Guess what is next. Or even the next two.
Clue: Alrighty then.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Accepted (2006)
The opening of the mind.
Whole new methods of learning.
Are just two themes to this "Threes Company" type comedy about a student who does not get excepted to college. So a group of degenerate friends decide to create a new fake college to deceive Bartleby's (Justin Long) parents. They do this by fixing up an old mental institution to look like a real college... and all the comedic problems that go with telling lies to cover up other lies and getting away with it.
There are not-so-inspiring creative monologues throughout with more one liners than you can count. I can not say I am any dumber for watching, but it's a movie that is about education it should be slightly more educational. This movie is just full of the seven essS's Sentimental Sarcastic Swears while wearing Slutty outfits Showing Skin while acting Stupid. This is a strangely different version of a Ferris Buellers Day Off without the wit and cool 80's music. So it is a true $5.00 bin movie.
This movie gets a rating of: How did I get this movie? (click to see rating system)
Questions to ponder while watching this movie:
Am I glad I got this movie from the $5.00 bin?
(If I got it from the $5 bin to create a new drinking game and had a great time watching a ridiculous tits and ass movie while drinking with friends.... then yes I would say it was a good purchase from the $5 bin.)
What is the drinking game?
(Drink for every time that someone says SHIT or SHIT appears on the screen. Have fun with this great $5 bin party idea. Glad to have made the world a slightly better more drunken place)
.
The opening of the mind.
Whole new methods of learning.
Are just two themes to this "Threes Company" type comedy about a student who does not get excepted to college. So a group of degenerate friends decide to create a new fake college to deceive Bartleby's (Justin Long) parents. They do this by fixing up an old mental institution to look like a real college... and all the comedic problems that go with telling lies to cover up other lies and getting away with it.
There are not-so-inspiring creative monologues throughout with more one liners than you can count. I can not say I am any dumber for watching, but it's a movie that is about education it should be slightly more educational. This movie is just full of the seven essS's Sentimental Sarcastic Swears while wearing Slutty outfits Showing Skin while acting Stupid. This is a strangely different version of a Ferris Buellers Day Off without the wit and cool 80's music. So it is a true $5.00 bin movie.
This movie gets a rating of: How did I get this movie? (click to see rating system)
Questions to ponder while watching this movie:
Am I glad I got this movie from the $5.00 bin?
(If I got it from the $5 bin to create a new drinking game and had a great time watching a ridiculous tits and ass movie while drinking with friends.... then yes I would say it was a good purchase from the $5 bin.)
What is the drinking game?
(Drink for every time that someone says SHIT or SHIT appears on the screen. Have fun with this great $5 bin party idea. Glad to have made the world a slightly better more drunken place)
.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
A Time To Kill 1996
John Grisham wrote the book, so of course there is an exceptional plot line. A controversial plot where a 10 year old african-american girl is raped by two southern bigot, rednecks and in return the father, Carl Lee Haley (Samuel L Jackson) kills both of these rapist right on the court room steps just before they went to court. The whole basis of the movie is about the ensuing capital trial of Carl Lee Haley. There is an interesting scene at the beginning of this movie between Jake (McConaughey) and Lucien (Sutherland) in which they discuss the trial before it starts and comment how, if he is convicted of murder, which he clearly committed, then justice would prevail and if he is let go then in a way justice would also prevail. That one scene is an excellent depiction of the movie as a whole and really "makes you think."
The movie does not have the best acting McConaughey has a strange smirk of his face in even some of the most serious scenes. I might even go so far as to say maybe McConaughey should stick to his romantic comedies, he acts better with his shirt off. I believe that the Grisham books attention to detail actually hurts some of the acting in this movie because there is such dry dialog in some parts of this film. Although, Sandra Bullock is a nice distraction from some of the drawn out legal jargon.
Having seen this movie brings up a lot of questions and you will be glad you watched this movie. It does not leave you wanting to watch it again or wanting more detail, like I stated earlier it may even be a little too detailed to a fault. It is a movie that is very straight forward, well thought out, and fairly good adaptation of a still prejudice Mississippi in the late 20th century.
This movie gets a rating of: In my collection (click to see rating system)
Questions to ponder while watching this movie:
How does one walk right into the lobby of the court house with a automatic weapon?
What year is this film set?
Am I really routing for a guy to get away with murder?
Am I really routing for a guy to cheat on his wife... just so I can see Sandra Bullock in a sex scene?
John Grisham wrote the book, so of course there is an exceptional plot line. A controversial plot where a 10 year old african-american girl is raped by two southern bigot, rednecks and in return the father, Carl Lee Haley (Samuel L Jackson) kills both of these rapist right on the court room steps just before they went to court. The whole basis of the movie is about the ensuing capital trial of Carl Lee Haley. There is an interesting scene at the beginning of this movie between Jake (McConaughey) and Lucien (Sutherland) in which they discuss the trial before it starts and comment how, if he is convicted of murder, which he clearly committed, then justice would prevail and if he is let go then in a way justice would also prevail. That one scene is an excellent depiction of the movie as a whole and really "makes you think."
The movie does not have the best acting McConaughey has a strange smirk of his face in even some of the most serious scenes. I might even go so far as to say maybe McConaughey should stick to his romantic comedies, he acts better with his shirt off. I believe that the Grisham books attention to detail actually hurts some of the acting in this movie because there is such dry dialog in some parts of this film. Although, Sandra Bullock is a nice distraction from some of the drawn out legal jargon.
Having seen this movie brings up a lot of questions and you will be glad you watched this movie. It does not leave you wanting to watch it again or wanting more detail, like I stated earlier it may even be a little too detailed to a fault. It is a movie that is very straight forward, well thought out, and fairly good adaptation of a still prejudice Mississippi in the late 20th century.
This movie gets a rating of: In my collection (click to see rating system)
Questions to ponder while watching this movie:
How does one walk right into the lobby of the court house with a automatic weapon?
What year is this film set?
Am I really routing for a guy to get away with murder?
Am I really routing for a guy to cheat on his wife... just so I can see Sandra Bullock in a sex scene?
Saturday, December 19, 2009
A Life less Ordinary 1997
The two duos of the angels(Hunt and Lindo) and lovers (Diaz and McGregor) are both great matches. Diaz and McGregor are good together. You start routing for them from early on in the movie.
There are some real wierd scenes with the locals/neighbor, but I guess I should have seen that coming. There is a certain quirkiness to most of these scenes which does make you chuckle but it is not hilarious. Like in Trainspotting there is a direction in this film to shock and awe you, but not with such a dark twist. So the direction takes some strange liberties with dreams of a drunken karaoke and awkward ex-boyfriend dentist photo shoot. So for a movie with some underlying religious plot line it sure does have some questionable content. Keep watching through the credits... they finish the movie in claymation and tie up some loose ends.
It is a good movie the first time you watch it but it does not have that "want to see more." They maybe leave it open for a sequel, but I don't think anyone is beating down Boyle's door asking to give us another fate filled cringe-worthy crime spree from Diaz and McGregor.
This movie gets a rating of: In my collection (click to see rating system)
Questions to ponder while watching the movie:
Where did the window in the front door of the cabin go?
Shot through the heart?
The two duos of the angels(Hunt and Lindo) and lovers (Diaz and McGregor) are both great matches. Diaz and McGregor are good together. You start routing for them from early on in the movie.
There are some real wierd scenes with the locals/neighbor, but I guess I should have seen that coming. There is a certain quirkiness to most of these scenes which does make you chuckle but it is not hilarious. Like in Trainspotting there is a direction in this film to shock and awe you, but not with such a dark twist. So the direction takes some strange liberties with dreams of a drunken karaoke and awkward ex-boyfriend dentist photo shoot. So for a movie with some underlying religious plot line it sure does have some questionable content. Keep watching through the credits... they finish the movie in claymation and tie up some loose ends.
It is a good movie the first time you watch it but it does not have that "want to see more." They maybe leave it open for a sequel, but I don't think anyone is beating down Boyle's door asking to give us another fate filled cringe-worthy crime spree from Diaz and McGregor.
This movie gets a rating of: In my collection (click to see rating system)
Questions to ponder while watching the movie:
Where did the window in the front door of the cabin go?
Shot through the heart?
Friday, December 18, 2009
I will be posting a new movie alphabetically as often as I can watch them and write a post. I thought it would be fun for me to make a post each time I finish with the previous movie and allow all of you to guess what the movie will be the next day. Post your guess in the comment section of this thread.
Some of these will be running commentary through the movie and some just a review. Mostly depending what I have time to write each day.
Well I guess we start with A:
A Few Good Men 1992
"Tom Cruise at his hottest ever.... besides maybe Days of Thunder" says "movie genius" wife. Good blog material and the movie has not even started yet.
Also this movie is a good movie to file away in the 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon movie category. Lots of good links it can get you to blockbusters like Top Gun or to ridiculous sequels like Wayne's World 2 (Kevin Pollak) so many good connections.
I like the Red Sox hat while Tom Cruise is taking batting practice.
The story of the movie is good and well written, compelling even at some points to keep you guessing as to where it is headed. I like Rob Reiner and he has a very distinct way of presenting an up close and personal view. He does this with tight shots of everyones faces especially in the court room scenes. This makes for the very passionate well acted court sequences.
It also makes you think ethically and question what you believe is too far. I always enjoy a movie that makes me think. This is one is a little more mild than some court room moral dilema's like A Time to Kill (clue for future posts) . But, even though this is an accidental death that is being prosecuted it has a great appeal to it audience's moral views because of such strong acting chemistry especially between Cruise and Nicholson. Or otherwise put Nicholson Rocks!
This movie gets a rating of: Keeper (click to see rating system)
I wrote a whole review with out even mentioning YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!
Ending Questions to ponder while watching the movie:
Does he get the set of steak knives?
Are there female Generals?
Well I guess we start with A:
A Few Good Men 1992
"Tom Cruise at his hottest ever.... besides maybe Days of Thunder" says "movie genius" wife. Good blog material and the movie has not even started yet.
Also this movie is a good movie to file away in the 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon movie category. Lots of good links it can get you to blockbusters like Top Gun or to ridiculous sequels like Wayne's World 2 (Kevin Pollak) so many good connections.
I like the Red Sox hat while Tom Cruise is taking batting practice.
The story of the movie is good and well written, compelling even at some points to keep you guessing as to where it is headed. I like Rob Reiner and he has a very distinct way of presenting an up close and personal view. He does this with tight shots of everyones faces especially in the court room scenes. This makes for the very passionate well acted court sequences.
It also makes you think ethically and question what you believe is too far. I always enjoy a movie that makes me think. This is one is a little more mild than some court room moral dilema's like A Time to Kill (clue for future posts) . But, even though this is an accidental death that is being prosecuted it has a great appeal to it audience's moral views because of such strong acting chemistry especially between Cruise and Nicholson. Or otherwise put Nicholson Rocks!
This movie gets a rating of: Keeper (click to see rating system)
I wrote a whole review with out even mentioning YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!
Ending Questions to ponder while watching the movie:
Does he get the set of steak knives?
Are there female Generals?
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Alphabetically seems a logical order to post my movie reviews. Although I would love to post them autobiographically I am not sure I would have that much time or ability to recall to exact order in which I got from The Never Ending Story to Say Anything to Clerks to Usual Suspects all the way to when I got Star Trek in the mail last week.
So that lead me to my first question:
When putting the movies in alphabetical order do the 1,2,3's come first or do you put them in alphabetically by the first letter in the number? (i.e. 8 seconds or 21 filed under E for eight or T for twenty-one or numerically?)
So that lead me to my first question:
When putting the movies in alphabetical order do the 1,2,3's come first or do you put them in alphabetically by the first letter in the number? (i.e. 8 seconds or 21 filed under E for eight or T for twenty-one or numerically?)
Movies will be rated by the following 6 categories:
Must Own: This is a movie that even if you are not a movie collector everyone must have in their house. These are movies that I consider classics or movies that "revolutionized" the industry. These are the best of the best.
Keeper: Any serious collector should have these movies in their collections. They are the movies that you watch and are impressed with the whole product, acting directing, visual effects, music etc.
In my collection: These are movies that I have and have wanted to watch for various reasons and they are good but not the best of that genre. Sometimes these are movies that one should own just to have a complete collection of a director or actor. Or I have them for sentimental reasons.
How did I get this movie?: The true answer is usually the $5 bin. But these are movies that I have in my collection that I have acquired and I am not sure why I got or in some case I am not sure why I even watched them.
Sell It: These are movies that I will be getting rid of because I don't not want it in my collection. Sometimes this is even a blockbuster that I just don't like, but had to buy to say that I have seen it.
Trash It: These are movies that should never have been made. These are the worst of the worst. The movies that I put in this category will be movies that are better to trash it and rid the world of a copy of this horrible movie.
Must Own: This is a movie that even if you are not a movie collector everyone must have in their house. These are movies that I consider classics or movies that "revolutionized" the industry. These are the best of the best.
Keeper: Any serious collector should have these movies in their collections. They are the movies that you watch and are impressed with the whole product, acting directing, visual effects, music etc.
In my collection: These are movies that I have and have wanted to watch for various reasons and they are good but not the best of that genre. Sometimes these are movies that one should own just to have a complete collection of a director or actor. Or I have them for sentimental reasons.
How did I get this movie?: The true answer is usually the $5 bin. But these are movies that I have in my collection that I have acquired and I am not sure why I got or in some case I am not sure why I even watched them.
Sell It: These are movies that I will be getting rid of because I don't not want it in my collection. Sometimes this is even a blockbuster that I just don't like, but had to buy to say that I have seen it.
Trash It: These are movies that should never have been made. These are the worst of the worst. The movies that I put in this category will be movies that are better to trash it and rid the world of a copy of this horrible movie.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
