Posted by Vash on March 12, 2009
|
|
i saw this in theatres and it actually made me
want to kick myself in the dick. every character
bugged me and just... the central conceit of the
movie just did not work for me at all. the
decisions the characters made just made me even
more angry and ugh. not good.
|
Posted by Vash on December 6, 2008
|
|
wow, again, agreed. this might be one of the
funniest movies i've seen this year, which was a
huge surprise. everything paul rudd says is funny,
and the kid who plays Ronny had incredible
delivery. the "fuck you, miss daisy!"
line was perfect. there were so many lines i
didn't expect in this kind of movie. "he's
the guy who did the music for 'the sting.'"
"good movie." fucking golden. jane lynch
dancing out from behind the television was also
amazing. yeah, definitely one of the funnier
movies of the year, and proof that rudd can carry
a movie on his own and not every single fucking
comedy needs to star seth "i'm a stupid
kike" rogen.
|
Posted by Vash on November 25, 2008
|
|
for the first time ever, tristan is an idiot, and
bluemeanie is right. except for calling him
"danny 'r' mcbride," which i don't even
think he's billed as, but whatever. this movie is
fucking hilarious, but i think it requires at
least one additional viewing to pick up on exactly
how witty and quotable it is. pretty much every
single thing mcbride says is hilarious, and jody
hill's character is incredible. the entire party
scene with chuck... wow. amazing.
|
Posted by Vash on November 23, 2008
|
|
wow dude, the fact that you even reviewed this
erases the entire hating you because you're an
idiot thing. this movie is a seriously underrated
classic - a childhood favourite of mine, to say
the least. i must have watched this movie a
hundred times as a kid, and rewatched it recently
with my dad and brother. "what the hell do
you expect? your foot's on fire!" too many
lines. pretty much everything william shatner says
is gold, and the entire opening scene, from the
crushing of the pipe to whoopi goldberg's death...
brilliant. i love you for reviewing this.
|
Posted by Vash on November 21, 2008
|
|
i don't think a single person can argue that
robinson stole the show in this movie. far and
away its saving grace. even his "i make
coffees for people" line made me laugh. but
yeah, the rest... forgettable. worst film of the
year is a bit strong but it's definitely not
something i'd ever feel inclined to watch again.
seth rogen sucks. also, i like that bluemeanie's
retort came about four hours later :) glad to see
i got a fun retort instead of a serious one for
once. let the healing begin, handsome.
|
Posted by Vash on November 9, 2008
|
|
|
i actually kind of agree, oddly enough, with this
review. it wasn't as bad as he's making it out to
be, but it wasn't amazing. there are a few choice
lines - one of which comes in that cut to the
characters talking while zack and miri have sex.
"anyone catch the last episode of lost?"
it's not relevant because that's the joke. then
again bluemeanie wouldn't know comedy if it shat
on his chest. but that isn't the point - the point
is, seth rogen sucks. he sucks so bad. not only is
he a carbon copy of his one dimensional slacker
character in literally EVERY movie that he's in,
but he is one of the least funny people working
today. how can apatow get all these talented guys
- paul rudd, james franco, jason segel, bill hader
- and give every single job to seth rogen and
jonah hill, who are just variations on the same
annoying archetype? i love the double standard of
kevin smith having his friends come hang out on
his movies, but when apatow does it, it's somehow
artistic. fuck that. the reason the movie fails IS
because smith is riffing on the apatow formula,
but not because he fails to "understand"
it - it's because the formula sucks. you can tell
he's letting rogen adlib in a few scenes, and
they're terrible. everyone gets on kevin smith's
case because his dialogue is unnatural, but that's
the point. there's character and fluidity to it.
apatow's "everyman" dialogue is, first
of all, NOT how people actually talk, and
secondly, NOT FUNNY. if smith had stuck to his
guns, the movie would work, as proven by lines
like... well, everything craig robinson says.
let's hope this kickstarts the apatow/rogen
backlash and we can stop seeing shitty fucking
movies from this played out crew. PS: bluemeanie
is a fat twink.
|
Posted by Vash on August 17, 2008
|
|
i really liked this one, but seth rogen sucks. he
was playing the straight man, but even still,
nothing he said or did made me laugh once. every
other person in the movie was killing - even
fucking rosie perez. fuck seth rogen. i'm aware he
wrote the movie, but that means he should stay the
fuck behind the camera. aside from that, danny
mcbride is possibly one of the funniest people in
movies at the moment, and they need to tell all
the shitty apatow guys (rogen, baruchel, hill, et
al.) to eat shit and let mcbride have every single
one of their roles. brilliant. franco was great,
and i wish gary cole had more scenes as well. all
around very enjoyable.
|
Posted by Vash on August 6, 2008
|
|
haha, good call on this one, man. SO good. the
intro scene with nightcrawler, the prison break
scene with magneto, the shot of the lake at the
end... singer really kicked ass with this one on
every level. this movie is what makes X3 one of
the biggest disappointments of the last few years,
but it still stands alone as one of the finest
superhero movies to date, if not THE best.
|
Posted by Vash on July 28, 2008
|
|
totally didn't catch the mad hatter thing. i've
always wanted him to be in a movie, but i always
figured they'd go for someone like the riddler for
the next one. you never know, though. a lot of the
bat-villains are just take-offs on the joker, so i
hope they pick someone who can really create their
own persona in the nolan series. mad hatter and
riddler are great, but i think they're too close
to the joker to really stand on their own.
|
Posted by Vash on July 27, 2008
|
|
why did they name her patience phillips..?
|
Posted by Vash on July 27, 2008
|
|
|
SPOILER!
also, can someone settle the
argument of whether or not two-face is dead? i'm
on the record as saying he is not. if he IS, then
that's a huge waste of a character that they spent
two and a half hours building up. also, they base
the movie around this guy, and his denoument is a
quick fall off a not-very-high building? this is
why i think he's alive. that, and the fact that
they didn't actually show him being buried or
anything at the memorial. obviously the joker's
resolution was left hanging (ha) due to obvious
circumstances, but i felt that the two-face thing
was way too open-ended. the movie is long anyway,
five minutes of exposition at the end of it
wouldn't have killed anybody.
bluemeanie sucks, although we do pretty much
agree on this movie, so i can't hate on him for
that. he still sucks, though.
|
Posted by Vash on July 27, 2008
|
|
dude, watch the second one. out of all the
superhero/comic adaptations, X2 and spidey 2 were
probably my favourites. it's interesting to note
that this movie sort of kick-started the whole
comic book movie craze. it was huge to see a comic
book movie that a) didn't suck (batman and robin?)
and b) stayed true to the source material (judge
dredd!?) after so long. then spider-man came along
and... here we are. anyway, a great franchise
starter with an exponentially better sequel... and
an abhorrently, almost offensively awful
threequel.
|
Posted by Vash on July 27, 2008
|
|
that pumpkins song totally rules. works better in
the watchmen trailer, though :)
|
Posted by Vash on July 27, 2008
|
|
i dont know why no one else ever notices that all
the villains in the batman sequels were just
riffing off nicholson's joker. lame. this one gets
a lot of shit but it isn't nearly as bad as batman
and robin. i can still sit through this if i'm
extremely bored and it happens to be on tv. kilmer
is slighted mainly because of the movie itself,
but he's great as bruce, even with his ridiculous
enunciation of "i am batman!" in the
party scene. this movie would never fly nowadays,
so let's be thankful that people have a LITTLE bit
more care when it comes to beloved franchises, a
decade later. ... just a bit.
|
Posted by Vash on July 27, 2008
|
|
|
not to flog a dead horse, but...
- i
loved the movie, but it is not the movie people
seem to think it is. i'd love to have seen it (and
the box office results) in a world where ledger
was still alive. plot holes, unnecessary bloat and
inconsistencies create issues. hong kong sequence,
vigilante subplot and constant use of
"everyone is corrupt!" twists were
excessive.
- "realistic
batman" movies render the character of batman
useless, as evidenced by the fact that the movie
focuses far more on gordon, dent and the joker
than it does on batman. joker still manages to
work in the "realistic" realm of the
movie, whereas batman merely provides the action
center. all superheroes are inherently ludicrous;
removing them from their fantastical habitat only
serves to magnify their ridiculousness. the guy
dresses up as a bat, people.
- nolan
needs to learn how to zoom out. action sequences,
though clearly not the focal point of the movie,
were muddy. would prefer more long shots like
batman gliding over hong kong, or joker hanging
out of the squad car.
- the
"canon" argument is null and void when
dealing with a franchise that is almost 80 years
old. west, burton, miller and timm all produced
wildly different takes on the material, and no one
would call either one into question. (as an aside,
you can't use miller's versions as canon anyway,
since dark knight returns was
"elseworlds.")
- ledger is
the definitive joker, usurping nicholson's
"iconic" version, which isn't that far
removed from the actor's own persona. oldman and
eckhart do amazing work with the unenviable task
of playing straightmen in the face of bale and
ledger. as for bale, we need more bruce wayne,
less batvoice.
- eric roberts!
- all things considered, the movie makes
it easy to ignore its own flaws, even upon second
viewings. not the best movie ever, or even the
best superhero movie ever, but a damn good summer
blockbuster.
- bluemeanie is a
buttblasting faggot.
- k thx bye
|
Posted by Vash on May 25, 2008
|
|
i dont usually waste time picking my words
carefully when commenting on everyone's favourite
reviewer, but i do agree with you totally. shia
elevated every scene he was in by being the only
person in the movie - aside from blanchett and
winstone - who seemed to give a shit that he was
even there. he did amazingly well with what little
he had to work with, and yeah, his character was
lame to start off. the guy is great. too bad the
movie isn't.
|
Posted by Vash on May 25, 2008
|
|
|
are you actually retarded? you even applaud
"the lost world" in this review... i
think that movie is unanimously written off as
bullshit, just like this one will be very shortly,
at least by thinking people, of which there are
apparently very few. a 10/10? REALLY? how can you
be a diehard fan of the first three movies and
actually swallow this as a legitimate entry in the
series? the shitty mummy movies are better than
this. at best, the screenplay is like a shitty
fanfic some dickhead wrote in his dorm room.
apparently you've written similar slashfics, so
i'm assuming that's why you enjoyed this. saying
this compares in ANY way to even The Last Crusade
is like saying Live Free Or Die Hard is just as
good as Die Hard With A Vengeance. to say nothing
of the fact that the very EXISTENCE of the movie
is meaningless - especially when the movie only
serves to neuter and defang one of the most iconic
character in cinematic history. i'm not even that
big a fan of the series and i'm still insulted by
this movie. this doesn't even compare with the
movies that ripped off indiana jones in the first
place, i.e national treasure and all that awful
tripe. i don't know how you consider yourself a
fan of movies if you appreciate and acclaim
absolute drivel like this. you can go fuck
yourself once again. bye.
|
Posted by Vash on April 28, 2008
|
|
haha, actually it seems like you're the one who's
taking this to heart. i wasn't aware "dick
and fart" was an industry term. sorry, roger
ebert, i'll try to bone up on my film jargon next
time i call you out on a retarded comment. i'm not
gonna go over your bullshit because i don't care
enough at this point, and i have actual reviews to
write, but none of your rebuttals are warranted
considering you're obviously just making excuses
for the points i made. good job backtracking on
things you clearly did not imply with your review.
you're part of the reason people hate film geeks -
you're a pretentious fop who thinks he knows
everything there is to know about movies. get your
head out of your ass and maybe replace it with
something sharp. again, and hopefully for the last
time, go fuck yourself. bye!
|
Posted by Vash on April 28, 2008
|
|
|
here's why you're an idiot.
#1, the movie
has all of zero dick and/or fart jokes, other than
the obvious shots of segel's dick. no mention is
made of dicks or farts, so, bye.
#2, how is
peter like seth rogen's character, exactly? he's
not a slacker or a stoner or a fucking idiot. he's
an obsessive ex boyfriend. pretty sure none of
rogen's characters fit that description.
#3, which character of seth rogen's are you even
referring to? you've praised him in other reviews,
yet you're generally referring to all his
characters as the same? good one.
#4, it's
april, dickhead. 2008 isn't over yet.
#5,
way to give away the bateman cameo.
