Tag: Foreign

Gangsters have had a place pretty much in all first world countries. Because if they weren’t first world countries, they’d probably just be called Warlords or something similar. Apparently France is not an exception.

Of course, like every good gangster, he needs to have rockin’ facial hair.

Mesrine: Killer Instinct is the biographical film of France’s most famous gangster, Jacques Mesrine (Vincent Cassel). However it only goes over his beginnings, his rise to power, and escape from prison.

There is more to the story than that. There is even worse crimes, and public enemy number 1 status, which is told in the second half (appropriately named), Mesrine: Public Enemy #1. Hmm, I wonder what will be reviewed tomorrow.

We get at least two loves of his life, in Sofia (Elena Anaya) and Jeanne (Cecile De France). The former his first love who didn’t want him involved in crime after his first prison stint, and the latter, a nice partner in crime who wouldn’t let him break her out of prison to save his own life.

We have some bank robberies, kidnapping, you know, the normal gangster stuff. Maybe some extortion. Lots of money. Lots of danger. He was more than a French criminal too, going to both Quebec and the US at least in his crime pursuits. One of his “bosses” is Guido (Gerard Depardieu), aka the only name I’ve heard before actor wise. He also gets an accomplice Jean-Paul Mercier (Roy Dupuis) who helps him out, and helps him break out of prison.

The film ends, with Mesrine out of jail, now on the run with no real plans for his future. He has now killed some more innocent people, and the latest love of his life has left him. Shit, that guy is about to snap. It played out like a “You think you’re bad? You haven’t seen nothing yet!” type moment, and then went straight to credits.

You know the jizz in your face motion? It works a lot better with a gun and lots of money.

Think that review was disjointed and random? Well that was on purpose. Since this is a true story with a bit of artistic license, arguably the events in the movie and the next are some form of public knowledge (somewhere). You know he is a gangster, and thus will do gangster things. I just really wanted to show some characters and explain the situation. Because there is a second half to be reviewed later, spoilers don’t really feel like an option in terms of how it ends, so instead the spoilers will be most of the actual details and plot. Hooray!

I thought Vincent Cassel did a kick ass job as a gangster, and I am excited to see where the character goes in the second half of his life.

Some parts were a bit confusing, I am sure the filmmakers didn’t feel the need to explain everything to the French audience, but since I knew nothing I had to figure it out on my own. But it wasn’t that much of a nuisance.

A couple years ago, I saw a trailer for Donkey Punch and laughed. “Ha ha! Fake trailers can be great!”. No one would actually make a movie called Donkey Punch and be about what Donkey Punches are about. That’d be silly.

But then we remember the British are a rather silly group of people. When I saw the trailer, two years ago, I realized the movie was actually real, and from two years prior. Holy shit. Why?! Well, why not I think was the response. Which I can totally agree with.

Ah, such a happy group of people. No idea the sexy bad time they will have.

Three girls are having a fun vacation out in Spain.

Lisa (Sian Breckin), Tammi (Nichola Burley), and Kim (Jaime Winstone). Party party party, they end up meeting a few guys who invite them on the boat to party more. Reluctantly, they decide to go. What could go wrong?

Sean (Robert Boulter), Marcus (Jay Taylor), Bluey (Tom Burke), and Josh (Julian Morris) are the guys.

Needless to say, drugs and alcohol happen a bit. And then some sexy time. Not everyone. But there is a lot of sex going on. Bluey is with Lisa, and notices Josh being a creeper, so gets him to film that stuff. Oh yeah, hot. Then he lets Josh have a go. Then they do anal. Then, based on a conversation earlier, and from peer pressure, Josh decides to Donkey Punch her. Accidentally breaking her neck and killing her on the spot.

Da fuq?

The rest of the movie is complete freak out mode. They have on tape a technical murder, and egging on, and a dead body. The women are freaking out, they want to go back to shore for the cops, guys not having any of it, want to dump the body. So then some more people die and maybe just maybe someone will escape the current death boat and make it out alive.

Improvise an escape, using your only means of escape!

What?? You don’t know what a Donkey Punch is? That is definitely an act during doggy style, where the male, generally near orgasm, will punch the woman in the back of the head. The more you know. And yes, the British made a thriller movie off of that act, not just a made up Urban Dictionary term.

This movie could have been a lot of crazy fun, unfortunately the characters ruin it. They are all dumb. The easiest solution would be for the girls to agree with the guys and then, you know, go to the cops. Bad survival instinct. The standard “Oh cells dont work out here!” problem, and other silly issues.

