo shot the victims. Hardly. The snipers drove around with a visible hole cut from the trunk. Lommel never even shot any scenes outside California. And then there were the keystone cop detectives walking around the monuments (where none of the shootings occurred) watching tourists with binoculars as if that ever happened... All the while spouting patriotic drivel. This story and its victims deserved an honest movie. Lommel and the three reviewers who raved about this mess of a movie should be ashamed of themselves.

I have to admit that my expectations were low. The lesser-known movies on Amazon Prime can be notoriously bad. But I have not enjoyed a low budget movie as much as "I'll Be There With You" in a long time. As with many movies made by Japanese and Korean directors, the editing was excellent. The script flowed well was nicely paced. No. I had never heard of any of the actors other than the bloated Daniel Baldwin, who could not have been better type-cast as the lecherous host. I will confess that the first third of the movie, while reasonably entertaining, was leading me to believe that there would be little to keep the viewer interested. But the "turn" toward more a more serious plot line was smooth and the story never looked back from there on. Not to be too critical of those who have trashed this flick, but Kitamura blended in the violence and tragedy with the syrupy romance in a manner similar to many above-average Asian movies. The poorly done violence was simply a reflection of the low budget. Even the title seemed to reflect the director's Japanese roots. IBTWY brought to mind "Domino", but included more plot twists and smoother transitions. It deserves at least a "B".

OK. So maybe my bar is set a bit low when it comes to movies I have never heard about that involve home invasion and murderous stalkers. But really, did anyone really expect the next Clockwork Orange? The opening set-up -- with a loving couple brutally murdered -- could have been transplanted from any one of dozens of similar movies. Then, spin forward maybe ten years to a father and daughter who (as usual) appear to have suffered from a failure by their real estate agent to fully disclose the history of the house and the strange but predictable oddity that the murderers appear to convey with the mansion from owner to owner as if they are a couple of lawnmowers in the garage. But aside from the cat and mouse and the chases through the house, I do not remember seeing any movie of this type with a better script and better performances -- particularly by Noell Coet. Ms. Coet quite simply nails the role of a young blind girl who, while suffering the loss of sight following an auto accident that took her mother's life, still has a spirit and attitude that makes her extremely fun to watch. Most believable is her talking to herself as one might if they lacked the ability to see. As with so many movies of this type, loose ends abound. But I recommend hanging with this one, particularly with the performance of Noell Coet.

I confess that my expectations for Trail of Blood were really low. The first 20 minutes or so were about as trite and formulaic they come: 5-6 kids out on a camping trip, scary-music set ups that turned out to be a friend walking up from behind. The campers were of course your stereotypical self-absorbed millennials. Really? Why was I watching this? But at about minute 30, things turned.... a turn to the bad for the young campers, and to the good for the viewer. Enter ex-Marine (Trevor Torseth), who in his first minute of screen time raised the average quality of the acting by about a third. It's not a spoiler to say that people die here. While much of the last 45 minutes of Trail of Blood are predictable, there are enough twists and unexpected flashes of brutality to raise it a notch or two above the typical Survive the Madman in the Woods flicks that are a dime a dozen. Trail of Blood is an example of what can be made on a small budget with decent direction, a solid performance in a key role and a good script,

In nearly every respect, Shiver is just another movie about just another demented serial killer. But a viewer who sticks with it, will see that the lead Woman in Peril played by Danielle Harris is far from the typical panicked screaming and annoying victim. Ms. Harris delivers an impressively nuanced performance in a movie that on most respects is totally lacking in nuance. True. Even with another actress in the lead role. Shiver's unpretentiousness would be refreshing (except for the very Carrie-esque final few scenes). But Danielle Harris' performance as an alternately tough, angry and frightened young Portlander is worth a watch purely on its own merits.

As a fan of Redneck Torture Porn, I became aware a long time ago of the narrow range within which the plot lines of nearly all movies of this type fall. A group of good looking young people venture into the backwoods, typically in the South, looking for adventure -- in this case, ATV riding. They stop for gas, a couple of them mumble some insulting remarks that are picked up on by the locals and then drive off to find a detour where there is never, ever cell phone coverage. "Resurrection County" is no different in many ways. But in others, it is quite watchable. The actors who play the locals are quit believable and a event relatively early in the story was so unexpected that it took my breath away. That scene in itself is worth the price of a Redbox rental. Critics who complain that there isn't a lot new here need to get a life. What did you expect?... for a pretty city girl to go off and marry an in-bred townie? Give this one a chance.

Perhaps I should have seen it coming. "Somewhere" begins with an overly long scene of an expensive sports car racing around a track. The scene seemed to go on forever, but I thought... "things will take off from here". The we get to watch two cuties pole dancing in a hotel room. That scene went so long that I think I could do the moves myself.

I can not think of any way that "Somewhere" could have possibly been put into theaters except for the name Coppola being attached to it. As the number of ponderous, inconsequential scenes began to mount, I began to realize that I was still -- at least a bit -- hooked in. Something interesting was about to happen and the Director was cleverly positioning us for an interesting plot turn or a memorable.... Something. By the conclusion, I felt insulted. The title simply adds to the insult.

