Search
Search results
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated Pineapple Express (2008) in Movies
Mar 18, 2021
The ultimate stoner movie - rivaled only by ๐๐ฆ๐ฅ and ๐๐ข๐ณ๐ฐ๐ญ๐ฅ & ๐๐ถ๐ฎ๐ข๐ณ ๐๐ด๐ค๐ข๐ฑ๐ฆ ๐๐ณ๐ฐ๐ฎ ๐๐ถ๐ข๐ฏ๐ต๐ข๐ฏ๐ข๐ฎ๐ฐ ๐๐ข๐บ. Just so precisely captures that essence of getting high with your buddies, and then ingeniously represents it through these literal Chaotic Good, Chaotic Neutral, and Chaotic Evil trio of leads - played to (unsurprising) perfection by Franco, Rogen, and McBride respectively. The comedic value earned in each scene by transitioning from shooting the shit about nonsensical high musings abruptly into blunt violence cannot be understated - those fights are so side-splitting. And I'll be damned but the action... actually looks like action! Further proof that these are at their best when made by people who regularly get blazed as hell. Two hours straight of hilarious Rogen and co. histrionics, general destruction and chaos which routinely draw blood, and it ends with a 15 minute long shootout + fistfight combo in a pot farm. Just spectacular, as funny during its low-key moments as it is when it goes off the rails. Naturally, Amber Heard is the only major weak point.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Spider-Man (2002) in Movies
Sep 19, 2020
The first major blockbuster Spider-Man movie hasn't aged particularly well, but it's overflowing with charm and a great cast.
Watching this as an adult is still as much fun as it was back in 2002 (when I was a fresh faced 13 year old). Tobey Maguire, Willem Defoe, James Franco, Kirsten Dunst, Cliff Robertson, Rosemary Harris, J.K. Simmons - all of them are really well cast and bring their comic book counterparts to life in a way that captured the imaginations of comic fans everywhere, all backed up by a fantastic score by Danny Elfman.
It's faults are few, but mainly in line with the first X-Men film - it's just doesn't quite stand up compared to comic films today and suffers from sub standard CGI and an early 2000s time stamp - I must say though - I have a special kind of love for the borderline Power Rangers villain costume that Green Goblin gets to wear...
Spider-Man is an important milestone in bringing comic books to the big screen, and will surely be enjoyed for years to come.
Watching this as an adult is still as much fun as it was back in 2002 (when I was a fresh faced 13 year old). Tobey Maguire, Willem Defoe, James Franco, Kirsten Dunst, Cliff Robertson, Rosemary Harris, J.K. Simmons - all of them are really well cast and bring their comic book counterparts to life in a way that captured the imaginations of comic fans everywhere, all backed up by a fantastic score by Danny Elfman.
It's faults are few, but mainly in line with the first X-Men film - it's just doesn't quite stand up compared to comic films today and suffers from sub standard CGI and an early 2000s time stamp - I must say though - I have a special kind of love for the borderline Power Rangers villain costume that Green Goblin gets to wear...
Spider-Man is an important milestone in bringing comic books to the big screen, and will surely be enjoyed for years to come.
Joe Julians (221 KP) rated The Disaster Artist (2017) in Movies
Jan 30, 2018
James Franco (1 more)
The tone
Far from a disaster
If you haven't seen The Room, then I urge you to do so at once. It's a bemusing, confusing, unintentionally hilarious 90 odd minutes that fully deserves all the cult screenings and bewildered wonder that it has garnered over the years. It's without question a perfect awful movie. And here with The Disaster Artist, based on the book of the same name, we get to see the story of just went on to get this film made.
To start with, James Franco is perfect as the mysterious and downright bonkers Tommy Wiseau. His voice, his mannerisms, his almost childlike tantrum throwing approach to life, he manages to make an almost unbelievable man fully believable. He's backed up by a cast that commit to the roles, but other than Dave Franco, don't get a huge amount of time in the spotlight. That's not a criticism as such, by design the two central figures in this are Tommy and Greg Sistero- his friend and fellow budding actor.
