I noticed lots of 1 star reviews but ignore those since after reading some of them they didn't realize this is a bizarre satire in the mode of Strangers With Candy, they seem to think it is a regular comedy and seem to be from people who are not from America. If you like the classic weirdness comedy Strangers With Candy, then you will like Chad. Chad is similar to Jerri Blank, they are both total extreme weirdos in world of normal people who don't realize how weird they are, and both are portrayed by people much older than High School age. So glad this type of comedy is being made again.
Reviews
12 Reviews
Damsels in Distress
(2011)
"Clueless" in College
19 March 2018
Warning: Spoilers
A remake of Clueless (1995) à la Whit Stillman but set in college rather than High School. No wonder that the movie after this one finds Stillman taking on a direct version of Jane Austen in Love & Friendship (2016) rather than a modern remake of Austen's Emma via Clueless. In this version of Emma we find the Cher role of Violet filled by Greta Gerwig in a similar almost panic mode at times, either over boys or fear of not being perfectly "good" enough. The Dionne role is filled by lookalike Megalyn Echikunwoke, who as in Clueless plays the more cynical and wiser sidekick to Violet. The Tai role who joins Violet's gaggle of gals whom like Cher is intent on educating her to their wise ways, is played by the more down to earth (like Tai) Analeigh Tipton who in no short order (as Brittany Murphy as Tai did in Clueless) causes boy problems for Violet as they become frenemies to some degree. The Paul Rudd character in Clueless is played by Adam Brody, and so on. An inside joke between the two movies is how both Greta and Adam Brody's characters are both exposed as using fake names for themselves. How does this stack up to Clueless? While Clueless is of course much better known as a classic modern comedy which made stars of a few of the actors, it is also more romantic than Damsels which is less focused on the romance of the lead characters. Damsels is of course first and foremost a Whit Stillman movie, which is like saying a Woody Allen movie since both have such unique comedic styles and voices. If you are unfamiliar with his oeuvre, well it is not really something you can understand through a description although my best attempt would be: imagine a Woody Allen movie made by a preppie WASP. Is it a good movie? I've seen some people disparage the film while calling themselves fans of Stillman's earlier work. I don't understand why they don't enjoy this one as well. It may be a slighter work in one sense, or maybe just less of a story or less convoluted, but it is also I think, funnier. It is I guess in that way like Stardust Memories, which to me is immensely funny, but not as well liked by many of Woody Allen's fans.
American Vandal
(2017–2018)
Bart Simpson in High School
18 September 2017
A mockumentary is usually filled with many gags and many ridiculous characters and situations. This one is different because the subject matter is very serious, a person's future is on the line at a very young age, there is really only one funny person, and he is the one in trouble--for being funny. This mockumentary gains its humor not from gags or jokes, or from ridiculous characters, but from the juxtaposition of a very serious true crime investigation, within an Southern California American High school where the social culture of the kids is portrayed in much more realistic way than is typically shown on TV or Movies. Which almost always show High School life in ways that are not like High School at all. That's because they almost always use unrealistic hackneyed tropes instead of trying to be realistic.
Here they try to be realistic, and succeed. Which means lots of hedonistic behavior involving openly used drugs and casual sexuality mixed in with typical High School caste consciousness and other realistic views of modern SoCal High High School life. But without going over the top in any of these areas which is what happens often in certain types of movies that try to portray High School life in a hedonistic way, where they usually always end up too unrealistic because of going way over the top and making them ultra-hedonistic beyond average. This show wisely avoids that pitfall. Throw into the mix a High School version of Bart Simpson as a stoner as your protagonist, and you have a recipe for great viewing. Of course without a Bart Simpson type as the creator it wouldn't work as brilliantly as it does. It is unlike anything ever seen on TV or Film, and I think a must see.
