Weekly link roundup – April 9-15
NEW MOVIE REVIEWS:
“Blue Like Jazz” C
“Bully” B
“The Cabin in the Woods” A
“The Three Stooges” C
* * * * *
MOVIE COLUMNS:
Eric’s Bad Movies: “House on Haunted Hill” (1999), starring Geoffrey Rush, Taye Diggs, and Chris Kattan. So you know it’s super-scary.
Re-Views: “Drowning Mona” (2000), a comedy I hated then, find mildly entertaining now.
My Shame List: “The French Connection” (1971), now at last finally seen by me.
* * * * *
MY OTHER STUFF:
Snide Remarks: “ShAAMCO” — An encounter with a shady mechanic
Movie B.S. with Bayer and Snider: This is my movie podcast. I share it with Jeff Bayer. We talk about movies. Do I have to explain everything to you? [MovieBS] or [iTunes]
In the Dark: Subscribe to this weekly e-mail and get all the latest movie reviews, DVD releases, and other pertinent info delivered to your electronic mailbox. [Eric D. Snider's In the Dark]
Twitter: @EricDSnider
* * * * *
MISCELLANEOUS MERRIMENT:
The new Three Stooges’ painfully awkward appearance on “WWE Raw.” Look, if you can’t sell The Three Stooges to a crowd of professional wrestling fans, I don’t know who you’re gonna sell it to. [AV Club]
Related to that last item, my pal John Gholson — who knows a lot about pro wrestling and awkward promotions — shares some other cringe-inducing WWE product placement. [Movies.com]
The 100th anniversary of the Titanic sinking and the re-release of the movie “Titanic” gives me an excuse to mention this parody I wrote 14 years ago. It’s still probably the most widely distributed thing I’ve ever written. [Clash of the Titanic]
“Don’t Stop Believing,” as sung by clips from movies. This is amazing. [YouTube]
DGA Quarterly (that’s the Directors Guild of America) has a terrific nuts-and-bolts interview with Christopher Nolan, who comes out as anti-3D and anti-digital. He also offers this bit of truth: “You’re never going to learn something as profoundly as when it’s purely out of curiosity.” [DGA]
First go see “The Cabin in the Woods.” Then, after you have done that, read Rex Reed’s hilariously off-base and inaccurate review of it. He talks about things that aren’t in the movie, because he dreamed them, maybe? [New York Observer]
April 17th, 2012 at 12:00 pm
Eric: Is Rex Reed’s review really any more hilariously inaccurate than Roger Ebert’s? Rex’s bit about thinking there’s some sort of pay-per-slay framework in place is pretty amazingly inept, I grant you. But Rog’s review, positive though it is, reads like he took a nap after the first 10 minutes or so and asked someone what happened after he woke up. I don’t get how either of them could have confused the actual plot so badly, other than that they’re both senior citizens. I didn’t think it was hard at all to “get” what was happening.