I suspect if you are a "fan" of The Room, you'll likely get a lot more out of this than if you had little to know knowledge of the film it depicts the making of. It's a blast getting to see certain iconic scenes recreated for this and to hear the origin stories behind key lines- "you're tearing me apart, Lisa" being one such moment that took me by surprise. The original film is a messy nonsensical experience and it's fun to see that almost everyone working on it viewed it as such even when it was being made. Everyone except Tommy that is.
Where things get a little murky for me is with how you are supposed to feel by the time the brilliant end credits roll (there's exact recreations of certain moments played side by side that are great fun.) It seems as though we are meant to be inspired by Tommy and what he has achieved, like in the end this is supposed to be a feel-good movie about never giving up on your dreams. That's all well and good, but Tommy Wiseau doesn't come across particularly well in this. He's a temper tantrum throwing and at times scary man to be around. One scene in particular during the shooting of the 'belly button sex scene' portrays him as a pretty horrible man, one that gets his way by being somewhat of a bully. This isn't addressed again fully and it's hard to feel like cheering him on by the time the big premiere screening rolls round. There's also his about face when it comes to claiming the movie was meant to be a comedy- something nobody believes. On the one hand, it's a smart move to take what he has and run with it, but there's also something sad about him not having something he cared so passionately about be received in the way it was intended. This is something else that is glossed over, but then Wiseau would never speak so candidly to give the writers anything to work with.
Overall this is a great movie and a fascinating watch. Would highly recommend.
To start with, James Franco is perfect as the mysterious and downright bonkers Tommy Wiseau. His voice, his mannerisms, his almost childlike tantrum throwing approach to life, he manages to make an almost unbelievable man fully believable. He's backed up by a cast that commit to the roles, but other than Dave Franco, don't get a huge amount of time in the spotlight. That's not a criticism as such, by design the two central figures in this are Tommy and Greg Sistero- his friend and fellow budding actor.
I suspect if you are a "fan" of The Room, you'll likely get a lot more out of this than if you had little to know knowledge of the film it depicts the making of. It's a blast getting to see certain iconic scenes recreated for this and to hear the origin stories behind key lines- "you're tearing me apart, Lisa" being one such moment that took me by surprise. The original film is a messy nonsensical experience and it's fun to see that almost everyone working on it viewed it as such even when it was being made. Everyone except Tommy that is.
Where things get a little murky for me is with how you are supposed to feel by the time the brilliant end credits roll (there's exact recreations of certain moments played side by side that are great fun.) It seems as though we are meant to be inspired by Tommy and what he has achieved, like in the end this is supposed to be a feel-good movie about never giving up on your dreams. That's all well and good, but Tommy Wiseau doesn't come across particularly well in this. He's a temper tantrum throwing and at times scary man to be around. One scene in particular during the shooting of the 'belly button sex scene' portrays him as a pretty horrible man, one that gets his way by being somewhat of a bully. This isn't addressed again fully and it's hard to feel like cheering him on by the time the big premiere screening rolls round. There's also his about face when it comes to claiming the movie was meant to be a comedy- something nobody believes. On the one hand, it's a smart move to take what he has and run with it, but there's also something sad about him not having something he cared so passionately about be received in the way it was intended. This is something else that is glossed over, but then Wiseau would never speak so candidly to give the writers anything to work with.
Overall this is a great movie and a fascinating watch. Would highly recommend.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Why Him? (2016) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
When an โout of touchโ Midwesterner owner of a paper factory (Bryan Cranston) decides to take his family to California to spend Christmas with his college student daughter (Zoey Deutch) and meet her new tech-millionaire, but socially inept boyfriend (James Franco), a typical father vs boyfriend faceoff ensues. For many, Why Him? will be enough to satisfy the comedy itch. Those expecting to find the next gut busting comedy will be disappointed, while those thinking it will be a dull comedy will be pleasantly surprised. This film is somewhere in the middle. A constant stream of chuckles with a few bigger laughs here or there. But ultimately forgettable at the lack of main characters to root for.
