Blow, a watchable movie
348733
A good mt boring.ovie. Told the story and was n
708250
One Hour Photo (Mark Romanek, 2002)
Mark Romaneks second feature film (following 1985 indie Static), One Hour Photo was released to almost universal accolades, then found itself skunked at the Oscars. Critics around the country expressed confusion and outrage. Everyone wanted to know why.
One Hour Photo is the story of Seymour Parrish (Robin Williams), a clerk at the local superstore who develops photographs. He has developed an unhealthy obsession with the Yorkin family: father Will (Michael Vartan of the TV series Alias), mother Nina (Connie Nielsen of Gladiator), and son Jake (Dylan Smith, seen more recently in Pirates of the Caribbean).
Therein lies the problem: laid out like that, you can see exactly where this is going. And while its a good stalker tale, it never rises above just being a stalker tale. Even when Parrish is trying to do the right thing by the family, the scenes (and the emotions within them) could be from any of twenty other stalker movies. Weve seen it all before, and while the production quality and the acting is certainly above the caliber of your average Lifetime Original Movie, the underlying plot, theme, and message are right in the zone.
Williams, like all gifted comic actors, does have the chops to play the psychotic, and shows them here well. But in order to truly shine, hell need better material; his two forays into it so far (the other being Chris Nolans execrable remake of Insomnia) have been hampered by bad script choice. In fact, it seems everyone in involved with this film, from Romanek right down to steadicam operator Elizabeth Ziegler (the last name in the credits), is capable of better. There are huge amounts of potential from every direction in this film; they just never manage to coalesce.
That said, as I inferred above, as an example of the stalker-film genre, its not bad by any means. All the main performances are credible, with the arguable exception of Gary Cole, who plays Parrishs boss. Hes a bit two Im the evil upper management guy two-dimensional. The pacing is a little uneven, but once the ball gets rolling, it works well enough. Its worth a rental, but not the awards so many people called for. ***
4586956
This is a straightforward action / revenge flick as others have said, and if you take it as just that you will enjoy it. Far too many people are looking for intelligent social comment, or hidden morality in a movie such as this, and forget to compare it to a Steven Seagal, or even Bruce Willis style romp. Cole Hauser is a little stilted, but broody enough as the chiseled "fictional" big action movie star Bo Laramie, whose privacy is invaded, and then plastered less than gracefully (or truthfully) over the pages of the tabloids. I think the director cleverly did NOT deviate here into the "price of fame" subtext, or try and tackle the thorny issue of celebrities in the public eye, instead sticking to a straight on revenge story. Laramie we learn after he is forced to take anger management classes is something of a "good old fashioned boy" from the plains of Montana, maladjusted to the big city lights, who feels that his own moral values, and style of justice should rule the day. After 4 Paparazzi photographers hound him to the point of causing actual harm to his family, he reacts predictably, after finding little assistance from the police, or legal system. Twisted morality now please enter stage left, as the Paparazzi quartet (led by Tom Sizemore)are portrayed as unprincipled, malicious and detestable bottom feeders, whose complete lack of conscience and nefarious activities of course mean ANY form of punishment is acceptable to bring them to book. Cleverly however, what follows is not a testosterone bathed series of beatings, but a moderately inventive turning of the tables, albeit violently similar in conclusion. The viewer is ALWAYS on Laramies side, as he fumbles through the movie, and there is a good supporting cast from Dennis Farina as the "Columbo" style police officer in particular. The movie is not long at 82 minutes, but probably long enough and left me feeling almost guilty in a satifactory if predictable outcome. I believe this movie actually bombed at the box office, but this is no reflection on it being bad, and probably aimed more at Mel Gibson(making a Hitchcock style cameo appearance) in the Producers chair, who was waging his own private battle with Hollywood at the time of release. I gave it 3.5 stars which is a little generous, but still enjoyable.
4603184
Outsourcing wars, killing people that want to kill you, using charity as cover, and teaching yourself how hot sauce can become a tool of the trade are all things that the movie brings to the table. It is a sppof and has a spoof feel, and some of the movie really is funny. Conversations held with your navigation device to discuss your problems is a good example of that, because some of the things that it says are truly funny material. Other things also rear their heads and get good laughs as well, and the first half of the movie would have been a five-star beast if it would have kept up its pace. It didn't do that, though, and instead became convoluted and a bit on the boring side. By the end of the movie I was just ready for the thing to end, and i really didn't expect that. I say that because of the main person involved is someone i like, and he had his hands in the project fromt he beginning. Still, it does have some moments in it and they are really good moments, so I didn't find myself totally hating the movie.

