Recent Features


• Home
• Reviews
• Lists
• Features
• UFR
• Lost
• About Us

I don’t like Reese’s Peanut Butter cups. Really don’t like them.

The thing is, I’m an über-chocoholic… can’t get enough of it. If I was forced to live out the rest of my life with access to only one flavor, I’d choose chocolate, hands down and twice on Sunday. On top of that, I LOVE peanut butter – I’ll sit there on the couch in my underwear and spoon it out of the jar for a snack.

But when mixed together? I don’t know how, but I am left terribly disappointed, and even hurt that someone would tease me by taking two of my favorite things and making me think something wonderful would happen as a result of their marriage.

When placed in the pantheon of great candies, they don’t come close to standing up.

I’m not buyin’ it…

The slogan for the Cups used to be “two great tastes that go great together.” In the commercials, you’d see two people crash into each other and Actor A’s chocolate bar would end up in Actor B’s peanut butter jar. Extraction would (supposedly) result in candy goodness of sublime proportions.

I tell you all of this because 2008 was the Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups of movie years for me. You had a lot of movies that seemed to have quality ingredients… fantastic ingredients in some cases… ingredients that when combined held the promise of something truly savory.

But instead, when mashed together, you got crap time and time again. The whole year turned out to be one stale, disappointing candy bar… and that’s just when judged on its own merit. When stacked up against the greats (1994, the Kit Kat of movie years… or 1987, the classic old-school Ring Pop of movie years… or even the vastly underrated 2007, the Krackel bar of movie years), 2008 pales that much more.

(Editor’s note: Even if I’m beating this analogy to death, be glad that I’m going with candy references. When I started my first draft of this article, I compared 1994 to a “medium rare, juicy ribeye steak” and 2008 to a “loogie sandwich you’re force-fed by Afghani terrorists.” So you have that going for you… which is nice.)

Let’s dissect a few examples to show you what I mean.

Zombie Strippers

You heard me.

If there are entertainment equivalents of chocolate and peanut butter for me, it’s zombie movies and Jenna Marie Massoli (though you may know her better by her nom de coitus: Jenna Jameson).

The similarities are all there: Like chocolate, if I was forced to live out the rest of my life with access to only one genre of movie, it would be zombie films, hands down and twice on Sunday. And like PB, I LOVE Jenna – I’ll sit there on the couch in my underwear and… well, you get the idea.

[Editor’s note: Before you crook your eyebrow my way, I’m not talking 101-plastic-surgeries-eating disorder-100-pounds-in-her-rack-and-twenty-everywhere-else-haggard-looking Jenna… I’m talking Classic Jenna… the Jenna circa late 1990s…curvy Jenna… the Jenna of classics such as Dirty Bob’s Xcellent Adventures 35 and Philmore Butts Taking Care of Business… that Jenna.]

[Editor’s note, part II: Oh, and if you need a point of reference and don’t feel comfortable with the idea that the Netflix folks will know you watch adult fare, then check out Howard Stern’s movie, Private Parts. She’s the chick that gets naked in the studio. Top notch.]

Yes, I know this movie is a schlockfest and what did I expect. And I understand that the movie was supposed to be bad in an effort to drum up a Rocky Horror-ish cult appeal. But a movie can’t just be bad. It has to be so bad it’s good – unintentional comedy aplenty or give you a guilty pleasure sensation or something… But this movie failed on all levels. It was just flat-out bad.

I argue that on the surface, Zombie Strippers could have been a sensational bad movie. After all, it had two great things that taste great together, right? (i.e., zombies + strippers... all that was missing for me was a courtroom drama and it would’ve been gold, Jerry, gold!). This movie could’ve been Showgirls meets The Return of the Living Dead (the slogan for which was ‘They're Back From The Grave and Ready To Party!’ in case you’re interested). But what did we get? Great title, shitty movie.

For those who think I jest, think again... I so desperately want to remake this movie, I'm tempted to call the few "connected" people I know and call in whatever favors I might have accrued over the years and see if I can get Jenna’s phone number.

