6.2 is an offensive score!
-
TheBeardedWonder — 12 years ago(December 05, 2013 09:41 AM)
Meh a 5-6 sounds about right, that's what I gave it. It's really not a very good movie. The comedy isn't funny and is telegraphed from a mile away literally every time, the pacing is terrible (it's seriously so long before we get to the main plot), the runtime is too long for this story, the characters are all pretty annoying (I didn't care what happened to any of them), and the effects are pretty dated.
Plus the whole final act is a friggin mess in every way. I lost interest in the whole thing around then and it just kind of keeps going even though it should have ended by then. Now that I think about it, the opening sucked too. Who thought 10 mins of ghoulish looking Streep doing an awful stage show was a good way to start the film?
The acting is good, the rest pretty pedestrian. It's a kids movie is pretty much the conclusion i've come to. I liked it as a kid but hate it now. The 9 yr old I watched it with last night liked it. You just said you liked it a child too. It all adds up now
"What? Do you wanna just sit around and be wrong?" - Liz Lemon -
Tin_ear — 10 years ago(August 29, 2015 05:12 PM)
Just curious, but did everybody on these message boards originally see this on network TV in the mid-nineties? I sense a strong nostalgia factor, I'm guessing among kids with parents who refused to pay for cable.
Anyway, it still holds up. Not a masterpiece mind you, but as an adult you can appreciate more of the jokes. I doubt a kid would get fully appreciate the stupidity of a Sweet Bird of Youth musical or Bel Air beauticians faking European accents. The whole shtick about a perfectionist plastic surgeon becoming an undertaker because he knows spray-paint is quicker and easier than trying to fix living people is hilarious.