I saw the movie last night and kept half a thought toward the above review and was sorry I expended any energy at all on Grimm's opinion. I have to ask, were you really paying attention to the film?
The movie was filmed in Louisiana (vs. LA) for two reasons: more favorable tax breaks & the necessity of closing a portion of a freeway for many days of filming...a task that would've been impossible in CA. Even knowing that going in, I was swept up and "believed" it was indeed LA.
The woman vet did assist at the impromptu alien autopsy and there was some joking & squimishness, but what was the point of your above comment? Did you misunderstand and take that seriously? After discovering their weakness was to the "right of where the heart would be", as many aliens went down by the Marines' M-16s (which fire in 3-bullet bursts or in full automatic mode) as by being "blown Up". I guess you saw that realism as unrealistic?
Finally, you incorrectly comment that, "...these things are indestructible". What movie WERE you watching? The aliens, although technologically advanced, were going down by our weaponry. Compare that to what was truly indestructible in the movie "Independence Day" (that is, until the computer virus was delivered).
Mindless entertainment? Yes, and one movie I thoroughly enjoyed and had fun with. It's edge-of-your-seat intensity along the lines of "Blackhawk Down". I take movie reviews with the same seriousness I do with horoscopes...momentarily amusing but just as quickly discarded.
Battle: LA is shallow, but that doesn't mean it isn't fun to watch. Yes they took a lot of action scenes from many different war pictures and tried to put into a sci-setting. I am not sure about destroying Disneyland, I am sure there would be 'Mothers Against Destroying Mickey Mouse' wanting to boycott the movie or some crap like that. I had fun watching it. Here are the rest of my thoughts - http://tinyurl.com/4sn7osq
The re branding of a legend, Ridley Scott style.
Two words that do not go together in the same sentence are Ridley Scott, and history. However, any viewer, who wishes to see Robin Hood, starring Russell Crowe, as the legendary, man of the people, may not get what they traditionally expect. What you will get is Ridley Scott, making no apologies as he and Brian Helgeland weave a new tale is full of action, adventure, romance, and a just a touch of history. Sounds like any other Ridley Scott, historical perspective film, like Black Hawk Down, Gladiator, or Kingdom of Heaven. Yes, you still see a Lady Marion, played by Cate Blanchet (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button), but not the damsel in distress Maid Marian, but a more warrior goddess Marion. more... http://tinyurl.com/4npajtu
I have a different take on this film. Make no mistake, The Adjustment Bureau, starring Matt Damon, and Emily Blunt, is a love story. That being said, the Science Fiction element adds an interesting layer of fantasy to this tragic romance between two lovers, who, while fated to be together, destiny interferes to keep them apart. Mad Men's John Slattery and Terrence Stamp also star in this twisted tale of love, humor, fate, destiny, and freewill. A pleasant surprise is the portrayal of Adjustment Bureau Team member 'Harry' as portrayed by Anthony Mackie (Notorious). Mackie gives a human feeling to the film and acts not only as a guide for David Norris in navigating this world, but also acts as a conscience for this familiar but altered world. The Adjustment Bureau is a fast paced, but thoughtful film, and full of plot holes if you think about them too hard, so don't. more...http://tinyurl.com/46bmffb
Don't listen to this guy. Even other reviewers who didn't like the movie agreed Damon and Blunt had chemistry - some even said that was the only thing the movie got right. I liked it - I won't insist it's a great flick, but it held my attention better than almost anything I've seen in a year. I was just thinking today that I'd like to see it again.
One of the reasons it seems to feel incomplete is that a number of characters and plot elements are introduced that go absolutely nowhere. The movie starts off with Imelda Staunton playing a insomniac, and I kept wondering when and if she was going to show up again and how she would interplay with the other characters. But she never reappears again and she added nothing to the storyline, making me think that it would have been a good section to cut from the movie. There were a lot of little moments like that.
I know everyone is baggin on Tron...but I think that it had the best score with the work from Daft Punk. They could have gone all Matrix-like with Nine Inch Nails and Rage Against the Machine-esque music, but instead they went with music that perfectly fit the visuals of the movie.
