More movies that I've got to catch up on with "reviews."
|Pineapple (2008). I found this craptastic movie via YouTube's free movies. I must say that the description and movie art is what made me take a chance on viewing this one. I thought "exotic dancer...sexual experimentation" meant a bearable movie.|
I must admit this movie severely challenged my theory of female nudity makes movies better. Unfortunately, there was basically one woman that got nude (I think there may have been some brief shots of others but obviously not memorable enough for me to recall) and this woman was not very alluring. She wasn't ugly but she wasn't someone I felt I needed to see nude time and time again...and again.
Final verdict: It's not worth the bandwith. You can surely find better entertainment somewhere else other than this movie.
|Cinderella 2000 (1977). This was another YouTube free movie. I was intrigued by the word "soft-porn" in the synopsis. Tha's about all the interest this movie provided.|
I know it's a movie from 1977 but I expected it to be more pushing-the-boundaries that it was. In fact, the only boundary it pushed was my level of tolerance. The acting was beyond horrible. And I was looking for the "soft porn" but never did I see ANYTHING that would make me think of "soft porn." I think the B-movies with the likes of Shannon Tweed or Joan Severance had more T&A sex scenes.
Final verdict: This movie provided no entertainment value at all. It should be archived in the tomb of crappiest movies of all time. I ended up fast forwarding through much of the movie.
|Single White Female 2: The Psycho (2005). One more of the free movies of YouTube. I remember the first Single White Female and thought it was a pretty decent flick. It didn't hurt that it had the hotness of Bridget Fonda in it.|
However, this movie was not so good. In fact, it could be said this was an exact replica of the first movie just with different actors. The two main female leads and the one sub-main female lead were pretty attractive. The problem is that none of them showed their boobies. Oh we had some side boob, some bottom boob, but there was no full-on frontal boob. It was quite disappointing, especially when everyone of the women were trying to sleep with each other or other men. Very disheartening that they didn't provide the boob shots!
Final Verdict: If you've seen the first one, you've seen this one too but better. If you've seen this one but not the first, you missed out on a better version. It might be worth watching the first after this one but why waste any more of your time.
|The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011). I heard the American version of this movie was the bomb. I didn't have high expectations because I saw the Swedish version and was not impressed. With the hype from many people about "these exciting book(s)" being made into a movie (Swedish version), I did expect a better Swedish "Tattoo" movie. Now the movie wasn't totally worthless, I did enjoy the nudity of Noomi Rapace albeit in a weird kind of way because she was way too skinny for my preferences and the hairy arm pits were a little distracting.|
Anyway, I got a little sidetracked there. I don't want to write on tehe 2009 movie but the 2011 movie. But it's hard because I feel the same about both movies.
So, I like Daniel Craig as an actor to an extent. He's a little typecast in the sense that he's always playing a violent or villain role: see Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace, Defiance and Cowboys & Aliens. He just seems angry. I didn't believe him as a washed up journalist. He looked more like a guy that could make lemonade when given lemons.
Rooney Mara's portrayal of Lisbeth made me feel like I was watching the 2009 Swedish version. In my opinion, there was almost no difference between Rooney or Noomi's portrayal. They were both way too skinny and the wardrobe choices were very similar across both movies. I guess Rooney didn't have hairy or as hairy arm pits.
Overall, the movie seemed more like a digital reproduction of the original. Kind of like when you see those old color Disney animated movies and they say stuff like "digitally remastered." That's about what I got with this movie. I mean the actors portraying the characters were different and the filming looked like the difference between VHS and miniDV but the storyline and wardrobe was just too similar for me. It had me wondering why the hell they made an American version. Is it because Americans have to prove they can do things better? Maybe in some instance, but with this movie I don't think they did any better.
Seeing Daniel Craig walking around in the movie I was expecting to see a fight break out every other second because, to me, the vibe of the movie had more of his version of a 007 movie. I truly feel like I could have never seen this movie and still "seen" it because I saw the 2009 version.
Final verdict: It seemed to have garnered a lot of good reviews and positive opinions. I'm not sure why because overall it was no different than the Swedish version. I felt the same way after seeing this movie as the Swedish version: are the books better or am I missing something? If you want to see this movie, go ahead because it's not an overall disappointment. I think I'm more disappointed because I already saw this movie with Swedish audio and English subtitles.
|Gone (2012). First let me start by saying I have a crush on Amanda Seyfried since I saw her in Big Love. She has a natural prettiness to her but she also has some very big breasts. I pined for her to show these lovely lumps everytime I saw a new episode of Big Love. She came very close in one episode but I don't think she ever did during the show...I'm not totally sure because I haven't seen the last two seasons of the series. Then I started hearing about her role in Jennifer's Body. I thought for sure she'd be showing some boobage but I was sorely disappointed. Doubly disappointed because the "she's-pretty-now-but-she-won't-age-well" Megan Fox didn't get naked either. Many reviewers said she got naked but it was false nakedness. Megan was wearing skin-colored pasties. Then I started hearing even more rumors about her role in Chloe. These rumors seemed to be more definitive in their assessment of her REALLY showing boobage and some scenes with Julianne Moore. Bonus having the aging Julianne looking damn hot and showing her nakedness! Amanda made a few more movies that I hoped for boob-flashing but I didn't fully expect it as it didn't fall in with the storyline of the movie. Alignment is not always necessary but storyline and character usually are good signs of what to expect. So, then we come to Gone. Something about the synopsis made me have hopes of Amanda boobies. Forewarning, the only Amanda boobies you get to see are braless shirts/tanks. It's okay though because I've seen them and I can visualize them in my head when I see her.|
Now for the movie. It wasn't a bad movie. I think it was interesting concept. Girl gets kidnapped. Girl luckily escapes. Girl commits herself to help deal with the memories of the ordeal. Girl gets out and lives with "sane" sister. Girl's sister disappears. Girl reports it to the police and they now label her Crazy girl even though she committed herself and wasn't officially diagnosed as crazy. No authority will listen to or take crazy girl serious. Crazy girl knows her sister has been kidnapped by the same person she escaped from. Fuck the police—Crazy girl is determined to find and save her sister!
The movie had parts where things just wouldn't happen. Would the detectives really ignore her concerns? Instead of investigating would they really look to arrest her for carrying a weapon because she was formerly but voluntarily committed? She carries a weapon because the criminal she escaped from is still out there...DUH! There were just some frustrating parts that I just couldn't believe would happen but maybe that was the director's point. If so, he did a good job then. If not, it was just too predictable and obvious and made for a not-so-enjoyable movie.
Final verdict: I guess you won't be disappointed if you watch this movie. Don't think about it too much and you'd enjoy it. "Anal"-yze it and you might half-heartedly enjoy it. I've seen worse, much worse. It seems like movies that want to make you think aren't doing a very good job of expressing that in the sense of the predictability of some of the occurrences in the movies.