JUST POKE ME IN THE EYE NOW >>>

To watch the original Three Stooges shorts these days can be a little disheartening. Somehow, it's not as funny to me anymore to watch aging vaudevillians hit each other with hammers. I distinctly remember being a kid and getting kinda disturbed by a Three Stooges gag where their sergeant (because, of course, they were in the Army) made them stick their heads in a trough of water, and then fired his gun underwater, deafening them.

Yikes. Er, nyuk nyuk?

It's clear to me that the only way to improve upon those original shorts is modernize them. Yeah, that's the ticket! Really freshen them up!

Well, I - and, by extension, you - are in luck, because those darn Farrelly Brothers have done just that, opening Friday nationwide. Have you ever wanted to see Moe interact with Snooki, from Jersey Shore? Of course you haven't! Because no one watches that show anymore, making the idea of including a Snooki cameo as dated and oddly sad as the notion of three bumbling morons who specialize in carpentry, gourmet cake decorations, bottled milk delivery, opera, and eye-poking.

I wonder if there will be some winking commentary on how Moe, Larry and Curly manage to thrive in this economic climate with them having as many jobs as they do. Spoiler alert: there will be.

Snarky fish-in-barrel-shooting aside, it must be noted that the three actors chosen to portray the Stooges (Will Sasso, Sean Hayes, and Chris Diamantopoulos) have seemingly mastered their impressions. Good, I guess. But these roles were originally supposedly going to filled with Jim Carrey (Curly), Benicio Del Toro (Moe) and Sean Penn (Larry).

Can you imagine how fucked up and amazing that movie would have been?

That is the only Three Stooges movie that I will ever see. Let me know when they announce that Harmony Korine has been attached to direct.

LINK: Three Stooges 2012

LINK: Movie times and descriptions screening in the South Sound

ROSE KILLED JACK >>>

Something happened, recently, that never needed to happen. I re-watched Titanic at three in the morning, on HBO. Another thing that never needed to happen? Titanic getting re-released in gloriously miserable 3D. I hope all of you are looking forward to seeing that CGI iceberg (which, by the way, DOES NOT hold up) coming right at your face.

Here are some stray observations I made while watching the interminably long and tonally confusing Titanic: first off, Rose is totally, unequivocally responsible for Jack's death. I know that everyone remembers her lying on that floating door, Jack realizing that there's not enough room for both of them, and Rose eventually letting go of Jack's frozen hand. Fine. But, what people may not remember is that Rose has the opportunity to get into a life boat, and then stupidly jumps back on the ship to be with Jack. Guess who would've gotten that floating door if she had stayed on that boat? Probably fucking Jack.

Also, there are several hilarious moments of foreshadowing about the fate of the ship. Example: "Captain, if we shut off the lights, we won't be able to see any objects that may be approaching. Plus, going at this speed, we'll never be able to avoid them," says the first mate. After a pause, the Captain responds, "Well, I'm off to bed."

Hahaha, fuck you.

As for the trailer, well, all your friends are back again. The unsinkable Molly Brown, the cartoonishly villainous Billy Zane (where did he disappear to?), and the unthinkably old Gloria Stuart (as the unthinkably old Kate Winslet). You'll laugh, you'll thrill, you'll cry, you'll get tears all over your dumb 3D glasses, you'll try and clean them off, but that'll just make them dirtier, and then you'll leave with numb ass. Then you'll wait a couple years for James Cameron to continue his gradual poisoning of the art of film. Ship of dreams, indeed.

LINK: Now playing in the South Sound

A BATHROOM BREAK ISN'T OUT OF THE QUESTION >>>

Note: It is time, once again, to provide a definitely biased and possibly unfair review of a trailer for an upcoming film.

Here is something that the lunatics that actually liked the Clash of the Titans remake will be interested to hear: this time around, they've styled Sam Worthington's hair to look more like Harry Hamlin's. So, you know, take that, people who were appalled by the slick remake of the kitschy classic - they're trying, alright? Maybe take a chill pill?

Of course, everything isn't all Jheri curls and tzatziki sauce for Perseus. There's still all these monsters and stuff, you guys! As you'll recall from the first movie (but probably not, because really? You actually saw that shit?), Perseus is half-human and half-god. Because of this, he is required to furrow his brow in nine out of 10 situations and have stern talks with a crazily bearded Liam Neeson (of kicking-people-to-death-in-Europe fame).

Look, Perseus, I know that "clash" probably took a lot out of you, and you were probably all like, "Finally, now I can relax and pop in a DVD of Mamma Mia, my favorite Greece-based adaptation of a Swedish pop band's musical," BUT THIS SHIT JUST DOESN'T WORK LIKE THAT. These titans are pissed - even wrathful - and it's up to you to stop it, or whatever.

Here's a tip, though: Even though Liam Neeson tells you that being half-human "makes you stronger than a god," I want you to know that that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. I actually now have a headache from rolling my eyes so hard.

Long story short. Actually, that's my note to the people behind these movies. This story is evidently pretty fucking looooong. Tighten it up? I'm not looking forward to the inevitable follow-up, The Passive-Aggressive Silent Treatment of the Titans.

MOVIES ARE GOOD FOR DULLING THE INNER PAIN >>>

Note: It's time now, once again, for me to break out my jeweler's loupe and take a long, hard, judgmental look at a preview for an upcoming film. Red-band trailers be damned!

Track records for remakes in general are notoriously shaky, but there is no more perilous a redo than those of the comedy genre. Film history is littered with sub-par recreations of comedy films. Trouble seems to plague these endeavors because - unlike action movies or even dramas - a good comedy is such lightning in a bottle. So many intangibles need to fall right in place for the film to be a success (see: the classic Alan Arkin/Peter Falk vehicle, The In-Laws, and its unfortunate remake, starring Albert Brooks and Michael Douglas).

This is why the notion of remaking Arthur is such a tricky proposition. Even with the pedigree that the new Arthur boasts - including the possibly inspired casting of Russell Brand in the Dudley Moore slot and the enlisting of Alan Partridge writer, Peter Baynham, for the screenplay - the resulting product could still teeter on the brink of comedy ruin.

The first observation that can be made about the trailer for Arthur - and, as far as observations about Arthur go, this one's a doozy - is that Arthur doesn't seem to be an alcoholic. Perhaps the movie studio decided to not push this angle in the trailer, but it would be a sharp detour from the original character to remove alcohol from the picture. Russell Brand's Arthur is charming and foppish, to be sure, but that ever-present sway of booze coursing through his system seems notably absent in previews. I can only assume that's not the case in the real flick.

The rest of the cast is populated with greats like Helen Mirren (still gorgeous), as Arthur's nanny; Luis Guzman as the dopey Bitterman; and the preternaturally appealing Greta Gerwig in the Liza Minelli role of Arthur's love interest. There also appears to be a rather troubling performance from Jennifer Garner, as the woman who was arranged to marry Arthur. I'm not sure that I ever need to see Ms. Garner in a trench coat, describing French kissing, or wearing lingerie and being adhered to a magnet bed (!).

Hollywood seems to be betting all their chips on Russell Brand, and this may be the movie that stalls his career. Or cements it.

Just please, for everyone's sake, let it be better than the remake of Alfie.