Random Factoid #381

13 08 2010

There are influential movies, and then there are influential movies.

Sound like a profound observation?  It’s really not.  I just think it’s a fancier and more mysterious way of saying that there are two types of influences movies can have on us.

The more deep, lasting influences come from movies I dub “lifestyle influential.”  These movies change the way we think and the way we see the world.  These movies can be as profound as “Requiem for a Dream,” the movie that makes you never want to do drugs, or as hard-hitting as “Schindler’s List” and “Hotel Rwanda.”  On the other hand, I also place into this category movies that have a long-lasting impact on the way you do things.  So I place “Julie & Julia” here because it started me on the whole blogging journey.

Then there are the movies likely only to inspire a spontaneous change; I dub these “behavioral influential.”  The effect of seeing one of these movies is a sudden impulse to act like a character or do something they did.  “Eat Pray Love,” which I saw on Wednesday, can now officially fall into this category.  As Julia Roberts’ Liz Gilbert munches on some delicious Italian food, our mouth waters thanks to some lavish camerawork fondly known as “food porn.”  So when my family went out for dinner yesterday, I insisted on Italian food only because of seeing the movie.  I had a delicious seafood pasta that totally hit the spot.

What movies have influenced your behavior recently?





F.I.L.M. of the Week (August 13, 2010)

13 08 2010

Much like Christopher Nolan, whose brains have been the recipient of much praise this summer, Charlie Kaufman knows how to write some intelligent movies.  His third film, “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind,” was a wildly engaging mystery and won him an Oscar for Best Original Screenplay.  I think one thing Kaufman has over Nolan is an ability to keep us spellbound while we are perplexed, not scratching our heads.

But before he was Academy Award winner Charlie Kaufman, he wrote a movie called “Adaptation,” which may just be the best movie about writing I’ve ever seen.  It’s been pushed down the calendar to run in the “F.I.L.M. of the Week” column all summer, but that doesn’t mean it is worse than any of the movies I’ve featured for the past three months.  This is easily the brainiest, most complex movie of the bunch.  And don’t think that it isn’t funny because it’s brainy; it’s brilliantly hilarious.

The movie, directed by Spike Jonze, tells the tale of Charlie Kaufman (played here by Nicolas Cage) as he struggles with writers block after “Being John Malkovich.”  His task is to adapt “The Orchid Thief,” a non-fictional book by Susan Orlean (Meryl Streep) about orchid poachers in Florida.  There’s just always some element he can’t get quite right, and it causes him anguish so painful we can feel it on the other side of the screen.

Add into the mix an equally neurotic twin brother Donald (also played by Cage) who’s obsessed with writing a script for the next blockbuster.  He has moved into Charlie’s home to mooch off him while also constantly asking advice on how to improve his screenplay.  Charlie constantly belittles his brother, refusing to acknowledge that he could actually have any talent.  Yet after seeing a screenwriting guru (Brian Cox), Charlie discovers that he needs his brother’s help to finish “The Orchid Thief.”  What results is the wildly self-referential “Adaptation,” a feast for the writer in all of us.

All three marquee names received Academy Award nominations for their performances – and deservedly so.   Chris Cooper, the so-called orchid thief of Orlean’s book, is a powerful force as a conman with uncanny intelligence.  Meryl Streep lets loose like seldom before (save perhaps her baked moment in “It’s Complicated), and it’s such fun to watch her do something a little different.  Cage doesn’t play two characters so much as he masters them, making them similar yet distinct.  He makes all the idiosyncrasies of the characters read well and milks them for some good humor.  Cage is so good, in fact, that you’ll surely scratch your head wondering why he’s strayed so far from these roles.





My “Interview with a LAMBpire”

13 08 2010

I got a cool feature over at the LAMB this week thanks to winning May’s “Cast the LAMB” for “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?” Andrew from “Encore Entertainment” is bringing back an old feature from the LAMB archives called “Interview with a LAMBpire.”  All great puns and wordplay aside, it’s a great idea and nice reward for the win.

I’m going to make you go over to the LAMB and check out the interview, but here’s an excerpt from the interview:

Andrew: Annette Bening was one of the actors you chose for your winning LAMB Casting Entry. Is there any type of role you’d like to Annette tackle that she hasn’t so far?

Marshall: Really raunchy comedy – The Kids Are All Right doesn’t count because she in essence played Carolyn Burnham from American Beauty. It should be something tasteful (I’m not telling her to star in the latest spoof from two of the six writers of Scary Movie), but something that is going to shock us. We should still think that she’s giving a great performance; however, I’d also love us to think, “THAT is the woman from American Beauty? Wow.”

