Posted on 3/19/13 06:48 PM
Well, I didn't laugh once during this film. It was ackward, annoying and predictable. The characters are detestable and stupid. Overall it's a poor story portrayed by a poor cast.
Posted on 5/25/10 01:45 PM
Easily this film made me so uncomfortable. I simply didnt feel right watching it. I crates an aura of ackwardness that carries through every scene, every actor contributes to it and the film overall ends up disappointing.
Posted on 5/20/10 01:14 PM
Okay, Clint Eastwood is one of my favorite directors, I think he makes some of the finest films out there. Also Invictus was the film I was most looking forward to for 2009. I was a little disappointed. This wasn't my biggest disappointment by far, but I was slightly let down by a lot of things in this. So I'll get things underway.
The acting: The true stand-out for me here was Matt Damon. I'll admit I was never a big fan of Jason Bourne but her in the supporting role of the rugby captain he shines. Also Morgan Freeman inhabited the role of mandela with the same talent and vigor we once saw him demonstrate in the Shawshank Redemption. I thought it was esp. nice to see all the actors involved use proper accents, it really made the story believable. The entire supporting cast were for the most part quite fantastic, they contributed to the story in all the right ways and maintained their characters.
The story: The story of Nelson Mandela is one of true inspiration and aww, so it is basically almost impossible to mess this one up. With Eastwood at the helm it was truly inspirational. I thought that at point it really dragged and I got kinda bored.
Overall: I've only got a few critisms for this film, during the final rugby match the picture slowed down, for dramatic effect I aimagine, I disliked this a great deal. I didn't do a thing for my senses except make me yawn. There was something else about the film that I can't quite place my finger on. Throughout the entire film I kept getting an aura from the film, it was uplifting but kinda got me a little down. I have no idea why and I'm sure this is just me but I didn't really enjoy myself watching this as much as I did watching Changling, for instance. But the film as a whole was sound. Freeman, Damon, and the enitre cast did great, the story was good, this might not be one of Eastwoods best but it was something to be proud of.
Posted on 5/19/10 02:16 PM
I had a feeling this film wasen't going to aw me. I was partly correct. Right from the get-go we're slapped with some silly black magic story and shotty dialouge. So what elements made this film so good/bad?
The acting: Downey was fantastic in this golden globe winning performance as the light in the loafers, witty, idiotic detective. He basically saved the film from being a complete nose-dive. Jude Law, although quite sexy, was a little disappointing. He had all the elements of a good Watson, he was quiet, refined, and strong willed, but for whatever reason this fine actor drops the ball in this average role. The rest of the supporting cast play their parts with little or no vigor, esp. McAdams. It seems every film this pretty girl is in fatally drops the ball.
The story: The actual story of Holmes is quite a good one and makes for one hell of a movie. I understand the idea to do a more modernized/popular spin off, but it really ruins the actual aura the real holmes could of had. I found the story to be quite silly and a poor homage to the classic tales.
Overall: I don't think this was a bad film. I think that on a slow Saterday night it would make for a lively action flick. It is a little slower that most comedy/action films I've seen but it's alright.
Posted on 5/07/10 06:57 PM
This was another movie that I greatly looked forward to for 2009. Surprisingly this was truly outstanding! I was thrilled to see the iconic Jeff Bridges get the oscar he so very much deserved.
This film combined an old story (a once great one fallen on hard times makes his was back to the top) with superb acting and a moving score. On all counts the actors live up to their lead, Farrell, Gyllenhaal, and Duvall hand in real, moving performances.
I could spend all day raving about the actors and how fantastic they are but then I wouldn't get a chance to describe what else I loved about the film. The overall aura of the film was great. It was simple, raw and real. It reminded me a great deal of the wrestler for 2008, with the camera following the characters in a documentary style take. I espicially enjoyed the reality this film delievered. I actually expected to see Bridges talking like Bad Blake in an interview I saw him in after I watched the film. The only downside was that bridges got a little to into character and there were points where his speech was totally against the wall.
Overall I couldn't find a single issue with this film. The songs, the acting, and the familiar story deserved every oscar and nomination it got. Folks if you have a chance you must see this film! It was flawless for me.
Posted on 5/07/10 11:43 AM
Okay this was another film I really looked forward to. Sadly though this was yet another let down of 2009, not a good outlook. There were many upsides to this film, the biggest being Stanley Tucci. He is one of my favorite actors and here he has been given a role that sends chills down the spine. His presence and unpredictability is outstanding. The rest of the cast also isn't half bad, it is headed by Wahlberg, who gives one of the better performances of his career as the distraught father of murdered Susie Salmon. The whole film describes the afterlife through Peter Jackson's eyes and the power of a families love.
It may have had more lows than highs but I still recommend this film, just because I didn't like it doesn't me you won't.
Posted on 5/07/10 11:32 AM
Well, this was one of my most anticipated films of 2009, sadly enough it is also my biggest disappointment of 2009, thus far. It isn't a secret that I am a hugh Daniel Day-Lewis fan so I enjoyed his performance, no matter how different it was. The cast itself is a dream come true, Kidman, Hudsen, Dench, Cruz, Lauren, Colttiard (Or however you spell it.) and the man himself DDL. This cast acted as well as I expected, the pulled off italian accents which I greatly appreciated. Sadly though the words coming out of the characters mouths (A.K.A the script) was a bit on the downside. Once the script is messed up, the film as a whole fails. Ironically enough that was the issue in nine, the script. But as sexy and well acted this blockbuster is, it simply failed to impress.
