Get Him to the Greek, a "gross-out" comedy that grosses you out but still makes you laugh and almost cry at the same time.
Budget: $40 million. I guess you could say it's slightly above average for a slapstick comedy film
Starring: Russel Brand, Jonah Hill, Sean"Diddy"Combs (Puff Daddy) and a lot of celebrities who appeared long enough for the audience to be able to recognize their faces and then the camera went to the next shot. Although Meredith Vierra really got her chance to shine, especially when she asks Russel Brand's character if he is on drugs during her interview with him. You go Meredith! I bet The View is really missing you now.
If you notice that both Russel Brand and Jonah Hill were both cast in the recent film Forgetting Sarah Marshall maybe it has to do with the fact that Get Him to the Greek is a spin off sequel to the previously mentioned movie. But an interesting fact is that while Russel Brand reprises his role as the self-destructive alcoholic/substance abusive musician Aldous Snow, Jonah Hill is cast as a completely different person. Just some food for thought.
Critical Reaction: Mostly positive. I was surprised, because recently sequels have been falling flat on their faces and Get Him to the Greek has done well both critically and commercially. As of June 17Th, 2010 according to Box Office Mojo, Get Him to the Greek has raked in $41,739,465.
Favorite critical quote: "Stoller deserves further praise for his use of Sean "P. Diddy" Combs, someone I struggle to call an actor. Maybe he's playing himself as a douche bag music exec, but he's kept in check.
Julian Roman, Movieweb.com
My reaction: You know I may be one of the few people in the country that really did not enjoy The Hangover, so it took me a little while to warm up to this film because it really is very similar in many ways to The Hangover. During the first half of the movie the dialogue was like totally vulgar and crude and almost borders being an exploitation. Heavy drinking, sex, drugs, fighting, vomiting, and Jonah Hill sticking a bag of heroine in his rectum; and there is plenty more that could be added to the list. But just when it seems like you can't take anymore and proceed to throw up on the person sitting next to you, something funny happens: you start to see Aaron Green and Aldous Snow as people not just as characters in a movie. Due to excessive and irresponsible drinking, drug usage, and tons of sex they both have lost everything. They both have also got to know each other and have developed a sense of understanding and compassion for one another. In the final scene when Aldous Snow throws him self of a roof into a pole and fractures his arm of the side of a pool, he begins to make a cloud of blood in the pool, then begins purging his emotions by begging Aaron Green for spiritual guidance and acceptance; It really was quite effective. I kind of wish I could have had a few drinks before seeing this film, maybe I would have felt the emotion just a little more. I think the ending was kind of disappointing for me because it seemed like this movie could have gotten away with all of the crude and vulgar content in the beginning of the movie had it incorporated the intellectual and emotional aspect of the latter half of the film. So ultimately I think that Jude Apataw the king of "gross-out comedies" (Thank you Roger Ebert!) has succeeded in making a quality comedy that is making a decent amount of money. There are plenty of other film makers that envision these "gross-out" comedies as being critically and commercially successful films, and often times they do. Quentin Tarentino always is able to blend blood, sex and violence with emotion, intelligence and sweetness in such a way that critics can't help but applaud his films. Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill and Inglorious Bastards all bear the stamp of "graphic-but-quality" films. So overall, it was well worth spending the ten dollars (and that was with a student ID!) to see Get Him to the Greek, I just wish I did not have to endure so much in order to get to a point when I started to like the film.
Prognosis: Since Get Him to the Greek is out of the red after only it second week in wide release, I think that it will go on to make at least another $40,000,0000 world wide and will end up with roughly the same amount that Forgetting Sarah Marshall raked in ($100 million). I really don't think that a third movie within the franchise would do Jude Apataw any justice, but the idea of big box office revenue very often makes film producers do crazy things. Some critics have said that this film won't get nominated for any awards, but something tells me that either Jonah Hill or Russel Brand will receive a nomination in the lead actor in a musical or comedy award at the Golden Globes©, I guess only time will tell. I am actually looking forward to when the Hollywood Foreign Press releases the nominations in December.
references:
Roman, Julian. 16 June 2010. Movieweb. 2010.
http://www.movieweb.com/movie/get-him-to-the-greek/REDVtIDH2E55GM
Box Office Mojo. 17 June 2010. Amazon.com. 18 June 2010
http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=gethimtothegreek.htm
Ebert, Roger. "Get Him to the Greek". Rogerebert.com. 2 June 2010. 18 June 2010.
