Paul (2011) (mini-review++)

(If you’re curious, my review process. It’s also pasted at the end of this post. I don’t believe in Rotten Tomatoes. I just believe in me.)

(***all-purpose SPOILER ALERT*** there may be some in this review)

acting 6

directing 5

effects 6

editing 6

writing 5

SW SCORE: 28

3 out of 5 🐙

++

The plot is about as simple as it gets (and it’s a stoner comedy so it’s not like a plot was all that important): a lewd, crude, stoner alien is running from evil human government agents. This is basically E. T. but if everyone involved was high. And that’s just fine. It’s just fine. It’s literally a stoner type movie about a stoner alien. There’s not much more I have to say. But I’ll just go ahead and list some things that I liked:

Filming at San Diego Comic-Con is certainly one way to get good publicity for your geek movie.

Seth Rogen voices Paul,  which is a pretty great choice for a stoner alien.

It’s quite the cast actually: Simon Pegg, Jason Bateman, Sigourney Weaver, Bill Hader, Kristen Wiig, Jane Lynch, Jeffrey Tambor, Jesse Plemons.

Some funny lines (there weren’t a lot – most of the jokes were not landing):

  • “Sorry you got killed by my dad.”
  • (nice call out to Back to the Future)
    • “But I dont have my toothbrush.”
    • “Baby, where we’re going you don’t need teeth.”

A funny call out to E. T. The Extra-Terrestrial (you know, besides the entire movie’s plot being a call out to E. T.): making fun of how slow E. T.’s ship flew. 

That’s it. I recommend you get drunk or twisted or both before you see this movie. Paul would want it that way.

.

.

.

.

.

.

(1) Shark Wrighter (SW) Score: Based on a sum of 5 sub-scores (acting, directing, writing/story, effects: cinematography &/or animation &/or effects, editing) with 1 being terrible and 10 being terrific.

(2) Octopuses (0-5 🐙, with 5 being fantastic and 0 being feces)

(3) Octopuses are my unquantifiable feeling…not that SW score is scientific…but this one is even less so

(4) ++ This optional section includes any incredibly *brilliant observations that don’t fit into simple quantitative slices like the scores and octopuses *(they are likely NOT brilliant)

2 thoughts on “Paul (2011) (mini-review++)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.