Finally, A Stupid Movie Made By Stupid People for Stupid People!
BY: David Frank |
November 23rd 2008
It bites! Too easy? It sucks! Hmm, still too easy? It’s emo-rrible! Whaaaat? It’s a very bad film! Perfect.
As you may have noticed, Radish Reviews has gone obvious and jumped on the Motivational Poster bandwagon. Between that and the teaser you now get up to 3 pithy Radish Reviews for the price of one. Can. You. Dig it? No. Oh ok.
Hey Edward Cullen, Louis Tully is on the phone and he wants his eyes back.
BY: David Frank |
November 23rd 2008
The film adaptation of Twilight looks like the year’s best comedy. A laugh a minute, I hear. I might even swallow my pride and catch it this morning, just so I know what every 13-year-old girl and 45-year-old romance-starved, lonely mother is talking about tomorrow. Although, I’m getting a vibe that I’ve already seen much of Twilight already. I don’t know why… well regardless, here’s some random pictures. No meaning behind them at all. None whatsoever.
Badass Bond! Yet, the film sorely lacks this iconic image of Bond and his BFG? Demerit!
The James Bond franchise is a clusterfuck composed mostly of disposable films. They’re postcard movies, more interested in style and image than story or character. It’s why critics have created the Relative Bond Movie Scale. Before Casino Royale you rarely heard anyone describe a Bond movie as a good or great film. Instead, the critical pendulum swung on whether it was a good or bad Bond film. Critics reviewing Bond flicks tend to sound like sports reporters covering the Special Olympics.
Then Casino Royale transformed the game. The film is a fantastic piece of cinema, one committed to telling a good story and *gasp* delivering dynamic characters. Oh and it’s a damn good Bond movie. And to top it off, it re-booted the franchise in a noble attempt to wiggle out from the disposable clusterfuck of stand-alone Bond movies and roll-out a narrative spanning several movies. Casino Royale changed the paradigm when it comes to reviewing Quantum of Solace. We’re no longer expecting decent Bond movies; we greedy bastards actually desire decent cinema. And even if I hated Quantum I’d still admire it for being the first honest-to-Jeebus sequel in the franchise.
Luckily I enjoyed the film, although, admittedly, I admire it more than I like it. It’s badass entertainment that continues to explore the nature of James Bond, something that hasn’t been done since…hmm, before the last film, I’d say 40 years ago in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. Some have labeled Quantum as Casino Royale 1.5. Fair enough. It’s not a perfect film or sequel (however, I’ll give the producers a pass on the latter, it’s not like they have much practice in developing real sequels). The pace is sort of funky. And the ending left me wanting. Yet, I recognize and accept it as a bridge film (goddamn, an actually bridge Bond film, I expected to ride a unicorn with Johnny Cash to Mars before ever seeing such a thing). However, like Casino Royale I can’t wait what happens to Bond as a character in the next film. And for that reason alone, Quantum is more memorable and relevant than the majority of Bond movies.
Vote for Change. Or just vote so you don't have to listen to Hate-Lips Palin for the next 4 years.
BY: David Frank |
October 17th 2008
I think I’m to go vote today. Got nothing better to do right after work. I suggest you all do so too, if your state is allowing it–especially if you’re a minority living in a populated area of Ohio or Florida!!!!!
So who am I voting for…well he drives a mean bumper car at the Iowa State fair.
And sometimes he might be too awesome.
Yep, I’m voting Barack Hussein Obama. What? Are you surprised or something?
And after I get my vote on, then it’s off to Oliver Stone’s W., where I’ll probably walk out depressed as hell… until I remember that Obama has a decent shot of winning this thing… that should put a grin back on my face. But will it stay there on November 5th? Strike the dramatic cliff hanger chords!
I want you all to check out my buddy Will Scheibel’s blog or El Scheibel as I’ve recently nicknamed him without even telling him…okay, okay I just came up with it right now. You can also click on the link in the right-side channel if you’re too lazy to do in this post. Other than being one of my best buddies, he’s also one of the smartest persons I’ve had the pleasure of meeting, especially when it comes to film–after all the man is getting a Ph.D in film studies (okay technically it’s Communication and Culture, but make no mistake, it’s film). On top of that, he’s the biggest Batman fan I know. Way crazier than me–and I consider myself a pretty decent fan of Mr. Bats. Anyway he just posted his review of The Dark Knight–surprise, surprise, it’s a rave…and it’s definitely a review that thoroughly takes into account several sources influencing Nolan’s vision. Very interesting read, as always.
Despite El Scheibel’s brilliance, I still like to gloat about the fact that I recognized Batman Begins was leaps and bounds better than Tim Burton’s films instantly, while it took him awhile and only after much insulting from me to change his mind in seeing things the right way–I’m such a totalitarian. In the words of Alfred, “But I did bloody well told you so.”