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100602/REVIEWS/ 100609992/-1/RSS
JASON & NEEDLES
Friday, June 18, 2010
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Splice
Splice (2010)
Producer: Guillermo Del Torro. Most of Del Torro's films have been in science fiction. I like the majority of the films he produces. I am pretty sure he produced the Hellboy movies, but I could be wrong.
Director: Vincenzo Natalie, he has had a semi-prolific career so far. His most notable film was the 1997 Canadian psychological thriller Cube, which was actually a really good film.
Budget: $30,000,000
Opening Weekend Revenue: $7,385,2777 (Box Office Mojo)
Total Revenue so far: $13,000,000. Yes I know, kind of disappointing.
Starring: Adrian Brody, Sarah Polley (I loved her in Dawn of the Dead and GO)
Critical Reaction: Mostly positive. I liked what the review said in the Post Gazette© but I threw it away, oh well.
Producer: Guillermo Del Torro. Most of Del Torro's films have been in science fiction. I like the majority of the films he produces. I am pretty sure he produced the Hellboy movies, but I could be wrong.
Director: Vincenzo Natalie, he has had a semi-prolific career so far. His most notable film was the 1997 Canadian psychological thriller Cube, which was actually a really good film.
Budget: $30,000,000
Opening Weekend Revenue: $7,385,2777 (Box Office Mojo)
Total Revenue so far: $13,000,000. Yes I know, kind of disappointing.
Starring: Adrian Brody, Sarah Polley (I loved her in Dawn of the Dead and GO)
Critical Reaction: Mostly positive. I liked what the review said in the Post Gazette© but I threw it away, oh well.
Prognosis: Splice will most likely end up barely recovering its production costs of $30,000,000 and might garner up a few nominations for the Saturn Awards which are presented by the Academy Of Science Fiction, Fantasy and Horror Films©. I have already read that there are talks about a sequel so I guess we can call Splice a terminal film.
*Terminal Film- A single film or franchise in which the first or most recent film is basically as good as it gets.
What I thought:
Overall, I did like this film. I have to say that I was a little disappointed at the opening weekend, although it was a pretty slow weekend at the box office, I thought a good scary science fiction film was exactly what America wanted, but I guess I was wrong. Still take a look back at the other science fiction films such as The Relic and Mimic; they did well critically but not commercially. Then take a look at the infamous Species, which was a summer blockbuster and was pretty much panned by critics. Ironically most people are comparing Splice to Species and I would like to remind people that most critics panned Species for a lack of intelligence in the storyline and applauded Splice for maintaining intelligence in the storyline, so get your facts straight before you go creating stereotypes.
Even though I really am not a huge fan of Adrian Brody, I do think that he did a decent job as a "superstar genetic engineer". It was really kind of nostalgic sitting in the movie theatre with my heart pounding and hands sweating wondering which hybrid animal/person was going to change sexes and destroy whatever life form within a ten feet radius. I do think that the story line started to get a little carried away towards the end, but it never really got to where it would be considered tacky. At times the CGIs were certainly a little bit below standard, but even Avatar had it's downfalls. I think that if Splice were released in 3D it definitely would have made more money, in fact I think that's ultimately what kept a lot of people away from this film. Avatar and Alice in Wonderland have both kind of set a new standard and I just think that 2010 was not a good year to release a science fiction film with a budget of $30,000,000 and expect to really make any money. But if you're in the mood for a jump out of your seat kind of scary film with a hint of humor and intellect then go see Splice. I personally believe that out of all of the science fiction films that try to deliver the message about the dangers of bio technology, Splice is one of the few entries I didn't hate, so rock on Vincenzo! I really did enjoy Cube.
Reference:
Box Office Mojo. 14 June 2010. Internet Movie Database, Amazon.com.
[http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=splice.htm]
Monday, May 3, 2010
A Very Bad Nightmare On Elm Street
What do The Amityville Horror, Friday the 13th and A Nightmare On Elm Street all have in common? They are all classic horror films and are all remade by the same producer and every single remake sucked! That's right you heard me, they were all filthy trash movies made only for the sake of making money. The remake of A Nightmare On Elm Street sucked for many reasons but primarily due to excessive computer graphics, a convoluted story line, not one talented actor in the movie and changing the history of Freddy Krueger, and those are just a few reasons. Heather Langencamp (the original Nancy Thompson), Wes Craven (Original director) and Robert England (the original Freddy Krueger) are probably all hospitalized with nausea after watching this piece of garbage movie that did nothing but rake in $32 million at the box office. Sorry Michael Bay, box office revenue does not make a good movie, just look at the rest of your recent projects. I should warn you that there are spoilers to the remake in this review and I am assuming that those reading this review have seen the original film at least one time.
First bad thing about this movie: excessive computer graphics. Let's talk a little bit about the budget of the original film. The budget was roughly $2 million. If we were to adjust that amount for inflation, it would equal roughly $5 million today. Now the budget for this movie was $35 million, at this point you should be able to realize where I am going with this one. What made the original film so successful was that Wes Craven never intended for the film to be anything else but a B-Class horror movie that would scare people. Robert England seemed to know how to scare audiences as Freddy but still wink at the camera at the same time, and that is exactly how a horror movie becomes successful; however there was no winking at the camera in the remake. Freddy took himself way to seriously, and the computer graphics used for Freddy's face almost looked like they were not completed. He kind of looked like a burned up Avatar character. There were a few scenes where the computer graphics were so extreme that they came across like cartoon sequences.
Second major bad thing about this movie: changing the history of Freddy Krueger. In the original film, (yes the original is a historical film not a movie) all we know about Freddy is that he allegedly killed at least 20 children and the parents hunted him down and torched him. Then Freddy takes revenge on the parents by killing their children when they sleep. The only time that we learn anything about Freddy is when Nancy's mother disclosed the history of Fred Krueger and how she and her friends killed him. This was my favorite scene in the original film, after Nancy's mother tells her daughter, "I even took his knives" and shows Nancy the infamous glove with blades molded into the fingers. I still get goosebumps even thinking about it. I remember having nightmares for weeks after seeing the original film, because Freddy was a villain who was evil and deserved to be killed. Not even death could keep this evil child killer down. In the remake, Freddy was not an evil man before he was killed, he was a benevolent gardener at a pre school who loved children. He would play with them on the grass and even took them into his secret room where they could color and talk about the lovely pictures on his wall. Later we learn that the children started to come home with marks on their bodies, and I assume we are supposed to associate scratches on children's backs with pedophilia. I really do not understand how anybody could approve of such hammy screen writing. The only theory I can devise is that Micheal Bay had spent so much money on the computer graphics that he was not left with much in his budget to pay the people who wrote the script for the movie (Wesley Strick and Eric Heisserer). The writing was just so bad that it was almost embarassing to watch.
I want to point out another stupid part of the screen writing. During swimming practice the male heroine (Yes I know, a male and female heroine in the same horror movie) falls asleep while swimming and is pulled beneath the water. He then emerges in a filthy pool of water outside of an abandoned factory in a dream scene in his speedos and goggles. I am dead serious, in his speedos. In his dream, he sees the mortal Freddy Krueger being chased by the parents who are hunting him down for scratching the backs of their children. Before we know it one of the parents throws a burning can into the factory where Freddy is taking shelter and poor Freddy is burned to a crisp. Seriously burned to a crisp, he starts running in flames and I almost liked this scene until I realized it probably was a stunt man, then I really was not that impressed. The point of the matter is, what was going on in this sequence? Why was the male heroine having a vision of Freddy's death? Was Freddy trying to communicate with him beyond the grave? What the hell were you thinking Michael Bay? This is one of the many reasons why I feel that Micheal Bay should be prosecuted for making this movie. And what was the deal with the banging chord every time we saw Freddy in the movie? Roger Ebert thought Michael Bay was trying to "evoke a fearful Pavlovian response" and sadly I think that was exactly what Michael Bay was doing. If you watch the original film, the scariest part of the movie was when Freddy was lurking around in the dark waiting for the exact moment to kill. He just kind of appeared in every one of the sequences in the remake with a loud sound accompanying his arrival. Pretty original Michael Bay.
I really could go on for days with the reasons why the remake of A Nightmare On Elm Street sucked. But I think by now I have proven my point. This movie is another example of the dangers of a producer with too much money. Michael Bay, you have really shown where your priorities are in life. You have taken classical horror movies and reduced them to tacky modern day comedies, that don't intend to come across as funny. May I suggest that you stay away from any other horror projects and stick to Transformers? I am completely serious when I say do not see this movie if you are a die hard Freddy fan. You will be disappointed and you will develope a chronic hatred for Michael Bay. This was one of those movies where you are kind of tempted to ask for your money back. So this is the third week where I have gone to the movies and have been so disapointed that I immediately looked for the closest bar or beer distributor after leaving. Robin Hood comes out next week and Cate Blanchett has never really let me down, so I guess only time will tell.
