I just got back from the Post Office.
As always, that little chore has put me in a foul mood.
There were over a hundred people in line waiting on the slug-like postal employees of the Palmer, Alaska Post Office and it took over an hour to pick up one lousy package. (Actually, in retrospect, that comment is an insult – to slugs. Slugs have a purpose, they’ve got a plan, they’re motivated and they’re doing the best they can. Compared to the Palmer Postal Employees, slugs could be considered speedy)
So, anyway, I was in line. For a long time.
A couple of folks behind me were loudly discussing what they considered to be great movies. I had to bite my tongue to keep from joining in, because this group of people were just plain goofy.
What’s that you’re saying, Jim? I hear you ask in the whiny tone that just annoys the hell out of me. People, you say, are entitled to their opinions when it comes to entertainment. So they like something different than you, what’s it to ya? Art, it’s in the eye of the beer holder and etcetera and so on and so forth. Blah blah.
Listen, remember that parable about the con artist, the magic cloth, and the parade with the naked King? Exactly. It’s bad enough when our political leaders wander around naked (Think Cheney. Yeah. Now you’ve got that image in your head. You’ve got no one to blame but yourself, I warned you I was in a foul mood). But seriously, way too many good flicks aren’t getting made, because studios keep green-lighting movies about naked kings. These movies are loved by the snobby critics, and they’re touted by the entertainment industry – and they trick people into spending gobs of money on movie tickets and DVD’s and that, my friends, is the real reason for the economic decline. People know these movies suck, but they’re too embarrassed to admit it.
Well, I’m not going to take it any more. That’s right, I’ll say it.
The emperor has no clothes.
Now I’m not talking about movies that suck, and everybody knows they suck – like say Battlefield Earth, which basically defined an entirely new level of horrifying sucktastic. Or movies that suck and nobody cares, like say Sunshine. Or movies that are all hyped up and cost enough millions to feed all the starving brokers on Wall Street, but everybody knows are going to suck anyway, like say The Mummy: Tomb of the Franchise. No I’m talking about movies that people gush over in line at the post office with total strangers. I’m talking about movies that win awards, Academy awards, Sundance awards, and especially awards from that festival in Cannes. Frankly, it’s a pretty good bet that if coked-up Hollywood stars and beret wearing Frenchmen like the movie, well, it sucks.
Let’s start with this piece of crap, shall we?
Cloverfield: “Scary, Delivers the Thrills!” “A terrific movie filled with spectacle and humor.” “A heart racing experience.” Seriously? Cloverfield was 84 minutes of dark, jiggling blurs and lousy sound – the only part that scared me was how much I spent and the thought that it would never end. The director, J.J. Abrams, could have gotten the same, exact, movie by downing a couple of six-packs and wandering through a frat party with a handycam dangling forgotten from a strap around his wrist. The screams and moans from the upstairs bedrooms are the same, the blurry explosions from the frat boys out back recreating scenes from Jackass the Movie are the same. Scary? I’ll tell you what’s scary about this monstrously sucky piece of celluloid, the 1998 Matthew Broderick remake of Godzilla is actually decent entertainment compared to Cloverfield.
300: “This is Spaaaaaaaarta!” Please. No it’s not. Not even close. The Battle at the Hot Gates, i.e. the Battle of Thermopylae, is one of the greatest, most noble, most heroic, and most studied of the ancient epics. What’s more, it’s a true story. 300 isn’t that story. 300 is some kind of bizarre semi-erotic fantasy for teenaged boys who learn history from comic books. I don’t demand that my movies be accurate representations of history, but Jesus H. Christ is it too much to ask for some plotting? Or maybe acting? or a coherent storyline? 300 is a ninety minute animated comic book, once you get past the artwork and the effects – there’s really nothing else. As to the effects, Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow did it better.
A History of Violence: “You won’t know what hit you!” Yeah. I’d say that about sums up this movie. Violence = Bad. Got it. Of course, that’s why people went to see it, for the violence. Oooow, violence is terrible - now, show us some more! Listed as the “Best movie of the year” by Entertainment Weekly. Makes you wonder what the other choices were.
Children of Men: "Gripping Thriller!” Yeah. Gripping. “Magnificent…a unique and totally original vision.” Totally original if you haven’t actually read any post-apocalyptic science fiction, that is. More handheld camera work, apparently nobody knows how operate a steadycam in the future. And then there’s the endless long shot. Christ, I felt like I needed a pair of binoculars.
