You may also like
Django: la otra cara torrent reviews
MEC r (ru) wrote: I didn't like this film.
Nick A (de) wrote: This doesn't even stop at smelling like low budget. The writing is off the charts horrible, some actors are actually trying to make something out of it (and fail), and to top it off, the camerawork, the killings, and possibly the direction is totally off.
Kyle M (br) wrote: Sandler's first family-orientated film was by his usage of the Disney magic does results of course family appeals and laughs, but also some silliness when Sandler occasionally used a couple of his old comedies' traits to blend with Disney that'd ended at a good result. (B)(Full review coming soon - with better wording probably)
Jeff S (au) wrote: The dramatic and comedic (for the most part) aspects of this film were actually top notch. The issue was that they just didn't mesh a lot of the time, and there was too much flipping back and forth. Still a good film, and I DEFINITELY have to try that random card trick technique at some point in the future; looks like so much fun!!
Private U (mx) wrote: This is the real one. Not the one with Jack Black.And Camp Rock should not be anywhere near this movie on the "similar" scale. Get it out of here.
Keenan S (ag) wrote: When I tell people that I watch any type of film, I really do mean it. Though I am a guy, I'm certainly not above watching chick flicks. However, that being said, chick flicks have also given me some of the worst film-watching experiences I've ever had that still scar me years after watching them. Sometimes I even shudder as I recall the experiences of watching them.I know there are female viewers that try to say that these films are escapist entertainment, much like what us guys watch when it comes to action films or gross out comedies, but even the stupidest of those films still have some level of respect for their viewers, even if it is rather minimal at times. With a film like Material Girls, it has no respect for its viewers. It views its audience as a bunch of prissy, whiny, stupid, glamor-obsessed girls with roughly the same brain cell count as a cardboard box, while throwing in a half-assed moral message that means nothing in the end.It's a film that thinks if it sticks popular (At the time, of course) preteen icons for girls into a film, fashion, annoying pop music, romantic cliches so lazy you'll want to vomit, pop culture references, and a gamut of other things that plague chick flicks, that it can just get away with being a piece of shit because of its "target audience" which is quite shameful. Oh no, Material Girls, I'm not letting you get away.Sisters Tanzie and Ava (Real-life sisters, Hilary and Haylie Duff) are two rich girls who spend all their time partying and shopping, as they inherited their late father's cosmetics company, even though they do nothing to help run it. They are simply riding on the cash flow from the company.But, Tanzie still dearly misses her father, even watching an old TiVo recording of him promoting his cosmetics every now and then and refusing to erase it, despite pressures from her sister to do so.But one day, their lives are turned upside down when a tabloid program claims that the company's cosmetic products cause terrible skin conditions, threatening to destroy the company, causing their assets to be frozen, having an angry mob after them, and losing all of their so-called "friends" in the process.While at home in their mansion, with an angry mob outside their gates, a fire is accidentally started, burning down their mansion and forcing them to stay with their maid, since their credit cards are no longer active and they can't stay anywhere else. They are now homeless, broke, jobless, and completely clueless as they have no idea how the outside works from their insular rich bubble of a world.But, there is a ray of hope for the girls when a rival cosmetics company offers to buy their company for several million dollars. But, Tanzie refuses the deal, and decides to start an investigation into what is really going on at their company since she believes that they were framed, resulting in a series of supposed-to-be-funny shenanigans along the way as they investigate.I do enjoy a good comedy about high society or takedowns of rich people (Including celebrities), but Material Girls is horribly dissatisfying in its storytelling. Even by the most minimum standards of chick flicks, this storyline is vacant and hollow, doing only the bare minimum to have a story and one-note characters so that it can be considered a film. There was absolutely no effort or care put into the storyline. This is easily one of the most lazily-written films I've ever seen. The average viewer, even if they possess no writing abilities of any sort, could write a script that would look Oscar-worthy in comparison to this script.The two lead characters are nothing but two spoiled, bratty bitches, while the Tanzie character only has the minute elements of being a semi good girl sort of character who is also slightly smarter than her very dim-witted sister, Ava. I never rooted for them and I never cared, even when their characters seemed to become smarter and learned how to be semi-normal people.Even with cast members like Anjelica Huston and Brent Spiner (Who also appeared in another horrible comedy, The Master Of Disguise. Were things really so bad after they stopped making