Mini Movie Reviews 2 - The Reviewening

[ColShaw]

Unstoppable

There's a runaway train full of toxic, explosive chemicals hurtling toward an American city. Fortunately, Denzel Washington and Chris Pine are in position to stop it.

That's really about it for the plot of the movie; oddly enough, it's based on an actual event (and some of the weirder ideas in the movie actually happened in real life!)

It's a good "working the problem" movie, in the vein of Apollo 13, in which rather than fighting a living villain, the heroes confront a difficult and dangerous situation. Denzel Washington is, as always, good. It's fairly sleek, clocking in at about 100 minutes in length, and a good way to spend part of an evening.

Watch

[sigur]

Yeah, that bothered me too. A movie with a title like that, there should be one, two survivors at the end, tops.

I actually liked the movie, though. I've got a soft spot for '80s action flicks, and I just saw this as an affectionate homage with lots of familiar faces.
...

I love that film. I guess it's not for everyone but who of the people who don't like the old action flicks would go and see the film? Loved the thing right from the start and the ending (after the showdown and all) was genius.

When they all are sitting together laughing and having fun in the most stupid ways with Dolph Lundgren inexplicably back and on good terms with Jet Li, them all getting on their motorbikes and "The boys are back in town" commencing to play it's like a big "hey, we know and you know what this is. It's just a get-together and having some silly old fun." to the audience.

I know that the sequel can't be as good as the first one but I'm still looking forward to it, ESPECIALLY with Van Damme being in it as well. I could do without Norris and the larger roles for Bruce Willis and Schwarzenegger (give is more Dolph Lundgren instead!!) but it probably will be okay. Of course the film wasn't without flaws. There were some CG blood effects which looked very stupid and the shaky cam in the action scenes was completely unnecessary (as it always is). Still - amazing film I can watch over and over again.


Just watched the first 20 minutes of Date Movie. (20XX, starring Alison Hannigan(?) and some other people). It's one of those films by Aaron Seltzer. I think he often collaborates with someone else who doesn't know what humour is. Especially symptomatic is that this guy decides to spoof films that are comedies. Film comedy itself is hard to pull off already, even if you have a comedic talent in the lead role, but spoofing BETTER comedies than anything you could ever do is not only doomed to not being funny but also makes you look double incompetent. Lots of scenes from Meet the Parents replayed word for word but with stupid, unnecessary bits thrown in.

Meet the Parents was a funny comedy. We all remember the awkward exchange when Ben Stiller claims to having miked a cat because you could essentially milk anything that has nipples to which Robert DeNiro replies that he'd have nipples and if Ben Stiller could milk him. The whole scene was already pretty low-brow but fun due to snappy dialogue and capable actors. Now in this Date Movie, it's the same scene but afer remarking that he's got nipples the father pulls up his shirt, showcasing two rows of four nipples each, not unlike a cat has. Now not only the original awkward comedy of the dialogue has been sucked out (also because the actors do a bad job) but also it makes no sense at all. It's just a guy with more nipples than usual. That's it.

Worst comedy I've seen in a while and I recently cought a few minutes of "Shriek". Mr. Seltzer does NOT know what's funny.

Don't Watch.

[The Dude]

My general rule is if the movie has "Movie" is the title, I don't watch it.

[Thanatos_elNyx]

Denzel Washington is, as always, Denzel Washington.

FTFY
I kid, I kid.

[Avian]

My general rule is if the movie has "Movie" is the title, I don't watch it.

Not even Transformers: The Movie?

[The Dude]

Not even Transformers: The Movie?

Movies that are called "XYZ: The Movie" are judged solely on the value of XYZ before it was a movie

If anyone tries to call a movie "XYZ: The Movie" where XYZ didn't exist in any form before said movie, use the same rules as if it was a "Movie" movie.

[sigur]

I thought A Bee Movie was alright but it took me a while to come up with something.

[Arnizipal]

I thought A Bee Movie was alright but it took me a while to come up with something.

I didn't think it was that great. Rather bland movie in my opinion.

[sigur]

I agree. I didn't think it was great either but it was "alright" in the way of being watchable.

[The Dude]

Seinfeld admitted that movie came from nothing more than the title.

[BigbyWolf]

I'm in a similar mind as The Dude with regards to the "Movie" abominations. I saw a trailer for one once that boasted "from four of the seven writers of Scary Movie 3". Now, through no fault of my own, I have seen Scary Movie 3, and wasn't aware that it had been written. I thought they simply force-fed a pig on a selection of existing movie scripts, then scoured it's faeces for anything that resembled full paragraphs, and then added a fart joke.

[The Dude]

The fact that one movie had seven writers explains a lot.

[aenimosity]

I thought multiple writers on films was a fairly typical thing. It doesn't change the fact that 'movie' movies are atrocious though

[The Dude]

2 or 3 yes. But 7?

[Burnthem]

Having multiple writers for a comedy is often a good thing, many TV shows, for example Red Dwarf, died when one of the writers left, and without other people to bounce ideas off and work with you end up just writing what you think will be funny, and people have hugely different opinions of funny. 7 writers all at the same time, probably good, but 7 consecutive solo writers? Oh dear.

[The Dude]

7 writers on one feature length movie gives each writer just over 17 mins of screen time. Ever hear the saying, "too many cooks spoil the broth"?

EDIT: Actually, Scary Movie 3 is apparently only 83 mins long, meaning it's closer to 11 mins per writer.

[Burnthem]

Of course, but there is a vast difference between 7 writers working collaboratively and trading ideas, and 7 writers working consecutively as each ones predecessor gets sacked.

[sigur]

Yeah, seven writers usually doesn't mean anything good. Almost as bad as a film having seven editors. Also, there's quite a difference between having seven people write one story and seven people writing 22-minutes stories for a sitcom of course.


About the movie movies - yes, they're all pretty bad and unfunny. I remember watching Scary Movie 1 in the cinema and wasn't even impressed back then, being a silly teenager. I do however somewhat enjoy parts of Scary Movie 2, particuarly the last third or so. Dunno why, I listed the reasons in my review of the film in this very thread. Scary Movie 3 hat one very funny joke, the rest was painful (and I HATE the guy in that film. Not Sheen but the other one. Other than that, I don't think I saw any of them. The genre of movie spoofs really has been in a baaaaaad shape since about the mid-1990s. I guess it's all online now.

[Avian]

Rather than MiB 3, which apparently turned out much better than expected, we went and saw

The Dictator (2012)
"It's not perfect, just a little less ****."
Starring Sacha Baron Cohen, Anna Faris and Ben Kingsley.
A few moments of funny, mixed with many moments of unfunny. Timing is very bad and sequences of low-brow humor are extended way beyond any potential for laughs. Prime example being a scene where Cohen's character masturbates for the first time. And Faris overplays. Even the big satirical speech at the end fails due to bad delivery.

Verdict: Take it or leave it
(two out of five)

[C. Langana]

Iron Sky.

I quite liked it.

It's a film about nazis in space. Start from there and it's rather good fun.

Edit: it is vital that this film be served with lager.