cofemug Reviews

Peep World (2010)

Below Run-of-the-Mill Indie Comedy

[2/10 · 19 November 2011]

A movie armed with such a strong cast of comedians, you almost expect a movie like this to be open scripted hilarity. Sure there'd be a script, but the comedians are given free reign to riff on the situations to try to make them comedic, and to make them their own. You'd have some semblance of a hurried background story in order to get to the dinner section where all hell breaks loose and biting hilarity ensues.

This is not that movie.

That movie would have been amazing with this cast.

This movie is a strictly scripted dysfunctional family Indie comedy that is more dramatic than comedic. Which could be OK, if the characters were well drawn instead of being broad stereotypes put into clichéd situations. The screw-up, the good kid, the princess, the absent father, the ignored mother, and the successful kid who puts it all to paper. This is every crappy family movie crossed with Woody Allen's Deconstructing Harry...minus the snark, bite, or reason. The father's speech at the end telling everybody that they are responsible for their own misery is the only change from this formula.

The movie is hollow. And, maybe that's the point. Maybe the writer is bitter about all the other family dysfunction films that send the blame up the chain. And, so he made a film that was as hollow as he felt the other movies to be, with the father being the writer's voice saying "you guys are your own problems." But, if this IS the case, this sort of po-mo response doesn't make it a good movie...or, for that matter, an entertaining one.

That's not to say this movie is completely terrible. It does have fleeting flashes of actual humor, mainly involving Leslie Ann Warren as the ignored mother and Taraji P. Henson as the screw-up's doting girlfriend, both of whom are criminally underused. But, as I said, they're fleeting flashes of humor with the rest of the film's humor being empty.

Skip it.

2/10

Imps* (1983)

Stupid Uncle

[1/10 · 10 March 2010]

Short skit movies are part of the cinematic language in the couple of decades after Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In made ADHD-esquire scenarios a hit, and both National Lampoon and Mad Magazine became national treasures (that have both failed at living up to their reputation of late).

In a way, the movies are far and few enough to almost be thought of in terms of clichéd relationships. The Kentucky Fried movie is like your overly-knowledgeable film geek friend who cracks you up. The Groove Tube is like that stoner friend of yours who can't get his mind out of the gutter. Amazon Women on the Moon is your sci-fi geek. And, Imps* is like that stupid uncle that comes over retelling all of the off-color jokes you read on the internet or through viral videos last year, but dumbs them down and doesn't know how to finish the joke.

IMPS* (The Immoral Minority Picture Show) is a collection of skits meant to push the boundaries of good taste, and be a spiteful middle finger to the moral majority. And, it may have pushed some boundaries when it was filmed 25-30 years ago, though I doubt it. Since it was released straight-to-DVD in 2009, the jokes have gotten stale, bland, and feel tame as all hell. In addition, almost all the skits that even think about working either end on a wah-wah trumpet note, or just get lost and should have ended 3 seconds sooner so the finale never comes. Python had it right in that you should escape before the skit goes bad.

IMPS* has no less than 4 skits about deodorant and BO. OOOO, edgy. 1 would have been just fine, thank you. The rest of the skits, with few lasting over 2-3 minutes, are a hodge podge of one-liner adaptations or expansions on older-than-dirt jokes. The best ones include Linda Blair in Don't Scream on my Face, and Wendy Jo Sperber's song about spousal abuse and S&M. The rest just go flat.

And, it isn't good pain to watch this.

Apocalypto (2006)

Snuff: The Sequel

[3/10 · 22 February 2007]

Apocalypto (2006) dir: Mel Gibson Two Hours and Twenty Minutes of what could have been exquisitely filmed chasing and torture murdered by a director who wants to be the next Oliver Stone and mixing media like it was cake, and adding in clichés like they were nothing.

Apocalypto is Mel Gibson's homage to the action genre, and human torture. That is humans torturing other humans, killing animals, insects, etc etc. And its all supposed to be oh so tribal. Yet, as many of us realize long before the first frame, this was written by a White European descendant.

Mel glibly opens the film with the quote, "'A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within.' - Ariel Durant" which notifies us that something is about to happen. Then, we merrily watch the all too European happiness of the supposedly native Mexican tribal culture. Only to have them be taken as captives by the Mayans as part of the eclipse ritual.

But, some stupid 10 year old girl who has "The Sickness" has an apocalyptic warning about jaguars, eclipses, and Colonel Kurtz. So, then we get to watch beheadings for the purpose of ritual, until the eclipse is over after which the rest of the captives are killed for sport. Except for one, Jaguar Paw, who gets chased through the forest.

Did I mention that Jaguar Paw also left his almost-due wife and first-born son down a pit during the attack. This sets up the ticking clock for the third act when it downpours hard enough to fill the pit to make them drown. And the wife also induces labor on herself because she was trying to get out. Also, don't pregnant women know how to float? And shouldn't children learn how to float or swim if they know how to talk? Seriously...this is not new-fangled information.

But, seriously, how dumb are these natives? No climbing rocks while pregnant. You just got a dead animal to eat, you can survive for a bit longer in the pit. Or, duck if a spear is chucked straight at you. Or dodge. Something. Don't be dumb.

So, besides all this are the stupid call outs to other FAMOUS movies from before. The Fugitive's waterfall dive is merely one example of how exasperated I became with this movie.

To me, the biggest tragedy is Gibson's use of HDDV stock. He mixed in DV with some 35mm and some 16mm. And, it was extremely distracting. I HATE DV on the big screen. HATE IT HATE IT HATE IT. I can tell the digital artifacts within two frames. I wanted the lush colors of The Thin Red Line. I wanted the gorgeous shots of 2001. I wanted something visual. Not washed out greens and whites. BOOOO.

The movie has the finale of bringing in the Europeans. Hence, his glib opening comment and stating that we were going to conquer this group anyways because they destroyed themselves. They were weak, we were superior. We justifiably won by destroying a rotten civilization. Such a moral person, that Mr. Gibson is, isn't he? But, the movie does move along. And, even though you don't care after the first act is over (or at least I didn't), there are still some points of interest along the way making it momentarily fun and it keeps the movie rolling along.

C-

Inland Empire (2006)

"That was the first obvious question?"

[4/10 · 18 January 2007]

Inland Empire (2006) dir: David Lynch

"Could you tell us what this movie is about?" - Random viewer to David Lynch "Its on the poster." - David Lynch "A Woman In Trouble." - Poster

Having sat through this movie twice, if somebody asked me the same question I'd come up with, "Its a dreamscape."

