My friends are MTV junkies. Teen Mom, Jersey Shore, Skins–they watch them all. It’s no secret that I’m not a fan of MTV or its shows, but the one that really takes the cake is The Real World. I honestly can’t watch this show because I get so angry.
If you’re not familiar with The Real World it’s about a group of young strangers that are put into a house together and of course, all kinds of idiotic events ensue. The most recent season takes place in Las Vegas. Tonight I saw part of the first episode that I’ve seen from this season and I wish I hadn’t.
This episode featured a guy who had a big secret about his past gay porn experience (and what a coincidence, that one of the residents just happened to have a past in porn). Conveniently, this guy’s girlfriend’s mother emails (yes, EMAILS) her daughter that his gay porn videos can be found online. Another roommate finds out about this on the same day. My first thought was: How did they both figure this out when apparently he had done this stuff under a different name? And they figured it out on the same day no less.
Everybody knows–or everybody should know–reality shows are not exactly real. There are writers and producers that make up a lot of what happens on these shows. What makes me mad is when these shows are so obviously set up that it could never possibly be authentic. Situations are intentionally created by producers to make “good television.” This is The Real World.
I get into arguments with my friends about how fake these shows are but they insist that a lot of it is real. I just don’t buy it. These shows may be guilty pleasures for some but I just can’t bring myself to watch them.
Every single time I watch the news, there is a segment about Prince William’s upcoming marriage. I know it’s a big deal but I just don’t understand why I, as an American, am supposed to care.
Yes, I know that it’s an extravagant affair with a bunch of dignified royal people attending, but again, why should I care? This wedding is being covered extensively in every media medium and I saw enough already. I don’t care where Kate grew up or what type of shoes the guests will be wearing. I’m sure they are all nice people but it really doesn’t concern me.
The sad thing is I probably will wake up early on April 29 to check out the festivities. Coverage generally begins at 3 a.m. central time, but I don’t think I’ll be up that early. I might set my alarm a tad bit earlier than my usual 6:30 a.m. wake up call just to see what all of the fuss is about.
And now I realize that I’ve answered my own question. Why do Americans care about a royal wedding? Because whether it’s a tragedy or a joyous union, many of us just can’t help but watch. Just stop all of the unnecessary features about where Kate shops and who her friend’s were as a child. It’s just getting ridiculous.
The recent trend in fairy tale movies did not fare well with this one. If The Village and Twilight were able to have a child, the result would be Red Riding Hood. And that’s not a good thing.
Valerie (Amanda Seyfried) lives in a small village that has been terrorized by a murderous werewolf for years. Lucky for her, she has two suitors to protect her, though only one is her true love and supposed to be a secret. She also has her doting mother, father and grandmother (who gives her the red cloak) to care for her and keep her away from the ferocious canine. Wolf hunter Father Soloman (Gary Oldman) is summoned to help bring down the beast. He tells the villagers that the killer can also take a human form and then asks the central question to the film: Who is the wolf?
Similarities to the two films mentioned above run rampant through Red Riding Hood but the most apparent being that to the storyline of The Village. Here a small settlement surrounded by trees is also being threatened by unknown and terrifying monsters. Townspeople are seen fleeing to their homes during safety drills, a scene also in Red Riding Hood. However, M. Night Shyamalan does a much better job with The Village screenplay than David Johnson does with Red Riding Hood. Dialogue inadequacies are rampant throughout this most recent fairy tale. Characters frequently state the obvious (“I’ve seen it…with my own eyes) but then don’t say anything when an explanation would greatly improve the scene. There are too many unnecessary words in this film and when there should be dialogue, it’s missing. And look for an incredibly awkward “What big eyes/ears/teeth you have” scene. Johnson may have felt obligated to include this line but that made the film just that much worse. He could have left it out.
If director Catherine Hardwicke tried to make a film visually separate from Twilight, the effect was lost. Like Twilight, numerous shots of the snowy mountain range where the story is located make their way across the screen from the very beginning (I think I counted five shots in the first 30 minutes). It’s as if Hardwicke is saying: Isn’t this such a great place for a movie? We get it. You like making movies that are in the mountains. Can we please get back to the drawn out story?
Also, just like Twilight, we’re dealing with a young girl obsessed with the bad boy in town that her parents don’t approve of. Then, of course, there’s the supernatural tie-in that connects the two films. Both movies include werewolves but thankfully, no vampires enter into the world of Red Riding Hood.
Red Riding Hood is the classic whodunit with too much emphasis on the “who” and not enough on the “dunit.” As with all murder mysteries, suspects are around every corner and clues are given to help us try and figure it out. Unfortunately, too many hints were given. It seemed like every suspicious glance or quick camera movement was telling me that I should be paying attention to this or that character’s whereabouts or motive. It’s suspicion overkill. By the time I found out who it was, I didn’t care anymore.
There are some redeeming qualities in Red Riding Hood. I was never bored. There was always some action or plot point to keep my interest and the acting is of good quality. I just wish I could say the same for the rest of this mediocre movie mash-up.
Previously I’ve explored the reasons as to why I laugh at certain forms of entertainment. Recent events have thrown a curve ball into my thoughts.
As one of the many Loper Programming and Activities Council planned events, a free movie was held at Kearney Cinema 8 for students. Choices were either Hop or The Lincoln Lawyer. I chose Hop because the premise intrigued me and I generally enjoy kid’s movies. Though to be honest, the main draw for me was the voicing of Russell Brand as EB, the Easter Bunny. Going in I expected low attendance for this film. After all, these are college students, but much to my surprise, the theater was packed, and when I say packed I mean every last seat was filled. So, surrounded by young adults I began my childish Easter journey.
The film itself was enjoyable if not all that surprising or imaginative, but that’s not what interested me. I was astounded by the reaction of the late-teen to twenty-something audience.
A couple of weeks ago I went to see Gnomeo and Juliet while in Ogallala, Nebraska. It is a very small theater and altogether there were maybe 15 people in it. There were a few kids and I noticed that just listening to them laugh at parts that were only funny to a kid, made me chuckle. I’ve learned going to see movies like the most recent installment of Shrek or Toy Story right when they come out is not a good idea unless you like to be surrounded by hundreds of kids laughing hysterically at all of the fart or booger jokes. Kids are supposed to laugh at these things. That’s why they’re there. I was leery of going to see Hop during a regular showing for that very reason. Fortunately the LPAC event came along and I thought it would be the perfect opportunity.
So the previews start. There are a few giggles here and there but nothing too loud or obnoxious. Hop begins. And so does the laughter. Every joke resulted in a chorus of guffaws from the young adult audience. I was shocked. I never thought I’d be watching a children’s movie with a crowd of only college students, much less have the crowd be more rambunctious than a group of kiddos.
Were these students laughing because everybody else was laughing? Possibly. But that’s not what it seemed like. The laughter sounded genuine and started from many different sections of the theater. These students were having fun watching a movie that is not even aimed at their demographic. A laughing audience made me happier during the movie because the atmosphere was good-natured and just ready to have a good time.
How do you make the iconic West Side Story a bit more diverse and interesting? It’s simple. Just replace the streets of New York City with the sands of the Middle East’s Israeli-Palestinian conflict and add fast food falafel. Then you’ve got yourself West Bank Story.
West Bank Story was directed by Ari Sandel and won an Academy Award in 2007 for best live action short film, and deservedly so. So what makes this movie Oscar worthy? It’s creativity. It’s smart and clever but doesn’t go over the top with the Jewish/Muslim jokes. Each joke serves a purpose and makes the subject matter light. At one point the romantic female lead remarks in reference to her kabob-hat and Hummus Hut attire, “Do I look like a suicide bomber? Like I’d be caught dead in this outfit?” It took a couple of seconds but I got there, as was the case for many of the jokes. But once I got it I so appreciated the laugh.
Every day we hear more and more about this war or that war or another Middle Eastern problem. West Bank Story says to those issues: Can’t we all just get along? Obviously, reality can’t be all pitas and chickpeas but it’s nice to know that a few song and dance numbers can make it look possible.
If I’m being completely honest, the main reason I enjoyed West Bank Story was because of the spontaneous musical numbers. Those get me every time. There’s just something about a song that makes me care about a movie more. Not to mention if that song is a parody or making political subjects a form of entertainment. Plus, who doesn’t love a giant dancing menorah?
The recent trend in fairy tale movies did not fare well with this one. If The Village and Twilight were able to have a child, the result would be Red Riding Hood. And that’s not a good thing.
Valerie (Amanda Seyfried) lives in a small village that has been terrorized by a murderous werewolf for years. Lucky for her, she has two suitors to protect her, though only one is her true love and supposed to be a secret. She also has her doting mother, father and grandmother (who gives her the red cloak) to care for her and keep her away from the ferocious canine. Wolf hunter Father Soloman (Gary Oldman) is summoned to help bring down the beast and asks the village the central question to the film: Who is the wolf?
If Director Catherine Hardwicke tried to make a film visually separate from Twilight, the effect was lost on me. Just like Twilight, numerous shots of the snowy mountain range where the story is located are pushed onto the screen from the very beginning (I think I counted five shots in the first 30 minutes) as if to say: Isn’t this such a great place for a movie? We get it. You like mountains. Can we please get back to the drawn out story?
As with all murder mysteries, suspects are around every corner and clues are given to help us try and figure it out. Unfortunately, too many hints were given. It seemed like every suspicious glance or quick camera movement was telling me that I should be paying attention to this or that character’s whereabouts or motive. It’s suspicion overkill. By the time I found out who it was, I didn’t care anymore.
There are some redeeming qualities in Red Riding Hood. I was never bored. There is always some action or plot point to keep my interest and the acting is of good quality. I wish I could say the same for other aspects of the film.
There were very few live-action films I saw as a child. I grew up on animated Disney movies and old video tapes of Care Bears. One exception was The Beatles’ A Hard Day’s Night. I was born in 1989 so a movie from 1964 may seem like an odd choice for a review but it’s one the best so I couldn’t resist.
The film follows the Fab Four as they make their way to a television taping by train and automobile and are constantly being swarmed by screaming girls. On the way to London, Paul, John, George and Ringo must deal with Paul’s mischievous grandfather (he’s very clean, isn’t he?), who later convinces Ringo to go out on his own while the others desperately try to find him before their concert.
It’s a simple plot but that’s exactly what makes the film genius. Each of the four give a unique performance and made me believe that they were just being themselves, which I’d love to continue to believe. As if it was the forerunner to reality TV. For years I thought that the man who played their manager was their actual manager.
As famous as the Beatles are, I was under the impression that my family had gained access to a rare and valuable treasure. I had no idea anybody had seen this movie except for me and my family. Certainly none of my friends had. Imagine my shock when I eventually found out it was loved by millions and nominated for two Oscars for music and writing. And I couldn’t agree with those nominations more.
The songs in A Hard Day’s are catchy and mostly upbeat but the screenplay is why I watch this movie repeatedly. It’s just so darn funny. I’ve memorized most of the parts that I laugh at so I know when they’re coming, but I still find myself laughing, sometimes uncontrollably. I recently watched this with my roommates and I was glancing out of the corner of my eye to see if they caught the quick one-liners uttered by John Lennon or the brief eye movements of Paul McCartney that crack me up every time. They didn’t always laugh but that’s perfectly fine. This film allows you to laugh at what you find funny and just enjoy the rest. Nobody will laugh at every witty remark but they’re there for the taking.
There may be a sense of nostalgia that contributes to my love for this film but I honestly believe that even if I saw it today for the first time I’d love it just as much as I did when I was five.
I’m the kind of person that enjoys a good laugh. Whether it’s that YouTube video of a hamster eating popcorn on a piano or a late night talk show, I love to laugh at things I think are funny. Recently though, I’ve had to reevaluate why I think things are funny in the first place and it’s all because of that guy from The Hangover.
Zach Galifianakis hosted “Saturday Night Live” last Sunday. I am a SNL junkie and this episode disappointed me more than any I think I’ve ever seen. The jokes landed flat, the sketches left me scratching my head and there were multiple flubs and technical difficulties.
Now, almost anybody you talk to will have their opinion of when SNL was “best.” Some say it was the original cast, others say the 80′s cast, and some say the 90′s. I love today’s SNL because that’s what I know best.
SNL funny lady Kristen Wiig as the Target Lady in a recurring SNL sketch.
People also have their favorite cast members. In my opinion, current member Kristen Wiig is the best there is, and the writers know it. She appeared in almost every sketch this past week. It proved to be too much of a good thing. They need to use their newer cast members, like Jay Pharoah, more often. Maybe that would liven things up a bit.
After the lackluster episode I took to the Twitterverse to vent my frustration. I noticed others that felt the same way but one person in particular really got me thinking. He said something along the lines of: “The studio audience was really dead tonight.” Maybe they were just as bored as I was…or was I?
The reason that TV shows have a live audience is so that people watching at home will know when to laugh. Studio audiences are prompted to laugh in all the right places for taped shows, but nobody can force an audience to laugh when the show is live. Maybe last week’s audience was cranky or tired, but for whatever reason they weren’t laughing much. Could this mean that I wasn’t laughing because the audience wasn’t laughing? I’d like to think that I only laugh when I actually think things are funny but I know that’s not the case. With SNL, I’ve found myself chuckling and then wondering, “Why am I laughing?” The same goes with talk shows like Conan or The Tonight Show. The live audiences can be seriously effective.
This is the reason that I love going to movies the weekend they open. I always enjoy movies more when the theater is full with other people laughing and reacting. It makes me feel justified in my enjoyment of the film.
I’ve also noticed that I tend to laugh more if my friends are laughing too. I even laugh sometimes, even if I don’t think it’s that funny, just to get somebody else to think it’s funny. I usually feel weird if I’m watching something with a group of people and I’m the only person laughing out loud.
It’s not like I’m not capable of laughing if there isn’t somebody prodding me along. My favorite comedy right now is “The Office” which has no audience and no laugh track. However, my favorite comedy of all time is “Friends” which did have an audience and probably a laugh track.
I don’t know if I should be concerned about my realization that I may not actually think what I’m laughing at is funny. I’ll just have pay better attention to what the jokes are. Then again if I do that, I may lose a lot of my favorite shows. Maybe I’ll just stick to cat videos on YouTube. I always think those are funny.
I’m the kind of person that enjoys a good laugh. Whether it’s that YouTube video of a hamster eating popcorn on a piano or a late night talk show, I love to laugh at things I think are funny. Recently though, I’ve had to reevaluate why I think things are funny in the first place and it’s all because of that guy from The Hangover.
Zach Galifianakis hosted Saturday Night Live on Sunday. I am a SNL junkie and this episode disappointed me more than any I think I’ve ever seen. The jokes landed flat, the sketches left me scratching my head, and there were multiple flubs and technical difficulties.
Now, almost anybody you talk to will have their opinion of when SNL was “best.” Some say it was the original cast, others say the 80’s cast, and some say the 90’s. I love today’s SNL because that’s what I know best. People also have their favorite cast members. In my opinion, current member Kristen Wiig is the best there is, and the writers know it. She appeared in almost every sketch this past week. It proved to be too much of a good thing. They need to use their newer cast members, like Jay Pharoah, more often. Maybe that would liven things up a bit.
After the lackluster episode I took to the Twitterverse to vent my frustration. I noticed others that felt the same way but one person in particular really got me thinking. He said something along the lines of: “The studio audience was really dead tonight.” Maybe they were just as bored as I was…or was I?
The reason that TV shows have a live audience is so that people watching at home will know when to laugh. Studio audiences are prompted to laugh in all the right places for taped shows, but nobody can force an audience to laugh when the show is live. Maybe Saturday’s audience was cranky or tired, but for whatever reason they weren’t laughing much. Could this mean that I wasn’t laughing because the audience wasn’t laughing? I’d like to think that I only laugh when I actually think things are funny but I know that’s not the case. With SNL, I’ve found myself chuckling and then wondering, “Why am I laughing?” The same goes with talk shows like Conan or The Tonight Show. The live audiences can be seriously effective.
This is the reason that I love going to movies the weekend they open. I always enjoy movies more when the theater is full with other people laughing and reacting. It makes me feel justified in my enjoyment of the film.
It’s not like I’m not capable of laughing if there isn’t somebody prodding me along. My favorite comedy right now is The Office which has no audience and no laugh track. However, my favorite comedy of all-time is Friends which does have an audience and probably a laugh track.
I don’t know if I should be concerned about my realization that I may not actually think what I’m laughing at is funny. I’ll just have pay better attention to what the jokes are. Then again if I do that, I may lose a lot of my favorite shows. Maybe I’ll just stick to cat videos on YouTube. Those are always funny.
Fans of The Hangover probably cheered when they heard Zach Galifianakis would be hosting Saturday Night Live. I was one of them. A day later, I’m wishing I hadn’t wasted that hour and a half.
I’m a fan of SNL. It gets a bad rap these days for not being as funny, but I continue to tune in every week because I believe that it is funny. Of course, it has its bad moments, and boy are they bad, but overall, I enjoy the show. Not this week though. I very rarely turn a show off before it’s over for fear that I may regret it, but yesterday, I almost did just that.
The sad part is, Zach Galifianakis is funny. I just don’t get why the writers didn’t use him to his full potential. His monologue was the best part of the entire show. It was all downhill after that. For once, the monologue wasn’t an awkward “I’m a celebrity but I suck at public speaking” monologue. He basically just did his stand-up routine which was brilliant with unconnected thoughts and an Annie musical number.
The only other part I found amusing was the “Zach Looks For A New Assistant Sketch,” but that was more of a “that was cute” kind of funny.
I noticed throughout the show that I wasn’t the only person not laughing. It seemed like the studio audience as a little short of laughs also. Combined with multiple stumbles from cast members, as well as technical difficulties, last week’s show was ripe with sub-par comedy. I’m just hoping they get their act together before the April 2 show with Elton John. The “Rocket Man” deserves better.
sambates 