I don't think that's real.
That character looks far too human to be Mickey Rourke.
The Amazing Spider-Man
Garfield is good, decent script and some nice angles and realistic what-its-like-to-be-spidey shots. Garfield keeps the character human enough to work. Bad points are the all-too-CGI battles with giant lizard, and Garfield just being so weirdly skinny - Spidey is so lean it's hard to imagine him battling the Lizard, or street thugs or anything.
Overall a solid Marvel entry, and while it makes you yearn a bit for Tobey MaGuire, those ones weren't all that good, so its fine. Why the need to reboot a series that was just rebooted 9 or 10 years ago - well I think its Marvel ownership now, so on the good side Andrew Garfield might fight alongside some Avengers in the next flick.
It's a 2-hour-long episode of Family Guy. I could end the review right here, and you'd have all the information you need. There are a few cutaway gags, Patrick Warburton, cameos from a lot of the voice actors, a heavy dose of in-jokes, and a notable scene where MacFarlane drops the Ted voice (essentially Peter Griffin) to do a Brian and then a Stewie voice. So, ultimately, if you at one point found Family Guy to be funny, you'll probably like this movie. If you never liked it, you probably won't.
The movie is well-balanced. It should be because it's essentially the same gameplan they use with Brian. There are jokes that lampshade the talking bear/dog, and some that completely ignore it. On the whole, the movie isn't so beholden to the premise that it forgets to do anything else. There's still a plot and some comedy to be had when Ted is off-screen, which is good because you really wonder how much more mileage they could have gotten out of Ted than they already did. Wahlberg and Kunis have generally good chemistry and sell their roles well. Wahlberg really isn't doing any acting you haven't seen him do before, but Kunis' role is considerably more complex, and she plays the part earnestly and with charm.
The problem is that Kunis is really the only character you actually like, which creates an emotional disconnect with the action at the end. Which the male lead tells his (briefly) departing significant other "you're too good for me," you're supposed to feel his inner turmoil rather than just think "yeah, she really is." The supporting characters might as well not exist at all: the floozy that dates Ted is just a punch line, Joel McHale isn't entertaining, and Giovanni Ribisi moves the plot but is entirely stock. It's a shame, because the premise leaves plenty of opportunity for secondary roles to shine, but the camera can't pull away from Wahlberg long enough to make it happen.
I realize no one is watching Ted for the plot, but the one it does have is all too predictable and telegraphed immediately. On a certain level, you understand that any movie has to have a plot. However, after spending 70% of the movie entirely like Wahlberg and Kunis, taking the camera away from them for long stretches jars the perspective. It falls victim to the common comedy trap of being unable to work through the conclusion of a plot while still keeping its voice. Instead, it stops being very funny, there's a car chase, a run through Fenway Park, and you aren't watching the same movie. Really, if they're dedicating so much to Wahlberg and Kunis, they should have just let their relationship lead the action and turned it into a romantic comedy.
Nevertheless, there are some great well-delivered gags topped with a heavy dose of charm. The Airplane cutaway bit is fantastic, as is Ted's job at a grocery store. There are worse ways to spend 2 hours, and unless you just hate Family Guy and have always hated it, you'll mostly enjoy it. The film's rough edges can generally be traced to MacFarlane's inexperience with the medium; his comedic talent has to be all but tapped out by now, so its hard to see him making enough films to get that experience. So overall, it's a decent film from a guy who is probably best seen on TV.
Yeah I need a Winn-Dixie grocery bag full of money right next to the VIP section...
That's the deepest analysis of Ted anyone will ever do.
The Tree of Life
Hello, welcome to my movie land. The Tree of Life is straight up what I love about movies. BEAUTIFUL camera work...literally the best shots I've seen since Kubrick. Malick is incredible at that.
Granted the movie moves at a very slow pace and an hour feels like four. But this is the type of camera work you never see anywhere else. I don't know why they hired Penn and Pitt, it's not like acting was needed....at all. But it probably helps bring it to the mainstream.
The film is artsy at points and way too ****ing whispery at others. But it's...well it's amazing camera work is just enough to keep you involved. And then I woke up the next day and thought "holy **** that movie is incredible."
It's different, it's original, it's beautiful, it's maddening, it's captivating, it's boring, it's just a weirdly brilliant film.
"Last Exit" About two superMoms experiencing road rage...it's intense; fast-paced; absorbing, and has the most unexpected -yet logical - ending. Of the two leads, one looks gorgeous, the other's a terrific actress...highly recommended, by a Rongar who hates everything filmic, lately.
"Whate'er should be our Zodiac's star
We all are born to make or mar.
To each is gi'en a bag of tools
Some mentors, and a set of rules:
And each must carve, ere life has flown,
A stumbling block, or a stepping-stone"
Just terriffic. Charming, well shot, well written, brilliantly acted film that Wes Anderson should be insanely proud of. Easily his best film to date and by far the best movie I've seen in 2012. I left the theatre thinking that was the movie all other movies should try to be. Simply amazing.
Rock of Ages:
Tom Cruise was good though, and Julianne Hough is hot.
“The bases are loaded, just like [Marlins manager] Jack McKeon probably wishes he was.”
RIP 8/12/1939- 8/3/2008
Just watched Machine Gun Preacher. Good movie. I had no idea it was a true story. There are amazing people in this world.