The movie makes less sense than Eraserhead, is the unnatural progression of the final act of Mulholland Drive, and has a schizophrenic quality that eclipses Lost Highway. At times it is less tolerable than Wild At Heart. At others it is genius which is mainly an acting tour de force.

Oh, and its 3 hours long.

David Lynch needs an editor.

If I had to summarize the movie, I'd be hard pressed to do so, even after having seen it twice. But, here's my vain attempt. Laura Dern is an actress who is starring in a movie about a girl who falls from grace because she cheats on her husband. There is also a room with bunnies in the form of a television sitcom, and some hooker in a hotel room crying.

The movie follows from scene to scene illogically as if it were one of those annoyingly slow dreams which trying to have its own internal logic but fails. Its not like the fever nightmare that was Eraserhead nor the fantasy that was Mulholland Drive. This is its own maudlin flight of fancy that really just drifts by.

Does a movie need to have a point to be good? Not really. Does it need to have a story? It depends. Did I find the movie entertaining? Off and on. Missing is the usual Lynchian dark wit. This is an intense Serious Piece of Art. Missing is David Lynch's usually plush atmosphere. This has been replaced by his use of DV instead of 35mm. And, a hand-held fascination with everything.

The best way to describe it is this is David Lynch's first student film since Eraserhead. It is completely self-indulgent (Its David Lynch, there is always going to be some degree of it), and overloaded. And, its 3 hours of it.

C-

Idiocracy (2006)

When Internet Invades

[6/10 · 12 January 2007]

Idiocracy (2006) dir: Mike Judge "And people wrote movies. Movies which had stories. Stories which made you care about whose ass it was and why it was farting." Mike Judge has made works I've adored for years. I was an avid watcher of Beavis and Butt-head when that show was first aired on MTV. I found the humor in it when somebody sued because they claimed that kids in a trailer park were imitating the show, and it was not true. I found humor in King of the Hill, the more humanistic side of laughing at stupidity. You realize that stupid people are people too. I saw Office Space during its short and unimpressive run in theaters before people found it on video and took people to watch it for free since I worked at the theater.

Now, I have to say that Mike Judge has become shrill.

There is a difference between making fun of the idiots among us and mocking a generalized world of idiots. The former is a good way of holding a microscope to what the world is. The latter is an overly aloof form of exaggeration and snarky humor. And, the latter is Idiocracy.

Idiocracy is a science fiction comedy where the most average man in the military, Joe (Luke Wilson), and a whore, Rita (Maya Rudolph), are frozen in time for 500 years to find that the world now consists only of morons. Due to the intelligent people's inability to breed prolifically and a lack of human predators, stupid people were allowed to spread the seed constantly, and eventually wiped out intelligent people. Now, Joe and Rita have to face a future which has been over corporatized and dumbed down on every level.

In this future, Costco now sprawls for miles with a tram and wildlife. Sex and violence have taken over as prime entertainment. A movie called Ass, which is 90 minutes of some persons ass on screen farting, won 8 Oscars. Water has been replaced by Brawno, a Gatorade-esquire sports drink. And, language has devolved into a mix of all the low slangs.

Unfortunately, Idiocracy is nothing but a pile of complaints and rantings coming off as no more insightful than your average teenage internet flamer on whatever newsgroup/community/message board you read. With almost no insight into what the source of the problems are, it is very aimless and rootless.

However, some things just are downright funny. It isn't all a bad movie. It has moments of pure genius, like the Carl's Jr stand which criticizes you, or the avalanche of garbage. The opening scene ranting about the birth rate of idiots versus academics is worth the price of rental alone.

But, it is kind of annoying watching a movie that say that everybody's dumb 100 times over and has no faith in humanity. On the other hand, it is just what some people need. A good swift kick in the nuts.

B-

The Wicker Man (2006)

The ends do not justify the beginnings

[3/10 · 31 October 2006]

The Wicker Man (2006) dir: Neil LaBute

I never cared for the original The Wicker Man. I found it slow, dull and rather uninteresting, with the exception of lots of boobies.

LaBute has taken the idea and made it into a Neil LaBute rant about feminism. However, the movie tells more about the creator than it does about feminism.

Police Officer Edward Malus works the motorcycle beat in California when a girl and her mother are hit by a truck, and the car explodes while he tries to save them. However, the bodies are never found. Coincidentally, while he's on leave and taking meds, he receives a note from his ex-fiancée (7 years ago) whose daughter is missing, and he feels summoned to the location of Summersisle, a private island in Washington. There, he finds that the residents to be mainly female pagans who believe in femininity as God. The residents, however, make it out that the missing daughter doesn't exist. And, with an oncoming ritual of fertility to appease the Gods, will Malus be out of time before the girl is sacrificed? Edward Malus is a poorly drawn Neil LaBute male protagonist. He is the uncaring machismo male who is one-minded and full of wrath. This time, however, he is also dumb, irrational, and makes a lot of decisions out of his character. Acted by Nicholas Cage, the character loses all hope of even resembling a fully-drawn character. Nicholas Cage emphasizes every distinct mood change and irrational moment to the point of nausea.

He is up against a man-hating female society led by Sister Summersisle played by Ellen Burstyn, who is still a good actress slumming it in this picture. All of the females have a distinct personality trait but not a full-fledged personality. But, this is the point.

And, what a point it is. Reinforcing the idea that women are smarter than men (see The Shape of Things), The Wicker Man sends Malus to his inevitable conclusion regardless of logic and behavioral standards. LaBute adores feminism and hates men. However, he also resents male brute strength over females. He also resents female emotional strength over men. And, this cements his beliefs fully. But, his ideologies aren't even at fault here.

The beginning of the movie starts out fair enough, but as the movie pushes its way down you have to make more and more leaps of faith. And then, the bad dialog comes pouring out in the final 20-30 minutes. From "I'm going to find Rowan and what I need from you is to stay out of my f---ing way!" to "Ahhhh, my legs!!" the movie gets some really silly dialog...and considering its a LaBute film, its a shame to see his talent for dialog go to pot.

The big questions, however, are "Is it better than the original?" and "Is it worth it?" It is arguably worse than the original. It is vastly different and in some aspects better and other aspects much much worse. But, it isn't worth it.

C-

Drawing Restraint 9 (2005)

Pretentious Restraint

[2/10 · 20 September 2006]

Drawing Restraint 9. dir: Matthew Barney.

