Reviews

3 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Visioneers (2008)
Boring, amateurish and self absorbed piece of dreck
5 November 2010
The common theme of the positive reviews that try to refute the negative reviews seems to be that the people who didn't like this movie didn't understand the film or wanted something with fart jokes.

The truth is this movie is plain and simply bad. It tries to go back to clichéd themes of elusive happiness in the modern world, the rat race, corporations trying to monopolize happiness, yadda yadda yadda - and utterly fails on all counts.

At the beginning of the movie I was trying to decide whether the filmmakers were making fun of "weird and profound" movies or trying to be one of them. As time wore on (the only way to describe enduring this film - it's like being worn down by awfulness) the mournful, solitary piano lines and strings floating in the background made it obvious that this was an extremely poor attempt at being profound. To the people who love it, I'm sure it seems profound - it might have to me back when I was young and naive and hadn't seen a hundred movies that have covered similar themes in a way that makes this look like it was cooked up and executed by film school dropouts.

After writing that, I realize I should apologize to film school dropouts for the insult of associating them with this movie.

It is billed as a black comedy but without any comedic moments that rise above an occasional and very slight "heh". If you were recovering from surgery and your doctor warned you to avoid any strenuous laughing that might damage damage your stitches, you would be perfectly safe watching this movie. As a bonus it can function as a non addictive sleep aid.

Only two things kept me watching this movie initially - the presence of Judy Greer and Missi Pyle - I've liked their work in the past. I thought their presence would at least bring some redeeming quality to the movie, but in the end the movie was so bad it ended up tainting even them. Combining the utterly lifeless performance of Zach Galifianakis (I'm not talking about how he was supposed to be intentionally lifeless in his role - I'm talking about how he was lifeless at being lifeless. He was lifeless even in his spastic fits.) and the overacting of most of the supporting cast, the movie has almost no redeeming qualities. The film is poorly shot and looks like it was made on the cheap with props, sets, and vehicles borrowed from friends and relatives. Other filmmakers have been able to pull that off and add charm and flavor to their movies - on this one it just makes it feel even more amateurish.

Sometimes film makers are so good they can put together weirdness, odd performances, and seemingly low quality production values in a kind of stealth approach and then, with their above average skill set, they bring it all together in a way that surprises the viewer. They use non conventional methods to catch you off guard and then really deliver something unique and entertaining.

I struggled through this movie hoping that there was a moment of redemption when the plodding storyline, the bad acting, and the poor look and feel of the movie crystallized into something where it all was all revealed to be intentional by the filmmakers. Unfortunately there was no such master plan - the movie is not plodding, weird, and cheap looking because the filmmakers are highly skilled in the art - it is that way because they aren't any good at it.
3 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Yellowbeard (1983)
It coulda had class. It coulda been a contender. It coulda been something...
22 May 2009
I just watched this again, 20+ years after seeing it on cable. I had the vaguest recollections of the movie, came here to see the cast, and thought it would be fun to watch.

It isn't.

The list of talent in this movie is amazing - but the results are boring. There was enough talent here to make this into Blazing Saddles of the Sea with the right script. But the script wasn't right. Sure, it has a plot. But just about everything in it is lackluster. There's so much talent wasted on lame jokes and premises that fizzle that it becomes sad to watch it all slip away.

Most of the jokes are obvious, and the rest are either pointless or so base as to be insulting to the people they have performing them.

As an example, there's a scene early in the film where Eric Idle heads to Lord Lambourn's estate. As he gets out of his carriage, the camera cuts to a pile of horse manure. Then we cut to him stepping in the horse manure the last shot showed us. Then he stands there and waits for his assistant to clean his shoes while he's still standing in the manure. That's it. End Joke.

Just seconds later, after he meets lord and lady lambourn, the camera cuts to a man about 15 feet away peeing on a hedge. Lady lambourn tells him to stop it. He runs away. She chases him. That's it. End Joke.

If either of those sound lame when they're written out, they're just as bad when you're watching them. The movie is filled with bits that could have been in any movie about any subject, but they just happened to be in this movie because someone thought they'd get a laugh. They do nothing to advance plot, characters, or even the next 5 seconds of screen time.

And if you're thinking of watching for the performances--they don't really manage to salvage anything. It feels like after a certain point everyone started going through the motions just to get the film in the can.
12 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Secrets That Sell (2007– )
Yes, this show needs to be canceled
26 February 2008
I agree with the first reviewer - this show is horrible and the hosts are annoying. The stupid "dead air" cuts are a waste of time. It doesn't build drama, it just reinforces the idea that the people who make this show are clueless hacks.

The mother / daughter host team is annoying, the mother much more so than the daughter. Actually, if they fired the mother and let the daughter run the show, it might be watchable because she's much less grating than her mother, who talks in a completely unnatural tone for the entire show. I've seen public access cable shows that had better hosts than her.

And what's with the mom holding the glasses throughout the entire show? Really - check out the show from the beginning. They usually show mommy dearest arriving with sunglasses on or just taking them off. Then, for the duration of the show - and this is in every show - she's holding them in one hand and using them to gesture. Maybe she or some producer thought that could be her trademark, but it's just stupid. You're shooting a TV show, nobody is going to be fooled into thinking this is a casual visit because you're holding your glasses. Put them in your pocket, keep them in your car, or give them to a staffer. Maybe she wants to have them handy so she can say something clever and do a David Caruso / CSI Miami dramatic sunglass put on, followed by a quick cut of "Won't Get Fooled Again".

HGTV rode the housing bubble all the way up, and it looks like on the way down they're throwing out cheap programs with bad hosts / production values in order to save a few bucks.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed