Print Page | Close Window

Jonathan Swift...Meet Moe Howard!

Printed From: Official RAZZIE® Forum
Category: 31st Annual RAZZIE® Award Nominees & "WINNERS"
Forum Name: GULLIBLE'S TRAVELS
Forum Discription: Nominated for 2 RAZZIES® including WORST ACTOR / Jack Black
URL: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4734
Printed Date: October 25 2014 at 9:55am


Topic: Jonathan Swift...Meet Moe Howard!
Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Subject: Jonathan Swift...Meet Moe Howard!
Date Posted: December 24 2010 at 8:21am
HOLLYWOOD'S ASTOUNDING ABILITY to REDUCE ANY CONCEPT to DOO DOO HUMOR for the MASSES MAY HAVE REACHED NEW HIGHS (OR IS THAT LOWS?) WITH the 2010 REMAKE of http://www.razzies.com/forum/gullibles-travels_forum476.html - .

ALTHOUGH SEVERAL PREVIOUS VERSIONS of THIS SAME MATERIAL ( http://www.imdb.com/find?s=tt&q=Gullivers+Travels - ) ALSO FAILED to CAPTURE the SATIRICAL WIT of JONATHAN SWIFT'S ORIGINAL NOVEL, THIS ONE DOESN'T EVEN TRY. WITH the SOMETIMES ENDEARINGLY DOOFY JACK BLACK MERCILESSLY MUGGING LIKE MOE HOWARD in the TITLE ROLE (and EARNING a http://www.razzies.com/history/2010-worst-actor.asp - in the PROCESS) SWIFT's BRILLIANT PREMISE IS NOW a MERE EXCUSE for POORLY EXECUTED VISUAL FX (SEE IMAGE BELOW) and ENDLESS, OBVIOUS JOKES ABOUT "SIZE" (GET IT??). THE RESULTING TONE HAS MORE in COMMON with http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057751/ - THAN with ANYTHING in the HIGHLY REGARDED BOOK. IN FACT, ONE WOULD HAVE to GO ALL the WAY BACK to DEMI MOORE'S HILARIOUS RAZZIE® "WINNING" 1995 REMAKE of http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114345/awards - (with ITS DIM-WITTED/TACKED-ON "HAPPY ENDING") to FIND a MORE DISRESPECTFUL ADAPTATION of a CLASSIC NOVEL.  

AND MAKING THIS ONE of the LAST RELEASES of LAST YEAR ALMOST GAVE the IMPRESSION THAT TINSEL TOWN IS NOW in the BUSINESS of CREATING "RAZZIE®-BAITERS" (MOVIES MADE for the SOLE PURPOSE of PROCURING OUR NOMINATIONS). 

HERE'S to OUR http://razzies.com/join.asp -  for TAKING the BAIT, and GIVING THIS ONE a "SWIFT" KICK in the BALLS... 




AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS FILM'S MAKERS EXPENDED NO SPARES in
CREATING THEIR "SPECIAL" EFFECTS...PHOTO SHOP, ANYONE??






-------------
Ye Olde Head RAZZberry



Replies:
Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: December 24 2010 at 11:19am
Just to clarify, the award for "Worst Remake" goes to the worst movie overall, or the one that has the least in common with its source material? Some remakes this year have had worse reviews than this movie, but this one doesn't seem to try to respect the book. 

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: Vheid
Date Posted: December 24 2010 at 1:30pm
I am not willing to believe that this is the worst novel-to-screen adaptation since the 1995 version of the Scarlet Letter. (which I am now morbidly interested in seeing).  

I seem to remember a Jackie Chan-vehicle that physically abused a Jules Verne classic back in 2004. (To be honest, when I first heard of this film, I immediately thought of Around The World in Eighty Days)...  

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Doofy though the result may have been, at least the basic plot of Verne's novel was preserved in the 2004 remake of 80 DAYS ( http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/around_the_world_in_80_days/ -
So, yes, I still think one would have to harken back to the halcyon days just prior to Demi's demise ( http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1066120-scarlet_letter/ -


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: December 24 2010 at 5:46pm
I only recall a couple of versions of Gulliver's Travels that paid attention to the "s" after the word "Travel".  Those versions visited all four worlds.  All the others, including this one, involved themselves strictly with the first travel, to Lilliput.  So, really, very few of them were ever truly faithful to the source material. 


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: December 24 2010 at 10:17pm
The last good adaptation of "Gulliver's Travels" was the one on TV starring Ted Danson. This movie does nothing to dethrone that TV movie of that title. Swift must be doing backflips in his grave right now.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: December 25 2010 at 6:26am
Probably the most "loyal to the source" (and best overall version) of this material was a mini-series that starred Ted Danson a few years ago. This Jack Black version just looks shameful...not that I am surprised.  
 
Allow me to take this opportunity to share with all of you a wish for peace on Earth, and wherever we may journey. Merry Christmas!


-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: December 25 2010 at 9:23am
A blues singer's guitar gurgles stinging bent notes while his cracked voice grinds out his latest woes. . . .
 
"Stuck in Lilliput again. . . . won't these little people let me be. . . .
 Stuck in Lilliput again. . . . these small folks only see what they want to see. . . .
 I always get tied down in this puny-minded town
 I should dress them all up funny in dolly pants and gowns
 Stuck in Lilliput again. . . . best I be headed back to the sea. . . ."
 
 


Posted By: JoeBacon
Date Posted: December 25 2010 at 9:39pm
Just looking at that picture the Head Razz posted reminds me of the tacky giant hand that used to fondle Deanna Lund in Irwin Allen's Land Of The Giants...

...And it appears that Jack Black is channeling Kurt Kasznar... Dead


Posted By: Film Reel Redemption
Date Posted: December 26 2010 at 1:12am
[TUBE]LNMWgmvdLws[/TUBE]
 
I could just imagine a conversation between Jack Black and the film's executives similar to this... 





-------------
You see in this filmmaking world there's two types of people my friend. Those with the knowledge of film and those who think they do but really don't.


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: December 26 2010 at 7:35am

Some may disagree, but I found that commercial to be funny, especially the part where the Lilliputians started working Jack Black like a marionette.

However, if the movie is like that, well, I would have rather watched Black adapt Gulliver's Travels: Lilliput (let's call it as it is) than recast it with his brand of humor.  To borrow HeadRAZZ's title to this Forum, I really don't want to see Jonathan Swift Meets Moe Howard. . . .
 
Here's a scary thought.  If this movie does well, they could easily do a sequel and ruin the next section of the book.   I wonder how Black would do as the "Royal pet" among the giants? . . .
 


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: December 26 2010 at 7:56am
Two questions:  
1)The other day I was researching about Z-movies, and I noticed only 2 modern Z-movies. One of them is the porno ATTACK OF THE 60 FOOT CENTERFOLD (also about a giant). Do you think that will be better than this?  

2)Did anyone ever see the TV anime adaptation of GULLIVER? I don't think it had much to do with the book either, but it was made during the POKEMON/DIGIMON era, so it was fun.  



-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: Vheid
Date Posted: December 26 2010 at 9:47am
How does that work? I mean, seeing it's a porno it should atleast contain some form of penetration...But how does one "penetrate" a partner of that size?  

Originally posted by Vits

1)The other day I was researching about Z-movies, and I noticed only 2 modern Z-movies. One of them is the porno ATTACK OF THE 60 FOOT CENTERFOLD(also about a giant). Do you think that will be better than this?


-------------


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: December 26 2010 at 11:02am
Yeah, the trailer MIGHT be funny to some, but the movie has a whole has very little (no size pun intended) to do with the novel it's suppose to be based on. The book was about a man traveling to different worlds, each with a society with that mocks our own (such as people going to war over which end of an egg should the egg shell be opened at). But this movie is nothing more than slapstick and size jokes.
 
Although, calling this "Jonathan Swift Meets Moe Howard" isn't the best way to sum this movie up. Three Strooges, masters of physical comedy though they were, they are quite dated by today's standards. That, and the Strooges never made jokes about "size". So it's should be "Jonathan Swift Meets (insert name of a stand up comic who does nothing but jokes about "size" here)". 

Originally posted by cvcjr13

Some may disagree, but I found that commercial to be funny, especially the part where the Lilliputians started working Jack Black like a marionette.


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: December 26 2010 at 1:54pm
I don't know how the porno "works" I don't think I'll watch it, I was just making fun of this one. 

Originally posted by Vheid

How does that work? I mean, seeing it's a porno it should atleast contain some form of penetration...But how does one "penetrate" a partner of that size?
 

1)You should see the Golden Trailer Awards nominees!The truth is some comedies put their best jokes in the trailer,and then you watch the movie and it's boring.

2)Callng all Razzie users! Who here agrees that the 3 Stooges aren't funny anymore? All I hear is crickets!!  

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

Yeah, the trailer MIGHT be funny to some, but the movie has a whole has very little (no size pun intended) to do with the novel it's suppose to be based on.

Three Strooges, masters of physical comedy though they were, they are quite dated by today's standards.



-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: December 26 2010 at 4:47pm
Yeah, that's how trailers work -- No one would pay to see the movie if all they showed were boring and unfunny clips.  

Originally posted by Vits

 Callng all Razzie users!Who here agrees that the 3 Stooges aren't funny anymore?All I hear is crickets.

I think I hear saturnwatcher making some noise ...  




-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: December 26 2010 at 6:58pm
There is a good point emerging here. If you want to make a movie about some retarded Jack Black character finding himself in a land inhabited by tiny people,  fine. There is probably an audience for that out there somewhere, depressed as I am to ponder that possibility. HOWEVER...why is it necessary to trash Johnathon Swift and Gulliver's Travels by making an entirely inappropriate intellectual connection? This movie is to Swift's novel what Peewee's Playhouse is to The Tempest. I don't think that a single additional ticket is going to be sold by attempting to dupe any fan of Gulliver's Travels into believing that this is going to be a relevant, modern adaptation...just guessing.  

BTW: Evidently the Three Stooges do still have an audience -- Their short films appear every morning on AMC. I'm guessing that the demographic includes 5 year-olds, and males who spend their afternoons listening to Rush Limbaugh.


-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: December 27 2010 at 10:25am
So if Burn says the Stooges are dated,and Saturn semi-agrees with him,it must be true!Great Scott!
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

I think I hear saturnwatcher making some noise ...

He can answer,thank you.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: Vheid
Date Posted: December 27 2010 at 10:53am
Can someone please explain to me what the Stooges are (I asume you're not talking about Iggy Pop) because I never heard of them before.

Originally posted by Vits

So if Burn says the Stooges are dated,and Saturn semi-agrees with him,it must be true!Great Scott!



Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: December 27 2010 at 12:15pm
The Three Stooges: Curly, Larry & Moe. The most famous comedy trio in history (there were 4 Marx Brothers,right?)...




-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: December 27 2010 at 1:37pm
I'll be more detailed: The Three Stooges was a comedy act from back in the 1930s and 1940s. They used mostly physical comedy, like poking each other in the eyes and slapping each other around. They made over 100 short films that would be shown before feature films. There were actually six Stooges over the years, the ones Vits mentioned, plus Shemp, Joe, and Curly Joe, each one replacing Curly's spot, in that order.  
 
As for the Marx Brothers, they were, as their name suggests, a brother team, usually made up of three brothers (Chico, Harpo, and Groucho), but sometimes as many as five (including Gummo and Zeppo). They were around about the same time as the Stooges. Unlike the Stooges, their brand of comedy wasn't always "physical," but more jokes using plays on words and sight gags. 
 
Which comedy team was more "famous"? That's another debate in itself...  



-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: December 27 2010 at 2:02pm
Thanks. I actually kept it short because, considering most everybody does know the Stooges, maybe Vheid just needed a clarification... 



-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: Vheid
Date Posted: December 27 2010 at 2:07pm
I actually hadn't heard of them. But I had heard of the Marx brothers before.

Maybe they're just not that popular on this side of the Atlantic ocean. The most famous comedy team would in my opinion be Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy.


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: December 27 2010 at 2:30pm
There have been many comedy duos and teams over the decades, and I'm sure everyone has their favorite.

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: December 27 2010 at 2:53pm
Whether the Stooges or The Marx Brothers are more "famous" (whatever that means) is certainly debatable, but which of the two comedy teams is still more respected isn't even a contest. Note Head Razz's tribute to the New Year's Eve television film festival on the site's main page. 

I'll watch a Marx Brothers film any day or night of the week. If you want me to invest as much as 10 minutes of my life on even a Three Stooges short, you'll have to strap me into some sort of apparatus similar to what Alexander DeLarge was subjected to in A Clockwork Orange. And BTW Vits...a lot more people than just Burn and I think the Stooges are dated. Most people over 10 (or at least with an IQ over 10) share the opinion that the Stooges are annoying and not very funny.


-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: JoeBacon
Date Posted: December 27 2010 at 5:38pm

Yes, I love all the Marx Brothers--Groucho, Chico, Harpo, Zeppo, Gummo, Karl... Wink




Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: December 27 2010 at 8:57pm
I think Vits meant which comedy team is better known throughout the world today. But yeah, Groucho's plays on words and rapid-fire jokes make for a much more lasting impression on your funny bone than Moe Howard poking his brothers in the eyes everytime they pissed him off. Yeah, another fact I forgot to mention: Moe, Curly, and Shemp were all brothers, but were never a trio together in their short films...  

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

Whether the Stooges or The Marx Brothers are more "famous" (whatever that means) is certainly debatable.


-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: December 28 2010 at 10:52am
That's odd,because Laurel & Hardy became famous before the Stooges and the Marx Bros.. 

Originally posted by Vheid

I actually hadn't heard of them. But I had heard of the Marx brothers before.

Maybe they're just not that popular on this side of the Atlantic ocean. The most famous comedy team would in my opinion be Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy.


Yeah,I prefer like Abbott & Costello. More talking than slapstick.

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

There have been many comedy duos and teams over the decades, and I'm sure everyone has their favorite.

I don't want to fight with you either,so I'll nicely ask you to give me actual facts that say your statements are true.

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

And BTW Vits...a lot more people than just Burn and I think the Stooges are dated. Most people over 10 (or at least with an IQ over 10) share the opinion that the Stooges are annoying and not very funny.


No, I meant which are considered "better." Does it really matter who are more famous?

Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

I think Vits meant which comedy team is more well known throughout the world to this very day.




-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: December 28 2010 at 12:48pm
And what's your opinion on Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, and John Wayne-Gacy as the 3 Murderers, a bloody version of the Three Stooges?

-------------


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: December 28 2010 at 2:13pm
Oh,yeah...do I dare to say they're funnier than the 3 Stooges?Well, they're parodies. Although, just like SATAN said, I didn't like the joke with Steve Irwin.  

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: December 28 2010 at 2:58pm
Okay...among the AFI's top 100 comedies of all time, The Marx Brothers' Duck Soup ranks a very impressive and well respected #5, A Night at the Opera checks in at #12, A Day at the Races slides in at #59 and Monkey Business made the list at #73. 

How did the 3 Stooges' movies rate by comparison? Sorry...they don't! There isn't a single Stooges movie in the top 100. I seriously doubt that any of them would show up in the top 500. The Marx Brothers are, as I offerered, far more respected. QED.  

Originally posted by Vits

I don't want to fight with you either,so I'll nicely ask you to give me actual facts that say your statements are true.
 

 
It might also point out that Groucho Marx remained a beloved entertainment icon right up to his death in 1977. His popularity lasted well beyond the Marx Brothers film career, whereas all of the Stooges fell more or less into obscurity once their film careers ended.
 
By one other reasonable measure, at least one Marx Brothers movie airs on TCM every month. A Stooges movie might make it on once a year. As I noted earlier, AMC does play Stooges shorts daily, early in the morning prior to the start of their day's film schedule. It is a time slot where typically only children would be likely to be watching. The ratings aren't very good.
 
The Quiblo online poll favors the Marx Brothers 54% to 46%.
 
Want more?
 
I'll offer one anyway...this question got asked on Cecil Adams Straight Dope page. Cecil is a brilliant mind who answers all sorts of questions posed to him, generally in a pretty amusing fashion. Among 40 responses that came in, with some other debate and commentary, the Marx Brothers whipped the Stooges 32-8.
 