I talk about Marion Cotillard, Jason Reitman, school, and all sorts of other things.  So head on over by clicking the picture below!





REVIEW: Eat Pray Love

12 08 2010

The big tagline advertised for “Eat Pray Love” is “let yourself go.”  Indeed, as millions of readers across America have discovered, Elizabeth Gilbert (played here by Julia Roberts, who looks every bit as good as she did 20 years ago in “Pretty Woman”) did just that after she couldn’t find fulfillment in her everyday life.  Her publisher allows her to spend a year traveling to Italy, India, and Bali as she attempts to discover how to forgive her past while finding happiness for the future.

Ryan Murphy’s film adaptation of Gilbert’s memoir, however, doesn’t do itself the favor of following the author’s lead.  Rather than letting itself go, it keeps all its emotions bundled up inside.  There are some definite moments of profound revelation that are wonderful to watch, but the movie comes off as feeling rather cold.

We get to smile on occasion; there is a laugh every once in a while, but we sit through the majority of 130 minutes with a stoic stone-faced look.  Even as Gilbert eats delicious food and falls in love, the movie still keeps a melancholy and vaguely plaintive tone, which really puts a damper on how much we are able to enjoy ourselves.  That’s not to say the movie is off-putting because Gilbert spent a great deal of her year in solemn reflection.  Murphy just doesn’t indulge us often to share in her moments of bliss.

People who have read the book tell me that Elizabeth Gilbert has a wonderful sense of humor and a compellingly entertaining voice.  It’s a near impossible cinematic feat to lift both of those off the page and onto the screen, and the script, written by Murphy and Jennifer Salt, doesn’t seem to do her writing talents justice.

Read the rest of this entry »





Random Factoid #380

12 08 2010

Well, folks, it looks like I have just attended my last free movie screening of the summer.

These screenings are a luxury, and due to their mid-week timing, it’s certainly hard to make them work during the school year.  I have amassed quite a stash of promotional material this summer, some just from luck and others from skill.  Here’s a giant list of some of the prizes I’ve won:

  • A “Splice”-themed Drenvolution T-shirt
  • A “Toy Story 3” poster and Space Shooter Target Game (see Random Factoid #323)
  • A giant “Salt” poster and two smaller ones
  • A “Step Up 3D” T-shirt with a boombox on it
  • A “Dinner for Schmucks” bottle-opener along with other various prizes from the radio station sponsoring the screening
  • A whistle with “The Other Guys” written on the side, which I won for answering another Will Ferrell trivia question
  • A T-shirt for “The Other Guys,” which was too small so I promptly gave it away
  • 3 “Eat Pray Love” themed bookmarks
  • A giant “Eat Pray Love” poster and a smaller one
  • A women’s T-shirt with “Eat” written in pasta on the front, which I gave to my mother
  • A copy of “Eat Pray Love,” the book

It’s been a good summer, folks.  Maybe the quality hasn’t been there in spades, but I’ve been rolling in the merch..andise.





Random Factoid #379

11 08 2010

In my first post, I talked a little bit about obsesssion:

I love movies, but I don’t want everyone who reads this to become as big of a movie lover as I do.  Then I will have manufactured a society of obsessive movie fanatics, and as fun as it would be to have people that I could really relate to, I don’t know if I would wish my level of infatuation with movies on anyone else.

I’m always interested in seeing how other people are obsessed with movies too.  I can’t find it now, but I remember reading about a woman who saw the movie “Walk the Line” over 70 times.  Now that’s dedication!  And thanks to a link on Cinematical today, I found other people who aren’t afraid to show their obsession – at a wedding, no less!

The author of the post seems to deplore their “Up”-themed wedding, but I totally dig it!  Not even kidding, I would actually have a wedding like this because it’s simple, tasteful, and not to mention absolutely adorable.  It’s not over-the-top obsessed, but they aren’t afraid to show their influence.  Compared to some of those awful weddings alluded to in “27 Dresses,” this is not bad by any stretch of the imagination.

Here’s Lynette, the bride, on the wedding:

We wanted the wedding to be unique, personal, intimate and beautiful which it turned out to be all of those things! We wanted every aspect to represent “us” from the handmade save the dates and invitations to the picnic blankets and baskets we used in lieu of chairs at the ceremony. We had one of our best friends perform the ceremony which meant so much to us. It was so special saying our own self written vows and “crossing our hearts” to love each other rather than saying “I do”.

