Hey guys, sorry it's been so long. I keep running into the issue of the movies I watch don't really offer anything for me to rant about. Plus finals for the Summer semester took a lot out of me, and work sucks, and yada yada yada, life stuff, ya know....
Anyway, tonight I was babysitting a 4 year old, and I needed Uncle Television for a few hours, but I didn't watch to watch the standard 4 year old fodder, because you can only take so much of it. I was flipping through Netflix, and found Hey Arnold The Movie, so I put on my nostalgia goggles, and pressed play...
I do need to predicate this by saying, I was never a big fan of Hey Arnold growing up, but as an adult, I realize it's actually pretty good, I don't think it's a genius show or anything, but it's better than I gave it credit for as a kid. That being said, most of the episodes I've watched have been as an adult, so I've noticed, something very common in cartoons, the amount of innuendos. Every cartoon has them, do they bother me? No. I find them funny...but Hey Arnold (both the show and the movie) have more innuendos than Spongebob Squarepants, and each episode of that show has about a million and four.
While we're on the subject of innuendos...everyone has seen The Little Mermaid, right? I hope so, anyway. I'm sure anyone above the of 12 knows that when Ariel and Eric get married they priest (I assume it's a priest, anyway) get's a boner...right? Okay, when I found that out...I immediately went to my VHS player, and tried to find it, I did...but it took about 12 times of rewinding.....if it took me, a 12-13 year that long to find it, what small child watching the film is going to catch it? Probably none. My point is, people, stop freaking about sex jokes in kids films....it's not like they're a new concept.
But I digress. Hey Arnold. The film is based off the show, yada yada yada, the score for the film is by Jim Lang. I don't personally recognize him from anything except Hey Arnold and Dinosaur Train. (talk about 4 year old fodder...that one is on the top tier, and not in a good way)
The basic plot of the this movie is...Arnold and best pal Gerald are walking home one day after getting beaten at basketball, and see bulldozers around the neighborhood, come to find out, the neighborhood is going to be torn down to put in big corporations (sounds just like the United States right now doesn't it? But more on that in a minute). But turn out, the Tomato Incident of the Revolutionary War (a parody to the Boston Tea Party) happened in the neighborhood, making it a national landmark, which means, it can't be torn down. The problem? There's no documentation to prove A) it happened in the neighborhood B) it happened at all, and isn't just legend. But Scheck, the big corporate guy, looking to make a few (million) bucks off the deal, has the documentation locked away in a safety deposit box, and Arnold and Gerald have to go retrieve, they get caught a few times, but ultimately get Scheck on tape burning the document, thus....the neighborhood stays. Yay.
The movie, even though making back nearly 5x it's 3 million dollar budget was still considered a bomb, and no, it's not the most original idea out there...I seem to remember Recess Schools Out, doing a very similar thing the year before, and doing a better job at it.
I think the problem with the film, is that it tries too hard to be a big budget film, from a 30 minute show, it doesn't have the wit or humor the show did, but at the same time, I'm sure it's hard to adapt a 30 minute concept (Well really, 15 minutes since there's 2 episodes per viewing). Can it be done well? Sure, I think the Jimmy Neutron does just fine, can it be done crappy...ever heard of the Smurfs?
I think the Hey Arnold movie looses something in translation, and it happens. I don't think it was a horrible movie, but it wasn't that great either.
It does however, do one thing pretty well. Even 11 years later, it is still very relevant to today, especially post 2008.
"Big corrupt corporations will do anything to make a few (million) bucks, even if that means destroying people's lives". All I could think of anytime Scheck was one screen was "Walmart, Walmart, Walmart"...or a few times, "Government in general". Naturally, kids are just going to see a generic villain, while adults see what I mentioned a moment ago...that was probably the redeeming quality to the film, it's aged pretty well.
I say, you honestly don't need to mess with it, unless you're just a fan of a show. I found it pretty bland.
Thursday, August 8, 2013
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
The Conjuring (2013)
Hey guys, I know it's been a little while. With summer school ending (yay!) I haven't had much time to watch any movies. (Boo). But, everyone needs a break from cramming math into their head, so I went today to see The Conjuring the 2013 movie about Ed and Lorianna Warren, Demonoligists who were very prevelant in the 1970s, I'm sure you've heard of of the movie Amnityville Horror, right? Ed and Lorianna investigated the original case.
Now, I'm not a skeptic..I do believe in demons and all that, do I believe in possession? No, not really. But that's probably just because I've never seen one that wasn't in a movie.
Anyway, I do like demon movies. The Exorcist is still my favorite horror of all time, even though there are some that are far superior.
Would I call The Conjuring better than The Exorcist? No, not in a million years...but you also have the The Exorcist being a classic, and The Conjuring only being in theaters for a few weeks.
Is it a good movie? Hell to the yes.
It pulled the usual stops, creepy dolls, creepy clowns, etc. But it wasn't solely about the creepy dolls and the creepy clowns. Even though the doll and the music box (with the clown inside) were the items possessed.
It was actually about the people being haunted, by these spirits. Rather than just blood and gore, that happens to involve a spirit or two.
