Sometimes, you can tell from the trailers. If it's a comedy, and the gag revealed in the trailer is just plain unfunny, you know the film is going to be awful, because you assume that they pick the "best" gag for the ad. If it's a romance, and the ad features a scene with the male lead holding the female lead's face in his hands or the line "I have to learn to trust again" or "I'll always be there for you," the movie is really, really bad.
And sometimes, though not often, the ad makers come right out and tell you the movie sucks. Take this new film, When in Rome, for example. Within seconds, we can see it's just another Dust off Screenplay, Change Names and Location, and Release into Theatres Forgotten-in-Five-Minutes waste of celluloid. Boy meets Girl, Boy loses Girl, Boy finds Girl, Boy dies in tragic blimp accident over the Rose Bowl (ok, that last part is lifted from Police Squad, but you get the idea.) But here's where we are informed that this particular film lacks even the smallest modicum of entertainment value- at the very close of the ad, the screen is filled with rave reviews- "Marvelous!" "I loved it!" "Terrific!" "Stole my heart!"
Who wrote these reviews? Look closer, and you'll see that among the well-known reviewers giving their thumbs up to this mess are "Amy G" and "Maurissa K" and "Sue T"-- basically the same people who show up at 2 am to tell us that they made BIG MONEY with John Commuta's Turn Debt into Wealth system and just ADORE their new Snuggies.
I've seen positive reviews from REAL PEOPLE for The Phantom Menace, 50 First Dates, and Click. That means that it's pretty damn easy to find SOME reviewer SOMEWHERE to give three stars to anything more entertaining than the Emergency Broadcast System. That the makers of When In Rome had to resort to the kind of fake testimonials usually reserved to buyers of Total Gym and Jack LaLane's Juicers tells you everything you need to know about the film- and it's nothing good. Thanks for the tip, Laurie P of Des Moines!
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Friday, January 29, 2010
Does Matthews even watch his own show?
I hate it when people attempt to make commercials for their own tv "news" shows. They are always so incredibly self-important, and I never fail to marvel at their almost unnerving ability to blow their own horns. But no one on television can spread the Check Out How Amazing I Am bullshit like aging MSNBC bloviating talking head Chris Matthews.
"I think I'm unique in this business, in that I really enjoy a good argument" Matthews begins. Oh, PLEASE!! Anyone who has ever watched Hardball knows what Matthews thinks a "good argument" is: It's Matthews asking a question, interrupting the answer three seconds later to add to the question or repeat it, interrupting five seconds later to restate the question, and finally interrupting five seconds later to answer it himself. Matthews asks questions for one reason and one reason only-to hear himself talk. Getting the answer from the guest? Not important.
"I especially love it when I Outsmart somebody." To Matthews, "outsmart" means "outtalk." It means interrupting, changing the subject when things aren't going the host's way, and getting in the last word (which is unsurprisingly easy when you are the host of the show.) Anyone who has watched Matthews over the years knows that he couldn't "outsmart" a box turtle.
"What I love most is when someone tries something that's worked on someone else, and it doesn't work on me. And I nail 'em. I love that." I've never seen this in perhaps a thousand viewings of Matthews' various shows over the last decade or more. Unless "nailing 'em" means "Oh Come On!" or "I don't believe it!" or "ok, that's your opinion!" I suspect it does- which helps me understand why Matthews clearly thinks that he's always by far the smartest man in the room. The bar to "winning an argument" is set so very low.
