yearonerev1.jpg
Look on My Works, Ye Mighty, and Despair


Year One / Daniel Carlson

Film Reviews | June 19, 2009 | Comments (65)


It’s been four years since Harold Ramis directed a movie (The Ice Harvest), seven since that movie was recognizable as a comedy (Analyze That), and 16 since that comedy was actually funny (Groundhog Day). It’s not possible to assemble any kind of through-line or worldview or even sense of humor that would help explain Ramis’ c.v., with his film work the past couple decades veering erratically and seemingly uncontrollably between quality and, well, something considerably less so. His latest, Year One, isn’t the turnaround he needed, either. It’s a film as far removed from comedy and wit as possible without turning into an outright meta-parody of bad comedies themselves. It possesses no brains, no heart, and not a single spark of life or joy that would make it worth watching. Even when he’s fallen short of the mark, Ramis has still proven himself a capable filmmaker, but Year One is an unmitigated disaster, the kind of stupid, unenjoyable, lame idea of a movie that never should have made it past whatever deluded brainstorming session loosed it on an unsuspecting America.

Zed (Jack Black) and Oh (Michael Cera) are cavemen on the outs with the rest of their tribe: Zed is a terrible hunter, and Oh just wants to be a gatherer/maker. The bland, broad characters are tailor-made for Black and Cera, who play the same versions of themselves — Black is cocky and dumb, Cera is mewling and uncertain — that they bring to most roles. But things start to fall apart immediately because Year One is all story and no plot, and it’s a weak one at that. Zed and Oh have nothing driving them except blind love for a pair of attractive women in their tribe, and after being exiled from the camp for starting a fire, they just stumble through a series of unconnected bits riffing on the book of Genesis. That’s it. There’s no point or direction to anything, merely Ramis’ desire to make (very, very) mildly entertaining jokes involving things like the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, the spat between Cain and Abel, Abraham’s near-sacrifice of Isaac, etc. The screenplay from Ramis, Gene Stupnitsky, and Lee Eisenberg is lifeless and dull, and the film so flatly shot, that it’s almost tempting to read the film as a high-concept spoof of spoof movies, which conflate humor with excess and cram in as many cultural references as possible in hopes of confusing the viewer into thinking they’ve seen something funny. But no, Year One isn’t a play on bad movies, it’s just a bad movie.

The tonal imbalance is evident in the historical mash-up, as well. Ramis’ characters coast through so many biblical stories and scenes that the film almost plays like a Christian-made parody, only with more eating of feces. There’s no announcement or sense to any of the action, either: It’s just Black and Cera talking modernly about “laying with” the women they adore from afar, then Paul Rudd and David Cross as Abel and Cain, Hank Azaria and Christopher “I Will Never Live Down McLovin” Mintz-Plasse as Abraham and Isaac, and many more all tripping over each other in a film that plays like a badly conceived video short gone horribly, terribly awry.

I wish I could do more than just list these and other embarrassments for you — could give you some idea of what Zed and Oh were doing and why they did it, or where the film was going — but I can’t because there is nothing else to the film besides these shamefully unfunny skits that are strung together without an ounce of forethought. There is nothing here. The problem isn’t Ramis’ subject matter, it’s his execution. He shoots for and sadly achieves a wocka-wocka-wocka level of quasi-humor that re-enacts highlights of the book of Genesis, but he’s so in love with that idea that he never bothers to flesh it out with a story or characters or, you know, jokes. To see such a collection of comedic actors assembled, and to have that talent subsequently squandered by a pathetic and terrible film, is a tragedy that unfortunately mirrors the destruction of Sodom that finds its way into the third act. The film is a blight that should be destroyed, and those who look back upon it will regret ever hearing its name.

Daniel Carlson is the managing editor of Pajiba. You can visit his blog, Slowly Going Bald.


The Proposal Review | Worst Movie Fathers of All Time



Comments

While it doesn't surprise me that this movie sucks, I have to argue that Mintz-Plasse was great in Role Models, not as McLovin but as the quiet role playing nerd, which was actually quite different from the obnoxious annoying character that was McLovin. At this point I'd rather see him in a cast than Cera.

Posted by: Boomer at June 19, 2009 3:52 PM

I used to like both Black and Cera before I realized that they just kept playing the same character. A little range, please, gentlemen.
Not seeing this, can't make me.

Posted by: Sharon at June 19, 2009 3:54 PM

I just have to cry a hearty huzzah for the Ozymandias quote.

Now I'll go read the review.

Posted by: lizzieborden at June 19, 2009 4:14 PM

I almost never "cheat" on pajiba by reading other review sites. But I was very bored and read A.O. Scott's review of this on the Nytimes website. Besides being a godawfully terrible review, filled with pretentious nonsense, as opposed to pretentious awesomeness, Scott seems to think this movie is good and deep.

I highly recommend reading it before/after this. Makes me, for one, really appreciate Dan C and his co-workers

Posted by: "luker" the barbarian at June 19, 2009 4:20 PM

I still laugh at the commercials when David Cross yells, "Your name is SUCK!" But no, it's not enough to make me want to see this. I think the AV CLub reviewer compared this to History of the World, which I felt was apt (and which I predicted, so yay for me) and, again, not an incentive.

Posted by: Geetch at June 19, 2009 4:22 PM

Another winner of the Love Guru award for movie that should have avoided releasing a trailer at all costs.

If not for the trailer this is a movie that I might have been interested in when you consider the cast and director. But as soon as I saw the trailer it was a Love Guru flashback: gee this movie looks like it's going to suck.

Posted by: John W at June 19, 2009 4:22 PM

They're not cavemen, they're Stone Age hunter-gatherers. It's a big difference.

Posted by: theymightbeslacking at June 19, 2009 4:22 PM

Compared to what was said in the Proposal review, this looks like a film that had the actors and the concept first, then they wrote the script around them, and that always equals epic fail.

If only Chris Farley were here today, he'd sort this all out. Or at the very least, he'd make me laugh.

Posted by: annoyingmouse at June 19, 2009 4:36 PM

Ah, more one-note actors. Is it possible that if we lock these two in a working trash compactor with Ryan Reynolds, Ellen Page, Seth Rogen, Shia LaBeouf, Megan Fox, and Zach Braff that the end result might be a marginally talented, well-rounded mass of flesh that could play different characters?
Even if it isn't, it might be hilarious to watch.

Posted by: Jim Doggie at June 19, 2009 4:38 PM

luker, I just read the nytimes review.

It is entitled "In the Beginning, God Created Yuks."

You have got to be shitting me with that, Manohla Dargis.

Posted by: TK at June 19, 2009 4:41 PM

Why the fuck is sooo hard for director's to churn out the funny over a long career? Do our/their funnybones go through premature osteoporosis?

Maybe comedy directors need Logan's Run time crystals embedded in their palms so everyone knows when their shelf life has expired.

Posted by: ed newman at June 19, 2009 4:43 PM

Good Catch TK, I got the critic wrong. Manohla Dargis is the person to blame for that example of how not to write a review. How the hell did she get hired by the times?

Posted by: "luker" the barbarian at June 19, 2009 4:46 PM

That's Michael Cera in the picture with Jack Black??? No way. I looked at it twice, then read the review and looked again. That's definitely Jennifer Aniston before the hairstylist gets to work.

Posted by: PaddyDog at June 19, 2009 4:49 PM

"broad characters are tailor-made for Black and Cera, who play the same versions of themselves .."


Thing is WHEN aren't these two playing versions of themselves.

Cera in particular. (who for some reason was made to look like Beverly Crusher's little sister for this film)

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at June 19, 2009 4:55 PM

Yeah, I find that Scott generally falls right along with Pajiba in calling a spade a spade with terrible movies.

Dargis, however, must be purged for the good of the species.

Posted by: alphawhiskey at June 19, 2009 5:19 PM

And the Lord doest stretch his hand over the cream pie and it doest fly true unto Adam's schnozz. And thus God created Yuks.

Posted by: Optimus Rhyme at June 19, 2009 5:22 PM

Man, I was hoping this would be akin to History of the World Part 1, because that movie is awesome. Looks like it tries and fails.

(and seriously? people don't like History of the World Part 1? Guess I didn't get the memo, as it's the most quoted movie in my household aside from Young Frankenstein...)

Posted by: Tammy at June 19, 2009 5:31 PM

I, too, think the "McLovin'" crack is off the mark due to his work in Role Models.

So there.

Posted by: icecreammang at June 19, 2009 6:10 PM

My criticism of this film since I first saw the trailer has not been able to advance past the fact that the actual YEAR ONE didn't take place in Genesis, in either BCE or CE.

Posted by: m at June 19, 2009 6:11 PM

Wanna hook up with those 18+ hot models, sexy girls and handsome guys, just join the best and largest tall dating club: ____Tallconnect.c o m____ , We bring together tall-dating minded singles from USA, UK, Canada, Australia, Europe and more. Come on, have a try! Join for FREE.

Posted by: Patty at June 19, 2009 6:33 PM

Ugh, my best friend keeps reminding me to see this with her soon, but I don't have the heart to tell her that I'd rather smash my head into a wall. Any suggestions?

Posted by: Sarah at June 19, 2009 6:48 PM

Ramis is no Mel Brooks, and Year One is no History of the World. Pity, I had such high hopes - when Jack Black is on form he's immensely entertaining. Now, what was that movie where he played a geek who got his hand shot off?

Posted by: lordhelmet at June 19, 2009 6:56 PM

I saw a preview for this before Star Trek, and my roommate, bless her heart, wouldn't stop talking about how much she wanted to see it, how funny it looked. It's a good thing she's pretty...

luker, I also went over the NY Times, and saw this: Like most Hollywood romantic comedies these days, “The Proposal” is all about bringing a woman to her knees.

I thought everyone knew the answer to that was diamonds. She'll pretty much have to.

Tammy, I love History of the World Part 1. Jews in Space!

Posted by: SaBrina at June 19, 2009 7:01 PM

Does this mean we can start the death watch for Cera's career? Oh, please tell me we can start the death watch for Cera's career.

Posted by: Tracer Bullet at June 19, 2009 7:22 PM

I actually thought Bedazzled wasn't too bad.

Okay, back to the rest of the review.

Posted by: Eep at June 19, 2009 7:26 PM

I hope that this movie proves that Jack Black is utterly toxic to the concepts of "funny" and / or "comedy", not to mention any particular movie.

Yes, I said it. Jack Black = not funny.

Posted by: Meander at June 19, 2009 7:31 PM

This makes me sad. I didn't expect this to be good, but I didn't even know Ramis was involved until I read this. I used to think of him as a personal hero and a bit of a genius, but now I'm concerned that maybe he was just a coattail rider in the right place at the right time.

Posted by: Eep at June 19, 2009 7:31 PM

The ads for this are so CONSTANT and IN YOUR FACE LAUGH DAMN YOU LAUGH that I didn't expect anything more than a complete crapfest.

Not a SINGLE moment of those trailers was funny. And that was probably the funniest stuff. Get bent, Hollywood. My theory, that the more publicity a movie has, the more it'll suck, still holds true.

In the Beginning, God Created Yuks."

I am so, so glad I found Pajiba.

Posted by: figgy at June 19, 2009 8:43 PM

In addition to the Love Guru award for bad trailer, I would also like to give this film the Star Trek award for bad trailer, but I still hope it'll be good any way.

But noooooo. They couldn't actually pull a Star Trek and crank out a good movie, they had to ruin everything. Damn it! Why does this have to suck? It's like Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones all over again, so much talent put to waste it makes you want to blow up the theater. Fuck my life.

Posted by: George at June 19, 2009 8:44 PM

I saw this today because it was playing when I was at the theater. It sucked. There was one funny moment that involved bird calls and it was really only funny because it made me think of the bird call scene in three amigos and laugh at that movie. I like Ramis because he seems so nice, but I don't think Ray Parker Jr. could put together a hit right now either.

Posted by: OrRoy at June 19, 2009 9:22 PM

My contribution to this discussion about the merrits of this dumb movie is this: I'm drunk.

Carry on.

Posted by: Joker at June 19, 2009 9:53 PM

If any of you play video games, Psychonauts is a great game for it's awesome characters and fantastic script. The makers of that game are making a new one called Brutal Legend centered around heavy metal with Jack Black as the star. The bugger might not be funny but he's smart enough to surround himself with talented people. Tropic Thunder, while not funny, had Robert Downey Jr. and that alone proved Black's taste in talent to me last year. Maybe when I go to see a Jack Black comedy, I should lower my standard because then I'm pleasantly surprised. As far as mainstream comedians go, he's better than Adam Sandler. Adam Sandler can die for all I care.

Posted by: Monklonious at June 19, 2009 11:29 PM

Yawn. Care to make it interesting?

The BO over is ...

$30 million.

Place your Pajibets.

