Dell's Good, Bad & Ugly Movie Reviews

[dell71]

Young Frankenstein
Directed by Mel Brooks.
1974. Rated PG, 106 minutes.
Cast:
Gene Wilder
Peter Boyle
Terri Garr
Marty Feldman
Madeline Kahn
Cloris Leachman
Kenneth Mars
Gene Hackman

The tale of Frankenstein is one of the most famous and enduring in literary or cinematic history. Of course, that means we all know it well enough to laugh along when it gets made fun of. This is where Mel Brooks comes in. He gives a movie that works the way spoofs are supposed to. It makes fun of its source material, yet simultaneously stands on its own as a good story.

That story follows one of Dr. Victor Frankenstein’s descendants, Frederick (Wilder). Frederick considers Victor little more than “a famous cuckoo.” So ashamed of the family name is he, Frederick pronounces it “Fronk-en-steen.” However, when he inherits it, he has to venture back to the fateful castle where life was once breathed into a corpse.

From there we get an endless stream of jokes, and in-jokes that work marvelously. Scene after scene gives us something to at least snicker about, if not break out into uncontrollable laughter. It has plenty of fun at the expense of the original movie but unlike many current day spoofs, it’s never mean spirited. It treats its inspiration lovingly without alienating its fans.

Having watched it for the first time in a few years, I was pleasantly surprised by how risqué some of the jokes are. There’s plenty double entendres and a few flat-out penis jokes. To help out in this regard, the two main women in the film, Terri Garr and Madeline Kahn, play their roles perfectly. Their timing is impeccable. They give that sly knowing look at just the right time, or remain perfectly oblivious. Either way they play it is often an effective punchline with nothing else needing to be said.

All the while, the story that’s developing is fascinating. It moves along at a brisk pace. Chronologically, it positions itself well after Bride of Frankenstein but ignores that it exists, sort of. I say sort of because by the end, the bride is incorporated and becomes another in a long line of great gags.

Speaking of gags, anyone who has seen this movie has a few favorites. There’s Igor’s (Feldman) moving hump and the way the horses react whenever someone mentions Madame Frau Blücher (Leachman). There’s also the underrated see-saw scene. I’m a simple man. My favorite is probably the silliest: “Put ze candle back!”

None of this would work, if our leads don’t. For my money, this is Gene Wilder’s finest performance. He plays it absolutely straight. It’s like he has no idea he’s in a comedy for about 99% of the movie. That other 1%, he breaks the fourth wall and gives us a look that just has us in stitches. It’s truly one of the great comedic performances of all time. And he does it without incessantly mugging for the camera and/or hogging the spotlight from the rest of the ensemble.

The other “lead”, if you will is Peter Boyle as the monster. The great part of his performance comes when he’s trying to communicate with someone but lacks the words to do so. He clearly knows more than he would appear to and that just adds to the humor.

Director Mel Brooks has given us a number of classics. This has always been my favorite of his. It does everything that a spoof should do, without a misstep. When it comes to the genre of spoofs, there is little doubting that Brooks is indeed royalty. He gave us Blazing Saddles, The Producers and Spaceballs among others. It says a lot, maybe about me, that I’m confident in saying this is his best and arguably the best of all time.

MY SCORE: 10/10

[dell71]

Toy Story 3
Directed by Lee Unkrich.
2010. Rated PG, 103 minutes.
Cast:
Tom Hanks
Tim Allen
Joan Cusack
Ned Beatty
Don Rickles
Estelle Harris
Jodi Benson
Michael Keaton
John Ratzenberger
Emily Hahn
John Morris

Now that Andy (Harris) is all grown up, Woody (Hanks), Buzz (Allen) and the rest of the gang try to come to grips with what their future may hold.

As expected, our heroes find themselves on another adventure. This time, their own self-worth and mortality my be in greater jeopardy than ever before. In keeping with franchise tradition, the world toys inhabit when humans aren’t looking is a vibrant, fascinating place. The comedy works without feeling forced and the action sequences exude a palpable sense of danger. Particularly near the end, our dread and anticipation brings us to the edge of our seats.

