Tag Archives: oscars

‘Interstellar’ Reaches for the Stars, Scratches Greatness

interstellar            In his first directorial effort since completing his Dark Knight trilogy, Christopher Nolan returns to the visually striking and mind-bending side of films with “Interstellar”.

Set in the future on a dying planet Earth, several astronauts (Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway) set out into a wormhole near Saturn to try and find a new planet suitable for human life. Nolan favorite Michael Caine plays the intellectual head of the project and Jessica Chastain also stars.

Say what you will about Christopher Nolan films, but one thing that is undeniable is that every one of his movies has large scopes and ambitions. The problem most of his films not named “Inception” and “The Dark Knight” have are that the scope is often too big to fill. “Interstellar” sets the bar incredibly high (that bar being an entirely different galaxy) and for most of the film it appears like it will reach that bar and be something great; before the wheels come off in the final act.

The acting in the film is great across the board. McConaughey, fresh off his first Oscar for the superb “Dallas Buyers Club”, shows that his 2013 was no fluke. He plays a father who is conflicted with possibly saving the human race, but while leaving his children behind for years in the process. He still has his signature droll and charm, but this is a side of McConaughey we’ve never seen. My future wife Anne Hathaway is equally as solid as McConaughey’s fellow astronaut, a woman torn between morals and emotion.

The visuals in the film are striking and much like last year’s “Gravity” there are shots that show the pure magnitude of space that will leave you breathless. On numerous occasions the camera pulls up to show the small ship riding among the sea of stars in complete silence, and for a split second it puts everything in perspective.

Everything was going great with “Interstellar”, and for a moment I thought maybe this could be the next space classic a la “2001”, but then the final act happens. I obviously can’t say much of anything without spoiling it, but it is one of those moments that while you watch it transpire you just think, “Oh. Well. Um…ok. Sure, I guess.” I really think the studio gave Nolan complete control of this project, and that may have been a slip-up on their end.

There are also the classic (at this point cliché) “Nolan-isms”, such as underdeveloped side characters, plot holes and the aforementioned unfillable scope, but they aren’t as prevalent or glaring here as with his other projects.

“Interstellar” has no right being nearly three hours long, but there was not a second during it that I was bored. The performances are great, the visuals are outstanding and there are several very well-directed moments of tension, one of which had the entire audience gasp at the same time. “Interstellar” reaches for the stars and they just barely evade its grasp, but just because it is not a stellar movie (*snickers*) does not mean it is a trip you can afford not to take.

Critics Rating: 8/10

Bill Murray Shines as ‘St. Vincent’

Leave a reply

St_Vincent_posterWelcome back, funny Bill Murray. After several years of making cameos and starring in indie dramas, Murray returns to his roots of comedy in “St. Vincent”, where he plays a cranky old drunk who is saddled with babysitting the son of his new neighbor, played by Melissa McCarthy. Hollywood rookie Theodore Melfi writes and directs.

It is a testament to a film when it can overcome all of its genre clichés and narrative familiarities and still be generally entertaining. “St. Vincent” is pretty standard, as we’ve seen the “grumpy guy bonds with the nerdy young kid and the two go on crazy adventures together” formula numerous times before (“Bad Santa” or “Bad Words”, for example). But in spite of all this, Murray shines in an honest, emotional and at times very funny performance.

Without Murray, chances are this movie would not work, and would have been stuck in the “schmaltzy and overdone” category. However Murray elevates the film with his dry wit, and it is a blast seeing him teach the young boy (played by Jaeden Lieberher) how to gamble on horses, mow dirt patches and stand up to bullies.

Melissa McCarthy, toning down her performance here, gives one of her best performances because she isn’t playing the swearing slob. She portrays a single mother who is simply trying to make a better life for her son, and in that he gets a few chuckles, but for the most part just displays true emotion and relatability.

The strongest points of the film are its opening act and its climax, for two very different reasons. The first scenes when we first meet Murray are genuinely funny and harken back to the golden days of his career. The final minutes of this scene are masterfully acted by the entire cast, especially Murray, who for much of the final scene speaks only with his facial expressions. The scene is very well done and will hit you right in the feels (seriously, I had a lump in my throat).

