I think they could have done this better. Much of the documentary seems to rely on our empathy for the main person of the film, which is Tom who has a sort of mental handicap called fragile X, but even for those who aren't fed up with this kind of cheap pandering, they don't even dig deep into his condition. The film can't seem to decide which angle to go for... The fact that they're trying to meet Lars Ulrich of Metallica or how it is for this guy to live with his condition. I don't regret watching it or anything, it's okay for entertainment but could have been much better. Clocks at approx 75 mins.
Reviews
19 Reviews
H:r Landshövding
(2008)
You haven't missed out
26 May 2013
I was expecting good things here. Björck is an interesting character in political debates and as far as I can remember this received positive reviews when it was released. Turns out it's just 80 minutes of boredom. But expect pretentious people to call it "brilliant" without any actual arguments. A lot of people have been critical about all those entertaining American documentaries of the 21st century, but the opposite is a not a recipe for success. I suppose there are some nice moments with regards to the formal aspect of film as a medium, but the content is barely there. I give it 3/10 which to me is barely above plain bad.
Battle Los Angeles
(2011)
Tries a different approach, but becomes a war film
14 May 2011
I have to give this a low rating even if it was a lot more consistent than other invasion flicks. Battle: Los Angeles is not bad, and has to be applauded for cutting out most of the sap that usually comes with big action sci-fi films, for having a credible cast and for just trying something new, but sadly it also loses a lot of the good things in this genre. It's almost as if you'd call it false advertising, because you don't really see that much of the invaders. In the end they might just have been a foreign army, because there isn't much of close-up footage of the aliens, and most of the battle just consists of two fronts shooting at each other. That's more realistic and it's nice to see a more balanced presentation of the other side; they never really seem to be unbeatable. If you're big into war action, you might dig it, but if you expect Aliens or Independence Day, don't expect to be amazed.
Godzilla
(I) (1998)
Unrealistic and dumb, but not quite as bad as they say
20 March 2011
Warning: Spoilers
For its category, Godzilla is a decent film. But it does has some big problems which cannot be ignored, and those who say that critics should just take it for what it is - entertainment - and not have high standards for that matter, are wrong. Not having expectations of great artistic merit doesn't mean you can treat the story any way you want without some criticism.
The general clichés I think most people will accept, but well, Broderick as some nerdy guy amidst the chaos is afterall a minus, as it's just a bit ridiculous and not funny as they seem to have intended, and his whole romantic story with his old ex hurts the story more than it helps.
But I guess the main problem was the unrealisticness parts. As in such a huge monster just coming out of the water in Manhattan like that without anyone noticing before he's actually there.
Or the scene where the guys in the tunnel don't realize he's there despite the animal moving its eyelid just a few meters away and even making noise and moving.
For me most of all it was the part of the film where the baby godzillas go after the humans. That they would start act like vicious velociraptors five minutes after birth is too ridiculous. You may call this a detail, but it is a key element in the plot. I know these are lizards who don't need the long 'learning curve' like mammals when it comes to hunting for food but Jesus, this was just over the top. They'd have to run out of fish long before they'd start behaving like that, and even then they'd be pretty lame at it at first.
On the plus side though, there are a lot of cool scenes and you get plenty of good shots on Godzilla. And it being a huge blockbuster, I don't know what people expected if the disappointment is as huge as it is. I've seen a lot of films in the category that are worse. But Godzilla has somehow been talked of as one of the absolute worst big action flicks of all time, which I don't really get. It's certainly watchable, but it could have been a LOT better. Those who pretend like it's as good as it gets need to think of Jurassic Park.
The general clichés I think most people will accept, but well, Broderick as some nerdy guy amidst the chaos is afterall a minus, as it's just a bit ridiculous and not funny as they seem to have intended, and his whole romantic story with his old ex hurts the story more than it helps.
But I guess the main problem was the unrealisticness parts. As in such a huge monster just coming out of the water in Manhattan like that without anyone noticing before he's actually there.
Or the scene where the guys in the tunnel don't realize he's there despite the animal moving its eyelid just a few meters away and even making noise and moving.
For me most of all it was the part of the film where the baby godzillas go after the humans. That they would start act like vicious velociraptors five minutes after birth is too ridiculous. You may call this a detail, but it is a key element in the plot. I know these are lizards who don't need the long 'learning curve' like mammals when it comes to hunting for food but Jesus, this was just over the top. They'd have to run out of fish long before they'd start behaving like that, and even then they'd be pretty lame at it at first.
On the plus side though, there are a lot of cool scenes and you get plenty of good shots on Godzilla. And it being a huge blockbuster, I don't know what people expected if the disappointment is as huge as it is. I've seen a lot of films in the category that are worse. But Godzilla has somehow been talked of as one of the absolute worst big action flicks of all time, which I don't really get. It's certainly watchable, but it could have been a LOT better. Those who pretend like it's as good as it gets need to think of Jurassic Park.
Life During Wartime
(2009)
Solondz disappoints again
13 January 2011
As a big fan of foremost Happiness and Storytelling, I'm very disillusioned about the fact that Todd Solondz may never make great films like those again. This was a disappointment, but not exactly a shock after the gloom of Palindromes.
I'm not sure if this is really supposed to be a sequel to Happiness in the normal sense, but yes, a lot of the characters from that one are back. Sadly Solondz has turned Joy from a half dysfunctional "loser" to a freak, and every scene with her is pretty unbearable. The dad from the first film has also changed a lot, but that makes sense seeing how he's been in prison for years when the film starts.
Palindromes sort of drowned in gloom and repulsion. LDW isn't quite the same but it's still bleak, and often creepy. At times it borders to psychological thriller.
I have to respect Solondz for making a philosophical effort, but if there was a specific point with the story, I didn't quite get it. There's the subject of fear and hysteria in the U.S all over, but other than that, I didn't get that much out of it. All in all it was like a (expectedly) weirdish film with a lot of darkness and absurdity. Happiness and Storytelling were dark but also very funny and balanced with a sort of pleasantness that I just can't see here. It's like a long nightmare.
Before Palindromes Solondz was to me possibly the greatest living director. I REALLY hope he either gets back to his old form or tries out something new that works better.
I'm not sure if this is really supposed to be a sequel to Happiness in the normal sense, but yes, a lot of the characters from that one are back. Sadly Solondz has turned Joy from a half dysfunctional "loser" to a freak, and every scene with her is pretty unbearable. The dad from the first film has also changed a lot, but that makes sense seeing how he's been in prison for years when the film starts.
Palindromes sort of drowned in gloom and repulsion. LDW isn't quite the same but it's still bleak, and often creepy. At times it borders to psychological thriller.
I have to respect Solondz for making a philosophical effort, but if there was a specific point with the story, I didn't quite get it. There's the subject of fear and hysteria in the U.S all over, but other than that, I didn't get that much out of it. All in all it was like a (expectedly) weirdish film with a lot of darkness and absurdity. Happiness and Storytelling were dark but also very funny and balanced with a sort of pleasantness that I just can't see here. It's like a long nightmare.
Before Palindromes Solondz was to me possibly the greatest living director. I REALLY hope he either gets back to his old form or tries out something new that works better.
Dead Man's Shoes
(2004)
Mediocre
29 December 2010
Hate to say it, but if this wasn't an indie movie, it wouldn't have gotten a current average score of 7.8 at IMDb. That's just ridiculous. For me it lost a lot on the last 1/3 of the film, where it failed to live up to the promise set by the story until that point. It wasn't brilliant until then, but at least it was getting somewhere from what at first seemed like meaningless violence. I'm not gonna give away any spoilers, so I can't be too specific about my criticism of the content but I can say it uses some late 90s-early 00s clichés which are obviously very tiring at this point. Some of them were just a bad idea from the start. Also the music is pretty terrible. It's either just bad or cheap.
Sex and the City
(2008)
Just a big failure
14 December 2010
It's unbelievable how royally they messed up this one. I wouldn't call myself a fan of the show, but by now I've seen every episode and there are some stuff you could criticize, but overall it was an entertaining show, funny, often witty and characters that were more or less appealing even if they were half caricature.
No one expected a genius film here, but it turned out to be not even mediocre, but just plain bad. The writing is bad. The acting is bad (one wonders why). The stories are ridiculous and unnecessary. There is a lot predictable sap. Character development/writing, bad. The music arrangement is very bad and annoying.
Then there's the consumerism. Which really was there in the series as well, but first of all it was a smaller scale, and there was a twist of humor about it. Here it just makes it obvious why this movie is as terrible as it is... Half of it is just commercial for brands.
The messages are just dishonest and shallow. The film simply lacks substance in this department and tries to pass off stupid ideas as philosophical views on life. The "I love me" bits were just a joke.
In a desperate attempt of explaining this failure, I would say the answer is just money. The whole purpose was probably to get the early teens hooked on all the products and the lifestyle that these products require. For them the sap isn't quite as predictable for obvious reasons. SATC is simply dumbed down here.
No one expected a genius film here, but it turned out to be not even mediocre, but just plain bad. The writing is bad. The acting is bad (one wonders why). The stories are ridiculous and unnecessary. There is a lot predictable sap. Character development/writing, bad. The music arrangement is very bad and annoying.
Then there's the consumerism. Which really was there in the series as well, but first of all it was a smaller scale, and there was a twist of humor about it. Here it just makes it obvious why this movie is as terrible as it is... Half of it is just commercial for brands.
The messages are just dishonest and shallow. The film simply lacks substance in this department and tries to pass off stupid ideas as philosophical views on life. The "I love me" bits were just a joke.
In a desperate attempt of explaining this failure, I would say the answer is just money. The whole purpose was probably to get the early teens hooked on all the products and the lifestyle that these products require. For them the sap isn't quite as predictable for obvious reasons. SATC is simply dumbed down here.
The Expendables
(2010)
Just sad
9 September 2010
This is just garbage. One of the worst films I've ever seen in my life. It's not even bad-good. The dialog doesn't exist, the lines are lame, the actors are crap, the story is uninteresting. For every action film that I see, I lose more respect for people who are impressed by the same old explosions that made this genre, but even with that, a lot of them are actually watchable and funny or interesting to some extent. And don't buy the "it's about the expectations"-argument for this one. Even if you expect a lousy and mindless Hollywood action flick, you will be disappointed by this. Anything else is self-delusion. A 7.1 average for this at the time of writing this is just sad.
City of Angels
(1998)
Predictable even by the weakest of Hollywood standards
21 August 2010
The lack of quality in this film is unbelievable. People rarely expect anything from huge Hollywood blockbusters, but in general, the amount of money invested makes for a picture that is acceptable if you can get past the clichés that have to be thrown in there to please everybody. But this one IS a huge cliché from start to finish. As far as Hollywood dramas are concerned, this is the worst film I've ever seen.
I did have a bad feeling from the start. Films with "interesting idea" for a plot are usually extremely poor in everything besides this "idea", which in this case is the whole angel bit thing. Ooh there are angels all around dressed in black jackets. He falls in love with a girl and now wants to be human. But if you're smart enough, you know that this is just a very shallow way of making a film.
Anyway, even with the lack of expectations after this, I was amazed at how extremely boring and predictable it was. No humor whatsoever and even the acting sucks, but I guess there wasn't much to work on with a script like this.
Whoever made this should be ashamed
I did have a bad feeling from the start. Films with "interesting idea" for a plot are usually extremely poor in everything besides this "idea", which in this case is the whole angel bit thing. Ooh there are angels all around dressed in black jackets. He falls in love with a girl and now wants to be human. But if you're smart enough, you know that this is just a very shallow way of making a film.
Anyway, even with the lack of expectations after this, I was amazed at how extremely boring and predictable it was. No humor whatsoever and even the acting sucks, but I guess there wasn't much to work on with a script like this.
Whoever made this should be ashamed
Gran Torino
(2008)
About as good as Hollywood gets
3 June 2010
The current average rating of this film is a joke. Top 100 of all time? Wow... I have to say IMDb ratings are usually quite alright. Even if they may be dead wrong in placing films in the top list, they do give a decent indication of whether the film is lousy or good. But when a film like Gran Torino get's 8.4, it just reminds you how the merely good Shawshank Redemption is supposed to be the best film of all time according to the voters.
GT is not a bad film. It's juts mediocre. It's really promising at the start, but once you realize where it's going, with Walt and Tao, the Asian kid, well... It won't disappoint you. It does exactly what you'd expect from a mediocre Hollywood flick and thereby it's very predictable. Clint's acting is not terrible at first, but becomes very clichéd... The storyline itself isn't very believable as it develops. But I suppose it could have been a lot worse.
And by the way, it's pretty funny how every other person of polish descent in Hollywood is a "Kowalski". You'd think there'd be millions of them in present day Poland, but obviously that's not really true.
GT is not a bad film. It's juts mediocre. It's really promising at the start, but once you realize where it's going, with Walt and Tao, the Asian kid, well... It won't disappoint you. It does exactly what you'd expect from a mediocre Hollywood flick and thereby it's very predictable. Clint's acting is not terrible at first, but becomes very clichéd... The storyline itself isn't very believable as it develops. But I suppose it could have been a lot worse.
And by the way, it's pretty funny how every other person of polish descent in Hollywood is a "Kowalski". You'd think there'd be millions of them in present day Poland, but obviously that's not really true.
The Damned United
(2009)
Brilliant film
3 June 2010
This is probably the best football-related film so far. I generally don't like reality-based films about specific persons because of all the epic nonsense that I can't stand, but this one really cuts to the chase. Whatever is shown is there for a reason. To focus on something that is more like a weird sidenote in the heroic career of Brian Clough, was very clever. That's where most other films would fail; they'd try to just salute Clough as a genius in a predictable and boring manner. Photography-wise it's very neat, the score is brilliant, and I absolutely loved the way they showed images from the rise of Derby County accompanied by Deep Purple's "Hush". The acting is also solid, especially thanks to the supporting roles.
I won't give it a 10 because of some factual errors that were there to serve the story rather than the actual events, and because I don't buy their interpretation of the Clough-Taylor relationship. And because of the last scene of the "story" which I felt was a bit unnecessary, considering how brilliantly the film as a whole ended.
I won't give it a 10 because of some factual errors that were there to serve the story rather than the actual events, and because I don't buy their interpretation of the Clough-Taylor relationship. And because of the last scene of the "story" which I felt was a bit unnecessary, considering how brilliantly the film as a whole ended.
Superbad
(2007)
Funny, unless you're really prejudiced about it
7 August 2008
The majority of the people who criticize this movie so heavily are blocked by their prejudice and unintelligent enough to never ever question that maybe the point of this movie wasn't to deliver a great 'plot', that nobody went to see this movie for it to deliver some amazing 'dialogue' etc. I see people whining about how "me and my wife" just wanted to get out of the theatre. Well, did it ever occur to you that maybe this isn't exactly something you'd wanna watch with your wife or husband? That maybe you're just not the target audience? That maybe you don't GET what's so funny about some of these scenes? These inabilities are proved by all the false statements about the content of this film. For example did Seth and Evan really have a mission to have sex before they graduated? NO, THEY DIDN'T, and this is obvious to anyone who watched the movie without a prejudiced, high-mighty attitude.
