Starring: Will Ferrell, John C. Reilly
Director: Adam McKay
Release Date: July 25, 2008
Running Time: 95 min
MPAA Rating: R
Distributor: Columbia Pictures
Like Wedding Crashers, Knocked Up and 40-Year Old Virgin before it, Step Brothers is the latest in the trend of comedies where title alone sells you on the movie. All you needed to know was that Will Ferrell and John C. Reilly are adults who become step brothers after their parents get married. Your level of expectation is your own problem, but the title and cast told you whether or not you wanted to see this movie.
Me? I was sold. I like Will Ferrell. I agree that he is teetering on shark jumping territory as of late (I wrote in my review for Semi-Pro that his act was growing stale), but he has done enough quality work that as a collective group, the good outweighs the bad by a landslide. So I guess I should say that I still like Will Ferrell. But it is increasingly coming from a place of loyal reminiscence than active appreciation.
Step Brothers really is nothing more than I already described. Brannen Huff (Ferrell) is 39 years old, rarely employed and still lives with his mother Nancy (Mary Steenburgen). Dale Doback (Reilly) is equally fated and lives with his fater Robert (Richard Jenkins). Robert and Nancy meet on a whim, get married, and move in together. As the “boys” are forced to live together and interact, their aggravated laziness threatens the very foundation of the new family. The impact the boys’ actions have on the parents goes down a path of uninspired obviousness as they go back and forth between being friends and enemies.
For as talented an actor as John C. Reilly has been known to be, he possesses that rare quality of being able to balance his dramatic and comedic roles. His willingness not to take himself to seriously is the perfect volley to Ferrell’s serve. They are pretty evenly matched in the comedic arena when they are together. But while Ferrell tries his best to recapture some of the boyish naiveté that made Elf so successful, it doesn’t quite fit here because deep down the movie is just a little too mean spirited to make it work. Not that it is particularly a bad thing. In a movie as implausible and unbelievable as this, who am I to squawk at character development and dramatic range because let’s face it – Step Brothers isn’t that kind of movie.
No, Step Brothers is of the same brand of one-upmanship that all R-rated comedies have (d)evolved into in the last ten years. Ever since that kid that no one had ever heard of stuck his dingy in an apple pie and reinvented the genre, everyone to come after has been chasing the ace. Don’t get me wrong, this isn’t always bad, but we’ve been so desensitized that the next movie has to outdo the last one or we almost wont even pay attention.
So did I like it or not? It has its moments, but in between them are forced gags beyond what you already knew the movie was about. I’d say it is better than Semi-Pro and not as good as Anchorman. So that doesn’t really say much. I guess all you need to know was that Will Ferrell and John C. Reilly play adults who become step brothers after their parents get married. Your level of expectation is your own problem, but the title and cast should have already told you whether or not you wanted to see this movie.
And there’s the rub.
** ½ out of ****
Starring: Christian Bale, Heath Ledger, Aaron Eckhart, Gary Oldman, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Michael Cane, Morgan Freeman
Director: Christopher Nolan
Release Date: July 18, 2008
Running Time: 152 min
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Distributor: Warner Bros
I have done my absolute best to keep my expectations in check for The Dark Knight. Considering the fact that the viral marketing for this film started 2 years ago, the very notion of the film succeeding on any level under the weight of its own designed expectation isn’t simply preposterous – it is unimaginable. The truth is, for as overdone as the marketing seemed to be, the greatest prank the campaign pulled was fooling us all into thinking we were prepared for what we were about to experience.
For those who haven’t seen it I will keep it spoiler free but for anyone reading this, you already know enough of the plot to get started – Batman and the Joker battle for supremacy in Gotham. The first thing I noticed about the film that it has a completely different feel to it than any other movie based on a super hero or comic book character. You almost immediately forget you are watching a superhero, or even a Batman movie, as it hits the ground running with a bank heist. Instantly it has the feel of Michael Mann’s Heat. As the movie tears on, you realize that you aren’t watching a comic book movie at all but rather a sophisticated crime drama that happens to be housed in the walls of the superhero genre. That is just one of the many surprises Christopher Nolan has in store.
As a general rule of thumb, comic book/superhero movies stick to a couple basic ground rules: good versus evil where the hero is matched against a villain attempting to inflict peril on an unsuspecting city or group of people. To simply say The Dark Knight is different may be the understatement of the year. Nolan digs so much deeper and gives us a movie that is far more complex than that simple premise. In Batman Begins, we saw the the transformation of Bruce Wayne into Batman. The Dark Knight asks, “What now?” That ‘what now’ is that Wayne has grown weary of his role as Gotham’s savoir after being unjustly labeled a vigilante killer by the very city he has been trying to protect. The timing of the Joker’s introduction only further compounds this dilemma. He is at first, hell-bent on destroying Batman by way of humiliation by repeatedly asking him to reveal his true identity. He continues his murderous rampages while laying the blame at Batman’s feet. And everyone buys into the Joker’s plan. In the meantime, Batman/Bruce Wayne and Gotham have put all their faith in the city’s new District Attorney, Harvey Dent to rid the town of crime once and for all. It’s quite a little love triangle as each man realizes they need one another to fulfill their own agenda. Wayne realizes he needs Dent to help leave the life of Batman behind, the Joker realizes he needs Batman to feed his own anarchistic tendencies, and at one point or another Dent needs them both. The line of morality gets further blurred as we go. What is right and wrong in the name of right and wrong becomes the greater question as we further decent into the darkness of the human soul. It is that exploration that gives this film its bite and sets it apart from anything else before it.
The creation and application of Bruce Wayne’s alter-ego, is contingent on spending his time developing new weapons and armor in an effort to make himself as indestructible as he can because as a superhero without super powers. Batman is merely human and he knows his limitations. Where the Joker succeeds as an adversary is not attacking him physically but in his awareness of what makes Batman the way he is, or has become. Any of his attempted physical attacks are manifested from his understanding of the darkness where Batman exists. His weapon is knowledge and it is with this that he inflicts the most damage to Batman.
For all of this movie’s haunting moral complexities, it would be nothing without the excellent performances from its cast, of which there are many. Where do you start? Heath Ledger gives the performance of a lifetime – his or anyone else’s – as the Joker. His performance will go down as one of the greatest movie villains of all time, right next to Hannibal Lector in Silence of the Lambs, Darth Vader in Star Wars, and Alex DeLarge in A Clockwork Orange. It should come as no surprise that he seemingly pulled inspiration from all three. His Joker is sadistic, nihilistic, shows no empathy and is completely devoid of any character arc. What’s more, Ledger disappears into the role not just in his over the top approach to the character, but in the subtleties; the way he carries himself, the way he licks his lips like a rabid dog in between lines of dialogue, even the Joker’s trademark maniacal laugh has a psychotic tinge to it. As sad as it is that Ledger is not around to see and promote the film, it only fuels the performance that much further. The same way we are not given any explanation as to the Joker’s origin in the movie, we are all left to wonder just how Ledger brought that character to life as he did. It is perfect in every sense of the word and the lack of clarification as to how it happened makes it that much more haunting. It is hard to overlook the impact his death has on the movie but if he wins the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor, like he deserves, it will be because he gave us a brilliant performance, not because he can’t do it again.
As great as Ledger is, you can’t overlook the performances from the rest of the cast. Aaron Eckhart as the no-nonsense DA Harvey Dent and his eventual transformation into Two-Face is beautifully tragic and he plays both sides to the hilt. Dent balances out the film as he provides the character arc that the Joker could not. Maggie Gyllenhaal makes us all (happily) forget Katie Holmes ever had anything to do with these movies. Michael Caine as Alfred and Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox provide balance and wisdom in their respective roles. And Gary Oldman gives another understated performance as James Gordon. With a cast as strong as this, you start to gravitate away from the silly notion that seasoned and accomplished actors don’t belong in a genre movie like this.
At the end of it all, you have a swiftly paced 2 ½ hour movie that realizes every bit of ambition and scope that it set out to, and with respect, actually makes all previous Batman films worse by comparison. Nolan has created a masterpiece that will stay with you long after you finish watching it. Superman may have laid the foundation and Spider-Man may have made it a profitable business, but The Dark Knight transcends the genre by raising the bar and turning it into an art form.
And there’s the rub.
**** out of ****
Starring: Paul Giamatti, Laura Linney, Tom Wilkinson, David Morse, Stephen Dillane
Director: Tom Hooper
DVD Release Date: June 10, 2008
Running Time: 501 min
Distributor: HBO Films
“It is no small thing to build a new world, gentlemen.” – Ben Franklin
“I am determined to control events, not be controlled by them.” – John Adams
John Adams, the HBO miniseries based on David McCullough’s bestselling biography, accomplishes something that John Adams, the man, attempted to do for the better part of his political life, speak of his accomplishments, a feat which is achieved here in grand fashion. Most of our knowledge of John Adams is only that he was the 2nd President of the United States, but this miniseries tells a much broader story spanning more than 50 years, showing events before, during, and after his presidency. And what a fascinating story it is.
John Adams is the story of a man more complex than history would allow him to be viewed. John Adams (Paul Giamatti) was a stubborn little man whose moral foundation was built on strong principles far greater than most of those he surrounded himself with. His honesty and outspoken nature were among his best and worst characteristics. Beginning with his unpopular decision to defend the British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre in the name of the law, a foundation he held very close, most of his decision making prowess came in the form of counsel by his wife, Abigail Adams (Laura Linney). Some of his decisions made in her absence have been widely and rightly condemned as being poor. She was his voice of reason any time he was to let his emotion blindly drive him into doing or saying something out of turn. The movie plays very well as a love story between the two. Separated for the better part of the first 14 years of their marriage, she stood by her man through every adversity encountered in the name of chasing his dream.
The sacrifices made by Adams were greater than those involving his wife and his family. The friendships of the men we came to know as the Founding Fathers were also strained as the country declared its independence and moved forward with the revolution. It was interesting to watch men and their alliances transform as the differing views of how to run a country’s government began to take hold. There was no blueprint for success, there were no definition of boundaries and title; they were making it up as they went along. We now look to our country to guide us but there was no history telling them how things should be run. They simply did what they thought was best as determined by the collective majority of those put into power.
Watching John Adams is like discovering our own history for the first time. I found myself feeling very patriotic. More times than not when we get a movie that involves a part of our American history, it is told in a self aggrandizing manner. John Adams told the story from a much different perspective. It was not afraid to show the trouble these men had in making the decisions that eventually shaped our country into what it is today. It showed each man less God-like than history has made them out to be. It wasn’t easy and mistakes were made. For that I think we should all be more thankful knowing they were ordinary men with extraordinary dreams and the fortitude and drive to realize them regardless of what obstacle stood in their way.
You cannot watch this film without being in awe of the multitude of great performances. Giamatti and Linney were the backbone to be sure, but the supporting members of the story provided a depth that would not have been able to be achieved if it weren’t for the great acting. Tom Wilkinson plays Benjamin Franklin as a man wise beyond his years and just as crazy. Stephen Dillane as Thomas Jefferson is a sophisticated southerner as headstrong in his ideals as the next, and David Morse as General and President George Washington not only bears an uncanny resemblance to our nation’s first president, he commands attention every time he is on screen.
Toward the end of the series, after another bout of frustration with how his legacy is to be upheld, Adams tells his wife that he should have followed his father’s course and been a farming, shoemaking, deacon so as to have avoided what he deemed to be only headaches left in the wake of his political career. The fact of the matter is that when a man makes sacrifices as John Adams did during his life to realize a dream that he may not even live to fully realize, that shows a selflessness of immeasurable proportion that we cannot fully grasp in our present state of affairs. History may not have allowed him to be as iconic a figure as the rest of the Founding Fathers, but for all his shortcomings he had something most of the rest of them lacked. He was honest and driven, yet fallible. That he made no apology for being any of these things made something far more important than any character trait he may have possessed: human.
And there’s the rub.
**** out of ****
Starring (voices): Jack Black, Angelina Jolie, Dustin Hoffman, Seth Rogen, Jackie Chan, Lucy Liu, David Cross
Director: Mark Osborne and John Stevenson
Release Date: June 6, 2008
Running Time: 92 min
MPAA Rating: PG
Distributor: DreamWorks Animation
More than a decade since the release of Toy Story, the new car smell from the age of computer animated feature films is gone. Anymore, it is difficult to justify liking something simply because it looks good. I’m afraid that ship has sailed. No, now we assume the films will look great and we look to the story to work in conjunction with the animation to make a great film. Nowadays our assumptions and expectations have been heightened by the success of so many computer animated feature films, but there are a few really great ones. It is time to clear off a spot towards the top because we have a new member into that illustrious circle.
Kung Fu Panda is the story of Po (Jack Black), a gentile, lumbering beast of a panda who works for his father, who just happens to be a goose, in his noodle shop. He daydreams of kung fu but is not what you would call a pillar of physical fitness. No, he is as clumsy as you would imagine a panda bear to be at such a skillful art such as kung fu. Or waiting tables. Or walking stairs, up or down. Po idolizes the Furious Five, a group of supremely skilled martial arts warriors trained by their master, Shifu (Dustin Hoffman), so much so he talks to their action figures in his bedroom window upon waking up each morning. When an ancient master has a vision that an imprisoned evil warrior Tai Lung (Ian McShane), a former student of Shifu, will escape and return malice to the Valley of Peace, he calls for a formal ceremony so he can determine who is the mightiest of warriors and name them the Dragon Warrior.
Po heads to the ceremony, overwhelmed by the prospect of being able to see in action and in person, the Furious Five: Tigress (Angelina Jolie), Monkey (Jackie Chan), Mantis (Seth Rogen), Viper (Lucy Liu), and Crane (David Cross). He lumbers up the infinite amount of stairs to get to the stadium only to realize it has taken him so long the doors have closed, leaving him outside with no clear line of site. As the ceremony takes place inside and the Furious Five perform, he finally devises a plan to make it inside to see the action. Only he falls in from the sky just as Master Oogway is choosing the Dragon Warrior. Who do you think he picked?
This much and the rest of the story is void of any real surprises from a narrative perspective, but the writing is not lazy either. It’s just pretty modest martial arts fare. So what makes the movie so good? I can’t really say it’s any one thing more than another. The story is good enough with the perfect blend of action and humor. My only complaint is that the characters of the Furious Five weren’t as developed as the rest. It would have made the story longer and probably resulted in a loss of steam, but I would have liked to see more of them. And I know I just got through saying it doesn’t count but it is worth mentioning that the animation is really spectacular. DreamWorks Animation really stepped up their game from their previous films. Not only is it beautifully drawn and colorfully vibrant, the action scenes are extremely well choreographed. You can definitely tell a lot of care was put into making them as artistic as possible.
The more I think about it, the best part of the film is not all of the things I mentioned but more what it is not. The original idea of the film was to make it a parody and a spoof of martial arts movies. But co-director John Stevenson disliked the idea and went decided to give the film and epic feel to it while blending in light comedy so it could stand beside the films he aimed to model it after rather than make fun of them. Mission accomplished, sir. Now there’s your secret ingredient.
And there’s the rub
*** ½ out of ****
So I’m in the theatre seeing who knows what with my better half. We watch the previews and turn to each other after each one is over and give the one look critique in silence. You know, that head shake or whatever to determine if this is one she sees with me or one I am on my own for. The first time I see the trailer for 10,000 B.C. I have to admit I was interested. It looked pretty decent. I turn to her shaking my head yes and am met with a blank stare and the following statement; “Are you kidding me? Aren’t you a movie critic?”
Touché.
I sign up to review the movie and literally that night saw the trailer again in front of something else. Once again I thought it looked decent. Then I started thinking. Where is the dialogue? What is the story about? Wait, why did I think this was going to be good after hearing again who made it?
Dear God, what have I done.
One things for sure, no one ever accused Roland Emmerich of being a master craftsman. His previous attempts to direct have yielded exactly one and three fourths of a half decent movie – Independence Day, The Patriot, and Stargate. I can’t decide which movie makes up which percent, but I’m sticking to my figures.
Movies involving history or past events that are alleged to have taken place are tricky business. People making these movies typically try to stick to the facts as much as possible and interject the story with life where they see fit to make the story flow. Fair enough, I say. I imagine the idea of a movie like 10,000 B.C., in its infancy, was designed to tell a story focused not so much on fact, but rather an interesting setting. Again, fair enough.
There are just far too many things to attack with a movie this bad. The story itself is a garden variety prehistoric odyssey with no heart. And I may have been schooled in the butt crack of the Midwest but even I know English wasn’t the native tongue ten thousand years ago. In an interview with Emmerich he said he decided to use English in the movie because he felt using an ancient language wouldn’t have been as emotionally engaging. He went on to say that faced with the dilemma of forcing the audience to read subtitles of a language they didn’t understand and look at what was on screen, he opted for the latter. Hearing this made me immediately assume that what we were being forced to look at would have overcompensated for the lack of story. Aside from a couple scenes in the movie, it did not.
It’s hard to say if the movie is meant to be a history lesson of any kind. If it is, then it is grossly irresponsible. I thought it less of a lesson in history rather than one of economics; the study of the production, distribution, and consumption of good and services. It is bad economics to make a movie of this size and spend all the money in the budget on a handful of scenes. Emmerich is known for doing this and why he keeps being allowed to do so without producing a decent picture is beyond me. The lesson here is that if you don’t want to see it then don’t go and you win, right? Well this may be true to a point but look at it like this: A studio spends umpteen million dollars to make a pile of a movie like this then is forced to oversaturated the market with its product. This means you get sixteen showings a day of 10,000 B.C. at your local theatre while movies that cost less to make, and therefore loss less if they make less, get pulled early or not ran at all. So even if you don’t go see movies like this, you still lose.
I guess they’re right; there IS no such thing as a free lunch.
And there’s the rub
* out of ****
Starring: Dennis Quaid, Matthew Fox, William Hurt
Director: Pete Travis
Release Date: February 22, 2008
Running time: 90 min
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Distributors: Sony Pictures
Eight strangers with eight different points of view try to unlock the one truth behind an assassination attempt on the United States of America.
The concept itself is intriguing. Any time there is a story newsworthy enough to be plastered all over every channel in the known world, we get the same details drudged out in front of us until a new perspective is offered. So to concentrate all perspectives into a 90 minute movie should be nothing if not efficient.
11:59:57… 58… 59… 12:00:00 as the church bell rings.
The GNN crew is covering an anti-terrorism summit in Spain. A TV producer directs various cameramen and anchors as President Ashton (William Hurt) arrives. He is introduced, takes the podium, then two shots in the chest from afar. An explosion in the distance, then the podium explodes. People die. Freeze-frame. Rewind.
11:59:57… 58… 59… 12:00:00 as the church bell rings.
Secret Service agents Thomas Barnes (Dennis Quaid) and Kent Taylor (Matthew Fox) escort the President to the anti-terrorism summit. One of them thinks he sees a shooter. The President takes two to the chest. The other chases someone. An explosion in the distance, then the podium explodes. People die. Freeze-frame. Rewind.
11:59:57… 58… 59… 12:00:00 as the church bell rings.
American tourist Howard Lewis (Forest Whitaker) parades around by himself filming the anti-terrorism summit. This makes sense because that’s exactly the vacation we all want to take by ourselves. He thinks he sees a shooter in the window. He films it. The President takes two to the chest. An explosion in the distance, then the podium explodes. People die. He runs after someone because he’s apparently a vigilante now. Freeze-frame. Rewind.
Christ this is getting old…
The alarm clock strikes 6:00 AM, “I Got You Babe” comes on the alarm clock radio and – oops, wrong movie.
Where were we? Oh, Spain. President, explosions, dying, chasing. Got it.
The story itself is a slim 23 minutes long; from beginning to end. Conceptually I get it, but in order to make it work I need to care why these people are doing what they are doing. Or not doing. I didn’t. I didn’t care about one of these characters; a lack of character back story and poor acting is not something this movie needed to contend with. And the transitions between the stories were awful. Literally freeze-frames and a fast rewind montage to get you back to the beginning. After about the fifth time, I half expected the General Lee to come blasting across the screen and freeze so Waylon Jennings could voice over his concern for how the Duke boys were going get themselves out of this mess.
Now THERE’s high concept.
You know that friend who thinks it’s funny to wrap your Christmas present in six different boxes like a Matryoshka doll only to find it’s a gift card at the bottom to a store you don’t like? Or how you made your parents buy you a Happy Meal every week for a month so you could collect all the Matchbox cars? But since it was a McDonald’s toy it was a generic non-brand name toy car where the decals didn’t line up and the wheels didn’t work?
That’s this movie.
The good news is Happy Meal toys have improved since I was a kid. Bad news is this movie will always suck.
And there’s the rub.
½ * out of ****
“I assure you, whatever the other promise to do, when it comes to the showdown, they won’t be there…”
It is not a surprise why these two movies are being compared. Both of the movies were released by the same company. Both based on novels. Both have brilliantly abrupt endings that will be debated for years. And both are the best films their respective directors have made. For as good a movie and as well made as it is, this film is Daniel Day Lewis. Without his performance, I doubt the movie secures its spot in the pantheon of American cinema.
And that’s exactly what this movie is – American – like pickup trucks and baseball games. The story deals with themes and ideas that are not only relevant in today’s world, they still exist; both the good and the bad. This is the way civilized America was made. This is the way towns and churches were built. Cutthroat. It was literally do or die. At face value it’s as simple as good versus evil. What is interesting is the way the perceptions between the two shift and morph as the movie progresses. Below the surface is where empires were created.
“Just give me the blood Lord and get me away from this.”
At the core of the film is Daniel Plainview and he is a fighter. He fights the system that created him and anyone who gets in his way. He will stop at nothing to get what it is that he’s after. At first we think it’s simply oil or money but we realize it’s more than that. He will never be fully satisfied. His animal is fed through the chase. He wants to be the best and end up on top, but his idea of the best doesn’t exist in the known world. So he will always continue to do more. This is true in his work, his business relationships, and his widely skewed vision of a family.
“It’s the truth, you’re not my son. And you never have been. You’re an orphan… and you’ve operated like one here today.”
Among all of the struggles at play, the central conflict in the movie is between Daniel Plainview and Eli Sunday (Paul Dano). It is obvious Eli is not a true believer. He is an opportunist, same as Plainview. So you have to ask yourself, which man is worse? Plainview for being the way he is and has proven to always be, or Eli for trying to sell himself as the profit and the only true way. Does Eli’s hypocrisy make him a bigger monster than Daniel? Does his contrast to Eli make Daniel’s qualities more admirable? Both men are miserable but at least Plainview makes no bones about that fact. He has chosen not to have a family or friends. He has not allowed himself to trust enough to let people get close to him. His love is his work. The blind ambition that both men posses cause each of them to be destroyed. By implosion or explosion is left to be debated.
“I did what your brother couldn’t. I broke you and I beat you.”
This is my kind of movie in that the answers aren’t laid out there for you to pick through like the quarter box at a garage sale. You have to do some thinking and draw your own conclusions. You look hard enough you are going to see the gem in the middle. You dig deep enough and you will see this film for what it is – a masterpiece in a class all its own. It may take some doing, but once you finally get there, you will embody the same feeling Daniel Plainview has at the pinnacle of his madness at the end of the film:
Righteousness.
And there’s the rub.
**** out of ****
As I was walking out of seeing this movie, a group of people were in front of me talking amongst themselves as they walked out. One of them dropped a folded up piece of paper. I picked it up and tried to chase them down to hand it back to them, but I lost them in the lobby. After reading it (what, you wouldn’t?), I thought I’d share given the nature of the afternoon we just spent together.
Dear Hollywood,
I writing this letter on behalf of the group of young people you so affectionately refer to as ‘stoners’. While we appreciate your trying to speak to our demographic in recent years, I as chair person speak for the entirety of the group when I say, “enough is enough”. We are tired of being talked down to like we should expect nothing more simply because of the choice of recreation we decide to embark on.
To say ‘enough’ is not to say we don’t get it. We get that you are trying to pigeon-hole us into watching admittedly dumber movies because well, we have in the past. But we’ve sat through the last “stoners trying to save, their own ass” saga. I’m sure you, like us, no doubt understand the mathematical equation of the basic stoner comedy.
(s2+ T) x W = A
Or, two stoners plus a ridiculous task times weed equals awesomeness. But if you have a grasp these basic algorithmic concepts, then you surely understand the problems that can occur when you disrupt the flow of control within these individual statements. In computer science, a loop is a sequence of statements which is specified once but which may be carried out several times in succession. Most programming languages have constructions for repeating a loop until some condition changes. This is all well and good, but you flew too close to the sun, didn’t you? While operating under the notion of a condition-controlled loop, you tried too hard to force the idea by creating events that will run on their own; events that would eventually create an infinite loop. The only problem with that is that these loops are only designed to work until an exceptional condition such as an error arises. In other words, an event-driven program may be intended to loop forever handling events as they occur; only stopping when the process is killed by the operator. You sirs, dear operators, have killed this very process. A process that is know and understood by us, and previously held dear – the stoner movie. As a result, we are no longer interested in your product or products of similar likeness.
We will no longer become test subjects in an experiment that does not allow us to think for ourselves. We will no longer watch people of lesser intellect pass off their lack of skill as that of being “high”. While we appreciate what you are trying to do for our own sake, please allow us to respectfully spit it back at you as we have had our fill, thank you.
Not that we would ever tell anyone what to do because, you know, it goes against that whole ‘voice of a generation’ thing we have going, but a few pieces of advice: in the future, when trying to recreate the feeling of our group taking part in our recreation of choice, please do not attempt to “get one over on us” because you think we wont notice. Please do not include players from previously successful movies in your own. If they cannot produce on their own merit, then don’t insult us by assuming just because we see Farva from Super Troopers that we are going to clap and cheer and say, “oooh, far out. Look, it’s Farva!” in response. Please do not include people like Steve Zahn in you film and hope to rest lightly on the fact that he can be very funny, because he wasn’t here. At all. Jonah Hill is not funny, stop giving him work. Aside from Die Hard and those Mac commercials, Justin Long isn’t either. And as cute as it is that your characters in your movie are named after the same people that made it, the next time you all decide to make a movie, do us all this one little favor: Take the paper you were going to waste printing the script, roll it up with your favorite bud (kind or otherwise cleverly named), and smoke it. Smoke like you never smoked anything in your life. Then for the love of all that is holy in this world, we hope you fucking choke on it. Given the choice, next time I’d rewatch Norbit.
Repectfully (of course),
The Stoners
All this time I thought I was the critic. Go figure.
And there’s the rub.
ZERO out of ****
