Armored

I went to see Armored this weekend. The one with Matt Dillon and Fred Ward. I enjoyed it quite a bit, despite the obvious glaring planning errors. If only they had called me to plan it first - nothing would have gone wrong.

So, the question is...who thinks that the heist they were talking about that occurred in 1988 was them? They said they didn't take enough money, so maybe this time they knew better. Still, if it had been them, wouldn't there have been a record of them being involved? And don't you think that would have been a bit suspicious if it occurred again? Flaw 1. But maybe it wasnt them the first time - maybe that just gave them the idea.

Flaw 2 - who doesn't check out the building first to be sure it is empty?
Flaws 3 & 4 - who would drink when the first thing they would be checking would be blood for drugs and alcohol? and who would shoot, knowing that the guns would most likely be tested for firing? Ok, still, it was good.

Flaw 5 - when offered the choice to come out of the truck, and share in the 42M, or stay in the truck and be killed when they get to you - or at the very least go to jail when the cops got there because how would you not be implicated at that point? Not to mention there is a dead homeless guy.

Ok - other than all that, I really liked it. There was time to show why the character would have made the choice he did to join. But that brings me to Flaw 6. He did it to save his home and keep his brother out of foster care. Wouldn't it be a bit suspicious to suddenly get enough money to save the house? He mentioned getting nasty letters from the bank, so obviously he was not going to be able to sit on the money for a year or so.

At the end, when it was all wrapping up, I mentioned to my movie partner that all he had to do is keep his mouth shut and no one would know that he was in the planning of it. And lo and behold what happened? He was considered a hero and would get a reward, thereby saving his house and everything else.

Still, if I were him, I would be looking for another job.

I wish there were people out there that could find this and respond to it. I really want to know if others like movies just for enjoyment as I do. Find me!!

Old Dogs and Amelia

Hello all you non-followers!

Even though I have no followers, I am still going to post anyway. I like to get my thoughts down on paper, and this is one place where I can give my opinion and not have anyone tell me I cant!

This weekend I managed to see a couple of films. I saw Old Dogs and Amelia. One was ok, and one was pretty disappointing. Guess which was which?

Ok - Amelia was not very good. It was very slow and disjointed in the beginning and only finally gained some life at the very end. However, most of it was just boring. It was interesting to see the media machine at work - a precursor to the frenzy that today's celebrities go through. While most people know that Amelia was the first woman to make a transatlantic flight, how many knew that she was not actually flying the plane, but was just a passenger? Also, that she was married to the person who published her book and made her the star she was?

Knowing all the little details, such as the money it took to get the plane she would attempt to fly across the world? Still, those few interesting facts could not make up for the long, boring other parts of the film. Definitely NOT going to be an Oscar nomination for Hilary Swank this time! I actually enjoyed Richard Gere's performance much more. He showed a nice array of emotion, and it was all believable to me. As for those who were upset at the ending...really? Did you think that maybe this time she was going to make it? You are the same people who thought Valkyrie would end differently, aren't you? Or Titanic?

Old Dogs was not something I will be running out to buy on DVD, but it was worth the matinee price for a few laughs. John Travolta was a bit uncomfortable to watch trying to be the "cool dude". Still, when he turned on the serious face, such as standing by his friend to the end, those are the moments when he shone.

As for Robin Williams, he pulled off the not-quite-so-funny-as-usual role quite well. I liked seeing him be funny, but at the same time be serious. The whole running gag of them being the grandfathers instead of the parent was nice, but not overdone. It was really a G comedy, and I think kids will really like it, and adults will enjoy it, but don't go to it looking for gut-busters, or ribald Williams humor. It is not there at all. And I have to say, the Travolta daughter was a sweetie!

Well, if you find me, let me know what you think!

Happy Thanksgiving to all my US followers! Haha - I have no followers!!

Today I go spend time with in-laws, wondering what to be thankful for. All in all, my life has been filled with lucky occurrences, so I am thankful for that. Today is really the day to realize that the few things I have to be thankful for far outweigh all the many things that I think make life miserable. I have my health, even though that is tempered by being overweight. I have a job that pays me plenty, even though my boss is not the best and the atmosphere has gone from being fun to tense. I have kids who are alive and healthy, even though they are rather selfish and self-absorbed most of the time. I have a roof over my head, food on the table, and a future that has no immediate end in sight.

There are thousands of good books left to read, and hundreds of good movies yet to see. It is a day to be thankful.

Remember, you cant discover new oceans until you are brave enough to lose sight of the shore.

Blind Sided in 2012

All right, so no one has found me yet. I am not sure what I have to do in order to get feedback, but I will wait a while and see if I get anything by then.

In the meantime...I saw Blind Side and 2012 this weekend. My critiques are as follows:

Blind Side - this was a not unpleasant 2 hours, but there were some points that were just left hanging. I think a little more conflict would have been nice, too. After all, did anyone NOT think he was going to choose Ol' Miss? Really? Now having him choose Tennessee would have been sweet, but as it was BASED on a true story, I suppose that would not have been fair. I really did like Sandra Bullock - all smart and sassy, and Tim McGraw was a nice treat, but still, those hanging parts...

For example, they see Michael's brother in the restaurant. No explanations. No asking to meet him. No inviting him over. Not even a name??? Come on! And if he hasn't seen his brother since he was very small, would he really have even recognized him? No clue either as to who all those people in the Projects were. Why did the one seem to be sympathetic to him? How was Ms. Tuohy able to find his mother, and why didn't she tell Michael about it? When she told her friends that Michael had changed her life...how? I certainly didn't see any change in her life, other than having another kid around.

As for 2012 - since the whole thing is one unbelievable thing, you cant pick it apart too much. After all, if you can believe the whole world is coming to an end, why cant you believe that a plane can land on a glacier or someone with no experience can help land that plane. If you can suspend your belief, and just go with it, it was enjoyable. It was a bit slow here and there, but mostly kept it's pace and kept me entertained. And John Cusack is always nice to watch!

Well, everyone else, what did you think?

A first time for everything!

Hello to the great websphere! This is my first post, and I am excited and hopeful that I will get some response.

I wanted to have a place where I can talk about the books I read and the movies I have seen, without having to deal with the opinions of those close to me. I thought a blog would be the perfect spot. Here I can get unbiased opinions, have open discussions, and not have to worry about offending those near me who are too sensitive, or be offended by them. I also don't want them to worry about hurting my feelings and therefore withholding truthful opinions. So this is it.

Now, is there anyone else out there who likes to discuss books and movies, without searching for the deeper meaning in them? I would like to hear from those of you who go see movies purely for the entertainment value of them...not to see the textural layers, or the underlying subtexts. I just want to know if you were bored, cried, or laughed yourself silly. Same thing for books.

Have you ever wondered, when Hemingway, or Jane Austen were writing their classic novels, did they really spend their time thinking about how to write it so that professors in the future would hold classes to dissect them? I think they just wrote what was feeling right to them at that time. So who decides that there is a deeper meaning, one worthy of college level courses?

I hope someone is out there and will find this. And if you do find this, I hope you respond!

And now, The Box (review)

So let's start this out with a discussion of the my review of the last movie I saw. The Box, with Cameron Diaz. What did you all think? I actually enjoyed the concept, and if they had deleted the entire middle section of the movie, I would have really liked it. Totally didn't get why it wasn't updated for current times - why did it need to be set in the 70s? Just to give us the opportunity to enjoy seeing a sofa match the wallpaper? What would you all do if faced with the final choice? Your child's future, or your own? Remember, this is to be light, not a debate on the Oscar potential of this movie. Let me hear from you!