Ok, six weeks down the road and the freaking Pacifier is still in the top 10 and grossed over $100 Million? Have you SEEN this movie? (What am I saying… if it's still in the top 10 after this long you probably HAVE seen this movie, haven't you?)
I have to admit that I have seen this movie (don't ask… I lost a coin-toss between this and the equally poorly reviewed Be Cool on their opening weekend. I still don't know whether that was a good thing or not.) Formulaic, mind-numbingly dumb, terminally "cute" (Vin does a bunny-hop dance, that later saves the day!)… I felt myself losing IQ points watching this thing.
Sadly, I think we have to blame Rodriguez. After all, you can easily point to Spy Kids in 2001, it's diminishingly entertaining sequel Spy Kids 2, and the execrable Spy Kids 3-D as the direct antecedents of this tedious film—the blueprints, as it were, for this iteration of the "kids as secret agent/action hero" genre. But, while I wasn't terribly impressed by Spy Kids, I can acknowledge that it was mildly entertaining. The Pacifier doesn't even merit "mildly". So how is it that it's made so damn much money (and, it should be assumed, we're only days away from the announcement of a sequel)?
(AND, while we're at it, we might as well blame him for both Agent Cody Banks films and the trainwreck that was the Thunderbirds. I loved Thunderbirds as a kid, but from what I saw of it, even the kid in me couldn't love this movie.)
But why it that "family friendly" has become synonymous with inane and stultifying? Digital animation seems to have avoided that trap. Even last year's Shark Tale, while unimpressive to me wasn't insultingly dumb. But apparently, if it's live action, it's gotta be dumb? It just makes no sense to me.
Maybe I'll forgive him after I get around to seeing Sin City. But then he's got The Adventures of Shark Boy & Lava Girl in 3-D coming out later this year. So maybe he's NOT forgiven after all.
I have to admit that I have seen this movie (don't ask… I lost a coin-toss between this and the equally poorly reviewed Be Cool on their opening weekend. I still don't know whether that was a good thing or not.) Formulaic, mind-numbingly dumb, terminally "cute" (Vin does a bunny-hop dance, that later saves the day!)… I felt myself losing IQ points watching this thing.
Sadly, I think we have to blame Rodriguez. After all, you can easily point to Spy Kids in 2001, it's diminishingly entertaining sequel Spy Kids 2, and the execrable Spy Kids 3-D as the direct antecedents of this tedious film—the blueprints, as it were, for this iteration of the "kids as secret agent/action hero" genre. But, while I wasn't terribly impressed by Spy Kids, I can acknowledge that it was mildly entertaining. The Pacifier doesn't even merit "mildly". So how is it that it's made so damn much money (and, it should be assumed, we're only days away from the announcement of a sequel)?
(AND, while we're at it, we might as well blame him for both Agent Cody Banks films and the trainwreck that was the Thunderbirds. I loved Thunderbirds as a kid, but from what I saw of it, even the kid in me couldn't love this movie.)
But why it that "family friendly" has become synonymous with inane and stultifying? Digital animation seems to have avoided that trap. Even last year's Shark Tale, while unimpressive to me wasn't insultingly dumb. But apparently, if it's live action, it's gotta be dumb? It just makes no sense to me.
Maybe I'll forgive him after I get around to seeing Sin City. But then he's got The Adventures of Shark Boy & Lava Girl in 3-D coming out later this year. So maybe he's NOT forgiven after all.
Comments
Though, I give him full credit for exposing Carla Gugino's magnificent naked body. :-D
And, Shark Tale WAS insultingly stupid. You must have forgotten when you were losing brain cells to The Pacifier.
Q
And now I've got even MORE reason to go see Sin City!