Britt (Seth Rogen) had an unhappy childhood. His mother died when he
was barely in kindergarten and his stern, LA newspaper publisher
father, James (Tom Wilkinson) didn't have time to give his son the
attention he needed. James even broke Britt's favorite superhero action
figure, in a case of misplaced discipline. Now, Britt is a Peter Pan
adult, still living the highlife, with parties and women but bunking at
his father's posh mansion with no visible future aspirations. James is
not happy. But, unexpectedly, the publisher dies as the result of an
allergic bee sting, in his favorite rose garden, and Britt inherits
everything. Knowing nothing of the operations of a daily journal, Britt
agrees to let his father's right hand man (Edward James Olmos) run it
all while he, the son, loafs. However, Britt's demands for a "good cup
of coffee" leads him to meet his father's auto mechanic/barista, Kato
(Jay Chou). When Kato shows off his numerous inventions and his martial
arts skills, Britt is so impressed he decides the two should roam the
mean streets and beat up some bad guys. This leads to the annoyance of
the City of Angels head thug, Chudnowski (Christoph Waltz) and his
gang. Soon, Britt and Kato are masked crusaders known as the Green
Hornet/Sidekick, acquire a personal assistant, Lenore (Cameron Diaz)
and get more involved with the DA and his attempts to under-report the
actual huge crime problems of So-Cal. With danger at every corner, who
will lord over the city in the end? This is quite a fun flick, a great
popcorn-and-raisinettes affair. It also has wonderful special effects,
action, and art direction. But, alas, as others have noted, Rogen's
attempt at a different sort of superhero doesn't completely work. Its
too much "dude" and "that's amazing" for most tastes. Rogen, who
displayed great ability in Sandler's Funny People, is more tiresome
here than not. This is a shame, for the rest of the cast is very nice.
Waltz, especially, is terrific as the main heavy, showing off great
acting chops as the wisecracking badguy. Chou, Diaz, Olmos, Wilkinson
and all of the others offer fine support. As for the sets, costumes,
effects, and boisterous direction, they are more than worthy. The buzz,
then? Don't skip the Hornet, it offers an entertaining couple of hours,
even with its flaws.

Why did they take a good story line for the "Whole family" to go to the
movies and enjoy a great "comic book" film only to ruin it with sex and
bad language. Green Hornet toys for an adult film??

I know it's about money but they miss the point. Do they know how many
parents and grand-parents would be glad to buy the DVD for the kids but
no you have to say no to an extra $100 million you will not get because
of sex and bad language.

Teaching kids that sex outside of marriage has no Consequences is one
of the big problems with most of the movies out today. Sex has a big
price tag! Parents are you willing to have your kids pay the price with
addiction to porn, broken marriages, heart break, pain, diseases, jail
and possible death, think about that before going with your family to
see this film.

Aaaaahhhhhhhhhhh! I Just saw The Green Hornet in 3D……Damn did I
felt silly sitting in the theater watching what I vote as the worst
movie of the year! The Green Hornet starts off promising in a scene
with James Franco and the great Christoph Waltz from Inglorious
Basterds 2009 (the last film he was in, And boy what a bad choice!) But
The Green Hornet goes downhill real fast after that. Seth Rogan who I
like and is a crack up in most movies he is in, single handed kills
this movie! I like Superheros to be a bit humorous, but not incredibly
annoying! It seems the director of this turkey had no control over
Rogan (Playing Britt Reid alias The Green Hornet) goes crazy yelling in
scene after scene, obviously improvising most of his lines. This might
have worked for Pineapple Express but totally ruins this movie. I was
rooting for Kato to kick the Rogan characters ass at any moment or
hoping one of the bad guys would shoot him. I think Seth Rogan would
have been a better choice as the villain in this movie and Waltz as The
Green Hornet or a George Clooney, friggin Brad Pitt or someone like
that. The rest of the cast sucks too, An aging Cameron Diaz has nothing
to do in this flick, Edward James Olmos looked like he was about to
climb out of the screen and hitch a ride home, the Chinese guy who
plays Kato mumbles his lines throughout the movie. Shame on these
Hollywood bozos! The Writers, Director, and Seth Rogan for destroying a
cool comic book and the original sixties TV series that starred Van
Williams and the great Bruce Lee. And if Bruce Lee were alive today I
think he would have gave Seth Rogan and his Follywood buddies a good
ol' Karate kick to the balls! P.S. the 3D sucked too

The King's Speech (2010) starring Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush, and
Helena Bonham Carter, directed by Tom Hooper is yet another Hollywood
movie about the British monarchy which joins The Queen (2008) and The
Madness Of King George III (both of the latter featuring Helen Mirren
as the Queen of England, past and present).

