This is the best picture of the year! You will not be disappointed. It's the best picture for the Cohens and the best actor for Bridges that they did not deserve for Old Country or Crazy Heart. They yanked the trigger too early!
I suppose this expansion would be hinged on the available product to service an expansion. Is this to say that there are several viable film products that do not get shown because of the Lofts' capacity? Didn't say how many screens...
In the black is good. Stay that way. Inside Job detailed how well being leveraged at 1:33 worked out. The slightest bit of optimism and people want to spend, spend, spend themselves into insolvency.
I make a motion that the Trolley hang a left on Speedway and terminate the east extension at the LOFT!
That Gulliver put out the castle fire by pissing on it is from the book; see chapter five. And why is it that only the first voyage of the three in the book gets all of the attention?
Great movie for 12 year olds or those with 12 year old mentalities...
btw, it's OK to make movies that are "fun"...all cinema doesn't have to be measured by Shakespeare, etc!
But...really, just go to the LOFT for "real" movies of substance!
I thought Bob Grimm's review was readable and made its arguments in the logical way I would expect from a professional review. Instead of attacking Grimm, why not explain why you liked the movie, or which of his arguments you disagree with?
Grimm is an embarassment. He has no background in film. He has no clue on how to analyze or comment intelligently on the medium's primary elements: i.e acting, story, etc. His reviews are just a backwash of his own, weak, sophomoric opinions. He never really backs these opinions up with any logical proofs or cogent anaylsis. There are better reviewers to be found in high school newspapers. Tucson deserves better -- and all you would need is a dart board and a phone book to find him or her.
She doesn't smack his head with a shovel. She buried an axe into his head. Huge difference. Just one example of the nonsense in this "article."
Horrible written piece. Glib, sarcastic, and the writer doesn't appear too bright. No need to take notes. Just watch the films in order and it's very clear what is going on.
Wait...does this mean I'm supposed to hate "Star Wars" because it was also set in outer space like that lousy "Battlefield Earth," or love those stupid Narnia movies because they have a talking lion just like "The Wizard of Oz." As you repeated with my quote, they gave Lisbeth "little to do." Giving a movie character little to do is boring...giving them little to do in confinement settings is REALLY BORING. Don't ignore the review, everybody. Be afraid of this film. Be very afraid!
>The film relegates Lisbeth to hospital beds, jail cells and courtrooms,
>giving her little to do…
If movies set in hospitals, jails and courtrooms are boring for the reviewer, he must have found it pure drudgery to sit through One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Shawshank Redemption, and To Kill a Mockingbird.
As for the piercings permitted by the "easygoing prison", perhaps Sweden has different ideas of incarceration; perhaps the reviewer should accept that the Swedes allow this and not let this detail distract him from more important points.
The movie had its faults but it was very enjoyable. Ignore the review.
Yeah, as usual, I'm going to say read the damn books. Movies can never convey the same emotions and messages as their written counterparts.
What a terrible review! Not only it destroys the fun for those who haven't seen it but also it criticizes the director's vision. And lastly, I don't care if the reviewer didn't have fun watching it! I did! I think it is one of the best movies I have seen lately and one that reminds us of the richness and identity of French filmmaking.
Gonzo, does the four-hundred-thousand-and-first documentary about the Holocaust tell us anything about it that the three-hundred-and-ninety-nine-thousandth didn't?
How could anyone communicate with the dead while the dead is still alive? In that case the dead is still living.
Kinda made me sick with that parting comment about the Holocaust being over documented. Just what exactly is that supposed to mean? There are already plenty of people that deny it happened. Why feed the trolls?
I was able to catch your rave review on the original Swedish version back when you were get-the-big-picture, so I saw it. LOVED the Swedish version and NEVER would've even thought about seeing it if it weren't for your words. Ever since you revealed info on the American remake I've been eager to see it also. I value your reviews, few and far between as they are getting since joining the Tuscon weekly but I am a loyal fan of your Colin so I look forward to all your reviews. You've opened my cinema eyes and I THANK YOU.
Come on, "totally uncalled for"? I didn't read this review when it first came out, but having read it now, I call for it, I call for it a thousandfold (assuming one can call for something seven years after it has already arrived). And "off-base on so many levels", really? No way. I can clearly see a runner on second base up on Level 3, and two more runners on second and third bases down on Level 1. Then again, it may simply be the case that I've fallen asleep while typing again, and am just describing a subconscious dreamscape of mine in which baseball games are being played on each level of a parking garage. Still, the scene described in said dreamscape seems to pretty well demolish your claim that the review is "off-base on so many levels".
Now, before you criticize this comment, you should know that I wore a prosthetic nose as I typed it, thus it is beyond reproach.
We in the Muslim community found the movie to be anti-Allah! Praise Allah and our brother, Obama!!
It seems a very interesting movie but I don't like a violence film either so I don't know if I really want to watch it.
I vividly remember this review when I first read it (could not belive it at the time) when I lived in Tucson in 2003. Just read it again 7.5 years later and I still think this is one of the worst reviews of an excellent movie I have ever read in my life. Totally uncalled for and off-base on so many levels.
If "looks" means a leathery face and lots of squinting, then I wholeheartedly concur. Or at least three-quarters-heartedly. No, check that, I whole-spleenedly concur. But seriously, is Eastwood just constantly looking into the sun or what?
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