The Devil Wears Prada, 2006

The Devil wears Prada, 2006
Director: David Frankel
Cast: Anne Hathaway, Meryl Streep, Adrian Grenier




Stage: Home TV selection, late Sunday night



The Devil in short: In New York, the simple and naive just-graduated in journalism Andrea Sachs is hired to work as the second assistant of the powerful and sophisticated Miranda Priestly, the ruthless and merciless executive of the Runway fashion magazine. Andrea dreams to become a journalist and faces the opportunity as a temporary professional challenge. The first assistant Emily advises Andrea about the behavior and preferences of their cruel boss, and the stylist Nigel helps Andrea to dress more adequately for the environment. Andrea changes her attitude and behavior, affecting her private life and the relationship with her boyfriend Nate, her family and friends. In the end, Andrea learns that life is made of choices



Preps: Notorious piece that was introduced some time ago. Still, never found a chance to see it completely.  Am curious. And I am eager to see something not too heavy for my mind.



Reality: It is a positive surprise. Never have I seen Meryl in a similar role before. And she fits into it like a glove. Such a strict, stubborn boss you would never want to have or work for - it can take your breath away. However, in need people are willing to work even if you need to work under these kind of conditions.
The second, the naive part (Hathaway) runs into an industry. I am quite sure this is a milestone for most people that just graduated from college. I also thought I would stumble upon a brilliant job after the college right away. Soon you realize life isn't just a box of chocolates and those sayings should be maybe reserved for Forrests Gumps of this planet. Not for "regular" species. Like me. Well, in journalism, which I also wanted to explore as a possibility what to do in life, there's a severe battle. Not only to get a position, but to sustain it. The level of employee turnover is amazing. And in Devil wears Prada we see a perfect example what a fashion magazine workload is all about, how should you behave, what should you wear, which language to speak, how fast must you nod your head and that it is all about image, not the real content.
In real life, even such "bitches", as the one, that Meryl is impersonating, can have a soul. In this particular example we can observe how we sometimes are let into the inside of Miranda. And we can imagine how tuff is it to preserve an image like this. And on the other side, how hard it is for Andrea to first acknowledge where she is and then adapt. The fast adaptation to the new environment is simply amazing. I love to see her wear those dresses, high heels and act like she's one of them. The real issue is, does she become one of them? In this scenario not, however, in real life I imagine you get used to being around rich people with fancy clothes, champagne in their hands, very quickly. And it's the downfall for your ego, your soul in many cases, should you decide to go backwards.

Andrea decides this isn't the life she wants to pursue. Good for her. It is also her lucky break, because the gates in her previous life haven't closed yet. But in reality I imagine that for most of us our doors close, once we decide to change things so dramatically as depicted in this movie.

Good music and scenes, dialogues and costumography are main attributes of this movie. Streep and Hathaway are brilliant and I will love to see this one again once it's played again on our screens.




My personal rating: 6,5 (one of the better "villain" roles for Maryl Streep, a good show off or insight into the fashion magazine world)


The Devil on IMDB

Gone

Gone, 2007
Director: Ringan Ledwidge
Cast: Shaun Evans, Scott Mechlowitz, Yvonne Strahovski


Stage: Home TV selection, a Saturday night


Gone in short:A contemporary psychological thriller in which a young British couple travelling through the Australian outback become involved with a mysterious and charismatic American whose motive for imposing his friendship upon them becomes increasingly suspect and sinister.


Preps: Well, I have nothing better to do, hence I try to see what's on the TV menu for tonight. Let's check this out..


Reality: I am highly dissappointed. The description is thriller, even a psychological one? They must be kidding. I have never seen such a dissappointing piece, I mean at least in a long time. The story doesn't interact with me, I am not at all into the piece. I am waiting for my meal to get cooked in the mean time. I get myself a beer to easily pass by.. and nothing happens.
The two that are travelling are naive and stupid. Are all australian people so stupid? If not, this movie is making a terrible commercial for them. It depicts them more stupid as most of the living creatures. Plus, being naive isn't so stupid as being unintelligent and make crazy shit. Like these people. Therefore I presume this is a piece by someone that had more time and money in the world than normal, maybe a desire to shoot a piece and then made fool of himself making this one and driving it into the world.
I despise it, don't want to see it anymore.. it is driving me crazy.. so .. delete.
Don't waste your time. It doesn't have anything inside. Really.


My personal rating: 0 (bljah. Can't believe I really lasted almost 45 minutes.


Gone on IMDB

Wag the dog

Wag the Dog, 1997
Director: Barry Levinson
Cast: Dustin Hoffman, Robert De Niro, Anne Heche, Woody Harrelson

Stage: Home theatre, lovely Saturday evening



Wag in short: After being caught in a scandalous situation days before the election, the president does not seem to have much of a chance of being re-elected. One of his advisers contacts a top Hollywood producer in order to manufacture a war in Albania that the president can heroically end, all through mass media.

Preps: It is a recommendation from a side I really appreciate. I have never seen a bad movie with such recommendation. Plus, a claim that every person that works in mkt should see this. Hence.. am anxious with expectation.


Reality: Well, it's always good to see and hear what the president team has in their sleeve. In this case, I am just bursting with laughter. First, do you get caught with a scout days before the election? (you don't). Still, this is the case here and the team needs to wrap it up before the years of preps go rotten.
In any case, I seriously doubt now (after seeing this) in every war, every little thing the media produces, every announcement ever made by government. I see in this movie, how rotten it might be, behind the scenes, on a place we don't see or hear about. Even the closest to the president in this case don't know bits of scenario that is driven to the masses.
For a person living in the balcan region, it's highly amusing, how other countries (us in perticular) abuse the names of foreign yugoslaw republics and use it as a "terrorist" country. May it be Bosnia or Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia or in this case, even a southern country, Albania. What did Albania do to us, the chieftain asks.. What it didn't do to us, is the real question, De Niro answers. And creates a stunt war, made in studio. Was the Gulf War really directed in studio? Maybe not, but it made me question every bit of information I received about the event.
The power of marketing, if driven with intelligence and style, is amazing. The movie depicts real drama you can setup with mere imagination. At the end, how convenient, the director gets shot/killed for trying to speak up. How american!
This piece is one of the brightest I have seen lately. Even though it doesn't have the scenes, the photography, the music, or anything really obvious, it has a strong story and a direction. How convenient it is to have Hoffman in the role of the producer, fighting for his rights :) I could just burst in laughter again. His imagination inside the piece and intercapturing the role he's playing is spectacular. President wants a white kitten? We will give him the white kitten.
Last, but not least. Bringing in the fallen hero (making a mistake and afterwards, having him killed and watch the whole US cheering for his fallen return, with a super dog behind, wagging his tail).. it reminds me of some scenes I really admire in Monty Phython. If you are a fan, you will love this piece. If you are more average, romantic comedy type of movie fan, you won't really get all the fun parts there are here. Because some of them are just beneath the average skin.


My personal rating: 9,0 (absolutely brilliant. I loved it and laughed long afterwards)


Wag the Dog on IMDB

The Other Sister, 1999

The Other Sister, 1999
Director: Garry Marshall
Cast: Tom Skerritt, Juliette Lewis, Diane Keaton, Giovanni Ribisi




Stage: home stage, evening TV selection


The Other Sister in short: When Carla Tate, now a young woman, is 'graduated' out of the training school where she has resided for many years because she is mentally challenged, her hope is that she will be accepted for all that she can now do for herself. But Carla's family is wealthy which permits her mother, already blinded to her daughter's rather high-functioning abilities, to try and provide for Carla beyond her needs or desires, bringing forth the inevitable confrontations... for what Carla may lack in mental ability she certainly makes up for in her insistence on being independent, even to living in her own apartment. But if this isn't enough, into the mix comes a young man, equally challenged mentally, who moves Carla beyond anyone's control...




Preps: I have seen this already, a touching drama with a mentally challenged person in so called perfect family. I am in the mood to see it again. Plus, I remember superb Keaton and Lewis inside their skin.


Reality: What curse the mother of the so called perfect family, must feel, to have a mentally challenged daughter in her cherished portfolio of members in the family. How to handle her, if she wants the same as all the others, to be independent and have her own life, own appartment, own boyfriend. How dissappointed is she when the daughter somehow succeeds to have everything she wanted. She pretends not to want this burden, on the other hand I think she loves the idea she is the rescuer of the day and she needs to be in control. Anything else drives her to anxiety and rivalry with herself. The father is proud, though, it's a shame that in this perticular relationship he isn't exactly the one carrying the pants.
The mother hardly leaves the daughter alone. Worries all the time. Burdens all around her with this. Leaves the "to do" list to her daughter what to do before she leaves the appartment. Obviously she is the sane voice of the audience, saying - hello, you cannot leave a girl like that to live independently. Maybe this girl only wants to live without prejudice. Like Nell in a movie I looked before this one.
Now, Miss Tate finds a real boyfriend and it's touching how she interacts with Daniel. In sense, how this kind of relationship works, because they are both mentally challenged. The movie increases the tension with the couple wanting to live together and parents trying to find the right path inbetween. Should parents (or public) even get involved into this relationship? In this piece, everything we perceive "normal", is a challenge, or is viewed from another perspective. Sex, for instance, the couple doesn't realize what is happening to their bodies. It is refreshing how they describe the anxiety and really show it. No act, just pure honesty.

It is hard to imagine living like this. On the other hand, I believe the people that are mentally challenged, can live a happy and completely normal life. I don't think anyone should be the judge in this, and I am aware of the issues that come in place in these cases. In the piece, some of them are named, and I know it's the tip of the iceberg.

The piece will make you grateful for the "normal" state you are in and grateful for all the things you can do without any fuss. Juliette Lewis is brilliant, truly remarkable cast in this piece. Diane Keaton, on the other hand, also brilliant, shows an anti-dose of the optimism and desire Juliette is showing. Keaton's role is to be the "sane, smart person" in the show and run it safely. Not entirely sure it's the right thing to do. Keaton is.


My personal rating: 6,0 ( a good vibe about "special" persons we need to acknowledge and let them breathe)


The Other Sister on IMDB

Puss in Boots, 2011

Puss in Boots, 2011
Director: Chris Miller
Cast: Antonio Banderas (voice), Salma Hayek, Zach Galifianakis


Stage: Home theatre


Puss in short: Years before meeting Shrek and Donkey, the adorable but tricky Puss in Boots must clear his name from all charges making him a wanted fugitive. While trying to steal magic beans from the infamous criminals Jack and Jill, the hero crosses paths with his female match, Kitty Softpaws, who leads Puss to his old friend, but now enemy, Humpty Dumpty. Memories of friendship and betrayal enlarges Puss' doubt, but he eventually agrees to help the egg get the magic beans. Together, the three plan to steal the beans, get to the Giant's castle, nab the golden goose, and clear Puss' name.


Preps: None in perticular. It is a hot one at the movies at this point.



Reality: Miaow. Who can resist Banderas' voice? Well, noone. Me not excluded. It is a privilege to imagine how Banderas looks like when he animates the cartoons. The same goes for soft Hayek's voice. I loved the two together in some scenes. Besides, Puss has a good story - following the legend of the golden goose and eggs, Jack and the Beanstalk, Humpty Dumpty. It has a story of a good friendship come to end because of betrayal, finding the right path and then reunion. After that, a downfall in the true cartoon spirit (the famous curve of happiness, which is beaten down by a bad guy or bad deed, and happy ending at the end. A classic, per se.
In this case, the humour is present at most of the dialogues, in a unique, ironic, not imposting way. I love the way the two cats dance around each other, falling slightly in love. And the spanish Banderas temperament is obviously seen here. I also hardly waited to see the look the cat gives to make everyone around faint of cuteness. It is really good to see a nice separate movie that makes Puss famous instead of just tagging around in Shrek. It wasn't really as splendid as I expected, but I love the way it is presented, the flow and energy. I just cannot get bored with this cartoon, therefore I claim it is a good one. It is a side fact that I am a cat lover and for that reason it is even more appealing for my point of view. But in general, the animation is good, the dialogues are witty, the music is splendid and it has more than one saying (proverbs) come true or being a part of the story. All in all, I cannot see a way someone would go with a bored mind and spirit after seeing this. Am referring, of course to the true american voices. Nothing synchronized - I despise this way of making a good movie more user friendly to the market. You should always leave the original voices and original pronounciation. Otherwise, you neglect the positive impact the director had in mind when choosing the cast and diminish their role.


My personal rating: 6,0 (mmmmmiaow! a good one. worth my time!)


Puss on IMDB

Nothing to lose, 1997

Nothing to lose, 1997
Director: Steve Oederkerk
Cast: Martin Lawrence, Tim Robbins





Nothing to lose in short: Nick Beam's life couldn't get any worse. He discovers he has been living a lie and is on the verge of a nervous breakdown. So when T. Paul, a carjacker, attempts to rob him, it is the last straw for Nick. With everything to gain and nothing to lose, he kidnaps T. Paul and attempts to put his life back together.


Stage: home TV selection, Saturday night


Preps: None in perticular. But I have nothing more interesting to do, hence..


Reality: This kind of movies should be prohibited. There should be a test under which a movie rates high enough to enter TV selection. Nothing really close to a comedy. The story is not believable, but this isn't the only sin this movie is making. All sorts of mistakes and misbeliefs, but nothing can settle the initial problem the movie has. The drive. What is this man, after he discovers he's being betrayed, after? What will he do and why? The viewer should have the answers, not make them up as we go through the movie.
Martin Lawrence, as the role of the chimp monkey that waltzes around Robbins all the time, trying to get his attention or prove his intelligence and misfortune that drove him to be a robber. Quite predictable, with stupid delivery and unpersuading cast. Things that happen to them while they are on a road, could buy (maybe) a child, and by that I don't mean to be offensive towards children or underestimate their intelligence. But this piece definitely underestimates our intelligence. Hence, delete and forget forever. I can't believe this was on the prime time of the local TV.



My personal rating: 0 (yuk. don't waste your time)

Nothing to lose on IMDB

Doc Hollywood, 1991

Doc Hollywood, 1991
Director: Michael Caton-Jones
Cast: Michael J. Fox, Julie Warner, Bernard Hughes


Stage: home theatre, just before Christmas and midnight carols




Doc Hollywood in short: Benjamin Stone is a young doctor driving to L.A where he was offered a new job as a plastic surgeon in Beverly Hills. He gets off the highway to avoid a traffic jam, but gets lost and ends up crashing into a fence in the small town of Grady. He is sentenced to 32 hrs of community service at the local hospital. All he wants is to serve the sentence and get moving, but gradually the locals become attached to the new doctor, and he falls for the pretty ambulance driver, Lou. Will he leave?



Preps: wow, haven't seen this piece in ages, I used to adore this movie. Finally, on TV. Let's see if I am dazzling even now.



Reality: Well, obviously the movie industry has made several important steps forward. In this sense, movies that used to sparkle our attention around beginning of nineties (Ghost, Pretty woman, even Doc Hollywood in this sense) are like oldies goldies in terms of music: you need to step a step back in time and swallow the feeling that was then - with doing that you can enjoy these movies like in the old days.

Doc Hollywood is one of the movies that breaks the big promise in small particles that make you wonder about the real worth of the big promise. To the people in Titanic USA was the big promise, the promise of a better life. To Doc Hollywood, living in big cities as a successful surgeon, was the promise of a better life. However, on the path to the heaven he discovers that in fact he gives a damn about small, trivial things in life and begins to doubt his decisions or his overall goals. The conversion from a big city man into the small town guy is expected, still cute. The focus in the movie is on family, small things that matter in life, knowing people that are close to you as opposed to relations in bigger cities where you definitely don't know the neighbours. You could call it some kind of catholic marketing in this movie, despite the fact that religion isn't mentioned anywhere. However the values that are praised and the reason why he changes his mind, are pretty catholic. In this sense, you start thinking if it is what you want something like this. To shoot the pigeons when you could be satisfied to your bones with the sparrows that are near you.

I think that if someone thinks big and really really really wants it, that person will find a path and no other things can cross the road there. I admit that you need to spend some time living like this in order to like it. Northern exposure is an example, drawn from series world, on the same topic. The punishment (being forced to live in a small community with small minded persons as you see them) becomes the biggest reward.

I still like the movie. A good relaxing example for big thinking. Nice music, nice dialogues, witty scenes. And some irony hidden along the way. Still worth watching!





My personal rate:6,0 (more than decen fun, obviously you need to set your mindset back 20 years and you will enjoy it a lot!)

Doc Hollywood on IMDB

Father's day, 1997

Father's day, 1997
Director: Ivan Reitman
Cast: Billy Cristal, Robin Williams, Julia Louis-Dreyfuss




Father's day in short: Jack Lawrence is a smart allec lawyer who is one day visited by an ex-girlfriend who tells him her kid was his. Enter Dale Putley, a depressed goofball who is also a writer, meets with the same ex-girlfriend who tells him her kid is his. One day Jack and Dale meet and discover what had happened: they've been told the same story and now there's a question of who the real father is. They learn their son is following a rock band called Sugar Ray around. So Jack and Dale hit the road to Sacremento and find their drunk, lovestruck son. Soon after they bring him back to their hotel room, their son escapes and Jack and Dale must use teamwork to find him again, bring him home, and find out which one of them is the real father.


Preps: Just at home, doing nothing and this is on TV. Let's check it out


Reality: Sometimes our televisions should carefully go through the programme they are making for the viewers. I mean, how stupid can the audience get, being submerged to sh... movies like that? My conscious wakens and yells in dispair.

Ok, starting with the cast. I have seen both protagonists, Williams and Crystal, in better shape and definitely better movies. Here they are a clown version of themselves. Not appettite luring.
Secondly, the storyline. I mean, really? Two persons, trying to find the son they don't want to have in the first place and falling in the arms of another lovely woman, filled with lies and betrayal. Seriously?
Now, what are we seeking in this piece? I think it belongs to the irony of the past actions. I the sense, that we really must think about what it is that we are doing with our time and what are the actions we might regret in the future. It's not normal to react the way these two men react. You can see it in some "Everybody loves Mary" sense, but still. I hate the resemblance. It is not true that a possible father will go and chase a possible son just for the sake of being with him or trying to get his attention.

The chase is a mixture of a roadtrip and some lame movies on the topic. This piece is trying to be what it's not and it's killing it. Where is the creativity? Why don't you make the best out of these two fine actors? Again, I cannot bare to watch it up to its end and I lose the grip at the second quarter. Lost, erased, gone. Forgot about it already.


My personal rate: 0 (argh. Another waste of time. unfortunately. Don't make it a waste of time for you :)


Father's day on IMDB

Potiche, 2010

Potiche, 2010
Director: Francois Ozon
Cast: Catherine Deneuve, Gerard Depardieu, Fabrice Luchini



Stage: Kino Šiška, Liffe stage



Potiche in short:When her husband is taken hostage by his striking employees, a trophy wife (Deneuve) takes the reins of the family business and proves to be a remarkably effective leader. Business and personal complications arrive in the form of her ex-lover (Depardieu), a former union leader.


Preps: I was actually going to see the Shame, however the movie was misplaced or something and wasn't running here on this date. They put Potiche instead. So I haven't got a clue what I am about to see.




Reality: well, I am deeply surprised and touched by this piece. With elegance, it strives to outburst as one of the attempts for fight for women rights. It is placed at the beginning of the emantipation fight, in late 70ies, when women didn't have any perticular role in politics, yet alone in the boards of directors or in a role of CEO. The "housewife" takes a deep breath and puts up with a challenge to lead a factory. Which does perfectly, until the husband returns. All the rivalry and bad feelings arise - the same stuff that was flushed down the toilet before, becomes the obstacle between a husband and his wife, and also creates a dispute in formerly united family.

In this sense, I see this as one of true pieces to describe the fight for equal rights and the rise of women on different important positions, like presidents, chairmen (chairwomen) and finally, also as mayor of one city, or a delegate.
In this piece the transaction is done smoothly and romantic, with a fine sense of humour, so that the viewer has fun viewing different scenes and indulging the past or the scent of how it used to be like. I loved also the dialogues, witty and profound, they seize in depths of relationships these people have between each other. With a slight retrospective every now and then, the movie also jumps through time. The plot is simple and the story convincing. Maybe a bit too romantic - we are aware that negotiations usually aren't as smooth as depicted here. Still, a relaxing and fun way of thinking of making women part of what once only the men world was.


My personal rate: 8,0 (a surprisingly intelligent and simple piece at the same time. With a clear message. Women can turn everything upside down in all senses).


Potiche on IMDB

Friends with benefits, 2011

Friends with Benefits, 2011
Director: Will Gluck
Cast: Justin Timberlake, Mila Kunis, Patricia Clarkson


Stage: Home theatre

Friends with benefits in short: While trying to avoid the clichés of Hollywood romantic comedies, Dylan and Jamie soon discover however that adding the act of sex to their friendship does lead to complications.


Preps: Ahm,.. not another one on the same topic? I am curious, can we make so many movies on the same topic and just switch actors? This must be the third or the fourth this year alone. Well.. Mila Kunis is the intriguing person I want to see. Timberlake? Yeah, well..



Reality: I must confess I am positively surprised with this piece. Playful, fun, yet realistic. Can this cliche be something lasting forever and ever? Definitely not. At some point someone will fall in love (if he/she still hasn't). In this sense I know we must be looking for this perticular moment in the movie. Up to that point this piece in perticular is sexy, funny and relaxing. Nothing more, but also nothing less. I absolutely adore the playfulness that surrounds the main cast. Timberlake is exquisite in this role (as opposed to the dork he was playing in the Bad Teacher). I cannot believe that he can also show good acting, and I am subcounsciously applauding him for that). The same way Lopez made her way to the stage, he could also. Just read an interview with him claiming that he is more work than play. Plus, here he is showing an extreme sexappeal - the same as Mila Kunis.

Now, the topic is overdone, nevertheless the movie seems fresh and inspiring. It will drag to your hearts if you are a fan of romantic comedies and Hollywood endings. In its genre it's one of better ones in this period, therefore more than worth seeing.

