Change Your Image
viennashade
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Just Go with It (2011)
Crudely Charming
Silly and juvenile is not really my type of humor, but I loved it anyway. If it wasn't enough that the whole plot premise was far-fetched, they had to throw in a bunch of ludicrous situations and ridiculous dialogue. Still, it wasn't as silly and juvenile as you would expect for a Sandler film.
I tend to eventually see everything Jennifer Aniston does – I suppose because I keep wanting to see her prove wrong the naysayers who claim she always plays the same character. And in this I thought she was terrific. She was the rock – the voice of reason, and independent. Not just some breezy shallow character.
In The Switch, much as I like Jason Bateman, the chemistry just wasn't there. And in The Bounty Hunter Aniston seemed way too focused on trying to look hot rather than her acting. But here her acting was solid and the chemistry good.
I enjoyed watching Sandler do some acting rather than only his usual zaniness. I actually thought he was great in this.
Even Brooke, who I was sure I would hate, did a decent job. Nicole not so much - maybe she hasn't yet conquered comedy, but it was excellent to see her not taking herself too seriously. That's an example, I think, of an actress doing something not for the money. And the kids were not bad. I could have done without the Eddie character altogether. Just too over the top.
All too often lately I see movies where 2 people fall in love and it doesn't make sense -- you can understand why the one person loves the other, but not vice versa. In Just Go With It, though, both of these characters were likable and deserving, and you wanted them to get together. Just as Devlin says, these 2 had an obvious connection. There was a kind of electricity, and a tenderness.
Although Sandler doesn't have any writing credits, I get the feeling half of this was improv. I haven't seen the stories it was based on, but I imagine it is far removed from either of them.
I don't recall laughing out loud a whole lot, but I definitely was smiley and happy throughout the whole thing. at the end I was literally clapping.
All in all, a good time. I don't usually watch a movie more than once, but I've already seen all of this at least twice, and a few of the scenes I wanted to watch over and over, hence the high score.
Hugo (2011)
Missing the magic
I was expecting to be a little enchanted. It just didn't seem plausible the whole thing could be based on this man's horror at having ended up a failure. The obstacles seemed manufactured. Why couldn't he have just told the man he got the book from his father, and it was all he had left of him? Why couldn't he have just told the guard he was keeping the clock running? There seems to be more truth behind this story than with even many historical movies – at least the sci-fi film part. And I don't think I would call it Steampunk; everything that happened seemed to be in keeping with the time period. The acting didn't thrill me, either. A lot of sustained shots of people's faces quivering. which is hard. The station and camera work were pretty.
The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (2003)
a movie that shouldn't have been made
The trailers make this look good. I didn't watch them until after seeing the movie, but if I had I would have been expecting an action-packed roller coaster ride! No doubt they were made by a company expert in movie trailers. without the lame plot.
It has the feel of having been written by a teenager. Not to say that teenagers haven't written some good stuff, but I think it was about as fantastical as a world created by some dude one night in his underwear for dungeons and dragons.
That there would be such teamwork (with no promise of serious monetary gain, no less) pushes the boundaries of incredulity farther than I will allow. This was an extraordinarily well-behaved and cooperative (though disorganized) band of criminals. I think the League of Women Voters might have made a more formidable enemy. With no real motivation, they were not only willing but gung ho to do this thing, at all costs. Even Mr. Hyde could be easily sweet-talked into submission.
Broken down into its simple elements, there is nothing cunning about the plot. In fact, all I could do was find fault with it. It seems like it would have been easier just to get their samples individually, without assembling them for this pretend mission.
No suspense until the second half, but by then I was already wishing it would be over, and I kept wishing that from there on in. In fact, the parts at the end I was really hating.
So many things didn't add up. I know it's supposed to be an "alternate reality" premise, but things need to at least make sense, or have a plausible explanation. Instead, they just seemed to be hastily making things up things as they went along, to try to explain away this or that discrepancy, resulting in a jumbled mess.