The story revolves around the glorified director struggling to come up with a script for his new film (I thought you could just buy one.) And he struggles with the various women in his life. His wife, mistress, journalists, his mother, a whore from his youth, the star of his films, and his wise costume designer. they all play an important influence in his decision making or lack there of. The way this is presented in the first five minuutes of the film is a bit of a let down. I had high hopes that this films would have the stylized charm and wit that Marshall achieved with Chicago, but everything is just based around the sex appeal, too bad, Marshall must have been thinking with the wrong head.
It pains me to give a DDL film such a low rating but as a person who enjoys films (good films) I have to give this a rotten rating. Simply because it couldn't hold my attention and it is easily forgettable.
Posted on 4/11/10 07:47 AM
Okay, the final chapter in this legendary tale is my second favorite of them all. This film suffers from a fatal flaw. The ending! It is ffar to dragged out and almost painnful to watch. So why is this final film so good and acclaimed?
The acting and characters: Astin, Wood, and Mortenson really shined for me in this film, their characters are put to the test and the actors in those roles really demonstrates their abilities in doing it. The rest of the cast maintain their usual talent, or lack there of in some cases. Once again the only actor I'm really not a fan of is Orlando Bloom, he lacks in acting ability, espicially compared the rest of the cast. Sir Ian McKellen does his usually outstanding job and brings the role of gandalf home for us.
The story: This story picks right back up from where we left off last time, which is fantastic. We see the continuation of the incredible war scenes and the final explosive doings with Sam, Frodo, and Gollum. Right up on to the end of the film we are glued to the screen and then the ending simply fizzels. It is all filler no thriller, so to speak. I believe Peter Jackson was trying to make a groundbreaking ending, and he suceeded on more than one occasion. They could have chose from one of the four different endings they tossed into the final moments of the film. All that aside this make for a great film, although I don't think it really deserved the best picture oscar over Mystic River.
Overall this is a must see for film and fantasy lovers, it isn't as good as the previous film but no doubt it will be the final chapter in a trilogy that will certinly be remembered forever.
Posted on 4/10/10 08:00 AM
This is actually my favorite film of the trilogy. It by far deserved the oscar for best picture over Chicago, In my opinion at least. This may be the only film that is purly fast paced and completely captivating. I am particularly fond of this film because of the epic war scenes, which brings out far more intensity than the previous film. This is the only Lord of the rings film I am able to watch several times. So what makes this film so appealing and well made?
The Story and Plot: Fascinating how all this could have been dreamed up and created in the form of a book, than captured on film. The attention to detail Jackson has is undoubtably one of the most committed of all time, espicially here. It is in this film we are introduced to Gollum, one of the more interesting characters on the entire story. He sets an aura for the majority of the film, keeping us on the edge of our seats, wondering what he is capable of and what he will actually do. The characters of Sam and Frodo grow far more interesting as their will and abilities are put to the test. Once again it is the war scenes that really push this films through and astound me and keep me glued to the T.V.
The acting: The acting in this film is much the same as the last, with a few exceptions. Viggo Mortenson really pulls through and demonstrates the ruthless and sensitive side of Aragon, this for me was the standout of the entire film. Wood and Austin really show their grit and talent as their characters are strained and tested. The share size of the cast is also astonishing, once again the attention to detail in the casting and extras is masterful.
A final note is the dazzeling effects. The costumes are perfectly made and a wonder to the eyes.
Overall this is without a doubt the best of the entire trilogy. I recommend this to every movie lover and anyone who enjoys the epics or fantasy stories.
Posted on 4/09/10 09:12 PM
Alright, it's about time I reviewed this famous trilogy so here we go!
This is actually my least favorite of the LOR seris, it doesn't measure up in story and action. I find this simply tries to hard to be fascinating and in doing so it simply fails to be captivating. For me at least.
The story: Although it is well crafted and masterfully captured, as is expected with Mr. Peter Jackson. I really found that this film dragged on far more than needed. Obviously if you read the book the fellowship is very detailed and extensive and it is a struggle to compact as much of that into a movie without going to hell with it. Here you're at the halfway point. The story comes across clearly measured down to the grand details but suffers from painful length. Had it been cut down a half hour to an hour it would be far more watchable. But in doing that we would lose some of that jackson detail.
The acting and characters: The overall cast is practically a dream come true, ever though it must have put a strain on the budget. But there aren't really any major standouts in this film with the exception of the ever experienced Ian McKellan who got a well deserved oscar nod for his booming role of Gandalf. Its major lead, Frodo, is portrayed disappointingly poorly. I think this could have been the role of a lifetime for a more talented actor, Wood doesn't wow anybody. The rest of the cast play their parts with average vigor. ALthough one disappointment really stands out, and that is Orlando Bloom. His portrayal of the Elf archer simply lets everybody down. His take on this role makes me sad, it is a simple part, it should be ashtonishing, or par even. But Bloom drops the ball.
Overall I think everyone should view this film, it is the must see of 2001. It does achieve a very rare acomplishment, it is the worst of a trilogy, for this to happen for the first film in a seris is quite...odd. Nevertheless it is watchable, espicially if you want to doze off.