Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

Would You Believe...?? Derek Flint Is Back With A Review Of GET SMART!!

foist by zom-bot.com	Dec 5th, 2007 09:32:16 AM
!
foist by zom-bot.com	Dec 5th, 2007 09:32:18 AM
!
Despite Terrance Stamp, this shall suck by Stuntcock Mike	Dec 5th, 2007 09:35:13 AM
See Evan Almighty and Dan in Real Life.
So does the Rock... by waylayer	Dec 5th, 2007 09:35:59 AM
...actually get somewhat involved in the action or really has more of an extended cameo?
hey... by Datascream	Dec 5th, 2007 09:38:06 AM
I liked point break :( I AM AN F.B.I. AGENT!
Derek Flint? by Abin Sur	Dec 5th, 2007 09:40:05 AM
Never heard of him.
What about Smart's old nemisis, The Craw? by 2for2true	Dec 5th, 2007 09:44:39 AM
NOT CRAW - CRAW! CRAW! Sorry, I couldn't resist.....
"This isn’t the unanticipated fun the first CHARLIE’S ANGELS was by Bobo_Vision	Dec 5th, 2007 09:49:17 AM
Thats where the reviewer lost all credibility. His shit-detector needs to be recalibrated.
So by Series7	Dec 5th, 2007 09:52:25 AM
I guess I don't have to see the movie anymore, because he pretty much told me the whole story? Why he needed to go in depth for what is obviously a light comedy? Its not like we needed to discuss KEY plot points. If I see this movie I am not going to be like remember when Steve Carell found out about the double agent, MAN that was nuts! Not trying to be a dick, but this movie review could've been shortened to a paragraph like it will be for all other reviewers when it comes out.
he's really overrating get smart by repligin	Dec 5th, 2007 09:52:48 AM
i really like it as a kid, but it wasn't that amazing. certainly the action wasn't that deftly handled.
the old another bad get smart movie trick. by dr.bulber	Dec 5th, 2007 09:53:53 AM
why would anyone even attempt this with a new maxwell smart. lame.
FAYLE by OttopartS	Dec 5th, 2007 10:02:51 AM
Point Break is NOT crap, I think you'll find.
Maybe I'm alone here by Dijonase24	Dec 5th, 2007 10:08:25 AM
The teaser for this had me absolutely rolling. Sure, it was just two or three gags (throwing the phone, the beads in the doorway), but they already have me convinced. Not convinced that it'll be a great movie, mind you, but they at least convinced me that it might just be worth my time. The rest of the movie may be a dud, but I've got hopes that it will at least be an amusing dud.
so its wasnt awesome? by palewook	Dec 5th, 2007 10:12:52 AM
needs more anne hathaway in black shirts and short shorts.
Would you believe ... I SUPPORT THE SHOE PHONE ON THIS! by chrth	Dec 5th, 2007 10:14:43 AM
The reason the relaunch with Andy Dick fell apart was because of NewsRadio, which he was cast in at about the same time.
KNEEL BEFORE KAOS!!! by Err	Dec 5th, 2007 10:15:03 AM
haha!
THIS.....IS.....A.....PLANT! by Err	Dec 5th, 2007 10:15:34 AM
It is.
The reason why the relaunch with Andy Dick... by Kid Z	Dec 5th, 2007 10:23:08 AM
... really fell apart was... uh... it was Andy Dick... I mean, c'mon!
So the Rock is the double agent. Thanks for giving it away. by Err	Dec 5th, 2007 10:24:22 AM
I hate plot points being given away.
thats the second worst review i've ever read... by Gatsbys West Egg Omlet	Dec 5th, 2007 10:57:49 AM
just kidding. i was just showing off my Get Smart smarts.
Weird review by ricarleite	Dec 5th, 2007 10:59:47 AM
It's liked he loved the movie, but hated it at the same time. Can anyone point a funny movie with Carrel except 40 year old virgin?
When things get romantic, I thought they would set off an Amber by JonQuixote	Dec 5th, 2007 11:01:57 AM
Ha!
Rental by SkeletonParty	Dec 5th, 2007 11:06:01 AM
I can't imagine running down to the theater in a tizzy and slapping down $10 for this. But, I like Carrel and I like Get Smart, so I'll put it on Netflix.
I'll miss it by that much by oisin5199	Dec 5th, 2007 11:12:44 AM
couldn't resist.
ricarleite... by Gatsbys West Egg Omlet	Dec 5th, 2007 11:38:11 AM
Little Miss Sunshine.
Third paragraph, second sentence: by jimbles	Dec 5th, 2007 11:41:19 AM
FYI: the term is "derring do."
NEVER speak ill of Point Break! by TheAFLACDuck	Dec 5th, 2007 11:49:54 AM
... I said "Good Day, sir"!
I'm this will suck, but the reviewers a 'tard by queerfilmjunkie	Dec 5th, 2007 12:00:08 PM
Not defending the film, but Carell and Garner would set off an Amber alert? Garner is 35. Carell is 45. Hardly a huge age disparity, especially in the world of movies. Seems like a strange thing to bitch about.
It's Anne Hathaway in this flick, not Garner by Reel American Hero	Dec 5th, 2007 12:05:49 PM
And she's like 24 or or so. So even that's out of the creepy range I think.
A smart review from a fan of the series, by skimn	Dec 5th, 2007 12:08:28 PM
well whadaya know. I'll take this review over the one posted earlier.
1,807 word review by Trazadone	Dec 5th, 2007 12:12:08 PM
Jesus, does it really take a term paper to say, "This is a mediocre movie that will make $30 million at the box office. Everyone else will Netflix it 3 months later if they need a slight diversion." This is the kind of movie where you yell, "Rental!" when you see the trailer.
In a Harrison/Calista, Demi/Ashton world by skimn	Dec 5th, 2007 12:13:04 PM
I guess a 21 year difference ain't that much anymore, huh? What if she was 18 and he 39?
POINT BREAK IS AWESOME by Live.	Dec 5th, 2007 12:25:30 PM
He praises Charlie's Angels, but dares to deride the beautiful POINT BREAK!?! That's when I knew his taste was complete crap.
Charlie's Angels = PENIS CANCER by Kurzinski Valentine	Dec 5th, 2007 12:39:47 PM
That's right. It's that bad.
Steve Carell Could Easily Bang by topaz4206	Dec 5th, 2007 12:56:12 PM
a 25 year-old in real life, so the 20 year gap seems possible. I couldn't find a list of the biggest Age Gaps in film, but here's one of celebrities: http://rivekth efallen.googlepages.com/050307 0717.jpg
I've seen Point Break. by Human Tornado	Dec 5th, 2007 01:04:44 PM
It was AWESOME!
I'm going to protest this movie by johnyaztec	Dec 5th, 2007 01:12:40 PM
When this movie comes out I'm going to beat off the entire movie to show how your only screwing yourself by paying to see it.
Can we start counting.... by GrandMuffTarkin	Dec 5th, 2007 02:22:31 PM
How often "Missed it by that much" will be used in reviews for this flick? Starting.....now.
Obviously... by Gremlin517	Dec 5th, 2007 02:26:15 PM
The movie company had rights to the name and only want to get something, anything out there with the Get Smart logo on it. This happens all the time in other genres, when something is too weak to stand on its own they tag it with the name of something that already has an established fan-base, while basically throwing out everything that was good about the original. This will suffer the same fate as Underdog. But the movie companies don't care--enough people will go to see it when it opens and rent it on video that they will make their money back--that is all that matters.
Anne nude by skimn	Dec 5th, 2007 02:44:08 PM
supposedly in a movie called Havoc, and wasn't there some nudity in Brokeback...hers I mean..?
About as many yuks as Munich... by Zardoz	Dec 5th, 2007 02:46:43 PM
that was one of Spielberg's funniest films, wasn't it? "It's the only movie where Jews are kickin' ass!"
Zardoz is a zilch by johnyaztec	Dec 5th, 2007 02:49:16 PM
Zardoz that was pretty funny, but to bad no one was able to see you gaging on my yam-bag. Frunnkussssss
Hey, Err... by Kal Reeve	Dec 5th, 2007 03:11:37 PM
I hate plot points being given away in the subject line of the talkbacks when I went to so much trouble to avoid reading them in the actual review. Thanks!
Karl Reeve by Err	Dec 5th, 2007 03:15:34 PM
Just as easily as you skipped over the review, you could've skipped over my post.
Shut up, Howard Hughes! by Zardoz	Dec 5th, 2007 03:28:54 PM
Your face looks like a vagina, JohnnyAztec!
C'mon, Munich was HILARIOUS! by AdrianVeidt	Dec 5th, 2007 03:38:23 PM
So is Nick Cannon, dad. Nick Cannon's hilarious.
I do skywalkerfamily by mrfan	Dec 5th, 2007 04:46:54 PM
Still waiting for the three disc directors cut to come out.
Probably the most revived TV show of all time? by MrKrantz	Dec 5th, 2007 04:48:26 PM
Has this idiot never heard of "Star Trek"?
I almost feel sorry for them. by Larry of Arabia	Dec 5th, 2007 04:56:00 PM
I can understand why you would think a new Get Smart would work. It should translate to any time, and most of the characters are standard issue. The insurmountable problem isn't the lack of Mel Brooks and Buck Henry. It's doing it without Don Adams. He managed to create a rounded, surprisingly complex and sympathetic character out of what should have been a one note joke. He so inhabited this role that it's impossible to recast. You might as well remake Goundhog Day without Bill Murry.
Mr. Krantz Is A Moron by DangerMan	Dec 5th, 2007 05:21:22 PM
Star Trek was only revived as a series of movies with the original cast. The Next Generation and the other knockoffs were all considered spinoffs. The original Get Smart has been brought back four times, stupid.
Its Unfair by finfangfoom	Dec 5th, 2007 05:40:49 PM
Ive always loved Get Smart, but looking back and seeing how succesful that was, and how "Police Squad!" only lasted about 4 episodes continues to baffle me.
Squad & Sledge by DangerMan	Dec 5th, 2007 05:44:21 PM
"Police Squad!" had six episodes. "Get Smart!" lasted longer due to the character based humor. "Sledge Hammer!" was the same way. I didn't dig Andy Richter's last show.
I still believe by finfangfoom	Dec 5th, 2007 05:50:45 PM
I still think that Police Squad got treated unfairly. Thank god that there were 3 naked gun movies. It almost made up for the lack of the series. Almost
Actually, Dangerman... by Napoleon Park	Dec 5th, 2007 05:51:20 PM
"Star Trek" was revived as an animated series, as a series of novels, as a comic book series from four different publishers, as seven movies as a Broadway musical, as a candy bar, as a series of action figures from several different manufacturers, as a poster, as a ball-gag, as a series of AMT models, as a panty liner, as three different types of cheese and two kinds of sausage, as a record and read along comic book set, as a line of gourmet soups and as a tattoo on your mama. All Get Smart had was two movies, a next generation spin-off, a board game and a line of tampons. Kirk's communicator or Smart's shoe, which would you rather have as a cell phone?
Not interested. by TomBodet	Dec 5th, 2007 07:50:41 PM
I don't care for Carell but sure, liked the old show and Anne H there is cute. This might work-but you gotta know CGI Bernie Kopell better making a cameo, or there'll be hell to pay in the cone of silence. For all involved, too.
Napoleon, My Friend . . . by MrKrantz	Dec 5th, 2007 08:03:14 PM
You took the words right out of my mouth. But in fairness to Dunderman, I will point out that "Get Smart" had a line of tie-in books. It's a shame that doesn't make him any more correct. I'd advise Dangerwipe to know what he's talking about before name-calling.
Napoleon UnDynamite & The Untalented Mr. Krantz by DangerMan	Dec 5th, 2007 08:22:31 PM
Product tie-ins aren't revivals, idiots. Those are auxiliary, asshats. If that were the case, the original "Get Smart" had more toys than "Star Trek" at the time because it was more popular. It had paperbacks, comic books, toys, lunch pails. That doesn't even count recent merchandising and Sideshow dolls. Based on your obtuse criteria, then "Dark Shadows" would match "Star Trek," except it only had two movies, two TV revivals, which includes an unsold pilot. You're both clumsy as you are stupid. I suppose you consider each and ever "Star Wars" comic book as a sequel. Now, both of you go pump each other.
Don't forget the "animated version" (sort of) by Frietag	Dec 5th, 2007 08:24:03 PM
Inspector Gadget, of course. It's not just the fact that Don Adams did the voice -- I've seen the pilot (where some details are different and he has a mustache) and the derivation from GET SMART is pretty obvious.
DangerMath: by MrKrantz	Dec 5th, 2007 09:40:46 PM
Creative accounting when you realize you've been beat, but just can't admit defeat. Fine, we'll count your way. According to your original post, "Get Smart" has been revived four times - 1) a theatrical release; 2) a made-for-TV movie; 3) an updated series; 4) the upcoming movie. (Now listen, DildoMan. This is where I teach you your numbers over four.) "Star Trek" has been revived as 1) a Saturday morning cartoon 2) a theatrical release 3) another theatrical release 4) another theatrical release 5) another theatrical release 6) another theatrical release 7) another theatrical release and 8) an upcoming theatrical release. So I won't count "The Next Generation", even though it takes place on the Enterprise, nor will I count the other spin-offs, even though you have no problem counting the '90s version of "Get Smart". However, if you can count two separate "Get Smart" movies, then I can count seven separate "Star Trek" movies. I even tried to throw it your way by not counting "Generations", even though it had original cast members. Gee, it just wasn't enough. Why is it so hard to admit when you're mistaken, DorkMan? Do you often have to work this hard to make the facts conform to your obvious misconceptions? And do you realize when you're wrong, and you're just too stubborn to admit it, or do you actually wallow in the belief that because you said it, it must be right? Before you show off any more of your childishness and stupidity, you should pump yourself and think about it for a while. Get bent, penis.
Christmas With The Krantz by DangerMan	Dec 5th, 2007 09:51:18 PM
Yes, "Get Smart" has been revived four times. And if they make a sequel to the upcoming feature film, that doesn't count as another "revival" as the word means a "restoration of use." A revival means the entity in question is active again, so counting each movie sequel in the "Star Trek" series in order to try and win your argument just underscores that you're truly the functional illiterate and victim of inbreeding your posts imply you to be. By the way, since you make no sense and breathe through your mouth, where are the Mad magazine parodies in your equation? Now, go and jerk off to a picture of old Uhura and get some sleep, houseboy.
competent female bossing nerdy male . . . yet again by kabong	Dec 5th, 2007 09:53:11 PM
From the review: Agent 99 derides Smart so much she winds up seemingly castrating him half of the time. Real men frighten freaks of Hollyweird.
Err by Kal Reeve	Dec 5th, 2007 10:11:22 PM
I didn't read your post. You had the spoiler stated in the title of the post. Please be more careful next time. And I know to avoid spoilers in reviews and inside posts, but I shouldn't have to avoid them in post titles.
My Apologies, DangerMan by MrKrantz	Dec 5th, 2007 10:53:23 PM
I was unaware that we were only using the definition of "revival" that is convenient to you. I was mistaken in thinking that I could count tie-in/spin-off/separate related properties the same way you could. I was actually using logic and reason, while being completely under the false impression that you could do the same. I made the mistake of breaking my own policy by trying to get into a friendly (even though you called me a moron for no reason) debate with a lunatic, child, or ass. You're obviously some combination of those three. You're also obviously only on here to be a stubborn jerk. So I concede. You're right. 4=9. Or 10. Or whatever number it is that will make you happy. You are absolutely right. "Get Smart" had two separate movie, while the "Star Trek" franchise just had one. "Get Smart" was updated in the '90s, but "Star Trek" was never updated in any way, shape, or form. The upcoming "Get Smart" counts because you want it to, but the upcoming "Star Trek" doesn't count because . . . oh, it doesn't matter does it? It doesn't count because the sky is plaid in your world. And the animated "Star Trek" doesn't count because there's no comparable "Get Smart" product. Again, my apologies. I made the mistake of going into this without knowing that you're always right. I just can't fight your logic, DunceMan. But then I have a feeling no one can. I've wasted enough time with you. Have the final word (I know you can't resist) and declare yourself the victor. I'm going back to discussing film with people from the planet Earth.
