Change Your Image
josabby
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Elementary (2012)
Has potential, but needs better writing and directing
The Mystery part of these shows are poorly written. I don't get a sense of an equal partnership between Sherlock and Joan. Forget that they are using the names of Sherlock and Watson. Forget about the BBC Sherlock, House, or the Robert Downey Jr/ Jude Law films, Forget about Data a Geordi, Forget Jeremy Brett.
This show is essentially a crime procedural show that takes the names of Iconic characters.
Do I have a problem with them turning John Watson into Joan Watson? No. I am a woman and very far from being a Doyle purist. I've been a fan of Lucy Liu since Ally McBeal. Ling was a great character who I loved. She was like Greg House. A Jerk, but lovable. Few women can pull that off.
My problem with Joan Watson, is that Sherlock always seems to piece things together while she's asleep. It's like the writers use her sleeping as a bandage on the plot because they can't figure out how to effectively show the workings of Sherlock's mind. Sure Joan interrogates people with Sherlock. Sure there are medical things that Joan happens to notice, but those moments feel like contrived attempts to make Joan look useful.
Then there's Sherlock. He wallows way too much in self pity. I don't mind seeing a character have issues and be affected by traumatic experiences from the past. Wesley on Angel and Topher on Dollhouse are perfect examples of this. Joss Whedon and his crew built a strong foundation for that wallowing so the audience could feel their pain. Sherlock's wallowing on Elementary just makes in look like a whiny burn out who can afford to be a whiny burn out. He complains about his daddy who pays his way. Did it ever occur to him to try to make his own way? He's almost 40. It's like the writers decided to give him a traumatic past without thinking things through. His whining just seems hollow. The one character I like is his sponsor who told him to get over himself. It's about time someone did. Sherlock walks around with hunched shoulders and holds his face in a weird expression. The writers felt the need to make Sherlock have sex with prostitutes and a few other women in a cheap attempt to make him seem more edgy.
Then there is the supporting cast. Gregson and Marcus are bland.
I prefer Bones as a Crime Procedural. The leads have great chemistry even before they hooked up. Their different personalities and views on life made for great interaction. The supporting characters have distinctive personalities as well.
Cold Case is a great show for solving mysteries. There is a logic in their crime solving and the audience gets to work with Lily Rush to solve the crimes. The Audience for Elementary does not get the same experience as Joan, the supposed Audience voice, is always asleep when Sherlock puts things together.
The acting is also very flat. They seem to be trying to be Hitchcockian by casting blonde chicks who don't directly commit murders, but who do dishonest things that lead others to killing. The blonde chicks who do this are pretty in a dull cookie cutter way and speak the same (barely above a whisper). I still don't understand why Joan felt bad about solving the mystery on the finale. The wife set up an innocent man to be murdered to give her husband peace instead of getting him some professional help. When Sherlock told the man the truth about what his wife had done, did he feel guilty about taking the life on an innocent man? Not at all. He wanted to get his sister's killer. It sucks that his sister died, and that's a horrible thing to live with, but what about the wife of the innocent man he killed? He and his wife deprived her of her husband for selfish reasons because they love each other and his dead sister so much. And, we, like Joan are supposed to feel bad for the guy? I don't think so. The motivations of murderers are lame. They are reflections of the characters of Sherlock (and Joan): People who wallow and are self involved.
When I saw the previews for Elementary, I thought I'd actually enjoy it because I loved Johnny Lee Miller in Mansfield Park and Emma and I've loved Lucy Liu since Ally McBeal. I may still like the show in the future if they can get writers and director who are good story tellers and can construct good mysteries and structure good mystery solving.
On a final note, there's the comparison to the BBC show. It's like comparing Twilight to Harry Potter (though Elementary is much better than the turd that is Twilight) But they are alike in name brand only. The comparisons are superficial. The stories and interpersonal relationships are completely different.
The Hangover Part II (2011)
Meh, Bleh, and ugh!
