Sh*t Sandwich

I enjoy looking through Rotten Tomatoes for movie reviews on good (and bad) films, and came across this line: "We have reached a point in our moviegoing life where the two most horrifying words a studio can mutter are "Robin" and "Williams."-John Anderson, Washington Post, reviewing Old Dogs.

Or how about this one from the same review: "When [Robin Williams] puts on the sad clown face, you may indeed laugh, at the tragedy of what happens with success in the movies, and in a culture where Americans demand so little. Travolta is simply useless in Old Dogs, but Williams is actively offensive, in the puerile manner by which he tries to milk sentimentality out of the wizened teat of Old Dogs, which will leave you howling, but only over the cost of the ticket." That is awesome. Someone's performance in a movie is so bad that it is "actively offensive."

The New York Post said: "Old Dogs does to the screen what old dogs do to the carpet. It's unfortunate that only the latter can be taken out and shot."

St. Paul newspaper: "Kids who suffer from progeria may be able to relate to Old Dogs, but it's hard to imagine anyone else fully appreciating it."

Or this: "Director Walt Becker can’t even pull off hits to the groin (you know they’re coming in a movie like this) with as much panache as an episode of America’s Funniest Home Videos."

But of course, there is the lone critic who swims against the tide. Pete Hammond of Box Office Magazine offers the sole positive review of Old Dogs, raving that it is "An often riotously funny slapstick farce that ought to appeal to moviegoers of all ages...Robin’s in great form and has terrific chemistry with Travolta as they manage to recall a modern-day Abbott And Costello."