Search
A Girl Called Shameless
6.0
Rate It
Book
Funnier. Ruder. Angrier. Izzy O’Neill is back in the hilarious sequel to The Exact Opposite of...
Andy K (10823 KP) rated Back to the Future (1985) in Movies
Apr 10, 2019
My entire childhood
So funny how seeing a "decked out" DeLorean in a Target parking lot the other day made me want to rewatch Back to the Future again soon. It had been on my rewatch list ever since I purchased the trilogy on Blu Ray on Black Friday, but just hadn't gotten around to it yet.
To say this movie (and the original Star Wars trilogy) defined my childhood is an understatement. The year 1985 meant I was 14 years old and lived within biking distance of the theatre where it was showing. Only Back to the Future and The Empire Strikes Back have the distinction of being movies I saw at least fifteen times during their initial run; at one point every day for a week straight.
The story of how the film got made is an interesting as the perfect screenplay itself. Basically Bob Zemeckis and Bob Gale shopped the movie around after they had made a few films, including Used Cars (good movie), but studios weren't interested. Except Spielberg. Unfortunately, the duo had just worked with Spielberg on 1941 and it was a dud.
Luckily, Zemeckis directed Romancing the Stone in 1984, so they finally went back to Spielberg with that clout and got the deal done. BTTF was actually the first film released under Spielberg's Amblin Entertainment (with the E.T. logo) that Spielberg himself did not direct.
Then, casting. Filmmakers really wanted Michael J. Fox, but he was not available due to his TV schedule filming sitcom Family Ties. They had to move on, so they cast Eric Stoltz and filmed for 5 weeks.
Zemeckis felt like something wasn't right and asked Spielberg to take a look at the dailies. They agreed Stoltz was a good actor, but not right for the part of Marty McFly. They begged the Family Ties people to let Michael do both and they finally agreed. I can't believe how Michael did two full time jobs during production, but he did and managed to create an unforgettable character that will live forever in movie history.
If anyone ever decides it is a good idea to remake, reboot and/or get a sequel going I will personally go to their house and punch them in the face! ?
To say this movie (and the original Star Wars trilogy) defined my childhood is an understatement. The year 1985 meant I was 14 years old and lived within biking distance of the theatre where it was showing. Only Back to the Future and The Empire Strikes Back have the distinction of being movies I saw at least fifteen times during their initial run; at one point every day for a week straight.
The story of how the film got made is an interesting as the perfect screenplay itself. Basically Bob Zemeckis and Bob Gale shopped the movie around after they had made a few films, including Used Cars (good movie), but studios weren't interested. Except Spielberg. Unfortunately, the duo had just worked with Spielberg on 1941 and it was a dud.
Luckily, Zemeckis directed Romancing the Stone in 1984, so they finally went back to Spielberg with that clout and got the deal done. BTTF was actually the first film released under Spielberg's Amblin Entertainment (with the E.T. logo) that Spielberg himself did not direct.
Then, casting. Filmmakers really wanted Michael J. Fox, but he was not available due to his TV schedule filming sitcom Family Ties. They had to move on, so they cast Eric Stoltz and filmed for 5 weeks.
Zemeckis felt like something wasn't right and asked Spielberg to take a look at the dailies. They agreed Stoltz was a good actor, but not right for the part of Marty McFly. They begged the Family Ties people to let Michael do both and they finally agreed. I can't believe how Michael did two full time jobs during production, but he did and managed to create an unforgettable character that will live forever in movie history.
If anyone ever decides it is a good idea to remake, reboot and/or get a sequel going I will personally go to their house and punch them in the face! ?
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Elvis & Nixon (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Elvis Presley has always been a mystery to me. I never understood the fascination around him and the length at which his fans adore him. Growing up in the south, his image and legend permeated throughout the culture and made it impossible to criticize him or his music. He was infallible. Nixon, on the other hand, is universally loathed for having a Presidential administration built on division and corruption. Through one bold idea, on the part of Presley, they cross paths. Elvis and Nixon, sounds as though it would be perfect for an 80s sitcom, however, the reality of this interaction is put on display through this film. In total, the film is fun in that it gives a bit of insight as to what their interaction may have been like, given their personalities and styles, however, there is a lack of depth with anyone in the film. Michael Shannon’s (Midnight Special, Man of Steel) portrayal of Elvis comes off as wooden and lacking any personality.
