I shall watch as this topic sinks like a stone.

But anyway, I'm interested in critics. I like reading around after I've seen a movie to see how other people have taken it, and why.

Also, I like watching people bash the fuck out of things.

So anyway, I was wondering if any of you have any REALLY fucking biting reviews that you can remember and want to share. I'll start, with the Roger Ebert classic review, of North. The second to last paragraph has become somewhat infamous in Hollywood. When Rob Reiner was roasted by the Friars, Richard Belzar, the last roaster, simply got up to the podium and read this review.

A great piece of critical non-acclaim. Hopefully, some of you have some gems of your own to post.


NORTH
Zero stars

Date of publication: 07/22/1994


For cast, rating and other information, (click here)

By Roger Ebert

I have no idea why Rob Reiner, or anyone else, wanted to make this story into a movie, and close examination of the film itself is no help. "North" is one of the most unpleasant, contrived, artificial, cloying experiences I've had at the movies. To call it manipulative would be inaccurate; it has an ambition to manipulate, but fails.


The film stars Elijah Wood, who is a wonderful young actor (and if you don't believe me, watch his version of "The Adventures of Huck Finn"). Here he is stuck in a story that no actor, however wonderful, however young, should be punished with. He plays a kid with inattentive parents, who decides to go into court, free himself of them, and go on a worldwide search for nicer parents.


This idea is deeply flawed. Children do not lightly separate from their parents - and certainly not on the evidence provided here, where the great parental sin is not paying attention to their kid at the dinner table. The parents (Julia Louis-Dreyfus and Jason Alexander) have provided little North with what looks like a million-dollar house in a Frank Capra neighborhood, all on dad's salary as a pants inspector. And, yes, I know that is supposed to be a fantasy, but the pants-inspecting jokes are only the first of several truly awful episodes in this film.


North goes into court, where the judge is Alan Arkin, proving without the slightest shadow of a doubt that he should never, ever appear again in public with any material even vaguely inspired by Groucho Marx. North's case hits the headlines, and since he is such an all-star overachiever, offers pour in from would-be parents all over the world, leading to an odyssey that takes him to Texas, Hawaii, Alaska, and elsewhere.


What is the point of the scenes with the auditioning parents? (The victimized actors range from Dan Aykroyd as a Texan to Kathy Bates as an Eskimo). They are all seen as broad, desperate comic caricatures. They are not funny. They are not touching. There is no truth in them. They don't even work as parodies. There is an idiocy here that seems almost intentional, as if the filmmakers plotted to leave anything of interest or entertainment value out of these episodes.


North is followed on his travels by a mysterious character who appears in many guises. He is the Easter bunny, a cowboy, a beach bum, and a Federal Express driver who works in several product plugs. Funny, thinks North; this guy looks familiar. And so he is. All of the manifestations are played by Bruce Willis, who is not funny, or helpful, in any of them.


I hated this movie. Hated hated hated hated hated this movie. Hated it. Hated every simpering stupid vacant audience-insulting moment of it. Hated the sensibility that thought anyone would like it. Hated the implied insult to the audience by its belief that anyone would be entertained by it.


I hold it as an item of faith that Rob Reiner is a gifted filmmaker; among his credits are "This is Spinal Tap," "The Sure Thing," "The Princess Bride," "Stand by Me," "When Harry Met Sally" and "Misery." I list those titles as an incantation against this one. "North" is a bad film - one of the worst movies ever made. But it is not by a bad filmmaker, and must represent some sort of lapse from which Reiner will recover - possibly sooner than I will.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

BUUURN!!! BUUUURRNNNN!!!

Ow. Roger Ebert deserves, like, a zillion flaming points for that one. BUUUUUURRRRRRN!!!

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Hard to ignore this one from the fat man.

FREDDY GOT FINGERED
No stars (R)

April 20, 2001



Gord Brody: Tom Green
Jim Brody: Rip Torn
Julie Brody: Julie Hagerty
Freddy: Eddie Kaye Thomas

20th Century Fox presents a film directed by Tom Green. Written by Green and Derek Harvie. Running time: 93 minutes. Rated R (for crude sexual and bizarre humor and strong language).



BY ROGER EBERT

It's been leading up to this all spring. When David Spade got buried in crap in "Joe Dirt," and when three supermodels got buried in crap in "Head Over Heels," and when human organs fell from a hot-air balloon in "Monkeybone" and were eaten by dogs, and when David Arquette rolled around in dog crap and a gangster had his testicles bitten off in "See Spot Run," and when a testicle was eaten in "Tomcats," well, somehow the handwriting was on the wall. There had to be a movie like "Freddy Got Fingered" coming along.

This movie doesn't scrape the bottom of the barrel. This movie isn't the bottom of the barrel. This movie isn't below the bottom of the barrel. This movie doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence with barrels.

Many years ago, when surrealism was new, Luis Bunuel and Salvador Dali made "Un Chien Andalou," a film so shocking that Bunuel filled his pockets with stones to throw at the audience if it attacked him. Green, whose film is in the surrealist tradition, may want to consider the same tactic. The day may come when "Freddy Got Fingered" is seen as a milestone of neo-surrealism. The day may never come when it is seen as funny.

The film is a vomitorium consisting of 93 minutes of Tom Green doing things that a geek in a carnival sideshow would turn down. Six minutes into the film, his character leaps from his car to wag a horse penis. This is, we discover, a framing device--to be matched by a scene late in the film where he sprays his father with elephant semen, straight from the source.

Green plays Gord Brody, a 28-year-old who lives at home with his father (Rip Torn), who despises him, and his mother (Julie Hagerty), who wrings her hands a lot. He lives in a basement room still stocked with his high school stuff, draws cartoons and dreams of becoming an animator. Gord would exhaust a psychiatrist's list of diagnoses. He is unsocialized, hostile, manic and apparently retarded. Retarded? How else to explain a sequence in which a Hollywood animator tells him to "get inside his animals," and he skins a stag and prances around dressed in the coat, covered with blood?

His romantic interest is Betty (Marisa Coughlan), who is disabled and dreams of rocket-powered wheelchairs and oral sex. A different kind of sexual behavior enters the life of his brother Freddy, who gets the movie named after him just because, I suppose, Tom Green thought the title was funny. His character also thinks it is funny to falsely accuse his father of molesting Freddy.

Green's sense of humor may not resemble yours. Consider a scene where Gord's best friend busts his knee open while skateboarding. Gord licks the open wound. Then he visits his friend in the hospital. A woman in the next bed goes into labor. Gord rips the baby from her womb and, when it appears to be dead, brings it to life by swinging it around his head by its umbilical cord, spraying the walls with blood. If you wanted that to be a surprise, then I'm sorry I spoiled it for you.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

holy shit.

i wonder sometimes. i find miyself thinking:

"Nick. Write a script. Write a screenplay. It cant be that hard? Because if someone like Tom Green can get the money to produce a movie and get a cinema release, then what the mother-of-a-fuck is stopping me from doing the same thing?"

really. i mean, lets take the following as an example:

"Six minutes into the film, his character leaps from his car to wag a horse penis"

genius.

And then what about this:

"Consider a scene where Gord's best friend busts his knee open while skateboarding. Gord licks the open wound"

brilliant, brilliant.

how the fuck do these movie scripts ever get accepted is beyond me.

i think i'm just gonna get a few friends together and film something ala 'man bites dog'......

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

urbanjunkie: Most movies are SHIT! The idea is do a brilliant one! If you need a brilliantly funny guy to star in your next movie, you know where to reach me! (I can even do a bunch of different English accents. High British, Low British, Cockney, Oxford, Eton, you name it!)

When do we start shooting?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

lets just wait and see whether you make it past the casting couch first...

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

A few teasers.

"Dice Rules" is one of the most appalling movies I have ever seen. It could not be more damaging to the career of Andrew Dice Clay if it had been made as a documentary by someone who hated him. The fact that Clay apparently thinks this movie is worth seeing is revealing and sad, indicating that he not only lacks a sense of humor, but also ordinary human decency.

Moving on.


'Jaws the Revenge" is not simply a bad movie, but also a stupid and incompetent one - a ripoff. And that's a surprise, because the film is the fourth in a series that has served Universal Pictures long and well, and it stars Lorraine Gary, the wife of the studio's chief executive officer. Wasn't there someone in charge of assuring that the film was at least a passable thriller, however bad? I guess not.


Later

I believe that the shark wants revenge against Mrs. Brody. I do. I really do believe it. After all, her husband was one of the men who hunted this shark and killed it, blowing it to bits. And what shark wouldn't want revenge against the survivors of the men who killed it?

Another review!

``B.A.P.S.'' is jaw-droppingly bad, a movie so misconceived I wonder why anyone involved wanted to make it. As a vehicle for the talents of director Robert Townsend and actors Halle Berry and Martin Landau, it represents a grave miscalculation; I hope they quickly put it behind them.

dot, dot dot dot.

