The Town
2010
Directed by: Ben Affleck
Starring: Ben Affleck, Jeremy Renner
I'm going to say it right now. Anyone can fight me on this, but I have to say it. I know specific people that will fight me on it. But I'm still going to say it. Ben Affleck is a great actor. Better than Matt Damon. Strictly opinion of course. I just can't possibly think of a "phenomenal" role that Damon has played. Granted, I have never seen The Informant, but I don't think that should matter. Affleck is fantastic. He is so solid with certain performances, it makes me wonder why people give him so much crap.
This all began when I saw Armageddon for the first time. He does such a great job. No, I'm not saying that Affleck should have won an award. To be honest, I don't think any awards should be given out to anyone for a movie directed by Michael Bay. Those movies are purely for entertainment, and not film savvy folk. Getting back on track, this movie was great.
It wasn't phenomenal, it wasn't horrendous, it wasn't good. It was great. There's as much as an honest opinion as I can throw out there. The movie was very predictable. And yes, it did have many cliches that bank robber movies always do. But the spin that this movie took was very well thought out and executed. I actually cared about the characters. It wasn't like some lunch box robbery movie where everything is in one package but nothing really goes together.
Takers is a perfect example of a robbery movie gone wrong. It all started with their casting. The Town was cast perfectly (all except Jon Hamm, who I actually can't stand). His Boston accent flitted in and out of reality, and his overbearing nature made him seem like the bad guy even though he was playing an FBI agent. The truth is, we were all rooting for the robbers. Affleck and Renner played well off each other, and found a ground that made them seem like they had been robbing banks years before Good Will Hunting.
Affleck's tantric acting makes this movie one of my favorite cops-n-robbers flicks. The desire to hate the FBI agent and even the girl that makes everything blow up was nostalgic and meditating to my soul. The thought of watching another robbery movie won't allow me to have imagination and creativity due to the thoughts I have on this movie. Maybe Matt Damon will make an awesome movie like this one.
Stars (out of 10): 7 1/2
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Monday, September 20, 2010
Get Low
Get Low
2010
Directed by: Aaron Schneider
Starring: Robert Duvall, Bill Murray
From sea to shining sea, the movie industry has done it again, folks. Another film has been released to prod at the Oscar buzz. It seems this has happened a lot lately. And yes, the film's can be pretty good. The Wrestler, for instance. But certain films in this category (The Last Station, The Visitor, A Single Man) really fail at what they are trying to accomplish. These films seem to be made only to get a good actor an award he deserves but has not yet gotten. Like Scorcese with The Departed, he should have won for other movies, but this was the last time for him to take it. The awards can never truly make up their mind on what is the best, and they realize that these older actors (mainly men) are getting really old.
Robert Duvall is a legend. There's no doubt. Everything from The Godfather to The Apostle to Gone in Sixty Seconds, he shines straight through. But, he has never won an Academy Award. So what happens? The studio creates a film for him to be the star in. A simple role with not too much going on. An independent, so as to not make the Academy voters stray from blockbusters. He was great in it. I'm not down-playing that. I'm down-playing the overall emotion of the film itself. It was eh at best.
Duvall plays an old hermit who is estranged from his small 1930's town. He decides to stage his own funeral party for he feels the end is near. He says he wants all people who have a story to tell about him to come to the funeral. Bill Murray plays the out-of-luck funeral home owner. He has a wicked sense of humor and jumps on the chance to do something that no one has ever done. The morbid humor of the plain slice of pizza that is this movie is the only saving point.
Murray spits out a few quips in an attempt to lighten up an otherwise weary and dull film. The simple storyline allows for Duvall to be the great actor he is. In the end, no one tells a story about Duvall. Only Duvall does. The emotion of the characters is misplaced through an episode of dialogue and curiosity of when the final credits will finally roll. Murray and Duvall are legendary figures. Both in their own right. I feel this film was rushed with the wrong intentions.
