Caption Contest - 9/25/12

In keeping with the sports theme from last week, we're bringing the pros in for this week's caption contest. If you haven't seen/heard by now, here's what happened last night in Seattle during Monday Night Football.

Crazy. So, without further delay, here's the picture for 9/25. As always, good luck and happy captioning!

Caption Contest - 9/18/12

We're back with the weekly caption contest and this time the picture involves a little home cookin'! As always, good luck and happy captioning!

Pictures courtesy of in-house contributor Adam.

10 Misplaced Movie Reviews

Siskel (left) & Ebert (right). Two of the most famous film critics of our time, but not even they escaped a spot on this list. 

One of my guilty pleasures as of late has been to pour through the critics’ review archives on Rotten Tomatoes. It’s very well preserved; just type in any movie you can think of and they’ll likely link you to a number of critics – some notable, some not – who reviewed the movie, including many reviews from the film’s original release. 

And as some other blogs and websites have pointed out, there is a seemingly endless supply of critics who screwed the pooch on some incredible films. Below are 10 of my favorite misfires, collected from various places around the web, and five I found on my own while browsing Rotten Tomatoes. Below each film you’ll find the TOMATOMETER, which is an average score of a film compiled from a group of 40 (or more) critics. A movie is “certified fresh” if it has a score above 70% and listed as “rotten” if below that threshold.

From the Net:

Empire Strikes Back (1980)

TOMATOMETER: 97%

Widely regarded as the best of the original Star Wars trilogy, famed New York Times film critic Vincent Canby didn’t agree, and io9 took note:

“Confession: When I went to see The Empire Strikes Back I found myself glancing at my watch. The Force is with us, indeed, and a lot of it is hot air. It's a measure of my mixed feelings about The Empire Strikes Back that I'm not at all sure that I understand the plot. The Empire Strikes Back is about as personal as a Christmas card from a bank.”

But Canby wasn’t done skewering Empire, continuing with:

“The Empire Strikes Back is not a truly terrible movie. It's a nice movie. It's not, by any means, as nice as "Star Wars." It's not as fresh and funny and surprising and witty, but it is nice and inoffensive and, in a way that no one associated with it need be ashamed of, it's also silly.”

His overall review, but primarily these two quotes, leaves me scratching my head in confusion. How does Canby rationalize that Empire, especially compared with the lighthearted nature of the first film, is a “silly” entry in the Star Wars series? If anything, as Roger Ebert noted, it’s the most mature in the franchise.

Shawshank Redemption (1994)

TOMATOMETER: 90%

Director Frank Darabont might consider Shawshank his magnum opus, but in 1994, Desson Howe of the Washington Post found it a rather perfunctory, rambling mess. TruTV took note of Howe’s peculiar review, in which he said:

“...the movie seems to last about half a life sentence...becomes incarcerated in its own labyrinthine sentimentality...And leave it to pandering, first-time director Frank Darabont to ensure no audience member leaves this film unsure of the ending. Heaven forbid a movie should end with a smidgen of mystery!"

Psycho (1960)

TOMATOMETER: 99%

In 1960, director Alfred Hitchcock was well-established as a mastermind of the horror genre, with a plethora of terrifying films to his name, including classics like Dial M For Murder (1954), Rear Window (1954), and Vertigo (1958). It’s a surprise, really, to read what Time Magazine had to say about the movie in its review, as noted by BuzzFeed: 

“…the experienced Hitchcock fan might reasonably expect the unreasonable… What is offered instead is merely gruesome. Little should be said of the plot…Director Hitchcock bears down too heavily in this one, and the delicate illusion of reality… becomes, instead, a spectacle of stomach-churning horror.”

I’m pretty sure that “stomach-churning horror” was exactly what Hitchcock was going for.

The Godfather, Part II (1974)

TOMATOMETER: 98%

Well look who it is again – Vincent Canby! Similar to how Empire was acknowledged as a great movie, both in its own time and in retrospect, Francis Ford Coppola’s sequel to his hit film, The Godfather (1971), was not well received (surprise!) by Mr. Canby. This one comes from BuzzFeed also, with Canby saying:

“The only remarkable thing about Francis Ford Coppola's The Godfather, Part II is the insistent manner in which it recalls how much better his original film was. Even if Part II were a lot more cohesive, revealing and exciting than it is, it probably would have run the risk of appearing to be the self-parody it now seems…Its insights are fairly lame at this point.”

