Since watching movies seems to be all i am doing nowadays (I don’t have a life!), I thought I might come up with one for movies that went the extra mile making them worthy of the dishonor. So herebelow are some of the movies I watched in the last couple of months. They are posted here in the order I watched them and come with my [short, sweet, unprofessional & not-even-edited] comment! “Yalewin yewerewere nifug aybalim” silemil teretu!.
Feel free to comment on my comments or visit Top Rated Movies at Rottentomatoes (my favorite movie critique site).
I would rather they called it “Bad Movie”. Keaton looks bored, and boring! Holmes looks washed out. And Queen ain’t convincing as a hard working single mother trying to secure a better future for her boys. It neither excites, nor teaches any [cool] life lesson whatsoever. You know.. those “First Sunday” types of movies who would end up with fellon realizing at the nick of time that family is the most important thing in the world, bla bla?! Never liked them, for the same reason I never liked feel-good Romance movies (they reek of bigger, uglier agendas that have nothing to do with neither love or family). But in this case, I’ll go watch those any time! – February 12, 2008
This movie is a DISGRACE!! I mean, I’ve never been a fan of neither Samuel L. Jackson (I think his creer started and ended at the McDowell’s joint on “Coming to America”) nor Hayden Christensen (even if I loved “Shattered Glass”! He is one dude who remains creepy even when he smiles; or lies in a hospital bed dreaming about his soon-to-be “fraud” girlfriend). But they out did themselves in this one.. In a really ugly way! – March 21, 2008
“A disappointing mess” is what i call it. It’s when the directors cast Jon Voight as “Eddie Maintenance” that they dug the hole for their downfall, as we say back here. Correct me if i’m wrong but has there ever been a movie in which you liked Jon Voight except maybe in “Enemy of the State”? And THAT only because, as Jason Lee’s character said, he does indeed look like he’s got “a serious calcium deficiency”. L.o.v.e.d. Jason Lee on it, by the way! – March 24, 2008
Ray Liotta is cast as a magician of the middle ages. What were they thinking? – May 6, 2008
Features an Ethiopian “Archbishop” named “M’butu”! Need I say more?! It’s the kind of thing that makes you wonder if they ever give a shit or were having a blonde moment! – June 9, 2008
Cute though he maybe, Keanu Reeves is always a bad idea, for any movie!
Forest Whitaker is what Forest Whitaker was before “The Last King of Scotland”. Can’t make up my mind on whether the problem is him, or his eye. Makes concentrating on what he is saying difficult. Not that he can ever say it in the way you’d find interesting! So.. good riddance?!
Don’t even get me started on sweet “lova boy” John Corbett! As my favorite rapper of few years ago Eminem would say, “it’s dis-cuss-thing”.
The rest of the cast (some of them pretty good: like the very very very very very very cute rapper/actor broza who played the bad guy - “Common”, I believe his name is :-) – and my very favorite Hugh Laurie who can use the exposure, i guess) are simply wasted on this worthless piece of crap.
Have given it 2.5 out of 10. – June 21, 2008
If somebody hadn’t told me this piece of junk was on box office for some time in 2006, and the DVD copy of “Slaughterhouse” wasn’t full of scratch, I wouldn’t have dreamed of paying a penny for a Love story. Watching a romantic movie gives me the same feeling seeing a child who can chew stake suck his mother’s breast does. Or an adult eating “dabo beshaai”: Nausea!! I guess it wouldn’t have looked so bad if it weren’t for the actress whose forced fragility and innocence makes you wanna slap her till she is black and blue, the exceptionally cute hero whose shrink’s bill you’d willingly pay for, and if the writer/director wasn’t trying to give too-obvious a lesson (on how it’s better to be with those that love you, than those you love). Had such a casual look about it and was exquisitely shot. Too bad those two don’t a good movie make. – July 23, 2008
Didn’t Carry me Away
Remember how eager I was to watch “Sex and the City: The Movie”, and even made a post entitled Still High on SATC about it?! Well, I watched it last night. My reaction? Embarrassment!! I mean, literally! Everytime a scene that made the sister’s soul cringle with disbelief appeared, like when Miranda told Big they were crazy to get married, I turned my head away from the screen and apologetically murmured “erm… this is embarrassing!”, kindda like Harry-Goldenblatt did when sweating all over infront of a pretty client he was hoping to impress.
Save for the introduction part, there doesn’t seem to be any “Sex and the City” tv-series material in “The Movie”. The difference is so apparent that one actually finds it hard to believe those people who created “Sex and the City” – tv-series, lived in the same town with these people who made a movie out of it. Or even in the same decade. I couldn’t imagine where all the smarties went; the comedy that sinks slowly and never really leaves; the brilliance, the homonymous, the shots that reveal more than words could ever do, the secret indicators one later makes a connection to and triumphantly cry “aha!” (except for the over-done scene where Stanford Blatch and Anthony Marentino are standing next to each other, with a silk flower pocking out of Stanny’s coat pockets, pointing to DUH matrimony.. nothing comes to mind); the witty retorts, the winks, the questions, the answers, the life long lesson, the cynicism; the Miranda we knew & loved; Carrie and Stanford’s friendship that lighted the screen every time it appeared; the 5th lady and Samantha’s cancer!
So I checked it. I went to google and read the credits, swearing I won’t be surprised if M. Night Shyamalan was the ingrate who wrote the screen play. To my surprise & satisfaction, it was written by Candice Bushnell (the creator) and Micheal Partrick King (director). Apparently, none of the co-writers, the whizzes who knew the single gal’s life, wrote what they know, and made the series an era all on its own have touched the material. So I wasn’t particularly surprised by the mess that followed:
- Steve saying “you are such a good person, I can’t believe I did this to you” after looking like a dead fish and confessing to Miranda he’s cheated on her (that was not only the worst line a man could say to a woman he cheated upon, but the worst acting I have ever seen on SATC)
- With “Mr. Big” continuing to be “Mr. Baby”
- With Miranda telling him they were crazy to get married.
- With his backing out at the last minute
- With Carrie, as always, making excuses for him.
- With a black girl who has no business in the movie taking half it’s time while we sat there “sleeping and watching” “sleeping and watching” before one moved away, and the other found the envelopes.
- With a botoxed Samantha, a Samantha I found out I don’t care for anymore, dumping Smith Jerrod
- and Carrie ending up marrying big (apparently, as long as she could get him to stay around long enough to say “I do”, she’s sure to live happily ever after)
I said none of these were surprising. But the following two were: surprising and disappointing!
First, the fact that the teacher doesn’t seem to have learned his lesson! The ladies are still counting “coloring outside the line” as a man’s pros. That sounds so “Season II”, doesn’t it? Back when Samantha still believed she was a lesbian, Charlotte left the cafe every time the “f” word is used and Carrie was young enough to convince us that, with the right surgeon, she could almost look pretty. These women are in their 40’s, ferChristsakes. Shouldn’t they be past this by now?!
The second and biggest flaw of “The Movie”, however, is that it doesn’t seem to make up it’s mind who to cater for. I remember Micheal Patrick King saying this about the series’ achievement on the Dvd extras. He said what “Sex and the City”, the series, did for the single gal was to “claim her”. A powerful statement! And a true statement!
God only knows who “The Movie” is trying to claim. It can’t be the audience the series couldn’t manage to get for the sex, although less talked about, was more figurative than usual. It can’t be the rest of us because a vital ingredient was missing out of the sex. It doesn’t have the balls!! Reminding one of EPRDF’s attempt to become the Ethiopian party it never was fooling nobody. Or the whore whose words no one would give credit to even after she became a nun.
“Sex and the City: The Movie” has become like the man who tried “to climb two trees because he’s got two feet”. And has, embarrassingly, failed!!
One word: Shame!
- July 31, 2008
What Happened in Vegas
Oh the usual!
Boy meets girl. They fall in love. He buys the ring, she buys the dress. They say I do. Unfortunately, this one isn’t as neatly tied up as that. Boy meets girl. They said I do. Then say I don’t. Court orders them to work on their marriage. And…they fall in love. But does that twist make the movie go down easily? Nope! Cameroon Diaz, who seem to be going to the dark side with every movie with no improvement to her acting, looks more frighetning than that bag of bones Keira Knightly these days that I’m wondering what I saw in her on “My best friend’s wedding” to root for her so. Ashton Kutchner is Ashton Kutchner. You know, Demi’s son from another father?, “That 70’s show” hunk who looks as if born with two left feet?, a man whose toy-boyish look makes one wonder if anybody takes him seriously and appear to be playing himself in every movie (except for that haunting psycho-thriller “The butterfuly effect” that wouldn’t have needed good acting to be gruesome) with a mouth full of teeth? And, watch out ladies and gentleman, he isn’t afraid to show it!
Final verdict: If only they let “What Happened in Vegas” stay in Vegas!
- September 15, 2008
I’ve always seen Matthew Perry as a kindered spirit. He’s funny, insecure and always screwing it up with the ladies. An observation the result of my “Which friend’s character are you” quiz at Crazy for Friends bear witness to. Ofcourse I’ve failed to warm up to the sitcom ever since Ross found out about Monica and Chandler. It’s all Monica’s hysteria, Pheobes bad acting and dumb Joey-jokes after that. But I’ve seen some of the actors (Aniston & Perry) with favor. I’ve wished them luck in their personal life and the big break. So I was more than excited to find a movie with Matthew Perry as a leading star in it yesterday evening. I had bought all the stuff I need to cook a luxurious dinner earlier. But settled for crackers just so I could get to the movie faster. Half an hour later, I was back in my kitchen waiting for the frying pan to warm so I could start preparing the luxurious dinner. The only good thing about “Numb” is it’s title. “Make sure” it seems to forewarn “that your limbs don’t fall off with bordom”. The rest is a spoilt infantile man’s journey through life from which he’d come out as a spoilt infantile man. It seems the directors, who weren’t too good to begin with, couldn’t decide what to make of the movie so simply decided to bring the first girl back and roll the credits. I wouldn’t envy them their headaches, but Matthew Perry has disappointed me to no little degree. Doesn’t the man have any integrity at all? Or, as Jimmney Cricket once observed, does Hollywood rob you of your integrity also?!
- September 24, 2008
This might have actually been the one Nicholas Cage movie I’d have liked. It’s got a tricky beginning, a predictable yet interesting midriff and an intensity for an environemtal-friendly movie only Shyamalan’s The Happening creepiness could top. More importantly, the protagonist and the beauty he tries to save don’t fall in love; inspite of being single parents and going through the same experience with their kids. But when the big secret is revealed, you feel as if you’ve been kicked in the stomach by a younger brother wearing a vicious ቆዳ ጫማ. Such a low kick, too, you can’t help but chuckle at the pain it caused. There is atleast a redeeming quality to this movie at the very end: everybody else [abbreviated by EE] dies. Yes, the world finally comes to an end and not even Nick Cage’s character could save it.
Good luck with finding the theme!
- July 08, 2009
Sacha Baron Cohen may have committed the gravest mistake of polishing his Brüno persona, but you don’t have to make the mistake of paying good money to watch it. When you hear how young men and women in their late teens and early 20s were leaving the theatre in disgust before we got half way through the movie, you’d understand Brüno is no Borat. A younger, sexier, wannabee brother who mistakes shocking your senses for tickling them, don’t know how to work and exploit ideas when he sees them you would have prefered has remained in “the closet”?!
Ich want mein money back! :cry:
- July 12, 2009
This isn’t exactly a bad movie. But for the believer in the Scorsese/DiCaprio duo, another “The Departed” it is not.
There, ofcourse, are the basics. Grit, pomp and lots of gore. Creepy island with it’s creepy inhabitants shut-off from the rest of the world — with no escape except through a dock guarded by edgy men in arms. A repeated reference to Nazi camps. The murder of innocents. All fire-works before the counting down begins. Colors of kaleidoscopic variance; promising much but, unfortunately, failing to deliver.
Say you haven’t seen all the twist-ending movies Hollywood has come up with (and don’t know how traps and clues are carefully laid to catch the unwary “temelkach” off-guard in the last few minutes); even then.. you gotta be really thick-skulled and uniquely unimaginative if you failed to see “the revelation” coming [and dismiss it thinking Scorsese would know better] atleast once. Why “The Departed” had a better twist-ending; and an obsecure movie with no names in it entitled “Mad House” a more convincing and haunting story line.
Shutter Island is as hallow and pretentious as Alaska’s Ex-governer. The clues never trick. The acting & distractions are annoying; proving more pointless than the acting and distractions of one Identity; which actually has a twist-ending that no one ever saw coming – if a little hard to swallow. And, when all is said and done, we learn the guy we invested so much into isn’t the “awful criminal” that committed “such henious” crimes everybody tries to make him appear but a grief-crazed father who chose to believe his version of the story.
[Big deal!! If that was what makes “criminally insane”, the whole America would have ended up behind bars. Or hospitals with barred doors and electric fences.]
Alas, that isn’t the only point on which the movie falls [flat]. The casting is, almost, ridiculous. Here is Leo, the picture of the tortured soul if I ever saw one, trying to make us decide whether he’s a good guy in the wrong place. Or the wrong guy in the right place. [Apparently] The mirror can’t have two faces! As if that wasn’t enough, we are led to believe Mark Ruffalo’s character may have a darker “shade” to him than meets the eye. Ruffalo, a genuine good guy who seem to wear his heart on his eye-lashes, can only convince as the passive love interest of some eccentric single gal in her late 30’s looking for a heart to call home — or change her “good girl Meg Ryan” image by baring some well-protected flesh.
However, these two would appear more convincingly cast when compared to Michelle Williams: whose bad acting topped with red lipstic and child beauty pageant-queen looks, makes her role of a manic depressive wife slightly comical. A female protagonist of “Get Smart”? Sure. A slutty little sister of one of “Charlie’s Angels”? Even better! But a mother who drowns her three kids in a nearby lake, lines them up in the kitchen table and goes to have lunch on it, meh.. a bigger shoe she can not fail to fill!
Could that, i wonder, describe the whole futile endeavor of “Shutter Island”?! Or was it just a bad novel to adapt?!
- February 26, 2010