"Little" the lesser of two evils...
Yes, fellow moviegoers, I’ve climbed Everest. I’ve braved the treacherous peak. I’ve seen the Wayans Brothers’ “Little Man.”
I’m sure most of you are aware by now, in this atrocity to cinema, Marlon Wayans (the ugliest and most annoying Wayans brother) plays a midget criminal—his face is digitally grafted onto a little person—who must pretend to be a baby to retrieve a diamond he stole. It’s a bit more complicated than that, but I think that’ll suffice.
I think you all know all you need to know if this is a movie you’re going to see or not. From the trailer, “Little Man” looked monstrous, awful, offensive and evoked a strong sense of “I can’t believe this a real movie.” This is dead on for the most part, but not nearly as torturous as I imagined.
Okay, yes, “Little Man” sucks ass—much like the Wayans’ last box office hit, “White Chicks.” But as much as it sucks, it’s never boring. And I laughed two or three times. Say what you want about the Wayans (and I say much), but at least their movies go for something and try to be different and unique—even if offensive and awful as well. Which is a lot more than you can say about this weekend’s comedy dud, “You, Me & Dupree.”
To be clear, I wouldn’t recommend either movie. They’re both prime examples of what I hate about Hollywood. However, “Little Man” offers a strange sort of watchability and fascination, if only because of its outlandishness and absurdity of its premise. Like I said, I was never bored watching it, and my (obviously all-black) audience ate it up. “Dupree” on the other hand is just a bland, bleh exercise in tedium and unoriginality.
Yes, “Little Man” gives us jokes about a dog pissing on a midget’s face, and no less than a dozen hit-in-the-nuts jokes, but at least it’s trying to be something, and putting itself out there, for better or worse. “Dupree” just lies there.
Once again, neither movie is worth seeing. I would rate “You, Me & Dupree” one star out of 4, while “Little Man” has a slight edge with a 1.5. But yeah, you’re better off skipping both and waiting till next weekend for “Monster House,” “My Super Ex-Girlfriend” and “Clerks II.”
On my horizon: tonight, I have to watch my screener of “The Quiet” so I can be prepared for my phoner with Elisha Cuthbert tomorrow afternoon. Tomorrow evening I have a screening of M. Night Shymalan’s supposed car-wreck “Lady in the Water” and then driving back to NY. Tuesday, I’m checking out “Miami Vice” again, and Wednesday, I’m hopefully attending a way-early screening of Oliver Stone’s “World Trade Center.” Hopefully my next post will be my “Clerks II” review, but if I don’t have time tomorrow, I’ll try post that and my “Lady” reaction by Tuesday.
I’m sure most of you are aware by now, in this atrocity to cinema, Marlon Wayans (the ugliest and most annoying Wayans brother) plays a midget criminal—his face is digitally grafted onto a little person—who must pretend to be a baby to retrieve a diamond he stole. It’s a bit more complicated than that, but I think that’ll suffice.
I think you all know all you need to know if this is a movie you’re going to see or not. From the trailer, “Little Man” looked monstrous, awful, offensive and evoked a strong sense of “I can’t believe this a real movie.” This is dead on for the most part, but not nearly as torturous as I imagined.
Okay, yes, “Little Man” sucks ass—much like the Wayans’ last box office hit, “White Chicks.” But as much as it sucks, it’s never boring. And I laughed two or three times. Say what you want about the Wayans (and I say much), but at least their movies go for something and try to be different and unique—even if offensive and awful as well. Which is a lot more than you can say about this weekend’s comedy dud, “You, Me & Dupree.”
To be clear, I wouldn’t recommend either movie. They’re both prime examples of what I hate about Hollywood. However, “Little Man” offers a strange sort of watchability and fascination, if only because of its outlandishness and absurdity of its premise. Like I said, I was never bored watching it, and my (obviously all-black) audience ate it up. “Dupree” on the other hand is just a bland, bleh exercise in tedium and unoriginality.
Yes, “Little Man” gives us jokes about a dog pissing on a midget’s face, and no less than a dozen hit-in-the-nuts jokes, but at least it’s trying to be something, and putting itself out there, for better or worse. “Dupree” just lies there.
Once again, neither movie is worth seeing. I would rate “You, Me & Dupree” one star out of 4, while “Little Man” has a slight edge with a 1.5. But yeah, you’re better off skipping both and waiting till next weekend for “Monster House,” “My Super Ex-Girlfriend” and “Clerks II.”
On my horizon: tonight, I have to watch my screener of “The Quiet” so I can be prepared for my phoner with Elisha Cuthbert tomorrow afternoon. Tomorrow evening I have a screening of M. Night Shymalan’s supposed car-wreck “Lady in the Water” and then driving back to NY. Tuesday, I’m checking out “Miami Vice” again, and Wednesday, I’m hopefully attending a way-early screening of Oliver Stone’s “World Trade Center.” Hopefully my next post will be my “Clerks II” review, but if I don’t have time tomorrow, I’ll try post that and my “Lady” reaction by Tuesday.
posted by Rob at 1:58 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home