comment #1

Ray says ...

Um, Jeff ... are you actually encouraging people to see this thing????

It looks like an abomination of the highest order. As in "worst adaptation of a pre-existing property" bad. Worse than BEWITCHED. Or DUKES OF HAZZARD. Or even - God help us - FLINSTONES 2.

comment #2

George Prager says ...

The most underrated performance in DINER is by actress who plays the girl who believes Mickey Rourke's bullshit story about the popcorn box.

comment #3

actionman says ...

From all of the early buzz/reaction to this movie that I have heard/read, Land of the Lost is NOT going to be the film that many are pegging it to be.

I will see this movie for three reasons.

1. Danny McBride
2. Dion Beebe (Miami Vice, Collateral) is the cinematographer.
3. Danny McBride

comment #4

Moises Chiullan says ...

For me? Dinosaurs. Sold.

It is as base and ridiculous a standard as it looks like. I don't really care about the original show, just bring a T-Rex and I'll give it a shot.

Danny McBride, for me, is in the same classification category as Dinosaurs at this point as well.

comment #5

Howlingman says ...

Big-studio effects-driven comedies, when they work, give us GHOSTBUSTERS.

When they don't ... we get GHOSTBUSTERS 2.

comment #6

DarthCorleone says ...

Those Sleestaks freaked me out when I was little.

comment #7

actionman says ...

Ghostbusters 2, while a FAR CRY from the brilliant, trendsetting original, wasn't as bas as something like...Men in Black 2. Now that film was atrocious and a serious waste of time, money, and effort.

I have never seen one episode of the original Land of the Lost tv show, but the idea of a time warp where "leftovers" from previous time travel excursions have been dropped off sounds a bit cool to me.

comment #8

actionman says ...

*bas*

bad

comment #9

Ray says ...

@ Howlingman - True, GHOSTBUSTERS works as an effects-driven comedy. Btu it also had an original concept, and three excellent performances, including Murray's star-making turn as Venkmen.

This movie has a tired concept and yet another Ferrell-mugging-for-the-camera performance that was old after ANCHORMAN.

comment #10

Jack South P.I. says ...

Wasn't "Ghostbusters" the original effects-driven comedy?

(I remember listening to the audio commentary on the Criterion LD a million years ago and hearing the makers talk about how worried they were about the Stay Puft gag. They didn't know if audiences would laugh with them or at them. And there wasn't any film precedent for them to compare it to.)

I don't count 1941 since it doesn't incorporate any sci-fi/fantasy elements. And it was terrible.

comment #11

Howlingman says ...

Actionman: [Men in Black 2] Now that film was atrocious and a serious waste of time, money, and effort.

-- I'd say the same for the first one also. Not a fan.

comment #12

actionman says ...

I thought the first MiB was clever and fun. It wanted desperately to be the new Ghostbusters, and while it's light years away from that movie, I thought it was a'ight.

comment #13

Scott Mendelson says ...

I can't make it, but Universal is screening it this very evening in Thousand Oaks.

comment #14

DavidF says ...

Ray - you're not implying Bill Murray wasn't a star before Ghostbusters, are you?

Clearly it was a template many have since tried to follow. GB2 is disappointing but not terrible (and I have high hopes for the Aykroyd-scripted video game out next month).

Men in Black was so good I still can't believe how totally unmemorable the second one was. What a wasted opportunity. ("The talking dog was funny - let's give em more talking dog!")

It may be the point at which we lost Talented Sonnefeld (MiB, Addams Family Values, Get Shorty) and got Hack Sonnenfeld (MiB2, Wild, Wild, West and other movies I can't even name).

comment #15

Jeremy Fassler says ...

Refuse to see this movie on the principle that Brad Siberling cannot direct his way out of a cardboard box. I don't think I've ever seen a film of his that was passable.

comment #16

Abbey Normal says ...

Thanks for the chuckle, Jeff. "Big box-office and a mass coast-to-coast bendover" sums it up nicely.

comment #17

actionman says ...

As I recall, Moonlight Mile was a very heartfelt little movie. Only seen it once, though.

City of Angels was very stylish but extremely sappy...though I did like the ending a lot. It didn't wuss out.

Never saw Lemony Snickett but have always been curious.

Silberling's OK I guess...no?

comment #18

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

Uh, Ray, may I introduce you to three star marking films called Meatballs, Caddyshack andStripes, all made before 1984?

As to the film at hand, I'm not sure. This is yet another example of a campy film being made out of something that was unintentionally campy in the original. As many, I suspect, I only tuned in for the opening title sequence ("...On a routine expedition, Met the greatest earthquake ever known." - and yes, you will now have that in your head all day, Bwah-ha-ha-ha) and the dinosaurs.

In the end, this will probably be a rental next fall unless the Mrs. and I decide to sneak some vino into the back row and have ourselves a groping giggle-fest watching it in a mind-altered state as we did back in college (alas, parenthood has curtailed the use of a certain weed...)

comment #19

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

For those interested, the opening credit sequence.

Forgot how much the "dinosaurs" look like angry dildos with teeth....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0MRU1f2SJ0&feature=PlayList&p=DE388626EE914377&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=16

comment #20

Gordon27 says ...

He was, at least, an up-and-coming star before 'Ghostbusters', but 'Ghostbusters' probably is the reason he's a star, yeah.

comment #21

BurmaShave says ...

I actually didn't hate WOLVERINE as much as most people, but the effects were really quite shit. And the effects in this look even worse. Is this some new symptom of the economic downturn? I mean "comically cheesy" is one thing, but this looks more like "funded by Germans".

comment #22

Rich S. says ...

The effects in the original Land of the Lost were some of the worst ever put on television. I think they used an actual hand puppet for the dinosaurs in some shots.

From all accounts I've read, these trailers are pulling a serious fast one on the audience. The humor in this thing is supposed to be way out there and not "safe" in any conventional sense.

I know that both Sid and Marty Krofft are producers on this thing, and they seem to like where it's going. Even as a kid, I always thought the original was pretty stupid. But this looks kind of funny.

comment #23

actionman says ...

From what I've seen in the trailers, the effects for Land of the Lost look much more polished than the ones on display in the Wolverine trailers.

comment #24

Gordon27 says ...

"Is this some new symptom of the economic downturn?"

Burma - I think the studios never want to spend as much as they need to on effects (being fair, CGI effects are ridiculously expensive), so they prefer to hire directors like Silberling, who just does what he's told, or Gavin Hood, who doesn't have the track record to fight for more money.

I also think it's amazing that CGI has never been more realistic than 'Jurassic Park'. Comparing the dinosaurs in that to 'Land of the Lost', we've clearly taken big steps backwards.

comment #25

televisiontears says ...

"In the end, this will probably be a rental next fall unless the Mrs. and I decide to sneak some vino into the back row and have ourselves a groping giggle-fest watching it in a mind-altered state as we did back in college (alas, parenthood has curtailed the use of a certain weed...)"

Gross. Add a family film to the mix and it becomes creepy.

comment #26

dinovelvet says ...

I also can't make the test screening tonight. And by "can't make", I mean I avoided eye contact and pretended to be going somewhere really fast when I saw the guy coming at me with a clipboard with Will Ferrell's face on it asking me if I want free movie passes. Anyway isn't it a bit...odd that they're testing it this close to the release date? An indicator of problems?

comment #27

moviemaniac2002 says ...

Question:
When this block of processed CGI cheese
hits disc, it will not doubt include an "effects"
featurette. In this segment, a young nerdish
schuck sporting a trendy T-shirt will be pointing at his computer screen, explaining how he managed to give the T-Rex a pensive expression.
I'm just wonderin'.....exactly how much of these films' 180 mil budgets are allotted to these
hordes of little CGI drones....and how much do they actually take home at the end of the week?:
Yes, I understand the horrifying future....that the studios will much prefer to throw millions at
sludge like this than ever again make "Duplicity" or
"State Of Play" for grown ups.....which is why I grow ever nostalgic for the 60's....when studios could split their films into various entertaining
sub-genres....because they were not yet controlled by mega-corporations willing to throw
vast amounts of cash to make mindless so called
"crowd pleasers"....I 'm starting to think we've all
become the faceless crowds in the opening
scenes of "Blade Runner"....huddled up and
staggering in the rain while brightly corporate
logos flash above us, promising a world that never was, never is, and for almost all of us, never will be.

comment #28

Scott Mendelson says ...

I don't think it's a test screening. Universal often screens the hell out of their tent pole pictures or promising films, to build word of mouth. They did a bunch of screenings for The Forty Year Old Virgin, Knocked Up, and King Kong, and I attended one such screening for Mama Mia last June.

comment #29

MDOC says ...

I laughed at the Matt Lauer stuff.

comment #30

Gordon27 says ...

"An indicator of problems?"

It usually is not an indicator of problems, actually. Usually, if something has significant problems connecting with an audience, they don't show it to audiences free within a month before releasing. They do it to drive the hype up -- anybody in NYC who didn't see 'Hancock' for free in the weeks before it opened either actively avoided it or just didn't want to wait in lines.

comment #31

Gordon27 says ...

"that the studios will much prefer to throw millions at
sludge like this than ever again make "Duplicity" or
"State Of Play" for grown ups"

I hate this meme, that standards have fallen so low that 'Duplicity' and 'State of Play' are intelligent movies, and that intelligent movies are now dead because those two movies failed. I'm not saying they would've done better if they *were* intelligent, but if that's what Hollywood considers intelligent movies for adults, I could care less if that aspect of Hollywood production dies.

comment #32

BurmaShave says ...

Deathtongue, I must concur, that was a sickening image. Not to mention you're happy to drink and drive from a movie theater but not to smoke pot? Damn I never want kids.

comment #33

BurmaShave says ...

Also Gordon, get that stick out of your ass, DUPLICITY and STATE OF PLAY were the two best written mainstream films this year, and are justly mourned, especially the former. Your alternative is what?

comment #34

Gordon27 says ...

"the two best written mainstream films this year"

You got me there, with "this year". I can't disagree that '17 Again' or 'Wolverine' were better written films.

"Your alternative is what?"

Well, me personally, I think that a movie that covers up its plot holes with a "twist" ending that just adds far, far deeper plot holes, it can be entertaining ('Duplicity' wasn't terrible or anything), but it's not "intelligent".

Are you asking for recent mainstream dramas that I would consider to be intelligent? 'Doubt' was both intelligent and entertaining (too bad it had no third act), 'Michael Clayton' was pretty solid at both... I would throw in something like 'The Hoax', which perfectly nailed the tone that 'Duplicity' was going for.

But, in a bigger sense, my "alternative" is that Hollywood should blame more on itself. When 'Duplicity' failed, the meme became "It failed because it's too intelligent, audiences are so dumb!" I can tell you that, in my theater, not a single person came out saying, "Boy, that movie was over my head!", and not a single person came out saying, "That was a good movie!" either.

(Along these lines, there's a great podcast that Kevin Smith put out about a month after 'Zack and Miri' was released, and he spends 40 minutes plus talking about how the Weinstein company marketed it badly, released it on Halloween, etc., but whenever it comes back to talking about the movie, he just says, "I know it's really funny, I know I did my job right." Having seen the movie, and not thought much of it, was I really put off by this, but I don't think it's limited to him -- he is just one of the few celebrities who will flat out say whatever he's thinking.)

I should confess, I didn't go to see 'State of Play', because it looked so terrible, and the reviews and people I know and trust uniformly said it was less intelligent than 'Duplicity', so it seemed like a non-starter. I include it because it was included in the aforementioned meme prior to it even being released; it was pre-emptively declared to be too intelligent to possibly be a hit movie.