Somethign About Mary

[Marcus Telcontar]

Gross. Gross. Gross.

But genuinely funny and a half resonable story. 7/10. Why oh why cant gross out comedies be more liek this one? It wouldnt take much effort. Like the hair gel sight gag. OMG, that was awful, but well executed. Really, that's where this moive does good - the jokes are actually executed well. Cameron Diaz is quite a good comedic actor as is Ben Stiller.

[JonathanLB]

There's Something About Mary isn't gross at all besides one scene. The hair gel.

The rest is tame. You could find it in a '50s comedy, honestly, I don't know what the big deal is about that being such a gross-out comedy. I saw it expecting it to be super disgusting and was pleasantly surprised that instead, it was just genuinely funny.

Grade: A. 9/10.

It's no Road Trip or American Pie, but it's not far off really. Darn funny film. The Brett Favre cameo is just classic.

[ReaperFett]

It's better than 99% of these kind of comedy. Having said that, I wouldnt watch it again, as I think the jokes are funnier because I remember them :)

[Vega Van-Derveld]

I've only seen half of Something About Mary, but I thought it was alright. Everytime I think of it though I confuse it with Meet The Parents.

[JMK]

I'm sorry Jon, but there was no way you would see someone's bean bag caught in a zipper on 50's television! Nor would seeing Magda's breasts! Those things were just sick. :lol

TSAM is one of my favorite comedies of all time, and it's the only Farelly brothers movie I can enjoy over and over.

[Darth Viscera]

gross? peh, hardly. Maybe when his John Thomas & Co. got stuck in the zipper, though.

[Admiral Lebron]

I saw it in a drive in... I am scared for life from the boob scene.

[darth_mcbain]

I'll never be able to hear "Franks and Beans" in the same way again... :lol

[JonathanLB]

I was exaggerating, but the point is, the film is REALLY tame next to every later gross-out comedy. It's a progression of disgustion that ends with The Sweetest Thing and Scary Movie 2 -- I would like to believe it would be impossible to make a grosser movie than TST, unless it was rated NC-17 or XXX.

[Darth Viscera]

Yeah, Scary Movie 2 was just vulgar during the scene with that wheelchair guy. I couldn't believe that the censors allowed that. Poor taste.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Oh yeah that was gross. I think Something About Mary was considered very gross back when it came out, now well there have been movies grosser, American Pie, Road Trip, both Scary Movies, etc. Now TSAM is considered tame to them. Also I loved it too, its one of my favorite comidies. The best of the Farrely Brothers.

[Mu Satach]

I laughed so hard in the theater when I saw TSAM I thought I was going to throw up on the people infront of me.

These are Love Blisters...

[Sanis Prent]

I love the out-takes at the end...especially the part with Chris Elliot and his wife, where they reverse roles on the couch, and she's watching the game, drinking beer, and he's doing all the "work" :lol

[JonathanLB]

My parents didn't like TSAM and I thought I'd probably not like it originally too, but I saw it because it made the high part of the AFI's Top 100 Greatest Comedies list, a list that I'll be working on finishing in the next 4 months or so.

Anyway, I ended up just buying it on DVD because it was pretty cheap and I was in a spending mood that day. Well I loved it! I was, first of all, impressed that it actually wasn't very gross at all, and second I just thought all of the jokes worked basically. It was, to me, a four star comedy. A rare one, too. I won't hand out that rating too often, even when I'm laughing hard.

Old School was really funny though, I thought. I have no idea why the critics hated it so much. Rob over at Spliced Wire, a guy I talk to quite a bit, had his review published in The San Francisco Examiner (he syndicates his reviews for a living) and gave the film NO stars! He called it one of the worst films he has seen in his 11 years of reviewing, which I find just unbelievable. Then Ebert gave it 1 star. I just don't get it. Everyone I know in real life likes the film. Bryan, Stacey, Ben, and Brendon, and myself, all thought it was absolutely hilarious.

[Darth Viscera]

Watching The Sweetest Thing now, because of all the high recommendations in this thread. The scene where Christina Applegate gets to demonstrate the advantages of her enhanced twin feminine protrusions to her peers is awesome, but their little asinine "song" in the restaurant makes me want to kick someone in the eyes while wearing those funny ice hockey boots that have steel blades sticking out of them.

The directors' commentary track is the most childish thing I've ever heard. Ugggh. Really, I mean ugggh.