The next Royal Wedding is coming up soon as Prince William marries
later this year, and the tabloids and other newspapers and watchers of
the British Royals are getting ready for the spectacle of it all.

Interest in the British Royals is "in the air," even more than usual,
since the soon to be married prince may well become the next King
should his father, Prince Charles, give the job of being his mother's
replacement and the next King of England a miss.

The King's Speech (2010) movie shows us the insides of many grand Royal
places well photographed in wonderful color. It is a sort of
travelogue, and that makes the movie's many, many shortcomings worth
putting up with.

The acting is good to the extent the actors have material to work with.
However, the script is weak and gives actors little range, and repeats
dramatic situations good when viewers first see them, but stale when
repeated. For the first 20 minutes or so, we enjoy and appreciate the
considerable talents and actor expertise of Colin Firth and Geoffrey
Rush (who play King George VI and his speech therapist respectively),
we are shown the anguish of the King faced with speech problems he has,
and the humor and teaching talents of the therapist in duet scenes the
movie starts out with.

Unfortunately, the movie fizzles after the first 20 minutes, and we see
nothing new for the rest of the show. Just more anguish and more clever
teaching done with humor. It gets old. Not the actors fault. They were
and are good. But the screenwriter and the producers who hired the
screenwriter simply didn't deliver the goods, but rather served up
formulaic bromides about the inflexibility of King George V, the father
of King George VI, the controversy and criticism which surrounded the
future Duke of Windsor and his American girlfriend and future wife
(Wallis Simpson, who like Camilla Bowles, Prince Charles' current wife,
was divorced), and Hitler and the Nazis in Germany.

Nothing new or original or interesting is part of any of that, and the
movie lags and lags as a result.

But the visual part of it all is good, and the lovely settings used and
shown are terrific. The gigantic rooms, the expensive furniture, the
grovelling servants and deference paid to the Royals by England's
trained servile population are all there to see and capture our
interest.

It's an OK movie, and not more than that. Hollywood and the movie
community worldwide have created great masterpieces over the history of
movies as an art form, a history now more than a century old.
http://WWW.Amazon.Com will sell used copies very cheap of the world's greatest
movies (see the Library Of Congress National Film Registry List for 475
titles all worth seeing, all cheap in used form from Amazon.Com).

The King's Speech (2011) has many good points and parts, but it is not
a great movie. My advice is to see the great ones, and then if you have
time left, check out OK but not great movies like The King's Speech
(2011).

————————

Written by Tex Allen, SAG Actor. Visit http://WWW.IMDb.Com and choose "Tex
Allen" "resume" for contact information, movie credits, and
biographical information about Tex Allen.

Tex Allen has reviewed more than 35 movies posted on the website
http://WWW.IMDb.Com (the world's largest movie information database, owned by
Amazon.Com) as of January 2011.

These include: 1. Alfie (1966) 29 July 2009 2. Alien (1979) 24 July
2009 3. All the President's Men (1976) 16 November 2010 4. American
Graffiti (1973) 22 November 2010 5. Animal House (1978) 16 August 2009
6. Bullitt (1968) 23 July 2009 7. Captain Kidd (1945) 28 July 2009 8.
Child Bride (1938) 24 September 2009 9. Creature from the Black Lagoon
(1954) 22 September 2010 10. Detour (1945) 19 November 2010 11. Die
Hard 2 (1990) 23 December 2010 12. The Wonderful, Horrible Life of Leni
Riefenstahl (1993) 19 November 2010 13. Jack and the Beanstalk (1952)
26 July 2009 14. King Solomon's Mines (1950) 1 December 2010 15. Knute
Rockne All American (1940) 2 November 2010 16. Claire's Knee (1970) 15
August 2009 17. Melody Ranch (1940) 10 November 2010 18. Morning Glory
(1933) 19 November 2010 19. New Moon (1940) 3 November 2010 20.
Pinocchio (1940) 6 November 2010 21. R2PC: Road to Park City (2000) 19
November 2010 22. Salt (2010) 24 August 2010 23. Sunset Blvd. (1950) 1
December 2010 24. The Great Dictator (1940) 1 November 2010 25. The
Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner (1962) 9 January 2011 26. The
Man in the White Suit (1951) 5 August 2009 27. The Philadelphia Story
(1940) 5 November 2010 28. The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (1974) 1
August 2009 29. The Thomas Crown Affair (1999) 14 August 2009 30. The
Witchmaker (1969) 21 July 2009 31. Thousands Cheer (1943) 3 December
2010 32. Till the Clouds Roll By (1946) 24 November 2010 33. Wake Up
and Live (1937) 27 July 2009 34. Witness for the Prosecution (1957) 1
August 2009 A full list of Tex Allen's movie reviews appearing on
http://WWW.IMDb.Com with links to full texts of reviews is accessible via:
http://imdb.com/user/ur15279309/comments

Tex Allen's email address is TexAllen@Yahoo.Com.

This is the first year i've had the pleasure to screen all movies as to
which i think will be top contenders for this year's Oscar awards. I
have been disappointed by some IE; The Social Network, but overall i
think the Academy have done well in their decision making. Yes I know
its a little early as the Oscar noms haven't even been delivered as of
yet however The Golden Globes have and they are usually a pretty good
indicator of whats to come. When i originally saw the trailer for this
i had thought that this looked utterly boring as i am not a fan of the
time period represented in this film although I am definitely a fan of
historical true life stories and thats why i gave this a chance. I will
start by saying good thing i did as I was presented by yet another
favourite trait in movies i see and that being power house acting. Out
of the 5 nominees in this years golden globes (for last years movies
however) I have seen all but 1 in the best acting category and thats
Ryan Gosling's performance in Blue Valentine and that is next on my
list to do. I don't agree with two of the nominees Jessie Eisenberg and
James Franco however the rest are so deserving of a win. The man who
won the Golden Globe was The King's Speech's own Colin Firth. I had
originally only seen Firth in a handful of things IE;Mamma Mia and the
Bridget Jones movies and unfortunately have not seen his 2009 also
nominated for an acting nod film The Single Man but plan to do so also.
He is one of the reasons that i choose my top 5 actors and that he can
damn well do a good job of making you believe he is the character in
which he is portraying. Firth in this portrays King George VI who since
the invention of the radio has now been forced to deliver his ailing
father's speeches to the citizens of England all the midst of having a
stuttering problem. His wife finds him a speech therapist Lionel Loque
(Geoffrey Rush) in a bid to finally cease this impediment unbeknowst to
her that Lionel and Bertie (King George's pet name given to him by his
closest family members as to which Lionel insists on calling him
nothing but) would not only deal with the pending speech problem but
also start what will be a lifelong friendship. This movie not only
shows you the value of a good strong friendship it also shows you the
pressures one faces while being a royal family member.

Its not often when you can say, "totally engrossing" and "not a dull
moment" in a movie thats not an action movie and is 90% indoors with 2
guys talking. This movie spans roughly 1935-1939. With the death of
King George V, the abdication of Edward, coronation of George VI and
the start of the WWII in Europe. It revolves around the relationship
that forms and the method of speech therapy that George VI underwent.
Climaxing in the speech the king made to rally the nation when war was
declared with Nazi Germany. I am pretty sure some artistic licensing
may have been taken in some of the scenes. Edward and Wallis Simpson
were portrayed in a rather negative light (true or not, who knows). I
recommend reading up on George VI before watching the movie it will
help and add to the understanding. It will also make it feel like you
are watching their private lives. Brilliant movie, definitely one that
I will watch again.

I saw this film on the recommendation of my 19 year old step son, who
only saw it as he couldn't get in to see Gullivers Travels. He has no
interest in history or the Royal Family and a limited knowledge of the
period. He raved about it, claiming it was the best film he'd seen in
ages and so I went.

It is one of those films where you can't help but get involved. Each
excruciating word was being mouthed by the audience and the sense of
relief and happiness at the end, was palpable.

Fantastic acting, great dialogue, brilliant costumes and the only
slight fault would be in some of the backdrop/scene settings, which
looked slightly false (didn't have the Avatar budget I guess). The
audience age spread was the widest I've ever known it and if your
parents/grandparents remember George VI, you must take them along to
see it.

If this doesn't win a hat full of Oscars then there is no justice in
this world.

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Instead, it is a story about enslavement, servitude, deception and
corruption.

Abby is a vampire, who knows how old. She is an evil and manipulative
creature who needs blood to survive. She must kill in order to find
nourishment. Since she cannot be exposed to daylight and do a lot of
things humans can, she must have a manservant to take care of her
needs.

Owen is a naive, lonely and rather effeminate boy that has a pretty sad
life. He is bullied, his parents are divorcing and his mother is an
alcoholic.

Having lost her manservant, Abby must find another one, as soon as
possible so that she can continue living. To that end she approaches
Owen and seduces him and this way she will have someone to provide her
with her needs.

