Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
Fargo: The Myth of Sisyphus (2015)
The slow burning plot is sort of entertaining, but seriously - Lou's wife just happens to be at the hairdresser when dad walks in and start debriefing her on the case - just so that Peggy can hear everything.
Apart from Lou an his family, this is turning into a gangs war, about which I could not care less. They'll exterminate each other? So be it. We already know about Lou's fate, from the first series and there aren't that many other positive characters in the story.
Mike and the Kitchen brothers seems to have stepped out straight from a Tarantino's movie - Mike could be Jules' brother. Not much originality there.
Fargo: Before the Law (2015)
Way too many coincidences
This second season started up well, with a strong '70s vibe, not overdone. Desaturated photography, ugly clothes and music all felt right. Enter the usual bunch of creeps and liers and the usual few positive characters.
Then we have the stupidest premise of somebody running over a guy and actually deciding to drive home with the body stuck in the windshield....
Far fetched just starts to describe how believable the whole accident is. Why not just report it as what it was? Call the cops and explain the guy was running and you could not brake, due to the ice.... a genuine accident. Or just dump the body and drive away...
Both options make more sense than driving home with a body stuck into your car and just leave it in the garage and start preparing dinner. Then the friend who see the car, the cop who who catches the hubby at a strange time in the shop, etc....
A whole plot based on unlikely coincidences seems a bit too much.
What are the chances
Self-preservation is supposed to be a basic instinct. Therefore, Lester going to greet is old "pal" Malvo in the Vegas hotel is one of the stupidest plot development I have ever seen.
Besides being totally coincidental - seriously, what are the chances - nobody, not even a mororic, smug, self-satisfied ass like Lester would put his life in danger by basically hanging a target on his chest and asking Malvo to shoot.
So far I quite liked this series but this episode is just way too idiotic. The one year gap makes little sense and I am really looking forward to see Lester and Malvo wiping each other out.
PS sort of scary to see how many fans the psycho Malvo character got. Yet another master of creepines, whose fake smile is apparently fooling everybody....
Twin Peaks: Part 13 (2017)
Should I stay or should I go?
Audrey forgot who she is and how to get to the Roadhouse. She wants to go there and check if Billy is OK (although I have lost track of who Billy may be) but she also wants to stay with hubby Charlie.
This is gut-wrenching stuff.
Before that, a mildly entertaining scene with evil Cooper settling scores with Ray and more of the unbearable catatonic Cooper with the Mitchum brothers. Janey was back, too, wispering more sweet "Oh Dougie".
Really romantic stuff.
When I saw James playing at the Roadhouse I felt relieved, because I knew the episode was about to end, with the usual dose of doe-eyed pretty girls, lost in their love dreams (or nightmares, such as Becky).
Only this time we had five more minutes of no action, following the Roadhouse scene, with a troubled Ed staring at the gas station and moping about Norma.
Groundbreaking stuff.... ooops, apologies... I forgot... each episode is just more awsome than the previous one.
Twin Peaks: Part 12 (2017)
French pinup appears out of nowhere to disappear - but not fast enough
Looks like Lynch aims at alienating the remaining part of the audience that is not die-hard fans... you know, those people who think whatever he puts on screen is fabulous, being it a one-hour shot of a monkey peeling a banana in slow motion.
In this episode, what seems like half of it was about a French chick flirting with Gordon (because, you know, he is so irresistible and we care so much about that). More about the gold sh*t shovel and yet another dwarf - somebody must have a fetish.
Audrey popped up again, in a most unmemorable scene with the above mentioned dwarf, who turned out to be her husband Charlie (because, you know, this is a freak show).
To wrap up, we have a conversation between two girls at the Roadhouse, while a sulking blonde plays guitar onstage.
I lost count of how many old and new characters are in this, but frankly I am following only for the heck of it. Wouldn't recommend it, though.
Twin Peaks (2017)
A surreal conversation
David: Hey Kyle, what about playing again Agent Cooper in a totally plot-less sequel of my hit series Twin Peaks?
Kyle: OK, David, but I am busy with other projects...
David: No problem Kyle. In this series the main character will be Gordon, you know the FBI agent I play. He'll be the superstar, because he's much more interesting than Cooper and anybody else. This time Gordon will also be a chick magnet, with lots of women half his age flirting with him...
Kyle: OK David, if you think that will work...
David: Of course it will. Gordon is so interesting and irresistible. Not like that wimp Cooper.
Kyle: Uh... OK... but as I said I don't have much time...
David: No problem, your character will have only very few lines. In fact he's not in most episodes and when he is, he'll be catatonic. You'll just repeat the last words pronounced by the character you're speaking with and that's it.
Kyle: Does not seem an interesting angle...
David: There will also be the evil doppelgänger, with slightly more dialogue, but not too much. Don't forget that this series is about Gordon: His Return to Twin Peaks.
Kyle: Uh... OK David - your audience love whatever you do, regardless... and I can focus on other projects, since this requires minimum effort...
Twin Peaks: Part 11 (2017)
For audience with serious attention span issues
The most memorable scene of this episode was at the end, with a Roman Polanski-lookalike playing the piano. It was a nice surreal background bit scene in a nightclub, where boring catatonic Dougie shared a cherry pie with the Mitchum brothers.
Before that, we had hysterical Becky having a boring conversation about mad love, with mum & dad in the diner. Gordon experienced some weirdness, while Diane and her bad wig witnessed. Some sinister supernatural woodsman did evil deeds, announced by the usual creepy music.
This series starts to be a paint-by-number exercise: when the sinister music starts you know inexplicable events will take place, followed by silly conversation/event unrelated to main plot. Then, yet another minor character with no story arch will be thrown in, followed by comic relief of some sort, such as stupid Candie or another weird, catatonic character.
The good point is you do not need to remember what happened before. There are so many loose threads and secondary plots and no cohesive narrative that even somebody with the attention span of a fly can easily jump in an out of the "story".
Twin Peaks: Part 10 (2017)
Even the violence is over-staged
In this episode we have - again - a series of vaguely connected, self-standing short stories. Bad boy Richard brings trouble wherever he goes; weird Candie behaves like your garden-variety Lynchianesque character; Log Lady sends cryptic messages.
At least, some of the action makes sense, even if a lot of it is violence to women. However, even in the dramatic scene of Richard and his granny, Lynch manages to dilute the tension by focusing on annoying, staged details (see the freakish doll...).
The sex scene is totally non-erotic... I felt like hitting the only woman left untouched: Janey, who by now must have pronounced the name "Dougie" just about a billion times
Despite the fact that the plot moves a bit, I doubt I will ever warm up to the characters. There are way too many of them, their stories are too sketchy and it seems a case of "famous actors wanting to add a Lynch-role to their curriculum" such as Ashley Judd - what is she doing here exactly?
Then, there is the level of suspended disbelief required. We know this is fiction, we know characters are not "real" but we still need a reason to follow their stories and root for (or against) them.
Considering the super-slow narrative, the lack of plot, the abundance of Lynch-nonsense and quirks for quickness sake, it seems to require too much of an effort to buy into this weird, unsettling, grim humorless world.
Twin Peaks: Part 9 (2017)
Prophecies and suspended disbelief
Turns out, Major Briggs who disappeared 25 years ago predicted exactly what happens in this episode. Wow! I am so amazed... but then again, amazement depends on your level of suspended disbelief.
Since I am still watching this rather tedious "Return" to Twin Peaks, I clearly invested way too much in this bunch of characters. Yet, despite wanting very much to like the series I just find it not only boring, but totally superfluous.
On the other hand, there are already plenty of die hard Lynch fans, always praising a-critically everything he does, even if their reviews are not so much reliable assessment but just slavish adoration.
To any other member of the audience, this would probably look like yet another easily forgettable episode in a totally unfocused story.
Twin Peaks: Part 7 (2017)
Some plot, but still no idea why this is an 18 episodes series
This episode actually HAS some plot, which surprised me - but maybe it is there to prepare the audience for the infamous "episode 8". Still sorely missing is a decent performance from Agent Cooper. We're stuck between Dougie and his insufferable wife and Bad Cooper, the robotic, indestructible evil master.
The FBI actually investigate - or sort of - with foul-mouthed Diane, who's suitably scared by Bad Cooper. I almost forgot what happens in Twin Peaks because very little happens there that makes any sense, apart from the founding of some pages of Laura Palmer's diary, stuck in the door of the police's toilet. They were hidden 25 years previously, or so it seems
Everything still moving at snail's pace, which I don't mind too much, but still
Twin Peaks: Part 8 (2017)
Oops... a case of "the emperor new clothes"
Having made it so far, I knew this episode had a "bad reputation", but being curious I decided to try it out. Other reviews here vary between "Pure art" and "Torture". I am well aware of Lynch's techniques and I don't expect much structure or sense from his production. I also like some weirdness and dreaming (nightmarish?) visions, but only for the sake of a plot that makes some sense. Mulholland Drive had some disjointed scenes, but also a plot.
In this case instead we have only a concentrated "Lynchification" - as mentioned by another reviewer. The "strange symbols" would perhaps mean that Laura Palmer was some sort of angel/saint dropped on Earth for mysterious purposes? Also never EVER trust a woodman and please notice that the atomic bomb IS evil. Whatever it is, it takes itself so very seriously.
There used to be some weird humour in Twin Peaks, now completely buried under the massive Lynchification of Lynch taking himself so very seriously every step of the way. Could he make it any more Lynchianesque? He is certainly trying very hard, style trumping substance.
BTW, if I want to see an art film, I go and watch a self-standing show, knowing what I am in there for. In this case, I thought I was following a series with a narrative connecting episodes and moving the story forward - but this does not seem to be case.
PS and for those who write "If you don't like it don't watch it" I guess people is allowed to express their opinions about programs they want to watch.
Twin Peaks: Part 5 (2017)
Lack of plot starts to show
By now I started to be a bit worried by the lack of plot. in this episode we have an assorted bunch of disconnected scenes (a bit as usual), introducing new young villains, like the obnoxious, smoking guy at the end of the episode.
The trouble is that most of these scenes start to look like self-standing and self-referencing to Lynch obsession for the '50s, criminals, weirdos and art movies.
Quite annoying to follow Dougie/Cooper walking around in slow motion, without anybody wondering about the strangeness of his behavior. Even for a Lynchian environment this is puzzling and contrived.
Twin Peaks: Part 6 (2017)
More plot-free gory scenes
In this episode, we understand that the Watts' character - Janey-E - is so aggressive because she is forced by Dougie's passiveness to step in in all the situations Dougie's weirdness would be challenged. Besides, she clearly does not listen to anybody, also to cover up for the fact the Dougie has nothing to say. She is just a caricature, although she seems to have found lots of fans.
Then we have the stabbing dwarf - seriously - and a completely gratuitous hit and run. That moves the plot forwards not at all. We're still stuck nowhere, not knowing what exactly is the plot and what story we're supposed to follow.
BTW, we "finally" see Diane: she's MacLachlan's sweetheart from Blue Velvet, Laura Dern in a bad wig (vintage Lynch, I guess)
Twin Peaks: Part 1 (2017)
Starts with half a bang, to fizzle very quickly
Out of sheer nostalgia I decided to watch this series, knowing perfectly well that it could not compare with the mystery, ambiguity and cleverness of the first series (the second was already downhill).
The first episode dispenses a large dose of weird-Lynch for weirdness sake, jumping left and right, introducing new characters and disposing of them before we get too attached. Some atmospheric music, some shocking, inexplicable events, some reference to the past and it was intriguing enough to convince me I was not going to be - too - disappointed.
