sillstaw

What makes this really bizarre to me is that this movie is a remake of a French film, directed by the same French filmmaker. What the heck? Do the French really loathe themselves that much, or did they think French-bashing would make it more popular in America? The film was apparently shot in Michigan, which has some very beneficial tax programs for filmmaking. A lot of low-budget crap gets shot there, apparently.

Does Mariah Carey ever say that she wishes she had her pretty mind back?

Groucho Marx is (and his line is funnier than anything he says in the movie). Timothy Leary and the others? I don't think so. Though now that I look at it, I think the guy in the freezeframe there is John Philip Law, who is in it. It was the 60s. That might have been effective for certain movies. It wasn't effective for this one, though, because it's pretty lame. And I just love the nonsensical line in the trailer, "Anybody who don't like that, daddy, don't like chicken on Sundays." I actually used it as my signature on the forums I used to frequent.

Also: The end credits are sung. One of the movie's fatal flaws was that Otto Preminger was the kind of director who insisted on sticking to the script. That's fine for dramatic films, but when you're making a comedy, improvisation is not a bad thing. And it's even more fatal to stick to the script when you're making a comedy with Groucho Freaking Marx. (Also, Preminger apparently bullied around Groucho, leading Gleason to heroically... tell Preminger not to try to do the same to him.)

You need a reason?

Admittedly, I haven't seen many of her movies, but she at least seems like someone who knows how to kick ass. (Although I feel a little racist for assuming that.) Still, if we need someone who actually has some experience in action stuff, the only other name I can even think of is Summer Glau, and I'm just assuming that she's convincing enough as a fighter, since I'm one of the twelve people on the Internet who's never bothered to watch "Firefly."

Pretty much all you need to say about it. I mean, it's not like there are any scenes in the "Expendables" movies where Dolph Lundgren goes undercover as an escort. But I think Ryan's right about the bigger problem with "The Expendabelles" (and writing that name is not helping me keep my dinner down) being the lack of actresses who really fit. Let's not forget that the big selling point of the original "Expendables" was that it was a big teamup of action stars, from the 80s through the 00s. That works for men, but there just aren't a lot of women where you hear their names and think "action star." The only few I could think of that Ryan Sz hasn't mentioned are Gina Carano (who's already attached, apparently), Lucy Liu and Michelle Rodriguez (who already has "Fast and Furious" keeping her busy).

Roger Ebert's zero-star review of this movie reads like a mother who's so disappointed in a child that she wants to smack him. Also, it's worth pointing out that the director, Alan Parker (the man behind movies like "Pink Floyd the Wall," "Evita" and "Mississippi Burning") hasn't done a movie since this, eleven years ago.

If anyone needs to use a GIF of a head exploding, here's a good excuse: This is from the director of "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer."

I was going to link to Lovitz's discussion of this movie on the AV Club, but I see it's already been brought up. Still, it's amazing that people only bring up the "Trapped in Shit" line, and not the part where the director brags that he's as good as Rob Reiner and Scorsese, then literally didn't direct the actors.

I'm sure it's not what you meant, but it's not like Marvel's any better with female superheroes.

From the director of "Doom" and "Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li!"

You have to hand it to the filmmakers. They must be doing something right if they came up with a premise so stupid that practically everyone on the Internet complained about its unrealistic logline, and it still made over $40 million on opening weekend. That said, I would have loved it if the ending had somebody saying something like, "No, everyone uses 100% of their brain. The magic was inside Lucy all along!"

And an episode of "NTSF!"

I imagine it's because perpetual motion is impossible, and an adult would be too big and too questioning. As explained in the movie, (SPOILERS) they need to cut down the population every once in a while. The best way to do that is to have the tail section attempt revolution. Do you think the rich people would stand for being randomly killed by their superiors?

If they do this, they should talk about the comic relief moment where one of the main character's buddies takes off all his clothes at his office and kisses an unwilling co-worker. It came across as, "You know what our audience really finds funny? Sexual assault."

This movie is awesome, and you are a shoe.

One of the best comics-mocking bloggers out there responded to a review that offhandedly mentioned that "Never have you seen so many people using Vaio laptops in one movie" by joking about a scene in the screenplay where "We see numerous CHERUBIM furiously typing on elegant Sony Vaio branded laptops, their wings rustling majestically." I recall some people saying what a stupid way to prove that he really saw Heaven it was to ask the kid, "Did you see grandpa up there?" while HOLDING A PICTURE OF THE GUY. Yeah, that's not going to bias him. And you're right, it'd be much more shocking (and hilarious) if the kid was the son of Richard Dawkins rather than a pastor. Lastly, I'd just like to complain about how people act shocked by how well these Christian-themed movies do at the box office. Is it really all that hard to make money when A: You pander shamelessly to people who feel underserved by "mainstream" Hollywood, and B: You prominently advertise the ability to book theaters for church groups in the commercials?

This brings up one of the things that bugs me about Michael Bay movies, which is that they are all needlessly long. I don't think he's ever made a movie under two hours long. When you ask an audience to sit still for so long, you'd better have a very good reason for it. Just for example, the "wacky!" antics of the main character's parents getting high on pot brownies are the reason the cutting room floor is a thing. Also, jokes about statutory rape and the age of consent--you know, because that's what all the kids think about when they play with Transformers toys.

I remember seeing this and thinking how badly they screwed up the effective character arcs of the original. Instead of having the characters appear to be one thing and slowly reveal themselves to be something else, they show up and just randomly reveal secrets that make no sense and/or make no difference. This when I was thirteen, and also a lot stupider.

Funny, I thought the main advertising draws were "giant freaking lizard" and "guaranteed to be better than the 1998 version." Unlike most other movies nowadays?

On another site, a reviewer put it best when she called this movie "90 minutes of dinosaurs failing to kill people."

I preferred the original, frankly. It just seems weird to go from that movie (which is like 5% exposition and 95% ass-kicking) to this movie with a somewhat complex plot. Also, the fight in the kitchen near the end had me honestly wondering how neither of those guys had so much as passed out from blood loss.