Lost in Translation: You know, I miss Bill Murray, I do. I miss the old funny Bill Murray, the guy from Meatballs, Stripes and Scrooged. Hell, I even miss the Bill Murray from The Razor’s Edge. I miss his dry wit and subtle everyman humor. What the hell happened to him? I couldn’t even watch this movie. I kept falling asleep. I don’t even know what this movie was about, unless it was intended to cure insomnia.
Solaris: Please, God, do not ever let George Clooney wear the batman suit with the nipples again, or act in a Science Fiction movie. If there is anything more boring than Lost in Translation, it’s Solaris. Good God! 90 minutes of introspection with George Clooney. I wanted to gouge my eyes out. People claim this piece of crap is powerful and thought provoking – the only thoughts it provoked in me were powerful thoughts of suicide.
War of the Worlds: Great, great depiction of the Martian tripods – which did not in any way make up for that squealing kid. Be honest, how many of you would have fed Dakota Fanning to the Martians? Tom Cruise too. I swear to God, an hour into the movie I was cheering the Martians and shouting at the screen “Over there! You stupid tree frogs! They’re hiding in the basement! Over there! Get ‘em.”
The Constant Gardener: Two hours of constant boredom. Is it just me, or does anybody else find Rachel Weisz annoying? She was OK in the Mummy movies, cute and endearing even, but seriously in anything else her voice and unblinking doe-eyed stare is like a fork on a blackboard to me. I can’t buy her in anything, she always seems completely miscast to me, Enemy at the Gates, The Fountain, Constantine (and seriously here, when Keanu Reeves has more emotional depth of expression, you might want to think about backing off on the Botox).
The Golden Compass: Holy freakin’ crap, for all the hoopla about atheism, I can’t even remember what the hell this movie was about. There were blimps, I remember blimps – but that’s about it. If Christians are threatened by this piece of shit, well, maybe they should go watch Narnia some more.
V for Vendetta: Yeah, brainwashing. It’s like cheering for Tania, ur, sorry Patty Hearst. At least they blow up Hugo Weaving in the end.
And finally, by far the biggest piece of crap I’ve been suckered into in a long, long time:
No Country for Old Men: And here you have the actual Emperor of Naked Parades. Every person who got hoodwinked into seeing this turd wants to claim that they ‘get it.’ It’s supposed to be a deep, deep movie that trumpets the brilliance of the brothers Coen. Ask ‘em what it means though, and they raise one eyebrow archly and say, “if you don’t get it, then you’re just stupid.” Ok, outline the plot then. “If you don’t get it, you’re just stupid.” Ok, I’m stupid, tell me what the ending, or lack of ending, means. “If you don’t get it…” Yeah, if you can’t see the Emperor’s new suit, you’re an uncouth heathen. I’ve heard the same thing about blobs of paint thrown at a canvass. When a kindergartener does it, it’s amusing, when Jackson Pollock does it – well, it’s supposed to be art. Truthfully though, you’d be hard pressed to tell the difference. And it’s the same here, the difference between the horribly violent Country and Robert Rodriguez films like Desperado, is that Desperado actually had a plot and fairly decent acting. It was also amusing. It was also entertaining. It also had a fucking ending. (it also had Selma Hayek, yozer!) The ending of Country isn’t deep. It isn’t clever. It isn’t brilliant. It’s crap. It’s a cop out. It’s the fact that the Coen brothers can’t actually write. It’s not that I don’t get it, I do – I just don’t think it’s particularly earth shaking.
Anyway, there you have it. Stonekettle Station’s top ten acclaimed movies that actually sucked.
Now, tell me why I’m wrong – because I know you will.
Go ahead, but I warn you, I’ve been to the Post Office and I’m not in a good mood.
I liked A History of Violence.ReplyDelete
But I'm down with the rest of the list.
Almost without exception I didn't, and won't, see any of those movies. I mean, the 10 "supposed to be good but were actually crap" movies. I did see V for Vendetta, and it was okay for a one-time-only view.ReplyDelete
I also saw (at no cost to me) The Golden Compass. Didn't like it. And as for scaring us poor Christians, well, read the books. Philip Pullman's not really big on Christianity, so they left that part mostly out of the movie trying to appease everyone. Now the movie has a "to be continued" ending that, last I heard, won't have an ending because they won't be making the next film. I don't agree with Pullman's view of Chjristianity, but if you're gonna make a movie, have the balls to be true to the book.