[Editor’s note: And by “connected,” I mean my friends who lent out their house to some people who, unbeknownst to my friends, used their backyard to film a gay porn movie while they were away. They must still keep in touch with those folks, right? And those folks obviously must know Jenna, right?]

[Right? Hello? Bueller?]

It's not the bad acting, the campiness, or even Robert Englund (although I do hate that fucking guy). On the contrary, these are all the necessary ingredients of the bad good movie pie. It's just that (SPOILER ALERT!) the zombie strippers further decay over time... and yet draw more unsuspecting potential victims into the club than ever before. Who would go see this strip show? Even when I was a me-so-horny young man, I couldn’t go to more “cost-efficient” gentlemen’s establishments because the women were such skanks. I’m supposed to believe guys would go see chicks with gaping chest wounds and half their face bitten off? Stop.

As a connoisseur of all things naked, I have SERIOUS issues with this "plot point." Shouldn't the strippers have gotten better looking as they become undead and thus needed to feed to prevent further decay? As much as I hate zombie movies being considered an allegory for any of society’s ills (more to come on that in a future article), wouldn’t it have been a semi-interesting twist to have the she-zombies’ vanity be the thing that drives their bloodthirsty behavior?

I know this breaks a major zombie movie tradition (the rotting flesh and all), but I can't argue this point enough. The star stripper should be some really heinous chick, who gets bitten and THEN becomes Jenna Jameson. I could go on and on, but then I'd just give away my revised screenplay. So 'nuff said.

The Dark Knight

Other than Zombie Strippers, nowhere was the RPBCT (Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup Theory) more evident than in The Dark Knight. Should this have been a good movie? Hells yeah. It had the tasty elements: the cast (Bale, Ledger, Freeman, Eckhart, Oldman, et al) … the momentum and solid dark tone set by its predecessor, Batman Begins (which was a kickass movie)… and the quality director (Christopher Nolan)…

So what happened when they packaged it up and sold it at the concession stand? Dreck. First of all, Knight was simultaneously over-acted and under-acted – not an easy feat to achieve. If I heard Batman growl that constipated growl one more goddamn time, then I was going to hold the city hostage. Seriously, Lou Ferrigno would’ve been easier to understand. And speaking of holding the city hostage, was there a more annoying plotline this entire year than Morgan Freeman vehemently protesting the use of the Massive Cell Phone Sonar Tracking Plan in order to track down the Joker while all of Gotham City was about to go down in flames? Sweet fancy moses, people… are we at the point where every movie have to throw its subtle-as-a-sledgehammer political agenda into the mix? The last time I checked, Batman was a CARTOON SUPERHERO… you really want to use this as an opportunity to lecture me on the perils of denying the public its personal privacy even times of crisis? Go dip yourselves in the magic waters of Obama Lake and leave the moviemaking to people who just want to entertain.

And now, just to annoy my friend Tony Wolf and others who will forever champion the man’s work: there’s no conceivable way people talk about Heath Ledger’s performance as Oscar-worthy if he hadn’t pill-popped himself to death. I’ll grant you he was good as the Joker – probably even the best thing about the movie. But uh-uh… I don’t want to hear it. Hamming it up beyond belief makes you a solid comic book villain, not an acting legend.

Frost/Nixon

Should Frost/Nixon have been a good movie? Yes. It had double-fudge-choclately-rich material to work from. It had Frank Langella, who burned up the stage version of Frost/Nixon so badly, they had to hose the audience down every night. And it had Richard M. Nixon at its center, our country’s resident Villain President before GW usurped the title.

Was it a good movie? No, because the Slugworth of directors had his hand in this piece of eye candy making: Ron Effing Howard. There’s just something about RoHo that sucks you in and inflates your expectations, despite the fact that you’ve been disappointed EVERY SINGLE TIME before. I guess it’s because he gets his hands on great material. Or maybe he puts something in the water? Seriously, any theories on this are most welcome.

Has any film of his ever been as good as it should’ve been? Are most of them even re-watchable?

