| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Wheelz |
Posted - 11/13/2008 : 00:18:30
If you are offended by any of the following:
- Female nudity
- Male nudity
- Filthy language
- Almost-graphic sex scenes
- Extremely graphic verbal descriptions of sex acts (many non-standard)
- Sight gags involving human feces
�then you might want to take a pass on Zack and Miri.
If none of the above bothers you, though, you probably have a sense of humor like mine, and you�ll find some good laughs in here.
Kevin Smith fans should like it, as should those who�ve enjoyed Judd Apatow�s recent blockbusters.
I found parts of this film gut-bustingly funny and parts of it truly cringe-inducing � sometimes both at once. But underneath all the smut, there�s a real heart.
Check it out if you�re so inclined, but for god�s sake, know what you�re getting into.
Oh, and don�t leave before the credits!
|
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| MguyXXV |
Posted - 06/03/2009 : 00:23:29
Me like. Me thought "funny."
Double dutch rudder. Ha ha.  |
| randall |
Posted - 06/02/2009 : 20:54:17
I thought it was a Kevin Smith grown-up exercise. Very delicately drawn, until the last :10, which were a sop to loyal Askewniverse crazies, who are every bit as fanboyish as are STAR WARS crazies. The *love* scene was very skillfully shot.
Elizabeth Banks happens to have been featured in four of the last five movies I've watched, and boy does she have comic/dramatic range, probably disguised somewhat by her neck-snapping looks. |
| Airbolt |
Posted - 03/24/2009 : 00:25:45
For me it has its moments but it comes off as falling between two stools ( excuse the pun! ). Neither a proper askewniverse film ( even with Jeff Anderson and Jason Mewes ) or a Seth Rogen Gross out, it misfires often and ( as pointed out already )slumps to a gloopy sentimental ending,. Albeit one with way too much of Jason Mewes package on show.
|
| damalc |
Posted - 12/06/2008 : 05:53:07
i liked it until about the last 20 minutes when it got all sappy, but almost all Smith's movies do that, don't they? 70 minutes of frank raunch, then a lecture about why this is the girl for you. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 11/27/2008 : 01:05:37
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
Now let's see ... who can name six women of the current H'wood status of Seth RogEn who would be in his "looks" range.
I was thinking about this. First of all, there aren't six men in that category either. Just him and Jack Black really. Secondly, for whatever reason, there just aren't as many very funny women as very funny men in the world. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 11/24/2008 : 15:59:25
Yup, I think there is some truth in what Wheelz says too. On the other hand, I saw a study where people had to put ten men/women from couples in order of attractiveness and the couples were placed in exactly the same order. (I don't know how the ten were picked, though.)
There are lots of factors, though. For example, a man might be able to scrub up to some degree but women are far more able to make a significant difference to their appearance due to make-up and a much wider range of available clothing options and hairstyles. No one's ever going to think I'm better looking than I am, unfortunately! |
| duh |
Posted - 11/22/2008 : 00:48:56
quote:
Originally posted by Wheelz
I think women, in general, have a wider range of men they can find attractive than men have of women. ... But a woman needs to be hot-looking since men are idiots.
I think this is true. This may partly be due to how women are hard-wired for selection of potential mates as fathers of their children. The handsome guy might not be of much use when you have to know how to outsmart a sabre tooth tiger. The handsome guy might not still be around when the baby is born, but the nerdy guy who adores you will be.
Something I see as a problem for some women that are excessively pretty or "hot" is that nice guys automatically disregard them as potential dates, figuring they don't have a chance with those gals. So, the guys who chase after them are the charming losers with prison records and unpaid child support.
|
| Wheelz |
Posted - 11/18/2008 : 20:35:32
There's absolutely a double standard, and it certainly doesn't begin or end with films.
Now, I'm about to make some HUGE sweeping generalizations, to which there are surely many exceptions, but here goes. I think women, in general, have a wider range of men they can find attractive than men have of women. When it comes to sexual arousal, men tend to be mostly visual and women more conceptual. (Again - Generalization? Yes. Stereotypical? Yes. A grain of truth? I think so.) In other words, personality, charm, and wit can go a long way for a guy. But a woman needs to be hot-looking since men are idiots.
So,
- It's actually easier for an audience to buy Elizabeth Banks falling for Seth Rogen, or Mariel Hemingway falling for Woody Allen, than, say, Brad Pitt falling for Rosie O'Donnell.
- When it comes to casting a film with an eye toward box office dollars, execs must know they need to have a female lead who's at least x attractive to pull in the male audience, and a male lead who's at least y attractive to pull in the women. x is greater than y.
I'm not saying any of this is right or fair, but I think it helps explain the state of things. IMHO.  |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 11/18/2008 : 19:21:13
Now let's see ... who can name six women of the current H'wood status of Seth RogEn who would be in his "looks" range.
|
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 11/18/2008 : 18:47:16
I didn't say they made the porn sweet. I said they made the making of porn sweet. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 11/18/2008 : 18:45:58
Shallow Hal doesn't really challenge it as ultimately the unattractive guy realizes that the unattractive girl is for him. Eagle vs. Shark is a better film featuring that idea. This film and Knocked Up, which you objected to similarly, at least challenge the convention that people have to be paired up with those of their attractiveness level.
Betty will obviously become beautiful in the last season and get Daniel. |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 11/18/2008 : 13:34:11
quote:
Originally posted by Salopixn
It's still still RogEn!
B.B., you regularly make this point that attractive girls falling for funny fat guys is not realistic. Well, I'd rather see that in some films than every single one only featuring beautiful couples. And as you admit, Rogen does somehow have a lot of charm.
It is indeed rather derivative, but it's fun. And they did a good job of making the making of porn seem very sweet.
My point is NOT that shlubby fat or skinny guys get hot girls. Or that all screen couples should win beauty contests. But that it's difficult, nearly impossible to find Seth RogEn or clone be attracted to and score with a girl who is NOT movie-star pretty.
Devil Wears Prada vs Ugly Betty How come TV can get this point? Anne Hathaway is unattractive?
I think the only recent film I can think of that challenges the skin-deep norm is Shallow Hal.
This is also true of mainstream gay couples in films.
As for sweet porn -- well, there's no porn at all. Back in the steam days as you may know I was in Martin Campbell's first feature Eskimo Nell which was a satire on the British Film Industry, then divided into Historical Drama and Soft Porn. Guess which EN fit into? It was, in its own way, sweet, and like Z&M featured no porn to speak of. Crikey - they wanted a certificate that ensured boffo bo.
|
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 11/18/2008 : 12:34:39
It's still still RogEn!
B.B., you regularly make this point that attractive girls falling for funny fat guys is not realistic. Well, I'd rather see that in some films than every single one only featuring beautiful couples. And as you admit, Rogen does somehow have a lot of charm.
It is indeed rather derivative, but it's fun. And they did a good job of making the making of porn seem very sweet. |
| Wheelz |
Posted - 11/17/2008 : 20:44:17
Some good observations, BB, but to be honest I wasn't reading that much into it.
I don't mean to sound anti-intellectual, but having "a great deal of charm and some very funny moments" is really enough for me. I went to the theater, and for a couple hours I wasn't thinking about society's ills, or my job, or the economy... I was simply enjoying a funny and charming film. That's why I go to movies.
|
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 11/16/2008 : 23:18:53
Yep, agreed, it's got a great deal of charm and some very funny moments. But the story that drives it is so derivative and really not worth more than a half-hour short.
During the Depression years many decent people were driven to indulge in dubious, even downright illegal quick-cash activities for survival. Here we are in a global financial mess that doesn't look like getting better any time next week. Back in the 1930's Hollywood drip-fed its eager movie-goers with charming comedies starring the likes of Claudette Colbert and Clark Gable, daring and sharing and spreading the laffs.
Kevin Smith is trying an update of that approach but he gets bogged down in the same mire that clogged some of his previous efforts. I'm not saying he has no talent, because he obviously does. But it gets distorted in his serial portraits of schlubs, fat schlubs with some brains competing with their cocks, fat schlubs who wind up with hot ladies who somehow become seduced by ... well, what exactly, because I can't see it.
That Seth Rogan is the glamorous image of Smith speaks volumes for the director's self-delusion. It works with Woody Allen, well, it did when he was younger because he could muster up some extremely witty dialogue. Even he in latter years has realized that on the big screen an elderly skinny schlub - even one who can reason like Kant, can't cut it with the lay-dees no matter how funny he is.
There's a very funny idea gestating in Zack and Miri, and the lead-up to the 'porno' stuff is helped by some wonderful supporting performances. I realize even as I type the word supporting it will inevitably carry an entendre or three. Yes, some of the jokes are cheap and nasty, but it's not until the film has reeled on past its sell-by date that the stuff border-lines gross, and yet still on the amusing side.
What makes it fail is the predictability of the story, the complete lack of chemistry between the pixie-like Elizabeth Banks and Rogan, who has charm but no wit. He also has the strangest sense of comic timing which is sometimes as accurate as the late great Jack Benny, and other times he just steps on his own dick.
But its greatest failure is a pretension that the threat of domestic economic doom is what's driving these two helluva nice roomies with all the depth of a cheerleading squad. Sorry, I never for one second believed they were in any kind of trouble. Even Pursuit of Happyness got the difference.
It's that trivialization of real poverty that's obscene in this film, not any inadvertant shit splat.
|
|
|
