This Is 40:
Story:
Two parents deal with having to mature, as well as their own personal problems.
Review:
Before I start this review I am going to state that my opinion is biased in that I love any movie directed by Judd Apatow. He is one of those few filmmakers that actually knows how to turn a serious situation into a humorous one, even if the humour is somewhat immature. This Is 40 is a perfect example of that.
What I liked the most:
1. Consistent humor.
Every scene is an ongoing bundle of laughs. There were even some scenes that went right up to the edge between funny and disgusting and still managed to be extremely humorous. Even the moments that should have been depressing were funny.
2. Everyone put full effort into their acting.
Even Megan Fox. Yeah, the eye candy from Transformers -and that odd Intel commercial with the dolphins- actually did a good job. Who knew?
3. The story.
I have to admit, it's one of those cliched stories that countless other movies have done. This Is 40 makes the exception of being that movie that does it more humorously than seriously, and pulls it off amazingly.
What I liked the least:
1. The editing.
While every scene is funny, and I felt that This Is 40 was an overall good movie, I think they could have made it just a bit shorter. Some scenes were unnecessary and did absolutely nothing for the characters, while others simply felt like they were added on to squeeze as many laughs out as possible. I don't exactly mind that a lot perse, but it did make the movie just a tiny bit less of a good movie than it could have been.
Who I recommend This Is 40 to:
Stoners, people who like mostly immature humour, and everyone who likes Judd Apatow movies. For most people they're in two of those categories if not three.
---
Django Unchained:
Story:
Django, a slave, is rescued by King Schultz, a bounty hunter masquerading as a dentist. Together they embark on a journey to rescue Brunhilda, Django's wife, from the clutches of Calvin Candie.
Review:
Quentin Tarantino is yet another movie director that I have a positively biased opinion of. I love his movies. Kill Bill was brilliant, same with Pulp Fiction, same with Inglourious Basterds, same with Reservoir Dogs. If you want a good violent movie with an amazing story, Tarantino is the man whose movies you should be watching.
What I liked the most:
1. The violence.
Any Tarantino movie is incomplete without violence. If you cut out the violence in Django Unchained, or Kill Bill, or any other Tarantino film, it would be boring. In Django Unchained, Tarantino went to extremes with the violence. Sometimes people were just shot and that would be the end of it, but most of the time people die in what must be extremely painful ways. There were even a few scenes were the violence is the visible emphasis of the scene, not the story. All of that is pulled off successfully because...
2. ...the entertaining plot.
Tarantino likes making movies that are quick paced, and that keeps everything going. Combine that with some stellar performances by amazing actors and you have an incredibly entertaining plot. No scene was dragged out, as such the 165 minutes of the movie went by quickly. There was never a boring moment.
3. The soundtrack.
It's simply perfect. The moments when Jamie Foxx is a badass are amplified by either hiphop or rap songs, while the other awesome scenes are given songs that make you feel like you're watching an old cowboy film. Django and King Schultz have their own introductory songs as well, helping make people feel that much more nostalgic.
What I liked the least:
1. Absolutely nothing.
No, really, I meant it when I said that my opinion of Tarantino films is absolutely positively biased. There was nothing I didn't like.
Who I recommend Django Unchained to:
Any fan of Tarantino films, Westerns, or action films with lots of violence.
Monday, December 31, 2012
Tuesday, December 25, 2012
The Belgian/French movie with an actor people used to know.
JCVD
Story:
Jean-Claude Van Damme, a fading action star fighting for custody of his children as well as dealing with financial troubles and his fading career, becomes a key element in a hostage situation.
Review:
If you remember Guile from the live action Street Fighter movie, or Jean Villain from The Expendables 2, or were just a fan of 90's/80's action movies in general, you've seen one of Jean-Claude Van Damme's movies. So, suffice it to say, if you're a fan of Jean-Claude Van Damme then you're probably a fan of countless other martial artists such as Jason Statham, Jet Li, and Jackie Chan. IF SO, then you won't want to watch JCVD, as it has maybe five minutes of martial arts action. JCVD is more about the issues that Jean-Claude actually had to deal with after his career more or less fell apart. In essence, JCVD is a fictional story set during real events.
What I liked:
1. The story.
As mentioned before, JCVD is a fictional story that occurs during actual events. Jean-Claude was never a hostage in a violent situation in Belgium, but he did have to fight for custody of his children, and his career went down the drain.
2. The humor.
"Steven promised to cut his couette off." Tiny parts like that light up JCVD every now and then, showcasing that even though this is a very depressing movie, it does has some mildly laughable moments.
3. Jean-Claude.
Whenever I watch a Jean-Claude Van Damme film, I always expect a ton of martial arts and a bit of story thrown in every here and there. With JCVD, it's the other way around. Jean-Claude's performance isn't exactly his greatest, but as the story threads along I felt a tiny tinge of sadness as Jean-Claude's situation was more or less explained.
What I didn't like:
1. An intriguing story that doesn't exactly deliver.
What the average viewer is given is a story about Jean-Claude that doesn't exactly deliver. There's backstory, plot, and emotion, but not nearly enough. JCVD ends up feeling more like the first part of a film that never was completed.
2. The lack of intensity.
Each action sequence is short and to the point. There's no build up and there's no big ending. Everything just happens. Even from a realistic point of view it's still kind of lacking.
Who I recommend JCVD to:
People who like the (somewhat) true stories behind struggling actors. Even with it's somewhat lacking delivery, JCVD still manages to be an interesting enough story that people will at least want to finish it once they started it.
Story:
Jean-Claude Van Damme, a fading action star fighting for custody of his children as well as dealing with financial troubles and his fading career, becomes a key element in a hostage situation.
Review:
If you remember Guile from the live action Street Fighter movie, or Jean Villain from The Expendables 2, or were just a fan of 90's/80's action movies in general, you've seen one of Jean-Claude Van Damme's movies. So, suffice it to say, if you're a fan of Jean-Claude Van Damme then you're probably a fan of countless other martial artists such as Jason Statham, Jet Li, and Jackie Chan. IF SO, then you won't want to watch JCVD, as it has maybe five minutes of martial arts action. JCVD is more about the issues that Jean-Claude actually had to deal with after his career more or less fell apart. In essence, JCVD is a fictional story set during real events.
What I liked:
1. The story.
As mentioned before, JCVD is a fictional story that occurs during actual events. Jean-Claude was never a hostage in a violent situation in Belgium, but he did have to fight for custody of his children, and his career went down the drain.
2. The humor.
"Steven promised to cut his couette off." Tiny parts like that light up JCVD every now and then, showcasing that even though this is a very depressing movie, it does has some mildly laughable moments.
3. Jean-Claude.
Whenever I watch a Jean-Claude Van Damme film, I always expect a ton of martial arts and a bit of story thrown in every here and there. With JCVD, it's the other way around. Jean-Claude's performance isn't exactly his greatest, but as the story threads along I felt a tiny tinge of sadness as Jean-Claude's situation was more or less explained.
What I didn't like:
1. An intriguing story that doesn't exactly deliver.
What the average viewer is given is a story about Jean-Claude that doesn't exactly deliver. There's backstory, plot, and emotion, but not nearly enough. JCVD ends up feeling more like the first part of a film that never was completed.
2. The lack of intensity.
Each action sequence is short and to the point. There's no build up and there's no big ending. Everything just happens. Even from a realistic point of view it's still kind of lacking.
Who I recommend JCVD to:
People who like the (somewhat) true stories behind struggling actors. Even with it's somewhat lacking delivery, JCVD still manages to be an interesting enough story that people will at least want to finish it once they started it.
Friday, December 21, 2012
Sleepwalking disorder = Good movie
Sleepwalking With Me:
Story:
A comedian suffering from a sleepwalking disorder, has to deal with his family and his girlfriend pressuring him to marry her.
