Rate The Last Movie You Saw - 2

[GLASSJAW]

speaking of Chastain, if you lot haven't seen Take Shelter, SEE IT. got totally overlooked in 2011, because everyone was busy drooling over Drive. but Take Shelter, for me, is the movie of the decade thus far

[Mr. Ambien]

Quick ratings for several films we saw over the past few weeks:

Zero Dark Thirty -- 9/10

Silver Linings Playbook -- 9/10

The Guilt Trip -- 5/10

Jack Reacher -- 8/10

This is 40 -- 6/10

[Monty]

Friends With Kids - 5/10

The first half hour or so was very, very slow. It's not a terrible movie by any means. In fact, if it weren't for the casting choices, I may have given it a higher score. Jennifer Westfeldt (also known as Jon Hamm's partner), wrote directed, and starred in this film about two best friends who decide to have a child, without the mess of having a romantic relationship; after seeing what children has done to the marriage of their 4 friends.

I have no problem with Jennifer Westfeldt's performance. Adam Scott seemed a little out of his element, but it is nice to see him in a more dramatic performance. Maya Rudolph, who I normally cannot stand, played the role of a burnt out mother perfectly. Chris O'Dowd tries his hand at a more dramatic role, and I feel played it fairly well. These were the two best written and performed performances in the film. They weren't a couple who hated each other, just people who were absolutely tired and exhausted from raising kids. The stereotypical married couple who have no time for each other and dedicate everything to their children.

That leaves Kristin Wiig and Jon Hamm. Like most people, I enjoy both. In fact, Jon Hamm played the role of the d*ck husband perfectly. However, you never got to see him that much of him. Wiig was the biggest miscast of them all, though. She doesn't need to be wacky, cooky Wiig in every role she's in; however, her role in itself seemed completely useless, wasting her time in this film. In total, she may have honestly had 5 or 6 lines. I wasn't expecting to see the comedic Wiig, but because she was in the film, I did expect her to be used. She was more a set piece than anything else. In which case, they should have cast someone else in the role. Honestly, Westfedlt probably would have been better off casting Wiig in the title role, rather than herself. However, then the budget for the film would have been significantly more; not only that, but perhaps Wiig's schedule wouldn't have allowed her to even work on the film in a more significant role.

Long story short. Maya Rudolph and Chris O'Dowd were the only perfectly cast people in their respective roles. Everyone else was wasted or, like Adam Scott, a little out of their element.

[GLASSJAW]

confused by the silver lining playbook praise

6.5 at most, imo

[D-Money]

I agree with Monty about Friends With Kids. It was pretty dull though, until Hamm's character started letting loose at the end. Both of his speeches were the highlights of the movie.

Wiig was TERRIBLY miscast. Most of the time she just sat there trying to look mopey. Westfeldt's character was endearing, but the trainwreck of plastic surgury on her face was kind of distracting.

But Monty forgot the most surprising perfect casting of the movie: Megan Fox. She played the shallow, immature, heartless character whose only redeeming quality was her looks. She nailed it - SURPRISE!

[Monty]

I agree with Monty about Friends With Kids. It was pretty dull though, until Hamm's character started letting loose at the end. Both of his speeches were the highlights of the movie.

Wiig was TERRIBLY miscast. Most of the time she just sat there trying to look mopey. Westfeldt's character was endearing, but the trainwreck of plastic surgury on her face was kind of distracting.

But Monty forgot the most surprising perfect casting of the movie: Megan Fox. She played the shallow, immature, heartless character whose only redeeming quality was her looks. She nailed it - SURPRISE!

I haven't seen much of Megan Fox in the past, but like you said, she did nail her part perfectly. I didn't dislike her, as she played her role to a tee.The highlights were Hamm's speeches, which left me thinking, "Why in the hell could Westfeldt not have utilized her partner's talent more?" As for Wiig, mopey is the right word. Punching bag would be another description. Or, like I said earlier, a set piece. The role was written this way, which makes me question why she bothered with this role. Yes, I know she is friends with Hamm and Westfeldt, so she's doing them a solid. But as this was a dramatic film, I was interested to see how Wiig would be able to pull off a dramatic performance. The answer to this? She didn't have a chance to. Her role was non-existant. Therefore, miscast.And yes, Westfeldt's plastic surgury was a major distraction. Probably why I'm giving her performance the benefit of the doubt.

[D-Money]

The Other Guys - 8/10

Saw this in the theatre, but I forgot how hilarious some parts were. In fact, I enjoyed it a lot more the second time, and I'll probably watch it many more times.

I love how Mark Wahlberg's character always thinks everything has to lead back to drugs.

Also, in tears when the rival cops were doing a presentation in a school classroom, and said:

"Got a couple of tips... help you guys stay out of jail. One: try your hardest to not be Black or Hispanic."

[TOMapleLaughs]

Seven Psychopaths - 4/10

Dark comedy? Alright. Wasn't that dark. Wasn't that comedic. First hint at a flop here should've been that Colin Farrell stars in it. Second hint was Sam Rockwell is his backup. Neither of those guys are in any way funny. This meant the load had to be carried by Christopher Walken. Lately, Walken is put in comedies when it's determined that the main actors just aren't funny enough. He did alright, but at his age (69), his ability to come up with movie-saving performances has waned. Woody Harrelson also appears in the movie in a forgettable role.

Reminded me of other failed dark comedies 8 Heads in a Dufflebag and The Way of the Gun. Not enough happens to make you want to care in any way except that you really want the protagonist(s) to die swiftly.

[Monty]

Seven Psychopaths - 4/10

Dark comedy?  Alright.  Wasn't that dark.  Wasn't that comedic.  First hint at a flop here should've been that Colin Farrell stars in it.  Second hint was Sam Rockwell is his backup.  Neither of those guys are in any way funny.  This meant the load had to be carried by Christopher Walken. Lately, Walken is put in comedies when it's determined that the main actors just aren't funny enough.   He did alright, but at his age (69), his ability to come up with movie-saving performances has waned. Woody Harrelson also appears in the movie in a forgettable role.

Reminded me of other failed dark comedies 8 Heads in a Dufflebag and The Way of the Gun.  Not enough happens to make you want to care in any way except that you really want the protagonist(s) to die swiftly.

Haven't seen it yet, so can't comment. But I'm going to have to disagree with you about Colin Farrell, and definitely disagree about Sam Rockwell.Colin Farrell has some talent. He definitely hasn't made the best choices, but he has shown some flashes (In Bruges, Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus).Sam Rockwell has saved many of the films he has been in (ie: Ironman 2, Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy), great supporting roles in Matchstick Men, The Green Mile, and Galaxy Quest, and a terrific starring roles in Confessions of a Dangerous Mind and Moon.

Edited January 18, 2013 by Monty

[TOMapleLaughs]

To each their own. Haven't seen Moon, but Confessions i have. It might have been a great performance by him as the whack Gong Show host, but to me Sam Rockwell is just not 'star' material, nor is he funny. He gets into funny situations, but that's different. In Seven Psychopaths he tries a bit too hard, imho. While Farrell coasts through the movie.

[D-Money]

To each their own.  Haven't seen Moon, but Confessions i have.  It might have been a great performance by him as the whack Gong Show host, but to me Sam Rockwell is just not 'star' material, nor is he funny.  He gets into funny situations, but that's different.  In Seven Psychopaths he tries a bit too hard, imho.  While Farrell coasts through the movie.

Although it certainly doesn't prove anything comedically, Moon is the shiznit. Fantastic movie - definitely recommend.

[Monty]

Although it certainly doesn't prove anything comedically, Moon is the shiznit. Fantastic movie - definitely recommend.

Agreed. I usually don't give out too many 10/10 scores, but for the type of film it was, Moon was an all around terrific film.

[D-Money]

Agreed. I usually don't give out too many 10/10 scores, but for the type of film it was, Moon was an all around terrific film.

Yeah, it would be a 9/10 for me.

I love it when a movie can limit itself within a scene/concept, and surprise you with how much depth it can pull out of it. Buried and Pi are two other movies like that - but Moon is probably the best I've seen in years.

Hitchcock was the master at this.

[Kryten]

Moon was great for Sam Rockwell. In Bruges was a very funny movie that I thought Colin Farrell was great in, and I am not a fan of his. In Bruges also has Brendan Gleason though and that usually means the movie will be entertaining.

[GLASSJAW]

Seven Psychopaths - 4/10

Dark comedy? Alright. Wasn't that dark. Wasn't that comedic. First hint at a flop here should've been that Colin Farrell stars in it. Second hint was Sam Rockwell is his backup. Neither of those guys are in any way funny. This meant the load had to be carried by Christopher Walken. Lately, Walken is put in comedies when it's determined that the main actors just aren't funny enough. He did alright, but at his age (69), his ability to come up with movie-saving performances has waned. Woody Harrelson also appears in the movie in a forgettable role.

Reminded me of other failed dark comedies 8 Heads in a Dufflebag and The Way of the Gun. Not enough happens to make you want to care in any way except that you really want the protagonist(s) to die swiftly.

brutal

Martin mcDonagh is one of the best writers in the film world, as far as I'm concerned. Seven Pscyhopaths was just dumbed down too much, I think. Especially Sam Rockwell's character. The fact that you'd compare it to "8 Heads in a Duffle bag" is a bit shocking, and maybe a sign that it's just not your style. Did you like In Bruges? Phenomenal movie, both funny and brilliant, and stars Colin Farrell.

I was disappointed by Seven Psychopaths, but thought the movie had a lot of strengths.

[TOMapleLaughs]

Haven't seen In Bruges, or at least i don't remember it.

End of Watch - 6/10

Getting a bit tired of Jake Gyllenhaal trying to be a tough guy, but this ho-hum LA cop movie was worth a watch, even if it offers nothing that Training Day and other recent LA cops vs. Mexicans movies already have shown.

Harsh Times was certainly twisted, but it was far more interesting than End of Watch.

I figured his Latino partner was dead meat certainly, but was hoping for Jake's death instead.

Almost...

[cj_coolcat]

Finally bit the bullet and went to see Les Miserables. I was avoiding it because I was worried I was going to hate it. Well, I didn't hate it. But I didn't love it either. I really don't know what they were thinking casting Russell Crowe as Javert. The guy can't sing. To his credit you can tell he really tried, but it struck me he was concentrating so much on his singing that he forgot about acting. He was just so....blank. It's too bad because I bet if he didn't have to sing he'd make an awesome Javert. On the other end of the spectrum it felt like Hugh Jackman was concentrating so much on acting he forgot about singing. I mean, he was okay, but there's several points where you really want him to belt it out from his gut and he just doesn't get there.

I'm thinking the biggest hindrance to the singing and my biggest problem with the movie overall was all the awkward close-ups. Why did every single ballad have to be filmed with the camera up the actor's nose?? It reminded me of Blair Witch Project, but with singing. I think it made a lot of the actors (Hugh Jackman in particular) sing from the throat like the audience was right in their face rather than sing from the gut like they're trying to project to a concert hall, which I guess is maybe what they were going for but I didn't like it.

On the plus side, I'm pretty sure I'm in love with Eddie Redmayne now and I was pleasantly surprised by Anne Hathaway and Amanda Sigfried. Hathaway's "I dreamed a dream" achieved a good balance between beautiful and uncomfortable to watch (which Hooper then tried to replicate with every other song in the movie to its detriment). Also in the rare moment when the camera isn't up somebody's nose the cinematography is quite beautiful. Finally of course Colm Wilkinson as the bishop = pure awesomeness. It's too bad he's too old to play Valjean again.

Overall, 6/10.

[flapjacks]

Pulp Fiction. 9/10. Quite brilliant when it all comes together.

[Monty]

The Big Year - 4.5/10

Synopsis: Jack Black, Steve Martin, and Owen Wilson are bird watchers. That's it.

Here's the main problem with The Big Year, it's not a comedy. And I'm not saying that there were jokes in it, but none of them hit. It's actually not a comedy. It's also not a drama. In fact, it's more a documentary than anything else.

If this were a comedy, it would have been far worse. For what it is, a love letter to bird watchers, it's fine. But was there huge demand for this? I didn't think so.

Here's a list of some of the actors I remember in the film:

Jack Black

Steve Martin

Owen Wilson

Rashida Jones

Joel McHale

Kevin Pollack

Brian Dennehy

Angelica Huston

Jim Parsons

Anthony Anderson

Dianne Wiest

Steven Weber

And yet, not a comedy.

[D-Money]

My wife enjoyed The Big Year. And as time-killing, squeaky-clean family entertainment, it wasn't dreadful.

But yeah, don't remember laughing even once.