"Cine-picks of the Week"

Since the last thread was 'hi-jacked", which is an understatement, I welcome those who actually appreciate my little service to KMC, to Vol. 2 of "Cine-picks".

In addition, all the mini-reviews will be catalogued in "The Cine-pick Archives" website which can be accessed by clicking the link. All the old reviews can still be read, by visiting the Original "Cine-picks of the Week" thread. Thanks for your continued support, and hopefully I've strayed a few of you away from some really bad flicks.

"You Can Count on Me"

"YCCOM" is a story of total plausibility, which is what drew me in. Samantha (Linney) and Terry (Ruffalo) were orphaned in 1982, after a car accident claimed the lives of their parents. Fast forward to 2000. Sammy is holding down a job at the local bank, while her nomadic brother drops in and out of trouble, work, jail, and life in general. After months without correspondance, Terry comes back to see Sam in Sunnydale, but only because he has no money. He then forms a relationship with his nephew, Rudy (Culkin).

Samantha isn't without her issues, however. Under the stress of a new boss, a failed relationship which produced a son, a new relationship on the horizon, and a subsequent affair, Sam also takes in Terry. Uneasy with the bond that has been forged between uncle and nephew, Sam must decide what is more important. Helping her brother in his time of need or protecting her son from Terry's nasty disposition and worldly views.

Without question, this is easily one of the best indies I have ever seen. Mark Ruffalo is absolutely brilliant. It was eerie to watch, having been in similar financial straits myself. His mannerisms reflected his sheer humiliation, while his outlook on life was made clear by his approach to things as simple as dining out. It was just mesmorizing. Laura Linney was superb as a conflicted single mother with her balancing act. Even Mathew Broderick, whom I hear very seldom from, delivered.

Considering the depth of the main story, and it's 4 sub plots, incredibly, everything was balanced meticulously and developed thoroughly. Totally devoid of anything in which you could get lost in, aside from the sheer brilliance in the acting of Linney and Ruffalo. Like I said before, the "real life" feel and plausibility of this movie kept me in it the whole way through.

Mark Ruffalo is as underappreciated as they come, and anyone who begs to differ needs to rent this movie immediately.

You can certainly count on "YCCOM" for a solid 2 hours of definitive independent cinema.

8.5/10

I've never even heard of this movie - I thought Ruffalo was stalwart in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and even memorable in the slightly shabby The Last Castle which considering he shared screen with James Gandolfini & Robert Redford is no mean feat. He's one to watch for sure.

I stumbled upon it at the library, luckily, after a friend recommended it. Another notable indie of his is "My Life Without Me" w/ Sara Polley. It doesn't rip your heartstrings out like "YCCOM", but it's still effective, nonetheless.

I wasn't too taken by his performance in "Collateral", as he wasn't playing his signature moody character, and "13 Going on 30" his lethargy was literally contagious.

I have a question why did you make another thread instead of just getting a mod to get us quite?

Glad to see you decided to make a new thread, I was sad thinking that there were going to be no more Cineviews.

Thanks, everyone. Glade people still appreciate what I try and do.

"The Recruit"

James Clayton (Farrell) one of N.I.T.'s finest is recruited by C.I.A top dog Walter Burke (Pacino). Crusing through C.I.A. training exercises, Clayton, like his father was a born agent. As Clayton's suspicions arise in regards to the shady Burke, he's asked to uncover a possible mole in Layla, played by Bridget Moynahan.

Clayton's trust is toyed with, his emotions strung out, and in the end, even I didn't know who to trust in this one.

After taking this one in, one word came to mind. Underrated. I know that most people would have seen the cover and throught one of two things. 1) "Oh, Colin Farrell" or 2) "Oh, another spy movie". Not so fast, Peter Prejudiced.

"The Recruit" is honestly a solid, underappreciated spy thriller, and probably the best since "Minority Report". Pacino seems to have coasted casually through this movie, letting Farrell flex his acting muscle, which he did. Very convincing and seductive, as was Moynahan. If you've seen Michael Douglas' "The Game", it has the same feel to it, where the credibility of the situations will pull you in either direction. Reality or just a superb joke.

