MovieChat Forums > Death to Smoochy (2002) Discussion > Please someone explain this to me

Please someone explain this to me

posted 22 years ago by MrBlondNYC
53 replies | jump to latest

I was surprised to find that this film has so many rabid fans. Just what is this movie about exactly?

Is it a parody of Barney? Who cares about Barney anymore? Maybe Robin Williams was a little over the top? No, he was extremely over the top! He seemed to love being able to curse a lot after doing all those cheesy movies but for what? His character as well as all the others were underdeveloped. And what the hell was the deal with the whole conspiracy to bring Rainbow down? Was that and the ten characters involved in it necessary at all? It would have been better to have had him forced off the air because he was to old-fashioned and leave it at that. That just didn't make sense at all.

Like, Edward Norton wearing a costume with his freakin' face sticking out of it. Why would kids respond to this? When you were a kid, you really wanted to see the face of the guy inside of the Mickey Mouse costume. It defeats the whole purpose! Speaking of that, what was the purpose of this movie?! Please, I'm dying for an intelligent explanation.

Yes, the songs very, very funny. I thought Norton did a good job with what little had to work with. It wasn't a horrible film but very disappointing. Whatever commentary there was supposed to be about American mass media consumerism didn't really come through in this mess. It was unfair of critics to call it one of the worst of the year. But I understand their frustration.

All right, you DTS-ies, let's hear it.

Don't worry. Don't be afraid ever. It's just a ride. - Bill Hicks

[–] JackBravo69 22 years ago

I think DTS is a brilliant movie!

The story is perverse, but at the same time light, not forgeting to make things funny for the audience!

If its over the top at times its for the sake of comedy and because its ridiculing the business of children´s entertainement making it look even more trashy than it is... or is it!

You ask what the movie is about! These characters r like cartoons! Instead of making a serious portrait of how sleazy this industry is they take stereotyped characters, exagerate their personality´s and construct an amusing picture with a message about whats going on in a business so respectable on the outside but savage on the inside! Norton is the dumb, idealistic young guy! He doesnt exist! He´s there for contrast with the dirty world we live in! He´s perfect!!! Rainbow Randolph is the guy who over the years has been corrupted by the system and has turned into one of its players! Nora is another idealistic person who was taught by time and ppl to only think about the money and has forgot what its all about! And the charity´s etc... well i dont need to explain!

All cartoons, all there to enhance the situations and emotions! Of course the cast is so talented i still felt connected to the characters, even Randolph!

You may say u dont care how the children´s tv industry is or how some of the charity´s work! Ok, its your choice! I myself had never really considered it but have now taken a new look on this situation and much hypocrisy involved!

But DTS is also a well made movie which delivers not only this message but also provides a good time for the audience! The dialog is smart and funny! Yes there´s alot of cursing but its not so shocking and its used to reflect the characters mind!

The situations at times ridiculous, ill admit, r also very amusing! The direction is a bit extreme but that was necessary for the story which is every bit as extreme! And the acting... i thought Norton did a fantastic job! He was so nice, so friendly, so naive, he played all those layers of the character so well we start to believe a guy like that can really exist!

And Robin Williams! Well ppl say he´s over the top! Rainbow Randolph was a desperate men! He had it all and he lost it all too! He was at the top and suddenly he doesnt have where to live, food to eat and he sees some young guy take his place! Add to that the fact that he was obviously a little mentaly insane! Now i ask! Is Williams still over the top? This guy had nothing to loose! His live was finished! And he was crazy! Robin did a fantastic job portraying RR as someone sick, with flaws of character, but still human and showing all along signs that maybe he just needed a chance... which he had in the end and took it! He makes a bad guy still likable! Many times i felt 4 that destroyed man! Isnt this talent and fine acting? In a comedy and one so wild as DTS?

This is getting long so ill say DTS is a very funny comedy, that still delivers a small message about something many r or were blind to and still manages to make us laugh all along!

Its not perfect but if u give it a chance, get in its crazy universe with its non existing rules, then u might have a good time! Yes extreme but if u accept that then its a great movie!

How do you like your brandy, sir?
In a glass.

[–] j-rock_exodus 22 years ago

Norton's Smoochy costume showed his face because it is nearly impossible to show the necessary emotion an actor is trying to convey while in a mask (on film at least). The mask has a hole so the audience can see how Sheldon Mopes (Norton) reacts to what is going on around him while he is doing the show.

[–] MrBlondNYC 22 years ago

[–] mjnog 22 years ago

Did he really wear the mask that much..... Seems to take it off at every possible instance or in end where its blown off.. Anyway I found the hole in Edward Norton outfit's mask enjoyable, because I found his facial expressions quite amusing when he is dancing and playing with 5 year old children, it could have been done closed like Barney, but I was happy i got to enjoy his manical glee.

[–] 22 years ago

[deleted]

[–] LibraSuVirgo 18 years ago

So Spider-Man should have had a hole in his mask so we could see Tobey Maguire's emotions? No? Why? Because it wouldn't make sense. It just didn't make sense regardless of the fact that they wanted you to say "Look! It's Edward Norton"!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Please tell me you didn't mean that and you really do understand why Norton's face is showing. Because it's not really about the tale of the cartoon character of the Rhino. It's about Sheldon Mopes' life in being an innocent in the middle of a bunch of perverted business BS in the kiddie industry.

And yes--the character needs to be seen by the actual film audience, or else what is the point? Anyone could be in that costume if that were the case. And perhaps his face sticking out of the costume made the movie more hilariously ridiculous.