IMHO, it is a bit like comparing the comedy of George Carlin to that of Jerry Lewis. Both might have audiences, but I'd much rather have dinner with people who laugh at George Carlin that people who laugh at Jerry Lewis.


-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: JoeBacon
Date Posted: December 28 2010 at 5:46pm
I work at Social Security, answering an 800 number. Trust me, there are times when I come home so worn out from getting yelled at all day that I need to pop a Stooges DVD in my computer for therapy!  Embarrassed


-------------
2014 Pic: LEFT BEHIND Actor: NICHOLAS CAGE Director: VIC ARMSTRONG, DAMN THIS SHOULD WIN EVERY RAZZIE!!!!!


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: December 29 2010 at 2:46pm
Under the circumstances, I probably can't blame you.LOL  HOWEVER...it doesn't really address the central point; which comedy team has better withstood the test of time. I really suspect that if Duck Soup were on channel A, and The Three Stooges Go Around The World In A Daze was on channel B, Duck Soup would easily win the ratings battle. Admittedly the Stooges fame was made more in their shorts than their movies, which were almost universally dreadful. But I suspect that is another point that supports my case. The Stooges comedy just didn't play well in anything other than short exposures.  

Originally posted by JoeBacon

I work at Social Security, answering an 800 number. Trust me, there are times when I come home so worn out from getting yelled at all day that I need to pop a Stooges DVD in my computer for therapy!  Embarrassed


-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: December 29 2010 at 2:50pm
Thank you,Saturn. I believe you now.  




-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: December 29 2010 at 3:16pm
Originally posted by Vits

Thank you,Saturn. I believe you now.  


Aaah...something of a shame that. I didn't even get to throw my knockout punch. Harpo Marx once made a very famous appearance on I Love Lucy. None of the Stooges ever managed a  guest shot on the show LOL

-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: December 29 2010 at 3:44pm
In other words, the Marx Brothers were the thinking man's comedy team. The Three Stooges is for when you just want to sit bacl, turn your brain off and laugh at stupid s*** ... much like all of Adam Sandler's career!

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: December 29 2010 at 3:53pm
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn

In other words, the Marx Brothers were the thinking man's comedy team. The Three Stooges is for when you just want to sit bacl, turn your brain off and laugh at stupid s*** ... much like all of Adam Sandler's career!
That's really it in a nutshell, and that point was made frequently during the Cecil Adams discussion. The Straight Dope is kind of a thinking man's page though. I'd bet dollars to donuts that if the same discussion were conducted on, say, the Sly Stallone page, the Stooges would do considerably better.Wink

-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: December 29 2010 at 4:09pm
I've never watched the Three Stooges, but upon hearing all this, I'd say we got a lucky break when the next movie adaptation went to development hell.

-------------


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: December 29 2010 at 4:13pm
Originally posted by GTAHater767

I've never watched the Three Stooges, but upon hearing all this, I'd say we got a lucky break when the next movie adaptation went to development hell.
I'd agree on that as it was presented, but despite my personal distaste for their comedy, I wouldn't mind seeing a really well researched, factual biopic of them. For that matter, a similar project featuring the Marx Brothers would be worthwhile as well. So...there you have it, Hollywood. Two original, very interesting projects that probably every movie buff, or at least fan of movie comedies would absolutely love to see. That is exactly why neither will ever get made.

-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: December 29 2010 at 5:00pm
Originally posted by saturnwatcher

Aaah...something of a shame that. I didn't even get to throw my knockout punch. Harpo Marx once made a very famous appearance on I Love Lucy. None of the Stooges ever managed a  guest shot on the show LOL
Don't push your luck.LOL


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: cvcjr13
Date Posted: December 29 2010 at 8:02pm
I'm sitting here reading this, recalling that there's a house owned by a couple down in San Diego where the husband is a Stooges fan.  He has this really cool Three Stooges poster, with Curly Joe if I'm not mistaken as well as Moe and Larry, posing in front of a black background, covered with glass in a frame I can't recall, against a wall painted black.  As I was admiring the poster, the wife started telling me what a Stooges fan the husband was. 
 
