 |
| Left to right: Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum |
How subversive can reviews get? Well, for starters, there are those that can do scathing humor and turn even the worst reviews into something of higher art. There are also those, like Armond White, who find pointless meaning. Among all of these, people come to terms with their feelings towards sequels. Some are great and some are terrible. But you know what? Screw those terrible ones with their inability to make a story as original or as engaging as the first. Yes, they sometimes exist as box office draws, but it is also just an excuse for the directors to get another paycheck. Add in a few juvenile jokes and a couple explosions and sell the film as an instant hit. Yes sir, that is what a review can be.
It can also be frustrating when the reviews bury the leads and never really make clear what their actual thoughts are. Is the sequel capable of standing on its own merits? Will audiences be able to give up on their sense of wonder by revisiting the theater and paying more than if they just rented the DVD or Blu Ray from Redbox? Maybe it is streaming on Netflix right now. Have you ever thought of that? Look for the original on Netflix before you waste your money looking for sequels that are essentially the same film. Really, they have the same name and job. There isn't much else to it.
But of course, you'll like it because they are aware that it is a sequel. They paid off the critics and they all think that the movie is a gas. Did you know that gas means funny? You see, gas has multiple meanings, and thus it has three here. Do I mean that it is funny or that the sequel makes a fart noise? I don't know, but... wait, why are we all laughing? Oh... now I smell it. This sequel stinks, but at least it made a funny sound coming down the shoot. I, no wait... I need to stop being so self aware of this review and focus on the film at hand. You know what? This review could use more focus and structure. It lost its comedy about 45 sentences ago. Have there even been 45 sentences? As a writer, I am too lazy to care about the small details as long as we all laugh at mundane things. Hey look... italics! Bet you didn't see that coming.
The issue is that this review is being held too closely to the one being shown directly below this one on the page. I have to outdo the word count, or nobody will really care. However, the more aware I am to please, the more likely I am to come up short. Here... let me put on some house music and draw Spirographs. Now this colorful ensemble is looking like a subversive review. I admit that it didn't look that way for awhile, but the redundancy is starting to pay off. People are starting to appreciate the nonsensical, pointless manner in which these words are being pulled together.
For no reason, here is a guest columnist. You may remember him. He reviewed the last review back when it was a TV Guide blurb. Now we've blown it out of proportion. Anyways, I figured that you'd all appreciate it because you know who he is but not his involvement with the blurb. Anyways, take it away...
I admit that this review is nothing like mine. Where mine took a more serious tone and geared towards a different demographic, this one seems to be more focused on making fun of me. Wait, why am I even here, then? You think basically calling the idea of revisiting my review stupid is a welcomed homage? You are a terrible person, Mr. Critic. I don't even know why you invited me back. I don't find your perpetual insults humorous at all. I'm glad that you decided to reference my partner instead in the sequel. Also, I will admit that going to spring break seemed like a great idea... before Annette Funicello did it 51 years ago. Oh, how humanity has diminished by not having any cohesive sense of comedic energy.*
*Note: The author wishes to remove his name from the review on account that while it is apparently obvious, he does have a somewhat homophobic streak that is likely to clash with this review. We respect gays, but you wouldn't know it because of how overly affectionate we are towards them. It is friends hanging out, nothing else. We swear.
This review has really fallen apart. It is like if Roger Ebert did this (*imitates a thumbs down, but sideways*). See what I did? Because impersonations done poorly are funny! This review will save itself. If you don't think so, just think of it as a continuation of the ongoing joke that haphazard writing techniques are funny. If not, you'll understand why many consider beating you over the head is a form of abuse that even when done to your intelligence, lacks the good feelings that treating people as super smart likely will. I hope that you continue to click on the proceeding articles and get a kick out of them. I swear that we're not rehashing old material. It is all an insightful take down of everything that you love, but we love it too, so... let's hug it out! I just got a paycheck for writing this drivel in which we can rent a room and do some more, my good man.
Rating: 1 out of 5
(You see, even after I go on to praise it, I still dislike it because it confuses people and people like being confused)
(You see, even after I go on to praise it, I still dislike it because it confuses people and people like being confused)
Comments
Post a Comment