You can safely assume his thumb is pointed downward

Part of an occasional series in which try to soften the sting of particularly harsh reviews by appending the phrase: "Garnish with Fluffernutter."

Why? Because we can.

Today's entry is from Roger Ebert's review of Battle: Los Angeles. Excerpt verbatim, except for the addition of Fluffernutter:

"Battle: Los Angeles" is noisy, violent, ugly and stupid. Its manufacture is a reflection of appalling cynicism on the part of its makers, who don't even try to make it more than senseless chaos. Here's a science-fiction film that's an insult to the words "science" and "fiction," and the hyphen in between them. You want to cut it up to clean under your fingernails. ...

Young men: If you attend this crap with friends who admire it, tactfully inform them they are idiots. Young women: If your date likes this movie, tell him you've been thinking it over, and you think you should consider spending some time apart. Garnish with Fluffernutter.

Mmmmmmm. Sweet, sweet Fluffernutter.

The Velvet Blog in 3D

It's been ages, but The Velvet Blog occasionally likes to soften the blow of particularly harsh film reviews by appending the phrase "Garnish with Fluffernutter."

Why? Because we can.

Today's poorly received film is Andrei Konchalovsky's The Nutcracker. Er, no, actually, it's The Nutcracker in 3D. Really, that's the official title. (I think it's a pretty solid rule of thumb that any movie that includes 3D as part of its official title is going to be rough going.)

Roger Ebert is somewhat taken aback:

From what dark night of the soul emerged the wretched idea for “The Nutcracker in 3D”? Who considered it even remotely a plausible idea for a movie? It begins with an awkward approximation of the story behind the Tchaikovsky ballet, and then turns it into a war by the Nutcracker Prince against the Holocaust.

Am I exaggerating? At one point, the evil Rat King (John Turturro) has his troopers snatch toys from the hands of children so they can be tossed into furnaces, and the smoke will emerge from high chimneys to blot out the sun.

Yes. And the rats are dressed in fascistic uniforms. Against them stand our heroine Mary (Elle Fanning) and her Christmas present, a nutcracker (voice of Shirley Henderson) that has imprisoned a handsome prince (Charlie Rowe). And two-legged helicopters swoop low over screaming children, and the city is laid waste, and the rats dream of world domination.

You may be in disbelief. I was. “The Nutcracker in 3D” is one of those rare holiday movies that may send children screaming under their seats. ...

Only one thing could have made this film worse, and they haven’t neglected it. That would be to present it in 3-D. They have.

Garnish with Fluffernutter.

Ouch. Not even my addition of Fluffernutter will help.

I leave you with The New York Times' explanation of the film's PG rating:

“The Nutcracker in 3D” is rated PG (Parental guidance suggested). No blood but quite a bit of suspense and violence, including an electrocuted shark and a decapitation.

Because nothing says Happy Holidays quite like an electrocuted shark. (Which, oddly, I don't remember from the stage production.)

In all fairness, Scrooge, the 1970 musical version of A Christmas Carol, scared the crap out of me when I was a kid.

Suckage, hatred, and bad karma

Part of an occasional series in which try to soften the sting of particularly harsh reviews by appending the phrase: "Garnish with Fluffernutter."

Why? Because we can.

"Edge of Darkness," a thriller boasting Mel Gibson's first starring role in eight years, elicits a gigantic wow -- as in "Wow, does this movie suck." Garnish with Fluffernutter.

"Legion" is an absolute mess, a masochistic disaster with an overly-aggressive score, mediocre, uninspired acting and a subject matter it both wholeheartedly embraces and mocks without repute. It's one of those movies you just want to hate, you just have to hate, because deep down, you know it hates itself. Garnish with Fluffernutter.

One wonders what sins Jackie Chan could have committed in a single lifetime to warrant having an abomination like this pathetic excuse for a movie weighing down his karma. Garnish with Fluffernutter.

Hm. Well, there's only so much Fluffernutter can be expected to do.