If you haven't seen it yet, Superbad is just a pretty mindless comedy. Actually it sort of does have a plot, which is the friendship of Seth and Evan that is about to be broken as they will enter college, but that part only brings down the movie in my opinion; it's boring. It probably is a bit of a 'guy movie', and my guess is that if you're 30+ or more, you're less likely to enjoy it.
If you haven't seen it yet, Superbad is just a pretty mindless comedy. Actually it sort of does have a plot, which is the friendship of Seth and Evan that is about to be broken as they will enter college, but that part only brings down the movie in my opinion; it's boring. It probably is a bit of a 'guy movie', and my guess is that if you're 30+ or more, you're less likely to enjoy it.
Blood Simple
(1984)
Obvious debut
25 July 2008
Reading other reviews of this film, I get the feeling that it clearly separates the pretentious from the... UNpretentious? Blood Simple has its moments, the intro for instance, is awesome, but overall i think much of it is poorly written and poorly acted. While some people say it's an 'amazing debut' or whatever, it's pretty obvious to me that it really is what it is - Coens' debut. The fact that some experience was missing really shows.
It's funny how all the pretentious reviewers here constantly wanna emphasize on how much they're the real deal by claiming Blood Simple to be much better than the more popular Coen flicks, when in fact, they probably wouldn't even give it a chance if it your excluded the name Coen as directors/writers. I would have taken it as just a matter of differing opinions, but it's pretty obvious to me where it's coming from when there's barely any substance in all the positive remarks. Everything is just "brilliant" and *sigh* "beautiful". Why? How?
It's funny how all the pretentious reviewers here constantly wanna emphasize on how much they're the real deal by claiming Blood Simple to be much better than the more popular Coen flicks, when in fact, they probably wouldn't even give it a chance if it your excluded the name Coen as directors/writers. I would have taken it as just a matter of differing opinions, but it's pretty obvious to me where it's coming from when there's barely any substance in all the positive remarks. Everything is just "brilliant" and *sigh* "beautiful". Why? How?
The Ghost and the Darkness
(1996)
Disappointed
3 June 2008
I saw parts of this many years ago, and due to my re-found interest in animals, I decided to watch the whole thing.
I didn't expect anything extraordinary, but still better than what I saw. The film is built on too many clichés. It just seems like with such a story behind it, it could have been so much more, easily. I could take the romantic display of Africa, but the rest of it just didn't pass the test. Michael Douglas, which I've learned to enjoy over the years, really doesn't fit his role in this. Val Kilmer, despite the Irish accent thing, is decent. The African "sidekick", or whatever I should call him, is also a bit annoying. First of all the relationship between these three is too "cute". Second, I just don't like the way he's supposed to be representative of "Africans", with all the mystic bullshit surrounding it. I could go on about how the depiction of Africans and Asians is completely outdated. They all have one thing in common, which is stupidity and fear. With one or two exceptions.
My biggest problem with the film is that it in a way asks questions about the actual history of the Tsavo killers without even trying to give an answer. The constant mysticism where the lions are seen as Evil is not impressive. Overall the details were not convincing from a realist point of view.
I also missed a little bit of human RAGE in a story about lion massacre.
But hey, it's a motion picture where lions are the beasts. Might as well watch it because they don't make too many of these.
I didn't expect anything extraordinary, but still better than what I saw. The film is built on too many clichés. It just seems like with such a story behind it, it could have been so much more, easily. I could take the romantic display of Africa, but the rest of it just didn't pass the test. Michael Douglas, which I've learned to enjoy over the years, really doesn't fit his role in this. Val Kilmer, despite the Irish accent thing, is decent. The African "sidekick", or whatever I should call him, is also a bit annoying. First of all the relationship between these three is too "cute". Second, I just don't like the way he's supposed to be representative of "Africans", with all the mystic bullshit surrounding it. I could go on about how the depiction of Africans and Asians is completely outdated. They all have one thing in common, which is stupidity and fear. With one or two exceptions.