If you’re interested in reading more of Canby’s reviews, which seemingly involve a theme of knocking great movies, you can read his criticisms of classics like Rocky, Jaws, The Return of the Jedi, Chinatown, The Natural, The Exorcist, and even A Christmas Story.

Ghostbusters (1984)

TOMATOMETER: 94%

Yes, even Ghostbusters got a bad review. How can a movie that gave us such iconic characters as the stay puft marshmallow man and a great song to boot, get a bad review? Well, as TruTV found, not everyone in New York found Bill Murray all that funny:

"Mr. Murray would be even more welcome if his talents were used in the service of something genuinely witty and coherent, rather than as an end in themselves."

That’s from film critic Janet Maslin, who also wrote for the New York Times. Which begs the question, why is everyone so uptight at the NYT?

Now, for my five, which I picked from the archives at Rotten Tomatoes. 

Chasing Amy (1997)

TOMATOMETER: 90%

If I were a film critic, two sure-fire things I'd consider in my review would be whether the movie is appropriate for its audience and how to keep its message in the proper perspective. Meaning, I’m not going to Rush Hour 2 expecting to see No Country For Old Men. It’s all about context, which is something that Common Sense Media seemed to completely whiff on when reviewing Kevin Smith’s classic about love, friendship, and heartbreak.

For some inexplicable reason, the reviewers at Common Sense Media really stuck it to Chasing Amy in the fact that it was nearly 10 years old when they reviewed it in 2005, saying that it’s a:

“Dated romantic comedy wrong for all kids. Although smart for its time, the movie has not aged particularly well, and subsequent films from other directors have dealt more intelligently with the often blurry boundaries of sexual identity. This film deals with adult themes that should definitely be taken into consideration before allowing kids to view it.”

Along with missing the glaring fact that the movie is rated R, or in other words, not approved for children under 17, why are they so concerned with ensuring that an adult drama is appropriate for children? Secondly, for a movie that was made in the mid-1990s, excluding the clothing, hairstyles, and technology that’s obviously dated, there's no expiration date on the human condition. 

Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)

TOMATOMETER: 94%

Continuing with the theme of examining a movie in its proper context, I really was caught off guard by the Northwest-Herald’s review of Raiders. From critic Jeffrey Westhoff:

“My big complaint: Take Indiana Jones out of the story, and nothing changes. The Nazis still find the Ark, still open it, still die.”

First off, as many pointed out in the comments, did Westhoff miss one of the biggest plot turns in the film? Because without Indiana Jones, they would’ve never found the Ark. And secondly, the movie isn’t about that story, but rather what happened when the Nazis finally got the Ark, but the adventure Jones has when searching for it. That’s the equivalent of me saying that in Saving Private Ryan, although Tom Hank's character led a surge against the Nazis in World War II, they still ultimately lost the war - that's not what the movie's about.

Die Hard (1988)

TOMATOMETER: 94%

This one hurts, because it comes from one the most beloved and respected film critics of our time, Roger Ebert. And despite my own admiration for Ebert, who I usually see eye-to-eye with on movies, he lost me with his review of the first Die Hard film:

“On a technical level, there's a lot to be said for Die Hard. It's when we get to some of the unnecessary adornments of the script that the movie shoots itself in the foot…the filmmakers introduce a gratuitous and unnecessary additional character: the deputy police chief who doubts that the guy on the other end of the radio is really a New York cop at all…Inappropriate and wrongheaded interruptions reveal the fragile nature of the plot and prevent it from working.”

Strangely, this was one of the rare times I agreed with his longtime partner, Gene Siskel, who gave the film a very positive review. Ironically, Ebert went on to give the next three installments in the series, Die Hard 2: Die Harder (1990), Die Hard: With aVengeance (1995), and Live Free Or Die Hard (2007), rousing reviews.

Back to the Future (1985)

TOMATOMETER: 97%

Because I’m equally baffled by both of the two negative reviews for BTTF on Rotten Tomatoes, I’ll include each of them here. The first comes from John Hartl of Film.com:

“So busy being clever that it trips over its own ingenuity.”

And the second comes from Asheville, N. C.’s Mountain Xpress film critic, Ken Hanke:

“Too cute, too clever, too damn smug.”

