Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media

Laughs: Down To Earth & Monkeybone 57

Posted by CmdrTaco from the -silly-movies-for-some-yuks- dept.
Chris Rock's Down To Earth is amusing, especially during this week or two of slim movie pickings. Rock goes for racial vs. romantic comedy here, and it's interesting to see that whites are now the ones often getting unpleasantly stereotyped in movies with racial themes. Our bonus feature -- Monkeybone -- inspired by the comic Dark Town and starring Brendan Fraser, is a bizarre, inventive, and sometimes hilarious mess. Spoilage warning: plots are discussed, but not endings. As always, add your own reviews. (Read more)

Chris Rock is a funny man, and watching him is almost always a pleasure, even in a movie like Down To Earth," which is (despite Rock's presence) essentially a misfire.

Hollywood so loves this movie's basic idea -- a good-natured dummy dies, but gets another chance at life in an incongruous new body -- that this is at least the third shot at the story.

The first time out, in 1941, it was called Here Comes Mr. Jordan, starring Robert Montgomery and Evelyn Keyes. Next came Warren Beatty's 1978 remake Heaven Can Wait. Like it's predecessors, this version is about redemption, the fantasy of a second chance in life. Heaven Can Wait was a lot more charming.

The twist, of course, is that Rock inserts his hipper, black-er humor into every facet of the film, aiming for a sharper, much more contemporary story. The movie veers back and forth, sometimes a racial comedy, sometimes a romantic one, ending up being neither.

Rock plays Lance Burton, a likeable young comic chased off the stage of Harlem's Apollo Theater so often that some regulars reach for throat spray when he's announced. His nickname is Boo-ey. There's no doubt that Rock is drawing from his own personal, sometimes bitter experiences struggling to make it as a comic. Rock has complained that he was the token African-American on Saturday Night Live for years, and he did hard time in New York's brutally competitive comedy clubs honing his stuff before he finally made it.

Rock's usual biting riffs about blacks and whites provide most of the laughs in this movie. In the opening scene, a snooty New York apartment doorman asks him to use the messenger entrance. Rock launches into a funny routine about why the doorman assumes he's a messenger; couldn't he possibly just be visiting a rich white friend to have some cocoa? Once he completely cows the flustered doorman, getting him to apologize, he admits that he is, in fact, a messenger.

A staple of Rock's humor is that he seems genuinely befuddled by the odd quirks of white people, especially the way they view African-Americans. But if he always comes through as a decent and funny guy, Rock's not yet an effective actor. He's not strong or talented enough to carry the non-comic parts of a movie by himself.

This one gets dumb fast. Mistakenly summoned to heaven by angels who have screwed up and taken him before his time, he's offered a new chance at life soon after dying metaphorically at the Apollo. But he has to take his chances on one of the next available bodies, and winds up a balding, middle-aged white billionnaire named Wellington, who lives in a striking hi-tech penthouse apartment, and who is in great danger of being murdered by his horny wife and private secretary.

Though Lance always sees himself (thin, young, black) in the mirror, everybody else now sees him as Wellington, his worst nightmare. And perhaps Rock's as well -- nothing could be less, hip, less funny.

Hilarious possibilities lurk in the idea of Lance in this badly-dressed old fart's body, but the device too often feels mildly creepy rather than amusing. We see a few scattered, disorienting shots of the white Wellington, but they seem more of a quirky editing mistake than a story line. Wellington is continuously pissing off the brothers by bursting into gangsta rap -- at one point he's getting off on Snoop Doggy Dogg's Gin and Juice, then shouting out DMX's Rough Riders, which gets him knocked on his ass. Not just a racial thing -- people of any color would want to punch somebody so cheerfully oblivious to the horror show he's living.

A dumb sub-plot involves a cliche-spouting Brooklyn activist challenging Wellington to provide greater access to poor people in a hospital he's just purchased. Lance falls in love with this woman, who first views Wellington as the callous, greedy white mogul he is, then sees something in else in his eyes -- Lance -- that permits her to look past his ungainly body and repulsive reputation.

