The Zone

by **Spandau Belly** on Wed Sep 07, 2011 2:13 pm

It's definately art for art's sake. I'm pretty sure Van Sant knew the film would never be enjoyed as a movie in itself. I just wished he'd had a better idea of exactly what he was going for with this experiment and it would've been nice if he had thought out the details a lot more.

If he had gone into it saying he way going to remake it in colour, but leave the story set in the 60s and get a new bunch of actors to strive to do exact impersonations of the original cast and all this was to prove that if a classic film was released today, people wouldn't like it, that would've been a more interesting experiment. But like Bax and I were saying, he waffled and changed some things and never made up his mind as to how retro the movie was supposed to look and feel. So like most remakes, it ended up just being a comparison of two films instead of a comparison of two audiences.

by **Peven** on Sun Sep 11, 2011 12:54 am

art for art's sake? too bad Stallone has no concept of that sentiment, his is "bad for bad's sake" and it makes him money....

by **SilentScream** on Sun Sep 11, 2011 8:03 am

Peven wrote:art for art's sake? too bad Stallone has no concept of that sentiment, his is "bad for bad's sake" and it makes him money....

Never understood that term myself. 'Art for Art's sake'?' Does it basically mean dressing up any old pretentious shit that 'ordinary plebs' cannot understand?
Nah, don't fink so.

by **Spandau Belly** on Sun Sep 11, 2011 12:59 pm

SilentScream wrote:Never understood that term myself. 'Art for Art's sake'?' Does it basically mean dressing up any old pretentious shit that 'ordinary plebs' cannot understand?
Nah, don't fink so.

I would say art for art's sake is anything where the focus is more on the art form and context than the content. Doing something in a way that is a challenge just to see if you can do it and how it will turn out.

And there's no need to dress up pretentious shit, it's already wearing a tux.

by **John-Locke** on Sun Sep 11, 2011 1:11 pm

Last night I watched Stuart: A Life Backwards, Starring Tom Hardy and Benedict Cumberbatch.

It was a 2007 BBC/HBO Co-Production so it's low in budget but it makes up for that in it's terrific performances from the then two up-and-coming actors, It's without a doubt the best I've seen Hardy, even better than Bronson in his physical transformation and dedication to the role.

I'm not going to say anything about the plot because that would spoil it, just seek it out and watch it.

by **Peven** on Sun Sep 11, 2011 1:21 pm

Spandau Belly wrote:
SilentScream wrote:Never understood that term myself. 'Art for Art's sake'?' Does it basically mean dressing up any old pretentious shit that 'ordinary plebs' cannot understand?
Nah, don't fink so.

I would say art for art's sake is anything where the focus is more on the art form and context than the content. Doing something in a way that is a challenge just to see if you can do it and how it will turn out.

And there's no need to dress up pretentious shit, it's already wearing a tux.

what is "pretentious shit"? art that doesn't try to talk down to it's audience ? art that requires some real thought and investment from the audience? art is about expression and if an artist feels that "dressing up" his/her work better expresses what he/she is trying to say than anyone who claims to respect or appreciate art should understand that, whether or not they like the final product or not.

imo pretentious is making a movie with the intention of making it poorly, sloppily, cheesy, and then trying to claim that is a genre, an art form that deserves any kind of respect.

by **Spandau Belly** on Sun Sep 11, 2011 1:31 pm

Peven wrote:what is "pretentious shit"? art that doesn't try to talk down to it's audience ?

People use the word 'pretentious' a lot when talking about movies. For the most part, you can call any movie you don't like pretentious because the people making it think it is worth watching and you don't; therefore you can call them cocky and arrogant about demanding money and time to watch their shitty product.

I mostly try to avoid using this word.

by **Ribbons** on Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:18 pm

To me art for art's sake is just anything that isn't made with any consideration for anybody besides the people making it... although I'm not sure a Hollywood movie matching that definition technically exists. But there are storytellers who will consciously tweak the story they're telling based on what they think an audience would want to see, and others who will just make what they feel like and hope people will want to see it.

by **TonyWilson** on Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:32 pm

Spandau Belly wrote:
Peven wrote:what is "pretentious shit"? art that doesn't try to talk down to it's audience ?

People use the word 'pretentious' a lot when talking about movies. For the most part, you can call any movie you don't like pretentious because the people making it think it is worth watching and you don't; therefore you can call them cocky and arrogant about demanding money and time to watch their shitty product.

I mostly try to avoid using this word.

I love you forever, SB.

by **Bloo** on Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:21 pm

SO I watched BRIDESMAIDS while working on payroll and scheduling at work today.

It's hard for me to believe that this got such favorable reviews and popularity. Maybe it's because I'm not a middle aged white woman with best friend issues or maybe it's because I'm Oleg and we run on pure testosterone, but I don't see the appeal. Or maybe I just liked this movie a whole lot better when it was called I LOVE YOU MAN.

