Blow -- 8/10 Great movie. Bonus points for being based on a true story, plus Johnny Depp is a legend.
2012 3/10 Mediocre story. Pretty cliche/predictable. Some cool special effect scenes made it at least entertaining. I usually like my movies to be longer, so I feel like I got my money's worth, but there was no real reason for it to be 2.5 hours long.
I also found it slightly amusing that in the end(I'd hope nobody cares if the movie is ruined for them.) they discover that Africa was unharmed, and they are all setting course for there. I'm guessing they were trying to make some lame movie commentary on life starting there, and it coming back there, but all I can think of is that white man exploited the shit out of the continent once, and took what they can get, and now they were coming back for more, to take it further. Anyways, yeah, too long to destroy the world.
A Dog's Breakfast. 10/10 if you're a Stargate: Atlantis freak and get all the inside jokes, otherwise 8/10.
Brothers 6.7/10 Not as over emotional and sappy as I thought it was going to be. Not as good as the Danish version either but the performances are rock solid. I never liked the Spidey kid, but he plays his role pretty well in this. The plot is foreseeable though and it's nothing new from a character study on post-traumatic war effects.
Crazy Heart- 7.5/10 I enjoyed it quite a bit. I'm a big fan of Jeff Bridges and as usual he didn't disappoint.
Just saw The Boondocks Saints last night. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0144117/ Hell of a fun movie. I had never heard of it until recently. 8.5/10
Sequel was actually pretty good IMO. Not as good as the original but I typically go into sequels expecting them to suck ass and this one did pretty well to maintain the same quality and style. Obviously it took a hit by replacing Dafoe with that chick but it was still a solid movie. 6.7/10 on IMDB isn't a bad rating...
The problem I had with the movie is that it took the original (which was already pushing the lines of over the top) and multiplied everything tenfold, so really they weren't even characters, just "roles" if that makes any sense. For example, in the first, Greenley was obviously an idiot, but it was funny. In the second, his stupid is taken to the extreme and it is no longer believable. The cheeseball factor was just too much for me to bear. I mean, come on, duel-wielding Desert Eagles? Give me a break. As far as IMDB ratings, I tend to take those with a grain of salt. For a while there, The Dark Knight was rated as number 1 in their top 250...before it was even released. A lot of scores on there tend to be a bit inflated due to the fanboy factor.
One of the best movies of 2009 in my opinion. It's a good sci-fi film that says a whole lot more than that of Avatar or District 9. Also features a good acting performance out of Sam Rockwell.
What the deuce? There is already a thread like this. What are you, shut-ins? Y'all live in some windowless Mormon compound together?
Understandable. I tended to lean the other way with it. I'm a much more casual fan of the movie than a lot of my friends who thought it was too over the top. To me the first one was pretty god damn over the top and the extra over-the-top-ness of the second one didn't bother me since I had already bought into the premise of the Boondock Saints as being inherently ridiculous but quite fun and enjoyable.