[Diego Van Derveld]

Thats the business you're in, Jon. Opinions, like excuses, are often like buttholes. Everyone's got one, they usually smell sweet to their own, but to everyone else, they stink. Thats why the movie critic thing is so relative anyways. I mean hell...you panned Super Troopers and Mullholland Drive, yet gave xXx four stars.

[JonathanLB]

Well nobody else liked Super Troopers either. Ok, plenty of people did, but critics sure didn't. I know plenty of critics who hated it more than I did.

Mulholland Drive, eh, I have the right to be in the minority when I think a director is capable of much more. ;)

xXx is fantastic, one of the best action movies ever made. Easily a top 50 candidate there anyway, sure it isn't the same as John Woo's greatest work, but come on, what is? It's just purely one of the most fun movies I saw last year. I went with 5 guys. We all gave it a huge thumbs up. That's pretty rare we were all raving that much about an action movie, given we're all really smart guys. I mean, SAT scores were like, let's see: 1280, 1350, 1590, 1400, and I think like 1250. Not exactly the lowest common denominator ;)

[Diego Van Derveld]

And SAT scores equate to common sense and/or taste since when?

[JonathanLB]

I wouldn't say "equate to" but I figured you'd say something sarcastic like that.

Since when have any people with taste not been intelligent? Since never. Every art critic, film critic, or other serious art appreciators all have above average intelligence. You're not going to find your average Joe who has enough motivation and smarts to see as many movies as it takes to be a true critic and write about them even somewhat intelligently, or be able to make connections between films, observe themes in movies that are deeply hidden or only obvious to serious film buffs, etc.

As for my point about xXx, which has little to do with the above paragraph, I'm only saying that we're not a bunch of dumb kids who wouldn't know any better -- we are a very smart, intellectual, philosophical group of people who are likely to be critical of any film that isn't pleasing to watch. That doesn't somehow automatically mean xXx is a great movie, but it does mean that obviously there are a fair number of very intelligent, sophisticated people who think it was.

Ben is entirely unlikely to give an action movie four stars. I think xXx may have been only one of about 3 action movies he has ever given that rating. Sean O. likes to have fun and can appreciate action, but I've seen him be very critical of dumb action before, and to my surprise he didn't even like The Transporter, which I felt was very good. He's not an easy one to please either.

[Diego Van Derveld]

But being a critic is really all relative anyway. Thats why I don't put much stock in it. Its one of those things that, at best, should remain an unqualified hobby. FFS, I'd love to be a beer critic. I've sampled around 200 or more selections from all over the world, and I'm extremely knowledgable on the art. I know the temperatures and consistencies required for lager family brews, for ales, and so forth. I know that most people call American and Canadian macrobrews "Pilsner" beers, when the only true Pilsner is brewed in the Czech Republic. Yet, as knowledgable as I am on the practice, it still boils down to the fact that opinions are like buttholes. As movie-aptitude (or in my case beer-aptitude) increases, there is still very little statistical correlation between the choices of "critics". That's because its a bogus deal. Hell, there are beers that I consider small masterpieces in a bottle that most people I know can't stomach to sip. And there are some beers that everybody I know enjoys, that make me ill. So when you try to draw absolutes from this very shaky at best, relative hobby of yours, and attempt to rationalize it with movie experience, SAT scores, or whatever you want to pull out, I find it ludicrous. There's no correlation to support a convergence of critic choices. That's why I find the whole "critic" thing extremely dubious.

[Jedi Master Carr]

I agree with you their everybody has a different opinion so nobody really is right ;)

[Diego Van Derveld]

No, its not about that, per se...its about correlation. If there was any strong correlation between some kind of experience or educational background, and these kinds of choices, then you could argue that they were useful. But there isn't any such correlation, whatsoever.

[Mu Satach]

Since when do SAT scores have anything to do with anything except a college application? :p

I know plenty of people who are complete idiots and have high SAT scores. :lol

Anyway... Mulholland Dr. rocked. Still a few things I haven't made up my mind on about that one yet.

You know I never listen to what a critic has to say about a movie. A critic is really only speaking for themselves.

And since I don't look at movies the same way anyone else does no critic can tell me whether a movie is going to be worth my time or not.

[JonathanLB]

I didn't say there is any correlation between the quality of films a 1300 SAT score dude likes over a 1,000, for instance, but I was just making the point that we are all smart guys and still like xXx, so it would be silly to say that we are just simple-minded moviegoers when we all have significant film knowledge.

"...relative hobby of yours..."

