Before the year ends I better throw out my picks for the best and worst films of 2010.
Everyone's a critic, including myself and I don't pretend to be the expert of all experts when it comes to movies, but after having seen almost 200 movies this year, these are the best (and worst) that I've seen in 2010.
2010 wasn't the best year we've had in film, but latter part of the year came some great films (I don't have a single film before June on my list, sorry). Drum roll please...
Best Films of 2010 - My Top 10
(in no particular order)
The King's Speech
This fact-based story on King George VI is a complete, utter winner, with an unforgettably stunning and Oscar-worthy performance by Colin Firth as the stuttering king. Keep plenty of tissues for the ending.
The Fighter
Sure, boxing stories have some of the same, predictable themes: people get beat up inside and outside the ring. But the stellar, affecting performances from all in the cast made this gritty true story of Boston fighter Mickey Ward a must-see. Christian Bale is a shoo-in for the Supporting Actor Oscar.
Black Swan
This behind-the-scenes psychological ballerina tale from Darren Aronofsky is bizarre, twisted and sublimely performed by Natalie Portman, Mila Kunis and Barbara Hershey. You won't easily forget the stunning ending, either. Portman is a strong front-runner for the Best Actress Oscar.
127 Hours
Yes, the scene in this true story based on stranded hiker Aron Ralston where he chops his arm off is difficult to watch. But director Danny Boyle and actor James Franco succeed in making the year's most affecting, wrenching tale with grace, humor and charm.
Inception
The year's most original, mesmerizing movie is also the year's most difficult to understand. However, Christopher Nolan and his actor look-alike, Leonardo DiCaprio, have you hooked from the first scene to the most-provocative cinematic ending of the year. Worth multiple viewings.
The Town
I would have never thought I'd have a film made by and starring Ben Affleck in my Top 10 list, but Affleck has become a smart, astute filmmaker, and this tense, taut and believable heist flick works only because of Affleck's stellar direction (who delivers a decent performance here too).
The Social Network
Maybe a smidgen overrated by now, you can't deny the influence that Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook have had on our society. With smart, zippy dialogue and superbly acted by Jesse Eisenberg and Andrew Garfield, put this on your must-see list if you haven't yet.
The Kids Are All Right
A wonderful, touching story about a lesbian couple and their family, delivered sublimely by an A-list cast that included Julianne Moore, Mark Ruffalo and especially by Annette Bening, who delivers another layered award-worthy performance. Note to the Academy: please give Bening the Oscar already.
Toy Story 3
2010 was a great year for animated films, with "How To Train Your Dragon," "Tangled" and "Despicable Me," but Buzz, Woody and the gang were back for their most touching adventure yet. After the three-hanky ending, you'll need time to yourself.
Winter's Bone
Sure, this story about a back-woods teenage girl searching for her father was on the depressing side, but the unforgettable, mature (and likely Oscar-nominated) performance from newcomer Jennifer Lawrence was one of the year's breakthrough turns.
Honorable Mentions:
How to Train Your Dragon, True Grit, Despicable Me, Ghost Writer, Get Him to the Greek, Iron Man 2, Nowhere Boy.
Worst Films of 2010
(in no particular order)
Gulliver's Travels
Sure, it's easy to list this one since it just came out on Christmas Day, but this is not only an awful travesty, it's just plain awful. A 3D, all-star kids version of Jonathan Swift's classic story starring Jack Black seemed playful on paper, but on screen it's a painfully unfunny embarrassment to all involved.
Little Fockers
Another star-studded miserable year-end experience. This woefully unfunny, unecessary and expensive sequel in the "Meet the Parents" franchise was its worst. Even the presence of DeNiro, Stiller, Owen Wilson, Streisand and Hoffman couldn't make this watchable.
Killers
Katherine Heigl and Ashton Kutcher are two of cinema's most handsome actors. Put them together and what do you get? One annoying, boring, lousy mess of a rom com about spies in the suburbs that's what. Brad and Angelina they're not.
Furry Vengeance
Pair a hyper Brendan Fraser and some vengeful animals and you get what you might expect: a terrible, cheap, unfunny kids movie that even kids hated. After actually paying for this movie, you might want revenge too.
Grown Ups
This offensive, sloppy comedy was the only time that Adam Sandler and all his comedian pals were on-screen together. With that in mind, you'd think there would be something actually funny to watch. Inexplicably, one of Sandler's biggest hits was one of his worst, which says a lot. Proves that all you have to do is grab a camera, some friends, act stupid and call it a movie.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Somewhere - B-
Rated R for sexual content, nudity and language, 97 minutes
Pensive but engaging celebrity tale "Somewhere"
The real question may be "Where are you?" The answer doesn't necessarily lie in Sofia Coppola's pensive, low-key new drama "Somewhere," and while the independently-made, superbly acted tale about celebrity status isn't always the most approachable film, it further reveals that Coppola remains one of cinema's more unconventional filmmakers.
Hollywood actor Johnny Marco (Stephen Dorff), nested in the luxurious L.A. hotel Chateau Marmont, is a stimulated man. Drinking, parties and women keep a creeping boredom under wraps in between jobs. He is the occasional father of a bright girl, Cleo (Elle Fanning), who may be spoiled but doesn't act it. When Cleo unexpectedly shows up for an extended stay, Johnny brings her along for the ride, but he may be forced to make changes to his privileged lifestyle.
Coppola's alluring, glossy tale of celebrity, "Somewhere" treads familiar Coppola territory; however, the slow-moving character study shows that fame doesn't necessarily bring relationships of substance. Some scenes are supposedly semi-autobiographical and based on Coppola's own famous upbringing, but it all has a familiar pensive air to it from other Coppola films, particularly "Lost in Translation," which examined similar issues. Still, Coppola is an interesting director who uses her elements well, while dwelling on the silence of a lonely road or the trinkling water in a swimming pool.
Most important, Coppola uses her actors well in what is essentially a two-character play, and it helps that both Dorff and Fanning give subtle but charming performances that carry the film. The Hollywood lifestyle is portrayed realistically but not sympathetically; it seems to be a lonely road filled with people who want to be around you for your celebrity. There are also some tunes from the folk rock group Phoenix that are integrated well into the film.
"Somewhere" may be in a lonely, sad place, and the provocative ending may leave you wondering if the characters ended up in the place they wanted to be. Coppola, a director of remarkable strength and intelligence, keeps you guessing.
Pensive but engaging celebrity tale "Somewhere"
The real question may be "Where are you?" The answer doesn't necessarily lie in Sofia Coppola's pensive, low-key new drama "Somewhere," and while the independently-made, superbly acted tale about celebrity status isn't always the most approachable film, it further reveals that Coppola remains one of cinema's more unconventional filmmakers.
Hollywood actor Johnny Marco (Stephen Dorff), nested in the luxurious L.A. hotel Chateau Marmont, is a stimulated man. Drinking, parties and women keep a creeping boredom under wraps in between jobs. He is the occasional father of a bright girl, Cleo (Elle Fanning), who may be spoiled but doesn't act it. When Cleo unexpectedly shows up for an extended stay, Johnny brings her along for the ride, but he may be forced to make changes to his privileged lifestyle.
Coppola's alluring, glossy tale of celebrity, "Somewhere" treads familiar Coppola territory; however, the slow-moving character study shows that fame doesn't necessarily bring relationships of substance. Some scenes are supposedly semi-autobiographical and based on Coppola's own famous upbringing, but it all has a familiar pensive air to it from other Coppola films, particularly "Lost in Translation," which examined similar issues. Still, Coppola is an interesting director who uses her elements well, while dwelling on the silence of a lonely road or the trinkling water in a swimming pool.
Most important, Coppola uses her actors well in what is essentially a two-character play, and it helps that both Dorff and Fanning give subtle but charming performances that carry the film. The Hollywood lifestyle is portrayed realistically but not sympathetically; it seems to be a lonely road filled with people who want to be around you for your celebrity. There are also some tunes from the folk rock group Phoenix that are integrated well into the film.
