Dell's Good, Bad & Ugly Movie Reviews

[Buzzman]

What about the movie Eastern Promises?

 

[Tailback U]

Synecdoche, New York
2008. Rated R, 124 minutes.
Director: Charlie Kaufman.
Starring Philip Seymour Hoffman, Samantha Morton, Michelle Williams, Catherine Keener.

Plot: Caden (Hoffman) is a theater director who’s life is quite literally falling apart. After winning a prestigious grant he sets out to create the play of all plays using what eventually becomes a life-sized model of New York.

The Good: Director/writer Kaufman is also the man who wrote Being John Malkovich and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and this is similarly odd in execution. We also get treated to another great performance by Philip Seymour Hoffman. However, I must admit I’m a big fan of his. I’d probably enjoy him reading the phone book. Michelle Williams also does an excellent job as Caden’s second wife Claire, as does Tom Noonan as Sam, who gets hired to play Caden in the play. Oh, and kudos to Kaufman for using women in his cast that look like, well, real women.

The Bad: Metaphor upon metaphor upon metaphor upon…you get the idea. What the directors (both the real one and his fictional counterpart) are trying to do is fairly simple but the method is ridiculously convoluted. Any tangible ideas are buried beneath mounds of symbolism. It’s a classic example of why great writers shouldn’t necessarily direct their own screenplays. With no one to rein him in, it seems he took every “deep” idea that he had and threw it up on the screen. To top it all off, he completely failed with all those “real” looking women. The very basic question is why on Earth would seeming every woman he comes into contact with, except first wife Adele (Keener), be madly in love with or be sexually attracted to this guy? Not only is he coming apart at the seams both physically and emotionally but everyone can plainly see that he is. He doesn’t exactly ooze sex appeal and is, in fact, rather repulsive.

The Ugly: I’m going to need someone smarter than me to explain the constant fire in Hazel’s (Morton) house.

Recommendation: Fans of the aforementioned Being John Malkovich and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind should give this a look. The truth is, even though I’m a big fan of both those movies maybe I just didn’t get this one. You might, and hail it a great artistic achievement. For the rest of us, not so much. It’s definitely original and quirky but often frustrating to watch.

The Opposite View: Dave Calhoun, Time Out London

What the Internet Says: 7.5/10 on imdb.com (7/01/09), 67% on rottentomatoes.com, 67/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 5.5/10

I read the back of this at Hollywood Video a couple weeks ago and thought about picking it up but figured it'd be better off to watch alone by myself rather than with the family.

I am a fan of these types of artsy flicks although they are sometimes way over done, which is what this sounds like. I'll still check it out eventually because I love me some PSH.

 

[dell71]

What about the movie Eastern Promises?

Somehow, I just haven't gotten around to that one. Everytime I go to pick it up, something else catches my eye.

I read the back of this at Hollywood Video a couple weeks ago and thought about picking it up but figured it'd be better off to watch alone by myself rather than with the family.

I am a fan of these types of artsy flicks although they are sometimes way over done, which is what this sounds like. I'll still check it out eventually because I love me some PSH.

Definitely an artsy flick, not the crowd pleasing sort. I did think it was way overdone, but then again critics have been generally kind to it.

 

[dell71]

a review of american gangster would be nice. i wanna know what other people think about the movie

Ask & ye shall receive...sometime...anyhoo...here it goes:

American Gangster
2007. Rated R, 157 minutes.
Directed by Ridley Scott. Starring Denzel Washington, Russell Crowe, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Josh Brolin.

Plot: The rise and fall of Harlem gangster Frank Lucas (Washington). Based on a true story.

The Good: Despite all the marketing of the film, it never degenerates into a string of shootouts (that the director is Ridley Scott should be a clue that wouldn't be the case). When the violence comes, it works well within the framework of the story and it’s brutal. Mostly, we witness a solid portrait of two men on opposite sides of the law on a collision course. The film-makers stress the lengths each man goes through to achieve what they’ve set their mind to in their chosen fields. The performances given by the two leads aren’t quite Oscar-worthy as we’ve been lead to believe but definitely showcase superstar personas at work. They each do a nice job showing the duality of the characters they play. Washington plays a man with a dishonest livelihood but willing to be honest with his family; Crowe (Officer Richie Roberts) plays a man totally honest in his work but unable to maintain that honesty with his family. Aside from the stories of these two men, the Vietnam War is weaved in & provides a nice backdrop & way to keep in mind the times during which this was occurring.

The Bad: The hype. This seems destined to be this year’s Miami Vice – over-hyped & under-appreciated. Billed like it’s another Scarface, it isn’t nearly as over-the-top & much more willing to let the story develop through diligent police work instead of grandiose gunfights. The other problem is that main character Frank Lucas isn’t made into a great screen-villain. As played by Washington, he’s undeniably a bad guy who does have a soft-side. However, as written this Frank is not nearly as charismatic as Denzel's last bad-guy role, that of Alonzo in Training Day which earned him an Oscar. In fact, this much more restrained performance helps me appreciate that one more. Also, a storyline involving rival gangster, Nicky Barnes (Cuba Gooding Jr.) just kind of disappeared after what appeared to be a lot of setup. Finally, the ending was a little anti-climactic.

The Ugly: The Wu-Tang Clan. Huh? One of the cops after Frank was played by Wu-Tang mastermind the RZA. He actually was better than expected but in a movie set from 1968 through 1973 someone should’ve had the sense to cover up his clearly visible Wu-Tang tattoo in one of his first scenes.

Recommendation: I will call it a must-see for gangster movie fans. However, I will caution people that its not a 100 mph constant gun-fire type of movie. Its much more of a hybrid between a straightforward gangster flick & a cop procedural. People buying into the hype will come away disappointed.

The Opposite View: Armond White, New York Press (a very interesting read)

What the Internet Says: 8.5/10 on imdb.com (#100 all-time on 11/5/07), 77% on rottentomatoes.com, 76/100 on metacritic.com

SCORE: 8.5/10


My top 10 movies of 2007:

1. There Will Be Blood
2. Gone Baby Gone
3. No Country for Old Men
4. 3:10 to Yuma
5. Black Snake Moan
6. American Gangster
7. Before the Devil Knows You're Dead
8. The Kingdom
9. Talk to Me
10. The Great Debaters

 

[Vinsane]

Loved Russel Crowe in American Gangster. He did a great job in his role while Denzel always delivers. Absolutely correct in calling this film a "hybrid" gangster film. It had more of a "cat and mouse" feel to it than anything. Great film and glad to see it cracked your Top 10 of 2007. Also I'm digging the respect you gave to 3:10 to Yuma. Great film.

 

[Buzzman]

Yea 3:10 To Yuma didnt get enough praise.

 

[dell71]

wow thanks for the quick reply. great review.

No problem.

 

[Buzzman]

I watched Eastern Promises. It was intresting.....

 

[dell71]

Dickie Roberts: Former Child Star
2003. Rated PG-13, 98 minutes.
Director: Sam Weisman.
Starring David Spade, Mary McCormack, Alyssa Milano, Jon Lovitz.
Dickie Roberts (Spade), who achieved great fame as a child actor is struggling with adulthood. He decides to enlist a family to help him relive his childhood in hopes that it will give him the foundation needed to land the lead role in the new Rob Reiner film. The movie gets a lot of fuel from its pretty original premise. It's just ridiculous enough to make perfect sense. The movie is funny in spurts but is unfortunately least humorous when it tries the hardest. It also victimizes itself with a love story that is not only creepy but, since you can see it coming miles away, gives us that helpless feeling we get when we know something bad is going to happen to us and there's nothing we can do to stop it. On the other side of the ledger, having cameos from real former child actors (bigger parts for some) is a real plus. It's not the best comedy in the world but it has its moments.
MY SCORE: 5.5/10

 

[Buzzman]

I liked Dickie Roberts, I actually bought that movie.