If Save The Last Dance was able to present racial differences in an interesting but saccharine way, this sub-plot is more tiresome, battering home the notion that whites are clueless, culturally bereft, devoid of any humor, compassion or style. In a different racial or cultural context, the movie would be offensive, since this portrayal of whites in black comedies is becoming stereotypical.

Chazz Palmintieri does a nice turn as God's head man in Heaven, Mr. King; his assistant is the very funny Eugene Levy (the well-meaning dad in American Pie. In Down To Earth heaven is a high-class Vegas club, complete with bouncers, a guest list, and hallowed memories of Sinatra.

Chris Rock is funny no matter what the script, and his presence makes Down To Earth amusing in spite of itself. In February, the paucity of movie pickings makes Down To Earth a mildly entertaining option. But only mildly.

Monkeybone is an easier movie to see than describe. You have to pity poor Brendan Fraser, who plays the tortured cartoonist Stu Miley, and who also has to portray a horny orange monkey who has taken over his own body and is after his girl friend (Bridget Fonda). This movie has some of the funniest sight gags in a long time -- you will actually laugh out loud -- especially towards the end.

But it's a hybrid movie, part romantic comedy, part animated movie, dumb teen flic, and at least half of it is a quite eye-opening journey into Freudian notions of neuroses, nightmares and angst. Whoopi Goldberg is great playing Death, her head exploding in rage from time to time, to be quickly replaced by spares in her closet.

Stu is an unhappy man plagued by nightmares who finds some measure of happiness and peace after he meets and falls in love with Dr. Julie McElroy (Fonda doesn't have a lot to do in this movie, other than look troubled, and for good reason). Stu gets into a car crash, ends up in a coma, and finds his body kidnapped by Monkeybone, the obnoxious and sexually frustrated simian cartoon character he created from his awful dreams and who been busy plotting with the Forces of Darkness. Monkeybone wants his own body, and, at least for awhile, gets that of his creator, a nice Frankenstein-ish riff.

Some of the animation in the dream/nightmare sequences is terrific, sometimes even haunting, but the movie hops all over the place in almost free-form, sometimes bewildering, sometimes highly imaginative style. At its lowest, we're subject to platoons of orange monkeys farting. At it's best, it's an inventive story about people struggling with their nasty identity crises. In the year of Saving Silverman, it looks pretty funny.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Laughs: Down To Earth & Monkeybone More

Laughs: Down To Earth & Monkeybone

Comments Filter:
  • I see a lot of complaints about stories not being "news for nerds" or "stuff that matters" and I'd have to say that this story is the worst one in quite a while... We've got reviews of some silly movies, for which we can find reviews anywhere, and which do not pertain to technology, nerds, or and really just don't matter.
  • Yeah, I've seen the film and I'd agree with you. There did seem to be a lot cut, but when that was done I'm not entirely sure -- it might never have been filmed.
    And I just saw that Thawte banner ad... Maybe not that appropriate for this site.
  • Thanks for pointing that out, I never noticed it before. I always assumed I was doing the same as everyone else, but evidently not. Oh, and thanks for the comments on my writing, it's glad to see I'm appreciated by at least one person.
  • No? That's odd. The old joke has always been that you could spot Canadian TV or Movies because of the microphones always falling into view. That, and actors bumping into them.

    You can also tell when they're playing baseball in Toronto when they have to dogsled the relief pitcher to the mound...

  • Huh? (Score:1)

    by cje ( 33931 )
    What do you mean it was good despite the violence and sex?! :-)
  • Frankly, I've always thought Chris Rock was racist and offensive, determined to portray the world as a contest of black versus white, and unable to see that some people just aren't interested in skin color. The idea of going to one of his films appeals to me about as much as the idea of going to a KKK film about a nice young white man forced to live out his life surrounded by horrible stereotypes of people of other colors.

    I sincerely wish people would not go to his films or watch his shows so he could experience the career end he so richly deserves.

  • It's sounds like I picked one of the better movies to see this weekend - 3000 Miles to Graceland. Despite the gratuatous violence and sex it was quite good with great filming and a decent storyline. Besides I got to see Ice T impersonating Elvis.
  • Don't forget 3000 Miles to Vegas.
    Saw that on sat night.

    Not a good date movie.
    Not a really good movie at all.
    But something that you can enjoy if you can put your brain in neutral for a few hours. I don't feel ripped off for seeing it, maybe just slightly annoyed.

  • I saw Monkeybone last night and I'm still digesting it. The action sequence towards the end of the movie was some of the funniest bits of movie making in years. Some of the movie, however kind of dragged on and was just inappropiate. The theatre I was in was full of kids who didn't get the sex jokes (That seduction thing with the bed was the funniest thing I've seen in a long time!) and I think they were kinda disturbed by the Downtown stuff - heck, it weirded me out.
    After I got back from the theatre, I wanted to see what other people thought so I checked out some other reviews.
    Canoe [canoe.ca] and The Toronto Star [thestar.com] hated it. Salon [salon.com] loved it, calling it a classic. The Globe and Mail [theglobeandmail.com] was somewhere inbetween calling saying: Kids won't know what to make of it, adults will think it's for kids, and critics will eagerly dump on the thing. Of all the reviews I think I agree the most with this one.
    I'm still undecided witch my opinion. It's much more than a simple gross out movie and there's some interesting imagry and throughts in the movie (exploring the subconscious) and there were some excellent lines ("Choke my monkey" hehe - still gets me). I really think it's going to take another viewing to get a real handle on this movie.
    The Salon review linked above also has a bit on the studios reaction to the movie.
  • Why do you guys hate JonKatz? When he actually takes time to write up something remotely intelligent and idea inspiring you say he owns kiddie porn and is a "moron". I guess you guys are too dumb to read more than a three line pun by eitehr Michael or CmdrTaco. Personally I think some of the other authors are worse, you guys who insult Jonkatz for his intelligence are completely looking over the idea of Slashdot. I always that this site required intelligence, from reading your dumbasses, biased ideas I can see that it isn't. Mod me down, I don't care.
  • This is a problem with the projector, not a problem with the film. 35 mm film is exposed on more surface than is visible within the frame lines on the camera, or intended to be shown to audiences. It is the responsibility of the projectionist to fit the correct frame attachment to the projector to block out the unintended, unused, edges of the film.

    If this was not done in your case, it is the fault of the theater, and you should ask them for a refund.

    --
    gnfnrf
  • Slashdot is not paradise my son..., au contraire. Did you notice that /. lets users choose the content of their log-in page?
  • had to be, without a doubt, the maid. Her sweet employee routine that immediately switches to bitch-style when out of earshot was perfect.
  • Maybe there's some truth to that, but you'd have to agree the same is true for, say, the American Lung Society, which would be out of business if everybody REALLY stopped smoking.

    I don't think they're a for-profit organization, unlike this "race industry." Then again, the MPAA is a NPO too, I'm pretty sure.

    --

  • Far too often people blame poor production values, when the projectionist just failed to frame the film to the proper aspect ratio. Many people don't realize that 35mm film stock is actually exposed at closer to 4:3 than 16:9, and then matted to fit the widescreen format. In fact, sometimes (but not usually) the 4:3 side of a DVD actually shows more surface area than the widescreen side, when it's done by removing the matte. If I recall correctly, this is the case with the DVD (or was it the laserdisc--not sure) of *Looking for Mr. Goodbar*, where the 4:3 gives some unintentional full frontal nudity of Diane Keaton where the original presentation in widescreen gives only a topless view at that point.

    This is also done, sometimes with very detrimental effect, on TV presentations of movies. I recall seeing *Manhunter* (the first in the series of films with Hannibal Lector) several years back on broadcast TV, with the matte removed to give a full frame presentation. The microphone was in damn near every scene, and it was pissing me off mightily because much of the film was set against white walls where the black mike was a grating eyesore.