It's not a hobby any more than my college studies are a hobby. My film studies are just that -- studies! If anything it is professional in nature. I am doing this for my professional benefit, not as a hobby, or I wouldn't even bother.

I think if you read through more of my reviews, of older films for instance, you would understand what a critical review can be besides just a bunch of opinions.

This goes for Mu too. What I write in a review is not just my opinions about the movie, but also I try to inform moviegoers, and readers, about the movie in more depth than they would otherwise know. That's what is great about many of Ebert's reviews, too. So for instance if you read my Spirited Away review, you can learn what a success the film was in Japan and the importance of the director, Hayao Miyazaki, which is something not everyone who sees the movie is going to know.

In my review of October (Soviet, 1927), not yet online, I give a brief history of the Russian Revolution of 1917 to set the film in context because that's what it is about. That type of background information is entirely factual and I hope useful to my readers in making sense of a movie more easily.

In my Amadeus review, I explain how the ending of the film isn't entirely accurate, but parts of it are, and I explain the differences between fact and fiction from the information I got at Biography.com, for instance.

Reviews of many films, at least good ones, should not simply give opinions of the critic, but should also in some way be useful even to people who totally disagree. My review of The Rules of the Game is not like most critics because I gave the film just two stars, which is not very impressive. Most critics consider it a masterpiece. Nevertheless, my review is still fair and unbiased in that I wrote 5 pages, even though I didn't especially like the movie, on its historical importance, what makes other critics call it a great movie, and what Renoir wanted to achieve with the film. After looking at it historically as I did, with help from the lecture by Jon Lewis (my film teacher), and with a lot of online info, I put together a useful review so that, my opinions aside, it will still help people understand the movie and its place in history. On an intellectual level, I even began to think the film was rather great myself after studying it, but the fact is, when I was watching it, I didn't like it, so I really am not going to change my rating just because the history surrounding the film is interesting. Someday I'll probably watch it again and in all likelihood bump it up to 2.5 or 3, maybe, but for now it's good where it is.

As you said, everyone has different opinions, and not only that, but our opinions change! My original opinion of The Fifth Element is entirely different from now. I thought it was hokey, unoriginal trash the first time I saw it, and annoying at times, too. Now I think it's wonderfully imaginative, lots of fun, and the few annoyances (the opera singer lady and Tucker?!? hehe) do not bother me really. It's a sweet sci-fi movie. It's too bad it didn't do better. I know how hard Luc Besson worked on that film.

So, with opinions being relative and even changing within the individual, the best reviews should give as much analysis and factual information about a movie as possible so that the opinions alone don't make the review useless. Trust me, if all I was doing was posting what I thought about various movies on my site, I'd be just like any dude with a journal writing useless opinions that nobody truly cares about because I'm not an "important voice" in film. That's not what I do, though. What I try to do is give readers more information about movies that they would not otherwise have known, unless they've studied the film, and I also provide them with some quotes from the movies frequently, I try to bring new ways of looking at the movies to view, etc. They are more than just, "This movie is great because it had good acting and a cool plot!"

[Diego Van Derveld]

I've read your reviews, Jon. Its nothing to impress, to be honest.

[JonathanLB]

Oh, right, ok.

You are so idiotic, but you don't discourage me.

My reviews are some of the best written anywhere, and in a few cases, they are the best reviews available, online or off, for many movies. We'll see what you think when I build my site into one of the greatest film review sites on the Internet.

Meanwhile, you can go screw yourself.

[Diego Van Derveld]

:lol atta boy! Keep thinkin professional. I'm sure you'll go places :rolleyes

[JonathanLB]

Of course I will. That has never been in doubt. I will be one of the nation's foremost film scholars, and that'll just be a hobby. Directing is where I will become famous.

Count on it. You can think what you want now, but if you think it bothers me, you are wrong. I will achieve success unknown in common times, to use Thoreau's words.

[Diego Van Derveld]

Jon Bowen. Film Buff. SUPASTAR.

Sure thing, if you can learn to write in anything other than egotistical ramble. I wouldn't be so averse to you chasing this neon rainbow of yours, if you at least had no illusions about how bad your writing is. You honestly can sit here and say that its on par with other reviewers? I've seen some Ebert reviews that look more of a miasma of popcorn grease stains than they do actual text, but its still night and day compared to what you've got on your site. I'm not going to lie, and I'm not going to sugarcoat. The reviews stink, content aside. You could maybe get squeezed into a column slot of your school's newspaper, but to take that writing into a profession? No. Yikes. Good grief.

[Darth Viscera]

Jonathan, Charley is most certainly not an idiot. I take personal offense to that remark.

[Lilaena De'Ville]

;) C'mon Diego, not all genius' are great writers. Take George Lucas for example. I mean, I BEGGED him to take me on as a script proofer but he told me he was the greatest writer evar! and so I didn't get a chance to help him out a little. :)

[JMK]

Take it easy kids.

[JonathanLB]

Oh my god, now we're just getting laughably ridiculous here.

My writing sucks, so that is why I was able to land one of the greatest literary agents in the country? Is that why I've only once in the last five years gotten less than an A on any paper in any class, and that was purely for the content (my writing was, in fact, praised greatly in that B grade, but he simply said I didn't focus on the topic he wanted; fair enough). I mean, do you expect me to take you seriously?!?!

My writing is better than (or equal to), grammatically and stylistically, any reviewer I have yet seen. Ebert's reviews are really funny often times, GREAT content most of the time, but his writing skills are weak. That really surprises me, actually, because he has written probably ten times as much as I have, at least. It's his "style," though, which is more conversational and informal. That really works for some people, but I do not write like that. My writing is scholarly.

The funniest thing about this, well I don't know, there are so MANY of them, is that you couldn't write your way out of a paperbag and my writing is undoubtedly infinitely superior to yours. Here is someone, i.e. you, who has accomplished nothing in the field of writing, yet has the nerve to criticize a professional. FYI -- I already AM a professional writer! You, on the other hand, are nothing but a jealous wannabe, or an idiotic critic of that which you do not understand, one of the two.

Let's see, though, now if I were to decide who to believe, I'm trying to think if I would believe my junior and senior English teachers at JHS, one with a Ph.D, my freshman philosophy teacher and my freshman English teacher at LMU, my literary agent, and also rep. for Leonard Maltin, who has personally endorsed my first book, or... YOU! Now this is a tough decision. Let me think about it for about two seconds and get back to you.

Oh wait, I just formulated my final answer: I think I'll choose to believe people who actually know what they're talking about ;)

Also, "egotistical rambling"? No review on the site could be labeled egotistical whatsoever. Look up the word. In fact, if you search the site, I doubt you'll find the use of the word "I" even one time. I don't use it in my writing. It is a possibility it occurs once, maybe even twice, in nearly 500 reviews. That is very far from egotistical. IMO, you're just hoping against hope that somehow I'll start cursing you out or, who knows what. Your critera for judging writing must be sorely lacking. I'm actually so amused that I'm curious what exactly you think is "bad," because I've already gotten a few good laughs out of you so far, I'd love to have a few more at your expense.

I don't know what purpose you think criticizing my writing will have exactly. If anything, it just makes me more motivated, not less so. Next, though, I am already at a point beyond criticism from non-professionals. I will listen to helpful advice from fellow writers, though likely my own style is set and develops only gradually as I see fit. In other words, your writing quality is so far behind mine, so vastly inferior, there is no advice you could possible give that would be useful to any professional, let alone me.

With that in mind, have a nice day. When you learn how to tell good writing from bad, get back to me.

[Diego Van Derveld]

You think I need to be paid to write to know bad writing when I see it? Come off your silver-spooned high horse and cut the crap. Because I find it fitting to work towards another profession, doesn't make me any less adept in reading and/or writing. You ramble, Jon. Your articles are long-winded, plodding, and boorish pieces, that never arrive at a point, except to pad your own self worth. Do you have some kind of suffocating inferiority complex? You seem absolutely desperate to validate yourself through your work, and it just is not working. Ask anyone else here, and they'll tell you the same. I'm simply taking time out of my day to be honest and frank with you.

I honestly could care less that you're a (gasp) professional writer, or that you have publishers looking into your work. So did Adolf Hitler and Karl Marx, and while your writing is marginally better than theirs was, its still atrocious to read. A really crappy professional writer is like a really crappy amateur writer, but without a meal ticket. If this is really what you want to do with your life, it's gut-check time, and you need to re-evaluate how you're going about your work.

Also, is it truly necessary to dig on my writing? :) I mean, that's really desperate. You haven't read my work, so don't even try to pull your snot-nosed superior act on me, kid.

[JonathanLB]

Diego, you are the most ignorant person I have ever met on a forum. My name is Jonathan L. Bowen -- adult, not kid. So why don't you drop the high horse routine yourself.

