MovieChat Forums > Not Cool (2014) Discussion > Just Watched Both Movies On Starz.

Just Watched Both Movies On Starz.

posted 10 years ago by MGurlea
13 replies | jump to latest

Starz just showed both movies. I am glad I saw them at home and didn't have to pay for either of these movies. Hollidaysburg is not a good movie and very forgettable. That is pretty much all there is to say about it. Not Cool is an abortion. It is amazing how something this bad even gets made. What a waste of $600 grand. Anna's movie is not good but it is a million times better than Shane's.

The problem with Shane's movie is that it is completely random, makes no sense at times, it is not funny, and to use a word Shane likes a lot, it is just retarded. The people in his movie act like over the top cartoon characters. No person acts like that in real life. Even for a comedy it isn't believable.

Why are all the male characters in this movie flamingly effeminate? This does become an issue because halfway through the movie I was completely confused by the character Joel. At first I thought he was supposed to be straight and interested in one of the female characters but then it seems like no he is gay. I eventually just gave up on trying to figure out what was going on in this movie. If they are trying to portray characters who are supposed to be straight, alpha male, prom king, jock, and popular they should have cast actors who can at least act that way. And not actors who act the exact opposite of this. The funniest parts of this movie were when people would say to Shane Dawson's character that he was "strapping" and "popular" and when Joel was trying to act like he was into girls. It was only funny because the casting was so bad and unbelievable.

The movie tries to hard to be funny. And everyone knows if you have to try to be funny you are not funny. I guess that is what's up with all the random jokes in this movie that don't work. For example, why are they mooning and flashing people on the Duquesne Incline? It just makes no sense story wise, comedy wise, and especially if you have ever rode it. The part where the one father says, "This is how I imagine black people play this game." Again, random, makes no sense, not funny, and thus comes across as just racist. Same thing with the blind sister. Why is she blind? They don't even use her blindness well. It just comes off as offensive towards blind people. Why do they buy a bag full of dildos? They don't even use them in anyway really. I guess it is just for the shock value of showing a dildo on screen. Joke after joke just doesn't work. Shane's movie is an incoherent mess that isn't funny. Actually 20 minutes into it I started looking at the clock and couldn't wait until it was over.

Both of these movies should have been right up my alley too. I have my personal top ten posted on IMDb and American Pie is in it. As I type this I am looking up at my shelf and seeing my copies of all the American Pie movies, EuroTrip, Ted, Fast Times and Ridgemont High, etc. Shane had some snide comment about American Pie in one of the earlier episodes of The Chair. I suggest he go back and watch it, pay attention, and take notes. Also talk to Chris Moore how to make his movie more like that. That is a real teen comedy.

[–] sme4srss 10 years ago

I've seen both movies, too. Sadly, I will see both again -- and possibly comment more later. I must be either a masochist or a nutcase. For now, I've seen all the earlier episodes of The Chair (2014), up to where both directors, Shane Dawson and Anna Martemucci, had begun editing and post-production.

You said Shane's movie was random. I found Anna's movie Hollidaysburg (2014) to be random as well. Maybe there was a fault in the original script? People were going from one place to another for no reason. Falling in love and doing lovey-dovey stuff the next day. Poetic stuff. Ya-know. Walking across rope bridges. Wrestling each other on a football field. Pffft!

why are they mooning and flashing people on the Duquesne Incline

I assume that was part of Tori's "Buck-it-List" for Scott. I doubt it has anything to do with the location where it was filmed or any comment on the city. Just part of Shane's "style".

Why'd they do it, the mooning? You may as well ask Shane why he had his mouth full -- grossly full of food -- in so many scenes.

Cherami Leigh, who played Tori, made this watchable for me. I hope this part doesn't harm her for future roles. I added a point or two to my IMDb rating for her.

for now, 3/10 Not Cool, a generous 6/10 for Hollidaysburg

__________________
Thirteen: [to House - s7e18] What is this, a BBQ lighter? ... Your gun sucks.

[–] MGurlea 10 years ago

sme4srss,

I agree with pretty much everything you said. Let me clarify a couple of points though.

I agree there are random things in both movies. At one point in Anna's there was a part where they cut to some different character's really quickly and it seemed like really bad editing. Anna's movie to me seemed to flow better though and make a lot more sense. Shane's movie is full of random jokes that don't work. I really think they don't work because they are so so so damn random and out of place. Many times there is no context or reason for the joke and they just throw it in there like they are trying to go out of their way to make the movie funny. That is what I mean by random when it comes to Shane's movie.

I should have been more clear on the Duquesne Incline scene. This scene illustrates the randomness perfectly. There is no context for that scene. It just cuts to them mooning and flashing. That is all we see. Now if they would have added some context like showed who they were mooning and the people's reaction or something to make the scene actually funny instead of basically just showing ass and penis and that's it. Furthermore, if you have ever rode on that incline there is no one there to moon or flash. While ridding up it there is nothing around it. I guess you might be able to flash the other car as it speeds by in a split second? It was pretty clear to me Shane just threw things into the movie for shock value. But it is not shocking or funny because all of it has no context. I hope this makes sense.

[–] Lark11 10 years ago

I readily admit that I'm not in Shane Dawson's target audience. And, I know from watching The Chair that he has a very large YouTube following, so he's doing something right. That said, I'm having a hard time figuring out who his target audience is.

To me, it seems like the content and style/presentation of his jokes are at odds. The content of his jokes seem too mature for the age that would enjoy the over-the-top style/presentation of his humor. Or, and this is more likely, I'm just completely out of touch.