    This brings up a sore spot with me--the whole 4:3 versus 16:9 format war going on now.It's insane and insipid. Originally, most silver screen era films were done in 4:3 or near there, which is why you don't see them presented in widescreen often--they weren't filmed that way. Widescreen formats only became the norm after television became big, so that Hollywood competed by giving us bigger and wider screens. That's when aspect ratios of around 16:9 took hold. Funny thing is, to get the 16:9 image, you have to matte the normal 4:3 aspect ratio of 35mm film stock, so you end up with fewer lines of resolution and less screen area than you could have with the original 4:3. You also end up with many directors matting their view in camera, so that microphones and other detritus encroach into the frame when unmatted, whereas in the old days of the 4:3 standard directors obviously made sure there were no stage equipment anywhere in the frame. Some directors compose their films to this day with the 4:3 unmatted aspect ratio in mind, which is why people who complain that Kubrick's films aren't available in widescreen are just being foolish since it's mostly unmatted full frame so that you get to see *more* of the image than you got in the theater, not less.

    So it's ironic that the new television formats are 16:9 and people think that that's good. Televisions are finally abandoning the classic 4:3 format of most things, to adopt the 16:9 format movies switched to fifty years ago just to try to outdo televisions. The worst part is that our useful range of focus is at about a 4:3 aspect, which explains why both films and TVs were originally cast in that aspect ratio; 16:9 sacrifices part of our useful vertical range of focus to add to areas outside our useful horizontal range of focus. To understand what I'm trying to say in case it sounds odd, the next time you go to a theater walk towards the screen and look at the center of it, until you get to the point at which the screen takes up all of the range of your focus from about your hairline to your chin. You'll notice that the screen stretches out horizontally far past the points on either side which are clearly in focus when staring at the center of the screen. The result is that most people will have to sit further back away from a screen than necessary in order to have these edges of the screen easily in focus, which renders a lot of unused blank space above and below the screen which could have been and would have been taken up by the picture in the classic 4:3 aspect ratio. In contrast, the 4:3 ratio leaves all the blank unused space to your unfocused peripheral vision, filling up all the most useful space. Actually, you don't even need to go to the theater--do a related version of this test now, with your 4:3 monitor, and then visualize how you'd have to sit further away to get the same clearly focused screen space if you had a 16:9 aspect ratio.

    So, 16:9 gives us the illusion of added screen real estate, while taking away from the most useful in-focus area to add to the less useful peripheries. Sure, 16:9 has its purported advantages, like in displaying 2 pages of text side by side in the case of monitors. Think about it, though: this has to do with size more than aspect ratio. For instance, my 20 inch 4:3 monitor is big enough to display pages of text side by side, ironically the 4:3 ratio means that I get to see more of the pages from top to bottom than I would with a 16:9 monitor. "More" or "less" is just a semantics game with aspet ratios; you need to measure usable screen area for any meaningful and realistic comparison, not "my screen is wider" or "my creen is taller." But it's not an accident that both classic Hollywood films and TV shows chose a 4:3 ratio--it corresponds to a real and measurable useful range of focus for the human eye, not counting unfocusable peripherals.

  • When I quickly read this I thought what the hell is goin on with slashdot anymore. "Monkeybone" looked like the years dumbest movie. And as for ANY Chris Rock paraphanalia, especially this movie, just shut your big fuckin mouth.

  • Last summer when there were screenings of the film and most of the CG was still 640x480 or near blue screen except for the important scenes, I saw it and I think it was 90 to 110 minutes. I don't remember exactly but back then the falling pipe from the commercials was what knocked him into a coma. I have not and will not see the 75 minute version until it's released on DVD with all the original footage available. I'm annoyed that it has a PG-13 rating now, which means some of the funniest gags, which unfortunately I can't really remember anymore, had to have been cut.

  • If the microphone dangling lasted the whole movie I'm pretty sure it was intentional. Keeping the viewer wondering what's going on there (and not using it in the script) at least led to talking about the movie here....

    Who killed signal11?
  • Apologise for the Greatest Living Englishman?


    Never!
  • I assume that all the people who actually noticed the sarcasm in this post decided not to comment, since most of the posters here seem to have got entirely the wrong end of the stick!
  • I must be going mad! This review is awful!