I just watched Speed Racer the other night. I held off on it because the reviews said it wasnt that good, but I was really impressed. Might buy that one. The racing was so cheesy but fun.

 

[Rylo]

Just seen your Taken review.

Very nicely written review. I hope to have one up soon. To be honest I really didn't like the movie at all. Bored me.

 

[dell71]

Max Payne
2008. Rated PG-13, 100 minutes.
Director: John Moore.
Starring Mark Wahlberg, Mila Kunis, Beau Bridges, Amaury Nolasco.

Plot: Det. Max Payne (Wahlberg) seeks to solve the mystery of his wife's murder.

The Good: The movie consistently gives us interesting visuals. Chief among them being the demons all the junkies keep seeing. Some nice things happen during the action scenes as well. It's also nicely paced, fitting snugly into its 100 minutes.

The Bad: It commits the cardinal sin of not only being flat-out predictable but having cavernous plot-holes as well. The most troublesome aspect of the plot-holes is they don't seem to come from mistakes in the narrative but from the movie refusing to follow its own rules. The word "invincible" is key here. You'll notice how it doesn't mean the same thing for everyone. Oh, I fully understand that it is only a movie, and one based on a video game at that, but is it too much to ask for our hero to reload his handgun at least once every hundred shots or so?

The Ugly: The guy licking the super-drug/serum off the extremely wet and dirty floor...after its been stepped on.

Recommendation: Strictly as a movie, MP tells a bland story and tells it poorly. Full disclosure: I do know of the video game but have never played it and I'm not really familiar with its plot details. People who are may appreciate it more than I. For me, its simply par for the course as far as movies based on games go.

The Opposite View: James Christopher, Times Online (UK)

What the Internet Says: 5.5/10 on imdb.com (7/13/09), 18% on rottentomatoes.com, 31/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 4/10

 

[Buzzman]

Yea Max Payne was trash.

 

[Ralnakor]

Max Payne
2008. Rated PG-13, 100 minutes.
Director: John Moore.
Starring Mark Wahlberg, Mila Kunis, Beau Bridges, Amaury Nolasco.

Plot: Det. Max Payne (Wahlberg) seeks to solve the mystery of his wife's murder.

The Good: The movie consistently gives us interesting visuals. Chief among them being the demons all the junkies keep seeing. Some nice things happen during the action scenes as well. It's also nicely paced, fitting snugly into its 100 minutes.

The Bad: It commits the cardinal sin of not only being flat-out predictable but having cavernous plot-holes as well. The most troublesome aspect of the plot-holes is they don't seem to come from mistakes in the narrative but from the movie refusing to follow its own rules. The word "invincible" is key here. You'll notice how it doesn't mean the same thing for everyone. Oh, I fully understand that it is only a movie, and one based on a video game at that, but is it too much to ask for our hero to reload his handgun at least once every hundred shots or so?

The Ugly: The guy licking the super-drug/serum off the extremely wet and dirty floor...after its been stepped on.

Recommendation: Strictly as a movie, MP tells a bland story and tells it poorly. Full disclosure: I do know of the video game but have never played it and I'm not really familiar with its plot details. People who are may appreciate it more than I. For me, its simply par for the course as far as movies based on games go.

The Opposite View: James Christopher, Times Online (UK)

What the Internet Says: 5.5/10 on imdb.com (7/13/09), 18% on rottentomatoes.com, 31/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 4/10

Nah, you got it right. The movie had a lot of potential, but never even came close to delivering.

 

[dell71]

Valkyrie
2008. Rated PG-13, 120 minutes.
Director: Bryan Singer.
Starring Tom Cruise, Kenneth Branagh, Bill Nighy, Tom Wilkinson.

Plot: Col. Claus von Stauffenberg (Cruise) and some other higher ups in the Nazi party spearhead a plot to assassinate Adolf Hitler. Based on a true story.

The Good: It’s a thriller that has action scenes but doesn’t rely on them. In fact, it gets more mileage out of utilizing the most common military procedure: hurry up and wait. Such movies, especially ones that include a number of scenes based on the discussion of strategy can easily become bogged down by long stretches of boring conversations. This one never does. It actually uses those scenes to create tension and anxiety among the conspirators and in turn, the audience. It helps that the movie is tightly paced. Director Bryan Singer did a wonderful job in that department. Finally, the supporting cast is great. In particular, Bill Nighy and Tom Wilkinson deliver remarkable performances.

The Bad: Two giant personas detract from the film, Tom Cruise and Adolf Hitler. In Cruise’s case, his performance is neither good nor bad but just the same old stuff from him where he smirks a lot and points at the floor for emphasis when he’s yelling. That’s fine for the Mission: Impossible series where they’re basically selling you Tom Cruise: action star. Here, it feels off. He never seems to inhabit the role, so he’s never really believable. It doesn’t help that in no way, shape or form looks the part. So, it doesn’t even feel like Col. Stauffenberg is even in the picture. Instead, it feels like Tom Cruise is pissed at Hitler and wants him dead for murdering millions of scientologists, or something. This is another problem, and where Hitler’s persona comes into play. Why exactly do they want him dead? Yes, I know but what if by some chance, I didn’t? The movie assumes a working knowledge of the atrocities he’s responsible for. However, in the off chance someone goes in not fully aware they’d have nothing here to grab onto to make them understand how evil a man this was. The Hitler we see is merely some feeble old man that everyone is either actively protecting or trying to kill with only the vaguest reasons given for either. Hopefully, I’m way off base here but it seems this movie overestimates its audience.

The Ugly: Sometimes Tom Cruise wears his glass eye, sometimes he doesn’t.

Recommendation: This is a solid thriller based on historic events, not an action movie like it has been advertised. However, it’s not out to teach you any history other than the particulars of the operation itself. Therefore, your pre-existing level of appreciation, maybe even fondness for World War II will go a long way in deciding how much you like or dislike this movie.

The Opposite View: Joe Neumaier, New York Daily News

What the Internet Says: 7.4/10 on imdb.com (7/14/09), 61% on rottentomatoes.com, on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 7/10

 

[NAHSTE]

Valkyrie
2008. Rated PG-13, 120 minutes.
Director: Bryan Singer.
Starring Tom Cruise, Kenneth Branagh, Bill Nighy, Tom Wilkinson.

Plot: Col. Claus von Stauffenberg (Cruise) and some other higher ups in the Nazi party spearhead a plot to assassinate Adolf Hitler. Based on a true story.

The Good: It’s a thriller that has action scenes but doesn’t rely on them. In fact, it gets more mileage out of utilizing the most common military procedure: hurry up and wait. Such movies, especially ones that include a number of scenes based on the discussion of strategy can easily become bogged down by long stretches of boring conversations. This one never does. It actually uses those scenes to create tension and anxiety among the conspirators and in turn, the audience. It helps that the movie is tightly paced. Director Bryan Singer did a wonderful job in that department. Finally, the supporting cast is great. In particular, Bill Nighy and Tom Wilkinson deliver remarkable performances.

The Bad: Two giant personas detract from the film, Tom Cruise and Adolf Hitler. In Cruise’s case, his performance is neither good nor bad but just the same old stuff from him where he smirks a lot and points at the floor for emphasis when he’s yelling. That’s fine for the Mission: Impossible series where they’re basically selling you Tom Cruise: action star. Here, it feels off. He never seems to inhabit the role, so he’s never really believable. It doesn’t help that in no way, shape or form looks the part. So, it doesn’t even feel like Col. Stauffenberg is even in the picture. Instead, it feels like Tom Cruise is pissed at Hitler and wants him dead for murdering millions of scientologists, or something. This is another problem, and where Hitler’s persona comes into play. Why exactly do they want him dead? Yes, I know but what if by some chance, I didn’t? The movie assumes a working knowledge of the atrocities he’s responsible for. However, in the off chance someone goes in not fully aware they’d have nothing here to grab onto to make them understand how evil a man this was. The Hitler we see is merely some feeble old man that everyone is either actively protecting or trying to kill with only the vaguest reasons given for either. Hopefully, I’m way off base here but it seems this movie overestimates its audience.

