Reviews written by registered user
|38 reviews in total|
This movie was actually not as offensive as virtually every "comedy"
has been for the past decade or so. Paul Rudd isn't terribly unfunny,
in the vein of "comic" actors like Sandler, Rogan, Ferrell, etc. But
despite some decent moments, the movie ultimately fails to impress.
The potty humor here is kept to a real minimum, in comparison with the way all other "comedies" now are exclusively fueled by it. But on one front "Our Idiot Brother" touts the new party line; there are lots of gratuitous male nude scenes, but no female nude scenes. This strange phenomenon is a 180 degree shift from Hollywood's norm in the 1960- 1980s, wherein sexy females were the ones disrobing on screen. Now, it's only the males, and they usually aren't "sexy." In this film, we had two gorgeous actresses, Zooey Deschanel and Elizabeth Banks, but they remained completely clothed throughout, while at least three males managed to get naked for us.
This is anti-art for its own sake; a literal repudiation of the concept of beauty. Nudity in films now is not done to titillate the audience, or simply to display a beautiful form, but is entirely for comedic purposes, to poke fun at the males who reveal themselves to us. This is simply another way of bashing males, only instead of beating them up, the screenwriters humiliate them by incorporating needless, ugly nudity with only them disrobing.
I also didn't like the use of the disgusting word "retard" a few times. So three stars for rising a bit above the Judd Apatow school of "comedy," but ultimately this is an unsatisfying film.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I must sound like a broken record, but once again this horrid film
proves that Hollywood simply cannot make a decent comedy anymore. This
one has the same things they all do now- tons of juvenile potty humor,
gratuitous male nudity (and in a rarity, a brief topless female), and a
predictable, disastrous message. The male nudity, by the way, includes
a close up view of a male's penis.
As usual, the males in the film are made out to be the bad guys. Two hapless husbands, who are guilty of nothing more than ogling women here and there, are granted a "hall pass" by their wives. This idea comes from their friend, played by the odious Joy Behar, who is no actress and can barely recite her lines. The men are told that for one week, they can do whatever they want, and pretend they aren't married, while the wives take the kids out of town.
In an utterly foreseen twist, the guys turn out to not even be capable of talking to girls, let alone sleeping with them, while their wives are partying up a storm with hot younger athletes. Meanwhile, we are treated to a running gag that could have been penned by most third graders, of the guys' fat friend constantly uttering "I have to poo." In a truly artistic scene, we are treated to this man's fat bare bottom taking a dump in a sand trap on a golf course. Talk about hilarious!
Owen Wilson eventually turns down the hot 21 year old who had been his children's babysitter, her hot 40 something aunt, and the gorgeous blonde Australian chick who had been the object of his fantasies. He doesn't even get to kiss any of them. His hapless friend is similarly unlucky. Meanwhile, Christina Appelegate, as the other husband's wife, does sleep with a younger guy. Afterwards, she says "this can't happen again- I love my husband."
This is the message that has been coming out of Hollywood for some time now- a wife can have an extramarital affair, but the husband cannot, or at least if he does, the marriage is over. We saw this even in Family Guy, when Lois slept with Bill Clinton, but Peter inexplicably backed out of sleeping with his date, so the writers solved that by having Peter sleep with Bill Clinton, too. Ugh.
When the hapless other husband reunites with Christina Applegate, he gets down on his knees and apologizes. "For what?" the audience might ask. He didn't really do anything wrong. But his wife sure did. And does she admit this, or apologize herself? Nope. Guess again- she accepts his ridiculous apology with a canary-that-ate-the-kitten smile. Nice message there for everyone.
This movie was not as awful as the Judd Apatow stuff, or quite as unfunny as most of Adam Sandler's and Will Ferrell's "gems," but it is still thoroughly offensive.
I would echo many of the points made by previous reviewers. This film
is far too long, and might have been better if an hour or so was edited
out. Anna Paquin plays a totally unsympathetic character; like so many
"troubled teens," she is a rebel without a cause.
But then again, why is a 29 year old playing a high school student to begin with? Did the producers really think Paquin looked and seemed like a teenager? Actually, all the "high school students" in this film were too old, and acted unconvincingly.
As has been stated, why was Paquin haunted by the accident, to the extent she felt compelled to go on an intense crusade to get the bus driver fired, yet somehow was immune from the guilt most of us would have felt, since she was the primary cause of the accident? Did anyone, upon seeing the working stiff bus driver and his wife, empathize with Paquin's herculean efforts to ruin his life? What was her motivation?
Why did Paquin abruptly decide to "lose her virginity," by contacting a kid we'd never seen up until that point? Why not just choose the nice guy who liked her, and whom she was making out with shortly before that? Why were we treated to a brief but completely unnecessary nude scene with Anna's not so young looking mother?
