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!!

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?