    The real YonKatz has UUID 320045
  • Assuming you haven't seen Down to Earth, your statements are a bit overblown. While yes, purely racist jokes (whatever race they are directed towards) shouldn't be consistently implemented and applauded, this movie pokes fun at stereotypes.

    Would you laugh or shake your head if you saw an elderly white man singing along with DMX in a deli? Probably.

    Would an elderly white man be accepted or booed in a black comedy club? I'll let you figure it out.

    That's what this movie lampoons the most, the fish-out-of-water contrast of an urban black man in upper crust society, or an elderly white man in an urban setting. It's not poking fun at individual racist differences. It's contrasting cultural differences in a satiric manner.

    Nobody leaves this movie thinking all rich white guys wear goofy clothes. Sometimes a movie is just a movie--people are smart, give them credit.

  • But does this excuse using words like N***er and H***ky in an 'entertainment' programme ?

    I've yet to meet anyone who was offended by the use of the word 'Honky."* It is simply too goofy a word to be an effective insult.

    * This does not mean those people don't exist. These days, being offended has become a major industry.
    ___

  • As trolls go, you're my favorite. Now then, get back under your bridge.
  • Will the jokes offend the moderators of slashdot?
  • 3 cheers! He is by far one of the funniest comedians I have seen. Try taking a look at his San Francisco show if you are american, as some of his other stuff might be 'too british' in reference to follow for some.
  • If you can think of any more relevant movies to review, please send me an email. If you really don't like this you can always disable the movies category from your preferences.

  • Re:Isn't this a bit racist? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    It is time for the Hollywood glitterati and urban liberal elite to realise that not everyone in America understands irony, and time for them to be responsible with this knowledge.

    Now that'sfunny.

  • .. that was suppose to be in reply to 'Eddie Izzard is God', just to correct the context.
  • Please explain to me, Mr Troll, why I am the most abused slashdot writer. I've never understood why you all want to kill me.

  • Re:Isn't this a bit racist? (Score:3)

    by xigxag ( 167441 ) on Sunday February 25, 2001 @08:13AM (#404632)
    I am greatly grieved by the direction our huge race relations industry is taking. It seems to be saying now that films portraying the racist discrimination of white people by black people are perfectly good, because they act as positive discrimination and right old wrongs.

    I don't think this film was officially approved by the "race relations industry." It was put out by Hollywood, for which the only color that matters is green. Furthermore, a film like this stereotypes blacks as much as it does whites. Sure, it's saying that white people are corny, and goofy...and, well, rich...Hmm, that doesn't sound so bad to me. But it also cordons black people into a ghetto of jive-talking, dance-feverish, thuglike behavior, which may may seem "cool" onscreen, but in RL that sort of conduct translates to "can't keep a job." And the fact that it is shown as an attractive lifestyle choice only makes it more pernicious.

    Anyway, the real culprit here is lazy screenwriting. It's easier to work with lame old stereotypes instead of to coming up with original characterizations, motivations and so on. Back in the 80's there was a TV show called "St. Elsewhere" which ran for about six seasons. One character, an "Asian" Dr. Wendy Armstrong, was gotten rid of after the first season. Why? Because the writers claimed they couldn't come up with any "Asian" storylines for her. Translation: She wasn't a madam or refugee, so they didn't have stock stereotpyed storylines to draw from. After a few years, they were able to add another "Asian", Dr. Paulette Kiem, to the storyline, but if IIRC, she was a refugee who became a doctor...

    The race relations industry has become just that - an industry - and if racism were to dissappear tommorrow then they would all be out of a job. So we can see that it is in their interest to promote racism, even if they do it unconsciously, for their own wealth.

    Maybe there's some truth to that, but you'd have to agree the same is true for, say, the American Lung Society, which would be out of business if everybody REALLY stopped smoking. So maybe they are secretly rooting for RJ Reynolds?

