'The Happening' is Also a Song By The Supremes

Posted 16:15 (GMT) 23rd June 2008

I've seen a lot of films and it has been ages since I laid into any cinematic abortions so here goes!

27 Dresses

It was hard not to feel stupid buying the ticket for this film and sitting through it since it wears its girliness on its dressy sleeve - the girliness is right there in the title. I am a huge fan of the romantic comedy as a genre - when it's done right, it is brilliant. There shouldn't be anything inherently girly about romance, unless all heterosexual relationships consist of one eager female romantic and one reluctant man who's just along for the ride, who isn't really in love he just likes to have sex once in a while. If that is truly the case then I can understand why all romantic comedies have to revolve around a woman who is undoubtedly The Protagonist with a one-or-maybe-two-dimensional male love interest whose main job is to look pretty and act in a way which is both charming and pleasantly non-threatening. When this happens the film stops becoming a romantic comedy and becomes instead a 'chick flick', perhaps the two most sexist words in the English language. And, like all sexism, it is never sexism against one gender. It is sexist against men for reducing them to grinning man-candy, the male equivalent of a Bond girl (Casino Royale not included) and it is sexist against women for expecting them to eat this up. The fact that many women actually like shallow chick flicks and many men seem to think their role in life is to look pretty and say little seems to indicate a lowering of collective expectations across the board which may explain why the divorce rate is so high these days.

The lowest common denominator generic chick flick rom com suffers structurally as well, since the plot is supposed to revolve around the female protagonist yet so often it is the case that the film upholds the old-fashioned expectation that the man must do all the leg work. The problem is, in a good story the protagonist must be active throughout, whilst the chick flick protagonist remains a passive figure, essentially sitting around waiting to be seduced by an under-developed hunk who doesn't get enough screen time to prove he's The One. So really, the love interest's only virtue is being in the right place at the right time. He might be an asshole for all we know, at least he's a handsome asshole. And really, the chick flick heroine just has stuff happen to her and reacts lamely. Always reacting rather than acting, always passive.

Sorry, I'm rambling. Does 27 Dresses, having branded itself as a chick flick before the film even starts, fall into any of these traps? Well, yes and no. It falls into most of them but it doesn't fall as hard as worse offenders (more on that later). Katherine Heigl, last seen being awesome in one of my favourite films Knocked Up, is a talented enough actress to outshine the film's glaring flaws, rather like Ian McKellen in The Da Vinci Code, even though her character Jane is a fairly passive figure who for most of the film just sort of reacts to what's going on around her. The premise? Her sister is getting married to a man she has been pining over for year. Jane reacts. Yet Katherine Heigl, it turns out, is pretty good at reacting.

Meanwhile, Jane meets a journalist called Kevin (played by James "Cyclops" Marsden) who is cynical and kind of a dick but happens to be in the right place at the right time, just as Jane is knocked out during the first third of the film. I mention Kevin is a journalist because the love interest in Hitch was a journalist and if you saw that film you might be forgiven for assuming Kevin will write a long and cutting article all about Jane which will lead everything to go tits-up towards the end of the movie. I think there might be some sort of rule in cinema in which journalism is every hero's kryptonite (see also Thank You For Smoking and, indeed, Superman Returns).

Anyway, I won't say 27 Dresses is predictable because any film can be predictable if the person watching it has good enough predictive skill. It's only a flaw if you're good at guessing. Still, it is a pretty formulaic film, with characters appearing and disappearing exactly when they should and going through the motions as dictated by the genre. Expect a montage in which Jane tries on each one of the titular dresses and a weirdly arbitrary scene in which Jane and Kevin sing 'Bennie and the Jets'. It seems every chick flick has to have an obligatory sing-along scene (more on that later, too) and this one wasn't helped by the fact that I had never even head of the song beforehand. But that's my problem - 27 Dresses is funny and there are worse ways to pass an afternoon. It's certainly not When Harry Met Sally, not by any stretch of the imagination, but it isn't How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days (Catholics, cross yourselves) either and in these meager days that will have to do. I liked it but it firmly belongs on the list of Films My Mother Would Like.

Over Her Dead Body

This film has a few more surprises than 27 Dresses, I suppose it's funnier but I didn't find it particularly funny. This might be because all the best gags are spoiled by the trailer, but it's not as if the trailer had me rolling in the aisles either. Still, films over-hyped and/or spoiled by their promotional materials can enjoy a healthy life on DVD after everyone's forgotten what happened in the trailers. For Over Her Dead Body I predict great success on television in a few Christmases' time. This film is by no means a chick flick, offering as it does a stronger and more developed male love interest in the form of the excellent Paul Rudd, last seen being awesome in Knocked Up. However, because this is a romantic comedy made within the past 10 years he does not get as much screen time as the female lead and he is certainly not the protagonist. Yes, the film's events revolve around Ashley, a psychic who has the hots for Henry (Rudd). Ashley is played by a woman called Lake Bell, whose influence does not extend as far as the rock I live under. Anyway, she sort of ruined the film for me by not being able to act. All the way through she makes the same expression of someone trying to act but about to burst into laughter and her voice is a dry monotone. She's not very good, in short, and it shows.

Anyway, psychic Ashley falls for Henry but OH NO his dead fiancee starts haunting her, attempting to sabotage their fledgling relationship. And this is when my ears start to prick up - not because the ghost is played by Eva Longoria but because I love high-concept screwball comedies almost as much as I love romantic comedies. And this is why Over Her Dead Body made me so angry, because the writers and film-makers had a brilliant opportunity for some fantastic (literally) jokes and my head buzzed with ideas when I first heard the premise. Anyone who caught the short-lived BBC remake of Randall and Hopkirk (Deceased) that Charlie Higson wrote and produced 8 years ago will know exactly what I'm talking about. Hell, didn't they see Ghost? They don't do much with the dead woman of the title, they don't have that many ideas, they don't surprise us half as much as they could. In fact, nearly all of the scenes with Eva Longoria's spectre are shown in the trailer. It's a criminal lack of imagination, one that should by rights be punishable by time in prison. Any film that makes Ghost Dad look like an imaginative tour de force should feel thoroughly ashamed of itself.

And really, the character of the ghost, Kate, isn't really given a very good reason to try and break the couple up. It's not that she can't accept that she's dead and their relationship is over, it's not that she resents Ashley pretending to psychically communicate with her to manipulate Henry. Eva Longoria is too much of an uncompromising tough cookie to present her as truly sympathetic or tragic. These concepts are alluded to but none of them really make it onto the screen. What I'm trying to say is that for most of the film Kate comes across as unemotional, even sociopathic, and delusional - more of a traditional ghost: relentless, single-minded and spiteful, unable to learn or think. It's quite scary, actually. She doesn't get enough screen time to be an effective villain, either, showing up only intermittently to punctuate the film with comedy rather than driving the plot forwards. Still, it's a romantic comedy that isn't just for women which is something of a God-send, even if that just means one admittedly hilarious slapstick sequence with Jason Biggs (again, spoiled by the trailer) and the kind of arbitrary craziness that so often shows up in American comedies (prepare yourselves for a REALLY FAT DOG!). What's next?

Jumper

I have ranted in the past about this film's stupid title but it didn't stop me from seeing it. Pretty simple, really - Hayden Christensen (last seen single-handedly ruining the Star Wars prequels) can teleport anywhere he likes. Samuel L. Motherfucking Jackson is trying to hunt him down and, you know, kill him. This film starts quite well when it follows the hero as a young boy, discovering his powers and exploring the ramifications (trips to Egypt, materialising inside bank vaults). Things sort of go downhill when Hayden Christensen actually appears on screen, having only previously manifested as a rather smug voice-over. Unfortunately, the actor they got in to play his younger self is a much better actor which gives the impression that the hero David has suffered brain damage since we saw him last. Don't get me wrong, Christensen is much better than he was in Star Wars, clearly more at home on a real set surrounded by human actors (are you listening, Lucas?), but when you look into his dead eyes there is only a dark void there. All but one of the plot threads are left wafting in the breeze by the time the credits roll, indicating that this is but the first of many chapters in a larger story, which would be encouraging if the first chapter didn't suck.

They say, correctly, that English compliments are secretly insults. Here's one: the best thing I can say about this film is that it has brilliant special effects.

The Spiderwick Chronicles

Along with Films My Mother Would Like, there is also a list of Films My Brother Will Never See. The Spiderwick Chronicles is just such a film. It's a rich, vibrant family film with great visual effects (not in the backhanded English way this time because they are used to create a beautiful aesthetic and to tell the story), great performances across the board and a pretty decent script. My brother will never see it because he perceives it as a children's film but really that shouldn't stop grown-ups from enjoying it since at the end of the day people are people; any film aggressively aimed just at children is invariably patronising and stupid, the equivalent of a chick flick. Anyone who actually remembers being a child will remember enjoying things aimed at adults - therefore a really good children's film should be enjoyable to adults too. This usually crops up in reviews as "parents will enjoy..." but what they're trying to say is that this is a film anyone can watch, one that works on multiple levels. I wouldn't be surprised if children read my strip.