If you're a big fan of psychological twists, real mind****ers, this one delivers. While Clayton is always neutral, as the testee if you will, both Burke and Layla are wishywashy, and very convincing when they pose on their respective sides. Unfortunately, the "who do you trust" routine get a little stale, and thankfully is abandoned and replaced with a little bit of entriguing espionage on the part of Colin a la "The Net".

The amount of plot twists and turns does make for a somewhat confusing movie at times, so attention to detail is a must in this one. I do recommend never trying to guess the outcome, or the characters affiliations early, because you'll more than likely be wrong.

In the end, it had just the right mix of intrigue, suspense, sexuality, and just flat out extreme situations to make for one of the better spy movies of late.

"Recruit" this one sometime. 7/10

When did it come out?

Last year,besides its a trainwreck of a movie.

2003, actually.

Originally posted by Stormy Day
Last year,besides its a trainwreck of a movie.

Care to elaborate? That's what this thread is for.

It wasn't a bad movie, worth watching. 7-10 is a perfect score.

"What About Bob"

Dr. Leo Marvin (Dreyfuss) takes on a new patient in Bob Wiley (Murray).
Neurotic, but irresistably loveable, Bob, over a fit of lonliness, tracks down the good doctor while he's on vacation at his lakeside retreat. He soon becomes the houseguest from hell to Leo, but is still welcomed with open arms by the rest of his family.

I'm trying to warm up to Bill Murray, but this movie only fed my dislike for him. "Bob" is a unique, entertaining character. It's just that his pest-like nature, which is what drives the movie, gets irritating. This began Murray's hit or miss string of early 90's hits.

I only found myself laughing at his early fits of Tourette's syndrome, which is just automatically funny shithead dickface assclown BLAH BLAH BLAH POOP EATER. Now tell me you didn't laugh? Ok, you didn't, well, **** you.

The supporting cast was just too 90's for me to try and enjoy, and they left absolutely no room for Richard Dreyfuss' character to open up to Bob, which is what I thought would happen. Instead, he plays a bitter ******* who finally goes nuts in the end. It would have been much funnier had the whole family accepted Bob, and he turned out to be an idiot savant, who actually made Leo look bad.

But, that's not what happened, and at best, the movie was average.

4.5/10

I only found 2 parts of What about Bob funny.
1) Where they do Good Morning America from the lake house.
2) When Dreyfuss shows up at the end for his surprise party and lunges himself at Murray in front of his guests.

Also, the ending scene with the bomb is kinda funny. I don't think I laughed at anything else.

I saw what about bob , but not the other two 😬 good reviews though 😄

Yeah, great reviews. 😄

They should be up on the main site ✅

"Hero"

Set in Ancient China, "Hero" chronicles the story of "Nameless," a magistrate of the Emperor's kingdom, and his encounters with 3 notorious assassins, the likes of which were all potential assassins of the great Emperor. Through a series of flashbacks, the story unravels, depicting how he overcame the fearsome trio, to assassinate the Emperor himself, in revenge for his fallen people. Nameless comes to find that he and the Emperor are not so different after all.

The backstory in the movie is one of love and honor. Whether it be love for one's homeland, it's fallen people, or love for their companion, it's all very strong, not merely hinted at as it is in "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon." The inseparable bond between "Broken Sword" and "Flying Snow," and that of Nameless and his origins are appreciated and well represented.

The sheer scope and magnificent color of "Hero" gave it an epic feel, in only 1/2 of the time span. Legions of uniquely ornate armies, elaborate, breathtaking set designs, rich, deep characters, the likes of which I cared for. Of course, there was the wire work, which was thankfully used sparingly. As an aside, the sound effects were solid. No Hollywood whooshes with the execution of swift kicks, just old fashioned jolting "thumps," the the clanging of swords and piercing arrows were shrill, but still a welcome change.

The story in "Hero" seems to have taken a back seat to the effects, as spectacular and tear enducing as they may be. Style over substance, some might say. The title of the movie itself, "Hero," isn't at all fitting of our main character in the conventional sense of the word. The storybook style in which the Emperor and Nameless' feud was written

Spoiler:
doesn't allow Nameless to fulfill his quest of assassinating him, due to them sharing the same grand vision of uniting China

My secondary complaint was the contradiction of Jet Li's' story compared to that of the Emperor of Qin. Nameless, obviously conjuring up the most elaborate stories possible, shares his exploits. The Emperor, knowing these characters better, apparently gives his version of what he thinks happened. Following that, there are what I would consider "random reenactments," which are jumbled, and then confuse the viewers, not knowing what story belongs to who, and what accounts ACTUALLY happened, as the 3 character in "Moon," "Sword," and "Sky" all suffer a different demise, 2 or 3 times respectively. If anyone can clear this up for me, I'd be most appreciative.

That said, once I was forced to decide the characters true fate, for the sake of continuity, I continued to enjoy the film. The landscaping the cinematography, the direction, the acrobatics, and the story, although flawed and devoid of real payoff at the end, all made for a pleasurable movie experience. I'd recommend it, however, approach it with an open mind, which means stray away from comparisons to any of it's wu xia brethren.

8/10

"Being John Malkovich"

A beatnik/fledgling puppeteer in Craig (Cusak) is looking for legitimate work, with which he can support himself and his wife, a frizzy haired, brown eyed, bi-curious dame named Lotte (Diaz). Undertaking a "speed filing" position on the 7 1/2th floor of a Manhattan high-rise, Craig loses a file behind a filing cabinet. Upon moving the cabinet, he stumbles upon a covered door concealing a portal. That portal, leading to the actual mind of one master thespian, John Malkovich.

Kaufman has done it again. I wasn't too hot on "Adaptation," but after finding myself totally enamored with "Eternal Sunshine," "BJM" was just another pleasant surprise. It's just utterly unique, and different. The characters were like none I had every seen, and oddly likable, given their "quirks". The story, even more so. A portal that leads to the mind of John Malkovich!? Charlie is indeed one of Hollywood's best screenwriters alive.

The plot was very rich, and chalk full of unique plot twists, which range from Lotte living out her bi-curiousities through Malkovich's mind, to turning an actual profit, literally "opening the door" to the public through "J. M. Inc.," where you yourself can "be" John Malkovich for 15 minutes, only $200 a pop. The only real turn off is that the dialogue runs a little long at times, in which you just want more of visuals in the cinematic oddity.

Just a totally new breed of movie that should be viewed and not just read about to fully grasp the literal genius of Kaufman's work. The visuals, the script, characters, twists, everything is running on all 6 cylinders in this film. Truly unique, and worth a look.

8/10

"Monty Python and the Holy Grail"

In this hilarious medieval spoof, King Arthur sets out on horseback (see: coconut halves being banged together to simulate a horses gallop) to find Knights to join him at the roundtable of Camelot. In his outing, he meets Sir Galahad, Sir Lancelot, Sir Bedevere, and the not so brave Sir Robin, Sir Robin. In a hodgepodge of events like the Salem witch trails, the black plague, etc, the Knights reach Camelot only to chicken out. Then "God" appears and instructs them to find the "Holy Grail." Comedic chaos, of course, ensues.

"The Holy Grail" is truly ahead of it's time in respect to the brand of humor. In 1975, Monty Python ruled the world of Brit comedy. It's snippy, immature, hokey, filled with visual gags, and we love it to this day. The story itself is swift, and thoroughly entertaining, as are the gaggle of characters, a lot of which are portrayed by actors, undertaking 3 of 4 roles a piece! An insane rabbit, a 3 headed giant knight, a castle full of beautiful virgins, a mouthy, insult hurling Frenchman, and a shrubbery loving stable of evil Knights are just a few of the colorful characters that can ONLY be found in a flick such as this.

If you haven't already seen this movie, or it's been a few years, give it a look see. It's one of the best parodies of all time, and much more entertaining than 2004s "King Arthur." Rent it, or I shall say NEEP!

8/10

I love that movie,it's hilarious.

^^agree, just abit upset on the ending