Search
Search results
I am honestly not completely sure about my thoughts on this play. I was so excited when it was announced that they would be releasing the script, especially since I will most likely not be able to see the stage production any time soon, but it left me in a weird mental state after reading it. Warning, there may be plot spoilers in this review, so read at your own peril. If you do not want to be spoiled, read the play first, then come back to my review.
I know that a play will never really be the same as reading a novel by good old JK, but it still felt so different from the rest of the Harry Potter series. I found myself wanting more out of it than I got. There was a lot of nostalgia for the other books that I felt when I was reading it. And I loved this play for that reason.
Now don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed the play. It was different, we got to see our Golden Trio all grown up, and see their interactions with other characters, including their children. I did, however, find myself getting angry at the characters--Harry and Ginny in particular. These two characters know, probably more than anyone else in this series, what it is like to be an outsider and to feel ostracized from other people. Yet they let their son feel the same way they did. To me, that sucks. They gave him huge shoes to fill in naming Albus what they did, but it seems that they never explained to him the meaning behind it. They let him hear all of the glorious stories of Dumbledore and Snape, but never let him in on the truth that both of those men were flawed individuals who messed up a lot. In not knowing that truth, Albus was made to think that he was not good enough. Again, super crappy thing to do to a child. Harry, you should know this!!
The plot itself was interesting. I think having to look at the past and see what changing any part of it could do to the future is something Albus, and even Harry, needed to understand. They must acknowledge the past, but still have the hope to look at the future. (Boom. Dumbledore style wisdom right there.) Even Scorpius needed to see what could happen. (By the way, I love Scorpius. I think he is my favorite of all of the children characters because he is adorable and so sassy.)
Just one question: WHERE WAS MY BOY TEDDY LUPIN?!?!?!?! I was looking for him the whole freaking play because I needed to see some of Remus and Tonks in another form, but we got NOTHING and I am upset. I was thinking of taking off another half star just for that fact alone, but I need to be not as bitter about it.
I cried while reading this. Whenever Albus was being self-deprecating, my heart broke even more. And Act 4 killed me. (SPOILERS) I sobbed when they were watching Voldy kill Lily and James. Straight up sobbed like a child.
I loved all of the stage directions and I think it would be very interesting to see how it all plays out on the stage. I honestly have no idea how they would do some of the effects.
Overall, it was a good addition to the Harry Potter novels. Was it as good or give me as many emotions as the novels did? No. But I enjoyed it for what it was.
I know that a play will never really be the same as reading a novel by good old JK, but it still felt so different from the rest of the Harry Potter series. I found myself wanting more out of it than I got. There was a lot of nostalgia for the other books that I felt when I was reading it. And I loved this play for that reason.
Now don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed the play. It was different, we got to see our Golden Trio all grown up, and see their interactions with other characters, including their children. I did, however, find myself getting angry at the characters--Harry and Ginny in particular. These two characters know, probably more than anyone else in this series, what it is like to be an outsider and to feel ostracized from other people. Yet they let their son feel the same way they did. To me, that sucks. They gave him huge shoes to fill in naming Albus what they did, but it seems that they never explained to him the meaning behind it. They let him hear all of the glorious stories of Dumbledore and Snape, but never let him in on the truth that both of those men were flawed individuals who messed up a lot. In not knowing that truth, Albus was made to think that he was not good enough. Again, super crappy thing to do to a child. Harry, you should know this!!
The plot itself was interesting. I think having to look at the past and see what changing any part of it could do to the future is something Albus, and even Harry, needed to understand. They must acknowledge the past, but still have the hope to look at the future. (Boom. Dumbledore style wisdom right there.) Even Scorpius needed to see what could happen. (By the way, I love Scorpius. I think he is my favorite of all of the children characters because he is adorable and so sassy.)
Just one question: WHERE WAS MY BOY TEDDY LUPIN?!?!?!?! I was looking for him the whole freaking play because I needed to see some of Remus and Tonks in another form, but we got NOTHING and I am upset. I was thinking of taking off another half star just for that fact alone, but I need to be not as bitter about it.
I cried while reading this. Whenever Albus was being self-deprecating, my heart broke even more. And Act 4 killed me. (SPOILERS) I sobbed when they were watching Voldy kill Lily and James. Straight up sobbed like a child.
I loved all of the stage directions and I think it would be very interesting to see how it all plays out on the stage. I honestly have no idea how they would do some of the effects.
Overall, it was a good addition to the Harry Potter novels. Was it as good or give me as many emotions as the novels did? No. But I enjoyed it for what it was.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Venom (2018) in Movies
Oct 5, 2018 (Updated Oct 16, 2018)
A bit rough around the edges, but pretty enjoyable overall
Contains spoilers, click to show
The run up to seeing Venom has followed what seems to be a bit of a growing trend for me recently - tickets go on sale for a movie that I'm very excited to see and despite the slightly average trailers, I grab a ticket and hope for the best. Then in the days beforehand, a load of negative reviews appear online and I really hope that they're all wrong, like they all were with Hereditary. Recently we've had The Nun, then The Predator, and now Venom. I was really hoping this wasn't going to be three in a row!
A space probe is returning to Earth. We hear the astronauts communicating with a team back home. They're talking about some 'specimens' that they're bringing back, and then something goes wrong onboard and the rocket crashes to Earth, landing somewhere in Malaysia. The probe belongs to bio-engineering company Life Foundation, and the specimens they're carrying are symbiotic lifeforms. Life Foundation are all over the crash site, with only one of the astronauts surviving, barely. Meanwhile, CEO Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed) is very excited by the symbiotes and returns them to the lab, becoming obsessed with assimilating them into animals. Obviously he has plans to eventually (as quickly as possible) try this out on humans. Apparently, it's all for the good of the planet or some guff like that.
Meanwhile, we're introduced to investigative journalist Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) and his girlfriend Anne (Michelle Williams). He's basically the most unconvincing journalist I've ever seen in a movie, but the montage of clips seems determined to tell us otherwise. He has his own TV show! It's great! He's helped to uncover injustice, righted wrongs, and is apparently a nice down to earth guy. When he secures an interview with Carlton Drake from Life Foundation, he's ready to uncover some dirt, but his boss warns him not to overstep the mark. Of course, he doesn't listen, stepping over the line and getting himself fired. He also manages to lose girlfriend Anne in the process.
The next chunk of the movie is just Tom Hardy moping around, and it's not that great. I don't know if it's the script, the acting, or both. It's interspersed occasionally with scenes involving Carlton Drake looking to expose the symbiotes to human subjects - the homeless, the poor or the just plain stupid - and you start wishing they'd just hurry up and bring Venom and Eddie together, in the hopes that things will pick up a bit. Luckily, once that does happen things do pick up considerably and Tom Hardy is so much better suited as the crazy man who's feeling a little bit unwell than the sad, boring journalist. There's a good level of humour from that point on too, along with some fairly decent action.
Unfortunately though, Venom suffers from some of the same dreadful editing that The Predator did. Scenes that seem to just prematurely end suddenly and successions of rapid cuts during some of the action, making it difficult to see just what the hell is going on. Overall it's a bit rough around the edges, and definitely not as slick as your standard Marvel movie (this one is just 'in association with Marvel'). That being said, this was in no way the car crash movie that many of the reviews had lead me to believe, and on the whole I actually really enjoyed it.
A decent mid credits scene sets up some exciting potential for a further movie, but I feel they really need to tighten things up a bit in order to make another one worth seeing.
A space probe is returning to Earth. We hear the astronauts communicating with a team back home. They're talking about some 'specimens' that they're bringing back, and then something goes wrong onboard and the rocket crashes to Earth, landing somewhere in Malaysia. The probe belongs to bio-engineering company Life Foundation, and the specimens they're carrying are symbiotic lifeforms. Life Foundation are all over the crash site, with only one of the astronauts surviving, barely. Meanwhile, CEO Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed) is very excited by the symbiotes and returns them to the lab, becoming obsessed with assimilating them into animals. Obviously he has plans to eventually (as quickly as possible) try this out on humans. Apparently, it's all for the good of the planet or some guff like that.
Meanwhile, we're introduced to investigative journalist Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) and his girlfriend Anne (Michelle Williams). He's basically the most unconvincing journalist I've ever seen in a movie, but the montage of clips seems determined to tell us otherwise. He has his own TV show! It's great! He's helped to uncover injustice, righted wrongs, and is apparently a nice down to earth guy. When he secures an interview with Carlton Drake from Life Foundation, he's ready to uncover some dirt, but his boss warns him not to overstep the mark. Of course, he doesn't listen, stepping over the line and getting himself fired. He also manages to lose girlfriend Anne in the process.
The next chunk of the movie is just Tom Hardy moping around, and it's not that great. I don't know if it's the script, the acting, or both. It's interspersed occasionally with scenes involving Carlton Drake looking to expose the symbiotes to human subjects - the homeless, the poor or the just plain stupid - and you start wishing they'd just hurry up and bring Venom and Eddie together, in the hopes that things will pick up a bit. Luckily, once that does happen things do pick up considerably and Tom Hardy is so much better suited as the crazy man who's feeling a little bit unwell than the sad, boring journalist. There's a good level of humour from that point on too, along with some fairly decent action.
Unfortunately though, Venom suffers from some of the same dreadful editing that The Predator did. Scenes that seem to just prematurely end suddenly and successions of rapid cuts during some of the action, making it difficult to see just what the hell is going on. Overall it's a bit rough around the edges, and definitely not as slick as your standard Marvel movie (this one is just 'in association with Marvel'). That being said, this was in no way the car crash movie that many of the reviews had lead me to believe, and on the whole I actually really enjoyed it.
A decent mid credits scene sets up some exciting potential for a further movie, but I feel they really need to tighten things up a bit in order to make another one worth seeing.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Venom (2018) in Movies
Oct 13, 2018
Hardy, Williams elevate mediocre material
I had lowered my expectations when entering the new Sony film VENOM for I had heard that this non-MCU Marvel film wasn't really a Marvel - or a Spiderman - film, even though it features one of the more famous characters from the Spiderman Universe, which is, of course, a Marvel property.
Confused, yet?
Well, don't be. Because this knowledge is not needed, nor (quite frankly) is it wanted as the filmmakers of Venom made a film that centers on the titular anti-hero with no real regard to his place in the Marvel Universe.
And this works well...enough. True, the plot, dialogue, situations, special effects and gadgets of this film are middle-of-the-road at best, but with the two folks at the center of this film, I started to forgive this film it's many flaws and enjoyed two Oscar-caliber Actors having a good ol' time in a Supehero movie.
Venom, of course, tells the story of...Eddie Brock..who becomes - through a merging of his body with an Alien symbiotic creature (don't worry about it, just roll with it) - becomes the titular VENOM. A being that wants to eat live creatures (most notably human heads) while the good part of Eddie tries to keep him in check and help him fight bad guys.
In lesser performance hands, this character could become silly and stupid, but in the more than capable performance by the great Tom Hardy (Bane in THE DARK KNIGHT RISES), Eddie Brock/Venom is an intriguing figure to watch on-screen. His simultaneous ability to look unnerved and hunger for live flesh while looking for a nice cool bath caused me to smirk on more than one occasion and I ended up rooting for him throughout the film.
Matching him is the great Michelle Williams (she of the 4 Oscar nominations, most recently in MANCHESTER BY THE SEA) as Eddie Brock's ex-Fiance Anne Weying. Like Hardy, Williams is elevating mediocre material to something better than the mediocrity it was destined to be. The chemistry between Williams and Hardy is evident in their bi-play with each other and I couldn't help but think "get these two into an Oscar-caliber film together and watch the sparks - and the awards - fly."
Unfortunately, Riz Ahmed as bad guy Carlton Drake is not able to rise above the material and when he is playing opposite Hardy and/or Williams, he pales in comparison and I began to realize just how weak the script by the trio of Jeff Pinkner, Scott Rosenberg and Kelly Marcel is. Clearly, two of them were brought in to re-write the original (I have no idea who did what) but none of them were able to elevate the proceedings.
Nor could Director Ruben Fleischer (ZOMBIELAND) elevate things. His Direction is pedestrian at best. There is nothing really interesting going on and when the going got tough he just started to rely on the quick cut/edits that is so "en vogue" these days - and it grew tiresome.
But when I started to grow weary of the events on the screen, Hardy and Williams would show up and I began to forgive things again, even thinking during the credits scene (where they introduce the Villain for VENOM 2), I want to see Hardy and Williams play against (name deleted so as not to spoil) as the new Villain - that might be cool!
So, I'm "in" for Venom. It was "good enough" and I will come back for the next installment - and based on the Box Office of the opening weekend, there WILL BE a next installment.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Confused, yet?
Well, don't be. Because this knowledge is not needed, nor (quite frankly) is it wanted as the filmmakers of Venom made a film that centers on the titular anti-hero with no real regard to his place in the Marvel Universe.
