My first thought after finishing this movie was "that felt really amateurish". After all, how many times did we need to be reminded that it was just such a coincidence that the two leads ran into each other while walking down the street? Over and over again - "wow, look at my dumb luck for running into you". But then I read some of the other reviews and saw the better way of stating how this movie feels: it feels like someone fed the last 20 years of Allen movies into an Allen AI model and this was the result. It was just so... unambitious. About the only thing that this movie had going for it is that it looks absolutely gorgeous and the people look and sound lovely (speaking French probably gave it more credibility than it deserved). The music bed running through the entirety of the movie only backed up the fact that there wasn't much confidence in the material.
I was surprised to see that many people have said that this was his best movie in a decade, and maybe even since Match Point. I absolutely despised his last two movies (they really were unwatchable), but I would put this one only marginally ahead of those two (it didn't make me angry while watching it, so I guess there is that). At least with Wonder Wheel and Irrational Man there was some kind of character development. Or at the very least, extremely talented actors delivering questionable dialog. This film is a regurgitation of so many movies that have come before it. I am baffled that so many people thought that this slight and extremely simplistic movie was actually good.
follow me at https://IHATEBadMovies.com or facebook IHATEBadMovies
This movie is a perfect example of how a viewer can learn to enjoy a movie for what it is. This movie is a little rough around the edges, and the metaphors can be a bit heavy-handed at times. Some of the dialog is atrocious, and there was a fair amount of camp. That said, I loved the hell out of it. First, it has a charm that just can't be denied. I loved the characters and I love feeling like I am a part of their world for even the brief time spent watching the movie. There is something to be said for having a move wash over you. Second, the acting is fantastic. Walken is his normal awesome self, but it is Blount that is the emotional center of the movie. I had no idea that she had these kinds of chops, let alone being able to pull off the accent. To see her spirit take over towards the end of the movie was very satisfying.
I also think that people missed the fact that this movie is also a bit of a quirky dark comedy. It is very much a drama, but there is a playfulness available to you, if you want it. If The Banshees of Inisherin and LA Story had a child, it would be this movie.
follow me at https://IHATEBadMovies.com or facebook IHATEBadMovies
How is it that a movie that is as lovely as this can't be seen by the masses? I came across this movie by pure luck. As with so many other great indie movies that I've seen (An Audience of Chairs and The Passing Parade come mind), there were few reviews on the movie. But those reviews were glowing, and I added to them.
I had such an amazing experience watching this movie. One of the reviews that I saw compared it to Once and that instantly made me skeptical. But as the movie went on I could see the comparison but not in the ways that you might think. Sure, there are some similarities in themes - the beauty of art, the plight of the struggling artist, etc. The thing that reminded me of Once was that the main characters were so bare in front of us. I felt for them and cared for them and wanted better for them. There were so many other feelings and thoughts that I had while watching this movie... I didn't write them down. Early in the movie I made the decision to go along with the ride and to let the movie wash over me.
follow me at https://IHATEBadMovies.com or facebook IHATEBadMovies
I love that in this day and age that movies can still take chances. I recently watched Tar, and while it wasn't my favorite movie of the year I loved that it could stretch out and take its time to tell a story. Triangle of Sadness might be an even better example of a film being in no particular hurry to get somewhere. As a viewer of this film I continuously fascinated by what I was watching. In a way it reminded me of so many Korean films in that the pacing just felt so different than the vast majority of films.
I saw an interview with the director where he said that he is cruel to all of his characters. I think that is a big reason for a film like this to feel as rich as it does. The themes of class and beauty are right there in front of us, but at no point does the story tell the viewer what to think. The film asks a variety of questions and lets the viewer contemplate the answers. I very much enjoyed it and am still thinking about it days later.
follow me at https://IHATeBadMovies.com or facebook I HATEBadMovies
There is so much to like about this film. First and foremost, Cate Blanchett goes off. While she is great in everything, I haven't seen her elevate a film in this manner since she saved Blue Jasmine from mediocrity. One of the things that I really liked about the film is how - from the very first scenes - it is clearly in no hurry to unpack. The movie is allowed to stretch its proverbial legs and settle in, and the audience is given an extended look into Blanchett's character and past. While the movie's main themes center around the abuse of power, exploitation, etc, I found myself spending more time thinking about the choices that the director made. I think that he did a fabulous job constructing the movie, and I especially love that he didn't dumb the movie down for less discerning viewers. There is a lot in this movie, if you want it.
I recently heard a phrase used in a movie review that fits this movie: I envied it more than I liked it. I loved the first hour and as the movie went on I became less enthused. I always feel weird expressing these kinds of sentiments for a movie that has an important message. But this is a movie and not a documentary so the entertainment factor has to be considered at some point. The film is always interesting but isn't always gripping.
follow me at https://IHATEBadMovies.com or facebook IHATEBadMovies
In my (very amateur) career of appreciating and reviewing movies I seemed to have hit a point where I rarely take notes on movies as I watch them. I think there are two reasons for this. The first reason is that I have seen so many movies that I am not nearly as motivated to write reviews, let alone taking notes as I watch the movies. I used to write long-form reviews of movies but that just wasn't possible as life grew more complicated.
The second reason is that - after having gone back through the years and watch so many great movies - it is hard to find good movies in the present. Sure, there are three or four that come out every year that really grab me. Seeing as I watch 150ish movies a year, those three or four are very sparse (and usually towards the end of the year).
About twenty minutes into this movie I could easily tell that there was something extraordinary going on. On the surface this seemed like it would follow along the lines of other movies where someone was remembering their past. This movie isn't that, and couldn't be less that. As you probably know, the movie is written and directed by Spielberg and it is supposed to be an autobiographical account of his life growing up. Speilberg chose to come up with fictional names for the characters in the movie - that added a fantastic new dimension to the movie that is difficult to explain. I think where the movie really excels is that it isn't a retelling of everything that happened to Spielberg and his family. The film has a three dimensional aspect to the story (accentuated by color and song) that I don't think that I've ever seen before.
The movie can probably be broken down into two different themes. While it isn't necessarily obvious, the first half of the movie is about his parents. While Paul Dano is amazing in an understated role as the father, it is Michelle Williams that is absolutely hypnotizing in her role as the mother. She is so incredibly magnetic in her scenes... I don't think I've better from her in any of her other movies (and she has done so many amazing films). The second half of the movie is a bit more autobiographical as the young filmmaker begins to understand his family (and the world) through his amateur filmmaking. The entire movie is capped off with an incredible scene at the end that I won't spoil here. For me, this was the best movie of the year.
follow me at https://IHATEBadMovies.com or facebook IHATEBadMovies
Every year I pick out one or two cheesy christmas movies as part of my holiday season. Last week I watched the mediocre Lindsay Lohan movie and this week I settled on this movie. More cheese, right? Um, no. This movie is good. I mean really good. Sure, there are the occasional reminders that it is the holiday season but it almost certainly is not a holiday movie (although I do expect that the christmas village scene in the middle of the movie was a wink at the audience from the director). First, the two leads have ridiculous chemistry. And it isn't the crappy syrupy kind that we see in so many other xmas movies. The supporting cast is also excellent, of course (Bonnie Bedelia should have been a bigger star). It is the rare movie that completely sucks me in and allows me to give myself up to it. I didn't want it to end. Some reviews were critical of the fact that there is a bit of a mystery in the movie. I don't agree with that sentiment. As I said earlier, this movie would have been just fine on its own if it hadn't gotten tagged with the "holiday" tag.
Finally, the best thing about the movie is that it is subtle. It didn't beat you over the head with the potential for romance. I would image that many people were disappointed in the last scene (probably the same group that hated the ending of the Sopranos) because they didn't show you exactly what happened. The best movies allow the viewer to fill in the blanks. We don't need to see everything on screen to know that something happened. That's not the point.
The worst part about the movie? I think that this movie ruined the Hallmark-ish kinds of movies for me. The movie started in a traditional way and for the first 20 minutes I had the mindset that cheese was on the way. Instead I was blown away. How do I go back to the traditional schlock? Damn you, Netflix.
follow me at https://IHATEBadMovies.com or facebook IHateBadMovies
See my reviews of at christmas movies at https://ihatebadmovies.com/movie-reviews/?tx_post_tag=christmas&_orderby=wp_review_total%2Cdesc
Over the many years the original movie has had a special place in my heart. During the years where I didn't have a great holiday season it kept me company (thanks, Ted Turner). During the better years it was a staple of the celebration. Hearing Shephard's unmistakable voice signaled the start of the holiday season. I was heartened by the reports that Billingsley had turned down many attempts to make this film and ultimately agreed to this script.
