Spy movie review

Cast: Melissa McCarthy, Jason Statham, Jude Law, Rose Byrne, Allison Janney

Director: Paul Feig

Running time: 1 hour and 57 minutes

   This is just like any other movie where an unlikely hero is forced to step up and save the day. In Spy that unlikely hero is Melissa McCarthy, who is a CIA analyst. After every active agent is compromised she has to go out in the field and save the mission. Sounds familiar, right? Right, but it's also kind of good.
 

   After the first 10 minutes, which were a little slow in my opinion, the movie picks up the pace and starts getting pretty funny. There are a number of jokes that will make you chuckle or at least entertain you and a couple of jokes that will make you straight up laugh (mostly involving Jason Statham). It's not the most memorable comedy but it's good Thursday night action movie.
 

   Speaking of funny, when you think Jason Statham, funny is not the first thing that pops into your head, but I have to say his character and his interactions with Melissa McCarthy where the moments in the movie that I found the most compelling. Their banter is very fun and he is not afraid to embrace the over-the-top nature of this role. I wish he had more screen time and I hope he gets the opportunity to get more roles like this in the future.

   Another aspect of Spy that I particularly enjoyed where the moments when Susan got to be a badass and order Rose Byrne's character around. The different lines that she came up with were hilariously mean and creative and the fact that Raina couldn't say anything back made it that much more entertaining. Melissa McCarthy isn't the first protagonist to rise to greatness from the depths of insignificance but she is certainly a good one.
 

   As expected, Susan Cooper had a crush on a handsome, talented and stereotypically “out of her league” colleague a.k.a. Jude Law, who never saw her in a romantic light and could have any woman he wanted. Bradley Fine, however, was not as perfect as the majority of handsome, talented and stereotypically “out of her league” colleagues tend to be in this kind of movie. He was great at his job and a good friend to Susan but, also, a selfish prick who convinced her to stay in the basement as an analyst, when he knew she had potential, in order to fulfill his own selfish ambitions. He was a more complicated and three-dimensional character than a lot, even though he was absent for a great deal of the movie.

   In a movie where there is a mission and bad guys and CIA agents and everything else that goes along with the kind of movie Spy is, there are bound to be some fights and some kills. Even though I though those fights were well made and established Susan as an even stronger woman protagonist, I couldn't get over the fact that in every stabbing or shooting there would be one or two drops of blood and that was it. Speaking from my limited knowledge of forensic anatomy and physiology I have to argue that when a person is shot or stab to death he, sure, bleeds a lot more than that.

  Now, let's get back to Jason Statham's character. Even though I found him appealing as a character, I couldn't help but root for him to succeed and prove himself. As established from what we knew about him, Ford was a loud, over-the-top, sometimes reckless, in his attempt to prove he is better than everyone else, agent. But he was still a CIA agent and there wasn't a moment that would justify that in this movie. I don't think government agents tend to be self-obsessed goofs that can't get anything right and, always, need someone to save them, but that's just me.

  Finally, speaking about unbelievable little Spy sub-stories, I don't understand the running joke about how Melissa McCarthy's character knew things that would be impossible for her to know. For example how she could find a shortcut in the middle of nowhere in Budapest while she had never lived there. If that was an attempt to mock the stereotypical action movie, I don't think it was a very good one.

   In conclusion, do I think Spy is one of the great comedies? No. Do I think it's a fine way to spend a nice quite night? Most definitely.

 

Score: 69%

Tomatometer: 95%

m.

Courtesy of

20th Century FOX

 

And the Oscar goes to....

Cast: Michael Keaton, Edward Norton, Emma Stone, Naomi Watts, Zach Galifianakis, Andrea Riseborough
Director: Alejandro González Iñárritu
Running time: 1 hour and 59 minutes
 

It's time to talk about the Oscar-winning movie, Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance).

  Have you ever thought about what happens to a very successful actor years after his time in the spotlight? Birdman is that story. It's been years since Riggan Thomson rose to fame as Birdman. It's been years since Riggan Tomson felt important. It's been years since Riggan Tomson felt like he mattered. So, years after he became famous portraying a superhero called Birdman, Riggan Tomson decides to write, direct and star in a Broadway adaptation of Raymond Carver's short story "What we talk about when we talk about love". Will it help him find what he is looking for or will it make him feel that he doesn't matter (like the rest of us) even more?

  So, let me start talking about Birdman with what seems to be the thing that stands out about the movie and the thing that everyone is talking about, the way its shot. Birdman is shot like it is one continuous take, even though the events of the movie take place upon a couple of days, if not more. Having heard beforehand about the unusual way the movie was shot and having never seen anything like it before, I was wary of whether the gimmick would work for me or not. And the short answer is that it did work, at least in my opinion. It made the movie feel very fluid and even mesmerizing at times. It was so captivating as it went along that I couldn't stop thinking about every little detail about the plot, the characters, the sets or the shot(s). Alejandro González Iñárritu caught my attention for 99% of the whole 2 hours of the movie.

  And when I say it made me think about everything I, really, mean it. My brain was, constantly, on overdrive trying to find and explain the meaning behind every character's actions and reactions, spoken and unspoken words, face and body expressions... It was very refreshing to watch a movie that required effort but, also, rewarded you, in the end, for making that effort.

  Part of the reason I was so entranced by Birdman (along with the shooting style) was how realistic and complex the characters were. There was layer after layer of personality and motivation created by a lifetime of experiences and backstory and that was visible on the screen.

  Adding to the intricacy of the character writing and developing were the great performances of the extraordinary cast. Michael Keaton made Riggan Tomson come to life as a forgotten actor that has, obviously, some issues due to the fall of his career and is trying to prove to everyone else, but mostly himself, that he is talented in the true sense of the word and not only in the Hollywood blockbuster way. He made the character lovable, pitiful and even reprehensibly self-centered without making him a caricature. On the other hand, Edward Norton found shadings in a character that could, otherwise, be portrayed as a shallow, selfish and self-absorbed celebrity that thinks he is better than everyone else. He, instead, made Mike Shiner feel like a relatably insecure person that tries to hide his flaws and weaknesses behind his talent and acting stardom. Similarly, Emma Stone gave depth to her character that could be seen as a child-of-a-famous-actor brat that is living the high life with drugs and partying. However, Sam Thomson is, actually, a troubled young girl with some understandable father issues and a real fear of being insignificant. 

