Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Ted (2012)

This is topic Ted (2012) in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001877

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 06-29-2012, 02:50 PM:

A lonely young boy wishes his teddy bear to life and promises it eternal friendship, but thirty years later finds its degenerate and clingy manner driving a wedge between him and his live-in girlfriend.

I’m not a big fan of Family Guy or Seth McFarland in general, so I wasn’t crazy about seeing this, but it turned out to be OK though no where near as funny as the trailer would have you believe (in fact, most of the jokes in the trailer are in the first fifteen minutes of the movie). The sight of a foul-mouthed, high-attitude dope-obsessed teddy bear is funny at first, but the movies relentless sexist/homophobic/racist/dick/fart/sex/drug humor gets tiresome pretty fast, and there a LOT of fart jokes. Weak ending, too. It has its moments, though, and Marky Mark and Mila Kunis make a nice screen couple. Here’s a hint before you go: familiarity with the 1980 film Flash Gordon will be rewarded.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-05-2012, 11:24 AM:

We were in Billings for the 4th of July, and had a couple hours to kill so we decided to see "Ted" at the Carmike Shiloh 14 (which I had never been inside of before). This theatre is famous (or should be) for having the official Carmike World's Noisiest Air Conditioning System®. Seriously, it sounds like there is a jet aircraft warming up behind the screen. Other than that the presentation was fine.

Anyway, on to the movie. Virtually the whole story except the part about

Spoiler Alert - Click to Toggle
Ted getting kidnapped

can be surmised from the trailers, and at least 75% of the funniest bits are in the red-band trailer, unfortunately. There is a sort of twist just after the "day is saved" that provides one of the best laughs in the movie, and it's not even a dirty joke. In fact some of the better bits in the movie aren't raunchy at all.

Overall, it's more a romantic comedy with sex jokes than it is a raunch-fest, which surprised me. I agree about the lead couple having good chemistry. The movie is well-cast all around. The bad guy is truly creepy. They could make a comedy horror movie around him and his equally weird kid.

One trivial bit: They use a segment from the movie "Airplane" which features the song "Stayin' Alive" by the Bee Gees. In "Airplane," the song is sped-up by about 10% (why, I don't know) but in this usage of the clip, the song is played at the normal speed.

I am fairly well-known on this forum for bashing Carmike, which they often deserve. But I also will say when they do something right. We were about 30 minutes ahead of showtime, but the ticket taker allowed us to go in anyway. When we went into the auditorium, the end-credits of the previous show were still playing and the place was a mess...lots of popcorn cups and such sitting around. After we sat there for about 5 minutes, a couple of employees came in and were apparently wondering why there were two people sitting there....they must have thought we were from the earlier show and just hadn't left yet. Finally one of them asked us if we were here for the next show, and we said yes. Then he said "We apologize for the auditorium -- they're supposed to let us clean it before the next crowd comes in." I said, "no problem, we were just early" and they proceeded to clean the place up, all the while chatting us up and saying things like "is this your first time here," "this movie is really funny, you'll like it" and so forth. It was pleasant visiting with them. So props to Carmike for these two good ambassadors.

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 07-05-2012, 06:07 PM:

I agree with your assessment of this as being a romantic comedy with sex and drug jokes.

The movie is deliberately jarring (kids movie style narrator cutting to a scene of the teddy bear smoking crack. and so on) and I suppose that makes me like it somewhat less than if it was one (kids show) or the other (straight-up raunch comedy).

The combination does work, and it's certainly anything but boring to watch.

It's very well made, and the scene where Mark Wahlberg gets beat up by the teddy bear makes the whole movie worth watching.

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 07-06-2012, 03:59 PM:

CINEMA: Regal Green Valley Ranch, Henderson, NV
AUDITORIUM: 3
PRESENTATION: Sony Digital 4K (but probably 2K)
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: Soft picture
RATING: Two and one half stars (out of four)

THE PLOT: An egotistical bitchy girlfriend pulls the 'him or me' stunt with her boyfriend and his teddy bear. Wackiness ensues.

They spoofed "Airplane".

Seriously.

AIRPLANE.

How big do your balls have to be to SPOOF AIRPLANE.

Cripes.

It's a funnier than average mediocre romantic comedy that runs about ten minutes too long and would have been better without the sub-plot and if Wahlberg's character just said "Oh well!" when he got dumped and moved back in with Ted and they partied happily ever after. Or if Flash stole Ted's girlfriend and they went in a whole weird direction with that.

I'd sort of wondered if women would even go to this, but the women in this audience were raving about it afterward in the corridor.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-07-2012, 09:21 PM:

We got an article from NATO talking about Ted becoming the "family film of summer 2012." Apparently a lot of moms are taking their kids to it...the article says a typical R movie has about 6% of its attendance under age 12, but with Ted it's closer to 18%. Apparently foul language, sex jokes and drug use is acceptable for kids if it's coming from a teddy bear.

To quote the Wicked Witch of the West, "What a world, what a world."

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-08-2012, 02:34 PM:

Does Ted have any nudity? If not, then a lot of parents are going to be perfectly OK with their under 17 aged kids watching it. Violence, foul language and lots of other stuff that earn movies an R-rating are widely tolerated. Nudity isn't.

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 07-08-2012, 02:43 PM:

There is one short scene of nudity, where Ted paints Garfield on a woman's chest. It lasts for less than five seconds, but it's there.

There is a lot of drug use, though -- one instance of snorting cocaine as I can recall, and smoking crack is a recurring theme in the movie.

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 07-08-2012, 02:52 PM:

I don't know who film makers like this are making films for. There has been so much foul language, sexual nudity and gruesome special effects since the late 60s that, to me, these types of films are, at best, boring. Apparently many writers have run out of good ideas and think "well, lets see how nasty we can get". Sadly they have created a taste among a small segment of society for this garbage and actually make money doing it.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-08-2012, 05:38 PM:

I think there's considerably less nudity in Hollywood studio movies now than what was seen 20 or more years ago. Violence and profanity are by far the most common offensive items found in new R-rated big studio flicks.

If someone wants to see a movie with nudity in it he'll probably have to check out premium cable TV. There's a lot more skin shown on cable than there is in the typical multiplex. And that's kind of odd. Kids are more likely to see offensive content at home on the TV screen or computer screen than they are in a movie theater. Parents have more control over what kids see in a theatrical environment simply because they have to specifically allow the kid to come with them to the theater.

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-09-2012, 12:54 AM:

By far, most nudity these days is done for comic effect. In fact you see more nude male butts than anything else in the movies these days. Even "Brave" had nude male butts. (3-year-olds, but still.)

As for the profanity...we were pretty much guaranteed a steady stream of that kind of thing when movies like "The Hangover," "Bridesmaids" and "Wedding Crashers" became huge hits. There are plenty of occasions when well-placed profanity is really funny and/or effective in a movie, but there are just as many times when it's just there to shock, or to score a certain rating.

The fact is, the vast majority of the generation now under 40 just doesn't have a problem with "foul language." They don't see that it makes them look immature or lacking in intelligence. They talk that way in front of their kids and think it's "cute" when the kids start spouting dirty words. It's too bad, but that's the way it is. And you can't blame the movies for this...movies are just reflective of society. If people didn't really talk that way, movies wouldn't either.

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 07-09-2012, 12:39 PM:

quote: Frank Cox
The movie is deliberately jarring (kids movie style narrator cutting to a scene of the teddy bear smoking crack. and so on)

quote: Frank Cox
and smoking crack is a recurring theme in the movie.

There is never an instance of smoking crack. Any time you see them getting high other then the cocaine it is pot. This is refrenced several times with key words such as "Stoned" "My pot dealer" and so on.

Robert, I'm not sure if your question is for real or not. However the people that the film makers are making movies like "TED" "The Hangover" "Bridesmaids" "Due Date" for, are the general movie going public. That, sorry to state Robert isn't 60+ year old white males. It is 13-40 year olds both male and female. Enjoy the past, that's fine but let it go that the golden days of repressed sexual tones in movies and slang terms isn't in anymore and movies are open and don't care who they offend. They are there to entertain!

quote: Robert E. Allen
Sadly they have created a taste among a small segment of society for this garbage and actually make money doing it.

A movie that has made $120 Million in just 10 days, that is not a small segment of society Robert. That is an over concensus that people want movies like Ted. (Edited to add this)

Now onto TED, I loved it. Thought it was funny, had a great heart. It pulled all the great things from Family Guy during seasons 1 and 2 and used them to great laughs. I thougt, like many others that the sub plot didn't need to be there. It felt tacked on and forced towards the end. However it wasn't bad, just didn't feel like it needed to be there.

Patrick Stewart as the Narrator was great.

4/5 [thumbsup]

Posted by Robert E. Allen (Member # 1351) on 07-09-2012, 03:06 PM:

quote:
Kurt Zupin Robert, I'm not sure if your question is for real or not. However the people that the film makers are making movies like "TED" "The Hangover" "Bridesmaids" "Due Date" for, are the general movie going public. That, sorry to state Robert isn't 60+ year old white males. It is 13-40 year olds both male and female. Enjoy the past, that's fine but let it go that the golden days of repressed sexual tones in movies and slang terms isn't in anymore and movies are open and don't care who they offend. They are there to entertain!

quote: Robert E. Allen Sadly they have created a taste among a small segment of society for this garbage and actually make money doing it.

A movie that has made $120 Million in just 10 days, that is not a small segment of society Robert. That is an over concensus that people want movies like Ted.

Well my young on-line friend, in my 80 years I have gotten to know many people and discussed the downward spiral of the movie industry with many of them and I have learned I am not alone in my opinion. What you consider entertaining and acceptable may be for you and the small bubble such film makers live in but not with the majority of people. (take out the 14 to 30 year olds and you have a majority left.) There are some excellent films being made today. Unfortunately films like "Ted" appear to be efforts to corrupt the morals of at least part of the movie going public and drag them down to the producers level. I and the people I know manage to converse and get our points across without using any foul language. If I were running a theatre today I would not run "Ted". If people are "entertained" by having garbage thrown at them from the screen let them go to someone else's theatre. [/QUOTE]

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-09-2012, 03:20 PM:

quote: Robert E. Allen
What you consider entertaining and acceptable may be for you and the small bubble such film makers live in but not with the majority of people. (take out the 14 to 30 year olds and you have a majority left.) There are some excellent films being made today. Unfortunately films like "Ted" appear to be efforts to corrupt the morals of at least part of the movie going public and drag them down to the producers level.

