Movie
3,928,556 views
Jack O'Brien: Fast Five
Roger Ebert wrote a gloomy article at the start of the summer movie season, called "Pirates and 26 Other Sequels This Year: Are Hollywood Execs Ruining Movies?" And he had a right to be skeptical. This year saw a record number of sequels, and movie franchise math has always stated that your expectations should be divided by the number at the end of the title. Sequels are for people who don't care about originality, so why bother making them good, right?
But this time, imagine he's making funny noises in a slightly warmer climate.
But something weird happened once the sequels actually started coming out: they weren't terrible. Many of them were the best reviewed movies in their franchise. While 2011 wasn't the first year that originality appeared to be dying at the movie theater, it was the first year to make the case that originality's death might be fun to watch.
Fast Five was the best example of this radical new thinking. It wasn't a great movie, but it was way better than every film in the franchise up to that point. It reminded you less of a fourth sequel than a good TV series finding its footing after a handful of episodes.
Old Glory
Watch the first season of The Simpsons for an example (provided you
don't find the use of the word "dude" hilarious when spoken from atop a skateboard).
Fast Five didn't make drastic changes. It was still a stupid movie, but there was a different quality to its stupidity. The first four movies didn't make sense in the insulting way a dumb person doesn't make sense when trying to talk their way out of a speeding ticket. Fast Five didn't make sense in the awesome way that Wu-Tang Clan lyrics don't even try to make sense. The first four movies failed to ask the all-important question, "What if we rubbed melted butter on the Rock and told him to pretend to be Tommy Lee Jones in The Fugitive?" Fast Five asked that question, and had the good sense to realize the answer was, "That would be goddamn hilarious!"
The problem with real law enforcement officials is that they just aren't greasy enough.
In his article about how sequels were going to ruin the year in movies, Ebert pointed out that "This year includes five fifth sequels (Fast Five; Final Destination 5; Puss in Boots; X-Men: First Class; Winnie the Pooh), two seventh sequels (The Muppets; Rise of the Apes) and the eighth Harry Potter movie (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part Two)." He did this to highlight just how screwed we were, but every single one of those movies is currently certified "Fresh" on Rotten Tomatoes. Over half of them are the best reviewed movies in the history of their franchises -- suggesting a new, more complex sequel math where franchises don't really get going until part five.
I'm not going to deny that Hollywood went overboard this year: Heading into December, the seven highest grossing movies of 2011 were all sequels. There are enough sequels still coming soon to a theater near you (and lots of foreign audiences who, it turns out, like mindless bullshit even more than American people) that it could be an all-sequel top 10 by the end of the year. For now, The Smurfs -- the most successful non-sequel of the year -- is holding strong at number eight.
For art.
But after years of TV shows becoming more cinematic, movies seemed to take a page from the best TV shows, realizing that you can still do good work while giving audiences the familiar characters they know and love.
And also Antonio Banderas.
Soren Bowie: No Strings Attached/Friends with Benefits
Let me preface this by saying that I've seen both of these movies and I still had to check IMDb to remember which was which. Studios have consistently proven that they aren't shy about remaking films over and over and over. But 2011 marks the first time I've ever seen two identical middling romantic comedies released at the exact same time.
Well, I say that, but I can't even be sure that these are the films I'm talking about.
This is a turning point. Until now, there's always been a tacit agreement between audiences and filmmakers that as long as Hollywood pumps out remakes of the stories we love, fans will quietly hand over money without complaining too loudly about the lack of originality. But reimaginings are not a renewable resource. At a certain point they have to start pulling stories that are increasingly more recent until the logical conclusion is reimagining a movie that hasn't even been released. I can only assume No Strings Attached and Friends with Benefits were made within a few months of one another as a test on behalf of Hollywood as a whole to gauge exactly what percent of their audience is retarded enough not to notice. The answer, it turns out, is most of us. No Strings Attached was 17th in top-grossing comedies of the year, and Friends with Benefits was 21st. They insisted we were nostalgic for a mediocre story we hadn't even heard yet, and we collectively answered, "OK."
After this year, I fully anticipate seeing identical movies released simultaneously because studios know now that there is no accountability anymore. We will still see both. We may even see them twice if they have a limited IMAX 3-D showing.
Just burn our money, Hollywood. Burn it right up.
Dan O'Brien: The Hangover Part II
The Hangover 2 is the Transformers 3 of comedies. If Transformers 3 is all giant robot spectacle and butts, Hangover 2 is all man-boy shrieking and dicks. The formula is the same: semi-likable characters + a series of unrelated set pieces - any semblance of heart = movie!
And I expect that from Transformers 3. I want that movie to be robots and butts fighting each other for screen time, because that's what I paid for, but I never look for that in a comedy. The Hangover Part II was a shameless, heartless parade of jokes we've already seen partnered with shock-inducing spectacle. Never before has a comedy tried to rival a big-budget action movie for mindlessness and insulting stupidity. At least most comedies try to do something new. Hangover 2 just said, "Oh, you liked when Ed Helms woke up with weird shit on his face and then Zach Galifianakis said something silly the first time? We'll just do that again, but louder."
And the reason I'm calling it "Most Appropriate Movie of the Year?" It made over $500 million worldwide. It worked. They were successful, so the lesson in Hollywood will be "Do it again! Do that again with EVERY movie!" I hope you liked the first Hangover, because it's the only movie Hollywood is going to make for the next five years.
Cody Johnston: Harry Potter 7.2
Back in November, the New York Times ran an article by Neil Genzlinger, renowned name-haver. In it, he talked about how the sitcom is dead and how all of the stories have been told and how comedy is dead and how there's nothing new anymore and how all of the things everywhere are dead.
I agreed with him at first, because sometimes I have to actively stop myself from being cynical. But there's a reason stories are told over and over, and it's not because creativity is dead and God is dead and everything in all the places is dead. It's because, for one, everything is a remix. But also there are important stories that everyone should hear except NEWSFLASH CALL THE NEWS PEOPLE most kids hate old things. Some punk kid isn't going to go on Netflix or WebWatcher and watch Old-Ass Thing. Some punk kid is going to watch Some Bullshit New Thing. Or something better, maybe. Who knows with these punk kids nowadays?
But I'll talk later about TV and Whitney and how super good I bet it is. Here, I'm talking about the final film in the Harry Potter series, a story of bravery and friendship and right and wrong and good and evil and magic and other stuff, probably. It's an old story, but it's this generation's old story. Not since the original Star Wars trilogy has a saga seen so filled with OMG THIS IS MY FAVORITE THING LETS WEAR THE COSTUMES AND WAIT IN THE LINES AND BUY THE TOYS AND MAKE THE FUCKING GIFS. Harry Potter is everywhere, and it ended this year.
But even though it's over, it is here to stay. It is the new Star Wars. For decades to come, people will be making Voldemort jokes and rewatching Harry Potter and hoping they make more Harry Potter and regretting that they made more Harry Potter. It's the newest version of the same old story we've seen. The only difference is that J.K. Rowling wears way less flannel, and instead of Vader being Luke's dad, Snape kills Dumbledore.
Spoiler alert?
See the other Cracked 64 Categories:
451 Comments
Browse by:
- Movie
- TV Show
- Song
- Video Game
- Person
- Internet Clip
- Word
- Photo
Categories:
- Advertise
- Write for Cracked
- Contact Us
- Link to Us
- Sitemap
- Terms & Conditions
- Privacy Policy
AdChoices
- Popular Topics: Boobs
- Zombies
- Hipsters
- Urban Legends
- Skyrim
- Go to our Mobile Version
So according to you guys 2011 was the worst year in film history? Because that's what this list tells me.
ReplyWhoever wrote this clearly thinks that Cracked's target audience are rednecks with no taste in film. Either that or the writer of this article is a redneck with no taste in film.
ReplyJesus. You guys are f*****g retarded.
ReplyCracked. Y u no put Paul on this list?
ReplyI haven't seen Bridemaids, but I am pissed that the only overweight (sort of lead) female character gets stuck with the explosive diarrhea scene. just like every other movie with an overweight character. I know that being heavy isn't glamorous or anything, but jesus christ, chubby women are still people. The fault lies with everyone involved including the actress so I can't even be upset with anyone in particular. It just makes me sad.
ReplyYou haven't seen the film and yet you assume you know the scene because of a pair of lines on Cracked? EVERYONE had the booming shits in that scene. The bride ended up pooping in the street. The sink part was there because the toilet was already in use. I would not call this the funniest part of the movie but as rampaging poop humour goes, it was pretty good.
What a horrendous list.
ReplySo... you liked Rango? I can't tell. I get this is a top 8 of everything, but couldn't you be a bit clearer as to what you're point is? It was almost like reading an Armond White review
ReplyWTF does any of that last paragraph mean...to anyone?
ReplyIt's a reference to Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, which is even more fitting because Rango references that like a m**********r with Depp's involvement.
Basically, replace the being a nerd parts with hippies and you'll get the jist of it, Cyrodiil being the main province in Tamriel in the Elder Scrolls series (Oblivion was centered there and Skyrim is the sequel, yadda yadda, if you know about games)
suckerpunch was a great f*****g movie, and ill fight anyone, no matter how drunk and best around they are if they say otherwise. it was like inception, but with guns and boobs. f**k everybody who didnt go see it in theatres.
Reply Hide All See All 4 RepliesIt was pointless trash.
It WAS a good movie. Apparently, most of you are too stupid to understand what was going on, so instead of sitting down and thinking about it, everyone claimed it was stupid and random.
It's a good movie for those of us who DON'T ALWAYS want to watch pointless bullshit.
I thought it was great, to me it was a chronicle of the past century's treatment of women with the current sexism trends being only allowed in comics/video games, hence the crazy action scenes.
I thought it was really pretty and it had a kick ass soundtrack, but i just felt like i was being pandered to. I probably would have been more into it if i hadn't been wasted and pausing it every fifteen minutes to throw up.
@Cody: Thank you for that photoshop of Vader vs Dumbledor. You win this article.
ReplyI was surprised that Inception was not mentioned once. Then I remembered it came out in mid-2010. The world was riding that wave for quite some time.
Reply1997 had Volcano and Dante's Peak. Just last year we saw Paul Blart: Mall Cop and Observe and Report in the same month. Hollywood does that s**t all the time.
ReplyObserve and Report has more in common with Taxi Driver than Paul Blart, the similarities are entirely superficial.
I've seen the trailers for Bridesmaids, and it's completely turned me off Apatow movies. It just looks, to me, like a bunch of boring, old women, trying to act like the Wolf Pack from the Hangover. The rest of this was hilarious though, keep up the good work.
Reply Hide All See All 3 RepliesI watched it. There's chicks shitting in the first few minutes, and then it basically turns into a rom-com starring Kristin Wiig who acts pointlessly inappropriate, as seen in every sketch/character she does on SNL. If it had been "The Hangover" but with chicks, it could probably would've been slightly more interesting. That movie is probably coming out next year.
Frankly, I thought Bridesmaids was a pretty good movie, but I'm a girl. I only say this because I don't see many guys going through what Kristin Wiig did -- the crazy "new friend" that tries to kick your ass out of the group by making you look like shit. I'm sure it happens, obviously, but I don't think it happens to as many men/boys as it does to women/girls. So, I guess it just kind of hit home for me, because it happens quite a bit. lol.
The Wolf Pack from the Hangover are a bunch of losers in an unfunny movie. Apatow should have taught people better comedy standards.
I really wanted to like suckerpunch, i really did. But the plot was so bad it ruined everything else for me...