Because that's what this was, I Love You Man, with chicks, which was kind of the point of ILYM. It was the "bromantic comedy", this was chicks fighting over a bride (who was too self centered to notice that her supposedly best friend was having issues). Instead of Rush, in this it was Paris and Wilson Phillips. Instead of cute, concerned Rashida Jones, we get self centered Mya Rudolph. Instead of nervous, anxious, and somewhat failing Paul Rudd, we get bitchy self-centered Kristen Wigg. And instead of a slightly off kilter, yet has his best interests at heart Jason Segal, we get a bitchy, self-centered, with her own interests at heart (albeit cute) Rose Byrne.

You know who was fucking awesome in this, the limited parts for men. Jon Hamm, fucking awesome, particularly in a scene where he's asking Wigg to go down on him while he's driving. Chris O'Dowd was very good as the nervous yet well intentioned cop/love interest. There's a scene with a mechanic (played by Richard Riehle) that said more about about O'Dowd's character then anything else. There was also a really funny bit at the beginning with Terry Crews that really went no where after that, it really served no purpose and would have probably been either a)cut or b) not as funny with anyone OTHER then Crews in it.

So yeah this was pretty much a waste of my time.

by **caruso_stalker217** on Fri Sep 23, 2011 12:24 am

Well FUCK! My entire weekend is SHOT.

by **Bloo** on Fri Sep 23, 2011 1:28 am

caruso_stalker217 wrote:Well FUCK! My entire weekend is SHOT.

that's what I'm hear for

by **TheBaxter** on Fri Sep 23, 2011 9:56 am

caruso_stalker217 wrote:Well FUCK! My entire weekend is SHOT.

don't despair. The Help is still playing in theaters, and i think Valentine's Day just got released on blu-ray.

by **caruso_stalker217** on Fri Sep 23, 2011 2:48 pm

TheBaxter wrote:
caruso_stalker217 wrote:Well FUCK! My entire weekend is SHOT.

don't despair. The Help is still playing in theaters, and i think Valentine's Day just got released on blu-ray.

by **SilentScream** on Sat Sep 24, 2011 10:52 am

Working myself through some classic Laurel & Hardy shorts from a huge box set a mate has lent me.

Absolutely hilarious.

Also watched a bizarre Polish flick called The Hourglass Sanatorium, a surreal and totally off the radar experience that makes Gilliam and Jodorowsky look ordinary. Fans of those two should appreciate this. Peculiar and quite, quite strange.

by **GerryMcD** on Thu Sep 29, 2011 9:42 am

Wrecked

Adrien Brody rocked in this movie! My favorite performance of his since Darjeeling Limited. 127 Hours meets Memento, that's how I would describe it. A guy wakes up with amnesia, bruised and battered, in a wrecked car at the bottom of a ravine. Dead body in the back seat. The plot ensues from there. A few nice twists get thrown into the mix along the way. Highly recommend this flick!

Carlos

The story of Venezuelan revolutionary Ilich Ramírez Sánchez (aka Carlos The Jackal), who founded a worldwide terrorist organization and raided the 1975 OPEC meeting. Primarily a fictional depiction of the real events. Really cool stuff. It originally aired as TV mini series and it won a Golden Globe in 2010. Great, great flick. Édgar Ramírez, who plays Carlos, is a total badass.

Saint

Wow. What more can you say about a film that depicts a killer Santa Claus? This film was really entertaining. For me, it ranks right up there with Black Sheep in terms of horror-comedies. Fans of the genre, this is a must-see!

Love, Wedding, Marriage

Romantic comedy film directed by Dermot Mulroney, starring Mandy Moore and Kellan Lutz. I thought both of the leads were great in this. Was happy to see Mandy Moore getting back into film - she's beautiful and has excellent screen presence.

Chalet Girl

Very solid rom-com, starring Ed Westwick, Felicity Jones, Bill Nighy, Brooke Shields, and Sophia Bush. Frankly I was a little surprised I hadn't heard of it sooner - I thought it was hysterical!

by **Hermanator X** on Thu Sep 29, 2011 2:11 pm

Watched Menace II Society last night.
Its one that ive always been aware of, but never got round to watching. Quite a gut punch of a movie, or many gut punches and very few pulled.
Fairly depressing, but very well made, and the soundtrack was ace.

by **John-Locke** on Thu Sep 29, 2011 4:20 pm

SilentScream wrote:Also watched a bizarre Polish flick called The Hourglass Sanatorium, a surreal and totally off the radar experience that makes Gilliam and Jodorowsky look ordinary. Fans of those two should appreciate this. Peculiar and quite, quite strange.

WANT!

by **SilentScream** on Fri Sep 30, 2011 11:53 am

John-Locke wrote:
SilentScream wrote:Also watched a bizarre Polish flick called The Hourglass Sanatorium, a surreal and totally off the radar experience that makes Gilliam and Jodorowsky look ordinary. Fans of those two should appreciate this. Peculiar and quite, quite strange.