"Somewhere" may be in a lonely, sad place, and the provocative ending may leave you wondering if the characters ended up in the place they wanted to be. Coppola, a director of remarkable strength and intelligence, keeps you guessing.
Monday, December 27, 2010
Casino Jack - C
Rated R for pervasive language, some violence and brief nudity, 108 minutes
Smooth Spacey performance in uneven Abramoff film "Casino Jack"
There's no doubting that infamous Washington D.C. lobbyist Jack Abramoff was a colorful character, given that he was the center of a corruption scandal for which he just completed a prison sentence. Abramoff's dealings are detailed in the new dramedy "Casino Jack," a choppy, redundant film that's in need of a better editing job. What is certain is that Kevin Spacy gives another of his brilliantly self-assured performances as Abramoff, and he's the chief reason to see the film.
Abramoff's Washington D.C. lobbyist and secondary business career is the focus of the film, which included some gross excesses, mismanagement and corruption that brought him and many of his colleagues, including Michael Scanlon ("True Grit's" Barry Pepper) and his political connections, down. One of his main clients that he defrauded was the Saginaw Chippewas tribe of Michigan, from whom he took over $20 million to pay for his excesses. A federal investigation finds Abramoff guilty for taking bribes in exchange for political favors.
"Casino Jack" is a well-acted but uneven film that details a fascinating, colorful life with a bland annoyance and redundancy given that most probably already know the outcome of Abramoff's story. George Hicklenlooper, director of the Oscar-winning documentary "Hearts of Darkness," can't get a great handle on the material, and it lacks a certain emotional payoff that something like this should have.
Spacey's affecting turn as Abramoff is the most memorable about the choppy film, which is evident from his recent Golden Globe nomination for the film. The film's narrative jumps between different events (including Texas's own Tom DeLay) before it reaches a climax that most are aware of if they've read the news.
"Casino Jack" shouldn't be confused with the actual Abramoff documentary released earlier this year, "Casino Jack and the United States of Money," which is far more effective in detailing Abramoff's career than this film, which fictionalizes certain aspects of the story. Abramoff's less than stellar legacy could've been given a more interesting treatment than what "Casino Jack" gives it, though Spacey gives it his all.
Smooth Spacey performance in uneven Abramoff film "Casino Jack"
There's no doubting that infamous Washington D.C. lobbyist Jack Abramoff was a colorful character, given that he was the center of a corruption scandal for which he just completed a prison sentence. Abramoff's dealings are detailed in the new dramedy "Casino Jack," a choppy, redundant film that's in need of a better editing job. What is certain is that Kevin Spacy gives another of his brilliantly self-assured performances as Abramoff, and he's the chief reason to see the film.
Abramoff's Washington D.C. lobbyist and secondary business career is the focus of the film, which included some gross excesses, mismanagement and corruption that brought him and many of his colleagues, including Michael Scanlon ("True Grit's" Barry Pepper) and his political connections, down. One of his main clients that he defrauded was the Saginaw Chippewas tribe of Michigan, from whom he took over $20 million to pay for his excesses. A federal investigation finds Abramoff guilty for taking bribes in exchange for political favors.
"Casino Jack" is a well-acted but uneven film that details a fascinating, colorful life with a bland annoyance and redundancy given that most probably already know the outcome of Abramoff's story. George Hicklenlooper, director of the Oscar-winning documentary "Hearts of Darkness," can't get a great handle on the material, and it lacks a certain emotional payoff that something like this should have.
Spacey's affecting turn as Abramoff is the most memorable about the choppy film, which is evident from his recent Golden Globe nomination for the film. The film's narrative jumps between different events (including Texas's own Tom DeLay) before it reaches a climax that most are aware of if they've read the news.
"Casino Jack" shouldn't be confused with the actual Abramoff documentary released earlier this year, "Casino Jack and the United States of Money," which is far more effective in detailing Abramoff's career than this film, which fictionalizes certain aspects of the story. Abramoff's less than stellar legacy could've been given a more interesting treatment than what "Casino Jack" gives it, though Spacey gives it his all.
