Dell's Good, Bad & Ugly Movie Reviews

[NAHSTE]

Cool Hand Luke FTW. One of my all-time favorites, partly because my name is Luke but also because it's the fucking shit.

Star Wars jokes always get an eye roll from me, but on the rare occasion that I get a Cool Hand reference it always makes me happy. Paul Newman is so fucking bad ass in that role.

 

[dell71]

Devil
<strong>Directed by John Erick Dowdle.</strong>
<em>2010. Rated R, 80 minutes.
Cast:
Chris Messina
Bojana Novakovic
Bokeem Woodbine
Geoffrey Arend
Jenny O’Hara
Jacob Vargas
Joe Codben
Matt Craven
Logan Marshall-Green
Joshua Pearce</em>​

One of the elevators gets stuck in a Philadelphia skyscraper and all hell breaks loose, literally. Watching from the viewpoint of the elevator’s camera, one of the security guards figures out for us that one of the stranded passengers is actually the Devil. Woah, let’s back up. The security guard doubles as our narrator. Right off the bat, he tells us that suicide opens the gate for the Devil to take human form and kill up some folks. Of course, the first actual happening is someone presumably jumping to their death from said skyscraper. Just never you mind who that is, or why. All you need to know is this not only lets the Devil in, but also gets Detective Bowden (Messina) into the building. Five years ago, his wife and son were killed in a hit-and-run.

Oh, you wanna know who’s in the elevator? It’s the standard Hollywood rogue’s gallery. We’ll start with the pretty girl (Novakovi), because there’s always a pretty girl. Next is the token black guy (Woodbine) because there’s always a token black guy. Actually, he fulfills both the quotas for a good black person and a bad one. He’s a thuggish security guard. There’s also the creepy guy who talks too much (Arend), the creepy guy who doesn’t talk nearly as much but seems to know way too much about the wrong things and an ornery old woman. Periodically, whichever one of them is Satan makes the lights go out and kills one of the others.

It’s an interesting setup. The execution of it runs on a pretty standard loop. The lights go out, we hear a lot of ruckus. When they come back on, we discover someone’s been hurt or killed. They all yell accusations at each other until the next time it goes dark. Meanwhile, Detective Bowden tries in vain to keep them calm by talking to them through the security system as others try to either get the elevator moving or the people out. Rinse, repeat.

Overall, it is not necessarily a bad watch, just philosophically confusing. Is the devil’s ultimate purpose here to do good? Either way, our fallen angel suffers from movie-villainitis. All movie long, Satan acts swiftly and offers no explanations. However, when we get to the end of our tale it’s suddenly time to talk, hiss, seeth and otherwise try to act all scary. It feels hokey and also leads us back to the question of what the devil is the Devil here for. It only makes sense that M. Night Shyamalan wrote and produced this. Still, while it’s not a bad watch, it’s not a good one, either.

<strong>MY SCORE: 5/10</strong>​

 

[tigstah]

i had high hopes for this, but typical sham-a-man, another letdown.

 

[Senser81]

A Single Man
<strong>Directed by Tom Ford.</strong>
<em>2009. Rated R, 99 minutes.
Cast:
Colin Firth
Julianne Moore
Nicholas Hoult
Matthew Goode
Ryan Simpkins
Jon Kortajarena</em>​

In 1962, George Falconer (Firth) is a college professor and gay man who becomes distraught when his partner of nearly two decades dies in a car accident. He contemplates suicide, finds comfort in the company of his friend/drinking buddy Charley (Moore) and is pursued by a rather persistent young man who also happens to be one of his students. Persistent is putting it nicely. He’s actually stalked, but since George never complains it’s all good.

We watch our hero in flashbacks to happier times with his mate, seriously consider sticking the gun from his desk drawer in his own mouth and squeezing the trigger, get interrupted, have a laugh with Charley or flirt with Kenny (Hoult), the stalker. This actually happens on a loop, so it seems as if we watch the same series of events play out repeatedly. Since we can tell rather early where this is all leading, it seems rather pointless..

