Zach’s Zany Movie Reviews: HOW TO BE A LATIN LOVER

Now what we have here is a semi-failure to communicate. After a great set up and hilarious first 20 minutes, this comedy turns into a meander, cliched additional half hour that goes unfortunately where it is expected to. HOW TO BE A LATIN LOVER could’ve been one of the first fantastic PG-13 comedies in a long time. The first 20 minutes showed completely that this didn’t necessarily need to be Rated R to be funny. This was supposed Eugenio Derbez’s big breakout from doing great Spanish comedies like the huge hit Instructions Not Included, to mixing it up with some American finesse and cast members, but the movie falls flat because of the cliches and familiar story. After the first 20 minutes, the movie is only sporadically amusing.

And I keep going on about the first 20 minutes, but trust me, those first 20 minutes are fantastic. In case you haven’t heard of this movie, it’s about a young man, at a very young age, wanting to just marry an older woman (basically be a trophy husband), never have to work while enjoying her riches, waiting for her to die, and then getting all the money to himself. We see him getting the older woman, him growing up himself, and what his life is like married to her, which is the first great part of the movie. But then instead of going the route it should’ve gone, which was she dies but he has to learn to work to keep up those riches that she earned during her lifetime, instead the movie has her cheat on him with Michael Cera (yeah, I know) and he has to stay with his estranged sister and his small 10 year old nephew (you see where this is going don’t you), and he tries to find another old rich wife, but also learns to…love the family he already has. Sigh.

You can tell why I sighed and maybe you signed as well while reading this. Why did this movie decide to go that familiar route? I mean the whole concept shows he doesn’t have to work for riches so why not flip that? Granted he has to work in this, but just enough to get by, and it barely shows him trying to scrounge up for money. It mainly goes the route of teaching his nephew inappropriate shit, they share a bond, so him and his sister, played by the gorgeous Selma Hayek, develop a bond too. And then you can guess that shit happens because of him that threaten to tear apart that bond, yada, yada, yada, redemption, yada, yada, yada, end of movie.

Maybe they had those great 20 minutes and didn’t know what the fuck to do with it, so they looked in the “Plain Screenwriting 101 Handbook,” and this is what they came up with. At least I can say that it isn’t Eugenio Derbez’s fault, because he didn’t write the movie, he just brought his charisma to it. And his charisma works because he is the most watchable part of the movie. In fact there is nothing wrong with any of the acting, the complete problem is the story. Selma Hayek is great in this and the son is great in this. Kristen Bell has a bit part as someone that tries to help Derbez when he’s down on his luck and she’s cute and lovable in what she does. But she isn’t hilarious. In another story, as another character, she could’ve been fantastic.

The film isn’t terrible, it’s just an amusing throwaway one time watch. Definitely not a must see theater watch, but maybe a rental surrounded by family and friends. Or hell, maybe I didn’t get much of the Spanish humor and maybe that’s why I didn’t enjoy it as much? No clue. This review is just my opinion. I would like to see Eugenio Derbez in more American stuff though. He is a great character actor and knows when to throw in a good punch line. It’s just the screenplay wasn’t filled with many of them.

Zach’s Zany Movie Reviews: KING ARTHUR LEGEND OF THE SWORD (Early Review!!! Comes out May 12th)

Imagine that the Robert Downey Jr. Sherlock Holmes movies and Zack Snyder’s 300 fucked and had a baby. That baby would be KING ARTHUR: LEGEND OF THE SWORD. Now depending if you liked either of those films or not is going to tell whether you like this movie or not. If you hated both of them, stay away. If you liked one of them, you might enjoy this. If you thought both were pretty cool, then you’ll think this is cool too. As for my opinion? I’m option three. I really like the first 300 and both Sherlock Holmes movies (prefer the underrated superior second film) and so I really liked this.

Granted, this is no masterpiece and this won’t win any awards, but damn it if I didn’t really enjoy myself. And all of it is probably due to director Guy Ritchie. Guy Ritchie could’ve just shot this straight, making something akin to the horrible Snow White and the Huntsman films. Those films are just journey’s that go from beginning to end with no stylistic presence, straightly told, often boring, waiting for the next action scene to happen. Well in this film, Guy Ritchie puts all that shit, throws it in a blender, adds his own ingredients, takes it out, bakes it, chops it up some more, fries it, and then serves it on a platter to his audience.

If you still don’t get it, let me give you an example. Even the fucking scenes with dialogue and explanations are editing and cut fast and furiously, with Ritchie’s stylistic taste for rapid succeeding shots and dialogue to make something that would ultimately be pointless and boring, into something light, funny, entertaining, yet dazzle your eyes with it’s complexity. We get an awesome montage at the beginning of the film showing Arthur growing up, with cool music and fast beats that any other director would shoot slow, steady, and ultimately end up as a snore fest of 10 to 15 minutes. The montage scene is about 3 minutes, frantic, and shows the audience everything they need to know while keeping them intrigued.

The actions scenes where Arthur has to go out and prove himself/do something to further his journey are insane too. Instead of giving explanations of what he must do and then do it, (which would take almost half the movies run time), he splices the explanation with Arthur already doing what he needs to do, at an energetic pace to keep the plot and run time moving instead of slowing anything down. Because this movie does not slow down, at all. It is in your face and gives audience what they deserve: a very decent, yet another retelling of the Arthur and Excalibur legend.

Remember that boring shit one with Clive Owen and Keira Knightly? Yeah, we don’t get that here. That movie was too down to earth. Here we get giant city flattening elephants, mage’s with wicked powers, 300 slo-mo sword fights and bad-assery, cool chase scenes and half way decent special effects. Any director would take forever with Arthur pulling the sword out of the stone (probably would be at the halfway mark in a movie if anyone else did it), but Ritchie gets that shit out of the way 20 minutes in. I think he even winks at the audience as Arthur is waiting in line to pull the sword, gets tired of waiting, and cuts everyone else in line just to get it over with.

And remember by earlier review for Charlie Hunnam’s The Lost City of Z and how fantastic of an actor he was in that? Well he is awesome in this too and wishes he does stuff like this more often. Jude Law is a pretty decent bad guy but I wish I got a little bit more of him in this. The supporting cast is good too even though they are limited in what they have story wise.

But yes, this is the best King Arthur adaptation since Disney’s The Sword and the Stone. No doubt in my opinionated mind. For two hours I was up in my seat, eyes glued to the screen, not expecting to get a cool frantic tale like this…was really expecting something slow and boring. But this, this is anything but boring. Guy Ritchie knows how to make an entertaining film. He knows that the audience can go to sleep at the snap of the fingers, but he knows to be right in front of you with a bullhorn the entire runtime, just to make sure you are paying attention.

Zach’s Zany Movie Reviews: PHOENIX FORGOTTEN

I think this movie did such little business this past weekend that theaters are likely to forget they even had this and toss it out in a week or two. Which is a shame because it is actually one of the better found footage movies out there to exist. Why? Because PHOENIX FORGOTTEN changes the formula a bit to make things more interesting than just similar like Paranormal Activity or Blair Witch or Cloverfield. And while it isn’t scary (I didn’t watch a trailer because at being only 85 minutes I thought a trailer would spoil it, so maybe it’s just supposed to be sci-fi), it is very entertaining and contains better than average acting for your typical found footage film.

So how does this found footage film change the formula a little you may ask? Because it is only half a found footage film. Half of the film is shot steady documentary, clip, news footage style, and the other half of the film is a found footage film. The whole film uses the 1997 Phoenix Lights real phenomenon that happened and adds a lot of fiction to the proceedings to turn it into a movie. The documentary half of the film follows a sister of one of the three lost people that disappeared shortly after the Phoenix Lights phenomenon happened, and she’s doing a documentary on the whole incident and trying to piece clues to her brother’s disappearance as well.

This part of the film is shot mostly steady style, with clips, and some found footage woven in between to make the film have a documentary type atmosphere. Add the better than average acting and the audience gets something that feels like an actual real documentary. This found footage movie feels real, more real than anything that has come before it. The found footage part of the film comes from tapes her brother left behind in a car that was found on the side of the road, and a “secret lost camera” (you “pffted” didn’t you? So did I but I swear that is really the only laughable idiotic thing in the film) that shows what happened after the tapes that were already in police evidence.

And you know the main problem with found footage movies? They are too fucking clean. Cloverfield is too clean, Blair Witch is too clean (even the original), the Paranormal Activity movies, some of them taking place in the 70s, 80s, whatnot, are WAY too clean. The found footage supposedly filmed in 1997? It actually feels like it was shot in 1997. Grainy sometimes as fuck, and sometimes blurry, it felt like I was watching found footage, and that was the kicker to take this film out of “only another found footage movie territory.” Even some of the CGI added in the 1997 found footage looks amazingly genuine. I was really invested in this entire thing.

