Dumber than Dumb and Dumber
357613
I have no idea why I watched this film recently or wanted to. Maybe its because I was interested in seeing Seann William Scott play another Stifler-type character, or a curiosity factor about Ashton Kutcher, who I still can't believe snagged the babe of Hollywood babes, Demi Moore. Man, if a stoner goofball like him could snag someone of Demi Moore stature, there should be hope for all guys out there! But really, the biggest reason I wanted to see this film was the scene I heard a few people talk about...the scene I found the funniest in the entire film and the reason why I give it two stars instead of the (n)one it deserves: the ostrich farm scene. I got a kick out of Ashton calling the ostriches "llamas" all the time...as my sister loves ostriches, llamas, and emus. The scene is a riot. Too bad there wasn't more of that in there.

This film tries to be too many things, yet it was completely missold and very deceptive in its advertising. It tries to be "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure" crossed with "Dumb and Dumber", but really, its just plain dumb. I found it hard to believe that those two stoners would ever get girlfriends along the likes of Alias-star Jennifer Garner. Yeah, right! As the two dumb pot-heads try to figure out what happened the previous night, they come across strippers, pre-op trannies, aliens, and cult members...and the movie moves along at a bizarre pace until it just becomes so outlandishly overthetop that you know the makers of this film are laughing all the way to the bank for all the saps who paid good money to watch this. I mean, come on...space aliens straight out of SNL's "Sprockets" skit; a 50-foot tall Playboy model running amok, and a stupid continuum transfunctioner? How dumb do they think audiences are? This film can only make sense to people on drugs, and that's who it seems to be made for. Aside from the ostrich farm scene, this movie is the biggest waste of time ever committed to celluloid. I want my money back!
2918601
Stupidity--not innocence, not heroism, not any virtue at all--is the major theme of *The Lady from Shanghai*.  Therefore, to some viewers this film will appear to be a stupid movie.  That's unfortunate, but that's Orson Welles.
Everybody--EVERYBODY--is stupid in *Lady*!  The Welles character, Michael O'Hara, admits he is stupid right off the bat.  Elsa, played by Rita Hayworth, seems to be the cleverest of them all until the end...when she and her husband Arthur Bannister die together in the Crazy House, her husband gasping at her, "For a clever girl you make a lot of mistakes."  Arthur, "the world's greatest lawyer", obviously has brains and knows what's going on through the whole story, but he's so grotesque (practically crawling through his scenes like a daddy longlegs spider) that his intellect is self-defeating: he's just one of the sharks that Welles describes in the beach scene, ravenously devouring himself.  And the Grisby character...take one look at this guy and it's hard to believe *Lady* was made in 1946. Grisby's right out of David Lynch, or more like it, David Cronenberg!  The judge, the folks in the courtroom...all STUPID and distorted, just like the images in the funhouse mirrors!
Portraying American people in that unflattering light was just not "on" in the early postwar period.  No wonder Orson Welles was being watched by the FBI during those years.  Even today, many filmgoers expect movies to give them at least one or two heroic characters that they can identify with.  Sorry, friends, *Lady* jumps right into your face and right into your space (like the scene with O'Hara and Grisby overlooking the ocean) and blurts drunkenly, "Yer STOO-pid too, FELLAH!"
But why on earth is Orson Welles telling us we're all stupid?  That's made very clear.  We are blissfully living out our grubby little lives on the brink of self-destruction.  "Do you believe the world is gonna end?" asks Grisby of O'Hara in that ocean overlook scene.  That's the question Welles tells us we should be asking ourselves.  But just as O'Hara was too stupid to ask himself a few simple questions, like "how can Grisby collect the insurance money if he's declared legally dead?", we don't ask ourselves the important questions that overshadow our silly little existences.
A lot of people won't like it.  They sure didn't when *Lady* was released in '48.
But I love it!  *Lady* was "postmodern" before postmodern was cool (before anybody knew what postmodern was)!  It is deliciously self-referential: the scene in the Shanghai Low Chinese theater, with the strange Oriental play being performed onstage, instantly reminds one of all the strange characters and goings-on in the "real" story, the movie itself.  But the movie itself is not real either, of course--it too is a play that reflects the bizarre world of human events, OUR world, the world of the moviegoer who seeks meaning in film and theater.  House of mirrors!  Movies of the '40's were just NOT self-referential, they really tried to create an alternative world that the audience could escape from its troubles into.  Almost all movies then, and still most today, do not hold up a mirror to the audience.  But *Lady* does.  And still today many people aren't going to like what they see.  "It's a bright guilty world," sayeth Welles/O'Hara.
The close-ups of Rita Hayworth singing "Please Don't Kiss Me" establish her as THE most beautiful woman to have ever graced the silver screen.  Sorry Marilyn, Lana, Bette, and you too Nicole.  "Rita Hayworth gave good face" indeed.  I'd have paid the price of the whole DVD just to have those few seconds of film.  But there's so much more in *Lady* that's worth watching than the lady.
Peter Bogdanovich's interview and commentary is pretty good, though as a Welles/Hayworth fan there was a good deal of stuff I already knew.  But some stuff I didn't know, so I appreciated Peter's contribution.
*The Lady From Shanghai* and *Gilda*...movies just don't get any better!
2976369
The first one is 100 times better. This one has a disjointed, forced plot that is only made bearable by the parkour (sp?) skills of the French lead. Beyond that, it is just plain dumb, sadly, that didn't keep me from watching it to its conclusion :)
988054
For intellectual individuals, in this story, they lacked it and the ability to reason anything out until it was stuck in their faces. Starfleet is smarter than they showed in this story.
3618086
Characters were dumb beyond belief. Plot was predictable and nothing new. An insult to Intelligence. Waste of money. I would pass on this.
2561814
What's an easy way to tell if someone's a really bad writer?  When he resorts to inaccurate stereotypes, all in the name of "humor."  By page 15, this author already had to resort to dumb Detroit jokes; doesn't he know that people with real talent stopped doing that ages ago?  What were he and his editor thinking?  That people from Detroit are too stupid to be interested in math and physics and thus would never read this insult?