I can see many people really hating this because it is not being judgmental over the hedonism by High School age kids, which I imagine is the real reason behind the attacks on the show by some reviewers since it is so well made. This is not something for prudes or people who think kids need to be brought up without exposing them to certain ideas about sex, drugs, and so on. That reaction by many plays perfectly into the humor of the series which takes its cue from real types of High School age kids instead of the commonly artificial and false portrayal of American youth on TV and movies. The uncanny "life imitates art" aspect of the story that is sure to occur in response to this show makes it even funnier because in fact the criminal act that is the basis for the story, is in reality a symbol for the series itself and the reaction that is sure to follow. It will be judged accordingly in the way the criminal in the story is judged. And as predicted kids will love it while many older people will find it embarrassing and juvenile or even immoral and bad. Bart Simpson would be proud.
Here they try to be realistic, and succeed. Which means lots of hedonistic behavior involving openly used drugs and casual sexuality mixed in with typical High School caste consciousness and other realistic views of modern SoCal High High School life. But without going over the top in any of these areas which is what happens often in certain types of movies that try to portray High School life in a hedonistic way, where they usually always end up too unrealistic because of going way over the top and making them ultra-hedonistic beyond average. This show wisely avoids that pitfall. Throw into the mix a High School version of Bart Simpson as a stoner as your protagonist, and you have a recipe for great viewing. Of course without a Bart Simpson type as the creator it wouldn't work as brilliantly as it does. It is unlike anything ever seen on TV or Film, and I think a must see.
I can see many people really hating this because it is not being judgmental over the hedonism by High School age kids, which I imagine is the real reason behind the attacks on the show by some reviewers since it is so well made. This is not something for prudes or people who think kids need to be brought up without exposing them to certain ideas about sex, drugs, and so on. That reaction by many plays perfectly into the humor of the series which takes its cue from real types of High School age kids instead of the commonly artificial and false portrayal of American youth on TV and movies. The uncanny "life imitates art" aspect of the story that is sure to occur in response to this show makes it even funnier because in fact the criminal act that is the basis for the story, is in reality a symbol for the series itself and the reaction that is sure to follow. It will be judged accordingly in the way the criminal in the story is judged. And as predicted kids will love it while many older people will find it embarrassing and juvenile or even immoral and bad. Bart Simpson would be proud.
Baby Driver
(2017)
Cops must have read the script since they magically appear so quickly.
13 September 2017
Edgar Wright yeah? Edgar Wrong. I love Edgar Wright movies, but I thought this script was truly amateur hour. So I wondered what happened? Then I read this is the first screenplay he wrote by himself. And so I beg, please do NOT do that again. It is one mistake after another. Nothing really makes any sense, which I guess is fine if you're going for the surreal world of Scott Pilgrim or his other films, which was which were true masterpieces, not this junker. I saw some professional critic say (can you trust those guys anymore?) that this was "his masterpiece." I hope he got paid well. This movie is amateurish on every level, and it isn't just the script, the story is hackneyed as well. But back to the script, you know what I hate in crime movies more than anything? Magic cops.
Magic cops is what I call it when police show up within a time frame that in real life is much too fast. If you commit a crime and within seconds or less than a minute there are multiple cop cars and helicopters on you-- those are magic cops. If every time you turn around, there are cops, those are magic cops. That may give the director a quick way to get into a chase scene, or move the plot where you want to go quickly, but it is cheating the laws of reality. The ability of the cops to always find the criminal very quickly regardless of what they do or where they go or how little info the cops should have, is cheating the viewer of a realistic story. Which is fine for a surreal movie like Wright is known for, but this is played straight. This is a straight up crime romance. It is lazy writing and nothing more to blame.
Another thing I hate is when supposed seasoned criminals do very dumb things in order to make it easier for cops to catch them. For instance if you are stealing cars to make a get away and also switching cars to aid in your escape, why would you then park right in front of where you live or where you are doing stuff? And since you changed cars why are the cops there within a minute or two? The writing is lazy, that's why. The criminal all of a sudden conveniently acts like a foolish amateur at the worst possible time and the cops magically appear everywhere--that sums up this movie. This happens over and over and over.
The acting is fine for what they are asked to do, but what they are asked to do is either mawkish or hackneyed tough criminal types. I get the feeling that Wright was trying to create a Guy Ritchie movie (failed at that Edgar, completely) because he wanted to be seen as more than the guy who makes funny wacky weird movies. He wants to be seen as street. He fails bigly. The amount of hype this movie gets is sadly so typical these days for bad movies, and I think a lot of it has to do with people who are maybe drinking or other things, maybe out partying before seeing these types of movies that appeal to young guys, because if you are sober and not very young, you should cringe at this type of stuff. Imagine Fast and the Furious without anything but sitting around talking like idiots with a few driving scenes without any of the wild and big production stuff they do. What you get is dumb and tiresome dialogue, mawkishness, hackneyed machismo, and a forced romance that doesn't seem real just to give the movie a romantic motive for the lead.
Magic cops is what I call it when police show up within a time frame that in real life is much too fast. If you commit a crime and within seconds or less than a minute there are multiple cop cars and helicopters on you-- those are magic cops. If every time you turn around, there are cops, those are magic cops. That may give the director a quick way to get into a chase scene, or move the plot where you want to go quickly, but it is cheating the laws of reality. The ability of the cops to always find the criminal very quickly regardless of what they do or where they go or how little info the cops should have, is cheating the viewer of a realistic story. Which is fine for a surreal movie like Wright is known for, but this is played straight. This is a straight up crime romance. It is lazy writing and nothing more to blame.
Another thing I hate is when supposed seasoned criminals do very dumb things in order to make it easier for cops to catch them. For instance if you are stealing cars to make a get away and also switching cars to aid in your escape, why would you then park right in front of where you live or where you are doing stuff? And since you changed cars why are the cops there within a minute or two? The writing is lazy, that's why. The criminal all of a sudden conveniently acts like a foolish amateur at the worst possible time and the cops magically appear everywhere--that sums up this movie. This happens over and over and over.
The acting is fine for what they are asked to do, but what they are asked to do is either mawkish or hackneyed tough criminal types. I get the feeling that Wright was trying to create a Guy Ritchie movie (failed at that Edgar, completely) because he wanted to be seen as more than the guy who makes funny wacky weird movies. He wants to be seen as street. He fails bigly. The amount of hype this movie gets is sadly so typical these days for bad movies, and I think a lot of it has to do with people who are maybe drinking or other things, maybe out partying before seeing these types of movies that appeal to young guys, because if you are sober and not very young, you should cringe at this type of stuff. Imagine Fast and the Furious without anything but sitting around talking like idiots with a few driving scenes without any of the wild and big production stuff they do. What you get is dumb and tiresome dialogue, mawkishness, hackneyed machismo, and a forced romance that doesn't seem real just to give the movie a romantic motive for the lead.
Long Strange Trip
(2017)
...wherever he goes the people all complain...
7 June 2017
How do you explain the Grateful Dead phenomena to one who hasn't experienced it? How do you explain color to someone who sees in black and white? You can experience the Dead or color and not understand what others see in it. It can be just another music act or just another shade of gray or black or white. This doc tries to explain the mystical connection to the Dead, because really that is what it is - the initials GD are not an accident, nothing is. As the origin of the name "Grateful Dead" is explained in the early going of the doc a famous conception from Hegel came to me, "Die to Live." Which to me sums up the message of this movie as it pounds home the same message over and over about the nature of Jerry Garcia's vision for his life and music. The life lived outside the box, always moving in a new direction, fun as the purpose of life. As for a history of the Dead there are new things here, but there is only so much you can do with a 4 hour movie and there are some autobiographies that serve that function much better. This is more like an introduction into "Jerry Garcia and His Cult of the Dead." More so than what occurs around other musicals acts what binds the real Deadheads (rather than just those who appreciate the music or whatever), is a similar "divine" experience in the music, live or otherwise. And of course that is/was based on the psychedelics people take as this doc tries to make clear in the early going. The metaphysical nature of psychedelics combined with a band that was divinely designed to express the divine metaphysical mysteries of the universe in a way that can touch everyone individually tried to be explained. For example it's why so many of the lyrics are so opaque so often - they need to be so they can reveal different things in the moment to each individual in due course of time. Through music the Dead opened up a divine world of deep ecstasy for the newly psychedelically sensitized and spiritually opened people who often found themselves reborn into a world of higher dimensional/transcendental possibilities - a higher reality was promised - and it was delivered. "G-D well I declare have you seen the...light?" Reborn in song, past conceptions on the limitations of reality now dead, we are grateful. Can you explain the Dead? Sure. Can people understand the Dead? Only the initiates.
Dark Wacky Eccentric Sexy and Funny
5 May 2017
This seemed like a trial for a TV series in that it would fit very well into an episodic framework, oh, and it is very funny. Not everyone will find this funny just like not everyone finds Curb Your Enthusiasm to be funny, to name a previous Jeff Garlin incarnation. The humor is in the same vein as CYE where we find the lead character playing the put-upon guy in world of wacky and or eccentric characters, with the central character often being seen as schlubby by the eccentrics. Although Jeff Garlin as Gene Handsome isn't an eccentric like Larry David is in CYE, he plays in a similar setup for him to interact with, also with celebrities in bit parts, one even playing themself like in CYE. While this isn't on the same level of greatness as CYE, it is still very funny and not in the tiresome way which network TV presents in its attempts to be all things to all people, this movie is unapologetic adult humor, and I hope it does became a regular series. As for the other main parts, Natasha Lyonne steals every scene she is in as Gene Handsome's detective nympho partner, and Amy Sedaris is hilariously seductive as Gene's Lieutenant boss.
Realive
(2016)
Do not expect a good sci-fi, expect a pedantic drag.
4 May 2017
I didn't read any reviews or see a trailer before watching so I had no preconceptions. Afterwards after reading the other 4 reviews I wondered what the really good reviews saw in this film. My guess is that maybe they expected a film that was less competently made, or maybe they expected a less serious film - and were surprised at how well made and serious this was. My guess also is that the obvious flaws of the film were overlooked or not noticed by them because of how well put together it is, just a guess. The problems with this film outweigh the good production and good story. Those problems are: the slow pacing; repetitiveness; morose lead actor; lack of anything stimulating and generally a drag. To give an analogy I would compare this to a college lecture by a really smart teacher who is really good at explaining the lessons but is dry and pedantic and puts students to sleep vs. an entertaining teacher who keeps students on the edge of their seats. While I am not asking this movie to be Transformers, still the script needed much more work before this was made. The story is interesting and with I imagine a limited budget they were able to pull off an impressive production, but with a boring script it ends up being a waste of time since it is so repetitive and really does not go far enough story wise. This would have worked well as the first 40 minutes of a different story, as it stands it will leave most people cold and few will stay to the end, and if they do most of them will regret it since nothing exciting or entertaining ever happens. It moves slowly and dull till the end.
The Tiger Hunter
(2016)
It looked like no one had fun making this, I had even less fun watching.
29 March 2017
I had high hopes since the main actors in this are known for being fine comedic talents. Danny Pudi, Rizwan Manji, Parvesh Cheena and of course Jon Heder. I thought, wrongly, that this would be a comedy. I think the new writer/director Lena Khan along with the other writer and seasoned pro Sameer Asad Gardezi were trying for a dramedy, but unfortunately it is not dramatic in the sense of telling a compelling story, and the comedy (I'm being kind calling it that) was reliant on the quirky Rizwan Manji's character - where the quirkiness is supposed to be funny - but is really just quirky. They try to cram too many things into 90 minutes and the result is nothing works because we have no connection to the different episodes of the story. We have one part flashback which doesn't have any real connection to the story in the present (the '70s), and which takes away a large chunk of time; we have another story about love, which is not really given much time to allow us to know what these characters are like or why they like each other; there is another story about a drama at the workplace which is not only deadly dull but entirely predictable; there is another story about a dumb quirk of Rizwan Manji which is supposed to offer some comic relief but is dumb and not funny; there is another story having to do with following your dreams rather than suffering through family expectations to be happy - but it comes across as sappy maybe because it is not given enough time to explore those characters. Watching these talented actors slog through the unfunny dull script which tries to rely on unearned sentimentalism (too much going on to have time to go into anything beyond a fleeting caricature) was tedious and boring. It was also uninteresting as far as stories go in the first place. I mean with all the stories you can tell about immigrants from India - why waste so much talent and energy with such a sappy and dull concept? Maybe it is based on a true story, I don't know, but being true doesn't mean interesting to watch. India and Indian immigrants are a potential goldmine for film, especially comedy since Indian culture clashes with the rest of the world in an innately funny way so often. The vast and wide variety of cultures and stories that can come from India and from Indians for drama as well, or any other genre makes India a great source for new stories. But this was not that. There is nothing in this script or on the screen that needed to be made, especially in light of such a vast potential at hand.
