Change Your Image
gargamel_gargamel
Reviews
Bangkok Dangerous (2008)
You might be in danger of falling asleep.
Nicolas Cage doing what he does. Sleeping through a performance that you might also sleep through. The script is pretty dry... I'll give him that... and it would have been far worse with some no-name actor at the helm, but it was involving enough to keep my interest... mostly.
The story is actually pretty good aside from the love interest. It is necessary to the story, however, it went on a little long... the film overall could have been about 15 minutes shorter and it would have garnered a few more stars from me. And why, why is his love interested deaf. I understand the symbolism, but it made for some pretty boring and uncomfortable scenes.
There is plenty of gunfire, explosions, and killing. Some car chases.... .kinda. They tend to throw something like this in right when I'm about to pass out and start drooling on my seatmate. I kinda enjoyed this film.... some. Don't feel like I 'wasted' my money on it, but there are a lot better out at the theatres right now. On DVD it would be more worth your money... then you could FF through the bedtime stories...
Gargamel Scale = 1 for gunfire/explosions, 0.5 for car chase scenes, 0 for acting, 0.5 for story, and 0.5 for nudity... very brief, but nice. That's a 2.5 out of 5 on my scale... 5 out of ten for IMDb. That sums up how I feel about this movie... right in the middle.
Pineapple Express (2008)
These guys were behind their own product.. for sure
Ah, another delightful, situational comedy-action-drama movie. One with plenty of funny one-liners and comic relief, but with just the right amount of suspense and action. I thought it was pretty darned good.
The acting was what you will expect going into this movie... nothing that's going to garner Oscars, but good enough to get you into the characters. The story was well written (as most of theirs are) and the script was spot-on in most cases.
So in a nutshell. Man buys drugs. Man goes to serve papers to someone and sees a murder. Man drops drugs on street while making very loud and obvious getaway from the scene. The drugs are very traceable as nobody has this stuff....well almost nobody. The rest of the movie is running from the bad guys... .well.... and the good guys and forming friendships along the way... really this movie is all about friendship, and peace, and love... oh wait, nevermind... too much pineapple express.
On the Gargamel Scale it gets 1 for acting, 1 for car chases, 1 for gunfire/explosions, 1 for storyline and 0 for nudity. That's 4 out of 5 which equates to 8 at IMDb...
College (2008)
College?
Funny. I don't remember this stuff from college.... but then again, what about Nerds and Animal House? Those were nothing like college, but when I was much younger and saw those.. I loved them. so.... benefit of the doubt, right? Right.
Well. The story starts off okay, but gets pretty extravagant and unbelievable pretty quickly. These nerdy guys get super hot girls? I don't think so. The main party of the movie is very unreal. Mini-me? Penthouse pets? stripper poles all over the place? Nah.
The acting is ridiculous. I can't think of one actor that made me believe he/she was really in their character....It was like watching a movie made my a bunch of high school kids for a class project... bad. So was the filming and the music. Bad.
Let's get this over with... I don't want to think about this movie anymore... Gargamel scale : Nudity 1 (there were some nice shots... early/mid movie), gunfire/explosions 0, car chases 0, acting 0, story 0. That's one for me and 2 for IMDb. Figure it out.
Burn After Reading (2008)
Delightfully dark
I went into this film knowing NOTHING about it. All I knew was the movie poster. So I had absolutely NO expectations.... here's what it came down to.
The story was very well written... kinda twisty and intertwined... fun but dramatic... all over the map, yet linear... ya know? The acting was great. Clooney, Pitt, McDormand and Malkovich were all wonderful. Some of them in unfamiliar roles.....but pulled off very well. The supporting cast was great as well. McDormand and Pitt find this cd of what they think are CIA secrets at the gym they work at and use it to try and blackmail money out of Malkovich (ex CIA) and then when that doesn't work.... the russians... Also, Clooney is sleeping with Malkovich's wife AND McDormand... it gets pretty tangled..
Overall a good movie... ending was a little quick and, well, blah. But otherwise a lot of fun.
Gargamel scale : acting 1, story 1, gunfire/explosions 1, car chases 1, nudity....0 sorry ladies... that is 4 on my scale which is 8 on IMDb, way to go Coen bros.
Righteous Kill (2008)
Why, Why, Why did the agree to be in this film??
Pacino.
DeNiro.
Cop Movie.
Action.
Deceipt.
Dang, this sounds great, huh? Well. If it wasn't for the two leads the theatre would have been pretty empty by half way through. The story is predictable. The acting is sub par for most of the supporting cast. They cinematography leaves a lot to be desired. The effects were very phony and worst of all... to repeat myself... very predictable.
Ah, if only there would have been some good car chases or explosions or some twist I didn't see coming.. something. I walked out feeling let down.... mostly because I was expecting something great. I figured if both Pacino and Deniro signed on... it must be a good movie, right? I mean they wouldn't lend their names to just anything, right? Well, see for yourself... if you dare.
Gargamel scale: car chases 0, Guns/explosions 0.5(not enough gunplay even for one full point), acting 0.5(only because of the two leads), story 0, nudity 0...that's only 1 point on the gargamel scale which doubles up to 2 points at IMDb... disappointing.
Tropic Thunder (2008)
Thunderous applause
Okay, so I went into this movie expecting it to be pretty funny... I guess....mostly based on the cast. I had NO idea! This is one of the funniest and best movies I have seen in a very long time.
The acting is top notch by all involved.... especially Downey for me. Stiller was his usual self... which is good, but nothing new. What Downey pulled off was downright hilarious.... as was Tom Cruise's character! He had me rolling in the aisles.
The special effects were really done well and the storyline took you pretty much where you thought it would, but with a few twists.
I would recommend this movie to anyone... action fans, comedy fans, drama fans.... who cares.... just go.
Deception (2008)
Deceived me into thinking it was a drama... isn't it a thriller?
Deception tries to be a thriller about an ordinary, lonely accountant getting caught up in a life of sex, lies, and thievery by way of accidentally joining a sex club for people too successful to foster real relationships. Is that confusing? I thought so. But... even though it 'tries' to be a thriller, it is really more of a drama. Mostly because (as others have pointed out) it is fairly predictable. You see most of the plot twists coming. Be that as it may, I still thought the movie was pretty good! The acting was probably the saving grace. All three leads did a great job with their roles. That's saying a lot for me since I usually don't like Williams or McGregor. Here I thought they turned mediocre characters (by way of the script) into believable human beings. I never once found myself bored during this movie so that says something.
Overall, a decent way to spend a couple of hours, but not something that you're going to remember for a long time. In fact.... I had seen 4 or 5 movies over the last couple of weeks and wrote all the other reviews last week... I had actually forgotten about this one until I found the ticket stub in my dryer.....
Now.. on to the Gargamel Scale. It works by giving 1 point each for : Acting, Story, Car Chases, Gunfire/Explosions, and Nudity. With a provision to add a half point to any category at my discretion.
For Deception I give 1 for acting, 1 for explosions/gunfire, 0 for story, 0 for car chases and a big 1 for nudity... (not 1.5, even though there was lots... it wasn't good quality and kind of cheesy) That's a 3.0 on my scale or a 6 on the IMDb scale.
Forgetting Sarah Marshall (2008)
Good movie overall. Funny, witty, not too sappy.
Forget Sarah Marshall he doesn't, but get over her he does. So we all know the premise from the trailers, right. Guy gets dumped, girl has new (famous and obnoxious) boyfriend, both go on vacation to the same place accidentally. Hilarity ensues. Kinda.
There are some really funny moments in this movie. There are also some that are 'supposed' to be funny, but fail or you've already seen it in the trailer. Of course, some scenes are just too cheesy to be funny, but that is to be expected.
The acting is pretty solid for a comedy. This movie doesn't take itself too seriously and that is good. It does what it sets out to do. Entertain for a couple of hours and make you laugh. Everything pretty much gets tied up in a nice little package for you even. The story is a little too ironic at times, but it flows nicely. I enjoyed it and would recommend for a date movie..... as long as you both are okay with some very short lived female nudity and some longer lived male nudity.
On the Gargamel scale it gets 1 for story 1 for acting 1 for nudity 0 car chases and I don't remember any gunfire/explosions either... that gives it a 3 (double it to 6 on the IMDb scale) but I'm giving a big 0.5 for style so since there is no 6.5 I'm rounding up to a 7. How's that for favorable math?
Iron Man (2008)
Like it more than I thought I would
Ironman, huh? Never heard of the premise.... though I assume it was a Marvel comic at some point. So I had no expectations going in other than I like Downey Jr and Jeff Bridges... so it had that going for it already. And it looked fun.
Fun it is. The acting from these 2 guys was good. I caught myself hearing hints of The Dude in Jeff Bridges sometimes, but any Big Lebowski fan is going to pick that out..... it is unavoidable! He pulled it off excellently. Jr did very well with his part and was mostly very believable. I was impressed with Paltrow. She usually doesn't do it for me, but she looked unbelievably sexy in this role, especially the charity event scene with the backless dress (you'll see). Oh, and she did a good job with the acting also.
The story is pretty good.... and like I said... fun. There are parts that dragged on a little bit, especially at the beginning. I thought the movie would have been better had it been about 20 minutes shorter. There were parts when I was thinking... okay, I know what's going on, let's just move on to the next scene already. However, like I said... more towards the beginning. Once the story gets rolling it keeps you interested. There are some great action scenes, you just have to put aside your logic for the flying stuff... but... it's a comic book so....
On the Gargamel scale it gets 1 for story 1 for acting 1 for car chase (but it's more of an air chase, and it's cool) 1.5 for guns/explosions and 0 for the nudity score... there is not full nudity but there is some implication that is pretty sexy.. wow, so that's a 4.5 which equates to a 9 on the IMDb scale. I'm surprised myself..
21 (2008)
You might want to call this bet, but don't go all in
So this is a movie about blackjack, right....well, not really. I mean they do play blackjack, but it is more about the main character's descent into drinking, lying and gambling than anything else. Then, of course, his turnaround when he realizes the error of his ways.
It was fairly well acted... not perfect, but not bad either. I was a little disappointed in Spacey's performance. He is usually very solid, but the problem may have been more with the lines he had to work with than anything else. Fishburn did very well with his part as well. All the other performances seemed a little uninspired. You can tell that there were parts forced into the movie that weren't in the true story it is based on. ... and it is pretty predictable It was a decent way to spend a couple of hours, but I probably would pass it up until DVD.
Overall the story was pretty good, probably because it was based on actual events. So on the Gargamel scale I give 1 for story 0.5 for acting, 0 nudity, 0 gunfire/explosions and 0 car chases. That gives us a whopping 1.5 on my scale or a 3 on the IMDb 10pt scale.
Pathology (2008)
Let's dig in.....
This is interesting. I lower budget gorefest that I expected to love because it was so cheesy and instead end up liking because it is actually good! I love B rate cheese fest horror movies, and thought this would be another.... but.
This story is well written and not too far out of the realm of possibility. Sure at some point hospital security or what not would have noticed bodies being moved into an empty wing and incinerated yada yada yada. However, it is believable that some forensic doctors might go crazy and do some of the things in the movie.. especially with all the drugs/alcohol these doctors were consuming.
The acting is overall pretty good. The only performance that was kind of flat for me was the professor that mentors these students. The doctors themselves all did a fine job and were really believable.
Was there too much gore and gratuitous sex as others have mentioned?? Let's put it this way, there was enough gore, but not too much. Not for the squeamish, but not over the top either. And I only remember 3 sex scenes, one of which had no nudity whatsoever and the other 2 had quick flashes of breasts only. These scenes were instrumental to the plot and not there just to show nudity. There are a couple of scenes of dead women with their breasts exposed but what do you expect in a morgue? And it's nothing more than you would see on National Geographic or Discovery Channel.
Overall I give this movie props.... surprisingly. Now for the Gargamel Scale : 1 for nudity, 1 for story, 1 for acting, there were no car chases.. so 0 there, and no gunfire/explosions, but there was lots of killing... so I'll give a 0.5 there. That's 3.5 total for you non-math majors. That equates to a 7 on the IMDb 10 point scale.
This movie season is finally starting to get better!
Street Kings (2008)
Finally, a good time at the movies...been a long time
Been a while since there were any new movies that were worth anything. Finally I sit through one that is really good. Make sure you are comfortable before it starts because you won't want to miss anything.... this movie starts off fast, keeps racing, speeds up and crosses the finish line at top speed.
The story is about a cop that works in a special unit that is almost above the law. Well, actually the story is about all of the guys in that unit, but the lead is Keanu Reeves. Now every time I see him I see Bill S Preston Esquire from Bill and Ted. Even when he was in the Matrix (which I loved). However, here he did such a good job playing this burnt out, pushed to the limit, cop that I didn't think about it one time! All of the other actors did astonishingly well, too. The story line is pretty tight and the cinematography is nice as well.
On the Gargamel Scale it gets 1 for car chase, 1 for guns/explosions, 1 for acting, 1 for story and hmmmm.... well there was no nudity even though there would have been a couple of easy chances for some....so 0 points there. That leaves us with a 4 out of 5.... not easy to achieve.
Congrats Street Kings.
Smart People (2008)
Not as good as I had hoped
This movie isn't bad, not at all. But, it's not GREAT either. It does it's thing very easily and cordially throughout with no really unexpected twists and some pretty blah acting. Not bad, just blah.
I liked Ellen Page better in Juno, probably because it was better written. THC stole all the scenes he was in, and even that should tell you something.
The story was okay, I just found myself bored throughout.... but then again.... I just watched Street Kings so......
Go see this if you don't want to have to think too hard, it hands everything to you on a nice serving platter.... and it's already cut into bite size pieces for you. Enjoy.
No Country for Old Men (2007)
You have to pay attention.... it helps.
I have seen a LOT of the negative reviewers here spouting comments about the movie that are inaccurate. i.e... that Josh Brolin played an officer... he did not. that Bardem's character had no motivation... um, he was hired to track down the money that was involved in the drug transaction. That we are not shown the people behind the drug deal.... um, who cares, that's not what the movie is about. that people in Texas don't talk/act like that... I live in Texas and have spent a lot of time in FAR west Texas and I can tell you, 28 years ago, that is pretty darned close to how it was... that Moss missed the deer at the beginning.... no, he wounded it and was following it's trail when he came across the pit bull that he then followed it's back trail to the "o.k. corral." ( and let's see any of you even hit that target from what looked to be at least 150 yards). that there were no police looking for this "serial killer".... several times Bell or some other person mentioned the FBI going out to the scene several times...other lawmen he came in contact with obviously knew about all of the killings showing that the news had been circulated and people were looking for this guy.
Bottom line, if you pay attention you will understand a lot more of the movie and enjoy it more as well.
Brolin did a great job with his character. There were a couple of "why would he do that" moments that are more the fault of holding true to the book than anything else (like returning to the desert with water for a man who is almost certainly dead already). However, he was very believable... and I liked how he was killed off screen. It was more surprising that way rather than having a build up of anticipation and knowing what is about to happen.
Bardem was brilliant and his character was great. People say why did he do this or why did he do that.... bottom line, he was insane. He was delusional. He has his own rules and he does abide by them. Crazy people don't fit the mold of normal logic and/or morals. In the book he even turns the money over to a third party at the end... A) proving that he did in fact get the money (for you nay-sayers) and B) showing that since he took the job he would finish it.. even though he could have kept the money... he had agreed to bring it to it's owner.
And Tommy Lee was great for the part he needed to play. His ruminations are there to get us into his head as the book did... that is something that never transmits to a screenplay very well. However, it was fun thinking after the movie about what he meant... was he talking about his own death?.... did he feel Bardem would come after him? did the dream about losing money mean that he lost something valuable in not being able to protect the Mosses from death? Nobody knows for sure, maybe not even the author.... these are things that make a movie good people. And sometimes the bad guy wins... in life even more than in the movies. Deal with it.
Overall I gave an 8 because of some of the original plot problems from the book. The acting was great, the cinematography was great, the audio was of course great, and the story is great.
It is a 4 of 5 on the Gargamel Scale. Bringing 1 for acting, 1 for car chases, 1 for explosions/gunfire, and 1 for story. It misses the 1 for nudity which would have been out of place in this movie... and given the great amount of gunfire/explosions and wonderful acting.... I'll boost it to a 4.5... there ya go.
The Ruins (2008)
Not bad.... not bad.....
So I didn't have great expectations for this.... It has a bunch of actors nobody has heard of and a storyline that seems like it would be pretty cheesy..... killer vines?? Little Shop of Horrors anyone? BUT, I really ended up liking it. As someone else stated... not too many "scary movie" clichés and the acting was actually pretty good.
So here goes, watch for spoilers.
These college kids are on vacation. Right. In Mexico. Right. They meet up with a bunch of strangers and decide to go exploring in the middle of nowhere with them alone. Right. Seen it all before. Wrong.
So the get to the ruins and are surrounded by Mayan guardians that apparently are trying to keep the evil that is in the vines growing on the pyramid from spreading. They WILL kill anyone that touches the vines... anyone. Once the kids find out they will be killed if they try to leave (due to one being shot already), they decide to wait it out on top of the pyramid. The rest of the film is pretty much them going into and out of the hole in the top, doing surgery with hunting knives, going crazy, fighting and trying to escape.... someone might get out alive, but they might not, I'm not going to tell you.
Overall, the killer vines were done pretty well, not too much cheese, but the singing flowers were a little over the top... you'll see.
I give a 3.5 out of 5 on the Gargamel Scale with points for nudity, explosion-and/or-gunfire, and story with a half point for acting and no points for car chase.
Doomsday (2008)
Started out... OK, but quickly went downhill
I didn't expect this movie to be great. And I was right! It had it's moments, but overall it was a disappointment.. I'm all for some poetic license, especially in sci-fi adventure movies.... but this took it way too far for most.
At the beginning I'll admit I was somewhat drawn into the storyline despite mostly bad acting. Especially David Ohara's flat boring uninspired unbelievable performance. Also the random topless woman in a bathtub with a shotgun near the beginning just for the sake of nudity. Don't get me wrong... I love nudity, but this just seemed out of place. I first got a little skeptical after the task force made it into the city. They were driving armored tanks built for heavy battle that were even said to be impenetrable to chemical warfare. However, the bad guys took both tanks out with molotov cocktails and broke the windows out of the tanks with... I think rocks or bows and arrows??? So.. the bad guys have been out of contact with the rest of the world for over 25 years and have had no supplies since, yet they have plenty of vehicles (motorcycles, cars, reinforced buses, etc) that still have tires with no dry rot, batteries that haven't gone out, and plenty of fuel it seems. They even have fuel for generators. I'm guessing they are using generators for the electricity they do still have that they use for loud music and stage lights at their gatherings. I also find it odd that the satellite imagery just found them in the last 3 years even though there are hundreds (possibly thousands) of survivors that have been running around Scotland for over 25 years using cars and trains, etc.
So.... I suspended disbelief for a while, what's the hurt in that? Then our heroes are led to a castle where the other clan of survivors are living.... in full medieval garb using nothing but medieval weapons and horses... apparently they DON'T have any gas out here. (Oh, and if the bad guys all have cars/gas/etc, why don't any of them have any weapons, reminds me of I Am Legend.. where the good guys find plenty of guns/ammo, but the bad guys can't seem to... although here the good guys brought it in with them... you get the point).
Then when our heroes are escaping from the castle it comes under attack from something... lots of explosions, yet we see no attackers... what exactly were they under attack from?? They flee under the mountain through a fallout shelter that we're told some have used "many times" yet never looked in any of the hundreds of crates to find any supplies.... after firing up a generator (he sure found that easy... AND it still works!!) they bust open some crates, fire up a pristine condition Bentley and off they go... Battery wasn't dead, full of gasoline and all of the parts still work after 25 years... wow. Our hero plugs in a cell phone she just found and calls back to London.... with no service package... and then they drive the Bentley through an impossible fight (bad guys IN the car in front of the driver for what seemed like 5 minutes of screen time). Ultimately they only had to fight because this nice Bentley was caught up to by an old clunker that has been being worn out for 30 years and ultimately t-bone a bus with it and simply drive through the bus leaving the Bentley in still perfect condition... nice.
And the ending sucks.... it is dreadfully cheesy and downright insulting.
If you want to see killing for the sake of killing, go see shoot 'em up as another commenter said, but don't waste your time on this.
I gave it a 3 because I was pulled in for a while and it has some decent scenes, especially in the first half.
Cloverfield (2008)
If you think you want to see this movie read this first!!!!!!
First of all, I understand that this movie will appeal to a certain crowd of people. But it will not appeal to most I feel. I gave it a 3 because there are certain parts that are.... well, okay. However, for the most part I just felt bored.
Problem one, the camera. I liked Blair Witch, I liked the bourne movies. People said those movies made them sick with the camera shaking.. I didn't. Even this one didn't nauseate me or give me a headache, but it was overused. Just simply overused. Any idiot can keep a camera more stable than Hud did. Also, even in parts when everybody is sitting still and the camera isn't shaking, the picture is either out of focus or out of frame... come on. Overused.
Problem two, the monster. Missiles, bombs, tanks, all sorts of ammunition expelled on this beast and nothing even phases it... even Godzilla feels pain, really. The sub-monsters that came off of it were cooler in that they were fast and scary and at least defeatable. It was obvious from the closeup of the big one that it has no exoskeleton and actually has what looks like soft spots (gills or lungs) on it's head that move when it breathes.... they weren't even scuffed after all the explosions..hmmm.
Problem three, the story. I saw every single thing coming. OOOh they are going to escape across the bridge, huh.... oh look the monster made the bridge fall down.... Rob's girlfriend is trapped in her apartment with a piece of rebar through her chest for 45 minutes.... instead of escaping I'm sure they'll go back after her in her apartment building that didn't 'quite' fall all the way over but happened to lean against an adjacent building so that you could climb out a window, blah, blah, blah, give me a break.. I'm sure she's fine and once they pick her up off the rebar she'll be able to run with the best of them.... Oh wait, that's what happens.. then everybody dies... real original. The monster seems to only want to stay in New York where thousands of troops are trying to kill it rather than crossing over to Jersey or going back to sea... oh, and the troops, wow! Thousands of troops with tanks and other heavy equipment are in the middle of Manhattan within minutes with the Brooklyn Bridge down and certain gridlock at every other entrance/exit to the island... I found myself extremely bored watching everything happen exactly as I thought it would. Even the last 3 surviving a helicopter crash while the 2 military personnel in the chopper died.. of course they lived... the movie's not over yet. And as others have said, the first 15 or so minutes at the party is absolute drivel.... waste of space.
I'll give it this, I liked the lack of music leaving you able to pick up on some of the same sounds the characters hear. I DO like the filming style, it does bring you into the situation, yet over used in this film greatly. Picking not so famous actors so that it seems like it could be anybody, and a pretty good job of keeping the details of the monster secret so that you are always looking forward to seeing it. I DO like that it doesn't give you all the answers.... but that kind of movie has to at least be entertaining or full of surprises... The people here that say it scared them or surprised them must have the mentality of five year olds. The theatre I saw it in had about 100 people in it and after the film was over EVERYBODY was laughing and saying what a horrible movie it was..
...is that how you want to spend your hard earned money??