Sick Leave is not a movie – it is what I am taking. I have contracted, developed, caught, acquired, whatever…. shingles. This adult form of chicken pox is rather painful making it impossible to concentrate long enough to review a movie. However, I do have recommendations for you.
Julie and Julia – Go see this. This is a delightful film. Julia Child’s love for life comes through as well as Julia going through a process that teaches her not just to cook but to love life as well. Seriously, this film is one for everyone.
500 Days of Summer – Good Indie. It is funny and thoughtful without being cute and trite.
Time Traveler’s Wife – Great novel. Very good movie. Great love story. Love works the same way regardless of time. Surprisingly easy to follow.
District 9 – Great Sci-Fi! So-so fiction. Suspending your disbelief about the plot is harder than it should be. The aliens are easy to believe. The speed at which a wonder (aliens) becomes a pest is very human.
Taking Woodstock - Ang Lee tells a story well. The characters are people I remember from my college experience. It is very real which probably makes it hard for younger people to believe. Uneven strengths in actors detract somewhat.
I will recover – soon I hope – and write real blogs about movies asap.
I have enjoyed the Harry Potter movies. It has been interesting to see different directors’ takes on a simple story line that is almost universally known to the moviegoer despite age differences. In fact, when I watched the movie on a summer afternoon the audience was at least 80% adult.
The latest installment gives us a teenaged group of students with raging hormones which overwhelm their previous engagement with the war between good and evil. The war goes on but one wonders the actual priorities of the teens involved. All in all it is a very realistic view of adolescence.
There are a few casting problems that can detract during the movie but audiences remain involved in the story throughout. This is a good example of story telling. Much of the pageantry of previous movies is absent. The film is not bogged down by trying to follow the minutia of the novel. Instead it has a real beginning, middle, and ending. Too many of the previous chapters seemed try to get every little aspect of the novel in to the movie and thusly had to delete the middle due to time constraints. Unfortunately, the end of the movie is obviously not the end of the story. I, like millions of others, will go to the big screen to see the end of this story.
Children and adults alike can enjoy this movie at the big screen.
I did not commit suicide watching this movie but I did pull out my knife twice. Producing a lightweight summer romantic comedy is not rocket science. People have been successfully doing it for decades. But I guess everyone has the desire to bring something unique to the screen. Why bring something suitably entertaining to the summer screen when with a few basic changes you can prove to everybody that you have no artistic talent whatsoever? I am not sure who, exactly, is responsible but whoever it is should go back to counting beans behind closed doors.
The basic plot is a variation of Cyrano de Bergerac. In this case a very earthy television commentator (Gerard Butler) is Cyrano giving the show’s producer Abby (Katherine Heigl) advice on changing her basic character so that she can seduce a doctor – with the ultimate goal of maintaining a long-term relationship with someone who fulfills her ten criteria for an ideal man. Good idea – bad execution.
Graphic language abounds – it didn’t bother me. Physical and sight gags are conventional but ofttimes amusing. Banality is ever present and that is just plain boring. This movie is one to save for cable while recovering from a root canal.
In case anyone was ever in doubt – I really love to go to movies. Starting in the fourth grade I went to the theatre (picture show) twice a week until high school when I went three times a week. Early on the local theatre had one movie Monday through Wednesday and another Thursday through Saturday. {No movies on Sundays until I was in high school and then they allowed an “inspirational movie” on Sundays. Like many I too was inspired one Sunday by Moll Flanders – a morality tale if there ever was one… but I digress… kinda…} I love the idea that a group of people spent millions of dollars in an effort to entertain me: an insignificant nobody adrift in West Central Georgia. And they keep doing it year after year. I know that other people are considered as audiences as movies are planned – but I don’t care. Either they entertain me or the movie is a failure. Subjectivity is not dead.
Fortunately, Public Enemies is a success. From the beginning to the end of the film I was engrossed in the story of John Dillinger, Melvin Purvis, and Billie Frechette. Notice I did not say “stories.” Unlike many movies reviewing history and going into each characters’ story and show the inevitable movement of history in the juxtapostioning of their lives; Public Enemies tells one story with multiple characters over a span of time – and tells it well. Even though there are no surprises in the story the audience is still shocked at the climax. The reason is simple – we buy into the story because the actors are living it – not just portraying it.
The director, Michael Mann knows style. I have loved many of his movies and TV shows for their emphasis on style over substance. His work centering on characters of substance have been less entertaining. Of course some of his work, think Hancock, lacks either. Public Enemies has both.
Mr. Mann seems uncomfortable at times handling both qualities in many of the characters. His actors, however, have no such problem. The quality of acting in this film is incredible. Small parts have big stars who know how to act and do so. The actors are so into every moment of the film that substance is the hallmark of the experience whether Mr. Mann intended it or not. There are so many wonderful moments created by the actors that I couldn’t even begin to count them much less list them. Marion Cotillard proves that her Academy Award was no fluke. Johnny Depp, Christian Bale, Billy Crudup, Stephan Lang and Giovanni Ribisi provide a framework for excellence that the rest of the cast well fills.
It may not have the gloss and shine Mr. Mann loves but Public Enemies is a wonderful experience. It is worth the money – even in New York and Chicago.
I was pleasantly surprised watching this movie. This is a remake of a ‘70’s action drama that drew praise then and it fills the bill just as well this summer. This is not an art house film. It deals with superficial aspects of characters in deadly, intense situations. It is not an action movie. Though there is plenty of action, most of the movie takes place with the main characters sitting and talking to each other over a two-way radio. Nor is this a special effects extravaganza. The special effects are very, very good but (spoiler alert) the subway train remains a train, cars are cars, and motorcycles are just two-wheeled motorized vehicles.
This is a fun movie to watch. It is easy to stay focused on the plot. The characters are given some complexity but not much. This is a good action movie for guys and it won’t induce homicidal or suicidal tendencies among the women who accompany them. It is an easy way to pass a couple of hours at the movies – something that can’t be said for quiet a few movies this summer.
Summer romances are meant to be predictable. That is a given. A visit to a theatre for a couple of hours of light entertainment about disparant people falling in love replete with comedic scenes, dramatic irony, and surprising scenes of sensuality are common fare for successful summer romances. All of which are present in the trailer of The Proposal.
Unfortunately the movie is a lengthened version of the trailer. Instead of using the preview to show snippits of longer scenes – the scenes from the trailer are the highlights of the film. The movie seems to be designed to be no more than a set up to the comedic events previewed.
If you really like the previews try tivoing them and pausing between scenes. Watch it over a period of 90 minutes and save yourself $10.
It is hard to write about a movie that is about children with cancer, children whose very existence seems predicated on the ability to donate platelets, marrow, and body parts, parents who are losing their children, and a family which is dysfunctional and also discuss entertainment value but such is the function of a review. The only reason for going to a movie is to be entertained. While a movie can be educational the fact is: books are more so. While one can admire a performance if the same is not entertaining the question is obvious: “why go watch it?” But I digress even before I start… This movie contains all the horrors mentioned above and it was entertaining.
My Sister’s Keeper contains all too real problems that face people and families today but it goes beyond the norm. Ms. Piccoult’s novel and the movie as well pay homage to Faulkner and examine the “human heart in conflict with itself.” In fact we see multiple characters examine themselves through coping with a child’s terminal illness. It is a heart-rending story that touches audiences at a primal level. But it is more.
Told from multiple viewpoints the film allows us to experience the horror from different aspects. We see individuals damaged because a sibling’s illness has so dominated a family that the purpose of the family has changed from that which is inherent to only dealing with the one child’s illness. The true story is not that of the mother, nor the brother, nor the patient, nor even the title sister. The story is the family’s struggle to care for one of its own and remain a family.
This film is an incredible experience. The cast is incredibly strong. The director enhances their efforts. The audience, at least those who watch without iphones in hand, are rapt. Leaving the theatre the viewers won’t be talking about the special effects but they do talk about the tragedies and triumphs inherent in the human condition.
Somehow someone in the American film industry has decided that for a movie to be successful everything must be known by audiences before they are ever to plunk down $10 – $15 each to go see it. Plots are considered need-to-know and provided in trailers, commercial ads, and even reviews. If it is to have a surprise ending that too is advertised so that the entire audience will anticipate what possible conclusion can be achieved. For comedies the various drop-dead funny scenes are advertised widely and fully on television so that the viewer will know when to laugh. (Needless to say, if test audiences do not find them drop-dead funny the scenes are removed.) This reaffirms viewers’ confidence in their own intelligence when they laugh when the entire audience laughs as well. What would happen in a movie if only some people laughed? Would the people who didn’t laugh ever see a movie by your company again? Hollywood producers will attempt to never find out. The Brothers Bloom did not get a big time Hollywood release.
The story is not set in time and barely in place. It is the story of con artists brothers and they journey through life and, of course, of the “one big con.” It covers a gamut of emotions without cluing the clueless as to what is intended. It is witty and clever. It conceals con in the deepest emotions and true emotion in the hokiest cons. Ambiguity keeps the audience on the edge of their seats as much as the many, many cliffhangers.
Good and bad are determined by the juxtaposition of situation and the current exposition of a character. Of course succeeding expositions totally rewrite the characters. Red herrings teem. The story is engaging, revealing, and fulfilling.
If you want to go to a comedy where the humor is brainless and over the top there are many contenders this summer – however, do not go see this film. If you have no idea what an intelligent comedy is – do not go see this film. If you have no idea of what I am saying – do not go see this film. Otherwise: enjoy.
This movie needs a new title. While it is a clever little double entendre, given the script, and a triple entendre after watching it; a more descriptive title would be My Butt in Ruins. Moviegoers leave the theatre saying, “ I can’t believe I watched the whole thing.” The movie does seem a bit longer than it actually is by a factor of three or four. Staggering from the screening one asks what it was that had just been viewed. The answer is complex.
There are some very good actors in this movie. No actor does a good job though – none. The script was a good idea but never written for the screen. The settings are incredible but used minimally. The vignettes have promise but any hope for development is in vain. Dialogue ranges from trite to banal and back again.
Not only should you not pay money to see this movie – you should consider picketing the movie to save others.
The first Night at the Museum was an enjoyable summer movie. Sequels hold little hope of being as amusing but I was pleasantly surprised with this one. Don’t get me wrong – this is still a piece of fluff and nothing more but at least it is a nice piece of fluff. While the plot is even more contrived than the initial installment it is easy to suspend your disbelief with exceptional performances by Amy Adams and Hank Azaria.
Mr. Azaria plays a diabolical Pharaoh with a refined British accent true to the 1950’s and ‘60’s movies. His over the top sangfroid is a wonder to behold. Amy Adams as Amelia Earhart is inspiring, energetic, and point on as the dynamic flier from history. Their performances make the movie. Mr. Stiller, while very good, is overshadowed by the both the former.
This is a fun summer film. It will be fun for the kids at the movie and on DVD. Let your budget be your guide. However, if children are not involved you should wait for it on cable.
