This article reads like the author kind of liked the movie, but their editor changed the headline:
Naturally, the premise sounds silly. Foolish, even. But Seinfeld doesn’t let it show. Unfrosted is briskly paced, gamely acted, and its script, co-written by Spike Feresten, Andy Robin, and Barry Marder, does not contain a whit of self-consciousness. It’s also funny at times, even if it is a depressing, vulgar little project.
Yea I’m confused, the article seems to waver between it was confusing to good, but also it misses the point of why the writer likes pop tarts so it’s not good?
“That’s a nice feeling. *Unfrosted *isn’t about that feeling. It’s about the product […] It takes whatever pleasure that can be derived from a Pop-Tart, and chokes on it”
This movie exists because studios will fund projects that are connected to ip, and it’s ridiculous that pop-tarts counts.
The movie isn’t choosing to say anything. It is telling jokes to have fun and that’s as far as it’s willing to take it.
Now, does this make it a bad movie? That’s for you to decide. If all you want from a film is to be entertained with some jokes? It sounds like it’s good, but that’s not what the author is speaking to. The author is speaking to people that enjoy films that have points of view that they are expressing. If that isn’t you, that’s okay.
It’s… not good though. Which is REALLY striking b/c with that outstanding cast, it becomes really, REALLY noticeable. There should have been almost no way for this to bomb… but it did.
The whole show is just dedicated to loving conservative values - capitalism, shitting on women (ostensively ironically, but…), not paying or caring at all about your workers, or your customer base either, as in literally giving little children cancer and laughing about it (I am not even kidding, that was an actual part of the movie, from both sides), and they even had a whole scene depicting the White House riots, replete with a guy with no shirt and a horned helmet who took an actual dump on the property, and once again I am not kidding but it was violent, with one person falling to be injured after having climbed the wall, and others were climbing up multiple stories high on the outside of the building.
Oh, but now Seinfeld is blaming the “woke crowd” for not appreciating what he offered. As with any incel, the recipients thoughts don’t matter ofc, only his intentions, which he claims to be “pure”. A quote from the article:
According to Seinfeld himself, Unfrosted is merely an exercise in warm silliness, born from the bleak early days of the COVID-19 pandemic and a very long-gestating stand-up joke about how much joy the treat brought him as a kid.
Yeah, except it’s not though. It’s exactly like calling someone “sugar tits” while slapping them on the ass, then blaming them for “not getting the joke” - this was Boomerism at its finest, and the only reason I am glad to have seen it is b/c it helps me realize why there may be an actual, literal Civil War upcoming in the next election: b/c there are a LOT of people like him, who flat-out do not care one tiny bit about anyone but their own side.
Barbie is a movie that is about a children’s toy, and it talks about feminism, toxic masculinity, among others. Godzilla is a movie where a man in a giant reptile costume breaks apart facsimile buildings, but talks about the terror of nuclear attacks at the same time. Just because movies are about silly things doesn’t mean that the professionals that work on them aren’t allowed to put more into their work.
And? Not every movie has to make a stance on something. It’s written by Jerry Seinfeld. Do you really care about his thoughts on some political, environmental or social issues?
Not every movie has to be about deep things, but if you make it about nothing then don’t be surprised when people collectively say “meh” and ignore your movie.
Sure. I wasn’t arguing against that. I just said it’s a silly article if it’s whole point was “the movie is funny, but the movie about Pop-Tarts by Jerry Seinfeld isn’t deep enough”.
(…) in the service of a story that possesses no satirical edge, nor any human connection. It takes whatever pleasure that can be derived from a Pop-Tart, and chokes on it.
This article reads like the author kind of liked the movie, but their editor changed the headline:
Sounds like Seinfeld committed the gravest sin possible in the race for clicks: he made a movie that’s… okay.
Which, tbf, is probably about his ceiling without Larry David around.
Yea I’m confused, the article seems to waver between it was confusing to good, but also it misses the point of why the writer likes pop tarts so it’s not good?
“That’s a nice feeling. *Unfrosted *isn’t about that feeling. It’s about the product […] It takes whatever pleasure that can be derived from a Pop-Tart, and chokes on it”
The author is making 2 main points.
Now, does this make it a bad movie? That’s for you to decide. If all you want from a film is to be entertained with some jokes? It sounds like it’s good, but that’s not what the author is speaking to. The author is speaking to people that enjoy films that have points of view that they are expressing. If that isn’t you, that’s okay.
It’s… not good though. Which is REALLY striking b/c with that outstanding cast, it becomes really, REALLY noticeable. There should have been almost no way for this to bomb… but it did.
The whole show is just dedicated to loving conservative values - capitalism, shitting on women (ostensively ironically, but…), not paying or caring at all about your workers, or your customer base either, as in literally giving little children cancer and laughing about it (I am not even kidding, that was an actual part of the movie, from both sides), and they even had a whole scene depicting the White House riots, replete with a guy with no shirt and a horned helmet who took an actual dump on the property, and once again I am not kidding but it was violent, with one person falling to be injured after having climbed the wall, and others were climbing up multiple stories high on the outside of the building.
Oh, but now Seinfeld is blaming the “woke crowd” for not appreciating what he offered. As with any incel, the recipients thoughts don’t matter ofc, only his intentions, which he claims to be “pure”. A quote from the article:
Yeah, except it’s not though. It’s exactly like calling someone “sugar tits” while slapping them on the ass, then blaming them for “not getting the joke” - this was Boomerism at its finest, and the only reason I am glad to have seen it is b/c it helps me realize why there may be an actual, literal Civil War upcoming in the next election: b/c there are a LOT of people like him, who flat-out do not care one tiny bit about anyone but their own side.
It’s a silly point though. You mean the Pop-Tart movie written by Jerry Seinfeld doesn’t make a point??? Well color me surprised.
Barbie is a movie that is about a children’s toy, and it talks about feminism, toxic masculinity, among others. Godzilla is a movie where a man in a giant reptile costume breaks apart facsimile buildings, but talks about the terror of nuclear attacks at the same time. Just because movies are about silly things doesn’t mean that the professionals that work on them aren’t allowed to put more into their work.
And? Not every movie has to make a stance on something. It’s written by Jerry Seinfeld. Do you really care about his thoughts on some political, environmental or social issues?
Not every movie has to be about deep things, but if you make it about nothing then don’t be surprised when people collectively say “meh” and ignore your movie.
Sure. I wasn’t arguing against that. I just said it’s a silly article if it’s whole point was “the movie is funny, but the movie about Pop-Tarts by Jerry Seinfeld isn’t deep enough”.
Sure?