 

  Since I found  the individual characters so interesting I, subsequently, found their interactions with each other even more captivating. I loved the conversations between Riggan and Sam and how she was projecting her problems onto him and how he was trying to convince himself that even though he was an absent father in the past, he had since evolved and gotten closer to his daughter, even if that wasn't really the truth. So, the fact that there weren't more scenes with them together took away from the movie for me. I would love to have seen more from them, or in the very least from her.

 

  However, even though I, thoroughly, enjoyed the movie I had a big problem with the end of it, as I've heard other people did too ( and I won't spoil it, don't worry!). Because of how extensively I analyzed the rest of the movie combined with the fact that I think all of the magical elements of it were creations of Tomson's imagination, I can't seem to understand the meaning of the final scene (and I am referring to Michael Keaton's FINAL, absolutely last, scene). I don't understand what it was representing in Birdman's "real world" or its translation into our world. I feel like there was a very appropriate mark where they could have stopped the movie and they just kept going past it.

 

  In conclusion, do I think Birdman deserved to win the Oscar for Best Screenplay? I can't answer that since I've only seen two of this year's nominations ( it, definitely, deserved to win over "The Imitation Game"), but I can, certainly, recommend it, especially if you are a movie-newbie (like me).

Score:89%
Tomatometer: 93%

m.

Courtesy of

Fox Searchlight Pictures

The Maze Runner movie review

 Cast: Dylan O'Brien, Ami Ameen, Thomas Brodie-Sangster, Ki Hong Lee, Will Poulter, Blake Cooper, Kaya Scodelano
Director: Wes Ball
Running time: 1 hour and 53 minutes

  It used to be witches and wizards. Then it was vampires and werewolves. Now it's all about dystopian futures. That is where Thomas' story comes to life. In a dystopian future; and more specifically in a maze. Thomas is one of many children who were put in the middle of a maze with no recollection of how they got there or any memory of their past. How did Thomas and the others get there? How could they get out?

 

  "The Maze Runner" is based on the first book of a trilogy written by James Dashner. Having read the book in question and having enjoyed it quite a lot I decided to go to the movies to see how the words would translate on the screen. This is my opinion on that "translation".

 

  Since it is in the title let's start with what I thought about the actual maze. So here it is: The maze itself is stunning. The beautiful and tranquil, full of greenery, middle part of the maze called Glade is right out of a nature magazine, while the mazy (not really a word) part of the maze is super industrial and cool looking. There are walls after walls, layer after layer, dead ends and wrong turns and everything looks amazing. Better than I imagined it.

 

  Now that we got that out of the way it's time to move on to the story line. Like in the book there were some worthwhile moments in a dramatic sense. !!SPOILER ALERT!! If you want to see the moment when Thomas decides to go into the maze to save Alby, it's there. If you want to see the scene when Thomas decides to sting himself so that he can remember, that's there too. Being fan of the dramatic (sometimes even the cheesy dramatic) I enjoyed those moments and scenes, but that's about as good as it goes. Especially for someone who has read the book and knows how everything pans out. I was never nervous or excited; I was just emotionlessly watching a series of events while always knowing the next step of the sequence.

  As you may have guesses already I wasn't a big fan of the movie and one of the reasons why is the lack emotional connection with all of the characters. Even though I had read the book and did like Thomas (and loved Gally) I felt no emotion towards them in the movie. Is Thomas going to get killed by the Grievers? Who cares; certainly not me. A team of good actors playing a banch of characters with no personalities to speak of (the inventors took only their memories, not their character traits supposingly).

  What I would, also, like to add is that not only was I indifferent to Thomas but i, actually, disliked him. His obvious favoritism towards some of the characters was very annoying and at times cruel. They decided that Thomas was going to play God (and by they i mean the screenwriters and even Dashner a bit) because everyone would only try to save certain people from the human killing machines and those people were, always, picked by Thomas. It wasn't as obvious as i describe it but no less frustrating.

  The book is about 376 pages long and the movie is 113 minutes long. That time to page difference really took away from the film for me. Everything that happens in the first 3/4 of the book is cramped into a 45 minute period. I felt that everything happened too fast, not giving the audience the chance to take it all in the way someone reading the book would.

  Another very important flaw that of the movie that i thought was, also, a flaw in the book (maybe even more than the movie) is the ending !!SPOILER!!. I don't understand how could no one figure out for the three years they were in the maze that it was just a test? Or that if you study a maze the same way for three years and you haven't found anything that means you won't find anything for the next 100 years if you don't change something in your ways? (Isn't "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results" what they say?)

  And, finally, let's talk about the Grievers and every scene that they are in (which are a lot of them). Everything was too loud, the Grievers themselves were faky gross looking and i was not really scared by them. When i was reading the book i was picturing more of a mechanical invention and if the story was different i wouldn't mind if something wasn't exactly as i thought it would be but seeing as the Grievers were created by people i really wanted something more similar to what i was imagining. Because of their appearance and the way they sounded every scene featuring them felt more like a Sci Fi scary horror film, which isn't what the rest of the movie was.

  In conclusion, i was really disappointed with how The Maze Runner turned out. I don't recommend it to those who have read the book but, maybe, if you are going in cold you might like it.I will, probably, read the second book, not so sure i will watch the second movie.

Score: 42%
Tomatometer: 63%


m.
 

Courtesy of

20th Century Fox

 

Garden State movie review

Cast: Zach Braff, Natalie Portman, Peter Sarsgaard, Ian Holm
Director: Zach Braff
Running time: 1 hour and 52 minutes

  It's been nine years since Andrew Largeman has been back home to New Jersey. But when his mother dies, Andrew is forced to go back to his childhood home, his psychiatrist father and his high school friends, for the funeral. You may think you know what kind of movie this is, but it's something completely different.

  Garden State is like nothing I've ever seen before. It's a drama, it's a comedy, it's a love story and it's all those things in the perfect way. I've never seen a movie do so much at once in a perfect blend. I might just started dipping my toes in this infinite pool that is movies, but I can't help being impressed with what "Garden State" achieved. Every type of incident depicted in this film, from the funny to the sad and from the lovely to the tragically horrible, everything is in harmony. There to compliment one another.

  One of the most wonderful things about this movie is how simple it actually is. There is not what someone would describe as a straight line plot. There is just a series of situations during a four day period that serve no higher purpose but they, slowly and surely, start reveling the personalities of everyone involved. In most of the movies "everything happens for a reason"; and people may want to believe that this is the case in real life but it's not. Garden State conveys that reality perfectly.

  At the beginning of the film we see how Andrew Largeman's life is  blank and emotionless. He, clearly, feels numb when we first meet him. So numb, in fact, that he can't even cry at his mother's funeral. But as the movie goes along and as more time passes from the last time he took his prescriptioned medicine, we start to witness subtle glimpses of emotion coming to the surface. We see him evolve from a medicated blank canvas into a colorful painting full of emotion. It was amazing to watch that process.

  Something else worth mentioning is how sensational all of the actors are. When you first meet the characters you may think that they are a type but Braff's writing combined with the excellent performances of the cast bring all the parts to life and give them a refreshing originality and a lifelike depth.

  Now regarding our two leads, Sam and Andrew. I was shocked at the effortlessness and comfort between them. At some point in the movie one of the two mentions how they've known each other only for four days, and I was surprised to realize that it was true. There are movies that you want the protagonists, who know each other for a short period of time, to be in love with each other but you don't necessarily believe that they would and then there is Garden State that you know that the protagonists, who know each other or a short period of time, would be in love.

  And at last, I have to say how fast the time flew by while watching his movie. Garden State was so interesting that I would look at how much time I had spent watching it and it would be 10 minutes and the next moment it would be an hour and the next the movie would be ending and it hadn't even registered in my mind that it was 1 hour and 50 minutes after the first time I sat down and pushed the play button. It has been a long time since I last experienced something like that and I'm glad Garden State came around to remind me of the feeling.

  Garden State is almost perfect, almost. Despite the fact that the movie was so interesting, fast paced and exciting, the first 10 minutes were a bit on the slow side. After that 10 minute mark everything is exhilarating and captivating, but for those minutes I didn't know what I was in for. I was scared that I wouldn't like it and be disappointed after wanting to watch it for so long (that didn't happen if you haven't figured it out already).

  Lastly, because the film was so strong throughout I was a little let down by the ending. I found that it caved into a cliché and it frustrated me since everything else was so innovating. I wish there was a different conclusion (even though I have no idea what I would have liked to have seen).

  In conclusion, Garden State is pretty amazing and if you find the start too slow paced, keep at it; you will be rewarded in the end.

Final thought: I was, definitely, in it.

Score:90%
Tomatometer: 86%


m.

Courtesy of

Fox Searchlight Pictures

Miramax Films

Two Night Stand movie review

Cast: Analeigh Tipton, Miles Teller, Jessica Szohr, Leven Rambin, Scott Mescudi
Director: Max Nichols
Running time: 1 hour and 26 minutes 

 Analeigh Tipton is just a girl wanting to have fun after her break-up grieving period. So she meets Miles Teller online and they end up hitting off and hooking up. Every thing is going according to plan until Megan wakes up the next morning to find that she is stranded in Alec's apartment with no hopes of going anywhere because of a terrible snow blizzard. And so the one night stand they were hoping for turned into a "Two Night Stand" no one wanted.

  This is the third romantic comedy style movie with 20something protagonists that I've reviewed in the last months, the others being "That Awkward Moment" ( review: http://moviereviewsbym94.blogspot.gr/2014/05/that-awkward-moment-movie-review.html ) (which Teller was in) and "Cavemen" ( review: http://moviereviewsbym94.blogspot.gr/2014/09/cavemen-movie-review.html ). And like Cavemen I have to praise Two Night Stand for the chemistry between its leads. They are very cute together. He is funny and dorky-good looking. She is beautiful, charming and has awesome hair. It's a match made in heaven. And fortunately, they are the focus of the movie, unlike That Awkward Moment.

  Another strong, and often missing from this type of movies, element that Two Night Stand posses is that it is R rated and it embraces that. Unlike both of the other movies, sex plays a big part in the film (it is called "Two Night Stand" after all). They do it, they talk about it and they make it important, like it is for someone in his/her twenties.

  And finally, I did enjoy the movie's light, fun and flirty moments. When it's not about something deep and/or serious, Two Night Stand is a good time. It has its funny moments. It has its hot and simultaneously adorable co-stars. And it has a light, refreshing touch to it. All in all pleasurable, until you forget all about it five minutes after you saw it.

  Which brings me to this. Two Night Stand might have its light, unimportant fun but it, also, has its serious, "draggy" moments. The screenwriters try to give the movie substance by making the characters talk about thing like how difficult it is to have your parents still together,in love and how to live up to that and it feels kind of ridiculous. These types of conversations don't go well with the tone of the rest of the movie and they drag it into clichés and stereotypes. I feel like if the film had accepted its more light-hearted nature it would be a better time for the audience and the critics.

  Moreover, something that bothered me with Two Night Stand is the uncharacteristic behavior of Megan and Alec. Would a reasonable and averagely intelligent person break a window and illegally enter someone else's house just to use the toilette? Or call the police on someone they like and get them thrown into jail just so that they can track them down? I doubt it, but I guess everyone threw away their thinking caps in this movie because they do all those stuff without even thinking of the consequences.

  And, at last, yes I have to talk about it. Two Night Stand, like both the other movies (and many more i'm sure), seems to follow the same roc-com formula. From the drug scenes to the serious talks to the last make-up. We've seen it all before. There are so many stereotypical pieces to the movie that anything original Two Night Stand has to offer disappears.

  In conclusion, I can't whole-heartedly recommend Two Night Stand but I can, also, vouch for the fact that it is not terrible.

Final thought: The opening sequence is cute (there is that word again).

Score: 41%
Tomatometer: 33%


m.

Courtesy of

eOne

Some Velvet Morning movie review

Cast: Alice Eve, Stanley Tucci
Director: Neil LaBute
Running time: 1 hour and 24 minutes

  This movie is what we call a 2-hander, so be prepared. What that means is that there are only 2 actors on screen during the whole movie. And when i say only 2, i literally mean 2. There is noone else. In "Some Velvet Morning" 's case our two leads are Stanley Tucci and Alice Eve. He is a middle-aged lawyer who just left his wife. She is the seductive blond that taunts him. It's just the two of them and  the tension is building...

  This is the second Neil Labute film i've seen. The first being Some Girl(s), which i've reviewed for this blog (review: http://moviereviewsbym94.blogspot.gr/2013/11/some-girls-movie-review.html ) and which i loved. His films are very character-driven (my favourite kind of movies) and have a certain simplicity about them that i like. Some Girl(s) was a character study type of movie and so was Some Velvet Morning. So i had high expectations getting into it. And those expectation were met to a degree. But let's get more in depth into my review of "Some Velvet Morning".

  One of my favourite things about the movie was Alice Eve. both her character and her acting. Velvet is an ethereal, effortlessly beautiful (in a way that doesn't exist in real life) blond. She is the woman men fight over and the woman women wish they could be. It was wonderful watching her putting on a red lip pencil and fixing her hair in two seconds while still talking and charming Stanley Tucci with seemingly no effort. To make this character convinving and so appealing for no apparent reasons it was detrimantal to have a great actress portray her and Alice Eve is as good as it gets. I can't imagine anyone else in that role and i am glad Neil Labute couldn't either.

  In a simiral way that Some Velvet Morning is simple because of its limited cast, it is, also, simple because of its limited location (the movie doesn't move past Velvet's house). I have long loved movies that are confident and assured enough to limit themselves to a certain geografic spot and turn that "limit" into a possitive attribute that enhanses the plot of the film rather than hurts it. Examples of this kind of movies that come to mind are "Phone Booth" (which i love), "Exam" (which has its bad and its good moments) and many many more i'm sure.This kind of limitation makes the characters and their interactions stand out more and it gives the audience the chance to focus and pay attention to them and, even, think more about the intricate human mind and soul.To add a minor point regarding the location of the movie i have to mention that i loved Velvet's house. It's beautiful and SPOILER!! even though it doesn't suit Velvet's personality and character it looks like a house used for something like what the whole thing turns out to be, but i won't spoil it more.

  I am, now, going to go more into what eventually happens, which is a major !!SPOILER ALERT!!, so consider yourselves warned. Throughout the film I would start noticing some inconsistencies in Velvet and Fred's characters. Fred would declare his love for Velvet at one moment and seem like he dismissed her as someone deserving of him the next. And Velvet would be fun and flirtatious in the begging as if she didn't know how dangerous Fred could be (which she would if it was real) and be surprised when he did turn violent towards the end. So after a point I was ready to classify Some Velvet Morning as fake and unrealistic, but then the came the end and it all started making sense. Their behavior was neither real nor created by an expert psychologist. They are just two people improvising the best they could, so the imperfections were, ironically, perfect in this situation.

  And speaking of the end, I didn't see it coming for a second and upon thinking about it I realized that I went with it completely. Not only did it take me entirely by surprise but after the initial astonishment I, totally, bought into it. It wasn't just a shock for shock's shake, it actually made sense, in my opinion.

  However, even though the end was intense and "edge of my seat" kind of stuff, the rest of the film comes very close to boring territory. The fact that the plot is somewhat limited leads to a number of moments being monotonous and repetitive. The task of grabbing the audience's attention for 84 minutes with, only, two leads and many conversations is a difficult one and Neil LaBute, almost, fails to complete it.

  Another observation that came to mind after watching "Some Velvet Morning" was that both Neil LaBute movies I have seen seem to have a similar "character plot that eventually grows into a twist" quality to them. I do love Neil LaBute (and not many do) but I would like to see something different from him next time.

  In conclusion, if you are a Neil LaBute fan, like me, you will probably like Some Velvet Morning and if you are not I, personally, think it is worth a watch. decide accordingly.

Final thought: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZEURntrQOg

Score: 74%
Tomatometer: 50%

m.

Courtesy of

Tribeca Film

The Rover movie review

Cast: Guy Pearce, Robert Pattinson, Scoot McNairy, David Field, Anthony Hayes 

Director: David Michôd

Running time: 1 hour and 42 minutes

 

  It's 10 years after the collapse. The world has change dramatically. The film starts with Guy Pearce sitting alone, drinking, when his car gets stolen. So he decides to kidnap the only person who knows where the thieves are going, Robert Pattinson, and their wild journey begins. You may think what is so special about this car or what will Guy Pearce do to the people who took it or, even, what has happen to the world? But non of these questions matter. The question you need to ask is what will happen to Pearce and Pattinson's characters during this trip? And trust me you want to know the answer.

 

  I really liked "The Rover" and one, and maybe the most important, reason is both Robert Pattinson as an actor and Rey as his character. Rey is so pathetic, lovable and sympathetic that I couldn't help but feel sorry for him and wish, with my whole heart, for him to "succeed" in the end. He is not portrayed as a saint but not as the devil, either. He may make wrong choices but he regrets them and carries with him the guilt of his decisions. All of that combined with the fact that he has some kind of mental disability made me root for him all the way to the end.

  Not only did I love the character but I loved the acting. Robert Pattinson made Rey come to life with his constant subtle body movements and, also, the different emotions depicted on his face and way of talking. When his character was hyperactive due to his anxieties, I was hyperactive. When his character was sad because of the abandonment from his brother or the rejection from Guy Pearce, I was sad. He was amazing and I can't wait to see him in Cosmopolis.

  It's time to talk about Eric and Rey's relationship, which is in my opinion, what the movie is all about. What you will learn early on is that Eric is tough and doesn't have any connections with anyone as far as we know. So when he meets Rey his sole purpose is to use him so that he can find his car and then, maybe, kill him, maybe not, it doesn't matter. However, during the period of their very long ride Rey, desperately, tries to connect with him. And at first Eric shot down every attempt Rey made but as time went on and as he saw more of his, borderline stupid, good nature Guy Pearce's character started to feel some kind of sympathy for Rey. I found the slow and very toned down way their relationship  grew, wonderful to watch. it was very credible, honest and, even, heartwarming.

  In addition to the relationship, another strength of The Rover is that it was believably developed. What I mean by that is that, even though, it was obvious that Guy Pearce was starting to see Robert Pattinson in a different, more friendly, maybe even more fatherly way it was never over the top. There were no great gestures on the part of Pearce and the only "movie big" action that happened was because of Robert Pattinson's character and it was logical to the situation at hand and to Rey's character in general. He, may, felt bad for Rey but he was, still, the guy who would shoot someone in cold blood, like he did in the beginning.

  In my introduction of the movie I talked about questions. I thought the way to writer chose which questions to answer and which not to was exactly right. The point of the film wasn't what happened 10 years ago or how the world came to be this way. The point was the human connection between someone that had something happen to him which changed him and toughened him up and someone who felt a deep loneliness and desperation and had many insecurities. The lack of external information made their relationship the center of the movie and brought, even more, intensity to it.

  !!!!!SPOILER ALERT!!!!! Finally, the last point I have to make about the strong elements of the movie involves a major spoiler, the end (so stop reading if you haven't watched The Rover yet). As much as I didn't want to see him die, I expected that Rey would, at a certain time in the movie, lose his life. And when I say I expected, I am refering to the feeling I had that this would be the case in real life. The very thing that made me love him, his kind-heart foolishness, would be what destroyed him in the end. I appreciate that despite the fact that it wasn't what a number of people would want to see (i.e. me) the screenwriter, still, chose to have it happen.

  However, although The Rover had many strong traits, there were some elements of it that lowered my score. First and foremost the pacing was a little too loose for my taste, especially in the begging. I liked that it had a calmness and a unrushed rhythm in its storytelling but I thought it was too much in the first half of the film. It became tiring until it all came together in the second to third act.

  And, at last, my final "complain" is about the last scene of the movie. I'll try not to spoil it for you, but I thought it came out of nowhere and had no real emotional residue, unlike most of the other scenes of the film. I understand that it was a way to show that Eric had some emotional substance and vulnerability in him, reinforcing the idea that he did, actually, grow to see Rey in a  different light but I wish it had been conveyed in a different and more subtle way, keeping the tone synced with the rest of the movie.

  In conclusion, I really enjoyed watching The rover and I recommend it to you, particularly if you like character based movies but beware that this is not a movie to watch when you are feeling tired and/or ready to go to bed.

Score: 74%

Tomatometer: 66%

m.

 

 

Courtesy of

A24

Roadshow Films

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cavemen movie review

Cast: Skylar Astin, Camilla Belle, Chad Michael Murray, Dayo Okeniyi, Kenny Wormald
Director: Herschel Faber
Running time: 1 hour and 28 minutes
 
In the mood for a light and hopefully fun movie and after a two-day binge watch of Ground Floor (starring non other than Skylar Astin), last Sunday, i decided to give Cavemen a chance.

  Cavemen is about a group of 20something guys all living together in a loft they, so originally, named the Cave. Our male lead is Dean (Skylar Astin). He is a struggling screenwriter. Our female lead is Tess (Camilla Belle). She is a struggling singer. They are just friends, right? I'll let you guess this one (but i'll give you a hint: it's an easy answer).

 So let's get this review going. The only thing I like and what made Cavemen bearable was the chemistry between the main couple, Dean and Tess. Their banter was fun, light and enjoyable and made it so that I wanted to see them on screen, together. I wanted more Austin-Belle action rather than having a whole subplot about the two other couples and their relatiobships, which were unbelievable and frankly, a little (let's be honest: a lot) annoying.

  Despite my comments about Den and Tess, everything else I have to say about the movie is on the negative side of the spectrum. I'll start with what I noticed the most and what I kept thinking about after the movie was over. The fact that I didn't believe for a second that Austin's and Murray were friends, let alone best friends. It seemed as though Dean disagreed with anything that came out of Jay's mouth. When they were together they looked and acted like people who were forced to spend time with each other.

 Furthermore, as I do in almost half the reviews in this blog I have to mention that Cavemen is as predictable as they come. From the two best friends that realize their love for each other after one of them starts dating someone else to the (extremely stupid "water-on-the-sidewalk") reference in act one that ends up happening in act three, even if it makes little to no sense. If you want to be surprised, this is not the film for you.

 Finally, the most annoying flaw of the movie is the reference I just talked about. The whole mud paddle test is idiotic in and of itself but the fact that it actually happens, especially, in a totally unrealistic moment and way is ridiculous. So to make my point even clearer I pose this question to you: let's say you just saw your boyfriend checking out another woman and you are pissed about it so you decide to storm out and you, accidentily, fall into a dirty, muddy paddle of water that is on the sidewalk, will you laught about it and playfully throw water at your boyfriend, who you were mad at 5 seconds ago? I'm guessing you won't, or at least I wouldn't.So that it happened in the movie is super unrealistic and unrelatable.

  In conclusion, even though Astin and Belle are charismatic in it, Cavemen isn't worth anyone's time, with it's many flaws overpowering the one good thing this movie has to offer.

Final thought/question:
Which is better Cavemen or That Awkward Momment (review: http://moviereviewsbym94.blogspot.gr/2014/05/that-awkward-moment-movie-review.html) ?
Hard to say, but I have to go with That Awkward Momment because in that movie the friendship between the guys was believable, cavemen doesn't even get that right.
Do you agree with my choice, would you pick differently? Let me know in the comments down below.

Score: 17%
Tomatometer: 8%

m.

Courtesy of

Well Go USA Entertainment

22 Jump Street movie review

Cast: Jonah Hill, Channing Tatum, Peter Stormare, Ice Cube, Amber Stevens
Director: Phil Lord Christopher Miller
Running time: 1 hour and 52 minutes

 Let me start by saying that I really enjoyed 21 Jump Street and after hearing great things about the sequel (cleverly named 22 Jump Street) I decided to go and watch it last Saturday night.

  22 Jump Street is the continuation of 21 Jump Street. It stars Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum as two undercover police officers posing as college students . Chaos ensues as Jenko and Schmidt try to infiltrate the dealers of a new drug called WhyPhy and find the supplier. Will they catch the evil drug lord and make the arrest or will they fail miserably and become the joke of the department?

 The main positive attribute that makes both 21 and 22 Jump Street work so well is the incredible chemistry that Hill and Tatum have together. Despite portraying very different characters, the time they spend with each other seems and feels genuine, honest and effortless. I could see this being the way their relationship is in real life.

 Another character I rather enjoyed watching was Ice Cube's daughter's roommate SPOILER ALERT!!!!! (or as I like to call her the villainous mastermind of 22 Jump Street). Her "meanness" and her quippy comments targeted mostly at Jonah Hill's character were funny, very bizarre and very enjoyable and became even better as time passed and we started learning more about SPOILER ALERT!!! her involvement in WhyPhy. All in all a great villain, in my opinion and I would, even, like to have seen more of her.

  Moreover, 22 Jump street is a pretty good crime movie, which is not always the case with movies that are not crime-centered but, still, have a mystery to solve. The solution was not apparent at any point and the red herring was, actually, logical and convincing. It's not the most sophisticated crime film but it is well done, especially for the type of movie that it is.

  And my final thought on the positive points regarding 22 Jump Street is that it kept me interested the whole "ride" through. Even though you will soon find out that I did not love the movie as much as I wanted to (and as much as most people did), I never wanted to leave or regretted buying a ticket. I was, fairly, entertained throughout and I am sure that at some point in the future I will decide to rewatch the film and once again enjoy it (not something I can say about a lot of movies).

  Now, unfortunately, I have to continue with the weaknesses of the movie. The main problem I had with 22 Jump Street is that it wasn't as funny as I though (and heard) it would be. Was it the high expectations I had going into it or was it entirely the film, I don't know but even though I found it quite entertaining I didn't think it was so much laugh-out-loud funny. To be honest, I wish I did.

  And to move on to the second problem I had, I have to talk about the sequel references of the 21 Jump Street sequel. Although I can't say they weren't clever and amusing, I thought that they were more a good idea that didn't translate as well in reality rather than actual jokes. I wish there were more scenes like the poem reading scene (which was awesome and extremely funny) and a little less sequel lines to make the film come together in a funnier and tighter movie.

  In conclusion, I recommend 22 Jump Street but I can't say it's the best sequel I've ever seen. So go in with your expectations in a normal level and you will, definitely, have fun.

Final thought #1: Great cameos. Patton Oswalt is one of my favourites.
Final thought #2: John Abbruzzi is looking good! (a little Prison Break reference for you)

Score: 75%
Tomatometer: 84%

m.

Courtesy of

Columbia Pictures

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer

 

Under the Skin quick movie review

Cast: Scarlet Johansson
Director: Jonathan Glazer
Running time: 1 hour and 48 minutes

  Movie critics love Under the Skin, the most recent movie of Jonathan Glazer, who has previously directed Birth and Sexy Beast over the period of something like 13 years. The movie, based on a novel by Michel Faber, follows the adventures of our protagonist, Scarlet Johansson, around Scotland.

  So I'll come right out and say it, I HATED THIS MOVIE!!!!!!! I was in agony, i wanted to shoot myself in the face and never ever see that van again in my life.

  But let me explain why i had such a strong reaction to this movie. To do that, i will make this review special and start with my thoughts on the negative aspects of Under the Skin. My main problems were two, the first one being how slow paced it was. I didn't expect anything super fast and adrenalin filled but the degree of the slow-moving pace was unbelievable. Minutes were passing by and nothing was happening. And i mean nothing. After a point it became exhausting, nerve-inducing and all in all a black energy-consuming hole that sucked the life out of my eyes (and yes i know how dramatic i am being). The movie runs 1 hour and 48 minutes long and i felt like it was 4 hours.

  But making things even worse, Under the Skin was incredibly repetitive. Scene after scene following the same path with slight differences. As mentioned before, if i ever see that van or that black lake/floor again i will hit my head on the wall. Subsequently, if i was to remove all the extremely similar scenes, Under the Skin would come down to a half an hour sort film (that i would probably love).

  However, there were some great attributes to Under the Skin that i can recognise and appreciate even though i couldn't stand the movie as i was watching it. The premise of the human-looking alien that comes to earth and experiences for the first time everything that we take for granted in our everyday lives is an interesting idea that i would have liked to see made into the short film i previously mentioned.

  Another idea i was interested in was that in the begging of the film the fact that Scarlet Johansson's character has never eaten chocolate cake or has never felt sadness and empathy or has never had sex and her reaction to all that is so wonderful and pure and by the end, when she is the most happy she has been in the whole movie, the same fact, that she has never experienced life as a human before, turns into the very thing that destroys her is very though-provoking and intriguing.

  In conclusion, this movie got Under my Skin (such a good pun, i know) in a really unique (and not good) way. If you have a low threshold for slow-going and overlong movies stay away, but if you don't mind a more relaxed and unhurried structure in a film you will probably end up loving Under the Skin.
Score: 20% (but if you had asked me my score right after watching the movie it would be more like Score:0%)
Tomatometer: 86% 

m.

Courtesy of A24 Films

StudioCanal

Mongrel Media

Getaway quick movie review

Cast: Ethan Hawke, Selena Gomez, Jon Voight
Director: Courtney Solomon
Running time: 1 hour and 34 minutes

  Recently, i decided to start writing quick reviews about movies that i would skip otherwise. My first quick review will be about Getaway.

  Getaway stars Ethan Hawke as a very skilled ex-race driver and Selena Gomez as a very skilled hacker kid. Hawke's character gets into a very bad situation when Jon Voight abducts his wife, threatens that he will kill her and makes him drive all over Bulgaria,  "take hostage", in a sense, Selena Gomez and rob Gomez's dad's bank.

  There is, almost, nothing good about this movie except from the fact that, especially in the begging, Brent Magna (Hawke) treats The kid (Gomez) (and yes that is how Selena Gomez is credited) as the annoying brat that she is. Half of the things he says to her are the words shut up. However, this is not, completely, a positive attribute for the movie. It is a fault of the film that the kid is so annoying and unlikable while still being one of the two main leads.If the audience doesn't like, find interesting or relate to the protagonists there is no reason for them to watch the movie.

 I won't name all of the flaws of the movie (there are too many) but here is the one that stood out to me the most. We, as the viewers, are supposed to believe that Selena Gomez is a brilliant hacker with an interest in cars and we don't, or at least i didn't. She looks like a little girl in over her head talking about hacker and car "stuff" like she is just reading a script that she doesn't understand. If a better actress, who could make us believe she was genius super kid, was cast the movie would be a lot more believable, tolerable and not overall one of the worst movies I've seen this year. And i have to note that i have a particular interest in movies with hackers (that's why i liked the fourth Die Hard film) and i, still, couldn't stand this movie.

   So my overall opinion is that this movie is idiotic and more idiotic than the movie is the Selena Gomez casting. It's pretty boring, it's repetitive as a result of the numerous chase scenes (action movies are not my thing so if you like car and chase movies disregard this point) and it's not worth anyone's time.
Score:15%
Tomatometer:2%

m.

Courtesy of Warner Bros.

