Dell's Good, Bad & Ugly Movie Reviews

[Tailback U]

12 Angry Men is a tremendous film. 12 Angry Men and Dead Poets Society were 2 of my favorite films watched in high school. Can't help but mention Death of a Salesman and The Graduate as well. Gonna need to rewatch all of these soon.

 

[Maynard]

so based on the thread at TGL where u listed your top movies of the 90ies, i watched Malcolm X. There is alot i have to say about the film but i fear it would turn into something we dont want in this review thread. So i am just going to post about the film itself

i didnt know anything about Malcolm X other than he was a black man who was some sort of influential/iconic leaders for black people during the civil right time of the 50ies/60ies. The film did a good job of showing his life from small time hustler to his segway into the noi and to his death. But i felt the film was really uninspiring and did not go into enough detail of the time of his life that really mattered which was when he was with the noi and his death

you never really got a true sense of any struggles he had trying to spread his message or his conflicts that led to his death. The entire film seemed to be one big hypocrisy because is felt like spike lee was afraid to delve into these areas to truly show what he went through as a speaker for the noi. And lee also did a very poor job of showing why he was killed. you got some general background into what was going on, but it was almost like Lee was worried about how he would be perceived for showing the noi in a negative light. maybe that was Lee's intent because the events surround Malcolm X life with the noi and his death as a result could be characterized as hypocrisy.

I didnt mind that the film was 3 hours long and i learned alot about him. And while i felt it did give an accurate account of his life (assuming it was correct) i didnt feel it did a good job of showing why this man is an icon to so many people. I mean here is a man who was standing out front, speaking during a time when black people could be lynched for drinking out of the wrong water fountain and never once did it seem he was threatened by anyone other than his own people. And then the single greatest event surrounding his life, which was his death was never explored in a way to truly show why he was killed. Not only that, but it didnt even mention the aftermath of that event, like it didnt even matter that he was killed.

i expected at the very least to be educated, feel some emotion about the movement and sadness about his death. I did get educated, but not as much as i would have liked. but i didnt get anything else. This was nothing more than an auto biography that Lee put on film. For a man who is one of the most influential men and an icon for black people Lee certainly did not do a very good job of letting you see why

 

[Fox1994]

Facing Ali
Directed by Peter McCormack.
2009. Rated R, 100 minutes.
Cast:
Ron Lyle
George Foreman
Joe Frazier
George Chuvalo
Sir Henry Cooper
Ken Norton
Earnie Shavers
Larry Holmes
Leon Spinks
Ernie Terrell
​

Former boxers discuss their experiences during and surrounding their fights with Muhammad Ali. Though it amounts to little more than a love letter, there is still lots of insight to be gained. Most of the fighters talk about the technique they used against Ali as well as what he did to them. They also talk about the circus atmosphere he often created before fights and how their bouts with him impacted their lives going forward. His stance against the Vietnam War is also a big topic of conversation since it is a large part of the Ali legend.

Three men dominate the proceedings, and rightfully so. George Chuvalo is the most intriguing. He doesn’t just kiss up to Ali. He very matter of factly tells us what he likes and dislikes about the champ. He also tells stories of how certain fights came about or turned out. Of course, the infamous “phantom punch” that floored Sonny Liston is Ali’s second fight with him is a big sticking point with him. Whether you believe him, or not, Chuvalo comes across as giving a first-hand account of the shadowy side of boxing history. He also seems to be the healthiest of the battle-worn bunch.

No less clear-headed is Ron Lyle. He has a certain intensity in his gaze and speech that make you listen. He’s also keenly aware and appreciative of the fact that his place in boxing history is based on the fact he gave Ali a tough fight.

All of the fighters are interesting, in their own way. However, it’s the last fighter we meet, Leon Spinks that lifts us from the seemingly endless streams of deadpan seriousness. Nevermind that his speech is so raspy and occasionally garbled the filmmakers saw fit to put up subtitles when he spoke (the same goes for Ken Norton, by the way). He’s so obviously excited to be doing an interview, he infectiously heightens our spirits. He’s unfiltered and honest, not only when he says that Ali was his idol growing up, but also when he says he never understood why it was so important for Ali to change his name from Cassius Clay. He even mocks many in the black community who followed suit when Ali announced his faith and new moniker. Spinks also drops in four-letter words, broad smiles and hearty laughter. He just feels natural.

Overall, this is great for boxing buffs and Ali aficionados. If you’re neither and didn’t grow up during the sixties or seventies, it may not hold much weight for you. I did, it does for me.

MY SCORE: 8.5/10​

Read the book. It was stupendous. So I need to see this, evidently.

 

[nflman2033]

so based on the thread at TGL where u listed your top movies of the 90ies, i watched Malcolm X. There is alot i have to say about the film but i fear it would turn into something we dont want in this review thread. So i am just going to post about the film itself

i didnt know anything about Malcolm X other than he was a black man who was some sort of influential/iconic leaders for black people during the civil right time of the 50ies/60ies. The film did a good job of showing his life from small time hustler to his segway into the noi and to his death. But i felt the film was really uninspiring and did not go into enough detail of the time of his life that really mattered which was when he was with the noi and his death

you never really got a true sense of any struggles he had trying to spread his message or his conflicts that led to his death. The entire film seemed to be one big hypocrisy because is felt like spike lee was afraid to delve into these areas to truly show what he went through as a speaker for the noi. And lee also did a very poor job of showing why he was killed. you got some general background into what was going on, but it was almost like Lee was worried about how he would be perceived for showing the noi in a negative light. maybe that was Lee's intent because the events surround Malcolm X life with the noi and his death as a result could be characterized as hypocrisy.

I didnt mind that the film was 3 hours long and i learned alot about him. And while i felt it did give an accurate account of his life (assuming it was correct) i didnt feel it did a good job of showing why this man is an icon to so many people. I mean here is a man who was standing out front, speaking during a time when black people could be lynched for drinking out of the wrong water fountain and never once did it seem he was threatened by anyone other than his own people. And then the single greatest event surrounding his life, which was his death was never explored in a way to truly show why he was killed. Not only that, but it didnt even mention the aftermath of that event, like it didnt even matter that he was killed.

i expected at the very least to be educated, feel some emotion about the movement and sadness about his death. I did get educated, but not as much as i would have liked. but i didnt get anything else. This was nothing more than an auto biography that Lee put on film. For a man who is one of the most influential men and an icon for black people Lee certainly did not do a very good job of letting you see why

you ever watch City of God?

 

[Maynard]

i started watching it. For some reason i am having trouble getting in the mood to watch it. i only saw about 10-15 mins so far. i still plan to watch it though

 

[j.hen]

Dell review Kick-Ass

 

[stevsta]

dell which movie you going to see next

the other guys

or

the expendabless

 

[Hitman]

oops.. wrong review thread... thank you as well though, dell..

 

[dell71]

so based on the thread at TGL where u listed your top movies of the 90ies, i watched Malcolm X. There is alot i have to say about the film but i fear it would turn into something we dont want in this review thread. So i am just going to post about the film itself

i didnt know anything about Malcolm X other than he was a black man who was some sort of influential/iconic leaders for black people during the civil right time of the 50ies/60ies. The film did a good job of showing his life from small time hustler to his segway into the noi and to his death. But i felt the film was really uninspiring and did not go into enough detail of the time of his life that really mattered which was when he was with the noi and his death

you never really got a true sense of any struggles he had trying to spread his message or his conflicts that led to his death. The entire film seemed to be one big hypocrisy because is felt like spike lee was afraid to delve into these areas to truly show what he went through as a speaker for the noi. And lee also did a very poor job of showing why he was killed. you got some general background into what was going on, but it was almost like Lee was worried about how he would be perceived for showing the noi in a negative light. maybe that was Lee's intent because the events surround Malcolm X life with the noi and his death as a result could be characterized as hypocrisy.

I didnt mind that the film was 3 hours long and i learned alot about him. And while i felt it did give an accurate account of his life (assuming it was correct) i didnt feel it did a good job of showing why this man is an icon to so many people. I mean here is a man who was standing out front, speaking during a time when black people could be lynched for drinking out of the wrong water fountain and never once did it seem he was threatened by anyone other than his own people. And then the single greatest event surrounding his life, which was his death was never explored in a way to truly show why he was killed. Not only that, but it didnt even mention the aftermath of that event, like it didnt even matter that he was killed.

i expected at the very least to be educated, feel some emotion about the movement and sadness about his death. I did get educated, but not as much as i would have liked. but i didnt get anything else. This was nothing more than an auto biography that Lee put on film. For a man who is one of the most influential men and an icon for black people Lee certainly did not do a very good job of letting you see why

All fair, no complaints from me. As far as the accuracy of it goes, it stays pretty true to the source material which is "The Autobiography of Malcolm X as told to Alex Haley" Perhaps because I read the book well before seeing the movie I felt the movie did a great job at most of things you say it didn't. And the whole, admittedly corny "I am Malcolm X" deal at the end was meant to symbolize the effect he's had.

As far as Lee not wanting to be looked at in a certain light, you may be on to something. Circumstances surrounding Malcolm's death are still a bit murky and several theories abound. Knowing Lee, the one he would be most worried about delving into is the involvement of not only Elijah Muhammad himself but also Louis Farrakhan, who at the time the film was released was nearing the height of his power & influence in the black community.

Glad you watched it.

 

[Fox1994]

I'm a firm believer that the "honorable" Farrakhan was instrumental in Malcolm's death. Not a fan of that guy.

 

[dell71]

Dell review Kick-Ass

Soon...I promise...but not tonight...again

dell which movie you going to see next

the other guys

or

the expendabless

Probably be a while before I get to either, especially "The Other Guys", doesn't look good to me.

Meanwhile...

 

[dell71]

Legion
Directed by Scott Charles Stewart.
2010. Rated R, 100 minutes.
Cast:
Paul Bettany
Adrianne Palicki
Lucas Black
Tyrese Gibson
Dennis Quaid
Charles S. Dutton
Kevin Durand
Willa Holland
Kate Walsh
Jon Tenney​

The Bible teaches us that once, a very long time ago, God had finally had enough of our crap. He was so fed up He made it rain for forty days and forty nights. This flooded the entire planet, completely wiping out the population of Earth man and beast alike, save for Noah and the inhabitants of a boat that must’ve been the size of football stadium. What will happen should God be so angered again? Legion has some ideas.

We first meet Michael (Bettany). Because we’ve seen a lot of movies we immediately assume he’s either and angel or the mutant named Angel from the X-Men. You see, he has wings. Through a nifty bit of contortionism we don’t get to see he very quickly cuts them off himself. After this and a gunfight with a shpe-shifting cop he begins his quest. Michael’s quest, we learn is to stop God from completely exterminating mankind and starting over. Michael still has faith in man while God does not. He feels God is making a mistake.

God is a particularly nasty fellow, here. He must really be ticked off with us. He doesn’t send a flood or plague. He turns all but a few into zombies and sends most of them to a dusty, roadside diner to stop a baby from being born, presumably taking away man’s hope and clearing the way for our extinction.

It’s an interesting idea but there are too many holes on either side of the equation. Theologically, it assumes God is capable of imperfection and questionable judgment. Nor is He all-knowing. This pretty much defeats the purpose of monotheism. It’s kind of like Michael’s beef is really with “a father” not “The Father.” On the other hand, is this the only baby near birth in the whole world? Or is this scene playing out in similar fashion all over the globe? But there’s only one Michael, so I doubt that.

Is this baby special? I dunno. I suppose he is if he makes it through the nicotine and tobacco filled gestation period a healthy lad, mom can’t quit smoking. The movie never tells us anything other than he must be born. I was expecting to hear that he’s the second coming of Christ, or at least John Connor or Neo (oh, you know them). Yet, Jeep (Black) and mom-to-be Charlie (Palicki) are indeed played like a modern day Joseph and Mary, except for that virginal and pure nonsense.

If it sounds like I’ve done way too much thinking about what’s going on here it’s because the movie invites you to do so. The problem is it isn’t thought out enough to stand up to scrutiny. It falls apart under its own weight. The crumbling starts from the very first time we’re asked to both believe that the God of Christianity is indeed real, but He isn’t perfect. By the way, if Michael, an angel, is so determined to disobey God’s orders doesn’t that mean he’s working for someone else? Hmmm.

However, all is not lost. It’s still just a movie. That said, it has some wild imagery and fun action scenes. Old ladies walk on ceilings, a man explodes. Angels have bulletproof wings and use them effectively in their own sort of martial arts. Though those action scenes are spaced a little far apart, there is some tension created. It’s a movie that’s somehow less than it wants to be, but more than it deserves. It’s not the deep, philosophical exercise it pretends to be, but it’s still an interesting watch.

The Opposite View: Joe Leydon, Variety

What the Internet Says: 5.0/10 on imdb.com (6/28/10), 19% on rottentomatoes.com, 32/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 5.5/10​

 

[dell71]

Pirate Radio
AKA The Boat That Rocked
Directed by Richard Curtis.
2009. Rated R, 116 minutes.
Cast:
Tom Sturridge
Philip Seymour Hoffman
Bill Nighy
Kenneth Branagh
Nick Frost
Rhys Itans
Tom Brooke
January Jones
Chris O’Dowd
Emma Thompson​

In 1966, rock and roll has become extremely popular. However, British radio refuses to play it, except for a handful of pirate radio stations located off the coast and broadcasting from the North Sea. None too pleased, the British government feverishly searches for a way to shut them down.

We hunker down with the crew of Radio Rock. There ship is run pretty loosely by Quentin (Nighy). He oversees the group’s lifestyle of sex, drugs and rock and roll. Our tour guide is Carl (Sturridge) who’s just been expelled from school. His mother (Thompson) has sent him to live on the boat, presumably to help straighten him out. As Quentin says, it is a “spectacular mistake.”

Mostly through Carl’s eyes we watch the group of disc jockeys lead an insane existence. It’s often very funny, sometimes sad and occasionally too ridiculous for words. No matter what the mood, music is always there to echo the sentiment. Music, more specifically bringing rock and roll to the masses, is their only care in the world. The folks making the movie care about the music, also. They did a great job piecing together the soundtrack and using songs in appropriate places.

Pretty much from top to bottom, the performances are outstanding. Bill Nighy seems to be having more fun than he has in years. Philip Seymour Hoffman is great, as usual, as the lone American DJ, The Count. For my money, the man that steals the show is Nick Frost as Big Dave. Dave is one of those guys who everyone seems to love to be around but not necessarily to really be friends with. We also discover Dave has a way with the ladies, despite his girth.

The camera work is interesting as well. Whenever we’re focused on the politicians aiming to shut Radio Rock down, everything is shot in an unnoticeably normal manner. Those scenes usually start with the exterior of some impressive building before venturing inside. The camera is usually stock still, rigid as if it were a government agent, too. On the boat, the camera is often closer to the people and slightly askew. This mirrors our heroes, packed tight and rebellious. It’s a subtle reminder of rock and roll’s roots and struggles.

The end of the movie is a bit overblown, but still effective. It should be taken more as a metaphor than a literal occurrence. When we reach the climax, we realize we’ve seen two coming of age stories, Carl’s and rock and roll’s.

