March 04, 2011

Movie Review: The Adjustment Bureau
— Ace

One star. I think it's probably one and a half stars, but I'm deducting a half-star for the completely deceptive marketing campaign, which sells this as the sort of movie I wanted to see when in fact it's a completely different one. A really gaytarded one.

This the quickest way I can review this piece of shit. I'm going to give you two movie pitches. You decide which you think you'd probably like to see.

Pitch One: Jake Dale is a hotshot technologist who's just perfected a new form of laser propulsion that will lift man to the stars. But after he crosses paths with a mysterious woman, he finds events of his past life keep changing -- and finds that a sinister cabal of fedora-wearing corporate "fixers" from the future are intruding into his world to change events so that priceless patents become the property of the all-powerful future megacorporation. And now that they've stolen his tech, it's time to erase him from the timeline! See... The Corporate Agenda!

Pitch Two: Jake Dale is the youngest man ever elected to Congress in America, whom the newspapers call "New York's Bad-Boy Congressman." He meets a pretty dancer and they kiss. Suddenly a band of goofy, fedora-wearing bureaucrats from heaven, angels with a madcap agenda, try to stop him from hooking up with his would-be girlfriend because God, who they call "the Chairman," thinks he'll wind up too happy if he marries her and then won't fulfill his divine fate of becoming President of the United States. See... Conspiracy of Love!

Okay, which would you see?

I'm assuming that 90% of you would say the first one. (Goofy title aside.) It seems the studio releasing The Adjustment Bureau also thinks that 90% of people would want to see that first one, because all of the ads portray it as being just that.

In fact, it's the second one-- that second pitch actually describes the actual plot of The Adjustment Bureau. You may think I've made stuff up and made it sound sillier than it is, but in fact, I just gave you the actual plot. That was all real, yo! The movie is a romantic comedy with a genial fantasy twist about bureaucratic angels who work for "The Chairman" and set people's lives according to plan through little telekinetic nudges, like making someone miss a crucial meeting by making him spill coffee on himself.

Oh, and a newspaper does call Matt Damon "New York's Bad-Boy Congressman."

I'm not lying. Seriously.

Anyway, I have a question: Since the studio knows that that first pitch is likely to make more money, and please more people, why didn't they just make that movie? Why did they make the second movie and then try to sell it as the first?

If they knew that first pitch was a winner, why did they make, as one reviewer calls it waggishly, "a Philip K. Dick romantic comedy"?

And yes, Philip K. Dick did write the story this was based on. Do not be deceived. This is not a thriller. It's a fantasy romance, and not a good one.

Huh. The guy who always writes about mind-control and androids can't write genial romantic comedy? Who knew?

I use the word "comedy" advisedly. Although it is a comedy of sorts, it's clumsy, awkward one, because when a movie's bad, you really don't know where the jokes are intended and where they just sort of happen due to incompetence.

For a movie about fate as written by God himself, no one here seemed to have any good plan of what the hell to do with this basic material.

Now that I've saved you $10 for a theater ticket, let me also save you $5 for a Blockbuster rental, too: Don't rent it, either. See it free if at all.

Because, conservatives should know, Matt Damon spends the first ten minutes of the movie running for Senate on Obama's basic platform (telling his enthusiastic fans "the future belongs to the young" or some horseshit like that) and meeting all the usual liberal assholes who show up in movies about politics, like James Carville and Terry MacCauliffe. Actually, the usual liberal assholes are sort of absent -- finally, a movie about politics in which Chris Matthes does not appear.

No one watches his show in real life; why does everyone watch it in the movies? Anyway, he's not here. But I'm not giving the movie an extra half star just for that.

Plus, Matt Damon is kinda fat and looks like a stocky butt-plug in his various running-from-angelic-bureaucrat scenes. I kept wondering: Why Matt Damon and not Sean Astin? If you want a squat, stocky homely kind of guy who doesn't really make an impact on the screen, why not Samwise? Why this twit?

The movie does have a cute conceit, about angels being able to open a regular deli door on 3rd Avenue and have it open into Yankee Stadium or Liberty Island or the top of the Empire State Building, and that's entertaining for three minutes, but the rest of it is, well.

This is the time of year they release troubled-production, not-sure-how-to-market, and just plain stinker movies. I got burned. Don't follow me in my fate.

Posted by: Ace at 06:47 PM | Comments (247)
Post contains 887 words, total size 5 kb.

1 I loved this movie as much as I liked Barack Obama's dick cheese.

Posted by: Michael Medved at March 04, 2011 06:55 PM (EL+OC)

2 That angelic meddlers rom-com was made before as "A Life Less Ordinary." Except Holly Hunter and the always-great Delroy Lindo work to bring young lovers together instead of keep them apart.

Posted by: Little Miss Spellcheck at March 04, 2011 06:57 PM (xqhoO)

3 They got your money and dont give a fuck, If you didn't ask for a refund you fucked up, your loss.

Posted by: Theygotyou at March 04, 2011 06:58 PM (xW/nO)

4 Oh, and those promos are definitely not selling the movie Ace saw.

Has any PKDick movie ever done justice to the original story?

Posted by: Little Miss Spellcheck at March 04, 2011 07:00 PM (xqhoO)

5 It has Matt Damon, so there was approximately zero fucking chance I was going to see it anyway.

Posted by: Waterhouse at March 04, 2011 07:01 PM (DHJ1u)

6

So is Hollywood inspired by LSD nowadays?

God knows they can't come up with any natural creativity on their own.

Posted by: ErikW at March 04, 2011 07:04 PM (ZK+F1)

7 The written story is a whole lot better.  Hollywood will always ruin good stories.

Posted by: soulpile is... expendable at March 04, 2011 07:05 PM (afWhQ)

8

The New Yorker reviewer didn't like it, which is saying a lot because they like nothing more than to suck Matt Damon's dick.

The film critic said that it isn't like the original Philip K. Dick story which sounds like it might've made a better movie. It wasn't a romantic comedy.

Posted by: ParanoidAnxietyGirlInSeattle at March 04, 2011 07:05 PM (RZ8pf)

9 Ace is bitter.  I understand.  I have been known to walk out of a movie and down the hall to another to  ease the pain Hollywood crapitis.

Posted by: Ohio Dan at March 04, 2011 07:05 PM (EH4cc)

10 In fact, it's the second one--

Oh, never saw that coming.

Posted by: Papa Editor at March 04, 2011 07:07 PM (YX6i/)

11 The guy who always writes about mind-control and androids can't write genial romantic comedy?

So who did you see it with then?

Posted by: goldbricker esq at March 04, 2011 07:07 PM (S59+B)

12 Ebert gave it a 'mphflarg.'

Posted by: nickless at March 04, 2011 07:08 PM (MMC8r)

13 Well as i was planing on plopping down ten dollars for the first movie, despite the mahttdahmon, thanks ace for ruining it. Was M Night Shalaman the director, with the twist being this was a shittier movie than you expected? Or isnt that always M Night Shalaman twist these days?

Posted by: HowardDevore at March 04, 2011 07:08 PM (5Ji3q)

14 I find it hard to believe that Damon would make a movie were he would pass on being the next Bamster just to schtup some dancer.

Posted by: Darth Randall at March 04, 2011 07:08 PM (98AOY)

15 Matt Damon!

Posted by: Matt Damon at March 04, 2011 07:10 PM (MMC8r)

16 Wouldn't see either. Not puttin my money in that commie f*cktard's pocket.

Posted by: American Elephant at March 04, 2011 07:10 PM (2+X4m)

17 I'm not a movie critic, but is the correct term gaytarded or asstastic?

Posted by: USA at March 04, 2011 07:10 PM (YZISw)

18 MAAAAT DAAAAAAMOOOON

Posted by: JC at March 04, 2011 07:11 PM (f2SYL)

19 My guess is that they made the movie, then realized that the first pitch marketed better. Hollywood's spent years showing contempt for their customers whenever possible, so why not market it with the misleading pitch if it'll sell more tickets.

Posted by: ooOOOooo at March 04, 2011 07:11 PM (5Hd8E)

20 Exactly @ #16,  the ONLY palatable  way to see Matt Damon is in Team America World Police.

Posted by: American Elephant at March 04, 2011 07:12 PM (2+X4m)

21 I'm not a movie critic, but is the correct term gaytarded or asstastic? Posted by: USA

Which page of the Village Voice do you wish to appear?

Posted by: VV editor at March 04, 2011 07:13 PM (S59+B)

22 "Advertising is a powerful medicine that makes people want to spend money they don't have to buy things they don't want" -Will Rogers

Posted by: Nighthawk at March 04, 2011 07:14 PM (mbg3a)

23

Okay, which would you see?

Neither, if it was given that MATT DAMON!!! would be in both. 

If there's anything that Hollyweird (and gaming companies like SquareSoft) does well, it is making awesome trailers that over-hype the shit out of movies (and games)  for fan-boys who'll see anything that Matt Damon! is in and call it a masterpiece.

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at March 04, 2011 07:15 PM (dD7ot)

24 I only needed to know one thing about this movie to know I wouldn't see it: Matt Damon.
He could be the second coming of Gregory Peck and I still wouldn't contribute one red cent that might support him and his bullshit soapbox.

Posted by: Whatever at March 04, 2011 07:16 PM (piMMO)

25 I got burned. Don't follow me in my fate.

Maybe you could go back in time and, um, meet a pretty dancer.

Posted by: rdbrewer at March 04, 2011 07:17 PM (EMuWJ)

26

See, this is why I gave up on movies a long time ago.

I enjoy good cinematography and good acting but when Hollywood becomes so dull-minded that they have to remake the A-Team and whatever shitty back-up script that's floating around to try and be relevant, all respect for the art is gone.

That and coupled with the fact that they hate us anyway, why should I spend a fucking dime on their half-assed shit?

Hollywood used to be fun, it's itellectually insulting, now.

Posted by: ErikW at March 04, 2011 07:18 PM (ZK+F1)

27 Ace took one for the team. Ace, you'll feel better after a hot shower with lots of soap. Unless, of course, you're in the closet, in which you can catch the matinee again in the am.

Posted by: USA at March 04, 2011 07:18 PM (YZISw)

28 C'mon, Ace - we need another epic Chris Christie/Sarah Palin thread based on tonight's latest bullshit Fox News smackdown!  Who wants to read about The Adjustment Bureau?  I'd just as soon read your opinion on the new Radiohead album (verdict: actually very good, but nowhere near as compelling as In Rainbows).

Posted by: Jeff B. at March 04, 2011 07:19 PM (NjYDy)

29 Not that there is anything wrong with matinees.....

Posted by: USA at March 04, 2011 07:20 PM (YZISw)

30 I'm not a movie critic, but is the correct term gaytarded or asstastic? Craptacular!

Posted by: Tom Servo at March 04, 2011 07:22 PM (uehxp)

31 Okay, which would you see?

Neither. I don't care if MATT DAMON wasn't in it, from your descriptions, I would skip both of those movies, because they're both unserious, perverse religious pitches - the former on behalf of the pervasive leftist belief that CORPORATIONS ARE TEH EVIL ELEVENTY and the latter a simple anti-religious mockery.

I have too much free time, but not that much.

Posted by: Merovign, Bond Villain at March 04, 2011 07:22 PM (bxiXv)

32 34 LOL!

Posted by: USA at March 04, 2011 07:23 PM (YZISw)

33 As for movie reviews, I just saw Rango. That is not a kids flick. The way I would describe it is "Support Your Local Sherriff" meets "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas." At least I think the writers did the entire list of recreational pharmaceuticals from the first paragraph of the Fear and Loathing book while writing the script for Rango. I mean it was pretty good, then it got to the point of the moles riding bats for an aerial attack with Ride of the Valkyries as background music, with the bats exploding into fireballs when they hit the rocks, and yeah... I knew then the writers were not just relying on dime bags.
 

It's a decent movie though. I might try watching it drunk the next time.

Posted by: nnptcgrad at March 04, 2011 07:25 PM (Opyrm)

34 I thought Damon got fat for some movie a year or two ago. Isn't the idea to get back to being ... not-fat ... when you do your action movie and romantic comedy movies? Cause when dudes like to imagine themselves a super-spy action hero they also imagine themselves pretty ripped. And when chicks like to imagine falling in love with the perfect man, they imagine him all hunky and stuff. Pudgy and soft aren't normally called for in either of those two roles.

5'8 with a 40 inch waist does not an action hero make.