ReplyI disagree. I liked suckerpunch. Sure, it was awkward going to see it with my dad, but I thought it was a great movie. Could have been better, but it wasn't as god awful as you think it is.
ReplyI didn't make it past the first 20 mins. My dad and I got sooo bored and tired of the movie that we turned off the DVD and watched something else.
The failure of Sucker Punch baffles me. The webcomic Erfworld has every pop culture theme imaginable in its setting (even though they stick to a medieval setting and the different pop culture themes are basically just skins) and it works perfectly.
ReplyIt is sad when a webcomic is unquestionable superior and more badass than a multi-million dollar movie.
Sucker Punch failed because it was like the internet vomited all over a green screen.
It was mostly vomit, but there were other bodily fluids in there, too.
Sucker Punch was a collage of nerd culture covering up the fact that it was about a human trafficking and a brothel run out of an insane asylum. Sorry the cliche fan service couldn't distract me enough from a pedophile Don Draper and a teenage girl being tortured. Also, ask yourself, how do we know what Sweet Pea wasn't legitimately bat shit? Was it really worth it audience? I don't think so.
Reply Hide All See All 3 RepliesWhile I agree that it was mostly just a collage of nerd culture, you obviously misunderstood the entire film. It's not supposed to distract YOU from those things. It was supposed to distract BABYDOLL from those things. It was all in her mind. And before anyone says, "Oh, people don't really think like that," they do. Crazy people and people on drugs. It's called hallucinating, and they can be much more real and elaborate to a person than you think. It was her coping mechanism. It was much better for her to live in this fantastic futuristic/steam punk/nerdgasm world than to look around at the ugly, dingy hospital-slash-brothel.
We know Sweet Pea wasn't legitimately crazy because the story-line tells us so. She followed her sister, who ran away, and the system was obviously clearly corrupt, so she got stuck there because anyone with a psychology text book can pick out a s**t ton of things that are "probably" wrong with you and they slapped some bullshit 'diagnosis' on her. Nobody checked asylums back then, because asylum were basically the dumping ground for people that didn't fit well in society. Nobody cared about them. They even tell you that she was the ONLY person who didn't belong in that asylum. (That is, all the other girls WERE crazy.)
Unless you're a retarded monkey, there's no way you were supposed to just gloss over the horrible things that happened to those girls.
1: Sweet Pea being Rocket's sister was only stated in the Delusion. 2: Jon Hamm wasn't a pedophile!
Wow, so based on your other responses, I'm guessing because you think this movie is so deep, when it really isn't, this means the rest of us "just don't get it". Trust me, we get it, it's just shit. I've watched a lot of fucked up and complex movies. Sucker Punch wasn't confusing, it was confused. Don't put heavy themes in your movies and then try to dress it up with cliche fan service bullshit. Besides, what was the time period exactly? Don't tell me about "back then" when the time period is not accurate. How the hell would a girl supposedly "back then", fantasize about mechs, samurai and steampunk? There wasn't a damn thing real or consistent about it. Tell me you enjoy it because you didn't care that it was s****y, don't tell me and others that we didn't enjoy it because we didn't understand it. It doesn't say much about your comprehension honestly.
Jon Hamm's character was a pedo, that girl was underage, he was paying to take her virginity. That makes you a f*****g pedophile.
Why was my post regarding Sucker Punch being an Illuminati movie deleted???
ReplyThe question is, why hasn't this comment been deleted? Someone fucked up.
Suckerpunch was the best movie of the last 5/6 years, f**k you very much.
ReplyI thoroughly enjoyed the mind-f**k that is Suckerpunch and thought the twisted, tangled but coherent (if your IQ is over 100) storyline was original as a motha***ka. There's a difference between art not appealing to your taste and it being downright poor.
Apparently Suckerpunch is really popular with stupid people who believe they're smart people.
David Wong, why oh why did you have to depress me like that? I was having a good day until you predicted Transformers for the next billion years. I want plot and butts, not robots and butts.
ReplyOn the plus side, porn scripts seem to be incorporating more plot in recent years.