Wednesday, March 11, 2009

446 - Fired Up! review

It was Roger Ebert who said that a critic’s job is not to tell the audience what you will think, but what I thought. I thought that “Fired Up!” sucked, though I’m sure many will like it. The dialogue occasionally veers close to clever and there are plenty of hot young things to look at, both male and female. All it lacks is artistic merit and a statement that relates it to the human experience in any conceivable way other than satiating certain viewer’s desire for a brain-dead 90 minutes.

Occasionally when pondering the inevitable apocalypse, I input peculiar searchers into Facebook and end up thinking things like “Wow, I have six friends that like “Accepted” enough to list it as one of their all-time favorite movies.” I’ll then pour myself a drink and slide into a serious (ly pretentious) contemplation of why humanity is not capable of sustaining its own existence for any amount of time that would register as a blip on a universal timeline. In a year or so I’ll practice this exercise with “Fired Up!” and do the same thing.

Perhaps this makes me an a**h***, but I don’t feel it in my heart. I know there’s something good to be said about having a certain esoteric taste in film, literature, art, music, or whatever. I’ve met plenty of perfectly nice people who possess what I would term dreadful taste in film, and I might like them, but I’m never compelled to be friends with them (unless they’re wealthy and spend money freely). “James, you need to lighten up about movies,” one of them once told me before I directed a term towards him that would fail virtually any political correctness check. Would I assert that anyone who enjoys “Fired Up!” has bad taste in movies? No, not unless you’re so in love with it that you use a device such as Facebook or Myspace to declare it one of your all-time favs.

But I get distracted. Can one blame me when talking about a picture like this? “Fired Up!” concerns the misadventures of Shawn (Nicholas D’Agosto) and Nick (Eric Christian Olsen, who has been playing high school students long enough to finish high school three times), two star football players who hatch a little scheme: attend cheerleading camp and nail all the girls they can. The film gives promiscuous sex a glowing endorsement, and frankly, so do I, although I’m sure there’s some sort of downside which isn’t coming to mind.

The characters speak in an aggressively quirky way that never relents. I might have been tempted to crack a smile had there only been some breathing room given between the lines, but no; everything is said fast and loud, as if a large number of hearing impaired might bother to attend this nitwit cheerleading farce. The dialogue’s almost a moot point, though. Is there ever any doubt that the two skirt-chasers will learn to love cheerleading, that they’ll respect their teammates, that they’ll each tap the girl they want the most? If you have any doubts about those questions at any moment, send me an email and I’ll recommend some really cool movies for you to watch in order to catch up on conventions of the medium.

There was one moment I enjoyed: the entire cheerleading camp attends a late-night screening of “Bring It On,” with every attendee (minus the protagonists) quoting every line of dialogue verbatim. I do remember enjoying that film, which at least went to feature a lot of cheerleading, exponentially more than this one. What does it say about “Fired Up!” that there’s almost no cheerleading, and what little there is looks bland and uninspiring? I’d hate to think that the filmmakers would have to cut out any of their precious blowjob jokes in order to make the movie watchable.


Blake Badker said...

some stupid chick i dated out of desperation from pizza hut had movie night with me and brought "accepted" because she thought it was my humor. the whole time i just told her why the movie sucks so bad.

on one hand you got leslie nielsen doing something funny. then you get these fuckheads like ipod black hair drew barrymore accessory guy who don't get it and try to make it normal and un-subversive for little shit head suburban consumers. that's why there are a billion straight to video AMERICAN PIE and VAN WILDER movies. these are propaganda films to buy-out subversity from actually funny, actually cool things.

the net goal of these shit buyouts is getting kids to pursue good jobs, marriage, and the best house and car in the suburbs they can possibly kill all inner-art to do so for. fuck 'em. fuck it.

kill em all metallica don't hold back these movies are shit that comes out the ass of a hollywood shit machine team. and the executive should be allowed to be publicly urinated on or beat up - or more civilized put on some show where they show how much he sucks and then boo him off stage and roll credits/theme.

Blake Badker said...

oh this is that cheerleading movie? suburban totalitarianism. big brother controls with sex. sets up mores with HOLLYWOOD.

i don't know what's worse? having an actual big brother with guns and super literal totalitarianism, or the zero-personality brother's frequenters this show is demographic-ed to produce - and does.

step 2 is me buying a trench coat, no. am i venting and making excuses because i can't get the brother's chicks to knock boots? yeah and i should be. they are so robotic it would be fucking a robot. anger! lust! crap!

bring it down
bring it all down.