According to The Wedding Chicks, “Lynnette and Jame’s wedding was loosely based on our favorite Pixar movie ‘Up!’ Some fun items that they included was picnic baskets, grape soda, a painted mailbox and a few balloons!”  I surely hope that they find the same kind of love that Carl and Ellie had for each other.  Check out some other great wedding photos below!





Marshall & Julie: Day 14

10 08 2010

Sorry I’ve been a little delinquent in posting this – I know you’ve all been biting your nails in anticipation!

This may be the last big post in “The Marshall & Julie Project,” but it’s certainly not the end.  Whenever I feel the time is right, I’m going to publish a post reflecting on what the project has meant for me.  Don’t hold your breath for that post; I’ll know when the time is right to revisit and reflect.

But for the time being, enjoy the post.

Day 14: “Simplicity Itself” / “Creation Itself”

Read the rest of this entry »





Random Factoid #378

10 08 2010

Have you seen the trailer for “The Switch?”  Looks kind of ehh, right?  Typical late summer fare that will have to pass for entertainment (at least for those of us not fortunate enough to have an independent theater).  Just so we are all on the same page for the rest of the post, I’ll embed the trailer below.

The poster to the left doesn’t really make you want to see it much either.  The gasp on Jennifer Aniston’s face and the pretentious-looking sniffle that Jason Bateman is doing sure doesn’t tell you much about the movie.  But look closer…

Did you notice the pedigree of the movie?  It’s from the people who brought us “Juno” and “Little Miss Sunshine.”  Does that add to your anticipation at all?  It shouldn’t, given the murky relationship between “The Switch” and the two Best Picture nominees.  I probably wouldn’t have thought twice about the reference given that Jason Bateman was in “Juno,” but The Los Angeles Times did some investigating:

The studio’s marketing wizards are plugging “The Switch” as being the movie “From the people who brought you ‘Juno’ and ‘Little Miss Sunshine.’ ” But who are these “people”? The film’s directors, Josh Gordon and Will Speck, had nothing to do with either of those films. Nor did the film’s screenwriter, Allan Loeb. The film’s producers, Ron Yerxa and Albert Berger, were producers of “Little Miss Sunshine” but had no involvement at all with “Juno.”

It turns out that those “people” are the people at Mandate Pictures, the production company that was involved with both “Juno” and “Little Miss Sunshine,” as well as such films as “Whip It,” “Drag Me to Hell” and the “Harold and Kumar” series. I’m sure all the folks at Mandate are really nice people, but it feels like a big stretch to use such a tenuous connection to lure us into the theater to see a film whose writers and filmmakers had nothing to do with “Juno” or “Little Miss Sunshine.”

Do you feel cheated at all?  If you were really going to spend $10 to see this movie because you could mention it in the same sentence with “Little Miss Sunshine,” you ought to up your cinema smarts.  I don’t ever use poster connections to tell me what movies to see, largely because I will have figured out what movies my favorite filmmakers have chosen to involve themselves in.  I especially could care less for romantic comedies and mindless action movies, both of which are genres whose success is driven mainly be stars, not directors.  Sorry, David Frankel, I saw “Marley & Me” because I love dogs and Owen Wilson, NOT because you directed “The Devil Wears Prada.”  Meryl Streep is the reason that movie is good.

Fun little closing note: there is one movie that could have used “from the man who brought you ‘Little Miss Sunshine'” on its poster.  That movie?  “Toy Story 3.”  Clearly it didn’t need to tout that name to make any money.





REVIEW: The Book of Eli

10 08 2010

If you stick with “The Book of Eli” all the way to the end, you’ll notice that the movie had two directors, The Hughes Brothers. My theory now is that the two brothers decided to split up the movie, one taking the first hour and the other taking the second. It’s the only way I can explain its complete bipolarity. Whichever brother directed the second half should disown his brother and then make movies on his own because he is capable of making an exciting, captivating ride.

On the other hand, his brother undermines its effectiveness makes a laughably dreary bomb.  It’s almost made with the cocky assumption that we’ve never seen any sort of apocalypse or post-apocalyptic world.  Apparently he was under a rock for all of 2009 when moviegoers saw “Knowing,” “Zombieland,” “2012,” and “The Road.”  That makes five in the span of just one year.  He leads us almost silently through this land of ruin for the movie’s first twelve minutes, a cheap rip-off of Paul Thomas Anderson’s technique from “There Will Be Blood.”  This world just looks like a desert in Arizona with a gray tint.  Aside from being incredibly tedious and boring, it’s entirely unnecessary.  Feel free to fast-forward right on through when you watch.

