This is yet another retelling of the James-Younger Gang but the gimmick here is that all the brothers are actually played by brothers. So we have Stacy and James Keach, David, Kieth, and Robert Carradine, Dennis and Randy Quaid, and Christopher and Nicholas Guest. As far as gimmicks go, it is pretty good. Unfortunately, as films go, it isn't very good.
the problem is, I don't really know what the point of it is. I don't get what it is trying to be about, who our central character is, or if there is any kind of message. Basically it just follows them as they fight one another, run from the law, fall in love, have kids, get old, and get killed. I really isn't all that interesting.
One thing I did like, however, is that unlike a lot of westerns this doesn't take place in the Southwest. The James Gang was from Missouri so (whether it actually was filmed in Missouri or not I don't know) in the film there are trees and grass and hills. There is green in a western and not all brown! Crazy!
two thumbs up
The film is pretty
but not pretty good at all.
There is good killing.
the problem is, I don't really know what the point of it is. I don't get what it is trying to be about, who our central character is, or if there is any kind of message. Basically it just follows them as they fight one another, run from the law, fall in love, have kids, get old, and get killed. I really isn't all that interesting.
One thing I did like, however, is that unlike a lot of westerns this doesn't take place in the Southwest. The James Gang was from Missouri so (whether it actually was filmed in Missouri or not I don't know) in the film there are trees and grass and hills. There is green in a western and not all brown! Crazy!
two thumbs up
The film is pretty
but not pretty good at all.
There is good killing.
Some folks are saying this was too long. I didn't feel that way seeing it. There were some parts that seemed unneeded or that could have been handled in more concise ways but I didn't want it to be over or anything.
One of the things that I've hated about a lot of other superhero films and the pre-Bale Batman films was the multiple villains. Starting with Batman Returns it seemed like every superhero movie had to have multiple villains in it. Even Spider-Man 3 had Venom and Sandman for no real reason. While having Ra's al Ghul and the Scarecrow in Batman Begins worked fairly well I was worried when I saw pictures of Two-Face. I didn't think having the Joker and Two-Face in the same film was needed. I was really surprised when not only they but the Scarecrow appears and the film actually works. I liked it better than Batman Begins.
The reason why it works is that a) the Scarcrow is barely in it and b) the Joker is tied directly into Two-Face. The two of them just don't happen to show up. There is a reason why both Two-Face and the Joker are in this. In fact, there's a pretty good reason why all this stuff had to be in it. Now, as I said, some of it could have been done differently and more quickly, but it all had its reason to be there.
The storyline is the best part of the film. The direction, on the other hand, isn't all that great. I've seen Memento and Batman Begins and I've never been impressed with his actual direction. He is a good writer. he might get good performances from the actors. When it comes to cinematography and camera shots, however, he is wholly uninteresting. He has no visual flair. If a director with some real style and energy had been behind the camera this really would have been over the top. As it is the film is just better than average. The death of Heath Ledger casts a shadow over the film and he might be award worthy. It isn't worthy of any non-technical awards though.
three thumbs up
Better than Begins
It ain't no Iron Man, though
Nor is it The Hulk.
One of the things that I've hated about a lot of other superhero films and the pre-Bale Batman films was the multiple villains. Starting with Batman Returns it seemed like every superhero movie had to have multiple villains in it. Even Spider-Man 3 had Venom and Sandman for no real reason. While having Ra's al Ghul and the Scarecrow in Batman Begins worked fairly well I was worried when I saw pictures of Two-Face. I didn't think having the Joker and Two-Face in the same film was needed. I was really surprised when not only they but the Scarecrow appears and the film actually works. I liked it better than Batman Begins.
The reason why it works is that a) the Scarcrow is barely in it and b) the Joker is tied directly into Two-Face. The two of them just don't happen to show up. There is a reason why both Two-Face and the Joker are in this. In fact, there's a pretty good reason why all this stuff had to be in it. Now, as I said, some of it could have been done differently and more quickly, but it all had its reason to be there.
The storyline is the best part of the film. The direction, on the other hand, isn't all that great. I've seen Memento and Batman Begins and I've never been impressed with his actual direction. He is a good writer. he might get good performances from the actors. When it comes to cinematography and camera shots, however, he is wholly uninteresting. He has no visual flair. If a director with some real style and energy had been behind the camera this really would have been over the top. As it is the film is just better than average. The death of Heath Ledger casts a shadow over the film and he might be award worthy. It isn't worthy of any non-technical awards though.
three thumbs up
Better than Begins
It ain't no Iron Man, though
Nor is it The Hulk.
This is a Pixar film so it is certain to make gobs and gobs of money. It probably should too because it is loads better than pretty much any other animated movie out since the last Pixar film. There are some pretty weird messages in the film though.
The storyline of the film is that humans polluted the planet and left it while an army of little robots gathers up all the junk. At the start of the film only one of these WALL-E units seems to be left alive and it is our hero. One day a rocket lands and out comes a fancier new robot. This EVE robot and WALL-E bond. The rocket comes to take back EVE and WALL-E hitches along and encounters what has become of humanity.
One of the weirdest things about the film is that WALL-E is basically a STALK-R. EVE doesn't want all that much to do with him at first. He just keeps following her around and even when he follows her to the humans she doesn't even know about it. Of course in the end they fall in love which sends the message that you just need to keep bothering a woman until they give in no matter how much they tell you that they aren't interested in you.
There is also the matter of the depiction of the humans in the film. For one thing, there are live action people shown in historic video clips from the company that built the ships for escaping Earth. However, the humans that WALL-E meets are computer generated. I guess that they were trying to draw a line between the normal people of the past and the obese people of the films setting but I'm not at all sure that it works well.
The obese nature of the people is also kind of weird as well. I'm not really sure what the message about them is supposed to be. I guess that it is some sort of message about consumerism, mediated societies and sedentary lifestyles but the message is muddied by the fact that aside from obesity there really isn't much of a downside to their lifestyle. Everything on the ship is well run, and everyone seems happy, nice, and without negatives such as hate, violence, or other evils of society. If everyone is happy -- and there is even an off-handed rational why everyone seems obese because of the low gravity which indicates that maybe their physical condition might not even be all that unhealthy for them -- then what is the problem? The Earth is ruined and no amount of exercise or good health is gong to change that.
four thumbs up
Cute little robot
WALL-E should be called STALK-R
But no fatties please
The storyline of the film is that humans polluted the planet and left it while an army of little robots gathers up all the junk. At the start of the film only one of these WALL-E units seems to be left alive and it is our hero. One day a rocket lands and out comes a fancier new robot. This EVE robot and WALL-E bond. The rocket comes to take back EVE and WALL-E hitches along and encounters what has become of humanity.
One of the weirdest things about the film is that WALL-E is basically a STALK-R. EVE doesn't want all that much to do with him at first. He just keeps following her around and even when he follows her to the humans she doesn't even know about it. Of course in the end they fall in love which sends the message that you just need to keep bothering a woman until they give in no matter how much they tell you that they aren't interested in you.
There is also the matter of the depiction of the humans in the film. For one thing, there are live action people shown in historic video clips from the company that built the ships for escaping Earth. However, the humans that WALL-E meets are computer generated. I guess that they were trying to draw a line between the normal people of the past and the obese people of the films setting but I'm not at all sure that it works well.
The obese nature of the people is also kind of weird as well. I'm not really sure what the message about them is supposed to be. I guess that it is some sort of message about consumerism, mediated societies and sedentary lifestyles but the message is muddied by the fact that aside from obesity there really isn't much of a downside to their lifestyle. Everything on the ship is well run, and everyone seems happy, nice, and without negatives such as hate, violence, or other evils of society. If everyone is happy -- and there is even an off-handed rational why everyone seems obese because of the low gravity which indicates that maybe their physical condition might not even be all that unhealthy for them -- then what is the problem? The Earth is ruined and no amount of exercise or good health is gong to change that.
four thumbs up
Cute little robot
WALL-E should be called STALK-R
But no fatties please
This movie is hard for me to judge fairly because I've read the original comic book and the film is very different than the source material. The comic book is based on the premise: "What if the supervillains won and ruled the world?" In this world it turns out that all the supervillains teamed up and killed the heroes. Then, to make sure that no one would ever try to take them down, they made everyone in the world forget that superheroes ever existed and the control the world in secret as a kind of super-mafia.
In the movie the villains have been replaced with a league of assassins who have almost superhuman abilities. They have been around for a thousand years and kill people in order to guide the fate of the world.
Both films feature a man who is in a dead end job and one day finds out that his absentee father was the best killer in the world and has just been killed. He is then indoctrinated into the world behind the world.
Both the film and the comic feature some over the top murders and action scenes. However, they work better in the comic book because while the police don't know about the supervillains, the know enough to not ask questions and the villains can kill with impunity. In the film, however, they are secretive and the police are theoretically after them but they act as if they are above the law and there's never anything more than a newspaper headline to indicate that their over the top highly public murders have garnered any attention from the police.
There's also the fact that in the comic book the lead characters were drawn to look like Eminem and Halle Berry. In the film they are played by James McAvoy and Angelina Jolie. As good a job as Jolie does, I can't help but be distracted by the difference and disappointed that they had to get a white woman to play a role created for a black woman. McAvoy also kind of irritated me but I'm not sure why. It wasn't a big deal in his situation but it did come up from time to time.
As a stand alone film, I guess it was good. However, it could have been much more. It starts off very Fight Club-esque and it seems as if there will be some attempt to make a comment on the inanity of corporate life and the "waning of affect" that Frederic Jameson says is occurring. There is even a mention of an Ikea table -- which oddly isn't a table at all but rather a cheesy laminate counter top island.
After that interesting beginning, however, it quickly turns into Jumper. Full of special effects -- which to be fair were a million times better and more exciting than Jumper -- but basically being yet another story about daddy issues and fulfilling a destiny. Substitute Jamie Bell's mentor/teacher role in Jumper with Jolie in this and Samuel L. Jackson's older wiser potential mastermind who is one step ahead with Morgan Freeman's character and you've basically got the same film.
It is that notion that the main character is "fulfilling his destiny" that is perhaps most tiresome in this day. I wonder why it is that in a country where we worship the rugged individualist who can pull himself up by the bootstraps we have so many stories about the man who is born to a destiny and heir to become powerful because of his parents. Of course, to be fair the original story was written by a Scott and not an American so to ask why he wouldn't subscribe to American mythologies isn't fair.
The end is fairly close to the comic book and has an entertaining gun fight and is also surprisingly final. Had they tacked on a fairy tale ending it would have been much worse.
three thumbs up
the ending saves it
and Jolie is pretty good
different from the source
In the movie the villains have been replaced with a league of assassins who have almost superhuman abilities. They have been around for a thousand years and kill people in order to guide the fate of the world.
Both films feature a man who is in a dead end job and one day finds out that his absentee father was the best killer in the world and has just been killed. He is then indoctrinated into the world behind the world.
Both the film and the comic feature some over the top murders and action scenes. However, they work better in the comic book because while the police don't know about the supervillains, the know enough to not ask questions and the villains can kill with impunity. In the film, however, they are secretive and the police are theoretically after them but they act as if they are above the law and there's never anything more than a newspaper headline to indicate that their over the top highly public murders have garnered any attention from the police.
There's also the fact that in the comic book the lead characters were drawn to look like Eminem and Halle Berry. In the film they are played by James McAvoy and Angelina Jolie. As good a job as Jolie does, I can't help but be distracted by the difference and disappointed that they had to get a white woman to play a role created for a black woman. McAvoy also kind of irritated me but I'm not sure why. It wasn't a big deal in his situation but it did come up from time to time.
As a stand alone film, I guess it was good. However, it could have been much more. It starts off very Fight Club-esque and it seems as if there will be some attempt to make a comment on the inanity of corporate life and the "waning of affect" that Frederic Jameson says is occurring. There is even a mention of an Ikea table -- which oddly isn't a table at all but rather a cheesy laminate counter top island.
After that interesting beginning, however, it quickly turns into Jumper. Full of special effects -- which to be fair were a million times better and more exciting than Jumper -- but basically being yet another story about daddy issues and fulfilling a destiny. Substitute Jamie Bell's mentor/teacher role in Jumper with Jolie in this and Samuel L. Jackson's older wiser potential mastermind who is one step ahead with Morgan Freeman's character and you've basically got the same film.
It is that notion that the main character is "fulfilling his destiny" that is perhaps most tiresome in this day. I wonder why it is that in a country where we worship the rugged individualist who can pull himself up by the bootstraps we have so many stories about the man who is born to a destiny and heir to become powerful because of his parents. Of course, to be fair the original story was written by a Scott and not an American so to ask why he wouldn't subscribe to American mythologies isn't fair.
The end is fairly close to the comic book and has an entertaining gun fight and is also surprisingly final. Had they tacked on a fairy tale ending it would have been much worse.
three thumbs up
the ending saves it
and Jolie is pretty good
different from the source
Another movie I only saw because it was $5. I'm an Office fan and a long time Daily Show viewer so I like Steve Carrell. I've never seen any of Anne Hathaway's films but I looked her up and found out that she did a couple films with a lot of nudity in them to prove she wasn't a kid any more so I've got those in my Netflix cue...
The film was decent enough. I was afraid going into it that the bit of romance between Carrell and Hathaway would be a bit creepy since he is in his mid 40s and she is in her mid 20s. Luckily, however, the filmmakers must have though so too because they added in a line where Hathaway's character has had plastic surgery and says that she is older than she looks. There aren't any make out or sex scenes or anything so it isn't all that bad.
The main problem with the film is that it isn't funny. It has some minor limited humor but for long stretches it is just a straight forward spy movie. It is entertaining enough as that but Get Smart is supposed to be fun. Carrell and Hathaway are both charming enough so they almost carry it off but not quite.
two thumbs up
Next time more jokes please
So it is entertaining
But just not funny
The film was decent enough. I was afraid going into it that the bit of romance between Carrell and Hathaway would be a bit creepy since he is in his mid 40s and she is in her mid 20s. Luckily, however, the filmmakers must have though so too because they added in a line where Hathaway's character has had plastic surgery and says that she is older than she looks. There aren't any make out or sex scenes or anything so it isn't all that bad.
The main problem with the film is that it isn't funny. It has some minor limited humor but for long stretches it is just a straight forward spy movie. It is entertaining enough as that but Get Smart is supposed to be fun. Carrell and Hathaway are both charming enough so they almost carry it off but not quite.
two thumbs up
Next time more jokes please
So it is entertaining
But just not funny
I said I wouldn't pay for another M. Night Shyamalan film but the $5 Club was too much for me to resist. This is better than the Lady in the Water but that doesn't mean it was good.
I think the film can sort of be described as a more leisurely 28 Days Later or perhaps a quieter version of Spielberg's War of the Worlds. In all three the situations are pretty much the same: bad things are happening and everyone needs to get out of the city. The reasons are different but the effect is the same and especially in the case of 28 Days Later there is the feeling that anyone around you could turn and become a victim of this without warning.
The title is pretty bad. I don't know about anyone else but when I hear about a "happening, if think about a happening. If it had been called "the event" or something like that, it would be a lot less awkward.
In the commercials they made a big deal about this being "M. Night Shymalan's first R-rated film!" I have to tell you, this has to be the tamest, least gory or sexy R-rated movie ever. If someone says that they begged the MPAA to give it an R rather than a PG-13 I wouldn't be surprised. Sure there is some blood but that is minimal and frequently at a distance. Like pretty much every other M. Night film the people are all but asexual so there's nothing sexy. I don't even remember if there was any cursing.
The problem with the film is that as I said in my comparison to 28 Days Later and War of the Worlds, it is all rather leisurely and quiet (like M. Night's other films). There's never really any sense that any one we care about is in danger. One secondary character dies but it is pretty much a foregone conclusion that the character will die once separated from the group. That character might as well have said, "I'll be right back" and made the horror movie cliche complete. Never do we really feel like any of the main characters are in danger. Moreover, whenever anyone starts to act weird, no one else tries to do anything to stop the person. They just stand there all scarred. After the news had talked all about this going on wouldn't you at least try to stop them? It isn't as if this is a poison. If you tied them up they wouldn't be able to hurt themselves or anything. I suppose that a lack of control is supposed to be where the fear is with people losing control of their inhibitions, unable to control it, and even unable to control where and how they travel because the train stopped and they have no car.
Another big problem is M. Night Shymalan's dialog. He really should have someone take a quick pass at the script and revise the wordings of some things. For example, John Leguizamo says that his wife is in Princeton but he doesn't just say "Princeton." He says "the town of Princeton." Now, I live in the midwest but even I have heard of Princeton. Another example is Zooey Deschanel's character. At lesat two times she says something about "not liking to show her emotions." But what does she do the whole time? That's right, show emotions. If she had only said it once then it would be ok but no, she says it at lest twice in less than 10 minutes.
two thumbs up
It ain't a bad film
if you happen to see it
then go ahead on
I think the film can sort of be described as a more leisurely 28 Days Later or perhaps a quieter version of Spielberg's War of the Worlds. In all three the situations are pretty much the same: bad things are happening and everyone needs to get out of the city. The reasons are different but the effect is the same and especially in the case of 28 Days Later there is the feeling that anyone around you could turn and become a victim of this without warning.
The title is pretty bad. I don't know about anyone else but when I hear about a "happening, if think about a happening. If it had been called "the event" or something like that, it would be a lot less awkward.
In the commercials they made a big deal about this being "M. Night Shymalan's first R-rated film!" I have to tell you, this has to be the tamest, least gory or sexy R-rated movie ever. If someone says that they begged the MPAA to give it an R rather than a PG-13 I wouldn't be surprised. Sure there is some blood but that is minimal and frequently at a distance. Like pretty much every other M. Night film the people are all but asexual so there's nothing sexy. I don't even remember if there was any cursing.
The problem with the film is that as I said in my comparison to 28 Days Later and War of the Worlds, it is all rather leisurely and quiet (like M. Night's other films). There's never really any sense that any one we care about is in danger. One secondary character dies but it is pretty much a foregone conclusion that the character will die once separated from the group. That character might as well have said, "I'll be right back" and made the horror movie cliche complete. Never do we really feel like any of the main characters are in danger. Moreover, whenever anyone starts to act weird, no one else tries to do anything to stop the person. They just stand there all scarred. After the news had talked all about this going on wouldn't you at least try to stop them? It isn't as if this is a poison. If you tied them up they wouldn't be able to hurt themselves or anything. I suppose that a lack of control is supposed to be where the fear is with people losing control of their inhibitions, unable to control it, and even unable to control where and how they travel because the train stopped and they have no car.
Another big problem is M. Night Shymalan's dialog. He really should have someone take a quick pass at the script and revise the wordings of some things. For example, John Leguizamo says that his wife is in Princeton but he doesn't just say "Princeton." He says "the town of Princeton." Now, I live in the midwest but even I have heard of Princeton. Another example is Zooey Deschanel's character. At lesat two times she says something about "not liking to show her emotions." But what does she do the whole time? That's right, show emotions. If she had only said it once then it would be ok but no, she says it at lest twice in less than 10 minutes.
two thumbs up
It ain't a bad film
if you happen to see it
then go ahead on
I found this movie to be very credible. Much more credible than Ang Lee's film. It was not incredible by any mean. It wasn't great but it wasn't Ang Lee's Hulk bad. Ang Lee's Hulk wasn't horrible but it just wasn't very entertaining. This was more entertaining but it wasn't Iron Man.
There's some entertaining bits here but really there aren't any surprises or anything that you didn't expect to see. The trailer shows us the Abomination. We know that Betty Ross is in it. We know that there will be smashing.
The only real entertaining bits of the film come from the fact that Marvel is trying to create a cohesive movie universe here. That means that for the comic book geeks every time a character gets a couple lines or especially if they get their first and last name mentioned you get to play "who is that?" There are no characters in the Hulk who get any significant screen time that aren't cameos by people like Lou Ferrigno, Stan Lee, and even the dead Bill Bixby gets some screen time when a clip from The Courtship of Eddie's Father is show. There are also, as one of the trailers spoils, appearances by Tony Stark, Samuel Sterns, and Dr. Leonard Samson among others.
Other than that, there isn't all that much to recommend The Incredible Hulk.
two thumbs up
very credible
just not incredibly good
an A for effort.
There's some entertaining bits here but really there aren't any surprises or anything that you didn't expect to see. The trailer shows us the Abomination. We know that Betty Ross is in it. We know that there will be smashing.
The only real entertaining bits of the film come from the fact that Marvel is trying to create a cohesive movie universe here. That means that for the comic book geeks every time a character gets a couple lines or especially if they get their first and last name mentioned you get to play "who is that?" There are no characters in the Hulk who get any significant screen time that aren't cameos by people like Lou Ferrigno, Stan Lee, and even the dead Bill Bixby gets some screen time when a clip from The Courtship of Eddie's Father is show. There are also, as one of the trailers spoils, appearances by Tony Stark, Samuel Sterns, and Dr. Leonard Samson among others.
Other than that, there isn't all that much to recommend The Incredible Hulk.
two thumbs up
very credible
just not incredibly good
an A for effort.
I didn't have much hope for this film. I didn't really want to see it but I needed to run an errand out by the theater and it was already in the Five Buck Club so I figured I would go see it.
Surprisingly, it was a bit better than I thought it would be. There were no stupid songs -- something I despise about animated films. There was no wise-cracking sidekick. And honestly, for a Jack Black film there wasn't all that much wacky stuff. So what was there? There was a surprising amount of fight scenes. Moreover, they were surprisingly good.
That being said, the fight scenes were pretty much the only reason to see the film because the story is not only predicable but also trying to set up a franchise. Po, the panda, is an outcast who loves kung fu. His father, who is a duck, wants him to follow in the family business. There is a big event to announce who will be the "dragon warrior" and although there are 5 great highly trained competitors, Po is chosen. He has set backs. Then he wins.
The reason why I say it is trying to set up a series is that whole "dad is a duck" thing. There aren't any other giant pandas in the film (although the master is a rad panda). There also isn't any evidence that in the world of Kung Fu Panda ducks are capable of giving birth to pandas. There is one part where you think they are going to address the parentage of Po but they don't So from that it seems clear that the inevitable sequel, whether it is at the theater or direct to dvd, will be all about Po's parents.
two thumbs up
Fighting animals
Why don't they eat each other
Vegetarians?
Surprisingly, it was a bit better than I thought it would be. There were no stupid songs -- something I despise about animated films. There was no wise-cracking sidekick. And honestly, for a Jack Black film there wasn't all that much wacky stuff. So what was there? There was a surprising amount of fight scenes. Moreover, they were surprisingly good.
That being said, the fight scenes were pretty much the only reason to see the film because the story is not only predicable but also trying to set up a franchise. Po, the panda, is an outcast who loves kung fu. His father, who is a duck, wants him to follow in the family business. There is a big event to announce who will be the "dragon warrior" and although there are 5 great highly trained competitors, Po is chosen. He has set backs. Then he wins.
The reason why I say it is trying to set up a series is that whole "dad is a duck" thing. There aren't any other giant pandas in the film (although the master is a rad panda). There also isn't any evidence that in the world of Kung Fu Panda ducks are capable of giving birth to pandas. There is one part where you think they are going to address the parentage of Po but they don't So from that it seems clear that the inevitable sequel, whether it is at the theater or direct to dvd, will be all about Po's parents.
two thumbs up
Fighting animals
Why don't they eat each other
Vegetarians?
So making any film about Israel and Jerusalem is going to be tough. But making a comedy about it has to be even more difficult. Sandler does a decent job of it but it is one of the parts not related to the Middle East that is most disturbing.
If you've seen the commercials you know the story: Sandler plays a Israeli soldier who is the best there is. However, he wants to be a hair stylist. So the film takes it humor from a couple of sources, Zohan's over the top physical abilities like being able to do push-ups without his hands and being a manly man who wants to cut hair. Of course his past catches up with him and the film tries to make some sort of statement about getting along.
The disturbing part comes from the third source of humor in the film: Zohan has lots and lots of sex with old women -- and not just like women in their 40s. He has lots and lots of sex with senior citizens. In fact, he is basically a prostitute. He cuts the hair of the old women and then takes them into the back room and has sex with them. To top it off, hardly anyone seems to think that this is odd, immoral, illegal, or just plain nasty. The only character who thinks it is wrong is a guy the Zohan befriends and doesn't like Zohan having sex with his mom or making out in front of him. There isn't even any mention of condoms or sexually transmitted diseases. Nasty. Then to make things even weirder it ends with some sort of advocacy of monogammy. It is just weird. Other than that is a very predictable film.
one thumb up
The Zohan messes
With some senior citizens
That is so creepy!
If you've seen the commercials you know the story: Sandler plays a Israeli soldier who is the best there is. However, he wants to be a hair stylist. So the film takes it humor from a couple of sources, Zohan's over the top physical abilities like being able to do push-ups without his hands and being a manly man who wants to cut hair. Of course his past catches up with him and the film tries to make some sort of statement about getting along.
The disturbing part comes from the third source of humor in the film: Zohan has lots and lots of sex with old women -- and not just like women in their 40s. He has lots and lots of sex with senior citizens. In fact, he is basically a prostitute. He cuts the hair of the old women and then takes them into the back room and has sex with them. To top it off, hardly anyone seems to think that this is odd, immoral, illegal, or just plain nasty. The only character who thinks it is wrong is a guy the Zohan befriends and doesn't like Zohan having sex with his mom or making out in front of him. There isn't even any mention of condoms or sexually transmitted diseases. Nasty. Then to make things even weirder it ends with some sort of advocacy of monogammy. It is just weird. Other than that is a very predictable film.
one thumb up
The Zohan messes
With some senior citizens
That is so creepy!
While I don't believe in supernatural things or that there are large unknown animals in North America, I'm like X-Files' Fox Mulder and I want to believe. It would be a lot more interesting if these kinds of things did exist.
The Mothman Prophecies is loosely based on actual events. I say loosely because when weird things happen in real life that don't always make for good stories. So apparently the filmmakers took the events and twisted them around to make a nice story with a beginning middle and end.
So Richard Gere is the husband of Debra Messing who dies. She leave behind drawings and somehow Gere gets involved in this West Virginia town where people have seen weird things. Then people start to get phone calls from someone called Indrid Cold who makes obtuse comments which turn out to be predictions of tragic events.
The first part of the film before Messing's character dies is very very slow. After that it gets a lot more interesting. For me it didn't ever get creepy or scary. It was more interesting and made me look up the real story on wikipedia.
One thing about the film did creep me out. It was the song that played over the closing credits. I had heard the song "Half-Light" by Low before but the closing credits had a remix that featured some creepy sounds in the background and it was really effective. It creeped me out more than the movie did. I guess that is a bad thing.
The Mothman Prophecies is loosely based on actual events. I say loosely because when weird things happen in real life that don't always make for good stories. So apparently the filmmakers took the events and twisted them around to make a nice story with a beginning middle and end.
So Richard Gere is the husband of Debra Messing who dies. She leave behind drawings and somehow Gere gets involved in this West Virginia town where people have seen weird things. Then people start to get phone calls from someone called Indrid Cold who makes obtuse comments which turn out to be predictions of tragic events.
The first part of the film before Messing's character dies is very very slow. After that it gets a lot more interesting. For me it didn't ever get creepy or scary. It was more interesting and made me look up the real story on wikipedia.
One thing about the film did creep me out. It was the song that played over the closing credits. I had heard the song "Half-Light" by Low before but the closing credits had a remix that featured some creepy sounds in the background and it was really effective. It creeped me out more than the movie did. I guess that is a bad thing.
Anyway, the film is kind of entertaining but not something that is a can't miss or anything.
two thumbs up
Don't mess with the moth
He will totally kill you
And freak you out man.
two thumbs up
Don't mess with the moth
He will totally kill you
And freak you out man.
