I've been watching a lot of movies lately. I'm still unemployed and, because I'm unemployed I don't have any money and, because I don't have any money, I don't go out and, because I don't go out, I'm not really making any new friends. And by not really I mean not at all. It's hard to make friends when you can afford to do absolutely nothing.
Anyways, I like hanging out with my brother and my sister-in-law so it works out fine and they watch a lot of movies so, full circle back to the beginning, I watch a lot of movies too. That is the reason I can now bless you with another fantastic movie review installment. I'm mostly waiting for some newspaper or magazine to read this and offer me a full time job writing movie reviews. So, if you're a newspaper or magazine editor, I'M TOTALLY FREE TO WORK ANY TIME! And also: SPOILER ALERT!
I bought this book for my brother for Christmas and he hated it so he wanted to rent the movie so he wouldn't have to read the rest of the book. It was this movie that made me realize that my brother and sister-in-law and I have totally different tastes in movies. They like "movies" which I define to be blockbuster type shows with a very defined genre and storyline. This was more of a "film" which, to me, is more of an artsy, character driven, read more into what you're actually seeing kind of show. I like "movies" but I get more out of "films" and enjoy watching them more because there is so much more to appreciate. Oh, do you want to actually know what the movie was about? Ok. In the movie everyone goes blind because of some disease and Juliana Moore doesn't go blind but she pretends she does so she can be with her husband but he cheats on her anyways so he's kind of an asshole. But then she forgives him. The end.
So, basically, this review is more about my taste in movies than the actual movie itself. Note to newspaper or magazine editor: Maybe don't pick this one if you are deciding whether or not you should hire me.
I'm going to go ahead and give this one 4 out of 5.
This one is about this guy played by Samuel L. Jackson who is an ex-cop who doesn't like his neighbours and is a total asshole because he wants them to leave. I was pretty much frustrated for the entire movie because he was such a dick head and the tagline said that the neighbours "got back at him" but they never really did unless you include shooting and killing him at the end getting back at him. Because I guess they did then.
Only 2 out of 5. Sorry Samuel.
This one was pretty good actually. It's about Big Brother and The Man trying to bring us down and shit. If you're paranoid or a conspiracy theorist, maybe don't go see this because the idea is that the government can keep track of you by the battery in your cell phone and security cameras and you should watch out because THEY ARE ALWAYS WATCHING YOU and then things go awry. VERY awry. I'm not going to tell you the end though because you should go watch it.
I'm going to say 4 out of 5 for it's actionpackedness.
Burn After Reading
This was another "film" so, even though I thought it was good, I'm basically never allowed to pick movies again. It's mostly about Brad Pitt trying to convince people he is a good character actor which, in my opinion, he's not. He can play "fucking crazy" pretty good and I liked him in the Oceans movies but he wasn't really playing a character in those. In this movie he was playing this young "gym dude" who was kind of like a surfer dude only he worked at a gym. He didn't do a horrible job but it was kind of like he was on an inprov team and every time he had a line it was like he was waiting for someone in the audience to yell out what his character was and then someone eventually would yell out "gym dude!" and then he would be like, "Oh, yeah, gym dude, that's a good one" and then he would be Brad Pitt playing a gym dude. Kind of like that.
Anyway, despite that distraction, I really did like the movie. I really enjoy George Clooney and what's her name from Fargo.
So, 4 out of 5.
This was about the Duchess of Devonshire and her life with the Duke and how much of a douche he was because he didn't really love her but he could take in a mistress and she couldn't be with the man she loved which is totally unfair if you ask me. It was pretty dry but Keira Knightley was pretty good in it and the costumes were pretty cool. I think it would have been better if Hugh Grant would have been in it somewhere. I really like him. I don't know where he would fit in though. Maybe he could have been her boss or something who she had a crush on and then he falls in love with her but treats her like garbage so she ends up hooking up with the other guy who is super boring but really a cool guy when you get to know him. It wouldn't have been historically accurate but it would have probably made the movie better.
3 out of 5. (4 out of 5 if you go with the Hugh Grant version)
First off, Keifer Sutherland what happened to you? You used to be cool man. What are you doing in a movie like this?
Secondly, I'm not a big fan of the horror genre but, for what it was, it was pretty good. The acting was sub par which is really to be expected in a movie like this, and there were a couple parts which were pretty disgusting but the idea was cool and the ending was good. Amy Smart was in this one as well which pretty much tells you what kind of movie it's going to be. I haven't seen her in a good role since Felicity. The writing was actually not bad but the delivery in parts was a bit forced. It was like the characters had only three ways to read a line: normal, scared, and angry. And there was never a smooth transition from one emotion to another. One line was read in a normal tone of voice AND THEN THEY WOULD YELL because they were angry and, just to make sure you knew they were angry, they would force in an F-bomb in a way that said, "See? I said fuck. See how angry I am? I'm so angry!" Anyways, my point is, it was really unnatural.
For what the movie is: 3 out of 5
For the movie itself: 2 out of 5
And there you have it.
I really need a job.