There is a point about halfway through “St. Vincent”, though, where the film seems to be aware that it is being too goofy and sentimental, and thinks it needs to fix this by adding extreme drama. This would have been fine, except the tone switch comes completely out of left field, and just doesn’t seem natural. Suddenly the movie becomes a dark, almost depressing drama, and it really just felt out of place. This likely falls on the shoulders of rookie director Melfi, but other than this one segment he does a great job mixing emotion and laughs, both with his direction and the script.

“St. Vincent” won’t win any awards for originality, but I really hope it wins something for Murray. He is the reason this film is as good and enjoyable as it is, and he alone is the reason to see this movie. It is an entertaining, multi-layered performance, and every scene he is not in, as few as there are, you notice his absence.

Critics Rating: 7/10

‘Fury’ Is Powerful, Gritty and One of Year’s Best

Leave a reply

Fury_2014_posterBrad Pitt and World War II. So far, it has proven to be a potent combonation. First Pitt was hunting Nazis in “Inglorious Basterds”, now he is commanding a tank in Germany.

“Fury”, written and directed by “End of Watch’s” David Ayer, tells the tale of five American soldiers who get stuck in their tank behind enemy lines. Outnumbered and outgunned, they must fight their way through and defeat the surrounding Nazi forces. Brad Pitt, Logan Lerman, Shia LaBeouf, Michael Peña and Jon Bernthal portray the members of the tank.

There’s really no point of sugar coating it or beating around the bush: “Fury” is one of the year’s best movies and one of the better, and most realistic, war films of all-time. From the haunting depictions of battle, to the heart-wrenching performances, to the high production value everything about this film is as beautiful as it is chilling.

The performances across the board are nothing short of fantastic, with the standouts being Pitt and Lerman. Pitt plays a man who has clearly let the evils of war shatter any morals and sensitivity he ever had, and this is demonstrated when on the first day of the job for the tank’s new recruit (Lerman), Pitt orders him to execute an unarmed German solider.

I have never been a Logan Lerman fan, I believe he plays a pretentious, spoiled boy in every role he takes (“Noah” and “3:10 to Yuma”, just to name two), but the man shut me up with his performance here. He is a soldier who was pulled away from his desk and put on the front lines, and it seems like he will never get used to the idea of taking a human life. But throughout the film we see him begin to change and become more desensitized to the notion of war, but he never loses the innocence that we empathize with.

The rest of the cast are all cookie-cutter roles (minority member, jerky sociopath and Bible-thumper), but the actors all have their moments to shine.

Ayer has proven that he is more than capable of shooting an engaging action scene, but never while sacrificing drama or content. Even when the bullets are flying and shells are being rocketed off, we see the characters’ weaknesses and at times hesitation in their actions. Even at the end of the film, in the midst of an extended battle, the action never feels derivative or redundant, because we are getting heavy doses of human drama, accompanied by a fantastic score from composer Steven Price.

What holds “Fury” back from the greatness it so clearly was striving for is a scene in the middle of the film. After taking a town, Pitt and Lerman come across two German women, who proceed to make lunch. The scene drags on for 22 minutes (I remember looking at my phone twice), and in the end the entire interaction took place simply for a plot point down the road.

If that one scene had been shorter, which it should have been, then “Fury” may have been able to be mentioned in the same breath as “Saving Private Ryan” and “The Hurt Locker” for greatest war movie of all-time. That being said, “Fury” is still a fantastically shot, grittily depicted and powerfully acted war story, which features a climax that had my theater silent when the credits began to roll.

Critics Rating: 9/10

2014 Oscar Predictions

The 2014 Oscars are right around the corner, so here are my thoughts on who I want to win (SHOULD WIN) and who all signs point towards winning (WILL WIN) for the 6 main Oscar categories.

BEST PICTURE

For all intents and purposes, this is a two horse race between “12 Years a Slave” and “Gravity”. “American Hustle” has an outside chance of squeaking in, but the Academy will probably choose between the visually stunning “Gravity” and the historically important “12 Years”. Regardless of who wins Best Pictu12_Years_a_Slave_film_posterres, both films will win multiple awards Sunday night. “Wolf of Wall Street” and “Captain Phillips” were my top two favorite films from 2013, but they are either too controversial or too under-publicized to stand a chance here. Also if “12 Years” wins, it will be Brad Pitt’s first Oscar win, so that would be cool.

Should Win: Captain Phillips

Will Win: 12 Years a Slave

Best Director

I personally feel Paul Galfonsoreengrass was snubbed for “Captain Phillips”, but it wouldn’t have mattered much, because it is pretty much a lock that Alfonso Cuarón will win for “Gravity”. If you watch any of the behind the scenes for the film, he had so much to do with creating the most visually stunning film ever (Avatar be darned). Steve McQueen could win for “12 Years a Slave” because of the emotional toll of that film, but honestly this would be an upset if anyone other than Cuarón wins.

Should Win: Alfonso Cuarón

Will Win: Alfonso Cuarón

Best Actor

This is by and far the tightest race in any category in Oscar history. Tom Hanks didn’t receive a nomination foractor “Captain Phillips”, yet he wasn’t snubbed; that’s how great this year’s nominations are. The leaders, however, are Matthew McConaughey for “Dallas Buyers Club”, Chiwetel Ejiofor for “12 Years a Slave” and Leonardo DiCaprio for “The Wolf of Wall Street”. Christian Bale (“American Hustle”) and Bruce Dern (“Nebraska”) both gave great performances, but it would still be a small shock if they won. McConaughey has done an amazing job turning his career around from the awful rom-coms and was phenomenal in “Dallas”. Ejiofor had such a large range of emotions in “12 Years”. And DiCaprio went all in with “Wall Street” and may deserve to win simply because he has been snubbed by the Academy for near 2 decades now. It will be close, but in the end I think the actor with the most physically demanding role will win, and that goes to McConaughey, who lost 38 pounds.  

Should Win: Leonardo DiCaprio

Will Win: Matthew McConaughey

Best Supporting Actor

Much like Best Picture, this is pretty much going to come down between 2 nominees: Jared Leto (“Dallas Buyers Club”) and Barkhad Abdi (“Captain Phillips”). 2-time nominated guys Bradley Cooper (“American Hustle”) and Jonah Hill (“Wolf of Wall Street”) will have to try their luck again actor2another year, and despite being memorizing in “12 Years a Slave” Michael Fassbender has denounced the Academy after getting snubbed for “Shame” several years back, effectively knocking him out of contention. Between Leto and Abdi, Leto has the slight edge because his role was extremely demanding in several categories (he played a cross-dresser, lost 40 pounds and got his arms and legs waxed). As fantastic as Leto is, however, I personally would love to see Adbi win, giving “Phillips” it’s likely only win of the night. Plus he had never acted before this role; the guy was driving limos. That would be a crazy rags-to-riches story.

Should Win: Barkhad Adbi

Will Win: Jared Leto

Best Actress

Like many non-Academy members, I did not see Cate Blanchett in “Blue Jasmine”, but the buzz around Hollywood is she is a lock to win. She has essentially swept every award this year. Sandra actressBullock (“Gravity”) and Judi Dench (“Philomena”) both gave great performances, but this just isn’t their year. And if Meryl Streep wins for “August: Osage County” I am pretty sure everyone watching the TV will groan and throw up. The only person who can challenge Blanchett is Amy Adams, and it is for the same reason DiCaprio stands a chance: she’s a 5-time nominated, no time winning actor. The Academy may feel bad if Adams goes home empty handed for a fifth time, and as much as I would love the overrated “Hustle” to not win a single award on Sunday night, I think Adams deserves a trophy for once.

Should Win: Amy Adams

Will Win: Cate Blanchett

Best Supporting Actress

I am going to begin by saying Jennifer Lawrence doesn’t deserve her nomination and was nominated for the same reason Meryl Streep was: because of her name being credited in a movie. That being said, everyone in Hollywood does not agree with me, as Lawrence has won the BAFTA and Golden Globe this year for “American Hustle”. She has two real competitors: June Squibb (“Nebraska”) and Lupita Nyong’o (“12 Years a Slave”). I thought Squibb was the best part of “Nebraska”; she was funny, angry and honest, often all at once. Nyong’o did a good job stirring up emotion in her role, and stands the best chance of beating Lawrence from sweeping the Big 3 awards. I really don’t know how this one will go; my gut says Lawrence, my logic says Nyong’o and my heart says Squibb. As long as Lawrence doesn’t win I’ll be happy, but deep down I fell I’m going to be disappoinlupita-jennifer-600x450ted come Sunday night.

Should Win: June Squibb

Will Win: Jennifer Lawrence…or Lupita Nyong’o, I really truthfully haven’t a clue.

‘Inside Llewyn Davis’ is Slow and Gloomy

Leave a reply

Inside_Llewyn_Davis_Poster

There are some people in the movie industry whose films you just can never seem to like. There people like Adam Sandler who are understandably disliked because they are lazy and consistently put out subpar products. However for me, the person, or persons, whose films I can never seem to enjoy, no matter how hard I may try, are Joel and Ethan Coen. And their new film, “Inside Llewyn Davis” does not help change my opinion very much.

The film follows folk singer Llewyn Davis (Oscar Issac) and the struggles he faces as he tries to make it in 1961 New York City. Carrey Mulligan and Justin Timberlake also star. The Coens wrote the script and direct.

The movie is just about a lot of depressed, angry and/or confused people struggling to make it in the world. There is no real joy to be found, and by the end of the movie Llewyn is no better off than he was at the beginning of the film. If you are going to make a movie that follows one main character, some sort of development, characterization or at the very least resolution is expected. But instead the Coens just travel from scene to scene in an effort to include as many of their trademark abstract characters as they can.

That is one of the reasons I don’t like the Coens. With the exception of “No Country for Old Men”, every one of their movies is about characters who have these quirky or dark personalities, a lot of which are unlike any person you would find in the real world. I just have never been a fan of their awkward and dry humor.

Not everything about the movie is negative, however. The main actor, Oscar Issac, is great. He is the only reason the film is watchable, to be honest. We aren’t sure if we should be rooting for Llewyn or not, because for as sympathetic as we feel for him, we also come to realize he may have dug his hole for himself, but Issac has a sense of charisma that is just too much to overlook.

But my favorite part of the film is John Goodman. In his ten minutes of screen time he has some very funny lines of dialogue and when he showed up I thought maybe the movie would get better but nope. They just abandon him and move on with the film; literally.

The music in the movie is very good; I have to give them that credit. I’m not the biggest folk song fan in the world but my foot started tapping whenever a character would pick up a guitar and start to play. All but one of the songs was recorded and sung live (Les Mis style) and it showed; it didn’t feel forced or fake.

I really cannot recommend “Inside Llewyn Davis”. One great performance and some catchy songs were not enough to overcome a dull script and a plot that doesn’t go anywhere. The highlights of Oscar Issac’s performance will be all over the place come Oscar season and you can look up the songs on iTunes or YouTube, so there is really no reason to see the movie.

I wish the Coens had broken their form and made a coherent, enjoyable movie about music, and instead of this depressing and gloomy picture. There is the patented Coen ending that will leave you confused and rethinking the movie, but unlike their other films, you don’t care if you figure out what it all means.

Critics Rating: 5/10

Top 10 Films of 2013

Leave a reply

There were plenty of good films in 2013, and a few great ones. Here are my top 10 films of 2013. If you disagree with my rankings, or even hate one of the movies on here, then too bad, they’re my opinions. Welcome to the internet, my friend.

Honorable mention goes to “Gravity”, which was number 11 on my list and was one of the most visually stunning films in the history of cinema.

220px-Saving_Mr__Banks_Theatrical_Poster10. Saving Mr. Banks

The movie about how Mary Poppins got made into a movie turned out to be as entertaining as it was emotional. Tom Hanks and Emma Thompson both nail it as Walt Disney and P.L. Travers respectively, and the songs were infectious.

220px-This-is-the-End-Film-Poster9. This Is the End

A very fun time at the movies. Huge credit to Seth Rogen who not only gave a funny performance, but wrote a hilarious script and gave a solid directorial debut alongside Evan Goldberg.

worlds end8. The World’s End 

In a year filled with apocalypse films, this British comedy from Simon Pegg and Nick Frost was as entertaining as a sci-fi as it was as a comedy. Edgar Wright’s direction was quick paced and electric and it had some great social satire.

220px-Monsters_University_poster_37. Monsters University

Disney-Pixar nailed it again with this prequel, and while it may not be as memorable as the Toy Story sequels or even the first Monsters Inc., “University” had some great laughs for both kids and adults and was gorgeous to look at.

220px-Iron_Man_3_theatrical_poster6. Iron Man 3

Immensely entertaining and featuring a very witty script from Shane Black (who also did a great job directing), this third Iron Man may not have been as good as the first film but it was pretty darn close, and was by and far better than this year’s other Avengers film, Thor 2.

12_Years_a_Slave_film_poster5. 12 Years a Slave

Great performances highlight this brutal look into American history. Chiwetel Ejiofor and Michael Fassbender knock their performances out of the park and while this film is by no means entertaining, it is very good and the ending will leave not a dry eye in the house.

Dallas_Buyers_Club_poster4. Dallas Buyers Club

Matthew McConaughey and Jared Leto carry this movie to the heights it reaches as AIDS victims who open a pharmacy full of unsanctioned drugs. Both of these men transcend acting and become their characters, and the film was as fun as it was honest.

Prisoners2013Poster3. Prisoners

Unbelievably intense, this film had great performances from its star cast, including Hugh Jackman and Jake Gyllenhaal. It had several twists and turns and the ending had me on the edge of my seat and my eyes locked on the screen. I don’t think my heart has ever pounded so hard in my chest while watching a movie.

WallStreet2013poster2. The Wolf of Wall Street

Just a great film. Leonardo DiCaprio was nothing short of brilliant in his role, and the fact that this movie is based on a true story just makes it even better. Some of the best writing I have ever seen in a film. It is just an all-around crazy ride that you need to see to believe.

Captain_Phillips_Poster1. Captain Phillips

The moment the credits began to roll after this movie I knew I had just watched the top film of 2013. Tom Hanks killed it in the title role, including some of the best acting I have ever seen in the film’s climax. Meanwhile newcomer Barkhad Abdi was menacing as the pirate leader and Paul Greengrass’ direction was incredibly intense. The final ten minutes left me in shock and I couldn’t shake the movie off.

‘Mr. Banks’ Full of Magic and Heart

Leave a reply

220px-Saving_Mr__Banks_Theatrical_Poster

             It may come as a surprise, especially when you look at all the blockbusters that Hollywood releases nowadays, but there once was a time where movies were entertaining due to the charm of its actors and the wit of the writing. “Saving Mr. Banks” not only is such a film, but it depicts the making of one as well.

Tom Hanks stars as Walt Disney, who is struggling to get the film rights for Mary Poppins from author P.L. Travers, played by Emma Thompson. Disney then invites Travers to Los Angeles in an attempt to persuade her. John Lee Hancock directs.

When depicting a real life person in a film, there are so many things that an actor has to get just right, because there is an actual template that they must follow. Both Hanks and Thompson nail their portrayals of their respective historical figures, from Walt Disney’s Midwestern drawl and signature mustache to P.L. Travers’ gleeful nagging and British tone. Both actors become the people they are portraying and are joys to watch.

The real standout of the film, however, is Colin Farrell, who plays Travers’ alcoholic father. Farrell is nothing short of fantastic playing a man whose disease is slowly separating him from his family, but he still has love for his daughters. Farrell provides the film with the majority of its emotion, both laughter and sadness.

Now this may be produced by Disney and be about the making of a children’s movie, but “Mr. Banks” is not all cotton candy and rainbows. There are some seriously deep, almost depressing moments involving Travers and her father, which is both a strength and fault of the film.

While the more heavy tone is handled well and keeps the movie from being too over-the-top schmaltzy, it sometimes comes without warning and the tonal shift may take the viewer out of the film. Once again, it was done very well by Farrell and the director Hancock, just, you know, heads up.

Of course the movie is not 100% historically accurate and the portrayals of the characters are idealized, particularly that of Walt Disney. I mean, the movie is being produced by Disney, so I doubt they are going to show the side of Walt that was a ruthless businessman who was hesitant to give any creative say to a headstrong woman. But that “sanitation” is expected, and Hanks does a good job at showing us the side of Walt Disney that society wants to see.

“Saving Mr. Banks” features great performances across the board, including B.J. Novak and Jason Schwartzman as the musical Sherman brothers and Paul Giamatti as Travers’ limo driver. Director John Lee Hancock handles most of the dramatic scenes with finesse, and the Mary Poppins songs will keep you humming long after you’ve left the theater. Sure, it may be Oscar-bait, but it is a well-executed film and fun to watch Hanks and Thompson go back and forth. And in a world of sequels and big budget blockbusters, that is good enough for me.

Critics Rating: 8/10

‘American Hustle’ Mainly Bells and Whistles

Leave a reply

American_Hustle_2013_poster

Sometimes in movies it is very apparent the actors had much more fun making the film than the audience has watching it. That pretty much sums up “American Hustle”, the new David O. Russell film with an all-star cast including Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Bradley Cooper, Jeremy Renner and Jennifer Lawrence.