And then he finally gives Academy Award-winner Denzel Washington the opportunity to do something other than wander silently through the destruction.  Unfortunately, it’s just to chop off people’s hands and do some ridiculous martial-arts inspired fight sequences.  Washington’s Eli looks like a middle-aged version of Will Smith’s Hancock from two summers ago, a mess who looks like he’s fighting off the hangover of a lifetime.  So to see Eli pulling out all these moves only serves to make us laugh.  He then proceeds to find his way into a po-dunk town, mumble to everyone, anger the authority (Gary Oldman) to the point where he flees, and picks up the very attractive Solara (Mila Kunis) to accompany him on the road.

The second half almost redeems the first, seemingly a gift to all those who can bear the dismal farce.  It takes a page out of “Fahrenheit 451” – the last pages, in fact – and makes an exciting race to the West Coast for control of a powerful book that Eli is in possession of.  If you don’t already know, I’ll give you three guesses as to what book could be so valuable or powerful.  Denzel Washington begins to act, although only at a fraction of his full capabilities.  Then again, that’s still enough to draw us back in after the first half leaves us high and dry.

In the end, I was glad I didn’t allow myself to become totally disengaged.  There are some nice surprises and shocking twists at the end, two things I totally wasn’t expecting.  And in addition to the turnaround the movie made, I was left pretty satisfied.  The movie also has some interesting things to say about faith, a thematic connection that really worked.  It would have worked more, though, had it been present in the first half.  B /





Random Factoid #377

9 08 2010

Is it really going to come down to estrogen vs. testosterone at the theater this weekend?  It’s “The Expendables” vs. “Eat Pray Love” for the box office title (with “Scott Pilgrim vs. The World” looking to appeal to both sides), but some people seem to think it’s a battle of the sexes.  Just look at this over the top fan-made “The Expendables” trailer.

Over at the Los Angeles Times, Steven Zeitchik sizes up the weekend duel:

… a rare experiment will take place next weekend when the testosterone-heavy exploits of Sylvester Stallone’s “The Expendables” goes up against the journey of female discovery that is Julia Roberts’ “Eat Pray Love.”  It’s as close to a laboratory environment as you can get, since the two films’ subject matter and intended audience couldn’t sit on further ends of the gender spectrum. “The Expendables” contains few romantic interludes, while “Eat Pray Love” doesn’t feature many mercenary gunfights. Julia Roberts is interested in discovering a foreign country. Sylvester Stallone wants to blow one up.

Other factors, meanwhile, are controlled for. Both are mid-budget studio films coming out in the dog days of August. Both were made with the goal of pleasing crowds more than critics. Both pictures are driven by one huge-name star accompanied by a host of smaller ones. And the two are going head-to-head with very little competition. (“Inception” should have finally lost some steam; the more modest “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World” is the only other wide opener.) The film that wins the weekend should provide one gender with bragging rights and settle the box-office question (a point made amusingly in the below fan trailer for “The Expendables,” which implores men to turn out for the film next weekend to take back the mantle for all of masculinity).

… But we’ve heard for so long that movies can succeed by aiming at one group or another, and certainly can succeed if they lock down one gender. But according to the pitched battle between “The Expendables” and “Eat Pray Love,” that isn’t entirely true. One gender does hold an edge when it comes to determining a film’s fate. Women get more excited about movies, and they’re more willing to see movies that don’t specifically target them. Men, for their part, are more lukewarm and less flexible.

He also talks a little bit about how gender affect moviegoing:

There are plenty of theories about which gender is drawn more to the movies, and how they make their decisions about going to them. For a number of years it was all about the young males, then, after “Twilight” and “Sex and The City,” all about groups of women, we were told.

According to the MPAA’s research, when it comes to overall attendance, the genders are actually about even. In 2009, the organization found that the moviegoing audience in this country was 52% female and 48% male, pretty much reflective of the breakdown among the U.S. population as a whole, which is 51% female and 49% male. (Women did purchase tickets at a higher rate (55%-45%), but that’s a purse-strings statistic more than a filmgoing one. )

But it may not be that simple. With nearly every other form of entertainment (sports, books, you name it) one gender takes the lead in determining which products are successes and which are consigned to failure. Movies should, all things being equal, follow the same pattern.

