Ferris bueller meets risky business meets american pie, just not as funny
929031
Not all that bad, i laughed  a few times. Movie starts off funny enough but then just falls into the typical repeat jokes of other movies then the main character has a revelation and all ends well. first 20 mins were pretty original and funny, just wish they would have kept it up.
1991316
The Azimov-based Bicentennial Man (which came out earlier than A.I. and is less visually amazing - and was probably launched to compete with and pre-empt A.I., which took much longer to make), shares A.I.'s sappiness in parts, and is not as convincing in its effects or the acting of the central, robot character, yet somehow manages to tell almost the same story, in its most meaningful parts, much more effectively.  A.I. suffers from far too much "wonder" (heartstring-pulling fairy tale hooey plays really well in a movie like Edward Scissorhands, but just plain fails, dismally, in a non-comedy sci fi film that is intending to make a serious point.)  In the end, neither Bicentennial Man nor A.I. make any point we didn't already understand intuitively, yet somehow they both make you understand the nature of "humanity" and "personhood" a little better all the same, and both are worth at least one viewing.
PS: The odd thing about Bicentennial Man is that, although it is a "dramedy", with a lot of comedic elements (some of them clearly intended for the child audience - for which it was unfortunately exclusively marketed, with resulting box-office failure - with the overall theme of the film being much more mature), the humans, especially the central family, in Bicentennial Man are much more real-seeming and believable than those in A.I.  (whose organic people seemed cut-out and one-dimensional compared to A.I.'s two non-organic main characters, and just about all the major characters in Bicentennial Man).
4101777
Why must hollywood ruin everything? This is the final chapter in the American Pie movies & that's a good thing. Part of the problem with the last two 'Pie' movies is that there isn't much original material. They all follow the same formula: Humilate Jason Biggs, Stifler is the comedy & also does something disgusting (ex. eat dog poop), Finch & Stifler's mom, Jim's talks with his dad, & some blatent nudity scenes that don't need to be there.
The original was new, fresh, and a genius of a movie. This one is just awful. If you like Stifler, however, this is your movie. Don't get me wrong, I think he's hilarious at times. The other two films gave you his humor in doses. In this flick he is given free reign and he is sometimes irritating. I mean what 23 year old is still going to act like that? Honestly, I don't care about the marriage. You never get a romantic feel from the little chemistry Jason Biggs & Alyson Hannigan have. I don't even know why Thomas Ian Nichols is in this movie. He doesn't have much to do here. Eddie Kaye is back as Finch. Even his character is getting old. And if I have to hear about him & Stifler's mom again, I am going to throw up. Even the bachelor party (a.k.a. the nudity) felt forced. Does Jim only have three friends in his life? And the 'relationship' between Stifler and Michelle's sister is idiotic. There is NO WAY that a girl would go out with him after he treats her like he does in this movie. But, welcome to hollywood.
The movie is not a total loss, though. Jim's dad is back and as funny as ever. Stifler does have some really funny moments. His attempt at wooing Michelle's sister are quite funny. January Jones is incredibly hot. And that's about it.
The only reason I bought this movie was because I wanted the trilogy. I think it's the worst of the three, by far. I wasn't all that crazy about part two either, but at least it FELT like an American Pie movie. It had all of the characters (even though some were just there for show), & it had some funny moments for the other characters. This film is all about Stifler & it falls flat. It should have never been made in the first place. I can't recommend this movie for more than a rental.
Even the special features are somewhat disappointing. There are deleted scenes, outtakes, bachelor party featurette, a cheesy wedding video, etc. Nothing special here.
398363
Not everyone will enjoy this movie. It is raunchy,crude humor at its best (or worst,as it might be).Dane Cook plays "Tank" -the date from Hell. He hires himself out to recently dumped men to date their Ex-es. The theory is that the women will run back into their ex-boyfriend's arms after dating the obnoxious,rude Tank. And Tank is good at his job-until he actually falls for his cousin's ex.(Kate Hudson).Among all this debauchery there is actually a love story-but this isn't really a 'date movie'.Unless your boyfriend or girlfriend has a good sense of humor and isn't easily offended. Myself? I laughed out loud throughout,,,,,,,,,,,,
1361493
On the surface, it didn't seem like there was much cause for a direct sequel to this franchise, but given their track record I had to give Pixar the benefit of the doubt. In reality, it didn't take long for those early worries to be confirmed. This is like a jumbo-sized TV episode with incredible production values but a weak, redundant script. Where the original was, clearly, the worst of Pixar's properties, at least it had an honest message at heart; that the abundance of interstates and high speed traffic has ruined the necessity and charm of small-town America, at once mourning and celebrating that lost taste of cultural charm. By comparison, there's really no reason for Cars 2 to exist. It's a straight-up Saturday morning cartoon, shifting from caper to caper without the benefit of a discernible moral. And while there's really nothing wrong with that - there's an insatiable need for kid's fodder on the big screen, certainly - it's depressing to see it coming from the same company responsible for generation-transcending classics like Monsters Inc., Toy Story and Up. While it'll undoubtably sell plenty of toys, this was the wrong movie at the wrong time for Pixar, and a rare instance of the studio losing ground to the competition.
2811259
Meet the Fockers is so much better than Meet the Parents but this sequel has its flaws. The best thing about this particular film is the casting of Dustin Hoffman and Barbra Streisand, they are a hoot as a weird and unapologetic couple. Ben Stiller is still annoying and Robert De Niro seems rather bored in this sequel, he probably was forced do it. Good comedy just not that memorable.
1368125
There were parts that were funny and surprising.  It was also crude.  I love Amy Poehler and wanted to like it. Sadly I think she could do better.  When you have to resort to potty humor I think you sell yourself and everyone else short.
1490833
FRAUD
  David Rakoff
  The problem with "Fraud" is that it just isn't as funny as it ought to be.  For example, the author does a stint as Freud in a department store display at Christmastime (exactly who came up with this, and how, is unfortunately left unexplained).  It's a great concept, but it doesn't quite come off on the page.  Rakoff's reportage of other bits of weirdness - a wilderness retreat; a spiritualist retreat (featuring Steven Seagal); the Loch Ness tourist business; a tea-pot controversy in Iceland over the Hidden People, said to inhabit the interiors of solid boulders - all have a certain potential, but in the event come across like flat soda pop.  There are a good finds - that the expression "23 skidoo" originated as cop code for the skirt-raisings in the wind tunnel created by the Flatiron Building in New York, on 23rd street; that the volume of seafood sold at the Tsukiji market in Tokyo is five percent of the world total; that the best agent for tanning an animal's hide comes from its own brain; that one Chase Manhattan bank representative for opening accounts actually carries the name Miss Licorice.  Otherwise, most of the curiosities, the observations, the one-liners and the puns are undistinguished.  Rakoff is humane, sensible and nice.  He points out his subjects' foibles, but is never mean enough to belittle anyone just for a laugh.  He goes to see Robin Williams, prepared to do a hatchet job, but then decides that, to be fair, the guy has his strong points as well as his weaknesses.  His sharpest quips are directed at himself.  But while this may make for a better person, it doesn't necessarily make for a better book.  (Although, of course, you're only as good a writer as you are, and being nastier won't make you better, either).  What is missing is the authentic personal voice, which the reason for writing anything in the first place.  Even on quite personal matters, such as his illness with Hodgkins' lymphoma, adolescent embarassments, loneliness, Rakoff has little to say which isn't standard and pre-approved.  While bashing Robert Benigni's "Life Is Beautiful," Rakoff quips that he could do "A Fish Called Rwanda" for his next genocide comedy.  This sounds like something newspaper columnist Mark Steyn would say.  But by way of contrast, Steyn, right-wing axe-grinder though he is, is a personality with vivid opinions and strong convictions, which give his writing an edge that Rakoff's lacks.  "Fraud," more conventional than it's title suggests, comes across as a somewhat superior but still standard product of the Canadian Ministry of Culture (or Mediocrity Canada, as it is known up here).  It is adequate, it touches all the bases, it's got comedy, quips, self-deprecation and poignant reflection.  And it's one more addition to the Himalaya-sized pile of Canadian writing of undistinguished competence.  "Fraud" is not bad.  And that's not good.
4227208
A PAIN IN THE PULLMAN was kind of funny. Too many great gags. However, none of the short matches up to the fabulous ending. The conductor (Bud Jamison) throws the Stooges off the train and they fall off a cliff. Then they land on wild, bucking cows and head off, woop wooping. That is one of the funniest endings ever, if not the funniest. The ending was reused in A DUCKING THEY DID GO.
GENTS WITHOUT CENTS was pretty boring, however. Not even the "Slowly I turn" routine can liven up the short. Too many dancing and acting sequences.
TERMITES OF 1938 was a little funnier than the previous, but this dragged a little, too. Still, some funny scenes worth watching.
A nice collection, worth buying.
3390920
When I sat down to watch Meet the Parents, I figured I was in for a good time.  Some of my friends had seen it and told me it was hilariously funny.  However, it didn't live up to my expectations.
Greg Focker (Ben Stiller), an interestingly named male nurse, wants to ask his girlfriend Pam (Teri Polo) to marry him.  But first, he must get the consent of her father, Jack (Robert De Niro).  From the moment they meet, Jack does everything in his power to find fault in Greg, who, as the opening song says, is a nice guy and therefore a loser.  Throughout the entire movie, Focker (a word which is never spoken without director Jay Roach attempting to make you laugh through repetitive and childish mishearing of the name) is the target of sarcasm and criticism whenever anyone talks to him.  When Greg goes to do something, all he manages to do is abuse himself or destroy things through tedious, overdone sight gags which are never more than a string of unfortunate coincidences.  This results either in more scolding and caustic remarks or an uncomfortable silence followed, of course, by more humiliation for Focker.
When all is said and done, Meet the Parents utterly fails at making a good, entertaining movie.  The complete dehumanization and humiliation of Greg Focker, aimed at making the audience like him through sympathy for his situation, only serves to disappoint rather than entertain.  We all have bad days, but suspending disbelief for the entire one hundred eight minutes of movie is harder than making it through the longest bad day.
2417481
"The Grand" starts off with an amazing lack of humor, especially considering how hard it tries.  Woody Harrelson as one-eyed Jack Faro is probably a take-off on Johnny Depp's role as one-eyed Jack Sparrow.  It's not funny.  The film centers on Faro's drug and alcohol addiction that have left him close to losing the family business, a gambling casino called the Rabbit's Foot.  That's not funny.  Cheryl Hines who was nominated for an Emmy for "Curb Your Enthusiasm" in 2005 plays gambling whiz Lainie Schwartzman.  She's not easy to like, constantly complaining.  One wonders what the attraction is with her husband played by Ray Romano.  David Cross plays Lainie's gambling brother.  He's obnoxious, a loser, and completely self-centered.  Dennis Farina as L.B.J. Deuce Fairbanks plays a gambler who treats everybody badly.  Richard Kind plays Andy Andrews, a bumbling amateur who by sheer luck makes it to the finals.  Chris Parnell from "Saturday Night Live" plays the stone-faced Harold Melvin whose lack of emotion is something we're supposed to find funny.  Director Werner Herzog who won a Best Director award at the Cannes Film Festival in 1982 for "Fitzcaraldo" plays the German who likes to kill animals.  Michael McKean who was Lenny on "Laverne & Shirley" plays the ruthless rich guy trying to foreclose on The Rabbit's Foot.  The scenes are improvised and mostly don't work.  The climax comes more as relief that the film will finally be over than as an exciting conclusion.  This film didn't work on so many levels for me.  It wasn't funny.  While the actors did what they were supposed to do, none of the characters were interesting or someone for whom you could cheer.  Director Zak Penn has done a lot of work in the industry such as writing "The Incredible Hulk," but this was not the project for which he'll be remembered.  Taxi!
4611027
I was given an opportunity via NetGalley to read an electronic copy of Boy to the World.  This is my honest opinion of the book.

