slave2moonlight wrote:Lazario wrote:Stacey Nelkin - I've only seen her in Halloween III: Season of the Witch, but she absolutely ruined that movie for me. She is so robotic, she completely telegraphs the ending for you from the moment she appears onscreen.
Ha, that is the one Halloween series film I really love. Well, I like the original a lot too.
Well, I would sure like the movie a lot more without her in it. (But I'm glad a lot of people like Halloween III. Most people don't but a lot now really do, it's making a comeback I've noticed- as is, shockingly, Friday the 13th Part V)
-
I agree with everyone (especially Goliath and Disney Divinity) who mentioned the conservative women talk / news show / book writer (type) personalities. And want to add:
I don't honestly see a use for them, whatsoever. They are held up as role models (I won't mention any names here, but at least one person on UD) by other conservatives because they're: young, attractive, and financially stable / independent (see: Wealthy). But there is more to life than those things. Youth passes. Beauty fades. And wealth creates paranoia, fear, and self-righteousness. Not to mention, the rich people end up in competition with each other. Like a battle between Godzilla and King Kong, where the people that suffer are the smaller ones they trample all over and are so apathetic, they never care. They brag. They strut. They pose. They make a career out of saying "I know what's right," and attack civil liberties and when exactly have they ever known what it was like to be the target of political hate? That is: before they decided to display their arrogance and ego in public and attack everyone they see as beneath them. Except for the jealous masses they cater to, they proclaim: agree with us and we'll make you wealthy too... How's that working out for all you conservatives here? Are you rich too, yet? They've got lots of schemes. Check them out for me, I'd like to know if they really work.
Disney's Divinity wrote:Sarah Michelle Gellar (...) fairly bad actresses. I know there are a lot of fans of Buffy (which I haven't seen, btw)
I almost said her too, just because I've never cared for her. And I hate the Buffy tv series. It's not all that bad but I absolutely can't stand it... except when James Marsters is onscreen. He is in my eyes the only saving grace for that wretched CGI-teen silliness - which yes is actually pretty well written but poorly executed visually (and I'm big on the visual). He's not only quite a hottie but a really good, skilled performer with a great comedic flair and a lot of class (despite the stories I've heard of almost Jack Ass-esque onset antics).
And I agree with you on Kathy Griffin (one of comedy's greatest talents back years ago, but she's also very socially relevant today) and Chelsea Handler, who is very funny sometimes and so is her trashy talk show.
However... on Bill Maher, I'd like to throw slave2moonlight a slight bone here and say, I've been avoiding Religulous because of reviews I've read from liberal type people that he didn't do such a good job on that movie. That it was marred (no pun) by his attitude during production. Which is one of the reasons - not necessarily in the case of Maher but with a lot of liberal commentators - that we have a hard time communicating with the other side. We see it as being so futile that I'm not sure I know of anyone who takes the high road anymore in political discussions and just makes a point without trying to look better than the other person when they do. Like gloating
while you're arguing. The point you're making should be all you need to be better than the person you're arguing with. Anyway, that's what I heard was going on in Religulous. Maher's monologues / speeches on his show, on the other hand, are the stuff of legends in terms of quality and should be what we remember him for. I don't want to keep pimping George Carlin but, that was the guy who was famous for the attitude. And he earned it. Maher doesn't need to try to be the 'new' Carlin. Especially since he interviews other people. If you interview with an attitude... You're making some of the same mistakes as the Fox News mafia.
slave2moonlight wrote:Which one of theirs did you see? I'd take a wild guess that it was Scary Movie, but frankly, I actually like the first three Scary Movies and would never have guessed that they were from the same folks who did Epic Movie, Disaster Movie, or Date Movie.
You know- I didn't think they had anything to do with the Scary Movies at all... But I realized I was only checking director's credits. I think the big thing that distinguishes Scary Movie from their garbage is that they were the least (credited last and everything) of a writing staff of at least 6 each time. It's sort of like... that band Kylmaxx, when they broke up and yet people heard they were back... and it was just the one woman from the original band with a brand new bunch of other people and the fans of the original found the new bastardization inferior. Hell, I'd venture at this point that they weren't even crucial to the Scary Movie series. I'm sure they were responsible for the worst gags anyway, at this point.
The one I saw was Epic Movie (but I did see Scary Movie and Scary Movie 2 - uncut - and half of the 3rd movie on, like, TBS).
slave2moonlight wrote:They are soooo different. The jokes are better, have better timing, they follow an actual parody plot.