The Women (2008)
Watchable remake, not to be compared with the original
This is definitely no masterpiece, but such a low rating indicates that probably the vast majority of IMDb reviewers are young, male and/or misogynists (or all). Even Suicide Squad and the Transformers movies have higher ratings and for sure they are no better movies, unless you are into senseless violence, overblown CGI and paper thin characters.
The two main problems of this remake are product placement and too much political correctness. The original was a great idea, because women were (are?) so marginal in society that a movie without a single man in sight must have seemed a real challenge.
For hundreds of movies with an all-male cast (think about all those war and prison movies ) showing how women exist without a man in sight is still peculiar. In this version, not only they exist but they also manage to make a living on their own.
Annette Bening is the strongest character of the cast, as Sylvie, a sophisticated editor who's best friend with Meg Ryan's Mary. Mary is a much more conventional character. Having discovered that her husband cheats on her, Mary goes from partially employed/rich socialite to successful business woman far too quickly.
Their other two friends are irrelevant and are in this only to add a taste of "Sex & the City". Messing is Edie, a full time mother who stands for "women should be free to choose whatever they want, even staying-at-home mums are OK" and Pinkett-Smith is lesbian Alex, who stands for "everything else is OK, too".
Elderly ladies have Bergen (Mary's mother) and Leachman (Mary's housekeeper) to prove they can still hold their own. Teenage angst is embodied by Mary's daughter and Mendes is temptress Crystal, doing nothing more than shaking her booty and completing the cast for all the Latinos. Only an oriental lady is missing to check all the boxes for the politically correct police.
Most memorable in the movie are opulent interiors and beautiful clothes/accessories. Bening does an impressive job, also because lately she seems to appear only in unsophisticated roles - but a bit of comedy and stylish clothes do her good.
The final scene, with Messing giving birth, drags on forever. It is a cliché giving-birth, with way too much shouting which definitely did not help with wrapping up the story, even if it introduced for a few seconds the only male (luckily we're spared sight of his thingy).
Key events taking place off screen make for an awfully boring, bloated story
I watched the first two installments of HG during a long flight. They were OK as light entertainment even for somebody like me, outside the target audience. Obviously I did not read the novel (nor have I any interest in reading it) but I just wanted to see how the story ends.
Both Mockingjay parts were on TV lately. Predictably, they provided the awful ending of yet another trilogy, (stretched into four movies, for monetary reasons). This movie was particularly bad for the awful script that skipped all the dramatic key moments in favor of padding with fight, explosions and CGI.
Katniss is in a resistance team known as the Star Squad, composed of Gale, Peeta and other disposable members. She secretly plans to kill evil president Sow, thus dragging her team into the most dangerous zone of the Capitol and getting almost everybody killed.
Three quarters of this very long movie are just Kat and team fighting and slowly advancing in the city. Some team members die, more fighting and more casualties etc... Finally, Kat gets close enough to Snow's palace and her plan is just walking in with other refugees, wearing no disguise whatsoever - brilliant!
However, the palace gets bombed and Kat knocked out, just after having caught a glimpse of her sister. When Kat wakes up the was is over and the sister is dead. So the two most important events of the movie take place off screen, while the time on screen is filled by silly fighting....
After a minute of conversation with Snow, held captive before his execution, Kat is convinced that president Coin is corrupted and must be eliminated, which she does. She moves back to her District with Peeta, they have children and live happily ever after - because Gale knew that the bombing was planned by Coin, so he was also evil, or something to that effect. Even the "triangle" part of the plot was disposed off with a line of dialogue and 20 second on screen...
Morvern Callar (2002)
A guy commits suicide at home. He was an unpublished author, but his first novel is completed. His girlfriend cuts the body into pieces, bury the pieces into the woods and then sends his novel to a publisher, pretending it's her work, even if she's basically illiterate.
She gets a fat check for the novel (which was obviously a masterpiece) and lives happily ever after, after a stupid trip to Spain. Or she goes to Spain before getting the money.... I don't remember and really don't care.
