MovieChat Forums > Personal Effects (2009) Discussion > 1 of the Worst movies of 2009 - favorite...

1 of the Worst movies of 2009 - favorite candidate

posted 15 years ago by Orcuna
39 replies | jump to latest

I watched it last night. Firstly directing is weak, director don't know anything about acting. Script is meaningless, and dialogues are very bad. Acting is worse than amateur. In movie you want to feel their pain and sadness and what they feel about their losts, but it is impossible. All characters are out of life, there isn't any good scene.Ashton acts a wrestler and he walks like he has an umbrella in his ass, this doesn't make him look like wrestler.Good acting is needed. Michelle Pfeiffer looks like an alien with her irregular silicon lips. In movie there is nothing about pain,sadness about loosing family members.it just makes you thing when Michelle gonna have sex with Ashton. and this is what she things instead of his dead husband. this is the point of whole movie. nothing about drama.
believe me this movie doesn't worth your 2 hours.

1/10

[–] cawleen 15 years ago

You're way too critical. You barely depict the movie. I thought everything about the movie was great. It was different from everything else I saw because it was. The script was different, the acting was different, the moods were different. If you thought the acting was bad and that they were 'out of life', have you even ever dealt with people like that? It's likely you did because a lot of people lose someone they love. But it's the way it's handled. There are people who just mourn and cry, there's some who hide it with their smile. Michelle and Ashton portrayed the kind of people who would just put their defenses up whenever someone is near them. They build a wall of their senselessness. IF you noticed after the two slept together, the way they were more open to one another? The radiance that beamed from their faces? It took a great deal for these characters to go this far in their relationship. You're right when you say this movie is about pain and sadness. But it is not about losing family members. It's about everything AFTER you lost a family member. The movie is about how two people's pain slowly turned into love. And through that love, they are both healed. Not fully and perfectly, not yet.. but slowly with obstacles to overcome. But I guess you wouldn't notice that since you were too busy criticizing the movie.

[–] preFelix 15 years ago

I agree!

Its not a 'brilliant' movie, but it deals very well with the concept of overcoming the past and how the spirit is able to regenerate itself thru love and forgiveness.

[–] vallan030 15 years ago

Well said cawleen :)

Life is too short to be taken seriously!

[–] hollywood_glamourx 15 years ago

I think you have a lot of effing nerve coming on here and attacking the way people look. THIS WAS NOT ONE OF THE WORST MOVIES OF 2009, I LOOOOVED IT. IT MADE ME WANNA WATCH IT AGAIN. SO ANYONE WHO IS GOING TO TALK CRAP ABOUT IT NEEDS TO CALM DOWN. IF YOU HONESTLY HATE THE MOVIE, THEN COME ON HERE AND SAY THE MOVIE SUCKED, DON'T SAY STUFF ABOUT MICHELLE PFEIFFERS LIPS, THAT HAS NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH THE MOVIE, SO STFU. SHE WAS GREAT IN IT, AND MICHELLE IS GREAT IN ALMOST EVERYTHING SHE DOES, SHE IS SO PRETTY THE FACT THAT YOU ARE EVEN TALKING ABOUT HER LIPS IS IRRELAVENT. YOU NEED TO CALM YOURSELF DOWN, AND NOT COME ON HERE AND CRITICIZE THE WAY SHE LOOKS. THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MOVIE.

**** AND NOOOO ONNNEEEE LISTEN TO THIS PERSON, IT WAS A REEALLY FANTASTIC MOVIE, AND IT MAKES YOU NERVOUS, AND HAPPY, AND WORRIED ALL AT THE SAME TIME. ITS A GOOD LOVE STORY DRAMA. AND IT IS WORTH THE 2 HOURS.

"Maybe the world was made round so that we don't see too far down the road" - Meryl Streep <3

[–] FartManly 15 years ago

Wow. Turn off the caps lock and quit repeating letters for effect. What's even funnier is how you scream at the original poster to calm down, yet your entire post is a ranting shoutfest. Your post makes you appear as clueless as the OP ...

[–] hollywood_glamourx 15 years ago

clearly I'm not clueless or else I wouldn't know what I know about pretty much the entire movie. and I had caps on because people talking about how her lips look in the movie is completely irrelavent to if it was a good or bad movie, so bashing michelle pfeiffers looks have nothing to do with the movie and the comment was not needed.

"Maybe the world was made round so that we don't see too far down the road" - meryl streep

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] shoyt_2001 15 years ago

Say what you will, as a person who has a son who wrestled, Ashton nailed that part of the character performance. Everyone was good and in character with the story line.

We just found out that Ashton really can act, and the people on this board give us this?

Just because you don't understand it, that does not mean it was not good.

very powerful story line and characters.

[–] TheDanMan1 15 years ago

UNREALISTIC: No one would believe Kutcher as a Chicken-Boy handing out flyers, he would not have that job in reality, and he would also NOT hook-up with an old hag like Pfiefer, who smokes.. did Demi Moore excecutive produce this garbage to justify her existence or what..?

[–] sue-nicodemus 14 years ago

Ashton Kutcher is the most wooden actor since Gary Cooper, but without the charisma. He has basically one expression on his face!

[–] tigerbos 15 years ago

Wow, maybe you didn't understand the film because you don't speak English, can't spell and your grammar is awful.

[–] Kowalchuk 15 years ago

There is no such thing as the worst movie of the year. It's like saying "he's the dumbest person in the world", there's always gonna be someone dumber.

I just finished watching this movie and think the rating of 6.3 is probably in the ballpark. Not that I didn't enjoy it -mostly- but this story is an amalgam of a dozen similar stories from the past 5-10 years, several of which (21 Grams, Things We Lost in the Fire come to mind) have had far more depth in writing/directing/acting. The color, music & cinema techniques have a very familiar look to them and might have been more compelling 10 years ago.

As a love story it's fairly convincing, Michelle Pheiffer is still very attractive (someone tell Madonna you don't have to look like a meth addict at 50) so it's not a stretch Kutcher would fall in love with her especially given his penchant for older women.

Speaking of Kutcher, I wish him a successful movie career but he needs to do more than just brood his way through a film. Again, this might have been more convincing a decade ago when emoting was still relatively new but instead it just comes across as formulaic.

Good movie but just by a hair.

[–] katea-2 14 years ago

I could't agree more. Just wasted time watching it on Netflix. Why a couple of great actors didn't ditch it after reading the first 10 pages of the screenplay is beyond me. Pfeiffer and Bates aren't hard up for money that I know of, unless they gave every dime to Bernie Madoff. This was a jumbled mess. Two deaths and no grief? C'mon! So the two younger guys beat up, pointed a gun, and one shot the wrong person. Acting out some grief, maybe. Or was that stuff just shoved in there so someone would show feelings? This can go on a worst movie list longer than 2009.

[–] tazem81 14 years ago

Wow - I enjoyed this movie, it made me cry and think about the people I still have in my life. Other people have gone through similar situations like this.. Did you pay attention to the story at all. I wonder why you wanted to watch a type of movie like this and not be open minded. Yes, I see Ashton still needs work but he's eye candy

[–] ms moss 14 years ago

I just got done watching and agree with the OP. The movie was awfully dull. The lighting is awful. I guess that's the point--to have the depressing lighting. However, I still hated it. Ashton Kutcher's performance was dry. I get that he was grieving but it still seemed bad. Michelle Pfeiffer's performance wasn't up to par either and I know she can act.

I chalk it up to poor directing as well. This movie's emotional poignancy was lost on me. Instead, it just seemed dull. I also hated the ending. It just seemed like a waste of my time and a waste of the actors' talents.

[–] arok-3 14 years ago

I'm midway through the movie and just need to know. Is the real killer of Ashton's character's sister revealled? If so, who is it?

[–] batispexa 14 years ago

It was not the worts movie, really. I mean it was not the best movie either, but it wasn't horrible either. And who cares about how one writes in English, someone may have an opinion regardless of their writing abilities. And it is sufficient to know basic English to understand this movie because cinematography, music and the mood speak better than the dialog (I have to admit conversations sucked sometimes). All in all, though it was not the best film I've seen this year, I think it deserves the rating it has on IMDB. It was a bit more pretentious than it could deliver, but it wasn't anything horrible like Hanna Montana or sh****t like that.

[–] eileenbpeters 14 years ago

I didn't read all the posts in this thread, but I have to agree with "batispexa". I thought the film was good. It was engaging and held my interest through the end. I found it refreshing to see these actors in such a current release on the small screen. I resent the disparaging comments made by people who simply do not like the looks of the talent in the picture. Obviously, the cast should "look" the parts, but I felt all the players were well within the range of what was required for these roles. Whether you thought these were the best performances by these players or not, I am pleased when Oscar/Golden Globe caliber talent, particularly women, are utilized on screen in any capacity that THEY deem worthy of their efforts. All the leads could easily rest on their laurels and/or bank balances and do nothing. I'm glad they chose to make the movie! No one could say the leads weren't making a sincere effort in this film. Well, not me at any rate. It is refreshing to see plot lines that utilize actors in a variety of age groups and demographics. Fantastic to see actresses in their 50's and 60's getting to play parts. Period. Do you realize how seldom this happens on anything OTHER than Lifetime movies? Seriously? I am NOT ordinarily a lifetime viewer. I ran into this show, by accident. I'm glad I did. It was a nice way to spend a couple of hours for me. A final couple of notes. As someone who has experienced profound loss AND non-traditional romance, I found this film heartwarming, reassuring, validating, and appropriate to the times we live in. While I, too, find the quick, happy ending a little too simplistic, I found myself clutching somewhat desperately at handfuls of bedclothes and wincing painfully while cooing, "...no, no, no, no, no..." until I saw how the whole thamn ding resolved itself. I, for one, know how easily on film and in life this could have gone EITHER WAY! The director LET us feel that breath-catching "whim-whim", but ALSO let us have our peace. I was delighted to NOT be sobbing at film's end like I was near the end of "Out of Africa". Would it have been more realistic to ultimately express the offbeat romance as unrequited love a' la Sydney Pollack? Yes. Would I have slept better by myself and ALONE, like so many Lifetime Network viewers, after the "critically preferred" ending? Nyet. Thanks for your time. Have a great Sunday! :-)