unsolicitedmale

Generally, I like this movie. Not a huge fan of Nick Cage most of the time and Matchstick Men is no exception. But he's likable enough once you get over the often-bad acting.

I won't labor the plot - 300+ other reviews do that very well. And I am one of those who actually liked the "big con" twist - and no, I didn't see it coming (I can be plot-dense sometimes LOL!). I retrospect, it's so obvious - but so was Sixth Sense and a lot of people bought that one too.

What really bugs me about this movie are two things:

1. Cage's character is supposedly massively OCD about cleanliness. And yet he is a horribly messy chain smoker. In countless scenes he's flicking ashes on the floor, in the house and car. His car ashtray is overflowing. And everyone comes in his house and comments on how it always smells "clean" from cleaning products.... has anyone ever visited a chain smoker's house? EVERYTHING would be coated with goo that would then be collecting massive dust. And you don't just wipe that away! As a long-ago heavy smoker I can attest to this. No OCD-Cleanliness person would smoke much less chain smoke.

2. I'd have to count, but I'd bet there are only a handful of scenes where someone isn't blatantly smoking. It's so annoying and so unnecessary to the plot. The little girl even is seen smoking, the shrink smokes a pipe, Frank smokes, the big con guy smokes, and they smoke everywhere - Cage even smokes while eating breakfast. The Tobacco industry must be proud of this - either that or Cage (who in fact is a chain smoker) demanded he be able to smoke in every scene or he wouldn't do it.

I'm no radical "anti-smoking" person (typing this from a Casino bar in Vegas in fact LOL!) - but it's such a laughable plot item and clearly not an accident.

But otherwise, I still like the movie

I'm surprised at such a low score for this movie! First, please know that I was born, baptized, and raised Catholic. I've since moved to another religion, but not for any "Catholic hate" reasons at all. So I have a STRONG knowledge of Catholicism. It seems MOST of the negative reviews claim it's "Christian/Catholic bashing"... I would wonder how many of those folks actually WATCHED it or just wrote a review based on a presupposed notion. There is NO Christian bashing at all IMO. Just portraying people such as I've known all my life the way they are, and the portrayal isn't bad in any way, as far as I'm concerned.

Overall it's very balanced - yeah there's a few potshots at Catholics ("I don't have to think... I'm Catholic") but overall, the portrayal is VERY accurate to my Catholic upbringing and those in the faith I know today. Sure, hardly ANY nuns still wear the habit - but it's just little things. By and large the portrayal I thought was fair on ALL SIDES, not only for the Catholics but all the other characters.

I'll be honest and say I FULLY EXPECTED a "Christians are stupid knuckle dragging Neanderthals" flick - I expected to shut it off half way through. Instead, I watched the whole thing and rather enjoyed it.

The movie itself actually plays quite well - Kathleen Turner takes a bit of getting used to because of her very deep, manly voice... but overall, it has a nicely done "indie" feel to it in every way.

No, it's NOT an award contender in any way - some of the acting is rather stiff and forced, the plot is predictable, and there are quite a few clichés and stereotypes. But it's VERY watchable, totally held my attention, was touching in places, and ENJOYABLE to watch right up to the end for me.

Give it a shot - don't let the negative reviews implying it's a "Christian bashing" flick deter you.

I should preface this review by stating that I'm a Ferrari aficionado and own a 1986 Ferrari 328. So I bought this for the same reason I own lots of other Ferrari memorabilia and such - I'm a big fan of all things Ferrari.

I really wanted to love this movie. But on balance, I felt it just falls short of what it could have been. The life of racing icon Enzo Ferrari is told through flashbacks, with an enigmatic journalist being the vehicle to pull the story from Ferrari's past. Visually the movie is quite stunning - cinematography you'd expect from a Spielberg or Cameron film, with many sweeping panoramas and unique camera angles.

But several serious flaws in the end waste much of the beauty of the movie. First is the dramatic soundtrack; it runs almost CONTINUOUSLY. Heavy dramatic violin passages should be reserved for those critical moments of high drama. But instead the strings sigh and cry and emote to such excess that when you finally get to a scene where such drama is warranted, it just sounds like the rest of the film. There are a few moments where the soundtrack ceases, and they actually caught my attention due to the LACK of music for a change.

Secondly is the acting. It's just simply sub-par. Some of the characters (young Dino for example) just make me cringe in embarrassment for the poor acting job. It's almost as if it was considered more important to have actors that LOOKED the part, rather than actors that might be off in historical-visual sense, but had greater skill.

Thirdly, it's just too bloody long! At 215 minutes, it feels more like double that. Many scenes are very slow and many could have simply been left on the cutting room floor to no detriment. (And just as a footnote, the DVD has a very odd menu structure - you will see the credits roll after chapter 12, and most likely do what I did and hit 'stop' and go looking for 'part 2'. Turns out it's just some sort of intermission where it LOOKS like the movie ends. Very strange and annoying - simply bump the chapter button and the movie continues at chapter 13, but none of this is explained - you just get a message saying 'end of Part One' with no explanation of where Part 2 might reside!).

Lastly, if you are wanting to see Ferrari the car, instead of Ferrari the man, this is NOT the movie for you. In the entire film there is probably less than a half hour of footage involving cars! This is very much a biopic trying to explain the inner feelings and turmoils of a famous man; it does not concern itself much with the cars that bear his name. There is still plenty of glimpses (1930s Alfas, Ferrari 125, and a few others - including a 400i and 3x8 near the end of the movie) to satisfy us car guys.