Fifteen year old Jonathan "Jones" Gibson lives in West Hartford, Connecticut with his mother and his six year old brother Nicholas.  Because his parents are currently separated, Jones has to go spend three weeks at his Dad's apartment.  When his Dad surprises him with an agenda for the visit that threatens to bore him silly, Jones takes it upon himself to go to New York City and spend time with his Uncle Danny.  On the cusp of adulthood, will Jones be able to use his summer experiences with his famous uncle and literally the girl next door to the heights of his dreams?

The problem that I had with Boy to the World was its Ferris Bueller's Day Off type quality, which made it too familiar and less original.  The humor seemed too "laugh track", like the author wanted certain dialogue to elicit a response from the reader.  I was not bothered with the "boys will be boys" type references, as Boy to the World is a coming of age story from a young man's perspective.  It would be unrealistic not to include his feelings on the subject and, although Danny is an adult, he is basically on the teenage level about women.  I was not a fan of the dual perspective format, as the entries from the dad's running journal really did not enhance the book.  Although I did think that the book was good, it did not stand out among the field of other novels in this genre.
479141
This is a 1980 screwball comedy about a fugitive (Chevy Chase) who hides out on the property of his ex (Goldie Hawn) and her unknowing D.A. husband (Charles Grodin).  I thought I wouldn't like it.  Chevy Chase irritates me and I didn't much care for Foul Play, another comedy with the exact same leads.  In that one, chase and Goldie were running around trying to prevent someone from shooting the Pope.  They were clearly brought together again to replicate that "success", but this movie is alright.

I think it's because Chase doesn't really have a character.  He's just a walking tornado of chaos which people have to react to.  Goldie Hawn traded him in for the successful-if-bland attorney, but it's hinted she belongs with Chevy after all since she's one banana short of a fruit salad, herself.  Grodin does his usual schtick of whining and grumbling.  It's a simple formula but funny.  And I'm a crabby individual, so if this movie made me smile, it should have you rolling on the floor.

