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.
Monday, May 27, 2013
Home Alone 3 (1997)
I thought tonight, being I think last time we looked at the most depressing movie I could find, we would look at some slapstick.
John Hughes, late, great: known for such things as Home Alone 1 and 2, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, and of course, The Breakfast Club (note to self: make a post regarding why I don't like that movie). And....*drum roll* Home Alone 3.
Home Alone 3 came at a point, where honestly, I don't think JH cared anymore, he was already rich from his many works with Molly Ringwald, and HA3 proves he no longer cared.
I will say, the first Home Alone, I wouldn't go as far to say that it's the best children's film of all time, but it ranks in my personal top 5 children's film, and the second, while not near as good as the first, still ranks in the top 10. HA3 doesn't even make the cut (and if you've seen it, I think the reasons are obvious), however, HA3 and HA4 happen to be guilty pleasures of mine (another note to self: review HA4 at some point).
Is HA3 a good film? God no. A mediocre film? God no. A bad film? Yes.
There are so many plot inconsistencies, and if anyone in the cast had a brain, the movie would fall to shreds. So, that being said, let's look at it. It's also worth noting it's director Raja Gosnell's debut, which I might be able to forgive this movie, if it weren't for the fact he also directed the live action Scooby Doo, Big Mama's House and Never Been Kissed.
We open to our classic Home Alone theme, and our classic Home Alone style credits. Which is promising, for a little bit.
Naturally, because we're in a John Hughes movie, we're opening in Chicago suburb. I mean, Hong Kong.Criminal masterminds are discussing a microchip in which a person could essentially rule the world.
Which, brings me to my first, not so much a complaint about the movie, but just a general question.
There is an episode of The Fairly Oddparents in which our fairy obsessed teacher Mr Crocker is "cured" into not believing in fairies. But the magic of Fairy World is dependent on Crocker freaking out about fairies, so when he stops believing, Fairy World runs out of magic and plummets into Giant Bucket of Acid World.
Why in the world would you create just ONE micro chip that someone can control the world with? I'm sure one exists today, but wouldn't it make much more sense both practically and for security split everything up like Horocruxes, that way, maybe you have a CHANCE at catching the criminal before he finds ways to destroy the planet? I guess not.
We're now in Silicon Valley, California. Again, not Chicago. The criminals get the chip from some unknown guy, who will never be mentioned again, I assume he's in the military, since it's a military chip. Harry and Marv, I mean...Peter, Alice, Burton, and Earl. Sure. Hide the chip in a kid's toy car and head to the airport. Yeah, I don't see anything bad happening with that plan. And *drum roll* an old lady with an identical bag picks up the toy car by mistake, and guess where that lady is going? Finally, we see Chicago.
At about 8 minutes in, we're introduced to Kevin, I mean Alex. Sure. Who is shoveling Miss Hess' driveway, the woman who accidentally made off with the toy car with the chip inside.
And, Alex has the chicken pox. Which means no school, which means he can bug Mom all day, wanting things that even a sick child can get on their own.
So, the criminals, well Alice, anyway. Rents a nearby apartment, to be able to scope out the neighborhood better. She wears a wig, so she can't be discovered. Look, I understand wanting to be cautious, but you can't be discovered if no one knows who you are, and even if they do, I bet you'll take more precautions than simply putting on a diva wig anybody can find around Halloween.
Both parents have to work. Leaving him, HOME ALONE! Miss Hess, who is more of a grouch than Oscar the Grouch, would still make a decent babysitter when there's 4 criminals trying to steal a toy car, right? Okay sure, they don't know about the criminals yet, but Alex is still only about 8, most states have laws that say you can't leave a child home alone until a certain age, and I guarantee that age is older than 8.
Alex sees the criminals through his telescope and calls the police, but they get away before the police get there, and since nothing was taken, since they don't know which house the toy car is in, nobody believes him.
So, Mom has to go to work again the next day, and Dad has a business trip. Alex is left home alone again, and sees the criminals again. And calls the police again, but again they get away, and everyone, including his family, specifically his two siblings (one of which is a young Scarlett Johanson), make him the laughing stock of the entire neighborhood. Yeah, because your idea of a neighborhood watch is working out so well.
One of the criminals, can't get away in time, so he hangs his body horizontally from some rafters, and a cop LOOKS DIRECTLY UP AND MISSES HIM! Maybe we'd be better off Cheif Wiggum.
We get our first little bit of slapstick about 40 minutes in, when Alex rigs a toy car and a video camera to his tv to make a makeshift security device, but one of the criminals finds it, and tries to get the car, when he notices that it's the one with the chip, Alex floors the car, causing him to bump his head a few times, and stumble over the house, trying to catch the car, please. RC cars don't go fast enough that you couldn't catch one at even a walking pace.
Instead of calling the police, Alex calls inside the house where the criminal is, and has his brother's annoying as hell parrot talk to the answering machine as a distraction. Which honestly serves no purpose, because he's already distracted by a tv that Alex turned on with a universal remote. And now we have more slapstick with all four of the criminals trying to get the toy car that Alex drove outside the house, but it flipped on its side. ON ITS SIDE! IT'S NOT GOING ANYWHERE, JUST PICK THE THING UP.
They do, but Alex manages to get the car away from them, and opens it up to see if maybe what they wanted was inside, because no adult would have a need for a toy car, the chip falls out, and under a magnifying glass, he can read "US Air Force".
So, what does Alex do? Call the police? No. He calls the Air Force. Well, a recruiting office anyway. Who naturally don't believe him, but take down the serial number anyway.
Alex doesn't start setting traps until about an hour into the film, after the criminals intercept a call to his mom, pretending to be Mom from school asking about a missing toy car, (which in turn, leads the criminals to Alex's house).
I think it's been mentioned before, but these traps are way too precise, if the criminals aren't standing in EXACTLY the right position, it won't work, but naturally, they are standing in EXACTLY the right position.
The criminals kidnap Miss Hess, who is walking over to babysit Alex (only after the mother leaves for about the tenth time) and tie her up in her garage. Leaving the door to back yard open, hoping she freezes to death, since this is a family film after all.
This time they aren't wearing disguises, really?
The Air Force, as in, not the recruiting office, gets word the the serial number on the chip, and while Alex pulls various booby traps on this (which are really just a rehash of the ones in the first one, none of which are worthy enough, or funny enough to be brought up with any detail), the Air Force heads to Chicago.
Another thing about the traps, in the first film, they were hidden pretty well, in this film. No, not so much, if the criminals would only use their brains and LOOK AROUND before walking around, they would clearly see that they're about to step in a Mega Blocks bucket full of rubber cement (Product placement, anyone?)
Alex pulls about the fifth switch-er-roo of the movie, and the head criminal, accidentally takes a Bubble gun, for this own.
Alex notices that the head criminal took his fake gun, picks up the real gun,, says "yikes" and throws it away. I'm not advocating gun violence, but Kid....there are 4 international terrorists in your house, I think a gun would do the job a lot faster than your booby traps.
The police come, and catch 3/4 criminals, but the head criminal gets away, like he has for the past 7 YEARS! All I'm saying is, if a kid can outwit a criminal, that you've been chasing for 7 years, you have a problem.
The parrot rides the toy car, into an igglo Alex made, the head criminal is hiding in it, there's also a ton of fireworks that Alex dumped in there, the parrot lights and match, and well....the boss isn't hiding for much longer.
And at the end of the film, the criminals get their mugshot taken, all with chicken pox.
Okay, so this film obviously doesn't compare in any way, shape, or form, to the first two, but it's loads better than the 4th, and I would imagine it's loads better than the 5th (which I have yet to see). But it will always remain a guilty pleasure of mine.
The jokes are lame, the writing is lame, the direction is mediocre at best, you can tell the stunts are fake, which makes some of the falls less funny. I would say, if you love the first film, skip 3,4, and 5. But if you kinda enjoyed the first film, 3 is just a rehash, jokes and all, so while you might not enjoy it as much as you did the first one, I don't think you'll loose anything on it. Other than a little over an hour and 45 minutes.
This film didn't add anything to the Home Alone franchise, but I'm not sure how it expected to. It took away what made Home Alone, Home Alone. (and I'm not just talking changing from "Kevin" to "Alex").
John Hughes, late, great: known for such things as Home Alone 1 and 2, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, and of course, The Breakfast Club (note to self: make a post regarding why I don't like that movie). And....*drum roll* Home Alone 3.
Home Alone 3 came at a point, where honestly, I don't think JH cared anymore, he was already rich from his many works with Molly Ringwald, and HA3 proves he no longer cared.
I will say, the first Home Alone, I wouldn't go as far to say that it's the best children's film of all time, but it ranks in my personal top 5 children's film, and the second, while not near as good as the first, still ranks in the top 10. HA3 doesn't even make the cut (and if you've seen it, I think the reasons are obvious), however, HA3 and HA4 happen to be guilty pleasures of mine (another note to self: review HA4 at some point).
Is HA3 a good film? God no. A mediocre film? God no. A bad film? Yes.
There are so many plot inconsistencies, and if anyone in the cast had a brain, the movie would fall to shreds. So, that being said, let's look at it. It's also worth noting it's director Raja Gosnell's debut, which I might be able to forgive this movie, if it weren't for the fact he also directed the live action Scooby Doo, Big Mama's House and Never Been Kissed.
We open to our classic Home Alone theme, and our classic Home Alone style credits. Which is promising, for a little bit.
Naturally, because we're in a John Hughes movie, we're opening in Chicago suburb. I mean, Hong Kong.Criminal masterminds are discussing a microchip in which a person could essentially rule the world.
Which, brings me to my first, not so much a complaint about the movie, but just a general question.
There is an episode of The Fairly Oddparents in which our fairy obsessed teacher Mr Crocker is "cured" into not believing in fairies. But the magic of Fairy World is dependent on Crocker freaking out about fairies, so when he stops believing, Fairy World runs out of magic and plummets into Giant Bucket of Acid World.
Why in the world would you create just ONE micro chip that someone can control the world with? I'm sure one exists today, but wouldn't it make much more sense both practically and for security split everything up like Horocruxes, that way, maybe you have a CHANCE at catching the criminal before he finds ways to destroy the planet? I guess not.
We're now in Silicon Valley, California. Again, not Chicago. The criminals get the chip from some unknown guy, who will never be mentioned again, I assume he's in the military, since it's a military chip. Harry and Marv, I mean...Peter, Alice, Burton, and Earl. Sure. Hide the chip in a kid's toy car and head to the airport. Yeah, I don't see anything bad happening with that plan. And *drum roll* an old lady with an identical bag picks up the toy car by mistake, and guess where that lady is going? Finally, we see Chicago.
At about 8 minutes in, we're introduced to Kevin, I mean Alex. Sure. Who is shoveling Miss Hess' driveway, the woman who accidentally made off with the toy car with the chip inside.
And, Alex has the chicken pox. Which means no school, which means he can bug Mom all day, wanting things that even a sick child can get on their own.
So, the criminals, well Alice, anyway. Rents a nearby apartment, to be able to scope out the neighborhood better. She wears a wig, so she can't be discovered. Look, I understand wanting to be cautious, but you can't be discovered if no one knows who you are, and even if they do, I bet you'll take more precautions than simply putting on a diva wig anybody can find around Halloween.
Both parents have to work. Leaving him, HOME ALONE! Miss Hess, who is more of a grouch than Oscar the Grouch, would still make a decent babysitter when there's 4 criminals trying to steal a toy car, right? Okay sure, they don't know about the criminals yet, but Alex is still only about 8, most states have laws that say you can't leave a child home alone until a certain age, and I guarantee that age is older than 8.
Alex sees the criminals through his telescope and calls the police, but they get away before the police get there, and since nothing was taken, since they don't know which house the toy car is in, nobody believes him.
So, Mom has to go to work again the next day, and Dad has a business trip. Alex is left home alone again, and sees the criminals again. And calls the police again, but again they get away, and everyone, including his family, specifically his two siblings (one of which is a young Scarlett Johanson), make him the laughing stock of the entire neighborhood. Yeah, because your idea of a neighborhood watch is working out so well.
One of the criminals, can't get away in time, so he hangs his body horizontally from some rafters, and a cop LOOKS DIRECTLY UP AND MISSES HIM! Maybe we'd be better off Cheif Wiggum.
We get our first little bit of slapstick about 40 minutes in, when Alex rigs a toy car and a video camera to his tv to make a makeshift security device, but one of the criminals finds it, and tries to get the car, when he notices that it's the one with the chip, Alex floors the car, causing him to bump his head a few times, and stumble over the house, trying to catch the car, please. RC cars don't go fast enough that you couldn't catch one at even a walking pace.
Instead of calling the police, Alex calls inside the house where the criminal is, and has his brother's annoying as hell parrot talk to the answering machine as a distraction. Which honestly serves no purpose, because he's already distracted by a tv that Alex turned on with a universal remote. And now we have more slapstick with all four of the criminals trying to get the toy car that Alex drove outside the house, but it flipped on its side. ON ITS SIDE! IT'S NOT GOING ANYWHERE, JUST PICK THE THING UP.
They do, but Alex manages to get the car away from them, and opens it up to see if maybe what they wanted was inside, because no adult would have a need for a toy car, the chip falls out, and under a magnifying glass, he can read "US Air Force".
So, what does Alex do? Call the police? No. He calls the Air Force. Well, a recruiting office anyway. Who naturally don't believe him, but take down the serial number anyway.
Alex doesn't start setting traps until about an hour into the film, after the criminals intercept a call to his mom, pretending to be Mom from school asking about a missing toy car, (which in turn, leads the criminals to Alex's house).
I think it's been mentioned before, but these traps are way too precise, if the criminals aren't standing in EXACTLY the right position, it won't work, but naturally, they are standing in EXACTLY the right position.
The criminals kidnap Miss Hess, who is walking over to babysit Alex (only after the mother leaves for about the tenth time) and tie her up in her garage. Leaving the door to back yard open, hoping she freezes to death, since this is a family film after all.
This time they aren't wearing disguises, really?
The Air Force, as in, not the recruiting office, gets word the the serial number on the chip, and while Alex pulls various booby traps on this (which are really just a rehash of the ones in the first one, none of which are worthy enough, or funny enough to be brought up with any detail), the Air Force heads to Chicago.
Another thing about the traps, in the first film, they were hidden pretty well, in this film. No, not so much, if the criminals would only use their brains and LOOK AROUND before walking around, they would clearly see that they're about to step in a Mega Blocks bucket full of rubber cement (Product placement, anyone?)
Alex pulls about the fifth switch-er-roo of the movie, and the head criminal, accidentally takes a Bubble gun, for this own.
Alex notices that the head criminal took his fake gun, picks up the real gun,, says "yikes" and throws it away. I'm not advocating gun violence, but Kid....there are 4 international terrorists in your house, I think a gun would do the job a lot faster than your booby traps.
The police come, and catch 3/4 criminals, but the head criminal gets away, like he has for the past 7 YEARS! All I'm saying is, if a kid can outwit a criminal, that you've been chasing for 7 years, you have a problem.
The parrot rides the toy car, into an igglo Alex made, the head criminal is hiding in it, there's also a ton of fireworks that Alex dumped in there, the parrot lights and match, and well....the boss isn't hiding for much longer.
And at the end of the film, the criminals get their mugshot taken, all with chicken pox.
Okay, so this film obviously doesn't compare in any way, shape, or form, to the first two, but it's loads better than the 4th, and I would imagine it's loads better than the 5th (which I have yet to see). But it will always remain a guilty pleasure of mine.
The jokes are lame, the writing is lame, the direction is mediocre at best, you can tell the stunts are fake, which makes some of the falls less funny. I would say, if you love the first film, skip 3,4, and 5. But if you kinda enjoyed the first film, 3 is just a rehash, jokes and all, so while you might not enjoy it as much as you did the first one, I don't think you'll loose anything on it. Other than a little over an hour and 45 minutes.
This film didn't add anything to the Home Alone franchise, but I'm not sure how it expected to. It took away what made Home Alone, Home Alone. (and I'm not just talking changing from "Kevin" to "Alex").
Sunday, May 26, 2013
The Boy in the Stripped Pajamas (2008)
Tonight, I wanted to look at The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas" a 2008 Holocaust drama.
This movie is based off the novel of the same name by John Boyne, which I have yet to read (although it's on my list). So this isn't a comparison, as I have nothing to compare the movie to.
The movie is seen through the eyes of two 8 year old boys. One the son of a Nazi commander. The other, a Jewish prisoner.
Roger Ebert proposed " the film is not even attempting to be a forensic reconstruction of Germany during the war, but "about a value system that survives like a virus".
