But what the movie talked about very truthfully was how men see women and what they really want, with the most brutal honesty. Sometimes exaggerated slightly but other times right on the money.  However, the characters were the ones that were overly exaggerated in their stereotypical roles.

I would have very much preferred to see someone else who wasn’t as hot as Katherine Heigl played the role of a woman who is unable to land herself a man. Perhaps a scene could have been devoted to show how this woman was transformed by Gerard Butler’s character from the proverbial ugly duckling.

None of the jokes were original; crude languaging were thrown in to substitute for lacking in everything else, and to give that “different” kind of entertainment; but luckily the actors made it work, barely. But what’s Kevin Connolly doing in there in that one lousy scene that could have been done by anyone else?

Rating: 5 / 10

(all images from imdb.com)

Click here to view the embedded video.

Funny and entertaining enough, it’s even interesting and amusing.

But yes, nothing new here and we’ve seen this plot thousands of times before. Plus it’s Matthew McConaughey yet again in his typical take on a character that didn’t really separate himself from other previous roles.

At least this time the premise was fun and Michael Douglas was having fun with his role as we got to see his romps in the yester-years. His charms were hard to resist, and that’s what McConaughey was lacking a lot.

The rest of the cast was just adequate to push the movie forward, and unfortunately Jennifer Garner was one of them. But credit have to go to director Mark Waters for keeping the fun intact throughout.

Rating: 6 / 10

(all images from imdb.com)

Click here to view the embedded video.

Deja vu – Sandra Bullock back in a role that’s quite similar to the one in While You Were Sleeping, and that church scene was just too familiar. The only difference with her character here was that she’s a super-successful workaholic.

Even with a generic, Hollywood-formula story; this movie had a great cast to make it entertaining.

Starting with the 87-year-old TV icon Betty White still has all that it takes to steal scenes from her younger and better looking cast-mates. She was the heart of the family in the story and one of the reasons the two lead characters fell for each other.

Craig T Nelson and Mary Steenburgen played Andrew’s parents and provide additional drama and comedy. The downside was there wasn’t enough room for Malin Akerman and funny-man Oscar Nunez to shine.

But nothing would have mattered had it not been for the blindingly-bright chemistry between Ryan Reynolds and Sandra Bullock. Both were great comedians in their own right and both played off each other so well with impeccable comedic timing that it’s as if the script by Pete Chiarelli was tailored for the pair.

Let’s face it, Bullock is no Meryl Streep (or at least not yet). But she managed to bring out her version of The Devil Wears Prada and nailed the hard-shell veneer with a soft and emotional centre down to generic perfection.

Reynolds definitely is an up-and-coming lead actor. He’s been in quite a few big roles already but none that has made him a household name yet. If this movie didn’t do it for him, he still will be come 2011 with his starring roles in two big budget comic book movies.

But one big disappointment here was the romance. The direction by Anne Fletcher was never clear enough to show exactly when both leads fell for each other. The audience had to be told that they were inexplicably in love, rather than feel their romance blossom.

Fortunately, the best thing about this movie, despite mediocre writing and a structured formula, was the spark and flair of the Reynolds-Bullock combo that sparkled just enough to steal your heart away.

Reviewer’s Rating: 6 / 10

(all images from imdb.com)

Click here to view the embedded video.

It has a great indie feel to it, but the production you can tell is really grand. There are great shots of India, not that I’ve ever seen India, but the images did transport me there. The cinematography was excellent, filled with vibrant colours but dark and gloomy when needed.

The story was captivating from the start with a sense of intrigue. It had everything; drama, suspense, tragedy, humour, adventure, loss and gain, even from love to sexual abuse. It really was a very “complete” story.

The child actors were absolutely fantastic to be able to conjure up all these feelings from the audience. But so were the rest of the cast who did well in their portrayal, be it to generate compassion or despisableness.

Credit definitely had to go to Danny Boyle for being able to go into the heart of India and really shoot a story about India. How Boyle kept going back and forth between flashbacks and the present were really well done. There were suspense in both to keep the audience wanting to go back and forth with him. But it was also the adaptation by Simon Beaufoy that really told the story.

However, I personally thought that some parts were overly melodramatic. Some parts were overly coincidental to be believable especially in a serious story like this one. And the ending just didn’t have that big fireworks to reel the whole thing home.

It definitely was a very well-written, well-directed and well-acted piece of masterpiece. But to win the movie of the year, I wouldn’t have voted for it.

Rating: 8 / 10

If you’re not a Judd Apatow fan by now, it’s safe to skip this movie. However, I’m still quite impartial. Apatow previous movies such as 40-Year-Old Virgin and Knocked-Up were just OK for me. I didn’t laugh till I dropped and I didn’t dislike them. I just don’t find those kind of jokes so funny that I’ll love the movies. Same goes with Forgetting Sarah Marshall.

But having said that, some of the most funny moments came from those jokes, and provided mostly by a great cast of cameos – and that will be all that I’ll allow myself to indulge in the matter.

I am not a fan of Segel from his permanent stint in HIMYM. But I thought he did very well in this one. He reminded me of myself as I went through that rough time, and I’m sure most of everyone has had their fair share of that experience. So as I could feel what the character was feeling even if not to the extreme extent, that made it even more fun.

Perhaps it’s because Segel wrote the script, hence the acting came so naturally. He embodied the character with a believable performance that’s well-balanced between humour and heartache.

Two new-comers to the Apatow fold were great in their performances as well. Mila Kunis was adorable and unforgettable while English Russel Brand was unforgettable as well albeit in a whole different sense. Segel’s script has given Brand’s character so much more depth as compared to Brand in Bedtime Stories.

It’s too early to judge Segel’s writing credibility with just this one. So until his next one in 2010.

Rating: 7 / 10

(all images from imdb.com)

Click here to view the embedded video.

Like Anne Rice’s Lestat; Edward Cullen has that sexy, romantic and mysterious complex going for him. But that’s where similarities end as far as vampire movies are concern because Twilight was innocent and pure in plot, filled with teenage angst and social challenges. The blood-thirsty, horror driven and sexually charged were all little to non-existence.

The lovely Kri sten Stewart came with the right amount of insecurity, curiosity and strength to play opposite Robert Pattinson who must be a household name by now among the girls. Their temptation for each other is strong but their touch is forbidden, and Hardwicke really played to these two extremes to drive her movie.

But when this took up three quarters of the storyline, it became too much of a good thing. The story development for the two leads just kept ploughing on with no end in sight. And it slowed the story progression down really fast and dragged on really slowly.

 

So much so that when the other Cullens appeared onscreen, they were such a pleasant distraction because they brought with them the much needed dynamics to offset what’s being focused on over and over. A bit more focus on the other siblings, or on Bella’s classmates for that matter, would have made the movie a lot better.

And even when the “bad” vampires showed up in the final act, and no matter how condensed they were written in, they were also a welcome to the monotonous.

Rating: 4 / 10

(all images from imdb.com)

Click here to view the embedded video.

And I’m not familiar with Tim Roth but it’s another wonder why he accepted this movie, though his performance was the best here.

The first three quarters were complete rubbish that it made no sense. And a pity really as if it were done properly it might have been a worthy romantic comedy with a touch of action in it.

On more than one occasion, the scenes were like an introduction to pornography that it’s really laughable. The end was the only part that’s any semblance of a movie of its genre.

That church filled with only beautiful, twenty-something virgin-nuns was the cause of most of the loopholes in this movie.

Christensen’s British accent was almost non-existent. At least Mischa Barton was speaking in her native tongue, as compared to her horrible accent in The O.C.

The soft-porn, I didn’t get at all, unless the target audience was boys between the ages… 15 and 17?

Rating: 3 / 10

(image from flixster.com)

Click here to view the embedded video.

 

I thought the story development needed work. Especially the part when Penelope ran away from home and months and months just passed by uneventfully, that didn’t make very much sense.

As a fantasy story, there weren’t enough of the fantasy element and hence the movie felt more like in real-life but without the realism of real-life, so it struggled at convincing its own identity.

How James McAvoy’s character slowly lured Penelope out of hiding should have done with greater impact as well as that was the turning point of Penelope’s character. But it passed by without even a touch of romance. And that’s where one of the greatest flaw of the movie laid ; the love between the two characters were never really developed for the audience to experience.

Another flaw was Catherine O’Hara’s as Penelope’s mother. I didn’t see her as a really bad parent at all until something towards the end happened to her. That’s when the storytellers told the audience that we need to label her as a bad mother. Hardly a justifiable punishment for an overprotective parent I thought.

And while we’re on character-flaws, Reese Witherspoon’s character never made the required impact on screen for the audience to register that she was playing a true friend to Penelope as that part of the movie went by too fast, making her character felt quite muddled.

My favourite performance from the movie would have to be Peter Dinklage, though again, a little muddled with his characterisation too. He seemed to be wherever he needed to be just so the movie could move along.

A potentially good movie that had too many flaws, suffering from bad storytelling.

Rating: 5 / 10

(all images from imdb.com)

Click here to view the embedded video.

And yes, I could see it. The sweet saccharine romance, the tear jerking scenes and the clever ploys by the husband who didn’t want to say goodbye too soon after death.

Problem was, it was sometimes a little over the top, sometimes a little silly, but mostly, the overall movie left me close to boredom. Perhaps it’s just me because the sweet saccharine had no effect on me.

Two actors were really, really bad. Nellie McKay who looked plastic the entire time with zero depth to her acting; and Harry Connick Jr who has never been much of an actor, in my opinion, ever since his stint in Will & Grace. Here he portrayed someone who spoke his mind without filters but he came off as a little bit retarded (I highly doubt that’s what he’s trying to portray). Most of the time, I didn’t even think his character was needed at all because the way he was injected into the storyline seemed too random.

And the ending, although by then I really didn’t care how it ended, it was very unexpected but not necessary in a good way. Even when it avoided the expected cliche, it really didn’t help the movie in any way.

One good thing was seeing Lisa Kudrow again but she only had one really good line. I must say, she’s still a little stuck in Phoebe mode, isn’t she?

Rating: 4 / 10

(all images from imdb.com)

Click here to view the embedded video.

My second biggest problem with this movie was the horrible accents used, especially Donald Sutherland’s English accent and Ewen Bremner’s Ukrainian accent. Halfway through, I totally forgotten Sutherland was supposed to be playing a British.

My third biggest problem was the storyline which wasn’t easy to follow when the cast was seated in the yacht trying to explain it to the audience. I think everyone in the audience was as lost as Alexis Dziena’s ditsy character.

My fourth biggest problem was Alexis Dziena’s ditsy character. She was one of the main “comic relief” for the movie and her silliness was not funny at all. She was the worst character of the bunch.

This movie suffered from a personality conflict. It should have made up its mind whether to be a romantic comedy or an action adventure. While it skips around from one to the other, it didn’t showcase that it was good at either and had nothing much to offer as well.

Rating: 4 / 10

(all images from imdb.com)

Click here to view the embedded video.