Search
Search results
Maddi Zoe (6 KP) rated The Disaster Artist (2017) in Movies
Feb 8, 2018
Comedic value (1 more)
Acting
Not such a disaster
The Franco brothers star side-by-side in their first major collaboration, in this comedic drama, The Disaster Artist, based on the making of the cult classic 'The Room'.
The film follows Tommy Wiseau (James Franco) as he writes, directs, produces and stars in his first movie alongside best friend Greg Sestero (Dave Franco). It is almost unbelievable as a true story, it just seems like another mad Franco/Rogen movie. But it isn't, this actually happened.
'The Room' was released in 2003, and became a cult classic because of how hilariously awful it was. The storyline, writing, and acting are all very bizarre, and very bad.
But The Disaster Artist is a great movie, with an array of amazing actors, bringing to life the making of the movie, with hilarity.
Before going into this movie, I knew about The Room and had seen several scenes. But all I knew was that it was about the making of the movie, starring James and Dave Franco and also Seth Rogen. But there are many more actors in this that I did not know about which made for a great surprise. Josh Hutcherson, one of my personal favourites, appears as Philip Haldiman who plays 'Denny' in 'The Room', and also Zac Efron, as Dan Janjigian who plays 'Chris-R'.
The actors play excellently all the things that went wrong on the set, such as Wiseau forgetting one line for two hours for a 30-second scene, and his insistence on the cameras catching some great shots of him during the sex scenes.
The casting was great, although they did as expected and almost the whole cast are friends of James, Dave or Rogen. It works though, and they all have brilliant chemistry. It will seem obvious that James and Dave work well together, as they are brothers, but in this movie they play best friends. I think the fact that they are brothers perhaps helped them out as it is a very rocky friendship, and they could perhaps remember times they have had spats about various things.
I can not say too much about the movie without giving away spoilers. But at end of the movie they play some of the scenes side by side; the scene from the movie, alongside the scene that this cast re-enacted. They are pretty accurate, but very funny.
Tommy Wiseau himself also makes a cameo. Make sure you stay until after the credits.
Overall, it is a brilliantly made movie, with both funny and endearing moments. Part of me hopes that on special features on their DVD you can watch the entirety of 'The Room' re-enacted by these actors. The film has already received many nominations for prestigious awards, and I am not surprised.
I would definitely recommend going to see this movie, but at least watch a YouTube summary of 'The Room' first.
The film follows Tommy Wiseau (James Franco) as he writes, directs, produces and stars in his first movie alongside best friend Greg Sestero (Dave Franco). It is almost unbelievable as a true story, it just seems like another mad Franco/Rogen movie. But it isn't, this actually happened.
'The Room' was released in 2003, and became a cult classic because of how hilariously awful it was. The storyline, writing, and acting are all very bizarre, and very bad.
But The Disaster Artist is a great movie, with an array of amazing actors, bringing to life the making of the movie, with hilarity.
Before going into this movie, I knew about The Room and had seen several scenes. But all I knew was that it was about the making of the movie, starring James and Dave Franco and also Seth Rogen. But there are many more actors in this that I did not know about which made for a great surprise. Josh Hutcherson, one of my personal favourites, appears as Philip Haldiman who plays 'Denny' in 'The Room', and also Zac Efron, as Dan Janjigian who plays 'Chris-R'.
The actors play excellently all the things that went wrong on the set, such as Wiseau forgetting one line for two hours for a 30-second scene, and his insistence on the cameras catching some great shots of him during the sex scenes.
The casting was great, although they did as expected and almost the whole cast are friends of James, Dave or Rogen. It works though, and they all have brilliant chemistry. It will seem obvious that James and Dave work well together, as they are brothers, but in this movie they play best friends. I think the fact that they are brothers perhaps helped them out as it is a very rocky friendship, and they could perhaps remember times they have had spats about various things.
I can not say too much about the movie without giving away spoilers. But at end of the movie they play some of the scenes side by side; the scene from the movie, alongside the scene that this cast re-enacted. They are pretty accurate, but very funny.
Tommy Wiseau himself also makes a cameo. Make sure you stay until after the credits.
Overall, it is a brilliantly made movie, with both funny and endearing moments. Part of me hopes that on special features on their DVD you can watch the entirety of 'The Room' re-enacted by these actors. The film has already received many nominations for prestigious awards, and I am not surprised.
