Views on the News #1 Finding Dory, Lesbians in Movies, and Money, Money, Money

Written by Nelson Cumming


Finding Dory has had a trailer for awhile now. I have not seen it, nor to I see trailers in general (which I may discuss in the future) but from what I know, they happen to hint that there is a lesbian couple in the movie. I look at all the comments about this and it’s ridiculous. So ridiculous that I laugh on the inside. Here are what most of comments  sound like:

“Ah the LGBT groups are brainwashing our kids to see lesbian couples in movies”

“The LGBT groups are brainwashing Pixar to put lesbian couples in movies”

“The times are changing and Pixar is changing to reflect that”

It does not matter what side of the fence you are on in terms of homosexuality being morally right or wrong or if homosexuals choose to be gay or not. As soon as you pick a side and interpret it as what Pixar was going for, you have been misguided on what is going on. What I cannot believe about all of these comments is that people found this to be shocking and the other thing is people believing that there is a sincere attempt for Pixar to “change with the times” by being more contemporary by hinting at a lesbian couple.

The movie industry (especially in Hollywood), does not sincerely care about your opinions on moral issues, movie characters, or movies in general. They care about how they can part with your money. Plain and simple. The only reason you get the movie industry to care is if a vast majority people boycott seeing movies or if there is a huge untapped market that could bring them bags and bags of money.

My evidence: Over one hundred years of cinematic history.

As soon as moving pictures were made long enough to sustain a feature-length story (and not even then)  people have wanted to make money off it. How people did this was to reflect with the viewpoints of people in society. If enough people shared a viewpoint, there was money to be made. I can take you back to 1915 with The Birth of a Nation where white actors are in blackface, the Ku Klux Klan are the heroes and black people are depicted as stupid. The result: $100,000 budget and $50-100 million at the box office. Why? because despite the fact many people tried to boycott it and the civil war ended over 50 years ago at that time, lots white people still had racial views on white superiority . There was money to be made depicting those racial themes at the time.

How is this relevant to the supposed lesbian couple in Finding Dory? Well even though homosexuality was seen as accepted by society since the late eighties and early nineties, I would argue that being homosexual and transgender was not celebrated with open arms until about five years ago with the rise of social media, the growing popularity of blogging and the rising popularity of reality television. These are platforms, mediums and shows that more and more people view. News stories have reflected the changing view set of homosexuality with more news reports of the Marty Gras and the legalization of gay marriage. Celebrity gossip exploits this most of all.

If it is true that Pixar has portrayed these characters as lesbians, I can guarantee you they had this thought “What is popular with people nowadays and how can we make a story out of it?” Pixar are not dumb. They know how to market to people and they know how to be creative and engaging enough to not only sustain demand but to build it, making consumers wanting more (they’ve got a friend in me for sure).

The movie industry, like any other business, will only depict homosexuality if it is accepted in society. They care about their viewers only so they don’t lose them. What the movie industry’s views are about the depictions of homosexuality does not matter at all. Thier responsibility is to give what the people want if it makes enough money to make a profit and to keep the macroeconomic machine chugging along.

P.S. I would like to see Finding Dory because Pixar has a twenty-year history of greatness and not because there are rumors of a lesbian couple in it. I have also liked movies even if they depict something I don’t agree with and I still consider myself sane for having seen them.

Alice Through The Looking Glass Review

Genre: Adventure
Year: 2016
Rating: PG
Runtime: 113 Minutes
Main Cast: Johnny Depp
Anne Hathaway
Mia Wasikowska
Helena Bonham Carter
Sacha Baron Cohen
Main Production Company: Walt Disney Pictures
Written by: Linda Woolverton
Directed by: James Bobin


Written by Nelson Cumming

Alice Through the Looking-Glass is the sequel to Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland although this time Burton decided not to return to the director’s chair (although he did help produce it). This time, it is James Bobin, director of The Muppets in 2011. I can say that he has not topped The Muppets, but he has not made something that is as terrible as other movie critics would like me to believe. The thing that was utterly perplexing about Alice Through the Looking Glass was that it defied expectation in a very weird way. The things I thought would work in the movie didn’t work. At the same time, the things I thought would be terrible worked.

The actual premise of the movie was unconvincing at best. Here it is: Alice (Mia Wasikowska) returns to Wonderland and reunites with her friends (The White Queen, Twiddledee, Twiddledum and others). They say the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp) was sad because he believes his family is still alive and no-one believes him. Alice finds the Chronosphere, which she steals from Time (Sasha Baron Cohen) to distort the space-time continuum and threaten the existence of Wonderland, herself and her friends in the process.

