Ain't It Cool News (www.aintitcool.com)
Movie News

Boozi Says STARDUST Does Not Shine!!

Merrick here...
We've received some wildy positive reactions to early screenings of this film (HERE and HERE, for example) -- but Boozi's take on the film is quite different. When reading this, it's critical to remember that (as Boozi indicates) STARDUST is not yet finished; many changes may be made to film between now and its late July release date.
Hi Harry Long time reader... first time contributer. I just got back from the very first screening of Stardust, which I have been eagerly waiting to watch because its by Matthew Vaughn, who if everyone remembers dropped out on X-Men 3 at the 11th hour! His only other film has been Layer Cake... and fingers crossed Stardust will be his last... I hardly know where to begin... but I do know that I really would love it, if I could wish upon a star and get back 2 and a half hours of my life. The audience was made up of critics, members of the cast and crew (who I suppose were also getting a first look at their film) and sitting on the opposite isle to me was the director Vaughn with his ohhh sooo hot wife Claudia Schiffer! This was a screening for market research were the audience had to fill in a questionaire after the film had ended. The film itself was missing about 50% of the visual effects, and instead they were replaced with pre-vis shots. Also as the film has not been scored yet, the main theme was throughout the film was replaced with the theme from Meet Joe Black (and the only reason I picked up on that, is because I like the MJB theme). This film is terrible, it was way too long, very cliched and very predictable. It was agonising watching it, honest! Vaughn had a chance to work with a very big budget and a stellar cast but still manged to mess it up! He had De Niro, Michelle Pheiiffer, Claire Danes for god sake! The film treads a very fine line between serious drama/fantasy and light-hearted comedy - and thats typical british comedy! Even the best bit of comedy just managed to get a few chuckles out of the audience and nothing more. The acting by all cast members is very wooden. Amongs the worst culprits is the young Brit lad who plays Tristan, Claire Danes was sooo unbearable! Phieffer should've past. On the upside it was nice to see De Niro to try something new, and it was pleasing to watch his performance. Gosh the film was such a bore, it was almost putting me to sleep! scene after scene just felt like 'been here, done that' to me. The film offers nothing new, and I really feel it will struggle in every department! The Visual Effects that were in the film, completed were 'Meh!' and 'So What!', nothing special and nothing that will wow you. The production values in general were really low. I really do not know where all the money went! The film is long, boring, mundane, predictable and alltogether poorley put together. I really do not get studios who give directors who apparently have made 'serious' films and know how to deal with 'characters'! Lets face it, Vaughn struggles to jump from small independant brit-flick to hollywood blockbuster wannabe... the blockbusters should be left to the blockbuster directors... Will the studios ever learn?! The general feeling was mutual throughout the members of the audience. The most diabolicle thing I noticed was a guy that was sitting infront of Vaughn, who after the film ended got up shook Vaughn's hand and said, 'Wow that was amazing' etc etc... which was complete crap... I could just tell he was a star struck 'fan' who noticed the director of the film was sitting behind and must have been crapping his pants at the chance to 'touch' him after the film had ended and say something to him, so it would be a conversation piece in the office at the next day at work. Oh by the way the film although supposedly set in the 1800's is very modern in its language and also in the look (make up) of the characters and costume. Never will you see people living in the 1800's with whiter teeth! It's so late right now and I have work in the morning... so I think I'll leave it at this for now. Harry all I can say is that this film is really, really bad.... Thank God we got LOTR and Narnia was OK too... but Eragon and Stardust are just ruining the concept of these types of films and its a blatant effort by the studios to cash in on the market, so its inevitable that we have to deal with the nuggets that just wont flush down the toilet! If you use this call me Boozi

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Jan. 31, 2007, 10:53 a.m. CST

    first

    by darthhirsty

    again!!

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 10:54 a.m. CST

    second

    by darthhirsty

    ohhhhhhh

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 10:54 a.m. CST

    third

    by darthhirsty

    oh yeah

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 10:55 a.m. CST

    fourth

    by darthhirsty

    go go go!!

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 10:53 a.m. CST

    Funny when a reviewer drops something like:

    by major_tom_aint_dead

    " Lets face it, Vaughn struggles to jump from small independant brit-flick to hollywood blockbuster wannabe... the blockbusters should be left to the blockbuster directors... Will the studios ever learn?!" Yeah, whatever; here´s one who cant wait for the "Transformers" film.

