jaxla

Both posts I put up here have disappeared...wonder why? Maybe the filmmakers complain, maybe some IMDb official likes this film. Great, but what about those of us who are revolted by it? Vulgarity and raunch are fine with me...provided they are FUNNY. This film is devoid of laughs. And it's humor is based on cruelty and humiliation; the cast is constantly degraded -- barfed on, almost defecated on (NOT making this up, folks)--for "laughs." There are folks who like this film. God bless 'em. But I completely agree with the poster who said the film insults gay teenagers, presenting them as foul mouthed, sex crazed pigs.

The director and producer are exploiting gay folks worst instincts for money. Is that something to be so proud of? Let's see how long this one stays up.

I can't understand why this film has not been greeted with close to raves from most of the critics; but then, it seems that lots of folks resent Ed Burns' career. He made one good film, Brothers McMullen, and then produced a series of half-baked follow ups. Plus, his good looks gave him an acting career that others must envy.

His good luck aside, Burns is back in top form with The Groomsmen, an insightful look at a group of boy/men tip toeing into middle age. His ear for the venacular, in this case Long Island/Bronx Irish, is just about perfect, he creates an inviting sense of time and place and his work with the actors is pitch perfect.

Ironically, the only weak performance in the film is Burns'. His good looking Irish poker face is not compelling enough to communicate his character's inner turmoil. Matt Dillon, could he have been afforded, would have nailed this role. That said, Burns contributes a basic sense of human decency that permeates the film; it's in his character and in his writing.

I loved the whole cast, but was particularly moved by Matthew Lilligard's portrayal of a "regular joe," a bar owner who dreams of his glory days as a garage band musician now that he is the father of two. His speech about his children, buzzed, standing on his porch in the middle of the night, is a WONDERFUL example of expressive acting and, for me, the highlight of the entire film.

Don't blow this one off if you feel you've been burned by Burns in the past (sorry about that). His ending is too pat, unworthy of some of the honest, painful material that has preceded it; but all in all The Groomsmen makes me look forward to his next film. Check this one out, probably will be great when it hits NETFLIX.

It's not just the boat that's sinking, it's Hollywood corporate thinking as well. Which genius decided that remaking a 35 year old disaster film on a $150 million dollar budget, WITHOUT STARS, was a good idea? Aside from all the obvious flaws -- the last minute cutting that eliminated any character development and build up, the phony (however expensive) looking CGI work, the interchangeable starlets in the female roles (Stella, Shelley, we miss you!)-- aside from all that POSEIDON is a monument to the corporate thinking that now rules the studios: it worked once, it'll work again. WRONG. It rarely (Ocean's 11 comes to mind as an exception) works again.

Beyond that, the film has some exciting moments BUT THEY DON'T MATTER BECAUSE THE WHOLE THING IS SO HOLLOW. You couldn't care about these characters it your were paid. And there are few if any incidental delights, which the original had plenty of, like the squalling that Stella Stevens and Ernest Borgnine shared, or Shelley Winters' sacrifical swim. It's all swept away in a cloud of CGI. If I see one more HUGE FIREBALL in a film I'm going to grab a fire extinguisher and spray the screen.

This should finish the disaster genre until a new group of clueless multi nationals purchase the studios. What's next? Brat Pack remakes of St Elmo's Fire and The Breakfast Club with Lindsay Lohan and Josh Harnett? Please, spare us.