damian-50

I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell is one of the worst movies I've seen in a long time. It's a cookie cutter story, with clichéd and overused jokes.

The script is terrible and the direction is even worse. The basic premise is 3 friends go on a bachelor party. One guy hates women, but finds love by the end of the movie. The groom is basically just there. Finally, Tucker Max alienates his friends, but makes them love him again after giving a toast at their wedding.

Maybe the movie wouldn't have been as tedious to sit through if the jokes wouldn't have fallen so flat. The Drew character says 90% of his lines into the air and some of the lines were groan-worthy.

There's nothing redeeming or entertaining. For a movie that's supposed to shock the audience, it mostly just bores.

This film starts with a great idea: in 500 years the entire world will consist of a population that has an extremely low IQ due to the "dumbing down" of society, huge corporations dictate most of the world's policy, and advertising is everywhere.

The flow of the movie is just off though. There are definitely some hilarious parts to the movie consisting of some really clever and smart humor. However, sometimes the movie feels as stupid as the society it's trying to lampoon.

It's an enjoyable movie, but I think it fell a little short of what could have been done with the subject.

I saw this show tonight on SiTV and it has to be the worst sketch comedy I've ever seen. The premise for the sketches were bad, the acting was horrible, and the whole thing reminded me of going to see cheap amateur sketch comedy.

It started with a sketch called "Comida and a Movie" and continued to get worse finally ending with "Pimp my Stuff".

Doing poor spoofs of played out pop culture while yelling does not equate to being funny.

The show made the Blue Collar comedy show look like high brow comedy. It was like a train wreck that I just couldn't look away from.

This is a really good documentary that discusses the independent film movement and filmmakers. It mostly it just covers films from the United States, and very briefly mentions Italian NeoRealism and the French New Wave. The documentary covers a lot of the early "indie" filmmakers to the latest indie movement.

I found it interesting to hear a number of independent filmmakers speak not only about their influences, but also about their experiences of working outside of the studio system.

If you like independent films or any of the filmmakers listed in the cast I'd say it's worth a watch since it's only about an hour long.

This is one of the worst documentaries I've ever seen. Each new segment presents an obvious idea like "There are no rules for making a blockbuster" or "failure sucks". It then presents a handful of producers saying the same thing or slight variations of the phrase such as "There aren't any rules to making hits" or "There's no formula for making blockbusters" Intercut with the interviews are newspaper and trade magazine headlines that show the same phrase and small clips of different movies.

There is really no substance or insights in this movie. There aren't even any hard facts. It's a shame, too, because there are some really interesting people interviewed on the documentary. Too bad they just asked them the same softball clichéd questions. I would have loved to hear some insider stories, or just anything with some "meat" to it.

To sum it up it's a completely uninspired waste of time.

I was able to see this film at Dallas followed by a Q & A session with Shane Carruth. Being from Dallas, I was really pulling for this film. I was extremely disappointed.

Since it was made with such a small budget I was willing to overlook a lot of the technical problems, such as poor sound and poor visual quality. However, most of the film is out of focus, the lighting is horrendous, and the boom microphone makes an appearance, but even that I looked past.

A lot of people like to describe this up as an extremely intellectual film because it uses some technical jargon. Basically anyone that has completed 8th grade chemistry and/or read one Michael Crichton book should be able to follow it. It's a fairly simple story about time travel and the overlapping of your future and past selves.

I think that the majority of the reason why people are having trouble with this film is because of the problems with the script itself.

Spoiler

Characters are not developed. Characters are introduced and later forgotten. The entire story is narrated by a character that isn't in the entire film. The man that was going to fund the project goes back in time somehow, but that's never even explained.