[–] MrBlondNYC 18 years ago

Wow! You had to have dug really deep to bring this four year old thread back. This thread is so old that I am literally older and wiser now and no longer debate over whether a movie is good or not. I've learned it is really a waste of time because no one's opinion is will be changed. Too bad that we all can't see a film and have the exact same opinion on it but that's how life is I guess.

But I will say that is this: Just because a filmmaker makes a conscious decision it doesn't necessarily make it a correct decision. Also, I watched this film again recently and still didn't like it. I know to some that means that a) I wouldn't know a good film if it crawled up my ass or b) I'm an idiot and can only enjoy films with explosions or toilet humor. So be it.

Personal motto: What Would Jon Stewart Do?

[–] Fromage15 17 years ago

i think that Spiderman's mask and Smoochy's mask are two entirely different situations. When Spiderman's in his suit, the main objective of it is to hide Peter Parker's identity. That and the action of Spidey's crimefighting is what "speaks". All the "facial" emotions are carried out mainly when Maguire is living as Peter Parker.

However, in DTS, Norton is in the Smoochy suit throughout most of the movie. I think it's not a question of "Would this appeal to kids?" as to "What is going to play better on film?" I think if Smoochy was a real children's TV host, the face of the person in the suit would not be exposed. I think it's simply a decision in order to help with the film's story. I personally agree with it.

[–] bobzyk 17 years ago

The one exception to your mask comment is Hugo Weaving in "V For Vendetta", I thought it was brilliant that you never saw the face, even up to the very end...

[–] MrBlondNYC 22 years ago

I enjoyed reading your post. What I don't understand is why choose this subject to do such a movie? An intelligent guy like De Vito could have put his energy into much greater subjects like he did in "The Ratings Game" and "War of the Roses". I honestly think that they realized they didn't have much of a subject to lampoon because you really have to know a lot about something to satirize it well. So DeVito and company just threw everything and the kitchen sink in there to try to make something to keep people awake.

Don't worry. Don't be afraid ever. It's just a ride. - Bill Hicks

[–] j-rock_exodus 22 years ago

I thought you might bring up the Spiderman subject, and I could kick myself for not adressing it when I first posted. If memory serves me (it's been a while several months since I've seen the Spiderman movie, and I do not own it, which is very sad in it's own right because I was a Spiderman junkie as a kid), while all the action sequences do feature Spiderman in mask, all or at least most of the dramatic scences featured Tobey Maguire sans mask. The script was written this way because of the diffculties in showing emotion through a mask. The same is exhibited in the Spawn movie. Most of the movie, Spawn is seen without his mask because with it on, his face might as well be a blank slate. The choice was made to leave the mask off for the majority of the movie in order for the emotional performance to have more impact (Ha!).

[–] MrBlondNYC 22 years ago

I understand why they did it that way. It just doesn't make sense. No character would have the guy's freakin' face sticking out of the costume. Plus, there were plenty of scenes with Norton without his costume on. Maybe being able to show emotion with the mask could have been a challenge to Norton like Japanese theater.

Don't worry. Don't be afraid ever. It's just a ride. - Bill Hicks

[–] JackBravo69 22 years ago

"What I don't understand is why choose this subject to do such a movie? An intelligent guy like De Vito could have put his energy into much greater subjects like he did in "The Ratings Game" and "War of the Roses". "

Look this is a very subjective question! U may not be interested in this subject but i dont think u can say its not with some importance! Yes they make fun of it and put it to the extreme but the truth is our kids (thank god i dont have any yet heheheh) sometimes worship these ppl who go on tv with a costume and r the picture of sweetness and all that is pure! Didnt u have ur fav. characters when u were a kid? And isnt it a bit scary to realize that maybe the companys but most important the person thats suppose to be a role model is in fact full of hipocrasy, looking to get richer and richer with the childrens inocence! And if u notice, nothing really ugly comes out from this business, on the news etc! To the general audience its seen as if not a nice world, then at least a less corrupt one than many other businesses! And many ppl didnt ever thought about that, just get the kids in front of the tv and thats it!

You can say: So they want money, whats new!

I know everybody wants money! But with many charity´s and the company´s sponsorship of them and the shows etc, there´s always the smoke mirror working! Its for the childrens, we just want their good! And i think its about time someone forgot the politicaly correct and finally say that not all charitys (and i hope its in a small number) r so clean, so altruistic and that that title is used for some pretty dirty things!

Of course charity´s r not like the mafia as in DTS (i hope not)! But thats to exagerate for comedy´s sake and to pass the message!

So i think this might be a worthy subject to make a movie! And i also think many ppl bash it because on their subconscient they believe this business is pure, their childhood hero´s could never have been someone like Rainbow so they dismiss it as a bad movie instead of thinking about it!

Maybe the production team didnt know much about the subject! I really dont believe it! I trust De Vito and this movie wouldnt have his name if there wasnt some truth to it! I think they did their home work, researched it and used what they got! What may be argued is that the subject doesnt have enough elements to make a comedy out of it (or any movie) and that made them be a little extreme but i think there´s nothing too out of place in the movie at all, everything fits together and produces a very atractive product! Even the kitchen sink :))

And dont forget many many movies r not about very worthy subjects, especially comedy´s! Especially in that genre! I mean look at Just Married for ex.! And even outside comedy look at Catch Me If U can! Spielberg sure is talented so what is he doing in there? The guy cheats everybody, gets caught, turns into a good citizen! SO? Whats the purpuse? What did that have to say so important? Why that subject? SHouldnt a guy like Spielberg be on more important projects? Yes but maybe he just wanted to have fun for once, and while telling us a moral tale just make us happy without being too deep! Just like De Vito in DTS!

As to the mask thing... its a detail! And i dont think it can be compared to spiderman!