Star Trek films for awhile?), the script does absolutely nothing with them, outside of simple caricatures, being possible lame villains, or red herrings in the story's abominable insertion of mystery elements that makes even the most generic of mystery films look masterful by comparison.It also has absolutely nothing insightful to say about rich people, high society, regular life, clearing one's name from a false accusation, or anything all together. It's all about following two air-headed tarts who aren't even funny or interesting air-headed tarts (I should have Romy And Michele's High School Reunion again instead. Now that was a funny film about air-headed tarts).The acting is horrible across the board. As much as I disliked A Cinderella Story, in which Hilary Duff was the lead star, I felt that she gave a good performance in that film and showed signs of being far more capable than what that film would lead the viewer to believe. Unfortunately, that aura is definitely not present in this film. Here, Hilary Duff is just annoying, though at least she's more tolerable than her sister. I'm not sure what sort of acting abilities Haylie Duff might possess, but she was beyond bad in this film. Together, they're both just annoying tarts that began to grate on my nerves within less than two minutes of watching this abomination.Anjelica Huston is shamefully wasted and her presence is practically nonexistent, though she is probably the best actress of the bunch by doing another bitchy sort of performance, which was mildly entertaining at times. No other cast members are worth noting, other than expressing sadness over seeing the decline of Brent Spiner's career.Entertainment? What entertainment? This film is so hollow and vacant, that even viewers with the most minimum standards for chick flicks will be hard-pressed to find anything of value in this film. It has only the most shallow elements of storytelling, characters so one-dimensional they are one step away from just being cardboard cutouts, horrible and unfunny jokes, and horrible acting. There is nothing to derive from this film other than brief moments of Anjelica Huston's performance which can be momentarily entertaining to watch.Humor? Are you fucking kidding me? For comedies I usually try to have an extra paragraph to dedicate to humor, but there is not one positive thing that I can say about the humor. There are no funny parts.Material Girls is a horrible film that has only a single redeeming quality thanks only to Anjelica Huston's performance. Other than her, there is nothing of value to find, even if you have even the most shallow of standards for this type of film. Avoid it at all costs if you want to keep your sanity intact.
Cameron J (ca) wrote: "G-G-G-Gia!" Yeah, watching grass grow on a Chia Pet is cool and all, but with a Gia Pet, you need only to sit back and watch the lips grow! I don't know if Angelina Jolie was great casting for Gia Carangi, but Mila Kunis was decent casting for a young Angelina Jolie, although I can't see Kunis could ever grow lips like these. Now, come on, Carangi and few other women in the history of modeling have had lips these big, and it's not like heroin makes you bloat. Yeah, now that's the way to sell this film, because a young Angelina Jolie going bi in a TV series that was made for HBO partly as a big middle finger to the FCC sounds terribly dull. Well, naturally, it's been cleaned up quite a bit ever since they started running it on Lifetime, but don't worry, because without the nudity, it's still a decent soap opera, probably because the director and score composer went on to make a jazz opera. Considering all my rambling, the idea behind a jazz opera must be more interesting than you'd expect an Angie Jolie-starring, bisexuality and drug-themed HBO film, but don't worry, because for a film showed on Lifetime these days, it is interesting, for all of its shortcomings. The film follows a pseudo-documentary style by incorporating interview footage of performers as Gia Carangi's peers that feels rather expendable, due to an uneven usage of the interview footage, which, by its own right, is disconcerting enough by eliminating a sense subjectivity that takes you out of the drama's intimacy, even though it tries too hard to supplement thematic focus. If nothing else, the unevenly used documentary style glosses over certain material, although it's not as though the film waits for someone to come in and objectively explain the situation so that it has an excuse to pick up the pace, because no matter how much filler leaves the storytelling to drag its feet to runtime of a little over two hours, this film isn't long enough to get all that deep into the nuance of the lead. There's a certain sense of aimlessness deriving from the film's jarringly alternating between repetitious dragging and a certain rushing which is arguably more recurrent than anything in this character study which seems to be missing something, at least in terms of a sense of material, and gives you not much beyond the bare bones of the subject matter, just like so many other TV films. Man, even Terence Blanchard's corny score is distractingly trite, but the conventions don't end there, because as ambitious as this film is as an edgy drama on premium cable, it feels much too much like a TV film, complete with messy pacing that is manufactured to accommodate a channel