Cover your ears if you do NOT wish to hear this glorious indulgence of frank and unabashed affront to political correctness, the sensitivities of others and to general civility. I need to watch this show.
Found here: http://www.thrfeed.com/2010/01/insanely-vulgar-better-off-ted-outtakes-video.html
[disco.read]
Recent Posts
Monday, January 18, 2010
Friday, January 15, 2010
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Who's Reviews: It's Complicated + Sherlock Holmes
To combat this posting drought, I thought I'd post not one, but two, reviews for all you hungry people out there who need a fix of Eighth St.
#1: It's Complicated
This is a good film to watch with your mothers if you ever need things to do on a mother-daughter (or son) outing. I watched this with Mummy dearest on her birthday, and we were both thoroughly entertained. I have to say at the outset that I may have been a bit biased due to my love for Alec Baldwin who is such a funny actor.
The film deals with some pressing moral issues. Is it ok to do something you consider immoral if you can benefit from it? Meryl Streep, who plays divorcee Jane, wonders whether having an affair with her ex-husband Jake (Alec Baldwin) might help her step outside of her comfort zone. In essence, she feels that she might develop as a person by doing something outrageous. Of course, things are not so simple as there are added complications. Jake is married to a younger woman whose fierce tiger tattoo is an embodiment of her own personality. Adam, Jane’s architect (played by Steve Martin), is also courting her. Jane’s three children are still emotionally scarred from their parents’ divorce 10 years ago. To learn that their parents are back together would push them over the edge. Harley (John Krasinski), Jane and Jake’s son-in-law-to-be, knows about the affair.
When you have such seasoned actors, it’s hard not to be entertained. The movie contains hilarious laugh-out-loud scenes, thanks largely to Alec Baldwin. Oh, and Harley (my nearly-namesake). John Krasinski also acts in the US version of The Office, which is probably where he got his humour from. In fact, my mother voted Harley as her favourite character.
Overall, it was a great film and very funny. If I wasn’t laughing at what was going on, I was drooling at the sight of Jane’s beautiful house – especially her kitchen. Watch this if you want to have a good time at the cinema – it’s foolproof entertainment. I’m giving this film a 8 out of 10.
#2: Sherlock Holmes
This movie was really badly arranged in terms of the sequence of scenes. The movie skipped from one action/sleuthing scene to another without much explanation, leaving me feeling slightly disoriented and confused. To further complicate things, the character of Sherlock Holmes was simply too good to be true. Guy Ritchie and whoever else helped write/direct this film seemed to invest too much intelligence and intuition into Holmes. He stepped over the line of ‘brilliant detective’ into becoming almost psychic – definitely undermining the ending. Instead of instilling a sense of amazement/wonder at Holmes’s detective skills, it left me feeling doubtful that anyone could have analysed such clues to piece together such an explanation of the events of the plot.
#1: It's Complicated
This is a good film to watch with your mothers if you ever need things to do on a mother-daughter (or son) outing. I watched this with Mummy dearest on her birthday, and we were both thoroughly entertained. I have to say at the outset that I may have been a bit biased due to my love for Alec Baldwin who is such a funny actor.
The film deals with some pressing moral issues. Is it ok to do something you consider immoral if you can benefit from it? Meryl Streep, who plays divorcee Jane, wonders whether having an affair with her ex-husband Jake (Alec Baldwin) might help her step outside of her comfort zone. In essence, she feels that she might develop as a person by doing something outrageous. Of course, things are not so simple as there are added complications. Jake is married to a younger woman whose fierce tiger tattoo is an embodiment of her own personality. Adam, Jane’s architect (played by Steve Martin), is also courting her. Jane’s three children are still emotionally scarred from their parents’ divorce 10 years ago. To learn that their parents are back together would push them over the edge. Harley (John Krasinski), Jane and Jake’s son-in-law-to-be, knows about the affair.
When you have such seasoned actors, it’s hard not to be entertained. The movie contains hilarious laugh-out-loud scenes, thanks largely to Alec Baldwin. Oh, and Harley (my nearly-namesake). John Krasinski also acts in the US version of The Office, which is probably where he got his humour from. In fact, my mother voted Harley as her favourite character.
Harley being funny
The film works well as a whole. The scenes are infused with sufficient amounts of humour/funny dialogue/”ponder-this” moments that I wasn’t looking at my watch for the time (which I often do in the cinema). Given the subject matter of the film, most of the humour is slightly crude if not downright cringe-worthy. Still, the actors seem to pull it off with (most) of their dignity in tact. The conclusion is surprisingly neat though somewhat didactic. Director and writer Nancy Meyers takes a clear position on Jane and Jake’s affair, and about infidelity in general. Some serious issues underlie the surface frivolity of the film – especially in regards to the effect of marriage/divorce/infidelity on children and the responsibilities of a good parent.
