"Where the Wild Things Are" is being said by many critics a great film. USA Today writes that it is a, "fiercely innovative film with surprising texture and nuance," and Rolling Stone calls it, "completely real." Well, I'm here to write that, after all of the incredible hype, I strongly disagree with these reviews.
Most audiences know that the story is about a little boy named Max who, after being disobedient, is sent to bed. He soon creates his own world which is a forest inhabited by ferocious creatures that crown max as their ruler. The premise here, written by Maurice Sendak, is good. But it's what the film produces from that which makes it an entirely different story.
We are able to notice that there was artistic talent put into the look and style of the "wild things." The special effects consist of computer generated faces put on life size models and turn out to be breathtakingly crafted. If I would ever meet one of the creatures, I always thought they would look like they did in the movie if it were real life.
I have rarely walked out of a movie feeling as depressed as I did walking out of this film. This is not just because the atmosphere was depressing but the long, artsy shots of Max and his pals playing games were so boring that i felt sorry for the production. I understood the dramatic symbols throughout the movie but they still didn't make the movie any better. The film is much darker than it is advertised to be. A kid seriously has mental issues if he decides to destroy the creatures houses, rip off one of the their arms, and bite his mother when she simply punishes him! The acting throughout this thing is terrible too. The cast plays their character in a way that makes the audience feel more glum than Taylor Swift did when she got her award stolen from her by Kanye. Every actor in "Where the Wild Things Are" says their lines like they're reading a poem. Another reason the movie was depressing and almost frightening was the random howling in the the musical score. It was too bizarre to even slightly work its way into Sendak's atmosphere. When the film does try to be funny and not dramatic the humor falls flat and ends up being embarrassing for the writers.
I don't think the book should've been turned into a film at all. Sendak's story would've remained a great children's book if this film hadn't been released. Now, children of future generations may see the film version of the story first and not want to read the classic book because they'll think it's just as bad as the movie. Unless you're in the mood for a dark, depressing, and sad film that will leave you confused, then I strongly suggest that you skip "Where the Wild Things Are." Who knew that one of the most anticipated movies of 2009 could be one of the worst.
Ever since Steven Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan" came out in 1998, Matt Damon's nickname has been Matt "Da Man" Damon. His character in "The Informant!" may not be "Da Man" but I can tell you right now that, after seeing the film, Matt Damon is still "Da Man" as an actor.
The film revolves around a man named Mark Whitcare who was born in Warren County, Ohio. The true story tells the audience that he and his family have moved to Decatur, Illinois and he has been working for lysine developing company called ADM and he has even found his way into upper management. Whitcare is unwillingly pressured by the FBI into working as an informant against the illegal price-fixing activities of his own company. He then gradually gets the idea that he's a true secret agent. But as his constant lies keep piling up, his world begins to crash down on him.
The main goal of a film is to be interesting. Because of this, some movies try to be different. In fact, some movies try to be too different and they don't make any sense like "A Clockwork Orange." But some films try to be strange and end up being quite good like "Donnie Darko" or "Edward Scissorhands." "The Informant!" was random and bizarre and I liked it because it looks at itself as a comedic satire and doesn't take itself too seriously. The wide range of instruments in its score, the narration of random topics at certain points, and the weird dissection of Whitcare's bipolar disorder were all great elements a different movie. Matt Damon gives a stellar performance along with the movie's supporting cast who help the audience understand the story better because of their comedic timing and the way they develop their own characters. The writing is sharp and the story does a good job a stretching out a boring story into an interesting and funny film.
Even though there isn't much to dislike about the movie, the film is simply good, not great. I honestly think there were no faults to "The Informant!" yet there was nothing ground-breaking about it and it just needed more great elements than mentioned here to make it a four star movie.
But if I were to get strongly specific then I would ask, "Why does there need to be an exclamation mark at the end of the title?" After watching the film, I still don't understand why it's there and I found no secret meaning or anything of the sort. Anyway, I like the film and I think you should see it the theater or buy it on DVD.
Do you ever wish that you could just stay in bed all day, watch T.V., and not go to school while someone (or something) that looks like you really is? Well that's what the new Bruce Willis action-packed popcorn flick is about.
The film is set in a futuristic world where humans live in isolation and interact with surrogate robots. A cop (Willis) is forced to leave his home for the first time in years in order to investigate the murders of other's surrogates.
Only Bruce Willis could look young by having the hair cut that he does in this movie. That's one of the elements that makes "Surrogates" interesting. Some might say that the film spends too much time frolicking in the fields of make-up and special-effects, but here, I think these elements certainly make the story more engaging because they actually fit with the plot and aren't there just to look good. The sub-plot may be a bit conventional but the overall turnout of the production was enjoyable with a nice performance by Willis.
One ingredient of the movie that did bother me though was the beginning. Once I compared the second half to the first, I realized there was so much time wasted up to 35 minutes into the film. In some movies, especially this one, it's better to get straight to the point rather than spending so much time on the back story. It seems that most directors think this makes their films more wise and more smart. Hopefully, most people will enjoy the production because the second half is an action packed thrill ride. I know I did.
Sorry for posting this review a little late. The film might not being in theaters much longer. But if you do get a chance to notice that this is playing or see the DVD on the shelf then i mildly recommend "Surrogates" to all you Bruce Willis fans out there.
Age is of the essence here. I feel like if I were older then I would find Mike Judge's new film "Extract" quite a bit funnier than I did. The film is geared more toward adults. It's not that the film has too many sexual themes or anything of the sort but a lot of the film's humor takes place in an office building and has to do with the workers within it. If I had experienced working in an office building then I bet I could've understood more about how the characters felt and why the older people in the theater with me were laughing hysterically.
The film revolves around Joel (Jason Bateman), the owner of an Extract plant who is always trying to attend to a great number of personal and professional problems. These consist of his potentially unfaithful wife (Kristen Wiig) and his employees who want to take advantage of him.
The jokes are hit or miss in the film but the actors hold it together all the way through. The cast is the best element of the movie as they're hilariously boring. I especially love Ben Affleck as the crazy bartender. The character is a sharp turn for him as an actor and I think the performance really worked with the beard and the long hair. He makes one of the more memorable comedic characters of the year. Kristen is once again charmingly funny and she has convinced me that she can do anything with her characters and still make them funny.
Many of the jokes worked for me but, in my opinion, there wasn't enough jokes to make the film good. When the jokes aren't in the script the plot becomes thin and the movie starts to get dull after a while.
If you're a fan of the humor in "Office Space" then this film will entertain you as an audience member. Otherwise, "Extract" is only good enough to rent on DVD.
Earlier this year, "Transformers 2" was released and I thought it was a great example of what the majority of America truly wants these days. It overflowed with ridiculous action scenes but had a few fine looking females and some great humor to support it. "G.I. Joe" is like that minus the funny script and nice babes
The movie focuses on an elite military unit made of special operatives known as G.I. Joe. The unit, operating secretly, takes on an evil organization led by a notorious arms dealer.
The plot sounds simple, right? But the film tries to make itself too smart for its own good. I had no idea what was going on the entire two hours i sat in the theater. Sure, the special-effects are good (especially during an action scene that takes place in Paris) but they were definitely the only things that were intriguing to me.
The film is convoluted from start to finish. The script tries to add humor but it just falls flat and ends up making the film more dumb. There are so many lines that made me want to walk out like "Try this on for a size boys" and "Get out! Get out!...Nice shoes." The movie doesn't know if it's trying to be funny or serious and ended up being a complete waste of my time.
The acting was another reason i was miserable while watching this. It's a complete joke the way the cast reads their lines. They over-act and make "G.I. Joe" seem like a Chinese martial-arts film instead of an American action-adventure movie. I would've easily walked out of the movie 20 minutes into it if it weren't for the good special effects. This piece of junk wins the award for the worst movie of 2009 so far.
It would be an understatement to say that what our troops go through during War is tough. It would be an understatement to say that disabling bombs is scary. It would be an understatement to say that "The Hurt Locker" is a great movie.
The film, set in Iraq, tells the terrifying story of an elite Army bomb squad that have to disarm deadly bombs while coming together in a city where everyone is a potential enemy.
The movie's tag line is "You'll know when you're in it." I usually know when I'm in a four star movie and "The Hurt Locker" is one. Kathryn Bigelow puts the production together perfectly by mixing just the right amount of drama, action, and even a little bit of horror together. Every element of the film is there for a reason and is timed perfectly. No minutes are wasted with tacky romances or overly sugar coated special-effects. There's no excuse for one to take their eyes off the screen at any moment. The film has the best cast I've seen so far this year and Jeremy Renner deserves an Oscar for his work as Sgt. William James.
The film's outsanding actors not only make us feel as if we're fighting for our country with them, they also add raw emotion to this truly moving cinematic experience. I rarely cry in movies. Many people were saying how I absolutely should not watch last year's "Marley & Me" because I would need too many tissues. I finally watched it and I can't say that I was crying. Maybe it's just me but as I sat in the theater and watched "The Hurt Locker" I choked up a bit. The story had me feeling its over-bearing elements of sadness, fear, and intensity.
I honestly could not find any flaws to this film. Bigelow has created a near masterpiece here. The action sequences are perfectly shot and add on to the highly dramatic elements of the film. Not only is "The Hurt Locker" the best film of the year so far, it is also the best War movie that has been released within the last ten years.
In France during World War II, a group of Jewish-American soldiers known as "The Basterds," led by Lt. Aldo Raine, are chosen specifically to spread fear through the Nazis by killing and scalping them. Lt. Raine's group soon crosses paths with a French-Jewish girl who runs a movie theater in Paris which is targeted by the soldiers.
Quentin Tarantino is a very clever story-teller. He has his own way of showing how things interfere with each other and he likes having things show up randomly on screen. I was definitely able to tell that Tarantino directed "Inglorious Basterds." There are the up close shots of objects, the wide variety of music, and definitely the blood. The Basterds don't just kill Nazis, they brutally scalp them and Tarantino isn't afraid to show it. That's what I like about this film. The director is so brave with the story. In no way, shape, or form is it historically accurate but it doesn't follow the typical rule book of World War II movies and takes the genre to a new level.
Christoph Waltz as a Colonel for the Nazis gives the best performance of the year so far. He speaks in a French, German, and American accent and is terrific in every language. Waltz makes his character truly menacing and says every line, especially towards the end, with humorous yet terrifying tone. Brad Pitt is also surprisingly good with his raw American accent.
Tarantino is a great writer but he over does himself during a few romantic scenes. A certain relationship stretches out farther than it should with too much dialogue. I was fine with the romance but the film wouldn't have been as exceedingly long as it was if some wasteful scenes were cut out.
But in the end, when it's all said and done, the production strongly pays off. The ending seemed especially grand to me as the film hit its climax made by great cinematography, music, and writing. This is a disgusting film and a dazzling one. You should definitely go to the theater and see one of the best films of the year.
A family must protect their vacation home in Michigan from evil aliens before they get killed.
It was interesting to see big stars in a movie of this type. I'm talking about people like Kevin Nealon (SNL), Tim Meadows (the principal in "Mean Girls"), and Doris Roberts ("Everybody Loves Raymond"). There's an especially funny fight scene with her that makes fun of "The Matrix."
Well, that scene is relatively stupid but compared to the rest of the film it's about the funniest thing. Besides a few belly laughs, the writing is bad. The aliens come into the movie randomly and the story gets too conventional and boring after a short amount of time. The characters are poorly executed by most of the cast and they're poorly developed.
There isn't much to like about the film. Almost everything is bad from the special effects to the music. It's no wonder that this movie was barely being advertised. I wish I could make my review longer but the only thing I have left to say is I only recommend this to young kids, otherwise it is terrible for all audiences.
A group of aliens called "Prawns" are forced to live on eath in Johannesburg, South Africa. They are treated as refugees and it has been many years since the aliens made first contact. The odd thing is that there hasn't been an attack made on the humans and the aliens haven't said anything about scientific discoveries. The South African government decide to make a home for them called "District 9." A company by the name of Multi-National United (MNU) have the job of controlling the aliens. But they're more interested in the alien's weaponry rather than their welfare.
This one of the most realistic sci-fi movies I've ever seen. It's shot like a documentary. Eventhough we, the audience, all know it's fake, the film pulls you right in from the beginning and it's tough to take your eyes off the screen. The movie makes the characters have true emotion and is superbly crafted in such a way that made me feel what the characters were feeling. The storyline is pure genius. It's highly original and doesn't fall into the conventional category as some sci-fi movies do. The film involves some very talented British actors, none of which I had ever heard of. The setting is in South Africa for a reason. There are many interesting parallels between the aliens and the poor people living there today which helps make a great moral for the story.
I don't want to spoil anything for you but towards the end of the film, a robot gets involved in the sub-plot. I don't have anything wrong with action but in this film the action is handled a bit carelessly and kind of reminded me of "Transformers 2." The scene dragged on too long for what it was. Also, there are few sexual themes in here that are flat-out pointless and made me laugh when they weren't supposed to be funny.
Despite those few scenes, "District 9" is one of the best films of the year. This is one creative, fresh, new, smart, and emotionaly captivating piece of work. It has great cinematography and has good special-effects for a film depending on a 30 M dollar budget. The film is graphic but that's one of the reasons it is so deep. This is definately a summer flick you don't want to miss and you should pay your money to go out and see "District 9."
George Simmons is a very successful comedian. He also is a rich, lonely man. When he learns that he has a disease that could be life threatening, he decides to get someone to write his jokes for him. That someone is Ira Wright. Ira and George develop a strong friendship. Since George doesn't know if and when he'll die he also decides to track down the girl of his dreams, Laura.
Every cast member has their moment to be hilarious. The writing is very sharply written by Apatow. But what really stands out in the film is the chemistry between George and Ira. Not only are they funny together but their friendship seems real and engaging. Sandler plays George in a way that makes us feel for his character while still being funny and Rogen plays Ira in such a way that makes the audience able to relate to him. Jonah Hill's humor works once again as he plays his characters with that relaxed, monotone voice. Also, Leslie Mann has become one of my favorite actresses. Not because she is funny but because she simply can act very well in every one of her films.
The film tries to set a dramatic tone onto itself which doesn't work. The second half drags on as it tries to focus too much on the emotion of Sandler's character and forgets about the humorous writing that holds the film in place. "Funny People" ends up being two and a half hours which is ridiculous because there are definitely some scenes that were not needed, especially the ones that were trying too hard to throw the drama in your face.
So, the first half is supremely better than the second half. In fact, the first scene is one of the best scenes in the whole movie. You'll understand why if you see it. The film is worth seeing due to the great cast and the hilarious acting. "Funny People" is funny but not nearly as funny as "Billy Madison" or "Happy Gilmore."