Dell's Good, Bad & Ugly Movie Reviews

[Buzzman]

Took my Dad to see Body of Lies on his birthday, it was sweet, got really over looked like 3 other people in the theatre, but Mark Strong is sweet and is one of my fav actors.

 

[dell71]

The Last House on the Left
1972. Rated R, 84 minutes.
Director: Wes Craven.
Starring Sandra Peabody, Lucy Grantham, David Hess, Jeramie Rain.
While on the way to a concert, two girls try to score some marijuana and find themselves in a house full of psychotic criminals with other plans for the girls. Director Wes Crave is a legend in the horror business and this is his first film. That much is evident by how unsure of itself the movie is. Craven gives us a film full of feminine/parental angst and feminist empowerment at a time when women's rights had re-ascended to center stage a few years after the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. and the slowing of the Civil Rights Movement. It also gives us a cast of perfectly eccentric and vile villains based enough in reality to be really unsettling. However, as if its afraid to scare its audience too much we get ridiculously over the top comic relief from a pair of cops who essentially provide a template for the moronic duo of Roscoe and Enis of The Dukes of Hazzard TV series that would follow a few years later. Even worse, their scenes come complete with goofy music. Whenever they appear onscreen, which is way too often, they instantly take you out of the mood the rest of the movie works so hard to build up. Its obvious Craven wants you to take it seriously but simply underestimates his audience's willingness to be repulsed without relent. The film has a great horror plot with an even greater twist but its a very uneven watch. Because it inspired an entire sub-genre of horror flicks*, its become overrated and viewed as a classic. I liked it well enough, but it consistently keeps itself from becoming the great movie everyone says it is.
MY SCORE: 6.5/10

*That sub-genre simply dictates that young travelers and/or pleasure seekers go down the wrong road or knock on the wrong door and find themselves abducted and tortured by a group/family of psychopaths.

The Last House on the Left
2009. Rated R, 114 minutes (unrated DVD version).
Director: Dennis Iliadis.
Starring Sara Paxton, Garret Dillahunt, Tony Goldwyn, Monica Potter.

Plot: Mari (Paxton) is hanging out with her friend Paige (Martha MacIsaac) at the store Paige works at. While there, the two meet Justin (Spencer Treat Clark) who says he has a stash of weed back at his hotel room. Shortly after the girls get there, they find themselves in a room full of psychotic criminals with other plans for them.

The Good: Unlike the original, this version dispenses with almost any notion of comic relief and vividly presents its nihilistic tale without hesitation or reservation. It helps that in the nearly 40 years since the original, movie violence has become progressively more graphic. Not that I'm some sort of gore fiend or twisted sadist but that helps this film do what it sets out to do: present a realistic enough scenario to be disturbing.

The Bad: Unlike the original, this version dispenses with almost any notion of metaphor. That movie is essentially about the feminist movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s, and in its own warped way, champions the cause. This movie is all surface. Though it does tap into parental angst, its ultimately a run of the mill revenge flick. Finally, our cast of villains isn't quite as intriguing as it should be. Yes, they're evil but not quite as bizarre as the troupe in the original.

The Ugly: Can a microwave really do that?

Recommendation: For horror fans, this is a fine entry and a remake that's surprisingly on par with the original. What it lacks in originality, eccentricity and symbolism, it makes up in tone, storytelling and by adding a little more gore. It only flinches in comparison to its predecessor with regards to the fate of our young female lead, but it makes up for it with that microwave finale that just has to be seen.

The Opposite View: Michael Sragow, Balimore Sun

What the Internet Says: 6.8/10 on imdb.com (9/14/09), 41% on rottentomatoes.com, 42/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 6.5/10

 

[dell71]

Took my Dad to see Body of Lies on his birthday, it was sweet, got really over looked like 3 other people in the theatre, but Mark Strong is sweet and is one of my fav actors.

definitely an underrated movie.

 

[SOS4Prez]

Completely agree with you, Body of Lies is very underrated.

 

[dell71]

Just glanced through your reviews, solid stuff man.

Thanx...and nice sig.

 

[Dez]

Sorority Row was terrible. There was barely any nudity either.

 

[Buzzman]

one thing Rawlin started to do before he disappeared was every now and then would post a 10/10 movie he thoguht. I think you should try it out.

BTW why is this in The Locker Room?

 

[dell71]

one thing Rawlin started to do before he disappeared was every now and then would post a 10/10 movie he thoguht. I think you should try it out.

BTW why is this in The Locker Room?

I may do that.

Oh, why wouldn't this be in The Locker Room? As far as I know, the studio has now been reserved for music.

 

[dell71]

I Love You, Man
2009. Rated R, 105 minutes.
Director: John Hamburg.
Starring Paul Rudd, Jason Segel, Rashida Jones, Jamie Pressly.

Plot: After Zooey (Jones) finds out that her fiance Peter (Rudd) doesn't have any male friends, she encourages him to find some. He takes this to heart and goes on a series of "man dates" in an effort to meet a new best friend.

The Good: Its very effective showing the absurdities of realistic situations, as opposed to trying to make absurd situations realisitic like lots of other comedies. Paul Rudd helps to pull this off by being fantastic. He's adept at showing us both a guy who's comfortable in his own skin in the beginning and later, a guy trying desperately to be one of "the cool kids," so to speak. Its a charming performance and perhaps his best. The dialogue is sharp throughout. That way, when we're not seeing something funny, we're hearing something funny. Also doing some of their best work is Jaime Pressly and Jon Favreau as Denise and Barry, a married couple who constantly seems on the verge of divorce. They manage to crack you up nearly everytime they're on screen, whether together or separate. To be honest, the whole cast is excellent.

The Bad: Since its essentially a boy-meets-boy movie, its more blatant about ripping off the classic rom com formula than other bromances. Therefore, the story's arc is an all too familiar one. This movie just subtitutes going to a Rush concert for a romantic night out and bonding over air guitar for the first big kiss. Its also self-conscious of this and goes out of its way to make sure you know neither of these guys is gay. A lot of what they do for that purpose is funny, but obviously there to eliminate any ambiguity.

The Ugly: Projectile vomit. 'Nuff said.

Recommendation: Over the last four or five years, we've been fed a steady diet of potty-mouthed bromances and/or gross-out comedies and rom coms rolled into one. In my opinion, this is one of the best. Most of the others, start off strictly as crude "guy" movies and they're good at it but then they slow down drastically as they downshift into chick flick mode and drag to a happy finish. This one is consistently funny throughout and has a slightly different take on things.

The Opposite View: Kyle Smith, New York Post

What the Internet Says: 7.5/10 on imdb.com (9/19/09), 82% on rottentomatoes.com, 70/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 8/10

 

[Derrville]

Wow man, these reviews are pretty awesome.

 

[dell71]

Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story
2007. Rated R, 96 minutes.
Director: Jake Kasdan.
Starring John C. Reilly, Kristen Wiig, Raymond J. Barry, Tim Meadows.

Plot: The life and times of fictional music legend Dewey Cox (Reilly).

The Good: Basically, it takes the Johnny Cash biopic, Walk the Line, adds a sprinkle of the Ray Charles flick, Ray and stretches everything to absurd extremes. As it does, it throws enough at the wall that a few things stick. When they do, we get a good laugh. Of course, every scene is way overacted but it feels like its done on purpose and actually works for this particular movie.

The Bad: It would've been a far better spoof had it not been so buys telling us it was one. The effect is we get a lot of jokes that are set up, no by normal comedic means but by the film doing the equivalent of elbowing you in the ribs to get your attention and then saying "Hey, this part is funny." As in real life, whenever someone does that, the jokes fall flat more often than not.

The Ugly: We get not one, but two shots of a naked man from the gut down with a really short pecker that we're supposed to laugh at simply because its on screen. Simply being naked is rarely funny. Doing something crazy while naked can be very funny. This movie fails to grasp that concept.

Recommendation: If you're a John C. Reilly fan, have at it. Otherwise, I'd say skip it. As with all spoofs, if you're going to watch then you need a good idea of the source material to be able to appreciate anything that might be funny. So, if you must watch this movie, I recommend watching Walk the Line, Ray and a few episodes of VH1's Behind the Music. All that said, I think its a better spoof than just about anything in that "______ Movie" franchise (fill in the blank with Scary, Date, Epic, Superhero, etc). But that's not saying much.

