“FUNNY PEOPLE” (Adam Sandler & Seth Rogen)
I keep saying it every time I suffer thru another crappy Adam Sandler movie – This is the last time I put myself thru this torture - but there I was in Bellingham with 3 films to choose from; Julie & Julia, Something Getaway, & Funny People. The latter won because it was playing at the ‘little’ 3 screen theatre I like the most up there (Sehome)
When I heard that there were several comedians in the film, playing themselves & making hilarious cameos, I thought for sure I would see an Adam Sandler movie with twice as many laughs as his previous high (2)...I didn’t. It seemed as though the cameo comics were told to not use material that would upstage the ‘star’ of the film, so they were all pretty bland.
Sandler did make me laugh for the first time ever by using an X-rated bit about fellatio. It was actually funny & I was shocked that it came from the mouth of the least humorous comedian ever.
Sandler plays George Simmons (AKA Adam Sandler) a stand up comedian who graduates to a film career full of embarrassingly bad movies. When George is told that he has an incurable disease that will eventually kill him, George decides to return to his roots & put together a stand up act. He sees hopeful comedian Ira Wright (Rogen) sputtering thru unfunny routines that remind George of his ‘best’ material & asks if the guy would write him some jokes. Ira becomes George’s assistant while shutting out his buddy Leo (Jonah I’mnotfunnyeither Hill) whom George also thought funny enough to provide him with material.
Since he’s dying, George looks up the ‘one that got away’ (Leslie Mann) & decides to break up her marriage & ruin the lives of her two young daughters in the process. Not that George is an uncaring selfish jackass – he’s actually an uncaring selfish jackass who thinks he’s funny.
An equally unfunny subplot involving Ira’s other room mate, Mark (Jason Schwartzman) & his unfunny TV series, ‘Yo, Teach’ added 0 points to my laugh-o-meter (Which, by the way, did reach a new high for an Adam Sandler movie – 3 & 1/2)
Just to give you an idea as to how scared Sandler was at being upstaged by people who actually ARE funny – the ‘comedian’ with the longest cameo was Em-and-em (The unfunny untalented white rapper – the ‘Adam Sandler’ of the rap world, if you will)
A week earlier my dog’s girlfriend, Amy (she’s human, she just happens to be in love with Duffy) asked if we were going to see ‘Funny People’. I said ‘No.’ She asked why.
I responded “Because there’s no one ‘funny’ in it.”
I must have psychic powers, eh?
Thursday, August 13, 2009
TERMINATOR SALVATION
“TERMINATOR SALVATION” (Christian Bale & Sam Worthington)
This was my first Terminator movie & I’m pretty sure it will be my last since the worst part of this film were the nonsensical time traveling references to the previous films, plus I was under the impression that this would be an ‘actors’ Terminator in that The Governator would not appear; & though technically speaking Arnuld doesn’t have a cameo, his ‘image’ does, which helped crippled an already shaky plot.
Christian Bale brought a level of intelligence to the Batman franchise but he couldn’t do anything to elevate the I. Q. of this ‘disaster' flick. & that’s not to say that I didn’t enjoy the movie on some levels, the basic idea of a being that used to be human & doesn’t know that he’s been rebuilt as a robot/human hybrid was an interesting one – the fact that they inserted John Conner & his teenaged father into the plot turned it into a befuddling muddled puddle which made little to no sense.
Sam Worthington plays Marcus, the human who is sentenced to death in 2003 & donates his body to science before the sentence is carried out. He then finds himself alive in 2018 in a world where robots have taken over the planet & are hunting down & either killing or enslaving human refugees. Until he is damaged while trying to save John Conner’s father, Kyle Reese, Marcus appears to be a normal human being. Marcus also meets & saves the life of one of Conner’s ‘men’ Blair, a hot Asian girl (Moon Bloodgood – That’s the name she gave) So when Conner tries to kill Marcus despite the fact the newcomer has done nothing but help his cause – as well as keep him alive by saving his future father, it doesn’t make sense! (I seem to be quoting the late Johnny Cochran quite a bit lately) Which brings me to another confusing moment - & since this film has been out for a while I’m sure everyone who wants to see it, has, but without spoiling anything for those who may be waiting for the DVD to come out – I’ll just point out that at the end of the movie, Marcus’s ‘grand gesture’ doesn’t make sense either - the sacrifice he makes wasn't necessary. See, this is what happens when you start a franchise that relies on time travel in EVERY episode – things get bogged down in nonsense. Time travel is a nifty little gimmick to use once, maybe twice, but when you let it become a ‘regular’ part of your franchise’s existence; you’ve turned an impossible circumstance to begin with into a mockery of itself. Traveling backward in time is impossible – You can’t recreate that which has already happened, so any storyline using that plot twist is a complete fantasy. In order to make Terminator’s ‘fantasy’ future world more believable they needed to stop relying on the time traveling gimmick. 2018 isn’t that far away (Is 2018 the new 1984?) The world that was depicted in Terminator Salvation was too much in ruin to be believable as well. I complain about all of this because I did like the idea of ‘Marcus’; a man that doesn’t realize he’s been Steve Austin’d. & this would have been a decent film if it WASN’T terminator’d.
The acting here was fine, despite the convoluted plot. Anton Yelchin (The new ‘Chekov’) wasn’t very believable as Kyle Reese only because I couldn’t picture him as Christian Bale’s father no matter how far I tried to stretch my imagination! Worthington & Bale almost made it worth seeing – those who think Worthington ‘out-acted’ Bale are as confused as this franchise – Sam had the better role & did a fantastic job with it, but Christian, who didn’t have much to do other than shoot at a green screen, shined in his rare opportunities to actually ‘act’ - I especially liked the scene where John asks Marcus “You think you’re human?”
& finally, a big surprise to me was Bryce Dallas Howard (Opie Cunningham’s little girl) Not that she could act, she’s proven to be a capable actress in the past, but that she actually looks kind of hot in some scenes... Oh, & the Asian chick with the weird name reminds me of another complaint I have; The ‘head’ computer that controls the robots appears to Marcus as the doctor (Helena Bonham Carter) that asked him to sign over his body to science after his death because ‘it’ wanted to appear as someone he’d feel ‘comfortable with – ‘It’ then changes into John Conner, Kyle Reese & then back to the doctor again... why wouldn’t it appear to him as Blair, the Asian girl that he adored? The time traveling aspect made this film confusing enough, but that one was a no-brainer...
This was my first Terminator movie & I’m pretty sure it will be my last since the worst part of this film were the nonsensical time traveling references to the previous films, plus I was under the impression that this would be an ‘actors’ Terminator in that The Governator would not appear; & though technically speaking Arnuld doesn’t have a cameo, his ‘image’ does, which helped crippled an already shaky plot.
Christian Bale brought a level of intelligence to the Batman franchise but he couldn’t do anything to elevate the I. Q. of this ‘disaster' flick. & that’s not to say that I didn’t enjoy the movie on some levels, the basic idea of a being that used to be human & doesn’t know that he’s been rebuilt as a robot/human hybrid was an interesting one – the fact that they inserted John Conner & his teenaged father into the plot turned it into a befuddling muddled puddle which made little to no sense.
Sam Worthington plays Marcus, the human who is sentenced to death in 2003 & donates his body to science before the sentence is carried out. He then finds himself alive in 2018 in a world where robots have taken over the planet & are hunting down & either killing or enslaving human refugees. Until he is damaged while trying to save John Conner’s father, Kyle Reese, Marcus appears to be a normal human being. Marcus also meets & saves the life of one of Conner’s ‘men’ Blair, a hot Asian girl (Moon Bloodgood – That’s the name she gave) So when Conner tries to kill Marcus despite the fact the newcomer has done nothing but help his cause – as well as keep him alive by saving his future father, it doesn’t make sense! (I seem to be quoting the late Johnny Cochran quite a bit lately) Which brings me to another confusing moment - & since this film has been out for a while I’m sure everyone who wants to see it, has, but without spoiling anything for those who may be waiting for the DVD to come out – I’ll just point out that at the end of the movie, Marcus’s ‘grand gesture’ doesn’t make sense either - the sacrifice he makes wasn't necessary. See, this is what happens when you start a franchise that relies on time travel in EVERY episode – things get bogged down in nonsense. Time travel is a nifty little gimmick to use once, maybe twice, but when you let it become a ‘regular’ part of your franchise’s existence; you’ve turned an impossible circumstance to begin with into a mockery of itself. Traveling backward in time is impossible – You can’t recreate that which has already happened, so any storyline using that plot twist is a complete fantasy. In order to make Terminator’s ‘fantasy’ future world more believable they needed to stop relying on the time traveling gimmick. 2018 isn’t that far away (Is 2018 the new 1984?) The world that was depicted in Terminator Salvation was too much in ruin to be believable as well. I complain about all of this because I did like the idea of ‘Marcus’; a man that doesn’t realize he’s been Steve Austin’d. & this would have been a decent film if it WASN’T terminator’d.
The acting here was fine, despite the convoluted plot. Anton Yelchin (The new ‘Chekov’) wasn’t very believable as Kyle Reese only because I couldn’t picture him as Christian Bale’s father no matter how far I tried to stretch my imagination! Worthington & Bale almost made it worth seeing – those who think Worthington ‘out-acted’ Bale are as confused as this franchise – Sam had the better role & did a fantastic job with it, but Christian, who didn’t have much to do other than shoot at a green screen, shined in his rare opportunities to actually ‘act’ - I especially liked the scene where John asks Marcus “You think you’re human?”
& finally, a big surprise to me was Bryce Dallas Howard (Opie Cunningham’s little girl) Not that she could act, she’s proven to be a capable actress in the past, but that she actually looks kind of hot in some scenes... Oh, & the Asian chick with the weird name reminds me of another complaint I have; The ‘head’ computer that controls the robots appears to Marcus as the doctor (Helena Bonham Carter) that asked him to sign over his body to science after his death because ‘it’ wanted to appear as someone he’d feel ‘comfortable with – ‘It’ then changes into John Conner, Kyle Reese & then back to the doctor again... why wouldn’t it appear to him as Blair, the Asian girl that he adored? The time traveling aspect made this film confusing enough, but that one was a no-brainer...
MY LIFE IN RUINS
“MY LIFE IN RUINS” (Nia Vardalos & Richard Dreyfuss)
My wife wanted to see it – cost $3 a ticket – I like Dick.
This isn’t a horrible film as long as you know you’re not going to be entertained by it.
But as it rolled along being bland & predictable, I didn’t see anything that made me hate it. So, with that in mind – it’s not as bad as I thought it would be.
Unfortunately, star Nia Vardalos is in every scene & even though I know many find her likable, I do not. I never saw the film that made her a star for 15 minutes – the Greek Wedding movie – so this is the first time I’ve seen her attempt to act & she is... pathetic. Pathetic AND annoying. She mugs for the camera; she thinks she’s cute & adorable, but she’s supposed to be playing a lovable loser. Now, the loser part she pulls off, the rest of her character’s personality traits seemed forced, at best. She is an awful actress, one who seems to think having big brown eyes makes her talented.
The basic plot here has Georgia (Vardalos) a boring Greek tour guide for a struggling company who takes her vacationers to historic places & explains why they are important. Her ‘opponent’, the ‘popular’ guide takes his groups to exciting places like gift shops & ice cream parlors. When the smarmy guide starts taking Georgia’s group away from her, she finally fights back by adding sexual innuendos into her historical references. & of course, it works.
Included in her group is a sarcastic widower (Dreyfuss) who becomes a saint to the group & there’s a hint that he isn’t what he seems, but is actually Georgia’s guardian angel. Harland Williams & Rachel Dratch play the dumb-ass Americans & add absolutely nothing in the way of humor (I had hopes for them & they let me down) In fact, they become extremely annoying in that they keep calling Georgia, ‘Angie’ because they think she looks like Angelina Jolie . . . W T F ? & of course, Vardalos bats her big brown eyes & smiles in agreement as she says, ‘oh, pishaw!’
A young chubby American is ridiculed by the popular tour guide who gives him a shirt with writing on it in Greek, which when translated insinuates that he’s gay. After being humiliated, I wanted the 2 horny Spanish divorcees out on the prowl for new husbands with their recent breast implants to throw the guy a bone, but they end up in Dick’s bed instead – which didn’t work with the plot at all.
Romantic subplots involving Georgia’s attraction to an IHOP salesman & the bus driver, Poupi, are meant to be heartfelt & humorous – they are neither – they’re only stepping stones to lead us to the inevitable happy ending where Georgia triumphs over the popular guide & everyone lives happily ever after . . . except Dick, who dies.
My wife wanted to see it – cost $3 a ticket – I like Dick.
This isn’t a horrible film as long as you know you’re not going to be entertained by it.
But as it rolled along being bland & predictable, I didn’t see anything that made me hate it. So, with that in mind – it’s not as bad as I thought it would be.
Unfortunately, star Nia Vardalos is in every scene & even though I know many find her likable, I do not. I never saw the film that made her a star for 15 minutes – the Greek Wedding movie – so this is the first time I’ve seen her attempt to act & she is... pathetic. Pathetic AND annoying. She mugs for the camera; she thinks she’s cute & adorable, but she’s supposed to be playing a lovable loser. Now, the loser part she pulls off, the rest of her character’s personality traits seemed forced, at best. She is an awful actress, one who seems to think having big brown eyes makes her talented.
The basic plot here has Georgia (Vardalos) a boring Greek tour guide for a struggling company who takes her vacationers to historic places & explains why they are important. Her ‘opponent’, the ‘popular’ guide takes his groups to exciting places like gift shops & ice cream parlors. When the smarmy guide starts taking Georgia’s group away from her, she finally fights back by adding sexual innuendos into her historical references. & of course, it works.
Included in her group is a sarcastic widower (Dreyfuss) who becomes a saint to the group & there’s a hint that he isn’t what he seems, but is actually Georgia’s guardian angel. Harland Williams & Rachel Dratch play the dumb-ass Americans & add absolutely nothing in the way of humor (I had hopes for them & they let me down) In fact, they become extremely annoying in that they keep calling Georgia, ‘Angie’ because they think she looks like Angelina Jolie . . . W T F ? & of course, Vardalos bats her big brown eyes & smiles in agreement as she says, ‘oh, pishaw!’
A young chubby American is ridiculed by the popular tour guide who gives him a shirt with writing on it in Greek, which when translated insinuates that he’s gay. After being humiliated, I wanted the 2 horny Spanish divorcees out on the prowl for new husbands with their recent breast implants to throw the guy a bone, but they end up in Dick’s bed instead – which didn’t work with the plot at all.
Romantic subplots involving Georgia’s attraction to an IHOP salesman & the bus driver, Poupi, are meant to be heartfelt & humorous – they are neither – they’re only stepping stones to lead us to the inevitable happy ending where Georgia triumphs over the popular guide & everyone lives happily ever after . . . except Dick, who dies.
Monday, August 3, 2009
The HURT LOCKER
“The HURT LOCKER” (Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie & Brian Geraghty)
Those who are saying that this is the best movie they’ve seen this year are either really into war movies or have watched nothing but crap so far this year. ‘Hurt Locker’ doesn’t even crack my top 10 of 2009 & here’s why you shouldn’t like it – the entire premise deals with two soldiers in Iraq who are worried about losing their lives because their new ‘loose cannon’ leader puts them in dangerous situations with his ‘hot dog’ approach to their job – which is diffusing bombs. The reason this premise doesn’t make any sense at all is due to what takes place prior to the new Sergeant being added to their small troop; the old Sergeant was killed because one of the two soldiers didn’t do his job...
For those of you who haven’t seen it & are planning to, you should probably stop here – I am going to tell you what happens in the first 20 minutes or so; in other words the set-up,
so if you read on, the opening will seem boring to you because you’ll know everything that’s going to happen... Just a warning I felt I should put first.
The 3 best actors in this film only have cameos & none of them make much of a splash... I’ve got a gory joke line I could put in here, but I won’t.