Getting back to that comedy for a moment, the visuals and the back and forth between characters work hand in hand to make it go. Of course, Hanks and Allen continue to complement one another flawlessly. Barbie (Benson) and Ken (Keaton) have been added to the mix and their relationship provides some wonderful moments. There is also lots of mileage gotten by poking fun of Ken’s masculinity, or lack thereof.

What really brings it all home is Lotso (Beatty). His look, voice and backstory come together perfectly. Equally as perfect is the creepy, mostly silent Big Baby. His tattered mid-section and lazy eye look exactly like a doll my sister once had. That thing moving around on its own is just frightening. What’s so remarkable about that, is it just is where Chucky and other movie dolls had to try really hard to be.

Visually, without the aid of 3D (I saw it in 2D), it is still high quality Pixar, just not awe-inspiring. With an established template, there is only so much that can be done to the series without drastically altering the look we’ve come to expect and love. However, I will say humans seem to be better rendered, this time around.

Overall, this is a great way to extend, or end, the series. Unlike so many other sequels, it doesn’t fell like a money-grab, whether it is or not. It feels like the logical next chapter of a great book. With three outstanding entries, it firmly places itself among the best cinematic trilogies of all time. I would be hard pressed to keep it out of the top handful. Even better than that, there could logically be a TS4. Why yes, I’d be pumped for that, too.

MY SCORE: 10/10

[Champ]

Young Frankenstein is one of my favorite movies of all time.

[Fox1994]

Young Frankenstein? :2thumbs:

[Irish]

I cried at the end of Toy Story 3.

It won the, first movie to make me cry since Mufasa died in Lion King when I was 4, award.

[jeffx]

Looks like an American film company will finally do Godzilla justice(unlike Tri-Star's 1998 disaster).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godzilla_(2012_film)

[stevsta]

Young Frankenstein
Directed by Mel Brooks.
1974. Rated PG, 106 minutes.
Cast:
Gene Wilder
Peter Boyle
Terri Garr
Marty Feldman
Madeline Kahn
Cloris Leachman
Kenneth Mars
Gene Hackman

The tale of Frankenstein is one of the most famous and enduring in literary or cinematic history. Of course, that means we all know it well enough to laugh along when it gets made fun of. This is where Mel Brooks comes in. He gives a movie that works the way spoofs are supposed to. It makes fun of its source material, yet simultaneously stands on its own as a good story.

That story follows one of Dr. Victor Frankenstein’s descendants, Frederick (Wilder). Frederick considers Victor little more than “a famous cuckoo.” So ashamed of the family name is he, Frederick pronounces it “Fronk-en-steen.” However, when he inherits it, he has to venture back to the fateful castle where life was once breathed into a corpse.

From there we get an endless stream of jokes, and in-jokes that work marvelously. Scene after scene gives us something to at least snicker about, if not break out into uncontrollable laughter. It has plenty of fun at the expense of the original movie but unlike many current day spoofs, it’s never mean spirited. It treats its inspiration lovingly without alienating its fans.

Having watched it for the first time in a few years, I was pleasantly surprised by how risqué some of the jokes are. There’s plenty double entendres and a few flat-out penis jokes. To help out in this regard, the two main women in the film, Terri Garr and Madeline Kahn, play their roles perfectly. Their timing is impeccable. They give that sly knowing look at just the right time, or remain perfectly oblivious. Either way they play it is often an effective punchline with nothing else needing to be said.

All the while, the story that’s developing is fascinating. It moves along at a brisk pace. Chronologically, it positions itself well after Bride of Frankenstein but ignores that it exists, sort of. I say sort of because by the end, the bride is incorporated and becomes another in a long line of great gags.

Speaking of gags, anyone who has seen this movie has a few favorites. There’s Igor’s (Feldman) moving hump and the way the horses react whenever someone mentions Madame Frau Blücher (Leachman). There’s also the underrated see-saw scene. I’m a simple man. My favorite is probably the silliest: “Put ze candle back!”

None of this would work, if our leads don’t. For my money, this is Gene Wilder’s finest performance. He plays it absolutely straight. It’s like he has no idea he’s in a comedy for about 99% of the movie. That other 1%, he breaks the fourth wall and gives us a look that just has us in stitches. It’s truly one of the great comedic performances of all time. And he does it without incessantly mugging for the camera and/or hogging the spotlight from the rest of the ensemble.

The other “lead”, if you will is Peter Boyle as the monster. The great part of his performance comes when he’s trying to communicate with someone but lacks the words to do so. He clearly knows more than he would appear to and that just adds to the humor.

Director Mel Brooks has given us a number of classics. This has always been my favorite of his. It does everything that a spoof should do, without a misstep. When it comes to the genre of spoofs, there is little doubting that Brooks is indeed royalty. He gave us Blazing Saddles, The Producers and Spaceballs among others. It says a lot, maybe about me, that I’m confident in saying this is his best and arguably the best of all time.

MY SCORE: 10/10

saw this movie a week ago and still just as funny as I remember it

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)
Directed by Samuel Bayer.
2010. Rated R, 95 minutes.
Cast:
Jackie Earle Haley
Rooney Mara
Kyle Gallner
Katie Cassidy
Thomas Dekker
Clancy Brown
Connie Britton

The kids from Elm Street aren’t sleeping because of the horrifically realistic nightmares they’re having. Soon enough, they discover their bad dreams are all of the same man trying kill them. He even succeeds on a number of occasions. Unless you’ve been under a rock for the last quarter-century, you know that this guy is Freddy Krueger.

Yup, this is merely a remake of Wes Craven’s 1984 horror classic, with the master’s blessings, of course. It’s not a prequel or sequel or even a re-imagining, no matter what you’ve heard. Therein, lies the problem. A sequel attempts to extend a story we already know. A prequel tries to do the same, just in the other direction on the timeline, showing us what got characters we already know to the spot where we first met them. Even a re-imagining extends the story by fleshing out details its predecessor glossed over, or maybe not even mentioned. This is pure remake, doing none of those things. It tries to add in some stuff about Nancy being Freddy’s favorite and expands Freddy’s torching at the hands of an angry mob of parents. Still, we’re simply watching the same movie, with different people playing the roles and nothing of their own to add.

Like most such films, where loses to the original is in the intangibles. It’s tale is no longer fresh. In 1984, plenty of slasher flicks had already been made, but none quite like the original Nightmare. In 2010, many of us have seen all of the movies in the franchise and/or a countless number of movies by it. We’ve moved on to torture porn and 3D gore. We know what to expect. Any fears we may have had with regards to sleeping are checked at the door. While the original was a visual spectacle, psychological attack and a watershed moment for the genre, this is only a movie.

Since it is only a movie, the tension never feels quite high enough. The death scenes are mostly altered or updated versions of what happened in it’s predecessor, but neither better nor worse. Freddy isn’t quite menacing enough, either. Thankfully, he’s far from the standup comedian version of later Freddy movies, but not quite up to snuff with what the character is in the original. Jackie Earle Haley, who handles the role, is a fine actor. He’s had an excellent career, to this point. I still expect him to at least be nominated for a major award, someday. However, no matter how good he is, he’s simply playing Freddy Krueger. On the other hand, Robert Englund, never before or since better than a B-grade performer in B-grade horror movies, caught lightning in a bottle. He seemed to actually be Freddy Krueger.

To be quite honest, the remake is perfectly adequate in every way. It does enough of its own thing so that it’s not an abomination, like the shot-for-shot remake of Psycho. And if, by some chance, you haven’t seen its predecessor or are new to horror flicks, it might be an excellent thrill ride. There is just nothing here that should cause you to hate it, except for the fact that it isn’t the original.

MY SCORE: 6/10

Gotta disagree with you on this one, dell...I had a review on VSN ages ago, but it seems to be gone with the wind.

In sum...it sucked. It lacked any and everything the originals had that made them enjoyable.

The remake was...in a word...lifeless.

Kind of like the Rob Zombie remakes of Halloween. Expanding on these characters just saps the life out of the films, despite the directors efforts to give the characters more life and back story.

The biggest mistake they made in this film was actually expound on the idea that Freddy really is a pedophile. In the originals, he was merely a "child killer" and you got the idea he was a kiddie toucher, but you didn't know, and the end result was, through a series of films, you end up LIKING Fred Krueger. However, with his past times and indiscretions being on front street, you simply can't like him. Kills the aura of the Freddy character. You don't need to replicate Robert Englund, but you need to keep the essence of the character (it is the reason why the teens the killer is killing are so damn annoying and unlikable in the first place). Making him a real deal pedophile, complete with seeing his lair and finding out he likes and makes his own (and probably distributes) kiddie porn in his previous life doesn't make you hate him or are disgusted by him, its just kind of like knowing the guy down the street is a sex offender...you are just like "ugh, stay away from this dude" while giving him dirty looks.

It is kind of like the wave of remakes, sequels and "reimaginings" Hollywood had of the silver screen Universal Monsters. Pretty much all of them sucked. This wave of the sequels, remakes, and reimaginings of the 80's slasher films and characters have been no different. They've all pretty much sucked.

Bride of Frankenstein is considered a great film, and on some levels it is, but what it did was opened the flood gates and made Boris Karloff's character a cartoon...thus taking away the essence of the character that was developed in the first film. What followed from there was basically cash grabs by Hollywood banking on this cartoon character they've created. The formula was a staple with the silver screen Universal monsters.

[Palooza]

Larry, I remember you mentioning you had seen Trick r Treat a while back and since I had just watched it over the weekend, I'd love to know your thoughts.

[LiquidLarry2GhostWF]

Larry, I remember you mentioning you had seen Trick r Treat a while back and since I had just watched it over the weekend, I'd love to know your thoughts.

I saw it a while ago...I really enjoyed it. It isn't often America makes a good horror film anymore, and while this one was playful moreover scary, its more of a traditional type of horror film. It was good. Its a shame it never got a theatrical national release.

[dell71]

Gotta disagree with you on this one, dell...I had a review on VSN ages ago, but it seems to be gone with the wind.

In sum...it sucked. It lacked any and everything the originals had that made them enjoyable.

The remake was...in a word...lifeless.

Kind of like the Rob Zombie remakes of Halloween. Expanding on these characters just saps the life out of the films, despite the directors efforts to give the characters more life and back story.

The biggest mistake they made in this film was actually expound on the idea that Freddy really is a pedophile. In the originals, he was merely a "child killer" and you got the idea he was a kiddie toucher, but you didn't know, and the end result was, through a series of films, you end up LIKING Fred Krueger. However, with his past times and indiscretions being on front street, you simply can't like him. Kills the aura of the Freddy character. You don't need to replicate Robert Englund, but you need to keep the essence of the character (it is the reason why the teens the killer is killing are so damn annoying and unlikable in the first place). Making him a real deal pedophile, complete with seeing his lair and finding out he likes and makes his own (and probably distributes) kiddie porn in his previous life doesn't make you hate him or are disgusted by him, its just kind of like knowing the guy down the street is a sex offender...you are just like "ugh, stay away from this dude" while giving him dirty looks.

It is kind of like the wave of remakes, sequels and "reimaginings" Hollywood had of the silver screen Universal Monsters. Pretty much all of them sucked. This wave of the sequels, remakes, and reimaginings of the 80's slasher films and characters have been no different. They've all pretty much sucked.

Bride of Frankenstein is considered a great film, and on some levels it is, but what it did was opened the flood gates and made Boris Karloff's character a cartoon...thus taking away the essence of the character that was developed in the first film. What followed from there was basically cash grabs by Hollywood banking on this cartoon character they've created. The formula was a staple with the silver screen Universal monsters.

All fair & valid points. My only response to that is I tried to take it on its own terms as much as possible. From the viewpoint of someone who has never seen the original I don't think it plays as badly. The more comparisons you make to its predecessor, the more it suffers. I think I acknowledged as much. As a huge fan of the original, I've no problem with anyone who takes the stance that this waters down what the first movie was because it does.

