There’s not much to say about the Longshots as a movie as a whole. It is that same “underdogs and group of misfits” facing insurmountable odds and rising to the challenge in a winning montage and overcoming adversity. Now that’s where the “Old Hat” writing ends and the mythology begins. Based on the true story of Jasmine Plumber, and very somberly played by Keke Palmer of the wonderful film “Akeelah and the Bee”. She is a quiet girl, always with her nose in a fantasy book and picked on by the cool kids in school. Wearing her daddy’s watch since he walked out on her five years earlier, she sadly and eagerly awaits his return and is constantly being fussed over by her hard working mom.
Her Uncle Curtis, played like a down and out homeless guy, always brown bagging it, is Ice Cube. Like his niece, a somber loner, sad about his old glory days on the football field. Well as you imagine, her mother hires him on to watch the sad sack Jasmine after school and one day as he is throwing the ball around with her….He finds his niece has the arm of Tom Brady. She becomes the unexpected quarterback for a team of losers and leads them as the first female ever to get to the Pop Warner Superbowl. All with the support and Yoda like guidance of her Loser to Winner Uncle Ice Cube.
Read More »
There are no words. I have tried all day to write up some kind of decent review for this flick and I have nothing. If any one of you knows my style at all, I am very forgiving and can usually find something positive to say about any movie. I’m a movie buff and fan, I just plain love movies, so something has to be particularly special in order for me to use the word “Hate” or “One of the worst of the year”. And my friends as a gauge for you all who haven’t seen this, Little Nicky was Oscar worthy in comparison.
Read More »
The following review comes from our east coast correspondent Zach Lawrence:
Iron Man, Indiana Jones and the Jungle of the Swinging Shia, The Chronicles of Narnia; the last few weeks, my girlfriend has been a hardcore trooper. So what does a man do? He owes. He owes her one, and my fellow fan boys and movie geeks, listen closely, this information could save your life.
I was never a huge “Sex” fan, but I learned to appreciate the culture value of the four girls tearing up New York with their cosmopolitans and gabby sex chat turning an entire generation of regular girls into the equivalent of metro sexual males. This movie runs from nowhere and from what I remember, pretty much picks up where we last left the girls. When I say “runs from nowhere” I mean, there is no harbinger to kick off this highly anticipated film besides everyone’s contentment. Now this is where the genius kicks in, after beginning with everyone having settled into their lives, each in their own way individually and as a collective, they are almost immediately torn down to basically nullify what the whole series built up to.
Read More »
Editors note: This review is a little late, and its entirely my fault as I accidently passed it while working at SXSW in Austin.
The Following is Documented Wiki Info: The 10th millennium BC marks the beginning of the Mesolithic, or Epipaleolithic period, which is the first part of the Holocene epoch.
[World population was likely below 5 million people, mostly hunting-gathering communities scattered over all continents, save for Antarctica, and with the proto-Lapita migration also reaching the islands of the Pacific. Pottery, and with pottery probably cooking, was developed independently in Japan and North Africa. It is likely that the earliest incidence of Agriculture, based on the cultivation of primitive forms of millet and rice, occurred in southeast Asia, around 10,000 BC. Agriculture also began to develop in the Armenian Highlands, and the Fertile Crescent, but would not be practiced widely or predominantly for another 2,000 years; however, figs of a parthenocarpic breed were found in the Gilgal I neolithic village in the Jordan River valley. The WÃ¼rm glaciation ended, and the beginning interglacial, which endures to this day, allows the re-settlement of northern regions.]
That is the REAL 10,000 BC. The actuality and realism of the film is fictitiously hilarious and now that I’ve seen it, I believe it is just, and only, a special effects extravaganza. I cannot stress enough how all over the place this movie was, and that I was entertained primarily on the notion that this was a ridiculous film. Get ready readers, this may be one of the only pseudo bad reviews I give for a flick, and I will stress that while I did not hate this movie, I by no means loved it. I’m madly in like with this movie. I liked it okay. It’s the best way I can describe it, almost like the way you enjoy Daredevil, “It’s so bad, you can’t keep your eyes away.”
Read More »
Cool Posts From Around the Web:
In my days of movie reviewing, I’ve always found it quite easy to come up with content and material to describe how wonderful a movie is. This is one of those rare instances where I am at a loss. To get right to the point, In Bruges was such a shockingly decent movie that it was like a jab from a blind man, you don’t expect it, and neither of you see it coming.
