Kaos' way behind movie reviews

[Token]

Where were you for all of Page 19 of this thread? I needed some backup.

Sorry.  Didn't open the thread for a few weeks.  I'm shocked that more people didn't like the movie.  It was MUCH funnier than Paul Blart, which was completely lame IMO.  The psych interview is one of the best scenes I've seen in a movie in quite a while.

[Godfather]

Where were you for all of Page 19 of this thread? I needed some backup.

Waaaaaaaah.....so nobody liked one movie that you liked.  Well you got the bammer to rely on, so you got that going for ya.  You don't see me telling everybody to FUCK OFF for trashing the fact that I liked a feel good movie The Blindside or fuck all of you supposed movie critics and your theatrical blah blah and realism pish posh...sometimes a movie is just a movie and I don't want to have to think about it.

I like movies with boobies. Sigh...I miss Sweets.

[Token]

Waaaaaaaah.....so nobody liked one movie that you liked.  Well you got the bammer to rely on, so you got that going for ya.  You don't see me telling everybody to phuk OFF for trashing the fact that I liked a feel good movie The Blindside or phuk all of you supposed movie critics and your theatrical blah blah and realism pish posh...sometimes a movie is just a movie and I don't want to have to think about it.

I like movies with boobies. Sigh...I miss Sweets.

And just what the fuck is wrong with having me in agreement? 

[AUChizad]

Waaaaaaaah.....so nobody liked one movie that you liked.  Well you got the bammer to rely on, so you got that going for ya.  You don't see me telling everybody to FUCK OFF for trashing the fact that I liked a feel good movie The Blindside or fuck all of you supposed movie critics and your theatrical blah blah and realism pish posh...sometimes a movie is just a movie and I don't want to have to think about it.

I like movies with boobies. Sigh...I miss Sweets.

You don't see me telling anyone to fuck off either.

I was told earlier that I was the only person in the world that enjoyed this movie.

I knew it couldn't be true.

[Godfather]

You don't see me telling anyone to fuck off either.

I was told earlier that I was the only person in the world that enjoyed this movie.

I knew it couldn't be true.

Exactly a bammer

[Godfather]

You don't see me telling anyone to fuck off either.

Shit I forgot the seal



no not that one.



this one:
 

[The Prowler]

What do you think about "The Foot Fist Way" and "Garden State". Both indie and just saw them in the last few days.

I liked Garden State.  It was funnier than I thought it was going to be.

[The Prowler]

Agreed.  If it's still in a theater near you, it's even worth the price of admission.

It is one of my Top Movies for 2010.

The Crazies
Feb 26th

[Kaos]

The Final Cut

I don't know how I missed this movie when it came out.  Robin Williams plays a "cutter", basically somebody who removes a microchip from people's heads after they die and distills their entire lives into a short sentimental film played at their funeral.  GODAWFUL movie.  One of the worst I've ever seen.  It's got Mia Sorvino but she never takes off anything but a sweater.  

The concept here had some promise.  But Williams is so horrible in his role it just has zero chance of working. He's supposedly the best in the world at what he does, but when they show a "re-memory" he supposedly did it's so fucking stupid and inane I can't imagine any human being sitting through it.

There are a hundred opportunities for the movie to have some semblance of meaning -- the implication that his high profile client abused his daughter, the potential for espionage if everything a person says or sees is recorded, the possibility that people could be killed for their memories, the distasteful task of "cleaning up" a person's secret life, etc.. -- but those are all largely wasted in a horrifically bad performance by Williams, a laughable effort by Jim Caviezel's fake beard, a stupid ass back story about some childhood memory in William's past, the ridiculous pairing of Williams and Sorvino (who have less chemistry than Wilford Brimley and Richard Simmons would), an ignorant death scene and an utterly absurd side story about tattooed "anti-memory" clans.  

GODAWFUL.  Horrible movie. Utter shit.  

Where the Wild Things Are

I would have preferred Spike Jonze simply film himself taking Maurice Sendak's book, ripping each page out and wiping his ass with it for two hours over this overstuffed, angst-ridden, bloated piece of crap that defiled a book I had a great affinity for as a child.  

This movie took the simple meaning of Sendak's book, buried it in an avalanche of psycho-pop babble and then took a masssive shit on it.  

The movie certainly wasn't for kids because it provides ABSOLUTELY no lesson or opportunity to grow. On top of that, the story is so slathered in morose adult moping (and he drops a few damn's and hell's in there to prove just how adult Spike really is) that no child would be willing to sit through the dreck.  It was BORING.

Was it for adults?  Nope.  Boring again.  

There was no meaning to the mayhem.  At least out of Sendak's book I drew some meaning.   In dealing with the monsters (all of which were essentially inside him), Max discovered a way to cope. He learned that being "king" really isn't all that great.  

Maybe the movie attempted to convey that same sentiment, but it failed in a spectacular manner to do so.

I loved the book and was really looking forward to this movie.  When I saw the initial returns (and watched a preview I considered to be shockingly badly done) I waited for the DVD.  I wish now I'd skipped even that.  

Piss poor effort.  I don't think Jonze (why doesn't the bastard spell his name right) understood what the book was actually about.  

[wesfau2]

Where the Wild Things Are

I would have preferred Spike Jonze simply film himself taking Maurice Sendak's book, ripping each page out and wiping his ass with it for two hours over this overstuffed, angst-ridden, bloated piece of crap that defiled a book I had a great affinity for as a child.  

This movie took the simple meaning of Sendak's book, buried it in an avalanche of psycho-pop babble and then took a masssive shit on it.  

The movie certainly wasn't for kids because it provides ABSOLUTELY no lesson or opportunity to grow. On top of that, the story is so slathered in morose adult moping (and he drops a few damn's and hell's in there to prove just how adult Spike really is) that no child would be willing to sit through the dreck.  It was BORING.

Was it for adults?  Nope.  Boring again.  

There was no meaning to the mayhem.  At least out of Sendak's book I drew some meaning.   In dealing with the monsters (all of which were essentially inside him), Max discovered a way to cope. He learned that being "king" really isn't all that great.  

Maybe the movie attempted to convey that same sentiment, but it failed in a spectacular manner to do so.

I loved the book and was really looking forward to this movie.  When I saw the initial returns (and watched a preview I considered to be shockingly badly done) I waited for the DVD.  I wish now I'd skipped even that.  

Piss poor effort.  I don't think Jonze (why doesn't the bastard spell his name right) understood what the book was actually about.  

To each his own.  I enjoyed this adaptation.  Watched a short on the making of and Sendak had nothing but praise for Jonez and the final product.

[Kaos]

To each his own.  I enjoyed this adaptation.  Watched a short on the making of and Sendak had nothing but praise for Jonez and the final product.

He's old and drinks a lot apparently.

[wesfau2]

He's old and drinks a lot apparently.

Clearly. 

[Kaos]

So explain it to me.  I'd really like to know what I missed. Here are the objections.

The book had meaning on two levels. For kids it was a silly fantasy about a boy who becomes king of the monsters before finally realizing that home was where he needed to be. Although the monsters were at first scary they became fun. Colorful, wild, free. All the things the boy thought he wanted to be. 

 For adults the book explored the efforts of a child to grapple with all the new and scary emotins bubbling in the boys mind. Each monster represented an emotion or urge that needed to be controlled. In doing so the boy learned not to fear what was inside but  conquer it. By conquering the beasts as we all must Max discovers he can exist in civilization even if the beasts still howl.

My opinion: the movie failed to express that.

By making the monsters drab and dingy it missed the mark if it intended to draw a child's attention. Where was the color?

By making the monsters kvetching pseudo hippies who wrestled with complex adult themes beyond the realm of the average seven year old, the film failed to sufficently illustrate that each represented a part of Max. What part of Max was a jealous Jewish shrew supposed to reflect?

Where was the realization that mayhem for mayhem's sake grows tiresome?

The decision to return home was devoid of reason and logic. There was no moment of clarity or discernablr impetus other than the need to keep the film under three hours.

I guess my biggest question is where was the fun?  The book was alive and vibrant. The book was fun. This movie was not fun. It was not alive. It was not vibrant.  It just didn't ring true.

I'd like to know what you saw differently. I will try again if you make a valid argument. I hated Pulp Fiction the first time. It's a favorite now. 

[AUChizad]

Extract

Mike Judge is known for skewering social commentary.  Beavis and Butthead helped create an entirely new way of looking at the world (and at comedy).   Office Space is amazing in its ability to capture the pointlessness, frustration and dullness of the corporate world.  King of the Hill -- even though I didn't much care for it -- skillfully carved up mundane suburbia in a less vulgar and disturbing way than the crude Family Guy.

In Extract, though, he moved away from what he does best. There was no social commentary. He didn't shine a light on a particular way of life and expose its banality.  Instead he attempted to tell a relatively tame story of personal discovery and redemption.  

It wasn't his best work, but it wasn't horrible.  It was just a little flat and two-dimensional.  

Jason Bateman was adequate.  Much better in this role than he was in Couple's Retreat.  

Ben Affleck is a significantly better supporting actor than he is a leading man. He was good here although he was essentially channeling Lawrence (Diedrich Bader's role in Office Space).  

JK Simmons (one of my favorite actors since his turn as Schillinger the Nazi in Oz) was essentially wasted in a minor role.

Mila Kunis upped her worth with a good performance even though her role didn't really require her to do much beyond look super hot.  Having seen her in Book of Eli and knowing that she's capable of more, that made her understated performance here even more appreciated. And did I mention she was super hot to look at?

Kristen Wiig, who I don't care for at all on SNL, actually looked pretty hot in this movie.  Sexy even.  That was a pleasant surprise.  

Gene Simmons, well... Gene needs to stick to singing. He was over the top and should have taken a little more time to learn his lines.  For somebody who's in front of thousands on a nightly basis, you'd think he would understand a little better how to play a role.  