#6, how
does brand's character seem over the top in a
movie that features a puppet musical based on
dracula?
#7, apatow fans have a
"new" idol in jason segel? right,
because i'm sure FANS of judd apatow's have no
idea who he is.
#8, and this one isn't
directly related to this review, but do you even
like movies, or do you just enjoy fellating
yourself with largely unfounded reviews? go watch
some fellini and go fuck yourself.
kthxbi.
|
Posted by Vash on April 21, 2008
|
|
yeah, sucks when a comedy tries to make people
laugh. that's unfortunate. they should make more
movies like knocked up where you care so much
about the characters that you want to punch them
in the face, and not laugh for 45 minutes. that's
comedy, right there.
|
Posted by Vash on March 7, 2008
|
|
this movie was fucking terrible, actually, and
thats why youre an idiot.
|
Posted by Vash on October 28, 2007
|
|
i'll admit i was expecting the movie's pacing to
be a little bit different, so it was a bit jarring
for me to watch at first, and this may have had an
impact on how i saw the film. that being said,
there was about 45 minutes where i didn't laugh
once, but instead just wanted to hit one of the
characters on the screen. i'm really not jiving
with the whole judd apatow phenomenon, and the
unbelievable amount of hype and praise around this
film is just too much for me to handle. it simply
is not as good as everyone's been saying it is. i
understand that it's realistic and not going for
cheap laughs. great. that doesn't necessarily mean
it succeeds as a comedy, as i wasn't LAUGHING for
a significant portion of the film. did anyone else
want to punch leslie mann in the face?
|
Posted by Vash on October 28, 2007
|
|
i'd really like to know exactly how much creative
input judd apatow had with superbad, as i'm
getting a little sick of people splooging over his
name in relation to ANYTHING he's remotely
connected with. PRODUCER. not writer, nor
director. if someone can actually prove that he
wrote a significant portion of this movie, i'll
shut up. until then, i'm stating that superbad is
far funnier and far more consistent in its humour
than both apatow-helmed pictures [40 year old
virgin & knocked up], and this might be because of
[i'm betting it's directly related to] the fact
that he didn't write or direct this. moving on, as
funny as seth rogen is, bill hader owned this
movie, in my opinion. rogen's character was way
too similar to the same fat slacker dude he played
in the other two movies for me to really get into,
and thus, hader stole the show. enough has been
said about cera and hill, and they deserve every
bit of credit they get for this film. of course,
people threw a bit too much praise at this film
upon its release, but thankfully, a lot of it was
justified, as it's a genuinely funny movie. a
cultural phenomenon it isnt [morons saying
"chicka-chicka-yea!" has always been and,
unfortunately, will always be around], but it's
certainly one of the best comedies of the year.
|
Posted by Vash on October 28, 2007
|
|
|
i saw this after two years of incessant praise and
insurmountable hype... so obviously i was just a
tad disappointed. im one of the three people in
the world who doesnt actually think judd apatow is
a genius [also, whats with all the praise for
movies he just produced? sure he must have a hand
in these, but jesus christ, give credit where it's
due], so i was expecting to be let down a bit by
the movie, but even then, it just is not what
people are saying it is. i enjoyed it more than
knocked up, but it's just... long. and the laughs
don't come too frequently. maybe it's just me, but
i usually rank my comedies based on how much i
laugh, and i wasn't laughing that much. *shrug*
maybe i don't "get" it.
|
Posted by Vash on August 21, 2007
|
|
"dr farthing, what happened to your arm?"
"well, it could have been a number of things.
sleeping on it wrong, or, perhaps, being thrown
out of a moving car."
"are you a
betting man?"
"yeah, sure."
"well if i
was in your position, i'd put all my money... on
death."
"couldn't you have prepared him a
little for that?"
"i thought i did with that
whole betting analogy."
"why is it
that when your bookey, say, blows off one of your
toes, you still owe him the money? it just doesn't
seem fair to me."
everything chevy
chase says in this movie is gold.
"we
need to check his vital signs..."
"doc, if
that stethoscope is as cold as it was yesterday,
i'm shoving it right up your ass!"
"...vital
signs normal."
|
Posted by Vash on August 20, 2007
|
|
bateman is GREAT. he was my favourite part of the
movie. the whole thing revolves around them
getting him back, and he's great. i thought he was
gonna be like comic relief, which he is sort of in
the beginning, but he's great. "yeah, we kind of
lied on our resumes. we don't really know anything
about construction." "when is lunch?" "you're
fired."
|
Posted by Vash on August 20, 2007
|
|
"let's shampoo us some aliens" is a line that gets
quoted between me and my brother surprisingly
often.
"can i get some ice cream?"
"sure, what flavour?"
"it doesn't matter.
it's for my ass."
|
Posted by Vash on August 20, 2007
|
|
this is a few months old but im totally with
tristan on this one. i absolutely abhorred death
proof both times i saw it. the first act was
thoroughly enjoyable, other than the awful
dialogue between the girls. the second act was
just atrocious as each of the four girls made me
want to punch them in the face. also, yeah, i was
seriously looking forward to kurt russell getting
a lot of time to be totally menacing and creepy,
which was great while it lasted... but it just
made me even more mad to see him hardly get any
screen time. there are few movies that have made
me completely angry during a viewing, and i was
furious walking out of the theatre after death
proof.
on a side note: i don't give a
shit which one is more authentic as a "grind
house" movie. i don't fucking care. if that's what
a grind house movie "should" be like, then fuck
them, it wasn't entertaining at all. being
authentic doesn't necessarily mean it's any good.
that's like saying it's not an authentic punk
record if there's no double-time drumming. but
that's me.
|
Posted by Vash on August 20, 2007
|
|
|
also, there's a review up here too...
http://www.chud.com/index.php?type=reviews&id=1142
3 . just saying, it was screened. i dunno what's
up with all the bumped release dates, though. it
really is a solid flick. it's not mindblowing or
anything, i was just thoroughly entertained. for
the most part. i dont really like jennifer garner
but meh.
|
Posted by Vash on August 20, 2007
|
|
|
no dude, we got screenings here a week back. a
week or two. my media editor and i went, she's
reviewing it, ill even post the review when its up
man. but yeah, i just don't think a 2:1 ratio is
basis enough to say he's a talentless director. in
any case, good call on dirty work. now that is a
movie people need to see.
|
Posted by Vash on August 17, 2007
|
|
man, if you personally don't like adam sandler
movies, then what's the point of reviewing them?
everyone knows they follow a formula. that's like
reviewing an ac/dc record and complaining that all
the songs sound the same. comparing him to fucking
jim carrey, whose shtick has remained the same
since fucking in living color [and don't bring up
"eternal sunshine" or any of his serious roles,
please] doesn't exactly hold weight. everything
sandler's done since like 2000 has blown, but this
was hilarious. what's the point of reviewing a
movie from 98 if you don't even like the dude?
most people have seen this movie anyway and
forgotten about it.
|
Posted by Vash on August 17, 2007
|
|
|
dude, peter berg is awesome. friday night lights
was great, and the kingdom was surprisingly solid.
im assuming you haven't seen either of those or
are just basing that comment off the rundown.
|
Posted by Vash on July 28, 2007
|
|
im totally with chad on this one. the movie is way
overrated, and whether or not the book is great,
it doesnt change the fact that the movie sucks.
you can say it's a nice visual complement to the
book, but it isn't a "good movie" solely based on
that.
|
Posted by Vash on July 2, 2007
|
|
i wouldn't even consider it a "90s" movie though,
it came out right at the end of 1999. obviously
people won't have it on their top ten lists, the
majority of the people that saw it had seen it
after its theatrical run anyway. same with the
matrix, it represents everything that came after
it not what came before it.
|
Posted by Vash on June 8, 2007
|
|
this movie ruled. i remember loving it as a kid
when it came out. i liked how the people you
thought were least likely to survive ended up
living. also, i guess this was after paul
anderson's other not terrible movie, mortal
kombat... but then he made the second one. ugh.
|
Posted by Vash on May 31, 2007
|
|
|
hm. where to begin. for one, panic room sucked.
