cdn_moviefan Reviews

Cowboys & Aliens (2011)

Pffft. Characters you care about as much as video game characters.

[30 July 2011]

This movie mirrors how much you care about the characters in a video game: Zilch.

I watched tired old movie clichés play themselves out, and waited to see what new twist there might be. There was time to go to the restroom, and wonder what to make for dinner.

There's no character depth. So we don't care about any of them, as there was nothing to buy into. There's a lot of blank stares on actors faces. Maybe it was supposed to represent their emotions & reflective personalities. Is that what those camera shots were for? It looks terrible, and the actors should have passed on this job to some no-names. Blame the directors, the editors, the script writers and whoever made you go to this movie with them.

The opening credits have: Universal, Spielberg's company, and Ron Howard's company listed. All I can say is: It looks like they were trying to pay homage to George Lucas. Because Lucas did it better 35 years ago, with the shooting technology of that era.

While it's true this movie uses the latest technologies, maybe another kaboom will make your jaw drop. It just doesn't make up for a low grade script, and how they wasted the talents of so many actors.

Hawaii Five-0 (2010–2020)

I enjoyed the pilot episode, it's got some heart to it

[21 September 2010]

Actors: Main 3 are cookie cutter, nearly identical birth years. I like that they're in their 30's and not all 90210 on viewers. Storyline: Definitely an action show, and it's done adequately. Script: Solid. Some cheesy stuff, some wow stuff, some well acted scenes. A few roll your eyes moments, but that keeps in part with the way the original was.

Pros: The script writing. The acting. The actors aren't Hollywood good-looking. But they are a good match with the scripts. Subtle little moments of humour, that you have to see visually and/or hear. Something ha ha will be thrown in there when you least expect it. The building of the characters. You find out little bits here and there and already starting to get a better understanding of how a character is the way he or she is.

Cons: The filming of a fight sequence, taking on the bad guys was terrible. That's not a spoiler. You'd fully expect to see one, seeing as it was in a huge amount of TV commercials. It sucks because you can see the distance between them, when they are at blows with each other. The editing is a shambles, it's so crappy in the action sequences. Could be much better. Hire more qualified people, it's worth it.

The believability of some legal situations are a bit dodgy. That detracts, and makes it a little hard to buy into it. But then again it is not a documentary. It's a TV show that's there to entertain you. Watch yourself a reality show like Cops if you're going to harp on it.

Summarily. My take: I like it because it's fresh. The camaraderie reminds me (a little) of: some Starsky and Hutch, a dash of 21 Jump Street, and yes the feel of the original Hawaii Five-O is there. It's on location on beautiful Oahu, with little studio time in it. Outdoors: That's just how they roll on that island.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)

ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzz. No wow factor.

[1 August 2009]

If you look at your watch every ten minutes, does it mean you're worried about getting the last bus home? No. But what if others in the theatre start turning their cell phones on? Are they too, worried about the time? No. The movie is terrible in that it takes you absolutely nowhere. It doesn't suspend reality and let you buy into anything for even one scene. As far as shooting the movie goes, it was like stepping into the way back machine after buying a pet rock. There wasn't any good reason to have done it, and now you're clutching a rock that cost you your allowance.

For all the ridiculous amount of time it took to film this, you just sit there and think: Is that really what you asked the actors to do? How many weeks did you spend, getting actors to deliver poignant(?) slash significant lines? Wasting it all as overacted or underacted?

This movie needed a different director big time. The special effects were uninspired, and reminded me of the following: technicolour, Charlie Chaplin-esquire (for the stupid flicker with the lighting), Moses in the ten commandments, and your grandma messing with the Sepia setting on a digital camera.

No. Wow. Factor.

Twilight (I) (2008)

Through Blue Hues, Another Vampire Movie

[28 March 2009]

We watched this on Blu Ray in high def. Only one person in the room has read the book(s?). I'm not sure why this was tagged a black and white film, and I'm not colour blind. Why do the books have a dedicated following? Unknown. Guys in the room decided early on that it must be a chick flick. A woman in the room disagreed. The storyline was kind of sluggish and it took awhile to be drawn into it. The actors are also basically no names to me, even though they're getting regular media coverage here in B.C. while filming the next installment. I don't think they're the next big thing, but I do think they'll be around for the long haul as character actors in movies to come. Overall, the movie was okay, not a waste of rental money, and we all ended up agreeing that yeah, it was okay. Was the acting good? I'm kind of up in the air about that. Followers of the book(s) seem to think they did a good job. As the rest of us still don't know much about the books, it was agreed that we didn't really have to read up on it to get what was going on. I can't say I've seen a lot of vampire movies. I do know the ones I have seen are fairly generic, and interchangeable. Save for the Anne Rice movie, Vampire Chronicles. I get the feeling that vampire movies are Supposed to be generic. There is always a main foible involved in haunting-style movies, and it's predictable as pigeon turd. But this movie like I said, is alright. There are few turns on vampires vs ordinary human story lines, though this movie has some interesting angles to offer. I liked that the time line was not jumping all over the place like most vampire movies. It's worth renting, but you have to be in the right mode to be watching it. Maybe if I had read the books, I would give it a different rating. As it stands, this is what I give it for just watching it for what it appears to be - without the books to tell me what I should think.