Overall, it was a great film and very funny. If I wasn’t laughing at what was going on, I was drooling at the sight of Jane’s beautiful house – especially her kitchen. Watch this if you want to have a good time at the cinema – it’s foolproof entertainment. I’m giving this film a 8 out of 10.#2: Sherlock Holmes
DISCLAIMER: this is a rant about Guy Ritchie's directing skills (yes, he is the man who divorced Madonna) and the whole movie in general. I think I was being overly harsh when I wrote this but I needed to get a few things off my chest.
The trailer for this movie (which they played incessantly on TV for a period of time) didn’t look too bad, so I was looking forward to watching this film. BIG MISTAKE, HURLEY! WHAT WERE YOU THINKING?
This movie was really badly arranged in terms of the sequence of scenes. The movie skipped from one action/sleuthing scene to another without much explanation, leaving me feeling slightly disoriented and confused. To further complicate things, the character of Sherlock Holmes was simply too good to be true. Guy Ritchie and whoever else helped write/direct this film seemed to invest too much intelligence and intuition into Holmes. He stepped over the line of ‘brilliant detective’ into becoming almost psychic – definitely undermining the ending. Instead of instilling a sense of amazement/wonder at Holmes’s detective skills, it left me feeling doubtful that anyone could have analysed such clues to piece together such an explanation of the events of the plot.
Not-so-evil villain Lord Blackwood
The only (minor) salvation was Robert Downey Jr and Jude Law (who plays sidekick Dr. Watson) cause… they were cute. Ok, not ‘cute’, but not so bad to look at. This made the duration of the film (128 mins) slightly more bearable. Rachael McAdams was simply average. She wasn’t sly enough to pull off her character (the criminal ‘mastermind’ Irene Adler) well and a sub-plot which had her double-cross Holmes and Watson simply added to the insignificant fluff of the movie. Mark Strong, who plays the evil villain Lord Blackwood, was also unconvincing. I suppose his crooked teeth were supposed to be menacing and scary, but they were almost comical to me. There was also a whole host of other characters, most notably a giant Frenchman. Where casting agents find such actors is a mystery.
Not even the regularly-timed gags in the film could save it from disasterville. Individually, the scenes were well-made. The visuals of the film captured the dreariness of London well. It was mostly grey and black, except for the huge pink puff of material on Rachael McAdam’s butt. Seriously, her dress was crazy. Anyways, as I was saying (typing?) the individual scenes were good. But put together, they didn’t make a coherent whole. There was no smoothness in the transition of one scene to another. There was no discernable direction which the film was leading towards. The so-called ‘resolution’ at the end was nothing short of a far-fetched and patchy conclusion to a largely disappointing film. I literally sat there during the credits and said (loudly) “That film was CRAP!”. I do not say such things often.
Rachael McAdam's pink booty
For that reason, this film gets a 4 out of 10 from me. Ok, maybe a 5. Just for Robert Downey Jr.
~ Hurley Who?
Not even the regularly-timed gags in the film could save it from disasterville. Individually, the scenes were well-made. The visuals of the film captured the dreariness of London well. It was mostly grey and black, except for the huge pink puff of material on Rachael McAdam’s butt. Seriously, her dress was crazy. Anyways, as I was saying (typing?) the individual scenes were good. But put together, they didn’t make a coherent whole. There was no smoothness in the transition of one scene to another. There was no discernable direction which the film was leading towards. The so-called ‘resolution’ at the end was nothing short of a far-fetched and patchy conclusion to a largely disappointing film. I literally sat there during the credits and said (loudly) “That film was CRAP!”. I do not say such things often.
Rachael McAdam's pink booty For that reason, this film gets a 4 out of 10 from me. Ok, maybe a 5. Just for Robert Downey Jr.
~ Hurley Who?
PS. Disco - I'd like to hear what you thought of this film.
Labels:
Alec Baldwin,
Meryl Streep,
moral tales,
Movie Review,
movies,
Robert Downey Jr
·
4
comments
Sunday, January 3, 2010
At the Movies with Count and Hurley: Avatar
Prologue: for those of you who haven't watched At The Movies with Margaret and David yet on ABC, firstly: WHAT ARE YOU DOING WITH YOUR LIFE?!?! and secondly, you might be a bit confused about the format of this movie review. It's a rip-off of Margaret and David's couch banter, infused with some of their mannerisms. And, as always, epic movies deserve epic reviews. So I called in reinforcements for this one. Please tolerate the length of this post and write a comment!!
~ Hurley Who?
CL: For a film with a budget of $300 million and that took James Cameron (of Titanic fame) the best part of a decade to make, I had high hopes for this film, and for the most part, it lived up to my expectations.
