Well the trailer looks pretty good. Good sound, good cinematography. I'd watch it, I think, based on the trailer, but I'd skip it, of course, based on your review.
Um, whatever, Twi-bitches, the movie AND the book sucked. Bad. And I'm a teenage girl. Who likes other vampire novels. And by "other" I mean "real". STFU and go get a life besides lusting after a fictional angsty teenage flashlight.
Give me back my son!
"W" is a weird movie in that it's amazing it got made, considering it came out when Bush was still in office. I am glad it did, even if it's somewhat slight as cinema. The movie is indeed a giant F.U. to the president, but it's even worse than that, because it looks at him not with scorn so much as a devastating pity. The movie dissects GWB's character and concludes that Bush is at all times lost and confused, motivated by a bizarre need to prove himself without actually doing anything that requires forethought or competence. Part of what makes "W" a strange experience is that it removes the outside world from the depiction -- almost the entire story is set in GWB's inner circle, and the effect is claustrophobic. The point is that GWB is in an insulated bubble removed from the damage he's causing the country and the world, but the movie's lack of a fuller context has the odd effect of making his tragic foolishness seem personally pathetic instead of what it really was -- publically horrendous.
Things that are wrong with "The Lovely Bones":
-- Too much narration by the dead girl
-- Rachel Weisz is hardly in the movie
-- Susan Sarandon has one decent sequence and then is hardly in the movie
-- Mark Wahlberg acts his role "cute"-style as if he's in a cuddly commedy
-- The girl who plays the dead girl has an acting range almost as wide as a tiny rainbow!
-- Heaven resembles a music video for "Lucy in the Sky With Teletubbies"
-- Story creates a bogus dilemma between Getting the Killer, and Healing the Family
-- Dead girl can inahbit a living person, but only to kiss some dude, not catch a murderer
-- When the dead girl finally goes to heaven-heaven and there are a bunch of hobbits there to hug her and jump on the bed, I found this to be inappropriate and over the top
Congratulations on writing a review of this movie without ever mentioning Jeff Bridges' character from "The Big Lebowski." Because obviously his character here is from an alternative reality where The Dude was born in a crappy southern town instead of Los Angeles, drinks whiskey instead of White Russians, and gets to have sex with Maggie Gyllenhaal instead of Julianne Moore.
Jeff Bridges characters are cool, lucky bastards.
This sounds like it would be a good movie for anybody who gives a crap about honky-tonk crap, or who goes to smoky dive bars where people play darts while some wrinkled ruffian croons about his dog's divorce and the holes in his favorite flannel shirt. I'll bet this movie would make good dinner-and-a-movie date material if your date were that toothless, pig-tailed "Hee Haw" chick and your dinner was a truck-stop bowl of gravy with a chicken-fried steak hiding at the bottom.
So let's see what our options are at the movies: "The Jack Chick Tract of Eli," "The Little Dead Girl Who Watches Her Family Suffer Because There's No Tee-Vee in Heaven," "George Clooney Lays People Off, Gets Laid, and Gets Off," and "Jeff Bridges Feels Around Inside His Scraggly C&W Beard and Finds His Soul." Think I'll stay home and hit myself in the head with a ball-peen hammer.
This would be a better movie if instead of carrying around a bible, Denzel Washington were carrying around Jack Chick tracts.
I am not at all surprised that I'm apparently the first to comment on this review, at least on-line. First, a disclaimer: I'm an atheist, myself - small 'A'. That means that while I don't believe, I don't begrudge or demean others who do. At the point, Mr. Grimm, where your inner voice said "Yeah, right!" mine said "How did THIS film get a green light in Hollyweird?"
This was a decidedly pro-Christian (not pro-all-religion) film. It said in no uncertain terms that the God of the King James Bible was real, at least to the characters in that film. Unsurprisingly you dismissed that entirely. Carnegie was looking for A book. Not just any religious text would do.
I too saw the similarities between "The Road" and "The Book of Eli." In "The Road" the (unnamed) disaster took place just before the birth of The Boy, about ten years in the past. In "Eli" they mention that it occurred thirty years in the past. They could very well be the same world, separated by a generation. I did not see "The Road." I read the book a few weeks before the film opened and decided I didn't need to spend $9 plus concessions to be deeply depressed at the end.
"Eli" - even for an atheist like me - wasn't depressing. It was a good story, well told, with a "Sixth Sense" twist ending that worked.
But given the subject, I'm not surprised you didn't think better of it.
I'm not a writer; but I do know a worthwhile film when I view it.
Instead of boring you folks (Grimm and Jimmy D.) with my thoughts (they don't keep the viewer in mind anyway), I'd rather you'd read the review at this URL:
Even "Christianity Today" gave "Parnassus" a thumb's up. In fact, the NY "Times" supported Gilliam's latest effort...though the readers were more enthusiastic.
