2009

Geez... what the fuck was this? Too embarrassed to buy porn? why not just get this at Best Buy? My god, What didn't they show in here? I completely lost it when she blew an 80-year-old man in a coma. Fuck, this movie was awful! I can see why it was a straight to video release... it just ruined my day.

[this is only a rough draft]

This is not a love story; it's a love intervention. Not a line from the movie' it was only my interpretation. I know that this is a movie undeserving of a full acknowledgment. That might explain the nudge from Sundance to a limited release. I had a 3-hour drive just to see a 100-minute movie. My view is that it is never worth the sight if the ride takes longer than the experience. But that was the purpose of this movie; the overwhelming feelings that rise up after decades of wandering and confusion; the feeling that emphasizes only one feeling and enates a desire to obsess in fiction and ignore reality. I apologize for the lame poetic turn I stated rambling about. That's just my way of relating to the movie.

Right up front, I was excited from the first trailer, teaser, that was just of interest from an artsy title. I honestly had no idea what it was going to be about. This was just before watching the teaser online at hulu. Trailers were promoted in a box, so I said what the heck. After that brief look into the plot, I was overseeing the visuals and ignoring everything else. That was a mistake. Once trailer 2 was out, which I saw probably 2 weeks before its release, I grew more anxious to see it and changed my vision slightly, expecting a Big Fish genre of a tale. Different outcome, but not disappointing.

I haven't explained anything about anything in this movie; personal feelings arose is all. Onwards: I wasn't very pleased with the cast. There's Joseph Gordon-Levitt, the teen star best known for 3rd Rock from the Sun and 10 Things I Hate About You. Then the blue-eyed cutie-beauty with a straight line of emotional behavior, Zooey Deschanel. I was surprised to see the attitudes of the leads work with eachother.

Now, the acting was nothing impressive. The characters barely expressed themselves outwardly. The real impulses came from the emotional clearance backing up who they are and were always. It's what's going on inside of them. On the male half, there's the child grown to embrace love, writing catchy card phrases for 4 years, wanting more, but trapped in a bubble of expectations. On the female side, abandoned of love since childhood, unaware what it is and if there is any at all; the pessimist looking for nothing more than a fun ride in a relationship.

I make it seem like there's two stories going on here, and in a way there is, but it mostly centered on the perspective of what love and heartbreak does to us. how it's resolved, and strange directions it takes without us knowing.

It implied the one who distances their self from a person in love is a bitch. You'd think it too, and probably have. The truth is that they don't want to hurt, they just don't know what they want. But soon it clicks.

The greatest aspect and most noticeable characteristic was the editing. A fantastic job by Alan Edward Bell. The story was told in an anachronism and the editing helped it in a way that showed a before/after effect with separate segments, or Days in this case.

The ending was not the way to expect it to end. The darker Gordon-Levitt got out of a caring error, the more his outcome seemed obvious. It was a tough end that was a bitter-sweet conversation between the two. But is covered up at the last moment for a cheesy climax. I was fine with it but not entirely tolerant.

If you wind up seeing this and think it wasn't any good because you were offended, bored, clueless, didn't or any other trivial reason, think back to what I pointed out earlier; "We don't have fancy quality. We have true quality."

I'm speechless. I absolutely loved this movie. 2009 just got better with District 9. Dramtic, Explosive, Exhillerating, Mad, Gorey, Disturbing, Tense, Beautiful and Brilliant. This is the way an extra-terrstial film needed to be done.

This film had no big names attached to it other than Peter Jackson. It was a clean slate for acting. And even in the case of how ridiculous a character can be in a Sci-Fi picture, Sharlto Copley as Wikus was molding and cracked perfectly. For a new name to the screen, he gave a remarkable performance and without doubt one of the best of the year.

(new review coming soon...)

I can't believe this, but I actually kinda liked this movie. For once, Seth Rogen is a likeable character. Adam Sandler was a complete asshole on the other hand. This movie tried unlike other Apatow films to be more of a drama. Sure, this was a comedy too, but I could tell it was being different and more sincere. And, this ain't the typical Sandler movie. Even though he goes that obnoxious high-pitched squawk, ya know, the drunk Billy Madison voice? Anyway, he was just the same as he was in Chuck and Larry, but even more of an asshole. What made me avoid that was fucked his life was and would always seem to turn out. Leslie Mann was just a little better than the disasters she's done in the past. She can't act, and it almost was apparent that that was the point to get around for her character. I say, see this movie if you like Rogen or Sandler. If you don't, at least give it a shot. You may hate it, you may like it. It doesn't matter, it's a movie, just amuse yourself. Keep in mind that this film clocks in at about 2-and-a-half hours. It's a tedious sit through. On a side note, there are too mny oddly placed celeb cameos from those who have faded from the world of entertainment. And to cherry it, "cock" was the most numerous word and topic choice of dialog. But, what made this more suitable for Apatow was all the vulgar language and sexual remarks he'd write into a movie, or looked for in a movie flow out naturally in here, since it is about stand-up comedians.

thats all i have to say for now... and if im not too lazy while im still doing nothing, ill get back to this unlike the 100 others i left incomplete.

Wow... could it be more predictable. I mean, this was not at all unique. Take maybe the plot of 3 or 4 chick-flicks and pop 'em in here to get one weird interpretation of a love triangle revolving around a lovecrazy, quirky, gulliable girl in over her head on the game that toys with all our emotional needs. I don't think "lovew triangle is a good enough term... is was more like a love octogon. It just wasn't that could be seen as its own kind of genre or subgenre. By the end, you're just left wondering what to really think about the characters' perspective. Too many stories are linked together, but never is a clear messege brought from it. I don't know, that could be its own intent; leaving the audience to decide for themselves. The way I see it, it was vague.