The Opposite View: Jack Matthews, New York Daily News

What the Internet Says: 6.8/10 on imdb.com (9/19/09), 74% on rottentomatoes.com, 63/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 5/10

 

[dell71]

Buzzman gave me a pretty good request. There are some movies that I feel are worthy of that 10/10 score. I've reviewed a few before, as is the case with the movie below. In time, it may require rewatching some of my faves, so I can actually write a proper review. Rewatching your faves is never a bad thing. So from time to time, I'll give you a film that I believe is a perfect 10 (keep in mind, there is still no perfect movie, though).

Anyhoo, why not start with the movie many consider to be the best of all time...

Dell's Classics Presents...

Citizen Kane
1941. Not Rated, 119 minutes.
Director: Orson Welles.
Starring Orson Welles, Joseph Cotten, Dorothy Comingore, Ray Collins.
In an attempt to come up with a fitting eulogy for the famous and wealthy Charles Foster Kane (Welles), a group of reporters investigate the man’s life hoping to discover the meaning of his last, dying word – rosebud. Many believe this film to be a thinly veiled commentary on the life of William Randolph Hearst. This includes Hearst himself who then set out to destroy the movie. On the surface, it tells a great story of a man consumed by his own ego. The metaphors are just explicit enough to let you know there’s more beneath the surface. Somehow, despite its age it still feels fresh. That’s mainly because this movie pioneered techniques still in vogue today. The easiest of these to spot is the non-linear telling of the story. It jumps back and forth in time often and effortlessly without ever blatantly putting a date on the screen. The most subtle of these innovations and perhaps most effective is Welles’ use of the camera. He simply does things directors today still aren’t as proficient at implementing and directors of his era, or viewers for that matter, had never seen before. He positions the camera and moves it in such a way that doesn’t merely suggest a mood, it forcefully puts you there. He’s particularly brilliant when using low angles. To help you better understand I’ll use Michael Bay's Transformers as a reference point. In that movie there’s the now famous scene of John Turturro being “lubricated” by one of the giant robots. At that moment director Michael Bay, and/or his cinematographer basically have the camera on the ground, or close to it, looking up at the two characters. Turturro looks large and authoritative standing over the camera. Picture yourself as a small child being scolded by a parent towering over you. Behind Turturro is the robot who is substantially larger and again appears even more so with the camera below him. When he “lubricates” Turturro not only is it funny but the director suggests to you that human authority figures are meaningless in an epic battle for the universe. Well, meaningless at that particular moment. In CK there’s a scene where Kane walks across the room and slaps his wife. During that scene the camera is positioned seemingly about knee-level in the middle of the two. As he walks toward her, not only does she retreat but the camera does as well. It seems to drift to the farthest right corner of the room and lower to the floor. The effect is Kane appears to grow physically becoming more and more menacing by the second while she and you as the viewer seem to shrink and get weaker. You actually feel as if you’ve been backed into a corner. Nothing suggestive about it, Welles shoved you in that corner. That may be too technical to digest and you probably won’t notice it but you’ll feel it. Things like that are why CK will always be studied by prospering directors but that’s enough film-school. The one thing that does make it feel dated, aside from the black-and-white picture, is the dialogue will occasionally sound a little cheesy or a little too polite for what the character is actually trying to say. Other than that it does everything well and my favorite part, of course, is it gives us an ending we can interpret a number of ways.
MY SCORE: 10/10

 

[Buzzman]

I may do that.

Oh, why wouldn't this be in The Locker Room? As far as I know, the studio has now been reserved for music.

after the re-did the forums The Studio part is for movies and stuff thoguht they would move this there cause I was looking for it there.

 

[Buzzman]

Very nice review on CK. I will have to watch it soon. Also I lvoe you Man was funny for exactly what you said, and Walk hard I thoguht was actually pretty funny, mostly w/e he talks to that black guy about drugs.

 

[Fox1994]

I Love You, Man sorta bored me the way Role Models sorta bored you - I felt like I'd seen it before. Between the fact that it's essentially a guy-guy romance movie and having seen Role Models it was like I knew exactly what was going to happen.

 

[dell71]

Very nice review on CK. I will have to watch it soon. Also I lvoe you Man was funny for exactly what you said, and Walk hard I thoguht was actually pretty funny, mostly w/e he talks to that black guy about drugs.