Stars (out of 10): 4
2010
Directed by: Aaron Schneider
Starring: Robert Duvall, Bill Murray
From sea to shining sea, the movie industry has done it again, folks. Another film has been released to prod at the Oscar buzz. It seems this has happened a lot lately. And yes, the film's can be pretty good. The Wrestler, for instance. But certain films in this category (The Last Station, The Visitor, A Single Man) really fail at what they are trying to accomplish. These films seem to be made only to get a good actor an award he deserves but has not yet gotten. Like Scorcese with The Departed, he should have won for other movies, but this was the last time for him to take it. The awards can never truly make up their mind on what is the best, and they realize that these older actors (mainly men) are getting really old.
Robert Duvall is a legend. There's no doubt. Everything from The Godfather to The Apostle to Gone in Sixty Seconds, he shines straight through. But, he has never won an Academy Award. So what happens? The studio creates a film for him to be the star in. A simple role with not too much going on. An independent, so as to not make the Academy voters stray from blockbusters. He was great in it. I'm not down-playing that. I'm down-playing the overall emotion of the film itself. It was eh at best.
Duvall plays an old hermit who is estranged from his small 1930's town. He decides to stage his own funeral party for he feels the end is near. He says he wants all people who have a story to tell about him to come to the funeral. Bill Murray plays the out-of-luck funeral home owner. He has a wicked sense of humor and jumps on the chance to do something that no one has ever done. The morbid humor of the plain slice of pizza that is this movie is the only saving point.
Murray spits out a few quips in an attempt to lighten up an otherwise weary and dull film. The simple storyline allows for Duvall to be the great actor he is. In the end, no one tells a story about Duvall. Only Duvall does. The emotion of the characters is misplaced through an episode of dialogue and curiosity of when the final credits will finally roll. Murray and Duvall are legendary figures. Both in their own right. I feel this film was rushed with the wrong intentions.
Stars (out of 10): 4
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Going the Distance
Going the Distance
2010
Directed by: Nanette Burstein
Starring: Justin Long, Drew Barrymore
This was not your every day romantic comedy. It, of course, was cheesy like a typical rom-com. But the humor factor of the dialogue broke into something new for me. I found myself laughing out loud quite a bit (and not just because I was looking at Drew Barrymore's unflattering figure). I realized that Justin Long is one of the greatest actors of our generation. This was not for his acting ability. But his ability to make him irresistible to women, yet awesomely dude-like to men.
Every time I see a Justin Long movie I think of Accepted. What a fantastic movie. He brings out this charisma in every character he plays (probably because he plays the same character repeatedly), but it works. He is like the cheeseburger of actors. He's the same thing every time, but something we crave after. The unsightly coupling of Long and Barrymore did not make much sense, however. First of all, she looks like a cut down tree, all slumpy and hunched like the top of her is missing. And he looks like a greased up recent college graduate. Why is it that Drew Barrymore always plays a newspaper reporter? I liked her better in Scream when she died in the first 3 minutes.
Anyway, the guy from It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia (of which I still have yet to see one full episode) was hilarious. He and this other guy play Long's two loser friends. They grow mustaches to try to take down "post-cougars", and take poops with the door open while trying to give love advice. But the two of them played perfectly into what the filmmakers were trying to do. They played the two guy-friends of the somewhat sensitive guy. They offer him beer and advice like it's popping two Tylenol. What boggles my mind is why this movie didn't revolve around them.
Now, the funniest line in the movie (which I won't spoil) is said by Barrymore, but only because she was drunk in the movie. Drunk Drew Barrymore should always be around. It was like watching an episode of Jersey Shore, except without the melodramatic "do you love me?" bullshit. I feel bad for ripping on her, I just don't understand her sometimes. Like why was she wearing a bow-tie on a first date? She is no where near as good looking as Tom Selleck (who I think is the only man ever to pull off a bow-tie).
Getting back to the movie. There were a lot of characters that I liked in the movie. They all seemed to somewhat have their place, whether it be the funny friends or the quirky over protective sister. The emotions of the movie did not sink in to my soul as much as the filmmakers would have liked. I feel that the ending was a little cheesy and drawn out. There were 2 or 3 other scenes (right near the end) that would have been a perfect fade out spot.
However, the overall presentation of the trials and tribulations of a long distance relationship really came through as very sweet, emotional, and dramatic at times. The jealousy factor played a role, but not too big a role. And overall, I enjoyed the light-hearted look at a real relationship struggling due to circumstances beyond any one's control. The storyline was engaging, and the relationship factor was a bit daft. But the movie drew my attention, which is pretty much all I ask of these people. But Drew Barrymore? Tsk Tsk.
Stars (out of 10): 6
2010
Directed by: Nanette Burstein
Starring: Justin Long, Drew Barrymore
This was not your every day romantic comedy. It, of course, was cheesy like a typical rom-com. But the humor factor of the dialogue broke into something new for me. I found myself laughing out loud quite a bit (and not just because I was looking at Drew Barrymore's unflattering figure). I realized that Justin Long is one of the greatest actors of our generation. This was not for his acting ability. But his ability to make him irresistible to women, yet awesomely dude-like to men.
Every time I see a Justin Long movie I think of Accepted. What a fantastic movie. He brings out this charisma in every character he plays (probably because he plays the same character repeatedly), but it works. He is like the cheeseburger of actors. He's the same thing every time, but something we crave after. The unsightly coupling of Long and Barrymore did not make much sense, however. First of all, she looks like a cut down tree, all slumpy and hunched like the top of her is missing. And he looks like a greased up recent college graduate. Why is it that Drew Barrymore always plays a newspaper reporter? I liked her better in Scream when she died in the first 3 minutes.
Anyway, the guy from It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia (of which I still have yet to see one full episode) was hilarious. He and this other guy play Long's two loser friends. They grow mustaches to try to take down "post-cougars", and take poops with the door open while trying to give love advice. But the two of them played perfectly into what the filmmakers were trying to do. They played the two guy-friends of the somewhat sensitive guy. They offer him beer and advice like it's popping two Tylenol. What boggles my mind is why this movie didn't revolve around them.
Now, the funniest line in the movie (which I won't spoil) is said by Barrymore, but only because she was drunk in the movie. Drunk Drew Barrymore should always be around. It was like watching an episode of Jersey Shore, except without the melodramatic "do you love me?" bullshit. I feel bad for ripping on her, I just don't understand her sometimes. Like why was she wearing a bow-tie on a first date? She is no where near as good looking as Tom Selleck (who I think is the only man ever to pull off a bow-tie).
Getting back to the movie. There were a lot of characters that I liked in the movie. They all seemed to somewhat have their place, whether it be the funny friends or the quirky over protective sister. The emotions of the movie did not sink in to my soul as much as the filmmakers would have liked. I feel that the ending was a little cheesy and drawn out. There were 2 or 3 other scenes (right near the end) that would have been a perfect fade out spot.
However, the overall presentation of the trials and tribulations of a long distance relationship really came through as very sweet, emotional, and dramatic at times. The jealousy factor played a role, but not too big a role. And overall, I enjoyed the light-hearted look at a real relationship struggling due to circumstances beyond any one's control. The storyline was engaging, and the relationship factor was a bit daft. But the movie drew my attention, which is pretty much all I ask of these people. But Drew Barrymore? Tsk Tsk.
Stars (out of 10): 6
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Takers
Takers
2010
Directed by: John Luessenhop
Starring: Idris Elba, Matt Dillon
So here it goes. Another story about another team of robbers. And the crazy thing is that Vinnie James was no where in sight! For all of these heist movies, the plot is pretty vanilla. Show one heist going well. Check. Show the relationship between the team of bad guys. Check. Show the cop with an all-too-familiar history on the force who is on the tail of the bad guys. Check. Any way you all get the point.
The problem with the movie was not the story, however. It was the acting. If you want to call it acting. Watching Paul Walker stumble over words and Chris Brown sit there and pretend to be an actor makes me frustrated. Are you ever driving down the road and see a car and say to yourself, "damn that car is a piece of garbage"? Well this movie was like that. It got the actors to where they were headed, but barely. They made a movie, but the acting caliber in Takers is less than sub par. It actually bothers me to use the word "acting" when referring to this movie.
