Mini-Review: The Devil Wears Prada

Review by FAT JACK
My Rating: 4 stars out of 5

Rotten Tomatoes: 77% Fresh
Roger Ebert: 2 stars out of 4
Netflix: 3.7 stars out of 5
IMDb: 6.7 stars out of 10

I expected this movie to get a higher rating than it did from the critics. For anyone who’s played the role of Satan’s cabana boy with their boss will be able to relate to this entertaining flick. Meryl Streep had a great time playing this role, and she certainly had Martha Stewart in mind the entire time. I understand the plot and sympathize. I’ve played the part myself and worked for the devil in order to get a better job. I did and then moved on to bigger and better things. I learned a lot about myself and the world around me, and for that I am eternally grateful. Our heroine learned a thing or two as well. The experience changed her, for a time, into someone she ultimately could not live with. I suppose my being able to relate to that increased my enjoyment of this movie. I found it worth watching.

Review: Lady in the Water

Review by FAT JACK
My Rating: 3 stars out of 5

Rotten Tomatoes: 24% Rotten
Roger Ebert: 1.5 stars out of 4
Netflix: 3.3 stars out of 5
IMDb: 6.2 stars out of 10

You can tell by the ratings above that this movie was not well received -- not at all. I don’t understand why. This wasn’t M. Night Shayamalan’s finest film, not by any stretch, but it was an interesting movie. Seems that most everyone holds his movies up to the “Sixth Sense” and I think that is ultimately the problem for the writer-director. Everyone loved his horror flick so much, that they are salivating for more and Shayamalan refuses to deliver a hack job on his previous work. I give him kudos for not falling prey to the idiots who just want another “Sixth Sense 2”. I thought Lady in the Water was an intriguing bedtime story. Not that they were not problems with it. There were.

First of all it was billed as a horror film in the trailers. Big mistake. It makes people expect something other than what it is. I knew that ahead of time, which helped me. I didn’t have any false hopes for the movie. I also think that Shayamalan’s performance was a bit wooden and restricted. I kept recognizing him and it took me out of the film, something you do not ever want to do, especially for this film. It was a stretch to suspend the disbelief at times. I maintained mine, but I can see how failing expectations could combine here to make for a bad movie going experience. There were scenes of comedy, which worked fine for the most part. There was one that stood out as going too far. The movie critic faces off with the scrat and he offers too much in the way of direct dialogue. It’s an attempt to interject some comedy, but it ruins the mood. Too much comedy is bad comedy and Shayamalan has yet to learn how to write good comedy.

Other than that, I enjoyed the quirkiness of the film and how it bordered on the surreal. I choose that word because in the real world, one might argue that people would not act the way the do in this film. They would not so readily believe or be sucked into the situation. Of course if you follow the fairy tale, you discover that is the beauty of the story. People who are meant to be play a part in the story, are inexplicably drawn to the apartment complex and to each other. That is the beginning of the theme of the movie.

My mother taught my Sunday School class when I was a teenager. The overriding message was this: God uses ordinary people to do extraordinary things.” That use of the ordinary to do something extraordinary is what this bedtime story is all about. It is a fairy tale after all and as all good fairy tales require, it is supposed to teach the audience something. If you keep in mind that it is a fairy tale, then you may just get the movie and enjoy it for what it is and what it is supposed to be.

By the way, this story is based on a bedtime story that Shayamalan made up and told his children. He turned the story into a children’s book by the same name. It was after the book publication that he developed the movie, which is significantly different than the book.