Movie Fact of the Day

  Today's movie fact is about a movie that i loved since the first time i saw it as an early teen. The movie i'm talking about is Death at a Funeral (the original one).
  One of the leads is Alan Tudyk (one of my favourites), and in multiple scenes his character, Simon, was under the influence of  hallucinogenics . During his drug haze Simon gets on the roof of the house, gets naked and threatens to jump . According to Tudyk, the inspiration for his performance was an intoxicated teen, who he saw when he was young, on top of a picnic table, naked. He based the  poses he did on the roof on the memories of that naked teen.
  I hope you enjoyed today's fact and go check out my Death at a Funeral review (http://moviereviewsbym94.blogspot.gr/2013/07/death-at-funeral-movie-review.html) if you haven't already. Have a great day.

m.

Courtesy of

Verve Pictures

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer

Movie Fact of the Day

  Today 's fact is another fact about one of the movies James McAvoy has been a part of. This time the movie is "Wanted", a 2008 film also starring Angelina Jolie, Morgan Freeman and Chris Pratt among other.
  There is a very liberating and badass scene in the film where James McAvoy's character, Wesley Gibson, tells off his boss and as he is leaving, hits his best friend Barry (played by Chris Pratt), who is sleeping with his girlfriend, in the head with his keyboard. The letters that come flying off towards the audience spell the words "Fuck You".
  So, that was the movie fact of the day. I hope you enjoyed it and have a great day.

m.

Courtesy of

Universal Pictures

Movie Fact of the Day

  THIS MOVIE FACT CONTAINS SPOILERS ABOUT THE MOVIE "TRANCE"

  This post is a spoiler about "Trance", so i suggest if you haven't seen the movie, watch it and then revisit this Movie Fact of the Day.   If you've seen "Trance" then you know about the character secrets that are revealed by the end of the movie. However, there is a sign early on that if you look close enough will give up all the secrets before the third act unveil.
  That sign is in the scene where James McAvoy's character is under hypnosis. His phone rings but before he gets a chance to answer it he gets into a car accident. At the moment where the car hits him the audience can see in the phone screen who called him, and who would later be the solution to all the questions of the movie.
  I hope you enjoyed today's movie fact and feel free to revisit Moviereviewsbym94.blogspot.com for movie reviews, rating and more.
  Have a great day. 

m.

Courtesy of

FOX Searchlight Pictures

That Awkward Moment movie review

Cast: Zac Efron, Miles Teller, Michael B. Jordan, Imogen Poots, Mackenzie Davis
Director: Tom Gormican
Running time: 1 hour and 34 minutes

  Jason (Zac Efron), Mikey (Michael B. Jordan) and Daniel (Miles Teller) are three best friends. When Mikey's wife asks for a divorce his two friends decide to stay single with him and ease him back into the dating pool. But what do you know, both of them end up finding the loves of their lives (shocker!) and start to go back on their pact. What will happen? Will their friendship survive? Will they find happiness and true love?

  One thing that worked about this movie was that the 3 lead characters have a nice chemistry with each other. Even though i thought (and i've heard a lot) that Daniel and Jason were kind of mean and douchy, it was somewhat fun to watch the three of them together. I would mostly contribute that to Miles Teller's charm and personality, which he brings to all of his movies (i'm a big fan as i've mentioned before). 

  Apart from Teller's charming presence there was some humor in his character. He was the link that held the friendship together and made the movie remotely fun. I doubt i would like this movie at all (not that i like it a lot as it is) if he wasn't in it. As far as Michael B. Jordan's character goes i have to say i liked him the best. Daniel is funny, but Mikey is the kindest and nicest of the group. And in a group of douchebags that means a lot. Now, regarding Zac Efron's character. I though Jason was a blank and boring addition to the group. Efron didn't have anything to offer to the film, mainly because the character had no positive attributes. He wasn't funny like Daniel was or nice like Mickey was, so i found it hard to care about him at all.

  Right from the first couple of scenes i had a problem with the movie. We see Teller and Efron's characters pitch a book cover proposal to some clients and i didn't buy it for a second. They look like they are in college and even if we assume they are 26-27, like they are in real life, doesn't that agency have any senior stuff that would meet with the clients and do the important jobs? You don't become a lead book cover artist when you are in your 20s. I would believe it more if they were interns rather than cover art geniuses with huge New York City apartments.

  Speaking of the begging of the movie, the first scene (if i am not mistaken) is when a girl breaks up with Zac Efron even though he hadn't realised they were in a relationship (or the girl hadn't realised they weren't in one). The fact that every girl (there is another one later in the film) Jason hooks up with doesn't understand that they are only having sex, and not starting a relationship, offended me a little bit. The movie doesn't seem to get that not all women are looking for relationships and/or are idiots who mistake casual sex with dating.So, actually, i had problems with the movie right from the start.

  Also, the whole premise of the film (that Daniel and Jason would stay single to help Mikey) didn't sit well with me. How would that help Michael B. Jordan's character? Is it because they didn't want him to see other people in love and feel hurt and jealous that he was no longer with his wife? Like he doesn't have any other friends that are in relationships. The idea struck me as a little childish. And i doubt Mikey would object with his friends meeting girls that they like and actually being happy.

  Like so many other rom-coms That Awkward Moment was very predictable. Friends decide to stay single and they immediately find the perfect girl. The guy sees his girl-best friend play the piano and he realises he loves her. The other guy gives a big romantic speech in front of many people so that he can win back the girl. And finally, the third guy who thought that he couldn't move on from heartbreak ends up getting over his ex and finding someone new. You could make a list with all the cliche romantic-comedy situations that are in this movie. The predictability of the movie kept me from being excited to see how everything would play out and learning what would happen in the end.

  Finally, i can't not comment on the fact that SPOILER! Ellie's dad's death is so clearly just a plot devise for the movie. We meet him in Ellie's birthday party and, literally, the first scene after the party is when we learn about his death.The writers should have, at least, put another scene in between so that it's not that obvious. It felt totally manipulative and not in any way emotional.

  In conclusion, That Awkward Moment is widely predictable with a couple of charming characters (literally,there were 2) that can't save this movie from the drag that it is.
Final thought #1: There is a book reading scene that is very painful.
Final thought #2: Damn Zac Efron's tight pants, tho.

My score: 19%
Tomatometer: 22%

m.

