Starsky & Hutch

Started by IHeartPTA, August 22, 2003, 12:27:54 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6
User actions

RegularKarate

#45
February 22, 2004, 11:57:56 AM
Well, Oldschool had Will Ferrell in a very active roll and was pretty damned funny, but S&H is better than Road Trip, which went for shitty cheap laughs, and not very professionally either.

I don't think Starsky and Hutch took itself at ALL seriously, just barely enough to keep a plot going.  The action was way too ridiculous to think that they wanted a real action movie.

The audience I was with was cracking up and raving about this movie.  It will do well.

Myxo

#46
March 05, 2004, 01:45:43 PM
*Bump*

Anyone going to see this tonight?

cine

#47
March 05, 2004, 01:51:32 PM
Quote from: MyxomatosisAnyone going to see this tonight?
Why? Do you need a date?

SoNowThen

#48
March 05, 2004, 01:56:55 PM
I really hope this is better than Old School, which was the funniest movie ever for the first 25 minutes, then didn't register on the laugh-o-meter for the rest of the time (well, maybe except for Will burning himself). That was my biggest let-down of last year. Please let S&H be as good as the trailer makes it seem...
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

puddnanners

#49
March 05, 2004, 02:27:45 PM
i saw this and i am not a fan.  it seems like todd phillips is under the impression that setting the movie in the seventies and having the characters wear seventies' clothes is funny enough in itself to make this a comedy, but it really isn't.  It was funnier in the preview than in the the actual movie.  There really aren't too many jokes, and aside from Will Farrell as the inmate who likes dragons, and Owen Wilson singing, i didn't laugh out loud at anything else.

Myxo

#50
March 05, 2004, 02:42:55 PM
Quote from: SoNowThenI really hope this is better than Old School, which was the funniest movie ever for the first 25 minutes, then didn't register on the laugh-o-meter for the rest of the time

No doubt..

Pubrick

#51
March 05, 2004, 09:30:25 PM
Quote from: SoNowThenPlease let S&H be as good as the trailer makes it seem...
----------------slight cough-----------------


---------------runny nose--------------------


-------------incapacitating fever-------------


--------------vomiting blood-------------------


--------------complete mental breakdown-------------


--------------------me------------------------------
under the paving stones.

brockly

#52
March 05, 2004, 10:29:01 PM
Quote from: P
Quote from: SoNowThenPlease let S&H be as good as the trailer makes it seem...
----------------slight cough-----------------


---------------runny nose--------------------


-------------incapacitating fever-------------


--------------vomiting blood-------------------


--------------complete mental breakdown-------------


--------------------me------------------------------

Yeah, the trailer got me excited too, P.

grand theft sparrow

#53
March 05, 2004, 11:46:01 PM
I think PTA was a guest director in the disco scene.  Patton Oswalt played the DJ, there were lots of steadicam swish pans, and something about the lighting was very Boogie Nights-esque.

Any PAs on Starsky & Hutch out there that can confirm/deny this?

Henry Hill

#54
March 06, 2004, 09:59:33 PM
i just saw this. everything about it was hilarious. ben stiller and owen wilson are obviously a perfect team (see Zoolander). owen and ben playing opposite each other at all will be funny. ben stillers character sort of reminded me of him as chaz in The Royal Tenenbaums. him being somewhat flustered and psychotic at times. i dont know. i love the 70s. i never saw the t.v. show, but i doubt you need to. i couldnt imagine anyone else but snoop dog as huggy bear. on conan, snoop mentioned chris rock and don cheadle as being up for this role. i cant believe this part was not written for him. vince vaughn with his 70s mustache was genius. the soundtrack was classic 70s and fit really well. the women in this film are hot.....70s hot. i wont say it was funnier than Zoolander, but it was funny  nonetheless. just a great, fun movie.

Ravi

#55
March 07, 2004, 02:34:14 AM
I thought it was funny.  The film didn't seem to concentrate all the humor on the crazy 70s styles like I've read in a few reviews.

modage

#56
March 07, 2004, 09:10:57 AM
Quote from: FishbulbThat was the main problem with the movie, the tone was all over the place. In some scenes it was a goofy comedy, and then in other scenes it was more of a straight action flick.
yeah i saw this yesterday and i have to agree with you.  the tone to this movie was really bizarre.  its almost as if, for the most part, they wrote a script that could've been played 'straight' had they cast more serious actors in the 3 leads, but in casting 3 comic leads and allowing them to basically, well 'what if you guys were on the show?!' it creates some weird semi-serious tone most of the time.  i blame todd phillips for this.  i was under the impression that the movie was going to be more like a parody, allowing for as many jokes as possible and completely silly.  instead, it was sort of like the Charlies Angels movies in the way that, although ridiculous, they still somewhat want you to follow the story as an action vehicle.  the concept, had someone pitched it to me earlier, i think is a REALLY interesting one, like had they taken a real script from an episode of S&H and allowed vince, ben, owen to play those parts and improv on them, i think SOUNDS like a great idea.  but this just wasnt as funny as it could've been.  the whole idea was half baked.
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

Just Withnail

#57
March 07, 2004, 03:44:09 PM
Fuck. This was real promising for a while. All these bad and okey reviews just makes me wanna post a sad smiley :( It could've been great.

MacGuffin

#58
March 07, 2004, 05:55:57 PM
Okay, was it just me or did anyone else think Starkey & Hutch were gay?

This movie was okay, and Stiller and Wilson are the perfect team, but they aren't given much to do here and it comes no where near the hilarity that is Zoolander. It seemed like series of vignettes strung together with no regard for a basic plot; even giving in to the cliches of a buddy cop film. There was so much in the tv show just ripe for parody, and it's seen a bit in the opening where Starsky is chasing a perp (and again in the montage when they're shaking down thugs) - complete with hand-held, snap-zooms and the 70's score. But instead it felt as is the film played a it with a 'okay, it's set in the 70's, let's make fun of the era'. That said, it did have a pretty cool soundtrack though.
"Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art." - Andy Warhol


Skeleton FilmWorks

The Perineum Falcon

#59
March 07, 2004, 07:28:02 PM
Quote from: MacGuffinOkay, was it just me or did anyone else think Starkey & Hutch were gay?
Yeah, I noticed that too. On "I Love the 70's" they mentioned something about some of the things on the t.v. series were rather...homoerotic? So, I'm guessing the movie just played off that to a larger extent.
Had its share of moments though. Will Ferrel is the best.
We often went to the cinema, the screen would light up and we would tremble, but also, increasingly often, Madeleine and I were disappointed. The images had dated, they jittered, and Marilyn Monroe had gotten terribly old. We were sad, this wasn't the film we had dreamed of, this wasn't the total film that we all carried around inside us, this film that we would have wanted to make, or, more secretly, no doubt, that we would have wanted to live.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6
User actions