The Life and Death of a Porno Gang, 2009

The Life and Death of a Porno Gang, 2009
Director: Mladen Djordjević
Cast: Mihajlo Jovanović, Ana Ačimović, Predrag Damnjanović



Stage: Local theatre for art movies KinoDvor

The Life and Death in short: Young director Marko, after several unsuccessful attempts to shoot his first feature film, makes an acquaintance with a porn director Cane and starts making films with him, showing his anger towards the society he lives in. After the conflict with Cane he starts his own porn cabaret club in which the socio-political shows are frequently performed. He gathers porn stars around himself. Gay couple Johnny and Max, a transvestite Ceca, junkies Rade and Darinka and others. However, Cane's brother who is a policeman interrupts a premiere, the press destroys them as well, and Marko decides he should leave Belgrade and have a tour around Serbia with his crew. Shortly after, series of conflicts happen with the viewers from the villages they visited. On the way, they meet a German journalist Franc, who is fascinated with Balkan. Franc suggests Marko to make films with the authentic scenes of sex and violence for him.


Preps: none in perticular. After seeing Serbian movie, I am a bit hungry for more of those movies that are awkward, in perticular the ones that show up to what level human nature can go. In this genre, for instance, comes the movie The Human Centipede - one that I still keep seeing in my dreams.. So what is in this one that provoked that much of critics and audience to shout about what should or shouldn't be filmed at all - the curiosity drives me to a late night show.

Reality: I stagger and fall and die of opening my mouth so wide during this piece. An imaginative and creativeness-full movie with a genuine business idea. The beginning is somehow classical, because you can easily relate to a lost young director that has only one desire in life - make movies. As the piece progresses, we enter the world of porno movies, with the main protagonist (menthor) in serbian world for this. Is there any art in this? I suppose not really. Nevertheless, to create art porno movies nowadays means going beyond borders. This piece may start as a funny comedy, but soon enough it escalates into something extremely hard to swallow. The Amsterdam idea, to have a live porno show, is a brilliant one. Is the audience in villages the right one? Am not sure, but in this case, it seemed a better economics perspective than making the same thing in the centre of culture, Belgrade.
To upgrade the experience even more, soon the gang is approached by a challenge most people wouldn't accept and yet alone, wouldn't want to be a part of it, even if only watching. Making a snuff movie - the mere sound of it makes most people vomit, but in this case, represented as a way to differentiate the young director from all the others, and making a new era in serbian porno movie.
I hardly believe this would be real for the mere reason that this cannot be the only person making snuff in Serbia, although it's presented this way. More importantly, the drama the director is faced within his soul and his own beliefs, is surprisingly enough, quickly over. Can you swallow an idea like that (or even more important, you are the one that needs to make it) so fast? Or in another words, how crooked must the society be for you to be able to see this as acceptable? A lot of moral dilemmas facing the porno crowd here. Poor people, drug addicts, old actors that needed to succeed somewhere, left on this roadtrip to make some money because they were desperate enough to say yes to the leader, the director. Is this the picture of the modern serbian society? Maybe. The division between extremely poor and desperate, and on the other hand, extremely wealthy, making everything fall to their knees, this great divide is truly escalating. Not only in Serbia, also in other countries around the globe. Nevertheless, in what deep sh.. must you be to accept this deal?
Up to some point, you could see this as a separate world the gang created for them and in this world everything is possible, everything is allowed, noone could blame you. Some paradigmas like "What happens in the porno truck, stays there".. was going on. However, the price of this is extremely high. Does the movie imply that if you kill anything living, you will not only lose the virginity, but also your soul? The softer side of you, the emotions will dissappear and the soldier like soul will appear and conquer everything you are. Apathy that is shown within the main characters, as the movie develops, is extreme. It rocks my heart and makes me cry within my body. No money in the world and no experience could pay up for such puppets these people turned out to be. And as the roadtrip proceeds, less and less actors are there in the scene to make the movie. They die, are killed by others or themselves. The ending begins somewhere in the middle. The average viewer could have enough. OK, you proved your point, now go home.. somewhere in my subconscious also this thought appeared. But the other side of me, wanted to see the ending badly. The killings are a disastrous for a sensitive mind. The creative idea behind them is evil and brilliant at the same time. As opposed to the "Serbian movie", a lot of this is filmed when people have sane mind and are not under the influence of the drugs. That piece, reminding me of Memento up to some point, made it clear that you shouldn't take stuff you don't know. How about this one? Is the message to follow your heart no matter what it does to you (in sense, follow the director's dreams or at least some guy with a vision and disregard everything else)? Or would it be, don't fall in love with making porno movies, as you are entering the snake pit. In a sense, as in Matrix, if you take the pill, you cannot turn back. There is no way you can stop filming snuff once you begin. And noone will survive if you try to do so.


My personal rate: 8,0 (it made me shake my head long time after the screen shut down. A good piece in philosophical sense, a brainer and a mortitian at the same time).


The Life and Death on IMDB

The Ward

The Ward, 2010
Director: John Carpenter
Cast: Amber Heard, Mamie Gummer, Danielle Panabaker

Stage; home @laptop


The Ward in short:

A thriller centered on an institutionalized young woman who becomes terrorized by a ghost.

Preps: Again, this is the movie just playing in the theatres, drives attention of the younger audience. No recommendations, but also no critics.

Reality: The potential is extremely good. With the solid story and parallel personalities, split between reality and imagination. However, the delivery is very poor, unfortunately. Something in this piece is truly missing to make it a good thriller. Maybe not just in the cast, but also in the way things are presented to the viewer. The appearing of the ghost is appareantly inevitable in order to make things at least a bit dynamical. A lot of questions remain unspoken, even more unanswered.

The twist at the end makes it a bit more worth while seeing this piece, although I am not satisfied with the complete mask I am putting on for the hour and a half. Luckily, the movie is short and I don't have to suffer any longer than really necessary. All the scenes that should make a thriller, are highly predictable and very poorly executed. The only thrilling thing in this case would be a good imagination from the spectator's point of view. Just to put actors in a mental institution and provide music as background, just isn't enough. And the remaining riddles are ridiculous, also providing grounds to make a sequel out of this piece.

My personal rate: 2,0 (Although wanting to give it a straight zero, I changed my mind because of the last third of the piece. With some smart director input, it could really be a good piece).

The Ward on IMDB

The Source Code, 2011

The Source Code, 2011
Director: Duncan Jones
Cast: Jake Gyllenhaal, Michelle Monaghan, Vera Farmiga


Stage: Home theatre


Source Code in short: Colter Stevens, a US Army helicopter pilot whose last memory is flying in Afghanistan, wakes up on a commuter train. However, he discovers that he has assumed the identity of another man. 8 minutes later, the train explodes and Stevens finds himself in some kind of pod. He then talks to someone named Goodwin, who tells him he has to go back and find out who the bomber is. He is sent back to go through the whole thing again and attempts to find who the bomber is but fails. The bomb goes off and Stevens finds himself in the pod again. He is sent back another time, yet still cannot find out anything. When he returns, he asks what is going on. Goodwin and Rutledge, the scientist in charge, tell him that he is part of a project that can put someone in another person's consciousness during the last 8 minutes of their life. Stevens then asks why he cannot just stop the bomb.


Preps: some recommendations + a hot thing at the theatres a while ago


Reality: What would you do if you only had one minute left? Made it count? Burn a bridge you left behind, or build it?
Waking up in the "groundhog day" - in this case, groundhog eight minutes, just before a big explosion of a train, trying to figure out where the bomb is and who the assassin is, this is the reality of a soldier, that keeps going back to this train, searching for the villain. To imagine that he's a sort of an avatar that can have as many lives as possible, is the first obstacle in trying to get into this piece. After all, we aren't meant to be a leading actor in a video game. Furthermore, does he play himself or the character he obviously has overtaken in physical sense? The idea you linger quite a long upon, before you see him changing his mind constantly.

The game is simple - retreave the enemy and let us know who he is. In the mean time, get killed as many times as you like, but get us the information. The governmental programme Source code is abusing leftovers from a soldier, whose mind is still functioning, although he's missing more than a half of his body. With the use of technology, they drive him back again and again to that train that only has eight minutes before the explosion takes its place. And every time he's back in the train, he is making a completely new story. Somehow very similar to the Groundhog day guy - it is so obvious to make parallel assumptions, although the topic of the movie is quite different. This, being an action movie, tries to play mind trick with the audience, because even though he is a soldier, the body of the man he possesses, isn't or hasn't been in a combat before. So the question is, if you possess one's body, does this include also the upgrade/downsize of the skills that are in this mind? In this sense, the cute guy, he now is, doesn't know how to be a soldier, yet alone to fight. And there are many fights in this movie. In some sense, when you are playing your avatar, you can also influence his skills, whereas we aren't really in the avatar world here, nothing is played on the computer and noone but the people in the train can see the actions.

The fact, that the government abuses people's trust in order to receive their service (and hide it behind the "do it for the country, son" phrases), isn't something extra new. What is one guy if there are millions of lives at stake? Nothing to the country. In this piece, they try to give him the background so you could develop emotions to him. But fail, because this side story isn't strong enough to survive. The last time he's on the train, he calls his father and speaks with him. And kisses the girl, he continously sees across his seat, whenever he wakes up. And makes people in the train laugh. Because the last minutes should obviously count.
In some strange fiction, this parallel world is continuing without the accident. Now just think how many duplicates could you have with the usage of such a device and how many parallel worlds would exist?

My personal rate: 7,0 (a good way to think about your time and things you care about. And an anti-commercial pointed to the country and its deeds).


The Source code on IMDB

Signs, 2002

Signs, 2002
Director: M. Night Shyamalan
Cast: Joaquin Phoenix, Mel Gibson, Rory Culkin

Stage: Home theatre, TV selection of a Saturday night


Signs in short:In Bucks County, Pennsylvania, a five-hundred-foot crop circle is found on the farm of Graham Hess, the town's reverend. The circles cause a media frenzy and test Hess's faith as he journeys to find out the truth behind the crop circles.

Preps: None in perticular. But I am aware of the content.

Reality: Wooow, another episode of X files. This time in roles with Joaquin and Gibson. The Ceasar from Gladiator and the man who saves the world for xxx times. Joke aside, I truly feel I have stepped into another episode of X files and I am missing Scully and Mulder. Gibson as an ex priest (not really convincing), Phoenix chasing his life and beliefs. The children that believe in god and aliens. The dogs driving crazy all around them with barking and attempts of violence.

Now, the signs have been intriguing the minds of people for decades. And they aren't easy to be explained. Therefore they are usually said to be a work of aliens and there we have a chase after the designers of this perticular sign. In some sense, this movie isn't something new or won't reveal something we haven't seen in some of the other attempts of this genre. But it has an interesting insight into the philosophy of kids and the way they are feeling about the alien presence. The father figures here aren't neither convincing or they are resolving something. So no upgrade whatsoever from the known movies. The figure of the protective father and brother. The figure of an uncle that isn't as smart as the father. The signs that aren't explained after all. And remain to the viewer to be interpreted.

Not really something to die for, I mean the movie. Easily thrown away into the recycle bin. And easy money for both main protagonists. As said, the genre is easily sold to the crowd. But the movie is not for people that demand more. After all, if we didn't get the Stonehenge and similar signs for centuries, why think you can get the ones that are fresh and made in corn fields :)

My personal rate: 2,0 (a bit amusing at the beginning, with the development, loses its pace for sure).

Signs on IMDB

Contact, 1997

Contact, 1997
Director: Robert Zemeckis
Cast: Jodie Foster, Matthew McConnaughey, Tom Skerrit


Stage: Home TV selection

Contact in short: Astronomer Dr. Ellie Arroway has long been interested in contact to faraway lands, a love fostered in her childhood by her father, Ted Arroway, who passed away when she was nine years old leaving her then orphaned. Her current work in monitoring for extraterrestrial life is based on that love and is in part an homage to her father. Ever since funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF) was pulled on her work, which is referred to some, including her NSF superior David Drumlin, as more science fiction than science, Ellie, with a few of her rogue scientist colleagues, have looked for funding from where ever they could get it to continue their work. When Ellie and her colleagues hear chatter originating from the vicinity of the star Vega, Ellie feels vindicated. But that vindication is short lived when others, including politicians, the military, religious leaders and other scientists such as Drumlin...

Preps: Nothing special, as I have already seen the piece and loved it.

Reality: Contact is one of Zemecki's greater works. The strong cast supports the ever lasting theme that is truly popular at any given moment. Now, 1997 was the time when those movies had some kind of romantic perspective and weren't made in a hard way, as we know them now. It is for a fact that ever since ET it has been hard to make an "ET"-like movie that would match Spielberg from a far distance. Well, this is one of the more successful attempts. Foster, playing a dedicated scientist, and McConnaughey, playing the political role inside this.