I felt as though I was watching an impersonator on screen rather an actor portraying a character. Kevin Spacey (House of Cards) plays a strong Nixon in which you feel a little bit of sympathy for the President considering the circumstances that he finds himself in toward the end of his first term. Unfortunately, due to his character Frank Underwood on House of Cards, audiences will feel as though it is President Underwood playing Nixon. There isn’t much space between the two characters that he plays. There also isn’t much space between Elvis and Nixon with their approach to social ills and the American landscape.
There is very little this film offers other than an imagining of what possibly took place due to now recordings of their meeting other than a photo. In that sense, it is an interesting “what if” piece. The imagination of the filmmakers allows us to question who these two men and the circumstances that faced America during 1971. Although provocative in its approach, it doesn’t allow for much growth or ability to connect with any of the characters. It has its fun and funny moments, which will keep audiences interested, but nothing that will have them talking about the film well after they have seen it. Through the portrayals by Shannon and Spacey, I find myself liking Nixon a little more and hating Elvis a little less.
I felt as though I was watching an impersonator on screen rather an actor portraying a character. Kevin Spacey (House of Cards) plays a strong Nixon in which you feel a little bit of sympathy for the President considering the circumstances that he finds himself in toward the end of his first term. Unfortunately, due to his character Frank Underwood on House of Cards, audiences will feel as though it is President Underwood playing Nixon. There isn’t much space between the two characters that he plays. There also isn’t much space between Elvis and Nixon with their approach to social ills and the American landscape.
There is very little this film offers other than an imagining of what possibly took place due to now recordings of their meeting other than a photo. In that sense, it is an interesting “what if” piece. The imagination of the filmmakers allows us to question who these two men and the circumstances that faced America during 1971. Although provocative in its approach, it doesn’t allow for much growth or ability to connect with any of the characters. It has its fun and funny moments, which will keep audiences interested, but nothing that will have them talking about the film well after they have seen it. Through the portrayals by Shannon and Spacey, I find myself liking Nixon a little more and hating Elvis a little less.
Full Circle: From Hollywood to Real Life and Back Again
5.0
Rate It
Book
She grew up in front of the world on the beloved sitcom Full House, but then actress Andrea Barber...
memoir autobiography Full House Fuller House
Mark @ Carstairs Considers (2316 KP) rated I'll Be There for You: The One about Friends in Books
Oct 16, 2019
The One Where We Look at the Friends Phenomenon
Over the course of the book, we get a well-researched look at the sitcom Friends and the impact it has had on the US and the world in the 25 years since it premiered. We learn about how the creators met and came up with the show, the path the actors took before they landed on the show, and some of the bumps and growing pains that everyone experienced during the 10 years the show was on the air. There is also talk about the impact the show has had on fashion, trends, and overall pop culture the world over.
Author Kelsey Miller starts out by talking about her own connection to the show, and at various times in the book she talks about how she gained insight into the show (and vice versa) while talking to her real-life friends about it. As I said, the book is well-researched, but that is part of the problem – it has too much research, rehashing stories we can find elsewhere with little new insights from the cast and crew. I did find her commentary on a few episodes and arcs to be interesting. I had already thought of some of her comments myself, and the rest make perfect sense to me. My biggest issue with the book is the way she works modern social issues into a look at a comedy from 25 years ago. Now, I’m not saying that the issues on the show aren’t worth talking about. This is the only part of the book where she did her any original research, reaching out to people to get reactions to the show’s handing of diversity, etc. However, her experts all seem to be of the opinion that it would be nice if the show had done a better job, but that was TV in the day, and it is a funny comedy that wasn’t trying to push an agenda. It is clear she wasn’t happy these people didn’t agree with her more since she obvious thinks these are major issues in the show. She even spends much of the last chapter talking about the lawsuit a writer’s assistant brought for a hostile work environment and speculating how it would have been handled in the current environment. These complaints aside, I found the book very readable, and when I picked it up, I was hooked. I was even choking up as I read about the taping of the final episodes. This would probably appeal most to die hard Friends fans, but most of the material here they probably already know.
