Frontrunners, Politics as They Should Be

I'm finally feeling human again after three days of being knocked on my ass by a wicked virus. I wish I could say I spent the entire time watching movies to review for you, but alas, with barely the capacity to keep my head up I chose an easier route - 60 episodes of 30 Rock.  I feel shame. But I didn't take your response to last week's poll in vain. You voted last week, and I listened. As 33% of you noted that documentaries are your favorite movie genre, I carved some time out from watching TGS with Tracy Jordan to catch up on my high school politics with the documentary, Frontrunners.

Taped in 2008, during the infamous U.S. presidential election, Frontrunners explores the drama and competition of high school politics. The documentary focuses on a public high school in New York City that bills itself as the most competitive in the city, only accepting 3% of its 25,000 admission applications each year. You say school for the gifted, I say school for early heart attacks.  This is a real deal, take no prisoners election. Candidates for Prez and VP run as one ticket, they have a primary season, a televised debate...hell, even the school paper endorses a candidate. This is like the playground for the next generation of Washington elites.  Breed 'em young I guess.

As I'm wrapping up reading the 2008 presidential election tell all Game Change, I think I had politics on the brain when selecting this movie. However, you don't need to be a political junkie to enjoy it - maybe you're just a fan of high school entertainment like GLee or High School Musical...I don't judge. But I will say what made this documentary most interesting was the connection to how our presidential elections have become very much like a high school election. There are some scary similarities, such as the personality, popularity and race factors - in fact, the high schoolers were pretty much in agreement that race did play a significant factor in their elections. I found that particularly telling - we are our parents' children after all.

Throughout the movie I kept telling myself that despite the similarities this was just high school after all, and therefore the priorities of these candidates were certainly not the same as real life political candidates.  Right?  I mean it's not like McCain was worried about making it to ROTC before the bell rang. Obama didn't have to stay up all night cramming for the SATs and Hillary didn't have to worry about her boyfriend checking out the cheerleaders. Well...maybe it was more like real life than I gave it credit for.

One thing's for sure, Frontrunners will provide you with some flashbacks to your teens - otherwise known as my awkward years. It's really not fair that flannel was popular during the 90s - I look like a gay lumberjack in every damn yearbook photo. Oh memories, how I wish I could erase you. So when a teen would pop up on camera and say something awkward, I cringed every time. Needless to say this movie has a lot of those moments, so I spent the majority of it watching through my fingers like a horror movie. This is why I can't watch MTV anymore.

All in all, Frontrunners was fun and interesting at times, but did seem to lack any real excitement or drama. It ended up far less dramatic than the actual presidential election - gifted teenagers are fairly boring after all, go figure. No one outspoke with an open mic on, no one cussed, no one impregnated their mistress, and no one really went for the smear campaigning. In fact, maybe they should start making Washington politicians watch this documentary to show how an election should be managed. I waited until the televised debate before I passed judgment on Frontrunners, but ultimately I decided on giving it a BREW & VIEW IT! 

Before heading into this year's mid-term elections, check out the trailer.

Sick of Being Sick

Sorry movie fans - for the second time in two weeks I'm feverish with the plague.  Sorry to be a buzzkill, but I'm taking to bed and watching Misery.  Hopefully Kathy Bates will take good care of me.  If you don't see a post on TMMC tomorrow, send help.


While you're here though, why don't you vote in this week's poll?  Consider it contributing to my well being - it's like chicken soup for my soul. 

You're So Dramatic

Thanks to all you TMMC readers who voted in last week's poll, asking what's your favorite movie genre?  I really appreciate the guidance in offering reviews of movies you're most interested in.  I'll definitely keep this info in mind, moving forward.  And what an intellectual bunch of movie watchers you are - I'm so impressed.  Here were the results.  A sizable 50% of readers said your favorite movies are... 

DRAMAS! 

That one took me by surprise a bit - I didn't realized you like your movies depressing.  Let me guess, if I looked in your closet I would find used tissues in your sweaters and empty ice cream cartons under your couch.  We'll discuss an intervention at a later date.  33% of you responded that documentaries are your top faves and a sad 16% said you prefer action/adventures.  Geez gang - buzzkill much?!  Not one person replied with comedy as their favorite!?  So I've got to spend my summer watching Amy Tam movies about immigrant Chinese families and more documentaries about the Bush administration?  How depressing.  Well thank you to those who chose action/adventure - at least I can squeeze some summer  blockbusters in there.

All kidding aside, I really do appreciate the feedback and I'll take it into consideration when I'm selecting movies to review on TMMC.

Up at bat in this week's poll - Jackass the movie.  Obviously from the genres you selected I'm guessing this isn't top of your list, but this news still blew me away.  With the Tribeca Flim Festival in full swing, Johnny Knoxville and director Jeff Tremaine took some time from promoting their latest movie Birth of Big Air to discuss Jackass 3 in development.  The biggest news in my book - it's going to be in 3-D.  Just the latest movie to cash in on the craze, Tremaine says that Jackass 3-D will feature “poo-poo, pee-pee, throw up” galore.  So I have to ask - can you handle that?  Are you ready to see someone defecate in 3-D?  Is it time to push this new movie medium to the extreme?  And even scarier, what will Sacha Baron Cohen do to us if he gets hold of a 3-D film camera!?

 Inquiring minds want to know - so vote!

To catch more of Knoxville's interview at Tribeca, click here!

Weekly Round Up

Pat yourself on the back on making it through another chilly week!  Now celebrate it by getting your drink on or joining me while I take in a movie over what's supposed to be a rainy weekend.  Boo.  If you haven't, please vote in this week's poll and help TMMC better cater to your movie needs.  Do it for your country!  

It's Friday, so that means it's the Weekly Round Up - Your Place For All The Fair and Balanced Movie News That's Fit to Print.  So, round it up...

• A few weeks ago TMMC shared with you the news that Hangover 2 is almost ready for production.  Now it seems another Hangover-like movie may enter the race to the box office, with Jack Nicholson reportedly being offered a lead role in a movie only described as "The Hangover meets Grumpy Old Men."  Hmm...that's odd.  I thought they already filmed Sex and the City 2.  Read more.
• With Angelina Jolie officially out for Wanted 2, producers are scrambling to find a replacement raven haired, pouty sex symbol.  And their eyes have locked on Twilight star Kristen Stewart...God help us all.  Well at least she knows how to pout her lips - it's about the only expression she knows how to pull off.  Now she can make that constipated teen angst face with a gun in her hand....great.  Read more.
• We have some good news and bad news on the 3-D trend sweeping Hollywood and their piggy banks.  The sad news first, Tommy Lee Jones and Will Smith are reuniting for Men in Black 3D.  Yes, this will exclusively come out in 3-D and surely help fan the fire of this capitalistic, cheap thrills trend raping audiences at the box office.  The good news, Batman 3 will not buy into the fad.  Dark Knight cinematographer Wally Pfister eluded to it while slamming the medium as good for amusement parks, but says he's a "devotee of film."  Score one for the little guys!  Read more.
• From the Oddly Random News Desk:  Sheila Callaghan, writer of the Showtime hit The United States of Tara, has been hired to write the script for a movie based on the 60s t.v. show I Dream of Jeannie.  Poor Major Nelson!  Now that NASA ending their space missions, what will he do for a living!?  How will Jeannie pay for all those drapes and pillows in her bottle!?  Read more.  
• For weeks now TMMC has been following the saga of the proposed Hollywood Stock Exchange, where everyday people will gamble their retirement accounts buying stock in movies.  Because obviously Americans have the attention span of flies and learned nothing in the last two years.  Wait, wait, not so fast.  The Senate has thrown a big wrench into the plans, tacking language banning such ventures into the latest financial reform bill.  Thanks goodness we have Washington to save us for ourselves. Read more. 

That's all folks!  Have a great weekend!

Death at a Funeral, Deadly Boring

If you're headed out to the movies lately, you'll likely be disappointed at the selection.  It's obvious the movie studios are stockpiling their big guns for Memorial Day weekend, because there's nothing out there to watch.  If you're looking for big actors in swashbuckling films, you're out of luck cause they're all on vacation.  Now what I should've done was take this blockbuster downtime as an opportunity to catch up on some smaller, indy films.  But no, stupid me decided to see the remake of the 2007 British cult classic Death at a Funeral.  And quite frankly, I've had more fun at a funeral.  I literally laughed more at my grandmother's funeral than I did at this movie - particularly at that pink, taffeta gown they buried her in, rest her soul.  Poor thing looked like a puff of cotton candy on a stick.

But as an avid fan of the original version, my curiosity got the better of me and drew me into the theater like a moth to a bug light.  I too got zapped.  Death at a Funeral is a movie about the wackiest funeral you've ever attended, full of gay midgets, tripping guests on hallucinogenics and crotchety old relatives.  The original is one of those movies that makes you roll on the floor laughing throughout and ties everything up in a nice, poignant bow at the end.  The remake makes you weep at the fact that an all star cast can't pull off a decent joke and ends just as boring as it began.

First of all, even seeing this movie breaks my cardinal rule of "big all star cast = big fat flop."  What was I thinking?  They lined up every big actor they could, like the boarding of Noah's Ark - Chris Rock, Tracy Morgan, Danny Glover, Martin Lawrence, Luke Wilson, James Marsden, Zoe Saldana - and all that combined acting power could do nothing with a lousy script.  Chris Rock is just boring, Tracy Morgan tries too hard, Luke Wilson has no idea what he's supposed to be doing and Martin Lawrence looks like he just showed up for a pay check.  In this type of farce, the comedy is all about timing and over-exaggeration, obviously neither of which was explained to the cast before filming.

James Marsden provides the only breakout performance of the lot, but that's cause he gets to play the guy hocked up on drugs the entire time.  If you can't make people laugh while supposedly tripping, you really should find another industry to work in.  As an aside, if you're a fan of James Marsden, chances are you'll enjoy this movie, as he's naked throughout half of it.

In truth, it's not really the actors' fault that this movie is so bad - it's the writers who obviously spent a few hours updating the British script and called it a day.  The plot remains so literally lifted from the original and brings nothing new except some awful and outdated comedic writing.  They even took potshots on people like the Bee Gees and Amy Winehouse.  How topical of you, way to stay edgy.  Not to mention how inconsistent and flaw-filled it was.  For example, the family lives in an obviously multi-million dollar home and has more money than I'll ever see, but they scoff at being blackmailed for $30,000.  Puuullease - that's like your property taxes.  No wealthy person would scoff at a $30,000 blackmail before paying it - that's practically a bargain!  Tiger Woods wished it came that cheap!

Moving onward, the pace of the movie is bogged down to a near crawl and the actors seem utterly confused about what the hell is going on.  Ah yes, directing at its worst.  The hardest part of watching this movie, for me, was how much I really did want to enjoy it.  I love the original and the actors they assembled for the remake.  I wanted to like the characters, but I just couldn't connect with them on any level.  Their relationships and back stories are so sloppily explained to the audience that I ended up not even caring who or why they're even at the funeral.  While there may be a few funny parts to this movie, mostly chuckles but some legit belly laughs, they're so few and far between and hardly worth the effort.

I don't love going to funerals, who does, but this was the most painful one I've ever had to sit through - and I didn't even know the deceased!  I beg you Hollywood, when will you learn to stop cherry-picking ideas from the British.  If it's been done, move on and get your own original thought.  Stop trying to take a great British product, run it through the American meat grinder and churn out some nasty sausages.  Seriously.  For the first time ever in TMMC history, I am giving both movies reviewed in one week my lowest rating possible.  Death at a Funeral was just plain dead on arrival, rotting before it even made it to the screen, and so therefore WAIT FOR VHS!

Stolen, 1.5 Hours of My Life. And I Want It Back

TMMC readers that have been around from the beginning know that I have an interest in art documentaries - in fact one of the first movie's I reviewed was the art documentary The Rape of Europa. This week I decided to go back to my roots and review another art-based documentary.  So thanks to my new Netflix instant viewing queue courtesy of Wii (which I highly recommend) I uncovered the little known 2005 documentary Stolen. Aptly titled, this film did one thing to me - it stole hours of my life from me and dammit, I want them back!

What turned me onto this movie was the subject matter - the description read like one of my favorite movies, A Thomas Crown Affair, come to life.  In the wee hours of St. Patrick's Day 1990, thieves disguised as police offers entered Boston’s Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, tied up and gagged security guards and stole 13 priceless masterpieces.  Let me stop for a moment and point out the security guards' fatal flaw that allowed this to happen.  As someone who's lived in Boston, never in a million years would a Boston cop go to an art gallery on St. Patty's Day morning, I don't care if it was on fire.  Seriously - they're either policing the parade, in the parade, or throwing beer cans AT the parade.  What the hell were the guards thinking!?  But I digress.

Considered one, if not the, greatest art heists in U.S. history, the works stolen included one of only 35 Vermeers in the world and several Rembrandts. To this day, none of the paintings have been recovered.  The documentary Stolen traces the acquisition of the collection by Mrs. Gardner, their theft and famous art detective Harold Smith's international search for the truth.  Now how couldn't you be tantalized by a description like that.

Well, much like communism, it sounds good on paper but doesn't quite translate to real life.  Stolen, as we come to find out early in the film, is no Thomas Crown Affair.  Stripped of its movie magic, the story has no witty banter, no excitingly well-timed art thefts played out for our enjoyment and the characters are far cries from Pierce Brosnan and Renee Russo.  Instead, the leggy blond heroine is replaced by an eye-patch wearing, 75 year-old suit and bowler hat clad art detective.  Any sexual tension between him and Pierce Brosnan would just be awkward at best.  In reality, the international search for these paintings is quite boring - lots of backroom meetings and interviews with swarmy older men.  There's a lot of talk about connections to the mafia and the IRA, but it's all just talk and gossip in an attempt to create action where none truly exists.

This is hardly the documentary's major weakness, however.  The real problems come in the amateur documentary film-maker level editing and directing.  The movie is disjointed, hard to follow and doesn't go into any significant depth into a subject - it's very surface level.  While the search for the paintings leads from dead end to another, so too does the movie.  Storylines just sort of fall off or stand alone with no fluidity from one to the next. The director chooses the route of having no narrator, which isn't always necessary but if you're not going to use one you've got to take the effort to tie things together yourself for the audience.  This is just lazy Busch league amateur hour stuff.

Stolen is uninspiring and lacks any sort of passion, which is sad because the people affected by the robbery are quite passionate about it.  The interesting cast of characters grieve over the loss and their love of art is admirable, but is totally not translated into the documentary which makes it that much more frustrating.

In an act of defiance, the Gardner Museum hung up the paintings' empty, original frames just as they were when the collection was in tact.  To this day the empty frames poetically remain on the walls, like gaping wounds in the Museum's heart.  I immediately took to this notion and let my life imitate art.  For hours after the movie finished, I left my t.v. on with nothing but a black screen.  It was my act of defiance, displaying for the world the gaping wounds left on my movie loving heart after watching such a terrible documentary.  If you're as interested in this subject as I am, I recommend passing on this movie and picking up a book about it - I guarantee you'll learn more, it'll make more sense and be more interesting.  Consider TMMC your neighborhood crime watch, like an old lady sitting on her porch with her binoculars.  Let me help protect you from being robbed of your life too and when considering watching Stolen, WAIT FOR VHS!

Holding Out for a Hero

Whether you know it yet or not, the superheros are coming.  This weekend's opening of Kick Ass is just the first in a loooong line of superhero movies making their way to theaters in the coming months, and even years.  So I asked readers the question, will the influx of superhero movies over saturate the market and burn out audiences?  And here's what you said....50% agreed.... 

NO, I NEED A HERO! 

Look at all you damsels in distress.  I'm going to grossly over generalize that every one of you readers are males ages 18-45 and played with action figures when you were kids - and  hated it when your mother called them dolls.  Not too far behind, 33% of you responded "who needs a caped crusader?" and 16% responded you'd just rather watch a romantic comedy.  So basically, TMMC readers are split down the middle on how they feel about superhero movies, and that's pretty much what I expected. 

Personally, and I've said this before, there is such a thing as too much of a good thing.  Except for sex, of course.  I like a good superhero movie, but the problem is they're a dime a dozen.  For every five really bad superhero movies, you stumble across one that actually has decent writing and acting and breaks out as a mainstream success.  With so many superhero movies coming out, I think it will overwhelm and turn off audiences, making it harder for the really good movies to stand out from the pack.  Just my hypothesis.

Last week's poll response was a little underwhelming, which made me think that the superhero genre might just not be your thing.  So that forced the question, what movie genre does TMMC readers fancy the most?  Don't be a high maintenance partner and start pouting and testing me.  Instead of making me guess what you don't like, why don't you just tell me what you do enjoy watching?  And if you're one of those people that say, "well you should know," I'm sorry, this just isn't going to work out.  It's not you baby...it's me.  So out of curiosity, what types of movies to you like most?  

Stay tuned for a review of the documentary Stolen, a real life Thomas Crown Affair.  Watch the trailer.

Weekly Round Up

Well folks, we've made it through another week and I think it's safe to say that spring is finally here.  And now that I've said that...it's going to snow this weekend.  Oh well, so it goes.  If you get a chance don't forget to vote in this week's poll!  Less than a day left and the response is pretty low this week - don't have many thoughts on superheros?  Not your thang?  I'll keep that in mind moving forward.  Since it's late in the day, I won't keep you waiting with bated breath and we'll get on with this week's news in review.  Soooooo...round it up!

• You've seen countless actors and actresses bare it all in magazines over the years, but how about cartoon characters?  Someone at DreakWorks has officially lost it, allowing the online pub VMan to publish compromising photos of the stars of the upcoming Shrek 4 movie.  Awkward, party of one.  Apparently Donkey is into threesomes and, contrary to his name, Puss is a homosexual.  This is some serious PR gone wrong people, check it out.
• The Tribeca Film Festival has announced their list of 35 jurors for this year's movie fest, and it reads like an unemployment line cattle call.  They include Jessica Alba, Aaron Eckhart, America Ferrera, Alicia Keys and Zach Braff.  What this says to me is that for the next year, whenever a movie boasts an award from the Tribeca Film Festival, I should take that with a grain of salt.  Read more.
• STOP THE PRESSES - this one's a biggie!  Kubrick's lost film is coming together and they've cast Sam Rockwell and Scarlett Johansson to star as the leads.  Ok, so the first half of the sentence excited me.  Geez, how many sexual favors do you think half of Hollywood performed to try to get a piece of this movie - who wouldn't want to be attached to the lost work of a genius?  Lunatic at Large is a movie Kubrick was commissioned for in the 50's and fell off the world's radar only to be uncovered a few years ago, well after the infamous director's death.  Well the script has been tightened up, the actors have been cast, and that's about all we know.  Looking forward to watching this unfold!  Read more.
• Who needs the Obamas when you can have the real Camelot in your face and on the big screen?  Rachel Weisz has been attached to a bio pic of the former first lady Jackie Kennedy Onassis, which is interesting considering her fiance is producing and directing.  Nepotism much?  I actually think she could do the role justice and am eager to learn more.  Apparently the movie will chronicle the four days between JKF's assassination and burial.  A real feel good piece, no doubt.  Read more.
• And finally, for all you musical fans out there (all four of you) two big ones are heading into production this summer for your enjoyment.  Broadway hit In the Heights and the Kevin Bacon classic Footloose are finalizing castings and getting ready to role tape.  These are only a few of the slew of musicals heading our way in the future, thanks to the success of movies like High School Musical.  Damn you Zack Efron!  Wicked is also coming down the pike as is The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas, as early reported by TMMC.  Read more.

That's all she wrote - have a great weekend!

An Education, Now on DVD

Unfortunately, this week I've taken a bit ill and have found myself stricken with strep throat.  What the hell!?  Isn't that something you only get in grade school?  I'm nearly 30!  Well as a result, I've been forced to forgo a trip to the movie theater and have had to settle on renting a second movie to review for you this week.  Two rentals in a row - I should be ashamed.  After perusing a limited selection at Blockbuster, I ultimately decided on the Oscar nominee and critically acclaimed movie An Education.  After missing it in theaters, I couldn't help but wonder what all the fuss was about.

Set in suburban London in the early 1960's, An Education is a coming of age story of a schoolgirl, played by Carey Mulligan.  Our young protagonist meets an older, 30-something lad, played by Peter Sarsgaard, and is dazzled by his free-spirited, wealthy and international lifestyle.  He teaches her the finer things in life, the fun that can be had and the love that can be shared.  However, as the two grow closer Mulligan learns that love is not always pretty in the garden of good and evil and her Adam is quite the white collar con artist, playing his 'clients,' her parents and even her.  Ultimately, the schoolgirl learns a lesson about life and herself that she'll carry with her forever.

Perhaps the greatest lesson I learned was that there were no statutory rape laws in 1960s London.  Perhaps I'm more of a prude than I thought, because there was something utterly disturbing about how normal it was that a 16 year-old was dating a man twice her age.  Her parents practically wrap her up in a bow and willingly toss her off to the man!   As long as he has some money and will take good care of her...and if he can elevate her status, even better!  Ummm...excuse me?! Looking at the bigger picture, An Education captures the stifling limitations and lack of options for intelligent young women growing up in early 60s London, a world with one foot in Victorian England and the other in a modern, post-war era.  Get an education, but only if it doesn't interfere with finding a husband!  Rubbish.

An Education is a bit perplexing in that it is, and isn't, so many things.  It's pretty without being beautiful, it's sensitive without being emotional (how very British), it's sophisticated without being pretentious (how very un-British) and, oddly enough, it's interesting while being rather dull.  The writing is strong, subtle and witty, and it's a blessing to watch a movie about a schoolgirl that doesn't involve endless hours of teen angst care of the Twilight series (good lord they make high school look exhausting).  But with little action it tends to meander rather than take the direct route, leading to "ok, and the point is....?"   What I ended up gathering is that it's not meant to be a story full of action that wows you, it's a character sketch that's supposed to be provocative.  And what a character she is.

This is Carey Mulligan's movie front to back - her big coming out party that shouts "I'm young, attractive AND I can act."  Take that Scarlett Johansson!  This movie would be nothing without Mulligan - what could otherwise be a boring snoozefest she turns into an Oscar worthy performance (hence her nomination).  She's compelling, delightful to watch and even when she's not speaking your eye is just drawn to her on the screen.  She has a very Katie Holmes, girl next door quality about her; that is if Katie wasn't really a droid and could act.  While Peter Sarsgaard also delivers a solid performance, and does a great job slowly revealing his character over the course of the movie, he's way overshadowed by the rising star that is Mulligan.  Already being hailed the next Audrey Hepburn or Kate Winslet, she is absolutely going to be someone to watch in the next few years.  Just lay off the coke and stay the hell away from Hollywood starlets and you'll be just fine Carey!

An Education was a smash hit, blow out with critics but I'm not so sure I'm as carried away.  Without Mulligan at the helm I'm sure I wouldn't have enjoyed it nearly as much as I did.  While it can get rather droll at times, it is pretty compelling overall for a coming of age movie.  It's certainly not for everyone, but if English coming of age movies are your thing (regardless of what that says about you) you'll thoroughly enjoy it.  And if you're just a fan of plain good acting, you won't be let down by these performances.  While I feel a bit wishy washy on the movie itself, Ms. Mulligan puts this one over the edge for me.  So skip class and get An Education well worth a DO A MATINEE!

Check out the trailer.

Journey to the Dark Side

I guess I was feeling a little sinister when selecting some new movies to preview this week, because these all take a walk on the dark side.  Everything has a nasty underbelly, you just have to look hard enough to find it.  What's TMMC's dark side?  I take bribes from studios to write good reviews of their movies.  Ok, not really - but if anyone reading this is from a movie studio, my price is pretty low, as are my moral standards, so feel free to e-mail me at tmmcritic@gmail.com.

Whether it be a childhood classic, our nation's capital or love - there's always another side to the seemingly harmless, just waiting to be explored.  These upcoming new movies journey to the dark side of all three.  

Disappointed with Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland remake?  Not foreboding enough for you?  Maybe Malice in Wonderland is more your speed.  Don't ask me where this one popped up from, because it's been off my radar until just now - and it releases this Friday!  I suggest everyone just lower their expectations a bit until we can learn more, this could be fantastically interesting or make Burton's movie look like a masterpiece.  In this modern remake, Alice is an American student studying in London and gets caught up in an underworld filled with shady characters.  Actually sounds like a fun night out to me.  Check out the trailer.


Can't afford to make it to Vegas?  Why not see if you can make it to D.C. instead - they're doing just as muchgambling with your money.  The upcoming movie Casino Jack and the United States of Money (phew, that's a mouthful), explores the lobbying and laundering of dirtbag Jack Abramoff.  Perhaps you've heard of him?  The king of all lobbyists, Abramoff made millions for many while wheeling and dealing the system and took a lot of bigwigs down with him when he was dethroned.  Ok, so the darker side of politics is nothing new or shocking, but this looks like a great political documentary and will just give you another reason to become a disenfranchised voter.  Hitting theaters May 7, check out the trailer.


Love can seem pretty harmless, but it can be damn near lethal at times.  Particularly when it involves cheating spouses...and lots of money.  See, that's the nice thing about having no money, you never have to worry about anyone trying to marry you for it.  In I Am Love, the wife of an heir to a fortune, played by the great actress and gender bender Tilda Swinton, finds herself in a torrid love affair with her husband's business partner.  And that's about all I could get from the trailer.  But what really sets this apart from other love affair movies is it's beauty...so of course it's no surprise it's European.  This really does look like it's going to be stunning - the type of movie you call a film and see in a cinema, not a movie theater.  It's too bad we have to wait to June 18 to bask in it - but it's something to look forward to!  Check out the trailer.

If you haven't already, don't forget to vote in this week's poll!

