Reviews

Riggan apparently made a fortune as Birdman, drank it all away, and ran off his wife and daughter in the process. He wants to stage a comeback purely to feed his ego. I didn't care. I don't care. This is a movie about an extremely depressed, hallucinogenic man who eventually kills himself. Thrown in to fill the slow spots is an "I'm preggo, you don't love me" subplot; "you were a lousy dad" subplot; "you cannot get an erection" subplot; "I cheated on my wife" subplot; "I'm broke" subplot; "you have a nice ass" subplot; and a "girl on girl kiss" subplot. Or, maybe it's just another superhero movie. Who can tell? How many writers sat in separate rooms and each contributed 10 minutes of dialog? It's such a mess I can see why critics loved it. A lot of angst, a chance for the "haves" to sniff about their importance, but in the end who gives a blanking blank about any of these people?

When Pi comes ashore on the first island, the Floating Island of Acid, --- stop and think about that -- "floating" and "acid" --- get it?, he nibbles some plants then gorges himself on them. He sees thousands of lemurs (!) that don't run away even when the tiger walks amongst them eating his fill. Hmmmm.

Pi is drugged out of his mind people! Of course the story was made up, but not maliciously. He is having the strangest acid trip on record.

If you want to see a movie that is good at telling what really happened on the lifeboat, see the Hitchcock version of "Lifeboat". The physical similarity between the 2 lifeboat bad guys is startling.

I saw this today and really enjoyed it. The little boy who plays Timothy nails it; a 'slightly too perfect' kid where something is just not right.

Garner is a delight as his mother, whereas his 'father' falls a little flat for me. His girl friend is a charmer and his uncle Budd is wonderful. The photography is beautiful, and the music appropriate.

I wish they'd fleshed out his character and his relationship with his parents and girl friend instead of spending so much time on 2 subplots: one is about Timothy's father and HIS father, which leads to an endless sub sub plot about soccer, the most boring activity ever devised by man. The other subplot involves Jennifer Garner's sister, who played Rachel in Rachel Getting Married, which will go down in history as the soccer of motion pictures.

A good date movie, a good couples movie and a good family movie.

I just hate to give any movie as low a grade as I gave Greenberg or Rachel Getting Married, so I give this one 2 stars.

I saw it today, and I'm really speechless. If you can go for free, go ahead, only because then you will have something to gauge an awful movie by. For the rest of your life you can say "It was terrible, but not as bad as Hope Springs."

What were they thinking? What was Streep thinking? This movie is a detour for this otherwise talented star. Enough to kick her ascent to cinema heaven down a notch. Here, her moods range all the way from lifting her eyebrows to REALLY lifting her eyebrows.

A couple married for 30 years, now empty nesters, have grown apart emotionally and physically. A very common situation and maybe something that can form the springboard for a thoughtful movie. Or not.

The husband, Jones, makes a good living, it seems, but Streep doesn't appreciate that. She has decided she is really horny and wonders why Jones doesn't pant after her like he did when she was 30 years younger and 30 pounds lighter. Oh I know, Jones is no poster boy, but it's her, not him, who is horny so his appearance is not relevant.

They go away for counselling and before the first session ends, the therapist Carell concludes that sex is the problem. No working on mutual topics of conversation, no nothing other than sex. And not just the kind of sex they used to have, nossir, the kind of sex of fantasies. Well not HER fantasies, since she has never had one.

Jones is the stereotypical guy, a penny pincher who falls asleep watching the Golf Channel. He doesn't cheat on his wife, other than in his imagination when thinking about their neighbor (Mimi Rogers) who has one of the briefest on screen cameos since Hitchcock died.

Streep does what she can to seduce Jones and re start the fire of olde, with little or no effect. We get to watch her pretend to masturbate and pretend to perform fellatio on Jones in a movie theatre. Yeah. Go read that sentence again. This is the same Streep who made Sophie's Choice.

