i gave this one a C+ pretty much on cast alone. the script wasn't that great, but i love pegg, frost, bateman, and wiig so much, that they really made it bearable. i found this movie impossible to hate, but hard to like. i laughed a few times, but when your resume includes shaun of the dead and hot fuzz, you're going in expecting a lot. as a sci-fi geek, i really appreciated a lot of the references to other sci-fi films. but most of the jokes were juvenile and cliched.

overall, the actors did A LOT with the script. they made it worth watching, even though the script itself wasn't anything special. which is a shame because i REALLY wanted to like this one.

did anyone else think that rogen's voice was a bit too distracting? he sounds so unique that his voice really took me out of the movie and made me doubt paul as a character.

I thought Rogen did a good job, though even that character was disappointing because of the weak dialogue of the script. Sometimes the alien in Paul reminded me more of the Geiko lizard, who is actually funnier.

Bateman did a good job, but didn't really add much humor to the movie. As for Pegg and Frost, this would have probably been really funny if they just did this trip for real, went to sci fi conventions and famous ET locations like Area 51. Their deadpan humor would be perfect for that. But they're not real actors, IMO, so they shouldn't be starring in a 40 million dollar movie. They just aren't funny enough.

Wiig's performance is up there with the all time worst I've ever seen in any movie. It's that bad. Again, I'm sure a lot had to do with the horrible script. I doubt she'll be in a major film role again any time soon.

I found this film so bad I feel like the producers owe me compensation for the lost 2 hours. Sorry, that's just how I feel, and I'm usually not this harsh on movies. There's no excuse for this movie being this poor. And every film critic loved it. You know, the last person you should take advice from on how to run a business is usually a business professor. Maybe this is similar. The last people we should listen to on movie opinions is film critics. I wonder how many people laughed out loud at this in the theater. That's what we need, a device to measure that!

really? you thought wiig was that bad in this? personally, i don't find many women on SNL funny (then again, i don't find many men funny either). but i love wiig. and I'll assume you're joking/trolling about her having a major film role any time soon haha

difference of opinion i guess. i like your idea of the LOL-meter. and it would probably work (until its employed during tyler perry's why did i get married too....)

Quoted from leitskev But they're not real actors, IMO, so they shouldn't be starring in a 40 million dollar movie.

Surely there are greater offenders out there...

holy hell in a hand basket. heretic, can you believe that sigourney weaver, sigourney fucking weaver, is in that shit? RIP ripley...

All I can say is that we have to start giving Hollywood the message. Once they have our $12.50 or $4.99 for VOD they don't really care if we think that the movie's the worst thing we've ever seen...

There are plenty of "mainstream indie" movies to see - from the Oscar nominated "Winter's Bone" and "The Kids are All Right" to the more forgotten cult classics like "Assassination of a High School President" and "A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints". Great performances throughout all these pics...

And if you haven't seen 'The Invention of Lying' yet, which I'm sure most of you have, definitely do so. While not laugh out loud funny, it's brilliantly written and wonderfully satirical - though a discussion of its Kantian overtones is best done in its own thread...

Oh, and Kev? About Wiig never being in another major film role? Her passion project 'Imogene' is filming now - and it stars her, Annette Bening, Matt Dillon and Darren Criss from Glee... (0:

Lol. I don't wish any career misfortune on Wiig. I'm sure she's a wonderful person. Maybe she's a good actor too, and this just wasn't her role. That character was horribly scripted by people who have some naive notions about American "flyover" country people.

You are right about Hollywood, but it's more than that. Unless we are to consider that the film critics are in the pocket of Hollywood. I mean, every newspaper online I could find gave this film a glowing review. I couldn't even find a bad remark within any of the articles. People choose their movies primarily on what the trailer: do the scenes appeal, does the premise interest, do we recognize the actors. But even if you vetted this story and did your homework, you'd get the idea from the reviews that this story was fantastic. So what are we to do?

This actually recalls something I mentioned in another thread, where people were asking what's ruining movies. I floated this theory: movie buffs are ruining movies. People that are really into film, that have seen thousands of movies and really love dissecting film, tend to look for different things in film than the rest of the population. They tend to come from a very particular and narrow ideological perspective, and they suffer from a degree of group think. An they are the ones doing the reviewing. This absolutely influences how pictures are made.

About a year ago I read that the writing for television is kind of in a golden age, and TV shows are thought to be really well written and constructed now. But for whatever reason, the opposite has happened in film. Why is that?

I think Paul illustrates the problem. It's a bad movie, and though my opinion is subjective, I listed the reasons above that are very specific and central to the story. And yet it's glorified by all the film "experts". What the H is going on? Unless one thinks that the reviewers are bought off, and I don't think that, then it must be something else. So I think it's the movie buffs. They've become their own isolated, special class, they see the world through their own prism. And they have an enormous influence on movies, at least Hollywood.

That's my fire everyone up thought for the day! Happy Labor Day!

The film critics are often directly employed by the studioes.

News Corp owns Fox and owns papers like the Times and the Sun.

You'll get glowing reviews of dire films that just happen to have been produced or distributed by Fox, for instance.

A great example was the dire Revolver by Guy Ritchie. It couldn't get a distribution deal, then Fox got it, there were full page spreads on it and interviews in the paper and they even managed to get it nominated for an Oscar.

