Movies You've Watched This Week?

Ali - A disappointment. I don’t what kind of story they were trying to tell with this one. It just kind of jumped here and there through his career. If they would have focused a little more on one aspect of his life, it could have been so much better.

Fresh - Saw it recommended a few times on here. Good movie. There’s nothing that really stands out about it, but it’s a good, well put together story.

The Bucket List - Meh. Pretty stupid story about how dying of cancer leads to adventures and epiphanies. The only saving grace is that Morgan Freeman and Jack Nicholson can make almost anything entertaining. So, I almost enjoyed it.

Now that I have some more free time, it’s time to start season 2 of The Wire.

Hancock- got bad reviews and some hated it, my fiance and I liked it. Pretty good movie, had a few chuckles and decent story line

20 Years After- sucked- made it 15 mins in and turned it off

August (with Josh Hartnet)- watched it all, not impressed, he’s still a good actor though. One of the few that I notice is a decent actor.

[quote]malonetd wrote:
Ali - A disappointment. I don’t what kind of story they were trying to tell with this one. It just kind of jumped here and there through his career. If they would have focused a little more on one aspect of his life, it could have been so much better.
[/quote]

No. F’ing. Way! I literally just finished watching Ali not 15 minutes ago. I felt pretty much the same way. The movie was kind of all over the place. Why stop with the Ali vs. Foreman fight? They wasted a lot of time showing him in Zaire. There was like a 5-10 minute sequence of him just jogging around with no dialog and just music.

And why show the assassinations of Malcom X and Martin Luther Kind Jr.? Isn’t this movie about Ali? Seems like Mann wanted to include everything and he didn’t need to. I felt like it took the focus of the film off Ali.

I don’t think Michael Mann ever decided what he wanted to do with the film. I just read that after the theatrical version came out on DVD, he went back and removed 20 minutes of original footage and put 30 minutes of unseen footage back in. Mann did this to change the focus of the film to the politics of the time.

I wonder which version I just watched…

Land of the Dead- It came with Dawn of the Dead in a two pack and I’m happy it did. The story itself was pretty ordinary as far as zombie movies go, but the acting performances were good. I’m becoming more of a fan of Simon Baker with every performance I see, and Dennis Hopper always plays a decent bad guy.

Oh, forgot one

Bolt- Took a break from Christmas shopping Wednesday to go see this in 3D. The extra $2 for 3D wasn’t really worth it as the effect didn’t add to my experience, but it was the only showtime available so screw it. Overall it was cool, but Rhino the hamster really made it worth watching. He’d hum along with the score as it was playing and his reactions to some of Bolt’s idea were priceless. Oh, and they had a “Cars” short beforehand that showed Mater drift racing in Japan. Pretty cool if you liked Cars.

I skipped Yes Man, but here’s my buddy’s review:

Teddy’s Take on Yes Man

“Yes Man” (new in theaters Friday, Dec. 19) is Jim Carrey’s first outright studio comedy since “Bruce Almighty” five years ago, and that in and of itself is reason for the movie to be something of a minor event. At 46, there is no getting around the fact that Carrey is starting to show signs of age up there on the big screen.

When he mugs for the camera, that great rubbery clown face of his now shows all sorts of interesting laugh lines, wrinkles and crow’s feet that weren’t there during his “Dumb and Dumber”/“Ace Ventura” heyday.

But “Yes Man” is a good comedy. It’s not great. It works best as a date movie or a change-of-pace flick sandwiched between screenings of the more heady, serious Oscar fare now playing. Carrey is Carl Allen, a Los Angeles loan officer who has either been told “no” most of his life or told others “no” more times than not when asked for home and business loans (imagine the poor bastard now!)

Carl is a guy who has given up on life on a very fundamental level until one day a free-spirited, old buddy (John Michael Higgins) gives him some literature on a motivational speaker he claims changed his life. The man’s name is Terrence Bundley, and his movement is to create a legion of “Yes Men” who say “yes” to all that life has to offer. Carl misinterprets the message and believes he must say “yes” to anything and everything.

When the first few affirmatives lead him to find a new lady love (Zooey Deschanel) and a promotion, he starts to become a “yes” addict.

Directed by Peyton Reed, there is no getting around the obvious mechanics of the plot. This is not a terribly graceful flick. And there were probably a LOT more laughs that could have been mined from this premise. But “Yes Man” does serve as cinematic proof of the importance of good casting. If this were a Robin Williams or Matthew McConaughey vehicle, I’d probably be removing forks from my eyeballs about now. But Carrey sells this pic and proves once again what an underrated romantic lead he is in addition to his zany physical comedy.

As she was in “Elf,” Deschanel proves to be the film’s most valuable player, though. There is a LOT going on behind those big eyes of her. Mischief, sarcasm, savvy. She appears WAY younger than Carrey on screen, but she’s so good as free-spirit singer/photographer Allison that you buy the pairing because you know Carrey’s considerable comic gifts will not overwhelm what she brings to the table.

Jim Carrey comedies are usually sold on their bigger, zanier moments. But “Yes Man” is most effective in the little things it does, such as Carl and Allison’s unforced word ballets or the wonderful twist involving Homeland Security. There’s also a brilliant skewering of self-help scammers, with the great Terence Stamp cameoing as a cross between Zig Zigler and General Zod.

Mark Everett of the Eels shares composer credit for the film, and several fine Eels tunes factor into the story. Reed and a trio of screenwriters also make terrific use of some great and underused L.A. locations, such as the Hollywood Bowl and the Griffith Park Observatory.

But it’s Carrey’s show. Remember that scene in “Batman Forever” when Carrey as the Riddler goes all manic on Batman and Robin and then asks aloud: “Was that over the top?! I can never tell!” That kind of became the signature line of his early success. He doesn’t go over the top here, which may prove disappointing to some.

But there are flashes of his former greatness, such as the scene where a drunken Carl gets into an alley fight with a massive biker-type. Marvel at the Ray Bolger-like dexterity Carrey summons in playing a character who can barely stand, trying to avoid punches that would send him to the ground.

Yeah, the movie could have been funnier. It could have been fresher. It certainly could have been tighter (the film runs nearly two hours). But if you like to laugh and you’re a fan of Jim Carrey, don’t say maybe to “Yes Man.” Say, yes.

“Yes Man” is rated PG-13 for language, some comic violence and brief nudity.

[quote]AngryVader wrote:
malonetd wrote:
Ali - A disappointment. I don’t what kind of story they were trying to tell with this one. It just kind of jumped here and there through his career. If they would have focused a little more on one aspect of his life, it could have been so much better.

No. F’ing. Way! I literally just finished watching Ali not 15 minutes ago. I felt pretty much the same way. The movie was kind of all over the place. Why stop with the Ali vs. Foreman fight? They wasted a lot of time showing him in Zaire. There was like a 5-10 minute sequence of him just jogging around with no dialog and just music.

And why show the assassinations of Malcom X and Martin Luther Kind Jr.? Isn’t this movie about Ali? Seems like Mann wanted to include everything and he didn’t need to. I felt like it took the focus of the film off Ali.

I don’t think Michael Mann ever decided what he wanted to do with the film. I just read that after the theatrical version came out on DVD, he went back and removed 20 minutes of original footage and put 30 minutes of unseen footage back in. Mann did this to change the focus of the film to the politics of the time.

I wonder which version I just watched…[/quote]

Exactly. The running with the kids in Zaire went on for far too long.

I’ve read some good books on Ali. His life is a good story to tell, but not in one randomly put together movie. Hell, I know Joe Frazier personally and he could make a great movie solely on his and Ali’s relationship.

If they could have just focused on one part of his life – his relationship with Malcolm X, his refusal to be drafted, him and Howard Cossell, or even just his boxing career. Instead the movie just scratched the surface of parts of his life.

[quote]Doug Adams wrote:
Land of the Dead- It came with Dawn of the Dead in a two pack and I’m happy it did. The story itself was pretty ordinary as far as zombie movies go, but the acting performances were good. I’m becoming more of a fan of Simon Baker with every performance I see, and Dennis Hopper always plays a decent bad guy.

Oh, forgot one

Bolt- Took a break from Christmas shopping Wednesday to go see this in 3D. The extra $2 for 3D wasn’t really worth it as the effect didn’t add to my experience, but it was the only showtime available so screw it. Overall it was cool, but Rhino the hamster really made it worth watching. He’d hum along with the score as it was playing and his reactions to some of Bolt’s idea were priceless. Oh, and they had a “Cars” short beforehand that showed Mater drift racing in Japan. Pretty cool if you liked Cars.[/quote]

I hated Land Of The Dead. It was basically just another average (very average) zombie movie. 28 Days Later was better than that.

Having zombies that can now start thinking like humans…kind of makes them not zombies. They are now basically mentally handicapped people with rotting flesh.

[quote]Professor X wrote:

I hated Land Of The Dead. It was basically just another average (very average) zombie movie. 28 Days Later was better than that.

Having zombies that can now start thinking like humans…kind of makes them not zombies. They are now basically mentally handicapped people with rotting flesh.[/quote]

was that the one with John Leguazamo? yeah, that one while it didn’t suck, wasn’t anything special

The Man Who Made Nietzsche Weep

it was a film about Dr. Yosef something, Nietzsche, and a young Sigmund Freud. basically it was a story about how Freud got most of methods without much mention of Freud at all. it was more focused on Dr Yosef trying to get Nietzsche in a 24hr hospital because of his suicidal tendencies and the only way he could do so was to trick him into thinking he needed Nietzsches help to ale him of his despair but it ends up being that the joke is on Dr Yosef as he turns out needing Nietzsche more than he thought.

