Is a film that revolves on the story of Ally Darling (Anna Faris) a young woman on her early thirties who is in search of looking for her right guy after she's been through alot of heart breaks.
One day, she then reads an article from a magazine with a title "What's your Number?". The article explains that a woman who have more than 20 sexual partner ends up growing up old. Threatened that this might happen to her, Ally started to make a list and track down the number of guys she made sex with.
As she checks on this list, it says that she already made 19 sex with different guys which means she only got one more sex then she'll hit the end of the thread.
Unfortunately, while she was on her sister's bachelorette party, she sleeps with her ex-boss and it gives her a 20 sexual partners.
Determined to resolved this problems, Ally decided to revisit her past lovers and hopes that one of them is already living a good and successful life. And to carry out her task she enlists her womanizing next door neighbor (Chris Evans) to help her track these men down and, blah, blah, blah… you should be able to figure out where things go from here.
Yes, What's Your Number? is highly predictable and the ending inevitable. And once again inevitability proves to be its downfall, just as is the case with so many films before it. Filmmakers need to learn that once your audience is 100% sure what's going to happen in the end you need to get to that end unless you have something of the utmost importance to tell us. Chris Evans does his thing, as the male whore across the hall, but he's always been charismatic so that's no surprise.
CATS & DOGS: THE REVENGE OF KITTY GALORE is a clever, fun family adventure about a police dog named Diggs who’s recruited by DOG Headquarters to help catch the most wanted feline of all, the outlandishly diabolical Kitty Galore. The movie contains strong moral themes promoting humility, service, working together, and putting aside past animosities.
CATS & DOGS: THE REVENGE OF KITTY GALORE is a fantastically entertaining family movie that tells the exciting tale of cats and dogs working together as a team to protect humans from a maniacal feline foe.
A sequel to the 2001 movie, this follow-up opens with a German Sheppard police dog named Diggs bounding bravely to the scene of a crime alongside his partner/owner, Shane, played by Chris O’Donnell. When Diggs disobeys orders and lunges at the criminal, biting him in the backside, his budding career in law enforcement comes to an end, and the poor pup is put in doggie jail at the police station.
When all hope seems gone, a top agent from DOG Headquarters, Butch, emerges out of the floor and presents Diggs with an irresistible proposition – catch the crazed Kitty Galore before she destroys the bond between humans and dogs forever and seizes world domination.
Diggs is quickly ushered into a world he never knew existed, a subterranean nexus of international canine operations reminiscent of the impressive headquarters of the MEN IN BLACK movies in which strange creatures travel, train, construct, and communicate in their own high-tech, top secret world. It’s here that Diggs is introduced to the rest of the pack, of which he must learn to be a part. The leader is Lou, an all-business, spectacled beagle that barks the orders. Peek, a Chinese Crested, is the agency’s geeky go-to guy for cutting-edge technology, including the Catimatron that helps dogs think like a cat.
Back on the streets, Diggs and his gruff mentor, Butch, voiced by Nick Nolte, meet Seamus, a pigeon with a small grape/big raisin-sized brain and a price on his beak. Kitty Galore has sent assassins after the friendly fowl because he’s had a bird’s-eye view of some of her hush-hush gadgetry.
The fourth member of the crime-fighting menagerie is one Diggs isn’t quite ready to accept: a fearless cat named Catherine who works for MEOWS. Kitty Galore’s vengeful scheme to rule the world, humans and dogs alike, has forced cats and canines to maintain their hatred and be defeated, or join forces and take Kitty down.
Kitty, a former MEOWS agent, has gone rogue. Ostracized by her family when they couldn’t recognizer her after her lush white fur was wiped out in a depilatory vat, the tempestuous cat has become one insane sour puss. While suffering the bizarre costumes and pathetic magic tricks of incompetent carnival magician Chuck the Magnificent, Kitty masterminds her nefarious plot to take over the globe.
The CATS & DOGS sequel is clever, creative, quirky, and highly entertaining, especially in 3D. There is some minor scatological and slapstick humor as well as some violence, but no serious injuries occur. The violence is substantially less than in the first movie, however, and no human or animal character is seriously harmed. One scene in particular may require caution for young children when a group of delirious cats are essentially high on too much catnip.
CATS & DOGS: THE REVENGE OF KITTY GALORE is a fun, witty, exciting family adventure. Diggs, a police dog who’s been caged for disobeying orders, is recruited to embark on a mission to stop a fanatical feline named Kitty Galore. Diggs quickly realizes he’ll have to learn to forgo his own pride and stubbornness to cooperate with others. With the help of a comical ignoramus of a pigeon, the team includes a smart, sassy, fearless cat named Catherine, a gruff mentor named Butch, and tons of far-fetched gadgetry and gizmos. Diggs proves to the others and himself that success can be won when talents are joined with humility and a spirit of service.
The CATS & DOGS sequel contains moral values regarding selflessness, humility and repentance. The cats and dogs must choose to either be friendly and work together, or maintain their animosity and fall apart separately. There is some minor scatological and slapstick humor as well as some violence, but no serious injuries occur. Respect for humans is maintained save for when an avalanche of kitty litter knocks down an elderly woman. One scene about catnip metaphorically implies drug use.
Movies "friends with benefits" seem to be popular at this time. This film is very similar to the last missing strings attached, love and other drugs, but may be the best of the three. There are plenty of laugh at crucial moments. I love Justin Timberlake in comedy. He is always so much fun and that does not disappoint in this film. The rapid-fire witty banter between Dylan and Jamie is very entertaining to watch. Since that kind of movie scenes in the bedroom can not be avoided, but still continues to talk. It is actually fun to watch. However, we can say that the overall story is going and there is not much surprise when Dylan acts as he does at the end. In general, a light and funny rom-com and for those interested.
Friends with benefits is a romantic comedy about two people learning the hard way to get always lead to physical complications. Dylan (Justin Timberlake) and Jamie (Mila Kunis) are performed with the romance and go as they both suffer catastrophic breakdowns. They meet each other when the head of Jamie convinces Dylan Hunter from Los Angeles to New York transplant to work for GQ magazine as art director. They quickly become close friends and decided it would be a good idea to add pure physical sex into the mix, as it will relieve their frustrations, without the problems that come with relationships. It works very well for the two at first, but things get complicated when Jamie decides to appointments and Dylan realizes he's fallen for her.