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 10:55 a.m. CST

    fifth

    by darthhirsty

    hell

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 10:56 a.m. CST

    damn!!

    by darthhirsty

    was all going so well then monkey boy pops in from no where

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 10:58 a.m. CST

    THIS YEAR'S LITTLE MISS SUNSHINEDUST!!!

    by Err

    I don't care about this film.

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 11:08 a.m. CST

    Diabolicle

    by Banky the Hack

    So, to enjoy a movie that you didn't and appreciate and congratulate the director of said movie is now patently evil, and reminiscent of the devil? Maybe he actually liked the movie? What a concept And, by the way, it's diabolical. I think this review is one of the nuggets it mentions at the end.

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 11:06 a.m. CST

    CHILDREN OF FUCKING MEN!!!

    by PwnedByStallone

    Pull my finger.

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 11:08 a.m. CST

    hmmm, no score, and no effects? Where did the money go?

    by modlight

    You can't say that you like the score from MJB and then complain this movie is too long. I dont even know why they show things when they aren't done yet.

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 11:11 a.m. CST

    Whats a reverse-plant called?

    by CarmillaVonDoom

    Phieffer should have past lol

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 11:19 a.m. CST

    TNALP

    by all your base

    reverse plant

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 11:23 a.m. CST

    Reverse Plant

    by instant_karma

    I think they should be called Audreys. They're plants, but evil. Also, they GOTTA EAT. <p> I hate myself now...

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 11:26 a.m. CST

    This review...

    by Imokliel

    ...is terrible, it was way too long, very cliched and very predictable. It was agonising reading it, honest! Boozi had a chance to work with a very big website and a stellar computer but still manged to mess it up!

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 11:26 a.m. CST

    Wow...

    by Purgatori

    Not one mention of the fact this was based off a Gaiman book. That's strange.

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 11:29 a.m. CST

    Typical British Comedy?????

    by james2025

    I admit there is a fair share of terrible light-hearted brit comedy, but to label it all that way is just stupid. Shows like Blackadder, The Young Ones, Bottom, Darkplace, Knowing Me, Knowing You amongst many others are what demonstrate that British comedy tends to be the best on the market. I guess the reviewer must be a yank. He can stick with his shitty Everyone Loves Raymond, Friends et al. American comedy (with the exception of Seinfeld, Curb Your Enthusiasm and Police Squad) would not know a good joke if it was neck deep in one.

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 11:41 a.m. CST

    no one has mentioned, about this review

    by BadMrWonka

    there isn't ONE THING in the review that proves he actually saw the flick. all he mentions are vague references to actors that he could have got from anywhere online, and a few vague references to the screening, that he could have got from anywhere.<br><br>my guess? failed actor. waited outside the screening, talked to someone enough to get a few pieces of info about it, looked up some shit online, and trashed it because he failed in an audition for a walk-on role. not to mention he writes like a moron (no offense actors out there, but you know most of you can barely write a sentence)<br><br>this is the dumbest, vaguest and most useless review I've seen in a while. boozi's next acting job should be a commercial for shit toothpaste...

  • Jan. 31, 2007, noon CST

    Have to agree

    by Captain Mal

    with everyone who's said this review is worthless.

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 12:09 p.m. CST

    Boozi, NO WAY you saw this...

    by Abin Sur

    But geez, dude...you could have faked it a little better by at least reading Neil Gaiman's graphic novel. For shame!

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 12:11 p.m. CST

    phieffer should've passed...

    by andyny29

    is what you mean.

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 12:25 p.m. CST

    Sorry, but I read till the "oooh sooo hot Schiffer"...

    by DerLanghaarige

    ...and then I stopped. This one has TROLL written all over it.

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 12:30 p.m. CST

    Why would AICN even post this drivel?

    by Ricky Henderson

    This schmuck has easily posted the most incoherent and rambling movie review I've read in a long time. Coming from someone who clearly remember's Harry's "Blade II" review, that's saying an awful lot.

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 12:36 p.m. CST

    but what about the domestic posters ?

    by durhay

    Oh, must be in another thread

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 12:40 p.m. CST

    TOTAL FUCKING DESTRUCTION!!!!!

    by Motoko Kusanagi

    Yeeehaaa!!!

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 12:40 p.m. CST

    My favorite part of this review...

    by The Funketeer

    was when he was able to read the mind of the guy in the front row and how he knew the guy didn't really like the film but wanted to suck up to the director anyway.