Surrogates - Now on DVD

As a matter of practice, I try and stay away from movies that take the fast track to bargain bins.  Who doesn't?  It's not like anything good comes from a track record that includes Home Alone: Taking Back the House or Ace Ventura Jr.  That's why I surprised even myself when I rented Bruce Willis' Surrogates, which lasted in theaters mere days.  I don't know why, but I felt compelled to watch it - I think it was something about the summer ad campaign that surrounded the Sept. 2009 release.  For better or worse, I do have a hankering for the "robots overtaking the world" genre.

In this take on the genre, the human race has traded in living life for ourselves with living it through human-like robots, called surrogates, designed to take our place in the world.  The seller?  Live life the way you always wanted to, with no anxiety, risk or danger.  Added benefits?  Crime and homicide rates tumble, inexplicably, and you have the ability look the way you always wanted to.  Not born with the pretty gene?  Stop crying in the mirror and just live life through your purchased Abercrombie model surrogate.  (Personally, if this existed in the real world I'd live off Burger King, gain 300 lbs., live in airy, comfortable moo moos and have an exercise routine that consists of walking to and from the bed to the bathroom.  What?  Don't judge.  It's not like you'd be able to tell the difference from my surrogate anyway.)

Whatever you want in life, just sit back and relax in your bed as your surrogate does the work for you.  But what happens when surrogate users start being murdered and we realize we've become too plugged in and  complacent in letting technology do all our living for us?  To anyone reading this on your blackberry or iPhone...they're talking about you!

The basic premise of Surrogates makes this a highly entertaining and original movie.  Several smart decisions were made throughout, the biggest being it's fast pace and relative shortness, at barely 90 minutes.  I didn't know anyone outside Disney or DreamWorks even made movies that length anymore.  But this works to the movie's advantage.  With less lull time to poke obvious holes through the plot, you tend to just go along for a fun ride and let flaws slide by.

Bruce Willis cast as the detective on the hunt for a killer and stumbling upon a global conspiracy gives the movie a feeling of Die Hard meets I, Robot.  Warning, if you don't like either movie, Surrogates doesn't stand a chance for you.  But while it doesn't require any Oscar quality acting, the movie benefits from Willis' veteran presence.  On the converse side, with some of the other actors it's hard to determine whether they're trying to act like robots, or are just having trouble acting.  Admittedly the movie pushes the plausibility envelope on more than one occasion, but it's grounded just enough from falling over the brink into a vat of cheese.  Unless Steve Jobs has the iHuman in the works that we're unaware of.  The bigger picture is obviously an anti-technology spin, rather than believing the world could actually get to this point...although it seems you should never give humanity that much credit.

With its peaks and valleys, Surrogates sometimes borders on campy, suffering a bit by succumbing to formulaic traps.  It doesn't take a Sherlock Holmes to be able to beat the movie to the punch in what should be shocking revelations and plot twists (though if you're like me you'll take pride in being able to do so).  And don't expect a Shakespearean mastery of the English language, with some rocky dialogue that borders on cheap porn writing.  Not to mention that at times it's obvious a producer holding purse strings tried to go the cheap route with laughable special effects that belong back in the early 90's.  Seriously, you're not convincing anyone that you're actually on the roof of that car.  Though not breaking any cinematography boundaries, it's worth noting there's still some fun camera work employed here.

The top critics were mixed in their reviews and if you think too much about this movie, it'll fall apart quickly.  But if you just want to unplug from reality, no pun intended, and enjoy a decent action movie I think you'll find this entertaining.  If nothing else it's an original take on the 21st century question of technology taking over our everyday lives, and there's something to be said for that.  Think about it - how much less human interaction do you have thanks to technology?  I may not have a surrogate, but I'm communicating to all you readers via this computer - so who's to say I'm not wearing a moo moo right now?  BREW&VIEW IT! 

For your movie rental consideration, check out the trailer.

Dwarfs and Hobbits and Elves, Oh My!

Last week's poll question was a nail biter to the bitter end.  For most of the week TMMC readers were torn down the middle on whether or not you want to see The Hobbit make it to movie screens in 2012.  Yet in the end, one response pulled ahead with 46% of the votes.  Do you still care about J.R. Tolkien and his franchise, eagerly anticipating more?  You said...

GREAT GANDALF THE WHITE!  YES!!! 

While it was a close race, it seems the train to Middle Earth still has some steam in it and readers would welcome another addition to the blockbuster series.  Still, a good 30% of you are over the carni-folk like Hobbits and have moved on from effeminate elves.  And really, who can blame you.  The Lord of the Rings did consume the movie landscape for a good 3+ years and while I was admittedly obsessed at the time, there is such a thing as too much of a good thing.  Perhaps most surprising, 23% of readers barely knew what I was talking about, selecting "Lord of the who!?"  Get with it people - love it or leave it, not knowing Lord of the Rings is like obliviously going through the entire day with your fly unzipped.  Sure, no one told you they noticed, but they were laughing about it behind your back.

Personally, I have to agree with the 30% of you who said The Hobbit is "so 2000 and late."  Even as a superfan of the original series, so much time has passed that I'm incredibly skeptical of a prequel.  I hardly believe it can stand up to the LOTR movies and will just cheapen and lampoon the franchise.  Two words - Star Wars.  Wait, three more words - Jar Jar Binks.  Wait, wait, two more words - Indiana Jones.  The list just goes on and on.  Don't insult us fans by giving us a weak, half-assed movie in an attempt to make another dime off our freakish devotion.  Particularly since you're going to release this in 3-D just to squeeze out every last cent you possibly can.

So Mr. Peter Jackson, if you join Steven Spielberg and George Lucas in raping the characters that brought you greatness, let this be a warning to you.  Consider this the dead horse head I'm putting in your bed Godfather style.  I will have no problem saying "I told you so" when your fans rise up and turn against you, so don't test me.

This week's poll visits a different genre currently taking Hollywood by storm - the superhero flick.  Spiderman 4, Iron Man 2, Kick Ass, Captain America, The Avengers, Thor, The Green Lantern, there is an endless number of superhero movies on their way to the big screen.  Are we headed to an over saturated market?  Is there enough fan interest to keep all these movies afloat or, like the latest vampire craze, will we see a backlash of fans start turning on the genre?  Will superheros start elbowing one another as they fight for a top position to save the world?  Oh the humanity!

So spend the two seconds it takes and cast your vote in this week's poll! 

Weekly Round Up

I have some pretty interesting movie news bits to share with you in today's Weekly Round Up, and ironically they all have something in common.  They're all movies that I'm not sure should've been or should be made, falling into the category of, "are you sure that was a good idea?"  

Do you ever wonder what it's like when a studio greenlights a movie?  All men and women in suits, dripping with money and sitting around a board room table pondering such questions as, "I'm not so sure Monopoly would make a great movie - I mean, I'm not sure Rich Uncle Pennybags would test well with the 18-25 year olds.  Now Battleship - we can fill that s$*@ with explosions and turn it into 3-D to make even more money."  Seriously?  And with nearly 10% employment you're not standing in an unemployment line?

Maybe you'll see these movies, and maybe you won't - certainly some will be blockbusters and others will be straight to the Target bargain bin disasters.  So without further ado, round it up...

• Since I already let the cat out of the bag a bit with this first new bit, let's start with Battleship, the movie.  Yes, I wasn't relying solely on my wit with the aforementioned joke.  This is a real movie, being made with real money, paying real actors (or at least want to be).  Battleship the movie is headed to production, with a cast that includes the Oscar-robbed Tom Arnold.  A-h-oye vey!  Read more.
• As if Trannies Two wasn't awful enough, let's keep the good times rolling with a third installment of Transformers.  Let's not only kill the franchise, let's beat it so senseless that snot comes out of their robot alien noses.  Let's kill the dreams of hundreds, if not thousands of young boys from the 1980's who are now in their 30s.  And you know what's sick - pretty much the entire cast is coming back to do it!  Read more.
•  Women and gay men are giddily shrieking like school girls over the upcoming Sex and the City 2, and with the release of the latest preview, now they can add dramatic gasps to that.  Oh those witty women are back at it again...just like cockroaches.  Oh I'll see it, and I'll enjoy it...but I won't be proud of it.  I can't wait until they trade in their thongs for Depends in Sex and the City 3.  Read more.
• And what makes more sense than greenlighting a big budget sequel to a movie not in theaters until December?  Well I guess since it's Disney, just leave your common sense behind.  A sequel to the hyped up Tron Legacy, which is totally overblown in my opinion, is already moving forward with script development.  Good Lord!  What the hell if the thing flops?  Stranger things have happened - look at the Golden Compass.  Read more.
• And finally, capitalizing off Avatar's success, more blue alien-like creatures will soon hit the screen as "The Smurfs" kicks off production.  Yes, Gargamel, Papa Smurf, Smurfette and the rest of the gang are hitting the big screen in an upcoming live action/animation flick with a strange cast that includes Neil Patrick Harris, George Lopez, Katy Perry and Alan Cumming.  Once again Hollywood refuses to learn from its own mistakes.  One word.  Garfield.  Poor Bill Murray, he hasn't been the same since.  Read more.

Well I hope you didn't cringe too much by this week's round up - I know it had some doozies in there.  If you haven't already voted in this week's TMMC poll, please do with only 1 day left.  It's a close neck and neck race - your vote may make the difference!  Have a great weekend!

Sherlock Holmes, Now on DVD

Despite the fact that Sherlock Holmes was recommended to me months ago, while it was still in theaters, I never got around to seeing it.  I'll admit that part of the reason I stayed away from the adaptation is that despite any recommendation, I was a skeptic.  A big fan of the original stories, I had little faith that they would be done deserved justice, particularly in director Guy Ritchie's less than capable hands.  Need I remind everyone about Ritchie and Madonna's magnum mistake Swept Away?  I guess love really does make people do stupid things.  Well now after seeing the movie, I realize I should've had a bit more blind faith.  It's actually quite good, even if it is a bit of a stretch.

Of what I remember of the original turn of the century shorts, the movie is really just a nod to the character of Holmes, hardly the true spirit of the original.  While the stories implied he's well versed in martial arts, boxing and sword play, Arthur Conan Doyle's Holmes was not an action hero by any stretch of the imagination.  He wasn't a card carrying NRA member and didn't need a stunt double either.  However, Ritchie's Holmes seems to pull more from Tom Clancy than from Doyle, which will certainly annoy purists.

Many of the character's nuances do remain in tact, including the pipe smoking and violin playing.  Though curiously they left out the character's big cocaine and opium addictions.  Evidently he's cleaned up his act for a new generation.  So, since he's played by Robert Downey Jr., is that supposed to be art imitating life?  The 21st century movie Holmes is also much more of a ladies man than his practically asexual literary counterpart.  He might as well have had on a crushed velvet smoking jacket with a glass of burgundy in hand.  His relationship with the fictional Irene Adler is all sex charged up in the movie, when in the series it could hardly be called a romance at all.

Still, all that aside, the movie is wildly fun and entertaining.  It's clever, witty and amusing with a story that successfully balances action, suspense and mystery with half as much gratuity than I expected.  It was nicely updated for a 21st century audience and respectful to the original even despite its creative licensing.  It's not your grandpa's Sherlock Holmes, but that's ok.  Don't fight it baby, just let Robert Downey Jr. whisper sweet deductions in your ear and succumb to him.

Speaking of Downey, he is easily the movie's best attribute and seems to be genuinely enjoying himself, which is infectious.  Downey's Holmes and Jude Law's Watson play well off one another and are immensely fun to watch.  Though it must be said, Downey's accent is a bit muddled at times and seriously annoying at others, when you can't understand a damn thing he says.  He might as well have been speaking Swahili for the first five minutes of the movie cause I couldn't figure out what the hell he was saying.  It's as if he had a mouth full of marbles half the time.  Please Robert, Meryl already personified Julia Child's warbled dialect this year, we don't need our new Holmes serving up some chicken cordon bleu too.  As the love interest Irene Adler, Rachel McAdams looks the part, but I'm not so sure she pulls off acting it.  I'm a fan of hers, but felt she was just a bit off the mark on this one.

In the technical department, the movie's camera work was also very compelling, particularly during Holmes' deduction processes, which are great fun to watch.  Both the writing and art direction are also of a much greater quality than I expected, not nearly as cheesy as anticipated.  Composer Hans Zimmer takes a bit of a departure from his normal score, which was a nice addition and really enhanced the movie.  I would've said the costuming was great, except for the fact that they totally emasculate Holmes by giving him a fanny pack for his gadgets. "Dammit, the door is locked.  Good thing I have a lock pick here in my European tourist's best friend!"  Please.

While Guy Ritchie has never really caught my attention before, his work here has certainly given me pause from writing him off.  And despite its mixed reviews, which I really think were about purists vs. revisionists, I highly enjoyed this movie.  I'm not saying it's flawless, but it's definitely not the colossal flop I anticipated.  Instead it was quite original and I eagerly anticipate the sequel.  So if you haven't already seen it, the game is afoot my dear Watson and DO A MATINEE!

Every Hump Day Needs a Laugh

It's Wednesday, hump day, and we all could use a good laugh to help us get through the week (or cry - isn't that photo of the comedy mask terrifying!?)  Therefore I've compiled some new comedy trailers to give you a chuckle and put you in a better mood.  A stiff drink would also do the trick, so I recommend you have one of those as well.  After all, April is Alcohol Awareness Month and yes, I'm well aware of its magic.  Even though these movies may not be coming out in theaters for a bit, at least it'll give you something to look forward to!

After watching the trailer of this first comedy, you may think it's a Wes Anderson movie.  Chocked full of dry, witty characters in bizarre situations, it even has that same art direction feel of, say, The Royal Tenenbaums.  Little known director Sol Tryon appears to serve up a treat with his take on the search for the meaning of life in the upcoming movie The Living Wake.  Appearing in theaters May 14th, with only a day left to live, the movie's protagonist prepares for his own death by planning a living wake.  Sounds just like a normal Saturday night to me.  The movie may just oddball enough to make its way into my cult classic hall of fame, as long as it doesn't take itself too seriously.  Check out the trailer.


Thoughtful humor not your thing?  Then unplug your brain as you watch the trailer for the upcoming slapstick comedy Dinner for Schmucks.  Starring Steve Carell and Paul Rudd, this has the potential for being hilarious.  It also has the potential for being awful - I find those two can be very hit or miss.  I'm hoping that with Carell playing a schmuck so similar to Michael Scott, it'll be one of his better movies.  Plus it also includes The Hangover's Zach Galifianakis, so you know at the very least he'll be funny.  The premise - in order to secure his promotion, Paul Rudd is invited to a big wig dinner in which each executive must bring a schmuck to dinner for the mere amusement of the group.  Begs the question, who would you bring!?  Check out the trailer.

Thanks to all of you who have voted in this week's poll and if you haven't, get on that s*&$!

Stay tuned for tomorrow's review of Sherlock Holmes, now on DVD.  If you haven't already seen it, check out the trailer.

Clash of the Titans: A Mythological Hot Mess

As much as I dreaded it, I felt I had to see Clash of the Titans to pay homage to my ancestors of ancient Greece.  It's not that I don't like Greek mythology, in fact, I actually find it quite interesting.  However, I was skeptical from the start about how they could recreate and update this epic myth.  Unfortunately, I learned no quantity of Windex can save a bad movie from itself.  Did you know the root of the word Windex is Greek?

In case you didn't have to watch the 1981 Clash of the Titans in 8th grade like I did, the movie is a loose interpretation of the myth of demi-god Perseus, son of Zeus.  Don't ask why I had to watch it, I have no idea.  It was probably my teachers just deciding to stick us in front a t.v. screen to kill a few classes - go public education!  In the 2010 version, the vengeful gods toy with the lives of humans, furious at them for turning their backs on venerating the gods.  Translation - the gods are needy people you should avoid dating.

Meanwhile, Perseus seeks revenge on the murdering Hades which takes him on a journey through the desert and underworld, battling beastly creatures including the snake woman Medusa, who turns men into stone if they stare into her gaze.  Personally, I think she's just clearly angry that she turns off every man she meets and is destined to a life of celibacy.

LIES, ALL LIES!  This version is a mythological hot mess untrue to both the original and the ancient Greek myth.  This watered down, streamlined version attempts to update the story for a 21st century audience, but all that's created is an oozing, ooey, gooey, thick, fat-tastic, nacho cheesy movie that takes itself so seriously it elicits laughs at inappropriate times.  Like when Perseus wraps up a pep talk to his rag tag group of warriors before entering Medusa's lair exclaiming, "now let's kill that bitch!"  Really?  You paid millions of dollars and that's all you could come up with?  The remake may have removed the feathered hairdos and stop motion animation synonymous with the 80's version, but at least that one had an excuse for being so cliche.  I mean we all made mistakes in the 80's - just take a look at my yearbooks.

More than anything, I just found the movie to be boring.  Like shut my eyes for fifteen minutes and still didn't miss a thing boring.  It was heavy on mediocre action and light on the mythology that makes it special, so many of the characters' motives just don't make sense.  Where are all the gods!?  They barely make appearances in the movie!  And what does it say that halfway through the movie I had to try to remember what the point of Perseus' quest even was?   The writing was woeful while the art direction and special effects were nothing to write home about.  Everything just had the feel of "been there, done that...what else you got?"  And the response was, "nothing."  They had nothing else to give.

The acting overall was adequate but there wasn't too much heavy lifting needed, with only two emotions used throughout - angry warrior, and angrier warrior.  Sam Worthington (Avatar) played the main role just fine, obviously watching Russell Crowe in Gladiator to prepare as the resemblance was striking.  I was just pleased to see he could keep the same accent throughout the entire thing, unlike that mess he pulled off in Avatar.  All said and done, Ralph Fiennes as Hades, the God of the Underworld, and Liam Neeson as Zeus, provide a much needed silver lining to the whole movie, playing against one another quite well.

I don't know what's worse, how much I didn't like this movie or the fact that for all its faults, it's still not amongst the worst movies I've seen.  And that may be because 15 minutes after seeing it, you totally forget you even sat through it.  Unmemorable is an understatement.  The best decision I made when seeing Clash of the Titans was not spending the $20 to see it in 3-D.  It's not worth half that.  Obviously there aren't any real mythological gods out there, because if there were they would've unleashed their wrath on this movie.  Alas, as I'm only a mere mortal, all I can do is brand Clash of the Titans a PUT IT IN YOUR NETFLIX QUEUE!

Queen Angie Reigns Supreme

TMMC has been covering Disney's developing live action movie Maleficent like it's the second coming - and I don't just mean that because it's Easter.  Last week's poll announced Angelina Jolie's rumored to be interested in the part, and asked whether or not you're interested in seeing her in the role.  Well the results are in, and 71% of you said...
  

SHE'S DIABOLICALLY PERFECT!

That's a whopping number of readers in agreement, in fact it's the highest TMMC poll percentage ever!  Only 14% of you didn't quite know what to think about it and another 14% said she should stay at home with the kids....ouch.

Personally, I have to agree with the masses.  I mean, she already looks the part before even going into make up and if I met her in a dark alley I'd sure as hell run in the other direction.  She may be gorgeous, but she still gives me the willies.  I think she'd help beef up the scare factor of the movie and bet she could make even her own kids cry, all 35 of them.  One can only hope!

This week's question is also about an upcoming fantasy movie, revisiting a character you haven't seen in more than 7 years...Bilbo Baggins!  For those of you who have never been to Middle Earth, no that's not the name of a new sex toy.  It's everyone's fifth favorite Hobbit from the Lord of the Rings series.  Bilbo stars in the upcoming prequel to the LOTR trilogy, The Hobbit - currently in pre-production and not even expected to hit theaters until 2012, nearly a decade following the original blockbusters.  But this begs the question - as so much time has passed since the world was obsessed with hairy, big-footed midgets, dwarfs and elves will anyone even care about another journey to their world?  How do you feel about it?

It's really too bad few of the original LOTR characters appear in The Hobbit.  It would've been nice to keep Orlando Bloom and Elijah Wood employed a little longer before they drift further into obscurity.  Looks like they'll have to join the rest of us mortals in the unemployment line.  So let us know what you think and vote!

If you're interested in learning more about the prequel, check out the latest gossip posted on CinemaBlend.com 

Stay tuned for tomorrow's review of the mythical Clash of the Titans!  If you haven't been already overwhelmed by the promos, check out the trailer!

TMMC Weekly Round Up

Well all the Hollywood 'chosen people' must have taken off this week for Passover, because it was dead as can be in movie news.  I mean ghost town, tumble weed style.  Nonetheless, we've scoured the world wide web to find you some juicy news and gossip to satiate your movie news appetite.  So whether you're spending this weekend awkwardly sitting around with family for some religious holiday or just being a heathen, just be thankful you're not at work!  So, without further ado - round it up...

• As the Captain America cast gets shored up with the official announcement of Chris Evans playing the spandex clad superhero, it looks like there's a hitch in the plan.  The LA Times is reporting that Emily Blunt (Young Victoria/Devil Wears Prada) has been offered the role of the Captain's WWII love interest...and will say NO!  The talk is she's too busy with other projects, but TMMC suspects she's pissed off that her fiance John Krasinski was passed up to play the role.  Bitter, party of one?  Read on.
• The cast of The Hangover is ready to reunite for another dazed and confused bender, and this time they'll make more than 5x their salary from the first go around.  You'll have to wait until Memorial Day 2011 to fly back to Vegas, so don't pull out your teeth in anticipation.  Who knows if there's even a script yet, but let's be honest, who cares!?  Read on.
• A few weeks ago TMMC broke some news that Clint Eastwood is getting ready to start work on a new biopic featuring the life, times and dresses of J. Edgar Hoover.  Now rumor has it Leonardo DiCaprio has his eye on the role of the infamous, brooding FBI head himself.  I personally think it's a great fit - pink chiffon will go great with Leo's eyes.  Read on.
• The world may be Kathryn Bigelow's oyster right now, but it seems the Oscar winning director is plowing ahead with her current project Triple Frontier.  The movie will expose the druglord organized crime along the borders of Paraguay, Brazil and Argentina.  From the Middle East to the South American jungle, and with a rumored cast to include Sean Penn, Denzel Washington and Javier Bardem, looks like the former Mrs. Cameron is looking to go 2 for 2 at the Oscars. Read on.
• It may be a while before Angelina Jolie dons some black horns and cape as the evil queen Malificent, but you'll soon be able to see her as the secret agent Evelyn Salt.  The blockbuster action movie Salt, reminiscent of every Angelina Jolie movie, released its new trailer this week.  Do I expect flashbacks for Mr. & Mrs. Smith and Wanted?  Sure, don't we all?  But be honest, you're as interested to see it as I am.  Read and watch on.

Here's where I would normally say, 'don't forget to vote in this week's TMMC poll!'  But if you haven't yet voted, you already missed the deadline - oh rats.  You'll just have to try again next week!

TMMC Classic Collection: What's Up Doc?

A TMMC Classic Collection two weeks in a row!?  Yes, it's a Good Friday miracle!  We played a little Netflix roulette this week at TMMC and this is what the little magic white ball landed on.  Double or nothing!  While everyone else is taking part in religious rites this week, bettering their souls, TMMC is venerating the golden gay Goddess Barbara Streisand by reviewing the 1972 screwball comedy, What's Up Doc?

In this slapstick riddled movie, a practical doctor meets a half crazy woman (and modern day stalker) while attending a music convention in San Francisco with his soon to be wife.  As the schizo woman, played by Streisand, leaches onto the unsuspecting doctor, played by a handsome Ryan O'Neil, a myriad of jewel thieves and secret agents become tangled up in a mixed up game of "follow that suitcase."  I know, it sounds a bit odd, but what do you expect?  It's the 70's, everyone was on something in those days.  So, suspend reality, embrace the comedy shtick of slapstick, and let the hilarity ensue.

Theoretically, this is a romantic comedy, somewhere along the lines of that TBS movie favorite Along Came Polly.  But on the bright side, Barbara Streisand is actually funny and not nearly as obnoxious as Ben Stiller.  At it's heart, it's a farce a la Mel Brooks - all comedic timing of slamming doors, wacky car chases and misplaced suitcases.  If you're a fan of the comedic genius of Mr. Brooks, chances are, you'll really appreciate this movie. 

Fast paced and highly exaggerated, if you don't keep up to speed you're likely to miss some of the movie's funniest and subtle moments.  Sure, it's full of old comedic tricks (as an homage to comedies of the 1930s), but if you buy into it, it's actually quite funny.  The movie's not crass or in your face like today's comedies, but it's thoroughly entertaining in its own right.  I suppose by today's standards it's more cute than it is hilarious, but it has an endearing quality about it that many slapstick comedies of today lack.  It keeps a big smile on your face and some big laughs in your belly - very satisfying if I do say so myself.

The cast is quite good and makes the movie as funny as it is; and not just because of Streisand's schnoz.  Seriously, who let Toucan Sam in the room?  You know what's interesting?  If she tried to become an actress in today's Hollywood, she'd be laughed out of castings with that nose.  Meanwhile, I have to deal with the monotone Heather Graham pretend she knows how to speak the English language, let alone understand how to be funny, just because she's got big breasts.  Streisand with all her quirks, however, is impressively funny and quite beautiful as well as innocent in her youth and pre-diva days.  Madeline Kahn is also hilarious in her first movie and first Golden Globe nominated role.  Of course she would go on to become a Mel Brooks muse in several of his films.  As the Dr.'s jilted fiance, Kahn plays the deadpan prude perfectly and understands comedic timing as if it's second nature.  The men really play second fiddle to the women in this one - 70's woman's lib at it's best.  Plus no bras were hurt in the filming of this movie.

If  The Hangover is your gold standard of funny, you probably won't love the movie.  It lacks the jaw dropping dick and fart jokes and doesn't include one naked stripper.  (That noise you just heard was every straight male closing their web browsers and leaving TMMC in disgust).  But if you're into comedy classics, let me recommend What's Up Doc, the American Film Institute's #61 pick for 100 Years, 100 Laughs.  It may be a live action Looney Toons, but Babs Bunny is well worth a DO A MATINEE! 

Check out the pretty bad theatrical trailer.  Good lord, could you imagine if that's what trailers were like today!?