Woohoo!

[andrewducker]

When you see a film review containing the words What the picture represents, in a very real way, is the death of cinema you know you have to go and see it. Especially as I was planning to anyway.

Comments

[andrewducker]

Whereas I think you'd have to pay me to see Dumb and Dumber-er. It looked beyond stupid :->

[protempore.livejournal.com]

It was well beyond stupid . . . a genre my wife and I tend to gravitate toward. We go for the brainy artsy films . . . and the mindlessly unredeamable ones.

I liked phone booth.

[andrewducker]

I have to admit to being somewhat similar. I need films that are either serious, and treat themselves seriously, or films that refuse to do so.

So I loved Armageddeon because it refused to take itself at all seriously, The Bourne Identity because it never showed me anything I couldn't believe, and Charlies Angels because it was amazingly cool and completely unbelievable all the way through.

All of them were obviously written by smart people - either smart ones trying to draw me into something, or smart ones having a good time.
Films that expect me to take them seriously while presenting something that's completely unbelievable aren't interesting to me at all (most action movies, for instance).

[heron61.livejournal.com]

I completely agree with you about both the first Charlie's Angels movie (which I enjoyed and found better than I expected) and any of the alleged comedies like Dumb and Dumberer - modern humor often baffled and appalls me.

I knew the first CA movie would be fluff, with was very pleased to see that it was surprisingly well-intentioned and well-executed fluff, which exceeded my expectations - I primary went to it because my friend Dawn wanted to go, and she is excellent at providing a deeply amusing running commentary for dubious films (which was thing that made seeing Bulletproof Monk at all tolerable.