Adding: Jumper C- Not bad when you dont feel like thinking Bucket List B Saw this before; one of the best eulogies I've ever heard Sex and The City B+ Very sweet, surprisingly so.
Posts: 6279 | Location: canada | Registered: December 22, 2005
Originally posted by babypook: Sex and The City B+ Very sweet, surprisingly so.
That perfectly sums up my feelings about the movie as well and it was a surprise to me as I waa only an occasional viewer of the show and often found it annoying... very often found Kim Cattrall annoying... and repetitive.
Posts: 14748 | Location: Phoenix, AZ | Registered: February 02, 2003
"A movie is not good because it arrives at conclusions you share, or bad because it does not. A movie is not about what it is about. It is about how it is about it: about the way it considers its subject matter, and about how its real subject may be quite different from the one it seems to provide." - Roger Ebert, from the introduction to "Awake in the Dark" (2006)
Adding The Love Guru (*) - Not as bad as it looks, but that's kind of like saying gonorrhea isn't as bad as herpes.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: 742,
"A movie is not good because it arrives at conclusions you share, or bad because it does not. A movie is not about what it is about. It is about how it is about it: about the way it considers its subject matter, and about how its real subject may be quite different from the one it seems to provide." - Roger Ebert, from the introduction to "Awake in the Dark" (2006)
This film got better and better as it went along. Talky, but literate, I'm glad I watched it to the end.
Spiderwick Chronicles B
A very rich tapestry of characters, and visually gorgeous. Somehow though, this film missed the mark just a bit. I loved that lilting score from Horner. Perhaps because I've read the series, I was expecting a more engaging adaptation.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: babypook,
Posts: 6279 | Location: canada | Registered: December 22, 2005
Well; I hit the skip button once or twice. This film had a touch of the William Sarabande novels re the First Americans, but without the research or the attention to any details. It did touch upon the 'two types of "humans"; the kind who honored what they hunted and had compassion for life, and the kind who destroyed everything and were even slavers. This film was jaw-droppingly dumb in many parts with bad acting and bad dialogue (ie: running after some of the fastest herbivores on the planet??). I also couldnt tell if the awful Roland Emmerich deliberately 'delved' into the speculations about that time period, or did it accidentally. So; will Camilla Bell be a future Marion Cotillard, lip-synching the human language?
Funniest Line (out of all the funny lines): "THE SLAVES ARE COMING!!!" Grade? Dunno....C-
Posts: 6279 | Location: canada | Registered: December 22, 2005
Year of the Fish (* * *) - Strange but enchanting rotoscope film that retells the Cinderella story in NYC's Chinatown.
Hanc0ck (* *) - Strong first half, but it's torpedoed by an unnecessary twist and senseless second half.
"A movie is not good because it arrives at conclusions you share, or bad because it does not. A movie is not about what it is about. It is about how it is about it: about the way it considers its subject matter, and about how its real subject may be quite different from the one it seems to provide." - Roger Ebert, from the introduction to "Awake in the Dark" (2006)
Entertaining and well acted, especially by Kevin Spacey in full smarm mode, but gets stupider and stupider as it goes along. Even though its based on a non-fiction book, and one I have read, the film doesn't have the slightest ring of real life to it.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: pacinofan,
Posts: 14748 | Location: Phoenix, AZ | Registered: February 02, 2003
