Bottoms Up

Bottoms Up

Bottoms Up

Bottoms Up

Why do you always pick on Paris Hilton? Yes I know that she was bad in "The Hillz" and "L.A Knights" but really she did great in this movie. She plays a sweet little character, no it's not a serious movie but it's a light sweet hearted comedy. I feel so sorry for Paris when it says in the magazines that Paris's new movie was a flop. It's really good. Just because she's an heiress doesn't mean she has no talent. She plays a light-minded sweetheart in an attempt to become famous and ends up dating this famous cute guy and they use it to publicise themselves, however the scheming Lisa Mancini has a plot to get all of her "boyfriend"'s money. Negative points: It kind of waffles on about the whole story and it could have been an excellent cinema movie if they had a higher budget. Plus Paris's new film "Pledge This!" is set to hit big in the cinemas as it sold out in the box office pre-booked hits. This film is touching, sweet, Californian and...Paris!

Bottoms up it's a very poor movie, not very funny, not creative, and poorly acted mainly by Paris Hilton, this girl should stay as far away from acting as possible, the references to her life throughout the movie are way too obvious to be funny. All of the characters are undeveloped and the edition is very poor as some of the cuts last way longer than they should, however Jason Mewes and Brian Hallisay are pretty good. Mewes has a not "jaja funny" character and he he does it fine, Hallisay it's OK as a pretty boy/stoner actor. Hopefully we'll be seeing them in other flicks, this one wont kill their careers cuz nobody saw it. Ill recommend it only if you're a huge fan of the actors or if you're at your house all alone, with anything to do but stare at the your wall wondering why no one likes you.

I'm not even going to start on how bad this movie was, because that analysis would be a hundred pages long. It was just completely uninspired and unfunny, period. I will however say something about the acting: G.O.D.A.W.F.U.L.!!! Jason comes across like he's bored out of his mind and has no charisma whatsoever. Paris can't act her way out of a paper bag. When you can't pull off a shallow character like this with some humor and charm, then you REALLY need to stay away from "acting". All in all you really need to stay away from this stinker if you want to enjoy yourself. If you want to be surprised at just how awful Paris Hilton is of an actress then by all means...

For fans of Jay and Silent Bob, also known as Jason Mewes and Kevin Smith, this movie was not about them in their usual roles. This movie was not written by Kevin Smith and has little bearing on the style and characters he would write into a movie. But to see them in the same movie in different roles made this worth a look. And I was not disappointed at all. Owen Peadman is played by Jason Mewes aka/Jay. Owen is a very milder version of Jay but still an intriguing character and his acting was excellent throughout the movie. From his facial expressions to his quick witted responses, Mewes does not disappoint. Throw in the few scenes with the always funny and witty Kevin Smith and you still have a good Jay and Silent Bob connection. Not to mention Owen using the Jay and Silent Bob term "Sirs" in one scene. The underlying familiar humor was welcome. Now let's look at the characters of Uncle Earl Peadman played by an outstanding actor, David Keith. David Keith has played many macho roles and seeing him play a gay man was quite different. But he played it well and by the end of the movie, you felt his character. Now let's take a look at the questionable role for Paris Hilton. First of all the role was perfect for her because she's lived that lifestyle. I almost perceived her as wishing she was her character instead of playing it. But unfortunately that's not true. So putting her name aside, I think the young lady who played Lisa Mancini did a great job at bringing out her character. She was a soft, hard and everything in between. The movie will probably get bad reviews because of her. But as a comedy, I thought the movie was witty, funny and well written with underlying twists. I recommend this movie just because you can sit back and watch it and laugh without thinking too much. A nice view after a hard day at work.

I have recently seen the movie, and thought that for a cheaply made film, it was very good, the plot line was good and very realistic. Boy moves town, boy meets hot girl, boy wants to be with hot girl, boy has complications, boy still gets girl. I thought that at times the acting was a little bit C-list but not from the main stars, which was rather good and overally convincing, much better than House Of Wax. I thoroughly enjoyed the film, and would recommend it as an uplifting movie for a night in with the partner, as long as you want to be mildly entertained. Teens only though, because it is not really that suitable for people who are in their mid 20's or any older.

First off, this isn't that bad of a movie,, i mean if you go in expecting only so much, look at it this way, you have Paris Hilton, who still can't act worth a lick,, but doesn't butcher the lines in this one,, now she doens't run around half naked in this one like House of Wax,, i know big disappointment there, the plot, well there ain't much of one,, i mean it is a barrel full of laughs all the way,, especially the bit about the gay uncle.. basically the main character has to win a bartending contest, and when he doens't win , he has to find a way to make money in Hollywood,, so he can bring it back to his dad to save his restauraunt in Minnesotta, all in all the movie was funny , yeah some was lame,, but all in all though it wasn't near as bad as people make it out to be.

Far be it from me to pass judgment. I've only made one movie, "Kisses And Caroms," so I'm not an expert. Being that I'm a budding filmmaker, I constantly look at other DVD's as film schools in a box. I've learned to figure out why a flick does or doesn't work. Most low budget indie movies are made by filmmakers who use all their resources and creativity to make something out of nothing. They take small budgets and stretch them to find ways to achieve Hollywood results with no cash. While watching Bottoms Up I felt like it was a movie made by people who usually work with higher budgets. It feels like people took a step down in film-making. After coming to this conclusion I checked IMDb to look up the filmmakers and confirmed what I suspected. The writer/director was an actor in the $40 million dollar Plesentville and the $75 Million dollar We Were Soldiers. Among the movies 16 producers (yes SIXTEEN) is Paul Walker. The same Paul Walker who acted in The Fast and the Furious and coincidentally Plesentville. These people clearly don't know how to make a low budget movie. Sixteen producers is unheard of on a low budget flick. Steven Spielberg is a great filmmaker, but he couldn't make Clerks for $27,000. Even if Kevin handed him the script. The editing isn't the smoothest, but don't blame the editor, Sherwood Jones. The movie was clearly shot in many single takes with no coverage. Not much to cut to. This also means the performances have problems but not because of the actors. It's because of single takes. Despite this, all the actors including Hilton do deliver some strong scenes. had the movie been put in the hands of an indie filmmaker who is used to no money, or if a few more million were thrown at it, it would have turned out to be a good long lasting flick. Overall with it's added animation and score the movie comes off like a fun 80's campy flick.