HW: I agree, CL. What makes the movie so great is not the story. Definitely not. It’s a pretty traditional, intro-complication-conclusion, run-of-the-mill story. What makes this movie great is the visuals. If anything, watch it so you can be transported to an extremely beautiful and well-thought out world. Spinning, bioluminescent insects? Crazy helicopters with two circular spinny things? Giant orange speckled winged creatures? Beautiful jellyfish-like delicate floating seeds from a sacred tree? It was definitely not a traditional 3D movie, where things jump out from the screen. The movie doesn’t need to stoop to such levels to amaze you. The landscape does that already, even without the 3D effects.
CL: I agree, I mean, conceiving the alien world was an unbelievable imaginary feat – there is so much detail and apparently James Cameron invented a whole language especially for the movie.
HW: Was that overkill? I don’t know. At the time, it felt appropriately exotic. It did take him 10 years to make the film.
CL: And, again, plot-wise, this isn’t stupefying or particularly original although there were nice political/moral subtexts, such as the parallels with recent invasions of foreign countries (e.g. Afghanistan, or further back, Vietnam) cemented by the familiar political catchphrase “hearts and minds” being thrown around in the movie.
HW: Well I thought the political and environmental message, was, at times, bleedingly obvious. In hindsight, it was a little too drawn out if you ask me. Environmental protection, over-mining, the war in Iraq/Afghanistan, pre-emptive strikes, a post-apocalyptic world blah blah blah… we’ve heard it all before. Don’t need James Cameron lecturing us about it.
CL: And at a running time of 161 mins (nearly 3 whooping hours) your brain starts to feel exhausted just after the first plot arc is executed. And I mean exhausted from the effort of actually processing the visual extravaganza on the screen...
HW: I found, at first, it was difficult to follow the extremely complex storyline. I didn’t know what Jake Scully (Sam Worthington) was doing on Pandora, or why or how or who got him there. But you figure everything out after the first hour. Then there’s two more hours of the movie to go, so you’re pretty much set.
CL: Interesting fact - lots of people (e.g. Herald critic Paul Brynes) have criticised the movie for not taking enough risks plot-wise, calling it a “beautiful folly, a technical wonder that represents a failure of nerve”, which I, your average movie goer, didn’t really think about too much when I was watching the movie, being far more focused on taking in the action on the screen, but in hindsight, they might have a point.
HW: While we’re on the subject of cons, I felt that the score sounded too much like the Titanic score, and every few minutes, I couldn’t help but hear Celine Dion’s voice in the back of my head because of the similarities. That kind of ruined the moment. Oh, and I thought the dialogue was a little stilted and exceedingly obvious. Especially Neytiri (Zoe Saldana). Then again, Jake Scully’s dialogue was not that much better. Or anyone else for that matter.
CL: Yep, the romance plot was bleugh, especially the dialogue there - “I’ve already picked that woman...” - oh dear… we get the point.
HW: Yea, and going on from that, what was essentially the last plot arc of many was a bit predictable too. Blue people fight humans. And -SPOILER ALERT- they win. As if we haven’t seen a thousand 'underdog rises to the top' movies already. But the sense of satisfaction, awe and wonder is still there because of those well-crafted battle scenes.
CL: But at the same time, Cameron does shy away from the full implications of clashes between dissimilar cultures/races. Like for instance, the political parallels with Afghanistan were there, but I couldn’t help but think when I was watching the film “there isn’t a Taliban”. It was extremely black and white morally – apart from a few good scientists, the humans were deranged, unobtanium hungry nut-cases (especially the Commando), and all the aliens were victimised natives- there was no grey area, and hence no scope for any really challenging, thought-provoking insights about such clashes to be made.
HW: That Commando dude both scared and amused me. On one hand, how can you take an old guy with that much muscle seriously? On the other, he was a tough cookie.
CL: Then, of course it ended happily – skimming over the reality of native cultures being destroyed or being forced to assimilate. But maybe that’s just what happens when you make a huge mainstream blockbuster; you can take risks with the look of the film, but not the message that the look is enhancing or maybe its a reflection of what we as audiences want – the reassuring, the uplifting, the ingratiatingly sentimental, even if it is the unrealistic or the unchallenging.
HW: Yep, there’s no denying that this movie was made for the mouth-breathing American public. And by looking at the sales figures, maybe the general public doesn’t want to be morally and ethically challenged. They just want a good time in the cinema. On the whole I thought it was a great film. I’m giving it 7.75 out of 10.
CL: I’m going to give it 8.1 out of 10.
~ CL and Hurley Who?
~ Hurley Who?
James Cameron and Sam Worthington
CL: For a film with a budget of $300 million and that took James Cameron (of Titanic fame) the best part of a decade to make, I had high hopes for this film, and for the most part, it lived up to my expectations.
HW: I agree, CL. What makes the movie so great is not the story. Definitely not. It’s a pretty traditional, intro-complication-conclusion, run-of-the-mill story. What makes this movie great is the visuals. If anything, watch it so you can be transported to an extremely beautiful and well-thought out world. Spinning, bioluminescent insects? Crazy helicopters with two circular spinny things? Giant orange speckled winged creatures? Beautiful jellyfish-like delicate floating seeds from a sacred tree? It was definitely not a traditional 3D movie, where things jump out from the screen. The movie doesn’t need to stoop to such levels to amaze you. The landscape does that already, even without the 3D effects.
CL: I agree, I mean, conceiving the alien world was an unbelievable imaginary feat – there is so much detail and apparently James Cameron invented a whole language especially for the movie.
HW: Was that overkill? I don’t know. At the time, it felt appropriately exotic. It did take him 10 years to make the film.
CL: And, again, plot-wise, this isn’t stupefying or particularly original although there were nice political/moral subtexts, such as the parallels with recent invasions of foreign countries (e.g. Afghanistan, or further back, Vietnam) cemented by the familiar political catchphrase “hearts and minds” being thrown around in the movie.
HW: Well I thought the political and environmental message, was, at times, bleedingly obvious. In hindsight, it was a little too drawn out if you ask me. Environmental protection, over-mining, the war in Iraq/Afghanistan, pre-emptive strikes, a post-apocalyptic world blah blah blah… we’ve heard it all before. Don’t need James Cameron lecturing us about it.
CL: And at a running time of 161 mins (nearly 3 whooping hours) your brain starts to feel exhausted just after the first plot arc is executed. And I mean exhausted from the effort of actually processing the visual extravaganza on the screen...
HW: I found, at first, it was difficult to follow the extremely complex storyline. I didn’t know what Jake Scully (Sam Worthington) was doing on Pandora, or why or how or who got him there. But you figure everything out after the first hour. Then there’s two more hours of the movie to go, so you’re pretty much set.
CL: Interesting fact - lots of people (e.g. Herald critic Paul Brynes) have criticised the movie for not taking enough risks plot-wise, calling it a “beautiful folly, a technical wonder that represents a failure of nerve”, which I, your average movie goer, didn’t really think about too much when I was watching the movie, being far more focused on taking in the action on the screen, but in hindsight, they might have a point.
HW: While we’re on the subject of cons, I felt that the score sounded too much like the Titanic score, and every few minutes, I couldn’t help but hear Celine Dion’s voice in the back of my head because of the similarities. That kind of ruined the moment. Oh, and I thought the dialogue was a little stilted and exceedingly obvious. Especially Neytiri (Zoe Saldana). Then again, Jake Scully’s dialogue was not that much better. Or anyone else for that matter.
CL: Yep, the romance plot was bleugh, especially the dialogue there - “I’ve already picked that woman...” - oh dear… we get the point.
HW: Yea, and going on from that, what was essentially the last plot arc of many was a bit predictable too. Blue people fight humans. And -SPOILER ALERT- they win. As if we haven’t seen a thousand 'underdog rises to the top' movies already. But the sense of satisfaction, awe and wonder is still there because of those well-crafted battle scenes.CL: But at the same time, Cameron does shy away from the full implications of clashes between dissimilar cultures/races. Like for instance, the political parallels with Afghanistan were there, but I couldn’t help but think when I was watching the film “there isn’t a Taliban”. It was extremely black and white morally – apart from a few good scientists, the humans were deranged, unobtanium hungry nut-cases (especially the Commando), and all the aliens were victimised natives- there was no grey area, and hence no scope for any really challenging, thought-provoking insights about such clashes to be made.
HW: That Commando dude both scared and amused me. On one hand, how can you take an old guy with that much muscle seriously? On the other, he was a tough cookie.
Getting ready to fight the greedy Americans
CL: Then, of course it ended happily – skimming over the reality of native cultures being destroyed or being forced to assimilate. But maybe that’s just what happens when you make a huge mainstream blockbuster; you can take risks with the look of the film, but not the message that the look is enhancing or maybe its a reflection of what we as audiences want – the reassuring, the uplifting, the ingratiatingly sentimental, even if it is the unrealistic or the unchallenging.
HW: Yep, there’s no denying that this movie was made for the mouth-breathing American public. And by looking at the sales figures, maybe the general public doesn’t want to be morally and ethically challenged. They just want a good time in the cinema. On the whole I thought it was a great film. I’m giving it 7.75 out of 10.
CL: I’m going to give it 8.1 out of 10.
~ CL and Hurley Who?