Well, I happened to see Tiff's review for this movie before I started typing mine. We actually didn't say much to eachother about the movie when it was over...really we usually don't, but I have to say...I agree with her 100%. This movie was actually quite horrible. I didn't recognize any of the actors in the movie, and it wasn't until the end credits were run that I realized Orlando Bloom was actually one of them.
Individually I think some of these actors could be great in the right movie. This movie just wasn't it. The story is the same as every other Three Musketeers movie. There men, joined by a 4th younger Musketeer, try to save the day...I think the place where this movie went wrong was that it was set in the 17th century, but was played as if it was 2011. Flying ships in the 17th century..so wrong!
I like the 17th century movies...I am actually craving one..I hope one comes out soon. This movie just didn't do it for me.
As far as the actors go...I liked the character names better..Athos, Aramis, Porthos, D'Artagnan...cool names! I won't even mention the actors names, because as Tiff said, they are really quite forgettable. Let's wait until they come out in something more memorable.
Maybe we will hit the spot next week. We are de for something we both love.
See you then!
Monday, October 24, 2011
Week 43: The Three Musketeers
This weekend we went and saw The Three Musketeers. I hadn't heard a lot about this movie but you can guess what type it is based on the title. I generally like these type of movies but wasn't sure if it would be anything special. Turns out it wasn't.
Basically, it's about three washed out musketeers who are rejuvenated by a young musketeer who is looking to change the world one great cause at a time. The three actors who played the original musketeers were Matthew Macfadyen, Luke Evans and Ray Stevenson. The younger one was played by Logan Lerman. I'm not sure if it was bad acting or just plain boring characters but all of these guys were completely forgettable. Not one of them jumped out. I almost forget what they all looked like as I'm writing this.
The villains were played by Orlando Bloom and Milla Jovovich. I've decided I'm not a big fan of Milla. It seems like I've seen her in other things and she's been okay but in this she just wasn't. And don't even get me started on Orlando Bloom. I love Orlando Bloom. I've loved him in everything he's been in. But I can't believe he was in this movie. The character just didn't work for him and even he was forgettable. What a shame.
Overall I think it was tyring to be a little like Pirates of the Caribbean and failed miserably. The special effects were too over the top and the music was exaggerated and corny. And I don't usually even notice the music. It's set up to be a sequel but I really hope its not. If it is I really hope Orlando Bloom doesn't sign up for it again.
Too Sum it up: Boring characters, boring plot line and a sad use of one of my favorite actors.
Basically, it's about three washed out musketeers who are rejuvenated by a young musketeer who is looking to change the world one great cause at a time. The three actors who played the original musketeers were Matthew Macfadyen, Luke Evans and Ray Stevenson. The younger one was played by Logan Lerman. I'm not sure if it was bad acting or just plain boring characters but all of these guys were completely forgettable. Not one of them jumped out. I almost forget what they all looked like as I'm writing this.
The villains were played by Orlando Bloom and Milla Jovovich. I've decided I'm not a big fan of Milla. It seems like I've seen her in other things and she's been okay but in this she just wasn't. And don't even get me started on Orlando Bloom. I love Orlando Bloom. I've loved him in everything he's been in. But I can't believe he was in this movie. The character just didn't work for him and even he was forgettable. What a shame.
Overall I think it was tyring to be a little like Pirates of the Caribbean and failed miserably. The special effects were too over the top and the music was exaggerated and corny. And I don't usually even notice the music. It's set up to be a sequel but I really hope its not. If it is I really hope Orlando Bloom doesn't sign up for it again.
Too Sum it up: Boring characters, boring plot line and a sad use of one of my favorite actors.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Week 42: The Ides of March
For week 42 we went and saw The Ides of March. I'll be honest. This easily could have been a movie I overlooked. Political movies aren't really by favorite. But I heard it was good and nothing else was really jumping out us.
The story is about a presidential campaign and the "workings" behind it. The main character, Stephen, played by Ryan Gosling is sort of the PR brains behind a campaign for a presidential hopeful played by George Clooney. He's young and dedicated to the candidate but finds trouble along the way and gets to see how things really work. This movie gave a very interesting perspective into politics. I always wonder why a politician can't stick to their views and beliefs and just do what they think is right. This movie gives a glimpse into why it seems like it is never possible. There are too many ulterior motives behind everything. And I thought it was funny that of all the things going on in this movie the one thing that gets the guy in trouble is a woman. What is it about men who just can't resist temptation even when there is so much at stake? I'll never understand that.
As far as the movie itself, it was a little slow moving. I felt like 80% of the movie was building up to this climax and then when the climax hit the movie was over. It was a little strange. Although, that being said, it wasn't a bad movie. It was interesting but it wasn't super exciting. As far as acting, Ryan Gosling did a terrific job. The movie was basically all about him. Everyone else was just support. Even George Clooney.
To Sum it up: Lots of dynamics, a different way to view politics but a little slow going.
The story is about a presidential campaign and the "workings" behind it. The main character, Stephen, played by Ryan Gosling is sort of the PR brains behind a campaign for a presidential hopeful played by George Clooney. He's young and dedicated to the candidate but finds trouble along the way and gets to see how things really work. This movie gave a very interesting perspective into politics. I always wonder why a politician can't stick to their views and beliefs and just do what they think is right. This movie gives a glimpse into why it seems like it is never possible. There are too many ulterior motives behind everything. And I thought it was funny that of all the things going on in this movie the one thing that gets the guy in trouble is a woman. What is it about men who just can't resist temptation even when there is so much at stake? I'll never understand that.
As far as the movie itself, it was a little slow moving. I felt like 80% of the movie was building up to this climax and then when the climax hit the movie was over. It was a little strange. Although, that being said, it wasn't a bad movie. It was interesting but it wasn't super exciting. As far as acting, Ryan Gosling did a terrific job. The movie was basically all about him. Everyone else was just support. Even George Clooney.
To Sum it up: Lots of dynamics, a different way to view politics but a little slow going.
Week 42: The Ides of March
Well, I looked up The Ides of March, because I didn't know what the title of this movie meant. Basically there are a few significant historical happenings that developed into the Ides of March. Literally it is the Roman Calendar day that corresponds with our March 15th. Another significant happening was that Julius Caesar was assassinated on the Ides of March in 44 BC. The title of this movie seems to most closely correspond to the Roman consular year, since the elected Roman consuls took office on the Ides. So...now I know why this movie was titled as such, and so do you. :)
So, this movie wasn't necessarily a movie I had any intentions of seeing. The main reason...it's political, and I am politically ignorant, with no desire to become knowledgeable. I know, it's a sad case for an American to admit, but it's true, politics make me crazy. None the less, this was the movie we attended this week.
If I was political, I think this movie would have been exceptional. George Clooney, Ryan Gosling, and Philip Seymour Hoffman did exceptional as the dirty, game playing, backstabbing, race you to the top men of politics. (Have I mentioned before I don't like politics...) Really, the storyline was pretty believable, but how can I really say? I don't know politics, so many it just followed the storyline of what I believe politics to be. Each man played their parts well, they seemed like politician, then again, I think actors and politicians can be one in the same sometimes.
I guess what I am getting at, I didn't necessarily enjoy this movie, I don't understand or "get" the political games, so I didn't really like watching it in movie form either. If you like politics, go see it and let me know what you think..I am interested in hearing what you have to say.
See you next week!
So, this movie wasn't necessarily a movie I had any intentions of seeing. The main reason...it's political, and I am politically ignorant, with no desire to become knowledgeable. I know, it's a sad case for an American to admit, but it's true, politics make me crazy. None the less, this was the movie we attended this week.
If I was political, I think this movie would have been exceptional. George Clooney, Ryan Gosling, and Philip Seymour Hoffman did exceptional as the dirty, game playing, backstabbing, race you to the top men of politics. (Have I mentioned before I don't like politics...) Really, the storyline was pretty believable, but how can I really say? I don't know politics, so many it just followed the storyline of what I believe politics to be. Each man played their parts well, they seemed like politician, then again, I think actors and politicians can be one in the same sometimes.
I guess what I am getting at, I didn't necessarily enjoy this movie, I don't understand or "get" the political games, so I didn't really like watching it in movie form either. If you like politics, go see it and let me know what you think..I am interested in hearing what you have to say.
See you next week!
Friday, October 14, 2011
Week 41: Footloose
Last week we went to another pre-screening. Free movies are cool. We saw the remake of Footloose. I was a little younger than Deb when the original came out so I probably don't remember it to the extent that she does. I wasn't in my teenage years yet so it didn't stick with me quite as much but of course it was a well known movie of my youth. I mean who didn't see Footloose? (Except maybe Russ. I'm not sure he even saw all the Star Wars movies when they came out. *gasp*)
Like Deb said, they pretty much stuck to the original concept in almost every way except just to give it an updated feel and maybe a little more ethnicity. As a remake, I think it worked just fine. All the actors they chose were good. I totally agree that the dancing was on a much higher caliber this go around. Although I do think random acts of dancing in a movie must have been more acceptable and less cheesy then they are now. Taking out frustration and aggression against the man by dancing in a warehouse by yourself was uncomfortable and slightly embarrassing to me. I don't remember feeling like that when I saw the original. It all just seemed way cool back then. I guess that's the difference from being 7 versus 33.
Julianne Hough was cute and perfect for her role as was Kenny Wormald. Ditto for Dennis Quaid and Andie MacDowell. Overall the casting was good and the movie was fun and entertaining. I don't think anything will compare to the original but do they ever?
To Sum it up: Good cast, fun dancing and overall entertaining.
Like Deb said, they pretty much stuck to the original concept in almost every way except just to give it an updated feel and maybe a little more ethnicity. As a remake, I think it worked just fine. All the actors they chose were good. I totally agree that the dancing was on a much higher caliber this go around. Although I do think random acts of dancing in a movie must have been more acceptable and less cheesy then they are now. Taking out frustration and aggression against the man by dancing in a warehouse by yourself was uncomfortable and slightly embarrassing to me. I don't remember feeling like that when I saw the original. It all just seemed way cool back then. I guess that's the difference from being 7 versus 33.
Julianne Hough was cute and perfect for her role as was Kenny Wormald. Ditto for Dennis Quaid and Andie MacDowell. Overall the casting was good and the movie was fun and entertaining. I don't think anything will compare to the original but do they ever?
To Sum it up: Good cast, fun dancing and overall entertaining.
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Week 41: "Footloose"
We jumped back about 26 years this week and went to the remake of "Footloose". The original movie came out in 1984, I was 14, the same age as my oldest daughter. I think this is the first movie I have seen remade, that I actually remember the first one exceptionally well. Who wouldn't as a 14 year old girl.
This remake was pretty impressive. I think the thing that I noticed was that this time around the actors appeared to be dancers, taught to act, vs Actors taught to dance. In fact I read a clip from the choreographer who said that he had to have the dancers tone it down because they were suppose to be portraying teenagers who didn't have a background in dancing.
The two main actors, played by Julianne Hough and Kenny Wormald, could dance...and are professional dancers. It definately was apparent that these two actors were dancers, I know I didn't know anyone who could dance like that in high school with no formal training. However, that wasn't the point of the movie, and the fact that these kids could all dance (even Willard, played by Miles Teller, picked it all up pretty fast.) was pretty cool when watching the movie. Dennis Quaid and Andie MacDowell(I swear that woman doesn't age) did great as the parents, but there is something to be said about having to fill the shoes of Jim Lithgow and Dianne Wiest.
I think the best way I can describe the movie is this...it's the same "Footloose" with less clothes, better dancing, sexier, and heavier language...pretty much just caught up to the times. The movie was good and I think my 14 year old daughter will remember it as an icon for her time as well...but give me the original with Kevin Bacon and Lori Singer, there is something to be said for the old sentimental.
See you next week.
This remake was pretty impressive. I think the thing that I noticed was that this time around the actors appeared to be dancers, taught to act, vs Actors taught to dance. In fact I read a clip from the choreographer who said that he had to have the dancers tone it down because they were suppose to be portraying teenagers who didn't have a background in dancing.
The two main actors, played by Julianne Hough and Kenny Wormald, could dance...and are professional dancers. It definately was apparent that these two actors were dancers, I know I didn't know anyone who could dance like that in high school with no formal training. However, that wasn't the point of the movie, and the fact that these kids could all dance (even Willard, played by Miles Teller, picked it all up pretty fast.) was pretty cool when watching the movie. Dennis Quaid and Andie MacDowell(I swear that woman doesn't age) did great as the parents, but there is something to be said about having to fill the shoes of Jim Lithgow and Dianne Wiest.
I think the best way I can describe the movie is this...it's the same "Footloose" with less clothes, better dancing, sexier, and heavier language...pretty much just caught up to the times. The movie was good and I think my 14 year old daughter will remember it as an icon for her time as well...but give me the original with Kevin Bacon and Lori Singer, there is something to be said for the old sentimental.
See you next week.
Friday, October 7, 2011
Week 40: 50/50
For week 40 we saw 50/50. It was about a guy in his 20's who finds out he has cancer and how it affects his relationships in his life. The guy, Adam, was played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt. You know, the kid from 3rd Rock from the Sun. His best friend is played by Seth Rogan and his girlfriend Bryce Howard Dallas. His therapist is Anna Kendrick and mother Anjelica Huston.
Obviously this had a pretty sad undertone. But it also had some funny moments thanks to Seth Rogan and some surprisingly funny moments with Anna Kendrick. I'm always surprised by how much I like Anna Kendrick. My first impression of her is the annoying high schooler from Twilight. But then I saw her in Up in the Air with George Clooney and I was super impressed. Anyway, I felt the same way about her in this one too. The jury's still out on Bryce Howard Dallas. And Seth Rogan's crude sense of humor actually fit well.
I thought this movie gave a real genuine take on what it might actual be like to find out you had cancer. The drama that you might find in some movies really wasn't there. It was almost anticlimactic but still told a touching story. It was a really down to earth and a humorous take on a serious situation.
To Sum it up: Sad, funny and touching.
Obviously this had a pretty sad undertone. But it also had some funny moments thanks to Seth Rogan and some surprisingly funny moments with Anna Kendrick. I'm always surprised by how much I like Anna Kendrick. My first impression of her is the annoying high schooler from Twilight. But then I saw her in Up in the Air with George Clooney and I was super impressed. Anyway, I felt the same way about her in this one too. The jury's still out on Bryce Howard Dallas. And Seth Rogan's crude sense of humor actually fit well.
I thought this movie gave a real genuine take on what it might actual be like to find out you had cancer. The drama that you might find in some movies really wasn't there. It was almost anticlimactic but still told a touching story. It was a really down to earth and a humorous take on a serious situation.
To Sum it up: Sad, funny and touching.
Week 40: 50/50
Wow...if we are on week 40 that means we only have 12 more weeks/movies this year. I am so suprised how fast it went, and I can't believe we have seen so many movies!! What great fun we are having!!
So, I am a little slow posting as this was really last weeks movie, and we have already gone to this week's movie, so lets see if we can get caught up.
So we went and saw 50/50. Looked like a different kind of movie. Cancer with humor is what it was played up to be. Probably because Seth Rogan starred in it and he tends to always go the comedy route. Also, Joseph Gordon-Levitt played the main character, and I think he tends to do comedy as well. Anna Kendrick played the main female character.
So, with that cast I wasn't sure what to expect. Well...it was different. There was funniness, romance, seriousness, and all in all a real life feel. The story follows a guy who finds out he has cancer, and basically goes through his story. How he deals with it, how is friends deal with it, and how is family deals with it. Like I said, it just had a real life sort of feel to it. I felt like I was really just watching a guy with cancer, and getting a look into his everyday life.
I have to say I was most impressed with Anna Kendrick. She has played in "Twilight", "Up in the Air", and now this. (She has done lots of Broadway shows too!) She has a certain character type, and I don't know that she could change that too much, but it fit in this movie.
Basically, it was a movie about a real life crisis and they played it that way. I can't say it was the greatest movie in the world, but it wasn't bad. Maybe more of a renter....Coming up next "Footloose"
So, I am a little slow posting as this was really last weeks movie, and we have already gone to this week's movie, so lets see if we can get caught up.
So we went and saw 50/50. Looked like a different kind of movie. Cancer with humor is what it was played up to be. Probably because Seth Rogan starred in it and he tends to always go the comedy route. Also, Joseph Gordon-Levitt played the main character, and I think he tends to do comedy as well. Anna Kendrick played the main female character.
So, with that cast I wasn't sure what to expect. Well...it was different. There was funniness, romance, seriousness, and all in all a real life feel. The story follows a guy who finds out he has cancer, and basically goes through his story. How he deals with it, how is friends deal with it, and how is family deals with it. Like I said, it just had a real life sort of feel to it. I felt like I was really just watching a guy with cancer, and getting a look into his everyday life.
I have to say I was most impressed with Anna Kendrick. She has played in "Twilight", "Up in the Air", and now this. (She has done lots of Broadway shows too!) She has a certain character type, and I don't know that she could change that too much, but it fit in this movie.
Basically, it was a movie about a real life crisis and they played it that way. I can't say it was the greatest movie in the world, but it wasn't bad. Maybe more of a renter....Coming up next "Footloose"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)