I don't want to say any more, other than if what you want in a movie is a happy ending then you will like how this one turns out.

There are a few laughs, but they are all in the trailer on the internet.

This movie immediately brought to mind two others.

Doubt, because it had a predatory homosexual character in the lead, and Double Indemnity, because it is in the end a story of blackmail.

I thought it was played well by the leads. Blanchette, while not a classic beauty or a modern beauty, nevertheless has certain striking physical characteristics that make me stare at her whenever she is on screen.

This is hard to rate. Personally the subject matter was not what I'd choose to see movies made about, but I'm glad it brought the predatory nature of the homosexual agenda out into the open. As for Kate, it was in the end just the millionth movie about a marriage gone bad. The twist was that wandering partner was the wife.

I'm sure that somewhere on here it has been mentioned that the real title of the book (in Swedish) is "Men Who Hate Women". Just as you might suspect, it's a sick book, in which vile and sickening violence against women (and men!) is wrapped in a thoroughly ridiculous whodunnit.

I can understand that the book's American publisher did not think the original title would sell very well, so it was changed to something which, outside of the book itself, has no significance whatsoever.

The title change also attempts to change the focus of the book. In Sweden, the book was about men who not only hate women, but about men who hate women so much that just killing them is not enough. In America, the focus turns to a geeky girl who rides a motorbike and uses computers, not knives, to hack her way through complex crimes.

The whole Vanger family thing was overdone. I kept visualizing Saturday Night Live doing a parody of this book. A door opens and it's the 2nd cousin once removed and his 3 children. Oostervanhaaven Vanger and Hansoover, Fransoover, and Gertaoover Vanger.

Was the Vanger family supposed to be the Kennedys?

Let's see. Serial murder and sex. Depraved murder and depraved sex. Forced anal sex, with and without lubricant. Bondage. Rape by father of son. Rape by father of daughter. Rape by brother of sister. Torture. Bird shoved into dead woman's vagina. Dismemberment. Burning of flesh. More dismemberment.

That's about all I can say about this one. It's not funny enough to really be called a comedy, and the 'dramatic' moments are silly instead of dramatic. If you like Christopher Walken you will probably like this, as he indeed is the star, unlike in some of his other recent movies where he comes and goes like a fog. Sharon Stone does her usual act as a slut to perfection, making me throw up a little in my mouth. The son could have been played by any of a million actors (or non actors) just as well. Amanda Peet will not be remembered for this role, probably not even by her mother or PR man. It's a road movie, with Walken demonstrating how he has perfected the art of living on $5 a day.

The only reason to see this, and it's a considerable reason, is to watch Mick Jagger. He is absolutely pitch perfect in his role as the head man of the gigolo combine. His scene with Anjelica Houston, in which he tries to tell her she is more than just a client ... well, it's a scene we have watched before with the sexes reversed ... when a "john" has fallen for a hooker ... but to see it played in reverse is very touching.

Not a fan of Margolies, so ... whatever. I like Garcia, but I just don't think this was a good role for him. Never liked Coburn, and that hasn't changed.

Anyway, rent it and watch Jagger.

They should put this movie in Webster's as the definition of "low budget". The appearance reminded me of watching a cheap film at a drive in movie where they really need to change the bulb on the projector.

Joe Pesci, at a time when his on screen persona was not nearly so grating as it later became, owns and operates a combo nightclub and bowling alley, which could of course only exist in New Jersey. He is also the lounge lizard singer, and he is terrible. He has romantic intentions toward a girl singer who is worse than him. He lives with his sister and nephew, or maybe they are his niece and nephew. There is also an older man who shows up from time to time to eat with them who maybe speaks only Yiddish. They live a bleak existence in a ratty apartment which makes the viewer marvel at how they have all avoided suicide for so long. The mob wants to buy Pesci out, so they can tear down the joint and build a multi story something or other on the location. Joe doesn't want to sell because he needs to "keep his act together" until he can get to Vegas and hit it big like Sinatra.

