Showing posts with label julia roberts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label julia roberts. Show all posts

Thursday, January 17, 2013

A Time to Kill (1996) Review

A Time to Kill  (1996)
Average Reviews:

(More customer reviews)
I saw this movie shortly after it came to video and thought it was a pretty good movie. Then a couple years later, I saw it again. And it just kind of stuck in my brain. I'll be reading or listening to something, and it will remind me of the movie. In conversations I bring up this film all the time because it is so relevant to important issues of our time. Racism, vigilante action, legal issues, etc. The more you watch this movie, the more it makes you think.
And if you're not interested in thinking about some of the larger philosophical issues at hand, there's still plenty of stuff for you. You've got Matthew McConaughey who does a phenomenal job, and looks great while at it. Oliver Platt imbues his character with just the right amount of sleaze and charm that you can't help but love him. Donald Sutherland is absolutely lovable as the old-school gentleman (and you and your friends can argue over whether he's a lush or or a drunk/alcoholic). Sandra Bullock does a believable job, and the men tend to find Ashley Judd rather attractive in this role. And let's not forget Samuel L. Jackson, who makes his character so real that you understand the situation he's in and why he does what he does.
So basically, there's something for everyone here. Thinking stuff with good looking people (male and female) who act well. Can't go wrong with this one.

Click Here to see more reviews about: A Time to Kill (1996)



Buy NowGet 72% OFF

Click here for more information about A Time to Kill (1996)

Monday, July 23, 2012

Nine to Five (1980) Review

Nine to Five (1980)
Average Reviews:

(More customer reviews)
This film is one of the rare achievements in comedy: I can watch this over and over (and I have) and still laugh at the same parts. The jokes never wear out after a viewing or two. That's due in part to the excellent camaraderie between Jane Fonda, Lily Tomlin, and Dolly Parton. I simply can't imagine this film without any of those three, for they made their roles what it is and the interractions between the three of them are hilarious. Dabney Coleman as their sexist boss with an extremely naive wife is also hilarious as he gets his comeuppance.
Jane Fonda plays a mousy lady who enters the work force after her husband runs off with his secretary. Seeing her flustered by the photocopier is hilarious and it's fun to watch her transformation into a confident lady who can hold her own (gun) against the boss.
Lily Tomlin plays the lady who's been at the company for a long time and is passed over for a rightful promotion because she's a woman. I love her scene when she schemes to steal a body from the hospital, mistakingly thinking it's her boss's dead body. When she's in a doctor's white coat and a candy striper stops her and apologizes when she realizes she's interrupting a doctor, Lily says, "that's right, I'm a doctor...so why the hell am I talking to you?"
Dolly Parton plays the secretary who uses her God-given endowment to humorous effect. Dabney Coleman can't help to push pencil holders off his desk so she can bend down and pick them up while he gets to sneak a peak. It was this film that has made me a lifelong fan of Dolly Parton because I love how she rebukes her boss by telling him that she put up with his behavior because of the way she was brought up and won't tolerate it anymore and if he messes with her, she'll gladly turn him "from a rooster to a hen in one shot!" I especially loves how she tells him, "I never thought I'd live to say this about another human being, but you are evil, that's right, EVIL TO THE CORE!" Yow! She means business, but it only makes the boss more turned on, so she has to back her words with deeds, thus fulfilling her fantasy sequence.
The dream sequences are hilarious and it is interesting to see the way they each come true. I love Lily Tomlin's Disney-esque dream sequence, the one that causes the most problems. While the movie does veer off in a surprising way, and some might say outlandishly unrealistic, and while one reviewer mentioned that it doesn't end with a "big bang", I think the ending was delightfully ironic. The ladies improved the office environment, no one missed the boss, someone even higher up noticed the improvements and justice prevailed. Beautiful!
I was only a kid when I saw this film in theaters and it has been one of few films where the humor never gets old. Anytime I need a laugh, I can rely on this film to provide them despite the numerous times I've seen it. That's a credit to everyone involved in making this film, but most especially to the three actresses who really play well off each other with comedic brilliance! I'm glad they have released a special edition, as I waited to buy it on DVD for just such an edition. Now the long wait is over.

Click Here to see more reviews about: Nine to Five (1980)



Buy Now

Click here for more information about Nine to Five (1980)

Thursday, January 5, 2012

Charlie Wilson's War (Widescreen) (2007) Review

Charlie Wilson's War (Widescreen) (2007)
Average Reviews:

(More customer reviews)
Congressman Charlie Wilson from Lufkin, Texas, a ruggedly handsome man, who was a committed anti-Communist, with a few character flaws, who loved to have a good time, enjoyed alcohol and was a ladies' man ... became one of the unsung heros of the Afghanistan War. He was the only civilian to ever receive recognition and honor by the C.I.A. for his part in helping to drive the Russians out from Afghanistan. This film is based on the true stories written by the author George Crile in his book, "Charlie Wilson's War: The Extraordinary Story of How the Wildest Man in Congress and a Rogue CIA Agent Changed the History of Our Times". Essentially, there are two formulas to win this war on a global scale: the first is, "money + power = secret arms deals" and the second is, "clandestinely obtained weapons + motivated Afghani fighters = success". Serendipity often comes into play when success occurs on a global scale and Charlie Wilson seemed to benefit both from the unexpected and unknown ...
Charlie Wilson was sitting in a hot tub at Caesar's Palace with three young ladies, two of whom were strippers, and some male business partners, when he first saw Dan Rather on assignment in Afghanistan, presenting the plight of the mujahideen. Dan Rather described the difficulty they had fighting the Russians who had superior technology and arms. When he returned to Washington, he read the teletype from API, UPI, and Reuters and asked the C.I.A. how much was in their budget for clandestine operations in Afghanistan. He was told $5 million dollars, he quickly told them, "double it" [Charlie Wilson happened to be on the Senate Appropriations Committee]. From that point forward, Charlie Wilson was committed to helping free the Afghanistan people from Russian control ...
Tom Hanks does a superb job in playing the role of Charlie Wilson. At some point, he was contacted by Joanne Herring (played to perfection by Julia Roberts) who is a wealthy socialite from Texas who recently became a 'born again' Christian. She knew President Zia, the Prime Minister of Pakistan and arranged for Charlie Wilson to meet this Pakistani leader. He pled his case that the Afghanistan fighters needed better weapons to fight the Russians. He wanted the US to provide weapons *but* wanted Parkistan to control their distribution. More than 1/5 of the population of Afghanistan had escaped across the border to Pakistan and lived in squalid conditions due to the war with the Russians. At another point in the film, Charlie Wilson had a visit from Gust Avratakos, a rather independently minded C.I.A. agent [which got him into hot water with his superiors] ... who also had a stake in helping free Afghanistan. These two unlikely partners dealt in secret deals and meetings with an Israeli weapons and arms agent. They obtained the needed Stinger anti-aircraft missles for the Afghani fighters to use against the Russian bombers which turned the war around completely. At some point in the film, Charlie Wilson had gotten political and economic support from Doc Long, another Senator who had strong religious beliefs. He committed his total support to Charlie Wilson's position in this war.
While Charlie Wilson may be viewed as a flawed hero, he and Gust Avratakos single-handedly provided the weapons and arms needed by the mujahideen to win the war against the Russians. Amazingly enough, as time passed, the 10 million dollars initially committed to this clandestine venture turned into $500 million dollars. Few men can fund a pet program and spend money of this magnitude and get away with it. This film does a superb job of presenting the circumstances and particular events which showed how the nearly impossible became reality. In many ways and on many levels, the film presents events in too much of a simplistic and entertaining fashion, for which I deduct one star. No doubt, the book is more thorough and complete in providing the complex details which led to the success which Charlie Wilson and Gust Avratakos achieved. Nevertheless, this is a most enjoyable and well done film. Erika Borsos [pepper flower]

Click Here to see more reviews about: Charlie Wilson's War (Widescreen) (2007)

Academy Award® winners Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts and Philip Seymour Hoffman star in this compelling and witty film from Oscar®-winning director Mike Nichols and Primetime Emmy®-winning writer Aaron Sorkin (The West Wing). Based on the outrageous true story, Charlie Wilson's War shows how one congressman who loved a good time, one Houston socialite who loved a good cause and one renegade CIA agent who loved a good fight conspired to bring about the largest covert operation in history.

Buy NowGet 35% OFF

Click here for more information about Charlie Wilson's War (Widescreen) (2007)

Monday, May 30, 2011

Michael Collins (1996) Review

Michael Collins (1996)
Average Reviews:

(More customer reviews)
Digging back into their roots, director Neil Jordan and actor Liam Neeson have respectively delivered their most memorable and deep-cutting works to date. Michael Collins has nagging flaws, but in the sweep of the passionate filmmaking and performances, all else is moot. You will be carried forth by the conviction of the story.
Neeson was simply born to play this role. An actor of tremendous power, Neeson is here given a role that's multi-dimensional enough for him to show his formidable chops. The Michael Collins character is alternately a boyish, dashing ladykiller and a tactician with a steel will, and just watching Neeson tackle the character's inner and outer demons is worth the price of the movie. He indeed projects the power and charisma of a great leader in his "our refusal" speech. There's more -- Aidan Quinn gives his best performance as friend-turned-enemy Harry Boland; Alan Rickman utilizes his deadpan comic timing and hidden deviance to perfection as Eamon de Valera; Stephen Rea is great as usual as English traitor Ned Broy. The one weak link is of course Julia Roberts, as Harry and Mick's love interest Kitty, with her bad Irish accent and vacant presence. She's paralyzed by the scope of the historical drama and comes off stiff as a result, injecting the character with neither warmth nor power, and none of her signature girlish exuberance. However, this was one case where the filmmaker's sacrifice of a character was to the benefit of the film. In directing the film, Jordan sliced down Kitty's importance and makes her mostly a footnote; the result is that we are now free to interpret Mick and Harry's split as a philosophical and political one, rather than the ol' romantic triangle. And for the better.
The cinematography is terrific, and the script ranks among my favourite of the '90s. Jordan is deeply tapped into the behaviour and concerns of these characters, and he fills every minute with humour, danger, urgency, and personality. The writing translates onto the screen beautifully, giving the audience an insight into not only the sociological scape of the film, but also the psychological. And the pacing and editing never let up -- from the perfectly chosen "in medias res" opening to the brilliant "Bloody Sunday" assassination montage.
A great neglected classic.

Click Here to see more reviews about: Michael Collins (1996)

Neil Jordan returns to the strife-torn Irish political landscape for this real-life epic set in 1920 and starring Liam Neeson as the legendary Irish revolutionary leader and Julia Roberts as his headstrong fiancee.

Buy NowGet 20% OFF

Click here for more information about Michael Collins (1996)

Thursday, March 3, 2011

Eat Pray Love (2010) Review

Eat Pray Love (2010)
Average Reviews:

(More customer reviews)
Let me preface this by mentioning I haven't read the book, though I've been meaning to, and after seeing the film first, I can only hope the book form is better. As a travel buff, I've been looking forward to watching this film, and I knew from the get-go that this would be a film about a woman's ennui and unfulfilled life. Yes, I know, first world problems--cue roll of the eyes. But I think many people can relate to the emptiness that pervades life on occasion.
That being said, even as someone sympathetic to this kind of plight, I found the character Liz to be utterly insufferable and a practically impossible woman to relate to. The film has Liz, lying in bed with her husband, looking bored and lonely. She gets out of the bed she shares with her husband to go downstairs to literally kneel down and ask for God's help for the first time, sobbing in the room of her multi-million dollar home. The problem with this entire premise is that her emptiness isn't presented in a way that is relatable to the audience. With film, the exercise is to convey what is inside by external means; the audience cannot magically divine what is going on with the characters. I understand what the INTENT was: her husband doesn't have the travel bug; her husband has ideas but doesn't stick to a single one to make it his passion; her husband doesn't share her curiosity of life, an inclination for what is MORE; she has it all but is still unsatisfied--there's no spark, no excitement. But for me these were not conveyed convincingly. Instead, we have Julia Roberts (playing Julia Roberts) crying, staring at the wall, yelling, acting like an overgrown brat with an alarming sense of entitlement. She purports to look within, but she doesn't. She turns her rage to those around her, and that's a fatal flaw in the film from which it never recovers.
The premise is very promising and intriguing: woman with all the trappings of life searches for more meaning in life by empowering herself--after all, it is often touted that money cannot buy happiness, and there are situations in real life where people who don't have much are happier than those with a lot (more money, more problems). Depression, for example, doesn't skip a person just because he or she is wealthy. Money and material goods are clearly not guaranteed keys to happiness and fulfillment. But instead of taking the opportunity to lay that foundation and build upon this premise, the filmmakers seem to skip it altogether in favor of pretty travel shots, apparently unable to take on the storytelling task. Is it difficult, especially in this economy, to make a film about the dissatisfaction and existential angst of a well-off woman? Yes. But it is not impossible, and if they are going to make a film based on this premise, they better well try to sway the audience. Unfortunately, they seem to just rely on Julia Roberts' "America's Sweetheart" status to replace effective narrative. The idea itself is interesting; the execution is the problem (most people can relate to the experience of seeing a fantastic trailer for a film or reading a film summary and getting excited, only to be disappointed after seeing the actual film).
In a meeting with the lawyers and her husband, Liz glares at her husband with the fire of a thousand suns, resenting him for being, well, him. Rightfully, her husband frustratingly informs her that she never sat him down to tell him what's wrong, never gave him a chance to try to fix it if she had such a problem in the marriage. The audience really only sees what ANNOYS her (e.g., he wants to do a postgraduate degree, he doesn't want to go to Aruba). Are these "flaws" big enough for her to just walk out one day? At least this warrants a serious sit-down talk about each of their goals and feelings, right? No. Liz doesn't feel connected to him, and instead of sitting down like adults, she decides to leave, cold turkey, because if you don't get what you want out of life, the lesson is you must drop all your problems and run. It is understandable for someone to want to end a marriage if she is unhappy, but to just cut it off abruptly without a serious discussion (and assuming abuse or infidelity haven't occurred, which, in this film, they haven't) is unreasonable and paints the person as a spoiled brat who never learned how to navigate life in an adult world. This is a bad start to a film...an unsympathetic protagonist. Oh, God, how many more minutes do we have to spend with this woman? Did she really just leave her husband because some medicine man in Bali six months before told her one of her marriages would be short? Really? How gullible are you, Liz? The filmmaker really missed out on capitalizing on one genuine moment in the film -- her husband, in the elevator after the meeting with the lawyers, looking truly broken by his wife's abrupt abandonment. Do we get to explore her need to do this in spite of her husband's deep love for her? No, we get Liz's three-second look at his broken figure before she decides to run abroad an cavort with strangers who are meant to fix all her problems.
Throughout the film, Liz makes no real decisions; rather, she allows others to do the thinking for her, which makes for tiresome viewing. The writing and direction are aimless and sloppy. Far too much of the film is spent on her romance with a struggling actor, David (James Franco), who is more of a caricature than someone along the road who truly enlightens Liz and helps her on her journey. He's young. He's handsome. He follows an Indian guru (shrine adorning his apartment), sounds like a fortune cookie, and is a complete poser. He states he has never been to India, but he wants to one day, and spends his day looking sexily forlorn, a tortured soul, when, in fact, he's just like those wannabe Goths who shop at Hot Topic (except he's the hippie version). One day, he wakes up to find half of his bed empty. Where's Liz? She has moved herself to the floor beside the bed, looking like someone just killed her puppy. Again, she doesn't talk about the problem. She just moved her bed to the floor like a petulant child because, again, as with her husband, she's unfulfilled and wants to break up for no discernible reason. Okay, maybe Prozac is in order?
We are meant to take away from this romance the idea that David inspired Liz's trip to India. After all, she never would have known about that guru if it weren't for this poser. Get it, audience? Each person she meets is like a clue to the next spot on the treasure map. Get it? Except the character of David is so hastily written and lazily portrayed that the impact of his influence is negligible (seriously, James Franco looked like he phoned-in his scenes, and even he admitted that he knows the film is terrible and that he only did this film to have the experience of working with Julia Roberts).
The Italy chapter of the film is the most enjoyable, simply because it plays like a fun travelogue -- food porn, fun people, pretty sights. Here, we get a little break from Liz's overbearing personality. We meet some other characters who welcome Liz with open arms, and there are beautiful shots of quaint cafes and restaurants, plates of delicious food, and beautiful cityscapes. For once, we get to see Liz just ENJOYING herself without lashing out, and for a moment the audience can forget Liz as Liz; she's just an American enjoying Italy like any tourist would, looking at Italy with new eyes.
I expected the film to escalate and become even more profound as we head to India, but the narrative takes a serious and boring dip here. You know all the foodcentric tie-ins in the promotion of this movie? It ends with Italy, and it is understandable, seeing that Italy is the "eat" of the triumvirate, but since the spirituality aspects of India and Bali are so clumsily portrayed that one cannot help but feel cheated by the rest of the film. Okay, if we can't have genuine spirituality, at least show how decadent the other places are. There's more to India and Bali than ashrams and huts. It's as if the writers and filmmaker didn't know what to do about India. "Hm, what's India known for? Gods! And poor people. Okay, this part of the film will be about Gods and poor people. It'll be like a spiritual thang." So we have Liz living in an ashram, cleaning and doing practically nothing, and this is where she meets a Texan named Richard, played by the amazing Richard Jenkins, the highlight of the film. Though his character is paper-thin, Jenkins is so gifted and nuanced in his acting that he's able to flesh out a full character out of practically nothing. He's like your favorite uncle who wise-cracks and kicks you in the seat of your pants once in a while to set you straight. It is too bad that his character disappears rather quickly, which deflates the rest of the film. The writers try to flesh out India by introducing a 17-year-old girl forced into an arranged marriage (a heavy-handed parallel to Liz's own marriage, complete with flashbacks), but by then it is too late. Chapter 2 is already dead in the water. There's no spiritual enlightenment, just a disrespectful fast food approach to prayer and meditation. You just sit quietly, cross your legs, close your eyes, and spread your arms out. That's all, folks.
The film then skips abruptly to Bali, as if it did all it could do in India. Here we have the return of the toothless guru, who, like the Franco character, speaks like a fortune cookie and appears more like a stereotype more than anything else. Liz refers to him as "Yoda." He's quirky, speaks with an accent, wears a sarong, and reads your palm...OF COURSE he's enlightened! He's from Bali! He's infused with magic! All the houses have no walls. It's really weird here! When the quirkiness of Bali runs thin, it's time to introduce Felipe (Javier Bardem), an affectionate grizzly...Read more›

Click Here to see more reviews about: Eat Pray Love (2010)

Liz Gilbert (Julia Roberts) is a modern woman on a quest to marvel at and travel the world while rediscovering and reconnecting with her true inner self in Eat Pray Love. At a crossroads after a divorce, Gilbert takes a year-long sabbatical from her job and steps uncharacteristically out of her comfort zone, risking everything to change her life. In her wondrous and exotic travels, she experiences the simple pleasure of nourishment by eating in Italy; the power of prayer in India, and, finally and unexpectedly, the inner peace and balance of love in Bali. Based on an inspiring true story, Eat Pray Love proves that there really is more than one way to let yourself go and see the world.

Buy NowGet 69% OFF

Click here for more information about Eat Pray Love (2010)