As for movies that are "based on actual events", I like to see at least some history in them.
I liked The Mummy: Tomb of the Franchise. It was fun, like the first movie was (don't like the second one, although my daughter does). I also like (and own) Captain and the World of Tomorrow.
Can't type -ReplyDelete
"I don't agree with Pullman's view of Chjristianity, but if you're gonna make a movie from a book, have the balls to be true to the book."
And that was "Sky Captain."
Actually, I read a very interesting article a couple of years ago about Jackson Pollack's work.ReplyDelete
IIRC, the reason his works are so compelling is that the reflect the fractals of chaos theory and that the seeming randomness could actually be analyzed in a way that would allow a fake Pollack to be easily outed.
Ooh! It was an article in Nature!
Anyway, my point is that apparently there is genius in Pollack's paintings, as he manages to create a reflection of fractals and the chaos of nature.
As far as the movies, I saw a History of Violence. Whatever. But then it wasn't my kind of movie in the first place. Haven't seen anything else in the list, don't want to either.
I haven't seen a single one of these movies.ReplyDelete
Maybe someday I'll see Cloverfield, but just for the monster.
I haven't seen any of these movies either. And I am disappointed that we didn't get the Palmer PO Shriekfest v2.0. Phooey!ReplyDelete
I'll start from the end and work my way back (only mentioning the ones I've seen).ReplyDelete
No Country For Old Men We saw that from netflix a couple of weeks ago. I started playing Cubis online about 20 minutes into the thing. No idea what was going on.
The Constant Gardener Why can't I play Cubis at the theater?
War of the Worlds GF managed all of the locations surrounding the Ferry scene...from when you see them walking past the "Entering Athens, NY" sign up to the point the family climbs out of the river. AND THERE WAS A FLAMING TRAIN!!!!!! A FLAMING FUCKING TRAIN!!!! (Otherwise, you've got this one on the nose.)
Solaris Where's HAL when you need him?
Lost in Translation It only made me sure I never wanted to visit Tokyo.
A History of Violence I liked this one.
And I don't care what you think, but Three Kings belongs on this list.
Ha, Nathan, I completely missed that you'd working on Worlds. In fact the ferry scene is one of the few pieces of that movie I liked. (I also liked the tripods moving across the smoking field while the protagonists where hiding in the hills - that was almost exactly how I'd pictured it in my head.ReplyDelete
who's idea was the whole 'downloaded via lightening' bit though? Stooooopid. But, seriously, how bad does it have to be that you can't root for the guy and his kids stuck in the middle of an alien invasion? Hell, the science of ID4 was terrible, and the plot had holes big enough to fly a moon sized spaceship through - and I still enjoyed it. Worlds, uck.
Three Kings, well I don't recall that being highly acclaimed - though I do agree that it sucked. I can suspend my disbelief on a lot of things, but I have a hard time with military movies, because it would be a better story if they did it right. Band of Brothers comes right to mind.
I didn't work on it. GF did.ReplyDelete
I'll tell her to stop by and answer questions.
I have a hard time with military movies, because it would be a better story if they did it right.ReplyDelete
The Husband and I had a "This is Your Life" movie night early in our relationship. We rented Full Metal Jacket and Gross Anatomy. Neither movie was totally right on, but they were good enough. And, weirdly, both starred Matthew Modine.
Oh, yeah, right.ReplyDelete
Cool, GF is coming by to answer questions. Now, is that just movie questions, or can we ask personal questions about you?
Example: is it true that Nathan is actually the Iraqi Shoe Thrower? And if so, why does his aim suck so bad?
Also, I heard that there are recent pictures of him secretly eating Dominos Pizza.
I liked No Country a lot. And the "lack" of an ending is a statement on the continuity of life--that there are no endings. You get up one morning and a sadistic fuck is killing people with an air compressor and the next day he's not but you're still getting up in the morning. In a sense, it's similar to the kind of nihilism of Se7en, which ends with a similar kind of statement: we go on because we have to, or because the alternative is what?ReplyDelete
And I liked Cloverfield, which really isn't about anything. Yeah, it's a jiggling mess--that's kind of the point, if there is one. It was fun. It delivered exactly what I expected it to, with a little bit of ironic... poignancy, for lack of a better word, in the twist at the end.
