While it's not Wonder Woman (1974), it isn't Wonder Woman (2017) either. Hoping that Captain Marvel (April 2019) is better than Captain Marvel (March 2019).
Reviews
21 Reviews
Movie nowhere near deserves the 1-star it's been getting
16 July 2016
The story, characters, and plot are different enough from the original that it stands on it's own. Leslie Jones wasn't quite as stereotypical as I expected, and she wasn't terrible. She wasn't amazing either, but wasn't terrible. The same goes for the other three female stars. Not spectacular, but they carry the film. I wish Kate McKinnon would have toned it down a notch, she really seems to have a need to steal the scene and it becomes annoying.
Helmsworth (Thor) makes the movie however. The actor & writers did a pretty good job on that character, and justifies the price of an early matinée showing. I would say that I laughed harder during his scenes than any point of either of the two original films.
Is the film misandrist? Yes. But considering the history of misanthropy throughout the past hundred years of Hollywood, I'll give it a pass.
The film isn't bad by any means. I even put it into the halfway-decent range. People giving it one-star are being disingenuous. Some parts are pretty good, and other parts are not so good (the Bill Murray green screen cameo should have been left on the cutting room floor). But to put it in league with films like From Just to Kelly or Gigli is terribly unfair.
Helmsworth (Thor) makes the movie however. The actor & writers did a pretty good job on that character, and justifies the price of an early matinée showing. I would say that I laughed harder during his scenes than any point of either of the two original films.
Is the film misandrist? Yes. But considering the history of misanthropy throughout the past hundred years of Hollywood, I'll give it a pass.
The film isn't bad by any means. I even put it into the halfway-decent range. People giving it one-star are being disingenuous. Some parts are pretty good, and other parts are not so good (the Bill Murray green screen cameo should have been left on the cutting room floor). But to put it in league with films like From Just to Kelly or Gigli is terribly unfair.
Tusk
(I) (2014)
Read my spoiler review now so you'll know why to avoid this movie
6 December 2014
Warning: Spoilers
So Wallas has been missing for three days, and his two friends each receive a creepy phone message that he has been abducted and his life is in danger. Wouldn't the immediate action be to go to the local police, file a report, and start getting cell phone records of the last broadcast location? Instead we see the two flying out to Canada, making a few stops, talking to some people, and then going to the police. And they just brush it off instead of, again, doing the obvious thing and finding the last location of the cell phone. One simple throw-away line ("We can request the records, but it may take days") would have sufficed. Instead, we're led to believe that all of these people are operating in a world of technology from 1955.
And when they do find the car half-sunken in a nearby stream, nobody's first reaction is to immediately call the police to send out a search party. Don't any of these people have cell phones with roaming capabilities? Clearly there's a cell tower nearby if their friend was able to use his phone.
How could they have made this whole f-ing movie, and not one person ever brought up this painfully obvious point?
And when they do find the car half-sunken in a nearby stream, nobody's first reaction is to immediately call the police to send out a search party. Don't any of these people have cell phones with roaming capabilities? Clearly there's a cell tower nearby if their friend was able to use his phone.
How could they have made this whole f-ing movie, and not one person ever brought up this painfully obvious point?
Man of Steel
(2013)
Good, but not great. Should have been better for all the reasons others have said.
18 June 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Snyder was a good choice for the last half of the movie, but a terrible choice for the first.
The flashback narrative was a poor choice. It left me not giving a s--- about why Clark acts as he does.
And for a $200M movie, they could have bought some stabilizers for cameras. Please please please stop it with the shaky-cam films. Nobody believes it's home footage. Nobody.
Speaking of cinematography, so many quick-zooms in all of the space scenes left me thinking this was a Battlestar Galactica movie. Once or twice may have been fine, but I had to stop and think why that style looked so familiar.
Also, too many fight scenes go for the close-up one-on-one shots. Somebody needs to teach snyder about medium shots.
As for the story. Didn't really care what happened. I felt no connection to Clark Kent/Superman.
When Glen Ford died in the 78 version, it was a touching moment that Clark realizes that even with all his abilities he can't save everyone. But Costner's death just seems so pointless, and a stupid decision on his part to insist on getting the dog when Clark could have easily done it and not necessarily given himself away (because, like, there wouldn't already been rumors after that school bus incident).
I'm left thinking that Pa Kent deserves a Darwin award.