[... More is expected to come...]

Not in the least bit humorous. I was actually looking forward to I Love You, Man, being enthralled by the trailer, thinking this to be a fun comedy no matter how stupid it seemed. But nope! As usual I was disappointed. I really had hopes for this... just realizing now my mistake. How Paul Rudd and Jason Segal looked like the perfect couple (without reference to homosexuality - Again stated: Nothing's wrong with that, just covering my statement). In actuality, they were dull and chaffed. And that will be the first of my criticism.

So, I love You, Man is about a newly engaged man that has always been found-of by the ladies and has never had a true guy friend. It's hard for him to just jump in meeting new men (and as I write on, yes, they will be much reference, yet again, of homosexuality, which was the film's intent for humor, without it revolving around the matter or directly displaying it, all because it's aimed with two straight men being friends, even if the fourth wall supplies a different take) and which begins the plot. After several failures for meets, set up by his mother and online friend finders, he gives up only to find the friend he's been looking for his whole life in, of all places for his fortune, his open house for former Hulk television star, Lou Ferrignol, and unaware.
This is just the tip of the ice berg. Peter's fiance becomes too concerned that he's spending time and time after time with his new pal and near none with her.

At first, I just felt sorry for Peter (Rudd). His quirky, desperate attitude only got him less respect from his own sex. Luckily it didn't last. There are just some guys out there tolerable and encouraging of that behavior. That's where Sydney (Segal) comes in.

"You haven't seen a war film until you see it through the eyes of Quentin Tarantino." Very true and I can accept this pre-thought premotion from the Basterds teaser.

I never have a keen attitude towards Tarantino films. I would think his films were just ways to be a bigot through the media by breeding stereotypical dialog into conversation based sequences. Even though this brought out a number of it I was able to find another path taken. The dialog wasn't trying to be comical, and if it did it was unintentional, but the true nature of it all is how it shows itself as different.

Most of the film is subtitled and while it may be a frustrating matter to read instead of watch a movie, it's what gave life to the story. Through the translations, swearing was rarely used and details were covered that would make it easier to remember and foreshadow.

Let me get to the main convention of Inglourious Basterds, Christoph Waltz. His performance was beyond incredible. He was despicable, crude, maniacally, charming, comical, and a basterd. Honestly, acting is at its best with Waltz stting an example. While the Basteds themselves weren't quite so flexible, it's noted that they weren't on the screen so much either. Waltz was the star of this film and had to be as chamile as can be. It was hard enough having to go through four languages as an actor, but that seemed like meer child's play to him. Alongside Tarantino movies, Waltz beats out Samuel L. Jackson in Pulp Fiction.

Like I mentioned earlier, the title characters, the Basterds, weren't in most of the film. What may be a deceit for movie-goers was actually their own error. The basterds were in fact the center of the film. I'm talking about the Nazis and the characters that were affected by them. Get it? The Nazis are the basterds. That is what I loved about this film; how ambigous every aspect was.

...this may very well be another flick of Quentin's to just throw out the attire of moving picture - purpose being to "move" - and lay out meaningless phrases to be quoted or dissected



more will be on its way...

One of the most bizzare films of the year. Still, it was a true cinematic spectical. I love to see movies where the story is one character and the use he makes of his existance. My only rebuttle was the draggy and unusual points that almost appeared to make no sense what so ever. Great flick to catch. Good use of limited resources in a low budgeted picture.

Why do i get the feeling this is a remake?

okay, so you got a bald Cameron Diaz that i thought would be in most of the film, but its just a random splice that shows how much a mother cares for her daughter's well-being. Yeah, Cameron was obsessed over her the whole time. She came off as kind of a bitch. This movie was trying too hard to be dramatic. and eneding up being overdramitic to the point where the acting was just as bad as the editing.

whatever i mean by that.... it was a dub, and nothing special to watch.

Graphic, boring, and not the least bit funny. A weak plot with a gullible, pretentious character. The R-rated Paul Blart.

not my cup-of-tea, but the kiddies will love it.

Didn't plan on making a review... so I won't.

Just some insight:

I am not exaggerating here, this is the first movie done again. If I could tag this a logo like Fast & Furious, it might read - Same Movie, Same Plot"

Oh, sorry, I meant "No Plot"

Also, the dialog was at its weakest... awful one-liners followed by a joke. Is Michael Bay trying to make his movies comedies. Well, they were always lacking any drama, coming off as humorous unintentionally. It's not funny, but it looks like it was trying to be.

Oh boy, there are too many moments to count where the camera circles a character for like 2 minutes. I was getting dizzy. And to top it all off, Megan Fox is shwn running in slow-motion maybe 5 times. I'm starting to think that Bay made this movie specifically for pubescent 10-year-olds. I think Bay just wanted to make a movie with Megan Fox acting as sexual as possible in a PG-13 rated level and to get away with it, he thought "Hmmm... perhaps I should add explosions just to cover this up, but how? Oh I know, I'll steal another idea. But what? TRANSFORMERS!"

This movie was like watching a serial killer play with toys and light them on fire at a strip club.

I almost couldn't stand this movie for the first hour in. This film ran on cheap dialog and quick jokes. But what an adventure it turned out to be. Beautiful cinematography, nutty characters, heartbreaking backstory, and just fun. I hated the dogs. Those little talking snouts were obviously aimed at the kiddies. What made this such a pleasure was the intensity of Christopher Plummer's voice and adaption he gave his character. He transformed an old toot into a ravage beast of a man. I was absolutely astounded.

more will come....