How do you know when you're in the middle of a pretentious art film? Is it that there is only 8 lines of dialogue in 140 minutes of film? Is it when Bjork is wearing what looks like a giant furry pita on her head in a pseudo-Asian ritual? Maybe when mammoth turds and spinal columns are used in a whale blubber experiment. Or, when you're about ready to kill the composer for making a minimal, and still annoying, version of a Philip Glass score? In any case, Drawing Restraint 9 is among the most pretentious of the modern art movies. At 135 minutes, it adds to its pretension by being boring to boot. I would call the use of color stunning, and the opening sequence interesting, but the rest of the movie looked like it was filmed for a Discovery Channel documentary. That is until it looks like they were trying to film their version of P-ss Christ, but that will be coming up later.

Actually, the documentary-esquire portions were the best parts of it. The surface plot is about a whaling ship, and then there is a ritual about making whale fat. Then, there are the guests in the form of Bjork and Matthew Barney who are welcomed on the ship by being put through a ritual of humiliation which includes passed-out head shaving (think frat boy pranks), nicotine patches, and giant furry pita hats. Then there is mutual evisceration, cannibalism, and lets not forget the giant turd.

Matthew Barney has written that this is about "the relationship between self-imposed resistance and creativity." That's almost like saying, "if you don't get it, then you're not creative in your interpretation, so sod off because I'm an artist." Oh, wait, that's the POST-modern interpretation of that sentence and what the movie would be about if it was POST-modern. But, its supposed to be Modern art. Which is about the art itself.

So, let's start this whole interpretation bit, shall we? The following lines are only 3/4 serious and should not be taken as any realistic attempt to interpret the movie.

The first half-hour concerns pearl divers and the construction of a giant ramp. Obviously, the ramp is symbolic of the need for self-elevation to whatever standards you hold dear, and the pearl divers are looking for pearls of wisdom. Then, on a whaling ship, they build a crate that looks like it is in the crude shape of a whale. Obviously a crude element of foreshadowing.

On the ship, they make whale fat inside the shape of the whale, and take out the fins portion. They replace this with a spinal column and later a giant turd. These are supposed to be the states of the movie itself. When its fat, its entertaining but bad for you. When it is the spinal column, its the "important" parts of the movie, or the backbone so to speak. Then, the giant turd is the bowels of the movie, or when the movie is crap.

Bjork and Matthew Barney the arrive on separate ships, are put into strange humiliating outfits which AREN'T EVEN WELL MADE OR SYMMETRICAL, one suspects that they ran out of money and Barney was trying to quit smoking. SO, they put patches on his head. They go through a ritual and learn about the ship from a Japanese wise man, who tells them that the ship is scarred from when another ship hit it; a crash or intersection, if you will. This inspires Bjork and Barney, who are different on the outside, to start cutting each other's legs off and eat them so they could turn into whales themselves and be the same person. They intersect. Oh, did I forget to mention that this has been done in a Robbie Williams video? Then, the pearl divers come back with their mouths full of pearls of knowledge which they let fall to make a stupid Venn Diagram. Barney made it through 8th grade geometry, obviously. Or, maybe at least some social studies.

Oh, and did I forget Bjork's ear-gouging I-want-to-kill-her score? At times it is hypnotic, but at others you just want to assassinate her.

Art film is one thing, but when you just throw up all sorts of symbolism in the hopes of getting a reaction out of people, it becomes a self-destructive joke. When do you cross the line between becoming a joke in terms of art? Dali and Bunuel frequently made surreal pieces of nonsense but were more coherent and/or entertaining than this piece of trash. Un Chien Andalou had the sensibility to cram as much symbolism as it could into less than half an hour.

So, can I recommend this? Only if you like dull HIGH ART films with lots of symbolism and flat imagery.

D+

Clerks II (2006)

Reruns Suck

[4/10 · 30 July 2006]

Clerks II (2006) dir: Kevin Smith

Clerks. was one of the iconic grunge films of 1994. It was a low-budget angry-as-hell slacker movie about bitter 20-somethings working in a convenience store and taking their frustrations out on the customers and everything else they could find. With pop culture references as prolific as its elevated stylistic dialog, Clerks became one of the most intelligent views into Gen X ever.

Kevin Smith has softened up since then. Clerks II is not about life in a convenience store, as the film opens with the Quik Stop catching on fire. Nor is it about life at a fast food restaurant, though Dante and Randall have a job there, now. Clerks II is about the clerks, and it could have been set anywhere, quite frankly.

With Clerks II, Kevin Smith is rambling on and on about friendship, departure, and separation. Whee. He throws in a few gross-out scenes which have nothing to do with anything, nor do they really have a sense of appropriateness. And, Smith has fallen into the trap of formula.

Clerks had a rooftop scene, so Clerks II has to have a rooftop scene. Clerks had an adventure outside of the store (Julie Dwyer's funeral), so Clerks II has to have a scene outside the store. And, while this is supposed to reiterate that despite 12 years having passed nothing has changed, this actually shows a complete lack of imagination for Kevin Smith.

Admittedly, most of my problem is that I was hoping for Kevin Smith to out-anger Waiting for the food service industry. This was simply because Waiting was trying to be the Clerks of the food service industry. But, it was like an imitation Waiting. Gone are the pointed mockings of customers. Gone are the general traps of anger.

Part of the problem is that it seemed that Kevin Smith had never worked a fast food joint in his life. Either that or it just doesn't seem real to me. And, as a result, the whole movie never makes it past its not-so-lofty ambitions.

But, when the movie works it does work. When Randall rants on about about racist words like Porchmonkey and has to be taught a lesson, its funny. When Elias, Randall, and random customer get into it about the LOTR trilogy, its funny. When it just seems like a dumb comedy, it moderately works. When the emotions invade, it doesn't.

Now, I'm gonna go watch Clerks.

C-

Little Miss Sunshine (2006)

Contrived but fun

[6/10 · 27 July 2006]

I went to this sneak preview really wanting to like the movie. I really like Alan Arkin, Toni Collette, and Steve Carell. The plot was deliciously dark: a dysfunctional family goes on a road trip so the young daughter can participate in a beauty pageant.

But, the problem is that the movie screamed "I'm an indie flick." From the poster to the commercials, I should have been warned that it would fall into the traps that these independent films generally do. But, I had high hopes.

