We've all been there; Browsing in Blockbuster, the HMV sale or the bargain-DVD section in Sainsbury's, and we come across a plastic case which gives us an involuntary tingle of excitement. Someone's made a sequel to that movie we like! How did this slip under our radar? Why wasn't this on at our local cinema? Why are we only hearing about this now? Well, there's only one way to answer that question; it involves spending the requisite £3 and usually ends with the question 'Why did this get made, never mind how?'.
The rules for selection are as follows: 1) The film needs to be a poorly received sequel to a generally successful film (so no crap sequels to crap originals, and no crap remakes of originals), 2) Films from longer series are fine, but the choice needs to be part two of that line, 3) I'm not intending to watch any of the associated part-ones as part of this run (whether I'm familiar with them or not), so there'll be extra pressure on the crap sequel to work on its own terms. So join me as I delve into some of the crappest, most unwarranted follow-ups of all time (hopefully with a couple of underrated, misunderstood gems thrown in).
How bad can it be, right? I mean, the original was good…
The general feeling: RT Score: 10% / IMDB Score: 3.4
This film was released in the same year as Kill Bill Vol. 1. Think about that for a second. Groaning into the cinesphere a whole nine years after the Carrey/Daniels original, this is the first of the #CrapSequels season's shite prequels, as the titular Harry and Lloyd meet as new students in high school in 1986 (apparently. Although there's little-to-nothing in the film to suggest that this takes place in any specific timeframe).
It becomes apparent from the very first scene, set inside Mimi Rogers' vagina, that the film will be full of ideas which must have seemed absolutely hilarious on paper, but which completely fail to translate to the screen. Maybe the problem is the lack of connection between the Farrelly's writing and Troy Miller's direction, but despite the near-constant shrieking of the ensemble cast, Dumb And Dumberer is just not funny. The plot (well…) centers around Eugene Levy playing Eugene Levy With A Moustache™ as a corrupt/inept school principal, who sets up a fake special-needs class in a bid to extort money which he intends to embezzle in order to abscond to Hawaii with a dinner-lady. This scheme is thwarted in true whacky-comedy style by the aforementioned class of misfits, like some tasteless bastardisation of The Breakfast Club and Mind Your Language.
A calculated insult to the original movie, there's even a section where the writers have aped the 'embarrassing / early-stages-of-a-date / I can't come out of the toilet because there's shit everywhere' scene from last time, in a shameless attempt to remind audiences of the film they're not watching. Except this time, the punchline is a comedy-straight-man standing in the bathroom shouting "Everything's covered in shit". You can't buy class.
The only good things about When Harry Met Lloyd: 1) Eric Olsen makes a pretty fantastic Jim Carrey. The looks (aided by makeup and wardrobe, of course) are already there, and he's got the voice and mannerisms down pat, and 2) At 84 minutes including credits, it's mercifully short.
Shite.
No, I have not.
Seen it, loved it.
Well, I suppose it'd help a bit, although it'll also raise your expectations unrealistically.
Lin Shaye is back from the first film as a different character. That's it..
Well, a sequel-threequel is in the works, due for release later this year.
I am reserving my judgement.
None of these. You don't need to see this.
I didn't hear one, but I was banging a metal tray against my head for a lot of the film's runtime.
Why would you wait nine years and then do this?
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Dreamworks' latest offering has been cast like one of their flagship movies, and it looks and sounds absolutely gorgeous, but the mechanics of the story itself are strictly b-list. That's not to say the movie isn't funny in some places and exhilarating in others, but when you walk out into the foyer, it's left you with nothing. Turbo takes the archetypal underdog story, but doesn't add any zing of its own. Maybe it doesn't matter as much for the parents in the audience, but I suspect it'll fail to grab many of the younger ones in the long term, too (and let's not mess about: long-term engagement leading in to merchandising and spin-offs is exactly what this sort of thing is meant to be about).
Another mis-step may have been the casting of the central role. Ryan Reynolds does a great job of reading the lines, but his voice just doesn't fit the character of Turbo, and when that doesn't line up, it makes it hard to connect with the movie. Paul Giamatti and Michael Peña are far better suited in their roles one rung down the ladder, but it's Samuel L Jackson who steals the show as racing snail Whiplash. Whenever he's talking on-screen, you wish he hadn't been off-screen for so long. Actually, that's probably just me and Sam Jackson, there.
The animation is great (as you'd expect), and the 3D does the job rather nicely (also as you'd expect), but is it worth shelling out £40 to take the kids to? Well, if you've got a big TV and a BluRay player, you'd probably be as well waiting three months. Turbo is a valiant effort, but even Dreamworks UK themselves have decided to release it in October, in a week which isn't half-term; that should tell you how confident the marketing department are in the film.
It's shiny, it's funny, and it has a lot of heart, but in the race for glory, Turbo is an also-ran.
Pretty much.
For the most part.
Not really; it's an enjoyable but empty experience.
If you're going to the cinema, go for the 3D, otherwise it can wait three months.
No.
Not any time soon.
I didn't hear one, but could easily have missed it if there was.
People criticise animated sequels and spinoffs, but quite often they're more cohesive than trying to get a new franchise off the ground. Discuss.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
We're The Millers Cert: 15 / 110 mins / Dir. Rawson Marshall Thurber
The main strength at the core of Rawson Thurber's heist / farce / road-movie is that its principal leads, Aniston and Sudekis, make for throughly a convincing stripper and drug-dealer respectively, and constantly look comedically out of place when they're in their 'mom and dad' roles. Because with that much of a twist so early in the film, the audience is left reeling with no clear idea of how things will pan out.
No, wait. Not that. The opposite. The exact opposite of everything I just said. Yes, that's it.
Seriously though, if you can get past the terrible mis-casting of the leads and the clockwork plot that links the set-pieces together, it's not an altogether bad comedy. Mostly. And despite the actor and the character failing to combine, Jason Sudekis is the highlight of the film, with the best lines and the best delivery by far. Will Poulter puts in a good turn as his 'son', Kenny, but is limited by six writers all pulling in different directions. Jennifer Aniston and Emma Roberts suffer the same fate, but with the added disadvantage of having little-to-no character development to work with. Outside of 'The Millers', a few extra laughs (mostly those awkward, nervous ones) come from the addition of Kathryn Hahn and Nick Offerman's Fitzgerald family, a trio of repressed, conservative fellow RV'ers. Unfortunately, even the best of their scenes is underscored by that feel of blatant ad-libbing*1, which lets down their otherwise solid performances.
Listen to me, banging on like any of this shit even matters when you've got Jennifer Aniston in her pants. Twice. Actually, the very thing that's been the cornerstone of marketing this film turns out to be the one that's the most squirm-inducing. I'm not doubting that she's got the looks and the moves to carry it off, but there's something… undignified about the scenes with Jen in her scanties. I'm not sure why exactly, but I think that she's capable of better things than this. It never gets to exploitative-level, but you get the feeling that with any other actress, it would have.
Listen to me, banging on like any of this shit even matters when all you want to is watch a lairy comedy with your friends and a few beers. And that's exactly what We're The Millers is for; perfectly reasonable for viewing at home, not so much for paying a tenner each to do it in a cinema. Apart from anything else, the quiet isolation of the auditorium did leave me thinking "erm, that is not the dressing room of a downtown Denver strip club" and "erm, that is not the apartment of a drug-dealer, no matter how principled he apparently is" and "Wow, Emma Roberts basically got paid for turning up and standing in the background, didn't she?"
Ultimately, We're The Millers is consistently chucklesome, but the gags are on a separate track from the rest of a disjointed screenplay. Unless you're smitten with Aniston, you can safely put this in your rental queue.
Pretty much.
The laughing part was mostly satisfactory.
Not a clue. Probably, I imagine.
DVD. Rental tops, but this has got an Asda '£3' sticker written all over it..
Nah.
At some point, but not in a hurry.
There isn't, no.
How long do you think it took to film the segments featuring Ed Helms? I reckon two days, tops.
*1 You've seen this with Melissa McCarthy and Danny McBride. It's that desperate, panicked look in their eyes where they've gone off script, stalled for too long and then said 'fuck' or 'vagina', hoping this will pass as a punchline.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
The Last Stand Cert: 15 / 107 mins / Dir. Ji-Woon Kim (SPOILERS)
This would be quite a capable (if throwaway) thriller if it wasn't for Arnie turning it into a live action cartoon every time he's on screen. There are some rather nasty head-shots in amongst the cliched script, and it feels like a 90's action movie that's been waiting on someone's back-burner, biding its time. Neither Forest Whitaker nor Eduardo Noriega have the heft to pull off their weary cop or cartel-boss roles too convincingly, and the pair-up of Luis Guzmán and Johnny Knoxville threaten to over-egg the slapstick pudding from time to time. With that in mind, Schwarzenegger does a good job of being good ol' reliable Arnie.
Considering how awful it should be, The Last Stand is a surprising amount of fun. I mean, it's still awful as well, but in that "Schwarzenegger" kind of way.
Some thoughts as I was watching:
• In the bad guy's jailbreak scene, the police are standing next to the base of the crane that's winching the FBI Prisoner Escort van out of sight. Why do none of them think to take out the power/operator?
• If you're going to plant a henchman in a hotel as a uniformed porter, maybe choose a one that HASN'T got a massive tattoo on his neck? That guy can probably do the work of the people in the ninja suits you've got outside?
• The FBI are conducting a night-time car chase in a helicopter and they don't have night-vision?
• Considering Arnie says that "the bullet passed clean through" Harry Dean Stanton's head, there sure was a hell of a wide spray when we saw it earlier.
• It's around 350 miles from Las Vegas to the Mexican border. The Corvette that Cortez has stolen has a top speed of 200mph. Cortez breaks out at 4am, so why are they still driving at 7?
…amongst others. The Last Stand is nothing special, per se, but I get the feeling it's not really trying to be. Acquitted by its own low standards.
…yeah.
Mostly.
Probably.
Pay to rent (if you're an Arnie fan).
No.
At some point.
Not that I heard.
Arnie spends a lot of time in this having massive shootouts, then complaining about how old he is. How long do you think he can keep doing this?
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a 'catch-up' review. I watched this film at home, not at the cinema. I saw the trailer for this at the cinema, and I would have seen the film there too, but they didn't/couldn't show it. So now iTunes, Amazon, Netflix and Blockbuster get to reap the rewards of my local's advance-advertising, and I'm sure they're delighted. Now you may say "oh come on, they can't show everything down there", and that would be a valid point if they didn't do things like running Taken 2 for six weeks. Was it that successful? No, I don't think so. Twilight? Batman? Les Mes? Sure, go for it; if they're pulling the punters in then keep making that money. But Taken 2? I ask you. Anyway, this is essentially a DVD review, but still of a new(ish) film. There. I'm glad that's sorted.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
