Kaos' way behind movie reviews

djsimp · « **Reply #540 on:** April 04, 2011, 04:23:30 PM »

Quote from: Kaos on April 04, 2011, 03:16:45 PM

On a cold and rainy Saturday afternoon, I've been known to watch a Lifetime movie or two.

Thats breeding ground for a bout of depression.

JR4AU · « **Reply #541 on:** April 04, 2011, 11:48:33 PM »

Quote from: Kaos on March 26, 2011, 01:20:45 AM

Unstoppable

This movie was generally panned and I didn't expect much.

But I liked it. I liked Pelham 123, too, and it got the same critical bashing.

There were some extraneous scenes. Why bother to show the kids at all if they weren't going to be in peril? That was a wasted 15 minutes of the movie.

But the rest was pretty tight. Denzel brings a breezy cool to every role he plays. I've come to appreciate him more and more as an actor. He'll take the occasional dud role, but he makes the acting seem so completely effortless it's hard not to enjoy his performance.

The action was well paced, the disagreements between the corporate suits and the men/women in the trenches rang true and the movie steered clear of ridiculous and unnecessary sub plots (with the exception of the damn kids).

I wish they hadn't done the "based on a true story" thing, though, because from what I understand the real story was much less dramatic. There was no arched curve, the train wasn't going but something like 20 mph, nobody had to run across the boxcars.

Just make the movie and keep it to yourself that you heard a story about a train that ran away and decided it would make a great film. Happens all the time. Based on a true story? So was Inglorious Basterds.

I still thought this was a good movie. I enjoyed watching it.

I watched it based on this review. The kids didn't bother me, but I found myself on a continuous plateau with no real peak. The end was ok, but it left me wanting some gratuitous blood and guts...somebody falling under the train...something.

AU_Tiger_2000 · « **Reply #542 on:** April 05, 2011, 12:01:20 AM »

Quote from: Kaos on April 04, 2011, 03:16:45 PM

On a cold and rainy Saturday afternoon, I've been known to watch a Lifetime movie or two.

Is this done with a loaded revolver and the kind of vodka that comes in plastic bottles?

Jumbo · « **Reply #543 on:** April 05, 2011, 12:28:30 AM »

Quote from: Townhallsavoy on April 04, 2011, 02:54:51 PM

Kate Beckinsale vs. Meryl Streep?
Widower vs. Infidelity?
Did your wife enjoy Everybody's Fine? Because mine was pissed after watching Bridges of Madison County.

I'd take the recent non-old people chick flick over the liberal puke I watched last night.

No she cried the last hour of the movie, we looked at the movie description on the Dvr that shit said comedy?

dallaswareagle · « **Reply #544 on:** April 05, 2011, 11:54:06 AM »

Quote from: Saniflush on April 04, 2011, 02:58:14 PM

That's good shit right there. You also could have substituted "this is the one with Valerie Bertenelli" and been pretty safe.

Or the guy from Animal House (Otter?) he fuck overs-kills-steals-from alot of women. When I come from umpiring at night-I can tell if shes been watching it and how bad of an asshole the guy(any guy) was that night.

BZ770 · « **Reply #545 on:** April 06, 2011, 11:49:02 PM »

Quote from: Kaos on April 02, 2011, 10:57:08 PM

Hop

Packed theater. Mostly kids under 14 and parents. Maybe -- maybe -- two or three "full theater" laughs.

A couple of "over their heads" shots that got a smattering of small laughs from the grownups.

So it wasn't a comedy. Surely it could wring some drama from the premise, maybe give a tear-jerker moment (like The Santa Clause was able to do). Nope. All eyes dry.

So what was it. Cute. That's about it. It was just cute. It wasn't "awwww" cute. It wasn't "that's so" cute. It was just cute. Really had nothing to say.

