Do you know how your little brother or cousin would always pop out from a corner with a mask and yell “boo!” and then you’d be scared. And then amused, he’d continue doing so. Again, and again, and again, until you started to get angry. But he continued doing it until you tore the mask off and kicked him in the nuts? Well, that’s what my experience was like with Simon West’s remake of “When a Stranger Calls”. Now, I haven’t seen the original film just yet, but I imagine it won’t make me want to kick the director in the nuts. Imagine this: I took a camera and filmed myself around the house. You would see me drinking water, taking a dump, cleaning my ears, walking around the hallway… I know you’re saying “That’s stupid, I’d never see that”. Well, then you may want to stay away from this.
Tag Archives: W
The Weather Man (2005)
Okay, loyal readers, here’s an unofficial list. Signs you know you’re watching a Nicolas Cage film:
1. There’s a surefire melancholy score of upbeat tempos, and downbeats.
2. There’s always a dim filter on the lens, usually with varying shades of gray or blue.
3. Cage is likely playing a glum, and or sad character; you can usually tell by looking at his frown plastered on his face throughout the film.
4. There’s narration, narration, narration, and plenty of it. Not useful narration either, but just to spell out every single action that can easily be dictated through competent editing and direction.
5. There’s usually a slow motion sequence here or there.
6. There’s always a character revelation.
7. His character usually has bad hair, only to accentuate his feeling of inferiority.
What the #$*! Do We (K)now!? (2004)
It’s funny how a film like this can really be deciphered as. Certainly, the religious will view this as a secularist documentary on quantum physics, and the others will simply view it as an examination in to the human mind. With films like “Waking Life”, so often do we ever see films that actually challenge us to re-think our surroundings and our current settings. “What the…” ultimately explores radical ideas of repressed memories, the immense power of our mind, and alternate universes. And it also questions god, the existence of god, and the existence of god who gave man the ability to think. If we can not question religion, why were we given the ability to reason and wonder, and examine? If a god exists and does not want us to discover the riddles of the universe, why were we given the tools to do so? And “What the…” does indeed humble us calling us “Observers”.
The Wedding Crashers (2005)
I don’t buy in to hype. Something is a masterpiece, the scariest movie in years, or an instant comedy classic, my first impulse is to challenge that idea and seek it out. And when I do, I scrutinize it. Harshly. Narcissism, Vanity, A god complex, dissect that comment as you must, or will, but it’s a routine. A routine that I hold dear. Now, every now and then, I’m proven wrong, and something completely sideswipes me and my expectations. “Wedding Crashers” is, without a doubt, fucking funny. And not just funny, but really fucking funny.
It’s not perfection, not the perfection I’d heard about by any means, but it’s funny, really funny. “Wedding Crashers” is a more than welcome return to risqué, edgy, raunchy, and exploitative comedies. It’s a welcome return to adult comedies. Bye bye safe PG-13 bullshit. Enjoy being played in church socials and elementary schools. Most comedies these days suck, but if you take my opinion as respectable, then I can recommend “Wedding Crashers” as a really funny but flawed venture for the pack of Vaughn/Wilson/Wilson/ Ferrell/Stiller/Robbins/Black whom just seem to be flipping coins to who will star with whom in the next comedy.
John and Jeremy carry on the legacy of their friend Chazz, the great Wedding Crasher. Following the rulebook of wedding crashers loyally, they crash every single wedding and attempt to meet women. But they finally meet their match when they crash the wedding of a local senator’s daughter, and are thrown for a loop by his two daughters. John begins falling for Claire, an independent, and witty girl, while Jeremy attempts to evade the younger sister Gloria–who is very sexy, but just plain insane. Though Wilson does, admittedly have his moments, most of the comedic slack is taken by Vaughn and Fisher, but we’ll get to that. “Wedding Crashers” is an entertaining bit of part sex comedy part romance comedy that really does show these two friends struggling to survive this situation, with Jeremy taking the worst beatings.
He’s shot in the ass, beaten, raped, and everything else, but his devotion to John makes the buddy comedy between Owen and Vince fascinating and it keeps you waiting to see what will break this bond, if it does break. “Wedding Crashers” has some of the more clever, and rapid fire dialogue that really does throw many biting one-liners, and great characterization that I enjoyed, but that’s due in part to the good performances. Rachel McAdams is funny and charming as Claire and gives a very sympathetic supporting role, while Wilson is charming and dials down the usual prerequisite obnoxiousness that he brings along with every single one of his roles. But the real reason to watch? Vince Vaughn and Isla Fisher. Together. Separately. I’m not a fan of Vaughn usually, but in “Wedding Crashers” he shows us what capability he has in a good comedy films that exercises his talents.
Vaughn has one of the funniest characters I’ve seen in a while as a man who just wants to get laid, makes a sacrifice for his friend, and really experiences all sorts of torture for it. While the very sexy Isla Fisher who snuck up on audiences upon its release is laugh out loud hysterical as the insane demented Claire who isn’t afraid to go above and beyond to please Jeremy. She’s insane resorting to all sorts of measures and clinging to him after one sexual encounter. Fisher, wife of Ali G, performs her comedy with ease, and utter flair. She has a knack for physical comedy torturing Jeremy when in doubt of his affection, and Vaughn handles her dementia with finesse. The funniest scenes in the film are between them, and Vaughn is never afraid to steal the scenes from Wilson.
Fisher steals the show with her comedic flair and utter sex appeal, while Vaughn plays off that giving great chemistry. That said, “Crashers” is just way too long featuring a meandering and less funny second half that I found pretty exhausting. While the first half was full of laughs, we enter in to more romance comedy territory that was too boring. It felt as if the movie was already finished and they were dragging it on leading to a really corny unfunny ending that was also incredibly typical with the declaration of love in front of a crowd. You figure for a movie intent on becoming original, they could have pulled off the climax much better in terms of comedy. The rest of the film features appropriately sleazy comedy that just worked, because the cast knew how to handle the humor, and the script never called for ridiculous gags to gauge laughter from the audience.
The hand job scene had me in tears, the quail hunting scene was hysterical, and the football sequence was classic. This was a comedy that was actually funny, and I’m shocked. Despite a lame second half, and an utterly corny climax, “Wedding Crashers” is surprisingly a very funny adult comedy that finally brings us sleazy and very funny humor that is aimed particularly at an audience whom can actually go to the movies without their parents permission. With great acting, hilarious gags, and great writing, it actually lives up to the hype.
H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds (2005)
No, this is not that movie with that religious maniac, the screaming girl, and the psychotic liberal they meet in a basement, this is that other more low-budget remake of the H.G. Wells’ classic, and much like everything these days, these brilliant authors are added to the front of these titles to instill a sense of credibility. Little do these studios know that these authors would consider these films abominations, because they are. Like every bad movie, I watch with the hope–and some would say naiveté–that these movies won’t be as bad as I’ve heard, yet I’m always wrong. It’s like shooting fish in a barrel to pick flaws from a film that has a relatively low budget, but could they have squeezed out a logical, coherent story in the process? Even Pal was able to give a great story along with–what is considered today–ancient special effects.
Bram Stoker's Way of the Vampire (2005)
Vampire movies are perhaps the easiest of the horror genre to make aside from zombie films. Some fake fangs, contacts, immense over acting and voila (watch the actors here attempt to mutter their lines through fake teeth!). You can go to an online store and simply type in “vampire” and you’ll come up with about seventy to a hundred vampire films. What’s rare about vampire films though, is that it’s extremely difficult to find a vampire movie that’s actually worth watching. I can think of only a few. “Bram Stoker’s The Way of the Vampire” is no exception to this rule.
Wolf Creek (2005)
“Based on True Events” does not mean “This is exactly what happened”, folks. “Based on True Events” means this is what happened in our eyes. Now, I bet you’re surprised that this hardcore horror fan, the one who loved an equally brutal horror film known as “Haute Tension” gave “Wolf Creek” such a low “undeserving” rating, eh? Well, trust me when I tell you this, I was disappointed myself. I’m crushed. But you’re saying “How the hell can you like Haute Tension and not like this?!” Well, firstly, what director and writer McLean does most of all is give us a ho-hum run of the mill slasher film that in every sense failed to impress me.