Dell's Good, Bad & Ugly Movie Reviews

[dell71]

Bronson
<strong>Directed by Nicolas Winding Refn.</strong>
<em>2008. Rated R, 92 minutes.
Cast:
Tom Hardy
Amanda Burton
Kelly Adams
Andrew Forbes
Jon House
Johnny Phillips
Matt King
James Lance</em>​

The life and times of Michael Peterson AKA Charles Bronson (Hardy). No, not THE Charles Bronson, star of such classics as <em>Once Upon a Time in the West, Hard Times, Death Wish</em> and its way too many sequels, so on and so forth. We’re talking England’s most notorious prisoner. He takes on the Bronson moniker during one of his rare stints in the free world as his underground street-fighting name and it sticks. True story. Really, this is based on a true story.

So far in his life, Charlie has spent 34 years in prison. We’re told that 30 of them have been spent in solitary confinement. His crimes on the outside hardly warrant such lengthy incarceration. What happens on the inside is what extends his stay. Those of you familiar with sports radio and TV host Jim Rome will recognize the label “likes to fight guy.” That describes Bronson to a tee. He simply loves fighting. Often, he fights groups of prison guards all at once. Whenever he knows its about to go down, he gets naked and slathers himself in some sort of cream for some unexplained reason. Just as well, I’m not sure I really want to know why. Sometimes, Bronson fights other inmates because that’s the only way he knows to deal with a situation. He even kills one poor guy simply to get moved to a different facility. The scenes depicting all these fights are realistically brutal. As he should since he’s usually taking on half a dozen guys or more, Charlie ends up bloody and beaten on more than a couple occasions. Saying that he’s a hard-headed fellow is a massive understatement.

<em>Bronson</em> tells the story from its subject’s completely unapologetic point of view. It doesn’t try to present him as some sort of misunderstood soul. It barely falls shy of glorifying his lifestyle. What makes it an odd biopic is that it flat out refuses to analyze him or speculate on what made him that way. As a result, we simply watch him move from one act of violence to the next until 90 or so minutes pass and the credits roll. It feels like a pointless exercise. At the risk of spoiling it, I’ll put it this way: he doesn’t learn a lesson, get the girl or save the day. We don’t sympathize with or gain a deeper understanding of him and we don’t learn a lesson, either.

If there is a method to the madness, it is to take aim at and skewer the culture that makes celebrities of anyone willing to make a fool of themselves in public. We see it in Charlie’s monologues delivered on a stage during which he basks in the glory of his fame as his country’s most dangerous inmate. The problem is, the movie seems to strain to make a point and doesn’t quite do it effectively.

As pointless excercises go, this is an excellent one. The simple fact of the matter is that Tom Hardy is amazing in the title role. He gives a mesmerizing performance. He makes <em>Bronson</em>, both the character and the movie something you just can’t take your eyes off.

<strong>MY SCORE: 7.5/10</strong>​

 

[Cody]

Nice review on Bronson I was thinking a 8 but you pointed out some good stuff I did not think of.

 

[KillaK]

I was a little disappointed with How to Train your Dragon, I think everyone kept hyping it up and it made me think the movie was going to be another Toy Story 3. Not a bad movie but I just thought it would be better.

 

[dell71]

The Lovely Bones
<strong>Directed by Peter Jackson.</strong>
<em>2009. Rated PG-13, 136 minutes.
Cast:
Saoirse Ronan
Stanley Tucci
Mark Wahlberg
Rachel Weisz
Susan Sarandon
Michael Imperioli
Rose McIver
Reese Ritchie
Carolyn Dando
Nikki SooHoo
Christian Thomas Ashdale</em>​

Susie (Ronan) is your everyday, boy-crazy 14 year old in 1973. Well, we think she is. However, we very quickly discover she’s already been murdered. She even tells us that Mr. Harvey (Tucci) is her killer. Since we get all this information at the beginning of the picture, we know this is no ordinary murder mystery.

But there is mystery. The obvious question comes will Mr. Harvey be caught? There are other questions to be answered, as well. Mainly, how does Susie’s death affect her family. That aspect is explored in-depth. We can see how each person copes, or doesn’t cope with the situation. This includes Susie, who continually narrates to us from the other side while trying to find her way to Heaven.

Speaking of narration, I’ve never been a huge fan of it in movies. I freely admit if it is done right, it’s a great asset to a film. Here, it’s done right. The key is Susie rarely, if ever, crosses the line of giving us too much information. More importantly, she steers clear of simply recapping what we just saw or telling us what we’re about to see, for the most part. Essentially, she thinks out loud so that we see her perspective changing as we move along.

Playing the role of Susie, Ronan does an excellent job. Even though she spills the beans on the major details early, her performance conveys the idea there is much still to be discovered. As she, and we, come upon these revelations she is appropriately amazed and dismayed.

While Ronan is good, there are two other performances that are simply perfect. The one you may know about is Stanley Tucci’s Oscar nominated portrayal of our villain, Mr. Harvey. It’s an amazing piece of work. Helpfully, it is a very well written character. He’s downright gentlemanly in his approach to most things. If we didn’t know any better, we’d think he was just some non-descript fellow who lives in the neighborhood, the scariest kind of boogeyman.

The other great performance has flown under the radar. Susan Sarandon as the chain-smoking, and chain-drinking grandmother is absolutely fabulous. Her drunken wisdom and lack of domestic capabilities add both levity and comic relief. Sarandon strikes the perfect balance. In the process, she becomes the linchpin that keeps the family and potentially the movie from spiraling completely out of control.

There are times when the movie does indeed seem to take leave of its faculties. Most of these occur when the focus is on Samantha’s excursions in the afterlife. These portions of the film try to wow us with exoticvisuals. Instead, it takes what’s already a far-fetched premise and pushes it to the brink of total inaccessibility. There is also her constant lament of not having had a first kiss while alive. While that’s understandable from a teenage girl, the way this particular issue is resolved is a bizarre piece of b-movie madness that threatens to sink the movie. The same goes for her sister’s lame-brained effort at heroism that miraculously turns out far better, far easier than it should.

Those issues aside, <em>TLB</em> is an excellent watch that intrigues us at almost every turn. It makes us empathize with Susie’s family. Eventually, we feel as if we lost a loved one. And though it’s not a horror film, it frightens us just enough to keep us on the edges of our seats.

<strong>MY SCORE: 8/10</strong>​

 

[Kurt Cobain]

I enjoyed The Lovely Bones, but I did not care for the gay ending.

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

I can not put my finger on The Lovely Bones as a film...I really want to like it, but then simply think I'm crazy for liking the film.

It is a very strange feeling I get watching the film. Tucci was great. However, it has some over the top stuff that didn't quite jive while watching the film.

It is also done by Peter Jackson, so I want to give the guy the benefit of the doubt, but after my initial watch, my though was "a rare miss"...

 

[Bmore]

The ending to the Lovely Bones is crazy. I was getting pissed cuz I thought Tucci was gonna get away scott free. Then he gets killed in the most peculiar and unthinkable way.

 

[calgaryballer]

The Lovely Bones movie for me was ruined by my enjoyment of the book. Typically, I can view the two as seperate entities but I found that the changes they made for the movie were too drastic, rendering important plot points and character development in the book moot.

Obviously, this has to be done to fit it in to a 2 hr movie, but like the Time Travellers Wife, I think they could have handled the cutting process in a better way

Overall, its one of those movies were I enjoyed the performances, and I thought the visualization of heaven was as well done as possible, but the total experience was lacking

 

[Maynard]

i watched grown ups the other night. thought u did a review on it but dont see it. i heard alot of bad things about it not being funny. I laughed all thru the movie and thought it was great...and i dont care for adam sandler at all but this one was worthy

 

[stevsta]

i watched grown ups the other night. thought u did a review on it but dont see it. i heard alot of bad things about it not being funny. I laughed all thru the movie and thought it was great...and i dont care for adam sandler at all but this one was worthy

people are haters and didnt give it a chance

I had the same opinion as you it may not have been the greatest movie, but it was funny throughout

 

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

The Lovely Bones movie for me was ruined by my enjoyment of the book. Typically, I can view the two as seperate entities but I found that the changes they made for the movie were too drastic, rendering important plot points and character development in the book moot.

Obviously, this has to be done to fit it in to a 2 hr movie, but like the Time Travellers Wife, I think they could have handled the cutting process in a better way

Overall, its one of those movies were I enjoyed the performances, and I thought the visualization of heaven was as well done as possible, but the total experience was lacking

Terrible movie.

 

[Cody]

I didn't think the Lovely bones was that good.

 

[calgaryballer]

Terrible movie.

Agreed. I was surprised how much I liked the book, but the movie adaptation ruined a lot of what made the book so good.

 

[dell71]

The Lovely Bones movie for me was ruined by my enjoyment of the book. Typically, I can view the two as seperate entities but I found that the changes they made for the movie were too drastic, rendering important plot points and character development in the book moot.

Obviously, this has to be done to fit it in to a 2 hr movie, but like the Time Travellers Wife, I think they could have handled the cutting process in a better way

Overall, its one of those movies were I enjoyed the performances, and I thought the visualization of heaven was as well done as possible, but the total experience was lacking

I didn't read the book but that sounds about right since "the book" is better than the movie at least 90% of the time.

i watched grown ups the other night. thought u did a review on it but dont see it. i heard alot of bad things about it not being funny. I laughed all thru the movie and thought it was great...and i dont care for adam sandler at all but this one was worthy

Haven't watched it, yet. I will soon, the wife wants to see it.

 

[NAHSTE]

Dell, have you ever seen The Day of the Jackal?

 

[dell71]

Not yet. Heard about it, need to check it out.

 

[dell71]

The Killing
<strong>Directed by Stanley Kubrick.</strong>
<em>1956. Not Rated, 89 minutes.
Cast:
Sterling Hayden
Elisha Cook Jr.
Marie Windsor
Vince Edwards
Ted de Corsia
Jay C. Flippen
Joe Sawyer
Colleen Gray</em>​

Fresh out of prison after a five year bid, Johnny (Hayden) very quickly tries to bring a master plan together. He and a couple guys who work there are going to rob the local racetrack right when its at its busiest. Also involved are a dirty cop and a couple random thugs Johnny from his time on the inside.

Aside from Johnny and the two hoods, the others aren’t really crooks but have been driven into criminal behavior by circumstance. The cop is in deep to a bookie and another guy has a sickly wife he desperately wants to take care of. The last guy, George (Cook Jr) is the one we focus on most. He’s married to Sherry (Windsor), a woman out of his league. He earned her hand based on the promise he was going to strike it rich. Five years later, her every word to him is a reminder he hasn’t and she can’t stand it any longer. He correctly suspects her of having an affair but lacks the spine to call her on it. Instead, he merely pleads with her not to “do anything stupid” while he’s out meeting with the boys. He also does something else that proves to be detrimental to the heist, but I’ve already said too much.

Written and directed by the legendary Stanley Kubrick, <em>The Killing</em> is a fascinating, yet rigid heist movie. The crime and the various subplots unfold nicely. The whole thing comes to a head with a “wow” ending. The rigidity comes from the fact that it’s shoe-horned into an hour and a half. Honestly, there could be an hour more to this movie. Instead of being shown everything, half the movie is read to us off the page by a narrator. He’s not exactly reciting beautiful poetry, either. We’re talking stodgy prose of the “At 3:32 PM, Johnny arrived at the hotel” variety.

Its flaws are the reason this is a movie I could actually like to see remade. The story is already excellent, yet there is much room for growth. The characters could be given more room to flourish and/or fail. As it is, it works fine. It’s even better than fine and hailed by some as a classic. I’m greedy. I want more.

<strong>MY SCORE: 7.5/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

Splice
<strong>Directed by Vincenzo Natali.</strong>
<em>Rated R, 100 minutes.
Cast:
Adrien Brody
Sarah Polley
Delphine Chanéac
Brandon McGibbon
Simona Maicanescu
David Hewlett
Abigail Chu</em>​

We all know those people who are academically brilliant but pretty much brain-dead in all other phases of life. Meet Elsa (Polley) and Clive (Brody), two such people. They work together in a genetic splicing lab and through some biological sleight of hand, have created two living, breathing blobs affectionately named Fred and Ginger. I’m sure their iconic namesakes are flattered, but whatever. The hope is that the key to curing many medical ailments lies within the genes of these creatures.

That’s all fine and dandy. However, there are some problems. The first is that, like Fred and Ginger, Elsa and Clive are a couple. This means when they leave the lab and/or decide to do anything requiring rational thought they are at more of a disadvantage than most of us. The idiocy of the other person is all they have to overcome or gain approval of with each of them secure in their belief that the other person is brilliant.

