&t skeet on mischa: I was 17 in 1933

skeet on mischa

i wouldn't have given you it if i didn't agree

Jun 12, 2006

I was 17 in 1933

The thing about Pixar films is that they follow incredibly similar structure. Each film pretty much is the same and yeah, you could rightly say that if you’ve seen one Pixar film, then you’ve seen them all. But that’s not only a half-truth.

From Toy Story to 2004’s The Incredibles, the story of each film is male protagonist either is alone in a foreign environment or can’t adjust to the new environment. Basically, a male character will always be taken out of their element and place into another environment where the protagonist overcomes their problems and around the 80 minute mark, we have a happy ending. Although, I’m not sure if this particular theory applies to Monsters Inc. because I haven’t seen that film; I’m not a Billy Crystal fan even though he has a brief cameo in one of my favorite films of all time, This is Spinal Tap. What manages to make each Pixar film different from the last is the wacky cast of characters that our hero meets towards the end of the first act. It’s a constant in one of the films and sure, there are certain arch type wacky characters that appear in every one of their films, but you know, it’s the vocal talent that sells the subtle differences.

And the latest from Pixar, Cars is no different. Same structure, same types of colorful, lovable goof ball characters and in theory, it should be work because it’s worked great the last couple of films, but Cars slightly misses the mark. The biggest problem the film suffers from is the daunting task of being the follow up to The Incredibles, which in my opinion stands as not only the best film done by Pixar so far, but also, one of the top 5 best animated films of all time. Moving from the beautiful animation of the last film to the extremely child like, nearly too cartoony style of Cars is going to be a detractor.

The initial reaction is, “It took a couple of years for you guys to make a film that looks like this?” It’s not up to the standards of the previous work. It still looks better than most of the other computer animated films out there. I expect more out of Pixar visually. The story is the same, but it drags in the middle and just really repetitious. Here’s another scene with the tow truck saying something stupid. The audience’s mind begins to wander, which is never good especially if it’s a children’s’ film.

If this film had been released before The Increrdibles then it’s reception would be a completely different story. Asking Cars to follow that is like asking a band to play after a 1972 era Led Zepplin; it ain’t happening, babe.

Speaking of minds wandering during the film, the row of overdressed teen couples in front of me; their minds were completely in a different headspace. I assumed that early on, waiting for the movie to start, I’d thrown out of the theater or at least asked to move because me and my foul mouth. I forget these things and you know, why should I be on guard with my language? Who are these parents that take their kids to a 9:30 at night screening of a movie in the first place? The kids are wearing their P.J.s in theater, come on, now. Yet my behavior was not as bad in comparison to these teens. I don’t know if they got super drunk before the movie and assumed that watching an animated movie while intoxicated would be a great experience. Granted it made the Steven Soderbergh film Full Frontal a bit better, but I’m not sure if the experience will be enhanced. I’m not sure if the kids hot boxed their parents’ SUVs in the parking lot and can in stoned to watch it. I understand that, but Hollywood hasn’t really gotten behind a mind bender, its better if you watch this completely stoned film since the failure of Terry Gilliam’s adaptation of Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas (There’s an audience out there for these films though; just don’t release them the same weekend as shitty American remakes of Japanese monster movies). And thirdly and finally and most likely, these group of Hollister’ed out teens were on ecstasy and maybe not all of them were rolling that particular evening, but I want to say that at least a majority of them were. There was a great deal of vicarious hands rubbing on backs and one in point during the film, a girl’s head disappeared into her dude’s lap for at least 10 minutes, then she reappeared on the guy’s lap.

Granted, there have been moments when I thought it’d be more interesting to watch a couple engage in sticky movie theater floor sex than the film I was watching at the time, namely, Detroit Rock City, but you know, Cars was a half way decent film and if I have to stop the swears for 100 minutes, then those teens have to relax the hormones for a couple more minutes. It was just so surreal because these kids just seemed to be so bored by the film and were answering cell phones during the movie.

It seemed as if their evening’s original plan to go out for a nice meal at a Mexican restaurant and then orgy it at somebody’s parents’ house but then the parents ended up coming home early and the kids had all of this e, so they figure, drop it, watch a colorful movie and roll in peace. Instead, they rolled and were completely bored by the experience and the guys got none. Well, take that back cause at the end of the night, the chick who disappeared into one dude’s crotch for 10 minutes left with another guy in addition to her regular dude, so I’m thinking that those dudes got some satisfaction. The other guy, not so much, he was carrying a pursue and leaving with two frustrated girls.

So let that be a lesson to y’all if you’re going to orgy it on a Saturday night, don’t watch Cars before hand and drop ‘E’. Wait until after the movie or at least you have a secure locale for said orgy.

I’m telling you, man. California is a weird place. Especially in June. During the week, it’s all gray and dreary, but then on Saturday afternoon, there’ll be a couple of pockets of sun poking through, but it’ll be like 70. I dunno, man. Then like local town’s versions of Lindsay Lohan wear really cool low cut, loose tops, but they’re hanging out with old guys with quasi Hitler mustaches and a heavy Paul Snider vibe. It doesn’t make any sense. Then like one night, you can watch lesbians rock out to techno music during a firework display and get scared by the really loud explosions. Honestly, if you’re planning a trip out, don’t come until late June or at least July. Something goes array when the sun isn’t a constant presence.