I would not even discuss how morally repugnant this Morvern character is, with her disposing of her lover's body in such a way. Also stealing a dead person's legacy work is pretty repulsive.
However, skipping over the disgusting main character - of which we see far too many in contemporary movies - the storytelling technique was a mix of boring and insufferably pretentious, that made me swear never to watch any other movie made by this director ever again.
Amazing epic /love story and a truly great film
This is one of those great epic movies that for mysterious reasons are never shown on TV and are pretty much forgotten / unknown by the general public. It manages to mix successfully a love story with its turbulent historical background, in a way that I found even more convincing and less sentimental than Doctor Zhivago.
I had the chance to watch it again after many years and I was truly surprised by how good it still is. It tells the story of John Reed - one of the very few foreigners buried in the Kremlin - and his turbulent relation with Louise Bryant. Particularly moving are the interviews with the "witnesses" that form the backbone of the movie. These people were Reed and Bryant's contemporaries, all in their late 70s/early 80s when the movie was shot, and some admit candidly to hardly remember Reed and Bryant.
The movie starts with some witnesses speaking and then we are shown Reed and Bryant's first, awkward meeting, while Bryant was still married to her first husband. Soon the two move together in New York, while the anti-war movement is campaigning against the US entering WWI.
Reed had already an adventurous past as field journalist and decided that WWI was a capitalistic war. He was intrigued by the Russian events in 1917 and managed to be in Moscow during the turbulent days of the Bolshevik revolution. Bryant - who had married him in the meanwhile - was with him. They both wrote books about those adventurous days.
Back in the US the couple split up, with Reed wanting to be more involved with the Communist party and Bryant not so keen. There were also infidelities on both sides, hers with Eugene O'Neill. It was quite moving to see young Keaton and Nicholson playing Bryant and O'Neill. It made me think of their uneasy romance in "Something's got to give"...
Anyway, Reed ends up in Russia again in 1919 and then imprisoned in Finland for wanting to leave Russia. Bryant decides to help him and starts an epically dangerous journey. In the meantime, Reed has been freed and is forced to campaign in the USSR, while his health is slowly deteriorating. When the two finally meet at Moscow station, you have a truly moving moment, not exploited in any sugary, sentimental way. The bitter end is however around the corner.
Definitely Beatty best work, both as an actor and as a director - for which he got a well deserved Oscar. Keaton also deserved it, for her portrayal of Bryant. She was nominated but the Oscar for leading actress went to Katharine Hepburn. In the same year the other contenders were Streep and Sarandon - some fierce competition, not like nowadays.... The movie was robbed from winning best picture by the more conventional "Chariots of fire".
Loving Vincent (2017)
Amazing work of art, telling a melancholic tale
This is one-of-a-kind movie and definitely a must for lovers of Van Gogh. I studied art, therefore I was very interested in seeing how they managed to produce new painting using his technique. The result is visually striking. You can actually experience some of Van Gogh's paintings coming to life, which is in itself pretty amazing.
However, a movie must also have a strong script, a good story to go with the visual. The plot is about Armand Roulin, son of Joseph Roulin - two frequent subjects of Van Gogh's portraits. In fact, the whole Roulin family, inclusive of mum Augustine and her other two children were painted several times by Van Gogh, while in Arles.
Joseph was Van Gogh's postman and in the movie he entrusts Armand to deliver his last letter to brother Theo. Vincent and Theo's letters were published at the beginning of the last century, shedding light on their affectionate relationship, but not about Vincent's demise.
Therefore, Armand sets out to investigate Vincent's last days. The tone is somber and melancholic, somehow clashing with the beautiful visuals. Van Gogh comes across as an enigmatic man who could be sweet and full joy one moment and despondent the next - maybe suffering from bi-polar disorder, but we'll never know.
The plot develops a bit slowly in the end we do not know much more of what we knew at the beginning, but for sure we can retain the memory of this fantastic pictorial voyage.