So many people killed and so much destruction. But everyone seems to be back to work as normal the next day. At least this is covered in The Avengers, even if they also didn't mention the many thousands who were probably killed.
The Christ symbolism when Holo-Jor-El tells him that "he will be their savior" and he floats off, arms out stretched and one-leg up as a Christ-figure forced out an audible groan. Sure, in 1978 Puzzo purposely wrote Superman as a Christ figure. It fit for the time and a largely U.S. audience. But global audiences and Christianity plummeting, I'm comfortable if they not get to religious on us.
But Shannon made a well-played Zod. And I did enjoy watching the city get destroyed, but I suppose I could have gotten that from Transformers or so many other similar movies that I just go to see just for the eye candy.
Superman, being an American icon and having such a long history, deserved a better story.
The flashback narrative was a poor choice. It left me not giving a s--- about why Clark acts as he does.
And for a $200M movie, they could have bought some stabilizers for cameras. Please please please stop it with the shaky-cam films. Nobody believes it's home footage. Nobody.
Speaking of cinematography, so many quick-zooms in all of the space scenes left me thinking this was a Battlestar Galactica movie. Once or twice may have been fine, but I had to stop and think why that style looked so familiar.
Also, too many fight scenes go for the close-up one-on-one shots. Somebody needs to teach snyder about medium shots.
As for the story. Didn't really care what happened. I felt no connection to Clark Kent/Superman.
When Glen Ford died in the 78 version, it was a touching moment that Clark realizes that even with all his abilities he can't save everyone. But Costner's death just seems so pointless, and a stupid decision on his part to insist on getting the dog when Clark could have easily done it and not necessarily given himself away (because, like, there wouldn't already been rumors after that school bus incident).
I'm left thinking that Pa Kent deserves a Darwin award.
So many people killed and so much destruction. But everyone seems to be back to work as normal the next day. At least this is covered in The Avengers, even if they also didn't mention the many thousands who were probably killed.
The Christ symbolism when Holo-Jor-El tells him that "he will be their savior" and he floats off, arms out stretched and one-leg up as a Christ-figure forced out an audible groan. Sure, in 1978 Puzzo purposely wrote Superman as a Christ figure. It fit for the time and a largely U.S. audience. But global audiences and Christianity plummeting, I'm comfortable if they not get to religious on us.
But Shannon made a well-played Zod. And I did enjoy watching the city get destroyed, but I suppose I could have gotten that from Transformers or so many other similar movies that I just go to see just for the eye candy.
Superman, being an American icon and having such a long history, deserved a better story.
Good idea and good cast, but needs better writing
26 April 2013
The contempt for the Republicans hits you across the face like a hurdled brick. There is zero subtlety here. The parodies like "The Council for Normal Marriage" and the older senator ranting about climate change might be good enough for a 3-panel daily comic, but the jokes just die on screen. As another person commented, this needs a democrat in the house to at least provide some balance. And don't make all of the characters so stupid or so painfully cliché. I consider myself a progressive independent, but this doesn't endear me to Trudeau's politics. Treat the audience's intelligence with a little more respect and you may get an audience for this.
Chicken Little
(2005)
The pig is fat
8 November 2008
Cuz like fat people are pigs. I get it. And at the end, there is a fake movie ending and everyone claps because they want to remind the real audience that they are suppose to clap at the end of this atrocious piece of poop.
A rather unspectacular entry into the Disney library. It's pretty sad that they spend tens of millions of dollars making a film that is filled with stereotypes and cliché's with a such a poorly written story. Even sadder, that this is geared towards children. Parents should be ashamed that their children spend their formative time being exposed to this sort of tripe.
A rather unspectacular entry into the Disney library. It's pretty sad that they spend tens of millions of dollars making a film that is filled with stereotypes and cliché's with a such a poorly written story. Even sadder, that this is geared towards children. Parents should be ashamed that their children spend their formative time being exposed to this sort of tripe.
Resident Evil: Extinction
(2007)
Has very very little to do with Vegas
1 January 2008
The movie trailers make you think that it takes place in Vegas are what you'd call a bait and switch. 3/4 of the way through the movie they arrive in Vegas, but it's just through the center of the strip that has been covered in sand. They get attacked by zombies and they move on. I thought the backdrop for the movie was to be in Vegas and you'd see them in the casinos and around the hotels. Nope, none of that. In fact, there was really no need to locate it in Vegas at all.
Other than that, the movie is OK as far as zombie films go. However the genre has just been done to death in the past five years. How many ways can a virus/gas/substance turn people into flesh eating zombies or vampires or werewolves. The genre itself has become like a zombie that keeps rising again and again. Give it a rest for about 10 years.
Other than that, the movie is OK as far as zombie films go. However the genre has just been done to death in the past five years. How many ways can a virus/gas/substance turn people into flesh eating zombies or vampires or werewolves. The genre itself has become like a zombie that keeps rising again and again. Give it a rest for about 10 years.
Hannibal Rising
(2007)
Silly plot, corny lines, bad editing cuts, and Hannibal the anti-hero?!
10 November 2007
Wasn't Hannibal a vicious serial killer? How did he turn into a revenge seeking anti-hero for this film? Aside from some really bad lines of dialog, and cuts that left you wondering what happened, turning Hannibal into a sympathetic character kills the film. A Hannibal Lector movie is the type of movie where you want to root for the bad guy because he is bad. You expect him to do nasty things to people who maybe really don't deserve to have nasty things done to them. Unfortunately his victims are much worse than he is, so he's more of an anti-hero than the brilliantly psychotic serial killer that you know and love.
Halloween
(2007)
Watching your toilet flush will be more entertaining
24 September 2007
I loved the original. I love movies. I very rarely ever turn off a movie. Even ones that are the worst of the worst (Batman & Robin) that are entertaining just because they are such a train wreck.
Rob Zombie's vision can be compared to an eighth grader creating a paint-by-numbers version of the Mona Lisa, except he uses different colors, doesn't stay within the lines, includes a 5 panel comic strip explaining why she is sitting there and smiling, and she's showing her breasts.
This movie grossed as much as it did for one reason only - he stole the original storyline.
First, there's no need for a back story for Michael Meyers. He's a psychopathic killer, that's all that you need to know. It doesn't matter the why, it only matters that what. But since he insisted on a back story, couldn't it have been less cliché of the dysfunctional household? At least make it vaguely compelling. Secondy, Laurie is a foul-mouth mean-spirited bitch that I was hoping would die. Third, the editing (especially the cut at the start to the title credits) were laughable when they weren't just jarring. By the way, I knew Laurie was the smart nice girl because she wore glasses, but none of the other girls did. Wonderful subtly (cough).
Fourth, it was so bad that I had to stop watching. If you have an IQ over 95 and/or over the age of 16 you'll probably want to do the same.
However despite the mess he made, I don't hate Rob Zombie. I think he is doing the best he can do with his limited film making abilities. However I damn Hollywood for actually pushing this defecation as main stream entertainment.
I'd like to have a sit-down with you and Michael Myers. Can we take a meeting? @$$holes.
Rob Zombie's vision can be compared to an eighth grader creating a paint-by-numbers version of the Mona Lisa, except he uses different colors, doesn't stay within the lines, includes a 5 panel comic strip explaining why she is sitting there and smiling, and she's showing her breasts.
This movie grossed as much as it did for one reason only - he stole the original storyline.
First, there's no need for a back story for Michael Meyers. He's a psychopathic killer, that's all that you need to know. It doesn't matter the why, it only matters that what. But since he insisted on a back story, couldn't it have been less cliché of the dysfunctional household? At least make it vaguely compelling. Secondy, Laurie is a foul-mouth mean-spirited bitch that I was hoping would die. Third, the editing (especially the cut at the start to the title credits) were laughable when they weren't just jarring. By the way, I knew Laurie was the smart nice girl because she wore glasses, but none of the other girls did. Wonderful subtly (cough).
Fourth, it was so bad that I had to stop watching. If you have an IQ over 95 and/or over the age of 16 you'll probably want to do the same.
However despite the mess he made, I don't hate Rob Zombie. I think he is doing the best he can do with his limited film making abilities. However I damn Hollywood for actually pushing this defecation as main stream entertainment.
I'd like to have a sit-down with you and Michael Myers. Can we take a meeting? @$$holes.
Maxed Out
(2006)
Liberal anti-corporate propaganda BS
16 June 2007
Credit is a tool, a very powerful and potentially very dangerous one, and if you don't know how to use it, or cannot use it correctly then DO NOT.
