I was terribly disappointed with this film. Yes, I marked it as Worth Consuming, as I do for almost every movie on this site. I like to believe that there is something worth taking away from any movie and I really do try and live my life according to the principle that there is a positive to be taken from any situation. However, quite often, it probably has more to do with not wanting to admit that I have just completely wasted 2 or 3 hours of my life. That being said…

The only thing that worked for me in this movie was the visual style that we saw previously in Miller’s Sin City. I love the look of the fllm, but all that flash just couldn’t save it from a glut of deplorable substance. This was a poorly written, over the top, hard-boiled, film noir cartoon that seemed to borrow heavily from The Tick and The Three Stooges. The strange thing is, I really enjoy most of those things normally, but apparently not when they are thrown into a blender and poured out onto storyboards in a confused jumble. Few things are harder to watch than comedy that just isn’t funny; I couldn’t even bust out any sympathy laughter for this one. The two stars are for the awesome visual style alone, which will hopefully be put to better use in the 2 upcoming Sin City sequels.
P.S. – Samuel… please don’t make me take away your title as “THE MAN”. Performances like this one (and some of your other recent roles) are forcing me to reconsider.

I was pretty sure I was going to like this movie ‘cause I really dig Aronofsky’s work. He is definitely one of the best young directors out there and he certainly didn’t disappoint with this flcik. He showed a little range with this character study and I really look forward to more of his work over the years. Can’t really say how much I appreciated some of the things Aronofsky did in this movie without throwing in a bunch of spoilers, but trust me, his fourth movie definitely shows his continuing growth and proof that he’s not a flash in the pan.

Now, to adress the alleged big story. Yes…Mickey Rourke was pretty freakin’ good in this flick, but as to all the hype about this being his ‘comeback movie’... I don’t get it. Rourke has been with us pretty consistently for three decades now. OK…he made a few bad decisions in the 90’s (HD and Marlboro Man comes to mind), but most actors with 50+ movies in their resumes have made a few that we all wish they hadn’t. While not necessarily the leading man/box office draw he once was, he has still had some good roles in very memorable recent movies. A few of the 15 movies he has made in the last ten years include: Get Carter, The Pledge, Spun, Once Upon A Time In Mexico, and who could forget his role in Sin City. While these flicks may not have been Oscar nominees, they were pretty solid efforts in my humble opinion. Not trying to be disagreeable, just saying Mickey never went anywhere really and I, for one, am glad. I really dig the cat, and he turned in an awesome performance in The Wrestler.

This is one of those films that people seem to absolutely love or just can’t stand…you’ll find it on “Best” lists and “Best of the Worst” lists all over this site. Personally, I love this flick and I probably watch it at least once a year. Often, it’s with a friend who just doesn’t seem to get it. The performaces are definitely, and deiberately, over the top and I’m certain that Carpenter made this flcik with his toungue planted very firmly in his cheek. Call it a cult flick or whatever you will; I think its just good clean fun that I refuse to feel guilty about.

I gotta admit, I feel a little creepy and wrong for lusting over Natalie Portman, but geez… Queen Amadala sure has grown up and turned in some pretty fine roles since the Padme’ days. I think she and David Strathairn were the high points of this movie for me. I just couldn’t get myself to care about the rest of the characters for the most part. I don’t think it was a bad movie necessarily (although the use of metaphor and message was extremely heavy handed), I just don’t think it was my cup of tea.

There’s some good news and some bad news.

This is a really good looking movie. The production design and cinematography were great and there are some really sweet visual and special effects. The story was fairly predictable but had a good pace for the most part and didn’t leave me bored at any particular point.

Where this movie suffered, in my opinion, was in the casting. Wahlberg was OK… not great, but adequate. However, I just couldnt’ get behind Mila Kunis as the female lead. I just kept seeing Jackie from “That Seventies Show” or hearing Meg from “Family Guy”. Beau Bridges seemed like he was just phoning it in and I’m sure they overpaid Ludachris for his small role. I think they could have saved a lot of money and improved this film greatly if they would have gone with fewer marquee names and found some actors who might have fleshed out the characters a little more.

Overall though, I enjoyed it. It was a good ride and, as I’ve already stated, visually pleasing.

This was the film for which Chaplin concieved of the “Tramp” character and the first time it was portrayed on film; however, it was not the first one released. Wonderful to see how it all began. Chaplin’s “Tramp” started out as much more of a drunk than he was later portrayed. Very amusing short, but not nearly as amusing as anyone voting this “Not Worth Consuming”. I guess those folks think the Apollo missions were lame ‘cause they grew up with the Space Shuttle. Gotta give props to the pioneers, kids. Without Chaplin and the other silent era physical comedians, there wouldn’t be any films about someone getting their package stuck in a zipper or sticking said package in a pie.

Be forewarned…this movie was filmed using non-professional actors and they didn’t work from a traditional script; the entire movie was improvised around an outline. Taking those things into consideration, it is very interesting to watch, but I definitely don’t recomend it if you’re strictly a Hollywood blockbuster kind of person. I thought it was an awesome experiment and look forward to the five other films that Soderbergh plans on filming in this manner.

I tried to give this movie an honest effort, but maybe I couldn’t get over my negative feelings about Keira Knightley’s abilities. Once again, I found her acting shallow for the most part and at best melodramatic. The costumes were beautiful and the locations gorgeous, but even the talented Mr. Fiennes unusually flat performance couldn’t save Ms. Knightley as other actors have done for her in other films. This movie just couldn’t seem to decide what it wanted to be and it felt disjointed and bumpy the whole way through. The characters just never felt fleshed out for me. Beautiful to watch, but enormous costume and location budgets do not a movie make.

A coyote ate my cat…

Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Meryl Streep: two of the finest actors of our time…without a doubt.(Wow, that was lame.) All bad puns aside, watching these two work is a pleasure. The fact that four of the actors and the writer of this film were nominated for Oscars and none of them won probably says a lot about the strength of the field nominated for 2008. Definiitely statue worthy for both the performances and the screenplay. Great movie making that would have won in other years.