That was funny the first time, but they did the same exact thing like 3 more times...but I'll cop to laughing when they got to Viagra as the drug.

5/10 pretty harsh for Walk Hard.... one of my favorites.... I don't know why, I just find the movie funny as hell. I wouldn't say it's a terrible movie just because it has a naked guy in it, lol.

To each, his own. And no, it's not terrible because it has a naked guy in it. I just used that as an example of a missed opportunity. Yeah, he was naked but he didn't do anything funny while naked so it was kind of pointless.

I Love You, Man sorta bored me the way Role Models sorta bored you - I felt like I'd seen it before. Between the fact that it's essentially a guy-guy romance movie and having seen Role Models it was like I knew exactly what was going to happen.

Completely fair assessment. I just felt this movie did those things better than Role Models. But I can certainly understand seeing it the other way around.

 

[SOS4Prez]

Great review of Citizen Kane. I completely agree.

 

[dell71]

Hey I would like to see what you think about State of Play, I liked it but also had a few problems with it, would like to hear your opinion.

Great reviews recently, keep them up.

Haven't seen it, yet. I plan to in the next week or two.

 

[dell71]

Bad Education AKA La Mala Educacion
2004. Rated NC-17, 106 minutes.
Director: Pedro Almodovar.
Starring Gael Garcia Bernal, Fele Martinez, Daniel Gimenez Cacho, Francisco Maestre.
Enrique (Martinez) is a famous film director who is struggling to come up with an idea for his next movie when an old friend of his suddenly shows up with a compelling screenplay. The friend doesn't want any money for the screenplay itself, but wants to star in the movie which is apparently autobiographical. Of course, things aren't quite as they seem. The movie the characters are making and the one you're watching are fascinating, disturbing and intertwine nicely. It throws us a couple of vicious curveballs we don't see coming and has a twisted sense of humor. Gael Garcia Bernal is fantastic in the lead role. This performance, combined with his stellar work in Amores Perros and Y Tu Mama Tambien have convinced me he is among the best actors of this generation. Sadly Americans, in general, know nothing of him. The movie as a whole is a winding, twisting and daring affair that never has the slightest inclination towards political correctness. It shocks you, not for the sake of shock but to advance the plot, which it does rather effectively. Both homophobes and subtitleophobes beware. Nearly every character is a gay man and yes, there are sex scenes. And the movie is in Spanish.
MY SCORE: 9/10

 

[dell71]

17 Again
2009. Rated PG-13, 102 minutes.
Director: Burr Steers.
Starring Zac Effron, Michelle Trachtenberg, Matthew Perry, Leslie Mann.

Plot: Just when his life seems to be completely falling apart, near 40 Mike O'Donnell (Perry) has an "accident" that causes him to physically revert back to exactly the way he was at 17 years of age.

The Good: It's funnier than you think its going to be. It gets a lot of mileage out of the difference in attitude between high school kids and a dad, as well as the fact that the 17 year old version of Mike is played by Zac Effron who makes young girls everywhere swoon. And it actually handles both fairly well. Finally, Thomas Lennon is a riot as Mike's best pal Ned, whose life-long geekiness has apparently made him a multi-millionaire.

The Bad: Everything goes exactly like you think it would. More problematic, however, is that the movie is guilty of the same thing dads everywhere are guilty of (myself included): the double standard involved in how we treat the sexuality of our sons as opposed to that of our daughters. Needless to say, it and we are far more liberal with our boys. For us older viewers, we'll also notice it borrows heavily from Back to the Future. It seems everything is here except the DeLorean and actual time travel.

The Ugly: Ned's "peacocking" tactic.

Recommendation: This is a fairly harmless, somewhat funny and completely cute movie. Honestly, its also a solid way for Effron to expand his brand just a bit. By that, I mean he'll rope in some of the girls that are just a tad too old to be into High School Musical. Parents rest assured, though it is a little more risque than HSM, its hardly anything to get worked up for. It seems to have only garnered its PG-13 rating based on a handful (or less) of "colorful" words.

The Opposite View: Liam Lacey, The Globe and Mail (Toronto)

What the Internet Says: 6.6/10 on imdb.com (9/21/09), 58% on rottentomatoes.com, 48/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 6/10