Then theres a crazy dream scene that isnt obvious to a dream scene, some mother stuff is analyzed, kinda poorly though and then after 1 session of hypnotherapy from Freud, Dr Yosef feels new and welcomes his family and takes a new take on life. was pretty good.

[quote]bushidobadboy wrote:
Jumper. OK I guess. Hayden Christiensen needs acting lessons but he was better than he was in Star Wars. Much more could have been made of the jumper/Paladin relationship IMO. The character of the british jumper kid was irritating. Rachel Bilson looked very fu**able.

BBB[/quote]

Hayden is irritating to watch on screen. I assume there are some 14 year old girls out there who love to watch him, but for everyone else, he’s like having someone sand your back with a brillo pad.

The concept actually wasn’t bad at all, but in a world where X-Men and Heroes dominate the tv and big screen, you have to come with a deeper story line than that.

I am aware the books were more involved, but they forgot to bring that into the movie.

Watching 2 hours worth of Night-Crawler-esque powers, you kind of wish Wolverine would pop in for a moment just to make it interesting.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
bushidobadboy wrote:
Jumper. OK I guess. Hayden Christiensen needs acting lessons but he was better than he was in Star Wars. Much more could have been made of the jumper/Paladin relationship IMO. The character of the british jumper kid was irritating. Rachel Bilson looked very fu**able.

BBB

Hayden is irritating to watch on screen. I assume there are some 14 year old girls out there who love to watch him, but for everyone else, he’s like having someone sand your back with a brillo pad.

The concept actually wasn’t bad at all, but in a world where X-Men and Heroes dominate the tv and big screen, you have to come with a deeper story line than that.

I am aware the books were more involved, but they forgot to bring that into the movie.

Watching 2 hours worth of Night-Crawler-esque powers, you kind of wish Wolverine would pop in for a moment just to make it interesting.[/quote]

I agree. One of my complaints about the movie was that it was only 88 minutes long. I think it would have been a much better movie if they had bothered to add another 10 minutes or so to flesh out the story a bit more. Go a little more into the back story between the Paladins and Jumpers. I think they blew it there.

Plus, since the movie starred Christensen and Jackson, I thought they missed an opportunity to have a some clever, inside references to Star Wars.

And Hayden is a terrible actor. Has anyone seen Awake? He can barely pull off lying still on a table.

Jumper…Hayden…

Anger level…rising…

[quote]Doug Adams wrote:
Jumper…Hayden…

Anger level…rising…[/quote]

I heard they originally were thinking of casting Paul Walker in the lead role. :stuck_out_tongue:

[quote]AngryVader wrote:
Doug Adams wrote:
Jumper…Hayden…

Anger level…rising…

I heard they originally were thinking of casting Paul Walker in the lead role. :P[/quote]

Brian Earl Spilner…typical whiteboy name.

In terms of vampire movies, Twilight is a joke. They “twinkle” in the sunlight? Was the writer on drugs? Anyway, I heard about a movie called “Let The Right One In” but its not playing anywhere near where I live. Has anyone seen it?

Saw a lot of movies this week haha.

They Live - Old John Carpenter movie. It was pretty damn good. Some of the lines were just awesome. The lead actor was very muscular too.

Hulk - The new one with Edward Norton. I think I was avoiding seeing this, because I get sick of superhero movies, but it was definitely good.

The Prophecy - Christopher Walken movie that I hadn’t seen. I generally like religious mythology stuff too. It was about as good as Constantine though. Just average.

Body Heat - Typical film noir plot, but I just love the style.

Blood Simple - Coen Brother’s first movie. It definitely had their flavor and was really well done. I didn’t enjoy it that much though, because I had just watched Body Heat the day before, and this is a similar movie.

Monster Man - I watched this movie because it was done by Michael Davis, the director of Shoot Em Up. It was similar to Jeepers Creepers actually. I noticed the over-the-top style of Shoot Em Up too.

Fred Claus - Way better than I expected. Vince Vaughn really is great - even when heck is the strongest word he can use.

The Quiet Earth - A movie about a scientist who is the last guy on Earth. Eventually he meets some other survivors, and a love triangle gets set up (of course). That part of the movie bugged me, but alternate reality scenarios are always interesting.

It’s A Wonderful Life.
“I wish I had a million dollars…Hotdog!!”

christmas carol with “jean-luc picard” as scrooge. i love every version of this one. alastair sims, henry wrinkler, bill murray…