I would definitely recommend going to see this movie, but at least watch a YouTube summary of 'The Room' first.
Tommy Wiseau recommended Sonny (2002) in Movies (curated)
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated 127 Hours (2010) in Movies
Jun 23, 2019
127 Hours is based on the true story of Aron Ralston, a mountain climber who was trapped under a rock for five days only to amputate his own arm to survive. Directed by Danny Boyle (Slumdog Millionaire, 28 Days Later) and starring James Franco (Pineapple Express, Spider-Man), 127 Hours sucker punches you with its ability to be both absorbing and compelling.
The first thing to notice about 127 Hours is that it contains excellent editing. The opening credits illustrate this to a certain extent, but the best example comes at the peak of Aron's struggle once he's trapped and fighting for his life. His delusions begin overlapping with his memories as the screen is divided into three separate vertical segments representing how desperate and how dangerously close Aron has come to the brink of insanity.
127 Hours looks spectacular, as well. The desert is a mostly dry and bleak place that no one would want to visit, but it's shown in a light here that makes it makes it look both appealing and beautiful in a way that almost makes you forget that it lacks civilization. The film does an incredible job of making you feel like you're right there in these crevices with Aron without giving the overbearing sensation of claustrophobia. Captivating cinematography makes even the most simple things like a dripping faucet and air bubbles settling in a water bottle appear like more of a spectacle than they really are.
James Franco is also quite impressive. He is the only one on-screen for the majority of the film and has no one to play off of but himself. Events of his life flashing before his eyes and the decisions he should've but didn't make, Scooby Doo hallucinations, and premonitions of the future on top of his uphill battle to survive aren't only incredibly engaging but arguably some of the best scenes in the film.
127 Hours is enthralling, incredibly powerful, and easily one of the best films of the year. James Franco delivers what is quite possibly his strongest and most intriguing performance to date while Danny Boyle adds another visually brilliant and superbly written film to his repertoire that is a potential award winner.
The first thing to notice about 127 Hours is that it contains excellent editing. The opening credits illustrate this to a certain extent, but the best example comes at the peak of Aron's struggle once he's trapped and fighting for his life. His delusions begin overlapping with his memories as the screen is divided into three separate vertical segments representing how desperate and how dangerously close Aron has come to the brink of insanity.
127 Hours looks spectacular, as well. The desert is a mostly dry and bleak place that no one would want to visit, but it's shown in a light here that makes it makes it look both appealing and beautiful in a way that almost makes you forget that it lacks civilization. The film does an incredible job of making you feel like you're right there in these crevices with Aron without giving the overbearing sensation of claustrophobia. Captivating cinematography makes even the most simple things like a dripping faucet and air bubbles settling in a water bottle appear like more of a spectacle than they really are.
James Franco is also quite impressive. He is the only one on-screen for the majority of the film and has no one to play off of but himself. Events of his life flashing before his eyes and the decisions he should've but didn't make, Scooby Doo hallucinations, and premonitions of the future on top of his uphill battle to survive aren't only incredibly engaging but arguably some of the best scenes in the film.
127 Hours is enthralling, incredibly powerful, and easily one of the best films of the year. James Franco delivers what is quite possibly his strongest and most intriguing performance to date while Danny Boyle adds another visually brilliant and superbly written film to his repertoire that is a potential award winner.
David McK (3169 KP) rated Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011) in Movies
Mar 11, 2023
Caesar. Home.
A surprisingly good prequel/re-imagining/reboot of the seminal Charlton Heston starring sci-fi flick, with this being set in more contemporary time and with it tracing the origins of the smart Apes/the beginning of the decline of man.
Basically, don't mess with nature.
I have to say, the end credits - tracing the virus - also hits differently now (in 2023) than it did on release (in 2011), after the world has been through a global pandemic.
Anyway, Andy Serkis interpretation of Caesar is really the star of the show, with able support from his surrogate 'father' Will Rodman (James Franco), the scientist who first developed a drug that he hopes will cure Alzheimer's but which leads to super intelligence in the chimps exposed to it.
Basically, don't mess with nature.
I have to say, the end credits - tracing the virus - also hits differently now (in 2023) than it did on release (in 2011), after the world has been through a global pandemic.
