Dell's Good, Bad & Ugly Movie Reviews

[NAHSTE]

Surprisingly, my girlfriend not only stayed awake through all of The Hurt Locker, she didn't hate it. But when I asked her if she liked it, she said "It's not really a movie you could like or dislike" which I guess kind of makes sense, but I just looked at her like "Woman, please" and moved on.

The thing about women not remembering movies is hilarious. I can quote the same movie three times in a week and she won't get the reference any of the times. I'll be like "hey, what movie is that from?" and she'll be all like "You know I can't quote movies like you" such a lame excuse when I've already referenced the movie at least a dozen times.

As for The Hurt Locker, I loved it, my only disappointment was not getting to see how Anthony Mackie's character ended up. I guess the conversation in the truck about finally being ready to have a son was his resolution, but I was expecting at least one shot of him back on US soil like we got with Renner's character.

Still a fascinating war movie.

[calgaryballer]

Surprisingly, my girlfriend not only stayed awake through all of The Hurt Locker, she didn't hate it. But when I asked her if she liked it, she said "It's not really a movie you could like or dislike" which I guess kind of makes sense, but I just looked at her like "Woman, please" and moved on.

The thing about women not remembering movies is hilarious. I can quote the same movie three times in a week and she won't get the reference any of the times. I'll be like "hey, what movie is that from?" and she'll be all like "You know I can't quote movies like you" such a lame excuse when I've already referenced the movie at least a dozen times.

As for The Hurt Locker, I loved it, my only disappointment was not getting to see how Anthony Mackie's character ended up. I guess the conversation in the truck about finally being ready to have a son was his resolution, but I was expecting at least one shot of him back on US soil like we got with Renner's character.

Still a fascinating war movie.

I think it that case she's trying to tell you not to be such an annoying frat boy who quotes movies all the time, but doesn't have the heart to tell you.

[NAHSTE]

I think it that case she's trying to tell you not to be such an annoying frat boy who quotes movies all the time, but doesn't have the heart to tell you.

Oh good one. You're right, the only people who reference movies were once in fraternities, and wear pink polos, and drink out of red plastic cups.

Very salient point you made there. Nobody else on the planet ever references movies.

[Tailback U]

I think it that case she's trying to tell you not to be such an annoying frat boy who quotes movies all the time, but doesn't have the heart to tell you.

hater.

i quote movies all the time. i love movies. i am a movie buff. my friends and i throw out movie trivia quotes all the time.

nahste - my gf has the same problem. i'll whip out the best quotes at the most opportunistic of times and my wit goes straight to waste because she doesn't remember where the fuck its from.

one more thing about women and movies - they seem to have trouble grasping the concepts of films like The Hurt Locker because it is just a story. they enjoy the tension, the acting, the emotions, etc. but they really seem to disconnect themselves from movies that don't follow traditional film concepts.

example - my girlfriend thought Law Abiding Citizen was way better than se7en because it was constantly a guessing game and full of surprises. she didn't like se7en because they just randomly introduced kevin spacey as the serial killer instead of having a guy already involved in the plot be the serial killer. so she kept guessing, "i think he's the killer," "no i think she's the killer," "what the hell he wasn't even in the movie that's lame."

no lady - you're stupid. don't get me wrong, i enjoyed Law Abiding Citizen, but i definitely laughed out loud at some of the ridiculous shit that they threw in there - while she sat on the edge of her seat eating up all the absurd unrealistic shit throughout the movie.

ok i'm done - sorry to hijack your thread, dell. carry on with the reviews please .

[Sven Draconian]

Dillinger
1945. Not Rated, 70 minutes.
Director: Max Nosseck. Starring Lawrence Tierney, Edmund Lowe, Anne Jeffreys, Eduardo Ciannelli.
The rise and fall of real-life bank-robber John Dillinger. At only 70 minutes, it sets a fairly frenetic pace. Still, we get to see John grow into the leader of his bank robbing gang by becoming increasingly ambitious and ruthless. It’s an entertaining crime story that would’ve benefited from some fleshing out. The acting is solid and the action comes fast but the characters are almost universally flat. We see some character development with John but it’s a predictable arc. The opportunity for a great female character is missed by not further exploring Helen’s (Jeffreys) feelings and motivations for her ultimate act more deeply. However, given the era it was made it’s par for the course that the bad guy is thoroughly bad and his girl is a little underwritten even though she plays a major role in how things turn out. SCORE: 6.5/10



