?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Little Fockers, Gulliver's Travels

Happy New Year to all of yall. Or rather happy new years eve. Im likely to be posting again tomorrow anyways. Yep, still on track with the uber movie watching weekend. Today was apparently awkward humor day. Actually, there's a theory of mine that got tested quite well with the day's selections...

For the most part, the only times I see trailers are at the theater. I dont like watching them online because A)I dont have much attention span for watching things on my PC and 2) Im likely to catch them multiple times at the theater anyways. Ive found that the frequency with which I catch a trailer can sometimes be indicative of the quality of the film. When you have the trailers that I've seen so often that I've memorized them, that's when you know that you've got a mediocre movie that the studios put too much hope into, and they're trying to publicize the crap outta it in order to try and curb their potential losses. Another situation, is when the studios really dont have much hope for a film, and hardly play the trailer. Perhaps its their way of disowning it, or they feel they've spent enough money, or something. Not an issue with smaller films, or indies, but definitely a bad sign when you've got a star vehicle that's being completely ignored. That was sorta the case with these films. I dont think I'd seen a trailer for Little Fockers at all, and I'd only seen Gulliver's twice and just in the past week. Given that I'd been seeing the cardboard cutout promos for both of those hanging in the theater, the fact that the studios weren't pushing trailers really did not bode well at all. Of course, I didnt put two and two together until I sat down at the first, with a ticket for the second already in my wallet.

Little Fockers
I partly realized the lack of trailer thing when the film started and it occurred to me that I had no friggin' clue what it was gonna be about. I figured it must focus on the kids somewhat given the title. That turned out to be a bit of misdirection. Clearly, they just liked the title because the focus was not on the kids. Actually, Im not even sure that the screenwriters knew what the film was about.

You hear people toss around the phrase about "there being another story there" when suggesting a sequel. I really didnt get that sense with Fockers. It was a lot more of the same. DeNiro intimidates. Stiller flounders. Awkwardness ensues. I really couldnt even sum up the plot into a single sentance if I wanted to, other than just saying that the Meet the Parents/Fockers characters are at it again.

I wouldnt say I was bored, but I wasnt as thoroughly entertained as I'd generally like to be when Im at the movies. It did have its moments, most of which you saw coming from a mile away. Barbara Streissand and Dustin Hoffman stole the show in their limited scenes. Jessica Alba and Owen Wilson contributed to the overall awkwardness of the film. I wouldnt say DeNiro and Stiller phoned it in (esp not Stiller) but there was nothing dazzling there.

Really, I kinda wondered why they even bothered. The previous two flicks were great. This one was just eh.

Little Fockers - \m/ \m/

Gulliver's Travels
My "oh shit" realization upon the start of the movie (funny how I seem to have those a lot...Im too addicted to theatergoing) was that Im a fan of Tenacious D. That doesnt necessarily make me a fan of Jack Black. He's great with the D, but otherwise he's rather awkward and tries too hard. Like Will Ferrell, I handle him best in small doses. And most of hte build up at the beginning was quite awkward (Im using that word a lot today).

At this point, you're prolly wondering why I even bother to put myself through these things. I do like the story of Gulliver's Travels. I read it way back when, and of course I only remember stuff from the first two sections (Lilliput and the country who's name I cant remember where Gulliver is the tiny one). I fully realized that this was gonna be a very loose interpertation, and I was very much intrigued by that premise.

Y'know, it wasn't all bad. It wasnt particularly good either, but I did find it entertaining (once we got past the slow start of course). Best redeeming quality was Jason Segal, no contest. Emily Blunt also amused me. Apparently, she was forced by contract to do this film. The only way I can think of to describe her performance is that its the sort of thing I'd do if I were forced to do a Dramashop show. Kinda like she was pretending to take it overly serious, but really didnt give a \m/. Oh points for Billy Connelly as well.

Im glad that they didnt overdo the anacronistic (that's not the right word but its close) jokes. It would have been easy for them to keep going, but they were just pushing the boundary. I did appreciate the movie reenactments.

Oh btw, didnt even really notice the 3D at all.

Gulliver's Travels - \m/ \m/ \n
Expletive Dleted    ExpDelTop100     AFI Project    Mini Projects     The Movie Wall Of Doom     All Write Ups
   Twitter   Facebook