Early Frontrunner for the Worst Picture of 2007

Rating: 1/10 (25 February 2007)

Congratulations to Joel Schumacher, Jim Carrey, Virginia Madsen and the rest of the accomplished cast and crew of "23" on your early nominations... for the Razzie Awards. Here are the 11.5 reasons not spend $7.50 on this dud: 1) Anyone who has taken a math class at a fourth grade level or higher knows that 2/3 rounds up to .667. So what does the devil have to say about that? 2) The movie is funnier than it is suspenseful, thrilling, or psychological. 3) In fact, it is at its funniest when it tries (and fails) to be suspenseful, thrilling, and psychological. 4) 23 is no more special than any other number. We can add, divide, multiply, subtract, square or do whatever to our names, addresses, and phone numbers and find a way to reach any number. All we need is a calculator and the absence of a life. 5) Speaking of a calculator, the film's protagonist didn't need one to do some strikingly quick and complex calculations. But of course all dog catchers need strong backgrounds in calculus. 6) This dog catcher can't seem to catch a single dog throughout the whole damn movie. 7) What is so spooky about the fact that the human body receives 23 chromosomes from each parent? 8) Dogs can't read. Not even gravestones. 9) Dogs do age though. 10) When one expects to find "The Number 23" around every corner it kind of kills the suspense. 11) Building on this, all of the mentioning of a single number became tiring in the previews alone. Thus, a full length feature film about a single number seemed a bit excessive. 11.5) Building even further on this, the film lacked the crucial scene in which Jim Carry repeatedly (possibly 23 times) whacks Barbaro's corpse with a 6 iron.
I could have easily picked out 23 reasons not to watch the movie, but instead I'll do any reader of this column the favor that Schumacher should have done his audiences... if you can't figure out what that favor was you'll probably love "The Number 23."