I had to admire the Pesci character for staying optimistic amid so much which would bring most of us down. But, wow, what a squalid life we see. It's not that they are necessarily poor, they seem to be getting by fine. Joe has a very nice 1950s T Bird. It's what passes for "getting by" that was so depressing to me. If there is a moral, maybe it's this: if you have a dream, and keep that dream, you can be happy.

Two people whose movies I try to avoid are Joe Pesci and Sharon Stone; Pesci is a one trick pony with a very tired act, and SS just nauseates me. So, clearly, I held off seeing Casino for many years. The other day it was at Half Price for a dollar so I picked it up. I always enjoy stories about Vegas; it's fun to peek behind the scenes of the casinos. This was one of the last good roles DeNiro had, before he descended into the Valhalla of romantic comedies with the likes of Ben Stiller. The good is simply the story itself, which is essentially true. (It is certainly NOT true that the mob was not skimming in Vegas until the 1970's). DeNiro was good, especially when he tried to deal with an old friend who he realized and always knew was an out of control idiot. DeN was clearly ready to jettison Pesci if that was what it took to keep the casino running, but was afraid he could not do so because Pesci was a made man and DeNiro, a Jew, was not and never could be. The scenes "back East" with the big boys were always well done; good supporting jobs by all involved. Don Rickles was good. The bad, aside from Pesci and Stone, were: the soundtrack; I felt it got in the way because it was continuous, too loud, and often at odds with the tone of what was showing on the screen. The lighting; in many scenes Scorsese put a hot spotlight on a character or a desktop. I just can't figure out what he was trying to do. The running narration was not needed after the first few scenes. All in all, I'd recommend it. Get a bottle of pure strength ammonia to sniff whenever Stone appears on the screen and you will be OK.

I bought the VCR (2 tape set) of this, still shrink rapped, at Half Price for $1.00. I really enjoyed watching the first tape, but should have stopped there. The second tape brought the story and the characters to a dead halt. I just can't imagine why anyone thought it was necessary to extend this film to the length it is. How to trim it? First, the silly side story about the planned merger with another company could be jettisoned entirely, which would also allow us to jettison entirely the character of Drew, Susan's boyfriend (is he her fiancé ... who knows?). This irritating character adds nothing to the story. If we need a boardroom scene to show Bill's character, then put one in and be done with it.

The other way to shorten the film would be to cut the duration of all of Susan's scenes by half. A skinny Angelina Jolie who squints like Clint Eastwood. Only Death and Drew would find her interesting (except for for her being the daughter of a mega rich father).

Aside from the length, the ending didn't do much for me. Susan sees her father and Death walk over a hill, and only Death come back. She asked not a word about where her father went. Anyone who has lost a parent knows that no matter how long it was in coming, it's still a tragic moment,esp when it's the last parent to die. All Susan can do is get googly-eyed (again) at Death.

Pitt delivers all his lines in a monotone that would make Kevin Costner jealous. Death, who has been around for thousands of years, doesn't know how to speak?

Only the car wreck that was "Greenberg" prevents me from proclaiming this mess as the worst film I've seen in 10 years.

The lovely Anne Hathaway is Kym, a recovering addict from a rich family who has been an in-patient at a psych facility for several years; she receives a 48 hour pass to attend the wedding of her sister Rachel. She is driven to the family's picture perfect Stamford, Connecticut home by her black case worker. Years earlier Kym had been entrusted with babysitting her little brother Ethan, only to drown him by driving her car off a bridge while high on drugs. One can imagine the angst that her attendance at the wedding will cause in all involved, and the tension begins even before she arrives home.

So, a good premise for an edgy movie featuring a popular and likable star? Unknown to the viewer, the film has crested.

Many have commented that Sidney Lumet's daughter wrote the story and that otherwise the film would never have been made. Those commenters are giving Hollywood too much credit; actually this type of drivel frequently makes it to the screen, although the Lumet name certainly gives the film an undeserved cachet.

The movie is remarkably bad in several outstanding ways: 1. The banal attempt to give it an edgy indie quality by using a hand held camera during way too many scenes. 2. The water torture effect of turning 2 minute scenes into 7 to 10 minute nightmares. A forced watching of these scenes would constitute illegal torture under the Geneva Convention, I am sure. The rehearsal dinner where everyone takes the mike to crack lame jokes about the Happy Couple. The wedding ceremony where the groom, a likable black man named Sidney (!), breaks into song a capella during his vows. (Sidney has apparently made a fortune in the music business but looks more like a shoe salesman from Penney's). The after wedding party in which the characters grin and snicker while watching each other dance to a smorgasbord of musical styles. 3. The soundtrack. I swear I heard a sitar in there ... along with drums, electric guitar, violin, piano, etc. . Ms. Hathaway's over the top acting which resembles emoting while sitting in a folding chair in front of the class at the actors' studio. 5. The overall casting which makes this look like the United Nations general assembly goes to a college frat house costume party.

The one thing that prevents this from being a one star film is Deborah Winger who plays Kym and Rachel's mother. Winger has divorced their wimpy, white bread father and replaced him with a man who has some connection to Washington, DC. In the film's only decent scene, Kym tries to lay the blame for Ethan's death on her mother, who responds by punching Kym in the face.

The only way to make this film enjoyable it to use it as a drinking game. Take a shot of your favorite liquor each time you see or hear a liberal PC cliché on the screen. This has the added benefit of knocking you out before the halfway point.

Question: If this guy was using all of his brain, why couldn't he realize that he was running out of pills? Aside from that problem, I liked the movie. Its purpose was to entertain, and at that it did a good job.

There is nothing deep here, and aside from De Niro there is not much to be said for the acting.

It moved at a good pace, kept me interested, and even surprised me a few times.

Aside from De Niro, there is not much to say about the acting.

A few times, the camera work was so ... avant garde that it almost induced motion sickness. I can do without that.

As someone who has lived through this mess of an economy, and has been through downsizing to the point of losing my own job, I went to see this with more than a passing knowledge of 'what it is all about'.

The movie is a study of the 5 stages of grief by Kubler-Ross. You should google her and read up a little about her theory before you see the movie, since it is the framework for the movie. We see anger, denial, acceptance, etc., in the 3 main characters.

There are several things that seem very wrong, perhaps the main thing being the luxurious lifestyles of the families with only 1 wage earner who is making maybe about $175,000 a year. You cannot drive a porsche and live in a 5,000 square foot home on that income.

The first time you see Chris Cooper you know what is going to happen with that character. Its just a matter of time.

Kevin Costner is his always dependable self ... a truly awful actor. He speaks all his lines as if he is reading them aloud for the first time. A dreary monotone; no inflection or emotion in any single syllable.

Ben Affleck is a serviceable actor, but not of star quality.

Jones does his one dimensional schtick of the grumbly older man. He's the un-funny Walter Matthau. His affair with Bello made the audience groan out loud.

The actresses who played the 3 wives were all good.

Conclusion ... this is a better story than it is a movie.

I really enjoyed this movie. It's nice to see such a cerebral film for a change, one that's not full of nudity, ghetto swearing, and explosions. Add to that it's a historically accurate portrayal of events which occurred not that long ago, but about which most viewers will be ignorant.

Firth and Rush were both quite good, although at times Rush pushed the boundary on mugging to the camera.

That said, I think if fell short of the great movies in this genre, such as A Man for All Seasons.

My only big complaint was the actor who played Churchill was terribly miscast. Although WC did not play a major role in the film, nevertheless he is an important historical figure. The actor pushed his chin into his chest, stuck out his pouty lower lip, and carried a cigar. That was it. I believe most high school drama teachers could have selected a better actor.

All in all, it is good, and unless you like Tom Cruise or Angelina Jolie movies, go see this one.