Damon was also all pudged up for True Grit and The Informant last year.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at March 04, 2011 07:26 PM (QcFbt)

35 Did i miss a True Grit review.
It was great, even Matt Damon didn't suck & made the part his own.

Posted by: Dave at March 04, 2011 07:31 PM (6OwZc)

36 So they made a movie based on a reversal of an AT&T commercial? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiCq1ZMOa-w

Posted by: OxyCon at March 04, 2011 07:35 PM (eJ7Yr)

37 Yeah, I heard from a few people that Rango is anything but a kids' movie, yet it's totally being marketed as such. And while screwing sci-fi thriller fans over with a hidden romcom is bad, deliberately marketing inappropriate movies to toddlers is sick.

Posted by: Adrian at March 04, 2011 07:37 PM (PY4xx)

38 Uh. There are no bureaucrats here. And there's only one lawyer, that's why we threw him a big party.

Posted by: Heaven at March 04, 2011 07:38 PM (7H/n0)

39 Ebert gave it a 'mphflarg.' Posted by: nickless at March 04, 2011 11:08 PM (MMC8r) I heard that he described it as "jaw-droppingly audacious".

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at March 04, 2011 07:39 PM (9Lm5R)

40 Haven't seen the movie, but the short story was great.  Big Hollywood says it can be viewed either way .  . .  anti-religion or anti-big government.  I also read there that Rango was pretty good and played well to both kids and adults.

I'll think I'll go see both and see who knows movies best . . . them or the Morons . . .

Posted by: TRO at March 04, 2011 07:41 PM (I6mxF)

41 41- Probably because it's animated. I think marketing thinks "It's animated, it must be for kids!"

But it juuuust squeaked by with that PG rating. I wonder how much was edited to take it below a PG-13.

Posted by: nnptcgrad at March 04, 2011 07:41 PM (Opyrm)

42 Just got back from Rango. I thought is was great, but probably a little too serious for the kiddies. Thanks for the heads up on Adjustment Bureau, girlfriend was saying she wanted to see it, and I thought it looked pretty cool as well. I'll have to let her know the cool looking trailer is a total scam.

Posted by: mugiwara at March 04, 2011 07:42 PM (KI/Ch)

43 Ebert was so shocked he literally had to pick his jaw off the floor. Well, technically he had his man-servant pick up the jaw, but there is no question it was on the floor. Double-sided boob tape is not as strong as you might think.

Posted by: Clubber Lang at March 04, 2011 07:43 PM (QcFbt)

44 Interesting. Hewitt had the writer/director on yesterday and HH (who saw the movie last month) loved it. He said the political stuff was only an issue at the very start of the movie. Meh. I'll see it when it comes on TV. Also, I like the 2nd summary better. I usually hate time travel elements in movies or TV series.

Posted by: Comrade Arthur at March 04, 2011 07:43 PM (/EiLQ)

45 Thanks for the heads up, Ace...I won't bother downloading it off the torrents...

Posted by: CanaDave at March 04, 2011 07:44 PM (1BxnF)

46 Interesting. Hewitt had the writer/director on yesterday and HH (who saw the movie last month) loved it. Posted by: Comrade Arthur

Purity aside, Hewitt's as steady as a meth addict's needle on Thanksgiving.

Posted by: goldbricker esq at March 04, 2011 07:48 PM (S59+B)

47 Posted by: buzzion at March 04, 2011 11:41 PM (oVQFe) I absolutely LIVE for the opportunity to use variations on that joke. I'm sure that that libtard shit-heel Ebert would find it amusing, yes?

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at March 04, 2011 07:53 PM (9Lm5R)

48 Well,  I spent MY evening watching reruns of the old 80's series "Touched by an Angel."

No action, kind of sappy, but on the other hand,  it was free and no Matt Damon!

In fact,  I find Damon so obnoxious that I have deliberately avoided seeing any movie he is in.  Not one.

Posted by: Miss Marple at March 04, 2011 07:53 PM (Fo83G)

49 Matt Damon.  You can stop right there.

Posted by: Randall Hoven at March 04, 2011 07:58 PM (goI7h)

50 What kind of retard pays to see that asshole Matt Damon in anything and doesn't expect to get pissed off? Ace, you either need to drink more or less, I'm just not sure which.

Posted by: Ms Choksondik at March 04, 2011 08:00 PM (EYqhE)

51 I doubt it. I'm sure he'd rage against you and yell at you for being so insensitive until his jaw fell off. I just had a memory flash through my mind. Army of Darkness, final battle scene. One of the deadites is aflame and screaming......until his jaw falls off.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at March 04, 2011 08:05 PM (9Lm5R)

52 Matt Damon? Well there's yer problem!

Posted by: lokki at March 04, 2011 08:09 PM (a5F9g)

53 One of the stupidest movies I've seen in the past ten years?

Gigantic. Infuriatingly inept. I hate movies with people who are "weird" in a totally contrived, grating, tedious way.

Every character in Gigantic is like that, and the main character is so repellent that there's no way in hell Zooey Deschanel would fall in love with him and cry her baby blues out every five minutes at the thought of losing such a creepy, mumbling, twisted, infantile, greasy-haired beanpole.

And can we have a moratorium on hip blacks who call everyone "motherfucker" and go "Mmm-mmm-mmm! That is one fine-ass white girl!"

I'm tired of getting goosebumps of empathetic mortification watching black people keepin' it real in our popular culture. How about letting them play normal human beings for once?

Posted by: Llarry at March 04, 2011 08:12 PM (g8o4f)

54 Matt Damon ruined Saving Private Ryan with a really pathetic attempt at sorrow.

Posted by: ErikW at March 04, 2011 08:13 PM (ZK+F1)

55 Well, guys and gals... Total lurker, and occasional poster here..

How would moron made films sound to you? Cause I have one coming up, and two more in the works!

Soonest is going to be Bikini Detectives, so, thats like 2 of the 5 Moron must haves in the title as far as I can tell..

anyway, I'm just teasin the title etc, as the Val-U-rite is startin to kick..

If you are interested go see us at http://www.youtube.com/user/cinematexinc (sorry I cant use tinyurbs)

Thanks!

Posted by: JarvisW at March 04, 2011 08:15 PM (8yPsP)

56 I'm tired of getting goosebumps of empathetic mortification watching black people keepin' it real in our popular culture. How about letting them play normal human beings for once?

Posted by: Llarry at March 05, 2011 12:12 AM (g8o4f)

That's not allowed as long as Hollywood is in charge.

Posted by: ErikW at March 04, 2011 08:15 PM (ZK+F1)

57 It sounds like they were convinced people would fall in love with the movie, if only they can convince them, albeit through trickery, to buy a ticket and see it. The only explanation is, the people who are in charge of this particular movie studio really likes this kind of movie and is bound determined they're going to make people pay money to see them. Bottom line, not many people like romantic comedies, at least not enough to make enough of a profit to qualify as a bona fide hit. But they are formulaic, which means they're easy to write and produce, which means you don't have to have a top of the line writing and production staff. Which means they're cheap. They're like a Harlequin Romance, pretty much the same story set in different locations with different names.

The only thing expensive about this film was Damon, in all probability. The main "bad guy" is a second tier actor at best, whose name I don't know, though I remember him from Mad Men and Desperate Housewives.

Its actually a good sign. If they're desperate enough to try to lure you into a theater on false pretenses, that's a potential bridge to the time they actually start making quality films that people do want to see.

Posted by: ThePaganTemple at March 04, 2011 08:39 PM (A41Ko)

58 ""It has Matt Damon, so there was approximately zero fucking chance I was going to see it anyway.""


My thoughts exactly. I wouldn't piss in his mouth if his teeth were on fire.

Posted by: Berserker at March 04, 2011 08:54 PM (gWHrG)

59 I am confused - all of the promos for The Adjustment Bureau have made it look precisely like a romantic thriller about Damon and Blunt struggling to stay together despite the best efforts of the Adjustment Bureaucrats.  So if it's less an edge-of-your-seat thriller and more of a syrupy comedy with a sci-fi element, that doesn't seem like major-league deception in advertising.

Where did the laser propulsion and corporate conspiracy pitch come from?  Were there really promos or ads with those elements in them?  Or is that just something Ace cooked up as an example of the type of movie the promos infer, a thriller instead of a comedy?

Posted by: stuiec at March 04, 2011 08:58 PM (JuWS+)

60 Just saw Take Me Home Tonight. It's your standard generic coming of age movie. The sidekick does a really poor mans Sam Kinneson. Really poor but the movie was ok overall. But the soundtrack was epic if you like 80s pop.

Posted by: Doc at March 04, 2011 09:01 PM (jGXQI)

61
How would moron made films sound to you? Cause I have one coming up, and two more in the works!

Soonest is going to be Bikini Detectives, so, thats like 2 of the 5 Moron must haves in the title as far as I can tell..

Posted by: JarvisW at March 05, 2011 12:15 AM (8yPsP)

Cool beans!

I just found out that the producer for whom I wrote the screenplay Diary of the Blood Countess has created a stage adaptation that will be running from March 26 through April 30 at Zombie Joe's Underground Theater in North Hollywood.

Posted by: stuiec at March 04, 2011 09:04 PM (JuWS+)

62 >>> So if it's less an edge-of-your-seat thriller and more of a syrupy comedy with a sci-fi element, that doesn't seem like major-league deception in advertising. It may be that you were watching different commercials. they do in fact prepare different commercials for different audiences -- so if I see an ad in a thriller-type show, I'll see a thriller-type promo, but if you watch a romantic movie and see the ad, you'll see a romantic ad. I can only say that all of the ads *I* saw were of the thriller variety. No romantic-comedy plot was even hinted at; it looked like a Philip K. Dick sci-fantasy thriller along the lines of Paycheck or Next or Minority Report. >>>Where did the laser propulsion and corporate conspiracy pitch come from? Were there really promos or ads with those elements in them? Or is that just something Ace cooked up as an example of the type of movie the promos infer, a thriller instead of a comedy? Those I made up. The ads I saw didn't communicate anything other than Damon being chased, guys in fedoras chasing him, they seem to have psionic powers, they move through doorways which are revealed to be some type of magical portal. The tone and editing and music of the ads suggested it was a futuristic (or urban fantasy) thriller. But the specifics I just made up as some sort of plot that would work in that kind of movie.

Posted by: ace at March 04, 2011 09:05 PM (nj1bB)

63 And yes, Philip K. Dick did write the story this was based on. Do not be deceived. This is not a thriller. It's a fantasy romance, and not a good one.

I haven't read this story by Dick but I'm betting that they have loosely based it on the story..   Rather than word for word..

They did with Minority Report,

Posted by: Dave C at March 04, 2011 09:06 PM (+1+ZL)

64 Still ... Emily Blunt.  She was pretty good on Conan this week.

Posted by: SH at March 04, 2011 09:16 PM (MP+Fy)

65 I give it 2 cobras.

Posted by: H Badger at March 04, 2011 09:16 PM (1fB+3)

66 Matt Damon rides a cock horse.

Posted by: logprof at March 04, 2011 09:18 PM (BP6Z1)

67 Plus, Matt Damon is kinda fat and looks like a stocky butt-plug in his various running-from-angelic-bureaucrat scenes. I kept wondering: Why Matt Damon and not Sean Astin? If you want a squat, stocky homely kind of guy who doesn't really make an impact on the screen, why not Samwise? Why this twit twat?

Greetings! Just limbering up the vulgarism centers of my brain ...


Posted by: ya2daup at March 04, 2011 09:19 PM (yRrAd)

68 All the trailers I've seen made it out to be a movie like Dark City. Kinda disappointing.

Posted by: Dr Spank at March 04, 2011 09:25 PM (1fB+3)

69 Anyway, I have a question: Since the studio knows that that first pitch is likely to make more money, and please more people, why didn't they just make that movie? Why did they make the second movie and then try to sell it as the first?

Oh, that part is easy to answer. They thought pitch 2 was gonna be the money maker. Then they did some trailer pre-screening and said "oh, crap" (no, really, some guy with green eyeshades actually said "oh, crap"), and decided to sell you the movie they now wish they'd made.

People laugh at this commercial because it's true.

Posted by: Ace's liver at March 04, 2011 09:25 PM (QgI7g)

70 30
Ace took one for the team. Ace, you'll feel better after a hot shower with lots of soap. Unless, of course, you're in the closet, in which you can catch the matinee again in the am.
Posted by: USA at March 04, 2011 11:18 PM (YZISw)

I just hit the tip jar to cover Ace's loss, plus a little extra. Not enough extra to hire a tranny hooker, mind you, but enough to obtain fine Val-U-Rite products to keep him from slipping into a despondent funk.

Posted by: ya2daup at March 04, 2011 09:26 PM (yRrAd)

71 71 And yes, Philip K. Dick did write the story this was based on. Do not be deceived. This is not a thriller. It's a fantasy romance, and not a good one.

I haven't read this story by Dick but I'm betting that they have loosely based it on the story..   Rather than word for word..

They did with Minority Report,

Posted by: Dave C at March 05, 2011 01:06 AM (+1+ZL)

I have mixed feelings about that.  Blade Runner is waaaaaay better than Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

Posted by: Ace's liver at March 04, 2011 09:28 PM (QgI7g)

72 Is Hereafter any good or did Damon ruin that as well?

Posted by: Dr Spank at March 04, 2011 09:30 PM (1fB+3)

73 Actually, isn't there some kind of bait-and-switch statute that could be used here?  Because that's really what you're describing.

Posted by: Ace's liver at March 04, 2011 09:32 PM (QgI7g)

74 Thanks Stuiec!

Im not spamming, I've HT'd DiT and Rusty (yeah Jawa)

I also didnt create them, but I worked on these films, if that helps

Posted by: JarvisW at March 04, 2011 09:34 PM (8yPsP)

75 >>> Blade Runner is waaaaaay better than Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep Is it? Story-wise? Blade Runner is just flat-out brilliant visually and creating a plausible, authoritative vision of the future. The book did not do that, of course. Only some books even try for that level of textural authority and Electric Sheep wasn't one of them. At all. And that I concede is what makes Blade Runner great. Its story, which is just a manhunt for android bad-guys, isn't really a show stopper. But I have fond memories of the book. Blade Runner has some richness in story elements it adds, but they took out some oddball story richness from the novel, too. The book is really very strange and affecting, with that cable talk show that literally goes on 24 hours a day, seven days a week, Buster Friendly and His Friendly Friends. It's just weird. I dunno. I guess I'm conceding your point it's better so I guess I have no argument. Maybe I'm hung up on the implication that the book itself is bad. Or that the story in Blade Runner (the story, not the well thought out production design) is super big shakes.

Posted by: ace at March 04, 2011 09:34 PM (nj1bB)

76 The book also had that weirdness in that there was an entire parallel police force Dekkard had never heard of. Then again, Dick never explained that. Most likely because he was on speed and LSD, and banging this out quickly with no plan just to submit something to the publisher, so he was probably just inventing plot twists as he typed them. I wish I could be a hack writer like that and I'm not being sarcastic. It's amazing to me these guys write books without a plan -- just about straight from brain to page, in the moment, just literally making shit up as they go -- and turn in books which, while not flawless or great, are nevertheless still *good.* No hack writer is ever going to turn in a great book working like that, just making shit up off the top of his head and hoping he'll figure out an ending by the time he gets there. But I'm amazed that that there are writers good enough that that sort of slapdash bang-it-out-who-cares process still produces good results for them.

Posted by: ace at March 04, 2011 09:38 PM (nj1bB)

77 >>>Actually, isn't there some kind of bait-and-switch statute that could be used here? Nah, because it was all implied. They showed actual scenes from the movie; they edited them to suggest this was a scary paranoid thriller; but they never expressly claimed that. All those recut trailers on YouTube show you what you can do when you take romantic comedies but cut them to look like thrillers-- or vice versa. With the right tempo and music you can make Mary Poppins look like a horror movie (search for "Scary Mary" Poppins) or a horror movie look like a family-friendly romantic comedy (search for "Shining" recut).

Posted by: ace at March 04, 2011 09:40 PM (nj1bB)

78

Ace, I can't figure out whether you are turning into Fidel Castro ( loooooong essays, mostly of the Masters of the Obvious order,  on  political  stuff) or  just into an All-Singing All Dancing Expert on Everything (a la Kim jong-il)

Which is it?

Posted by: Cahrles at March 04, 2011 09:41 PM (CfQ+e)

79 "It seems the studio releasing The Adjustment Bureau also thinks that 90% of people would want to see that first one, because all of the ads portray it as being just that."

Sorry, but what the hell are you talking about?

The theatrical trailers summed up the plot exactly the same way you described in option two.  Now TV spots are only about 10, 15 seconds long and can't really give you the jist of a movie beyond opening day, I could see how someone could at least be intrigued enough to look up the full trailer online, but how you thought it would be something about time travel is beyond me.

Two minutes on Yahoo and another five reading reviews on AICN, coulda saved yourself ten bucks.  Or at least gone in knowing what the basic plot was.  I'm gonna side with pinko commie Hollywood here.  They advertised it honestly and you, apparently, got it mixed up with some other piece of shit.  How, who knows, but it's like going in to see Disney's Tangled thinking it's some messed up organized crime drama with lots of shoot 'em up action and guys snorting coke off a hooker's ass.  You should just know better.

Posted by: Robert at March 04, 2011 09:41 PM (4ixH5)

80 with that cable talk show that literally goes on 24 hours a day, seven days a week, Buster Friendly and His Friendly Friends. It's just weird.

In concept this sounds a lot like blogs.

Posted by: Have Blue at March 04, 2011 09:41 PM (mV+es)

81 Maybe I'm hung up on the implication that the book itself is bad. Or that the story in Blade Runner (the story, not the well thought out production design) is super big shakes.

I didn't mean to imply that.  It's just that if Scott had hewn too closely to the book the movie would have turned out to be forgettable.  Some books translate right to the screen.  Most don't.

I wish I could be a hack writer like that and I'm not being sarcastic. It's amazing to me these guys write books without a plan -- just about straight from brain to page, in the moment, just literally making shit up as they go -- and turn in books which, while not flawless or great, are nevertheless still *good.*

Writers in that era produced prodigious amounts of text.  Unimaginable amounts, to me.  Azimov wrote 515 books.  If you wrote that much not only would you have a) quite a bit of practice, but also b) a huge body of work.  I'm sure most of what Dick wrote was crap.

The downside being they wrote all day every day.  And speaking of writing... dude, what is this?

"Jake Dale is the youngest man ever elected to Congress in America, whom the newspapers call "New York's Bad-Boy Congressman.""

Posted by: Ace's liver at March 04, 2011 09:46 PM (QgI7g)

82 >>>Since the studio knows that that first pitch is likely to make more money, and please more people, why didn't they just make that movie? Why did they make the second movie and then try to sell it as the first? I think actually it's a different answer than the one Ace's liver offers. In publishing and in movies, it is very, very important to write within the expectations of a certain genre. Publishers and movie studios need to know who to sell a movie to, and how. They look to popular genres. Frequently a script or manuscript does not conform cleanly to one genre but attempts to be a bit of both. Most of the time these are actually rejected. If the publisher or studio likes the material, it'll be rejected with a note: Try to make this as one definiable genre and send it back and we'll look at it again. Sometimes, though, for whatever reason, they let a genre-muddled book or film go through to production, and then the marketing people are in a bind: They have to sell it as one or the other, so people have a basic idea of what the hell it is. The commercials sold it to me as a sci-fi-themed conspiracy thriller, which was GREAT, because I dig those, and always keep whining why they don't make more Total Recall type movies. But the movie actually was a muddle, a mix of rom-com and gentle Here Comes Mr. Jordan heavenly fantasy with a very, very light thriller theme. (A theme, not a plot.) So how are they going to sell it? It's really not a true romance it so it's hard to sell that way; for a comedy it's not very funny at all so they can't package it as a comedy; and while it has about five minutes of thriller footage, the tone of the thing is jokey, not scary or thrilling. But they have to sell it. So they do their best. And in some cases they will cut multiple trailers, some suggesting it's a romantic movie, others a thriller. Actually I see in some reviews it is being pitched as "romantic thriller," which is a bit of a hybrid genre that I really can't think of too many other examples of. What's a romantic thriller? I dunno. Sometimes studios permit these mixed-genre movies on the theory that in capable hands the mixing of genres will produce inventive results, rather than the same-old same-old. On the other hand, such admixtures often just produce weak, "what the hell is this movie TRYING to be?" results which is hard to sell on top of all that. That's the case here. Honestly, this is just a crappy genre film. Given that, they should have forced the writer/director to go back to the workshop and either come back with 1) A movie that was clearly a thriller with chases and danger (there is NO danger in this movie as it stands) or 2) a lighthearted, funny, angelic-guided romcom. But they didn't. They let him sort of pursue multiple genres at once and it wound up not being a satisfactory example of any of them. They call this type of movie a feathered fish -- it's not quite a bird, so it doesnt' fly, and it's not quite a fish, so it doesn't swim. It's an awkward hybrid that is not cleanly engineered to fly or swim, so it just flops around.

Posted by: ace at March 04, 2011 09:51 PM (nj1bB)

83 Sometimes, though, for whatever reason, they let a genre-muddled book or film go through to production...

I find it really odd this can happen.  A friend of mine sold a script to  Hollywood.  Well, not to "Hollywood".  Some studio.  Anyway.  They had no less than six writers go over the script, one at a time, and add elements they needed to actually make the movie.

Hey, the hero can't be a dick in this scene.  We'll cut it or make him more likable.

No love story?  We'll change the sidekick to a hot woman.  But no boobs - that would make it R and cap its profit.

Not enough action?  An added car chase will do the trick.

Merchandising?  We'll take some of the detail off of of the alien so it's easier to make into a toy.

The sad thing was after they were done turning it into lukewarm broth they didn't make the movie after all.  I guess there was nothing that made it stand out (yes, he's bitter).

Posted by: Ace's liver at March 04, 2011 10:00 PM (QgI7g)

84 by the way the term "hack writer" is not meant to be derogatory above. The mystery author lawrence block writes openly of having been (and/or still being a hack writer), by which he means a writer for professional profit, making money by the word, and not a suffering artiste with all the time in the world to produce an opus, but someone who's getting paid just a little bit of money, by the word, by the page, by set deadlines, living sort of by their wits in just churning output. A lot of very good writers would be called "hack writers" by this definition, including some of my favorites. Lawrence Block made this way of life sound sort of romantic and heroic when he wrote about his own career as a hack. Anyway, no offense intended to Philip K. Dick, who was a glorious hack.

Posted by: ace at March 04, 2011 10:06 PM (nj1bB)

85 What's a romantic thriller? I dunno.

Yes you do: Vertigo, Marnie, Notorious, To Catch a Thief... And the trailers and posters for those big-bucks Hollywood churn-outs successfully sold them as exactly the "feathered fish" they were, partly by focusing on who made them and who was in them, and partly by just plain not lying.

Studio marketing is dumber and less effective now, because of its false sense of itself as some kind of quantitative science of demographic hypnosis. They lied to you about this movie because they're too stupid not to. "Genre" talk is a description of their stupidity.

It's wrong. They're wrong.

Posted by: oblig. at March 04, 2011 10:11 PM (xvZW9)

86 >>>I find it really odd this can happen. A friend of mine sold a script to Hollywood. Well, not to "Hollywood". Some studio. Anyway. They had no less than six writers go over the script, one at a time, and add elements they needed to actually make the movie. That's probably because your friend was just starting out so "the rules" applied to him. In many movies, you have an established writer (this guy wrote Oceans 12, which was lame-ish, and the last Bourne movie, also lame-ish), so, well, he's not exactly William Goldman but he has credits so they might have given him some leeway and trust that he'd deliver something. Plus, Matt Damon is apparently his buddy (guessing, as this is the third Damon movie he's written) so Damon's greenlight might have pushed the studio to overlook genre muddle-ness. Plus, finally, what happens is that stars often will make suggestions. I doubt very much the original script had the hero as a Senatorial candidate destined to become President-- that sounds like Matt Damon's addition. He likes to think of himself as political. I would bet cash money the original occupation was something more down-to-earth, like a surgeon who was one day destined to SAVE the life of the president (rather than become president). Knight and Day, which I also just finally saw, seemed to have a lot of this going on. It was a mix of action, comedy, and romcom, with a grrl empowerment angle, and it seemed overstuffed and therefore choppy, and I am guessing that Tom Cruise insisted that the comedy movie have more big stunts and fight scenes, and Cameron Diaz insisted on a stronger female role with empowerment/heroic arc, and at the end of the day these elements were pushed into it and made it sort of, well, I dont' know, an unsatisfying jumble. It really was just a ripoff of the In-Laws. That part worked II think more people should rip that movie off) but when they deviated from that, into all this other stuff, it just seemed like too many chefs adding in too many ingredients.

Posted by: ace at March 04, 2011 10:12 PM (nj1bB)

87 Lawrence Block made this way of life sound sort of romantic and heroic when he wrote about his own career as a hack.

Heh. Rounders makes a career as a professional poker player seem romantic and heroic instead of the soulless grind that it is.

Maybe writing is better.

Posted by: Ace's liver at March 04, 2011 10:14 PM (QgI7g)

88 oblig., It has to be noted that genres go in and out of fashion. In the 50s "romantic thriller" may have been a big genre, so you could sell a movie as such and expect people to come ("Oh, it's like Vertigo...? Okay, I liked that!"), but if a genre goes out of fashion, you write within that genre at a disadvantage. The "Road" movies of Crosby and Hope were a very popular genre at one time. When they tried to re-boot the genre with Ishtar, much of the public didn't know what to make of it because they were not genre-savvy about the genre being written in. Plus, I hear it was bad, but the problem in marketing it -- "What's it *like*?" -- compounding these problems. You're wrong about genre. Genre is shackling, of course, but that's the point of it: Genre is a promise to the consumer of being the sort of thing he's looking for. Lesser books and lesser movies -- the unambitious ones, the ones just made to make money -- are usually always firmly in-genre. If you have a genre-defying movie, chances are it's more ambitious, and you can then sell it as what it is, because presumably they'll be more buzz and thus more chance to explain and also more money in advertising budget to explain. But if it's a low- or mid-range budget movie as this one was, and there's little chance of getting big buzz or big ad money, then it really is very sensible to make it firmly within a genre, because then half of your advertising is taken care of just by saying what it is: It's a Vengeance Thriller. It's a Police Procedural. It's a Buddy Road Trip movie. It's a Mind-Warp Sci-Fi Paranoia movie. Etc. You're sort of suggesting that every movie or book is, or should be, or could be art, whereas most of them are merely *craft* at best -- they can be quite good as examples of craft, but they're not ambitious or inventive enough to really be art. So your scorn of genre category is misplaced. That would be a fine criticism to make if every book or movie is trying to do something different, and novel, and big, and ambitious, but most aren't. I don't think most should. Sometimes you just want to see a TechnoThriller. Or a Gangster Picture. Or whatever.

Posted by: ace at March 04, 2011 10:19 PM (nj1bB)

89 You're wrong about genre. Genre is shackling, of course, but that's the point of it: Genre is a promise to the consumer of being the sort of thing he's looking for.

The frustrating thing, as a consumer, is the way a successful movie causes all the studios to leap on the genre with both feet and beat that fucker to death.  If I could send a terminator back in time I'd have it shoot the mother of the guy who green-lit Spiderman.

Posted by: Ace's liver at March 04, 2011 10:23 PM (QgI7g)

90 Comment 46: I think marketing thinks "It's animated, it must be for kids!"

So do a lot of parents.  I've heard of video store clerks having to warn parents away from Urotsukidoji.

Also, thanks for saving me the 100 minutes of pain that this movie would have brought me.  The only thing I can stand Damon in is the Bourne series.

Completely off topic, I just watched Network tonight.  Pretty sweet.

Posted by: not the droid you seek at March 04, 2011 10:24 PM (h35AH)

91 By the way, oblig., your idea that movies didn't used to be packaged as genre outings in the good old days is just wrong. All this genre stuff is not new. It has been in existence since hollywood started. Wrestling pictures, boxing pictures, gangster pictures, romances, thrillers, mysteries, etc. I don't know where you're getting this that Hitchcock's or Cary Grant's movies were not packaged as genre outings. You don't think North By Northwest was pitched firmly within the Thriller genre (subgenre: Mistaken Identity Thriller)? Of course it was. So was Vertigo. I've seen the trailers for most of these movies you name: The trailers pitch them as being of a certain genre. There was more muddle in the old days since many movies tried to be both some sort of male-pleasing genre (thriller) and some sort of female-pleasing one (romance), while today an awful lot of movies pitch narrowly and relentlessly to only one genre, and this results in movies that are less for "everyone" and more for one demographic. But, still. Casablanca was written as a genre drama/thriller, for example. It was specifically supposed to emulate another recent movie that had some success. (Forget what it was, some movie also named after a North African city.) It just turned out to be very good, so good in fact that everyone knows Casablanca and only movie buffs know the name of hte movie it was *supposed* to be a knockoff of.

Posted by: ace at March 04, 2011 10:25 PM (nj1bB)

92 I haven't read all the comments so if I am repeating, tough.  Hugh Hewitt has been pushing this movie a lot.

Posted by: csm at March 04, 2011 10:29 PM (Gw4Kc)

93 >>Is Hereafter any good or did Damon ruin that as well?

He ruined it with his smugness. It is slow.

I can't believe he was one of my favorite actors after Bourne Identity and Rounders.

Posted by: Ace's liver at March 04, 2011 10:31 PM (QgI7g)

94 By the way, oblig., thinking about it: Vertigo really was a romantic thriller. It was both. It was definitely a thriller. This movie, The Adjustment Bureau, is not a thriller, for one simple reason: At no time whatsoever is either male or female lead in any physical danger. (Well, the angels sort of act menacingly a little, but we know they're goodhearted angels, so seriously, what are they going to do? ) In Vertigo, obviously, people were in danger a fair amount. If there is no actual danger (which the trailers I saw or suggested), I don't see how it's a thriller. That's the defining trope in a thriller -- you're in danger, you're chased, you hide in a closet as a killer walks by it. That didn't happen here. So I don't think it's a romantic thriller, even. There is no thriller angle. What it is a romantic comedy-- a genre in which the danger consists of circumstaces threatening to keep the lovers from being in love.

Posted by: ace at March 04, 2011 10:34 PM (nj1bB)

95 buzzion, thanks, I liked that. I liked the part about ALL of Robin Williams' movies being falsely advertised. What it promises: What if Jon Stewart ran for president? What it is: What if the West Wing were horribly miscast? Funny.

Posted by: ace at March 04, 2011 10:34 PM (nj1bB)

96 oh-- it's a romantic comedy, except it's not really all that funny, either. Also, look, the stakes are too small given the fact that heaven itself is intervening. God's angels are really personally intervening to thwart a budding romance? Really? It just seems to me that if God's angels are involved, the stakes really must be higher than whether or not a couple will get together. Most couples fail in the first place. The God Squad really needs to dedicate 40 angels to keeping these two from falling in love?

Posted by: ace at March 04, 2011 10:38 PM (nj1bB)

97 >>>This was the movie that won that show? No, I just meant he has the power of greenlight. If he says he's going to make his friend's movie, that's a movie that will very likely get made. I don't know if he literally has greenlight power (I think few actually have real greenlight power) but as one of the top actors today (I can't believe I just wrote that, but it appears, despite all common sense, to be true), if he commits to a movie it's probably going to get made. Actors like him are big enough to almost always be a producer on the film, too, so he gets to make a lot of the decisions, and if it's fine with Matt Damon, it's fine then with the studio. (By and large. I'm not saying he can do whatever he wants, just that he gets leeway.)

Posted by: ace at March 04, 2011 10:40 PM (nj1bB)

98 >>>I haven't read all the comments so if I am repeating, tough. Hugh Hewitt has been pushing this movie a lot. I hope it's not for the religious angle. Maybe he liked that. I don't know, if you're religious, I gotta tell you, it's not like this movie is pushing a recognizable theology. I mean, according to this movie, people don't have free will. We've had it occasionally, but God has taken it away because we keep misusing it. According to the film, we're in one of the many long periods in which there is no free will. Periods in which we've had it have been very short. So I don't know. Maybe he thinks the movie is just pro-religion or something. I don't see it as pro-religion. I see it as taking the basic notion of religion and sort of just treating it as plot material to be used or disposed of as the movie requires. There's no redemption angle or anything. It's just about two people getting together and sort of defying God's will to do so. Eh. I was decieved and was expecting a totally different movie. Maybe if I hadn't been expecting a different movie and had known the basics of what this was, I would have had a different expectation, and liked it more.

Posted by: ace at March 04, 2011 10:45 PM (nj1bB)

99 >>>But, do you think it could have won his show? Well I guess you know the movies that did win his show, so, yes, this movie, actually, could have won Project: Greenlight.

Posted by: ace at March 04, 2011 10:46 PM (nj1bB)

100 I mean, they don't even SAY "God." They call him "The Chairman" or, well, "The Man Upstairs." I guess that's close enough. This is not a religious movie, though. It's not Bruce Almighty, even.

Posted by: ace at March 04, 2011 10:47 PM (nj1bB)

101 I mean, according to this movie, people don't have free will. We've had it occasionally, but God has taken it away because we keep misusing it.

Well then.  The Calvanists will like it.

Posted by: Ace's liver at March 04, 2011 10:51 PM (QgI7g)

102 For what it's worth, I do like Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep, but there's absolutely no question whatsoever that the Final Cut (and ONLY the Final Cut) of Blade Runner is the superior product.  Quite literally the most visually stunning sci-fi film ever made (precisely because it was the last great "in-camera" FX film), and the story lived up to that precisely by stripping Dick's overly ornate encumbrances down to the stark philosophical core.

I can't emphasize enough how the recent Final Cut version is the only one you want to see, though.  The original is a tragic botch job, and even the early '90s Director's Cut is kind of a mess.

Posted by: Jeff B. at March 04, 2011 10:52 PM (NjYDy)

103 By the way, this was a really valuable review.  I saw the trailer for this film in the theaters (I think it was when I saw Black Swan) and I thought exactly the same thing that Ace did: "huh, this looks like a cool sci-fi thriller.  Figured it might something along the lines of Dark City (which is holy-shit awesome), because that is *certainly* the way it was pitched in the trailer I saw.  Absolutely NO hint of romantic-comedy to it whatsoever.  I actually find it rather amusing that it was the subject of such a shameless bait-and-switch campaign.

Posted by: Jeff B. at March 04, 2011 10:55 PM (NjYDy)

104 It is my understanding that the first narration-dialogue that Ford recorded was actually good, but for some reason they kept rewriting it as not good enough, and they kept having him record new narration. I think the narration in the original cut was from the third or fourth recording, and he was, as he later confessed, sick of it and phoning it in. I like the idea of narration but yeah the narration in the original was weak. I am curious to see a cut with one of the earlier, supposedly better, narration tracks merged with the film. I don't see why you're saying the Final Cut is all that and a side of fries. It's just this and that we've seen from the other cuts, and this dumb Unicorn Dream Scott is so pleased with. It's cleaned up and remastered of course but it's just a bit more violence from the International cut plus the original sad ending (which I think was seen before in teh Director's cut) plus the Unicorn dream. What's the big deal? Same basic movie.

Posted by: ace at March 04, 2011 10:57 PM (nj1bB)

105 by the way Blade Runner was always supposed to have narration. It was supposed to carry over those long moody shots of the city and traffic and stuff. I think it would work better with the narration. I guess we don't need it at this point because we know the story. But this is why the Final Cut annoys me. There was footage available (but never shown) of Dekker meeting his shot-up colleague in a hospital, in an iron-lung type surgical machine. They could have put that in; they didn't. They could have put one of the better narration tracks (new to us!) in; they didn't. He just made very, very minor tweaks to the Director's Cut and said "New version." Which he says every 6-8 years.

Posted by: ace at March 04, 2011 11:02 PM (nj1bB)

106 I don't see why you're saying the Final Cut is all that and a side of fries. It's just this and that we've seen from the other cuts, and this dumb Unicorn Dream Scott is so pleased with.

It's cleaned up and remastered of course but it's just a bit more violence from the International cut plus the original sad ending (which I think was seen before in teh Director's cut) plus the Unicorn dream.

What's the big deal? Same basic movie.

The "unicorn dream" isn't dumb at all as far as I'm concerned -- in fact it's an absolutely crucial part of the film, without with the unicorn origami that Gaffe leaves at Deckard's apartment at the end makes no sense.  By having the strange, seemingly personal dream be something that Gaffe is clearly aware of (by leaving the origami as a 'message'), the key narrative point that Deckard himself is also a replicant is coherent.  Otherwise there's no way to get that from the original film.  Seriously: if you take the dream sequence out, the final scene loses all of its narrative impact, and we completely miss the implication that Gaffe (and presumably his bosses at the police station) know full well that Deckard isn't human.   That's a major part of the philosophical depth of the film for me, so I hated the fact that it was completely lost in the theatrical cut.

I agree with you that the idea of narration wasn't in itself a terrible idea: if it had been done well (both the writing AND the delivery are shit), it would have been an nice noirish touch.  But it just wasn't executed well at all.

Posted by: Jeff B. at March 04, 2011 11:07 PM (NjYDy)

107 But this is why the Final Cut annoys me. There was footage available (but never shown) of Dekker meeting his shot-up colleague in a hospital, in an iron-lung type surgical machine. They could have put that in; they didn't. They could have put one of the better narration tracks (new to us!) in; they didn't.

Have you seen those scenes?  They're all included, in full, on Disc 3 of the set.  As it turns out they're really rather poor.  Stilted acting by the shot-up colleague, clunky dialogue, and the scene itself would have been a momentum-killer wherever it was inserted.  That disc also includes huge excerpts of earlier narration you're talking about (seriously, you should definitely hunt it down if you haven't seen it -- all the outtakes and alternate shots are assembled with the alt. narration to create a "second" version of the movie that plays like a quicker summary, and it works really well), and it's really no great shakes.