Sure, the leads in Spiderwick are all children but that doesn't bother me. If I refuse to watch any film in which the actors are younger than myself I will be forced to watch fewer and fewer movies every year. These are not Child Actors (those obnoxious kids who show up to say one line like "When is mommy coming home?" in that weirdly robotic Child-Actory way), these are just actors. Good ones, too. Give this film a chance and you will be presently rewarded. If you can read the Harry Potter books you can watch this.

As an interesting side-note, the Arthur Spiderwick whose chronicles lend their name to this film looks quite a lot like Stephen Colbert. Something for the parents to enjoy.

Charlie Bartlett

When is a film about people at a high school not a High School Movie? When it's a very good one. Charlie Bartlett is a true and humorous look at what it's like being a teenager and it remains strangely free of cliches. No bullshit about impenetrable cliques or proms or losing one's virginity. None of the things that people think being a teenager are about - just a bunch of people questioning themselves and their place in the world, dealing with real problems and facing for the first time the isolating reality that they are messed up, before the realisation comes that everyone is messed up. That's pretty much what this film is saying - everyone is messed up so don't commit suicide and as such everyone should watch it as soon as they turn 13. These are some big, heavy themes but they are tackled with a refreshing subtlety and humour - nobody stares at length at a lake, nobody breaks up with a girlfriend named after a season. This is a genuinely heart-warming tale of drug abuse and self-discovery and the turning point at which you stop being an emotionally-broken teenager and start being the adult you will be for the rest of your life. Watch it, it's good.

Run, Fatboy, Run

This is a film which wants to be heart-warming and funny, which wants to be a coming of age story every bit as much as Charlie Bartlett actually is one. How successful is it? Well, not very. Simon Pegg is brilliant, Dylan Moran is brilliant. But it's an English cast acting out a conspicuously American script, full of the kind of arbitrary craziness you would expect of Ryan Reynolds (like an HILARIOUS scene with A SPATULA), not people who were in Shawn of the Dead. Simon Pegg tries really hard but he can't work with this material any more than Jim Carrey could have starred in Hot Fuzz. Everyone does their best and it's certainly good to see the fantastic Hank Azaria doing something outside The Simpsons but the laughs are meager and it's hard not to feel like you're watching an American brain inside an English body. Same reason I can't watch the U.S. Office. Still, it's a romantic comedy which is not aimed exclusively at women, going as far as to have a male protagonist, and bonus points need to be awarded.

Superhero Movie

Biggest surprise of 2008? Superhero Movie was actually funny. Not Airplane funny, perhaps, but at its best as good as the best Naked Gun film and at its worst as good as Hot Shots. I must confess a love for Zucker, Abrahms and Zucker spoof comedies. They may not be the most cerebral films but they're damn funny and, at their most post-modern ("I got a message for you from Vincent Ludwig. Take this you son of a bitch!" "I can't hear you! Don't fire the gun while you're talking!") pretty damn clever. Superhero Movie manages this level of parody. Don't be fooled by the '___ Movie' title, this is nothing like the Wayans brothers' Scary Movie franchise which, along with the abortive Date Movie, Epic Movie and Meet The Spartans, has come to define the spoof genre and drag it into the dirt. These were films which just went through the motions of copying every film that came out that year - there was no joke, it was just "HERE IS NACHO LIBRE. HE IS FAT." and they were aggressively unfunny. Superhero Movie follows on from the Scary Movie films only in that Pamela Anderson and Regina Hall make an appearance and there is some racial humour and some bad taste humour. The difference is that whilst in Scary Movie 2 it was all racial humour ("BLACK PEOPLE ARE DIFFERENT FROM WHITE PEOPLE!") and bad taste ("BOOGERS!") with token plot, in Superhero Movie it's the other way around. Regina Hall's appearance lasts a matter of seconds. It's like they put enough of that bullshit into the film to please the morons in suits but then spent the rest of their time making the funniest film they could.

