I went to see Angelina Jolie in Salt on Sunday with my mother, and it was a pretty cool little action flick. I never got around to seeing the Tomb Raider films, so I can't think of an action movie I've seen her in before, but I thought she did really great here. The film has all sorts of plot twists, and as following them is half the fun I'm going to avoid them. To be fair though, if you've read a lot of Robert Ludlum, the movie may not have as many twists for you. The action sequences were great, and I love the fact that the role was originally written for a guy (Tom Cruse was attached for a while) just like the Ripley character from Alien, and in both cases I could not imagine these roles played by anyone else. I know that usually I focus on Fantasy, Horror and SF, but the spy genre is swiftly becoming a personal favourite of mine.
Dinner for Schmucks on the other hand, can't be classified as a genre pick, but it was a lot of fun none the less. I saw it with my wife and our friend Trish and all three of us left the movie figuring it was time well spent. In the same sense as Salt cannot be described completely for fear of spoilers, Dinner for Schmucks has the same problem as everything builds towards the dinner and the schmucks who attend need to be seen to be believed. I was very happy to see Jemaine Clement (who I loved in Flight of the Conchords) representing everything I find exasperating about artists. The two leads are great and I left the film definitely planning to purchase it on DVD.
So there you go, two reviews for the price of one! See you Friday.
No comments:
Post a Comment