The cause of his ill health is left a little obscure, and no wonder, because shortly before his dreadful deathbed scene he's well enough to join the women in a wild night of disco dancing. You have not lived until you've seen Martin Landau disco. Well, perhaps you have.

The movie was written by the actress Troy Beyer, who has a small role as a lawyer. What was she thinking of? I don't have a clue. The movie doesn't work, but was there any way this material could ever have worked? My guess is that African Americans will be offended by the movie, and whites will be embarrassed. The movie will bring us all together, I imagine, in paralyzing boredom.

But wait! There's more!



An Alan Smithee Film Burn Hollywood Burn
zero stars / (R)


James Edmunds: Ryan O'Neal
Dion Brothers: Coolio
Leon Brothers: Chuck D
Alan Smithee: Eric Idle
Jerry Glover: Richard Jeni

Directed by Alan Smithee. Written by Joe Eszterhas. Running time: 86 minutes. Rated R (for strong language and some sexual humor).


BY ROGER EBERT

``An Alan Smithee Film Burn Hollywood Burn'' is a spectacularly bad film--incompetent, unfunny, ill-conceived, badly executed, lamely written, and acted by people who look trapped in the headlights.

The title provides clues to the film's misfortune. It was originally titled ``An Alan Smithee Film.'' Then ``Burn, Hollywood, Burn!'' Now its official title is ``An Alan Smithee Film Burn Hollywood Burn''--just like that, with no punctuation. There's a rich irony connected with the title. ``Alan Smithee'' is the pseudonym that a Hollywood studio slaps on a film's credits if the original director insists on having his name removed from the project. The plot of ``AASFBHB'' involves a film so bad that the director wants his name removed, but since his real name is Alan Smithee, what can he do? Ho, ho.

Wait, it gets better. The movie was directed by Arthur Hiller, who hated the way the film was edited so much that, yes, he insisted his name be removed from the credits. So now it really is an Alan Smithee Film. That leaves one mystery: Why didn't Joe Eszterhas, the film's writer, take off his name, too?

I fear it is because this version of the film does indeed reflect his vision. Eszterhas is sometimes a good writer, but this time he has had a complete lapse of judgment. Even when he kids himself, he's wrong. ``It's completely terrible!'' a character says of the film within the film. ``It's worse than `Showgirls'!'' Of course Eszterhas wrote ``Showgirls,'' which got some bad reviews, but it wasn't completely terrible.

I was looking forward to explaining that to him this week, but he canceled his publicity visit to Chicago, reportedly because his voice gave out. Judging by this film, it was the last thing to go.

Have you ever been to one of those office parties where the PR department has put together a tribute to a retiring boss? That's how this film plays. It has no proper story line. No dramatic scenes. It's all done in documentary form, with people looking at the camera and relating the history of a doomed movie named ``Trio,'' which cost more than $200 million and stars Sylvester Stallone, Whoopi Goldberg and Jackie Chan, who play themselves as if they are celebrity impersonators.

The film stars Eric Idle as Smithee, who eventually burns the print and checks into the Keith Moon Psychiatric Institute in England (ho, ho). Ryan O'Neal plays the film's producer. I love the way he's introduced. We see the back of a guy's head, and hear him saying, ``Anything!'' Then the chair swivels around and he says ``anything!'' again, and we see, gasp!--why, it's Ryan O'Neal! I was reminded of the moment in Mike Todd's ``Around the World in 80 Days'' when the piano player swivels around, and, gasp!, it's--Frank Sinatra!

These actors and others recount the history of the doomed film in unconvincing sound bites, which are edited together without wit or rhythm. One is accustomed to seeing bad movies, but not incompetent ones. Sophomores in a film class could make a better film than this. Hell, I have a movie here by Les Brown, a kid who looks about 12 and filmed a thriller in his mother's basement, faking a fight scene by wrestling with a dummy. If I locked you in a room with both movies, you'd end up looking at the kid's.

In taking his name off the film, Arthur Hiller has wisely distanced himself from the disaster, but on the basis of what's on the screen I cannot, frankly, imagine any version of this film that I would want to see. The only way to save this film would be to trim 86 minutes.

Here's an interesting thing. The film is filled with celebrities playing themselves, and most of them manifestly have no idea who they are. The only celebrity who emerges relatively intact is Harvey Weinstein, head of Miramax Films, who plays a private eye--but never mind the role, just listen to him. He could find success in voice-over work.

Now consider Stallone. He reappears in the outtakes over the closing credits. Such cookies are a treat for audiences after the film is over. Here they're as bad as the film, but notice a moment when Stallone thinks he's off camera, and asks someone about a Planet Hollywood shirt. Then he sounds like himself. A second later, playing himself, he sounds all wrong.

Jackie Chan copes by acting as if he's in a Jackie Chan movie, but Whoopi Goldberg mangles her scenes in a cigar bar, awkwardly trying to smoke a stogie. It's God's way of paying her back for telling Ted Danson it would be funny to wear blackface at the Friars' Club.


But anyway, anybody have any others, non-Ebert, to share?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Dorothy Parker, America's greatest female humorist, wrote a 2 line review of a play. It went like this:

"I saw the play at a disadvantage. The curtain went up."

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Filthy is your dad.

Filthy's review of this year's Palme d'Or winner, Swimfan:


It takes balls the size of dump trucks to make a movie as trite, cliched and predictable as Swimfan. It takes testes like Yosemite granite to put so much labor into something so shitty, and to do it with so little care or effort.

Most crap-ass movies have some kernel of an original idea in them somewhere. Not in Swimfan. Not only is there nothing new, nobody even tries. I can see the Hollywood pitch meeting now.

Producer: What have you got?
Writer: Okay, I spent, like, three minutes at Carl's, Jr. coming up with this.
Producer: I like it already.
Writer: Ready? Are you sitting down?
Producer: No, wait, yes.
Writer: It doesn't matter anyway. This won't surprise you. Now, imagine a world exactly like the world you've seen a million times before. And imagine a plot exactly like a million plots before. A jilted lover turns psycho and stalks the jilting boy and tries to ruin his life.
Producer: (on the edge of seat) Sounds like a lot of other bad movies. I'm listening!
Writer: It's like Fatal Attraction meets Fatal Attraction, only less scary and way shoddier.
Producer: (picking up phone) Dixie? Please bring in one of those giant cardboard checks we give to writers. Make sure it has lots of zeroes on it. And pronto! (slamming down phone) I'm sold, kid! This is exactly the kind of tired, worn-out, bland thinking we love to reward in this town.

It takes monster nuts to have absolutely nothing to say, write a whole movie to prove it, and find a director and studio who share your lack of vision. Then you must have the conviction and strength of belief to see your ass-ripping turd through to completion. You have to wake up every morning and be excited to think "Today's the first day of the rest of my life barfing up someone else's ideas." You have to know that your story is entirely implausible and laughably absurd, but not care for one second. You have to be willing to cave in to every studio demand to make sure that the final product is as compromised as possible. You have to pretend you care, yet put something on the screen that shows you don't.

Despite Swimfan's cornhole-clogging shittiness, it inspired me. The handful of you who have read my reviews for a while know I've been listless; unemployed, mostly drunk, pissed at objects animate and inanimate and feeling personally insulted by the WB's fall lineup. I've been like a boat set adrift with no direction, blaming everyone but myself for the fact that I will die alone, poor, penniless and wearing someone else's old clothes. That's not a bad thing, really. I mean, it beats working. But having a reason to live is better.

And I found mine during a late screening of Swimfan, sitting in a sea of pimply and loud teenagers. I realized that all these kids are frittering the best years of their lives away at terrible movies. They need guidance, support and motivation, and the current school system isn't giving them that. I've got some ideas about how to get kids on the right path, so I'm becoming a guidance counselor. I can't tell you how great it feels to have this sort of purpose to my life; to know I will shape out future makes it all the sweeter.

See, I have a lot of motivational shit to say that I think today's youth will listen to, like "Shut the fuck up," and "You want me to put my boot up your ass?" Or, "If you fail that math test I'm going to come over to your house while you're sleeping and gut you like a catfish." I figure it won't be long before I'm making speeches to kids in gymnasiums and selling lots of books on tape. If you're a principal, send me an e-mail and I'll tell you my fees and the kind of shit I like in my dressing room. Also, no elementary schools. I don't think those kids are ready for my "Faces of Death"-style slide presentation.

Okay, now that we got that settled let's get back to the movie.