The talents of Guy Pearce, David Morse & Ralph Fiennes are all wasted in this film. Pearce plays Sgt. Thompson, the initial leader of the bomb squad which includes the two soldiers mentioned earlier –
Anthony Mackie plays Sgt. Sanborn & Brian Geraghty plays Eldridge (The ‘Specialist’)
A bomb is found on an Iraqi village street, so Thompson, Sanborn & Eldridge are sent in to diffuse it. When their robot breaks down, Thompson has to put on the bulky protective suit & go in by foot to fix the mechanism. Sgt. Sanborn announces that Thompson is in ‘the kill zone’ when he reaches an area that is within 25 feet of the explosive device.
They call Eldridge ‘the Specialist’ – Why, I don’t know – throughout the entire film this wimp doesn’t do anything ‘special’ other than whimper & whine over every little thing.
Here’s why this movie doesn’t work – Eldridge sees a man pressing the buttons on his cell phone while Thompson is in the kill zone & he doesn’t shoot him. He yells ‘put down the cell phone or I’ll shoot’ several times, but the man keeps pressing buttons & Eldridge doesn’t shoot him. The bomb goes off & Thompson is killed...
Now, those of you who have seen this & think it’s the best film of the year so far – Why do you think that? The rest of the movie deals with Sanborn & Eldridge being afraid of Thompson’s replacement getting them killed, right? How can that be possible when Sanborn already knows that Eldridge can’t be relied upon to do the correct thing? For all intents & purposes Eldridge is responsible for the death of Thompson – he COULD have & SHOULD have shot the man using the cell phone to explode the bomb & he didn’t. Why isn’t Sanborn ‘uncomfortable’ going out on missions with Eldridge? Sgt. James (Jeremy Renner) didn’t get Thompson killed with his inability to react correctly to a dangerous situation, The Specialist did. The entire film made no sense after that because Sanborn should have insisted Eldridge be removed from duty. In fact, Eldridge’s act of cowardice should have gotten him discharged from the army altogether. So when I see scenes of Sanborn & Eldridge voicing their concerns over Sgt. James’ recklessness possibly getting them killed, I had to chuckle over how stupid those scenes were. Is Sanborn an idiot? No, quite the contrary. So why would he be concerned over Sgt. James & NOT Eldridge. . . To quote Johnny Cochran, “THAT does not make sense!”
Now, to the movie in general; it HAS some very intense scenes – the opening when Thompson is killed & an innocent man with a bomb attached to him were both memorable –but the rest of the film is not. This film could actual be used as the poster child for why the rest of the world hates America – As I watched scene after scene of American soldiers sticking their noses where they don’t belong after America has invaded a country where we don’t belong made me sympathetic to the innocent Iraqi citizens who have to put up with this bull----. Watching this film made me realize that by being there in such an invasive way the only result we are creating is a deeper hatred of our country. My feeling was that we are taking people who were neutral, or Pro-American & turning them against us & the ones that hated us before have no reason to like us now.
Sgt. James is presented as a psycho with a death wish – In other words a perfect soldier. The kind of individual we condemn when they play for the other team.
David Morse plays Colonel Reed who commends James for his fearless, ‘get out of my way & let me take care of this’ attitude because if we had more soldiers like Sgt. James we’d level the playing field with their suicide bombers. Distasteful to think about, but it is, if you’ll pardon the expression, ‘The Ugly Truth’.
After Ralph Fiennes makes his cameo appearance, there is an elongated ‘shoot out’ scene. Not that many rounds are fired, but the scene seems to drag on & on. I guess to add to the ‘reality’ feel of the movie. Which brings me to my latest pet peeve – sh*tty camera work. Once again, I’m sitting in a nice theatre (Kent Station) watching a film that looks as if it was shot with a $200 video camera! Is this the ‘next wave’ in filmmaking? If so, I want a new rating to be added to the system - SC. To warn those of us who want to watch professionally shot films that this movie contains Sh*tty Camerawork. Has the younger generation grown up on MTV videos & ‘reality’ TV shows so they don’t notice the poor ‘grainy’ picture quality & the shaky camera pans? Because it bugs the hell out of me, kids!
“The Hurt Locker” the best movie of ’09? Not by a long shot.
I’d really like those who feel this is a ‘worthy’ film to explain to me why you think that way. Hopefully my take on it will make you reconsider because I think my argument against it is valid. Why would Sanborn be afraid of James when it was Eldridge’s incompetence that got Thompson killed? Just give me a logical answer to that one...
Those who are saying that this is the best movie they’ve seen this year are either really into war movies or have watched nothing but crap so far this year. ‘Hurt Locker’ doesn’t even crack my top 10 of 2009 & here’s why you shouldn’t like it – the entire premise deals with two soldiers in Iraq who are worried about losing their lives because their new ‘loose cannon’ leader puts them in dangerous situations with his ‘hot dog’ approach to their job – which is diffusing bombs. The reason this premise doesn’t make any sense at all is due to what takes place prior to the new Sergeant being added to their small troop; the old Sergeant was killed because one of the two soldiers didn’t do his job...
For those of you who haven’t seen it & are planning to, you should probably stop here – I am going to tell you what happens in the first 20 minutes or so; in other words the set-up,
so if you read on, the opening will seem boring to you because you’ll know everything that’s going to happen... Just a warning I felt I should put first.
The 3 best actors in this film only have cameos & none of them make much of a splash... I’ve got a gory joke line I could put in here, but I won’t.
The talents of Guy Pearce, David Morse & Ralph Fiennes are all wasted in this film. Pearce plays Sgt. Thompson, the initial leader of the bomb squad which includes the two soldiers mentioned earlier –
Anthony Mackie plays Sgt. Sanborn & Brian Geraghty plays Eldridge (The ‘Specialist’)
A bomb is found on an Iraqi village street, so Thompson, Sanborn & Eldridge are sent in to diffuse it. When their robot breaks down, Thompson has to put on the bulky protective suit & go in by foot to fix the mechanism. Sgt. Sanborn announces that Thompson is in ‘the kill zone’ when he reaches an area that is within 25 feet of the explosive device.
They call Eldridge ‘the Specialist’ – Why, I don’t know – throughout the entire film this wimp doesn’t do anything ‘special’ other than whimper & whine over every little thing.
Here’s why this movie doesn’t work – Eldridge sees a man pressing the buttons on his cell phone while Thompson is in the kill zone & he doesn’t shoot him. He yells ‘put down the cell phone or I’ll shoot’ several times, but the man keeps pressing buttons & Eldridge doesn’t shoot him. The bomb goes off & Thompson is killed...
Now, those of you who have seen this & think it’s the best film of the year so far – Why do you think that? The rest of the movie deals with Sanborn & Eldridge being afraid of Thompson’s replacement getting them killed, right? How can that be possible when Sanborn already knows that Eldridge can’t be relied upon to do the correct thing? For all intents & purposes Eldridge is responsible for the death of Thompson – he COULD have & SHOULD have shot the man using the cell phone to explode the bomb & he didn’t. Why isn’t Sanborn ‘uncomfortable’ going out on missions with Eldridge? Sgt. James (Jeremy Renner) didn’t get Thompson killed with his inability to react correctly to a dangerous situation, The Specialist did. The entire film made no sense after that because Sanborn should have insisted Eldridge be removed from duty. In fact, Eldridge’s act of cowardice should have gotten him discharged from the army altogether. So when I see scenes of Sanborn & Eldridge voicing their concerns over Sgt. James’ recklessness possibly getting them killed, I had to chuckle over how stupid those scenes were. Is Sanborn an idiot? No, quite the contrary. So why would he be concerned over Sgt. James & NOT Eldridge. . . To quote Johnny Cochran, “THAT does not make sense!”
Now, to the movie in general; it HAS some very intense scenes – the opening when Thompson is killed & an innocent man with a bomb attached to him were both memorable –but the rest of the film is not. This film could actual be used as the poster child for why the rest of the world hates America – As I watched scene after scene of American soldiers sticking their noses where they don’t belong after America has invaded a country where we don’t belong made me sympathetic to the innocent Iraqi citizens who have to put up with this bull----. Watching this film made me realize that by being there in such an invasive way the only result we are creating is a deeper hatred of our country. My feeling was that we are taking people who were neutral, or Pro-American & turning them against us & the ones that hated us before have no reason to like us now.
Sgt. James is presented as a psycho with a death wish – In other words a perfect soldier. The kind of individual we condemn when they play for the other team.
David Morse plays Colonel Reed who commends James for his fearless, ‘get out of my way & let me take care of this’ attitude because if we had more soldiers like Sgt. James we’d level the playing field with their suicide bombers. Distasteful to think about, but it is, if you’ll pardon the expression, ‘The Ugly Truth’.
After Ralph Fiennes makes his cameo appearance, there is an elongated ‘shoot out’ scene. Not that many rounds are fired, but the scene seems to drag on & on. I guess to add to the ‘reality’ feel of the movie. Which brings me to my latest pet peeve – sh*tty camera work. Once again, I’m sitting in a nice theatre (Kent Station) watching a film that looks as if it was shot with a $200 video camera! Is this the ‘next wave’ in filmmaking? If so, I want a new rating to be added to the system - SC. To warn those of us who want to watch professionally shot films that this movie contains Sh*tty Camerawork. Has the younger generation grown up on MTV videos & ‘reality’ TV shows so they don’t notice the poor ‘grainy’ picture quality & the shaky camera pans? Because it bugs the hell out of me, kids!
“The Hurt Locker” the best movie of ’09? Not by a long shot.
I’d really like those who feel this is a ‘worthy’ film to explain to me why you think that way. Hopefully my take on it will make you reconsider because I think my argument against it is valid. Why would Sanborn be afraid of James when it was Eldridge’s incompetence that got Thompson killed? Just give me a logical answer to that one...
The UGLY TRUTH
“The UGLY TRUTH” (Katherine Heigl & Gerard Butler)
What is it with Gerard Butler? Does he want to be a manly man action-movie star or a pussy that takes all those chick flick roles that are just too challenging for Matthew McConaughey?
Whereas “The Hangover” used crude humor effectively (& in a somewhat witty way) “The Ugly Truth” tries too hard to be shocking with its frank, sexually explicit dialogue; it is in no way ‘witty’ banter – the use of 4-letter R-Rated words & sexual innuendo falls flat on its face time & time again.
Now, the initial premise isn’t moronic, but the path they take it down is.
Heigl plays Abby, the producer of a morning TV talk show in Sacramento; she’s blonde, spunky & neurotic over the fact that she hasn’t met ‘Mr. Right’ yet. Mmm, there’s an interesting new female character that we’ve never met in a chick flick before. (Insert sarcastic roll of the eyes)
Butler plays Mike ‘Male’-way; the host of a local cable access show called The Ugly Truth where he invites females to call in & prove him wrong. Abby’s show is dumping big time in the ratings, so the manager of the station hires Mike to ‘spice up’ Abby’s dull, stuck-in-a-rut program. Mike miraculously gets the married couple that hosts the show to kiss on camera & suddenly he’s the talk of the town... Wait a minute is this set in Sacramento or Pullman?
In yet another dumb set-up Abby finds herself hanging upside down in a tree outside her house with her panties exposed so the handsome doctor (Eric Winter) that just moved in next door can run out of the shower & rescue her. & wouldn’t you know it, the towel around his waist falls to the ground leaving the doctor’s package pointing directly at Abby’s upside down oral cavity? What will they think of next? Hey, I’ve got an idea – How about something original that doesn’t insult my intelligence?
Mike tells Abby if she does what he tells her to do, she can win the doctor’s heart; Abby agrees because a) being herself doesn’t work & b) the script, written by a thousand chimpanzees, told her to agree to the proposition.
Another major annoyance was the selection of songs that were used – Holy mind-numbing disco-beat, where do they dig up this garbage? It was all like a cross between 80’s techno-pop & hip hop & what I imagine the likes of Britney Spears, etc. put out – just gawdawful junk that invaded my ears until my brain was begging me to stick something smaller than my elbow inside them so the torture would cease!
What I really disliked about this film, and with apologies to the thousand chimps that worked so diligently on the screenplay, is that it wants to come across as being on the ‘cutting edge’ when in actuality, it simple follows the same predictable, boring formula as every other chick-friendly romantic comedy... Proving yet again that chimps are pussies!
What is it with Gerard Butler? Does he want to be a manly man action-movie star or a pussy that takes all those chick flick roles that are just too challenging for Matthew McConaughey?
Whereas “The Hangover” used crude humor effectively (& in a somewhat witty way) “The Ugly Truth” tries too hard to be shocking with its frank, sexually explicit dialogue; it is in no way ‘witty’ banter – the use of 4-letter R-Rated words & sexual innuendo falls flat on its face time & time again.
Now, the initial premise isn’t moronic, but the path they take it down is.
Heigl plays Abby, the producer of a morning TV talk show in Sacramento; she’s blonde, spunky & neurotic over the fact that she hasn’t met ‘Mr. Right’ yet. Mmm, there’s an interesting new female character that we’ve never met in a chick flick before. (Insert sarcastic roll of the eyes)
Butler plays Mike ‘Male’-way; the host of a local cable access show called The Ugly Truth where he invites females to call in & prove him wrong. Abby’s show is dumping big time in the ratings, so the manager of the station hires Mike to ‘spice up’ Abby’s dull, stuck-in-a-rut program. Mike miraculously gets the married couple that hosts the show to kiss on camera & suddenly he’s the talk of the town... Wait a minute is this set in Sacramento or Pullman?
In yet another dumb set-up Abby finds herself hanging upside down in a tree outside her house with her panties exposed so the handsome doctor (Eric Winter) that just moved in next door can run out of the shower & rescue her. & wouldn’t you know it, the towel around his waist falls to the ground leaving the doctor’s package pointing directly at Abby’s upside down oral cavity? What will they think of next? Hey, I’ve got an idea – How about something original that doesn’t insult my intelligence?
Mike tells Abby if she does what he tells her to do, she can win the doctor’s heart; Abby agrees because a) being herself doesn’t work & b) the script, written by a thousand chimpanzees, told her to agree to the proposition.
Another major annoyance was the selection of songs that were used – Holy mind-numbing disco-beat, where do they dig up this garbage? It was all like a cross between 80’s techno-pop & hip hop & what I imagine the likes of Britney Spears, etc. put out – just gawdawful junk that invaded my ears until my brain was begging me to stick something smaller than my elbow inside them so the torture would cease!
What I really disliked about this film, and with apologies to the thousand chimps that worked so diligently on the screenplay, is that it wants to come across as being on the ‘cutting edge’ when in actuality, it simple follows the same predictable, boring formula as every other chick-friendly romantic comedy... Proving yet again that chimps are pussies!
LAND OF THE LOST
“LAND OF THE LOST” (Will Ferrell)
This movie scored a 9 on my ‘laugh-o-meter’ & most of those were counted during the opening & closing scenes with Matt Lauer playing Matt Lauer... When Matt Lauer is the funniest part of your film, can it possibly be any good? The answer, of course, is no (Sorry, Matt, even though you were obviously the best part of this film, the fact that your appearance was a cameo probably helped)
Everyone asks, “Did you watch the original series?” & no, I wasn’t even aware that there was a kid’s show called ‘Land Of The Lost’ prior to the making of this film. When I saw an episode on TV about the same time that the movie came out, I decided to wait until it came to the cheaper theatres to see it... It was worth the wait, I would have felt pretty stupid shelling out $12 to see this. Still, for $6, I’d say it was worth $3 apiece for my wife & I to get out of the heat & watch this silly, typical Will Ferrell ‘fluff’ piece.
As Dr. Rick Marshall, Ferrell goes on the Today show to hawk his book about Time Travel where he is ridiculed by host Matt Lauer. This humorous beginning gives you hope that the rest of the film will be more entertaining than you originally imagined... it isn’t.
Other than the mildly amusing scenes involving the Tyrannosaurus Rex, “Land Of The Lost’ is just that – Lost; a comedy looking desperately for laughs. Anna Friel plays Holly, a woman who believes in Dr. Marshall’s theories & helps him to create his time traveling machine. She does... okay.
