Revolves around the conspiracy theory that William Shakespeare (Rafe Spall) did not write any of his plays or sonnets, but that is was the aristocratic Edward De Vere, Earl of Oxford (Rhys Ifans) who wrote them. There is also political turmoil surrounding Queen Elizabeth I (played by Joely Richardson in younger years and Vanessa Redgrave in her older years) and her advisor William Cecil (David Thewlis) as well as the Essex rebellion. From Roland Emmerich, director of '2012', 'The Day After Tomorrow', 'The Patriot', and the 1998 'Godzilla'.
The trailers made it look very good and I was eagerly awaiting it to come to Muncie. But due to the very limited release that it received, this movie never came to any of the theaters in Muncie. It might have came to Indianapolis, but back in my junior year of college I wasn't really wanting to drive an hour to go see a movie. My mindset about that has changed, but I'm getting off topic. Eventually I just rented it from Redbox and...you know, it's an interesting conspiracy theory. But overall it just wasn't all that interesting of a movie and it's main plot of Shakespeare being a fraud was bogged down by all the political subplots that go to some rather strange places. I mean the overall look of the movie is great and the acting is fine, it just wasn't interesting or engaging.
Perseus (Sam Worthington), mortal son of Zeus (Liam Neeson), battles the minions of the underworld to stop them from conquering heaven and earth. With Ralph Fiennes as Hades, Gemma Arterton as Io
The trailers made it look like it would be a lot of fun, but to make a long story short, it wasn't. Admittedly the movie is awesome whenever Liam Neeson is onscreen, and the only real highlight of the movie is when he finally says 'Release The Kraken'. But bad CGI, the acting being all of the place, and an overall rushed and clunky story plague this remake of the 1981 original. Saw this in 2D having not heard any good things about the 3D conversion. This was bad enough that I have yet to see the sequel 'Wrath of the Titans', which I've heard is even worse.
Stunt motorcyclist Johnny Blaze (Nicolas Cage) gives up his soul to become a hellblazing vigilante, who must fight against power hungry Blackheart (Wes Bentley), the son of the devil himself (Peter Fonda). With Eva Mendes as Blaze's love interest and Sam Elliott as a mysterious cemetery worker.
Admit it: That shot in the trailer where the Ghost Rider riding down a skyscraper on his motorcycle and whirling around a flaming chain was AWESOME. It's a shame the movie itself was a huge letdown with some spectacularly bad acting, forced awkward sounding dialogue that nobody would ever say, inconsistent CGI (some good, some awful), and most of the fight scenes just felt kinda rushed. Once again here is a movie that was so bad that I have yet to see the sequel, this one being 2011's 'Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance'. I've heard that it actually is better, but that's not saying much. Heck, most movies in general are better than 'Ghost Rider'. 'Spider-man 3' is ever better than 'Ghost Rider' for goodness sake.
Following the death of his father, Britt Reid (Seth Rogen, who also co-wrote and ), heir to his father's (Tom Wilkinson) large company, teams up with his late dad's assistant Kato (Jay Chou) to become a masked team that poses as criminals in order to stop them. With Cameron Diaz as Reid's new assistant, Christoph Waltz as a villainous mobster who's going through a mid-life crisis, and James Franco in a brief cameo as a nightclub owner.
I generally like Seth Rogen's movies, and this looked like it might be a fun action comedy. But let's just say 2011 didn't exactly start off on the right foot when this finally released and I saw it. Rogen's humor just didn't work for this movie. It's just not very funny and Christoph Waltz, who can be a rather intimidating villain like in 'Inglourious Basterds', is hugely wasted. And Cameron Diaz really didn't need to be in this. This was also offered in 3D, but I opted for the 2D version. It would have been disappointing regardless, but at least it saved me a couple bucks.
'Invictus' (PG-13)
Nelson Mandela (Morgan Freeman), in his first term as the South African President, initiates a unique venture to unite the apartheid-torn land: enlist the national rugby team, led by Francois Pienaar (Matt Damon), on a mission to win the 1995 Rugby World Cup. Directed by Clint Eastwood, and earned Academy Award nominations for both Freeman (Best Actor) and Damon (Best Supporting Actor).
