Reviews

2 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
Surprisingly Tolerable, But Dunst and Pegg Lack Chemistry
13 October 2008
When I settled in to watch this movie, I wasn't expecting much. The many negative reviews I had already seen of the film had me braced for a crap fest of epic proportions.

I was surprised to learn that this movie really isn't that bad. The plot follows a British journalist who works for a tabloid in England, and is hired to write for the prestigious NY magazine "Sharps". He quickly realizes that he doesn't fit in at all with the pretentious and snobby society that inhabits the publication, and his frequent run-ins with Kirsten Dunst and Jeff Bridges illustrate a lack of general people skills.

As the movie progresses, however, Pegg starts to shed some light on the character's history, his likes and dislikes, and in general lends a greater understanding to Sidney. Dunst also starts to warm up to him as his personality becomes less chafing and more tolerable.

The only problem I really had with this is that Dunst and Pegg really never seemed to genuinely feel any emotion toward each other other than brute hostility. I'm not sure if it's because either of them is necessarily bad at conveying happy emotions, but they both seem to be better at loathing than at loving.

Megan Fox is pretty much relegated to a hyped up version of herself, a sex goddess looking to be taken seriously in Hollywood. This reminded me of Johnny Depp's heartthrob character in "Cry Baby", but where it fell short is that you never feel like you know Fox at all other than what you see in the ads throughout the movie. Perhaps that's what it was going for, and if that's the case it certainly succeeded.

Overall, I gave the movie a 6/10 because it wasn't as bad as everyone cracked it up to be. However, it did have a couple of fatal flaws that definitely limited the enjoyment factor, and I can see why some moviegoers hated it.
8 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
A Movie That Made Me Cry
29 August 2008
I normally don't cry in movies. Forrest Gump, Big Fish, Schindler's List, and many others have passed before my eyes, and not a tear has been shed. I consider myself a lover of cinema, with an appreciation for the art of film. I love many genres, including comedy, action, and of course, zombie movies. All of this aside, I watched "Disaster Movie" this afternoon, and it elicited one emotion from me: Anger.

I have never been so irritated in all of my adult life by a movie. I have watched these cretins put out all of this filth that masquerades as "entertainment", and have held my tongue until now. I will say this right now: anyone who finds these movies entertaining should be ashamed of themselves. I generally believe that people can have whatever opinion they want, but people that actually like these movies are contributing to the downfall of the art form of cinema. By encouraging LionsGate to continue making these horrendous movies, all we are doing is perpetrating a cultural crime that we may never be able to fix. I grow weary of the multitudes who flock to theaters to see this garbage, and I weep for the future of our nation if this is what passes for entertainment these days.

None of the jokes are funny. The parodies of films like "Juno" and "10,000 BC" fail to amuse, and even the lampooning of unexplainable culture phenomena like Hannah Montana and Amy Winehouse is an exercise in futility. No one has ever tried to do more with fecal matter and farm animals than this movie did, and it failed miserably.

I beg all of you, as a lover of movies, not to see this film. It is an absolute atrocity, and I guarantee you will feel stupider for having watched it.

PS: I work at a theater, so the only reason I even saw this movie was for job purposes. I didn't pay to see it, and neither should you.
50 out of 60 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed