Average User Score: 7.1Mar 22, 2015There are very few stories with strong female leads not involving children and/or romantic partners. Therefore I was looking forward toThere are very few stories with strong female leads not involving children and/or romantic partners. Therefore I was looking forward to “Wild”, since I read it was about the journey of discovery of a single woman.Turns out, the “single” woman was a promiscuous divorcee and her discovery boiled down to “whatever I did wrong, I would do it again”. Even if much criticized, I did not find Witherspoon’s performance bad. Her character was not supposed to be sunny and easy-going; therefore her bad attitude, fear and depression were appropriate. However, I agree that her character is mostly unlikable and the only word she seems to know and use is “F..k”… so much for her alleged level of “sophistication”.… Expand
Average User Score: 7.1Mar 9, 2015A good, solid story about the fall from glory of an arrogant pilot. It can be seen as a metaphor of addiction. Substance abuse makes you flyA good, solid story about the fall from glory of an arrogant pilot. It can be seen as a metaphor of addiction. Substance abuse makes you fly high, but you lose track of your limits and people around you start to dislike your self-centered attitude. Some of those people are lost forever; others may still be around to forgive you.
The plot itself is about cocky airline pilot Whip, who manages to save most of his passengers during a disastrous flight from Orlando to Atlanta. Despite (or because) being high on cocaine, Whip successfully performs a daredevil move and lands the plane on a field. There are six casualties though and legal actions to follow.
Whip is in full denial of his addiction to cocaine and alcohol and manages to alienate everybody around him. Linked to the main story is a rather unnecessary subplot involving a female addict.… Expand
Average User Score: 7.2Mar 9, 2015This is one of those movies that totally flat-lined for me. I watched it only because a friend liked and recommended it. However, I hadThis is one of those movies that totally flat-lined for me. I watched it only because a friend liked and recommended it. However, I had serious doubts about it, after having read the synopsis and seen a photo of Sean Penn in drags. I am not a Penn fan, although I would not rule out a movie just because he is in it.
In this particular movie, I really disliked him for lots of reasons: the exasperating monotone of his speech; the phoniness of all his “conversations”; the weird and yet dull interaction with the many bizarre characters populating the movie, etc…
The word “boring” is used quite often when we explain why we did not like a movie. Basically, we did not feel emotionally or intellectually engaged by the story unfolding onscreen. Nothing works against this type of disengagement. No rational explanation will convince you about the deep, inner meaning the director, scriptwriter, actors and other reviewers saw or tried to instill into the story.
Therefore, for me this is the ultimate boring movie. A plot so thin I lost track of it after 10 minutes, totally disengaging and disengaged characters, far too much artsy Penn. I gave up, 1 hour and 6 minutes into it and I am not even sure why I lasted that long. By then, I still had no clue about what was going on and I definitely stopped caring even earlier …..… Expand
Average User Score: 5.8Feb 27, 2015This is the story of a bunch of creeps, Hollywood-style. If you can sympathise with the following characters, you probably will like theThis is the story of a bunch of creeps, Hollywood-style. If you can sympathise with the following characters, you probably will like the movie:
*Benji, ex-junkie teenager TV show star, jealous about child actors; *Cristina and Stafford, couple of weirdos parents, exploiting said teenage junkie; *Agatha, homicidal schizophrenic girl stalking her family; *Havana, washed up movie actress consumed by the desire of playing her mother's part in a remake.
On the other hand, if you think that the rich are different from you and I and you find it difficult to feel empathy for a "poor" kid who will earn only 6 million per season instead of 8, you might not get the point of this flaccid tale. Unless that is "even rich people have their problems".
If emotional engagement is not your thing, you might still have problems with the script and editing. The movie contains several overlong scenes that add nothing to story, except underlining how depraved people are in Hollywood. The party scene, with the despicable conversation among teenagers is a very good example.
Then there is a scene with Havana, the Moore character, sitting on the crapper and farting away, while having a conversation with her assistant. This is usually described as "vanity-free" interpretation by the critics. Which means Hollywood stars looking like you and me in the morning, rather than their red-carpet version. In turn, this is interpreted as "mega-stars demeaning their supernatural status, thus deserving an Oscar".
Finally, several "ghost scenes" are scattered liberally in the story. They are among the worst I have ever seen, Havana's ghost mum being the most risible of the bunch.
Eventually bad things happen to bad people and the movie ends not a second too soon, but who cares: this is a movie –as somebody wrote – that you want to forget you saw.… Expand
Average User Score: 7.0Feb 23, 2015An uneven mix of Moon, Star Wars, The Matrix and any post-apocalyptic movie. Cruise stars as usual as the hero of the story (in this case,An uneven mix of Moon, Star Wars, The Matrix and any post-apocalyptic movie. Cruise stars as usual as the hero of the story (in this case, even multiple hero), a guy named Jack who is watching over planet earth after an alien invasion destroyed the moon.
He lives in a wonderful, futuristic villa with a beautiful, stylish, well-dressed woman and commutes by helicopter around the planet to fix broken weapons. Not a bad job or accommodation, if you ask me.
Desolate earth looks quite peaceful and not having traffic jams of annoying neighbors looks great. Unfortunately for Jack, dark secrets are lurking around. Jack discovers that things are not quite as he thinks and that perhaps it would have been better if they were.
The discovery involves the crash of an "old" spacecraft containing mysterious Julia, who is in mysterious ways related with Jack. After the crash the movie lose steam and it turns into a boring ride involving too many video-game style fights.
The end is quite a let-down. Throughout the movie, which is a good 20 minutes too long, I just kept wondering what Jack and co. were eating, since there was no visible sign of agriculture, fishing or any other activity that provided food. And also, where there those stylish clothes coming from…… Expand
Average User Score: 8.8Feb 23, 2015I loved this movie. A tight script with two, nasty, dueling main characters. The teacher/student relationship has been explored many timesI loved this movie. A tight script with two, nasty, dueling main characters. The teacher/student relationship has been explored many times before, but in this movie the twist is that both are unpleasant in their own way.
Both Teller (as Andrew the student) and Simmons (as Fletcher the teacher) were very good and Simmons definitely deserved the Oscar.
For once, I loved that I did not need to pick a side but I could just enjoy the ride and see how these two ambitious, arrogant and toxic personalities were going to hurt (or help?) each other. Also, I do not usually like open endings, but in this case I found it very appropriate.
The music is great, as it was expected. The photography is also good and the story does not drag along for a single minute, as it happens far too often nowadays. Highly recommended.… Expand
Average User Score: 8.2Jan 25, 2015Cumberbatch pays Alan Turing, the mathematician who managed to crack the Enigma code, WITH a team of other people and then proceed to getCumberbatch pays Alan Turing, the mathematician who managed to crack the Enigma code, WITH a team of other people and then proceed to get infamously arrested for indecent exposure. The core of the movie is the cracking of Enigma with some flash back to Turing youth and flash forward to Turing last year (actually, the movie starts in the 50s and then jumps back to the war years – a completely useless editing idea).
Altogether not a bad story and certainly a great Cumberbatch and Knightley interpretation. The supporting actors are also good and there is some moment of British humor to lighten the atmosphere. The only thing I find objectionable is that the movie gives the idea that Turing was the only one who actually cracked the code. The solitary genius who did it all on his own and even against his own team - with the exception of the Knightley character.
All this to put Turing on an even higher pedestal and to underline that he was such as genius AND gay. Basically gay = genius in this movie. Which seems rather far-fetched, because it surely is a fact that not all gay people are geniuses, just like not all straight people are….. Then again, the “solitary” hero concept is a lot more fascinating than “team work”.… Expand
Average User Score: 6.6Jan 25, 2015McGregor plays stuffy government employee Dr. Alfred Jones, forced by his boss to pursue the dubious plan of introducing salmons in Yemen. TheMcGregor plays stuffy government employee Dr. Alfred Jones, forced by his boss to pursue the dubious plan of introducing salmons in Yemen. The plan is encouraged as a PR stunt, to prove that good relations between the UK and the Middle East are not impossible.