The Ugly: Sometimes Tom Cruise wears his glass eye, sometimes he doesn’t.

Recommendation: This is a solid thriller based on historic events, not an action movie like it has been advertised. However, it’s not out to teach you any history other than the particulars of the operation itself. Therefore, your pre-existing level of appreciation, maybe even fondness for World War II will go a long way in deciding how much you like or dislike this movie.

The Opposite View: Joe Neumaier, New York Daily News

What the Internet Says: 7.4/10 on imdb.com (7/14/09), 61% on rottentomatoes.com, on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 7/10

Solid review. You liked it a little better than I did, but you pretty much felt the same way. Cruise was lacking in the lead role and the movie played out too much like a procedural in my opinion. No emotion, no memorable characters, just a by the numbers historical account for the most part.

 

[Buzzman]

I can understand why Dell didnt like Sunshine. I mean, at least for me, but if I dont like the person playing the main charactor its hard for me to like the movie. I cant really stand Meryl Streep or Amy Adams but usually there movies are good.

 

[dell71]

Solid review. You liked it a little better than I did, but you pretty much felt the same way. Cruise was lacking in the lead role and the movie played out too much like a procedural in my opinion. No emotion, no memorable characters, just a by the numbers historical account for the most part.

Thanx. It's not great but it kept me intrigued.

Disagree with the Sunshine review. It's one of my favorite movies. I think you missed something there. I understand it's not a 10/10, but 5/10 is way too low. I think a lot of people would really enjoy that movie - a 5/10 seems to say stay away. Not true.

Also the best Sci Fi movie to have come out in the past several years.

Valkyrie getting a higher score made me throw up in my mouth a little.

I can understand why Dell didnt like Sunshine. I mean, at least for me, but if I dont like the person playing the main charactor its hard for me to like the movie. I cant really stand Meryl Streep or Amy Adams but usually there movies are good.

As far as Sunshine goes, if I said it once, I've said it a thousand times (just in this thread, even in the review itself) how you feel about it depends almost entirely on your reaction to the change of direction in the latter third of the movie. I've already acknowledged if that was okay by you then you probably would think it was an excellent sci-fi flick. If that change was too jarring for you, like it was for me, then you'll feel it had great potential and was really good until it turned into a cheesy Alien ripoff.

You mean the guy from 28 Days Later? Cillian Murphy? Excellent actor....

Meh...I'm on record saying I think he's only been good in roles where he's the creepy guy: Batman Begins, Red Eye. I thought he was just kinda there in Sunshine. Strangely, a guy I really dislike gave a better performance...that guy (name not coming to me right now) who plays Johnny Blaze in Fantastic Four movies. Oh, I felt the same about Murphy in the overrated, and aforementioned 28 Days Later (dammit, there I go pissing you guys off, again).

 

[Buzzman]

his name is Chris Evans silly goose

 

[calgaryballer]

Meh...I'm on record saying I think he's only been good in roles where he's the creepy guy: Batman Begins, Red Eye. I thought he was just kinda there in Sunshine. Strangely, a guy I really dislike gave a better performance...that guy (name not coming to me right now) who plays Johnny Blaze in Fantastic Four movies. Oh, I felt the same about Murphy in the overrated, and aforementioned 28 Days Later (dammit, there I go pissing you guys off, again).

I was extremely surprised with Evan's performance in that movie. The FF movies were just a train wreck, none of them were given much to work with.