Swimfan takes place in one of those make-believe high schools that filmmakers dream up because it's more convenient than a real place. It's filled with somewhat attractive twenty-year-olds. There is no swarm of marching band geeks smug with the knowledge that they will someday inherit the earth. Of course, there is one lone "weird guy" who turns out not to be so weird (ooo, bet you couldn't see that coming). In this magical fairyland, the school has so much funding it can afford to drug-test its swim team, swimmers can miraculously shave five seconds off their 50-meter times in one week, and the city newspaper gives more press to swim meets than to elections or murders.

Ben Cronin (Jesse Bradford) is the superstar swimmer with the gorgeous, passive-but-horny, girlfriend (Shiri Appleby). They are blissfully happy until that witchy Erika Christensen comes along. She's psychotic, you see. Since we're in the mystically, magical world of lazy moviemakers, we accept that Christensen is irresistibly hot. Really, she's got a fat, featureless face like a handmaid's reflection in the faraway mirror of a Jan ver Meer painting. But, they're asking us to go with it, and who are we to say no?

Bradford has a fling with Christensen, and then feels awful about it. He really only loves Appleby with all his teenage heart. Twenty minutes after his indiscretion, he also catches up with the audience and realizes that Christensen must have her dick in the peanut butter because she's fucking nuts. She won't let go, and yadda yadda. You know the rest. She goes bonkers, tries to kill Bradford's real girlfriend, gets him thrown off the swim team right before the big Stanford University scouts show up, and keeps popping around corners to ostensibly scare him. It's all done as sloppy as a wet burrito, but the ending is what boggles the mind most. I can't quite figure it out, because you'd need butcher shears to cut through the layers of improbability, impossibility and outright nonsense. It has something to do with Christensen killing some police, Bradford's now invalid girlfriend being moved from the hospital to his house, Bradford driving to New York City and back in a matter of minutes, videotaping a confession from Christensen, and being accused of trying to kill his girlfriend when he has an entirely real and verifiable alibi. There's also a big climactic fight where Bradford has to rescue his girlfriend from the bottom of a pool where she is bound to, apparently, the world's heaviest office chair.

That probably makes more sense than the movie did, and I forgot another dozen absurdities, I'm sure. It's all just gobbledygook piled on crap, wrapped in an enigma and then shoved up someone's ass. If you knew your story was a lousy rehash of old stories, wouldn't you at least try to have it make sense?

Or scary. Scary would be good too. But the vast majority of this movie is us watching a pouty kid come to terms with infidelity with his creepy girl. There is no building tension and no thrills until the last twenty minutes. Those, though, are too unreal to jolt and sillier than a pack of Girl Scouts jacked up on cotton candy and soda pop.

What's most amazing is that this lousy story is done in such a lousy way. If you're stealing from others, do like the Japanese and improve upon it before selling it back. The characters are duller than a set of TV-commercial steak knives a year later. Appleby is the uninterestingly sweet girlfriend without a single unique quality except that she sinks really well. Christenen is full-bore psycho, acting "intense" and annoying right from the beginning. And Bradford just mopes along, never having a reason to live. He's a lousy actor with a weird mouth and the charisma of a trash truck. His character has a Sonic Youth poster on his wall, but of course all we ever hear in the movie is godawful rap-metal chosen to sell soundtracks. That's the way the whole movie is: the makers are too fucking lazy to establish anything.

Although I am giving Swimfan One Finger for being such putrid bile, I am indebted to it. It gave me a reason to live, and hope for today's kids. You youngsters, if you want me to inspire you, just send me a note and I'll kick you in the spiritual nuts until you're coughing up the blood of success.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

*sighs*
its all subjective.
*sighs again*
Alexander Walker gives some scathing reviews,but the man is quite obviously a neardertholic imbecile.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

J00 need people like roger ebert, so j00 can pointcha fuckin fingahs and say THATS the bad guy

Attachment: rogerrrr.jpg
This has been downloaded 232 time(s).

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

well i thought it was funny

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

I'm thinking about once a week going to a movie and reviewing it. Or something. This idea, like hundreds of other ideas of mine, will never come to bear fruit.

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

"Before I embark upon an extended streak of name-calling and Tom Green-bashing, let me say a few words about the subjective nature of comedy. Everyone has a different opinion of exactly what constitutes good humor. For some people, it's Victor Borga. For others, it's Monty Python. And for still others, it's Tom Green. (Hopefully, those in the latter category aren't numerous.) I like to think that I have a fairly broad-based sense of humor (I suppose everyone says the same thing). I can laugh equally hard at Mark Russell, This Is Spinal Tap, American Pie, and Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Green, however, doesn't do anything for me. On those rare occasions when my channel surfing has brought me to his MTV show, I have rarely stopped for more than a minute or two before moving on. I'm sure Green fans, inasmuch as there are Green fans, will delight in the cesspool that is Freddy Got Fingered. The film probably delivers what they are expecting.

Having said that, however, I have to report that this motion picture is arguably the worst piece of cinematic crap I have ever experienced theatrically. Hyperbole, you wonder? I looked through my list of zero-star movies and couldn't find one entry (except the immortal Zombie Vs. Mardi Gras, which was a straight-to-video release) that ranked as more difficult to endure. Words like abomination and travesty don't do this movie justice. Sitting through Freddy Got Fingered was one of the most depressing experiences in my 10 years of reviewing films. It's not even enjoyable on a campy level. It's just bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad.

Freddy Got Fingered takes gross-out humor to a new low. In the process, it uncovers another layer of the MPAA's inconsistency. How could anything this foul be granted an R-rating? Eyes Wide Shut, Requiem for a Dream, and The War Zone were all awarded NC-17s in their original cuts, but Freddy Got Fingered is given an R? What are the members of the ratings board inhaling?? And it's not as if the humor is so subtle that they could have missed something.

At any rate, Freddy Got Fingered is so awful that it turns the likes of Battlefield Earth and 3000 Miles to Graceland into pretenders to the label of a bad movie. It makes American Pie appear like a representation of high brow comedy, and fools us into thinking that Pink Flamingos is a bastion of good taste. Most depressing of all, as I was sitting through Freddy Got Fingered, the idea occurred to me that it might be preferable to sneak into the theater next door to watch Josie and the Pussycats a second time.

Is there a plot? I suppose, although it's just a flimsy excuse to allow writer/director/star Tom Green to spend time mugging for the camera and doing his X-rated comedy sketches. Green plays Gord Brody, a loser who goes to Hollywood to become a star cartoonist. When things don't work out, he moves back in with his Dad (Rip Torn - whose reputation gets both ripped and torn) and Mom (Julie Hagerty), but a running feud develops between him and dear old Dad. Meanwhile, Gord gets a girlfriend, Betty (Marisa Coughlan in a career-killing performance), who's confined to a wheelchair and is obsessed with performing oral sex on him. In the end, everything turns out all right - especially for those who have long since escaped the theater to do something better with their time.

I don't understand Tom Green's appeal, nor do I comprehend who comprises his target demographic. Infants? (The silly expressions and incessant repetition of words would go over well with them.) Teenage boys? Drew Barrymore? People who are drunk, stoned, or both? Maybe the criteria is that you need to be two of the above. There is nothing here about Green that I find funny (although I liked him in Road Trip). Maybe it's that he tries too hard for laughs, or that his few potentially funny bits are far too obvious. As I said, comedy is subjective, and watching this guy do his shtick makes me feel like I'm being subjected to some form of inhuman torture. He's the most irritating and repugnant thing to come from MTV since Pauly Shore. Check that... Shore never made anything as bad as Freddy Got Fingered. In fact, Ed Wood never made something this unwatchable.

In his attempts to introduce movie-goers to things they have never before viewed inside the hallowed halls of the local multiplex, Green gives us some cinematic moments that seem destined to become classics. For example, there's the time he parks his car by the side of the road for no apparent reason, then runs over to a nearby horse and masturbates it. Or later, when he does the same thing to an elephant so he can use its ejaculation as a weapon. Or when he licks the exposed bone in his friend's leg injury. There is also a running joke about child molestation, and a young kid who is constantly being knocked down, hit in the face, or smashed in the head (with the result usually being copious amounts of blood). It has been said (and rightfully so) that any topic can be the fodder for humor, as long as the treatment is funny. However, just because something is shocking and offensive doesn't make it worthy of laughter. No none involved with Freddy Got Fingered learned that lesson.

The screenplay has an obvious love of the word "fuck." It is used in all of its permutations: noun, verb, adjective, adverb. I think every actor (except perhaps Julie Hagerty) has to say it more than once. Those intrigued by the versatility of the word may want to investigate this film (there's no other reason to do so). On one occasion, the picture actually puts it to good use. About five minutes before the end credits, during a crowd scene, one extra holds up a placard reading "When the fuck is this movie going to end?" It's something I'm sure just about every audience member was wondering. The answer: about two hours too late. At any length, Freddy Got Fingered would be too long. I'm just sorry there's nothing nasty enough that I can write in this review to suitably repay everyone involved in the ruination of 90 minutes of my life. I have gotten better entertainment value from a colonoscopy."