In this case, he lauds Jim Morrison and insults both Bob Seger AND Detroit, all within the space of a paragraph or two.  In this case, Detroit native Bob Seger doesn't know how to determine the distance of a lightening strike -- ha! ha!ha! - Never mind that his Seger quote is obviously a metaphor.  And Southern California native Jim Morrison was so smart that he knows 1,000 times 1,000 is a million.  Never mind the point that if Morrison's so smart, why has he been deader than a doornail for decades, while Seger is not only still alive, he's still working?

"Hey," you might say, "Lighten up!  Where's your sense of humor?"  Well, ha! ha! here's my humor: I returned this book a hour ago, chuckling all the way.

Oh, and by the way, through page 15 anyway, this book is just not that insightful. Or interesting. Save yourself some time, and buy something worthwhile instead.
33137
The Second Opinion is a barely disguised romance novel with mediocre technology, predictable characters, and a mind-bogglingly stupid conclusion. The two main characters are right out of girl-in-the-grass pulp novels and their predictably foolish reactions to the story's events are as irritating as they are idiotic. This is the usual result of an average intelligence author trying to create hyper-intelligent characters.

The up-side is that, if you are a speed reader it shouldn't take you more than 30 minutes to get through this silliness.
716723
I think the fallacy of the premise of this book is illustrated by the lack of thought in all of the previous reviews of this "book" which is better described as a diatribe. The previous reviews are filled with propaganda memes and ideas approaching Nationalism cloaked in Patriotism. Littered with nonsense like "ignited the conflict that led to the most momentous political event of man's history" as if the founding of the US was somehow the most momentous political event in thousands of years of man's history (it is not even close), the other reviews of this book read like the book itself, an American version of Pravda. ONly in this imaginary world, the US, not the Soviet Union, is "out to save the world." Yet that is no more true than it was about the Soviet Union.  This is indoctrination for the indoctrinated. While it might seem as obvious to their "fellow travelers" as Xenu to a Scientologist, it is nonsense to the rational thinking person. The creation of the US was an event in History. While it is certainly an important event, it is quite probably not the most momentous political event of our age, much less our entire history. It takes quite the megalomaniac to declare such nonsense.