I think that's probably the work of the Wayans brothers. Keenan Ivory made that 80's goofball parody I'm Gonna Git You Sucka (a parody, of course, of the 70's, pimps, and blaxploitation / gang flicks) and I believe that got some pretty good reviews. So, if those movies have any tact whatsoever, blame Keenan and Z.A.Z. (though, we can't forget that they are also responsible for that piece of utter fecal matter An American Carol, the political equivalent of Friedberg and Seltzer's parade of idiocy, so there's no question that they're all dried up)
slave2moonlight wrote:One thing that annoys me about the reviews that come down on these guys, as much as I dislike them, is that they usually attack the Scary Movie films too
Well, that's a matter of... a kind of shellshock that happens right when you've seen the movie for the first time. I was incensed when I saw Scary Movie. I had red steam coming out of my ears. Time has passed and I realize (with this passage of time) that I was a little too hard on it and it was a little funnier than I thought it was. I'm sure if these people watched Scary Movie again, they'd get it a bit more. Or maybe that's just me. I've gotten better with a lot of sick comedy over the past few years. I've even started enjoying some of the horror-comedies I dispised in the 90's (Jack Frost, Dr. Giggles). You're right that people do get high-nosed now about spoofs. But I know what they're going through. Don't know how they could snap out of it, though. Maybe once this trend is over. I think it will end. Since even the fans of parody hate Friedberg and Seltzer's... "stuff."
littlefuzzy wrote:They are at the bottom of a list of six writers on Scary Movie, the other 3 movies just credits them for "characters", since characters from the first film are used in the other Scary Movies. They are billed on the DVDs and posters of their ____ Movie franchise as "From 2 of the 6 Writers of Scary Movie." Surprisingly, they DID write something fairly worthwhile in Spy Hard. If nothing else, I love the film for Weird Al's theme song!
I didn't read this when I wrote my response, so Little Fuzzy said it first.
slave2moonlight wrote:I also can't stand Roseanne Barr, frankly. I just don't like her personality, what more can I say, ha. I didn't like the character she played, and basically wasn't she supposed to be playing herself for the most part? I don't know, but I really didn't like her.
You know, I still think Roseanne is probably the best and/or most important television show to ever air in America... but since I am getting so tired of it seeming (even to me, right about now- I'm so confused) like I'm telling the other person they have no right to disagree with me, I'll say that with 9 seasons of the same show with all the same basic characters, they're bound to wear on you eventually.
Some episodes of Roseanne and some scenes I seriously disagree with. And I think Roseanne the person is a big part of it. One moment was the episode in the 5th season where Dan gets her wedding ring resized as an anniversary gift and she goes on the warpath. They even make a joke after he tells her that he can't come in the house. She goes so over-the-top that even Jackie is kicked out and they're making jokes about what a fire-breathing dragon type person she is. I know they want to make the point that nobody is perfect, but the more she's in control and doing something responsible with that... the better she is (I'm telling you: it really is a brilliant show and I'm amazed every day how much substance they packed into so many episodes- it's resounding! It's like a ripple in water that just keeps going). Then, there's this silly little thing they did in the Christmas specials about Beverly not believing in God and Roseanne tells her that people with bad lives are the ones who should believe the most. The mother's concerns were valid and they kind of pushed them back to make a joke about Darlene being nice to Roseanne at the end as proof that there is a God.
Then, several episodes dealing with David. Dan, who as a person I have a lot of serious issues with (the character), is really made out to be an authoritative voice and they use Dan's heroic image to mock and belittle David constantly (like in the "Thrilla Near the Vanilla Extract" episode, and the "Snoop Davey Dave" episode). He basically becomes a joke, Dan says jackass things and still... he's unaffected, but David is made to be pathetic. He's made so weak, that at the end of the 5th season, they paint him as a leech who is sucking off Darlene's strength and then Roseanne has to do her Terminator routine and beat him down... But wait, isn't he already down enough? This is beyond realism, they're trying to make fun of sensitive, thoughtful heterosexual men (which frankly- we need as many of them as we can get). At least until Fred shows up in the next season. There's only one episode, in fact, where David wins in the end (in the fight with his brother where Mark messes with David's car and David messes with Mark's suit and humiliates him).
And... somewhere around the middle of the 7th season, they just turn Roseanne wholesale into a walking nightmare when she gets pregnant with Jerry. She starts attacking everyone, especially Jackie. But she also goes after D.J. and Dan. No, strangely I'm not talking about the episode where D.J. starts pulling his "rebellion" stunts (that was a great set-up). When Roseanne goes on this kick of "every man wants to control women." It wasn't only in the episode where D.J. (a little boy) has to tell her Dan just wants to be supportive toward the decision Roseanne makes, but also in the episode where Jackie and Fred come apart over her going out dancing with Pete, and in the episode where Becky and Mark start having marital arguments over discussions of sexism. There are very few general blanket statements the show could possibly make about men and expect them to hold true. So, bad jokes about "YOU MAN!" just make Roseanne look petty and hateful when she almost never is.