"Bad Opinions"?

I have been checking up on critics' reviews of the new Dane Cook-led film, "Good Luck Chuck". I am not a big fan of Cook's stand-up. In his 1 1/2 hour HBO "special," "Vicious Circle," I maybe chuckled three or four times. I was unimpressed with his debut film, "Employee of the Month," but tried cutting him some slack. I don't think many actors would have been able to make that a good, entertaining film. I have yet to see "Mr. Brooks," but have heard some good reviews, so I will await judgment until I see the film. The trailer actually caught my interest, unlike his most recent film, "Good Luck Chuck". The first time I saw a preview, even though it stars the beautiful Jessica Alba, I was anything but ecstatic to see the film. Slapstick. Slapstick. More Slapstick. Even though I know America tends to enjoy the physical comedy, there is such a thing as too much and there is such a thing as...not funny.

A post was written on the review page by a regular old joe (or perhaps it was Chuck, I don't know...), who proclaimed that anybody who dislikes Dane Cook is just doing it to be anti-mainstream, that or they hold "very, very bad opinions."

So, that's it. Dane Cook is our universal measuring tool of how to evaluate one's sense of humor. If one is at all similar to Cook, then they are obviously funny. If the two have no similar style or substance to them, then the Cook-wannabe could use a little help, right?

"Very, very bad opinions" are not measured in the "what," but in the "why."Any and everyone can have an opinion regarding a "what." Any and everyone can say, "I like Dane Cook" or "I can't stand Dane Cook," but either/both are not the strongest of opinions without the "why." If someone just says, "I hate Dane Cook" and that's their only reason for doing so, then perhaps, yes, they are simply trying to be anti-mainstream. For the same reason, flip it around, and if someone proclaims their love for Cook, but stops right there, they could simply just be pro-mainstream. But either/both are weak opinions with no reasoning behind them.

My brother's friend is a huge 311 fan. I've never been a huge fan of their music, for the simple fact that I'm not big into the rap/rock act, am not a huge fan of their voices, and similarly, am not a big fan of their guitar parts. But, my brother's friend loves them, because 311 was the band that truly got him interested in music, much in the same way Def Leppard did for me. So, even though I am not a big fan of their music and don't agree with him that they are one of the best rock bands on the planet, I can completely understand his reasoning for liking a band so much.

That brings me back to Cook. I've tried enjoying his comedy. I've heard praise from people I know and I've tried as hard as I can to laugh at his jokes, but I just can't bring myself to do it. I find that his routine is more along the lines of frat house, stoner storytelling than that of a true comedian. There are rarely any punchlines. It's just one story after another and some elongate into spoken novels. They can be somewhat interesting at times, but interesting differs from funny. I find many dramas to be interesting, due to their unique storyline and thick plot, but that in no way, shape, or form makes them funny, far from it. So, how do all of these "why's" justify me having a "very, very bad opinion"?

Movie critics have spoken with their "why's" in regard to the "what" that is "Good Luck Chuck". Only 2 of 68 have given the film positive reviews. On average, the film has been graded a 2.9 out of a possible 10. These aren't just "what's" flying from the movie critics mouths/fingers, but why's and plenty of them. Does that mean that 66 of 68 critics have "very, very bad opinions," because they didn't judge Cook's film in a favorable light? No offense to this young lad, but it seems as if he has "a very, very bad opinion" about "very, very bad opinions," in general.