Reviews of movies, TV shows, and more!

Posts in category 3-Star Movies

Kick-Ass (2010)

Jun15
2011 Written by Editor

Plot summary (from the studio): When Dave Lizewski, ordinary New York teenager and rabid comic-book geek, dons a green-and-yellow internet-bought wetsuit to become the no-nonsense vigilante Kick-Ass, he soon finds an answer to his own question: because it hurts. But, overcoming all the odds, the eager yet inexperienced Dave quickly becomes a phenomenon, capturing the imagination of the public. However, he’s not the only superhero out there—the fearless and highly-trained father-daughter crime-fighting duo, Big Daddy and Hit Girl, have been slowly but surely taking down the criminal empire of local Mafioso, Frank DAmico. And, as Kick-Ass gets drawn into their no-holds-barred world of bullets and bloodletting with Frank’s son, Chris, now reborn as Kick-Ass’s arch-nemesis, Red Mist, the stage is set for a final showdown between the forces of good and evil in which the DIY hero will have to live up to his name. Or die trying…

Warning: Spoilers below!

Liked:

  • Dave was a likable guy, which was very important for this kind of movie. I thought he pretty much sucked as Kick-Ass because he was just not superhero material. This is the kind of guy who would be more at home selling you a usb barcode scanner or something, not taking on organized crime. But he was a genuinely nice person and his heart was in the right place, so I was rooting for him from the beginning.
  • Hit Girl was pretty cool. Seeing her getting shot by Nicolas Cage at the beginning was kind of a shocking moment, but once their relationship unfolded, things began to make more sense. Honestly, she was one of the most original characters I’ve ever seen in a mainstream film. A 10-year-old weapon-wielding ass-kicker?? Wow!
  • The movie was actually pretty funny in some places. I know I laughed several times along the way, which I wasn’t really expecting. Humor is definitely a bonus in my book.

Disliked:

  • I usually don’t like it when main characters miraculously escape from dire situations relatively unscathed, but I didn’t like the fact that Nicolas Cage’s character was killed right in front of his daughter. I know that sort of thing provides the basic canon for many a superhero, but still… it just didn’t feel right in this movie.
  • It seemed as though Kick-Ass suffered from an identity crisis. Did it want to be an action movie? Did it want to be a comedy? At times, the film felt so lighthearted that the subsequent violence was doubly shocking. Obviously, the fight scene between Hit Girl and Frank D’Amico (Mark Strong) has caused controversy — and for good reason, IMO. On the screen, it was portrayed as a serious fight, nothing funny, exaggerated, or lighthearted about it. And that took me right out of the film because I was cringing at how this grown man was pummeling a little girl.
  • The love interest. Why must there always be a dumb love interest???
  • The jet pack was incredibly cheesy to me. I know this movie was based off a comic book (oh, sorry — graphic novel), so I’m assuming the jet pack was in the original. It probably played a lot better on the page than on the screen, though.

Rating:

To be honest, I wasn’t expecting much out of Kick-Ass. I’m not a big fan of these films based on comic books, so this wasn’t initially very appealing. But my husband convinced me to watch it with him, and I’m glad I did. I didn’t love it, and there were lots of things that made me roll my eyes. Yet it was still fairly entertaining and worth the price of the rental, which is why I give it 3 stars out of 5.

Posted in Action

Black Swan (2010)

May24
2011 Written by Editor

Plot summary (from the studio): BLACK SWAN follows the story of Nina (Natalie Portman), a ballerina in a New York City ballet company whose life, like all those in her profession, is completely consumed with dance. She lives with her retired ballerina mother Erica (Barbara Hershey) who zealously supports her daughter’s professional ambition.

When artistic director Thomas Leroy (Vincent Cassel) decides to replace prima ballerina Beth MacIntyre (Winona Ryder) for the opening production of their new season, Swan Lake, Nina is his first choice. But Nina has competition: a new dancer, Lily (Mila Kunis), who impresses Leroy as well. Swan Lake requires a dancer who can play both the White Swan with innocence and grace, and the Black Swan, who represents guile and sensuality. Nina fits the White Swan role perfectly but Lily is the personification of the Black Swan. As the two young dancers expand their rivalry into a twisted friendship, Nina begins to get more in touch with her dark side with a recklessness that threatens to destroy her.

Warning: Spoilers below!