It’s almost impossible to get a real-world snapshot of the battle of the sexes at the box office — most movies appeal at least a little bit to both genders — and there are usually other movies crowding theaters in a given weekend anyway.

The article made me think about how my gender affects my moviegoing.  Yes, I am a guy, and I’d much rather see an action movie than a romantic comedy – although I’m much more flexible since I am a “movie person.”  I’ll never see any of the “Twilight” movies or a “Sex and the City” movie on my own volition.

But do I feel defensive about my gender?  Unlike the fake trailer suggests, I don’t think that the box office “belongs” to men.  Julia Roberts is hardly a threat to manliness.  As much as I hate to say it, there is a place for movies like “Twilight.”  Everyone needs a movie.  If you have 30 screens at a theater, there’s no reason why you shouldn’t have something to appeal to any person who stops by the theater.  That means showing indies and foreign films, whatever it takes.

So in this weekend’s box office clash, I’m on team “Scott Pilgrim,” mostly because Sylvester Stallone needs to stop trying to be cool.  Heck, I’m still on team “Inception.”  Wouldn’t it be dreamy if it returned to the top?





“Inception” Poll Results

9 08 2010

It was almost unanimous.  So, so close.

Four weeks ago, when I featured “Inception” in an Oscar Moment, I left a simple poll at the bottom.  The question: “Inception for Best Picture?”

With 20 votes, a tremendous turnout for this site, I got a better read on people’s opinions that ever.  Thanks to all the voters!

95% of you think that “Inception” will be nominated for Best Picture.  That’s a giant portion.  I sure hope you’re on to something…

And then there was the one Debbie Downer who had to swoop in at the last minute and vote no.  To you, unknown voter, I’m rooting for you to be dead wrong.

So take that, backlash!  Onward to Oscar gold, “Inception” lovers!  (Someone come up with a sweet name for us, please!)





Marshall & Julie: Day 13

9 08 2010

And now I welcome you to the penultimate day of “The Marshall & Julie Project.”  Are there any twist waiting below the cut?  Am I going to pull a Christopher Nolan on you?

No, sorry if that got your hopes up at all.  Not happening.

Day 13: “Only in America” / “Only in the Blogosphere”

Read the rest of this entry »





SAVE YOURSELF from “Ali”

8 08 2010

And you thought I had forgotten about this series.

I’m back again with another movie in the “Save Yourself!” series, which is designed to steer you clear of movies that will serve no purpose other than to waste your time.  I see plenty of movies, and better me than you, right?  I don’t want you to make the same mistakes I do.

This pick might shock you a little bit because it certainly shocks me.  Will Smith is the man who can do no wrong; he basically walks on water at the box office.  And director Michael Mann almost always delivers – I’ll forgive “Public Enemies” because “The Insider” and “Collateral” were both great.  And when you throw in a cast that includes Jon Voight, Jamie Foxx, and Jeffrey Wright, that’s another good sign.  Heck, they even got LeVar Burton, who is known to my generation as the guy from “Reading Rainbow,” to play MLK!

Don’t let the signs fool you.  “Ali” is a bore from beginning to end.  Rather than float like a butterfly, the movie drags like a bag of bricks.  And instead of stinging like a bee, the movie lands with so little impact that you could mistake it for having no ambitions at all.

But surely you have your doubts.  How can it be boring when it has Will Smith?  And in an Oscar-nominated performance, no less!  It’s simple: there’s too much Will Smith in the movie and not enough Muhammad Ali.  It’s as if he found the pride of the famous boxer buried deep inside of him and then decided to play only that emotion.

And don’t even get me started on Jon Voight, whose Academy Award nomination for this role is an absolute travesty.  He appears in the movie for literally no more than five minutes, and when he does, there’s no emotion.  There is nothing that moves you, no moment where you step back and say, “Wow, this is a great performance.”  From what I can tell, it’s a very good impersonation of Howard Cossell.  But if he can get that close to Oscar gold for just that, so can any decent celebrity impersonator on the streets of Vegas.

Honestly, I wonder if Michael Mann actually directed this.  He’s made longer movies than this, yet he has always managed to keep them moving at a brisk clip.  “Ali” is like a exercise in hubris, with ridiculously long drawn-out sequences in which very little happens.  In these ten minute stretches, we see more of a nightclub singer than we do of Muhammad Ali, which is who we watched this movie to see.  Mann, with the help of a good editor, could have cut at least 45 minutes from this bloated biopic, although I’m not sure if I would even want to see the movie then.  I can watch Will Smith be himself in plenty of other entertaining movies; I don’t need to see him pretend to be someone he’s not, all the while still being himself.