My biggest problem with the film is that it in a way asks questions about the actual history of the Tsavo killers without even trying to give an answer. The constant mysticism where the lions are seen as Evil is not impressive. Overall the details were not convincing from a realist point of view.
I also missed a little bit of human RAGE in a story about lion massacre.
But hey, it's a motion picture where lions are the beasts. Might as well watch it because they don't make too many of these.
Blades of Glory
(2007)
Watchable
19 January 2008
Some of these reviews are extremely harsh. Seems like some people don't realize this movie was a parody more or less. Like an extended comedy sketch.
It has some funny moments, but parodical or not, it's very predictable, and no matter what the script had in mind regarding this little 'problem', it just doesn't work that well. I don't know if this proves you need a good story for a movie, or if the humour doesn't make up for the lack of that but, I've seen better, for sure. As far as the Anchorman references go, I barely think it's comparable. Anchorman was more bizarre and frankly, less 'popcorn-friendly'. It was also clearly better.
It has some funny moments, but parodical or not, it's very predictable, and no matter what the script had in mind regarding this little 'problem', it just doesn't work that well. I don't know if this proves you need a good story for a movie, or if the humour doesn't make up for the lack of that but, I've seen better, for sure. As far as the Anchorman references go, I barely think it's comparable. Anchorman was more bizarre and frankly, less 'popcorn-friendly'. It was also clearly better.
Eastern Promises
(2007)
Don't believe the hype
31 December 2007
Some major problems here. The biggest one being that you simply don't care too much about the characters in this film. And that's because the film doesn't give you any reason to do so. Why would I care about the villains? Why would I care about the heroes? Is there even a hero in this? No. Some unrealistic moments, too. Some big clichés. Viggo Mortensen's hardball character for instance often comes off as being parodic. I was attracted to this because I expected some heavy drama involving Russian mobsters. All I got was some nice shots here and there, and occasionally decent acting (the problem lies with the characters, not the actors). That keeps up the grade a little bit. The rest of it, can it.
The Last King of Scotland
(2006)
Worth seeing for other reasons than the director's lack of respect for historical facts
6 October 2007
Warning: Spoilers
What bothers me most about this film is the fact that thousands of people around the world left the cinema believing that Idi Amin brutally mutilated one of his own wives and that this was the reason of her sleeping with a fairly uninteresting Scottish doctor who existed, knew Amin, and was hanged by hooks ripping his flesh.
That's a very dirty way of mixing fiction with history. And I believe it was - sadly - very effective in the way that the film closes with more or less factual information followed by real images of Idi Amin and Uganda during his era.
But it seems like there aren't any protests really, because Amin was still a dictator, right? Still I don't regret seeing this flick because Forest Whitaker gives a good performance, there's great music and some great scenery.
That's a very dirty way of mixing fiction with history. And I believe it was - sadly - very effective in the way that the film closes with more or less factual information followed by real images of Idi Amin and Uganda during his era.
But it seems like there aren't any protests really, because Amin was still a dictator, right? Still I don't regret seeing this flick because Forest Whitaker gives a good performance, there's great music and some great scenery.
Alien: Resurrection
(1997)
You can only repair things so much
2 August 2006
OK, this one does have quite a few questionable plot aspects, but it's still A LOT better than the garbage that Alien 3 was. First of all, cloning Ripley back into the series may come off as real desperate, but what can you do when the damage of Alien 3 is already done? I don't buy the idea that Resurrection stands out negatively as a pointless follow-up to the trilogy. If anything, it actually saves the series from ending in horrible fashion, both considering the plot and production.
Resurrection starts off brilliantly - the cast is great (apart from the misplaced Winona Ryder) and the Aliens look better than they ever did; the 1st Alien was more magic for obvious reasons but there were technical limitations, whereas Cameron's Aliens were lost in the action-packed style of the film. Fincher's Alien was too obvious in its CGI-ness.
