Reviews by moviebuff15

The first part of this film is the sad story of how divorced Dad Tim Robbins copes with his three bratty kids (he does commendably, better than I would.) The second part disposes of Robbins and takes a turn into pure ridiculousness, as his two sons Walter and Danny (played sloppily by Jash Hutcherson and Jonah Bobo) play a mysterious board game (a 'la "Jumanji") with magical properties that Danny has found, which proves to have unforeseen consequences.

The acting, save for Robbins', is really bad, not only from Hutcherson and Bobo but also from Kristen Stewart (who plays the completely useless, gape-mouthed character of the boys' older sister) and Dax Shepard as the astronaut who lands on their doorstep when- suprise!- the board game sends the little losers into deep space. The script is not much better, providing mediocre (at best) entertainment for anyone over the age of twelve.

Worse is the unlikablity of the characters, particularly Walter (Josh Hutcherson, a vile little twit who has a thorougly unconvincing road to Damascus halfway through, becoming a better brother to little Danny. Only slightly better than Walter is Danny himself, annoyingly whiny and obnoxious.

Stewart fails to provide steady support as Lisa, while Shepard reads his lines like a man reading the instructions on a container of boxed macaroni and cheese. A twist occurs in the last act that proves to be moderately interesting, if underwhelming, but by that point it is too late to care.

My younger sister (age nine) liked this, though even she had to admit that the acting was pretty piss-poor. Maybe your younger kids will like this too, even the older ones if they lower their standards enough. But this is not embued with family magic the way movies like "Up," "Tangled," or "Spirited Away" are, and in this writer's opinion is only worth watching if all your other DVDs are suddenly destroyed in a fire or sucked into a black hole. Avoid.

This is, without a doubt, the worst piece if garbage I have seen in my eighteen years of being alive. Even more shocking than the fact that this trash exists is the notion that it was well received by audiences everywhere. Even more horrifying is the idea that people are hailing it as 'realistic' and 'meaningful.' This movie is about as 'meaningful' as the alcohol-infueled rants of the legless stepmother in "Buddy Boy," a film that you should rent after I save you from watching "Suburbia."

The 'plot' follows the teenaged Evan (played by Bill Coyne, a young actor who has the charm and acting skills of a block of wood,) as he escapes his alcoholic mother and runs off to squat with a bunch of punks in a derelict building. All this occurs after a pointless and terribly executed scene where a child gets torn apart by a feral dog.

The 'acting' in this is bad. Really bad. People will defend the terrible, wooden performances by telling you that they used 'real punks' with no prior acting experience to play in the movie. I call bulls**t. If you were going to make a film about the profoundly retarded, would you get the genuine article to gape at the camera during the intense moments? No, you would get actors to make the narrative believable.

The dialogue is awful to the point of being laughable. The actors seem to not only be retarded, but also stoned. Here's a sample of the 'meaningful' dialogue. "I've-got-to-tell-you-man...that-sucks-big-eggs." The only think more laughable than the acting, dialogue, story, special effects, etc. is the earnesty of the whole production, displayed by ham-handed scenes where characters describe their alienation and broken homes, delivered with all the subtlety of a blunt hammer.

Simply put, "Suburbia" is not a grade-B movie. It is an insult to grade-B movies, populated with actors who should be working in a gas station somewhere. For a good movie on punk culture, watch Shane Meadows' great autobiographical "This is England." As for me, I would gladly offer myself to "Suburbia"'s flesh-eating Dobermans rather than watch this movie again.

I picked this film after being impressed by director Edward Burns' "Newlyweds," which I found to be well-acted, involving, and true to life. Wow. What a mistake. Not only does "Nice Guy Johnny" suffer from a complete lack of likable characters, it rings totally false, and fails to come up with a valid point for it's entire duration.

The movie is all about a guy named Johnny learning to stand up for himself and following his dreams. The problem is that Johnny is so bland and boring (and uninterestingly played by Matt Bush) that it's hard to care what a 'nice guy' he is.

Johnny is faithful to his b**chy fiance Claire (also poorly played by Anna Woode,) despite the unsavory encouragement by his lecherous uncle (writer/director Edward Burns,) but finds himself attracted to a dull 'free-spirited beauty' (Kerry Bische.)

The beauty, Brooke, is sending him the signals loud and clear, but Johnny's too much of a 'nice guy' to do anything about it. Or is he? The answer lies in annoying scenes punctuated arbitrarily with dull indie songs and stilted dialogue.

Here's the problem- the characters are so mind-numbingly one-dimensional that there is no reason to vouch for or care about any of them. Johnny and Brooke have NO chemistry whatsoever. We don't understand why one likes the other. We know that Brooke has only been with jerks in the past, and that she sees a sensitivity and candidacy in Johnny that floors her. Too bad we couldn't care less about either of them.

Also, the dialogue is bad, especially compared to the unforced naturalness of the dialogue in "Newlyweds." The predictable falling-out between Claire and Johnny seems neither real nor interesting- when she tells him she wishes his pencil dick would fall off, it seems like something a naive pre-teen would have written.

"Good Guy Johnny" is uninteresting and lame, with a lead performance that seems mediocre at best, and characters who behave in increasingly stupid ways. My recommendation- skip it.

Archipelago is exceptionally well-shot, very well-acted, and filmed with such realism that you could be watching a documentary. It has so much potential, in fact, that I would like to gush about it for the entirety of this review. The catch? The pace is so lethargic that it might put you to sleep if you're not careful.

I know, I know. You've heard this all before. 'OMG! This movie is so BORING. I almost fell asleep. Zzzzz LMAO!' But I can assure you, I am not one of those people who needs Michael Bay CGI masturbation to be entertained. I like drama. I like independent filmmaking.

But a film needs to have a hook. A family disintegrating is not a hook. As you and I both know, there are so many depictions of movie families disintegrating that the depiction of the disintegration itself has become a rather ho-hum affair.

Not to say this movie is a completely tepid experience. It's a good three-star movie, well acted, with a very likable performance from Tom Hiddleston (best known as the villainous Loki from Thor and The Avengers) as Edward, an awkward but good-hearted philanthropist. Kate Fahy (the bed-ridden matriarch in The Living and the Dead) plays Edward's mother, Patricia, stretched taut by the strain of her absent husband.

But it is Lydia Leonard (the older sister, Cynthia) who provides the most intense expression of grief and anger half-way through the movie, breaking this serious British family's self-imposed silence.. Cynthia, pushy and nerve-janglingly neurotic reminds me of some of my family, that person who turns a gathering into a familial Hell with their unique combination of anxiety and blame-placing.

But even at one hour forty-nine minutes, this film needs some serious editing. Long conversations meander and go nowhere in particular; scenes of nothing in particular go on entirely too long. This would be okay if these scenes served a purpose, but honestly, I'm not sure they do. They serve as filler, while the film attempts to fulfill its ambitions of high drama.

Now, I'm not telling you whether or not to watch this movie (unlike others, which I would tell you most emphatically to avoid). There is the problem of the slowness, the long, lingering scenes, and the technical issue of the scenes being shot from too far away to see anybody. But, do you know what? That's fine, because Archipelago invokes reality in a way few films do.

And if you're a Thor fan seeking out films with Tom Hiddleston, you might be disappointed, as no Norse Gods come crashing to earth and no epic battles are waged. And Tom isn't trying to destroy the world, just improve it in some small way. And maybe in this context, that is enough.

Emotionally devastating and rewarding, a study of desperate individuals with seemingly nothing to lose, "Tyrannosaur" is one to put on your watch list. Now. Featuring electrifying performances from Peter Mullan, Olivia Coleman, and the criminally underused Eddie Marsan, it is as riveting as it is disturbing and shocking.

Joseph (Peter Mullan) is a man seething with rage and contempt. When we first see him, he is leaving a bar after a fight. Irritated suddenly by the whining of his dog, tied up out side, he gives it a fatal kick in the ribs.

Joseph seems to have this effect on everyone who crosses his path, and he certainly seems incapable of any lasting change, but that doesn't stop kind Christian charity shop worker Hannah (Olivia Coleman) from trying to help, to Joseph's great puzzlement.

Hannah, despite her soft and motherly exterior, has a heapful of s**t going on at home. Heartbreakingly unable to have children, she is also saddled with the world's biggest d**k as a husband- James (Eddie Marsan,) who abuses her in every way possible.

How these two lonely souls find each other is the subject of this discomforting drama, which to me is the most genuinely distressing film since Simon Rumley's "The Living and the Dead." "Tyrannosaur" thrives on that stark realism we've come to expect from the Brits, but goes deeper than most Brit flicks, let alone American films.

I was in one state of distress or another throughout the film. The violence can be upsetting, especially if you are an animal lover, but don't let a couple of scenes prevent you from watching what is most certainly one of the best British films of the last ten years.

Writer/director Paddy Constantine (actor/co-writer of the also great "Dead Man's Shoes") touches his characters with a little something extra, refraining from turning them into dim-witted caricatures. You get something from this film that you don't get very often- the feeling that you have watched a truly great movie. And how great is that? Recommended.

Although putting down a movie as weirdly good-intentioned as "Something is Killing Tate" incites guilt in me, the truth must be told, so here goes. This film, an unholy mix of earnesty, melodrama, and blaxploitation cheesiness, comes up with a hodge-podge of issues- suicide, rape, child abuse, alcoholism, adultery, and childhood disabilities- dials them up to the extreme, and expects to be taken seriously.

Tate (Jocko Sims) is dying inside... an unfortunate victim of childhood abuse by his father (Kevin Nichols, a cartoon caricature of larger-than-life proportions.) After a failed attempt to take his life, he is looked after by his fiance and friends. Tate's feeling of impending doom stop him from hopping into bed with his best friend's girl (Luz Beato, who sleazes and pouts her way through the movie, never once convincing us that she has a brain.)

I go through depression, sometimes suicidal, on a regular basis, and although this films portrayal of depression is okay, it's also pretty pat and often expressed in trite cliches, such as, "I don't feel anything anymore," and, "You deserve better."

Renee (The fiance) and Dottie, Tate's deaf sister seem like the most true-to-life characters, but the dialogue and behavior of Tate's dad Carlton are ludicrous in their implausibility. I'm not saying the things Carlton does could and would not happen in the real world, but the way Nichols' presnts them makes Carlton a character who is difficult to take seriously.

The only standout here is Joshua Curls as the young Tate, who shows a believability beyond his years. Otherwise, "Something is Killing Tate" is disposable, and only valuable for its message of non-violence.

"An Infinite Tenderness" is a beautiful piece of fiction, disguising itself as a documentary exploring the world of brain-damaged children. It has no A-listers and no dialogue, but is probably more moving than any film you'll see this year.

Hollywood is full as saccharine, off-putting, and thoroughly uninspiring films about the mentally disabled. This French experiment challenges preconceptions on a group of people viewed alternately with pity and mocking derision.

Simon is a boy confined to a wheelchair and unable to speak, who spends his lonely and monotonous days in a white-washed children's home, cared for with a grim sense of duty by a black nurse.

The beginning of the film is reminiscent of the first 20 minutes of Mark Hanlon's 1999 indie thriller "Buddy Boy" in its sense of gloom and repetition- but unlike Hanlon's abused stuttering protagonist Francis, Simon keeps a positive attitude for a while, until he too loses his thunder and begins to look at each new day with apprehension and low spirits.

That is, until he meets Emmanuele, who, contrary to the Netflix description, is quite male. Emmanuelle, who has a very similar disability to Simon, communicates through dog-like barks and howls. They begin to connect through acts of touch, art, and music, and open a door inside themselves they didn't know existed.

Now this all sounds very Hollywood, with big-name actors hammily trying to get into touch with their inner spastic, but these kids have an inherent lovability that makes you sympathize with their plight.

They are resilient, without self-pity, even as life takes a s**t in their face. I felt a connection with Simon within the first five minutes. How often can you say that about a character, even one who does speak?

The film is tough-going at first, with nothing happening within the first 45 minutes or so, but hang in there, because at about that point it picks up its pace. There's even a death.

Moreover, this movie changed the way I looked at the severely retarded. Previously I saw these people as having little to offer anyone, almost parasitic in their dependance. When I saw this movie I saw how much these two had to offer each other, in comfort, in affection. I know pretty sappy, right? The child actors are physically disabled and mute by intellectually unimpaired, and the director Pierre Jallaud, directs them with finesse.

"An Infinite Tenderness" is for the patient only. But if you are one of those patient few, looking for that obscure film to movie and wow you, I have one thing to say- watch this movie. Because if you are patient, chances are, you won't be disappointed.

Haters can hate, but we fans know the truth- Joss Whedon is the king. From the science fiction goodness of "Firefly" to the tongue-in-cheek tunes of "Dr Horrible's Sing-Along Blog," Whedon never seems to step wrong.

Despite the knowledge that Joss Whedon would be directing "Thor", along with, strangely, Kenneth Branagh, I could not put aside my apprehension about thus project. The trailer promised lots of yelling, million-dollar special effects, dewy-eyed Natalie Portman, and Chris Hemsworth's abs.

Wasn't I, after all, a girl more interested in Lars Von Trier and Ingmar Bergman than mainstream action films? Wasn't I fan of Simon Rumley? (the fact that you have no idea who this is hoists my arguement considerably.) Who didn't like "X-Men- First Class" even as others gushed about it?

I'm pleased to report, despite my apprehension (and dare I say it, pretensions,) "Thor" exceeded my expectations considerably. Yes, there was dewy-eyed romance, bazillion-dollar special effects, and perectly physiqued A-listers (all the things I hate in a movie- Bah Humbug!)

It's actually one of the first big-budget action/adventure movies I've really enjoyed in a long time. At the heart of the story are two brothers, Thor (Hemsworth) and Loki (Tom Hiddleston,) who live with their parents the king and queen(Anthony Hopkins and Rene Russo) in the mythucal land of Asgard.

Loki wants the throne, and his brother stands in the way of him getting to it- sound familiar (i.e. Disney musical featuring an award-winning Elton John-performed song?) Anyways, Loki is allwed more depth than Scar, because what he really wants is his share of Dad's love, and he's always felt a little different from his royal family.

Just as Loki is devious and back-handed, Thor has a superhuamn dose of hubris. Let's consult the dictionary.
hubris- n. Overbearing pride or presumption: arrogance.
Yeah, that's Thor. He has so much hubris, in fact, that he refuses to back down from a fight, and in a roundabout way, Loki uses that against him, getting him kicked out of Asgard and cast into the human world.

Enter a trio of meteorologists- Darcy (Kat Dennings,) Erik (Stellan Skarsgård,) and Jane (Natalie Portman,) an attractive enough but frankly dull character who becomes the love interest of THor when he crashes to earth. Trapped in the human realm, Thor must learn humility; meanwhile Loki lies, cheats, and manipulates his way to the top, and Asgard suffers for it.

Arrogance driving a hero towards ruin hasn't been done very often in superhero movies (Besides the Godawful "Spider-Man 3," so Thor's hubris proves a welcome motif. Menawhile talented Londoner Tom Hiddleston gives a good performance asthe tormented and sly Loki, making it difficult to tell whether Loki is emoting or merely affecting.

ALthough the special effects are dazzling, they didn't get in the way of the story (although sometimes they distracted me.) One complaint I have is that Jane was as boring a romantic interest as you could find (which is the fault of the script, not Natalie Portman, who proved she could act her ass off in "Black Swan." Otherwise, do I think you should see it? Yes I do.

"Earrings" is an example of a promising failure, when a director shoots for the stars and doesn't quite make it. He has a good idea and a strong leading actress, but the premise and the lead are not enough and the film falls under it's own, aspirational weight.

Just to let you know, I don't feel great writing this review. The director, Alex Winthrow, is a friend of my mother's, and this is his second short film. He spent a year on it and employed a talented and underused actress, Catherine Warner. Warner, who looks way too good for this kind of role, plays Chlo, a drug addict who has suffered a tragedy, and feels responsible for it.

Maybe she is. Maybe she isn't. The film reserves judgement, but Chlo continues to suffer, wracked with grief, and the film leads her to an ambiguous, but hopeful, conclusion. The problems are many- the camera, while good cinematography-wise, is shaky at precarious. The movie, at just past thirty-two minutes, is too short or too long, I can't decide which, and the script does too much lingering and not enough getting on with it.

The conversation between Chlo and Martin McSweeney's character is overly see-through and obvious and seems like more of a heads-up to the viewer than a home-grown dialogue. There is no story arc- Chlo finds the earrings, things start to get better. There is no real revelation except, yes, she loved and was loved. The film, for all it's seriousness, feels somewhat superficial.

Lastly, I do not wish Alex Winthrow any ill intent. I once started watching an early short film by one of my favorite directors, and had to shut it off about five minutes in. Yes. It was *that* bad. "Earrings" is *not* that bad. Someday, Alex Winthrow, may shoot for the stars again, and land among them.

It's 1983, and unsupervised, beleaguered Shaun (Thomas Turgoose) is missing his soldier dad, who died in the Falklands war an unspecified amount of time prior. So when an older boy at school makes a crack about his father, Shaun takes it upon himself to fight the kid, getting both of them into trouble and inciting the events that make up "The Is England," Shane Meadows' semi-autobiographical account of the nuances and temptations of skinhead culture.

Shaun is twelve, high-spirited and foul-mouthed, traits that exasperate his single mother Cynthia (Jo Hartley.) He is damaged and distrustful when he meets Woody (Joseph Gilgun,) a tattooed teenager who runs his own little gang in their coastal town. Contrary to what you might infer, Woody is not the antagonist of the story.

He is a member of a unique subculture of skinheads, who are neither violent nor inherently racist. Leave the violence and racism to Combo (virtual unknown Stephen Graham, giving a performance that rivals Edward Norton's in "American History X,") an old colleague of the weak-willed Woody who leaves prison as volatile as ever.

Shaun sees a father figure in Combo, who manipulates Shaun's future allegiance. When the group breaks up, Shaun and Woody go their separate ways, and Shaun is drawn into a fanatical group of fascists who allegedly want to prevent England's rape at the hands of foreigners. But when Combo goes too far, Shaun his unsure where his best interests lie.

Shane Meadows, who found cult success with the fantastic Brit revenge thriller "Dead Man's Shoes," infuses elements of his own life into this drama, which avoids making the situation black and white or relying on sentimentality.

Stephen Graham gives a standout performance as the skinhead Combo, whose very being seethes with rage and desperation. First-time actor Thomas Turgoose also turns in a good performance as the vulnerable and wayward Shaun. The movie has it's violent and icky moments (Perry Benson crouched with his bare a*s on the floor of an ethnic store trying to take a dump, anybody?) but the film never becomes as exploitative or sadistic as Geoffrey Wright's Australian skinhead drama "Romper Stomper."

Shane Meadows is one of Britain's most intriguing directorial names today, buy I would say you need to watch "Dead Man's Shoes" first and foremost, for a chance to see the filmmaker at the height of his powers. Regardless, "This is England" is intelligent, unflinching, and savvy, and gives a fresh look into a well-known sub genre.