Non-stop is actually a solid watch, even if it’s got its flaws. It’s basically popcorn cinema—just turn your brain off and enjoy the ride. It stays tense enough, which is pretty much all you want from this kind of flick. Liam Neeson is great, though Julianna Moore is definitely underused here.
I was honestly bracing myself for some total bottom-of-the-barrel garbage, but it actually turned out to be... alright? Look, it definitely has its issues—mostly the dialogue and a few scenes that feel borderline ridiculous—plus it drags in spots, but at the end of the day, it’s just your typical Hollywood blockbuster. Kiefer Sutherland is easily the best part of the whole thing.
Just a weird, uninspired mix of bad jokes and sappy, over-the-top drama. Honestly, the soundtrack might be the worst part of the whole thing. After seeing how good the Ides of March was, this feels like a massive step backward for Clooney.
6
More thoughts here: http://passpopcorn.com/2014/02/21/we...ents-men-2014/
Terry Morris41 said:The ending hits hard when he looks right into the lens like that—plus all those fourth wall breaks kept things interesting. What I mean is, yeah, the ending is way different from the book. They shifted the whole focus, but they pulled it off—makes the movie work.
I looked up how it actually ended in the book, and honestly? Glad they changed it. This version is much better.
Really solid! I'm a sucker for those movies with a huge ensemble cast where everyone’s got these messy, unresolved dynamics. It’s got a bit of a Bergman vibe to it.
It’s an adaptation of a Charles Bukowski novel directed by the relatively unknown Quentin Tarantino. Leonardo DiCaprio plays the lead—this totally unhinged detective named Bruce—as he tries to crack a case while simultaneously chasing a promotion.
I haven't read the book, but I actually enjoyed the movie. It’s got a cool, trippy vibe—definitely my kind of thing—and plenty of dark humor to keep things interesting. DiCaprio is hands down the highlight here; he absolutely kills it. If I had to nitpick, though, it felt a little "style over substance" at times—maybe a bit too much flash and not enough focus—but even with those hiccups, I had a good time. 7
I know it’s a January release, but man, this was rough. Pretty much nothing about it worked—except maybe Branagh’s acting, though I’d still point out how terrible Kevin Costner was and how grating Keira Knightley felt 😁 (she kept giving off those "let's meet halfway" vibes that reminded me of some old cheesy sitcom trope). I was looking for something mindless to zone out to, but instead, I just got a tedious slog.
4/10
More thoughts here: http://passpopcorn.com/2014/01/18/we...-recruit-2014/
I dropped my top 10 best movies of the year about a week ago over at http://passpopcorn.com/2014/01/09/to...ovies-of-2013/. Honestly, though—like I mentioned back then—I hadn't actually sat down with Her yet, but now? It’d probably land pretty high up there. Planning to catch Inside Llewyn Davis in the next few days to see if it earns a spot on the list.
As for the bottom 10 worst films of the year, I don't think we're looking at any massive shifts—you can check out that list here: http://passpopcorn.com/2013/12/21/to...ovies-of-2013/ It was a super tight race between the three worst ones on the list 😁
The movie was alright—definitely decent enough. The biggest highlights were easily Tom Hanks and Emma Thompson (especially her), who absolutely killed it. Sadly, that wasn't quite enough to win me over since the plot itself felt pretty thin. This kind of drama is super predictable and loaded with clichés, so from a storytelling standpoint, it didn't really bring anything new to the table. I hadn't seen Mary Poppins before either, and honestly, this version didn't exactly make me want to go track down the original.
It’s a shame, really, because all that acting talent could have been used way better—instead, I just have to settle for giving the film a "meh" rating. 7 out of 10
Groundhog Day is the latest from Richard Curtis—the guy behind Love Actually and Manhattan. It’s pretty much what you’d expect from his usual style.
The story follows young Tim (Domhnall Gleeson), who finds out the guys in his family can travel (only) back in time—so he tries to use that to fix his life and, well, find a girlfriend. Naturally, the lovely Mary (Rachel McAdams) shows up soon enough...
It’s a sweet, charming little flick that actually made me laugh quite a bit—solid rom-com territory, really. But honestly? The total lack of actual conflict started to grate on me by the end. Stretching a movie with zero real stakes to two hours felt a bit much.
6/10
More details here: http://passpopcorn.com/2013/12/09/we...out-time-2013/
copperstag95 said:So, is it worth seeing in theaters?
Surprised me how much I actually liked it—but honestly, skip the theater. It’s more of a cozy "watch it at home with friends" kind of vibe, though if you're a cinephile, go for it.
Overall, it really hit the spot. It isn't trying to be some high-brow masterpiece—not even close—which is exactly what I need from time to time. Like Anthony Booth4 mentioned, the kid is a natural; his acting is solid for his age, which helps a ton. Even if the plot is pretty mindless, I appreciated that there was an actual story there instead of just endless stunts.
8/10
Full review here: http://passpopcorn.com/2013/10/26/we...-grandpa-2013/
If I’m remembering right, the movie hit streaming yesterday!
It’s decent. Has some brilliant beats, though a few parts didn't quite land for me—for instance, I actually loved how they flipped that classic cartoon cliché about "believing in yourself to become anything." On the flip side, the structure felt a little wonky, almost like three different movies mashed together :/ It’s definitely not peak Disney, but it should hold the attention of both kids and adults since there are plenty of genuinely funny moments.
7/10
More thoughts here: http://passpopcorn.wordpress.com/201...iversity-2013/
Honestly, this was a total miss for me. The whole thing felt hollow—just empty characters and shallow writing. The acting was super stiff, too, and the dialogue sounded totally forced, like nobody actually talks like that in real life. I don't really get why Sofia Coppola chose this subject matter—it’s just not that deep, and there's nothing much to say about it. You could basically summarize the entire plot in two sentences; I don't see why we needed 90 minutes of this. I was never really a huge fan of Sofia Coppola's work, and after this, I'm even less of a fan. 3/10
So, what can I say about this one? 😁 Classic The Asylum horror—it’s got everything you expect, except this time the special effects were actually a total disaster. Honestly, the plot, the acting, the whole vibe... it was all pretty rough. But hey, as a huge sucker for trash cinema, I didn't mind sitting through it—I mostly just sat there laughing my head off and "enjoying" the chaos. If that kind of stuff is your thing, go for it; if not, definitely run the other way 😁
1/10
More thoughts here: http://passpopcorn.wordpress.com/201...harknado-2013/
Not great. Ashton Kutcher felt pretty flat and unconvincing here—nothing to write home about. But honestly, the script was the bigger mess; it just jumps wildly from one stage of Steve Jobs' life to the next without any real connective tissue. All in all, this feels like a massive missed opportunity because the late Steve Jobs was such a fascinating guy who deserved way more than this mediocre flick.
5/10
More on the movie: http://passpopcorn.wordpress.com/1...saw-jobs-2013/
This movie is honestly trash. Probably the worst thing I've sat through all year—just a total train wreck from start to finish. The plot, the soundtrack, the acting, the VFX... it’s all garbage. Even the title, >, makes zero sense since there isn't even a "City of Bones" to speak of in the story. And don't get me started on the villain—absolute disaster. Save yourselves the headache and skip this mess. I'm really crossing my fingers they don't make a sequel, though apparently, a second one is already slated for 2014. 😢
1/10
A few more thoughts: http://passpopcorn.wordpress.com/1...of-bones-2013/
Total slog through—tedious, boring, and the CGI is just straight-up painful. Honestly don't get why Jeff Bridges even signed on for this, and Ryan Reynolds is his usual grating self. Worst part? Not a single laugh. They completely wasted Kevin Bacon, too. No wonder it tanked at the box office.4/10
George Robinson43 said:I haven't seen it yet, but I suspect Smith botched it since he's the one heading this project.
What really interests me is whether Shyamalan actually stepped up his game technically, because his last few films have been quite distasteful. It felt like there wasn't even a decent attempt at editing; those mid-scene cuts make it seem like he couldn't care less and is only there for the paycheck.
I didn't have any major gripes with the technical side. Actually, there are a couple of really solid shots.
electriccanyon26 said:How was Wahlberg in Happening, though? I wouldn't go as far as blaming the director. (Smith isn't exactly an A-lister, but there isn't much to work with in a script like this. It’s almost funny seeing people claim Cruise was brilliant in Oblivion.) Has anyone actually sat through Happening? Just thinking about that disaster kills any interest I have in watching a new Shyamalan flick. Don't get your hopes up; maybe just listen to the critics this time. ☕
I haven't seen Happening, so I can't really speak to Wahlberg's performance. When I said it's more on Smith, I wasn't attacking Smith's acting—it's more that Smith came up with the concept, produced it, picked Shyamalan to direct, and even directed part of it himself. If we're talking about who's responsible for this mess, it's definitely Smith.
