You may also like
Jimmy Rosenberg: The Father, the Son & the Talent torrent reviews
v h (it) wrote: Mitch and Colin were married to sisters. Mitch got divorced and Colin's wife died. The two haven't had much contact in the ensuing years so it's quite a surprise when Mitch announces that he's bought two first class tickets to Iceland and insists that Colin join him. Other than both being single men who appear to be about seventy, Mitch and Colin seem to have very little in common. Mitch, a retired doctor, is a pot-smoking perv who thinks it's perfectly acceptable to make lewd comments about women's bodies, even to their faces. Colin is a somewhat reserved retired Australian banker. After landing in Reykjavik, Mitch learns that a much younger second-cousin and her friend are due to arrive the next day so he offers to pick them up at the airport in his rented Hummer and take them out for a night on the town. He finds the women's travel clothes unacceptably frumpy so insists that they first use his VISA to buy themselves more revealing outfits. Because dinner is so much more enjoyable if you can leer at your twenty-something cousin. I breathed a sigh of relief when the women left and the road trip began. The best part - or really the ONLY good part - about "Land Ho" is the scenery. Waterfalls and beaches and geothermal landscapes steal the show. Mitch proves to be an annoying and needy travel companion whose inappropriate comments make almost every encounter cringe-inducing. I kept waiting for some big revelation - he has only six months to live or is in the early stages of Alzheimer's perhaps - but none was forthcoming. It's hard to know quite what to make of this movie. Is Mitch supposed to be funny or pathetic? Is his habit of blurting out every raunchy thought that pops into his head something he's come upon late in life or has he always done it? And if it's the latter, how did he manage to lech his way through a medical career without ever being sanctioned?I recall seeing the preview for this several months ago and thinking it looked good. Unfortunately, I was wrong. A pair of lonely septuagenarian ex-brothers-in-law traveling around Iceland might have made for a nice movie had the writers not decided to play it for laughs by making one of them Grampa Creepy. But the movie's bigger problem is that virtually nothing happens. There's no story. There's no character development. The dialog is sparse. There are random music-video-like scenes of the men joyfully dancing amidst breathtaking scenery which seem at odds with their otherwise strained relationship. And there's one of those abrupt non-ending endings that left me both bewildered and repulsed. No doubt about it, Iceland is a gorgeous setting for a movie. It's just a shame that it had to be this one.
Benny G (es) wrote: I wish this hadn't just been Lego Batman 2 cutscenes. But it was cute.
Andrew M (us) wrote: Time and time again, sequels that come so long after their previous film fail to recapture the same magic that made the first film a success. Whether it's a case of expectations being set too high or the filmmaker's forgetting why the film was loved in the first place, it's a recurring trend, and very rarely does it work in the opposite manner.Unfortunately, Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues falls in line with this trend. Gone is the simplicity and generally focused set-up of 2004's Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy: this go around, writer/director Adam McKay and co-writer Will Ferrell throw everything but the kitchen sink, to middling results. For the jokes that work, there's two surprisingly unfunny ones that don't. Jokes are often too repetitive, and rarely build up beyond an underwhelming punchline. A solid 20 minutes of the film is devoted to a now blind Ron Burgundy listing things he can't do due to his blindness, followed by side characters explaining that he should be able to do these things even if he is blind. Didn't appreciate the joke the first time? Don't worry, they'll beat it into your skull at least five more times. Of course, there are some funny moments, namely any scene with Steve Carell's Brick Tamland, and the cameo-ridden climax that puts the first movie's battle scene to shame. The way the film spoofs the current, 24-hour news programming is admittedly clever as well: it's just a shame that it's buried under mostly unfunny attempts at humor.The legend has continued, but hopefully it's come to an end.
Riyad F (jp) wrote: Immaculate performances! Realism is captured flawlessly. Cianfrance proves to be a promising filmmaker with great potential.
Carlos M (fr) wrote: How incredibly frustrating it is to see a movie so compelling, wonderfully directed, technically exemplary and with a gorgeous cinematography go into self-destruction mode in the last thirty minutes, when it gives in to predictable revelations and silly situations worthy of a lame soap-opera.
Rhiannon L (us) wrote: It's certainly no brilliant piece of cinema, but it is entertaining and amusing. I may suggest watching it stoned....
Judy G (us) wrote: Ultimately disappointing. Too quickly it becomes a soap opera with embarrassing sequences that add nothing to the story or character development. Thank goodness Colin Farrell showed up. He's the only one who does.
Andrew M (us) wrote: What's worse is I watched this movie with my ex, adding more vomit every time I see this piece of crap.
Ian M (de) wrote: Orlando Jones has some comedy lines of the century in this movie... "JoJo, if I have to shove you up my ass to get you past customs I will..." Genius. Other than that it's better than Anaconda and other trash. Worth a watch maybe. The comparison between the human monsters and the croc was obvious. Not sure it needed someone in the film to point it out. But overall a good movie with great effects.
Erika A (jp) wrote: "Herr, lehre uns Bedenken, dass wir alle einmal sterben mssen, auf das wir im Leben klug werden" Psalm 90:12This movie had both heart and soul. The subtitles lend little to the film itself. My German is a bit rusty but the movie touched me nonetheless.(For those complaining about the slow progression of the film; I honestly don't think it would have had the depth if they had rushed it.... the minimal dialog and contemplative cinematography contribute a great deal to the overall feel of the film... at least in my humble opinion)
Harry W (br) wrote: I didn't have the highest expectations for Lara Croft: Tomb Raider, but considering that I wasn't a die hard fan of the game series I had hoped simply for a fun action vehicle,The story in Lara Croft: Tomb Raider is a generic one. It is full of nothing but nice scenery and a journey derivative of Indiana's Jones' from Raiders of the Lost Ark without a whiff of further intelligence to support it. It has moments where it goes into exploring concepts of time and space, but they are so cheap and pointlessly added that I couldn't help but ask "what was the point?". I mean I know the story is supposed to be a dumb action adventure, but the fact that the writers couldn't even bother to keep it simple meant that Lara Croft: Tomb Raider was dumb in both the right way and the wrong way. To simplify it, Lara Croft: Tomb Raider does not know how to explain the ideals it is touching upon and so the fact that it even bothers to try is ridiculous because it cannot justify its internal logic at all. And the dialogue in Lara Croft: Tomb Raider isn't much better since it is full of cliches and poor jokes.Some of the problems in Lara Croft: Tomb Raider stem from the editing. The problem isn't so much that the editing is too excessively quick to see what is going on, so much as it's about the way that it keeps things in tact. The editing sometimes gets used to make slow things have the illusion of quick movement, yet it ends up looking vain and cheap. But that isn't the main issue. At many moments in the action scenes, it feels like certain moments are missed in the editing and that means that in one moment Lara Croft might be underneath something and in the next moment she is on top of it in a rush of editing. It's action has some decent moments but a lot of the scenes face the rush of sloppy editing. Overall though they supply some entertainment and do it against the backdrop of nice scenery, so Lara Croft: Tomb Raider should please action junkies and fans of its MTV style of filmmaking.I have mixed feelings about Angelina Jolie's performance as the titular Lara Croft. While she has the sex appeal and natural ability to play a kickass action heroine in the part, he performance feels really artificial. All in all she fits the part well, but her accent is so clearly forced and her facial expressions remain the same for practically the entire movie. Her performance is essentially decent in every aspect except her facial gestures which prove to me negatively dominant enough to score her a nomination for the Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Actress. It's a lot like Jack Nicholson's performance as Jimmy Hoffa in the biopic about the notorious gangster titled Hoffa which earned Jack Nicholson a nomination for both a Golden Globe and a Golden Raspberry. His performance was decent but his face did not change over the course of the entire film. But unlike Jack Nicholson, Angelina Jolie is more of a novelty in Lara Croft: Tomb Raider and not all that much of an actress. She puts up a decent fight in the action scenes and makes a great heroine archetype, not to mention the fact that the way her costume emphasises the size of her breasts so much should have some appeal to the pubescent males most likely to be watching this film. She fits the profile well enough, but it isn't exactly likely to boost her credibility as an actress in the eyes of the more sophisticated crowd. But hey, it's more than you could expect from such a one-dimensional character created by a video game.Daniel Craig's supporting performance is decent, and the presence of Jon Voight is interesting because of how he is actually Angelina Jolie's father in real life. Although their lack of chemistry would suggest otherwise.But despite Angelina Jolie's efforts and a few fun action moments, Lara Croft: Tomb Raider ends up being too dim witted and generic to satisfy. It isn't the worst of video game adaptations, but it is far from great.
jm s (ag) wrote: aaaaaaaa so much masaala koi pani doo mare ko bhai
Paul D (es) wrote: This was slightly better than the second and brought back Nancy, but it also loses steam about half way through. Not quite as great as the original, but it is hard to hate on it too much when Robert Englund always brings his A game as Freddy!
Brian R (jp) wrote: There is much in this film to admire - a clever script, brooding and eerie cinematography, the way in which it taps into the cold war paranoia of the 1950s. My main problem, one which proved sadly insurmountable, is the casting of Brian Donlevy as The Q Man. This is many different shades of wrong. He plays Quates like a hardboiled Baltimore cop in a second rate film noir when what the part needs is someone (preferably English) with a quiet authority who can get across the scientific hokum in a believable way. Still great fun though, especially when the astronaut starts to transmogrify into a cactus
Dillinger P (de) wrote: Inarritu has became something of a film making guru in recent years, with the Revenant and Birdman sweeping critics into a frenzy, however delving back into the extremely talented directors back catalogue, we find a plethora of work that is wonderfully art house and pretty essential viewing. 21 Grams is on paper and for most of its run time an astounding achievement in cinema, however its inability to round off a gripping story, with a second act bathing in self absorbtion, 21 Grams leaves you feeling, slightly let down with its final moments. The film follows 3 different strangers, who's lives all intermingle around a horrid accident. 21 Grams decides to take the non linear approach, dipping in and out of these time lines, at whatever moment it deems fit and surprisingly it works perfectly, each scene feels completely isolated yet essential for the telling of the story. It never feels confusing or intrusive, jumping about different time periods in character lives, with no sense of order or time scale and if anything its a testament to Innaritu for managing to pull this kind of trick off. A large part of this is completely down to his cast, Naomi Watts, Sean Penn and Benecio Del Toro are all brutally effective, each of them having such a wonderful spark of energy and emotional weight required to drive home such a complex character piece. However 21 Grams falters when it comes to wrapping up its story, what starts off as a wonderfully simple and heartfelt tale, soon derails itself completely into preposterous territory and it feels the need to wallow in this moment for as long as humanly possible. The story works best when it is keeping it raw, simple and full of emotion, it doesnt work so well, when it continually repeats itself over and over again, with moments that add nothing new to the piece, characters will repeat actions and motivations continually almost for the sake of making it abundantly clear of the movies messages, just in case you were too lost too follow, the problem is that, there isnt much on offer here apart from a really contained story, one that really could have done with 20 minutes shaved off. All in all 21 Grams is marvelously crafted, brilliantly acted and gripping when it centres solely on character, it wades into murky waters however with a weak final act and a sense of impending boredom.
Sheldon S (nl) wrote: not a Saw fan but would take it in if i had the chance