I was surprised how much I actually liked the first movie. I'm just glad I didn't pay full price to see this one. A couple of months ago my little brother was in town and we were going to see a movie: either this or X-Men First Class. I told him we could see this if he paid. We saw X-Men. I'm glad we did. I finally saw the Hangover part Two last night thinking I could possibly be surprised again (in a good way) I was not. This movie is raunchier than the first one, but no where near as funny. The new characters of Lauren and Teddy were likable enough, but trying to hit all of the funniest plot points from the first film was annoying, forced, and boring. Tracy was somewhat annoying in this in that she begged Doug to talk Stu into inviting Alan to his wedding then is all "what is wrong with you three" Um nothing. It's your seriously disturbed brother you insisted on inviting. Alan's antics were somewhat funny in the first film, but he seriously crossed the line in the second when his actions put people in danger and he was threatening people with violence. Seriously the guy needs to be put in a mental ward. He could have killed Teddy when he was deliberately trying to drug him so he could have Stu, Phil, and Doug to himself for the weekend. And Teddy, Stu and the rest of the family weren't the least bit upset that a monkey had his finger? What about Alan getting Chow involved? An international criminal who tried to kill them in the first movie? Why did Tracy come to get Doug, but Lauren didn't come to get Stu and Teddy? And Stu is okay with all this in the end? I liked him embracing the fact that he has a "dark side" and standing up to his father-in-law, that is the only element from the first movie worth trying to repeat. Phil's actions are disturbing as well: wanting Stu to lie to Teddy's family about what happened to him. Guys doing a bunch of stupid crap while drunk is funny. Guys doing criminal activity while not drunk is not funny. If Stu and Doug have any brains, they will ditch Phil and Alan. I really hope they don't make a third movie like Todd Phillips seems to be considering. It felt like the characters were sleepwalking from plot point to plot point in this film. It just didn't have the flow or delivery of the first. Ed Helms and the others can make better use of their time and their talents. The first film made them household names, but they shouldn't let crappy sequels ruin their careers.
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)
From Huge fan of the books with positive and negative thoughts on the movies
Overall, I enjoyed this movie. I've always felt that Daniel Radcliff does a great job playing Harry. He has very expressive eyes and as Harry is a character who internalizes a lot, that is a great thing. I think I'll start out with my gripes and end with the praises. The two major gripes I've had with the entire series are the way that Kloves throws in many elements from the books, but never explains their significance (like all the clues in PoA-the map, Crookshanks chasing Scabbers, the shrieking shack, the "grim", etc but never explaining how they all tied into the truth of Sirius), or putting Rita Skeeter into the GoF movies but never explaining that she was an beetle. Throwing in so many elements without explaining their significance has made the films feel rushed and confusing. The other gripe I've had is that I've often felt that the filmmakers try to imitate similar situations they've seen in movies (particularly particularly teenage issues) rather than seeing the deeper meaning in the source material. Emma Watson seems to overact quite a bit and the filmmakers praise her for it. I often feel like she is imitating someone else rather than reacting to the situation in any given scene. One example that comes to mind in this film was her laughing at the joke about Dumbledore's age. She laughed more than the moment called for. The filmmakers also misinterpret Harry and Hermione's friendship and give the shaft to how close Harry is to Ron. The final scene of this film is a prime example. They have Harry and Hermione having a very intimate discussion while Ron is just sitting off to the side. I wonder if Kloves even likes Ron because often Ron just sits there; in the books Ron is a very active character who has certainly had a few arguments with his two best friends, but is fiercely loyal to them. I didn't like the scene where Hermione was crying over R&L; she talks to Harry about his feeling for Ginny and hers for Ron. They have never had a discussion like that in the book. Harry always trusted Ron and Hermione with his life and would have gladly sacrificed himself to save them, but he felt uncomfortable talking to them about more personal issues. He related better to Ginny, Neville and Luna on the issues because they had gone through dark times in their lives he could relate. I feel the filmmakers miss foreshadowing opportunities. They missed the ministry turning on Harry and Dumbledore by only touching on Fudge's attitude in GoF, they didn't put in the chocolate and the scene where Ginny reminds Harry about the fact that she was possessed by Riddle in OotP (which would have been a good set up for the romance in HBP, and they did not mention Dumbledore's Army, the diadem in the RoR or Hufflepuff's cup to set up the student rebellion or the hunt for Horcrux's in the final film. I wish they could hire Peter Jackson to adapt the fantasy aspects and Richard Curtis to adapt the relationships. The over doing the close friendship of Harry and Hermione while shoving Ron off to the side feels like the filmmakers pandering to what they think an audience would like rather that trusting the source materials loved by millions around the world. It's like the crappy romance between Susan and Caspian. About the infamous attack on the Burrow: it could either be an attempt at gratuitous excitement or be there to foreshadow something in the final film. If it was there for the first reason, than it is pointless and idiotic of Kloves and Yates; it had nothing to do with the rest of the film and the time the scene took could have been filled with a number of great scenes in the book. If it was there to foreshadow the final showdown between Bellatrix and Molly Weasley, it was potentially genius. They focused a lot on Molly's reaction to the burning house. Now, on to the things I liked. For the most part, I think the acting was terrific. Daniel Radcliff is really growing as an actor and I think he will have a long and successful film career once the Harry Potter films are complete. I thought he did a great job showing his fear that Ron would die in the poison scene. I also got a chuckle when he came from hiding the book in the RoR and kissing Ginny and Ron asking him if he and Ginny had done it. I also see Rupert Grint having a long career. He has great comic timing. I was laughing hard when he was under the influence of love potion. Both Daniel and Rupert have priceless facial expressions. Evanna Lynch is terrific playing Luna. Her delivery is awesome "I often sleepwalk in this hallway that's why I wear my shoes to bed." Classic!!!. Bonnie Wright is doing well capturing the feisty Ginny. Despite the fact that the Harry/Ginny first kiss wasn't as exciting as it was in the book, I was impressed with the kiss itself. I also enjoyed the Ron/Lavender moments more than I thought I would. They were very entertaining. I say fire Emma Watson and her bulging eyes, over active eyebrows and over acting and do some make-up on Cave and have her play Hermione. Lavender is a silly Character in her relationship with Ron. Cave could have easily overdone it and been extremely annoying, but she captured the character perfectly and I was entertained by her performance. I also have to compliment Gambon and the improvement in his portrayal of Dumbledore this time. I thought he was terrible in the previous films, but this time he seemed to capture the demeanor of the Dumbledore in this film. There were a lot of good moments and performances in this film, I just think the filmmakers need to tie everything together better.
Failure to Launch (2006)
Better than I thought, Weak Leads Saved by supporting Characters *spoilers*
I didn't have High expectations for this movie based on the Previews. It looked like some stupid juvenile film. But it turned out to be somewhat entertaining. The reason, however that I give this movie a 6 is the utter lack of chemistry between the two lead characters. As the movie progress, I just didn't feel romance blossoming between trip and Paula. Granted, we we constantly TOLD through the dialog that they were falling in love, but I just wasn't feeling it dawg and was left a bit cold at the end (yep I'm ripping off Randy and Simon here.) The romance felt a bit forced. The whole make up scene where Trip was tied to a chair was so insipid, the filmmakers tried to make up believe in it by having the people watching it on Ace's computer and cheering them on, trying to dictate to the audience how they should react to the scene. Now I know that Matthew Maconaughey can have chemistry with a girl in a romantic comedy (but then, there was at least a scene that really showed them falling in love, like when he took her (Kate Hudson) to meet his parents). He had great Chemistry with Kate Hudson in How to Lose A Guy in Ten Days. I know he can do angst really well, He was great in A Time to Kill. And he can be gosh darn funny like he was in Dazed and Confused. I should have felt sorry for him when Demo was bringing up the death of his fiancée. It was a good twist in the story that made the movie more than just a stupid comedy and gave depth to the character, but I just didn't feel the pain. I wasn't convinced that he was truly attracted to Paula when he first approached her in the chair store and asked her on a date, that felt forced, as did the final boating scene at the end. I understood Trip being upset about his parents setting him up, but never got the part where he fell for Paula. I mean, he wanted to break up with her, but was too big of a wuss to do it. They had sex, yes, but early in the film, trip established that sex didn't equal love. Maybe it's Sara Jessica Parker. She just hasn't been great on the big screen since she spent so many years on the little screen. I know we were supposed to see her as this cool girl who could get along with the boys and all during the paint ball and baseball game scenes, but maybe it was her weak acting, I just didn't feel it. Now, if it had just been based on the main a-plot "romance" part of this movie, I'dve giving it a 1 or 2 rating. This films redemption lies in it's supporting cast. Kathy Bates was her usual awesome self. She was funny and sympathetic. I did feel for her in the scene where she told Trip she didn't want him to move out at first because she was afraid of getting to know her husband again. That felt genuine. it just shows how good of an actress Kathy Bates is. There was also some good chemistry between Ace (Justin Bartha) and Kit (Zooey Deschanel) despite their rather odd relationship. It helped that in their date scene (the aquarium place) they were actually having an honest conversation, in contrast to Paula and Trip who were putting on a facade for each other and were over-confident in themselves. Maybe it was just more interesting watching a couple of social misfits (Ace and Kit) than it was watching a couple of Mary Sues (Paula and Trip) with textbook perfect social skills. Sara Jessica Parker was supposed to be funny, but Zooey Deschanel actually was funny. You could say the same thing when comparing Trip to Ace. It was mildly amusing when Trip got bitten by the chipmunk and the dolphin and kinda funny when the lizard bit him (more so because it laughing, cheesy, but funny), but it was downright classic slapstick when Ace was giving CPR to the mockingbird then had it bite him. Now that could have been a very stupid generic scene, but Bartha and Deschanel made it classic slapstick. While they aren't quite billed as box office draws yet, they certainly upstaged the actors who were supposed to be box office draws.
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)
The Good, The Bad, The Ugly
I did enjoy this movie, but being a huge fan of the books, I was frustrated with a lot of the things that were touched upon, but not really followed though with.
First things first, I give Mike Newell and Steve Kloves credit for finally giving Fred and George the screen time they deserve. I'm glad the movie audience finally got to see what truly great characters those two are.
Daniel Radcliff and Rupert Grint (Ron saying "Bloody Hell" when Hermione woke him up at the beginning was hysterical) play the perfect awkward teenage boys as well. They had great comedic timing in delivering lines and tripping over themselves around girls.
Cedric, Cho, Fleur, and Viktor were all perfectly cast, but had too few lines.
Alan Rickman, as always was Brilliant as Snape. It was also great to see Professor McGonagall as a more fully developed character. Neville getting more screen time was good as well.
Cedric's death and Voldemort's return was very powerful.
As far as things that were in and things that were cut, I think that the things that made the film should have been finished on. Like the Quidditch cup, the Stadium and campground were really cool, but why show all that then skip the match. I felt like the filmmakers were shaking a pop can and when they opened it, there was a mere hissing noise.
Why put Rita Skeeter in at all if they aren't even going to reveal that she is an animagus? That's important in book five. That would have been a much better way to end the movie than Hermione saying things are going to be different now aren't they? Gee Voldy's back, Captain obvious to the rescue! Oh and Ron's reaction to Fleur kissing him was great, but where was Hermione's jealousy. They put in the post Yule Ball argument, so why not enhance it? It would have taken two seconds to show Hermione's jealousy, and it would have been funny.
The wands connecting was important, but the Phoenix song was never explained, and are people who have only seen the movies going to remember the wand core thing from the first movie? And Hermione is a character I feel the filmmakers have not properly interpreted. I mean the Yule ball scene bugged the crap out of me the way she came down with that smug look on her face! Ugh! I liked Hermione better in the book when she was smiling sheepishly, she was just more endearing that way. And her dress and hair made her look more like a five year old playing dress up, as opposed to a blossoming teenager. They should have followed JKR's description when designing the costume. Periwinkle would have been more flattering than pink, IMO.
I'm glad Ginny got a wee bit of face time here, but she'd better not get the shaft in the OotP movie, if they give Hermione her lines there, I will be POed.
Anyway I did enjoy this movie overall, but being a huge fan of the book, I couldn't help but nitpick, LOL
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (2002)
Harry, Ron, and Hermione are determined to stop whomever is attacking people at Hogwarts...
Overall, watching the film was an enjoyable experience. Since I read the book a few times before I saw the movie, it seemed very short. The actors all gave brilliant performances. I think that Mark Williams was perfect for Arthur Weasley. The major flaw of the film was that key moments from the book were sacrificed for the sake of the "action packed" scenes. In all four books Rowling gives sublte hints about what is really going on. Unfortunately some of these subtle hints were cut out. I'd mentions them, but that would be a spoiler. However the acting was brilliant. Daniel Radcliff was born to play Harry. He has a wonderful, quirky smile. Ruprit Grint was brilliant as Ron. He had me rolling on the floor. And Emma Watson is perfect as Hermione. She is great at keeping the boys in line. I thought that Ginny, Percy, and Snape were seriously underused in the film, I hope to see more of them in the deleted scenes on the DVD.
Signs (2002)
A family learns to read signs everywhere.
This was a truly great film. I believe that M. Night Shyamalan will be looked at as one of this period's great auteurs. His films are what they seem in a sense and yet there is always something else that the film is really about. There was a great mixture of suspense and humor in Signs. It is no ordinary invasion film. There is a nice concentration of the psychological aspect which makes this film a great thriller.