Jonas Brothers: The 3D Concert Experience (2009)

Worst 3D - Infinitely. Can you spell G-R-E-E-D-Y ?

[19 March 2009]

This 75 min show was really, REALLY bad.

Two young relatives appeared to enjoy it, as they haven't been to a concert yet. The anticipation and expectations were high. Even they didn't seem as enthused as when they first entered the theatre. They've seen some 3D shows before, and the drive back was, well - quiet.

The biggest concern a niece beside me was: that a pair of adults stood, and variably sat behind us. As they let three kids run around, they recorded the Jonas 3D movie on their cameras. After letting an attendant know, we saw them talked to, and then they stayed to the end, to finish taking their photos and whatnot.

There really isn't any need for "Spoiler Alerts." Seriously. It's that bad. If you were to think about all your definitions of a bad movie theatre experience, it'd be an alternate description of this movie.

These are not spoilers, to say: the shots were heavily edited to the point of blandness. The scenarios were boring, it did not resemble anything interesting at all. It was a montage of uninspired ROTE that went nowhere. Besides, there are so many internet reviews that people have read already, there is nothing left to say. As for the promotion of the movie being a chance for the poor kid fans to see more of the band, nah. It's not worth the charge above what you pay for your internet connection to the same thing.

Disney did quite possibly, the worst investment of monies in current 3D technology that is available to date. The 3D shots weren't that great. They were sparse in my opinion, and repetitive as far as having no imagination in this product. There was no premise. Anything this movie claimed to be is not true. The Directing was terrible, and the Editing was all that, Times Infinity.

Greed. Greedy, greedy, greedy. The Disney money train is being re-directed to the next big thing they contract some teens to do. Next year's ten year olds may now join the lineup.

Quantum of Solace (2008)

No heroics to fix it this. It flat lines.

[23 November 2008]

This movie was lackluster in presentation. The previews make it look like an action movie, and it's any but.

The cinematography: The look is dark. Presumably, it's supposed to portray emotions. It does not do that. It's no where near the way Dark Knight pulled it off earlier this year. The view is mainly of darkness, but the actors are not believable in portraying their characters with just 'a look.'

Dialogue: Save for once or twice, there is no witty dialogue. Nor is there anything that makes you think: Hey, that character is really intelligent or whatnot. There's not enough background info given for a viewer to say: Oh, that's where he/she is coming from. Without that, a viewer has no empathy, understanding, or baseline to go with.

Lead Actor: I didn't go to watch it in a theatre. No intent to, as Daniel Craig was a name I never recognized. He looked sort of familiar though, and looking at his credits I knew why. I've seen Golden Compass. He was incredibly memorable in the Power Of One. Yet, I don't think he pulled off being the main character this time around. His performance did not exude what you expect in a James Bond actor. He is not conventionally good-looking, nor does he resemble a ladies man. The classy, debonair part is missing. 'Bond's' air of confidence comes off as total arrogance in this movie.

Casino Royale was a really good movie all around. Some people I know went to the movie theatre more than twice to see it. The difference this time seems to be the director. Both writers credited for this film were credited for the last Bond. So. What it comes down to is, I wouldn't pay to see a movie with that director again. Not when tickets are $11 each, geez.

What Happens in Vegas (2008)

Cardboard cutouts with lips.

[26 May 2008]

Considering that a movie ticket is $11 a person here, the movies not worth it. It's also not worth renting. It should never have been been released, filmed or have been a first lunch to talk over the script. There's nothing remotely original in the movie. There is the clichéd best friend, clichéd stupid friend, and clichéd melodrama that's supposed to be funny. All of the characters were one dimensional. Cardboard cutouts with lips. Kutcher was supposed to be a lead character, but he did not lead. He was miscast in this film. It made a bad movie worse.

Kutcher's lack of acting skills, are what brings this movie down to it's core flatness. He couldn't even do a romantic kiss that was believable.

Cameos by Queen Latifah and Dennis Miller were not funny or memorable. The lines were so bad, it can't even be said they delivered them terribly.

Casting directors should look elsewhere and pass by any of the people who were the That 70's Show kids. That was such a really good show, but none of them can carry anything by themselves.

None of us that went were Kutcher fans, but there are no comedies to go to right now. We figured, well Cameron Diaz will be funny. She's the only one that did a respectable job of a lousy script. There were no expectations of this movie, and the original intent was to just go out to a movie and kill a few hours.

All this movie did was make me look at my watch every five minutes, from the first hour on. Yawn. I wanted to twitch, pace, go to the washroom, and make a few calls. It wasn't just killing a few hours anymore. It was beating two hours with a stick. Much the way this review does, by having to repeat mundane boring recaps.

Dan in Real Life (I) (2007)

Like a Kennedy movie if they had less money

[28 October 2007]

I thought this movie was okay. A big okay, for being a movie that has characters that can express themselves with minimal swearing. Okay in that the characters were defined in a way that you know where they're at. One daughter is in elementary school. As much as a parent would like to think the child is naive, they tend to come out with some introspective stuff. Another is a drama queen (typical of junior high school), and another just wants a credo for being independent. Everyone seeks something simple, yet everything seem so unattainable. The plot centres around Steve Carrell's character of course. The previews in theatres made it clear that he is Dan, single parent guy. Poor (not financially), hapless, single parent Dan. He does the best he can. There are some fresh twists on hapless Dan's circumstances. Not original, but yeah. Refreshing and retaining some realness to it. The rest of his extended family is there, but in the background. They worry, they fuss, they want to help. They are human and will do things that large families do. What wasn't so smooth, was the fact that they are living on a large piece of real estate with no real explanation as to why they are there. From there, it's a bit of: Parenthood, Brothers McMullen (?), and any movie you see with family gatherings on the east coast. They all live at the ocean, wear sweaters and play tag football. It's not a movie where you regret paying the $11 see it. It's just a little bit hard to relate to the lifestyle. Even if you've visited the east coast. Overall, you leave the theatre thinking: I know someone in my family like that. Without knowing which character you would be in a movie like that. Or not willing to admit which family member you would be.

Man of the Year (2006)

It's a Bi-Polar: Ha-Ha-Ha! ZZZZzzzzzzz Ha-Ha-Ha !

[20 October 2006]

I was happy going into the theatre, hey it's Robin Williams. Added bonus that Christopher Walken was in it! There's something about Walken that rivets my attention to him on the screen. Not just his voice. Well, his voice combined with movements and that unusual hairdo that reminds me of The Joker hairstyle! I don't know how to explain that, it's fun to watch him on screen and he makes me smile just by showing up. I'd suggest this is not a comedy as shown in previews, as much as it is lighthearted smiles. Sure, Williams tossed some good lines out there that were funny. The question is what was Williams trying to portray as far as genres go? There was too much flipping back and forth between humorous and dramatic acting. The characters were no where near 3-dimensional, thus no known reasons behind their actions. I also feel the deliveries of lines could've been slowed down a bit. It was a bit hard to follow rapid fire chatter in scenes that didn't require it. The movie reminded me of older movies. Where logic wasn't as important as just: sitting, watching and enjoying it for what it is: A 'silly' movie where you don't have to think. Just watch. There are no offensive scenes that I can recall. In fact, I think they covered a lot of subjects in a multi-cultural world with tact, dignity and sensitivity. Anything said for humour was middle-of-the-road stuff that have been said so many times it's become a given that comedians tell such jokes. Such a quiet aspect of the movie, it's likely not many have mentioned it yet.

Mission: Impossible III (2006)

Wow! Never an ADHD moment. I'm cured!

[16 May 2006]

Ah! The opening sequence of this movie rocked! Going to this movie was a last minute decision while driving past the theatre. A drive through the parking lot, and a Nah. Followed by another drive into the parking lot to park. What the heck. This place only charges $6, even though I heard it sucks.

No, it doesn't suck. I haven't seen any of the previous Mission Impossible movies in this series. You don't have to. I do recall the theme of the TV show being cheezy. In the "Get Smart" era. Maybe.

When the lead character receives his assigment after stopping for ice, I was hooked. Yeah! I'm a wanna-be geek, and I knew what they were doing.

The remainder of the movie? Action/suspense that is: non-stop, eye opening, jaw slacking, glazed eye, mesmerizing... Cool. The plot was unpredictable, and full of: twists, turns, cranks and spins. Then it all tied together. Save for one scene: what happened to some agents returning to HQ? It was a pretty unusual scene to leave as is.

Billy Crudup & Phillip Seymour Hoffman from "Almost Famous," re-join as powerhouse actors in this movie. As typical of this genre, there are good guys vs the "bad guys." Hoffman WAS the bad guy. Real bad, hope I never see that kinda bad, bad. I spent a good portion of the movie wondering who the biologist was. There was a really cheezy line that he had to deliver. 'Benjy' was an all-knowing philosophical twit. He compared bad guys to bad entities. I wanted to scream: Yeahh! That's what other people call TERRORISM, ya dork! That's the only part that irked me. But who is that actor? I've IMDb'd it, & it was Simon Pegg - star of Shaun Of The Dead. Oh! Now I remember! This is a powerhouse cast of actors. Not a bad seed in the lot. Ving Rhames and Laurence Fishburne have longer lists of credits than Cruise! Maggie Q as 'Zen' was notable, she held her own in a testosterone filled cast lineup. Hope to see her in more movies.

Don't know what all the fuss is about Tom Cruise, and this being a sinking ship year for him. Last year's offering, "The War Of The Worlds," was a terrible movie. Terrible script. Terrible everything. Don't base your opinion of this Cruise movie from his last one. Mission Impossible III is very, very good. Cruise does an excellent job as lead actor in it.