© 2001 James Berardinelli

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

capalert.com--your one-stop reviewing service.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring earned a CAP score of 59, numerically equivalent to PG-13 movies in the analysis model comparative baseline database of movies. But as one of the great features of the CAP analysis model, note the scoring distribution in the Findings/Scoring section. I am going to take a moment to discuss the scoring distribution in some detail here for the benefit of our subscribers to the newsletter which provides text-only of this Summary/Commentary.

First, remember that deaths as the result of warfare/battle or police action are not incorporated into the scoring as murder but are incorporated into the Wanton Violence/Crime investigation area. Also remember that while any single issue of aberrant behavior may fit into two or more of the six CAP investigation areas, only one is permitted. For example, a graphic killing by sorcery may be incorporated into either Wanton Violence/Crime OR Offense to God OR Murder/Suicide, but only into one. No duplication is assured.


Now note that this PG-13 movie had no foul language and no sexual issues of any kind which is extremely atypical of PG-13 movies. BUT, the Wanton Violence/Crime and Offense to God scores were both zero, indicating an extremely graphic movie in violence and extremely concentrated in unholy/evil issues. Therein lies a useful feature provided only by the copyrighted CAP analysis model--an assessment method not possible by any other movie rating system known on the entire planet. There is one other movie rating outfit which has mimicked the CAP model from its start, but that is all it is -- a mimicry. And it does not have the CAP Thermometers. Nor the more than 40 mathematical equations in every report. Nor the Rock-solid investigation standards.

The Tolkien trilogy in book form is more than 1000 pages. I guess that explains why this first of the three Rings trilogy is 170 minutes long! Great day in the morning! Three hours! But all is not lost in boredom and bathroom. The story is relatively attention-keeping though often dream-like. The scenery is breath-taking. The computer aided choreography made this movie a masterpiece of its own and a tribute to technology. The blending of extremes of imagination with down to earth and believable emotions is masterful. The performers are obviously experienced and compatible with their parts. Such a combination of talents and skills to create an absorbable story is indeed an influence which must be given somber and diligent thought because this is another story of witchcraft, sorcery and wizardry. The opulence and immensity of this book-to-film is truly a contender for your mind, especially the impressionable mind.

In a middle-earth world, Frodo Baggins (Elijah Wood) meets Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKlellan) as Gandalf travels to see Bilbo Baggins (Ian Holm) to find the 20th of 20 special rings: a ring that wants to be found. The 20 rings were created with special powers. One of the 20 rings, named "My Precious" by Gollum, possessed the power to give the wearer power of global proportion. The one ring conjured in the wearer insane lust. Bilbo Baggins is in possession of the one ring. To save the world, the ring must be destroyed but it cannot be destroyed except by the same fires that fashioned it, the fires of Mount Doom. So that is what Frodo, Gandalf and seven additional characters ... the Fellowship of the Ring ... set out to do.

This movie is likely another maneuver to capitalize on the new found infatuation of visually oriented youth with bright and dazzling display of the occult, witchcraft and evil. It is another presentation of the "good" using evil to fight evil. And it presents sorcery as both "good" and evil. Violently. Grotesquely. While the story being based on "good" fighting evil using evil is bad enough, it is clear the filmmakers capitalized on extremism. Tolkien certainly described the evil and demonic characters in his novel quite grotesquely but not nearly as hideous and vile as those in this movie. After more than 500 movies I suspect I can say with credibility that any of the imagery of evil you have seen before now does not match the evil in The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. And there are two more Lord of the Rings coming.

There are inevitable comparisons being drawn between Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone and The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring by the secular worldview and the Christian faith. Comparisons are not being drawn between the two movies under any other "religion" I am aware of, not the Muslim or Tao or Jewish faiths or any other faith, just the Christian faith which is under more attack than any other faith. Maybe the Christian faith is under more attack [by the adversary through the unbelievers] than any other faith because it is the "right one": the one faith that poses the greatest and maybe the only real threat to the adversary.

Such a comparison follows since both movies present wizards, sorcery and evil magic and both titillate the skyrocketing popularity of mystical occult in movies in the shadow of the attack on Christianity, feeding on it and nurturing it at the same time. Both movies use evil as good: "white magic" to fight dark and evil occult forces. Both present fine personal qualities in characters with heroic missions to defeat evil. And both present the use of evil, namely witchcraft and sorcery, as a tool for good. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is targeted at the preteen and the early teen and thus boasts a less complicated story. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring is much more sophisticated and requires deeper thought to fathom its story, thus making the older teen and young adult its target audience. The Christian faith is being hit at all impressionable ages, folks. And there is more coming.

