spowell69

Oh man, I hate movies that try soooo hard to be "indie films," like so many that popped up in the 90's (all forgotten, and none of them actually good, that I can remember).

This one is all about characters but has no heart whatsoever. It's empty. Pointless. Contrived. It's only concern is *looking* like an indie movie.

I was intrigued at first. But as the movie wore on, it was obvious there was nothing below the surface. I could almost see the director off to the side a great big "I'm so intellectual" look on his face. He ain't no Ang Lee, though, sorry. My suspicions were confirmed when watching the extras on the DVD. Every feature had a smug, self-congratulatory tone.

And, honestly, anything Roger Ebert endorses these days is worth avoiding at all cost.

I wouldn't be so hard on a movie like this if it wasn't such a sham, and if the creators weren't so high on themselves, totally neglecting the audience that has to sit through this CRAP.

Take the honest comments about this movie to heart (not the ones that are probably from people affiliated with this movie in some way) and spare yourself the wasted time and effort of watching this self-indulgent "indie masterpiece." Rent Fassbinder's "Ali: Fear Eat Soul" instead to see what a real masterpiece of simple film-making is.

This is easily the worst movie I've ever viewed in my life. Even with free tickets, I was feeling ripped.

Could the girl in this act anymore plastic? I think she's made out of wax. And why oh why do Hollywood Brains insist on giving away entire movies in Trailers now? There was nothing scary in this (only the studio plants were scared, I'm sure). Not one moment. Just the usual loud music + cat jumps crapola.

Logically, the movie makes no sense either. I won't even bother giving examples b/c that would entail remembering parts of this horror-ible movie, which (thankfully) is already mostly faded from memory.

Do yourself a favour and give your money to a homeless person instead of supporting this feature-length TV ad.

Caught this on Drive-In channel (which I love) and it's actually pretty dang good.

• it's got a plot! - lots of beautiful women. Naked! (not nowaday silicone bimbos) - empowered women! For instance, there's a great line in the movie, one of the best I've ever heard, where a rape victim gets the upper hand and asks the slimeball, "what's wrong? All the romance gone out of it?" Love it!!! - lots of funny moments. I love the phil spector type famous music guy who they have to pull of one of the women and he's panting like a dog. Hilarious! - Did I mention the beautiful women? Incredible natural bodies and one gorgeous woman actually has short hair, which I didn't think would fly in one of these 70's drive-in flicks.

Man, these movies, which were probably considered to be bad, even dumb, back when they were made, are so much brainier and more fun and waaay less offensive than the crap Hollywood passes these days. Hollywood movies are offensive in much a more slimy, insidious way. Many are just plain disgusting. Even the "Go Girl!" movies that come out these days are so obviously written by men and highly offensive.

God, the 70's was easily the best time to go watch a movie.

/sigh

Well now everyone knows that the primarily male 50 cent fanbase are just closet cases that couldn't wait to get out and gaze lovingly upon their dead-eyed gangsta douchbag. The shower scene was just for them, I'm guessing.

Problem is, there just aren't enough of these fans to outweigh the monumental and historically significant crapfest that is this movie.

I got to admit, though, the part where fiddy gets fired from The Gap was kind of tense and dramatic. Jim Sheridan ratcheted up the tension.

This one's for the Suburban Gansta's only! You know, the ones that actually buy his music. Blaagh.

The film-school intellects can drool all they want about the important (imagined) meaning of this film, but it's just that: intellectual drool. This film is creatively bankrupt, and some mistake it's endless self-indulgent wanking as substance. Yeah.

Obviously Godard wasn't a Stones fan. Too bad, because this could have been great. He's capturing the birth of this timeless song and he chooses instead to cover the music with some guy reading out of a True Detective mag or some such crap.

Then there's the endless shots of what looks like 60's librarians spray-painting words on people's cars. And then there's the seemingly neverending "interview" where the actress was brilliantly instructed to answer only yes or no to all the really deep and intellectual questions. There's some dude in a purple suit is reading more crap from a book, which goes on for, oh, only about 20 minutes. And black panthers or something in a junkyard.

It almost sounds intriguing? Well, it's not.

But for unwashed film-school hipsters who don't care squat about the lost opportunities of having full access to the Stones bringing Sympathy for the Devil into the world and would rather hear some English guy reading instead whilst gazing at the covers of nudie mag's, this film's a real winner!

