#2004film

[bestofcaryelwes]

Cary as Sir Edgar on 'Ella Enchanted' (2004)

[1103199xmovies]

59/100 - The Notebook (2004)

A poor yet passionate young man falls in love with a rich young woman, giving her a sense of freedom, but they are soon separated because of their social differences.

Genre: Drama, Romance

[adamwatchesmovies]

The Notebook (2004)

Detractors will call The Notebook clichéd and predictable. Fans (including myself) will embrace the familiar elements and point out the strong performances and the on-screen chemistry between the leads. You’ve seen some of what this romantic drama has to offer before but this movie pulls all of those elements together and hits it out of the park.

At a nursing home, Duke (James Garner) reads a story from his notebook to a fellow resident (Gena Rowlands). Set in the 1940s, it follows Noah Calhoun (Ryan Gosling) and Allie Hamilton (Rachel McAdams), the summer love affair that brings them together, their separation, and their insatiable longing while apart.

I’ll admit some of the big scenes feel a little forced. Passionate kisses in the rain, parallel stories with the nursing home patients and the couple in the notebook, unfulfilled love like the one here, are more cinematic than realistic… but they work. It's Ryan Gosling and Rachel McAdams. You want them to get together. When they’re next to each other, the sparks are tangible. Even when they argue, you can tell there’s something special present. When she catches his eyes, you remember what it was like when you met that special person. When he convinces her to go out with him, it’s like the first time your significant other said “Yes” to you. The film is unabashedly romantic and knows it. The objective is to make your heart swell and keep you guessing. Not whether or not they’ll get together, but how and when. It’s the meeting of your expectations and the payoff that makes this picture soar.

Sure Rachel McAdams and Ryan Gosling are treats for the eyes, but we all know we’ll eventually wind up as wrinkly old bags, which is why the film's wraparound story is so important. The Notebook assures us that life won’t end the minute you spot a grey hair. The period setting also helps bolster the romance. There’s something about the people of this time before. Their shyness, the way a first date’s climax might be the holding of hands or a single kiss. It asks you to be patient as the people involved slowly come together, going on many dates to truly discover themselves as a couple. Just like slasher films are best set before 1983 when cell phones came and ruined it all, romantic dramas get a solid boost by taking place in times we're nostalgic for; when seeing a woman’s ankle was scandalous and real men had to work with their hands out in the sun, their muscles glistening with sweat.

The picture resists the urge to introduce a villain, which is a relief. The obstacles are people who try their best and life, which often disagrees with our premade plans. In a world where people do wind up alone, where good guys lose in the end and some love goes unfulfilled, this couple’s passion is incendiary, a blazing testament to first love that ends on the perfect note.

Even the most cynical audience members - the kind who scoff at the idea of waiting for that one girl/guy for years - won’t be able to deny the picture's charms. When you’re in the mood for a sweet/sappy love story, you’ve gotta go with The Notebook. Nothing else will do. (On DVD, December 9, 2016)

[thisbeautifulscene]

Silver Hawk, dir Jingle Ma, 2004

[kimdeals]

2004films -> dadaismo

always changing never stopping, u know how it is

[scerek]

Hey I love ur scary movie gifs! Can you make a appreciation gif of ghost face being funny but no subtitles thxs!

Sure. I’m actually working on a Best of Brenda Meeks gifset right now but after that I can definitely do that for you :)

[ozlemdemirci]

Le Conseguenze dell’Amore    (IMDB: 7.6) 2004

Titta Girolamo: Bad luck doesn't exist. It is just an invention of losers and poors. 

//

Carlo: Do you know what scare me, doctor? To die of old age... I want to die in a daring way.

Titta: It needs courage to die in a daring way.

//

Titta: Shy people notice everything but they don't get noticed. 

“Aşkın Getirdikleri” olarak çevrilen bu filmin aşkı nasıl ele aldığını gördüğünüzde şaşıracaksınız. 

“Bu barda oturmak belki de hayatım boyunca yaptığım en tehlikeli şey.” 

Film başladığı andan itibaren öyle bir akıp gidiyor ki izlerken sanki arkada bi saatin tik tak seslerini duyuyorsunuz. Filmin ritmini tutabiliyorsunuz. Bu ustalık filmin müzüğünden ve Paolo Sorrentino-Toni Servillo birlikteliğinden kaynaklansa gerek.

Her kelimesi, her dakikası dikkate değer bir film. Kaçırmadan izlemek lazım. Tekrar tekrar izlemek lazım. Paulo Sorrentino’nun kadraj zekası ile Toni Servillo’nun oyunculuğunun birleşmesi çok çok çok hoş bir görüntü yaratıyor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ml1PFI6hy4E

Film gergin. Siz ‘son dakika’ya hatta abartısız ‘son saniyelere’ kadar ne olacak diye merak içinde kalıyorsunuz. Üstelik film aksine bir o kadar durağan ilerliyor.

// Spoiler //

“Sıradışı bir ölüm cesaret ister.” diyor Titta Girolamo. Korkakça geçen bir hayatı, cüretkar bir şekilde sonlandırıyor.

Bir İtalyan İsviçre’de otelde yaşıyor... Barda çalışan kıza aşık. İki yıl bu barda hep aynı köşede oturuyor. Kız ile hiç konuşmuyor. Haftada bir, bir bavul dolusu para geliyor ve onu bankaya yatırıyor. Otel odasında geçen durağan bir hayatı nasıl bu kadar heyecanla izlersiniz? İzlersiniz... Üstelik film ilerledikçe, baştan beri karizmatik biri olarak algıladığımız Titta’nın otele hapsedilmiş korkak biri olduğunu öğrendiğimizde karizmasından hiçbir şey eksilmedi.

Onun bardaki kıza aşkı bir değişik. Onunla konuştuğunda hayatındaki en tehlikeli şeyi yaptığını düşünüyor. Çünkü aşk, mutlaka hayatına bir şeyler getirecektir ve Titta’nın hayatı böyle bir değişikliği kabul etmez. 

Üzüldüğüm yeri ise kıza araba hediye ettiğinde ve Titta’nın doğum gününü şehir dışında geçirmek için sözleştiklerinde, yani artık çıkmaya başladıklarında, Titta kızı beklerken, kız Titta’ya giderken kızın trafik kazası geçirmesi. 

Titta diğer taraftan mafya babası ile uğraşır. Kızdan (hep bu şekilde hitap ettim ama... ‘Aşk’ından desem daha güzel olur tabi...) haber alamayınca artık “cesur” bir şekilde ölmeye karar verir.

Girolamo enteresan biri. Toni Servillo bu enteresan kişiliği öyle bir ele almış ki, aslında aşık ama aşkını söyleyecek cesareti olmayan, her şeyin başkalarının istediği gibi gitmesi gerektiğine inanmış, mafyadan korkan (korkutucu evet), ölümden korktuğundan bir otele hapis olarak kalabilen, ailesini ve çocuklarını kaybetmiş şekilde yaşayabilen birini sevdiriyor, karizmatik bulduruyor. Evet, bu karizması sessizliğinden, konuşacak laf bulamamaktan, ama konuştuğunda iyi konuştuğundan ve kıyafetlerinden ötürü olabilir.

// Spoiler //

Sanırım film boyunca bu karakteri merak edip duruyoruz, gittikçe çözüyoruz... Enteresan bir kişilik.

Neden İzlenmeli?

1- Toni Servillo

2- Paolo Sorrentino

3- Müzik

4- Senaryo- Değişik bir hikaye (Sorrentino yine)

[adamwatchesmovies]

Dead Leaves (2004)

There’s a difference between a movie that doesn't try and one that knows it’s low-brow and fully embraces its true nature. If character development, good writing, and a layered story are signs of a good film, then Dead Leaves is total trash. If there's such a thing as "good trash", then this is it. This animated film by Hiroyuki Imaishi excels at being vulgar and is a lot of fun while it lasts.

Retro (Jaxon Lee) and Pandy (Amanda Winn-Lee) are sent to the notoriously brutal “Dead Leaves” prison on Earth’s half-destroyed moon. While planning their escape from the warden and her monstrous guards, they slowly begin piecing their past together.

This film is fast-paced, energetic, and visually striking. It’s colorful and frenetic, like a Looney Tunes cartoon but with grotesque elephant-men, a mutant with an oversized drill for a dick, and none of that Toon ability to heal from bullet wounds or bomb shrapnel... unless the character isn’t supposed to be dead yet, at which point they’ll manage to find a way to shrug off the variety of blasts, bullets, and blades that hits them. People get all kinds of killed, and in increasingly splatterful ways. You take all of the nasty, violent, perverted scribbles in the margins of your average 14-year-old's notebook, you animate it and what you’ve got is Dead Leaves. It’s so over-the-top you'll be in stitches. It also helps that this film has a sense of humor about itself.

It’s only 50 or so minutes long and that’s perfect. Had Dead Leaves lasted longer, it would’ve gotten old and boring. If you’re interested in different ways animation can be used or just weird stuff, check this one out. Maybe throw it in an anime marathon as a pallet cleanser. It’s not high art, but film doesn’t need to be. When you want some good trash, I keep Dead Leaves in mind. (English Dub on DVD, May 27, 2016)

[adamwatchesmovies]

Ginger Snaps Back: The Beginning (2004)

Of the three Ginger Snaps films, Ginger Snaps Back: The Beginning is easily the weakest. That doesn’t mean it’s not enjoyable. For fans of the previous entries, it’s worth taking and look. In fact, I wish more filmmakers would take note of what it does well. This “sequel” has some great ideas.

Set in the Canadian wilderness in 1815, sisters Brigitte (Emily Perkins) and Ginger Fitzgerald (Katharine Isabelle) take refuge in a fort besieged by werewolves. Their only hope for survival is in an enigmatic warning given to them to “Kill the boy so that both may live”.

Ginger Snaps Back doesn’t have the budget for elaborate transformation sequences (none of the three films do) and makes up for this with some good additions to the mythology. By now, we know morphing into a wolf-life creature isn't tied to the full moon. It’s more of a transformation that concludes itself in a month’s time. In this story, we’re given the “cure”: if you manage to deliver the final blow to the werewolf that infected you, you’ll be ok. I love it. It adds tension. Everyone wants to kill werewolves, but you have to be the one to kill this specific one, meaning your “enemies” are now the lycanthropes and anyone hunting them or defending themselves from an attack. The film also finds a novel way for people to detect the curse. If you strive to make a good werewolf movie, check this one out. Either copy it or do something along the same lines.

Some of the picture's flaws are obvious, making them feel like oversights on the part of the writer. Several murders are committed without any repercussions at all. I’m not talking about a situation where “well, he/she MIGHT have been infected” sort of thing. I mean that someone guns another, and the dead body is never addressed. Then, there are the side characters, which Stephen Massicotte and Christina Ray should've also put some additional work into. It makes sense for there to be threats inside the fort as well as out. It’s done all the time in zombie films, but there’s no reason why J.R. Bourne’s character or the fort’s “The End is Nigh!” reverend (played by Hugh Dillon) wouldn’t have met “accidental” death just a few days into the siege. They’re more trouble than they’re worth and anyone should be able to tell.

Although the film is ok, it's nowhere near as good as the first two. Ginger Snaps: The Beginning isn't as innovative or memorable, making it a letdown. One notable aspect deserves a lot of praise, however. It's the way it fits in with the first two Ginger Snaps. Many films struggle with their sequels and that goes double for horror. The majority of the protagonists you’ve come to love have been butchered or mentally broken. Your solution is to either bring in a new batch of victims or do a bunch of retcons. In this series' case, what drew us in was the relationship between Brigitte and Ginger and seeing them figure out the werewolf situation. This film replicates this sensation by casting Katharine Isabelle and Emily Perkins in a spiritual sequel instead of an actual follow-up. I wish more films would do this.

