Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
Along Came Polly (2004)
Lacking and missing
Overall, the movie manages to be funny enough and warm enough, but there are so many things lacking and missing from it that you can't help feeling frustrated when the end credits start rolling. Ben Stiller does a good job here in his usual turn as a fumbling, romantically challenged, lovable doofus. He can't escape some bathroom humor (literally), but is otherwise funny and manages to actually create a fully developed character in the film.
Jennifer Aniston is a huge disappointment. Her acting is completely uneven, in some scenes she's this scatter-brained, cute ditzy girl, while in others she's almost shrewd, and surprisingly logical for the absent-minded, free spirited person she supposedly portrays. This lack of consistency seriously spoils the film. Aniston's acting also leaves a lot to be desired. In her ditzy scenes (pouring wine at a party) she is somewhat reminiscent of her Rachel character from "Friends", from the good old days when Rachel used to work at the coffee place. But mostly she just reminded me of the Jennifer Aniston I've seen in interviews - a little distant, reserved, and stand-offish. I guess she just played herself for most of the movie. Philip S. Hoffman is the one who makes this film a comedy (along with Alec Baldwin, and the blind ferret). He's totally into his character, and makes him irritating, funny, pathetic, all very convincingly.
What I found overdone and unnecessary is the portrayal of foreigners. The French scuba diving instructor (Hank Azaria) is an idiot and a scum in one (enough with the French bashing already!), and the Australian businessman (Bryan Brown) is just a reckless idiot, whose hobby is to endanger his life and those around him. If we wonder why the rest of the world tends to have negative opinion about us, here's one of the reasons: we make them either jerks or evil in our movies. As an American living abroad I can tell you, that people do notice these things.
I don't know if it's typical of all 1930s and 40s actors, but Mae West's acting is at best overdone and at worst completely laughable and pathetic. She seems to have trouble walking, her face is like a frozen mask, her lips parted in a perpetual gasp (or smile?). The constant hip wiggling (can't she stand still for a minute?!), the "oh" accompanying every line, and her cabaret/stand up delivery of one-liners are at times annoying, and and times simply embarrassing to watch. Her quivering old age voice and shaky movements make it impossible for even the most forgiving viewer to buy the "Mae is a desirable sex siren" crap. And why was she paired with men young enough to be her grandsons, or even great-grandsons??
Apart from the retired drag queen Mae, other cast members are pretty good, perhaps simply by comparison with her. Dom DeLuise has some hilarious moments, Timothy Dalton and Tony Curtis are quite funny and convincing. The plot is a disaster (the ludricrously pink tape that keeps jumping in and out of things), and overall there's not much to the whole movie except for a few good punch lines.
The Mirror Crack'd (1980)
A very good adaptation.
Being a fan of both Agatha Christie, Angela Lansbury, and Rock Hudson I watched this film with pleasure. The cast here has done a great job, everybody is convincing, even Liz Taylor, although her acting is at times overdone, as usual. The movie has a good pace, dialogues are witty and humorous, and the mystery itself engaging. I think the proportions of each character's involvement in the story are true to the original (I was afraid they'd make Miss Marple into an action figure or something, but was glad to see she stayed in the background to make her grand entrance in the finale). All in all, it's a very good and convincing adaptation of Christie's book.
Scream 3 (2000)
Entertaining and disappointing.
The movie makes you laugh, jump, startle, and shake your head with disappointment. The plot is interesting, actors good, suspense excellent, but Scream 3 after all makes no sense.
There's not even a single clue to what might happen. It's a little unfair to the viewer, who can only marvel at the director's and screenwriter's imagination, but can't really participate in the movie. Scream 1 was different, because we were toyed with: now we think Billy is guilty, now we think he's not, but then he actually is. With Scream 3 we're just lied to.