The movie's only saving grace was Zoe Saldana. Yeah, the blue chick from Avatar. Anyway, she was in the movie for maybe five minutes. Five minutes! What the hell are these people thinking? She's gorgeous and a decent actress. You would think the filmmakers would have said, "hey maybe she should be in the movie more". Well another fail on their part.
The worst actor though had to be Matt Dillon. His vanilla and overbearing acting "ability" brought him over the edge to completely ridiculous. I felt that I was watching a bad episode of Entourage and he was Johnny Drama fighting for a role. Maybe the Dillon brothers should switch careers. Matt Dillon has the same personality and mannerisms in any movie. It seems like he is being shot out of a cannon, but they can only figure out one way to shoot him out of the cannon.
There is so much in this movie that made me not like it. I don't know how to talk about it all. It was a train wreck. The story has very possible potential, but the acting just brought it down. It's like what Saladworks does to salads. Making subpar items and making me spend $11 to realize how terrible it really was. If all heist movies were ingredients in a salad, Takers would be the very optional capers. No pun intended. I mean, what do you expect from a cast consisting of Chris Brown, TI, Paul Walker, and Hayden Christensen?
The very forgettable and sometimes laughable movie also had one of the worst chase sequences I have ever seen. I had heard rumors about a shaky camera, which I have to to admit was not that bad throughout the whole movie. However, in one scene where Chris Brown is being chased on foot by Dillon, the camera is shaking so much that it's hard to tell what's even going on. It didn't make me nauseous (except for the vomit called a story line). The chase scene showed Chris Brown jumping roofs, hopping fire escapes, and running faster that Usain Bolt. Maybe with his history of domestic violence, Brown needs to know how to run really, really fast. It was like watching parkour while sniffing Adderall. This was definitely the Chevy Geo of the film world.
Stars (out of 10): 3
2010
Directed by: John Luessenhop
Starring: Idris Elba, Matt Dillon
So here it goes. Another story about another team of robbers. And the crazy thing is that Vinnie James was no where in sight! For all of these heist movies, the plot is pretty vanilla. Show one heist going well. Check. Show the relationship between the team of bad guys. Check. Show the cop with an all-too-familiar history on the force who is on the tail of the bad guys. Check. Any way you all get the point.
The problem with the movie was not the story, however. It was the acting. If you want to call it acting. Watching Paul Walker stumble over words and Chris Brown sit there and pretend to be an actor makes me frustrated. Are you ever driving down the road and see a car and say to yourself, "damn that car is a piece of garbage"? Well this movie was like that. It got the actors to where they were headed, but barely. They made a movie, but the acting caliber in Takers is less than sub par. It actually bothers me to use the word "acting" when referring to this movie.
The movie's only saving grace was Zoe Saldana. Yeah, the blue chick from Avatar. Anyway, she was in the movie for maybe five minutes. Five minutes! What the hell are these people thinking? She's gorgeous and a decent actress. You would think the filmmakers would have said, "hey maybe she should be in the movie more". Well another fail on their part.
The worst actor though had to be Matt Dillon. His vanilla and overbearing acting "ability" brought him over the edge to completely ridiculous. I felt that I was watching a bad episode of Entourage and he was Johnny Drama fighting for a role. Maybe the Dillon brothers should switch careers. Matt Dillon has the same personality and mannerisms in any movie. It seems like he is being shot out of a cannon, but they can only figure out one way to shoot him out of the cannon.
There is so much in this movie that made me not like it. I don't know how to talk about it all. It was a train wreck. The story has very possible potential, but the acting just brought it down. It's like what Saladworks does to salads. Making subpar items and making me spend $11 to realize how terrible it really was. If all heist movies were ingredients in a salad, Takers would be the very optional capers. No pun intended. I mean, what do you expect from a cast consisting of Chris Brown, TI, Paul Walker, and Hayden Christensen?
The very forgettable and sometimes laughable movie also had one of the worst chase sequences I have ever seen. I had heard rumors about a shaky camera, which I have to to admit was not that bad throughout the whole movie. However, in one scene where Chris Brown is being chased on foot by Dillon, the camera is shaking so much that it's hard to tell what's even going on. It didn't make me nauseous (except for the vomit called a story line). The chase scene showed Chris Brown jumping roofs, hopping fire escapes, and running faster that Usain Bolt. Maybe with his history of domestic violence, Brown needs to know how to run really, really fast. It was like watching parkour while sniffing Adderall. This was definitely the Chevy Geo of the film world.
Stars (out of 10): 3
Monday, August 30, 2010
The Last Exorcism
The Last Exorcism
2010
Directed by: Daniel Stamm
Starring: Patrick Fabian, Ashley Bell
This is one of the harder movies to review. I did like it but I don't know why. My friend told me "it's hard to make exorcism movies now because they did it perfectly the first time." Of course he was referring to The Exorcist (1973), but there was something different about this. The suspense factor was great. There were many times I grabbed the arm of my friend anticipating something to happen that would make me bite the collar of my shirt.
The suspense factor did do a good job of making me nervous whether something scary did happen or not. The movie did not rely on gore like many modern horror movies do. The realism of the documentary style shot created the feeling that you were actually inside this girl's house. So many exorcism movies are very one-dimensional, showing the struggling priest with the hatred of his own life, then moving on to the young, blonde girl with such promise and a big future.
However, this story took a dog-legged turn to show the complexities of how exorcisms can be a total and complete sham. The priest that the documentary crew follows is exposing exorcisms for what he believes they really are. He is a con artist who creates frightening situations for these so-called "possessed" beings. He exorcises minds and not spirits as he believes that all possessions occur due to psychotic episodes.
The priest's own psychosis gets thrown in a whirlwind when he discovers that he may not be completely accurate in his theories. The foreshadowing was very spot on with different things throughout the movie, and you never seemed to know what would happen next. The unpredictability was the most appealing factor of this movie. I never knew what would or could happen, and you never really seem to trust anyone at all throughout the whole hour and 40 minutes. The speculation that the exorcism movie is overdone may be true, but this new take on an old tale kind of did the job for me.
Stars (out of 10): 6 1/2
2010
Directed by: Daniel Stamm
Starring: Patrick Fabian, Ashley Bell
This is one of the harder movies to review. I did like it but I don't know why. My friend told me "it's hard to make exorcism movies now because they did it perfectly the first time." Of course he was referring to The Exorcist (1973), but there was something different about this. The suspense factor was great. There were many times I grabbed the arm of my friend anticipating something to happen that would make me bite the collar of my shirt.
The suspense factor did do a good job of making me nervous whether something scary did happen or not. The movie did not rely on gore like many modern horror movies do. The realism of the documentary style shot created the feeling that you were actually inside this girl's house. So many exorcism movies are very one-dimensional, showing the struggling priest with the hatred of his own life, then moving on to the young, blonde girl with such promise and a big future.
However, this story took a dog-legged turn to show the complexities of how exorcisms can be a total and complete sham. The priest that the documentary crew follows is exposing exorcisms for what he believes they really are. He is a con artist who creates frightening situations for these so-called "possessed" beings. He exorcises minds and not spirits as he believes that all possessions occur due to psychotic episodes.
The priest's own psychosis gets thrown in a whirlwind when he discovers that he may not be completely accurate in his theories. The foreshadowing was very spot on with different things throughout the movie, and you never seemed to know what would happen next. The unpredictability was the most appealing factor of this movie. I never knew what would or could happen, and you never really seem to trust anyone at all throughout the whole hour and 40 minutes. The speculation that the exorcism movie is overdone may be true, but this new take on an old tale kind of did the job for me.
Stars (out of 10): 6 1/2
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Piranha 3D
Piranha 3D
2010
Directed by: Alexandre Aja
Starring: Elisabeth Shue, Adam Scott
Well, where to begin? This movie was not genius. It was not ground-breaking. It wasn't even original. But was it good? Fuck yes. People take movies like this for granted. I do. There's nothing wrong with that. But I got exactly what I expected and more. The acting was atrocious. The story was typical, and every boob was fake. Do I care? Not one bit.
The story is simple. It revolves around the sheriff of a town on a lake. The lake is hosting a giant spring break party for young girls to find an excuse to wear nothing and get back at daddy and young guys find excuses to mess with their heads. Yes, plural. Anyway, there is one kid who looks no older than 15, and of course his mother is the sheriff of the town. She entrusts him to watch his younger brother and sister. He doesn't do it. In fact, he bribes his siblings and ends up on a boat captained by a dude who looks like Condeleeza Rice and Jerry O'Connell acting as a scummy porn director.
They also have two lovely ladies aboard who get naked and share in a wonderful underwater dance sequence. All hell ends up breaking loose when a pack of angry man-eating fish enters the waters below. It's Jaws on crack. The Jaws and Titanic references were hilarious. They found a way to make fun of "horror on the sea" films without making it stupid. Who would have ever thought Richard Dreyfus would be in this movie?
The simple story, dumbed-down dialogue and repetitious stupidity make this one of the most entertaining movies I have seen in a very long time. I wouldn't necessarily say it was a good movie, but it did entertain me in many ways. So for that, I have to give it credit. Otherwise, the 3D effects were lacking, and I felt like I was in a glorified version of Finding Nemo with the effects. The fish looked possessed and robotic. CGI has certainly found a way to take movies to the extreme level of beyond mediocrity.
Riley Steele did not speak one word the whole movie. Not that she needs to, but I have found that she has a rather fun and innocent voice. Was she really so dumb that they couldn't give her a speaking part in a movie that showed a man's detached penis in 3D? Damn, maybe she shouldn't quit her day job.
The movie was terrible but in an amazing way. I was thoroughly entertained. There was no dumb subplot. What you see is what you get. Straight forward thinking and a terrible script make for an unforgettable movie. Did you forget about Snakes on a Plane? That's right, unforgettable.
Stars (out of 10): 7
2010
Directed by: Alexandre Aja
Starring: Elisabeth Shue, Adam Scott
Well, where to begin? This movie was not genius. It was not ground-breaking. It wasn't even original. But was it good? Fuck yes. People take movies like this for granted. I do. There's nothing wrong with that. But I got exactly what I expected and more. The acting was atrocious. The story was typical, and every boob was fake. Do I care? Not one bit.
The story is simple. It revolves around the sheriff of a town on a lake. The lake is hosting a giant spring break party for young girls to find an excuse to wear nothing and get back at daddy and young guys find excuses to mess with their heads. Yes, plural. Anyway, there is one kid who looks no older than 15, and of course his mother is the sheriff of the town. She entrusts him to watch his younger brother and sister. He doesn't do it. In fact, he bribes his siblings and ends up on a boat captained by a dude who looks like Condeleeza Rice and Jerry O'Connell acting as a scummy porn director.
They also have two lovely ladies aboard who get naked and share in a wonderful underwater dance sequence. All hell ends up breaking loose when a pack of angry man-eating fish enters the waters below. It's Jaws on crack. The Jaws and Titanic references were hilarious. They found a way to make fun of "horror on the sea" films without making it stupid. Who would have ever thought Richard Dreyfus would be in this movie?
The simple story, dumbed-down dialogue and repetitious stupidity make this one of the most entertaining movies I have seen in a very long time. I wouldn't necessarily say it was a good movie, but it did entertain me in many ways. So for that, I have to give it credit. Otherwise, the 3D effects were lacking, and I felt like I was in a glorified version of Finding Nemo with the effects. The fish looked possessed and robotic. CGI has certainly found a way to take movies to the extreme level of beyond mediocrity.
Riley Steele did not speak one word the whole movie. Not that she needs to, but I have found that she has a rather fun and innocent voice. Was she really so dumb that they couldn't give her a speaking part in a movie that showed a man's detached penis in 3D? Damn, maybe she shouldn't quit her day job.