It’s noteworthy that both of these reviews, like nearly all of the negative reviews listed here, came long after the movie’s initial release, with Hartl’s review being published in 2000 and Hanke’s in 2002. I can understand less-than-excited reviews for BTTF Part 2 and Part 3, but these reviews make me wonder if they were even watching the same movie that most people grew up loving. 

Pulp Fiction (1994)

TOMATOMETER: 95%

It was near impossible to find a negative review of this movie from 1994, when it was originally released. But just like the trend that this article has shown, there’s been no shortage of bad reviews for Pulp Fiction in recent years. In sifting through the handful or so of bad reviews of this modern classic, one really stuck out – The New Republic’s Stanley Kauffman. He pretty much butchered the movie, but not for reasons necessarily attributed to the film itself:

“…However, what's most bothersome about Pulp Fiction is its success. This is not to be mean-spirited about Tarantino himself; may he harvest all the available millions. But the way that this picture has been so widely ravened up and drooled over verges on the disgusting. Pulp Fiction nourishes, abets, cultural slumming.”

This review comes off like less of a critical look at the story, plot, and acting of Pulp Fiction, and instead reads like some sort of misplaced grudge against director Quentin Tarantino and the film's resounding success. After all, it’s been noted as having a major influence on many films in the 1990s, and it received an Academy Award nomination for Best Picture (although ultimately losing to Forrest Gump). This review perfectly sums up my idea of the wrong way to review a movie – you don’t take into account outside influences and personal hang-ups – you review the movie based on its merits, which include its direction, acting, themes, and overall message – not its or the director’s popularity.

BONUS

Little Darlings (1980)

Astonishingly, there were no negative reviews of this film to be found. Not a one. Honest.

Caption Contest - 9/13/12

After a short delay, the caption contest is back! If you don't know the rules by now, than I'm terribly sorry. Hopefully someone will help you out in the comments section.

Good luck, and happy captioning!

Pictures courtesy of in-house contributor Adam.

JOKE OF THE DAY:

What happened to Brandon when he walked into a wall with a boner?


He broke his nose

Manly Issue # 4 - Who DAT... Just Another Fan.

With the recent passing of a television classic, Jersey Shore, I thought it only natural and poignant to make a comment on it’s fashion namesake… the “jersey” (that, and it was requested by fellow blogger, Adam).  Of course, the members of the Jersey Shore did not sport too many jerseys, but they had their moments.  So let’s pay tribute to and never break the "jersey rules".

There have always been three bases of thought when it comes to appropriate jersey-wearing (outside of being the athlete, of course):  As a fan at a sporting event; as a clothes-less sole doing laundry/chores; and as a hip, fashionable sports fan with a flare for the vintage.

But unfortunately, I am here to burst all three of those thinking bubbles.

Mass Confusion in the Arena – Whether at home or in the stadium/arena/field rooting on your favorite team, you are probably donning your favorite jersey of your favorite player. 

When wearing a jersey, this implies we are playing the sport.  A jersey is worn to: provide consistency between players and teams;  offer a certain amount of cover and grip to shield from elements (baseball) or lack of cover and extra room for movement and flexibility (basketball); and identify who you are.

As a fan wearing the jersey, we are doing none of these things.  We are wearing a replica of someone else’s jersey.  Sure we are fans and we appreciate what the athlete is doing, but there are much better ways to show our support than wearing an oversized look-alike.  Hell, people may even confuse us for the athlete (us and another thousand fans), and we do not want to take some of that shine away.  Essentially, we look like a little kid, swimming in fabric.  I don't think that's the message we need to send when watching our weekly game.  So stay away from the jersey, leave it to the athlete.

Throw it Down to Class it up – The jersey has gone the same fate as the sweatpants and slippers.  They were once considered only around-the-house items, never to be worn in public.  Slowly and without notice, these items began to drift into the supermarket, then into retail locations, then (and ever so subtly) into every social scene (I mean, EVERY). 

We buy these items as comfortable wear around the home, whether doing chores or laundry.  We rationalize the purchase with one question, “Why get all dolled up when I'm just lying around the house?”  That I understand.  But then we got too comfortable with these items.  We started working them into our normal wardrobes, crossing the very thick line of human decency.  Better yet, we didn't just cross; we hopped, skipped, galloped, and tromped our way.  We have abused the comforts of the jersey, sweatpant, and slipper.  We must work these items out of your normal routine, and show the world that we care about how we look again.

I know we have all seen that hapless sole, strolling around the neighborhood Kroger in his Lebron jersey.  While in the midst of mentally ridiculing and humiliating the man, we remember that just last week, we were wearing the same thing.  Don't become a statistic, stick to a t-shirt.

Vintage-Retro-Throwback-Hipster-…Adding a word to make it cool again – I will give credit where credit is due on the vintage jersey.  Some men and women have done a pretty good job making the jersey work.  They’ve created a fitted, well made, structured shirt with all the same detail, fabric, and coloring as a conventional jersey.  These jerseys teeter on the edge of being fashion-forward, but yet, they just don't quite make it.

It’s still a jersey.  No matter how you twist it, design it, pull it, accessorize it.  It’s a jersey, meant to be worn by athletes, not regular people walking their dog or grocery shopping.  But you’re saying, “It’s a throwback, with a cool design.”  I hear ya.  It is a cool design.  And it is a throwback.  All correct.  (With that kind of logic, we'd be wearing all kinds of crazy things:  Full body armor remiscent of King Arthur, kilts, Uggs) 

But it’s sleeveless, displays a sport you don’t play, pays respect to an athlete you don’t know, and more often than not, is of a team you’ve never heard of. 

Buy a t-shirt with a cool graphic of the team you like.  Wear the colors of your favorite team.  Be an individual when it comes to representing and supporting your team of choice, no need to wear a replica.

And as a bonus, I've compiled a list of some of the best (and by best, I mean worst) examples of jersey-wearing the Internet has to offer:



A lot of things wrong with this... and unfortunately, I wouldn't say the jerseys are the worst of it.

 

We've all seen this person.  We all hate this person.  Don't be this person.

Nothing wrong with this.  If you see something wrong, you don't love America.  And you can get out.



Remember, it's ALWAYS a good idea to wear the long sleeve T when sporting that jersey.  Walk out of the house and remind yourself that there's just too much arm in this situation, add a little something extra. 



This must have been a fancy ball game.  She wore the jersey as a dress to class up the joint a bit.  I've got to say, she took a leap on this one.  I can only imagine that everyone was as impressed as I am.



Can't be mad at her... Can't be mad.



Magic?  My mistake, it's UrSHER.  Everybody say "Yeah, Yeah"... Better yet, say "No, NO"



I wonder if this would be considered the beginnings of a cult.  Don't drink the Koolaid, little one... What the Hell, go for it, that grape drink is solid.



Junior really let himself go... (Too soon?)



PSA:  This could happen to YOU!  Help prevent yourself from looking like a fool.
(unless that's what they were going for, and if so, good for them)

Until next time, be a man, dress and act like one. 

Don't Let The Review Fool You...

Well, you knew this was coming. It was only a matter of time.

But there’s not much else that can really be said about the greatest teen sex-comedy of 1980 that hasn’t already all been said. So why not let the professionals handle it?

Likely the most poignant review of the film came from the great Roger Ebert, who summed up the film's best moment quite well:

“Little Darlings…belongs to the young actress Kristy McNichol. She plays a 15-year-old who has just experienced sex for the first time. It was not, of course, quite like she expected it to be. She sits quietly in a corner of a deserted summer cottage, her thoughts a million miles away from her teen-age boyfriend. At last she says, "I feel so lonely."

The feelings implied in that single line of dialog are completely true to the scene and to the character. She is lonely because she has suddenly and rather unhappily passed on from the ranks of pubescent girls. She is now an individual, possessed of the sometimes uncomfortable freedom to make decisions.”

 

I couldn’t agree more, Roger.

But let’s stay away from the heavier side of Little Darlings, and focus on why it’s really awesome: Kristy McNichol. 

Ironically, though, one of the bigger stars to come out of this movie was Cynthia Nixon (pictured right), who had a minor role in the film but has since gone on to find immense fame as Miranda on Sex and the City (coincidentally, a show that featured O’Neal as a rival of the main character, Carrie Bradshaw, during the sixth season). I would’ve chosen Matt Dillon, who played McNichol’s love interest in the film, but his star has been fading as of late. 

So if you’re looking for an awesome movie about summer camp at the dawn of the 1980s, then Little Darlings is the flick for you. It’s the perfect way to end an epic night of playing NBA 2k11’s My Crew mode. 

So, throw some waffles in the toaster, get some provolone, grab a glass of milk, and sit back and enjoy Kristy's breakout film role: Little Darlings.