I kind of have a fondness for electric 70s cheese.  So naturally Marvin Hamlisch in my rolodex of awesome.
4224552
I borrowed this from the library because the back of the box compared it to Ferris Buehler's Day Off.  After watching the film I can say the biggest difference is that Ferris Buehler's Day Off takes place over the course of 10 hours and 3 Idiots takes place over the course of about 10 years. Indians must be able to think along much longer arcs of time than fans of American 1980s teen movies.
4464030
This movie was a little okay. I supposed to give it 4 1/2 stars because my brother told me it wasn't that funny! It's probably more like 3 stars to me. So i just gave it 3 stars. But redman and method man is on point though. But this movie is not better than Cheech and Chong. And it aint better than that movie Friday. Half baked with Dave Chapplle.....I don't know. It is probably more like this movie but i think it might be funnier then this one. So my brother's got a point! But I like Redman and Methodman though. I just think this movie could do better. But thanks Amazon!

Dee K. Smalls
196468
"Evolution", the latest film from director Ivan Reitman, has a handful of funny lines, but ultimately the film should be called "Regression".

Wayne Green (Seann William Scott), a wannabe fireman, is out in the Arizona desert, practicing for his big exam. Just as he sets a little shack on fire, a meteor hits. Harry Block (Orlando Jones, still best known as the '7-Up Guy' despite a handful of feature film roles), the community college geology professor, drags his friend, Ira Kane (David Duchovny), the community college biology professor, to the site. Kane soon realizes that the meteor contains organisms which are evolving very rapidly. Three days later, little alien creatures have begun to appear. The Army soon takes over and Dr. Allison Reed (Julianne Moore), of the CDC, becomes an unwitting liaison between the professors and the government. Soon, things get out of hand.

The story sounds promising. It could make a great summer comedy in the vain of "Ghostbusters", perhaps Reitman's most famous film. It has all of the elements of "Ghostbusters": otherworldly creatures, smart-alecky adults, some funny lines, loads of special effects. This is where the problem lies. "Evolution" simply recycles all of these characteristics without adding a new dimension. Duchovny plays the Ackroyd and Ramis roles, Jones the Murray role, Scott the Moranis role and Moore plays a pale comparison of the Sigourney Weaver role. "Evolution" also lacks a crucial element: character development.

Kane starts out as the scientific, smart, wise-cracking professor. At the end of the film, he is the same character. Throughout the film, we are supposed to recognize that he and Dr. Reed have a building sexual attraction. As neither character evolves, how can a relationship build between them. They start out as adversaries and don't seem to grow any closer.

The biggest flaw with all of the characters is that they are all the same. Good guys and villains alike are all bumbling, stupid and reckless. The trailer for the film contains a shot of Julianne Moore stumbling on some steps. This is repeated at least four times in the film. This is her major comedic contribution to the film. Scott has made a career of playing characters that have less than a full deck. He doesn't really add anything to the character this time. Jones has the majority of the funny lines, but many of the lines are based on character flaws which are really not given any depth. Bill Murray's Peter Venckmann was an extremely smart-alecky skirt chaser. The first scene featuring his character shows him testing a nerd and a beautiful student. The situation is hilarious. Remarkably, "Evolution" introduces Jones' character in much the same way with poor results.

As I watched "Evolution", I wondered how a film about aliens evolving very quickly could feel so long. I have to fault director Reitman for this. The film seems to plod along. Its difficult to pinpoint exactly why, but I have the sense that Reitman was going through the motions. There is very little sense of energy as the characters are running around.

"Evolution" also features one of the strangest product placements I have ever seen. "Pearl Harbor" had Coke bottles used for IVs. "Evolution" has... Well, to reveal it would spoil the ending. Hollywood seems to be in a phase in which they believe that a product placement is OK, as long as you make fun of it. Sorry, product placements this blatant are still annoying.
1826606
This weird little filmic exercise by ultra low budget schlockmeister Bill Zebub owes much of its' inspiration, I would imagine, to the (vastly superior) puppet epic "Team America" by the South Park crew.  Following a lengthy comedic 'disclaimer' at the outset of the flick the 'plot' essentially attempts to parody many mainstream Hollywood-isms, politics & religion, and to inject as many disturbing images of sexually mutilated Barbi dolls as possible. The 'actiing' is provided by a variety of 'action figure' toys that are manipulated (clunkily) by hand and via green screen superimpositions.  A 'little of this'  is amusing, but ultimately the concept runs out of gas and Zebub's ghoulish pre-occupation with the vilolent S&M imagery perpetuated on female dolls gets kind of creepy.  Still, there is some cleverness in the base concept which makes this satirical flik more engaging than many of Zebub's ostensibly more 'serious' efforts. I would recommend only buying this (if at all) at a minimal discounted (used) price as the content wouldn't likely stand up to multiple viewings.