criterionforum.org

flipflopbippitybop wrote:I would like to point out that my existence on this message board (my first post in particular) was only intended as an ironic counter-balance to the recent influx of newbies with irritating suppositions and vocabulary.

Sorry if it was too subtle.

Sorry, didn't mean it that way at all. I was just trying to continue the absurd tangents this thread has been throwing all over the place.

Hamlet 2 is a bad movie. By all means, it fails to be funny, and at times, I found it mildly offensive. DON'T WASTE YOUR PRECIOUS TIME NOR MONEY.

Wrong. Comedy is so subjective, but I must say that this one DID work for me. It wasn't as funny as "Pineapple Express", however Steve Coogan was great in this. Some of the funniest facial expressions I've seen in a long time.

Weak movie. Shameless

Does Sexy Jesus inject Owen Wilson with heroin during the big finale?

I wouldn't know. I walked out after 40 mins.

Street Dude wrote:I wouldn't know. I walked out after 40 mins.

I think a cardinal rule on this board is that you really shouldn't comment so broadly on a film you've only seen partially.

HypnoHelioStaticStasis wrote:

Street Dude wrote:I wouldn't know. I walked out after 40 mins.

I think a cardinal rule on this board is that you really shouldn't comment so broadly on a film you've only seen partially.

I disagree. I walked out of Shoot 'Em Up and I have no problem saying it was horrible. I doubt if I sat down and watched the rest of the film that my feelings would change. If a film really doesn't work for a viewer to the point where they have to leave, then I think it's a valid reaction.

Revised for accuracy:

Street Dude wrote:[The first forty minutes of] Hamlet 2 is a bad movie. By all means, it fails to be funny [in the first forty minutes], and at times [in the first forty minutes], I found it mildly offensive. DON'T WASTE YOUR PRECIOUS TIME NOR MONEY [on the first forty minutes].

Antoine Doinel wrote:I walked out of Shoot 'Em Up and I have no problem saying it was horrible.

Ugh. I envy you. I stuck that film through to the bitter end.

The point is though that, of course, you are allowed to dislike a film without having finished it, but you shouldn't come here and say something like "this movie was so terrible" without qualifying it with "that I walked out after 40 minutes." That way the rest of us know how to process the statement.

I will also say though that, even with a comedy like this, it can sometimes take time to connect with the rhythm of the film, and just because it's a low-brow comedy doesn't mean it can't bowl you over in the final act. One recent example for me was Hot Fuzz. I wasn't feeling it at all for the first half of the film, but by the end, I had come around to it, and the final act really helped clinch it for me. Or consider a different kind of film entirely, Paris, Texas. On first viewing, the first hour and a half or so is nice enough, but you begin to wonder what the point of it all is, and then suddenly, wow, what an ending! It completely changes your view of everything that came before.

In summary, leave yourself open to letting a movie surprise you!

I know, guys, I know. But the first forty are filled with all-star dumbness. Nothing about the first forty seemed to work -- at all -- scenes felt rushed and forced. But, I'll keep my mouth shut until I see the second half of hamlet 2 on a premium cable network.

In the meantime, you guys keep defending this corporate comedy!

Catherine Keener was even unlikable in this flick

Street Dude wrote:In the meantime, you guys keep defending this corporate comedy!

I'm not defending the film. I haven't seen it. I will say though, the first time I saw a preview for this it looked pretty funny. But these constant commercials urging me to get my RMSJ ringtone are getting pretty annoying.

I'm not saying don't comment on a film you walked out of, just make sure you let others on the board aware of the fact that you did upfront. When someone says the film is an absolute waste of money, that to me implies they saw the whole thing.

I'm just being a little anal. And I haven't seen Hamlet 2, but I may give it a shot on dvd. I have a fondness for Steve Coogan.

HypnoHelioStaticStasis wrote:I'm not saying don't comment on a film you walked out of, just make sure you let others on the board aware of the fact that you did upfront. When someone says the film is an absolute waste of money, that to me implies they saw the whole thing.

I agree.

I'm just being a little anal. And I haven't seen Hamlet 2, but I may give it a shot on dvd. I have a fondness for Steve Coogan.

I was excited to see Coogan in this, but I have to say, his performance was disappointing and failed to carry a feature film. I would suggest seeing Tropic Thunder before Hamlet 2; Coogan is in that and it's much funnier.

Coogan is funny in Season 6 of Curb Your Enthusiasm

Though Steve Coogan's performance is one of the best in comedy I've seen in a while, he is unfortunately not backed up by the script and direction, which are both pretty horrific for most of the film. Funny moments are there, but they are few and far between. Once the actual titular play gets going, it actually becomes quite brilliant, but if you like more than 15 minutes of laughs in your comedy (which is probably on par with most comedies these days, actually), you might be disappointed.

Street Dude wrote:In the meantime, you guys keep defending this corporate comedy!

What does that even mean?

And Steve Coogan was brought down to the same inane, unfunny levels as everyone else involved with Tropic Thunder. I can't remember him in Curb though, what'd he do?

He had the performance of the season in Curb last year as Larry's inept shrink. If you are at all a fan of the show's (or of Coogan's), you must track down the episode he was in. His funniest performance remains, however, his "Cousins?" vignette with Alfred Molina in Coffee and Cigarettes. Perhaps my favorite sequence in any Jarmusch film.

Reluctantly, I went to go see this last night and I will say that while it was not as bad as i thought it was going to be...it was still pretty bad. It had its moments, but it was certainly not worth my 7 bucks. If I had been a drama geek in high school, I would've enjoyed it more-but such is not the case.
The scary thing though- freaky, really- was that I saw it in a large theatre, little more than half-full, with the most reactive audience ever. Literal SCREAMS of laughter, applause (?!?!?) in tune with the applause on-screen during the play sequence, spirited crowing whenever you saw Coogan's sweaty nethers, rowdy swaying to "Sexy jesus"... it was like being at a Rocky Horror Picture midnight show.
It was the most bizarre film-going experience I've had.

LQ I had the same experience in NYC. I think it was my first experience where excessive laughter actually detracted from a comedy. People were repeating the lines, clapping, shrieking, guffawing, etc.

I actually enjoyed this a lot, but it's a very minor film.

Saw this tonight and I have to agree with hot locket, Coogan is acting miles beyond the script and supporting cast on this one. Watching the film, one gets the sense that the script was revised multiple times by committee or edited by test screenings to the point that its tone is all over the place. Why Coogan's character is saddled with a relationship subplot that goes nowhere and adds nothing to plot is mind boggling. Also, the strokes of broad comedy don't work well with best stuff, which is Coogan being a deliriously fish-out-of-water teacher in buttoned-down Tucson. If the writers had stuck with that idea and the development of the Hamlet 2, instead of making wild stabs at commentary about race and religion, it would've worked much better.

This will probably do well on cable reruns but it's not worth much more than that.

That's so bizarre, the same thing happened when I saw it. I sat through most of the film mildly amused, occasionally cringing. There weren't many people there, maybe ten people aside from my party, but they were laughing hysterically the entire time. It actually made me feel really self-conscious about not laughing as much. It was unnerving.

Is there something we're missing? Is there some underground movement attached to this film that I'm just oblivious to?

Oh yeah, the audience I saw it with was in far more hysterics than I was particularly during the slapstick bits (the girl who kept getting hit in the head, and Coogan falling down on roller skates).