This movie is the perfect example of a really shitty movie. There was nothing memorable, funny or intense. I think Jonah Hill can be pretty funny and a lot of the jokes he had in this movie were pretty identical to ones in other movies but you just didn’t care for anyone in this movie. Spare your night and watch Adventures In Babysitting instead.
For real though, the best part of the movie was the song during the credits.
I had at least mildly high hopes for The Sitter. I won’t say it was awful . . . I mean, it was better than an Adam Sandler movie. Buuuuuut . . . it’s really just not funny. It has a few funny parts, but mostly, when it’s not boring it’s just kind of weirdly offensive.
Probably the worst part of The Sitter is that I know what it was going for. It’s like some weird cross between Adventures in Babysitting (which I’ve never seen, but I’m taking Chris’ word on that) and Superbad. It tries to be sensitive, but misses the mark completely. This is most obvious in Slater (Max Records). Slater is a 13 year old heartthrob who is very nervous and apparently has to take medication for his anxiety. Slater finds out his best friend has been ignoring him because he found a new best friend, and Slater is pretty distraught. After this, Noah (Jonah Hill) notices Slater looking across the aisle of their subway car at a group of (male) friends. Because of this, later on Noah point blank tells Slater “You’re gay.” Slater flips out, but Noah talks him down, including telling him that high school and coming out to his parents is going to suck. Luckily for Noah, Slater eventually agrees about being gay but . . . isn’t that a huge fucking leap to make about a 13 year old? Is it gay that Slater was upset because his friend was mean to him? Everything is a huge deal when you’re 13, whether you’re gay or straight or male or female. It’s really sort of irresponsible to automatically assume, so boldly, that a child is gay like that.
So, yeah, long story short, The Sitter isn’t worth it.
Sinister is definitely scary. I’m not going to deny that. The movie opens with a long, Super 8 film of four people slowly being hanged from a tree. So I mean, yeah, it’s scary. But it’s also interesting, though it doesn’t quite take itself to the level that I think it could.
The biggest mistake I think Sinister makes is that it can’t help itself when it comes to cheap scares. There’s a lot of things coming up behind characters, things moving in the background unexpectedly, and loud noises. Because the plot revolves around Ethan Hawke finding a series of snuff films that all show families being murdered, which we also see, there’s no real need for jump scares because the movie is scary enough.
I’m also notoriously bad at predicting movie endings, whether it’s a horror movie, a twist ending, or just a regular ending. But I predicted the two main elements of the ending of Sinister way before they were revealed, which was disappointing.
This movie didn’t make a lot of sense but it did scare me. Not that that’s a very hard thing to do. The thing about this movie is that if you think you know what’s coming, you do. I think they thought they had a lot of big reveals but they were kind of lost on me since I thought we were supposed to already know that stuff.
The back story of the main character is confusing. All the scary stuff in the movie are cheap (don’t get me wrong, still scary to me). Check it out if you’re interested but really just watch The Blair Witch Project again!
I was expecting this movie to be long, slow and extremely boring. That was not at all the case. I had never really known the story of Tom Ripley and I was very pleased with how insane it is. For some reason I thought there was magic involved? Not quite sure why I thought that.
This film is pretty intense, I’m sure the character relationships would make a bit more sense if I read the book but it kind of added to the creepiness of Tom Ripley. I know this movie had a different ending than the book and the Matt Damon movie which is kind of disappointing. I think this movie is good but it definitely wasn’t great. I’ll have to see what I think of it after we watch The Talented Mr. Ripley.
I always wanted to see Purple Noon because A.) I went through a slightly odd obsession with both the book and 1999 film version of The Talented Mr. Ripley in 5th grade and B.) ALAIN DELON. It was definitely interesting to finally watch it.
The biggest, most obvious difference between Purple Noon and the book would be the ending. I was disappointed that Purple Noon‘s Tom Ripley (Alain Delon) got caught at the very end of the movie, because Tom Ripley doesn’t ever come as close to getting caught in the book. It just would have been a lot cooler and creepier, I think, if Purple Noon ended about five minutes earlier than it did, with Tom Ripley quietly gloating to himself.
But what really surprised be was Alain Delon as Tom Ripley. This whole time I thought Alain Delon played Dickie Greenleaf (here called Philippe), because Greenleaf is supposed to be a handsome playboy. It never occurred to me that he would play Tom Ripley, a character who’s supposed to be unsure of himself and weird. But despite Alain Delon looking more like Greenleaf than Ripley, he really was excellent in the role. He might be good looking, but he can be scary.
Purple Noon is definitely worth seeing, whether you’re familiar with the source material or not. If nothing else, you get to look at Alain Delon for 2 hours.