This leads to problem number two. Elsa rashly decides it is a good idea to introduce human DNA into the same cocktail they used to create Fred and Ginger, pretty much just because. After a fleeting moment of clarity passes, Clive agrees that just because is good enough and goes along with the program. They create a fetus they intend to watch and terminate before it reaches full term, again just because. Of course, full-term happens roughly overnight so they miss that boat. Out pops this thing that looks like a miniature T-rex with a rodent-like face and it’s pretty pissed off. After deciding it is too cute to kill, they settle on the idea of becoming its parents in order to observe and document things, even though they’re pretty sure what they’ve done will land them in jail if anyone finds out. So yeah, you guessed it, they’re doing it just because.

What “because” really is eventually becomes clear as mud as we watch the little creature develop. They name her Dren (Chanéac), nerd spelled backwards we’re made to understand. They also teach her lots of communication skills, since she’s clearly as intelligent as a human being but can’t talk. She also looks more and more human as the movie goes on. I mean, she still has four fingers on each hand and legs like a T-rex but the face changes dramatically. When you watch it, you’ll see this is important.

Here’s the thing: watching Dren grow up isn’t terribly exciting. We watch her learn how to get her point across using Scrabble letters, see or hear something she probably shouldn’t, get a little rebellious and get yelled at and sent to a corner. This goes on for roughly 85 minutes with occasional breaks for our loving couple to try and save their jobs due to a mishap involving Fred and Ginger.

During the last 15 minutes or so Dren is featured in two of the weirdest sex scenes ever, realizes she’s stronger than her captors…er…”parents” and involuntarily does something else to cause all hell to break loose. This raises the movie to the grand level of so-so. Honestly? I liked it better when it was called <em>Species</em>.

<strong>MY SCORE: 5/10</strong>​

 

[NAHSTE]

The Killing
<strong>Directed by Stanley Kubrick.</strong>
<em>1956. Not Rated, 89 minutes.
Cast:
Sterling Hayden
Elisha Cook Jr.
Marie Windsor
Vince Edwards
Ted de Corsia
Jay C. Flippen
Joe Sawyer
Colleen Gray</em>​

Fresh out of prison after a five year bid, Johnny (Hayden) very quickly tries to bring a master plan together. He and a couple guys who work there are going to rob the local racetrack right when its at its busiest. Also involved are a dirty cop and a couple random thugs Johnny from his time on the inside.

Aside from Johnny and the two hoods, the others aren’t really crooks but have been driven into criminal behavior by circumstance. The cop is in deep to a bookie and another guy has a sickly wife he desperately wants to take care of. The last guy, George (Cook Jr) is the one we focus on most. He’s married to Sherry (Windsor), a woman out of his league. He earned her hand based on the promise he was going to strike it rich. Five years later, her every word to him is a reminder he hasn’t and she can’t stand it any longer. He correctly suspects her of having an affair but lacks the spine to call her on it. Instead, he merely pleads with her not to “do anything stupid” while he’s out meeting with the boys. He also does something else that proves to be detrimental to the heist, but I’ve already said too much.

Written and directed by the legendary Stanley Kubrick, <em>The Killing</em> is a fascinating, yet rigid heist movie. The crime and the various subplots unfold nicely. The whole thing comes to a head with a “wow” ending. The rigidity comes from the fact that it’s shoe-horned into an hour and a half. Honestly, there could be an hour more to this movie. Instead of being shown everything, half the movie is read to us off the page by a narrator. He’s not exactly reciting beautiful poetry, either. We’re talking stodgy prose of the “At 3:32 PM, Johnny arrived at the hotel” variety.

Its flaws are the reason this is a movie I could actually like to see remade. The story is already excellent, yet there is much room for growth. The characters could be given more room to flourish and/or fail. As it is, it works fine. It’s even better than fine and hailed by some as a classic. I’m greedy. I want more.

<strong>MY SCORE: 7.5/10</strong>​

This is on my Instant Queue. I hear it's one of Kubrick's best .

 

[dell71]

This is on my Instant Queue. I hear it's one of Kubrick's best .

I personally wouldn't say one of his best, but you're right - many do. I still enjoyed it thoroughly.