Haven't seen a trailer for this one yet, but just by the plot it sounds pretty damn terrible. I think the only reason the 2nd one was kinda decent was Rodrick and making Greg more likeable than he was in the first one.
shareIt's based on a book. The book is for kids. The plot is silly, but its for kids.
sharei dunno, it seems like a lot of the humor is still that older people would appreciate more than the kids themselves. like the shel silverstein thing. what kid would've actually got that? but everyone i know who's older found it hi-larious XD
I used to be indecisive. Now, I'm not so sure.
The books definitely have this sarcastic element that the movies have largely ignored. They're a middle-aged man writing about an oblivious modern middle schooler who thinks he's the coolest thing ever. Often they poke fun at recent funny childhood developments, such as misguided education policies and the immature uses to which lazy children put technology.
The movies are about a kid who knows exactly how awkward he is. They're aimed more at children and their parents, what with the wacky gags and pop soundtracks. Except in "Dog Days" they went light on the slapstick and dove straight for every pubescent cringe moment they could find. Can't say where, if anywhere, they could go from here.
The first movie was definitely NOT awful.
I thought the fist One was halarious and I am 25 year old girl. The 2nd one tried too hard to be funny and the 3rd one was not funny enough ( I was bored when Greg went with roles family and then to that scout camp at the end.
So I think the first one was the best because of how subtlety funny it was.
agreed first one was the best, and second wasnt too bad. third was not so good.
share