Norton´s face is not masked for dramatic purposes! To make Smoochy a much more human character! And also even inside the movie, because smoochy was not like other kid show hosts! Mopes wanted him to be unique, and he didnt want to fool the children making them believe he was real but while having fun and learning still be aware that Smoochy was just a guy in a purple suit! He wanted to make them keep in touch with reality! He didnt want the children to concentrate on the suit, on the looks but on the information, principles he transmited them! On the education he provided! Not on the looks but on the substance of the show! The important to him wasnt the suit but what he said! So the suit might be ridiculous because we could see his face but that didnt really mattered! And the children accepted that maybe because it was something new, Mopes was very talented and managed to build a relationship with them based on trust and not on how cool he looked!

The comedy and the Smoochy character could only work showing his face, so there was no other way to do it!

In Spiderman the need to be anonymous made Peter Parker use it at all times! They couldnt escape it! That need isnt in DTS and covering his face would really hurt the movie´s narrative! So why do it?

Besides its just a detail and not with importance enough i think, to ruin the movie even if u dont agree with it!

How do you like your brandy, sir?
In a glass.

[–] MrBlondNYC 22 years ago

Wow! I haven't seen dissertations like this for "The Godfather"! You really love this film.
You're right that this is a worthy subject to make a film about. I just don't feel DeVito was the one to do it. I'm not saying every movie has to be Ingmar Bergman but this film just didn't make sense to me. I realize they showed Edward Norton's face so you could see his face. (Spider-Man was an extreme example) But I don't buy your explanation about how it made him different so the kids liked him for that. It was just to show Norton's face.
And you have to agree that the characters were woefully underdeveloped.

Well, it seems this film will be hotly debated for some time.

Don't worry. Don't be afraid ever. It's just a ride. - Bill Hicks

[–] JackBravo69 22 years ago

Yup i think DTS is brilliant (even though i absolutely LOVE Godfather just to get things straight hehehehe)!

Like i said even if u dont agree with the mask thing i dont think its that important to make the whole movie bad or to stop u from enjoying it! I understood it, enjoyed it because the movie would have lost much from covering his face so for me it was never an issue! ITs just a production detail, dont give it too much importance!

As to character developement, as ive said they´re like cartoons, not characters to simulate the real world but to cause laughter in the audience given their over the top personality and to exagerate matters in order to pass the message more efficently! Besides this is just a comedy, dont ask too much! Its not usual and in my opinion not good to get too deep in comedy´s! It takes out much of the fun! In a comedy things should be much more simple! Unless its something like About Schmidt but thats a drama with a much humour in it! Here ppl just wanna laugh, be happy and not much more! And dont forget Smoochy still trys to say something worthy to the audience! And i think De Vito was the right man for the job especially considering the final result!

How do you like your brandy, sir?
In a glass.

[–] FunkMcLovin 22 years ago

stop using so many f***ing exclamation points!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[–] 22 years ago

[deleted]

[–] seinok 22 years ago

I'm not an expert on this kind of comedy so maybe it's meant to be this way, but why does Sheldon's IQ keep bouncing up and down every second? Some of you said that we can see stereotypes in this film. OK, but is this a type then, somebody who is clever and emotional one minute, the next he could not win a debate against a 3-year-old, and then somewhere in between, and so on?

[–] MrBlondNYC 22 years ago

Excellent point. All the characters in the film were the same way in my opinion. This movie was just not well-written.

Don't worry. Don't be afraid ever. It's just a ride. - Bill Hicks

[–] JackBravo69 22 years ago

Well i believe the IQ bouncing up and down happened because of sheldon´s obvious ingenuity and inocence! Sheldon was a smart guy but he was not ready for the real world thus making him look at our "eyes" somewhat stupid! He wasnt stupid but naive!

So in "regular" situations we could see that he was clever but when it came down to move around in society he just didnt have the street smartness necessary!

He was like a child, with an adult´s inteligence and body but a infantile idea of ppl and the world!

How do you like your brandy, sir?
In a glass.

[–] MrBlondNYC 22 years ago

Ok, then how do you explain the same foolishness all with the other characters? I am tired of comedies that try so hard to be funny by having everyone run around and behave like idiots. I'm not talking about movies like "Dumb and Dumber" or "American Pie" which I loved. They were supposed to be immature characters. But now there's all these movies where grown men and women behave like children.
Examples: How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days, Two Weeks Notice, Friday After Next, All About the Benjamins, EVERY Julia Roberts comedy, Charlie's Angels, DEATH TO SMOOCHY!

Whatever happened to comedies that could be smart and funny?
Ex: Fletch, Beverly Hills Cop, Trading Places, Ghostbusters, When Harry Met Sally, Bringing Up Baby, The Philadelphia Story, Groundhog Day, Midnight Run, Dr. Strangelove.

Don't worry. Don't be afraid ever. It's just a ride. - Bill Hicks

[–] JackBravo69 22 years ago

"Ok, then how do you explain the same foolishness all with the other characters? "

U lost me there! I didnt find the other characters "that" foolish! Spinner was obvious mentaly ill! And the rest didnt seem stupid to me! The guys who worked for the "good will" boss, Merv Green were kind of idiots but thats usual for mobster´s, only the main guy has brains! And they´re such small characters i dont think it ruins the film!

De Vito was pretty smart! Merv Green knew what he wanted and did wot it took!
Jon Stewart also seemed like a smart guy with no morals! They try to use Smoochy! Cant so they decide to kill him! is that foolish?

Rainbow wasnt dumb he was a bit crazy, frustrated etc! Desperate men do stupid things!

Nora had no trust in the world and cared about nothing or no one! When she meets Sheldon she starts to fall in love and love makes us all act a little stupid :)

Buggy Ding Dong was a drug addict!

Tommy and her boys avenge Spinner, clear Smoochy when everyone thinks he´s a nazi... r they foolish?

Dont see ur point!

Whatever happened to comedies that could be smart and funny?

In my opinion DTS is one of the few recent examples! I think u just have a problem with the movie, that goes beyond logic and reson! Just try to get into the atmosphere, of crazy wild fun that DTS provides!

I luv Beverly hills cop but was that really smart? I mean, c´mon! Do u think taggart looks like a former US President? Do u think trained policeman would let a guy stick a banana in their tailpipe? A cop in a chase like the bigining of the 1st movie wouldnt get imediately suspended? And lets not forget part 3...

I could go on and on! And ghostbusters? Bill Murray seemed to know as much about cience as a 3 year old! Is that smartor believable? They buy a car thats a mess! Their headquarter is a dump!

Ill accept all this with no prob! I think we should not look for real logic in this comedys! Im not saying its supposed to be really stupid and annoying! But this movies like ghostbusters and DTS live in their own world, with their rules!

Two weeks notice however is suposed to be in real life so it fails!

But DTS, ghostbusters etc are taken to extreme, to make us have fun and in DTS we still get a message about something many ppl never thought about!

Not bad!

How do you like your brandy, sir?
In a glass.

[–] MrBlondNYC 22 years ago

What I meant by "acting foolish" is not necessarily their actions within the film. I mean the way the actors run around, tripping and bumping into each other, mugging for the camera and TALKING REALLY LOUD! And there is plenty of that in Death to Smoochy! A lot of comedies nowadays do this because they think they are being "screwball comedies". What they don't realize that screwball comedies are actually very witty not just physical.
But in addition, I don't feel that two competent cops being pranked by a quick thinking, street wise cop is all that unbelieveable. Nor are scientists with loopy senses of humor and style.
Yes, I understand that its meant to be dark and wild and crazy! I just don't think it worked in this case.

Don't worry. Don't be afraid ever. It's just a ride. - Bill Hicks

[–] Krog__ 22 years ago

Dumb and Dumber? American Pie? What are you, like 12? If you can only hack immature comedies that rely on poopy jokes and "One time at band camp" 17 year-olds find funny because it deals with sex, maybe you shouldn't be talking about movies beyond your grasp. It's sort of like a street racer commenting on "The Usual Suspects"...

[–] mjnog 22 years ago

Well perhaps you only find high brow comedy entertaining, but I mean Happy Gillimore(how ever it is spelled) was damn funny and the movie was so ridiculous they showed minimal understanding of the game of golf, but the film stills was entertaining. I don't watch alot of childrens programming so I can't say whether or not they had researched their material well enough, but from a layman's point of view I thought it was copasetic :)

[–] MrBlondNYC 22 years ago

Not only do I love Happy Gilmore but I loved all of Adam Sandler's movies. Especially Billy Madison (Page 69) and The Waterboy (Foosball is the DEVIL). Funny is funny whether the brow is high or low. This was just NOT FUNNY.
This WAS FUNNY:
Shooter: I eat pieces of sh-t like you for breakfast!
Happy: You eat pieces of sh-t for breakfast?
Shooter: Uh....no.

People say that I'm a bad influence/I sat the world's already f-ked, I'm just adding to it - Eminem

[–] 22 years ago

[deleted]

[–] grirl007 22 years ago

Okay, don't get me wrong... I'm not trying to talk down to anyone here, but I don'tthink you guys understand this movie. I can appreciate if you don't like it, that's one thing, but I don't think you understand it. It's a DARK comedy! It is just completely outlandish! I don't believe it is a parody of what really goes on in the children's entertainment industry. In fact, the fact that children's entertainment is the topic is what makes it so lucacris! I guess it's possible that this stuff goes on but we'll probably never know. Anyway, this is why it's funny... it's just so unbelievable that this would go on.
As for Edward Norton's face being exposed, would his character be as funny if we couldn't see his facial expressions WHILE he was IN costume??? Highly doubtful. Don't read too much into it. In the real world, Smoochy would most likely NOT have his face exposed but that is not the point, the movie is just silly!
Now about Danny Devito... Kudos to him for doing something totally out there! Not everything has to be dramatic. And if you are thinking that this movie is a drama then you are missing the point. It is a DARK comedy and those are just plain NOT funny to everyone. Again, I can appreciate it if you don't like it, but that just means that you don't find the same things funny as others who do like it. I hope this helps MrBlondNYC! :-)

"Two roads diverged in a yellow wood, and sorry I could not travel both."

[–] MrBlondNYC 22 years ago

I actually prefer dark comedies. Name any dark comedy and I've probably seen it and liked it. I love all of De Vito's other comedies (War of the Roses, Throw Momma From the Train, Other People's Money, Ruthless People) De Vito is a MASTER of dark comedy.
EXCEPT in this film. This is why I was so disappointed in it. I thought "A dark comedy directed by De Vito, starring Norton and Williams. This should be great!" I was wrong.
Again, I totally understand that this is supposed to be a wild, crazy dark satirical comedy. It just didn't work for me!

Damn, where were you people when the movie came out! It would have done much better in theatres.

Don't worry. Don't be afraid ever. It's just a ride. - Bill Hicks

[–] JackBravo69 22 years ago

"I mean the way the actors run around, tripping and bumping into each other, mugging for the camera and TALKING REALLY LOUD!"

Spinner talks loud because its part of his character! The same with Rainbow! Nora and Smoochy talk loud when they´re fighting! Dont u scream sometimes when ur having an argument with someone? I saw the movie again last night! Dont remember anyone else screaming that much! Well Merv Green does when they cut his head off but im willing to accept that :)

And tripping and bumping? C´mon, are u serious? Yes Rainbow falls down some stairs, runs into a wall but thats just him and its two ocasions! No one is bumping into each other, u make it sound like ppl are running around crazy shouting their lines!