Liked:

  • Natalie Portman’s performance was terrific. It’s a bit hard for me to watch Oscar winners after the fact because my expectations tend to be much higher than usual, but Portman lived up to the buzz in this one. She brought a likability and vulnerability to the character that made her ultimate descent into madness painful to watch.
  • I thought Vincent Cassel did an excellent job as well. Obviously any director who makes his leads perform sexual favors is a scumbag, but let’s face it, it happens a lot. What I liked about Cassel was the fact that he didn’t come off as merely another smarmy old perv. He also seemed genuinely interested in making Nina the best dancer she could be, which gave his character a bit of added depth.
  • The relationship between Nina and her mother was one of the more compelling subplots in the entire film. I wish Aronofsky had spent more time developing it. I’ve read that some viewers are convinced that there was sexual abuse going on, particularly with the, “Are you ready for me?” comment before Nina went to bed one night. But while the mother was definitely overbearing and creepy, I don’t think there was anything sexual to it. To me it seemed like she was more concerned about keeping Nina innocent and childlike than anything else. Thus she helped Nina with things like cutting her nails, getting dressed, tucking her into bed, etc. That’s also why Nina’s room was filled with stuffed animals and why the mother set up that ballerina music box every night. Those are things you do for a child, not a grown woman. The mother was definitely disturbed and emotionally abusive, but I don’t think there was anything sexual to it.

Disliked:

  • I’m not into artsy-fartsy cinematic techniques, so I found director Darren Aronofsky’s choices to be more annoying than anything else. All the initial close-ups on Portman practically gave me claustrophobia, and the shaky hand-held camera made me close my eyes or look away numerous times. If that’s your thing, then great, you’ll love this film. If not, just be forewarned!
  • All the, uh, self-gratification scenes were weird. I get that Nina was trying to learn to “let herself go,” but come on, really? Was it necessary to have two separate scenes there? The other much-talked about scene with Mila Kunis I could at least understand, if not exactly appreciate. But the two masturbation scenes felt rather gratuitous.
  • I didn’t like the more obvious hallucinations, such as when Nina’s mother’s drawings started moving and talking. I preferred the understated stuff that left me wondering if the event really happened or not.
  • I could have done without the quite literal transformation into the black swan. Feathers, webbed feet, and birdlike skin? Um, no. I guess Aronofsky is not one for subtlety.
  • What was the ultimate message here? That in order to achieve artistic perfection you have to go completely crazy and sacrifice everything (even your life) to “become” your work? Eye roll.

Rating:

I wanted to like Black Swan because of all the critical acclaim and accolades it has received. I went in with an open mind and tried to understand what the filmmakers were trying to achieve, but I simply did not share their vision. I know there are tons of people out there who think this is a work of genius, and I can respect that opinion. It’s just not one that I share. I give this film 3 stars out of 5.

Posted in Drama

Hot Tub Time Machine (2010)

May20
2011 Written by Editor

Plot summary (from the studio): Hot Tub Time Machine follows a group of best friends who’ve become bored with their adult lives: Adam (John Cusack) has been dumped by his girlfriend; Lou (Rob Corddry) is a party guy who can’t find the party; Nick’s (Craig Robinson) wife controls his every move; and video game obsessed Jacob (Clark Duke) won’t leave his basement.

After a crazy night of drinking in a ski resort hot tub, the men wake up, heads pounding, in the year 1986. This is their chance to kick some past and change their futures – one will find a new love life, one will learn to stand up for himself with the ladies, one will find his mojo and one will make sure he still exists!

Warning: Spoilers below!

Liked:

  • There were some genuinely funny moments in this film. I found myself laughing or smiling more often than not, and the plot, despite not passing the logic test, kept me engrossed all the way through.
  • I liked all the fakeouts about how Phil the doorman lost his arm. I seriously thought it was going to be ripped off in the elevator, which would have been pretty nasty. But there were still several near-misses to get through before we got to see the real accident (getting severed by a passing snowplow). Ouch!
  • I thought the ski patrol douches were funny. Usually the “bullies” in these kinds of movies are so transparently hateful that they end up being too boring and predictable. But Blaine actually had some decent motivation in this film. He thought Adam’s crew were Russians with advanced spy gadgets — fairly believable given the political climate of the ’80s.
  • I was pleasantly surprised by how likable all the main cast members were. I went into this thinking that it was John Cusack’s movie, but Rob Corddry played just as big a role and was tolerable in it. I liked all the characters, who were funny for different reasons.
  • It was totally predictable, of course, but I loved how Lou used his knowledge of the future to make himself fabulously wealthy. I mean, who wouldn’t do that? There’s not one person out there who would rather be flat broke and in constant need of cash advances than cheat a little and become set for life.