I submit his resume as Exhibit A:

• Frost/Nixon (2008)
• The Da Vinci Code (2006)
• Cinderella Man (2005)
• The Missing (2003/I)
• A Beautiful Mind (2001)
• Dr. Seuss' How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000)
• Edtv (1999)
• Ransom (1996)
• Apollo 13 (1995)
• The Paper (1994)
• Far and Away (1992)
• Backdraft (1991)
• Parenthood (1989)
• Willow (1988)
• Gung Ho (1986)
• Cocoon (1985)
• Splash (1984)
• Night Shift (1982)

I’m not saying these are all terrible movies… I’m saying that many had potential to be and never got there. Hence, he’s the most overrated director in the history of film… that’s all.

In the hands of other directors – i.e., ones with a full sack – there might be a few cinematic giants in the aforementioned oeuvre. But not when Howard gets his paws on them. Whether he’s cow-towing to the religious right and watering down quality material (e.g., Da Vinci Code), stealing from past great films (e.g., Cinderella Man, met the Rocky series… Rocky series, meet Cinderella Man), miscasting actors (e.g., Matthew McConaghey in EdTV, Tom Cruise in Far & Away, Billy Baldwin in Backdraft, and so on and so on) or just delivering scene after scene with no punch or energy or emotional resonance (e.g., well, all of them, really), he’s a movie serial killer.

And don’t think it doesn’t pain me that he’s tabbed himself to direct the eventual Arrested Development movie. Even thinking about it, I’m getting more and more depressed. I even may have to stop reading the Bob Loblaw Law Blog now in protest.

As for Frost/Nixon itself, it’s always hard to make a movie where you can’t improve on watching footage of the real thing (e.g., Muhammad Ali, Andy Kaufman, etc.). It’s almost impossible to pull off… you need to deliver something the public didn’t know without reading the first three paragraphs of Wikipedia and watching clips of interviews on PBS. You need to deliver something artful and emotionally resonant that you feel you’re standing right next to that person while they’re going through their ordeal. You need to show it from an angle that turns the whole thing upside down and (even if you knew all the details before) makes you think differently about something you’d already closed the book on long ago. But Howard can’t doesn’t do anyt of these things – can’t, really, because he lacks the chops to get it done. Instead, he decides to settle on the painfully straightforward approach, which adds nothing to the story. He believes that the content will sell itself, and that’s a cardinal sin of movie making.

Shame on you, Opie.

Tropic Thunder

Should Tropic Thunder have been good? Pretty much, yes. It had the continuing comeback of everyone’s favorite drug-addled former pariah (sit down, Mickey Rourke… I’m talking about Robert Downey Jr.)… in blackface no less (!)… the always entertaining (though admittedly so-over-the-top-that-he-continually-borders-on-annoying-yet-never-manages-to-go-quite-that-far) Jack Black… and Tom Cruise poking fun at himself in a bald cap and fat suit (and doesn’t everyone want to see Tom’s squeaky-clean, Operating Thetan Level 7 image tarnished just a little? Of course, I’d rather he played the Ned Beatty role in a remake of Deliverance, but this seemed at least somewhat intriguing).

Was it good? No. No no no.

If I had to sum it up in one sentence, it would be this: it was not funny. What else do you need?

The movie tried to be so irreverent, I think people got scared into saying they loved it. After all, if you say you don’t like a movie that features a guy in blackface AND pokes fun of retarded people with reckless abandon, doesn’t that make you unhip and not in on the supposed joke? Look at some of these reviews:

It's raunchy, outspoken -- and also a smart and agile dissection of art, fame, and the chutzpah of big-budget productions. (Entertainment Weekly)

An imperfect work of genius, a satire of Hollywood excess and vanity that dares to tread territory laden with minefields. (Salon.com)

What the hell were these people watching?

To me, it’s hard to call a film ‘smart’ when it’s satirizing a movie that was made 30 years ago. Yeah, yeah… I know. The film is supposed to be about “Hollywood excess,” but it’s using Apocalypse Now (and the Rambo and Schwarzenegger movies of the 80s) to make its point! How is a film ‘smart’ when it’s this badly dated?? (Note: by the way, Stiller has been trying to get this thing made since 1987, so that tells you a lot about its timeliness.)

I don’t know. To me, satire actually has to be clever – and clever this ain’t. But that’s the thing with the movies of people like Ben Stiller and Will Ferrell and Mike Meyers… they don’t need to be clever to be appreciated as modern masterpieces. They simply cater to lowest common denominator, bring in the morons and let the word of mouth spread. Suddenly, we have comedy genius. C’mon… “You pooped in the refrigerator” is classic comedy? Seriously?

If you like that stuff… well, I’m sorry to say this, since we’re trying to build a readership and all but… you people are fucked in the head.

Anyway, where was I?

Burn After Reading

Should Burn After Reading have been a good movie? Yes. It had the Coens coming off the better-every-time-you-see-it No Country for Old Men… it had the strong cast of Clooney, Pitt (say what you want about him… he’s the perfect foil for Coen-brand comedy), McDormand, Malkovich, etc.

Was it a good movie? Not by a long shot.

Burn After Reading was like this one girl I slept with in college: it just laid there. You kept waiting for more to happen, and you tried to give it your full interest and attention. You hoped there would be some dark, twisted thing at the end that caught you by surprise. But nothing.

I got the sense that the Coens (or the girl… or both) felt I should’ve been thrilled to be along for the ride – since, after all, they’re the Coens and I’m me. But nothing happened – just sort of a dull sleepwalk that left me annoyed, bored and wanting to get the hell out of there and forget it all happened in the first place.

Maybe it was me – maybe I didn’t look at the movie or the girl from the right angles, didn’t appreciate it…maybe it was all over my head. Because others seemed to appreciate it. But stack that girl…I mean movie… up against any of the quality films of last year, and it wouldn’t crack my top twenty in 2007.

I felt like the Coens were saying “Hey, it’s us… the Coens! Our humor is so Sahara-dry at times, so subtle that you might miss it… so subtle, in fact, that we didn’t even put it in the script to see if you’d notice where the humor was supposed to be. But you still have to love it because we’re the Coens and that should be enough.”

Excuse me, I’m going to go watch Raising Arizona now to wash the taste of this crap out of my brain.

The Curious Care of Benjamin Button

Should The Curious Case… have been a good movie? Um, I think so. I mean, it had F. Scott Fitzgerald’s original (albeit much stretched and rewritten) premise, and he’s like a literary genius or something, isn’t he? It had the quirky movie element. It had David Fincher – who when you get right down to it, does not make bad movies (save your Alien 3 retorts… that wasn’t his fault).

But was it a good movie? Not really. I kept hearing how it was on every critic’s Top Ten list… how people were downright bawling in the theatres… how it was “a visionary piece… a soul-filling vision” (according to the Wall Street Journal).

But when you get right down to it, it was a perfect Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup movie – seemed like it should’ve been so much better, but really just leaves you unsatisfied and wishing you had eaten something else.

For more on Benji, you can check out my full review here.

I feel so… unsatisfied.

So there you have it. A lot of potential, but nothing but confectionary heartbreak (and burn) for me.

But don’t just take my word for it… check out Dan Sergott’s Best of 2008.

Of course, maybe you think differently… maybe you love Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups and the movies of 2008 repeatedly rang your entertainment bell.

Consider yourself lucky.

As for me, I’ve got a sweet tooth that needs a serious fix.

Whaddya got for me, 2009?

**********

Oh, and just for reference, here’s my quick rundown of what sucked and what didn’t suck quite as much in 2008…

Disclaimer: Admittedly, I only saw 31 movies in 2007, so this list is far from comprehensive. But that’s an average of just about two and a half a month… and that’s not half bad. Now that I’m a “professional” critic, I’m going to get into the theatres more and more. But for now, I can only comment on what I saw. So here goes.