The Opposite View: Shawn Levy, Portland Oregonian

What the Internet Says: 7.5/10 on imdb.com (7/1/10), 60% on rottentomatoes.com, 58/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 7.5/10​

 

[dell71]

Coco Before Chanel
Directed by Anne Fontaine.
2009. Rated PG-13, 105 minutes.
Cast:
Audrey Tatou
Benoît Poelvoorde
Alessandro Nivola
Marie Gillain
Emmanuelle Devos
Etienne Bartholomeus
Lisa Cohen​

Fashion icon Coco Chanel (Tatou) was not born a famous fashion designer. Before she helped usher everyday women’s attire out of constrictive corsets, hats that could double as gardens and elaborate dresses that took teamwork to get into, she took the hard steps that led to her success. This is what Coco Before Chanel is about, sort of.

Chanel is an important figure because she helped change the world. She built an empire at a time when women either weren’t allowed to or thought incapable. She was a huge influence to the generations of women that followed. This is the movie I wanted to see. I wanted to see her raging against the machine or taking the world by storm. This is not the movie I saw.

The movie I saw focuses on yet another lame cinematic love triangle. At least, the latter half does. The two men vying for her hand feel more like benefactors than lovers. In fact, that’s exactly what the older one of them is. Though she sleeps with him, she doesn’t love him. She appreciates him and tolerates him for his wealth but seems to harbor no passion for him. On the other hand, she’s totally ga-ga over the younger, more handsome fellow, imagine that. Though he’s not quite as rich his main draw seems to be he's well connected and willing to use those connections to help her. The dilemma isn’t nearly as perplexing as it is made out to be. By the way, the first half of the movie just sets all this up.

Eventually, Coco does move to Paris and is very shortly a fashion mogul. All that stuff about taking the world by storm, becoming a success in what was then a male dominated profession and helping to change the perception of women is given to us in a couple brief paragraphs at the very end. Shame.

That said, if you’re looking for artsy-fartsy this is a beautiful film to look at. It’s shot wonderfully and Tatou gives an excellent performance in the lead role. She’s most famous for playing the title role in the acclaimed Amelie. Coco is a far different woman. Where Amelie was quirky and naïve, Coco is cold, calculated and headstrong. To her credit, Tatou is no less believable as either. If you must watch this movie, do so for that reason. Oh, and beware if you’re a subtitleophobe. The movie is in French.

Also in 2009, Hilary Swank played Amelia Earhart in a biopic about the legendary aviator who disappeared over the Pacific Ocean trying to circumnavigate the globe on a solo flight. That movie also concentrates on the love triangle she spent a good deal of time embroiled in. How sad is it that two movies made during this supposedly enlightened era, even directed by women, choose to simplify their subjects to the lowest common demoninator between two men?

The Opposite View: Ann Hornaday, Washington Post

What the Internet Says: 6.5/10 on imdb.com (7/2/10), 65% on rottentomatoes.com, 65/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 5/10​

 

[dell71]

The Tournament
Directed by Scott Mann.
2009. Rated R, 95 minutes.
Cast:
Ving Rhames
Kelly Hu
Robert Carlyle
Ian Somerhalder
Liam Cunningham
Sebastien Foucan
Andy Nyman
Iddo Goldberg​

Joshua Harlow (Rhames) is the defending champion of The Tournament and he’s back to defend his crown. He’s a very tough guy. In fact, he’s so tough having his trigger finger chopped off hardly seems to affect his ability to shoot. The Tournament is an event held every seven years where 30 of the world’s top assassins vye for an exorbitant cash prize by being the last one alive. It’s held in a new host city each time, like the Olympics. Unlike the big games, the host city is “an unsuspecting town”. This time we’re in some small British town.

Truthfully, that’s all you need to know about this particular movie. Well, you might also like to know that these guys don’t just kill people, they kill ‘em good. Innocent bystanders are used for target practice. This includes strippers. A bunch of them get offed, mostly for being in the way. It’s been some years since I’ve been to a “gentleman’s club”. Because of this movie and the recent Crank: High Voltage I probably won’t be going back. They seem to be exponentially more dangerous than I remember.

