sillstaw

Or like if Jim Carrey played an obsessive stalker after doing two "Ace Ventura" movies. Hey, wait a minute... From Roger Ebert's review:

Man, now I want to know what the movie that person was trying to avoid was. As for mystifying overheard conversations about movies, I once overheard a man asking his kids, "'We Bought a Zoo...' what's that one about?"

Well, I was trying to stick to likable people.

Just like Martin Scorsese, Jonathan Demme, Ron Howard and Francis Ford Coppola.

Only if the pro wrestling thing doesn't work out.

Amazing items from the movie's IMDb trivia page: No, I have no idea what that last one means.

The fascinating thing is that David M. Evans has a career made up mostly of kiddie schlock. I mean, his most recent credit that has a Wikipedia page is "Ace Ventura Jr." (Because those movies made it totally believable that Ace Ventura could get laid.)

The weird thing about how this got made is that the script was seriously hot in Hollywood. The writer was reportedly paid $1.25 million for the script, a figure writers mostly achieve after years of success. (This was his first screenplay.) He was also going to direct, but apparently the studio decided that taking a risk on a first-time screenwriter also directing for the first time was too much, so they fired him and hired Richard Donner. And somehow, at no point did they realize that it was a bad idea to spend all this money on a screenplay where a kid escapes child abuse on a flying fucking wagon.

"Manhattan" does have him romancing a 17-year old. (Well, at the beginning, anyway.) Granted, the movie was released in 1979, when he was in his 40s, so it wasn't quite as creepy-old-man as it would be nowadays, but it does give you pause.

You already mentioned that one. The one I remember is how some guy killed his mother, and all the headlines were "'Ugly Betty' Actors Kills Mother," and as you can guess, he was an extra. Yet among all this, the media didn't pay attention to how the guy who played Random Task in "Austin Powers" has been convicted of multiple crimes (probably because his offenses are really depressing and he's a soulless monster).

I believe you mean lucky autistic kids...

My two problems with the movie (which I haven't seen, so I'm just going by the ads for it): 1. Everybody acts like the term "DUFF" is a thing, even though it sounds like a term they invented for the movie. I have a hard time believing that teenagers would popularize an acronym with a word like "designated" in it, when they could just say "ugly fat friend" or whatever the actual term is. 2. Mae Whitman is supposed to be the "designated ugly fat friend," even though she's not ugly or fat. If anything, she's Hollywood Chubby and Hollywood Ugly (i.e. has curves, not supermodel-gorgeous).

I love that idea, though it's still unclear whether David Caruso has any sense of humor at all. (Elsewhere on the Internet, one of the better ideas for a "Naked Gun" reboot lead was Liam Neeson.)

Yeah, I saw that in a commercial and was just like, "They seriously think that's one of their best jokes? They really think showing a woman being killed is going to make me want to see this movie?" Maybe they'll also have a humorous re-interpretation of "The Hitcher's" 'stretching' scene. This probably won't be covered on the show (at the very least, Ed Helms was on "Comedy Bang Bang," so they know someone who knows him), but hopefully this movie won't do well enough to make Paramount think, "You know that Ed Helms-starring 'Naked Gun' we have in development? We should start production!"

I love that the tagline tries to compare it to "Pretty Woman" (sure, I guess) and "Clueless" (what?!). Also, I was going to say that it's a bad sign when a movie's logo has to explain what the title means in a subtitle. Then I remembered that "Ratatouille" had to do something similar with the title's pronunciation.

Roger Ebert's review of this was pretty great. (Although it confused me at first when I read it in "I Hated Hated Hated This Movie," because I thought it was a review of "Firestarter.") Some excerpts:

The final test of whether Titus could pass for straight was for him to audition for "Entourage 2."

It's like the sequel, and it's the kind of sequel where they felt the need to top the original's insanity. "A guy pretending to be black to get into college? How about somebody pretends to be black, and becomes a leader in the NAACP?!"

I recall reading somebody's theory that part of the reason people didn't like the movie was because, in lieu of information on what the movie actually was, they started assuming that it was going to be something like the Sexiest Movie Ever Made. So when people saw the movie and it's a Kubrick film, they were angry that they didn't get what they thought they were getting. Also, supposedly Kubrick was thinking of making the film a dark comedy early on*, and even thought of casting Steve Martin in the lead. That might have been something that HDTGM would cover. * Although, in a way, it is kind of funny that the whole movie is essentially about Tom Cruise continually failing to get laid.

I think the great part about this movie flatlining at the box office is that it makes the bit on "Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt" where Titus is happy that "There is no 'Entourage 2!'" so much more real. You've got to wonder why, exactly, they thought this warranted a theatrical film. I know "Sex and the City" managed to get two movies, but I think it helped that "Sex and the City" was kind of a phenomenon for a while. Was "Entourage" really all that popular outside its target audience of frat brothers? Also, let's not forget: The main character directs a movie about a superhero DJ version of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. If it were possible to have HDTGM episodes for movies-in-movies, that would be the prime candidate.

The AV Club wrote a big article about the differences between the book and the movie. Another example: Hammond is the villain, so much so that he doesn't care in the slightest when his grandchildren are in danger.

It has been getting bad reviews, but none of them make it sound like something that would be fun to watch. It all sounds like a cross between the "Sharknado" approach ("We know just how bad this movie is! Wink wink nudge nudge isn't it funny?!") and the trolling method of a 13-year old on YouTube (racial slur, sexist comment, rinse and repeat).

Oh, man, "Jurassic Park 3." My family was watching it last weekend because AMC was showing all three movies, and it's insane how stupid the characters act. There's a bit when the search party gets to the island, and Tea Leoni's character is waving around a flashlight and yelling for her son (because yeah, after weeks on the island, he's likely to be within shouting distance of the place you landed your plane). Grant and William H. Macy tell her to knock it off, and she does it again, predictably bringing forth a dinosaur. It's like, she had to know there were dinosaurs on this island, and yet she does everything short of attaching uncooked steaks to her jacket and and blasting music out of a boombox to get them to notice her.

This was my thought when "Draft Day" came out. Also, it's worth noting that this movie is a giant flop. Here in America, it has grossed $607; to quote the AV Club, "Even if you charitably calculate using the lower end of national admission prices—the film opened in 10 markets, all big cities—there’s no way this glorified advertisement for FIFA sold more than 80 tickets total. More people probably turned out for your kids’ indoor soccer match on Saturday." Worldwide, it's made less than $200,000 on a budget of around $30,000,000. And keep in mind, it was released in European countries last year, before the corruption charges were brought. When you can't sell a movie involving soccer/football to Europeans, you shouldn't be making movies.