Two more different movies there couldn't be, with Amy Adams in both.I went into "The Master" with high expectations and sadly, couldn't wait for it to be over. Likewise Mrs. Goofy. It's gotten terrific reviews, and even has a huge number on RottenTomatoes (86!), so I'm in the 14%. A more confused mess of muddle I can't imagine. Terrific performances by Joaquin Phoenix and Philip Seymour Hoffman - nomination worthy, but where it started, where it went, and how it got there? I didn't care. Really really didn't care.It's the story of an authoritarian charismatic leader who is not really so charismatic, and the family which follows him around, including Phoenix, a neer do well who tries to convert. Scenes of gratuitous nudity don't enhance, and I wondered why Adams or Laura Dern even bothered, their parts are so meaningless. Ah well."Trouble With The Curve" is not as bad, which is not to say it's good. But then it's a baseball movie, and I'm a sucker for them, even though I know going in that they are going to be cliche ridden: the crack of the bat, the winning run, the players trying to get to - or stay in - the 'show.'"Trouble With The Curve" is a first effort for the screenwriter and for the director, and it shows. The plot points are telegraphed pages in advance, nothing is surprising, everything unfolds apace, and we get neat resolution to most every problem. That might be a spoiler, but then 10 minutes into the film you know that's going to happen; it's like seeing the comedian set up the joke long before he delivers the punch line.I've always liked Clint Eastwood even though I think he's a one-note actor (lately: cranky), but the direction here doesn't help. He's old. We see him be old. Then we see him be old some more, and then he curses at being old, then he pees like an old man, makes himself an old man meal, and is old some more, by which time we are convinced that he is old, and if the director doesn't move the film along the audience will be old, too if something doesn't happen soon.Clint is an aging baseball scout; Amy Adams his aggressive lawyer daughter who serves as conflicted conflict girl, and Justin Timerlake appears mainly as something to occupy Adams, it seems. I guess that's good, otherwise the whole film would be about these two unpleasant people being, well, unpleasant uber alles.And all of that said, it was OK. Not one of the great baseball movies, but at least the story had a beginning, middle, and end, which is more than I can say for "The Master".Now waiting for something decent to appear at the cineplex. I need a good movie.
Goofy, I'm waiting for the Hobbit coming out in mid December...I'm a big fan of Peter Jackson but don't know how he can stretch a book with less than 400 pages into 3 movies...
I, too, saw both "Trouble With the Curve" and "The Master". Walked out of both before the end. TWTC got to be kind of boring and TM was a bit confusing and also somewhat boring. Coincidentally enough, there was a (long) article in the L.A. Times the day following the night I saw The Master with which I totally agree: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/moviesnow/la-et-...~D
The Master was awful. The fact that it has been touted so fondly is proof that Hollywood loves pretentious crap. I can't believe I sat through the whole thing.Now End of Watch...THAT'S good movie-making! Absolutely riveting from beginning to end.-nab
Goofy, I'm waiting for the Hobbit coming out in mid December...I'm a big fan of Peter Jackson but don't know how he can stretch a book with less than 400 pages into 3 movies... By making crap up. You know the parts in the book, where Gandalf would leave the dwarves and Bilbo on their own for a while? Where he would go off and 'deal with' someone called the Necromancer (aka Sauron, only way less menacing, presumably) only to arrive fifty pages later and save the others at the last minute, but not say a word about what he was doing or why?That's a movie and a half right there, if you don't mind making crap up.I was looking forward to The Hobbit until I heard it was going to be a trilogy, because I have to admit to myself that the parts of the The Lord of the Rings trilogy that I least enjoy are the parts where Jackson makes crap up.
You know the parts in the book, where Gandalf would leave the dwarves and Bilbo on their own for a while?The only way I'd see the Hobbit movies is if Gandalf had been played by James Gandolfini.--fleg
Now waiting for something decent to appear at the cineplex. I need a good movie. There's always Paranormal Activity 4. :)dsbrady
I'm a big fan of Peter Jackson but don't know how he can stretch a book with less than 400 pages into 3 movies... Well, after the success of the Return of the King, I suspect now the third movie will be nothing but endings, so that's 1 movie out of the way right there.dsbrady
By making crap up.Howsabout instead of making some of that crap up, Jackson tosses us Tom Bombadil and Goldberry. Just for the halibut. Alas, without the ring to show its lack of power over him, it won't be so special. And if only there were a way to toss in the Scouring of the Shire, which I missed in Return of the King--to me, one of the points of the whole saga was to train the hobbits to retake the Shire and become part of the wider world.I probably won't mind extra Ian McKellen made-up scenes w/Sauron, Saruman, Radagast, or whoever. Since I experienced him on stage doing scenes from Shakespeare at Brandeis in the 70s, when I lived nearby, I've been a ridiculously huge fan.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |