sillstaw

Quite frankly, I would've liked this movie a lot better if it wasn't trying to be a comedy. As a comedy, it doesn't work, but as a dark drama, it actually works better.

Lots of people are accusing him of this. This seems almost like an admission of guilt; it's like he's saying, "Oh, you think I'm doing these movies for paid vacations? I'll make a movie where my character takes a vacation he didn't even pay for!"

Every time a commercial for this movie comes up, I smile only because of Jason's description of it during "Winter's Tale." Let's see this happen!

The only thing on the IMDb trivia page: Also, to the OP: Usually, I'd advise against posting links to full movies on YouTube if they've been released on DVD. But, seeing as how the DVD seems to be long out of print and the Amazon page has the cheapest copy at nearly $40, I'd say it's fair game.

Does this mean it ends with some "Home Alone"-like hijinks? I know someone else said it was 90s-feeling, but man.

I think I saw this as a kid. How screwed up is it that this actually has plot points about a dog planning to kill the man he thinks caused his death while he was human? Who thought that stuff was good for a kids' movie?

Aren't these based on the same source material as "Alex Cross?" They could have a three-movie podcast about why these movies are all wrong.

I imagine it would go something like "This movie is awesome and we're not going to do an episode about it."

By all accounts, that WAS what he was trying to do. Or at least, satirize it.

I watched a bit of it while I was waiting for family to come to our house (the "Guy and a Goose" episode). Quite fun. I've already bought them on rifftrax.com .

It's already a bad sign when you're called a "guest star" in a movie. When you're listed as a "strategic guest star?" That's every red flag, dipped in blood to make them even redder. It's just never a good sign when the studio invents a credit for you. The thing is that, although I haven't seen the movie, I can't imagine the non-Eddie Murphy movie being all that compelling. The story would basically be a guy who's kept from fixing a design flaw by his employer. How unbelievably boring of a movie does that sound? Also, one of the most redundantly-phrased bits of trivia ever, from the movie's IMDb page:

I guess I missed the strip-mining and "every right to the resources of the Earth" stuff.

After the movie, I kind of rationalized it as, "Well, Darren Aronofsky's movies are all kind of about people who go over the edge for something." So in that case, it's meant for people who like his movies, and look for auteurist themes running throughout a career (although I doubt there are enough of such people that it was worth spending $130 million to cater to them). Even as something of a pro-environment guy myself, I didn't really think the movie had any kind of environmental message (beyond the vegetarianism). Really, isn't flooding the world kind of detrimental to the environment? You could also make the argument that the forest was planted especially to build the ark, but I'm not interested in defending that position. And I'm sure lots of red-staters will be mad at the whole "only bad guys eat meat" thing, but I thought it was kind of clever. As they pointed out in the film, if they ate any of the animals onboard, it means the whole species will go extinct. Whether that works in conjunction with Noah's "we are the last people on earth, humans shall die off" philosophy for much of the film, I'll leave for others to decide. Exactly. My thinking is that the Bible doesn't describe how long the table used at the Last Supper was, or who was seated where, yet nobody has a problem with Leonardo da Vinci's painting of it crowding everybody on one side so we can see their faces. It's just that, in this case, the liberties taken are a little more controversial. (I'm not being negative; I don't think the controversial changes are inherently bad. The movie is an interpretation, not the canonical story.)

I saw this with my mom and sister, who are faithful Mormons. They were kind of put off by the changes to the story and how ruthless Noah is. I'd hardly call them fundamentalists, so I imagine the hardcore ones would be infuriated. Personally, I'm not sure it'd make a great HDTGM. The "rock ents" (or, as I've been calling them on Facebook for a while now, the giant six-armed angels) are probably the one really crazy thing, and the story is well-known enough that you can't really call it a WTF.

He also directed every episode of "Best Friends Forever" and is going to work on the upcoming Garfunkel and Oates show. So they've got to at least know someone who knows him.

I had such high hopes for this movie, and man were they let down. Was it really necessary to make a movie where the setup is vague, the plot complications are vague, the character motivations are vague, and the ending is vague, when all you're doing is making a movie about a drug deal gone wrong? It's not "The Tree of Life," or even "Traffic." The thing that bugs me most of all is the nameless Counselor. I get that usually, when you don't name a major character in a movie, it's usually for symbolism or mystery, but the Counselor is just a lawyer. It's not like he's symbolic of anything, and whatever mystery there is to the character is mostly just the film being vague. But what really annoys me is how at least two characters REFER TO HIM AS "COUNSELOR" WHEN THEY'RE TALKING TO HIM. What, do none of the characters know his name, either? Even when they're doing freaking business deals with him?

Maybe not. (The first one might not be considered a "novelty" song, but the second DEFINITELY is.) However, it is definitely the only Sam Peckinpah movie to be based on a song.

I recall reading on a bad movie website that this movie acts as though the scientist who did the experimentation is the bad guy responsible for all the bad things in the movie, and punishes him accordingly... except that Ally Sheedy's character is the one who let the dog loose. She, of course, receives no such comeuppance.

More than likely. Although I'm pretty sure that to do devil horns, you have to put your thumb on your two middle fingers. You could make an argument that, the way knife-hand is doing it, it means "I love you."

How long was it before she broke up with you?

My favorite part is that apparently, they make a running gag out of Kevin Costner's attempts at torture being interrupted by his daughter's cell phone, whose ringtone is that obnoxious "I Love It" song from last summer.

Yeah, I don't think that's happening. I think it's the work of people who grew up in the 90s suddenly getting nostalgic for something silly from their childhoods and collectively wishing a sequel would happen, and a rumor starts from there. (Besides, even if you argue that LeBron James is on the level of Michael Jordan in terms of how famous he is for his abilities instead of all the Chicago/Miami controversy, are there really enough kids out there who are familiar with the Looney Tunes to make a movie like that worth doing? It's not like Cartoon Network shows the old cartoons nearly as much as they did in the 90s.)

I wouldn't have thought Akiva "I wrote 'Batman and Robin' AND 'Lost in Space' and still won an Oscar" Goldsman's directorial debut would be anything notable. But the reviews are coming in (currently at 5% on Rotten Tomatoes), and holy crap, guys. Flying horses. Miracle quotas. Demons (including Russell Crowe and Will Freaking Smith as Lucifer!). This is sounding like the perfect HDTGM movie.

I loved that. Especially the opening where he talks about how Satan was one of the producers, being one of his most personal projects ("'I've always wanted to work with Skeet Ulrich,' The Author of All Lies was quoted as saying. 'This just seemed like the perfect projects'"), and the resulting closing line: "Frankly, I expected better things from Satan."

I borrowed this from my local library, and halfway through paused to post on Facebook how painful it was. I can only imagine what was going through the minds of the producers when they decided, "You know who needs to direct this satire of 80's Wall Street? The guy who directed 'Scarface,' 'Carrie' and 'The Untouchables!' It'll be a laugh riot!" Not to mention all the above-mentioned changes to the cast of characters. And while Melanie Griffith may have been a lovely woman at one time, she's all wrong as "the devil's candy" (the producer's bizarre term for a femme fatale). She doesn't seem like the kind of woman who'd compel a guy to go out in the pouring rain to make a pay phone call to her, to avoid his wife finding out. "The Devil's Candy" mentions that Uma Thurman and Lena Olin were considered, and they seem like they would've played much better.