Summary: Beautiful cinematography marred by poor acting and 40 minutes of unneeded plodding story line, Enzo Ferrari is still worth the view if you are a fan of the marque. 3 Stars

I had great hopes for Da Vinci Code on the big screen. I liked the book - I thought it was quite good in the story telling, albeit poorly written sentence by sentence. Although, I have to say I think it was way over-hyped as a book - I don't really understand the craze for it the past 2 years.

But the movie adaptation - what a bore! I almost fell asleep in a few parts. The acting, especially that of Hanks and Tautou - both seem like cardboard cutouts, reading a very lame script. Tautou, especially - uttering the same few french words under her breath at just about every pouting scene she plays. Hanks too. "Oh my God - a rose" - when he first sees the cryptex box. Looks like a cheesy Chinese box, with what looks much more like a white petunia than a rose - hardly an 'Oh my God' moment. This sort of thing repeats and repeats and repeats. I've never seen Hanks so dull and lifeless in a film.

I think the problem with making a movie of such a book is that there is so much information (whether fact or fiction) doled out in the book that you can digest at your leisure - perhaps even rereading a section or two to make sure you got it all. But in a movie, that sort of thing comes off as stiff and force-fed - the actors are made to feed out this information in scenes that come off as totally unnatural. It just seems dull and forced.

The whole thing culminates in a cheesy end scene that is just over the top in trying to convey deep 'oh my God' thought and emotion, and to me just seems silly and trying too hard to be dramatic.

I wanted to like this movie, but I have no intention of buying the DVD and really don't care to see it again. Too bad.

As much as I hate to see reviews start with 'this is the worst movie..." I have to say this thing is REALLY out there.

My biggest single complaint is that if this scenario were to play out in ANY city in ANY state of the US in reality, it would be a CRIME. How in the world can Hollywood think that seeing a 45 year old woman in 'love' with a 10 year old boy and the audience would see it as 'romantic'?? Even if the boy had been 18 it would have been weird, but at TEN YEARS OLD it's just plain wrong. As a parent of a 10 year old boy, I was Embarrassed to see this film at best, and angry at worst. Ever heard of Mary Kay Latourno? And the direction!!!! OMG - did he kill the editor? There are scenes that just drone on and on and on, and for no apparent reason. The music just grates on and on, with annoying repetition, and the closeups are painful. This ain't no Kubric! Just look at the box office totals - that tells the whole story.

This is a TWISTED film with graphic overtones of pedophilia and I don't care how much you love 'art films' from Hollywood - it's just plain WRONG.

1 out of 10

This movie starts off great - can't tell if it's going to be a thriller, a mystery, a love story, or what. Keeps ya guessing for a while. I'm puzzled by the packaging of Nicole Kidman as the only big character in the trailers and on the box - there's some good talent in this movie that didn't get much publicity. But sadly all the talent is largely wasted. Although it starts off OK, it quickly becomes laughable.

The first time we see the young Anthony Hopkins, the first red flag in continuity and casting pops up - the young guy has nothing of an English accent! How could they cast a young Anthony Hopkins without something of a similar accent?? Or are we not supposed to notice Hopkins' accent, like in those old Hitler movies where all the German folks sound English?

Then comes the extremely unlikely love affair with Nicole Kidman - in his dreams! Yeah, I know they are both running from their past and all that, but still ain't no way that a woman like Nicole would go for a flabby old man like Hopkins. Just doesn't work in the real world. 'Somethings Gotta Give' was as good as that sort of thing got, and it was very good at pulling it off. The Stain does not pull it off, in my opinion.

The only thing I liked was the illustration of the ridiculous level of political correctness in colleges today - bravo for this bit in the script and a real surprise out of Hollywood to allow such a truth to be made into a movie.

[possible spoiler]

But the coup-de-gras for me was trying to accept Hopkins as a black man! Or for that matter, a Jewish man as he was pretending to be - I'm Jewish and saw NOTHING in his home decor and lifestyle that would indicate his Jewishness - anyone pretending would surely have lots of Jewish stuff - books, decorations, mezzuzah, and other such items around their home to 'make it seem believable'. The only Jewish thing we see is a Jewish funeral - but there is no explanation of his conversion or whatever other means he would need to present during his life in order to get a Rabbi to officiate over his funeral. Just doesn't work that way in the 'real' Jewish world. So basically in this movie, we're just to be told that folks are black or Jewish or British, and we're just supposed to believe it with no evidence beyond that. Makes it really hard for me to take the rest of the movie seriously.

Who Framed Roger Rabbit had more believable cartoon characters.

WJC

Arghhh!!! What a dismal little film. My wife really wanted to see this in the theater, but thankfully we waited too long (was it perhaps that this dreadful thing was in the theaters for about a day?) so got it on DVD.

Who is Sylvia Plath? Who is Hughes? How did they get to where they were when they met? Seems the makers just assume we KNOW this already. Like in 'The Passion' where at least we sorta know how the bearded bloody guy got where he was. But other than to know they were both poets, the movie does NOTHING to tell their story. No wonder the

Plath family did not want anything to do with this piece of drech.

Dismal movie - not even a good dismal movie.

WJC