Opportunities to really engage us go by the wayside. Yes, he’s a gay man in early sixties. There’s even a few hints that this is indeed a more intolerant time than our own, but nothing really relevant to the film. As I mentioned before, the young student stalks him which he brushes off. What we have is a situation based on obsession by the younger party and lust by the older with neither aspect really being explored. Even worse, the ethics of a professor seeing a student is never even brought into question.

There are some good things going on. George’s scenes with Charley are easily the best in the movie. They share memories, wine, laughs, even a sexual past. What makes these work is the empathy we feel for her. She’s been unlucky in love and clearly pines for a man she can never have in the way she wants.

Through it all, the actors turn in some excellent work. Firth is very good at showing his emotions on his face without over-emoting. It’s a nice, subtle performance. Julianne Moore is excellent. In the unsung role of Jim, the deceased lover seen only in flashbacks, Matthew Goode is also very good.

In the end, it’s a decent watch, but it doesn’t realize it’s full potential. The story is told in a manner suggesting we’re watching something important but never gets around to what that might be.

<strong>MY SCORE: 6.5/10</strong>​

Good review. I watched this last night because the wife is a big Colin Firth fan. I thought it was well-acted, but certain aspects of the film were "questionable" and they weren't really addressed. I think maybe that was the point...just showing everyday events as they happen and not to delve into things. Regardless, I didn't really like the ending.

 

[BrntO4Life]

Good review. I watched this last night because the wife is a big Colin Firth fan. I thought it was well-acted, but certain aspects of the film were "questionable" and they weren't really addressed. I think maybe that was the point...just showing everyday events as they happen and not to delve into things. Regardless, I didn't really like the ending.

Have you read the book?

 

[Senser81]

Have you read the book?

No, but I heard it was better than the movie.:chomp:

 

[Senser81]

Double post

 

[BrntO4Life]

No, but I heard it was better than the movie.:chomp:

It takes place in the course of one day and there's very little exposition as well (it's pretty short).

With the film being a fairly faithful to the story and Tom Ford being a first-time film director, I think it's a fantastic period piece.

 

[Senser81]

It takes place in the course of one day and there's very little exposition as well (it's pretty short).

With the film being a fairly faithful to the story and Tom Ford being a first-time film director, I think it's a fantastic period piece.

Yeah. Colin Firth's house rocked.

 

[dell71]

Takers
<strong>Directed by John Luessenhop.</strong>
<em>2010. Rated PG-13, 107 minutes.
Cast:
Matt Dillon
Idris Elba
Michael Ealy
Tip “T. I.” Harris
Paul Walker
Jay Hernandez
Chris Brown
Hayden Christensen
Zoe Saldana
Marianne Jean-Baptiste
Steve Harris</em>​

A group of highly successful, risk-conscious bank robbers are lured into trying a daring, but once-in-a-lifetime heist of an armored car. The person that does the luring is known as Ghost (rapper T. I.). Ghost was busted during a job with the crew back in “oh-four” as they tell us about a thousand times. Since oh-four, the boys hadn’t had any contact with him and his girlfriend Lilly (Saldana) is now engaged to one of the other guys. That’s about all you’re getting out of me, but you’ve probably got a pretty good idea of how the rest of this plays out.

On the plus side, it gets the exciting parts right. Our opening heist is a beauty, just enough over the top to enjoy. The chase scene involving Chris Brown’s character is masterful and the fight scene featuring Hayden Christensen’s character is well-done. Our second heist is fun, even if it is dumb. These scenes carry the movie. They have to. What happens between them ranges from predictable and/or rehashed to mind-numbing. Our bank robbers consistently do things that make little or no sense even though the movie desperately needs us to believe they’re much smarter than they’ve shown. The line of logic we see just doesn’t jive with their stealthy image. Time and again, we’re told how cautious they are, yet nothing they do qualifies as such. Many of them are downright stupid, but since they often lead directly to an action sequence it’s supposed to be okay.