One of the things I did dislike was the way Hilary Duff's character was portrayed. This isn't meant as a knock on her acting skills, but is instead meant to address the issues of the character itself. She goes from an accented star to a person with hidden feelings that sounds like Duff, and that didn't play out well. Neither did the forced love connection that enters the fray, or the overall connection between the past and the present. Looking at the scenes that some of this happens in makes me think that they should have been funny and, if executed properly, they would have been great. They were not played out well, however, and the mixture of many things makes the over-the-top violene seem like it wants to be something like Shoot-em-up but without all the wonderful little things that made that movie funny.

One pro in the movie was the acting of John C., however, but I expected that. I liked what he did with his character and i liked the subtle things that came out when he interacted with other people. I even bought into his killer instincts when they were displayed, and how they made him look like a man that was an artist when it came to killing. As I said before, i simply could not find my footing in the storyline and it diminished the character's capacity to make me laugh, ruining some rather good moments. If John C. was less talented at taking roles and bending them to his will, i would have found the movie even less desirable than I did.

Some people do like this movie a lot and i respect that, too. I want people to know that as well, thinking they should perhaps read why they thought the movie was a good one and measure those pros and cons. As i pointed out in my review, I liked the start of this beast and I thought that it had quite a few moments that really took the proverbial cake. I just couldn't eat a whole slice because it seemed undercooked and, as everyone knows, uncooing things can poison even the most healthy of persons.
Not my cup of tea - or hot sauce, if you prefer.
1242334
You know those movies that you watch, and find so compelling you say to people `you HAVE to see this movie...'?  Well, this movie aims for that, but alas merely reaches the heights of `Yeah, it's worth watching...'.
The film revolves around 3 storylines, essentially taking place simultaneously, and in real time, but this structure is not religiously adhered to as there are also some flashbacks.  In Washington, a senior Senator rumored to be a potential Presidential candidate, invites a respected journalist from a major TV news network, to give her an exclusive on the latest tactics being used in Afghanistan.  Meanwhile, that push is shown through the eyes of two soldiers in the Special Forces, as the mission goes wrong and they are stuck behind enemy lines.  The final strand is in a University, as the professor Robert Redford talks to a student full of potential but with more than enough cynicism and apathy to go with it.  He shares his experience with the story of the two Special Forces soldiers, who were students of his and left to `go make a difference'.
It's a movie brimming with talent to be sure, with Robert Redford directing and Tom Cruise and Meryl Streep acting their socks off..  Cruise does give a compellingly convincing portrayal of a senior politician, convinced of his moral high ground but using it to further his career as much or if not more than doing the right thing.  Streep also gives a performance which at times seems just a little too self consciously rounded, when something stripped down to basics would have done just as well.  Her tics and mannerisms would have been better served in a movie which focused on her character.  Redford is.. well, simply Redford.
The script, when we hear the characters debating with each other (which is most of the movie - don't go expecting an action flick whatever you do..) is intelligent and gets across its message clearly enough.  Engagement is needed - apathy is a recipe for disaster, whether it be apathy on an individuals part or on the part of the media.  Clumsy parallels to Vietnam are made.  However, we don't have time to warm to any of the characters, neither are arcs to the characters developed, such that the movie ultimately feels like a lecture - something that a documentary could have done as well - or even better, using actual facts instead of drama.
Worth watching for some good performances and literate script, but should have been much more.  How did such interesting talent combine to make such a mediocre product - is making a statement on war so much at odds with good film-making these days?
3987208
I think the low number of reviews here reflects on the nature of the film.  It's hard-hitting, grim, and pessimistic.  Some critics have complained that it gets bogged down in its pessimism, and offers too predictable a picture of evil corporatists exploiting a degraded country.

But I, for one, appreciated the low key nature of the film, and even the purposely, largely affectless performance of Rachel Weisz.  It is easy to contrast this movie with big-budget thrillers like "Taken" with Liam Neeson, and "Girl With the Dragon Tattoo" with Rooney Mara.  In those two examples, corruption is vanquished by unbelievable, one-dimensional heroes endowed with superhuman abilities.

In "The Whistleblower", Rachel Weisz's character isn't a vehicle for moviegoers to vicariously enjoy punishing the baddies.  Her character is unglamorous, human, and restrained. ( What a relief to see a character that doesn't metamorphize into a fire-breathing, kick-boxing avenger.)  She merely observes, and tries to act within the limits of what is humanly possible.

Some people may also be frustrated that the good angels of the movie (David Strathairn and Vanessa Redgrave) flicker in and out, and offer limited encouragement.  The guys at the top of the "bad guy" ladder are, of course, too powerful to challenge and the epitome of intelligent evil. They, too, are given very limited screen-time and remain mysterious.  Here again, I thought the movie's restraint was effective.  There are no bombastic showdowns, and the nature of the web of evil that controls the trafficking operation is never fully revealed.  The movie does not attempt to be omniscient, but provides the partial understanding that is natural to the human condition.  Again, realistic.  However, the movie's failing may be the one-dimensionality of the bad guys, who seem to inhabit a cult of inhumanity that even goes beyond fascism.

Still, I liked it and will watch it again.
1041199
As the actors are new comers, I knew I was taking a chance in purchasing this film.  It was a chance that I am glad I took.  I was a good twenty minutes into the movie when I realized that the plot seemed familiar to me. The movie is a version of Romeo and Juliet.  The actor, Arjun Kapoor, seems as though he's done this before.  There was no overacting, no cheesiness.  The actress, Parineeti Chopra, also did a great job.  I really liked her character, Zoya.  The girl she plays in the movie is fierce.  She and Parma (Arjun's character) are like the male and female versions of each other.  It makes sense they fell in love.  They are both passionate and impulsive.  They both have hair trigger tempers.  Parma is a rich kid who is trying to live up to his grandfather's expectations, to no avail.  This causes him to act recklessly.  Zoya is the only daughter, amongst sons, of doting parents.  She has aspirations of entering politics.  Both have hated each other since childhood due to family political rivalry.  At the beginning of the movie, all the way up to the intermission, Parma is not that likeable.  Zoya herself, while more likeable, was no wilting flower.  She would pull a gun in the blink of an eye.  She could use a lesson in impulse control.  The twist between the two in the middle of the movie is something that I did not see coming.  That's saying something for Bollywood movies, which can be kind of predictable.  After the intermission, the two must grow up a little and cooperate.  As I am not from that part of the world, it took me a while to figure out that the families were against the relationship not just for political reasons but also for religious reasons.  I don't really understand such passionate disapproval, although I do know that those views exist in the world.  The amount of gunfire employed to show their disapproval was astounding.  Also, I was baffled that both families so readily rejected their previously beloved children over this issue.  I know that exists in the world too, but still, it is baffling to me.  Having said all that, I really enjoyed this movie.  The songs were really good.  There wasn't too much joyous dancing, which would have been out of place in such a plot.  The acting by Arjun Kapoor and Parineeti Chopra was super for two people who are new to the profession. The ending was a surprise, given how Bollywood, like Hollywood, loves happy endings.  But, it fit the movie.  I like a movie that keeps me thinking about it after the movie has ended.
858621
This isn't a brilliant cinematic accomplishment by any means, but it is definitely an entertaining story. Julia Roberts portrays an art history professor from Wellesly who has a difficult time adjusting to the fact that most of her brilliant students have no professional ambitions of their own and simply want to get married and have babies when they graduate from college. Roberts is excellent in the film, but the younger actresses are also very good, most notably Kirsten Dunst, Julia Stiles, and Ginnifer Goodwin.
Some people will probably be turned off by the attitudes about women that are depicted in the film, but that's the way things were done 50 years ago, and the fact that we're so bothered by it when we watch the film shows that the director has done a fine job. What bothered me about the movie was the way that several of the characters interacted with each other. Dunst's character was NASTY, and in the course of a two-hour film, she exposes her best friend's deepest secret to a large crowd, lies to one of her friends and convinces her that her boyfriend is cheating on her (he's not), calls another friend of hers a tramp (once again, in front of a crowd), and writes several controversial editorials in the school paper that everyone disagrees with. After all of that, no one really lashes out at her at all. It's true that Dunst's character is coping with her own problems, but I don't think that any girls would let their friend get away with all the crap that Dunst pulls in the movie. I was hoping that someone would haul off and slap her at the end, but no one did, and that was disappointing.
There were also some things that bothered me about Julia's character, especially the fact that such a strong and independent woman would have an affair with a professor who was openly sleeping with his students. That was a major thing that I didn't understand at all.
All that aside, though, it was still an entertaining movie. My boyfriend called it a "chick flick," and I agree that the film probably appeals to women more than it does to men. It's worth watching, though, and I'd recommend it to everyone.
4921246
IT IS A MOVIE THAT IS WORTH SEEING.  IT HAS ALOT OF HEARTFELT MOMENTS.  IT TOOK ME ON A WHIMISCIAL RIDE OF CHILDHOOD, THE PAIN AND JOY.
I DO HAVE A WARNING--IT SHOWS A RAPE SCENCE THAT IS SEMI-VIVID.  IT IS NOT AS BAD AS THE ONE IN THE MOVIE "THE ACCUSED".  ALTHOUGH, IT IS ENOUGH TO BE DISGUSTINGLY OFFENSIVE AND FAST-FORWARD THROUGH.
694698
Bubble is a unique movie. It is filmed using locals who were interviewed and then hired to star in the movie. Despite what you may think, the movie holds together, sometimes well. The main problem isn't overacting, but generally some of the dialog seems forced and poorly written.

Bubble is the story of 2 factory workers who have a new employee enter and disrupt their world. The script and plot is minimal, but the dialog is plenty.

Dustin James Ashley really stands out and shines in the flick. Despite having no acting experience, Dusty comes off as polished and professional. His performance was always believable, and his dialog was never wooden.

Debbie Doebereiner (as Martha) and Misty Wilkins (as Rose) for the most part do a very good job, but there are many times were you are pulled from your immersion in the film because of clunky dialog. I don't think most of the blame goes to the new actresses, as the script was a little awkward at times. Steven Soderbergh  admits in the special features section that he didn't have a clue about factory life, and for those of us that do, many things in the movie seem off.

And that is the main problem with the movie: everything could have been great, but was a little off. The music was repetitious, and they could have used a better choice. It didn't seem to fit the mood or story. The dialog was a bit off. The acting was a bit off. And the story was a bit boring.

I would recommend seeing Bubble, but I don't think folks who don't appreciate non-Hollywood indy films will care much about it. In the end I think Steven Soderbergh could have paid a greater homage to the rookie actors by surrounding them with a higher degree of quality and detail on all levels. he didn't, and it is Soderbergh who fails in weaving a solid movie. Big love to the actors. With a little more direction there performances could have been spotless.

Total Score (out of 100) = 46

23 (out of 50). Enjoyment. A rating based on my overall enjoyment of the film.

6 (out of 10). Acting. How good was the acting?

6 (out of 10). Immersion. Did the movie suck me into the story?

3 (out of 10). Intangibles. Special effects. Movie pace. Is the movie forgettable, or something you will talk about and remember for weeks? Years?

7 (out of 10). Must see. Is this movie worth seeing/renting?

1 (out of 10). Must buy. Is this movie a must buy/purchase?
648124
This movie is about watching six guys pull off a heist before they get caught. And these good looking guys are worth watching in a story that is worth following. (1/4 of a spoiler below)

Yes, there were a couple of plot holes. It's an action flick. Yes, there's a character they couldn't seem to think of any worthwhile dialogue for--he made the best looking corpse I've ever seen--and it's an action flick. And T.I. isn't going to win an acting award but his character was actually quite funny in spots. It's an action flick.

Yes, Zoe Saldana is in it too, but not much. It's all about these handsome suit wearing guys. Yes there are a few scenes with scantily clad women to show where these guys personal interests lie, but again there are only a few and they are seconds, not minutes long.

It may not be "Heat", as others have said, but who cares so long as it's not Charlie's Angels with the genders reversed either. This was a decent summer action flick for chicks... WITH racial diversity in the casting!(OMG!)I hope this producer/director make many more. They will only get better.
690389
Shia LeBeouf is outstanding in this movie. Besides being an eye-catcher to the ladies, he actually shows good emotion throughout, the key scene being the car crash.

He's on house arrest for punching out a totally disrespectful teacher who stepped out of line. Instead of doing anything productive, he plays army games online with the headset and all, mimicking one of the many interests of my eldest brother, eating so unhealthily and trying oh so hard to stay out of trouble while unable to do anything at all.

The neighborhood he happens to live in is anything but boring. There's a cheating spouse over yonder, a hot new neighborhood girl next door (Ashley) and a possible killer across the street who mows his lawn all too often.

It's a suspenseful thriller at heart but you really wouldn't know that unless you looked at your guide or heard about it previously to watching the film. The actual action slowly, slowly comes about. But it's all worth it in the end.

Without destroying the major highlights of this movie I will say that this movie takes many turns; some that you will predict easily and some that will leave you speechless. There were only a few moments where I wasn't that interested in the movie and I still don't understand the "low" rating here.

In fact, I liked the movie so much, especially by the ending that I will refuse to look at a lot of negative reviews here. I usually look at both, tend to check out the 3's and 2's first but won't do so for this one.

It is what it is and I found that interesting. The characters were well-rounded, the questions I had throughout the movie were answered (minus maybe one) and the acting was more than decent.

Worth your time and recommended.

4.3 stars.

End note: Ashley playing hard to get was one of the most awesome personal parts in the movie. What Shia admits to her on the roof when she holds his Ipod was the true highlight in this aspect as well as one of the highlights of the movie period.

The alternative music that Shia jammed to in this film was pretty good. I didn't actually know any of the artists because I tend to listen to poppier rock but one of the bands sounded like something my cousin would listen to.

End note: Watch it!!
4285329
{3.5 stars}

RIDDLE is a somewhat underdeveloped but eminently watchable film that relies more on mystery and intrigue than it does gore and schlock, a pleasant change from many recent horror films. It would be strengthened by more complex layers of plot regarding the jinxed town, the condemned loony bin, and how they both tie-in to Nathan's disappearance. The pacing--too fast in certain places, too slow in others--also works against this film. Nevertheless, there are some interesting nuances, mostly realistic but with slight hints of the supernatural. Fine camera work with some really stunning rural Pennsylvanian scenery. While it's not Val Kilmer's finest hour, the character he plays is almost enhanced by tepid acting. The actors who play the teenagers all give impressive performances here.
3836648
Taking place in Wales, the story follows the life of a 15-year-old dealing with school, his first love, and the impending end of his parents' marriage. The story is listed as a 'comedy', but I felt it was much more of a drama with a comedic point of view. I enjoyed the lack of cliches that seem to plague domestic movies these days, along with the fact that the movie was laid out to simply tell a story, and not to try to teach the viewers a lesson. Well acted/directed, it's an interesting tale with reasonably rich characters, wrapped up in an enjoyable enough fashion. It's not going to make my best movies of the year list, but if you're looking to be entertained without the normal 'aftertaste' of some movies these days, I would certainly recommend it.
2556171
I'm not a fan of bank robbery movies, but The Town got 94% on Rotten Tomatoes so I figured something must really set it apart from other bank robbery movies. Wrong. There's nothing bad about The Town. It's well-made and well-acted. But who cares? It's just another bank robbery movie, with one new element. The one new element is that one of the bank robbers (Ben Affleck) takes a liking to a potential witness (Rebecca Hall) after "accidentally" running into her so he can find out how much she knows. Yet, there are so many elements that, if you're older, you've seen in other movies, you won't be able to stop thinking of them. There are the nuns' outfits with the presidents' faces. There's the loyal friend who once saved Ben's life, who now thinks Ben owes him. There's the desire to get out of the business completely, but being forced to make one last heist. There's the level-headed leader of the gang with the out-of-control underlings. There's the idea that you have to be able to walk away from a bad situation. The list of regurgitated elements goes on and on and on. The Town is a good showcase of Affleck's skills as a director, but that's what it seems like: an exercise. If you've seen Heat, skip this. If you haven't, see Heat first, then skip this. Only if you're a rabid bank robbery movie fan or rabid fan of one of the elements involved will this be worth your time.

Another film this movie regurgitates elements from and that I liked more was Point Break. See Point Break and Heat, then see if The Town is worth your time.
1686996
I think I watched this movie 3 times within the first two days of buying it. The fact that the director was able to pick three leads who were able to play off each other so well that you almost believed they were actually brothers was awesome. During the time frame that it's set people aren't allowed to buy alcohol so the brothers create a moonshine distillery and package and ship the bottles of the stuff they create. However a new police officer in town isn't too fond of their business and does whatever he can to stop it however he can. Their is a lot of violence and a lot of action. However, its something you would expect to see if you were alive during this time frame and nothing too over the top like explosions or electronics (maybe one or two explosions). Anyways, I would definitely suggest it.
3963032
I enjoyed it.  Some of the directors techniques became a bit anoying or over done but it was a good movie.  I thought that the drug sister to a lot of camera appeal and both sisters gave good performances.