The producers want us to to feel sorry for these people who rack up debt, and then can't pay it. Not only do I not feel sorry for them, I feel contempt because we the responsible consumers and stock holders of those companies are the ones who have to pay for it.
What I found interesting is that the movie never talks about corporate debt. I wonder if the producers would have the same attitude when the situation is reversed. If a corporation floats junk bonds and then declares bankruptcy, are we to feel sorry for those stock holders that lose everything when the bond holders insist on repayment? Why is the reverse situation not shown as the corporation now being the victim?
The answer is that it's because this movie is liberal anti-corporate propaganda.
I agree there are predatory practices by these organizations. The nickle-and-diming and usury is outrageous, but that's because we as consumers let them get away with it. Nobody holds a gun to our head when we sign up, or make purchases. We know the fee's (or at least should have read the paperwork).
Perhaps what this country needs is debt licensing, where you're not allowed to use debt (much like you cannot use a car) until you've proved that you have a basic understanding of how to use it and the risks involved. Then, I bet you the same people would complain about how the government is now taking away our freedom (to be irresponsible).
The producers want us to to feel sorry for these people who rack up debt, and then can't pay it. Not only do I not feel sorry for them, I feel contempt because we the responsible consumers and stock holders of those companies are the ones who have to pay for it.
What I found interesting is that the movie never talks about corporate debt. I wonder if the producers would have the same attitude when the situation is reversed. If a corporation floats junk bonds and then declares bankruptcy, are we to feel sorry for those stock holders that lose everything when the bond holders insist on repayment? Why is the reverse situation not shown as the corporation now being the victim?
The answer is that it's because this movie is liberal anti-corporate propaganda.
I agree there are predatory practices by these organizations. The nickle-and-diming and usury is outrageous, but that's because we as consumers let them get away with it. Nobody holds a gun to our head when we sign up, or make purchases. We know the fee's (or at least should have read the paperwork).
Perhaps what this country needs is debt licensing, where you're not allowed to use debt (much like you cannot use a car) until you've proved that you have a basic understanding of how to use it and the risks involved. Then, I bet you the same people would complain about how the government is now taking away our freedom (to be irresponsible).
Borat
(2006)
U.S. hating liberals and world-inexperienced college kids will love it
12 November 2006
The movie is very insulting. In fact it's one great big insult to US Citizens made by a non-US Citizen. I wish I hadn't spent my money to see what the fuss was about, it's really not that funny. While I did laugh at some parts (the reaction of the naked men running in the hotel was a low-brow high point), most of it was somewhat banal. Most of the comedy is suppose to be derived out of Borat making Americans look like unfriendly new-yorkers or backwards southern hicks. U.S.-hating liberals and world-inexperienced college kids will love it. What I didn't understand was how many people in the audience were laughing at the jokes that had already been in the trailers. If you seen the trailer you've seen about 1/3 of the movie (it's very short at 84 minutes). Also, the movie also contains the same jokes that "Borat" has used in his several hundred interviews for the movie release. How many times you can hear "My sister is prostitute" and still find it funny, I'm not sure. Once was enough for me. In short, I think it's better retitled "Borat: Jew make fun of Goyim for Make Benefit of Wallet." Because, after all, the whole world is anti-semitic and every goy is out to get the Jew.
Edit: I dropped my rating to 1 after finding out the exploitation Cohen used against the villagers of Glod Romania (deeply impoverished, they were paid roughly $6 a day and told it was for a real documentary. Cohen slept in a resort each night, then came to work during the day putting sex toys on the stumps of amputees and put animals in their homes to make fun of them). Also how he duped other people in the U.S., where there have been consistent tales of how he and the producers lied and manipulated the folks who appeared in the film, who have had massive negative repercussions on their lives as a result.
Edit: I dropped my rating to 1 after finding out the exploitation Cohen used against the villagers of Glod Romania (deeply impoverished, they were paid roughly $6 a day and told it was for a real documentary. Cohen slept in a resort each night, then came to work during the day putting sex toys on the stumps of amputees and put animals in their homes to make fun of them). Also how he duped other people in the U.S., where there have been consistent tales of how he and the producers lied and manipulated the folks who appeared in the film, who have had massive negative repercussions on their lives as a result.
Ultimate Avengers: The Movie
(2006 Video)
Needed a better writer
26 October 2006
OK, so the movie is written and geared towards 12 year olds and I'm (cough) a little older than that. However it would have been a lot better if they tightened up the writing. The story line needed more about who/what/why on the alien menace to make you actually care and the dialogue lacked any subtlety or nuance to it. The Hulk sub-plot consumed too much time, which makes me wonder if he the was the primary enemy or the aliens. Overall the film is OK to watch if you're a fan. However it's too bad they didn't hire another writer to spent a couple weeks giving a cleaner story and shaping up some of the dialogue. Could have been a lot better.
The Guys
(2002)
I have to comment on the comments below.
3 November 2003
The film is good. It's thoughtful and poignant. The acting was well done and the directing made it as interesting as possible given the material (i.e. two people talking). Be warned that this movie is not your average mass-consumption media fare, and if your IQ is hovering around 100 or less you are better off renting an Adam Sandler or Jerry Bruckheimer movie.
The backdrop is 9/11 but you could take the two characters out of NY 2001 and dropped them into any similar tragedy in history. It is not a "US Propaganda" film as someone tried to state below. It is a film about two people having to cope with tragedy. One who was directly touched and one who was sitting on the sidelines wishing to be able to help out. On that level, on telling the brief story of two people who should never have met, it works very well.
Finally, to the person who said "If I were director, I would have ... had someone write a better script..." >>THE FILM IS BASED ON A TWO-PERSON PLAY!!!<< The above statement is as ignorant and mind-numbingly stupid as someone saying "I wish the director of Hamlet had someone write a better script with more fight scenes."
The backdrop is 9/11 but you could take the two characters out of NY 2001 and dropped them into any similar tragedy in history. It is not a "US Propaganda" film as someone tried to state below. It is a film about two people having to cope with tragedy. One who was directly touched and one who was sitting on the sidelines wishing to be able to help out. On that level, on telling the brief story of two people who should never have met, it works very well.
Finally, to the person who said "If I were director, I would have ... had someone write a better script..." >>THE FILM IS BASED ON A TWO-PERSON PLAY!!!<< The above statement is as ignorant and mind-numbingly stupid as someone saying "I wish the director of Hamlet had someone write a better script with more fight scenes."
Bowling for Columbine
(2002)
You should be ashamed of yourself Mr. Moore.
22 August 2003
I'm not sure what point he's trying to make. At face value you think he's trying to imply that guns are the root cause of why America is so much more violent as a society. Then he implies it's because the media causes us to be afraid to walk out the door. Then he implies it's because single-mothers have to work for evil corporate empires like Dick Clark's restaurant. Then he's back to K-Mart and harassing them because they sell bullets.
However he doesn't once interview anyone who actually knew Eric and Dylan. He doesn't try to explain what was happening in their lives that lead to the Columbine incident. The closest he comes is two girls who were in their bowling class who said "they were kinda weird". Heaven forbid anyone proposes that the reason Eric and Dylan did what they did is that they had been ostracized and harassed for years. That when you stop treating somebody humanely you shouldn't expect them to act human.
Of course the root of all problems in American society is the evil corporations.
Then he does his stunts with Dick Clark, K-Mart, and Heston. His modus-operandi is the same as his previous movies. He will prepare and research his position then show up and demand impromptu interviews in order to sucker punch by presenting information to the person who is unprepared to respond so he can make the other person look foolish and unable to defend themselves.
This movie is an insult to the legacy of what happened in Littleton. The word "Columbine" is only used as a cheap means to draw attention to himself and sell more tickets.
You should be ashamed of yourself Mr. Moore.
However he doesn't once interview anyone who actually knew Eric and Dylan. He doesn't try to explain what was happening in their lives that lead to the Columbine incident. The closest he comes is two girls who were in their bowling class who said "they were kinda weird". Heaven forbid anyone proposes that the reason Eric and Dylan did what they did is that they had been ostracized and harassed for years. That when you stop treating somebody humanely you shouldn't expect them to act human.
Of course the root of all problems in American society is the evil corporations.
Then he does his stunts with Dick Clark, K-Mart, and Heston. His modus-operandi is the same as his previous movies. He will prepare and research his position then show up and demand impromptu interviews in order to sucker punch by presenting information to the person who is unprepared to respond so he can make the other person look foolish and unable to defend themselves.
