Showing posts with label movies and tv. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movies and tv. Show all posts
Disclaimer: I am not a movie critic. Just a girl who watches movies occasionally and sometimes shares. So I'm not going to talk about the artsy side of the movie, like the angles and things, unless I am particularly moved by them. I am all about the plot and the story and character development. Feel free to disagree with me and know that I apathetically embrace your thoughts. :) Also, I try not to include spoilers but I can't promise anything...
After hearing definitively that Taken was an action/thriller type and not a creepy/I'll-sleep-with-the-light on type, we rented it last weekend. And quite enjoyed it. While it's a scary real-life type situation, I liked the fast action and the fact that the movie is short and sweet (as long as Liam Neeson shamelessly wreaking havoc on criminals is sweet to you) at only 93 minutes.
Mark LOVED the action. If you hate when the good guy doesn't win every fight definitively, you will also love it. Mark (and I quote) "loved it because the good guy never got beat and always kicked the trash out of everyone." That's not even an exaggeration. This movie is all about Liam Neeson's "set of skills" that help him kick some major bad guy booty. Quite satisfying, actually.
The storyline, however, not quite as satisfying. Overall, the plot is solid. Liam Neeson's daughter is kidnapped and he spends the rest of the movie hunting her down (which you learn from the trailers). It's a scary concept to think about, but not close enough to home that I couldn't enjoy the movie for the action and Liam Neeson. :) But, the story isn't compelling enough that I would have felt like I missed something if I had stopped halfway through. The daughter is kind of a self-centered brat, so at some point, I figured it wasn't worth it to save her... Does that make me a terrible person?
Final review: B+. Worth $1 at Redbox, but probably not worth a "real" rental in my book.
First off, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs (the movie) is almost nothing like Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs (the book). I have never particularly enjoyed the book; I really enjoyed the movie. My husband loves the book (and anything to do with weather); he loved the movie. This is one of the very few instances when you'll hear me say that I liked the movie more than the book...
The book version of Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs is a story told to two children by their grandfather and, in my opinion, it's kind of dull and more than just a little anticlimactic: the big food comes, and everyone leaves the island, never to return.
The movie version of Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs is so much more! The writers kept only the basic concept (food falling from the sky) and liberally applied creative license to result in a cute and downright funny movie: Flint Lockwood is an inventor who can just never seem to get his inventions quite right: the remote control TV that walks out the front door, ratbirds, spray-on shoes (to solve the untied shoe epidemic, of course). He invents a machine that turns water into food, which accidentally gets launched into the sky above his hometown, showering the town with food.
My husband and I both thoroughly enjoyed this movie, as did the in-laws. I was excited to show the movie to my nieces, ages 4, 6, and 7, thinking that they would laugh through the movie just like all of us [grown-ups] had. To my surprise, they didn't laugh at all. Not once. They enjoyed the movie, but they really missed out on most of the comedy and, in some places, had a hard time understanding what was going on.
Final word: B+. A great movie, which we will buy. Best for older audiences, probably 10 and up, who will understand the humor.
Inkheart is a phenomenal story. Unfortunately, it stars Brendan Fraser and has a jumpy plot and shaky cinematography.
I think Brendan Fraser is a talented actor, but his talents lie mostly in being a grunting oaf (George of the Jungle) or a troglodyte (Encino Man). That's not a dis on Fraser -- I happen to have enjoyed each of those movies in its own right. :) As Inkheart's leading character, Mo Folchart, his talents fall short.
Mo Folchart is a silvertongue: when he reads aloud, the book comes to life. Part of the book. Characters, treasures, events. Mo can't control which part of the book, and when something comes out of the book, something from life goes in to the book.
When his daughter, Meggie (played by Eliza Bennett), is young, he reads aloud from the book Inkheart, not fully comprehending his silvertongue powers. As he reads, characters from the book, including the villain Capricorn, come out and his wife, Resa, goes in. The story of Inkheart (the movie) picks up 10 or so years later, with Mo spending all of his time searching for another copy of Inkheart (the book) with his daughter Meggie, who doesn't remember what happened to her mother.
In his search for the book, Mo finds another character that he has read out of the book, Dustfinger, a fire-eater who only wants Mo to put him back in the book where his family is. Dustfinger, Mo, and Meggie become part of a great adventure to find Resa, return Dustfinger, and defeat Capricorn, who is bent on bringing as much evil as possible into this new modern world that he is enjoying so much.
Like I said earlier, I love the story and all that it could be. The movie adaptation is, I think, lacking the finer detail that must be found in the book. The plot jumps and seems inconsistent at times, as if details found in the novel were left out for time's sake. And, as I mentioned, the cinematography is shaky--literally. There are too many strobe light-esque scenes for me, and often the cinematography detracts from what is actually going on in the movie. Seeing this movie made me resolve to read to book to experience the story as Cornelia Funke, the novel's author, intended.
Final word: C. I'd recommend reading the book over renting the movie, even though I've yet to actually read the book. If you must rent it, diminish your losses by redboxing it for $1.
Author's note: Before reading this post, you should know two things about me:
My Life in Ruins is a romantic comedy starring Nia Vardalos and Richard Dreyfuss (not starring opposite each other, thankfully). It runs 95 minutes, which is exactly how much of your life you will waste if you, like I, decide to use your free redbox rental on this random movie that you've never heard of.
Final word: D-. (I don't give Fs.) Don't waste even your free redbox rental.
Read more from this post in Beauty follower »
- It really bothers me to stop watching a movie in the middle, even if it's a terrible movie.
- I always give the synopsis on the back of the movie case the benefit of the doubt.
From Nia Vardalos, writer and star of My Big Fat Greek Wedding, comes the uplifting comedy My Life in Ruins. Georgia (Nia Vardalos) has lost her kefi (Greek for “mojo”). Discouraged by her lack of direction in life, she works as a travel guide, leading a rag-tag group of tourists as she tries to show them the beauty of her native Greece while waiting to land her dream job. Opening their eyes to an exotic foreign land, she too begins to see things in new ways—finding her kefi and possibly love in the process. --© Fox SearchlightIn short, this movie stank. And I have a very high tolerance for crummy movies, especially dumb chick flicks. Even for me, this movie was too much. I can't even find the words to describe how each vital part of it was so bad. The plot, the character development, the romance -- it's all stale and ultimately charmless. The only redeeming aspect of this movie was the beautiful scenery, which, unfortunately, often appears to be green-screened in. [It's not actually -- this was the first movie in over 50 years that the Greek government gave permission to film at the Acropolis because "they thought that it would help to promote Greek culture" (from IMDB, however reliable you deem that) Talk about FAIL.]
Final word: D-. (I don't give Fs.) Don't waste even your free redbox rental.
Posts
