Change Your Image
carlaswayder
Reviews
Clown (2008)
First 2 minutes rocks and then goes 'B'
The beginning was the best part of the short. After that it was just anti-climatic. The boy, newbie actor Timothée Chalamet (as the young clown) was good but could have been a little more terrified, I would have been. And later, the older version clown played by veteran actor Peter Greene was good in his expressions. Greene did his job in what little time he had to go from new freak show addition to protector of the group. Guessing that Norman Reedus was the guy with the unrecognizable Slash from Guns n' Roses make up (wtf was that). Wondering why Reedus couldn't be himself with a little make up or scar or prosthetic, was he hiding his face because he didn't want to be a part of it?
What really made it for me was the mannerisms, accent, and pure evilness of Shamus clown at the beginning, played by stage trained and versed actor Paul Sampson (who seems to have vanished off the face of the earth), once more proving himself as a viable character actor, again hiding his male good looks. He rocks the moment severely, making something out of simple clown make up and intense conversation (loved the accent). I knew it was him from his orgasmic-ally hypnotic eyes, however, jury still out on if they are real or not, but he has them 'in' all his movies and photos. Also, didn't realize he (Sampson)still had that kind of killer body. Wow and wow again. Call me sick and twisted, but I'd go for a walk in his fun house anytime. Have me some Shamus clown meat.
Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles (1994)
different than i had expected-wanted more machismo
I was around 4 or 5 when this movie came out. I just saw it for the first time now. I'm a vampire movie junkie, and I admit a fan of Twilight, being a girl and a teen when that first came out, what choice did I have (lol). Thirsty for more I have been venturing out and watching older movies and came across 1994 Interview with the Vampire on Netflix. Not what I expected. I'm now confused about my entire "Vampire World", and not because of Twilight or Interview with the Vampire, but more because of 1992 Dracula, which I also recently saw (it came out when I was about 2 or 3),but I'll get to Dracula in a moment. As I mentioned I'm a Vampire junkie, and I came across and read Anne Rice's novel which got me to watch the Interview with the Vampire movie. Differences, some, Brad Pitt's character (Louis) was upset at the beginning of the movie about losing his brother, he didn't have a wife and kid in the book, but that's okay, point is, he was depressed. Also, when a Vampire's cries in the book, they cry tears of blood, but in the movie it was regular tears. I think they should have did the blood tears. Minor, but still felt an important detail. Here comes my biggest problem, I found it very "Gay" at times and almost uncomfortable. Brad Pitt was beautiful in the movie, and I'm not homo-phobic, trust me on that, but at times it was a little too effeminate for me. I know Vampires are A-sexual, and it's about the love and there is no sex more or less, but I felt in this movie it WAS about the sex the way the actor's played it, and their lust or their motivation for desire was homo-erotic and more sex driven and portrayed or should I say exploited than it should have been played. Their love or lust was Gay, and again, I'm not hating on "Gays", I like both men and women equally in that department, I just feel that the way it played out in the movie was more about sex than what it should have been. They were portraying Vampires, not humans. Not easy to explain in so many words, but it just did not come across as what two vampires should share, it came across as two mortals that were Gay. Before any one throws the first 'rainbow' stone at me, read what I've written, homosexuality doesn't bother me, or to be to the point, I'm Gay. I just feel they played it on a homo-erotic level suited for humans and not the love of two Vampires. Let me carry on from here, earlier I mentioned that I was confused after watching the 1992 version of Dracula. Here is why, I've been watching the Twilight movies, and several others (including "Interview") and then I watched Dracula. Dracula is on a completely different level. Gary Oldman and Anthony Hopkins are masters. I feel like a fool for being a fan of other Vampire movies. It's like I've been given "Movie Goggles" and now I can see the difference. I guess Interview with a Vampire was somewhat the Twilight of it's day, it looks great, it's cool, it's sexy, but Dracula feels real and not so, well, stupid. Interview with the Vampire was definitely worth the watch. Biggest drawback for me is that when I want a man, I want a man, and in fantasy land when I want to be taken by a Vampire, I want a Vampire. I like my women effeminate, not my men. Most of my friends are Gay, but when I want a man, I want a MAN. Felt like if I got into a threesome with these "Vampires" I'd have to strap on my strap on and take charge, and then smoke a cigarette after as they make me dinner and do my laundry. Maybe I'm just an ol' fashion kind of bi-sexual chick.
Haywire (2011)
"Haywire" Missed a Big Girl Power Opportunity
I'm a chick, and I've said it before and I'll say it again, I want to see movies where women have the power and not men. And here comes the long awaited and well-advertised Haywire. I'm on Board! Sign me up! Point me to the front of the Line! Opening night I'm there! I'm going to get to see a girl kick some man butt, how cool! And that's all I really got to see, good fight stuff. The story was week. The dialogue was even weaker, and the acting was the worst. I think she's very attractive for a fighter. Clean looking, in shape, not a air head model look at all. Physically, a girl who could 'represent' and she's a fellow Texan, too!!!! but did anybody think about getting her an acting coach. I can't blame her, she's not an actor, that is painfully obvious, but why didn't whoever spent all that money (20 Million plus) spend a couple of thousand dollars get her an acting coach... and what was up with the robot voice, she sounded so stiff. If she could act (and fight) she could have something going on and have a franchise thing like Schwarchernegger or Rambo or one of those guys. I rented that film with Geena Davis, 'Long good Kiss Goodnight' and was blown away. Wow, she could kick ass, looked good doing it, and could really act. But the girl in Haywire doesn't have that. Before someone throws another actress to the wolves take the time to teach her how to act. It's not her fault, she's a fighter. And the story and dialogue really sucking eggs didn't help.