Dom Hemingway (2013)
Yet another glorified British gangster
Very few movies have the power to put me off within the first five minutes, like this one did. I had not heard of it - which is usually the sign of a movie I can ignore - but when it was shown on TV, I thought I might give it a chance.
Enters a balding, muscular but fattish Jude Law, delivering a monologue about his dick. It wasn't so much outrage, but annoyance at the thought of yet another movie glorifying British gangsters. I am not sure if it was Guy Ritchie who started the fashion or if it was "Sexy Beast" - great movie, BTW.
Sadly, this is no Sexy Beast. It reminded me a bit of London Boulevard, a boring movie about yet another British criminal just released from prison, but lacking even the superficial gloss of that already unoriginal, bad film.
If this is supposed to be an "iconic" role for Law, I feel sorry for him. Nothing could be less iconic than the standard, foul-mouthed British thug of so many B movies. Surely it is some change from his usual soft-spoken, sophisticated characters. However, Law is not golden boy material anymore, so he'd better get a range - possibly playing some character less cliché than the glorified gangster.
Not Fade Away (2012)
Reality is too much what it looks like
This movie received terrible reviews from the audience, but it is not that bad. Its main problems are too many sub-plots and a silly open ending. Apart from that, it is a classic "coming of age" tale. Main character Douglas loves rock'n'roll and joins a band as drum player. The band leader is handsome Eugene, who cannot sing as "soulfully" as Douglas. Therefore, Douglas plans to replace Eugene as front man. Trouble ensues, as it always does and dreams are crushed....
The bitter twist of the story is that we follow Douglas's sister narration and we know from the start that his band is not bound for glory. Maybe this was also what put off the audience: is there a point following the story of a rock band that won't make it?
Considering they must be the majority, I guess there is. Besides, the music is good and you can spend a couple of hours feeling nostalgic for a bygone era.
As already mentioned, too many characters mean that none is developed properly (Douglas's girlfriend Grace and her family, including her nutty sister; Douglas's dad Pat and his cancer, etc...). Even Douglas and Eugene, the two closest to a lead role are very sketchy characters.
Pat is played by Gandolfini, who early in the movies delivers one of the best one-liner ever: while Douglas gushes about Twilight Zone and "Reality not being what it looks like", the tired man answers "Reality is too much what it looks like".
20th Century Women (2016)
Great story about a bunch of people in transition
I was looking forward to watching this movie because I liked Beginners, by the same director and I was not disappointed: this story has a similar understated quirkiness, but it is a bit less melancholic.
The whole cast is convincing as a group of lost souls living in Southern California in 1979. Annette Bening is Dorothea, the 55yo single mum of 15yo Jamie. Due to their age gap, she finds it difficult to connect with Jamie. Dorothea asks Julie, a teenage friend of Jamie and Abbie, a lodger in her house, to help her raising Jamie.
Their unconventional living arrangement is completed by William, another lodger in Dorothea's house. In his 40s, William could be a much needed father figure for Jamie, but the two do not get along.
Increasing tension in the house pushes Jamie to run away with Julie. This in turn leads to a temporary re-connection with Dorothea, but we gather that their relationship was never easy or close and it is only in memory that Jamie finds solace and understanding for his long deceased mother.
1979 was a transitional period: the end of whatever was left of the hippie era and the beginning of the yuppies. Punk rock was about to die, but it still seemed in good shape.
Unfortunately, that was also period during which were developed some distortions in our society, perceived as "liberation". The growth of technology, fast travel, fast fashion etc...which resulted only in increased stress, frustration and chaos.
I felt almost nostalgic watching a not too faraway time when people could live life without cell phones and the internet... However, without the internet I would not be here writing reviews... Great story though, and great soundtrack: a lot of Talking Heads' music is featured in the film, which I liked since I am a fan.
Blade Runner 2049 (2017)
Do tears freeze in the snow?
