comment #1

donnyboy says ...

Todd Phillips is a big hack, so what; what is sad here is Billy Bob. What is with the makeup? He is starting to look like a woman in drag.

comment #2

breadlymoore says ...

Todd Phillips is no hack. The man has made three vastly entertaining movies; one of them, like it or not, an outright classic (OLD SCHOOL).

However, SCOUNDRELS stinks to high heaven. But hey, that's what you get when you hire Jon Heder.

comment #3

Craptastic says ...

When is Wells going to do a story on how Scientology runs Arclight? All of you in L.A. have to know that the money you spend there is going straight in their pockets.

comment #4

donnyboy says ...

Past films:
ROAD TRIP: OK.
OLD SCHOOL: Not a classic, if that is defined as A CLASSIC, god save us all.
STARSKY & HUTCH: Putrid.

SCHOOL FOR SCOUNDRELS: Bad; even with Billy Bob's new face. Heder is what Heder is, you can't expect him to act, outside of his Napoleon Dynamite shtick, so it's silly to expect anything more from him.

So after four films there is about a 1/4 of a film of mediocre merit. You're correct: he is not a hack, he is simply mediocre.
I stand corrected.

comment #5

fnt says ...

How in the world is STARSKY & HUTCH vastly entertaining? Try vastly disappointing. ROAD TRIP I'll humor you on. OLD SCHOOL I agree....

And why the hell did he drop out of BORAT? What's the real story on that?

comment #6

breadlymoore says ...

"How in the world is STARSKY & HUTCH vastly entertaining?"

It just is. Millions agree. Sorry if you didn't notice.

"OLD SCHOOL: Not a classic, if that is defined as A CLASSIC, god save us all."

It's a comedy classic, much like we view STRIPES and CADDYSHACK today.

OLD SCHOOL will be around in 20 years. Not many young filmmakers working today have a credit like that in their filmography.

comment #7

jesse says ...

Old School is awfully overrated (even though it didn't get great reviews upon its release). It's wildly uneven and pretty much only gets laughs because of Ferrell and vaughn. The direction in some of the big comedy scenes is clumsy.

I actually think Philips showed a lot of improvement in Starsky & Hutch, because it's pretty evenly funny from start to finish, and the scenes progress more naturally. I'd agree that S&H is a very entertaining movie; the Stiller-Wilson stuff has lots of room to breathe. Inconsequential, sure, but very funny.

comment #8

donnyboy says ...

"Not many young filmmakers working today have a credit like that in their filmography."

I don't know which is worse: that statement is true because most young filmmakers are so utterly dreadful ; or that OLD SCHOOL would be something that they would aspire to make, as if it was a high water mark in American Comedy.

comment #9

Josh Massey says ...

I thought "School for Scoundrels" looked interesting until I saw Ben Stiller's face pop up. I can't imagine a Stiller movie that would ever get me into a theater again.

comment #10

le corbeau says ...

Wow, Old School will be around in 20 years?

I grant you Old School has some funny moments (Will Ferrell's strangled little "I thought we were still in the truth tree"), there are worse things out there, but my standards for "classic" run a little higher than 1) it was popular then and 2) it's almost as good as Stripes! and 3) It will still be around when the people who saw it in early adolescence are still acting like adolescents at 35.

comment #11

jesse says ...

Josh, what's your beef with Stiller? Granted, he has done a lot of crap: Meet the Fockers, Along Came Polly, and I know the few people who saw Envy didn't like it (I half-did, thanks to Stiller, Walken, and low expectations). But he's hilarious in Starsky & Hutch and Zoolander and he's generally a fine comic actor. And what major comic star of the past 20 years hasn't appeared in at least two or three awful movies? Chalk it up to comedy is hard, I guess.

Before he became really big (with, what, four hits in 2004 alone?), Stiller actually starred in several of my favorite recent movies: The Royal Tenenbaums, Zero Effect, and Mystery Men. That's the Stiller I'd like to see more of, although if Steve Martin or Jim Carrey or Robin Williams are any indication, it'll be a rocky road ahead.

comment #12

NYCBusybody says ...

Oh, it's funny. Billy Bob represents the sum-bitch good spirit and humor of a place like Arkansas, whereas Pitt seems to have become an automaton cadaver.

I love how Pitt says he's not an American, but a "citizen of the world" - yes, quite the Namibian he is, living in an exclusive, gated-off, beach-front property while he was there.

comment #13

jesse says ...

Zer? NYCBusyBody, where the hell was Brad Pitt in this discussion before you dragged him into it? Are he and Thornton both from Arkansas or something? Otherwise it sounds like kind of a non-sequiter.

I don't really get that kind of knee-jerk nose-thumbing at anyone who's rich *and* seems to care about the state of the world. Didn't the dude just give a million bucks to charity? How is he not putting his money where is mouth is with that?

If Pitt *didn't* live in some beach-front gated-off property, and lived in a hut somewhere, he'd get mocked by the exact same people for trying to live like common people and what a pretentious sham he is, blah blah blah. Given the lose-lose situation, asshole-wise, I can see why he'd take the beachfront version.

I mean, I don't know much about Pitt except about his acting. He comes off as a bit of a flake, sure. It just seems like a waste of time/energy/hatred to be loathing a guy for the way, he, uh, promotes charity? Yeah, what a self-righteous a-hole, giving away money like that. He's really just rubbing it in our faces, right?

Also, "automaton cadaver" doesn't really make any sense -- "robot" or "zombie" would do without trying to combine them. Or am I being elitist by pointing that out?

comment #14

NYCBusybody says ...

"Are he and Thornton both from Arkansas or something?"

Um, both Pitt and Thornton have been married to the woman Thornton's dig was (presumably) aimed at. I thought that was an obvious connection that didn't need to be explained.

And I certainly don't "loathe" him (I enjoy him very much as an actor), nor do I have any problem with his charitable work.

His cadaver nature is totally unrelated to giving a million dollars to hungry children. That's quite admirable. (Although hardly something to go overboard about...a million dollars is nothing to him. If he makes $20 a movie, that's 1/20th of his salary for one film).

No one's more pro-private, capitalistic charity (as opposed to welfare state taxation) than I am. I just think he's one of those self-righteous do-gooders, as opposed to someone like Springsteen, who doesn't seek the spotlight while he was secretly giving away tons of money over 20 years to various charities.

comment #15

NYCBusybody says ...

And, by the way, there's NOTHING wrong with having a beachfront-gated-pad in Namibia, as far as I'm concerned, evil fiscal conservative that I am.

What I objected to was the "citizen of the world" speech. He's trying to have it both ways - there's nothing wrong with being elite, as long as you don't pretend to be something you're not.

comment #16

christian says ...

i guess i'm one of the lucky few to have seen his doc FRAT HOUSE at the south by southwest fest in 99 -- at my beloved alamo draft house -- and this is still phillip's best film (if one can straight-faced use that phrase), and interesting in light of his cinematic choices...

anybody else seen FRAT HOUSE? bueller?

comment #17

jesse says ...

Oh, duh! For some reason, I totally wasn't thinking about Pitt as being Jolie's husband (is he? I thought they weren't married yet), cause she adopted the first kid herself (when she was still married to Billy Bob, if I'm not mistaken?). Just drew a blank there. My apologies; you weren't being as pointless as I thought.

But I don't really see how Pitt is trying to have it both ways. You're saying he can't be a "citizen of the world" because he's rich?? That sounds like the kind of divisiveness you supposedly hate! If anything, I'd say a more valid criticism would be that it's all too easy for Pitt to be a "citizen of the world" since he has the time and money to experience other cultures (as well as give a shitload of money to charity).

I can see your point about anonymous donations versus public ones, but my understanding is that a lot of celebrities feel that public donations help showcase a particular cause and perhaps influence people to also help out. I mean, I wouldn't choose a charity based on a celeb, but I don't read People magazine, either.

Of course, it's also good PR, but I'm not especially inclined to go after someone for the potential negative aspects of donating a million bucks to charity.

comment #18

NYCBusybody says ...

Actually, jesse, you're right, Pitt and Jolie aren't married, because they refuse to marry until all people are legally able to.

comment #19

christian says ...

btw, the typical right-wing attack on stars is:

1) you have money and fame so shut up.

2) you're using your money and fame for politics so shut up.

3) liberals are supposed to be anti-money, so shut up.

comment #20

jesse says ...

Christian, what about "just shut up and entertain us (by the way, we do not find anything even remotely political even remotely entertaining)"?

comment #21

christian says ...

and i forgot my favorite: shutup and sing (courtesy of right-wing radio host laura ingraham)

of course, then you'd reduce music down to lawrence welk and classical. and gospel music, forget it.

most conservatives don't understand art, never have, and have bizarre fear of it, despite the fact that art is God's pipeline to our imagination. or something like that.

comment #22

lesterg says ...

Of course, the same righties have no problem with celebrities speaking out if they're in support of the administration. If you're James Woods, Ron Silver, Gary Sinise, etc. feel free to use your fame to get your political views out.

It's been fun watching the same righties who embraced Mel Gibson a couple of years ago starting to back away without seeming too hypocritical.

comment #23

Nicol D says ...

Christian,

I agree that most conservatives have a bizarre fear of creativity and art and if they want to turn around the culture, they had better get over it.

Neverthless, this is not historical, as historically, religious/conservative people have been at the forefront of music and art.

Current conservative fear of art is just cultural and goes back to the sixties. Our generation have been taught that in order to be an artist you have to be a Marxist, gay, drug user, aethist, uber-leftist etc. take your pick.

This is bullshit of course, and is changing...and it will happen because 'progressive' art seems to be at its redundant wits end.

Modern 'progressive' art is based around not truth, but pressing sexual buttons and vilifying 'traditional' values. That goes back to the sixties and now, people are tired of it.

I look forward to seeing the situation when Shortbus flops with nary a word and the filmmakers and media spin it as because an 'uptight Christian nation' couldn't handle it.

The truth is, if films like this are the peak of 'progressive' art, then conservatives can't help but make gains. There is a reason why we still watch James Stewart and John Wayne movies.

I haven't seen it, but I doubt anyone will be clamouring for a special edition of films like Shortbus in 30 years.

Why? Because like too much of current 'progressive' art it does not speak to the truth of the human condition.

comment #24

christian says ...

nichol, you're half-right here.

far too much modern "progressive" art is merely "transgressive" -- potshots from a very safe bow in new york or los angeles.

but this stemmed from the censorious right-wing who for years have managed to control the flow of "progressive" media.

if people are "tired of it" though, they have a wide corporate sponsored buffet of anti-art to choose from in this culture.

just look at the number one movie in america today...

comment #25

MrThompson says ...

"Neverthless, this is not historical, as historically, religious/conservative people have been at the forefront of music and art."

That's not really true. Religious people, certainly; religion has inspired a lot of great artists and a lot of great art. However to argue that the great musicians (and Ill stick to music, and not the other arts, since thats my field of expertise) of the past were conservative is inaccurate. Conservative for our time, perhaps, but certainly not for theirs. Whether it be Beethoven, Liszt, Mozart, Stravinsky, Ligeti, or almost any other major composer you can name, none of them would have been termed "righties" in their own time. Same goes for most blues, jazz, folk, and pop musicians.

Im not saying Conservatives are afraid of art. Thats not really true, and theres been a handful of truly conservative musicians who were important to music. However, I do believe that true conservatives (not neocons) tend to be more practical than liberals, and practicality has never lent itself to creativity.

comment #26

p.Vice says ...

All this talk about Thornton and Pitt, and nobody brings up the coincidence that Thornton seems to have falled exclusively into "sour-shit attitude" roles since Angelina gave up wearing vials of his blood for the sake of the children? There used to be a time when the man could act! That's what bitches can do to a brotha. Just wait to see what happens to Brad once Angelina dumps his ass... I smell a sequel to Cool World a-brewin'...

And what about how Billy Bob is looking evermore embalmed with each movie he makes? I've been a fan of his ever since I went to see One False Move, and that is NOT the same man walking around today.

comment #27

NYCBusybody says ...

p.Vice, I find it very difficult to scorn or scoff at a man for being dumped by Angelina Jolie.

Because, of course, this implies that one was WITH Jolie. Married to her. Presumably had lots of sexual congress with her.

For any of us to derisively say, "ha ha, pathetic Billy Bob, dumped by Jolie"...man, I hope to join that club someday.

comment #28

sbunc92 says ...

"It's wildly uneven and pretty much only gets laughs because of Ferrell and vaughn."
A comedy only got laughs because of it's two stars? Seems like a good movie to me.

comment #29

jesse says ...

Ah yes, Old School's two center-stage stars, Vince Vaughn and Will Ferrell. What a great movie that was, and what a relief that there weren't any other characters or subplots gumming up the works by being completely bland or meandering.

Oh, wait, that describes the ENTIRE REST OF THE MOVIE including the actual A-plot involving Luke Wilson, who is a great supporting actor but no kind of leading man even in a comedy.

What I meant by saying that it only gets laughs 'cause of Ferrell and Vaughn is that no, Old School is not a completely laughless, worthless movie. I certainly did laugh. But not very consistently or for very long stretches, because Phillips kept flattening things out, cutting corners, not building any kind of rhythm, and pretty much *relying* on the two people in the cast who are most likely to be at least a little bit funny in anything.

I mean, "Meet the Fockers" got some laughs out of me because of Stiller and Hoffman. But it still sucked.

("Old School" is better... but still overrated.)