Skip to main content









Donation Heart Ribbon

Comments made by IanForbes

Review: 'Griff the Invisible'

Nicely said, Beth.

August 27, 2011 at 12:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Trailer: 'Larry Crowne'

Funny, I hated almost everyone in "Bridesmaids"

July 1, 2011 at 8:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Trailer: 'Larry Crowne'

Knowing your taste, you would have hated "Larry Crowne", Beth. I found it sub-par myself and I like romantic comedies (when they're done well). As for your suggestions, while I've yet to "Submarine", I abhored "Bridesmaids". I can't really remember a good romantic comedy this year ... the best romantic film has been "Beginners" but there's more going on there and it's more of a romantic dramedy.

Who knows, when "No Strings Attached 2" ("Friends with Benefits") comes out later this month, maybe there will be something at least fun in the genre this year. At least I'll hope for that result.

July 1, 2011 at 1:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Review: 'Transformers 3: Dark of the Moon'

I'd say I'm surprised by the personal attacks going on but then again, this is the internet. Beth is 100% correct in trashing the film, aside from most of the CGI (don't tell me JFK looked human) Michael Bay has made a terrible film.

The argument that 38% of critics like it vs. 90% of audiences is flawed because up to this point, the only audience members who have seen it are the super fanboys who went to previews, 9pm, & midnight screenings. If they don't like it, nobody will. And obviously there are going to be people who like this sort of thing, audiences have spent billions of dollars on the franchise. Critics just tend to want more from films than special effects; you know, a coherent script, competent actors, sensible direction.

As a huge Transformers fan, I was okay with the vapidness of #1 because I expect nothing from Michael Bay. #2 was exactly that and should have been flushed. #3 is aptly compared with films like "Sucker Punch" because they fall into the same general pool of dumb, CGI-driven films from directors who are more concerned with how the women look than what they say.

I'm a critic too and always laugh when we are attacked for delivering an opinion because that's exactly what a film review is. Sure, there are filmmaking elements that can more objectively be discussed but at the end of the day, we either like or dislike a film. Sometimes a particular facet of the movie sticks with us (toe-thumbs/Devasator's metal balls/LaBeouf in general) and we call them out on it.

And we go and see films even if we're probably not going to like them because it's our job and a movie as heavily marketed as Transformers 3 is expected to be reviewed by our readers.

I'm going to bet that those who are attacking Beth aren't also criticizing whatever film critic waxed poetically about this film on the basis that "robots are cool" and "girls are pretty"; which is hypocritical.

If you don't like one critic's opinion this much, read someone else's. Your goal in reading reviews is to learn the critic's taste and be able to decide if you generally agree or disagree with their OPINION. Then you can better gauge if spending $329 on a film is worth it, which is the point of these reviews in the first place.

June 29, 2011 at 7:28 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Rants and Raves: Lisbeth Salander

First, like Miguel and Byronik point out, by saying "I have little doubt", i did indeed mean that I have faith that Fincher is GOOD at making films with darker themes. Sorry, I like to speak in the passive voice.

As for all the people up in arms thinking Beth has made up her mind, the point of the article was about the ad campaign (NOT the film) and how it seems contrary to the character of Salander for the marketing department (NOT Fincher) to sell the movie based on sexual appeal.

Also, Beth has not stated that Mara cannot deliver an acting performance that will work, just that the publicity stills delivered so far present the wrong image for the character. She identified the person in the stills as Mara because that's her name, she can't identify them as the character when there are two actresses being discussed in her article.

There was already a decent amount of buzz simply because of the popularity of the books, the general success of the Swedish films (of course the remake will make more money, it'll be released on more screens and doesn't ask people to **gasp** read subtitles), and Fincher's track record is outstanding.

We'll all know the results of the American remake once it's released. But like so many movie marketing campaigns, they're goal is to get people in seats, not to 100% accurately represent the film. Whether or not marketers use different tactics in other countries is irrelevant, the point is that misrepresenting the character of Lisbeth Salandar (as portrayed by Rooney Mara in the upcoming Fincher film) is a shame.

June 9, 2011 at 7:59 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Rants and Raves: Lisbeth Salander

Great observation and really well put, Beth. I hadn't thought of it that way because I'm still steaming from the idea of remaking these films to begin with. Rapace so perfectly captured the character and while Rooney will probably do a good job, those of us who saw the Swedish films will instinctively fill in gaps that she brings to the table because we know who this character *should* be.

I have little doubt that Fincher can deliver on darker material ... I just can't shake my disapproval at the need to redo these films so quickly, if at all. Anyone who can read the book should be able to read the subtitles and anyone unwilling to see the foreign films has plenty of Twilight films they can watch.

June 7, 2011 at 10:49 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Review: 'Scream 4'

Although the box office tracking has "Scream 4" making half of its production budget back in the first weekend, meaning its a no-brainer it will end up making money, I can only hope the more tepid than expected response will give the producers pause about pursuing chapters 5 and 6 (Craven and writer Kevin Williamson are signed on for them).

This latest installment was merely a poor tweaking of the first film, and while Emma Roberts did a nice job, there wasn't anyone nearly as entertaining as Matthew Lilliard and the movie lacked a true sense of fun. Anyone who's seen the original trilogy may almost be looking at a 'Star Wars prequels' level of embarrassment (not that I'm equating the franchises).

Of course, if that's true, I guess that means Marley Shelton is Jar Jar ... I bet Lake Bell is happy she had "scheduling conflicts" now.

April 17, 2011 at 2:45 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Review: 'In a Better World'

I'd also add Bier's "After the Wedding" to the companion viewing list, as it actually shares a number of similarities with "In a Better World".

April 8, 2011 at 9:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Review: 'Win Win'

Nice review, Beth. And agreed, McCarthy is 3 for 3 with films he's written and directed. Easily the best film so far this year and one I hope audiences go out and support.

March 31, 2011 at 9:57 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Review: 'Sucker Punch'

We can all hope Nolan comes to his senses on his pick for director on the Superman reboot. I suppose praying would help too. I'll get right on that. And you're dead on about "Sucker Punch", all hype and bluster with nothing underneath to show for it. A true waste of money, time, and our lives.

March 25, 2011 at 12:09 a.m. ( | suggest removal )