Overall not a bad movie.  I just expected a little more depth, particularly since Judge was at the helm.  I expected it to have a little more to say.  

Wiig



Kunis

I just watched this tonight. I thought I remembered your review more scathing, so I was going to disagree.

I liked it a lot. You forgot Idiocracy, which was Judge's biggest departure (although I liked it a lot as well). I recommend this movie for sure.

[wesfau2]

So explain it to me.  I'd really like to know what I missed. Here are the objections.

The book had meaning on two levels. For kids it was a silly fantasy about a boy who becomes king of the monsters before finally realizing that home was where he needed to be. Although the monsters were at first scary they became fun. Colorful, wild, free. All the things the boy thought he wanted to be. 

 For adults the book explored the efforts of a child to grapple with all the new and scary emotins bubbling in the boys mind. Each monster represented an emotion or urge that needed to be controlled. In doing so the boy learned not to fear what was inside but  conquer it. By conquering the beasts as we all must Max discovers he can exist in civilization even if the beasts still howl.

My opinion: the movie failed to express that.

By making the monsters drab and dingy it missed the mark if it intended to draw a child's attention. Where was the color?

By making the monsters kvetching pseudo hippies who wrestled with complex adult themes beyond the realm of the average seven year old, the film failed to sufficently illustrate that each represented a part of Max. What part of Max was a jealous Jewish shrew supposed to reflect?

Where was the realization that mayhem for mayhem's sake grows tiresome?

The decision to return home was devoid of reason and logic. There was no moment of clarity or discernablr impetus other than the need to keep the film under three hours.

I guess my biggest question is where was the fun?  The book was alive and vibrant. The book was fun. This movie was not fun. It was not alive. It was not vibrant.  It just didn't ring true.

I'd like to know what you saw differently. I will try again if you make a valid argument. I hated Pulp Fiction the first time. It's a favorite now. 

I'm not going to try and convince you to like the movie.  Either you do or you don't...for entirely personal reasons.  I was merely noting that, despite your railing about its failure to grasp the story/meaning, the book's author was very pleased with both director and movie.  Presumably that means that Sendak doesn't think Jonez "didn't get it" or missed the themes.

[Kaos]

I'm not going to try and convince you to like the movie.  Either you do or you don't...for entirely personal reasons.  I was merely noting that, despite your railing about its failure to grasp the story/meaning, the book's author was very pleased with both director and movie.  Presumably that means that Sendak doesn't think Jonez "didn't get it" or missed the themes.

So we're back to the fact that he's old and apparently intoxicated or sedated. 

[wesfau2]

So we're back to the fact that he's old and apparently intoxicated or sedated. 

Clearly.

[wesfau2]

Extract

Mike Judge is known for skewering social commentary.  Beavis and Butthead helped create an entirely new way of looking at the world (and at comedy).   Office Space is amazing in its ability to capture the pointlessness, frustration and dullness of the corporate world.  King of the Hill -- even though I didn't much care for it -- skillfully carved up mundane suburbia in a less vulgar and disturbing way than the crude Family Guy.

In Extract, though, he moved away from what he does best. There was no social commentary. He didn't shine a light on a particular way of life and expose its banality.  Instead he attempted to tell a relatively tame story of personal discovery and redemption.  

It wasn't his best work, but it wasn't horrible.  It was just a little flat and two-dimensional.  

Jason Bateman was adequate.  Much better in this role than he was in Couple's Retreat.  

Ben Affleck is a significantly better supporting actor than he is a leading man. He was good here although he was essentially channeling Lawrence (Diedrich Bader's role in Office Space).  

JK Simmons (one of my favorite actors since his turn as Schillinger the Nazi in Oz) was essentially wasted in a minor role.

Mila Kunis upped her worth with a good performance even though her role didn't really require her to do much beyond look super hot.  Having seen her in Book of Eli and knowing that she's capable of more, that made her understated performance here even more appreciated. And did I mention she was super hot to look at?

Kristen Wiig, who I don't care for at all on SNL, actually looked pretty hot in this movie.  Sexy even.  That was a pleasant surprise.  

Gene Simmons, well... Gene needs to stick to singing. He was over the top and should have taken a little more time to learn his lines.  For somebody who's in front of thousands on a nightly basis, you'd think he would understand a little better how to play a role.  

Overall not a bad movie.  I just expected a little more depth, particularly since Judge was at the helm.  I expected it to have a little more to say.  

Wiig



Kunis

Watched this over the weekend.  I have to agree with this review in its entirety.  Decent flick, but I expect more of Judge.

[Townhallsavoy]

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

Holy hell, how did I go through 25 years of life without seeing this movie?  I always thought those old Clint Eastwood Westerns were just another generation of John Wayne movies. 

Complete in almost every way possible except for the lack of naked chicks, but I think that would have detracted from the story a bit. 

I now have Fistful of Dollars and Once Upon a Time in the West in queue on Netflix.  Can't wait.

Also, Ecstasy of Gold is one of the most epic movie songs of all time. 

[AUChizad]

Watched Harry Brown today.

Basically the British version of Gran Torino. Good shit.