schedule, and with a superficiality that is often forcibly maintained. Quite frankly, there's hardly any subtlety to Jay McInerney's and Michael Cristofer's, which is sloppy and undercooked enough without contrived characterization and set pieces that beat you over the head with themes regarding a disturbed girl being broken by the modeling industry, and finalize the script as hands-down the biggest issue of the film, even though subtlety issues also stand firm in a directing Cristofer's abuse of the trite, either flashy or bluesy score, and over-exploration of the problematic writing. I don't know if it's reflecting an ambition or a laziness, but the film's sentimentality plagues the final product throughout its course, almost as much as the script's subtlety issues, problematic structure and TV-grade superficiality, which render the final product kind of inconsequential in a lot of ways. The film would have fallen into mediocrity, at best, if it wasn't inspired in a number of ways that are common for TV flicks this high in profile, because as misguided as this drama is, it has distinct dramatic strengths, and some technical strengths. Well, perhaps the only technical aspects worthy of some sort of note is Rodrigo Garca's cinematography, which, even then, has a certain flatness that takes some getting used to, but proves to be very appealing once you are able to embrace the subtle softness of the lighting, whose shadowy spots all but carry lyricism to their capturing the bleakness of this subject matter handsomely. I reckon Garca does a much more consistent job of selling this drama than the storytellers, although he couldn't have done it if Michael Cristofer's direction didn't do a decent job of playing up style in the context of substance, getting sentimentally misguided in his overplaying a contrived score and script, but having some moments of subtlety that are unusual for a TV film like this. This is HBO we're talking about here, thus, Cristofer is not held back by boundaries set by commercial breaks and censorship, and although he is held back by TV film sensibilities that stand firm, only with a little more nudity and swearing, he does give this film a certain edge that does justice to edgy subject matter. The story of punk-turned-troubled model Gia Marie Carangi is nothing new for dramatic filmmaking, in terms of theme, focusing on her drug addiction and bisexual affairs, both of which make for a story that is more intriguing than formulaic, with a dramatic depth that is betrayed by flimsy scripting and some misguided spots in direction. It's the performances which really bring life to the humanity of this drama, for just about everyone has a time to shine, whether he/she be Mercedes Ruehl as a loving mother of a troubled woman, or Elizabeth Mitchell as the fearing love of the troubled woman, or Alexander Enberg, Eric Michael Cole, and other caring peers to a troubled woman. It all leads back to the disturbed Carangi, so it should go without saying that most of the material falls on the shoulders of the beautiful Angelina Jolie, who was merely up-and-coming when she took this project, the other side of which broke her out, as well it should, for Jolie is more convincing than the writing when it comes to selling the edgy, glamourless nature of a woman who was touted as glamorous, being charismatic in her roughness, until Carangi becomes lost in her addictions and allows Jolie to become lost in Carangi, gradually projecting more and more intensity, more and more anguish, until anchoring powerful moments in the film through a convincing and emotionally charged portrayal of a beautiful star who must face devastating consequences for her actions and addictions. Jolie is revelatory, and if there is genuine impact in this drama, then it rides on Jolie's back, supported by the worthy subject matter and highlights in other performances, both on and off of the screen, that make the final product fair, for all of its shortcomings. Once the shoot has wrapped, uneven and questionable usage of interview footage take you out of the character drama almost as much as pacing problems, TV film conventions and superficialities, and contrivances, found in unsubtle writing and sentimental direction, make the final product an underwhelming TV drama, brought to life enough by worthy subject matter, handsome cinematography, moving directorial highlights, and strong performances - especially by Angelina Jolie - to make Michael Cristofer's "Gia" a fair and sometimes moving, if superficialized portrait on how far someone of great beauty can sink. 2.5/5 - Fair
Billy B (de) wrote: Omg, saw this when it came out and quickly became the worst movie I ever saw at that time.
Sohrab H (au) wrote: Forget Nurse Rachet, Hannibal Lecter, and Norman Bates... Francis Uruquhart is easily the most twisted and evil character character I have seen yet. Ian Richardson is a phenomenal actor. Interesting use that this series does with constantly breaking the fourth wall. Not surprised at all that Netflix wanted(and won the bidding war) to remake this series with Kevin Spacey and David Fincher(released at the end of this year). The next two installments of this trilogy : "To Play The King" and "The Final Cut"
Greg W (ru) wrote: kinda like king solomon's mines except in so america
John B (ru) wrote: Entertaining but not groundbreaking. Makes for a solid Friday night.