The dumb-as-shiat adam sandler movie must get an "A++ would suicide again"

I wonder how many people who wrote in to complain actually saw it.

Mr. Chainsaw: Totally agree with the author, but his response to the comments he got shouldn't have been any longer than "I loved it so I gave it an A, f*ck you."

My two favorite movies last year were Kick-Ass and Scott Pilgrim. Were they deeper or more artistically complex than, say, Black Swan or Social Network? Hell no, but they were hilarious and a sh*tload of fun.

I'm not one of those "just turn your brain off!" people who excuses stuff like Transformers, but a movie doesn't have to be Oscar bait to be great and enjoyable.

my two favorite movies last year too.

Mr. Chainsaw My two favorite movies last year were Kick-Ass and Scott Pilgrim. Were they deeper or more artistically complex than, say, Black Swan or Social Network? Hell no, but they were hilarious and a sh*tload of fun.


I'd argue that Scott Pilgrim was easily as artistically complex as the two latter movies. It had a great aesthetic and nailed the geeky comic/video game feel it was aiming for, with the added bonus of being a shiatload of fun.

One of my favorite lines came after Amir (from college humor) asks Kumar to go to some party with him.

"Nah, I gotta stay here and smoke this weed or else I won't get high."

Soooo excited for this movie. I rewatched 'White Castle' the other night in preparation. Will probably wait for December, though. Can't deal with Xmas crap till after Thanksgiving.

It kind of sucked, only a handful of laughs.

My statement on this, as always, revolves around food (I sound fat, but I'm not, mostly because the alcohol keeps me from properly metabolizing calories).

Some movies are burgers. Some movies are filet paired with a woody red wine. There's nothing wrong with a burger, when you want a burger. Not every meal has to be prepared by a 4-star chef.

But that doesn't mean there aren't shiatty burgers. If it's dry, tasteless, and the consistency of shoe-leather- it's a bad burger. It's not bad because it wasn't steak- it's bad because it is a bad burger. So much commercial drek is all about throwing something on the bun and getting it out the door, so many of those mass-commercial movie ideas are bad as a result. There are far more bad burgers than there are good burgers, but that doesn't mean hamburgers are bad.

t3knomanser: My statement on this, as always, revolves around food (I sound fat, but I'm not, mostly because the alcohol keeps me from properly metabolizing calories).

Some movies are burgers. Some movies are filet paired with a woody red wine. There's nothing wrong with a burger, when you want a burger. Not every meal has to be prepared by a 4-star chef.

But that doesn't mean there aren't shiatty burgers. If it's dry, tasteless, and the consistency of shoe-leather- it's a bad burger. It's not bad because it wasn't steak- it's bad because it is a bad burger. So much commercial drek is all about throwing something on the bun and getting it out the door, so many of those mass-commercial movie ideas are bad as a result. There are far more bad burgers than there are good burgers, but that doesn't mean hamburgers are bad.

And some movies, like Just Go With It, are sh*t sandwiches,

Nemo's Brother: Mr. Chainsaw: Totally agree with the author, but his response to the comments he got shouldn't have been any longer than "I loved it so I gave it an A, f*ck you."

My two favorite movies last year were Kick-Ass and Scott Pilgrim. Were they deeper or more artistically complex than, say, Black Swan or Social Network? Hell no, but they were hilarious and a sh*tload of fun.

I'm not one of those "just turn your brain off!" people who excuses stuff like Transformers, but a movie doesn't have to be Oscar bait to be great and enjoyable.

my two favorite movies last year too.

I'm sorry, but I can't let you associate The Social Network with deepness or artistic complexity. It's matter-of-fact, entertaining and that's about it

Didn't they give the Footloose remake an A-? If I was a critic, before doing that I would go look back at some of the movies I gave a B.

Dude, Where's My Car? - awful.

Harold and Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay - total crap.

Harold and Kumar go to White Castle - one of the best comedies of the last decade.

How did that happen?

I'm posting from the past. Suck it, daylight savings time

Your favorite movie franchise sucks, apparently. Who knew?

//havent seen it yet
//will
//IN THREE D

I haven't seen it, so I don't know, but in general EW's two movie reviewers tend to not really match up to my tastes. They've hated stuff I liked and loved stuff I thought was meh.

I've often wished EW would diversify their pool of critics. I miss the olden days of Siskel and Ebert...if one of them liked a movie, that was one thing, but two thumbs up was usually a pretty good indication that you wouldn't be wasting your money.

Yeah, my lawn, etc.

There is an unwritten rule that a comedy or horror film can never receive higher than a B-

skinink: I saw it today and it had some funny parts. It's worth a rental at least, although Harold was right that 3D is over. It didn't add anything to the movie.
And I liked the line that Paula Garcés said to Harold: "Fark me a baby."
[www.all-pictures.org image 564x800]

Garces has a kid. Been a MILF for quite a while now.

/the more you know

t3knomanser: My statement on this, as always, revolves around food (I sound fat, but I'm not, mostly because the alcohol keeps me from properly metabolizing calories).

Some movies are burgers. Some movies are filet paired with a woody red wine. There's nothing wrong with a burger, when you want a burger. Not every meal has to be prepared by a 4-star chef.

But that doesn't mean there aren't shiatty burgers. If it's dry, tasteless, and the consistency of shoe-leather- it's a bad burger. It's not bad because it wasn't steak- it's bad because it is a bad burger. So much commercial drek is all about throwing something on the bun and getting it out the door, so many of those mass-commercial movie ideas are bad as a result. There are far more bad burgers than there are good burgers, but that doesn't mean hamburgers are bad.

I like the cut of you jib, sir.

It's probably very good for what it is: stoner comedy for white people who "get" humor based on references to pop culture.

astoreth: Mr. Chainsaw My two favorite movies last year were Kick-Ass and Scott Pilgrim. Were they deeper or more artistically complex than, say, Black Swan or Social Network? Hell no, but they were hilarious and a sh*tload of fun.


I'd argue that Scott Pilgrim was easily as artistically complex as the two latter movies. It had a great aesthetic and nailed the geeky comic/video game feel it was aiming for, with the added bonus of being a shiatload of fun.

Scott Pilgrim was a Bollywood musical.

SockMonkeyHolocaust: It's probably very good for what it is: stoner comedy for white people who "get" humor based on references to pop culture.

Alright fine asshole, we'll get off your lawn. Sorry.

I saw it this weekend - it was okay, but not as funny as the first two. Needed more NPH.

That said, Owen Glieberman works for Entertainment Weekly. Entertainment Weekly is owned by Warner Bros. Coincidentally, Warner Bros also produced Harold and Kumar. Warner Bros needs a hit movie for the holiday season. This is why a "B-" movie got an "A" review.

/the more you know

SockMonkeyHolocaust: It's probably very good for what it is: stoner comedy for white people who "get" humor based on references to pop culture.

So even when the leads aren't white, it's still for white people. That's how awesome we really all are.

/Indian people should count as white though so maybe not