First bad thing about this movie: excessive computer graphics. Let's talk a little bit about the budget of the original film. The budget was roughly $2 million. If we were to adjust that amount for inflation, it would equal roughly $5 million today. Now the budget for this movie was $35 million, at this point you should be able to realize where I am going with this one. What made the original film so successful was that Wes Craven never intended for the film to be anything else but a B-Class horror movie that would scare people. Robert England seemed to know how to scare audiences as Freddy but still wink at the camera at the same time, and that is exactly how a horror movie becomes successful; however there was no winking at the camera in the remake. Freddy took himself way to seriously, and the computer graphics used for Freddy's face almost looked like they were not completed. He kind of looked like a burned up Avatar character. There were a few scenes where the computer graphics were so extreme that they came across like cartoon sequences.
Second major bad thing about this movie: changing the history of Freddy Krueger. In the original film, (yes the original is a historical film not a movie) all we know about Freddy is that he allegedly killed at least 20 children and the parents hunted him down and torched him. Then Freddy takes revenge on the parents by killing their children when they sleep. The only time that we learn anything about Freddy is when Nancy's mother disclosed the history of Fred Krueger and how she and her friends killed him. This was my favorite scene in the original film, after Nancy's mother tells her daughter, "I even took his knives" and shows Nancy the infamous glove with blades molded into the fingers. I still get goosebumps even thinking about it. I remember having nightmares for weeks after seeing the original film, because Freddy was a villain who was evil and deserved to be killed. Not even death could keep this evil child killer down. In the remake, Freddy was not an evil man before he was killed, he was a benevolent gardener at a pre school who loved children. He would play with them on the grass and even took them into his secret room where they could color and talk about the lovely pictures on his wall. Later we learn that the children started to come home with marks on their bodies, and I assume we are supposed to associate scratches on children's backs with pedophilia. I really do not understand how anybody could approve of such hammy screen writing. The only theory I can devise is that Micheal Bay had spent so much money on the computer graphics that he was not left with much in his budget to pay the people who wrote the script for the movie (Wesley Strick and Eric Heisserer). The writing was just so bad that it was almost embarassing to watch.
I want to point out another stupid part of the screen writing. During swimming practice the male heroine (Yes I know, a male and female heroine in the same horror movie) falls asleep while swimming and is pulled beneath the water. He then emerges in a filthy pool of water outside of an abandoned factory in a dream scene in his speedos and goggles. I am dead serious, in his speedos. In his dream, he sees the mortal Freddy Krueger being chased by the parents who are hunting him down for scratching the backs of their children. Before we know it one of the parents throws a burning can into the factory where Freddy is taking shelter and poor Freddy is burned to a crisp. Seriously burned to a crisp, he starts running in flames and I almost liked this scene until I realized it probably was a stunt man, then I really was not that impressed. The point of the matter is, what was going on in this sequence? Why was the male heroine having a vision of Freddy's death? Was Freddy trying to communicate with him beyond the grave? What the hell were you thinking Michael Bay? This is one of the many reasons why I feel that Micheal Bay should be prosecuted for making this movie. And what was the deal with the banging chord every time we saw Freddy in the movie? Roger Ebert thought Michael Bay was trying to "evoke a fearful Pavlovian response" and sadly I think that was exactly what Michael Bay was doing. If you watch the original film, the scariest part of the movie was when Freddy was lurking around in the dark waiting for the exact moment to kill. He just kind of appeared in every one of the sequences in the remake with a loud sound accompanying his arrival. Pretty original Michael Bay.
I really could go on for days with the reasons why the remake of A Nightmare On Elm Street sucked. But I think by now I have proven my point. This movie is another example of the dangers of a producer with too much money. Michael Bay, you have really shown where your priorities are in life. You have taken classical horror movies and reduced them to tacky modern day comedies, that don't intend to come across as funny. May I suggest that you stay away from any other horror projects and stick to Transformers? I am completely serious when I say do not see this movie if you are a die hard Freddy fan. You will be disappointed and you will develope a chronic hatred for Michael Bay. This was one of those movies where you are kind of tempted to ask for your money back. So this is the third week where I have gone to the movies and have been so disapointed that I immediately looked for the closest bar or beer distributor after leaving. Robin Hood comes out next week and Cate Blanchett has never really let me down, so I guess only time will tell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)