Well, hours before the Academy Awards, I posted an epic two-part piece on what's wrongs with the Oscars, why the show used to be a bigger deal for me, and my suggestions on how to improve the show in the future. And it seems, as I was busy typing my tirade out, Sacha Baron Cohen had finally been allowed to attend the show as his "Dictator" character. My only thought was, why did Cohen have to ask permission in the first place? It would have been a lot more entertaining if he had had done it unannounced. Instead, the public had to demand that the Academy allow him to do it, making it seem almost anti-climatic when he finally was allowed to attend in character. Don't get me wrong, it was funny watching him spread dust on Ryan Seacrest, telling him it was Kim Jong Il's ashes, but if had done it without anyone knowing, it would have worked a lot better as a performance.
As for the Oscar ceremony itself? Well, it was a hell of a lot better than I expected. (Then again, after the true embarrassment that was the previous year's show with James Franco and Anne Hathaway, literally anything would have been better.) Billy Crystal was always the man you associate with a great Oscar host. Only he could get away with the kind of material that would ruin anyone else's career. From the opening parody montage to his opening musical number, every he did was just plain entertaining. He even did a joke about Christian Bale's infamous "eyeline" diatribe, which, I have to say, cracked me up as much as anything. Of course, the show had it's flaws. I was ready to scream after the 478th montage of actors talking about the "experience of going to the movies". HEY, ASSHOLES! If people didn't love going to the movies, we wouldn't watch the stupid goddamn awards show in the first place! START MAKING MOVIES PEOPLE WILL LIKE, AND MAYBE THIS SHIT WILL SEEM LESS SELF-SERVING!!!!
Also, as much as I love Cirque De Soleil and Danny Elfman, was their joint performance absolutely necessary? No, it wasn't. I felt the same way about the "Wizard Of Oz Focus Group" sketch. I love Christopher Guest, Catherine O'Hara, and Fred Willard as much as the next person, but this was as boring as all hell! This belongs on a Second City reunion show somewhere in the future, not the Oscars! And can anyone explain what Gwyneth Paltrow and Robert Downey Jr. were doing with the "documentary" routine they were doing on stage? Who was that for?
Still, I have to give the Academy credit for cutting more bullshit out than usual this year, and I hope they take more of my suggestions next time.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Oscar Rant, part 2 of 2(The Solutions)
And what of the actual ceremony itself? Every year, in spite of the show's supposedly declining ratings, everyone still talks about it. Every year, I read some article ranting about how the Oscars could be improved, and it's always the same shallow criticisms that miss the larger points. Endless whining about the winners, hosts, acceptance speeches, and blah, blah, blah. (Quite frankly, if it's 2012 and your Oscar rant includes the phrase "No one cares for Best Sound Editing or Short Films", you're just a douchebag). And the most recent ceremonies, with few exceptions, have been nothing short of abysmal. I can't tell you how glad I am that I missed the majority of last year's disasterpiece hosted by the two single WORST hosts in the history of the show, James Franco and Anne Hathaway. After the horrid opening monologue, I immediately went bowling with some friends. To save the Oscars from completely sliding into irrelevance, I, a more-than-qualified observer of society and culture, have created my own list of failure-proof suggestions to improve the Oscar ceremony.
1)Know when to cut the fat out.
I am so tired of hearing people whine like sleep-deprived infants about how long and boring the acceptance speeches are. They're not as long as people seem to think, and frankly,why do people even care about them that much? These Oscar winners are living their dreams out on that podium, let them take an extra second or minute to let their feelings and accolades out. One of the many reasons Jon Stewart was such a great host was because he insisted on letting the songwriters from Once finish their acceptance speeches after the producers rudely cut them off. It was a classy thing to do, and to shove people off the stage in their moment of triumph is nothing short of vulgar. Some people might argue that the producers have to speed things up to make sure the show isn't too long. BULLSHIT.