Also, I have to say that since our liking Freddy didn't happen until 3 movies in, its irrelevant to this flick. After the original, we dreaded him and that's the angle this goes for so I won't throw in the what happened in the sequels against it.

Lastly, I see your point about "Bride of Frankenstein" but have to disagree on how the monster became a cartoon. Honestly, I think it had little to do with the sequel and much more to do with the original (& the book). Most of the time, when Frankenstein's monster is spoofed it is the groaning, barely coherent version that is mocked not the more intelligent version of the sequel. "Young Frankenstein" being an exception and even that skewers both. Also, the monster as an overgrown infant, an imbecile, is such an iconic figure he became an easy target.

[dell71]

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus
Directed by Terry Gilliam.
2010. Rated PG-13, 123 minutes.
Cast:
Christopher Plummer
Heath Ledger
Lily Cole
Andrew Garfield
Verne Troyer
Tom Waits
Johnny Depp
Jude Law
Colin Farrell

Doctor Parnassus (Plummer) is a withered, often drunk old man who runs a traveling sideshow. He appears not to have many days left. However, we shortly learn that a deal with the devil, AKA Mr. Nick (Waits), has given him immortality. Despite the deal, Doc isn’t a bad guy. In fact, he used to be a particularly disciplined monk. He is also competing with the evil to “win” souls. Yes, he’s playing for the good guys.

What follows is a movie that’s alternately amazing and frustrating. Whenever someone enters the imaginarium we’re treated to some fantastic visuals and things move along nicely. These scenes function like action scenes in other movies, but with the addidional benefit of adding to the story. The problem is the story is continually adding stuff until it becomes convoluted. This bogs down the picture as it constantly winds back on itself, adds layers and only half-heartedly explains them in an effort to maintain the mystery. It’s also never really clear how or why a soul is won. It seems people go into the imaginarium, have a blast and Parnassus claims them as won. They see to want to give him their money, but are they truly converted, or reborn, or whatever it is he’s trying to get them to be?

When it’s good, it’s outstanding. Aside from those visuals, there are some great performances. Plummer is perfect as the world-weary elder. As his daughter Valentina, who is growing disenchanted with her increasingly cryptic father, Lily Cole is also excellent. Of course, the headline grabber is Heath Ledger, for very unfortunate reasons. This is the movie he was filming when he passed away. He is very good as the mysterious Tony, whom our heroes seem to need but don’t necessarily trust.

Ledger’s death led director Terry Gilliam to make an inspired choice that helps the movie immensely. It’s also one he probably wouldn’t have made if he didn’t have to. That choice is have three different actors take over Ledger’s role. Those three, in order of appearance, are Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrell. The manner in which it is handled is nothing short of brilliant.

Like the best of Gillaim, this blurs the lines between fantasy and reality. However, this also blurs the line between good storytelling and bad. Both are present. Doctor Parnassus is an ambitious film and deserves to be lauded for that, but it tries to do too much which has the predictable effect of not doing much, at all.

MY SCORE: 6.5/10

[dell71]

Armored
Directed by Nimród Antal.
2009. Rated PG-13, 88 minutes.
Cast:
Columbus Short
Matt Dillon
Laurence Fishburne
Jean Reno
Amaury Nolasco
Fred Ward
Andre Kinney
Skeet Ulrich

Ty (Short) hasn’t been long home from the war and has taken a job with an armored car company. He’s also the legal guardian of his juvenile delinquent brother Jimmy (Kinney) and struggling to pay the mortgage on the house in which they live. So, when his buddy/co-worker/friend of his deceased dad Mike (Dillon) informs him of a scheme for a handful of the guys he works with and hangs out with at the local pub to rob two of the trucks they’re driving Ty, understandably but very reluctantly agrees to take part. Of course, he makes Mike promise “no one gets hurt.” Well, whaddya know? Someone gets hurt. Once that little line in the sand gets cross, Ty transforms into our hero, sorta. Him trying to keep the rest of the gang from killing hem ensues.

