Sunday, August 19, 2007

Reviews from the Boro (Volume 4)

It's been a month now since I got this segment running on the ole site here. I am hoping to keep the torch burning forever, so long as www.themovieshow.org continues to exist on the internets.

Anyway, looks like Yes! Weekly managed to break the conventions of Greensboro film criticism and catch an advanced screening of Superbad, which he declares, 'a teen sex comedy that's actually funny.' Baity obviously loved the film, but was surprised to see it get an R-rating:

"Since it's one of the most vulgar movies I've ever seen, it's hard to offer too many of Superbad's plot points without violating this column's PG-13 rating. Better to give the template and let your imagination wander, but be warned: What you imagine will likely be only a fraction as dirty as what ends up onscreen. The filmmakers must have caught the MPAA screeners in a particularly permissive mood, as I can't otherwise figure out how this film received an R rating. Seriously, it's that dirty.

"Maybe they were won over, like I was, by its underlying sweetness."


And maybe I am just a degenerate pervert, because I really didn't think that Superbad was that dirty at all. Sure the kids had potty-mouths, but no more so that the American Pie guys. Then again, I did run an image a few posts ago of two Decepticons making out, so maybe the movie really is dirty, and I am just too depraved to realize that.

It's always cool to find out what one genre writer thinks about another, so imagine my delight with this week's edition of The Rhino, where Orson Scott Card reveals that he is a fan of Neil Gaiman. Of course, this has to do with the fact that Card was reviewing last week's Stardust, and viewed it in some ways as an improvement over Gaiman's novel (to be fair, Card says the book isn't one of Gaiman's best). That's not to say that Card was blown away by Stardust, he merely found it to be an enjoyable experience.

Card said: "So when I look at the box office figures for the movie, I could not help but think that the numbers were not inappropriate. This was not a transformative, unforgettable fantasy like, say, The Thirteenth Tale or The Name of the Wind or Inda. It was "merely" a really good story that's a pleasure to read. But that's rare enough to find, isn't it?

"And the movie is not a must-see film. It's the kind of love story that will be a deep favorite with a relatively small portion of the movie-going public – but that audience will be fiercely loyal and will keep this movie alive forever on DVD. Nobody's going to lose any money from this film, even if it started slow at the box office."


There has been some discrepancy as to how much of a theatrical flop Stardust is. Box Office Mojo reported that the movie cost about $76 million to produce, while on Monday, IMDB's studio briefing said the movie ran way over-budget and cost almost $250 million. I am guessing that this later figure is an error, because if Stardust did cost $250 million to make, there must be an executive producer or two who wrote themselves a tremendous paycheck. Stardust was not even a $100 million film so far as cast and special effects were concerned. Hopefully IMDB will retract their bogus numbers if they are indeed misinformed.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home