MovieChat Forums > avortac4 > Replies
avortac4's Replies
I agree with everything you say in your post.
You said it very well indeed.
You also described my experience perfectly - I am shocked that Steve is this boring in a comedy movie. What happened?
I think Steve Martin could've done a good Closeau, had he done 'his own interpretation' or 'his own version' of the character, but it looks like he's trying to imitate what Peter did, but in a much more boring and predictable way. How could be be SO involved with this, when the result is this bad?
It seems some comedians have a lot of steam, others run out of steam and then they have no choice but to just 'sell out' if they want to make more money, as they have no more funny ideas or humor inside of them. This can happen with 'creative burn-out', as you can't churn out brilliant gems consistently forever. That's why we have many 'one-hit-wonders' that topped the charts in the eighties and nineties, and then we never heard from those groups again.
When you listen to 'Paradisio''s OTHER songs, they're quite horrible compared to 'Bailando'.
It's like everyone has ONE good idea or creative expression in them, and once that's done, expressed or spent, there's no more, they're then working on fumes. Sometimes they are able to milk feveral products out of this one idea (look at Jim Carrey and his tired overacting-schtick), but I NEVER thought Steve Martin would be one of these people.
This movie makes it look like he is. Maybe he simply ran out of ideas, so now he has to cling to the classic cash-cowing because his mansion needs a new wing.
Comedians and other creative people should focus on what they want to create, and then create it, come hell or highwater. If it makes money, fine, if it doesn't, fine. Just keep doing that. Instead, these people sell out very quickly and then focus on MONEY instead, and the result is garbage, just like this movie.
What was he thinking? I bet dollar signs were involved, whatever the thought was..
I know this is a weird thing to say when you look at the screen and see Steve Martin's name on the WRITING credits, I mean.. holy cow, how?
When I saw that, I thought this should at least have some fun and funny moments, or some kind of charm. It doesn't.
Steve Martin is 100% out of place as Closeau. He SHOULD'VE made something original that's nothing like anything else, originals or otherwise. THAT could've been funny, but when he tries to do the 'Peter Sellers-schtick', it looks like someone forcibly throwing pies to their own face and telling the audience to laugh now.
It couldn't be more cringy if it wanted. However, it's not cringy in a good or funny way, just embarrassing and boring way.
Adding Beyonce to this unfunny garbage is like fecal icing on the trashcan. They couldn't have made a worse choice. The only way it's actually a 'good casting choice', is that her blandness fits so PERFECTLY with the unfunny blandness of the rest of the movie.
What I can't understand is how can they take geniuses and comedy masters like Steve Martin and Kevin and make them SO BORING. It's almost ingenious in itself - too bad there's no payoff. Just like in this movie.. to sum it up, it's a movie with no payoff.
I paid one dollar for this movie - I was ripped off.
This movie doesn't fail because "it's nothing like the original(s)".
It fails because it's not funny, it's not good, it's like a really, really bad copy of the already pretty bland and predictable 'Johnny English' movies without the sometimes slightly clever jokes.
There's no tension, the villains are bland, the music is horrible, the less said about 'Beyonce', the better, and I can't BELIEVE Steve Martin can be this unfunny. It's like someone removed everything funny out of him and then put it in front of a camera and said 'ok, now just do something silly'.
This movie actually COULD be much better if it didn't try so hard to be like the original(s) - there's the boss that's supposed to HATE Closeau, but in this movie, only tries to 'dupe' him, which is not as interesting. Kevin can be REALLY funny, but what the heck happened to him? He's as unfunny as I have EVER seen him anywhere. It's almost shocking.
The 'french maid' woman is somewhat charming, and really good for the role, but ultimately, nothing to write home about.
This movie would've been better, if it HADN'T been so 'paint-by-the-numbers-bland'.
I really wanted to like it, and I heard it doesn't quite work, but I never expected it to be THIS bad. Every attempt at comedy fails harder than Closeau hits the floor when he needlessly and unrealistically falls through the roof.
I mean, he isn't even injured? I know it's a comedy, but when he's clearly invincible, where's the tension? At least in the original(s), you knew he could get hurt, he wasn't superman.
Some of Peter's comedy can also be a bit boring and tedious, like the vacuum cleaner bit that goes on a bit too long, but he compensates by being so funny elsewhere, like with the telephone repairman stuff.
People that made this movie didn't understand humor or comedy, and were after MONEY by taking a famous name and a famous singer, and an acknowledged comedy master and put it all together.
I don't think _ANYONE_ would think this movie is bad solely because "it's nothing like the original(s)".
After all, no one loved the original movies because they were 'exactly like' something.
If this movie was brilliant, you wouldn't hear disfavorable (is this a word?) comparisons to the originals.
In my opinion, the problem is exactly the OPPOSITE; they try to MIMIC instead of creating something original. They try to be the originals instead of actually being ORIGINAL.
Steve Martin can be energetically hilarious and unique, he can make you laugh so hard you worry about your guts literally bursting out. I consider him one of the rare comedy geniuses of the entertainment world.
If I had never seen him in anywhere/anything else, I would not want to, either. I would never consider him a genius, if THIS was my only exposure to his talent and comedy.
He tries TOO HARD to be like the original Closeau, played so masterfully and eccentrically by the late drug user Peter Sellers. He tries to make his 'own version' of this idiotic character that's played deadpan by Peter, and he makes it 'cartoony and goofy', whereas Peter always lended him an undercurrent of 'coolness' amidst all the silly onscreen shenanigans.
Steve pronouncing french in a 'silly way' isn't funny. When Peter did it, he underlined the weird pronunciation strategically and skillfully, making him seem like a serious character that has really odd speaking habits that make you laugh, whether you want to or not.
Steve looks like he's 'trying to be funny' and trying to pronounce english in a weirdly french way. This doesn't work.
The sad thing about this movie is, I was SO ready to like it, I WANTED to like it, and I wanted to laugh, I was ready to laugh. I didn't expect it to be as good as Peter's performance, but this is Steve Martin, some sort of king of comedy, a wild and crazy man! I didn't laugh even once.
There was one time I was almost having a chuckle, that's all.
Alright? OK, I will grant you that much.
However, that's her maximum level, she has never risen beyond (how ironic) 'alright', and most of the time, she doesn't even reach that level.
She can be 'alright', but is that enough in a movie? She wasn't chosen because she's 'alright', she was chosen because she's famous and popular, and any time you see someone 'alright' in a movie that's famous and popular, you know 100% certainly she's there only because of MONEY and no other reason whatsoever.
If she had SOME redeeming quality, it wouldn't matter that she's only 'alright', but since that's the BEST she can ever deliver, and when even THAT is on the lower side of 'alright', casting her was a mistake.
I am sure there would have been about 80 000 'better than just alright', prettier, actually somewhat talented 'unknown' actresses better suited for any and all the movies she's ever been in, and would've given us a better experience and performance, as well as been more interesting and beautiful to look at.
But sure, 'she was alright'.. I guess I can't disagree with that TOO much.
I've seen worse, but she doesn't really stand out or fit in at all, she's like a useless extra that's being given peculiarly large amount of screentime for no reason.
I don't know WHY they keep shoving her into movies, when she clearly can't act, has no charisma or screen presence, her 'good looks' are pretty mediocre (in the world of Hollywood, California or just 'general movie pretties') and if her only 'talent' is shrieking like a harpy, what's even the point?
It's like someone is hell-bent in shoving her into weak comedy movies to ruin those movies completely.
Works like a charm, too bad she isn't charming.
Then you'd spend the rest of your years in jail, and be 'married' in a different way.
I mean, when you compare to those two 'marriages', most men would still choose the Susan, as hellish as she is.
I think Jeff exemplifies many typical marriages, where the relationship can only continue because the man is 100% whipped. He only curses his misery and marriage, the demonic nag-hag under his breath, never directly at her face.
I never understood how seemingly powerful, confident, successful men end up like Jeff. How do they get married and end up being wussy pussies that never dare confront their wife with anything stronger than 'yes, dear'.
I can't understand it, I would just leave, I wouldn't stay in a relationship like that for one hour, let alone years. I would give her a chance for redemption, but this is measured in hours, maybe days. I could give someone a week, and if she never improves, it's over instantly.
Then again, I never understood why men marry, I don't see any actual reason for it. What can you do in wedlock that you can't do in freedom? From cohabitation to reproduction, to copulation to intimacy, eating together, whatever. I can't see any one thing you can't do outside wedlock but can do inside of it.
I guess I don't like to be locked, wed or otherwise.
Didn't Jeff ever realize what Susan is like before they got married, or did Susan play some kind of role? I don't understand what's going on in the world, but Jeff is a perfect example of many men's misery.
Men are not confrontational when it comes to women, so women take over. It's like dog psychology, most people let animals (and kids) walk all over them, so the animals take over. People take their animals for a walk, but they let the animal do whatever it wants, so it becomes the pack leader.
Men are not lazy per se, but they don't see the things women obsess about worth fighting over, because they genuinely do not care. What kind of curtains do you want? Whatever you like, honey.
Sounds like a jew stereotype is that they are 'anal 'people, but yet they don't do anal? What an interesting contrast. The most anal people never do anal..
That's QUITE a stretch - how is international audience that might not know anything about jews or jew stereotypes, supposed to know any of that or get the joke?
I like to think of myself of 'relatively cultured' when it comes to understanding American humor, but I would NEVER have gotten this joke without these explanations. Wow.. almost an inside joke in public television.
"Everyone's a critic eh? "
So.. you are criticizing people's wish to criticize, without seeing the irony that you are essentially criticizing yourself?
It takes the annoying Seinfeld trope of 'mystery without explanation' and actually BREAKS it by giving us an explanation at the end!
That's why it's a pretty good episode in my opinion, FINALLY we get to know what caused the mystery, finally we get an answer to the mystery, instead of just 'magical vagjay' or 'she didn't eat the pie'.
Larry and Jeff's friendship is the CORE saving grace of this show. An episode might be bad, cringry, unwatchable otherwise, but their friendship is always worth tuning in for.
It's like Jeff is the dream friend you want, and when he asks you to do a favor, you do it GLADLY, because you know he'd do the same, and he always has your back and your best interests in mind, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, you can talk about anything, ANYTHING with him, and know he won't judge you, but he will always be on _YOUR_ side of any story, always.
I have known all kinds of people in my life, but I would absolutely love to have their kind of friendship, to know someone like Jeff.
Of course Jeff lies and cheats and does many bad, unethical and even unlawful things, but if it wasn't for those, he'd be a dream-friend.
Leon being a middle-aged man-child is going a bit far in my opinion, especially considering what LARRY is shown to be. I think Leon is shown as a much better light than Larry, who is shown to be a selfish prick and complete loser despite being super rich.
Let's see .. the reasons black people would complain about Leon:
- A black man sharing 'main character' status with a rich white guy
- Everyone being shown a black man be funny on television
- A black actor adlibbing on TV and everyone being OK with it
- Black culture being showcased in a good way on television
- A black guy shown as a good guy we're supposed to root for in TV
- Black guy putting down white people humorously
- A black guy being shown to be an admired 'Sex God'
- Racial stereotypes being honestly explored with the blessing of a black man
- A successful black guy being shown in mainstream television
- Sympathy for black man about getting bad rap because of other black people's wrongful actions, and everyone being shown how the black man must feel when that happens
Yeah, SO MUCH to complain about!
Is this some kind of random sentence generator someone is experimenting with some kind of A.I. algorithm?
If you learned what 'punctuation' means, then figured out how to use it correctly, then started learning the basics of what's called 'the english grammar', after which you could learn capitalization of words, and then even venture into the exciting land of 'properly-sized paragraphs', maybe your INSANE WALL OF TEXT would be changed into something actually legible, and someone might not only READ your posts, but also comprehend them and want to reply to them.
In other words..
WHAT THE HELL?!?!?
"Seinfeld conversion episode, but a Curb twist could definitely be hilarious."
This was already done, when Larry thought he's Christian instead of Jewish. It was pretty funny. I don't see how it could ever work with the islamist angle, though, as they're not a comparable religion, like Jewishness, Christianity or Latvian Orthodoxianism (?) are. Islamism is a cult with VERY different values, so it would definitely be a different, dark episode.
Well, if you have 1000 dollars, and everyone you meet is constantly asking you for 50 cents, soon you won't have 1000 dollars. Also, you want to be able to CHOOSE where you spend your money, instead of just constantly having to slowly drain it out because others (unreasonably) demand it from you.
Wealth doesn't always translate psychologically to 'I can just splurge money at every opportunity'. Many rich people are rich because they are stingy misers. Should I use the word 'nggardly'? Would people not take it the wrong way?
Benny Hill was by any definition, "VERY RICH". However, he didn't ever quite understand 'millions', but when soup cost 50 shillings more than he was used to, he undrstood THAT as money. He understood the chump change just fine, but he could never quite grasp the concept of millions or hundreds of thousands. Those numbers were simply too big to represent money in his psyche.
So someone CAN become 'technically' or 'financially' wealthy, but this doesn't mean they FEEL like they are rich. If you have a lot of money, but FEEL like you are poor, it's going to be difficult for you to pay two dollars extra for a pie or something.
It sounds crazy, but human psyche works in mysterious ways, an experience doesn't necessarily automatically translate to a 'feeling of experience'. Zillion bucks in the bank doesn't change your emotions to 'wealthy banker' from 'can't afford to buy a pie'.
It's kinda logical, when you think about it - a few slips of paper exhanging hands do not automatically change your emotions, a few numbers changing in a bank's computer do not do it, either.
Seinfeld was edgy, just not all the time. Sometimes it was 'super edgy', to the point of 'shocking' (at the time), sometimes it was 'relatively edgy', sometimes 'debatable edgy', sometimes 'not very edgy at all'.
Seinfeld run for nine seasons, that's almost a DECADE, a lot was done in that show, edgy and non-edgy. Seinfeld didn't tiptoe around anything, even though it had a laugh track and it didn't feature cursing. It was as edgy as you could get aired at a time, especially as a PG-show.
What makes you say or think it wasn't edgy? Just because Kramer doesn't swear 90% of his dialogue, or some hag isn't constantly screaming the F-bomb doesn't mean the show wasn't edgy.
What do you mean by 'Larry David stuff' - don't you mean 'Larry David-stuff' with a hyphen?
In any case, there are many ways to go about it. Do you mean:
- honesty Larry expresses instead of lying to people
- angrily screaming at strangers for trivial first-world problems
- 'starting up' all kinds of crap when it would be easier to just 'let go'
- being wrong about things but bickering about them until he gets punched or chased
- paying for hookers to drive with you so you can use the carpool lane
- buying and using drugs with your family and hookers
- stealing
- destroying other people's property
- insulting people's country and their women for no reason
I mean, there are MANY angles you can take, Larry does so many things, many are wrong, unlawful, illegal or just plain stupid, others are 'simple honesty' instead of the 'expected social lying', and so on. There's a plentiful buffet of 'Larry-stuff' to choose from, so you would have to be a bit specific.
So 'honesty' instead of 'conforming to insanity because of fear of people' is 'autistic', and thus a mental illness?
Honest people = crazy people?
WHAT?