Blog Archives
Flash Movie Review: The Naked Gun
HUMOR IS SUCH A FLUID EMOTION; at least I think so. With the different styles of humor, not everyone finds the same things funny. For example, I do not much care for slapstick or physical types of humor. Where someone trips or falls down a flight of stairs, I do not find the humor in such things. However, I know a person who cannot stop laughing at such things. A friend of their’s slipped on the way down a staircase, and wound up bumping all the way down on their backside! My friend could not stop laughing; though, they at least were able to get these words out between the guffaws, “Are you ok?” Oddly, I used to love the cartoons of a road runner bird versus a coyote. If you are not familiar with them, the coyote would come up with different kind of traps to capture the bird, but they would always backfire. The reason I loved this cartoon was not for these scenarios but the inventions and ingenuity the coyote used in setting the traps. And as you know, in cartoon world, the character never dies; so no matter how many explosions, falls, and fire bombs the coyote experienced, they always survived. MY TYPE OF HUMOR IS MORE esoteric. One may need to think about it or imagine it as it is being told to you. I also enjoy stories where certain words or phrases can have two meanings a/k/a double entendres. One liner jokes is another form of humor that I am fond of, from the likes of Rodney Dangerfield to Joan Rivers to Don Rickles, for example. As I grew older, I discovered the art of story telling humor, and especially satire. i had a relative who had such a dry sense of humor that I always loved. It takes real skill to spin a story and make it both relatable, funny, and at times absurd. Now, though I do not have a problem with profanity being used by some comedians, I strongly dislike when “dirty” and derogatory words are peppered throughout one’s act. Referring to females with the “B” word is not funny to me. If I am at a comedy club or attending a comedian’s concert, I used to feel awkward when everyone around me was laughing while I just sat still with no emotion coming out of me. When I became an adult, I learned how to fake a laugh and put an amused look on my face. Gratefully, I don’t do that anymore because I am not intimidated by being the only person not reacting to a comedian’s joke. Not that it was an issue for me while watching this action, crime comedy reboot. FOLLOWING IN HIS FATHER’S FOOTSTEPS, A detective uses his special skills to try and save the world. With Liam Neeson (Marlowe, In the Land of Saints and Sinners) as Frank Drebin Jr., Pamela Anderson (The Last Showgirl, City Hunter) as Beth Davenport, Paul Walter Hauser (The Luckiest Man in America, Queenpins) as Ed Hocken Jr., Danny Huston (The Crow, The Dead Don’t Hurt) as Richard Cane, and CCH Pounder (RoboCop 3, NCIS: New Orleans-TV) as Chief Davis; this slapstick satire worked because of Liam Neeson and Pamela Anderson. Having Liam in this role was genius because of his tough serious guy persona, and the chemistry between him and Pamela made it easy for each to play off of the other. I liked the way the story brought in elements of the original franchise, and the jokes and gags were non-stop. Not necessarily my type of humor for the most part; however, there were a few times where I chuckled during a scene. All in all, this picture was a short and tidy piece that accomplished what it set out to do. Nothing new or astonishing, just a bit of nostalgia that hoped it would get a laugh out of the viewer.
2 2/3 stars
Flash Movie Review: Boycott
I HAD NO OPINION ONE WAY or the other about the movie coming to campus until the university decided it could not be shown. All I knew about the film was that it had received a lot of notoriety due to the plot and one of the main actors and that it was coming to our campus to raise funds for some cause. Once word got out about the university’s actions, I became curious about the picture and wanted to go see it. I just did not want to get involved with the politics behind the student organization’s reasons for choosing this particular movie, nor the university’s reasons to ban it; I simply wanted to see what all the hoopla was about concerning this film. The week the university came out against the movie, students started to protest around the campus. They demonstrated in front of the Dean’s residence, holding up signs as they walked back and forth in front. At one of the college buildings, a group of students held a sit-in. Having never been involved in the middle of a protest, I found the experience not only curious, but a fascinating study in camaraderie. With my background, camaraderie appeared to be based more on like kind physically instead of being based on a common idea. Here in college, the protesters were an array of humanity coming together for a single purpose. The outcome from the demonstrations and protests was the university allowed the film to be shown at a satellite, off campus venue; both sides were happy with the results and I got to see the movie. I KNOW I AM STATING THE OBVIOUS, but protests have taken on a wider array of actions since my college days. The news recently showed a man riding a horse down a city expressway to bring attention to a cause. I live near a city that experienced violent protesters who came out after a judge’s rule in a famous court case. A friend of mine has had to work at home because the office building where they work was damaged during the protests. A 70 year old retail shop that I used to frequent often was shown on the news, where its front windows were smashed and had over half of their inventory stolen; it was so sad to see as the owner said he may not be able to recover from the damages and close the business. I firmly believe everyone has the right to protest; but to the point where violence and damage occurs, I cannot condone such actions. There is something to be said for the “power in numbers” that to me makes a protest successful. I saw it when I was in college and now, I have seen its strength in this historical film festival winner. SUCH A SIMPLE ACT THAT WAS defiant became the catalyst to a peaceful movement during the 1950s in Mobile, Alabama. With Jeffrey Wright (The Goldfinch, Only Lovers Left Alive) as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Terrence Howard (The Best Man Holiday, Empire-TV) as Ralph, CCH Pounder (Home Again, Law & Order: Special Victims Unit-TV) as Jo Ann Robinson, Carmen Ejogo (Selma, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them) as Coretta Scott King and Iris Little Thomas (Above the Rim, Malcolm X) as Rosa Parks; this drama captured me because of the way it dug into the background of the after events that surrounded Rosa’s refusal to give up her bus seat. The cast was excellent and worked well together in my opinion. As I was watching this film, I was struck by the role money played into the events; previously, I did not recall that aspect of the event playing as important of a role as it did in this picture. It made for a riveting watch at times. Not only did this movie teach history, it also provided a blueprint for creating a peaceful protest.
3 stars
moviejoltz 