The movie was terrible but in an amazing way. I was thoroughly entertained. There was no dumb subplot. What you see is what you get. Straight forward thinking and a terrible script make for an unforgettable movie. Did you forget about Snakes on a Plane? That's right, unforgettable.
Stars (out of 10): 7
The Other Guys
The Other Guys
2010
Directed by: Adam McKay
Starring: Will Ferrell, Mark Wahlberg
For some reason, ridiculous hilarity actually worked here. The story of the movie begins with, well nothing. Samuel L. Jackson and Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson are ridiculously over-the-top cops with big muscles and even bigger egos. Ferrell and Wahlberg play loser desk-job cops who never see the up close of a crime scene. This all changes when Jackson and Johnson die of stupidity. That's the movie in a nutshell.
It tried to have a story of corruption, but focused more on the humor. The movie kind of felt like an episode of the Colbert Report, where he doesn't care about anything he's talking about as long as he can chime in a joke or two. The ridiculous (I don't care how many times I use that word in this review) random scenes provide the hilarious combination of humor and stupidity.
Will Ferrell is obnoxious. Not a surprise. Mark Wahlberg was awkward. The two of them worked well as a team. I still can't get past how much I can't stand Ferrell though. His childish acting failures annoy me to no end. I feel I would have enjoyed the movie a lot more without him in it. Mark Wahlberg is very universal it seems though. His humor limit is extended.
I feel that the movie really had no direction except to make people laugh. That annoys me a little, but the laughs were pretty good when they were on target. The Derek Jeter thing is still making my sides hurt. I love the way people are just randomly thrown in a shit-storm of a story and can make the movie that much better. The small side-story of Wahlberg's character being haunted by an encounter with the Yankee shortstop made the movie all that more interesting.
I also thoroughly enjoyed the end credits where it pretty much explains all the stuff in the movie that would be too confusing to the childish high school students who pretend to like good movies but only go to laugh at the immaturity of Ferrell's flawed acting. The credits explained what a Ponzi scheme is and how the world of financial troubles have hurt the average American but benefited high-powered executives. Oh well, I guess there's no room to sympathize for the other guys.
Stars (out of 10): 6 1/2
2010
Directed by: Adam McKay
Starring: Will Ferrell, Mark Wahlberg
For some reason, ridiculous hilarity actually worked here. The story of the movie begins with, well nothing. Samuel L. Jackson and Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson are ridiculously over-the-top cops with big muscles and even bigger egos. Ferrell and Wahlberg play loser desk-job cops who never see the up close of a crime scene. This all changes when Jackson and Johnson die of stupidity. That's the movie in a nutshell.
It tried to have a story of corruption, but focused more on the humor. The movie kind of felt like an episode of the Colbert Report, where he doesn't care about anything he's talking about as long as he can chime in a joke or two. The ridiculous (I don't care how many times I use that word in this review) random scenes provide the hilarious combination of humor and stupidity.
Will Ferrell is obnoxious. Not a surprise. Mark Wahlberg was awkward. The two of them worked well as a team. I still can't get past how much I can't stand Ferrell though. His childish acting failures annoy me to no end. I feel I would have enjoyed the movie a lot more without him in it. Mark Wahlberg is very universal it seems though. His humor limit is extended.
I feel that the movie really had no direction except to make people laugh. That annoys me a little, but the laughs were pretty good when they were on target. The Derek Jeter thing is still making my sides hurt. I love the way people are just randomly thrown in a shit-storm of a story and can make the movie that much better. The small side-story of Wahlberg's character being haunted by an encounter with the Yankee shortstop made the movie all that more interesting.
I also thoroughly enjoyed the end credits where it pretty much explains all the stuff in the movie that would be too confusing to the childish high school students who pretend to like good movies but only go to laugh at the immaturity of Ferrell's flawed acting. The credits explained what a Ponzi scheme is and how the world of financial troubles have hurt the average American but benefited high-powered executives. Oh well, I guess there's no room to sympathize for the other guys.
Stars (out of 10): 6 1/2
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)