Random Factoid #376

8 08 2010

Yesterday I talked about what makes me happy, but today you get what makes me mad.  I saw “Inception” again yesterday – that makes three, for those of you keeping score at home.

I happened to catch wind of an article this week from The New York Magazine (some of you might remember David Edelstein’s scathing review that was the first among the backlashing critics) that bashed Ellen Page’s character in “Inception.” Here’s Emma Rosenblum talking about what she calls the “asexual chic.”

Poor Ellen Page. While most everyone else in “Inception” looks ripped out of a fashion-magazine spread, she has to traipse around in Christopher Nolan’s version of graduate-student chic — ill-fitting corduroys, ratty jackets, and scuffed, oddly pointy motorcycle boots. When Page first shows up as a brilliant architecture student, dressed in baggy pants and, strangely, a neckerchief, she looks not only childish, but of a different movie altogether than Leonardo DiCaprio, who slinks through “Inception” in GQ-worthy custom three-piece suits.

… According to our very informal survey of grad students (er, our friends), neckerchiefs are not currently a staple of the PhD crowd, and yet she dons one in every single scene. She looks like a cross between a boy scout and the Swedish Chef. Perhaps this is just another Nolan subconscious trick — Page’s character is stuck dreaming about her youth spent as a boy sailor? Regardless, there are better ways to signify that Page is smart and not the female character whom DiCaprio wants to sleep with than sticking her in unattractive, earth-tone duds. Like, say, giving her a pair of glasses.

While I respect differing opinions, I have to say that baseless arguments like these make me mad.  She ignorantly reinforces the very gender stereotypes that she appears to deplore in the final sentence.  By saying that she’s asexual unless she dresses well, isn’t that saying that if she spiffed up, she would be sexual and thus an object of lust for Cobb?  Not to mention that in the process, she also implies that anyone with glasses is doomed to never have a guy look at her.

Page’s Ariadne is not supposed to fit in with Cobb’s team.  She’s new to the art of shared dreaming, and she’s added to the dream team that enters Fischer’s mind at the last minute.  Excuse her if in the real world she hasn’t had the time to buff up her wardrobe.  She stands out among them as a novice because of her actions; the clothes just complement what we observe about her.  If she dressed too nicely, that might read as her having a sense of confidence which isn’t present.

And she’s a college student, for goodness sake!  How many elegantly dressed college students could you round up on a campus nowadays?  It would send up a bigger red flag if she was dressed really nicely.  The “very informal survey” may not have found some of her accessories commonplace, but far less common would be your designer outfits and formalwear.

Since Rosenblum brought up the point, yes, her clothes aren’t meant to make her look like an object of lust to Cobb.  Yet she misses the more important point: Ariadne isn’t supposed to be an object of lust to US, the audience.  If we are fawning over how good Ellen Page looks, it would undoubtedly distract us from the movie’s labyrinthian plot.  The costume designer knows best how to use clothing to send a message to us, and they sent the right one with Ariadne.  If Rosenblum can’t handle that, there are plenty of Hollywood movies with models acting that should be “beautiful” enough for her.





REVIEW: The Final Destination

8 08 2010

It’s not easy to make death laughable, but “The Final Destination” does it with ease.  Never has death been so fun or bizarrely hilarious.  The movie doesn’t deliver on horror or thrills, largely because we know the end result: everyone is going to die, and the fact that the set-ups are so ridiculous doesn’t help to build any suspense.

The movie is another glorious entry into the “so bad it’s good” collection, all because it can successfully make entertainment out of the morbid.  I’m not sure if they intended it to be so comedic, but it’s not like these people are dying of heart attacks or cancer.  They die from being sucked into the bottom of a pool and being nailed by a rock ejected from a lawnmower. These are bloody, gruesome deaths being displayed in front of our eyes for amusement, which is actually kind of sick.  It’s able to bring out the sadist in all of us, a fairly impressive feat.

The deaths keep coming and coming for 75 minutes, which is probably what you want if you decided to watch “The Final Destination.”  You might be better off watching one of the first three entries in the series, which apparently have a little more originality on top of the predictable plot.  But if you’re looking for shameless, unabashed joy in watching people die and nothing else, the plotless fourth installment is the best bet.  C /