Anyway, our boy and girl this time around are Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis who have an undeniable spunky/sexy chemistry.
Timberlake plays Dylan, a website editor from L.A. who is lured to New York by headhunter Jamie (as played by Kunis) to interview for a job to become editor of GQ magazine. Dylan lands the job, the two become friends and before you know it we are off to the races with the "casual sex" plotline and all the predictable twits and turns that follow.
Fortunately for us, though, not only are our leads extremely likeable, they deftly deliver the zippy dialogue scribed by Gluck and co-writers Keith Merryman and David A. Newman.
Also there to inject life into the script at every corner is an exceptional supporting cast of scene stealers. Patricia Clarkson plays a more emotionally damaged version of her maternally spacey role in "Easy A" as Jamie's hippy-drippy mother.
We have a Jenna Elfman sighting as Dylan's sweet and funny older sister who lives back in L.A. with their Alzheimer's riddled father played by the always-brilliant Richard Jenkins. It is a scientific fact that the mere appearance of Jenkins makes any movie 63 percent better.
Then there is Woody Harrelson who would have stolen the movie if he were only given more screen time, as Tommy the boisterous, homosexual, sports editor at GQ. Timberlake deserves a lot of credit for wisely stepping back and letting Harrelson upstage him in their scenes together.
In actuality, it's the restraint of the entire movie that winds up elevating it. While the subject matter is certainly adults-only, "Friends With Benefits" doesn't go for easy laughs with any big gross-out moments or outrageously uncomfortable situations.
Romantic comedies are perennially successful at the box office mainly because of the comfort of familiarity. People will never stop enjoying watching attractive people fall in love and because of that it is very easy for filmmakers to get away with being lazy and unoriginal.
There is nothing lazy at all about "Friends With Benefits" and while it's not exactly blazing any new ground it at least deserves some credit for nudging the genre even just a tiny bit outside of its comfort zone.
Jamie, on the other hand, does not know how to love. He only knows how to take pleasure, and aim for his own ambitious goals, and he will do anything to achieve his desires. And so, when he tells Maggies he loves her - the first time he'd ever done so in his life - the movie shows him frightened, trembling, and confused. But this realization is the first step towards his becoming human. For he finds himself, and indeed, we all do as persons, in loving others. And so, Jamie, drawn initially by the 'bait' of lust and sexual pleasure, learns to love truly. A turning point comes when Jamie encounters a man whose wife is in the advanced stages of Parkinson's. He recounts with emotion the ravages of the illness, and says that if he had known beforehand, he would not have married his wife. And one wonders if Jamie - who is desperate to find a cure for Maggie's illness for his own sake - would do the understandable thing, and run away from the relationship.
But in the end - after a few more twists to the tale - he doesn't, because he has learnt what it really means to love another, and he sacrifices a much-desired lucrative job promotion to stay with Maggie, and care for her. Hence, in both persons, we see a movement in their characters as they mature as individuals, relinquish fear and selfish pleasures, and learn to grow in the virtue of love itself. What makes this movie compelling, then, is this movement, and the movie allows us to glimpse a part of their pilgrimage of life. And I think, if we're honest, we'll see something of ourselves, and our own moral growth in them. So, seen in a positive light, this movie might well speak to our generation, which is caught up in the transient pleasures of sex and other drugs, and maybe give them pause to reflect on just how much more beautiful, enduring, and powerful love is.
Something Borrowed is classic romantic comedy formula. Young woman is getting married to a dashing young man. Trouble is the girls friend, you know the hopeless romantic friend is in love with the fiance' and has been for years. In fact, she introduced the two lovebirds to each other years ago in college. But as the wedding draws near, sparks are flying where they shouldn't. Will everything work out? That's Something Borrowed.
This stars Kate Hudson as Darcy, the completely self-absorbed fiance'. Darcy is so annoying, that you wonder how anyone can stomach her for an hour, let alone a lifetime. She is a rich, good time party girl that is best friends with Rachel, (Ginnifer Goodwin) since childhood. Trouble is Rachel is in love with Darcy's fiance', Dex (Colin Eggelston). Rachel is the 30 year old boring, lawyer who has none of the vivaciousness as Darcy. But Dex is falling for Rachel. Let's be honest. This has been done to death.
Hudson, could not be worse. She's hard to watch here and grates on your nerves I think even more than the director would want. Overall, Hudson is just not funny anymore. She's limited, and I think has worn out her welcome in the romantic comedy arena. In her slight defense, the writing here is abysmal and not well thought out. They ask Darcy to be irritating and drunk most of the time, and that's limiting for any actor. There is an attempt at the end for Darcy to grow a heart, but it's too late.
Now the silver lining. Ginnifer Goodwin is a star in the making. She has been in a few flicks, including Walk The Line, and He's Just Not That Into You. One great, and one bad respectively. But she is wonderful. Here again, she is lovely, alluring and wonderfully awkward as the lovable loser, love starved young woman. She does this so well. She is so easy to watch on screen, just as she was in He's Just Not That Into You. She was the star there, and here. You can't help but love her here, even as you're trying to choke down this movie, as it goes down sideways.
This formula here is so old. They try to spruce it up. And all they do is make you hate these characters more than like them. As this story stumbles down the aisle, you find you are hoping they all drive off a cliff in some kind of terrible misfortune so we can go home. But that does not happen. But I will tell you this, you will more than likely hate the end of this movie. It tries hard to make you feel something for these backstabbing New Yorkers. And it attempts to be a coming of age flick, and a "things in life change flick." But it fails. Luckily, this movie will get lost in the Thor vacuum that you'll hear loudly this weekend.
J.J. Abrams imitates to flatter with Super 8, an homage to the seminal science fiction films of Steven Spielberg that succumbs to empty nostalgic pandering. As with his Star Trek, Abrams's latest puts a modern spin on classical material, though here reinvention isn't the goal so much as slavish duplication embellished with muscular CG effects.