I think many of your criticisms of Cloverfield, Jim, are similar to criticisms of The Blair Witch Project when the backlash against that hit. I can't really argue with you because what you say is sort of true, but also sort of beside the point.
I'll stand by what I wrote at the time:
Just as Cloverfield can be regarded as capturing a little of the post-9/11 American zeitgeist, Gojira (made less than a decade after the end of World War II) captures something of the post
-WWII Japanese zeitgeist. There are plenty of crying and grieving victims in Gojira, turning to their TVs for answers. And just as images in Cloverfield consciously echo photos from New York in September 2001, images in Gojira deliberately mimic photographs from Hiroshima in August 1945.
All of which is to say that I somehow managed to give both movies insufficient credit with my comment. I momentarily forgot that Gojira--the original, not the butchered American edit starring Raymond Burr--is an intensely political film stuffed full of references to the firebombing of Tokyo, to the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and to the Lucky Dragon incident of 1954 that was one of the direct inspirations for Gojira (the incident is recreated in the first scene of the movie). And because I forgot this critical thing about Gojira, the most important thing about the movie itself, I didn't give Cloverfield enough credit for the very smart way it takes pages from Gojira's playbook: Cloverfield is the true Americanized remake of Gojira (in contrast to the 1998 attempt--perhaps one of the fortunate faults of the '98 Godzilla was that we Americans hadn't bled recently enough to really make a viscerally-connecting movie about a monster destroying a city).
I didn't much care for Spielberg's War Of The Worlds. I love Spielberg, but that movie bored me.
I didn't see Golden Compass on principle: it was obvious before it came out that it would be a bowdlerized version of Pullman, and I loved the books. And I kind of gave up on the Wachowskis after the third Matrix, so V Is For Vendetta never made my list of things to see, either.
I'm embarrassed to admit I haven't seen the rest of the list, tho' several of them are in my CafeDVD queue.
(My quote makes a reference to another piece I wrote on Cloverfield, here, but I'm not sure it's worth reading.)ReplyDelete
I'm not sure what the question is.....ReplyDelete
Except, I didn't think War of the Worlds was very good, either. ALOT and I mean, ALOT of the script was cut becuz of some....ahem...performance issues.
(Not who you think.) And, I agree about the screaming little girl.
Tim Robbins was appropriately creepy.
And, yes, the ferry boat scenes were fun to do....more than 20 state, county and federal permits.
Including Coast Guard/CofE/EPA, etc.
But, we got to throw stuntmen into the Hudson River in November!
Oh, and a Domino's is moving into our anti-chain store neighborhood.
Looking back on my comments on No Country, "nihilism" isn't the right word. It's an emptiness of meaning (which is nihilistic), but there's also a kind of bitter... tenacity, maybe? This is probably one of those things where there's a perfect polysyllabic German expression that describes clinging on even when the world refuses to give us reasons to. It's not hope, but it isn't without hope.ReplyDelete
And the "lack" of an ending is a statement on the continuity of life--that there are no endings.ReplyDelete
Hmmm. I can get that same effect by reading about people's daily lives in their blogs and twitterings and Facebook status messages.
I liked me the flaming train. (grin)ReplyDelete
I think WOTW is the only one on that list I've seen. Instead of watching turkeys, tonight -- and just because it's Christmas and on Christmas you can tell the truth -- we just finished watching Love, Actually. One of finest edited movies of all time. And charming. And they didn't make the mistake of making it happily ever after for everyone. Love, indeed.
Shows you how memorable that list is -- when I went back to look at it I realized I'd seen Solaris "II" and V for Vendetta.ReplyDelete
Hmmm. I can get that same effect by reading about people's daily lives in their blogs and twitterings and Facebook status messages.ReplyDelete
Sounds kinda like the guy at the art museum saying his kid coulda done that, MWT.
Nobody has to like any particular movie, but it's one thing to say "this doesn't work for me as art, the message doesn't resonate with me" and another thing to suggest that a piece of well-shot, well-acted, well-written piece of art is the equivalent of a Twitter feed.
I'm sorry, Eric, but in accordance with Stonekettle Station Rule 29B, Section II, subparagraph (a), as soon as you use the word "zeitgeist" you are hereby disqualified from movie night.ReplyDelete
You may sit in the back, but no popcorn.