Courtesy of

Focus Pictures

Run movie review

Cast: William Moseley, Adrian Pasdar, Eric Roberts
Director: Simone Bartesaghi
Running time: 1 hour and 30 minutes
  Run is the story of Danny, Sean or whatever his name is, who lives with his father and at night he "runs" through town to steal and support the family but, also, because as he says it's the only time he feels free. There is a part about his mother, his crime-lord uncle, some kids in his new school, a girl and other very stereotypical stuff. There, really, is no point in me telling you about the plot of this movie because you've probably seen 100 other movie with an extremely similar storyline. 
  But let's start with the parts of the movie that worked.Or part to be exact. The whole parkour theme of the film is pretty interesting. That was what drew me to the movie in the first place. But even that, is not great. I would have liked to see more parkour, especially since it's supposed to be a parkour movie. If i had to describe Run, i would say it's a very common flick with a little bit of parkour, rather than a parkour-centered movie.
  One of the main problems of Run is that it is full of cliched situations. From the fact that Danny keeps his parkour skills secret from his new classmates but then has to use them in front of the them to the oh-so-ordinary (and boring) love story or the third act abduction that i could see coming from miles away. It all felt so familiar. Too familiar. If you've seen anything ever, you will know what is going to happen in this movie.Not only is the plot incredibly stereotypical but the acting isn't any good,either. I though Moseley's performance was two-dimensional and, frankly, a little annoying. As was Pasdar's. Moseley was portraying Danny as a weirdly shy little boy, while Pasdar was a strict borderline abusive father. I didn't believe their relationship was a loving father-son one. And that was partly because of the acting.Finally, i have to point out a major flaw of the movie. And this is something that happens a lot in action movies but it was much more obvious in this movie. Danny would have been caught or killed multiple times during the film. However, he always magically managed to survive. As i watched the movie, there were certain moments where Daniel would be either shot by the bullets professional assassins were firing or caught by the policemen that were chasing him. The fact that he was always able to escape unscathed felt unrealistic.
  In conclusion, Run has a good premise that doesn't come to life upon execution. Not worth a watch, in my opinion.
Score:13%

m.

Courtesy of 

Koch Media

Millennium Entertainment

Palatin Media

Veronica Mars movie review

Cast: Kristen Bell, Jason Dohring, Ryan Hansen, Krysten Ritter, Francis Capra, Percy Daggs III, Chris Lowell, Tina Majonno, Enrico Colantoni
Director: Rob Thomas
Running time: 1 hour and 47 minutes
  Veronica Mars (the movie) is the continuation -and unofficial finale (or maybe not)- of the tv show, also titled Veronica Mars, about the now grown up Veronica Mars (Kristen Bell), ex-teen-private-investigator-now-new-york-lawyer, who comes back to Neptune, California to help ex-boyfriend Logan Echolls (Jason Dohring) who is investigated for the murder of his girlfriend and famous singer.
  Let me start by emphasising that i was a pretty big fan of the series back in the day. I've watched every episode about 3 to 4 times.I loved the whole LoVe thing and i really enjoyed the wittiness and quickness of the show.So if i seem harsh or neat-picky in my review, it's only because i was invested in the story and the characters for long time.
  The movie does a lot of things right. Veronica is, still, the sarcastic, quick on her feet, clever (ex-)PI that we know and love. Her character makes the movie worth watching. If you were a fan of the show you will, definitely, love seeing her again. In fact, you will love watching all the characters of the show coming together. There is enough personality and shading to everyone, especially for a movie who's main focus was the mystery rather than the relationships and the human interactions. Logan, although very improved in comparisson to the series version, still has temper issue. Dick has a deep-routed (in my opinion) depression, even though he jokes about it,which is interesting and i would like to have seen more about it (both in the movie and the show). All those undertones in the characters made them more believable and relatable. On a similar note, i really appreciated how the movie didn't blame the Piz and Veronica break up on Piz. He wasn't made into the bad guy, like we've seen in so many movies. He was patient and understanding but the fact is that some relationships don't last, just like in real life, without anyone being at fault. Now, regarding the murder part of the movie, i have to say it was well done. It was intricate enough, with no apparent solution but, still, fun to try and solve. There were multiple suspects and at no point did the movie go for the easy way out. Finally, even though the LoVe relationship wasn't depicted as good as i wanted it to have been,there was a scene that i loved(the song choice made it even better). All the big LoVe fans know what scene i am talking about, the car scene. Since this scene was so perfect (for me,at least) i will not ruin it by talking about it, i will, just, quote Veronica (yes, there is narration and it is actually good) and say, "Do i get a chip for this? Pouring the drink? Swishing it? Smelling it? Leaving the bar without taking a sip?Is this what getting clean feels like?".
  One of my main problems with the movie was that it was more mystery than character driven. The reason i was excited about Veronica Mars coming out with a movie continuation of the show was that i would be able to see all the characters that i loved so much on the show. And the fact that we were focused more on "who was the murderer" rather than "how will Logan and Veronica get back together" disappointed me and my inner LoVe fangirl. Similarly, i thought that both the Piz-Veronica breakup and the Logan-Veronica makeup were done too quickly. What i mean by that is that one second Veronica was in a relationship with Piz and the next she wasn't, and one second she was single and the next she was back together with Logan. I would have liked to see all those events play out more and take their time. One thing that i found strange and unnecessary was the Weevil (Francis Capra) storyline. I didn't understand how it moved the story along. I felt like it was, only, so that characters like Weevil and Celeste Kane (Lisa Thornhill) wouldn't be left out of the movie. Actually, i didn't (still don't) know how to feel about the end of that storyline, either. I'm not going to spoil it but if a sequel doesn't get made, Weevil's story ends in a bittersweet note.Moreover, something that happens a lot in movies and it frustrates me all the time is when there is a recent death or murder and the characters of the movie that should be emotionally affected don't have the appropriate reaction. Supposedly Logan had been dating Carrie Fisher (Andrea Estella) for some time before she was murdered,but we never see him really grieving her loss. Her existence (or rather her non-existence) seems to be, only, a tool for the movie to bring Logan and Veronica back in the same place (both physically and emotionally).  Finally, as expected, i thought that there shouldn't be so many references to the show, but to be honest that wasn't such a big deal. I did like the one about how Leo (Max Greenfield) thought that Veronica had gone on to be an FBI or CIA or something agent, which was referring to a season 4 trailer (which only remained a trailer)(you can look for it on YouTube).
  In conclusion, Veronica Mars is a pretty good stand-alone movie, but as former fan of the show i expected more from the movie.
Score: 67%

m.

Courtesy of

Warner Bros. Pictures