I was actually more impressed by the serious moments in the film (and wished there were more of them) than the attempts at comedy. And, I was fairly impressed with the production value, casting, and look of the film.

But, who exactly is the target audience for this type of comedy?

[–] SugarBeats 10 years ago

A bunch of pre-teens to answer your very last question.

[–] MGurlea 10 years ago

Lark11,

They said on The Chair several times and even showed it once that Shane's fans and audience are females aged 8-12 years old. Mind blown? Mine is.

I have never heard of this 26 year old guy before this show nor have I seen any of his youtube videos. I am assuming the videos must be way more G rated compared to his movie? With that being said how are 8-12 year old girls going to see a hard R rated movie and translate into any kind of an audience the producers were hoping for?

I'm a 34 year old white American male and I don't really watch that many youtube videos at all. I have seen some of the so called "youtube stars'" videos in the past and all of them were just a waste of time. It seemed to me most of the "stars" pretty much did all the same things, go out of their way to do some silly stunt, film it, and put it on youtube. For example, I watched two stars fill their bedroom with McDonald's playground balls from a ball pit. Apparently, just doing that get you millions of views and makes you a "star." Other videos I watched were of similar stunts from other "youtube stars." The only person's videos that I have seen that were different and a little humorous were Dylan O'Brien's. However, he was just a kid when he did them and he was just screwing around in his free time. These other stars, are grown adults that do this dumb stuff fulltime. I don't get it. Maybe at 34 I'm already too old. I guess I will stick to television and movies for my entertainment.

[–] sme4srss 10 years ago

You speak of sticking to television and movies for your entertainment. I was recently talking to a woman who said, somewhat proudly(!), that she didn't have tv at home. Later,as it turns out, she and her husband watch stuff on their computer, i.e. from the Internet, I guess YouTube, Netflix, Hulu, etc.

What's the difference anymore where you get the content from? Over-the-air broadcast. Cable. Internet?

On YouTube I did see this one video by Shane - Draw My Life https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-F72tFju90. I hope it's honest.

I searched through his other videos, but had to stop when I came across these: GROSSEST VIDEO EVER & "Drinking Period Blood with Shane Dawson"

__________________
Thirteen: [to House - s7e18] What is this, a BBQ lighter? ... Your gun sucks.

[–] MGurlea 10 years ago

sme4srss,

Anyone who states proudly that they don't own a TV or watch one is a pretentious douchebag. Netflix and Hulu are basically on demand TV channels. All they pretty much have are TV shows and movies. YouTube however, has that and much more. Anyone can post anything on YouTube. It can be good or total garbage. Big difference between YouTube and other platforms out there. Before I was basically speaking of amateur YouTube posters compared to professional television. That's what I meant when I said I will stick to TV over some random dude posting to YouTube.

After seeing episode 9 of The Chair especially I do not want to waste my time on anything Shane Dawson has done. I also don't want to up his viewer numbers either. Thanks for telling me though about the garbage it sounds like he has posted. Just because something gets a lot of views or is popular doesn't mean it is good, noteworthy, or will stand the test of time.

[–] AsYouWishButtercup 10 years ago

I'm a 37 year old female. Never heard of Shane. Mind is blown at the target audience only because I was once that age and would have found him gross, unattractive and annoying. I'm amazed at what has become acceptable for preteen audiences. They are losing brain cells left and right subscribing to this garbage

[–] Lark11 10 years ago

MGurlea,

Thanks, given the tone and style, pre-teens is just about the target audience that I expected. The acting is so over-the-top it almost feels like a Scary Movie type parody, but it's not really a parody of a teen movie, but rather a teen movie itself. Other than parody, the only place where you really see that type of acting is on the Disney Channel, Nickelodeon, or the old Steve Urkel style TGIF programming.

Given the young target audiences of those shows/channels, it makes some sense to be really over-the-top. But, those outlets match the content of the humor to their target audience. It seems really strange when that type of acting is paired with fellatio/glory hole jokes. I'm hoping that 8-12 year old females aren't watching glory hole/fellatio humor these days. That would be really disturbing. Though, it would be only slightly less disturbing if a late teens/early 20s audience enjoyed this type of over-the-top acting.

Anyway, I just wish Not Cool would have been tailored to a more mature audience, toning down the style and adding a bit of wit to the humor. As it stands, the disconnect between the style and content seems to leave the movie betwixt and between.

[–] MGurlea 10 years ago

Lark11,

Good one with the betwixt and between. I just don't get how say a 10 year old is going to be able to see a hard R rated movie which has a 17 year old age requirement. They have mentioned it on the show and on these boards that his fans are females aged 8-12. But then on the show they turn around and say he did this movie for his fans and his fans, his fans. How are they going to see this movie exactly? There seems to be a huge disconnect here. They are talking about a fan base that will not be even able to see the movie in anyway that will translate into the film making money.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jmillerdp 10 years ago

After watching the making-of TV show, I can't imagine sitting through either.

I. Drink. Your. Milkshake! [slurp!] I DRINK IT UP! - Daniel Plainview - There Will Be Blood

[–] peachtea18 10 years ago

The problem with Shane's movie is that it is completely random, makes no sense at times, it is not funny, and to use a word Shane likes a lot, it is just retarded. The people in his movie act like over the top cartoon characters. No person acts like that in real life. Even for a comedy it isn't believable.

Agreed. I liked the concept, but the execution could have been so much better. The movie was a little too vulgar for me at times(the homeless guy's balls on the tram)...the hell? But overall it was okay. Just okay. I'd give it a 4/10.

I've never fooled anyone. I've let people fool themselves.