Bravo to The Interview: A standout movie that Need to be seen

Pajamas Media ^ | 12/25/2014 | Claudia Rossette

[SeekAndFind]

To the grammar police: It should read -— A standout movie that needs to be seen

[Nachum]

True Dat.

[Gaffer]

And how much dope did this reporterette smoke before viewing this masterpiece? “To Be or Not to Be?” Really?

Color me ‘not convinced’.

[BenLurkin]

crude, vulgar, silly, tedious

No thanks.

[BenLurkin]

woman named Sook (played by Bang)

Sook Bang

It’s a Hollyweird thang

[Herodes]

They will have to get by without my $.

[pallis]

For some reason I had Kim dum ugh confused with Kim dung ick.

[Organic Panic]

Seeing as I don’t particularly like any actors in the movie I will pass.

[EQAndyBuzz]

“OK – spoilers ahead. There is a scene at the end, in which North Korea’s Kim regime has fallen, and Kim’s former chief of security, a comely woman named Sook (played by Diana Bang), who turns on her totalitarian boss and helps the clueless heroes free her country, is skyping freely and happily from North Korea to the U.S. For that scene alone, the movie is worth it. “

She wasn’t chief of security. She was propaganda chief. And this movie was a POS. No, really.

Spoiler Alertt. The funniest scene in the movie has Kim and Franco’s character playing basketball with a 8’ hoop so Kim could dunk. Also is a clip of the two of them in a tank and Katy Perry is playing on a tape. Yes, I said tape deck in the tank.

[FrankR]

Not interested.

[Dallas59]

"For the sake of film criticism, I will pretend that I watched the film without the political maelstrom that has raised it to a level of interest that it would otherwise never have attained.

This is the typical mass produced, lowbrow, comedy that Hollywood cranks out to appeal to 15-year-old boys. There are a few slapstick laughs in the tradition of the Three Stooges that break the monotony. I would not elevate the film to the level of a satire as that would imply that there was some intelligent thought behind it. There is not. All the humor, both physical and verbal, is completely obvious. It will not go down in history as one of the great comedies, which is probably what upset Kim Jung Un the most.

The attempts to make political observations are all based on time-worn points (people are starving, Kim is not a god). The sections that imply Kim has psychological problems may be more irritating to the regime. Most of the attempted humor deals with Kim fighting his homophobia and dealing with a father who gave him little support.

There is no need to comment on the acting as there really is none. No one will win an Oscar nomination here. The story is predictable: You can guess what will happen before you begin watching it. It's the kind of film you watch to see a few gags and, maybe, get a few laughs. They will be very few, indeed, unless you are 15 or under. However, knowing the media attention that this film has received, it is unlikely a poor review will stop anyone from watching it. Just remember, I warned you."

[SaxxonWoods]

I’m glad for the free speech and anything that needles Kim.

But I’ll stand out away from the theater as I don’t do Hollywood stuff.

[Bringbackthedraft]

Give me a break. Sony should pay people to watch it. All this hype about the NK threats appears to be promotion for a crappy movie. With out the NK hype it would just be another type of a movie like the “Scary Movie” series. I’d give this one -4 stars. I’d rather watch an old Bob Hope movie over this one.

[PoloSec]

When it comes to movies, I enjoy really good ones but they are rare, I also enjoy really bad movies which are aplenty, Netflix is great for me, so if this movie shows up there I will watch it, just based on the comments on this thread of how bad it is, I should enjoy it.

[Bon of Babble]

The Interview is crude, vulgar, silly, tedious at times and crammed with what we might politely call locker-room gags

This movie "needs to be seen?" Really? By whom? I've got better, more important things to do - like mop the kitchen floor, clean the bathroom toilets and scrub out the pots and pans left over from Christmas Eve dinner. I'd rather watch laundry drying than "The Interview" - or the new "Annie" for that matter.

[Bon mots]

Watch it here:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B23v8ReabgVSTG1pRmxhMWdjMnc/preview

I changed the channel after the first scene.

[Intolerant in NJ]

I don’t know - Krauthammer saw parts of it and said it was “unspeakably bad”.....

[apocalypto]

CNN has been promoting this movie like crazy. Every time I turned to CNN, it was hyping it on and on with silly comments. I heard it is boring, have no interest to see it. imho, it would have totally flopped if not for Sony's hype.

[ClearCase_guy]

I've said on other threads that I think this entire "scandal" may be little more than a Sony PR stunt. Freepers have told me that this is a ridiculous idea and that I don't understand Hollywood or big business well enough to grasp how much financial risk was really involved here. Maybe they are right.

But what seems inarguable to me is that a lot of people in the industry (and I mean cultural critics) seem totally in the tank to make this movie into something respectable.

I haven't seen anyone compare it to "Citizen Kane", but they seem to almost come close. People -- it's a Seth Rogen flick. These may be amusing, they may have an audience. They may have a tendency to make money. But "has to be seen"? I don't think so.

It's a trashy, vulgar, "B" picture that is attractive to frat boys and grown-up adolescents. It's not "good". It's not "important".

But some people are spinning like crazy trying to convince the world of the cultural importance of this major motion picture. Like Obama, this is surely a case of "The Emperor's New Clothes".