“VALENTINE’S DAY” (Ashton Kutcher, Jennifer Garner, Bradley Cooper, Julia Roberts, Topher Grace, Anne Hathaway, Jamie Foxx, Jessica Biel, George Lopez, Jessica Alba, Patrick Dempsey, Shirley Maclaine, Hector Elizondo, Eric Dane, Queen Latifah, Emma Roberts, Kathy Bates & 2 Annoying Twits Named Taylor)
This movie tries to be the ‘chick flick’ version of “Crash” & if director Garry Marshall’s plan was to make a total mess out of a dozen or so relationships crashing together, then he succeeded. Problem is, ‘Crash’ worked because it was well written & the subjects were easily discernible due to the variety of ethnicities involved – you put a load of bland white people in your cast of thousands that no one can tell apart (Let’s see Jennifer Garner is the younger version of Julia Roberts & Biel is lighter skinned than Alba, right?) For a change, Foxx, Latifah & Lopez didn’t stand out because of their poor acting, they were the token blacks & Latino in the cast(Sorry, Hector, you’re too white to fit your last name)
If you cut the cast in half & worked harder on the stories that had at least a little promise, Marshall might have made a cute little romantic film here, but instead he piled it on with so much crap, this Valentine’s Day candy couldn’t fit in the box so it went bad in a hurry.
The plot tries to focus on a central location - Ashton Kutcher’s flower shop, & believe it or not, Kutcher gives one of the few solid performances. & though not everyone in the cast makes an appearance at the florists, they all know someone who did.
So with 12 stories all taking place at the same time, you’d think at least ONE of them would be interesting or entertaining... think again, remember we’re talking about a Garry Marshall-led chick flick here – ain’t nothin’ entertaining going on.
I could rattle off the pairings & how they correlate to ‘Siena Florist’ but that would just be a way to pad my review & since I don’t get paid by the word, why bother?
Instead, I’d just like to point out a major flaw which happens with the Jennifer Garner-Patrick Dempsey pairing; Garner (an elementary school teacher) thinks Dempsey (a doctor) is divorced & their relationship is going strong. Kutcher, Garner’s best friend, finds out he’s still married so when Garner announces she ‘flying’ to L.A. to pay Dempsey a surprise visit on Valentine’s Day, Kutcher decides to break the bad news. Even though she realizes he’s probably telling the truth, Garner boards the flight anyway, obviously to ‘see for herself’.
Dempsey is having dinner in a posh restaurant with his wife when Garner shows up at the table pretending to be their waitress. She spews a few innuendos while staying in character before spilling the beans to Mrs. Dr. Two-Timer. The major gaff comes when Garner hands the actual waiter his apron & he tells her, “My son loves your class.”
Okay, she had to take a flight to L. A. – how is this waiter’s son in her classroom?
Does the kid fly back & forth to school each day or does dad make the two-way daily flight for his wait-staff occupation?
The only couple I wished were in it more was the Topher Grace-Anne Hathaway match-up; although one of the dumbest scenes happens when Grace thinks Valentine’s Day always falls on a Thursday... Really? Are we supposed to believe anyone can be that much of an idiot? “You’re thinking of Thanksgiving, Holmes!” his co-worker tells him.
Really? Are we supposed to believe that this moron really can’t tell February from November?
Anyway, back to what I liked about them – both are in ‘ground floor’ jobs – Grace works in a mail room & Hathaway is a temporary secretary & they are just starting their relationship as well. The twist being Hathaway’s character, to help earn more money, moonlights as a phone sex operator; a potentially stupid sub-plot that actually works, providing a slight bit of comedy & sweetness.
In a movie with a cast of thousands, who’d a thunk that the most interesting & reliable actors were the ones that came from ‘That 70’s Show’?
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Monday, February 15, 2010
WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE
“WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE” (Max Records)
I don’t have a single solitary positive thing to say about “Where The Wild Things Are”.
It was listed as the #1 & #2 best movies of 2009 by the 'At The Movies' critics, so I decided to spend $3 to see what they thought was great filmmaking... Now I know – Don’t trust these two nitwits, their taste runs from ultra-snooty to ridiculously juvenile (‘Wild Things’ belonging in the latter category)
What was there to like about this rotten movie? The ‘Wild Things’ look like rejected Muppets on steroids & most of the film looks as though it was shot in someone’s back yard in Graham. I could see where maybe 5-to-8 year olds would enjoy it because I’m sure the dialogue was written by a group of them.
Expecting to dislike it, I took notes. Here’s what I wrote with my added comments in parenthesis.
Screaming kid bullies dog (Who doesn’t want to watch a defenseless animal being tortured?)
Brat starts snowball fight (He cries when his victims retaliate in fun - destroys his sisters bedroom afterward)
Teacher tells class ‘sun won’t burn forever’ (Why would he say that?)
Brat goes berserk over nothing (When asked to tell his sister to clean off the kitchen table)
He bites down hard on his mother’s shoulder & screams “I hate you!” (Cute kid, eh?)
Steals boat- sails out to sea (Would have been a better movie if the boat overturned & he drowned)
There’s no relating to this kid – he’s an obnoxious brat...
The rest of my notes basically follow the lame ‘plot’ of Max (the brat, decently portrayed by Max Records) meeting the Wild Things on the Island of Forgotten Overgrown Muppets On Steroids & becoming their ‘King’ simply because he tells them he was king of the Vikings – He tells them stupid, moronic stories that only another 8 year old would believe – The Muppets themselves are quite juvenile & naive; when they ask Max why he left home he tells them, “I don’t like frozen corn.” . . . There is no follow up question.
Every character in this movie is childish, selfish & stupid – The whole project is just plain dumb.
Now, those of you who have seen this & liked it I’m sure are thinking that I ‘just didn’t get’ the connection between the Muppets & Max’s real family – I did. You’d have to be an idiot not to be able to connect those two dots – it’s so obvious, it’s simplistic.
Max starts a ‘war’ selecting who the good guys are & who the bad guys are & they start throwing dirt clods at one another (Ala the ‘snowball fight’) The problem is, Max considers himself to be a ‘good’ guy when in fact he is a stubborn destructive brat.
It isn’t hard to figure why Max was a loner at home – no one would want a nasty little sh*t like him for a friend.
At one point in my notes I wrote, ‘this is an awful movie – I’m thinking about walking out it is so immature & childish.’
‘King’ Max makes all of the Muppets feel bad about themselves & their lives... just like he did back home with his family. I really wanted Tony Soprano to either whack him, or eat him so this would have a happy ending.
Like Max, the Tony Soprano muppet is only happy when he’s being violent & abusive (He tears the ‘wing’ off of the chicken muppet but strangely enough doesn’t bar-b-q it & eat it)
The other Muppets tell Max that Tony Soprano is ‘out of control’ & the King replies, “He’s just scared.” So now we’re supposed to feel sorry for this brat & forgive his atrocious behavior because he sees how Tony Soprano is actually a larger scarier version of himself?
& if you think the film redeems itself with Max going home & apologizing profusely to his mother, you’ve got the wrong script – there’s no Kermit the Frog or Miss Piggy to point out how this insensitive child learned his lesson.
I could see where 8 year olds would think this movie was cool, but adults who like it should Never become parents – there are enough brats in the world already.
As Comic Book Guy would say, “Worst Muppet Movie EVER!”
I don’t have a single solitary positive thing to say about “Where The Wild Things Are”.
It was listed as the #1 & #2 best movies of 2009 by the 'At The Movies' critics, so I decided to spend $3 to see what they thought was great filmmaking... Now I know – Don’t trust these two nitwits, their taste runs from ultra-snooty to ridiculously juvenile (‘Wild Things’ belonging in the latter category)
What was there to like about this rotten movie? The ‘Wild Things’ look like rejected Muppets on steroids & most of the film looks as though it was shot in someone’s back yard in Graham. I could see where maybe 5-to-8 year olds would enjoy it because I’m sure the dialogue was written by a group of them.
Expecting to dislike it, I took notes. Here’s what I wrote with my added comments in parenthesis.
Screaming kid bullies dog (Who doesn’t want to watch a defenseless animal being tortured?)
Brat starts snowball fight (He cries when his victims retaliate in fun - destroys his sisters bedroom afterward)
Teacher tells class ‘sun won’t burn forever’ (Why would he say that?)
Brat goes berserk over nothing (When asked to tell his sister to clean off the kitchen table)
He bites down hard on his mother’s shoulder & screams “I hate you!” (Cute kid, eh?)
Steals boat- sails out to sea (Would have been a better movie if the boat overturned & he drowned)
There’s no relating to this kid – he’s an obnoxious brat...
The rest of my notes basically follow the lame ‘plot’ of Max (the brat, decently portrayed by Max Records) meeting the Wild Things on the Island of Forgotten Overgrown Muppets On Steroids & becoming their ‘King’ simply because he tells them he was king of the Vikings – He tells them stupid, moronic stories that only another 8 year old would believe – The Muppets themselves are quite juvenile & naive; when they ask Max why he left home he tells them, “I don’t like frozen corn.” . . . There is no follow up question.
Every character in this movie is childish, selfish & stupid – The whole project is just plain dumb.
Now, those of you who have seen this & liked it I’m sure are thinking that I ‘just didn’t get’ the connection between the Muppets & Max’s real family – I did. You’d have to be an idiot not to be able to connect those two dots – it’s so obvious, it’s simplistic.
Max starts a ‘war’ selecting who the good guys are & who the bad guys are & they start throwing dirt clods at one another (Ala the ‘snowball fight’) The problem is, Max considers himself to be a ‘good’ guy when in fact he is a stubborn destructive brat.
It isn’t hard to figure why Max was a loner at home – no one would want a nasty little sh*t like him for a friend.
At one point in my notes I wrote, ‘this is an awful movie – I’m thinking about walking out it is so immature & childish.’
‘King’ Max makes all of the Muppets feel bad about themselves & their lives... just like he did back home with his family. I really wanted Tony Soprano to either whack him, or eat him so this would have a happy ending.
Like Max, the Tony Soprano muppet is only happy when he’s being violent & abusive (He tears the ‘wing’ off of the chicken muppet but strangely enough doesn’t bar-b-q it & eat it)
The other Muppets tell Max that Tony Soprano is ‘out of control’ & the King replies, “He’s just scared.” So now we’re supposed to feel sorry for this brat & forgive his atrocious behavior because he sees how Tony Soprano is actually a larger scarier version of himself?
& if you think the film redeems itself with Max going home & apologizing profusely to his mother, you’ve got the wrong script – there’s no Kermit the Frog or Miss Piggy to point out how this insensitive child learned his lesson.
I could see where 8 year olds would think this movie was cool, but adults who like it should Never become parents – there are enough brats in the world already.
As Comic Book Guy would say, “Worst Muppet Movie EVER!”
DID YOU HEAR ABOUT THE MORGANS?
“DID YOU HEAR ABOUT THE MORGANS?” (Hugh Grant & Sarah Jessica Parker)
Yes, yes, I know what you’re thinking – this was a bone thrown to my wife for Valentine’s Day – she went to see ‘The Wolfman’ for me, so I suffered thru this for her.
It wasn’t as awful as the trailer made it appear due to one thing – I hadn’t seen Hugh Grant for a while & so his style of comedic acting didn’t bother me that much, in fact, he was clearly the funniest in the cast. SJP, on the hand, simply needs to stop trying to be funny... she isn’t. Nothing she did or said was even smirk-worthy.
Going thru divorce proceedings because he cheated on her, Mr. Morgan (Grant) is trying to get together with his estranged wife (Parker) to beg her forgiveness & to give their marriage a second chance. After agreeing to have dinner with the cad, the Morgans witness a murder & the killer sees that they’ve seen.
The Morgans are put into the Witness Protection Program & are whisked off to Ray, Wyoming where they bunk up with a husband & wife quartet of Marshalls (Sam Shepherd, his moustache, Mary Steenbergen & her annoying voice)
Then everything you expect to have happen happens. The end.
Like I said, Grant saved this from being horrible by delivering a few funny lines, but I wish someone would tell him that by constantly looking away from the person he’s talking to, his style becomes annoying after a while. But for a guy who peaked several years ago with “About A Boy”, Hugh was a welcomed sign of relief in this particularly bad movie... or maybe it was due to the fact that he seemed humorous because Parker was So Not Funny.
What we have here is another fish(es)-out-of-water story where you just wish the fish get flushed down the toilet as quickly as possible, but then some jerk picks them up & throws them back into the aquarium...
Yes, yes, I know what you’re thinking – this was a bone thrown to my wife for Valentine’s Day – she went to see ‘The Wolfman’ for me, so I suffered thru this for her.
It wasn’t as awful as the trailer made it appear due to one thing – I hadn’t seen Hugh Grant for a while & so his style of comedic acting didn’t bother me that much, in fact, he was clearly the funniest in the cast. SJP, on the hand, simply needs to stop trying to be funny... she isn’t. Nothing she did or said was even smirk-worthy.
Going thru divorce proceedings because he cheated on her, Mr. Morgan (Grant) is trying to get together with his estranged wife (Parker) to beg her forgiveness & to give their marriage a second chance. After agreeing to have dinner with the cad, the Morgans witness a murder & the killer sees that they’ve seen.
The Morgans are put into the Witness Protection Program & are whisked off to Ray, Wyoming where they bunk up with a husband & wife quartet of Marshalls (Sam Shepherd, his moustache, Mary Steenbergen & her annoying voice)
Then everything you expect to have happen happens. The end.
Like I said, Grant saved this from being horrible by delivering a few funny lines, but I wish someone would tell him that by constantly looking away from the person he’s talking to, his style becomes annoying after a while. But for a guy who peaked several years ago with “About A Boy”, Hugh was a welcomed sign of relief in this particularly bad movie... or maybe it was due to the fact that he seemed humorous because Parker was So Not Funny.
What we have here is another fish(es)-out-of-water story where you just wish the fish get flushed down the toilet as quickly as possible, but then some jerk picks them up & throws them back into the aquarium...
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
EDGE OF DARKNESS
“EDGE OF DARKNESS” (Mel Gibson)
Somewhat undecided as to how much of the plot I should reveal; I try to tell just enough to peak your interest with the movies I enjoyed & then tell you a lot more of the ones I disliked to warn you to stay away from them. I liked ‘Edge Of Darkness’ – it’s akin to being Michael Clayton’s little brother, but there’s nothing wrong with that.
Like ‘Clayton’, ‘Darkness’ is well acted – no one sloughs off / & like ‘Clayton’ it concerns a large corporation doing unscrupulous things to keep the American public from finding out what they really do (or have done)
I could see if someone were to complain that this is a ‘formula’ movie, following in Michael Clayton’s footsteps a little too closely, but the formula worked for me a second time & that’s possibly due to the height of the revenge factor; Clooney’s character never went ‘ballistic’ – Gibson’s Tom Craven does.
The film opens with 3 bodies popping to the surface of a lake under the glowing eye of a bright full moon.
One of those who should have floated to the surface was Emma Craven, Tom’s daughter. Instead, she shows up on Dad’s porch & shortly thereafter her nose begins to bleed & she rushes to the toilet to vomit her guts out. Shortly thereafter Emma dies.
Tom, a police detective, talks his superior into letting him investigate on his own since he technically can’t be a part of the official team of investigators.
He looks into Northmoor, the company Emma was interning for.
Danny Huston plays bad guy Jack Bennet – you know he’s bad because he’s the boss of a nuclear weapons company (Northmoor) Even while Jack feigns sympathy & tells Tom ‘If there’s anything I can do to help...’ you know he’s a lying pr*ck.
Then Captain Jedburgh (Ray Winstone) appears as a very calculating ‘hit man’ type. Speaking with his full blown English accent (And everyone knows you’re not supposed to go FULL English, but Winstone, like Sean Penn in ‘I Am Sam’ says ‘screw the rules!’)
Jedburgh is so cold & seemingly uninterested (Even while asking prying questions) that you’re not sure which ‘team’ he’s playing on – the good guys or the bad guys.
When Tom tells him, “I’m not gonna arrest anyone... You gonna try & stop me?”
Jedburgh replies, “Depends.”
When the trail leads to a prominent U.S. Senator, Tom opens up an even larger can of worms when he tells the Senator’s aide, “I’m an a**hole with nothing to lose – you tell the Senator that... & buckle your f***in’ seatbelt!”
Tom gets into sh*t so deep you reach the conclusion that there’s no possible way for him to survive this investigation. So I became intrigued with this story & anticipated how many Northmoor cages Tom would be able to rattle before meeting his demise – plus the added mystery of who would finish him off – Bennet’s hit men or the mysterious Captain Jedburgh? & I only reveal that because that was my thought as I was watching the film – I could have been right – or I could be way off on what actually happens, so don’t consider that to be a spoiler. As far as you know, Tom might live to film a possible sequel; ‘Tom Craven: Seat Belt Monitor’... but I didn’t give that scenario much of a chance.
This review brought to you by f**kin’ asterisks – When you absolutely, positively must use f**kin’ swear words, ask for f**kin’ asterisks by name – they’ll allow you to curse like a f**kin’ sailor & still maintain a PG-13 rating on your f**kin’ movie review blog!
Somewhat undecided as to how much of the plot I should reveal; I try to tell just enough to peak your interest with the movies I enjoyed & then tell you a lot more of the ones I disliked to warn you to stay away from them. I liked ‘Edge Of Darkness’ – it’s akin to being Michael Clayton’s little brother, but there’s nothing wrong with that.
Like ‘Clayton’, ‘Darkness’ is well acted – no one sloughs off / & like ‘Clayton’ it concerns a large corporation doing unscrupulous things to keep the American public from finding out what they really do (or have done)
I could see if someone were to complain that this is a ‘formula’ movie, following in Michael Clayton’s footsteps a little too closely, but the formula worked for me a second time & that’s possibly due to the height of the revenge factor; Clooney’s character never went ‘ballistic’ – Gibson’s Tom Craven does.
The film opens with 3 bodies popping to the surface of a lake under the glowing eye of a bright full moon.
One of those who should have floated to the surface was Emma Craven, Tom’s daughter. Instead, she shows up on Dad’s porch & shortly thereafter her nose begins to bleed & she rushes to the toilet to vomit her guts out. Shortly thereafter Emma dies.
Tom, a police detective, talks his superior into letting him investigate on his own since he technically can’t be a part of the official team of investigators.
He looks into Northmoor, the company Emma was interning for.
Danny Huston plays bad guy Jack Bennet – you know he’s bad because he’s the boss of a nuclear weapons company (Northmoor) Even while Jack feigns sympathy & tells Tom ‘If there’s anything I can do to help...’ you know he’s a lying pr*ck.
Then Captain Jedburgh (Ray Winstone) appears as a very calculating ‘hit man’ type. Speaking with his full blown English accent (And everyone knows you’re not supposed to go FULL English, but Winstone, like Sean Penn in ‘I Am Sam’ says ‘screw the rules!’)
Jedburgh is so cold & seemingly uninterested (Even while asking prying questions) that you’re not sure which ‘team’ he’s playing on – the good guys or the bad guys.
When Tom tells him, “I’m not gonna arrest anyone... You gonna try & stop me?”
Jedburgh replies, “Depends.”
When the trail leads to a prominent U.S. Senator, Tom opens up an even larger can of worms when he tells the Senator’s aide, “I’m an a**hole with nothing to lose – you tell the Senator that... & buckle your f***in’ seatbelt!”
Tom gets into sh*t so deep you reach the conclusion that there’s no possible way for him to survive this investigation. So I became intrigued with this story & anticipated how many Northmoor cages Tom would be able to rattle before meeting his demise – plus the added mystery of who would finish him off – Bennet’s hit men or the mysterious Captain Jedburgh? & I only reveal that because that was my thought as I was watching the film – I could have been right – or I could be way off on what actually happens, so don’t consider that to be a spoiler. As far as you know, Tom might live to film a possible sequel; ‘Tom Craven: Seat Belt Monitor’... but I didn’t give that scenario much of a chance.
This review brought to you by f**kin’ asterisks – When you absolutely, positively must use f**kin’ swear words, ask for f**kin’ asterisks by name – they’ll allow you to curse like a f**kin’ sailor & still maintain a PG-13 rating on your f**kin’ movie review blog!
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
OLD DOGS
“OLD DOGS” (Robin Williams & John Travolta)
What is that saying about old dogs? Oh yes, that you can’t teach them new tricks...
Apparently you can’t teach them anything about comedy either.
Right now I’m asking myself, do you even want to write anything else about Robin Williams’ latest embarrassment & John Travolta continuing to prove that Vinnie Barbarino was a fluke?
Not only was this film ridiculously silly, it was weird since they had Travolta’s real life wife, Kelly Preston playing Williams’ love interest.
I did laugh at times during ‘Old Dogs’ but it was only due to my movie going companion’s enjoyment of it. Which I was glad to hear, it was nice to see at least one of us get our $3 worth of entertainment. & I don’t mean to insult my ex-music teacher/Robin Williams fan who accompanied me to the theatre, but the only reason I was laughing was over the fact that she was giggling at the silliness onscreen. Which proves the hit & miss quality of silly comedies – what made “Airplane” so damn funny? It was just one silly line after another; “Monty Python &The Holy Grail” couldn’t have been any sillier, yet I consider it to be a comedy classic, maybe the best ever.
I guess originality plays a major part because ‘Old Dogs’ didn’t have much. “Pineapple Express” comes to mind as a recent awful attempt at comedy because the entire movie seemed to be ‘made up as they went along, at least ‘Old Dogs’ appeared to be scripted, but the script basically weaved its way from one unlikely silly scene to another without much thought of depth. Obviously the golf scene where Robin Williams’ Dan was trying to impress the Japanese CEO was ‘planned’ – Dan, being over 50 needed a dozen or so pills to survive each day & his newly discovered children get them mixed up but don’t tell him so he has no depth perception during the round. It was worthy of a smirk, maybe even a quiet chuckle, but the other 4 people in the audience were laughing out loud... loudly. One man’s silly is another man’s moronic, I guess.
Mork & Barbarino play Dan & Charlie; friends from childhood, they start a sports agency & become successful agents. Just as they’re on the verge of merging with a large Japanese corporation, Vicki (Kelly Preston) appears – she’s a brief fling from Dan’s past that he’s always regretted breaking up with. Vicki gives Dan 2 tidbits of information; One/ She’s going to jail for two weeks (for being a protester, so she’s not a ‘real’ criminal) & Two/ She had twins after their fling & they’re Dan’s kids (Now 7 or 8 years old) The kids come rushing in with cross-eyed friend Rita Wilson & hug Dan, calling him ‘Daddy!’ before he even knows their names.
Rita is on her way to do a hand modeling assignment so they need Dan to watch the kids. & you’ll never guess what happens next . . . Oh, you did. Yes, Dan closes the trunk of his car on Rita’s hands & now she can’t take care of the kids (or do the hand modeling job) & so Dan must take in his children until Vicki gets out of prison.
I had the nerve to think Matt Dillon would provide an actual comedic moment playing an over zealous ‘Campfire Kids’ troop leader, but if anything his scene was a ‘low’ point, sliding from silliness into blatant stupidity.
The ‘He-Seems-To-Get-Less-Funny-Every-Time-I-See-Him’ Seth Green plays an employee of Dan & Charlie’s who is given the job of moving to Japan to aide with the merger. He makes it to Japan but then disappears. Later, when trying to get back into Dan & Charlie’s good graces, he finds himself in the arms of a gorilla singing “All Out Of Love”. This, though seen several times in previews & TV ads, still made the other 4 people in the theatre laugh. I remember thinking it would have been funnier if they had Seth being held captive in the arms of Kirstie Alley & he had to sing “You’ve Lost That Loving Feeling” to appease her... but I guess that would only appeal to ‘Cheers’ fans.
With the success of ‘The Hangover’, I was hoping set-up comedies would start taking a turn for the better – more originality – more ‘intelligent’ silliness. But if this is the best they can come up with they might as well go back to the drawing board & go with that ‘Welcome Back, Kotter’ idea with Travolta playing the lead role in ‘Welcome Back, Barbarino’.
What is that saying about old dogs? Oh yes, that you can’t teach them new tricks...
Apparently you can’t teach them anything about comedy either.
Right now I’m asking myself, do you even want to write anything else about Robin Williams’ latest embarrassment & John Travolta continuing to prove that Vinnie Barbarino was a fluke?
Not only was this film ridiculously silly, it was weird since they had Travolta’s real life wife, Kelly Preston playing Williams’ love interest.
I did laugh at times during ‘Old Dogs’ but it was only due to my movie going companion’s enjoyment of it. Which I was glad to hear, it was nice to see at least one of us get our $3 worth of entertainment. & I don’t mean to insult my ex-music teacher/Robin Williams fan who accompanied me to the theatre, but the only reason I was laughing was over the fact that she was giggling at the silliness onscreen. Which proves the hit & miss quality of silly comedies – what made “Airplane” so damn funny? It was just one silly line after another; “Monty Python &The Holy Grail” couldn’t have been any sillier, yet I consider it to be a comedy classic, maybe the best ever.
I guess originality plays a major part because ‘Old Dogs’ didn’t have much. “Pineapple Express” comes to mind as a recent awful attempt at comedy because the entire movie seemed to be ‘made up as they went along, at least ‘Old Dogs’ appeared to be scripted, but the script basically weaved its way from one unlikely silly scene to another without much thought of depth. Obviously the golf scene where Robin Williams’ Dan was trying to impress the Japanese CEO was ‘planned’ – Dan, being over 50 needed a dozen or so pills to survive each day & his newly discovered children get them mixed up but don’t tell him so he has no depth perception during the round. It was worthy of a smirk, maybe even a quiet chuckle, but the other 4 people in the audience were laughing out loud... loudly. One man’s silly is another man’s moronic, I guess.
Mork & Barbarino play Dan & Charlie; friends from childhood, they start a sports agency & become successful agents. Just as they’re on the verge of merging with a large Japanese corporation, Vicki (Kelly Preston) appears – she’s a brief fling from Dan’s past that he’s always regretted breaking up with. Vicki gives Dan 2 tidbits of information; One/ She’s going to jail for two weeks (for being a protester, so she’s not a ‘real’ criminal) & Two/ She had twins after their fling & they’re Dan’s kids (Now 7 or 8 years old) The kids come rushing in with cross-eyed friend Rita Wilson & hug Dan, calling him ‘Daddy!’ before he even knows their names.
Rita is on her way to do a hand modeling assignment so they need Dan to watch the kids. & you’ll never guess what happens next . . . Oh, you did. Yes, Dan closes the trunk of his car on Rita’s hands & now she can’t take care of the kids (or do the hand modeling job) & so Dan must take in his children until Vicki gets out of prison.
I had the nerve to think Matt Dillon would provide an actual comedic moment playing an over zealous ‘Campfire Kids’ troop leader, but if anything his scene was a ‘low’ point, sliding from silliness into blatant stupidity.
The ‘He-Seems-To-Get-Less-Funny-Every-Time-I-See-Him’ Seth Green plays an employee of Dan & Charlie’s who is given the job of moving to Japan to aide with the merger. He makes it to Japan but then disappears. Later, when trying to get back into Dan & Charlie’s good graces, he finds himself in the arms of a gorilla singing “All Out Of Love”. This, though seen several times in previews & TV ads, still made the other 4 people in the theatre laugh. I remember thinking it would have been funnier if they had Seth being held captive in the arms of Kirstie Alley & he had to sing “You’ve Lost That Loving Feeling” to appease her... but I guess that would only appeal to ‘Cheers’ fans.
With the success of ‘The Hangover’, I was hoping set-up comedies would start taking a turn for the better – more originality – more ‘intelligent’ silliness. But if this is the best they can come up with they might as well go back to the drawing board & go with that ‘Welcome Back, Kotter’ idea with Travolta playing the lead role in ‘Welcome Back, Barbarino’.
Monday, February 1, 2010
EXTRAORDINARY MEASURES
“EXTRAORDINARY MEASURES” (Brendan Fraser, Harrison Ford & Keri Russell)
In the early scenes this film has all the trappings of a mediocre ‘Lifetime Channel Movie Of The Week’ production – the dialogue is lame, the attempts at humor fail miserably (Married couple John & Aileen Crowley are ‘caught’ kissing by their children’s day nurse & John’s pants fall down – Tee hee hee!)
Just as I said ‘Brothers’ worked because the child actors were expertly directed, the children here are not. In fact, the movie doesn’t build any momentum until the sarcastic sickly girl & her depressing little brother are out of the picture.
Brendan Fraser is the star of the film as John Crowley, father of 3 children, the younger two afflicted with Pompe’s disease. The life expectancy of an average patient is 9 – the film opens with daughter Megan’s 8th birthday party.
Keri Russell is the ‘mom’ &, as with almost every film she’s been in, she doesn’t do much more than look on with that hokey ‘pained look’ in her eyes.
It IS rather pathetic when the best actor in your movie is Harrison Ford, but he clearly outshines every thespian in the cast. (Other than ‘Regarding Henry’, I’ve never been impressed with Mr. Ford’s acting abilities)
Ford plays Dr. Robert Stonehill, the scientist who is currently working on finding a cure for Pompe & the storyline consists entirely of John’s attempts to get him the funding & the resources to make his ‘cure’ come to light before his children bite the dust.
Their partnership is what drives this film from ‘movie of the week’ status to ‘respectable drama’. & then it hits a sour note when Crowley tells Stonehill to ‘imagine how much money he’ll make’ if they sell their company to a competitor, a large corporation with unrestricted financial resources. Stonehill snarls that he doesn’t give a damn about money, to which a now indignant John snaps. “Don’t you talk to me about more important things than money!”
This SHOULD have been an intense powerful scene between two people aiming for the same goal, but having to make concessions in order to achieve their quest – instead, it makes John look like a dick since HE’S the one who brings up money in the first place!
It would be nice if I could start a business where I could help scriptwriters that can’t write dialogue because 1) I think I’m pretty good at it; 2) I can spot a bad exchange a mile away & 3) I need the money!
I will give credit for the phrase ‘acceptable losses’ – it is used well for dramatic effect.
That, & ‘Uncle Bobby’, helped elevate this film to be an ‘acceptable’ drama. But it did take the long way to get there...
In the early scenes this film has all the trappings of a mediocre ‘Lifetime Channel Movie Of The Week’ production – the dialogue is lame, the attempts at humor fail miserably (Married couple John & Aileen Crowley are ‘caught’ kissing by their children’s day nurse & John’s pants fall down – Tee hee hee!)
Just as I said ‘Brothers’ worked because the child actors were expertly directed, the children here are not. In fact, the movie doesn’t build any momentum until the sarcastic sickly girl & her depressing little brother are out of the picture.
Brendan Fraser is the star of the film as John Crowley, father of 3 children, the younger two afflicted with Pompe’s disease. The life expectancy of an average patient is 9 – the film opens with daughter Megan’s 8th birthday party.
Keri Russell is the ‘mom’ &, as with almost every film she’s been in, she doesn’t do much more than look on with that hokey ‘pained look’ in her eyes.
It IS rather pathetic when the best actor in your movie is Harrison Ford, but he clearly outshines every thespian in the cast. (Other than ‘Regarding Henry’, I’ve never been impressed with Mr. Ford’s acting abilities)
Ford plays Dr. Robert Stonehill, the scientist who is currently working on finding a cure for Pompe & the storyline consists entirely of John’s attempts to get him the funding & the resources to make his ‘cure’ come to light before his children bite the dust.
Their partnership is what drives this film from ‘movie of the week’ status to ‘respectable drama’. & then it hits a sour note when Crowley tells Stonehill to ‘imagine how much money he’ll make’ if they sell their company to a competitor, a large corporation with unrestricted financial resources. Stonehill snarls that he doesn’t give a damn about money, to which a now indignant John snaps. “Don’t you talk to me about more important things than money!”
This SHOULD have been an intense powerful scene between two people aiming for the same goal, but having to make concessions in order to achieve their quest – instead, it makes John look like a dick since HE’S the one who brings up money in the first place!
It would be nice if I could start a business where I could help scriptwriters that can’t write dialogue because 1) I think I’m pretty good at it; 2) I can spot a bad exchange a mile away & 3) I need the money!
I will give credit for the phrase ‘acceptable losses’ – it is used well for dramatic effect.
That, & ‘Uncle Bobby’, helped elevate this film to be an ‘acceptable’ drama. But it did take the long way to get there...
LAW ABIDING CITIZEN
“LAW ABIDING CITIZEN” (Gerard Butler & Jamie Foxx)
I actually have a soft spot for vigilante movies – revenge is sweet when you know for a fact that the guilty parties deserve what is done to them in the name of vengeance. Movies provide that proof by showing you what horrendous crime the perpetrators committed. Denzel Washington’s “Man On Fire” is probably my favorite. “Law Abiding Citizen”, on the other hand, is probably the worst. It’s not just that Gerard Butler is no Denzel, but this entire film goes awry. It wants to be the ‘bad ass’ of vigilante films & only succeeds in turning the victim into as much of a deplorable human being as the sick criminals that raped his wife & then murdered her & his daughter.
Yes, it’s enough to drive a sane man nuts, especially when the actual murderer turns against his partner in crime & fingers him as the ‘killer’... By the way, wouldn’t forensic evidence prove which one of them pulled the trigger or used the knife?
So the accomplice gets the death penalty while the murderer does time but eventually gets released.
Butler plays ‘Clyde’, the father & husband who is incapacitated by two thieves that break into his home & apparently decide on a whim to leave him alive after forcing him to witness the brutal murders of his wife & child.
Apparently, in Philadelphia courts, an eyewitness account doesn’t hold much water; As D.A. Nick (Jamie Foxx) tells Clyde, “It’s not what you know; it’s what you can prove.”
Thanks to an untapped source of wealth, Clyde takes 10 years to extract his revenge – why he bothers to ‘assist’ the State of Pennsylvania as it carries out the death sentence on the guy that didn’t kill anyone is more than a little unreasonable & the way he ‘disposes’ of the actual killer is quite off-putting, but you understand the depth of his anger – If that’s how he needed to make closure, okay, get it off your chest & then go back to being that ‘law abiding citizen’ you were before your life was devastated by these scumbags.