I watched the 3 Stooges as a little boy, along with Laurel & Hardy.  I may eventually pick up a Laurel & Hardy DVD if they ever release a decent collection.  I won't turn the channel if the 3 Stooges happen to be on, but I won't seek them out.  Still, I have great memories of them.
 
The Marx Brothers, on the other hand, I apparently have swallowed whole as a kid.  I remember watching, not the box set HeadRAZZ put up, but the other one with Coconuts, Horse Feathers, Animal Crackers, Monkey Business, etc.  My friend loaned it to me, and she needed the captions to watch it.  When I watched it, not only did I NOT need the captions, but I was already there for nearly every punchline Groucho delivered.  I asked my Mom if we watched the Marx Brothers films when I was really young.  She replied she tuned them in every time they were on.
 
I love the Marx Brothers, and I bought the box set HeadRAZZ put up.  Still need to buy the other.
 


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: December 30 2010 at 4:01am
One of the reasons that I think a factual movie about the Stooges might be extremely interesting is their struggle to hang on to, or more accurately regain the limelight late in their careers/lives. No one can argue that they once enjoyed enormous popularity, but the entertainment world more or less passed them by and they made a series of increasingly sorry efforts to recapture their fame. Moe was planning all sorts of projects up until this own death. A Stooges movie was in the planning stages into the early 70's, but that got squashed when Larry Fine suffered a stroke. Even that didn't completely deter Moe Howard, who actually hired another actor to fill in for Larry, but there was very little interest among the studios to make another Stooges film even with Larry, and none without him. In a way, the whole story is pretty sad. Larry Fine died in January of 1975 and Moe Howard passed a few months later.

-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: tdickensheets
Date Posted: January 25 2011 at 11:01am

This is 2nd Jack Black worst movie he was in. He's first one was that Guru movie.



-------------
Thomas Dickensheets


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: January 25 2011 at 12:38pm
What guru movie?

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: June 16 2011 at 6:04pm
I just saw it.

Let me say I support remakes of other movies(not book adaptations)that change a lot,specially tones and themes.What's the point of remaking a movie if you do the same thing again?

Making a story like this in modern day with more mainstream comedy isn't a bad idea(SHREK anyone?).But the comedy,although it can be silly,it can't be juvenile.The movie isn't funny.I laughed at very few jokes,and there were mostly modern pop culture allusions.

There are a lot of obvious plot holes,specially at the end,which is rushed as hell.Also,wasn't it wrong that DARCY promoted GULLIVER,who happens to be her boyfriend?And they just magically became good writers?Sure,the first time they wrote about their experience,but after that?

The performances were fine.Chris O'Dowd was hilarious!Emily Blunt...she seemed very much aware she was in a kids movie*.

I give this 3/10.

*How was this PG?!


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: June 17 2011 at 7:04am
Yeah, Chris O'Dowd was the only thing about this that wasn't horrible.

-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: June 17 2011 at 10:56am
For those who saw this,what happened to the guy who got stuck between GULLIVER's ass?Did he actually went into the place no man woman has ever entered before?

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: BurnHollywoodBurn
Date Posted: June 17 2011 at 12:14pm
To answer your questions, Vits, it's a little something called "a plot hole" (no pun intended with the "hole" part).

-------------
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: September 30 2012 at 6:12pm
Before I get into this, I have to say a few things. First, I've never read the original Swift story or seen any of the other adaptations. So, if something I complain about was handled better in the book, let me know. Second, since it's been a while since my last review and I've gained some new followers on Twitter, I should explain my format. I start out with things I found good about the film. Then I write about things I found bad about it. Then I write about the really bad (or ugly) things of the film.
 
The only good thing about this is Chris O'Dowd. He plays Edward, a Lilliputian general who has a crush on Emily Blunt like any sane non-gay man. He was the only thing about the film that actually made me laugh. Fortunately for him, he was in Bridesmaids the year after this came out.
 
Speaking of Blunt, she's very disappointing in this. Her main role is to sit around and look pretty. I saw her in Looper earlier today and she was much better in that. Hell, she was better in that crappy Wolfman remake. Also disappointing is Jason Segal. Segal's one of the funniest people working today so his comedic black hole of a performance is unexpected. Amanda Peet gives another crappy performance as Gulliver's editor.
 
Rob Letterman's direction is bad. It gives of the whiff of not giving a sh*t. The script is terrible as well. I'm surprised that Jack Black wasn't involved since the whole film is just him mugging for the camera. There's a lot of jokes that border on Seltzerberg territory. There's a scene where the only joke is that Gulliver is on movie posters like Avatar and X-Men Origins: Wolverine. Wait, let me rephrase that: Gulliver is on movie posters for 20th Century Fox releases like Avatar and X-Men Origins: Wolverine. I don't think I have to say what studio released this film. In another scene, Gulliver "plays" Rock And Roll All Nite on Guitar Hero. The "joke" is that the game characters are Lilliputians dressed up like KISS. Also, Gulliver most have photographic memory considering these jokes. The posters are dead ringers for the originals and since the Lilliputians can't have heard of them, the only explanation is that Gulliver can remember posters really well, which clashes with the film portraying him as an idiot slacker. The special effects for this are just ass. Jack Black is just horrible here. He deserved his Razzie nod. The toilet humor in this is horrific. In one scene Gulliver pees on a fire to put it out. Now, I've heard that is actually from the book, but I don't have a problem believing that it was handled better their. Jonathan Swift wrote an awesome poem about eating babies, but actually about the treament of the Irish, so it probably means something. If I'm wrong, tell me. In another gross out scene, Gulliver puts a guy in his buttcrack. But, the absolutely worst scene in the whole movie was when Edward commands a Transformer and beats up Gulliver. You didn't misread that, there's f*cking Transformers in this movie. This is something out of a Seltzerberg movie* and, like most of the special effects, it looks like ass.
 
Fun fact: Jonathan Swift isn't mentioned in the end credits. I have a very strong feeling that his ancestors don't have a problem with his name not being on this. Grade: D-
 
Next-up: Troll!
 
*in fact it is: there was a similar scene at the end of Meet The Spartans


-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html


Posted By: jesse685
Date Posted: September 30 2012 at 8:43pm
Originally posted by SchumacherH8ter

Next-up: Troll!
 
He's reviewing that! And then he's gonna' review me! OH MY GOOOOOOOOOODDDDDDDDD!!!!!!!!!


-------------
"If you can't make it good, make it 3D!" Peter Travers, Rolling Stone
F**k Yeah/WTF Were They Thinking Awards Results Live-Tweet @jesse685


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: October 01 2012 at 10:36am
Originally posted by SchumacherH8ter

Gulliver most have photographic memory considering these jokes. The posters are dead ringers for the originals and since the Lilliputians can't have heard of them, the only explanation is that Gulliver can remember posters really well, which clashes with the film portraying him as an idiot slacker.

Don't underestimate the abilities of a pop culture expert. Specially one that has free time to spare.
LOL


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: Grounder the Critic
Date Posted: October 01 2012 at 11:18am
Originally posted by jesse685

Originally posted by SchumacherH8ter

Next-up: Troll!
 
He's reviewing that! And then he's gonna' review me! OH MY GOOOOOOOOOODDDDDDDDD!!!!!!!!!
Actually, that would be Troll 2.


-------------
Pictures move, do they?


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: October 01 2012 at 11:57am
Troll 2 is going to be tomorrow's review. And I'm thinking of doing Birdemic on Wednesday.

-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html


Posted By: jesse685
Date Posted: October 01 2012 at 5:18pm
@Grounder - NO SH*T SHERLOCK!
 
@SchumacherH8ter - You're reviewing Birdemic on Wednesday? God, you must have a suicidal wish, don't you? Oh well, may as well throw in Shark Attack 3: Megalodon while you're at it. These films are like notorious for their CGI. Don't know what CGI I'm referring to? Here, I'll show you:
 
[TUBE]FEokEOezF7o[/TUBE]
 
[TUBE]-pRuncHws2g[/TUBE]


-------------
"If you can't make it good, make it 3D!" Peter Travers, Rolling Stone
F**k Yeah/WTF Were They Thinking Awards Results Live-Tweet @jesse685


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: October 01 2012 at 5:57pm

Shark Attack 3 is Thursday's review now. Any more suggestions?



-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html



Print Page | Close Window