Good lord. Product placement much? Fun movie, but this takes shilling to a whole new Happy Madison level.
Reviews
4 Reviews
The Increasingly Poor Decisions of Todd Margaret
(2009–2016)
No one to root for
No one to relate to.
18 July 2013
Warning: Spoilers
With Cross and Arnett front and center, it's hard not to draw comparisons with Arrested Development. Instead of being a lovable, clueless idiot
Cross as Todd Margaret is a lying, clueless idiot. Instead of being a lovable jerk, Arnett's character is just a jerk.
Dave (Blake Harrison) is also a jerk whose sole purpose is to set Todd Margaret up to fall from greater heights. Alice (Sharon Horgan) is supposed to be the relatable one but her pity on Todd is as inexplicable as her unnecessarily complicated backstory.
I guess I just don't get the humor. It appears to be based on laughing at a liar who is too stupid to know how transparent he is. That doesn't make me laugh, it makes me cringe.
Dave (Blake Harrison) is also a jerk whose sole purpose is to set Todd Margaret up to fall from greater heights. Alice (Sharon Horgan) is supposed to be the relatable one but her pity on Todd is as inexplicable as her unnecessarily complicated backstory.
I guess I just don't get the humor. It appears to be based on laughing at a liar who is too stupid to know how transparent he is. That doesn't make me laugh, it makes me cringe.
Frosty
(1965)
When others think for you...
11 September 2008
This movie really only gained notoriety in the US through Mystery Science Theater 3000, which is both good and bad. For the good: I'm a MST nut, and had they not worked their magic on this film, I'd have never seen it.
The 'bad' has to do with the two types of MST3k folks out there: There are those who appreciate movies, obscure references and sarcasm; and there are those who think that because the MST crew chose a movie, it is automatically bad. Many (not all) of the bad reviews for this movie come from people who let MST do their thinking for them.
To be completely honest, viewers of the MST version really don't have enough information to accurately rate this movie because MST edited the snot out of it to make it fit into their 1:35 window (2 hours minus commercials). Some of the edits were good, others took huge chunks out of the story.
I have seen several versions of this movie now, including "Father Frost" (with the voice of Donald O'Connor) and "Jack Frost", the source of the MST version. The English dubbing is laughable in all versions, but they are each enjoyable in their own right.
Rating is subjective. You can rate production quality, dialog, characterization, plot, direction, acting... I prefer to rate according to how much I enjoy a film. I liked this movie so much that I sought out the non-MST versions and have watched them over and over again. 10 stars.
The 'bad' has to do with the two types of MST3k folks out there: There are those who appreciate movies, obscure references and sarcasm; and there are those who think that because the MST crew chose a movie, it is automatically bad. Many (not all) of the bad reviews for this movie come from people who let MST do their thinking for them.
To be completely honest, viewers of the MST version really don't have enough information to accurately rate this movie because MST edited the snot out of it to make it fit into their 1:35 window (2 hours minus commercials). Some of the edits were good, others took huge chunks out of the story.
I have seen several versions of this movie now, including "Father Frost" (with the voice of Donald O'Connor) and "Jack Frost", the source of the MST version. The English dubbing is laughable in all versions, but they are each enjoyable in their own right.
Rating is subjective. You can rate production quality, dialog, characterization, plot, direction, acting... I prefer to rate according to how much I enjoy a film. I liked this movie so much that I sought out the non-MST versions and have watched them over and over again. 10 stars.
Scrooged
(1988)
Relegated to Cult Status?
20 February 2005
It's sad to me that this movie missed the mark with so many people. Those who are attracted by its cynicism can't seem to get past the sweet ending. Those who like the ending can't seem to get past the dark biting cynicism. Personally, I thought Donner did a great job marrying the two.
The Scrooge tale is about reformation. A miserly man is given a third person view of his miserly life and where it will lead. Armed with insight and a second chance, he attacks his life anew. Its a fine supportable theme that reinforces a good message.
Would this film have been better if the ending had challenged this notion? Maybe Frank Cross decides 'Ok... Be a miserly jerk now and burn in a box later... or be nice, charitable and ... huh... OK... what is my motivation here?' And with that, we close with him super-gluing antlers on a mouse. Funny? Yes. True to life? Well, more so than the sappy ending, that's for sure.
The cynical ending is more in keeping with 1998 than 1988. Remember, in 1988, yuppism was new and in full swing. The late 20 and early 30-somethings were riding high on Reganomics and living for capitalism. It was such a new idea, that the soft underbelly of America felt it needed to remind the suits that it pays to have a heart. Interestingly enough, that was the mode of 1843, too when Dickens wrote his tale.
1998 saw goth go mainstream. We saw our president lie about a sex scandal... Saving Private Ryan was the "big movie" of the year (a group of soldiers risk their lives to save one soldier who didn't want to be saved). America was in a more cynical mode. (7 years later, we're more cynical, still.)
Would a cynical ending have been better? I believe it would have won more acclaim. I could see the critics slathering Scrooged with complements for its fresh take and keen insight... but better? I don't know. Personally, I like the movie just as it is.
The Scrooge tale is about reformation. A miserly man is given a third person view of his miserly life and where it will lead. Armed with insight and a second chance, he attacks his life anew. Its a fine supportable theme that reinforces a good message.
Would this film have been better if the ending had challenged this notion? Maybe Frank Cross decides 'Ok... Be a miserly jerk now and burn in a box later... or be nice, charitable and ... huh... OK... what is my motivation here?' And with that, we close with him super-gluing antlers on a mouse. Funny? Yes. True to life? Well, more so than the sappy ending, that's for sure.
The cynical ending is more in keeping with 1998 than 1988. Remember, in 1988, yuppism was new and in full swing. The late 20 and early 30-somethings were riding high on Reganomics and living for capitalism. It was such a new idea, that the soft underbelly of America felt it needed to remind the suits that it pays to have a heart. Interestingly enough, that was the mode of 1843, too when Dickens wrote his tale.
1998 saw goth go mainstream. We saw our president lie about a sex scandal... Saving Private Ryan was the "big movie" of the year (a group of soldiers risk their lives to save one soldier who didn't want to be saved). America was in a more cynical mode. (7 years later, we're more cynical, still.)
Would a cynical ending have been better? I believe it would have won more acclaim. I could see the critics slathering Scrooged with complements for its fresh take and keen insight... but better? I don't know. Personally, I like the movie just as it is.
Tell Your Friends