Pompeii

Some people just want to watch the world burn, sometimes that's not enough

Our story begins with the slaughter of a tribe of horse riders, by the hands of Rome's finest. There is one survivor of the massacre, his name is Milo (Kit Harrington) and he grows up to be a powerful warrior in the infamous arenas of Rome/Pompeii. Pompeii is the vacation spot of Rome, it is where the upper crust go to unwind. They take in the pleasures of any good vacation spot; shopping, dancing, battles to the death. The "rulers" of this land are Severus (not Snape, Jared Harris) and Aurelia (Carrie-Anne Moss) who are celebrating the return of their daughter, Cassia (Emily Browning) from Rome. While she was away, she went and earned herself a stalker, Corvus, a senator from Rome who just happened to be at the head of the attack on Milo's people. Corvus shows up to Pomeii (in true stalker fashion) throwing the weight of the empire of Rome around, and forcing Cassia's parent's into some tough situations. During this time she is starting to fall for the gladiator Milo, Corvus sees this and turns his wrath on her family and Milo. All seems to be going to hell, when hell seems to come to earth. The mountain above their city explodes, and threatens to take every living soul with it.

So who wants to see a movie you already know the ending to (if you even remotely paid attention in history class)? I guess the same thing can be said about any movie regaling us on the events of the past. This is the question I was asked prior to seeing this movie, and I responded with a slew of movies like "Titanic," "300," "Braveheart," etc. Little did I know that I was describing the movie I was about to see with those titles. This movie is basically I compilation of other movies, except that it kind of spits in the face of all of those other movies by being mediocre at best. There wasn't enough time for character development, so when the volcano erupts you may root for one character, but the rest fall to the wayside. For me that character was Atticus (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje), and this is only because he embodied the character you wished to survive from every movie. He is the cop who has one day left until retirement, as well as being the obvious first victim of a serial killer. I didn't care about the parents who were forced into a tight situation, I didn't care about Cassia's hand maiden, and I cared the least about the lovers Milo and Cassia. Why did I care the least about the lovers? Unlike Jack and Rose (Titanic), who we had about two hours of character building with, Milo and Cassia get maybe fifteen minutes (and most of that time is overly long staring contests). I bring up "Titanic" because their courtship seems to try to be emulating the one from Titanic (including them trying to reenact the infamous "floating door scene," only to be reminded that this is Pompeii and they both have to die). I wasn't even rooting for the bad guys to get their comeuppance. I knew they were going to die from the volcano anyways, yes; but, their wickedness wasn't really sold to me. I guess I have the actors to blame for that.

If you like the acting from either "Mortal Kombat" film, you will absolutely love this movie. If you have not been lobotomized, you will see the absolute horror of so many potential, and established careers being washed down the toilet. I love Kit Harrington as Jon Snow in the show "Game of Thrones," but here he seems to be nothing more than the gladiator form of Batman (tragic child hood, deep voice throughout the movie, and awesome at beating people up). If that was the role I could understand, but for god's sake can I at least see a little bit of emotion from this man? I love Emily Browning as Babydoll in the movie "Sucker Punch," but here she is nothing more than a child trying to pretend she is a powerful lead female role. I love Kiefer Sutherland as Jack Bauer in "24," but here he is a hero poorly trying to act like a villain. I love Carrie-Anne Moss as Trinity in "The Matrix", and Jared Harris as Professor Moriarty in "Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows," but here they are two people that try/fail at portraying pain for their daughter's fate, as well as love for each other. There is more to it, but I think you can tell by now what is happening. The only good acting I was privileged to, actually came from a hilarious scene where an extra realistically portrays getting hit in the head by a speeding piece of rock. Tumbles like a sack of potatoes, it was great.

A positive I can put out there for this movie is the choreography. The fight scenes in this were pretty intense, and creative. I have obviously seen better from better movies, but they were a nice break from all of the horrible acting and boring plot. The thing that would have made them better (unfortunately) was an R rating. I have said this before: I am not a gore junkie, but there is definitely a missing element here, and all I can come up with is blood. If you need another excuse to see people clash iron in an arena, the scenes here might actually be worth the rest of the malarkey. 

