TVfan
Joined Nov 1999
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges3
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews23
TVfan's rating
Yep, 5 years since I last reviewed a movie on IMDB, but just thought I'd try to save everyone a wasted evening. But if you are going to watch it, be prepared -- the comedy starts IN the film, but ends up being the film itself.
It is such a fun premise (though implausible) and the acting was decent. I laughed my butt off during the first book signing in Mexico. But after that? The story lost a credible path to resolution.
Repeating the same gags over and over became very old. Using the same extras over and over seemed on the cheap. I thought that maybe the writer of this film was guilty of what he'd accused his main character of -- of having no life experience -- but, no, that's not the case. David Quantick is in his 60s, so I'm pretty sure he has some life experience, and he definitely has a lot of writing credits to his name.
I've thought about how one could script doctor this "gone awry" script, but not really sure it could be fixed. There were some missed moments that could have been taken advantage of to give the story a path. Maybe giving the main character and his original book (before translated) a little more respect could have helped give the characters and premise more credibility, thereby providing for a more credible direction and resolution. 1h 6 m was much too long for this film. Maybe a 94 minute edit would help? Not really sure what could be done to fix it.
Oh well. Two hours of water under the bridge.
P. S. Watching Veronica trying to get over the railing in the melodramatic ending was almost worth the watch. But again, you are not laughing with the film, but AT it.
It is such a fun premise (though implausible) and the acting was decent. I laughed my butt off during the first book signing in Mexico. But after that? The story lost a credible path to resolution.
Repeating the same gags over and over became very old. Using the same extras over and over seemed on the cheap. I thought that maybe the writer of this film was guilty of what he'd accused his main character of -- of having no life experience -- but, no, that's not the case. David Quantick is in his 60s, so I'm pretty sure he has some life experience, and he definitely has a lot of writing credits to his name.
I've thought about how one could script doctor this "gone awry" script, but not really sure it could be fixed. There were some missed moments that could have been taken advantage of to give the story a path. Maybe giving the main character and his original book (before translated) a little more respect could have helped give the characters and premise more credibility, thereby providing for a more credible direction and resolution. 1h 6 m was much too long for this film. Maybe a 94 minute edit would help? Not really sure what could be done to fix it.
Oh well. Two hours of water under the bridge.
P. S. Watching Veronica trying to get over the railing in the melodramatic ending was almost worth the watch. But again, you are not laughing with the film, but AT it.
The last time I reviewed a movie was 4 years ago when I reviewed "About Time," on which I wrote the following comment, "I just feel like the genre is really worn-out, with not much fresh to offer." Of course, "The Age of Adaline" is not a time travel movie, per se, but there is so much in it that feels like time travel, and I have to say it is fresh, and I loved this movie. The casting was excellent, especially Lively as the lead, and Harrison Ford. Ford's part and his "moments" were just too important to be trusted to anyone else. I just can't imagine anyone but him being able to pull it off. Perfect choice. So why 9, and not a 10. The narration! Just a bunch of unnecessary stuff that was really a blotch on a near perfect film, and took me out of the "romance" of the story. I actually did my own version and dubbed music from other parts of the film over the narration, and I have to say, not only was nothing lost, but I had the joy of watching this film in its perfect 10 version.
I had great expectations for this film and went to its first showing (10:25am) on opening day. To my surprise, many people were at the showing.
Overall, I was disappointed, but found Domhnall Gleeson's skill and charm in the leading role the most enjoyable element of this film. But the movie itself felt more like a series of skits. Maybe the skit-like feel supported the central theme of this movie (as with most time-travel movies), namely: live for today, relish every moment. Maybe I just feel like the genre is really worn-out, with not much fresh to offer. I did leave the theater with that "tell my wife and children how much I love them everyday, every moment" sort of feeling, but only because I'm extremely sentimental anyway, and need very little to elicit that emotion.
The movie was cast pretty well, but I think Rachel McAdams, at 35, is at the end of her cast-as-a-twenty-something girl. Even bangs/fringe couldn't make me believe it. The film was worth seeing, but save your money and see it on DVD. No rush to see it right away, or need to see it on the big screen.
Overall, I was disappointed, but found Domhnall Gleeson's skill and charm in the leading role the most enjoyable element of this film. But the movie itself felt more like a series of skits. Maybe the skit-like feel supported the central theme of this movie (as with most time-travel movies), namely: live for today, relish every moment. Maybe I just feel like the genre is really worn-out, with not much fresh to offer. I did leave the theater with that "tell my wife and children how much I love them everyday, every moment" sort of feeling, but only because I'm extremely sentimental anyway, and need very little to elicit that emotion.
The movie was cast pretty well, but I think Rachel McAdams, at 35, is at the end of her cast-as-a-twenty-something girl. Even bangs/fringe couldn't make me believe it. The film was worth seeing, but save your money and see it on DVD. No rush to see it right away, or need to see it on the big screen.