Senseless Recap

Jamie

In the not so distant past Senseless would have been prohibited from the BMT treatment. I distinctly remember watching this film when it came out. Probably perusing the aisles of Ye Olde Hollywood Video, Patrick and I saw the dope orange DVD case (VHS box? This landed right on the boundary) and were like “We gotta see the new David Spade joint, we loved him in PCU.” And boy would we have been right (because David Spade essentially plays the same character as he did in PCU). But even that vague recollection would have been enough for us to say, ‘No BMT Allowed!’ Good thing that rule is gonzo..

To recap, Marlon Wayans is a college student working numerous jobs to pay his way through school and support his mother and siblings. He has staked everything on getting a big junior analyst job, but with only one spot (and wealthy financier’s son, David Spade, in the competition) it would seem he’s out of luck. But oh ho ho, what’s this? An experimental drug that will enhance your senses? How fortunate for Wayans (and the audience, for surely hilarity will ensue). Soon he is hearing, smelling, tasting, feeling, and seeing his way into the lead (not to mention a new hot GF). Still worried about his chances, though, Wayans takes a double dose of the drug and hears, smells, tastes… you get it, right out of the competition again. Off the drug for good, Wayans studies his butt off for the final event and manages to win, but ultimately confesses that he got a leg up in the previous events. He loses the position, but the head of the company likes his spunk and gives him a job in the mail room anyway. Ultimately he gets the job and the girl. THE END.

From the description you’re probably like ‘sounds dumb, probably BMT will rake this film over the coals. Let me get my popcorn ready with my special popcorn spices. Hopefully I can find the special popcorn spices because I so rarely use them since they are special spices and not everyday spices. That would be expensive if I used my special popcorn spices for any old event. Better be special.’ But stop! Don’t pour all those special popcorn spices down your gullet just yet. That’s because (could it be?) maybe this film wasn’t so bad? I won’t go so far as to say that it was not so bad, not so bad, but there were a lot of pleasant things about it. Matthew Lillard was fun and sweet as Wayans’ BFF, the message of the film was good, and David Spade played his character as an aloof nemesis in a pleasing way. The biggest issue is a classic 90’s treatment of the 2D love interest and the fact that the premise of the film is complete nonsense. It’s like a child wrote up what they thought the process of getting an internship was like… why do they care how good Wayans is at hockey? What does that have to do with anything? Why would there be so many different events? It’s wild.

That gets me to my Hot Take Clam Bake… is this a better way for hiring? Should all talent searches be run this way? The one thing it certainly did was separate the wheat from the chaff. Who has time for a Billy Madison-esque academic decathlon to get a junior analyst position? People who are going to be great junior analysts, that’s who. And as a bonus, the competition is such a roller coaster of emotions that even those that dare to cheat the integrity of the decathlon are so physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually spent that they immediately confess and become a better person (and thus a better employee). Hot Take Temperature: Buffalo Wild Wings. Patrick?  

Patrick

‘Ello everyone! Senseless? More like … Senseless, but like, more pejorative. Remember the year 1998, when gas was 25 cents, living was easy, and Marlon Wayans was a star? Those were the days. Let’s go!

  • I’ve seen this film before, but the only thing I really remembered from it was that he takes too much of the drug and his senses go all crazy. That was it.
  • David Spade though is shockingly good. A really interesting character as well. Usually in a film like this his character would be an irredeemable piece of shit. Like the bad guy in Van Wilder. A guy who gleefully ruins the main character’s life (or tries to) because he’s rich and wants to (? That seems like the motivation sometimes). David Spade’s character might be rich, but he just kind of knows he’s the best. He just knows that it is very unlikely that Marlon Waynes will defeat him to get the internship. And so he ultimately is snarky but cordial to Waynes, because why not? Waynes really just doesn’t seem like a threat. It is an interestingly pleasant part of the film.
  • Fine, Spade humiliating Wayans at the frat is rough, but Wayans shouldn’t even have to try to be in a frat to get the internship in the first place.
  • The not so pleasant bits are things like the fact that Marlon Waynes definitely cheats on his girlfriend, and lacks any sort of genuine remorse about it, and ultimately she forgives him for basically no reason.
  • Lillard is a funny character, but feels out of place in the film. He appears to be there solely to make jokes about masturbation and to teach people what a Prince Albert piercing is.
  • Other than that the film is mostly notable for its ludicrous premise. An internship finally determined by a quiz show format oral exam which depends on you playing sports and being in a fraternity? Seems unlikely.
  • Some good Product Placement (What?) with Coca Cola products in general. And also a pretty rough Worst Twist (How?) in that I legitimately predicted that Waynes wouldn’t get the job and would instead get a job specifically in the mail room at the end, and then it happened. It was inevitable. The film is, again, closest to Good in that there is some pretty funny stuff in it in the end.

I’ll write about the sequel which will be called Senseless 2: Protectors Assemble! That’s right, Senseless is a true blue superhero now! Cheerios,

The Sklogs

Boys and Girls Recap

Jamie

Woah, I feel like I was ready for Down to You and got a college version of She’s All That… having trouble parsing through that sentence? Well congrats, your brain hasn’t (yet) been diseased by years and decades of bad movies. What I mean is that in Down to You Freddie Prinze Jr. is kinda a lame macho bro with a friend who makes pornos and that’s like 90% of what I remember about the film. It’s kind of offensive trash that speaks ill of humanity as a whole and is asking questions that (I hope) the majority of people aren’t asking themselves about love. And yet, despite the presence of Jason Biggs, Boys and Girls is a very sweet and innocuous take on a college romance between two people that seem to get along great together despite their differences. Sound familiar? She’s All That is a good film with a similar premise. Thus, She’s All That:Down to You::Saved by the Bell:Saved by the Bell: The College Years. 

I think that’s an apt comparison as She’s All That is genuinely good and I wish they made 100 She’s All That’s so that I could have more of them to watch. Down to You… well, much like Zack Morris and A.C. Slater going to college, it was more about need than perhaps good sense. They needed to make another Freddie Prinze Jr. movie and so they did. But there is a reason it’s forgotten to the sands of time. Inoffensive fluff. Just to recap, FPJ is a giant nerd. Claire Forlani, not as much. But fate seems to keep bringing them together throughout their lives and so it’s no surprise that at Berkeley they actually become BFFFs. Purely platonic, people. Nothing to see here except a couple of the hottest people on earth definitely not making out in college. For sure. Anyways, one night in the midst of personal turmoil they finally hook up. FPJ is over the moon. Forlani, wellllll… and that pretty much ruins EVERYTHING. Flash forward to the end of school and Forlani is off to Italy. Or is she? Because she decides she is in love after all (awww) and she chases after FPJ and they smooch for days.