Disliked:

  • There were way too many sight gags involving bodily fluids. That’s just nasty, even when I know it’s totally fake.
  • I didn’t understand how the squirrel managed to mess up The Drive (when it ran onto the field and caused the football player to drop the ball). Wouldn’t that single discrepancy have changed millions of subsequent events (because of the “butterfly effect”)? Why wasn’t that part explained?
  • I didn’t like that Adam and Nick returned home to brand new lives that they knew nothing about and had done nothing to build. So Adam was married to that mystery woman… does he know the first thing about her??? No. Does Nick have any idea what it was like to win an award as producer of the year? Absolutely not. Just having the result without the experience is pretty lame.

Rating:
I know some people will automatically hate this movie because of anachronisms, inconsistencies, and illogical happenings, but I was willing to overlook that stuff for the most part. As a result, I ended up enjoying Hot Tub Time Machine more than I thought I would. No, it’s not a great movie, but it does earn 3 stars out of 5.

Posted in Comedy/Dark Comedy

Scream 4 (2011)

May04
2011 Written by Editor

Plot summary (from the studio): In Scream 4, Sidney Prescott (played by Neve Campbell), now the author of a self-help book, returns home to Woodsboro on the last stop of her book tour. There she reconnects with Sheriff Dewey (David Arquette) and Gale (Courteney Cox), who are now married, as well as her cousin Jill (Emma Roberts) and her Aunt Kate (Mary McDonnell). Unfortunately Sidney’s appearance also brings about the return of Ghostface, putting Sidney, Gale, and Dewey, along with Jill, her friends, and the whole town of Woodsboro in danger.

Warning: Spoilers below!

Liked:

  • Like the previous three films of the franchise, Scream 4 was very self-aware and featured some decent jokes about the endless sequels that horror films tend to produce, as well as the accepted conventions or ground rules involved. I particularly liked Sidney’s line where she said “the original is always better than the sequel” — or something to that effect.
  • It was fun seeing the core three back again for this film. I watch Courteney Cox every week on Cougar Town, but I don’t think Neve Campbell has done much in the way of acting in the past decade. She was one of my favorite stars in the early ’90s, as I was a huge Party of Five fan. I always felt kind of sad that she basically fell off the Hollywood map there. And David Arquette… I don’t think I know him from anything else, but it’s always good to have the originals return when possible.
  • It was also cool seeing actors like Alison Brie (playing a character vastly different from Annie on Community), Kristen Bell, and Adam Brody (Seth Cohen!!!) in the film.
  • I like the continuity in having a couple of the kids walk around with sony digital cameras recording everything. After all, who dissects films more than wannabe directors? This has been a staple since Scream 2 and I was glad to see it back again here.
  • The killer(s) actually made sense this time, and it was easy to track their motivation. I can’t remember which previous film it was exactly (either 2 or 3), but I recall that I was utterly confused by who Ghostface was and why he/she was killing people. At least having Jill and that other kid be the killers (hey, I warned you about spoilers!) was understandable from the audience’s perspective.

Disliked:

  • Hayden Panettiere reeeeeally stood out from the other high school kids in the film. I mean, she just appeared to be so much more mature than them, and of course she’s simply stunning to look at. I know she’s only 21 in real life, so it’s not a stretch that she played a high school student, but it was a bit distracting to see her around the other girls. Yeah, I’m sure they were all just as old or even older, but Hayden’s looks got in the way.
  • The second act kind of dragged out for a long time. The movie was only about an hour and 40 minutes long, which isn’t a marathon by any stretch, but there wasn’t enough happening in Act 2 to sustain interest.
  • Maybe this is a problem of familiarity breeds contempt, but there weren’t any truly scary moments in this movie. Like most people, I just pretty much took it for granted that Ghostface would kill some of the kids (but none of the core 3) but that he/she would be unmasked in due time. Even the victims seemed jaded in this film, and didn’t get scared during the phone calls like they did in the first few movies.

Rating:
I really wanted to like Scream 4 because the franchise has sentimental value for me (reminding me of some good times in my life back in the mid to late 1990s), but unfortunately the filmmakers didn’t give me much to enjoy. The opening sequence was strong and set up my expectations for an entertaining time, but the second act failed to deliver. The film probably legitimately rates 2 stars, but nostalgia compels me to give it 3 stars out of 5.