The movie also was super slow. You’d think it’d be full of action and freaking out, but really it lacked a lot of it. Was also a bit confusing when I assumed a guy got stabbed in the heart was dead, but nope. Survived most of the film, with a damn knife in him. Fucked up.

I think of ways to fix the film, and they need the guys to have a bit more distinct personalities and looks, so I don’t get confused at who is the puncher, who is the asshole, who is the taper, etc. And you know, just smarter characters. But maybe the drugs and alcohol made them dumb? I dunno. Don’t drink and go on boats, or else you may be donkey punched.

Honestly, when I just read the title I knew I had to watch it. It is one of those movies.

Frequently Asked Questions About Time Travel? A British Comedy? Staring my favorite British actor/comedian guy?

Well damn. Don’t have to try so hard, United Kingdom.

Oh, and this movie involves a gun!

The movie is about three friends at a bar. Ray (Chris O’Dowd) just got fired from his job for making kids cry. His two friends are Toby (Marc Wootton) and Pete (Dean Lennox Kelly), the former a cynical asshole, the latter a fellow nerd who likes to come up with movie ideas and his thoughts on shit (like time travel) in a little notebook.

Well while they are getting drunk and complaining about stuff, Ray goes to the backroom, and when he returns he sees a girl staring at him. Cassie (Anna Faris) is claiming to be a time traveler, and she just came to observe a “Great man” in his past. Can’t tell him why of course, that would fuck up time. But she leaves and Ray just assumes of course that it was a prank. He tells his friends anyways of course until he doesn’t believe him. It isn’t until Mr. Cycnical asshole Toby goes to the bathroom and returns to find the entire bar dead, including himself (with a beard?) that he starts to freak out. He returns to the bathroom and his own time, and the tries to get the group to do everything he did before in the bathroom to try it again.

It doesn’t work. Instead they find themselves in a House in the future. Well fuck.

Obviously things start to get a bit confusing, as they are trying to figure out this time leak going on, with Cassie only ocassionally showing up. They also go into the far future full of destruction, and less far future where they find themselves at a costume party, where everyone is dressed like them from the bar that night. But why? Why are they worshiped? Can they also avoid the people who like to go back in time and kill influential people right after they hit their peak for fun? I’m sure Meredith MacNeill isn’t one of those people.

Oh the things people must do for science.

I like that the movie is about three “Average guys” or at least nerdy ones. Unless you think nerd is a bad term, in which case “Imagineers”.

This movie is pretty crazy and it is very easy to get confused, especially early on when they don’t even understand what is going on. There aren’t helpful subtitles to say when in time they are, because they don’t know. They are just trying to survive and not break any time travel rules they are aware of. I also thought it was pretty funny, even though most of it was just based on awkward people in extraordinary circumstances.

I heard they originally planned to make a whole series of these low budget comedies, the next one being FAQ About Parallel Universes, staring the same people, and going through these crazy ass adventures. But they had to stop it, which was a shame. The movie is pretty refreshing in terms of topic, how they handled it, and the potential for more. Also, they say fuck you fate/predetermination.

Hey, I bet by the name alone that you will think Eagle vs Shark is a super weird comedy?

Yep.

I don’t usually want people to judge the movie by its cover, but using the cover to help get yourself in the right mood has never been a bad thing.

Yep, it is going to be one of those kind of movies.

This is a movie about socially awkward people, and love. Lily (Loren Horsley) lives with her brother (Joel Tobeck), who is a cartoonist, while she works at a burger joint. They are devoid of good technology apparently, because after she takes an order from the customer, she apparently has to walk back and tell the kitchen. Fast food joints there are weird.

Either way she was picked “randomly” to have her job cut, because corporate demanded it, so she is kind of meh, and decides to try and get that cute customer who always walks in, Jarrod (Jemaine Clement) on his lunch break. After finally talking with him, he asks her to invite another girl to his “Animal” party, where everyone dresses up as their favorite animal. There is also a video game fighting tournament, which she kicks ass at. Then they awkwardly kiss and have some sex.

Hooray, now kind of dating. But Jarrod is a jerk, yet she still likes him. He convinces the brother to drive them to his parents house (pretty far away). He hates his family, but he is there for revenge, to KILL someone! A bully in middle school, who used to beat him and others up all the time. Well now after all his training (Video games) he is ready to take him on once he returns from afar.

But also his family doesn’t seem to be impressed enough by Lily, so he kind of breaks up with her, in the middle of the stay, with no way to leave.

Yep. More asshole than awkward. Either way, the rest of the trip is super weird and the eventual fight and return. And shit, that is about it.

Looks like Business Time to me.

I can’t say I am expert on New Zealand film, as this might be the only one I have seen. Definitely seen NZ tv shows, if we say Flight of the Conchords counts. But it is definitely a lot dryer and maybe sometimes subtler than other forms of humor.

And it is about 100% of this movie. Sure it has its wtf moments as well, but most of it is relied just on the awkwardness of the two individuals, in the situation they are in and trying to be politer at all times. Very proper New Zealand tactics.

This movie wasn’t any where close to amazing, but it wasn’t horrible either. At least it tried something new, where new is just…mostly nothing.

Yes. Rubber. The movie about a killer a tire. But is it about something way more than that?

I think so, and maybe this review will surprise you?

Don’t worry. The bird is about to explode, but it is a fake bird.

The beginning will scare away most people. A car is driving down a dirt road, hitting chairs. A cop (Stephen Spinella) gets out of the trunk, and has a nice monologue about “no reason“. Link is to that quote if you want to read it. He is addressing the audience in all of this, making it clear this movie is weird, and also a tribute to “no reason”.

Or is it?!

Camera backs away, and hey look, a group of people he was talking about. Yes, just a group of people, standing in the desert. They are also told they are about to watch a movie, and then stand around with their binoculars, looking for the movie. Eventually a tire gets out of the ground, and rolls around on its own. He crushes some cans along the way, but one can he doesn’t. He just sits in front of it. And bam. It explodes.

A tire becoming both able to move and discovering psychic powers? Amazing! He rolls around a bunch more, and kills a rabbit, and a bird, and eventually finds himself on the road and discovering humans.

This film should sound completely nonsensical, because it is. The audience watching the movie is often shown talking about the events, and play an active role in the movie. The tire seems to fall in love with a girl, Roxane Mesquida, and checks into the hotel. At this point it has been two days and the audience is all starving and bored. Jack Plotnick, the “Accountant” finally gives them food, but it is poisoned.

The cop, now thinking the entire audience is dead tries to end the movie and tells all the other characters to go home. But there is one member left, a guy in a wheel chair, Wings Hauser. So reluctantly, the movie continues, despite the cop just wanting to go home. While also trying to kill off the lone watcher left, so that the movie will also end that way.

They even try to trick the tire with a decoy woman. Full of dynamite.

Are you confused yet? Of course you are. What the hell is this absurd/nonsensical sounding movie?

When I watched it, I felt like it was two stories in one. The obvious story about the tired with psychic powers, killing people. But I felt the story with the audience to be that much more important. Although you can assume the movie has no reason to it, given the (obviously sarcastic) monologue, and thus just a bunch of random events, or you can assume it means something greater.

I didn’t feel I was reaching too hard when I figure that the audience represents the damn audience. Most of them making comments that audience members probably are also thinking at home. By killing them off by 1, that is presumably just everyone giving up on the movie but one guy. If everyone gave up, the movie would be over because no need for an ending if no one watched it. (Tree in woods?) But because there is of course people like wheelchair guy, and me, it goes on, and the ending gets more bizarre and nonsensical.

I could go on. But I feel like the movie is a direct attack on the crap Hollywood has been producing, and getting rid of more creative ideas. The credits scenes are a clear indication of that. Kind of like a warning to Hollywood, that if they keep releasing all the same crap, B movies might take over?

There is so much more you can take away from this movie, but that might make me sound like a crazy person. Because it could also just be a “no reason” movie, and taking Scythian from it is not their intent. I can say that most people who watch this probably wont like it, or stop early.

I sound super snobbish just saying shit like that. I enjoyed it, and liked how different it was. Made me think, in very weird terms, which I loved as well. But hey, give it a chance? You probably won’t like it. But might!

Caffeine is now my oldest review (outside of Cars, but that was a special occasion. That message NEEDED to be said). But man, 2006? I didn’t know! I assumed it was 2007, I promise.

Don’t freak out. It won’t happen again.

This is a normal food service industry like movie. Except instead of just the workers, there are three groups of tables that also have fleshed out stories throughout the brunch hour. Thankfully it isn’t the whole day of the restaurant. So unrealistic!

The manager (Marsha Thomason) is trying to get a cushy job at a fancy restaurant, but they are coming to see her shop today. So of course she also fires her only cook, because they were dating and he had a threesome with two other girls.

At the same time we have Mena Suvari, with her crazy grandmother to care for, Breckin Meyer, too busy wondering if his existential novel will be published, and Mark Pellegrino (Jacob from Lost), who seems to be the only one really working.

For the tables, we have a group of lawyers, some potheads, a woman who may be a pornstar in secret (Sonya Walger, Penny from Lost) and the wost paired blind date ever, which includes Katherine Heigl. What is best about their stories is that they are actually incorporated with the staff and other customers stories, and all given proper conclusions, in the span of 80some minutes.

Even with those better stories, there are also a few customers there just for one scene.

It is super hard to find images from this movie.

Best movie ever? Far from it. Was it entertaining? Sure!

I didn’t regret or hate watching it. But it does feel short. Some of the story lines weren’t as good as the others, and the ending was predictable. Some also lame joke scenes. If you had to compare this to the humor in something like Waiting…, Waiting… is vastly superior (and older), but doesn’t mean this one is bad. Just means it is okay.

Also, people who aren’t British are doing British accents. I am still okay with this.

last movie of the Millennium series! The other two reviews are here and here.

Is The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet’s Nest the ending to a great work, or the third addition to something that probably went on wayyy too long.

Apparently she has gone back to her “scene” ways.

There is seriously NO reason to watch this movie without the other two first. What they hell is wrong with you (hypothetical person attempting to do this thing)? But just in case, my plot outline is going to be very general.

After the events of Film 2, Lisbeth (Noomi Rapace) is in the Hospital, with bullets and stuff in her. So is her dad. An attempted assassination attempt on both of them.

Blomkvist (Michael Nyqvist) still wants to protect her and gets his sister to be her lawyer for the trial. They want to prove that she has had a life of abuse, both from her father and “the man”, leading her to do certain actions. Like blackmailing rapists instead of going to the cops, and trying to kill her dad in self defense.

Assuming they free her of all charges, can she finally “move on” with her life, and become a normal girl?

And why does she think this is the best outfit to wear at court?

To me, personally (and I remind you again, I didn’t understand why the second one was made) don’t understand why this one was made either. It felt like the “what happens after the show” stuff. I need more details there. Lets say you are watching Psych or something, and by the end they catch the bad guy! Usually by them admitting to it (which is good evidence). That case will probably STILL go to trial, as the person will be all pissed off. They then have to go through a lengthy after process, and hopefully that person is eventually put in jail.

Does that part sound as interesting? No. Because we have already seen all the proof, and know what the final verdict should be. They don’t show that stuff because it would be boring.

Well, that’s what the third movie felt like to me. Sure, some other stuff happens too. It better, since it is 2.5 hours long! We find out a little bit more, but the justification for the movie doesn’t seem to be there.

In conclusion, I don’t see the big deal guys.

Plural? Yes.

I watched Death at a Funeral (British version) the other day, and I realized I wanted to see Death at a Funeral (American version) as well. Obviously the British one came first, but I figured they’d be different enough with the same general plot to do two reviews, but no. They pretty much are the same. Some different jokes, but all the same stuff happens. SO ONE SUPER REVIEW (that counts as two, damn it). Also probably my record for most tags. Two ensemble movies in one. Hooray!

And why not start it off with a naked Alan Tudyk on a roof?

So in both movies, the patriarch of the family dies. The main guy (Chris Rock, Matthew Macfadyen) lived with his folks and is an inspiring writer, which is bad because his slightly younger brother (Martin Lawrence, Rupert Graves) already has made a best seller. Jealousy!

We also have their cousin (Zoe Saldana, Daisy Donovan) is bringing her new fiance to the funeral, hoping her own dad will approve of him. This makes the fiance (Alan Tudyk, James Marsden) nervous, and he takes some Vallium to calm down. But it really isn’t Vallium. Her ex is also there (and trying to win her back…Luke Wilson, Ewen Bremner), now a friend of the family, along with another friend of the family (Tracy Morgan, Andy Nyman) who has the unfortunate job of looking out for the wheel chaired uncle (Danny Glover, Peter Vaughan).

Got all that? Too bad. A few problems go wrong, delaying the actual ceremony, which is perfect for the real main plotline. The midget who no one knows turns out to be the secret gay lover of their dad (Peter Dinklage, Peter Dinklage) with picture proof, and threatens to show everyone unless he gets a nice sum since he was left off of the will. Yes blackmail, and midgets.

I am sure I tagged some people and didn’t mention them. Honestly I lost track. Here is Loretta Devine, who you would have guessed was in the American version without looking it up probably.

Somehow, both of these actors naked on a roof was the easiest “same scene” from both movies to find.

So, these movies both feature large ensemble casts, with a few different plot lines so that they can all build up and get crazy by the end of the movie.

But which is better? I have heard from multiple sources that they think the British version is WAY better than the American. They also said this before watching the American though. After watching both though I find that…well they are both okay. I didn’t find one vastly superior to the other. Honestly, I probably would have been fine with either of them if only one of them had to exist!

So watch whatever version you choose, knowing full well that if you choose the British one for any other reason than it being the original, then you are probably a racist.

The Girl Who Played With Fire is the sequel to The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo in the Girl Who Has Long Titles, trilogy.

This one doesn’t have an American version yet, so I won’t put Swedish in the title. Heck yes!

She looks more normal in this film. Well, in this scene. Others she looks just as weird.

So this movie takes place a year after the first? I think so. Year is a relative term. Since the last movie she only a had a year left of having a guardian, but in this movie, guardian seems to still be a problem. I didn’t like it, seemed force, mostly because it seemed like Lisbeth said the same exact shit as the first movie, and it was just unnecessary. So that bugged me.

Michael Nyqvist still plays the detective dude. This time instead of focusing on rape, they are working on sex trafficking. So kind of rapey. I guess.

Talking about the plot of this seems silly. You would only watch it if you’ve seen the first movie, and unless you hated the first one, the plot summary wont convince you to watch this one. So what does this one have? Less rape, as I said. Plus more lesbian sex. Also long lost family members, set ups on crime, and some more computer hacking. But that is about it.

Personally, as just a movie, I found this one to be kind of a mess. Maybe its the transition between book and novel, or mini series and movie? But it was just hard to follow. A lot of stuff was assumed.

Like they assumed Lisbeth did the murder because of some fingerprints? A lot of weird shit happened in this movie, and most of it seemed to come not from the main sex offender plot.

This might have been a deleted scene from The Warriors?

The only reason I am giving it the “one watch and thats all you need” rating, is because acting wise they did pretty good. But me understanding the point of the movie? That was low. Wouldn’t want to watch it again. I can at least see why there would be a third movie after this, based on the ending. So that is a plus too.

2 out of 4.

Another Irish movie! But this time I didn’t know it was Irish. I mean. I could have guessed it from the title. A Shine of Rainbows? Rainbows make you two things, gold pots/leprechauns, or gay people. Image association at its finest. But I didn’t even think of the title, just wanted to try something different.

Because I care, damn it.

I mean, those kids brutally beat up and trap poor Lucky and steal his damn cereal. What is that shit? How can he live in a world like that? Hey. Lucky. It might not get better.

The movie is about a poor orphan boy played by John Bell. He is picked on by the other orphans, because he is smaller, even more of a ginger, has a kind of stutter, and you know. Isn’t manly yet. But that doesn’t stop that crazy lady, played by Connie Nielsen. After a lot of research she picks him to adopt, and quickly whisks him on a boat to Ireland. Hooray Ireland. Now he is a small town boy from the big city. Well, a familyless big city.

Things are bound to get better right? Yes.

Because his mom is awesome. She wears pretty clothes, wants to show him the whole world, and help him have the best life he could possibly have. But the dad, played by Aidan Quinn. He is disappointed, thinking she brought home the runt of the litter. He also has a bit of problem connecting with him, since he is just a kid and not his own son.

This is potentially a spoiler? But it also happens like halfway through the story, so I deem it necessary.

The mom ends up dying about halfway through the story, leaving the boy an obvious wreck. What am I talking about. The dad was more of a wreck, he knew her a lot longer, the boy only a few months, if that. But he is in a strange place, with a man who he thinks hates him. The dad is left with a “son” who would never have been his first pick, and seen more as a thing his wife wanted to help out with.

Can they become a family? CAN THEY?

There is also a few scenes with a sick Otter, which is not pictured, because I suck.

I thought the movie was both pretty sad and pretty wonderful. It has such a good message throughout it, and is very well acted. The kid is going to be in Battleship and that Hobbit thing, so apparently other people like him too. Definitely was a great “Random pick up”.