SO happy someone labeled the movie as what it is, schlock.
So there's absolutely NOTHING in the movie that you liked? What about the credits? Were they in the correct font?
The Beaver does not speak with an Australian accent, he speaks with a Cockney accent. Mel Gibson worked with Ray Winstone in Edge of Darkness and adopted his Cockney accent for the Beaver.
Your bias shows, your last comment ... In some ways, the spectacle of a toxically miserable Mel might be most satisfying for those who categorically refuse to see the movie.
Writers, Journalists and Film Review writers, or is it just Mel haters, who seem to have forgotten what it is to be human. They spew awful things when rational and sober.
Intriguing review. It definitely spiked my interest, and seeing a documentary in 3D sounds exciting!
I feel so bad for anyone involved in this movie (w/ the exception of BlowMe asshole Mel)
This isn't a film by and for New Yorkers, a series of love letters from hometowners and transplants; it's a shallow portrait sketched by casual admirers, outsiders looking in through clichÃ©-tinted lenses.Surely it is Same review of Paris Je t'aime.
buy cheap cars
This was indeed a great review to read. I have been reading review after review to see how I would like the movie. At first I did go around and ask my co-workers at DISH about "Little Fockers" and to my surprise no one has seen it (small crowd I'm around). I have wanted to order the movie on PPV in HD but was unsure. I think instead of reading all the reviews that I have read I'm just going to give it my own opinion and actually watch it. I hope it really is good.
18. One must distinguish between naïve and deliberate Camp. Pure Camp is always naive. Camp which knows itself to be Camp ("camping") is usually less satisfying.
You can't fault Snyder for not being campy enough due to a lack of self-awareness. It's like faulting water for being wet. Camp is not a method of appreciating an artist's intention, and probably the best example of why intentionality doesn't authoritatively dominate perception (here because its opposite enhances the appreciation).
What an amazing tale, for having catalogued countless official Soviet art books -- with the specific odor of that glossy paper -- at the Harvard Fine Arts' Library which was the depository for the exchange program of the 1970's. And so well written, of course.
The segment with the Monmouth County museum curator was a lampoon. They were all in on the joke, she wasn't "humiliating herself".
This young guy is definitely talented and he's only 21!!!
I was actually surprised to see that his next movie is on a crowdfunding website touscoprod.ca in order to find money to produce it !
So I joined this opportunity to help this talented director, and I really hope that he'll get more recognition with Laurence Anyways. Here is the link : http://www.touscoprod.com/ca/pages/projet/fiche.php?s_id=2
And also an interview he did in french about it (english subs in comments) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHFziRhHFJs
Too bad. I agree that a real documentary about him would be more interesting than this sounds.
The most disappointing Statham movie yet. He lacked the charm and charisma he typically has, and his character was sort of an asshole. By the end, I didn't even like him at all. And I thought Simon West's direction of the action scenes was really incoherent. Transporter 2 had much better action scenes. Pierre Morrel should direct Statham's next movie. Or if we could somehow revive Jules Dassin for one great last heist movie.
loved it, but.....no 25th hour?
also, you should consider expanding its "sharing" options. i'd love to be able to embed this video or share it on tumblr.
Some other attempts to pithily sum up the difference between Hitchcock and Lang:
Hitchcock uses the sea in most of his films, Lang never does (Lang actually talks about this in his interviews on Clash By Night, saying how difficult it was for him to film the ocean)
Lang's films are typified by enormous numbers of insert shots; when Hitchcock shoots objects, they're POV shots
What damage Portman is unforgivably doing herself by backing and spackling these lighter-than-air puff pieces is hard to believe. Does she not see this is a down escalator after the V for Vendetta and Black Swan oeuvres she has been gifted with? Is it the dollars? Does the geek accountant tribe predict this will rake in the samoleans because it is Kutscher and Portman, no matter the trivial trash the audience is shoveled?
Bravo, Benjamin, for a very sensitive review. bises, S
I bet you're right about this movie and I'm still totally seeing it for its army of lady performers led by Portman. But let me pick a bone sight unseen: does the movie imitate the ad materials in referring to Portman and Kutcher as "best friends"? I see you refer to them as acquaintances here, which I assume is accurate, but not always what the screenplay is claiming. I feel like that's something a lot of modern rom-coms do, and it's a minor thing, but it really irritates me: saying that the male and female lead are best friends when they are, in fact, vaguely friendly. If someone is your "best friend," you don't get all of your advice and guy/girl talk and exposition from a whole other group of people. MAYBE Harry and Sally were best friends, although I'd tend to say "good friends." Pretty much no mainstream rom-com leads since then have really done a convincing job of conveying actual male-female close friendship, not just flirting-without-fucking.
Didn't anyone see Mother and Child with Naomi Watts and Annette Benning....it
was my favorite film of the year.....and better than The Kids are Alright...which I think was condescending, and only interesting to a naive audience.
Machete don't text.
© 2013 The L Magazine
Website powered by Foundation