Change Your Image
yourbigpalal83
Reviews
Watchmen (2009)
Hate to say it but Alan Moore was right for once.
As the comedian would say, the jokes on me! Well in this case, its true. Watchmen, the much beloved Graphic Novel by Comic writer/legend Alan Moore, is such a wonderful, complex, emotionally charged study of the superhero and what makes us human and what that means, and as a film, its a almost 3 hour bore fest.
Honestly, its one of those thinks were the story is so good, to do it as a film simply does not work. Its a completely different medium. In a graphic novel or a book, one has time to ponder the thoughts and ideas and actions of the story on there own time. In reading the material, one can digest and relate to what is being said and reflected apron at your own leaguer.
In a film, you don't have that option. the story has to progress forward in a way that feels right, that flows with the context and pacing of the film. Some of the timeless classic films do this wonderfully. They SHOW AND TELL you a story. The visuals and music enhance the story were it becomes an almost emotional sympathy in a harmonic emotion that resonates on the silver screen.
Watchmen, fails to do this simply because the story has to be given time to digest, for the audience to question and ponder what is being said, at there own pacing, and not that of a timed structure of a film.
There is some incredibly great emotional aspects to the story. it deals with learning about ones self, about the choices we make, how we choose to deal with situations, our own self ideas of right and wrong, and how our lives matter and hold effect on those around us.
To condense this into a 3 hour film, just simply does not work. this story is not suited for a film format because the moment we begging to identified and reflect on what is going on in the film, we're at the next point in the story and are robbed of the much needed time to think about what the story is being said.
And the ending, is a huge let down to boot. Not because its different then the graphic novel (the giant squid) but because we really cant feel the emotion of an entire city destroyed and countless lives lost in the same way we do in the graphic novel.
In the novel, there's a 12 page spread showing the true horror and carnage of a city devastated. The impact hits us, and Ozzy's monologue at the end of the film resonates that this is a necessary evil to save billions of more lives from destruction at the hands of there government.
In the film, this is robbed. partly due to modern history (mostly 9/11) but also due to the fact that on screen, we as a modern movie going audience are somewhat numb to mass carnage.
Yet in the comic, it resonates because at this point in the story you are so invested in the story and characters and have had the much needed time to personally reflect and identified with the films main characters that when the ultimate conclusion hits, its horrifying and shocking, and yet you understand it at the same time.
In the film, you don't. Your left numb, cold, indifferent. You don't feel the loss of life, your told it. You don't come to the conclusion on your own that as horrible as it is, its the lesser of two evils, again your told it.
Its just one of those things that works great as a novel, not so much as film.
Prehapse if they did risk the wrath of fan boys and truly changed up the film to be a FILM and not a direct translation of the comic book, you could have had a truly memorable story. Instead, your given a live action version of the comic book, and as stunning as it is visually to see what happens in between the panels of the comic, your robbed at the same time of the ability to fill those panels in yourself in your mind at your own pacing.
Its very hard to get any adaption of a comic or novel right for the big screen. But sometimes, one should just realize, that perhaps the story's structure could only work in its right element.
Hate to say it but Alan Moore was right. this story, truly is unavailable.
1 out of 5 stars. Read the graphic novel instead.
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)
Dammed if you do, Dammed if you don't
This film is a prime example of the old saying "Your dammed if you do, your dammed if you don't". Im not going to go into lengthy story outline or performance, i felt everyone in the film did a great job, the story was fresh, the pacing was quick, before i knew it half the movie was over, but i guess that was because i was having a lot of fun, but its just one of those things that no matter what you do with a film like this, 20 years after the last one, your going to run into lovers and haters.
There seems to be an argument saying its eather just like the old ones, or nothing like the old ones, and ya know, you just cant please everyone at once. If they did it just like the old films, then people would bitch and moan "ive seen this already", if you don't do it like the old ones, then people go "its completely different" with that said and done, this film feels like a nice balance between old and new. Old school stunts, good old Harrison is back in his flagship role, his old flame comes back, but its the new that people seem to hate. New writer, new sidekick, new villain, new mcguffin.
Now, yes, they could have re introduced the ark, but then people would say, we already went on the quest to find the ark, cant we do something new? Well, they are complaining about the crystal skulls now, because its not the ark, or the grail, or the Sankara stones. Its like, OK, there is no pleasing some people.
Another issue, is the films visual effects. Some are great, they look and feel like they belong, others feel out of place in an indy film. I know spielberg said not to much CGI, but, couldent he have dusted off the old optical printers and do every effect old school style. It is a legit concern. I mean, yes, it wouldent have looked as cool, but it would have felt at home more in an indy film. (which is supprising for me, since im the first guy on the net to come out and defend cgi most of the time) Overall i don't hate it like some people do. But then again, when your in a situation were its 20 years later, and you can only do so much, what do you expect. As an indy film, it fits, as a conclusion, no. I want more indy. So, on that aspect, the last crusade did work as a fitting conclusion, but now, we need a new conclusion.
How ever, i would love to see the in between adventures of Indy.
Click (2006)
A good film that looses its way..
Click is one of those films the ads promote as one thing, and you end up getting another. Not that there is anything wrong with that, and in some cases, can be quite refreshing, but in this case it works agents it.
Click was promoted as a comedy about a man who gets a universal remote control that controls his own universe, and it begins to go out of control. This indeed does happen within the film, but, it leaps beyond comedy and turns into a sud sci fie drama before reverting to a Christmas carol like ending, which is to much of a leap for the film to take at its pace.
Thats not to say it ruins the film. Far from it, you do end up feeling lost in the life of Michael Newman (Adam Sander), but, it so quick, so random, and changing pace from Sanders style comedy to a drama, its to much of a quick transaction. We aren't given enough time to adjust and except the change, and when the drama begins to take place, we're zipped right back into comedy mode.
That said, the film works best as a comedy, only to loose its flow during the heavy drama scenes, almost as if the film itself is trying to be one, then changing its mind to another. When we are in comedy mode, it works so well with a lot of laughs. Even the fat jokes, to which i, being heavyset myself, took some offense to, managed to laugh it off because they were funny, only to have my laughter turn into sadness too quickly.
I guess i could say the old promo tag line of "I laughed, i cried..." but, to quickly. Also, there were some resolutions i felt were a bit rushed and left unsolved, like, who was Morty? Was he really who he calmed he was towards the end of the film? Also, were and why does this remote exist? Its minor details, but important ones, that gives a film a bit more texture and insight, but, sadly, the solutions given by the film didn't feel all that well thought out and very rush, as if to say 'dont worry about it.." Overall, its a good, yet flawed film. Its has elements of your classical Adam Sander movie with the wacky jokes, the sometimes crude humor, and of course, his shouting, but, compared to some of his other films, like 50 first dates, anger management, water boy, billy Madison and happy Gilmore, and yes, even little Nicky, it seems to try a bit to much to mix it up, and doesn't quite manage to pull it off.
But, its worth a rental at least.
The Omen (2006)
Was this remake necessary?
You know, here's the thing about remakes. Either they're too close to the first film, like this movie, or they are so different that its hated on because "it wasn't like the first one".
The 1976 omen was a richard donnor classic film. this, is a word for word copy of that film, with very little new or different, except the fact that the photographer used photoshop to look at the pictures. thats the major difference here, well, that and the opening which features footage of the world trade center and the space shuttle columbia, which to me, came off as kinda crule and cheep because it was exploiting these events.
Other then that, its all the same, just new actors and locations. Which begs the question, what was the point? Wouldent it have been better if they simply remastered the old film for HD and tweaked a few effects? It would have been a bit cheeper.
Overall the film is worthless. Its not fresh, or new in any way, doesn't put any major sort of spin on the story, and frankly, its borning as hell, since i knew what was coming since i saw the first film! If you seen the 1976 classic, there is no reason what so ever to watch this. Im kinda glad this was a rental from my library and didn't waste anything more then my time on this film.
Scarface: The World Is Yours (2006)
A Great game based on a great movie
Tony Montana is back with a vengeance in Scarface: The world is yours for the box, ps2 and PC systems, and what a return it is. Based on the now classic Brian DePalma film Scarface, which has served as a gangster bible and a source of inspiration to rappers and fans alike, the game continues the great story telling done in the film, but with a twist...
Tony Montana not only survives the final shootout at the end of the movie, but manages to escape. Sure, this challenges the canon established at the end of the first film, but viewed as a "What if?", it makes for a great game.
Tony, now striped of his empire, morning the loss of Manny (who he killed in the first film) and his sister, must restart from scratch to rebuild his drug empire and reclaim "His world" as he puts it, and take revenge on Sosa, the drug kingpin who's death squad took him out in the movies.
Durring the course of the game, you will run and gun, shoot, build up your "Balls" and work business to reclaim the drug trade of 1983 Miami. This is done in a series of clever ways, not all involving blasting away at anything that moves, although its always fun to.
This gives the game depth and dimension. Although your skills with a various sorts of weapons comes into play a lot (and with a license like scarface, you would expect tons of gun play) but you also have to have a keen business sense, setting up fronts, earning respect, buying and selling ya yo, etc. This is done in the form of mini games, most of them pressing the B button (on the box at least) at the right time to integrate, negotiate, or intimidate. Once you have your money, you can use it to buy any number of things, to the needed (like weapons, cars, coke, etc) to the needless (like pimping out your house, various items for show, etc) That said, i was kind of disappointed in the lack of a personal soundtrack mode, like the grand theft auto games had on the box, although you do get a wide selection of music in the game.
Having played about 5 hours or so into the game with plenty of game play still left, i can honestly say i enjoy it, and plan on keeping it in my collection, next to games such as the godfather, Saints row, Gun, and the grand theft auto trilogy. Well worth the 50 bucks!
World Trade Center (2006)
A View of disaster from within!
Regardless of what you thought about oliver stones last film, Alexander, you cant deny the man has a passion for history. Just take a look at most of his films, and you can see history through his camera lens unfolding. Weather it be truthful history, or the Hollywood version of history, you cant say that the man doesn't capture the essence of the event.
And thats what happens in his latest, World trade center. Stone puts you in the middle of the event as seen through the eyes of 2 PAPD cops on 9/11 and the hell they and there family went through. We witness from within, the collapse of the world trade center towers, although not seen, but felt, from the very center of the collapse. You get a taste of what it was like for these men trapped within the rubble, and get an idea of the living hell they went through.
When viewed, its amazing how they managed to survive not only the first collapse, but the 2th towers collapse, then later building number 7. As if that wasn't enough, they had to deal with shifting debris, which threaten to come down on the few inches of room they had, fire that fell right beside them, unbearable pain, exhaustion, and even a gun going off within the rubble due to the bullets overheating. Bad enough they are trapped under god knows how many feet of rubble in pain, but they were almost shot by a freak occurrence! Truly, they were in hell.
Overall the film is well done, respectful, and tasteful. I, being a new yorker myself, wasn't at all offended by anything that happened in the film. Of course, to be honest i did not loose anyone i knew or loved in 9/11, so of course, i cant speak for those who did.
Overall, a great film.
X-Men: The Last Stand (2006)
Its about time!
after a early afternoon showing of x3 (the only time i could see it, even though i am an employee of a theater) i must say, the film was better then i expected.
Not being a major xman fan, but a casual one, i must say i rather enjoyed x3 a great deal. Although there was the fair share of problems, overall the film was very well done and regardless of what some of the more hardcore fans might say, very entertaining. The story was well done, and the special effects were very good, and i also liked how the xmen really got into hero mode at the end of the film. For too long, it seemed to me at least, as if the xmen were super powered minorities rather then superheros, which worked well, but i must say, to see them kick it in all out superhero mode, it just seemed like they never really did it in the other 2 films.
The Da Vinci Code (2006)
A Mixed bag.
After seeing a early screening of the DA Vince code, i was left with mixed feelings.
After reading only the beginning of the book (due to my library demanding it back because of its popularity) i only knew the story up to the point of the ex cape from "The Bull".
The film, on the other hand, although faithful to the book, is a mixed bag. In parts it excels and really gets you thinking about THE POSABILITY, in other parts, it fails to convince me, even just for story wise, of the main plot line.
Having only read part of the book, its hard to compare the too.
But i did find it very predictable. SPOILERS AHEAD: DO NOT READ FURTHER IF YOU WANT TO REMAIN SPOILER FREE About 20 minuets into the movie, i knew that Sophie was the decedent of Christ and that Teabring was the teacher. The moment they arrived at his home, i automatically knew, simply from his obsession. Also, the confrontation on the plane between Sophie and Silas cemented my suspicion that Sophie was not the protector of the secrete, but the secrete herself with the words "Every breath you take is a sin".
END SPOILER Overall, the film, although entertaining, is long, and drags on in a lot of places. i simply loved the history visual effect, of how when they went to the church in London, they had the past mixed with the future, an image i saw in my minds eye many a time when i went to a historical place. It was almost odd seeing something for real that had only been in my minds eye, and it actually living up to the image of the mind But, overall, the plot itself, the whole Christ is married, etc, didn't really sell it to me. Sure, there is theories, and its not completely imposable, but, i just don't understand to this day, what the big deal is if he did have a child. Why cant he be the son of god and still be a man? Idk, i guess people need to believe only what they want to, and feel threaten if they might be wrong.
Overall, its a odd film, mealing its great in parts, and lame in others. I guess its worth checking out, but i don't know for sure if it will receive a home on my DVD shelf of honor (as i like to call it) when it hits DVD.
Star Trek: Insurrection (1998)
Would have worked better as an episode of the series, not as a movie
For the longest time, there was this belief among trekkies that the even number films, 2,4,6,8, were the better trek films, were as the odd numbers were the lesser ones. This being the 9th trek film, this theory seemed to hold up well.
The problem with the film is that it seems like its script was developed for the TV show, and not a major motion picture. Its as if they just grabbed an unproduced TV show script and said, lets make this a movie. The results are mixed. The entire story, about a people who live on a planet that regenerates there youth, is an instering idea, but it just doesn't work for me. Of all the things one can do in a trek film, hardly do we ever get a rip roaring epic event or story. The closest we got was with wrath of kahin, or First Contact. Undiscovered Country was a great who done it, but the stakes never seemed major in a trek film, even with first contact. This film, i could honestly care less if the youth planet people are removed from there world or not.
In closing, its worth a watch, then forget about it. The only lasting thing it sets up is further advancing the relationship of riker and troy, which pays off in the next film, but other then that, its all disposable.
Soul Plane (2004)
Dumb, Racest, No Plot, Waste of film...why did i like it?
You know, i must have an odd sense of humor because for the first half of this film, i found myself laughing my ass off, despite this film being one of the worse films ever made. I mean, it has no plot what so ever, there's no real point to the story other then cheep laughs. Yet i somehow, despite me being a film student, enjoying this film.
I guess its the same reason why i think Aqua Teen Hunger force is amazingly funny and that Harold and Kumar go to white castle is genius. Its something about these types of films that just make me laugh, even though i know better to.
Is it a bad film, Yes. There is no doubt what so ever that this film is indeed a poor excuse for a movie. Is it funny, i guess that depends on your state of mind and point of view. Its very childish, very ethnic, and very cheep laughs, but laughs none the less.
Overall, i don't know why really, but for some unexplanable reason, i kinda got a kick out of this film, despite it being stupid, dumb, pointless, childish, racest, etc.
The Godfather (1972)
A classic that drags its heals
There is no doubt what so ever that the godfather is a classic film. Hell, some even say its the best film ever made. I on the other hand, think its a great film with some flaws.
Being at the tender age of 23, i watched the godfather in its entirety for the first time today. Having seen the complete film, but only in segments, watching it from beginning to end, i found myself enjoying this classic film, but often getting board at the same time.
The problem with the film, (if you could call it a problem) is that, its mostly talk. Sure, there's the ocasional gun play, or graphic scene (the horse head is classic) but, compared to scarface, goodfellas, and even the sopranos, it lags by comparison. People want to have a good story and godfather delivers up an offer you cant refuse (im sorry i had to say it), but, its just dull in spots compared to other gangster classics.
Overall i found godfather to be a prime example of storytelling and acting, and it deserves every award and honor its receved, but in my book, it fails to over throw the don of gansta films, Scarface (1983)
Three Amigos! (1986)
The secrete love child of monthy python and Mel brooks.
If monthy python and mel brooks made a movie child together, chances are, the three amigos would be the bastard offspring.
The three amigos is one of those film's who captures the style and humor of mel brooks, and the silliness of monthy python, yet, nether were involved in the making of this film.
With 3 comic gems of the 80's (unfortuntley they cant be called that today), Steve Martin, Chevey Chase, and Martin Short star as a group of out of work silent film stars, who are mistaken by a small Mexican village for heros because thats who they play on the silver screen. When they head down to Mexico to star with the "In famous" El Guapo, they think its all a show, yet find out that they are in way over there heads. What follows is a classic, non stop laugh riot.
The film works because it never take's itself too seriously, much like mel brooks films (like blazing saddles) and interjects monthy python in it as well, yet, none of the jokes seems like a rip off of either films.
As for the acting, Steve, Chevy and Martin are in top form. Steve Martain plays the groups unofficial leader lucky day, were Chevy Chase is the group's dim wit, Dusty Bottoms, and the then young Steve Martin as Ned Nederlander, the little brother of the group and each one plays off each other well. There's no real comic star here, since all 3 work perfectly together.
As for the villain, Alfonso Arau plays the Infamous El Guapo, with just the right amount of evilness and humor. With his evil head hanco Jefe, the two come off like an Mexican version of Mr Burns and Smithers from the simpsons.
Overall, this is a must see film if your in the mood for a good laugh. What is unfortunate, is that the current incarnations of this film on DVD are bare bones, meaning little if any extra features. We don't get any deleted scenes, documentaries, or any other nifty features, just the movie. But, for 10 dollars in your local circuit city's bargen bin (probley less) its a steal.
Real Genius (1985)
Real good
Real Genius is one of those films i wish i was old enough to see in theaters. Between this film, the star wars, back to the futures and indiana jones movies, i sometimes wish i was born back in the late 60's-early 70's instead of June of 1983, so i would be old enough to witness these great films in the theaters were they belong instead of on cable. Thankfully with high deff home theaters and DVD, i can get the next best thing.
Real Genius is a well crafted light harted college comedy that doesn't take itself too seriously and instead of focusing on guys trying to get laid, gross out humor,stoners, and girls trying to "distroy" one another, this one has hardly any of that and focuses on the characters and there attempt to build a super laser, only to realise that its meant as a weapon for the government.
Val Kilmer, the movies star, really shines here. His slacker genius role really pays off, and he comes off as almost as an older brother to the rest of the cast.
In closing, this is one of those rare 80's college comedys which don't depend on sex and drugs to get its laughs
Fantastic Four (2005)
eh.
for a superhero movie, this one wasn't fantastic. but I'm sure it was a hell of a lot better then the other version floating around at comic book shows. me, I'm not a big fantastic four fan. never really read the comics. i was more of a superman batman guy, but, i never hated marvel, and i always liked how each superhero had there own issue to deal with.
for me, fantastic four was a decent flick. Sure, it was entertaining, and at times exciting, but when compared to other great marvel films (both spiderman's, both xmens), its more eh! marvel seems to have a hit or miss with there comic movies. you get great ones like both spidermen and xmen, and you get misses, like the hulk, punisher, and daredevil. Personally i like them all, and they are all entertaining, its just some, like hulk, could have been better if it took a different approach. daredevil as well, i found it to be very entertaining, just, not the best comic book film ever.
overall fantastic four is not fantastic. its good! worth checking out, although i doubt it will be in the place of honor on my DVD shelf
The Matrix: Path of Neo (2005)
Better then "Enter the Matrix" But not by much.
Lets face facts. Enter the matrix was a decent action game hosed down in matrix juice. But it lacked one key thing, NEO! Who the hell wanted to play as 2th rate background characters when everyone and there mother wanted to play as the one? The path of neo, corrects this error but still gives us a lot of the same old thing that was in Enter the matrix. The only real thing thats different is that we are Neo and we have a video game style conclusion to the game. You still spend a good 90% of the game in slo mo mode beating the crap out of countless police officers, S.W.A.T Team members, solders, and agents, oh yes, and giant ants. And half the time your on some sort of training or escort mission. I HATE ESCORT MISSIONS. worse form of gameplay you can have in my view, because you can work your butt off doing everything your suppost to and still fail because the person your suppost to be protecting does something stupid like stand there as a bad guy shoots him in the face. its just annoying and frustrating. Thankfully most of the AI in this game has some common sense to hide or take cover, or even fight back, which is a plus. But for most of the game its still the same old beat em up matrix style done over and over again with a very weird ending.
In closing, its a decent game but not worth 50 dollars. thankfully i got it on a after xmas sale for only 30 and for 30, its worth it. Its no GTA, but if you overlook some flaws, it can be fun, just like Enter the Matrix
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)
An abomination of the classic
I hate to say this, especially to a well reviewed film, but i simply didn't like this film and i felt almost insulted by the way it came off. Don't get me wrong, The kid who played Charlie was'nt bad at all, but compared to the classic i grew up watching, it just was horrible.
Granted i know how the author of the book hated the movie, and the 1971 film didn't exactly follow the book to a T, but this film, even though it follows the book, just came off as weird, disturbing and overall poor compared to the classic Gene Wilder film. Also the Umpa Loopas were weird, Not the fault of actor, but how they were presented. I mean, if they were from a weird tribe, why would they look all EXACTLEY ALIKE? if they were a clone work force, that be different, but they were from a tribe, and idk about u but to me I've never seen a tribe on National Geographic or Discovery Channel in which each member looked exactly the same.
Now, i am noting that it is the "Tim Burton version" which means it comes with its own visual style and flair which to me is aether hit or miss, but, compared to the toung and cheek 1971 version, it just couldn't compare. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for Computer animation and special effects, hell I'm even studying them in college with the goals of being an animator, but this film just didn't need to be made.
in closing, on its own, i guess its an OK film. But compared to the classic, its an abomination.
Batman Begins (2005)
Its about time.
Batman begins is one of those film that u have to double check to realise that its a comic book movie, because its so good. Gone are the dark Gothic style of burton or the campy kid aimed romps of the previous 2 films, batman begins truly begins a entire new franchise for the then fading batman licens.
Begins starts out wonderfully, telling the back story of bruce wayne with real depth. Although told through flashbacks, we really connect with a young bruce wayne as he witnesses his parents death by the hands of Joe Chill, (the same name as the killer in the comics, and NOT THE JOKER).
the film is done in a believable tone, a tone that should have been taken with the other 4 batman films. Batman has always been one of those heroes who could very well really existe. Unlike superman, spiderman, the xmen, etc, Batman has no super powers. He is not transformed by some acident or born with powers, instead he has to use his mind and body to fight crime. (also being a billionair don't hurt) Overall batman begins is THE superhero movie of 2005. Worth checking out, and hopefully this new batman franchise will continue this realistic approach
Superman III (1983)
Not as bad as i expected,
I must be honest right off the bat, i was expecting pure garbage from superman 3 when i checked the DVD out of my library. I remember enjoying the film as a kid, but now i wanted to go back and view it as an adult, and as a future film maker. I remember as a kid, liking the visuals, but never paying attention to the story. I was like this with all films and usually if the film looked cool or had cool moments in it, i loved it. Now as an adult, story and plot take front row to cool looking visual effects without context. Surprisingly, superman 3 had SOME.
Now, this film is by far, not a classic. It has its flaws, and many of them, but the overall experience is fun and entertaining, more so then the current version of superman 2 and the god awful waste of film that was superman 4. If any complaints, its mostly the over the top comedy. It plays off more like a 3, or in this case 4, stooges movie with superman guest staring, then an actual superman film, but then again, the comedy for the most part is funny if not overkill. As for the story, its almost scary how it shows the world to become. Computer hackers robbing everything in sight, oil trouble, freak storms, etc. It seems a little less like science fiction and more like dated science fact almost, if you take away the superman.
In all, the film isn't that bad as i was expecting. Its handled well, has funny moments, stumbles a bit towards the middle, but, manages to pick itself up. Sadly though, like ALL of the current superman films, it is dated, and the special effects are almost laughable when compared to todays super photo realistic effects, but then again the great chris reeves, god rest his soul, was the superman of 1978-1986, and the best man for the job at the time. Lets hope routh manages to do the same thing.
If your a superman or a comic book fan, check it out for a few laughs. Don't expect a spiderman 2 or xmen though. Its good, not Great!
The Money Pit (1986)
One of my first movies i ever watched, and still a classic
Growing up, i was always fond of movies. I remember the first time i ever saw a movie, i feel in love with them. The first movie i ever saw, was ghostbusters, and i was hooked. the 2th movie, was the money pit, because it was recorded on the same VHS tape as ghostbusters was, and it to was just as funny.
I remember watching this film over and over again as a very young child, (2-5 years old) and cracking up every time even though i didn't get most of the jokes (what 4 year old knows about the trouble of home repair?) anyhow, after catching a late night viewing of the film (and only the end part of it) i can say from what i viewed, i was laughing my ass off, almost waking up my sleeping parents and brother. Very funny film, and definitely worth checking out and buying on DVD (granted you can find it)