Anyway, Andy Serkis interpretation of Caesar is really the star of the show, with able support from his surrogate 'father' Will Rodman (James Franco), the scientist who first developed a drug that he hopes will cure Alzheimer's but which leads to super intelligence in the chimps exposed to it.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Spider-Man 2 (2004) in Movies
Sep 23, 2020
The second of the Sam Raimi Spider-Man films is a shining example of a comic book sequel outshining it's predecessor. Everything is better, the set pieces, the characters, the effects, and the stakes are higher.
Spider-Man 2 owes a lot to Alfred Molina. His performance as Otto Octavius, and later, Doctor Octopus is pure villainous perfection, whilst lending the character a sympathetic undertone. Spider-Man has a fantastic rogues gallery to chooses from, and Doc Ock is one of the more complicated ones. This movie does the character justice.
Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, James Franco, J.K. Simmons and Rosemary Harris all return from the first film and all cement their positions in movie history as these beloved comic characters.
The effects look a little dated by today's standards, but they're still more than passable, and another great score by Danny Elfman is the cherry on top.
Spider-Man 2 is both a strong sequel, and a strong comic book adaption.
Spider-Man 2 owes a lot to Alfred Molina. His performance as Otto Octavius, and later, Doctor Octopus is pure villainous perfection, whilst lending the character a sympathetic undertone. Spider-Man has a fantastic rogues gallery to chooses from, and Doc Ock is one of the more complicated ones. This movie does the character justice.
Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, James Franco, J.K. Simmons and Rosemary Harris all return from the first film and all cement their positions in movie history as these beloved comic characters.
The effects look a little dated by today's standards, but they're still more than passable, and another great score by Danny Elfman is the cherry on top.
Spider-Man 2 is both a strong sequel, and a strong comic book adaption.
LeftSideCut (3778 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.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Interview (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Thanks to the negative attention that “The Interview” received, it will be viewed by many more people than it would have without the controversy. The film, which was almost never released due to a cyberattack on Sony, is now the most widely accessible of this season.
The comedy follows two average journalists, Aaron Rapoport (Seth Rogan) and David Skylark (James Franco), who become pawns in a CIA plot to assassinate the leader of North Korea.
Skylark is an overzealous news anchor who seems to have no shame in what he reports on. He hosts a celebrity talk show, where he discusses the latest gossip. Fitting perfectly into this scenario are hilarious cameo appearances by Eminem and Rob Lowe.
When Skylark discovers his show is one of Kim Jong-un’s (Randall Park) favorites, he is struck with the genius idea to ask for an interview. Amazingly that request is granted, but attracts the attention of the CIA. Once the two guys are plunged into the outrageous mission, the film carries a fast pace through to the end.
Rogan, who codirected the film with Evan Goldberg, obviously did some real research. Some details are actually based on real world observations.
North Korea is a place shrouded in mystery and little information about the odd dictatorship has surfaced in the outside world. However, there are multiple documentaries by Vice which detail very regimented and monitored trips journalist have taken inside the isolated country.
Elements appearing in the film which are similar to actual documented information about North Korea include: the placement of fake stores with fake food, the discussion of famine and labor camps, and the only pictures allowed on any wall being that of the “supreme leader” or those leaders before him.
Regardless of its very serious political undertones, the film can hardly be taken seriously.
Little touches keep the movie silly and lighthearted. There are quite a few inside jokes that develop throughout the story, cleverly pulling the audience in and making them laugh.
The use of the song “Firework” by Katy Perry is one example. It is established as Kim Jong-un’s favorite song, comedically revealing his “softer” side. It also happens to be Skylark’s favorite song, which creates a common ground between the two characters as they begin to form their own bromance. The song works its way into the plot and reappears at the most mismatched moments, making them that much more absurd.
In general, the execution of the plot and mannerisms of the characters stand out as even cheesier than the past work of Rogan and Franco. The extremely animated facial expressions of Franco in his role as the cocky and lovably stupid reporter, look almost cartoon like. Sex jokes and awkward moments abound. People who do not enjoy that type of comedy will not find much value in this film.
Despite the heavy political attention surrounding “The Interview,” it is one of the most ridiculous comedies to hit theaters. The film has all of the typical features of a Rogan – Franco comedy. It’s filled with over the top raunchy humor, graphic violence, and of course plenty of “bromance.” However this time, it is also a highly entertaining political satire.
I give “The Interview” 3.5 out of 5 stars for quality, and 5 out of 5 stars for becoming an outrageous international controversy.
The comedy follows two average journalists, Aaron Rapoport (Seth Rogan) and David Skylark (James Franco), who become pawns in a CIA plot to assassinate the leader of North Korea.
Skylark is an overzealous news anchor who seems to have no shame in what he reports on. He hosts a celebrity talk show, where he discusses the latest gossip. Fitting perfectly into this scenario are hilarious cameo appearances by Eminem and Rob Lowe.
When Skylark discovers his show is one of Kim Jong-un’s (Randall Park) favorites, he is struck with the genius idea to ask for an interview. Amazingly that request is granted, but attracts the attention of the CIA. Once the two guys are plunged into the outrageous mission, the film carries a fast pace through to the end.
Rogan, who codirected the film with Evan Goldberg, obviously did some real research. Some details are actually based on real world observations.
North Korea is a place shrouded in mystery and little information about the odd dictatorship has surfaced in the outside world. However, there are multiple documentaries by Vice which detail very regimented and monitored trips journalist have taken inside the isolated country.
Elements appearing in the film which are similar to actual documented information about North Korea include: the placement of fake stores with fake food, the discussion of famine and labor camps, and the only pictures allowed on any wall being that of the “supreme leader” or those leaders before him.
Regardless of its very serious political undertones, the film can hardly be taken seriously.
Little touches keep the movie silly and lighthearted. There are quite a few inside jokes that develop throughout the story, cleverly pulling the audience in and making them laugh.
The use of the song “Firework” by Katy Perry is one example. It is established as Kim Jong-un’s favorite song, comedically revealing his “softer” side. It also happens to be Skylark’s favorite song, which creates a common ground between the two characters as they begin to form their own bromance. The song works its way into the plot and reappears at the most mismatched moments, making them that much more absurd.
In general, the execution of the plot and mannerisms of the characters stand out as even cheesier than the past work of Rogan and Franco. The extremely animated facial expressions of Franco in his role as the cocky and lovably stupid reporter, look almost cartoon like. Sex jokes and awkward moments abound. People who do not enjoy that type of comedy will not find much value in this film.
Despite the heavy political attention surrounding “The Interview,” it is one of the most ridiculous comedies to hit theaters. The film has all of the typical features of a Rogan – Franco comedy. It’s filled with over the top raunchy humor, graphic violence, and of course plenty of “bromance.” However this time, it is also a highly entertaining political satire.
I give “The Interview” 3.5 out of 5 stars for quality, and 5 out of 5 stars for becoming an outrageous international controversy.
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 (965 KP) rated Why Him? (2016) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
When an “out of touch” 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 “estate manager” 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 “f-bomb” so many times you begin to sees him as a basic, depthless “caricature” 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 “mysterious depth” through an eluded troubled childhood and his genuine honesty. Only the film never gives you any payoff, as Franco’s 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 Franco’s 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 isn’t actually fighting. That’s true, and thus there is no real conflict and no real reason to root for any of the characters. Franco’s boyfriend character never evolves past his caricature. While Cranston’s father character only evolves because the movie devolves into “paint by numbers” 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 “estate manager” 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 “f-bomb” so many times you begin to sees him as a basic, depthless “caricature” 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 “mysterious depth” through an eluded troubled childhood and his genuine honesty. Only the film never gives you any payoff, as Franco’s 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 Franco’s 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 isn’t actually fighting. That’s true, and thus there is no real conflict and no real reason to root for any of the characters. Franco’s boyfriend character never evolves past his caricature. While Cranston’s father character only evolves because the movie devolves into “paint by numbers” 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.
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated The Godfather (1972) in Movies
Sep 21, 2020 (Updated Sep 21, 2020)
"𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘯𝘢ï𝘷𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥... 𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘥𝘰𝘯'𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘬𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘥."
"𝘖𝘩 -- 𝘸𝘩𝘰'𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘯𝘢ï𝘷𝘦, 𝘒𝘢𝘺?"
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 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘎𝘰𝘥𝘧𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 - 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 𝘚𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘉𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘳𝘴! 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.
"𝘖𝘩 -- 𝘸𝘩𝘰'𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘯𝘢ï𝘷𝘦, 𝘒𝘢𝘺?"
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 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘎𝘰𝘥𝘧𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 - 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 𝘚𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘉𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘳𝘴! 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.