So, Robert De Niro...is it just me or... (1 Viewer)

[Walter Kittel]

Finally, didn't we (sort of) see "Robert De Niro wanking" in Raging Bull?

There is a scene where he pulls his underwear/trunks away from his body and pours ice and water on his crotch after he gets worked up by Vicky. Don't recall the specifics, as it has been too long; but that is the only scene involving his junk in the film that I can (sort of) remember.


- Walter.

 

[ScottRichard]

There is a scene where he pulls his underwear/trunks away from his body and pours ice and water on his crotch after he gets worked up by Vicky. Don't recall the specifics, as it has been too long; but that is the only scene involving his junk in the film that I can (sort of) remember.


- Walter.

Yes, I think I was thinking of that scene and also having read about another scene that was in the script but ultimately cut or never filmed. Something like that anyway.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I was probably going to wait for home video to see 'Dirty Grandpa', but the negative nellies in this topic have made me feel like giving it my support in the theater.

So did you see it?

 

[Mike Frezon]

I don't know if reporters from the NY Post are reading this thread...

...but a story which ran this weekend could have been inspired by THIS VERY THREAD.

 

[Michael Elliott]

My girlfriend and I went to see DIRTY GRANDPA this weekend and I think most "mainstream" people got a kick out of it. Of course, most of them were just looking for a good time and weren't going in their with their knives out ready to slaughter the greatest actor of a generation.

I say this because I saw the film with about thirty people at a late showing and for the most part people laughed throughout and it seemed people were entertained as they were walking out talking about it. I know several people at work who saw it and it seems most have thought it was funny.

Personally, I thought maybe one out of 15 jokes actually worked. It starts off on a horrible note. The problem is that the thing is horribly written and is just a more adult version of GRUMPY OLD MEN. The jokes go for the offensive route but like Sarah Silverman there just wasn't much talent behind them so the offensive nature just came across more childish than anything else. Again, there were some very funny moments but there were way too many bad moments. As for DeNiro I thought he was good and didn't just phone in a performance. The sentimentality that came out at the end was horrible because of Efron who was the biggest issue next to the script. He just wasn't funny and had no comic timing.

I understand critics like to attack certain movies because it's fun to really trash something. This isn't nearly as bad as they are making it out to be and it's certainly not at the level of PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE like so many have said. I'd rate it * 1/2.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

My girlfriend and I went to see DIRTY GRANDPA this weekend and I think most "mainstream" people got a kick out of it. Of course, most of them were just looking for a good time and weren't going in their with their knives out ready to slaughter the greatest actor of a generation.

I say this because I saw the film with about thirty people at a late showing and for the most part people laughed throughout and it seemed people were entertained as they were walking out talking about it. I know several people at work who saw it and it seems most have thought it was funny.

Personally, I thought maybe one out of 15 jokes actually worked. It starts off on a horrible note. The problem is that the thing is horribly written and is just a more adult version of GRUMPY OLD MEN. The jokes go for the offensive route but like Sarah Silverman there just wasn't much talent behind them so the offensive nature just came across more childish than anything else. Again, there were some very funny moments but there were way too many bad moments. As for DeNiro I thought he was good and didn't just phone in a performance. The sentimentality that came out at the end was horrible because of Efron who was the biggest issue next to the script. He just wasn't funny and had no comic timing.

I understand critics like to attack certain movies because it's fun to really trash something. This isn't nearly as bad as they are making it out to be and it's certainly not at the level of PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE like so many have said. I'd rate it * 1/2.

I'm confused - you pan the movie and give it 1.5 stars but then accuse the critics of being too hard on the movie?

 

[Michael Elliott]

Damn straight. Calling something bad is one thing. Calling something the worst film ever made or calling it on the level of PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE is just a tad bit stupid IMO. As I said, I think most people watching this film are enjoying it for what it is. I don't think they're too worried about doing anything but laughing. Most aren't going in already upset that DeNiro is appearing in something like this. Look at these types of sex comedies from the 80s and 90s. Critics weren't exactly praising them any either.

In fact, as I said a few pages back, DeNiro keeps giving good to very good performances but no one cares to talk about them. DIRTY GRANDA is getting more talk than his performance in JOY, which was quite good.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Damn straight. Calling something bad is one thing. Calling something the worst film ever made or calling it on the level of PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE is just a tad bit stupid IMO. As I said, I think most people watching this film are enjoying it for what it is. I don't think they're too worried about doing anything but laughing. Most aren't going in already upset that DeNiro is appearing in something like this. Look at these types of sex comedies from the 80s and 90s. Critics weren't exactly praising them any either.