Columbus Short impresses. For me, that’s three excellent performances that are better than the movies they’re in. They are also of three very different characters in three different genres. There’s the hard-driving musical drama, Cadillac Records, the screwball comedy Death at a Funeral and now an action flick. I’ve really like him in those. The movies themselves, this one included, are a mixed bag.

Armored isn’t a bad movie. It’s just not as good as it should be. This is through no fault of its cast. Aside from Short and Dillon, there’s also Laurence Fishburne and Jean Reno. It was fun to see Fishburne smile, even if his character is a kind of a nutjob. He’s long been one of my favorites, but his roles usually require him to be the ultra-serious type. This movie gives him a chance to cut loose a bit. It’s perhaps his most boisterous role since King of New York, way, way back in the day. Reno is a bit underused, but hey, he’s Jean Reno and is great merely because of that fact because I say so.

This film’s flaws lie in its script and apparent hurry to be over. At a couple ticks shy of 90 minutes, it’s a quick and fun flick that never actually threatens to stick with us. That could’ve been accomplished by letting us get to know the other men and their circumstances. However, aside from our knowledge that Palmer (Nolasco) recently became devoutly religious, that’s never done. By the way, the only reason it’s done in his case is simply a set up for the climax to one of the action scenes.

If you’re looking for some action, Armored isn’t a bad way to go. It’s not of the non-stop and constantly over the top variety, but it is intriguing enough to carry us through. It’s just not intriguing enough to become anything more.

MY SCORE: 6/10

[nflman2033]

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus
Directed by Terry Gilliam.
2010. Rated PG-13, 123 minutes.
Cast:
Christopher Plummer
Heath Ledger
Lily Cole
Andrew Garfield
Verne Troyer
Tom Waits
Johnny Depp
Jude Law
Colin Farrell

Doctor Parnassus (Plummer) is a withered, often drunk old man who runs a traveling sideshow. He appears not to have many days left. However, we shortly learn that a deal with the devil, AKA Mr. Nick (Waits), has given him immortality. Despite the deal, Doc isn’t a bad guy. In fact, he used to be a particularly disciplined monk. He is also competing with the evil to “win” souls. Yes, he’s playing for the good guys.

What follows is a movie that’s alternately amazing and frustrating. Whenever someone enters the imaginarium we’re treated to some fantastic visuals and things move along nicely. These scenes function like action scenes in other movies, but with the addidional benefit of adding to the story. The problem is the story is continually adding stuff until it becomes convoluted. This bogs down the picture as it constantly winds back on itself, adds layers and only half-heartedly explains them in an effort to maintain the mystery. It’s also never really clear how or why a soul is won. It seems people go into the imaginarium, have a blast and Parnassus claims them as won. They see to want to give him their money, but are they truly converted, or reborn, or whatever it is he’s trying to get them to be?

When it’s good, it’s outstanding. Aside from those visuals, there are some great performances. Plummer is perfect as the world-weary elder. As his daughter Valentina, who is growing disenchanted with her increasingly cryptic father, Lily Cole is also excellent. Of course, the headline grabber is Heath Ledger, for very unfortunate reasons. This is the movie he was filming when he passed away. He is very good as the mysterious Tony, whom our heroes seem to need but don’t necessarily trust.

Ledger’s death led director Terry Gilliam to make an inspired choice that helps the movie immensely. It’s also one he probably wouldn’t have made if he didn’t have to. That choice is have three different actors take over Ledger’s role. Those three, in order of appearance, are Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrell. The manner in which it is handled is nothing short of brilliant.

Like the best of Gillaim, this blurs the lines between fantasy and reality. However, this also blurs the line between good storytelling and bad. Both are present. Doctor Parnassus is an ambitious film and deserves to be lauded for that, but it tries to do too much which has the predictable effect of not doing much, at all.

6.5/10

lol, what a coincidence I was just thinking to myself a few minutes ago about adding Terry Gilliam new movie to my netflix, sucks that it was only a 6 for you, I'll have to check it out for myself being a huge Gilliam fan.

