Revolver just got stupid.

eta The only good thing so far is that Jason Statham is stretching himself as an actor. Which, as much as I love him, isn't saying all that much in the grand scheme of things. But still, relatively, I'm impressed.

eta The only good thing so far is that Jason Statham is stretching himself as an actor. Which, as much as I love him, isn't saying all that much in the grand scheme of things. But still, relatively, I'm impressed.

I think one thing Guy Ritchie does do is bring this out of JS. My favorite performance by him is still Turkish in SNATCH, where he was both snarky and vulnerable due to circumstances (instead of being the terminator type he is in most of his other movies). Granted, I haven't seen Revolver, which sounded craxy at best, but it did sound like a something other than that role for him from what I read.

there were a couple of moments of pure fear and vulnerability that I haven't seen before in JS's staple --for the most part-- performances.

Revolver so far seems like a movie where you have to see the whole thing, get the twist, before you can say it was good or bad. Or at least that's what I'm hoping. A long phone call from my mother interrupted the viewing process (OMG you have to tune into So You Think You Can Dance"!).

eta damn, it just got interesting again. I'm almost starting to wonder if the boring generic bits are to fool you into thinking it's going to be a boring generic movie, and then WHAM!

eta one last time: huh.

In the end, more great stuff from Statham, a bit of "wtf mate?" and if it pans: so not what I was expecting on that level, and on another more visceral level exactly what I'd speculated partway through.

Definitely one of those "If I spend the time thinking about this, will it be worth it?" cuz it just might be, and it might be Southland Tales, which was delightful but I really doubt worth the braincramp.

Fortunately, I watched the special features for Revolver first. So I knew where we were going, which helped me to hold on during the difficult bits. But still, if you have to wait until the credits to really get what the director was trying to say...it's an odd directorial choice.

And speaking of same...I watched Southland Tales today. Not so much worth the braincramp. I really, really, really wanted to like it. So many cool elements that could have come together to make a gloriously entertaining statement. But in the end, it felt like the bits were actually the worst bits of a lot of movies I quite liked. But not cumulatively satisfying.

After reading this review [link] , I kinda really want to see Don't Mess with the Zohan. Am I craxxy?

I didn't want to see it before reading the review, so no, I don't think so.

This struck me as funny, for some reason. From that review:

“You Don’t Mess With the Zohan” is rated PG-13 (Parents strongly cautioned). It is raunchy but not quite sexually explicit, and the really filthy words are either invented or foreign.

I saw the trailer a couple of weeks ago and at first I was "WTF??" about it, but by the time the trailer was over I thought it might just be one of Adam Sandler's better efforts. I think I may actually go see that in the theatre, which I think I've only done for one other of his movies.

After reading this review [link] , I kinda really want to see Don't Mess with the Zohan. Am I craxxy?

Emmett's keen to see it, so we'll probably go this weekend and I can give you a personal review.

The Zohan trailers look ridiculous but still made me laugh because for the first time in a comedy Sandler is COMMITTING to his character, instead of remaining outside of it. Also it was written by Smigel, so maybe there's some good there. (Apparently Apatow had very little to do with writing this version of it.)

The more I see of Zohan, the more I want to see it.