The 14-to-30 crowd IS the majority -- of moviegoers. There are lots of movies made and marketed to people who want more mature (less controversial) entertainment. The problem is they don't get supported because the people they're aimed at just don't go to movies.

There is no corruption going on. The movies you speak of are rated R. If parents were doing their job, kids seeing them wouldn't be an issue.

Myself, I can watch a movie containing any language you might (not) care to hear and it doesn't bother me, because I still have the choice whether or not to use that kind of language myself. That's a part of maturity -- just because you see or hear something doesn't mean you're forced to emulate it.

Just to sort of try to steer this back on topic, I noticed that I forgot to give "Ted" my star rating. I would say it's a 3.5. I probably would have given it a 4 if I hadn't already seen the funniest parts 30 times in the trailers.

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 07-10-2012, 03:40 AM:

I work at a major big box multiscreen complex and you oughta see the majority of the patrons arrive, esp after 9pm: majority of them between the ages of 16 to 26.

To show my slip: I did a theatre check in the house playing "Ted" and watched 10 min of this feature:

Scenario: 240 seat house was 80% full of mainly young adults (there was even families with small children in this house..sad..). Audience was having a hey day with the stuff that I found disgusting.

"Oh well.." ..and left to check other houses. Thinking on leaving this industry anyway mainly thx to digital - not fun anymore.

-Monte

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 07-10-2012, 05:42 AM:

I was looking forward to it. I watched 40 minutes and switched it off. Actually, I just walked out, but it was so much like a 'MADE-FOR-HBO' movie I will say I switched it off.

TV music. TV set-up shots. TV script with some naughty bits to keep the punks wearing their pants like full diapers happy.

No thanks.

Posted by James Westbrook (Member # 3690) on 07-10-2012, 01:29 PM:

There seems to be a lot more R-rated movies out this summer than in the past.
I'm comparing it to 1980 when my theater was playing The Blues Brothers and Cheech and Chong's Next Movie, and the Mann Slide Road was playing Caddyshack.
Was Caddyshack R or PG? I forget...

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-10-2012, 01:56 PM:

It was R.

Kind of weird how a lot of comedies are now R-rated, but violent movies are being toned-down enough to get the PG-13.

I did notice that the remake of "Judge Dredd" (this time just titled "Dredd") is going to be rated R. I predict a huge flop again for that one.

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 07-10-2012, 08:19 PM:

Caddyshack was an R. Ask Cindy Morgan. [Wink]

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 07-10-2012, 09:46 PM:

(About got a transfer to the Slide Road location back in 1980 with MANN ...)

This movie reminds me of the Ralph Bakshi 1972, "X" rated classic "Fritz the Cat", and "9 Lives of Fritz the Cat" .. an animal the same attibutes: major potty mouth with a bad overdose of testerone.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 07-11-2012, 01:01 AM:

It is perception and social manipulation; it has nothing to do with whether a person is moral or not. Manure is a good word, shit is a bad word. They mean exactly the same thing, it's just society deems one to be acceptable in polite society, the other is not. It was a way the upper class and royalty used to make sure the lower classes were keep separated. It is class-ist and in today's society, while we claim we we have a classless society, we still use "dirty language" as a way to look down on those those to don't use "clean" language....but as I said, what exactly makes any word clean or dirty -- it's arbitrary and nonsensical. Words are neither -- only the intent that an idea conveys can be "bad" or "good." There are an infinate number of ways a person can communicate hateful ideas, and never use a single "dirty word."

And how does the image of a nude body hurt anyone? Even a child. It is only tramatic to a child if an adult tells that child that it's something dirty or for some reason it must not be looked at. Without that negative, many times hysterical reaction by the adult, the child wouldn't be at all bothered by the sight of a naked breast or an erect nipple -- it probably will think, "Oh yah, that's the great thing I used to suck on for hours." So why all of a sudden does the kid get screamed at for even looking at it?

We are a twisted socitey -- showing a woman's head getting cut off with a band saw...no problem; move the camera over a bit to show an exposed breast - RUN FOR THE HILLS.

My personal theory....as a society we are painfully amoral -- greed, violence, poluting our environment, usury, not seen by society as unacceptably immoral. Someone empties his car ashtray out the window -- morality is not even a consideration. I think collectively we are actually do feel quite guilty about that, at least on a collective subconscious level. So to compensate, we go ponkers over sexuality -- we make THAT our cause celeb. We huff and puff and love our rightious indignation (we also love how our outrage makes us feel superior to everyone else). We picket and shout to close down adult book stores, but has anyone ever heard of anyone trying to close down a credit card company for their usurious rates when only a short time ago usury was an excommunicatable mortal sin. Our ethos, our moral compass only consists of what happens between the navel and the knee caps.

How's THAT for getting off topic?!