I also really liked how they gave the spirit a back story, rather than just "Oh, there's a demon in this house...let's defeat it, the end"
The soundtrack was also used not to the films detriment...it wasn't used to signal something was GOING to happen, it was used AFTER or DURING something had happened/was happening.
It had jump scares, sure. But it wasn't loaded with them to the point it was all about the jump scare. It had blood, but it wasn't too to the point it was all the blood.
The ending of most scary movies go like this..."end. Oh no, demon is gonna jump out at you. Credits" this one, there was no demon at the end to jump out at you before the credits rolled, and in a weird way, even though the demon had been defeated, it was more unsettleing than if it hadn't been defeated.
Oh, and the reference to Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds was a really nice touch.
Check it out, you won't be disappointed.
Now, I'm not a skeptic..I do believe in demons and all that, do I believe in possession? No, not really. But that's probably just because I've never seen one that wasn't in a movie.
Anyway, I do like demon movies. The Exorcist is still my favorite horror of all time, even though there are some that are far superior.
Would I call The Conjuring better than The Exorcist? No, not in a million years...but you also have the The Exorcist being a classic, and The Conjuring only being in theaters for a few weeks.
Is it a good movie? Hell to the yes.
It pulled the usual stops, creepy dolls, creepy clowns, etc. But it wasn't solely about the creepy dolls and the creepy clowns. Even though the doll and the music box (with the clown inside) were the items possessed.
It was actually about the people being haunted, by these spirits. Rather than just blood and gore, that happens to involve a spirit or two.
I also really liked how they gave the spirit a back story, rather than just "Oh, there's a demon in this house...let's defeat it, the end"
The soundtrack was also used not to the films detriment...it wasn't used to signal something was GOING to happen, it was used AFTER or DURING something had happened/was happening.
It had jump scares, sure. But it wasn't loaded with them to the point it was all about the jump scare. It had blood, but it wasn't too to the point it was all the blood.
The ending of most scary movies go like this..."end. Oh no, demon is gonna jump out at you. Credits" this one, there was no demon at the end to jump out at you before the credits rolled, and in a weird way, even though the demon had been defeated, it was more unsettleing than if it hadn't been defeated.
Oh, and the reference to Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds was a really nice touch.
Check it out, you won't be disappointed.
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
Why is the Rescuers Down Under (1990) an underrated film?
So, we're going to look at things a little differently tonight, rather than review the film "The Rescuers Down Under" because honestly, I don't feel I can add anything that hasn't already been said... we're going to look at why it's underrated movie.
I have 2 theories...
But first, I feel the need to point out...I don't like movies about talking animals. Live action or animation. Not even as a kid. So, some of these theories might be a little biased. (I do like TRDU, for whatever that's worth..but it's the exception, not the rule)
1) The first film, simply titled "The Rescuers" came out in 1977. 36 years ago, let's put it in perspective, "The Rescuers" came out the same year, Star Wars: a New Hope came out. But aside from probably being overshadowed by Star Wars (I'm just assuming, I wasn't even thought about in 1977). The original film, isn't very good. At least compared to things Disney had put out prior...(this is just before "The Golden Age of Disney" which started with The Little Mermaid, which came out in 1989). At by "it's not very good" I simply mean, it's forgettable, have I seen it? Yeah. Do I remember anything about it? Other than Eva Gabor as Miss Bianca (and I only remember her, because even as a kid growing up in the late 90s early 2000s, I loved Green Acres)....no, not really.
The Rescuers Down Under came out 1990, 13 years after the original film. With the first film being pretty forgettable, 13 years was too long to wait for a sequel, because by then, people had moved on...bigger and better things, if you forgot you saw the first film in a franchise...are you gonna see the sequel? Probably not. Besides that...the people who saw the original film, were probably fairly grown up the time 1990 came around, mu uncle was born in 1977, and so at 13 in 1990 I don't think this would have been up his alley because "animation is kids stuff", whether that's true or not...is up for debate, but it's a fair correlation.
2) I started thinking...do I remember a single film that came out in 2001? I'm sure I saw some, multiple ones, can I name a specific title? No. Why? Everything was overshadowed by September 11th, (and it should have been).
I wasn't born until 1992, so I don't know what 1990 was like in itself, although I doubt a whole ton changed in just 2 years...
There were just three major points that I found: In no particular order:
1) Hubble Telescope launced into space
2)Lech Walesa Becomes First President of Poland
3) Nelson Mandela Freed.
*You do have the gulf war, but that didn't technically begin until 1991, even though it was hostile in 1990
I'm sure there were other major things, but hey...I only did one google search.Yeah, they're important...but not on the level that 9/11 was.
I think it all goes back to, the fact the sequel to a forgettable movie was made 13 years later, and it's animated. Which meant, unless adults were taking their kids, they were probably going to skip the film. Probably for Dancers with Wolves (which one best picture that year).
But hey, it's just speculation.
I have 2 theories...