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 12:40 p.m. CST

    this reviewer = no credibility

    by oisin5199

    based on all the points given above and oh, yeah, the "review." He says the feeling was mutual throughout the audience and then points out a guy who liked it. And yeah, spell check would be nice. Is this guy 14 years old? I'll wait for a real 'review,' thanks.

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 12:50 p.m. CST

    Wow! A great review!

    by Phimseto

    That's the best review I have read in a while. This guy is fast on his way to becoming the next David Manning!!!

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 1:02 p.m. CST

    James 2024

    by Iamagoodguy

    Dude British comedy blows with the exception of those few shows you mentioned and a couple more to boot. And you forgot to mention the awesomeness of other american shows like Simpsons, Futurama et al. You are right about friends though.

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 1:02 p.m. CST

    never said this before but...

    by Frank Black

    ...PLANT! No, seriously I stopped reading it when he wrote "past" instead of "passed." Loved Layer Cake and can't wait to see this!

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 1:10 p.m. CST

    LOL

    by SG7

    Damn, must be a slow news day at AICN to post drivel like this. The only thing that could make it better would be to mention Harrys girlfriend a few times.

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 1:26 p.m. CST

    You take that back, Blarneyman!

    by Childe Roland

    I will not have you speak ill of America's president that way! Oh, wait...

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 1:47 p.m. CST

    BOOZI GOTTA EAT!!!!

    by TheUglyBaby

    (__)__)

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 1:46 p.m. CST

    I think I've got this fucker sussed.....

    by Stebop

    The overall tone and standard of this review fucking stinks of smartarse, semi-literate (British?) high school kid with a hard on for their Media Studies class and dreams of a career writing The Sun's (UK tabloid) film review column. Pay no heed to the writer who cannae write, they only write about themselves. Enough said. Apart from the fact I'm a Brit, not some crazy Anglophobe.

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 1:49 p.m. CST

    Reverse Plant = Weed

    by tonagan

    Or Potato Bug

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 1:49 p.m. CST

    Oh Boozi...

    by Imokliel

    ...you crazy little Anglophobe.

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 2 p.m. CST

    An unoriginal film from the bloke who made Layer Cake?

    by Spandau Belly

    Duh! Layer Cake was the least original film I've ever seen. It wasn't badly done, it just seemed to exist in some world where Lock Stock had never been made.<br><br>And DeNiro's been slumming for a long time now. He hasn't made a good flick since Ronin.<br><br>BTW where's Ronin 2?

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 2:05 p.m. CST

    Just got off the phone with De Niro...

    by Abin Sur

    He wants to thank Boozi for the glowing review...

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 2:05 p.m. CST

    Seems like a lot of personal attacks on the talent...

    by Kraken

    and not much in the way of an actual review.

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 2:21 p.m. CST

    Reviews need to be a lot more descriptive than that

    by coolguyaaron

    "His only other film has been Layer Cake... and fingers crossed Stardust will be his last...", uh, what? Layer Cake was great. Apparently this is your first review, and it's clear you didn't like the film. But it's not enough to just repeatedly call it "bad" and "boring". You need to be a lot more descriptive if you expect readers to take your word for it.

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 2:50 p.m. CST

    Anybody notice

    by MPJedi2

    How it was a critics/cast and crew screening, and then a test screening all within the same paragraph - fake.

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 2:54 p.m. CST

    So he bases a part of his review...

    by Kid Z

    ... on DENTISTRY??

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 3:04 p.m. CST

    WHAT THE FUCK

    by El Scorcho

    is up with this guy's use of exlamation marks?!?!?! Seriously, what the fucking hell?

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 3:23 p.m. CST

    Shitty reviewer = good film?

    by Zardoz

    When an illiterate jackass gives a negative review the film will probably be good. I hope this boozi wanker is just talking out of his arse...(maybe he's pissed because Claudia didn't have her hand in HIS popcorn during the screening!)

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 3:24 p.m. CST

    So Boozi, was this movie bad?

    by Tin Snoman

    If so, please explain WHY, beyond the vaguest of general statements and personal attacks against actors, at a length of no less than one paragraph but no more than eight. Please feel free to use spellchecking software, or a dictionary as necessary. Maybe this movie does suck, but I'm not convinced of much based on this review other than the fact that Boozi is a hack. In short, TRY AGAIN EVIL PLANT PERSON. Seriously, this review is a joke, right?

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 3:40 p.m. CST

    studios should really waste money using CG to yellow...

    by Demosthenes2

    ...the actors' teeth, because white teeth are surely the most offensive anachronisms, and every other period film has somehow managed to yellow actors' teeth, maybe with paint or a special dye or caps pre-CG. The sad thing is this was the only specific example he gave as to why he didn't like this film.