After a four-months-prior funereal prologue, Abrams's story finds wannabe creature-feature makeup artist Joe (Joel Courtney) still reeling from the accidental death of his mom, which has left him in the custody of father Jack (Kyle Chandler), a police deputy who—as evidenced by his suggestion that Joe attend baseball camp—neither knows nor cares to understand his son. Joe embarks on summer vacation intent on making a zombie movie with portly friend and budding auteur Charles (Riley Griffiths), whose hectic, sibling-overloaded home blatantly strives to recall the residence of E.T.'s Elliott, whom bike-riding Joe also deliberately resembles.
Filming at an abandoned train station late one night with new cast member and fetching Erika Eleniak look-alike Alice (Elle Fanning), the production crew winds up running for their lives once a speeding locomotive is deliberately derailed—leading to fierce computerized calamity—by the truck of their middle school biology teacher. Soon, the Air Force, led by Nelec (Noah Emmerich), is on the scene and canvassing the town, casting evil military-men shadows while searching for a monster that, as later events reveal, has scared away all local canines and is intent on collecting the area's every electronic and mechanical device, thus causing mysterious power outages.
Abrams keeps this beast off screen for as long as he possibly can, to the point that Super 8—reminiscent of Cloverfield (which he produced)—becomes something of a giant tease. The idea, naturally, is to generate tension from fear of the unknown, and the director does scrape up minor suspense from a few quiet-quieter-silent-LOUD scenes in which only a flurry of gargantuan limbs can be spied. Moreover, this strategy pays early dividends simply because it allows more time to be spent on Joe and his friends, whom Abrams delineates with quick, clear strokes, as well as Joe's growing bond with Alice, whose drunken father Louis (Ron Eldard) was unwittingly responsible for Joe's mom's death, and whom Fanning embodies with a mixture of intimidating radiance and deep humanism. A fantasy vision of female perfection, Fanning's Alice meshes nicely with Joe, a somewhat withdrawn kid nonetheless unashamed to show his dream girl his collection of hand-constructed models. And Super 8 works best when simply lingering in their presence, allowing them to produce a flicker of sincere yearning, fear, excitement and mournful sadness that Abrams's overt attempts at Spielbergian melodrama can't muster, as when the young couple watch a mawkish home movie of Joe and his mom.
Joe and Alice's chaste romance is a vehicle for healing and reconciliation between both kids and fathers, as well as single men alienated by grief and resentment. However, save for one tense exchange between Joe and his dad in which a comment about responsibility resounds with multiple implications, this thread is thinly sketched by the script, which is more interested in checking off items on a Spielberg to-do list than grappling with authentic sentiments. That's also true with regard to the guiding theme about moving forward by letting go of the past, an ironic notion for this backward-looking film, and one that—spoiler alert—extends to the many-limbed creature itself, another government-abused E.T. who's desperate to return home. Even the alien's motivation is told rather than dramatized, leaving the third act in a shambles, brimming with zooms into close-up and vistas of otherworldly chaos that can't compensate for the schematism of the finale's Alice-as-Faye-Wray plotting. All the while, Abrams's aesthetic mode—be it Michael Giacchino's John Williams-ish score or the director's trademark lens flares, which inconsistently heighten emotions (via streaks across eyes)—proves at once proficient and secondhand. Only George A. Romero disciple Charles seems alight with original life, cheerfully reflecting Abrams's (and the film's) youthful cinema love. Yet incapable of transcending its go-nowhere nostalgia, Super 8 ultimately feels stuck in a state of suspended supernatural-sci-fi adolescence.
127 Hours is the motivational film of the year that proves nature is unforgiving and shows the powerful strength in human determination. Even with the storyline being very basic, it is still captivating enough to not only keep your attention but also make it memorable. James Franco gives it his all with his performance, setting off well deserved Oscar buzz.Aron Ralston (James Franco) is an avid thrill seeker that decides to go hiking into the canyons of Utah. He briefly runs into a couple lost female hikers that are lost. He jokes with them and shows them some amazing swimming areas before departing with them. Little does he know, it is the last time he comes in contact with a person for the next 127 hours.As he is climbing around the canyons, a large rock falls down and pins his arm between canyon walls. He has a very limited amount of supplies for survival including; a water bottle, a little food, rope and a multi-tool. He even had a video camera he brought with, although He immediately begins to try chipping away at the rock to free his arm, but with no success. To make matters worse, he realizes that he told no one where is was going, thus nobody will be looking for him.
It is impossible not to feel empathetic for him. Since he is trapped, he is forced to think about his mistakes he has made in the past. How he is sorry that he did not return his mom’s phone calls and how he wishes he would have brought more liquids to drink. He even creates a faux talk show with himself with the video camera, which is both comical and depressing.
Everything around him is draining; his battery in his camera, the water supply and most importantly his hope of survival. Even the movie poster is shaped like an hour glass as if it were a countdown to his likely death. At one point, he states that his whole life he was drawing him closer and closer to the rock that would eventually trap him in. After 5 days he decides the only way out is for him to cut his own arm off to free him from the large rock.
Undoubtedly, part of what makes 127 Hours so interesting is that it is a true story and how accurate the film is to was actually happened. The real footage of Aron Ralston stuck in the canyon has been restricted to close friends and family members, however, before shooting began, James Franco and Danny Boyle were allowed to watch the footage in order to portray the events in the film accurately.
The most difficult scene to watch in the film was when Ralston has to amputate his own arm. To summon the courage to do that, even in his situation, given the amount of excruciating pain to do so, I feel most people would be unable to do it. The special effects are incredibly realistic and detailed, making it almost hard to watch. Interestingly enough, the scene was done in one take using multiple cameras because they only created one prosthetic arm.
James Franco is simply amazing, working in a very tight space for nearly the entire film by himself. Since there were virtually no supporting roles, he is given the difficult task of carrying on a film alone and does it masterfully. There has not been a role since Tom Hanks in Castaway that done it better. It is a performance that will put him as a serious contender for an Oscar and should win Best Male Lead at the Independent Spirit Awards this year.