Lion
(2016)
A great movie wanting to come out of the editing room didn't make it.
29 January 2017
The first part of Lion I would give a 9, unfortunately the second part is in the minus numbers, dragging this whole affair into a frustrating thing where you see greatness just out of reach because it appears the studio wanted a shorter movie. That could be wrong about the studio being the cause, but the problem is there anyways. The second part of the movie where we meet up with the big award hype around Dev Patel and Nicole Kidman's parts in the movie is equal parts confusing and overly melodramatic. The melodrama is caused by the audience not being given enough to understand why they are acting the way they do, and the confusion is caused by the same. It jumps all over the place without allowing enough to fill in their stories. How can you follow a story when big chunks of the motivation are were left on the cutting room floor? I imagine there is going to be a directors cut that will flesh out the second part of the movie and make that part watchable, because as it stands it is not. The first part is really well done in every way, but maybe it also could have been a bit longer in certain parts because there was just so much great drama there. So it is hard to understand the acting accolades for Dev Patel when most of his scenes have him acting in ways that left me feeling like I was only hearing one side of a phone conversation because his emotional tone was all over the place, his concerns were all over the place, the drama was all over the place - and we are not given much to know the details on why? That was less so for Nicole Kidman, but her part also left a lot to be desired.
The Edge of Seventeen
(2016)
It could be worse, the acting wasn't bad, not interesting, but not bad.
28 January 2017
You know that thing where you see a lot of great reviews and very few mediocre and no bad reviews so you expect the movie to at least be decent but it ends up being completely boring with nothing new or interesting at all in any way even the camera work or direction or acting or setting, and totally clichéd in every scene and very predictable, but you keep watching because you can't believe the reviews would be as wrong as they very obviously are?
And you know that other thing where you wonder if the world of reviewers and movie watchers that leave reviews were all on drugs or drunk or distracted or didn't watch the movie but gave a review for some reason or another while thinking "hey, people say it is good" and "hey, why don't I compliment it in the same way others have" and then they write their pretentious dribble about what is basically a second-rate after school special from back in the day in America when networks would make those corny "life lessons for teens" melodramas which had nothing of any value in them but showcased young pretty people in the hopes of getting ratings from teens and tween girls who just got home from school and didn't want to watch talk shows or game shows and were bored wit nothing to do?
And you know that thing were a studio or producer or writers has a checklist of "moments" that they start off in the hopes of getting a hit and then write a script based on that even though every single scene is hackneyed and literally has nothing to offer except some pretty actors speaking like a writer, a bad writer at that instead of anything even remotely fresh, interesting, fun, etc, etc, etc?
And you know that other thing where you wonder if the world of reviewers and movie watchers that leave reviews were all on drugs or drunk or distracted or didn't watch the movie but gave a review for some reason or another while thinking "hey, people say it is good" and "hey, why don't I compliment it in the same way others have" and then they write their pretentious dribble about what is basically a second-rate after school special from back in the day in America when networks would make those corny "life lessons for teens" melodramas which had nothing of any value in them but showcased young pretty people in the hopes of getting ratings from teens and tween girls who just got home from school and didn't want to watch talk shows or game shows and were bored wit nothing to do?