WANT!

£7.99 from Amazon at the moment distributed by Mr Bongo films, who have released some pretty leftfield stuff of late including the more obscure flicks of Pasolini and Bunuel.
I was really taken with this film; a surreal dreamscape with some brilliant sets and imagery. Well worth £8 of anyone's money.

by **ufoclub1977** on Fri Sep 30, 2011 7:57 pm

Bloo wrote:SO I watched BRIDESMAIDS while working on payroll and scheduling at work today.

It's hard for me to believe that this got such favorable reviews and popularity. Maybe it's because I'm not a middle aged white woman with best friend issues or maybe it's because I'm Oleg and we run on pure testosterone, but I don't see the appeal. Or maybe I just liked this movie a whole lot better when it was called I LOVE YOU MAN.

Because that's what this was, I Love You Man, with chicks, which was kind of the point of ILYM. It was the "bromantic comedy", this was chicks fighting over a bride (who was too self centered to notice that her supposedly best friend was having issues). Instead of Rush, in this it was Paris and Wilson Phillips. Instead of cute, concerned Rashida Jones, we get self centered Mya Rudolph. Instead of nervous, anxious, and somewhat failing Paul Rudd, we get bitchy self-centered Kristen Wigg. And instead of a slightly off kilter, yet has his best interests at heart Jason Segal, we get a bitchy, self-centered, with her own interests at heart (albeit cute) Rose Byrne.

You know who was fucking awesome in this, the limited parts for men. Jon Hamm, fucking awesome, particularly in a scene where he's asking Wigg to go down on him while he's driving. Chris O'Dowd was very good as the nervous yet well intentioned cop/love interest. There's a scene with a mechanic (played by Richard Riehle) that said more about about O'Dowd's character then anything else. There was also a really funny bit at the beginning with Terry Crews that really went no where after that, it really served no purpose and would have probably been either a)cut or b) not as funny with anyone OTHER then Crews in it.

So yeah this was pretty much a waste of my time.

"Crazy, Stupid, Love" is a much much better written and directed comedy film.

by **Spandau Belly** on Mon Oct 03, 2011 1:16 pm

I haven't seen a comedy movie in 2011. BRIDESMAIDS seems to get the most buzz. It's just that movie this year where everybody I know tells me it's "hilarious" and then when I see it, I will laugh enough to make it worth watching, shrug, then forget it right away. Like THE HANGOVER or whatever other Judd Apatow movie was big the last couple years.

CRAZY STUPID LOVE just looked too insulting to my intelligence. Maybe it was just mismarketed or something.

If I have to watch one, I'll probably go with EVIL BOSSES or whatever that one with Colin Farrell sporting the combover was called. That one looked pretty good, except that I couldn't really tell the lead guys apart too good. I think two of them were Jason Bateman and the other was Jason Bateman with a beard. Anyway, I might give that one a rent.

by **Al Shut** on Mon Oct 03, 2011 1:31 pm

Despite my resolution to spend my time with better things, after passing on half a dozen Karl May westerns, I broke down and am watching my favourite "Der Schatz im Silbersee"

Nostalgia ridden awesomeness despite the annoying guy that only speaks in rhymes.

The bad guys' theme always lets me think of orcs

.

by **minstrel** on Mon Oct 03, 2011 2:29 pm

Saw The A-Team last night on HBO. Incomprehensible. Something about recovering plates used by the mint to press money. Who cares? None of the lead actors really sold their roles, or even really defined their characters. And the script kind of betrayed what the original TV characters were about. BA was a genius mechanic, but that wasn't brought out in the movie. Face was a handsome guy who could charm his way to anything, but that wasn't brought out in the movie. Hannibal was the mastermind on TV, but it seemed like Face who formed the big plan in the movie. And George Peppard brought Hannibal a sense of humor that was completely lacking in Liam Neeson's version of the character.

Murdock was an ace pilot in both the TV series and the movie. They got that one right, and the casting of Sharlto Copley worked.

But there was no passion in this movie, no real creativity. It's all just a by-the-numbers action film complete with a couple of big set pieces and a turncoat military/CIA bigwig. Yawn.

by **ufoclub1977** on Tue Oct 04, 2011 11:43 am

Spandau Belly wrote:I haven't seen a comedy movie in 2011. BRIDESMAIDS seems to get the most buzz. It's just that movie this year where everybody I know tells me it's "hilarious" and then when I see it, I will laugh enough to make it worth watching, shrug, then forget it right away. Like THE HANGOVER or whatever other Judd Apatow movie was big the last couple years.

CRAZY STUPID LOVE just looked too insulting to my intelligence. Maybe it was just mismarketed or something.

If I have to watch one, I'll probably go with EVIL BOSSES or whatever that one with Colin Farrell sporting the combover was called. That one looked pretty good, except that I couldn't really tell the lead guys apart too good. I think two of them were Jason Bateman and the other was Jason Bateman with a beard. Anyway, I might give that one a rent.

"Crazy Stupid Love" is more in the vein of "Little Miss Sunshine" (more serious emotion behind the wacky characters). It's one of those comedies that are sometimes nominated for best picture.

by **DerLanghaarige** on Tue Oct 04, 2011 11:49 am

minstrel wrote:Saw The A-Team last night on HBO. Incomprehensible. Something about recovering plates used by the mint to press money. Who cares? None of the lead actors really sold their roles, or even really defined their characters. And the script kind of betrayed what the original TV characters were about. BA was a genius mechanic, but that wasn't brought out in the movie. Face was a handsome guy who could charm his way to anything, but that wasn't brought out in the movie. Hannibal was the mastermind on TV, but it seemed like Face who formed the big plan in the movie. And George Peppard brought Hannibal a sense of humor that was completely lacking in Liam Neeson's version of the character.

Murdock was an ace pilot in both the TV series and the movie. They got that one right, and the casting of Sharlto Copley worked.

But there was no passion in this movie, no real creativity. It's all just a by-the-numbers action film complete with a couple of big set pieces and a turncoat military/CIA bigwig. Yawn.

Hey, at least they didn't try to make a dark & gritty R-rated version!

by **caruso_stalker217** on Fri Oct 07, 2011 6:39 pm

Watched my nifty new JACKIE BROWN Blu-Ray with every pore on Robert Forster's face visible, the way God intended. This was I think my 13th viewing in the last two years. This film never fucking gets old and it looks great on Blu-Ray.

by **justcheckin** on Fri Oct 07, 2011 8:52 pm

I just watched Rubber... it was quite an interesting movie. It should for sure be seen through a self induced haze.

by **The Vicar** on Fri Oct 07, 2011 10:37 pm

justcheckin wrote:I just watched Rubber... it was quite an interesting movie. It should for sure be seen through a self induced haze.

Best viewing recommendation evar.......

by **Bloo** on Fri Oct 07, 2011 10:39 pm

caruso_stalker217 wrote:Watched my nifty new JACKIE BROWN Blu-Ray with every pore on Robert Forster's face visible, the way God intended. This was I think my 13th viewing in the last two years. This film never fucking gets old and it looks great on Blu-Ray.

damn, I want to get that blu but I try not to double dip....

by **caruso_stalker217** on Sat Oct 08, 2011 4:33 am

Bloo wrote:
caruso_stalker217 wrote:Watched my nifty new JACKIE BROWN Blu-Ray with every pore on Robert Forster's face visible, the way God intended. This was I think my 13th viewing in the last two years. This film never fucking gets old and it looks great on Blu-Ray.

damn, I want to get that blu but I try not to double dip....

I try to avoid it myself, but at 10 bucks I couldn't resist.

And I recently triple-dipped when I bought THE GODFATHER trilogy on Blu-Ray.

by **Spandau Belly** on Tue Oct 11, 2011 8:15 am

BRIDESMAIDS

So I was home visiting my mum for Thanksgiving and after we drove my grandfather back to the old folks home I was the only dude there and it was time to pick a movie and so my mum, my sweetheart, and both sisters all decided on BRIDESMAIDS. Until Bloo's review (scroll up), I'd heard only good things but was never super interested in seeing it. I'd skipped BRIDE WARS, I have seen AMERICAN PIE III: AMERICAN WEDDING and had some laughs at that, but comedies based around all these stresses of planning weddings generally annoy me because not-so-deepdowninside I feel most weddings are way more trouble than they're worth.

This movie is your typical Judd Apatow venture and I'm sick of writing about his movies in paragraph form, so I'll just go down the list of Apatow convetions observed in this film in point form:
1) 20 - 30 minutes too long. This is a must of Apatow, and most of the problems in this and any other Apatow movie stem from this problem.
2) Poor pacing and anti-climacticness.
3) An ensemble cast that doesn't gel so much as feel like a bunch of comedians trying to out-mug each other for screentime.
4) Humour based less on setup and payoff and more based on just getting people to blurt out inappropriate things.
5) Portrayal of women as nagging shrews (this time they're the main charaters) and men as horndog doofuses.
6) Trying to be a romantic comedy while also being really scathing and bitter about just how disappointing and repressive adult relationships are.

There are definately a few laughs to be had here and there. I can't say I had a bad time watching it, but it's your usual Apatow mess of hollow comedic calories that overstays its welcome.

Whatevs.

by **Bloo** on Tue Oct 11, 2011 1:42 pm

Spandau, you just condensed my review wonderfully. Thank you.

by **caruso_stalker217** on Tue Oct 11, 2011 10:41 pm

I recently wrapped up Chan-wook Park's vengeance thrill-ogy with THE LADY VENGEANCE. It was, as I had been warned, kind of a mess. It had the offbeat and sometimes dark humor mixed with the disturbing violence (overt and otherwise) I've come to expect from this guy, but the story was not as compelling as a LOOKING FOR MR. VENGEANCE or an I WAS A TEENAGE OLDBOY. This may have stemmed from the fact that the protagonist was fairly unsympathetic and though most of the film is spent with this character I never felt I got to know her like I did Mr. Oldboy or Deaf Guy or Guy Who Wanted Vengeance on Deaf Guy. I felt that the revenge motives in those other pictures were more pure or something. Or maybe it was because Ms. Vengeance was almost as much a villain as the villain whose villainy she was exacting revenge upon. It still makes for some good tragedy, though, probably. I would imagine. Anyway, the film isn't as focused as the others.

I liked that the familiar faces from previous Vengeance pictures showed up. This time Oldboy was the villain, and Deaf Guy and Guy Who Wanted, etc. show up as a couple dudes. And the baddie from OLDBOY plays an imaginary grown up dead kid. Wearing a striped shirt. And then there's the Asian Rosie O'Donnell getting hot tub head from one of the female inmates and she has a pretty major orgasm. You don't see that much in prison movies. Mostly it's just a guy getting fucked in the butt.

So I'd say I liked this one the least out of the three. With OLDBOY and SYMPATHY FOR MR. VENGEANCE probably tied. The music was really good in this, though. It probably would've made me teary-eyed at the end there but I'm totally manly and so it didn't.

There were no giant ants in this one.

by **caruso_stalker217** on Tue Oct 11, 2011 10:43 pm

Spandau Belly wrote:BRIDESMAIDS

So I was home visiting my mum for Thanksgiving and after we drove my grandfather back to the old folks home I was the only dude there and it was time to pick a movie and so my mum, my sweetheart, and both sisters all decided on BRIDESMAIDS. Until Bloo's review (scroll up), I'd heard only good things but was never super interested in seeing it. I'd skipped BRIDE WARS, I have seen AMERICAN PIE III: AMERICAN WEDDING and had some laughs at that, but comedies based around all these stresses of planning weddings generally annoy me because not-so-deepdowninside I feel most weddings are way more trouble than they're worth.

This movie is your typical Judd Apatow venture and I'm sick of writing about his movies in paragraph form, so I'll just go down the list of Apatow convetions observed in this film in point form:
1) 20 - 30 minutes too long. This is a must of Apatow, and most of the problems in this and any other Apatow movie stem from this problem.
2) Poor pacing and anti-climacticness.
3) An ensemble cast that doesn't gel so much as feel like a bunch of comedians trying to out-mug each other for screentime.
4) Humour based less on setup and payoff and more based on just getting people to blurt out inappropriate things.
5) Portrayal of women as nagging shrews (this time they're the main charaters) and men as horndog doofuses.
6) Trying to be a romantic comedy while also being really scathing and bitter about just how disappointing and repressive adult relationships are.

There are definately a few laughs to be had here and there. I can't say I had a bad time watching it, but it's your usual Apatow mess of hollow comedic calories that overstays its welcome.

Whatevs.

Yeah, but is it possible to masturbate to it?

by **Bloo** on Tue Oct 11, 2011 10:44 pm

caruso_stalker217 wrote:
Spandau Belly wrote:BRIDESMAIDS

So I was home visiting my mum for Thanksgiving and after we drove my grandfather back to the old folks home I was the only dude there and it was time to pick a movie and so my mum, my sweetheart, and both sisters all decided on BRIDESMAIDS. Until Bloo's review (scroll up), I'd heard only good things but was never super interested in seeing it. I'd skipped BRIDE WARS, I have seen AMERICAN PIE III: AMERICAN WEDDING and had some laughs at that, but comedies based around all these stresses of planning weddings generally annoy me because not-so-deepdowninside I feel most weddings are way more trouble than they're worth.

This movie is your typical Judd Apatow venture and I'm sick of writing about his movies in paragraph form, so I'll just go down the list of Apatow convetions observed in this film in point form:
1) 20 - 30 minutes too long. This is a must of Apatow, and most of the problems in this and any other Apatow movie stem from this problem.
2) Poor pacing and anti-climacticness.
3) An ensemble cast that doesn't gel so much as feel like a bunch of comedians trying to out-mug each other for screentime.
4) Humour based less on setup and payoff and more based on just getting people to blurt out inappropriate things.
5) Portrayal of women as nagging shrews (this time they're the main charaters) and men as horndog doofuses.
6) Trying to be a romantic comedy while also being really scathing and bitter about just how disappointing and repressive adult relationships are.

There are definately a few laughs to be had here and there. I can't say I had a bad time watching it, but it's your usual Apatow mess of hollow comedic calories that overstays its welcome.

Whatevs.

Yeah, but is it possible to masturbate to it?

no

by **caruso_stalker217** on Tue Oct 11, 2011 10:54 pm

Bloo wrote:
caruso_stalker217 wrote:
Spandau Belly wrote:BRIDESMAIDS

So I was home visiting my mum for Thanksgiving and after we drove my grandfather back to the old folks home I was the only dude there and it was time to pick a movie and so my mum, my sweetheart, and both sisters all decided on BRIDESMAIDS. Until Bloo's review (scroll up), I'd heard only good things but was never super interested in seeing it. I'd skipped BRIDE WARS, I have seen AMERICAN PIE III: AMERICAN WEDDING and had some laughs at that, but comedies based around all these stresses of planning weddings generally annoy me because not-so-deepdowninside I feel most weddings are way more trouble than they're worth.

This movie is your typical Judd Apatow venture and I'm sick of writing about his movies in paragraph form, so I'll just go down the list of Apatow convetions observed in this film in point form:
1) 20 - 30 minutes too long. This is a must of Apatow, and most of the problems in this and any other Apatow movie stem from this problem.
2) Poor pacing and anti-climacticness.
3) An ensemble cast that doesn't gel so much as feel like a bunch of comedians trying to out-mug each other for screentime.
4) Humour based less on setup and payoff and more based on just getting people to blurt out inappropriate things.
5) Portrayal of women as nagging shrews (this time they're the main charaters) and men as horndog doofuses.
6) Trying to be a romantic comedy while also being really scathing and bitter about just how disappointing and repressive adult relationships are.

There are definately a few laughs to be had here and there. I can't say I had a bad time watching it, but it's your usual Apatow mess of hollow comedic calories that overstays its welcome.

Whatevs.

Yeah, but is it possible to masturbate to it?

no

Well FUCK! My entire weekend is SHOT.

by **Bloo** on Wed Oct 12, 2011 12:43 am

caruso_stalker217 wrote:
Bloo wrote:
caruso_stalker217 wrote:
Spandau Belly wrote:BRIDESMAIDS

So I was home visiting my mum for Thanksgiving and after we drove my grandfather back to the old folks home I was the only dude there and it was time to pick a movie and so my mum, my sweetheart, and both sisters all decided on BRIDESMAIDS. Until Bloo's review (scroll up), I'd heard only good things but was never super interested in seeing it. I'd skipped BRIDE WARS, I have seen AMERICAN PIE III: AMERICAN WEDDING and had some laughs at that, but comedies based around all these stresses of planning weddings generally annoy me because not-so-deepdowninside I feel most weddings are way more trouble than they're worth.

This movie is your typical Judd Apatow venture and I'm sick of writing about his movies in paragraph form, so I'll just go down the list of Apatow convetions observed in this film in point form:
1) 20 - 30 minutes too long. This is a must of Apatow, and most of the problems in this and any other Apatow movie stem from this problem.
2) Poor pacing and anti-climacticness.
3) An ensemble cast that doesn't gel so much as feel like a bunch of comedians trying to out-mug each other for screentime.
4) Humour based less on setup and payoff and more based on just getting people to blurt out inappropriate things.
5) Portrayal of women as nagging shrews (this time they're the main charaters) and men as horndog doofuses.
6) Trying to be a romantic comedy while also being really scathing and bitter about just how disappointing and repressive adult relationships are.

There are definately a few laughs to be had here and there. I can't say I had a bad time watching it, but it's your usual Apatow mess of hollow comedic calories that overstays its welcome.

Whatevs.

Yeah, but is it possible to masturbate to it?

no

Well FUCK! My entire weekend is SHOT.

redtube dude

by **Spandau Belly** on Sun Oct 16, 2011 3:40 pm

THE TWILIGHT ZONE: THE FILM

I have never seen the American television program on which this is based. I think most if not all of the segments in this film are remakes of episodes from the old tv show. Even after having seent his film, I really can't say what makes something TWI-ZONISH. It's all over the place in terms of tone and subject matter. It's less smutty and less gorey than TALES FROM THE CRYPT. But the only consistency is that something fantastic (in the classic sense of the word) happens in each of the stories.

This is an anthology movie made up of one prologue and four short story segments. The prologue is okay. It's got Dan Akroyd giving the same natural performance he always gives as a nice buddy guy and Albert Brooks, who I only know from DRIVE, trying way too hard to wring big laughs out of this scene when they're just not there. He goes way too overthetop with his offkey singing 'n shit trying to sell the humour when he should've just sold the buddyness of the moment. The scene has a pretty good punchline with Dan Akroyd turning into a monster which shows good casting because I don't think many people expect Dan Akroyd to ever be scary; even in CROSSROADS when he played Britney Spear's father it was more of a guilt trip of "I'm not angry, I'm just disappointed and I worried all night." sort of fathering technique.

Then we get into the first segment, which is in tight competition with the second one for being the worst in the movie. We meet an asshole who goes into a bar and says bigotted things, gets grabby with the waitress, then leaves and finds himself on the recieving end of bigotry against all the ethnic/religious groups he bashed in the bar, but his sexual harassment of the waitress is not punished. I would've liked to have seen him forced to be a stripper in a strip bar getting his ass slapped by a bunch of dirty men. What we get is him transported into the bodies of Jews during the Holocaust and blacks during lynchings, and strangely, he also experiences life as a Vietnamese soldier during America's war in Vietnam, even though that wasn't a racism-motivated war. He doesn't find any redemption and doesn't even seem to realize the error of his ways. The whole segment is based on sadism and so it didn't really work for me because it felt a bit extreme for my tastes. I get that this guy is an asshole and I probably would be fine with the black dude in the bar punching him or some shit, but putting the dude in a concetration camp feels like it's goinga bit far. This segment is really repetative and predictable and preachy with its stupid message about two wrongs making a right, so I really fucking hated it.

The next one is Spielberg's kick at the can in what feels like a warm-up for HOOK (maybe he should've stretched more?). This segment is a big bungled mess that fails to do enough setting up for the messages it tries to dump on us at the end. The guy who played Dick in THE SHINING shows up at an old folks home as some sort of angelic being with a big goofy grin on his face and uplifting music. He offers them all their youths back, they take their youths out for a test drive, then decide they want to be old again except for one boy who flies off to find Neverland where he and Johnny Depp can bore the shit out of me. Like I said, they really didn't develop the old characters at all, so their revelations at the end felt forced and without meaning. Most of the segment felt like some fucked up prozac commercial with Dick practically grinning himself to death and overdosing on contextless wholesomeness. So this one kinda sucked too, but at least it was trying to be positive.

The third one is where things start getting better. I incorrectly guessed that this one was directed by robert Zemekis, when it turned out to be Joe Dante. But it had that Zemekis feel to it. Very ROGER RABBIT. This one involves a woman who meets a little boy with God-like powers who has made a home in the likeness of cartoons where he grants his own childish wishes to have birthday parties everyday and bring cartoon characters to life. He has a family who live in fear of his wrath and so they entertain his every whim. The woman recognizes that the boy needs a real mother who will serve him as mothers serve their children, but also guide him as mothers guide their children and so she pledges to be his companion and the two fly off on adventures. This one was pretty amusing. It kept me guessing as to what would happen next and what was really going on. It had a neat surreal vibe.

The fourth one is definately the clear winner of the lot with John Lithgow playing a man who is terrified of flying, but is on a plane during horrible turbulence and is freaking out even before he sees a gremlin crawling around on the wing of the plane wrecking it. This segment has the best acting of the whole movie and plays well with people's fears of being percieved as crazy and people's fears of knowing whether or not they really are crazy. It's got a simple enough idea, but effectively mines tension out of it for its whole duration.

Overall, this movie is mostly a failure. I don't think the good parts really make it worth sitting through the bad parts and I wouldn't recommend it.

by **Bloo** on Sun Oct 16, 2011 3:58 pm

Spandau, I believe the first two segments were the original and the second two were the remakes (I know the last two were remakes and Speilbergs's was original. I'm not sure about Landis's segment). Spielberg's feels more akin to his Amazing Stories then TZ. It's interesting that the last two are the stronger as Miller and Dante had a lot more to prove

by **caruso_stalker217** on Sun Oct 16, 2011 6:29 pm

I've never actually seen THE TWILIGHT ZONE: THE MOVIE aside from "Lithgow at 30,000 Feet."

I imagine the first segment may have had some problems due to John Landis killing Vic Morrow with a helicopter.

by **Spandau Belly** on Mon Oct 17, 2011 7:17 am

caruso_stalker217 wrote:I imagine the first segment may have had some problems due to John Landis killing Vic Morrow with a helicopter.

That's what you get for being a bigot.

by **GerryMcD** on Mon Oct 17, 2011 4:26 pm

Scream 4 - An awesome 4th installment in the Scream series. All of the usual suspects (except the dead ones), with a few new youngins who did an awesome job - most notably Hayden Panettiere & Emma Roberts.

by **TheBaxter** on Tue Oct 18, 2011 10:50 am

Bloo wrote:Spandau, I believe the first two segments were the original and the second two were the remakes (I know the last two were remakes and Speilbergs's was original. I'm not sure about Landis's segment). Spielberg's feels more akin to his Amazing Stories then TZ. It's interesting that the last two are the stronger as Miller and Dante had a lot more to prove

no, kick the can was a remake too. the other two may not be straight remakes, but landis' episode has similarities to "A Quality of Mercy" and the dante one is vaguely similar to "It's a Good Life"

by **Bloo** on Tue Oct 18, 2011 1:32 pm

TheBaxter wrote:
Bloo wrote:Spandau, I believe the first two segments were the original and the second two were the remakes (I know the last two were remakes and Speilbergs's was original. I'm not sure about Landis's segment). Spielberg's feels more akin to his Amazing Stories then TZ. It's interesting that the last two are the stronger as Miller and Dante had a lot more to prove

no, kick the can was a remake too. the other two may not be straight remakes, but landis' episode has similarities to "A Quality of Mercy" and the dante one is vaguely similar to "It's a Good Life"

I thought for sure Kick The Can was original.

by **TheBaxter** on Tue Oct 18, 2011 3:47 pm

Bloo wrote:
TheBaxter wrote:
Bloo wrote:Spandau, I believe the first two segments were the original and the second two were the remakes (I know the last two were remakes and Speilbergs's was original. I'm not sure about Landis's segment). Spielberg's feels more akin to his Amazing Stories then TZ. It's interesting that the last two are the stronger as Miller and Dante had a lot more to prove

no, kick the can was a remake too. the other two may not be straight remakes, but landis' episode has similarities to "A Quality of Mercy" and the dante one is vaguely similar to "It's a Good Life"

I thought for sure Kick The Can was original.

nope

by **Bloo** on Tue Oct 18, 2011 5:53 pm

that just proves I need to watch more Twilight zone LOL, let's blame Steven's inclusion of the Magical Black Guy for my confusion

by **DerLanghaarige** on Wed Oct 19, 2011 6:01 am

So I watched yesterday SLAP SHOT for the first time and while there is lots of stuff to like (the Hanson Brothers, pretty much every ice hockey scene), I don't think it has aged that well. There is way too idling between the good and most of all the movie is so fucking 70's that it hurts. I mean, this is supposed to be a badass comedy about a rough men's sport, but it's stuffed with a horrible Disco soundtrack and in one scene Paul Newman wears horrible checkered old man golf pants and it is supposed to make him look cool! It doesn't! The 70's fashion seriously managed to make Paul Newman look uncool!

I heard there is a remake coming up and even if I got no idea who would be good enough to replace Paul Newman, I'm not against it.

by **Spandau Belly** on Wed Oct 19, 2011 7:18 am

SLAP SHOT was really big when I was a kid and so I saw it frequently then. I figured it wouldn't have aged well, probably more because it's been imitated so much that a lot of what made it fun was still fresh back then. And yeah, movies back then had more slow parts.

Since SLAP SHOT came out, there have been a million sports comedy movies about some nice guy loser coach trying to reform a team of misfits. The same setup (usually invovling the team going bankrupt if it doesn't win) and the same types of characters (the crazy guy, the foreign stereotype guy, the underperforming golden boy, the horndog) but I think SLAP SHOT probably has more heart than most of its imitators.

I would suspect that in a remake they will probably lose the heart and end up with something aiming more at pure forgettable comedy like DODGEBALL. So they'll probably cast one of these smartass guys like Vince Vaughn or Ryan Reynolds in the Newman role. If they wanted to keep the spirit of the original, I would probably suggest Bruce Willis for the Newman role.

by **DerLanghaarige** on Wed Oct 19, 2011 10:21 am

Unlike other copied-to-death films like ANIMAL HOUSE or HALLOWEEN, SLAP SHOT doesn't really have any redeeming features. Most of the humor consists of the team starting a fight at every game and I can't really remember any of the characters except for Newman, the Hansons and the alcoholic wife of one of the team members. I also gotta say that for a movie, that is supposed to be the template for the typical sports underdog story, it isn't really about a team of underdogs or their fight to the top. They are a team who had some bad luck for a while (They only talk about how they lost their last few games) and then get a new fanbase by beating the crap out of the other teams. I didn't really care if they made it or not, because the whole movie was only about these guys, swearing and beating up other teams. These parts were entertaining to watch, but nontheless nothing to write your parents home about. At least not in 2011.
Say what you want about DODGEBALL, but at least there you were rooting for the team to win, even if it was just because Ben Stiller made such a wonderful disgusting villain! Shit, I even remember every single team member and what made them so special, from Alan Tudyk's wannabe pirate to Stephen Root's wimp who lives in the illusion that his wife doesn't hate him! I can't say the same thing about SLAP SHOT. I guess its popularity either comes from it, being a comedy with an a-list star, full of swearing, nudity and funny violence (which was at that time something really special), or maybe you really have to be an ice hockey fan to get it.
Sorry, I think it's mildly entertaining, but if it wouldn't star a cinematic legend like Paul Fucking Newman, it would be one of the many forgotten movies of that era.

by **Bloo** on Wed Oct 19, 2011 11:39 pm

I finally got around to watching LET ME IN and color me presently surprised by the endeavor. I thought it was a fairly decent remake of LET ME IN and just damn good in it's own right.

I was pretty sure we had a thread for it, but ya'll know how well the Zone search engine works