moviesleuth2
Joined Nov 2003
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.
Badges4
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews361
moviesleuth2's rating
Romance comes from the most unexpected places. Despite dating sites that can match up people based on their "compatability" with a lot of questionnaires and computer programs, it's either there, or it isn't. But nowhere is it more unexpected than between Kirk (Jay Baruchel), a scrawny TSA worker and Molly (Alice Eve), a blonde bombshell with a successful party planning business.
There really isn't much of a story here; like the best romances, it's more about the characters than the plot. Speaking of, "romance" is the more prominent genre at play here. Although there are a few funny scenes, this isn't "The 40-Year Old Virgin." Jay Baruchel is probably the most likable geek out there. Michael Cera may have cornered the indie crowd, but Baruchel is less alienating. And it helps that he has immense chemistry with his co-star, Alice Eve (sporting a flawless American accent). They're both nice people, and to the surprise of everyone, especially themselves, they fall for each other. And we believe it.
Jim Field Smith tells the story well; he trusts the characters enough to carry the movie instead of force-feeding us comedy where it isn't needed. This is a very cute film with a hearty laugh or two sprinkled along the way.
There really isn't much of a story here; like the best romances, it's more about the characters than the plot. Speaking of, "romance" is the more prominent genre at play here. Although there are a few funny scenes, this isn't "The 40-Year Old Virgin." Jay Baruchel is probably the most likable geek out there. Michael Cera may have cornered the indie crowd, but Baruchel is less alienating. And it helps that he has immense chemistry with his co-star, Alice Eve (sporting a flawless American accent). They're both nice people, and to the surprise of everyone, especially themselves, they fall for each other. And we believe it.
Jim Field Smith tells the story well; he trusts the characters enough to carry the movie instead of force-feeding us comedy where it isn't needed. This is a very cute film with a hearty laugh or two sprinkled along the way.
In the old days of Hollywood, the spectacle was a grand, rousing story filled with enormous battles, a dastardly villain and a hero that everyone could get behind. Nowadays, it's grand and enormous, but it fails to really be rousing and draw us into the story because there's no one to really care about.
"Clash of the Titans" takes place in a time of gods and man, of heroes and myths. Zeus (Liam Neeson) created man so their continued prayers could give the gods immortality. The problem is that the gods are screwing the humans over, and they're sick of it. When the citizens of Argos destroy a statue of Zeus, Zeus allows his brother Hades (Ralph Fiennes) to get the humans respecting them again by any means he sees fit. Hades gives the King of Argos an ultimatum: either sacrifice his daughter Andromeda (Alexa Davalos), or have his city destroyed by the Kraken. But while Hades has his own plans set it motion, the gods watch nervously as Perseus (Sam Worthington), the mortal son of Zeus, journeys to find a way to defeat the Kraken and save both Argos and Andromeda.
The film, an update of the notoriously cheesy 1981 original, is loaded with special effects. For that part of the film, it works. Visually, the film is meticulously detailed and always cool to look at. Even better is the fact that we can actually see the action scenes. Louis Leterrier does not use the shaky cam to obscure what happens in the fight scenes, and apart from a few minor missteps in the beginning, the action scenes are clear and easy to follow.
Unfortunately, the acting department is where it fails. It's not that the actors are bad, it's just they're all the same: gruff, growly and brooding. Had there been a little time for character development, this could have been a worthy successor to "Lord of the Rings" (in fact, there are scenes where it is trying to be). Alas, it's just all glitz and flashy visuals.
Maybe it's just me, but I think if a human being is ripped in half or decapitated (regardless of the amount of blood shown), I think that deserves an automatic R rating. Had the roughly 10 seconds of footage been edited out or redone, this would be a bona-fide PG-13 movie. But as it is, it should have been rated R. Likewise, the images of some of the breasted creatures were covered up, despite being uncovered in the drawings from Ancient Greece. Go figure.
My rating: rated R for fantasy action/violence throughout including some intense images, and brief language.