Posted by: , (the commenter formerly known as bucdaddy) at June 19, 2009 11:41 PM

I can't remember laughing at any of the trailers. This one looked DOA. And Black hasn't been good since School of Rock (his persona's peak) while Cera has apparently decided that his Arrested Development character fits his every role -- except in the AD movie.

...cause that'd be 'sploitation.

a film that plays like a badly conceived video short gone horribly, terribly awry.

See I think this "idea" by Ramis would work great as 5-minute web shorts over at FunnyorDie or like Dr. Horrible. It'd allow the writers the opportunity to nail down the actual jokes. Black and Cera can be the thread that connects these various mini-movies that riff on the Old Testament.

One good idea stretched over 90 minutes = one really bad idea.

Posted by: Fredo at June 20, 2009 12:10 AM

First at the Box Office. Guaranteed. It's too bland not to succeed.

Posted by: Optimus Rhyme at June 20, 2009 12:34 AM

optimus! MANNERS. (hmph) *frowns*

Posted by: gp at June 20, 2009 12:44 AM

Hey! I rhymed! I'm all kind of name-appropriate tonight.
I also transformed from a honest-to-Godtopus fratboy to a bit of a lightweight.

Posted by: Optimus Rhyme at June 20, 2009 12:53 AM

"First at the Box Office. Guaranteed. It's too bland not to succeed."

Sorry Optimus, that position is reserved for the even dumber and blander Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, which will gross so much money, Michael Bay can finally bribe Satan enough to save his wretched soul.

Posted by: George at June 20, 2009 2:17 AM

Jim Doggie, I don't think Reynolds is one-note. He has his go-to schtick, but I thought he was pretty good (in a shit movie) in The Amityville Horror, playing a very different and menacing character.

Posted by: Eep at June 20, 2009 2:49 AM

Neither is Ellen Page! Hard Candy, anyone?

Posted by: Alayna at June 20, 2009 4:47 AM

Neither is Ellen Page! Hard Candy, anyone?

Word. Read JimDoggie's comment and was getting ready to mention that film myself.

That said, what's so wrong with one-note actors? If you're good at something, and there are plenty of people willing to hire you to do that thing and watch movies of you doing that thing, why deviate? Surely it's better that actors recognise their own limitations than try to branch out - Cera, for example, seems like a pleasant enough guy who isn't any great shakes as a thespian but can pull off a nice line in 'mewling uncertainty' (to paraphrase). Would you rather watch him stick to his strengths or use what little name-recognition clout he has to branch out into wholly unsuitable projects that will flop horribly and inflict more pain on us all?

Posted by: Shay at June 20, 2009 10:54 AM

lordhelmet - That would be The Jackal, I believe, with Bruce Willis and the big friggin' gun.

Posted by: Snath at June 20, 2009 11:00 AM

And Black hasn't been good since School of Rock (his persona's peak)

Kung Fu Panda. Also Tropic Thunder. And what the hell, I actually enjoyed him in 'The Holiday' even though that movie was one weak-ass drink.

It's all about the script. The only movie I can think of in recent memory that ran on the strength of its actors was Shoot Em' Up.

Posted by: twig at June 20, 2009 11:11 AM

Shay - I'd rather watch him flop horribly trying something different, because then at least I would know he was willing to go outside his comfort zone.

Alayna - Although Hard Candy did do a fantastic job of making me want to sleep with my nuts in a safe to make sure that Ellen Page could never get near them...her character is still a younger person who can talk and think circles around adults. Which feels like every other role she's done that I've seen clips of. (Juno, Smart People...). Notice I'm leaving X-Men 3 off this list because I refuse to see any of it after being forced to sit through the first two.

Eep - Does Mr. Reynolds eat a shotgun blast in the movie? And I don't mean his character--does Ryan Reynolds, the actor, have a real shotgun put into his mouth and fired, causing his chicken-fried gray matter to splatter onto his irrelevant costars?
If that doesn't happen, I'm afraid I won't be seeing this film and will not have any decent way to refute your opinions.
(Of course, I know what you're thinking. "Even if Ryan Reynolds did do our culture a favor and offed himself on camera, then how did he keep making movies?" We're dealing with the same people who killed Tom Petty and replaced him with a double, made Tupac Shakur disappear and force him to record more shitty rap for ten years after his "death", and switched out Ron Jeremy for a two-legged zebra with a fake mustache. They're very powerful. They can do anything. They've even infiltrated this site. Isn't that right, DAN CARLSON?! Or perhaps I should call you by your real name--Unit R4-D!)

Posted by: Jim Doggie at June 20, 2009 12:16 PM

twig - Kung Fu Panda was animated. They may have based Po from Black but it's not the same. And Tropic Thunder felt like him making fun of himself and most major comedians.

Don't get me wrong, I like Jack Black. I think he's smarter than he lets on and can carry a movie. It's just he needs a director who can tell him when to dial it down and when to amp it up.

Posted by: Fredo at June 20, 2009 12:56 PM

But Oliver Platt was the sexiest he's ever been

Posted by: Brian at June 20, 2009 2:33 PM

Jim Doggie: If that is your definition of "one-note", then wouldn't William Shatner, Christopher Walken, and Sam L. Jackson fall in there as well? Then you have guys like Tom Cruise and Will Smith, who simply play every role like they are the same, regardless of how different they are.

Plus, what about typecasting? Could it be possible the reason some actors seem one-note is because they can only get those kind of roles? We all know Hollywood isn't big on taking chances; if something works, they will beat it into the ground.

As far as the shotgun-in-mouth comment, do you really hate Ryan Reynolds that much? Are you trying to prove you're the anti-Dustin or something? Jeezum Crow, man.

And why are you calling out Carlson? What the hell did he do?

Posted by: Vermillion at June 20, 2009 7:54 PM

I've been writing again!

I don't know who this'll matter to, but I'm trying to improve my internet writing ability and am going to try to write something once a week, and if you want to see, click.

Posted by: George at June 21, 2009 12:04 AM

Though it appears to have not been his fault this time, Jack Black brings the suck to his movies. High Fidelity seems to have been the only one to escape.

I don't really care about the crapfests going on; I'm still waiting for Away We Go to premiere here.

Posted by: Kate at June 21, 2009 1:02 AM

"If that is your definition of "one-note", then wouldn't William Shatner, Christopher Walken, and Sam L. Jackson.."

--------------------------------------------

Yeah, but then again, there can only be ONE of each: Shatner, Walken and Samuel L. Trying to group them with this new crop of idiots it's downright absurd.
You DO know Walken, Shatner and Samuel have had numerous roles before they started coasting on their current comfort zone, right?

Contrary to say, Cera, who STARTED as himself and has NEVER....EVER, deviated. Same goes for Page, even her Hard Candy character had the hipsterish undercurrent she fully deployed in Juno.

"Umm you've been been castrated, eggo-preggo"


Posted by: BarbadoSlim at June 21, 2009 7:45 AM

You DO know Walken, Shatner and Samuel have had numerous roles before they started coasting on their current comfort zone, right?

So has Page. Check IMDB, she has been quite active. then again, maybe you have seen everything she has done, so I could still be wrong.

As far as the Hard Candy/Juno comparison, it seems like you are just focusing on the barest of similarities. Yes, both have the same actress. Yes, she plays a character of considerable intelligence.

But I can do the same with those other actors. Sam Jackson has been playing "loud black guy" even during his early years. Jungle Fever: loud crackhead. Coming to America: loud armed robber. Amos and godddamn Adnrew: loud black author. The only times he has deviated from that general template: Unbreakable, Star Wars, and Afro Samurai (and that was subverted by him playing another character who was, guess what? A loud black man). Oh and don't even get me started on Shatner.

You want to hate them just because? Fine. You want to hate them because they are all shiny and new? Whatever, that is your weird little issue. But you say you hate them for being one-note, and that is a pretty weak reason, especially if you like those other actors.

Then again, you have had no problem being a hypocrite before, so I shouldn't waste my breath.

Posted by: Vermillion at June 21, 2009 11:58 AM

Look at Mr. Big Man getting all personal and shit.

Whatever dude.

I'm a hypocrite because I won't swallow the all the mediocre crap and people Hollywood tries to shove down my throat, like YOU?

Guess I AM a hypocrite, and a proud one at that.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at June 21, 2009 12:38 PM

I'm a hypocrite because I won't swallow the all the mediocre crap and people Hollywood tries to shove down my throat, like YOU?

No, you are a hypocrite for acting like you are being all rebellious and ranting about freedom of speech, but as soon as someone doesn't agree with your "immense wisdom" (read: asshole opinions), it is like a personal affront to you. I wasn't even talking to you, I WAS ACTIVELY TRYING NOT TO START THIS SHIT AGAIN, and you still had to jump in.

Oh and you are also a hypocrite because you rant about how the entirety of media sucks, except for the few things YOU personally like. No, it can't be a simple matter of taste or opinion. Nope, if anyone does like something you don't it must be due to some mental deficiency or something.

Fuck, I like one fucking movie you don't, and suddenly I am your archenemy or something. And God forbid I might actually not appreciate being treated like an idiot for doing so. Oh no, can't ever question BarbadoSlim on fucking anything. And definitely don't question his bullshit logic on anything either.

You hear that people? Don't bother reading any more reviews, or having any more independent thoughts. Slim here will have them for you! Don't bother breathing, he will tell you when you are worthy of oxygen! Might as well kill yourselves now, since there is nothing else worth enjoying! But wait until BarbadoSlim gives the word, or you might be considered a Commie! Good thing he liked Cowboy Bebop, otherwise the entire nation of Japan would be pretty much useless!

And the really sad part? All you have shown is that you are just an attention-seeking dork. And yes, it does take one to know one. But at least I don't have to fucking insult every single living being to do it.

Posted by: Vermillion at June 21, 2009 1:18 PM

Boys, you're both pretty.

Seriously though, this shit is getting boring. You two disagree with each other every single time one of you posts something. Move on. It doesn't need to be rehashed in every thread. Find a hobby. Both of you.

Posted by: Lainey at June 21, 2009 2:18 PM

I agree with Lainey. Both of you assholes shut up for a while, OK?

Posted by: Skewicide Blonde at June 21, 2009 3:30 PM

Yes, please stop. You are getting way too riled up about a review of Year One and crappy actors. Calm down.

Posted by: Kate at June 21, 2009 4:15 PM

God may have created yuks, but Ramis created yuck.

Posted by: Bender at June 21, 2009 5:23 PM

Even without Cowboy Bebop, Japan still gave the world tentacle rape. So . . . there ya' go.

Posted by: Tracer Bullet at June 21, 2009 7:45 PM

Ok my 14 year old seems hell-bent on seeing the worst movies ever, the moment they come out. So of course she saw this. And she's a bright kid, but has NO taste in film. I blame her age.

Anyway, she got in the car after seeing it and said this, verbatim: "Bleck. The best bits were in the trailer, and they weren't even that funny. I want my money back."

Either she's STARTING to get better taste in movies or that was some seriously HUGE suck. Maybe both? I can hope.

Posted by: Snuggiepants the Deathbringer at June 21, 2009 8:56 PM

Yeah I agree with Lainey too.

I'm reading comments here and you guys find an excuse to argue about whose the more varied actor - Michael Cera or Sam Jackson??


What the what? How the hell is anyone arguing over this?

Posted by: kayla at June 22, 2009 8:45 AM

Damn, Verm, you know that feeding a Slim only encourages more buffoonery. Both of yas, chill the fuck out.

Yeah, that took stones, to call out such a force of nature, but save it for when it matters, k?

Posted by: lordhelmet at June 22, 2009 12:31 PM

"Cera, for example, seems like a pleasant enough guy who isn't any great shakes as a thespian but can pull off a nice line in 'mewling uncertainty' (to paraphrase). Would you rather watch him stick to his strengths or use what little name-recognition clout he has to branch out into wholly unsuitable projects that will flop horribly and inflict more pain on us all?"

I guess I'm more disturbed that there are so many roles for this kind of actor than by the existence of said actor. Cera's making millions while, say, Laura Dern surfaces just every so often.

Posted by: samantha t at June 22, 2009 2:40 PM

"The tonal imbalance is evident in the historical mash-up, as well. Ramis’ characters coast through so many biblical stories and scenes that the film almost plays like a Christian-made parody, only with more eating of feces."

Oh God! I have lived too long.

Posted by: Chuckv at June 22, 2009 4:08 PM

Regrettably, I saw this before I read the review here. It's the last time I let my GF pick the movie we go to see. All the funny stuff was in the trailers, but they weren't funny stuffs anymore since I'd been beaten over the head with them day in and day out on network TV.
But I must admit that I did laugh out loud when McLovin was pounding on the door of Sodom, "Open up bitches! We ain't got no foreskins!"

Posted by: RichieRich at June 28, 2009 3:39 PM

It only goes to show you can't be too careful

Posted by: mark corrigan at July 1, 2009 1:04 PM