Ginger Snaps 3: Beginning / Ginger Snaps Back: Beginning is surprisingly good for a direct-to-DVD werewolf movie, even if it’s easily the worst of the three films in the series. Despite the drop in quality, it’s still very much worth seeing, particularly if you like stories about lycanthropy or enjoyed the first two. (On DVD, May 13, 2016)

[adamwatchesmovies]

Mickey, Donald, Goofy: The Three Musketeers (2004)

The Three Musketeers is gorgeous. Lush, beautifully hand-painted backgrounds, crisply animated characters. It’s got Donald, Goofy, and Mickey. The voice cast is good, there are plenty of hilarious jokes throughout. Despite what the title would lead you to believe, this is an original story. A bad story. It's made worse by the horrendous soundtrack which only gets worse with each song.

Years after meeting the original three musketeers Mickey (voiced by Wayne Allwine), Donald (Tony Anselmo), and Goofy (Bill Farmer) dream of becoming members of the royal guard. As castle janitors who barely get through a workday without demolishing the building while sweeping, their chances are slim. When Peg-leg Pete (Jim Cummings) hatches a scheme to kidnap Minnie Mouse, the Princess of France, Minnie Mouse (Russi Taylor) and steal her throne, only the unlikely heroes can save the kingdom.

I wasn't exaggerating when I said it's gorgeous. The stone floors, dungeons, and buildings reminded me of the fine work we saw in Snow White. There were many times where I was happy to ignore everything going on story-wise and gaze at the movie. So many frames would make jaw-dropping desktop wallpapers because whoever worked on those backgrounds didn't skimp out on the details and never took shortcuts. As far as I can tell, the budget must've been titanic and you can see every penny invested in the visuals.

Why the middle-of-the-road review then? For the soundtrack and story. This picture only lasts 68 minutes. That’s including the intro and end credits. The running time is further padded by 6 songs despite this not being a true musical. In Aladdin, Little Mermaid or Frozen, characters condense exposition and complex emotions in verses. Not here. Most are not full-length songs, but one every 10 minutes is a lot when they're not saying anything and when they're not good. These are bottom-of-the-barrel quality melodies. No original music. Just words tacked onto Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, and other classical works. None of it's memorable, which is a relief. These annoying ballads would be the kind that'd drive you bananas if they managed to drill themselves into your skull. For all of the money Disney spent on the first-ever full-length picture starring Mickey, Goofy, and Donald... they couldn’t fork over a little more to get decent writers?

The other killer is the story. While I laughed frequently, nothing about this feels fit for the big screen. The character arcs are as predictable as the days on a calendar. The romantic subplots are some of the most forced I've ever seen. It doesn’t matter if they’ve hardly exchange any dialogue, if they have anything in common or if they even like each other. Think you'll like the movie because your favorite duck, dog, or mouse is featured? Think again. These characters are not the ones you're accustomed to. Donald's explosive temper? gone. Mickey wants to be a musketeer so he can prove being short doesn't mean anything. Pluto? hardly appears. Goofy? Him they actually get right.

I laughed during The Three Musketeers but not enough to make me forgive the insufferable songs, the pointless framing device, and lackluster plot. I wanted desperately to mute it and bask in its visuals but why stop there? With its terrible ending, you couldn't make this into a movie by merely scrapping all of the noise. The true solution is to go at it with an ax. Someone with editing skills could make this into a great half-hour film.  As is? Only if you're REALLY interested in animation. Like obsessed. (On DVD, May 6, 2015)

[adamwatchesmovies]

Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (2004)

Will Ferrel has a distinct comedic style. Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy is the best example of it. If you like this, consider his other works too. Even if it's your cup of tea, this film contains innumerable quotable lines, memorable characters, and unforgettable gags.

Set in the '70s, “a time where men were men”; Ron Burgundy (Ferrell) is the face of KVWN channel 4 news San Diego. Burgundy and his posse of half-wits, Champ Kind (David Koechner), Brian Fantana (Paul Rudd), and noticeably dim Brick Tamland (Steve Carell) are like gods among men. They rule the ratings, get the girls, and are the envy of all. When a beautiful female reporter named Veronica Corningstone (Christina Applegate) begins working at the station, Ron falls for her. A woman reporting the news already signaled the end of an era. This? it practically spells doom for them all.

Anchorman is delightfully absurd. It’s full of great quotes and moments that don’t make any sense but are too funny to question. You can tell everyone was having a blast trying to come up with outlandish expletives or zany lines to see who could make the rest of the crew break character and laugh. It’s infectious. Ron and his friends are so naive, so full of themselves, so narcissistic, chauvinistic, and egotistical it passes the point of being offensive and becomes hilarious instead. The men working at KVWN are all fools who think themselves so charming. They picture Veronica for a pushover they'll easily bed and humiliate, but there's no contest between them. She's a real person. Everyone else is drawn with the same strokes. The rival news anchors, children on the street, even the animals of this world come from a different dimension where nicknaming your testicles is seen as macho and silliness is plentiful. Even when Ron and his friends are being misogynist, they're too ineffectual to offend. Ron is so stupid he actually believes pretending you know things and attempting to prove it is preferable to asking for help. He just keeps digging his own grave.

The movie is full of lines you'll love to quote. Anytime someone says "I love you", you'll automatically answer with “I love lamp”. Anyone who hears will know exactly what you're talking about, and it's just one of at least a hundred throwaway gags. That's what you get when you assemble a dynamite team of comedians like this one. Even Christina Applegate, whom you normally wouldn't associate with this type of humor does very well for herself.

The brand of comedy featured in Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy won’t be for everyone. The characters are not deep. The plot is never insightful. Its only objective is to fire off wild characters and silly gags. Sometimes, the Will Ferrel/Adam McKay team makes for less-than-desirable results (*cough* Step Brothers *cough*) sometimes, you get non-stop gut-busters like in Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy. (Unrated cut on Blu-ray, June 30, 2015)

[adamwatchesmovies]

Friday Night Lights (2004)

You could put the effort required to get to know a professional football team, its players, coaches, and rivals... or get the whole package in a lean 118 minutes by watching Friday Night Lights. It's undoubtedly the best football movie I've ever seen and among the top sports films.

Set in 1988, the Permia High School Panthers are an ordinary team in an atypical town. Odessa lives and breathes football. Everyone goes to the game and it’s the only thing happening Friday night. Tremendous weight is placed on the young players' shoulders as the new season begins.

The sport in this film sucked me in like no other season - real or fictional - ever has. The games are like action sequences packed with a wide spectrum of emotions. There’s fear when the Panthers are running behind on points. There’s hope as they put together their strategies. There’s drama when a play goes wrong and they face the repercussions off the field. You even get the same kind of excitement contained in bone-crunching martial arts sequences when the players tackle, run, and throw. The stunts in this movie are incredible and they’re all the more impactful because you care about who's on the field.

The games will have your knuckles so tight they turn white but they wouldn't exist without the players. You don’t follow everyone on the team but it doesn't matter. Those you see are the ones you'd choose to. In turn, they contribute to the film's main character: the Panthers team. These children - they're not even out of high school - live in a town where losing a game is as bad as being convicted of a crime. If there’s tension between you and your father, it gets worse when you fumble the ball. If you couldn’t get people to like you when you were just an ok player, forget about making new friends when you just cost your team the game. When they hear “This is going to be the best year of your life, it’s all downhill from now” it gets you thinking not only about their mental state but about the town and the country as a whole. Are we all taking a game too seriously?

As the story explores the pressures put on the Panthers, you're filled with outrage. It makes you want to see them win as bad as everyone else but for different reasons. This town breaks your heart. This atmosphere is poisonous. These 17-year-old's whole lives are football and they’re not even getting paid for it. It carefully manages to both celebrate the sport and condemn those who put too much emphasis on it. You go back-and-forth between wanting to get up and cheer or sit down quietly and reflect upon the emotions on display.

