Chad's Take: "Snow White and the Huntsman" - 2.5 Stars

Snow White and the Huntsman  is a complete re-imagining of the classic German fairy tale. While this latest adaptation contains dark imagery aimed at adults, it's still the same fairy tale you've always known, right down to the Seven Dwarfs. This may make some of the purists happy, but it will unfortunately leave many moviegoers wanting a whole lot more.

Yes, in this version of the film there are battles between armies and some vicious fantastical monsters; however, these elements do very little in terms of adding something new to the same old story. Instead these scenes feel like additions made only to meet the audience's fantasy film expectations.

The epic battles (which don't seem all that epic) feel like an aside to the fairy tale and don't mesh very well into the story. We're told that Snow White is supposed to lead an army against the Evil Queen and restore her father's kingdom, but the reasons behind Snow White's charisma aren't properly articulated and are never well examined.

This Week's Movie - 6/4-6/10

Posted by: Bradley Redder

Snow White & the Huntsman
Directed by Rupert Sanders
Written Evan Daugherty and John Lee Hancock
Starring, Kristen Stewart, Chris Hemsworth, Charlize Theron, Sam Claflin, Sam Spruell, Ian McShane, Bob Hoskins, Ray Winstone, Nick Frost, Toby Jones, Eddie Marsan


Well, it's that time of the week... The time when I pretend like I had any plan of posting this announcement sooner than now, apologize, and then describe my expectations for this week's movie as though I haven't already seen it...

I'm sorry for the tardiness of this post... I meant to announce next week's movie a few days ago, when we decided we'd be doing the new take on Snow White, Snow White & the Huntsman, but time just got away from me, and now it's Sunday night again. I should probably be feeling a little bit more dread about this upcoming viewing experience, but I'm strangely optimistic that it will be satisfying in some way. We'll see. Reviews this week will be posted Tuesday, with discussion to follow throughout the rest of the week.

Also, how cool is the image below, with the "play" button perfectly placed beneath Charlize's eyes and above her lips, with the triangle looking like a surrogate clown nose?

Entry 7: RE: "MIB3" - Just to Be "Clear" Pt. 2

Posted by: Bradley Redder

It's not the water in the toilet that I'd be concerned about... It's the bowl itself. The water may be clean going in, but once it has sat there festering in whatever germination and bacteria have settled on the porcelain after who knows how many bare asses have squatted down to mercilessly loose their demonoid bowels into the frail bowl, this so-called "dish-ware" with the "clean" water in it, I don't know if I'd be so quick to protect my sugary $0.49 investment. I sometimes feel icky just letting my precious urine touch it, let alone eat something that fell in for even a fraction of a second. But hey, just as you're free to love Men in Black 3, you're free to eat whatever from wherever.

Entry 6: RE: "MIB3" - Men in Black-Hole

Posted by: Bradley Redder

Oh, how I'd just love to keep up the absurd ruse that you secretly adored this film, but given that this will likely be the last word on the matter of the profoundly dull MIBIII, in consideration with your comments, I'll pack it in and assure the zero people that actually believed anything I said that you did not like the film.  In fact, the real text I got was "If you like Men in Black 3, we can no longer be friends."

As for me entertaining myself, years of alcoholic parentage and being left alone for days at a time with nothing but a broken comb and rusty razorblades, building forts out empty cigarette cartons and defending Marlboro Manor from the genetically enhanced rat infestation have hardened me against the forces of boredom. Have you ever sipped the toxic green blood from the skull of the rat-king after successfully defending an attack on the South Wall? I highly doubt it, because I don't think you'd have been such a Grumpy Gus when it came to my little fiction, and it's a shame because I had such grand plans for future posts, dozens of witty replies at the ready, but Noooooo... Chad can't be bothered to indulge in my harmless, little ploy.

That aside, you are absolutely right: MIBIII is $230 million gift wrap for nothing but air. There is absolutely nothing to it, so much of nothing that I was willing to forego my week's shenanigans to make sure that point is clear. I still can't even believe you included a plot summary in your review... How arduous that must have been trying to come up with three lines of actual description for this void. And yes, it is stuck in that state between being at all praiseworthy and at all bad enough to passionately take down, so perhaps you understand why I resorted to fabricating a reality in which you loved it... I had to do something to pass this week without wanting to rip the keys off of my laptop.

Entry 5: RE: "MIB3" - Just to be clear...

Posted by Chad Van Alstin

I don't consume things that fall into the toilet; however, I still say the five second rule applies. That's mostly clean water in there. You can probably eat a fallen lollipop without getting sick.

Entry 4: RE "MIB3" - Bored.

Posted by Chad Van Alstin

Your long-winded post contains a lot of words, but very little content. I think your rambling is evidence of just how little there is to talk about with Men in Black 3.  It's also evidence of your innate ability to entertain yourself.

At least you're incredibly creative about it. Nice work. Very original.

And you're very creative.

There is no real depth to Men in Black 3 worth discussing, and I'm finding it very difficult to put together a reply to this thread. Not only because you seem content on just talking to yourself, but because this film is just so bland.

I sat here attempting to force a reply to what you wrote, but it's very difficult to come up with anything to say. While I at first decided to blame you solely for this, I came to realize my apathy is just the best way to deal with a film with such little content.

There's nothing in Men in Black 3 worth caring about, and there's nothing in the film that really stands out in my mind as being worthy of analysis. Men in Black 3 is a forgettable experience, destined to be buried in the bargain bin of mediocrity. I almost wish that it were a worse film, since then it would be at least easy to trash is.

Sadly, since everything about this movie sits just below average, it falls into this strange paradox where it's hard to hate it, but even harder to love it. It was a waste of $10 that would have been better spent drinking, or maybe purchasing a Slinky.

Entry 3: RE: "MIB3" - Henry David Thoroughly Genius

Posted by: Bradley Redder

Hmm... I remain unconvinced. All I got from your post was that you have a crush on Josh Brolin and you seem to think it's okay to eat things out of the toilet... Or were you just listing things that you think you have in common with my dog? Charles Barkley (or as my neighbors call him, "The Round Mound of Rehound"), sometimes eats stuff out of the toilet, but he doesn't actually like Josh Brolin that much... It was just coincidence that he was licking the screen that one time when you walked in on me watching that American Gangster DVD featurette.

Why do you keep insisting in your posts that you didn't like this movie when you keep sending me these texts waxing on about how great it was? I want to focus on this part of last-night's segment of your serialized dissertation, when you were discussing the impeccability of the time-travel aspects of the film, "...where most ofther [sic] time travel movies are so completely reckless in their depcition [sic] of the lasting effects of actions carried out in THe past... as if you could kill time without injuring eternity. men in black 3  makes sure it gets everything right, down to the letter".

I thought that phrase about killing time and injuring eternity was so strange for you to use, and then I realized I'd heard it before, in Henry David Thoreau's Walden. Do you really think it was necessary to invoke Thoreau to make a point about this silly little movie? And the time-travel plot is so dry in it anyway. I don't know what you liked so much about it. I will admit that Michael Stuhlbarg's character, Griffin, is one of the more interesting ones in the film, but his schtick got old pretty quickly, especially once I realized that it wasn't really going anywhere. For those who haven't seen the film, or who fell asleep, Griffin holds the arcnet that J and K are looking for, and is a being who is aware of every timeline in existence, though he is perpetually unsure which timeline is actually playing out "presently." It's an interesting idea, I'll admit, to see someone aware of every detail of every potential outcome to a situation, but for me it also trivialized everything I was watching and might have even unwrapped itself in the end.

Griffin floats through every scene with an almost apathetic nonchalance, pointing out what might happen, depending on which timeline they're in at the "moment." But the rest of the characters, as well as Barry Sonnenfeld in his direction, make everything that's happening seem so imperative, like it matters, even after we're told that a timeline does exist in which K dies, another in which the world blows up, etc. This begs the question, why does it matter what I'm watching? In the universe of the film nothing essentially matters... If J saves K and they get the arcnet up, I guess that's cool, but it still leaves open the idea that in a parallel universe, K died, and the Bocclorettians (or whatever they're called) invade Earth and take over, so the suspense of the film is basically which timeline Sonnenfeld is going to show me. It's like a "Choose Your Own Adventure" book, only I don't actually get to choose the adventure. Instead I watch the least interesting version of the potential story contained within the pages. I can't believe you loved the time-travel so much. It just seemed like it created a silly rule that didn't really hold up under any scrutiny, and everyone just went with it. To also quote your friend, Henry, and his book, Walden, that you like so much, "Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it." What do you have to say for yourself? And please don't pretend like you didn't say any of this.