Nevertheless they were somewhat dashed. Little Miss Sunshine is indeed a darkish comedy of sorts, but only of the most contrived sort. The family in Little Miss Sunshine neither feels like a family nor acts like they are connected by having lived together for years. The family includes:

• Olive, the young daughter who asks all the good questions that need to be asked for the movie to develop its plot.

• Richard, the over-talkative father who spouts self-help while calling everybody losers. He is depending on a book deal that may not come through.

• Sheryl, the working mother who is impatient with the whole situation.

• Dwayne, the Nitzche-reading son who has taken a vow of silence until he can get into the air force to fly jets.

• Grandpa, the perverted old man who snorts heroin and is also Olive's coach.

• Frank, Sheryl's homosexual brother, fresh off an attempted suicide after a failed relationship with his grad student.

At the beginning of the movie, Olive is given the Sunnydale regional Little Miss Sunshine title due to her placing second and first place was forced to drop out. The last-minute nature of the phone call sends the family into a flurry of action leading to the decision that everybody will be in the VW van for the road trip.

The road trip consists of many odd and stupid contrivances in order to set up for repeated jokes and motifs. The van's clutch drops out, which causes everybody to push it in order to drive it. Phone signals drop out at inconvenient times, and chance situations all pile on top of each other. Add to these contrivances the fact that none of the family reacts like people who have known each other for years. They act and react like characters in a cheap play.

The only one who moderately pulls it off is Toni Collette. Thankfully, Toni has the timing and grace of a truly caring mother trying to hold the family together.

However, the comic aspects of the rest of the performers are all spot on. The movie isn't all bad. When it is funny, it is frequently hilarious. Especially when it is believable. When the situations aren't so constructed to seem like they were written solely for laughs, Little Miss Sunshine really shines. When it isn't believable it is tiresome and stretched.

Paul Dano also shines in the first half-hour of the movie when he acts like a child who is tired of the family. But, by the end, he just isn't trying nearly as hard as he was.

Steve Carell and Greg Kinnear also flex their comic timing muscle in the movie as they can. They make their jokes work even when they aren't working.

For the dark humor that the movie gets right, it is an enjoyable movie. It isn't bad, it just isn't great. It just doesn't click.

B-

V for Vendetta (2005)

P for Provoking

[8/10 · 19 March 2006]

V for Vendetta (2006); Dir: James McTeigue

Remember Remember the Fifth of November" is much like "Remember the Alamo," but, in V For Vendetta, the British rhyme is used more like Fox News Channel's constant recalling of 9/11. And, why not, as V For Vendetta has been rewritten to boldly extend the current state of the United States, and question our leadership and media coverage.

If V For Vendetta makes you a bit uncomfortable in its heroic bombing of landmarks, it may have done part of its job. But, is the audience ready for a call to rebellion yet? V For Vendetta opens with a theatricality which cuts in and out of the movie, as you see Evey (Natalie Portman) getting ready for a date with Gordon Deitrich (Stephen Fry), while V dons his Phantom of the Opera mask to go out for the night. As Evey is caught after curfew and about to be molested by roaming bands of government-hired enforcers, V swoops in and rescues her from her fate. V takes the saved heroine to a rooftop to watch his late-night demolition of Old Bailey, a British landmark.

Naturally, the national news station has a field day with the story. But, V takes the Government news station hostage to send his own message that in a year, there will be a revolution.

You see, in this futuristic world, the British government has been taken over by a Hitler-style government leader, Adam Sutler (John Hurt) who has been broadly painted to look like Hitler and George W. Bush. It becomes at once a tale of "What would happen if the Third Reich had become the one remaining world power" and "What the US as the Third Reich would do." In addition to painting Sutler equally like George W. Bush and Hitler, it also takes jabs at America and her penchant for starting wars, citing this as a leading cause of the Sutler rise to power.

If the movie seems a bit confused to what it is, its probably because it tried to chew a little too much off. It at once attempts to be a combination of blockbuster action, fantasy, superhero comic book, science-fiction parable, and fairy tale. It also is, at once, Orwell's 1984 with the theatricality of The Phantom of the Opera, with a bit of Farenheit 451 thrown in for good measure. On top of all this, it becomes an indictment of America, American government, by creating its downfall, and creating an uprising resembling our current leader.

V For Vendetta is a very ambitious movie for a first-time director, and its easy to tell where the Wachowski's stepped in on his style. Considering James McTeigue worked as first assistant director on all three Matrix movies, and the Wachowski brothers wrote the script for V For Vendetta, it is challenging not to make comparisons to the former movies. The Wachowskis made The Matrix by deftly weaving armchair philosophy, martial arts, science-fiction, neo-noir, and blockbuster action into a fluid cinematic tapestry the likes of which had not been seen before. Since they wrote the screenplay for V For Vendetta, and produced it, it is hard to say where their participation ended, but they were trying for a deftly woven fabric here as well.

However, McTeigue may not have been up to the task. McTiegue's visual sensibilities are rather meager, and his cinematic language not deep enough to keep the movie into a single flowing unit. With a few gorgeously made sets, and the occasional brilliant frame, V For Vendetta is its own worst nightmare, as it shows brilliance in the portions of what could have been. More than a few different portions of the movie were flat and seemed rather pedestrian in the visual choice.

But, the real star of the movie was not the visuals, it was the screenplay and the ideas behind it. Essentially, the Wachowski Brothers made a call to action for the ousting of our President, if not the restarting of the American government. Don't kid yourselves viewers, the transfer to Britain was mainly used as a white rabbit, and to keep the Guy Fawkes mask (who is not known by the American populace). The script goes from idea to idea, sometimes fully exploring one or two, and having a decent fixation on the plight of the homosexual.

But, whether or not the audience is ready to see terrorist bombings used heroically is a challenge. Not only is it a challenge due to the fact that bombings are nasty things, it is a challenge as we associate bombings with the evil Middle Eastern Religious Fanatics. It raises the question, do those terrorists have a point to their bombings? Are they trying to get out from under the foot of an oppressive government? I think that, which I find happenstance, the movie comes out on the same weekend as Operation Swarmer makes an interesting comment on how we should be questioning our government.

So, is the movie good? It depends on why you go to the movies. If you go to the movies for an easy action movie, you may have come to the wrong place. If you're looking for eye candy, there's been better. If you don't mind having your mind provoked, this is the best place to be.

B+

Crash (I) (2004)

...And Burn

[1/10 · 27 February 2006]

I wrote this as a two part review. Part two has spoilers.

Part 1:

No, this isn't that one about the sex with car accidents. This is the one about racism in L.A. You know, the one where everybody is a racist, and race is the topic on everybody's mind at all times. Race.

Its like the movie has a form of turrets syndrome where race is the constant theme. Race. Racist. Racism. Race Relations. Relay race.

Paul Haggis made a movie which took the structure of Magnolia, which was used to show the disconnect of people who are tangentially connected, and then screwed it into a 1'53" mental vomit about racism in America. RACE. In the 24 hour period we have 7 stories running parallel all connected and about race. The first hour, people say ridiculous stuff and do absurd things in an effort to be real about racism in America.

For example, the story with Ludicrous and Larenz Tate provides the comic relief. Too bad, the first half of their story is lifted straight from The Bonnie Situation in Pulp Fiction. RACISM. Their section is the Quentin Tarantino section where, instead of being cool and talking about foot massages and religion, the characters talk about race and racism. CONSTANTLY.

The other good thing about it is the Mexican story when the Mexican guy is talking to his daughter. He gives her his invisible impenetrable cloak to protect her from bullets. Decent writing, but that's only because the writers have had daughters and know what they would say in his place.

The rest of the stories are extremely ludicrous. The Hindi does not act in any semblance of realism. The scene where he's trying to get the lock fixed and the Mexican tells him he needs a new door is abbreviated and stupid. Why would anybody act like that? Is it realistic? NOOO. It reminds me more of the convenience store clerk from The Doom Generation. "Six Dollar Sixty Six Cents girly." If i ever watch the second half of the movie, I hope his head is shot off and his bodiless head starts coughing up relish.

I haven't mentioned race in over a paragraph. RACE. RACISM. RACE FOR THE SUN. Better. Then, there is the black guy who wants to be white, Matt Dillon who has a chip on his shoulder against blacks, Ryan Phillippe who looks beautiful and does nothing, and various other bad actors acting badly with bad dialog. When Matt Dillon molests the black producers wife, could I help it if I was cracking up? When Philippe is second guessing his writing up of his partner for racism, can I help but crack up? The movie is so funny when it is being racist. Racist. RACIST I tell you.

Now, mind you, this movie was nominated for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Screenplay, and Best Editing, besides a nod to Matt Dillon who actually did attempt to do a decent job. Who was paid off for that one, I have no clue.

Don't see it unless you feel like being preached at about the racism in society through a bad and unrealistic script from 2 white men over fifty who have no semblance of reality or interaction with real society in any way shape or form.

D-

Part 2:

The second half of Crash takes any and all story lines in the first half...and spews them back out in a sort of redemptive, conclusionary, the world is a big coincidence kind of way. And it is in fact one of the worst ways to do it.

Take 1999's Magnolia. People weren't conveniently tied together over and over again. They were just connected in a strange way that happens more often than you think. You know somebody who knows somebody who did something that you knew somebody else was also involved in. Crash takes this wrapping into a serious extreme.

The stories are lined up so everybody meets again. Are there only 5 on the LAPD force? Aren't these people working weird shifts? Dillon and Philippe were a late shift then an early one the next day? And, why did Tate have to be the murdered hitchhiker? Wouldn't it have had more emotional tension, as well as realism, if it had been somebody we had not been following all day long? Like Phillippe just picks up a random hitchhiker and then freaks out. Everybody'd be freaking out.

Eventually, in the second half, the touching invisible cloak scene is used to get the Hindi to shoot the daughter. It ticked me off and made me feel dirty. Not that the Hindi shot the daughter, but that they created a beautiful touching scene and then had it be the direct cause of people tearing up. It really ticked me off. At the writers, not the scene.

The whole movie is fake and totally uncalled for. The coincidences are far too many and they require an extreme suspension of disbelief. Unlike Magnolia which was connected mildly, this had connections upon connections upon connections which were just so over-the-top. The only good part in the second half was when Sandra Bullock falls down the stairs. She doesn't die though. She should have. I cheered when she fell.

The worst part about the movie is it pulls a Magnolia. Not just in structure, but it has a montage over the song In the Deep where you see everybody being depressed. Magnolia took this and had post-modern commentary on it by having all of the characters singing along to Aimee Mann's Wise Up. Unfortunately, Magnolia came out in 1999, while Crash came out in 2005. Its hard to make commentary on a movie which won't be made for another 6 years, but it happened. Somehow.

Utter waste of my time.

First half: D-; Second half: lowest grade ever; Overall: F---

Æon Flux (2005)

Science Fiction done RIGHT

[8/10 · 2 December 2005]

For those who aren't nearly as pop culture literate, and who haven't guessed, Æon Flux is based on the characters from an MTV animated series. Æon Flux originally started as a series of science-fiction shorts about a girl in a hot outfit infiltrating a cold bunker-esquire environment, and then dying at the end of every episode because she made a mistake. Later, it was adapted into a series about Æon Flux against Trevor Goodchild in an abstract sort of plot.

Æon Flux, the movie, is much more straightforward in its approach, and quite quick about it too. Coming in at a trim 90 minutes (or so), Æon Flux is a shot of summer popcorn in a Christmas-time happy arty season.

The opening information tells us that a virus has killed off 99% of the population of the world, and the remaining 5 million people inhabited a city ruled by the Goodchilds, who created the vaccine. There is a group, the Monicans, who wish the government to fall, as people have been disappearing. Æon Flux is their top agent set to destroy the government.

To give too much of the movie away would be to ruin the surprise, but there is much to be said for the twists and turns of the plot. The movie does ask some important questions and leaves things open-ended. Some of the questions include "is what the government doing to preserve our way of life right?" and "Is the secrecy of the government necessary?" Æon Flux doesn't give straight-forward answers, but instead gives the answers that things may be different than what they seem.

The biggest point of judgment for most people who remember the show is the look. The television show featured a very futuristic and cold look, with very little warmth. The movie gets this right as long as there is a set. When it was filming outside, however, the cinematographer failed to make it look as it should. There was a mild disjunct between the cold smooth sterility of the inside sets and the harshness of anything happening outside. I almost feel that this could have been done with just a change in film stock, or a saturation change.

My other complaint is Frances McDormand who seemed to be just Frances McDormand with red wacky hair in her part. In what should have been an easy part, McDormand stood out as being just herself. It wasn't an emotive part, and could have easily been passed off to an unknown.

These are but mild quibbles in a movie which otherwise succeeds. The action scenes, of which there are rightfully numerous, are quite well done. The real plot of the movie unfolds well, and is actually quite compelling. All in all, MTV Films proves they sometimes know what they're doing yet again.

I actually had an extremely good time at it.

8/10

What Is It? (2005)

Chinchilla?

[4/10 · 20 March 2005]

*may contain a spoiler of sorts?* The mere mention of Crispin Glover is enough to send some geek's panties in a bunch. His landmark appearance in Back to the Future as George McFly has sealed him into the American conscience forever. More recently, he has been trying to get back into the culty subconscious with Bartleby and Willard.

This time, however, Crispin has made a 76-minute, cheap dada film. At times it reminded me of genius, while overall it almost insulted me, but not because of its content. Content? What Is It? is a movie where, in one half of the movie, all of the actors have Down's Syndrome, giving it a freakshow feel to it. The other half of the movie includes Crispin Glover, Adam Parfrey, and a guy with cerebral palsy. This all had the feel of what John Waters was attempting to do with Desperate Living, and simultaneously feeling more successful and failing miserably.

The half with the Down's Syndrome actors also features many many killed snails. It is about a guy who has snails, and ends up killing one. He is also tormented by a bunch of other people, and a grasshopper. He falls in love with 2 girls, one of which he has sex with in a graveyard. He also has a falling out with a friend who teases him.

In a weird semi-interior set, Crispin Glover is the director of this show. He is something like the control of the guy's mind, and the cerebral palsy guy is something like the sexuality. Well, he at least gets masturbated in explicit scenes. There is other "shocking" imagery made humorous, like Nazi Swaztikas crossed with Shirley Temple, and minstrels in black face saying they're Michael Jackson.

In the outside world, the tormentor is still dealing with his love of killing snails and being beaten by the other people. They beat him with rocks, and such. Later, they beat the minstrel after putting him on trial.

Back to the interior, Crispin Glover is still the ruler of his set, and tries to control everybody, but fails miserably.

What Is It? makes less sense than Dr. Caligari, and has more than a passing style stolen from it. The claustrophobic mental space feels very much like the way the no-wall sets of Dr. Caligari felt claustrophobic. They also had some dialogue that was absolute nonsense. And, it was all wrapped up with absurdist imagery for humor.

The problem is, about 20 minutes into the movie...maybe a little more...What Is It? runs out of imagery. For the next 56 minutes, we keep running on the same sets of images, only introducing new imagery in the form of an absurdist puppet show. The movie seems little more than a movie which attempts to push the envelope in offensive and taboo imagery. It tries to mock and confuse the audience. But, the issue is that it only has enough different imagery for a 40 minute movie.

Even worse than that, the cinematography, set design, and everything else felt very very cheap and almost unplanned. It felt like "OK, this is the way we can do it and get it out of the way." It didn't feel interesting, and was quite...boring. Dr. Caligari, on the other hand, had amazing cinematography and framing. The difference between the two is quite astounding.

rating: C

The Mothman Prophecies (2002)

better version of Fire in the Sky?

[3/10 · 24 January 2002]

So, I may be biased against this film as I want some plausability in movies. And less showiness for the sake of showiness. In Moulin Rouge, it was flashy, but so are musicals. This was so self-rightous and self-important, it was hard to take it seriously. The editing in the first sequence alone says it all.

As for the movie itself, it really drags in the middle. I was constantly looking at the broken clock in the room and at the reels to see how much more we had before the next reel. Maybe the fact that it was sweltering in the place didn't help. The performances were decent for the material given, but the material wasn't all that great either. Especially with this one, it seemed really weird.

There was a decent amount of laughter through this movie, especially through the more dramatic parts. It wasn't as hilarious as Mission to mars, but it was starting to get there. The movie was well done, but some of the points were just awful. One shot had Gere walking along a wall, which made me laugh for some reason. It was funny. Also, the fact that he only had one phone in the house was strange.

*SPOILERS**SPOILERS**SPOILERS** The ending sucked. Full of implausibilities and such. Maybe it was the college crowd, but the number 37 should never be used in the dramatic context. Clerks ruined the number. Then, I like the fact that he was able to rip the mesh divider between the to sections of the cop suv right off to save the girlfriend. And, I don't believe that's how a bridge would self-destruct, crumbling in pieces from the side nowhere important for no good reason. There were other hilarious parts in the rest of the movie too, but I don't really remember them, too many brain cells. *END SPOILERS*

So, in the end, the movie is better for your average filmgoer, and I suspect that it will do decent at the box office, considering my two friends liked it. Me, I hated it. We need better sci-fi, not this self-rightous x-files.

3/10

Black Hawk Down (2001)

violent, bloody, technically wonderful, but strangely off

[19 January 2002]

I really really like Ridley Scott. I wanted him to make a great movie. I wanted to like the movie. I wanted another war movie to add to my likes list (currently only 3 are on it - Full Metal Jacket, Apocalypse Now, and Thin Red Line - and 2 maybe war: Crimson Tide and Hunt for Red October). This movie did not add itself to the roster.

*SPOILERS AHEAD* It had a really good intro, that was probably manipulative, but for somebody who was 11-12 when the events occurred. So, i was hoping for something substantial. I got a story of how everything broke down, and that was interesting. But, there were several problems with the movie. One big beef I had was I never got to know the characters enough to care about them. Some have already said that it was the point, but for the surgery to really work as emotion instead of gory shock, we should know and care for the soldier like his partners.

Also, there was almost a checklist of stereotypes used. Tough and mean-spirited general, check. Rebellious crew, check. Humanitarian, check. There were more. And while i am sure hat the stereotypes were at the heart of these characters, I am sure that they were more than these base characters. Other complaints include that this is one big disjointed battle. You never focus on any one group long enough to know them or what their situation is.

What was up with the final speech? Did he really say that? Was my stomach churning over heartfelt words really said over a dead body? Or was this a reshoot in our new found nationalistic obsession for heroes, and finding them in the NYFD/PD? It seemed like a forced new scene made just for this situation.

And the whole movie was patriotic, but I guess people really are in the military. How else could you survive if you didn't believe in your country enough to die for it? But, it still seemed to have a bias that dying for your nation is a great thing even if it isn't for anything protective of the US. And it even condemned us nay-sayers by putting negative words in the mouth of the "bad guys." *END SPOILERS*

The movie could have been good, but I was just sighing and looking at my watch by the end of it. It was boring because it was repetitive. I guess people need war movies like old ones in this day of age, but I still would never add this movie to the top ten of my list, or even in the better half. It was a decent movie that had major flaws. I am waiting for windtalkers, but not for either of the other two war movies coming out. (Why are there four war movies coming out rapid fire?) 4/10

Vanilla Sky (2001)

Damn Hollywood, damn it to HELL!

[2/10 · 7 January 2002]

Well, I hate hollywood, but love cinema so i have to watch these cruddy movies in theaters. And, I was hoping Vanilla Sky would be good. i was hoping that they would either keep the original "Open Your Eyes" exactly the same, or they would make it their own. Well, it happened to be a little bit of both, and it sucked.

It started out good. I love Radiohead. I wish there was more of that. But by the end we are listening to Good Vibrations by The Beach Boys. Talk about a wide range of suck between. They had one or two good songs in the club and maybe a couple others, but why oh why did they have to blare GV during the climax. It was more annoying than confusing or blatant. Especially when it has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PLOT. At least put some meaning behind the songs. Kid A = primary. Whatever.

He also did a bang up job with the club scene. That was cool. Otherwise the movie was one big ball of arrogance. As if audiences would get the movie. The ones that would get it read subtitles, and the rest won't. Its as simple as that. The motivations got all screwed up. I didn't comprehend the Diaz motivations (hadn't they done the Chicken Soup night before?) and some of the others. And I hate Kurt Russell. Stay overboard. Tom Cruise can't act (especially in these types of movie [i.e. Eyes Wide Shut]). And the elevator. I get it. Anyways they tried improving the original with a crappy american rock soundtrack and crappy angles and good film print and glossy processing and it would have helped if crowe hadn't screwed it up.

2/10 Major disappointment.

Apocalypse Now (1979)

The best war movie ever, turned mediocre

[20 November 2001]

I am so happy that this movie was re-released into theaters. It was a joy with the sounds and the widescreen and the height and just the enormousness that the movie deserves. However, it does not deserve the enormous running time that the redux version has. If the majority of the added scenes weren't self-explanatory, then i wouldn't have a problem. But, there was a reason the Plantation scene was cut (obvious and boring), there was a reason the second Playboy bunny scene was cut (it still isn't fashionable to take on women's lib, but especially in a war movie). There is a reason why the originally works oh so much better than Redux.

As for the original, it is amazing watching the plot unfold, the characters develop, the separatism, everything man. It was like wow. I can't explain it, simply because it is so mysterious and aggressive that it can't' be explained. This is a serious head trip of a war movie, with nothing really making sense, and all having a point to attack the government, the military, or society's take on war. Watch this surreal movie for the trip it is, and you will love it. I remember turning it on at 1:00 am, and finishing it without even noticing its 2.5 hour length.

10/10 (original) 5 /10 (Redux)

Novocaine (2001)

Crap

[2/10 · 12 November 2001]

Well, Its been awhile since I saw this movie. It was back in August when i saw this, and I am pretty sure that it was a rough cut. It was a preview screening for critics, and it sucked. It tried to pass some of the worst ideas off as humor. I personally don't find seeing x-rays of people chewing food disgusting or funny, unless I missed something like relevance. The movie was your basic film noir and such, but done horribly.

Normally, I'd say that the cast should be ashamed of themselves for even agreeing to do this dreck, but they were taking risks, and for that I applaud them. I do like Helena Bonham Carter, she is an interesting actress. So, anyways, the cast sort of walked its way through the mess and eventually they found the end. Its not like the director even seemed to be looking for a performance, but maybe that was the point. But, as a friend once told me, when I tried explaining The Doom Generation to him, "Just because they meant it to be like that, doesn't mean that it is good."

Maybe the director was competent, maybe that was what he wanted, maybe he purposefully misdirected the whole sham. I dunno, I just know that only *spoilers**Spoilers**SPOILERS* a few scenes were funny: the biting of people with dentures from somebody else's mouth, the pulling out of your own teeth, and i do believe one other one. *END Spoilers* But don't see this crap otherwise.

2/10

Monsters, Inc. (2001)

cool beans

[9/10 · 4 November 2001]

Hey, I know I'm the type who loves those evil rated 'R' movies that ask for NC-17s, but I love this movie too. In fact, I love Pixar. They haven't made a bad movie yet (although I didn't care as much for 'A Bug's Life'), and this movie is no exception. This movie has a sophisticated sense of humor, and is just as satirical as it is endearing. Sure, you know the plot of the movie and the final result around 10 minutes (I'm guessing, i didn't look at my watch at all during the movie), but who cares? The movie is full of humor and great graphics. Unlike 'Shrek,' which I noticed somebody liked better, this movie wears its heart on its sleeve. 'Shrek' tried to make itself out to be an attack on Disney (and it was good for the first 20 minutes), but then it turns into an overly-sappy movie worthy of Disney. This movie never pretends to be bitter and mean, but is a bit tongue-in-cheek.

*Possible Spoilers* This is a movie which makes monsters in the closet friendly. They collect screams to power their city. But, the kids don't scare as easily, and there is a power shortage. By way of an evil plan, a closet gateway (read Door) is left around for Sully to find, and the kid terrorizes the monsters. The evil plan is to kidnap the kids and steal their screams to power the city. Sully and his partner Mike try to put the girl back, and eventually succeed, but not before being exiled, returning, and such. *End spoilers*

Well, this movie fully understands subtle humor, and the college crowd (that's all that was there pretty much when I saw it) loved the movie. Even the gay joke is innocent, and subtle. The monsters are cuddly and friendly, and everything in this movie seems to work for the best. It gets a little sappy in a few spots, but it never pretended to be anything but happy, not to mention the kids probably love it. So, check out this movie...especially if you loved 'Toy Story.' (my favorite)

9/10

Planet of the Apes (2001)

They made it dreck, Semos help us

[6 August 2001]

Maybe I should have been smarter, maybe I should have been wiser. However, when I went to see this, I was hoping, maybe even expecting, something intelligent that represented science fiction. However, this was not science fiction, and did not have an ounce of intelligence in its overly-long body. The movie is crap. It is dreck.

First, I was not expecting the original. The original had a very '60s or hippy mindset about how humans destroyed the earth, and nature took over. That wouldn't go over now. So, I asked myself, what could they do to the movie to make it more modern. It seemed to me that they tried by making it be a metaphor for class wars, or political racism. But that was soon abandoned. Eventually it became the usual. A watered-down post-apocalyptic-like road movie (or escape, whatever).