The funniest aspect of the film is reading about Freddie Prinze Jr. and how he wanted to play the character cause it kind of flipped the script on what he had been doing up to that point. Instead of playing the jock golden boy he got the chance to go a little awkward as a nerd alert central. Why is this funny? First of all, he basically abandons the nerd schtick about 15 minutes into the film. When all your acting chops come from your natural jock golden boy charm it’s a little hard to turn it around. Boy does he seem to look in the mirror halfway through and decide the golden boy jock isn’t so bad after all. Second, what does he turn around and do the very next year? Summer Catch. Hah! Spread your wings and fly, my golden boy jock! Fly!

To finish up with a Hot Take Clam Bake, I usually like to ponder the underlying relationship at the end of the film and gosh darn it, I think these kids are gonna make it. Oh no, not FPJ and Forlani, I mean Jason Biggs and Amanda Detmer. In a classic Rom Com BFF swap, the kooky friends of the main characters end up hooking up too. Sure they are both crazy, but I think they might be the right type of crazy to lead to a spicy, unpredictable marriage that is built to last. Flash forward ten years and it’s Biggs giving FBJ love life advice to help keep his marriage on track. Do I really think that? Not really, I mean Jason Biggs’ character openly espoused some pretty heinous opinions about the elderly, so it probably lasts a year tops just from that angle. Hot Take Temperature: Smoldering Coals. Patrick?

Patrick

‘Ello everyone! Boys and Girls? More like Annoys and Hurls! Amirite? Remember the year 2000, when gas was 25 cents, living was easy, and Freddie Prinze Jr. was a star? Those were the days. Let’s go!

  • Wait a tick … do I like this film? Am I getting old or something? Because I feel like I kind of like a lot of films recently. Hot take though: Dimension Films was a good production company, so while they made a lot of stinkers over the years (probably from meddling by the Weinsteins by all accounts) their stinkers are often not all that bad and at least somewhat entertaining. Just a thought.
  • Freddie Prinze Jr. is a bad actor, but he’s also very charming. It is just amazing to me that he got away without really trying to elevate or modify his style basically at all for a decade. Seems nice though.
  • I’m convinced that the director screwed up Claire Forlani’s performance. I think she must have gotten some weird direction on acting somewhat spacey, but it falls very flat and comes off as mostly strange. She is intriguing though, and at times great in this film.
  • The only actually good thing in the film is Jason Biggs. Genuinely funny. Particularly a moment where Freddy Prinze Jr. tells him to just be honest with women and to be himself and love will come to him. So at dinner he ends up going on a big diatribe about how the elderly suck society dry and should, effectively, be killed for the greater good (and their licenses should be taken away as well). And then he’s like “you told me to be honest.” Really funny.
  • But the film is mostly just something you’ve likely seen elsewhere and better and the leads don’t necessarily have the best chemistry compared to some of their rivals.
  • Although it does have a unique factor in that the leads explicitly dislike each other for about half the film. They are friendly, but think that the other just doesn’t see eye to eye with how they think of the big L-O-V-E. And they seem mostly okay with that.
  • Probably the best Product Placement (What?) in the film is the inexplicable Slush Puppy cup Forlani is drinking out of at one point during the film. Do you think they paid for that? What a strange thing. Setting as a Character (Where?) for Berkeley and San Francisco in general. I think the film is closest to Good.

Obviously you can read about my sequel Men & Women in the Quiz. Cheerios,

The Sklogs

Halloween II (2009) Recap

Jamie

I think this is dog poo. It’s sometimes hard to tell when a film is so not made for you that you wonder whether its creator in fact explicitly made it for no one. If Rob Zombie sat down and said “I’m going to make something so horrific… so wallowing in the muck and mire of the worst people in the world… to the point where the audience would ultimately side with the monster over humanity… and no one can or will like it because it no longer represents horror, but rather the horror that is my diseased mind… oh and also I’ll fill it with meaningless symbolism that will only confuse and further horrify the audience as it will force them to confront the meaninglessness of art… that’s what I’ll make and everyone will hate it.” If he said that… then is it good? He accomplished his mission after all.

The answer is obviously no. Not just because it’s not possible to purposefully create a bad movie (it must be grown and nurtured organically), but also because that really wasn’t Rob Zombie’s purpose. It just so happened that his true vision was terrible, poorly made and no one would like it. But kudos to him for earning so much money the first time around that they gave him free reign on the sequel. Oh to be a fly on the wall as the producers went over dailies. Trying to make heads or tails of whether they were making something good or bad or something that would fail or succeed at the box office. I’d only be sure that the producers would be thoroughly in the dark about what they were creating, but also absolutely aware that they were going to be battling some dire reviews in their attempt at boffo box office.

To recap, the film turns the original Halloween on its head a little bit by opening with a 20 minute dream sequence where Myers is attacking Laurie in the hospital following the events of the first film. Zombie sets it up like he’s doing another straight remake of the second film, but no no no. It’s all meaningless and soon we are treated to the fact that instead Myers was never found after the events of the first film. He’s instead been wandering the country in wait, a la Halloween H2O. We’re being told that this isn’t your grandpappy’s Halloween. This is Rob Zombie’s Halloween and buckle up cause you’re gonna get a whole lot of gore… and also extended horse metaphors and ghosts… but also gore and gross naked people. It all proceeds from there with everyone now being terrible. Laurie is broken and terrible. Loomis is a total jerk. The whole town is infested with heavy metal groupies (obviously, where else but suburban Illinois would such denizens reside?). This all culminates with a very Halloween 4 ending where Myers kills Loomis and Laurie kills Myers and… bum bum bum… becomes Myers. Nooooooooooo.

As I’ve meditated on this film I do not believe it is as bad as Resurrection, but it’s not what I want out of my Halloween by a long shot. Finishing up with a Hot Take Clam Bake, I will venture to say that this film is good. Whaaaaaa?! No, not actually good, but rather good because a man was allowed to make his vision. A pure pursuit of art. Like Little Nicky before it, Halloween II should be lauded for what it represents and not what it is (which is bad). That’s it… that’s the hot take: Halloween II is Little Nicky and Little Nicky is good. Ergo, Halloween II is good (but also very, very bad). Hot Take Temperature: a nice crisp autumn bonfire. Patrick?

Patrick

‘Ello everyone! Halloween II (2009)? More like Halloween Too Gory for Patrick! The producers got a big fat check from Halloween (2007) and so they wrote a blank check for Rob Zombie … that’s never not a mistake. Let’s go!

  • Oh boy.
  • Oh jeez. This movie is a tough pill to swallow. It isn’t even dog poo in my face. It is just gross and I hate it.
  • Also it bucks the entire premise of the original second film by making the hospital sequence into an extended 20 minute long dream sequence … you heard that right! Rob Zombie did it again! He took a svelte 90 minute horror flick and bloated it with garbage at the beginning.
  • But for real, don’t watch this movie. It sucks. It has weird sequences with Michael Myers as a kid, and people in pumpkin masks, and Loomis is a straight dick. The only redeemable thing in the entire film is Dourif.
  • There is an entire sequence just having Michael Myers stomp a guy’s head in at a strip club and then kill the owner and his girlfriend/stripper … who are these people? Why do I care about this? What is happening?!
  • Michael Myers has a big bushy beard.
  • There is a huge part of the film involving a White Horse that represents … something? Like Michael Myers’ murderous desires, or like his mother or something? The quote that opened the film probably explained this, but I was mostly just astonished that the film opened with a quote. I haven’t seen that in forever.
  • A thousand people die in this film in horrible fashion. At the end Laurie Strode is wearing the mask. I thought Resurrection was a slap in the face to fans of Halloween. This film doesn’t even resemble Halloween anymore. Whereas the first did what needed to be done in putting a spin on a horror classic, this one was just Hostel-ween and it is horrible. No wonder the producers ran away from this direction in the end. It is an abomination. And not like with the vaguely amusing mess that is Resurrection. It is an abomination in the terrible way where you realize there are people who enjoy horror films like this. How bizarre.
  • Yup. I did not like this film.
  • Once again a Setting as a Character (Where?) for Haddonfield, Illinois. And once again an A+ Holiday Setting (When?) for it all happening during Halloween. This film is the worst, I hate it, I recommend it to no one, it is Bad.

Sorry guys, I went into a fugue state for a second there. I had to rent this one on Amazon, so sadly no director commentary or anything else for me. Of course, you can read my sequel to this film called Halloween III: Urban Legend III in the Quiz. Cheerios,

The Sklogs

Halloween (2007) Recap

Jamie

“Get me a Hostel!” the executive screamed, chomping a cigar between his lips. The young associates scrambled through the piles of original scripts sent their way. No hostels in sight. Where were the achilles tendon slices? A quick ctrl+F for “ripe melon” finds zero time it was used to describe a head being crushed by a killer’s bare hands. Even a script titled “Extreme Gore” turns out to be a reimagining of the 2000 Presidential Election which, while horrifying, is not what they need. Suddenly the sea of scripts parts and like a glowing medallion there is a copy of Halloween: Resurrection. “Resurrect… Halloween… talk to me people,” screams one of the associates excitedly.

Or at least that’s how I imagine this all happened. Step two: hire Rob Zombie. Step three: profit. There is no inbetween steps because I assume no one on the studio side knew what the hell was going on. Horror had changed in a matter of just a few years from Scream knock-offs to Blair Witch knock-offs to Saw knock-offs. Halloween went right along with it: H20 to a pseudo reality horror in Resurrection and then finally Zombie’s Halloween reboot. And it worked. So kudos to everyone involved. Zombie remade the classic film with some extra gory bits mixed in, he did it on the cheap, and it made a massive amount of money. And that’s pretty far and away the most impressive part of this movie. Besides that it’s a gross, cheapo Halloween remake with much worse acting and an excessive amount of Myers backstory. No need to even do a recap as there isn’t anything interesting to talk about.

For Hot Take Clam Bake I’ve got one that’s been cooking in the oven for the last few entries of Halloween. I have not shied away from my opinion that for the original Halloween series (through entry six) Dr. Loomis is at best a merely annoying, possibly drunk character who pops up here and there for some laughs. At worst he’s the true villain of the franchise. HOWEVER, after his absence in H20 and Resurrection I started to suspect that, could it be?… Loomis might be a necessary evil? His absence made it clear to me that he had functioned for most of the series as Michael Myers hype man. A little kid murdered his sister and then escaped years later. Throw it on the pile next to the rest of the escaped prisoners. But no! Loomis is right there screaming in your face about his eyes being black as coals!!! He’s evil! And you’re criminally responsible if you don’t heed his warning because Michael Myers is one scary MFer… well, shit now I’m spooked. Who is this Myers character? He must be an unstoppable horror show. You see? I’m all hyped now. Ready for Michael to knock my socks off.

What does this have to do with the reboot? This point is the remake’s biggest failure is its inability to understand this. You had McDowell at the ready! The man is a maniac! So what do you do with him? You tame him down. It becomes a story of Loomis’ recognition of Myers’ trauma and ultimately his attempt (and failure) to reason with Myers’ homicidal mission against his sister. And just when I was recognizing his value as a character. Loomis is good. This movie failed him and thus it failed us. That take is scored as a Heat Seeking Missile. Patrick?

Patrick

‘Ello everyone! Halloween? More like I Wish I Hadn’t Seen (It). Did you ever think to yourself “Man, I wish the horror classic Halloween was gross like Hostel.” Rob Zombie did. Let’s go!

  • This movie is two hours long. This movie also has a half-hour section that explains in detail the origin story of Michael Myers as a whiny sociopath. Thus, this movie could have been a much better film if they just cut out the origin story. Et voila. You are welcome, Rob Zombie, call it the Sklog Cut.
  • This is a tale of two films. On the one hand, thanks, I hate it. On the other, very clearly some people liked it because it made a boatload of cash. It does potentially feel like the way a “reboot” should go for a horror classic. He changed up the genre. That makes sense. You have to change up something, right?
  • I still wish the film wasn’t made though.
  • Besides maybe Dourif, the rest of the cast is a kind of give or take. I didn’t think Rob Zombie’s wife or the woman playing Laurie were very good, and McDowell is always a trip. But acting isn’t in the top 3 things I disliked about the film.
  • The top three are all how gross this film is. Again, thanks, I hate it. Turns out I can abide torture porn-esque films now. I don’t feel queasy while watching them. But I still hate them and I hate that they did it to Halloween.
  • Similarly Michael Myers being a hulking wrestler also seems wrong.
  • To draw it back to the remake series a bit, Halloween: Resurrection could have been called MichaelMyers.com because that is hilarious, but also could have been called Murder.com and been a generic slasher. Similarly, this could be called like Torture House or Stabbed Seventy Times in the Face and it would have made more sense. This isn’t really Halloween, and when it is it is really just going through the motions.
  • I know this is a mishmash of thoughts, but I’ll end it by saying that this film is NOT dog poo in my face. So it does manage to not be the worst of the series … I might have watched the worst of the series right after though. Stay tuned.
  • Obviously, as usual, the film is a Setting as a Character (Where?) for Haddonfield, Illinois. And it is a A+ Holiday Film (When?) for Halloween as well. This film is closest to Good for me, as much as I personally hate it, I also recognize what it needed to do and that Zombie managed, against all odds, to do it to make is a marked improvement over the later Halloween sequels.

I didn’t have time to get this on DVD so no special features. Wish I could have listened to Rob Zombie’s director commentary. Read about the spinoff series called Halloween II: King Michael Myers in the Quiz.

Cheerios,

The Sklogs

Reindeer Games Recap

Jamie

You know you’ve struck gold when at the very end of the film the twist is revealed and the main character doesn’t crumble in disbelief at how he was had by such an intricate and beautiful plot. Instead he stares blankly at the other characters and mentions off-hand at how ludicrous and unlikely it all was. To which the antagonists go, “Well, you ever heard of a longshot?” You could feel the screenwriter patting you on the head and going, “shhh, shhhh, don’t you worry your little head about this. Everything is going to be OK. Just understand… all these characters are real big dumbos. Like the biggest idiots. None of this made any sense because they are stupid and set up a plot that shouldn’t have worked… but somehow it almost did (which is why I wrote a movie about it). Merry Christmas.”

Just to briefly recap the plot, Rudy is in prison where mere days before he and his cellmate Nick are set to be released he is attacked and Nick is killed. When he leaves prison he sees Ashley, the woman Nick has been communicating with, and impulsively lets her believe he’s actually Nick. They begin a torrid love affair, only for Ashely’s brother, Gabriel, and his trucker gang to show up and demand he help them with a heist of a casino that Nick used to work at. Facing death, Rudy agrees. During the heist everything goes sideways and only Ashley, Gabriel, and Rudy survive. But uh oh! Turns out Nick is alive and it was all a long con (WHAT A DOUBLE TWIST!!!). Too bad for Ashley and Nick, though, because Rudy is able to kill them both and gives away all the money. Merry Christmas. It’s actually kind of a fun 90’s heist film other than the fact that the twist-em-ups are so dumbo supreme that you could never actually claim it was a good film with a straight face. But that gets me to my Hot Take Clam Bake: the plan should have worked!

Hear me out. So the set up is that Nick and Ashley are long time lovers who concoct an intricate plan after Nick lands himself in jail. He’s gonna tell his cellmate everything about a casino that’s easy to rob. Meanwhile Ashley will fall in with a trucker gang where she plants the seed of an idea whereby she would write to an inmate to find a target for a heist. From there Nick will fake his death, paying off numerous prison employees, and let the cellmate fall into the hands of the truckers who will demand the heist go forward. From there they are in the clear until the heist is finished. That is as long as the cellmate does in fact impersonate Nick… and the truckers don’t figure out that he’s not Nick and just kill him. Sure it’s a longshot, but fortunately everyone is super dumb. So it all should have worked. The fatal flaw? Hubris, my friends. Classic hubris. Nick can’t help but reveal himself to Rudy. It’s actually really bad considering the whole plan is to protect Nick and Ashley as much as possible from being involved in the plot. So why not let Gabriel, a more adept murderer, actually murder Rudy and then quickly murder Gabriel. It doesn’t make sense and is the only reason it wasn’t actually a perfect twist… other than the twist being totally insane.

That hot take is scored as a Chilled Eggnog. Patrick? 

Patrick

‘Ello everyone! Reindeer Games? More like Drains my Brains! Amirite? Are you ready for a real twist-’em’up? Will you better be, because there ain’t no way there aren’t like seventeen twists in this thing. Let’s go!

  • Oooooooo doggy, that twist! I mean like … the second twist. Or maybe the third. Well whatever, the last twist is the craziest. Like “oh man it turns out Theron set Affleck up … wait, she’s dating Sinese? Oh, I see it is like a real set up … oh wait, Nick is still alive! That plan seems … unlikely to work.” That is my train of thought throughout the film.
  • Don’t worry they lampshade the whole plan thing saying they just kind of hoped it would work or something, it’s dumb.
  • Sinese and Theron are both good, but Affleck feels a bit out of his element. It was early in his career, and he’s very charming, but he comes across as a bad actor.
  • As far as a heist film is concerned this is pretty fun even if it is a bit frustrating trying to figure out what Affleck knows, when he knows it, and what his motivations might be in pretending he doesn’t know it, you know? I’m pretty sure he knew everything they were asking of him, but he was always withholding as much as possible as a ploy to get away at various times, but it was confusing. But he knew about the Powwow Safe (and you can see so did Theron who tries to dissuade her co-conspirators from going after it when it is opened), so he must have known about everything in a way.
  • A great great Setting as a Character (Where?) for Northern Michigan where, oh boy, is it a-snowing. Great Holiday Film (When?) for it being set at Christmas specifically and dressing up everyone as Santa Claus. I’m going to give it a MacGuffin (Why?) for the casino, kind of, but mostly for the Powwow Safe which is a big thing that constantly gets mentioned and ultimately has a huge payoff for what is in it. And finally this might be the stone cold winner of Worst Twist (How?) for the ultimate twist that Nick was alive all along and manipulating Rudy to get him to rob the casino for him. I think this is very much closest to Good, it is kind of a good movie if you ignore all the twist-em-ups.
  • Oh man, Live Free or Die Hardcopy is back jack! So in this one we really only have two special features and in reality it is just one special feature. There is a Set Visit, which is mostly people explaining how they wanted to work with Frankenheimer and then Frankenheimer saying a bunch of stuff that is also in the commentary (C+, fun to see how a movie is made at least). And then a commentary … which is just Frankenheimer explaining stuff (D, interesting if you care about direction, but this is absolutely the epitome of “one person is not enough for a commentary.” The whole thing just draaaaaaaaaaags). I might stop listening to commentaries with just the director, they are almost always terrible.

And of course I outlined my sequel to Reindeer Games called Reindeer Games: Independence Day in the Quiz. Cheerios, and back to you Jamie!

My Boss’s Daughter Recap

Jamie

There was a moment where I thought My Boss’s Daughter could be a Grandma’s Boy. A film with terrible reviews that contained a bunch of funny stuff and was actually good. Then I was like, ‘nah, this ain’t that,’ and so I revised my opinion mid-movie and thought perhaps it was a Freddy Got Fingered. An interesting film that was probably actually bad, but also not as bad as the reviewers made it out to be and mostly reviled for its strangeness. But even that wasn’t quite it. Finally, after going through these stages of grief I arrived at the truth: this movie is real bad. That’s right, the film is trash. Don’t get me wrong, there are some funny jokes in there and the supporting cast consists of some of the best in comedy. But it all came down to a simple fact: they had no idea what they wanted to make. And so only about 25% of the film is any good. The rest is appallingly bad.  

To briefly touch on the plot, Tom is in love with his boss’s daughter Lisa. Tom also wants to make it big in publishing but Lisa’s dad is a big ol’ mean face. One day Lisa asks if Tom could help her out and he’s psyched, but less so once he realizes that helping her out means he’s owl-sitting for her father while she goes to a party with her BF. Hilarity ensues as everything, everyone, and every owl goes wrong. Drug deals go bad, Tom is mixed up in a murder most foul, Lisa comes home admits she thought Tom was gay, the owl gets high on cocaine and flies away, etc. etc. etc. Then Lisa’s father gets home early and Tom is fired for acting like a crazy person. But Tom has grown a spine through the ordeal and goes after Lisa, they smooch, and live happily ever after.

So yeah, it’s some real crazy stuff that doesn’t add up to much. It can’t seem to stick to a theme and falls apart under the weight of four different styles. 

  • Director David Zucker. He’s best known for his spoof movies. Indeed, I think the most successful aspects of this film are when they start to border on spoof. An owl is sucking down cocaine and running wild and I swear if they just called it The Great Owl Adventure I would have been into it. 
  • Writer David Dorfman. The writer of the film was hot off making Anger Management and making a splash in Hollywood and his voice seems to contain a bit of acid that works against the lighter, spoofier tones of Zucker. Much of it doesn’t age super well either.
  • Standard Studio Rom Com. It’s already a wild idea to pair this script with that director, but to also then shoehorn in a Tara Reid/Kutcher stereotypical love story in the middle of it? Not a single moment of Kutcher and Reid together works.  
  • Ashton Kutcher Vehicle. Kutcher was clearly on his way up. So when he gets his leading role he is giving it his all in the biggest, broadest way… even when his character reads more like a nervous Woody Allen character than Ashton Kutcher. 

You mix these four things together and it’s a stew not worth eating. When you extract The Great Owl Adventure… now I’m interested. That’s actually my Hot Take Clam Bake. Very simple: more owl=more money. I wanted to sit down thinking, ‘hmmm, just another rom com, sigh.’ Only to then perk up when I realize this isn’t a love story between Kutcher and Reid… it’s a love story between Kutcher and the owl. Fly me to the moon, owl. That hot take it ice cold, baby. Patrick?

Patrick

‘Ello everyone! My Boss’s Daughter? More like What Dross and Rotter! Amirite? I mean, yeah, if I were British … oh, wait, I am British! Let’s go!

  • There was a time not too long ago when people made unfunny garbage where the “comedy” was all gross-out and the plots all paper-thin. The era I’m sure was great for some people, and perhaps even Dimension Films. It wasn’t great for comedy. This movie is unfunny garbage.
  • Kutcher and Reid are both shockingly bad in this film. I never really thought Kutcher was a particularly good actor. He’s a bit one note, seems to lack a bit of range. But he’s particularly bad in this, presumably as it was quite early in his career (when filmed, I believe the film was shelved for years prior to release). It is actually incredible Tara Reid had a major motion picture career at all. No offense.
  • It was nice I suppose to see Andy Richter bumming around though. He’s actually pretty funny in this. But he’s also a television actor and his part isn’t nearly big enough to save the film overall.
  • Oh there were some funny jokes I suppose, mostly concerning an owl named O.J. (after O.J. Simpson) who causes quite the stir after getting high on cocaine. There is a kernel of something there in that the owl is almost always a terrible puppet/doll that Kutcher interacts with. There is something actually funny about half-assing what is (wildly) the centerpiece to the whole movie: the escape of the antagonist’s pet owl.
  • Oh, and add this to the films where the main character works in book publishing. I … don’t think they know how the book publishing world works. I’m not sure the primary job of a publisher is coming up with ideas for books … I think the authors do that. But what do I know?
  • The film definitely has a nice Product Placement (What?) for both Miller Lite and Cheetos. But other than that I think there are basically no superlatives. The film is closest to Bad, it is unfunny garbage and not interesting in any particular way beyond being a time capsule for everything bad about comedy in 2000.
  • I think I need to name this segment. Jamie likes Live Free or Die Hardcopy (soon to be a smash hit podcast I’m sure). Anyways, plenty of special features on the DVD I got from my local library. We got Bloopies (F, unfunny trash, but hey, so is the movie). We got Deleted Scenes (B, but only because it was a scene that was basically only half done and looked ridiculous). There is a making of Documentary (D, oh boy does it explain why this film is unfunny), and a (gulp) Tara Reid Audition … alright, I’m just going to stop right there for a second. They have Tara Reid get actually half-naked in her audition. Now I’m not one to presume. I’m not one to try and project my thoughts and feelings onto situations. Let’s just say … not a great look. I give the segment a (D, not a great look), and leave it at that.

You best believe I made up a sequel called My Boss’s Granddaughter. Cheerios, and back to you Jamie!

Halloween: Resurrection Recap

Jamie

Wooooooaaahhhhh. Dog poo. It’s dog poo in our faces. The debate will forever be whether this is so dog poo that it’s a big time BMT hit? Or is it too dog poo (thanks for everything! Julie Newmar) and is just bad and should be burned to the ground? Patrick and I will probably debate this for hours because this is bar none the single worst horror film of any of the major franchises. It’s not even close.

I’m serious, this is a tragedy put to screen. I can’t believe they did this. I can’t believe they let it go out with Halloween as the title. Cut the beginning, reedit it so you never see Michael’s face and release it as a different movie. Anything but what they did here. My god, it is offensive. Patrick and I were driven to insanity because it is like Michael Myers himself was turned into a film. It is an unstoppable force. No one must watch this. Preserve your quaint view that Halloween 4-6 represented the nadir of the franchise. Such an innocent time. Oh I miss those Halloween 6 days. The days of the Cult of Thorn.

I’m not sure if I can even give a cursory recap of the film. I’m so shocked and awed by the traumatic event that I experienced while watching it, but I’ll give it a try. Even though we all saw Michael Myers die at the end of the H20 we are told not to believe our lying eyes. In fact Myers traded places with an incapacitated paramedic and that’s who Laurie Strode decapitated. Cool cool cool. Lucky for Laurie, Michael comes back and she is swiftly and mercifully killed before she is forced to participate in this film any further. Meanwhile a reality show is being produced that is gonna take a whole bunch of dumbos and leave them in the Myers house on Halloween. Sounds dumb and fake. It is. But also Michael Myers shows up and actually does kill a bunch of people. Our new Laurie Strode, Sara Moyer, is able to survive with the help of her internet boyfriend, a giant nerd alert high school freshman named Myles. In a final showdown she and Busta Rhymes join forces to take down Michael Myers and victory is theirs. Or is it? It’s not, Michael appears to survive, but this new series didn’t. Also, after the film ends Sara meets Myles and is extremely disappointed and basically is like “see yah, nerd.” That’s a fact.

Honestly some shocking stuff. D-double-O to the P-O-O. So let’s Hot Take Clam Bake and GTFO. Today my clam bake is that while the new series claims to eliminate the Halloween franchise after the second entry, I say nay. If you look closely at the beginning of H20, where Myers enters the recently deceased Dr. Loomis’ house to find info on Laurie, you’ll see a newspaper clipping claiming that Laurie died in the car accident. This was the ruse she used to escape her past life and prevent Michael from finding her. But wait, was that not also the explanation we got for why Laurie wasn’t in entries 4-6? Indeed. We also see Loomis tracking Myers and his whereabouts, so doesn’t it reason to believe that he in fact would appear like a super crazy ghost in the Haddonfield on occasion terrorizing the local townfolk claiming Michael was back. My theory? Entries 4-6 are the delusions of the mad man himself. He imagined those events. So no, the sequels aren’t skipped. They actually hold the key to Loomis’ deranged mind and must be studied extensively. Thank you.

That’s what we in the biz call a Raging Inferno of a hot take. Patrick?

Patrick

‘Ello everyone! Halloween: Resurrection? More like Dog Poo Straight In My Face: Resurrection! How dare you. How daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaare you. Let’s get into it!

  • My god, what have they done to my boy! WHAT HAVE YOU DONE!
  • A slap in the face to fans! Dog poo shoved ever so slowly into my face! This film is an abomination. It has dead eyes, dark like coals. I looked into its eyes and knew it survived through pure unfeeling evil. I must warn the sheriff! The Cult of Thorn made this film to control an ancient magic! Why won’t anyone listen to me?!
  • Is this movie a joke? It feels like it is a joke, but one that no one is really in on. Like they made a garbage film, all looked at each other and were like “uh oh … put some jokes in there and change the ending, maybe people will think we weren’t serious.” This is the era of Jason X so it isn’t totally implausible.
  • This film is a direct-to-video film called like Murder.com or something that somehow contains Michael Myers. Half of the film is shot on webcams (like legit webcams), and the other half is reaction shots of teenagers at a costume party. It has no connection to any Halloween film that has come before or after. Completely perplexing nonsense.
  • I just don’t know how something like this happens. Further I have no idea how Halloween as a franchise survived Resurrection. Jason X is a joke (and Jason in general was at that point anyways) so that didn’t affect that franchise. But this is unforgivable. No wonder they did a remake of the original and then a direct sequel to the first film eventually. The sixth film can be somewhat forgiven and forgotten. Resurrection is forever. Tainting that bloodline forever.
  • I think I’m going insane.
  • I think I’ll just leave it with that to some degree with one serious warning: do not watch this film on its merits or in connection to Halloween at all. Watch this, if you must, as a perplexing touchstone in the history of slashers. The early 2000s was when slashers died, and I dare say I think Halloween: Resurrection may have been the final nail in the coffin.
  • The usual Setting as a Character (Where?) for Haddonfield (made explicit via Haddonfield College). And also the usual A+ Holiday Film (When?) for Halloween. A decent Production Placement (What?) for Pepsi which is prominently displayed on several occasions early in the film. This is either the worst film ever or the most BMT film ever, and I think it is the most BMT film ever, an abomination!
  • And you best belieb there are special features on the DVD I got (from the brary natch). There was a lame deleted scene showing more of the in-movie interview about the reality show characters (D). There was a weird little movie about how awesome Jamie Lee Curtis is (A because Curtis is awesome, but F because she lied and said she thought the movie was good). There was literally all of the headcam footage (F because it is 40 minutes long, looks like shit, and ain’t no one got time for that). There was a storyboard (B, kind of cool to see the motivation for the headcams). And there was a set tour (A, really cool to see very extensively how they built the house). And finally an audio commentary (D, not interesting and mostly you learn the same stuff as in the other special features. Solo audio commentaries are never good.). Phew!

Check out to my sequel to this film, Halloween: Exorcism, in the Quiz. Cheerios,

The Sklogs

Surviving the Game Recap

Jamie

“What’s Surviving the Game?” is the only real response to learning that we watched this for BMT. It came, it qualified for BMT, it did not conquer. It ultimately feels a little like what streaming films are like today. Could have been (should have been?) on HBO instead of in theaters. But that is the long past. This is the present and in the present we can only watch what’s on the screen (and on any sweet, sweet DVD extras they might have graced us with).

So first and foremost I have to say that Surviving the Game is serviceable. It services the human race’s apparent need to watch humans-hunting-humans. It’s a tale as old as time (if time started in 1924) and it is a pretty straight adaptation despite the 70 year gap between source material and adaptation. Ice-T is a homeless man offered a nice sum of money to participate as a guide for a hunt. He has no experience, he exclaims, but whatevs, they are looking to help Ice-T out. Not suspicious at all. When he gets out to the secluded cabin in the wilds of Oregon he is shocked to find that all the hunters are rich maniacs. He is fortunate to have a place to sleep at night given all the scenery these rich maniacs are chewing. But alas, these aren’t just your regular Joe, scenery-consuming rich maniacs… these are rich maniacs who like to hunt Ice-T. Uh oh! So Ice-T starts his escape and through cunning and mostly a desperate desire to live, he is able to pick off the richie riches one-by-one. Just as he is about to kill the main player and make his escape he is blown up by a timed explosive in a decoy plane. Darn, looks like Rutger Hauer got away. Not so fast! What a twist! Ice-T survived and shows up in Seattle to take out Rutger before he makes his final escape.

As you can see the film is straightforward, which is nice. There is some funny stuff in there too. All the actors are way way way over the top and I’m there for it. There are also some funny random moments in the film including some pretty suspect practical effects and the fact that Hauer sets up a bomb for Ice-T at the end, but after blowing him up doesn’t seem to care that he doesn’t find a body. It’s like Hauer assumed that Ice-T was entirely obliterated by the bomb and not a speck was left… like a cartoon. No wonder Ice-T is able to nab him by the end. That’s just not good thinking by our bad guy. So overall, not bad, with some fun mixed in to boot. Before I jump into Hot Take Clam Bake, just a quick word on our Bring a Friend, Sonic Impact. I found this movie confounding, at times hilarious, and eventually a pretty good Friend. It’s a film constructed around clips from Airport 1975, but set up like a Die Hard scenario, so there is a lot of meandering about until the big action scene comes into play. My favorite was how they keep telling the main character that he should take a vacation, so for the first half of the film we see him discuss it with people, pack up his bag, drive to a travel agency only to get called into action seconds from booking the trip. The bad guy nicely hammed it up, too. So as I said, good Friend.