Because the film completely straightforward, to keep the audience engaged throughout is a task not easily achieved. Not only was the acting brilliant being is such a confined space with no supporting actors but Danny Boyle gets creative with the camera and special effects to keep it entertaining. 127 Hours is a powerful survival story that ends up being an inspirational statement about choosing to live through willpower.
After their revered high school basketball coach passes away, Adam Sandler and his four childhood buddies decide to recapture the carefree past by spending some quality time together in an old lakeside house, brimming over with happy memories.
They descend on the desolate countryside resort with their respective families -- hyper-active wives and a bunch of kids bred on playstations and social networks -- and hope to re-connect, like never before. But can the odd, dysfunctional bunch actually survive the weekend under one roof?
Movie Review: Fun while it lasts, Grown Ups is a harmless little picnic film that celebrates friendship, even as it has something important to say. Get back to the outdoors, kids! it exclaims, urging today's tweens and teens to look beyond their playstation screens and FB friends for some real, hard-balled frolic and fun. How about some rock climbing, tree swinging, stone-pelting, roller-coasting, somersaulting, huh?
At least that's what the grown up boys indulge in, with intense merriment and mirth. The re-union for the five friends is filled with moments of boyish fun, which even includes a basketball game, as in the days of yore. Of course, there's a lot of adult teasing and tearing each other apart too, with the wives trying their best to adjust to each other's peculiar habits. Quite a difficult task, specially when you have a high-society diva like Salma Hayek, all set to go to Milan for a fashion show, forced to exchange pleasantries with a homely haus frau, an unambitious mother-to-be and a mother who chooses to breast-feed her four-year-old in public view. The mercury rises further when Rob Schneider's oomphy daughters land up to re-bond with a dad who has a yen for older women, unlike the rest of his friends who like them young and hot.
Savour the Sandler brand of humour with Grown Ups, a film that once again celebrates the spirit of childhood, like most of his comedies.
Teenagers belonging to a seemingly uptight educational institution who connive and conspire against each other to survive in an affluent, quasi-political high school dynamic. That sums up Cruel Intentions
in a nutshell. If wisecracks and cruel pranks give you the jollies, this teenage flick promises to tickle your funny bone with a vengeance. In an entertainment industry cashing in on slapstick, American Pie inspired themes to lure a younger and admittedly less discerning audience, Cruel Intentions adds an interesting twist to the proverbial teenage angst.
Before I go any further, let me add that this review is on part 2 of Cruel Intentions. Since part 2 was not listed under a separate topic, I took the liberty of using the generic Cruel Intentions review title to post this review. My apologies if I was remiss in my judgement.
Cruel Intentions 2 which is a prequel to the first part has a cast of relatively unknown actors. However the actors handle their parts with aplomb and even though part 2 was not as well received as part 1, primarily due to the lack of high profile celebrity backing, I would definitely not dismiss it as a stereotype washout.
The venue is the Manchester Prep school in Manhattan. A prestigious school for the Upper East Side teenage elite. A backdrop for scandalous relationships, sex and betrayal. Sebastian Valmont is a teenage kid who moves in with his father - a promiscuous but rather daft sort who is married to a wealthy Manhattan socialite. They live in a fashionably large mansion - (a little too Victorian) complete with a butler, a cook, a chauffeur and other domestic help. Sebastian’s biggest stumbling block is his new step-sister Katherine, the most popular girl in Manchester High who stops at absolutely nothing to get her way (including seducing the school’s assistant headmaster and blackmailing him for favors.)
Unwilling to succumb to his step-sister’s powermonger attitude, Sebastian retaliates and a unique sibling rivalry develops between the two. Sebastian takes pleasure in shooting Katherine down every chance he gets. Katherine, in turn, is determined to make Sebastian yield to her dominance in the school. In the meanwhile, Sebastian meets Danielle, the headmaster’s daughter. Danielle is the proverbial goody-two-shoes with a reclusive, coy demeanor that is the complete antithesis of Manchester’s smutty, self-indulgent posse of students. She is also purportedly the school’s ONLY virgin. Sebastian develops an infatuation for her and pursues her relentlessly despite her attempts to evade his more than subtle advances.
Katherine, who is the official student representative at the school also runs secret meetings at an undisclosed location with a like-minded clique of students who determine the fate of anyone in the school. In one of their little meetings, Katherine finds out about Cheri - a very rich but completely naive girl and decides to take her under her wing to turn her into the school’s biggest slut. (Cruel intention there huh). She tries to hook Cheri up with a guy in a nightclub but Cheri gets disgusted when the guy tries to kiss her and throws up all over him. Finally when there is no hope in sight, a little horse-riding lesson does the trick. In the words of Cheri.. no wonder they say women are good with horses.
Built around each of these sub-plots is the movie’s main theme - Cruel Intentions. Sebastian Valmont is looking to survive in this politically driven school environment, but his step-sister seems to thwart his every attempt to belong. At the same time he tries to woo Danielle, who straitjackets his every advance. Finally when Sebastian seems to have gotten his act together and everything seems in place, the plot thickens when Sebastian’s step sister finds out that he forged his transfer documents and transcripts to get admitted into Manchester... and threatens to expose him unless he is willing to - in the words of Katherine - ’’keep it in the family’’ . Sebastian yields - well almost - until his conscience overtakes him and he pulls away and sprints over to Danielle’s determined to tell her the truth about himself. But when he finally meets her, in a rather cruel but delectable turn of events, Sebastian finds out the surprising truth about Danielle.. (which you can find out for yourself if you’re still interested in renting this movie and watching it).
Lights Out
When part 1 came out in 1999, everyone raved about Sarah Michelle Gellar, Ryan Phillipe and Reese Witherspoon’s performances. But even though the story in part 2 is a bit cliched and maybe a little unimaginative (compared to the first part), you will still find yourself getting entertained by the repertoire of wisecracks and sex and drama that this flick has to offer. It might not meet the expectations of those of you who have seen part One..but will certainly entertain those of you who have not.
Sebastian Valmont (Ryan Phillippe) and Kathryn Merteuil (Sarah Michelle Gellar) are two devious step-sibling Manhattan socialites on their summer break before their senior year in an exclusive private school, who amuse themselves by playfully flirting with each other and bragging about their various sexual conquests. They are quickly growing bored, however, by the growing air of predictability in the games they play with potential love interests whom they care nothing for. When Kathryn is dumped by one of her boyfriends for the clumsy, childish 15-year-old virgin Cecile Caldwell (Selma Blair, star of "Zoe, Duncan, Jack and Jane"), she is outraged, and asks Sebastian for a favor: seduce Cecile and then spread rumors about her promiscuity, even though she has her eyes set on her black music teacher, Ronald (Sean Patrick Thomas). The stakes grow even higher between Sebastian and Kathryn when she makes a wager with him concerning if he can seduce Annette Hargrove (Reese Witherspoon), a young woman whose father is going to be the new headmaster of their school, and whom has recently written an article in "Seventeen" magazine where she professes her plans to wait until marriage to lose her virginity, before school starts. If he loses, she gets his vintage Porsche. And if he wins, he can enjoy Kathryn in any way he wants. "I'm the one person you can't have," Kathryn tells Sebastian, "and it kills you." Sebastian accepts, but while spend time with Annette, the unthinkable happens: he actually begins to form real, human feelings for her, despite initially only using her.
"Cruel Intentions" is a sleek and stylish comedy-drama that makes no compromises with its title: the two main characters in the film, and even some of the supporting ones, are extremely cruel and emotionally sick people who get their kicks out of using people. Because of this, the film is also certainly not your normal so-called "teenager" movie, and I could easily imagine adults also getting involved in the characters' plight, just like many have with "Dangerous Liasons."
Even if the characters aren't all likable, they are written with a richness you don't often see, and the dialogue between Sebastian and Kathryn is truly fetching and enjoyable, as they don't always say what they mean, or slyly use double entendres to stand for what they are saying. And as played by Phillippe and especially Gellar, the two actor are certainly up to the challenge. Gellar finally has proven with this film that she can very well be a wildly versatile actress that can play sweet with one role and be deceptive and hateful with the next, as she does here. Even if Phillippe isn't always up to her level, he is still well-cast in the role and plays several scenes with a brutal honesty (even if, in the film, he is supposed to be deceiving someone).
As the innocent, beautiful Annette, Witherspoon turns in yet another fine performance to add to her impressive resume (which includes outstanding turns in such films as 1991's "The Man in the Moon," 1996's "Freeway," and 1996's "Fear"), and in one vital dramatic sequence, she is able to transform a potentially cliched scene into something that is thoroughly poignant. Witherspoon also works very well with Phillippe, even if there aren't quite enough scenes between them to believe that they have fallen in love, and they make a quite charismatic pair (perhaps because they are a couple in real life, just recently engaged).
In the fourth and final central role is Blair (in her first starring film), who is a standout as the juvenile Cecile. That Blair is 26-years-old (about two to five years older than the other cast members, even though she plays someone two or three years younger) and is able to believably play a high school freshman only goes to show that she is also very talented, as well as has a firm comic sensibility, since many of her scenes rely on humor. All other actors in the film have relatively small roles who are used as pawns in Sebastian and Kathryn's scheme, including Thomas, as the music teacher; Eric Mabius, as a teenage football player and closeted homosexual; Joshua Jackson, as Sebastian's gay friend; and Christine Baranski as Cecile's aristocratic mother.
Although the story at hand is ultimately a tragic one, and includes a masterfully-done conclusion involving Gellar that rivals the one in "Dangerous Liasons" with Glenn Close, "Cruel Intentions" is also an often very funny comedy, particularly when dealing with small blink-and-you'll-miss details involving the characters, the always-amusing dialogue, and the infantile antics of Cecile. People can criticize "Cruel Intentions" all they want, but when it comes down to it, it is so very similar to 1988's Oscar-nominated "Dangerous Liasons" that it really is hard to nit-pick. The only major difference I can actually detect between the two, except for the obvious (such as the present-day time period and teenage characters), is that the characters in "Cruel Intentions" seem to jump more vibrantly to life. In retrospect, while watching "Dangerous Liasons" not long ago for the first time, despite the brilliant performances by Close, John Malcovich, and Michelle Pfeiffer, all I could really think about was telling the characters, "lighten up already!"
HACHIKO: A DOG'S STORY is based on a 1987 Japanese movie, which in turn is based on a true story that took place in Tokyo in the 1920s: a professor found and adopted a dog, which was so faithful it always sat at the local train station, waiting for its master to come home from work. The dog kept on waiting even after the death of the professor, and when Hachiko the dog passed away, a bronze statue of him was erected at that train station.
In Hallström's movie, the dog's still Japanese; in the beginning of the film, he's sent from Japan to the States, but the tag with the address falls off and the little puppy is skipping around at an idyllic train station in an idyllic town. Music professor Richard Gere finds the dog and takes it home, ignoring his wife Joan Allen's protests. The dog is named Hachi and he's very clever and very faithful, and yes, everyday, he walks to the train station to await Richard Gere coming home.
At the station, Hachi befriends the people working there and nearby; the butcher, the nice hot dog vendor, the woman in the book shop and her cat, and the man who's selling tickets to the train. The latter is played by Jason Alexander (from THE BURNING) of all people. He doesn't have very much to do in this movie and I sat there waiting for him to introduce himself as Art Vanderlay and claiming he works with import and export.
Richard Gere has a beautiful daughter who marries a nice young man and the daughter gets pregnant, and since we already know the story behind the movie, we known that Gere is about to die all of a sudden (Hachi is so clever he knows what day!), which he does, so that the dog can keep on walking to the train station and wait - for ten years.
Some people will call this movie "heartwarming". And one of my colleagues, a woman in her 60s, and who was sitting behind me at the press screening, was sobbing every now and then. And I heard more people sobbing in the theatre. I may sound like a cold-hearted son of a bitch, but I found this movie rather ... silly. Because it's so calculating: a cute and clever dog with big eyes, Richard Gere (who's the co-producer), total idyll, friendship beyond death, and sugar coated piano music.
One weird thing about HACHIKO is that I've never heard of it before. Lasse Hallström's movies are usually announced several months in advance, like the upcoming DEAR JOHN. But in this case, things get stranger:
HACHIKO is produced by Stage 6, a company I believe belongs to Sony. Stage 6 usually produces movies like PISTOL WHIPPED with Steven Seagal, THE SHEPHERD with Van Damme, and DVD sequels like BOOGEYMAN 3 and VACANCY 2. HACHIKO is shot in regular 16X9 ratio and the cinematography is rather restrained. It's a small movie which feels adapted for a small format. And as a matter of fact: much to Hallström's disappointment, and despite starring Richard Gere, HACHIKO will go straight to DVD in the U.S.A. in March 2010, retitled HACHI: A DOG'S TALE. I guess the only reason this movie opened theatrically in Sweden, is because of Hallström. It was, however, a theatrical success in Japan and a few other countries.
Although a movie about a dog, this sure is no new MY LIFE AS A DOG. HACHIKO feels like an old, anonymous TV movie from the 1970s. I've no idea what audience will appreciate Hallström's run of the mill and banal, albeit sympathetic and well-acted movie. Besides older women. And maybe young girls who love animals.
Sucker Punch is an action-packed film opening this weekend that features plenty of girl power, including Emily Browning, Abbie Cornish, Jena Malone and Vanessa Hudgens.
Directed by Zach Snyder (Watchmen, 300), Sucker Punch looks like a mix of Girl, Interrupted meets Lara Croft meets Charlie's Angels.
Sucker Punch stars Emily Browning (The Uninvited) who plays Baby Doll, a girl who is taken to the mental asylum by her mean stepfather. Faced with the knowledge that she will undergo a lobotomy in a week, she and four other inmates, played by Abbie Cornish, Jena Malone, Vanessa Hudgens and Jamie Chung, retreat to a fantasy world in her imagination where they plan their escape.
There has not been a single movie released so far this year that looks as fantastic as this movie does and be utterly pointless and flawed in almost every aspect. I find it depressing that this is the same director that brought us the DAWN OF THE DEAD remake and the big screen adaptation of WATCHMEN. Honestly, SUCKER PUNCH is an orgy for the eyes but torture on all the other senses. I’m still trying to wrap my brain on how a movie featuring chicks with swords, ninja statues, Nazi zombies, dragons and robots could be so dreadful instead of five different levels of awesome.
Here’s the plot, at least as far as I can tell; a young girl, Baby Doll (Emily Browning), is forced into a mental institution after attacking her step father and accused of murdering her little sister. While in the institution she enters into a fantasy world that pins her and her fellow crazies as prostitutes/dancers in a brothel and concocts a plan to escape using her seductive dancing as a means to distract the guards. Once the dancing starts she envisions herself in a variety of fantasy worlds to obtain all the different objects she’ll need to escape the facility.
I honestly believe SUCKER PUNCH was just an excuse for Zack Snyder to spend a lot of time on a set with scantily clad and half naked girls. The very first action scene is shameless exploitation of how many different ways you can show Emily Browning spinning and spreading her legs open in slow motion. Snyder has made a name for himself with the liberal use of slow motion and it’s never been more evident here and this is the worst it’s ever been used. The entire opening sequence is nothing but a music video for the song “Sweet Dreams” as directed by Zack Snyder; there’s no dialogue, just set up for the relationship between Baby Doll and her step father and how she ended up in a mental institution. There are several scenes that feel like nothing but extended music videos and set ups for a really bad porno.
The fantasy world Baby Doll chooses to live her escape in is a brothel, where the girls dance in order to turn on some horny dudes then take them back into a room where they finish them off. I half expected each subsequent fantasy to go a step farther and the girls are asking their cable guy to take his pants off. The fantasy worlds for the most part look pretty awesome; they all have some shaky CGI going on, but the visuals all have a very cool aesthetic.
Zack Snyder has always garnered points for style with films like 300 and WATCHMEN, but I can’t possibly make that concession here. Despite how good the action and special effects look, the film is completely devoid of anything involving real emotion or profound characterization. The action scenes have no stakes because you know everything takes place in a fantasy world while she’s doing a stripper dance for her employers. You never even see this dancing that hypnotizes everyone; Baby Doll just moves back and forth a couple times, closes her eyes and we are back in fantasy land.
For all the implied sex, half naked girls and violence on display you’d think this was an explicit hard R raunch-fest. Sucker Punch is decidedly PG-13 for reasons I’ll never understand; it’s so disappointing to see Synder going from awesome zombie carnage in DAWN OF THE DEAD to girls slaying Nazi zombies. That last statement is disappointing for the fact that these zombies don’t spill blood and that’s because Snyder has scripted in that the Nazi’s developed a way for their dead to function as soldiers by powering them with nothing other than steam, so when these poor saps die they don’t squirt blood, they spill out pockets of hot air.
All the money on screen here appears to be entirely on the special effects. The cast looks and acts like Snyder was walking through the set of a porno and grabbed any girl that wasn’t busy and said “do you have a second,” filmed their scenes and tossed them away like a used condom. I might be giving anyone who had a hand in the script too much credit because I’ve seen porns that have way more passion on display than any second of footage in SUCKER PUNCH. The writers of this garbage must have already suffered severe carpal tunnel just thinking of all the girls in spandex and the rest of the chicken scratch had to be translated through beer goggles.
Zack Snyder’s WATCHMEN flirted with a three hour runtime and I was ready for more by the time it was over. SUCKER PUNCH rings in at two hours and if it was a second longer I might have caused serious physical harm to the nearest living soul left in the theater. If I found any enjoyment in the film at all it was the moment it was over and realized I would never have to watch it again. The film is sort of like one long lobotomy, in that, when it was over I had no memory of why I ever wanted to subject myself to it. SUCKER PUNCH is aptly titled as anyone buying a ticket has already succumbed to what the title suggests. We only have ourselves to blame as the title is also a warning because you can’t get passed the first syllable of the title without spelling SUCK.
Updating a classic is difficult. Effectively bringing to life a seven-century-old fairy tale is almost impossible. There are some distinct changes from the original tale, as well as the iconic Grimm fairy tale version. For one, in Red Riding Hood, the wolf here is a werewolf and its human form is determined to be a resident of a small, isolated village in the mountains.
After a few grizzly deaths, an authoritative man of God arrives (Gary Oldman), espousing to know how to rid the village of this frightful creature. As inhabited by Oldman, he is every bit as morally vague as you can imagine. But unfortunately, the script or direction fails him. There are more questions than answers.
Yes, Amanda Seyfried scores as Valerie (Red Riding Hood) with her wide-eyed performance but neither of her love interests, Shiloh Fernandez or Max Irons, turns in a terribly good performance. Again, it is probably not completely their fault. Perhaps the words failed them or even more likely -- and it pains us to say this because we love her -- maybe it’s their director. Perhaps it’s just a simple swing and a miss.
Director Catherine Hardwicke has assembled a solid cast with Seyfried, Oldman, Twilight’s Billy Burke, Oscar nominee Virginia Madsen and Oscar winner Julie Christie. But, Red Riding Hood fails to ignite.
The romance of Red Riding Hood also simmers when it should boil. Irons, Fernandez and Seyfried are in a love triangle with a werewolf on the loose. Yet, there’s no drama. Seyfried’s Valerie is set to marry Henry in an arranged marriage while she is truly in love with Fernandez’s Peter. Henry is wealthy and Peter is poor, but that is no matter. Seyfried only has eyes for Peter. In between werewolf attacks, the three move about more going through the motions than solidifying a strong trio.
It is hard to say what it is about Red Riding Hood that is so wrong. It could be that the actual trip to grandmother’s house was a little more silly than scary. What can be said in a movie review when the actors show up to play but the story, script and pacing leave their performances feeling flat and the film feeling far less interesting than it could have been?
Of all the words to describe this movie, endearing would have to be somewhere near the top. Taken explores the underground world of human trafficking and brings it a little bit closer to home, perhaps more so than one would want. Liam Neeson plays Brian Mills, a retired CIA agent that gave up his career to make up for lost time with his daughter Kim, portrayed by actress Maggie Grace.
The plot takes the viewer from California to Europe where apparently kidnapping is a frequent occurence. What may seem like an innocent encounter with a charming local, quickly turns into a deadly experience feared by many parents. Brian’s daughter Kim goes on a trip to Paris with her friend, but instead of visiting sights like the Eiffel Tower or the Musee du Louvre, she is kidnapped to be auctioned off to the highest bidder in an undergound auction. Being a retired CIA agent, Brian quickly makes the most of the time he has and tracks down those responsible while undercovering a human trafficking ring.
What makes this movie stand out a bit more then the typical action film is that it has some truth in it. Tourists are kidnapped and go missing at an alarming rate. Taken is an example of a father going to extreme measures to ensure his daughters safety. Perhaps if all fathers were retired CIA agents then the kidnapping rate could possibly drop due to this movie. From hot-wiring cars, to breaking and entering an upscale party; Taken delivers like a James Bond film with a Die Hard attitude. A no holds barred story about a father’s love for his daughter and the ends he would go to for her. All men would wish to be like Brian Mills after watching this movie. Having the peace of mind to rationally control one’s emotion and putting pieces of a puzzle together, and at the same time formulating a plan to rescue back your flesh and blood.
I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. It gave me a sense of realism and urgency through the eyes of a father. The drive and desire to get your daughter back and the boundaries you would push to get there. Of course, much like other action films, a brain check would be needed before entering as it seems as though officers of the law are few and scarce in these movies. Also, parents should want to see this movie with their son or daughter, if not for some bonding time in between gun fights, then for the purpose of displaying what a parents love would drive someone to do for their offspring…however extreme it may be.
If you loved the first one, you will like the 2nd one!
In this made for ABC family original movie, Jo (Meaghan Martin) is the new girl in town, and she has an edge to her that everyone seems to like. Abby (Jennifer Stone) is the welcoming committee, and she sits with Jo at lunch. This is where we learn that the head of the plastics, Mandi (Maiara Walsh) hates Abby because she has always had more than her. Jo sticks up for Abby and takes her home when her car gets ruined. Abby’s dad talks to Jo and asks her to become Abby’s friend and he will pay for her college tuition. Jo resists at first, but then starts to hang out with Abby more and more, and finds out that she really likes her. Abby and Jo also start to team up against the plastics, and Jo even starts dating Mandi’s brother Tyler (Diego Gonzalez Boneta).
Like any other teen drama, we see the hijinks get out of control, and of course everyone turns against Jo because they find out that she was paid to be Abby’s friend and she was also framed for stealing the Homecoming fundraiser movie. Will Jo be able to explain her way out of this one? Will Abby and Jo ever be friends again? And will Tyler ever forgive her for making these choices and becoming one of the “mean girls”?
I thought it was a very cute made for TV movie. I really like the movies that have been made for ABC family. As much as I loved the original Mean Girls, I think this one was a good sequel. It had the same bullying concept, but different characters and a different type of plot. I think that everyone who enjoys ABC family will like this film!
Charlie Bartlett is an enigmatic youth. He has just been kicked out of another private school, this time for selling fake ids, causing his mother (Hope Davis, The Matador, American Splendor), to enroll him into public school. Things for Charlie (Anton Yelchin, Alpha Dog, Hearts in Atlantis) do not go smoothly, however, for Charlie on his first day at his new school. To start, he is repeatedly mistaken for a teacher due to choice of wearing a private school blazer and to carry a satchel. As a result, the school bully, Murphey Bivens (Tyler Hilton, Walk the Line, One Tree Hill), decides to beat up Charlie. Despite this, Charlie is anxious to fit in and he even tries out for the school play on his first day. His somewhat bizarre behavior, including reciting a scene from the Vagina Monologues for his tryout, catches the eye of Susan Gardner (Kat Dennings, 40 Year Old Virgin, Raise Your Voice).
Charlie, being the young enterpriser that he is, figures out a way to make lemonade from his lemons. Rather than shirking away in fear from Murphey, Charlie partners up with him and together they sell some of Charlie’s prescription meds to the students at a dance, with fantastic results. The next day, Charlie begins offering anonymous psychiatric help through the stalls of the boy’s bathroom. Charlie offers suggestions and even hands out prescriptions from his ridiculous stash due to his overzealous team of psychiatrists trying to medicate him through his life. Soon, Charlie transitions from school nobody to the big man on campus. He is asked to help lead the revolt against they tyrannical school board and principal, Principal Gardner (Robert Downey Jr., A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang), Susan’s father.
Charlie Bartlett is a delight to watch. Robert Downey Jr. is amazing as the tormented principal who is trying to be both an authority figure to a school of teenagers and also a father for Susan. Anton Yelchin shines as Charlie Bartlett, a kid who hides behind his comedy and a veil of caring to avoid dealing with his own problems, an absent father and a medically absent mother. Charlie Bartlett is going to launch Anton’s acting career into the cosmos. Tyler Hilton and Kat Dannings are tremendous as well.
Charlie Bartlett is a film with heart and soul. It accurately depicts the difficulties of being a teenager these days and takes on the readiness of professionals to medicate kids to make them easier to deal with. It would be nice if everyone had a little more Charlie Bartlett in them.
Nick & Norah's Infinite Playlist is a high school fantasy for indie rock nerds.
Imagine if back when you were 17, instead of playing CDs in your bedroom and dreaming about getting up the nerve to talk to a girl or guy, you played bass in a punk band that performed gigs in New York City. After your show, you hopped around the Lower East Side with a cute girl who knew all your favorite I-liked-'em-first bands, and who could get you into any club in town. You and she and your buddies partied until dawn with nary a care for the consequences, the law, or your parents.
That's Nick & Norah. Sadly, it's not as much fun as it looks.
When we meet Nick (Michael Cera) he is nursing the emotional wounds from a savage break-up with the monstrous Tris (Alexis Dziena). For therapy, he skips school and withdraws to his bedroom for ritualistic burning of mix CDs. Nick is also the only straight member of a queer-core band temporarily called The Jerk-Offs, who somehow find good gigs even though they're backed by a toy drum machine.
Norah (Kat Dennings) is the frumpy daughter of a music industry legend, who's conflicted about her privilege, but still gladly exploits it to skip the line at her favorite rock clubs. She and her party-girl pal Caroline train over to NYC to see The Jerk-Offs open for the awesome, awesome Bishop Allen.
After the show, Nick and Norah soon discover their mutual love for the (fictional) indie legends Where's Fluffy and go off to find their secret late-nite show. But Nick's not the only one with issues - Norah's got an intermittent relationship with another musician.
Meanwhile, Tris traipses around town with her new college boyfriend, but her jealousy at seeing Nick vibe with Norah - who Tris sees as a frigid nobody - inspires her to recapture Nick. Meanwhile, Nick, Norah, and the other Jerk-Offs drive around town searching for Caroline, who is lost, broke, and foolishly drunk.
You couldn't have asked for more winning leads for this semi-wild night than Cera and Dennings. As he previously demonstrated in 2007's left-right combo of Superbad and Juno, Cera is Gen Y's John Cusack. He is blessed with quiet understatement, masterful comic timing, and an earnestness that's impossible not to love.
Dennings also feels marvelously legit. They could have gotten another hot chick with glasses to play Norah, but Dennings wears her oddball quirk like she owns it. And her chemistry with Cera reminds us why movies are usually better than real life.
But Nick & Norah's movie-real-life nexus is tenuous at best. These characters are, after all, ostensibly in high school. But after you've watched a group of 20-something actors routinely drink and party in hipster clubs, navigate the Lower East Side like it's the mall in Paramus, prattle about three-year relationships, and rock out 'til dawn, it's a little jarring to hear the occasional reference to college admissions. Unlike Superbad, which hysterically celebrated the tensions and failures of underage merriment, Nick & Norah more or less ignores the lifestyle differences between ages 17 and 23.
That sucks a lot of the potential fun out of the story, and the vomit gags, slapstick, and wacky cameos fail to substitute. Most disappointingly, for all their charms, Cera and Dennings are denied the conflict required to make their budding relationship interesting. From frame one, it's obvious that these two characters have everything in common and destiny awaits their union.It's the title of the movie.
What to say? It was Despicable Me all over again. Well, yeah. It was. But the ending was very much entertaining. I didn’t even expected the little twist at the end. And the dancing and music was totally hip. And oh, I love me some Tina Fey. So this was still quite good afterall.
A steady flow of superhero-movie conventions are given the wink-wink treatment in this hyperactive Dreamworks animation about Megamind, a blue, bulbous-headed scoundrel, voiced by Will Ferrell, who plunges into depression when he unexpectedly kills his rival, Metro Man (voiced by Brad Pitt), and finds himself short of anyone to foil his schemes. At a low ebb (and holding a torch for feisty, Jean Seberg-a-like reporter Roxanne Ritchi, voiced by Tina Fey) he entertains the notion of giving up evil altogether.
If this sounds a little like the recent ‘Despicable Me’, that’s because it rolls with a similar idea, albeit employing a more realistic animation style and a strain of reference-heavy humour aimed at a slightly more mature audience. But the film also pinches a few pages out of the ‘Kick-Ass’ rule book, notably in the way it dismantles the archetypal ‘masked crusader’ and delights in revealing the mundane chores of life as a full-time master of chaos: those jumbo-collared leather capes don’t just stitch themselves, you know.
I really didn’t like this at first because it was full of cliche. But the last few minutes were really good. I had to take back my words because that rarely happens in movies. Losing the game and the boyfriend? Suffice to say, I didn’t expect that. The mom thing strike home, actually.
Ellen Page, always the BAMF. What’s not to like about her? Also, the fact that Drew Barrymore directed this and played a very amusing character made the movie quite entertaining. So that’s it, the movie was pleasing, to say the least.
