There's Something About Mary's Recent Activity

list There's Something About Mary's Recent Activity - Spout http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around There's Something About Mary on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg There's Something About Mary's Recent Activity - Spout http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 Film:There's Something About Mary http://www.spout.com/films/There_s_Something_About_Mary/118664/default.aspx

Title: There's Something About Mary
Year: 1998
Director: Peter Farrelly, Bobby Farrelly
Plot: The Farrelly Brothers set this romantic comedy in their home state of Rhode Island. In 1985, when teen-nerd Ted Stroehmann (Ben Stiller) challenges a high-schooler who's bullying retarded Warren Jenson (W. Earl Brown), his concern prompts Warren's sister, the dazzling and desirable Mary Jenson (Cameron Diaz) to choose Ted as her senior prom date, a fact Ted's pals find hard to believe. However, on prom night, Ted gets his penis caught in his zipper, so the much-desired date never happens. Living in Providence and waxing nostalgic 13 years later, Ted hires Pat Healy (Matt Dillon) to locate Mary, and the creepy private investigator finds her in Miami, where she lives with her tan-shriveled roommate Magda (Lin Shaye). After Pat develops a stalker-style fixation on the lovely, unattached Mary, he lies to Ted, telling him that she's now an overweight mother confined to a wheelchair. Employing professional eavesdropping equipment, Pat gathers a dossier on Mary's life and future plans, information that forms the basis for more lies when Pat begins dating her. Sure enough, Mary falls for Pat, although her friend Tucker (Lee Evans) is very suspicious of Pat's claim to be a Harvard-educated architect. Meanwhile, Ted learns the truth but continues to encounter offbeat obstacles as he accelerates to Miami in hopes of finding happiness with his true love. Former Modern Lovers singer Jonathan Richman vocalizes a narrative ballad of onscreen commentary in the Cat Ballou (1965) tradition. Most of the cast sings and frolics to Build Me Up, Buttercup by The Foundations during the closing credits. ~ Bhob Stewart, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 33
Number of Lists: 57
Number of blog posts: 3
Number of discussion threads: 2
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Mon, 10 Aug 2009 23:30:04 GMTThere's Something About Mary1998Peter Farrelly, Bobby FarrellyThe Farrelly Brothers set this romantic comedy in their home state of Rhode Island. In 1985, when teen-nerd Ted Stroehmann (<a href="/players/P___112816/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Ben Stiller</a>) challenges a high-schooler who's bullying retarded Warren Jenson (W. Earl Brown), his concern prompts Warren's sister, the dazzling and desirable Mary Jenson (<a href="/players/P___195733/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Cameron Diaz</a>) to choose Ted as her senior prom date, a fact Ted's pals find hard to believe. However, on prom night, Ted gets his penis caught in his zipper, so the much-desired date never happens. Living in Providence and waxing nostalgic 13 years later, Ted hires Pat Healy (<a href="/players/P____19210/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Matt Dillon</a>) to locate Mary, and the creepy private investigator finds her in Miami, where she lives with her tan-shriveled roommate Magda (Lin Shaye). After Pat develops a stalker-style fixation on the lovely, unattached Mary, he lies to Ted, telling him that she's now an overweight mother confined to a wheelchair. Employing professional eavesdropping equipment, Pat gathers a dossier on Mary's life and future plans, information that forms the basis for more lies when Pat begins dating her. Sure enough, Mary falls for Pat, although her friend Tucker (<a href="/players/P____22272/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Lee Evans</a>) is very suspicious of Pat's claim to be a Harvard-educated architect. Meanwhile, Ted learns the truth but continues to encounter offbeat obstacles as he accelerates to Miami in hopes of finding happiness with his true love. Former Modern Lovers singer Jonathan Richman vocalizes a narrative ballad of onscreen commentary in the <a href=/films/5427/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Cat Ballou</a> (1965) tradition. Most of the cast sings and frolics to Build Me Up, Buttercup by The Foundations during the closing credits. ~ Bhob Stewart, All Movie Guide33Tag Target (>10)57323http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/u42292noh9o.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/There_s_Something_About_Mary/118664/default.aspxFilm Spout Post: Top 5 all-time imho http://www.spout.com/blogs/jabrone1975/archive/2009/1/2/39030.aspx

Post By: jabrone1975
Post To: jabrone1975 Blog
Post Date: 1/2/2009 1:17:26 AM
Body: I'm stunned at any low ratings for this one, which is one of the funniest modern movies ever made. Matt Dillon's douchebag character is genius. GENIUS. The casting is perfect and the performances are flawless. I know it's death to build up a comedy but this is one very few that I always felt lived up to the hype. I felt compelled to throw a 5-star review up there for this masterpiece. And now I have.
]]>Fri, 02 Jan 2009 06:17:26 GMTjabrone1975jabrone1975 Blog1/2/2009 1:17:26 AMI'm stunned at any low ratings for this one, which is one of the funniest modern movies ever made. Matt Dillon's douchebag character is genius. GENIUS. The casting is perfect and the performances are flawless. I know it's death to build up a comedy but this is one very few that I always felt lived up to the hype. I felt compelled to throw a 5-star review up there for this masterpiece. And now I have. Spout Post: Let's talk about 'Sex' http://www.spout.com/blogs/usesoap/archive/2008/6/3/30385.aspx

Post By: usesoap
Post To: usesoap Blog
Post Date: 6/3/2008 11:07:47 AM
Body: Anticipating the anguished emails of readers who may take umbrage to any critiquing whatsoever of their beloved characters from “Sex and the City,” I opted for a different (read: cowardly) approach to this review which enlists the talents of my editor, one Jen Ellingsworth – perhaps the target audience for this show. My theory is that if the producers wanted to make a film that catered specifically to the audience, it would have been released in the comfortable confines of its HBO home. Since it was debuting at the multiplex, however, it should be fair game for a standard critique on how it stands up as a film. (For example, if Pixar films are for children, shouldn’t they be open to adult reviewers?) Since I was a virgin to “Sex” – I have never watched an episode, nor was I overcome with any desire in which to do so – I felt the thoughts and comments of one who had spent many an hour with our fab foursome would be of relative importance. So below are transcripts of our post-screening conversation over a few rounds of martinis and Budweiser. For those wanting to hear a podcast of our entire conversation, visit natsukashi.wordpress.com. RR: You being, would you say, a quasi-fan? JE: I would say a pretty rabid fan. RR: That's fantastic because that puts us at two polar opposites. RR: You went to see this with your mother. Is she also a fan? JE: No, I think she's seen snippets of episode, but never a whole 'Sex and the City” episode. She certainly knows the characters from the media and pop culture, but she loved it. I think it was just a piece of confection...it has no nutritional value whatsoever. But it was just a lot of fun. RR: My thought process for this is, for guys, movies like “Transformers” have their explosions and guns, and this is kind of the estrogen-filled antithesis of a male-oriented blockbuster, in that the explosions come in the form of Louis Vuitton bags and the guns come in the form of 3-inch stiletto heels. JE: The Manolo Blahniks. RR: See, I don't even know how to pronounce it, that's why I was hoping that you would say it. JE: You are going to have to Google that name, trust me. RR: I am so fashionably challenged, it's sad. But that's a good place to start with this movie because it is so fashion conscious. And because my fashion can literally be found in the back of magazines where you can buy T-shirts with sayings from the 80s on them. This (film) looked like I was at Le Cirque du Soleil. It looked like some of the best fashion designers in the country got together and vomited up the worst aberrations of fabric that they could onto these women. JE: I agree. I mean the bird in the hair (worn by Carrie, played by Sarah Jessica Parker) during her wedding scene. That, to me, was just deplorable. But some of the things were very, very cute, Rob. Maybe not for those of us in the Cape Region. RR: I'm going to guess that it really doesn't have to do with the regions of the country, but rather regions of the body of whether or not you are going to enjoy this film. Because my feeling is that a lot of guys were drug through with misty eyes as they passed by the “Iron Man” and “Indiana Jones” marquee and had to be seated in there with Carrie Bradshaw and her friends... (Let's ) go over the premise of this film. JE: It was basically revisiting the girls – Charlotte (played by Kristin Davis), Miranda (played by Cynthia Nixon), Carrie and Samantha (played by Kim Cattrell) – four years after the series ended to see where they are in their lives. Basically, the whole plot revolves around Carrie and Big (played by Chris Noth), her on-again, off-again love interest, who...get engaged and... RR: They fall in and out of love (repeatedly). JE: Exactly. They've had a tumultuous ten-year relationship and it's seeing what the next step is for that. And babies and jobs and things like that ensue for the foursome. RR: For you, as a fan, was (the film) a big payoff? Did the series end at such a point where this tied everything up in a nice, tidy bow, or was it something that felt like a few more episodes? JE: I feel like it was a few more episodes, quite honestly... RR: It was a LOT of more episodes, let's say. Two and a half freakin' hours? Come on! It was like “Dances with Martinis.” JE: I know, what's next, the