Discussion (20) ¬

  1. CW

    Saw the Hop trailer when I watched Rango. All I can say is that Tim Hill really likes putting jokes about eating poop in his kids movies.

  2. bman (The Underfold)

    I liked Russell Brand in Forgetting Sarah Marshall, but when I saw Get Him to the Greek, I was less impressed. I’m not terribly excited for the Arthur remake he’s in either, but what are you gonna do.

    Speaking of which… did you ever see Sucker Punch and was it actually any good?

    • Tom

      The problem with Russell Brand is that he is only capable of playing Russell Brand. That works great when he’s doing stand-up, but less so when the demands of character or nuance are placed upon him. This came into clear focus for me when he hosted Saturday Night Live earlier in the year. Frankly, I think Arthur is going to be a disaster. It’s as if they cast him because they couldn’t think of any other young-ish English comedians.

      Didn’t see Sucker Punch. Kind of lost my will to entertain any open mindedness after I started reading the reviews. A “drubbing” would be putting it mildly.

      I know that sounds limiting – especially when I do a comic about movies – but with two kids, I have to be more selective than ever. Can’t wait until everyone is old enough to see movies together! 14… years… from now… 🙁

      • The 45
        The 45

        I don’t think I could say any of that better myself. I agree with it all.
        I think Russel Brand was added to add a little edginess?
        What I found interesting, however was when I saw the first full trailer, it was right after a trailer for Rio (before Gnomeo and Juliet… same boat with the kids, man 🙂 ). Anyway, the trailer for Rio mentioned every hollywood star voicing a character, while for Hop, no actor was ever named. You saw Kaley Cuoco and James Marsden; heard Russel brand, but it was like they were relying oin the movie itself, and the “animated by the team that brought you Despicable Me, and the director of Alvin and the Chipmunks”… the latter a turn off, personally.

  3. David

    Love today’s comic, Tom! One of your better ones of late, and I love it when I get to laugh at a “noooooo!!!” that’s supposed to be funny (unlike a certain sci-fi film that was supposed to be sad and full of doom). As for HOP, I was curious cause the animation looked fun, but then they went Garfield on me, and I was like, Hell No!

    Did anyone see Sucker Punch? My friend did and loved it, but then he is sadly the exact target group. I have to admit, I’m amazed at the overall HATE both Sucker Punch and Battle LA have received recently. I sort of feel all the critics decided it was the easiest bandwagon to jump on, and that’s why they go so far as to even demean those that go to see the film! *cough Ebert cough* Tell me if you like or hate the film, but don’t call me stupid for seeing it! You saw it too!!

    /end Rant

    • Tom

      “They went Garfield” on me has become my new favorite phrase.

      Even though I’m on that ol’ bandwagon o’ hate regarding Sucker Punch, I kind of agree with you that thorough dismissiveness became all too easy a stance to take against the film.

      /Film wrote a good article in defense of Sucker Punch which I kind of thought was a wank for the first 2/3rds. But the last few paragraphs really grabbed me by the shirt collar. Basically they said, when faced with sequels and derivative films (like Battle: LA), Sucker Punch should at least be recognized for trying something new – even when it fails.

      The optimist in me appreciates that. I think Snyder should be given the opportunity to try and fail. It’s how you learn. Certainly he’s a dynamic filmmaker. But I think he was pushed too soon into “visionary” status and too readily believed his own hype. In other words, people championed him too soon.

      Look at someone like Spielberg. When Jaws is your second movie, Close Encounters of the Third Kind is your third movie and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is your 5th movie, that’s when the early adoption of visionary status makes sense.

      I purposefully excluded 1941.

      • James

        Really dug ‘Sucker Punch’. Granted long sequences were just like music videos, but still loved that the audience is only shown the girls in the real world once in the entire film. Also not being shown what has taken place in the real world, only the fantasy world was an interesting touch.

        As for Ebert’s review of ‘Battle Los Angles’ saying that the film is stupid because you do not like the way the alien technology looks is a bs reason.

      • David

        I fully expect a tweet by you using that phrase now. hahaha.

      • taekwondogirl

        I feel like I’m the only person in the world who likes 1941.

        • James

          No your not 1941 rocks

          • Tom

            1941 is fine.

            But it’s no Jaws… 😉

  4. Liz

    The fact that James Marsden and Kaley Cuoco (I’m a huge Big Bang Theory fan) are in it is actually what intrigued me about the movie. That’s why I’m considering seeing it, but not in theaters. My movie ticket money is going toward Sucker Punch and Rango (which is apparently super good! Who knew?) this weekend.

    As for the kid thing, hang in there. Enjoy the time that you have when they CAN’T talk back and you’re still their perfect hero figure.

  5. Chris

    As for James Marsden focusing more on family-friendly/kid movies, there was an interview he did sometime in 2009 or 2010 where he discussed how he wanted to focus on that because he had kids, and he didn’t want his kids to see him in something that could potentially scare them/make them sad/etc.

    I agree, so far. I’m not terribly excited about Hop, and I won’t be seeing it anytime soon. If it gets to the second-run theater, and I’ve heard good things about it, I’ll give it a shot there.

    • Tom

      I guess I didn’t even know Marsden had kids. For some reason, I think of him as a sunnier version of Bradley Cooper. Approachable, but still kind of playing the field.

      Well, in that context, it makes sense that he would pick movies his kids could see. Although it doesn’t explain “The Box.”

      Then again, what could?

  6. trevor

    I see this flick advertised all over the CTA train lines, but it’s not even registering on my radar.

  7. antwerp42

    I know this might seem needlessly technical (it’s all I’m good for), but I think you got secular and non-secular backwards in your post. Secularity regards being separate from religion (ie secular holidays and so on).

  8. tmons78

    I doubt that James Marsden was jealous of Jason Lee, considering he was working with an animated squirrel in Enchanted the same year Alvin and the Chipmunks came out.

    • Tom

      Yeah? What was that chipmunks name?



  9. Magnussio

    I’m curious as to whether you know what “secular” means, since you consistently referred to Hop as a “non-secular” movie. Since it isn’t a religious-based film, but rather a pop-culture infused movie about the Easter Bunny, which is clearly not the Christian icon of Easter, but rather the secular consumerist representation of the holiday. I think you want to call this a secular holiday film. There’s really no such thing as “non-secular.” There is sorta only “religious” or “secular.” You seem confused. Sorry if I sound pretentious. But I enjoy your reviews, and would rather you not use words you don’t understand because it only serves to undermine your credibility. It’s okay if you have a limited vocabulary. Trying to utilize words you don’t fully understand, or worse – creating redundant terms that don’t exist and and even if they did actually mean the opposite of what you are trying to say does you no favors.

    • Tom

      Yeahhhhhh… Kind of hard not to sound pretentious when you accuse someone of having a limited vocabulary. I mixed up my terms. I sometimes do the same thing with fiction and non-fiction. It’s called “a mistake.” It’s the reason they put erasers on pencils.

      There, I’ve corrected my use of the word secular to reflect my intent. Happy?

Comment ¬

NOTE - You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>