What happened to Kaley Cuoco? She was sooooo hot in "eff You If You Want To Date My Daughter" or whatever that show was where John Ritter had his swan song (see below). She looked absolutely horrible here. Her hair was a poopty mess, her face looked puffy and swollen, and her clothes (except for the jogging outfit) didn't even fit well. She looked horrible and was a pretty bad actress, too.

Marsden? Goofy grinning bastard. Found him utterly annoying.

The thing I was most dreading -- Russell Brand as the bunny -- was actually tolerable. Apparently Russell is only an annoying eff when you have to actually look at his goofy ass. He was much, much better as an animated character.

Animation was okay -- not nearly as good as Rango, but the job on the rabbit hair was very good. The movie just had a hard time drumming up any feeling for any of the cardboard cutout characters. And it really needed it.

Based on the enormous crowd I saw lining up for this one, it's going to make a poopload of cash and be number one for a week or so. Really a sad state of affairs.

Be glad when Kung Fu Panda 2 and Pirates 4 come out.

I got stuck seeing this Friday when it came out with the family. It was painful.

Kaos · « **Reply #546 on:** April 17, 2011, 04:03:54 AM »

Scream 4

Let me get this out of the way first. Courtney Cox looks like hammered buzzard shit. Her plastic surgery was a disaster, the fake cheekbones and ghoulishly stretched smile is reminiscent of the Joker. Never thought I would say this but Arquette could do better. Congrats to him for moving on.

Neve Campbell, on the other hand, didn't go the "carve-em-up" route and has aged pretty well.

And now the movie.

It's exactly what you expect. Exactly.

Plenty of attractive beasts. Marielle Jaffe? Holy smoking cow. See below. Hayden Panieterre? Meh, reminded me of a midget. Brittany Robertson? Nice hair. Happy 21st birthday on Monday, BTW, Miss Robertson. Emma Roberts? Not so much hot, but a nice performance as the stalked one.

Like the original Scream you were never really sure who was under the mask until the final reveal. That's always good. I hate seeing what's coming early on. The script dropped a few red herrings and kept Ghostface's identity secret.

What the film lacked, though, was bite. We've seen it before. The cast -- and it was better than the average horror flick -- seemed to be going through the motions. The original was fresh and served as a springboard for a number of new faces like Neve, Courtney, Skeet, Jamie, Lillard and Rose McGowan. This version -- with the exception of Roberts -- was more a vehicle for established stars to chew a little scenery. Don't think there's a budding Jamie Kennedy in the group of lesser names here.

Complaint? Ghostface talked too damn much. And if you've seen the Scary Movie franchise, it's hard to take old Ghosty serious any more. When he's huffing weed with the Wayans brothers and his mask changes? Can't get that image out of my head. In a way, the Scary Movie series surpassed all but the first Scream anyway. It was better. But...

If you go, you'll get exactly what you pay for. Some low rent slashing, some attractive teens (no nudity at all), a shockingly hideous Courtney Cox, a surprisingly preserved Neve, a reveal you didn't expect and a pile of dead bodies.

The theater we went to added the surprise of a staffer dressed as Ghostface slipping into the screening as the credits rolled. He lurked in the shadows toward the exit and scared the absolute bejesus out of a group of ignorant, obnoxious, punk ass teens who'd spent most of the movie running their mouths from the back row. It was worth the price of admission to see the piggy bitch knocking her friends aside like bowling pins as they threw popcorn and drinks and scrambled back up the aisle.

Kaos · « **Reply #547 on:** April 17, 2011, 04:28:02 AM »

The Kindgom

How did I miss this movie when it was in theaters? I got it from Netflix by accident, it wasn't even in my queue. Started to send it back, but thinking it was that Burt Reynolds, Ray Liotta, Jason Statham medieval movie and good for a laugh or two, I put it in.

Not that movie. It's actually called In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale (which should tell you all you need to know about that).

No, The Kingdom is a story about the bombing of a US outpost in Saudi Arabia and the response by an FBI team led by Jamie Foxx. Team includes Jennifer Garner, Chris Cooper (very underrated actor) and Jason Bateman (who was pretty damn good in his role).

