I don’t think that I ever saw a trailer or promotional for this movie at all. Maybe that’s why nobody has probably seen this one except me. I just finished watching it tonight, and I was pleasantly surprised.
The film is a story of a psychologist that is hired to work with 5 victims of a plane crash. The story takes some turns when the survivors begin to disappear one by one. I thought that the movie took the lazy way out, it really destroyed the pace of the movie, lacked a genuine feel, and fell into some pretty bad traps toward the end. I felt like they tried to salvage the story at the very end, but I just felt that everything was so utterly cliche at that point that maybe there just wasn’t anything there with saving. My rating: C
This is another that everyone was talking about. So many people found this one to be funny, judging by their comments and frequent recommendation.
Perhaps it goes to show that you can’t take movie reviews from others at face value. If someone doesn’t like the same kinds of movies you do, you might be very lucky to get an objective critic. About halfway through this film, I noticed that Jim Carrey is much less annoying than normal, but still has his moments. The scene when he is drunk felt so much like how he was throughout most of his films up until this one.
The story was kinda sketchy, but before this one was even over I knew something strange was afoot at the Circle K.
My review: C+
Everyone I know that has seen this movie loved it. I thought it would fair to expect that I might like it.
Not long enough into this one, I was extremely bored. I felt that I was constantly challenging the credibility of any situation we see on screen.
In the end, this proved to be more taxing than it should have been. I thought that maybe it was just another opportunity to get the SNL cast together on the daylight at the same time. I thought that the whole thing was a little bit miscast, and that Amy Poehler was overwhelmingly agitating and annoying. I was somehow hoping in my head that we’d get lucky and see Will Arnett- but it didn’t happen.
Maybe I am just not into toilet humor-like material, but I just didn’t find much in this film to be funny at all.
I can’t truthfully say that I ever had any desire to see this movie. I always think that there is very little about a movie written about a dog that is interesting enough to watch. While this movie had more than its share of problems, I think my expectation were surpassed with this one.
I might agree that it was miscast, as they almost distracted me from the actual story. But perhaps without bigger names attached to it, the movie would never have been made.
The film was somewhat entertaining, but also felt extremely slow in others. I was very surprised at how the film was not necessarily about the dog, rather that used the dog as a reference point for the story of this family. It almost journals their adventures, creating chapter markers by making the dog be the footnote. Something about this film felt distinctly “The Story of Us” to me, but in the end, I think it worked out ok.
While the original intent was to get something to keep the boys occupied for while, I am probably the only one in our household that actually watched the whole thing.
My rating: C+/B-
I first learned about this movie during Sundance this year. I had tickets to go to see the sequel, after I had read the synopsis in the guide. (But for those of you who don’t do Sundance- just because you get tickets to the films doesn’t mean you get to see them. There’s a story there…)
So after some looking I found this one and gave it a go. It is pretty much what I expected it to be, which was fairly enjoyable. The premise is pretty much that there is a group of people that through various ways represents the World Trade Organization/WTO and is asked pretty frequently to attend various conferences, etc in the capacity of WTO authorities. They filmmakers have basically documented the whole creative process of when the Yes Men come up with their action plans, their presentations, and then commentary leading up to, during, and after the events they have just attended.
They really do a great job of exposing the lunacy of these organizations, and that those who participate can lack all credibility and still be widely accepted in those circles. Almost shocking that individuals that have somehow managed to gain substantial public trust as authorities and experts in certain fields with little to support their views. It is at time funny, others shocking, but always entertaining.
My rating: B+