My only critique of him, is his trademark way of showing intense emotion. By whispering. A. La. William. Shatner. But he does that in every movie.

This movie isn't a dud. I was surprised that it was so good. Go see this movie! The theatre I saw it in had all age demographics sitting there to watch it. There wasn't the usual rude people in there. You know. The ones that gather to: yak about knitting, gossip, answer their business cell phones, or giggle because THAT boy (or girl) was over there. Nor were there any seat kickers. I'm sure the gross ones were there. Their shoes experience: sidewalk spit, dog pooh or gardening manure every week. The same ones that hang them over the seats in front of them. But there was so much action on screen, they didn't keep them up for long. The sign of a good movie.

For the record, I do have adhd. I wasn't cured, but have better days than others. Some things are capable of holding my attention. This movie is one of them. It's action packed, did I mention that?! Don't compare this movie to War Of The Worlds. Nor the idiotic media that have nothing better to do than be legal or illegal Peeping (on) Toms. Remember, those celebrity magazines are made up crap to make money. For the grocery store, distributors and magazine owners. Mission Impossible is a movie worth seeing. Suspend the reality of real life hucksters.

RV (2006)

This has already spiked RV rentals already, hasn't it?

[16 May 2006]

RV was not a waste of money. It was something Disney would probably put out as a movie. That's the kind of script it was. The obligatory family: husband & wife - one of them cannot open a channel of communication after all those years. An obligatory teenager (daughter), and an obligatory pre-teen (son). Robin Williams does 3-D, as a character with good intentions. If only the character could get a spine. The wife is NOT understandable nor understanding. You have to see it to believe it - as an adult. As someone looking at someone who is supposed to be a role model type parent. The son and daughter are: rude, inconsiderate, unlikeable, spoilt, have zero respect for anyone around them at ALL. They go on exotic summer camps and solo holidays, with name brand crap hanging on/from their bodies.

So Williams plans a combo work/vacation trip. It's really not a big deal. The reaction of the rest of his family was ridiculously out of context. It was like their brains were all on steroids. Like I said, it's Disney-ish in script theme so you can fill in the blanks after 27.8 hrs together.

This is definitely Robin Williams back in comedy format. I like the dramatic roles he's been doing. I think the last comedy he did was Mrs Doubtfire wasn't it? It's nice to see him back - in a role with a controlled portion of his comedic talent.

Jeff Daniels. I hate to admit this, but to me, he is Flip in the movie: Terms Of Endearment. So it was a shock to see he's aged approx 23 years. A geezer reminder to self, that movies freeze actors in time. Daniels was really funny in his role. He was father/husband of the obligatory RV family that antagonizes William's family. It made for some very funny dialogue.

There were only a few knuckle crunching scenes where the dialogue got too syrup-y. I hate those scenes. The sappy ones that are meant to tie up and explain everything. Thankfully, there weren't many Hallmark moments.

This movie was 99% enjoyable to watch, and isn't a waste of money or time. It's not the best comedy movie but it's not the worst. It's good enough to say: "I liked that part when..." as you leave the parking lot. The hardest part to believe is that people still rent those gas guzzling pigs. And that this movie has likely put 1000's of wanna-be drivers behind an RV wheel. Who really shouldn't be, as they overestimate their driving skills.

Ice Age: The Meltdown (2006)

Computer Graphics Are Very Good

[23 April 2006]

I liked the background scenery best in this movie than any other I've seen, including Polar Express. Very bright and positive feel to it for viewers. Personally, I enjoyed the first Ice Age movie. But I realize that I am not the intended audience for this movie. Note the previews are all for kids. Which was nice to see in a way, that they have some G-rated choices coming up.

This is a great movie for it's intended audience of grade 7 or less. Yet it's not intolerable to sit through it as an adult. Some bozo behind me commented after every children's movie preview. Negatively. Loudly. "Lame. Stupid. Idiotic." I turned around. Everyone turned to stare at him. It was a miserable man of about 60, sitting with people approx ages: 40, 30, 10, 12 and 8. His companions all told him to: SHHHH! He slunk down in his chair and began enjoying Ice Age. Some people need to be reminded. Some movies aren't made for them, but that doesn't mean you have to ruin it for kids. This is a great movie choice for caregivers to let children see. It is definitely a true G-rated movie. They really enjoyed it in the theatre, lots of giggles.

Characters: Manny, Sid and Diego are back. "Ellie," is introduced and provides some amusing ... stuff. I'd love to quote her about the species of mammoths, but I won't spoil anything. Scrat is an even funnier 'distraction' than the first Ice Age movie. Scrat reminds me of Wile E. Coyote and the Roadrunner.

SPOILER: This movie leaves the door open for another sequel.

