Monday, July 02, 2018

Chips: movie review


Well, this remake shit the bed.  While there are a few jokes here and there that are funny, the movie comes across as uneven and unfunny most of the time.  This could have been a really funny and amusing movie, but it feels like too many cooks in the kitchen. However, it seems this movie comes from the mind of one man, Dax Shepard. Shepard directed and wrote this mess himself. This is all his fault.
During a time when procedural crime shows are starting to become stale, this brand of TV just seems old and dying. I just believe this franchise should have never been restarted and left for dead. Some things just aren't meant to be rebooted. This movie is one of them.
What was the point of this movie?  And, I can see why the movie flopped.
The story has so many strange offshoots and diversions that I wonder if the movie was clumped together from different scripts.  There are so many problems with the movie that it is difficult to get through the movie.  The crooked cop thing is an interesting take, but it loses steam as the movie progresses and gets boring. The love stories are unfocused and go nowhere.
-No 70s vibe: I liked the original series in all of its cheesy 70s nature. This movie doesn't even try.
-Michael Peña and Dax Shepherd don't have good chemistry.  It doesn't work and is painful to watch. At a certain point, the two lead characters just become friends and the movie doesn't even bother to grow their friendship organically.   
-Dax Shepherd directs:  Like the Ghostbusters remake, the jokes go on a bit too long.   
-Characters contradict themselves:  This is a huge problem in the movie.  Ponch is a sex fiend.  He jerks off three times a day.  Earlier in the movie, he reveals he has no standards when it comes to sexual partners.  Yet, when his mid-40s police boss face-times him via sexting, his is disgusted and throws the phone in the fire.  Uh, your police boss is very hot and you prove that you have no standards before.
-Back to Future reference:  This was strange mention via a line and visual cue and seems to come out of nowhere.  Why was this put in the movie?   
-Doesn't take the piss out of the old series enough:  It is a standalone story that doesn't even use the basis that original story had.  Why not do the 21 Jump Street and Starsky and Hutch thing?   
-Nudity of men and women: You will see naked men and women. This movie is R-rated and I am fine with that. However, who are you aiming this movie too?
-A character gets his fingers blown off:  This "Joke" was made in The Interview. Why even put this in the third act. It adds nothing to the movie!
-Abandons its core concept: For a while, the movie loses track of what it was set out to do. The movie is supposed to be about some highway patrol officers bonding. At a certain point, they throw out their outfits and get some Power Rangers suits and souped-up bikes. Why? Why abandon your concept during the second act?
-The villains are really laughable bad: A bunch of corrupt cops are performing heists on armored vans. Nothing is compelling or sinister about this band of bad police officers. And, the story about them gets lost with the rest of the bullshit in this movie.
-The action scenes are lame...really lame: It is sad when shows on the CW do action scenes better than this movie. In a more skillful director's hands, these action and heist scene could have been compelling. However, the scenes are just flat and mostly boring.
The movie doesn't work and is really unfunny.  What was the point of using the Chips IP? I hate this movie.
Grade: F+

 Superheroes from the early 2000s.
 Seeing Kristen Bell wet and showing boob is probably one of the few things good about this movie.  Actually, Bell is the only thing good about this movie.  Damn she is looking good and I am very single...moving on. 
 Okay, the uniforms are the same, but they get thrown out in the second act. 

No comments:

Blog Information Profile for Semaj47