BR2049 has more plot holes than emmental cheese and one big "plot twist" that I won't mention, not because it would spoil much, but because if you decide to watch this movie, you deserve to be disappointed by its stupidity.
The big "twist" is mentioned as the "miracle", but it is absolutely idiotic and illogical from the point of view of a manufacturer of replicants. How did "that" might have ever be considered a good idea? One would assume that after the disaster of the Nexus 6 series, Tyrell Co. and his successors would have invented some more reliable security system - such as a lower level of self-consciousness, way safer than the questionable "obedience" of the Nexus 8. Or even something like all the androids looking the same, so that they can be easily detected and you would not need blade runners to locate and eliminate them.
Anything that would provide humanity with useful, free labor without ethical problems But no, in this movie ethical problems just got exponentially bigger. And so much for a science so advanced as to reproduce perfect bodies and minds...
Besides, since it is established that humankind sucks, I failed to understand how replicants are in any way better, since they just want to be more "like humans" .
On the visual side, BR2049 sucks, too. Looks like they used random leftovers scenery from other Sci-Fi/disaster movies, from the overused industrial background of Terminator to the desertic blurred landscape of MadMax and the inevitable nightmarish city-scape, which looks like Blade Runner, but on cheap side. Costumes looks like the contemporary drab clothing promoted by Nordic high street chains: lots of dark, cheap-looking leggings and stretchy tops, a far cry from the decadent, elaborate futuristic/retro suits of BR.
In one scene, Deckard meets Tyrell's successor in a closed room filled with water, except a square island in the middle. A room that has no other reason to exist except bringing back memories of the "original" Tyrell building.
The dialog is unbelievable bad and scenes drag on forever. When the Goslin character finds Deckart, the two spend over ten minutes fighting and chasing each other, when a couple of lines of dialogue would have avoided that.
The ending is both manipulative and plagiarist: it wants to move the audience, recreating the amazing poetic moment of Roy Batty's death, but using snow instead of rain. If nothing else, the ending would have been enough to put me off this piece of commercial garbage.
Pineapple Express (2008)
The monkey's out of the bottle
Rogen and Franco are Dale and Saul, a couple of weed-smoking slackers who get involved in a murder. This type of movie is usually targeted to a young audience and tends to be filled with gross profane jokes, bad language and stupidity. Here we have plenty of bad language and stupidity, but the jokes are actually quite funny.
Having mostly seen Franco in "serious" movies, I was surprised by his comic skills. He is hilarious as the perpetually stoned Saul, blurting out one idiotic sentence after the other. He is also very cute and a bit of eye candy never hurts. Rogen seems always to play the same part of obnoxious, lazy looser, but here he was funnier and slightly more energetic than usual.
The fight scenes were actually hilarious and sort of believable, with people hitting each other like in real life, without any spectacular stunt. They "just" punched randomly, often hitting the wrong target and screaming in pain.
Danny McBride in the supporting role of Red is also funny and so is Begley Jr. in the small role of the crazy father of Dale's girlfriend.
Our Souls at Night (2017)
Sweet and melancholic
Sweet movie about two elderly neighbors who connect after the death of their spouses. Redford is the reserved Louis and Fonda the more outgoing Addie, who one night knocks at his door and proposes they spend some nights together, just for chatting and company.
With nothing to loose, Louis accepts the proposal and after an awkward start, they connect. Then, Gene, Addie's son (a miscast Schoenaerts) pops up to drop his son with grandma, because he is in the middle of a divorce, not to mention his business going bust.
Grandson Jamie pushes the couple even closer and just when everybody is cozily settling in, with a lovely rescue dog to complete the picture, Gene is back with his baggage of complaints and jealousy. Will Addie and Louis manage to be happy ever after?
It was good to see Fonda and Redford back together. I used to love "Barefoot in the park" as a child, they were such a hot couple and the movie was so much fun. They still look good for their age and their acting is superbly understated, although it made me feel a bit melancholic about the passing of time.