mcintyre03's reviews

First time I watched it, this movie was perfect. Tightly written with several memorable one-liners. Economically executed by Reiner who isn't fluffing it up visually and chooses a modest style. The acting was fine although I think in a realistic world, Carrie Fisher would be cast in Meg Ryan's role. Fisher's a lot smarter and is forced to play the less assertive friend. Nora Ephron seems to be fascinated with old school romance (patriarchal) and you can see that in her other films as well (Sleepless in Seattle, You've Got Mail, My Blue Heaven). OR as some Ephron-enthusiasts claim she's presenting what men were (and still are). No male character in this film deserves a chance at romance. They're far from their ideal versions and yet they expect women to constantly put out to validate their self-worth. You could either see yourself loving it for its bubbly misogyny or you could agree that this is a relic much like Billy Crystal's tired standup routine as he launches from one mundane monologue about "wimmen" to another.

Is it funny and entertaining? Yes, but if you decide to analyse it, it's gonna get satirical and very dark.

Lastly, I don't want to offer what she's having.

As a blue-eyed youngster, I found the nihilism of these thirty-somethings to be funny. I watched it again as a twenty-something myself and I felt that some of the discussions hit home for me. I watched it recently - now close to the age of these characters - and I liked it lesser. It was a lot more obvious. These characters grew up with a chip on their shoulders. They are elitists of the worst kind - the opposite of the youths on Return of the Secaucus Seven. They didn't care about the common people, the SEC or even the ghetto. They were drug-using navel gazers who didn't care about the rest of the world. I had a different kind of thirties. I became more caring of the world and its people. My opinion today is that it's not an everyman story neither does it fit into a niche as I thought it did twenty years ago. The Big Chill could be renamed The Big Chip On Their Shoulders.

Oh, antisemitism! How are you still the most relevant antagonist? According to Hollywood: if you want to make a film set in the early or mid-twentieth century, antisemitism is your go-to antagonist. In the same way, if you want to show colonial India, the British are your go-to villain, because everyone conveniently forgets about the brahmins and the caste system.

The fact that this movie about a supposed Hungarian Jewish architect/genius turns into just another drug addicted genius template is hilarity. This 3 and a half hour-long film is a ringing endorsement of heroin, the cheap wonder drug that takes pain away.

The Brutalist plays all the greatest hits of Oscarbait: gratuitous nudity (male and female), scenes from actual p"rn (they use old, old p*rn), drug abuse, sexual assault, ambitious but misunderstood geniuses, men who look cool while smoking, rich brats and their equally bratty fathers, blonde and brunette dichotomy... it's insane how The Brutalist is just a checklist, a boring, meandering checklist. Had this film been two hours, I'd still have disliked it but I wouldn't have hated it.

Slow-pace is one thing. This is dead in the tracks, pseudo-existential claptrap.

I loved the stunts. I liked the chemistry. I liked the BGM, the cinematography and the slo-mo shots. But, this movie had a relationship problem. Gosling and Blunt play ex-lovers with a forest fire in the hearts. They clearly are longing for each other - you can tell that right from the first time Emily sees Ryan onscreen (about ten minutes into the movie). But, this leads you through cringe-inducing scenes, one after another. The first half is the movie version of phrase "airing out your dirty laundry."

Look, the stunts were cool, but the story (including the overlong romantic arc) was underdeveloped. There seems to have been a quick decision to cast actors from Barbie and Oppenheimer (then, unreleased) and capitalise on the market.

It's too silly. It's too outdated. It's too lame.

Nobody was fun. Bullet Train was a decent ride (despite the unnecessary flashbacks). Both were silly and unbelievable but the craft was better. Fall Guy just did not work for me. The pay-off and the denouement don't really deliver.

The second and third acts could have used better writing. Casting could have been better. Hannah Waddingham was great in Ted Lasso but giving her a brunette wig and a god-awful American accent just did not work.

I wanted to love this but it just didn't work for me.

It seems that having tentpole actors from other language industries walk around in slo-mo is just what's need to classify movies as Pan-Indian. Anyway, Jailer does just that and this film fails spectacularly. Rajnikanth does what's required of him. However, Nelson doesn't. His screenplay is flaccid. He takes a well-established narrative template and botches it with a paltry execution. Nelson seems preoccupied with lifting scenes from Hollywood films that he's forgotten that making a Superstar film is actually pretty easy. You need a few mass scenes, a few punch dialogues and a simple story that acts as a bridge between the aforementioned mass scenes. How could you botch that up?

After Beast, this is yet another dismal film from Nelson. Forgettable fare.

Even non-American people know of Marilyn Monroe's life. Such is her legacy. So, when this movie attempts to create a false world that Marilyn grew up in, you immediately want to reject it for its lies. This is the worst thing to happen to Marilyn Monroe since sleeping pills.

The story is just so awfully written for one to feel pity for Marilyn. The writer and director seem to have forgotten that all we feel for Marilyn is pity because it's well-documented how we feel sorry for her and how much we detest Old Hollywood and JFK for the way her life went to the dumps.

What we needed was a more soulful account of her life and what we got was trashy Page 3/TMZ baloney.

Ronin is an action noir crime procedural thriller about a group of mercenaries hired to steal a box. What's in the box? We don't know. Who hired them? We don't really know much about that either. Ronin is an excellent thriller that charmingly deconstructs the aforementioned genres and scene-after-scene delivers mind-blowing writing, execution, action and performances.

Ten star-film you may say. But no, this 90s action epic drops the ball in the third act and becomes all too predictable instead of being inventive. Whatever the case may be (you may like the third act or agree with me on this), this is a must-watch for fans of action, thriller and noir genres, and for any fans of car chases.

There cannot be a spoilers mention for this film as there's really not much to it. The first scene tells you what the backstory is. A sculptor is madly in love with a black girl named Venus, who becomes his muse and soon, leaves him penniless. That's the most amount of plot and character development you'll ever see.

This is an erotica. There's plenty of nudity and some softcore level humping in the film but what bothers the most is when the narrator, a wealthy art collector finally takes home the Black Venus, filmmaker Claude Mulot seems to have had cold feet and lets his female lead "stay moral", thereby even if our narrator owns the Black Venus, he does not own the muse. This kind of poetic justice seems rather odd for a film with gratuitous sex. It's kinda like asking "What's another sex scene in an erotica?"

There's literally nothing else for you to look forward to. The acting is third-class, the production design seems to have been borrowed from Merchant-Ivory and it's as if the production always never had enough lights. Every shot feels dark and gloomy, and hence is apt for nighttime viewing only. Given its subject matter, that's a good choice. Cinemax, with its modern filmmaking techniques and better looking girls, is a better choice for you boys.

I'd give this 4/10 mainly because it lacks sex scenes where it was most necessary. You've got to close the arc, Claude!!

I was never about Jezza's own show having seen The Great Escapists in which the easily sellable Hamster failed to create an entertaining spectacle while May on the other hand now has two great shows on Prime. Having seen the entire show, I can now proclaim that Clarkson's Farm is the finest show I've seen in the last decade. It's not too pretentious, it's not too dull or technical. It's simple, honest and great fun. From the crops to the sheep to the chickens, there's a great variety of animals and the human contributors (especially Gerald) are also great.

Sheeping, Wilding, Pandemicking and Harvesting were all stunning episodes that elevate the show to a greater heights. Can't wait for Season 2.

The lead character has a poorly written backstory which doesn't explain the stories of his sibling or father. So, when they show up, you're confused as to what's happening. Nobody is from the people who brought you John Wick which means that the action is top-notch while the story is severely underwritten with a lot of hushed up moments.

What all did John Wick do before he retired? What is this syndicate really called? Who runs this? How did the associates of Viktor's kid not identify John Wick at the gas station?

There are many similar questions left unanswered in Nobody. But, here's the really good thing about it: Bob Odenkirk owned it. He punches and kicks his way through and gives a thoroughly convincing performance. Could he be the next Liam Neeson? He sells the deadpan delivery, brooding stares and rage. Thankfully, the film is just around 90 minutes and the pace doesn't lag.

So, why am I rating it low: because the story is underdeveloped. Or if this was developed well, it just doesn't show. Action movies usually have a simple plot but we are not in the days of Rambo or Eraser. The third John Wick film showed that you can have an episodic plot with many developments. If you can excuse the lazy writing, you'll enjoy the film. I couldn't excuse the writing mainly because it had more than one writer. So, I enjoyed Odenkirk and the action, but was let down by the rest of it.

Granted Nagarajuna hasn't had a good film in a while. But, why does he tend to choose roles of either maverick policemen, maverick investigators or maverick soldiers? What is it about a job that grants a gun and a team that makes Nagarjuna happy? Is he wanting to return to action? If so, why just this avenue? There are so many stories he can choose from. He's Nagarjuna! The problem with Wild Dog is that it's ineffective from the word 'go'. The writing is lazy and reminded me of an early 90s made-for-TV film starring Peter Weller (I think).

Coming back to Wild Dog. The acting is lazy while the action feels uninspired. The CGI is so 90s while the BGM seems to have been taken straight from first-person shooter games. There is not a single character that sticks in your mind.

When I was watching this film, I was reminded of Payanam, a superbly crafted thriller surrounding a plane hijacking. Nagarjuna plays an NSG in that film and his role in Wild Dog is no different from that, except for the fact that Payanam had far better writing. Wild Dog just isn't wild anymore. I don't think it's even a dog.

It wouldn't be wise to not mention Swing Vote, the film that I believe inspired Mandela. I would have been upset had they tried to replicate the film directly. However, Madonne Ashwin gives us a breathtaking and intricate film. Mandela is Yogi Babu's shining glory. It's a phenomenal entertainer. It lives to make you laugh. A majority of the scenes are designed to make you giggle, guffaw, chuckle or even smirk.

The surprise package of the film is Yogi Babu. I expected almost nothing from this film and throughout this almost 135-minute, I was constantly telling myself how good it really is. Mandela is political satire at its sharpest. Something Manivannan would do with gusto. It's great to see such smart films in an era of stupid remakes.

There have been many films that can be described as slick, cool and stylish. But, it all began with Thief in my opinion. It's an ultracool film that defines Michael Mann's filmmaking style - darker night shots, grey day shots, a synthesizer-led score, slow-pacing, most dialogues recorded at low volumes, loud gun shots, long and drawing takes and a minimalist approach to storytelling - it's all available in Thief.

It's sad that Mann's later films (including the late 2000s remake of Miami Vice) do not have the same energy as Thief or even his 90s masterpiece, Heat. But, enough about that. Thief is James Caan's film all the way but most characters are written and played well, that everyone has a fair share. Robert Prosky (whom I grew to love in Hill Street Blues) is brilliant as the mob boss, Tuesday Weld's role sadly was under-written. They gave her a history but left it right there. The best of it all was Willie Nelson, who in his first and only talking scene delivers a fine performance. I just loved how Willie as Okla kept staring at James Caan's Frank with joy and glee. It was a spectacular performance.

Thief has its shortcomings. Much like later Mann films, it's slow, the main plot is a little hard to follow (because the dialogues can be too observant), and importantly style can sometimes replace substance (like the improbable climax shootout), but it is nevertheless an early 80s gem and perhaps Mann's finest hour.

There may be many great baseball movies but there's only one classic and it's not Redford's The Natural or Costner's own Field of Dreams. It's Bull Durham, an underrated movie from 1988.

Tim Robbins is a natural fit as a cocky young pitcher and so is Kevin Costner as the veteran ball player whose main job is to coach Robbins into becoming a better player. The humour is first class and it's tough to single out a scene in particular. If you like humour that's not in your face ha-ha, you'll love Bull Durham.

But, wait, I haven't told you about the movie's biggest strength - Susan Sarandon. This is the movie where I fell in love with the woman. As Annie Savoy, she's smart, sassy and incredibly sexy. Her lines are impeccably written and her character is just fun to watch.

What Bull Durham had in humour and spirit, Field of Dreams made up with sentimentality and nostalgia. Nevertheless, I will also consider Bull Durham to be the better film, mainly because the filmmakers weren't trying to make a great film. They weren't trying to give it a glow like Field of Dreams had. They just wanted to make a fun baseball film in the league of Major League and they hit the bullseye!

Grown Ups 2 is just as gross as the first one. It's gross enough to be an Adam Sandler classic. And that's what it is. Some movies give you a warm feeling and Grown Ups 2 gave me that feeling; a blanket of comfort when I know nothing can go wrong. The absence of Rob Schneider (who was the butt of most jokes and gags in the first movie) meant that poor David Spade had to take his place. Spade does a pretty good job at it thankfully. Kevin James however was the highlight of the movie with his subtle one-liners and his "Burp-Snarts". Taylor Lautner is a close second for his over-the-top frat boy performance.

The movie continues the current trend of flaunting 80s nostalgia. Sandler did it a few years earlier with Pixels and does it again in this. The entire third act of the film is set around an 80s themed end of the year party.

Simply put, Grown Ups 2 is for those people who comment "I see____. I click." on YouTube or Reddit. It's for the simple-minded, the ones who need some relief, the ones who don't care about the wokeness. That perhaps is why Grown Ups 2 joins the league of the Sandler Classics where other recent movies include Just Go With It and You Don't Mess With The Zohan.

First off, congrats to Snyder on getting his cut out. However, did we need this? All 4 hours of this?

ZSJL is eons better than JWJL. Many characters have bigger arcs. Many fates are met differently. The ending is tenser. But, it's also incredibly dark and depressing. HBO Max should offer valium to everyone who has seen it.

I am glad that much of the bad humour in Whedon's version was actually Whedon's idea. None of it is here and thankfully, that makes the characters more serious. However, I do miss the romantic tension between Bruce and Diana. The chemistry here is hardly visible.

There's a very good scene between Martha and Lois and I thought "oh, this is really something." Then, it's revealed that Martha was Martian Manhunter all along. What the double F!

I was initially surprised by the runtime but as soon as the movie began, I noticed a major fault - slow-motion. There's too much of it in the film and it's mostly annoying because you want to see what's going to happen next but Snyder's slo-mo shots keep you waiting and waiting. At one point, I got bored and started skipping ahead to see the end result.

The BGM is here and there. It sounds like a rock concert at one point, a template superhero movie at the other and some weird Bjork crap at another. Every time Wonder Woman does something, you hear a woman do vocables. Then, there's a weird song that plays out after Aquaman takes his sweater off when he needs to swim. What really was that?

When the film is finally over, it's not over yet. We get a series of post-credit scenes including a nightmare scenario that just does not work one bit!

The Girl on the Train is the best example of everything that can go wrong with an Indian adaptation of an English novel. It's basically a retelling of the Murphy's Law. But, this movie sinks deeper and deeper into the river of despair and takes us with it. I was cringing, laughing and cringing some more. Parineeti Chopra's performance is completely bonkers! You can see how hard she's trying to act and it's magnificently bad! Her performance was the worst! Give this one a miss!