I can appreciate artsy and unique movies as well as anyone. But after suffering through "Somewhere" I feel I need a dose of "Die Hard" or something like it.

Having told friends over the past couple of years that I wouldn't be caught dead paying to see a Will Ferrell movie, I was surprised to find myself buying a ticket to "Everything Must Go". But I have frequently been impressed in the past by comics who attempt serious roles -- including Jerry Lewis, Robin Williams and Jim Carrey -- so after hearing a positive review from a local critic, I thought I would give Ferrell a chance to show me something.

I regret to say that I am still waiting. This was a movie that simply begged for character development -- most of all from the main character, Nick Halsey, but also from the visitors to the yard sale which is the setting for nearly the entire movie. But the opportunity was squandered in scene after scene, and with the exception of the typical outstanding work of Rebecca Hall as Halsey's neighbor, I was left wondering "Who were those people?" Most disappointing of all, Will Ferrell's performance as a very-non-recovering alcoholic left his character as wooden, uninteresting and - most importantly -- unappealing. I know, alcoholism is not pretty. But then, why do I want to watch it?

I have often heard that many of the top comics suffer from an insecurity that perhaps helps them play serious roles. I got the feeling after seeing "Everything Must Go" that Will Ferrell does not suffer from such insecurities and that his self-assurance as a comic may make if more difficult from him to excel in a serious role. Perhaps its like a rich guy trying to sing the Blues; there's just something lacking.

The Truth may not have risen to a level that I would normally write a review -- except for the two reviews that precede it. One clearly appears to be blindly promotional. The other - really: it is based upon the reviewer having watched the opening scene and then skipping through to the end. In the words of Rodney King: "Can we all try to get along here?".

Though it features three established actors, it is pretty clear that In Truth was made on a relatively small budget. Nonetheless, it kept me interested and curious as to how "the truth" would come out. And how that truth came out was among the more impressive aspects. There were no "aha" moments. Rather, the writing, the direction and the performances were sufficiently nuanced that there were no WTFs. The acting? Actually quite good. Brendan Sexton's early scenes were an effective combination of engaging and threatening. Comely Erin Cardillo ranged well between feisty and combative and vulnerable. John Heard -- aging and overweight? Duh. His was an aging and overweight character! He did fine.

Call it a poor man's "Desperate Hours" if you will. But it was watchable and fun, and deserves better than skipping through. Not a 10, but at least a 7.

Really. What did you expect for a buck at Redbox? OK. So maybe Sage Mears might have shown more emotion after losing a nail than she showed after her family was massacred before her very eyes. But aren't most westerns a bit comical looking? It was a bit refreshing to watch a flick with no vampires or thumbscrews. The acting? It was decent. The story. Sure. Totally unoriginal. But Barry van Dyke pulled off the role of the reclusive moody aging gunslinger and the baddies were downright unlikeable. Please. Those who play the "worst movie ever" card too frequently will find the rest of us tuning you out. Lighten up and enjoy a simple story cheaply made.

In so many respects, this was an outstanding story -- well developed and well acted. Kate Beckinsale, in one of the most challenging efforts of her career, proved she can be much more than eye candy, though eye candy she is. Matt Dillon excelled as the evil special prosecutor and Alan Alda nailed the role of the interested but largely ineffective defense attorney. But really. Here was a story that, given the times we live in, might really have happened, until the true identity of the source was identified in the closing scene. That Rachel Armstrong would take a stand that cost one life and ruined a dozen others just to protect the identity of a 7-year old who even the Bush administration on its worst day would not prosecute left my jaw dropped throughput the entire duration of the closing credits. NBTT would have been better if we were left wondering who the "informant" was. You lured me in for 100 minutes and then set me up for a major WTF.

I was a bit surprised at the venom from those who did not like this movie. Perhaps they were looking for something else. As much as I like Jeffery Comb's work in absurdist gems such as the "Reanimator" films, I was impressed with his portrayal of the sheriff. The comic interludes -- such as the car door scene -- were extremely well-timed. And casting Michael Berryman as the gentle but somewhat ODC dog handler was a stroke of genius. But as another commenter observed, the most impressive feature of the film was the character development. Rare is the slasher flick that lets you identify with its lead characters. Give this movie a try.

Only when you consider how many ways that film with a storyline such as this could have turned out to have been a monumental bore can you appreciate how excellent AWH really is. Nicholas' was extremely effective at blending the monitor-like shots in the apartment with close-ups and different angles which, though perhaps not perfectly true to what the voyeur could actually see, allowed the story to flow smoothly.

But for all of Nicholas' good work, the believability and vulnerability brought to the role of the stalk-ee by Ana Claudia Talancon -- not to mention the radiance - made the ending all the more chilling. Top notch.

It appears that I am the first American to review this masterpiece. If so, I cannot agree more with the others who recognized the excellence of this film. In a time when plot twists are so formulaic and derivative, Killing Words shows that there us still room for a well-developed, intelligently-written story. A nod should go to the editing of work. At more than a dozen points in the development of the plot, there Might have been an opportunity for the viewer to pause and reason through where the story was headed. But the flashbacks were so well place that the viewer was kept off-guard. One reviewer correctly noted that this piece is a prime candidate for a redo by and American studio. I hope not. The style and grace of this movie could be easily ruined.