"Clash of the Titans" takes place in a time of gods and man, of heroes and myths. Zeus (Liam Neeson) created man so their continued prayers could give the gods immortality. The problem is that the gods are screwing the humans over, and they're sick of it. When the citizens of Argos destroy a statue of Zeus, Zeus allows his brother Hades (Ralph Fiennes) to get the humans respecting them again by any means he sees fit. Hades gives the King of Argos an ultimatum: either sacrifice his daughter Andromeda (Alexa Davalos), or have his city destroyed by the Kraken. But while Hades has his own plans set it motion, the gods watch nervously as Perseus (Sam Worthington), the mortal son of Zeus, journeys to find a way to defeat the Kraken and save both Argos and Andromeda.
The film, an update of the notoriously cheesy 1981 original, is loaded with special effects. For that part of the film, it works. Visually, the film is meticulously detailed and always cool to look at. Even better is the fact that we can actually see the action scenes. Louis Leterrier does not use the shaky cam to obscure what happens in the fight scenes, and apart from a few minor missteps in the beginning, the action scenes are clear and easy to follow.
Unfortunately, the acting department is where it fails. It's not that the actors are bad, it's just they're all the same: gruff, growly and brooding. Had there been a little time for character development, this could have been a worthy successor to "Lord of the Rings" (in fact, there are scenes where it is trying to be). Alas, it's just all glitz and flashy visuals.
Maybe it's just me, but I think if a human being is ripped in half or decapitated (regardless of the amount of blood shown), I think that deserves an automatic R rating. Had the roughly 10 seconds of footage been edited out or redone, this would be a bona-fide PG-13 movie. But as it is, it should have been rated R. Likewise, the images of some of the breasted creatures were covered up, despite being uncovered in the drawings from Ancient Greece. Go figure.
My rating: rated R for fantasy action/violence throughout including some intense images, and brief language.
The theory of evolution has been a lightning rod of controversy ever since Charles Darwin published "The Origin of Species" 150 years ago. I guess it was only a matter of time that the film industry made a biopic out of his life. Pity it wasn't better.
Charles Darwin (Paul Bettany) is on the brink of discovering the most revolutionary idea in the history of mankind. But such an idea could not arise without controversy, and the idea that life changes over time instead of being created by God drives a wedge between himself and his devoutly religious wife, Emma (Jennifer Connelly).
The film is the merging of two stories: Darwin's struggles with his faith and science, and the stress that the death of his eldest daughter, Annie (Martha West) has taken on their marriage. They're not merged particularly well, but it does keep the story moving.
Being vehemently opposed to creationism and intelligent design (which is more or less the same thing under a different name), I wanted to like the film more than I actually did. The film certainly has a lot going for it; Paul Bettany has never been better, and it has Jennifer Connelly (which speaks for itself), and the direction by Jon Amiel is superb. Unfortunately the film is saddled with a clunky and uneven screenplay that loses focus quite often.
"Creation" had a tough time getting distribution in the US. It's another case of the Christian Right trying enforce their beliefs on everyone else through censorship, but I'd be more angry if the film was of better quality.
Charles Darwin (Paul Bettany) is on the brink of discovering the most revolutionary idea in the history of mankind. But such an idea could not arise without controversy, and the idea that life changes over time instead of being created by God drives a wedge between himself and his devoutly religious wife, Emma (Jennifer Connelly).
The film is the merging of two stories: Darwin's struggles with his faith and science, and the stress that the death of his eldest daughter, Annie (Martha West) has taken on their marriage. They're not merged particularly well, but it does keep the story moving.
Being vehemently opposed to creationism and intelligent design (which is more or less the same thing under a different name), I wanted to like the film more than I actually did. The film certainly has a lot going for it; Paul Bettany has never been better, and it has Jennifer Connelly (which speaks for itself), and the direction by Jon Amiel is superb. Unfortunately the film is saddled with a clunky and uneven screenplay that loses focus quite often.
"Creation" had a tough time getting distribution in the US. It's another case of the Christian Right trying enforce their beliefs on everyone else through censorship, but I'd be more angry if the film was of better quality.
Recently taken polls
51 total polls taken
