Kaos' way behind movie reviews

Kaos · « **Reply #700 on:** August 01, 2011, 09:27:58 AM »

Horrible Bosses

Pretty sad when a weak movie like this gets credit just for not being completely awful. But in the world of "comedy" as it stands today, avoiding sucking complete and total ass gets you a pass.

This was an occasionally amusing film that just sort of innocuously meandered its way to a convenient conclusion.

As with several other comedic efforts, the bloopers during the credits showed a cast apparently having a much better time making the film than I did watching it.

Jason Bateman played the same neurotic ineffectual schlump he's portrayed in a dozen or more movies now. He wasn't bad, he wasn't good he was just a set piece. He seemed restrained and could have added more with better direction.

The chipmunk guy was occasionally OCD funny but never reached the hilarity I'm sure he was supposed to bring.

Jason Sudekis was fair. Of all the recent SNL alums to graduate to film he's the least obnoxious. He understands how to play a role (the same role repeatedly) without flailing over the top and wrecking the movie. I'd much rather watch a film he's in than I would anything with Ferrell, Fallon, Hader, Armisen, Forte, Meyers, Carvey, etc.

Kevin Spacey was good but somewhat wasted.
Colin Farrell was completely wasted as a one-note character that could have been played by anybody.

Jennifer Aniston had an opportunity to take a significant step forward with a bawdy comedic role but either a lack of talent or piss poor direction held her back. Her role could have been so, so much more but it felt like she was being held back. Didn't buy her horny fascination with a chipmunk.

She does still have an amazing body to be 42, but it seems pretty obvious that her face has had some serious work -- and it wasn't good. She looked very plastic, her eyes were funny and it was off-putting. I've always thought she was hot, but she didn't move me with her plastic face blown up on the big screen.

The bathtub scene had so much potential but it didn't stick with it long enough. Or maybe I was expecting porn, I dunno.

Jamie Foxx gnawed on a throwaway role that didn't add a whole lot to the film other than a repeated joke about his name.

The film had an R rating but could easily have kept a PG-13. Not really sure why it WASN'T PG-13, actually. The R should have allowed them to push the envelope much further which could have added to the humor.

Wasn't horrible, but it could have been a much better film by reaching just a bit instead of always trying to reap the lowest hanging fruit.

Kaos · « **Reply #701 on:** August 01, 2011, 10:52:58 AM »

Kaos · « **Reply #702 on:** August 02, 2011, 09:39:15 AM »

Source Code

Garbage.

Convoluted impossibility.

Michelle is super cute but wasted. She couldnt save this load of crap. I loved her in that insane movie with Robert Downey, Jr and Val Kilmer. Here she is just set dressing.

Jake sucks. He should leave the business.

Just a bad movie. The groundhog day matrix on a train.

Awful.

djsimp · « **Reply #703 on:** August 03, 2011, 09:07:30 AM »

Quote from: GH2001 on July 05, 2011, 12:17:50 PM

Ray Liotta and Don Cheadle most underrated actors evah.

I agree and would add Edward Norton.

Kaos · « **Reply #704 on:** August 04, 2011, 10:10:01 AM »

Unknown

Better than I anticipated.

Some goofy plot holes and an ambiguous too neat conclusion, but generally well done.

Diane Kruger's accent was horrible and there's no way she or the other chick were into Liam.

Also his passport listed his birthday as 1964. Ha. No way.

Pretty good movie overall, though.

Kaos · « **Reply #705 on:** August 05, 2011, 11:39:27 AM »

Hall Pass

I'm ready to see Jenna Fischer naked. But not with a spray tan like she had in this movie.

Owen Wilson absolutely sucks. I can't stand him and he ruins this movie.

It was fair. About the same as Horrible Bosses in terms of comedic moments -- meaning they were few and far between -- and about the same level of believability (as in none).

Two schlumps get freedom for a week to pursue sexual conquests because their wives are tired of their "obsession" over sex.

That part of the story had truth to it because few married couples are sexually compatible and because most guys think that if it weren't for the wives they'd be some snatch snatching hounds.

Guys find out that the hunting grounds for older lions aren't so fertile. Girls accidentally find out that lions still hunt.

That much is true. Give an attractive woman a week and she could fuck six dozen different guys. She could walk into JC Penney, grab the intercom and say "I'm 43 and slightly horny. Will be evaluating guys to fuck in the blender aisle between 10 and 10:45 this morning." There would be a line all the way to the other end of the mall within five minutes.

For a guy, that hunt is much more difficult.

Back to the movie..

Owen Wilson's pursed lip, mumbly mouth character had absolutely no shot or possible attraction to the babysitter nor would the blazing Australian chick be willing to hit him up. Completely implausible, impossible and ridiculous. Destroyed any credibility the movie hoped to maintain by setting up those scenes.

Other than a really nice pair of tits and a couple of occasional laughs, there's not much to recommend this movie.

If you've watched it and are married here's a question for you. Do you consider what Jenna Fischer's character did to be cheating in the broader sense? Or does "cheating" only involve actual sexual penetration of some orifice?

Townhallsavoy · « **Reply #706 on:** August 05, 2011, 11:52:24 AM »

Do you watch movies because they exist?

I mean, honestly, what leads you to order Hall Pass and push play without someone holding a gun to your head or copious amounts of alcohol being involved?

Kaos · « **Reply #707 on:** August 05, 2011, 12:20:22 PM »

Quote from: Townhallsavoy on August 05, 2011, 11:52:24 AM

Do you watch movies because they exist?

I mean, honestly, what leads you to order Hall Pass and push play without someone holding a gun to your head or copious amounts of alcohol being involved?

Friend says "Hey, I've got Hall Pass. Want to watch it? And I think 'Jenna Fischer, kinda hot in a Pammy way...'"

That's the thought process.

Kaos · « **Reply #708 on:** August 06, 2011, 04:39:25 AM »

Rio

It's an animated bird movie. Just another emesis of color and cacophony splatted on the screen without benefit of a cohesive story or anything of real entertainment value.

You've got Toy Story, Lion King, Rango, Ice Age, Shrek, Monsters Inc. and Finding Nemo on one hand. Fantastic movies that tell stories well.

You've got Igor, Shark Tale, any Barbie movie, The Wild, Megamind and Atlantis on the other. Half ass efforts to cash in on the animation craze.

Rio falls somewhere inbetween.

It's not good, but it's not slapdash awful.

I didn't give a shit about the birds. Monsters Inc. made me care about a fuzzy behemoth with horns.

I didn't give a shit about the romance between the human characters. Toy Story made me care about a kid's relationship with a pull-string cowboy.

The musical numbers were lame, particularly the rapping cockatoo. Compared to Scar's menacing musical interlude in Lion King it was bad, bad, bad.

The bad guys were caricatures. Scar, Cruella DeVille, Jafar, Ursula, Shere Khan. Now THOSE guys were bad to the creepy bone. The clowns here were useless and worthless.

The same guy showed up in about 20 different scenes playing different parts but looking exactly the same. Piss poor animation.

Some of the jokes were crude and stupid and beneath even the target audience.

I could watch Lion King, Beauty and the Beast, Little Mermaid, Jungle Book, Toy Story, Monsters Inc., again right now. Some of those movies are on my 20 movies on a desert island list.

I don't care if I ever see Rio again.

Kaos · « **Reply #709 on:** August 06, 2011, 04:45:44 AM »

The Rite

Damn. A PG-13 possession movie.

Should have been a clue right there.

Anthony Hopkins in a "based on a true story" account of a priest in Italy who performs exorcisms and his interaction with a seminary graduate in a state of disbelief and confusion.

Hopkins was menacing when the role called for it, but I couldn't help flashing back to Silence of the Lambs. I kept waiting for him to say something about Clarice and that was a major distraction.

The would-be priest with doubts wasn't a very good actor and helped drop the film a peg or two.

The journalist angle was a big pfffftttt.

But as noted it was a PG-13 depiction of exorcisms. So the envelope couldn't be pushed very far.

It had a few moments, but I really liked this film a whole lot better when it was called The Exorcist and the possessed was a little girl.

I keep expecting that to be remade any day now. The original scared the flaming chocolate hell out of me. Same with the original Omen. Really the only two horror movies that have ever spooked the fuck out of me. The Omen remake sucked turtle balls, though.

Kaos · « **Reply #710 on:** August 08, 2011, 12:57:12 AM »

Sucker Punch

I'm sure you're expecting a scalding review blasting this trifling load of nonsense, but the fact is that I sort of liked this little movie.

I had no idea what was going on most of the time. Wasn't sure what reality we were living in. But I enjoyed the struggle.

Abby Cornish was good. Vanessa Hudgens was good. Emily Browning was outstanding.

It looked like a fun movie to make and I enjoyed watching it.

Didn't like the ending, but I understood why they went that way with it.

I've seen it blasted by reviewers from all over. I saw it called "icky, sadistic, tedious, boring, empty, senseless and hollow" among other things. That's one of the reasons I waited so long to watch it.

It was none of those things to me, except maybe sadistic.

We're supposed to celebrate the genius of QT when he makes up a bloody fantasy about Hitler being killed in a theater by a sadistic band of Jews but this escape from reality is panned? I don't think so.

Fuck the critics. I liked the movie.

I do think this is one you'll either like or absolutely hate, though. Don't think there's much "meh" middle ground. My wife would have hated it.

I didn't. I'd watch it again. The girls with the guns and swords were fun. A movie doesn't have to be The Reader (one of the stupidest movies I've ever seen) to be enjoyable. Sometimes you want to leave reality at the door and watch girls with machine guns blow shit completely the fuck up.

How can you go wrong with this:

JR4AU · « **Reply #711 on:** August 08, 2011, 09:29:12 AM »

Quote from: Kaos on July 30, 2011, 02:20:26 PM

Limitless

But the movie fumbled the ball.

So, Mario Fannin took up acting?

Kaos · « **Reply #712 on:** August 12, 2011, 12:19:52 AM »

Wild Target

British movie. Allegedly madcap humor.

Featuring Bill Nighy (squidward from Pirates of the Caribbean and Viktor from Underworld) as an assassin, Emily Blunt as a carefree con artist, Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley) as an accidental accomplice and the guy who played Jim on the British version of The Office as a competing assassin.

Nighy has a contract on Blunt but is so smitten with her cavalier thievery he can't pull the trigger and inadvertently ends up as her protector. Grint is a drifter caught up in the mayhem when he gets in the middle of a botched attempt on Blunt's life.

It's a great idea for a story but it was so, so miscast.

The idea of a romance, particularly a long-lasting one, between the dour Nighy and the playful Blunt is unfathomable. It simply doesn't fly.

The crazy humor the movie hoped to deliver didn't pan out. There was some random silliness, but nothing of the wry ribaldry Brits are known for. It just didn't work.

The film might have had a chance with someone other than Nighy in the lead role. I tend to like him in everything I've seen him in, but he just didn't cut it here.

Blunt -- damn girl. She was Katy Perry sexy. Like a cross between Katy Perry and Demi Lovato. Her acting left a lot to be desired, but the scene where she steals her way through a market had some sly cool going for it. I also loved her shoes. She had great shoes throughout. I notice things like that.

This is a movie I hope ends up getting Americanized. I'd like to see it with, say Reese Witherspoon/Scarlett Johanssen/Amanda Seyfried and somebody like Leo DiCaprio/Shia Lebouf/Matt Damon/Clooney/Christian Bale. Put it in the hands of a Jerry Bruckenheimer, Stephen Soderbergh or Michael Bay (to make sure we get titties and explosions) and this could be a good film.

It wasn't bad here, just dull and lifeless. It didn't have the pop it needed.

Kaos · « **Reply #713 on:** August 12, 2011, 12:29:58 AM »

How Do You Know

How do you know? When you start throwing up ten minutes into a shitty film.

What awful, awful crap.

I tried to watch this because I find Reese Witherspoon to be immeasurably cute and she looked pretty adorable here.

Like super adorable.

But hearing her sexual moans when she was allegedly in the sack with Owen Wilson (for no apparent reason) made me physically ill. And then when her little blonde hotness is actually trying to decide between super schmuck Owen and schlump schmuck Paul Rudd? I blew chunks in the floor.

What a shitty, shitty, shitty movie.

Even this couldn't keep me:

I give this film

Kaos · « **Reply #714 on:** August 13, 2011, 03:16:12 PM »

Restraint

Australian movie. Popped up on Netflix and I decided to give it a late night shot.

Pretty well done film that scraped the surface of a bunch of degenerates and found little soul.

Teresa Palmer is Dale, a former stripper who seduces a psychopath into helping her escape her strip club pimp. The guy is a little too unhinged and ends up making a bloody mess from which they have to escape. They take refuge at the home of an agoraphobic dude (some guy of True Blood, I think).

Mr. Recluse helps them out a little, becomes infatuated with Dale and manages to contrive a happy ending -- at least for some of the cast.

The interactions between psycho Ron, sexy Dale and calculating Andrew are pretty good and contain a decent mix of tension and frustration.

Ron's big plan for escape is hilariously poorly thought out and hinges on "yellow bastards."

The ending left a few gaping questions that needed some answers and there were a couple of plot points that bore some better effort.

For instance when the cops come one day and he tells them his fiance has left him, why would they blindly accept her being back the next as if nothing was wrong (or at least not make some comment).

What was the purpose of showing the body floating on the lake if that was never going to be addressed. Wouldn't a floating body be a problem?

It's also never really clear what happened to Daddy Dearest and the original whore fiance. But I suppose that can be left to the imagination. It can be whatever you want it to be.

As for Teresa Palmer? Holy smoking shit.

One of the best bodies I've ever seen on screen. Ass that is simply amazing. Her face is a cross between Scarlett Johanssen and Kristen Stewart with the best features of both. She's fucking hot. Seriously fucking hot.

Worth skimming through just for her.

Kaos · « **Reply #715 on:** August 14, 2011, 01:48:15 AM »

Severance

British horror/torture movie.

Not bad.

Some implausible plot points. No way in fuck they stay at the "resort" particularly since there was no food source, no welcoming party and no amenities.

Where did all the crazies come from and what was their real beef?

Suck
Band becomes vampires to gain fame and fortune.

Some slightly funny moments. Alice Cooper, Henry Rollins, Iggy Pop and Moby all make appearances.

Jessica Pare (below) has some vampire hotness.

Kaos · « **Reply #716 on:** August 16, 2011, 07:57:48 AM »

Lincoln Lawyer

Nothing to see here that hasn't already been covered.

Wasn't great. Wasn't bad. Emotionally flat.

Completely forgettable. In fact, I already have.

JR4AU · « **Reply #717 on:** August 16, 2011, 08:04:15 AM »

Quote from: Kaos on August 16, 2011, 07:57:48 AM

Lincoln Lawyer

Nothing to see here that hasn't already been covered.

Wasn't great. Wasn't bad. Emotionally flat.

Completely forgettable. In fact, I already have.

I liked.

Kaos · « **Reply #718 on:** August 16, 2011, 08:18:01 AM »

Quote from: JR4AU on August 16, 2011, 08:04:15 AM

I liked.

Wasn't bad. Just that it pieced together several other movies and recycled characters we've already seen before.

It made no impression on me.

Kaos · « **Reply #719 on:** August 17, 2011, 03:29:57 AM »

The King's Speech

Bloody hell. Could that have moved any slower?

It was fair. I liked Barbosa's character pretty well. He should have gotten best actor over Firth. He was ten times better than Firth was.

It wasn't the cinematic masterpiece I was led to believe.

The Fighter, Toy Story 3 and The Social Network were better films. The Fighter in particular.

But this is exactly the stuffy sort of shit the academy award types tend to like.

Given the chance to watch this or Transformer's 3 again? I'm taking robots every single time.