However, the whole thing pretty much starts lacking when the action starts. It just doesn't really live up to the initial build-up (which I agree, may not have been that original as such). I will also agree on comments above that Ripley is not the same Ripley that we got to know from the first Alien movies, but again, she was already damaged by Fincher. Also, yes, the villain in this movie is a questionable one, for reasons that the viewer will see as the movie rolls on.
I read some comments about how this one isn't scary enough compared to the other Alien films. This may be true more or less (I really think Cameron kinda started this by putting action before suspense), but on the plus side, Alien is once again a true sci-fi movie, whereas Fincher unfortunately steered it into the direction of horror.
Resurrection starts off brilliantly - the cast is great (apart from the misplaced Winona Ryder) and the Aliens look better than they ever did; the 1st Alien was more magic for obvious reasons but there were technical limitations, whereas Cameron's Aliens were lost in the action-packed style of the film. Fincher's Alien was too obvious in its CGI-ness.
However, the whole thing pretty much starts lacking when the action starts. It just doesn't really live up to the initial build-up (which I agree, may not have been that original as such). I will also agree on comments above that Ripley is not the same Ripley that we got to know from the first Alien movies, but again, she was already damaged by Fincher. Also, yes, the villain in this movie is a questionable one, for reasons that the viewer will see as the movie rolls on.
I read some comments about how this one isn't scary enough compared to the other Alien films. This may be true more or less (I really think Cameron kinda started this by putting action before suspense), but on the plus side, Alien is once again a true sci-fi movie, whereas Fincher unfortunately steered it into the direction of horror.
Me, Myself & Irene
(2000)
Worst Carrey movie ever
19 January 2006
It's fairly entertaining... If you're bored as hell that is, but just don't get your hopes if you're planning to watch it.
I don't even know where to begin about the problems. First of all the plot is pretty stupid, the villains are completely uninteresting; it's as if they were just thrown there as an excuse for creating the journey of Carrey and Zellweger in the movie. So, it's hard to take them seriously.
And that's just one of many clichés, stuff worn out by earlier Farrelly-movies. One other is the three black sons of Carrey. "Haha, they're so ghetto!", is that supposed to be funny? It's so stupid that you're not even thinking about the more serious issue of racism, on a broader level that is.
Oh and the whole schizo thing is also a not-so-funny thing that still makes the whole movie. To have almost serious scenes concerned with the two different personas as if they really were two different persons, 'causing all the drama in the relationship with Irene (Zellweger), is so wrong. Has the theme of schizophrenia ever been handled in a more generic way in movies? I don't think so. In the latter part of the movie when this 'causes Carrey to have a physical battle with himself, it just becomes too much. It goes on for about 10 minutes and you're just waiting for the movie to end.
And people criticized the Cable Guy! sigh...
I don't even know where to begin about the problems. First of all the plot is pretty stupid, the villains are completely uninteresting; it's as if they were just thrown there as an excuse for creating the journey of Carrey and Zellweger in the movie. So, it's hard to take them seriously.
And that's just one of many clichés, stuff worn out by earlier Farrelly-movies. One other is the three black sons of Carrey. "Haha, they're so ghetto!", is that supposed to be funny? It's so stupid that you're not even thinking about the more serious issue of racism, on a broader level that is.
Oh and the whole schizo thing is also a not-so-funny thing that still makes the whole movie. To have almost serious scenes concerned with the two different personas as if they really were two different persons, 'causing all the drama in the relationship with Irene (Zellweger), is so wrong. Has the theme of schizophrenia ever been handled in a more generic way in movies? I don't think so. In the latter part of the movie when this 'causes Carrey to have a physical battle with himself, it just becomes too much. It goes on for about 10 minutes and you're just waiting for the movie to end.
And people criticized the Cable Guy! sigh...
Tell Your Friends