It's not "too soon" ... people were making "Dupree" jokes the very first day. I would suggest that the titles don't help you -- my first reaction upon reading that is, "Really? All five of you?" If the movies had happened to be named "Dodgeball" and "Duplex," the joke works better.
The first one out of my mouth was Wedding Crashers, but (to my horror) several people at the office protested that Wedding Crashers was a good movie. That's not true, but the misperception seemed to hurt the joke.
I'm not sure if "Wedding Crashers" is good, but it's a lot better than "Starsky and Hutch." I have two categories in my mind, between movies that are just completely full of shit (almost everything Stiller and/or Ferrell have made recently) and ones that are just mostly full of shit. On this scale, I don't place "Wedding Crashers" as low down as "Starsky and Hutch."
I like Owen as much as the next guy, but if you actually look at the movies he's made, almost all of them are dogs. Some, such as Wedding Crashers or Zoolander might not be as bad as others, but they're still largely crap that I'd never recommend to anyone.
The exceptions (not counting Rushmore) are Bottle Rocket, Royal Tenebaums, maybe Life Aquatic and Shanghai Noon, which I think was more clever and funny than it got credit for.
I loved the Royal Tenenbaums. They filmed that in the building where I used to work, on 103rd and 5th. The film crew actually lost a falcon while they were filming the movie - the bird flew into Central Park and never came back. Towards the end of the movie, there is a line about the falcon's feathers looking whiter than before. I don't know if they added that line to explain the difference in the birds.
Comments
It's not "too soon" ... people were making "Dupree" jokes the very first day. I would suggest that the titles don't help you -- my first reaction upon reading that is, "Really? All five of you?" If the movies had happened to be named "Dodgeball" and "Duplex," the joke works better.
Posted by: Martin | September 10, 2007 10:18 AM
The first one out of my mouth was Wedding Crashers, but (to my horror) several people at the office protested that Wedding Crashers was a good movie. That's not true, but the misperception seemed to hurt the joke.
Posted by: radosh | September 10, 2007 11:33 AM
I'm not sure if "Wedding Crashers" is good, but it's a lot better than "Starsky and Hutch." I have two categories in my mind, between movies that are just completely full of shit (almost everything Stiller and/or Ferrell have made recently) and ones that are just mostly full of shit. On this scale, I don't place "Wedding Crashers" as low down as "Starsky and Hutch."
Posted by: Martin | September 10, 2007 3:22 PM
I like Owen as much as the next guy, but if you actually look at the movies he's made, almost all of them are dogs. Some, such as Wedding Crashers or Zoolander might not be as bad as others, but they're still largely crap that I'd never recommend to anyone.
The exceptions (not counting Rushmore) are Bottle Rocket, Royal Tenebaums, maybe Life Aquatic and Shanghai Noon, which I think was more clever and funny than it got credit for.
Seriously, what a waste of talent.
Posted by: radosh | September 10, 2007 3:33 PM
I loved the Royal Tenenbaums. They filmed that in the building where I used to work, on 103rd and 5th. The film crew actually lost a falcon while they were filming the movie - the bird flew into Central Park and never came back. Towards the end of the movie, there is a line about the falcon's feathers looking whiter than before. I don't know if they added that line to explain the difference in the birds.
Posted by: Deborah | September 10, 2007 4:27 PM
Owen Wilson is the Evan Dando of the aughts.
Posted by: mypalmike | September 10, 2007 6:27 PM