Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to majordomo@xmission.com ]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 22:57:31 -0800
From: "Marc C. Desbiens" <marcdesbiens@apolloguide.com>
Subject: [MV] Cecil B. Demented - 2000
>
>
>Alright, this film should have been called
>"Cecil B. Ludicrous" ... now is that a good title,
>or what ??
>
>I hated this film, 1.5/5, I admit I fast forwarded a
>lil' during the last 5 minutes because I could not stand it anymore even if it only lasted 85 minutes or so ... and the worst part is it started on a good note.
>
>After the first third I was thinking it was going to be
>a fairly good film actually but that is when Cecil B. Ludicrous became more
>and more silly, rude, violent, meaningless, etc. I really think a good
>film could be made with this material. There are plenty of in-jokes for
>movie buffs too, some flashes of "Brilliance" in a sea of mediocrity would
>be a good way to describe it.
>
>I like the basic idea of an independant film militia lead by a sort of
>"movie guru" (Stephen Dorff) was kidnapping a star (Melanie Griffith should hang
>her head down in SHAME !) and making her perform in their own low budget
>film ...
>
>The problem is the movie is about 5 times too silly, rude, offensive, nasty
>... to even be remotely enjoyable, it's on a major downhill after the first
>third, extreme skiing kind of angle on the slope !
>
>Why go over-the-top like that in nearly every single scene, it was ok for a
>while as I said but then I got sick of all those stoopid idiots on screen
>dancin' and chanting those demented lyrics ... and acting like idiots
>basically ... had it been made in a more "serious" way it could actually
>have been good, or at least not going off the deep end like they did.
>
>This film is just cinematic garbage, the same kind they are saying we
>shouldn't support in the movie. The only thing the film has going for it is
>the basic idea, then it goes into all sorts of directions that are not
>interesting for the most part ...
>
>Goofy acting, dialogues ... The icing on the cake is Kevin Nealon in a phony
>sequel to Forrest Gump ... unless they deliberately wanted to make it look
>awful of course ... and in retrospect, I think they did.
>
>1.5/5 for this one, it should be in my "Top 10 most ludicrous movies" of
>2000. It almost makes me want to watch more mainstream movies now ... ;-)