But first, I feel the need to point out...I don't like movies about talking animals. Live action or animation. Not even as a kid. So, some of these theories might be a little biased. (I do like TRDU, for whatever that's worth..but it's the exception, not the rule)
1) The first film, simply titled "The Rescuers" came out in 1977. 36 years ago, let's put it in perspective, "The Rescuers" came out the same year, Star Wars: a New Hope came out. But aside from probably being overshadowed by Star Wars (I'm just assuming, I wasn't even thought about in 1977). The original film, isn't very good. At least compared to things Disney had put out prior...(this is just before "The Golden Age of Disney" which started with The Little Mermaid, which came out in 1989). At by "it's not very good" I simply mean, it's forgettable, have I seen it? Yeah. Do I remember anything about it? Other than Eva Gabor as Miss Bianca (and I only remember her, because even as a kid growing up in the late 90s early 2000s, I loved Green Acres)....no, not really.
The Rescuers Down Under came out 1990, 13 years after the original film. With the first film being pretty forgettable, 13 years was too long to wait for a sequel, because by then, people had moved on...bigger and better things, if you forgot you saw the first film in a franchise...are you gonna see the sequel? Probably not. Besides that...the people who saw the original film, were probably fairly grown up the time 1990 came around, mu uncle was born in 1977, and so at 13 in 1990 I don't think this would have been up his alley because "animation is kids stuff", whether that's true or not...is up for debate, but it's a fair correlation.
2) I started thinking...do I remember a single film that came out in 2001? I'm sure I saw some, multiple ones, can I name a specific title? No. Why? Everything was overshadowed by September 11th, (and it should have been).
I wasn't born until 1992, so I don't know what 1990 was like in itself, although I doubt a whole ton changed in just 2 years...
There were just three major points that I found: In no particular order:
1) Hubble Telescope launced into space
2)Lech Walesa Becomes First President of Poland
3) Nelson Mandela Freed.
*You do have the gulf war, but that didn't technically begin until 1991, even though it was hostile in 1990
I'm sure there were other major things, but hey...I only did one google search.Yeah, they're important...but not on the level that 9/11 was.
I think it all goes back to, the fact the sequel to a forgettable movie was made 13 years later, and it's animated. Which meant, unless adults were taking their kids, they were probably going to skip the film. Probably for Dancers with Wolves (which one best picture that year).
But hey, it's just speculation.
Monday, July 1, 2013
The Heat (2013)
Okay, we all the know the formula "Strict-play-by-the-rules cop meets do-your-own-thing cop, but become buddies to take down a bad guy"
That's basically The Heat in one sentence. Was it an incredible movie? No. But it was good, why?
Chemistry.
Melissa McCarthy and Sandra Bullock had the most amazing chemistry on screen that I've ever seen in this type of movie.
It's a formulaic movie in every sense of the word, and yeah, there's a twist...but it's pretty much handed to you on a silver platter...
I felt like Sandra Bullock was trying to escape the "Miss Congeniality" phase of her career, did it work? Maybe, I don't know. But I got the feeling she was trying.
Although, I am a little sad that in one scene, the bad guy has Sandra Bullock in a choke hold with a knife to her neck, and Melissa McCarthy pulls a gun on him. It would have been awesome if Sandra shouted "Shoot the hostage!" (Ya know, from Speed) which no, wouldn't have worked at all in the context of the given scene, but I was waiting for it nonetheless
I don't feel like I can say anything about this movie that hasn't been said about every other buddy cop movie, but it's totally worth a watch just for the chemistry McCarthy and Bullock present.
That's basically The Heat in one sentence. Was it an incredible movie? No. But it was good, why?
Chemistry.
Melissa McCarthy and Sandra Bullock had the most amazing chemistry on screen that I've ever seen in this type of movie.
It's a formulaic movie in every sense of the word, and yeah, there's a twist...but it's pretty much handed to you on a silver platter...
I felt like Sandra Bullock was trying to escape the "Miss Congeniality" phase of her career, did it work? Maybe, I don't know. But I got the feeling she was trying.
Although, I am a little sad that in one scene, the bad guy has Sandra Bullock in a choke hold with a knife to her neck, and Melissa McCarthy pulls a gun on him. It would have been awesome if Sandra shouted "Shoot the hostage!" (Ya know, from Speed) which no, wouldn't have worked at all in the context of the given scene, but I was waiting for it nonetheless
I don't feel like I can say anything about this movie that hasn't been said about every other buddy cop movie, but it's totally worth a watch just for the chemistry McCarthy and Bullock present.
Monsters University (2013)
So ladies, and gents...let's look at the most recent movie I've seen. Monsters University, starring John Goodman and Billy Crystal...
So, a short synopsis...Mike (Billy Crystal) wants to become a "scarer" (the thing he is the Monsters Inc, go scare children to power the Monster world) but he isn't scary enough once he gets to college, so Dean Hardscrabble (Helen Mirren, who I'll get to in a minute) kicks him out of the program.
The University has a thing called the "Scare Games" which is exactly what it sounds like, Mike and Sully (John Goodman) who has also been kicked out of the program for failing his final exam, make a team to compete with the "geeks" of the school...under the condition that if they win, Mike and Sully can join the program again, and if they loose, both of them leave the University forever. Well, obviously they win.
I don't think it was better than Monsters INC, by any stretch of the imagination, but I think it's one of the better Pixar sequels. Even if you don't like sequels, it's worth a watch. I enjoyed it.
But, what I wanted to talk about wasn't the movie, because I feel like there isn't anything to talk about that wasn't covered when the first film came out.
Dean Hardscrabble...is she a villain? I went to see MU with my boyfriend, and my 7 year old cousin...me and my boyfriend thought she wasn't a villain, just a cliche "mean dean" type thing, my 7 year old cousin was adamant she was a "bad guy".
I think the way you look at a lot of characters, but specifically Dean Hardscrabble, is how much "wordy experience" you have. Yes, DH was mean, no doubt, but I've dealt with people worse, even deans worse, for that matter. Ben, my cousin...the meanest person he's ever met is probably my Aunt when he's told "No."
His naive view on the world made him believe Dean Hardscrabble was a villain, while Mine and Chris' non-naive view of the world made her seem.....simply, human. (monster, whatever..you get my point).
I don't think Helen Mirren created a bad character, quite the contrary, I thought she was excellent...whether or not she's a villain or not. But she created a character with layers...the dean is simply trying to do her job and not play favorites, even though it mentions several times that Sully, is from a family of "scarers"
Either way, kid, adult, villain or not...it's worth a look.
So, a short synopsis...Mike (Billy Crystal) wants to become a "scarer" (the thing he is the Monsters Inc, go scare children to power the Monster world) but he isn't scary enough once he gets to college, so Dean Hardscrabble (Helen Mirren, who I'll get to in a minute) kicks him out of the program.
The University has a thing called the "Scare Games" which is exactly what it sounds like, Mike and Sully (John Goodman) who has also been kicked out of the program for failing his final exam, make a team to compete with the "geeks" of the school...under the condition that if they win, Mike and Sully can join the program again, and if they loose, both of them leave the University forever. Well, obviously they win.
I don't think it was better than Monsters INC, by any stretch of the imagination, but I think it's one of the better Pixar sequels. Even if you don't like sequels, it's worth a watch. I enjoyed it.
But, what I wanted to talk about wasn't the movie, because I feel like there isn't anything to talk about that wasn't covered when the first film came out.
Dean Hardscrabble...is she a villain? I went to see MU with my boyfriend, and my 7 year old cousin...me and my boyfriend thought she wasn't a villain, just a cliche "mean dean" type thing, my 7 year old cousin was adamant she was a "bad guy".
I think the way you look at a lot of characters, but specifically Dean Hardscrabble, is how much "wordy experience" you have. Yes, DH was mean, no doubt, but I've dealt with people worse, even deans worse, for that matter. Ben, my cousin...the meanest person he's ever met is probably my Aunt when he's told "No."
His naive view on the world made him believe Dean Hardscrabble was a villain, while Mine and Chris' non-naive view of the world made her seem.....simply, human. (monster, whatever..you get my point).
I don't think Helen Mirren created a bad character, quite the contrary, I thought she was excellent...whether or not she's a villain or not. But she created a character with layers...the dean is simply trying to do her job and not play favorites, even though it mentions several times that Sully, is from a family of "scarers"
Either way, kid, adult, villain or not...it's worth a look.
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Wish Upon a Star (1996)
Let's go for something a little different tonight, and watch the 1996 Disney Channel Original movie starring Katherine Heigel (who I feel needs no introduction), and Danielle Harris (Who was most notably Eliza from the Wild Thornberries). The two play sisters, who get an an argument, "wish upon a star" and switch bodies.
Look, even in 1996, this is idea was done to death..a few I found from 1996 were:
"18 Again" (1988)
"Alison Birthday" (1981)
All of Me (1984)
"Farligt venskab" (which translates to Body Switch) (1995)
"Dream a Little Dream" (1989)
"Freaky Friday" (1976)
"Freaky Friday" (The 1995 tv movie)
"Like Father Like Son" (1987)
"Prelude to a Kiss" (1992)
"The Immortalizer" (1989)
"Vice Versa" (1988)
And that's just what I found with the first search I did, I'm sure I could find more, but you get the point. It's none a new concept, it's an overdone concept. The concept can be done well....yes. But it rarely is. (Shaggy Dog, anyone?)
I couldn't find much information about Wish Upon a Star, which makes me question if the movie is any good, but even a movie with a lot of information about it can suck...
So, without further ado....1996's Wish Upon a Star
We open with Bubblegum pop music, because that's what teens love.
Alex, Katherine Heigel is your average "pretty girl" who spends all of the morning in the bathroom, and oogling over her boyfriend's picture...and Danielle Harris, Hayley, is the younger sister, who is the shadow of her older sister....hm, what could go wrong here?
(Also, for whatever its worth...and probably nothing unless you're on Jepordary, Dannielle Harris, who plays the younger sister is actually a year and a half older than Katherine Hiegel)
The parents (Scott Wilkinson and Mary Parker Williams) decide the best way to stop the girls from fighting, and to get Alex to dress more modestly is to stop having so many rules. I reiterate, what could possibly go wrong?
At about 13 minutes, Hayley makes the wish while looking through a telescope, because if she can't be pretty like Alex, she's going to be into science.
