Smurf You!

Before I begin here I would just like to send out a disclaimer. The following article is going to include some harsh language; so if you never heard or seen the word fuck before... well you have now.


Are children movie's really aimed at children? Sure the whimsical humor and bright-colored animation are defiantly a draw, and in a way its not the actual movie that is the problem. A good kids movie has a little bit for everyone; of course the kids have plenty to enjoy but the parents/adults should also find some entertainment value. Mature themes and tones are common in kids movies. Last year's Toy Story 3 is arguably the pinnacle of animated mature movies, and it did it through its strong narrative and characters. A lot of these themes are to deep and mature for kids to understand. This maturity causes a huge audience of teenagers and full grown adults to flock to the theaters. If an animated movie wishes to draw in an adult audience this is how it should go about it. Sadly though certain modern day movies believe they can draw in more adult audience through other means.


Advertising is a tricky business, especially when it comes to movies. The creation of tag lines, posters, flyers, and even TV spots are all a tricky thing to create. A common method advertiser use is word play, or taking a pop-culture reference and slightly altering it. Many children movies decide to use their advertising to try and be "mature" or "edgy" to draw in the older crowd. This is not mature it is immature. It is obvious that this advertisement is not aimed at the kids but for the adults, and for that it raises the question: Do parents really want to bring their kids to a movie when the ad's tell them to go fuck themselves?


Three examples come to mind when I think of that question: Shrek Forever After, The Smurfs, and Alvin and the Chipmunks the Third. Each on of these movies uses word play to their advantage to try to drag more people to see it. Below are poster's for each movie I mentioned above to show off what I have been talking about.

Why am I being told to fuck myself by chipmunks? Why are the Smurfs asking where the hell are they? Does Rumpelstiltskin really not know where his bitches are at? Do parents really want their children to see movies with such immaturity and desperation to attract an audience? There is no problem with a children's movie to have something for everyone; in fact I encourage it. But that something should be in substance not advertisement. What these movies are doing (or did in the case of Shrek) is disgusting. I actually can not even tell who these ad's are intended for. If you want to see a movie with your kids that has something for you as well take them to see Winnie the Pooh, or hell show them Toy Story 3 again.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 Review

Juxtaposition: an act or instance of placing close together or side by side, especially for comparison or contrast.


It seems almost pointless to review the newest Harry Potter film at this point. Everyone knows already weather or not you will go and see this movie, or if  the whole Potter craze does not bother you in the slightest. But here we are after more then a decade the movies are finally over, and how does the last one fair? Well simply put if your a Harry Potter fan you will love it regardless, but if your just a movie fan prepare to be disappointed.

DH Part 2 continues the story from part 1 as Harry, Ron, and Hermione continue to search for Lord Voldemort's Horcruxes. Thats everything there is too part 2. And here lay the biggest problem with DH Part 2: by splitting it into two movies both of them suffer. I mentioned Juxtaposition earlier because it is what this movie needs desperately. Never is the audience given a moment to breath; instead we are given a non-stop thrill ride moving from one explosive scene to the next. Being the climax to an era in cinema one would think their would be a lot of emotional resolution, and indeed their is a few attempts at this, but every single moment is completely washed over due to the spectacle of the same boring stone hallways exploding every minute.

The movie is still fun to look at though, with colorful beams of lights flashing every way, and student's and pieces of the set exploding almost every other minute. But amiss all the carnage that film supplies you realize one thing about this movie. It lost its charm, the magic that use to fill the halls and characters of this world is gone. Watching the fights in this movie does not amount to any sort of magic or excitement; instead it is more like watching an episode of Dragon Ball Z. Some would argue that this comes with the characters growing up and becoming darker. Those people are wrong. The wonder is gone because JK Rowling wrote the last few books for the purpose of turning them into movies, not for the purpose of being a book.

The Harry Potter franchise is officially over and take that as you want too. DH Part 2 does not due the series justice due too horrible pacing and acting (except Alan Rickman like always), and a almost non-existant story. If they kept the last book as one movie it could of ended up ok, but alas greed spoiled the end to one of movies most successful franchises it ever had. Now we just have to wait for Warner Brothers to find some way to rob more money out of our pockets with this dead series.

Horrible Bosses Review

There a plenty of people in the world that hate their jobs, and there are alot of people who hate their bosses as well. Horrible Bosses is the story of three friends: Nick (Jason Bateman), Dale (Charlie Day), and Kurt (Jason Sudeikis). All three of them are hard working young men who simply are having their lives ruined due to their horrible bosses (played by Spacey, Farrell, and Aniston respectivly). After one night of heavy drinking they throw around the idea of murdering their bosses, the source of all their problems. Eventually the idea settles in and the friends set out to kill each others bosses. When it comes to plot thats really it, but for a movie like this a simple plot can be moved a long way with a smart script, and thats arguably Horrible Bosses strongest point.

In a comedy a strong script makes or breaks the movie; especially in todays world where R-rated comedies are dime a dozen. Horrible Bosses' script is smart, funny, at times disturbing, but all in all its just lively. The actors completly own their roles (well except Jennifer Aniston, but more on her later) especially Day and Jamie Foxx. For Day especially this could be his big break from television onto the big screen. Every character seems to be written for the exact actor/actress who plays them. The main three characters each give off a unique charm to themselves, but it is when they are together that we can really gain a sense of them. These are just three fun guys who love life, but are being tortured by their bosses. Yet at the same time, each character is flawed (Day is a sex offender, Sudeikis is a sex addict, Farrell is a drug addict etc.) which makes them all the more relatable.

And then there is Jennifer Anistons character. While at first she may seem to be getting the most laughs from anyone in the movie, her character remaines the same throughout the movie. While all the other characters evolve throughout the film, Anistons character remains the same; and the same is one of the filthiest, sex driven characters I have seen in a film. Everything she says is charged with sexual content to the point were it almost does not make sense. At first she is hilarious and she plays the role of a slutty Dentist well enough, but after about 30 minutes you will realize that the other characters are much more interesting and will grow tired of her. It eventually grows tiresome when so many other characters jokes are based around her being a slut. We get it Jennifer Aniston is a slut, we do not need to constantly be reminded. In fact if Horrible Bosses has one flaw it is that it misjudges it audience. It constantly reaffirms jokes and plot points; which while helpful become just boring especially late in the movie.

Horrible Bosses is a great comedy. As R-rated comedies go it is not as crude as the Hangover, but at the same time it is not as smart as anything Kevin Smith has made. It finds that great middle ground that no matter what kind of humor your interested in you will find something to laugh at in this movie. Its a unique flavor of comedy that I would recommend anyone looking for a few good laughs; because heaven knows what kind of R-rated comedies are out at this time.

Hangover 2: The sick truth

There is no denying that The Hangover is a major success finacially and commercially, and now that the sequal is now out its enjoying great success again right? Well Hangover 2 has been plagued with many marketing problems, which strangly enough seem to all surround Ed Helms character Stu. First it was the Mike Tyson face tatoo ordeal, but the less public issue is the anti-homosexual message the second film shows.

Ed Helm's character is essentially a implosive sociopath who seems to run into more bad luck then anyone else in the movie. In the first movie he is put into the awkward situation of marrying a stripper. While this could of turned into a comedic goldmine, it actually end up turning into the heart of the first film. The first film (and dissapointingly the second film) is about three friends losing their soon-to-be married friend after a wild night in Las Vegas. The first film works because it is about three not so good guys getting the crap beat out of them by the harsh reality of Vegas. No part of this story even begins to tug on the heart strings like the Stripper with the heart of gold does. Sure if she was just a stripper this side story could of ended up as nothing but a cruel joke, but instead turns into the biggest moral dilemma of the entire film. Once we start to learn more about this women you learn she is a caring young girl who is hoping that her new husband will be enough to support her and her baby. This dilema puts an entire new spin on the classic discription of a stripper. Usually we do not think much of people like this, but when their entire life is depending on one nights mistake, and this character turns out to be a genuine sweetheart it begs the question: what would you do in this situation?

In the second film not only does it lack the iconic location, such as Vegas, but it has no moral dilema. In the second film it is implied that Stu has had sex with a transexual stripper. There is no hidden message in this situation; instead all the movie does is run with this as a sick joke, as if this is a completly wrong act. Its as if the movie was promoting homophobia. At no point does the character have some sort of realization of his actions, but instead just keeps saying "ew gross how can anyone do this!". This is not just the reaction the characters seem to go through but consequently the reaction of the entire movie; and because this is one of the major jokes of the film it is the expected reaction from the audience. It is a completly disgusting move on the writers, producers, and everyone involved part. The is no resolution to this storyline, it just ends. This is just bad comedy; and while the first Hangover was a good film it needed no sequal especially one so morally immature.