Search
Search results
DoorDash - Food Delivery
Food & Drink and Lifestyle
8.0
Rate It
App
Food delivery to your door from the widest selection of restaurants near you. Browse more than...
Flight Simulator FlyWings Online 2016 HD
Games and Entertainment
App
Flight Simulator 2016 FlyWings is the ultimate simulation for your mobile! With a large selection of...
VirtualBrowser for Chrome + Flash Player, Java & Browser Extensions - iPad Edition
Utilities and Productivity
App
Run the *real* Chrome Browser with Chrome Web Store Apps, Extensions and (Premium option required...
Nick Friesen (96 KP) rated Blade Runner (1982) in Movies
Jul 13, 2017
Dark and gorgeous setting (4 more)
Harrison Ford
Thought-provoking premise
That moody Vangelis score
Rutger Hauer
Best in Class Cyberpunk Neo-Noir
Most Sci-Fi fans these days probably rank Blade Runner somewhere in their top five favorites. Its status and influence on Sci-Fi, especially in the Cyberpunk sub-genre, is undeniable. When it was first released in 1982, however, it was not so well appreciated. It was met with polarized reviews and underwhelming domestic box office figures. This was probably due to some misplaced expectations of the movie. The studio erroneously marketed Blade Runner as an action/adventure, and not to mention, Harrison Ford was riding the fame of another Sci-Fi franchise that was much more action-oriented. It's no surprise then, that audiences and critics alike were initially turned off by the slow-burn pacing of detective noir that Blade Runner pulled into a science fiction setting. Today, Blade Runner is a celebrated masterpiece of filmmaking and adored by fans around the world. However, with a sequel coming soon, those new to the franchise might be a little confused due to the existence of multiple versions of the film. Let's clear that up a bit.
Fast-forward ten years to 1992, when the world received the Director's Cut of the film. At the time, Blade Runner had picked up in popularity through video rental and the international market, and the studio was prompted to release an official Director's Cut after an unofficial version was being made available from a workprint. The Director's Cut was the first introduction to Blade Runner for a whole new generation, including myself.
Fast-forward fifteen more years to 2007, when Ridley Scott brought Blade Runner fans his definitive version of the movie, the Final Cut. Blade Runner: The Final Cut was digitally remastered and reworked by Ridley Scott with complete artistic freedom, whereas the Director's Cut was created by the studio without his involvement. This version fixes some technical problems that persisted from the theatrical version to the Director's Cut, and adds back a little story to better fulfill Ridley Scott's original vision for the film.
If you're looking to get into Blade Runner before Blade Runner 2049 hits theatres in October, the Final Cut is probably the best place to start. It offers the most cohesive viewing experience, complete with restored visuals. Believe me when I tell you there is no movie quite like Blade Runner. Watching Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) track down and "retire" replicants on the streets of a dystopian Los Angeles awash in neon signs never ceases to fill me with awe. Rutger Hauer's performance as the main antagonist, Roy Batty, is both chilling and thought-provoking, making viewers question what being human truly means.
Blade Runner is now widely considered to be not just the first example of Cyberpunk in film, but also the best. And for good reason, as every frame is a work of art, and the philosophical questions it first posed 35 years ago are still being debated today. Us die-hard fans can only pray the upcoming sequel doesn't completely obliterate the mystery and pathos of the replicant condition.
Fast-forward ten years to 1992, when the world received the Director's Cut of the film. At the time, Blade Runner had picked up in popularity through video rental and the international market, and the studio was prompted to release an official Director's Cut after an unofficial version was being made available from a workprint. The Director's Cut was the first introduction to Blade Runner for a whole new generation, including myself.
Fast-forward fifteen more years to 2007, when Ridley Scott brought Blade Runner fans his definitive version of the movie, the Final Cut. Blade Runner: The Final Cut was digitally remastered and reworked by Ridley Scott with complete artistic freedom, whereas the Director's Cut was created by the studio without his involvement. This version fixes some technical problems that persisted from the theatrical version to the Director's Cut, and adds back a little story to better fulfill Ridley Scott's original vision for the film.
If you're looking to get into Blade Runner before Blade Runner 2049 hits theatres in October, the Final Cut is probably the best place to start. It offers the most cohesive viewing experience, complete with restored visuals. Believe me when I tell you there is no movie quite like Blade Runner. Watching Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) track down and "retire" replicants on the streets of a dystopian Los Angeles awash in neon signs never ceases to fill me with awe. Rutger Hauer's performance as the main antagonist, Roy Batty, is both chilling and thought-provoking, making viewers question what being human truly means.
Blade Runner is now widely considered to be not just the first example of Cyberpunk in film, but also the best. And for good reason, as every frame is a work of art, and the philosophical questions it first posed 35 years ago are still being debated today. Us die-hard fans can only pray the upcoming sequel doesn't completely obliterate the mystery and pathos of the replicant condition.
Janeeny (200 KP) rated The Pisces in Books
May 9, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
Lucy is a student who doesn’t really know what she wants in life, and after an acrimonious break up from her boyfriend. Her sister throws her a lifeline, giving Lucy a break from her desert life in Phoenix, her sister asks Lucy to housesit for her whilst also attending a local therapy group. So Lucy heads to Los Angeles and it’s here that she has an awakening and a lurid affair with a merman.
I read this as this months book club book. The lady that suggested it did mention that there are a fair amount of sex scenes and sexual references so I was prepared. However I must say that, for me, none of the sex scenes were gratuitous, they formed part of the story. If you took out the sex scenes the book really wouldn’t make a lot of sense or would at least be a bit weaker for it. The language she uses isn’t cliche or cringey either (there’s no heaving breasts or throbbing body parts) it’s very ‘real’.
This book is a bit like the ones you’re given to read in English literature classes in school, that are rife with meaning and symbolism that you have no idea about until your teacher points it out. I feel there is a strong feminist message in there somewhere, as most of the women in the book are trying to fight a sexual reliance on men. It’s also heavily underlined by the fact that literally all the male characters are weak in one way or another.
To that point I really did not like Theo, the main love interest. He seemed a bit too weak, not as a character but as a person. This is a book with a strong feminist message, so it wouldn’t do to have your heroine overshadowed by a man so that is understandable. (A little side note, a member of my book group bought up the interesting idea that the ‘weakness’ is just an act and he’s psychologically preying on Lucy’s vulnerability)
There are a lot of references to Sappho, which again I feel hints at a feminist message. I’m sorry to say that even though I am aware of Sappho I have barely any knowledge about her. I have now acquired a couple of books from the library to remedy this.
There were some quite strong opinions on this in book group. Whilst I liked the book for it’s style of writing, one of the other ladies liked it for its controversy, but most of the group really didn’t like it at all. The strong feeling against it came, mostly, from the explicit language that was used, whilst one member was so bewildered by the events within the book she was convinced the main character was just on a big drug trip and hallucinating the whole thing.
A couple of us did take something away from the book, I took away a strong interest in the works of Sappho, and one of the other members took away a deeper understanding of a past friend whose behaviour she recognised in some of the characters in the book.
I think we’re going for something a little less controversial next month
I read this as this months book club book. The lady that suggested it did mention that there are a fair amount of sex scenes and sexual references so I was prepared. However I must say that, for me, none of the sex scenes were gratuitous, they formed part of the story. If you took out the sex scenes the book really wouldn’t make a lot of sense or would at least be a bit weaker for it. The language she uses isn’t cliche or cringey either (there’s no heaving breasts or throbbing body parts) it’s very ‘real’.
This book is a bit like the ones you’re given to read in English literature classes in school, that are rife with meaning and symbolism that you have no idea about until your teacher points it out. I feel there is a strong feminist message in there somewhere, as most of the women in the book are trying to fight a sexual reliance on men. It’s also heavily underlined by the fact that literally all the male characters are weak in one way or another.
To that point I really did not like Theo, the main love interest. He seemed a bit too weak, not as a character but as a person. This is a book with a strong feminist message, so it wouldn’t do to have your heroine overshadowed by a man so that is understandable. (A little side note, a member of my book group bought up the interesting idea that the ‘weakness’ is just an act and he’s psychologically preying on Lucy’s vulnerability)
There are a lot of references to Sappho, which again I feel hints at a feminist message. I’m sorry to say that even though I am aware of Sappho I have barely any knowledge about her. I have now acquired a couple of books from the library to remedy this.
There were some quite strong opinions on this in book group. Whilst I liked the book for it’s style of writing, one of the other ladies liked it for its controversy, but most of the group really didn’t like it at all. The strong feeling against it came, mostly, from the explicit language that was used, whilst one member was so bewildered by the events within the book she was convinced the main character was just on a big drug trip and hallucinating the whole thing.
A couple of us did take something away from the book, I took away a strong interest in the works of Sappho, and one of the other members took away a deeper understanding of a past friend whose behaviour she recognised in some of the characters in the book.
I think we’re going for something a little less controversial next month
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Fast & Furious (2009) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
igh adrenaline films have always been a signature of the summer movie season and with a bevy of blockbusters lines up for the summer months, Universal has the opening salvo with the very impressive “Fast and Furious”.
Although the fourth film in the series, the film is in many ways is the first true sequel to the 2001 original as it reunites Vin Diesel and Paul Walker.
The film opens with a spectacular high speed heist where Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel), and his crew attempt to steal petroleum tankers. The amazing pacing and driving and stunt sequences is easily the best opening sequences in the series and had the audience at my press screening on the edge of their seats.
With the heat on Dominic, he decides to split up the group so they do not get busted when the authorities catch up to him. Unfortunately this means slipping away from his longtime love Letty (Michelle Rodriguez).
At the same time, F.B.I. agent Brian O’Conner (Paul Walker), is under the gun from his superiors to bring down a drug trafficker who has eluded all efforts to indentify much less capture but is known for his reputation for ruthlessness. With lead after lead coming up empty for his task force, O’Conner pursues a name that may just shed some light on the true identify of his target.
When events unfold that force Dominic to return to Los Angeles on a mission of revenge, his path crosses O’Conner and the two men renew the rivalry that has existed between them which hits the high gear when both men find themselves in an illegal street race.
The winner of the race gets to join the driving team of the drug trafficker that O’Conner is seeking, and with Dominic having his own motivations, the intense race through the packed streets is easily one of the most intense racing sequences ever captured.
In time the two men find themselves working with one another to bring down a common foe, but old issues still remaining between the duty driven O’Conner and the outlaw Dominick, especially regarding Dominick’s sister Mia (Jordana Brewster), who had a relationship with O’Conner before he revealed himself to be an undercover agent in the first film.
What follows is a pedal to the metal adventure that sets a breakneck pace and lets up only enough from the audience to briefly catch their breath.
Walker and Diesel make a dynamic team and unlike the previous films in the series, “Fast and Furious” has a plot that does not drag and holds the attention of the audience and serves as little more than filler between action sequences.
Director Justin Lin (Who helmed the last film in the series Tokyo Drift), balances the two leads with the awesome array of racing machines in the film without ever losing fact that this is a character driven story.
With a great cast and amazing driving sequences the film was a very pleasant surprise and has me looking forward to the next chapter in the series. Not only is this a strong comeback for Walker and Diesel but is easily the best film in the series and should delight the fans.
Although the fourth film in the series, the film is in many ways is the first true sequel to the 2001 original as it reunites Vin Diesel and Paul Walker.
The film opens with a spectacular high speed heist where Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel), and his crew attempt to steal petroleum tankers. The amazing pacing and driving and stunt sequences is easily the best opening sequences in the series and had the audience at my press screening on the edge of their seats.
With the heat on Dominic, he decides to split up the group so they do not get busted when the authorities catch up to him. Unfortunately this means slipping away from his longtime love Letty (Michelle Rodriguez).
At the same time, F.B.I. agent Brian O’Conner (Paul Walker), is under the gun from his superiors to bring down a drug trafficker who has eluded all efforts to indentify much less capture but is known for his reputation for ruthlessness. With lead after lead coming up empty for his task force, O’Conner pursues a name that may just shed some light on the true identify of his target.
When events unfold that force Dominic to return to Los Angeles on a mission of revenge, his path crosses O’Conner and the two men renew the rivalry that has existed between them which hits the high gear when both men find themselves in an illegal street race.
The winner of the race gets to join the driving team of the drug trafficker that O’Conner is seeking, and with Dominic having his own motivations, the intense race through the packed streets is easily one of the most intense racing sequences ever captured.
In time the two men find themselves working with one another to bring down a common foe, but old issues still remaining between the duty driven O’Conner and the outlaw Dominick, especially regarding Dominick’s sister Mia (Jordana Brewster), who had a relationship with O’Conner before he revealed himself to be an undercover agent in the first film.
What follows is a pedal to the metal adventure that sets a breakneck pace and lets up only enough from the audience to briefly catch their breath.
Walker and Diesel make a dynamic team and unlike the previous films in the series, “Fast and Furious” has a plot that does not drag and holds the attention of the audience and serves as little more than filler between action sequences.
Director Justin Lin (Who helmed the last film in the series Tokyo Drift), balances the two leads with the awesome array of racing machines in the film without ever losing fact that this is a character driven story.
With a great cast and amazing driving sequences the film was a very pleasant surprise and has me looking forward to the next chapter in the series. Not only is this a strong comeback for Walker and Diesel but is easily the best film in the series and should delight the fans.
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Marriage Story (2019) in Movies
Nov 7, 2019
Divorce has been depicted many times onscreen, as it’s one of those difficult realities about adult relationships. There’s still a lot of stigma around the breakdown of a marriage, but Marriage Story deals with the topic in a very raw and unique way.
The film follows Nicole (Scarlett Johansson) and Charlie (Adam Driver) as they’re going through the turbulent divorce period. The couple share a young son Henry, who naturally causes complications for the two when it comes to custodial agreements.
Marriage Story opens with two gorgeous monologues about what the two characters love about each other, both of which are enough to make you cry a mere few minutes into the film. This contrasts very well with the present day, where they’re both struggling to make their marriage work.
It would have been very easy for Noah Baumbach to encourage the audience to pick sides, leaving them to subconsciously ‘root’ for either party to do well in the scenario. But remarkably that’s not the case, as it’s a very unbiased film that lays everything out on the table for us to see. Each messy, complicated detail is shown to us, and we end up sympathising with both.
One thing I really enjoyed about Marriage Story is the way Baumbach criticises some of the ridiculousness associated with divorce, especially when it comes to legal battles. Nicole reluctantly turns to ruthless lawyer Nora Fanshaw (Laura Dern), who is honest about the lies that have to be told in order to get through this.
Dern’s performance is hilarious but also highlights some of the inequalities and utterly baffling scenarios that happen when picking up a legal case. I wasn’t aware of any of them so it was quite a shock.
Watching the film is excruciating in places, but that’s a compliment on how raw and honest it is. It seems wrong for Charlie and Nicole to have to say and do certain things, all dictated by their respective lawyers. A clean break just isn’t possible when a child is involved.
It becomes even more complicated for the couple when Nicole decides to move back to Los Angeles, 2,789 miles away from New York City where she and Charlie used to reside. This creates a very literal distance between them, and causes problems with the battle for custody and Henry’s wellbeing.
Whilst there are many scenes which will reduce you to tears, Marriage Story has some comedic elements to lighten the mood, especially when it comes to Nicole’s family and how they react to the news of the divorce.
The two central performances in Marriage Story really are exceptional, and you become invested in the lives of people you don’t even know. One dramatic scene between Charlie and Nicole in particular had me openly sobbing, as it was full of contempt instead of love. Many of us can react to that exchange in a failing relationship, and it hurts.
If you want a very honest look at what it’s like to go through a divorce, then Marriage Story is just that. This isn’t the kind of film that sugarcoats anything and instead takes its audience on an emotional rollercoaster from start to finish.
The film follows Nicole (Scarlett Johansson) and Charlie (Adam Driver) as they’re going through the turbulent divorce period. The couple share a young son Henry, who naturally causes complications for the two when it comes to custodial agreements.
Marriage Story opens with two gorgeous monologues about what the two characters love about each other, both of which are enough to make you cry a mere few minutes into the film. This contrasts very well with the present day, where they’re both struggling to make their marriage work.
It would have been very easy for Noah Baumbach to encourage the audience to pick sides, leaving them to subconsciously ‘root’ for either party to do well in the scenario. But remarkably that’s not the case, as it’s a very unbiased film that lays everything out on the table for us to see. Each messy, complicated detail is shown to us, and we end up sympathising with both.
One thing I really enjoyed about Marriage Story is the way Baumbach criticises some of the ridiculousness associated with divorce, especially when it comes to legal battles. Nicole reluctantly turns to ruthless lawyer Nora Fanshaw (Laura Dern), who is honest about the lies that have to be told in order to get through this.
Dern’s performance is hilarious but also highlights some of the inequalities and utterly baffling scenarios that happen when picking up a legal case. I wasn’t aware of any of them so it was quite a shock.
Watching the film is excruciating in places, but that’s a compliment on how raw and honest it is. It seems wrong for Charlie and Nicole to have to say and do certain things, all dictated by their respective lawyers. A clean break just isn’t possible when a child is involved.
It becomes even more complicated for the couple when Nicole decides to move back to Los Angeles, 2,789 miles away from New York City where she and Charlie used to reside. This creates a very literal distance between them, and causes problems with the battle for custody and Henry’s wellbeing.
Whilst there are many scenes which will reduce you to tears, Marriage Story has some comedic elements to lighten the mood, especially when it comes to Nicole’s family and how they react to the news of the divorce.
The two central performances in Marriage Story really are exceptional, and you become invested in the lives of people you don’t even know. One dramatic scene between Charlie and Nicole in particular had me openly sobbing, as it was full of contempt instead of love. Many of us can react to that exchange in a failing relationship, and it hurts.
If you want a very honest look at what it’s like to go through a divorce, then Marriage Story is just that. This isn’t the kind of film that sugarcoats anything and instead takes its audience on an emotional rollercoaster from start to finish.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Wheels (2014) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020 (Updated Mar 12, 2020)
According to the film’s IMDb page, this low budget indie production, filmed in Los Angeles is the greatest film of all time! A month ago it sat at 9.3, which is better than The Godfather and The Shawshank Redemption! As I am writing and compiling a book about the best 200 films of the 21st century, up to the end of 2019, I was obliged to check this out. With almost 18,000 votes to its name, there must be something in it being rated that highly, right?
Well, obviously not. Someone smart behind the film, listed variously as a 2014 or 2017 production, depending on where you look, had clearly gone out of their way to manipulate its online presence in the hope of gaining viewers. Look, it worked – I watched it, and now I’m writing about it. Pretty shameful really, as you find that almost no website has a bad review or rating for it out there; it has pretty much been scrubbed clean. How they did it, I do not know, but it is indefensible to be honest. The real shame being that it isn’t a bad film for the budget at all, and may have got more views and respect the old fashioned way.
The story revolves around a recently paralysed man becoming suicidal and finding another guy in a wheelchair to ask if he will blow his brains out with a gun. From there the two go on a rampage of drug addiction, self harm and anti-social misbehaviour. For every cliche in there, there is another moment which is quite well done, and although you can see the cracks here and there it is mostly a watchable and enjoyable film, with some laughs and some genuine emotion. Acting wise, the two leads (writer and co-director Donavon Warren and Patrick Hume) have their moments too; perhaps lacking anything hugely inciteful, but certainly competent enough to compare favourably to some higher profile movies.
Ultimately, it is merely fine. Not something you would recommend or especially remember, but not a complete waste of 2 hours either. It is clearly going for the idea that disabled people are helpless victims on its head, and does largely succeed in not condescending or amping up the pity. That doesn’t stop either of them being unlikable people, however – perhaps that is the point.
More interesting than the film by far is how these guys manipulated the publicity system to get it seen. So many films worth seeing drift into obscurity for lack of money, take the films of Shane Caruth, Primer and Upstream Color. Both incredible, original and intelligent movies that no one saw, and only word of mouth many years later puts them on anyone’s radar. Then there are the endless festival films that do the rounds and can’t pick up distribution, no matter how good. Perhaps a film like Wheels needs to employ these kind of tactics to survive. It is really a question of ethics. I have to say, as an honest reviewer, it does bother me that fake ratings and reviews can exist and slip under the wire. But maybe that is just me…?
Well, obviously not. Someone smart behind the film, listed variously as a 2014 or 2017 production, depending on where you look, had clearly gone out of their way to manipulate its online presence in the hope of gaining viewers. Look, it worked – I watched it, and now I’m writing about it. Pretty shameful really, as you find that almost no website has a bad review or rating for it out there; it has pretty much been scrubbed clean. How they did it, I do not know, but it is indefensible to be honest. The real shame being that it isn’t a bad film for the budget at all, and may have got more views and respect the old fashioned way.
The story revolves around a recently paralysed man becoming suicidal and finding another guy in a wheelchair to ask if he will blow his brains out with a gun. From there the two go on a rampage of drug addiction, self harm and anti-social misbehaviour. For every cliche in there, there is another moment which is quite well done, and although you can see the cracks here and there it is mostly a watchable and enjoyable film, with some laughs and some genuine emotion. Acting wise, the two leads (writer and co-director Donavon Warren and Patrick Hume) have their moments too; perhaps lacking anything hugely inciteful, but certainly competent enough to compare favourably to some higher profile movies.
Ultimately, it is merely fine. Not something you would recommend or especially remember, but not a complete waste of 2 hours either. It is clearly going for the idea that disabled people are helpless victims on its head, and does largely succeed in not condescending or amping up the pity. That doesn’t stop either of them being unlikable people, however – perhaps that is the point.
More interesting than the film by far is how these guys manipulated the publicity system to get it seen. So many films worth seeing drift into obscurity for lack of money, take the films of Shane Caruth, Primer and Upstream Color. Both incredible, original and intelligent movies that no one saw, and only word of mouth many years later puts them on anyone’s radar. Then there are the endless festival films that do the rounds and can’t pick up distribution, no matter how good. Perhaps a film like Wheels needs to employ these kind of tactics to survive. It is really a question of ethics. I have to say, as an honest reviewer, it does bother me that fake ratings and reviews can exist and slip under the wire. But maybe that is just me…?
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated This Means War (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
It’s been said that all’s fair in love and war and never was the case more evident than in the tale of FDR and Tuck, two best friends who also happen to be partners and top agents at the CIA. After a covert operation doesn’t go as planned the duo find themselves riding their desks in the Los Angeles agency office much to their chagrin.
FDR (Chris Pine) is very confident ladies’ man while Tuck (Tom Hardy) is a divorced father of a little boy looking for “the one”. The more reserved Tuck decides to take his chances with online dating while FDR is content to cruise the local video store searching for his latest conquest. Enter Lauren (Reese Witherspoon), an attractive, independent woman who appears to have everything except a love life.
When Lauren encounters her former fiancé engaged to another woman, she vents her frustration to her best friend Trish (Chelsea Handler) who decides to take matters into her own hands and, unbeknownst to Lauren, produces an online dating profile for Lauren which matches her with Tuck. The first meeting between the two goes very well and they decide to take things slowly and see where this promising start leads. Unfortunately as Trish is heading home she stops in the same video store were FDR is on the prowl and the two mix like oil and water. Undeterred, FDR decides to pursue Lauren.
Eventually Tuck and FDR realize that they’re seeing the same woman and, not wanting to put their friendship in jeopardy, agree that they will continue to see her and let Lauren decide whom she prefers. The fact that neither men in this love triangle acknowledges that they know each other leads to some interesting complications, and naturally jealousies arise between the two friends.
With the full resources of the CIA at their disposal, Tuck and FDR, who’ve both become captivated with Lauren, soon take advantage of their job not only to spy on each other’s dates with Lauren but also to do their best to undermine the other and gain valuable information to help them appear more desirable to Lauren. As if this wasn’t complicated enough, an international criminal named Heinrich (Til Schweiger) is searching for the two agents to seek revenge. Constantly battling one another as well as the impending threat of Heinrich, FDR and Tuck embark on a hysterical and action-packed adventure that is one of the most enjoyable romantic comedies in recent memory.
Sure the film does take a few leaps in logic, such as the CIA turning a blind eye to their use of so many high-level resources in the world of dating but anyone seeing this type of film obviously isn’t expecting realism.
Directed by McG the film mixes action and comedy with a touch of romance and creates an entertaining formula. The three leads work exceptionally well with one another and Hardy and Pine are clearly stars on the rise. Handler does some great supporting work in the film and gets more than her share of laughs. This is definitely one you will not want to miss.
FDR (Chris Pine) is very confident ladies’ man while Tuck (Tom Hardy) is a divorced father of a little boy looking for “the one”. The more reserved Tuck decides to take his chances with online dating while FDR is content to cruise the local video store searching for his latest conquest. Enter Lauren (Reese Witherspoon), an attractive, independent woman who appears to have everything except a love life.
When Lauren encounters her former fiancé engaged to another woman, she vents her frustration to her best friend Trish (Chelsea Handler) who decides to take matters into her own hands and, unbeknownst to Lauren, produces an online dating profile for Lauren which matches her with Tuck. The first meeting between the two goes very well and they decide to take things slowly and see where this promising start leads. Unfortunately as Trish is heading home she stops in the same video store were FDR is on the prowl and the two mix like oil and water. Undeterred, FDR decides to pursue Lauren.
Eventually Tuck and FDR realize that they’re seeing the same woman and, not wanting to put their friendship in jeopardy, agree that they will continue to see her and let Lauren decide whom she prefers. The fact that neither men in this love triangle acknowledges that they know each other leads to some interesting complications, and naturally jealousies arise between the two friends.
With the full resources of the CIA at their disposal, Tuck and FDR, who’ve both become captivated with Lauren, soon take advantage of their job not only to spy on each other’s dates with Lauren but also to do their best to undermine the other and gain valuable information to help them appear more desirable to Lauren. As if this wasn’t complicated enough, an international criminal named Heinrich (Til Schweiger) is searching for the two agents to seek revenge. Constantly battling one another as well as the impending threat of Heinrich, FDR and Tuck embark on a hysterical and action-packed adventure that is one of the most enjoyable romantic comedies in recent memory.
Sure the film does take a few leaps in logic, such as the CIA turning a blind eye to their use of so many high-level resources in the world of dating but anyone seeing this type of film obviously isn’t expecting realism.
Directed by McG the film mixes action and comedy with a touch of romance and creates an entertaining formula. The three leads work exceptionally well with one another and Hardy and Pine are clearly stars on the rise. Handler does some great supporting work in the film and gets more than her share of laughs. This is definitely one you will not want to miss.
The Nutcracker Musical Storybook
Book and Entertainment
App
Join Clara and The Nutcracker Prince in a fully animated, cinematic storybook adventure of the...