Posted in Horror

The Informant! (2009)

Apr28
2011 Written by Editor

Synopsis (from the studio): What was Mark Whitacre thinking? A rising star at agri-industry giant Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), Whitacre suddenly turns whistleblower. Even as he exposes his company’s multi-national price-fixing conspiracy to the FBI, Whitacre envisions himself being hailed as a hero of the common man and handed a promotion. But before all that can happen, the FBI needs evidence, so Whitacre eagerly agrees to wear a wire and carry a hidden tape recorder in his briefcase, imagining himself as a kind of de facto secret agent. Unfortunately for the FBI, their lead witness hasn’t been quite so forthcoming about helping himself to the corporate coffers. Whitacre’s ever-changing account frustrates the agents and threatens the case against ADM as it becomes almost impossible to decipher what is real and what is the product of Whitacre’s rambling imagination. Based on the true story of the highest-ranking corporate whistleblower in U.S. history.

Warning: Spoilers below!

Liked:

  • This film had a distinct Coen brothers feel to it. It reminded me a lot of Fargo, where all the characters are completely in earnest, yet the audience can’t help but laugh or groan at their stupidity.
  • I kind of liked the fact that we weren’t privy to everything that was going on. I already knew the story of Mark Whitacre, so I knew he ended up in jail for longer than any of the ADM guys he helped put away, so the reveal about his embezzlement activities wasn’t a surprise to me. But I can imagine that some viewers would have a kind of “WTF?” moment as they wonder how this mild-mannered dweeb managed to steal $11 million.
  • I enjoyed the random voiceover musings from Damon’s character. Those alone were enough to tell you that he had a screw or three loose.

Disliked:

  • Obviously Matt Damon changed his looks for this film because Mark Whitacre wasn’t a good-looking, muscle-bound Jason Bourne type. I understand that. But I still found it extremely distracting to see Damon with 30lbs of flab around his gut, a bad hairpiece on his head, and that ridiculous mustache. And don’t forget about at the end when he got rid of the rug and ended up looking like a prime candidate for hair loss products. Most of the time, I was focused on his looks rather than what his character was doing or saying, which I’m sure wasn’t the filmmakers’ intention.
  • For being billed as a comedy (or dark comedy, I guess), this film didn’t have very many laughs. Even with Fargo, I laughed out loud numerous times, but nothing struck me as terribly funny about this movie.
  • I wish the script had explored Mark’s bipolar disorder a bit more. It seemed as though they simply wrote off his behavior by saying he was bipolar, but that’s hardly a real explanation, is it? Does being bipolar automatically mean you’re a pathological liar, too? Mark acted remarkably even-keeled for someone with that disorder. Again, I felt that needed to be explored.

Rating:

The Informant! was not quite what I expected in terms of the comedic factor, but it was still very watchable — mostly due to the performances of Damon, Bakula, and Melanie Lynskey (who played Mark’s wife). This is perhaps not a film that you ought to go out of your way to see, but if there’s nothing else available, it’ll do the trick. I give it 3 stars out of 5.

Posted in Comedy/Dark Comedy

Due Date (2010)

Apr19
2011 Written by Editor

Synopsis (from the studio): From The Hangover director Todd Phillips, Due Date throws two unlikely companions together on a road trip that turns out to be as life-changing as it is outrageous. Expectant first-time father Peter Highman (Robert Downey Jr.) looks forward to his new child’s due date five days away. As Peter hurries to catch a flight home from Atlanta to be at his wife’s side for the birth, his best intentions go completely awry when an encounter with aspiring actor Ethan Tremblay (Zach Galifianakis) forces Peter to hitch a ride with Ethan on a cross-country trip that will ultimately destroy several cars, many friendships and Peter’s last nerve.

Warning: Spoilers below!

Liked:

  • This film was laugh-out-loud funny in some places. I thought the characters fit the film, and Downey and Galifianakis played well off each other. I wouldn’t have liked either Peter or Ethan as standalones, but they made a pretty funny duo.
  • The premise was a good one. I found it at least somewhat believable that Peter and Ethan would get put on the no-fly list for their antics, and even in this day and age, it’s possible for people to get stranded somewhere without money. Hey, if you don’t have ID, then you can’t access your stuff, right? The stakes (Peter wanting to be there for the birth of his first child) were high enough that he would desperately hitch a ride with Ethan, and the impending birth served as a nice “ticking bomb” to keep Peter moving towards L.A.
  • I loved that Ethan actually scored a role on Two and a Half Men at the end. That was a surprise, especially considering how terrible he was during the practice scenarios that Peter gave him.
  • I also liked the scene where the Western Union wheelchair vet came out and kicked Peter’s ass. That was completely unexpected, in a good way. I sure hope Peter had some good disability insurance, because between the ass-kicking at Western Union and all the other stuff Ethan subjected him to, he needed it!

Disliked:

  • I thought the minor plotline about Peter’s wife possibly having slept with the best friend was a waste of screen time. What was the point of that? It was completely unnecessary and really took away from the main story.
  • Some of the duo’s antics felt recycled from other movies featuring two opposites being thrown together by circumstances, and I didn’t think the jokes had enough steam to carry through the entire film. I kind of lost interest towards the end and didn’t really care what happened to Peter and Ethan after a certain point.

Rating:

Due Date was a decent comedy that had some genuinely funny moments along the way. It wasn’t the “laff riot” I might have expected from the director of The Hangover, but it wasn’t horrible, either. I give it 3 stars out of 5.

Posted in Comedy/Dark Comedy

Bangkok Dangerous (2008)

Mar12
2011 Written by Editor

Plot synopsis (from the studio): The life of an anonymous assassin takes an unexpected turn when he travels to Thailand to complete a series of contract killings. Joe (Nicolas Cage), a remorseless hitman, is in Bangkok to execute four enemies of a ruthless crime boss named Surat. He hires Kong (Shahkrit Tamnarm), a street punk and pickpocket, to run errands for him with the intention of covering his tracks by killing him at the end of the assignment. Strangely, Joe, the ultimate lone wolf, instead finds himself mentoring the young man while simultaneously being drawn into a tentative romance with a local shop girl. As he falls further under the sway of Bangkok’s intoxicating beauty, Joe begins to question his isolated existence and let down his guard — just as Surat decides it’s time to clean house.

Warning: Spoilers below!

Liked:

  • I was actually surprised at how this movie didn’t outright suck! I’d read a number of bad reviews, and, let’s face it, Nic Cage’s career has seen better days. But for what it was — a mindless action film — Bangkok Dangerous wasn’t that bad.
  • I thought the blossoming romance between Joe and the shop girl was kind of cute. Usually I think love scenes in action movies are just a waste of time, but this one didn’t bother me. That’s most likely due to the fact that it was … sweet, which is something you don’t see in this kind of film.
  • Joe was a decent character. Once he got beyond spouting platitudes in the voiceovers and started trusting Kong, he seemed OK. That’s a strange thing to say about a professional assassin, I know. But I bought his change of heart at the end. People often take stock of their lives and try to rectify a few of the wrongs they’ve done. If regular folks can have midlife crises, why can’t hitmen?

Disliked:

  • I didn’t like the ending. There are times when it’s fitting for the main character to die, but I didn’t feel it was warranted here. I would rather have seen Joe be able to walk away from that life and start making all the connections he had failed to make up to that point. Yeah, that probably would have been too sappy, but I think I really would have preferred having Joe live.
  • A lot of the dialogue was cheesy. I wasn’t expecting Aaron Sorkin-esque brilliance, but this was pretty bad.
  • When there wasn’t cheesy dialogue, there were long stretches of action-only sequences. Those were equally boring, and earned a tap of the “Skip” button on my remote control.

Rating:

Overall, I thought Bangkok Dangerous turned out to be a film worth watching. It’s not what anyone would consider great cinema, nor was it as bad as most critical reviews would have you believe. I wouldn’t recommend going out of your way to watch it, but if you’re a fan of the genre anyway, give the DVD a chance sometime. I give the film 3 stars out of 5.

Posted in Action

Burn After Reading (2008)

Feb21
2011 Written by Editor

Plot summary (with possible spoilers): Having just been summarily fired from his job, former CIA agent Osbourne Cox (played by John Malkovich) decides to write a memoir about his time in the spy world. His wife Katie (Tilda Swinton) has had just enough of Osbourne, and the lost job — plus the nerve to think he has anything worthy of putting into a memoir — drives her to finally file for divorce. As part of the divorce proceedings, Katie’s lawyers urge her to copy Osbourne’s financial records. Katie inadvertently copies a first draft of the memoir instead. A secretary at the law firm subsequently loses the file at a health club.