Posted by: Jeff B. at March 04, 2011 11:10 PM (NjYDy)

108 >>>The "unicorn dream" isn't dumb at all as far as I'm concerned -- in fact it's an absolutely crucial part of the film, without with the unicorn origami that Gaffe leaves at Deckard's apartment at the end makes no sense. Eh, nonsense. The unicorn left behind was previously taken as just a calling card. What was ambiguous and therefore vaguely interesting in the original -- Hey, is Dekkard a replicant too? -- is boringly answered in the Final Cut (yeah, he is). How does removing ambiguity make a moody film better? It's just jarring, that dumb unicorn. And it's annoying because the backstory is that Ridley Scott had a lot of opportunity to do a lot of new stuff but instead focused most of his effort on three seconds of unicorn footage.

Posted by: ace at March 04, 2011 11:11 PM (nj1bB)

109 In the original footage, there were hints that dekkard was a replicant. first of all, it's simply implicit in this kind of movie in the first place, the same as it's implicit in Inception he may be in a dream in the end. Also, the replicant's eyes all glowed gold, which Dekkard's did too in a couple of scenes. Also, Gaff's full line at the end was recorded as, "you've done a man's job... but are you a man?" If they wanted to drop that hint they could have just used the full line. I didn't need no dumb unicorn. Given that all the fanboys were speculating for years Dekkard was a replicant WITHOUT the unicorn, it's simply not true it was "needed" for this angle. He was accused of being a replicant in the book (like I said, it's IMPLICIT, it's an obvious plot-point); and everyone just sort of guessed he was anyway. Confirming he's a replicant doesn't add to the story. It takes away from a small amount of talk-about-it-later mystery. It also really doesn't make a great deal of sense. We're hunting these illegal-on-earth replicants with another illegal-on-earth replicant? Oh, I guess it's NOT really all that illegal to have a replicant on earth, then.

Posted by: ace at March 04, 2011 11:16 PM (nj1bB)

110 How does removing ambiguity make a moody film better?

To be fair, it's still a pretty ambiguous movie, even in the Final Cut.  I think familiarity with the plot and all the debates surrounding the various versions might have dulled you that because you already know how it's supposed to go.  I only saw the film for the first time when the new Final Cut came out, and I had to go back and watch it a second to really catch the implications of what was going on there.  At first I just took it as you did -- as a "calling card," the way theatrical audiences would have.  It was only after re-watching that I was able to tie it together with the unicorn dream to realize the deeper message that Gaffe was sending.  So it isn't exactly like Scott is bashing us in the forehead with an obvious message here.  Blade Runner is plenty moody and ambiguous in its final version. 

Posted by: Jeff B. at March 04, 2011 11:18 PM (NjYDy)

111 To get any mileage out of that twist, the original would have needed to reveal, at the end, that Dekkard was one of the six (not five) replicants who got to earth, but he was caught first and reprogrammed to hunt the other five, his former "family." But just telling us he's a replicant? What does that matter? There's no payoff. It's an either/or proposition; fine, he's a replicant, not a human. How does the "he's a replicant" resolution make it any better than a "he really is human" resolution? Further, a major point of the movie was that, in the end, these so-called androids displayed emotion and compassion while the allegedly-human Dekkard failed to do so. So it was sort of a commentary, an inversion. But if Dekkard's a replicant too, then that's out the window, because then of course he didn't act with much compassion. He's a robot.

Posted by: ace at March 04, 2011 11:19 PM (nj1bB)

112 Confirming he's a replicant doesn't add to the story. It takes away from a small amount of talk-about-it-later mystery. It also really doesn't make a great deal of sense.

We're hunting these illegal-on-earth replicants with another illegal-on-earth replicant? Oh, I guess it's NOT really all that illegal to have a replicant on earth, then.

I tend to look at it in a different way: the job Deckard does is so dehumanizing, so degrading (slaughtering beings that are, essentially, as human as we are, sharing the same basic aspirations, dreams, and emotional needs -- remember how they cling to photographs and old memories?), that it isn't fit for a human to actually do.  Which is why they use a replicant for the job -- humanity's contempt for these quasi-humans ("skin-jobs!") is mixed with a gut-level realization that there's something nasty and wrong about denying them their right to live, even though it must be done.  So they get another skin-job to handle it.

Posted by: Jeff B. at March 04, 2011 11:23 PM (NjYDy)

113 >>>I had to go back and watch it a second to really catch the implications of what was going on there. At first I just took it as you did -- as a "calling card," the way theatrical audiences would have. It was only after re-watching that I was able to tie it together with the unicorn dream to realize the deeper message that Gaffe was sending. Well I guess it had a bigger impact on you. I had always thought the "He might be a replicant" was pretty implicit in the material. Maybe because I read the book, but maybe just because in this sort of movie, when reality is in question, they always broach the question of whether the hero is also: 1. a replicant 2. a ghost (sixth sense, the others) 3. a computer generated intelligence in an artificial reality world (13th Floor) 4. still dreaming (inception, dreamscape, total recall) 5. also infected with the disease and will turn into a monster at the end (Lair of the White Worm; The Thing) etc., etc., etc. Since Blade Runner's entrance into cult status, fanboys have been postulating Dekkard is an android.

Posted by: ace at March 04, 2011 11:24 PM (nj1bB)

114 But if Dekkard's a replicant too, then that's out the window, because then of course he didn't act with much compassion. He's a robot.

No, but the whole point of these new replicants is that they are *quite* capable of feeling human emotions and rising to the moral level of humanity.  So even if he's a replicant the message works all the same.  One way or another this is a film about the characters striving to discover what it really means to be human, to be alive.  Whether or not Deckard is a human or not, that message remains valid.

Posted by: Jeff B. at March 04, 2011 11:26 PM (NjYDy)

115 Well I guess it had a bigger impact on you. I had always thought the "He might be a replicant" was pretty implicit in the material. Maybe because I read the book, but maybe just because in this sort of movie, when reality is in question, they always broach the question of whether the hero is also:

Ah, that may well be part of the difference.  I definitely did not come to it with the same sort of baggage that you did, either in terms of knowing the book (I only read it later) or being so hung up on the sorts of sci-fi-trope questions that you were. 

I found it to be a profoundly ambiguous, confusing movie...in a GOOD way.  I really had to think about all the various thematic implications and assemble my understanding of what the message was.  You talk about how the Final Cut made things too on-the-nose and straightforward...I disagree.  I think it definitely does point towards one particular answer, but it sure as shit doesn't lead you by the nose like you're a child who needs to be told what to think.  It allows you to piece things together after the fact and brood over the various ironies (like, as you said, how to interpret the dehumanization theme of "human kills robots who are more human than him" if Deckard is himself a robot). 

Posted by: Jeff B. at March 04, 2011 11:31 PM (NjYDy)

116 Ace, I think from your clarification that I saw the same promos you did. There is an element of danger as you describe the movie: danger that the two lovers will be parted forever. This is basically the Orpheus and Eurydice story type: the determined lover defies the gods to be reunited with his true love. The Robin Williams fantasy What Dreams May Come was another movie of this type, where Williams in the Afterlife has to enter Hell to be reunited with his wife, who committed suicide after he died. Would you say that in The Adjustment Bureau, the lovers encounter frustration rather than danger from the obstacles the "angels" put in their way?

Posted by: stuiec at March 04, 2011 11:35 PM (JuWS+)

117 By the way Ace, let me repeat my question from #120: have you seen the deleted scenes from third DVD of the 4-DVD "Final Cut?"  It has all those things you said you wanted to see -- the hyperbaric chamber scenes, the original 'better' narration (it ain't that much better), plus it does the incredibly cool trick of assembling all of it into what is basically a complete "abridged" version of the movie...consisting entirely of outtakes, alternate takes, and unused footage and FX.  Clearly a labor of love on the part of the DVD restoration team.

Posted by: Jeff B. at March 04, 2011 11:39 PM (NjYDy)

118 Deckard as replicant opens up some plot holes.  If he's a replicant, why is he so weak, physically?  I mean, he can't even handle "basic pleasure model" Priss.  What is he, the accountant model?

If he's one of the six reprogrammed, why doesn't Zhora recognize him immediately?  Why would Tyrell waste time talking to him?

I'm glad they left that crap out in the theatrical release.

Posted by: Ace's liver at March 04, 2011 11:53 PM (QgI7g)

119 Damn, just looked at Hauer's IMDB page.  He's old!  It's almost like almost thirty years have gone by.

Posted by: Ace's liver at March 04, 2011 11:54 PM (QgI7g)

120 Ace: "Now that I've saved you $10 for a theater ticket, let me also save you $5 for a Blockbuster rental, too: Don't rent it, either. See it free if at all."

You miss yet another opening, Ace. See, it's right here where you should write, "Now that I've saved you this money, hit the AoSHQ tip jar and spend the evening with your favorite Ewok." Has RS McCain taught you nothing?!

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at March 05, 2011 12:40 AM (swuwV)

121

I may be just a simple minded type, but I thought the whole idea of Deckard being a replicant was the dumbest thing.

Stuff like 6 replicants vs 5 replicants I just ignored as bad editing.  Happy ending vs sad ending... I could see both as having good and bad points.

But Deckard a replicant?  Screw that.  Somone else mentioned how weak he was.  Also, Rachell, a replicant with memories was totally cutting edge research, still in the lab, so to speak.  Yet we've had Deckard out on the streets, an even more advanced model for years? 

Not buying it.

Posted by: ed at March 05, 2011 01:05 AM (Y2WVW)

Posted by: moron at March 05, 2011 02:46 AM (nEa/y)

123 In recent years, television has surpassed movies.  I've been watching a lot of BBC these days.  Their shows are 90 minutes long and the production quality great. For example:  Sherlock, Zen...

I have also watched a 4 episode miniseries called The Promise. Very slick and the most antisemetic crap I've seen.  They could never show it in the US.  But this is what is fed the brits and they all think it's "brilliant!"    

Posted by: moron at March 05, 2011 03:03 AM (nEa/y)

124 Now that I've saved you $10 for a theater ticket, let me also save you $5 for a Blockbuster rental, too: Don't rent it, either. See it free if at all.

Hey Ace, news! Blockbuster is going belly-up.

Posted by: Vic at March 05, 2011 03:40 AM (M9Ie6)

125 Thanks, Ace.  I scratched it from my list.

What about the cartoon western?  I forget what it's called.  Pixar Goes to Tombstone or something.  How's that one?

Posted by: Usin-my-SS-checks-to-buy-MMJ at March 05, 2011 03:42 AM (4sQwu)

126 Does it have Vampires in it? Because that's all that really matters anymore.

Silver comedy nails, given the line of retreat, "Is this the hill you really want to die on?" perpetually avoiding standing ground, Vampires define Congress better than "bad boys".

Posted by: maverick muse at March 05, 2011 03:49 AM (H+LJc)

127 They should have used Astin in 'The Informant' as well.

Posted by: AkRonin at March 05, 2011 04:23 AM (SLcC3)

128 When "Matt Damon" is the star, its a drone. As a viewer, to me Matt Damon and his bff have always come across as closet gay. Damon's acting doesn't even measure up to the intensity level of the screen star Scientologist whose eyes defer from revealing, remaining stilted on the surface as if that's as far as his and our minds go in dramatic high action thrillers. The only time there was any spark in Damon's eyes was while playing the gay (bi-whatever) murderer, Mr. Ripley. The rest of his on-screen appearances consist of non-commitment to anything but robotic performances.

There is a star who acts brilliantly; Leonardo DiCaprio intensifies stories rather than play the tag-along figure who stays tied to a stuck on stupid plot.  The acting in Good Will Hunting does not measure up to Who's Eating Gilbert Grape. Early work aside, their entire ouvre do not compare, but rather contrast inept against persuasive conviction. Were Damon and DiCaprio each to play characters that absolutely counter the actors' personal ideologies, only DiCaprio would succeed.

As to why the producers chose plot #2 rather than #1, obviously they made the movie that they wanted to produce, telling the story they wanted to tell, thinking they could sell it any way they wanted. Who's to stop that? Who's surprised at this point?

Monty might want to tie in the anti-virile masculinity doctrine projected by the media/Hollywood. On that argument, consider the lame latest 007 who announced prior to his first movie release as James Bond that he's staunchly anti-gun. As with selecting a "best" candidate for public office, his selection to star as 007 was based likely on his hair and firm jaw. But his eyes and swagger on screen remind me of Michael York whose most convincing performance, again, was being gay in Berlin (Cabaret, ol' chum).

Posted by: maverick muse at March 05, 2011 04:26 AM (H+LJc)

129 the only good thing about multiplex theaters ... if you don't like the one you're watch, leave and find one you finally do like ... repeat as offen as necessary ...

Posted by: mark x at March 05, 2011 04:31 AM (plLN9)

130

Thanks Ace for taking one for the team.  Do you need a neuralizer now?  Next movie I plan to see is Battle: Los Angeles.  And last Matt Damon movie I liked was Dogma where Matt boy was a not too bright renegade angel.

Blade Runner is like Lang's Metropolis, a well spring that inspires.  Unfortunately it seems there is an orthodoxy congealing around one question - Is Dekkard a replicant?  Considering the police drag the retired Dekkard back to duty, maybe.  Unicorn scene I don't even notice it, its that transitory.  It does not matter if Dekkard or Rachel or Gaffe are genetic human, what matters is the nature of their metaphysical existence.  Dekkard, Roy Batty, and Rachel turn out to be far more noble human beings than Tyrell or Gaffe.

Posted by: Anna Puma at March 05, 2011 04:33 AM (Qu0Xa)

131 The first film, more or less was Payback, a Ben Affleck vehicle, with Uma Thurman, and even she couldn't save the thing.

Posted by: justin cord at March 05, 2011 04:37 AM (DLRWS)

132 what matters is the nature of their metaphysical existence.

From Metropolis?

Posted by: maverick muse at March 05, 2011 04:39 AM (H+LJc)

133 The library is full of books.  As far as I know, none of them have Matt Damon in them.  They don't come with an audience that won't STFU and there is the possibility of having an adult beverage while reading at home.   My mind paints better scenes than any director I know of.  Books  come with advanced features like pause that you can't get in movie theaters.

I will admit there are movies that make sense.  There just aren't many movies that make sense.  I forget the name of the book that got made into "Eddie and the Cruisers" but the sound track made that movie.

I still have my ten bucks. Hollywood and Damon have none of it.  Win win. 


Posted by: MarkD at March 05, 2011 04:41 AM (6CLxP)

134 justin cord?

Payback is good. Like or detest him personally, Gibson's intensity performing on screen is very effective.

Posted by: maverick muse at March 05, 2011 04:43 AM (H+LJc)

135 I still have my ten bucks. Hollywood and Damon have none of it.  Win win.

Yeah, books rule.

Posted by: maverick muse at March 05, 2011 04:44 AM (H+LJc)

136
122 ace

Confirming he's a replicant doesn't add to the story. It takes away from a small amount of talk-about-it-later mystery. It also really doesn't make a great deal of sense.

It also goes against Dick's intent (so what else is new?). In the novel, Deckard and another blade runner have to give each other the Voight-Kampf test, and they both pass. Dick was more interested in the differences between androids and humans than in their similarities; apparently Rutger Hauer was disappointed with Scott's revised ending as well.

BTW, Dick wrote a screenplay for one of his own novels (Ubik)-- now that would be something to see! Especially if it was filmed the way he wrote it, because there's some neat stuff in there.

Posted by: Golem14 at March 05, 2011 04:47 AM (2X8VA)

137 Good morning!

I am not at risk since I rarely see first-run movies and avoid Matt Damon! whenever possible.

Can you believe that guy got best actor of the last decade, btw?  I can't. 

Posted by: Y-not at March 05, 2011 04:50 AM (pW2o8)

138 Posted by: buzzion at March 04, 2011 11:41 PM (oVQFe)

Come for the smart military blog, stay for the cruel (and exceedingly funny) jokes.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at March 05, 2011 04:57 AM (LH6ir)

139 What I can't figure out is why Pitch 1 would have appealed to Ace anyway. Would he really plunk down cash to see another Matt Damon movie about the evils of big corporations?

Posted by: Average Jen at March 05, 2011 05:03 AM (DBr05)

140 @Ace,

I'm sorry, but you have wasted your and everyone else's time with this thread. The New York Times reviewer says that it is a good movie, and as the paper of record, their opinions are of course the only ones that count.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at March 05, 2011 05:06 AM (LH6ir)

141 Posted by: moron at March 05, 2011 07:03 AM (nEa/y)

I hate that word. "Brilliant!" My sister has a pompous Brit friend who uses it all the time and it has leaked into my sister's vocabulary. I have to actively resist smacking the shit out of her every time she says it.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at March 05, 2011 05:12 AM (LH6ir)

142 Yes it was Playback, one of the signs that John Woo? had worn out his welcome around 1999.

Posted by: justin cord at March 05, 2011 05:17 AM (DLRWS)

143 OK....after reading that review, I simply must put on Team America. Later...... Meyaht Daymun

Posted by: Ben Affleck's Bong at March 05, 2011 05:17 AM (aJARt)

144 Ace, Thanks.  You have summed up pretty well why I only see stupid comedies that are routinely panned by almost all critics and score barely double digits on the tomato-meter. (You'll note that 70%-80% of viewers enjoy it though) I sit in the theatre and at the end everyone with me tells me I was the only one laughing the whole time.  The recent Adam Sandler flick is a great example.  A one-star debacle I enjoyed beyond all measure.

Posted by: dfbaskwill at March 05, 2011 05:19 AM (ndlFj)

145 ?

Posted by: phoenixgirl at March 05, 2011 05:25 AM (eOXTH)

146 whew.....i couldn't post on the last thread....i thought i was banned

Posted by: phoenixgirl at March 05, 2011 05:26 AM (eOXTH)

147 I heard from a few people that Rango is anything but a kids' movie


Damn.  Really?  What about Gnomeo and Juliet?  Is it good for kids?

My 3 year old is finally reading real books (not 1 word a page books) so we are taking my kids to the movies today

PS- If you haven't watched Despicable Me yet, watch it.  It is funny..


Posted by: momma at March 05, 2011 05:26 AM (penCf)

148 bah more hollywood crap.

evil corporations

renegade CIA agents being hunted by the CIA itself

another alien invasion flick (ive just about begun to root for the aliens every time)

a college road trip/party movie (nearly everyone i know like to harken back to high school or their childhoods, college years are barely mentioned. hollywood has a fascination unlike any other about college.)

oh and my personal favorite laugh fest...the "smart-criminal" type movie. the criminal archetype in hollywood in a profound genius, good looking, rich, and elusive. its mind blowing that someone actually writes scripts like this. oceans eleven, takers etc...

but by far the very WORST offender of the 'smart-criminal' archetype was the HBO series 'the wire'. those crack dealers were the smartz. the book the series was based on was even more of a giggle fest with its obvious bullshit.




Posted by: str8 outta at March 05, 2011 05:27 AM (Hznyf)

149 Thank you, Ace. I swear the marketing campaign DOES make it seem like the first synopsis and I was willing to battle liberal-prop induced nausea to see it. You saved me not just money but two hours of wasted time. This also tells me Matt Damien now gets the Jane Fonda Curse ... any movie he's in is guaranteed to be a turkey, a stinker, and loaded with liberal propaganda.

Hollywood is all about big money. Movies cost tens of millions to make which includes huge salaries for idiots like Damien ... yet, they propagandize against "corporations". The reason these studios and distributors go to such lengths to mask the "real" movie and sucker people in is to make money. No money, no movies ... but if Damien and his crowd keep it up long enough, they'll be filming their next movie in China or India.

This must represent the infamous disconnect from reality that infects most liberals.

Posted by: Full Moon at March 05, 2011 05:28 AM (DtbEv)

150 Another giant FU to Da Mayor this AM

Posted by: Dave at March 05, 2011 05:45 AM (6OwZc)

151 From the Telegraph, not the Onion: Michelangelo's David 'could collapse due to high-speed train building' Is there anything high speed trains can't do?

Posted by: USA at March 05, 2011 05:49 AM (YZISw)

152 Ha Ha Shaun of the Dead . Fuck Matt Damon.

Posted by: USS Diversity at March 05, 2011 05:49 AM (gJNMj)

153

ot: Eat shit Cheeze Jonsin - your Freddy phelps boy is a DEMOFUCK.

 

Posted by: cheeze f. Tard J at March 05, 2011 05:51 AM (0fzsA)

154 Why do they need an underground high speed train in Tuscany? That's ridiculous.

Posted by: moron at March 05, 2011 05:51 AM (nEa/y)

155 Why do they need an underground high speed train in Tuscany? That's ridiculous. __ Same as all gubmint projects. You have to ask the guys getting the kickbacks. They'll explain it to ya.

Posted by: USA at March 05, 2011 05:52 AM (YZISw)

156 A month ago, I rented the third Bourne movie because I wanted to see Edgar Gonazles.  I love the director, Paul Greenglass, but the editing and cinematography drove me nuts. Yes, I like fast pace films and aerial shots are cool, but there is something to be said about too much of a good thing.

Anyway, I recommend the 3 episode miniseries on Carlos the Jackal which was made for french television, starting Edgar Gonzales.  They released an edited version for US distribution in the theaters, bu the unedited version is better and can be found on the internet.   

Posted by: moron at March 05, 2011 05:57 AM (nEa/y)

157 Is this the Dick thread?

Posted by: andi sullivan at March 05, 2011 05:57 AM (7H/n0)

158 I hate that word. "Brilliant!" My sister has a pompous Brit friend who uses it all the time and it has leaked into my sister's vocabulary. I have to actively resist smacking the shit out of her every time she says it.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at March 05, 2011 09:12 AM (LH6ir)

 

Probably watched the Guinness ads too many times.

Posted by: PoconoJoe at March 05, 2011 05:58 AM (eupBu)

159 I hate that word. "Brilliant!" Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative)

Yeah, me. too.  It's like how over here the Hollywood twits declare each other "geniuses." 

Posted by: moron at March 05, 2011 06:02 AM (nEa/y)

160 If we had a Czar regulating the intertubes, we would have a new thread by now! Free cash from Obama's stash! And unlimited new threads!

Posted by: Still waiting in line for some of that Obama cash at March 05, 2011 06:04 AM (YZISw)

161 Guinness IS brilliant.

Posted by: USS Diversity at March 05, 2011 06:05 AM (gJNMj)

162 Posted by: moron at March 05, 2011 10:02 AM (nEa/y)

I think that the capacity to act -- which really is the ability to do what you are told by the director, and immerse yourself in a personality not your own -- has some significant downsides. One of them is the inability to think clearly and coherently.

I'm not joking. The stupidity and flaccid thinking that comes out of actor's mouths is stunning. It's more than just garden variety liberal stupid.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at March 05, 2011 06:10 AM (LH6ir)

163 I guess this is an open thread now. 

Hey, I thought of a new angle for getting the fleebagging Indiana Democrats back to town.  Indiana's Secy of State (an R) was just indicted on vote fraud charges (7 counts).  He says he won't resign (even though Daniels and others have called for him to do so).  Now, setting aside the complete irony of the indictments on vote fraud (which seems to just involve his own one vote and an address issue) when as far as I know nothing was done about the massive ACORN voter fraud in Gary Indiana in 2008, seems to me the Rs could call for impeachment, which would require the Dems to return to work.


Posted by: Y-not at March 05, 2011 06:10 AM (pW2o8)

164 ace......this movie had chick flick written all over it......

Posted by: phoenixgirl at March 05, 2011 06:13 AM (eOXTH)

165 ha ha "gaytarded"   brillian---um, that's great!

Posted by: USS Diversity at March 05, 2011 06:14 AM (gJNMj)

166 Guinness is overrated swill. 

Posted by: Sam Adams at March 05, 2011 06:14 AM (+gX1+)

167 181 ace......this movie had chick flick written all over it...... Posted by: phoenixgirl

Now you know Ace's dirty dirty secret.

Posted by: moron at March 05, 2011 06:15 AM (nEa/y)

168 Me giving up dough to see a movie made by commie Hollowood?  Chances are slim.  Me giving up dough for Matt Damon (!)? Chances are nil.

Posted by: RushBabe at March 05, 2011 06:16 AM (urYpw)

169 ace......this movie had chick flick written all over it......
Ewok finds girl. Ewok loses girl. Ewok eats girl.

Posted by: andycanuck at March 05, 2011 06:17 AM (7H/n0)

170 184 181 ace......this movie had chick flick written all over it...... Posted by: phoenixgirl I have written all over chicks in flicks.

Posted by: Ron Jeremy at March 05, 2011 06:17 AM (YZISw)

171 but if Damien and his crowd keep it up long enough, they'll be filming their next movie in China or India.
I'm looking forward to the day when CGI actors replace them all.

Posted by: andycanuck at March 05, 2011 06:19 AM (7H/n0)

172 but if Damien and his crowd keep it up long enough, they'll be filming their next movie in China or India.

That's their real audience at this point, isn't it? Maybe not India, since they don't totally hate the U.S., but unfriendly foreign countries.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at March 05, 2011 06:20 AM (nAOMZ)

173 Sam what do you drink...Sam?

Posted by: USS Diversity at March 05, 2011 06:23 AM (gJNMj)

174 I want fresh thread hot sticky buns w/pecans and cold milk this Sat AM
 
 

Posted by: melvin at March 05, 2011 06:24 AM (3OCZw)

175

So did the movie at least hint at the moral dilemma of doing what you personally will benefit from or desire in the short term despite that choice causing great calamity in the future?

Oh wait. I guess Matt Damon not being president is their great calamity.

Wow! Thank G-d for redboxdvd I can get crap to kill time for so cheap it doesn't hurt.

Posted by: Mark at March 05, 2011 06:26 AM (E5ixI)

176 Sorry, I was still thinking about Candace Kita.  What did you say?

Posted by: Cherry π at March 05, 2011 06:27 AM (+sBB4)

177 191 I want fresh thread hot sticky buns w/pecans and cold milk this Sat AM Isn't technology amazing? At least the COLD milk and HOT sticky buns part?

Posted by: USA at March 05, 2011 06:28 AM (YZISw)

178 You said "gaytarded" and "butt plug"?  What kind of weekend are you having?

Are we allowed to use these words?

Posted by: Cherry π at March 05, 2011 06:29 AM (+sBB4)

179

Thanks for the heads up.  I don't want to support left-winger hollywood unless they actually make a movie worth seeing.

 

Posted by: Lemon Kitten at March 05, 2011 06:31 AM (0fzsA)

180 I just filled up my gas tank with $4 per gallon ObamaGas, I have no money left for movies.

Posted by: Cherry π at March 05, 2011 06:31 AM (+sBB4)

181 Matt Damon and his assfaggot boyfriend Ben Affleck can both go horsefuck. I don't see movies with either of them in it.

Posted by: capt soothsayer, uss caine at March 05, 2011 06:32 AM (uFokq)

182 There are a lot of movies I won't pay to watch because of the actor's political activity/comments:
Matt Damon
Sean Penn
Tim Robins
George Clooney

Why?  Because the bad guys are always evil (take your pick), corporations, CEOs, white Christians, republicans, white people.

You can always count on that shit.  And, this is the funny part, if the bad guy is black, brown, or yellow, he is that way because of evil corporations, CEOs, white Christians, republican, white people, made him that way.






Posted by: Jack at March 05, 2011 06:33 AM (kCT7A)

183 But if you have to see a film with your gf, it might still be one to see?

Oh, wait, I don't have one anymore.  Nevermind.

Posted by: ParisParamus at March 05, 2011 06:34 AM (bgSjf)

184 Ace, you screwed-up by seeing it opening weekend, before real people reviewed it--you assumed the risk.

Posted by: ParisParamus at March 05, 2011 06:36 AM (bgSjf)

185 Well, sorry to be such an annoying smarty-pants, but plot #2 is what I expected from the trailer.

Posted by: arhooley at March 05, 2011 06:36 AM (0BUUM)

186 You know what's complete bullshit? The 'experts' are ignoring the fact that gas has been above $2.75/gal for almost a year. These sustained high gas prices are killing people -- and it's getting worse. But they pretend that gas just suddenly spiked in the last month. Fuel oil prices are killing people in the cold-climate areas. I'm not an expert, but I have a brain, and I predict we'll see a substantial impact from fuel prices in Q1 GDP.

Posted by: capt soothsayer, uss caine at March 05, 2011 06:37 AM (uFokq)

187 And if you have to watch Hollywood leftist shit, buy a bootleg DVD.
You rip off the Hollywood bastards and support your local underground economy.

Win/win.

Posted by: Jack at March 05, 2011 06:37 AM (kCT7A)

188 What's the problem with gas prices?

Posted by: Traitor Media at March 05, 2011 06:38 AM (gJNMj)

189 And again, just like every morning when I wake up, I wonder if today is the day that the Republicans stand up and act like an opposition party.

Posted by: capt soothsayer, uss caine at March 05, 2011 06:39 AM (uFokq)

190 This is why I only watch teh pr0n.

Posted by: The Atom Bomb of Loving Kindness at March 05, 2011 06:39 AM (CnrIa)

191 Indeed. Maybe today is a good day to watch some vintage Lady Chatterly flicks.

Posted by: capt soothsayer, uss caine at March 05, 2011 06:41 AM (uFokq)

192 So..... just a wild guess but we shouldn't count on a  "The Adjustment Bureau Ultimatum" ?

Posted by: melvin at March 05, 2011 06:43 AM (3OCZw)

193 Wait till you try our "PurpleDrank" brew

Posted by: Barak Obama at March 05, 2011 06:46 AM (BAtLQ)

194 I'm not an expert, but I have a brain

  Oh shit one got away !

Posted by: 1984 at March 05, 2011 06:47 AM (3OCZw)

195

210 Wait till you try our "PurpleDrank" brew

 

 

It's the shade of my lovely wife!

Posted by: Barry Obama at March 05, 2011 06:48 AM (zgZzy)

196 The ant story in the sidebar is a hit piece for the warmists. gack. poor, poor fungus.

Posted by: Artruen at March 05, 2011 06:49 AM (L+dBi)

197

Maybe today is a good day to watch some vintage Lady Chatterly flicks.

 

 

Bow chicka wow wow!

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at March 05, 2011 06:49 AM (zgZzy)

198 But it is as good as one of his buddy Affleck's movies, right? Like Gigli?

Posted by: Who Knows at March 05, 2011 06:57 AM (rZgW4)

199 Two thoughts:  this proves that trailers are both advertising, and a separate art form, the latter of which makes me think of Hugh Hewitt's Friday film guy who reviews...trailers (as well as films).

Also, I guess matinées (matin=morning in French) are in the afternoon because originally, the primary performance was in the afternoon, and the exceptional one was earlier, in the morning; and then both shifted forward in time?

Posted by: ParisParamus at March 05, 2011 06:59 AM (bgSjf)

200 What's the problem with gas prices?
Posted by: Traitor Media at March 05, 2011 10:38 AM

Nothing whatsoever.

Posted by: Heavily subsidized alternative power producers at March 05, 2011 07:00 AM (0BUUM)

201 Hollyweirds become too liberal today and they are nothing more then a bunch of leftists propegandists

Posted by: Spurwing Plover at March 05, 2011 07:04 AM (vA9ld)

202

Posted by: melvin at March 05, 2011 10:24 AM (3OCZw)

Seriously, are there real people named Melvin?  I know there are some Marvins, which is already mysterious, but MELVIN?  Doesn't that scream Jerry Lewis character? 

Posted by: ParisParamus at March 05, 2011 07:04 AM (bgSjf)

203 SQUAWK!

Posted by: capt soothsayer, uss caine at March 05, 2011 07:06 AM (uFokq)

204 Fuel oil prices are killing people in the cold-climate areas. I'm not an expert, but I have a brain, and I predict we'll see a substantial impact from fuel prices in Q1 GDP.
Posted by: capt soothsayer, uss caine at March 05, 2011 10:37 AM

And in the warm-climate area (California, not Hell -- yet), where we drive long distances and we have a single-car commuter lifestyle, AND have a crippling fuel regulation coming into effect that is predicted to increase gasoline prices by around 70% independent of Middle Eastern unrest -- well, do I need to finish the sentence?

Posted by: arhooley at March 05, 2011 07:07 AM (0BUUM)

205 Remember ALICE? Vic Tayback was Mel (Melivn) Sharples. Vic Tayback was also in an episode of the Twilight Zone with Mr French from FAMILY AFFAIR.

Posted by: soothsayerwing plover at March 05, 2011 07:08 AM (uFokq)

206 Vic Tayback was also an alien gangster in an episode of STAR TREK.

Posted by: soothsayerwing plover at March 05, 2011 07:09 AM (uFokq)

207 #222:  Well, Mel was the fictional character.  I forgot about "Mels"  Nevermind.

Posted by: ParisParamus at March 05, 2011 07:11 AM (bgSjf)

208 the name 'melvin' has faded out like the names 'mabel' and 'dolores' and 'hubert'

Posted by: soothsayer is not a timid woodland creature at March 05, 2011 07:13 AM (uFokq)

209 even the name 'frederick' is fading away

Posted by: soothsayer is not a timid woodland creature at March 05, 2011 07:13 AM (uFokq)

210
Yeah, I'm really sick of the evil corporations behind everything and the stupid it's not the muzzies who are the terrorists but the white male veterans.  I was very disappointed in Castle this week.

Posted by: moron at March 05, 2011 07:15 AM (nEa/y)

211 but MELVIN?  Doesn't that scream Jerry Lewis character?

  I liked some of the old Jerry Lewis stuff back in the day. Two of my favorite scenes of his were
 One where he sets up the seats in a ball room. And the one where he takes the cop test and has to put the shapes in the box.

Posted by: 1984 at March 05, 2011 07:17 AM (3OCZw)

212 Frederick Forsyth!  He knew how to write a good thriller that translated well to film:  Day of the Jackal, Odessa File.

Posted by: moron at March 05, 2011 07:18 AM (nEa/y)

213 Jerry Lewis is unexplored territory for me.  My guess is I will eventually fall in love with his films, mostly for their portrayal of a lost world FREE OF MATT DAMON.

Posted by: ParisParamus at March 05, 2011 07:19 AM (bgSjf)

214 Vic Tayback was also in an episode of the Twilight Zone with Mr French from FAMILY AFFAIR.

You sure it was Tayback?  I don't recall it being him.  I just saw this episode last week (I'm a huge TZ fan and have the entire box set).  It's the one where Mr. French is a granter of wishes and the petty criminal man he assists wishes for nonstop money, women, luxury...but soon becomes bored?

Posted by: Lady in Black at March 05, 2011 07:21 AM (x9xik)

215 you're probably right, Lady; I wasn't sure when I wrote it. I know it wasn't Telly Savalas or Jack Klugman... brb..

Posted by: soothsayer is not a timid woodland creature at March 05, 2011 07:24 AM (uFokq)

216 Well since this is a movie thread and I have watched two movies today I'll give a rundown on both.

First movie was Race To Witch Mountain. A sequel/remake of the old Disney classic, Return To Witch Mountain, which in turn was a sequel to Escape From Witch Mountain, which was a sequel to Escape To Witch Mountain. I guess next Disney will do a dozen new Haley Mills movies (oops they already have).

Anyway in the first movie (1975) the bad guy was an evil millionaire businessman helped by Eddie Albert. In the new movie the bad guys are the U.S. government and the good guys are a biracial cab driver and curvy space scientist. What could be more PC? Well how about the planet being destroyed because the evil corporate types destroyed the atmosphere. I supposed Walt is spinning in his grave. I give it a -10 on a 1 to 5 scale. Glad I paid nothing to watch it on TV.

The second movie was Nanny McPhee Returns (2010). This was one of the very rare times that a sequel was as good, if not better than, the original. I laughed at scenes in this movie all the way through. If you liked the first one and have not seen the second yet, I heartily recommend this one. 5 stars.

And I did pay for that one. Bought it at the Blockbuster here that is going out of business and holding a fire sale on all their stock.

Posted by: Vic at March 05, 2011 07:24 AM (M9Ie6)

217 Professor Julius Kelp aka Buddy Love
The Nutty Professor

Posted by: melvin at March 05, 2011 07:25 AM (3OCZw)

218 you're right Mel Sharples was never on the Twilight Zone. He was, however, on two episodes of Family Affair.

Posted by: soothsayer is not a timid woodland creature at March 05, 2011 07:30 AM (uFokq)

219 The Cheap Detective They don't make movies like this, anymore. Ensemble cast, zany antics, etc.

Posted by: soothsayer is not a timid woodland creature at March 05, 2011 07:33 AM (uFokq)

220 I liked Jerry Lewis in "The Geisha Boy".  His Mr. Wooley character showed not only his funny side but also his sensitive side.  His relationship with the young japanese boy was very touching.  Probably his best movie sans Dean Martin.

Posted by: Truck Monkey at March 05, 2011 07:34 AM (yQWNf)

221 Matt Damon has pulled the bait and switch before.  The previews for The Talented Mr. Ripley all showed a guy (Damon) who was obsessed with becoming his best friend (Jude Law).  They implied that he used some deception to try to take over his life, have his girlfriend, etc.  In the actual movie Damon's character doesn't want to become his best friend, he wants to become his best friend's lover.   I guess I might have liked the movie, if I didn't feel so utterly deceived by the previews.  It wasn't like a twist ending, or anything, it was a completely different plot.

I was willing to endure Matt Damon  to see John Slattery and Emily Blunt in a sci-fi thriller.  Can't do it, though, if it really is a romantic comedy with political and religious themes.  I'm pissed, too, because this was the only movie this season I was actually looking forward to that my husband was willing to watch with me.

Posted by: disappointed at March 05, 2011 07:44 AM (Te3kW)

222 The Ewok and Ace have become so famous, surely there's a "EWOK THE MOVIE" just around the corner?  The million dollar question is: who will play Ewok?  And will Morons be recruited for hobo walk-ons?


Posted by: Full Moon at March 05, 2011 07:57 AM (DtbEv)

223 I'm waiting for Atlas Shrugged on April 15.

Posted by: GK Chesterton at March 05, 2011 07:57 AM (NVSUd)

224

You seriously didn't know?

The ads led me to think it was about angels and love and fate and defying fate and awwwww and smoochie-smoochie.

(Upside for us: Matt Damon doesn't become president. The end-times will have to wait.)

Posted by: FireHorse at March 05, 2011 07:59 AM (k3RPu)

225 Don't bring up Escape From Witch Mountain! Ace is still carrying a torch for Kim Richard.

Posted by: moron at March 05, 2011 08:04 AM (nEa/y)

226 #238 just says: messages longing
- Games
- Messages mad
- love messages

Guess we're safe for today...

Posted by: ParisParamus at March 05, 2011 08:06 AM (bgSjf)

227

okay sorry ace but dude how did you think even a bit that it was the first plot? maybe it's because I'm a frelance writer and all that jazz, so I always know where things are headed but damn ace the ads basically sold the film as the 2nd plot where you got the technical laser and stuff is my guess, did you skip the video w/ the trailer of this movie every couple seconds or something?

dude you thought Black Swan should have won best picture and had no clue about the other 9 films, I think we best leave the film reviews to someone else

and PS I don't say this in a soothsayer/Chicago Jedi asshole kind of way, just saying dude...

Posted by: YRM (Loving The FL Supreme Court Right Now) at March 05, 2011 08:16 AM (UzBwz)

228 and PSS, I would rather see plot 2 then 1, but this film doesn't interest me enough to check it out unless I bump into it

Posted by: YRM (Loving The FL Supreme Court Right Now) at March 05, 2011 08:17 AM (UzBwz)

229 Other noteworthy movies I have watched since DISH added all those free HD movie channels:

Another Disney repop Alice In Wonderland with Johnny Dep as the Mad Hatter. It was OK but like all Tim Burton movies it was dark as hell. Helen Bohnam carter reprised her role of Morgan Le Fey in the mini-series Merlin. Hell, at least it wasn't PC as hell. 3.5 stars.

2012 a PC world disaster movie based on the Mayan calender thing. This is one of the made in India movies. It is PC as hell but the special effects are awesome. 3 stars.

Posted by: Vic at March 05, 2011 08:20 AM (M9Ie6)

230 You forgot to mention the Magical Negro!

Posted by: benjamin at March 05, 2011 08:26 AM (skBcg)

231 You forgot to mention the Magical Negro!

Posted by: benjamin at March 05, 2011 12:26 PM (skBcg)

Oh yes, several of them.

Posted by: Vic at March 05, 2011 08:37 AM (M9Ie6)

232 Top 10 Box Office Draws of 2010

1.    Toy Story 3    BV    $415,004,880   
2    Alice in Wonderland (2010)    BV    $334,191,110   
3    Iron Man 2    Par.    $312,433,331   
4    The Twilight Saga: Eclipse    Sum.    $300,531,751   
5    Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1    WB    $294,403,739    -
6    Inception    WB    $292,576,195   
7    Despicable Me    Uni.    $251,513,985   
8    Shrek Forever After    P/DW    $238,736,787   
9    How to Train Your Dragon    P/DW    $217,581,231   
10    Tangled    BV    $194,994,340    3,603    $48,767,052   

Six out of ten are repops or sequels.

Posted by: Vic at March 05, 2011 09:08 AM (M9Ie6)

233 Am I the only one who knew this was a love story instead of a sci-fi thriller?

Posted by: Aurvant at March 05, 2011 09:40 AM (9eDW4)

234 >>>Would you say that in The Adjustment Bureau, the lovers encounter frustration rather than danger from the obstacles the "angels" put in their way? Yes, that is the thing. That is the type of "danger" common in romances or romantic comedies, where there's a conspiracy of circumstance that threatens to keep the would-be lovers apart, and the audience roots for them to overcome them. That's a fine basic story that I've got no problems with. It works, obviously. But the promos for The Adjustment Bureau did not suggest to me the stakes in this case where the stakes common in romances or romantic comedies, that is, simply that two people will remain apart. The promos suggested physical danger, threats to their lives, as is the major threat in a thriller. (Note that 99% of thrillers include a romance subplot too, but it is definitely a SUBplot, and definitely NOT the major conflict the hero and heroine face. In a thriller, they may start of disliking each other, but the major source of fear in such movies is that they will be killed, not just that they won't get married.) That's why I was deceived. This movie is not a thriller at all. Not even just a thriller with a larger romantic subplot than I was expecting. Without the threat to physical being, it's really not a thriller. And I will say that they attempt to paper over this by having the angels says something about "reseting" someone who deviates from the plan, turning his brain to mush. But they just *say* that; you do not see, as you would in a thriller, a casualty of this procedure, or the scary machinery used to make it happen. And once you realize that these are angels (which is very early), and not even Raiders of the Lost Ark scary Angels of Death and Vengeance, but befuddled, bureaucratic, meddlesome but basically nice angels, you simply do not believe they're going to do anything to Matt Damon except frustrate him by putting obstacles in his way (like giving the girl a message that he'll be right by to pick her up, while diverting Matt Damon all the way across town so he can't and winds up standing her up). And that's all they do do. That threat of mush-brain? Just as you expect, they do not carry through on that made-up threat, even though Matt Damon breaks all of the rules they set out which they said would result in mush-brain. Nice, goodhearted angels are like the British Empire: They may be controlling and meddlesome but at the end of the day you know you're dealing with people who are basically not malicious and play by certain rules. Well, I mean, angels are much nicer than the British Empire, of course. But you know what I mean: A thriller involving the Nazis is scary, because they're malicious; if the enemies are agents of the Queen, well, in most movies, you're not exactly super-scared of them as you would be of Nazis. The movie tries to pretend that maybe these angels are scary but look, they are literally angels. And again, not Raiders of the Lost Ark Angels of Death (which are, in fact, pretty damn scary). They're nice clean-cut guys in mid-fifties suits who commit small acts of minor sabotage (spilling your coffee, making your cell phone coverage drop) to cause missed meetings. So no one's exactly in any danger here. When we realize that the angels we've been dealing with are too nice to do anything bad, they call in another angel, nicknamed "The Hammer," and played by scary actor Terrance Stamp, who is supposed to be more threatening; but again, these are friendly movie angels, so what is the absolute worst even an angel nicknamed "The Hammer" is going to do? Well, you can speculate that he can do a lot of awful stuff, but in fact, if you guessed he doesn't do anything more than the others do (except lie, to convince Matt Damon to give up on his girl), you'd be right.

Posted by: ace at March 05, 2011 09:45 AM (nj1bB)

235

#238 says:

Hello gentlemen.

All your base are belong to us.

You have no chance to survive, make your time.

Hahahahaha.

Posted by: The Atom Bomb of Loving Kindness at March 05, 2011 10:42 AM (CnrIa)

236 does it really?

Posted by: ace at March 05, 2011 11:16 AM (nj1bB)

237 I am going to have to agree with Ace on this. From memory of the trailers: Matt Damon forcefully being carried away by men in dark suits with fedoras (MIDSWF), from what looks to be a board room aftering discovering said men doing something malicious appearing (or at least out of the ordinary), Matt Damon and Emily Blunt fearfully train hopping while running from MIDSWF, etc. Every scene with MIDSWF in the trailer has them  menacing Damon and/or Blunt. This was marketed as a thriller to the masses. My first thought was "Wow, they are REALLY trying to hard to hop on the Inception wave here". From the trailers my impression that this was about as like to a romantic comedy as The Matrix trailer, or Dark City trailer. Both of which had a romantic subplot, as Ace said above, and which virtually every movie regardless of genre has. Hell, even "Cherry 2000" had a romantic subplot.

Posted by: Croaker at March 05, 2011 12:58 PM (sUcFJ)

238 Oh, and as an aside. I'm pretty sure the unicorn scene in the director's cut of Blade Runner was just Ridley Scott working on his leet unicorn skills for Legend 3 years later.

Posted by: Croaker at March 05, 2011 01:02 PM (sUcFJ)

239

re 148.  Not with Metropolis.  More because of the robot girl going beserk with power.  Then there is AlGore Rotwang releasing his second chakra.

As for CGI actors, well I guess Looker starring Albert Finney and Susan Dey predicted that.

Posted by: Anna Puma at March 05, 2011 02:49 PM (9qpGj)

240 As a long time Dick-ophile, with 42 of his novels and short stories on my shelf, I wholeheartedly agree with Ace and his review. I would however give "Adjustment Bureaux", a "film" very, very loosely based on the Phil Dick short story "Adjustment Team" (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Adjustment_Team) a big, fat ZERO! After 15 minutes, blood began shooting from my shrivelled eye sockets, while screaming hordes of deranged audience members began projectile vomiting in unison in the pit of ordeal that had formed amid the first several rows of seats. I don't think I will ever be able to eat popcorn again after literally floating down the aisle in a sea of foetid puke.

Posted by: TrueNorthist at March 05, 2011 02:53 PM (RQtDB)

241

I guess I'm the contrarian at the party.  I ended up seeing both Rango and The Adjustment Bureau at the movies this weekend.

I would give Rango maybe two stars (generous).  It seemed like an animated amalgamation of 5-6 different movies which I've seen before and were done better.  The movies that were paid "homage" to ranged from Chinatown to the Sharron Stone western (which I forget the name of) to the Clint Eastwood "man with no name" movies.  This would not be so bad but the movie just moved very slowly.

On the other hand the Adjustment Bureau would get 3-4 stars in my book.  I actually went to see it after reading Ace's review.  The premise that Matt Damon's character was fighting against heaven for the woman he loved was intriguing to me.  I guess I'm at the point in life that I like stories that make you think a little bit.  In movies like in the proverbial massage parlor a happy ending never hurts.

 

Posted by: m.c. at March 05, 2011 07:47 PM (/mRPp)

242

No one watches his show in real life; why does everyone watch it in the movies? Anyway, he's not here. But I'm not giving the movie an extra half star just for that.

That was really funny.  So there you have it Ace, it was worth it you sitting through this garbage for that joke alone.

Posted by: Decaf at March 06, 2011 12:29 AM (3+xlM)

243

Was M Night Shalaman the director, with the twist being this was a shittier movie than you expected? Or isnt that always M Night Shalaman twist these days?

HowardDevore, yes and yes.  I only saw M. Night Shyamalan's 'The Village' which was very disappointing.

Posted by: Decaf at March 06, 2011 12:37 AM (3+xlM)

244

I just saw Rango. ... I mean it was pretty good, then it got to the point of the moles riding bats for an aerial attack with Ride of the Valkyries as background music, with the bats exploding into fireballs when they hit the rocks,

Noted, will watch.

Posted by: Decaf at March 06, 2011 01:03 AM (3+xlM)

245

Ace #1 on this Cracked list should fit into what your saying.  Their big example is one I remember well.  Kangaroo Jack.  All trailers I remember seeing for it made it look like it was about a talking anthropomorphic kangaroo.

They did the same thing with Snow Dogs.

Posted by: Decaf at March 06, 2011 02:06 AM (3+xlM)

246 Read about anti-Ameican commie Howard Zinn.  Damon took Zinn as his mentor.  Will never see another Damon film of any kind, any where.


Posted by: dwall at March 07, 2011 02:29 PM (17FnW)

247 I told you you were going to pay. This movie is just the beginning.

Posted by: Alicia Pain at June 24, 2011 10:02 PM (idJn1)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
238kb generated in CPU 0.15, elapsed 0.3107 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.2608 seconds, 375 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Support





Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!


Contact

Change the At to "@" and the DOT to "."




Intermarkets' Privacy Policy
Support


Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!


Search Thingy



Archives

Monthly Traffic

  • Pages: 269110
  • Files: 2004
  • Bytes: 8.6G
  • CPU Time: 321:20
  • Queries: 9025950

Content

  • Posts: 22824
  • Comments: 5930392

Feeds


RSS 2.0 Atom 1.0