Here's what you really need to know about Chris Matthews: He was a huge cheerleader for the Iraq War, which he now calls a debacle and anyone who supported it a fool. He has suffered in the past from very public and disgusting man-crushes on George W Bush, Mitt Romney, and others, obsessed with shoulder width ("you could land an airliner on Mitt's shoulders!") and successful play-acting ("Bush looked AWESOME and so MANLY in the flight suit, men love that, he looked like he REALLY COULD fly that fighter!") He is obsessed with Hillary Clinton and is always ready for a quick Bill Clinton snark, no context necessary. He enjoys waxing poetic about times that never were, when "tough Irish boys and tough Italian boys played stick ball on the streets and grew up to be police on the beat, and Mayors." He's a failed politician who I KNOW continues to fantasize about himself in the White House, and is bitter toward people who succeeded in achieving HIS boyhood dream. And he's the only person on television who thinks that "brokered conventions" are still political possibilities and that having worked on Capital Hill thirty years ago gives him some kind of current "inside knowledge" to how things "really work up there."
In short, he's a loud-mouthed, rude, witless punk whose time came and went roughly twenty years ago, and his abrasive asshattery comes through loud and clear in his ads. He needs to just STFU and go the hell away.
Oh, and Chris? Take Joe Scarborough with you. Please.
"I think I'm unique in this business, in that I really enjoy a good argument" Matthews begins. Oh, PLEASE!! Anyone who has ever watched Hardball knows what Matthews thinks a "good argument" is: It's Matthews asking a question, interrupting the answer three seconds later to add to the question or repeat it, interrupting five seconds later to restate the question, and finally interrupting five seconds later to answer it himself. Matthews asks questions for one reason and one reason only-to hear himself talk. Getting the answer from the guest? Not important.
"I especially love it when I Outsmart somebody." To Matthews, "outsmart" means "outtalk." It means interrupting, changing the subject when things aren't going the host's way, and getting in the last word (which is unsurprisingly easy when you are the host of the show.) Anyone who has watched Matthews over the years knows that he couldn't "outsmart" a box turtle.
"What I love most is when someone tries something that's worked on someone else, and it doesn't work on me. And I nail 'em. I love that." I've never seen this in perhaps a thousand viewings of Matthews' various shows over the last decade or more. Unless "nailing 'em" means "Oh Come On!" or "I don't believe it!" or "ok, that's your opinion!" I suspect it does- which helps me understand why Matthews clearly thinks that he's always by far the smartest man in the room. The bar to "winning an argument" is set so very low.
Here's what you really need to know about Chris Matthews: He was a huge cheerleader for the Iraq War, which he now calls a debacle and anyone who supported it a fool. He has suffered in the past from very public and disgusting man-crushes on George W Bush, Mitt Romney, and others, obsessed with shoulder width ("you could land an airliner on Mitt's shoulders!") and successful play-acting ("Bush looked AWESOME and so MANLY in the flight suit, men love that, he looked like he REALLY COULD fly that fighter!") He is obsessed with Hillary Clinton and is always ready for a quick Bill Clinton snark, no context necessary. He enjoys waxing poetic about times that never were, when "tough Irish boys and tough Italian boys played stick ball on the streets and grew up to be police on the beat, and Mayors." He's a failed politician who I KNOW continues to fantasize about himself in the White House, and is bitter toward people who succeeded in achieving HIS boyhood dream. And he's the only person on television who thinks that "brokered conventions" are still political possibilities and that having worked on Capital Hill thirty years ago gives him some kind of current "inside knowledge" to how things "really work up there."
In short, he's a loud-mouthed, rude, witless punk whose time came and went roughly twenty years ago, and his abrasive asshattery comes through loud and clear in his ads. He needs to just STFU and go the hell away.
Oh, and Chris? Take Joe Scarborough with you. Please.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Miller Lite: It wasn't funny when Fonzie did this, it sure as hell isn't funny 30 years later
A twentysomething guy with the requisite moused hair and two-days beard growth (seriously, when is this fad going to end? It's been YEARS since I've seen a guy under the age of 40 with a clean-shaven face on a tv commercial) is sitting with a cute girl in a bar. He's finishing some story involving "a bag full of monkeys"- whatever.
Then the cute girl springs it on him- "there's something I've been meaning to tell you. I love you." Did she decide that Tonight was the Night she was finally going to let him know? Did the Bag of Monkeys story remind her that she loves this guy? Who knows? The point is, we now get to the hideous punchline- the guy responds by attempting to return the sentiment, but he can't get the word "love" past this lips. "Well, I luhhh.....I luhhh...I mean, come on, look at you you're gorgeous, I luhhhhh....."
Naturally his date just looks on quizzically, waiting for him to spit it out, once even muttering "you're so cute!"- I assume because she thinks he's kidding. He's not kidding.
"Would you like another Miller Lite?" asks the waitress. "I'd Love One" the guy easily responds.
Oh ha ha ha, this is BEYOND funny. This guy is terrified of commitment, get it? He can't say the word "Love" to his girlfriend, because that means the relationship has become serious. He can only use the word "love" in reference to beer- and, I'm assuming, buffalo wings, Avatar, fantasy football, and his new Droid.
When I was a kid, there was this show on television called "Happy Days." Henry Winkler played Arthur Fonzerelli, who started as a rather ancillary character but gradually came to dominate the show, ultimately ruining it. Late in it's run, it included a regular bit involving "Fonzie" attempting to say "I was Wrong"- and being incapable of getting the word "Wrong" out of his mouth. It was supposed to be funny. It wasn't. Not even once, and certainly not the fourteenth time we saw it.
Miller Lite- not that you need to be told that you are out of ideas, but- when you reach back four decades for a joke, you are really, really out of ideas. How about just telling us it's good beer, and settling for that?
Oh right- those pesky Truth in Advertising Laws. My bad.
Then the cute girl springs it on him- "there's something I've been meaning to tell you. I love you." Did she decide that Tonight was the Night she was finally going to let him know? Did the Bag of Monkeys story remind her that she loves this guy? Who knows? The point is, we now get to the hideous punchline- the guy responds by attempting to return the sentiment, but he can't get the word "love" past this lips. "Well, I luhhh.....I luhhh...I mean, come on, look at you you're gorgeous, I luhhhhh....."
Naturally his date just looks on quizzically, waiting for him to spit it out, once even muttering "you're so cute!"- I assume because she thinks he's kidding. He's not kidding.
"Would you like another Miller Lite?" asks the waitress. "I'd Love One" the guy easily responds.
Oh ha ha ha, this is BEYOND funny. This guy is terrified of commitment, get it? He can't say the word "Love" to his girlfriend, because that means the relationship has become serious. He can only use the word "love" in reference to beer- and, I'm assuming, buffalo wings, Avatar, fantasy football, and his new Droid.
When I was a kid, there was this show on television called "Happy Days." Henry Winkler played Arthur Fonzerelli, who started as a rather ancillary character but gradually came to dominate the show, ultimately ruining it. Late in it's run, it included a regular bit involving "Fonzie" attempting to say "I was Wrong"- and being incapable of getting the word "Wrong" out of his mouth. It was supposed to be funny. It wasn't. Not even once, and certainly not the fourteenth time we saw it.
Miller Lite- not that you need to be told that you are out of ideas, but- when you reach back four decades for a joke, you are really, really out of ideas. How about just telling us it's good beer, and settling for that?
Oh right- those pesky Truth in Advertising Laws. My bad.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
They're both thinking, 'this has to work, 'cause I'm not going through this shit again.'
Match.com commercial- cute blonde girl is staring at herself in the lady's room mirror, checking her teeth for food particles. Narrator: "She's thinking, 'this date is going really well.'"
Average-looking guy is staring at himself in the men's room mirror, picking at his limp hair. Narrator: "He's thinking, 'what is with my hair?'"
Cute girl and average guy synchronize their exits from the restrooms perfectly- and fall into a passionate kiss. Right there- right in front of the lavatories. How romantic.
Narrator: "They are both thinking, 'this is the beginning.'"
Ugh, Ugh! Where to start? First- from "this date is going really well," I think it's fair to assume that this is their first date. They've just eaten at a restaurant. During the meal, they probably got to know each other a little bit- common interests, hobbies, some insight to what drove them to risk utter humiliation and emotional ruin by signing up with Match.com, etc.- and they seem to have some level of chemistry. Yes, it's going really well.
But I'm sorry- no first date carried out by ordinary human beings includes a fall-into-eachother's-arms-in-front-of-the-restroom passionate kiss. One of these people is the kisser, the other is the kissee. The kissee got what may or may not be a nice surprise. The kisser just announced how desperate he or she is to make this the Beginning of not A long-term relationship, but THE long-term relationship. The LAST one. EVER.
That kiss just screams "I'm done looking. There's nothing after Match.com. It's the Supreme Court of dating- the final say. If this doesn't work out, I die alone. I'm not dying alone. So here's your lip-lock. Consider yourself Mine." Scary.
In real life sane, rational people don't make a "ok, this is it, let's go pick out rings tomorrow" gesture during a first date. Unless they are my former students ;>).
(Sorry, inside joke there.)
Average-looking guy is staring at himself in the men's room mirror, picking at his limp hair. Narrator: "He's thinking, 'what is with my hair?'"
Cute girl and average guy synchronize their exits from the restrooms perfectly- and fall into a passionate kiss. Right there- right in front of the lavatories. How romantic.
Narrator: "They are both thinking, 'this is the beginning.'"
Ugh, Ugh! Where to start? First- from "this date is going really well," I think it's fair to assume that this is their first date. They've just eaten at a restaurant. During the meal, they probably got to know each other a little bit- common interests, hobbies, some insight to what drove them to risk utter humiliation and emotional ruin by signing up with Match.com, etc.- and they seem to have some level of chemistry. Yes, it's going really well.
But I'm sorry- no first date carried out by ordinary human beings includes a fall-into-eachother's-arms-in-front-of-the-restroom passionate kiss. One of these people is the kisser, the other is the kissee. The kissee got what may or may not be a nice surprise. The kisser just announced how desperate he or she is to make this the Beginning of not A long-term relationship, but THE long-term relationship. The LAST one. EVER.
That kiss just screams "I'm done looking. There's nothing after Match.com. It's the Supreme Court of dating- the final say. If this doesn't work out, I die alone. I'm not dying alone. So here's your lip-lock. Consider yourself Mine." Scary.
In real life sane, rational people don't make a "ok, this is it, let's go pick out rings tomorrow" gesture during a first date. Unless they are my former students ;>).
(Sorry, inside joke there.)
Thursday, January 21, 2010
"Anything" doesn't mean what it used to
Here's a nice young couple, gushing over their new little bundle of joy. Clearly, she's the center of their life. But just in case we aren't convinced by the playing and the beaming smiles, proud daddy tells us that "we'd do anything for Cloe. That's why we went to Legal Zoom."
Jesus, Seriously? Your only child is so important to you that in order to protect her future you went to some website for legal documents? You really thought that this action was above and beyond the alternative- actually sitting down with a real human being with property and family law degrees and having a serious discussion about how to protect Cloe in the event of a tragedy that may cost her the support of one or both parents?
"Anything for Cloe" meant downloading One Size Fits All legal documents and just assuming that Mommy and Daddy know what the hell they are doing when they sign here and initial there?
Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that "anything for Cloe" might include taking her financial security seriously enough to discuss it with a qualified attorney, even if it does cost a few extra bucks. But what do I know? These people probably think that buying Brand X diapers at Wal-Mart constitutes going the extra mile for Cloe, too. "No Target diapers for our daughter, thank you very much. Nothing is too good for her!" Weird.
Jesus, Seriously? Your only child is so important to you that in order to protect her future you went to some website for legal documents? You really thought that this action was above and beyond the alternative- actually sitting down with a real human being with property and family law degrees and having a serious discussion about how to protect Cloe in the event of a tragedy that may cost her the support of one or both parents?
"Anything for Cloe" meant downloading One Size Fits All legal documents and just assuming that Mommy and Daddy know what the hell they are doing when they sign here and initial there?
Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that "anything for Cloe" might include taking her financial security seriously enough to discuss it with a qualified attorney, even if it does cost a few extra bucks. But what do I know? These people probably think that buying Brand X diapers at Wal-Mart constitutes going the extra mile for Cloe, too. "No Target diapers for our daughter, thank you very much. Nothing is too good for her!" Weird.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Time to part the fools and their money again
It's January again, which means that W-2 forms are filling mailboxes and millions of people are once again confronted with the Great American Dilemma: "how do I get my refund?"
Which means it's time for another rash of "Let us prepare your tax returns for you" ads, aimed primarily at the expanding population of low-income, paycheck-to-paycheck workers who are most likely to welcome a quick refund- in fact, may be relying on it to maintain a roof over their heads. That these tax-preparation agencies- which I will not mention by name, because they have a lot of money and I don't need the headache- target the most vulnerable among us makes them loathsome enough. That their ads feature grinning morons waving fans of cash in our faces make them even worse.
Here's the latest:
Gullible Moron: "I don't got my W-2 form yet."
Narrator: "No problem! We'll download it for you!"
Gullible Moron: "How much money I gonna get?"
Narrator: "We can give you an estimate within minutes!"
Gullible Moron: "When I gonna get my money?"
Narrator: "With our refund advance service, we can put the money in your hands the same day you come in!"
Cue delighted Gullible Moron driving off waving fan of cash- yay! That was so fast and convenient! These people were so nice, so helpful!
Except, let's get serious. Want your W-2 downloaded? That's going to cost you some money. Want an estimate of your refund? That's going to cost you some money. Want the money right now? There's no such thing as a "refund advance." The tax preparer who offers this is giving you a percentage of your expected refund- minus interest, minus fees, etc.- and taking advantage of what is either cluelessness on your part, or just plain desperation. When you drive off waving a fan of cash, you really ought to suppress the smile, because there's no reason to be happy about being financially abused by a company that specializes in kicking people when they are down.
These people are not being nice. They are not being helpful. They are being vultures, except that vultures actually provide an essential service by keeping nature free of disease-spreading carrion. So I'll just call them scumbags instead, and continue to wish that Congress would pass a law abolishing the "services" they "offer."
Which means it's time for another rash of "Let us prepare your tax returns for you" ads, aimed primarily at the expanding population of low-income, paycheck-to-paycheck workers who are most likely to welcome a quick refund- in fact, may be relying on it to maintain a roof over their heads. That these tax-preparation agencies- which I will not mention by name, because they have a lot of money and I don't need the headache- target the most vulnerable among us makes them loathsome enough. That their ads feature grinning morons waving fans of cash in our faces make them even worse.
Here's the latest:
Gullible Moron: "I don't got my W-2 form yet."
Narrator: "No problem! We'll download it for you!"
Gullible Moron: "How much money I gonna get?"
Narrator: "We can give you an estimate within minutes!"
Gullible Moron: "When I gonna get my money?"
Narrator: "With our refund advance service, we can put the money in your hands the same day you come in!"
Cue delighted Gullible Moron driving off waving fan of cash- yay! That was so fast and convenient! These people were so nice, so helpful!
Except, let's get serious. Want your W-2 downloaded? That's going to cost you some money. Want an estimate of your refund? That's going to cost you some money. Want the money right now? There's no such thing as a "refund advance." The tax preparer who offers this is giving you a percentage of your expected refund- minus interest, minus fees, etc.- and taking advantage of what is either cluelessness on your part, or just plain desperation. When you drive off waving a fan of cash, you really ought to suppress the smile, because there's no reason to be happy about being financially abused by a company that specializes in kicking people when they are down.
These people are not being nice. They are not being helpful. They are being vultures, except that vultures actually provide an essential service by keeping nature free of disease-spreading carrion. So I'll just call them scumbags instead, and continue to wish that Congress would pass a law abolishing the "services" they "offer."
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Chemistry.com- I mean, How hard can this be?
The guy on the latest Chemistry.com commercial really cracks me up with his matter-of-fact dismissive tone toward the "competing" blind date (excuse me, "life partner-finding") websites.
"This site guaranteed that they'd help me find my soul mate. But if they were so sure, why'd they insist that I sign up for a whole year?"
Jesus, great point, buddy. Because we aren't talking about investment sites or fantasy baseball here. It's just paying someone to find the person you should plan on spending the rest of your natural life with. It's not rocket science- why should it potentially take an entire YEAR?
Come to think of it, what's with these monthly fees? If these sites are so great, why should it take them an entire MONTH to hook you up with the woman of your dreams? I can get a latte at Starbucks in (slightly) less time than that! I mean, you GIVE them your weight, height, and a page or so of personal information- why doesn't the name of the girl you are going to be sharing your life with just pop up as soon as you submit it? Rip off artists!!
This guy is just too much. But maybe I can help him out here: Maybe the other match sites realize that people who have given up hope finding someone by conventional means- you know, through family, friends, work, school, stalk-- um, school-- might require a FEW hits and misses over several months before they find someone willing to be with them more than once or twice (even if the pool of people being culled for you is made up of hopeless, socially disfunctional twits who have also decided that they'd rather let a computer program throw them together with someone than risk dying alone.) Just a thought.
And here's one more- how pathetic is this guy, who is willing to spend money to let strangers match him up with other losers, but not too much money over a period of time? "Sure, I'm willing to spend twenty dollars to find my dream girl in the next month- but $240 over the next year? No way."
As someone who decided quite some time ago that he'd rather die alone than submit to E-Harmony, Match.com, or any of the other soulless "dating sites" which specialize primarily in separating sad people from their money, I guess I should have a bit more empathy for this guy. Except that, in the end, he does sign up with Chemistry.com. So he's not just a loser- he's an impatient, cheap loser.
What a great catch- I can't believe he's still out there!
"This site guaranteed that they'd help me find my soul mate. But if they were so sure, why'd they insist that I sign up for a whole year?"
Jesus, great point, buddy. Because we aren't talking about investment sites or fantasy baseball here. It's just paying someone to find the person you should plan on spending the rest of your natural life with. It's not rocket science- why should it potentially take an entire YEAR?
Come to think of it, what's with these monthly fees? If these sites are so great, why should it take them an entire MONTH to hook you up with the woman of your dreams? I can get a latte at Starbucks in (slightly) less time than that! I mean, you GIVE them your weight, height, and a page or so of personal information- why doesn't the name of the girl you are going to be sharing your life with just pop up as soon as you submit it? Rip off artists!!
This guy is just too much. But maybe I can help him out here: Maybe the other match sites realize that people who have given up hope finding someone by conventional means- you know, through family, friends, work, school, stalk-- um, school-- might require a FEW hits and misses over several months before they find someone willing to be with them more than once or twice (even if the pool of people being culled for you is made up of hopeless, socially disfunctional twits who have also decided that they'd rather let a computer program throw them together with someone than risk dying alone.) Just a thought.
And here's one more- how pathetic is this guy, who is willing to spend money to let strangers match him up with other losers, but not too much money over a period of time? "Sure, I'm willing to spend twenty dollars to find my dream girl in the next month- but $240 over the next year? No way."
As someone who decided quite some time ago that he'd rather die alone than submit to E-Harmony, Match.com, or any of the other soulless "dating sites" which specialize primarily in separating sad people from their money, I guess I should have a bit more empathy for this guy. Except that, in the end, he does sign up with Chemistry.com. So he's not just a loser- he's an impatient, cheap loser.
What a great catch- I can't believe he's still out there!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)