Danny McBride plays Will, the guy working at the cheapest ‘museum’ you’d ever set foot in – As Will ‘guides’ Dr. Marshall & Holly through a broken down amusement park ride, the time machine activates & sends them all to a world where time intersects... A land that is ‘lost’. . . too bad somebody found it.
Jorma Something (an ex-member of Jefferson Airplane) plays a ‘monkeyman’ named Chaka who befriends the lost trio after they save him from being executed & together they do battle with various dinosaurs & lizard men in rubber suits. Fortunately only 2 of these lizard men has the ability to speak & one of them sounds uncannily like Mr. Spock(The old one, not the new one)
One of the problems I had with this movie is the Ferrell/McBride combo – it just didn’t work for me. It seemed as though they thought they were funnier than they actually were. One of those – ‘All we have to do is stand here & say whatever stupid lines come into our heads & it’s bound to be hilarious because we are so freaking funny’ - situations.
Having recently viewed ‘Stranger Than Fiction’ again, it makes me wonder why Ferrell has decided to never again venture into a meaningful role & spend the rest of his career doling out one piece of crap after another? So that every time a Will Ferrell movie comes out everyone will have low expectations and when it has a modicum of amusement value the movie going public will at least be slightly impressed?
I don't get it.
This movie scored a 9 on my ‘laugh-o-meter’ & most of those were counted during the opening & closing scenes with Matt Lauer playing Matt Lauer... When Matt Lauer is the funniest part of your film, can it possibly be any good? The answer, of course, is no (Sorry, Matt, even though you were obviously the best part of this film, the fact that your appearance was a cameo probably helped)
Everyone asks, “Did you watch the original series?” & no, I wasn’t even aware that there was a kid’s show called ‘Land Of The Lost’ prior to the making of this film. When I saw an episode on TV about the same time that the movie came out, I decided to wait until it came to the cheaper theatres to see it... It was worth the wait, I would have felt pretty stupid shelling out $12 to see this. Still, for $6, I’d say it was worth $3 apiece for my wife & I to get out of the heat & watch this silly, typical Will Ferrell ‘fluff’ piece.
As Dr. Rick Marshall, Ferrell goes on the Today show to hawk his book about Time Travel where he is ridiculed by host Matt Lauer. This humorous beginning gives you hope that the rest of the film will be more entertaining than you originally imagined... it isn’t.
Other than the mildly amusing scenes involving the Tyrannosaurus Rex, “Land Of The Lost’ is just that – Lost; a comedy looking desperately for laughs. Anna Friel plays Holly, a woman who believes in Dr. Marshall’s theories & helps him to create his time traveling machine. She does... okay.
Danny McBride plays Will, the guy working at the cheapest ‘museum’ you’d ever set foot in – As Will ‘guides’ Dr. Marshall & Holly through a broken down amusement park ride, the time machine activates & sends them all to a world where time intersects... A land that is ‘lost’. . . too bad somebody found it.
Jorma Something (an ex-member of Jefferson Airplane) plays a ‘monkeyman’ named Chaka who befriends the lost trio after they save him from being executed & together they do battle with various dinosaurs & lizard men in rubber suits. Fortunately only 2 of these lizard men has the ability to speak & one of them sounds uncannily like Mr. Spock(The old one, not the new one)
One of the problems I had with this movie is the Ferrell/McBride combo – it just didn’t work for me. It seemed as though they thought they were funnier than they actually were. One of those – ‘All we have to do is stand here & say whatever stupid lines come into our heads & it’s bound to be hilarious because we are so freaking funny’ - situations.
Having recently viewed ‘Stranger Than Fiction’ again, it makes me wonder why Ferrell has decided to never again venture into a meaningful role & spend the rest of his career doling out one piece of crap after another? So that every time a Will Ferrell movie comes out everyone will have low expectations and when it has a modicum of amusement value the movie going public will at least be slightly impressed?
I don't get it.
DRAG ME TO HELL
“DRAG ME TO HELL” (Alison Lohman)
This movie is so extraordinarily awful & ridiculous it’s bound to become a ‘cult classic’... it is THAT stupid. Yes, many scenes are meant to be laughed at – yet Director/Co-Writer Sam Raimi clearly intends to ‘gross out’ his audience as well.
So what you have is a total mess; a film that can’t decide if it wants to be a ‘legitimate’ horror movie or a campy ‘spoof’ of the genre.
Why Alison Lohman interrupted a promising career to star in this low-rent vehicle is beyond me (I guess Lindsay Lohan was too wasted to sign on the dotted line)
Alison plays Christine Brown, the head of the ‘loans’ dept. at a bank where she’s vying against newcomer/office suck-up ‘Stu’ for the Assistant Manager’s position.
When a disgusting looking old woman named Mrs. Ganush(Lorna Raver) shows up at her desk asking for a third extension on her home loan, Christine decides to play hardball with the old bat & turns her down. Mrs. Ganush goes ballistic & puts a curse on Christine by pulling a button from her jacket (Don’t ask, I won’t tell)
When creepy shadows start following Christine around & rattling her pots & pans, she
goes to a fortune teller (Rham Jas) who tells her she’s been cursed & the demon called Lamia will haunt her for 3 days & then take her to hell on the 4th day unless she can somehow remove the curse.
Some of the movie’s campy-ness works; when Christine is invited to meet & have dinner with her boyfriend’s parents & she sees Mrs. Ganush’s glass eye staring at her from her slice of cake – THAT was eerie & funny. When Christine & Mrs. Ganush ‘do battle’ in a parking garage – THAT was meant to cater to the lowest common denominator of entertainment values.