For what it's worth - this is more a movie about the politics than the movie about ET's. Which could be a good point, since we all want to have an insight into the dirty games the government is playing and the happenings behind the scenes. Here you are dragged right into the snakes pit and bit by lions that are drulling around someone else's work. In this case, Jodie Foster plays the role of a scientist that got f.. with. And was supposed to be left behind. Because of the nature of the character she's playing, she makes sure she's not left behind and turns herself into the role of the spectator. Not being able to influence much, but being able to see the happening behind the scenes. Like a narrator of some kind, or a hidden spectator. Take it as you will.

Now, what is the signal she received - we cannot tell and for sure are having fun while the people in the Nasa, institutions that are dedicated to extraterrestrials, are trying to figure out. With some tips from an outsourced intelligence, Jodie Foster comes up with a key to the riddle and makes things even more complicated.

As said, the movie is more a political movie, making a point about the ways the government works and the games they are playing in the real life field. All the extra terrestrial is placed in our minds as something good and positive. Not to forget, we aren't aware of what we have as neighbours and sometimes, snakes pits should be left alone.

No real revelations in this movie. However, a true perspective of the problem most of the individually driven scientists are facing nowadays. And the lack of respect for their work. Like in parliaments, also the forces here are divided by cash and influence someone has in government.

My personal rate: 7,5 (a good and solid political piece, with a distinction towards optimistical view of the extra terrestrials).

Contact on IMDB

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, part 2, 2011
Director: David Yates
Cast: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint


Stage: Local Theatre, Early Sunday morning

Harry part 2 in short:

The final chapter begins as Harry, Ron, and Hermione continue their quest of finding and destroying the Dark Lord's three remaining Horcruxes, the magical items responsible for his immortality. But as the mystical Deathly Hallows are uncovered, and Voldemort finds out about their mission, the biggest battle begins and life as they know it will never be the same again

Preps: Waiting for the part a long time. Forgot where the part 1 ended. Luckily for me, these parts can be viewed separately, so I am not worried. As for my friend who I went to see this with, she's a huge fan of Potter's and doesn't care what it is. She knows she is going to love it.

Reality: Potter in his last stage. They are a bit too old to be playing this, because the characters they are, are a bit younger. Therefore I feel somehow like in Beverly Hills 90210

where all the characters were at least ten years older than they were supposed to. And I am actually annoyed that I don't remember what the story in the first 20 minutes is. Because I would like to know. And I am blaming myself not to have seen the first part before going to the movies.

Nevertheless, I am satisfied after a while. I fall into the world of magic. Brilliantly put together. The convergence from the book to the movie couldn't be better, in my opinion. If I imagined, what the movie perspective of the famous book would be, this would be it. I am stunned by the witchcraft, evil forces that are trying to conquer the world of good. The colours resemble the good and the bad, the music plays along with the rhythm of the movie. The scenery is amazing - of course, nowadays, photo shop animations are the best. And the good part in this is the fact that everything is fictional, therefore everything is possible in the production sense. If you want a violet sunset, voila, there you go. If you need stars beyond belief, puff, you have them. The magic can happen within the director's reach and the viewers are more than satisfied. So don't expect some real time movie perspective, everything here is beyond anything you know or think you have already seen in nature. I suppose they take beautiful sceneries and make them magical with some help of nowaday instruments or computers.

As for the defilee of the story, the last part - a bit cheesy. However, this is also the book's ending, therefore you cannot blame the director. If I said at first that the characters are too old (in reality), at the end, they are put into the role of adults, twenty years almost later. And in this role, they also don't seem right. Computers can easily adopt environment, but hardly make people older than they are. So the trinity tries to be adults, but fails. Nevertheless, I adore the movie and have a strong recommendation for it. It could easily be half an hour shorter. The ending is simply too long. But I get it, the last part, the ending of the saga, you cannot make it short. However, for those that aren't exactly craving for thirst for Potter, the director could give them a break and make this an 2 hour piece :)

My personal rate: 7,5 (a good piece and a strong background (scenery, music, costumography).

Potter on IMDB

Stranger than fiction, 2006

Stranger than Fiction, 2006
Director: Marc Forster
Cast: Will Ferrel, Emma Thompson, Dustin Hoffmann


Stage: Home theatre


Stranger than Fiction in short:

Everybody knows that your life is a story. But what if a story was your life? Harold Crick is your average IRS agent: monotonous, boring, and repetitive. But one day this all changes when Harold begins to hear an author inside his head narrating his life. The narrator it is extraordinarily accurate, and Harold recognizes the voice as an esteemed author he saw on TV. But when the narration reveals that he is going to die, Harold must find the author of the story, and ultimately his life, to convince her to change the ending of the story before it is too late


Preps: Again, a recommendation from the circle I trust that something recommended from this circle will play hard in my brains.


Reality: Perfect start. I feel like in a Truman show. It takes me a while to realize we are having a narrator present in one day of a single person - Harold Crick. Everything we see is a stage, until the guy realizes that he's hearing the voices. Therefore he has the power to influence his own life. Or doesn't he? The problem is, that something is already written down, in sense, he is performing it already, delivering what he's supposed to. The stuff that isn't already written down is something he can influence. In this sense, the viewer will always question, what is the written destiny of Crick and what is the one he's making at the moment he's in (like therapies with the shrink - Dustin Hoffman; looking for the writer of this play he's playing in, etc). Just to think that you are a writer and the character could hear you speaking about his life, is hillarious.

Somehow I switch to the perspective of Crick. He is changing his life as the writer is trying to write something else - at least this is how it seems. He meets a lady he likes and despite the business dispute they are having, turns the gig into a romance. Brilliant - and yet I think it isn't really written in the book. Somehow the awareness of being a character, makes him indulge the life more than he would probably if he didn't hear anything in the first place. The question here then is, which story are we following, the written one, or the side one? And the story of the writer is also brilliantly put - an addict that needs a personal secretary to finish up the job? I would make this an official business, but not only in the writer's world, also in other creative jobs, where the depression, followed by a wave of creativity, is absolutely a must. And in this sense, the job of such a secretary would come handy. I loved this side role.

The complete movie will rock your alternative mind. It will make you switch from the side of the spectator to the side of the role player. And you will get confused, which ending you would like to see. As set, the writer is a drama queen. And the Hollywood endings don't fit her.