two-and-a-half-hour movie of “Two and a Half Men?” To me, it felt like a very long episode. Or, if I had rented the box set of a season of episodes. RR: It's didn't feel cinematic to me. New York has looked better after it was leveled by aliens in “Independence Day.” For having “City” in the title, it didn't feel like it really showcased the beauty of New York. And it felt very confined and cramped. There wasn't much flair from a cinematic perspective. JE: I can see that... (but) they were trying to shoehorn so much in those two and a half hours with how many years of “Sex and the City” on television, ten? RR: The term “excess” comes to mind in every sense of the word. Not just the materialism of the leads (who were) very materialistic...they solved crises by retail therapy and alcoholism. JE: It's true. That is “Sex and the City.” If you are a tried and true fan, you will really enjoy this movie because they've done right by the TV series. But does it belong on the big screen? I don't know. For me, it was good because I did watch the series and I still do. RR: As far as the product placement, was the series as filled with name dropping as there was in this, because honestly, it seemed like there was something being hawked every few minutes of this film, whether it was a designer name or a mineral water or the name of a restaurant, everybody had something to pimp out in this film. JE: The movie was shameless in that respect. The series, not so much. RR: As far as the comedy was concerned in this, at times, I honestly felt like maybe they had the Farrelly Brothers (“Something About Mary”) stop in and direct some of it. In specific, there was an instance where one of the character, Miranda, the lawyer, is rather negligent in, let's say, “landscaping” of the body. It seemed like a very broad style of comedy where it wanted to play with the sexy shenanigans of the Farrellys...The women of the film, and this is from someone who has not spent any time, but in that time that I spent in a darkened theater with them, they seemed so shallow and narcissistic and materialistic that I didn't feel that I could find anything worth merit for these girls, and I'm hoping that the series preceding this helped to flesh them out, but for a newcomer, the movie certainly did not. JE: I can totally understand what you are saying. My whole point is, as a viewer, even for the first time, which my mom basically was, you have to look at it like that cell phone that Carrie had in the movie...it's pretty and shiny, but the prettiness and shininess really doesn't mean anything. And it's not meant to mean anything. It's just like escapism. It was just eye candy – the clothes, the fashion, even the music. And there are strung throughout the movie little nuggets that only people who have watched it from the beginning would get, but I think a lot of that movie could have ended up on the editing room floor. RR: Believe me, I did my research on this. “Entertainment Weekly” put out an entire volume on “Sex and the City” and I read every damn episode guide. JE: Good job! RR: I know. I wanted to make sure that I knew my stuff going in here because I knew the wrath that I would face if I were a tad too harsh on this. It seemed to me that from a male perspective, there was a real anti-romantic vide in this movie. For as “Cinderella-story” as it wanted to be, there seemed to be this entire undercurrent of how romance really is kind of a fallacy. JE: They do eventually get to the point at the end, where they wrap it up nicely, I think. But they could have wrapped it up a little sooner. RR: There's a new character that was introduced and it was Carrie's assistant. Jennifer Hudson of “Dreamgirls” plays her. JE: Beautiful girl. RR: And Oscar-nominated, I should add. JE: I was shocked to see her in it. I had no idea. RR: Personally, I was disappointed because here you have an Oscar-nominated actress, who, I felt, was put in (the film) to say, “Hey look, let's try to pick up the black market.” JE: I felt the same thing. At one point Carrie gives her a rather extravagant gift, and it was so schmaltzy.... (and I'm) saying that from the fan standpoint. That was just a little too much. RR: In that scene, Carrie says “You gave me my life back,” and her assistant says “You gave me a Louis Vuitton”... and that to me summed up the mentality of these four women. Their life can essentially be compacted into a handbag and toted away as long as the Chihuahua can fit in it. JE: Things. A lot of “thing” envy. Excess. RR: From a straight male perspective, I can probably say that I would not walk but run to the other side of the street if any of these women were approaching from the opposite direction. At least based upon this film, I could not see myself cozying up to any of these four characters, because there was just zip appeal to me and they felt more narcissistic than most leads that I should feel compassion for, in a feature film, at least. JE: I think if you spent more time, which you probably will not based on what I'm hearing now... you know, rent the box set, get some Cosmos going... Seriously, I have already talked to my friends who are fans and said “As a fan, you should check this out.” Now, someone who is not that familiar with the series? Put it at the bottom of the Netflix queue. RR: I would go a step further and say, make plans to have kidney stone removal or something... Jen, any closing comments on “Sex and the City?” JE: It is, I cannot say enough, confection. No nutritional value, just sex...and the city. RR: I thought the sex was rather unsexy, but this is why I ambushed you to accompany me on this journey, so that I would at least be buoyed by your positive comments and not suffer the wrath as I would expect. So, thank you very much. JE: Thank you, Rob. RR: I will have this on your desk promptly, boss!
]]>Tue, 03 Jun 2008 15:07:47 GMTusesoapusesoap Blog6/3/2008 11:07:47 AMAnticipating the anguished emails of readers who may take umbrage to any critiquing whatsoever of their beloved characters from “Sex and the City,” I opted for a different (read: cowardly) approach to this review which enlists the talents of my editor, one Jen Ellingsworth – perhaps the target audience for this show. My theory is that if the producers wanted to make a film that catered specifically to the audience, it would have been released in the comfortable confines of its HBO home. Since it was debuting at the multiplex, however, it should be fair game for a standard critique on how it stands up as a film. (For example, if Pixar films are for children, shouldn’t they be open to adult reviewers?) Since I was a virgin to “Sex” – I have never watched an episode, nor was I overcome with any desire in which to do so – I felt the thoughts and comments of one who had spent many an hour with our fab foursome would be of relative importance. So below are transcripts of our post-screening conversation over a few rounds of martinis and Budweiser. For those wanting to hear a podcast of our entire conversation, visit natsukashi.wordpress.com. RR: You being, would you say, a quasi-fan? JE: I would say a pretty rabid fan. RR: That's fantastic because that puts us at two polar opposites. RR: You went to see this with your mother. Is she also a fan? JE: No, I think she's seen snippets of episode, but never a whole 'Sex and the City” episode. She certainly knows the characters from the media and pop culture, but she loved it. I think it was just a piece of confection...it has no nutritional value whatsoever. But it was just a lot of fun. RR: My thought process for this is, for guys, movies like “Transformers” have their explosions and guns, and this is kind of the estrogen-filled antithesis of a male-oriented blockbuster, in that the explosions come in the form of Louis Vuitton bags and the guns come in the form of 3-inch stiletto heels. JE: The Manolo Blahniks. RR: See, I don't even know how to pronounce it, that's why I was hoping that you would say it. JE: You are going to have to Google that name, trust me. RR: I am so fashionably challenged, it's sad. But that's a good place to start with this movie because it is so fashion conscious. And because my fashion can literally be found in the back of magazines where you can buy T-shirts with sayings from the 80s on them. This (film) looked like I was at Le Cirque du Soleil. It looked like some of the best fashion designers in the country got together and vomited up the worst aberrations of fabric that they could onto these women. JE: I agree. I mean the bird in the hair (worn by Carrie, played by Sarah Jessica Parker) during her wedding scene. That, to me, was just deplorable. But some of the things were very, very cute, Rob. Maybe not for those of us in the Cape Region. RR: I'm going to guess that it really doesn't have to do with the regions of the country, but rather regions of the body of whether or not you are going to enjoy this film. Because my feeling is that a lot of guys were drug through with misty eyes as they passed by the “Iron Man” and “Indiana Jones” marquee and had to be seated in there with Carrie Bradshaw and her friends... (Let's ) go over the premise of this film. JE: It was basically revisiting the girls – Charlotte (played by Kristin Davis), Miranda (played by Cynthia Nixon), Carrie and Samantha (played by Kim Cattrell) – four years after the series ended to see where they are in their lives. Basically, the whole plot revolves around Carrie and Big (played by Chris Noth), her on-again, off-again love interest, who...get engaged and... RR: They fall in and out of love (repeatedly). JE: Exactly. They've had a tumultuous ten-year relationship and it's seeing what the next step is for that. And babies and jobs and things like that ensue for the foursome. RR: For you, as a fan, was (the film) a big payoff? Did the series end at such a point where this tied everything up in a nice, tidy bow, or was it something that felt like a few more episodes? JE: I feel like it was a few more episodes, quite honestly... RR: It was a LOT of more episodes, let's say. Two and a half freakin' hours? Come on! It was like “Dances with Martinis.” JE: I know, what's next, the two-and-a-half-hour movie of “Two and a Half Men?” To me, it felt like a very long episode. Or, if I had rented the box set of a season of episodes. RR: It's didn't feel cinematic to me. New York has looked better after it was leveled by aliens in “Independence Day.” For having “City” in the title, it didn't feel like it really showcased the beauty of New York. And it felt very confined and cramped. There wasn't much flair from a cinematic perspective. JE: I can see that... (but) they were trying to shoehorn so much in those two and a half hours with how many years of “Sex and the City” on television, ten? RR: The term “excess” comes to mind in every sense of the word. Not just the materialism of the leads (who were) very materialistic...they solved crises by retail therapy and alcoholism. JE: It's true. That is “Sex and the City.” If you are a tried and true fan, you will really enjoy this movie because they've done right by the TV series. But does it belong on the big screen? I don't know. For me, it was good because I did watch the series and I still do. RR: As far as the product placement, was the series as filled with name dropping as there was in this, because honestly, it seemed like there was something being hawked every few minutes of this film, whether it was a designer name or a mineral water or the name of a restaurant, everybody had something to pimp out in this film. JE: The movie was shameless in that respect. The series, not so much. RR: As far as the comedy was concerned in this, at times, I honestly felt like maybe they had the Farrelly Brothers (“Something About Mary”) stop in and direct some of it. In specific, there was an instance where one of the character, Miranda, the lawyer, is rather negligent in, let's say, “landscaping” of the body. It seemed like a very broad style of comedy where it wanted to play with the sexy shenanigans of the Farrellys...The women of the film, and this is from someone who has not spent any time, but in that time that I spent in a darkened theater with them, they seemed so shallow and narcissistic and materialistic that I didn't feel that I could find anything worth merit for these girls, and I'm hoping that the series preceding this helped to flesh them out, but for a newcomer, the movie certainly did not. JE: I can totally understand what you are saying. My whole point is, as a viewer, even for the first time, which my mom basically was, you have to look at it like that cell phone that Carrie had in the movie...it's pretty and shiny, but the prettiness and shininess really doesn't mean anything. And it's not meant to mean anything. It's just like escapism. It was just eye candy – the clothes, the fashion, even the music. And there are strung throughout the movie little nuggets that only people who have watched it from the beginning would get, but I think a lot of that movie could have ended up on the editing room floor. RR: Believe me, I did my research on this. “Entertainment Weekly” put out an entire volume on “Sex and the City” and I read every damn episode guide. JE: Good job! RR: I know. I wanted to make sure that I knew my stuff going in here because I knew the wrath that I would face if I were a tad too harsh on this. It seemed to me that from a male perspective, there was a real anti-romantic vide in this movie. For as “Cinderella-story” as it wanted to be, there seemed to be this entire undercurrent of how romance really is kind of a fallacy. JE: They do eventually get to the point at the end, where they wrap it up nicely, I think. But they could have wrapped it up a little sooner. RR: There's a new character that was introduced and it was Carrie's assistant. Jennifer Hudson of “Dreamgirls” plays her. JE: Beautiful girl. RR: And Oscar-nominated, I should add. JE: I was shocked to see her in it. I had no idea. RR: Personally, I was disappointed because here you have an Oscar-nominated actress, who, I felt, was put in (the film) to say, “Hey look, let's try to pick up the black market.” JE: I felt the same thing. At one point Carrie gives her a rather extravagant gift, and it was so schmaltzy.... (and I'm) saying that from the fan standpoint. That was just a little too much. RR: In that scene, Carrie says “You gave me my life back,” and her assistant says “You gave me a Louis Vuitton”... and that to me summed up the mentality of these four women. Their life can essentially be compacted into a handbag and toted away as long as the Chihuahua can fit in it. JE: Things. A lot of “thing” envy. Excess. RR: From a straight male perspective, I can probably say that I would not walk but run to the other side of the street if any of these women were approaching from the opposite direction. At least based upon this film, I could not see myself cozying up to any of these four characters, because there was just zip appeal to me and they felt more narcissistic than most leads that I should feel compassion for, in a feature film, at least. JE: I think if you spent more time, which you probably will not based on what I'm hearing now... you know, rent the box set, get some Cosmos going... Seriously, I have already talked to my friends who are fans and said “As a fan, you should check this out.” Now, someone who is not that familiar with the series? Put it at the bottom of the Netflix queue. RR: I would go a step further and say, make plans to have kidney stone removal or something... Jen, any closing comments on “Sex and the City?” JE: It is, I cannot say enough, confection. No nutritional value, just sex...and the city. RR: I thought the sex was rather unsexy, but this is why I ambushed you to accompany me on this journey, so that I would at least be buoyed by your positive comments and not suffer the wrath as I would expect. So, thank you very much. JE: Thank you, Rob. RR: I will have this on your desk promptly, boss! Spout Post: Re: Top 5 Everybody Seems To Love But I Hate!!! http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_Top_5_Everybody_Seems_To_Love_But_I_Hate/190/17013/1/ShowPost.aspx

