marioping

Wild: It's almost impossible not to compare this film to Into the Wild from a few years ago. I loved Into the Wild. I found myself very drawn to the central character in the film. Wild, unfortunately not so much. I don't know why. Films are subjective. I can only tell you why I think I couldn't get myself into the film: Reese Witherspoon is a great actress. She proved it in Walk the Line, Election, and even Legally Blonde. Unfortunately, she was too Reese Witherspoon (in my opinion) the hollywood star in Wild. I didn't see the character Cheryl Strayed. I saw Reese Witherspoon throughout the film. Nothing personal as I still think Reese is a great actress, just didn't anything for me in this film.

After hearing so much buzz about this film, I am sad to say that I find this film very overrated. It's another movie where I find the director and the critics are making this the artsy film of the year but I find it all fartsy.

Silver Linings Playbook: A charmer! Bradley Cooper proves to be an actor of skill. Jennifer Lawrence proves to be a future star. First half of the film was funny but also real. Second half: what a disappointment! I can't believe the movie chose to go for the cheese fest in the second half. It totally wasted the promising premise.

Cloud Atlas -- I don't get it. While I was mesmerized by many breathtaking scenes and actor's playing different roles, I just didn't get the point of the whole story. None of the stories made me care. I found myself trying to figure out which actor was behind some heavy make up.

Great acting from Philip Seymour Hoffman and Joaquin Phoenix, but the film is boring and self-indulgent. It is way too long; it doesn't go anywhere. It's definitely way overrated by the critics.

Looper -- well scripted. It has a very logical and believable sci-fi. My only problem is that Joseph Levitt-Gordon and Bruce Willis are just not from the same mold. Poor casting there.

Many people find this film cheesy, manipulative, too sappy. Well, I thought it was ok. There were times it went to that tear jerker mode but overall, it was a well done film. Of all the actors, Sandra Bullock was the one that impressed me the most. Thomas Horn who plays the main character is a bit weak in my opinion although my partner felt he deserved an Oscar for his performance. My conclusion is whether you buy this film is in the eye of the beholder. Hard to explain.

I am not a baseball fan but I find this film extremely fascinating and entertaining. I say credit to the screenwriter and the director. Statistics can be a boring subject but this film proves it wrong. I even have tears in my eyes when the underdog finally achieves something good. This film combines sports, statistics and drama perfectly. Brad Pitt gives an excellent quiet performance. Two big thumbs up!

Give me a break! This film actually scores well with the critics? The movie is self indulgent trash. I personally just can't stand movies that are so weird that it leads to some critics thinking, "I got to love it to prove how good I am as a critic." When it's bad, it's bad. Seriously, there are people out there who want to see this film again after the first viewing?

Too much time spent on Margaret Thatcher's present year. What a bore! It's not a bad idea to start her at present time and use that to reflect the story in her prime years, but the frequent jumping back to the present time was unnecessary. The too frequent talk between her and her deceased husband became too gimmicky. Meryl Streep was superb as usual but she was wasted in this dull film.

I personally don't particular like action movies, but this one was certainly entertaining. The story is straight forward this time. I remember the first one was a big head scratcher. More importantly, I am so delighted that the action/fight scenes were very clear. You can see clearly who's fighting who. In so many other action movies, you can never tell who is fighting who; you just see a bunch of people beating the crap out of each other. Action scenes are well choreographed. Director Brad Bird did a great job on this film.

It's a fun movie. Nothing deep and special. I thought the best past was when the character started singing. It was cheesy but I totally think the story called for it.

Hugo is a film that might be too sophisticated for little children. The movie seems to be marketed to young children. That might have hurt the box office sales. Having said that, this movie is one of the best of 2011. It's pretty, whimsical, and most of all touching. Who knew director Martin Scorsese is capable of making a family oriented film. Ben Kingsley is wonderful in the film and Sacha Baron Cohen is quite impressive playing a more serious role. Small complain -- when the movie is set in France, I do wish that the language spoken would be in French too. I understand it's an american production. It's just my pet peeve. I see signs all written in French but they all speak English. It's just not authentic.

Warrior = Rocky times 2. With the above expectation, the film is great. It has a lot of cliche and there are times I would roll my eyes and think, "can it be more predictable?" However, 3 great actors (i.e. Joel Edgerton, Tom Hardy, and Nick Nolte) turn this cliche movie into something much better and a tad more believable. (By the way, I have seen Tom Hardy in "Bronson" and "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy"; I don't recognise his face. He's such a chameleon.) Overall, it works.

Interesting. I know nothing about Pina Bausch and I know nothing about dance especially the kind of dance Pina choreographs. After watching "Pina", I still don't know anything about her except that she was very loved and missed by her dancers. The film is more a tribute to her than anything else. Each of Pina's performers said something memorable about Pina and then we get to see some dance from each performer. Although the film is very foreign to me, I do find myself very drawn to each scene. The dances were beautiful even though I didn't understand the meaning of any of them. The 3D was well used in this film. I think the 3D here was better used than any of the hollywood blockbusters was used. The 3D in "Pina" doesn't have anything coming at you but it does show the depth of the stage during each dance. "Pina" is an interesting film. It's a film to check out for movie experiences.

Shame: I thought it started off well, studying the main character's sexual addiction. However, as the movie went on, it lost steam. Carey Mulligan's character was distracting and I thought it hurt the movie overall. Michael Fassbender and Carey Mulligen did give very daring performance.

What an entertaining film! The 4 actors make the film good. It seems that they had fun making it too. For a movie that is set entirely in one apartment for 80 minutes, it's quite an achievement to keep the audience entertained throughout. I found myself laughing out loud a few times. At the end of the regular screening, a few people in the audience applauded. If I can be bold and rank the 4 actors, I would rank as follow: 1. Christoph Waltz -- a very cool but hilarious performance. To me, it's not easy to play cool and calm but make us feel that he's the funniest guy. 2. John C. Reilly -- he plays the every day ordinary husband to perfection. 3. Jodie Foster -- she does neurotic well. 4. Kate Winslet -- she plays neurotic second to Jodie.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

This is a fun movie for all ages. Songs like "Life's a Happy Song", "Picture in my Head", and "Muppet or Man" are all fun and catchy songs. (They can be nominated for the Oscar song category.) Chris Cooper seems to be having fun playing an evil character in a family movie. Jason Siegel and Amy Adams are both perfect in their roles. The muppets are cute. I thought it was interesting that I saw this movie in an afternoon on Thursday and there were about 6 people in the showing. None were children.

Ok, people, I don't get it. Why does this film end up on so many critics' top 10 (in many cases, the top of the top)??? I like movies that are deep and thought provoking but The Tree of Life is just absolutely boring and self serving. There is a line between artsy and just self serving. This film is the latter in my opinion. Sure, the movie is beautifully filmed with many spectacular scenes but what's that gotta to do with the story? I feel director Mr. Malick feels like he can do anything mindless and some critics out there will call it a piece of art. I am glad I am entitled to my opinion.

What a charming film! I saw it at the Toronto International Film Festival and at the end of the film, everyone gave a standing ovation to the film and its director and cast. This film put a smile on my face. The story is intelligent -- a black and white silent film that tells the story of a silent film movie star who doesn't believe in talking pictures. This film is an Oscar best picture with best actor and actress. (I have noticed that many different awards consider BÃrÃnice Bejo a supporting actress! That's wrong in my opinion. Her character and performance is absolutely a lead performance.) Her star power shouldn't affect the category of the performance.

It starts off well and captivating but half way through it, it's all chasing here and there. I got dizzy following the action. I wish there were more characters development, maybe more depth in Tintin's as well as Haddock's stories. In conclusion, I feel the story lost its steam as it moved towards the end.