We're now about 30 minutes into the film. I wouldn't consider it a bad film, I've seen worse. I wouldn't consider it a good film, I've seen better. It's a boring film. A very boring film. Now, part of that could be what I've already mentioned, the body switching thing is overdone, even in 1996, but even an overdone concept can be pretty decent if the writing is good....and it's not particularly bad here, but it's nothing special. It's
forgettable.
Nothing of importance in the movie has happened since Hayley made the wish back at 13 minutes in.
Another thing about this movie, I have two younger brothers...I get the "Sibling Rivalry"dynamic of the household, but even when me and my brothers would fight (and still do) at the end of the day we're still friends, this movie doesn't have any of that, and if it does, it's trying to pull a fast one on our parents that are dumber than Chief Wiggum, it doesn't paint an accurate picture of the typical family. Okay, what do I expect from a movie about sisters swamping bodies? Well, it can still be done with a theme like this.
I was trying to pinpoint what was wrong with this movie, it fails on all the levels that original Freaky Friday succeeded on. I think I have a theory, in FF, you knew Mom was actually the Daughter and vice versa, and while I don't really like the Jamie Lee Curtis/Lindsay Lohan version, you could tell there. This movie, yeah...you know they're supposed to be in each others bodies, but you can't really tell a difference between the sisters, because they act the same way they did prior to the wish. I think this is most obvious when they try to decide who's room to sleep in that night. I'm sure there's other problems with this film, aside from what I've mentioned....we still have 51 minutes left. But, I think that's what makes this movie so boring, and helped FF succeed. :)
Actually, I think this movie could work...if you got a pair of twins, and did the "I hate my life, let's be each other for the day" which every show with twins, has done....and is still an overdone concept. But it could work that way...maybe not well, but that's the only way I really see this movie working.
So, we now begin day 2...AKA "Let's ruin each others reputation" day.
However, about 15 minutes of run time, they discover that Alex is a virgin, and have an awkward bonding moment, and realize that they'll help each other. Specifically, getting Hayley back into the science fair which was taken away from her for....well...plot convenience, I guess.
The girls camp out in the backyard to wait for a shooting star, but decide to go as each other for one more day, so that Alex's teachers can be convinced that she's not an air head, and that Hayley can get a boyfriend. I guess the writers just needed to fill an extra 30 minutes of the movie that weren't about if Alex was a virgin or not.
At the end of that night, Alex...er...Hayley makes the wish, but nothing happens. So, Hayley..er Alex, must present the real Hayley's science project, and Alex...er...Hayley, must be Alex in some prom queen thing....
Turns out, it didn't work because when the real Hayley made the wish in the beginning of the movie, so did the real Alex, so they both have to wish for it in order for it to be reversed. Okay...I guess. Spoiler alert, it works. Also, shooting stars seem to happen an awful in "insert city here" And, spoiler alert...Alex wins the prom queen thing, because nobody saw that one coming.
The movie ends with Alex giving Hayley the tiara for winning the prom queen thing.
Okay, the movie is boring and incredibly predictable, unless you just seriously love "body swap" movies, don't bother.
Look, even in 1996, this is idea was done to death..a few I found from 1996 were:
"18 Again" (1988)
"Alison Birthday" (1981)
All of Me (1984)
"Farligt venskab" (which translates to Body Switch) (1995)
"Dream a Little Dream" (1989)
"Freaky Friday" (1976)
"Freaky Friday" (The 1995 tv movie)
"Like Father Like Son" (1987)
"Prelude to a Kiss" (1992)
"The Immortalizer" (1989)
"Vice Versa" (1988)
And that's just what I found with the first search I did, I'm sure I could find more, but you get the point. It's none a new concept, it's an overdone concept. The concept can be done well....yes. But it rarely is. (Shaggy Dog, anyone?)
I couldn't find much information about Wish Upon a Star, which makes me question if the movie is any good, but even a movie with a lot of information about it can suck...
So, without further ado....1996's Wish Upon a Star
We open with Bubblegum pop music, because that's what teens love.
Alex, Katherine Heigel is your average "pretty girl" who spends all of the morning in the bathroom, and oogling over her boyfriend's picture...and Danielle Harris, Hayley, is the younger sister, who is the shadow of her older sister....hm, what could go wrong here?
(Also, for whatever its worth...and probably nothing unless you're on Jepordary, Dannielle Harris, who plays the younger sister is actually a year and a half older than Katherine Hiegel)
The parents (Scott Wilkinson and Mary Parker Williams) decide the best way to stop the girls from fighting, and to get Alex to dress more modestly is to stop having so many rules. I reiterate, what could possibly go wrong?
At about 13 minutes, Hayley makes the wish while looking through a telescope, because if she can't be pretty like Alex, she's going to be into science.
We're now about 30 minutes into the film. I wouldn't consider it a bad film, I've seen worse. I wouldn't consider it a good film, I've seen better. It's a boring film. A very boring film. Now, part of that could be what I've already mentioned, the body switching thing is overdone, even in 1996, but even an overdone concept can be pretty decent if the writing is good....and it's not particularly bad here, but it's nothing special. It's
forgettable.
Nothing of importance in the movie has happened since Hayley made the wish back at 13 minutes in.