Set in the late 1970’s, the film follows con man Irving and his partner Sydney (Bale and Adams), who are forced to work with an FBI agent (Cooper) and take down politicians in exchange for their own freedom.

The premise of the movie is very intriguing, and could have been something fantastic. People trying to scam the mafia, corrupt Congressmen and other con artists all in one big deal? With a tighter script it might have been like “Goodfellas” meets “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” (how’s that for a movie reference?). But instead we get a movie that decides to focus more on its characters, rather than its plot or story arch.

According to Christian Bale, Russell allowed the actors to improvise their lines whenever they felt the desire, even if it changed the plot. This may seem like a creative, fun idea at the time however the end result is the movie lacking solid flow or a true narrative (try and decipher whether this is a drama, comedy or political thriller, because it doesn’t have a clue). It seems like the whole film was just a scene with a punchline or dramatic moment, followed by another scene with a punchline or dramatic moment which is almost unrelated to the previous scene.

All the actors do a fine job, particularly Bale. His dedication to any role he does is admirable, as he gained 40 pounds to play Irving. Bale went from dangerously skinny in “The Machinist” to ripped in “Batman Begins”. He then lost weight again for “The Fighter”, and had to put muscle back on for “The Dark Knight Rises”. Bale is the best part of “Hustle”, as he plays a man who deep down has good intentions but can’t seem to get out of the rut he has put himself into with his scamming.

The rest of the cast is solid, albeit nothing memorable. I’m sure they will all earn their award nominations, however I couldn’t help but get the feeling their roles could be done by anyone, particularly that of Jennifer Lawrence, who plays Bale’s wife. Until the film’s climax she really isn’t anything but an extended cameo, and I just never felt she brought anything special to the table (except that she is Jennifer Lawrence).

There are flashes in “Hustle” that made me think the film would rise above the mediocrity that had so far been presented, but it never does. I’m not sure if it was the pacing or the lack of any true resolution, but I just never got absorbed into its world of 1970’s New Jersey. People disappear from the plot never to be seen again, and others do actions that are just completely out of character and leave you shaking your head wondering why that just happened.

“American Hustle” may have looked good on paper, and it is clear the actors all had a fun time with each other while filming it, but in the end it just feels like a missed opportunity. The ending is clever and some of the dialogue is sharp, but it just doesn’t come together in a pretty bow, which is a disappointment considering the cast. The movie may not be a scam, but it certainly sold itself short.

Critics Rating: 6/10

Charming Leads Enough in ‘Enough Said’

Leave a reply

enoughThere are some movies that are made just to serve a purpose. “Enough Said” was made to be a relatable rom-com for adults. The film stars Julia Louis-Dreyfus and James Gandolfini (his last starring role before his tragic passing in June) as separate divorced parents who begin to date each other until things become complicated. You know, pretty basic rom-com plot. Nicole Holofcener wrote and directs the film.

When Gandolfini first appears on the screen you are taken back for a second. Not only is he not portraying a mobster, but you realize you are seeing a completely new side to an actor who will never be seen on film again. In his first ever romantic comedy role (one of the few movies where he doesn’t kill anybody, in fact), he plays a tender, lovable ex-husband. While some of his comedic deliveries aren’t as fluid or poignant as they could have been (the fault of either the direction or the new territory), Galdolfini’s last main role is possibly one of his best, simply because it showed his range as an actor.

The rest of the cast is solid. Louis-Dreyfus, a TV star most of her career, has wit in the starring role as a single mom about to send her only daughter off to college. She provides the film’s biggest laughs and her chemistry with Gandolfini is what propels the film beyond the normal clichéd rom-com.

The movie is labeled a romantic comedy but it focuses much more on the romantic drama aspect more than the comedy. There are a few funny one-liners, one solid running gag however some jokes just fall flat or miss completely. Some plot points are never fully explained and some characters randomly fizzle out but what rom-com that is perfect?

“Enough Said” is just one of those movies that isn’t necessarily entertaining, but you are never bored. It is made for a very specific audience, one of which I am not part of, however I can recognize and respect the efforts of the filmmakers, while the chemistry between the lovable Gandolfini and the humorous Louis-Dreyfus holds our interest. And I think I’ve said enough.

Critics Rating: 7/10