My personal rate: 9,0 (somehow it reminds me of Allen's movies. I loved it and found it creative and fun to watch).

Stranger than fiction on IMDB

The Company Men

The Company Men, 2010
Director: John Wells
Cast: Ben Affleck, Chris Cooper, Kevin Costner, Tommy Lee Jones


Stage: Home theatre


The Company Men in short: When the GTX Corporation must cut jobs to improve the company's balance sheet during the 2010 recession, thousands of employees will take the hit, like Bobby Walker (Ben Affleck). Bobby learns the real life consequences of not having a job. Not only does he see a change to his family lifestyle, and the loss of his home, but also his feelings of self-worth.


Preps. A recommendation from someone whose opinion means a big deal to me. Apart from that, not a clue what this is about.

Reality. Surprise number one: the cast. Before playing it, unaware of great names in this piece. And a splendid act from them, indeed. Throughout the movie, the roles are joint equally and noone is stepping really out of the crowd. In sense of this movie, this is quite remarkable step forward for the director. Because we are following some aligned stories where there isn't really a place for one hero. We need several.

Second surprise - the topic. So real and so in place nowadays. The recession taking its toll, in its best appearance. Making a lot of middle settled people poor through the night. And making a lot of families fall apart, people undertaking depression, drowning in alcohol. Making a point of holding a position you have right now is not a sure thing. And that you need to think a bit in advance. Or perhaps a campaign from insurance companies, so they gain more business in these uncertain times? For US teritory, I could see this also behind the scenes. Nevertheless, I am convinced, that the inspiration for the piece came from the times we are facing now and a part of this is similar to WW2 movies - to remember for the future reference, what to expect if this happens.

Affleck turning from a rich guy to a poor guy that misplaces his tie for a handy set of tools - I found it brilliant. Also the optimistic point (which is of course a sense of romance of Hollywood - where you just don't leave the main protagonist die as an ox on field); that the work of "others" - in sense of normal handycraft men, is not only money making, but also to be proud of. I was positively surprised to see Costner again, the role of the chief in craft suits him very well. Also the side effect of the brother that earns more, but with a decent job - I loved it. On the other hand, taking some paths through the merciless world of business is remarkable. Jones plays a great role in this, making us realize that the system is bad, capital oriented, and doesn't care about commitment, people and trust. The only thing it trusts, is profit. Kind of scenery in the Wall Street.


My personal rate: 8,0 (a good recession analysis on US - will make you shiver for your own position ;) - well, at least will make you consider your lucky stars)


The Company Men on IMDB

Hanna, 2011

Hanna, 2011
Director: Joe Wright
Cast: Cate Blanchett, Saoirse Ronan, Eric Bana



Stage: Home @laptop


Hanna in short: Hanna (Ronan) is a teenage girl. Uniquely, she has the strength, the stamina, and the smarts of a soldier; these come from being raised by her father (Bana), an ex-CIA man, in the wilds of Finland. Living a life unlike any other teenager, her upbringing and training have been one and the same, all geared to making her the perfect assassin. The turning point in her adolescence is a sharp one; sent into the world by her father on a mission, Hanna journeys stealthily across Europe while eluding agents dispatched after her by a ruthless intelligence operative with secrets of her own (Ms. Blanchett). As she nears her ultimate target, Hanna faces startling revelations about her existence and unexpected questions about her humanity.


Preps: None in perticular. One again from the movie selection I have, still running in the theatres, and I am curious.


Reality: A dissappointment. The only remarkable thing I see in the movie is the powers (or let us say, skills) the girl posesses. And are of course, trained. Living in a cocoon and being trained by her father, at first you could get the glimpse of the Carey's Truman show. Up to some extent, she is aware of the world as a big danger and doesn't have any real life experience, apart from the frozen and life taking ones. And being trained as a professional, kind of a Charlie Angel in her youth.

After she's released in the real life, the chase begins. Chasing the past, chasing the probable future, you are lead into the world where all the agents in the globe know your whereabouts, I am often reflected with Angelina Jolie in this sense, because usually this is her type of the movies - endless action with some sex drive (in this case the sexual point is missing, obviously because of the youth of the young girl). Through the movie, I have the feeling that I have seen this somewhere before. Like a puzzle of different pieces, put together by this director. So I am not impressed at all, yet alone I am bored to death as the movie reaches its end. I cannot recommend it, because it lacks passion, it lacks true and believable story. The only thing that I would wish someday to be a Xena like this young lady is - to have skills like this because I sense they would be worth struggling for. Not to be used in this deadly sense, of course, but still.


My personal rate: 4,0 (good battle scenes, bad execution in the chase - which is 80% of the movie).


Hanna on IMDB

The Hangover Part II

The hangover Part II
Director: Todd Phillips
Cast: Bradley Cooper, Zach Galifianakis, Ed Helms, Justin Barta



Stage: Theatre Colloseum, Ljubljana

The Hangover in short: Stu is getting married. Along with Doug, Phil, and his soon-to-be brother-in-law Teddy, he regretfully invites Alan to Thailand for the wedding. After a quiet night on the beach with a beer and toasting marshmallows by the camp fire, Stu, Alan and Phil wake up in a seedy apartment in Bangkok. Doug is back at the resort, but Teddy is missing, there's a monkey with a severed finger, Alan's head is shaved, Stu has a tattoo on his face, and they can't remember any of it. The wolf-pack retrace their steps through strip clubs, tattoo parlors and cocaine-dealing monkeys on the streets of Bangkok as they try and find Teddy before the wedding.


Preps: Seeing part I, I wasn't merely as impressed as at some of the other similar movies in genre. However, since I got a chance to see this one in the summer heat, let's go for it.


Reality: Somehow amusing. Not believable. You just cannot get into such trouble and get away with it. Getting drunk isn't the option this time. Getting wasted with some candies, this is the crucial part of the story. Upon getting drugged, the gang goes wandering around Bangkok making funny and crime-sensitive things, waking up with a big hangover in a misterious flat. Obviously, like in some other movies we know (Dude, where's my car, for instance..) - they are following the clues and their footsteps that are supposed to lead them to find the brother of the bride they seem to have lost somewhere along their wild night. As the term says, Bangkok is supposeably having a feast with a young boy; if you are swollen by Bangkok, you never return. In this case, they are running through the streets of the city, looking for the young man, being chased by some criminals, stealing and drugdealing with a monkey, meeting drug dealers in person, the Interpol, etc.

