DECEMBER MOVIE PREVIEWS – You’re Welcome, Jews – Part B

November 28, 2012

I’m more informed today!

I saw LINCOLN last night, so I’m a fucking history buff. Well, until that knowledge wears off and I start thinking about something else. Did you know Lincoln freed the slaves? WHAAAAT?! And Tommy Lee Jones helped a lot, as well as the Gail from Breaking Bad. It’s really something.

I did like Lincoln and as wordy as it was I thought it was interesting and kept my attention for the entire movie. I think my only problems with the movie was that the movie was entirely based on the 13th Amendment, so the climax is the passing of the 13th Amendment, which is fine, but that means the assassination is an afterthought and is shown to be in the movie. The movie wasn’t about the assassination and I realize that and just mentioned that, but that does provide an unsatisfactory ending in my opinion as far as what one would expect from a movie about Lincoln.

Second problem, they changed people’s names. A lot of people’s names. Their reasoning is that they don’t want to rub it in any more that their ancestors voted for slavery. Fuck that. What happened happened. Leave the names in there because that’s apart of history. You’re making a movie about how history was made then put the history in it. I didn’t like that. I also felt like that was even more bullshit considering they use real names in other places that are not the most flattering either. So, why not in this case? It’s stupid and wrong. It doesn’t change my opinion of the movie, more so Spielberg.

But I did like it a lot. It’s a movie that probably would have been best served to been made in the 50’s or early 60’s with black and white and the hokeyness of a Jimmy Stewart movie, but they did a great job with this. It’s a tough subject to make seem serious when we teach it to kids. I enjoyed it. Another one for Daniel Day-Lewis. Another one for Sally Field playing someone mentally unstable. And so on and so on.

Back to work with the previews…


I kind of don’t want to see this.

Actually, I really don’t want to see it, but feel like I have to because of who directed it. I thought “The Hurt Locker” was a good movie or a really good movie and not too much beyond that. I don’t think it was “great” and I don’t think it deserved to win all the awards it did – some maybe, but best picture? Anyway, she’s back to make another Middle East war movie and this one is about the killing of Osama Bin Laden. First thing that really catches my eye in this movie is Jessica Chastain. Is there a Jessica Chastain in real life that did this? I have seen some news pieces and articles about the manhunt, but did it all come down to the red headed and young shoulders of a Jessica Chastain? Whether it is real or not in that case, it reminds of “Homeland”. How could it not? Just visually we have this thin, pretty, white chick making all the tough decisions to catch the greatest terrorist of them all. So, that makes me not want to see it. It makes me feel like this is a very trivial telling of this movie that it is pretty much a “Newsroom” version of Osama Bin Laden getting killed.

I immediately feel like a subject that is pretty near and dear or should be is going to be treated with a not so true to the story brush. I didn’t see Oliver Stone’s “World Trade Center” or Greengrass’ “United 93” for similar reasons. I think they rushed into making a movie about something that probably deserves a movie because of these peoples heroics and how high profile it was to all of us, but maybe they’re not going to do the best job on it because it’s more complex than just a movie and more complex movie than those directors are able to tell. Ms. Bigelow did a good job with “The Hurt Locker”, which was an isolated fictional story, which only concerned about 3 characters. Does that mean she should tackle this supposedly real story? I don’t know. Also, who cares I guess, but it just rubs me the wrong way.


Didn’t read the book. I know it is based off a book series and I know that the guy in the book is nothing like Tom Cruise. I would also like to add that the title is terrible. Who is Jack Reacher? I don’t know. From the trailer, it might as well be another “Mission: Impossible” movie that is more low tech than we’re used to. I don’t like these movies that are just names when those names don’t mean anything to us. I’m sure those books sell fine, but not fine enough that the viewing public knows who Jack Reacher is. On top of that, what is so special about the name Jack Reacher that anyone should remember it? John Carter? Why remember John Carter? John Carter of Mars? That’s something to remember. Originally, this was called “One Shot” which is what I assume the book was called. That’s also not a good title for a movie unless they really sold us on the sniper angle more than Tom Cruise being in it. Nevertheless, I’m seeing this.

Why? I’ve seen almost every Tom Cruise movie. The only one I can think of that I didn’t see is that “Lion for Lambs” nonsense that Robert Redford directed. Good Lord that looked like shit and was reviewed to be shit too. Tom Cruise running around with a gun? Sure, why not. Seen it two dozen times already, but I can do more. The real reason I want to see the movie is the screenplay writer and director is Christopher McQuarrie. I absolutely love the movie “The Way of the Gun”, which was Chris’ baby. He hasn’t directed another movie until this one and I’m thoroughly interested to see what he comes up with. Whether he’s true to the book or any of that, I don’t know, but I do want to see what McQuarrie has for only his second movie in 12 years.


I haven’t watched it yet. If you have even a cursory knowledge of the internet then you should be able to procure yourself a copy. I scanned it for a few moments to see what the feel of the movie would be and to see what moments of the book they would highlight. I’m thoroughly unsold on Garret Hedlund in his casting as Moriarty. I assume I will forever be that way. I don’t think Hedlund is a particularly good actor. He’s passable, but he needed to be good/great for this. I do want to watch this movie and give it a good shot as the real thrust of my wanting to see this movie is the director Walter Salles. I am more comfortable with him as a director of this movie than most and I think in the end it will be good, but I’ll still be lamenting the decision with Hedlund. And there’s also…


There are those. I’ve seen those. It’s kind of difficult to be on the internet and not see them. Nevertheless, I have definitely seen them and them is wonderful. Thank you, Mr. Salles. I guess it’s a toss-up between casting a less than stellar, nothing special actor to play the role of a thoroughly beloved character who was a real person that was an integral part in American literature for nearly two decades … and … getting the Wantess of Want to show her nips a couple times for the world to see over and over and over again. I guess that’s toss-up.


Obviously, seeing it.

Not only is it a pseudo-sequel to “Knocked Up”, it kind of seems exactly like “Knocked Up”. There’s even the drugged up freak out scene in a hotel room. I think this should be funny in all the ways that Paul Rudd has been funny for the past several years. Paul has come into his own as a leading funny man in the past half decade and it has been quite enjoyable. I really like a lot of his movies. I really liked “Our Idiot Brother”, “I Love You, Man”, and “Role Models”. I’ve seen all three multiple times. Also, Leslie Mann is great and so is Judd Apatow. This couple was great in “Knocked Up” and at times were better than the main couple we were supposed to be so highly invested in. I think it will work as a funny movie, but also work as the Christmas holiday family movie with an R rating that it is being pitched as. It’s a solid concept and I’m looking forward to it.



Between this and “The Dark Knight Rises”. There hasn’t been a movie that came out this year that matched how badly I wanted to see those two. The first lived up to and defeated its expectations and now this. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve watched QT’s movies. I’ve seen Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown, Kill Bill 1 and 2, and Inglorious Basterds dozens of times. Dozens. I can’t turn those movies off and they don’t get worse. They are brilliant movies. I’ve also rewatched his segment of “Four Rooms” dozens of times. The only blemish on his record is that “Death Proof” movie. I really wish he never made that movie because he’s batting a 1000 without that movie. There is absolutely no way this movie will be bad. The guy doesn’t really know how to make bad movies. It’s been 3 years since Basterds, which sounds like a lot because I’ve easily seen that movie over 20 times. It feels like just yesterday when that came out. I’m really looking forward to this movie. What QT has accomplished already with genre movies has been astounding. He took his love of samurai movies and made the best modern samurai movie (2 movies) one could make. He likes gangster movies so he makes the best gangster movies. He likes heist movies so he makes the best heist movie. He wants to make a 70’s style shoot ’em up World War 2 movie with balls and nails it. Now, he wants to make a Western mixed with blaxploitation? Is there any fucking doubt this will be tremendous? My only problem is that I set too high of a bar for Tarantino, but he’s surpassed it with everything but “Death Proof”, so why not. I expect a lot and he gives a lot in return.

CAN’T FUCKING WAIT! I don’t care about presents, just give me Django.


I’ll end up seeing this.

I’ve seen documentaries about the West Memphis 3 for years. I’ve donated money to the West Memphis 3. I’ve listened and read and thought it was terrible what happened to them. And amazingly they were released. I’ll see this because I imagine it has footage of them being released and interviews with them afterward, which will be nice to see. Of course, if you don’t know about the West Memphis 3 then definitely do some research immediately and stop living in that cave you have been in for 2 decades.


