parenthetical_expressions

Hedwig and the Angry Inch, an adaptation of a Broadway play, makes no apologies. The movie opens with introduction of the eponymous character: "Whether you like it or not -- HEDWIG!" The movie is a fresh slap in the face. A lithe, brassy blonde takes the stage and breaks into song telling her tale through lyrics and melody. HATAI is a truly entertaining musical dealing with love, romance and identity. Hedwig may only have an inch, but gives you a mile...

Not only am I asking myself this question (for having agreed to watch the movie) but I'm sure the producers, director, actors and most movie-goers posed the same question upon seeing "Dude, Where's My Car?"

This movie is the kind of drivel that induces long-term brain rot. Seriously, this movie should have come with a surgeon general inspired label and warned the viewers of its potential effects.

"Dude, Where's My Car?" was beyond dumb, stupid, mindless and all other synonymous derogations. Some people argue, "Yeah, but that was the point." I disagree. Dumb, does not have to be this dumb. Think "Wayne's World" and "Ace Ventura" or even "Dumb and Dumber". These movies were intended to utilize base/obvious humour but they employed a certain amount of wit -- a wit that was shamefully lacking in D.W.M.C.

In defense of the movie, the casting was superb. I don't think the agents could have found two males more capable of playing dullards as convincingly as Kutcher and Scott.

I wouldn't even try to look for a plot in this movie. Just be thankful when the painfully long 83 minutes are up and you can eagerly rewind the tape and return it to the video store.

The deck was stacked in favour of this movie succeeding. The cast was anchored by such masters as Ed Norton, John Malkovich and John Turturro, and yet, it fell shamefully short.

My primary complaint with "Rounders" is the casting of Matt Damon as a hard-core, habitual gambler. That's about as believable as Sharon Stone bedecked in Versace flipping burgers at McDonald's.

My second complaint is the women in this film. Were they simply placed on screen as "filler". The characters were utterly superfluous and added nothing to the plot. A plot that was as thin as Famke Janssen's legs.

My final complaint was Malkovich's over-the-top portrayal of a Russian "mobster". It was completely ree-DEEK-u-lose! I have utter respect for him as an actor. His range is awe inspiring. But this was just laughable. Last I checked, "Rounders" was not intended to be a comedy.

So, that's what's wrong with the movie. Norton and Turturro were the only things "right" with it. They flowed so effortlessly into their parts. Every movement, expression and sound they made exuded the appropriate characteristics and nuances required of them.

This movie is not an entire waste of time if you can get past the poor casting, weak plot and predictable ending.