The story is very vivid and the director had one hell of an imagination. I surrender to the fact, that in some cases I find it extremely amusing. But nothing more than that. No fun really in seeing a monkey smoking. Or in thinking of having so much drug in the body you got a tatoo and don't even remember it.

The defilee of the movie (the last part, where the cast is named and you get to see the photos they took on that night, makes it up for half of the boring and sadly, not funny movie. The photos are hilarious, however the movie isn't. Obviously everything turns out fine and the marriage has its place like it's supposed to be. On the other hand, we get to hear Mike Tyson sing (which isn't really the explosion of the day, because he cannot bare a tune).


My personal rate: 3,0 (relatively funny in some points, very lame and dissappointing in others. Sequel per se.)

The hangover on IMDB

True Grit, 2010

True Grit, 2010
Director: Ethan & Joel Coen
Cast: Jeff Bridges, Matt Damon, Hailee Steinfeld

Stage: @Laptop


True grit in short: Following the murder of her father by hired hand Tom Chaney, 14-year-old farm girl Mattie Ross sets out to capture the killer. To aid her, she hires the toughest U.S. marshal she can find, a man with "true grit," Reuben J. "Rooster" Cogburn. Mattie insists on accompanying Cogburn, whose drinking, sloth, and generally reprobate character do not augment her faith in him. Against his wishes, she joins him in his trek into the Indian Nations in search of Chaney. They are joined by Texas Ranger LaBoeuf, who wants Chaney for his own purposes. The unlikely trio find danger and surprises on the journey, and each has his or her "grit" tested.


Preps: One of the more notorious ones according to the Academy. And one of the worst ones according to some people I know.


Reality: At first, amazed. Because of the language, the setting, the scenes and the costumes. The language spoken is truly beautiful. I would wish that my daughter at 14 posesses such language. Ancient and beautiful. Noone speaks this way any more.
But the rest.. the story is somehow believable. Vengeance brings a lot out of many people, therefore the story about making a chase after your father's murderer, is quite believable, nasty and could get the viewer in the dark of the deed.
Nevertheless, the story remains where I dreamt it, the happening is somehow boring and even though the main characters are moving all the time, you have the distinctive feeling they are at the same firecamp all the time and that nothing is about to happen.
The scenes at the beginning will drive your attention, but in the middle, the movie loses its pace and becomes average, then boring. The chase isn't half as fun as watching the young girl fighting for her right. Jeff Bridges? Matt Damon? ahm.. not impressive. is true grit being an asshole with an attitude? I don't think so. Unfortunately, I don't really like this one. I believe the original was better.


My personal rate: 5,0 (up to a point, very good. After that.. erase it!)


True Grit on IMDB

Rubber, 2010

Rubber, 2010
Director: Quentin Dupieux
Cast: Stephen Spinella, Roxanne Mesquida, Wings Houser

Stage: Laptop scene @home



Rubber in short: When Robert, a tire, discovers his destructive telepathic powers, he soon sets his sights on a desert town; in particular, a mysterious woman becomes his obsession.


Preps: One in the oven, waiting anxiously for my attention. Though I don't know anything about it..

Reality: Well.. Well.. was left speachless after ten minutes. The same thing after twenty, thirty, three quarters of an hour.. With open mouth I am thinking whether to label this one as total bullshit or quite the opposite.
In most of the scenes you have a vengeance full tyre, heading around and exploding, or to be more exact, making other things explode. With a funny posture the tyre takes just before the crime, it makes things that come in its way, dead in some seconds or in quite a short time.

The piece is set like a filming spot, with an audience which resembles a school crowd you could take from a film academy, looking at what the movie is supposed to be filmed with /or how it is supposed to be made. The other side of the coin is the adventure you have with tyre and its obsession with a perticular lady it fancies. Does a tyre fancy anything? The piece implies that it has a soul and its own brains. Which is highly unlikely and furthermore, highly unlikeable. I decide the movie isn't worth my attention. The poisoning of the crowd? Pretending that it's a movie inside the movie? The last, but not least.. the tyre having a soul? I don't think so. Erase.


My personal rate: 1,0 (I was intrigued and amused at the beginning, but it got on my nerves quite quickly).
Rubber on IMDB

American Pie 2 & 3

American Pie 2 & 3
Director: J.B.Rogers (2), Jesse Dylan (3)
Cast: Jason Biggs, Sean William Scott, Shannon Elizabeth, Alyson Hannigan


Stage: Home theatre, TV selection of two weeks :) (sequential summer fun on Thursday)


Preps: I have seen both several times and figured it's a decent fun to have on a Thursday evening, if you aren't leaving out

American Pies in short:
#2: The whole gang are back and as close as ever. They decide to get even closer by spending the summer together at a beach house. They decide to hold the biggest party ever to be seen, even if the preparation doesn't always go to plan. Especially when Stifler, Finch and Jim become more close to each other than they ever want to be and when Jim mistakes super glue for lubricant.

#3: The third film in the American Pie series deals with the wedding of Jim and Michelle and the gathering of their families and friends, including Jim's old friends from high school and Michelle's little sister.


Reality: Never ever I am amazed by sequels. However, in some cases, they are easy to get by or even fun. This is one of them. The second part deals with college summer vacation, where the guy gang is out heading for the beach, where they spend their summer and end it up with a big party.
The third part deals with the marriage of wacko and flautist :) with all the fun of bachelor party, friend fuck-ups and again, pure fun to watch.

Both parts have great gigs and will make you laugh. They aren't an upgrade of the first part, as expected, but as the first part truly was a success, the second and the third are meant for people, hungry for more of Jim and his fraternity. The second part, again focusing on sex and how to get someone into your bed. Culmination in the end summer party is overrated and in my opinion, the director is exaggerating at least a bit. And the happening is somehow static and not so dynamic as in the first part; the settings are not changing. The flavour is dedicated to juvenile fantasies about making love with two lesbians, thus getting into "trouble", as supposeable lesbians also provoke the guys to kiss among each other. In this sense, a bit unprofessional attitude towards homosexual oriented people, and embedded "pain", how people with homosexual orientation are something bad for society. In any case, the funny parts and jokes derive fortunately just slightly out of this topic, all the rest is genuine and an upgrade to what we saw in the first part.