Thank You for Smoking (2005)

Yes! * Best Movie out there This Year *

[23 April 2006]

I saw this movie last night. My attention didn't waver. There were no lulls in the dialogue or scene changes. The casting was top notch. However, knowing how old Cameron Bright is - a scene of him being carried to bed was a little too much. Maybe the role was intended more for a 7 year old instead. But that's the only nit-picky thing I can say about this movie. Cameron got to say some of the best lines. Actually, everyone in the cast got great lines somewhere. This movie has a strong ensemble cast. Ebert & Roeper were right to give this movie 2 thumbs up.

"Nick Naylor," is the main character played by Aaron Eckhart. "Nick," works as a living being an advocate for cigarettes. This is Eckhart's breakout film credit. He looks a lot like Scott Thompson from The Kids In The Hall.

William H. Macy is always a joy to watch, and he doesn't disappoint in this film. (His character name gets pronounced as: Senator Fennastor) Katie Holmes surprised me, she was good in this movie. Rob Lowe had a great cameo sequence. As did Adam Brody, who's character slayed me.

I'm not going to say anything about the storyline itself. The script was thorough, you knew exactly who/what the characters were about, there were interwoven story lines that tied themselves together very, very well. Everything connected. How rare is that. Seriously, if you've forgotten how good movies can be? This movie will remind you of the "olden" days. Where admission wasn't $10, and you didn't have to watch 10 mins of car commercials BEFORE the previews. Your attention span will not wander or tune-out unwanted product placements. Thank-you for Smoking is worth seeing before it comes out on DVD. Ignore the tirades in the IMDb forums. Go to this movie for what it is: An excellently done movie that won't disappoint.

I smoked for 25 years, and have quit for two. Don't avoid watching this movie if you're: a smoker, non-smoker, or a quit smoker. This movie addresses all types, except the I-Quit-Smoking-Wingnut. Near the ending was a nudge about something more modern in urgency. That topic has been shuffled under the carpet for a few years now. Go, enjoy this well-made movie. It took ages to make an appearance in a theatre near me. It appears to be in limited release at the moment. It's a sleeper movie. It's a keeper movie. It's worth seeing, and I'd like to see it win more recognition.

The Shaggy Dog (2006)

All Age Demographics In The Movie Theatre

[19 March 2006]

Well, I'm not going to write too much in-depth on this movie. It's not a movie to be analyzed. If you only want to see believable antics & possible outcomes? Stay home, make some tea, and SIT YOUR CRANKY BUTT DOWN FOR THE DOCUMENTARY CHANNEL. Boy, some of you must've been really miserable kids whenever cartoons were on TV. Do note that Pixar makes a few shameless references to their past projects. If you see it, you'll know what I mean.

This Shaggy Dog Movie: There are some potentially stressful scenes for young children. It involves what is implied to have happened to animals in captivation. Think of weapons that metro police might have to use on an uncontrollable person. Then again, Disney gave me Bambi and Old Yeller. We all know what happened to them. I may never get over that.

The script is typical Disney. I remember watching the original Shaggy Dog movie and loving it lots. I don't remember much about what the original, because I was so young. The part to keep in mind, when reading this is: "I remember loving it lots." Little kids beside me with their mum enjoyed it. A retired couple six rows ahead roared the loudest. I gave it a "7" because of the smiles it gave people around me. It was harmless & people knew what to expect.

For those that trash this movie because it isn't up to your high tech violent standards? I type this:

EVERYONE TURNS: 6... 7, AND 8 YEARS OLD IN THEIR LIFE.

You get the picture. Don't make fun of something you've outgrown.

Robson Arms (2005–2008)

I Like It, Please Don't Cancel Another Brilliant Series

[19 March 2006]

I'd like to see this show get a lot more respect from the CTV network. It would change my opinion on how they manage to skew shows into oblivion. It took a long time for it to finally get aired. Don't kid yourselves by thinking we the public don't pay-no-never-mind on how to read them-there newspapers. (also see below links)

The episodes were scattered all over to begin with. Who knew when to watch or find it? Please find a regular night for Robson Arms, give it a prime time slot, and keep it there. It's worth it, we like it, please don't compromise anything anymore with the show.

The episodes are great to watch. There are enough identifiably Canadian characters to find a niche with more viewers.The actors are top notch, the scripts are unique, and the opening songs with an acoustic guitar and voice, etc are quirky attention grabbers.

September 8, 2004 "...Robson Arms: Already promised several times by CTV (it was originally entitled Keys Cut Here), this anthology series about the denizens of a Vancouver apartment building is finally in production and ready to go...(Mid-season)" CREDIT SOURCE: Friends Of Canadian Broadcasting website archives http://www.friends.ca/News/Friends_News/archives/articles09080401.asp

"March 12, 2004 And here's a press release about Robson Arms, the CTV drama that Mark's currently filming in Vancouver, which will air in the fall." CREDIT SOURCE: The kithblog website archives http://kithblog.tripod.com/archive/2004_03_07_archive.html

Failure to Launch (2006)

Miscasting, Thus No On-Screen Chemistry

[11 March 2006]

Many of us have witnessed this already. A physically healthy adult living with physically/emotionally healthy, financially comfortable parents. The adult child is: a leach, and a sponge, with expendable cash as there's no bills of their own. They are maturity failures. It must be some other parents kids that are like that, not me. They never see themselves this way. The parents quietly despair. They still love their offspring, but most don't reach their breaking point in order to regain their own privacy. Do the people YOU know like that seem - interesting? I thought it would be a good parody or satire. This movie was a disappointment. The movie was over-hyped in the previews/trailers. The movie was flat due to the stone faced leads.