Yes, there is some some other story thrown together. Tough guy Joshua is only in it to get revenge for something that happened just a few months ago. There’s also Lai Lai Zhen (Hu), who apparently has a conscience and tries to help Father Macavoy (Carlyle). He’s your stereotypical Irish-Catholic drunkard priest who unknowingly becomes involved in the game. Then there’s Anton Bogart, the Frenchman. He hardly says anything and seems to be the smartest of our hitmen. He’s played by Sebastien Foucan. You probably don’t know his name, but you might remember him as the African that James Bond is chasing at the beginning of Casino Royale. We are treated to more of his urban acrobatics, here. Other characters are deliciously over the top and help keep the ridiculousness coming at a high rate.

The Tournament is also exceedingly gory and funny in dumb way. Of course, you should interpret all this as ‘I love every second of it’. The cheese is piled high with corny dialogue and exploding body parts. Some people will tell you it’s a good ‘turn your brain off’ movie. If that’s possible, go for it. I recommend you get a bag of popcorn and settle in for something so bad, it’s awesome!

The Opposite View: Not for this baby!

What the Internet Says: 6.1/10 on imdb.com (7/2/10), 50% on rottentomatoes.com, N/A on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: -10/10​

 

[dell71]

The Boondock Saints
Directed by Troy Duffy.
1999. Rated R, 108 minutes.
Cast:
Sean Patrick Flanery
Norman Reedus
Willem Dafoe
David Della Rocco
Billy Connolly
Gerard Parkes
David Ferry
Brian Mahoney
Bob Marley​

After a skirmish with some of the local soldiers of the Russian mob, the McManus brothers, Connor (Flanery) and Murphy (Reedus) decide to become vigilantes. They start going after Boston’s bad guys in order to dole out their own brand of justice.

The dialogue is mostly sharp and often funny. Characters relate to one another in a manner that somehow feels natural despite the unnatural circumstances in which they find themselves. Director and writer Troy Duffy’s prose owes a lot to Guy Ritchie’s Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and even more to the canon of Quentin Tarantino. This is most noticeable when the characters have conversations that seem to be pointless but help establish personalities and more noticeably when they reference pop culture.

The action scenes are also a plus. They’re fun, bloody and don’t always go according to plan. Through the flashbacks they’re shown through we discover that our heroes are generally sloppy in their work. That helps endear them to us. They don’t seem to be indestructible beings mowing down hundreds of faceless villains. True, they defy the odds but they seem lucky to do so.

To me, the best part of the movie is Willem Dafoe. As Agent Smecker, the federal agent assigned to find out who’s killing all the crooks, Dafoe is marvelous. He’s certainly over the top, but he does it so well. From his opening scene where he’s dancing through the alley while concocting a theory through his near last scene in a dress, it’s a virtuoso performance. Some will say it’s too much, but to me it’s perfectly suited to the movie it’s in.

The problems become apparent the closer we get to the end. For instance, once we meet Il Duce it’s like the air gets let out of the balloon. At that point, TBS crosses the line from being ridiculous in a fun way to just being ridiculous. The contrived court-room scene is worst of all. It reeks of trying to be cool instead of actually being so.

In all, it’s a fun movie that does what it wants: entertain us with witty, occasionally quotable dialogue and stylized violence. However, it can’t quite overcome it’s shortcomings to really be great. It never outdoes the movies it emulates. A copy is never as sharp as the original.

MY SCORE: 6.5/10​

The Boondock Saints II:
All Saints Day
Directed by Troy Duffy.
2009. Rated R, 118 minutes.
Cast:
Sean Patrick Flanery
Norman Reedus
Julie Benz
Billy Connolly
Clifton Collins Jr.
Bob Marley
Brian Mahoney
David Ferry
Judd Nelson
Peter Fonda
Gerard Parkes​

The McManus Brothers, Connor (Flanery) and Murphy (Reedus) have taken refuge somewhere in Ireland after the events of the first movie. In that movie, they hunted down and killed over 20 of Boston’s bad guys. Now, ten years later, they’re compelled to return to their hometown when they learn that a local priest has been murdered in cold blood, but not before they shave.

Sometimes a comedian will step on stage and bomb. His routine will be stale and sensing his own failure, he starts sweating profusely. If that weren’t bad enough, he’s the only person laughing because obviously he thinks his material is funny even if no one else does. Essentially, this is the problem with All Saints Day. While the first movie is a ripoff of Quentin Tarantino, it is at least occasionally clever and often entertaining. It also contains a wonderfully quirky performance by Willem Dafoe. This time it goes straight for screwball comedy, mixed in no subtle manner with gun-porn and homo-eroticism.

Also evident are the countless hours spent studying movies like Shoot ‘em Up and Smokin’ Aces plus everything Tarantino and Guy Ritchie have done since 1999. There’s also the countless other films it references and uses as inspiration for its never-ending succession of bad jokes. Yes, it quite literally laughs at them alone. I can’t count how many times a character says something supposedly witty then bursts into an uncontrollable guffaw. We’re supposed to recognize the movie it just poked fun at (Panic Room, The Godfather, The Untouchables, GoodFellas, so many more I lost count) and laugh along. It never quite works that way.

Among those inspirations, of course, is the original The Boondock Saints. Agent Smecker (Dafoe) only appears briefly. The running gag is that Eunice (Benz) has taken his place and basically does an impersonation of him. This is supposed to be funny mostly because he was a homosexual while she is actually a woman. It is not funny. Neither is the goofy Three Stooges routine by our three local cops assigned to help her. They’re just caricatures of what they were in the first movie which were caricatures to begin with.

Even the violence is played for laughs, unsuccessfully. What should be a reprieve from the annoying only grows moreso. What is funny, if only to us, is that the plot with a “sins of the father” slant could’ve made for a great movie. It’s told in a manner that borrows heavily from The Godfather Part II. However, the joke is on us. The execution is murderously bad. This makes the two hour runtime feel unbearably long.

This experience reminds me of something Roger Ebert once wrote: Better to wait for a whole movie for something to happen (assuming we really care whether it happens) than to sit through a film where things we don’t care about are happening constantly. In The Boondock Saints II things we don’t care about happen constantly.


The Opposite View: Matthew Razak, Examiner.com

What the Internet Says: 6.5/10 on imdb.com (7/5/10), 21% on rottentomatoes.com, 24/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 2/10​

 

[Fox1994]

I liked your analysis of these feminine biopics at the end of the Coco Before Chanel review. Very insightful. In other news, the first thing I thought of when I saw your picture for The Tournament, was that scene in Pulp Fiction, yes that scene.

 

[dell71]

Hmmm....lost posts, new servers...feels like deja vu all over again...

anyhoo...to get back what we lost...

 

[dell71]

The Great Buck Howard
Directed by Sean McGinly.
2009. Rated PG, 90 minutes.
Cast:
John Malkovich
Colin Hanks
Emily Blunt
Ricky Jay
Steve Zahn
Adam Scott
Debra Monk
Tom Hanks​

Mentalist Buck Howard (Malkovich) makes his living performing effects in small, dingy, rundown, half empty theaters all across the nation. He seems to think he’s a bigger star than he actually is. Once upon a time, he really was a big deal. As he’s quick to tell you, he appeared 61 times on “The Tonight Show” with Johnny Carson. He stresses the fact that it was with Carson and not Leno, whom he despises. He also stresses he’s a mentalist, not a magician. He despises them, also. If you couldn’t tell, Buck is rather insufferable. He’s arrogant, bossy and quick-tempered. Because he is “The Great” Buck Howard, we are somehow beneath him.

Young Troy Gable (Colin Hanks) has just dropped out of law school. He only went because it was his father’s dream for him. His father is played in a small role by Colin’s real life and more famous dad Tom Hanks. Law school made Troy miserable, so he’s trying to find his own way in life.

Troy gets hired to be Buck’s new road manager. The guy he’s replacing is supposed to train him but refuses after a big blowup with Buck. Along with Troy, we learn that big blowups are an almost daily occurrence in Buck’s world.

John Malkovich plays the role perfectly. We can see the patience for us mere mortals leaving his face when things aren’t going exactly according to plan. This, combined with the near constant ravings of a disillusioned man creates tension and comedy. Perhaps the best example of this is when one of his adoring fans (he does, in fact, have a loyal following) who happens to run one of the theaters he plays decides to do an impromptu introduction of him instead of using his pre-taped one. His reaction is priceless. He makes the movie fun to watch.

Despite all this, The Great Buck Howard is hardly about Buck Howard. It’s more about Troy and the lesson Buck teaches him. Thankfully, it does a good job of making us wait for that lesson. It also manages to transform the unlikeable Buck into a sympathetic figure. By the way, for fans of magicians…er…mentalists, Buck is loosely based on The Amazing Kreskin (google is your friend, here).

It’s not a comedy for most of the Hot Tub Time Machine crowd, but it is funny. The story is told well and provides us with plenty of ups and downs. Every time it seems he’s set things up perfectly to get his next big break, something goes wrong. Almost everytime, but I’ll say no more. Best of all and perhaps key to Buck as a character, try as we might, we never find out just how Buck Howard manages to be so great.

The Opposite View: Bob Mondello, NPR

What the Internet Says: 6.7/10 on imdb.com (7/6/10), 72% on rottentomatoes.com, 63/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 7.5/10​

 

[dell71]

Michael Jackson's
This is It
Directed by Kenny Ortega.
2009. Rated PG, 111 minutes.
Cast:
Michael Jackson
Kenny Ortega
Stacy Walker
Brittany Perry-Russell
Mo Pleasure
Jonathan Moffett​

The King of Pop prepares for his then upcoming European concert tour shortly before his untimely passing in 2009. We get a glimpse at the work, creativity and craftsmanship that goes into a massive production such as an MJ show. We see dancers auditioned, routines rehearsed, apparatuses tested and of course, lots of songs sang.

We learn that Michael is an effective boss. The fact everyone around him is clearly in awe of him doesn’t faze him. He never wields his iconic status as a weapon. There is no ranting, raving or putting his foot down. He lets everyone do their job but is adamant without being abrasive when he wants something changed or done a certain way. This way they’re more than just performers in his show, they’re part of and share in his vision.

At Michael Jackson’s funeral, Rev. Al Sharpton told MJ’s children “Your daddy wasn’t strange. It was strange what your daddy had to deal with.” Indeed, very few people have had to contend with the extreme levels of adoration and scrutiny he has. Over four decades of it has not only affected him, but us as well. So while watching this, I realized how much Michael had become an object in our minds. As children we don’t realize that famous people have to do all the mundane things that regular folks do. Michael had become an amalgamation of hit songs, tabloid gossip, rumor, innuendo, plastic surgery and outrageous assumptions. Whether our beliefs about him are founded or not, we sometimes forget he was a person. This led to an odd moment for me. He walks into a rehearsal eating something from his hand, candy or grapes or something else small, I couldn’t tell. It gave me a moment of pause. I actually realized that despite having grown up with him and watching him for all of the nearly 40 years of my own existence, I had never seen him eating before. I’m not a child anymore and know that he did. However, he had become such a “thing” to me, a figure so far removed from reality that it was weird to see him do something so normal.

This is It has a number of moments like this. They’re fascinating if for no other reason than it’s Michael Jackson doing it, or saying it. This is most evident when he was interacting with and instructing the band. I think I’ll forever remember his body language as he tells them “You’ve got to let it simmer.”

Speaking of the music, since most of, if not all of us know the songs I won’t go into it. I will say if you’re not a Michael Jackson fan, this probably isn’t for you. Even if you are, beware this isn’t a straight concert film though there are plenty of numbers performed. It’s simply about watching the man put his show together.

The Opposite View: Lou Lumenick, New York Post

What the Internet Says: 7.3/10 on imdb.com (7/7/10), 81% on rottentomatoes.com, 67/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 7.5/10​