mousenhowz

Run, don't walk to the video store to buy this on DVD or Blue ray. Save it for Halloween night or watch it beforehand if you so desire. 3 out of 4 of my friends loved it, one of the 3,a skeptical one, enjoyed it throughly. I had not seen this movie in a while because of the "so many movies, so little time" effect but I watched it a few nights ago and still absolutely adore it. As Christmas is Santa, Christmas trees, presents, the baby Jesus, etc, Trick r Treat is classic Halloween nostalgia. I love Creepshow and I llllllluuuuuuuvvvvvv Trick r Treat even more. As a movie, this is truly a definite treat for Halloween. Watch it with friends or with your sweetie and get plenty of candy corn to supplement your diet but see it soon. Sam loves you.

This one was better with a second look but still is a lame sequel to the superior summer greatness of "Hardbodies". Like somebody said in a another review and paraphrasing, the slapstick was overblown and very unfunny. The eye candy in the movie is worth the price of admission. The acting is bad in most cases but the main leads do good with the material that they have.

The best thing I could suggest is get the two-pack of both films and view Hardbodies 2 on it's own merit if it has any at all.The cowboy guy from the first movie returns in the second one as well as the real estate lady from the first one but all is lost in the translation. This movie is for completest only in the 80s summer beach flick genre.

If you are new to this genre try the 80s classics "The Beach Girls" "Spring Break" and the orig "Hardbodies" before trudging your way through this one.

Remaking True Grit was a great idea that doesn't pan out in the long run. I am a big fan of the Coens and I absolutely loved "No country for old men" but this remake lacks the humor of the original. Some hinted that it wasn't as entertaining as the original and I would have to agree. Honestly, the first time I watched it, I fell asleep. For me personally it is not that much of a stretch to fall asleep during movies, you can ask my friends, but I guess this one is a little long in the tooth at certain points.

As for the cast, Jeff Bridges is a good actor but his portrayal of Rooster is too overdone and (pardon the pun) too gritty. He is not as animated as John Wayne and that is one of the missing elements. The girl(Haylee Stanfield) is very good but I still like Kim Darby better. Darby was much more spirited in the role IMHO. Matt Damon is good as LeBoufe, much better acting than Glen Campbell in the same role but still Glen did a fair job and was just there as a means of fodder for the Duke anyway. The guy that plays Lucky Ned Pepper was probably the best in the whole movie but in too short of a role.

As for cinematography, it is a beautifully shot film. The Coens do excel in this area for sure.

****possible spoiler**** The pace of the movie is better after the first 30 min is over as opposed to the original version which was a laugh riot especially the exchange between Mattie Ross and Stonehill played by Strother Martin in the orig. The guy who plays Stonehill in the 2010 version is a bit too dry and humorless.He is probably not a bad actor in other roles but this portrayal is a little too stiff.

****possible spoiler**** A minor point for those offended easily language wise, there is only one minuscule instance in the orig of cussing but in this one Rooster says one too many of a certain word compared to the original, however, it was not that profuse.

****possible spoiler**** I have heard some complain about the ending but the Coens are generally by the book about such matters so the ending didn't personally bother me.