Ever since I saw 'Gran Torino' and loved it, I instantly decided that I would watch anything that Clint Eastwood directs. That's the only reason why I'm planning on seeing the 'Jersey Boys' movie this summer, but I'm getting off topic. 'Invictus' looked great. Not only did it look like a rousing inspirational sports movie, it also looked like an inspirational biopic of Nelson Mandela. And with Morgan Freeman of all people playing Mandela, what could go wrong? Pacing, that's what. It's long and drawn out, and because of that I got bored and I couldn't really get invested in any of it. The one good scene was when the rugby team visits Mandela's jail cell, but I think I caught that in between dozing off. And usually I'm wide awake during movies. On the plus side...this is the best rugby movie I've seen. It's also the only rugby movie I've seen, but I digress.
Nelson Mandela (Morgan Freeman), in his first term as the South African President, initiates a unique venture to unite the apartheid-torn land: enlist the national rugby team, led by Francois Pienaar (Matt Damon), on a mission to win the 1995 Rugby World Cup. Directed by Clint Eastwood, and earned Academy Award nominations for both Freeman (Best Actor) and Damon (Best Supporting Actor).
Ever since I saw 'Gran Torino' and loved it, I instantly decided that I would watch anything that Clint Eastwood directs. That's the only reason why I'm planning on seeing the 'Jersey Boys' movie this summer, but I'm getting off topic. 'Invictus' looked great. Not only did it look like a rousing inspirational sports movie, it also looked like an inspirational biopic of Nelson Mandela. And with Morgan Freeman of all people playing Mandela, what could go wrong? Pacing, that's what. It's long and drawn out, and because of that I got bored and I couldn't really get invested in any of it. The one good scene was when the rugby team visits Mandela's jail cell, but I think I caught that in between dozing off. And usually I'm wide awake during movies. On the plus side...this is the best rugby movie I've seen. It's also the only rugby movie I've seen, but I digress.
'J. Edgar' (R)
J. Edgar Hoover (Leonardo DiCaprio), powerful head of the F.B.I. for nearly 50 years, looks back on his professional and personal life. With Armie Hammer as Hoover's right hand man Clyde Tolson, Naomi Watts as Hoover's secretary, Judi Dench as Hoover's mother, and Josh Lucas as Charles Lindbergh.
Another disappointing movie that just so happened to be directed by Clint Eastwood. I could have included his movie 'Hereafter' in this list too, but this list is already long as is. From the trailers, 'J. Edgar' looked really good. And I was hoping that at least it would be better than 'Invictus' and 'Hereafter'. And it is.........marginally. Don't get me wrong: DiCaprio turns in a great performance as J. Edgar Hoover. But the movie itself is really, really, really dry, almost to the point of boredom. And the old age makeup they used for DiCaprio, Hammer and Watts is so godawful and fake looking that it's just downright laughable. Heck, Johnny Knoxville's old age make up in the 'Jackass' movies is far more realistic. Subplots involving Hoover's private life (which have never been officially confirmed to be true) are forced and to be honest they didn't really need to be in the movie, but at times it's almost the main focus. There are far more interesting subplots in this movie that the movie could have dwelled on, but nope. Also didn't help that a group of twenty-somethings in the theater kept laughing at inappropriate times, getting angry glares from myself (sitting a few rows behind them) and a group of fifty-somethings sitting down the row from them.
J. Edgar Hoover (Leonardo DiCaprio), powerful head of the F.B.I. for nearly 50 years, looks back on his professional and personal life. With Armie Hammer as Hoover's right hand man Clyde Tolson, Naomi Watts as Hoover's secretary, Judi Dench as Hoover's mother, and Josh Lucas as Charles Lindbergh.
Another disappointing movie that just so happened to be directed by Clint Eastwood. I could have included his movie 'Hereafter' in this list too, but this list is already long as is. From the trailers, 'J. Edgar' looked really good. And I was hoping that at least it would be better than 'Invictus' and 'Hereafter'. And it is.........marginally. Don't get me wrong: DiCaprio turns in a great performance as J. Edgar Hoover. But the movie itself is really, really, really dry, almost to the point of boredom. And the old age makeup they used for DiCaprio, Hammer and Watts is so godawful and fake looking that it's just downright laughable. Heck, Johnny Knoxville's old age make up in the 'Jackass' movies is far more realistic. Subplots involving Hoover's private life (which have never been officially confirmed to be true) are forced and to be honest they didn't really need to be in the movie, but at times it's almost the main focus. There are far more interesting subplots in this movie that the movie could have dwelled on, but nope. Also didn't help that a group of twenty-somethings in the theater kept laughing at inappropriate times, getting angry glares from myself (sitting a few rows behind them) and a group of fifty-somethings sitting down the row from them.
Another Leonardo DiCaprio movie on this list? Oops. Oh well. In 1954, U.S. Marshal Teddy Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio) is investigating the disappearance of a murderess (Emily Mortimer) who escaped from a hospital for the criminally insane and is presumed to be hiding nearby. With Mark Ruffalo as his partner, Ben Kingsley the head of the hospital, and Max von Sydow as a doctor. Directed by Martin Scorsese.i
The trailers made it look like it would be a really good thriller. But once again, here we have a movie that was so slowly paced not only was I not really all that invested in the movie but I was also dozing off. And like I said, that rarely ever happens. As soon as I heard that there was a twist I kinda jokingly told myself what it would be. And sure enough....I was right. And I was disappointed. Instead of a thriller I got a snoozer. Thankfully Scorsese's next few movies (the kid-friendly 'Hugo' and the keep-the-kids-far-far-far-far-away-from-this-movie 'The Wolf of Wall Street') more than made up for this.
A young girl (Emily Browning) is institutionalized by her abusive stepfather. Retreating to an alternative reality as a coping strategy, she envisions a plan which will help her escape from the mental facility along with her fellow inmates (including Jena Malone, Abbie Cornish, Jamie Chung and Vanessa Hudgens). With Oscar Isaacs as one of the men in charge of the institution, Carla Gugino as a doctor at the institution, and Jon Hamm as a lobotomist. Directed by Zack Snyder, who also directed '300', 'Legend of the Guardians', 'Man of Steel', and the 'Dawn of the Dead' remake.
This trailers made this movie look AWESOME. Well....there's only seven things that I liked in this movie:
1 thru 5. Emily Browning, Jena Malone, Abbie Cornish, Jamie Chung, and Vanessa Hudgens. Need I say more?
6. Emily Browning's haunting, but extremely good cover of The Eurythmics' "Sweet Dreams (Are Made of This)" that plays over the opening scene.
7. My hometown of Fort Wayne is listed on a bus towards the end of the movie.
Other than those, this movie is a mess. Visually sure it's fantastic, but the visuals can't make up for a confusing storyline that's constantly changing realities. One minute the institution turns into a brothel, then it goes into a fantasy world, then back into a brothel, and so on and so forth. It's constant jumps in realities make it hard to really follow what's going on in this movie. And with Scott Glenn popping up randomly as an old man giving out advice and their objectives in the various realities, 'Sucker Punch' plays out like a video game that your parents wouldn't let you play when you were a kid. So you decide to go over to your friends house to play it...but your friend ends up playing it the entire time you're at his house.
As he plans his next job, a longtime thief (Ben Affleck, who directs and co-wrote) tries to balance his feelings for a bank manager (Rebecca Hall) connected to one of his earlier heists, as well as the FBI agent (Jon Hamm) looking to bring him and his crew (including Jeremy Renner in an Oscar nominated role for Best Supporting Actor) down.
This looked like it would be a really good thriller, but once again instead of a thriller I sat through a snoozer. Once again, we have a movie that was so drawn out and almost boring that I couldn't get invested in any of it at all and I remember dozing off at least once or twice during this movie. At least Ben Affleck's next movie 'Argo' more than made up for this.
Remake of the 1941 classic that puts now acclaimed Shakespearean actor Lawrence Talbot (Benicio Del Toro) returning home to England after his brothers disappearance. He makes amends with his father Sir John (Anthony Hopkins), meets his brothers fiancee (Emily Blunt) and eventually goes after whatever killed his brother. He then gets bitten, and soon everyone starts coming after him, including an inspector from London (Hugo Weaving).
This had potential. It has a great cast, keeps the time and setting from the original, production design wise looked great, and it looked like it could actually have been scary. I liked the overall look of the film....the cinematography and transformation scenes were amazing, but overall I was left unsatisfied. None of the actors appear to be trying at all and the story is okay but detracts from the original in a big way (due to a ridiculous and unneeded plot twist). Apparently its release date was pushed back four times (from November 2008...it was finally released February 2010) and it went through several edits, re-shoots, and a change of directors before we got this. And it shows. It updates the violence and gore which wasn't present in the original, but I didn't mind that....and apparently neither did the 2-yr old that was also in the theater. And for the most part it's really not that scary. Some jump scares, sure, but it's only due to the volume suddenly being loud and not from anything scary actually happening.
I could go on and on and on with other movies that disappointed me, but I'll stop here for now. What movies were you disappointed with?
No comments:
Post a Comment