posted by admin on Aug 28
Archive for the ‘Movies’ Category
posted by admin on Aug 13
For good reason Rex Reed’s review of Funny People is setting the internet on fire. The pure hatred he spews is simply stunning but is also very unsubstantiated within the review. The movie is uneven, I enjoyed it but found it to be a drama with stand-up comedy making for an odd mix. An interesting step for Apatow (and Sandler). I guess Rex Reed doesn’t like dick jokes, let’s break down some the insane things he says.
I’d like to tell you how vile this deviation from sanity called Funny People really is, but it is one of those rare times when I am at a loss for words.
Really? Already, I can’t trust your opinion because what you say you are incapable of doing is exactly what you do for the next several hundred words.
The script is as amusing as infanticide, and two and a half hours of any single aspect of it is a torture that is unacceptable even by hopeless 21st-century standards.
Rex Reed’s Scale Of Amusement: Infanticide/Funny People Script —- Staring At A Wall —– Riding A Roller-coaster While Getting A Blow Job While Watching Citizen Kane While Not In The 21st Century
Mr. Sandler, who by contract should be legally prevented from ever appearing in a bathing suit
Adam Sandler - not sexually attractive enough to Rex Reed to ever appear in a bathing suit no matter the scene or movie. I must have missed that day of film school when they taught us which actors could were bathing suits and still have that movie be good. An excellent criteria for judging a film.
Mr. Rogen is Ira Wright, a wannabe disaster with a filing cabinet full of jokes about toilet activities and oral intercourse who gets selected to be his protégé. They meet cute in the comedy club’s parking lot.
A wannabe disaster? Also, the filing cabinet full of blow job jokes makes him sound like a pretty funny guy. And that final sentence? Is a cute a noun? Is this how Rex Reed indicates sarcasm when he writes? What does this mean?!
In no time, the green novice is running errands for the seasoned jokester and providing one-liners about diarrhea, masturbation, flatulence, fellatio and talking genitals, to the horror of his jealous roommate (Jason Schwartzman).
Once again, making him sound pretty funny. Also, roommate not horrified but enjoys the jokes. Also, also, jealous roommate not played by Schwartzman but by Jonah Hill. But I guess you were too busy making sure to hate the movie to get your facts right for a review.
And green novice? A little redundant.
Between batteries of blood tests and treatments, we get routines guaranteed to bore a kindergarten at recess.
I’m not sure if ‘chances of entertaining a kindergarten’ should factor into your review on an R-rated movie.
For no logical reason, George and Ira pack off for hundreds of miles to the house in Marin County where Laura lives
Regardless of quality that is an insane statement to make. George specifically schedules a show in San Francisco as an excuse to see Laura. On the surface the trip is made for George’s job. George actually makes the trip to see Laura who he is in love with. How is that confusing? This is so explicitly explained in the movie I am beginning to wonder if you watched the whole thing.
Eric Bana, who has seen better roles (and films) elsewhere.
Finally, a good argument. This is one of the worst movies ever made because Eric Bana, an accomplished actor playing a minor role, has had better roles and been in better movies. He’s also been in Hulk (the bad one), Troy, and that god awful poker movie with Drew Barrymore. But by all means this will clearly be the low point of his career.
There is nothing cute or cool or liberating about almost two and a half hours of X-rated excreta by criminally unfunny people feigning to be pros.
I’m not sure about the relevancy of the first part. Does Rex Reed think Funny People deserved an X-rating? He does seem to think if you can’t make him laugh you deserve to be in jail which seems 100% fair to me. And “unfunny people feigning to be pros”? No matter how funny you think these people are or are not they meet ever imaginable criteria for being a professional comedian. That’s like saying “Rex Reed is feigning at being a professional film critic” because I didn’t like his review. That statement is insane because it disregards the meaning of words and the overwhelming reality that Rex Reed is a well-known film critic who is paid to write his thoughts about film, the generally accepted method of judging professionalism.
There are many legitimate complaints about this movie but continuously writing I hate this movie and I hate the people in it and I have always and will always hate them is not a very good review.
I also realize I stole this technique from FireJoeMorgan.com. I don’t really care.
posted by admin on Jul 28
Jay and I spend twenty minutes discussing the merits and usefulness of the inspirational phrase, “Ducks fly together!” The rest of the time Jay feebly attempts to defend the movie as not being a bastion of un-American propaganda aimed at children but fortunately I use my acerbic, drunk wit to demolish his arguments.
Or something like that.
Find it on iTunes under The McRib Happy Hour or check it out on the web.
posted by admin on Jul 27
In Bill Simmons latest article (hopefully that will be a link should ESPN ever fix whatever is wrong with their site this morning) he argues that Almost Famous is the movie of the decade. I have to disagree with him on many grounds.
1) He freely admits it might be The Dark Knight but the verdict isn’t in on its rewatchability. Really? It’s been on HBO every day for several weeks, if you’ve watched it as many times as I have I’d say the verdict is in and the movie is infinitely rewatchable. This is not to argue The Dark Knight is the movie of the decade but considering it is the highest grossing and one of the best reviewed movies it certainly meets some imaginary criteria.
2) Almost Famous is exclusively and importantly about a different decade. It’s a great movie but for people born in the 80’s and 90’s it cannot define a generation of cinema simply because it cannot define them. Perhaps Simmons shows his age in identifying so strongly with the film.
3) It doesn’t crack the IMDB top 50 for the decade. Sorry but for a movie to be the best of the decade (through Simmons criteria) it must resonate much stronger with mainstream society.
4) If you want to argue the people ranking movies on IMDB are philistines whose opinions are unworthy of this discussion then you bring in a wide number of movies that may not have lit up the box office but are in the talks for the best film of the decade. Well, Almost Famous, as good as it is, doesn’t make the cut there either.
More to the point, Almost Famous is a look backward. To define a decade a movie should not only be well-received critically and commercially but serve as a signpost for the evolution of film. In a decade filled with influential films such as City of God, Memento, Eternal Sunshine, Requiem For A Dream, and many others but also filled with monumental blockbusters with The Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Batman, Spiderman, and not to mention all the Pixar films picking one film is impossible. For mainstream movies it was the decade of fantasy and superheroes and for smaller, independent films it was a decade of social issues, challenging narrative structure and a digital revolution in who can make a movie.
I am very happy Almost Famous is Bill Simmons favorite movie of the decade, it is a great film, but having lived through the decade as an avid filmgoer it simply does not define the decade or exist as the best the decade had to offer.
I don’t know why I care so much about this and given that during a podcast Simmons picked The Shawshank Redemption as his defining movie of the ’90’s maybe I’m picking the wrong person to argue with. But somewhere deep within it irritates the hell out of me that Almost Famous would be picked as the movie of the ’00’s.
posted by admin on Jul 16
Caught a screening this morning and generally enjoyed the movie. We’ve come to know these characters so well it’s become closer to high quality TV rather than going to see an individual film. The wonderful thing about the first three, and possibly the fourth, movies in the series were that you could enjoy them without any knowledge of the other entries. Did not really hold true in the fifth and the sixth film, Half-Blood Prince, certainly demands the viewer have some knowledge of the previous films to have any chance at appreciating what is happening on screen. But given that it is the sixth film in the series I suppose this is unavoidable.
Watching this movie it becomes abundantly clear why the final book will be split into two parts for it’s cinematic release. We rush through several important events with plot points spilling out all over the place that director David Yates does take a few brief moments to slow down and let the characters, and the film, breath is a testament to the continued quality of the series. Having read the book they really needed another ninety minutes to properly tell the story but they do the best they can with the two and a half hour run time the the recent Potter installments all seem to fall into.
The quiet moments for the main characters force Yates to steamroll through any development of side characters often leaving a one dimensional set piece in the films wake but Rowling’s story continues to be excellent and the growth of the central characters emotionally resonant that it’s easy to forgive these transgressions.
One curious note: much of the book investigates who this mysterious Half-Blood Prince actually is but the movie has little time for this and simply reveals it in a line devoid of meaning because we’ve never been told to care who this mysterious character might be. Just felt really weird.
If you’ve enjoyed the series so far you won’t be disappointed but if you’ve had no interest in Potter-mania up to now this is not the place to start.
posted by admin on Jul 7
I’ve been slow updating the blog for several reasons but one of the good reasons is that many of my film reviews will now be featured in the Los Angeles section of Examiner.com. You can check out my personal page: here.
My first review is up and it’s of The Hurt Locker. Please check it out and more importantly check out my personal page and subscribe/favorite me. I’ll be posting links here to any new articles or reviews but it’d awesome if you subscribed and checked out any new articles when they are sent to you. I should have around three articles/reviews per week.
