“STATE OF PLAY” (Russell Crowe, Ben Affleck, Rachel McAdams & Helen Mirren)
I have been writing movie reviews for a couple of years now & I’ve found the better the movie, the less entertaining the review – This is going to be one of those bland reviews because ‘State Of Play’ is a very good film. One of those that I really can’t find anything wrong with - Even with Ben Affleck & Jason Bateman in the cast! It is a film in which you have to pay more than a minimal amount of attention in order to follow the plot, but it doesn’t get so overwrought in plot twists & character additions that you lose track even if you’ve been diligent with your focus.
Russell Crowe plays veteran newspaper reporter Cal McAffrey; he is matched with a young ‘blogging’ reporter (Rachel McAdams) when they are both assigned to cover the apparent suicide of a Congressman’s aide. The Congressman, Stephen Collins (Affleck) is Cal’s old college roommate, so it is hoped that Cal can get the inside scoop. One little snag in that plan in that Cal had an affair with the Congressman’s wife (Robin Wright Penn)
By bribing cops with coffee (& I’m sure a donut or two had to be thrown in off-screen) Cal comes into incriminating photos proving that Congressman Collins was having an affair with the deceased aide. There are several impressive bit roles in ‘SOP’; in fact, everyone is at the top of their game here so credit has to be given to director Kevin Macdonald (Who also made the great ‘Last King Of Scotland’)
Affleck actually shines when questioning a sleazy businessman during a congressional hearing, & Jason Bateman, also playing a sleazy character, delivers his best acting performance ever. Jeff Daniels has evolved into a 'bit part' specialist & has become very adept at adding a nice touch to each role.
For a great deal of the film I wondered why Helen Mirren agreed to play the part of McAffrey’s boss, since she had very little to do other than utter the stock line “I’ve got a newspaper to run!” They could have simply inserted scenes of Perry White from the old ‘Superman’ TV series (Complete with ‘Great Caesar’s ghost!’) but it all became clear as to why they needed Helen in that role with her ‘wanker’ line. In a film full of snappy, witty lines, this was by far the most humorous.
And I also wondered what older actor had to drop out at the last minute leading to Affleck being cast in the role of Collins since he looks a little too young to have been Crowe’s college chum & Robin Wright Penn’s husband. But as the clues unravel & twist & turn, it is Crowe that keeps everything glued together. Like my favorite actor, Sean Penn, Crowe may be a bit of a jerk in real life, but there’s no denying the fact that the man is one hell of a good actor. In the hands of someone less talented this film could have easily become bogged down.
Other than a little too long non-chase scene in a parking garage, “State Of Play” moves along at a nice clip & actually takes the time to explain to the viewer what is going on & they don’t pull any surprise endings that don’t make sense, just for the sake of making people say “Well, I never saw THAT coming!”
Should this film & it's actors be remembered at Oscar time? Probably not. But for a late April release, it is VERY high quality.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
OBSERVE & REPORT
“OBSERVE & REPORT” (Seth Rogen, Ray Liotta & Anna Faris)
We drove to a theatre & decided we’d make our decision based upon what was playing next – since ‘Adventureland’ wasn’t going to start for 5 hours, ‘Observe & Report’ won out over ’17 Again’.
I can’t say that I liked ‘O & R’, but neither did I dislike it – It was a unique film in that it couldn’t make up its mind as to what it wanted to be – A dark, disturbing black comedy, or a silly, Adam Sandler-ish style dumb comedy without laughs. & there were no lines blurred between the two – it was either one or the other from scene to scene, which in the end made it a piece of crap, really – but like I said, a ‘unique’ piece of crap. I wished they had gone with the dark comedy because that was clearly the most interesting aspect of the film, whereas the dumbed down (Or as the film itself would call them ‘retarded’) scenes just didn’t work at all.
Rogen plays Paul Blart:Mall Cop, who dreams of becoming a ‘real life’ cop. So when Ray Liotta’s detective comes to the mall to investigate the appearance of a perverted flasher that has been molesting women in the parking lot, Blart is literally looking over his shoulder ‘observing’ how an actually police detective conducts an investigation. &, being the egomaniac that he is, Paul constantly questions the detective’s techniques. A potentially interesting plot is created between the two ‘protectors’ of the citizenry, but instead of keeping it taut & edgy, the climactic scene culminates in a stupid mall cop vrs. the entire police force fight scene that is just plain idiotic.
Anna Faris is the ‘pretty & she knows it’ girl that works the cosmetics counter that Blart is infatuated with... I used to like Anna, but last being seen in ‘House Bunny’ & now this; she’s quickly losing her appeal. There’s some nice scenes involving Paul & the shy religious girl that works at the coffee shop, but that possibly interesting angle deteriorates into a bland, predictable finale.
Michael Pena (excellent in ‘Crash’) shows some range playing Blart’s 2nd in command, but just as his character steps into the spotlight, he disappears.
The relationship between Paul & his alcoholic mother showed promise - & if they’d stuck with the ‘feel’ of those scenes throughout the entire movie, they would have had a much better film on their hands – but there isn’t enough of ‘mom’ & way too many scenes of Blart moving in slow motion with his three chins flopping up and down in ripples in some lame attempt to make the chubby mall cop look ‘macho’. Again, this film didn’t have a clue as to what it wanted to be so it was all over the place. Okay, so maybe the several scenes of fat guys (one nude) running endlessly through a mall was ‘supposed’ to be a parody of the genre, but Simon Pegg already wrung all the comedic moments out of that dishrag in “Hot Fuzz”.
But this Paul Blart, unlike the Kevin James’ version, isn’t very likeable – In fact he’s a complete jerk. One wonders of the screenwriter actually ‘wrote’ the dialogue between Blart & an Eastern Indian mall employee, or if the two actors decided to ‘improvise’ saying the words ‘F- You’ to one another a dozen or so times & the director thought that made ‘celluloid magic’ & he kept it in... He couldn’t have been more wrong. It took a long time for me to come around & start finding things to like about ‘O & R’ because that scene (Which I’m sure many 4-6 year olds found hilarious) was so off-putting.
There was a potential good movie here, but it fails due to misguided direction. They should have kept it ‘dark’ throughout & discarded all of the slapstick & ‘look how tough the tubby mall cop is’ scenes. But they didn’t, so it’s a mess.
We drove to a theatre & decided we’d make our decision based upon what was playing next – since ‘Adventureland’ wasn’t going to start for 5 hours, ‘Observe & Report’ won out over ’17 Again’.
I can’t say that I liked ‘O & R’, but neither did I dislike it – It was a unique film in that it couldn’t make up its mind as to what it wanted to be – A dark, disturbing black comedy, or a silly, Adam Sandler-ish style dumb comedy without laughs. & there were no lines blurred between the two – it was either one or the other from scene to scene, which in the end made it a piece of crap, really – but like I said, a ‘unique’ piece of crap. I wished they had gone with the dark comedy because that was clearly the most interesting aspect of the film, whereas the dumbed down (Or as the film itself would call them ‘retarded’) scenes just didn’t work at all.
Rogen plays Paul Blart:Mall Cop, who dreams of becoming a ‘real life’ cop. So when Ray Liotta’s detective comes to the mall to investigate the appearance of a perverted flasher that has been molesting women in the parking lot, Blart is literally looking over his shoulder ‘observing’ how an actually police detective conducts an investigation. &, being the egomaniac that he is, Paul constantly questions the detective’s techniques. A potentially interesting plot is created between the two ‘protectors’ of the citizenry, but instead of keeping it taut & edgy, the climactic scene culminates in a stupid mall cop vrs. the entire police force fight scene that is just plain idiotic.
Anna Faris is the ‘pretty & she knows it’ girl that works the cosmetics counter that Blart is infatuated with... I used to like Anna, but last being seen in ‘House Bunny’ & now this; she’s quickly losing her appeal. There’s some nice scenes involving Paul & the shy religious girl that works at the coffee shop, but that possibly interesting angle deteriorates into a bland, predictable finale.
Michael Pena (excellent in ‘Crash’) shows some range playing Blart’s 2nd in command, but just as his character steps into the spotlight, he disappears.
The relationship between Paul & his alcoholic mother showed promise - & if they’d stuck with the ‘feel’ of those scenes throughout the entire movie, they would have had a much better film on their hands – but there isn’t enough of ‘mom’ & way too many scenes of Blart moving in slow motion with his three chins flopping up and down in ripples in some lame attempt to make the chubby mall cop look ‘macho’. Again, this film didn’t have a clue as to what it wanted to be so it was all over the place. Okay, so maybe the several scenes of fat guys (one nude) running endlessly through a mall was ‘supposed’ to be a parody of the genre, but Simon Pegg already wrung all the comedic moments out of that dishrag in “Hot Fuzz”.
But this Paul Blart, unlike the Kevin James’ version, isn’t very likeable – In fact he’s a complete jerk. One wonders of the screenwriter actually ‘wrote’ the dialogue between Blart & an Eastern Indian mall employee, or if the two actors decided to ‘improvise’ saying the words ‘F- You’ to one another a dozen or so times & the director thought that made ‘celluloid magic’ & he kept it in... He couldn’t have been more wrong. It took a long time for me to come around & start finding things to like about ‘O & R’ because that scene (Which I’m sure many 4-6 year olds found hilarious) was so off-putting.
There was a potential good movie here, but it fails due to misguided direction. They should have kept it ‘dark’ throughout & discarded all of the slapstick & ‘look how tough the tubby mall cop is’ scenes. But they didn’t, so it’s a mess.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
SUNSHINE CLEANING
“SUNSHINE CLEANING” (Amy Adams, Emily Blunt & Alan Arkin)
This is a marvelous little film about slightly broken people – the fact that they’re not completely broken makes them worthy of caring about. I could relate to the 2 main characters despite their being female. One reason is timing – they both were struggling to find their place in the world from an occupation standpoint & the other reason I won’t reveal here, other than to say they both were haunted by a tragic moment from their past.
Amy & Emily play sisters, Rose & Norah. Rose works as a maid for a housekeeping service & Norah’s temper keeps her from holding a job for any length of time.
Alan Arkin plays their father, who bounces from one money-making scheme to the next. The one drawback I had with the script is the fact that how the tragedy from the past affected ‘Dad’ is never mentioned.
Steve Zahn, proving he can do more than just provide some mild comic relief, plays a smarmy cop who is cheating on his wife with Rose. It is Zahn’s character that suggests to Rose she get into the ‘cleaning up crime scenes’ business. It’s messy, but lucrative...
So Rose & Norah start ‘Sunshine Cleaning’ which leads them from one disgusting crime scene aftermath after another. Along the way they encounter Winston (Clifton Collins, Jr.) who guides them along on the proper way to proceed with their new business. Collins is splendid in the role as his character is required to relate his thoughts through his facial expressions. Without saying a word, we know that Winston thinks Rose is hot & her son is a brat. Besides an obvious shyness, Winston's setback is that he only has one arm & you know that's why he thinks he doesn't stand a chance with Rose.
Rose’s son, Oscar (Jason Spevak) is also slightly ‘off’ center – he’s been expelled from school, so mom starts Sunshine Cleaning in order to earn enough to send him to a private school. There is a very funny scene in which Aunt Norah tells the boy he should proudly wear the badge of ‘bastard’.
Mary Lynn Rajskub, despite playing her normal frowning frumpy dour character, fits into this story perfectly. Norah befriends her after finding her photo among the belongings of a woman that had recently committed suicide.
So often I come out of the theatre telling my wife how I would have altered the film to improve the story – Not so with ‘Sunshine Cleaning’ – Everything is included in the box, including the batteries. In the end, I was alright with the fact that Dad’s background wasn’t explored more – the film centered on the 2 sisters & that’s how it should have been.
I appreciated how the story unfolded as well, Rose makes a very unwise choice to leave her son with Winston, a man she definitely doesn’t know well enough - & yet, it is the seemingly innocent decision to send Norah on a job without her that causes grief.
When Rose shuns her responsibilities to attend an ex-high school friend’s baby shower, she takes the opportunity to brag about her recent accomplishments & then makes an early exit with a beaming smile on her face. Then, like the rest of her life, the joy is short-lived. Maybe it’s due to the fact that the story often reminded me of one that I wrote & that’s why I enjoyed it as much as I did. The acting didn’t hurt either – Amy Adams is fast becoming my favorite actress – to go from ‘Enchanted’ to ‘Doubt’ to this, she is showing the ability to tackle any role & make it believable.
It may take a long time before I stop saying ‘My favorite movie of 2009 is Sunshine Cleaning’. Go see it & I believe you will be very pleasantly surprised that a film about cleaning up after bloody suicide victims could be so entertaining...