Anyway, for Hot Take Clam Bake I’m making the case that the man who recruited Ice-T, played by Charles S. Dutton, was actually a good guy who saw the potential of Ice-T as the hero he needed to finally put a stop to the evil cabal he became involved with. He saw through Ice-T’s seeming lack of interest in life and fall into destitution to see the man within. A man who’s superior smarts and skills could finally stop Hauer in his tracks. Hauer is even like “come on, are you sure?” but Dutton is adamant that this is the man they want… truly the most dangerous game, and in fact a game so dangerous that he would tear it all down. Sure, Dutton dies in the end, but that was the sacrifice he was willing to make. Why do you think he’s laughing deliriously after being blown up by Ice-T? The student has become the teacher and even in death he knows his plan has worked. Who else could survive a bomb blast, bury himself in the sand convincingly enough to escape detection, and then reappear hundreds of miles away to swoop out of the darkness like Batman to kill Hauer? Ice-T, that’s who, and Dutton knew it all along.

I give that Hot Take Clam Bake a rating of Scorching Hot. Patrick?

Patrick

‘Ello everyone! Surviving the Game? More like Surviving this Movie?! Amirite? Who would have thought that the best adaptation of The Most Dangerous Game would star Ice-T. Wait … no, strike that, I meant “worst”. Let’s go!

  • Weird movie. Based on The Most Dangerous Game, but also only a year after Hard Target starring Van Damme which is ostensibly the exact same story, all the way down to Van Damme effectively being a vagrant recruited into the game. Ice-T is basically what makes this movie unique, I suppose representing a different underclass being exploited … still feels a bit pointless.
  • The testosterone on set must have been off the chain! Hauer, Busey, and McGinley are all trying to chew the scenery to such a degree that I don’t know how the director could even have wrangled them. Especially McGinley. There are moments where he’s stumbling and screeching and grabbing other actors to such a degree that I wonder if people were telling him to take it that far or whether there was no one there to tell him to chill out.
  • Fun little picture though if you are into the underlying story. Feels more like a “friend” than an actual wide release, but the 90s were crazy man, and Busey at least still felt like a bankable star. Makes sense that the director openly said he regretted killing him off early.
  • Interesting Setting as a Character (Where?) for Washington state, which is made explicit through several references to the beginning of the film taking place in Seattle. And honestly that is it. I think it is closest to Good in the end, just because you’ll get some mileage out of seeing Ice-T kill a bunch of people and the generic story is a classic for a reason.
  • This cycle’s friend is also an Ice-T vehicle called Sonic Impact. Films like this I usually find rather boring, but for some reason this one enamored me. I think it is a combination of having watched enough mediocre/bad movies that I can recognize Sonic Impact as merely a poor man’s Turbulence mixed with a poor man’s Executive Decision. And then half the film being literally Airport 1975’s shots of an airplane flying near the Rocky Mountains. And then Ice-T spending half the film looking embarrassed that he got captured and is in handcuffs with nothing to do. All it needed was the poorly-named bad guy Jeremy Barrett to have a sweet hook … like being obsessed with poetry, or being like an accomplished mathematician or some weird choice. As it is, it’ll settle as a solid B+ friend, something I might watch once more before realizing that it isn’t worth it.

Go and check out the sequel television movie crossover event, Law & Order: SVUing the Game, detailed in the Quiz. Cheerios,

The Sklog

Repo Men Recap

Jamie

After an unironically promising start to the cycle we finally hit our first stinker. Repo Men is about a couple of former military jackasses who use their skillz to repossess mechanical organs that people fail to pay off. Jude Law ends up getting shocked by a piece of faulty equipment and receives a heart transplant. Aahhh, repossessor has become the repossessee. Quickly realizing he doesn’t have… the heart… for his job anymore and thus can’t pay for the organ he goes on the run with a cyborg lady (more or less). Forest Whitaker is hot on his trail and they get into a big ol’ battle. Realizing that he’ll never outrun Forest, Law and his cyborg friend break into the transplant factory, delete all their organs from the files, and live happily ever after on the beach… or did they? It’s a twist, baby! Whitaker actually totally owned Law earlier and put him in a coma. They then did a brain transplant which gave him a happy life to live out.

So yeah, the biggest issue with all of this is a classic doozy. It’s pretty rare to find an “it was all a dream” plot device in the wild. So well-worn and unsatisfying for audiences, it’s basically a guaranteed ticket to the BMT zone. About 20 minutes into the film Whitaker started talking about a neural transplant he saw at a trade show and I immediately texted Patrick to ask if it was possible we were going to be treated to such a twist. His coy reply was everything I needed to know. It never works and it didn’t here. Particularly given just how weird his “dream” is at the end.

That’s a nice parlay into my second biggest gripe with the film. While Law and Whitaker get to have a bunch of fun, the female characters in the movie are either drugged up weirdos or total wet blankets. This culminates with Law’s “dream” where after getting into an argument with his ex-wife, his son inadvertently shocks her into unconsciousness with a taser. Law can barely contain his glee. He then proceeds Oldboy style into the transplant HQ and has a super super super (super) weird pseudosexual transplant extraction scene with his primary love interest. It is straight out of a deviant art page from the early 2000s. I honestly am having trouble shaking that part of the film. It is startling… and to think that that whole sequence was part of his neural transplant induced life of perfection is upsetting. As for good things, I will say it’s stylish and has some superb acting by Forest Whitaker. That’s as far as I’m willing to go with the complements.

I’m feeling my soon to be trademarked segment of Hot Take Clam Bake, where I stake my claim on a hot take about the film. This time I’m making the claim that a large portion of this film is actually a dream. “But Jamie, we already knew that!” But did you? I’m claiming that even more of the film is a dream! What a twist! My claim is that the shock that resulted in Law’s heart transplant was actually a shock that resulted in Law’s neural transplant. My primary piece of evidence is that the film takes a real weird left turn at that very moment. Law awakens in the hospital with Whitaker and Liev Schreiber giddily telling him he had a heart transplant. Already weird. Then after he has lost the nerve for his job he stumbles upon a lady who he saw singing earlier in the film. Weird, she’s singing the same song now… in the middle of nowhere… and also has had a transplant… and also loves him. It’s all so coincidental and weird. Finally, no matter where he goes Whitaker seems to always find him. It’s like he’s the center of the universe… but he’s not. In the plot of the film he’s just another nobody who can’t pay for his organ. Three things all add up to this being a dream and the original dream being a Wicker Man level dream within a dream. Case closed.

I put that Hot Take Clam Bake at “Steaming.” Patrick?

Patrick

‘Ello everyone! Repo Men? More like Please No, Man! What everyone was a-clamoring for in the post-’08 financial meltdown world: the heartwarming story of people falling behind on payments and literally dying at the hands of repo men … Let’s go!

  • This movie is bleak. The kind of film that was exclusively made (mainstream) in the late 2000s I feel like. That gritty real nonsense version of sci-fi with in-your-face gore, washed out backgrounds, and a narrator.
  • SPOILEES! It was all a dream. I honestly didn’t really think movies actually Jacob’s Ladder-ed you. But this is a full blown Jacob’s Ladder. Like half the film doesn’t exist. It is so stupid.
  • We watched the Unrated version (bully for us) so we apparently got a ton of extra stuff including John Leguizamo who was cut out of the theatrical release. That’s crazy.
  • As pointed out in the Flophouse podcast on this film (from years and years ago, around when it came out) they posit a world in which basically 60% of people have artificial organs. It is begging for an explanation where it is shown that The Union is also releasing chemicals into the world which is causing people’s organs to fail or something.
  • What else … the film is entirely narrated, that is a blast from the past. Forest Whitaker is great, like legitimately quite good, that’s a surprise. Everything else you can just give or take.
  • Solid Product Placement (What?) for Volkswagon throughout. I’ll throw out the Future Movie (When?) for this as this is a very good example of an actual sci-fi future film, which is more rare than you would think. And this might be the runaway winner of Worst Twist (How?) for Jacob’s Laddering us. Definitely closest to Bad just for being a bit boring and weird for my tastes.
  • Special Features Alert! The DVD (from the ‘brary as I like to call it) was chockablock with special features. We got deleted scenes (B-, a good number, but none were particularly interesting), we got fake commercials (F, not funny and pointless), we got a sfx short documentary (A, funny and interesting to see that some of the shots were entirely CGI), and, of course, we got an audio commentary with the director and both writers of the film. The commentary was fine, a solid B. The director was funny and seemed to be really proud of the film (they recorded it three weeks prior to opening weekend, so they didn’t know how it was going to be received), and overall they told a bunch of interesting production tidbits. It ain’t Ben Affleck dunking on Armageddon, but it was enough for a commentary-head like me to enjoy.

As usual, go to the Quiz to find out about the long lost sequel to Repo Men. Cheerios,

The Sklogs

Men in Black II Recap

Jamie

This movie is good. Patrick?

Oh right, I should probably elaborate. This is the same movie as the first Men in Black, which is a good film. On rewatch I found the first film to be a lot weirder than I remembered. There was a strain of 90’s indie film in it mixed with the broad Will Smith action and Danny Elfman score. D’Onofrio is nuts and it’s not at all what you would expect from a Will Smith vehicle after Independence Day. I probably shouldn’t have worked a la Wild Wild West, but it did and we got a second film.

That second film is basically them finally getting the gang together after five years and running it back. Not exactly a way to get reviewers on your good side. But as far as I can tell that is pretty much the only reason this qualified for BMT. They looked at the film and said “we expect more from you Men in Black II.” It’s all expectations at this point. That is unless they got really hung up on Johnny Knoxville getting a role that was just too substantial for his talents at the time. He needed a bit more time to warm up and was pretty annoying. You could also nitpick the plot, but really you could probably say that about the first film too. Men in Black is all MacGuffins and aliens. So to all of a sudden be like “your MacGuffin and alien plot isn’t well thought out,” seems like a weak critique.

I feel like I’m going too strong on this. I’m not a big time MIB 2 fan or something. I’m not staking my reputation on this film. I’m not even sure what will happen come Smaddies Baddies time. I think my problem is that I was surprised to even see MIB 2 on the list of qualifying films. It’s right on the boundary. Usually those borderline films come out as just that: borderline BMT. This doesn’t even really feel borderline. Should have been a 50-60% RT score probably. It offends my BMT senses that we watched it.

I think if I were to do an in depth Wrong Analysis (patent pending) for this film I would go all in on the second film actually being better than the first. Here is my evidence:

  • Much improved special effects. You can accomplish a lot in five years, particularly when the five years run from 1997-2002 and special effects are making leaps and bounds by the day. But it’s not just the CGI I’m talking about. Even the puppet work is better. Case in point are the worms. They play a minor role in the first film, but by the time we are part of a smash hit they are all over the film and doing some real cool practical effects to bring them alive.
  • The best scene in the movie. Aliens in the locker is all you need to know. It’s great and nothing in any of the films beats it. So how can this be bad when that is so good?
  • They imply Tommy Lee Jones had sex with an alien. Strike that. They didn’t even really imply it. It seems pretty clear that Tommy Lee Jones had a love child with an alien.
  • It’s the same move as MIB with better effects, the best scene in the franchise, and the implication that Tommy Lee Jones is getting down with aliums on the regular. Case closed.

But that analysis is probably wrong. Patrick?

Patrick 

‘Ello everyone! Men in Black II? More like Men in Black Too … like as well. Because it is the same movie as the first one. Whatever, let’s go!

  • Much sillier than the first film I can see why it got relatively poor reviews.
  • BUT I also watched the first film, and while fun it is basically an exercise in how something novel can blind you to how poorly put together it is. Both films feel a bit like they are barely held together by Will Smith’s charisma alone.
  • Bar none this has the funniest scene in the entire franchise with the little weirdo aliens in the locker. The ending is the best part: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9sd10CHAP8
  • This film suffers most in just feeling like a fun movie (J and K following clues around New York) bookended by the barest of all possible introductions and endings. The movie literally opens with an intentionally shoddy fake tv show (which they play again later to better effect) and then a really poorly done introduction to Serleena in Central Park. And then the film ends with a half-assed battle in MIBHQ stretched out to the twist ending.
  • And ultimately isn’t that the issue? They actually did have a MIB television show. I forgot about it, but they had a decently long running animated program (53 episodes). But the film feels like a television show that would exist now. A comedic version of The X-Files. Forcing it into a $100+ million budget blockbuster mold seems ultimately like a waste. And too bad, because you obviously can’t do anything with the original cast, and MIB: International was a colossal bomb, so they are kind of stuck.
  • Although it is a little funny to say that considering the Men in Black comic has six issues … total. Like there were only ever six issues of this property. If they work at it they could get more feature films than issues of the original source material. Bring back the MIB/21 Jump Street crossover! You know that would have been amazing.
  • There was a lot of product placement I’m sure, but my favorite Product Placement (What?) was when Rosario Dawson is asked to go get a whole mess of Mountain Dew from the basement (Do the Dew!). Solid Setting as a Character (Where?) for New York City which they use to excellent effect. Really incredible MacGuffin (Why?) work on the Light of Zartha. Which then rolls right into a Worst Twist (How?) for the reveal that Dawson herself is the Light of Zartha. Closest to Good, the film is undeniably fun to watch.

No sequel in the quiz this week, but I do outline my mid-credits scene / short film involving J going on a hot date. Check it out. Cheerios,

The Sklogs