Skip to main content


  • Chevy says:

    Dan. Come clean. I heard your RNZ review of Vacation. No way have you seen it. You reviewed the trail­er . You said noth­ing that that con­vinced me otherwise.
    Please admit this, as a long time listen­er and fan, you are begin­ning to let me down. Only as I don’t believe you would have that shal­low a take on some­thing you had actu­ally seen.
    You said that it was actu­ally quite con­ser­vat­ive with a pro-family mes­sage. The film I saw stays extremely cyn­ic­al to the very end.
    But how could you review it without men­tion­ing the ori­gin­al, now con­sidered a clas­sic com­edy, and at the very least Chevy Chase’s presence.
    Because you haven’t seen that either right?
    If you are going to review films. Have some pas­sion, or at least fake it.
    I know it’s in you Dan, I have seen glim­mers of it. I just want you to be the best you can be.

    • Dan says:

      Dude, I had 90 seconds (about as long as CC appears in the film). Not sure how much enthu­si­asm I am sup­posed to gen­er­ate for some­thing that did­n’t earn it. Unlike for you, the ori­gin­al isn’t a sem­in­al text so I have no need to wax nos­tal­gic. And I cer­tainly did see the film – 8.45 on Tuesday night, Readings 7. And I haven’t seen the trail­er, so you got that 100% wrong. The film can be cyn­ic­al and pro-family at the same time. #two­wordre­view – vul­garly sen­ti­ment­al (or sen­ti­ment­ally vul­gar, you choose).

    • Dan says:

      Oh, and I did men­tion that it was vir­tu­ally a remake/reboot of the 80s ori­gin­al. How else would I have men­tioned that Rusty was Clark’s son?