by Mr. Blunderson
From time to time I'm going to be putting my money (hahahahaha) where my mouth is and go out on a limb and make predictions for the weekend movies. This is based on the theory that any idiot can do this... cause if we're talking about any idiot, my name always seems to come up.
Knocked Up - This is going to be a great movie, that's all there is too it. The only thing that will keep this film from making a ton of money is if movie goers are feeling buyers remorse over the last few movies that have hit the box office. This is a movie that will push a lot of limits, and I love that. This is the sort of movie that will forcibly pick you up out of your seat to bitch slap the people that brought their kids (and will have them all cursing trough osmosis anyway). It will be funny, it will be foul, it will be one of the best quality movies of the summer.
Mr. Brooks - I am not one of those people who is convinced that Dane Cook's fan's care to see him demonstrate his "range" as an actor at this point in time. Another thing I can tell you about Dane Cook Fans is that many are too young to have been alive the last time Kevin Costner was in a movie that didn't totally suck balls... or at least they weren't very old at the time. Even if this happens to be the best serial killer movie ever made I can't see it being embraced by the masses. Look for this one to be a stinker, but if it does open well (hahahahahaha) it will be on the strength of 20 somethings who love Dane Cook and hope he might provide at least a little comic relief. If that happens, look for a modest to gargantuan drop off in week two.
I'll be back next week with some more crap no one will read.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Continue to expect dumb movies at the box office
General Commentary by Mr. Blunderson.
There is a reason you should expect to see dumb movies at your local movie house.
So far, this summer has seen three huge releases that each broke records in their own right. All three were critically panned as being the weakest link in their respective franchises yet still managed to make barrels and barrels of cash.
Red flags that might have been raised about plot, character development, or cohesion in general are being replaced by gargantuan monetary revenues. Who in the industry will argue against the mighty dollar? They are the money making business after all, and as long as they are raking in the cash the Hollywood machine will keep cranking out the movies that "look good" but are otherwise dumb and unsatisfying. If any of these (Pirates 3, Shrek 3, Spiderman 3) films had been turned in as an assignment in a freshman creative writing class they would have been returned with a massive red F and an overwhelming stench of urine. It would have been the example of what not to do in story telling. Instead, it's movie audiences who will be the ones getting pissed on time and time again.
The audience is as much to blame as anyone. I hear people complaining about ticket prices but continue to visit theaters. Complaints like that are not going to heard by anyone. You want to send a message Hollywood will hear? Stay home. You want more for you entertainment buck? Walk out of the movie and demand your money back. Don't buy the movie on DVD either.
I hear people talking about how much they need escapism in "times like these." Perhaps we're all doing way too much escaping when we should be doing something that might matter.
But I digress...
Expect movies to get bigger and more expensive. Expect effects to get better and player salaries more bloated. Expect to be forced to check not only your brain at the door but all sense of rhyme and reason as well. But DO NOT hold your breath for anything new and original since the three big movies of the summer that have made piles and piles of money were also each the THIRD installment of a franchise.
As for me, I'm getting really tired of the same old crap.
There is a reason you should expect to see dumb movies at your local movie house.
So far, this summer has seen three huge releases that each broke records in their own right. All three were critically panned as being the weakest link in their respective franchises yet still managed to make barrels and barrels of cash.
Red flags that might have been raised about plot, character development, or cohesion in general are being replaced by gargantuan monetary revenues. Who in the industry will argue against the mighty dollar? They are the money making business after all, and as long as they are raking in the cash the Hollywood machine will keep cranking out the movies that "look good" but are otherwise dumb and unsatisfying. If any of these (Pirates 3, Shrek 3, Spiderman 3) films had been turned in as an assignment in a freshman creative writing class they would have been returned with a massive red F and an overwhelming stench of urine. It would have been the example of what not to do in story telling. Instead, it's movie audiences who will be the ones getting pissed on time and time again.
The audience is as much to blame as anyone. I hear people complaining about ticket prices but continue to visit theaters. Complaints like that are not going to heard by anyone. You want to send a message Hollywood will hear? Stay home. You want more for you entertainment buck? Walk out of the movie and demand your money back. Don't buy the movie on DVD either.
I hear people talking about how much they need escapism in "times like these." Perhaps we're all doing way too much escaping when we should be doing something that might matter.
But I digress...
Expect movies to get bigger and more expensive. Expect effects to get better and player salaries more bloated. Expect to be forced to check not only your brain at the door but all sense of rhyme and reason as well. But DO NOT hold your breath for anything new and original since the three big movies of the summer that have made piles and piles of money were also each the THIRD installment of a franchise.
As for me, I'm getting really tired of the same old crap.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
REVIEW - Catch and Release
Written & Directed by Sussanah Grant
PG -13 - 124 minutes
Released October 20, 2006
I may have mentioned before, as an agoraphobic film critic one is always at the mercy of that soul kind enough to bring movies in to watch. In my case it is my wife who does my dirty work (so to speak), and so I occasionally fall victim to the inevitable chick flick. Catch and Release most definitely falls into that category, and I enjoy a good chick flick from time to time and I have to admit I enjoyed this film quite a bit.
The worst thing I have to say about this movie is that it follows a tired and overused formula. When you break it down to the basics, Hollywood only knows how to tell one kind of love story: A couple falls in love, the lovers separate in order to necessitate a third act, the lovers reconcile thanks to the heroic effort of one (or sometimes both) to save the relationship.
I think I just described the plot of about five thousand movies. This is the basic structure of Catch and Release but there are a few things that kept it interesting and watchable. The premise (a woman spends what should have been her wedding day at the funeral of her fiance) is enough to keep the entire film teetering on the edge of being wildly depressing, but manages enough humor and warmth to keep it from slipping into the abyss.
It doesn't hurt that there is a strong Kevin Smith presence here. For me, the most biased critic on the Internet, that makes the movie right there. I was also mildly surprised at how the mother in-law and "other woman" turned out. I like characters who don't pan out as you might expect them to.
Jennifer Garner was not too bad. I have not seen any of her movies prior to this one, and I didn't watch Alias so this was really my first exposure. The rest of the cast managed some decent chemistry. In a movie like this it's the supporting ensemble that does the heavy lifting and I think they did an admirable job here. Although when someone can explain to me how the love interest could ever be named "Fritz" I will probably understand this movie a lot better. Every time I heard the name spoken I imagined Jennifer Garner kissing a reject from the Von Trapp family (liederhossen and all).
Like I said, I enjoyed this movie. I didn't love it but I sure as hell liked it. For that, Catch and Release gets a "Mostly Decent" on the Mr. Blunderson scale.
PG -13 - 124 minutes
Released October 20, 2006
I may have mentioned before, as an agoraphobic film critic one is always at the mercy of that soul kind enough to bring movies in to watch. In my case it is my wife who does my dirty work (so to speak), and so I occasionally fall victim to the inevitable chick flick. Catch and Release most definitely falls into that category, and I enjoy a good chick flick from time to time and I have to admit I enjoyed this film quite a bit.
The worst thing I have to say about this movie is that it follows a tired and overused formula. When you break it down to the basics, Hollywood only knows how to tell one kind of love story: A couple falls in love, the lovers separate in order to necessitate a third act, the lovers reconcile thanks to the heroic effort of one (or sometimes both) to save the relationship.
I think I just described the plot of about five thousand movies. This is the basic structure of Catch and Release but there are a few things that kept it interesting and watchable. The premise (a woman spends what should have been her wedding day at the funeral of her fiance) is enough to keep the entire film teetering on the edge of being wildly depressing, but manages enough humor and warmth to keep it from slipping into the abyss.
It doesn't hurt that there is a strong Kevin Smith presence here. For me, the most biased critic on the Internet, that makes the movie right there. I was also mildly surprised at how the mother in-law and "other woman" turned out. I like characters who don't pan out as you might expect them to.
Jennifer Garner was not too bad. I have not seen any of her movies prior to this one, and I didn't watch Alias so this was really my first exposure. The rest of the cast managed some decent chemistry. In a movie like this it's the supporting ensemble that does the heavy lifting and I think they did an admirable job here. Although when someone can explain to me how the love interest could ever be named "Fritz" I will probably understand this movie a lot better. Every time I heard the name spoken I imagined Jennifer Garner kissing a reject from the Von Trapp family (liederhossen and all).
Like I said, I enjoyed this movie. I didn't love it but I sure as hell liked it. For that, Catch and Release gets a "Mostly Decent" on the Mr. Blunderson scale.
A Word from Big C vol. 5
I haven't posted anything new from Big C in a while. This is strictly my bad. He's still on the scene and watching movies, I just haven't gotten my lazy arse around to posting it. In a pathetic attempt to rectify the situation, I am back today with a monster Big C update. Not one, not even two, but three movies. Oh yes, you read that correctly.
Keep in mind that I am uber-tired right now so I may not have all of this quite right.
If memory serves, C enjoyed The Condemned, and reports that Smokin Aces was great. I had suggested he turn the latter movie off after the guy gets his keys back, and he said that would have been okay but the change of tone for the end didn't ruin it for him. This is why I love Big C, he is a true movie buff where I am a movie snob. We both love movies, but in the end I suspect he enjoys them more than I do. For that I am just a bit jealous.
Big C also delved into the realm of family entertainment long enough to recommend Aurthur and the Invisibles.
Keep in mind that I am uber-tired right now so I may not have all of this quite right.
If memory serves, C enjoyed The Condemned, and reports that Smokin Aces was great. I had suggested he turn the latter movie off after the guy gets his keys back, and he said that would have been okay but the change of tone for the end didn't ruin it for him. This is why I love Big C, he is a true movie buff where I am a movie snob. We both love movies, but in the end I suspect he enjoys them more than I do. For that I am just a bit jealous.
Big C also delved into the realm of family entertainment long enough to recommend Aurthur and the Invisibles.
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
REVIEW - SPIDERMAN 3
There are a lot of things that would have made sense about Spiderman 3. The need to do something bigger and better, the need to not repeat the last two films (oops on that score though), keeping the franchise moving forward blah, blah, blah. Does that excuse the jumbled kinetic excitement of the third installment?
For me the answer is no.
Sam Raimi put so much on the screen, so many new characters and sub plots, that as I look back I can't help but wonder how many things in this movie could have been sacrificed for the benefit of a more cohesive, kickass, finished product. There were times while I was watching the movie that I wondered why even bother? I was waiting for the meat of the story to arrive but all I got were accoutrements. This is a recipe for tedium to say the least.
The filmmakers made Sandman troubled and complicated in the vein of Dr. Octopus in the second film, but insisted on doing it in only a fraction of the time. If you don't believe me, ask yourself how many times a guy has to look at a locket to remind EVERYONE that he "didn't ask for this," and that he's "not a bad guy." It would have been interesting to see a real commitment to making it a little more genuine. For me, the the Flint Marko storyline was as close as I got to Alvin Sargent's voice coming through the mess of a screenplay. Too bad it felt a bit (sarcasm) truncated for the sake of two other villains and a bunch of other crap that I really didn't care about in the end.
Venom had potential but the scene where he "teams up" with Sandman in order to kill Spiderman was the straw that broke the camel's back for this viewer. It felt forced and pathetic--coming across like some really bad fan fic. Most likely they took that road to avoid the movie potentially being another 20 or 30 minutes. Whether that was the case or not it was a cop out of the worst ilk. But what gets cut from the movie if they do it right? Something has to go as there is too much time spent on MJ's angst, Harry's revenge, Parker's ego, Gwen Stacy (Bryce Dallas Howard get away from me already) the relationship friction and breakup, evil Peter (you can tell he's bad when he wears his bangs down) and on and on and on. AND why, oh why Sammy, did you open the movie with a musical number? If I want song and dance I'll see West Side Story (I own the DVD). Spiderman 3 had not one, not two, but three musical numbers if you count emo Peter's jazz dancing at the club. When the action finally starts, it's Peter getting knocked off his wannabe-Vespa which I'd seen already but I have to admit it always makes me chuckle seeing someone with superpowers cruising around town on something that Arnold Schwarzenegger could use to pick his teeth.
This all bothers me so much because this franchise couldn't be in more capable hands. I'm left wondering if this really was a film directed by Sam Raimi with a screenplay by Alvin Sargent. These are two guys who know better. They have respectively made and written great movies and this doesn't feel like their best. If Paul WS Anderson or Bret Ratner had made this movie it would easily be the best movie they had ever made. Hell, most of Hollywood will never make a movie this good, but the bar had been set high enough by the previous installments that this ultimately feels like a real disappointment.
Now that I got all that off my chest, I can get to what's good.
Effects were pretty good, especially the sandstorms. The picture looked good. Performances were on the ball especially James Franco, who really shined this time around even though I could never stop staring at his teeth (is it me or are they unnaturally straight?) I dug that James Cromwell was in this movie, but it's too bad he didn't have more to do because he rules. Stan Lee finally gets a line! And god help me, I actually dug the part where Peter Parker was going around town doing his emo John Travolta shtick. One word: hysterical. Useless, but hysterical. And don't forget Bruce Campbell, who proves once again why he makes every movie he's in a little better. Another bit that stuck out was J Jonah getting shafted by the girl with the camera. Too bad he was only on screen for maybe 2 minutes.
This is a movie with a lot of ambition. Your best bet is to not over-think it as I have. Check your brain at the door, dive into your popcorn with both hands, and say "ooh aah" at the appropriate times and you'll be just fine. If you can do that, you'll get why this movie rates a "Just Decent" on the Mr. Blunderson scale.
For me the answer is no.
Sam Raimi put so much on the screen, so many new characters and sub plots, that as I look back I can't help but wonder how many things in this movie could have been sacrificed for the benefit of a more cohesive, kickass, finished product. There were times while I was watching the movie that I wondered why even bother? I was waiting for the meat of the story to arrive but all I got were accoutrements. This is a recipe for tedium to say the least.
The filmmakers made Sandman troubled and complicated in the vein of Dr. Octopus in the second film, but insisted on doing it in only a fraction of the time. If you don't believe me, ask yourself how many times a guy has to look at a locket to remind EVERYONE that he "didn't ask for this," and that he's "not a bad guy." It would have been interesting to see a real commitment to making it a little more genuine. For me, the the Flint Marko storyline was as close as I got to Alvin Sargent's voice coming through the mess of a screenplay. Too bad it felt a bit (sarcasm) truncated for the sake of two other villains and a bunch of other crap that I really didn't care about in the end.
Venom had potential but the scene where he "teams up" with Sandman in order to kill Spiderman was the straw that broke the camel's back for this viewer. It felt forced and pathetic--coming across like some really bad fan fic. Most likely they took that road to avoid the movie potentially being another 20 or 30 minutes. Whether that was the case or not it was a cop out of the worst ilk. But what gets cut from the movie if they do it right? Something has to go as there is too much time spent on MJ's angst, Harry's revenge, Parker's ego, Gwen Stacy (Bryce Dallas Howard get away from me already) the relationship friction and breakup, evil Peter (you can tell he's bad when he wears his bangs down) and on and on and on. AND why, oh why Sammy, did you open the movie with a musical number? If I want song and dance I'll see West Side Story (I own the DVD). Spiderman 3 had not one, not two, but three musical numbers if you count emo Peter's jazz dancing at the club. When the action finally starts, it's Peter getting knocked off his wannabe-Vespa which I'd seen already but I have to admit it always makes me chuckle seeing someone with superpowers cruising around town on something that Arnold Schwarzenegger could use to pick his teeth.
This all bothers me so much because this franchise couldn't be in more capable hands. I'm left wondering if this really was a film directed by Sam Raimi with a screenplay by Alvin Sargent. These are two guys who know better. They have respectively made and written great movies and this doesn't feel like their best. If Paul WS Anderson or Bret Ratner had made this movie it would easily be the best movie they had ever made. Hell, most of Hollywood will never make a movie this good, but the bar had been set high enough by the previous installments that this ultimately feels like a real disappointment.
Now that I got all that off my chest, I can get to what's good.
Effects were pretty good, especially the sandstorms. The picture looked good. Performances were on the ball especially James Franco, who really shined this time around even though I could never stop staring at his teeth (is it me or are they unnaturally straight?) I dug that James Cromwell was in this movie, but it's too bad he didn't have more to do because he rules. Stan Lee finally gets a line! And god help me, I actually dug the part where Peter Parker was going around town doing his emo John Travolta shtick. One word: hysterical. Useless, but hysterical. And don't forget Bruce Campbell, who proves once again why he makes every movie he's in a little better. Another bit that stuck out was J Jonah getting shafted by the girl with the camera. Too bad he was only on screen for maybe 2 minutes.
This is a movie with a lot of ambition. Your best bet is to not over-think it as I have. Check your brain at the door, dive into your popcorn with both hands, and say "ooh aah" at the appropriate times and you'll be just fine. If you can do that, you'll get why this movie rates a "Just Decent" on the Mr. Blunderson scale.
Sunday, May 6, 2007
REVIEW - Man with the Screaming Brain
Written & Directed by Bruce Campbell
90 Minutes - not rated
Would it be too horrible if I told you my feelings about this movie were of two minds? On one hand, Bruce Campbell is the man, he is god, this (and every other movie he has been in) is an awesome movie. On the other hand, I expected more.
That being said, I liked it immensely even though it is not a great film. It probably borders on a bad film, but with the performances of Campbell and Ted Raimi there is enough to keep a true fan watching until the credits roll. Stacey Keach obviously had a ton of fun as the mad scientist, and I enjoyed watching him with his crazy hair and his silly accent talking to the bust of his mentor.
Although there are plenty of people who won't enjoy it, I still give this movie a "Way Decent" and a "your loss if you hate it" on the Mr. Blunderson scale.
90 Minutes - not rated
Would it be too horrible if I told you my feelings about this movie were of two minds? On one hand, Bruce Campbell is the man, he is god, this (and every other movie he has been in) is an awesome movie. On the other hand, I expected more.
That being said, I liked it immensely even though it is not a great film. It probably borders on a bad film, but with the performances of Campbell and Ted Raimi there is enough to keep a true fan watching until the credits roll. Stacey Keach obviously had a ton of fun as the mad scientist, and I enjoyed watching him with his crazy hair and his silly accent talking to the bust of his mentor.
Although there are plenty of people who won't enjoy it, I still give this movie a "Way Decent" and a "your loss if you hate it" on the Mr. Blunderson scale.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)