The character playing Emily, the victim's friend, was even more annoying than Paquin's was.Thus, it's probably natural that they would gravitate together, and form a powerful partnership devoted to "getting" the bus driver, whose recklessness was caused by Paquin. Why the strident "Jewishness" on the part of Emily, to the point where she explodes in anger at Paquin's mother's boyfriend, who is really the only halfway likable character in the film? Combined with the gratuitous, unconnected classroom arguments about Israel and the Palestinians, one wonders if the screenwriter had some sort of agenda in this area.
There is seemingly no logical source for Paquin's hostility towards her mother, who seems like a distracted but basically decent parent. It's hard to have a watchable film when the main protagonist is someone the audience cannot possibly like.
I've gone through several of the reviews here, and it amazes me that no
one else has commented on what is the most glaring problem with this
film. Hal is shallow, and only loves women for their looks. Okay, fine.
His friend, played by Jason Alexander, is even more shallow, finding
the smallest flaws in even beautiful women to be unbearable.
Have any of you looked at Jack Black and Jason Alexander? Are either of them remotely attractive? Both are fat, which makes their fat jokes that much more inexplicable and unfunny. If you're going to go with this premise, you need to cast believable actors in those roles. They must look the part of superficial males concerned exclusively with looks. Obviously, neither of these actors do.
The film is decent other than that, but it's kind of hard to get past the main character and his sidekick. Especially obscene was the bald, overweight Jason Alexander snidely referring to Paltrow's character as a rhino. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! I gave the film only four stars because of the actors in the lead roles. With good looking guys (and ideally, a real overweight woman), this could have been a very good film.
I waited in vain for any real suspense, any real showdown between the
Earth and the aliens in this terrible film. Instead, I was subjected to
what was essentially a marathon military training film. It was like
watching a war movie. There was really no science fiction in it at all.
The few scenes of the aliens were cheap and unconvincing.
For most of the film, we see bombings. Lots of them. It was like watching the Gulf "war" again, back in the early 1990s. Or maybe a video game. Were the makers of this film trying to recruit for the Marines or what? The propaganda was overbearing; how many oblique references to "civilians" were there? There was no real characterization here, no human interaction beyond fellow soldiers "covering" each other, or carting other wounded bodies around. Evidently, the "battle" in this film didn't include any noteworthy "civilians," since no one outside of the vaunted military was depicted. Guess their stories weren't compelling enough.
We aren't told why these aliens invaded. What was their motive? Who are they? We learn nothing about them- in fact, as noted earlier, they were barely shown. Even the special effects were lacking- no cool tsunami-type scenes, no crumbling buildings that we can recognize. This was insipid propaganda that disappointed on all levels.
Another comic "gem" to satisfy the cravings of an increasingly stupid
viewing audience, "Bad Teacher" is accurately titled. Cameron Diaz, who
is also a bad actress, is indeed very, very bad in this film. Her
character is entirely absent any remotely positive traits. There's
nothing to like about her, and yet we are supposed to root for her. A
film with a title like this would once have been relegated to the porn
industry. Now it's just part of mainstream "comedy," right there
alongside other immortal classics like "Super Bad," "Jack Ass," "Kick
Yes, it was awe inspiring to watch dear Cameron fire balls at the heads of little boys. Not little girls, of course- that wouldn't be funny. It's only humorous to watch little boys in pain. Ha Ha. Think of it- the writers are depicting an adult abusing children, and we're laughing at it! Reverse the roles- can you imagine a "comedy" where a male teacher abuses little girls, and the audience is amused by it?
Several obvious sequels spring to mind here; Bad Student, Bad Principal, Bad Janitor, Bad Cafeteria Lady, etc. The possibilities are endless. The American idiocracy apparently have an unlimited appetite for these mindless, immature "comedies" that could all have been written by 12 year old boys. I guess these "writers" never run out of ways to portray farting, male asses and men getting hurt (usually by getting hit in the crotch). Thank goodness their "talent" was recognized and is being put to such good use.
Everyone who had anything to do with this monstrously bad movie should be ashamed of themselves. The messages it sends are horrendous. If "bad teachers" start popping up in real life, they should never be held accountable for their actions, no matter how despicable they are. After all, Hollywood has told us that such creatures are hilarious, even lovable. So lighten up, it's all in good fun!
Every time I think Hollywood can sink no lower, they do. I guess this
film is considered a great "advance" in the field, because now these
horrendous script writers and directors have shown that the girls can
fart, defecate, curse and inflict "funny" pain just as well as the
When will this idiocracy we live in finally get sick of "humor" that would have been considered immature for 12 year old boys as recently as twenty years ago? When was the last time a "comedy" was produced in Hollywood that wasn't based exclusively on potty humor and hapless males getting hit in the crotch?
Lorne Michaels should be ashamed of himself, for forcing all these monumental no-talents on America. Kristen Wiig is merely the latest in a long series of thoroughly unfunny, untalented, obnoxious "actors" like Adam Sandler, Will Ferrell, David Spade, Rob Schneider, etc. Big screen comedies basically have been taken over by the pathetic alumni from SNL and the just as sordidly horrific "talent" emanating from the stable of Judd Apatow.
I wonder if Maya Rudolph-yet another ex-SNL cast member-can appreciate the irony of her appearing in a work of "art" like this, considering that she was one of the stars of Idiocracy. Probably not, considering that none of the SNL people seem to have the slightest appreciation of the brilliant satire Mike Judge employed in that film. Instead, they continue to collect hefty paychecks for contributing ever more filth to our decaying cultural landscape.
I'd heard only great things about this 1955 film, so I was eagerly
looking forward to finally watching it. To say I was disappointed is an
understatement. I was astonished. I was appalled. I was embarrassed for
Charles Laughton and Robert Mitchum.
What can we learn from this film? Well, for one, could Laughton and the always overrated James Agee make their anti-Christian bias any more obvious? Okay, we get it- preachers are hypocritical and can sometimes be criminals. Do you have to hit the audience over the head with that for nearly two hours? I've never seen one theme pushed so relentlessly. I'm guessing Laughton and Agee weren't believers.
The acting, as others have noted, is laughable. No, it's almost surrealistic; but awful in a way that can't be enjoyed, like a cheesy sci-film from the same era. I disagree with some of those who lambasted the performances in this film, but exempted Robert Mitchum. In my view, Mitchum's character was a more unbelievably heavy-handed villain than Snidely Whiplash. I winced when he informed new wife Shelley Winters that they would not be having sex. Ever. Who came up with this kind of impossibly unrealistic stuff? The Church of Satan? The dialogue is almost incomprehensibly bad. There is not a likable character in the film, nor a single light hearted moment. How about a bit of comic relief? Why not take five minutes off from the nonstop bashing of Christianity? The fact that this film is so well respected by critics reminds us once again about the importance of thinking for yourself, and not mindlessly following the advice of alleged experts.
It was really only a matter of time. The culmination of decades of
brainwashing, dumbing down and awful, awful artistry have resulted in
"Kick Ass." Yes, it was also only a matter of time until someone
produced a movie with that title. Now that another cultural barrier has
crashed, look forward to movies with cherished words like "Retard" and
"Balls" in their titles. Use your imagination- it's easy to envision
really profound titles by sprinkling in all those formerly forbidden
As for the movie itself, Hollywood takes its most prevalent theme- that of females beating up males- and speeds it up to a wharp factor. First, the female doing all that ass kicking is 11. ELEVEN. And she isn't content to knock them out with one punch from her dainty fists. No, she gruesomely kills them. While enjoying it immensely. She also enjoys mutilating them in the process.
The fact that any audience, anywhere, finds this graphic filth- which should by all rights be considered child pornography- entertaining at all is yet another sad indication that our civilization is beyond all hope. The violence in this film is so gratuitous, so disturbing, especially because it involved such a young girl, that it really wouldn't be any more offensive if the preteen actress was wandering around naked and having sex with adults, instead of gleefully murdering them.
If there is any justice in this world, "Kick Ass" will continue to under perform at the box office. The less money it makes, the better.
This show is really not that bad. In fact, it might be really good. The
problem is, the main character, played by Elizabeth Mitchell, is so
utterly annoying that she makes "V" nearly unwatchable.
Mitchell plays a middle-aged FBI agent. So far, she has displayed remarkable fighting prowess for a not overly imposing looking middle- aged woman. Most of us don't normally think of middle-aged women getting into first fights all that often. Actually, if any of us saw a middle-aged woman punching anyone, we'd probably keel over from the shock. This is not only because the notion is preposterous, but because such behavior is simply not acceptable in a civilized society.
Mitchell's character easily overpowered her "alien" male partner in one episode. In another, she raced about 50 yards in a straight line towards an armed assassin, who was aiming his weapon at her the entire time. Oh yes, she was not holding a weapon. And yes, there were tons of larger males in the building, who stood there frightened until the powerful middle-aged warrior showed up and saved them. Think about that-what screenwriter has a middle-aged woman running a good distance towards a man holding a machine gun, who can see her the entire time? Fortunately for Mitchell's character, the assassin neglected to fire at her as she trotted towards him, waiting patiently instead for her to knock him down and overpower him easily.
This intense propaganda is now the most prevalent theme on television and in movies. According to Hollywood, virtually any female can beat up virtually any male, even when the male is holding a weapon and the female is unarmed. It is a relentless theme, and this new television show employs it liberally, utilizing Mitchell's middle-aged FBI character to do so. It is offensive and, even if it were not so laughingly unrealistic, incredibly trite and unoriginal at this point.
When she is not beating up men, Mitchell's character is delivering her lines with the actress's patented smirk and singular lack of emotion. Mitchell's one expression is deadpan, and her voice is invariably quiet, almost mouse-like. This makes her "tough guy" attempts at intimidation all the more ridiculous. How she ever became a star in Hollywood is a great mystery. She must be related to someone, because even by the low standards of network television, she is a one dimensional, boring and unskilled actress.
With another actor in the lead role, this might be a completely different series.
|Page 2 of 4:||   |