The third part is situated in the time of the marriage, the natural (and according to Hollywood), the only step that is possible after the marriage.The third part is actually the worst one in terms of comedy and it's also the most persuasive in terms of what is expected from you to be doing (following the roots your parents did, and their parents, etc). Nevertheless, the scenes are still good, having sex with your friend's mom remains a fantasy and again, Jim is faced with numerous shameful scenes one could never predict.


My personal rate: 6,0 (for both; they are a shadow of number one, however the true fans of number one will appreciate also the sequels).

American pie on IMDB

American Pie 1

American Pie 1
Director: Paul Weitz
Cast:Jason Biggs, Chris Klein, Thomas Ian Nicholas


American Pie in short: Jim, Oz, Finch and Kevin are four friends who make a pact that before they graduate they will all lose their virginity. The hard job now is how to reach that goal by prom night. Whilst Oz begins singing to grab attention and Kevin tries to persuade his girlfriend, Finch tries any easy route of spreading rumors and Jim fails miserably. Whether it is being caught on top of a pie or on the Internet, Jim always end up with his trusty sex advice from his father. Will they achieve their goal of getting laid by prom night? or will they learn something much different.

Stage: home theatre, TV selection of the month ;)

Preps: I have seen this superb comedy several times and it always amuses me to see it again. the TV has prepared a set of older movies for us that are home, to see.


Reality: American pie definitely holds a classic american comedy reputation. As a truly funny movie it posesses a lot of different touch points one faces before going to college, especially localized in US. In this sense*, we see the fear of not losing your virginity before you enter college (and in this case it is represented almost as a sin for that matter), chasing girls, using different taglines and approaches in order to get to the big pot - american pie. The term "amarican pie" became notorious also in Slovenia, using it to express the feel of a woman, if you stick your finger into her - according to the movie it should feel like putting your finger into the apple pie. However, no matter how lightly obscene and weird this might seem, it was definitely one of the funniest scenes in the movie. The setting is put in the high school environment, everything is set to happen at prom night and series of funny interactions just lead to having sex with a woman. The woman's point of view is in this case neglected. But the audience will appreciate truly remarkable number of scenes that can drive you mad from laughter.
I am not a fan of american comedies, in perticular those with this kind of essence(content). However, in my honest opinion, this is one of the better (and in the same pool I am giving "just friends", "Dude, where's my car", "Roadtrip", etc). The sequels of American pie aren't as good, however they don't lose the pace the first part has set.
To have a scout girl - the violinist put upfront as a very kinky horny girl is definitely one of the better ideas in this movie and whenever my mind sets on the scenes with her, I just burst with laughter. The same goes for having sex with the mother of one of your friends, joining the core because you want a girl to fancy you (supposeably being a tough football player that now sings lovely romantic songs).. there are various scenes that will make you laugh and will make you appreciate this Weizs's piece forever. I love to see this piece every now and then, because it will relax me and make me laugh. That should be the point of the comedies after all. And this is not the stupid comedy most of these in the genre are.


My personal rating: 8,0 (a good, solid humorous piece you will love to watch and laugh over).


American pie on IMDB

The Insider, 1999

The Insider, 1999
Director: Michael Mann
Cast: Russel Crowe, Al Pacino, Cristopher Plummer


Stage: home theatre, late Saturday selection

The Insider in short: Balls-out "60 Minutes" producer Lowell Bergman sniffs a story when a former research biologist for Brown & Williamson, Jeff Wigand, won't talk to him. When the company leans hard on Wigand to honor a confidentiality agreement, he gets his back up. Trusting Bergman and despite a crumbling marriage, he goes on camera for a Mike Wallace interview and risks arrest for contempt of court. Westinghouse is negotiating to buy CBS, so CBS attorneys advise CBS News to shelve the interview and avoid a lawsuit. "60 Minutes" and CBS News bosses cave, Wigand's hung out to dry, Bergman is compromised, and the CEOs of Big Tobacco may get away with perjury. Can the truth will out?


Preps: None but the great cast I need urgently to see put together. This is the optimal case study to do that perticular job.



Reality: The choice between serve to the things you believe in and be loyal to the needs of your existing family, is always severe and a matter of many movies made so far. In this perticular case, similar as in for instance Erin Brockovich with brilliant Julia Roberts, we have a case of a tobacco company and a big law suit coming up against them, as a prize for live interview with the insider.
Crowe, as a family man, is submerged to great pressure; onesides from the journalist (Al Pacino)and a subconscious feeling to go for it, change the world and make it a better place to live in. On the other side, he is stressed by the care for his own family, which is submerged to threats, luring, exposure on public places, etc - with a good chance to get killed or at least injured in the process. There are millions behind each of these stories, this one is no exception, it is put together very realistic and the way people really behave - at least I buy it.
It's a good drama, making you think about your own philosophical view on this matter. Would you go for it? Nothing is certain. There isn't a lot of money here at stake for the family that is a subject of misbehaviour of the public in an instant.

The question is, is the feeling that you have done something for the human race or nature, good enough to support this type of decision? Where is moral and where ethics in this case and up to which should you submerge as an individual? The choices, made in this movie, aren't really obvious and the director puts you on the hot spot until the very end. A good representation of bigger companies that take laws in their hands and make happen whatever it is that serves to their income and less to public.




My personal rate: 7,0 (strong and valid piece that will rock your ethical views and standards).

The Insider on IMDB

Deep Impact, 1998

Deep Impact, 1998
Director: Mimi Leder
Cast: Morgan Freeman, Robert Duvall, Tea Leoni, Elijah Wood


Stage: Home theatre, late TV selection

Deep Impact in short: A teenage astronomer and his teacher discover an object amongst the stars at night. Little do they know that it's a comet on a direct collision course for earth. After the teacher dies in a car crash trying to report his findings the President announces the comet's existence. He also states that there is no need to panic, because NASA is going to send astronauts on the space mission, Messiah. Their mission is to destroy the comet before it gets too close to the earth. When Messiah backfires, the President announces that special caves will have to be built, and the government will have to have a lottery-of-fate to randomly select 800,000 ordinary American citizens to go along with 200,000 scientists, soldiers, and other officials. These 1,000,000 people will be set aside to save the population from extinction when the comet hits.

Preps: Hm, isn't this one of the "The earth will be destroyed unless" clones? I am not sure.


Reality: Yep, I am right. I remember now, when the plot comes thru the first scenes. I have seen this one before. It's a special genre, if it would exist for real, several very notorious movies would fit into this. Because they all describe the same thing, fear of all fears. This time not in shape of alien, but in shape of a comet (meteor), usually found by one weird scientist, then making all the world upside down. The first and maybe the one with most lovely actors, in this sense, would be Armageddon, surprisingly enough made in the same year. Who copied from who, remains the question. Because Deep Impact is virtually very similar to Armageddon or vice versa. But doesn't have the famous cast as the Armageddon has. Nevertheless, Deep Impact in comparison, holds a few plus points - for instance: the stories before the comet appears and the parallel stories about relationships, that go very deep (in comparison with Willis's ship). Surprise from viewer's perspective, and refreshing, anyway. In some deep imagination I would guess that most of the viewers just are anxious to see the impact or the rescue mission itself and the vaporization. They don't really care what the relationships between people in this story are. Just the mere wolfy observation of the impact would be enough. And can drive powerful enough.
In this case, you are dragged into various relationships and traumas the people going on the mission (or reporting about it) are having from the past. And the way some of it is resolved up to a point. Tea Leoni seems to have the last quote here, but I would rather not spend any money on trying to make journalist profession not a voulter one. It is such and any time spent on persuasing audience it isn't so, is a long gone investment. Beside the point, we are talking about extinction and therefore it doesn't fit into yellow journalism anyway. Why bring up the honour and pride (or commitment to the public must know dogma)?

In any case, case closed at the end of the day, humankind solved, heroes (again US and Russian - how predictable :( No extra adventure or fun here.


My personal rating: 4,0 (some entertainment and a good start. Also like the side part of the movie, when you wipe the impact out :)

Deep Impact on IMDB

Vicky Christina Barcelona, 2008

Vicky Christina Barcelona, 2008
Director: Woody Allen
Cast: Penelope Cruz, Scarlett Johannson, Javier Bardem, Rebecca Hall




Stage: Home theatre, another viewing (seen before on the movie festival LIFFE)


Vicky Christina Barcelona in short: Sexually adventurous Cristina and her friend Vicky, who is bright but cautious, holiday in Barcelona where they meet the celebrated and wholly seductive painter, Juan Antonio. Vicky is not about to dive into a sexual adventure being committed to her forthcoming marriage. But Cristina is immediately captivated by Juan Antonio's free spirit and his romantic allure is enhanced when she hears the delicious details of his divorce from fellow artist, the tempestuous Maria Elena.

Preps: I am a huge fan of Allen's work, therefore I need to see this regardless of what it might do to me :)

Reality: One of the typical Allen's perspective is to go into a woman's soul, making ironic scenery and drive sarcasm out of the soul of the spectator. Which is truly why I love his movies. And somehow, I find it amusing that he can put Johannson into so many different roles, as I see her as his sexual muse.

This piece is set in the beautiful scenery in Barcelona. The place we absolutely agree on, everyone should go for the summer. So in this sense, a dream becomes reality and you get to see all the dirty details of one's summer in this city. The beginning seems quite undemanding to the viewer and the storyline is pretty simple. When Bardem gets his visio in the scope of the camera, this is the place where everything gets complicated and Allen gets his piece of the pie. The love triangle, where Johansson plays a giant role of a traditional woman, that strives to check out something completely out of her scope, at the end realizing it's not what she wants (oh, what a surprise there ;) - no fairies last a long time, right? ). It's amazing to see all the quarreling between an old couple, combining it with a newcoming love into a formation of a sort of triangle, after that receiving every bit of positive side of this for a while, then turning into a flashlight or a sparkle and fading away. In a sense, a lection on how things fade away even though they seem quite sparkled at the beginning and how we should cherish life when it's happening, not mourning when it's finished. That goes for special moments as well.

Nevertheless, Barcelona in this sense is a metaphore for an escape. I see it in some aspect as the famous phrase "what happens in Vegas.." in this sense, of course, what happens in Spain.. I could easily claim the movie to be anti commercial for Spain (or american women), however, I see a deeper point into making your soul cope with metaphores and giving them a chance to breathe in the real life. Marrying a guy, running right afterwards in a strange country you don't know, falling in love with someone else and forgetting about it when you return to real life? Or, on the other hand, falling in love into the same guy as your friend, coping with life with his ex in the same house, making love to both and then at the end of the day, living with yourself, if you were brought up with traditional values and despise the fact that you are this way? A pile of challenges, Allen in his own way, exposes to the viewer. The movie will lie down on your soul gently and will comfort you with the way things turn out. Nevertheless, I believe the ending to be too average for Allen and I don't like it. I just don't see life as rosy as it turns out for the two ladies. And if it does stay in Spain, it for sure also stays in the mind and soul.


My personal rate: 7,0 (a fine, loveable piece I enjoy watching all over again.)


Barcelona on IMDB

Elephant White, 2011

Elephant White, 2011
Director: Prachya Pinkaew
Cast: Djimon Hounsou, Kevin Bacon, Jirantanin Pitakporntrakul



Elephant White in short: In Bangkok, the assassin Curtie Church (Djimon Hounsou) is hired by a businessman to kill six men. Job done, the employer proposes another contract to Curtie to kill the lord of the traffickers that had addicted, prostituted and murdered his daughter. Curtie seeks out the Englishman Jimmy that is an arm dealer and he rents heavy weapons. Then Curtie provokes a war between gangs to eliminate the greatest number of white slave traders. Meanwhile, the young prostitute Mae meets Church and helps him to release other girls. When Mae vanishes, Curtie seeks her out and finds the truth about Mae.


Stage: Home theatre

Preps: Well, trying to see this one for a while now, because I have heard the topic is devastating and I absolutely admire movies that are coping with social aspects or issues.

Reality: The Thai prostitution vehicle is truly something that can tore your heart. Young girls, being dragged to clubs (to make them dance and sleep with the customers), making sure they are attached to their kidnappers by giving them drugs and making them addicts - the story reveals only the surface of this great issue this "love country" posesses. And sadly enough, while being on drugs, the girls are addicted to these relationships also and don't want to flee or be free at all. The piece gives an insight into one of the stories, as Hounsou plays the role of a killer on a mission, trying to find (and to make a revenge on behalf of the father) a girl that is missing like millions of them.

He finds a girl but it isn't until the end the viewer is absolutely sure this was the girl he was seeking and that she came in a spiritual way, in order to make others survive, be a mind leader, a bad conscious to the killer, call her whatever you please. But the person isn't real, the killer for sure is. You are dragged right into the mob centre, where gangs are trying to fight their placement in the society, by taking control in a weapon manner, and taking control over the girls as well. A sad story, sadly enough it's also a true one. The movie serves with some statistics on the fact that we have trade with humans still active in this part of the world. That the parents cannot survive themselves, yet alone their children. So they sell them away. The way it's described in the piece, will give you the chills.

Now, for the act - it could be done in a smoother, better way. Not all of us are Bruce Willis and yes, if you get loads of fire upon yourself, something should hit you. And after a while, when you get hit, you should also be wounded. You cannot go around in the scene five minutes after this, like nothing happened. So, some serious abuse for the viewer, if you don't pay attention. And the layout could be better. More black/white picturesque images for the viewer. Because this world is rotten and you get the feeling sometimes that the director is trying to share a romantic perspective on this issue. Well, no romance in human trade. In slaves, I mean girls. The issue is alive and would maybe deserve a better execution. Even though Hounsou and Bacon are a good pair, they don't make it up for what the director messed up.


My personal rate: 5,5 (see it for the conscious reasons. And as a live threat).

Elephant White on IMDB

Battle Los Angeles, 2011

Battle Los Angeles, 2011
Director: Jonathan Liebsmann
Cast: Aaron Eckhart, Michelle Rodriguez, Bridget Moynahan



Battle LA in short: Los Angeles and other cities around the world are being bombarded by meteors that seem to be slowing down once they hit the earth's atmosphere. The earth is suddenly being invaded by space aliens that have landed off the shore of LA, and who begin killing everybody along the beach. The military is ordered into action. Marine Staff Sergeant Nantz (Aaron Eckhart), who was about to retire, is reassigned to a new platoon. The platoon, flown by chopper to the forward operating base at Santa Monica Airport, is being led by a new 2nd Lt. Martinez (Ramon Rodriguez). They are sent on a mission to rescue some civilians who are trapped at the police station within alien territory. They only have 3 hours to complete their mission and get out before the Air Force bombs that zone.


Stage: home theatre, late Friday night.


Preps: Hm, actually wanted to see this one at the movies, but missed it. Nevertheless, a good way to see it might be also at home. The expectations are a bit low, though.


Reality: Another good will rise against evil story. Another praise the US marines movie. And yet, another clone of the Independence Day. As much as I loved that one (mostly because it also strikes some humorous upgrades from what I would normally expect, and for Will Smith's sake), this one, the Battle for LA is some clone between Die Hard and all the stack of "aliens are striking the US, which is about to die or to save the world". No real difference in Independence Day, to be exact, however, least I found that one humorous and had luvable actors. Well, this piece lacks of anything I can hold on to in order to get me to stay alert in front of the screen.

Some Bruce Willis (noone is going to kill me) mumbo jumbo. The retired colonel is striking back and showing new rookies how things should be handled. A bit underestimating of the viewer. Hence, also lower rate of allert on my side. The scenes are more or less similar and boring. Uninterested, I still find some will to go through this. The plot is simple; alien is coming, we are the brave guys to attack it. Find its weak spot and save some civilians at the same time. It's surprisingly how much effort the countries around the world are trying to put into the mere idea, that "we don't leave our men behind". I don't buy it. Nevertheless, it's shown in many movies. Saving private Ryan, to name just one of them. Is any type of government going to spend people and money to get two or three people out of the red zone, just for the sake of human respect? I doubt it. Nevertheless, leaving this fact aside, the movie shows how 20 soldiers die in order to save five civilians. And destroy numerous emmos and weapons while doing it.

The movie lacks respect towards the viewer - as the scenes proceed from less believable to totally unbelievable, my patience is decreasing not in a constant way, but in an exponent. The victory, is obvious, the painful procedure before they figure out what to do, took the director too long. A nice surprise is the girl from Lost and from SWAT and other tough movies - Michelle Rodriguez, always acting in a Xena role, however as a soldier or a tough woman. I like her and I like her style. This movie doesn't give her the room she deserves, but most definitely puts her in a spot where we are used of seeing her.

The movie is at least half an hour too long and I am so glad I didn't spend the money on the movies for this one. Neither should you.


My personal rate: 2,0 (not many highlights, but still, some amusing scenes. And it's always fun to see the creativity of a director when having another alien torn apart).


Battle LA on IMDB

Hall Pass, 2011

Hall Pass, 2011
Director: Bobby Farrelly, Peter Farrelly
Cast: Owen Wilson, Christina Applegate, Jason Sudeikis



Stage: Home theatre



Hall Pass in short:A couple of married guys are always looking at other women, treating their own wives like trash. Their wives are fed up with their behavior, and grant them a 'hall pass': a week off their marriage allowing them to do anything. But the guys take their time and their week is almost up. What they don't realize is that at the same time their wives make connections of their own.

Preps: One of the hot ones in the movies a while ago. Although it's the dead season for the movies, I still find a luring bate inside this one. What if maybe once I am wrong and this could be a good one afterall?


Reality: Nope. I am not wrong. This is again, one of the crooked comedies, and as my expectations rose high, they were stabbed and trembled down with the mere (again, used and abused) idea of giving your husband graciously a week off the marriage. Hm. Like we are in the kindergarten. Where is the sense of responsibility and how does the message of the movie comply to this?
In average, every normal person wants to get off the train every now and then. I believe this piece is a sort of attempt how to do it and what happens (the look behind the scenes). But guess what, it doesn't even pass the normal standard I would expect, or at least, it could have some more brains attached to the making of the movie, for instance the script, the mere definition of why he gets to do it and why does she comply with that? Is there some written rule that guys pay more in the marriage, in terms of pain and suffering, and therefore should be allowed to take a break? In some sense, what if you have children, you cannot just go around and decide to take a break. The mere idea breaks my nerves in two parts and makes me angry all the time, since I barely sense the red line in the movie or dare I say a message. What is the true message; he's gonna wander around, doing whatever he wants to do (from a sane point of view, we can all do whatever we want, it's the responsibility and conscious that are leaving us behind doing things we decided we wanted and act as adults. In this piece, you can see small children playing in a sand box. Wives getting an extra story and an extra connection? Oh, come on. No way I buy it. And it's a shitty version. Owen acts like a clown and Applegate as the tortured wife. No way a smart viewer should comply with that or just accept it. Hence, I erase this brainless piece of a movie. Don't recommend it, don't go there, don't even think about it. There is absolutely nothing about this movie you might like.


My personal rating: 0,0 (and no comment whatsoever).

Hall Pass on IMDB