hrm
Between work and gas prices, I was unable to make it home for Easter this weekend. So, if you celebrate it in any fashion and were able to celebrate it at home (or even if you weren't), I hope you're all doing well.
Saw three movies this weekend, though.
Scary Movie 4 - MaryAnn basically said that the sole reason the Scary Movie franchise exists is that people are stupid, citing the scatological jokes and lowbrow humor. To an extent this is true, I suppose. But then again, there is a flaw in her argument - me, for example. I'm in college, pursuing a double major with an honor-level GPA, I've taken film theory classes, and I've definitely got the "triple digit IQ" she alludes to in her review.
And I thought it was pretty good. Not as good as number 3, maybe, but still better than the first two, which I thought were pretty awful.
Admittedly, most of the love I have for this movie is residual love for David Zucker and Jim Abrahams, the two men I consider at the top of cinematic spoofery - the two did create one of my all-time film trilogies with the Naked Gun series, and Airplane! and BASEketball were also excellent. Not to mention my residual love for Leslie "God Among Men" Nielsen, who I have never not liked in a movie. No matter how bad the material he's given is, he always manages to come out looking great, even in a piece of unfathomable dreck like the excerable 2001: A Space Travesty.
But beyond that, the movie's pretty funny. The pre-title sequence is probably one of the funniest things I've seen all year in a movie, as the sheer surreality of having Dr. Phil and Shaquille O'Neal fighting for their lives in a Saw-type setting is really funny, even if you've seen a lot of it in the trailers. And the plot - really a flimsy excuse just to cram as many film parodies into one movie as possible - is actually kind of cleverly done. Certainly the performances are solid - I believe Anna Faris is one of the best pure comic actresses of her generation, with delivery that can make even the worst lines amusing and facial expressions that are to die for. And then there's Leslie Nielsen, who isn't given much to do, but clearly steals the show in every scene he's in.
The problem with this movie is the same inherent problem with every movie of this type - not every joke works. Sure, there's some great stuff - there's an exchange in Japanese that made my sides hurt, and every scene with Leslie Nielsen (of which there were precious few) was classic, not to mention the cameo by James Earl Jones. But there are just as many, if not more, misses than hits. A Brokeback Mountain parody would have been funnier a month or two ago, but now it's just tired. Ditto the scene where Carmen Electra challenges CMU alumnus Jeff Daniels for the longest bowel movement on film. It wasn't funny or clever, just painful, and it really dragged the film down. (And at least the scene from Dumb and Dumber came out of the plot.)
And that's the problem with this movie. At times, it felt like the writers were simply running out of ideas for this franchise. After three movies, there's really only so much you can do with pop culture, and it felt like they were going back to the well of nastiness far too often. One of the great things about Scary Movie 3 was that it was a rebirth of the franchise, which was just an exercise in crudeness by the brothers Wayans up until that point. Zucker and Abrahams gave it some class as only masters of the parody form can. I realize that's sort of an odd sentiment, but the fact is, it's true. Scary Movie 4 is funny enough, but ultimately, it feels like a step back. I had fun watching it, but I don't know if I'd wholeheartedly recommend it to anyone who wasn't already a fan of the directing/writing team. I give it three star-type thingies, because it is funny and clearly talented people are involved with it. I just wish it had maintained the relatively higher standards of the third one.
(Side note: If you do go see SM4 in the theater - and that is totally up to you - you'll get to see the official, studio-sanctioned trailer for Clerks 2. It's a lot more mass-market than the Internet trailer, but it's quality stuff and it got me even more excited for the movie. It's here, if you want to see it.)
Saw a couple other movies, too, but I'll cut those.
MirrorMask: Before I get started on this review, let me say one thing so as not to irritate anyone: Look, I know Neil Gaiman is a genius. I've read some Sandman, and the man clearly has a gift for thought-provoking and well-constructed writing. But even geniuses are capable of misfires (see my comments about Leslie Nielsen above), and MirrorMask is Gaiman's. Maybe I don't get it, maybe I don't see the deeper, mystical meaning behind the movie. But I'm also pretty sure I don't care.
It's been a long time since I've seen a movie that is so ploddingly dull and nonsensical. The plot, so far as I can make out, is that a young girl who works in her parents' circus is transported to a world of dreams and wonder after her mother falls ill to an unspecified ailment (a tumor, I think). She befriends a juggler and the two of them set out to find a "charm" that will break the spell over the good queen of the realm, who is currently in a coma which may or may not have been caused by the evil queen. Along the way, she runs afoul of the evil mirror universe version of herself, and there's some talking cats...and...
I'll be honest with you. I fell asleep during the movie for a little bit and didn't wake up until about the last five minutes. Does that make me unqualified to judge this movie? To the contrary - I think that it serves as a perfect illustration of how completely uninteresting this movie is. It thinks it's far more artistic and clever and engaging than it really is. To be fair, there are moments of brilliance here and there - certainly the art direction is unique and kind of neat. The CGI is pretty awkward and simple, but I'm pretty sure that's intentional (and the budget for this movie was also pretty small, if I recall correctly).
But no amount of artistic direction can keep the movie from being any more than a forgettable exercise in tedium. It doesn't matter how pretty your little head is if there's nothing going on inside of it. There's no real heft to the story, and it's really about as deep as a shot glass. I'm sure art student types will love the movie. I, however, give it one star-type thingy. Poor form, Gaiman. Poor form.
The Aristocrats is easily the most vulgar movie I have ever seen. I am probably now completely desensitized to bad language and graphic depictions of incest and bestiality. I daresay that simply watching the movie has made me a bad person.
Which is probably a big part of the reason I thought it was so funny.
You see, The Aristocrats is essentially a 90-minute dissection of one joke, a joke that's sort of a "secret handshake" among the inner circles of the comedy world. It's unique in the sense that only the beginning and the end are constant, and the middle allows the individual to not only be as nasty as they want, but also put their own unique signature on the joke. The beauty of it is that it's really only limited by the perversity imagination of the person telling it.
Paul Provenza and Penn Jillette interview one hundred different comedians, asking each to give their own version and/or analysis of the joke. Some versions fall flat (Eddie Izzard can't even get the joke out), but others are classic, like Gilbert Gottfried's infamous version at the Hugh Hefner Roast. Trey Parker and Matt Stone turn in a great South Parkified version of the joke, and there's even a pantomimed version, as well as a version of the joke told as a card trick. Nearly every comedian you can think of is in this movie, including some you may have never even heard of. It's great fun to see Bob Saget cut loose and tell one of the filthiest versions of the joke, only to put his head on the desk in a mixture of laughter and shame and ask to have a copy of the tape to send to the kids from Full House.
The Aristocrats is very roughly shot and edited, as much of it is assembled from low-budget interview footage. The edits are seldom smooth and clean, and the audio is not always perfectly dubbed. This is distracting at first, but lends the proceedings a sense of guerrilla-style filmmaking, which is really what this movie is. It's a collection of conversations with some of the top comedians in the country about a joke that most of them would not tell in polite society. But more than that, it's a celebration of humor, and an analysis of what makes us laugh. It's thought-provoking, wince-inducing, and probably one of the best documentaries I've seen in a long time. Anyone who has any interest in comedy (and strong ears) should check this movie out, and I'm prepared to give it five star-type thingies if only for the sheer bravado with which it tackles its subject matter.
Saw three movies this weekend, though.
Scary Movie 4 - MaryAnn basically said that the sole reason the Scary Movie franchise exists is that people are stupid, citing the scatological jokes and lowbrow humor. To an extent this is true, I suppose. But then again, there is a flaw in her argument - me, for example. I'm in college, pursuing a double major with an honor-level GPA, I've taken film theory classes, and I've definitely got the "triple digit IQ" she alludes to in her review.
And I thought it was pretty good. Not as good as number 3, maybe, but still better than the first two, which I thought were pretty awful.
Admittedly, most of the love I have for this movie is residual love for David Zucker and Jim Abrahams, the two men I consider at the top of cinematic spoofery - the two did create one of my all-time film trilogies with the Naked Gun series, and Airplane! and BASEketball were also excellent. Not to mention my residual love for Leslie "God Among Men" Nielsen, who I have never not liked in a movie. No matter how bad the material he's given is, he always manages to come out looking great, even in a piece of unfathomable dreck like the excerable 2001: A Space Travesty.
But beyond that, the movie's pretty funny. The pre-title sequence is probably one of the funniest things I've seen all year in a movie, as the sheer surreality of having Dr. Phil and Shaquille O'Neal fighting for their lives in a Saw-type setting is really funny, even if you've seen a lot of it in the trailers. And the plot - really a flimsy excuse just to cram as many film parodies into one movie as possible - is actually kind of cleverly done. Certainly the performances are solid - I believe Anna Faris is one of the best pure comic actresses of her generation, with delivery that can make even the worst lines amusing and facial expressions that are to die for. And then there's Leslie Nielsen, who isn't given much to do, but clearly steals the show in every scene he's in.
The problem with this movie is the same inherent problem with every movie of this type - not every joke works. Sure, there's some great stuff - there's an exchange in Japanese that made my sides hurt, and every scene with Leslie Nielsen (of which there were precious few) was classic, not to mention the cameo by James Earl Jones. But there are just as many, if not more, misses than hits. A Brokeback Mountain parody would have been funnier a month or two ago, but now it's just tired. Ditto the scene where Carmen Electra challenges CMU alumnus Jeff Daniels for the longest bowel movement on film. It wasn't funny or clever, just painful, and it really dragged the film down. (And at least the scene from Dumb and Dumber came out of the plot.)
And that's the problem with this movie. At times, it felt like the writers were simply running out of ideas for this franchise. After three movies, there's really only so much you can do with pop culture, and it felt like they were going back to the well of nastiness far too often. One of the great things about Scary Movie 3 was that it was a rebirth of the franchise, which was just an exercise in crudeness by the brothers Wayans up until that point. Zucker and Abrahams gave it some class as only masters of the parody form can. I realize that's sort of an odd sentiment, but the fact is, it's true. Scary Movie 4 is funny enough, but ultimately, it feels like a step back. I had fun watching it, but I don't know if I'd wholeheartedly recommend it to anyone who wasn't already a fan of the directing/writing team. I give it three star-type thingies, because it is funny and clearly talented people are involved with it. I just wish it had maintained the relatively higher standards of the third one.
(Side note: If you do go see SM4 in the theater - and that is totally up to you - you'll get to see the official, studio-sanctioned trailer for Clerks 2. It's a lot more mass-market than the Internet trailer, but it's quality stuff and it got me even more excited for the movie. It's here, if you want to see it.)
Saw a couple other movies, too, but I'll cut those.
MirrorMask: Before I get started on this review, let me say one thing so as not to irritate anyone: Look, I know Neil Gaiman is a genius. I've read some Sandman, and the man clearly has a gift for thought-provoking and well-constructed writing. But even geniuses are capable of misfires (see my comments about Leslie Nielsen above), and MirrorMask is Gaiman's. Maybe I don't get it, maybe I don't see the deeper, mystical meaning behind the movie. But I'm also pretty sure I don't care.
It's been a long time since I've seen a movie that is so ploddingly dull and nonsensical. The plot, so far as I can make out, is that a young girl who works in her parents' circus is transported to a world of dreams and wonder after her mother falls ill to an unspecified ailment (a tumor, I think). She befriends a juggler and the two of them set out to find a "charm" that will break the spell over the good queen of the realm, who is currently in a coma which may or may not have been caused by the evil queen. Along the way, she runs afoul of the evil mirror universe version of herself, and there's some talking cats...and...
I'll be honest with you. I fell asleep during the movie for a little bit and didn't wake up until about the last five minutes. Does that make me unqualified to judge this movie? To the contrary - I think that it serves as a perfect illustration of how completely uninteresting this movie is. It thinks it's far more artistic and clever and engaging than it really is. To be fair, there are moments of brilliance here and there - certainly the art direction is unique and kind of neat. The CGI is pretty awkward and simple, but I'm pretty sure that's intentional (and the budget for this movie was also pretty small, if I recall correctly).
But no amount of artistic direction can keep the movie from being any more than a forgettable exercise in tedium. It doesn't matter how pretty your little head is if there's nothing going on inside of it. There's no real heft to the story, and it's really about as deep as a shot glass. I'm sure art student types will love the movie. I, however, give it one star-type thingy. Poor form, Gaiman. Poor form.
The Aristocrats is easily the most vulgar movie I have ever seen. I am probably now completely desensitized to bad language and graphic depictions of incest and bestiality. I daresay that simply watching the movie has made me a bad person.
Which is probably a big part of the reason I thought it was so funny.
You see, The Aristocrats is essentially a 90-minute dissection of one joke, a joke that's sort of a "secret handshake" among the inner circles of the comedy world. It's unique in the sense that only the beginning and the end are constant, and the middle allows the individual to not only be as nasty as they want, but also put their own unique signature on the joke. The beauty of it is that it's really only limited by the perversity imagination of the person telling it.
Paul Provenza and Penn Jillette interview one hundred different comedians, asking each to give their own version and/or analysis of the joke. Some versions fall flat (Eddie Izzard can't even get the joke out), but others are classic, like Gilbert Gottfried's infamous version at the Hugh Hefner Roast. Trey Parker and Matt Stone turn in a great South Parkified version of the joke, and there's even a pantomimed version, as well as a version of the joke told as a card trick. Nearly every comedian you can think of is in this movie, including some you may have never even heard of. It's great fun to see Bob Saget cut loose and tell one of the filthiest versions of the joke, only to put his head on the desk in a mixture of laughter and shame and ask to have a copy of the tape to send to the kids from Full House.
The Aristocrats is very roughly shot and edited, as much of it is assembled from low-budget interview footage. The edits are seldom smooth and clean, and the audio is not always perfectly dubbed. This is distracting at first, but lends the proceedings a sense of guerrilla-style filmmaking, which is really what this movie is. It's a collection of conversations with some of the top comedians in the country about a joke that most of them would not tell in polite society. But more than that, it's a celebration of humor, and an analysis of what makes us laugh. It's thought-provoking, wince-inducing, and probably one of the best documentaries I've seen in a long time. Anyone who has any interest in comedy (and strong ears) should check this movie out, and I'm prepared to give it five star-type thingies if only for the sheer bravado with which it tackles its subject matter.