QuoteReplyTopic: Jonathan Swift...Meet Moe Howard! 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 GULLIVER'S TRAVELS.
ALTHOUGH SEVERAL PREVIOUS VERSIONS of THIS SAME MATERIAL (IMDb LINK) 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 WORST ACTOR NOMINATION 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 GILLIGAN'S ISLAND 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 SCARLET LETTER(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 VOTING MEMBERS 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??
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.
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 (LINK). In the 2010 GULLIVER, only the idea that the central character seems to be a giant compared to the tiny people of Lilliput remains. And early reviews suggest that this film's makers have taken what was intended as a socio-political satire and turned it into a knees-to-the-groin, potty-humor-laden 3 Stooges style slapstick farce.
So, yes, I still think one would have to harken back to the halcyon days just prior to Demi's demise (LINK) to find as awful a remake of a classic novel as this one...
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.
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.
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
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...
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? . . .
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You can vote in polls in this forum
Share Topic
Printable Version
Delicious
Digg
Facebook
Furl
Google Boomarks
Google Buzz
MySpace
Newsvine
reddit
StumbleUpon
Twitter
Windows Live
Yahoo Bookmarks
Topic Search 
Topic Options
Post Options
Quote 
Topic: Jonathan Swift...Meet Moe Howard!