Well, not having seen the movie in question, I can't really argue whether it was a well-acted, well-shot, well-written piece of art. However, to me, stories are supposed to come with a beginning, middle, and end. If it doesn't have all those, it's not a story, it's just a sequence of events. The events might be interesting, but they're still not a story.ReplyDelete
Not that that's necessarily a bad thing either. There are obviously people who define "story" differently. Old Man's War is a sequence of events to me, but it seems to sell really well, so who am I to argue. ;)
I've seen half of the movies on this list (300, WOTW, V, Lost, Compass), and I personally did not think that any of them reached the "super-suckiness" levels. IMHO, there are redeeming qualities in each of them. Will I ever watch them again? Unlikely. But they did not make me rue the moment I decided to watch them either.ReplyDelete
I need to watch No Country, now.
I need to watch No Country, now.
Ilya is about to learn the definition of rue.
MWT: that's not a criticism of any movie, it's a construction of the viewer (and that's not a criticism of any viewer--we all go in with our own perceptual frameworks). You expect a movie to have a story, and a movie without a story will disappoint you; but it's not a rule of the medium that a movie must have a story--there are abstract movies and art movies and so on. At some point not too long ago in another thread (maybe on another blog), Nathan mentioned Koyaanisqatsi--there's a movie with no plot or conventional structure; it's one thing to dislike it on it's own terms (I got what it was trying to do, I just didn't think much of the result), but it would be another thing to dislike it for being something it's not.ReplyDelete
Ironically, none of this quite applies to No Country, which does have a story in the conventional sense--what it lacks is any kind of denouement (sorry, Jim, I'm just full of two-dollar words in this thread). There's a beginning, a middle, and an end and characters change over time--the classical definitions for story--but in the end there's not this satisfying climax or epiphany or grand wrap-up. I don't really want to say too much about the ending here, because it seems there are a few people who haven't seen it and at least one of them wants to (Ilya, I recommend renting it even if you end up hating it; whether or not you like it, it's not a waste of time).
I'm reminded again, actually, of the backlash against Blair Witch; among the most common criticisms were the movie's lack of an ending, lack of real characterization, and the dubiousness of whether Blair Witch has a "story" in any traditional sense (it begins, but it never really ends). What those critiques fail to get is that Witch wasn't supposed to be watched that way--it was supposed to be viewed as what it claimed to be on the title card at the beginning: a collection of found objects assembled by an anonymous editor into a linear sequence based on "textual" clues (timestamps on the video or contextual inferences within the film frames). To say Witch is bad because it lacks character growth or an ending is a bit like saying that what's wrong with a Big Mac is that it isn't a chicken sandwich.
I realize, MWT, that you qualified your statement a little ("Not that that's necessarily a bad thing either..."); but if a movie doesn't have to have a story--if, for instance, a "movie" could merely be a series of images set to music, like the "Qaati" series--then it's not about how story is defined.
Finally: Jim, before going on vacation, I bought a ton of that awesome microwave popcorn the Scouts sell from a sheriff's deputy selling the stuff for her son. Unless you're fresh-popping in oil without burning any kernels (and knowing you, you might be, you asshole), I think I'm set--and I'll even share mine, so there. Zeitgeist, zeitgeist, zeitgeist.
I enjoyed V for Vendetta.ReplyDelete
AND YOU SHOULD ALWAYS CHEER FOR TANIA!!!
Go listen to some Camper Van Beethoven too.
Good idea, Tania. I'm now listening to "Tania," recorded live in October 2004 at Nightclub 9:30.ReplyDelete
(Thank you for all the ROIOs, internet! You're super awesome!)
And YAAAAAAY, TANIA!
Thank you, thank you. That was very nice.ReplyDelete
Now, might a recommend a Warren Zevon chaser? I usually pair (as you all have heard many times) Tania with Zevon's Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner.
...talkin' about the man...
I can't tell you that you are wrong because I agree with you... on all counts.
I'm a French woman and I (and most of the French population really) know that if a movie wins something in Cannes, it usually means it's complete crap (they like to award obscure things and crap movies, it's a form of masturbation in my opinion). Very few exceptions to that rule ;).
Ha! See, Eric, see! Even France agrees with me. Nyah, nyah.ReplyDelete
Lysambre, thanks. I've been to Cannes, and most of the southern coast of France as well as Paris and a couple of places in the north - and I thought it was a wonderful place. Contrary to the popular foreign perception of the French, I found people to be warm, helpful, and friendly. And then there was the pastry...and the cheese...and the wine...
Cloverfield has value as an urban emergency survival guide, ie This Is What NOT To Do When The Terrorists Hit Your City. As outlined by the #1 guy I want by my side when the appocalypse happens (now that Steve Irwin is dead), Jim MacDonald.ReplyDelete
I had problems with some of your list but all was forgiven when you slammed "No Country." Could have been called "No Story for Clueless Philistines."
Matt, I'm pretty confident in my abilities to handle the apocalypse on my own, though I've agreed to take Nathan (above commenter and UCF leader) along, simply for the humor value.ReplyDelete
Truthfully though I expected much greater push back from Stonekettle Station regulars on the contents of this list. They're a contentious bunch, and opinionated - especially, Eric ;)
OK, I'll put you #2 on my list of apocalypse pals since you can spell it.ReplyDelete
Specifically, my disagreements:
History of Violence - worth it just for William Hurt's accent.
Children of Men - left me verklempt. I know, I'm a softie. What can I do?
Lost in Translation - still think about that movie from time to time. I like the new Bill Murray better than the old one.
Golden Compass - armored polar bear fu: 'Nuff said.
Just what I need, another scientist around here making valid points:ReplyDelete
Fine. Fine. Fine.
I concede the William Hurt point, Hurt can make even the worst movie worth watching, at least once. And truthfully, Violence had some great actors, Ed Harris is one of my favorites, Viggo I can take or leave - though I've been compared to his Master Chief portrayal in GI Jane (which I'm not sure I'm all that thrilled about, though it was meant as a compliment) and I did love his portrayal of Satan in The Prophecy.
Children of Men, I just can't find anything redeeming about it. I thought it had excellent potential - and just didn't live up to it. I dig post-apocalyptic fiction and always have and I guess I went in expecting more. A lot more. I can see how this movie would be profound to somebody who really wasn't familiar with the genre, but for a post-apocalyptic junkie, meh, it's been done and done better elsewhere. Here's the thing, I enjoy movies that make me think, and I don't need everything spelled out for me - but I do require that at least one of the characters be fleshed out, be likable even if he/she is a thoroughly unlikable cuss in general, be somebody I can relate to. To be truthful, Babylon AD was a similar concept, and a hell of a lot better movie. You're a story teller, Matt, I'd assume you know what I'm talking about. Of course, everybody connects to a story in a different way, I just couldn't connect to Children. Really never connected to the story, really was never made to feel that the mission was important or that the fate of the world hung in the balance. The character's actions made little sense to me.
Lost in Translation. Seriously, I've tried to watch this a couple of times now, and just can't. It's just so soul sucking. Dreary. I don't require my entertainment to be all explosions, alien drool, car chases, and boobs - but for God's sake a little action please. I get the same atmosphere in the Mental Health Clinic waiting room at my local VA, and frankly I don't need any more of that thank you
Compass: Truthfully, I don't even remember the polar bears. After all the hoopla about the religious aspects, I was expecting controversy, great speeches, condemnations, hell I don't know something anyway. It was a kid's movie with everything interesting leached out. But see, I feel the same about the Narnia movies. I read the books as a kid, thought they were entertaining enough, especially Voyage of the Dawn Trader, and didn't even know about the supposed Christian analogy until the hoopla over the movie. Saw the movie, I can see the analogy if I squint my eyes - but then that could be true of any movie if you squint enough - and left feeling mostly meh.
However, I will say this in all candor, Matt, when reading this post you should consider the source - I'm the kind of guy who loves The Thirteenth Warrior above damn near any other movie, evah. If my wife would put up with it, I'd watch it probably once a week. It HD. With the sound cranked up. God, I love that movie.
Only an Arab would bring a dog to war!
I am not a warrior!
Very soon, you will be...
Just so beautifully done.
Well Jim, you and my wife have the same taste in movies. We went to see War of the Worlds and I had to keep shushing her because she was giggling through all the "serious" parts. People kept looking at us funny. I agree the tripods were cool but Tom Cruise and Dakota Fanning were so annoying they made my teeth itch.ReplyDelete
My wife called it, "One of the funniest unintentional comedies of the year."
I also have to admit your "over there you stupid tree frogs!" almost had me spewing tea all over my monitor. Well done, sir.