Derailed (2002)
Not to be confused with the Jennifer Aniston flick from 2005
Okay, I watched this movie just to see a motorcycle riding on top of a train, and I'm reviewing it only to say that J-C Van D did an impressive job of acting in the couple of scenes right after he loses his son. Other than that, the acting is second-rate, to be kind (and that includes the woman who plays his wife).
I enjoy a movie mainly for plot and clever dialogue. This had none of that, but if action is your thing and acting is not important to you, you might enjoy the ride. The plot deals with biological weapons. Once again, the thugs' cronies have to be out of their minds to give their loyalty and trust. Does money really make you that stupid? These guys never worry that they will not be given the antidote to the germs.
Typically, Van Damme is lured back into the spy business for an important job, and he is not convincing to his wife nor the audience why he "just has to." Everything else was just that typical as well.
But...I stayed for the whole ride, and didn't end up angry over wasting 90 minutes of my life (but maybe that was just the mood I was in). I wouldn't recommend it to anyone but Van Damme fans, and all of them surely will have seen it.
The Perfect Man (2005)
You'll get a better feeling from cleaning your bathroom
I saw the trailer online somewhere and thought it looked like the kind of movie I was in the mood for, but didn't expect much because...Heather Locklear? Well, it was even worse than I expected. First of all, turns out the trailer was not even accurate. It shows Heather with a guy who is never even in the movie (I guess I liked that scene, as it must have been what made me want to see it).
Oh my, this was bad. It's hard for me to write this fast enough before forgetting it – it was that forgettable. I'm trying to decide between giving it a 2 and a 3. Was this a family movie? An after-school special? Then okay, maybe? On second thought, I'm not even sure it was a portrayal of good family values.
TV-caliber acting with a less-than-TV-caliber production and script. Heather was sunny and upbeat, but this is just not good acting. (In fact, maybe she should have been less sunny and upbeat, in keeping with the pathetic personality of her character.) Hilary Duff (as Holly) seemed to be the only one with any real acting experience.
Too unrealistic to be believable. Where do I start? The mother is so pathetic she has to leave the whole town over every breakup? With no regard for her children's stability? I could see if it was some small town where she grew up and knew everybody, but she obviously just moved there. Clearly not ready for a relationship (buuut, never fear – she quickly gets a strong sense of self at the last minute), let alone deserving of the perfect man.
So desperate is this woman that she goes out with just about anybody, and will consider any marriage proposal. Even her teenage daughter knows they're all idiots. When Mom has a date with Lenny from her work, he botches the date at every turn, yet when daughter Holly seems to question her judgement, Mom says "I had a pretty good time!" It was also not accurate in its portrayal of Brooklyn teens. Or any teens, for that matter. We are expected to believe that the new girl in town walks into a tough city school and is instantly accepted, and that, during this most vulnerable time of her life, she breezes through yet another major life upheaval with no signs of stress or period of adjustment.
However, Holly has had enough, so instead of rebelling like a normal kid, she sets out to fix everything. And if there was ever any doubt about the ending, you knew it for sure by now.
Other than that, mostly it's just her mother embarrassing herself, Lenny being embarrassing, and the "perfect man" making a super nice doormat. Then the pace slows down even further with the instant-messaging scene. The one decent scene was in Ben's apartment when Holly claimed she needed some fatherly advice.
More sitcom than romcom, only more ridiculous, with more-contrived situations and flimsier explanations. Oh, and without the comedy. At one point, when the daughter is trying to scam this perfect man to get some info out of him, she starts out by pretending she's asking for a research paper/project, but then basically tells him that her research paper is into Patsy Cline? They don't even bother to cover this up.
We are more than misled to believe the Amber character is standing in the way of Holly's mother's happiness. Hooking her up with Ben is simply out of the question, since he is already with this Amber. Yet during the wedding ceremony, THEN it was a possibility?? The friend knows this girl is desperate to hook her mother up with the perfect man, yet she never mentions that her uncle is completely available? Serious water damage to a generous friend's business, and ruining someone's wedding? Because why? Because her mother and this guy both do crossword puzzles with a pen, and both like the same lame song? But even if it had been Ben that was getting hitched, why would you? Holly has never met this Amber she thinks he is marrying. How does she know Amber was not MORE of a perfect match for him? (BTW, as yet another example of how unlike real people these characters behave, nobody took the fire alarm seriously, seemingly trying more to escape the sprinklers than the fire, as they made their way – giggling – to the exit.) And what, do you suppose, are the odds of Holly arriving exactly at the moment when the minister asks if anyone has any objections to the marriage? Oh that's not an overused device. I should deduct a whole star right there.
Seemingly written by a teenager (only one who is out of touch with his own kind), this film had no good characters or character development, no big laughs, no warm fuzzies, no insightful life lessons, no snappy dialogue, no plausibility, no surprises, no originality, and no shortage of plot holes. I had no anticipation whatsoever for these two people to get together. Not worth the time it took to write this, but I think people need to be warned.
The Tourist (2010)
Light entertainment, not high art
I'm not into either of these stars, though I admit Johnny Depp usually wows me when I do see him, and Angelina Jolie always gives a dependable performance. I figured it would be interesting to see Depp in the role of the hapless patsy. Well, I have always said that actors do their best work playing crazies, and this only confirms my theory. Something like Alice or Sweeney Todd comes so easy for him, but here as an average Joe he was competent though not dazzling. His character was so low-key (almost drab) there was probably only so much he could do with it.
Jolie is ever aware of her beauty, seemingly thinking at every moment, "How can I turn my face or hold my head to make me look absolutely the most exquisite?" It's a wonder she manages to also act at the same time. (It does, however, seem to have distracted her from her "British" accent.) For every second of camera time I think there must have been 5 minutes of makeup and hair-arranging. Yeah, yeah, just jealous, I know, but I'd like to see what she'd be capable of in a plain-Jane role like Mariah Carey in Precious, or with a reverse nose job like Nicole Kidman in The Hours.
My favorite scene with the two of them together was on the train when they met, with the little exchange about spy novels. But once Paul Bettany joins the ride (not literally), all my eyes were on him. Bettany is known for upstaging the leads, and here is another great example. In what could have been a rather ho-hum role, he makes his mark and never makes a wrong move. When Depp's character was detained on the boat, it was Paul's expressions I kept rewinding to see again and again, not Johnny's. And Bettany is not shaken being in the same room with Ms. Jolie; he has more important things to think about.
Nothing revolutionary but overall a pretty entertaining film. Decent plot, dialogue, top-shelf production, comedy, romantic tension, spectacular sets and scenery, twists, not full of plot holes, and the ending was not unsatisfying, in retrospect. All in all, this was my kind of movie.
The Eagle (2011)
A movie of all men doing very manly things. In very short skirts.
I wasn't expecting much from this movie, but there aren't many movies being made about the Romans, and I was in the mood. It didn't start out well, with poor direction, acting and dialogue, to the extent where it had the feel of a TV movie, but if you stick with it that soon gives way to a watchable flick.
They obviously pent a lot on sets and the fight scenes, and the music was pretty good, but the last movie I saw was a great one, with top-notch everything – the kind that leaves you changed for the next day, with an invigorated feeling and lust for life until you gradually drift back to reality...so I was trying not to judge this one too unfairly. There is a good battle scene early on (the second one) that shows the tactical brilliance of the Romans and the animal fierceness of the Britons. Tatum did a fair job; I haven't seen him in anything else yet but I feel like he could do some decent acting in the hands of the right director.
Without reading up on it, I felt that their imagining of the early tribes of northern Britain seemed credible/authentic/plausible enough; less suspension of reality was required here than in a lot of movies. As the slave pointed out, the original Romans had come to kill; the "savages" were only trying to defend themselves and their lands, and any sense on the part of the Romans of the need for revenge was groundless. But Aquila was only seeking to restore his family's honor, so you could still root for him somewhat even though he was basically on the side of evil.
Interestingly, they had some Scottish flavor in some of the music, even in the scenes about the Romans.
There was one point when they were fleeing in the river where you could see the water splash up on the camera lens, but there was some nice on-location scenery (if not the right location).
I watched both the regular and unrated versions, and the only difference is a few frames of the most graphic violence. Couldn't be more than a second all together.
When it was all over it seemed like only about an hour's worth of stuff just took place, and it was mainly just these two characters -- though with not enough time to really get to know them and their relationship, whereas in the same length movie that can usually be accomplished. Almost more like a buddy flick, or a road film.
I think I'm being generous with a 6. I probably wouldn't recommend it if you're not into that kind of thing. But overall, no regrets.
Denis O'Hare was good in The Proposal, but I wasn't wild about him in this. Jamie Bell didn't leave much of an impression either. So no standout performances, no standout anything – I want to give it 5 1/2 stars but I'll round it up for the battle scenes, sets and costumes.
The alternate ending was stupid.
The Holiday (2006)
It's a chick flick and I'm a chick, but...
I had strong recommendations on this movie from 2 friends, one of whom has totally opposite taste from me in everything, and the other of whom has the nearest taste in movies to me of anybody I have ever known. And I do tend to enjoy rom coms so I thought I would definitely like this. Have never liked Diaz but I love Kate Winslet, and Rufus Sewell was in it so that was the clincher.
There was one laugh-out-loud scene, but if you're going to see this flick and haven't watched the trailer yet, don't. It gives it away plus it's funnier in the movie. There is also a cute line by Jack Black as the unlikely romantic co-lead (and I'm not talking about that scene in the bar – ugh).
A lot of people seem to think this is a good movie to see during the holidays, and they watch it every year along with the actual Christmas movies, saying it's warm and family-themed, but I don't see it. I don't even remember it being very holiday-oriented.
It all just seemed too unlikely -- other than simply because ALL FOUR OF THEM were on the rebound -- that these people would fall in love with each other so quickly and easily.
What was so great about the Amanda character that someone would fall in love with her? She slept with him right away which is supposed to be a relationship killer. (Incidentally Diaz looked revoltingly skinny in the bathtub scene, as though her arms were badly Photoshopped thinner.) She seemed mostly pretty shallow. It is telling that she doesn't even seem to realize her neighbor is this old film legend, and it is never even mentioned in her phone calls with Iris. And in the end she was not really giving up anything to be with this man – he seemed to be pretty well off himself.
What was the point of making everyone so rich? Particularly Amanda -- obviously it was so important that the filmmakers spent a million just on the set of her house interior alone. It really made her seem like she didn't have too many problems! Or that even if she did, you could hardly feel sorry for her. At any rate, you could not identify with her.
Even the less fortunate Iris had an incredible quaint country cottage. A "fairytale English cottage" like that would probably be out of reach of most ordinary people.
Jude Law did not seem natural playing a sweet guy. I got the sense he had a disdain for the role (as well he should have).
James Franco and Lindsay Lohan are 8 years apart in age, yet he plays her father. That's just for a silly subplot, so I guess it doesn't bother me so much.
The only part of the movie that seemed believable and real was the story of the unhealthy relationship between Iris and her coworker. Though even that seemed far-fetched when he intended to continue it even as a newlywed.
I'm really trying hard to figure out why so many people like it, however I just don't think I can bring myself to watch it all again.
No screen magic going on here.
Neighbors (2014)
7 1/2 Stars
I'm not normally into teenager movies, but I enjoyed this. Wasn't sure I wanted to round up to 8 stars, so fortunately I found this workaround. ;)
The dialogue was like things people would actually say, and the guys seemed like they were having fun with it. Rogen was good as expected, but Efron was surprisingly impressive as well. It all seemed so natural somehow I got the idea they were just nailing it all in the first take. I loved the dean character. Lisa Kudrow tore up the screen in this tiny role, and she looked fabulous.
The weird Paula character didn't seem to add anything to the story, and the boss was a disappointing stereotype, as was the frat girlfriend, but for the most part the character development was good. Everything fit together well, and I enjoyed seeing the next idea they came up with to thwart each other.
This would probably be best enjoyed by former stoners who are now among the "old people," as they are called in this flick, but I think anyone who doesn't get offended really easily would find it enjoyable, too.
Wild Wild West (1999)
I'm pretty sure the west was never quite THIS wild
Most of the humor here was too adolescent for my tastes, but the guys did what they could with the madcap script. Will did his usual bankable job, and Kevin Kline was very good as well. I liked when he was playing President Grant. The Salma Hayek role was strange; she was little more than a decoration.
However, the surprising choice of Kenneth Branagh as the dastardly Arliss Loveless paid off, as he was the best part of the movie (worth an extra star). Sporting an unusual facial hair design and dark hair, Branagh is unrecognizable, even when you know it's him.
There were a few funny scenes amidst the lunacy, such as the one where Jim rudely whistles to get the attention of his own lynch mob, then proceeds to make the most ridiculous speech imaginable. I also liked the scene where Loveless and Jim are trying to outdo each other with decidedly un-PC insults. My favorite scene is when Artemis unveils his contraption to obtain an image from a dead man's retinas of the last thing he saw before he died. Jim is decrying this nonsense the whole time, but when an image of a man appears, he immediately proceeds to matter-of-factly and effortlessly read along with Artemis the entire text of a brochure in the man's coat pocket (at a distance, in the dark).
Some people complain about racism in this movie. I took it not as racism but as making fun of racism.
This would be a movie to watch perhaps at a party when you just wanted something on in the background, where nobody's really paying much attention, just watching a scene here and there. Mostly absurd, sometimes amusing and somewhat imaginative, with Steampunk touches. It wasn't the worst movie I've ever seen.
The Horse Whisperer (1998)
It's all about getting back on the horse.
This movie put on airs that I feel it was unable to live up to.
I wasn't sure if it was supposed to be a movie for youth or adults, but if you have a horse-loving kid, you might want to know it's not exactly a wholesome family movie. A large part of the story involves the mother's lust for another man. The husband was not shown as insensitive, uncaring, unsupportive or uncommunicative, so evidently we were not supposed to sympathize with this woman.
It didn't sit well with me the way they seemed to be pushing the girl to get better before she was ready, treating her as though there were something wrong with her and she should just snap out of it. To me it didn't seem like it had been very long, and rushing her doesn't seem like a good idea when everyone does things at a different pace.
The movie overall seemed to drag; I think they could have taken out the whole affair part because it didn't really seem to have any purpose anyway, and that would have gotten it down to a normal length. The recovery of the horse was painfully slow, with many failures, just like in life. Trouble is though, this is a movie, so we need things to move along a little faster to maintain our interest. Not only was there not much whispering, but the man didn't even seem to have any special technique. It just didn't seem to make sense why this woman would want to spend so much money to fix this particular horse, when the process was so iffy, and the safety of her daughter was at stake.
The accident scene was very well done. The trip to the ranch was a little ridiculous, driving cross-country with an unmanageable horse. (How did they feed it all this time, when they couldn't even get near it?) The scene at the hoedown was pretty intense. The final scene with the horse is kind of disturbing since he really didn't seem ready, though it's awesome when that horse gets up.
Nobody really wowed me here with their performances. Scarlett was pretty good, as long as she didn't have to cry.
Was it inspiring? I'm not sure. I want to give it a higher score since I feel like it is some kind of classic, but I just did not have that feeling of being charged up for the next day or so like I do when I see a good movie, or thinking about it all the next day. The affair and the rushing of the girl's progress left a bad aftertaste, if anything. It was a kind of low-key movie. I guess I was just expecting more magic or miracles, because that's what the movie set me up to expect.
2012 (2009)
Follows the laws of cartoon physics.
Remember how Wile E. Coyote always lived even when he fell off a cliff, or got run over by a train? This was about that ridiculous. The John Cusack character should have died 83 times in this movie. All I kept thinking about was how well it would lend itself to one of those "Everything Wrong With 2012" video commentaries. The last time I remember a movie being this implausible was Speed, and it left a bad aftertaste that's never faded. But that was at least an enjoyable flick.
Faster than a speeding bullet, more invincible than Evel Knievel, John Cusack's character has a knack for jumping chasms and being at the right place at the right time. Through luck, magic, miracles, superpowers, whatever, he makes one incredible split-second escape after another. This device is tremendously abused, not just in how close the calls are, but the sheer number of them.
At every turn, something goes hopelessly wrong (beyond just the natural disasters). But even that doesn't stop the charmed Cusack from coming out of it alive (by the skin of his teeth). And with people dying all around him, every single one of his family makes it. Every falling fireball misses them...every time they pull away in a vehicle or plane, a gorge opens up exactly where they need to go so they have to jump it. Over and over and over and over. There is no relief from the ridiculousness.
The pinnacle of ridiculousness is this scene: As soon as John Cusack finds the map that will save his family, a huge chasm opens up in the ground, and John naturally falls right into it. BUT – never fear – he manages to grab onto the edge in the nick of time and pulls himself up...still holding the map in his hand!!! Is this Emmerich guy an adult?? I understand he wants to take us on a nonstop roller coaster ride, but... If they would simply have made the earth open up a few meters away, instead of a millimeter, or they could make their getaway by a few seconds, instead of a quarter second EVERY TIME, it would still have been suspenseful, but plausible enough to not make you want to scream at the screen.
Their plane (since the charmed Cusack is on it) glides effortlessly between falling buildings. It's the end of the world and they're seriously low on fuel -- why do they never dump the weight of all those excess autos? But...they continue on their hopeless journey. In the end, they only made it because...their destination had shifted! What luck.
I saw the ship plowing into the White House in the trailer and thought I was in the mood for a big disaster flick, so I picked up the DVD in the bargain bin.
The FX were grand as you would expect or could hope for, and the acting was passable. The problem was with the script. The dialogue, the characterizations and the plot -- all dreadful. I cry pretty easily, but it was very hard to feel anything for any of the characters in this movie. Except maybe Danny Glover. They tried to make jokes but they weren't funny. Only Woody Harrelson's character was somewhat interesting.
The thing about selling tickets to the arks was played up as some terrible fault in humanity, but really – how else were they going to get the money to build them? The governments of the world all cooperate quite civilly in the face of this impending catastrophe that would put men at each other's throats. They've gotta kill anyone who figures out their plan...yet they're not worried about any of the people who bought tickets leaking the info? Like what if someone declined the offer because they didn't believe the world was going to end? Oh, maybe they were killed as well? In the wake of the Japanese tsunami, one has to wonder with all the nuclear plants and toxic chemical stores how doomed they would really be no matter what..
Right up to the end, as the every-man-for-himself mentality would have been peaking, the plot did not let up on its ludicrousness. As the arks are taking off, forget that the clock is ticking and every second counts...forget that there will not be enough food/supplies and everyone on board could die and this all will be for nothing...Chiwetel's impassioned plea convinces every world ruler to let everyone on at the last second.
And it ends with a lame love song...
And now I will happily part with this DVD.
Doubt (2008)
Brilliant from beginning to end
Unlike with other films, instead of counting the plot holes I am counting the cunning devices and remarkable performances and marveling at the dialogue and how everything fits together. I couldn't find any flaws, so I'm giving it 10 stars.
So many powerful scenes here, including the confrontation, the talk on the park bench between Father Flynn and young Sister James, and the walk with Donald's mother.
I thought because it was about religion it might get tedious, but I just wanted to rewind.
Self-righteous principal Sister Aloysius suspects impropriety from her priest on a hunch, and determines to bring him down. She knows the delicate situation as he is her superior, but she plows ahead. He gets very angry at the accusations. Ordinarily to me this indicates guilt, but that it no doubt just another clever ploy in this wonderful script..
When I heard his sermon that opened the movie, I definitely thought the doubt he was addressing was doubt of your faith, which I'm sure is a very common issue among every priest's parishioners. What do you say to that? It can't be easy to write a sermon...or even just to not put everybody to sleep, let alone to convince the doubters. I thought it was a fine sermon. But already this woman insisted on reading something into it that wasn't there, and began building her case.
I know this type of abuse goes on and is dreadful and I don't mean to defend it in any way, but I also know that people can be framed and that also angers me. And this film shows how it could be done even by a well-meaning and upstanding person.
That everyone in this film got an Oscar nomination was no surprise, and I think it was only due to a strong field that there were no wins.
Meryl Streep is nothing short of amazing. She never made a wrong move. It was fascinating to watch the way her character swung so easily from unreasonably cruel to glimmers of humanity.
The lead actor was brilliantly cast in Philip Seymour Hoffman, whose sleazy expressions combined with his hairstyle to make him look like he could be a pedophile; while his kindly expressions and ideas and actions made him seem like the model priest...for the perfect balance of good and bad. In every scene I kept thinking how incredible to be able to make yourself look so convincingly innocent, yet also make yourself look guilty at the same time. Mesmerizing.
Viola Davis stunned. She delivered lines that sounded so unfeeling and unlikely, and made them believable to your very core. Heartbreaking, raw, real. Amy Adams was also deserving, but her role was more subtle.
We never find out for sure if Father Flynn is guilty or innocent. I know what I believe, based on what we are shown of his actions and his character, but without true evidence, that is all there is to go on. In other words, just like life.
Father Flynn advocates loving children. He's a little sleazy, he's got long nails, he smokes, he wants to modernize the Church... They throw just enough at you to make you...doubt.
Eat Pray Love (2010)
Didn't like it, and I'm female!
Liz is bored with her marriage. She gets a quick & easy divorce on the grounds that "I don't wanna be married." (She actually says that.) When her husband, who has done nothing wrong, protests, she offers nothing but flimsy explanations like because he keeps changing his mind about what he wants to do in life. But isn't that what she herself is doing? And in fact the theme of the whole movie – that change is good, and to try to reinvent yourself? And we're supposed to take her side why? This character makes me kind of angry in fact. She refuses his requests to try to work things out, out of hand...then proceeds to act like a teenager and trifle with the affections of some more men.
She obviously expects life to be some kind of fairy tale, and sets out to find the life she deserves. Well I don't think she deserves anything special, and she's far from a special person as portrayed in this film. Rather she is selfish, spoiled, irresponsible and just plain unlikeable.
This movie is billed as inspirational. It sets us up to expect some deep, insightful revelations, then lets us down with nothing but whining and selfishness, until she ends up right back where she started.
The message of the movie seems to be "give in to your midlife crisis"(evidently this would be seen as irresponsible only if you are a man). She opted for meditation and traveling when she probably more needs therapy. It's all about me, me, me, and what I want. But she didn't seem to know what she wanted. No matter what, she was not happy.
She whines that she has been in a relationship for all of the past few years, so as soon as she sheds her husband she proceeds to get into a relationship with a guy at the laundromat, and then gets into a relationship with a guy in Italy, and finally ends up...in a relationship.
I don't see any point to the relationship with James Franco. Why was that even put in the film? The men here seem too perfect. James Franco's character adores her (for no good reason), and inexplicably would give anything to get her back. The part with the Italian boyfriend is even more forgettable. Javier Bardem's character goes out of his way to pander to Liz. Why? Just her looks, apparently. Still, she just doesn't know what to do, but finally realizes she has a good thing, and had better not let him get away this time. Typical Hollywood ending. No powerful/moving love story here, among the lot of them.
I don't see that she made any progress or grew as a person. Instead of introspection we get indulgence. Instead of enlightenment, it's all about entitlement. I think a lot of the positive reviews I'm seeing here are unjustly giving credit to the movie on the merits of the book, which apparently does not have so many fundamental problems.
It seemed like this movie was taking way longer than 2 hours, and I got anxious for them to wrap things up. All in all, I found the reviews here on IMDb far and away more interesting, insightful and enjoyable than the movie itself!
3:10 to Yuma (2007)
They were on their way to an easy 10 stars...
Okay, I admit the first time I watched this it did not make as big an impression on me, but seeing it again I'm going to give it a 9. There are a lot of holes and flaws and "wha??" moments, but in spite of it all I really enjoyed it overall and it's somehow different. I don't usually watch a film a second time so I must have seen something in it.
Yes, a lot of disbelief needs to be suspended and tolerance expended, increasingly toward the end. In all these types of action movies you see these things like people being shot yet still able to run and fight and ride, but this one takes it further, stretching the imagination until it snaps. So why was I so willing to forgive and overlook? The performances, mostly, the complex layers of characters, and just that cat & mouse, back & forth, push & pull, and all the weird good guy-bad guy teamwork.
A combination Western and character study, we get long looks into the psyches of these two fascinating men, and little by little the motivations for their unlikely actions start to come clear. So many times throughout this movie Wade could have killed Evans, starting from the first 15 minutes. A lot of it was "the movies," of course, but I like to think some of it was how those characters would really have acted. To further attempt to explain it away...some of it could also have been that Wade knew he didn't have to try too hard, and was just making a game of it to amuse himself from the beginning.. Also I think Wade admires Evans more than his own son does, and he maybe felt, "A" for effort – the guy deserves to win a little.
Ben Foster as Charlie Prince blew me away, again even more the second time around. He bursts onto the screen, turbocharged, and just takes over the film. Simply riveting. A TV actor? No way! One scene and I want to watch everything he's done. He inhabited that character. Crowe and Bale are both absolutely superb and leave nothing to be desired. This movie made me a Russell Crowe fan all over again. Peter Fonda also shines as Byron McElroy, the hard-as-nails Pinkerton guard. Kevin Durand was good in this as well, though his character was rather one-dimensional.
Ben Wade was the most richly developed character: the level-headed, wise, enigmatic outlaw – ruthless, yet sensitive enough to draw and read and be a sweet-talking' lover. Wade is not evil; he claims he is, but even the boy sees this is not true.
The Dan Evans character was bitter and so intense. Stubborn, with the kind of stubborn pride that will get you killed. He wasn't doing it just for the money, and even justice was debatable when you figure all the good guys that got killed so that this one bad guy could get on that train. Mr. Butterfield was also very stubborn, as was Byron.
Will is the young son, on the accelerated track to manhood. Outwardly he idolizes Wade, but inside he already has all the best parts of his father.
Charlie was more a caricature than a character. But uncontrollable and psycho as he was, his adoration ensured complete loyalty.
It was an outlandish plan from the get-go (even if they somehow miraculously could succeed in getting him on the train, wouldn't Charlie and company then just go after the train?). Things really started to go downhill toward the end, and there are so many things I would change, but the suspense was wild, and in the end everyone got what they wanted I think. It's hard to find a good ending that perfectly resonates, and this was a good one in theory; if they had made the odds less impossible and tweaked it in a few other places, it could have been a great one. You never know if things like that could be the result of an executive decision by one person holding the purse strings, and I decided not to let that ruin the whole movie.
So enough redeeming stuff for an overall win: able direction, an authentic feel to the sets, some pretty funny lines, plus all the stuff mentioned above, but worth it for Ben Foster's performance alone. It was movie-making on a grand scale – the kind that leaves you changed after you come back down into your life, feeling invigorated the next day and giving you something to think about.