bourgeoismarc-1

There is nothing original here whatsoever-same old big breast jokes, oral sex jokes; sloppy tongue-kissing, spoofing of movies not necessarily worth spoofing, and using the same old actors (i.e. Adam Campbell) from other horrible spoofing movies. It is disappointing to see that actors who have received some acclaim from both critics and the public alike have starred in this-the worst movie ever made-worse than Grease 2. And only a few minutes longer than a regular TV show except without interesting commercials, it is highway robbery to make anyone pay to see this half-baked movie where writers, producers, actors and directors have only put half an effort to do something that at least would be satisfactory. And half is giving them too much credit. Unfortunately for Kal Penn, Jennifer Coolidge, Faune A. Chambers and Crispin Glover (you waited for this movie to return to the big screen? where were you last couple of years? in detox?), I won't be running to the theatre any time soon to see one of their movies any time soon.

Studio decision-makers have to take a stand against these movies-and so does the industry. Pre-teens, teens and young adults have shown that they have interests in seeing well-written, acted, developed and intelligent movies. Don't take the easy way out to do these useless piece of junk.

While the storyline is very good for a young age group, bad editing made the film rather difficult to follow for this father (I don't think my 10 yr old son noticed). Day turning into night and back again (no hint of magic), and change of scenes without warning, the editors and producers of this movie could've done well to have hired a someone to oversee the film for continuity in the editing room, perhaps even going to reshoot some scenes. I see on the Official website for the novel that Eragon is 15, not seventeen as indicated in the movie. Perhaps it was trying too hard to please the older teen crowd (those with their own money) rather than the pre-teen and younger teen crowds (that need to depend on parents to attend movies). The dragon sounds a lot like Charlotte's Web's emotion-less Julia Roberts, always a turn off for me. And why do most people in this Kingdom speak the Queen's English but the evil guy speaks American? Well, it was a nice night out with my son.

The movie was well acted. I hadn't seen the Broadway play so I can't compare. The actors were well chosen. Congrats to Eddie Murphy. I don't think all the awards nominations were deserved though but I'll reserve my final decision once I have seen all nominated roles. One thing that bothered me was the synchronisation of the voices. While in Chicago you could think that the actors were actually singing their songs in character rather than doing lip-sync, in Dreamgirls, it is clear that the songs were pre-recorded. I hope editing and sound aren't nominated for awards!!! I know it has been said before but the storyline looks very familiar to the story of Diana Ross and the Supremes, was the scrip for Dreamgirls art imitating life? Or was it simply vivid imagination?

I don't know what to say!!! The plot was rehashed-badly. The character-Garfield-has no positive character traits. The actors look embarrassed playing in this. Garfield should only be taken three cartoon frames printed in a paper at a time. My four year old was bored finding no interesting story lines or enjoyable characters, plots. It was absolutely humourless. I've never signed up to a forum like this but it was bad enough to get me to sign up. Save your money and do something else with it. I find it horrible that studios initiate their future clientele with such horrible waste. Someone in Hollywood must listen to the public and cease investing in this type of rubish. I will regret spending money on this for years to come.