An entertaining film full of suspense. It's visually quite attractive. It has a lot of flaws, but it's worth the time to see it, even if it's on cable rather than in the theater. It's not great and I did expect more from Ang Lee. It's over-hyped everywhere - even the movie posters claim it outdoes Avatar. It's OK, but nowhere near as great as the promotion would have you believe.
An interesting plot and well-written dialogue make the movie thought-provoking and quirky. Vitto Mortensen is brilliant as Freud. Vitto's aging well with ever-better acting skills. Keira Knightley holds her own and steals every scene from Michael Fassbender. It's too bad either the script or editing cut (what must have been) additional exposition for Knightley's character. Those scenes were noticeably absent. As with other movies, the very good-looking Mr. Fassbender is too weak an actor to carry this role. It's so disappointing to sit in the theater and wish he were half as good an actor as he is arresting in looks. However, I'd still recommend the movie because you'd be hard-pressed to find sets more beautiful and perfect, more outdoor shots that take your breath away, and more alluring costumes of such perfection and grace. The sheer beauty of the movie and the exceptional camera shots make your time spent in the theater well worth spent. Each scene has such amazing looks and perfectly-framed shots, it's as if every second was framed to be a work of art unto itself. Those responsible for art direction and camera work deserve the highest accolades.
Michael Fassbender does the most he can with a script leaving much unanswered. At times he has the look and expressions of Ewan McGregor and an odd ability to be affected and distant from others and events at the same time. The story is of a sex addict, so there's a great deal of sex, and Fassbender's nudity in this film. However, any addict has a hunger to fill and then intense guilt about filling that void, and the audience doesn't see that guilt. Yes, there's angst about his life, but not the specific after-effects that should be spontaneous will satisfying the addiction. While it's a "real" story, and not an artistic porn, it's very close to a porn with an exceptional plot. The sets are beautiful the dialogue clever and sharp.
This is a very strange and unusual movie. So much of the beginning is simply beautiful and fantastic scenes of space or nature with whispered voices in the background. With the music score, anybody making any noise in the theater will make you miss the whispers. After (what seems like) 20 minutes of attractive visuals, the movie actually starts. Brad Pitt is credible as the father but young Jack (played by Hunter McCracken) IS the movie. This kid's such a good performer he's going to be a Hollywood force in the coming years. In spite of the movies pretentious nature, I'd recommend seeing it. The visuals are amazing on a big screen and may not work on the small one. Do NOT expect a Sean Penn movie. He's barely in it and hardly has a line.
The plot is stretched waay too thin but the action keeps you in it until the end... don't expect a sequel tho...
This movie had all the elements for a great ribald comedy, along the lines of Tom Jones or the early Woody Allen flicks. The guy is addicted to porn, his apartment, his car, his buddies, his family and the church. He falls in love with a manipulative woman who sees the man she can build out of the raw material - but not the man he is. He has to come to grips with his depersonalization of the women around him and learn to truly interact. With an all-star cast including the wonderful actor Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Scarlett Johansson, Julianne Moore and Tony Danza, and some wonderful direction and acting; it should be a good movie. It should be, but it isn't. It's a comedy that isn't funny. After just a few minutes I was repeating to myself, "Alright, we get it. He's addicted to porn. Get on with the story. Show me a movie." But it fails. It takes 1-1/4 hours of the 1-1/2 hour movie to get to the story. It's Joseph Gordon-Levitt's first job of writing and first job of directing. OK, so it wasn't awful but it was a comedy without laughs. He should have stuck to one or two positions but he falls down on the writing/directing/starring thing. Miss this one... it's TOO boring.
I thought it would be a cute movie: a woman who's obsessed with Jane Austen goes to a British mansion where one is immersed in Austen novel imagery and characters. Presumably our heroine finds romance and some comedy. Well it was cute, but it could have been so much more. There could have been better dialogue, more character exposition, better acting, and better jokes. It's not an awful movie - it is fun. But it certainly isn't a great movie. The postscript/epilogue that plays as the credits start was better than the whole film and the comic shots playing during the credits were far funnier than anything that happened during the film. Bret McKenzie (of Flight of the Conchords fame), although a 2nd lead, steals the film and shows remarkable acting talent for his small role. Wait for cable.
I knew going in the film would be sophomoric and silly, but I went anyway. James Franco is a pretty good actor and Seth Rogen has proved himself in Freaks & Geeks and 50/50 so I thought this film had a shot at being interesting. It's OK, but not great. There is a certain amount of amusement in famous Hollywood people playing themselves and making fun of themselves or the personna they've developed, but the movie misses. The elements are there, but it didn't come through in the script or the execution. Yes there are a few laughs and a few surprises and every member of current Hollywood royalty has a role or a cameo appearance; but wait for cable. Other than a few imaginative moments, I was bored. The last 15 minutes make the film worth viewing - but on the small screen.
What a waste of everybody's time and money! They were trying to make a Kafka-esque movie being surreal and off-the-charts insane. I'll give them "A" for effort because it was strange and there were so many unexpected situations, and the makeup was oustanding - but they still failed. This guy gets in a limo and makes stops. Each stop is planned by somebody/some group. The guy emerges from the limo with a scripted event, makeup/costumes/prosthetics to be an entirely different person. A scenario is acted out and he gets back in the limo to go to the next appointment. Presumably, some body or group is watching on camera. I kept thinking: "This guy has more personalities, masks and wigs than Tracey Ullman.", but I also kept thinking, "Why? Why are they doing this? Why should we care?" Sometimes it was just so far-fetched and idiotic the audience just burst out laughing at how pretentious and preposterous a situation was - particularly near the end. The final scene was so stupid people gasped at the nerve of the writers/director to put something that silly on the screen while pretending it was art or clever (or something). I'm sure the movie had some deep-seated message I was supposed to get out of the situations, but it certainly escaped me.
It was silly. The movie was trite with expected conventions. Those expecting actual nudity will be disappointed but a lot of very old large ladies in the the theater audience (who'd probably never been to a strip show) found it titillating. It's the story of a man coming to grips with both his life choices and aging, and a very young man being overwhelmed by too much money, too many women, and easy access to drugs and booze. Since Channing Tatum produced and starred in it, it's obviously a vehicle for him, and he had a lot of comedic facial expressions reminiscent of a young Tom Selleck mixed with a young Brendan Fraser. It's not an awful movie, just not a good one. Wait for cable.
Local band Manchester Orchestra, who provided the soundtrack, probably would have appreciated a shout-out.
Can you please try again with the eragon movie I know you can get it right if you do you will make a lot more money and if you can make the other three books movies you would sell a lot more tickets and be able to sell the DVDs for them and make 3 times as much money so please I'm begging you to try one more time I'm a 17 year old girl I've read all 4 books of the eragon book series and I like love the eragon books.
Did anyone really think a comedic biopic about the guy from The Matrix would be funny or successful?
Keanu used to go with this girl, check at sh.st/OUhwh
Someone should have killed Reagan. If only to show the world Americans aren't saps.
"There has only ever been one revolution" - The Professionals
Maybe the film would have been received better had they left off the darkening makeup for Zoë Saldana and just let her be the actress she is. She might have been comfortable enough to give a better performance.
seriously what TF. She's a talented actor.
"Nina Simone was sometimes titled “the high priestess of soul”, although she completely rejected the title herself, because it placed a label on her as an artist."
I look forward to the eventual biopic on Zoe Saldana that centers on how she was heavily criticized for having the wrong skin tone.
Creative Loafing Atlanta
Powered by Foundation