So, there is no love in this story… There is no reciprocity. Abby
uses the boy for her needs, and the boy has the illusion that he is
loved….

This is a really cool movie, and more interesting than the original
one, in my opinion.

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The case for defending Kenny Waters (Sam Rockwell) never looked good
from the start. Considered the neighbourhood hoodlum, the authorities
referred to him as 'trash'. His family couldn't handle him, so he grew
up in foster homes. Even the filmmaker, Tony Goldwyn (grandson of
Samuel), proceeds as though he is representing the prosecution.

When a local woman is murdered in an ineffably horrific way, the finger
inevitably points at Kenny. He is arrested, but quickly released
because of the dearth of evidence incriminating him. But, as the film
forcefully reveals, innocence is meaningless when society has already
written you off. Two years pass and new (perjured) testimonies from
previous partners are enough for Kenny to be given a
life-without-parole sentence. He was arrested whilst observing his
granddad's funeral.

But the evidence against Kenny overlooked one thing: he was innocent.
Sensing, not knowing this, Betty Ann (Hilary Swank) declares that she
will get her brother out of jail – whatever the sacrifice. In the end
the cost to her was to neglect her two children, ignore her own
ambitions and divorce her husband. Done, not in the name of justice,
but in the name of love.

Failed by society, she is forced to become a lawyer for the sole
purpose of attempting to free Kenny. After around 15 years of setbacks
and false hopes, science comes to the rescue: emergent DNA testing
proves Kenny's innocence.

I'm used to Rockwell playing unsavoury types, so his portrayal of a
neglected individual, with a propensity for violence but a fierce
loyalty to his family, touched me in a way that I did not expect. Swank
is back on top form, reminding us why she won two Oscars by the age of
30 ('Boys Don't Cry' and 'Million Dollar Baby'). Blemishes, chapped
lips, bags, unwashed hair and whatever else she needs to get her next
Oscar nod – it's all there. Juliette Lewis impresses in her cameo as
the nefarious ex-girlfriend, and Minnie Driver is convincing as the
friend who helps Betty Ann unconditionally.

Much is chronicled about the 'system' in this story. But people put
Kenny Waters behind bars; not a nebulous 'system'. If the depiction is
true, a police officer with a grudge worked to put Kenny behind bars;
people analysing the DNA were purposely tardy; and corrupt officials
bribed witnesses to perjure their testimonies or else.

People don't like to admit when they've made a mistake. That's why
people like Betty Ann Waters are so important.

http://www.scottishreview.net

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I haven't reviewed anything in a long time. I've seen some notably good
and bad movies but this one has a lot to be said about it. I went to
this movie with my boyfriend who is a big fan of western's. I'm not as
much a fan but I enjoy a good old western shoot 'em up flick every once
in a while. It did look interesting and it was a remake of a John Wayne
film- How could it not be good? So I bit the bullet and tagged along
not expecting much but hoping to be entertained.

Let me just start with this- Its boring! Plain as that. It has long,
lengthy, tedious, monotonous, redundant conversations about mundane and
uninspired normal everyday things. (Such as haggling over a horse…
Come on that conversation did NOT need to last 5-10 minutes).

The lead Mattie was pretentious. She was a deeply annoying kid trying
to play big girl and it was frankly quite irritating. I didn't find her
to be "Tough as nails" like a few people are describing her especially
since when things didn't go her way she threw out the "I have a good
lawyer" threat to help her out. Her performance was wooden to say the
least. For a girl who's father had just died she didn't seem that
upset. I'm not asking she cry her eyes out every minute but her frigid
demeanor could have been broken at least once to humanize the
character, who can really care about or sympathize for someone who just
acts like a puppet for the director?

None of the performances are anything spectacular. Jeff Bridges plays a
drunk and Matt Damon plays an overcompensating jerk. There was no real
action. It was a lot talking, horse riding, arguing… The most
shooting done was a ridicules scene where the drunk tries to prove he
isn't wasted and tries to shoot a bottle and cornbread. The movie
didn't flow well. There were long boring drawn out scenes of nothing
important. And then the important scenes were rushed. There was no time
to savor the victory because it was so fast and sudden. The plot was
just too thin.

The very ending was a last attempt to add spice to this terrible film
but nothing could save it. The plot needed to be thicker and more
interesting, the characters needed more character, development and be
less one dimensional, The script needed to be completely rewritten I
don't even know where to begin on how bad it was and this movie just to
be completely honest and blunt SUCKED.