This movie was everything I hoped The Hurt Locker would be. Instead Hurt Locker was an emotional morass, obviously directed by a woman. This movie was much more direct, the action sequences were a little over the top, but they kept your attention. There was no wobbly moral compass, no effort to delve into the emotional crises of the main characters. It told a straightforward story. It was a story of conflict directed by a man.

The Kingdom offered a disturbing and sobering tale of US-Saudi relations. It dealt with the interaction between the Muslim and western worlds and painted a pretty stark picture of the ever expanding gulf between them both.

The performances were understated and that gave them gravitas. There was no hulking Arnold shooting up buildings and declaring he'd be back. But there was a tense shoot-em-up preceded by a major car crash/chase scene.

The emotions rang true on all sides. Foxx was steady. Garner was very solid.

Ok, so I don't necessarily buy that the FBI would go rogue and send in a team when their intervention had been expressly forbidden, but beyond that the film was done very, very well.

The action sequences were taut. The tension felt legitimate. The director did a nice job of setting the stage and then letting the actors and the environment do their jobs.

I know I would hate to be an American in the Middle East. The movie effectively conveyed that.

It was a pretty decent movie with a relatively thought-provoking epilogue. Hackneyed? Yeah. A little, but sometimes the best endings are.

Why didn't I know about this movie?

Townhallsavoy · « **Reply #548 on:** April 17, 2011, 08:44:27 AM »

Anyone ever seen Yojimbo?

It's from the 50s and served as the inspiration for the Firstful of Dollars series. Excellent movie if you can handle subtitles.

Kaos · « **Reply #549 on:** April 19, 2011, 11:17:10 PM »

The Tourist

Preface. I love Johnny Depp. Think he is incredibly talented.

I must amend that statement now, however, to include the following caveat: in certain types of roles.

If the character Depp is playing is weird, fey, affected, afflicted with some bizarre abnormality or otherwide prop-aided odd, Depp is as good as there is.

When asked to play a role where he has to exist as an allegedly normal guy and interact normally with other human beings and you get The Tourist. Depp is awkward. His emotions are so flat that they don't register. He delivers 'I love you" and "this was very good wine" with the same earnest puppy dog expression. Might as well have been reading from the phone book.

When called on to perform action scenes, he can't escape the arms-flailing quirkiness that characterizes Jack Sparrow -- and makes that role such a perfect fit. Perhaps Depp isn't playing Sparrow so much as he's just being himself.

I watched this movie with it's implausible, nonsensical plot, its continual contrivances and its liberal application of deus ex machina and found myself wishing for another actor in the lead -- one with the chops and bravura to lend some credence to the role. This movie with Robert Downey Jr. might have elevated itself from dreck to tapioca, perhaps.

But it was still bad. So bad that maybe it couldn't be rescussitated.

Cast was solid but did little with it.

Depp was dreary although he did sneak in a somewhat clever quip about his inability to sustain an accent, something that plagues the Kentucky boy in real life.

Angelina Jolie essentially pouted, sashayed and smirked her way through this turkey. She was useless and lightweight.

The guy who played Chaucer in A Knight's Tale was adequate and delivered the best line, a sly homage to the Heath Ledger film.

The guy who played Count Adhelmar in Knight's Tale was also in the cast, but he was completely wasted in a throwaway role.

The scenery was spectacular if you like a little Venice.

The performances were just so devoid of honest human emotion that I didn't care. I wondered (aloud more than once) if they sat through the dailies and thought to themselves "wow, this is great!" I snorted audibly at some of the asinine "emotional" moments.

The director -- some cat named Doofenschmirtz -- said he intended the film to be a comedy with some dramatic moments. Too bad he didn't bother to film it in that manner. It might have actually worked as a comedy. As what it turned out to be? It didn't work at all. It was nothing.

What is it about people that they can't recognize complete and utter shit when they're making it? I might not could make a better movie, but I could have spent 15 minutes looking at any day's shooting and told them this was dead in the water.

I have a number of rules in my life. Don't eat at a buffet restaurant from 1:15 to 5:40 pm is one of them. Another time-honored maxim is that if a Blu-Ray/DVD has no additional features -- no bloopers, no director's cut, no alternate ending, no exposition, no making of, no deleted scenes -- it's going to be a big old honking wad of excrement. Proven once again.

Dammit Johnny. I'm going to just erase this one from memory.

Saniflush · « **Reply #550 on:** April 20, 2011, 06:57:41 AM »

Depp hasn't been normal since 21 Jump Street

ssgaufan · « **Reply #551 on:** April 20, 2011, 10:01:39 AM »

Quote from: Kaos on April 19, 2011, 11:17:10 PM

The Tourist

Preface. I love Johnny Depp. Think he is incredibly talented.

I must amend that statement now, however, to include the following caveat: in certain types of roles.

If the character Depp is playing is weird, fey, affected, afflicted with some bizarre abnormality or otherwide prop-aided odd, Depp is as good as there is.

When asked to play a role where he has to exist as an allegedly normal guy and interact normally with other human beings and you get The Tourist. Depp is awkward. His emotions are so flat that they don't register. He delivers 'I love you" and "this was very good wine" with the same earnest puppy dog expression. Might as well have been reading from the phone book.

When called on to perform action scenes, he can't escape the arms-flailing quirkiness that characterizes Jack Sparrow -- and makes that role such a perfect fit. Perhaps Depp isn't playing Sparrow so much as he's just being himself.

I watched this movie with it's implausible, nonsensical plot, its continual contrivances and its liberal application of deus ex machina and found myself wishing for another actor in the lead -- one with the chops and bravura to lend some credence to the role. This movie with Robert Downey Jr. might have elevated itself from dreck to tapioca, perhaps.

But it was still bad. So bad that maybe it couldn't be rescussitated.

Cast was solid but did little with it.

Depp was dreary although he did sneak in a somewhat clever quip about his inability to sustain an accent, something that plagues the Kentucky boy in real life.

Angelina Jolie essentially pouted, sashayed and smirked her way through this turkey. She was useless and lightweight.

The guy who played Chaucer in A Knight's Tale was adequate and delivered the best line, a sly homage to the Heath Ledger film.

The guy who played Count Adhelmar in Knight's Tale was also in the cast, but he was completely wasted in a throwaway role.

The scenery was spectacular if you like a little Venice.

The performances were just so devoid of honest human emotion that I didn't care. I wondered (aloud more than once) if they sat through the dailies and thought to themselves "wow, this is great!" I snorted audibly at some of the asinine "emotional" moments.

The director -- some cat named Doofenschmirtz -- said he intended the film to be a comedy with some dramatic moments. Too bad he didn't bother to film it in that manner. It might have actually worked as a comedy. As what it turned out to be? It didn't work at all. It was nothing.

What is it about people that they can't recognize complete and utter shit when they're making it? I might not could make a better movie, but I could have spent 15 minutes looking at any day's shooting and told them this was dead in the water.

I have a number of rules in my life. Don't eat at a buffet restaurant from 1:15 to 5:40 pm is one of them. Another time-honored maxim is that if a Blu-Ray/DVD has no additional features -- no bloopers, no director's cut, no alternate ending, no exposition, no making of, no deleted scenes -- it's going to be a big old honking wad of excrement. Proven once again.

Dammit Johnny. I'm going to just erase this one from memory.

I actually agree with you on this one.