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 3:53 p.m. CST

    Review? What review?

    by finky089

    The guy just gave us a bunch od his dislike without any real support for what "sucked". "Gosh, it was SO unbearable..." Why? What didn't work? <p> WHy post shitty "reviews" that review NOTHING and espouse only a marginally coherent perspective with no supporting facts? <p> Merrick, come on man.

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 3:52 p.m. CST

    I don't blame the guy...

    by epitone

    ...for having difficulty sitting through two and a half hours of this film. It seems he had enough difficulty sitting still for two and a half minutes to write the review. Time to wire up the meth lab for WiFi, Boozi!

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 4:02 p.m. CST

    "spackling her fine shorn auburn carpet w/ mancheadle"

    by finky089

    fuckin Abom always comes up with the best lines!!

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 4:05 p.m. CST

    Boozi GOTTA NAME DROP!!

    by finky089

    schmuck

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 4:14 p.m. CST

    I can't believe

    by Purgatori

    they actually posted this. There's nothing in this review that gives any indication he saw the movie. And if he DID he had no idea what he was going to see. Saying that he was anxious to see this and then not even mentioning the fact that it was based on a novel or anything about the comic books or history...wow. This is suckage.

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 4:15 p.m. CST

    I'm bored. I guess a write a Stardust-review too.

    by DerLanghaarige

    Haven't seen it, but who cares?

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 4:26 p.m. CST

    Anybody who says Narnia was "okay"...

    by pip1345

    ...is an idiot, and shouldn't be reviewing movies. Try 'awful.'

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 4:27 p.m. CST

    As bad as TINO will be, my review will be better

    by finky089

    written. <p> At least I'll be able to state specific problems with the film (eg. story dwells too much on the humans instead of the robots, the dialogue was corny and contrived, the robots looked like crappily designed guyvers, Bay does great with explosions, but not so hot with directing humans or honing in on a coherent plot, fans of the G1 series will be disappointed with the numerous departures from G1 cannon- did I miss anything major?)

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 4:30 p.m. CST

    Verified?

    by Phangs01

    So often I see comments before a review indicating that the review is plausible (a date or location verified by someone tied to the production) or unlikely. Is AICN skipping this step now? Based on content, this seems HIGHLY unlikely. Please post if there is more information (or less) avaliable for this. Oh and, hey, a good point was made above: What's the point of a focus group if you're going to taint the results by putting the cast or crew in the same theater? I'm an actor. Well read but unable to read or write. Please send books. I'll learn, for the honor of my guild.

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 4:37 p.m. CST

    I just got off the phone with Neil Gaiman...

    by Childe Roland

    ...and he wants a piece of Boozi's ass. I've never heard him so upset. I think he actually stood up while talking to me.

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 4:48 p.m. CST

    "The movie was boring, and it was boring, it was also..

    by LittleDudes

    Boring. One other thing worth mentioning is that it was boring." Fucken awesome review, man! Fucktard.

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 5:38 p.m. CST

    Aarg!

    by PolyesterRage

    My IQ dropped around 50 points just reading the opening paragraph! Boozi pretty much had to be to write this piece of shit.

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 5:39 p.m. CST

    This is whats making it onto this site as a 'review'???

    by Ridge

    Christ, like BadMrWonka said, there was NOTHING in there that proved he saw the movie. All it came across as was 'BAD MOVIE! DONT SEE IT!' with no evidence, no actual parts or reasoning of things he didnt like... I'm sure there was some other article they could've put up in space of this shit that would've been more interesting. God guys...

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 5:48 p.m. CST

    WHY THE FUCK DID YOU POST THIS NON REVIEW??!!

    by DOGSOUP

    We learned nothing, so the little puke didn't like it....wow that's all we know. Not why or exactly what went wrong...just various ways to say the same thing over and over and over again...Well Boozi, go fuck yourself you little twat and leave the film critique to people who actually enjoy movies. Stardust: I'm there opening night.

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 6:46 p.m. CST

    Bollox to this feckless gobshite

    by Twisted Knacker

    It's obvious this prick got all the info in his non-review from reviews posted on this very site in December.

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 7:09 p.m. CST

    I ruined a great comedy moment

    by Twisted Knacker

    But this wasn't it.

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 7:12 p.m. CST

    get this fucking "reviewer" out of here

    by jrbarker

    that was terrible...come on AICN, have a little quality control here

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 7:14 p.m. CST

    Dumber than the average bear...

    by CZ

    Boozi sounds like your average trash-talking wannabe poser man-child. The kind that was probably so absorbed with Claudia Schiffer's bosoms during the screening, he didn't bother watching the movie and had to cover up his embarrassment by unleashing the whole of his vitriol (impotent and puerile as it is) upon said film. Neutering is in order. Bring me the foreceps! Chop, chop!

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 7:35 p.m. CST

    Yeah attacking the reviewer will make the movie good!!!

    by IndustryKiller!

    Jesus people get ahold of yourselves. So he didn't get as in depth into the film as we may have liked. Maybe the review isn't great but there is definitely no reason to disbelieve him. In fact I think it would do the film alot of good to give it a healthy dose of skepticism to bring lofty expectations down. personally I'm giving Boozi the benefit of the doubt for just that reason. I remember when I posted a nagative review of the plodding overlong bore that was Zodiac and caught endless amounts of shit for it even when I backed up my review with facts and examples from the film. (I await with baited breath to see how the final cut turned out.) Calling the reviewer out will not make the film good and since we all know so little about the film there is no reason to expect greatness thus far. I will say leaving the blockbuster films for the blockbusters directors is a pretty asinine thing to do since there are no good blockbuster directors out there right now and the ones that are had to start somewhere.

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 7:38 p.m. CST

    Why post this crap?

    by Ecto-1

    Come on Merrick, why the hell did you post this rubbish? I don't have a problem with someone out there not liking a film that's had some great reviews so far. But that clearly wasn't a review, more like a half-arsed whine. There's no details, everything's completely vague and it wasn't constructive in the least. It's pretty obvious that this guy hasn't seen this film. So why bother to post it? Really, why? You guy's will post any shit and it's disappointing.

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 7:43 p.m. CST

    IndustryKiller

    by CZ

    Oh, the movie's beside the point. Don't tell me you're going to try and defend that empty onslaught of grand high bitchery as anything *resembling* a review.

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 8:13 p.m. CST

    No CZ

    by IndustryKiller!

    The review itself I won't defend, the opinion on the other hand I will. After all it could be he's right about the film. As for it being "bitchery", since none of us have direct power in Hollywood we are all bitching.

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 8:16 p.m. CST

    I just got off the phone with my buddy Matthew Vaughn

    by dregmobile

    He remembers the name 'Boozi' from that screening. Some ten year old hitting on Ms Schiffer and later dragged away by Security, screaming 'Remember the name Boozi - for it will be the chilling sound of your doom!" The kid wet his pants. De Niro laughed. Shortly after, Vaughn broke out some *real* stardust ...

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 9:07 p.m. CST

    "Negative Plant" is more accurate...

    by Anti-fanboy

    honest!

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 9:10 p.m. CST

    yeah merrick

    by occula

    did you post this coz you knew everybody would go postal and get all kerfluffled? if so, well done. if not, fucking read it first next time!

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 9:31 p.m. CST

    Damn! I was worried there for a second...

    by AhQ

    Then I realized that the reviewer is a fucktard who can't, even, use commas, correctly.

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 11:19 p.m. CST

    people makin' it up

    by CornsilkSW

    this guy is just making Sh!t up. why this was even posted to the site is beyond me. It's nigh unintelligible, completely off-base, and a "review" of a movie he hasn't seen in anything resembling a finished state. stop wasting my time.

  • Jan. 31, 2007, 11:41 p.m. CST

    Reverse Plant = Drinking The Haterade

    by Darth Fabulous

    Pure and simple...WTF spelling errors...diabolicle (!). Is this person in the fifth grade? I can't believe AICN even ran this review...there are zero spoiler plot points and what's with "the general feeling was mutual throughout the members of the audience"? Did this guy pick the brains of the audience members following the screening? If so, why isn't there any mention of this? This person has it in for Vaughn.

  • Feb. 1, 2007, 12:17 a.m. CST

    EXtremely fun Review

    by T 1000 xp professional

    Went back and actually read the whole review after reading all these negative talkbacks. I kind of agree about the iffyness of this guy's credibility. I don't think the guy saw the movie, and I wondering how many times he visited imdb while he was writing this thing....

  • Feb. 1, 2007, 1:10 a.m. CST

    Boozi is asking to be anally raped by my fist

    by LittleDudes

    Sorry, just needed to get the hate out, y'know?

  • Feb. 1, 2007, 3:58 a.m. CST

    Wow, a 'reviewer' that makes Harry look like...

    by Sledge Hammer

    ...a fucking poet laureate by comparison, a rare feat indeed! Seriously, is the site really so desperate that it now accepts more than likely made up (and at the very least, utterly useless) reviews from bored ten year olds just because they clearly have the imdb bookmarked (and yet still can't even spell Pfeiffer right...), yeesh.

  • Feb. 1, 2007, 4:01 a.m. CST

    IndustryKiller

    by raw_bean

    Your post was kind of out in two crucial ways. 1) the vast majority of posts in this talkback haven't been "this review is terrible, therefore the film is probably good", they've been simply "this review is terrible". And secondly, we've had at least two positive reviews of the film already, either of which were far more coherently and intelligently written than this one (and of which it seems much more likely that the reviewer actually saw the film), so while it's certainly possible that Boozi is a useless but correct reviewer, the balance of evidence leans the other way at the moment.<p>On a more general note, this is all part of the charm of AICN. Much of the time, it's great to get a wide range of opinions from critics and industry insiders, and all stripes of movie fan. The downside to this is the occasional review (usually by either some illiterate fool that gets posted just to offer an alternative opinion to the prevailing one, as here, or by Harry when he gets too carried away) that just hurts my brain to read.

  • Feb. 1, 2007, 4:18 a.m. CST

    Any reviewer that can cram..

    by Bigmacx

    .. that many exclamation marks into a review (and especially teh one at the end of 'meh') is a rare talent indeed. Watch this space people, we may be present at the birth of a reviewing legend.

  • Feb. 1, 2007, 4:31 a.m. CST

    "leave blockbusters to blockbuster directors"?

    by filmcoyote

    So then all blockbusters would be the kind of shit churned out by Michael Bay, McG and Brett Ratner! This guy mentions "thank god for LOTR" but has he no idea of Jackson's pre-LOTR history. And what about Raimi, Nolan, Singer - all have made great blockbusters coming from indie backgrounds. Hell, even Spielberg (Sugarland Express) and Lucas (American Graffiti) have made both. The creativity of these directors is what makes the best blockbusters stand out and stick in the memory. Sure occasionally you end up with Hulk but still indie directors have the talent and it's good to see Hollywood backing that up with the means.

  • Feb. 1, 2007, 4:40 a.m. CST

    Just got off the phone with Boozi...

    by LittleDudes

    ...he says Dick Laurent is dead. Don't know what the fuck was up with that.

  • Feb. 1, 2007, 7:13 a.m. CST

    Mr Monkey...

    by MonkeyManReturns

    The MonkeyManReturns...you hear me...returns! I am that Monkey!

  • Feb. 1, 2007, 7:14 a.m. CST

    Pitch Invader, was that a Podge & Rodge reference?

    by slone13

    Feckless Gobshite! I can't get enough of those dirty old homophobic puppets.

  • Feb. 1, 2007, 9:16 a.m. CST

    Thelma & Louise review

    by T 1000 xp professional

    In the end the movie just ended up being a bore....The movie was still disapointing even though it had a amazing cast( the ooooo so hot Susan Sarandon and the ruff ruff, lick lick hotness of Geena Davis) Brad Pitt gave a really good performance though, can you say Oscar. Michael Madsen has seen better roles like when he played the brother in Corky Romano ( one of my all time favs)

  • Feb. 1, 2007, 1:22 p.m. CST

    Ledger Pie = Michelle WIlliams?

    by finky089

    ???

  • Feb. 1, 2007, 8:58 p.m. CST

    Pile of manure

    by Jesus Maniloff

    Really, there are good reviews, bad reviews, lots of things that wouldn't qualify as a review on a chilly day in Hell, and then there is this crap. Unlike some of the posters here I don't even care whether this carbuncle on the backside of humanity actually saw the movie or not. With a brain cell count in the single digits this moron shouldn't be reviewing anything more complicated than Wildest Police Videos. He just sucks at everything that requires mental effort, and "reviewing" this movie is his only chance of enjoying somebody's attention. The only other way this Boozi can have an audience so captivated would be to actually kidnap somebody. Harry, what the fuck?!

  • Feb. 1, 2007, 11:14 p.m. CST

    ACTUALLY...

    by El Scorcho

    As poorly written as this review is, there may be some truth to it. The release date for this film was just moved to August 10th. Never a good sign.

  • Feb. 2, 2007, 3:27 p.m. CST

    Last!

    by finky089

    yeah