I saw the first Murder Mystery with these two and it was so-so. This film is fast paced, with luscious scenery, costumes and sets. To my surprise I found myself laughing many times. Quick witted, a bit silly and enjoyable to watch. Not a big Adam Sandler fan but Jennifer is a favorite, she's got good comic timing and some great lines. It starts with a good bang then takes us off to a beautiful island. Lots of Bollywood dancing and beautiful costumes and the ending has a nice twist. The film takes us to the Eiffel Tower with action and great stunts. This is a great date movie or watch it on a big home screen. I liked it!
Reviews
4 Reviews
The Dark Knight
(2008)
Not so great as they say
18 July 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I'm sorry but I'm not being paid to write these reviews and it sure looks like those ahead of me are. Did we see the same picture? I thought it was too long, confusing, poor plot line, very very dark, a lot of gratuitous violence and Ledger's performance was just not Oscar material as so many are proclaiming. During the movie several people got up and left. There were a couple of times there my date and I thought about leaving but we paid premium bucks to see the thing and you hate wasting money like that.
The film gets off to a pretty good start. We were all excited but as it went along it began to drag. Ledger looks awful and they relied enitrely on makeup (with no prosthetics they way they did with Nicholson) to give you the impression of a smiling joker. Here it was just white and red makeup piled on the way a six-year old might do after getting into mommy's makeup. And dark. Everything was so dark throughout the film that each time someone opened a flip phone it was as bright as a flashlight! (I thought, surely they aren't going to call anyone but because so many were doing it I figured they were looking at the time - a sure sign that the film was lumbering along.)
From this viewer's perspective I thought it was awful.
The film gets off to a pretty good start. We were all excited but as it went along it began to drag. Ledger looks awful and they relied enitrely on makeup (with no prosthetics they way they did with Nicholson) to give you the impression of a smiling joker. Here it was just white and red makeup piled on the way a six-year old might do after getting into mommy's makeup. And dark. Everything was so dark throughout the film that each time someone opened a flip phone it was as bright as a flashlight! (I thought, surely they aren't going to call anyone but because so many were doing it I figured they were looking at the time - a sure sign that the film was lumbering along.)
From this viewer's perspective I thought it was awful.
Mr. Fix It
(2006)
Funny and charming, you should enjoy it
23 December 2006
This was presented today at the AMC theater as a surprise preview showing. The theater was full of Saturday viewers and remained that way throughout the picture. There were plenty of laughs and the storyline has an appealing plot. The guy who plays the lead, I think, used to play on "Angel" a TV series and he is very good. The girl is good too and must be new because I've never seen her in anything else.
I would recommend this for a good date movie. Some of the scenes really cracked me up and the story is worth your time. It has a clever ending. My girlfriend couldn't stop talking about the guy who plays the lead, David something. He was pretty good I thought.
I would recommend this for a good date movie. Some of the scenes really cracked me up and the story is worth your time. It has a clever ending. My girlfriend couldn't stop talking about the guy who plays the lead, David something. He was pretty good I thought.
King Kong
(2005)
King Kong: Poor Acting 2 out of 10
14 December 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I don't know who is casting the all high votes for this picture but I just came out of it and was very disappointed. I suspect the studio has a large group of IMDb posters who vote high to increase box office. The Golden Globes were announced this morning and I didn't see King Kong listed and wondered why. Well, now I know. The only two good things about this picture are the CGI work and King Kong himself. Beyond that the acting is a joke. Naomi Watts (the old Fay Ray role) is nice to look at but is unconvincing in making us believe she has a real relationship with Kong. The only word she ever speaks to him is "beautiful" while gazing at a sunset. The picture is brutal, mean spirited and has little redeeming value.
Jack Black will remain in my head as one of the worst actors on the big screen, right next to Tom Cruise. Colin Hanks (Tom's son) plays his assistant and ... well, let's face it, he hasn't 1/10 the ability as his father. Adrien Brody is entirely miscast. He plays the leading man here but he is simply no leading man. He isn't handsome, charming, witty, or heroic. In fact, I ended up hating Brody almost as much as I did Black and couldn't figure out why Watts would embrace him at the end of the picture.
The picture is so long (3 hours 10 min) that I literally had to get up after the first hour and go buy a $5 cup of coffee to get through the next two hours. That first hour is as slow as molasses. The fight scenes go on ... and on ... and on ... etc. Come on for God's sakes. No captive (Watts) could possibly live through all the violence she had to endure and was surely crushed to death at least ten times as Kong fought off the cast of dinosaurs.
Peter Jackson did a fine job on Lord of the Rings because it had a set of characters who never needed an ability to act very well. LOR had the same never-ending but luscious fight scenes. Kong's jungle takes your breath away with its panoramic views but the man-eating slugs were never in the original King Kong (not that it is a complaint just unbelievable that Brody, Black et al, are saved from these creatures once the camera pans back and you see they are tiny figures in a horde of killer slugs. Jackson surely threw them in for another long, protracted, never-ending fight scene).
People walked out twice. The first group left just as the first hour ended which was very boring. Jack Black has but one or two acting faces and once you've seen them he just repeats them throughout the movie. Jackson should have killed him off (and given us all a reason to cheer) but he makes it all the way through the entire film. The second walk out came after the second hour which is the most violent and active. I attributed that walk out to the never-ending fight scenes. I think those people were just tired of it all.
I judge a movie on a desire to see it again. Would I pay another $10 to go back and see this with a date or a friend? I would for Harry Potter (Goblet) and Brokeback Mountain (people actually cried in the latter movie and clapped at the end) but King Kong won't see another dime from me. Not in DVD sale or rental and I'll probably turn the channel when it comes to TV.
Coming out of the theater it was no wonder why the picture and actors were not recognized by the Golden Globes. A vote of 2 out of 10 from me.
Jack Black will remain in my head as one of the worst actors on the big screen, right next to Tom Cruise. Colin Hanks (Tom's son) plays his assistant and ... well, let's face it, he hasn't 1/10 the ability as his father. Adrien Brody is entirely miscast. He plays the leading man here but he is simply no leading man. He isn't handsome, charming, witty, or heroic. In fact, I ended up hating Brody almost as much as I did Black and couldn't figure out why Watts would embrace him at the end of the picture.
The picture is so long (3 hours 10 min) that I literally had to get up after the first hour and go buy a $5 cup of coffee to get through the next two hours. That first hour is as slow as molasses. The fight scenes go on ... and on ... and on ... etc. Come on for God's sakes. No captive (Watts) could possibly live through all the violence she had to endure and was surely crushed to death at least ten times as Kong fought off the cast of dinosaurs.
Peter Jackson did a fine job on Lord of the Rings because it had a set of characters who never needed an ability to act very well. LOR had the same never-ending but luscious fight scenes. Kong's jungle takes your breath away with its panoramic views but the man-eating slugs were never in the original King Kong (not that it is a complaint just unbelievable that Brody, Black et al, are saved from these creatures once the camera pans back and you see they are tiny figures in a horde of killer slugs. Jackson surely threw them in for another long, protracted, never-ending fight scene).
People walked out twice. The first group left just as the first hour ended which was very boring. Jack Black has but one or two acting faces and once you've seen them he just repeats them throughout the movie. Jackson should have killed him off (and given us all a reason to cheer) but he makes it all the way through the entire film. The second walk out came after the second hour which is the most violent and active. I attributed that walk out to the never-ending fight scenes. I think those people were just tired of it all.
I judge a movie on a desire to see it again. Would I pay another $10 to go back and see this with a date or a friend? I would for Harry Potter (Goblet) and Brokeback Mountain (people actually cried in the latter movie and clapped at the end) but King Kong won't see another dime from me. Not in DVD sale or rental and I'll probably turn the channel when it comes to TV.
Coming out of the theater it was no wonder why the picture and actors were not recognized by the Golden Globes. A vote of 2 out of 10 from me.
Tell Your Friends