In no particular order, Failure To Launch was a dud because:

[1] The script was terrible (all over the place, aimless) [2] Miscasting of the two leads: M. McConaughey, S.J. Parker. This was supposed to be a comedy. Neither were funny. Not even close. There was no on-screen chemistry. [3] The movie was promoted as a vehicle where the parents appear to be a major part of the movie. They're not. [4] Kathy Bates was underused. [5] Cinematography/(Directing?): There were too many lags & stalls. You wait for them to hurry up and say something funny.

The positives:

[1] The female roommate (Zooey Deschanel) is the funniest actor in the film. Hands down. She brought the scenes to life. [2] Kathy Bates & Terry Bradshaw were a fun duo to watch. [3]The trio of Failures to Launch were entertaining. As a trio. [4] The movie finally ended.

Personally, I think the script could've been resurrected if these 2 participating actors were the lead characters: Zooey Deschanel and Patton Oswald. (Oswald plays Spencer on The King Of Queens. He also does stand-up comedy). Now THAT would've been a funnier combination. Sorry die-hard McConnaughey & Parker fans, but they just couldn't keep this movie afloat. It's not a complete waste of admission price. My suggestion is: if you really want to see it, wait til it's on DVD or in the bargain bin.

The Matador (2005)

Hit-man & The Straight Man

[9 March 2006]

First off, Pierce Brosnan and Greg Kinnear play the main characters. One is a worldwide assassin-ator, the other a down on his luck business man. Secondly, if you haven't seen them in awhile - they look different. Older. Perhaps for their roles or to set a precedent, they wear little or no stage makeup. Either way, it suits their characters. Both roles are weary of the world on their shoulders. Others count on them. Neither want it to be that way anymore. Why can't one just kick their feet up on the table, arms behind their head, and not worry about anything?

The Matador is a drama-comedy. A hit man and Joe ordinary become friends? They suspended reality for 85% of the film. The hit-man role was 2-dimensional, not three dimensional. Purposely? As I can't picture a 3-dimensional hit-man with a conscience. Brosnan's "Julian," struggles to define normal people. Real psychopaths try to do that. It's all acting to 'fit in' - By displaying what they think they're supposed to show or do. The comedic parts were fun to watch and laugh about. Kinnear and Brosnan traded off playing the straight man and the deliverer of the punchline. It's good stuff.

The Matador is a metaphoric title. The bull always loses, after putting up the biggest fight. Even if the bull won, it's fate awaits after the fight. Moreso, the camera captures the emotions on the actors faces via insinuations.

Greg Kinnear's presence on screen is always enjoyable. I liked the late night talk show he had. As Good As It Gets - well, he did his role very, very excellently. Highly recommend that film and this one for Kinnear fans.

Pierce Brosnan, what can I say: He's one of the former James Bonds, and a memorable supporting actor in Mrs Doubtfire. Years ago, he wandered the downtown area of my city. It was a touristy area, a bold move anywhere else outside of B.C. People said he was very kind and courteous to those who approached him; they said hello and carried on, giving him his strolling space back. Stuff like that speaks loads about the real character of the actor. I also happen to share the same birthday as him. I know. That was a cheesy thing to say, but it's my review.

Capote (2005)

Worthy of watching

[9 March 2006]

This film became available in a nearby theatre just recently. I saw it last weekend. It's a pity that it's been in such limited release in movie house around here. I went into the room not knowing who Truman Capote was. I did a quick google on him before leaving. Something about him being a writer. Oh. Okay. Wasn't much to go on there.

The sets, wardrobe and cinematography were brilliantly done for this movie. I like period pieces that look like - the places you've been where time hasn't changed. The acting was very well done by the entire cast. Phillip Seymour Hoffman (Truman Capote) appears to have nailed the real Capote's personality. For that, I go on clips from the Johnny Carson show. The way Capote talked was unusual and uniquely his own style. It's amazing that he was apparently openly gay in the old boy's clubs of NYC. In the 1950's?! That he downplayed it, heading south - that seemed like someone would do in that era. Heck, I'm guessing it's still done today in the Bible belt.

Capote said what people wanted to hear. Other times, he'd say/do the most eccentric things. I don't know if he was deliberately eccentric, or merely seeking attention. He reminded me of Andy Warhol. I just googled that name. It's not a surprise that they knew each other.