I am not going to try to debate the claims that Tolkien's Rings trilogy parallels shards of the Truth shattered from the Bible. Satan is very good at making the truth into a lie through the most innocent vehicles and by the least obvious methods. Nor am I going to try to debate the involvement of C. S. Lewis in Tolkien's life who placed the Gospel on the level of a myth in 1931 after a dinner with Tolkien:

"Now the story of Christ is simply a true myth: a myth working on us the same way as the others, but with this tremendous difference that it Really happened: and one must be content to accept it in the same way, remembering that it is God's myth where the others are men's myths..."

If you wish to delve deeper into these matters let me suggest you visit the source of the above quotation.

The bottom line is that God clearly commands that witchcraft, sorcery and wizardry are evil. He gives no situations under which these evils are not evil: no conditions under which these evils may be tolerated. There is no such thing as a "good" witch. Not even Wendy.


ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo


SCRIPTURAL APPLICATION(S)
If needed to focus or fortify, applicable text is underlined or bracketed [ ]. If you wish to have full context available, the Blue Letter Bible is a convenient source. If you use the Blue Letter Bible, a new window will open. Close it to return here or use "Window" in your browser's menu bar to alternate between the CAP page and the Blue Letter Bible page.


Deut. 18:9-12 When thou art come into the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee.
Rev. 21:8 But the [unforgiven] cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts [sorcery, witchcraft, wizardry, divination, etc.], the idolaters and all liars -their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.
Gal. 5:19-21 The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

*******Food for Thought*******

1 Cor. 15:33 (KJV) Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners. (NIV) Do not be misled: Bad company corrupts good character.
Jude 4 For certain men* whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord. [*men: anthropos {anth'-ro-pos}, generic, a human being, whether male or female]
Matt. 25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto [or for] one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto [or for] me.

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo


As always, it is best to refer to the Findings/Scoring section -- the heart of the CAP analysis model -- for the most complete assessment possible of this movie.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paint CHiPs
This movie doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence with barrels.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

I know it's cliched, but the review which immediately sprang to mind was Dorothy Parker (you beat me to it, GFY) on Katherine Hepburn:
"Miss Hepburn runs the gamut of emotions from A to B."
Still rather biting.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

I remember reading this Pitchfork review of Stone Temple Pilots' "Tiny Music: Songs From the Vatican Gift Shop" and having a good laugh.....


Stone Temple Pilots
Tiny Music:
Songs from the Vatican Gift Shop
[Atlantic]
Rating: 0.8

Though I admit to being in love with Stone Temple Pilots' last record (and to some extent, the record before that), there's nothing for sale at the Vatican Gift Shop but lousy, repetitive riffs, wimpy lyrics, and a drug-addled sonofabitch that should have OD'ed a long time ago. The only thing even vaguely appealing about this smelly hunk of digital turd, is all the heroin jokes it allows you to make up ? about Scott Weiland.

I don't know if you noticed this, but parts of the big hit single, "Big Bang Baby" are direct rip-offs of the old Rolling Stones tune, "Jumpin' Jack Flash," and they should have even known better than to steal lines from a song that is completely chiseled into every living person's brain. "Big Bang Baby / It's a crash, crash, crash." Fuck you, Weiland. You suck so bad that even your band hates you. And after lousing it up your chances to open for Kiss on their reunion tour, who wouldn't?

Oh, other insightful lyrics on the record include "I Can't Walk / I Can't Talk / Booze / I Can Booze / Steal Your Shoes." He's a poet, and we don't know it. So, Scott, here's what you do: Get out of bed, tie yourself off, and fall directly into space forever. But don't just do it for yourself, do it for me.

-Ryan Schreiber

http://pitchforkmedia.com/record-re...iny-music.shtml

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

If you like critics, check out Mr Cranky, he reviews the movies released every week, and his niche is, he never gives ANYTHING a good review, because he doesnt have a scale for it, he attacks everything and makes it funny while doing it. His rating scale is 1-4 bombs, dynamite stick, nuclear cloud, in that order. Its a fun site.

http://www.mrcranky.com

__________________

[Ignore Sig]

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged