Change Your Image
Nate Dogg
Reviews
National Lampoon's Van Wilder (2002)
A solid college-aged comedy. Just don't compare it to "Animal House."
After seeing "Van Wilder" on its first day in the theater, I thought for sure that this was a sure-fire hit. I hadn't laughed so hard at a goofy movie since the first time I saw "Tommy Boy." Of course, it never turned out to be much of a hit, and reviews that I read chalked the film up as another abomination in the recent history of the National Lampoon's series (many of the more recent releases went straight to video.)
First of all, this IS NOT a remake of "Animal House." People expecting something of that nature will be sadly disappointed. This is not because "Van Wilder" is that much worse, the two films are very different college stories. "Van" owes more to a movie like "PCU" than anything else.
As the title implies, the story is that of Van Wilder (Reynolds), a college student beginning the seventh year of his college tenure. It's not that he's stupid, he has just found his niche in college and is comfortable there. He is big man on campus and enjoys the view from the top. Tara Reid plays the part of Gwen, a campus newspaper reporter charged with writing a story on the enigmatic Wilder. Of course, a blind man could see the eventually romance between the two and the consequential rivalry between Wilder and Gwen's egomaniacal pre-med boyfriend Richard (Cosgrove). Van's roommate Hutch (Teck Holmes of MTV Real World Fame) and his Indian assistant Taj (Kal Penn) round out the starring cast.
This movie works on many levels for college students such as myself. There are familiar themes as well as the right amount of apathy towards authority, sprinkled with a little T&A. There is also gross-out comedy which I found to be the film's weak point, with the exception of one scene featuring eclairs that has to be seen to be believed. Perhaps some of the plot points are far-fetched, but no worse than Rodney Dangerfield's character receiving an all encompassing oral exam to graduate in "Back to School."
What really makes this film shine is the performance of Ryan Reynolds. I've never seen his TV show ("Two Guys and a Girl" and formerly "a Pizza Place"), but judging from this movie the kid is going to be a star. All he needs is that "Dare to be great opportunity," to quote from the film.
All in all, "Van Wilder" is entertaining if you watch it with the right mindset. For those staunchy critics who want to defend "Animal House" to the death, this movie may have sucked. But to me it was a solid comedy and will make you laugh.
Write that down.
Scary Movie 2 (2001)
This is just ridiculous...
And not in a ridiculously funny kind of way, either. The pressure to put out a sequel to a movie that is only a year old definitely took it's toll on this film. As you may have guessed the gross out humor was piled on pretty darn heavy and many times it just looked idiotic. There really is no plot or story to speak of, the movie just runs from parody to parody (some good, some painful to watch.)
There were, thankfully, some good parts to this movie. Kathleen Robertson, first of all, is just gorgeous. Christopher Masterson "blew up" (see the freezer scene, you'll understand) in the role of Buddy in my opinion. Some of the parodies were good, ("The Exorcist", "Charlie's Angels") but not quite on par with other spoof movies like "Hot Shots" or, another Keenan Ivory Wayans project, "Don't Be A Menace." Marlon Wayans was good at times as Shorty, but overdid it in spots.
There were terrible parts also. Anna Faris, for as good as she looks, can never get that same goofy look of her face the whole movie. It really gets under your skin. Chris Elliot and the part he played, Hanson, were an abomination. Shawn Wayans...oh, nevermind. Although no plot was intended, the choppiness and confusion that the storyline brings is "nails-on-a-chalkboard" annoying. The list goes on, but I'll spare you.
So all together, I wouldn't waste my time to see this movie. And when Scary Movie 3 comes out, I think I'll roll right on past the theater. You've been warned.
Time Served (1999)
Where do I start?
Well, lets see. Woman goes to prison for a crime she didn't commit. Just so happens she's a really hot woman. So obviously she's a perfect candidate for the prison's "work release program", a strip/prostitution bar! Sound believeable so far? And what do you know, the very judge that put her away happens to frequent this bar and you better believe that he "wants a piece" of our heroine. The whole plot is a sort of mask for the stripping parts. Those were actually pretty believable. You won't se any buxom women like in that Demi Moore movie. Some of them are, shall I say, not so "asthetically pleasing." Well, in summary it's not the best movie, but for a budget of what seemed to be about $1,000, it wasn't that bad.
The Blair Witch Project (1999)
Whose afraid of the Big "Blair Witch"?
First of all, "The Blair Witch Project" is NOT a horror movie in the way all these teen slasher movies are these days. It's way worse than that. After watching these 3 "actors" in the woods for nearly an hour and a half, me and many like me in the theater kinda went, "So?" It was different and kind of neat with the first person perspective. And that's pretty much all it had going for it.
The most disturbing thing about the movie is that people think that it's real. Why would a true story shot with real footage have directors? Can you imagine the legal implications of releasing this movie if it were real? I heard a comment leaving the theater from a girl who said, "If it wasn't real, they did a very good job making it look real!" Of course it looked real! It was shot with a 16mm camera by people running through the woods. But it's not a true story, and the Blair Witch doesn't exist, not even as a legend. It was made up by the directors and fueled by internet sites that the staff of the movie created.
As a suspensful artsy flick it was great. The only problem is not too many people like artsy movies that look this bad. As "the scariest movie ever" it sucked and fell way, way short of expectations. If not for all the profanity (of which there is quite a bit) this movie could have been rated PG, with no gore, no sex, no drug use, no violence to boost it any higher.
In August of 1999, I dissapeared into a theater near Escanaba, Michigan while going to see a "documentary." One and a half hours later, my money was wasted.