Capote scanned a newspaper in NYC and decided to arrive on a small town doorstep to write about a family that was murdered. The small town reacted in different ways. Sometimes it required the help of his best friend Harper Lee (Catherine Keener). Keener was great as a supporting actor. She delivered some of the best lines in the movie. The funniest scene being when her screenplay To Kill A Mockingbird becomes a success. I was surprised to learn that he was 'connected' to that classic movie somehow.

The evolution of prisoner Perry Smith (Clifton Collins Jr) is gradual, and you sort of want to cheer for the underdog. Capote's swings of concern and indifference are what this movie is mainly about. Why was he that way? There didn't seem to be an answer, other than he did what was in his own best interests. Only Harper Lee knew him for what he really was. This movie left a lot open to speculation. Unless you are willing to do research on the man. I recommend not doing that until you see the movie. I take this film to be a depiction and interpretation. If you want extreme depth, you watch the Biography or Documentary channels. This is a factual and cinematic presentation to me.

Crash (I) (2004)

Film searches deeply within

[9 March 2006]

It's been quiet some time since this movie came out. I saw it when it was first released in theatres. I'm back to comment on it, as it got some bashing for it's Oscar awards. Frankly, in the year 2005 - there weren't any top notch, note worthy films of mass appeal. There wasn't.

I remember thinking: This movie will be overlooked. Theoretically, the award voters only remember movies from the last few months of a calendar year. I was surprised to see Crash was nominated - they hadn't forgotten it. I haven't forgotten that movie either. It's one of the rare times that a movie connects with an audience. It makes you: squirm, wince, look away like you've been slapped, slack jawed - the gamut of human emotions.

People who blow off this movie can't relate to it, because their lives have been truly untouched. Untouched by, and naive of anything as traumatically experienced by the characters in this movie. The characters in this movie attempt this as well. To be insensitive to others' emotions and traumas. And the cause-and-effect they and others have on each other in the world. They portray realistic people trying to carry on in a cold unfeeling world.

This world where people blow this movie off. They have not experienced what the characters have, nor know of anyone close to them that has. The world of soap bubbles, balloons, cars for birthdays, and occasionally family members that die of very old age.

I wasn't a huge fan of Matt Dillon and his filmography of d-uh characters. Crash was the 12th movie I've seen him in. This is the first one that Dillon impressed me with. (The Flamingo Kid was enjoyable, and still makes me laugh, but I digress.) Matt Dillon was strikingly realistic in this movie. His character was beyond three dimensional. The entire cast was noteworthy, and it's difficult to pick just one outstanding actor in it. He was nominated for an Oscar in a supporting role. That's a puzzle to me. If you've seen the movie, it's an interwoven multi-story lined movie. There were no leads in this movie. It's that strong of a powerhouse cast.

This movie kept me awake for much of the night afterwards. It was disturbingly realistic. I know people like those people. It was only the second movie I walked out of in my entire life. The first one was Mississippi Burning. That one, I left completely, and never saw it until it came out on video. With Crash, well I'm older now. With that, I left and paced the lobby during a particular scene. It was too much for me to watch. I cameback, and the person I went with filled me in on those five minutes.

The Pink Panther (2006)

Shrug

[9 March 2006]

It's very difficult to mess with the best. There are too many movies out there that are re-makes of classics. People went to see it because it has Steven Martin and Kevin Kline in it. If they weren't in it, people would've listened to their friends that saw it first. Word of mouth was that it sucked before it even hit theatres. I went anyways, because it had Steve Martin in it.

This is not a brilliant movie. This is not one of Martin or Kline's best efforts. People in England would refer to it as a "naff" movie. The kind of movie where you just look at the screen and watch. You sit in your movie seat with the look. The look your parents call: "tv eyes." TV eyes being - it didn't matter what was on the screen; you watched anyways, to tune out the world of doing dishes. This edition of the Pink Panther is where you need to go in without any expectations, so you won't be disappointed.

However, there are some good physical comedy moments in this movie. It's a harmless movie. No blood and guts. No swearing to my recollection. No innuendos of anything that would alarm parents. Kind of like being near a clown at the fairgrounds trying to make others laugh. For adults, this is a time for "TV eyes," too. To tune out the world that's a little more complicated than doing the dishes.

16 Blocks (2006)

Bruce Willis? I won't go! Ohhh, okay.

[9 March 2006]

Bruce Willis' (Moonlighting) voice appeals to me as much as newspaper on the bottom of a budgie cage. Other than watching The Sixth Sense (twice), I've always preferred to not watch anything with him in it. Admittedly, it's my age - because I should probably know who Mos Def is but don't. Why did I bother going then? We were running out of movies to watch in this city. I put off, ignored, then agreed to go see it with a persistent movie buff.

I liked this movie. Mos Def played a dense, not-very-bright criminal. Initially, I wondered what was up with the way his character talked. Then you got used to it. He portrayed a one dimensional guy very well. That's his character's world.