Therefore, Dr. Jones unwillingly cooperates with Harriet (played by Emily Blunt) and gets to know the Yemenite sheikh (Amr Waked) who is willing to invest lots of money to fulfil his dream. Scott Thomas plays the hilariously insufferable Press Secretary to the British Prime Minister. Romance ensues, but with some hindrance along the way.
Luckily, no knowledge of fishing is required to follow the story. McGregor and Blunt have chemistry. Scott Thomas and Amr Waked are excellent supporting actors and the movie is simply delightful. A rarity nowadays.… Expand
Average User Score: 7.9Jan 18, 2015Washed up Hollywood star Riggan wants to prove he is a “real” actor by directing and starring a play on Broadway. But perhaps he cannot,Washed up Hollywood star Riggan wants to prove he is a “real” actor by directing and starring a play on Broadway. But perhaps he cannot, because he is mental.
Wrapped around the claustrophobic world of actors, the movie is an exercise in navel-gazing and smugness. I guess it must be a big deal for a Hollywood superstar to prove to his peers that he is not just a money-making machine but also a talented actor. However, I truly do not care about the hysterics and anguish of Hollywood actors.
That is why, when Birdman was acclaimed by the critics I already suspected yet another inflated balloon full of nothing. I waited until I could watch the movie for free, because I was very reluctant to waste money on yet another “Academy-worth” piece of crap and I am very happy I saved my hard-earned money.
The joke is twice on the audience, because the other theme explored by Birdman, besides narcissist actors, is audience stupidity. Not being the sort of person who cares about superheroes movies, I was nevertheless annoyed by the fact that the public of said movies is vilified by this piece of elitist crap.
It is difficult to point out what I disliked most about Birdman, since I hated everything: the overbearing drum soundtrack, characters shouting their lines, the smugness of the whole concept, the patronizing dialogues, etc… I do not even think Keaton was so great in it.
Finally, it is depressing to notice that the number of movies I want to walk out from is increasing exponentially. After decades of watching movies, what I expect is an interesting story told in an engaging way, but what I find is more and more egotistic directors busy only with producing crap bearing their trademark signature, being it Tim Burton Goth-chic or Wes Anderson smug-naïve.… Expand
Average User Score: 7.9Dec 15, 2014If you want to enjoy “The lake house” you should know that it requires plenty of suspended disbelief and no rational approach.If you want to enjoy “The lake house” you should know that it requires plenty of suspended disbelief and no rational approach.
Chronologically, the story “sort-of” starts in 2004, when Alex comes back to the Chicago area and settles in a glass house built many years previously by his architect father. Alex and dad don’t get along, even if they share the same profession.
In the house Alex finds a note from alleged “lodger” Kate, who recently moved out with regret to central Chicago. However, Alex knows that the house was closed for years and writes back to Kate, basically asking what is wrong with her. A correspondence follows between the two, during which they discover that Kate rented the house after Alex, possibly in 2005 (the timeline is a bit confused) and she moved out at the beginning of 2006.
The two exchange letters using the mailbox outside the house, regular postal service clearly not being an option. Although I agree that writing letters is very romantic, one may wonder why they do not exchange photos, emails or phone calls…
They quickly discover to be soul mates and Alex tries several times to meet Kate. It should be remembered that in 2004 Kate is still unaware about his existence, so when they actually meet the experience is very different for them. To complicate things, Kate has a boyfriend in 2004 – but not in 2006.
Alex knows to be in love and want to be with Kate. At this stage, enters the plot twist, which feels highly contrived even in such an unlikely scenario. However, we are supposed to root for Alex and Kate, two people who can truly connect with very few around them and who are bound to be together against all odds. Will 2008 be the year when they can finally be happy together?
The time paradox is the most intriguing part and should be explored more in details, but the movie can still be considered a satisfactory, unusual romantic movie.… Expand