Dear John

Goolphipp award: 3.8 (Worth 11 Bucks)

Goolsby:

We're suckers for a good love story. I really enjoyed this movie. I understand why they marketed this movie the way they did - with it following in the footsteps of the now classic Notebook, but I felt the real gem of this movie was not the main romance. The on screen bond between Channing Tatum and Richard Jenkins was really special to watch. Jenkins plays John's developmentally challenged father. It was never clarified if the father was autistic or suffered from Asperger's Syndrome, but either way, Jenkins did a stellar job. Whenever the two were on screen together they stole the whole shebang. Kudos for one of the best father-son performances I've ever seen. I would also say that their relationship was more profound and intense than the chemistry between Tatum and Amanda Seyfried. I must say, the father-son duo brought the most water works from me.

I have never read a Nicholas Sparks book, but I enjoyed the current plot setting of this story. John meets Savannah while on leave, and ends up enlisting for a further stay. We get to follow his journey through the 9/11 attack and onward. Unlike a period piece, I think this story hit home a bit harder for some people.

The soundtrack was also well placed and matched. It never felt too over powering or interfered with the movie.

Goolsby overall: 4.25

Bring the tissues.

Phipps:

I liked this movie. I definitely cried...and probably would have bawled like a baby if the group of ladies in front of us hadn't been talking up a storm. I think what I liked most about this movie is it didn't feel fake. I mean, the characters didn't do anything extraordinary...they weren't super special. Instead, they felt like ordinary folk living an ordinary life, which is in no way a dig. I like romances that are realistic (as well as sweet). I don't think this movie matches The Notebook, and I don't think it will be as widely embraced by men. So, it might be best to keep this a Girls Night Out movie...then you can let yourself get all splotchy from crying. As Goolsby said, the father-son aspect of this movie was amazing. It was difficult to watch, but you understood why things were the way they were. One more thing, Channing Tatum is a pretty decent crier, and that's important when you are trying to build your career. I would like to see him in a role that incorporated less action, even though he excels in projecting emotion through action. As a whole, Dear John didn't disappoint.

Phipps overall: 3.5

A snapshot of real life.

Contact us at goolphipp@gmail.com.

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra

Goolphipp Award: 2.25 (See the Cheap Matinee)

Goolsby:
Why do they make movies that are geared for kids PG-13? This movie was not for adults, it failed to keep me entertained or interested. I could see how kids could be entertained by it, but I just about gave up half way through. The only reason I half watched was because of a surprise Joseph Gordon-Levitt who plays "The Doctor." Of course I must also mention Channing Tatum. The more I think about it, I think that the actors were lured in by their own boyhood memories. I think most people over 20 will go see it because of its nostalgia aspect.

The whole thing was just too much CG for me to handle. If money was the issue they should have made their sets smaller, covered less expansive and useless "cool" shots, and focused on delivering some real stuff. If you're going to do a completed CG movie, than do it, don't try to mix one part live action, with fifteen parts CG - its bound to end up looking like a Bedazzled giant sloth. Poor movie. It had potential, and was ruined. The plot was well thought out, flowed fine, but ruined by the over use of the green screen.

As far as violence goes - it was fine. I think adult fighting is okay, but there were some kid-on-kid fighting scenes that I think would be a bad influence on the kiddies. Other than that, I only noticed one or two curse words. The lead female was of course put in tight tight clothing, unnecessary again. Bah. Bah. Bah. This movie needed to make up its mind. Adult or kid, not this mix-n-match stuff. I mean look at the toys! This is for kids, but yet compiled and rated PG-13. Weird, a toy Channing Tatum and Gordon-Levitt. Welcome to the world of plastic forever. Ugh. Thank you Joseph Gordon-Levitt for keeping me awake.

Goolsby overall: 2.5
No excuses. Try harder next time.

Phipps:
I was super excited for this movie. Action, action, action. I dismissed the speculation about GI Joe's lack of critical review, because I've known many movies that are actually better than the critics think. Here's the breakdown:

1) The storyline of the movie was great. I've got no complaints. Non-stop action. It was generally fun without being cheesy or cliche.

2)I I was okay with the casting and performances. Channing Tatum has always done well in action sequences, and because this was basically non-stop action...it was nice to see him in his element. Dennis Quaid's strut was a little strange, but I expect that was a nod to the show that went over my head. Sienna Miller always plays the mean girl perfectly. And well, Joseph Gordon-Levitt is just having a stellar summer.

3) I was okay with the outfits. I was okay with the occasional corny line. After all, for all intents and purposes, this is a superhero movie - certain things are expected and allowed.

4) I was not okay with all the CGI-ing. When you CG an air craft carrier - which included no special gadgets or action shots, you lose my good graces. That was the big example, but there were tons of little things that were fakey looking. I suppose the film-makers just didn't take the time to figure out how to integrate CG and real stuff a la Lord of the Rings style. The big fly CGI spoiled the whole experience. Miniatures, people!

5) As Goolsby said, the kid-on-kid action was unexpected and a little disconcerting. I would want any kids to be 10+ when they see this...by then they should know that hitting other kids is no bueno.

Close, but no cigar. I'd definitely advise to see the cheap showing on the big screen...I think this movie will look abnormally lame on your TV if you wait for DVD.

Phipps overall: 2
Gosh, try filming with miniatures next time.

Contact us at goolphipp@gmail.com.

Public Enemies

Goolphipp Award: 3 (Worth 11 Bucks)

Goolsby:
First point – empty theaters are the best places to view movies like Public Enemies. We were in a showing with only 2 other people. This means we exchanged banter basically through the whole movie.

Second point – we exchanged banter through the whole movie, because we were both so frustrated and confused with the filming style. This movie can’t make up its mind. You’ve got your artsy epic shots that take up too much time. I’m okay with a few key shots that highlight an actor’s delivery or the action, but this was absurd. There were grainy shots for no reason at all. What was the worst thing was the shaky cinematography. Phipps said something like Blair Witch Project, so I’m stealing her line. It was horrible. I never forgot about it until the last 10 minutes of the film. Since we were basically in an empty theater, I caught myself holding out both my hands trying to steady myself. So distracting. You got to wonder what the director Michael Mann was thinking?

Third point – filming took away from the awesome deliveries. Depp brings in a winner again. And could his hair be any more awesome? Swoon. Maria Cotillard, who played Billie Frechette, was amazing as well. She closed the movie, and that scene was perfect. The whole cast was amazing. And random Leelee Sobieski, where has she been?
And on a final note – the one thing I did like about the cinematography was the color hue. It fit well into the period with the round browns and warm colors.

Oh oh oh, how could I forget this! The scene in which Dillinger (Depp) walks into the police station... it was the greatest thing I've seen in a long time. Loved it.

Goolsby overall: 3
Loved everyone's hair.

Phipps:
This film was a big-budget, period piece modeled after the Blair Witch Project. Unfortunately, it wasn’t a hit, like its predecessor. I was completely distracted by the cinematography the ENTIRE time. I think it was worse than Pitof’s Catwoman, and that’s saying something.

And that is a crying shame, because all the performances were spectacular. I was equally drawn to both protagonists, John Dillinger and Melvin Purvis. Depp pulls off the likeable thief - charming me with his half smiles. Bale, of course, is always stellar as the smart, squeaky clean lawman. Everyone got to see that Channing Tatum could realistically die on screen, which further builds his repertoire.

All the historical junk looked authentic…as far as a layman is concerned. It was weird to see the police action without the use of walkies and vests. I'm glad I live in the age of S.W.A.T.

Public Enemies had all the right pieces, but someone let us down in the sound and cinematography, and I’m going bet it’s the director, Michael Mann. Mr. Mann, shame on you for robbing some people of Oscar nods.

Wait for the DVD, folks, and don’t forget the Dramamine.

Phipps overall: 3
Giving it a 3, simply because the performances deserve the world. Could have easily been a 5, Mr. Mann.

Contact us at goolphipp@gmail.com.

Fighting

Goolphipp Award: 3.75

Audience: 18+

Goolsby: Actually there wasn’t too much language that stood out. But for sheer hand to hand violence, needs to be an older audience. There was some sexual content as well as scantly clad women and men.

Storyline: Rock’em, Sock’em, Bop’em
Finding a new way to make ends meet using what you got – your fists.

Phipps: Don’t try to make it more complicated than it is. It’s 3 parts action movie, 1 part heart. Thanks to Tatum Channing, girls won’t mind watching it.

Goolsby: Set in New York, I think it accurately portrays the city in the context of this movie. We don’t see the frills, we see the grit. Simple storyline with just the right hint of a romance to keep it from being completely fist-to-fist content. Oh, and the grandma! She was awesome. Wholesome mix of action, family, love, and drama.

Action: Ouu, did you hear that hit?
Clean fight sequences with good shots, sounds, and lighting.

Phipps: I’ve got nothing to complain about here. The action was straight up awesome: believable, loud, and showed where it hurts.

Goolsby: I like a good fight sequence that is real. It was all believable and felt real, mostly thanks to the sounds I think. When you can hear each blow, you know it’s good. Reminded me a lot of Green Street Hooligans in the way they filmed the fight sequence – fast, a tad-spotty, and crisp. I liked it.

Delivery: Unexpected

Goolsby: I would finish that by saying, unexpectedly good. I didn’t go in expecting much, and was surprised to see a wide range of various multi-layered characters. We’ve seen what Tatum can do with the conflicted character in Stop-Loss, and in Fighting he brings an even new dimension to the table. That kid can sure convey a lot with his eyes. Terrence Howard as Harvey the fight manager, delivers this deep-rooted emotionally vast character. Albeit I’m not exactly sure the whole story on the Harvey character, but I got the general gist and it brought an element that made me really feel for his character. Kudos to you Howard for giving us such a complex and intriguing character.

Phipps: The only complaint I have is Terrence Howard. I couldn’t figure out if he was supposed to be slow because of a life of fighting, or if he was just slow. I spend half the movie wondering that. I also think it is more of a script issue, than acting ability. The rest of the cast did a great job.

Phipps overall: 3.5
It’s solid, likable, and believable.

Goolsby overall: 3.75
I don’t expect people that aren’t prepared for what they’ll be getting to come to this movie. It brings a specific group of people, and that randomly includes Phipps and I. Overall I think it stayed true to what it was, and gave even more than I expected. I’m happy to have more good fight movies in my frame of reference – so thanks Fighting.

Goolphipp rating: 3.75 (No Peanuts Chucked)

Contact us at goolphipp@gmail.com.