Dillinger
1973. Rated R, 109 minutes.
Director: John Milius. Starring Warren Oates, Ben Johnson, Michelle Phillips, Harry Dean Stanton.
The rise and fall of real-life bank-robber John Dillinger. This isn’t a remake of the 1945 film of the same name but a re-telling of the same legend. Both films, it should be noted, play fast and loose with the facts. At least this version has sense enough to include Melvin Purvis, the G-Man that was always hot on Dillinger’s heels. Both he and Dillinger are presented as tough-talking and ruthless. It just so happens they work on opposite sides of the law. Though this version is roughly 40 minutes longer than its predecessor it manages to pale in comparison in terms of character development. Everyone in the movie remains exactly as they were the first time they appear on screen. New characters also keep getting introduced until the whole thing just feels like role-call. Sadly, even John is unchanged. He’s already well entrenched as a major crime figure when the movie starts. The lone possible exception to this is John’s girl, Billie (Phillips). However, her change of heart is butchered and rendered unbelievable. By the way, her change comes early in the movie and it’s from fearing him to loving him in an instant, so I’m not ruining anything. That said, this is by far the more intense of the two films. Many of the gang’s bank robberies end in large-scale, graphically shown shootouts and car-chases that are still fantastic to watch. There’s blood splattering everywhere, pedestrians get run over by getaway cars and just all around expertly created mayhem. SCORE: 7/10


Public Enemies
2009. Rated R, 140 minutes.
Director: Michael Mann.
Starring Johnny Depp, Christian Bale, Marion Cotillard, Billy Crudup.

Plot: FBI man Melvin Purvis (Bale) hunts America’s most wanted man, bank robber John Dillinger (Depp). Based on a true story.

The Good: The movie does a nice job juxtaposing Purvis’ determined pursuit with Dillinger’s arrogance. Depp really pulls off the smugness of a man who really believes he’ll stay one step ahead of the authorities, even as their bullets whiz by his head. It becomes a riveting cat and mouse. While Depp is very good, Jason Clarke who plays his sidekick Red Hamilton is excellent, stealing scene after scene with subtle wisdom and strength. It’s the type of performance that may go unnoticed but gives Dillinger and the movie as a whole a backbone. True to his reputation, director Michael Mann films some of the most exciting shootouts in the business. Aside from the visuals during these scenes, the sound mixing is superior and adds to the feeling of danger. That might sound a bit technical but when you hear that each weapon makes a different sound and hear bullets ripping apart a tree as someone hides on the other side it brings you to the edge of your seat.

The Bad: Melvin Purvis has proven to be problematic. Russell Crowe’s Richie Roberts from American Gangster or even Al Pacino’s Vincent Hanna from Michael Mann’s own Heat should’ve been the template followed. Those guys were very well developed human beings that were driven and flawed. We could relate to them. Bale’s Purvis is just a stiff “good guy.” We get what he’s trying to do and even why but he’s not real enough to draw us into his side of story. This is especially apparent because Dillinger is so dynamic a personality and dominates the movie. Finally, in between those gorgeous shootouts the movie didn’t look as good as it should have. Portions of it, especially early in the film suffer from the camera being too close to its actors. It may have been done, in order to give certain characters a big reveal a scene or two after they actually appear but it just feels like shoddy cinematography.

The Ugly: Goobers. Yup, a piece of one of the chocolate covered peanuts I was eating when down the wrong pipe and induced a coughing fit that caused me to flee the theater for the nearest water fountain and miss a couple minutes in the middle. I think the lady next to me was both mortified that I might be dying and relieved that I managed not to cough on her.

Recommendation: This is definitely one for fans of gangster flicks and crime dramas in general. Its an exciting two and a half hours that Depp carries quite well. But while it is very enjoyable and likely to be one of the better films of the summer, it’s flaws are enough to keep it from being great.

The Opposite View: Lou Lumenick, New York Post

What the Internet Says: 7.7/10 on imdb.com (7/20/09), 65% on rottentomatoes.com, 70/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 7.5/10



BTW, Ugly #2: Stephen Dorff, who once seemed to have a promising career is a glorified extra. It took me half the movie to be sure that it was, in fact, him I was seeing.

Just watched this. (Spoilers below)

I thought it was pretty bad for a few reason, the biggest being that there were too many characters, and a lot of them who weren't introduced properly. I had no idea who a lot of the gangsters or agents were (and because of the similar appearance, no way to tell them apart) so I spent way too much time trying to figure out who is who.

Just to start with, why was J. Edgar Hoover even in the movie? Why bother highlighting the Texas Rangers? Why bother having the gambling/bookie circuit gangsters in the movie. They all just distracted me. If the movie is supposed to be Pervis vs Dillinger, develop those characters more. It's not a documentary, I don't need every person that played in history appearing on screen.

That lead me to utter confusion during the big shootout at the bar/motel (in the woods). I thought people were shot who wern't. I thought people were in cars who weren't, but really were, but then they were getting picked up. Thee's just a lot of people (who are dressed the same, same hair style, no facial hair) running around.

I thought it felt a lot like Star Wars episode 1, a million different people and you aren't sure which ones actually matter.

I'd give it a 4/10.

[Fox1994]

I think it that case she's trying to tell you not to be such an annoying frat boy who quotes movies all the time, but doesn't have the heart to tell you.

I don't groan often. I generally find it unnecessary, pretentious folly. You've earned it. Douchebag.

[JayDizzle]

Avoid this, Dell.



It is awful.

[Fox1994]

Good looking out. Now I won't waste my time on that shit. It looked pretty terrible anyway.

[NAHSTE]

Yeah that movie looked retarded. I was surprised that anyone was even anticipating that.

[dell71]

Avoid this, Dell.



It is awful.

So, of course, you just piqued my interest. I won't be rushing out to see but probably will at some point.

[dell71]

Duplicity
Directed by Tony Gilroy.
2009. Rated PG-13, 125 minutes.
Cast:
Julia Roberts
Clive Owen
Tom Wilkinson
Paul Giamatti
Dan Daily
Oleg Shtefanko
Rick Worthy
Lisa Roberts Gillan

Plot: Two former government spies, for different governments, have both become corporate spies, for competing companies. They also become lovers, both uneasy with their relationship. Together, they hatch a get rich quick scheme but neither is sure they can trust the other.

The Good: It's a lively affair. The banter between Owen and Roberts is witty and charming. The two seem to have an easy chemistry that carries the movie without any strain. In fact, the movie works best during their scenes together. Well, except for when either Paul Giamatti or Tom Wilkinson, as our heroes respective bosses, are on the screen. They are both brilliant in limited playtime. The story does a really nice job of keeping us in the dark about the true motives of the lovely couple. Throw them in with the teams they each work with and we're never quite sure who is, or isn't double-crossing whom.

The Bad: In the movies, time is simply a tool to be used at the director's discretion. He/she may choose to exaggerate it, accelerate it, or jump back and forth within it, among other things. Jumping back and forth can only feel natural, and therefore effective, if that's how the story unfolds best. If not, it feels gimmicky, like it does here. The plot contains enough of it's own twists and turns that the time traveling is superfluous and gives the whole thing a convoluted feel. It would benefit from a much more linear approach.

The Ugly: How deprived is the poor travel agent who loses her job, if she feels what she got out of it is worth it.

Recommendation: It's a fun and solid spy vs. spy...and spy loving spy comedy with an intriguing game of cat and mouse going on. As mention, the back and forth through time can be a bit distracting in this particular movie, but certainly no deal-breaker. Plus, we get a wonderful ending that makes up for a lot of it's sins.

The Opposite View: Mick LaSalle, San Francisco Chronicle

What the Internet Says: 6.4/10 on imdb.com (1/23/10), 65% on rottentomatoes.com, 69/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 7/10

[JayDizzle]

So, of course, you just piqued my interest. I won't be rushing out to see but probably will at some point.

Make sure to pregame a little bit before hand (booze or whatever vice you may have) so it'll at least be enjoyable.

After that, consider why you didn't go see The Tooth Fairy instead.

[Fox1994]

I hate something about Clive Owen.

[red33]

Now, just so you don't go thinking my judgment can be trusted or anything crazy like that...

I Spit on Your Grave
Directed by Meir Zarchi
1978. Not Rated (originally Rated X), 100 minutes.
Cast:
Camille Keaton
Eron Tabor
Richard Pace
Anthony Nichols
Gunter Kleeman

Young novelist Jennifer (Keaton) seeks revenge against the men who gang-rape her while she's on vacation. This is a very difficult movie to watch. In most gore flicks, the brutality and blood resulting from it are so overblown it's not to be believed. When we watch a Saw flick, for instance, and see some contraption that obviously took an entire crew to build obliterate someone's head and blood splattering in all directions it's shocking and disgusting but so over the top it feels like we're watching a movie. Here, the rape scenes are not only explicit in their viciousness but depicted in a way that makes us feel like we're watching, well, rape. This is far more unsettling and frankly, repulsive, especially since we get three rather lengthy scenes of it. Many people have stopped watching in the middle of one or the other and never finished the movie and I can't say that I blame them. However, there are a couple payoffs if you manage to make it through this part of the film, one for the film itself and one for the viewer. For the film, its reward is your unwavering support for the victim regardless of what she plans to do to these guys. You can even dismiss the fact that our villains are beyond stupid and simply fall for whatever she throws their way. For you, I won't completely spoil the reward but I'm sure you can guess. Let's just say it becomes a "girl power" film of the highest, and perhaps most disturbing order. Not surprisingly, it's one of the most polarizing movies ever because many see it as misogynist and dismiss it as a vile piece of cinema. Even Roger Ebert once called it "the worst movie ever made." I have quite the opposite viewpoint. Much the way many anti-war movies use graphic combat scenes to help make its point, this uses decidedly anti-woman occurrences to achieve a remarkably unrestrained brand of feminism. Oh, and you may never...ever...ever get the bathtub scene out of your head.

MY SCORE: 7.5/10

Read Roger Ebert's entire review here and see just how much he hates this movie.

HAHAHAHAHA i thought i was the only one who ever seen this movie.

[Maize]

Dell, I missed the movie reviews. Glad you're doing them here. I agree with you on Duplicity, pretty decent movie.