My advise to you all: see this flim again...and do a little bit of reading: the "eternal story" being told by the good doctor is an ancient myth...that had been told in many ancient cultures...
People not understanding this film...also failed to understand "El Topo" when it first debuted.
Hmm. Kinda gay.
The movie was absolutely horrendous. Vampires do not sparkle in the sunlight, they disinigrate for 1. This movie really annoyed me.
I compkletely agree and I never have read the book. It probably would have bored me to death.
Hey, ilyrobs New Moon was Shit. Go to Rottentomatos.com and you'll see that it has gotten a horrible rating! Are you like a rabid fangril/or fanboy? Cause seriously, even a TRUE Twilight fan knows that they did HORRIBLE on this movie. Horrible. I can't believe they rushed through it the way they did. I wish they hadn't. =(
When Bob Grimm became the main movie reviewer for the Weekly, I almost completely stopped reading the movie reviews. His assessments are so obviously lacking in depth and generally fail to recognize any real intelligence in the films he reviews. While he tries to feign having an intellectual review of a film, he would be better off writing,"Dude, it was a pretty cool movie. The chick sucked though".
I always look with hope to see the name Digiovanna at the bottom of a review.
I remember the 95 WC very well. I mostly remember the Wallabies sucking, but I'll admit I did shed a tear when I saw Mandela walk out in that Springbok jersey...and I remember Jonah, of course.
One thing people outside the cricket and rugby playing nations probably don't understand is that countries like Australia, NZ or England (to name a few) have a long and intense history of sporting rivalry with South Africa, and several generations of us missed out on that because of the boycotts. SA sports teams were only coming back from that exclusion relatively short time before that 1995 World Cup(5 years), and suddenly we were encountering South Africans who weren't villains in Mel Gibson movies.
Older people and students of history remembered the strength of the Bok rugby and cricket teams, how uncompromisingly hard (and often how boringly) they played. Think Pittsburg Steelers or Baltimore Ravens types. They're mostly the same today, and we still enjoy playing them in spite of it.
Whatever else he did, and obviously that was plenty, Mandela saved that for the sporting world, not just South Africans.
Sure, there was a fair bit of simplification in the film, but what else can you do telling complicated real life stories in a 2 hour format?
The acting and story parts of Invictus were terrific, but he badly botched the action sequences.
All he had to do was use footage from the real rugby games, with the odd insert shot of the actors to talk during stoppages in play. It all happens so fast that anything you'd lose from seeing the wrong faces would be more than made up for by the athleticism of the real players, and the real beauty of the game.
A proper scrum at test level is an awesome thing to be beheld (and heard, by which I mean the sound of the hit, not the silly groaning you hear in the film). The real players were twice as big and twice as fast as the men playing their parts. They are expert at packing in ultra tight together and hitting as a unit.
Real lineouts see the jumper getting hurled as high as 12 feet in the air. The outside backs are like wide recievers, cornerbacks and safeties, not the pudgy, slow gentlemen we saw running around in Invictus.
It just can't be replicated by actors. Matt Damons character Francois Pienaar was more like an NFL linebacker in real life, and just as mean and hungry, as well as being a good leader.
I enjoyed Invictus, but it doesn't stack up to the real thing.
What a ridiculous comment about Americans not being able to get emotionally involved with the Rugby matches as they "don't understand" the rules. I'm Australian and wouldn't know half the rules of American Football, yet have still able to get well into the sporting scenes in movies like 'Remember the Titan's' and 'Any Given Sunday'.
If the scenes are poorly shot then that's another matter, but how in a movie about an International sporting team are the most basic rules going to be explained to an audience? I wouldn't expect and dare say wouldn't receive that from a 'Gridion' movie and nor should Americans expect it from a Rugby one.
Rita K. Sanders, a Tucson native and graduate of Sahuaro H.S., was the editor on this film. Congratulations, Rita!
"...a Mongolian landscape that's as desolate and photogenic as a coke-addicted fashion model." Damn,you're good, James.
Hi Bob...I couldn't disagree more about your comment about Ms Streep's performance. Although the material was a bit clumsy and Myer's treatment of the subject was very white bread, La Streep sailed wonderfully through the film adding depth and dimension to what could have been a very bland character. It was great to see her being a contemporary woman again and a very real one at that. Never mind the stitched up awfulness of 'Doubt' and the annoying flutiness of 'Julie and Julia'. I felt Ms Streep had really come home with this performance. Your assessment is way off the mark here on this one. cheers Paul
shut up new moon was the best movie ever! millions of people would agree with me and like you even know a thing about movies!
Tucson Weekly |
3280 E. Hemisphere Loop, Suite 180, Tucson AZ 85706 |
P.O. Box 27087, Tucson AZ 85726-7087 |
(520) 294-1200 |
Powered by Foundation