Bruce Willis goes with the current trend (ie: The Matador) of NOT wearing makeup to hide aging. His haggard, alcoholic, biding time, waiting-to-retire character was believable. There are some obvious clichés that you see coming, hope that they're not coming, then you cringe. Yet the ending manages to tie up the story in an interesting way.

It's a flaw - in suspending reality into the theatre, when you wonder why there's no other options? You start using logic and it takes some entertainment out of it. All in all, I enjoyed watching this movie. It was not a waste of $10.00 admission to see it.

Date Movie (2006)

Misleading trailers & previews

[19 February 2006]

Brought to you by the creators of Scary Movies, is how this film was promoted. The people involved in this movie should have requested some things. To have: no credits, top billings, or paychecks from Date Movie associated with their careers. People like me expected an offbeat, but unique movie from the Scary Movie creators. That's how it was presented in the movie previews. Now viewers know the proud creators of those past movies aren't batting a thousand. The "Band Camp," girl (American Pie movies) was the lead actor(Allyson Hannigan as Julia Jones). She was working with a script that went nowhere. If she has the talent to be a lead actor, it didn't show or save this movie.

Date Movie is rated 14A in Canada: It's contents are suitable for those over age 14. Ironically, Date Movie would only appeal to people that are tweens & young teens. The laughter in the theatre came from giggly girls, & boys who's voices haven't changed yet. They were too young to "get," anything like a cherry stem in the mouth. Go to this movie if you have not paid enough $$$ to see these topics: vomit, farts, coughing up of hairballs, and diarrhea. It's really funny if you're 12 and haven't gotten out much. Stretch out each "joke," for 1.73 years, and you've got Date Movie.

Even more disturbingly, was the outright intention to make viewers laugh at the lead actor's character. Physically harmful events happened to "Julia," while the young audience roared with laughter. Being made fun of, jeered at, mocked, dangerous tools used on her body to alter it, being told how ugly you are, mistreated, and disrespected on all levels. Moms and Dads, that's what your kid laughed at this opening weekend.

The movie incorporated parodies of major movies & celebrity events of the past year. It was interesting to identify them at first, until they went to obscure movies, and jumped back and forth and all around like this extra long sentence.

I wanted to leave halfway through the movie. I stayed in case the person I went with wanted to watch the whole thing. Kept it to myself til afterwards. Turns out that person was trying to stay awake, the movie was so uninteresting. There will be more silence & tumbleweeds rolling under theatre screens. Everywhere.

Firewall (2006)

Generic

[18 February 2006]

The movie previews have been playing Firewall for ages. The storyline is another family gets kidnapped for ransom, so guy needs to save them scenario. The problems begin with the casting. Harrison Ford is not believable as the father of an 8 year old. This role should have gone to someone younger; and more cutting edge in their acting skills. Frankly, Ford presented himself more as an out-of-shape grandfather. There was an "action," scene where his belly jiggled before hitting the floor. He arose from the event looking rather feeble. Did I mention he was too old for the role?! The script is generic, and not once did this viewer buy into the family characters as being realistic people. The actions and inactions of his family defied logic. There are some very bad lines that correlate with those scenes. The title of the movie doesn't fit with the storyline any more than peanuts do. The price of admission for this movie was a regrettable one. The dog alone, was the only memorable part of the movie.

The Delicate Art of Parking (2003)

Still an undiscovered gem for mainstream audiences

[2 November 2005]

Ah! After seeing this 3x in the movie theatre, I still love it. It's one of those movies that is all-the-more-funnier if there was more than a handful of people watching it. Vancouverites will recognize most locations. Have fun finding all the busiest comedy and stage actors from B.C. in it too. This movie suffered from lack of promotion. What a shame. TV buffs will recognize some actors from Corner Gas in it. There are brilliantly done scenes in this movie. It comes from great writing and acting. You won't doubt the believability of the characters, that's how well the actors immersed themselves in it. The storyline is fresh and unpredictable. It's one of a kind.

The Kid (1997)

A Place To Belong & Excel

[20 January 2005]

The Kid looks at the usual teen issues: Peer pressure, guardian limits on independence, and finding something to be good at. This may be the main theme: Craving an adult role model. "Jimmy," has a father: In real life, most boys wait listed for a Big Brother role model won't get one. So many boxing movies appear the same, because their stories are always similar. Puberty and bullying aren't original either. "Jason," mentions boxing's safer than hockey - true for legit youth boxing clubs. "Jimmy," hits pay dirt, with an encouraging mentor who believes in him. Boxing's aerobic/mental demands contrast with Jimmy's home life: A denial of maturity & little boost to self-esteem. The Kid is a made in Canada product. You can see the social culture influence, and restrictions placed on the making of this movie. There are no doubts what the characters are about. Movies similar in theme are: Youngblood and Billy Elliott. Was this originally meant to be a made for TV movie? It's how I watched it. My understanding is Disney is (now?) involved somehow, so obviously there aren't any blood and guts. It was enjoyable to watch a Cdn spin on timeless stories. To delve any further than that, try a documentary or biography channel.