Made in Dagenham - B
Rated R for language and brief sexuality, 113 minutes
Likable, charming true story of "Made in Dagenham"
If you think you aren't paid enough at what you do, you should see the new British film "Made in Dagenham," a charming look at how some British ladies stood up and made a difference. It's predictable and unrevealing as a whole, but these ladies are so darn likable that you will be rooting for them the whole way.
It's the summer of 1968, and Rita O' Grady (Sally Hawkins) and her pals are enjoying the swinging '60s in Dagenham, England. They all work as sewing machinists for the Ford plant, sewing the material onto the car seats. But they are notified by their supervisor (Bob Hoskins) that have been categorized as unskilled workers and worst of all, are paid considerably less than their male counterparts. Rita stands up to the local Ford management for equal pay for the women, something that garners the attention of the British government and agressive Labor Department minister Barbara Castle (Miranda Richardson), who pledges to help the ladies.
"Made in Dagenham" is a pleasantly inspiring but bland look at how a few lower-class British dames changed history and made things better for women workers. If you know anything about the story, you already know how it turns out, but it's fun getting there. There are a few unnecessary episodes that give a padded, choppy feel at times, but it's still fun getting to the end. Hawkins is affecting as O'Grady, Hoskins is a sympathetic company man, and British character actress Richardson delivers one of her stronger, more memorable turns as the opinated Castle, who not only helped the ladies but also provided legislation later than led to the groundbreaking Equal Pay Act.
Director Nigel Fox, who helmed another true British ladies effort "Calendar Girls" a few years ago, handles the material well, though it likely would've benefited from a stronger, female director who didn't underestimate the power of the material. Good thing he has a strong true story and cast on his side to make the film better than it really should be, and it's also quite nice to see the actual (and now much older) ladies talk about their experiences over the film's credits at the end.
"Made in Dagenham" is an agreeable, if somewhat forgettable look at some graceful, plucky ladies who made a difference. You may not remember all of the movie, but you certainly won't forget the difference they made.
Likable, charming true story of "Made in Dagenham"
If you think you aren't paid enough at what you do, you should see the new British film "Made in Dagenham," a charming look at how some British ladies stood up and made a difference. It's predictable and unrevealing as a whole, but these ladies are so darn likable that you will be rooting for them the whole way.
It's the summer of 1968, and Rita O' Grady (Sally Hawkins) and her pals are enjoying the swinging '60s in Dagenham, England. They all work as sewing machinists for the Ford plant, sewing the material onto the car seats. But they are notified by their supervisor (Bob Hoskins) that have been categorized as unskilled workers and worst of all, are paid considerably less than their male counterparts. Rita stands up to the local Ford management for equal pay for the women, something that garners the attention of the British government and agressive Labor Department minister Barbara Castle (Miranda Richardson), who pledges to help the ladies.
"Made in Dagenham" is a pleasantly inspiring but bland look at how a few lower-class British dames changed history and made things better for women workers. If you know anything about the story, you already know how it turns out, but it's fun getting there. There are a few unnecessary episodes that give a padded, choppy feel at times, but it's still fun getting to the end. Hawkins is affecting as O'Grady, Hoskins is a sympathetic company man, and British character actress Richardson delivers one of her stronger, more memorable turns as the opinated Castle, who not only helped the ladies but also provided legislation later than led to the groundbreaking Equal Pay Act.
Director Nigel Fox, who helmed another true British ladies effort "Calendar Girls" a few years ago, handles the material well, though it likely would've benefited from a stronger, female director who didn't underestimate the power of the material. Good thing he has a strong true story and cast on his side to make the film better than it really should be, and it's also quite nice to see the actual (and now much older) ladies talk about their experiences over the film's credits at the end.
"Made in Dagenham" is an agreeable, if somewhat forgettable look at some graceful, plucky ladies who made a difference. You may not remember all of the movie, but you certainly won't forget the difference they made.
All Good Things - C
Rated R for drug use, violence, language and some sexuality, 100 minutes
Well-acted, chilling but baffling “All Good Things”
“All Good Things” is a fascinating, well-acted but confusing thriller based-on-a-true crime story, which works in its favor but is also its biggest flaw. Based on the chillingly bizarre experiences of rich real estate investor Robert Durst, for some reason the story is given a fictional slant, an odd choice from the filmmakers given their stance in essentially implicating Durst of the crimes.
Ryan Gosling is David Marks, the son of wealthy New York City real estate investor Sanford Marks (Frank Langella). He meets the girl of his dreams, a pretty, smart blond named Katie McCarthy (Kirsten Dunst). When they get married, David leaves the family business as he and Katie buy a health food store named “All Good Things.” But David is lured back to the business, the two begin leading separate lives and Katie applies to medical school. However, David begins acting strangely and violently toward Katie and others, and Katie disappears. Through a strange series of events over the years, the now 20-year old case of Katie’s disappearance is re-opened.
“All Good Things” is an intriguingly murky, well-acted dramatic thriller whose real-life story seems to cast a pall on its effectiveness. It’s well-acted and “Capturing the Friedman’s” director Andrew Jarecki, directs “All Good Things” with an astute attention to detail, but it’s baffling as to why Jarecki and his screenwriters Marcus Hinchey and Marc Smerling didn’t just use Durst’s story outright instead of changing the names and a few minor details (even Durst himself - strangely enough - has approved the film).
Gosling and especially Dunst, in an understated, low-key role, are quite good as the couple with some problems, but the unrevealing, confusing script doesn’t provide insight into the notorious real-life case and explaining some of Durst's bizarre behavior, especially in the film’s last act. The title of the film, "All Good Things" itself is an odd choice; ironically it's the only thing about the actual Durst case not fictionalized in the film, the name of the health food store Durst and his wife had, but it's such a fleeting, minor part of the movie it seems an ill-fitting name. Sure, it’s supposed to be a metaphor for Durst’s life, though in reality it would apply to just one part of his life and not the case as a whole.
“All Good Things” ends up a vacuous, hazy tale of rich people acting badly, rather than intimately profiling an intriguing, somewhat appalling character as Durst, who as an adult was diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome, which isn’t even mentioned here. The unresolved missing person case of Kathleen McCormack, Durst’s missing wife since 1982, deserves a more fulfilling, powerful examination than “All Good Things” gives it.
Well-acted, chilling but baffling “All Good Things”
“All Good Things” is a fascinating, well-acted but confusing thriller based-on-a-true crime story, which works in its favor but is also its biggest flaw. Based on the chillingly bizarre experiences of rich real estate investor Robert Durst, for some reason the story is given a fictional slant, an odd choice from the filmmakers given their stance in essentially implicating Durst of the crimes.
Ryan Gosling is David Marks, the son of wealthy New York City real estate investor Sanford Marks (Frank Langella). He meets the girl of his dreams, a pretty, smart blond named Katie McCarthy (Kirsten Dunst). When they get married, David leaves the family business as he and Katie buy a health food store named “All Good Things.” But David is lured back to the business, the two begin leading separate lives and Katie applies to medical school. However, David begins acting strangely and violently toward Katie and others, and Katie disappears. Through a strange series of events over the years, the now 20-year old case of Katie’s disappearance is re-opened.
“All Good Things” is an intriguingly murky, well-acted dramatic thriller whose real-life story seems to cast a pall on its effectiveness. It’s well-acted and “Capturing the Friedman’s” director Andrew Jarecki, directs “All Good Things” with an astute attention to detail, but it’s baffling as to why Jarecki and his screenwriters Marcus Hinchey and Marc Smerling didn’t just use Durst’s story outright instead of changing the names and a few minor details (even Durst himself - strangely enough - has approved the film).
Gosling and especially Dunst, in an understated, low-key role, are quite good as the couple with some problems, but the unrevealing, confusing script doesn’t provide insight into the notorious real-life case and explaining some of Durst's bizarre behavior, especially in the film’s last act. The title of the film, "All Good Things" itself is an odd choice; ironically it's the only thing about the actual Durst case not fictionalized in the film, the name of the health food store Durst and his wife had, but it's such a fleeting, minor part of the movie it seems an ill-fitting name. Sure, it’s supposed to be a metaphor for Durst’s life, though in reality it would apply to just one part of his life and not the case as a whole.