In fact, as I said a few pages back, DeNiro keeps giving good to very good performances but no one cares to talk about them. DIRTY GRANDA is getting more talk than his performance in JOY, which was quite good.

Who called "Dirty Grandpa" the worst movie ever made or put it on a par with "Plan 9"? I skimmed reviews on RT and didn't see comments of those sort. They thought it was a terrible movie - as do you, apparently - but I saw no declarations that it got comments along the lines you indicate.

Worst De Niro movie? Saw that. Candidate for worst movie of 2016? Saw that. Worst movie ever made? Didn't see that...

 

[TravisR]

Candidate for worst movie of 2016? Saw that.

Let me introduce those people to Ride Along 2.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Let me introduce those people to Ride Along 2.

Both got nearly equivalent levels of bad reviews: "DG" is 8% on RT while "RA2" is 12%...

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

i think we need to use some perspective here. Plan 9 is a low/no budget film with no actors the caliber of Mr. De Niro. There is no comparison. The issue people take with Dirty Grandpa is that De Niro is in it and it is really a horribly written film which is plainly obvious to anybody with eyes. If De Niro were not in it the film would attract no attention at all and critics would likely still hate it but they would have less to say about it. Plus articles would not be getting composed titled "What has happened to Robert De Niro?"

De Niro in Dirty Grandpa is getting the film much more press than it would normally get and certainly more than it deserves. Same as Rogen's film The Interview got way more attention than it deserved because the North Koreans pitched a fit over it.

I think people like to see a "big star" make a fool of themselves, in real life or in a piece of fiction like this. So, that is part of the draw here. Obviously we also have a group of comedy writers that are all getting work these days that think comedy is meant to be stupid, gross, obscene, and as offensive as possible. I mean this is not the age of the Marx Brothers.

Honestly, I don't think reviews are important when I choose to see a film. I recall going to the theater to see a De Niro film the critics had been raking over the coals...Neil Jordan's We're No Angels back in 1989. I actually really liked the film and had a good time watching it and I even own a copy. It is a hell of a lot better script and sets up far more interesting and, to me at least, funny situations than anything I've seen from Dirty Grandpa. It also has a fantastic cast that adds to the fun.

It probably would flop today as a comedy as well because it is not stupid, gross, or offensive...De Niro does not jerk off, say obscene nonsense, or have sex with teenage girls. So, not much to appeal to present day comedy audiences.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

If that article Mike posted above is correct about De Niro getting $20 million to appear in a comedy then that is reason enough for him to have done this film. I would have also appeared in Dirty Grandpa for $20 million...I would not want to see it no matter who was in it but I can understand him taking the money.

 

[Robert Crawford]

To change the tenor of this thread a little, I'm looking forward to his next film release "Hands of Stone". I hope it's a really good boxing movie.

 

[TravisR]

Both got nearly equivalent levels of bad reviews: "DG" is 8% on RT while "RA2" is 12%...

I haven't seen Dirty Grandpa yet so I'm not saying that it's some masterpiece but I have a hard time imagining that it's worse than Ride Along 2. And it's not like I went into Ride Along 2 expecting Annie Hall, the first one was just a silly little movie but it was still a fun enough movie with likable leads but the sequel was just bland garbage with its precious few funny bits ruined by the ad campaign.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I haven't seen Dirty Grandpa yet so I'm not saying that it's some masterpiece but I have a hard time imagining that it's worse than Ride Along 2. And it's not like I went into Ride Along 2 expecting Annie Hall, the first one was just a silly little movie but it was still a fun enough movie with likable leads but the sequel was just bland garbage with its precious few funny bits ruined by the ad campaign.

I thought the first Ride Along was one of the worst movies I ever watched. Therefore, I never bother watching the second one.

 

[Aaron Silverman]

I like Kevin Hart and thought that the first Ride Along was a waste of his talent. Every once in a while, he would say or do something funny, but most of the time it was just dull.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Honestly, I don't think reviews are important when I choose to see a film. I recall going to the theater to see a De Niro film the critics had been raking over the coals...Neil Jordan's We're No Angels back in 1989. I actually really liked the film and had a good time watching it and I even own a copy. It is a hell of a lot better script and sets up far more interesting and, to me at least, funny situations than anything I've seen from Dirty Grandpa. It also has a fantastic cast that adds to the fun.

It probably would flop today as a comedy as well because it is not stupid, gross, or offensive...De Niro does not jerk off, say obscene nonsense, or have sex with teenage girls. So, not much to appeal to present day comedy audiences.

Honestly, I find your post confusing. You make a comment about how the 1989 "Angels" would flop today due to its absence of stupidity, grossness or offensiveness - but it also flopped 27 years ago. Maybe you believe it would've been a hit 54 years ago?

And you seem to believe all modern comedy hits are stupid, gross and/or offensive - as opposed to Ye Olden Dayes, when only sophistication ruled.

There have always been stupid, gross and/or offensive comedies. Today's may be dumber, grosser and/or more offensive, but the 21st century didn't invent those films.

"Dirty Grandpa" appears to be stupid, gross and offensive - and audiences have shunned it. Shouldn't this be viewed as progress?

 

[Ruz-El]

If that article Mike posted above is correct about De Niro getting $20 million to appear in a comedy then that is reason enough for him to have done this film. I would have also appeared in Dirty Grandpa for $20 million...I would not want to see it no matter who was in it but I can understand him taking the money.

Oh the things I would do and be in for 20 million!

He got a pay check. he got to work with some new actors. He got something out of it as an actor and can move on, His legacy allows it. I'll still watch this one eventually.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I think in 1989 Jordan's film should have done better than it did. I don't know if you have seen the film or how you feel about it, Colin, but if you watched it today I think you would find it far better than most of the more recent comedies De Niro has appeared in. I'm not saying that if we transport the film to another point in time it would do better or worse but I bet in 1989 most critics that saw Jordan's film probably had also seen the Michael Curtiz version from 1955. I only point that out because there seem to be far more film critics writing reviews today than there were in 1989 and honestly I think some of these film critics...maybe most of them would be hard pressed to tell you who Michael Curtiz was and they may not even know who Neil Jordan is.

For what it is worth David Mamet had a hand in the 1989 version of We're No Angels and actually took the time to build situations that were funny...not just write down random lines that characters spew about shoving things into or comparing things to parts of the human anatomy strictly for shock value.

This is how comedy writers seem to work today. There is little thought put into creating a character. Instead just make him "grandpa" and then have him spew stupid and offensive lines that have to do with different ways he would like to sexually assault a teenage girl or that question his grandson's manhood and how he would like to shove things up the kid's ass or punch him in the testicles. Boom, that's it, you're done...there is an hour and a half comedy, just throw in some booze, puke, farts, and poop...stir and repeat.

Not that I'm trying to go all old fogey here because yes, I grew up in the period of time when we had films like Animal House and Caddyshack and The Kentucky Fried Movie. I have no issue with gross out, raunchy, foul mouthed or nudity infused laugh fests. However, take a little time and at least create situations that build up to and/or improve the jokes. Animal House had a plot and characters and even social commentary. There were a whole bunch of "snobs versus the slobs" comedies back then that played with sex, bad taste, and all manner of bodily functions and fluids...but they worked them into being part of the story and a way to illuminate the characters.

I'm not saying sophistication ruled back then or has to rule now. One famous comic once said people like stupid in their comedies because it allows them to feel superior to the boneheads on the screen. They laugh because for the moment they think "Well, at least I'm not as dumb as that guy!"

I suspect Dirty Grandpa is sinking because it got poor reviews and the trailers for it are pretty lousy. It looks like it is a sequel to Bad Grandpa where grandpa goes to spring break to try and molest college girls. There have already been loads of gross out sex comedies and I'm not sure how many people are excited about a grandpa sex film.

I mean honestly, man, what is the draw to see the film? The jokes are about a horny grandpa that is stalking college girls for sex, pedophilia jokes about Zac Efron, drugs, and inserting various objects and/or Robert De Niro's thumb into different people's anuses or other orifices. Who has been dying to see this stuff on the big screen?

Combine that with the fact that the jokes look tired and lame and I don't think that is a recipe for success.

Mainly, my issue is not with the gross out or offensive factor it is that so much of this stuff looks like there was no thought put into it whatsoever. Just zero creativity.

 

[Ruz-El]

Problem with WE'RE NO ANGELS was it was boring as all get out if I remember right.