Post By: achance42
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 8/1/2007 12:11:33 PM
Body: 5. There's Something About Mary/Meet the Parents - I don't really hate these movies but I have no desire to see either one again and they deserve to be singled out for what they have wrought in their paths. For all their "shock" humor value, neither film is that funny. In fact, between these two being big hits and the success of "Friends," which thrived entirely on the premise that a funny dialogue all depends on the inflections with which it is being said, lowered America's expectations for comedy in the 21st century.4. The Illusionist - I was extraordinarily bothered by Ridley Scott's Matchstick Men, not because it was poorly made or poorly acted or anything like that, but because it was painfully obvious to me from about five minutes in who was zooming whom. I had a much deeper reaction to The Illusionist. Not only was it easy to figure out where you were supposed to start looking for the twist (because of course there was one) but again, I figured out who was in on what. But that's not what ruined this movie for me. What ruined it was that the relationship between Edward Norton and Jessica Biel was so shallow that I didn't buy it, nor did I care about them as individuals. And something happens in the film that seems to be a triumph but winds up eradicating any sympathy we had for them. I can't believe that anyone would prefer this to The Prestige.3. Talladega Nights - The Anchorman trashing going on here upsets me greatly, though I won't argue with anyone who doesn't like Will Ferrell; it's a matter of taste. But I will argue with the people who trash Anchorman yet enjoy Talladega Nights. I tried, I really tried to like this movie, but after about 30 minutes, I gave up trying to like the movie and realized that it just wasn't funny. It was Will Ferrell dumbing himself down. Not that his humor is particularly cerebral to begin with, but at the very least, he's just flat out bizarre which is usually enough. Here, it's just predictable lowest-common-denominator jokes that you would see on Blue Collar TV or Mind of Mencia. Will Ferrell and Sacha Baron Cohen (not to mention comedic sidekick extraordinaire John C. Reilly) never manage to squeeze out more than 2 or 3 gags that made me laugh. This is one of those children of bad Ben Stiller movies and "Friends" that I was referring to before.2. Transformers - I can't say much on this; it still hurts. It's just not enough for me to see live-action Transformers; they have to do something cool... oh, and a boring and poorly-written human plot should not take up 65% of the movie. And if we make concessions for this tripe just because "it's the Transformers," then what's to stop us from making concessions for Pearl Harbor simply because, "it really happened."1. Crash (2005) - I've been aware of and conscious of racism for a very long time. And I just don't see how you can give such an important, complex and delicate subject such a black-and-white (no pun intended) treatment, not to mention making the film condescending AND inherently racist. This movie didn't give me as much to think about as the fact that people think it gives you so much to think about. THAT is what I dislike the most about Crash: that so many people were moved by such a vapid, faux-insightful hack job. People of every race should have cried foul on this one. Instead, it gets the Oscar. I wonder what Spike Lee thinks about that one.
]]>Wed, 01 Aug 2007 16:11:33 GMTachance42Top 58/1/2007 12:11:33 PM5. There's Something About Mary/Meet the Parents - I don't really hate these movies but I have no desire to see either one again and they deserve to be singled out for what they have wrought in their paths. For all their "shock" humor value, neither film is that funny. In fact, between these two being big hits and the success of "Friends," which thrived entirely on the premise that a funny dialogue all depends on the inflections with which it is being said, lowered America's expectations for comedy in the 21st century.4. The Illusionist - I was extraordinarily bothered by Ridley Scott's Matchstick Men, not because it was poorly made or poorly acted or anything like that, but because it was painfully obvious to me from about five minutes in who was zooming whom. I had a much deeper reaction to The Illusionist. Not only was it easy to figure out where you were supposed to start looking for the twist (because of course there was one) but again, I figured out who was in on what. But that's not what ruined this movie for me. What ruined it was that the relationship between Edward Norton and Jessica Biel was so shallow that I didn't buy it, nor did I care about them as individuals. And something happens in the film that seems to be a triumph but winds up eradicating any sympathy we had for them. I can't believe that anyone would prefer this to The Prestige.3. Talladega Nights - The Anchorman trashing going on here upsets me greatly, though I won't argue with anyone who doesn't like Will Ferrell; it's a matter of taste. But I will argue with the people who trash Anchorman yet enjoy Talladega Nights. I tried, I really tried to like this movie, but after about 30 minutes, I gave up trying to like the movie and realized that it just wasn't funny. It was Will Ferrell dumbing himself down. Not that his humor is particularly cerebral to begin with, but at the very least, he's just flat out bizarre which is usually enough. Here, it's just predictable lowest-common-denominator jokes that you would see on Blue Collar TV or Mind of Mencia. Will Ferrell and Sacha Baron Cohen (not to mention comedic sidekick extraordinaire John C. Reilly) never manage to squeeze out more than 2 or 3 gags that made me laugh. This is one of those children of bad Ben Stiller movies and "Friends" that I was referring to before.2. Transformers - I can't say much on this; it still hurts. It's just not enough for me to see live-action Transformers; they have to do something cool... oh, and a boring and poorly-written human plot should not take up 65% of the movie. And if we make concessions for this tripe just because "it's the Transformers," then what's to stop us from making concessions for Pearl Harbor simply because, "it really happened."1. Crash (2005) - I've been aware of and conscious of racism for a very long time. And I just don't see how you can give such an important, complex and delicate subject such a black-and-white (no pun intended) treatment, not to mention making the film condescending AND inherently racist. This movie didn't give me as much to think about as the fact that people think it gives you so much to think about. THAT is what I dislike the most about Crash: that so many people were moved by such a vapid, faux-insightful hack job. People of every race should have cried foul on this one. Instead, it gets the Oscar. I wonder what Spike Lee thinks about that one. Spout Post: I thought it was Ok. http://www.spout.com/blogs/drewbarrymoregirl/archive/2007/3/3/6003.aspx

Post By: DrewBarrymoreGirl
Post To: DrewBarrymoreGirl Blog
Post Date: 3/3/2007 8:50:22 PM
Body: I wasnt crazy about this movie but it was funny i didnt realize it was rated R till just now =P but i really like the farelly brothers and they make Great films like Fever Pitch, Shallow hal, and lots more and obviously if its made by them its gunna be funny! i wouldnt say this is a must see movie but if its on tv ya id check it out
]]>Sun, 04 Mar 2007 01:50:22 GMTDrewBarrymoreGirlDrewBarrymoreGirl Blog3/3/2007 8:50:22 PMI wasnt crazy about this movie but it was funny i didnt realize it was rated R till just now =P but i really like the farelly brothers and they make Great films like Fever Pitch, Shallow hal, and lots more and obviously if its made by them its gunna be funny! i wouldnt say this is a must see movie but if its on tv ya id check it out Spout Post: Didn't want to see Mary? http://www.spout.com/blogs/movies_i_do_not_want_to_see-70/archive/2006/4/6/811.aspx

Post By: PammyK
Post To: Movies I do not want to see
Post Date: 4/6/2006 1:51:53 PM
Body: This film is on the "Movies we wish we hadn't seen" list. Why?The hives and the hair "gel" were pretty gross, but overall I thought it was pretty funny.
]]>Thu, 06 Apr 2006 17:51:53 GMTPammyKMovies I do not want to see4/6/2006 1:51:53 PMThis film is on the "Movies we wish we hadn't seen" list. Why?The hives and the hair "gel" were pretty gross, but overall I thought it was pretty funny. Spout Tag:funny http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/funny/MemberTagFilms.aspxfunny
Number of films tagged: 609

Number of people who tagged: 316

Number of times used: 942

]]>Wed, 16 Dec 2009 21:10:58 GMT609316942Tag Spout Tag:Loved-It http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Loved-It/MemberTagFilms.aspxLoved-It
Number of films tagged: 509

Number of people who tagged: 179

Number of times used: 921

]]>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:56:35 GMT509179921Tag Spout Tag:fun http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/fun/MemberTagFilms.aspxfun
Number of films tagged: 459

Number of people who tagged: 142

Number of times used: 296

]]>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 14:23:09 GMT459142296Tag Spout Tag:overrated http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/overrated/MemberTagFilms.aspxoverrated
Number of films tagged: 152

Number of people who tagged: 106

Number of times used: 240

]]>Fri, 20 Mar 2009 23:37:37 GMT152106240Tag Spout Tag:highschool http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/highschool/MemberTagFilms.aspxhighschool
Number of films tagged: 864

Number of people who tagged: 81

Number of times used: 291

]]>Sun, 15 Nov 2009 12:23:33 GMT86481291Tag Spout Tag:deception http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/deception/MemberTagFilms.aspxdeception
Number of films tagged: 1090

Number of people who tagged: 55

Number of times used: 123

]]>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:18:11 GMT109055123Tag Spout Tag:dog http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/dog/MemberTagFilms.aspxdog
Number of films tagged: 1373

Number of people who tagged: 47

Number of times used: 161

]]>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:00:53 GMT137347161Tag Spout Tag:awful http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/awful/MemberTagFilms.aspxawful
Number of films tagged: 81

Number of people who tagged: 41

Number of times used: 88

]]>Mon, 06 Oct 2008 18:48:37 GMT814188Tag Spout Tag:dating http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/dating/MemberTagFilms.aspxdating
Number of films tagged: 326

Number of people who tagged: 39

Number of times used: 88

]]>Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:02:31 GMT3263988Tag Spout Tag:lies http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/lies/MemberTagFilms.aspxlies
Number of films tagged: 187

Number of people who tagged: 32

Number of times used: 85

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:57:25 GMT1873285Tag Spout Tag:accident http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/accident/MemberTagFilms.aspxaccident
Number of films tagged: 1329

Number of people who tagged: 27

Number of times used: 62

]]>Fri, 09 Oct 2009 03:32:36 GMT13292762Tag Spout Tag:prom http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/prom/MemberTagFilms.aspxprom
Number of films tagged: 53

Number of people who tagged: 20

Number of times used: 37

]]>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:54:59 GMT532037Tag Spout Tag:stalking http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/stalking/MemberTagFilms.aspxstalking
Number of films tagged: 490

Number of people who tagged: 18

Number of times used: 35

]]>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:13:40 GMT4901835Tag Spout Tag:shoes http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/shoes/MemberTagFilms.aspxshoes
Number of films tagged: 54

Number of people who tagged: 17

Number of times used: 23

]]>Fri, 13 Feb 2009 20:36:14 GMT541723Tag Spout Tag:happiness http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/happiness/MemberTagFilms.aspxhappiness
Number of films tagged: 198

Number of people who tagged: 14

Number of times used: 21

]]>Thu, 02 Jul 2009 00:43:46 GMT1981421Tag