What makes me leery to watch this movie was the fact it's about children. I don't hate kids, but let's be honest...typically children are fairly annoying in films. (Ethan Embry in Dutch, anyone?). Although, I will say the fact Vera Farmiga is in this movie is a silver lining. I've always known of her work, and always knew she was a rather talented, and sadly underrated actress. However, her performance on tv's Bates Motel is fantastic, and I think I can go as far to say that she's the force that holds that show together, and I was even leery about watching that show because Hitchcock is one of top 5 favorite directors, so to make something related to Psycho that he wasn't a part of, bothered me. and also, I couldn't stop thinking of Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates back in the early 2000s, that was a horrendous movie. The worst remake I've seen to date.
But, I digress. Onto the movie.
We open with a quote from John Betjeman, an English poet. Childhood is measured out by sounds and smells and sights, before the dark hour of reason grows. Fitting, I suppose.
We open to Bruno pretending to be a airplane with his friends, running around the city that is covered in swastikas. Bruno seems rather oblivious to the fact that people, specifically Jewish people, are being arrested, and carried onto a large truck. I know he's young, but even infants can tell when something is wrong. Bruno just continues to play. Until he notices there's commotion in his house.
Bruno's dad, Ralf got a promotion, he's still a soldier, "just a more important one" and that means moving, from Berlin to Poland.
A few miles from the new house is a "farm" that Bruno can see from his window, and wonders why the "farmers" wear pajamas, especially after one comes into the kitchen to give vegetables to the family. Ralf responds with "those farmers aren't really people" which naturally, confuses Bruno further. He wants to play with the kids he sees, but he can't, because "they're strange".
However, a few weeks after the move, he's playing airplane outside and notices a gate outside of the house is left open, and being a kid, he's going to explore. Except Elsa, catches him and reminds him that the back is out of bounds. Hm, telling a kid they can't have something doesn't make them want it all the more or anything.
Bruno decides to make a tire swing, and one of "farmers" has to go gather the tire for him. Bruno falls off, and cuts his leg, but the "farmer" Pavel, bandages it up for him, knowing he doesn't need to go to the hospital, because he was a doctor before becoming a "farmer".
I really like the correlation between farmer and Jewish prisoner. I feel like while I'm sure being a Jewish prisoner is of course way worse than being a farmer, in a kids eye, they probably do look relatively the same.
Elsa comes home a minute later, and thanks Pavel, for helping Bruno. Which adds something to the character, of not only Elsa, but people in the era, who maybe didn't agree with the Nazi frame of mind, and there were such people, naturally. They just get overshadowed.
Kurt, Ralf's right hand man mentions at the visit with Grandpa that he is no longer in touch with his father because he left Germany to go to Switzerland. Ralf and Grandpa begin to call the father a coward for not sticking with Germany at the time it was needed most. Obviously, this angers Kurt. Pavel, accidentally spills wine onto Kurt's lap, and Martin takes his anger out of Pavel, you don't see anything, but in a scene like this audio is all you really need to get the emotions running.
Shmuel, is transferred to work inside the house, because he has small hands, that can clean the dishes. Bruno gives Shmuel some food, when Martin walks in and notices him eating, and insists he was stealing food, when he says that Bruno was his friend, Bruno rejects Shmuel, to save himself. It's a rather sad scene, but ultimately, not that uncommon, even today.
Bruno at this point, has realized his father may not be the "great man" he thought he was at the beginning of the film, but then he catches a propaganda film, that makes the work camp look like that summer camp from The Parent Trap. Bruno naturally believes it, and hugs Ralf around the middle, and is back to thinking he's the greatest man on earth.
Shmuel is still willing to be friends with Bruno after he apologizes for lying. Which is also a nice scene of how quickly kids are to forgive.
Ralf gets a call from home, Grandma died in a bombing, and so to add even more emotions to this movie, we are presented with a funeral scene.
Elsa convinces Ralf that Poland is no place for children to grow up, and Bruno and Gretel, his sister are moving to live with the aunt. Shumel can't find his father, who went to another "work detail" with some other men, and none of them have come back yet. Bruno really wants to make up for lying the other day, and decides the best way to do it is to help Shumel find his father, so he digs under the barbed wire into the camp. The only problem is, Bruno doesn't look like Shumel, so in exchange for a sandwich, Shumel will bring him some "pajamas"
Bruno and Shumel are looking in a hut for Shumel's dad (while Bruno's family looks for him in a panic). When it is raided by Nazis, and Bruno is stuck in the middle.
Elsa and Gretel realize that Bruno went to the camp when the notice a window open, and the sandwich dropped along the way. Elsa quickly gets Ralf, who is in a meeting regarding what seems to be "gas chamber capacity".
I think we can all see the writing on the wall.
When the Nazi yell for everyone to take their clothes off, Bruno and Shumel assume they're going to take a shower.
Unfortunately, by the time Ralf gets to the chamber to save his son. The chamber is quiet.
Our movie ends with Elsa screaming in agony over what happened. Ralf unable to process what happened, and a shot of the Jewish prisoners clothes.
I think this movie has power, and I highly recommend it, it does have a few historical inaccuracies but they can pretty easily be overlooked.
I also think it's message can still be applied today. But that it goes much deeper than "Don't hate someone because they're different".
Check it out, it's worth your time, and the kids do an excellent job. Something I wasn't sure if I was going to get to say.
This movie is based off the novel of the same name by John Boyne, which I have yet to read (although it's on my list). So this isn't a comparison, as I have nothing to compare the movie to.
The movie is seen through the eyes of two 8 year old boys. One the son of a Nazi commander. The other, a Jewish prisoner.
Roger Ebert proposed " the film is not even attempting to be a forensic reconstruction of Germany during the war, but "about a value system that survives like a virus".
What makes me leery to watch this movie was the fact it's about children. I don't hate kids, but let's be honest...typically children are fairly annoying in films. (Ethan Embry in Dutch, anyone?). Although, I will say the fact Vera Farmiga is in this movie is a silver lining. I've always known of her work, and always knew she was a rather talented, and sadly underrated actress. However, her performance on tv's Bates Motel is fantastic, and I think I can go as far to say that she's the force that holds that show together, and I was even leery about watching that show because Hitchcock is one of top 5 favorite directors, so to make something related to Psycho that he wasn't a part of, bothered me. and also, I couldn't stop thinking of Vince Vaughn as Norman Bates back in the early 2000s, that was a horrendous movie. The worst remake I've seen to date.
But, I digress. Onto the movie.
We open with a quote from John Betjeman, an English poet. Childhood is measured out by sounds and smells and sights, before the dark hour of reason grows. Fitting, I suppose.
We open to Bruno pretending to be a airplane with his friends, running around the city that is covered in swastikas. Bruno seems rather oblivious to the fact that people, specifically Jewish people, are being arrested, and carried onto a large truck. I know he's young, but even infants can tell when something is wrong. Bruno just continues to play. Until he notices there's commotion in his house.
Bruno's dad, Ralf got a promotion, he's still a soldier, "just a more important one" and that means moving, from Berlin to Poland.
A few miles from the new house is a "farm" that Bruno can see from his window, and wonders why the "farmers" wear pajamas, especially after one comes into the kitchen to give vegetables to the family. Ralf responds with "those farmers aren't really people" which naturally, confuses Bruno further. He wants to play with the kids he sees, but he can't, because "they're strange".
However, a few weeks after the move, he's playing airplane outside and notices a gate outside of the house is left open, and being a kid, he's going to explore. Except Elsa, catches him and reminds him that the back is out of bounds. Hm, telling a kid they can't have something doesn't make them want it all the more or anything.
Bruno decides to make a tire swing, and one of "farmers" has to go gather the tire for him. Bruno falls off, and cuts his leg, but the "farmer" Pavel, bandages it up for him, knowing he doesn't need to go to the hospital, because he was a doctor before becoming a "farmer".
I really like the correlation between farmer and Jewish prisoner. I feel like while I'm sure being a Jewish prisoner is of course way worse than being a farmer, in a kids eye, they probably do look relatively the same.
Elsa comes home a minute later, and thanks Pavel, for helping Bruno. Which adds something to the character, of not only Elsa, but people in the era, who maybe didn't agree with the Nazi frame of mind, and there were such people, naturally. They just get overshadowed.
Bruno,
and his sister Gretel get a tutor, instead of going to an actual
school, in which the tutor does not want Bruno to read adventure books,
because he wants him to start reading facts. The tutor gives him
Deutscher Almanach, an almanic spaning from 1924-1937. Yeah, that's
what kids want to read. While reading on his swing, Bruno notices the
gate to the "farm" is open again, and fights the urge not to open it,
but come on, he's 8.
At
roughly 30 minutes in we're introduced to Shumel, who is digging in the
dirt while the adults build a new house. Once again, this would have
never happened, he wold have worked, or been killed.
Nothing
of importance happens for about 15 minutes, when Elsa smells the
chimneys burning and Ralf's second-in-command mentions "They smell worse
when they burn, don't they?" Elsa, then realizes what kind of soldier
her husband is, I think she always knew he was a Nazi, but knowing and knowing
are sometimes two very different things. Elsa begins yelling how wrong
it is, and its done very well. But chances are, a wife would never talk
to her husband, who is also a Nazi official the way she is. Nor a wife
of a man who wasn't a Nazi, it just wasn't done.
Grandpa comes to visit, Grandma doesn't come because she's "under the weather" but Elsa knows is because she doesn't approve of what Ralf does, and makes a point to mention it.
Grandpa comes to visit, Grandma doesn't come because she's "under the weather" but Elsa knows is because she doesn't approve of what Ralf does, and makes a point to mention it.
Kurt, Ralf's right hand man mentions at the visit with Grandpa that he is no longer in touch with his father because he left Germany to go to Switzerland. Ralf and Grandpa begin to call the father a coward for not sticking with Germany at the time it was needed most. Obviously, this angers Kurt. Pavel, accidentally spills wine onto Kurt's lap, and Martin takes his anger out of Pavel, you don't see anything, but in a scene like this audio is all you really need to get the emotions running.
Shmuel, is transferred to work inside the house, because he has small hands, that can clean the dishes. Bruno gives Shmuel some food, when Martin walks in and notices him eating, and insists he was stealing food, when he says that Bruno was his friend, Bruno rejects Shmuel, to save himself. It's a rather sad scene, but ultimately, not that uncommon, even today.
Bruno at this point, has realized his father may not be the "great man" he thought he was at the beginning of the film, but then he catches a propaganda film, that makes the work camp look like that summer camp from The Parent Trap. Bruno naturally believes it, and hugs Ralf around the middle, and is back to thinking he's the greatest man on earth.
Shmuel is still willing to be friends with Bruno after he apologizes for lying. Which is also a nice scene of how quickly kids are to forgive.
Ralf gets a call from home, Grandma died in a bombing, and so to add even more emotions to this movie, we are presented with a funeral scene.
Elsa convinces Ralf that Poland is no place for children to grow up, and Bruno and Gretel, his sister are moving to live with the aunt. Shumel can't find his father, who went to another "work detail" with some other men, and none of them have come back yet. Bruno really wants to make up for lying the other day, and decides the best way to do it is to help Shumel find his father, so he digs under the barbed wire into the camp. The only problem is, Bruno doesn't look like Shumel, so in exchange for a sandwich, Shumel will bring him some "pajamas"
Bruno and Shumel are looking in a hut for Shumel's dad (while Bruno's family looks for him in a panic). When it is raided by Nazis, and Bruno is stuck in the middle.
Elsa and Gretel realize that Bruno went to the camp when the notice a window open, and the sandwich dropped along the way. Elsa quickly gets Ralf, who is in a meeting regarding what seems to be "gas chamber capacity".
I think we can all see the writing on the wall.
When the Nazi yell for everyone to take their clothes off, Bruno and Shumel assume they're going to take a shower.
Unfortunately, by the time Ralf gets to the chamber to save his son. The chamber is quiet.
Our movie ends with Elsa screaming in agony over what happened. Ralf unable to process what happened, and a shot of the Jewish prisoners clothes.
I think this movie has power, and I highly recommend it, it does have a few historical inaccuracies but they can pretty easily be overlooked.
I also think it's message can still be applied today. But that it goes much deeper than "Don't hate someone because they're different".
Check it out, it's worth your time, and the kids do an excellent job. Something I wasn't sure if I was going to get to say.
Monday, May 20, 2013
Jawbreaker (1999)
Welcome to That thing called Film. It's a review blog. Nothing more. Nothing less.
I feel the need to point out, since this is the first post. I like all genres of film. I don't really have a preference either. I can watch John Wayne one moment and James Bond the next. So, when it comes to reviewing, there is no rhyme or reason as to how I pick the movies. I have a list of movies, I plan to watch (and it's growing constantly). It simply depends on my mood, and what's on instant netflix and hulu.
Tonight, comes a selection from Hulu. 1999's Jawbreaker. I was pretty leery about this film. I seem to remember watching it as a teenager (I was only 7 when it came out, and I had no interest at the time about high school related movies). And thinking it was simply meh. That was until I saw Heathers, a far better "Kill the prom queen" movie.
I don't think it would come to shock anyone if I said that Jawbreaker, is more or less a ripoff of Heathers. In fact, the similarities are everywhere. Aside from the fact Heathers is a far superior movie. I've also heard it compared to Carrie, something I've never seen. But I might this time around.
I also think Rose McGowan has real talent, she just lands bad roles, and that's not limited to Jawbreaker. Bio-Dome, anyone? Maybe she needs a new agent.
Anyway, to the movie.
So, we're introduced to our characters. Julie(Rebecca Gayheart), Foxxy, (Julie Benz) and Courtney.(Rose McGowan) and briefly, Liz. However, it's Liz' 17th birthday, and she is gagged with a jawbreaker, and chokes....because Courtney thought it would be funny. Yeah, your movie is nothing like Heathers. Director Darren Stein, nothing.
And this is more of an aside, but the opening credits go on FOREVER. But, even more...the credits play over a rather obnoxious song, shows the creation of a jawbreaker. Which I feel is a little redundant.
Our setting is Ronald Regan High School. Where, during school hours Liz is still in the trunk of the car. Courtney calls the school, pretending to be Liz' parent, and says she has the flu. Mrs Sherwood (Carol Kane) needs to give Liz' homework to someone, but Courtney is late, so Mrs Sherwood gives it to Fern (Judy Greer).
So, now we must race to catch up with Fern. *Dun dun dun* and I forgot to mention, they're staging it to look like a rape. Come on people, (aka: Darren Stein, who also wrote the movie) they had tests for that even in 1999.
Fern, hears everything through a door. So in order to keep it a secret, Courtney agrees to make her popular through a weird makeover montage scene. Fern always wanted to be popular. I guess it was her name standing in the way.
"I'm Fern Mayo. As in hold the mayo." Is an actual line from the movie. I can't decide if that's lazy writing or not. But hey, it got a grin out of me.
However, they change her name is Vi-LET. Because a fern is a plant...or...something.
And that brings me to my first official complainant about this movie. The writing is terrible. And not just terrible like "Oh, the writer just couldn't get what he was trying to say across to the audience." No, it's terrible like "Oh, I smoked some weed and then wrote down the first thing that came to mind." Terrible.
So, Vi-LET loves the attention she's getting, but wonders if it's worth to keep something like "The pretty girls in my school killed the prom queen" a secret.
Well, someone got suspicious because DUN DUN DUN enter detective Vera Cruz (Pam Grier). And questions "Satan in Heels" AKA: Courtney, and honestly....."Satan in Heels" isn't that far off. At least Wynonna Ryder felt sorry about what she did even if Christian Slater didn't. Neither Courtney or Foxxy feel bad. Julie felt bad enough she's now hanging out with the "Art geeks" and as a band kid, I take slight offense to that. Well, I might if the movie was better.
I will say Pam Grier is somewhat of a bad ass in this movie, and she's one redeeming quality for this movie. However, she doesn't come into the movie until it has 40 minutes left. So, I wouldn't try and watch the movie specifically for her.
Okay, so now I have another complaint about this movie. DOES ANYONE HAVE A FREAKING BRAIN?????
Mrs Sherwood begins to talk to Detective Cruz about Liz and the day she died, and mentions how Fern went home with her work. Mrs Sherwood mentions that Fern has been absent for several days now, and wonders if Fern could have killed Liz.
Lady, all that changed was Fern's hair from scraggly brown, to wavy blonde....it's not a big enough change that you can't tell that it's still Fern. Come to think about it, everyone seems to be fooled by the new hairstyle.
I don't have a face palm picture strong enough for how stupid this is.
And enter Tatyana Ali (AKA: Ashley Banks) as Brenda, who befriends Vi-LET, because Vi-LET knows Foxxy, or something. It really doesn't explain why she just randomly pops up, but at this point. I don't care. And Tatyana Ali's only role in this movie is to prove that she isn't Ashley Banks, which obviously didn't work.
Now we get to meet Zack (who's character wasn't cool enough to get a last name) played by Chad Christ. He and Julie have a big heartwarming discussion about how Julie's "gig" with Courtney and Foxxy was just a sideshow, and how horrible it is looking from the outside. I will say, it's a nice scene. However, it doesn't save the movie.
Courtney meets up with Detective Cruz again and mentions that Liz liked to have sex with strange men she should meet at bars. Apparently one of those men is Marylin Manson, (who was engaged to Rose McGowan in 1999). This scene serves no purpose, other than to get Marylin Manson on screen. Let's hear it for bad writing!
, Julie tells Zack, whom she has been friends with forever and a day, but it didn't need mentioning, until ya know, plot convenience. Anyway, she tells Zack that Courtney killed Liz, and naturally Zack freaks out. Although, his expression is a little bland for someone who just found out a classmate is a cold blooded murderer. (However, that might explain why Chad Christ hasn't acted in anything since 2001, and that was a tv movie).
Vi-LET is apparently getting in the way of Courtney's queen-bee-ness, and Courtney threatens to kill her. Cause ya know, why not? However, nobody dies, except Vi-LET's reputation, where everyone finds out the truth, that she's Fern, and everyone makes fun of her. Come on people, first you fall for the makeover, (which is really just a hair-over) and now you're surprised she isn't some exchange student?
Julie and Zack go see Detective Cruz, who says they have a male who was leaving Liz's house the day she was killed in custody, of course, this isn't true. Apparently....due to Julie's impeccable detective skills, she infer that Courtney got some random guy to masturbate into the sheets to look like she really was raped.
COME ON MOVIE! JUST DO A FREAKIN RAPE TEST! But no, that would require brains, which even our detective doesn't have. We might be better off with Wiggum. And that's saying something.
So, earlier in this blog I mentioned that the movie parallels Carrie. No, it mentions Carrie.
Julie: She has to pay for what she did.
Zack: We could go to prom.
Fern: And on the the way we could go to the slaughterhouse and get some pig's blood.
Yeah, that's it. Nothing special, and it's forced as hell.
And, along with our cast of cameos, the Donnas play themselves, as the band playing at prom. at least the music is good. Too bad there's dialogue over it.
Even a crappy movie needs some sort of a climax, so here's ours. Liz's mom brings some items over she thought Julie might have wanted. What's the incriminating evidence? A recordable picture frame that taped Courtney saying "I killed her. I killed the teen dream, get over it." Not the best, but hey, this isn't a great movie.
So, what do Julie, Zack, and Fern do with the picture frame? Do they take it to Detective Cruz? Of course not. That would make them smart. They blare it over the loudspeakers at prom while Courtney is giving her prom queen acceptance speech. Which I suppose could be a parallel to Carrie, not a good one. But one nonetheless.
And the movie ends with Fern saying "This is high school detective Cruz, what is a friend anyway?" Is Courtney arrested? No. Just shunned in front of the entire school, which is apparently worse.
I've often heard that this movie is a spoof of Heaters. No, it's a ripoff. In order to be a spoof, it would have to be funny. Unless you just really like ripoffs, don't bother with it. The lack of brain cells from all of our characters, is appalling, and the writing it terrible.
It got a 7% on Rotten Tomatoes, personally, I don't think it deserves that high.
I feel the need to point out, since this is the first post. I like all genres of film. I don't really have a preference either. I can watch John Wayne one moment and James Bond the next. So, when it comes to reviewing, there is no rhyme or reason as to how I pick the movies. I have a list of movies, I plan to watch (and it's growing constantly). It simply depends on my mood, and what's on instant netflix and hulu.
Tonight, comes a selection from Hulu. 1999's Jawbreaker. I was pretty leery about this film. I seem to remember watching it as a teenager (I was only 7 when it came out, and I had no interest at the time about high school related movies). And thinking it was simply meh. That was until I saw Heathers, a far better "Kill the prom queen" movie.
I don't think it would come to shock anyone if I said that Jawbreaker, is more or less a ripoff of Heathers. In fact, the similarities are everywhere. Aside from the fact Heathers is a far superior movie. I've also heard it compared to Carrie, something I've never seen. But I might this time around.
I also think Rose McGowan has real talent, she just lands bad roles, and that's not limited to Jawbreaker. Bio-Dome, anyone? Maybe she needs a new agent.
Anyway, to the movie.
So, we're introduced to our characters. Julie(Rebecca Gayheart), Foxxy, (Julie Benz) and Courtney.(Rose McGowan) and briefly, Liz. However, it's Liz' 17th birthday, and she is gagged with a jawbreaker, and chokes....because Courtney thought it would be funny. Yeah, your movie is nothing like Heathers. Director Darren Stein, nothing.
And this is more of an aside, but the opening credits go on FOREVER. But, even more...the credits play over a rather obnoxious song, shows the creation of a jawbreaker. Which I feel is a little redundant.
Our setting is Ronald Regan High School. Where, during school hours Liz is still in the trunk of the car. Courtney calls the school, pretending to be Liz' parent, and says she has the flu. Mrs Sherwood (Carol Kane) needs to give Liz' homework to someone, but Courtney is late, so Mrs Sherwood gives it to Fern (Judy Greer).
So, now we must race to catch up with Fern. *Dun dun dun* and I forgot to mention, they're staging it to look like a rape. Come on people, (aka: Darren Stein, who also wrote the movie) they had tests for that even in 1999.
Fern, hears everything through a door. So in order to keep it a secret, Courtney agrees to make her popular through a weird makeover montage scene. Fern always wanted to be popular. I guess it was her name standing in the way.
"I'm Fern Mayo. As in hold the mayo." Is an actual line from the movie. I can't decide if that's lazy writing or not. But hey, it got a grin out of me.
However, they change her name is Vi-LET. Because a fern is a plant...or...something.
And that brings me to my first official complainant about this movie. The writing is terrible. And not just terrible like "Oh, the writer just couldn't get what he was trying to say across to the audience." No, it's terrible like "Oh, I smoked some weed and then wrote down the first thing that came to mind." Terrible.
So, Vi-LET loves the attention she's getting, but wonders if it's worth to keep something like "The pretty girls in my school killed the prom queen" a secret.
Well, someone got suspicious because DUN DUN DUN enter detective Vera Cruz (Pam Grier). And questions "Satan in Heels" AKA: Courtney, and honestly....."Satan in Heels" isn't that far off. At least Wynonna Ryder felt sorry about what she did even if Christian Slater didn't. Neither Courtney or Foxxy feel bad. Julie felt bad enough she's now hanging out with the "Art geeks" and as a band kid, I take slight offense to that. Well, I might if the movie was better.
I will say Pam Grier is somewhat of a bad ass in this movie, and she's one redeeming quality for this movie. However, she doesn't come into the movie until it has 40 minutes left. So, I wouldn't try and watch the movie specifically for her.
Okay, so now I have another complaint about this movie. DOES ANYONE HAVE A FREAKING BRAIN?????
Mrs Sherwood begins to talk to Detective Cruz about Liz and the day she died, and mentions how Fern went home with her work. Mrs Sherwood mentions that Fern has been absent for several days now, and wonders if Fern could have killed Liz.
Lady, all that changed was Fern's hair from scraggly brown, to wavy blonde....it's not a big enough change that you can't tell that it's still Fern. Come to think about it, everyone seems to be fooled by the new hairstyle.
I don't have a face palm picture strong enough for how stupid this is.
And enter Tatyana Ali (AKA: Ashley Banks) as Brenda, who befriends Vi-LET, because Vi-LET knows Foxxy, or something. It really doesn't explain why she just randomly pops up, but at this point. I don't care. And Tatyana Ali's only role in this movie is to prove that she isn't Ashley Banks, which obviously didn't work.
Now we get to meet Zack (who's character wasn't cool enough to get a last name) played by Chad Christ. He and Julie have a big heartwarming discussion about how Julie's "gig" with Courtney and Foxxy was just a sideshow, and how horrible it is looking from the outside. I will say, it's a nice scene. However, it doesn't save the movie.
Courtney meets up with Detective Cruz again and mentions that Liz liked to have sex with strange men she should meet at bars. Apparently one of those men is Marylin Manson, (who was engaged to Rose McGowan in 1999). This scene serves no purpose, other than to get Marylin Manson on screen. Let's hear it for bad writing!
, Julie tells Zack, whom she has been friends with forever and a day, but it didn't need mentioning, until ya know, plot convenience. Anyway, she tells Zack that Courtney killed Liz, and naturally Zack freaks out. Although, his expression is a little bland for someone who just found out a classmate is a cold blooded murderer. (However, that might explain why Chad Christ hasn't acted in anything since 2001, and that was a tv movie).
Vi-LET is apparently getting in the way of Courtney's queen-bee-ness, and Courtney threatens to kill her. Cause ya know, why not? However, nobody dies, except Vi-LET's reputation, where everyone finds out the truth, that she's Fern, and everyone makes fun of her. Come on people, first you fall for the makeover, (which is really just a hair-over) and now you're surprised she isn't some exchange student?
Julie and Zack go see Detective Cruz, who says they have a male who was leaving Liz's house the day she was killed in custody, of course, this isn't true. Apparently....due to Julie's impeccable detective skills, she infer that Courtney got some random guy to masturbate into the sheets to look like she really was raped.
COME ON MOVIE! JUST DO A FREAKIN RAPE TEST! But no, that would require brains, which even our detective doesn't have. We might be better off with Wiggum. And that's saying something.
So, earlier in this blog I mentioned that the movie parallels Carrie. No, it mentions Carrie.
Julie: She has to pay for what she did.
Zack: We could go to prom.
Fern: And on the the way we could go to the slaughterhouse and get some pig's blood.
Yeah, that's it. Nothing special, and it's forced as hell.
And, along with our cast of cameos, the Donnas play themselves, as the band playing at prom. at least the music is good. Too bad there's dialogue over it.
Even a crappy movie needs some sort of a climax, so here's ours. Liz's mom brings some items over she thought Julie might have wanted. What's the incriminating evidence? A recordable picture frame that taped Courtney saying "I killed her. I killed the teen dream, get over it." Not the best, but hey, this isn't a great movie.
So, what do Julie, Zack, and Fern do with the picture frame? Do they take it to Detective Cruz? Of course not. That would make them smart. They blare it over the loudspeakers at prom while Courtney is giving her prom queen acceptance speech. Which I suppose could be a parallel to Carrie, not a good one. But one nonetheless.
And the movie ends with Fern saying "This is high school detective Cruz, what is a friend anyway?" Is Courtney arrested? No. Just shunned in front of the entire school, which is apparently worse.
I've often heard that this movie is a spoof of Heaters. No, it's a ripoff. In order to be a spoof, it would have to be funny. Unless you just really like ripoffs, don't bother with it. The lack of brain cells from all of our characters, is appalling, and the writing it terrible.
It got a 7% on Rotten Tomatoes, personally, I don't think it deserves that high.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)