While I have often disagreed with Bob Grimm's Movie and DVD recommendations, I have never actually been pissed off by one. Until now. I rented Louis C.K.'s "Hilarious," thinking, "Wow, there's a comedian like George Carlin and Bill Hicks? And I don't know about him?!" Did not laugh once. Not even a chuckle. Smirked a couple times, that's it. To compare this barely B-list comedian with giants like Carlin and Hicks (whom I love) and even Cosby (whom I don't) is just flat-out wrong. And nothing is unfunnier than mining (exploiting) your children for cheap comedy (non)laughs. Pony bit my kid. Ha Ha. Poop. Ha Ha. Boring. Carlin and Hicks were inspired loonies who actually made you think about things while you were laughing your ass off. Louis C.K.'s main insights seem to be into how stupid he is. I actually got tired of the line, "Here's how stupid I am..." And while I have nothing against stupid comedy, you should at least bring the funny.
A far funnier stand-up movie is Patton Oswalt's "My Weakness Is Strong." (And no, I'm not comparing him to the greats. But it IS funny).
Watched the Robin Hood 1938 movie? Thought not.
Goes to show you, cinema died the minute 3-D glasses became the lure for theatres everywhere. I'd rather watch a genuine classic on TCM.
I bid $49 for the cover art original. Jame DiGiovanna, pretty.
Mr. DiGiovanna, I must thank you publicly for writing what I have been saying to film snobs about Inception. If I'm going to watch a film that I actually WANT to think about the next day, I prefer something that makes my head hurt, something like Twelve Monkeys.
Good luck in your endeavors. Now who can the overly middle-aged folks turn to for sage cinematic witticisms?
I would replace Shutter Island with the Ghost Writer. I also believe that The Town holds up better than the Girl With the Dragon Tattoo.
My favorite scene in "Blue Valentine" is the one where Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams are totally, like, in love, and they make the goo-goo eyes at each other. But then there's an EDIT and they're all jaded, and going through the motions. But then EDIT and they're macking face like there's no tomorrow, just sluuurrrrrp on each other's lips and genitalia. But then EDIT and they're having the lamest, worst-lubricated "sad sex" this side of Sean Hannity's marriage. But then EDIT and they're full of hopes and dreams and youth and passion! But then EDIT and they're full of ennui and despair! And then EDIT and they're hot! And then EDIT and they're not! And then EDIT and they're full of snot! And then EDIT and you're all, like, no way!
The problem with Harry Potter 7a is that they spend all that time coddling the dying Vladimir Putin elf. That thing is ugly and they should have thrown a party after it died. "Yay! The ugly-ass thing is finally gone!" By contrast, they spent all of 2 seconds on the death of Hedwig the Angry Owl. I wasn't even sure it was dead, I thought maybe it just got zapped. But apparently there wasn't time to, you know, have two characters say, "Aw man, that owl is gone, I'm gonna miss his little beak." Because who gives a crap about a bird -- but let's all cry over Vladimir Putin in elf form?! WTF!!!
Your extended metaphor should be in 3-D: "We're talking slow like a depressed sloth after consuming a bottle of Jack Daniels shortly after hearing that he's lost his job following the death of the family dog."
Okay, well first of all, I want to know how a sloth got a bottle of Jack Daniels. Was he asked for his ID at the liquor store, and if so, do sloths have pockets? Also, what kind of job would a sloth have and then lose? Tantric massage? And what's this about a sloth having a dog as a pet? That makes as much sense as an armadillo having a pet ocelot.
Sorry, but maybe you should have gone the molasses in January route. Oh yeah, you're in Tucson. How about "as slow as a flat-tired bike ride to Bisbee" or some crap like that? "As slow as walking backwards up Mt. Lemon"? "As slow as road construction on Speedway"? I don't know, but jeez man.
I once sat through a movie at the Loft, and during exciting scenes there was a tingle under my rump. I was very impressed that the Loft went to all the trouble to install electronic devices in its seats, which give you an electrifying sensation that heightens the cinematic experience. I made sure to talk to the theater manager afterward, praising her for such ambitious efforts. She told me the Loft does not have any special devices in its seats. So I went home and pulled down my pants, and it turned out there was a little man with a cattle prod, living in my underwear. I told him he can stay in my underwear as long as he prods me on a regular basis. It's a good relationship and now I am never late for work. Also, the ladies love me -- I am getting more action than ever....THANKS LITTLE MAN!
I always remember one scene from the Indian runner when I see a young and beautiful couple in love in the movie that Vigo Mortensen spits his mouthful of green pees over the face of Patricia Arquette, I dont know if I spell it right though, and her face turns red and bursts into crying. I thought it was terrible but at the same time so funny. It is funny because it may be a common and trite ending of lust of the beautiful or he comes off great playing such a dead-end beautiful young man. So what I can say is that "learn and practice" as the method and practice goes your way!
Their success is because of their popcorn.
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