Reviews

3 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Saul of the Mole Men
Saul of the Mole Men (2007)
2/10
Weak imitations, boring parodies
13 February 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I enjoyed Gardner's previous effort "Wanderlust," mostly because it had a fine sense of timing (i.e., editing) and the benefit of exotic locales. Had it been a cartoon, say, or done on soundstages, it certainly wouldn't have held any appeal.

"Saul of the Mole Men" holds almost no appeal for me. It's a pastiche of several tried-and-ruined Adult Swim gags, including campy parody of ancient children's shows, overdrawn pauses, boring puerility, self-consciously poor sets (it's the live-action equivalent to the ridiculously deconstructive "12 Oz. Mouse"), and the comically fearful murder of a friendly alien species.

In short, Adult Swim really needs to stop fetishizing the children's programming with which its employees/creators grew up. If you can imagine a show even more heavy-handed and reliant on its production to overcome the weak jokes than "Moral Orel," this is it. The only positive I could find was the second-long appearance of Dana Snyder. This is a one-note show that doesn't deserve the chance to improve to mediocrity, but Adult Swim's got just the people to do it.
11 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Snakes on a Plane
Snakes on a Plane (2006)
3/10
Leave the making and praising of cult movies to the professionals, kids.
23 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Those praising this movie are pegging themselves as Johnnies-come-lately to the bad-movie canon. Congratulations, you figured out that "Snakes on a Plane" was going to suck. Fine, Samuel L. is a one-note joke to you. But where were you when "Alone in the Dark" came out? Or "The One"? Or "The Fog"? Studios put out a dozen half-assed, schlocky thrillers every year, and just because one of them kept its working title, people are bowing down left and right.

Honestly, my favorite part of the movie was the first scene with Byron Lawson and the prosecutor. That's the kind of terrible movie I can enjoy, one with aspirations to toughness; one that doesn't fall back on winks. Lawson's gangster is totally unconvincing, and the back-and-forth bravado between good guy and bad guy are straight out of "Commando," or anything from PM Entertainment.

Once everyone's on the plane, though, it's just a typical horror film. Broad characters forced to interact with each other. There's no one to root for OR against, and that's a huge misfire. It was painful to see how few extras could be summoned for Flex Alexander's supposedly famous rapper, a guy who can only afford two chunky bodyguards (No charter jet? What kind of rapper is this?). Rachel Blanchard quickly discards a snooty-rich-girl characterization in favor of something much blander. Nathan Phillips is deadly dull, completely upstaged by everyone around him, and a terrible match for an already reducted SLJ, who strolls amiably through the obviously inferior material. In theory, David Koechner's lecherous co-pilot would've served both as welcome comic relief and an Obvious Target, but "Snakes" wastes him, just reduces him to a curious extended cameo.

Also, this film misses a huge opportunity: visceral revenge. There wasn't nearly enough snake-whacking! I would've much rather seen the band of survivors unite to rain physical punishment upon some reptiles than the eye-rolling solution which Sammy concocts. Add to that the fact that to stop cold-blooded creatures, all one would have to do was turn the temperature to about 65. I know ridiculous action pictures needn't adhere to reality-based conditions, but this movie has so much contempt for its audience, I feel like it owed us some sort of explanation.

Truly bad movies are organic: a hundred compromises, setbacks, and lowered sights conspire to create awful art. "Snakes on a Plane" isn't quite there, but it would've been closer had it been left alone by a bunch of kids suckling at irony's teat. As it is, it's mild entertainment being masqueraded as something else by impatient groupthinkers. Leave the bad movies (and the appreciation of same) to the professionals, children.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Robot Chicken
Robot Chicken (2001–2022)
How much preaching to the choir do we need?
23 April 2006
I'm 23. I've read my share of comics, absorbed my childhood's worth of cartoons and PBS. I've seen the movies everyone else has seen. And yet 'Robot Chicken' is still consistently awful. Like, 'Mad TV' awful.

The appeal of 'Robot Chicken' is it indiscriminately rips from the movies, TV shows, and toy aisles of the last 30 years. It takes set-ups that would have no inherent humor apart from the references, and expects that the references are enough. They aren't.

'Family Guy' has been trying the same thing for years. It isn't that the sketches are seemingly Mad-Libbed into existence - 'Mr. Show', 'Monty Python', and 'Kids in the Hall' took their share of left-field potshots. But those shows brought more to the dialogue than the same catchphrases and traits we already remember. On 'Robot Chicken', Mr. T pities the fool for the millionth time and we're supposed to laugh. Don't be fooled - these aren't 'inside jokes'. If you've kept your eyes and ears open for the last ten years of self-referential popular culture, you'll get 90% of the references. Minimum. Reading the comments, it seems that a lot of people watch this show to catch the references and congratulate themselves. Is that all we expect from a comedy now? Why not just watch your average VH1 special? At least its comedians are funny one out of five times.

Is it edgy? Not by a long shot. Not anymore. 'Wonder Showzen', which could have been a decent couple episodes of 'Mr. Show', is still dragging on with its tired shtick of puppets and children saying calculatedly offensive things. 'Family Guy' is aimed at the kind of audience for whom MY HAIRY AUNT isn't bothersome at all. Who's offended when the Duke boys share a longing gaze? Who thinks the Coreys are sacrosanct? Marvel not at the celebrities fearlessly taking on their public personae... people were jabbing them when they were firsthand famous, and 'Robot Chicken' doesn't even require them to show their faces. It's a chance to grab a bit of attention and an easy paycheck. Almost as easy as tossing a bunch of toys in front of a stop-motion camera and having them fart.

Wit is scarce on this show. The great line delivery of Adult Swim's 'Tom Goes to the Mayor' or 'Aqua Teen Hunger Force' is absent, which kills even the most promising of premises. Even 'Sealab 2021', despite its absurdist tendency to stretch silence into laughter, managed a crop of 'what the-?' plots. 'Jonny Quest' was masterfully inverted into 'Venture Brothers', with plots and characters that stand on their own, apart from their sources; 'Robot Chicken' would have effected a homosexual glance between Race and Dr. Quest. Perhaps it already has. I'm not watching anymore.

'Robot Chicken' is a show for people who own the toys and have a fetish for watching them get snuffed, or people who like watching massively popular culture thrown at them for the same jokes again and again. If Seth Green really wanted to entertain us, he should've shown off his precious toys on 'Cribs'.
8 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Clear your history

Recently Viewed