The World Wide Rag
"If chimps are almost as smart as us, why do we never
see them riding goats?"
- Werner Herzog
Preemptive Strike: Sight Unseen Movie Reviews
Preemptive Strike:
Sight Unseen Movie Reviews
The revered film critic Pauline Kael famously claimed that she never watched any movie more than once. In our never-ending efforts to one-up everyone in history, we, The Rag’s film critics, will now review movies without ever watching them at all.
We feel qualified to perform this public service after decades of being ripped off by inferior Hollywood product. From now on, we’re going to save ourselves — and our readers — the time and the money of watching every piece of poop that drips out of the feature film pipeline. If nothing else, it’ll make us feel better.
You may well ask, “How can you in good conscience criticize something you’ve never even seen?” Trust us. We can do it.
The Critical Pantheon
Pauline Kael, Andrew Sarris and Bill Needle
I come to praise critics, not to bury them.
American magazines and daily newspapers are doing a great job of that already.
After decades of assigning the best film critics in the country to review the worst movies Hollywood had to offer, the media powers that be are now unceremoniously pushing those same critics out the door, in order to cut jobs and slow the hemorrhaging caused by dwindling readership and advertising. Most notably this year, Newsweek bought out the contract of its 30-year film critic David Ansen; the Village Voice let go critics Dennis Lim and Nathan Lee, and Jonathan Rosenbaum retired from the Chicago Reader.
With this column, we at The Rag are merely trying to strike back, to “speak truth to power,” as it were, for movie fans and especially film critics everywhere.
American magazines and daily newspapers are doing a great job of that already.
After decades of assigning the best film critics in the country to review the worst movies Hollywood had to offer, the media powers that be are now unceremoniously pushing those same critics out the door, in order to cut jobs and slow the hemorrhaging caused by dwindling readership and advertising. Most notably this year, Newsweek bought out the contract of its 30-year film critic David Ansen; the Village Voice let go critics Dennis Lim and Nathan Lee, and Jonathan Rosenbaum retired from the Chicago Reader.
With this column, we at The Rag are merely trying to strike back, to “speak truth to power,” as it were, for movie fans and especially film critics everywhere.
The advent of the Internet has changed the duties, and also the stature, of a film critic. Younger movie fans depend less on the advice of critics and are more likely to get their information straight from the movie studios, unfiltered, in the form of trailers and publicity pieces on YouTube.
You can find critics all over the Web willing to watch bad movies so you don’t have to. We at The Rag are different. We don’t want to watch movies we know will be bad — but that won’t keep us from criticizing them.
We’ll base our opinions on that same free information — trailers and publicity online — and skip adding any money to the box office coffers of crappy movies. It’s film criticism for the 21st Century, and it’s the film criticism the industry deserves.
The movie business is so obsessed with opening day figures and overseas box office that the quality of any individual film is almost beside the point. Even fans seem more interested in the behind-the-scenes aspects of filmmaking (salaries, box office) than the movies themselves.
There seems to be no point in critics actually going to see dubious-looking movies when the element of surprise is in such short supply at the multiplex. Even “sleepers” like Juno or Little Miss Sunshine feature well-known actors and are powered by multi-million dollar studio publicity campaigns.
You can find critics all over the Web willing to watch bad movies so you don’t have to. We at The Rag are different. We don’t want to watch movies we know will be bad — but that won’t keep us from criticizing them.
We’ll base our opinions on that same free information — trailers and publicity online — and skip adding any money to the box office coffers of crappy movies. It’s film criticism for the 21st Century, and it’s the film criticism the industry deserves.
The movie business is so obsessed with opening day figures and overseas box office that the quality of any individual film is almost beside the point. Even fans seem more interested in the behind-the-scenes aspects of filmmaking (salaries, box office) than the movies themselves.
There seems to be no point in critics actually going to see dubious-looking movies when the element of surprise is in such short supply at the multiplex. Even “sleepers” like Juno or Little Miss Sunshine feature well-known actors and are powered by multi-million dollar studio publicity campaigns.
Dave Kehr, Jonathan Rosenbaum and Joe Bob Briggs
So this is where we put our foot down. In the name of critics everywhere, we refuse to check out the next Larry the Cable Guy “comedy,” or worship at the feet of the upcoming Hannah Montana opus.
There’s already been so much abuse of film critics in the past. Here is a partial list of some of the obviously horrendous movies that the New York Times has forced Dave Kehr, one of America’s best critics, to review in recent years:
Agent Cody Banks
Agent Cody Banks 2: Destination London
Benji: Off the Leash!
The Butterfly Effect
Chasing Papi
Corky Romano
Dumb and Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd
For Da Love of Money
Jason X
Jeepers Creepers 2
Jonah: A Veggie Tales Movie
NASCAR: The Imax Experience
Pokemon Heroes
Rugrats Go Wild
Scooby-Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed
Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2
The Lizzie McGuire Movie
Tomcats
What a Girl Wants
White Chicks
You Got Served
Yu-Gi-Oh! The Movie
One can’t help but suspect that some New York Times bigwig got a kind of perverse pleasure in sending Kehr, one of the world’s leading auteurist voices — a card-carrying member of the American critical pantheon — to sit in the dark and stare at Tommy Pickles and Larry the Cucumber.
Preemptive Strike: Sight Unseen Movie Reviews is our blow against the empire, and we present it on behalf of all those serious-minded critics assigned for years to cover silly-ass movies, and then given the bum’s rush by uncaring corporations.
We also do it for all the fans that deserve better than what Hollywood gives them.
And because we think it’s funny.
So bring on all the garbage you can muster, Movieland. We’ll review the very worst of it.
But we won’t spend a dime — or an hour — to watch any of it. That’s our promise.
— B.S. Garp
There’s already been so much abuse of film critics in the past. Here is a partial list of some of the obviously horrendous movies that the New York Times has forced Dave Kehr, one of America’s best critics, to review in recent years:
Agent Cody Banks
Agent Cody Banks 2: Destination London
Benji: Off the Leash!
The Butterfly Effect
Chasing Papi
Corky Romano
Dumb and Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd
For Da Love of Money
Jason X
Jeepers Creepers 2
Jonah: A Veggie Tales Movie
NASCAR: The Imax Experience
Pokemon Heroes
Rugrats Go Wild
Scooby-Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed
Superbabies: Baby Geniuses 2
The Lizzie McGuire Movie
Tomcats
What a Girl Wants
White Chicks
You Got Served
Yu-Gi-Oh! The Movie
One can’t help but suspect that some New York Times bigwig got a kind of perverse pleasure in sending Kehr, one of the world’s leading auteurist voices — a card-carrying member of the American critical pantheon — to sit in the dark and stare at Tommy Pickles and Larry the Cucumber.
Preemptive Strike: Sight Unseen Movie Reviews is our blow against the empire, and we present it on behalf of all those serious-minded critics assigned for years to cover silly-ass movies, and then given the bum’s rush by uncaring corporations.
We also do it for all the fans that deserve better than what Hollywood gives them.
And because we think it’s funny.
So bring on all the garbage you can muster, Movieland. We’ll review the very worst of it.
But we won’t spend a dime — or an hour — to watch any of it. That’s our promise.
— B.S. Garp
Posted Thursday, July 31, 2008.
Journey to the Center of the Earth
Meet Dave /Space Chimps
Hollywood puts out crappy movies every month, of course, but this is the time of year — midway through the summer — when studios try to slip in some second-tier offerings (and even some obvious bombs) among the big summer blockbusters. The first wave of hits are still lingering in theatres, but kids are out of school for the summer and their families are looking for something new to stare at in the air-conditioned dark.
That’s where this week’s batch of bad movies comes in. Did you and your family enjoy the thrills and excitement of Iron Man and Indiana Jones? Then why not plunk down money to go see Journey to the Center of the Earth? Sure, there’s no way it’ll be as good as the first two, but it’ll be loud and fast-paced, and it might just bring back memories of a movie you actually liked.
Still grinning about the mix of laughs and action in Get Smart and Hancock? Get yourself a ticket to Meet Dave. OK, the special effects look cheap, and Eddie Murphy’s career is more likely to inspire tears than laughs these days, but what the hell, you’re out of the house.
Are your kids still raving about Wall-E? Here’s a sure-fire way to quiet them down: take them to see Space Chimps. Worried that Wall-E’s arty-farty highmindedness and ecological moral went right over your rugrats’ heads? Sit them down in front of Space Chimps and watch those little minds switch off like a Nintendo Wii at bedtime.
Just don’t expect The Rag to go along for the lowered-expectations ride.
Was Brandon Fraser actually frozen in ice the last seven years, like in his early (and memorably terrible) movie Encino Man? I haven’t seen this dude in years, and suddenly he’s got two movies hitting the multiplex within a month of each other. Maybe he fell down an endless hole in 1991 just like in his crappy new movie, and it’s taken him this long to crawl back to the surface.
By the look of the less than stellar special effects on display in the trailers for Journey, he just might have come back too soon. And judging from his rode-hard-and-put-up-wet look at the MTV Movie Awards earlier this summer, not to mention his Busey-in-training guffawing and mugging every time the camera focused on him in the audience, Brandon might want to crawl back into hiding for a little while. How long was he in the bomb shelter in Blast From the Past? Wasn’t it 35 years? That sounds about right.
Rating: 1 1/2 Stars
Perhaps the two lowest points in Eddie Murphy’s sketchy cinematic oeuvre are The Adventures of Pluto Nash, in which he explored outer space and the outer reaches of movie audiences’ patience and good will, and Norbit, in which he portrayed about five different characters, none of them memorably. So in his new movie, Eddie tempts the box office fates by playing about 10 different characters, all of which came from outer space! It sounds positively shit-tastic!
I’ll never know. I stopped hoping the truly talented Eddie would make good movies about 10 or 15 years ago. I only pay attention now when he works with a good director, which is basically never, save Frank Oz in Bowfinger or Bill Condon in Dreamgirls. Until that happens again, we can all wish he would return to stand-up comedy, which he hasn’t done in more than 20 years. Or we can just turn our attention to something — anything — else.
Rating: 1 Star
That’s where this week’s batch of bad movies comes in. Did you and your family enjoy the thrills and excitement of Iron Man and Indiana Jones? Then why not plunk down money to go see Journey to the Center of the Earth? Sure, there’s no way it’ll be as good as the first two, but it’ll be loud and fast-paced, and it might just bring back memories of a movie you actually liked.
Still grinning about the mix of laughs and action in Get Smart and Hancock? Get yourself a ticket to Meet Dave. OK, the special effects look cheap, and Eddie Murphy’s career is more likely to inspire tears than laughs these days, but what the hell, you’re out of the house.
Are your kids still raving about Wall-E? Here’s a sure-fire way to quiet them down: take them to see Space Chimps. Worried that Wall-E’s arty-farty highmindedness and ecological moral went right over your rugrats’ heads? Sit them down in front of Space Chimps and watch those little minds switch off like a Nintendo Wii at bedtime.
Just don’t expect The Rag to go along for the lowered-expectations ride.
Skip the Journey
Was Brandon Fraser actually frozen in ice the last seven years, like in his early (and memorably terrible) movie Encino Man? I haven’t seen this dude in years, and suddenly he’s got two movies hitting the multiplex within a month of each other. Maybe he fell down an endless hole in 1991 just like in his crappy new movie, and it’s taken him this long to crawl back to the surface.
By the look of the less than stellar special effects on display in the trailers for Journey, he just might have come back too soon. And judging from his rode-hard-and-put-up-wet look at the MTV Movie Awards earlier this summer, not to mention his Busey-in-training guffawing and mugging every time the camera focused on him in the audience, Brandon might want to crawl back into hiding for a little while. How long was he in the bomb shelter in Blast From the Past? Wasn’t it 35 years? That sounds about right.
Rating: 1 1/2 Stars
Screw Dave
Perhaps the two lowest points in Eddie Murphy’s sketchy cinematic oeuvre are The Adventures of Pluto Nash, in which he explored outer space and the outer reaches of movie audiences’ patience and good will, and Norbit, in which he portrayed about five different characters, none of them memorably. So in his new movie, Eddie tempts the box office fates by playing about 10 different characters, all of which came from outer space! It sounds positively shit-tastic!
I’ll never know. I stopped hoping the truly talented Eddie would make good movies about 10 or 15 years ago. I only pay attention now when he works with a good director, which is basically never, save Frank Oz in Bowfinger or Bill Condon in Dreamgirls. Until that happens again, we can all wish he would return to stand-up comedy, which he hasn’t done in more than 20 years. Or we can just turn our attention to something — anything — else.
Rating: 1 Star
Chimps? Are you kidding me? Fuckin’ chimps?
Chimps? Are you kidding me? Fuckin’ chimps?
Rating: 1/2 Star
Coming Soon:
The Critical Pantheon
Get Smart / The Love Guru
First came the summer wave of superheroes: Iron Man, Indiana Jones, the Hulk Version 2.0. Now comes the Clash of the Comics: sad-eyed Steve Carell in “Get Smart” versus Maharishi Mike Myers in “The Love Guru.” Everybody come quick — jester fight!
We here at The Rag like Carell; his “The 40-Year-Old Virgin” is especially close to my heart, and my personal history. And we’ve laughed at and drunkenly quoted Myers’ myriad catchphrases more times than we’d care to remember (thank God they didn’t have camera phones and YouTube in the 90’s). Unfortunately, their two current movies, which open the same day, both look like huge, steaming piles of crap. We aren’t going to waste our time or money going to see either of them.
That won’t stop us from reviewing them, of course.
We here at The Rag like Carell; his “The 40-Year-Old Virgin” is especially close to my heart, and my personal history. And we’ve laughed at and drunkenly quoted Myers’ myriad catchphrases more times than we’d care to remember (thank God they didn’t have camera phones and YouTube in the 90’s). Unfortunately, their two current movies, which open the same day, both look like huge, steaming piles of crap. We aren’t going to waste our time or money going to see either of them.
That won’t stop us from reviewing them, of course.
Not as painful as his new movie.
The “Get Smart” TV show was created in the mid-60s as one of the era's many James Bond super spy spoofs. The biggest spy movie of recent years, however, consisted of Matt Damon wearing a t-shirt and jeans running back and forth in front of a shaky camera. Even the suave 60’s James Bond has been downgraded to a beefy blonde sadist who doesn’t talk much. In this environment, is there any reason to put out a “Get Smart” movie?
Well, duh. There’s money to be made, stupid! Why else do movies exist?
(Are you starting to understand why we don’t go watch these things?)
So, even though tiny portable cell phones are a ubiquitous consumer product in 2008, in this movie we have Steve Carell talking into his shoe, just like Don Adams did in 1965. It doesn’t make any sense, it isn’t funny, but hey, as long as they buy the tickets, who cares?
Well, duh. There’s money to be made, stupid! Why else do movies exist?
(Are you starting to understand why we don’t go watch these things?)
So, even though tiny portable cell phones are a ubiquitous consumer product in 2008, in this movie we have Steve Carell talking into his shoe, just like Don Adams did in 1965. It doesn’t make any sense, it isn’t funny, but hey, as long as they buy the tickets, who cares?
Shaken, not stirred.
