Film's all-time most underachieving action franchise, "The Expendables," has come out with their first teaser for installment 3. And, this is a true teaser, in that nothing at all from the film is shown. It's just the cast walking away from the camera and turning around.
That's it! Nothing more. Wow, I am, like, so excited now! (yes, that's a joke!)
The first trailer for "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes" is live! Ten years have passed since the previous film, "Rise of the Planet of the Apes." Humans and apes fight for Earth's future after a worldwide pandemic cost the lives of billions.
Here is the YouTube Channel on which the trailer and subsequent videos will appear:
Location: 7910 Craft Goodman Frontage Rd, Olive Branch, MS 38654
Dinner Disaster!
This Chili's is in real need of leadership, and in need of structure. While some of the servers seemed to be okay, mine wasn't! Just a guy who seemed lost, didn't know the menu at all, and didn't know how to put an order into the kitchen.
It took one very extensive hour to get food, and it wasn't good when it arrived! The steak was overdone, the potatoes cold, and the broccoli seriously wilted. It took a while to get a manager, in this case, April. When she did arrive, I was able to get replacements for the potatoes and the broccoli.
The server had said that our ticket wasn't entered by the kitchen, but I am pretty sure it was by him. After the meal was finally over, I tried to get the manager again, but had to wait 15 or more minutes. When she did arrive, she comped the meal, and had said that she meant that earlier when she said she would "take care of it." I had thought she meant that she would take care of fixing the meal, not the check.
It was good that she did, but it was certainly too late! The food was okay when the right version came, but certainly not until then. And, this wasn't a day where I was in the mood for thoroughly bad service and mediocre food.
This is one of those movies that I can't review unless I go into why I didn't like it. So, yes, there will be extensive spoilers.
After seeing this, I wonder if the Coen's have been hanging out with Woody Allen. That's because "Inside Llewyn Davis" is as purposefully depressing as Allen's "Blue Jasmine." I give this movie one more star than the other, since the music is pretty good. But, that's the only reason.
Right from the outset, Llewyn Davis, the folk singer main character, is shown to be self destructive and depressed. We wonder why this is as the movie goes on. We do learn a key reason why that is, the sudden suicide of his singing partner. And, we can sympathize with that to an extent. But, apart from that, Davis gives us no reason to care any further. He does have to deal with a hyper angry girlfriend, who is only able to yell the same line at Davis again and again.
We are given little bits of hope for Davis here and there. Mainly in how he takes care of a cat that got out of an apartment where Davis was crashing. Davis loses the cat, and finds who he thinks is the right cat, but isn't. When he returns to the apartment with the wrong cat to where the original cat lived, we get one hilarious joke that had me really laughing. Davis leaves with that cat who wasn't the apartment dweller's.
But, that seemed to be a turning point in the movie, as the quirky, funny moments that came before stopped. From there, it got more and more dark and depressing.
When the Coen's have the scene where Davis leaves that wrong cat in a car along the road, it's as if the Coen's are telling the audience to go @#$% themselves. It's as if we are being made fun of for actually caring about Davis this whole time. We are shown that he really doesn't care about anyone but himself. So, why should we care? The end wraps this up, where Davis is playing on a night when the New York Times is in attendance. Davis performs passionately, for what seems like the first time. But, as it turns out, Bob Dylan follows Davis, on the historic night when Dylan received a positive review from the Times. So, we are led to believe that Dylan is the one discovered, while Davis is again left out in the cold.
I don't know if this film is supposed to be challenging somehow, or if it is just purposely depressing. My guess is that it is supposed to be depressing. I don't think that the Coen's really care about their audience in this circumstance. It is only that I saw the movie at a free preview that I'm not more agitated.
As for the rest of the movie, the music is good, but fairly low key. T. Bone Burnett, the man behind the music in films like "O Brother, Where Art Thou?," does well again here. But, the music isn't as memorable.
The cinematography in many recent Coen films has been by the great Roger Deakins. Here, it is by Bruno Delbonnel. It has heavily desaturated color, and is pretty diffused. So, it isn't at all attractive.
I would avoid this film until it is on disc or on cable. Paying $13 or whatever to see it is way too much. I am glad that my cost was $0. That seems like an appropriate amount.
I had been wanting to stop here for a while. But, it always seemed like I got there too late! When I did get there when they were open, I got there when a particularly agitated woman was going on and on about the exact way her tea was to be prepared. Lord!
After that finally ended, I was able to get my Cafe au Lait. It was fine, pretty straight forward. They serve it with a small chocolate bar, which is nice. I would consider the coffee average, the service a bit scattered, and the atmosphere average.
The much-hyped TV movie, "Bonnie & Clyde," is a mix of the good and the bad. There is excellent cinematography, sound design, and performance by William Hurt. But, there is also the excessive artistic license and lack of historical accuracy.
The result is a mixed bag that can't be either recommended or asked to be be avoided. The movie takes the view that Bonnie Parker was the instigator of everything that went on. She is portrayed as someone who is desperate for glory and is willing to sacrifice whomever has to be sacrificed to get what she wants. This runs counter to what history says, that Clyde Barrow was a criminal with little regard for human life, and was going to do whatever necessary so that he did not go back to prison.
The movie was shown in two parts. The first centered a lot on Barrow's experiences in prison, including being raped, which is particularly grisly. You used to have to go to a dark, R-rated film like "Deliverance" for that, but now you can see it on TV! There is a fair amount of bloody violence and PG-rated language. This most likely would be a fairly strong PG-13 or lower-level R, if it were in theaters.
The first part is mostly preamble, and not very interesting preamble at that. The second part is where the movie goes into high gear, with all the shootings and graphic violence I am guessing people came for. The highlight, though, is a great performance by William Hurt! When I saw him in the cast, I was very hopeful, since he just gave an excellent performance in the Discovery Channel film, "The Challenger Disaster." Here, he gets down and dirty as a determined crime fighter, who has no problems killing whomever he gets a chance to, or to union bust for greedy corporations. His telling of why he's come out of retirement to hunt down Bonnie and Clyde to a colleague is chilling.
After four hours, including commercials, the ending to the film comes so suddenly, you wonder how they could spend those four hours on all that came before it, and only spend a few minutes on the ending. Very bizarre!
The movie was directed by Bruce Beresford, who most famously directed "Breaker Morant" and "Driving Miss Daisy." Here, he makes the most of the script he has been given. The cinematography is excellent! Some of the best I have seen on TV in recent memory. The sound design is excellent and is striking through a good stereo set up. There are some real irritants here, though. John Debney's film score is pretty bad, only working well in the final 40 minutes of the production. The performance by the lady playing the exploitative newspaper woman is highly irritating. The voice over by Clyde, as with all voice overs, demonstrates laziness by the screenwriters. It usually shows a lack of imagination to use cinematic techniques to show what's happening, and instead just tell us with the voice over. Clyde's "second sight" construct by the screenwriters, in which he sees events before they happen is odd, but ironically provides some of the rare cinematic quality the film needed.
In the end, stylized tellings of history can work, when they are done well. Such was the case with Arthur Penn's classic version of the story from 1967. And, was also the case with the Brian De Palma-directed, David Mamet-scripted "The Untouchables" from 1987. There were definite historic liberties taken in both cases. But, since both films were so masterfully done, it doesn't matter! We know that neither was trying to be a documentary from the get go, so it's okay. We know that there are resources where we can learn the true story. The films are there as art, and great art at that. This TV movie definitely doesn't get there, though. And, that's the difference.
and Facebook 