What? No Swirling Anne Hathaway Ass? by Colier Rannd	Dec 6th, 2007 12:32:10 AM
That sucks! She's pretty much my only reason to see this.
Thanks Larry of Arabia, glad SOMEONE mentioned it by Maniaq	Dec 6th, 2007 03:00:09 AM
Get Smart began and ended with Don Adams. I cringed when I read that this show was being given the Hollywood treatment. I watched the trailer, tried to like it, but at the end of the day IT'S NOT DON ADAMS!! No offence to Carrell - I liked 40-year-old-virgin - but having some other guy trying to play Maxwell Smart is like having some other guy play Captain Kirk (you see what I did there;) or having some other guy be the voice of Darth Vader!! It was never going to work and - surprise surprise - it didn't!
The Untalented Mr. Krantz by DangerMan	Dec 6th, 2007 03:25:40 AM
Thank you, Mr. Krantz, for conceding your idiocy that refuses to acknowledge a dictionary's definition of "revival." I guess the James Bond franchise has been "revived" over twenty times and "Star Wars" six. I suppose if we were to count each episode of a series as a "revival," then "Get Smart" still might win. The above as a superb review, but it flew over your head and the other plebians here because you're all knuckle dragging morons who live with your parents, masturbate for a living and rub your cum into the carpet where a Roomba gets to whiff it. Krantz, you are a non-entity, a "Star Trek" geek whose dream in life is to blow Picard. You are the reason America has gone down the tubes and I hope to hell we don't read about you shooting up a shopping mall as that would take commitment. Next time, before arguing with a real man, try and look up the meaning of the word you're arguing about, you soiled bit of underwear, and for God's sake wear a condom the next time you have sex with your brother so you don't make him sick.
Krantz Is A Commie by DangerMan	Dec 6th, 2007 03:30:07 AM
"And the animated "Star Trek" doesn't count because there's no comparable "Get Smart" product." Someone else cited INSPECTOR GADGET. Did Matthew Broderick make you hard, buttboy? This was a great review, but you thought the person who wrote it was an idiot. The idiot was you, you 7/11 clerk who's probably part of a sleeper cell. Do you pee sitting down? How many "revivals" are there in the "Batman" franchise? Does each movie count, or is there such a thing as a "series" stupid.
It's always fun when... by Napoleon Park	Dec 6th, 2007 11:07:14 AM
...someone who's always right is so wrong, expecially when replying to an obvious joke post. If Inspector Gadget counts as a Get Smart cartoon show, don't forget the Bill Dana Show where Don Adams first honed the character and that show where he managed a supermarket. Though I imagine Mr. krantz will point out that if those count as Get Smart properties than TJ Hooker, Rescue 911 and Boston legal count as Star Trek shows.I'm being flippant, but your name calling is simply rude. You mentioned that they Mad parodies weren't mentioned, but I DID say there was a Star Trek Musical. Which appeared in Mad Magazine. Let me keep explaining this until it gets down to your level. So tht means that I did mention the thing you said I didn;t mention. which means you were wrong. Again. As usual. Which I stres because you were wrong about theire being more Get smart properties than Str Trek properties. which there weren't. Which makes your erroneous assertion that there were incorrect. Because you were wrong. And why you said wasn't correct. or true. But I'm not calling you a liar, you sinply made a mistake, and I forgive you, both for stubbornly refusing to acknolwedge your error and for the needless namecalling and childish rudeness. Feminine hygeine product.
Crikey by Napoleon Park	Dec 6th, 2007 11:44:09 AM

Crikey! by Napoleon Park	Dec 6th, 2007 12:02:55 PM
I really should have proofread that typo and misspelling filled message before clicking on post. Ignoring the fact that there were four Star Trek sequel series, Next Gen, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise (well, three sequels and a prequel?)... Which we will ignore since there were never any Get Smart spin-off series. There were two Get Smart films (and I'm being generous in counting a made-for-TV movie as a feature) and six Star Trek movies with the original cast. (Unless by your math two failed movies counnt as two and one successful film franchise counts as one.) And one combining the original and Next Gen cast. there was one attempt to revive the TV series, as the awful New Get Smart with Andy Dick. There was one attempt to revive the original series with the original cast members: Star Trek - the Animated Series. There was one paperback books eries based on Get Smart. There were at least two paperback book series based on the original Star Trek: the Blish adaptations of TV series episodes and the original novels. there was one series of Dell/Gold Key comic books based on Get Smart. There have been at least four comic book series based on theo original series Star Trek, from Gold Key, DC, Marvel and whoever's currently doing them. There is one movie coming out with an all new Get Smart cast, and there is a new Star Trek movie being made which also casts new actors in theo original series roles. There was one Get Smart Mad magazine parody, there were at least two Mad parodies of the original Star Trek, including "Star Trek: the Musical". We won't get into licensed merchandising since I don't remember any Get Smart model kits, props or action figures. Unless you want to count the Sports Illustrated Sneaker Phone as a shoe phone.
One more think, Danger... by Napoleon Park	Dec 6th, 2007 12:04:53 PM
Here in The United States of America we call Danger Man "Secret Agent". If you can't speak the language move back to foreign country land and live in your mail box with Penfold.
A Walk In The Park by DangerMan	Dec 6th, 2007 12:38:31 PM
So now the discussion has to do with which show had more merchandising as opposed to the term "revival"? Such poor semantics, Park. And yes, "Get Smart" had an AMT model kit of the Sunbeam, there were pen radios, spy purses and raygun toys as well as board games, puzzles, coloring books and an electronic quiz. Also bubble gum cards, a Jack Davis poster, a lunch pail and recent licensees include keychains and the already mentioned Sideshow figures of Max and The Chief, both which have sold out. Try eBay and see what else you find. Also while looking there, see if a brain is for sale. You're missing one. Also a cock that works.
Soo...calling people terrorists is an insult on the same level o by Reel American Hero	Dec 6th, 2007 01:15:19 PM
That makes me laugh like nothing else has all day. 'Fuck you you fuckin terrorist'....oh man that amuses me.
I Almost Forgot by DangerMan	Dec 6th, 2007 01:20:03 PM
There is a "Get Smart" play and if you check the Google news, you'll see many schools are performing it right now. It's of the dinner theater variety. What school do you go to, Park? A "special" one that helps you "learn"?
What the ?? by m_prevette	Dec 6th, 2007 04:12:05 PM
Steve Carell ...."likeable"? Did I read that right? Wait, come on that's a joke, right? Maybe not....maybe all the over the top mugging, shouting IS a good substitute for actual comedic acting. Wow. Thanks to giants like Carell, Farell , Carey, comedy lives! Thank you Jebus!
don adams' screen test by blonde redhead	Dec 6th, 2007 10:30:06 PM
was a cooler show than get smart, which always made me want to projectile vomit. the best spy show ever made was secret agent/danger man with patrick mcgoohan and if anyone disagrees with me they can suck my non-existent dick while i moan in gratitude that no one gives a shit about remaking it.
oh and by the way the first season of danger man by blonde redhead	Dec 6th, 2007 10:35:57 PM
is danger man. not secret agent. i know this because i have wanted to bang good old PMG since i was a wee lassie.

Talkbacks

Would You Believe...?? Derek Flint Is Back With A Review Of GET SMART!!

User login

Quick Talkback

Talkbacks