Here's a related breakdown:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2005/oct/03/pressandpublishing.sun

Very few film critics are actually experts on film any more, they are just people picking up a wage and don't want to upset the apple-cart. The kind of film buffs that you are talking about are few and far between imho.

We could go through the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes one by one to get an idea of who owns the critics:

Rolling Stone is owned by the Walt Disney Company for instance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jann_Wenner

You then get companies like the Gannet company who own USA Today and numerous other publications as well as TV stations. There's a sort of conflict of interest there, as disparaging major studioes product may prevent them getting films for the stations, or interviews with their papers and they require advertsing money from the very people they are supposed to criticise.

Film buffs are the least of the problems. They would rip a film like Paul apart in the same way you did.

I seriously think the only thing that would work would be a year's worth of boycotting the so-called "big films" - not just the superhero reboots but the recycled plots and the ones starring Jennifer Aniston, Paul Rudd, etc.

And yes, Paul sounds like a recycled plot to me - like two people sat in a room and said "what if two stoners had found E.T. instead?" And then they choked on some ganga smoke while laughing, and the next day when the fog cleared they proceeded to apply a a 90 minute base coat of crap to a funny logline...

The strange thing is that it was such a wonderful year for film and for the non-traditional movie. The Kids are All Right, Black Swan, The King's Speech, Winter's Bone, Crazy Heart, etc. All nominated for academy awards, all with top actors and great performances, and all produced by people and companies outside of the traditional Hollywood machine...

Quoted from ajr All I can say is that we have to start giving Hollywood the message. Once they have our $12.50 or $4.99 for VOD they don't really care if we think that the movie's the worst thing we've ever seen... There are plenty of "mainstream indie" movies to see - from the Oscar nominated "Winter's Bone" and "The Kids are All Right" to the more forgotten cult classics like "Assassination of a High School President" and "A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints". Great performances throughout all these pics... And if you haven't seen 'The Invention of Lying' yet, which I'm sure most of you have, definitely do so. While not laugh out loud funny, it's brilliantly written and wonderfully satirical - though a discussion of its Kantian overtones is best done in its own thread... Oh, and Kev? About Wiig never being in another major film role? Her passion project 'Imogene' is filming now - and it stars her, Annette Bening, Matt Dillon and Darren Criss from Glee... (0:

Interesting post.

From my own point of view the last thing I want to pay to see at the cinema are things like Winter's Bone. That kind of film is as good watched on the little screen, and to be perfectly honest, I rarely get much pleasure out of serious drama films. Feels like I've been there and seen it all and they are never nearly as good as the novels from which they invariably appeared from.

What people really want to see are good examples of genre films.

Even "pretty good" films like Taken get raved about by the public, if not critics, because they provide a type of film experience that people simply don't get anymore...decent genre action.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films Interesting post. From my own point of view the last thing I want to pay to see at the cinema are things like Winter's Bone. That kind of film is as good watched on the little screen, and to be perfectly honest, I rarely get much pleasure out of serious drama films. Feels like I've been there and seen it all and they are never nearly as good as the novels from which they invariably appeared from. What people really want to see are good examples of genre films. Even "pretty good" films like Taken get raved about by the public, if not critics, because they provide a type of film experience that people simply don't get anymore...decent genre action.

Back atcha!

Interesting post as well Rick because I just had a conversation with my wife about this very topic - the fact is that because of VOD and redbox and the internet, etc., only the visually stunning movies will go to theaters. I often wonder if a movie like 'The Sting', which is as perfectly crafted a movie as you can get, would get a theatrical release in today's market? It's visually appealing because it's a period piece, but it's very plot heavy. So what would a distributor do?

I think the Sting would have a shot...but it would have to be glammed up a bit...given the Ocean's Eleven treatment so to speak.

Well Newman and Redford made it a case closed argument, but I wonder what a similar type movie would do in today's world. You make a good point with Ocean's Eleven because those are visually appealing movies, yet they also have George Clooney and other star power behind them.

What would a very-well made movie with some up-and-comers do in today's market? Probably go to festivals, get a arthouse movie theatre release, and then go to VOD, or a combination of these elements. This was the case with movies like The Perfect Age of Rock n' Roll and White Irish Drinkers...

Truthfully, I find it hard to have much sympathy with films like White Irish Drinkers.

I'm falling asleep at the name alone. It just conjures up an image of cliched, blue collared type people doing stuff we've seen in a million festival films.

That's completely prejudicial as I've never heard of it, but it's just how I feel. There's some movies made that seem less interesting to me than an average 90 minute in my own life, so I just can't be mithered with them.

I can't imagine why anyone would go and spend their hard earned money to watch it at the cinema.

Perfect Age has got 0% on Rotten Tomatoes, which doesn't bode well...even accepting possible bias!

If you're going to do drama, you've got to do it blindingly well. They are often based on uninteresting events in comparison to other films, so they need to be blessed with something really special. More often than not, I don't find anything in them at all to be interested in. They are equally as banal in their own way as the superhero movies, just without the bells and whistles.

I think the Sting remake could be very cool and successful if it had the right actors, and like Rick said, if the gave it the Oceans 11 treatment. You'd have to change the script, but the basic concept would work. And with the right budget, Depression era Chicago could be made to look pretty cool.

I think the sting itself would have to involve a poker game. Horse betting is largely a thing of the past. Maybe it could involve another type of sports betting, like ultimate fighting.