And you know that thing were a studio or producer or writers has a checklist of "moments" that they start off in the hopes of getting a hit and then write a script based on that even though every single scene is hackneyed and literally has nothing to offer except some pretty actors speaking like a writer, a bad writer at that instead of anything even remotely fresh, interesting, fun, etc, etc, etc?
Term Life
(2016)
Some big stars maybe doing favors for friends
30 April 2016
Wow. Just wow. How do big name actors get involved in b-movie fare like this? Usually it is money. I don't know the reason for their getting involved in this movie's failure, if it was money then I have to wonder why they hired an inexperienced writer for the screenplay? Because that is the main fault of this movie. The screenplay is based on a graphic novel and I have to imagine the comic book is nowhere near as unbelievable as this hack screenplay. Because the story in the movie relies on supposed smart people doing things they wouldn't do but do them because apparently because the writer couldn't come up with anything better to get where he wanted to go.
Take for example the desire to create tension to heighten the emotion of the viewers. You can either make the characters act true to normal human behavior or you could have them all of sudden make insane decisions because you are too incompetent of a writer to get where you want to go by making a more complex story, so you have characters all of sudden do foolish things that make no sense for those characters. For example let's say the characters are supposed to be not insane and not dumber then a 3 year old, to then all of sudden have them act as if they are. in order to get them in certain situations - is the laziest type of hack writing. The total reliance on these gimmicky hack writing situations makes people lose interest - because you can't accept it as real people - you think "this is just a stupid movie written by hack." Add to that the unimaginative and lackluster "cinematography" and you end up with a movie that is dumb, unattractive,acted like it was written in a couple days by a drunk, and shot in a week at most. A waste of time for everyone involved, this is a very amateur production with big name stars - which maybe is the fault of Hollywood insiders doing friends a favor and hiring talent behind the camera to go along with talent in front. Or maybe they ran out of money after hiring all the big name stars and had nothing left for people who know how to write, direct, and shoot a movie that is higher quality then the worst episode of CSI. An up and coming A-lister like Hailee Steinfeld needs to find new representation if she is too busy to read scripts and relies on them to find her projects above this level of junk. This is something you expect to see from washed up actors or no-names, not A-listers. This is not bad enough to be seen as entertaining because of it's ridiculousness, it is simply bland and dumb.
Take for example the desire to create tension to heighten the emotion of the viewers. You can either make the characters act true to normal human behavior or you could have them all of sudden make insane decisions because you are too incompetent of a writer to get where you want to go by making a more complex story, so you have characters all of sudden do foolish things that make no sense for those characters. For example let's say the characters are supposed to be not insane and not dumber then a 3 year old, to then all of sudden have them act as if they are. in order to get them in certain situations - is the laziest type of hack writing. The total reliance on these gimmicky hack writing situations makes people lose interest - because you can't accept it as real people - you think "this is just a stupid movie written by hack." Add to that the unimaginative and lackluster "cinematography" and you end up with a movie that is dumb, unattractive,acted like it was written in a couple days by a drunk, and shot in a week at most. A waste of time for everyone involved, this is a very amateur production with big name stars - which maybe is the fault of Hollywood insiders doing friends a favor and hiring talent behind the camera to go along with talent in front. Or maybe they ran out of money after hiring all the big name stars and had nothing left for people who know how to write, direct, and shoot a movie that is higher quality then the worst episode of CSI. An up and coming A-lister like Hailee Steinfeld needs to find new representation if she is too busy to read scripts and relies on them to find her projects above this level of junk. This is something you expect to see from washed up actors or no-names, not A-listers. This is not bad enough to be seen as entertaining because of it's ridiculousness, it is simply bland and dumb.