Another thing about this movie, I have two younger brothers...I get the "Sibling Rivalry"dynamic of the household, but even when me and my brothers would fight (and still do) at the end of the day we're still friends, this movie doesn't have any of that, and if it does, it's trying to pull a fast one on our parents that are dumber than Chief Wiggum, it doesn't paint an accurate picture of the typical family. Okay, what do I expect from a movie about sisters swamping bodies? Well, it can still be done with a theme like this.
I was trying to pinpoint what was wrong with this movie, it fails on all the levels that original Freaky Friday succeeded on. I think I have a theory, in FF, you knew Mom was actually the Daughter and vice versa, and while I don't really like the Jamie Lee Curtis/Lindsay Lohan version, you could tell there. This movie, yeah...you know they're supposed to be in each others bodies, but you can't really tell a difference between the sisters, because they act the same way they did prior to the wish. I think this is most obvious when they try to decide who's room to sleep in that night. I'm sure there's other problems with this film, aside from what I've mentioned....we still have 51 minutes left. But, I think that's what makes this movie so boring, and helped FF succeed. :)
Actually, I think this movie could work...if you got a pair of twins, and did the "I hate my life, let's be each other for the day" which every show with twins, has done....and is still an overdone concept. But it could work that way...maybe not well, but that's the only way I really see this movie working.
So, we now begin day 2...AKA "Let's ruin each others reputation" day.
However, about 15 minutes of run time, they discover that Alex is a virgin, and have an awkward bonding moment, and realize that they'll help each other. Specifically, getting Hayley back into the science fair which was taken away from her for....well...plot convenience, I guess.
The girls camp out in the backyard to wait for a shooting star, but decide to go as each other for one more day, so that Alex's teachers can be convinced that she's not an air head, and that Hayley can get a boyfriend. I guess the writers just needed to fill an extra 30 minutes of the movie that weren't about if Alex was a virgin or not.
At the end of that night, Alex...er...Hayley makes the wish, but nothing happens. So, Hayley..er Alex, must present the real Hayley's science project, and Alex...er...Hayley, must be Alex in some prom queen thing....
Turns out, it didn't work because when the real Hayley made the wish in the beginning of the movie, so did the real Alex, so they both have to wish for it in order for it to be reversed. Okay...I guess. Spoiler alert, it works. Also, shooting stars seem to happen an awful in "insert city here" And, spoiler alert...Alex wins the prom queen thing, because nobody saw that one coming.
The movie ends with Alex giving Hayley the tiara for winning the prom queen thing.
Okay, the movie is boring and incredibly predictable, unless you just seriously love "body swap" movies, don't bother.
Saturday, June 15, 2013
Daddy Day Care (2003)
I think I need to predicate this review by saying something I know will probably loose me some followers. I don't think Eddie Murphy is funny.I think he has (some) good movies, yes. But honestly, the characters he plays in any movie could be played by ANYONE else who was even the slightest bit relevant at the time.
I do like (most of) Eddie's standup, but even that I have to take in small amounts.
So anyway, let's look at 2003's crapfest Daddy Day Care (and maybe one day look at the even crappier sequel)
We open with Eddie Murphy (Charlie) at his job, where he is a product developer of some sort, and is trying out a new vegetable flavored breakfast cereal, and then wonders why the kids turn on him in his big giant stalk of broccoli suit. No, seriously. I don't even have kids, and I know how dumb of an idea it is to even try that. AND, Charlie has a kid. I guess it would make somewhat sense, if he was childless, but he's not. And, how did he manage to "catch" Regina King?
Because "vegetable o's" was such a big flop, Charlie and Phil (Jeff Garlin, who I have never found to be funny, ever). Get laid off, and eventually decide to open up a "Daddy Day Care" Center, because the one led by Mrs. Gwenneth Harridan is too expensive on one income. Oh, and Mrs. Gwenneth Harridan is played by Anjelica Houston, who I really like....but I wonder how in the world she got roped into this....well, to be fair...she was in the Addams Family movie(s), which let's be honest...might be a guilty pleasure, but compared to the tv show (which I loved growing up, because I swear...I was born in the wrong decade) they suck.
But I digress. I will say one bright part to this movie is Siobhan Fallon, as Peggy. (She was most recently Fred's mom, in both Camp Fred, and Fred the tv show...but probably even more notably for her work on SNL from 1991-1992, and she was also the bus driver in Forest Gump...remind to make a review of what I don't like that movie. ) But even she's only in it for about 3 minutes. and there's also Max Burkholder, who you might recognize from NBC's "Parenthood". But Max Burkholder got a rather sucky role, as most children do.
I feel like this movie was "Let's see how many nut shots we can cram into one movie".
So, they open the daycare center, after people stop freaking out about the fact it's 2 guys....and everything goes haywire the first day. Yeah, I'd leave my kids with these goons.
The first day, as you could expect goes crazy, children climbing on drapes, managing to work large pieces of machinery (a riding lawn mower)..and just all around crazy. And how to two parents, not know that large amounts of sugar would cause the kids the explode with hyperness? Seriously, are you that stupid? Apparently.
