I wrote last month about how I’m having trouble enjoying Hollywood movies and critiqued the latest Pink Panther movie as an example. Needless sexual entendre and poorly implemented slapstick spoiled what could have been a funny movie.
The American Spectator today agrees:
In addition to that first tedious scene of Clouseau trying to park a ridiculously small Smart Car in a space big enough for a Humvee, the movie includes a lot of unnecessary references: Viagra jokes, allusions to Internet porn and sex, and a few extremely graphic — but fully clothed — sex antics. Despite these elements, the film is still rated a mere PG and, if the previews of animation films and ads for McDonald’s are any indication, it is being targeted at a very young audience, namely children ten and under. It’s an adult-themed film being sold to children, an indication of a substantial error in marketing and production.
The article is excellent and gives examples of how today’s sexual jokes are blatant and crude compared to the intellectual humor regarding sex in past Hollywood movies.
The new film will no doubt prove an “it’ll do” DVD rental or airplane movie; but the script, the lewd humor, and perhaps our own time, will never allow the actors to make a real Pink Panther movie: something witty, sexy, and extremely funny. Without at least two of these elements, a comedy can hardly been a box office success.
If you want to watch a Pink Panther film, skip the new one and buy or rent the originals. For those who appreciate the occasional cocktail, by all means sip away as you watch and laugh. These films, especially the earlier films, provided a way for adults to laugh at themselves. And if children happened to be watching, as was the case when I was growing up, the innuendos and humor convinces them all the more that adults are simply a strange breed and not nearly so reasonable as a child.
Are there any “adult” movies anymore that do not include gratuitous sex and/or violence scenes? Are there any movies at the theater today that are worth watching?
I’m having a lot of trouble enjoying movies coming out of Hollywood.
I saw the new Pink Panther movie last night. Steve Martin did an acceptable job as Clousseau, and I can’t imagine any other actor that could do a better job.
But Peter Sellers had the role down pat. When something went wrong, he always had a good-natured honest puzzlement why something wasn’t right. Steve Martin smirked the whole movie.
There were plenty of fun scenes; the English tutor was fun, some of the car door pratfalls were fun. But there was a lot of unnecessary sexual humor that was never in the original Peter Sellers movies that I remember. Beyonce Knowles was pretty to look at, but was she necessary to the plot?
And then, for some reason, to wrap up the movie at the end, Clousseau becomes brilliant and solves the mystery. Bam, movie over.
I suppose I got off to a rotten start – I used to enjoy getting to the movies and watching the previews. Now it’s less and less previews and more commercials. I already paid for the movie ticket, and loud commercials annoy me. I didn’t come to see car commercials or soda commercials or cell phone commercials. I can turn on a TV and get that. But I paid for the movie ticket, so get that off my screen.
I stumbled across a funny site called “Science Made Stupid” and started writing a post about it…
Since the dawn of time, man has looked to the heavens and wondered: where did the stars come from? He has looked at the great diversity of plants and animals around him and wondered: where did life come from? He has looked at himself and wondered: where did I come from?
Later, he began to ask more complicated questions. He looked in his wallet and asked: where did my paycheck go? Am I on the right bus? Who do you like in the series?
To the former questions, at least, science has provided answers.
… and then it started to look familiar. Too familiar. Turns out I thought it was funny in June 2004, too.
My memory may be failing, but at least my humor is consistent.
I’ve been tagged by Spin the Moon. I dunno why. Do I look like the kind of guy that plays “tag?” I’ll humor her, though. This time. 😛
Things you enjoy, not because you have to but because you WANT to, even when no one around you wants to go out and play. What lowers your stress/blood pressure/anxiety level? Make a list, post it to your journal. And then tag 5 friends and ask them to post it to theirs.
Five things, eh? My first choice is to fire up a video game and get lost in another world. Lately it’s been Civilization III, but prior to that was Ultima Online and Starcraft.
Second is watching a movie, either at the theater or at home.
Third is reading a good book. While I mostly read non-fiction lately, a good fiction novel will keep me occupied for hours.
Fourth is… um… eating a pint of ice cream. I don’t do that very often. 😛
Fifth is… I dunno. By the time I’ve worked my way through a pint of ice cream, I need a nap.
And now I must “tag” five others. Miss Vox and Uptown Girl and Spritzy and The Journey and Pamibe get the nod. Assuming they read this, of course. 😛
Witnesses reported a lot of screaming:
Read More »
Source: AP News
Or at least that’s how the headline should read. Michael Moore, routinely boo’d at any patriotic US function has found that going to France to criticize a sitting American in the midst of a war can win him a French award.
“Fahrenheit 9/11” won the top award at a festival that sharply divided Cannes moviegoers, who found a solid crop of good movies among the 19 entries in the festival’s main competition but no great ones that rose to front-runner status.
Some critics speculated that if “Fahrenheit 9/11” won the top prize, it would be more for the film’s politics than its cinematic value.
Well, duh. No great movies at Cannes this year. So let’s award it to Moore. Ya think it’s politics?
Disney chose not to distribute this film, and for good reason – it’s basically a Democrat artistic bashing of the President less than 6 months before an election. Propaganda drivel like this really shouldn’t be shown until after the election.
And less you think I’m full of right-wing conservative arrogance (well, I might be, but that’s beside the point), I would have opposed a similar movie made about Clinton during his bomb-the-hell-out-of-Kosovo-whoops-my-pants-are-around-my-ankles-again years. A movie is overboard in expressing your opinion about a sitting President.
With Moore’s customary blend of humor and horror, “Fahrenheit 9/11” accuses the Bush camp of stealing the 2000 election, overlooking terrorism warnings before Sept. 11 and fanning fears of more attacks to secure Americans’ support for the Iraq (news – web sites) war.
Moore dedicated the award to “my daughter and to all the children in America and Iraq and throughout the world who suffered through our actions.”
- Stole the election? Is he still dwelling on that? After all the recounts (which all showed Bush winning), the Supreme Court told them to knock it off and stop fiddling with the chads. Afterwards, several organizations did independent recounts. All showed Bush winning. There were no recounts that showed Gore winning.
- He’s accusing Bush of overlooking terrorism warnings, and in the same movie criticizing Bush’s actions against terrorism? Did Moore discuss that Bush was using the plan Clinton developed and was in the process of trying to improve it? Why isn’t Moore criticizing Clinton’s plan? The only valid accusation might be that Bush wasn’t revamping Clinton’s plan fast enough – but in the first 8-1/2 months of Bush’s presidency, nothing like 9/11 had occurred to indicate the urgency. Would Moore have supported an attack on Afghanistan before 9/11? Would anybody?
- Fanning fears? Off the top of my head, we’ve had shoe bombers, the Madrid train explosion, and a whole host of overseas attacks on Americans, with continued warnings of Al Queda that they wanted to attack on American soil. Wait – I thought Moore said Bush was ignoring terrorism. Which is it? Is he taking terrorism too lightly or too seriously?
- Does he really feel Iraqi children are worse in the new schools in Iraq opened by Americans than they were under Saddam? Saddam killed 400,000 to 1,000,000 people while he was in power (I’ve read different numbers from recent sources). Here in Houston, we just finished donating artificial limbs to some Iraqi men. Saddam cut them off to make an example of them. Iraqi children don’t have to worry about rape rooms or torture rooms when they grow up. And Moore thinks Iraqi children would have been better off under Saddam?
Misguided. Propaganda. Drivel.