I was too busy searching for some sign of intelligence to tell you how the acting was (it could have been good, it could have been horrible). Visually it was stunning if you have to resort to that. And the score was wonderful (thanks Danny Elfman). But for the rest of the movie, skip it. I was so frustrated that before the ending came up, my Gatorade bottle was a crumpled mess.

SPOILERS****SPOILERS****SPOILERS*****SPOILERS****SPOILERS*****SPOILERS

The end of the movie was just pure hilarity. Maybe I wouldn't have found it so funny if I hadn't called it before it actually occurred. Right as Wahlberg got into the pod, I asked my friend, "Wouldn't it be funny if Earth was taken over by apes?" Lo and behold, it happened. And with police cars and everything, it kind of reminded me of "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"'s ending. The Jefferson monument was a hark back to those cool cartoons where they would blow up Mt. Rushmore and it would turn into the villains face. Maybe I shouldn't be so judgemental, but that was the only redeeming part of the whole movie (and for all the wrong reasons).

END SPOILERS

2/10

Black & White (I) (1999)

Dazed and confused

[18 July 2001]

Well, at least that's what this movie becomes in the end. Actually, I couldn't finish the movie. I got 90 minutes into it, and gave up hope that the movie would return to its beginning. The movie starts out good, with a nice angry premise. It seemed so full of venom and froth that the movie would turn out to become a great statement about white culture, black culture, inner city culture, middle class culture, etc.

The movie begins with a black man and two white girls having sex. Then jumps to show that one is middle class. Then, in one of its greatest moments, it has a white guy explore the difference between N-a and

N-r. That was a priceless moment. It adds to the fun with Brooks Shields, and Downey (unnecessarily, but fun). And it keeps going with brutality.

However (There's that nasty word), the movie loses itself fairly quickly. It gets caught up with a basketball player being bribe to lose a game, then blackmailed for accepting it. It goes on, and the movie begins to have a plot instead of a theme, which has nothing to do with the theme. Its like, the movie lost its way, and had nothing left to say. I think I knew where it was going to go with it, but it didn't go there. Maybe it was still on its way, I dunno.

But, in the end, the movie would have made a better episode of "Strangers With Candy" than anything else. It lost its way, and I wonder how it ever got greenlighted, nevertheless had all the big stars in it. Well, we all make bad choices (check "Ready to wear (Pret-a-porter)"), but this one should never have been made.

3/10 (for the beginning)

Sugar & Spice (2001)

Light-hearted dark comedy: I don't think so

[12 July 2001]

I had high expectations for this movie. I guess that they were a little too high, because this movie did not work. It started off great, being fast paced, biting, and just plain mean. Any movie where the parents of both the head cheerleader and the quarterback cheer about their marriage, but scream about their pregnancy...well, it can still suck.

The movie cared too much about its subjects. It had a heart for the cheerleaders (either that or it was the toning down after the shootings), and thus I didn't feel that the point of the movie was to laugh at them, but to laugh with them. This is like American Pie, where we laugh with the characters. Except the humor that could have worked was aimed at them, thus making a conflict and making many jokes not funny. Also, the timing was off on alot of the jokes. "You want to dust my a**" should have been funny, but it wasn't.

So, if you like the light-hearted dark comedy genre (of which there aren't too many...none that I can think of off the top of my head), see this movie, otherwise, stay to the biting satire of Bring it On.

3/10

Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within (2001)

Awesome movie

[10 July 2001]

This movie is one of the best movies to come out over the summer. I know that doesn't say much this year, but I think that this is the movie to see at theaters (unless you haven't seen the first two hours of "A.I." that is). I have been into Final Fantasy since the first game came out for Nintendo. The games are fanciful epics which, if directly translated to the screen, might have ended up chopped to pieces, and looking like "Tomb Raider." However, this movie simplified the plot, and kept everything to a constrained time, especially considering that the games take a minimum of 25 hours to play nowadays.

So, I think that this was one of the most fanciful, awesome looking, well-(voiced?) sci-fi movies in awhile. I am so glad I got to see this one. Check it out.

8/10

P.S. Some people may say that this (as well as FF7 and FF8) are insults to the series because they take place in the future, well they should know that stories can't be the same every single time, or else they would get tired.

Monkeybone (2001)

destined to be a cult classic

[6 July 2001]

This is one downright hilarious movie, for those lucky enough not to know what to expect from it. I saw it with an open mind, and didn't know what the movie was (except that it was short). It was downright hilarious. The movie uses comas, and death for humor, as well as having just plain psychosis all over the place. I highly recommend this to anyone who has a twisted sense of humor that likes their movies silly as well. I won't say anything more other than it is great because it is downright funny.

SPOILERS**SPOILERS**SPOILERS**SPOILERS** Two scenes: One in which Monkeybone dons a Marilyn Monroe dress, singing I wanna be loved by you. However, he is flat chested, so takes off his ears and blows them up into balls to stuff down his dress.

Another with Stephen King and Edgar Allen Poe in jail with death. King: Did you bring my night light? Poe: Steve King, what a pansy. King: Bite me, Poe.

9/10

Shrek (2001)

Hilarious comedy for adults (at least)

[20 May 2001]

OK, I admit, I didn't watch this movie looking to see it as a kid, or if it was made for kids. Hell, I'm practically a kid myself (although from some of the movies I've seen, you never could tell). This movie made me laugh out loud, and I loved almost every minute of it. It was a great slaying of the traditional fairy tale, and of Disney and everything else. And, yes, it is a dark movie in parts.

Comments have included the facts that Riverdance parodies are tired, and why the song "All-Star?" Well, first, Riverdance parodies may be just hitting the kid level (last year, it may have seemed tired in Scary Movie [to me], but kids shouldn't have seen that one). Kids get things that are more popular nowadays, and they hold onto it for annoyingly longer periods of time. Look at the phenomenon of the Nickelodeon's embrace of Baja Men's "Who Let the Dogs Out." That was still being played long after I had grown tired of hearing it at frat parties.

However, the best parts are in the beginning, especially. The dark twists on every fairy tale that you know (and maybe even some I didn't), were just great. The rest of the movie was pretty good too, but Donkey got annoying at times. That may have been the point. I dunno, but I highly recommend this one for adults, especially if you like your comedy slightly tainted. If you don't mind poking fun at dear things a little, and having fun. Check this one out.

8/10