I think thats too out there i really do!

"But in addition, I don't feel that two competent cops being pranked by a quick thinking, street wise cop is all that unbelieveable. Nor are scientists with loopy senses of humor and style. "

Me either! But Bill Murray was just ignorant of his work all together! He didnt have a clue of what was going on! How could he have gotten where he was? Not very believable but ill accept it! But when u make an issue of Smoochy showing his face and in the meantime accept this ur being unfair! Loud? Isnt Eddie Murphy loud as hell in all Beverly hills cop? Please...

"Again, I totally understand that this is supposed to be a wild, crazy dark satirical comedy. It just didn't work for me! "

Try watching it just for the fun, without thinking too much, without looking at wot u think r flaws! But like i said, u just have a problem with it and its probably too late for u!

"Damn, where were you people when the movie came out! It would have done much better in theatres."

My big secret: im european and in my country the movie didnt even get to the theatres! I downloaded it because of the cast and De Vito and then bought it on dvd on the internet in Spain! :))
This is also the reason for my bad english!

"I don't believe it is a parody of what really goes on in the children's entertainment industry. In fact, the fact that children's entertainment is the topic is what makes it so lucacris! I guess it's possible that this stuff goes on but we'll probably never know. Anyway, this is why it's funny... it's just so unbelievable that this would go on. "

Well i dont think all of this goes on! I dont believe charity´s actualy murder kidshow hosts! But since in this industry, they´re ppl who want money like anyone else i believe some corruption, drugs and wild sex lol does goe on! They´re only human! However because of the inocent look of the business many ppl like u dont believe stuff like junkies on tv etc can happen! So DTS goes to the extreme to leave its idea well stated! Children´s entertainement is as dirty as any multi million business!

How do you like your brandy, sir?
In a glass.

[–] MrBlondNYC 22 years ago

Damn, Fat Boy! I feel as if someone said to admit this movie was bad or die, you would actually choose death.
I watched this movie again today. Now the talking loud and the tripping and such does not occur constantly every single moment in the film but it does occur more often than necessary. What DOES happen constantly which you did not address is the mugging for the camera. Not for one second does anyone make a straight face in the film except maybe Catherine Keener. This is completely unnecessary!
I want to make this very clear: Just because it was SUPPOSED to be that way does not make it GOOD!
You can say that when Spinner and Rainbow talk loud constantly that they are supposed to be that way. But that does not make it any less irritating. And no, Eddie Murphy was NOT loud throughout Beverly Hills Cop. (You might be thinking of part II) There is no comparison. And I'm sure you've seen Bill Murray's other comedies and know that he often plays the smart ass who acts like a weirdo but actually is smarter than anyone else. Its what he is famous for! (Meatballs, Stripes, Groundhog Day, Tootsie, Charlie's Angels)
You can defend any bad film or bad acting by saying "It's supposed to be that way." Think of any movie you saw that you did not like. Do you think the director somehow forgot what they were doing? That the actors forgot how to do their jobs? No, most likely they made the film they wanted to make. It just didn't come out right. The aspects of the film just did not come together correctly. And that is how I feel about this film.

Examples of funny dark satires of TV: De Vito's The Ratings Game, Broadcast News, The Truman Show, Series 7. No constant mugging or yelling. And that's how it's SUPPOSED to be.

By the way, your English is terrific!

[–] JackBravo69 22 years ago

"Damn, Fat Boy! I feel as if someone said to admit this movie was bad or die, you would actually choose death. "

Hell yeah! No just kidding :)

"Not for one second does anyone make a straight face in the film "

Im sorry but i cant agree with that! I think they all did their job very well! Ed Norton isnt laughing all movie long, he makes what he has to for the audience believe Mopes is a inocent, naive guy way over his head! De Vito is serious! Even u admit Keener is!

"I want to make this very clear: Just because it was SUPPOSED to be that way does not make it GOOD!
You can say that when Spinner and Rainbow talk loud constantly that they are supposed to be that way. But that does not make it any less irritating"

Well like ive explained Robin Williams is so extreme not only for the comedic value but also to represent Rainbow´s frustration and desperation! I found it quite hilarious! I would have found it annoying if a guy with nothing in the whole world made a straight face and showed he was having a good time! In "trading places", Dan Aykroyd was an educated men which Raibow was not and even he looses it and gets loud! And Spinner is irritating because many times ppl like him r that way! But because they dont have any evil or cynism in them we forgive it, just like Mopes did, and get to enjoy them and even find them funny! That was the objective of the writer i believe and its what happened to me! Its real, its authentic! Not everything in the world is perfect so in movies, something has to be irritating because that´s the way it is and to escape it would mean making the movie not a bit credible!
And Eddie Murphy is loud in pretty much all his movies! Its his style and i like it! Not saying he was as loud as Spinner but he´s always pretty over the top too!

"And I'm sure you've seen Bill Murray's other comedies and know that he often plays the smart ass who acts like a weirdo but actually is smarter than anyone else"

Im not saying he wasnt smart! But he was ignorant of his job! He knew NOTHING about it! Is it credible he got where he was knowing as much about science as probably Spinner did? Like ive said u accept this, u accept Murphy´s style but then complain about some minor flaws in DTS! Not fair!

"No, most likely they made the film they wanted to make. It just didn't come out right. The aspects of the film just did not come together correctly. And that is how I feel about this film."

Many times no! Budget´s, producers rushing them or changing things, ratings system etc etc! Dont think its always what directors want or dream of that comes out! Soldier by Paul WS Anderson is nothing compared to wot the men wanted! And sometimes we dont even hear about it! The publicity department rarely allow for those story´s to be leaked!

However, considering De Vito´s syle and DTS i think its pretty much wot he wanted! I also think this is pointless by now! Ive tryed to explain everything with reasonable arguments but there´s just no chance u will ever consider this a good movie! Dont take this as an offense! Its happen to me with so many movies also i know what it is! U probably had too high expactations, didnt get in the atmosphere the 1st time and got such a bad time from it, u´ll never enjoy it! Too bad cause its a great movie!

I think its a good discussion we´ve had and i hope we have many more in the future about many more movies!

:)

PS: DTS RULES hehehe

How do you like your brandy, sir?
In a glass.

[–] 22 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 22 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MrBlondNYC 22 years ago

Yes, you are an idiot. And I should ignore you but listen...
Click on my name and look at my posts and I think you will find that not only do I know much more about film than you but that I also enjoy a good laugh. As I said before, funny is funny whether it's Woody Allen or Adam Sandler, Christopher Guest or Martin Lawrence. Death to Smoochy was beyond my grasp not because I'm "like 12" but because I found it incoherent and a waste of time and talent.
But if you want to debate film with me such as "The Usual Suspects" (which I couldn't possibly understand), contact me and see how "immature" I am.

[–] JackBravo69 22 years ago

"funny is funny whether it's Woody Allen or Adam Sandler, Christopher Guest or Martin Lawrence. Death to Smoochy was beyond my grasp not because I'm "like 12" but because I found it incoherent and a waste of time and talent. "

Look i think u got things all wrong. The problem here isnt that u like Adam Sandler or Martin Lawrence. The problem is u have two diferent measures. U say DTS is incoherent but then like movies that are much more. You pick on little things on DTS as the mask thing or the shouting but then enjoy movies even more extreme. When someone sees this lack of uniformity on ur evaluation cant help but feel ur cheating.

What it comes down to is a sense of humour. I find it very hard to believe that a person with the taste in comedy´s wouldnt find this funny. It sounds fake to me. It sounds like u didnt allow urself to have fun, to enjoy. The reason i dont know. Maybe u expected too much. This movie was such a flop cause ppl just take themselves too serious. The reviewers demonstrated they´re all pretentious intelectuals that are too high too apreciate a nice comedy as this. But then give an oscar to a shallow empty movie as Chicago... leaving GONY, The Pianist and the hours out. Its not cool or smart to say DTS is funny. And then there´s the ppl who just dont have a sense of humour. Why do this ppl see comedy´s? Nothing can make them laugh...

Almost to justify urself u use this reasons that have no power and are easily dismissed as i have done.

U use an obvious double standard. Im checking to see when ur gonna say u luv Jackass.

PPL who dont find this funny are either incapable of laughing, or think someone who knows about movies coulndt possibly enjoy it, or just have a psychological problem with it that goes beyond reason.

I pitty all of them because they cant take the immense pleasure i took from DTS.

How do you like your brandy, sir?
In a glass.

[–] 22 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MrBlondNYC 22 years ago

Why shouldn't I expect more from Danny de Vito, Ed Norton and Robin Williams? These are three of the most talented filmmakers ever. And Danny Devito could always be counted on for great comedy before. So please tell me why I shouldn't have expected this movie to be GREAT?
Yes, of course I judge Adam Sandler and Ed Norton by different standards! I don't go to Adam Sandler movies expecting great acting, writing or directing. I just expect to laugh. So of course I have lower expectations. Believe it or not, I go to DeVito or Norton's movies expecting GREAT acting, writing and directing! Why shouldn't I have high expectations when that's what they have been doing for their whole careers?
When people say Adam Sandler or Jim Carrey are stupid, I say you can't compare them to Robert DeNiro or Ed Norton. They're comedians. But, I'm supposed to compare Norton to Sandler? DeVito to the hacks that Sandler uses? Forget about it! And if I'm supposed to judge a DeVito film by the same standard as a Sandler film, then it is a sad state of affairs.
When I saw Heat starring DeNiro and Pacino directed by Michael Mann, did I expect it to be one of the best movies ever? Of course, I did! Two great actors and a great director. Which is what Death to Smoochy was. So of course I expected the one of the best comedies ever. There was absolutely no reason for me to expect ANY less. To say that I should not have expected too much from such talent is pure garbage.

P.S. Yes, I liked Jackass because I got EXACTLY what I expected. Ridiculous behavior like the TV show. Not Oscar-caliber acting or writing. Which is what I expected from Danny DeVito, Robin Williams and ED NORTON!

People say that I'm a bad influence/I sat the world's already f-ked, I'm just adding to it - Eminem

[–] JackBravo69 22 years ago

There u go mixing things up again. Heat is in one genre. Smoochy is in another. U cannot expect THAT much from a comedy. U cannot expect Citizen Kane from a movie whose only purpose is to make u laugh. In his genre, Smoochy is GREAT. To me its one of the great comedy´s of recent years and its up there in the top 5.

Now if u were expecting something like Heat u have ur ideas messed up. It cant be compared to Smoochy at all. I dont think u expected Smoochy to be one of the best comedies ever. U expected it to be one of the best movies ever probably. And the genre, because of its elements does not allow it. Ur mixing things up. U went expecting a CINEMA masterpiece and got a COMEDY masterpiece but didnt enjoy it because it wasnt enough for u. I hate these opinions in which a person says: oh the movie is good but because it had these director or this cast it should have been better so it sux.

A movie either is good or not. Look at it in an objective way. If u had seen it without the "names" complex u probably would have laughed and enjoyed urself. If u go in expecting to achieve the nirvana with it, well the movie didnt stand a chance.

Its a comedy. Its funny, well acted and with an imaginative scipt. Enjoy it for what it is. Something daring in a hollywood made of bad sequels and a horrible lack of creativity. U cant say De Vito didnt directed it well. Look at the atmosphere, at the shadows... i mean c´mon. Norton and Williams gave it all. And the script was hilarious but still had something to say about society.

Its sad to see u say u enjoy Jackass and then bash DTS. Its disturbing that u like to see a guy urinate on snow and then eat it but then think DTS is not funny.

Dont let ur expectations get the better of u because u risk loosing alot because of them.

But hey, if something has a cast without talent and a director who cant direct, but its still somewhat enjoyable u´ll think its great given the names involved. Of course better movies will suck because good filmakers were actualy in it but didnt make A CINEMA MASTERPIECE.

Like i had said this is getting no where. Bye bye and enjoy ur movies. CYA.

How do you like your brandy, sir?
In a glass.

[–] MrBlondNYC 22 years ago

I know this is going nowhere but I have to respond to you.
COMEDY is CINEMA, my friend. There are plenty of comedies in my opinion that are up there with Citizen Kane.
Comedies like Dr. Strangelove, Beverly Hills Cop, MASH, Annie Hall are CINEMA masterpieces. A great movie is a great movie whether its something like Heat or something like Best In Show. My point is, REGARDLESS of the genre, a movie with great actors and a great director should be great. Of course, I wasn't expecting something like Heat from DTS. Don't be ridiculous! I was expecting to laugh! I didn't purposely hold my laughter in. I was ready to laugh my ass off. But I only laughed 3 times. OK? (I'm Spinner and the "rocket cookies" were funny)
I still don't understand why I shouldn't have expected a COMEDY CINEMA masterpiece from such great talent. What should have I expected? Like I said, my expectations to laugh were not met. As far as Jackass goes, I was a fan of the TV show (I don't know if it airs where you are) so I liked the movie. I knew what I was getting. I'm sure you have a reality show that you enjoy. If it was made into a movie, you would want to check it out. No need to get high and mighty there.
Look, FatBoy, I know you love this film and we have different opinions. But please DO NOT twist my words to try to prove your point. I haven't done that to you.

People say that I'm a bad influence/I sat the world's already f-ked, I'm just adding to it - Eminem

[–] JackBravo69 22 years ago

Beverly Hills cop is a masterpiece? Its up there with Citizen Kane?

Look no comedy can ever be considered a CINEMA MASTERPIECE. Its a world apart. Because by definition the genre does not transmit the power and messages to society other genres do. Even techinicaly this movies are usualy much worse. U cannot say Beverly Hills Cop is even close to Citizen Kane, The Godfather or Casablanca. Thats just not possible. My god. Dr. Stragelove or even Woody Allen´s work is not comedy in the tradional sense as for ex. Beverly Hills Cop. They´re movies that use humour to go beyond the genre and create stories with other objectives than to make u laugh. They want to make u think about the world, they want to change u. So they´re not comedys just to make u laugh and not worry about anything else. Its movies with substance. U shouldnt even compare Beverly Hills cop or adam Sandler to Dr. Strangelove. Smoochy even with his cast and director just wanted to make u have fun. It tryed to say something about the entertainment industry but nothing too serious.

If u didnt laugh, fine. But thats not what u been saying. U´ve been saying because of the ppl involved u didnt enjoy it cause it should have been better. Thats just wrong. U didnt enjoy the movie for what it was. This last post is not in the same style of what u had said a post back. U picked up these little reasons to justify urself why u didnt like it. And the fact is u didnt laugh because u probably expected too much. U have to give a movie a chance.

As to Jackass, im not getting high. But if u laugh at that, i have to say its possible u wouldnt find DTS funny. I saw some episodes of it just to see what all the hype was about. I even watched the movie but couldnt reach the end. It was too much. But when u complain about DTS and find Jackass amusing one must doubt ur tastes. Because DTS is not the same kind of humour.

I think we´ve explored this pretty much. We´ve reached down on why u dont like it and why its a good film even if u cant enjoy it. If after this u cant accept it, im sorry. But dont back up and say "its not funny". Because uve gone beyond it. Ur problem is with expectations and production team and not the movie itself i believe.

And by the way: what u should have expected? A light, dark comedy to make u laugh. Not gone with the wind.

How do you like your brandy, sir?
In a glass.

[–] MrBlondNYC 22 years ago

See, you take the ONE that you don't consider to be classic (Beverly Hills Cop) and you mention it FIVE times in your argument.
All I'm saying is I laughed my ass off at those movies I mentioned and yes I consider Beverly Hills Cop to be a classic movie. No its not as artistic or moving as Citizen Kane. But like Citizen Kane, I've seen it too many times and enjoy it just like the first time.
I am really sick of you twisting my words. We can debate but don't do that. If you look back at my earlier post I DID say that DTS just wasn't funny. And yes I expected a lot from three major talents collaborating. Why shouldn't I? That's like going to see the best sports team and not expecting them to win. Is that really so hard to understand? And I already said I wasn't expecting Heat or Gone with the Wind. I was expecting to laugh a lot. I didn't. NOTHING can prevent me from laughing if something is funny. Not expectations, not hurting someone's feelings, not dislike of the comedian. NOTHING! If you think I have bad taste because I like Jackass, that's fine. But I say I have a wide range of tastes and I keep my mind open. I can enjoy the subtleties of Christopher Guest as well as the foolishness of Adam Sandler.
What the hell is a "light, dark comedy"? As opposed to a "dark, dark comedy"?
If that's what I was supposed to expect, I don't how to begin to expect that.
And if you don't feel a comedy can be a cinema masterpiece than I guess the American Film Institute and every film critic in the world must be wrong and you're right. OK? You're right.

People say that I'm a bad influence/I sat the world's already f-ked, I'm just adding to it - Eminem

[–] JackBravo69 22 years ago

"What the hell is a "light, dark comedy"? As opposed to a "dark, dark comedy"? "

A comedy that plays with dark humour but doesnt take itself too serious. Its just for laughs so its light. Get it? That explains the happy ending, to make u feel good, something comedy´s are for.

And yes something can prevent u from laughing. If ur watching it in a bad mood which can set in right at the first images of the movie if it looks like its not "all that". And thats wot happened to u.

Im not twisting ur words. Its u that gets lost in them and then have no way out. Thus u backing up now and saying u dont enjoy it cause its not funny. So now it all comes down to your sense of humour or lack of it.

Im sorry but u obviously got confused somewhere along the road.

"And if you don't feel a comedy can be a cinema masterpiece than I guess the American Film Institute and every film critic in the world must be wrong and you're right. OK? You're right."

Yeah i heard Beverly hills cop, Dumb and Dumber, the waterboy, Kangaroo Jack and other classics are considered masterpieces. Right. Anyway ive based my opinion about it. Didnt see it dismissed. Oh and There´s something about Mary should have gotten an oscar.

God...

How do you like your brandy, sir?
In a glass.

[–] MrBlondNYC 22 years ago

Yeh, that's what I said. Something About Mary, The Waterboy and Kangaroo Jack are masterpieces and should have won Oscars. You're not twisting my words at all.
If you look at any critics top 50 or 100 movies of all time, you will find many comedies on there. Not the ones that you mentioned because I sure as hell didn't mention them as classics except Beverly Hills Cop. But you will find them. Look at the top IMDB 250. There are comedies.
No I'm not confused. My argument has been consistent. This did not meet expectations because it was not funny. I have never wavered from that. So what the hell are you talking about? And you made up "light, dark comedy", OK? I've have never heard that term and I'm sure I'll never hear it again.

People say that I'm a bad influence/I sat the world's already f-ked, I'm just adding to it - Eminem

[–] JackBravo69 22 years ago

There will be comedies in those lists but not as masterpieces and never at the top. The closest comedies could come to being masterpieces would be Billy wilder´s work. Its always old comedys, that ppl always treasure but im sure at the time of their release no one thought of it as "the best movie ever".

If u r saying Smoochy should have been something close to a masterpiece then i will get recent examples of comedys to compare and try to show u that its not likely for it to happen given the genre.

Ur expectations werent that it was funny. It was that it was one of the greatest movies ever. But ok, ur the boss. Ill let that go. But then why the double standards u admited using when watching Smoochy or any other comedy like adam sandler for ex.? Why? Shouldnt u just look for it to be funny?

"And you made up "light, dark comedy", OK? I've have never heard that term and I'm sure I'll never hear it again. "

I explained it so whats ur problem with it? Wished u thought of it first? Im pretty sure ive heard it b4 but if i invented it cool.
But hey think i can make some money with it? Never say never.

How do you like your brandy, sir?
In a glass.

[–] MrBlondNYC 22 years ago

For a comedy to be one of the best ever it would have to be funny, wouldn't it? What else could a COMEDY be? So by expecting it to be GREAT, I expected it to be FUNNY. Get it? I think you misunderstand that point. To me wasn't funny over all so it was disappointing especially with the talent involved. I have never twisted my own words. You on the other hand...
And I totally agree with you that most recent comedies are not masterpieces. That was my point in another earlier post. Again, considering the major talent involved I thought it would be different. No other comedy in recent memory has had the talent that DTS had. Understand?
I can help make you rich: sunny, cloudy day; hot, cold weather; tall, short man; smooth, rough ride. See you in the news.

People say that I'm a bad influence/I say the world's already f-ked, I'm just adding to it - Eminem

[–] JackBravo69 22 years ago

The problem is ur using double standards. Something u admited. So to u it just wasnt enough to be funny. Thats wot ur saying now not b4. Like uve said, in an Adam Sandler movie u just take it for what it is. Here u wanted more. So the problem is that u didnt want just a funny movie but something AMAZING. Because if funny was what u wanted then u would have used the standards u used in any comedy as happy gilmore.

Thats wot i think is wrong. Double standards and too high expectations. U just couldnt see the movie 4 wot it was. Too bad.

See u around :)

PS: Ive read a thread about GW Bush where u posted and since im not american i decided against stating my opinion since i only have an outside view but i just wanna say i agree completely with ur post there and i wanna congratulate u for it. Nice going! :P

Ive added u to my friend list, hope we keep contact since i enjoyed talking to u very much. Cya

How do you like your brandy, sir?
In a glass.

[–] MrBlondNYC 22 years ago

Whew! Good debate. And thank you. I enjoyed talking to you too.

People say that I'm a bad influence/I say the world's already f-ked, I'm just adding to it - Eminem

[–] MrBlondNYC 22 years ago

Oh by the way, I just read your review. ZAZ? Mel Brooks? Real mature.
I love those films too but look at yourself before you criticize anyone.

People say that I'm a bad influence/I sat the world's already f-ked, I'm just adding to it - Eminem

[–] howlermonkey 21 years ago

This movie is not for you.

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] maxwellXdemon 18 years ago

Thank you. Completely agree. Everybody has different senses of humor. This movie did it for me, but it doesn't for everybody else.

[–] bobzyk 17 years ago

Amen Maxwell, I wish all the posters on imdb would share the same philosophy. And this movie did it for me too, though I was a bit annoyed with how over the top it was, still there are some great moments of humor in it.