On the other side of the spectrum we have the cinematography. While it is most assuredly not the worst I have seen this year (looking at you "Robocop"), it is not great either. It is like watching a movie that was budgeted and released for HBO, or possibly like watching "Dante's Peak." A lot of scene's that seem unnecessarily speed up, some choppy effects (the ones that didn't center around the volcano), and eye rolling camera shake in inappropriate places. There are definitely some very powerful shots, but most of them have to do with people making their final pose before the volcano consumes them. As powerful as they are, it is just not enough for me to deem it as good. The funniest part of the cinematography is when they try to pan back to the volcano as often as possible, "subtly" reminding the audience what they came to see.    

The final thing that could save this movie from ending up to a fate of the clearance rack, would be the graphics; and by that I mean the volcano scenes. It is nice to see a movie about a volcano with some descent effects, and that seems to be where most of the heart went in this film. Since this is what most of the audience came to see (or has been waiting for), I guess it makes sense. I just wish the rest of the movie wasn't so bad. I just wish I could have gotten to see an all around good movie, instead I got disappointed again by the people in charge of this thinking the volcano was
going to be enough. As always (when the people in charge think they know what is best) they were wrong, and my hopes were thrown into the volcano along with the rest of Pompeii.

Final Verdict: Netflix It This movie may not be worth your money, but it could possibly be worth your time. If you liked any of the movies I have mentioned here, you will most likely be okay with this.

Robocop

Geek vs. Critic

Before I get started I must take a moment to say something. I try very hard to go into every movie waiting to either be pleasantly surprised, or thoroughly disappointed. I (like everyone else) have predispositions when I see previews for a movie. Like with "Captain America: Winter Soldier" I am expecting to be blown away with the captivating story line and effects that Marvel has supplied the audience with since the first "Iron Man." With "Expendables 3" I expect the same old drawn out "old men are still kick ass" arc, with explosions/violence to replace actual story telling. So, when I saw the preview for "Robocop" I had my reservations. Not because I think you can't make a good reboot these days, (hell, look at "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" that was amazing) I know you can make a good reboot out of anything, it is just that "Robocop" is a hard sell. In my humble opinion "Robocop" was one of the best (if not THE best) Sci-Fi/Action movies to come from the eighties. It was intelligent without being pretentious, there was a good amount of gore, and the story line has yet to be topped or duplicated by any of the following series or movies. So realize, that I have a hard time being completely neutral on this, I learned to be neutral with comic book movies not following the actual comic books, allowing myself to base its credit on the quality of the movie alone. This is different though. In the sense that without the original movie or comic book this reboot would never have been so hyped up, and it would never have seen the light of day. So with that in mind I will be separating this review into two parts. One as a vengeful geek personally insulted by the presence of this piece of garbage, the other as the non-biased critic. Judge on whether to put money and time into this movie on whichever you feel more appeals to you.

The geek is given a crippling blow to his intelligence

So I guess you realized already that (as a fan of the original film) I absolutely hate that this movie decided to appeal to the other part of the audience that never saw the original, while giving the fans insulting throwback phrases. The first thing I find insulting about this movie was the fact that while the original movie gained an R rating, because of the massive amounts of violence (and tits, almost got an X rating before the editing), the reboot is now a PG-13. This wouldn't bother me so much (its not like I am some sort of gore junkie) if there way of keeping it a PG-13 wasn't giving "Robocop" a friggin' stun gun. That's right ladies and gentleman, Robocop the bad ass that takes no one's non-sense and shoots without hesitation now has a phaser set to sun for the greater part of the film. I have a better idea for these guys if they want to make it more appealing to the family, why don't you just put this robot in a lazer tag arena? Not Paintball... that might actually make the rating go up to a PG.

Another big problem I had with this was that they seemed to miss the point of the ED 209 from the original. The ED 209 from the original was a hastily put together (so hastily put together it was beaten by a flight of stairs) machine that was very tough (unless trying to navigate stairs), but could not discern the difference between a threat or non-threat. The ED 209 in this was an automatic tank, and it even had a cute little brother in the shape of a human called the ED 208. See the difference here? The ED 209 just seems to be put in here because it is a "Robocop" movie, and they had to. The whole reason the Robocop initiative got put in place in the original was that the ED 209 was a faulty piece of machinery, the whole reason the Robocop initiative was put in place here? American fear of robots. I don't know what America they are looking at, or if the future somehow went through a Skynet like apocalypse that the movie forgot to mention, but America in this time is not "robo-phobic." Look at all the machines we have, and see if you can find someone without a cell phone these days, then argue with that. If the movie was to say that America is robophobic because people were afraid of losing their jobs (like the original did somewhat) that I could understand. The Americans of the future seem to be robophobic for the sake of having something to hate.

The final thing I am going to talk about (so it doesn't appear that I am rambling) is the moral of the story. The moral of the original was smart. The moral of the original was that even if Robocop beat all of the badguys and put an end to all of their plans, Detroit would still be the same tomorrow. It also had the hidden message of how dependent our society was (and still is) on television and stupid commercial gimmicks. The moral of this one...the human soul conquers all.

.

.

.

Need I really say more on that.

I could go into how they replaced one of the strongest female characters to come out of the eighties, with some replaceable/cliche guy. How Detroit didn't really seem as crime infested as it should have, or that the evil corporation didn't seem to have the same moral ambiguity as the original (the guys in the original at least had a semblance of a conscience, and the way they substituted for that in the reboot was giving the doctor that made Robocop a conscience); but I need to give my other half time to speak.

Geek Final Verdict: Don't do it! If you want to give money to a "Robocop" movie, buy the original on Bluray or DVD. If you want an excuse to yell at a screen go see this.

Critic has to sit through another action movie that brings nothing new to the table

This movie takes place in the future (2028) where robots have taken the place of soldiers. The corporation responsible for making these robots is trying to get it so the American people will let them use their product on American soil. The company realizes they will not be able to get around a certain bill passed by congress (preventing them from putting robots on American soil) unless they put a man inside a machine. Enter Detective Alex Murphy (Joel Kinnaman), a cop under the jurisdiction of Detroit's finest that has a problem playing by the rules. After a botched mission to take down a major crime lord, Antoine Vallon (Patrick Garrow). Murphy finds himself in critical condition with only way to survive. He must become Robocop.

The story line was garbage, in so many words. The whole premise of America being robophobic was never expounded upon, we never found out exactly why America was so robophobic. Sure, there were certain points where they would say "it is because the robots can't feel anything," but I did not buy that for a second. Sure you would have a couple of thousand people afraid that Skynet would go live, or that the machines would stop being able to tell the difference between enemies, but I don't believe that America would let that stop them from progressing if it meant fewer lives lost (this isn't the damn 1600's). What I really wanted to see (and what would have made for a more compelling story line) is the people the robots are replacing having an issue. Sure it isn't necessarily a new idea, but it is at least a more believable one. The rest of the story line was just as ridiculous. Why was the family so immediately accepting of their husband/father as a machine? Why did I not see some fear in the eyes of the people staring at a robot that could break their bones instead of the man that they loved? Sure their was some emotional fall out, but that was from them seeing Murphy in the accident, not seeing him as a cyborg.The only part of the story that seemed to hold any real interest was the "emotions messing up the robotic system", but the timing for that was off. It would have held more weight as mystery, not a plot driving device. This story line just seems to try to appeal to the lowest common denominator of viewers. Say something about a "soul," fill it with action, try to come off as having more of a message about American society, then make money. It is very formulaic and insulting.

The cinematography seemed to try and make up for the lack of emotion on all of the actor's faces (don't worry I'll get to the acting next), but fell very short. In an age where I can see a movie like "Skyfall" that has amazing cinematography as well as fast paced action, why am I watching a movie that seems to be crewed by people that can't find out how to use the zoom button on a camera? Rather why am I looking at a movie that doesn't seem to have a silber camera crew, and it is not a POV movie? The shots were all over the place. They had their stoic scenes (where the crew seemed to have gotten some coffee), but aside from that I felt like I was watching a two year old play with a camera for the first time.

They at least had some big name actors in it...is something I would say if all of the actors in it didn't seem so extremely bored with what they were doing. Seriously, take a hard look at Samuel L Jackson, Gary Oldman, or Michael Keaton when they are on camera. None of their hearts are in their performances. I was looking forward to seeing the Samuel L. Jackson that can have fun with a role, like in "The Spitit." I was looking forward to some tear jerking moments from Oldman, like I had in "The Dark Knight" series. I was at least looking forward to Keaton salvaging whatever this was by putting forth a funny persona, like in "The Other Guys." The real travesty here was Jackie Earle Haley and Jay Baruchel. I never thought I would see a moment where these two just did not try in a role. It was kind of like watching a movie where the actors were all on strike, and the actors that were still working were under payed. The rest of the cast didn't do much to save the performances, and that does go double for our leading man Joel Kinnaman.