Brendan Gleeson and Colin Farrell are two hired killers hiding away in a safe house in Bruges, which is a medieval tourist town in Belgium. Farrell has comedic chops I was unaware of and hits his marks and lines like a surgeon. Just his expressions floored me every time, because he lets you know as soon as he steps off the train. . . He fucking hates Bruges. Brendan Gleeson graces us as the father- like figure setting up most of the wonderfully dark and seedy humor that Farrell unleashes. It’s as if he pitches them just for Farrell to slam out of the park. Gleeson is not a household name, but you know him as Hamish from Braveheart, Mad Eye Moody from Harry Potter, Gangs of New York, Kingdom of Heaven, his resume is impressively expansive but he’s not the bad boy of Hollywood Colin Farrell is. We also have Ralph Fiennes as the boss of both these men with a dangerous secret about Farrell. Now with all these characters and random encounters with a sexy heroine dealer, skinheads, a cocaine blowing dwarf, and asshole Americans, it is the witty banter and sad back story that is the driving force behind this movie. And I can’t say enough. I have marked out unexpectedly over this flick.
Read More »
Ryan Reynolds’s star has not blazed into the sky yet. Sure, he has made numerous attempts and coasted around orbit before burning out into a falling star back to earth, but his rise has not stuck. It’s starring vehicles like Definitely Maybe that stunt his growth as an actor, he is unable to unleash his dry, witty lashbacks and deadpan grace upon us. In the recent past he has done well, in my opinion with some light fluff like Just Friends, which is good, and PG-13’d him into his vulgar- less brilliance. He took on the task of working with an amazing ensemble in Smokin’ Aces with great success holding his own with the great Ray Liotta, Andy Garcia, Affleck, and Common…That last part was a joke… But all he got to really do was scream “Come on!” and “Goddamn it!” I believe he works best in comedy where he can unleash his talent in the fashion he is best conditioned to.
This brings us to Definitely Maybe. He doesn’t get to use any of his chops that we have grown accustomed to here in this flick and we are worse off for it. Now here is my conundrum as a reviewer. I’ve had two days to think of what to say and I’ve decided to be honest, I’m not sure what genre this movie falls into after having seen it. It wasn’t laugh out loud funny. It wasn’t very romantic. And to top it all off it wasn’t very dramatic. We have Reynolds, a single dad, who gets two days a week with his daughter, the new “IT” girl, Dakota Breslin…I mean Abigail. She wants to know the story of how her parents met after a class in Sex Ed and whether or not she was an accident or not. So because Reynolds wants to make a game out of it for some reason, (She doesn’t want to go bed, and to shut her up he tells a 9 hour story) we have Breslin with a checklist playing CLUE with her dad to find out in his past, which serious lover her mom is. Because he must change the names so she can figure it out on her own.
Read More »
So sometimes you owe your girl one. Sometimes she puts up with an absurd slam-bang, balls out guy flick and grins the whole time without saying a word. So for you guys who this weekend got so see 27 Dresses and not Cloverfield, feel my pain. But what an aesthetic anesthetic hour and a half it is. Katherine Heigl plays Jane, a woman who is always the bridesmaid but never the…ya know. She collects clippings from the paper all about the true love of weddings that she one day dreams of having but cannot come to grips when her little sister (Harold and Kumar’s topless Malin Akerman) steals the love of her life, who also happens to be her boss. Like someone collecting their finger nails she has kept every dress she’s worn to every wedding, like some trophy for 3rd runner up in a pageant. Heigl does a great job showing her frustration and horror with wonderful expression. She goes from awkward to sexy seamlessly.
The movie is good, although very reminiscent of How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days, but that’s not a bad thing. It’s very light and fluffy. Quick and painless for you guys who’d rather be killed by whatever the Cloverfield monster is then see a romantic chick flick. However the movie is not unforgettable, it will give you that fleeting moment of bliss that makes you forget you are married to a Succubus, but then it’s over and your popcorn is gone. It has some terrific moments, especially with Marsden (Still doing well, after being Cyclops, Lois Lane’s BF in Superman Returns, and hilarious in Enchanted) being a charming columnist chasing Jane and Judy Greer always being deliriously delightful as Jane’s scene raping buddy.
The movie never gets to that point of being a classic, but Heigl hot off of, well everything, does well to keep the movie moving with decent comic ability, and a good supporting cast doing some light lifting. So, final summation? It’s decent. Like I said, it’s not going to be revered in the history books a hundred years from now, but consider it a treat of light fun if you’re not looking for monsters or epic period dramas.
The following movie review is from Zach Lawrence:
Semi SPOILER ALERT!! If you’ve seen Saw 1, 2, or 3, then you’ve probably seen Saw 4. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing though. With every new Halloween upon us, SAW has become a yearly tradition, a tradition we’ve had forced upon us. And with 5 and 6 on the horizon, you know you’ll shell out the inflating ticket cost in the years to come.
So we begin with literally the most graphic gore seen I’ve ever been privy to. And while I love all that real life autopsy junk, I found this to be rough. I ended up watching the audience as much, covering their faces collectively respectively. So we have a group of throwaway actors on the trail of the already dead Jigsaw, even though his games have just begun. We’re dragged along the ragged journey of the torture location savvy police tests and trust games that we are all too familiar with. But the payouts in gore are well received, and always innovative.
Now is when they lose the audience. Now it is time for the, been there done that vibe that seems to linger just a tad longer then we want, and we are thrust into that, “just let us know who the fuck the new killer is this time” feeling. Donnie Walhberg returns all too briefly for a very unsatisfying appearance. And he is the only real name this movie has going for it now, besides the new Robert Englund of the next generation, Tobin Bell.
This movie is good Halloween fodder that is supposed to be seasonal, and with its release we have the expectation of next year’s contribution, and that’s what its good for. I don’t “Dare You To See It”, but rather give you the appropriate information that this movie isn’t great. But it is “Saw” great. So if you want to be moved, go see Gone Baby Gone (Terrific), if you want Halloweeny goodness just for shits and giggles, (ClichÃ©’ approaching) See Saw 4.
The following editorial is from Zach Lawrence.
I was watching Heroes season 1 the other day. I’m enthralled. And sadly dusting myself off from lagging behind the bandwagon on what apparently everyone knew but me. We have plethoras of Heroes in the cinema, some undeserving, some exceeding what we dreamed they would be like, but all of them Hero’s nonetheless. I think in the realm of Superhero mythology, and expectation that we’ve governed our patience with for upcoming movies (i.e. Iron Man, Wolverine, Dark Knight, Spiderman 4) we should mention those we appreciate in recent history for springing from those pages and slamming SWAT members into refrigerators with their adamantium claws. I’m not just talking movies, but the heroes in, about, and all around that make those movies and certain moments great ones that make us wish we were all bigger then ourselves.
Read More »
The following is an editorial by Zack Lawrence.
It was sometime ago that Hollywoodland was filled to the brim and boiling over with egocentric, megalomaniacal movie stars all fired up and ready to set your living room ablaze. They were an army of few, A-Listers with twenty million dollar picture deals and blockbuster movies giving them acting credibility even if they didn’t deserve it. Stallone, Shwarzenegger, Bruce Willis, dominated the eighties. We have the great legends of the past Charlton Heston, Kirk Douglas, Brando, Bogart and Jimmy Stuart respected to this day, but who lives up to that legacy? The Michael Jackson’s of today hit the charts with 120k worth of records sold and then burn away like hot ash. We’ve got Justin Timberlake, who seems to be taking the King of Pop’s crown away but how long before the lameness moves in? The celebutants dominating the media’s attention are now all the hype, while all the young’uns in the acting field are going hungry. Ben Affleck was at one point supposed to usher in the new era of what it meant to be a movie star, until he became one Gigli joke. Josh Hartnett had to take the reins in Pearl Harbor but what happened to his star? Yes, these fine actors are making a living and their movies are making some cash, but where are the SUPER stars? Christopher Reeve will go down into history, while anyone besides me and a few others will say Brandon Rooth? Rowth? Routh? Where is that kid? And Han Solo and Indiana Jones? Awesome, but where is Hayden Christianson?
It’s everything and everywhere. Even the ladies. Julia Roberts is now not the major draw, but Reese Witherspoon. I see potential everywhere from Natalie Portman and Anne Hathaway to Scarlet Johansson and Charlize Theron, but still, superstars are now few and far between. Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal seem to make good choices, and the media is comparing Shia Labeouf to a young Tom Hanks, so there is some sparkle of hope. Brad Pitt and Clooney, Hanks and Will Ferrel are all capable of transitioning between drama and humor, but (besides maybe Hanks) will they be legends? This editorial is an open forum for anyone’s opinion. I am making a broad generalization just to make a point, but what I’d really like is feedback on the idea as a whole. Can Hollywood breed new stars, or will they forge themselves with the reputations come first then follow after. I believe it is a possibility that the studios hype these newbie’s up like a boxing promoter and then most of the time, move on to the newer blood faster then they probably should. Do you remember when a Deniro flick was a once a year event, with Oscar buzz and huge reviews? Then there was Analyze This and That, The Fockers and Bullwinkle. Now it’s Leo D who does one quality film a year, which turns into an event, like Aviator, Gangs of New York and Departed. Matt Damon also is doing well, but again the question arises will these careers become set in stone with “Damn, dirty apes!” or “Say hello to my little friend!”? I have some hope for Christian Bale, and even think Russell Crowe may be able to win back audiences, as long as quality remains in their decision making. Robin Williams is the Man of the Year and riding in an RV while getting his License to Wed, so he can’t possibly do any more Good Will Hunting.
We need more of these quality performers who know what it means to be a star and not a Paris Hilton, who doesn’t know how to act but can act like she’s a star, which is what fools the media into thinking that is what they are, “Act as if.” More substance to the craft and the lifestyle and less papier-mÃ¢chÃ©’ faux celebs who blow away in the wind like pillars of salt after their expiration date hits its mark. I want movie star to mean what it meant even as little as twenty years ago, and I want it now. Swinging in on a cool night breeze I hear the tinkling sounds of a hundred bells…Chime away.