Ugh… Tom Hooper. I don’t like Tom Hooper as a director. Don’t know the guy personally, but at his chosen profession – I’m not a fan. The man behind “The King’s Speech” and “John Adams” HBO mini-series brings you this. I don’t want to see it because he made it. I’m not against musicals as I’ve seen many in my time and I like most of the actors in the movie, but I don’t like Tom Hooper. He seems to be up to his old tricks in the trailer and I’m just not a fan of how he believes he should tell a story. Either way, I imagine this will be a big success and be nominated for a bunch of awards and win them and I’ll be glad once again that I don’t watch these awards shows.


We’re still making this fucking garbage?

Who actually wants to see this?

Who has even heard of this?

Isn’t Billy Crystal so old and brittle that even trying to lift a child of any weight would cause his bones to shatter? All of his bones?

Where did they even get that headshot from him? That has to be a photoshopped head from “City Slickers”? Who even knew that Billy Crystal still made movies? I thought he just appeared on awards shows and Letterman from time to time. And the rest of this cast? Bette Midler and Marissa Tomei? Is Tom Everett Scott the guy from “Dead Man on Campus”? Good Lord! I feel like who ever directed this movie got the rights to do through blackmail. He had some damning emails on some Hollywood producer and now we have this movie.

Fucking terrible.


This is the lovely Elizabeth Olsen. She’s in a movie called “Therese”, which has no trailer or movie poster that I can find. But there is a description for the movie…

In the film, set in the lower echelons of 1860s Paris, Thérèse Raquin (Elizabeth Olsen), a sexually repressed and beautiful young woman, is trapped in a loveless marriage to her sickly cousin, Camille (Tom Felton), by her domineering aunt, Madame Raquin (Jessica Lange). Therese spends her days confined behind the counter of a small shop and her evenings watching Madame play dominos with an eclectic group. After she meets her husband’s alluring friend, Laurent (Oscar Isaac), she embarks on an illicit affair that leads to tragic consequences.


I fell asleep twice while reading those few sentences. My first question is “Camille” is a dude’s name? My second question, did this movie have a script? I imagine it’s a lot of Elizabeth in drab browns pretending to work with a mopy face at a bakery and then there are a bunch of shots of her running around the street of “Paris” with a big smile on her face in the Sun and then there are shots of her running around the streets with a big frown in the rain. There will also be a lot of hurried kissing sequences between her and “Laurent” where they smash faces more than kiss. Those kisses where they have their noses pressed hard against each others cheeks so that they snort like horses in between these passionate lip bumps.

I couldn’t be less interested in this movie. I’ll only see a second or two of it if Olsen gets naked and I’ll catch those clips on DailyMotion. But outside of that, you would really need to hold my family hostage to see Therese watching her Aunt play dominos. That sounds like fucking Hell.

That’s December!

And onto another year of existence that the Mayans were not prepared for. FUCK YOU, MAYANS!

One Response to “DECEMBER MOVIE PREVIEWS – You’re Welcome, Jews – Part B”

  1. PWG said

    I didn’t see Lincoln. I did see Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, though, and I figure this new one covers much the same ground so no need, right? I don’t know anything about Daniel Day-Lewis other than he likes to stay in character on set. The last DDL movie I saw was Last of the Mohicans 20 years ago. I’m more impressed by actors that can bullshit around with their co-stars, including calling them by their real names and not their characters’ names, and still turn it on for the cameras, though.

    Zero Dark Thirty: I’m glad they dumped him in the ocean and I don’t want to see a movie about his capture. You could argue that it falls into the same movie category as Munich, which I loved, so maybe this is just too soon?

    Jack Reacher: No. Woefully miscast. No.

    On the Road, This Is 40, West of Memphis, Therese: No

    Les Mis: Yes

    Parental Guidance: HELL, no, followed by “I don’t even get the premise.” She calls her parents and says her husband(?) is out of town and she needs them to watch the kids, but then she spends nearly every frame of the trailer with both kids and parents? I’m sure they explain it in the movie, but since I’ll never see it, I’ll go to my grave perplexed.

    And I know I’m the target audience for This Is 40, but I just don’t care. Not even to hear the carefully selected blast from the past soundtrack I’m sure saturates every second of it. I didn’t like Knocked Up much either.

    Django Unchained: HELL, yes. Probably multiple times. My God, his stuff is watchable. Just the shot of the blood splatter on the cotton. Like in the Lord of the Rings trailer, where Gandalf bellows, “You. Shall. Not. Pass!” to the Balrog and I always get a little choked up. Good stuff.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: