Don’t Like: This Evian Baby Commercial (It’s Terrifying)

August 26, 2010

TERRIFYING

Advertisements

Don’t Like: THE HANGOVER, only in the sense that I pretty much already saw every funny moment or comedic beat in the trailers and commercials

June 5, 2009

Say I walked into this movie without seeing a single trailer or commercial. I probably would have found it freaking hilarious. So often this is actually the way that critics see movies and it works distinctly to their benefit. But this always assumes that audiences go to see movies in a bubble. Nope. Everybody sees the commercials and they see the trailers. And all the of the advertising for THE HANGOVER has been rather funny. Heck, it got me to see the movie (though honestly I would have seen it cause I like Zach Galifianakis). So what happens when you go to see a movie and every funny part has been already seen in some form? It’s disappointing, that’s what. I feel like I was robbed of seeing the actual freakin movie.

What kind of makes it all the more remarkable is THE HANGOVER is throwing constant waves of funniness at you for the entire running time. And the trailer folks somehow freaking managed to cram a great 2 hour comedy into a 2 1/2 minute ad. Pretty remarkable.

So how does this happen? Easy. Focus groups. Studios are run by businessmen who think this practice is important. Hint: it’s not. It’s actually detrimental. But they do a focus group on a trailer and ask what the people what they would have liked to see more of in the trailer. This particular phrasing was recently a comment on mefi: “Men always answer: explosions and boobs. Women always say they wanted to see more of the story. That’s why trailers are usually filled with explosions and boobs and give away the whole story.”

God dammit that is frustrating. I could launch into a diatribe on the stupidity of moviegoers, but that seems a tad assumptive and snotty. Nope, the blame lies squarely with the focus group testers because there is a direct fundamental problem with the question itself. A trailer is supposed to make you WANT TO SEE MORE. That’s the entire conceit of the damn thing! No one really wants a encapsulated movie. They don’t and I stand by this.

Some people disagree. Matt Groening recently said on why some trailers spill all the good stuff is “smart things make people feel stupid and unexpected things make people feel scared.” Which is true to a degree, but isn’t that basically an acknowledgment of catering to the lowest common denominator? Why do we do this? To get lots of money? Yeah that’s the justification. But I don’t buy it. That amounts to nothing more than disgusting excuse. Look at the Apatow movies. Those trailers hardly EVER spoil the funniest and best parts. The new Bruno trailer leaves the best parts out and the old Borat trailer only showed the opening.  And all these movies are ridiculously successful, even with the “lowest common denominator” audiences.

So I don’t buy it. It’s an inane practice that has become nothing more then the safe, assumptive bet.

Luckily there are a few things in THE HANGOVER that allow you to get over the been-there-done-that-deja-vu of watching the actual movie. Most specifically, Zach Galifianakis finally getting the breakout roll he’s needed for years. He’s just absurdly good in this. You’ve already seen most of his good stuff, but he has a laundry list of throwaway lines and left field deliveries. My favorite of which being his pre-shots speech read-aloud. Classic stuff. I hope he becomes as huge as he should (and this guy has been toiling in the comedy scene for years).

Random notes:

-dear todd phillips: women are not evil and alternatively they don’t have to be vapid whores either. carry on.

-Ken Jeong. Nicely done. Secret weapon of the movie. Too bad your best moment was also ruined.

-Again Zach is just awesome.

-Ending picture montage practically saves the movie.


Like: This LaDanian Tomlinson/Polamalu Nike Commercial

October 16, 2008

I’m sorry, but this commercial is freaking awesome.


Don’t Like: Bud Light’s “Drinkability”

October 8, 2008

Bud Light’s new ad campaign saying that what they have is “drinkability” is absolutely hilarious.

Why? Because they’re basically touting how much their beer stinks.

You know why Bud Light goes down easy?

Because it’s fucking water… with a splash of budweiser.

See, when I want to drink a beer, I like when it tastes like beer. Bold. Hoppy. Yet smooth and delicious. I like dark beers, amber beers, and golden beers. I like wheat beers. Domestic or imported beers. I like all beers with substantive flavor. Even miller lite has an okay tang to it. Heck, even though PBR tastes kind of like a metal tin, it still tastes like beer.

Bud Light tastes like water… the most “drinkable” substance on earth. I like water. I like it a lot. But that’s the last thing I’m looking for in my beer.

So how bout if you want something “drinkable” you just drink that and leave the beer drinking to people with testicles.

… you know, proverbially testicles.

……. leave me alone.


Also Way Like: Bird. Magic. New Split Screen Commercial.

June 6, 2008

Yeah these commercials have been overdone. But finally one is full of awesome.

Bonus points: Bird looks awful.

Exta Bonus points: Bird said he felt like a dork after doing it.


Don’t Like: People Ruthlessly Making Fun of Sarah Jessica Parker and Sex and the City While Not Being Actually Funny and Just Coming Off Like Sexist Assholes When Just Not Caring or Having Something Genuinely Funny To Say Would Be Reasonably Appropriate

May 29, 2008

The Sex And The City movie comes out tomorrow. As such, the influx of advertising has caused a tensing up in the sphincters of good ole’ American Boys across the country. Just on the radio yesterday I heard a series of dreadfully stupid guys tearing the entire thing a new one. The internet is lashing into this fucker like a sadistic prick that it is (yes I just called the Internet a sadistic prick). The conversations are everywhere. I’ve had a few interesting ones on the merits of the series/image/culture of SATC with some male friends, but mostly I’ve been listening to a non-stop parade of asshats make fun of it.

And it seems to amount to one kind of behavior, to quote Devin Faraci: “Ewwww! It’s a Girl Movie!”

Seriously people, what the fuck?

Why does the entire idea of a movie about fashion, dating, and older women make you want to be a colossal jerkass? Who cares? It’s just a movie and you don’t have to see it. Do you know how many movies are aimed at our (men’s) interests? About 88%. And most of those interests are borderline retarded. The other 11% of movies aimed at women are pandering romantic comedies that work so poorly that they make me want to dig up Charles Lederer’s corpse so he can start scripts again. And that leaves a measly 1% of movies that are for women and have a decent shot of being somewhat interesting. Sex and the City has a good shot at being in that 1% so what’s the big problem?

I’ve actually heard the movie isn’t that good, but that’s kind of irrelevant. What’s may be more relevant is my defensive stance probably comes from the fact that I enjoyed the show. I’ve seen every episode and once I let down my guard I realized the series has a a nice absorbing nature to it. Most of the time, it’s genuinely funny. The writing is cute but undoubtedly sharp. My favorite aspect is how brave the actresses are. This may sound lame, but it’s not. They’re completely unafraid to make themselves look silly/unglamourous (rather interesting for a show perceived as glamorous) and they realize that playing it straight is the way to go. Sure the show’s run has had some problems, but they’ve hardly been dehabilitating. While I don’t think the 1/2 hour format will lend well to a movie, none of that really matters. Mostly because there’s a lot of assumptions being tossed about and most of them aren’t really that accurate. SATC is not shallow. Sometimes they do deal with a shallow world/setting, but often it’s about the reality of those situations.

There’s also a lot of people bitching about how Sarah Jessica Park is ugly. This I don’t understand. She’s not ugly. Yeah, her face is a little weird, or unique depending on your view (the NYTimes called it “cubist”)… But that’s it. And most of the time she’s lighted fine on the show so it’s a completely non-issue. She happens to be a good actress who totally sells her part. Put in whatever dumbass girl you think is hot in the role (jessica alba for example) and it would fail… miserably. And even if you do think SJP’s ugly, what the hell does that have to with SATC being the hellspawn of satan? The best part of this is the majority of the negative reaction is largely confined to geek movie internet sites, where I can only guess they’ve never even conversed with someone as attractive as SJP in their entire lives.

The whole thing is adding up to this weird contrarian/backlash/sexist reaction that comes off as pretty asinine.

Look, I’m not above making fun anything. EVERYTHING is fair game. Just realize there’s an art to making fun of things that will reflect your maturity/personality. The funniest comment about SATC actually comes from Family Guy where they say “So this show is about three hookers and their mom?” That’s hilarious.

Comparing SJP to Mr. Ed and talking about how that movie must suck cause they’re old whores who like fashion is not. The “Ewww! It’s a girl movie!” shit has got to stop.

I’m talkin to you internets.


Don’t Like: The Just For Men ads where two little girls go up to their father and tell him he needs to get back into the dating game again after their mother has died and use Just For Men to get rid of his graying hair

April 17, 2008

[Rolls eyes] I mean COME ON. REALLY????

I have a surprisingly high threshold for fluff, but the whole thing plays like it’s sweet as sugar cookie pie but for HAIR DYE. COME ON. That’s vomit-inducing.

[Throws chair against the wall]