Trading Lincecum?

[Heathbar012]

I have not seen it. How does it compare to Strange Brew?

Shot different. It's a TV show done in that mockumentary style. Worse acting, but just as funny. Possibly funnier.

 

[tzill]

Village Voice review:

I'm sure the pot-laced antics of these trashy dudes are, like, totally hilarious on Canadian TV, but they don't translate well to America or the big screen.

 

[Heathbar012]

Village Voice review:

I'm sure the pot-laced antics of these trashy dudes are, like, totally hilarious on Canadian TV, but they don't translate well to America or the big screen.

The TV show is better than the movie, and the day I let the Village Voice decide what I want to take in as entertainment is the day I, likely, cease being entertained.

 

[tzill]

The TV show is better than the movie, and the day I let the Village Voice decide what I want to take in as entertainment is the day I, likely, cease being entertained.

Julia Wallace is a pretty solid reviewer, dude. Metacritic rates it a 38/100.

Just sayin'...

 

[Heathbar012]

Julia Wallace is a pretty solid reviewer, dude. Metacritic rates it a 38/100.

Just sayin'...

The merits of the reviewer mean nothing to me. Reviews by non-peers, in general, are useless. I've wanted the two hours of my life back after watching a movie plenty of times, but it has never been so excruciating that I wished someone from a free New York weekly newspaper had warned me away from it. I pay more attention when a friend says, "Don't bother."

I've never even seen The Trailer Park Boys' movie. The TV show is fantastic, so I assume the formula just doesn't translate well to the longer medium. Coneheads blew, too, but that won't sour me on the SNL skits.

 

[filosofy29]

Julia Wallace is a pretty solid reviewer, dude. Metacritic rates it a 38/100.

Just sayin'...

What was The Trailer Park Boys WAR?

 

[tzill]

The merits of the reviewer mean nothing to me. Reviews by non-peers, in general, are useless. I've wanted the two hours of my life back after watching a movie plenty of times, but it has never been so excruciating that I wished someone from a free New York weekly newspaper had warned me away from it. I pay more attention when a friend says, "Don't bother."

I've never even seen The Trailer Park Boys' movie. The TV show is fantastic, so I assume the formula just doesn't translate well to the longer medium. Coneheads blew, too, but that won't sour me on the SNL skits.

If you find you don't agree with JW, then fine...but at least have an informed opinon before you dismiss her out-of-hand as a writer for a "free NY weekly newspaper." FWIW, I too listen to friends' takes wrt movies, and I've learned which opinions to trust and which to ignore. Sorta like how I deal with reviewers. For instance, if Michael Sragow likes something there is about a zero chance I won't -- he's built up that credibility over the years with reviews that jibe with my tastes. In a sense, he's my "movie peer."

I've not seen the TV show, but my wife's family (who are Canadian) have a range of views on it from "lame" to "pretty funny." I was merely providing an educated opinion from someone I trust who actually saw the thing.

As you get older, you may find that it's more than "getting two hours of your life back." It's an opportunity cost issue: I can only see so many movies a year -- about 30 -- in the theatres. Thus, I've got to choose wisely b/c every Avatar robs me not only of my $10 and my two hours, but also the opportunity to see a good movie.

 

[tzill]

What was The Trailer Park Boys WAR?

Yes!! Mad rep. There should be a EARM stat...entertainment above replacement movie. The benchmark could be something like Lincoln Lawyer, which would be set to EARM of 0.0.

Lolita, Sling Blade, Romeo is Bleeding, Godfather I and II would all be in the 7+ EARM class.

Avatar -1.5.

Nice

 

[calsnowskier]

Yes!! Mad rep. There should be a EARM stat...entertainment above replacement movie. The benchmark could be something like Lincoln Lawyer, which would be set to EARM of 0.0.

Lolita, Sling Blade, Romeo is Bleeding, Godfather I and II would all be in the 7+ EARM class.

Avatar -1.5.

Nice

What's with the hate on Avatar?

Was the story mind lowing and original? Nope.

Was the experience as a whole enjoyable? You Betcha.

The special effects, the reserved use of 3-D (as opposed to the 80's cheesy use), and the Blue-Boobies made it a decent recipient of the Oscar, IMHO. Although, granted, it was a weak year for Oscar-worthy flicks that year.

Does it compare with Godfather, Goodfellas, Clerks, Matrix, Fight Club, etc? Absolutely not. But I would give it a 2.0 to 3.0 EARM.

 

[Heathbar012]

If you find you don't agree with JW, then fine...but at least have an informed opinon before you dismiss her out-of-hand as a writer for a "free NY weekly newspaper." FWIW, I too listen to friends' takes wrt movies, and I've learned which opinions to trust and which to ignore. Sorta like how I deal with reviewers. For instance, if Michael Sragow likes something there is about a zero chance I won't -- he's built up that credibility over the years with reviews that jibe with my tastes. In a sense, he's my "movie peer."

I've not seen the TV show, but my wife's family (who are Canadian) have a range of views on it from "lame" to "pretty funny." I was merely providing an educated opinion from someone I trust who actually saw the thing.

As you get older, you may find that it's more than "getting two hours of your life back." It's an opportunity cost issue: I can only see so many movies a year -- about 30 -- in the theatres. Thus, I've got to choose wisely b/c every Avatar robs me not only of my $10 and my two hours, but also the opportunity to see a good movie.

That's just it. I don't watch any movies in the theatres anymore. My fixed Netflix cost is all that stands between me and entertainment bliss or agony.

I apologize for making it sound like I was dismissing Ms. Wallace's opinion solely because her periodical represents and appeals to a faction of society that I don't relate to. I was dismissing her opinion because I dismiss all reviewers opinions. They have hidden agendas, and no idea what I like. I would rather take the two hours to stream the movie than however many hours it would take to find a reviewer that I trust, and then read more of their reviews.

You're right. Eventually, I will have kids, and not have the time to simply chance it. I figure I won't be able to do a lot of the things that I enjoy when that time comes, and I still won't care about losing two hours. I'll most likely nap through all movies, anyway. :popeye:

 

[tzill]

What's with the hate on Avatar?

Was the story mind lowing and original? Nope.

Was the experience as a whole enjoyable? NOPE

The special effects, the reserved use of 3-D (as opposed to the 80's cheesy use), and the Blue-Boobies made it a decent recipient of the Oscar, IMHO. Although, granted, it was a weak year for Oscar-worthy flicks that year.

Does it compare with Godfather, Goodfellas, Clerks, Matrix, Fight Club, etc? Absolutely not. But I would give it a 2.0 to 3.0 EARM.

It was awful. Awful dialogue, angry Sigourney Weaver, awful derivative script (Dances With Blue Alien Wolves). Several cringeworthy moments and a sledgehammer trite point (ENVIRONMENTALISM!! DAMMIT!! DON'T CLEAR CUT THE RAINFOREST!!). It's as if he spent millions on special effects and hired a couple of HS sophomores to write the script. Pain....ful.

It didn't win the Oscar, and it wasn't a weak film year either. The Hurt Locker won (and was amazing), An Education was excellent, A Serious Man was great, Up In The Air was stellar, and Precious was damn good too. District 9 was good, Inglorious Bastards was very good. Blind Side was meh, and I didn't see Up. Of the 9 nominated films I saw, Avatar was dead last....and should not have been nominated for film. SFX, sure, but film??? Please. It was a pile of poop. Blue, trite, annoying poop.

 

[Heathbar012]

It was awful. Awful dialogue, angry Sigourney Weaver, awful derivative script (Dances With Blue Alien Wolves). Several cringeworthy moments and a sledgehammer trite point (ENVIRONMENTALISM!! DAMMIT!! DON'T CLEAR CUT THE RAINFOREST!!). It's as if he spent millions on special effects and hired a couple of HS sophomores to write the script. Pain....ful.

It didn't win the Oscar, and it wasn't a weak film year either. The Hurt Locker won (and was amazing), An Education was excellent, A Serious Man was great, Up In The Air was stellar, and Precious was damn good too. District 9 was good, Inglorious Bastards was very good. Blind Side was meh, and I didn't see Up. Of the 9 nominated films I saw, Avatar was dead last....and should not have been nominated for film. SFX, sure, but film??? Please. It was a pile of poop. Blue, trite, annoying poop.

Dances with Fern Gully Blue Alien Wolves, but I get your point.

 

[tzill]

That's just it. I don't watch any movies in the theatres anymore. My fixed Netflix cost is all that stands between me and entertainment bliss or agony.

I apologize for making it sound like I was dismissing Ms. Wallace's opinion solely because her periodical represents and appeals to a faction of society that I don't relate to. I was dismissing her opinion because I dismiss all reviewers opinions. They have hidden agendas, and no idea what I like. I would rather take the two hours to stream the movie than however many hours it would take to find a reviewer that I trust, and then read more of their reviews.

You're right. Eventually, I will have kids, and not have the time to simply chance it. I figure I won't be able to do a lot of the things that I enjoy when that time comes, and I still won't care about losing two hours. I'll most likely nap through all movies, anyway. :popeye:

Yeah, I understand. When I was in my early 20s, I saw 75-100 films in the theatres each year. I really like seeing movies in the theatre. And I've napped through plenty of my wife's picks (most recently Bridesmaids). As for time spent finding/reading reviews, my experience is that I've already done my upfront work on that -- I know which reviewers to trust and which don't jibe with my tastes at all. So, when I am deciding between films (e.g. 50/50 v. Take Shelter) I can pretty quickly find a reviewer who I trust who has seen both. In other words, very little search cost. The older I get, the more I appreciate that.

 

[Heathbar012]

Yeah, I understand. When I was in my early 20s, I saw 75-100 films in the theatres each year. I really like seeing movies in the theatre. And I've napped through plenty of my wife's picks (most recently Bridesmaids). As for time spent finding/reading reviews, my experience is that I've already done my upfront work on that -- I know which reviewers to trust and which don't jibe with my tastes at all. So, when I am deciding between films (e.g. 50/50 v. Take Shelter) I can pretty quickly find a reviewer who I trust who has seen both. In other words, very little search cost. The older I get, the more I appreciate that.

The older I get, the less searching I want to do, but I don't bill my time at your rate. It won't be the first time that my laziness has led to even more lost time, and I'm sure it won't be the last. Anybody wanna watch 3,000 Miles to Graceland?

 

[calsnowskier]

It was awful. Awful dialogue, angry Sigourney Weaver, awful derivative script (Dances With Blue Alien Wolves). Several cringeworthy moments and a sledgehammer trite point (ENVIRONMENTALISM!! DAMMIT!! DON'T CLEAR CUT THE RAINFOREST!!). It's as if he spent millions on special effects and hired a couple of HS sophomores to write the script. Pain....ful.

It didn't win the Oscar, and it wasn't a weak film year either. The Hurt Locker won (and was amazing), An Education was excellent, A Serious Man was great, Up In The Air was stellar, and Precious was damn good too. District 9 was good, Inglorious Bastards was very good. Blind Side was meh, and I didn't see Up. Of the 9 nominated films I saw, Avatar was dead last....and should not have been nominated for film. SFX, sure, but film??? Please. It was a pile of poop. Blue, trite, annoying poop.

I do not disagree with any of your points about the movie. The plot was stale and the writing was meh at best.

But the sfx were soooooo far and away the best ever put on film that it was worth the money (I saw it IMAX and 3D, so I spent, I think, $18??). I usually get pissed when any movie gets preachy, and Avatar was certainly preachy. But I guess I have thrown in the towel on that aspect of Hollywood today, so I am more able to turn off that part of my hatred of the industry. I saw that part of the film, but was able to compartmentalize it away from the rest of the film.

I did not like Hurt Locker. I thought the character development was non-existent. Rener's character was so one-dimensional that he was hard to have any compassion for. I just did not think the movie compared to other War movies of the last 25 years (SPR, FMJ, heck, even Jarheads was better, IMHO).

Up in the Air was good, but pretty forgettable.

Up was good, and very touching.

Inglorious Bastards was GREAT, and I wold have been OK with it winning, but it just did not have the feel of an Oscar winner.

District 9 was a joke of a nomination. Good movie, but no way did it deserve a nom.

I have yet to see Precious, but it is on my list of movies to see. I like the chic in it. She is great in Big C and she looks funny in Tower Heist.

I have not seen Education either, and to be honest, I have completely forgotten it even existed.

Blind side was a decent, feel-good movie, but like District 9, had no business getting nominated.

 

[tzill]

I do not disagree with any of your points about the movie. The plot was stale and the writing was meh at best.

But the sfx were soooooo far and away the best ever put on film that it was worth the money (I saw it IMAX and 3D, so I spent, I think, $18??). I usually get pissed when any movie gets preachy, and Avatar was certainly preachy. But I guess I have thrown in the towel on that aspect of Hollywood today, so I am more able to turn off that part of my hatred of the industry. I saw that part of the film, but was able to compartmentalize it away from the rest of the film.

I did not like Hurt Locker. I thought the character development was non-existent. Rener's character was so one-dimensional that he was hard to have any compassion for. I just did not think the movie compared to other War movies of the last 25 years (SPR, FMJ, heck, even Jarheads was better, IMHO).

Up in the Air was good, but pretty forgettable.

Up was good, and very touching.

Inglorious Bastards was GREAT, and I wold have been OK with it winning, but it just did not have the feel of an Oscar winner.

District 9 was a joke of a nomination. Good movie, but no way did it deserve a nom.

I have yet to see Precious, but it is on my list of movies to see. I like the chic in it. She is great in Big C and she looks funny in Tower Heist.

I have not seen Education either, and to be honest, I have completely forgotten it even existed.

Blind side was a decent, feel-good movie, but like District 9, had no business getting nominated.

District 9 was actually very smartly done and moved well. As for Hurt Locker...well, we'll have to disagree as that movie was subtlely BRILLIANT. If you saw him as "one dimensional" than, no disrespect intended, you weren't paying attention. The film makes you work, but it's worth the effort. He's an adrenaline junkie and he acts like a stone cold addict. I recently saw it again and was even more impressed that the first time. It wasn't a "war film" so much as a character study. If you expected a "war film" then I could see why you'd be disappointed.

 

[tzill]

Oh, and Blind Side was borderline crap. EXACTLY the type of crap movie Hollywood churns out with nauseating regularity.

 

[calsnowskier]

District 9 was actually very smartly done and moved well. As for Hurt Locker...well, we'll have to disagree as that movie was subtlely BRILLIANT. If you saw him as "one dimensional" than, no disrespect intended, you weren't paying attention. The film makes you work, but it's worth the effort. He's an adrenaline junkie and he acts like a stone cold addict. I recently saw it again and was even more impressed that the first time. It wasn't a "war film" so much as a character study. If you expected a "war film" then I could see why you'd be disappointed.

I can appreciate character studies. Unforgiven is one of the best character-studies ever made, as was Gran Torrino. Neither of those movies were what I expected when I saw them for the first time, and both simply blew me away on first viewing.

Hurt Locker seemed too canned and cliche for my tastes.

 

[calsnowskier]

Oh, and Blind Side was borderline crap. EXACTLY the type of crap movie Hollywood churns out with nauseating regularity.

I am guessing we are both in agreement that the expansion to 9 noms for Best Pic was a bad idea (if you remove the obvious marketing reason that it was done for, that is).

 

[guitarmy21b]

I hated the hurt locker. I've done the job and that might be the most inaccurate and retarded army movie I've ever seen.