This is a marvelous little film about slightly broken people – the fact that they’re not completely broken makes them worthy of caring about. I could relate to the 2 main characters despite their being female. One reason is timing – they both were struggling to find their place in the world from an occupation standpoint & the other reason I won’t reveal here, other than to say they both were haunted by a tragic moment from their past.
Amy & Emily play sisters, Rose & Norah. Rose works as a maid for a housekeeping service & Norah’s temper keeps her from holding a job for any length of time.
Alan Arkin plays their father, who bounces from one money-making scheme to the next. The one drawback I had with the script is the fact that how the tragedy from the past affected ‘Dad’ is never mentioned.
Steve Zahn, proving he can do more than just provide some mild comic relief, plays a smarmy cop who is cheating on his wife with Rose. It is Zahn’s character that suggests to Rose she get into the ‘cleaning up crime scenes’ business. It’s messy, but lucrative...
So Rose & Norah start ‘Sunshine Cleaning’ which leads them from one disgusting crime scene aftermath after another. Along the way they encounter Winston (Clifton Collins, Jr.) who guides them along on the proper way to proceed with their new business. Collins is splendid in the role as his character is required to relate his thoughts through his facial expressions. Without saying a word, we know that Winston thinks Rose is hot & her son is a brat. Besides an obvious shyness, Winston's setback is that he only has one arm & you know that's why he thinks he doesn't stand a chance with Rose.
Rose’s son, Oscar (Jason Spevak) is also slightly ‘off’ center – he’s been expelled from school, so mom starts Sunshine Cleaning in order to earn enough to send him to a private school. There is a very funny scene in which Aunt Norah tells the boy he should proudly wear the badge of ‘bastard’.
Mary Lynn Rajskub, despite playing her normal frowning frumpy dour character, fits into this story perfectly. Norah befriends her after finding her photo among the belongings of a woman that had recently committed suicide.
So often I come out of the theatre telling my wife how I would have altered the film to improve the story – Not so with ‘Sunshine Cleaning’ – Everything is included in the box, including the batteries. In the end, I was alright with the fact that Dad’s background wasn’t explored more – the film centered on the 2 sisters & that’s how it should have been.
I appreciated how the story unfolded as well, Rose makes a very unwise choice to leave her son with Winston, a man she definitely doesn’t know well enough - & yet, it is the seemingly innocent decision to send Norah on a job without her that causes grief.
When Rose shuns her responsibilities to attend an ex-high school friend’s baby shower, she takes the opportunity to brag about her recent accomplishments & then makes an early exit with a beaming smile on her face. Then, like the rest of her life, the joy is short-lived. Maybe it’s due to the fact that the story often reminded me of one that I wrote & that’s why I enjoyed it as much as I did. The acting didn’t hurt either – Amy Adams is fast becoming my favorite actress – to go from ‘Enchanted’ to ‘Doubt’ to this, she is showing the ability to tackle any role & make it believable.
It may take a long time before I stop saying ‘My favorite movie of 2009 is Sunshine Cleaning’. Go see it & I believe you will be very pleasantly surprised that a film about cleaning up after bloody suicide victims could be so entertaining...
I LOVE YOU, MAN
“I LOVE YOU, MAN” (Paul Rudd, Jason Segel & Rashida Jones)
For a movie that’s supposed to be about straight males, this film is more than a little gay. It’s almost like a ‘chick flick’, except that it does have a few comedic moments. Thanks to the likeable Paul Rudd, he overcomes the not-so-likeable Jason Segel. The best part about Segel’s performance is that he kept his pants on this time!
But scenes involving farting in a museum & ‘dudes’ that sit around talking about masturbating... well, let me just say that men from my era didn’t look at other guys’ butts, so we couldn’t tell if they were withholding gas & I have never cared what any of my male buddies whacking techniques are.
The premise as well is very chick flickie – Peter (Rudd) proposes to his girlfriend, Zooey (Rashida Jones) which sets off a discussion among Zooey’s girlfriends as to who Peter might ask to be his best man. They giggle over the fact that his best friend seems to be his mother. Peter’s younger brother is a gay man(Andy Samberg as Robbie) so naturally Peter asks him to set him up with prospective best man material. Adding to the 'eeww!' factor is when Reno 911’s Thomas Lennon ends his man date with Peter by sticking his tongue down Peter’s throat. This would have been slightly humorous if Peter had immediately backed away & let Frenchie know that he didn’t swing that way – Instead – in chick flick fashion - Peter takes all that Frenchie has to give & the tongue lingers inside Peter’s oral cavity for several seconds. To quote an old National Lampoon LP, “That’s Not Funny, That’s Sick!”
With Rudd in the starring role, it’s natural to compare this to “Role Models” & “I Love You, Man” just comes up short in almost every category. The only thing ‘ILY,M’ has in its favor is a delightful send up of a—holes with Jon Favreau’s total d-ckhead character, Barry. I have to admit the only scene that made me laugh out loud was when Peter has an unfortunate projectile vomiting incident. It’s a disgusting, yet funny sight gag that works because it’s unexpected & Barry is such a humungous jerk. Jamie Pressley as Barry’s wife, Denise doesn’t seem to like Barry either. She’s very pretty, but Jamie is either stuck being type-cast, or, she doesn’t have the talent to play any other role than the bitchy wife.
I was hopeful with the casting of J.K. Simmons & Jane Curtin as Dad & Mom, but they really aren’t given any funny lines.
If I had to put my finger on the main reason Segel’s Sydney didn’t work for me, it would have to be that he doesn’t pick up his puppies poop & actually thinks it’s funny when others step in the crap. It seemed he purposely walked the dog on a main walkway, just so the pup wouldn’t have the choice of finding a discreet area to eliminate... I hate those people. Although this movie’s infatuation band is an improvement over Role Model’s Kiss tribute, it just doesn’t work at all. Hearing Rush’s ‘Tom Sawyer” & “Limelight” – probably my 2 favorite songs by them – butchered by Rudd & Segel isn’t my idea of entertainment – If I wanted to hear amateurs sing karaoke, I’d start watching American Idol... & that’s NOT going to happen.
But there is something about Paul Rudd that makes his projects seem better than they look on paper & despite all my little rants here, I didn’t totally dislike this film. It was an ‘okay’ fluff piece for an early Spring release...
For a movie that’s supposed to be about straight males, this film is more than a little gay. It’s almost like a ‘chick flick’, except that it does have a few comedic moments. Thanks to the likeable Paul Rudd, he overcomes the not-so-likeable Jason Segel. The best part about Segel’s performance is that he kept his pants on this time!
But scenes involving farting in a museum & ‘dudes’ that sit around talking about masturbating... well, let me just say that men from my era didn’t look at other guys’ butts, so we couldn’t tell if they were withholding gas & I have never cared what any of my male buddies whacking techniques are.
The premise as well is very chick flickie – Peter (Rudd) proposes to his girlfriend, Zooey (Rashida Jones) which sets off a discussion among Zooey’s girlfriends as to who Peter might ask to be his best man. They giggle over the fact that his best friend seems to be his mother. Peter’s younger brother is a gay man(Andy Samberg as Robbie) so naturally Peter asks him to set him up with prospective best man material. Adding to the 'eeww!' factor is when Reno 911’s Thomas Lennon ends his man date with Peter by sticking his tongue down Peter’s throat. This would have been slightly humorous if Peter had immediately backed away & let Frenchie know that he didn’t swing that way – Instead – in chick flick fashion - Peter takes all that Frenchie has to give & the tongue lingers inside Peter’s oral cavity for several seconds. To quote an old National Lampoon LP, “That’s Not Funny, That’s Sick!”
With Rudd in the starring role, it’s natural to compare this to “Role Models” & “I Love You, Man” just comes up short in almost every category. The only thing ‘ILY,M’ has in its favor is a delightful send up of a—holes with Jon Favreau’s total d-ckhead character, Barry. I have to admit the only scene that made me laugh out loud was when Peter has an unfortunate projectile vomiting incident. It’s a disgusting, yet funny sight gag that works because it’s unexpected & Barry is such a humungous jerk. Jamie Pressley as Barry’s wife, Denise doesn’t seem to like Barry either. She’s very pretty, but Jamie is either stuck being type-cast, or, she doesn’t have the talent to play any other role than the bitchy wife.
I was hopeful with the casting of J.K. Simmons & Jane Curtin as Dad & Mom, but they really aren’t given any funny lines.
If I had to put my finger on the main reason Segel’s Sydney didn’t work for me, it would have to be that he doesn’t pick up his puppies poop & actually thinks it’s funny when others step in the crap. It seemed he purposely walked the dog on a main walkway, just so the pup wouldn’t have the choice of finding a discreet area to eliminate... I hate those people. Although this movie’s infatuation band is an improvement over Role Model’s Kiss tribute, it just doesn’t work at all. Hearing Rush’s ‘Tom Sawyer” & “Limelight” – probably my 2 favorite songs by them – butchered by Rudd & Segel isn’t my idea of entertainment – If I wanted to hear amateurs sing karaoke, I’d start watching American Idol... & that’s NOT going to happen.
But there is something about Paul Rudd that makes his projects seem better than they look on paper & despite all my little rants here, I didn’t totally dislike this film. It was an ‘okay’ fluff piece for an early Spring release...
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
DUPLICITY
“DUPLICITY” (Clive Owen, Julia Roberts, Paul Giamatti & Tom Wilkinson)
A better actress in the female lead & you’d have a nifty, intelligent con flick here. Actually, this is a nifty, intelligent con flick which is saying something these days, because, even though it was easy to tell that the con had its flaws & there were already multiple twists in the plot that made you leery of just how many more twists were coming – I liked how it ended.
Clive Owen as Ray Koval; an ex-spy turned get rich quick schemer carries the film. Giamatti & Wilkinson as rival corporate bigwigs do command the screen (especially Giamatti) but they’re the icing on the cake, it is Owen’s character that keeps you interested in what’s taking place. Appearing at times to be highly intelligent & a step ahead of the rest, Ray also has his moments of looking like a complete idiot – seemingly being duped by Julia Roberts’ Claire; another ex-spy turned... well, we don’t really know what she is until the final scenes. Clive has the much more difficult role & simply makes Roberts look like an inferior actor.
The dialogue, as they like to say, is ‘snappy’, but even with the witty repartee the scenes with Ray & Claire are the ones that fall flat. I would liked to have seen Roberts switch roles with Carrie Preston, who plays a corporate secretary that Ray seduces to gain inside info on the company she works for. Carrie was pretty, spunky, naive & ultimately broken when discovering the cute doctor she met in the bar screwed her in more ways than one. The only problem then would have been, can Roberts handle the bit part? . . . My guess is no, she couldn’t.
To reveal too much of the plot would be spoiling the fun because ‘misleading’ is the key word to practically every scene. Other than Roberts, my only complaint would be the irritating ‘flashbacks’ – About every fifteen minutes up pops the dreaded ‘Two Months Earlier...’ caption. Followed by ‘Two Weeks Earlier’, ‘Two Days Earlier’, ‘Two Minutes Earlier’... Okay, I’m exaggerating, but you know what I mean. The things is, just like director Tony Gilroy’s first film, “Michael Clayton”, in the end it all comes together nicely & most of the questions are answered. But if it helps you to decide whether or not this movie might be one you’d want to see – here’s the layout in a nutshell... Mmmm, nut shells... In the beginning Gilroy created Ray & Claire; two corporate spies that have a brief history (she duped him years earlier) Ray convinces Clair that he won’t get fooled again & she reluctantly agrees to work with him. Claire works for Wilkinson’s company which is about to unleash a product that's guaranteed to make billions. Ray works for Giamatti’s company that may possibly go bankrupt if they don’t discover what this secret product is & steal it. There’s your basic premise, but it does become somewhat entangled as each flashback reveals more & more about what’s really going on between Ray & Claire. If you’re afraid because Owen & Giamatti teamed in the exceptionally dumb ‘Shoot ‘Em Up’, have no fear with ‘Duplicity’ – If anything this script may be a little TOO clever.
Now that I think of it, Owen & Roberts appeared in the exceptionally boring ‘Closer’, didn’t they? But Clive, at least, redeems himself – he is excellent; & Paul, Tom & Carrie all deliver top notched performances as well.
A better actress in the female lead & you’d have a nifty, intelligent con flick here. Actually, this is a nifty, intelligent con flick which is saying something these days, because, even though it was easy to tell that the con had its flaws & there were already multiple twists in the plot that made you leery of just how many more twists were coming – I liked how it ended.
Clive Owen as Ray Koval; an ex-spy turned get rich quick schemer carries the film. Giamatti & Wilkinson as rival corporate bigwigs do command the screen (especially Giamatti) but they’re the icing on the cake, it is Owen’s character that keeps you interested in what’s taking place. Appearing at times to be highly intelligent & a step ahead of the rest, Ray also has his moments of looking like a complete idiot – seemingly being duped by Julia Roberts’ Claire; another ex-spy turned... well, we don’t really know what she is until the final scenes. Clive has the much more difficult role & simply makes Roberts look like an inferior actor.
The dialogue, as they like to say, is ‘snappy’, but even with the witty repartee the scenes with Ray & Claire are the ones that fall flat. I would liked to have seen Roberts switch roles with Carrie Preston, who plays a corporate secretary that Ray seduces to gain inside info on the company she works for. Carrie was pretty, spunky, naive & ultimately broken when discovering the cute doctor she met in the bar screwed her in more ways than one. The only problem then would have been, can Roberts handle the bit part? . . . My guess is no, she couldn’t.
To reveal too much of the plot would be spoiling the fun because ‘misleading’ is the key word to practically every scene. Other than Roberts, my only complaint would be the irritating ‘flashbacks’ – About every fifteen minutes up pops the dreaded ‘Two Months Earlier...’ caption. Followed by ‘Two Weeks Earlier’, ‘Two Days Earlier’, ‘Two Minutes Earlier’... Okay, I’m exaggerating, but you know what I mean. The things is, just like director Tony Gilroy’s first film, “Michael Clayton”, in the end it all comes together nicely & most of the questions are answered. But if it helps you to decide whether or not this movie might be one you’d want to see – here’s the layout in a nutshell... Mmmm, nut shells... In the beginning Gilroy created Ray & Claire; two corporate spies that have a brief history (she duped him years earlier) Ray convinces Clair that he won’t get fooled again & she reluctantly agrees to work with him. Claire works for Wilkinson’s company which is about to unleash a product that's guaranteed to make billions. Ray works for Giamatti’s company that may possibly go bankrupt if they don’t discover what this secret product is & steal it. There’s your basic premise, but it does become somewhat entangled as each flashback reveals more & more about what’s really going on between Ray & Claire. If you’re afraid because Owen & Giamatti teamed in the exceptionally dumb ‘Shoot ‘Em Up’, have no fear with ‘Duplicity’ – If anything this script may be a little TOO clever.
Now that I think of it, Owen & Roberts appeared in the exceptionally boring ‘Closer’, didn’t they? But Clive, at least, redeems himself – he is excellent; & Paul, Tom & Carrie all deliver top notched performances as well.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
WATCHMEN
“WATCHMEN” (Billy Crudup, Jackie Earle Haley, Patrick Wilson, Malin Akerman & Matthew Goode)
Let me try to explain this film to the movie-goers from my generation (Born in 1960 or
earlier) . . . Xena, the Warrior Princess is in love with a Big Glowing Blue Rooster /
Don McLean (of ‘American Pie’ fame, not the ex-NBA player) dresses up like a gay hawk & has a secret crush on Xena /
Meanwhile, grown-up Danny Partridge is running around town doing Clint Eastwood impersonations with a gunny sack over his head /
Shaun Cassidy (Keith Partridge’s real-life brother) plays the smartest guy in the world &, like all effeminate Mensa members, is a master of martial arts /
Robert Downey, Jr.’s much less talented older brother plays ‘The Comedian’ who, oddly enough, doesn’t do or say anything remotely funny /
Later, when Danny Bonaduce is sent to prison, we are shocked to discover that the transgender loving punk turns out to be the baddest ass to ever set foot in prison; “I’m not locked in here with you, YOU’RE LOCKED IN HERE WITH ME!” Little Danny bellows after deep fat frying a large black inmate that was about to give him the shiv. Then after the inmates gain control of the prison (We’re not told how, it apparently isn’t one of those factors we needed to know) Kelly Leak, er, I mean, Danny Partridge pummels pro wrassler Haystack Calhoun & then flushes Kramer’s dwarf buddy from ‘Seinfeld’ like he was just another dump /
Finally, Bob Hope’s corpse plays Richard Milhous Nixon, the President that cares so much about mankind he’s re-elected 5 times... Yes, folks, this IS quite a far-fetched fantasy!
Yes, all of you comic book lovers can sneer & boo at your computer screens & mumble how this idiot writer doesn’t ‘get’ the underlying concept of what ‘Watchmen’ is really about, but I can only report what I perceive, & as I watched this 2 hour forty-five minute long fiasco unfold, the voices in my head kept yelling “Enough already!”
Enough of the graphic shots of the Big Glowing Blue Rooster; Dr. Long Island doesn’t wear pants – Okay! I get it! Let’s just show the nature lover from the waist up then! Enough of the gory scenes of violence created solely to appease the ‘slasher’ film crowd. Enough with these supposedly ‘normal’ humans that like to dress up like superheroes taking on dozens of armed gang members with just their bare hands & coming out victorious, & without a scratch. Does anyone actually feel ‘entertained’ by watching elongated fight scenes? The film constantly goes from super slo-mo to incredibly FF to stop action to normal speed to super slo-mo, FF, stop, normal; it does this so many times I lost count of how many Enough Already’s went off in my head.
The underlying plot of World War 3 looming between the Russians & the U.S. was intriguing, but NOT with America being the home of the Big Glowing Blue Rooster, the only actual Watchman with super powers - Unimaginatively enough brought about by a radiation experiment gone awry. BGBR (AKA Dr. Manhattan) has the ability to transport himself anywhere in the universe; grow as big as a mountain & obliterate human beings with a wave of his hand (Would have made more sense if he disintegrated people by shooting a ray from his mighty Blue Rooster, at least that would explain why he felt the need to have the thing poking out all of the time) So Dr. Manhattan is a walking invincible nuclear reactor with the ability to destroy the entire planet, should he choose... Why then, would the Soviet Union escalate the Cold War to Def-Con 1 proportions, knowing the U.S. had this ultimate weapon of mass destruction?
So the part of the film that showed some promise didn’t make any sense. I also liked the idea of ‘masked’ vigilantes (ala Batman) actually existing – the premise, as I understood it was that these costumed crime fighters were being assassinated one at a time & the Danny Partridge character, Rorschach was the only one concerned about it & the film would be about his attempts to both stay alive & unravel the mystery. Unfortunately it doesn’t live up to that promise. It is SO FAR OUT there, it’s silly. It would be different if it were set in the future – when people were so bored with comic book movie sequels that they decide to create their own real-life costumed heroes & then bring in the mystery of ‘Who is killing them off & why?’ – then you’ve got an intriguing concept on your hands, but being set in the 80’s detracts from the ‘fantasy’ – We KNOW none of this nonsense took place, so no, it was impossible to lose myself in the fantasy. Sorry, comic book fans, but this, the most celebrated comic book in the history of mankind, is a total failure as a film.
If I were to praise it at all, it would be to say it WAS ambitious – there’s no question about that & I’m sure those of you that enjoy this type of crap (Spiderman, X Men, Friday the 13th) will absolutely love this because there is plenty of mindless violence & unnecessary special effects to keep your eyes busy (That is as long as you like looking at Big Blue Roosters) But I walked away thinking it was written by someone with an over active imagination that doesn’t know when to back off & a director that pounds & pounds one outlandish scene after another into your brain thinking it will pass as entertainment.
Now, for the item that bugged me – Rorschach wears a sack over his head that continually changes from one ink blot to another – I thought that was clever – but they don’t explain how it does that – Nor how does Danny Bonaduce see thru it?
Is it explained in the comic book? & yes, people, they ARE comic books – If you want to divulge into your own fantasy world by calling them ‘graphic novels’, that of course is your privilege, but don’t expect the rest of us to humor you. If it’s a picture book where what the characters are saying is printed inside a balloon – it’s a comic book! Call them ‘Illustrated Stories’, I’ll go along with that – but don’t insult me by using the word novel. A co-worker (Who loved ‘Watchmen’) told me he heard that the film makers used the comic books as their storyboard. & if that’s the case – then you have to call every storyboard for every movie ever made a ‘graphic novel’. . . I rest my case.
Prior to this century the only comic book movie I liked was ‘Superman 2’. In the 21st century, I’ve liked 3 of them – ‘Batman Begins’, ‘Iron Man’ & ‘The Dark Knight’(over-rated though it be) That is why I gave ‘Watchmen’ a shot. I knew the basic premise & kept hearing how it ‘wasn’t for kids’ - & yet there were plenty of them in the theatre – what does that tell you about modern day parents? “A violent comic book movie with swearing & nudity? Sure, kids, I’ll take you to see THAT!”
Let me try to explain this film to the movie-goers from my generation (Born in 1960 or
earlier) . . . Xena, the Warrior Princess is in love with a Big Glowing Blue Rooster /
Don McLean (of ‘American Pie’ fame, not the ex-NBA player) dresses up like a gay hawk & has a secret crush on Xena /
Meanwhile, grown-up Danny Partridge is running around town doing Clint Eastwood impersonations with a gunny sack over his head /
Shaun Cassidy (Keith Partridge’s real-life brother) plays the smartest guy in the world &, like all effeminate Mensa members, is a master of martial arts /
Robert Downey, Jr.’s much less talented older brother plays ‘The Comedian’ who, oddly enough, doesn’t do or say anything remotely funny /
Later, when Danny Bonaduce is sent to prison, we are shocked to discover that the transgender loving punk turns out to be the baddest ass to ever set foot in prison; “I’m not locked in here with you, YOU’RE LOCKED IN HERE WITH ME!” Little Danny bellows after deep fat frying a large black inmate that was about to give him the shiv. Then after the inmates gain control of the prison (We’re not told how, it apparently isn’t one of those factors we needed to know) Kelly Leak, er, I mean, Danny Partridge pummels pro wrassler Haystack Calhoun & then flushes Kramer’s dwarf buddy from ‘Seinfeld’ like he was just another dump /
Finally, Bob Hope’s corpse plays Richard Milhous Nixon, the President that cares so much about mankind he’s re-elected 5 times... Yes, folks, this IS quite a far-fetched fantasy!
Yes, all of you comic book lovers can sneer & boo at your computer screens & mumble how this idiot writer doesn’t ‘get’ the underlying concept of what ‘Watchmen’ is really about, but I can only report what I perceive, & as I watched this 2 hour forty-five minute long fiasco unfold, the voices in my head kept yelling “Enough already!”
Enough of the graphic shots of the Big Glowing Blue Rooster; Dr. Long Island doesn’t wear pants – Okay! I get it! Let’s just show the nature lover from the waist up then! Enough of the gory scenes of violence created solely to appease the ‘slasher’ film crowd. Enough with these supposedly ‘normal’ humans that like to dress up like superheroes taking on dozens of armed gang members with just their bare hands & coming out victorious, & without a scratch. Does anyone actually feel ‘entertained’ by watching elongated fight scenes? The film constantly goes from super slo-mo to incredibly FF to stop action to normal speed to super slo-mo, FF, stop, normal; it does this so many times I lost count of how many Enough Already’s went off in my head.
The underlying plot of World War 3 looming between the Russians & the U.S. was intriguing, but NOT with America being the home of the Big Glowing Blue Rooster, the only actual Watchman with super powers - Unimaginatively enough brought about by a radiation experiment gone awry. BGBR (AKA Dr. Manhattan) has the ability to transport himself anywhere in the universe; grow as big as a mountain & obliterate human beings with a wave of his hand (Would have made more sense if he disintegrated people by shooting a ray from his mighty Blue Rooster, at least that would explain why he felt the need to have the thing poking out all of the time) So Dr. Manhattan is a walking invincible nuclear reactor with the ability to destroy the entire planet, should he choose... Why then, would the Soviet Union escalate the Cold War to Def-Con 1 proportions, knowing the U.S. had this ultimate weapon of mass destruction?
So the part of the film that showed some promise didn’t make any sense. I also liked the idea of ‘masked’ vigilantes (ala Batman) actually existing – the premise, as I understood it was that these costumed crime fighters were being assassinated one at a time & the Danny Partridge character, Rorschach was the only one concerned about it & the film would be about his attempts to both stay alive & unravel the mystery. Unfortunately it doesn’t live up to that promise. It is SO FAR OUT there, it’s silly. It would be different if it were set in the future – when people were so bored with comic book movie sequels that they decide to create their own real-life costumed heroes & then bring in the mystery of ‘Who is killing them off & why?’ – then you’ve got an intriguing concept on your hands, but being set in the 80’s detracts from the ‘fantasy’ – We KNOW none of this nonsense took place, so no, it was impossible to lose myself in the fantasy. Sorry, comic book fans, but this, the most celebrated comic book in the history of mankind, is a total failure as a film.
If I were to praise it at all, it would be to say it WAS ambitious – there’s no question about that & I’m sure those of you that enjoy this type of crap (Spiderman, X Men, Friday the 13th) will absolutely love this because there is plenty of mindless violence & unnecessary special effects to keep your eyes busy (That is as long as you like looking at Big Blue Roosters) But I walked away thinking it was written by someone with an over active imagination that doesn’t know when to back off & a director that pounds & pounds one outlandish scene after another into your brain thinking it will pass as entertainment.
Now, for the item that bugged me – Rorschach wears a sack over his head that continually changes from one ink blot to another – I thought that was clever – but they don’t explain how it does that – Nor how does Danny Bonaduce see thru it?
Is it explained in the comic book? & yes, people, they ARE comic books – If you want to divulge into your own fantasy world by calling them ‘graphic novels’, that of course is your privilege, but don’t expect the rest of us to humor you. If it’s a picture book where what the characters are saying is printed inside a balloon – it’s a comic book! Call them ‘Illustrated Stories’, I’ll go along with that – but don’t insult me by using the word novel. A co-worker (Who loved ‘Watchmen’) told me he heard that the film makers used the comic books as their storyboard. & if that’s the case – then you have to call every storyboard for every movie ever made a ‘graphic novel’. . . I rest my case.
Prior to this century the only comic book movie I liked was ‘Superman 2’. In the 21st century, I’ve liked 3 of them – ‘Batman Begins’, ‘Iron Man’ & ‘The Dark Knight’(over-rated though it be) That is why I gave ‘Watchmen’ a shot. I knew the basic premise & kept hearing how it ‘wasn’t for kids’ - & yet there were plenty of them in the theatre – what does that tell you about modern day parents? “A violent comic book movie with swearing & nudity? Sure, kids, I’ll take you to see THAT!”
Thursday, February 19, 2009
OSCAR PREDICTIONS, ETC.
Not real gung ho about the Academy Awards this year, only a handful of films & performances I liked are up for trophies, but since I've been asked here's what
I think/hope will happen (Sometimes I just can't separate what I want from what
I predict!)
BEST PICTURE : I simply can't pick the odds on favorite when "The CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON" was so vastly superior to the other nominees. A part of me actually believes that 'BB' is more the type of film the Academy feels is 'Best Picture' worthy than the low budget/amateurish 'Slumdog', so my prediction & my hope is for
"BENJAMIN BUTTON"
BEST ACTOR : SEAN PENN. It's as simply as this - he isn't a gay man, just he played this part without a hint of hetero in him - the competition played a steroid abusing freak, which is what the actor is in real life. Should be no contest. Again predicting who I want - SEAN PENN.
BEST ACTRESS : I've seen enough of the B.S. to convince me they are going to give it to KATE WINSLET, which is a shame. I think ANGELINA JOLIE deserves it. & MERYL STREEP gave the best performance of her career in 'Doubt'. But unfortunately I believe the Academy will give it to KATE WINSLET because she wasn't Gawdawful in 'The Reader'.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR : HEATH LEDGER Will win/deserves to win.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS : Wow, what a dog category this is! I'm going with PENELOPE CRUZ simply because she was in a Woody Allen film & its been a while since Oscar has smiled on one of its favorite over-rated sons. If I were selecting from these 5 nominees, I'd give it to AMY ADAMS, hands down. I liked Taraji P. Henson as well, but DOUBT's cast deserves a win.
DIRECTOR : It's a toss-up, but I'm going against the norm (Best Picture/Best Director
go hand-in-hand) & I'm going to say they give THIS award to DANNY BOYLE, even though DAVID FINCHER made a much, much better film...
RATING THE NOMINEES. (If they're not listed, I didn't see the performance)
PICTURE #1 BENJAMIN BUTTON #2 MILK #3 FROST/NIXON #4 The READER #5 SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE
ACTOR #1 SEAN PENN #2 RICHARD JENKINS #3 FRANK LANGELLA #4 BRAD PITT
ACTRESS #1 ANGELINA JOLIE #2 MERYL STREEP #3 ANNE HATHAWAY #4 KATE WINSLET
SUPP. ACTOR #1 HEATH LEDGER #2 ROBERT DOWNEY, JR. #3 PHILIP SEYMOUR HOFFMAN
#4 MICHAEL SHANNON #5 JOSH BROLIN
DIRECTOR #1 DAVID FINCHER #2 RON HOWARD #3 DANNY BOYLE #4 GUS VAN SANT
#5 STEPHEN DALDRY (Reasons - Fincher made a remarkable film to watch / Howard took a dull story & somehow made it interesting / Boyle's film was ambitious, even though I didn't care for it / Van Sant focused too much on 'Gay Rights' & not enough on Harvey's relationship with his eventual murderer / Daldry took a great story & made it difficutl to watch pedophilic porn - blows my mind that he's nominated & Clint Eastwood, who made two of the best films of the year isn't.
OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD & PUT MY LAME PICKS OUT THERE - Get ready to scoff, because a lot of these films were not well received by the critics...
IF IT WERE MY JOB TO NAME THE 5 NOMINEES IN THE MAJOR CATEGORIES, THEY WOULD BE...
BEST PICTURE: AUSTRALIA / CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON / DEFIANCE / DOUBT / GRAN TORINO
ACTOR : DANIEL CRAIG (Defiance) / PHILIP SEYMOUR HOFFMAN* (Doubt) / HUGH JACKMAN (Australia) / RICHARD JENKINS (The Visitor) / SEAN PENN (Milk)
*He was the co-star of that film, let's be honest
ACTRESS : I have no problem with the 5 actual nominees, I wouldn't change them.
SUPP. ACTOR : ROBERT DOWNEY, JR. (Tropic Thunder) / BRENDAN GLEESON (In Bruges) /
HEATH LEDGER (The Dark Knight) / BILL NIGHY (Valkyrie) / MICHAEL SHANNON (Revolutionary Road)
SUPP. ACTRESS : HIAM ABBASS (The Visitor) / AMY ADAMS (Doubt) / TARAJI P. HENSON (Benjamin Button) / FRANCIS McDORMANT (Burn After Reading) / BETTE MIDLER (Then She Found Me)
DIRECTOR : CLINT EASTWOOD (Changeling/Gran Torino) / DAVID FINCHER (Benjamin Button) / BAZ LUHRMANN (Australia) / JOHN PATRICK SHANLEY (Doubt) / EDWARD ZWICK (Defiance)
BEST CARTOON - I liked BOLT much more than WALL-E (Though the latter will win)
BEST DOCUMENTARY - Wasn't even nominated! 'RELIGULOUS' is trhe best doc I've ever seen - enlightening & laugh-out-loud humorous. See it, America, we need to start wising up in this country.