And this works well...enough. True, the plot, dialogue, situations, special effects and gadgets of this film are middle-of-the-road at best, but with the two folks at the center of this film, I started to forgive this film it's many flaws and enjoyed two Oscar-caliber Actors having a good ol' time in a Supehero movie.
Venom, of course, tells the story of...Eddie Brock..who becomes - through a merging of his body with an Alien symbiotic creature (don't worry about it, just roll with it) - becomes the titular VENOM. A being that wants to eat live creatures (most notably human heads) while the good part of Eddie tries to keep him in check and help him fight bad guys.
In lesser performance hands, this character could become silly and stupid, but in the more than capable performance by the great Tom Hardy (Bane in THE DARK KNIGHT RISES), Eddie Brock/Venom is an intriguing figure to watch on-screen. His simultaneous ability to look unnerved and hunger for live flesh while looking for a nice cool bath caused me to smirk on more than one occasion and I ended up rooting for him throughout the film.
Matching him is the great Michelle Williams (she of the 4 Oscar nominations, most recently in MANCHESTER BY THE SEA) as Eddie Brock's ex-Fiance Anne Weying. Like Hardy, Williams is elevating mediocre material to something better than the mediocrity it was destined to be. The chemistry between Williams and Hardy is evident in their bi-play with each other and I couldn't help but think "get these two into an Oscar-caliber film together and watch the sparks - and the awards - fly."
Unfortunately, Riz Ahmed as bad guy Carlton Drake is not able to rise above the material and when he is playing opposite Hardy and/or Williams, he pales in comparison and I began to realize just how weak the script by the trio of Jeff Pinkner, Scott Rosenberg and Kelly Marcel is. Clearly, two of them were brought in to re-write the original (I have no idea who did what) but none of them were able to elevate the proceedings.
Nor could Director Ruben Fleischer (ZOMBIELAND) elevate things. His Direction is pedestrian at best. There is nothing really interesting going on and when the going got tough he just started to rely on the quick cut/edits that is so "en vogue" these days - and it grew tiresome.
But when I started to grow weary of the events on the screen, Hardy and Williams would show up and I began to forgive things again, even thinking during the credits scene (where they introduce the Villain for VENOM 2), I want to see Hardy and Williams play against (name deleted so as not to spoil) as the new Villain - that might be cool!
So, I'm "in" for Venom. It was "good enough" and I will come back for the next installment - and based on the Box Office of the opening weekend, there WILL BE a next installment.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Logan (2017) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Hugh Jackman returns for his final performance of his iconic Wolverine character in “Logan” and if this is his last outing, he has picked the best of the series for his swan song.
The film takes place in the near future where an aging and broken down Logan makes a living driving a limo near El Paso.
The man who does not age and instantly heals has found his powers are rapidly fading and he has lost much of his will to live and only the fact that he is secretly watching over an aged and dementia riddled Professor X (Patrick Stewart), gives him any purpose in life.
Logan is a very angry and broken individual who wants nothing more than to purchase a boat and escape with the Professor, something that their Albino companion Caliban (Stephan Merchant) has an issue with due to his severe issues with the sun.
It is revealed that there have not been any new mutants born in over 20 years and as such, those that are left are very scarce, and considered a dying breed.
When a woman encounters Logan she insists that she take her and a young girl to a locale, but Logan wants no part of this. His suspicions are raised when a mysterious agent contacts him and tells him that he needs to let them have the girl and woman should they contact him again. Logan finds his fragile world upended when fate forces him, the Professor, and the mysterious girl to run after a deadly encounter with a large squad of troops and police.
It is revealed that the girl is part of a secret experiment that those behind it will stop at nothing to control and as such, Logan is brought into a conflict that he wants no part of.
In a bloody and violent series of confrontations, Logan must find the strength he no longer has to keep those in his care safe against overwhelming odds.
“Logan” is a darker and more violent look into the Marvel world. The film earns an R rating due to the graphic violence which underscores the intensity and danger of the world in which Logan now lives in. Jackman plays the character as a worn down individual who wants nothing more to do with his glory years and simply has grown tired of living in his former shadow.
Stewart is very good in a sympathetic role of seeing the powerful man he once was diminished due to age and mental illness as he and Logan have become pathetic shells of the once great people they were. Forced to live in seclusion and avoiding the very public they fought to save on multiple occasions.
Director James Mangold who also worked on the script clearly understands the characters and wanted to give fans a darker and more intense look into their world.
There are no grand super villains, legions of mutants, massive explosions, and abundances of FX shots to this story. Instead we get a raw and moving human story that is not afraid to let the characters drive the film. While there are plenty of action scenes in the film, they never overshadow the fact that the story is a tale of real people and not the typical comic film where viewers are deluged with constant eye candy. In fact the film actually keeps a very minimalistic approach to the visuals as much of it is set in the desert and other stark landscapes and towns.
The film does drag a bit as it nears the finale, but the payoff is highly satisfying and should delight fans.
The film is also moving in a way that one would not expect from a film in the X-men series and if this is truly the last outing for Jackman, he could not have picked a more perfect film as this is easily the best of the series.
http://sknr.net/2017/02/17/logan/
The film takes place in the near future where an aging and broken down Logan makes a living driving a limo near El Paso.
The man who does not age and instantly heals has found his powers are rapidly fading and he has lost much of his will to live and only the fact that he is secretly watching over an aged and dementia riddled Professor X (Patrick Stewart), gives him any purpose in life.
Logan is a very angry and broken individual who wants nothing more than to purchase a boat and escape with the Professor, something that their Albino companion Caliban (Stephan Merchant) has an issue with due to his severe issues with the sun.
It is revealed that there have not been any new mutants born in over 20 years and as such, those that are left are very scarce, and considered a dying breed.
When a woman encounters Logan she insists that she take her and a young girl to a locale, but Logan wants no part of this. His suspicions are raised when a mysterious agent contacts him and tells him that he needs to let them have the girl and woman should they contact him again. Logan finds his fragile world upended when fate forces him, the Professor, and the mysterious girl to run after a deadly encounter with a large squad of troops and police.
It is revealed that the girl is part of a secret experiment that those behind it will stop at nothing to control and as such, Logan is brought into a conflict that he wants no part of.
In a bloody and violent series of confrontations, Logan must find the strength he no longer has to keep those in his care safe against overwhelming odds.
“Logan” is a darker and more violent look into the Marvel world. The film earns an R rating due to the graphic violence which underscores the intensity and danger of the world in which Logan now lives in. Jackman plays the character as a worn down individual who wants nothing more to do with his glory years and simply has grown tired of living in his former shadow.