for another, its kind of silly to say a movie has
no subtext and is all visual simply because a lot
of people relate things to it that are somewhat
stupid. its only overrated if it doesnt live up to
its hype, which it does. shakespeare is overrated,
that doesnt mean you cant find subtext within
hamlet. [for the record, no, i am not comparing
fight club to hamlet, please dont say anything
about that.] anyway, i think this was a gross
oversimplification of the movie, and im not gonna
say that you missed the point because i know you
know your shit, im just saying the review didn't
really convey what the plot was really about,
although you seem to think that it isn't about
much. i dunno if you've read the book, but the
entire thing is a commentary on a number of
aspects of society as well as the human [i guess
mostly just male] mind. yeah, the movie is
definitely great just on visuals alone, but thats
only BECAUSE it conveys so many different things
at once, and that is why people watch it so many
times. not just to see the tyler flashes, its to
see what it's saying.
i know its
somewhat futile and redundant to defend a movie
that is already hailed as THE movie of our time,
especially if you weren't even trashing it. im
just saying, there's a lot more to it than what
the review let on. another thing worth mentioning
is that its one of the VERY few movies that
manages to adapt its source material in a way
that's not only faithful, but it manages to be
just as good, or better, than the novel. it's the
first - and, honestly, only - film that comes to
mind where i can say it's equally good as the
book, just on very different levels.
anyway. please dont go on and on about how im an
idiot for whatever reason, im just saying. people
say evil dead is over rated, that doesn't make it
any less awesome, does it?
...seriously, panic room sucked. se7en
rules, though.
|
Posted by Vash on April 29, 2007
|
|
dude, this is one of my favourite movies ever, and
has been since i was... probably like four years
old? i could quote this thing for HOURS.
"great work, ed, this fog will carry us all the
way over the lake."
"thats not fog, frank,
the number two engine's on fire."
|
Posted by Vash on October 10, 2006
|
|
saw this one a while back, and i wasnt a huge fan
of it. granted i saw it after i saw oldboy, so i
was expecting that calibre of filmmaking, but i
just wasnt as impressed with this one. i think
that might have to do with my subtitles, maybe
they were a bit off, because i really had to
figure what was going on out for myself because
the way it flowed seemed so... not inconsistent,
just weird? *shrug* the ending was still cool,
nontheless.
|
Posted by Vash on September 12, 2006
|
|
was the alien in this one actually a dude in a
suit? i thought it was just a robotic model or
something. either way, genius. one of the reasons
ridley scott is one of my favourite directors.
|
Posted by Vash on September 12, 2006
|
|
i havent seen the quadrilogy cut of this one but i
agree totally. this movie wasnt completely
terrible, and i remember really digging the first
half of it, but by the time the alien really
starts showing up [maybe around the infamous
shower scene?] it just fails. also, weaver just
gets hard to look at when shes bald. eyugh.
|
Posted by Vash on September 12, 2006
|
|
honestly i was a big fan of this movie. id
probably give it a 7.5/10 but thats just because
im a sucker for this series. i agree with most of
what you said, and the character incongruencies
are definitely an issue, but i think the overall
vibe of the movie is highly enjoyable. ron
perlman's character alone made it worth watching
for me. it's the most lighthearted and
straightforward of all of them, and while i agree
it isnt anywhere near the first two in terms of
quality, it blows the third POS out of the water,
and is a much more fitting end for the series
imo.
on another note, have you ever
read the aliens comics from darkhorse? if youre in
alien mode, which you seem to be given the reviews
for all four, id highly reccomend you check it
out. it basically takes place after aliens [i
think it was written in the late 80s] and focuses
on newt and hudson [or hicks, i can never
remember] and their lives back on earth after they
come back from cold soak. ripley isnt even in it
for the first few issues, but its a WAY better
sequel to the first two than the third movie ever
was.
|
Posted by Vash on September 2, 2006
|
|
you didnt mention Bill Paxton! GAME OVER MAN!
|
Posted by Vash on September 23, 2005
|
|
aye, thoroughly enjoyed this one. very different
and i definitely didnt see the ending coming.
|
Posted by Vash on April 6, 2005
|
|
i thought it was cool how they split up TYB
because thats my favourite storyline, so they
started and ended the movie with it. but yeah, the
movie should be enjoyable for anyone regardless of
whether they read the comics or not.
|
|