  • when chris rock is outside the hotel and telling his secretary to contact his old manager, he mentions the words "cisco" and "linux" in the same sentence. I cant remember what he was sayin exactly, but those two words popped out. was this the result of a geeky storywriter plotting subliminal messages? or am i ust going crazy?
  • Yeah those slashdotters are pretty weird. They hate the music industry but buy lots of CD's, they hate JonKatz but they read him, they hate Windows but they use it, they hate the MPAA but they go see tons of movies.
    I just hope those slashdotters will hate me to, maybe I'll get something useful out of it :)
  • Hmmm...A reply from the man himself. Okay I'll bite:

    Finding Forrester
    Pollock
    The Gift

    To start with, and I'll grant you that Pollock is next to impossible to find. But, how about a review of the oscar nominees?

    Oh well if all else fails you can review "Dude, where's my car?"

  • Odd to see the respnse to the racial content of 'Down to Earth'. You mean to say that noone notices this kind of content on television daily anyway? By the way LordToppingham, American Apartheid ended legally in the 1960's, not the 1930's, and socially, there is still a great rift. However they are all still american, for what that is worth, and work together in many ways, quite peacefully. Social acceptance ofminorities within the majority has yet to seep throughout the nation, and vice versa, social acceptance of the majority has yet to spread throughout minorities ( black and otherwise). We struggle with terms like 'Caucasian' 'African-American' 'Latin-American' 'Native-American' and 'insertyour-American'. One of these days people will start concentrating on the last word in these terms,. instead of the first. There are still battles to be fought. Makes life interesting. On another note, these movies are from hollywood, which still can't grasp or accept the real world, and seeks only to make broad generalisations anyway. The news media and the movie industry sensationalise most everything, at least where I live (Philadelphia, PA, USA). They are about what sells. Chris Rock, being a part of that, doesn't care if you agree with him, heck, he may not even totally agree with his own role (although it makes you wonder why he'd want to so negatively portray both his own culture, and others). In the end, he looks at his paycheck. If you don't like his 'comedy' reduce his next paycheck by not watching his movie. Then again,. it is comedy,.. and are we all too stiff to take a laugh at ourselves once in a while. I eally don't think it was supposed to be a serious portrayal of real life situations, only to poke fun at popular perceptions. So change the popular perceptions in your own way, in your own part of the world. Many of the above posts disliked the stereotypes. Don't share them, encourage them, or otherwise, instead speak out against them if you dislike them so. Evil persists when good people do nothing.
  • Personally, I found the movie crude and boring...
  • I saw Down To Earth on Thursday at a Mountain View, CA theater ... the version of the film that I saw looked like it was cobbled together from the clips that landed on the editing room floor.

    In about 1/2 the scenes, you could see microphones dangling above the actors heads! Sometimes they were so obvious that I worried the actors were going to actually get hit by one of these dangling mics.

    At first I thought it was intentional and that the microphone "gag" was going to be used somehow in the script... um, no. It was just a goof-up that lasted the entire movie.

    My pet peeve.

    Other than that, I enjoyed it :)
  • I would rather mod you up if I could. I think 'them Katz flaming dudes' probably missed the /. troll HOWTO [dyndns.org].
    Personally, I like 'em all; cat, cats, Katz, whatever. This guy has the most impressive flame-suit I've seen...

    On the sixth day, God created man. On the seventh, man returned the favour
  • userid is a troll

    -rt-
  • Heh heh, funny (seriously). Because I live in Holland (Netherlands, not Michigan) it's hard for me to distinguish between commonly known cliches and actual creativity, but I had a good laugh when I saw a guy here [cmu.edu], protesting with a sign saying:
    "Legalize (Maple leaf here) Canada!"

    My sig is late for work again
  • 35mm still has more resolution than a TV, even when matted to 16:9
  • Well, I went to DC public schools, if that counts.
    ___
  • Funny ...

    A white person can say something negative about a black person and be called a racist.

    But, a black person can say something negative about a white person and be called a hero, a visionary, etc ...

    True equality does not mean a double standard.

    Personally, I find Chris Rock offensive. But, that's just one person's opinion. What if Billy Crystal started making racial joke about blacks? I guarantee he would not be hosting the oscars, let alone be seen in any film.

    ---
  • The cliche, "you can't judge a book by its cover." Comes to mind.
  • Good reviews, i loved the movie.... er... so with your girlfriend huh... does she like all kinds of movies... i dont know, if she doesnt then... well.... i dont know if i trust her.... =D

  • dman (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    i was going to guess one of these movies he would review, but i went with "sweet november." katz, who do you go to the movies with? is it slashdot staff, a g/f, alone?
  • This is not always true. Most films shot in widescreen (ie 1.85:1, 2.35:1, etc.) are shot with an anamorphic lens. This lens stretches the picture vertically to use all the area on the film. It is then projected through a similar lens to 'squish' the image back to it's intended size. No vertical resolution is lost with this method.
  • Shut the fuck up, I can smell a shitty movie a mile away.
  • For such a brainwashed phobia you should really get help. I only assume that you live down south and that you were thouroughly brainwashed as a child, but by growing older you should have gained wisdom and knolwedge and come to the conclusion that color is just skin deep. But, assuming from your post you lack wisdom and knowledge.

  • test

  • Down to Earth: Funny yes. Good, no. (Score:3)

    by Elwood Blues ( 127255 ) on Sunday February 25, 2001 @07:21AM (#404652) Homepage
    I tend to put movies into one of three categories: "rent it", "see a matinee", or the ultimate "pay full prize." Rock's latest movie is definitely a "rent it." The movie is hilarious at times (standup comedian Wanda Sykes is a riot as Wellington's back talking maid), but just doesn't seem to hit the emotional level it was seeking when Rock isn't cracking jokes.

    It's not that Rock can't act--he plays a pretty straight apostle in Kevin Smith's Dogma, it's just the black-man-in-a-white body jokes don't transition well to a romantic interlude. There were three writers on this movie, it's pretty easy to pick out where they made their transitions.

    This movie will have you both rolling in the aisles laughing one minute, and rolling your eyes the next. It's horribly inconsistent, but possibly worth renting if you like Rock's comedy.

    However, if do you like Rock's comedy, I suggest you try to catch the "Diary of Chris Rock" on MTV. Traditionally, the "Diary" series is a melodramatic half hour confessional--Rock turns it into a one-man hilarity special. Especially amusing was his riff on Jay-Z: You see, the difference between Jay-Z and I is that if you meet us in the street, I have the extra $290,000 in my back pocket, because I am rockin the {Nissan} Altima, while he be rockin the Bentley. Rockin the Altima.

  • Monkeybone (Score:4)

    by MatriXOracle ( 33400 ) on Sunday February 25, 2001 @07:13AM (#404653) Homepage
    I saw Monkeybone on Friday and I enjoyed it. There were certainly some very funny scenes in this movie and it left me with a good feeling about it.

    However I was reading Harry Knowles' savage review over on Ain't it Cool News and while I don't share his disdain for the movie, he claims a lot of material in the original script was cut due to budget concerns. I'm not certain how accurate that is (Knowles did have a cameo part in the film) but there do seem to be parts missing from the movie, such as explaining the people in Downtown need nightmares. That makes me wonder if those scenes were filmed then cut. It makes me wish for a director's cut.

    Still I did enjoy the movie and I would recommend it. And of course no review of this movie would be complete without mentioning Kitty... DAMN!

  • This might be a troll post but why is Katz posting reviews on second rate films? Doesn't he have actual article for us?
  • Feel free to suggest any 'better' films for me to review, I'm open to suggestions. I try to post a review every Sunday at about this time, articles come at irregular intervals. Again, feel free to suggest topics.
  • The thing that drives me mad is that the departments that JonKatz uses on his story submissions always have hyphens on the ends as well as in the middle! It's just so inconsistent!
    richest-man-in-babylon by timothy - Correct, fine, perfect even...
    -silly-movies-for-some-yuks- by JonKatz - Irritating, distracting, pointlessly unusual.

    That said, I have nothing against JonKatz's writing or opinions infact I think he's quite good.

    Sorry about that...
    --

  • I am offended at your attempts to make being offended funny. Please cease at once or I will sue you.

Slashdot Top Deals

Get hold of portable property. -- Charles Dickens, "Great Expectations"

Close