The writing, as it relates to non-heist matters isn’t any better. It wisely interjects a number of peripheral issues and circumstances to try and build some empathy for characters on all sides of the law. However, it fails to explore any of them. Many are dropped as soon as whatever scene they come up in is over. Because of this, there is no connection to be had. Even people who enjoy the movie will likely forget it before the DVD player cools down.

<em>Takers</em> can be fun if you just let the action wash over you. Sadly, it crumples pitifully under the slightest bit of scrutiny. Under our mental interrogation, it meekly reveals that it is really made up of scenes from other, better movies. <em>Heat</em> is the most easily recognizable victim. If you don’t have those movies as a reference point, your spider-sense may not tingle. Yet, you’ll still know what’s coming next. Then again, without those other movies, this one would not exist. It isn’t merely influenced by them, but birthed from their collective loins. Typical of inbred children, it was born with major defects.

<strong>MY SCORE: 5/10</strong>​

 

[Palooza]

I think Takers is the worst movie I've ever seen. That and the Spirit. And 2 Fast 2 Furious.

 

[Tailback U]

Got another recommendation - Middle Men.

 

[dell71]

I think Takers is the worst movie I've ever seen. That and the Spirit. And 2 Fast 2 Furious.

Normally, I wouldn't say someone's opinion is flat-out wrong, but I'll only accept the bolded if you can say you haven't seen the far worse Fast and Furious: Tokyo Drift.

 

[Palooza]

Normally, I wouldn't say someone's opinion is flat-out wrong, but I'll only accept the bolded if you can say you haven't seen the far worse Fast and Furious: Tokyo Drift.

Oh, I don't really count Tokyo Drift as a real movie. To me, it's so bad, it entertains me. 2 Fast 2 Furious makes me mad when I watch it.

 

[dell71]

Oh, I don't really count Tokyo Drift as a real movie. To me, it's so bad, it entertains me. 2 Fast 2 Furious makes me mad when I watch it.

Fair enough.

 

[dell71]

Oops...nothing to see here.

 

[BigHouseUSA]

Just went back the OP, didn't know you reviewed The Damned United and In the Loop, two of my favorites. Great reviews too, although wish you would have liked A Single Man MOAR.

If you're not planning on it, you should check out Dogtooth when you get the time.

 

[KillaK]

Dogtooth was so different, I want to see your review of it so bad.

 

[dell71]

Dell's Classics Presents...

Inherit the Wind
<strong>Directed by Stanley Kramer.</strong>
<em>1960. Not Rated, 128 minutes.
Cast:
Spencer Tracy
Frederic March
Gene Kelly
Dick York
Donna Anderson
Harry Morgan
Claude Adkins
Noah Beery, Jr.
Florence Eldridge</em>​

Local school teacher Mr. Cates (York) is arrested for violating a law that strictly prohibits teaching Darwin’s theory of evolution. This is Hillsboro, Tennessee, a deeply religious town where creation is the universally accepted belief with regards to how man came to be. This belief is so strongly and widely held that any other is both a legally punishable and spiritually damnable offense. The national media gets hold of the story, helping to start a firestorm around the small town.

In short order, two renowned lawyers descend upon Hillsboro, taking opposite sides of the issue. For the prosecution, and creation, is Matthew Harrison Brady (March). He believes the Bible to be 100% true, accurate, Divine Word. He also loves the sound of his own voice, delivering many a blustery speech. As reporter E. K. Hornbeck (Kelly) puts it, Brady is the only man who can strut while sitting down. The town loves Brady’s voice, too. They’re entranced by his bellows and treat him almost as if he were actually the Messiah.

For the defense, and evolution, we have Henry Drummond (Tracy). He’s a man for whom free speech, and free thought, is sacred. He recognizes their importance in the progression of mankind. Brady and the townspeople characterize him and his client as atheists. Whether or not Henry is opposed to God is something we’re asked to ponder throughout. What isn’t in question is that he is against the bigoted, narrow-minded beliefs espoused by many of the devoutly religious. He’s also opposed to blindly accepting every word of the Bible as infallible. He equates such behavior with not thinking at all. Is this enough for him to be accurately labeled a non-believer?

The two men go back and forth, as lawyers do. Henry is obviously swimming against the tide. Brady is not only going with the tide, he seems to be in a luxury liner. He’s quite literally preaching to the choir. It’s as if the entire fate of the universe will be decided by a race in which the only two participants are traveling in opposite directions.

When it’s all said and done, there’s still the question of who really won. More importantly, who lost? The verdict, and conclusion of the movie are both open to interpretation. Clearly, the movie appears to be one side over the other. Still, the end of the film is not a finale. It is the starting point to a conversation that may never end.

<strong>MY SCORE: 10/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

The Girl who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest
<strong>Directed by Daniel Alfredson.</strong>
<em>2009. Rated R, 147 minutes, Swedish.
Cast:
Noomi Rapace
Michael Nyqvist
Lena Endre
Annika Hallin
Anders Ahlbom
Micke Spreitz
Georgi Staykov</em>​

After playing with fire, the girl with the dragon tattoo kicks the hornet’s nest. The hornet’s nest is really a super secret organization of cranky elderly dudes clinging to life with brittle, spotted hands. As gathered from the prior movie in the series, these guys protect our heroine’s father, a lunatic Soviet defector as a matter of national security. In an effort to maintain that secrecy, they actually do everything they possibly can to out themselves. Nice goin’, fellas.

Evidently, the one thing our bad guys believe will ensure that they remain safely in the shadows is locking up “the girl,” Lisbeth Salander (Rapace). Following the events of <em>The Girl Who Played with Fire</em>, she opens chapter three in a hospital bed after having a few bullets dug out of her. She’s also still wanted for three murders and now the attempted murder of dear old, psychopathic dad. “The Section,” as our wannabe clandestine and very grumpy old men come to be known, are trying to see to it that she’s convicted of these crimes. Meanwhile, super reporter Mikael Blomkvist (Nyqvist) attempts to ride to her rescue. He even guilts his sister (Hallin) into taking the case pro-bono.

The problems with this installment of the <em>Millenium</em> trilogy quickly come into focus. Here, we have a movie about a character who, over the course of two previous movies, has already proven she can be endlessly compelling. However, she’s not nearly as watchable when given nothing to do. She spends the first half of the movie confined to her hospital room while others work on her behalf. The latter half, she’s either sitting in a courtroom, or jail cell. In lieu of all the activity and intrigue of its predecessors, <em>Hornet’s Nest</em> treats us to long stretches of Lisbeth refusing to speak.

What we’re left with is a less than thrilling spy flick. Blomkvist is constantly chasing sources, or trying to get information to Lisbeth. The old guys make and botch plans. The gigantic blonde guy, whom we found out in <em>Fire</em> is Lisbeth’s half-brother, roams the countryside much like Frankenstein’s monster. For some unexplained reason, he’s kidnapped some woman, throws her out of a moving car and apparently goes back for her because he has her again, later. At least, I think it’s the same woman. Either way, it doesn’t matter because she just as inexplicably disappears. Sadly, none of this is particularly exciting to watch.

Viewing <em>Hornet’s Nest</em> becomes tedious work. The main culprit is something that happens way back in the first movie that we’ve never been allowed to forget for even one second. It provides us with such an overwhelming clue about how this is going to play out we’re simply waiting for it to be presented. Once it is, it can’t help be anything but anti-climactic.

<em>Hornet’s Nest</em> is a wasted opportunity. The promise was there for this to complete a great saga and catapult this franchise into the same stratosphere as some of the great cinematic trilogies. Instead of going out in a blaze of glory, it ends in a resounding thud. After two wonderful thrillers, we get a hybrid espionage/courtroom drama that’s not good at either. In the mean time, it’s best character, the one who’s fate hangs in the balance is pretty much made to go to her room like a child waiting for her parents to come to a decision about what punishment is to be handed out. Because of this, the movie drags and then reaches a conclusion we already figured out about ten minutes in. Imagine going to a basketball game, watching your favorite player drop 50 in the first three quarters and then be benched for the entire fourth quarter even though the game is still a close one. That’s the feeling this one gave me.

<strong>MY SCORE: 4.5/10</strong>​