And, as the super spy who Carell competes with in the movie, we have — The Rock, a beefy former wrestler. Wow, is that our conception of a super spy these days? Who’s going to be the next James Bond — Duane “Dog” Chapman? Roger Clemens? I know George W. is the president, but come on. Can’t we at least aim higher in our movie fantasies?
Mel Brooks has said that he and Buck Henry conceived “Get Smart” during long afternoons shooting pool at a bar in Hollywood. When they came up with something that made them both laugh, it went in the script. Something tells me the new “Get Smart” wasn’t created in that same happy-go-lucky spirit. But I’m not interested enough to check it out for myself; I’ll just remain here inside my Cone of Silence.
Rating: 1 Star
Mel Brooks has said that he and Buck Henry conceived “Get Smart” during long afternoons shooting pool at a bar in Hollywood. When they came up with something that made them both laugh, it went in the script. Something tells me the new “Get Smart” wasn’t created in that same happy-go-lucky spirit. But I’m not interested enough to check it out for myself; I’ll just remain here inside my Cone of Silence.
Rating: 1 Star
“The Love Guru” is the first Myers starring vehicle since “The Cat in the Hat” in 2003, and his first self-penned comedy since “Austin Powers in Goldmember” in 2002. That’s a long time, no funny. And, from the look of the trailer and commercials for the new movie, Eric’s Boy is a bit rusty.
In the new movie, Myers plays a second-tier self-help guru who longs to be as successful as Deepak Chopra. I once saw Myers tell David Letterman a long, funny story about a fictional meeting with Chopra. These days, Myers is putting him in his movie and doing an episode of the Sundance Channel show “Iconoclasts” where he hangs out with Chopra for the afternoon. A reminder to Mike: it’s cooler to make fun of powerful people than to suck up to them.
Watching the trailer for the movie, I didn’t laugh once; in fact, I was a bit horrified by Myers’ appearance. Wearing long hair, a beard and a curlicue mustache, Myers’ face looks huge and swollen, his eyes bulbous, his nose flat and broad. I thought, why would he make himself up to look so hideous for a comedy? Then I saw him out of costume on TV talking about the movie and realized: that’s just kind of how the guy looks these days. Sorry, man.
In the Austin Powers movies, Myers was able to generate laughs out of the thinnest material. Having that kind of phenomenal talent can give a performer a false sense of confidence, and in “The Love Guru” Myers seems to have fallen victim to his own hype: his character rides a magic flying carpet, but Myers seems to think he can walk on water, creating big laughs and good vibes just by cracking lame jokes and mugging at the camera. I think somebody’s in for a big fall.
In the new movie, Myers plays a second-tier self-help guru who longs to be as successful as Deepak Chopra. I once saw Myers tell David Letterman a long, funny story about a fictional meeting with Chopra. These days, Myers is putting him in his movie and doing an episode of the Sundance Channel show “Iconoclasts” where he hangs out with Chopra for the afternoon. A reminder to Mike: it’s cooler to make fun of powerful people than to suck up to them.
Watching the trailer for the movie, I didn’t laugh once; in fact, I was a bit horrified by Myers’ appearance. Wearing long hair, a beard and a curlicue mustache, Myers’ face looks huge and swollen, his eyes bulbous, his nose flat and broad. I thought, why would he make himself up to look so hideous for a comedy? Then I saw him out of costume on TV talking about the movie and realized: that’s just kind of how the guy looks these days. Sorry, man.
In the Austin Powers movies, Myers was able to generate laughs out of the thinnest material. Having that kind of phenomenal talent can give a performer a false sense of confidence, and in “The Love Guru” Myers seems to have fallen victim to his own hype: his character rides a magic flying carpet, but Myers seems to think he can walk on water, creating big laughs and good vibes just by cracking lame jokes and mugging at the camera. I think somebody’s in for a big fall.
Myers in happier times
For what it’s worth, we at The Rag advise Myers not to retreat into hiding if “The Love Guru” bombs. Get back on the horse, man, and make some more movies. You’re one of the very best, you just need to work more often. And try to work with some collaborators to come up with story ideas: the new movie includes a hockey team, because you like hockey; Deepak Chopra, because you apparently like him: and was “inspired” by George Harrison, because he wrote you a letter before he died. That’s a lovely thought. But imagining the quiet Beatle playing hockey with Deepak Chopra while Mini-Me yells at them isn’t lovely. It’s grotesque.
Thank God I didn’t pay to see it.
Rating: 1/2 Star
— B.S. Garp
Thank God I didn’t pay to see it.
Rating: 1/2 Star
— B.S. Garp
Sex and the City
Full disclosure: I’m a man. If there was ever to be a perfect movie to kick off our Sight Unseen Movie Reviews column, “Sex and the City” is it. Any male critic who expresses anything less than complete bliss and gratitude upon seeing this movie will be castigated as a woman-hating “old boy” chauvinist. So the question arises: why watch the movie at all?
The Rag’s answer: We haven’t. But that won’t stop us from reviewing it.
I’ve heard young women in small towns far from New York City refer to HBO’s “Sex and the City” series as “my bible.” Apart from the tragicomic aspects of that statement (how sophisticated to order Cosmos with the girls at the local Applebee’s), I was struck by the irony of a young woman taking as her “bible” a series created by an openly gay man, Darren Star.
That may sound offensive, but why have women taken to heart this show, conceived by a gay man, feeling that it is “theirs” and about their lives? And why are they so quick to attack any heterosexual man who expresses qualms with the show or the new movie? Heterosexual men who spend their lives living with women, having sex with them, being married to them, raising children with them.
The “Sex and the City” movie was written and directed by Michael Patrick King, another openly gay veteran of the HBO series. Why do so many women look at "Sex and the City" as being a definitive portrait of modern women? Apart from the actresses involved, the architects of the show and movie were gay males.
Movies by female filmmakers like Nicole Holofcener, Sofia Coppola and Catherine Hardwicke that look at life from a modern women’s perspective go begging for attention. But make a movie about grown (mature, even) women sitting around gossiping and ordering drinks, and throw in some expensive fashions, and you’ve got a summer blockbuster!
Sorry, but I’ll pass. The other summer blockbusters may be teenage boys’ fantasies, but “Sex and the City” is at heart a teenage girl’s fantasy of sophistication, prosperity and social status. With the teen girl’s fantasy written and directed by a gay guy, of course.
The Rag’s answer: We haven’t. But that won’t stop us from reviewing it.
I’ve heard young women in small towns far from New York City refer to HBO’s “Sex and the City” series as “my bible.” Apart from the tragicomic aspects of that statement (how sophisticated to order Cosmos with the girls at the local Applebee’s), I was struck by the irony of a young woman taking as her “bible” a series created by an openly gay man, Darren Star.
That may sound offensive, but why have women taken to heart this show, conceived by a gay man, feeling that it is “theirs” and about their lives? And why are they so quick to attack any heterosexual man who expresses qualms with the show or the new movie? Heterosexual men who spend their lives living with women, having sex with them, being married to them, raising children with them.
The “Sex and the City” movie was written and directed by Michael Patrick King, another openly gay veteran of the HBO series. Why do so many women look at "Sex and the City" as being a definitive portrait of modern women? Apart from the actresses involved, the architects of the show and movie were gay males.
Movies by female filmmakers like Nicole Holofcener, Sofia Coppola and Catherine Hardwicke that look at life from a modern women’s perspective go begging for attention. But make a movie about grown (mature, even) women sitting around gossiping and ordering drinks, and throw in some expensive fashions, and you’ve got a summer blockbuster!
Sorry, but I’ll pass. The other summer blockbusters may be teenage boys’ fantasies, but “Sex and the City” is at heart a teenage girl’s fantasy of sophistication, prosperity and social status. With the teen girl’s fantasy written and directed by a gay guy, of course.
"Are we simply romantically challenged, or are we sluts?"
The only possible reason for a heterosexual man to go see this movie (other than to appease his female companion) would be to stare at beautiful women. Unfortunately, “Sex and the City” stars Sarah Jessica Parker, Kim Cattrall. Cynthia Nixon and Kristin Davis.
Nixon was cool in the “Tanner '88” series but was never physically attractive; Kristin Davis has always been pretty but not sexy: and Kim Cattrall was hot “back in the day,” as they say (“the day” being when I was in junior high school. And I’m a middle-aged guy now).
Sarah Jessica Parker was a cute nerd in her glasses on the old “Square Pegs” show (though I preferred her chubby brunette friend with braces), but how she and Jennifer Aniston came to be two of the reigning sex symbols of the 1990s is one of those great modern mysteries (if not, in fact, an example of mass hypnosis). She’s always been a skinny little girl with a big nose. “Kind of cute” at best; “pretty” would be pushing it. “Sex symbol” is so ridiculous as to induce a watery-eyed, laughing-till-you-start-coughing jag. And now she has that same “well-kept” (so long as you don’t notice the veiny arms and claw-like hands) look as the Madonna of recent years, and the same freaky “Yes, I’m sexy and I dare you to say I’m not” stare, employed while she’s decked out in clothing and jewelry that most Americans couldn’t afford if they’d saved every penny they’d ever made in their lives.
Nixon was cool in the “Tanner '88” series but was never physically attractive; Kristin Davis has always been pretty but not sexy: and Kim Cattrall was hot “back in the day,” as they say (“the day” being when I was in junior high school. And I’m a middle-aged guy now).
Sarah Jessica Parker was a cute nerd in her glasses on the old “Square Pegs” show (though I preferred her chubby brunette friend with braces), but how she and Jennifer Aniston came to be two of the reigning sex symbols of the 1990s is one of those great modern mysteries (if not, in fact, an example of mass hypnosis). She’s always been a skinny little girl with a big nose. “Kind of cute” at best; “pretty” would be pushing it. “Sex symbol” is so ridiculous as to induce a watery-eyed, laughing-till-you-start-coughing jag. And now she has that same “well-kept” (so long as you don’t notice the veiny arms and claw-like hands) look as the Madonna of recent years, and the same freaky “Yes, I’m sexy and I dare you to say I’m not” stare, employed while she’s decked out in clothing and jewelry that most Americans couldn’t afford if they’d saved every penny they’d ever made in their lives.
And she's the hot one.
I can see those “Sex and the City” fans now, nodding with satisfaction, saying, “Ah, yes, he waited until the end of the review to show his true colors. It’s all about women’s physical appearances with this guy.”
Well, maybe. But I’d counter that it’s all about fashion, conspicuous consumption and wish fulfillment with you ladies. At least on the basis of this crappy movie.
Which I haven’t seen.
Rating: 1/2 a star. (We won’t rate it zero because we don’t know whether Kim Cattrall appears nude in the film or not. If the movie contained nude footage of her from 25 years ago, we’d give it a full star. If the movie contained nude footage of Sarah Jessica Parker, at any age, we’d give it a negative star rating just on general principle.)
— B.S. Garp
Well, maybe. But I’d counter that it’s all about fashion, conspicuous consumption and wish fulfillment with you ladies. At least on the basis of this crappy movie.
Which I haven’t seen.
Rating: 1/2 a star. (We won’t rate it zero because we don’t know whether Kim Cattrall appears nude in the film or not. If the movie contained nude footage of her from 25 years ago, we’d give it a full star. If the movie contained nude footage of Sarah Jessica Parker, at any age, we’d give it a negative star rating just on general principle.)
— B.S. Garp
Posted Wednesday, June 11, 2008