Stewart is very good in a sympathetic role of seeing the powerful man he once was diminished due to age and mental illness as he and Logan have become pathetic shells of the once great people they were. Forced to live in seclusion and avoiding the very public they fought to save on multiple occasions.
Director James Mangold who also worked on the script clearly understands the characters and wanted to give fans a darker and more intense look into their world.
There are no grand super villains, legions of mutants, massive explosions, and abundances of FX shots to this story. Instead we get a raw and moving human story that is not afraid to let the characters drive the film. While there are plenty of action scenes in the film, they never overshadow the fact that the story is a tale of real people and not the typical comic film where viewers are deluged with constant eye candy. In fact the film actually keeps a very minimalistic approach to the visuals as much of it is set in the desert and other stark landscapes and towns.
The film does drag a bit as it nears the finale, but the payoff is highly satisfying and should delight fans.
The film is also moving in a way that one would not expect from a film in the X-men series and if this is truly the last outing for Jackman, he could not have picked a more perfect film as this is easily the best of the series.
http://sknr.net/2017/02/17/logan/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Dumb and Dumber To (2014) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
It is hard to believe that it is been 20 years since Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels brought the moronic Harry and Lloyd to the big screen. The comedic adventures of the well-meaning but idiotic best friends became a box office smash and has maintained a loyal worker fans despite the highly disappointing prequel that was made in an attempt to extend series. With the Farrelly brothers back in place to write and direct the long-awaited follow-up it should come as no surprise as to what viewers are in store for with “Dumb and Dumber To”.
Lloyd (Jim Carrey) has been an institution for the past two decades while Harry (Jeff Daniels), visits him lawyerly once a week. When the reason behind Lloyd’s institutionalization becomes clear Harry informs his old friend that is in desperate need of a kidney transplant. With his options limited, Harry visits his family whom he has not seen in quite some time and goes through some mail that had been delivered over the years.
Harry learns that an old acquaintance was pregnant and in an effort to see if the child he never knew he had could be a donor, the bumbling duo sets out to find child Harry never knew he had. This is easier said than done as the mother (Kathleen Turner), give the child up for adoption and her only effort to communicate resulted in a letter being returned to her with a note asking her not to write again.
Undaunted Harry and Lloyd set out from their Rhode Island home and venture down to Maryland before learning that the object of their quest is already left for New Mexico to attend a very important conference. The duo decided to head on to New Mexico with a third person in tow not knowing that he secretly is aiming to do away with them in a con limited inheritance scheme.
As anyone who’s seen the previous film will remember, traveling with Harry and Lloyd can be extremely dangerous to one’s physical and mental sanity and the ensuing years have done nothing to change this. In short time duo arrives at their goal but finds their natural tendencies to get in and cause trouble has followed them resulting in a series of chaotic misadventures.
While many of the jokes and situations were recycled from previous films including Lloyd’s daydreaming about a perfect date and various car pranks, one thing that is undeniable is the great chemistry and timing between the two leads. The material certainly strains its PG-13 rating in terms of suggestiveness but even though some of the jokes do not quite succeed and the plot is at best paper thin, it was sure good to see these two back in action.
The film is at best a guilty pleasure because it will be easy to say it was kind of dumb and meandering at points and that the two characters were not given much to do other than an act that was funny 20 years earlier but may seem a bit strange to date considering both Daniels and Carrey have shown they are capable of doing so much more.
For me I looked at it is a bit of a nostalgic guilty pleasure that despite the shortcomings and faults offered some enjoyable although mostly forgettable distractions in between some good laughs. For those willing to take more the same and can temper their expectations accordingly you will likely find this trip one worth taking if nothing else than for the nostalgia.
I for one am hoping that we haven’t seen the last these two in action but I certainly would like to see them come back with a better script and certainly do not want have to wait 20 years for this to happen.
http://sknr.net/2014/11/14/dumb-dumber/
Lloyd (Jim Carrey) has been an institution for the past two decades while Harry (Jeff Daniels), visits him lawyerly once a week. When the reason behind Lloyd’s institutionalization becomes clear Harry informs his old friend that is in desperate need of a kidney transplant. With his options limited, Harry visits his family whom he has not seen in quite some time and goes through some mail that had been delivered over the years.
Harry learns that an old acquaintance was pregnant and in an effort to see if the child he never knew he had could be a donor, the bumbling duo sets out to find child Harry never knew he had. This is easier said than done as the mother (Kathleen Turner), give the child up for adoption and her only effort to communicate resulted in a letter being returned to her with a note asking her not to write again.
Undaunted Harry and Lloyd set out from their Rhode Island home and venture down to Maryland before learning that the object of their quest is already left for New Mexico to attend a very important conference. The duo decided to head on to New Mexico with a third person in tow not knowing that he secretly is aiming to do away with them in a con limited inheritance scheme.
As anyone who’s seen the previous film will remember, traveling with Harry and Lloyd can be extremely dangerous to one’s physical and mental sanity and the ensuing years have done nothing to change this. In short time duo arrives at their goal but finds their natural tendencies to get in and cause trouble has followed them resulting in a series of chaotic misadventures.
While many of the jokes and situations were recycled from previous films including Lloyd’s daydreaming about a perfect date and various car pranks, one thing that is undeniable is the great chemistry and timing between the two leads. The material certainly strains its PG-13 rating in terms of suggestiveness but even though some of the jokes do not quite succeed and the plot is at best paper thin, it was sure good to see these two back in action.
The film is at best a guilty pleasure because it will be easy to say it was kind of dumb and meandering at points and that the two characters were not given much to do other than an act that was funny 20 years earlier but may seem a bit strange to date considering both Daniels and Carrey have shown they are capable of doing so much more.
For me I looked at it is a bit of a nostalgic guilty pleasure that despite the shortcomings and faults offered some enjoyable although mostly forgettable distractions in between some good laughs. For those willing to take more the same and can temper their expectations accordingly you will likely find this trip one worth taking if nothing else than for the nostalgia.
I for one am hoping that we haven’t seen the last these two in action but I certainly would like to see them come back with a better script and certainly do not want have to wait 20 years for this to happen.
http://sknr.net/2014/11/14/dumb-dumber/
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Velvet Buzzsaw (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Ever since Netflix have proven themselves as a fantastic streaming platform, everyone gets hyped about their ‘Originals’. Velvet Buzzsaw was no exception, and when the first trailer dropped I was so excited to watch it. Everything about it seemed great; it was written and directed by Dan Gilroy (the guy who gave us the fantastic Nightcrawler), and the cast was incredible. Who could say no to Jake Gyllenhaal, Rene Russo AND Toni Collette? Not me. Unfortunately, this wonderful mix didn’t live up to my expectations at all and left me feeling very disappointed.
The main issue I had with Velvet Buzzsaw is that the pacing is horrendously slow. The first 45 minutes felt like nothing but exposition, when it was a relatively simple concept for the audience to grasp. The film follows a bunch of art critics, artists and patrons of the arts as they uncover a series of paintings from an unknown artist. However, they’re not your normal paintings because a supernatural force lurks within them waiting to enact revenge. That’s it, that’s the synopsis. So why waste so much screen time dragging things out? The trailer made this look like a fast paced, intense thriller, but the reality is nothing like that.
It’s a shame the pacing and screenplay is so weak, because Velvet Buzzsaw does have a few redeeming features. The quality of acting is very good, and visually it’s beautiful to look at, particularly the locations and the paintings that appear throughout. I especially enjoyed the characters Rhodora Haze (Rene Russo) and Gretchen (Toni Collette), as they embody the typically powerful, ruthless and bitchy personas one would expect from this industry. They satirise art lovers perfectly, which is partially why I haven’t rated this film lower. In all honesty, these actors deserved better than the script they were dealt, and it’s a shame such talent was wasted here. I’m having trouble understanding how you can take such an interesting concept and brilliant actors, and make it so boring.
Even the inevitable death scenes are pretty dull, and play like a straight to TV horror film that doesn’t quite hit the mark. Velvet Buzzsaw fails to execute any sort of suspense, or even terror, so when people eventually die you’re just sat there like “Huh, is that it?”. After such a slow first act, you expect some kind of payoff, but it never arrives. Again, the trailer had some pretty scary moments that made me expect a few jump scares or intense moments. I’m confused about why this was even marketed as a horror-thriller, when it lacks so many of the aspects that make both those genres great. I didn’t feel scared at all, and even when the characters we were supposed to hate met their demise, there was no morbid satisfaction in it. To be completely honest, I was apathetic towards the whole thing. I just wanted it to end.
If you are a fan of slow-burning films that take a while to get going, then you might enjoy Velvet Buzzsaw more than I did. I don’t necessarily have a problem with these types of films, but you still need to keep the audience gripped somehow. You need to give people a reason to keep watching.
Gilroy’s attempt to show the horrors of the art world falls flat, and certainly doesn’t live up to the expectations based on the success of Nightcrawler. Part of me even wondered how this was the same man, it felt so vastly different to his other work. Netflix Originals rarely let me down, but this time, they really did.
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/review-velvet-buzzsaw-2019/
The main issue I had with Velvet Buzzsaw is that the pacing is horrendously slow. The first 45 minutes felt like nothing but exposition, when it was a relatively simple concept for the audience to grasp. The film follows a bunch of art critics, artists and patrons of the arts as they uncover a series of paintings from an unknown artist. However, they’re not your normal paintings because a supernatural force lurks within them waiting to enact revenge. That’s it, that’s the synopsis. So why waste so much screen time dragging things out? The trailer made this look like a fast paced, intense thriller, but the reality is nothing like that.
It’s a shame the pacing and screenplay is so weak, because Velvet Buzzsaw does have a few redeeming features. The quality of acting is very good, and visually it’s beautiful to look at, particularly the locations and the paintings that appear throughout. I especially enjoyed the characters Rhodora Haze (Rene Russo) and Gretchen (Toni Collette), as they embody the typically powerful, ruthless and bitchy personas one would expect from this industry. They satirise art lovers perfectly, which is partially why I haven’t rated this film lower. In all honesty, these actors deserved better than the script they were dealt, and it’s a shame such talent was wasted here. I’m having trouble understanding how you can take such an interesting concept and brilliant actors, and make it so boring.
Even the inevitable death scenes are pretty dull, and play like a straight to TV horror film that doesn’t quite hit the mark. Velvet Buzzsaw fails to execute any sort of suspense, or even terror, so when people eventually die you’re just sat there like “Huh, is that it?”. After such a slow first act, you expect some kind of payoff, but it never arrives. Again, the trailer had some pretty scary moments that made me expect a few jump scares or intense moments. I’m confused about why this was even marketed as a horror-thriller, when it lacks so many of the aspects that make both those genres great. I didn’t feel scared at all, and even when the characters we were supposed to hate met their demise, there was no morbid satisfaction in it. To be completely honest, I was apathetic towards the whole thing. I just wanted it to end.
If you are a fan of slow-burning films that take a while to get going, then you might enjoy Velvet Buzzsaw more than I did. I don’t necessarily have a problem with these types of films, but you still need to keep the audience gripped somehow. You need to give people a reason to keep watching.
Gilroy’s attempt to show the horrors of the art world falls flat, and certainly doesn’t live up to the expectations based on the success of Nightcrawler. Part of me even wondered how this was the same man, it felt so vastly different to his other work. Netflix Originals rarely let me down, but this time, they really did.
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/review-velvet-buzzsaw-2019/
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated The Disaster Artist (2017) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
“Ha ha ha! What a film, Mark!”
I was first introduced to The Room during a college Film Studies lecture as a perfect example of how not to make a film. Everything about it was atrocious, but I also found it weirdly compelling. Since then, I’ve made a real effort to follow everything relating to Tommy Wiseau and this bizarre film of his. It’s become a cult classic in recent years, drawing a crowd of dedicated fans to the Prince Charles Cinema in Leicester Square for monthly screenings, and Q&A’s with cast members. When I found out that James Franco was creating a film adaptation of Greg Sestero’s novel The Disaster Artist: My Life Inside The Room, the Greatest Bad Movie Ever Made, I was so excited!
I was lucky enough to see the film during its opening weekend at the Prince Charles Cinema, which actually made my experience even better. Being around a crowd of The Room fans who knew the film like the back of their hand was hilarious, because they recited familiar quotes along with James Franco, and it was clear the entire audience was having a blast from start to finish. I honestly can’t remember the last time I laughed this much at a film. Everyone involved made a real effort to recreate the scenes that we know and love, whilst giving us a glimpse into what life on that film set was really like. It’s possible to forget that you’re watching The Disaster Artist and not The Room at times, because the performances are so spot on.
Once again, James Franco’s ability to take a real life person and bring them to life on a screen shone through. I always refer to his performance as Aron Ralston in 127 Hours as one of his best, but his portrayal of Tommy Wiseau certainly comes a close second. He nails the mannerisms, the accent, and that weird laugh that Wiseau has become well known for. You can tell he has dedicated a lot of time and effort to the project, and it’s paid off. Praise must also be given to the rest of the cast for perfectly emulating the characters. Josh Hutcherson as Denny was amazing; even when he was just sitting there that ridiculous wig was enough to make the audience cry with laughter, and Seth Rogen’s script supervisor character delivers these amazing one liners that show his frustration at Tommy’s ridiculous ideas.
Whilst clearly hilarious, this film is not without its fair share of tragedy, mainly around Dave Franco’s character Greg Sestero. His friendship with Tommy required him to make huge, unimaginable sacrifices both professionally and personally, ultimately causing a rift between the two. Greg is a classic example of a man chasing the allure of fame, and failing miserably. You can’t help but sympathise with him as he tries his best to keep those around him happy whilst trying to attain life changing career goals. The film also shows a darker side to Tommy Wiseau, as he treats the cast and crew around him very badly. He’s so wrapped up in bringing The Room, his “real Hollywood movie”, to life that he neglects the needs of those around him. There are some highly charged emotional moments in this film, which are perfectly balanced with the comedic moments. Without these serious scenes, the film just wouldn’t have been the same.
The Disaster Artist is a must-watch for fans of The Room, and those who want to learn more about the utter chaos that happened on set. It’s funny, intense, emotional and a one of a kind experience from start to finish. Make sure you sit tight until after the credits too, as there’s an extra scene that you don’t want to miss!
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2017/12/04/ha-ha-ha-what-a-film-mark-a-review-of-the-disaster-artist/
I was lucky enough to see the film during its opening weekend at the Prince Charles Cinema, which actually made my experience even better. Being around a crowd of The Room fans who knew the film like the back of their hand was hilarious, because they recited familiar quotes along with James Franco, and it was clear the entire audience was having a blast from start to finish. I honestly can’t remember the last time I laughed this much at a film. Everyone involved made a real effort to recreate the scenes that we know and love, whilst giving us a glimpse into what life on that film set was really like. It’s possible to forget that you’re watching The Disaster Artist and not The Room at times, because the performances are so spot on.
Once again, James Franco’s ability to take a real life person and bring them to life on a screen shone through. I always refer to his performance as Aron Ralston in 127 Hours as one of his best, but his portrayal of Tommy Wiseau certainly comes a close second. He nails the mannerisms, the accent, and that weird laugh that Wiseau has become well known for. You can tell he has dedicated a lot of time and effort to the project, and it’s paid off. Praise must also be given to the rest of the cast for perfectly emulating the characters. Josh Hutcherson as Denny was amazing; even when he was just sitting there that ridiculous wig was enough to make the audience cry with laughter, and Seth Rogen’s script supervisor character delivers these amazing one liners that show his frustration at Tommy’s ridiculous ideas.
Whilst clearly hilarious, this film is not without its fair share of tragedy, mainly around Dave Franco’s character Greg Sestero. His friendship with Tommy required him to make huge, unimaginable sacrifices both professionally and personally, ultimately causing a rift between the two. Greg is a classic example of a man chasing the allure of fame, and failing miserably. You can’t help but sympathise with him as he tries his best to keep those around him happy whilst trying to attain life changing career goals. The film also shows a darker side to Tommy Wiseau, as he treats the cast and crew around him very badly. He’s so wrapped up in bringing The Room, his “real Hollywood movie”, to life that he neglects the needs of those around him. There are some highly charged emotional moments in this film, which are perfectly balanced with the comedic moments. Without these serious scenes, the film just wouldn’t have been the same.
The Disaster Artist is a must-watch for fans of The Room, and those who want to learn more about the utter chaos that happened on set. It’s funny, intense, emotional and a one of a kind experience from start to finish. Make sure you sit tight until after the credits too, as there’s an extra scene that you don’t want to miss!
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2017/12/04/ha-ha-ha-what-a-film-mark-a-review-of-the-disaster-artist/
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Dead In A Week (Or Your Money Back) (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Dark comedy at its finest
This review discusses dark topics such as death and suicide. Reader discretion advised.
Getting comedy right is difficult enough, let alone trying to do it with sensitive topics. But Dead In A Week (or your money back) hits the nail on the head. After several failed suicide attempts, William (Aneurin Barnard) signs a contract with veteran assassin Leslie (Tom Wilkinson), who promises he’ll be dead within the week. This simple concept results in 1 hour and 30 mins of pure entertainment.
Though explicit in the way it discusses suicide, there is a reason for this. Right from the start, William is positioned as an incredibly depressed, isolated failed writer, who is struggling to see the point in living. He is very open about this fact, and spends a lot of time planning ways he could do it, accompanied by a darkly funny montage of the ways he’s tried. He is a troubled character that you can’t help but feel sorry for.
What makes this film even more interesting is the way it makes you sympathise with both target and killer. Leslie is trying his best to avoid retirement, and sees William as an answer to his prayers. If he kills him, he’ll fill his quota, and all will be well. This creates a paradox where you want both men to succeed, but you know that’s impossible.
William changes his mind about the contract when a publisher takes interest in his novel, and he begins to fall in love with Ellie (Freya Mavor), the assistant who called him regarding his latest story. This encounter comes with some rather frank and heartwarming messages about life, reminding us how precious life can be if you give it a chance.
Of course, the film doesn’t just end there. After William’s 360, Leslie is having none of it, and for the rest of the film we see this young writer trying to outrun a seasoned assassin. Leslie’s boss Harvey (Christopher Eccleston) is hot on his tail as well, tired of giving the old man too many chances. It’s a classic tale of a failed assassin, flipped entirely on its head.
Filled with some brilliant twists and turns, the script is formulaic yet hugely entertaining, with some laugh out loud moments throughout. It will certainly appeal to those who like their humour a little darker, with its use of comedic timing and deadpan delivery. It addresses so much in a short space of time, adding depth where needed.
Leslie’s wife Penny (Marion Bailey) adds her own comic relief to the situation, with a delightful satire on middle-class culture. Whilst her husband is trying to keep a dangerous job he loves so much, she’s more concerned about beating her church rivals in a cushion competition. The parallels between the couple are simultaneously heartwarming and awkward, and I enjoyed the way they bounced off each other throughout.
This was a thoroughly enjoyable film, with some unexpectedly touching moments. I really connected with certain characters and loathed others, allowing me to become fully invested in the film. The encounter between these two men should have ended one way, but the two embark on a journey that changes their lives for the better. Underneath all the humour comes an understanding of mental health issues, and sympathy for those who struggle.
This was Tom Edmund’s feature length debut, after directing a few short films. It’s an impressive first film with good pacing, solid characters, and a well-polished look throughout. It was an ambitious first feature length, but it certainly delivered.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/05/06/dark-comedy-at-its-finest-my-thoughts-on-dead-in-a-week-or-your-money-back/
Getting comedy right is difficult enough, let alone trying to do it with sensitive topics. But Dead In A Week (or your money back) hits the nail on the head. After several failed suicide attempts, William (Aneurin Barnard) signs a contract with veteran assassin Leslie (Tom Wilkinson), who promises he’ll be dead within the week. This simple concept results in 1 hour and 30 mins of pure entertainment.
Though explicit in the way it discusses suicide, there is a reason for this. Right from the start, William is positioned as an incredibly depressed, isolated failed writer, who is struggling to see the point in living. He is very open about this fact, and spends a lot of time planning ways he could do it, accompanied by a darkly funny montage of the ways he’s tried. He is a troubled character that you can’t help but feel sorry for.
What makes this film even more interesting is the way it makes you sympathise with both target and killer. Leslie is trying his best to avoid retirement, and sees William as an answer to his prayers. If he kills him, he’ll fill his quota, and all will be well. This creates a paradox where you want both men to succeed, but you know that’s impossible.
William changes his mind about the contract when a publisher takes interest in his novel, and he begins to fall in love with Ellie (Freya Mavor), the assistant who called him regarding his latest story. This encounter comes with some rather frank and heartwarming messages about life, reminding us how precious life can be if you give it a chance.
Of course, the film doesn’t just end there. After William’s 360, Leslie is having none of it, and for the rest of the film we see this young writer trying to outrun a seasoned assassin. Leslie’s boss Harvey (Christopher Eccleston) is hot on his tail as well, tired of giving the old man too many chances. It’s a classic tale of a failed assassin, flipped entirely on its head.
Filled with some brilliant twists and turns, the script is formulaic yet hugely entertaining, with some laugh out loud moments throughout. It will certainly appeal to those who like their humour a little darker, with its use of comedic timing and deadpan delivery. It addresses so much in a short space of time, adding depth where needed.
Leslie’s wife Penny (Marion Bailey) adds her own comic relief to the situation, with a delightful satire on middle-class culture. Whilst her husband is trying to keep a dangerous job he loves so much, she’s more concerned about beating her church rivals in a cushion competition. The parallels between the couple are simultaneously heartwarming and awkward, and I enjoyed the way they bounced off each other throughout.
This was a thoroughly enjoyable film, with some unexpectedly touching moments. I really connected with certain characters and loathed others, allowing me to become fully invested in the film. The encounter between these two men should have ended one way, but the two embark on a journey that changes their lives for the better. Underneath all the humour comes an understanding of mental health issues, and sympathy for those who struggle.
This was Tom Edmund’s feature length debut, after directing a few short films. It’s an impressive first film with good pacing, solid characters, and a well-polished look throughout. It was an ambitious first feature length, but it certainly delivered.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/05/06/dark-comedy-at-its-finest-my-thoughts-on-dead-in-a-week-or-your-money-back/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Hostage (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Chief of Police Jeff Talley (Bruce Willis) is a man filled with turmoil. A former S.W.A.T. officer and top hostage negotiator for the Los Angeles Police Department, Talley now toils away in a quite California town where crime is light and very infrequent. The change in locales was made necessary for Jeff in the aftermath of a hostage negotiation where things did not go accordingly leaving Jeff with more questions than answers.
As if this is not bad enough, Talley is having difficulties with his wife Jane (Serena Scott Thomas), and his daughter Amanda (Rumer Willis), who is not happy with their relocation to the quiet locale or the strain that is amongst her parents as it is clear that they still love each other very much.
The quiet town is disrupted when a robbery of a successful locale business man goes horribly wrong and ends up with a dead police officer and three hostages being held in a high tech, high security home.
Jeff responds to the incident and soon finds himself dealing with the three young men who are clearly in over their head and very dangerous due to the instability of the situation. Jeff decides to call in the Sheriff’s office as he believe his police force is not suited for this sort of situation and essentially decides to wash his hands of the situation and go home.
While driving home, Jeff is carjacked by a group of individuals who show Jeff that they have taken his wife and daughter hostage and instruct him not to let anyone in or out of the house where the hostage crisis is taking place. Jeff is also instructed to not deviate in any way from his instructions under pain of immediate death for his wife and daughter. His only communication with his new handlers will be via a cell phone, and he is to resume control of the negotiations.
It is learned that there is something in the house that the people holding Jeff’s family need and are willing to resort to very extreme measure to get it.
It is at this point that the very, very gripping and entertaining setup to the film begins to slide, as the second half of the film does not come close to matching the quality of the opening segments.
There are some very good cat and mouse moments as the men in the house start to argue amongst themselves, and interact with the family inside the house. The supporting performances are solid especially those of Jennifer (Michelle Horn), who plays the daughter held captive by the trio and the eerie performance of Ben Foster as the twisted Hostage taker Mars.
Sadly the film decides to turn to a series of brutal images and sequences rather than continue to develop the characters and work the story. The characters often embark on some inane courses of action and do things that not only contradict what we know about their characters but also fly into the lapse of logic as people in their situations would never do. I would love to expand on this by referencing a segment of the film but in the interest of not spoiling the film, I will explain it as when characters are told not to do something, why would they repeatedly do it, and then continue to do so without any consequences?
It is the continued lack of common sense and the and the very over the top and lazy finale to the film that sinks what could have and should have been a much better movie as the film is clearly sunk by the awful final 40 minutes of the show. Willis does a solid job with his role but the last act of the script let him down as even a star of his magnitude and talents cant make up for the films numerous shortcomings.
As if this is not bad enough, Talley is having difficulties with his wife Jane (Serena Scott Thomas), and his daughter Amanda (Rumer Willis), who is not happy with their relocation to the quiet locale or the strain that is amongst her parents as it is clear that they still love each other very much.
The quiet town is disrupted when a robbery of a successful locale business man goes horribly wrong and ends up with a dead police officer and three hostages being held in a high tech, high security home.
Jeff responds to the incident and soon finds himself dealing with the three young men who are clearly in over their head and very dangerous due to the instability of the situation. Jeff decides to call in the Sheriff’s office as he believe his police force is not suited for this sort of situation and essentially decides to wash his hands of the situation and go home.
While driving home, Jeff is carjacked by a group of individuals who show Jeff that they have taken his wife and daughter hostage and instruct him not to let anyone in or out of the house where the hostage crisis is taking place. Jeff is also instructed to not deviate in any way from his instructions under pain of immediate death for his wife and daughter. His only communication with his new handlers will be via a cell phone, and he is to resume control of the negotiations.
It is learned that there is something in the house that the people holding Jeff’s family need and are willing to resort to very extreme measure to get it.
It is at this point that the very, very gripping and entertaining setup to the film begins to slide, as the second half of the film does not come close to matching the quality of the opening segments.
There are some very good cat and mouse moments as the men in the house start to argue amongst themselves, and interact with the family inside the house. The supporting performances are solid especially those of Jennifer (Michelle Horn), who plays the daughter held captive by the trio and the eerie performance of Ben Foster as the twisted Hostage taker Mars.
Sadly the film decides to turn to a series of brutal images and sequences rather than continue to develop the characters and work the story. The characters often embark on some inane courses of action and do things that not only contradict what we know about their characters but also fly into the lapse of logic as people in their situations would never do. I would love to expand on this by referencing a segment of the film but in the interest of not spoiling the film, I will explain it as when characters are told not to do something, why would they repeatedly do it, and then continue to do so without any consequences?
It is the continued lack of common sense and the and the very over the top and lazy finale to the film that sinks what could have and should have been a much better movie as the film is clearly sunk by the awful final 40 minutes of the show. Willis does a solid job with his role but the last act of the script let him down as even a star of his magnitude and talents cant make up for the films numerous shortcomings.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated In Good Company (2004) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Carter Duryea (Topher Grace) is a man with goals. At 26, he is heading his mega-companies cell phone sales, and is being groomed for bigger and better things. A golden opportunity is handed to Carter when his company acquires another mega company resulting in his placement in the recently acquired Sports magazine division.
The Sports publication is seen as the jewel of the newly acquired company, and even though he has zero experience with selling magazine advertisement, Carter is sure he can meet the lofty goals he boss has set.
At what should be his greatest moment, carter is troubled as his 7-month marriage to Kimberly (Selma Blair), is falling apart largely due to his workaholic nature and his inability ever to stop thinking or talking about work even when he is on vacation.
On the other side of the spectrum from Carter is Dan Foreman (Dennis Quaid), a father of two daughters and devoted family man, who has been a salesperson at the magazine for twenty years and until the arrival of Carter, head of the department. At 51, Dan is feeling his years as the younger and ambitious Carter seems to be his polar opposite as well as a reminder that his best years may be behind him. Further complicating matters is that Dan’s wife Ann (Marg Helgenberger), is pregnant with their third child at a time when they both thought children were past them.
Despite their differences, Dan and Carter work with one another, despite conflicts over issues ranging the future of the company to planned layoffs of staff personally picked years ago by Dan. One day after inviting himself to dinner at Dan’s home, Carter meets Dan’s college aged daughter Alex (Scarlett Johansson), who although only 21 catches the eye of Carter.
Months later a chance meeting between Alex and the recently divorced Carter gives rise to a friendship/romance between the two that causes Carter to question his life and envy the family life Dan has been able to create and maintain over the years.
Naturally Dan would not approve of the relationship between carter and Alex so they must keep this a secret as there is enough tension in the workplace due to the ever changing business dynamics.
What follows is a touching, funny, and at times bittersweet look at life, love, business, and friendship that does a remarkable job of making the characters not only real, but sympathetic as for the most part, there are no bad people in this story, only those who are confused and unsure about life.
The strength in the film is mixed well between a good script, solid direction by Paul Weitz, and solid performances by all the leads. The pacing of the film is perfect as it never seems rushed and does not drag in parts. Even when two characters are having a simple discussion over how to best approach a client, the film always holds your interest. It was refreshing to see a movie that did not take the easy way out and try to wrap everything in a pretty bow at the films end, but rather like life, left new opportunities and directions as possibilities as after all, that is what life is.
There is also a very good message to the film about what is really important in life and the need to have priorities rather than title and position as the real measure of success is happiness, security and love rather than position and material goods.
Easily the best film of 2005 and one of the better films in recent memory..
The Sports publication is seen as the jewel of the newly acquired company, and even though he has zero experience with selling magazine advertisement, Carter is sure he can meet the lofty goals he boss has set.
At what should be his greatest moment, carter is troubled as his 7-month marriage to Kimberly (Selma Blair), is falling apart largely due to his workaholic nature and his inability ever to stop thinking or talking about work even when he is on vacation.
On the other side of the spectrum from Carter is Dan Foreman (Dennis Quaid), a father of two daughters and devoted family man, who has been a salesperson at the magazine for twenty years and until the arrival of Carter, head of the department. At 51, Dan is feeling his years as the younger and ambitious Carter seems to be his polar opposite as well as a reminder that his best years may be behind him. Further complicating matters is that Dan’s wife Ann (Marg Helgenberger), is pregnant with their third child at a time when they both thought children were past them.
Despite their differences, Dan and Carter work with one another, despite conflicts over issues ranging the future of the company to planned layoffs of staff personally picked years ago by Dan. One day after inviting himself to dinner at Dan’s home, Carter meets Dan’s college aged daughter Alex (Scarlett Johansson), who although only 21 catches the eye of Carter.
Months later a chance meeting between Alex and the recently divorced Carter gives rise to a friendship/romance between the two that causes Carter to question his life and envy the family life Dan has been able to create and maintain over the years.
Naturally Dan would not approve of the relationship between carter and Alex so they must keep this a secret as there is enough tension in the workplace due to the ever changing business dynamics.
What follows is a touching, funny, and at times bittersweet look at life, love, business, and friendship that does a remarkable job of making the characters not only real, but sympathetic as for the most part, there are no bad people in this story, only those who are confused and unsure about life.
The strength in the film is mixed well between a good script, solid direction by Paul Weitz, and solid performances by all the leads. The pacing of the film is perfect as it never seems rushed and does not drag in parts. Even when two characters are having a simple discussion over how to best approach a client, the film always holds your interest. It was refreshing to see a movie that did not take the easy way out and try to wrap everything in a pretty bow at the films end, but rather like life, left new opportunities and directions as possibilities as after all, that is what life is.
There is also a very good message to the film about what is really important in life and the need to have priorities rather than title and position as the real measure of success is happiness, security and love rather than position and material goods.
Easily the best film of 2005 and one of the better films in recent memory..