This movie is an insult to the legacy of what happened in Littleton. The word "Columbine" is only used as a cheap means to draw attention to himself and sell more tickets.
You should be ashamed of yourself Mr. Moore.
The New Guy
(2002)
Better than recent flicks
17 August 2002
As someone from the "John Hughes" generation, I was starting to become dismayed at the lack of decent teen comedies as of late. However, when you compare this to "Dude, where's my joke?", "Freddie got Fiscally Fingered", "How Highly Stupid", "Kevin Smith Strikes Another Movie Deal", and "Stupid Movie" (one and two), it's a friggin masterpiece. It's nice to see a comedy that made me giggle at points and didn't have to rely on pee-pee and poo-poo jokes every 30 seconds. It was sweet and had a decent story. I would call it this generations "Can't Buy Me Love".
How High
(2001)
Even if you're a partier, if your IQ is over 85 skip this.
2 June 2002
It's pathetic when a stoner movie sucks even when you've been partying. The biggest problem I had with this was the rampant racism. If this movie was made by two whites and showed such awful stereotypes of blacks the cries of racism would be heard all over. Except for some reason blacks are allowed to do this? The white people in this movie are all portrayed as dumb, stuck-up, prudish, etc. Of course our brothers are the cool ones who turn everyone around, right? The problem with this movie compared to say Animal House, is that they aren't the innocent party being picked on by the system. Instead, they are a couple of complete @$$#0!3s who are the antagonists and start their own battles. They instigate the animosity by being a bunch of loud-mouth, ignorant, aggressive jerks. However I guess for the viewer we're suppose to think it's funny, otherwise we're racists ourselves cuz that's 'their way'. The part with digging up the corpse while dragging their whining fat white roommate along just revolted me. In the real world their fat white roommate would have turned them in and the two would have been arrested - but then that would have been racism, right?
Aside from that the jokes are stupid and there's a lot of inaccuracies (maybe the film makers could use a semester at a college themselves). For instance, the Chinese kid whose the "youngest Harvard freshman ever" looks like he's 22. Also when Silo or whatever his name is picks a bud off his pot plant & smokes it, the bud is hanging whereas buds grow upright. Nor does he dry and cure it first. Not very smart for the smart grower he's suppose to be.
I wish Hollywood would produce an intelligent stoner movie for once that caters to people with an IQ over 85.
Aside from that the jokes are stupid and there's a lot of inaccuracies (maybe the film makers could use a semester at a college themselves). For instance, the Chinese kid whose the "youngest Harvard freshman ever" looks like he's 22. Also when Silo or whatever his name is picks a bud off his pot plant & smokes it, the bud is hanging whereas buds grow upright. Nor does he dry and cure it first. Not very smart for the smart grower he's suppose to be.
I wish Hollywood would produce an intelligent stoner movie for once that caters to people with an IQ over 85.
Series 7: The Contenders
(2001)
Wow! Sadly way-overlooked movie!
6 April 2002
I can't believe this movie earned less than $200,000 at the box office. What an absolutely amazing flick that has totally left me wanting to see a sequel. What a wonderful satire of our modern times and the violence that seduces us, always wanting to push the limits. Wow. Just wow.
Not even good on drugs.
1 March 2002
The movie has its moments, but it's just a hodge podge of sometimes clever (sometimes not) walk-on cameos, a road trip (which is a poor screen writing trick to fill a weak plot with 30-40 minutes of loose gags), silly subplots and weak "ha-ha" gags breaking the fourth wall.
Half the movie is an insult to people who can best be described as The Comic Book Guy from The Simpsons (myself included). Half of the "Joke" is ripping on his own fanbase, and any average person who critiques him negatively over the net. This cheazy ploy went out with low-brow comics ripping on Siskel and Ebert (real critics), but now it's like the Slapshot scene where they go into the audience and beat-up their fans.
Except Slap Shot was funny.
Maybe I'm old (I'm Kevin Smith's Age). But F just isn't funny anymore Be clever. Why was Scooby Doo in the movie? It was a waste of 10 minutes that did nothing to the plot. Couldn't he tie that in somehow humously at the end like, those kids show up to expose the jewel theifs, who end up being 3 cranky old men who woulda gotten away with it. And the love interest... we won't even get into that believability.
Anyhow. Kevin, if you ever wanna come over and beat me up, drop me a note and I'll give ya my address.