[dell71]

Cop Out
Directed by Kevin Smith.
2010. Rated R, 107 minutes.
Cast:
Bruce Willis
Tracy Morgan
Seann William Scott
Juan Carlos Hernandez
Sean Cullen
Kevin Pollack
Adam Brody
Cory Fernandez
Ana de la Reguera

As Cop Out starts, an old favorite comes blaring from the speakers. It is the Beastie Boys “No Sleep Til Brooklyn” from their debut and hip hop classic album “License to Ill.” Then I notice it’s directed by the knight in shining armor to all slackers, Kevin Smith. Hey, I might be in good hands, here.

When we meet our heroes, Bruce Willis and Tracy Morgan, they’re about to interrogate a suspect. By the way, no character names in this review, the guilty must be exposed. Morgan is begging to do the questioning and Willis allows him to, knowingly against his better judgment. Morgan proceeds to bust into the interrogation room and do bits of dialogue from what must be at least a dozen other, better movies. Just in case you can’t recognize them all, Willis dutifully calls them out for us. This scene is painfully long and unfunny. Well, there is that one mildly humorous moment. Morgan hits us with Willis’ most famous one-liner, “Yippee-ki-yay, mother------“ from the Die Hard series, to which Willis says “Never saw that one.” So much for being in good hands.

Wait, is that “Follow the Leader” by Eric B. & Rakim, I hear? Why yes, it is. That’s two hip hop classics inside 15 minutes. This movie can’t be that bad. After all, could people with apparent love for the golden era fo rap make a thoroughly horrible film? Of course, they can. These thoughts whirl around my head while more unfunny things keep happening. To catch you up, the witness from the first scene agrees to set up the guy that drops off the goodies at his cell phone store. Obviously, this requires Morgan to dress up like a giant cell phone while Willis sits in the car and laughs at him. Both are distracted enough to do nothing while their snitch gets plugged full of holes from point blank range by an uzi. Nice. The giant cell phone and the guy from The Last Boy Scout give chase, but don’t catch the killer. They also cause and/or allow lots of property damage to happen and end up on YouTube. For their troubles, both are suspended without pay. This is of major importance to Willis who wants desperately to pay for his daughter’s unnecessarily extravagant wedding, but not so important to the guy from 30 Rock, who apparently doesn’t need money. He only needs to spy on his wife, whom he suspects of cheating on him.

Willis has an ace in the hole. He decides to sell an extremely rare and valuable baseball card he owns to get the dough for his baby girl’s nuptials. How did you know that didn’t work so well? Predictably, he loses the card which leads to Stifler from American Pie, aka Seann William Scott, becoming a major character. Scott is at least able to generate a chuckle or two and somewhere along the way Run-DMC’s “King of Rock” temporarily seduces me into ignoring my pain.

Now, this movie would be completely worthless if it didn’t find a way to tie the baseball card into the case the guys were investigating before being suspended. It does, but so what? I’ll cut them the tiniest bit of slack for not being totally asleep at the wheel. I have to take it back because that’s not funny, either. Okay, fine. I’ll let them have the slack back for breaking out the Spanish version of Cypress Hill’s “Insane in the Membrane.”

Much like this review, this movie just keeps going. There is no justification for this film to last more than thirty minutes. Yet, it clanks its way through 107 excruciating hours…er…minutes. The characters are all flat-drawn stereotypes that add nothing. The action is nothing special and I think I’ve covered what they’re passing off as jokes.

However, all is not lost. Another forgotten gem comes on. This time, it’s an old R&B hit, “Don’t Disturb this Groove” by The System. I love that song. Then, it hits me. All of these songs are from my youth. The music that scores the rest of the movie sounds like it was rejected for the original Beverly Hills Cop. Indeed, it is done by the same guy, Harold Faltermeyer. The buddy cop flick rose to prominence during the eighties, also. Could director Kevin Smith have outsmarted us all, and pulled a Tarantino by paying homage to a genre born of an era, long gone? Of course, that appears to be exactly what he’s done. However, doing that is simply not enough. You still have to make a good movie. The best of those movies were funny and contained big, exciting action sequences. This has Tracy Morgan dressed up like a cell phone.

MY SCORE: 0/10