Much more fun: This hilarious "We Bought a Zoo" Parody Twitter Account: http://twitter.com/#!/weboughtaz00
Stephen, how can this possibly be misconstrued as sexist? It's no secret that many actresses have had to overcome being dismissed as merely a "pretty face" to prove they're serious thespians (ever hear of Marilyn Monroe?), and I was just pointing out that Charlize Theron is one of the ones that managed to overcome that stigma in a major way.
As for her being "dowdily dressed down" for North Country -- yes, considering what we normally see her wearing, she did dress down for that part. Or do you think she wears dirty overalls to award ceremonies and film premieres?
Finally, yes, I would say the same for Robert De Niro in Raging Bull. And in fact, I did, when I mentioned that he gained 60 pounds for his role: http://clclt.com/charlotte/raging-bull-and…
Boise Weekly's George Prentice titled his review of the same movie, "A First Class Bitch." IMDB forum boards are crying "chick flick" before even viewing the trailer. Matt Brunson states that a past character Theron played dressed down. One of these things is not like the other.
"In an effort to prove she was more than just a pretty face, Charlize Theron was horribly made up for Monster and dowdily dressed down for North Country, consequently winning an Academy Award for the former and a nomination for the latter." This is sexist. Would you say the same for Robert DeNiro for Raging Bull? Russell Crowe for Master and Commander? And, she was NOT dowdy for North Country; it was a period film (70s?) and she was a miner.
TOO SLOW MOVING
My husband and I just watched this movie. We had no idea what it was about or who the stars were. We both really enjoyed it! I seriously don't have a clue as to why it got so many bad reviews. It was a good concept, kept us entertained throughout, and was far superior to the much-hyped "Tower Heist", IMO. We were both pleasantly surprised.
Can't wait. And it irritates me to death that people defend Bay's Nigbots by observing that one of the voice actors was--gasp! Actually black! Wow. THAT settles it. As if not a single misogynistic film ever featured a--gasp! real live woman. Idiots.
Thanks for writing, guys. Yes, of course the role is based on Rogen himself (this isn't exactly breaking news), but you seem to have "based on fact" confused with "actual documentary." You're gonna tell me every single scene was ripped from reality and none of it was artistic license? Besides, Rogen can be quite charming and appealing off-screen; Kyle was basically just a caricature of the sort of obnoxious doofus that populates every standard and predictable comedy these days (hardly a cinematic original), and I maintain that he throws this movie off its rhythm.
Rogan WAS THE ACTUAL ROOMMATE! He is playing himself. You want somebody else to come in and play a toned-down Seth Rogan? Please. Somebody just didn't do their research. Not to mention it would have been a fairly standard and predictable (albeit well-acted) movie without that relationship.
You do realize that Seth Rogen is actually playing himself. He is the writer's actual best friend who helped him through his cancer battle. If you want real, then this is it. He is literally playing himself. Funny, maybe you could use "the google" and research the actual story behind the movie before you write a review.
Absolutely right on. The only thing I can imagine is that the writer has a friend just like Kyle. But it doesn't change the fact that Rogan's character unnecessarily pulls down an otherwise good film.
You're spot on there Rich. I was completely horrified when I noticed Tommy sticking coins in the machine when it should've infact been bills! The woe! This completely ruined the Movie and additionally my whole day. I highly doubt i'll be watching any movies again anytime soon.
THERE WAS A MISTAKE IN WARRIOR. THE CASINO SLOT MACHINES IN AC, HAVE NOT TAKEN ACTUAL COINS IN ABOUT 8 YEARS..THEY NOW ONLY TAKE BILLS, THEN PRINT OUT VOUCHERS TO CASH..THEY DON'T DISPENSE COINS...CAN WE SAY BLOOPER?
I enjoyed your review and agreed with you in regards to the 2011 edition, but you quick and complete dismal of the 1982 version was almost offensive to me. You may have not enjoyed the 1982 version, but you cannot disregard the fact that it is a cult classic.
The canon of Conan the Barbarian is vast to say the least, and to say John Milius and Oliver Stone (who you conveniently left out as a writer) treatment of the character as "a lumbering bore" actually makes me think you either have a grudge against the science fiction fantasy or saw the 1982 version in passing and dismissed it quickly. The entire movie is devoted to developing the character of Conan not as a superhero, but as a savage slayer of men and kings who was forged from the brutality of men of great power. Conan doesn't speak for the first part of the movie because there is literally nothing to be said; Conan was not asked what he thought about slavery or being forced to become a cage fighter like a dog because he had no choice, and, later, no real care to discuss his situation. Showing how he becomes brutal and having it narrated, saying, "He did not care anymore. Life. Death. The same." and then watching his character grow is half of the charm of the movie. John Milius and Oliver Stone do a seamless job of executing this, particularly in this era of plot hole riddled movies. Not only that but the movie is almost a hallmark of top tier, finely executed non-CGI action. If memory serves someone actually lost the tip of their finger in one of the sword fights and they were plating semi-real swords into specially designed blood pack vests. All with out super fast cuts and cartoon looking CGI. As for Arnold's performance, again I feel you were being amazingly short sighted and unfair.
First of all, if there was ever, EVER, two characters that were almost written for Arnold it was Conan and The Terminator. To argue Arnold had a wooden performance in these movies is to disregard the character he is playing in those films. Arnold, to my understanding, in real life is a real cut up, and a funny exuberant guy, so you would have to argue that his wooden acting of wooden characters was not done well. Which is very hard because his steely look is what made him so famous in the first place, not his amazing character acting and execution of dialog and monologues.
The movie opens with an aphorism from Nietzsche: "That which does not kill me, only makes me stronger." Nietzsche was speaking of the military life, the life of a warrior in the aphorism - the movie then opens with the amazing score by Basil Poledouris, which he also conducted, and shows us the casting of Conan's family sword. Science fiction and action movies are not made this way anymore, with depth and care for an thinking adult crowd. These are just some of the reasons why Conan The Barbarian is a cult classic and a strongly suggest you give it another fresh viewing - chopping off heads has never been so well developed and, cough, cough, executed. :D
It's somewhat refreshing that in your negative review of this movie you never bashed MMA. Thanks for that.
On the whole, it's a gripping tale, a lot of places to flinch and worry. Although, I'm not crazy about the casting of the two men that play the aged David (Ciarán Hinds ) & Stephan (Tom Wilkinson). Both Caliber actors to be sure, but neither capture the essence of their former youthful selves. And if anything, the older actors should have switched roles. - excerpt commentary from Tinsel & Tine.
I find your review quite boring and trite. You either know very little about Conan...or are so caught up with yourself you cannot enjoy a good show. Yawn.
Thanks for the recommendation, Matt. This was a terrific movie, albeit not a happy one. Luckily, not everyone is content with being rocked to sleep by their entertainment, and can appreciate superb acting, cinematography and a truth-telling spirit. Art CAN inspire and teach, and that's what happens in The Whistleblower. Thanks again!
"...I like female humiliation" -- then you are a sick motherfucker who needs to get help, grow up, or both.
you are wrong..the raunchiness and sex make it great...and i like female humiliation
Powered by Foundation