Half the movie is an insult to people who can best be described as The Comic Book Guy from The Simpsons (myself included). Half of the "Joke" is ripping on his own fanbase, and any average person who critiques him negatively over the net. This cheazy ploy went out with low-brow comics ripping on Siskel and Ebert (real critics), but now it's like the Slapshot scene where they go into the audience and beat-up their fans.
Except Slap Shot was funny.
Maybe I'm old (I'm Kevin Smith's Age). But F just isn't funny anymore Be clever. Why was Scooby Doo in the movie? It was a waste of 10 minutes that did nothing to the plot. Couldn't he tie that in somehow humously at the end like, those kids show up to expose the jewel theifs, who end up being 3 cranky old men who woulda gotten away with it. And the love interest... we won't even get into that believability.
Anyhow. Kevin, if you ever wanna come over and beat me up, drop me a note and I'll give ya my address.
Bubble Boy
(2001)
One of the better comedies of 2K1
28 January 2002
Considering some of the other "comedies" of 2001 like "Dude, Where's My Car?", "Freddy Got Fingered" and "Saving Silverman" - this one actually had a decent enough plot, funny enough jokes, and characters you could empathize with and care for. Even the gross-out humor (the cow being run over) still came off funnier than any of the gross-out humor in "Freddy Got Fingered" or "Scary Movie I/II". Not because it relied on the actual grossness - but the reaction of the character it affected. The racial humor made some below-the-belt swipes that worked much like Mel Brooks could have pulled-off in his prime ("This will never work. A hundred thousand dollars? THEY'RE JEWS!"). Plus the intertwining of the characters and their stories he meets along the way is entertaining to watch unfold. I mean, come on how could you not laugh at the "Patches" joke, or "Man this is good curry".
Most of all, there is a STORY! As predictable as it is, it's still draws you in to find out what happens next.
If you are looking for a serious film about human disabilities, this is not it. If you want some good slapstick comedy, this does the job better than most of the other supposed comedies of last year.
Most of all, there is a STORY! As predictable as it is, it's still draws you in to find out what happens next.
If you are looking for a serious film about human disabilities, this is not it. If you want some good slapstick comedy, this does the job better than most of the other supposed comedies of last year.
High Fidelity
(2000)
Best film about guy's view of relationships
30 September 2000
Possibly the best portrayal from a guy's perspective about relationships and our need (despite what cosmo says, we think about this s**t too) in trying to understand them. Rob's an average guy with an average life with the usual string of failed romances and he seeks to understand them. Unless you married your first girlfriend, you will probably find yourself relating to most if not all five of his top 5 failed romances. Girls, this is required watching if you really want to get inside our minds.
Boiler Room
(2000)
So close to dead-on perfect
15 July 2000
Having worked in a similar situation for a few months about 10 years ago right out of school it's my opinion this movie is damn close to being dead-on perfect. They have the boiler room down PAT. From the group interview, promises of being rich in no time, the interaction between co-workers, and the phone-sales... un-friggin-believably dead on. To those who think that this doesn't happen, it does. Certainly, 99 out of 100 people hang up but they are going for that one person who is vulnerable, a little greedy, whom they make that rapport with, and buys into their spiel.
The faults of the movie, had they fixed them - would have made this movie a classic. 1) Ribisi can't act. When he cries at the seminal moment and (later) when he is looking at his father after the arrest - its neither believable nor do you have any emotion towards him. 2) You can't 'back up your C drive onto a floppy'. This F-Up will be remembered like an apple powerbook connecting into an alien computer to implant a virus. 3) They should have showed the FBI making the raid and the crooks taking a fall - a hard one. Show Michael (the owner) as somebodies bitch in 3 months.
Final Note: Vin Diesel (?) did a great job - expect to see more of him.
The faults of the movie, had they fixed them - would have made this movie a classic. 1) Ribisi can't act. When he cries at the seminal moment and (later) when he is looking at his father after the arrest - its neither believable nor do you have any emotion towards him. 2) You can't 'back up your C drive onto a floppy'. This F-Up will be remembered like an apple powerbook connecting into an alien computer to implant a virus. 3) They should have showed the FBI making the raid and the crooks taking a fall - a hard one. Show Michael (the owner) as somebodies bitch in 3 months.
Final Note: Vin Diesel (?) did a great job - expect to see more of him.
Tell Your Friends