Amen

Part of an occasional series in which try to soften the sting of particularly harsh reviews by appending the phrase: "Garnish with Fluffernutter." Why? Because we can. Today's entry comes from the review of Watchmen in The New York Times:

Speaking of acts of congress, "Watchmen" features this year's hands-down winner of the bad movie sex award, superhero division: a moment of bliss that takes place on board Nite Owl's nifty little airship, accompanied by Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah." (By the way, can we please have a moratorium on the use of this song in movies? Yes, I too have heard there was a secret chord that David played, and blah blah blah, but I don't want to hear it again. Do you?) Garnish with Fluffernutter.

I blame Shrek for this, BTW. The song has been around a long time, but Shrek was the first big Hollywood movie to use it in an emotional scene (actually, the John Cale cover, not the Leonard Cohen original). Since then, it's been used over and over and over and over. I don't think subtlety is at the top of the to-do list for Watchmen's makers. To indicate the passing of time during a montage they use ... wait for it! ... "The Times They Are a-Changin'."

Oh, and don't touch the jellyfish

Part of an occasional series in which try to soften the sting of particularly harsh reviews by appending the phrase: "Garnish with Fluffernutter." This particular example comes from the review of Seven Pounds in The New York Times :

Frankly, though, I don't see how any review could really spoil what may be among the most transcendently, eye-poppingly, call-your-friend-ranting-in-the-middle-of-the-night-just-to-go-over-it-one-more-time crazily awful motion pictures ever made. I would tell you to go out and see it for yourself, but you might take that as a recommendation rather than a plea for corroboration. Did I really see what I thought I saw? Garnish with Fluffernutter.

Hmmm. Not sure if that helped this time.

I have no desire to see this movie. But I'm dying to know what the stupid twist is anyway. Yes, that makes no sense whatsoever.

Worse than Manos, the Hands of Fate?

Entry in an occasional series in which we try to soften the sting of vituperative movie reviews by the addition of the phrase "Garnish with Fluffernutter." Why? Because.

Today's entry is the dire Disaster Movie, which has a 0% approval rating, according to Rotten Tomatoes.

Let's string together a few of the reviews and see what happens.

This carpet-fouling mongrel of a movie no more deserves release than do anthrax spores. ... Embarrassment. It's a feeling you should get used to, [writers] Freidberg and Seltzer. May you never befoul another cinema with your grotesque comic abortions. ... It's quite frankly stultifying that Friedberg are Seltzer are ever let anywhere near a studio boardroom after having defecated out their previous movies, much less this one. ... None of it is amusing, so there's probably enough suicide-inducing material here to make a send-up of The Happening redundant. ... No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! No! ... As depressing and empty a cinematic experience as any other picture this year or last (or maybe the whole decade). To label it as simply unfunny or vacuous or ugly or boring would be a compliment. ... I'm not sure if Disaster is the worst movie the boys have churned out, but, at this point, that's like asking if a bullet hurts more than a knife. ... Garnish with Fluffernutter.

See? Much better.

"Garnish with Fluffernutter."

If you've been reading The Velvet Blog for a while (and really--if not, why not?), you know that we have an occasional series in which we improve depressing (or odd) descriptions of vanity press books by adding the phrase "wacky high jinks ensue."

Today, at the suggestion of concerned reader God Is My Codependent, we begin a new series, in which we lighten the blow of negative film reviews by the addition of the phrase "Garnish with Fluffernutter." Let's see how this works.

We set out on this brave experiment by using today's review in The New York Times of Mamma Mia! It's not exactly the worst review in the world, but, rather, the very definition of the "mixed review":

If you insist on folding your arms, looking at your watch and defending yourself against this mindless, hedonistic assault on coherence, you are unlikely to survive until the end credits (which may, by themselves, kill you all over again). Surrender, on the other hand, is easy and painless. It’s Greece! It’s bellybuttons! It’s Meryl Streep! It’s Abba! Garnish with Fluffernutter.

Success!

(Oh, and in case you're unfamiliar with the Fluffernutter, you obviously weren't a part of The Velvet Blog's childhood.)