I welcome your comments - ridicule my picks, I won't care. I liked what you disliked & I gave my reasons - I disliked what you liked & I had my reasons, so before you lash out at me, please read the review & tell me where you think I unfairly judged something you enjoyed. In the end, we all have different tastes & we're allowed to have differing opinions. All in all, it was a weak year, but not as weak as the Oscar nominees make it appear! I will say, if Sean Penn wins, I'll be happy & will continue to watch future Oscar shows; If he doesn't win... bye,bye Lard-Oscar!
If you don't want to go 'public' on the blog, you can get a personal response from me at TDReid523@aol.com
I think/hope will happen (Sometimes I just can't separate what I want from what
I predict!)
BEST PICTURE : I simply can't pick the odds on favorite when "The CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON" was so vastly superior to the other nominees. A part of me actually believes that 'BB' is more the type of film the Academy feels is 'Best Picture' worthy than the low budget/amateurish 'Slumdog', so my prediction & my hope is for
"BENJAMIN BUTTON"
BEST ACTOR : SEAN PENN. It's as simply as this - he isn't a gay man, just he played this part without a hint of hetero in him - the competition played a steroid abusing freak, which is what the actor is in real life. Should be no contest. Again predicting who I want - SEAN PENN.
BEST ACTRESS : I've seen enough of the B.S. to convince me they are going to give it to KATE WINSLET, which is a shame. I think ANGELINA JOLIE deserves it. & MERYL STREEP gave the best performance of her career in 'Doubt'. But unfortunately I believe the Academy will give it to KATE WINSLET because she wasn't Gawdawful in 'The Reader'.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR : HEATH LEDGER Will win/deserves to win.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS : Wow, what a dog category this is! I'm going with PENELOPE CRUZ simply because she was in a Woody Allen film & its been a while since Oscar has smiled on one of its favorite over-rated sons. If I were selecting from these 5 nominees, I'd give it to AMY ADAMS, hands down. I liked Taraji P. Henson as well, but DOUBT's cast deserves a win.
DIRECTOR : It's a toss-up, but I'm going against the norm (Best Picture/Best Director
go hand-in-hand) & I'm going to say they give THIS award to DANNY BOYLE, even though DAVID FINCHER made a much, much better film...
RATING THE NOMINEES. (If they're not listed, I didn't see the performance)
PICTURE #1 BENJAMIN BUTTON #2 MILK #3 FROST/NIXON #4 The READER #5 SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE
ACTOR #1 SEAN PENN #2 RICHARD JENKINS #3 FRANK LANGELLA #4 BRAD PITT
ACTRESS #1 ANGELINA JOLIE #2 MERYL STREEP #3 ANNE HATHAWAY #4 KATE WINSLET
SUPP. ACTOR #1 HEATH LEDGER #2 ROBERT DOWNEY, JR. #3 PHILIP SEYMOUR HOFFMAN
#4 MICHAEL SHANNON #5 JOSH BROLIN
DIRECTOR #1 DAVID FINCHER #2 RON HOWARD #3 DANNY BOYLE #4 GUS VAN SANT
#5 STEPHEN DALDRY (Reasons - Fincher made a remarkable film to watch / Howard took a dull story & somehow made it interesting / Boyle's film was ambitious, even though I didn't care for it / Van Sant focused too much on 'Gay Rights' & not enough on Harvey's relationship with his eventual murderer / Daldry took a great story & made it difficutl to watch pedophilic porn - blows my mind that he's nominated & Clint Eastwood, who made two of the best films of the year isn't.
OKAY, LET'S GO AHEAD & PUT MY LAME PICKS OUT THERE - Get ready to scoff, because a lot of these films were not well received by the critics...
IF IT WERE MY JOB TO NAME THE 5 NOMINEES IN THE MAJOR CATEGORIES, THEY WOULD BE...
BEST PICTURE: AUSTRALIA / CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON / DEFIANCE / DOUBT / GRAN TORINO
ACTOR : DANIEL CRAIG (Defiance) / PHILIP SEYMOUR HOFFMAN* (Doubt) / HUGH JACKMAN (Australia) / RICHARD JENKINS (The Visitor) / SEAN PENN (Milk)
*He was the co-star of that film, let's be honest
ACTRESS : I have no problem with the 5 actual nominees, I wouldn't change them.
SUPP. ACTOR : ROBERT DOWNEY, JR. (Tropic Thunder) / BRENDAN GLEESON (In Bruges) /
HEATH LEDGER (The Dark Knight) / BILL NIGHY (Valkyrie) / MICHAEL SHANNON (Revolutionary Road)
SUPP. ACTRESS : HIAM ABBASS (The Visitor) / AMY ADAMS (Doubt) / TARAJI P. HENSON (Benjamin Button) / FRANCIS McDORMANT (Burn After Reading) / BETTE MIDLER (Then She Found Me)
DIRECTOR : CLINT EASTWOOD (Changeling/Gran Torino) / DAVID FINCHER (Benjamin Button) / BAZ LUHRMANN (Australia) / JOHN PATRICK SHANLEY (Doubt) / EDWARD ZWICK (Defiance)
BEST CARTOON - I liked BOLT much more than WALL-E (Though the latter will win)
BEST DOCUMENTARY - Wasn't even nominated! 'RELIGULOUS' is trhe best doc I've ever seen - enlightening & laugh-out-loud humorous. See it, America, we need to start wising up in this country.
I welcome your comments - ridicule my picks, I won't care. I liked what you disliked & I gave my reasons - I disliked what you liked & I had my reasons, so before you lash out at me, please read the review & tell me where you think I unfairly judged something you enjoyed. In the end, we all have different tastes & we're allowed to have differing opinions. All in all, it was a weak year, but not as weak as the Oscar nominees make it appear! I will say, if Sean Penn wins, I'll be happy & will continue to watch future Oscar shows; If he doesn't win... bye,bye Lard-Oscar!
If you don't want to go 'public' on the blog, you can get a personal response from me at TDReid523@aol.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)