I’ll still be posting some mainstream reviews here as my primary focus for Examiner is Indie films so keep coming here but but a little less movie talk than before. I think that might actually make some people happy.
posted by admin on May 17
http://www.netflix.com/BeMyFriend/P5VtlxUtoqivVjs3ujXk
Become my Netflix friend.
I have close to 300 movies in my queue. You’re sure to find something interesting in what I’ve seen or what I’m about to see. Like D3: The Mighty Ducks.
posted by admin on Apr 23
In preparation for the new G.I. Joe movie coming this summer they’ve made about an hour long story releasing in ten five or six minute episodes on Adult Swim’s website. Check out G.I. Joe: Resolute here. Enough nods to the cheesiness of the show to keep the feel of 80’s cartoons but still takes itself very seriously.
It doesn’t seem to tie into the movie at all but exists to excite old fans about G.I. Joe. It certainly worked on me as my interest in the movie has gone from five to one hundred. Keep in mind this scale runs to one thousand.
What’s really amazing is how little I remember of the show. Aside from Snake Eyes and Storm Shadow (who have an absolutely badass story line in Resolute) and, of course, Cobra Commander I remember none of these characters and have no idea about the plot beyond Joe vs. Cobra. Shockingly, I remember the educational shorts at the end of episodes better than the show itself. I suppose my excellent safety record around fires, exposed wires and train tracks should have alerted me to this knowledge priorly.
posted by admin on Apr 11
To make amends for my Lost podcast malfunction I went to go see Fast & Furious last night and returned home to make a podcast about my cinematic experience. More importantly for the first time ever I have a very special guest star so you don’t have to listen to just me.
Listen to our drunken experiment.
posted by admin on Apr 8
I, actually, saw Adventureland last Friday but wanted to wait to write a review because I needed some time to see how long the film stayed with me.
The trailer leads you to believe the film will be similar in some way to Superbad and while the film does contain mistimed erections, urinating on windows, the usual drunk/high escapades of people in their early twenties the film skews significantly more dramatic then Superbad making comparisons irrelevant. This isn’t the only way the films promotion hurts itself.
If you wanted to compare it to another recent film it would have be Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist. Both films deal with honest, problematic young love but as Adventureland’s characters run a little older the problems tend to be more serious.
Jesse Eisenberg plays plays James Brennan a recent college grad who’s parents sudden financial troubles derail his plans to spend the summer in Europe and return to Columbia grad school in the fall. Discovering his literature degree provides no real world skills he is forced to take a summer job at the local amusement park. Much of the film, thematically and plot, revolve around James being a virgin. When he falls for Em (Kristen Stewart) who is, shall we say, more experienced problems ensue for them both. But not the problems you might think. The film wisely ignores any American Pie-style jokes in James’ quest to lose his virginity but uses it to symbolize the barriers of experience and expectations that hold the two apart.
Em is confronted with her own self-destructive behavior. She drinks heavily to forget her father and step-mother, the latter vocalizing her displeasure with Em often and harshly. While her father never says anything cruel to her the look on his face in one scene is much harsher then any words could be as it clearly says, “I know this is wrong but I will never apologize for putting my happiness before yours.” She leaves this broken home to sleep with a married man, Ryan Reynolds, several nights a week possibly to gain the love of an older man because of her father issues but also to avoid commitment and potential loss.
James appears better outwardly but his inner torment is apparent as he battles insecurity, naivete and a lack of self-knowledge. To say he is impressionable is a bit of an understatement as most of his actions are motivated from outside. Even the joints he so frequently shares with his new friends were a gift from his old roommate and not something he obtained of his own volition.
Comedically Bill Hader, Kristen Wiig and Matt Bush steal the movie. I’m sure the first two you know but Matt Bush you probably are most familiar with from his roll in the AT&T commercials where his mother yells at him for trying to sell their rollover minutes. He plays an old friend of James that James generally views as beneath him but Matt provides such a manic energy in nut-punching, head-band wearing loyalty you can’t help but like him. Expect to see him in larger comedic rolls in the near future.
The film is very independent in spirit as it explores a young man and woman discovering who they are and how they will define themselves. Having time to reflect on the film has improved my opinion of it greatly because it is a deep film masquerading as an upfront comedy. My one hesitation of recommending it to everyone is it falls into the trap of being a film about a young writer. As such, any writer and most critics will identify very strong with the protagonist and appreciate the film in a much more meaningful way then the average audience (see also: Sideways, Adaptation). The film is very good and highly enjoyable but anyone expecting a Superbad style comedy need not apply. And unfortunately that’s the shadow the film exists in.