When Mrs. Harridan's school starts to drop in attendance, she makes an anonymous complaint to children services, but Charlie and Phil manage to get everything up to code within about 6 hours.
As someone who taught Pre-k for awhile, I find it rather insulting. Not just that scene, but this whole movie in general. But hey, it's Eddie Murphy, so I wasn't exactly expecting gold, especially given where in career was in 2003.
There's also a poop scene, where Phil's kid has diarrhea but misses, so does the joke of Charlie freaking out about his bathroom to the "shower scene" music from "Psycho"
The comedy here, doesn't work. It tries. But I honestly can't tell if it tries too hard, or doesn't try enough. It fails, almost on a level of "Master of Disguise." And to be completely, MoD works better, it got a few smirks from me. DDC has yet to make me even smirk, and we're roughly an hour into the film. But if you consider the fact that our director, Steve Carr also directed Paul Blart: Mall Cop. It's not a stretch that DDC wouldn't be very funny.
Okay, moving on.
Enter Marvin, played by Steve Zahn (who has his funny moments in the film, but I wouldn't watch the film, specifically for his humor). He's from the business that Charlie and Phil got laid off from, and stops by...to...plot convenience, I suppose.
Charlie and Phil now have 11 kids under they're care, and regulations can't allow more than 5 kids per adult, so they hire Marvin, or they shut the business down, but letting Mrs Harridan win, the professional, would be a crime. So, Marvin agrees.
One of the mothers, honestly...I can't keep them apart, so...mother #1 stops by to write a check, "Dreamweaver" plays in the background, which is the universal sign for love. Here is what I mean by failed comedy.
Mom #1: *talking to Marvin* Are you the new daddy?
Marvin: I'm your daddy......*awkward pause*....I'm not your Daddy, I'm your baby's daddy...*awkward pause*.....I'm not your baby's daddy, but I will be...I'm...uhh....
Phil: You're Marvin.
It just doesn't work, at. all.
and for our next bit of failed comedy, they finally start to get their act together, with the help of Marvin, and a "focus group" and have a pet show and tell day, well..one of the little girls, again, I can't keep them apart. So, girl #1...brings a tarantula, and...you guessed it, it goes missing....and...you guessed it.....Phil finds it on his head. and...you guessed it....a lot of running around in panic ensues. The only time I have ever seen the tarantula gag work, was in the first Home Alone movie.
Kevin Nealon plays Bruce, Charlie and Phil's former boss, on a golf course. Cause ya know, bosses playing golf is cliche. Turns out, Bruce is the father of Crispin, one of the kids at daycare. Nobody saw that coming.
Mrs Harridman makes a complaint again, prompting child services for about the 4th time during the duration of this movie, in the meantime, Marvin has lost "The Flash" a kid who refuses to take off a "Flash" costume. They find the costume, but not the kid...who is eating a cookie, without the costume on. They tried to make it funny, by looking in places like the trash cans, toilet, washing machine, but come on...a missing child isn't very funny.
Anyway, he took the costume off, because he doesn't want to be Flash anymore, he wants to be Tony (and not Tony Stark)
Well, state regulations say that an in home daycare can't have more than 12 kids, and they have 14. They look at a new, bigger, permanent place, but that takes money, so they have a carnival, which Haridman sabotages. She then offers, if Daddy Day Care were to close down, to buy all his kids from him.
It does shut down, because Charlie is offered his job back, along with Phil, and Marvin, who apparently worked there too...apparently. But he realizes he made a huge mistake about 30 seconds later, when he sees a picture tucked in a folder that Ben (his own kid) drew.
So, they go round up the kids from Mrs Haridman's pre-school, and reopen Daddy Day Care in the new building, and yeah..the end.
Oh, and Haridman's becomes a traffic guard, and Jennifer (her assisstant) now works for DDC.
I think the movie had a good idea, they just went about it wrong, the gross out humor wasn't funny, and the sugary-sweet family-movie crap, was still over the top, and not really worth anything.
Steve Zahn does add something, but even he's not worth it to watch the entire movie.
I say don't bother, and the sequel "Daddy Day Camp" is even worse.
I do like (most of) Eddie's standup, but even that I have to take in small amounts.
So anyway, let's look at 2003's crapfest Daddy Day Care (and maybe one day look at the even crappier sequel)
We open with Eddie Murphy (Charlie) at his job, where he is a product developer of some sort, and is trying out a new vegetable flavored breakfast cereal, and then wonders why the kids turn on him in his big giant stalk of broccoli suit. No, seriously. I don't even have kids, and I know how dumb of an idea it is to even try that. AND, Charlie has a kid. I guess it would make somewhat sense, if he was childless, but he's not. And, how did he manage to "catch" Regina King?
Because "vegetable o's" was such a big flop, Charlie and Phil (Jeff Garlin, who I have never found to be funny, ever). Get laid off, and eventually decide to open up a "Daddy Day Care" Center, because the one led by Mrs. Gwenneth Harridan is too expensive on one income. Oh, and Mrs. Gwenneth Harridan is played by Anjelica Houston, who I really like....but I wonder how in the world she got roped into this....well, to be fair...she was in the Addams Family movie(s), which let's be honest...might be a guilty pleasure, but compared to the tv show (which I loved growing up, because I swear...I was born in the wrong decade) they suck.