X: First Class (2011)
Only one bad apple in that bunch
I got dragged along with my boyfriend for this one. He came with me to see Friends with Benefits and before that No Strings Attached, so I had it coming. He doesn't know it, but I liked most of them, (not the third one, really) and it wasn't hard to convince me. He's a little older than me and he knows the comic book story. I don't so I had no idea how the X-Men started. That's why I found it all interesting. My favorite character was always the Raven or Mystique character, and now I really liked the Emma/Frost character, wicked cool. The only girl that I thought was wrong was the one that could fly. She's the one that was the stripper at first and then she turns against Xavier. That actress didn't seem to fit the quality of the movie. I don't mean the character, the character was fine, but the actual playing the character didn't seem on the same level of Mystique, Frost, Magneto, Xavier, and the rest of the cast. She must be a producer's daughter or something, because there is no way they auditioned a hundred girls and that's the best they came up with for that role. The rest of the cast was cool, too, she was the only one that kept taking me out of the movie. I don't know how true to the comic book the movie was, but I like when movies go back to the origin and you learn how it all happened.
Morning Glory (2010)
Rachael Rocks!
As always, I'm all about the female heroine. Being that I'm a girl, what would you expect from me? I have to admit, at first I thought she was playing it too girlie, and then I realized that I have a hang up. She couldn't have played anything any better. She was gorgeous and vulnerable, and self-motivating and emotional, and a little girl, all at the same time. She was everything that a woman should be, and more, if possible. She was perfect. It made me realize that sometimes I think I act too manly, or at least try to put up this macho front and not expose my vulnerability. I know it's just a movie, but I learned something from the way Rachael approached her role. Guys like a woman who is a go-getter and all, but they don't want to date a man. As a woman, I think it's important that I'm able to be vulnerable when I am. If the guy doesn't deal with it properly, then it's time for me to move on. And I don't mean vulnerable like I'm having PMS and he doesn't understand. I mean vulnerable like I need to be a girl and not hide my insecurities. Because that's what a lot of women and men do—they mask their insecurities to hide their vulnerabilities. And now I realize that this has become more of a Dear Abby column than a movie critique. Ha! I guess it goes back to Rachael McAdams Rocks!
Knight and Day (2010)
Everybody Happy
Went to Knight and Day with my boyfriend. He's a big action junkie. I like romantic movies. It was more of a comedy. The odd thing is, we both couldn't stop talking about it after we saw it. I just loved Cameron in the beginning scene at the airport when she's in the airplane restroom talking to herself and building confidence totally unaware what is going on inside the main plane section (I don't want to give anything away so I'll stop there). She was so much fun and I really liked the way her character took charge in the end. Yes, I like it when women take charge in a movie, I'm a woman. Of course, my boyfriend got his share of adrenaline right from the start. That was one of the things we talked about. The scene I mentioned when Cameron is in the bathroom and Cruise is running about the plane kicking butt. We were both really enjoying that moment and for totally different reasons. In the end, the film was a perfect fit for us. Usually we can't agree on a movie to see, and when we do, it never really works out for us. This one did.
Avatar (2009)
Great Visual - Average Story
Tried to see Avatar opening weekend on the IMAX 3D but sold out. Saw it on a regular screen. Since then I was at lunch with some friends from school and all they kept talking about was the way it looked so real in 3D and how they felt like they were surrounded by the 3D flakes, and how the Avatar world and it's inhabitants looked so real, and how it didn't feel like CGI and so on. I wanted to jump in and be part of the conversation but I felt like I missed out because I didn't get the 3d IMAX experience. So I went this week and saw it in all it's glory in the 3D IMAX, and I realized something. I thought it was definitely cool, all the special effects and all that technical stuff, but then I realized something half way through the movie–it's a regurgitation of the story of Pocahontas, with the names changed to protect the innocent. I thought to myself, this movie is a revolutionary step in film making as far as special effects, but the story isn't. That disappointed me. How come film makers or Hollywood don't have an original thought? Don't get me wrong, once in a while something will go to the independent theaters that gives us something new. But why, even in a movie with so much special effects planning and all, do they still have to steal from another story? End of the day, if you are going to see Avatar, it's a must see on the 3D IMAX screen. And the execution of the movie is brilliant, but the story...well...I read it in middle school.
Angels & Demons (2009)
Should be Angels, Demons and Convenience
Okay I'm a chick and I'm not supposed to know these things, but why are all these series of movies that Tom Hanks is in are so conveniently laid out. And the battery thing? I learned in middle school that the cold ensures a longer lifespan to a battery, but in the movie they state the cold reduces the battery charge WRONG—No one on set knew that? Sorry, I really liked Tom Hanks, thought he was adorable in Big and so many others, but doesn't he read the script and have someone read it for him and why not say to the director, hey, how am always at the right moment at the exact time -- every time! I know it's a movie, but come on, you're making me look silly. And the first death that is supposed to be a public spectacle
it's in a basement under a hidden door
not very public on that one. There's more, but why bother, title should be 'Angels, Demons, and Convenience'. And don't you think they went a little too far out of the way to make us think the Swiss inspector guy was guilty. I mean the way he handled things, it's like he was a total dope. A man in that position would have been on it, especially after being wrong on the first murder. His character didn't fit his positions and the situations. Anyway, that's the least of the film's worries, it's the rest of it that stinks.