"...a PG-rated film with no nudity except for a bra strap, and no jokes at all about bodily functions. What's even more amazing, Paul Blart: Mall Cop isn't "wholesome" as a code word for "boring." It's as slam-bang preposterous as any R-rated comedy you can name. It's just that Paul Blart and the film's other characters don't feel the need to use the f-word as the building block of every sentence." (Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times, January 14, 2009)
Paul Blart: Mall Cop (two stars total) I agree with the Roger Ebert quote above but I want to take a detour before I come back to it. I know that a lot of people lost hope for America when this movie was the highest grossing at the box office two weekends in a row. I personally lost hope for America a couple of years ago when A Night at the Museum became the second highest grossing of 2006. Granted, I'm not the world's biggest Ben Stiller fan (or of slapstick in general), but would someone please explain to me how and why these movies are so popular? I asked my coworker, who tried to explain that "you can't get mad at a family friendly movie." My response: "SINCE WHEN?" Since when did it become an issue of rights? Since when did "family friendly" become synonymous with "politically correct?" There's a saying that goes something like, "if you're young and republican, you have no heart, but if you're old and a democrat, then you have no brains." I admit, that has nothing to do with Paul Blart, but it may parallel how some people treat movies LIKE Paul Blart. Why do people say, "I don't want to think - I just want to be entertained," as if those two things are mutually exclusive? I'll tell you what's exclusive - "R-rated comedy," to return to the Roger Ebert quote. Paul Blart didn't make me think, but it did entertain, and I'm not excusing that, but there are worse problems to have. If it felt padded (and it did), it wasn't because the writers were indulging their own (boundary-pushing) cleverness. It was because they settled for a movie that's stereotypically "all heart and no brains." Here's what I already wrote on my 11/26/08 post:
"...there's a HUGE difference between "kid-friendly" and "all ages." "Kid-friendly" equals kiddie, and those kinds of movies should NEVER be made - not for kids, not for adults, not for the mentally challenged. "All ages" means ages 1-100 and enjoyable for kids on one level, teens on another, adults on their own level, and seniors on yet another level. "Intended for mature audiences" is just as bad as "kid-friendly" in my mind, because both cases are exclusive. Why limit your audience? Sure, sex sells, but that's a cop-out. Work harder! Be inclusive, not exclusive. Make more money that way."
Up (three and a half stars total) After my son was born, we started going to the drive-in to see movies so we could take him with us. In the beginning, he would fall asleep in his car seat before we even arrived and then sleep through a double feature. About a year ago, he started waking up during the first movie and wanted to play with the buttons and knobs on the dashboard, making it impossible to pay attention to the screen. For those of you that are only reading this review to know how a kid might like Up, you'll be interested to know that it's the first drive-in movie my son has stayed awake all the way through AND sat quietly watching. He liked all the balloons and dogs, and he would say those words whenever either appeared. My wife didn't think the movie was kid-friendly because people actually die (offscreen, of course) but I reminded her of Bambi. I personally feel this latest Pixar movie has all the good and the bad of the last Pixar movie, WALL-E. What was bad about WALL-E, you ask? It's a personal pet peeve - I don't expect others to agree with me, but I'm really bored by big, busy, fate-of-the-entire-world-in-the-hero's-hands, fight scenes/finales. I don't like runarounds on a spaceship, or in an underground nuclear facility, surrounded by an evil army (that goes for talking dogs), but I know that Hollywood LOVES them. I like one-on-one fistfights or car chases between two drivers. More isn't always better in my book. OK, with that out of the way, would you like to know what's good? Well, let's just say that I'm one of those people that prefers the first half of WALL-E to the the second half. There's just so much sheer humanity expressed by a couple of robots WITHOUT dialogue, and the same thing goes for Up. The first 10-15 minutes make you want to cry, or at least consider that inside every grumpy old man there's a boy with a dream, and if you've never considered it before, perhaps the reason old men are grumpy could be the loss of wives, childhood heroes, or life in general. After watching Up, I realized that what's sadder than becoming a widower is getting sent to a rest home, and being brushed aside by others is what old men and little boys share in common. When the movie's protagonist realizes the same thing, even endangered birds get rescued.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment