Reviews

This was unintentionally hilarious and incredibly awful. I don't even know where to begin, and everyone else has done a pretty good job raking this one over the coals already. So, I'll just add some personal perspective. I live in San Diego, and first visited the city four years before this was shot. My husband was born and raised here. So, we had a great deal of fun trying to ID all of the filming locations, since there isn't any kind of a list anywhere. Other than that, it was painful to watch and even more harmful on the ears with the DREADFUL and extremely inappropriate film score. For me, I finally threw in the towel when the dude talks to the killer whales at the aquarium and convinces them to go (as a fellow reviewer termed it) "Roy Scheider" the friggin' thing. Shamu and pal save the day!

Really?? Sandra Bullock as a "brilliant scientist"? You have to be effing kidding me.

I wish IMDb allowed you to submit reviews of just one line, because that would have been enough for me. That sums up the entire problem with this film -- oh, and the other completely unrealistic and silly twists and turns along the way don't hurt, either. I saw it in a 3D IMAX theater, and while the scenes from space were beautiful, I really couldn't get past the rest of it.

Yes, Sandy Bullock is Everyman's sweetheart, and her winning the People's Choice award proves my point. I have always thought she is a terrible actress, and she basically turned this film into "Speed in Space". If IMDb had an audio function, I would add a sound clip of me doing an impression of her great "acting" from this film -- but perhaps you can do it, too. Just go, "Aaaah Aaaah Aaaah Aaaah Aaaah" in the most annoying nasally voice that you can muster at just the right nails-on-a-chalkboard pitch, and you've got it. If she wins the Oscar, someone kill me, please.

From all the hype and buzz surrounding this film, I was expecting to be blown away. I was not. To me, it was just okay, and the best part was the music, the hairdos, and of course, the clothes. The storyline was a little confusing, and, as someone else commented, it was hard to find a single, likable character to root for. I thought, at first, Bradley Cooper was going to be that guy, until he went completely wacko and turned out to be the worst of the bunch.

Also, I really like all of these actors and thought their performances were great (Christian Bale slipping into an unintended Al Pacino impression a couple of times, notwithstanding), but it was a bit like watching "Silver Linings Playbook" all over again. I don't know why it bothered me when David O. Russell recycled his cast and it played like a re-run, but someone like Woody Allen or Christopher Guest can do it and the film feels fresh and funny. I think, at the end of the day, perhaps Mr. Russell isn't my favorite director in the world.

At any rate, if you go not expecting too much, the experience is worth it, especially since the story is somewhat based on actual events. However, if you are trying to choose between this and a lot of the other fantastic films out this awards season, perhaps save this one for a NetFlix rental.

I think that "Sideways" will always be my favorite Alexander Payne film, because it was just so perfect in every possible way. But I, like most people reading this, have learned my lesson over the years being quick to highly recommend a movie that I love only to find that it fell completely flat for someone else. I feel that might be the case with "Nebraska" because there is a large segment of the population who say they want to go to the movies to be "entertained", and would find this film really depressing, with unlikeable characters in uncomfortable situations.

I, on the other hand, go to the movies to be told a good story -- and I really don't need every loose end tied up with a bow or to leave the theater with a spring in my step. For that reason, I loved "Nebraska", and thought it told a pretty realistic tale in a sort of Fargo-meets-About Schmidt kind of way. Yes, the characters were quirky and somewhat stereotypical, but hell -- I grew up in Wisconsin, and I can tell you, some of those people and the lives they led were pretty spot-on. And, at the end of the day, it did have a nice conclusion in that Will Forte's character got to do something nice for his dad and I don't think it went completely unappreciated. If you caught the quick, stolen glance that Bruce Dern gives Will Forte as the two are driving away from the dealership in the new truck, you might agree.

It goes without saying that the acting, cinematography and art direction are really top-notch, and added a lot to the film's overall effect. I would expect a slew of Oscar nominations -- and with an extremely strong Best Actor field this year (Robert Redford in "All is Lost", Forrest Whitaker in "The Butler", Chiwetl Ejiofor in "12 Years a Slave", to name a few) Bruce Dern will definitely be in contention to take home the top prize. I hope that Academy voters will also recognize Will Forte and June Squibb in their supporting roles, but it has been an unusually strong film year so the competition will be tight.

I went to see this film for three reasons: 1) to pay tribute to the wonderful Jimmy G in his last role; 2) it got good reviews; and 3) I love the cast. I was not disappointed at all. I thought it felt like a very "real" film, and those who have commented that they found it to be too much from the female perspective need to get a clue. I'm sorry, but women really do talk about their ex-husbands/husbands/boyfriends, so I didn't find the premise of this too far-fetched. The only thing that is pretty unlikely is that in a city as large as Los Angeles, the women would happen to be talking about the same man. But, hey, I live in San Diego -- the sixth largest city in the country, and I can't believe how often I run into people I know.

I think if you want to see a nicely done, intelligent romantic comedy for the slightly older crowd, this is your movie -- and at an hour and a half, just the right length so as not to wear out its welcome. My husband commented as we were exiting the theater that he was really glad a small film like this can still get made -- they are few and far between, it seems. The only thing I would change was the soundtrack -- the edgy, stupid sounding crap that is omnipresent these days didn't seem to fit. But, hey, that's a small nit to pick.

I first saw this movie several years ago -- not in the theatre, but pretty soon after it went to DVD. I have now watched it several times in its entirety, and it seems when I'm flipping channels and it's on Showtime or HBO, I'll tune in for a few minutes and then get hooked again. Oh my god, Philip Seymour Hoffman is worth it alone -- between the sharting, the basketball game, and the community theatre presentation of "Jesus Christ Superstar", I am a wheezing mess by the end of this film from laughing so hard. And, every time I watch it, I appreciate someone else's performance, or see some added nuance that I might have missed before. I think this is Ben Stiller's best film by far. It will remain a classic in our household for years to come.

I am discovering that I really enjoy Danish films more than maybe any other country's offerings except France . . . and that's only because there's nothing better than hearing French being spoken no matter what the context. But back to the Danes -- what great tone, cinematography, lighting, acting, and direction in their films -- I'm sold! Yes, the subject matter and tone can seem to some a bit melancholy, but I find it more realistic, especially these days, when there isn't a lot to be jumping up and down about in the world.

I found the characters in this film to be interesting and compelling as we observe them struggle with various themes: good vs. evil, right vs. wrong, and forgiving vs. seeking revenge. One person commented that she couldn't buy the 10-year-old boys behaving in this fashion and making the poor decision to blow up the jerk's van, but I don't agree. I didn't find it that much of a stretch, especially given all the violence that kids are exposed to these days. And as for having the knowledge to make an explosive device, all of that is apparently on the internet if you choose to find it -- look at what that whack job in Aurora, CO was able to do just this week.

This was not an easy film to watch given the story lines, but it was very well done and it gave the viewer a lot to think about. What would you have done in the parents' shoes or the doctor's shoes when he has to save the life of a brutal tyrant, but later makes the decision to throw him to the wolves? How 'bout having the restraint not to send the mechanic sprawling head first into the wall?

What did I do? I raised a Carlsberg to Ms. Bier (appropriate last name) and toasted her outstanding job making "In a Better World".

Well, after hanging in there this far into Season 3, I think I'm about done with The Big C after the young couple has decided that Cathy and Paul would be perfect adoptive parents for their baby. You have got to be kidding me -- what a stupid and completely unrealistic plot twist. Besides, I've had enough of seeing those two raise an a-hole of a son . . . why in the world would I want to see them start from scratch with someone else's child. Yeech.

I'm tired of every character in this show -- some I had a hard time tolerating from the start, and others who have become unbearable especially this season. I miss Cynthia Nixon in the roll of her good friend (although her relationship with Cathy's brother was ridiculous), as well as Marlene -- the cranky neighbor lady who they killed off at the end of Season 1.

Don't get me wrong, I am so thankful that Showtime, HBO, and the other cable TV outlets do original programming, because there hasn't been a single show on Network TV that I've liked for many years. That having been said, I think they should be careful about not wearing out their welcome with shows that are ill-conceived or that stay on long after the writing has ceased to be decent. The Big C is already in this category, and I find myself hoping that Cathy's melanoma makes a comeback pretty quickly.

I think that, for the most part, this was a perfectly fine remake of the Swedish 2009 film, but that's exactly the problem. Why do something that's already been done better -- and not that long ago, to boot? Everyone was very good in their roles -- I think finding Rooney Mara for the lead was key, because if you don't have the right Lisbeth, the whole thing goes downhill fast. But it did seem kind of weird that they're all supposed to be in Sweden, yet everyone is speaking English. Again, a reason to see the original and leave it at that.

Another thing that bugged me was the ending -- please stop reading if you don't want a spoiler. When they showed Lisbeth going to Mikael's house with a gift for him, and she sees him emerging with his arm around Erika, Lisbeth is obviously upset and hurt. She throws the expensive jacket into the trash, and vrooms off on her motorbike. In the original film, we surmise that Lisbeth and Mikael's relationship wasn't really anything more than friends with benefits -- in fact, I don't remember them having sex more than once. Lisbeth seems like she'd have a L*O*N*G way to go before she could be intimate with a man in any meaningful way, so the whole last scene in the U.S. remake didn't really ring true to character. I left the theater wondering if the director did that to make her more likable to American audiences -- can we not handle the fact that Lisbeth is a very damaged young woman who isn't going to see Mikael as her knight in shining armor? At least they didn't have Lisbeth and Mikael ending up "together" as a couple -- that really would have been insulting. Gee . . . Erika or Lisbeth -- who would any guy in his right mind have gone for?

Normally, I would give this film an 8 or 9 and reserve a 10 for something that really blew my socks off, but I felt compelled to balance out the two reviews that were very stingy on stars due to what they perceived as lack of action or "oh la la" as one reviewer put it. Honestly, if you are saying that you needed the lead character to be a French hottie and to see lots of skin for this to grab and keep your attention, then I'm taking your comments with a grain of salt, buddy! And to the person who thought this was dreadfully slow, please go to any multiplex anywhere and stay there . . . leave the art house, finely-crafted, interpersonal dramas for those of us who don't need a car chase in every film.

That having been said, I will acknowledge that there were no real surprises in Madmoiselle Chambord, but that was okay for me. The fact that our leading man decided, in the end, that he couldn't leave his family made it more realistic to me, and therefore more "European" in sensibilities rather than the treatment this story probably would have gotten had it been an American film. I enjoyed being transported to France for a couple of hours, and I did think it a bittersweet and honest look at the choices we make in life and love.

I have to preface this by saying that I might have made a mistake seeing this the same day as Biutiful, another really depressing film. However, there was one big difference: I felt for the dad (Javier Bardem) in Biutiful -- sad for his situation as well as for the hopelessness in the lives of so many in Barcelona's underbelly.

As for the couple in Blue Valentine, I found myself not only not liking either of them, but not caring what happened to them. I just felt sorry for the little girl, and mostly for the family dog . . . although maybe he was the lucky one -- being put out of his misery within the first five minutes of this clunker.

I can't believe this is up for an Oscar -- must have been a pretty slow year for international film.

I don't need to rehash what everyone else has already said about Dogtooth -- let me just add that there is a VERY disturbing scene where a cat gets attacked with gardening shears and we're treated to a shot of the completely gratuitous, gory results. I turned to my husband and said, "I don't need to see any more of this, thank you." It just went downhill from there.

I do "get" what the filmmaker was going for and the message behind the film, but I can only think of one person I know who I could recommend this to -- a good friend who taught film studies for years at our local university. I think he would appreciate the stones it took to make this movie knowing that most people are going to be completely put off by the disturbing content.