The scenes aren't really smart, however the music is something you will love and the image of successful career people you will see throughout this piece.


My personal rate: 7,5 (good, funny, nice piece to see on a good Sunday evening).


Friends with Benefits on IMDB

Horrible bosses

Horrible Bosses, 2011
Director: Seth Gordon
Cast: Jason Bateman, Charlie Day, Jason Sudeikis




Stage: Home theatre

Horrible bosses in short: Nick hates his boss, mostly because he's expected to work from before sunrise to after sunset and his boss, Mr. Harken, calls him out for being a minute late and blackmails him so he can't quit. Dale hates his boss, Dr. Julia Harris, because she makes unwelcome sexual advances when he's about to get married. But Dale is on that pesky list of child offenders so he can't quit. Kurt actually likes his job and his boss, well, up until his boss dies and the boss's coked-out, psychopathic son takes over. But who would be crazy enough to quit their jobs in such poor economic times? Instead Nick, Dale and Kurt drunkenly and hypothetically discuss how to kill their bosses, and before they know it, they've hired a murder consultant to help them pull off the three deeds.


Preps: Hm. seems interesting, but on the other hand, I fear that it cannot exceed comedy genre (or to say it differently, I fear that it's making fun out of things that aren't funny).



Reality: Your boss is your biggest priority. The only task you have is keeping your boss satisfied in all senses /and all possible interpretations. True? According to the piece so true.

People aren't machines. This means they come programmed with feelings. And that sometimes relationships between the boss and the subordinate are beyond anything you could imagine to have to bear with. And in most cases it's definitely done the way the boss wants it. Like it or not, you are here to make him happy and you aren't spending your money, but the money he's signed up for or is responsible for. If the boss is the owner, then you are actually spending his money. So sometimes it needs to be according to the saying "your money, your game". which means we are forced to turn the boat as the boss likes it and not as we would.

This piece shows a rebel yell of three individuals that despise their bosses for different reasons and plan how to kill them. The abuses we can see prior to the stupid plan and delivery of it, are quite common in business world and even though they might not seem real, they are real and we often hear about this. However, there's nothing really an individual can do to avoid this. Rather than sharing the thoughts and dreams how to kill the boss, I would think of how to deal with this. There is no universal recipe, but the pain is universal. Does the power you hahttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifve on one position equip you also with means to hurt your subordinates? Yes, it does. But how to avoid the temptation to tread on people like the ones you knew treaded on you? That's the remaining question.

The piece is below average and besides thinking on the way I could handle my own career life with another solution, the movie didn't offer me anything. It's really sad that I managed to see another piece surely underestimating the audience. Cast is respectable, yet thin in delivery. The setting is pretty much unimaginative. The only thing true are the issues that these guys are facing. But this question remained unanswered - how to be a subordinate that deserves /and knows how to push with this/ to be respected.


My personal rate: 2,0 (surely a waste of time!!!)


Horrible bosses on IMDB

The Art of Getting By, 2011

The Art of Getting By, 2011
Director: Gavin Wiesen
Cast: Freddie Highmore, Emma Roberts, Michael Angarano




The Art in short: Believing the quote that you are born alone, die alone and everything else is an illusion, George doesn't see the point of life, school, or homework. Then he meets Sally and he now has a reason to go to school and make friends, even if he's not ready to admit to himself or to her that he likes her. The school's principal and art teacher introduce him to an alumni, and successful artist, Dustin, who can help guide George along life's path, but other distractions start surfacing, and George might not even be able to graduate from high school.


Stage: Home theatre, Sunday evening


Preps: Don't have a clue what am I about to see. Don't know the plot, don't know who the actors are, never heard of this movie before.

Reality: The movie has a lot of weaknesses, in perticular the underestimation of an average viewer. Maybe the target group is a bit younger, however, even that target group deserves some respect in terms of dialogues, true acting, creative scenery, well played interactions between the crew, maybe a touch of reality. Because this is what this piece is lacking.

The general impression is extremely bad and I get easily bored when watching this. It does have some biorhythmical ups (in terms of - I get more excited and think that something is going to happen), but the downfalls are even steeper each time the movie takes a turn. Which is quite often.

A teenage love is a well built term, many times represented in various pieces. However, this one is one of the worst screenings I have ever seen and I strongly disrecommend it. The story will annoy you, young couple will annoy you as they have nothing else to do but to look at each other without real energy. Is one of the messages that if you are not in school in the time you should be, should you be in the movies watching something good, or eating noodles (creative way of being out of school)..
Maybe the valid lesson is that you need to take responsibility for your assignements. This is the one truth, driven from this movie that stands for universal moral standard. And maybe the only good thing about this movie.


My personal rate: 1,0 (don't watch it. Don't. Use your time more wisely :)


The Art of Getting By 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

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

Just friends, 2005

Just friends, 2005
Director: Roger Kumble
Cast: Ryan Reynolds, Amy Smart, Anna Faris


Stage: Home theatre

Just friends in short: Chris Brander has always been friends with Jamie Palamino, but now decides it is time to take his relationship to the next step. The problem is, is that Jamie still wants to be 'Just Friends'. When he runs away and moves to L.A., he becomes a attractive music manager, who everyone wants. When his jet crashes, when flying to Paris with his newest singing sensation, Samantha James, he ends up back home. To his surprise, he encounters Jamie again, and sets out to be more than 'Just Friends' this time.


Preps: a strong recommendation makes me wonder what is behind the scenes of the piece


Reality: A good surprise. Normally, this type of the movie, turns out to be a lame comedy or a truly stupid piece. There are, however, some of the movies that derive from Hollywood and have surpassed my eye of criticism as fairly good or even very good. Dude where's my car, American pie, Roadtrip, etc. These are some of the better ones. And this piece turns out to be one of them, too. Amazingly enough, it drives you through high school dilemmas and wondering, what is the perfect love, how to gain it, what are the drama effects mocking can have on someone and how to tell your love that she/he is your love, if you are supposingly "just friends".

Now, turning to present time, the guy, that was mocked in high school, is a hot shot, good looking successful person, working with high recognizable people and movie/music stars. Going back to his family house, even though it's supposed to be for a day, gives him the opportunity to come clean with the trauma that has obviously caused him to turn out a jerk. Pushing love romance in one edge and indulging in the relationships (various, money-driven; passion-driven) on the other, it doesn't make him a better person. Just better perceived in his own idea what he's supposed to be. The story revolves around one simple question everyone has once in a while and some for their whole lives - who am I now, am I happy with myself and what is my perception of what should I be.

There isn't a brilliant formula to describe this, however, this piece implies that childhood traumas dramatically effect the way you act as an adult. I personally disagree up to some extent. In some way, we can be influenced a lot, on the other hand, surely you can acknowledge, whether you have become a mean version of yourself. And the trauma from childhood could here serve as an excuse - so they made me the way I am now. Philosophically put, you are the way you decide to be. You live the life you choose and not vice versa.

Philosophy aside, the movie is one of better Hw'd comedies in the last decade, bringing an enormous amount of sane humour and good scenes, where you should roll with laughter. And the ever popular chase for the girl. If nothing else, you will enjoy humorous chasings and rivalry between two guys to meet one girl's heart to claim forever.


My personal rating: 8,0 (a solid piece, worth seeing again. I can sense the director of American pie in this).

Just friends on IMDB

Taxi, 2004

Taxi, 2004
Director:Tim Story
Cast: Queen Latifah, Jimmy Fallon



Taxi in short: A mouthy and feisty taxicab driver has hot tips for a green and inept cop set on solving a string of New York City bank robberies committed by a quartet of female Brazilian bank robbers.


Stage: Home theatre

Preps: none in perticular. Just wondering, if this is the famous comedy from ages ago, the french stuff, that I really liked.


Reality: Well, this is a totally different movie. Queen Latifah as the queen of bicycle race (or racing) for a postal office. Interesting. Science fiction, in fact. I doubt that law officers or police would let these races happen. Nevertheless, this is a mere start of a pretty decent comedy.
Making your life better is the main theme in this movie to my opinion. Let it be in the relationship or as a career (step forward from bicycling to driving a taxi). Some material disputes I had - as I claimed before that you cannot drive a byke this way and remain not punished - well the same goes for the Batmobile that Queen posesses as a taxi driver.

This movie relaxes and offers some good humour points. But nothing more. So it's a decent Sunday entertainment when you have nothing else on your mind to disturb your piece.

My personal rating: 4,0



Taxi on IMDB

The Other Guys, 2010

The Other Guys, 2010
Director:Adam McKay
Cast: Samuel L. Jackson, Will Ferrell, Mark Wahlberg


The Other Guys in short: Two mismatched New York City detectives seize an opportunity to step up like the city's top cops whom they idolize -- only things don't quite go as planned.

Stage: Home theatre
Preps: None whatsoever. I am not familiar with the story neither the cast


Reality: I have seen a lot of positive critics about this and I was generally surprised about the cast and the first few punch lines. Nevertheless, the movie is a big dissappointment. It cannot fit even in my most depressive era, when I wasn't so picky in the comedy genre. I find this movie filled with not funny scenes and bad acting. I think that actors such as Wahlberg, Jackson, could have picked something more intelligent for their act and that the movie insults all the viewers as a whole. I didn't like it in the first five minutes and I thought the jokes were not only lame, but also really disrespectful to the audience (in sense, they were stupid and worthless (of the time spent to see them)).

I stopped watching the movie after half an hour. Not worth my time, not worth your time. Even if the clouds are pouring with rain outside and you really don't have anything else to do. Don't watch it. In my opinion, stupid enough that I stopped after half an hour and erased it. Forever.


My personal rating: 1,0 (for the cast and the impression I had for the first few minutes)


The Other Guys on IMDB

Alice in Wonderland, 2010

Alice in Wonderland, 2010
Director: Tim Burton
Cast: Johnny Depp, Mia Wasikowska, Anne Hathaway




Stage: Movie set under the stars, The castle of Ljubljana

Alice in short: 19-year-old Alice returns to the magical world from her childhood adventure, where she reunites with her old friends and learns of her true destiny: to end the Red Queen's reign of terror.


Preps: Well, besides reading the book when I was really young and knowing Johnny Depp was to star in this role, I didn't know anything. I could expect a good movie though. I trusted Depp's choice. He always falls for the weird extraordinary roles. And Alice is precisely that.


Reality: What a huge mistake in the way I was thinking.. My god. The movie is a wreck. In the first tenth of the movie, I thought it would be something like Monty Phython scene. The scenery is good, the presentation of Alice is just like I imagine and the people are lame as expected. However, the main thing you don't want to miss is the moment when she falls into a hole. And afterwards, it's just a downfall from that point on.
The movie loses its edge and the joy or excitement I had when going up the hill to the castle to see this, was burning and made to ashes in an instant. The crowd, however, seemed to enjoy the setting, cast and was laughing. Something wrong with me? I don't think so. I didn't even recognize Depp, and he was at that point the only thing that I was really looking forward to see.
Nothing happened but a huge dissappointment. The story didn't have the edge and for sure didn't fulfill my adventurous expectations. I stood up and went home after one hour. I thought it was torturing my brain cells. I prefer book version in this sense.

How did Depp see this treasure island in the movie?
The Mad Hatter: There is a place. Like no place on Earth. A land full of wonder, mystery, and danger! Some say to survive it: You need to be as mad as a hatter.


My personal rating: 1,0 (not worth your time, do something more useful with it. Even the deepest Depp fans :) Needless to say, I wanted more out of this piece.


Alice on IMDB
Alice Home page

Cop Out, 2010

Cop Out, 2010
Director: Kevin Smith
Cast: Bruce Willis, Tracy Morgan, Juan Carlos Hernandez



Cop Out in short: A comedy about a veteran NYPD cop whose rare baseball card is stolen. Since it's his only hope to pay for his daughter's upcoming wedding, he recruits his partner to track down the thief, a memorabilia-obsessed gangster.


Stage: home theatre

Preps: Hmmm, seeing Bruce again would be nice. I have seen not so impressive trailer on this piece, however, due to respect I have for Willis' work, I tend to see everything he produces. Hence, the decision is fallen. How bad can it be?


Reality: It can be worse than you expect afterall. Bruce Willis is out of his shape in the piece, striving to get at least some attention of the viewer. The script must have been written in five minutes, as it doesn't give anything besides some weird comedy scenes, that I don't find half that amusing as the actors did. The cast is awful and the story doesn't achieve my blood stream even a bit.

I always am suspicious about movies that have the smell of cheap, yet beneficial to the older actors that still want to be a part of the game. I am used having Willis in more adult roles, and less making fun of himself. I think he never wanted to participate in this movie - at least that's the energy his character shows in Cop Out. I am sorry to say this is one of more disastrous pieces that Willis showed his face in. I didn't watch it till the end, because I thought there might be a better way to spend my time. I don't recommend it, however, to the viewers that enjoyed light humour comedies and for non-demanding audience, this might bring some fun. Sure didn't do the trick for me.


There were several comical moments, this is one of them (the quote):

Paul Hodges: Why did you smack me?
Jimmy Monroe: I was in the moment and the moment said smack ya.



My personal rating: 1,0 (just for the sake that I saw Die Hard hero again, even though in one of the worst roles ever).


Cop out on IMDB

Cop out Home page