But no, just making sure the killer’s lives came to a torturous ending isn’t good enough for Clyde, he has to brutally murder EVERYONE involved with the case. He starts with the murderers’ lawyer, & it’s an acceptable killing because Clyde sets it up so that the lawyer ‘could’ be saved if D.A. Nick & the police agree to his demands within the time limits he sets. One clever line is spoken when Clyde tells Nick, “After all, you’re the one that cuts deals with murderers, right?”
But lame lines like ‘Cut me a deal or everyone dies.’ & ‘I’m NOT having this conversation!’ help to send this vigilante revenge flick into the depths of stupidity.
There’s one continuity flaw that sticks out so badly it makes you wonder if they even cared about continuity, realizing their audience just wanted to see Clyde kill as many innocent people as possible & in the most blood splattering of ways. The scene in question is when Nick beats Clyde & the victim-turned-serial killer spits out a mouthful of blood – Three seconds later, Clyde’s mouth is fine & doesn’t even have a trace of blood.
The film also goes overboard in trying to NOT be racist – Every black actor is a good guy, fighting to uphold the law - & the murderers, rapists & serial killers are all white actors (Including the poor hayseed whose throat Clyde rips open just to get put in solitary confinement)
A newsman announces “The city of Philadelphia has been brought to its knees by a man who sits in prison.” It was hard not to laugh at that one despite the fact that the movie had deteriorated into total crap by that time.
The only fun I had was every time Bruce McGill appeared onscreen & my brain shouted ‘D-Day!’
I could reveal the equally dumb ending but I’ll just tell those of you who still want to watch this blood-fest that you won’t be disappointed because the senseless brutal killings virtually drive this film from start to finish...
I actually have a soft spot for vigilante movies – revenge is sweet when you know for a fact that the guilty parties deserve what is done to them in the name of vengeance. Movies provide that proof by showing you what horrendous crime the perpetrators committed. Denzel Washington’s “Man On Fire” is probably my favorite. “Law Abiding Citizen”, on the other hand, is probably the worst. It’s not just that Gerard Butler is no Denzel, but this entire film goes awry. It wants to be the ‘bad ass’ of vigilante films & only succeeds in turning the victim into as much of a deplorable human being as the sick criminals that raped his wife & then murdered her & his daughter.
Yes, it’s enough to drive a sane man nuts, especially when the actual murderer turns against his partner in crime & fingers him as the ‘killer’... By the way, wouldn’t forensic evidence prove which one of them pulled the trigger or used the knife?
So the accomplice gets the death penalty while the murderer does time but eventually gets released.
Butler plays ‘Clyde’, the father & husband who is incapacitated by two thieves that break into his home & apparently decide on a whim to leave him alive after forcing him to witness the brutal murders of his wife & child.
Apparently, in Philadelphia courts, an eyewitness account doesn’t hold much water; As D.A. Nick (Jamie Foxx) tells Clyde, “It’s not what you know; it’s what you can prove.”
Thanks to an untapped source of wealth, Clyde takes 10 years to extract his revenge – why he bothers to ‘assist’ the State of Pennsylvania as it carries out the death sentence on the guy that didn’t kill anyone is more than a little unreasonable & the way he ‘disposes’ of the actual killer is quite off-putting, but you understand the depth of his anger – If that’s how he needed to make closure, okay, get it off your chest & then go back to being that ‘law abiding citizen’ you were before your life was devastated by these scumbags.
But no, just making sure the killer’s lives came to a torturous ending isn’t good enough for Clyde, he has to brutally murder EVERYONE involved with the case. He starts with the murderers’ lawyer, & it’s an acceptable killing because Clyde sets it up so that the lawyer ‘could’ be saved if D.A. Nick & the police agree to his demands within the time limits he sets. One clever line is spoken when Clyde tells Nick, “After all, you’re the one that cuts deals with murderers, right?”
But lame lines like ‘Cut me a deal or everyone dies.’ & ‘I’m NOT having this conversation!’ help to send this vigilante revenge flick into the depths of stupidity.
There’s one continuity flaw that sticks out so badly it makes you wonder if they even cared about continuity, realizing their audience just wanted to see Clyde kill as many innocent people as possible & in the most blood splattering of ways. The scene in question is when Nick beats Clyde & the victim-turned-serial killer spits out a mouthful of blood – Three seconds later, Clyde’s mouth is fine & doesn’t even have a trace of blood.
The film also goes overboard in trying to NOT be racist – Every black actor is a good guy, fighting to uphold the law - & the murderers, rapists & serial killers are all white actors (Including the poor hayseed whose throat Clyde rips open just to get put in solitary confinement)
A newsman announces “The city of Philadelphia has been brought to its knees by a man who sits in prison.” It was hard not to laugh at that one despite the fact that the movie had deteriorated into total crap by that time.
The only fun I had was every time Bruce McGill appeared onscreen & my brain shouted ‘D-Day!’
I could reveal the equally dumb ending but I’ll just tell those of you who still want to watch this blood-fest that you won’t be disappointed because the senseless brutal killings virtually drive this film from start to finish...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)