You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Stanley Tucci’ tag.

Can’t. Fucking. Wait,


The Lovely Bones (DreamWorks)

1. Stanley Tucci is the film’s shining star, giving audiences a terrifying performance as serial murderer George Harvey. He becomes the character so fully that if I hadn’t seen his name in the credits, I wouldn’t have known it was him. He’s not just playing George Harvey; he is George Harvey. Look for a nomination for supporting actor come awards season.

2. The computer-generated landscapes of the afterlife (or, more accurately, limbo) get to be a little much. More time is spent there than needed to move the story along, and it gets to a point where it feels like we’re returning to it just to show off impressive and expensive effects. And, don’t get me wrong, it is beautiful imagery. I just don’t know if we need to see it over and over again.

3. I’ve only seen one other Peter Jackson film (“The Frighteners,” which I like), but I know he’s at a point in his career where he can do no wrong. With that being said, I think “The Lovely Bones” is just okay, not stellar. Of course, that means it will probably go on to win an Oscar.

4. I’ve never read Alice Sebold’s book, but the two people who watched it with me had. According to them, it’s fairly accurate to the book. If that’s true, I’m not sure if I like the story’s basic premise. I had assumed that the story was about the ghost of a murdered girl, and how she witnesses her family’s reaction to her death after she’s gone. But the story is far more supernatural than that, with the ghost of Susie Salmon able to influence events back in the living world. That’s fine, I guess, if you’re a fan of shows like “Medium” and “Ghost Whisperer,” but I was expecting something a little, well… smarter.

5. “The Lovely Bones” is similar in tone, style and substance to 1998’s “What Dreams May Come.” Minus Robin Williams, of course. I’m not sure if that is a good or bad thing, but it’s hard not to notice the similarities. Take “What Dreams May Come” as a sort of gauge for whether or not you want to spend money on this movie. If you liked it, you might like this. And vice versa.

Death by icicle,


Julie & Julia (Sony)

Meryl Streep as Julia Child

1. I can’t believe I’m saying this, but this movie should have strictly been a bio-pic about Julia Child. The Julie half of this story (played by Amy Adams) is long, contrived and boring, and breaks up the momentum of the rest of the film.

2. I’m not sure if the movie is a good portrayal of writer Julie Powell or not, but they seriously made her obsession with Julia Child really awkward. Like, to the point where I found myself thinking, “Whoa, lady. Do you love this chick, or do you LOVE THIS CHICK?” If they would’ve trimmed out some of the more stalker-like aspects of her story she would’ve come across as a much more realistic and likable character.

3. You haven’t lived until you’ve seen Meryl Streep as Julia Child about to get drilled by Stanley Tucci. Wait a second… no, I take that back. I think my boner is permanently ruined.

4. Meryl Streep does a pretty good job bringing the towering and sometimes awkward Child to life. Yeah, sometimes she looks like Andre the Giant in a wig, but that’s pretty spot-on if you ask me!

5. You’ll leave the movie hungry. Much like 1996’s “Big Night,” food is constantly being made or talked about through the entire two hours. If you do go and see it, make sure you keep a few hours free afterward for a nice meal. Believe me, you’ll be ready for one.

Dig in,


Old Poop!