GH2001 · « **Reply #552 on:** April 21, 2011, 11:25:04 AM »

Quote from: Saniflush on April 20, 2011, 06:57:41 AM

Depp hasn't been normal since 21 Jump Street

If 21 jump street is normal, then I would like to be weird. Depp is a great actor - in certain roles, as Kaos said. When he's on, there's no one better. I'm not gonna say he's Tom Hanks or Jimmy Stewart, but I think he's pretty versatile and believable in most roles.

djsimp · « **Reply #553 on:** April 27, 2011, 09:33:23 AM »

I Love You Phillip Morris

I made a mistake. No really, a serious fucking mistake renting this movie. There wasn't shit to rent so I went for this one since I had noticed it a couple times while browsing. I thought surely it would be decent since it had Jim Carrey and Ewon McGreggor. To hell with that. This movie has now officially become the #1 worst movie eva; even worse than Bug. Nothing but a gay love fest b/w Carrey and Ewon. I actually heard the words "I want to cum in your ass" come out of Carrey's mouth. We couldn't recover from that. The movie was turned off and back to our regularly scheduled cable programming.

GH2001 · « **Reply #554 on:** April 27, 2011, 10:06:04 AM »

Quote from: djsimp41 on April 27, 2011, 09:33:23 AM

I Love You Phillip Morris

I made a mistake. No really, a serious fucking mistake renting this movie. There wasn't shit to rent so I went for this one since I had noticed it a couple times while browsing. I thought surely it would be decent since it had Jim Carrey and Ewon McGreggor. To hell with that. This movie has now officially become the #1 worst movie eva; even worse than Bug. Nothing but a gay love fest b/w Carrey and Ewon. I actually heard the words "I want to cum in your ass" come out of Carrey's mouth. We couldn't recover from that. The movie was turned off and back to our regularly scheduled cable programming.

Carey jumped the shark with Truman Show or perhaps Liar Liar.

Kaos · « **Reply #555 on:** April 27, 2011, 10:14:06 AM »

Quote from: GH2001 on April 27, 2011, 10:06:04 AM

Carey jumped the shark with Truman Show or perhaps Liar Liar.

He rode into the business on a fucking shark. Dreadfully unfunny. Should have been shot after his first Fire Marshall Bill sketch and left for dead.

I've hated everything he's ever been in except The Dead Pool and that's only because it was Dirty Harry and because Axl, Duff, Slash and Izzy were also in the film. GnR in a movie? Win.

GH2001 · « **Reply #556 on:** April 27, 2011, 10:16:30 AM »

Quote from: Kaos on April 27, 2011, 10:14:06 AM

He rode into the business on a fucking shark. Dreadfully unfunny. Should have been shot after his first Fire Marshall Bill sketch and left for dead.

I've hated everything he's ever been in except The Dead Pool and that's only because it was Dirty Harry and because Axl, Duff, Slash and Izzy were also in the film. GnR in a movie? Win.

Except for the Commie sympathizing agenda in it, I thought The Majestic was pretty decent. He actually ACTED in it instead of the standard Ace Ventura mannerisms in every other movie he does. Dare I mention.....gulp......23?

Vandy Vol · « **Reply #557 on:** April 27, 2011, 10:30:25 AM »

Quote from: GH2001 on April 27, 2011, 10:16:30 AM

Except for the Commie sympathizing agenda in it, I thought The Majestic was pretty decent. He actually ACTED in it instead of the standard Ace Ventura mannerisms in every other movie he does. Dare I mention.....gulp......23?

I refused to watch 23 because the premise seemed...how do you say?...retarded. So I don't know how he acted in it, but I also enjoyed The Majestic. The Truman Show was alright, considering that he was supposed to take on a goofy, 1950's television stereotype, but as the movie progressed, it required him to take on a more serious role.

He's definitely not my favorite actor by far, mostly due to the over-the-top physical comedy that brought him to fame, but at least he's gotten less goofy in recent roles.

Townhallsavoy · « **Reply #558 on:** April 27, 2011, 10:45:12 AM »

Jim Carrey?

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

He was good in that.

Kaos · « **Reply #559 on:** April 27, 2011, 10:48:18 AM »

Quote from: Townhallsavoy on April 27, 2011, 10:45:12 AM

Jim Carrey?

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.

He was good in that.

That movie sucked a 45-pound dick.