Hahahahahahaha.
Hahahahahahahaha.
Really? Swept Away? Really?
This is a pure movie geek pick. Back in the late 90's/early 2000's, Guy Ritchie was hot as a pistol. He had made the British gangster comedy Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and it as a sleeper hit. I own the movie, it's okay, but in my opinion, somewhat overrated. Then, he made Snatch, which is very much in the vein of Lock Stock, but with a bigger cast and in my opinion and funnier and more interesting script. So, it was on the heels of that he made Swept Away. Now, if he made a mistake in his whole thing at all, it was choosing to cast his real-life wife, Madonna, in the movie.
Now, I'm not picking on Madonna. I think she's fine, she showed talent in Dick Tracy and A League of Their Own and I'm perfectly fine with her as an actress. However, she is notorious of making some really bad bombs. Shanghai Surprise and Body of Evidence comes to mind. So, when you have an actress who is reviled for making some bad films with a director who is entering a genre that he is not really in his element, you're going to have a movie that is critically reviled and thus, "hated."
Now, I did not see this film. It didn't look interesting to me and even for the purposes of writing this series, I still did not watch it. Does this mean I hate the film? No. See, I can separate hate from just thinking a film was badly made. For instance, I do not think Battle Los Angeles was a particularly well-made film. It has holes in the plot, the camera work is dreadful, the characters are not interesting and the action is unwatchable, thanks to the bad camerawork. However, I do not hate Battle Los Angeles. I understand it has an audience and while I do not respect the movie opinion of people who like this film, I also realize that every movie has fans, no matter how bad it is. Battle Los Angeles didn't insult me personally or say someone like me sucks or say people of a certain race or gender or whatever sucks...it's just a bad movie. I'm sure Swept Away falls into the same category.
As for Guy Ritchie, he immediately went back to the genre that made him, making Revolver and RocknRolla after Swept Away (as well as divorcing Madonna, who everyone blames for making Ritchie make the film in the first place). Interestingly enough though, he had to wait until making Sherlock Holmes to have another big hit on his hand (and for the record, the 1st was okay, the 2nd Sherlock Holmes sucked ass). So, did Swept Away really derail Guy Ritchie's career, or was he really overrated to begin with?
Rating: Worth the hate? Unless you're a hardcore fan of Ritchie's previous two movies and just want him to make English comedies, I would say no, it's too generic to hate it.
- Stephenstein
This movie came out and I don't think anyone even realized it. I caught this the other day. I was intrigued from the trailer as it appeared to be set in the late 80's/early 90's, a generation I grew up in.
Overall, it wasn't bad. It's about Topher Grace, who was a brain in school (he's like Rain Man with numbers) but a loser with the ladies. He's working for a video store now and in walks in Tori, his high-school crush. After pretending to work for a high-powered bank, she invites him to a big party that night...one he's never gone to before. With his sister (Anna Faris) and his buffoon friend, who just got fired from his job at an auto dealership, he tries to hook up with her at the party.
Now, this movie had it's strong points and its weak points. Topher Grace has this easy likeability about him. He doesn't do anything too stupid either, he's just good at playing the every-guy who has to get by with his brain and sense of humor over looks. There was a really good exchanged between him and the girl who played his crush about whether or not she would have dated him in high school. The answer out of her mouth was no...I don't think I've seen a movie do that before. It's always stereotypically "yes, you should have asked me". In this case, it's no! And he's relieved! His reasoning "if you said no, then I would have hated you and wouldn't be sitting her right now." I like that! Also, the scene where he tricks the guy by elaborating on his fake job, is great!
His friend is kind of annoying (though it was jokes when he tried to do a dance-off with another guy). Anna Faris really has nothing to do, we have a subplot between her and this guy, they're together, but he's kind of a douche and even though he's honest with her, she still leaves him. Typical stuff. There's also cocaine and other stuff...I don't care about that sort of thing, so whenever they delve into it, it's pointless to me. The soundtrack was reminiscent of the time period, so that was nice. There was also a weird Angie Everhart scene...but she still looks pretty damn amazing!
So, a slightly above average comedy. If you really like Topher Grace, then you should see this, otherwise, it's a renter at best, but not bad.
Rating: 3 out of 5 stars.
- Stephenstein
I liked Ben Affleck's other directed movie, Gone Baby Gone, so I thought I would check this one out, too. Even though he's once again doing a film based in Boston, and once again, it's based on a novel, I thought hey, if Scorsese or Allen can always make films based in NYC, why not Affleck? Then I realized I was defending the man without even seeing the film, and stopped. So, The Town is a really solid drama/heist film, that is elevated somewhat by the performances of the cast, especially Ben Affleck and Jeremy Renner. Okay, before everyone starts ranting, all you can calm the hell down: Affleck can act. This movie proves it. The guy's could get an Oscar nod, he carries the film acting-wise, and is the moral centre of the picture. He can carry a picture, and he's a damned fine actor. His scene where he finally snaps on Renner is pretty powerful. I was glad to see Renner prove The Hurt Locker was no fluke either, his edgy performance as Affleck's best friend might see him nomed again, as well. The other actors are pretty good too, with an honourable mention to Jon Hamm as the dogged FBI guy who walks a fine line between reason and intimidation to crack the case. The story itself is nothing new. 4 guys are doing bank and armoured car heists, wearing different getups. The job at the start sees Affleck's crew use Rebecca Hall to get into the vault, and then they inexpicably take her hostage. Affleck follows her afterwards to make sure she knows nothing, and they start a romance, naturally. Affleck is the guy who wants to break away from the gang, and go straight, but no one will let him. As he gets in deeper, you begin to question if he will walk away, or end up another casualty in the rough neighbourhood he and his cronies hail from. Okay, so nothing Earth-shattering, but pretty good, and the movie was for the most part, enthralling. It would have been better though, if so many of the actors chose not to adorn thick Boston accents. I couldn't understand what some of them were saying, half the time. Also, for authenticity, they use slang and lingo familiar to people from Boston, or from people in Charlestown, the section of Boston that the film is set in. Once again, that's all nice and well for authenticity, but I AM NOT FROM BOSTON! I don't know what they were talking about, and I actually wrote a book set in Boston! So, that sort of took me out of the movie, a little bit. The other thing was, and you can't avoid this with the subject matter, but there is a slight element of who cares to this movie, in relation to the characters. They're all bank robbers, quite a few of them are drug users, and Renner kills and shoots guys pretty indiscriminately. Affleck wants to go straight, but trust me, he isn't an angel, either. While the film sets up that this is pretty much how the residents of Charlestown are, where apparently they have the most bank robberies per capita in the United States (a fact posted before the movie), you take a risk when you make a film about such people, because basically they're lowlifes. If you're okay with that, fine, but if not, be warned, these guys are bad guys, and you're going to be following them around for most of the movie. So, that's The Town. I enjoyed it for what it was, and am encouraged that Affleck has proven to be a solid director so far. This film is definitely Oscar-bait, so expect to hear more about it when awards season starts. Rating 3.5 out of 5 stars. - Stephenstein
I watched this movie, because of a serious attraction I have for Zooey Deschanel. Hey, I can admit it, I'm weak...I think she's really beautiful, I love those big blue eyes of hers. Oh yeah, and up to this point, I've been searching for a film of hers I've liked. This one, I did not know much about, and generally when I come across one of those, I end up being pleasantly surprised. Was I here? Let's put it this way...I'm still searching for a film she's done that I've liked.500 days of Summer is not a love story. The movie goes to great lengths, and great pains to point this out. In this way, it is ususual, because it is not a romantic comedy, the two leads do not end up together (oh there I've gone and spoiled the movie, so everyone will now not see this picture...not that they were going to, anyway). I would commend a film for being honest about how much finding love sucks nowadays (spoken like a true bitter single man...but then again, I am a bitter single man, so who better to say it?), but the problem is, it's just too realistic, and makes me pissed off, just thinking about it. Surprise, surprise, I have major problems with the Summer character (Deschanel). She starts out with this big soapbox speech about how she doesn't want a boyfriend, doesn't think that people should have labels, etc, etc. Okay. However, she calls Gordon Joseph-Levitt a "friend." Okay, class, any questions? Yes, you in the back! The guy with his hand up! "Isn't that a label?" Shut up! You're making sense! We can't have that in this movie. Okay, so calling someone a friend isn't a label, but calling someone a "boyfriend" is. Fine. As long as you aren't, you know, trying to initiate a kiss in the photocopier room, or jumping into bed with him, or suggesting that they have shower sex, based on a scene you've seen in a porno you've both rented. Oh wait, she does all that. So...wouldn't that make him your boyfriend. "I'm not sure." Okay...are you doing this with your other friends? No. WELL THEN, HE'S YOUR BOYFRIEND, ISN'T HE? It's like, I think this attitude actually exists with some girls, but I dont' need to be reminded of this. Then she states she doesn't believe in love, or getting married. That's one of things she tells him, and one of the reasons she leaves Joseph-Levitt, later on. He wants a commitment, she doesn't believe in that. However, she does appear to believe in that later on, when she gets married...oh yeah, but not before leading on Joseph-Levitt, that he still has a chance with her, before she ignores him at a party, and shows off her engagement ring to someone else at the party. Later on, when he confronts her about this, she explains that what happened with her decision was "what always happens...life." Okay, can I say something now? Bulls**t. It's a cop-out to say that, and shows the character would rather hide between generic platitudes then own-up to her own deception. See, it wouldn't anger me so much, but I have to stress, that the Deschanel's character initiated everything...the first kiss, the first night of sex, everything. Then, she just drops him, (saying that favourite bone crusher when she does "Tom, you're still my best friend"), and despite all of her speeches, she ends up falling in love, and pays absolutely not penalty for the damage she inflicted on Tom. That is why I did not like this movie. I did however like the Gordon Joseph-Levitt character (with his greeting card soliloquy being the highlight of the movie), and that's what saved this movie from being a complete and utter disaster, but nevertheless, I was not impressed. Rating: 2 starsI bid thee a fond, angry goodnight.- Stephenstein