Friday Night Lights contains drama that pulls you to both edges of the emotional spectrum. The performances are solid, the characters complex, and captivating. The games are better shot than any real event could ever be, which makes it exciting on a whole other level. The players, their relationship with the sport, and the town who worship it makes it feels more down-to-earth and unpredictable than if the typical drama you see in sports films were piled on top. It really feels like watching an entire season of the sport within the span of a single movie. It filled me with the kinds of emotion I'm not used to feeling in a sport and I can’t recommend it enough. (Full-screen version on DVD, March 31, 2015)

[adamwatchesmovies]

Raising Helen (2004)

I didn’t care for Raising Helen but can imagine a scenario that would make it useful. Let’s say you’re a fan of movies featuring adults who have parenting thrust upon them, of single moms/dads dealing with teens, of sibling rivalries, or inoffensive family-friendly comedies. Are you also the kind of person whose taste in films hasn't evolved since they turned 14, who has always dreamed of working in the fashion industry, and believe Paris Hilton should have a career in acting? It would take at least five movies to fill those checkboxes or just one viewing of Raising Helen. It'll save you a lot of time.

Helen (Kate Hudson) and Jenny (Joan Cusack) are devastated when their sister Lindsay (Felicity Huffman) and her husband are killed in an accident. To their surprise, Helen - the partying, perpetually single fashion designer - has been given custody of the three now-orphaned children. Drama ensues when 15-year-old Audrey (Hayden Panettiere), 10-year-old Henry (Spence Breslin) and 5-years-old Sarah (Abigail Breslin) move in just as a begins to blossom between Helen and the cutest guy in the film (John Corbett as Dan Parker).

Raising Helen is completely harmless to a fault. You can see every development coming from far away and it feels like a bunch of other, similar movies with some of the plots and characters swapped out. It’s like one of those children's books divided into threes, with the head at the top, the body in the middle, and the legs/tail at the bottom. You can mix some of this stuff up a bit, but it all boils down to pretty the same thing. You’ve seen one, you’ve seen ‘em all.

If you invest the tiniest bit of thought in your viewing, you'll notice several contrivances. Helen has been working at her job for years and is highly valued... until she has to take care of three kids and all of a sudden, her boss treats her like she’s a brand-new intern. You'd think the situation would've been communicated but apparently not. Only in this world do children misunderstand or completely ignore orders in just the right way so they can get people in trouble or fired from their jobs. There’s nothing particularly outlandish happening but every character leaves a distinct artificial aftertaste. Their actions are in service of the plot, and not the other way around.

If you can’t see where every plot in this film is going, I don’t know what to tell you. Will Helen and the children become a family unit, or will Helen go back to her single ways? What about little Sarah. Will she learn to tie her shoes? Will the siblings' drama get resolved before the running time is over? Is there ANY reason this picture needed to be nearly 2 hours long?!

Overall, it’s inoffensive and there are a few nice moments here and there (anything with Héctor Elizondo actually rings true heartfelt scenes). Does any of it warrant even the most undiscriminating viewers from seeking this picture out? No. It’s the kind of movie you get stuck watching because everyone at the family reunion is picky so you have to choose something before grandma falls asleep. (Fullscreen version on DVD, March 12, 2015)

[adamwatchesmovies]

Home on the Range (2004)

People still talk about Lilo & Stitch. Sometimes you even hear some discuss the merits of Brother Bear. No one talks about Home on the Range. Was the second-last theatrically-released Disney Animated really THAT bad? No. I’d even recommend it for young audiences. Just know that for everyone else, it's mostly unremarkable.

When their farm is threatened with foreclosure, cows Maggie (voiced by Roseanne Barr), Grace (Jennifer Tilly), and Mrs. Calloway (Judi Dench) make it their mission to come up with the money by capturing wanted outlaw Alameda Slim (Randy Quaid).

Bits and pieces of the 45th Disney animated feature film are likable. The main characters, for instance. Jennifer Tilly is consistently funny as Grace. Having a trio of cows in this western adventure is a nice departure from the stories we're accustomed to from the studio. The visuals aren't revolutionary, but there are a couple of well-drawn scenes, with a noteworthy one that recalls the "Pink Elephants on Parade" insanity of Dumbo. It's the highlight and with the way it plays out, Home on the Range might be worth seeing - once - just for that sequence. There are also a couple of nice sight gags here and there, including some pretty good ones with the villain.

All that said, this is not a particularly strong picture. It contains many dated or odd elements. The story isn’t fresh. You can't quite put your finger on it. There’s something about Home on the Range, its character designs, the peg-legged rabbit Lucky Jack (Charles Haid), and the selfish horse, Buck (Cuba Gooding, Jr.) that doesn’t pop.

The obvious flaws include the abundance of "generic animated jokes”. I’m talking about characters given silly quirk that don’t really make any sense and do not deepen them or make them more interesting in any way. A perfect example is Buck. Why does he know Kung Fu? For no reason except to have a bunch of silly scenes for the kiddies where he jumps around screaming Hi-yah! The film is made for children, yes. That’s the problem. Children is the only audience this will appeal to. Adults Can still watch Snow White, Fantasia, Aladdin or Beauty and the Beast and never feel like they're stuck babysitting someone. Why can’t Home on the Range, be on the same level?

I wouldn’t have even guessed that this was a Disney movie if it hadn’t known going in. Home on the Range doesn’t contain that magic. It’s a child-friendly animated movie about some funny talking farm animals, that’s it. I was initially going to collect every single Disney animated film, but after seeing Treasure Planet - it's just ok - and then this one, I think I’ll just stick with the ones that have truly stood the test of time. I still don’t think Home on the Range is all that bad. I’m even going to give it a mild recommendation because it’s watchable, even enjoyable if you’re in the right mood. It just isn’t very strong overall. (On DVD, February 16, 2015)

[adamwatchesmovies]

Laws of Attraction (2004)

I know I paid attention while watching Laws of Attraction so why is it so hard to remember anything about it?

Audrey Woods (Julianne Moore) is a highly successful divorce attorney. She’s single and fine with it (even if it means having a stick up her butt) but as her mother keeps reminding us “80% of women who say they’re not looking for a man are lonely”. Her courtroom rival is Daniel Rafferty (Pierce Brosnan). He’s her opposite, preferring bold theatrics and informal speeches to win his cases. When the two are pitted against each other in a high-profile divorce case, who will win, and who will win who's heart?

Being unmemorable is never a good thing and it's even worse in this case, as all you'll be able to remember 24 hours after the end credits is what you disliked about this romantic comedy. I remember a running joke about Audrey and the weather channel. That wasn’t funny. I remember a montage where Audrey and Daniel turn court cases in personal arguments while the judges look exasperated or bewildered. That just doesn’t make any sense. I remember a recurring gag about a strong Irish drink with a cherry at the bottom, that generated no laughs... I guess there wasn’t anything that I found funny then.

What about the romance? This aspect fares slightly better. There's decent Brosnan and Moore She's very sexy. He's handsome. Too bad this movie is rated PG. Too bad you could set your watch to the lovey-dovey stuff. I bet even you, reading this review at home can predict what is going to happen. Let me give you a hint. We have two main characters right? The one that’s uptight, and the one that’s a free spirit. Who do you think will be the one that acknowledges the obvious attraction between the two, and who is going to be the one that’s reluctant? You might argue that this is a small flaw, but with the way the movie plays out, you will realize this easily decipherable element is a microcosm of the entire movie. The rest of the film has nothing to offer you either so what’s the point? Except to sit through some bad jokes?

At least Laws of Attraction isn't painful to watch. Actually, this may make it worse. A strong reaction would stand out. If someone told me they liked it, I wouldn’t be terribly surprised, but I’d be curious to hear why. No one would want to see this again but I would be interested in the sequel, in which Pierce Brosnan and Julianne Moore's get a divorce and represent themselves in a court of law, only for comedy to ensure. Now THAT’S a movie! (On DVD, January 14, 2015)

[peterstanslizzie]

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by A Pensive Lizzie Mcguire Fan 💜 (@peterstanslizzie)

@enews recently released a rewind video of the #behindthescenes interview of the cast of #raiseyourvoice, in conjunction of the movie’s 15th anniversary! 🎉🎆

This video edit is taken from the E News YouTube page. I have added some of my commentary for some of the highlights from the interview. Please visit their official instagram @enews for the full video as well.

#hilaryduff #oliverjames #newlinecinema #enews #enewsrewind #15thanniversary #moviesanniversary #lizziemcguire #happyanniversary #disney #disneychannel #2004films https://www.instagram.com/p/B3Xm1u1BZ28/?igshid=1s22plqx1sqbs