Speaking of fireworks, if you happen to be watching a firework display at night and have an iPod with Coldplay on it near by, it’s going to be a lot cooler than whatever techno music they’re going to play. Trust me and I’m surprised Zach Braff has yet to do this type of thing in a film yet.

Are the writing updates in Word and spell checking everything working out for people? I’m not proof reading yet, need an assistant to do that; sorry, it’s just that I’m too close to the work.

While I haven’t seen the film nor do I plan on seeing the film, I have to say a bit of a ‘fuck you’ to the people behind the film, The Break Up. I remember hearing an interview they said that the concept of opening the film with the couple breaking up was really original and want to believe that they said they were one of the first to do so. Incorrect, dudes. Albert Brooks did it first and definitely did it better with the film, Modern Romance a film that opens with a couple breaking up and the problems that ensue afterwards. It was released onto DVD a few weeks ago and it’s fairly shitty DVD in terms of special features and packaging, but you know for 12 bucks at Best Buy, it’s a steal. People forget that Albert Brooks made a couple grand slams of films back in the 80s. Modern Romance and Lost in America are just gems that need to be on the top of your Netflix list immediately.

And I didn’t mean to be so harsh to the makers of The Break Up. I dug the director’s first two films and his work with the UCB, but you gotta give Albert Brooks his respect.

It pains me to say this, but I’m warming up to Nicole Richie. First off, she has a fairly decent sense of humor on what I’ve seen on the new season of “The Simple Life”. Now, she goes to Jamba and probably gets a local favorite, Orange-A-Peel. What’s next? Is she going to be at the Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young show at the Hollywood Bowl, requesting that they do “Ohio”?

Finally, ”Deadwood” came back last night. Now, I have a problem with HBO’s programming of this show. The way its positioned at 9 o’clock makes the shows like “Entourage” and “Ego Trippin’ with Dane Cook,” a reward or a treat for having sat through this complex, smart, and frequently funny western with a guy with a cool mustache swears a lot, but we all know it should be the other way around. After sitting through that Dane Cook show, I feel as if HBO should’ve shown two back to back episodes of “Deadwood” to make up for the lack of interesting, groundbreaking, edgy material that never happen during Dane Cook’s show. It does play like an insanely unfunny and much boring version of the Patton Oswalt / Zack Galifianakis’ show, “The Comedians of Comedy”. I’m not saying this because I’m not a fan of Dane Cook; if anything I was interested in watching this show to exactly figure out why everybody and their kid sister is into Dane Cook.

I’m not a person who likes to figure out why things I liked worked out and how it was made. I already know that, but I’m more interested and concerned with finding out how come I didn’t like this or why does everybody else but me enjoy this particular form of entertainment? I’ve seen many films that I’ve hated more often than films that I love and would call a personal favorite.

I see and read about Dane Cook being this comedic phenomenon on par with Andrew ‘Dice’ Clay and Sam Kinson back in the day, but I just don’t get it. I don’t see the appeal, but I feel as if I’m always in this constant discussion of not getting what people find to be hilarious and said people not finding what I like to laugh at to be funny. Dane Cook, to me, just seems like what would happen if you blended Jerry Seinfeld and Jim Carrey together and removed most of the humor. It’s just loud, physical observational humor. Then again, I think a midget tied up to balloons floating around a radio studio is comedy gold.

So it seems only just that the people who’ve sat through Dane Cook and his friends goofin’ off for 30 should be rewarded with the antics of Al Swearengen, who is probably one of the greatest characters in the history of television; I have to redo my TV character list now.

The one thing that leapt out at me about last night’s “Deadwood,” was that it seemed a lot funnier than usual. It just sucks that I have to wait a couple of weeks to watch next Sunday’s episode.

PS. After last night's game, I hate to say it, but still the Mavs winning, but now in 5 games. What kind of bad free throw shooting virius does Shaq give everybody during the big game?


At 2:40 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Seriously, what was up with that Dane Cook show? "The Comedians of Comedy" was great because those guys were constantly goofing on each other. I was kind of expecting the same thing with the Dane Cook show. Instead, it was like 5 minutes of goofing on each other. Then the blond guy gets his feelings hurt and cries and Dane Cook spends the next 20 minutes repairing the guy's ego and doing self-affirmations with him. Comedians are supposed to tell jokes, not cry, right?

At 4:37 PM , Blogger Passion of the Weiss said...

I may be able to provide a bit of insight into the Cook phenomenon. Ok, probably not. But when i was in high school, my friends and I used to go the Laugh Factory at least once or twice a month to go see Dane Cook and we thought he was the funniest person of all time. it's just a simple sense of humor. It's not political or thought provoking, plus he jumps up and down a lot which I used to think was incredibly funny. This was the same period in which I loved Adam Sandler too. I think the man's fan base is literally 16 and 17 year olds and he plays to that crowd really well. When i got older and saw things that were actually funny, suddenly he didn't seem good at all. But his ultimate lamness proves an adage a wise man once said to me: never trust a stand up comic that isn't black or Jewish.

Dane Cook is definitely no Jackie Robinson...fuck he's not even an Al Jolson.

At 6:51 PM , Blogger Chuck Reinhardt said...

Spell check works wonders. I can understand more of what you write.

At 7:13 PM , Anonymous Bonham Hathaway said...

I would pay $500 to have been either of those guys you sat behind.

Not the whole E thing. Although I'm quite certain that the only person on E was the girl.

But yeah, $500.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home