I’ve never had a problem with Justin Long before, but in his role as Christine’s boyfriend, college professor Clay Dalton, Long sucks big time. Not for one single second did I buy him as a college professor. Plus, Alison is much too pretty to be matched with an unattractive personality-challenged bore like Clay Dalton.
Why, you ask, would I go see something like ‘Drag Me To Hell’? I grew up on the horror monster classics (Frankenstein, Dracula & The Wolf Man) & even though I can’t stand the ‘slasher’ type films that came along later, I’ve always been a sucker for a good demonic possession or something that tried to pay homage to the monster films of my youth (meaning ‘Van Helsing’ specifically) I read that ‘DMTH’ was a ‘throw-back’ to the way horror movies used to be made, so when it came to the Gateway theatre in Federal Way, & the temperature rose into the 90’s, I paid a dollar to cool off & watch a movie I knew my wife would have no interest in seeing.
Bad thing about only paying $1 to see a movie – Riff raff. The audiences are atrocious; its as though they feel it is their duty to try & spoil the movie for everyone else by trying to be as annoying as possible throughout the show. Cell phones are not turned off, comments are not whispered & one large group of teens sat in the first few rows & didn’t even appear to watch the screen at all.
Needless to say, I won’t be going on $1 Tuesday ever again, since this is the same type of aggravation I had to put up with the last time I attended a ‘cheap’ showing...
Back to the film itself, I will say that the final scene did bring a smirk to my face – so it has a positive ending going for it. Since it only cost me a buck to see ‘Drag Me To Hell’ I don’t feel cheated out of my money – Like I said, it’s sooo bad, it’s actual kind of fun to watch – If I didn’t know better, I’d think that Ed Wood returned from the dead & inhabited Sam Raimi’s body for the sole purpose of coming back to make the ‘Plan 9 From Outer Space’ of the 21st century. It's a wonder Sam didn't credit the name Alan Smithee for directing this...
This movie is so extraordinarily awful & ridiculous it’s bound to become a ‘cult classic’... it is THAT stupid. Yes, many scenes are meant to be laughed at – yet Director/Co-Writer Sam Raimi clearly intends to ‘gross out’ his audience as well.
So what you have is a total mess; a film that can’t decide if it wants to be a ‘legitimate’ horror movie or a campy ‘spoof’ of the genre.
Why Alison Lohman interrupted a promising career to star in this low-rent vehicle is beyond me (I guess Lindsay Lohan was too wasted to sign on the dotted line)
Alison plays Christine Brown, the head of the ‘loans’ dept. at a bank where she’s vying against newcomer/office suck-up ‘Stu’ for the Assistant Manager’s position.
When a disgusting looking old woman named Mrs. Ganush(Lorna Raver) shows up at her desk asking for a third extension on her home loan, Christine decides to play hardball with the old bat & turns her down. Mrs. Ganush goes ballistic & puts a curse on Christine by pulling a button from her jacket (Don’t ask, I won’t tell)
When creepy shadows start following Christine around & rattling her pots & pans, she
goes to a fortune teller (Rham Jas) who tells her she’s been cursed & the demon called Lamia will haunt her for 3 days & then take her to hell on the 4th day unless she can somehow remove the curse.
Some of the movie’s campy-ness works; when Christine is invited to meet & have dinner with her boyfriend’s parents & she sees Mrs. Ganush’s glass eye staring at her from her slice of cake – THAT was eerie & funny. When Christine & Mrs. Ganush ‘do battle’ in a parking garage – THAT was meant to cater to the lowest common denominator of entertainment values.
I’ve never had a problem with Justin Long before, but in his role as Christine’s boyfriend, college professor Clay Dalton, Long sucks big time. Not for one single second did I buy him as a college professor. Plus, Alison is much too pretty to be matched with an unattractive personality-challenged bore like Clay Dalton.
Why, you ask, would I go see something like ‘Drag Me To Hell’? I grew up on the horror monster classics (Frankenstein, Dracula & The Wolf Man) & even though I can’t stand the ‘slasher’ type films that came along later, I’ve always been a sucker for a good demonic possession or something that tried to pay homage to the monster films of my youth (meaning ‘Van Helsing’ specifically) I read that ‘DMTH’ was a ‘throw-back’ to the way horror movies used to be made, so when it came to the Gateway theatre in Federal Way, & the temperature rose into the 90’s, I paid a dollar to cool off & watch a movie I knew my wife would have no interest in seeing.
Bad thing about only paying $1 to see a movie – Riff raff. The audiences are atrocious; its as though they feel it is their duty to try & spoil the movie for everyone else by trying to be as annoying as possible throughout the show. Cell phones are not turned off, comments are not whispered & one large group of teens sat in the first few rows & didn’t even appear to watch the screen at all.
Needless to say, I won’t be going on $1 Tuesday ever again, since this is the same type of aggravation I had to put up with the last time I attended a ‘cheap’ showing...
Back to the film itself, I will say that the final scene did bring a smirk to my face – so it has a positive ending going for it. Since it only cost me a buck to see ‘Drag Me To Hell’ I don’t feel cheated out of my money – Like I said, it’s sooo bad, it’s actual kind of fun to watch – If I didn’t know better, I’d think that Ed Wood returned from the dead & inhabited Sam Raimi’s body for the sole purpose of coming back to make the ‘Plan 9 From Outer Space’ of the 21st century. It's a wonder Sam didn't credit the name Alan Smithee for directing this...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)