Behold: My feelings about called laughter have been brilliantly captured by The Onion.
Showing posts with label comedy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label comedy. Show all posts
Monday, July 16, 2007
Sunday, May 06, 2007
Three movies, two Twists
I saw three very different movies this weekend: The Host, Spider-Man 3, and Infamous. Oddly, the second two both included scenes of people doing The Twist in their Manhattan apartments. What are the chances? I thought I remembered The Twist also featuring prominently in Ferris Bueller, but of course, that was Twist and Shout. Can anyone else think of a movie where people do The Twist?
On the off-chance that one of my five readers is considering Netflixing one of these movies (or joining the hordes at the theater), here's what I thought of them: The Host is good, but strange. The CGI monster is excellently done, the characters are great, and it's funny. Just don't expect an American monster movie with subtitles, because that it is not.
Spider-Man 3 wasn't great, but not as bad as I'd feared. Its main problem is that it has way too much going on--I mean, save something for Spider-Man 4, Raimi! Also I saw it in a theater that, though great from an aesthetic standpoint (it's old and art-deco, and has a balcony and a giant screen), has no legroom, but did include free commentary by fellow audience members. I came to the realization that I shouldn't watch movies over two hours in length at any theater, much less that one.
Given its timing, and the fact that Phillip Seymour Hoffman won an Oscar for Capote, Infamous was doomed to be regarded as the other Truman Capote movie. It doesn't lack for stars, including Gwyneth Paltrow in a brief and seemingly gratuitous cameo. I thought it was interesting, and there were some really hilarious moments in the first half of the film (it got darker as it went along). There was a bit too much reliance on talking heads to explain it all to us, as though the writers couldn't figure out how to get their points across with dialogue and acting alone, or thought the audience would be too dense to get it. But I enjoyed it.
On the off-chance that one of my five readers is considering Netflixing one of these movies (or joining the hordes at the theater), here's what I thought of them: The Host is good, but strange. The CGI monster is excellently done, the characters are great, and it's funny. Just don't expect an American monster movie with subtitles, because that it is not.
Spider-Man 3 wasn't great, but not as bad as I'd feared. Its main problem is that it has way too much going on--I mean, save something for Spider-Man 4, Raimi! Also I saw it in a theater that, though great from an aesthetic standpoint (it's old and art-deco, and has a balcony and a giant screen), has no legroom, but did include free commentary by fellow audience members. I came to the realization that I shouldn't watch movies over two hours in length at any theater, much less that one.
Given its timing, and the fact that Phillip Seymour Hoffman won an Oscar for Capote, Infamous was doomed to be regarded as the other Truman Capote movie. It doesn't lack for stars, including Gwyneth Paltrow in a brief and seemingly gratuitous cameo. I thought it was interesting, and there were some really hilarious moments in the first half of the film (it got darker as it went along). There was a bit too much reliance on talking heads to explain it all to us, as though the writers couldn't figure out how to get their points across with dialogue and acting alone, or thought the audience would be too dense to get it. But I enjoyed it.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Winners and losers
Just a short rant about TV. Why are networks still making tired sitcoms with tired ensemble casts (hot women, loser-ish unattractive men, and their smartass kids) and tired laugh tracks? I ask because, as a fan of Comedy Central's always-fresh Daily Show, I was interested to see The Winner, the network show that Rob Corddry left the Daily Show to star in. I think I caught the pilot on Sunday, and boy was it dull. Also it's set in 1994 for some reason (a very minor plot point in the pilot revolves around the O.J. Simpson police chase), as though to hearken back to a time when shows with laugh tracks could still be considered good--original, even. Or maybe innovations such as cell phones and email make things too complicated for the writers. Despite a few good lines and Corddry's brilliance at playing a clueless loser, I expected better.
Contrast this with, say, the Sarah Silverman Program, another brand-new addition to the TV landscape. Like The Winner, Sarah stars an unlikable, clueless narrator. Also like The Winner it features highly improbable plot lines, but Sarah takes absurdity to a different level. In one episode, she adopts a 10-year-old daughter for a day and grooms her to win a talent competition; meanwhile, Sarah's gay neighbors are arrested and harshly interrogated by Homeland Security, during which they snickeringly brag about leaving a bomb in a police car. Turns out that... well, I wouldn't want to ruin it. There will be plenty of chances to see the episode as Comedy Central re-runs it ad nauseum. My point is that the writers of the Sarah Silverman Program understand that in eschewing likable characters, plot arcs, and believability, they've stripped the show's appeal down to being consistently, knee-slappingly funny. Which it is. (Warning to sensitive viewers: the following clip would not be allowed on network TV).
And lest you suppose that being on a network constrains The Winner to breaking out the same old laugh track, please take 30 minutes on Thursday to watch 30 Rock on NBC. I'd review it, but I did promise a short rant.
Contrast this with, say, the Sarah Silverman Program, another brand-new addition to the TV landscape. Like The Winner, Sarah stars an unlikable, clueless narrator. Also like The Winner it features highly improbable plot lines, but Sarah takes absurdity to a different level. In one episode, she adopts a 10-year-old daughter for a day and grooms her to win a talent competition; meanwhile, Sarah's gay neighbors are arrested and harshly interrogated by Homeland Security, during which they snickeringly brag about leaving a bomb in a police car. Turns out that... well, I wouldn't want to ruin it. There will be plenty of chances to see the episode as Comedy Central re-runs it ad nauseum. My point is that the writers of the Sarah Silverman Program understand that in eschewing likable characters, plot arcs, and believability, they've stripped the show's appeal down to being consistently, knee-slappingly funny. Which it is. (Warning to sensitive viewers: the following clip would not be allowed on network TV).
And lest you suppose that being on a network constrains The Winner to breaking out the same old laugh track, please take 30 minutes on Thursday to watch 30 Rock on NBC. I'd review it, but I did promise a short rant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