I don't think there would be anyone else here who agrees with your statements, by the way. CMJ has read through many more of my reviews than you have and he would vouch for the quality of my writing, but that's hardly the point. As much as I respect CMJ, as one of the best film buffs I've ever encountered and a genuinely cool guy, I am (no offense) more concerned with what actual scholars and writing teachers (for instance) say of my work.

My reviews ramble and do not have a purpose? How about to review the movie and give readers as much information as possible, that is actually important, about the films I review? That seems a pretty clear purpose to me. Every one of my reviews of classic movies is detailed because I am concerned with helping people understand these movies, but most of all, in the process I learn the most. If I didn't write such detailed reviews, I wouldn't really be learning nearly as much. The research required for many of these reviews is extensive, which is what leads to learning.

Now as for your comments, I'm not going to be a film critic. I'm going to be a director and a screenwriter. I have no use for spending my entire life criticizing other people's work and not making my own, but I do feel compelled as a fan of film and a future director to dedicate myself to the studies of great films from directors from the past and from all countries where film has flourished (as best I can).

Whereas I have posted my reviews for all to see, and many to enjoy every day, you have posted no writing on any visible Website, so what right have you to criticize anyone else's writing? Also, don't go there with the film argument, "Well you've not made movies, what right do you have to criticize?" That's entirely different. I don't personally assault directors with criticism and I feel that doing so would be inappropriate -- they are the ones creative enough and talented enough, in some way at least, to be directing films. I just write about their work from afar, but I am careful never to insult people, only the work in my reviews.

I guarantee you my writing is of the highest quality. The grammar is always checked over fairly thoroughly, the spelling is nearly perfect (I wouldn't be surprised if with my huge output there is the occassional mistake, in which case I love for people to point them out so I can fix them), and the structure is well thought out and organized in each review, including where the plot summaries go, the DVD Notes, and other relevant information that may arise.

You are wasting my time with these idiotic insults yourself, though. You wouldn't find anyone else to agree with what you are saying. I've wasted enough words on you.

[JonathanLB]

Also look no further than the poll on my site. 100 votes, not huge, but not bad. "Better than most critics" leads "About the same" and "worse than..." by a huge margin. It's about 80 to 85% "better than" and a tiny minority "worse than," and for good reason -- my reviews are superior to most critical reviews. They are more complete and they are more professionally written, although they often lack the film knowledge that these critics have, which is why I'm, of course, always growing as a critic myself. In time I'll have the same knowledge as them and be able to refine the reviews I've already written even further.

[Morgan Evanar]

I'm 20. I'm not an adult.

You need to realize you don't have anywhere near the experince needed to be an adult. Part of being an adult and grown up is being humble.

You've failed, right there.

Anyway, Diego is regarded as one of the best writers on the boards. He's also one of the most prolific. You, on the other hand, drone, moan, and exibit no depth in any of your reviews. They're all shallow and superficial. You either are unable to review the film on any other level than face value or you simply refuse to. You shun indy film, and you seem to shun anything that lacks a big name taped to it. That shows a lack of honesty and genuine interest in film itself.

Spelling and grammar good writing does not make. Its sad you think thats the end all.

[Diego Van Derveld]

And voluntary response polls aren't very indicative of truth whatsoever. But I'm sure if you were a statistician, you could have told me the same :).

And how exactly do you know CMJ has read more of your reviews than I have? Do you have some special clairvoyance to know which reviews of yours I have read? Don't assume to know things you don't. I've known you for nearly four years now. If you were an adult, I'd have given you that much credit long before. I tried to stick up for you a long time ago, when I thought you were given a bad rap. In the end, I regret it. You deserve every hard knock you can get. Eventually, one might bring you down to earth, so some constructive criticism can seep in your head.

[TheHolo.Net]

This thread is being placed on "warned" status because it is becoming nothing more than a flame fest even after a moderator asked for people to "take it easy". If another post which any SW section staff member perceives as 'flaming' occurs, it will be closed.

[Darth Viscera]

Jon, I object to your baseless "determinations". If you would acquaint yourself with the thousands upon thousands of posts that Charley has written, then you wouldn't be saying such silly things as this:


Whereas I have posted my reviews for all to see, and many to enjoy every day, you have posted no writing on any visible Website, so what right have you to criticize anyone else's writing?

I'm finding your posts in this thread emphatically self-congratulatory, and to be honest, I had no idea that such a vast quantity of condescension existed in this comparatively small universe.