2013 – The Year I Stopped Going To The Movies
March 15, 2013
So, it’s St. Patrick’s day weekend this weekend, which means we’re half-way through the third month of the year and I’ve seen 1… ONE… UNO! movie in the theaters.
This has got to be a record low.
As I usually do, I covered in February what movies were coming out in March. I said I wanted to see 4 of them. Not really wanted, let me say that I would see them. I’m open to seeing them as opposed to the rest. I’m not open to seeing “G.I. Joe Retaliation”. You would think I might be, but I’m not. I don’t want to support the making of those movies in anyway. Those obviously time-wasting terrible movies. They’re terrible. Unless someone paid me to see it. At this point, I’d sell my soul for money.
The four movies that I said I was open to seeing were Steve Carell’s “Burt Wonderstone”, Chan Wook Park’s “Stoker”, slutty former Disney princesses’ “Spring Breakers”, and Ryan Gosling/Bradley Cooper’s “The Place Beyond the Pines”.
Right now, I don’t really want to see the first 3 in theaters. I’d rather watch “Stoker” at home, I’d watch “Burt Wonderstone” possibly some afternoon when I’m hungover on the couch and it’s for free on TBS, and “Spring Breakers” I’m willing to watch by myself for obvious and not so obvious reasons.
I’d still see “The Place Beyond the Pines” in theaters at the moment.
What decides that moment? Reviews.
Right now, “Burt Wonderstone” isn’t getting good reviews. I wasn’t expecting it to get wonderful reviews or anything, but the reviews are saying it isn’t that funny and the commercials on TV don’t make it seem that funny. So, if 1 + 1 = 2 then it’s probably not that funny. Everyone could be wrong, but taking that gamble is the type of high stakes poker that I’m willing to play. The premise for the movies seems to be the best part, but it loses itself after that and on top of that I have a huge problem with the movie at the core of the movie.
WHY ISN’T STEVE CARELL GAY IN THE MOVIE?!!!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!!?
Is he? It doesn’t seem like he is.
It seems like he is sexing all these ladies and so forth in the movie.
Isn’t he supposed to be a ripoff of Siegfried & Roy? I’ve never personally seen Siegfried or Roy kiss a man, but I think deep down we either all believe the two of them are gay or hope/wish/pray they are. So, why is Carell banging chicks in this movie? Dudes and chicks? Ok.
My guess? The movie is a paint-by-numbers movie that really doesn’t take risks and sad to say that the people who made this movie probably think that actually having Siegfried & Roy ripoffs be gay is a risk. And that’s pathetic.
It’s not a “spoiler” because it’s fucking grade-A obvious – Olivia Wilde and Steve Carell will end up together in this movie. Why on FUCKING EARTH would I want to see that? WHY?! GIVE ME ONE FUCKING REASON WHY I WOULD WANT TO SPEND MY LIFE WATCHING STEVE CARELL HOOK UP WITH OLIVIA WILDE? I don’t get it anymore. I don’t get why people still want to see movies in that regard.
About the only comedian that I can think of that can still pull that type of stuff off is Will Ferrell. Reason being? THE REST OF THE MOVIE IS BAT SHIT CRAZY. And at the same time, Will has played a couple gay characters. Beyond that, Will has played a truly sexually deviant character and just awful racist character in Ashley Schaeffer on “Eastbound and Down”. ANYWAY… I mean some people might say that a movie like “Casa de Mi Padre” is a paint-by-numbers kind of movie where the hot chick falls for Will in the movie, but they’re fucking wrong because the movie is in fucking SPANISH! He made a movie in subtitles and made it a Spanish Soap Opera and so forth and why am I even still typing about this…
I read the reviews for “Stoker” and they’re so-so. It seemed like the least interesting plot that Chan Wook Park had ever dealt with, but I’m willing to see it because it’s him making it. And there was one review in particular that actually got me somewhat excited to see the movie and then I was explained to that I’m an idiot and now I kind of just want to watch it on Netflix.
Do you know what that means? I didn’t. Or let’s just say, I thought it meant literally what it’s words are saying – gazing at navels. I thought that when the reviewer was saying that Mia did a lot of “navel-gazing” that she in fact was gazing at people’s navels.
I wanted to see a movie where a girl was fixated with people’s belly-buttons!
What’s so fucking wrong about that? I thought that was kind of interesting. I was like, “yeah, belly-buttons can be sexy. Perfect example, the movie poster for ‘American Beauty’ is a shot of girl’s tummy with her navel right in the middle and that red rose. So, yeah, that works.” I was almost more interested in seeing the movie than I was previously. I’ve got nothing against the 3 actors in the movie, but at the same time none of them make me want to see the movie. So, now, they’re going to have a subplot of belly buttons – whatever, I can buy into that innovative thinking.
Turns out, I’m a fucking idiot. Navel-gazing is useless or excessive self-contemplation. That’s navel-gazing. An activity which pretty much sums up how I spend about a fifth of time on this planet and sums up at least half of the internet. The other half is porn. And there’s a percentage or two dedicated to Harlem Shake videos.
Now, I don’t want to see it. Or I mean I don’t want to see “Stoker” in the theaters. It’s one thing to waste your time in your own home. It’s another to waste your time outside of your home. You know?
Lastly, “Spring Breakers”.
No matter what I’m going to feel like a pervert watching this movie. I’m fine with that, but let’s at least feel like a pervert in private per usual. In many ways, that’s kind of what the point of the movie might be. It’s a movie highlighting frat culture and rap music video culture and really just a movie made to take Disney looking girls and show off the darker underbelly of what really goes on with hot young girls. I’ve read some reviews and some people buy the exploitation as an artistic idea and some simply think it is exploitation.
You can say that about art in general. Is a nude picture art because we’re showing the beauty of a nude or is it ‘pornographic’ because you just want to show a picture of someone nude for sexual reasons? And so on and so on. In general, whether the movie is or isn’t high-minded in its low-mindedness – it doesn’t appear like the movie is all that good. Even the most positive reviews for the movie are really only saying they like the premise of the movie for the sake of it and not the delivery of the movie that is more or less devoid of storyline, dialogue, plot, and memorable anything.
I still kind of want to see it to see how far Harmony Korine goes. It sounds like a concept for a short movie that’s been repeated over and over again to make it 90 minutes. And that’s from the positive reviews too. Some people are trying to make it sound like it’s so meta-physical blah blah blah and others are saying it is trash and others are saying they’re caught in the middle. So, I’m curious does a movie about girls in bikinis shooting guns have any redeeming qualities or not?
Also, for the people who did like this movie… how could they not like “Sucker Punch”? Which is a 1/10th as exploitative with more plot and story and so forth.
I guess I’m waiting on Bradley Cooper and Ryan Gosling.
I hope you have a great weekend.