Alice does all of this just to keep the Mad Hatter happy. Not to save the world, not to discover herself, not to save the ones she loves and not to even stop evil. Just to stop someone from being sad. Can a movie be any more low stakes than that? Oh wait, it can! The story explains why the relationship between the Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter) and the White Queen (Anne Hathway) are fractured. It is one of the stupidest reasons I have ever heard, worse than the plot. Even worse, this movie lost the plot! For not having a convincing storyline, I couldn’t engage in the poignancy. I expected the movie to have a better story than that.

Now to the things I did not expect to be great but were. The first was the animation. I thought that the animation was colorful and beautiful enough to the engage me throughout the movie. I disagree with most movie critics who believed it was boring. I like Underland, the residence of Time himself, and I liked the chase sequences where Alice moves to and from time. That was one element that surprised me because I thought would be boring (like critics did). On a side note, from many reviews, I hear it is better to watch the movie in 2-D like I did. I heard from critics that it was painful to watch in 3-D.

The other thing that surprised me was the performance of Sasha Baron Cohen. Yes, you heard me, Baron Cohen. I saw his name on the movie poster my initial thoughts were that the casting of that role was hopelessly misguided. I like Baron Cohen, but after being the king of raunch comedy and shoving the envelope for a decade, I thought this was a bad move. I was wrong. He was entertaining and engaging as Time and made him a believable albeit flawed character. Baron Cohen knew his role and did not try to hog the spotlight as I feared he would do. This time, he was the butt of the bad pun jokes about time itself instead of telling the joke. I am pleasantly surprised that Baron Cohen was engaging in a sincere way and kept it clean for a kids movie. He is showing signs of versatility. His acting was not the level of Colin Firth, Tom Hanks, and Daniel Day-Lewis but he exceeded my expectations.

So in summation, Alice Through the Looking Glass is a movie with an unconvincing story saved by the animation, acting from SOME of the actors (some I found annoying or distracting) and my willingness to suspend my disbelief. If you want a story with substance, you can take a star off my rating. The good parts of the movie were just enough for me to outweigh the bad parts. **1/2

The Nice Guys Review

Genre: Mystery and comedy

Year: 2016

Rating: MA

Runtime: 112 minutes

Main Cast: Russell Crowe

Ryan Gosling

Agourine Rice

Produced By: Joel Silver

Written By: Shane Black, Anthony Bagaroizzi

Directed By: Shane Black


Written By Nelson Cumming

The best way to describe The Nice Guys is like a crossover between Boogie Nights, Pulp Fiction and Starkey and Hutch. The Nice Guys is not as good as either of those movies but it is still enjoyable nonetheless. Gosling, Crowe, and Rice all sink their teeth into this movie and they all look like they were enjoying filming this movie. The set designs were also pretty top notch and the dialogue is good, but the plot is unclear as well as the some of the character motives. However, The Nice Guys is one of those decent buddy-cop movies where you are meant to follow the characters as they try and solve the case.

The premise is Holland March (Ryan Gosling) is a down-on-his-luck private eye in 1977 Los Angeles. Jackson Healy (Russell Crowe) is a hired enforcer who hurts people for a living. Fate turns them into unlikely partners after a young woman named Amelia (Margaret Qualley) mysteriously disappears. Healy and March soon learn the hard way that some dangerous people are also looking for Amelia. Their investigation takes them to dark places as anyone else who gets involved in the case seems to wind up dead. I had to look it up on Wikipedia to fully understand what was going on, but I got the basis of it when I realized that they had to solve a case where everyone involved in the pornography business winds up dead because of a secret film.

The two actors who are great in this movie are Ryan Gosling and Rice as a father-daughter relationship. Gosling was good at being an exploitative detective while the daughter who not only helps with the case but also calls her dad out about his behavior. I did not think Crowe was that great as he was one dimensional throughout except for the movie climax. Despite this, I believe Crowe and Gosling work very well together. They had the chemistry you would see in good buddy-cop films were one of them is on the straight and narrow (Crowe) and the other one comically fumbles around until they inadvertently break the case wide open (Gosling). Their chemistry really helped a lot. It stopped the movie from getting boring.

There is also some great Tarintinian-like dialogue between Crowe and Gosling, particularly when they banter toward each other. Some of the more memorable lines are very weird when taken out of context but those lines were amusing and helped make the film what it is. They were not laugh-out-loud funny but they didn’t really need to be as it would have felt a little disjointed given the dark tones and themes director Shane Black was going after.

Throughout this movie, you can tell the director was going for style either subtlety or very explicitly. A great example of this style is the opening scene that involves a car crash. This was not because female pornographer was topless but because the way her was positioned. It was not done tastelessly, but what it established to me was the movie was going to be filled with ambition. The director even goes for style points in the characters names. I just love it when movies try to get you in from the opening scene.

The only thing the movie lacked was a clearer plot to cater for the ongoing toll of all the dead bodies. It is clear in the sense that you know the good guys from the bad guys but I just did not know the motives for some of the bad guys in particular. Throughout the movie I was wondering “Why is this guy involved in this scene” and I was scratching my head at that point because I just wanted an answer to those question. This slightly hurt the rating on the movie

Nevertheless, The Nice Guys is a good buddy-cop movie that is set in the seventies and offers a badass, engaging story about pornography and violence. I was worried the movie would be misguided in its direction around those ideas but they never are. There are no moral lessons that are meant be learned from this movie but it looks and feels authentic with the time period while still engaging with the present day audience ***1/2

X-Men Apocalypse Review

Genre: Superhero
Rating: M
Year: 2016
Runtime: 144 minutes
Main Cast: James McAvoy
Michael Fassbender
Jennifer Lawrence
Oscar Issac
Nicholas Hoult
Rose Byrne
Production Company: 20th Century Fox
Written By: Simon Kinberg
Directed By: Bryan Singer


Written By Nelson Cumming

Call me vapid and shallow, but the first thing I don’t like about the movie poster is James McAvoy’s bold head as he plays the role of Charles Xavier. It is like Dwayne Johnson having hair down to his lower back. Nevertheless, the X-Men are back for the seventh time (or eight, depending on how you are counting) to try and save the world from evil once again. I tried to do my homework and read about what happened in the other X-Men movies but the way the series have bounced around in time and settings is confusing for me. If you can understand the X-Men timeline, more power to you.

X-Men Apocalypse is not terrible, nor is it any good. It has some moments of good acting and one great scene, but also suffers from a thin plot expanded and stretched out to 144 minutes. There are moments of CGI in this movie, but sometimes the CGI was used as a crutch more than the tool. There were good actors in X-Men Apocalypse but some of the actors were used as a tool more than the crutch!

Oscar Issac plays The Apocalypse (the mutant, not the eschatological theory) has recently been reborn for thousands of years and plans a new world order with four recruits whom he calls The Four Housemen (get it!). Of course, it is up to the young X-Men, Professor X (James McAvoy) and Raven (Jennifer Lawrence) to stop The Four Horsemen and The Apocalypse from destroying mankind.

I believe the premise of this movie is quite overdone in superhero movies where the villain wants to destroy the world while the heroes try to stop him, but there are some good moments in this story. They have two subplots in this movie that had potential but were not used to their fullest.

A part of this problem has to do with a classic case too many character syndrome and the constant darting to and from different locations and sets. There are two characteristics a movie has to fulfill to get too many character syndrome in my opinion. 1. Have more than 5 main characters and 2. Not giving many of them much of a purpose in the movie (that being no character development, no integral part in the story or not entertaining in any way) Some of these superheroes are used just to show their superpowers and others are used for one scene while contributing next to nothing for the rest of the movie (This includes one of the major characters in the franchise). It was hard to focus on all of them at once.

The other major problem is darting from one location to another frequently. This gave off the illusion of disorganization and/or messy editing. I counted six different countries this movie was set and the filmmakers kept on darting around all of those countries in the movie. It really felt like a mess from that perspective.

Nevertheless, the story was clear and concise despite the fact it went for too long. There is one great scene in the movie in terms of pure entertainment that involves Quicksilver when he uses his powers a Xavier’s mansion. What transpires from that scene is awesome and that is all I am going to say about it. By far and away, I think that it was the most entertaining scene in the movie.

As an aside, I also like some of the actors, particularly James McAvoy as Charles bald head aside. He was good at playing the comforting teacher of the mutants and playing the father figure. I also liked the performance of Oscar Issac as The Apocalypse as he was very good at being an intense supervillain. Both of these characters were portrayed with a certain calmness in their roles as they engaged with certainty I was engaged in that calmness to a surprisingly effective degree.

I am going to give this movie an extra star for using a Metallica song in the movie (which is ‘The Four Horsemen”, who would have thought) and I am going to subtract a star for the movie destroying the Sydney Opera House (that is unimportant to the plot. Trust me) Now I have no reason to take the train to Circular Quey anymore. So at the end of the day, this movie gains no bonus marks.

Overall X-Men: The Apocalypse is not going to be a great film because the unwarranted length made it boring and any subplots that would have had meaning was subverted by run-of-the-mill action sequences. X-Men The Apocalypse was saved from disaster by a couple of good scenes and some decent acting, but I wasn’t that overjoyed from seeing it as I left the theater. Still better than Batman Vs. Superman though **1/2

The Angry Birds Movie Movie Review

Rating: G
Genre: Animated Adventure Comedy
Runtime: 97 Minutes
Cast: Jason Sudeikis,
Josh Gad,
Danny McBride,
Bill Hader
Production Company: Rovio Entertainment
Written By: Jon Vitti
Directed By: Fergil Reilly, Clay Kaytis



Written By Nelson Cumming

“Angry Birds” is a movie that knows it’s target demographic damn well (the kiddies!). This movie commits nearly 100% of its humor, narrative, animation and action towards them. Despite me not being a part of the target market, I can say there was not a time where I was notably frustrated as a lot of the movie made sense (Story, dialogue, and animation). However, Angry Birds is not a memorable film as any moral element of the story plays second fiddle to the action and the comedy. That said, Angry Birds is far away from being classed as a bad movie. Angry Birds ultimately succeeds in being fun and forgettable.

The story of Angry Birds revolves around Red who is a bird who is barely tolerated by his community. After an angry incident involving a birthday cake and some unhappy parents, Red has to go to anger management classes. Even though Red doesn’t want to change his life, he meets some friends there. Chuck, a hyperactive yellow bird, and Bomb, a large bird that explodes (literally) when he is angry are Red’s two friends. Red’s life is turned upside down when green pigs invade the island. Red with his comrades tries to find out their motives before it is too late.

From the very first scene, I knew little kids would like it. It is Red in the middle of a three-minute Tarzan-like adventure montage as he transverses through the terrain of the natural environment. It was bright, beautifully animated and had slapstick comedy that kids would enjoy. The filmmakers from the get-go throw many, many things that happen to Red that drive him from placid cynicism to full blown anger and they did it in a way to get kids to enjoy the journey of Red’s decent. The majority of the movie was like that. Those aspects were entertaining.

The movie’s general weaknesses were the lack of character depth and the constant pandering to the game. Directors Fergal Riley and Clay Kaytis decided to play it safe by using all of the supporting characters merely as instrumental tools to progress the plot or to play a part in the comedy instead of adding any depth to them. This tactic works sometimes, but not all the time. The other problem they plug the Angry Birds product into the movie to such a level that I was drawn out of the movie, thinking it was an advertisement (It is one scene, in particular, you will know it when you see it).

Overall I have to say that Angry Birds was not a bad movie. However, Angry Birds was far from being a great movie. Angry Birds does not offer any emotional depth nor does it really entertain the adults nearly as much as the kids. When they do try to subtly place adult humor it does not work. Overall, Angry birds entertain in its visual storytelling, action, and the childish humor. It is a pretty good forgettable family movie that the kids will enjoy and the parents will enjoy because their kids are happy and entertained seeing it. ***

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot Review

Genre: War Dramedy
Rating: MA
Runtime: 112 Minutes
Main Cast: Tina Fey
Martin Freeman
Margot Robbie
Christopher Abbott
Production Company: Broadway Video, Little Stranger
Written By: Rober Carlock
Directed By: Glen Ficarra
John Requa


Written By Nelson Cumming

“Whiskey Tango Foxtrot” is based on a novel called “The Taliban Shuffle” and led by Tina Fey which tells the story about a journalist entering into Afghanistan over a three year period. You would think it is a comedy from the promotional material, but it is a genuinely sincere story that engaged me. There were several things in the film that stopped “Whiskey Tango Foxtrot” from being great mainly because the first part tries to execute the distracting comedy into the dramatic story. What makes it up is the final two-thirds of the movie when it wholeheartedly tells the story of a female journalist who lived through the conflict of war.

the biggest criticism I had was misleading promotions from both trailer and movie poster. The promoters made the movie look like it was a satirical comedy on journalism in conflict zones. I don’t mind any premise, but the thing is I was expecting in the first forty minutes for “Whiskey Tango Foxtrot” to be funny so when the movie doesn’t commit to that direction I was frustrated. It was only after the first forty minutes did I say to myself this movie was meant to be serious. After that, my qualms dissipated. Nevertheless, “Whiskey Tango Foxtrot” sometimes tries comedy and while it was not bad wasn’t good either. It was ok but distracting.

That is all that is bad about it, which is not much in the grand scheme of things that “Whiskey Tango Foxtrot” achieves. Particularly with Tina Fey’s acting with everyone she interacts with. She acts differently with each and every character while still providing a convincing character that is in some ways flawed and some ways humble. What she does well in her character development as a journalist is she changes her behaviors and perspectives of the Afghanistan war through her time and experience there. Literally in each of the three years, she reacts differently to situations as she grows familiar with the environment.

Tina Fey is also helped by a stellar supporting cast. You get Martin Freeman, Margot Robbie, Christopher Abbott, Billy Bob Thornton, Alfred Molina and a famous actor from “Home and Away” all acting well for their roles by feeding off each other to build a scene. I couldn’t find a bad performance in this movie. Each helped build a personality trait in Tina Fey’s character. It was at the very least interesting and most of the time it was engaging. It was all about the relationship between the characters and the fragmentation that came from it that was great. There were two great scenes with Fey and Abbott that I loved. One of them was the climax and it was meaningful.

The cinematography was good for what it needed to portray. We see dirty, grim, enclosed environments coupled with the bright desert terrains where most of the conflicts are. There was a great scene where Fey’s character has a burka on. She secretly films Muslim demonstrations of shooting televisions. When the camera cuts to a first person view of Fey, she sees the Muslim protesters shouting at her when they discover the camera she is holding. This scene was very good at portraying an unsettling environment without resorting to explosions and shootings. While most of the battle and hostage scenes were not as intense as other great war films like “The Hurt Locker” and “Zero Dark Thirty” it was engaging instead of boring.

“Whiskey Tango Foxtrot” is an engaging film. The characters work, the story works and the cinematography works. There several little things they could have changed in my opinion and it would have easily been a great film. Nevertheless, I liked the movie and there were a lot of things I could write about in this one. Just don’t go in with the attitude that it is a comedy like I did. Maybe then, you might like it even more than I did. ***1/2

Bad Neighbours 2 Review

Genre: Comedy

Year: 2016

Rating: MA

Runtime: 92 Minutes

Main Cast: Seth Rogen, Zac Efron, Rose Byrne, Chole Grace Moretz

Production Company: Point Grey Pictures

Written By: Seth Rogen, Andrew J. Cohen, Bredon O’Brien, Nicholas Stoller, Evan Goldberg

Directed By: Nicholas Stoller


Written By Nelson Cumming

“Bad Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising” is a retread of the first movie with a similar premise and similar gags. My overall conclusion was that the movie is not as good or funny as the original. That being said, “Bad Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising” had me laughing a little throughout but there was nothing that stood out as comedy gold. At least the gross-out gags in this raunch comedy didn’t linger on, the performances were decent and the story had direction. Despite the movie having direction “Bad Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising”is a hit and miss comedy with a lot of missed at the beginning and a lot of hits towards the end.


Think “Bad Neighbors” when it comes to the premise but it is a soroity instead of a fraternity, so the raunch comedy comes from women rather than men. Seth Rogan and Rose Byrne play parents who have bought a new home and are trying to sell their old home which is in escrow meaning the new homeowners are willing to buy their house if for 30 days the homeowners are satisfied with the living situation. Since the members of the Kappa Kappa Nu sorority club are partygoers, they refuse to quiet down for the new neighbors. This leads to an ongoing turf war that ensues just like the original movie.


This movie goes for a gross-out gag from the beginning that is similar to the gross-out gag from “Grown Ups 2” in terms of bodily fluids landing on the face, or in the case of “Bad Neighbors 2” half fluids and half solids. Rose Byrne vomits on the face of Roger as they are having sex (She was on top) to which she says “Honey, I think I’m pregnant” Rogan responds, with his face covered in vomit, “I think I just came” The image of vomit on Rogan’s bushy face was not ascetically pleasing, to say the least. It brought me out of the movie for quite a while.


Despite the exchange of bodily fluids, there were funny moments, but they were followed up by gags that didn’t work. Two memorable scenes include a gag with an airbag (similar to the original) and one that involved the soroity girls selling weed to pay the rent. Both were stupid in their hilarity and they made me laugh, but then there would be a scene where things just didn’t work, either because it didn’t make any sense or they were pushing the envelope too far. It was inconsistent on the level of hilarity, but at least it was funny and had its moments.


The best I can compare “Bad Neighbors 2” with iGrimsbysey” but it is not as over-the-top but it was not a mean-spirited or as uneven as “The Boss” There really hasn’t been a film I have reviewed where I was really struggling to write about it because my final thoughts were messy at best. But here is how I would sum it up: This film has a good plot direction, yet at the same time it was inconsistent in its humor, but the humor was good it was great. The actors were good at their roles but they were never fully fleshed out to the point were I cared as much as I’d like to. I liked the whole story but at the same time I hated it. I really don’t know how to adequately express these thoughts. I was miffed, but I didn’t mind seeing it at the same time. I am leaving on a weird note **3/4

Mothers Day Review

Genre: Romantic Comedy
Year: 2016
Rating: PG
Length: 118 Minutes
Main Cast: Jennifer Aniston
Kate Hudson
Julia Roberts
Jason Sudeikis
Main Production Company: Capacity Pictures
Directed By: Garry Marshall

Written By Nelson Cumming
“Mothers Day” is one of the rare movies where just describing what I had seen is enough to make you cringe. Not a single thing was funny. Not only that but there was some racism in it which was made worse by the stupid stereotypes that were portrayed that try to justify the racism. “Mothers Day” also tries to force you to gain sympathy through overdone sad generic character stories about abandonment issues and the grieving process of a mother’s death. None of this heavy themes work because they are so forced and flippant about it that I rolled my eyes whenever those stories were mentioned. Coupled with ridiculous levels of product placement, cheesy predictable “coming together” moments and jokes that are so dumb and unfunny is what makes “Mothers Day” so terrible to watch.

The “story” like other movies with large casts involves separate little stories that overarch into one main story. It is basically about how people are sad about upcoming mothers day for various reasons and how they solve all their problems by finally meeting in a hospital. Yes, a hospital, perfect for “Mothers Day”. I could go into the specific stories but I am not going to bother because it will take too long and the filmmakers did not care about what they made. If the movie does not care about its audience why should I?

One of the problems with lots of stories is the movie feels fragmented all the time. Director Gary Marshall is not Paul Thomas Anderson. Anderson got 6 or 7 seven little stories and interweaved them seamlessly in a very powerful 180-minute drama called “Magnolia” that dealt not only with the consequences of immoral actions but how those that were hurt took their final moral justice. Marshall made a two-hour romantic comedy and trivialized the subject matter of motherhood in a story so fragmented you’d forget what some of the stories are if you were not reminded of them. Yet there are some stories in “Mother’s Day” that you’d remember for all the wrong reasons.

“Mothers Day” has the annoying tendency to try and attain audience sympathy through cheap cliche tactics that soap operas like to use. An example includes how one of the families can’t get through the grieving process of their mother who died in a war which is conveyed by little girls crying on the mother’s tombstone and the husband lying on the couch nostalgically looking at a pre-recoded tape of his wife on the TV screen. It does not work because she is never really seen in the whole movie. If I can’t see or know the mother, how can I be attached to the mother in any way and how her loss hurts the family? I wrote in my notes “They really shove this mothers day theme down our throats with vapid bullshit sentimentality” That is a perfect summation of the movie.

If you are Indian I will guarantee you will be offended by this movie. There are racist remarks said by redneck racists and homophobes and you see and Indian drinking alcohol while showing the brand of alcohol in a terrible use of product placement. None of this was funny. As I mentioned before, you have to be smarter and smarter to be more and more tasteless. It can be done with great results, however, the worse the subject matter the harder they fall if not executed to comedic effect.

So I believe that “Mother’s Day” was a cynical attempt to appeal only to the lowest common denominator of middle-aged mothers that like sitting through unfunny sequences, racial stereotyping and dramatic soap-opera in one scattershot mess. I was the only man that was sane enough to leave the cinemas as the outtakes were going on before the lights went up. I just couldn’t stay through that. It is up to you whether or not you thought I was the only smart one or the only dumb one. -*