11.22.63
(2016)
It's good if you are not distracted by typical mishandled "Hollywood" take on the time period
17 February 2016
These types of shows have become a type of menace on TV ever since the success of Madmen has led to many other projects using their portrayal of that time period as a template to imitate. A lack of authenticity; history as artifice; a superficial and stereotypical account where we are routinely presented with a faux history. And I don't mean accuracy of a story either based on real life or fiction, but rather the faux account of an era in history. With Madmen we saw the latter - a fake history that gives a very misleading idea of what that era was really like - especially when we see how men and women acted and treated each other, and how they generally acted in New York, and in the social mores of that era, i.e. my new pet peeve ever since that show - that the new cliché for those era's is that everyone was smoking all the time in the 40s, 50s. and 60s. That really isn't true, the most people ever smoked was in the later 70s. Back in those earlier eras people didn't smoke as much as later time periods. But because Hollywood so many Hollywood writers get their ideas of society from old movies instead of real research, they think everyone smoked all the time back then because that was widely seen in movies. But that occurred due to product placement.
Yes, product placement is not new. The tobacco industry was notorious for paying movie producers or studios to have everyone smoke in movies. That wasn't real life in those times, people didn't smoke as that much. So we have the fake idea of everyone smoking all the time becoming de rigueur ever since Madmen writers fell into the delusion of thinking movies were showing the truth of their times. Now practically every show set in those eras on cable have fallen into the same historical trap. Not true at all. People did not all smoke like chimneys back then. The other pet peeve of mine is in mishandling is women.
So is the case with 11.22.63. I liked it at first, but then they so mangled the social norms of that era that I couldn't enjoy the story. Case in point, and this has nothing to do with the story, is when we see James Franco getting stares for how he looks. I mean, that is just nuts, seriously crazy, because he couldn't look more like he stepped out of that era when he first went there. Both in his hair style and goatee, and his clothes - nothing in the way he looked should have garnered a second thought from anyone, since that look was common even back then. But the show presents it like he is a punk rocker walking into Mayberry with everyone turning their head to stare at the freak. That current idea of that era in America from Hollywood - as if the country was some sort of Stepford Wife writ large, some weird cult, is way off base.
How annoying that Hollywood takes their cues for that era on smoking, which they definitely should not because that was due to product placement, but they do not take anything else from the movies of that era, i.e. women; men and women; social mores; clothing; and so on. In those cases old movies are much more accurate then current depictions of those eras, which appear to be based on lazy clichés rather than anything thoughtful. This isn't happening in Movies, thanks the Gods. but appears to have become the way to go on cable, with a glut of shows all mimicking Madmen - presenting a fake history that we can all look back on and feel better about ourselves because "those guys, those crazy old times, we are so much better and advanced now."
Yes, product placement is not new. The tobacco industry was notorious for paying movie producers or studios to have everyone smoke in movies. That wasn't real life in those times, people didn't smoke as that much. So we have the fake idea of everyone smoking all the time becoming de rigueur ever since Madmen writers fell into the delusion of thinking movies were showing the truth of their times. Now practically every show set in those eras on cable have fallen into the same historical trap. Not true at all. People did not all smoke like chimneys back then. The other pet peeve of mine is in mishandling is women.
So is the case with 11.22.63. I liked it at first, but then they so mangled the social norms of that era that I couldn't enjoy the story. Case in point, and this has nothing to do with the story, is when we see James Franco getting stares for how he looks. I mean, that is just nuts, seriously crazy, because he couldn't look more like he stepped out of that era when he first went there. Both in his hair style and goatee, and his clothes - nothing in the way he looked should have garnered a second thought from anyone, since that look was common even back then. But the show presents it like he is a punk rocker walking into Mayberry with everyone turning their head to stare at the freak. That current idea of that era in America from Hollywood - as if the country was some sort of Stepford Wife writ large, some weird cult, is way off base.
How annoying that Hollywood takes their cues for that era on smoking, which they definitely should not because that was due to product placement, but they do not take anything else from the movies of that era, i.e. women; men and women; social mores; clothing; and so on. In those cases old movies are much more accurate then current depictions of those eras, which appear to be based on lazy clichés rather than anything thoughtful. This isn't happening in Movies, thanks the Gods. but appears to have become the way to go on cable, with a glut of shows all mimicking Madmen - presenting a fake history that we can all look back on and feel better about ourselves because "those guys, those crazy old times, we are so much better and advanced now."
Tell Your Friends