More accurately...maybe Godard just blows.

How ironic that some so-called Radiohead "fans" refer to this stunning documentary with a description like, "how lame." How narrow-minded, more like it.

You'll like love] this doc if you like love] what Radiohead has created with OK Computer (and since then). The ones who refer to it as "lame" are the the same as those in the audience, no doubt, in that memorable snippet where Thom is bored out of his skull, performing Creep for the umpteenth time to an oh-so predictable crowd response.

This documentary is less like the Hollywood-polished concert movie, or fluff-piece, that those same fans desire, and much more a fascinating collage of what could be the cutting-room floor bits from a more predicable piece for the masses. It really drops you into a different perspective and shows you things more like a free-form poem. It ain't MTV, pre-chewed for teen consumption.

In other words, don't believe the words of a disgruntled mass-consumer, who listens to Radiohead 'cause it's cool at a certain moment. This is an underrated piece that will definitely be more fascinating as time goes on.

And, oh yeah, something else the disgruntled mass-consumers fail to mention: the Sound Design in this film is AMAZING. Watch with good headphones.

People just aren't getting this because they haven't looked below the surface. Here's my theory:

The character of Stifler is actually brain defective because his parent were crack and/or alcohol addicted. This is not funny, of course. What's funny, though, is that after all these years, his defective brain is causing him to act out. Notice all the uncontrollable cursing all of a sudden??? And the stupid giggle that comes after each dumb joke? Okay, well this takes us to the hidden meaning...

American Wedding is actually made as if Stifler, brain-defective that he is, wrote the screenplay. This explains the half-a$$ed attempts at recycling the last two movies, the non-stop profanities, the fact that Stifler is now the central character with the most screen time (ughh) the constant humping and the lack of any real plot (a road-trip in order to find the gay man that will make the wedding dress, which ends up in a very unfunny dance-off between Stifler and a gay hulk hogan that 'saves the day'?? Oh god help us).

Okay, I'll admit I only got through about 20 minutes before choosing to watch Wolf Blitzer instead (he's funnier) but the theory is still good, I think.

Watch only if you have trouble following any kind of plot and you laugh easily at potty jokes and swear words.

You know it's a bad sign right off the bat when:

• characters jump on a city bus (which must be free, because nobody has to pay) and start smoking cig's. Where is this?

• these really cool bad guys who rob jewellery stores for a living say that money doesn't mean anything, and proceed to burn the money they just *robbed* from people. So why exactly do they bother??? And if money means nothing to them, why are they so obsessed and concerned with it? Who wrote this crap?

• you recognize people you've seen in canadian pizza pocket ad's

• the 'bad' guys actually look like people from pizza pocket ad's dressed up like bad guys, making stupid 'mean' faces.

• jason priestly is a bad guy

Not even worth listing the many reasons why this movie is so annoyingly bad. How do these things get made? It actually made me sad to see Lou Gosset in this c-grade project.

Luckily I saw this on TV, so it didn't cost a thing. But it did cost me time. Well, about an hour, until I finally couldn't take anymore. Save yourself both time and money.

Avoid.

Ohhhh MAN this movie is awful!!

This kind of tripe is what gives Canadian Cinema a bad name, or no name. Well, to be fair, I guess most Canadian movies give Canadian Cinema a bad name.

Next to the characters (there's a couple that are the most grating in movie history), the most annoying thing is the editing and pace of the movie. It's like a drunken snail making its way to die.

Thank goodness Melanie Doane is nice to look at. She's the only thing that kept me watching. Unfortunately, the rest of the movie kept interrupting.

Good for a laugh, though, if you're having a bad Canadian Movie night, though.

Did I mention Melanie Doane? The only good point (too bad they didn't have the sense to keep the camera on her for more than a blink at a time).

Another addition in the Canadian Hall of Stinking Movies.

This movie is the feel-bad (to your stomach) movie of the year!

Jen Lopez used to be a good performer (see 'Out Of Sight') and now she's only worried about becoming the next julia roberts, or the next ashley judd, etc, etc, blech.

**SPOILER**

This movie is rotting your brains!

**END SPOILER**

And one more thing: THIS MOVIE SUCKS!

PS - does anyone actually think ralph fiennes is sexy?