The disc is found at Hardbodies (the health club) and ends up in the hands of trainers Chad (Brad Pitt) and Linda (Frances McDormand). Once those two realize they have their hands on some “secret spy shit,” they decide it would be a good idea to try to get some money out of the disc’s owner. Linda, after all, has her heart set on four different plastic surgeries so she can reinvent herself. Chad’s computer whiz friend identifies Osbourne Cox as the writer, and Chad and Linda proceed with their blackmail plan from there.

To make the plot even more complicated, we have a Treasury Department man named Harry (George Clooney) who is having an affair with both Katie and Linda. His involvement has shocking consequences that cause the whole situation to spiral out of control.

Warning: Spoilers below!

Liked:

  • I thought Brad Pitt and Frances McDormand were really good in this film. Pitt is an actor I can take or leave. I have never gone to see a movie specifically for him, nor have I intentionally avoided one because he was in it. I don’t think I’ve ever seen him in a dark comedy like this, but he nailed the part of Chad, the airhead trainer. He was funny pretty much throughout. McDormand is an actress I’ve come to like since her turn in Fargo, and she doesn’t disappoint here. There’s something about her that makes me pay attention whenever she’s on screen.
  • I’ll admit it, the chair contraption Harry made in his basement had me laughing out loud at the reveal. OMG, did that come out of left field or what?!
  • Harry shooting Chad in the forehead was an unexpected shock. I like being surprised like that when watching a movie — so long as the surprise is somewhat believable. The Coens set up that whole scene when Harry said sometimes “muscle training” just takes over, so I believed it.

Disliked:

  • I was expecting more laughs out of this one. There weren’t actually too many funny scenes (yes, I know this was a “dark comedy”, so I wasn’t looking for slapstick), so besides Harry’s chair, I only chuckled a few other times.
  • There were some boring stretches where I caught myself looking at my watch. That’s not a good thing, particularly since this film was only 96 minutes long to begin with. The boring scenes made the run time feel longer.
  • OK, I know I’m dipping into the shallow end of the pool here, but I did not like all the close-ups of Richard Jenkins. Seeing his face splashed across my 50-inch TV was not fun. All I kept thinking was that the poor man should check out acne scar treatment options ASAP. Terrible, I know, but I couldn’t help it.
  • I didn’t care for the scene where Osbourne completely lost his head and started beating on Ted in broad daylight. That rage seemed to come out of nowhere, and didn’t fit in with how the Malkovich character had been acting up to then.

Rating:

Coen films are a crap shoot for me, as I like some and hate others (No Country for Old Men, I’m looking at you!). I wasn’t particularly enthralled by previews of Burn After Reading (which is why it took me so long to finally get around to watching it), but have to say it turned out to be a pretty decent film after all. I give it 3 stars out of 5.

Posted in Comedy/Dark Comedy

Iron Man 2 (2010)

Dec30
2010 Written by Editor

Plot summary (from IMDb.com): With the world now aware of his dual life as the armored superhero Iron Man, billionaire inventor Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.) faces pressure from the government, the press, and the public to share his technology with the military. Unwilling to let go of his invention, Stark, along with Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), and James “Rhodey” Rhodes (Don Cheadle) at his side, must forge new alliances – and confront powerful enemies.

Liked:

  • Surprisingly, I liked the Rhodey character the best. Stark was pretty arrogant in the first film, but he at least had some charm to go along with it. In this film, he was just obnoxious and annoying. Rhodey, by contrast, was smart and funny — and kicked just as much ass.
  • I wasn’t expecting much out of Scarlett Johansson, but thought she was pretty good too. I liked her character and wanted to see more of her. And I thought she had far more chemistry with Stark than Pepper Potts did.
  • The technology was cool. I want those massive touch screens in my home, too!

Disliked:

  • The plot was kind of vague and confusing. What was Mickey Rourke’s beef with Stark? That Howard Stark stole something from Mickey’s father? Or was Mickey just trying to use the technology to make his own line of suits? I didn’t really catch what happened between the elder Stark and the Russian, so Mickey’s motives remained unclear to me.
  • The dialogue seemed way off in this film. It was as though the writer was trying way too hard to make Stark as glib and funny as he was in the first installment — but it didn’t work. As I said before, Tony was just pretty annoying in this one, nothing more.
  • Geez, if other characters hadn’t mentioned that Pepper Potts was Stark’s girlfriend, I never would have guessed it. Why was she such an ice queen throughout the whole thing? Yikes.

Rating:

After thoroughly enjoying Iron Man, I was hoping for more of the same out of Iron Man 2. Instead, I got something that felt like little more than a boring retread than anything else. Maybe I was in a bad mood when I watched this, but it didn’t do anything for me. I give the film 3 stars out of 5.

Posted in Action

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 (2010)

Dec21
2010 Written by Editor

Plot summary (from the studio): “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows,” the seventh and final adventure in the Harry Potter film series, is a motion picture event told in two full-length parts. Part 1 begins as Harry, Ron, and Hermione set out on their perilous mission to track down and destroy the Horcruxes — the keys to Voledmort’s immortality. On their own, without the guidance and protection of their professors, the three friends must now rely on each other more than ever. But there are Dark Forces in their midst that threaten to tear them apart.

Meanwhile, the wizarding world has become a dangerous place for all enemies of the Dark Lord. The long-feared war has begun and Voldemort’s Death Eaters seize control of the Ministry of Magic and even Hogwarts, terrorizing and arresting anyone who might oppose them. But the one prize they still seek is the one most valuable to Voldemort: Harry Potter. The Chosen One has become the hunted one as Voldemort’s followers look for Harry with orders to bring him to the Dark Lord…alive.

Harry’s only hope is to find the Horcruxes before Voldemort finds him. But as he searches for clues, he uncovers an old and almost forgotten tale — the legend of the Deathly Hallows. And if the legend turns out to be true, it could give Voldemort the ultimate power he seeks. Little does Harry know his future has already been decided by his past when, on that fateful day, he became “the Boy Who Lived.” No longer just a boy, Harry Potter is drawing ever closer to the task for which he has been preparing since the day he first stepped into Hogwarts: the ultimate battle with Voldemort.

Liked:

  • The best part of this film was seeing how the characters (and actors) have matured from the first installment. I don’t think there’s been any other film series that has retained the main talent through SEVEN parts, and it’s just amazing to me that these actors have grown up before our very eyes. I just caught the Chamber of Secrets the other day, and marveled at how young the core trio looked. After watching Deathly Hallows, I marveled at how they’re now virtually adults.
  • The maturity theme was driven home in a couple of ways. Most notable was the fact that Harry, Ron, and Hermione were largely on their own in this film. They didn’t have Dumbledore to counsel them and tell them exactly what to do next. They didn’t have any of the usual Hogwarts teachers looking over them, protecting them, and healing them when necessary. It felt like three against the world — and the three were ready for it.
  • I enjoyed seeing Harry and Hermione acknowledge their feelings for each other. I know that Harry likes Ginny Weasley and Hermione adores Ron, but it was nice for Harry and Hermione to share a few tender moments, particularly that dance in the tent after Ron had left. At the beginning of the series, I thought for sure Harry and Hermione were meant for each other. I’m OK with how the pairings actually worked out, but still enjoyed this nod to H&H’s friendship.

Disliked

  • I know the isolation in the woods is a key element of the story and that Rowling extended the scenes for so long so the reader could get a sense of the frustration the characters felt regarding their own inaction. I get that; I really do. But it didn’t play well for me in the book, and was even worse on the film. Did the characters really have to spend 30 movie minutes moping around the woods to convey their frustration to the viewers? As I said, I know and appreciate the intent behind such scenes, but it was just so, SO boring!
  • Was it just me or did Alan Rickman/Snape look particularly jowly in this film??? His face was so flabby that it was distracting. Yeah, it’s a shallow observation, but still… it’s one thing that really stood out in the film.
  • I kind of missed seeing some of the usual Hogwarts figures. As good as Harry, Ron, and Hermione are, they weren’t quite enough to carry the entire film for me. Thankfully Part 2 should feature more screen time for some of my other favorites.

Rating:

It’s hard to come up with a rating for Part 1 because I know I’m seeing an incomplete work. Most of the story up to this point was simply setting up all the action that will take place in Part 2. Going just by how entertained I was during Part 1, however, I give this movie 3 stars out of 5.

Posted in Sci-Fi/Fantasy
← Older Entries Newer Entries →

Recommended

Onlinecasinoselite.com is the top online casino directory with casino reviews of the most trusted brands.

Calendar

May 2012
S M T W T F S
« Apr    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031