Review:
I'm not usually too keen on watching films that have gained awards from film festivals, but I decided to make an exception for Sleepwalk With Me. I'm glad I did.
What I liked:
1. A good comedy based on a true story by a good comedian.
Sleepwalk With Me is a true story, and the actual source material probably isn't as funny as the movie makes it out to be, but that's what I liked. The movie is not only relatable at certain points but it's relatable in a humorous way, so your mood will be pretty much the same throughout the whole movie. The fact that the actor portraying the guy is in fact the guy who the movie is based on helps add a real and human touch to every scene.
2. The soundtrack.
There aren't many movies where the soundtrack blends into the background as the movie progresses, but in Sleepwalk With Me it does exactly that. Most of the songs are gentle, relaxing tunes that just kind of slip into the movie, helping make each scene more enjoyable.
What I didn't like:
1. There isn't really anything I disliked about the movie. It was funny, sometimes emotional, and overall great.
Who I recommend Sleepwalk With Me to:
Anyone who likes non-stoner comedy.
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Well, this crappy film definitely drags you somewhere.
Drag Me To Hell:
Story:
A bank loan assistant is attacked by a Lamia after a gypsy curses her.
Review:
There are good horror films, then decent horror films, then there's horrible horror films. Drag Me To Hell is simply atrocious. If this was a horror comedy or a parody of horror films then I would have liked it, but it's not. Drag Me To Hell is a terrible film because you can't take any of it seriously.
What I liked:
1. The special effects.
There were some moments where the abundance of special effects were necessary and in some cases even amplified the feeling of terror.
2. Alison Lohman's acting.
Alison Lohman is one of the few actresses who can pull off being a horror film protagonist without making the character sound dumbed down. Helpful when every other actor/actresses in this film has only one expression.
What I did not like:
1. Bland, emotionless acting.
Almost everyone simply goes through the motions, and about half an hour in you'll be so bored, watching any more of Drag Me To Hell will seem almost like a menial job.
2. Sam Raimi's directing.
I haven't seen a lack of effort so terrible since Tim Burton's adaptation of Dark Shadows. Minimal effort on the part of the director makes everyone lazy. You don't feel anything in any scene because no one is trying, including the writers, which brings me to number 3.
3. Bland and simple dialogue.
It's increasingly evident that in the early development stages of Drag Me To Hell, Sam Raimi said something along the lines of, "F*** it, people will watch this because it has my name on it," creating the least interesting dialogue ever. Characters basically become simple minded and seem very directly based on their ethnic origin, basically meaning everyone is a racial stereotype somehow associated with their financial standings. There's scheming Asians that are good with money, but are evil; Caucasians with an incredibly huge abundance of money, and are good; and Gypsies that have no money and are therefore, according to Sam Raimi, evil. For subtle racism created out of just the script, that isn't good to see in a movie.
Who I recommend Drag Me To Hell to:
No one.
Monday, December 17, 2012
I couldn't come up with a clever title for this review. My bad. I guess I shall not pass.
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey:
Story:
Bilbo Baggins, a very non-adventurous Hobbit from The Shire, is taken on a quest to help thirteen dwarves reclaim their kingdom from the terrible dragon Smaug. Along the way, he finds The One Ring, a mighty ring of power that will soon affect the fate of his nephew Frodo Baggins and countless others.
Review:
Having read the book, but never read The Silmarillion or any other companion pieces for The Lord Of The Rings/The Hobbit, I was quite amazed at the amount of work thrown into this prequel to the Lord Of The Rings trilogy. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was quite possibly the most amazing movie of this year, and is definitely the most visually amazing film I have seen as 2012 comes to a close.
I am disappointed I will never get to see what Guillermo Del Toro would have created out of the source material for the prequel. Screw you, New Line, Warner Brothers, and MGM. I was looking forward to Guillermo Del Toro's magical amazement.
What I liked the most:
1. High Frame Rate 3D.
For those who watched Avatar, do you remember the mind-blowing special effects that worked perfectly with the 3D? The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, clearly and perfectly beats that. I was expecting a massive change in visuals, but not as much of one from HFR. Watching non-3D moments felt like watching actors on a stage, and when the 3D effects were used, they simply made everything seem lifelike. Given, there were a few scenes that seemed gimmicky with the CGI, but for the majority of the movie the CGI blends in perfectly with the real shots. The use of HFR also made everything and I mean everything appeal and draw me in, and from what I could hear from the audience, they were drawn in equally if not more than I was. The visuals were already amazing, but HFR manages to make them even better. You watch the movie feeling like what's occurring in the movie is currently happening.
2. The writing.
For a film based on a book that is roughly half dialogue, this first installment of the Hobbit trilogy is in my opinion better than the writing in Lord of the Rings films. Dialogue flows and is as smooth as the HFR, and it helps keep ones interest engaged throughout the three hours, which is very very difficult for any filmmaker to pull off. You watch the film feeling a constant sense of intrigue and wonder.
3. The directing.
Peter Jackson definitely one-upped himself in this one. To summarize this, everything (directing-wise) is perfect.
What I did not like:
1. Minor alterations.
I understand that in order to make an adaptation flow smoothly, sometimes you have to adjust some of the original plot in order to get through certain scenes with the right amount of pacing, but I do wish they hadn't changed the few parts that they did. It's more of a personal dislike and less of a professional dislike, but I still felt that it affected the movie negatively.
2. Too much 3D.
I did like how the 3D seamlessly blended in with the HFR, but I did not like the constant and consistent use of it in almost every scene. There was an incredibly small portion of the film where it wasn't used, and as much as I may have been pulled into The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, I was also getting a mild headache by the end of the film.
Who I recommend The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey to:
Anyone who can stay seated in a movie theater for three hours. Even if you can't, you should watch it. Buy a back row ticket if you must stand up to stretch your legs at some point. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, is well worth the money. Watch it in HFR 3D if you can.
Saturday, December 15, 2012
The Dentist Trap
Oral Fixation:
Story:
A dentist's patient falls in love with him, setting in motion a chain of events that change her life as well as the lives of the dentist and his family.
Review:
Oral Fixation, winner of multiple awards from the Long Island Film Festival, was surprisingly disappointing. Even disregarding the subtle sexism (each female character is a stereotype of some kind), there's not enough impact to give anyone a reason to give Oral Fixation a full check up.
What I liked:
1. The story has more to it than just the synopsis...
Unlike most films, Oral Fixation adds layers to its story, giving necessary background for two of the characters, both of which are vital to the story. This helps explain some of the events that occur and why they occur.
What I didn't like:
1. ...But not nearly enough background is given for the other characters.
Normally, most movies can get away with saying someone is just someone, but for Oral Fixation, you want to know who's who and why they are who they are. Since that isn't provided, most of the characters are just typical Hollywood depictions of what film makers think average Joes are. The stereotyping in Oral Fixation is so horrible that they actually ruin any good scenes.
2. Lack of build up leading to lack of overall reaction.
Everything about Oral Fixation is basically a cut to the chase anti-climatic scene, which prevents a lot of tension from being built up. I wanted to believe that there was more to this than just the "oh this is going to happen," straightforward approach that was used. That is especially horrible because Oral Fixation plays out like a thriller.
3. Lack of plot twists.
It's a thriller, and in this type of movie there should be at least a few plot twists. Unfortunately there is only one, and it's a very minor plot twist that you can't really make yourself care about, given the rather weak storyline.
Who I recommend Oral Fixation to:
No one really. If someone wants a very straightforward movie with somewhat decent eye candy thrown in as a distraction, then by all means go for it, just don't expect an amazing story.
Story:
A dentist's patient falls in love with him, setting in motion a chain of events that change her life as well as the lives of the dentist and his family.
Review:
Oral Fixation, winner of multiple awards from the Long Island Film Festival, was surprisingly disappointing. Even disregarding the subtle sexism (each female character is a stereotype of some kind), there's not enough impact to give anyone a reason to give Oral Fixation a full check up.
What I liked:
1. The story has more to it than just the synopsis...
Unlike most films, Oral Fixation adds layers to its story, giving necessary background for two of the characters, both of which are vital to the story. This helps explain some of the events that occur and why they occur.
What I didn't like:
1. ...But not nearly enough background is given for the other characters.
Normally, most movies can get away with saying someone is just someone, but for Oral Fixation, you want to know who's who and why they are who they are. Since that isn't provided, most of the characters are just typical Hollywood depictions of what film makers think average Joes are. The stereotyping in Oral Fixation is so horrible that they actually ruin any good scenes.
2. Lack of build up leading to lack of overall reaction.
Everything about Oral Fixation is basically a cut to the chase anti-climatic scene, which prevents a lot of tension from being built up. I wanted to believe that there was more to this than just the "oh this is going to happen," straightforward approach that was used. That is especially horrible because Oral Fixation plays out like a thriller.
3. Lack of plot twists.
It's a thriller, and in this type of movie there should be at least a few plot twists. Unfortunately there is only one, and it's a very minor plot twist that you can't really make yourself care about, given the rather weak storyline.
Who I recommend Oral Fixation to:
No one really. If someone wants a very straightforward movie with somewhat decent eye candy thrown in as a distraction, then by all means go for it, just don't expect an amazing story.
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Teeth
Teeth:
Story:
A woman's vagina goes on a spree, using her genital Venus flytrap to bite penises off of guys, and even some fingers!
Review:
What I liked:
1. Nothing.
What I didn't like:
1. The premise. Vagina dentata, really? Might as well call the movie VAJAWS.
2. Portrays everyone as a stereotype. Super horny losers, Christians with promise rings (yes, the straight edge types), punk idiots, or promiscuous non-Christian women.
3. Poor character development. The pure Christian girl suddenly, and I mean extremely suddenly becomes a sociopath because HER VAGINA IS A WEAPON. Also, the dad suddenly gets a backbone.
4. The writing consists of crude sexual comments.
5. There's supposed to be humor, but nope. Just immature and lackluster attempts at genital jokes.
Who I recommend Teeth to:
No one. It's a redundant and amateur entry in any genre. Horribly written, acted, and directed. A waste of time.
Story:
A woman's vagina goes on a spree, using her genital Venus flytrap to bite penises off of guys, and even some fingers!
Review:
What I liked:
1. Nothing.
What I didn't like:
1. The premise. Vagina dentata, really? Might as well call the movie VAJAWS.
2. Portrays everyone as a stereotype. Super horny losers, Christians with promise rings (yes, the straight edge types), punk idiots, or promiscuous non-Christian women.
3. Poor character development. The pure Christian girl suddenly, and I mean extremely suddenly becomes a sociopath because HER VAGINA IS A WEAPON. Also, the dad suddenly gets a backbone.
4. The writing consists of crude sexual comments.
5. There's supposed to be humor, but nope. Just immature and lackluster attempts at genital jokes.
Who I recommend Teeth to:
No one. It's a redundant and amateur entry in any genre. Horribly written, acted, and directed. A waste of time.
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
The Review of the Unofficial Slenderman Series
Marble Hornets:
Story:
After several encounters with a mysterious entity, Alex mysteriously disappears. Jay investigates and gets more than he bargained for.
Review:
At times unpredictable and ominous, Marble Hornets should be the official Slenderman series. It is an excellent series that proves that sometimes lower budget means better film.
What I like:
1. Different formula.
While most horror films follow the story, then scare pattern, Marble Hornets tends to be a randomization, with most episodes providing story, and a random episode having a scary moment.
2. Random unpredictable scares.
There are moments when I was surprised, and other moments when I would be too drawn into what was happening to suspect a jump scare. As much as I hate them, I don't mind how they're used in Marble Hornets.
3. The story.
Marble Hornets' story keeps going and going and going. In a good way of course. The more that's explained, the more there is that needs to be answered. As such the story has a slight mystery factor.
What I don't like:
1. Slenderman.
Because faceless things in suits are rather terrifying.
Who I recommend Marble Hornets to:
Slenderman fans. And maybe general horror fans. It's a good enough series to check out.
Friday, December 7, 2012
BRAIIIIIINSSSS (and tea)
Dead Set:
Story:
The cast of Big Brother England are unaware of the zombie outbreak outside of the Big Brother house.
Review:
Dead Set sounded like it had a good idea going and something slightly unique for the zombie horror genre, but no! Watch any other zombie movie or tv show and you'll feel the exact same way at the end of it, except in this case a lot less of it, given Dead Set's 45 minute pilot and 20 minute episodes.
What I liked:
1. The humor.
Dead Set isn't all bad, as it does manage to have a bit of humor every now and then. Imagine my surprise when the writers and actors manage to turn some of the most desperate scenes into the most hilarious scenes without turning the show into a parody.
2. The first episode.
Dead Set's first episode is also in my opinion it's only good episode, showing the last moments of civilization in England. It had humor, some clever zombie moments, and some well written dialogue as well as the best acting from each of the characters.
What I didn't like:
1. Repetition/imitation:
When I went into the other episodes of Dead Set I was expecting something different. I was expecting the same brilliance and effort from the cast and crew to be repeated in each of the other episodes, and some cliffhanger endings that would keep upping the ante from the previous episode's ending.
Never happened.
What I got instead was a ton of the same of anything I have seen in pretty much any typical low-grade zombie films. "Oh no, it's a zombie" moments have never been so repetitively typical.
I understand everyone wanting big ratings with something new and unique, but zombies are becoming the most repetitive subgenre in horror. Dead Set is a huge example of this, being a show that tries too hard to emulate The Walking Dead as well as the George Romero zombie films. That wouldn't be so bad if it didn't turn out to be a lifeless copy of both of those. I understand that there's nothing anyone can really change about zombies, but that doesn't mean it has to be the same repetitive content over and over and over. Add some clever twists to the story or make it a parody of some kind. Overall, some new and unique content in the zombie subgenre (story-wise) would be appreciated. Even zombies in space is a slightly different concept that would be kind of creative to implement in a movie.
---
If you're an extremely hardcore zombie fan then you'll like this. Everyone else should stick to The Walking Dead.
Story:
The cast of Big Brother England are unaware of the zombie outbreak outside of the Big Brother house.
Review:
Dead Set sounded like it had a good idea going and something slightly unique for the zombie horror genre, but no! Watch any other zombie movie or tv show and you'll feel the exact same way at the end of it, except in this case a lot less of it, given Dead Set's 45 minute pilot and 20 minute episodes.
What I liked:
1. The humor.
Dead Set isn't all bad, as it does manage to have a bit of humor every now and then. Imagine my surprise when the writers and actors manage to turn some of the most desperate scenes into the most hilarious scenes without turning the show into a parody.
2. The first episode.
Dead Set's first episode is also in my opinion it's only good episode, showing the last moments of civilization in England. It had humor, some clever zombie moments, and some well written dialogue as well as the best acting from each of the characters.
What I didn't like:
1. Repetition/imitation:
When I went into the other episodes of Dead Set I was expecting something different. I was expecting the same brilliance and effort from the cast and crew to be repeated in each of the other episodes, and some cliffhanger endings that would keep upping the ante from the previous episode's ending.
Never happened.
What I got instead was a ton of the same of anything I have seen in pretty much any typical low-grade zombie films. "Oh no, it's a zombie" moments have never been so repetitively typical.
I understand everyone wanting big ratings with something new and unique, but zombies are becoming the most repetitive subgenre in horror. Dead Set is a huge example of this, being a show that tries too hard to emulate The Walking Dead as well as the George Romero zombie films. That wouldn't be so bad if it didn't turn out to be a lifeless copy of both of those. I understand that there's nothing anyone can really change about zombies, but that doesn't mean it has to be the same repetitive content over and over and over. Add some clever twists to the story or make it a parody of some kind. Overall, some new and unique content in the zombie subgenre (story-wise) would be appreciated. Even zombies in space is a slightly different concept that would be kind of creative to implement in a movie.
---
If you're an extremely hardcore zombie fan then you'll like this. Everyone else should stick to The Walking Dead.
Wednesday, December 5, 2012
The Review of the Brad Pitt Movie!!!!
Killing Them Softly:
Story:
A mob enforcer is sent in to investigate after two masked men rob a mafia run poker game.
Review:
Killing Them Softly is one of those amazing gangster movies that just never happens anymore. To put emphasis on that, Killing Them Softly is one of those gangster movies that only happens once every decade. Seriously, once every decade. Deadpan humor, amazing slow motion that is not excessive, somewhat specific and realistic sounding mafia-type lingo and an overall dramatically intense story fuel the only majorly hyped gangster movie that has been released this year.
What I especially liked:
1. The effects.
Amazing use of slow motion and what I think is probably the most humorous explosion I have seen in a gangster movie in quite some time (if not ever). These are effects that I wish were used more often, to put more emphasis on bullets.
2. The humor.
There are moments when the humor caught me off guard, causing me and the friend I had brought with me, Keifer, to burst out laughing unexpectedly. Most of the time we were the only people in the audience laughing.
3. The story.
Having known the story from what I read of the movie on Metacritic and IMDB, I wasn't expecting to be so immersed into it. The writing and sound effects were perfect and fully defined a incredibly enjoyable movie.
What I didn't like:
Brad Pitt's lack of acting. He sounds the same for every role and even acts the same for every role. Is there ever any difference between his characters? Nope.
Who I'd recommend Killing Them Softly to:
People who have seen and liked movies such as No Country For Old Men and Killer Joe.
On a just so you know note:
Killing Them Softly is somewhat sexist. There are scenes that some women will get pissed off at, no matter how open minded they are. I saw two women walk out of the theater at certain scenes, due to the sexism.
Story:
A mob enforcer is sent in to investigate after two masked men rob a mafia run poker game.
Review:
Killing Them Softly is one of those amazing gangster movies that just never happens anymore. To put emphasis on that, Killing Them Softly is one of those gangster movies that only happens once every decade. Seriously, once every decade. Deadpan humor, amazing slow motion that is not excessive, somewhat specific and realistic sounding mafia-type lingo and an overall dramatically intense story fuel the only majorly hyped gangster movie that has been released this year.
What I especially liked:
1. The effects.
Amazing use of slow motion and what I think is probably the most humorous explosion I have seen in a gangster movie in quite some time (if not ever). These are effects that I wish were used more often, to put more emphasis on bullets.
2. The humor.
There are moments when the humor caught me off guard, causing me and the friend I had brought with me, Keifer, to burst out laughing unexpectedly. Most of the time we were the only people in the audience laughing.
3. The story.
Having known the story from what I read of the movie on Metacritic and IMDB, I wasn't expecting to be so immersed into it. The writing and sound effects were perfect and fully defined a incredibly enjoyable movie.
What I didn't like:
Brad Pitt's lack of acting. He sounds the same for every role and even acts the same for every role. Is there ever any difference between his characters? Nope.
Who I'd recommend Killing Them Softly to:
People who have seen and liked movies such as No Country For Old Men and Killer Joe.
On a just so you know note:
Killing Them Softly is somewhat sexist. There are scenes that some women will get pissed off at, no matter how open minded they are. I saw two women walk out of the theater at certain scenes, due to the sexism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)