But I digress. I will say one bright part to this movie is Siobhan Fallon, as Peggy. (She was most recently Fred's mom, in both Camp Fred, and Fred the tv show...but probably even more notably for her work on SNL from 1991-1992, and she was also the bus driver in Forest Gump...remind to make a review of what I don't like that movie. ) But even she's only in it for about 3 minutes. and there's also Max Burkholder, who you might recognize from NBC's "Parenthood". But Max Burkholder got a rather sucky role, as most children do.
I feel like this movie was "Let's see how many nut shots we can cram into one movie".
So, they open the daycare center, after people stop freaking out about the fact it's 2 guys....and everything goes haywire the first day. Yeah, I'd leave my kids with these goons.
The first day, as you could expect goes crazy, children climbing on drapes, managing to work large pieces of machinery (a riding lawn mower)..and just all around crazy. And how to two parents, not know that large amounts of sugar would cause the kids the explode with hyperness? Seriously, are you that stupid? Apparently.
When Mrs. Harridan's school starts to drop in attendance, she makes an anonymous complaint to children services, but Charlie and Phil manage to get everything up to code within about 6 hours.
As someone who taught Pre-k for awhile, I find it rather insulting. Not just that scene, but this whole movie in general. But hey, it's Eddie Murphy, so I wasn't exactly expecting gold, especially given where in career was in 2003.
There's also a poop scene, where Phil's kid has diarrhea but misses, so does the joke of Charlie freaking out about his bathroom to the "shower scene" music from "Psycho"
The comedy here, doesn't work. It tries. But I honestly can't tell if it tries too hard, or doesn't try enough. It fails, almost on a level of "Master of Disguise." And to be completely, MoD works better, it got a few smirks from me. DDC has yet to make me even smirk, and we're roughly an hour into the film. But if you consider the fact that our director, Steve Carr also directed Paul Blart: Mall Cop. It's not a stretch that DDC wouldn't be very funny.
Okay, moving on.
Enter Marvin, played by Steve Zahn (who has his funny moments in the film, but I wouldn't watch the film, specifically for his humor). He's from the business that Charlie and Phil got laid off from, and stops by...to...plot convenience, I suppose.
Charlie and Phil now have 11 kids under they're care, and regulations can't allow more than 5 kids per adult, so they hire Marvin, or they shut the business down, but letting Mrs Harridan win, the professional, would be a crime. So, Marvin agrees.
One of the mothers, honestly...I can't keep them apart, so...mother #1 stops by to write a check, "Dreamweaver" plays in the background, which is the universal sign for love. Here is what I mean by failed comedy.
Mom #1: *talking to Marvin* Are you the new daddy?
Marvin: I'm your daddy......*awkward pause*....I'm not your Daddy, I'm your baby's daddy...*awkward pause*.....I'm not your baby's daddy, but I will be...I'm...uhh....
Phil: You're Marvin.
It just doesn't work, at. all.
and for our next bit of failed comedy, they finally start to get their act together, with the help of Marvin, and a "focus group" and have a pet show and tell day, well..one of the little girls, again, I can't keep them apart. So, girl #1...brings a tarantula, and...you guessed it, it goes missing....and...you guessed it.....Phil finds it on his head. and...you guessed it....a lot of running around in panic ensues. The only time I have ever seen the tarantula gag work, was in the first Home Alone movie.
Kevin Nealon plays Bruce, Charlie and Phil's former boss, on a golf course. Cause ya know, bosses playing golf is cliche. Turns out, Bruce is the father of Crispin, one of the kids at daycare. Nobody saw that coming.
Mrs Harridman makes a complaint again, prompting child services for about the 4th time during the duration of this movie, in the meantime, Marvin has lost "The Flash" a kid who refuses to take off a "Flash" costume. They find the costume, but not the kid...who is eating a cookie, without the costume on. They tried to make it funny, by looking in places like the trash cans, toilet, washing machine, but come on...a missing child isn't very funny.
Anyway, he took the costume off, because he doesn't want to be Flash anymore, he wants to be Tony (and not Tony Stark)
Well, state regulations say that an in home daycare can't have more than 12 kids, and they have 14. They look at a new, bigger, permanent place, but that takes money, so they have a carnival, which Haridman sabotages. She then offers, if Daddy Day Care were to close down, to buy all his kids from him.
It does shut down, because Charlie is offered his job back, along with Phil, and Marvin, who apparently worked there too...apparently. But he realizes he made a huge mistake about 30 seconds later, when he sees a picture tucked in a folder that Ben (his own kid) drew.
So, they go round up the kids from Mrs Haridman's pre-school, and reopen Daddy Day Care in the new building, and yeah..the end.
Oh, and Haridman's becomes a traffic guard, and Jennifer (her assisstant) now works for DDC.
I think the movie had a good idea, they just went about it wrong, the gross out humor wasn't funny, and the sugary-sweet family-movie crap, was still over the top, and not really worth anything.
Steve Zahn does add something, but even he's not worth it to watch the entire movie.
I say don't bother, and the sequel "Daddy Day Camp" is even worse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)