In a nutshell, it was disappointing. The setup to the story isn't bad at all - Peter is an aspiring writer and an event at the beginning of the movie brings him home with his wife and kids. The major problem with the movie is that at every turn it absolutely beats you over the head with nostalgia. Scene after scene existed for no other reason than to mirror the same event that happened in the first one. Do we really need to see the next generation of bullies causing trouble in a vacant lot? The movie worked best when they ditched the nostalgia and started to make their own story (which they did at the end of the movie). But then the next problem happened: they lifted a lot from 8-Bit Christmas. And unfortunately that movie was better than this one. That is not to say that there wasn't room for nostalgia. During the closing credits they showed some of the easter eggs that were in the movie - couldn't that have been enough nostalgia?
I did get a bit emotional as the movie ended. I never expected a sequel and it was good to have the experience. While Julie Hagerty was fine as Ralphie's mother, it would have been so nice to see Melinda Dillon one more time. It's too bad that she had retired from acting because I think that would have made the movie that much better. And they did a nice job referencing Jean Shepherd at the end. The original movie might have been a small part of his book, but it was still his story.
follow me at https://IHATEBadMovies.com or facebook IHATEBadMovies
I'll admit right up front that this is not my genre. I like movies with a plot and good dialog. That said, I've seen just about every major comic book movie made over the last 20 years and I usually had some level of enjoyment watching them. In other words, the bar isn't high and I don't over-think what I am watching.
This movie was a tough watch. All of the adults in the group were looking at their phones 15 minutes in. As so many reviews have pointed out, it feels weird to have The Rock in a movie and not utilize his personality. I get that the character might be stoic.... it just made for an odd experience. The effects are like no other movie that I've ever seen before, and that's not really a compliment. I watched the movie with a bunch of adults and children - I can't recall the last time one group absolutely loved it (the kids thought it was the best thing that they'd ever seen) and the adults hated it. I would think that it would be fairly hard to mess up the superhero formula but they pretty much did.
follow me at https://IHATEBadMovies.com or facebook IHATEBadMovies
So lets think about this for a minute. George Clooney apparently agreed to make another buddy movie, this time with Julia Roberts. So before one word is put to paper you already know that you have two of the best actors and biggest starts of the last thirty years. So you add in a part where they got divorced long ago and hate each other but they have to suck it up for their daughter. Even if the writers did nothing else you should have the framework of a decent movie. And ultimately, that's all that this movie is. For all intents and purposes the director rolled the balls out and let Clooney and Roberts be Clooney and Roberts. If you take them out of this movie you'd got a Saturday afternoon Lifetime movie. Because of Clooney and Roberts the movie is just "fine". The credits are the best part of the movie - that should tell you something.
At what point does Clooney go looking for decent material? For very Michael Clayton or Descendants we get movies like this or Ocean's 13. Couldn't he mix in some decenter material now and then? I am a huge fan of his but most of his movies leave a lot to be desired.
follow me at https://IHATEBadMovies.com or facebook IHATEBadMovies
The great Patrice O'Neal once said that he might enjoy some movies more if he knew how to watch them. I thought of that quote during this movie as I wasn't sure how the movie should be consumed. In the opening scenes we are presented with some kind of underworld activity that is led by a woman in a trench coat who wears sunglasses at night. I took this to mean that there was some kind of mystery afoot so I had my radar up for that. In short, the movie is unlike anything that I can recall seeing in my 1300+ reviews. It is almost like they took a series of (possibly related) stories and put it through a kaleidoscope. The movie has traces of a rom com but I feel like that cheapens what they have done here. The stories kind of bled together - that is also what made me think that there was more to the movie than there was. I am assuming that the movie might take several viewings to take it all in (at times I was a bit lost, but it turns out that you don't need to get into the details of the movie). I can see why this movie isn't for everyone and why Quentin Tarantino was obsessed with it. I generally dislike movies that area heavy on style but this one nails it.
follow me at https://IHATEBadMovies.com or facebook IHATEBadMovies
Imagine that there is a community theater company in some small town in America and for their next production they have decided to take on one of the Fletch novels. The troup actually does a decent job with the production - the actors can believably say the lines and you get a whiff of the classic character played by Chevy Chase. And that's great, if you are expecting to see a community theater production of Fletch. On the big screen? Yikes. From Jon Hamm's quiet and uneventful portrayal of Fletch to Marcia Gay Harden sometimes putting on an accent, this movie is bad. Chase's portrayal of a greasy yet charismatic detective is the gold standard. To Hamm's credit he wasn't trying to do an imitation of Chase. The problem is something that I've thought of him for a long time: he has zero on-screen charisma. If you hear an interview with him he comes across as a smarty, funny and engaging guy. On the screen? Unless he is playing a stern character there is just nothing there. The editing surely didn't help - at times it felt like characters were having a conversation at two different times and they were spliced together. The whole thing was mediocre.
follow me at https://IHATEBadMovies.com or facebook IHATEBadMovies
Roger Ebert (and many others) have wrote eloquently about this director and I had been meaning to give him a look for quite a while. I tend to be one that likes cinema where words are secondary in telling a story or setting a mood (In the Mood For Love is a a great example of what I am talking about, as are Terence Malick movies). This director is known for pioneering a sort of meditative cinema that goes above and beyond those movies.
The film is broken up into three separate stories (from different eras) and the two leads are in each of them. The first story show the female as a the hostess in the pool hall in the 1960s. The second shows the woman as a prostitute in a broth in the 1910s. The third shows the woman as a pop singer in modern times. The overall movie is most effective when you put the three movies next to each other. I think it did a great job showing how the plight of women changed over the years and how men were usually a deciding factor in their fate.
The problem with this is that you had to sit through a ton of.... really.... slow.... scenes... to get that reward. Again, I am perfectly happy to watch a scene where no words are said for many minutes (Serio Leone also comes to mind) - the story was not advanced in many of these scenes. Also, I don't think that any of the individual movies could have been movies on their own. That is absolute proof that the sum of the parts was definitely much better than the individual parts. I wanted to like it more than I did.
follow me at https://IHATEBadMovies.com or facebook IHATEBadMovies
The premise seems simple enough: two former lovers meet at a wedding years after their relationship ended. During the first part of the movie Bonham Carter absolutely shines. I mean that she is absolutely magnetic as a headstrong woman entering her late 30s. As the movie progresses the dynamic changes the nature of the characters also change. Bonham Carter becomes a bit more accessible and Eckhart has a chance to pick up the ball.
I think what really makes this movie unique is that the movie can be watched on a couple of different levels. You can watch it as a simple "lets figure out why they broke up" movie (although this was done much better in Blue Jay) but for those that want to look a bit deeper there is a lot there. The movie deploys a couple of devices to tell the story. One such device is having the characters say a line two and three times - this is meant to show how they wished the line came out. Another is a bit of a split screen - this device becomes important in the (fantastic) final scene. I loved it.
follow me at https://IHATEBadMovies.com or facebook IHATEBadMovies
Full disclosure: I am generally not a fan of comic book movies. Sure, I've enjoyed some of them over the years for the bubblegum experience that they offer. That said, I really enjoyed this film. At different times it reminded me of the 60's tv show and all of the various movies over the last 30+ years, but at the same time it very much felt like a reimagining of the franchise. I think that it kept what worked (Batman as a crimefighter) and got rid of what didn't work (the cartoonish villains). I also like that the franchise seemed to be centered around Batman and not the backstory of the villains (of course, it was the focus on the Joker that allowed Heath Ledger to be a star in his final role). Instead of the villains being the freaks it showed Batman as being a freak, which is fitting because he was called a freak in earlier movies even though his character didn't seem to fit that description). The movie may have meandered a bit on the backside of the movie but I thought they did a great job setting themselves up for a nice reboot.
follow me at https://IHATEBadMovies.com or facebook IHATEBadMovies
While I gave this film a decent rating I was also somewhat disappointed by it. As the great comedian Patrice O'Neal once said, sometimes the hardest part about watching a movie is trying to figure out how to watch it. For example, in the beginning of the film I had a hard time trying to figure out if this film was a character study or possibly a crime drama. It felt like the director was kind of hedging our collective bets by at times using a music bed that indicated that something... criminal?... was afoot. Without giving away anything, I felt like at different points in the film there were suggestions made to the viewer that ultimately turned out to be nothing. As the story unfolded (and the various suggestions dissipated) I became increasingly dissatisfied with the movie.
And that leaves us with the final scene. I get what the director was going for and it might have resonated more with the people of that region. It just didn't feel like that theme was a major part of the storyline. Couple that with what we were to infer about the resolutions between the three leads - the result was a dissatisfying ending.
follow me at https://IHATEBadMovies.com or facebook IHATEBadMovies
I loved this movie on so many levels. One of the things that I really enjoy about watching movies made in other countries is that there is such a different approach when it comes to how a story is told. For example, in this movie you aren't even necessarily sure what the main conflict is. It isn't assumed that the male lead and the female lead are going to be romantically linked. There isn't a music bed to tell us when something dramatic is happening. With this movie I just fell into a nice groove with it and let it take me away for three hours. I swear that the movie felt shorter than many of the ninety minute movies that I've seen recently.
Of course, this means that the movie isn't for everyone. The acting is fantastic but the pacing is.... deliberate? I laughed out loud when the opening credits started rolling forty minutes into the movie. It's been twenty four hours since I watched it and I am still pondering the central themes of the movie. I've seen some people say that they didn't like the movie because they believed the central theme to be grief. It may have been for some of the movie but clearly not for all of it. Also, the movie is beautiful to look at and it provides an excellent backdrop to ponder what is happening in the film.
Anyway, I would easily put this up with Licorice Pizza and Coda as the best movies of 2021.
follow me at https://IHATEBadMovies.com or facebook IHATEBadMovies
I didn't give this show a chance until recently because I've never been a huge fan of the genre and I heard the last season sucked. What a mistake! A little context - I tend to like dramas like Mad Men or Better Call Saul. I despise shows that have limited backdrops (zombies, vampires, etc) and I've never been a fan of movies like Lord of the Rings.
Season 1:
The opening scene of the first episode gives you a false idea about what the next several seasons are about. The season is generally good and then late in the season you get your first feel for how the series is going to go for you.
Seasons 1 - 4:
The show settles in to a nice pace and there are ebbs and flows along the way. Some storylines are better than others but I can say there are few bad scenes
Season 5:
I started to get a bit itchy. The season is very good but because there are so many storylines it feels like the plot is moving forward ever so slowly. This series really could have gone on forever if they wanted it to.
Season 6:
We start to see the end in site and storylines start to converge (or end)
Season 7:
And then it happens. All of the sudden the episodes went from "this is really good" to me wondering if I could call in sick tomorrow because I want to binge the rest of the season. It really is that breathtaking. It really was a joy to see the storylines come together and to see actors who had not acted together in the series working together. But more importantly, you began to see the results of all of the setup that had been done in the previous seasons. There is probably a stretch of 10 - 12 straight episodes that are just ridiculously good.
Season 8:
There are few shows where you feel like you are losing an old friend when it ends and this show ended up being that for me. I could not imagine that I would ever feel that way about it. Anyway, I can't fathom why this season is so reviled. The finale was only "good" given how poor series finales tend to be I was happy with that. The ways that the stories wrapped up were true to the overall series. I can't imagine what people expected - more fighting? The show was never about that. Anyway, I felt a huge weight off of my shoulders during a certain episode ended - I can imagine that others did as well. It may not have reached the heights of Season 7 but it was still really good.
Overall I would put this series in the same place as Mad Men, The Wire, Breaking Bad / Better Call Saul.
Wow, where to start? I know it's difficult to watch something almost a half century after it came out and appreciate it for what it was. That said, the appreciation for this film baffles me. First and foremost, I thought that it was rather corny. Over this years this film had become symbolic of a film that was rebellious and shocking and I can say that I found it to be neither (A Clockwork Orange it is not). It also has a reputation as being erotic but I think that might be the result of the era in which it was released.
We've all seen movies about two damaged people that were damaged and crossed paths for a brief time. In recent years Leaving Las Vegas was probably the best example of this. Hell, I don't even know if the female character was damaged. I think she was just bored and had a bit of a daddy complex. That brings me to my first major complaint about the movie - the story of her and her boyfriend (almost half of the movie) was completely awful. Really, what was that about? At its core the anonymous encounters between the two leads was interesting for a while. The resolution to their relationship was not unexpected and in a way it almost seemed anticlimactic. I think that the best thing that can be said about this film is that in a way Paul may have been playing Brando.
follow me at https://IHATEBadMovies.com or facebook IHATEBadMovies
Is this one of the best movies that I've ever seen? No, of course not. But what Anderson has done here is really special. First, I can't remember the last time that I saw a courtship quite like this one. The two leads are absolutely extraordinary. I can't believe that Haim had never really acted before as she is captivating in the role. I think part of the magic that the two of them have together is that while they are dealing with very adult complexities in their relationship there is still a sweetness that wins the day. I don't think this film works without their chemistry.
I think that Alanna's character is an interesting one all on her own. In most scenes she appears to look the same age as Greg but in some scenes (mostly around people older than her) she appears to be made up to look older. In her travels she gets to see different men (regardless of age) in all of their glory - arrogant, womanizing, hustling, etc. While she is often naïve in her own way she gets her own education when it comes to men.
I gave the film a little more credit because of its originality.
follow me at https://IHATEBadMovies.com or facebook IHATEBadMovies
I have to be honest - this movie infuriated me for a number of reasons.
1). I know that any movie can be summed up in a way that makes them seem far less dramatic than they are. Star Wars was a conflict between father and son. Goodfellas was a movie about the mob. But for crying out loud, this was a movie about a woman that invented a new mop. A new freaking mop! That's a far cry from Louis Zamperini facing Nazis, sharks, starvation and being beaten in a Japanese prison.
2) Jennifer Lawrence acted her ass off in this movie but one still couldn't help wondering why the babysitter was pretending to be a mom. Way too young for this role.
This kinda goes back to #1, but... who thought this was a story that needed to be told? Sure, it's fantastic that a divorced mother made it big with the help of some wealthy associates and despite a freeloading family . In one seen they had about 48 things go wrong in the span of 90 seconds (had it been 100 seconds I am convinced a meteor would have struck) just to try to show the hurdles that she had to come. And if it was so impressive why won't they tell you which parts were factual?
The dialog. Oh the freaking dialog. Because this didn't make for a good screenplay Russel had to rely on dialog to inform the viewer about a variety of plot points. At one point he has the daughter ask questions that no child would ever ask. In another seen De Niro informed his daughter that she had to declare bankruptcy (and wouldn't you know the lawyer was standing over in the corner with papers to sign!).
I could go on and on. What a waste of a talented cast.
follow me at https://IHATEBadMovies.com or facebook IHATEBadMovies (like this one)
I enjoyed the hell out of this movie. I think what surprised me the most is that I expected a movie about a woman that suffered from dementia and I got something altogether different. I've watched movies like Still Alice that were about people that were suffering from mental illness. The problem with those films is that - from an entertainment perspective - they are rather limited by their backdrop. Sure, you can be emotionally moved by the performances but at the end of the day you know exactly how the story is going to play out.
This film is different. While it starts out with a woman suffering from dementia it is not about a woman with dementia. The film is a study in the dynamics of family and the effects that the shortcomings of parents can have on their children. The story is delicately told and the three leads are phenomenal. I think what impressed me most is how the story played out over the final few scenes - it had to have been difficult to lose sight of the bigger story and to avoid clichés. I thought they nailed it.
follow me at https://IHATEBadMovies.com or facebook IHATEBadMovies
It's always a little bit weird to be grading movies like this because part of the grade probably should be related to the enjoyment of watching the film. However, because of the gravity of the subject matter on some level it seems wrong to grade it in terms of the entertainment value. Does the film do a great job of showing the progression of Alzheimer's on both the victim and the family? You bet. I've been through all of this in the last few years and everything that happened was extremely familiar. Julianne Moore is as good as you would expect her to be in this role. But in terms of entertainment... nothing great here. You know how the movie is going to end and the journey - while triumphant at times - is a sad one. It's a tough watch on a friday night, not just because of the subject matter but also because there really isn't that much going on in the movie. While the film keeps things moving it really isn't a great watch.
While Moore was excellent I think that Kristen Steward and Alec Baldwin had very difficult roles in that they had to be very much in the background. Stewart pulled that off well, Baldwin not so much.
follow me at https://IHATEBadMovies.com or facebook IHATEBadMovies
Going into this documentary I kind of had the feeling that I would have mixed feelings at the end, and I did. After all, it would be hard to make a doc about a man that was beloved yet complex. I think the filmmakers chose a wise path by tracking his evolution that happened over the years on tv. Bourdain evolved and he took us along with him. I hope (as one of the interviews says in the doc) that at some point we don't remember him for the last few months of his life. Overall it was a nice recap of a beautiful yet troubled man. I have to admit that it was hard seeing so much unseen footage of me - for a minute it was like he was still with us.
I know it has nothing to do with the movie but it boggles my mind that a) people find the need to try to understand why after a tragedy happens and b) people claim to not understand why it happened by ignoring all of the clues that were in front of us over the year as to why it happened.
follow me at https://IHATEBadMovies.com or facebook IHATEBadMovies
Imagine that a community theater group decides to create a play in homage to Woody Allen (think Waiting for Guffman) . They hire a writer to create a script that vaguely resembles something that Allen would write. There are questions about life and the meaning of it. There are many references to Fellini in general and 8 1/2 in particular. The lead character will be neurotic and will date or be interested in someone far too young for him. And the location will be exotic.
So because it is local theater you're stuck with whoever shows up. Sure, the elderly actor that showed up to play pseudo-Allen would never in real life be married to the beauty that plays his wife but we can suspend our disbelief (as we would in many of Allen's films). The dialog is poor and disconnected and the leads deliver the trademark Allen one-liners so slowly and awkwardly that the few good lines are hardly noticed. We meander from one scene to the next and the actors trudge through the poor script. But the font on the marquee is the same one that appears at the beginning of Allen's films and the music is all-too-familiar so despite the fact it is community theater there is a vague familiarity to the production.
Ladies and Gentleman, I give you Rifkin's Festival.
I am in the minority in that I have actually enjoyed many of Allen's late-stage movies (Wonder Wheel, Irrational Man, Cafe Society, etc). And then A Rainy Day in New York came out... oh what a dreadful film. While that film had numerous things to hate about that film but at least there was something to talk about. This film... yikes. First, Wallace Shawn is horribly miscast. He is far too old and delivers his lines far too slowly. Gina Gershon isn't much better and the two of them have zero chemistry. It really feels like they are punching the clock and just going through the workday. Then again, they have almost nothing to work with. The dialog is terrible and at times it just feels like we are a fly on the wall of day-to-day life. I could go on and on... this really was a tragedy.
In a sense the movie mirrored the end of Allen's career. Here we were having to hear an old man yammer on and on about old movies and the way things used to be. If this were your uncle at a family gathering you'd just shake your head and look the other way. Allen is probably my favorite director and he has brought me a lot of joy. I can't be too upset about this because at least he didn't go the Tarantino route and stop making films at a certain age. I am grateful for what I got out of him and I am sad that this was his last film. But if I am being honest... this movie was really, really, really bad.
follow me at https://IHATEBadMovies.com or facebook IHATEBadMovies
Since I am not a fan of science fiction or comic book movies I try not to look at them with too much scrutiny. I know that George Lucas has taken some lumps over the years for certain decisions that he has made as a filmmaker but at the end of the day he is still responsible for a franchise that has brought so many people so much joy.
That said... to call this movie a pile of steaming dung would be an offense to dung. I don't know what is worse - the dialog, the characters designed to sell toys or the acting (ok, I do know - it's the dialog). At some point if you watch closely you can see Liam Neeson give up. How did Natalie Portman's career survive this? She was comicly bad. And let me get this straight - this film is clearly aimed at kids but the central conflict is... a taxing dispute? And finally, yet another movie about taking out the shields. Ugh. And if you didn't know better there is a music bed playing throughout the movie - this is always a sure indicator that the director does not have confidence in the material.
to avoid bad movies (like this one) follow me at https://IHATEBadMovies.com or facebook IHATEBadMovies
Despite the fantastic cast this movie felt amateurish from start to end. The first mistake was the casting of the lead. She isn't bad or anything like that - I just think that the bar was set so high in other movies by the likes of Alecia Silverstone and others that it just didn't feel real. If you're expecting a 17 year old to have the cunning and bravery of a woman twice that age the actress better be able to pull it off. I think the second mistake was not knowing exactly what it was trying to be. Is it a crime drama? A thriller? A black comedy? In reality it was not convincing enough to fit into any of those categories so - coupled with the deficiencies of the lead actress - it felt more like an after-school movie. I think it may have been better served to try to become something similar to Wild Things but it didn't come close to that level of quality. I could swear that in some scenes Alec Baldwin was just mailing it in. It's unfortunate that a movie with the likes of Moss, Baldwin and Goldblum had such a lousy script.
follow me at https://IHATEBadMovies.com or facebook IHATEBadMovies
I had a bit of an interesting personal experience while watching this movie. I could not watch the whole thing at once so I watched half on one day and half the next day. During my personal intermission I thought that there was a philosophical question that was being asked about relationships and love: does a relationship require intimacy? I looked at this question up and down and at different times agreed and disagreed with her choice. As the second half began I realized that there was so much more to the film: the value of how one sees one's self in the mirror, the complications of the parent / child relationship, etc. And then it dawned on me: I was the Jeff Bridges character in the movie. As an analytical person with a background in mathematics I appreciate the beauty and symmetry of numbers. Like his character I tend to solve problems using my rational mind. Of course, not every solution is found this way.
The women in this movie completely steal the show. While Bridges plays his role perfectly the best scenes are the ones with Streisand and Bacall. I would even throw in Mimi Rogers - she has always been an underrated actress that just seems to have never gotten the roles that would put her in the top tier of Hollywood. I have always admired the actresses of Bacall's era - they always had a presence and charisma that few actors today seem to have. Streisand's direction and music choices often give the film a feel that it was made during another time.
All of that said, I am still intrigued by the question that was asked during the first half of the film. This question was taken up in one of the better films of 2020, Straight Up.
follow me at https://IHATEBadMovies.com or facebook IHATEBadMovies
I was really disappointed in this movie. I generally like musicals and have enjoyed many of them in the last several years (La La Land, The Greatest Showman and Mama Mia! Here We Go Again, to name a few). In reading the reviews for this film I can see that it definitely has a love-it-or-hate-it feel to it and you can count me in the latter. Roger Ebert described the experience of watching it as "like being trapped in an elevator with the circus". Inexplicably he thought this was would be a good thing. And therein is the biggest problem that I had with it - at times it was complete sensory overload (especially the first 20 minutes). Is it impressive on some level? Sure, I guess it is if you're into seeing repeated tight shots of a lot of people dancing. It also tried to add a comedic feel in some of the dancing scenes - again, it was sensory overload. The movie's best scenes were the ones where there was little production and instead focused on the acting and singing. I get the the film is supposed to be campy but it can't have it both ways. The cheese and the sensory overload completely took away from the storytelling. I could actually see this being a decent stage musical once the over-the-top production is removed.
I've also seen reviews where people said that despite its flaws it is an original idea. I can't classify a musical that re-interprets someone else's music as being "original".
follow me at https://IHATEBadMovies.com or facebook IHATEBadMovies
This should have been titled "One Summer Night In Real Time". Full disclosure - I was only able to get through the first hour. While I am generally a fan of coming-of-age stories one of the things that often drives me crazy about them is that the kids don't talk like kids. They use language that adults have and have confidence that only some adults have. In this movie, they talked like kids. There was one particularly painful sequence where they walked down the street (for what felt like an hour) making absolutely pointless small talk. Worse, they then had to re-examine a relationship that they had in junior high and all of the non-relationships since then. So they finally get ready to go somewhere else and they then have the same pointless conversation all over again. Is there a script editor in the house? I mean really - a coming-of-age movies should be 90 minutes. This one is two and a half hours! And the male lead either can't act or was instructed to mumble his way through the movie. The female lead is actually very good despite the lines she is forced to say. It is kind of ironic that only hours after turning this movie off I watched the excellent movie Shithouse. Same age group yet one was worlds better in terms of dialog and plot. With everything going on while being on the edge of adulthood I can't imagine why this film stayed in the shallow end.
follow me at https://IHATEBadMovies.com or facebook IHATEBadMovies