The Academy Awards to waste the audience's time with nonsense. Dance numbers that go on forever, musical numbers that sometimes have nothing to with any nominated movie (and why don't they perform the Best Song nominees anymore?), horrendous "comedy" sketches that also seem to go on forever, and pointless montages! And you're whining about acceptance speeches? Unless it's a montage related to a special Humanitarian or Lifetime Acheivement Award or a memorial tribute to the show business deceased, don't waste our time with a pointless montage. Instead of embrassing yourselves with comedy sketches that only out-of-touch baby boomers would find cute, have stand-up comedians present the awards. No one wants to hear those annoying speeches that start with "The job of the nominees is to bring life to blah blah fucking blah........" Maybe shake things up with unexpected presenters like Gilbert Gottfried or Andrew Dice Clay, just to see what will happen. Only Billy Crystal can get away with opening montages and musical numbers that parody the Best Picture nominees. Everyone else is just setting themselves up for an epic fail.
2) Don't be afraid to let it all hang out and have some politically incorrect fun.
Recently, Sacha Baron Cohen was banned from attending the Oscar ceremony, for fear that he would show up in his "Dictator" character from his upcoming movie. That would have led to some classic Oscar moments, but remember, this is the same Academy that fired one of it's producers for using a homophobic slur the way eleven-year-olds boys use it all over the world. (As a result of that "controversy", Eddie Murphy, the one comedian who might have made the best host in Oscar history, resigned along with him.) This is why Hollywood is viewed in the same light as the current and former 2012 GOP candidates: as wealthy, out-of-touch yuppie scum desperately trying to stay "relevant" and "popular" in a world that passed them by a long time ago. What they don't understand is that sometimes,people watch these award shows hoping for some unexpected moment that will make the headlines, be it Marlon Brando's Native American protest or Michael Moore's legendary Oscar speech. People loved when Ricky Geravis went up at the Golden Globes and immediately started attacking all of the pompous, overpaid bastards in show business. It brought a jolt of fresh energy to a show no one would have watched. After Hollywood tried to destroy the Internet with the Stop Online Piracy Act and Protect IP Act (and then had the balls to threaten to withdraw support for President Obama when he sided with the people), no one cares about multi-millionaire performers feeling "uncomfortable". You get paid millions to make crap like Green Lantern, Real Steel. and Hangover 2, and you still receive a "gift basket" before the show even begins. You can take a fucking joke and a provocative speech. Grow the fuck up.
3) Install an applause machine in the Kodak Theatre.
The one moment during the telecast that I actually find repulsive is the In Memoriam montage. Not because they shouldn't be honored (they absolutely should), but because of the vulgar and classless way the audience will hoot and wildly applaud Paul Newman or Whitney Houston, but sit in bored silence when the name of some respected cinematographer who died last year shows up on the screen. Do these spoiled bastards in the crowd not get how obscene that is? Do they think the accomplishments and lives of who worked behind the scenes doesn't matter?
Save all cheering and applause for the end of the montage, you elitist, spoiled, juvenile fucks.
What do you think? Any other suggestions for improving the Oscar telecast? Let me know in the comments.
1)Know when to cut the fat out.
I am so tired of hearing people whine like sleep-deprived infants about how long and boring the acceptance speeches are. They're not as long as people seem to think, and frankly,why do people even care about them that much? These Oscar winners are living their dreams out on that podium, let them take an extra second or minute to let their feelings and accolades out. One of the many reasons Jon Stewart was such a great host was because he insisted on letting the songwriters from Once finish their acceptance speeches after the producers rudely cut them off. It was a classy thing to do, and to shove people off the stage in their moment of triumph is nothing short of vulgar. Some people might argue that the producers have to speed things up to make sure the show isn't too long. BULLSHIT.
The Academy Awards to waste the audience's time with nonsense. Dance numbers that go on forever, musical numbers that sometimes have nothing to with any nominated movie (and why don't they perform the Best Song nominees anymore?), horrendous "comedy" sketches that also seem to go on forever, and pointless montages! And you're whining about acceptance speeches? Unless it's a montage related to a special Humanitarian or Lifetime Acheivement Award or a memorial tribute to the show business deceased, don't waste our time with a pointless montage. Instead of embrassing yourselves with comedy sketches that only out-of-touch baby boomers would find cute, have stand-up comedians present the awards. No one wants to hear those annoying speeches that start with "The job of the nominees is to bring life to blah blah fucking blah........" Maybe shake things up with unexpected presenters like Gilbert Gottfried or Andrew Dice Clay, just to see what will happen. Only Billy Crystal can get away with opening montages and musical numbers that parody the Best Picture nominees. Everyone else is just setting themselves up for an epic fail.
2) Don't be afraid to let it all hang out and have some politically incorrect fun.
Recently, Sacha Baron Cohen was banned from attending the Oscar ceremony, for fear that he would show up in his "Dictator" character from his upcoming movie. That would have led to some classic Oscar moments, but remember, this is the same Academy that fired one of it's producers for using a homophobic slur the way eleven-year-olds boys use it all over the world. (As a result of that "controversy", Eddie Murphy, the one comedian who might have made the best host in Oscar history, resigned along with him.) This is why Hollywood is viewed in the same light as the current and former 2012 GOP candidates: as wealthy, out-of-touch yuppie scum desperately trying to stay "relevant" and "popular" in a world that passed them by a long time ago. What they don't understand is that sometimes,people watch these award shows hoping for some unexpected moment that will make the headlines, be it Marlon Brando's Native American protest or Michael Moore's legendary Oscar speech. People loved when Ricky Geravis went up at the Golden Globes and immediately started attacking all of the pompous, overpaid bastards in show business. It brought a jolt of fresh energy to a show no one would have watched. After Hollywood tried to destroy the Internet with the Stop Online Piracy Act and Protect IP Act (and then had the balls to threaten to withdraw support for President Obama when he sided with the people), no one cares about multi-millionaire performers feeling "uncomfortable". You get paid millions to make crap like Green Lantern, Real Steel. and Hangover 2, and you still receive a "gift basket" before the show even begins. You can take a fucking joke and a provocative speech. Grow the fuck up.
3) Install an applause machine in the Kodak Theatre.
The one moment during the telecast that I actually find repulsive is the In Memoriam montage. Not because they shouldn't be honored (they absolutely should), but because of the vulgar and classless way the audience will hoot and wildly applaud Paul Newman or Whitney Houston, but sit in bored silence when the name of some respected cinematographer who died last year shows up on the screen. Do these spoiled bastards in the crowd not get how obscene that is? Do they think the accomplishments and lives of who worked behind the scenes doesn't matter?
Save all cheering and applause for the end of the montage, you elitist, spoiled, juvenile fucks.
What do you think? Any other suggestions for improving the Oscar telecast? Let me know in the comments.
Oscar Rant, part 1 of 2.
Well, it's that time of year again. The Academy Awards air this Sunday night, and I can't make any
predictions this time around, since the only Best Picture nominee I've seen was Midnight In Paris. Yes, that's right, because of school work and the process of aging, I don't care about the Academy Awards anymore. It used to be a bigger deal for me in years past. Ever since I was little, I’ve always had this life-long fantasy of getting up on stage and hosting the show. The Academy Awards seemed to be the one event every year that represented a meeting of the cultural gods, as least according to me. It was always fun seeing who would win, and debating who should won instead.(Also, I used to recite the entire list of Best Picture winners from memory when I was younger.) Every now and then, I still imagine myself walking down the red carpet, into the Kodak Theatre. However, as I got older and more mature in my worldview and starting watching more movies from decades past, I realized that the show was becoming more and more irrelevant, in many ways. The more movies I watched, the more I appreciated how the Academy Awards has, in more ways than I thought, been wrong in their decisions regarding the nominations of certain movies and people. Why does anyone trust the Academy's judgment when they've made the following decisions over the years:
-Giving the Best Picture Oscar to How Green Was My Valley instead of Citizen Kane. This isn't to say that Valley was a terrible film by any means, but did it truly deserve to beat out one of the greatest movies of the last century?
-Best Picture category for 1952: High Noon, Ivanhoe, Moulin Rouge, The Quiet Man. And what was that year's winner? Cecil B Demille's Greatest Show On Earth.
-1968: A (merely good) Broadway musical version of Oliver Twist wins, while one of the greatest movies of all time by one of the greatest directors, Stanley Kubrick's 2001:A Space Odyssey, is not even nominated. Unforgivable.
-Remember,the guy from a 1950's sitcom was awarded Best Actor instead of Al Pacino at the 47th Oscar ceremony. Sadly, when Pacino did win, it was over Denzel Washington's incomparable performance in Malcolm X.
-Rocky is an excellent movie, but did it truly deserve to beat Network, one of those rare movies that becomes more and more relevant with every passing year?
-Surely Annie Hall and Star Wars could have shared the Best Picture Oscar at the 50th ceremony. Just once, I would love for the Best Picture presenter to open the envelope and announce, "We have a tie!". More often than not, I feel this should have happened throughout the history of the show.
-Many great scenes from Apocalypse Now have become embedded in our cultural lexicon ("I love the smell of napalm in the morning", etc.). Does anyone remember Kramer Vs. Kramer as vividly? Again, I'm not saying it's a bad movie, but I saw it once and can't remember a thing from it. Maybe I wasn't in the right state of mind.
-I've never seen Ordinary People, so I can't comment on it, but what excuse can be made for turning down one of the best sports movies ever made, Raging Bull?
-One of the best movies ever made, Fargo, loses to one of the worst movies ever made about World War Two, The English Patient? Once again, simply unforgivable. (Also, as excellent as No Country For Old Men was, how many people suspect it only won because the Academy realized the mistake it made at the 50th ceremony and finally tried to catch up to the Coen Brothers?)
-The only thing worst than Saving Private Ryan losing to Shakespeare In Love was the truly tasteless D-Day dance number at the 71th ceremony.
-I know I'm going to catch some hostile reactions for this one, but is is fair that American Beauty won, but Being John Malkovich wasn't even nominated? I think not.
-Gladiator is not a bad movie at all, but watch it alongside Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. No comparison can be made.
-If you're going to honor Martin Scorsese decades too late, it would have been wise to give him the award for Gangs Of New York. (Also, as great as The Departed was, it should have tied with Babel in 2006).
-A four-way tie should have occurred at the 78th Oscars. Brokeback Mountain, Capote, Good Night And Good Luck, and the criminally underrated Munich, all great movies, all defeating the godawful Crash. Leave all the negative comments you want, you know I'm right on this one.
-And, yes, sorry, but as excellent as The King's Speech was, you can't convince me it deserved to beat The Social Network.
Do you agree or disagree with my selections of the Academy Hall Of Infamy? Are there any other wins or losses I left out? Let me know in the comments section.
Part 2 to come.
predictions this time around, since the only Best Picture nominee I've seen was Midnight In Paris. Yes, that's right, because of school work and the process of aging, I don't care about the Academy Awards anymore. It used to be a bigger deal for me in years past. Ever since I was little, I’ve always had this life-long fantasy of getting up on stage and hosting the show. The Academy Awards seemed to be the one event every year that represented a meeting of the cultural gods, as least according to me. It was always fun seeing who would win, and debating who should won instead.(Also, I used to recite the entire list of Best Picture winners from memory when I was younger.) Every now and then, I still imagine myself walking down the red carpet, into the Kodak Theatre. However, as I got older and more mature in my worldview and starting watching more movies from decades past, I realized that the show was becoming more and more irrelevant, in many ways. The more movies I watched, the more I appreciated how the Academy Awards has, in more ways than I thought, been wrong in their decisions regarding the nominations of certain movies and people. Why does anyone trust the Academy's judgment when they've made the following decisions over the years:
-Giving the Best Picture Oscar to How Green Was My Valley instead of Citizen Kane. This isn't to say that Valley was a terrible film by any means, but did it truly deserve to beat out one of the greatest movies of the last century?
-Best Picture category for 1952: High Noon, Ivanhoe, Moulin Rouge, The Quiet Man. And what was that year's winner? Cecil B Demille's Greatest Show On Earth.
-1968: A (merely good) Broadway musical version of Oliver Twist wins, while one of the greatest movies of all time by one of the greatest directors, Stanley Kubrick's 2001:A Space Odyssey, is not even nominated. Unforgivable.
-Remember,the guy from a 1950's sitcom was awarded Best Actor instead of Al Pacino at the 47th Oscar ceremony. Sadly, when Pacino did win, it was over Denzel Washington's incomparable performance in Malcolm X.
-Rocky is an excellent movie, but did it truly deserve to beat Network, one of those rare movies that becomes more and more relevant with every passing year?
-Surely Annie Hall and Star Wars could have shared the Best Picture Oscar at the 50th ceremony. Just once, I would love for the Best Picture presenter to open the envelope and announce, "We have a tie!". More often than not, I feel this should have happened throughout the history of the show.
-Many great scenes from Apocalypse Now have become embedded in our cultural lexicon ("I love the smell of napalm in the morning", etc.). Does anyone remember Kramer Vs. Kramer as vividly? Again, I'm not saying it's a bad movie, but I saw it once and can't remember a thing from it. Maybe I wasn't in the right state of mind.
-I've never seen Ordinary People, so I can't comment on it, but what excuse can be made for turning down one of the best sports movies ever made, Raging Bull?
-One of the best movies ever made, Fargo, loses to one of the worst movies ever made about World War Two, The English Patient? Once again, simply unforgivable. (Also, as excellent as No Country For Old Men was, how many people suspect it only won because the Academy realized the mistake it made at the 50th ceremony and finally tried to catch up to the Coen Brothers?)
-The only thing worst than Saving Private Ryan losing to Shakespeare In Love was the truly tasteless D-Day dance number at the 71th ceremony.
-I know I'm going to catch some hostile reactions for this one, but is is fair that American Beauty won, but Being John Malkovich wasn't even nominated? I think not.
-Gladiator is not a bad movie at all, but watch it alongside Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. No comparison can be made.
-If you're going to honor Martin Scorsese decades too late, it would have been wise to give him the award for Gangs Of New York. (Also, as great as The Departed was, it should have tied with Babel in 2006).
-A four-way tie should have occurred at the 78th Oscars. Brokeback Mountain, Capote, Good Night And Good Luck, and the criminally underrated Munich, all great movies, all defeating the godawful Crash. Leave all the negative comments you want, you know I'm right on this one.
-And, yes, sorry, but as excellent as The King's Speech was, you can't convince me it deserved to beat The Social Network.
Do you agree or disagree with my selections of the Academy Hall Of Infamy? Are there any other wins or losses I left out? Let me know in the comments section.
Part 2 to come.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Reflections on the ten-year anniversary of September 11,2001, part 1
Everyone remembers where they were and what they were doing that day. I was in high school, freshman year. As soon as I found out what had happened, I immediately worried about my father. I found out later that day that he had managed to catch one of the last flights out of New York City hours before the attacks happened, and was back at home, but I was still shaken for long thereafter. I don't think any of us have ever fully recovered from what happened on September 11, 2001. In the weeks, months, and years that followed, this country went through some of the important changes in it's history. On this, the ten-year anniversary on the 9/11 attacks, it's important to reflect on everything that's happened in the past decade and ask: What have we learned? Have we learned the right lessons? Looking back, i can't truly say that we have learned anything at all. At that time in my life, I didn't know anything about the Middle East, about Islam, about U.S. foreign policy, or about world history. Very little to nothing of substance related to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. I always had an interest in history, literature, American political affairs, and in taking high school journalism classes, interests that began to develop two years earlier in junior high. (Notice that when I refer to "political affairs", it's not the same as "politics" or anything "political". I have come to absolutely hate those two words, after hearing countless people in my life use them to describe anything even vaguely more enlightening, serious-minded, or intellectual than this happy-go-lucky culture of willful ignorance we live this. This is not to be so arrogant as to say I'm more enlightened, serious-minded, or intellectual than anyone else, it's simply frustrating to bring up certain topics in conservation, only to hear people dismiss it as something "political", even if it isn't. )
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
But ENERGY DRINKS Are Perfectly Legal?
To follow up my War On Drugs post: Isn't it truly amazing what is against the law in this country compared to what is allowed? What substances are banned compared to what is perfectly legal? What can be bought at any store, that you and I love and can never get enough of? Not only the alcohol, tobacco, etc., but also the prescription medicines that can result in side effects worst than the diseases that these drugs are supposedly curing? Another product that seems to have been embraced by society: Energy drinks. It never truly occurred to me how many brands of energy drink are available on the market until a few days ago when I was looking around a convenience store one day. It suddenly hit me how many products promising to keep people energized and focused at work and elsewhere are available. You see macho shitbags walking around with cans of these energy drinks in their hands (the kind of people who actually watch mixed martial-arts), and you even see these guys putting energy drink logos on their cars and pick-up trucks, especially here in Vegas. The kind of Facebook Thugs who live to act like Bad Ass Mother Fuckers, and swagger around town with arrogance and Ed Hardy clothing and no sense of respect for others (meanwhile, you can easily imagine these guys sniveling and begging for police protection if they ever had to drive through certain parts of the city). I counted at least five and nine different brands of energy drinks, as well as assorted items that promise to enhance your levels of energy, such as energy chewing gum. Can anyone explain this bullshit market for "energy" products? Have we become so lethargic and soulless and defeated that we need an artificial rush of adrenaline to endure the soulless culture we live in? I would argue that we are, if anything, too fired up and passionate about certain things in our society. Specifically, we have people in the media (as well as everyday life) who have very strong, very passionate opinions about subjects they know nothing about (Or, they choose to only hear one side of the subject and scream, laugh, and sneer at anyone who disagrees). Elsewhere, we have spoiled kids and teenagers, as well as supposedly mature adults, who behave like drama queens on a crap reality-show and get worked up about things that don't matter AT ALL. Is the problem too LITTLE energy, or in fact, beyond TOO MUCH ENERGY?
Monday, June 20, 2011
The Forty-Year Anniversary Of The War On Drugs (Warning:heavy sarcasm and anger)
I know this commentary is a few days late, but I still have to post this. On behalf of street gangs, drug cartels, violent addicts, third-world dictators, international terrorists, and the prison-industrial complex: THANK YOU FOR DESTROYING THIS COUNTRY AND PLANET, RICHARD NIXON, YOU PIECE OF SHIT!!!!!!!!! (I know this commentary is noticeably shorter than my movie reviews from last week, but really, if we are still this stupid that we aren't angry about what our government's out-of-control drug policy and foreign policy have done to our country and our world, then what more can be said? We deserve everything that is happening to us. What will it take for us to wake up?)
Friday, June 17, 2011
Another rant about Hollywood
I've been going to the movies a lot more than usual, so it's time once again for movie reviews. I will start with the movie I actually liked, followed by the one I hated.
Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
Although I felt it could have been rewritten at certain points, I have to admit I found it enjoyable, nothing more than old-fashioned popcorn entertainment with something in it for everyone. The fact that they got ride of the characters of Will and Elizabeth turned out to be an excellent improvement. This movie allowed the audience to just relax and enjoy the kind of adventure story they would have loved as kids. (The addition of cannibal mermaids was also a great touch, I must admit.)
The Hangover: Part Two
A brief story before my opinion of the movie: A couple of my friends and I had been planning to go bowling at one of the off-Strip resorts the night we saw this movie. When we arrived at the hotel's bowling lanes, we discovered that the entire bowling center had been reserved for some beer company-sponsored event, and that we would be unable to get an open lane until 10:00 that night (I showed up at 6:20 when we discovered this). We decided to see a movie at the hotel theater instead. For lack of any other ideas, I decided to go along with the majority vote to see The Hangover 2, and we walked to the theaters. We bought our tickets an hour before the show. As we waited in the lobby, I looked at the movie posters that adorned the walls, and could not help but think to myself: Did the public lose all appreciation for humor, originality, and taste at some point in the past decade? Did Hollywood stop pretending to search for original, thought-provoking, trailblazing screenplays? Almost every movie poster I saw was advertising some remake, sequel, adaptation, or sequel to a remake. Anyone looking forward to Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes? (Because we all remember the 2001 remake and what a modern masterpiece it was, Right??) Or for that matter, the upcoming remake of Fright Night? This is not to say that all sequels and remakes are terrible. Sometimes they can actually exceed the originals. And I certainly cannot exactly claim to be a great screenwriter, but as I was looking around the theater, it was hard not be dismayed. And when we watched the movie we paid to see, my suspicions about the state of cinema were confirmed. I must admit, I enjoyed the first "Hangover" when it came out years ago. As many of you know, I absolutely hated "Due Date" by the same director. Now, having seen Hangover Two, I finally realized that I had no reason at all to like Hangover One, and that this director is a complete hack. He specializes in movies in which likable, honest people are put through horrible situations by mindless, insensitive man-children. The kind of movies that the people who create think are "edgy" and "provocative",when in fact, they attack soft targets and come off as mean-spirited to everyone else . Hangover Two is the perfect example of this. During the closing credits, when we see a photo montage of the events that happened during the characters' drinking binge, two photographs are shown that are supposed to parody two infamous Vietnam War photographs. The fact that the filmmakers thought this was funny shows how spineless they truly are, because you can just imagine how they would react to a movie with a photo montage that parodies the disgusting photos from Abu Gharib.(Food for thought: They found nothing objectionable with the Vietnam jokes in the closing montage, but the filmmakers had the balls to fire Mel Gibson because the cast and crew "refused" to work with him? This is their idea of "conscience"? Give. Me. A. FUCKING BREAK.) So needless to say, I hated it. I'm not a snob or philistine, but all I can say is this: The film industry had better start thinking about the quality of the films it releases, because people WILL turn on Hollywood more and more if we continue to receive god-awful frat-boy "bromances" (does anyone still say that? I sincerely hope not!), loveless crap "romantic" comedies, and remakes.
Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
Although I felt it could have been rewritten at certain points, I have to admit I found it enjoyable, nothing more than old-fashioned popcorn entertainment with something in it for everyone. The fact that they got ride of the characters of Will and Elizabeth turned out to be an excellent improvement. This movie allowed the audience to just relax and enjoy the kind of adventure story they would have loved as kids. (The addition of cannibal mermaids was also a great touch, I must admit.)
The Hangover: Part Two
A brief story before my opinion of the movie: A couple of my friends and I had been planning to go bowling at one of the off-Strip resorts the night we saw this movie. When we arrived at the hotel's bowling lanes, we discovered that the entire bowling center had been reserved for some beer company-sponsored event, and that we would be unable to get an open lane until 10:00 that night (I showed up at 6:20 when we discovered this). We decided to see a movie at the hotel theater instead. For lack of any other ideas, I decided to go along with the majority vote to see The Hangover 2, and we walked to the theaters. We bought our tickets an hour before the show. As we waited in the lobby, I looked at the movie posters that adorned the walls, and could not help but think to myself: Did the public lose all appreciation for humor, originality, and taste at some point in the past decade? Did Hollywood stop pretending to search for original, thought-provoking, trailblazing screenplays? Almost every movie poster I saw was advertising some remake, sequel, adaptation, or sequel to a remake. Anyone looking forward to Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes? (Because we all remember the 2001 remake and what a modern masterpiece it was, Right??) Or for that matter, the upcoming remake of Fright Night? This is not to say that all sequels and remakes are terrible. Sometimes they can actually exceed the originals. And I certainly cannot exactly claim to be a great screenwriter, but as I was looking around the theater, it was hard not be dismayed. And when we watched the movie we paid to see, my suspicions about the state of cinema were confirmed. I must admit, I enjoyed the first "Hangover" when it came out years ago. As many of you know, I absolutely hated "Due Date" by the same director. Now, having seen Hangover Two, I finally realized that I had no reason at all to like Hangover One, and that this director is a complete hack. He specializes in movies in which likable, honest people are put through horrible situations by mindless, insensitive man-children. The kind of movies that the people who create think are "edgy" and "provocative",when in fact, they attack soft targets and come off as mean-spirited to everyone else . Hangover Two is the perfect example of this. During the closing credits, when we see a photo montage of the events that happened during the characters' drinking binge, two photographs are shown that are supposed to parody two infamous Vietnam War photographs. The fact that the filmmakers thought this was funny shows how spineless they truly are, because you can just imagine how they would react to a movie with a photo montage that parodies the disgusting photos from Abu Gharib.(Food for thought: They found nothing objectionable with the Vietnam jokes in the closing montage, but the filmmakers had the balls to fire Mel Gibson because the cast and crew "refused" to work with him? This is their idea of "conscience"? Give. Me. A. FUCKING BREAK.) So needless to say, I hated it. I'm not a snob or philistine, but all I can say is this: The film industry had better start thinking about the quality of the films it releases, because people WILL turn on Hollywood more and more if we continue to receive god-awful frat-boy "bromances" (does anyone still say that? I sincerely hope not!), loveless crap "romantic" comedies, and remakes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)