My final point may seem to have something to do with my more geeky side. but I assure that this is the critic talking. There were two lines of note that tried to appeal to the fan base of the original. "I wouldn't buy that for a dollar," and "dead or alive, you are coming with me." When they were used in this version, they did not fit the scenes. The scene where Rick Mattox says "I wouldn't buy that for a dollar" is when he is referring to the skills of Robocop in comparison to the ED 208. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense for him to say that here, when there are so many other things that he could have said that probably would have driven his point home a little more. He even has a noticeably different inflection in his voice when he says it. Like his voice is trying to break the fourth wall (look at the camera) because he cannot. When Robocop says "dead or alive, you are coming with me" it makes a little more sense, being as how he is trying to over-wright his programming to shoot a person he isn't supposed to. It would have made a whole lot more sense if he cared about actually saving the man he was saying it to.

Critic Final Verdict: Pirate it this is another one of those brainless action movies. If you need something to kill 110 minutes without getting to emotionally invested, go right ahead. Just don't spend any money on it. Even if I never saw the original I would still be confused as to why people thought this was a good movie.

The Monuments Men

The first of its kind, sort of

"The Monuments Men" follows a group of men called The Monuments Men, assembled by Frank Stokes (George Clooney). Their mission is to protect and return artwork stolen by the Nazis in WWII before it is destroyed by the losing side (or by our side with a bunch of bombs). In Frank's ragtag group he has assembled the best and brightest of certain fields to catalog. as well as return the artwork, including: James Granger (Matt Damon), Richard Campbell (Bill Murray), Walter Garfield (John Goodman), Jean Claude Clermont (Jean Dujarden), Donald Jeffries (Hugh Bonnevile), Preston Savitz (Bob Balaban), and Sam Epstein (Demetri Leonidas). They are to be met with many trials and tribulations on their path, even from their own side. Will they protect an entire culture through the art that is left behind?

The story line in this movie appealed to me when I first heard about it. I knew with the cast (and the overall feel of the film) that I would not be getting treated to a movie with a lot of explosions and fire fights. I wasn't disappointed in that aspect. I was more so disappointed with the quality of the film. I feel like there were just too many holes for me to say that the story line was perfect (or even good). Donald Jeffries' arc had the most appeal to it, but they spent the least amount of time covering it. He had some tragic thing that happened to him in the past, ruining his career (and driving him to drink), and it drove me insane that we never found out what it was. I would have liked it if they spent more time on the families of the men, but I guess that would be a little too much to ask for since there were eight of them. An even more annoying part was when they covertly put in a love story between James Granger, and some French art nut. I'm not saying it was annoying because it was a love story, I'm saying it was annoying because it seemed so unnecessary and out of place. Like its soul purpose was to prove how much of a "stand up guy" James was. Any part that had John Goodman, or Bill Murray and Bob Balaban bantering to each other was gold on the screen; although they seemed to just glimpse by the emotional fall out from loosing men. The entire movie felt like it was rushed for time, and didn't want to concentrate too much on one thing (unless that thing is not cheating on your wife). I do have to respect them for making another country the enemy in a WWII movie besides Germany (it was Russia, by the way). I also have to give the movie another nod of approval for putting me on the edge of my seat during one of the final scenes. I got really emotionally invested in one of the statues, which is enough for me to call this movie "not a piece of garbage."

I definitely had a problem with the pace of the movie, it was all over the place. They spent so much time on things like the failed love sequence, and so little time on things like families and loss. I just couldn't wrap my head around why they were drawing out somethings. It actually made the movie a little more confusing at the beginning. It dragged down not only the story line, but the entire quality of the film. This isn't to say that the movie was bad necessarily, just needed to be either longer, or more detailed in certain areas and less in others.

The music in this was also off, like they didn't really know what mood to try for, so they just decided to make it into a cartoon. A cartoon with an orchestra mind you, but a cartoon none the less. Actually with cartoons like "What's Opera Doc?" I feel like a lot of cartoons have better music which defines the feelings you are supposed to have during a film, than what they were playing in the background for some of these scenes. During the entire recruiting scene the music didn't know whether it should be comedic and light hearted, or brash and daring. Which would make since if any one of the characters seemed like they were scared to go, and save these works of art. Sadly, this problem really dragged the movie down for me. During the scene in which I got emotionally invested, it wasn't the music that made me emotionally invested, it was the acting.

The acting in this was to be expected from all the actors involved, brilliant. I want to say something like "this is the worst performance I have seen from actor X," but seriously (for the seasoned actors involved) it was just another day at the office. Bill Murray and Bob Balaban played off of each other beautifully. George Clooney and Matt Damon had already worked together, so the scenes they had together gained the same familiar chemistry. It was also nice to see Matt Damn as "not an action star" for once. He was just another one of the boys, giving it an "Ocean's 11" feel (except in this he wasn't a kid, he felt more like a a mature adult). John Goodman never disappoints (yes, that unfortunately includes "Red State"), but it was good to see him trusted with a more militaristic role. The rest of the supporting cast did well enough. I kind of feel like their goal was to emulate someone they saw on "Band of Brothers" (which is always good material to draw off of) and if that is what they were going for, color me impressed.

I call this movie "The first of its kind" because it is the first WWII movie that I have seen where I didn't either love or hate it. It was mediocre. It isn't amazing like "Inglourious Basterds" or "Saving Private Ryan," and it isn't horrible like "Red Tails," it is right in the middle. I know this statement is going to raise a few red flags among my readers, but I have to say there isn't anything out of WWII material I have seen that is just standard. Until now.

Final Verdict: Rent it While the story line wains in some ares, and the music is (kind of) god awful, if you are a fan of any of the heavy hitters in this, you will not be disappointed. At least worth a Redbox or Amazon Instant Video rental to help the box office a little bit. I just feel bad it has to compete with the titan that is "The Lego Movie" right now.

The Lego Movie

"Lego" builds a masterpiece. EVERYTHING IS AWESOME!

The story line starts off like this. We follow the exploits of the construction worker Emmet (Chris Pratt) who is just your average everyday citizen of an ordinary town; until he falls down a hole and finds a mysterious object that is part of a big prophecy. The prophecy centers around the resistance thwarting the evil Lord Business/President Business, who's main goal is to make sure everything in the Lego world stays perfectly where it is supposed to be. The resistance's goal is to make whatever they feel like making, and not follow any sort of guidelines. Will Emmett prevail as the essential piece the resistance needs in order to finally put an end to Lord Business' master plan?

I would give you more on the story, but I fear any more would ruin the essential parts that come with watching this movie for the first time. It goes without saying (but I will say it anyways) that the story line in this movie was great, but I don't think that sums it up quite that well. The story line in this movie was one of the most imaginative, inspiring, and emotionally gratifying experiences I have been privileged to go to in some time. I would love to tell you everything about why this story line was so good, but (again) I feel it will take away from you experiencing it yourself. I loved the moral behind the story, embracing individuality. I loved the characters. Most importantly I loved the secret to the movie itself revealed later in the film (you all will probably get it before it is revealed, but it is still a great detail, even if easily figured out). The jokes had a nice, natural feeling to them (making them funnier), especially when they started making fun of the old movie cliche about "the chosen one."

The actors in this are great beyond measure, which I could only expect from so many big names coming together for this project. The bit characters like Jonah Hill as Green Lantern, Channing Tatum as Superman, and Cobie Smulders as Wonder Woman were memorable, adding a nice gag every once in a while. You have to respect them getting Shaquille O' Neal to play a Lego version of himself, Anthony Daniels to play C-3P0 again, and even Billy Dee Williams to play Lando. The bigger characters in the film were placed perfectly in every scene. Will Ferrell as the big, bad Lord Business was hilarious and amazing (par for the course). Chris Pratt and Elizabeth Banks as Emmet and Wildstyle, will not soon be forgotten; but I have to give it up to my favorite characters throughout the movie Batman and Vitruvious voiced by Will Arnett and Morgan Freeman. Will really sells his role as a pretentious, cocky, brash Batman; and Freeman is lovable as the crazy old, cook of a prophet. There are just too many amazing actors for me to get them all into an article, but just know that they all did superb.

This movie is one of the more visually appealing films I have seen, as well as it being a storyline master piece. Just the effort that the people responsible for making this appeared to have went through should be enough for anyone to realize just how precious the effects in this movie are. You really feel like you are watching a movie that someone has spent years upon years, building and shooting with Lego pieces, and as an experienced Lego builder (if you count my adolescence of getting frustrated trying to build Star Wars sets "experience") I have to appreciate the amount of effort the CGI team went through to not miss one single detail. 

The secret to this movie is that it doesn't take itself too seriously, while giving the audience a nice moralistic story. It doesn't beat you over the head with things like Disney, or Dreamworks, it is sweet and a little more subtle. The moment you think you have the movie figured out it gives a 180, and flips you for a loop. It is nice to see an animated movie not treat the entire audience like children, while still giving children in the audience a couple of laughs.

Final Verdict: Buy it I can't stress how much I want the box office to go up on this one guys. Go see it in theaters, and buy it when it comes out on DVD or BluRay. This is the first great movie of 2014 (if you don't include "Her" hitting major theaters), and it needs to be celebrated.

That Awkward Moment

when your movie is a sitcom

The basic premise of this movie is as follows. Mikey (Michael B. Jordan) is going through a divorce with his wife, and seeks the comfort of his two best friends from college, Jason (Zac Effron) and Daniel (Miles Teller). The friends try to bring him back into the folds of single lifestyle, and make him forget his troubles with his wife. During this time, they make a pact (or bet, I never heard any stipulations for what would happen if they won or lost, but that is what it was referred to as) to not get in a relationship for the foreseeable future. Since this is a movie (or since this is anytime someone is trying to remain single), the two boys trying to help their friend find the perfect women for them shortly after the pact is made (also Mikey is doing somethings with the wife, trying to work it out). The most notable of these perfect relationships is the one Jason finds himself in with Ellie (Imogen Poots), since he is the biggest "player" of the group, having certain rules and stipulations regarding women. Will Jason be able to put aside his pride and be able to settle down? Will Mikey work everything out with his wife or will he succumb to the single lifestyle his friends are preaching about?

Do we care? Yeah, let's just talk about the "story line" here for a bit. It seems to be the same old cliche "pact/bet between a group of people that turns sour" arc. It is the pact to get laid before the end of high school in "American Pie." It is the bet to not do anything sexual in "40 days and 40 nights." So you would think with there being so many versions of the same old story that the writers or director would try to bring something new and interesting to the table in regards to this. Nope. Well nothing that we haven't seen a dozen times before at least. Basically the creators of this, tried to substitute the lack of compelling story with funny situation comedy. Like we were watching episodes of "Friends," "Seinfeld," "Will and Grace," or any sitcom from the nineties. The moment I realized this, was when Ellie told Jason that she was throwing herself a surprise birthday party, and it was a "dress up" party. Since she used the term "dress up" instead of "dress nice" I already saw what was going on. "She means suit and tie, and he is going to take it as costume. What a hoot!" Except it wasn't a hoot since I already knew the punchline. The same can be said for what happens when a "cool girl" comes over to a "guys only" get together; or, what happens to someone who gets "amped up" to go and profess his love to the girl of his dreams, forgetting that he is in the middle of the road. You can tell everything that happens before it happens, and it is sickeningly cliche. The overall premise should have prepared for how unoriginal this movie was going to be, but I guess I like to try to expect the best from even the most horribly packaged "gifts."

The production quality of this was also a little strange. Like the director couldn't decide if he wanted to make an independent movie, or if he wanted to make a mainstream buddy comedy. Mainly, it is just the transitions of the scenes that gave me mixed feelings. Like I was watching some high school power point project, and they decided to go the extra mile to make it a movie. This all would have been fine if I were watching an independent film, but this (allegedly) had a big budget.

A budget that was squandered on the actors giving piss poor performances. The only actor that actually seemed like he was trying to earn the paycheck was Miles Teller, everyone else was just putting forth that they were getting paid regardless. I have seen better performances from both Effron and Jordan, so I can only imagine that they didn't believe in the script, or that they were just tired of seeing these types of movies as well. This is going to be a black mark on a couple of promising actor's records, and that is the most unfortunate part of this entire piece.

Final Verdict: Pirate it There is one actual funny piece of dialogue involving a comparison between an actor and the wife's lawyer, other than that don't waste your time. Don't waste your money on this at all. This is the type of movie that deserves to be stolen from.