Mini-Review: Night at the Museum

Review by FAT JACK
My Rating: 3.5 stars out of 5

Rotten Tomatoes: 46% Rotten
Netflix: 3.9 stars out of 5
IMDb: 6.5 stars out of 10

Not a movie that has received much critical acclaim, but a movie that was a lot of fun for the family. Seems most folks have not really cared for it, but we enjoyed it for what it was supposed to do. I didn’t expect anything spectacular from Ben Stiller over his typical shtick. I assumed there would be lots of physical comedy, a basic plot, sarcasm, and a simplistic dilemma that is overcome and wrapped up in the end. That’s exactly what I got. For that I don’t really see why everyone is so hard on this movie. It’s entertaining. What did people expect? I expected it to be simplistic fun, like a trip to Silver Dollar City. I’ve been on those rides a thousand times. There’s nothing new about Fire in the Hole, but I still ride it – for my daughter and for me.

Mini-Review: Clerks 2

Review by FAT JACK
My Rating: 3 stars out of 5

Rotten Tomatoes: 63% Rotten
Netflix: 3.8 stars out of 5
BrandonCrain Blog: 8 out of 10

There are some big differences between the two Clerks films and most of those differences are in favor of the original. There are minor things as well, such as the use of color in the second film, but those are inconsequential. The first film utilized what Kevin Smith does well, and that is write compelling dialogue in the league of Quentin Tarantino and the writers of Seinfeld. Interesting and engaging dialogue is hard to write, especially when that dialogue does not push the plot along. Smith did that flawlessly in the first film, but Clerks 2 somehow falls prey to the same thing that plagues the entire film. It is forced. That does not mean that there is not excellent dialogue in this film. There are short burst of it. One little gem is the whole Trilogy v. Trilogy issue that is speckled throughout. The argument between which trilogy rules, Lord of the Rings versus Star Wars, is ecstasy. I had been warned about this ahead of time and I found it as entertaining as any piece of dialogue in the Clerks franchise. Genius to be sure. I am left wishing that the rest of the dialogue had been this funny.

To continue with the problematic theme, the acting felt forced too. It appeared that they were trying too hard to make Clerks again, to touch into that edgy vein, and the fact that the actors cared so much showed on the screen and took away from the film. Replacing it was a hackneyed attempt to simply gross us out, rather than show us the characters. Not that I mind the whole donkey thing. I’ve heard those stories about what goes on in Mexico. But somehow the portrayal didn’t ring true. Some of Jay and Silent Bob’s diatribes were choppy and simplistic, even for them. The Silence of the Lambs spoof was hysterical, or it would have been had they not shown that in the trailers. By the time it hit my screen it was old hat.

All in all, I guess I enjoyed Clerks 2 but not as much as I should have. Just so we are clear, Lord of the Rings is a much higher quality trilogy than Star Wars. The acting is better, the special effects are incredible and the plot is rich.

Mini-Review: Superman Returns

Review by FAT JACK
My Rating: 2 stars out of 5

Larry of INCONCEIVABLE: B+
Bryan of INCONCEIVABLE: 4.5 stars out of 5
Rotten Tomatoes: 76% Rotten
Roger Ebert: 2 stars out of 4
Netflix: 3.7 stars out of 5
IMDb: 7 stars out of 10
Entertain Me: B
BrandonCrain Blog: 6 out of 10

This is a movie that I was looking forward to, but my expectations were pretty low based on the reviews that I’ve read about it. The script was poor and the writing was full of too many holes to even bother writing about. There was real potential for a great movie. All I can say is that the producers must have been passing about kryptonite martinis during the entire production. Come on. He swims under water and picks up an entire island laced with kryptonite? The only really cool thing was the bullet hitting Superman’s eye and bouncing off, but we saw that in the trailers. Too bad.

Mini-Review: Pirates of the Caribbean -- Dead Man's Chest

Review by FAT JACK
My Rating: 3 stars out of 5

Rotten Tomatoes: 54% Rotten
Netflix: 3.9 stars out of 5
IMDb: 7.3 stars out of 10
Entertain Me: B

A bit darker and less funny, Dead Man’s Chest was still fun. I would have preferred it to have more comedy. The cgi was wonderful and I loved the fact that we didn’t see all of the Kraken. The plot was a bit convoluted at times and rushed, but it was fun nonetheless. Just not as fun as the first.