The majority of the film consists of about one joke every three seconds. If you don't find one joke funny there's another one coming before you have time to catch your breath. It's so efficiently cut together that even if 50% of the jokes are misses, the hits still come thick and fast. And really, I think there were more hits than misses. I laughed all the way through and I don't even feel ashamed admitting that. Stephen Hawking made an appearance and they didn't even go for the easy joke. Okay, Superhero Movie isn't perfect - the lead Drake Bell thinks he's in a much worse movie and, yes, there's a fart joke which wasn't very good but these aren't serious flaws in what amounts to a string of very funny sketches. Leslie Nielsen is in the film and he's actually funny again, for the first time since the Naked Gun films I previously referenced. There are some other great cameos from the likes of Brent Spiner and Jeffrey Tambor. And Sara Paxton is actually better than Kirsten Dunst was in Spider-man, weirdly. Switch off your brain for 90 minutes and enjoy.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

I really liked this film, and I'd like to be able to say why without making excuses for elements other people found objectionable. There comes a point in the film, quite early on, which my friend Neil describes as a 'Marmite moment'. Marmite is a weird-tasting yeast extract spread we have over in England which people either love or hate. Apparently, people had the same reaction to Crystal Skull. Me, I loved it. Without spoiling anything, this film has a more science fiction direction than previous installments, as befits a film set in the 1950s. Whilst the previous films were about Nazis and Judeo-Christian relics, this one is about Communists and science and nuclear bombs. And space men. It's an interesting story of an older Dr Jones coping in an altogether different world with different preoccupations. However, despite these changes and despite the significant update in visual effects technology this film is classic Indiana Jones through and through.

Crazy stunts, pseudo-historical archeology, protracted action sequences with about 38 beats - this is what Indiana Jones is all about. If you think revolving fireplaces, 500-year-old crusaders and angry Jewish ghosts who make Nazis' faces melt are somehow less ridiculous or more palatable there is something wrong with you. This film made me feel like I was 7 again, just as much as the Transformers movie did. That may be a discouraging comparison to make but I stand by it. This film is ass.

Iron Man

Iron Man may be the best superhero film ever made. It's certainly the best superhero film to be made at the time it was made. It cleverly subverts the expectations of the genre as we've come to understand it - secret identities, brooding over heroic responsibility, tragedy - in a way which is compelling and funny. Robert Downey Jr is pitch-perfect throughout (he was in Charlie Bartlett, too), portraying a charismatic but deeply flawed character who in the hands of one of the Hayden Christensens of the world could have been a contemptible asshole with sensitivity and flare, making him a likeable asshole from the start. As Tony Stark, the genius inventor turned billionaire playboy arms dealer he is just corrupt enough, just geeky enough, just funny enough and just arrogant enough. His transformation into a hero throughout the film is ultimately a story of redemption and it's told in a way which is breathtakingly awesome. And Tony Stark knows he is awesome. It's very refreshing.

Also, it's good to see Gwyneth Paltrow in this film. I haven't seen her in anything since Shakespeare in Love and from what I can tell it's just been a string of high-brow dramas since. She's acting her socks off playing a character who is not Gwyneth Paltrow, which may be why she took the role. Same thing can be said for an unrecognisable Jeff Bridges.

There is a pre-title scene which probably lasted no more than 10 minutes which is without a doubt one of the best pre-title scenes in anything ever if not the best. And the storytelling for the rest of the film is just as efficient, funny and powerful.

The Incredible Hulk

The Incredible Hulk may be the best superhero film ever made. Wait, I already said that about Iron Man. Damn. Well, both of these films are damn good in pretty much the same way. This one has a slower pace and a more brooding tone as befits the more tragic subject-matter. Edward Norton is every bit as good as Robert Downey Jr and William Hurt is every bit as good as Jeff Bridges.

What's interesting about these two films is that whilst they owe their existence to this modern string of largely excellent superhero films, the film that started it all, X-men, was such a success because it down-played the brightly-coloured costumes and goofy comic book science in favour of a more gritty and realistic film. And Batman Begins, which many have held up as the best of the bunch, takes that idea and runs with it, being gritty to the nth degree. The Spider-man films, whilst they contained campy elements (due in no small part to the hammy Wilhem Defoe who thought he was in a different film) were pretty down-to-earth.

The Incredible Hulk and Iron Man wear their goofiness on their sleeves, in a way. They're all gamma radiation and brightly-coloured metal suits. The respective film-makers were faced with making films about a man who flies around in a big metal suit and a man who transforms into a giant green monster every time he gets pissed because of Science and rather than down-play these elements or reinterpret them they practically relish them. Yes this film is about a man in a big robotic suit, they say, but look how cool that is! They could have been mediocre crap, indicating that the superhero film as a genre is scraping the bottom of the barrel. Instead, they're not just good superhero films they're good films full stop. Damn excellent ones. Just through being excellently-scripted, directed and acted these films have taken ideas which are stupid on paper and made them sing.

The Incredible Hulk could have been Ang Lee's Hulk. In fact, it was. Now it's something else. Ang Lee convinced me that the Hulk as a character was too outlandish to translate to film. This Edward Norton reboot of the franchise has convinced me that any idea can translate to film. I no longer roll my eyes at the thought of a Thor film. I'm actually interested to see how they'll make it work. This represents a new wave of superhero films. The genre is in good hands - ironically, the hands of Marvel comics.

13 Going on 30

I watched this film for the same reason I watched Over Her Dead Body, because it's a high-concept screwball comedy. It's a chick flick, the chickiest of flicks, but one with an interesting enough premise for my curiosity to get the better of me. After all, I loved Groundhog Day and this film is quite similar, at least on paper.

It's about a 30-year-old woman called Jenna (played by Jennifer Garner - and the similarities between the character's name and that of the actress raise serious questions about the writing process). One day a blood clot moves to Jenna's brain and she has a stroke which causes her to lose all her memories of the past 17 years and awake convinced she is still 13 years old.

All right, it's actually about a 13-year-old girl called Jenna who makes a magic birthday wish (similar to that made in Liar Liar, I suppose) that she might become 30, for tenuous reasons. Anyway, it actually comes true and Jenna opens her eyes to find she has become a 30-year-old woman. The first thing she does is look in a mirror and scream. And really, if you awoke to find you'd been turned into Jennifer Garner you'd scream too (have you seen the jaw on that woman?). So, I was actually lying about the stroke because I'm a cynical jackass but really it baffles me that no-one in adult Jenna's life makes the same suggestion. I mean, as far as they're concerned she's suddenly lost her memory, become confused and disorientated and mentally regressed to the intellectual level of a child. Nobody questions it. Even Bill Murray went to see a psychiatrist. It's a huge plot hole and a wasted opportunity - really, I expected most of the comedy to arise from Jennifer Garner acting like a complete retard (like Tom Hanks in Big a.k.a. the exact same movie). As it is, we do get to see Jennifer Garner acting like a retard but everyone around her pretty much ignores it as if nothing's different. It's quite dream-like in that sense - nothing she can do makes anyone twig that she has lost 17 years of mental development. Apparently, 13-year-olds are really good at pretending to be adults, which doesn't quite fit either because Jennifer Garner clearly can't remember how smart and mature 13-year-olds really are, acting for the most part like a 7-year-old.

Anyway, once Jenna and the audience get over the fish-out-of-water element of the story (stroke victim slowly recovers) the film descends into formulaic chick flick territory. Jenna meets up with an attractive and non-threateningly bland man who, even though he is engaged to marry another woman, leaves us in no doubt that he and Jenna will get together by the end, there is a montage or two and there is even the obligatory musical sequence in which everyone spontaneously dances to 'Thriller' at a party. Just like in 27 Dresses when everyone spontaneously sings 'Bennie and The Jets' in a bar, or in My Best Friend's Wedding when everyone spontaneously sings 'Say a Little Prayer For You' in a restaurant. There's something about mediocre chick flicks and people surreally bursting into song and/or dance, like singing along to pop songs strikes a chord with female audiences. It beats the hell out of me. Still, if true it might explain why all the women I know love Moulin Rouge. Anyway, once you've seen enough bad films it stops being spontaneous and surprising and just becomes another predictable part of the tired chick flick formula along with unromantic romance and unfunny comedy.

Also, there's none of the childish wish fulfillment we saw in Big, until you realise that every 13-year-old girl's dream is to star in their own formulaic chick flick and kiss the non-threatening man. Still, he's not quite non-threatening enough for the kiss with someone we know to be 13 to not be creepy.

Worse still, all of the subplots go absolutely nowhere. Young Jenna wants nothing more than to be accepted into the school's unnecessarily bitchy clique and her desire to be walked all over by these ridiculously Mean Girls and shamelessly conform means she's actually a bit of bitch. 30-year-old brain damaged Jenna looks back to find that she was accepted into the clique and in fact everything she wanted for herself came true but is somehow surprised to find she has become a bitch. Why she is surprised is lost on me, since as I said before she was already a bitch before she travelled through time. That's another thing, she isn't baffled in the slightest by our crazy future technology, despite having been catapulted here from the 80's. Anyway, you might expect this to become a story of redemption in which Jenna learns not to conform and to be herself. Well, not really. But she does learn to stick up for herself, a lesson power-hungry bitchy 30-year-old Jenna had probably already learnt.

She also finds that she has become a writer for her favourite fashion magazine, an obsession which back in the 80's made her look superficial and shallow but in the present day manifests itself as a subplot to Make the Best Darn Magazine She Can, which also goes nowhere.

In fact, anyone who has seen Big will know that Jenna must inevitably return to her younger self. And anyone who has seen Groundhog Day will know that anything she does in the future will have no consequences. So basically, 13 Going on 30 is a prolonged dream sequence in which all but one of the plot threads goes nowhere. Either that or the finale is an illusion caused by the last part of adult Jenna's diseased brain flaring and dying. Whichever one gives you most comfort.

The Happening

I didn't intend for this news post to last this long and yet I cannot resist discussing The Happening. When life hands you such an undeniably, recklessly, soaringly terrible film what else can you do? The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is about a chainsaw massacre in Texas, The Birds is about birds. The Happening is a horror film about something happening. This much we know. Something is Happening, the characters say. 12 times.

Huge spoiler for you: we never find out.

That's why it's called The Happening. All we know, all we ever know is that something is going on, God knows what. There's nothing I can say from this point onwards which will spoil the film if you haven't seen it. I have no more of a clue as to what is killing these people as you. You've seen the trailer, right? Remember that bit where Mark Wahlburg says that science will come up with an explanation for why all the bees are disappearing but it'll really be just a theory? Well, that's about as far as the film ever goes to explain what's going on.

The premise is this: something Happens which causes people to spontaneously kill themselves. If this film were set in Slough we could probably chalk it up to run-of-the-mill despair but it's Happening on too large a scale. At first they think it's terrorists but then they decide it's not. Then... we never find out. There's one point at which Mark Wahlburg thinks it's the wind, which leads to a string of frankly hilarious scenes of characters running away from the wind. At this point - at any point - we don't know if they're running away from danger or towards danger. They're just running. People just running does not a scary chase sequence make. Later on people think it might be the plants and trees somehow causing people to die. Again, we are given no reason whatsoever to believe that this is the case but it leads to a series of lingering shots of trees blowing in the wind. Again, not remotely scary, just beautiful. Or, in this context, funny.

It's a real shame because some parts of this film are quite good, in the same way that a person cut in half is half-healthy. People spontaneously killing themselves is pretty creepy and when they're throwing themselves off buildings or hanging themselves from trees it's deeply unnerving and uncanny. However, some of the deaths are over-elaborate and, well, silly. Really silly. One man feeds himself to a lion for Christ's sake. Another man orchestrates a series of events which lead him to run himself over with a lawnmower. It's really really funny. Other people are content to dumbly beat their heads against walls - it makes no sense.

Wahlburg is just terrible, delivering a one-note performance of perpetual high-voiced confusion. For some reason? He phrases every sentence? As a question? With this stupid rising intonation? I don't know why? But it was annoying? Zooey Deschanel plays his wife, a character who apparently doesn't like expressing her emotions. Taking this to heart, Deschanel portrays her as an emotionless automaton. She even speaks in a monotone. So we've got a combination of rising intonation and no intonation. The best actor on screen was the stupid Child Actor whose only job was to look sort of scared and ask "When's Mommy Coming Home?". And so we come full circle. It doesn't help that the first introduction to Deschanel is a distractingly funny shot of her giant eyes. Just her eyes.

I would recommend having a few drinks with some friends and seeing this film at a time when there aren't many other people in the theatre. Prepare to laugh yourself silly at the most unintentionally funny film since Godzilla vs. King Ghidorah. It's The Crappening.

All content in this web-site is the property of Fourth Floor Comics and Copyright ©Fourth Floor Comics 2004-2012

Unauthorized use of any Life on the Fourth Floor materials including characters, images and texts is strictly prohibited.

Life on the Fourth Floor is hosted on Comic Genesis, a free webhosting and site automation service for webcomics. They specialise in annoying advertisements.