VividSimon Simply Perfect

Livestonth I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

Doomtomylo a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

Plustown A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

winopaul People just don't act like this. Perhaps in France where the writer/director is from, you stick with family members who are total losers, living in your little village with the one little well. Here in America, we have much more affiliation with friends and our co-workers than with any jerk relatives, even in 1970. Many families have spread across the country and hardly see each other any more.When I read the box office section, I misread the 46 thousand domestic gross as 46 million. So I do the highlight>copy>New Tab>Bookmarks>Box Office Mojo>paste>search>click, because Jeff Besos is too inconsiderate to put a link both ways even though he owns both websites. So then I see they spent 25 million and got 2 million back from sales in France. So I guess those European investors that wanted to make a killing in the American market lost almost everything. Sorry, c'est dommage.The sad thing is that if the editor or the money men deleted one scene, just one scene, this movie would be 100 times better. That scene was where the bad brother executes and entire family at that restaurant, for reasons unknown. Its awful hard to care about this sociopath jerk after that, and that scene was pretty early in the movie. With the time saved by taking that scene out, they could have put in a scene explaining how the crazy ticked-off ex husband escaped and was in pursuit of the cop brother. That would have made the ending more understandable, if no more sensible.A few news flashes for French directors. An ex-con that just got out might get mad at his ex-girlfriend when he is drunk and lonely late at night. He will not take a gun into Grand Central Station to execute the girl and her cop boyfriend. Next flash: street hoods in Brooklyn in the 1970s did not carry machine guns. Another flash: Some loser brother does not get out of prison and start killing people, robbing people, and running girls without getting his knees broken by the Italians, and Puerto Rican, and Koreans, and gosh knows how many other established criminal enterprises there were in that neighborhood.I think the director was insecure in his story and his actors, so he had to spray gratuitous drama wherever he could. This is so sad, since the actors and cinematography and music and editing were all so good. This movie showed me how little can be wrong to make a competent production into a flop.Just toning everything down would have made this a decent move. Make the bad brother a lovable rogue, not a complete sociopath. No executing his henchmen in the robbery or other absurdities. Cripes, robbers are not murderers, it is just such incoherent characterization. I kinda lost track of all the girls, forgetting who was an ex-wife or a sister, or a lover, or some random broad off the street. Less is more.And none of this love-you-hate-you-love-you-hate-you brother nonsense. Maybe make the cop brother get involved by busting brothels to make room for his brother's business, and of course, he would be in on the take. Its either that or make it a simple bad guy chased by the good cop with no family relationship, just good vs bad.Its dripping with drama, but its all cargo-cult drama. The director has never read or studied much less been in real situations in the 1970s. He has dreamed up this confabulated image based on all the other (bad) movies he has watched, so the behaviors and characters in the movie don't ring true. I think of the violence in Goodfellas, and there was the central murder of Billy Batts, and Joe Pesci shooting the kid, and him getting his just rewards in the end. But there was no willy-nilly killing sprees. Mobsters are about money, not violence. The violence happens but as a result of chasing the money. Killing a whole family? They have assets, take the restaurant like in Donnie Brasco, or any other type of hard-butt extortion. Its all about money and killing people does not get you your money back, and attracts way too much attention from law enforcement.The real pathos about this flick it that it could have been saved if they just cut out the absurd violence, and simplified the plot, and took out a few characters. They could have made back the budget in the editing room. A few re-shoots might have made it a profit-maker. What a sad sad waste.

lois-lane33 Probably one of the biggest if not the biggest box office flop that has been produced in recent memory. I think they also inflated the budget figures for this movie-maybe so they could justify lavish suites and rented Lambos for everyone involved with the project-who knows. I think what they tried to cash in on was the idea that all things concerning the 1970's cinematographically are a guaranteed shoe in for financial success-based on the idea that the demographic for film goers revolves mostly-now-around people born after the 1970's: when the truth of the demographic is probably more along the lines of most fans of film who will either go to see a film like this or buy a DVD like this are frequently older than 80's baby boomer's. I also have never witnessed such a weak performance from Clive Owen. Maybe he was just taking dull direction from a director dealing with a lifeless script. Again-who knows. I didn't watch the film past the 30 minute mark because nothing had really happened in that time period-as in it was essentially uneventful and boring the entire time I was watching it. I think there were also scripting errors: as in at one point Clive Owen's character bangs his head repeatedly against a wall right in front of his boss (after his boss tells him to stop talking and get back to work) after he was given a job-after being released from prison-and then CO's character just walks of the job by way of taking off in the friends car. Good-bye job. One phone call and that would be it for CO's character. Basically the film would just end there-if it was following anything remotely resembling reality aka the 1970's. A surprisingly poor effort like a trip to Total Dullsville.

Claudio Carvalho In 1974, in New York, the criminal Chris (Clive Owen) is released from prison and his younger brother Frank (Billy Crudup), who is a honest police officer, brings him home expecting that Chris is regenerated. However after an incident, Chris returns to the life of crime, affecting Frank's career and the lives of his ex-wife Monica (Marion Cotillard) and his present wife Natalie (Mila Kunis). But when Chris discovers that the criminal Scarfo (Matthias Schoenaerts) wants to kill Frank that is living with his ex-wife Vanessa (Zoe Saldana), he has to decide whether he flees or save his brother's life."Blood Ties" is a movie with an impressive cast and set decoration, including several cars from the 70's. Unfortunately the story is an unoriginal soap opera that wastes the cast. There are many movies with brothers on the opposite sides of the law and the screenplay of "Blood Ties" is not engaging and does not hold the attention of the viewer. My vote is five.Title (Brazil): "Laços de Sangue" ("Blood Ties")

eddie_baggins While there is much to be commended in the fact that director Guillaume Canet and his production team have here in Blood Ties created a very decent recreation of the 1970's (with an overuse of record players, we get it OK, there weren't IPod's/CD's back then!) there is also much to be made of the fact that Blood Ties is a lifeless, seen a thousand times before, dull and dreary tale that fails to announce to us just why it exists.On paper, things within Blood Ties would seem to add up to a pretty decent family/crime drama, even moments within seem to suggest Sidney Lumet was a huge inspiration. We have a name cast in the form of Clive Owen, Mila Kunis, Zoe Saldana and the ever disappointing Billy Crudup, then behind the scenes you have a film not only produced but co-written by crime genre specialist James Grey and director Guillaume Canet who has a decent track record in his native homeland of France with films such as the excellent Tell No One and the decent Little White Lies, but nothing within Blood Ties ads up to any anything decent, nothing we see here feels emotionally engaging and no one truly seems to care enough to change it.Blood Ties needed someone too step up their game exceptionally within the piece, yet all participants seemingly rested on their laurels with the material and expected fireworks to happen. Canet's direction clearly did not help this dull overbearing feeling however with his stale, beyond workmanlike gig behind the camera transferring to one of the most bereft of life movies you'd care to see. Where is the tension to be found between warring brothers? The heart pounding experience of a crime in progress or the sparks between lovers? There is none of that to be found here despite the potential for it.Bloods Ties best moments are all taken/borrowed from other much better films of the same genre, whether it be a climatic train station scene (Carlito's Way), a bank heist gone wrong (Heat) or brothers torn between loyalty to their family/friends or loyalty to their job (We Own the Night or State of Grace) and they go to show you just what can be done with this type of film if it's done right. Blood Ties doesn't do many things right and that makes this a film worthy of being crossed off your to watch list, even if the cast list looks like a sure fire success.1 record player out of 5 For more movie reviews and opinions check into - www.jordanandeddie.wordpress.com