It is too bad that the found footage movie genre is almost basically dead. The last several Paranormal movies didn’t do shit at the box office and neither did Blair Witch. And this didn’t make that much money although it should easily retain it’s small 4 million dollar budget. If this had come out at the height of those movies, like around the 1st or 2nd Paranormal pictures, this would’ve done really really well. Maybe it will develop a cult following once it is released on home video. I encourage you to check it out at least once, it is interesting, and might be the cure to your found footage movie fatigue.

Zach’s Zany Movie Reviews: COLOSSAL

YES!! Finally! A great (dare I say really great) movie out of all the good or subpar ones this weekend! COLOSSAL is what Hollywood should do when it runs out of ideas. Instead of simple remakes, reboots, and what not, take a concept that has been done a million times before but wrap it around an entirely new engaging, thought provoking story, filled with great twists and turns and spectacular performances. And then release a trailer for the film that while it still makes the film look unique and fun, hide all of the secrets in the marketing to completely shock people.

Yes, I’ll repeat that. The trailer from this film holds so much back from you it’s not even funny. When some of the stuff I hadn’t seen yet hit the screen, I couldn’t believe the marketing people for this kept it out of everything including a lot of reviews. Don’t worry! I will not spoil it’s richness here. I’ll just talk about the non-spoilery basic fluff to try and convince you to go and see this film as soon as possible. If you still don’t know what this film is by the title I’ll remind you. It’s that weird Kaiju (probably spelling that wrong) movie with Anne Hathaway and Jason Sudiekis where Hathaway somehow controls a Kaiju monster that is attacking Seoul, South Korea all the way from the states.

And the reasons why are some of the fun parts that I dare not spoil. I’ll start out by saying that this is my favorite Anne Hathaway performance, much better than her 15 minute Oscar gold one from Les Miserables, but a fantastic display of a 2 hour full-fledged fleshed out character. And this is also Jason Sudiekis’ best performance as well as he gets to stretch out some of his acting chops as well.

GOD, it is really hard to not spoil this thing without telling you why it is so great. Just trust me, as more of the story unfolds, the more original and fresh it becomes. By the end I would’ve stood up and applauded if the filmmakers were in the room watching it with me. It is that fantastic. My wife saw it with me, and again, without getting too much into it, she wondered if some of the actions from some of the characters were warranted, saying that “it didn’t explain why well enough.” I told her it didn’t have to explain it, it did the best thing in the cinematic world by “showing and not telling” and after I explained some of the visual cues she landed on my side of things.

The special effects are great and what little action there is is effective and only pertains to the story, not trying to Michael Bayalize everything. This film is smart, charming, daring, brilliant, funny, shocking, every reason why people go to the movies in the first place. It weaves a perfect yarn and this is one I would like to show to friends who haven’t seen it, study it as a filmmaker, and watch it over and over again for pure enjoyment. Great, great film.

Zach’s Zany Movie Reviews: FREE FIRE

Man, the trailer to FREE FIRE has been playing for quite some time now. The film was supposed to come out a couple of months ago but they delayed it I think for festivals. Just seems like forever ago since I saw it. But I’m sure you have. It’s that movie with the weapons deal gone wrong where everyone is shooting and trying to kill each other in a warehouse for 90 minutes. It has stars such as Brie Larson, Shartlo Copley, Armie Hammer, and Cillian Murphy.

And Free Fire is an excellent one time watch with good acting, a couple of good shooting sequences with a cool little twist at the end, but their isn’t much more substance than that. From the production value you can completely tell it is a independent shoot-em-up film which is basically the last 10-15 minutes of Resevoir Dogs but stretched out into 90 minutes.

It takes place in the 70’s and the look and feel of the film is genuine. And I also like the fact that the trailer hides why they really end up shooting at each other. Yes, the gun deal goes kind of wrong, but not in the way the trailer makes it out to be, which I found a little refreshing. But even at 90 minutes, the film feels like a stretch. More than 3/4th of the movie everyone is laying down, crouched, crawling, moving around, and bleeding. And that’s cool but it only lasts so long, and even though I know it’s a movie I found a bunch of opportunities where all these people could stop shooting at each other and talk it out like civilized people.

The acting, especially from Armie Hammer, makes it half way decently entertaining, and like I said, there is a cool little twist at the very end I didn’t really see coming, but then the film ends abruptly and was a little bit of a disappointment. But I will say that who lives, who dies, and who gets away is a little surprising. Some characters that I thought would bite it in the beginning end up lasting the whole way through. And there is a car sequence at the end with John Denver music playing that I thought was expertly shot and edited.

When seeing this at the Alamo Drafthouse, the pre shows showed film influences that inspired director Ben Wheatly to write and direct this film, all of which those film influences are better films than this. But the film shows that he does have talent and could make a much better film in the future. But as of now, it’s a cool one time watch rentable 90 minute mild thriller that could pass the time if you are really bored. Just don’t go in expecting a masterpiece and you should be okay.

Zach’s Zany Movie Reviews: THEIR FINEST

The ending basically ruined this movie for me. There is something that occurs near the end of THEIR FINEST that really almost came out of nowhere and was really stupid and happens just due to the fact to have some drama and something interesting come out of the film. It betrays all what happens before and just pissed me off just as much as the ending of La La Land pissed off a bunch of people. That being said, the movie was only okay to begin with. Another kind of period piece with some good acting but a story that wasn’t all that interesting, and the story was about a woman screenplay writer!

You probably haven’t heard of this film, but it stars Gemma Arterton, Sam Caflin, and Bill Nighy as some screenwriters and actors trying to put together a film about Dunkirk and World War II to gain the masses while the Blitz is going on around them. It is also a tale of how women were treated as unequals at that time as well. And it wasn’t a terrible film at all, in fact some parts were interesting, and the dialogue was good, I just found the film to be unnecessary and a bit boring. You would think a screenplay about screenplay writers would have a little bit more oompf.

That being said, that’s why I think the ending happened as it happened, trying to give the film a bit more oompf, but it was oompf at a cost. The logic was kind of dumb in the twist and ruined pretty much basically everything that came before it. Have any of you seen Up Close & Personal and THAT ending? Well this ending is sort of similar in a way and out of left field. Just to raise emotions, and the only emotion it raised in me was anger at having to sit through 2 hours to see just that and then 10 more minutes of wrapping things up.

The movie is shot well, and dives a little bit into the movie making process, but perhaps not enough. All three actors mentioned above along with some good supporting performances couldn’t really save the snore fest I was about to have with the film in general. I have a feeling though maybe Gemma Arterton and Sam Caflin might get more and better things to do after this, because they are the only things in the film that mattered.

I guess this giant movie weekend I am having is a weekend full of one time watches. I am about to review Free Fire and even though I liked it liked the bunch, it wasn’t great and I will probably never need to see it again. Maybe Colossal tomrrow will change that. Their Finest is fine, but not the finest thing about that time period you are more than likely to see. I’m pulling for Christopher Nolan’s Dunkirk myself.

Zach’s Zany Movie Reviews: THE PROMISE

Yet another good movie that could’ve been fantastic if it didn’t lose focus about halfway through the movie. THE PROMISE is better than official critics are saying it is, but with a film about the last days of the Ottoman Empire and the mass genocide of Armenian people by the Turkish government…did we really need a love triangle at the heart of the film?

That seems like the easy way out. Can’t a screenwriting write a compelling film about one man or maybe a family or a couple of strangers trying to survive the mass Armenian genocide? I mean, do we really need a love triangle, and a predictable one at that. Before the movie even started, I said to my self, “So and so will end up surviving and so and so will end up dying so that way the movie doesn’t seem ‘too predictable’ when in actuality we are so used to the predictable ending that the new non-predictable is now predictable. That sounds confusing but play my little game of who you think lives and dies by the end of the film and if you end up being right you will know what I am talking about.

But some of this film is really magnificent, and just like The Lost City of Z, it’s great when it is focusing on the devastation of the Armenian people trying to escape the Turkish government. The stakes are high, the cinematography is incredible, and the pace is perfect. But when Oscar Isaac, Charlotte Le Bon, and Christian Bale go into that “staring contest” on who will ultimately win the girls heart, the film almost comes to a screeching halt. I just didn’t care about their love.

I did however care about the characters, because another great thing this film has is it’s acting, even though Christian Bale is extremely underused. But Oscar Isaac, like always, is masterful. I cared about his character as an individual and when his plight was on his family and trying to get them out, the film broke barriers and was winning me over. When he was escaping after being caught by the Turkish government, I was leaning forward in my seat hoping and praying he would get out through the almost impossible odds. But then it goes back to the love triangle, and I ended up not caring. Just like The Lost City of Z review, when it was in the jungle, it was fantastic, when it went back to the mainland, I didn’t give a shit.

And also just like Unforgettable, the title on this sucks. The Promise is basically named what it is because Isaac’s character, to be able to go to medical school, promises this girl’s family that he is going to marry her in order to get their money in advance. And then he falls in love with someone else (doesn’t this happen to much). And even though he falls in love, he “promised” this girl he would marry her. And this conundrum, in this two hour and 20 minute film, maybe lasts 5 minutes. It should’ve been called The Ottoman Triangle or something a bit smarter. But whatever.

So this movie is actually half way decent, but in my head I saw a better movie between the cracks, and makes me wish someone would actually write and direct it to get it made. I’ll probably never watch this movie again because the slow parts are so slow, but I would say you need to watch this movie at least once because the end of The Ottoman Empire is a important historical event that more people should know and care about. It even says to this day the Turkish government denies this ever happens! Shocking, but it’s also shocking that this movie wasn’t as good as it could be.

Zach’s Zany Movie Reviews: UNFORGETTABLE

I could do the predictable and say that UNFORGETTABLE is ultimately forgettable. But that’s too easy. In fact, Unforgettable is unforgettable. In being at the end of the year I won’t be able to choose between this and The Bye Bye Man as the worst film of the year. Quite a conundrum. But not only is Unforgettable one of the biggest piece of shit films I have ever seen, it just cements my position that Katherine Heigl is one of the worst actresses in the history of motion picture cinema.

Do I really need to explain the plot of this horrid cancer cell? It’s another deviation of Basic Instinct, Fatal Attraction, Swimfan, etc. etc. etc. The thing that I can’t wrap my mind around is why Rosario Dawson actually acts in this film. In fact, she is the only reason why this isn’t one of the worst films of all time. She looks like she wants to be there and looks like she is actually trying. The performance was too good for a movie of this caliber. Rosario Dawson is a hugely underrated actress, and I feel the only reason why she did this is to get her name more out there. But don’t you think that playing Claire Temple in the Marvel Television Cinematic Universe is enough?

Rosario Dawson aside, nothing about this film is good. The plot is terrible, the film is slow, everything is predictable, it has a shitty stupid obligatory unnecessary sequel set up scene, the ending and fighting between the two girls is laughably bad, all the characters are stupid, the dialogue is horrid. Seriously, the only thing good about this is Dawson. You’ve seen this movie a thousand times since the 60s. There is nothing new about it. In fact, I don’t understand why it was called Unforgettable and not just Psycho Barbie. None of this film makes any sense.

Which brings me back to bashing Katherine Heigl. Because of her attitude in real life, her career has taken a very shitty turn since Knocked Up and leaving Grey’s Anatomy. No one wants to work with her, no network wants to pick up her shows anymore (her last show was cancelled after two episodes), and anything she does is completely toxic. And this movie seems to maybe show how she in real life. Terrible. In a movie like this you want the bad person to maybe be a little bit emotional, or have any sympathy to him or her. But no. Katherine Heigl is just a bitch in this, and her acting is like a live animatronic. It’s horrid.

The whole movie is horrid. If you have any interest to see this movie whatsoever something is wrong with you. There is a weird Heigl riding horse scene with creepy music that made no sense whatsoever I started laughing my ass off. I don’t even know why I’m talking about this anymore. If you watch this film, like me, you’re an idiot.

Zach’s Zany Movie Reviews: THE LOST CITY OF Z

I know Charlie Hunnam mostly from Undeclared, when he first entered the Hollywood scene and I saw him in Pacific Rim. I have never watched one episode of Sons of Anarchy, and basically just know that he’s the guy that left 50 Shades of Grey and is going to be King Arthur. So when I say his performance was magnificent and his best, you probably can’t really take my word for it , so you need to see for yourself. But I promise you, in THE LOST CITY OF Z, Charlie Hunnam, is so great, that in the 90s or early millennium he probably would’ve gotten nominated for an Oscar for Best Actor and could’ve won.

He is utterly fantastic in this. And Robert Pattinson brings us his best performance to date, but considering he was Edward in Twilight, isn’t really saying much either, but trust me, he’s good too. And the movie is good as well. Maybe not utterly fantastic as some critics are saying (they are saying that it “hearkens back to classic exploration epics), but much, much better and more entertaining than some other adventure/exploration movies in the past such as Australia and Hidalgo. You probably haven’t heard of this film either, but it’s about a man, who family name was tarnished by his father, goes to map unknown regions in South America only to become obsessed with the Amazon and goes back and back again to try and find an unknown advanced civilization that may have inhabited the region.

When the film focuses on Hunnam, Pattinson, and the Amazon, the film is utterly brilliant. The main problem I had with the film is that when the film goes back to his life with his wife and kids, it loses some of it’s focus and basically becomes a “you are a brave man but you are abandoning your family” cautionary tale. Which is fine too of course, however, it spends WAY too much time with his wife and kids and I just wanted more Amazon. Director James Gray and the cinematorphy from Darius Khondji make the entire beauty of the jungle completely stand out with awe inspiring shots. And while it does have some harshness of what happens on an expedition and the mind set it could take on a human being, there isn’t enough of it, and this film is 2 hours and 20 minutes long.

I really really liked this film a lot, and it is a must watch, but I don’t think it is a full on masterpiece like it could’ve been. The movie is at it’s best with Charlie Hunnam, he’s so amazing here that it gives me hope for King Arthur which kind of looks like rubbish. I don’t know how this film would’ve fared without him and I don’t want to think about it. Thankfully the film nails the landing with the end and doesn’t have multiple ending like I have seen in the last couple of films that were supposed to be ‘epics’ as well. Sienna Miller and Tom Holland (who only shows up when there is 45 minutes left and not enough time to care for his character) are good here as well, especially Miller, who I think is still an underappreciated actress.

But do go see it if you like exploration films and such. Don’t expect a lot of action, because there is hardly any, but do expect a lot of awe with filmmaking and the Amazon in general. It’s a tale of bravery, boldness, hope, and confidence. And while it isn’t a masterpiece, it is a very good film that is at least memorable than the other stuff earlier in the year. And if you are a girl and are in love with Charlie Hunnam, yeah, you’re gonna want to see this.

Zach’s Zany Movie Reviews: TOMMY’S HONOUR

Well, unless you somehow read this review, decide you want to see this movie in the next hour and a half (both Legacy and West Plano have 4:30 showings) then you probably won’t get to see it until it hits Netflix, On Demand, etc. Why is it that I’m seeing this so late? I’m really not, considering it just came out last Friday. But like all rarely seen, “I’ve never fucking even heard of that,” independent films, they usually only last one week in the theater, unless it gets a surge of Academy Award attention or box office receipts. Since you don’t know what TOMMY’S HONOUR is, it’s essentially a dramatic golf movie about an older man, who didn’t invent golf but is considered a founding father who invented a shit ton of the courses that still exist today, and his son. His son wants to make his own way in the golf world, even though he is not a gentlemen and just mainly a caddy like his father. The gentlemen place bets on these two and several other people on who will win golf games, and Tom’s younger son, Tommy Jr., wants to be more than that, earn more, find love, literally make life his hole-in-one bitch.

And he does…to a degree. See if I say anything else the film is completely ruined. The movie is around 2 hours long and switches tones very drastically the last 30 minutes. If you look up on who this film is based on, and see their history, you can probably guess what the last 30 minutes are. And it’s a hard last 30 minutes to watch. Any kind of heart broken self destructive behavior usually is, but the acting in this is so superb that it could easily break that of an audience member’s heart as well.

You probably don’t know anyone in this other than Jurassic Park’s Sam Neill (who’s role is more of a cameo), and maybe Tommy’s love interest Olphelia Lovibond (she was Benecio Del Toro’s pink alien assistant in Guardians of the Galaxy and she had a major arc on the last season of CBS’s Elementary). But it’s okay if you don’t know anyone, usually it is better relating to the characters.

So is the film good? I say yes. It barely side steps the typical sports film by conveying a very depressing last 30 minutes. And the rest of it is entertaining, there are some laughs, but it goes from point A to point B like most sport movies go. But this is probably the best golf film since Tin Cup, so there is that going for it. It is a very enjoyable rental if you want to get the family together to watch it. Not really a go out and buy it now kind of thing.

I’m not a golf person so I don’t know if golf people will like it or not. It showed how they make golf balls, the key to some putters and the tricks of some of the trade, but some of the golfing you can tell used a CGI ball to get the point across. Golf history enthusiast might have a ‘ball’ with this film despite some of the fake golf ball scenes.

But I enjoyed it much more than I thought I would. The trailer doesn’t really market the film well at all, and in fact really only shows the first 30 minutes of the film, making it seem like one of those “I’m going to show every mother fucker in this room” kind of movie. It has that moment, but it’s fleeting, and has substance like family, love, bondage, and well…honour, to keep it from being mundane.