“All Good Things” ends up a vacuous, hazy tale of rich people acting badly, rather than intimately profiling an intriguing, somewhat appalling character as Durst, who as an adult was diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome, which isn’t even mentioned here. The unresolved missing person case of Kathleen McCormack, Durst’s missing wife since 1982, deserves a more fulfilling, powerful examination than “All Good Things” gives it.
Friday, December 17, 2010
Gulliver's Travels - D-
Rated PG for brief rude humor, mild language and action, 85 minutes
“Gulliver’s Travels”: How Jack Black ruined a classic story
“Gulliver’s Travels” is a big lump of coal of a movie this holiday season. A waste of talent, time, and big studio dollars, it’s a giant, painful and inexcusable embarrassment. A very, very loose contemporary remake of the Jonathan Swift classic (i.e. it has very little, if anything to do with that story), this is a trip full of the tired Black schtick he’s been getting away with in movies since “School of Rock.”
Black is Lemuel Gulliver, a mailroom employee of a large New York newspaper. He has a crush on the publication’s travel writer (Amanda Peet) so he pretends to be a travel writer himself. She gives himself an assignment to cover the Bermuda Triangle, only to become entangled in a big storm that catapults him to Lilliput, where he is a giant among many small people, including Horatio (Jason Segel), Princess Mary (Emily Blunt), her father the King of Lilliput (Billy Connolly) and the evil general (Chris O’Dowd). Gulliver becomes a huge hero among the little people who don’t know who he really is.
A lame 3-D attempt at updating the timeless Swift story, it's a huge mess and Swift would likely turn over in his grave if he knew what Hollywood did with the latest adaptation of his classic satire. “Gulliver’s Travels” is one of the worst films of 2010 and easily the worst film of Black’s career, which is saying a lot given some of the bad films he’s made of late, and only underscores what an annoying performer he can be. Much like his lower-brow counterpart Adam Sandler, he essentially plays the same slacker character in every film, a version of himself that ends up riffing some rock song by the end of the film.
It’s easy to pinpoint the failure of this awful “Gulliver’s Travels” on the likable Black given his star status, but then he’s in every frame of the film, he also co-produced the film and it seems to have been written with Black’s (lack of) talents in mind (we can only guess whose idea it was to have Black unzipping and pissing on a fire). To its credit, a few scenes are goofy fun and the first half of the film is mildly tolerable, but it falls apart midway through in a huge, bizarre way, with the cringe-worthy arrival of a “Transformers”-like character that throws the film way off course. It reminds of the utter failure of another film re-make, “Wild Wild West,” except on a much larger scale.
In the wake of this failure, Black takes down the director, Rob Letterman, who serviceably helmed the animated hits “Monsters and Aliens” and “Shark Tale” but seems to let Black run amok here among the many fake, tiny model sets, along with wasting an A-list cast including Peet, Blunt, Segel and Connolly. Nicholas Stoller, director and writer of the recent, sharp “Get Him to the Greek” and “Forgetting Sarah Marshall,” gets credit for the screenplay, but how much of his original script actually ended up on screen is debatable.
Detractors may say that this is all just silly fun geared toward kids, but even kids movies should be enjoyable. Inexplicably, the climax has Black and company singing the classic rock song “War” yet ironically the lyrics of that song could essentially describe this movie. What is “Gulliver’s Travels” good for? Absolutely nothing. A big, terrible misfire that isn’t worth the trip.
Little Fockers - D
Rated PG-13 for mature sexual humor throughout, language and some drug content, 91 minutes
Don't bother with dreadfully unfunny sequel "Little Fockers"
Hollywood has a way of taking ideas and running them into the ground, and this has never been more annoyingly apparent with the dreadful new sequel "Little Fockers," the third (and by far worst) movie in the tired "Meet the Parents" franchise. There's not anything remotely funny about "Fockers," which throws out the same mean-spirited gags as the other films; if you've seen the trailers for the film, then you've seen the best parts of the film.
Greg Focker (Ben Stiller) and his wife Pam (Teri Polo) are now living in Chicago with twin children. Greg helps run one of the floors of the urban hospital he works at and while he seems successful, he has high hopes for his family. His in-laws, Jack (Robert DeNiro) and Dina Byrnes (Blythe Danner) come to visit and things get worse when Jack pushes Greg into taking more control of his family. Misunderstandings and other problems threathen to tear the once-happy family apart for good.
"Little Fockers" is an unnecessary sequel and a big waste: waste of time, talent and celluloid. Much of it falls remarkably flat this time out, given that the DeNiro-Stiller awkward in-law set up, was moderately funny the first time out, not so much since. Silly and contrived, this is a low-point for both talented actors and likely won't be included in any career retrospectives. This one was obviously done for money on both sides of the camera, with both actors giving seemingly disinterested performances.
It also wastes the other big-name talent attached to it, namely Owen Wilson (annoying as ever) and Oscar-winners Dustin Hoffman and Barbara Streisand, the latter two of whom make little more than cameos as Greg's unorthodox parents. Even the addition of Jessica Alba, Laura Dern and Harvey Keitel can't save this mess from crashing and burning early on. This time it just doesn't work: you'd think by now the DeNiro and Stiller characters would have things worked out given all they've been through. Also, whoever was the casting director on this thing should've been fired early on, the fact that the actors playing Greg's twins are obviously different ages makes it all the more unbelieveable.
"Little Fockers" is like a big family reunion where you're surrounded by people you don't like or don't know and you want it to end as soon as possible (and in case you wonder what you saw in them in the first place). Like any unpleasant experiences, you hopefully won't remember much of it, either. Put this awful and awfully forgettable film out of its misery and skip it all together.
Don't bother with dreadfully unfunny sequel "Little Fockers"
Hollywood has a way of taking ideas and running them into the ground, and this has never been more annoyingly apparent with the dreadful new sequel "Little Fockers," the third (and by far worst) movie in the tired "Meet the Parents" franchise. There's not anything remotely funny about "Fockers," which throws out the same mean-spirited gags as the other films; if you've seen the trailers for the film, then you've seen the best parts of the film.
Greg Focker (Ben Stiller) and his wife Pam (Teri Polo) are now living in Chicago with twin children. Greg helps run one of the floors of the urban hospital he works at and while he seems successful, he has high hopes for his family. His in-laws, Jack (Robert DeNiro) and Dina Byrnes (Blythe Danner) come to visit and things get worse when Jack pushes Greg into taking more control of his family. Misunderstandings and other problems threathen to tear the once-happy family apart for good.
"Little Fockers" is an unnecessary sequel and a big waste: waste of time, talent and celluloid. Much of it falls remarkably flat this time out, given that the DeNiro-Stiller awkward in-law set up, was moderately funny the first time out, not so much since. Silly and contrived, this is a low-point for both talented actors and likely won't be included in any career retrospectives. This one was obviously done for money on both sides of the camera, with both actors giving seemingly disinterested performances.
It also wastes the other big-name talent attached to it, namely Owen Wilson (annoying as ever) and Oscar-winners Dustin Hoffman and Barbara Streisand, the latter two of whom make little more than cameos as Greg's unorthodox parents. Even the addition of Jessica Alba, Laura Dern and Harvey Keitel can't save this mess from crashing and burning early on. This time it just doesn't work: you'd think by now the DeNiro and Stiller characters would have things worked out given all they've been through. Also, whoever was the casting director on this thing should've been fired early on, the fact that the actors playing Greg's twins are obviously different ages makes it all the more unbelieveable.
"Little Fockers" is like a big family reunion where you're surrounded by people you don't like or don't know and you want it to end as soon as possible (and in case you wonder what you saw in them in the first place). Like any unpleasant experiences, you hopefully won't remember much of it, either. Put this awful and awfully forgettable film out of its misery and skip it all together.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)