More than this, the author is a birther. A modern day flat-Earther. There can be no stronger indictment of the ludicrous of political thought in the 21st century than this. "I know better than the assembled Supreme Court, the 300+ million other Americans, the Legislature of the US. I am the savior who sees through the deception of this non-American." This borders on insanity. It is certainly moronic. I couldn't care less if he had 100 degrees, there can be no greater indictment of the US educational system than this.

The reviewers decry the "liberals" and "leftists" (propaganda memes) which would sweep across the US with tyranny oblivious to the fact that the framers of this vaunted HOLY document, the Constitution, were themselves Liberals. The Conservatives of the late 18th century wanted the US to remain part of Britain. The agents of change, liberals, were the writers of the Constitution. Many of them would be viewed as "leftists" today in the US. Benjamin Franklin would surely be decried as a socialist and Leftist had he lived today, yet he was perhaps the wisest of the Founding Fathers of the US.

History is filled with empires which had strong regional militias and feel to tyranny. It is the rule, not the exception. More than this, can anyone imagine Texas under George Bush or Rick Perry having access to Atomic weapons? Oklahoma with the power to wage war, or Mississippi? Can the reader imagine the instability of the union were the jan Brewers of Arizona given to power use drones? The US has already slid hard vis a vis its industrialized peers due to the rightward slide of its populace. We would rapidly become a third world country.

Somalia is an example of a country with strong regional militias. France, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Switzerland, Austria et. al, are example of countries that do not. Which one would the reader rather emulate?
1896086
This book was at first intriguing, turned frustrating, became confusing, and ended just plain dumb. If you are religious (I am not), you will be offended by the subject matter. If you are atheist (I am not), you will be offended by the subject matter. If you are intelligent (I think I am), you will be offended by the ham-handed framing of the narrative and non-sensical resolution of the plot. If the plot description intrigues you, I encourage you to drop the couple bucks to purchase. However, if a quarter through the book you find yourself disliking it, trust me it does not get better.
611618
This is the dumbest movie I have seen in a long time. I think I lost some brain cells watching this garbage. Why?
2653163
"So dumb."  Those were my immediate words as soon as I finished reading Lovely Bones.

This novel had a compelling beginning that had me quickly turning the pages. However, as I was being introduced to more of the characters, I was just finding alot to be implausible.  For example, the children's thought-process comes across much more maturely than given their actual ages.  The grandmother of the raped and dead granddaughter seemed more like a distant and uncompassionate relative visiting for the holidays.  Later, the mother and her self-absorbed behavior. Granted, everyone mourns in his/her own way...but COME ON!

The third of the book dragged with needless details, not to mention it just got more eccentric. Not eccentric-interesting, rather eccentric-stupid.  Almost even seems as if two writers tag-teamed and someone else took over writing the latter 3rd of the book. The ending seemed forced and that the author just could not find a solid way to bring about a decent conclusion.

Bottom line:  "So dumb."
1220583
Not Moore's best effort. He was more factual and funny in his earlier works on film & television. I have no interest in the liberal/conservate conflict, so I find the bias in this book anti-intellectual. Playing loose with the facts will only please the ignorant. If you are that, you will love this book. I'm sorry to say this, but the only truly stupid white man in this book is the author. I hope he will do better work in the future. By the way, I am not white, and it should not matter anyway. I am a student of history, and this is no history book.
1719488
I had to read this for Poli 201 at BYU (Ralph Hancock was the professor). This is the kind of book that makes philosophy look like a way for stupid people to make themselves appear more intelligent by throwing around big words and shoehorning Aristotle's name in there somewhere. The main argument of the book is that kids these days have no morals and want everything handed to them for free. Sound familiar? It's because it is. It's literally the same argument that cranky old people have been using for generations. The only difference is that it's wrapped up in the dress suit of philosophy. Anyone who has actually spent substantial time with young people knows that these arguments are inaccurate, insane, and downright insulting. Everybody believes in morality, even if they have some disagreements with you as to which behaviors are moral. This notion that young people believe we should be allowed to do whatever we want is absurd. Literally nobody believes that. And very few people believe that the government should hand them everything for free. But Beneton and Hancock would have you believe that these are widespread beliefs among millennials. Now, Ralph Hancock also told us about his blog, which I spent some time on. His argument against gay marriage was literally, "By supporting gay marriage, liberals show they want to get rid of morality. And by getting rid of morality, they show that they want to get rid of politics. Because politics is about morality." Thankfully, the comments showed that I wasn't the only one who thought it was an incoherent strawman argument. If you meet someone who takes this book seriously, you probably shouldn't take their political views seriously. And please don't tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about. I'm about to graduate from BYU with a major in political science. While that doesn't automatically make me smart, I can assure you that I know what a smart political science professor should look like. We've got some great professors here. Ralph Hancock does not represent the rest of the BYU political science faculty.
1412120
This has to be one of the dumbest books I have read in awhile and I read a couple a week. I think the author was inspired by watching "Walking Tall" starring The Rock. Dude comes back to mountain town and drugs are everywhere and he is going to clean it up...

The plot is centered around the search for Barr's sister who as kidnapped by some drug dealer because she works for the government and has access to some chemicals the dealer needs. Right, she is described as a drug addict who never finished high school but she has this big important job. Right away stupid. Barr proceeds to beat up everyone and kill many. No cops or anything of course. Barr contacts the Feds and they say he was identified at a shooting. Right. The guy has been out of the country for over 15 years and somebody places him at a rest stop in the middle of nowhere. I could go on with all the holes in the plot but this was the first book by the author and hopefully the last. I even found a typo in the book. Skip it.
2496791
This book certainly has an appealing plot and message, but the execution is just weak. The dialogue is disjointed and comes off more as garbled monologue. The writing overall is too dumbed down. Kids are smarter than this, you can get a little more creative and abstract with allegory and they still learn. I'm having a hard time finding conservative or libertarian themed books that aren't just dumbed down. Also, it's a bit of an inaccurate story since the GOP and Democrats both rely on extortion to fund their agendas, making the protagonist such an obvious symbol of the Republican party which is as big-government-establishment as it gets is annoyingly naive. A more accurate story would have been for both characters to steal lunch money from their classmates and argue over what to do with it while they both agree just fine on beating up neighbor kids after school.
Oh, and the binding is flimsy and cheap. More like a pamphlet.
3265307
Usually I give movies the benefit of the doubt. But there isn't much good to say about this movie. Unfortunately, the movie came off as trying to be too smart and cool for its own good. This wasn't helped much by seeing the star and director declare that the movie was about the "subconcious". Oh my goodness, aren't they just tooooo smart for us. Except for the fact that anyone who knows much about psychology knows that the "subconcious" isn't even accepted as a valid term. I am a PhD and study cognitive processes, we refer to the term "unconcious" or "automatic thinking process" as a way to capture that not everything we do is done with a tremendous amount of forethought. But the idea that anyone can conceptualize (let alone create a movie about) unconcious thought processes is at best New Age BS or psuedo-intellectualism. And the fact that it includes large arachnids is laughable and absurd.

Now normally I would even give an absurd movie a decent review. But not one that takes itself so seriously and has so many other shortcomings. Beyond the obvious absurdity of the movie, the acting was wooden and the cinematography was horrible (there is a difference between gray - the other movie with Villenueve and Gyllenhaal, "Prisoners", gets it right - and simply out of focus and fuzzy). This was definitely a one-star effort. Don't waste your time on this.
2690744
More junk "science" by a man who is either a fraud out to fleece gullible people of their hard-earned money, or a man who is so terrified of death and the oblivion that follows that he'll believe any claptrap which will allow him to sleep at night.  I read this book in an attempt to try to see even a smidgen of rationality in the Young Earth Creationist argument.  Shormann is clearly an educated man, but so am I, thereby enabling me to see through the smoke and mirrors of his sophistry.  The author has already shown that he lacks the courage of his convictions by attempting in 2013 to ban secularists from using the facilities of the Houston Museum of Natural Science in an effort to better educate the public. This man is a disgrace to his profession, and the poor reception of this book by the scientific community at large seems to echo that sentiment.  Don't waste your time with this garbage.