The highlights of this film include Cranston who reminds us that he has comedic timing from his years in Malcom in the Middle. His chemistry and timing is played well across Megan Mullally who perfectly delivers a few genuine laughs as a Midwestern suburban wife trying to maintain the niceties. Their son (Griffin Gluck) also adds to the humorous family affair as a teenage brother trying to be taken seriously as an adult but still being treated as a child. Lastly, the always funny Keegan-Michael Key hilariously plays Gustav, the โestate managerโ to the tech-millionaire boyfriend and spices up the film every time he seems to appear.
James Franco on the other hand quickly wears out is welcome as the socially inept tech-millionaire boyfriend. At times he is funny, however after the dropping the โf-bombโ so many times you begin to sees him as a basic, depthless โcaricatureโ only going for the low hanging fruit of crude jokes. Still, his crude, repeated, jokes are no longer funny after the first few times we see them. The film tries to give Franco some โmysterious depthโ through an eluded troubled childhood and his genuine honesty. Only the film never gives you any payoff, as Francoโs character never actually evolves past his caricature shortcomings. It is a shame, because we actually like the girlfriend character (Zoey Deutch) and want to understand what she sees in Francoโs character, however since he never really evolves, there really is no reason to like or root for them to be together.
I also want to point out that this film acknowledges its biggest flaw. At one point in the film a character points out that there is a war going on between father and boyfriend, only the boyfriend isnโt actually fighting. Thatโs true, and thus there is no real conflict and no real reason to root for any of the characters. Francoโs boyfriend character never evolves past his caricature. While Cranstonโs father character only evolves because the movie devolves into โpaint by numbersโ territory in the last 10 minutes. Since there is no one to root, we do not really care the outcome as we got our chuckles throughout the film but will forget about it shortly after walking out the theater.
Why Him? Has a solid cast, a few unexpected cameos and delivers constant chuckles throughout, however without giving us a likeable boyfriend or any characters to root for, the lack of memorable gut busting laughs has this film as nothing more than a typical forgettable comedy.
The highlights of this film include Cranston who reminds us that he has comedic timing from his years in Malcom in the Middle. His chemistry and timing is played well across Megan Mullally who perfectly delivers a few genuine laughs as a Midwestern suburban wife trying to maintain the niceties. Their son (Griffin Gluck) also adds to the humorous family affair as a teenage brother trying to be taken seriously as an adult but still being treated as a child. Lastly, the always funny Keegan-Michael Key hilariously plays Gustav, the โestate managerโ to the tech-millionaire boyfriend and spices up the film every time he seems to appear.
James Franco on the other hand quickly wears out is welcome as the socially inept tech-millionaire boyfriend. At times he is funny, however after the dropping the โf-bombโ so many times you begin to sees him as a basic, depthless โcaricatureโ only going for the low hanging fruit of crude jokes. Still, his crude, repeated, jokes are no longer funny after the first few times we see them. The film tries to give Franco some โmysterious depthโ through an eluded troubled childhood and his genuine honesty. Only the film never gives you any payoff, as Francoโs character never actually evolves past his caricature shortcomings. It is a shame, because we actually like the girlfriend character (Zoey Deutch) and want to understand what she sees in Francoโs character, however since he never really evolves, there really is no reason to like or root for them to be together.
I also want to point out that this film acknowledges its biggest flaw. At one point in the film a character points out that there is a war going on between father and boyfriend, only the boyfriend isnโt actually fighting. Thatโs true, and thus there is no real conflict and no real reason to root for any of the characters. Francoโs boyfriend character never evolves past his caricature. While Cranstonโs father character only evolves because the movie devolves into โpaint by numbersโ territory in the last 10 minutes. Since there is no one to root, we do not really care the outcome as we got our chuckles throughout the film but will forget about it shortly after walking out the theater.
Why Him? Has a solid cast, a few unexpected cameos and delivers constant chuckles throughout, however without giving us a likeable boyfriend or any characters to root for, the lack of memorable gut busting laughs has this film as nothing more than a typical forgettable comedy.
Right-wing Spain in the Civil War Era: Soldiers of God and Apostles of the Fatherland, 1914-1945
Miguel Angel del Arco, Alejandro Quiroga, Francisco Romero Salvado and Christopher Bannister
Book
Right-Wing Spain in the Civil War Era explores the lives of the leading Spanish conservatives in the...
Keres: Move by Move
Book
Estonian grandmaster Paul Keres is one of the greatest players in chess history. Along with Viktor...
Arctic Justice: Thunder Squad (2018)
2.0
Rate It
Movie
Swifty the Arctic fox works in the mail room of the Arctic Blast Delivery Service but dreams of one...
animation
After the Crash
Book
'Riveting! Bussi spins psychological suspense at its finest with this consuming tale of one child,...
RI
Ruling Ideas: How Global Neoliberalism Goes Local
Book
Neoliberal economic theories are powerful because their domestic translators make them go local,...
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated The Godfather (1972) in Movies
Sep 21, 2020 (Updated Sep 21, 2020)
"๐ ๐ฐ๐ถ ๐ฌ๐ฏ๐ฐ๐ธ ๐ฉ๐ฐ๐ธ ๐ฏ๐ขรฏ๐ท๐ฆ ๐บ๐ฐ๐ถ ๐ด๐ฐ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ฅ... ๐ด๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ข๐ต๐ฐ๐ณ๐ด ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ฑ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ด๐ช๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ด ๐ฅ๐ฐ๐ฏ'๐ต ๐ฉ๐ข๐ท๐ฆ ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ฏ ๐ฌ๐ช๐ญ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ฅ."
"๐๐ฉ -- ๐ธ๐ฉ๐ฐ'๐ด ๐ฃ๐ฆ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ฏ๐ขรฏ๐ท๐ฆ, ๐๐ข๐บ?"
Well I guess it's confirmed that this movie predicted Jefferey Epstein.
Have absolutely nothing constructive left to add that hasn't already been rightfully said by everybody else at this point, it's ๐๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐๐ฐ๐ฅ๐ง๐ข๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ณ - yes it's still a masterpiece. Brando gives the second greatest performance cinema has ever seen in this emotionally rich, lived-in, unstoppable portrait of a vaguely incomprehensible mob boss who is both insatiably bound to and undone by tradition - acting of this caliber is topped only by, you guessed it... James Franco in ๐๐ฑ๐ณ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐๐ณ๐ฆ๐ข๐ฌ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ด! This isn't really all that secretly deep or anything either - it's just really good at what it does. Does the seemingly unachievable task of making a bunch of mob guys sitting around discussing business so fucking riveting. Pacino sits firmly in one of the quintessential starmaking performances, not a single less than exemplary performance can even be found here. The front half of the last hour is rather sloppy, jumping around uncomfortably between times - but remains nonetheless mesmerizing and spotlessly written. And how about that location cinematography? A sprawling, hypnotic dirge - you could write a novel about how amazing this is, and I'm sure people already have.
"๐๐ฉ -- ๐ธ๐ฉ๐ฐ'๐ด ๐ฃ๐ฆ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ฏ๐ขรฏ๐ท๐ฆ, ๐๐ข๐บ?"
Well I guess it's confirmed that this movie predicted Jefferey Epstein.
Have absolutely nothing constructive left to add that hasn't already been rightfully said by everybody else at this point, it's ๐๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐๐ฐ๐ฅ๐ง๐ข๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ณ - yes it's still a masterpiece. Brando gives the second greatest performance cinema has ever seen in this emotionally rich, lived-in, unstoppable portrait of a vaguely incomprehensible mob boss who is both insatiably bound to and undone by tradition - acting of this caliber is topped only by, you guessed it... James Franco in ๐๐ฑ๐ณ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐๐ณ๐ฆ๐ข๐ฌ๐ฆ๐ณ๐ด! This isn't really all that secretly deep or anything either - it's just really good at what it does. Does the seemingly unachievable task of making a bunch of mob guys sitting around discussing business so fucking riveting. Pacino sits firmly in one of the quintessential starmaking performances, not a single less than exemplary performance can even be found here. The front half of the last hour is rather sloppy, jumping around uncomfortably between times - but remains nonetheless mesmerizing and spotlessly written. And how about that location cinematography? A sprawling, hypnotic dirge - you could write a novel about how amazing this is, and I'm sure people already have.