Author Kelsey Miller starts out by talking about her own connection to the show, and at various times in the book she talks about how she gained insight into the show (and vice versa) while talking to her real-life friends about it. As I said, the book is well-researched, but that is part of the problem – it has too much research, rehashing stories we can find elsewhere with little new insights from the cast and crew. I did find her commentary on a few episodes and arcs to be interesting. I had already thought of some of her comments myself, and the rest make perfect sense to me. My biggest issue with the book is the way she works modern social issues into a look at a comedy from 25 years ago. Now, I’m not saying that the issues on the show aren’t worth talking about. This is the only part of the book where she did her any original research, reaching out to people to get reactions to the show’s handing of diversity, etc. However, her experts all seem to be of the opinion that it would be nice if the show had done a better job, but that was TV in the day, and it is a funny comedy that wasn’t trying to push an agenda. It is clear she wasn’t happy these people didn’t agree with her more since she obvious thinks these are major issues in the show. She even spends much of the last chapter talking about the lawsuit a writer’s assistant brought for a hostile work environment and speculating how it would have been handled in the current environment. These complaints aside, I found the book very readable, and when I picked it up, I was hooked. I was even choking up as I read about the taping of the final episodes. This would probably appeal most to die hard Friends fans, but most of the material here they probably already know.
Bookapotamus (289 KP) rated FAME in Books
Oct 24, 2018
An Interesting Exploration of Fame
Raise your hand if you LOVED Family Ties as a kid! And had a crush on Alex P. Keaton? And wanted TO BE Mallory!?! Justine Bateman was an idol of mine in the 80's. If I could be like her, or look like her, I pressed my parents to give me a sister just like her! But I got stuck with a brother. Boo!
It's funny, because when I first heard about this book, I said first thing, "Whatever happened to her?" in that snarky, snide voice - like oh, she was has-been, she didn't do anything after Family Ties, she's a one-hit wonder.... And THAT is exactly the type of attitude Justine addresses in this book. (I'm totally sorry for what I said btw Justine and I still love you!)
If you're looking for the behind the scenes secrets and juicy scandal of the beloved sitcom - this is not the book. If you want the scoop on MJ Fox and hanging with child stars of the 80's - nope, not that book either. In fact, one of the first chapters in the book fully explains this - the book is NOT a memoir. It's an exploration of fame. Justine dissects everything from childhood fame in the 80's, to reality star "fame" of today, as well as both the construction AND destruction of fame that social media can make happen. I was fascinated by her take on all things fame. I felt for her - being an actress on a hit TV show, and only being seen for THAT. That her education, and directing, and successes in business mean nothing - cause the "whatever happened to her" mentality translates to - well, if we haven't seen her on TV anymore - she must be a failure in life.
I loved reading this - she's frantic, and passionate, and, OK I'll say it- a bit crazy, yes - but do you blame her? Imagine people saying about you "Boy, she sure has let herself go" on a public forum, on google searches, on Twitter. Just cause the last time they saw her she was 21 - and now she's 50. Well, clearly she's aged - duh. Obviously she doesn't LOOK the same!
I gobbled up every chapter and loved her take on how crazy it is to be famous, but how much crazier it is today. Sure, there's some namedropping, some mentions of Michael J. Fox, Sarah Jessica Parker, and more - and there's even a bunch of color photos in the book that she talks about and references throughout the book, which I loved. I didn't need the juicy gossip, as I felt like it made me understand celebrities more and totally got me out of that mentality of "Oh, they wanted to be in the spotlight, so they are just automatically targets." No. I feel terrible now for ever ragging on a celeb in the spotlight - especially the young ones out there.
But I'm still not laying off the reality "stars" ;) haha.
It's funny, because when I first heard about this book, I said first thing, "Whatever happened to her?" in that snarky, snide voice - like oh, she was has-been, she didn't do anything after Family Ties, she's a one-hit wonder.... And THAT is exactly the type of attitude Justine addresses in this book. (I'm totally sorry for what I said btw Justine and I still love you!)
If you're looking for the behind the scenes secrets and juicy scandal of the beloved sitcom - this is not the book. If you want the scoop on MJ Fox and hanging with child stars of the 80's - nope, not that book either. In fact, one of the first chapters in the book fully explains this - the book is NOT a memoir. It's an exploration of fame. Justine dissects everything from childhood fame in the 80's, to reality star "fame" of today, as well as both the construction AND destruction of fame that social media can make happen. I was fascinated by her take on all things fame. I felt for her - being an actress on a hit TV show, and only being seen for THAT. That her education, and directing, and successes in business mean nothing - cause the "whatever happened to her" mentality translates to - well, if we haven't seen her on TV anymore - she must be a failure in life.
I loved reading this - she's frantic, and passionate, and, OK I'll say it- a bit crazy, yes - but do you blame her? Imagine people saying about you "Boy, she sure has let herself go" on a public forum, on google searches, on Twitter. Just cause the last time they saw her she was 21 - and now she's 50. Well, clearly she's aged - duh. Obviously she doesn't LOOK the same!
I gobbled up every chapter and loved her take on how crazy it is to be famous, but how much crazier it is today. Sure, there's some namedropping, some mentions of Michael J. Fox, Sarah Jessica Parker, and more - and there's even a bunch of color photos in the book that she talks about and references throughout the book, which I loved. I didn't need the juicy gossip, as I felt like it made me understand celebrities more and totally got me out of that mentality of "Oh, they wanted to be in the spotlight, so they are just automatically targets." No. I feel terrible now for ever ragging on a celeb in the spotlight - especially the young ones out there.
But I'm still not laying off the reality "stars" ;) haha.
The Comeback Kid by John Mulaney
7.0
Rate It
Album
John Mulaney is an American comedian, writer, and actor best known for his standup specials and work...
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated What to Expect When You're Expecting (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
First off, a disclaimer: I have not read the book What to Expect When You’re Expecting; nor do I have any kids of my own. That being said….
This film shows you five different stories that are not all connected, but they do intersect each other’s paths several times. The stories follow different scenarios that you can expect when you, as a couple, are expecting a baby. These five stories are the easy pregnancy, the difficult on the woman’s body pregnancy, the difficult on the relationship pregnancy, the miscarriage and the adoption.
The film has a stellar lineup for the cast. Cameron Diaz (There’s Something About Mary, Bad Teacher) plays celebrity Jules who is on a Dancing-with-the-Stars-esque show, who ends up in a relationship with her dance partner Evan, played by Matthew Morrison (Glee, Music and Lyrics). Elizabeth Banks (Zack and Miri, The Hunger Games) is Wendy, the owner of a baby store and author of a baby’s book who has been desperately trying to get pregnant with her husband Gary played by Ben Falcone (Bridesmaids). Anna Kendrick (Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, Up In The Air) is Rosie, the owner of a food truck who has a one-night stand with high school crush Marco, played by Chace Crawford (The Covenant, Gossip Girl). Jennifer Lopez (American Idol, Out of Sight) is Holly, a photographer who is attempting to go the Brangelina route by adopting a baby from Ethiopia with her husband Alex, played by Rodrigo Santoro (300, I Love You Phillip Morris). Lastly, we have Skyler who is portrayed by Brooklyn Decker (Just Go With It, Battleship). She is a stay-at-home wife married to retired NASCAR driver Ramsey, who is played by Dennis Quaid (The Day After Tomorrow, Vantage Point).
Aside from the main cast, there is also a great supporting cast with the likes of Chris Rock (Grown Ups, Death At A Funeral), Joe Manganiello (True Blood), Thomas Lennon (Reno 911, I Love You, Man), Rebel Wilson (Bridesmaids) and many more.
Based on the trailers for What to Expect When You’re Expecting, the movie looked to be a very promising comedy. I am sad to say, I was very disappointed. The trailers make it look like “The Dudes Group” is a main focus of the story, but it is only a reprieve from the main story lines. This is a shame because for me, “The Dudes Group” had the funniest moments in the movie. The rest of the film, while heart-warming at moments, seemed to lack any real attempt to make a connection with the audience. To me, the relationships just seemed unreal.
This is not to say that there are not those out there who will not enjoy the film. The ladies behind me in the theatre seemed to be laughing the whole time, but it just wasn’t my cup of tea. I once heard my editor (Gareth Von Kallenbach) say that this was a great idea, but it may have been better presented as a TV show. I have to say that I agree whole-heartedly. It would have made a great weekly sitcom, probably with the series centered on “The Dudes Group” (as I said, funniest moments in the movies). But it looks like there may be something along these lines on the horizon any way with the upcoming NBC comedy: Guys With Kids.
This film shows you five different stories that are not all connected, but they do intersect each other’s paths several times. The stories follow different scenarios that you can expect when you, as a couple, are expecting a baby. These five stories are the easy pregnancy, the difficult on the woman’s body pregnancy, the difficult on the relationship pregnancy, the miscarriage and the adoption.
The film has a stellar lineup for the cast. Cameron Diaz (There’s Something About Mary, Bad Teacher) plays celebrity Jules who is on a Dancing-with-the-Stars-esque show, who ends up in a relationship with her dance partner Evan, played by Matthew Morrison (Glee, Music and Lyrics). Elizabeth Banks (Zack and Miri, The Hunger Games) is Wendy, the owner of a baby store and author of a baby’s book who has been desperately trying to get pregnant with her husband Gary played by Ben Falcone (Bridesmaids). Anna Kendrick (Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, Up In The Air) is Rosie, the owner of a food truck who has a one-night stand with high school crush Marco, played by Chace Crawford (The Covenant, Gossip Girl). Jennifer Lopez (American Idol, Out of Sight) is Holly, a photographer who is attempting to go the Brangelina route by adopting a baby from Ethiopia with her husband Alex, played by Rodrigo Santoro (300, I Love You Phillip Morris). Lastly, we have Skyler who is portrayed by Brooklyn Decker (Just Go With It, Battleship). She is a stay-at-home wife married to retired NASCAR driver Ramsey, who is played by Dennis Quaid (The Day After Tomorrow, Vantage Point).
Aside from the main cast, there is also a great supporting cast with the likes of Chris Rock (Grown Ups, Death At A Funeral), Joe Manganiello (True Blood), Thomas Lennon (Reno 911, I Love You, Man), Rebel Wilson (Bridesmaids) and many more.
Based on the trailers for What to Expect When You’re Expecting, the movie looked to be a very promising comedy. I am sad to say, I was very disappointed. The trailers make it look like “The Dudes Group” is a main focus of the story, but it is only a reprieve from the main story lines. This is a shame because for me, “The Dudes Group” had the funniest moments in the movie. The rest of the film, while heart-warming at moments, seemed to lack any real attempt to make a connection with the audience. To me, the relationships just seemed unreal.
This is not to say that there are not those out there who will not enjoy the film. The ladies behind me in the theatre seemed to be laughing the whole time, but it just wasn’t my cup of tea. I once heard my editor (Gareth Von Kallenbach) say that this was a great idea, but it may have been better presented as a TV show. I have to say that I agree whole-heartedly. It would have made a great weekly sitcom, probably with the series centered on “The Dudes Group” (as I said, funniest moments in the movies). But it looks like there may be something along these lines on the horizon any way with the upcoming NBC comedy: Guys With Kids.
graveyardgremlin (7194 KP) rated Double Love (Sweet Valley High, #1) in Books
Feb 15, 2019
<u><b>SVH: WTF?</b></u>
<b>Cover Models:</b> Jessica and Elizabeth
<b>Page count:</b> 182
<b>Special Event:</b> Some sorority thing.
<b>Number of times "a hundred and thirty-seven" was mentioned:</b> Two, plus five hundred and thirty-seven and seven hundred and thirty-seven. See below.
<b>Mental Illness Winner of the Week:</b> Jessica. Is there any surprise there?
<b>Jessica's Bitchyness scale:</b> ***** (out of five)
<b>WTFery Meter:</b> ****1/2 stars (out of five)
-------------------------
<b>Quotes & Snarky comments:</b>
What a peach:<blockquote>"How can you be best friends with somebody as blah as Eeny Rollins? I don't want you to go over there. Somebody might think it was <i>me</i> talking to her." - Jessica Wakefield, page 18</blockquote>Jessica's thoughts about Liz's lack of enthusiasm at being accepted into the sorority, Pi Beta Alpha: <blockquote>"No big deal? Elizabeth, how can you say that? How can you even think it? You've got to be seven hundred and thirty-seven kinds of idiots not to be excited about associating with the best girls at Sweet Valley High. What's wrong with you?" - page 34/5</blockquote>Isn't she simply the sweetest girl in the world? (note: Enid was also accepted.)
On butting into their brother's, Steven, love life: <blockquote>"You can do whatever you want, Elizabeth Wakefield, but it's just not in my nature to be cold and selfish when it comes to the happiness of a member of my family!" - page 39</blockquote>This as she attempts to steal Todd away from Liz the whole book. Yeah, real selfless of ya, Jess.<blockquote>"He has got to be the most wonderful boy in a hundred and thirty-seven states!" - Jessica, page 108</blockquote> Uh, she does realize there are only 50, right?<blockquote>Elizabeth wondered how her sister could possibly descend from cloud nine with Todd Wilkins to the pits of depression so fast and simply because she had to do a little thing like help fix dinner. - page 108</blockquote>I bet a psychologist (or a whole team of them) is the only one that could help you figure that out, Liz. What follows immediately afterward sees Jessica having a complete meltdown. Seriously.
<blockquote>"This family has got to be the biggest bummer in five hundred and thirty-seven cities!" - Jess, page 111</blockquote><blockquote>"You selfish little twerp," Steven said, glaring at Jessica. - page 114</blockquote>Hear, hear! Way to go Steve!
<blockquote>"I'll never forgive you, not if I live to be a hundred and thirty-seven years." - Jessica, page 182</blockquote>Aah! Please don't live that long, please. 8O
<b>Final thoughts:</b>
Elizabeth = Goody-two-shoes doormat.
Jessica = Satan incarnate.
Sounds like a bad sitcom.
<b>Disclaimer:</b> I am not a teenager or preteen, but an adult. Supposedly. Everyone keeps telling me I am but I'm not sure I'm buying what they're selling. Therefore my views are based from that perspective rather than someone in the target age range. I inhaled these suckers when I was young, hale, and hearty, so in an apparent moment of weakness have decided to re-visit one of my favorite old series in a fondly-remembered, tongue-in-cheek, and mostly sarcastic approach. So since I couldn't manage to devise a rating system for SVH books, I came up with this little way to have some fun, which is in the review form you've (hopefully) just read. Why else would you be reading this if you hadn't read all the way through anyway? Sometimes me not so bright. ;P
Next review: <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/166889313"><b>Secrets</b></a>;
<b>Cover Models:</b> Jessica and Elizabeth
<b>Page count:</b> 182
<b>Special Event:</b> Some sorority thing.
<b>Number of times "a hundred and thirty-seven" was mentioned:</b> Two, plus five hundred and thirty-seven and seven hundred and thirty-seven. See below.
<b>Mental Illness Winner of the Week:</b> Jessica. Is there any surprise there?
<b>Jessica's Bitchyness scale:</b> ***** (out of five)
<b>WTFery Meter:</b> ****1/2 stars (out of five)
-------------------------
<b>Quotes & Snarky comments:</b>
What a peach:<blockquote>"How can you be best friends with somebody as blah as Eeny Rollins? I don't want you to go over there. Somebody might think it was <i>me</i> talking to her." - Jessica Wakefield, page 18</blockquote>Jessica's thoughts about Liz's lack of enthusiasm at being accepted into the sorority, Pi Beta Alpha: <blockquote>"No big deal? Elizabeth, how can you say that? How can you even think it? You've got to be seven hundred and thirty-seven kinds of idiots not to be excited about associating with the best girls at Sweet Valley High. What's wrong with you?" - page 34/5</blockquote>Isn't she simply the sweetest girl in the world? (note: Enid was also accepted.)
On butting into their brother's, Steven, love life: <blockquote>"You can do whatever you want, Elizabeth Wakefield, but it's just not in my nature to be cold and selfish when it comes to the happiness of a member of my family!" - page 39</blockquote>This as she attempts to steal Todd away from Liz the whole book. Yeah, real selfless of ya, Jess.<blockquote>"He has got to be the most wonderful boy in a hundred and thirty-seven states!" - Jessica, page 108</blockquote> Uh, she does realize there are only 50, right?<blockquote>Elizabeth wondered how her sister could possibly descend from cloud nine with Todd Wilkins to the pits of depression so fast and simply because she had to do a little thing like help fix dinner. - page 108</blockquote>I bet a psychologist (or a whole team of them) is the only one that could help you figure that out, Liz. What follows immediately afterward sees Jessica having a complete meltdown. Seriously.
<blockquote>"This family has got to be the biggest bummer in five hundred and thirty-seven cities!" - Jess, page 111</blockquote><blockquote>"You selfish little twerp," Steven said, glaring at Jessica. - page 114</blockquote>Hear, hear! Way to go Steve!
<blockquote>"I'll never forgive you, not if I live to be a hundred and thirty-seven years." - Jessica, page 182</blockquote>Aah! Please don't live that long, please. 8O
<b>Final thoughts:</b>
Elizabeth = Goody-two-shoes doormat.
Jessica = Satan incarnate.
Sounds like a bad sitcom.
<b>Disclaimer:</b> I am not a teenager or preteen, but an adult. Supposedly. Everyone keeps telling me I am but I'm not sure I'm buying what they're selling. Therefore my views are based from that perspective rather than someone in the target age range. I inhaled these suckers when I was young, hale, and hearty, so in an apparent moment of weakness have decided to re-visit one of my favorite old series in a fondly-remembered, tongue-in-cheek, and mostly sarcastic approach. So since I couldn't manage to devise a rating system for SVH books, I came up with this little way to have some fun, which is in the review form you've (hopefully) just read. Why else would you be reading this if you hadn't read all the way through anyway? Sometimes me not so bright. ;P
Next review: <a href="http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/166889313"><b>Secrets</b></a>;
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Seinfeld - Season 1 in TV
Jan 22, 2021
I always assumed I wouldn’t like Seinfeld in the 90s. In fact I was opposed to the very idea of it on principle. And that principle was: I’ve never heard of this guy as a comedian, and American stand-up usually isn’t funny. I never saw a single episode until six months ago – in my head it was some dumb, canned laughter show with very forced scripts and little charm. I just didn’t get why it was always quoted amongst the best sitcoms of all time, and I wasn’t willing to find out. This is called “being ignorant”. Guilty.
One random day with nothing else inspiring me I finally took the plunge and put an episode on. Guess what happened? I laughed, I found it completely charming and witty and easy to watch, with some great lines and likeable characters. 3 hours later I had done 6 episodes and was as hooked as anyone can be with anything. It was just so nostalgically and completely 90s! And I loved that!
A show doesn’t run for 9 years and over 170 episodes without being some kind of special, especially taking into account the depreciation due to being dated, as all sitcoms eventually are, and it really is quite remarkable – deserving of a place in the conversation of the greatest ever American half hour shows. Sure, there is an element early on in the preoccupation with everyone’s sex life and dating habits that is a little creepy in 2020, but I am totally willing to forgive it.
Shows that are hyper aware of themselves and the audience are odd creatures the minute they take themselves too seriously, and Seinfeld never does that. It knows it is trivial, essentially about nothing and going nowhere, and style-wise it is always winking at us for being in on the joke and a part of it, even to the point of applauding new characters on their entrance, which is a uniquely American thing to do.
The secret of the show is undoubtedly the chemistry of the four leads, so mismatched that it someone works a spell and creates magic, much in the same way Friends managed to do, times six. Jerry Seinfeld himself is a very likeable everyman, and the schtick of each show beginning and ending with 30 seconds of stand up is a gimmick that grows on you, as does everything about it: the more you watch, the more you love it for what it is.
Jason Alexander as the balding, quirky, self-conscious, opinionated best friend is perhaps my least favourite of the regular quartet, but he has some amazing moments over the course of things, and plays great dead-pan. But the other two are on a plane of equal genius. The verbal timing of the super cute, super smart Julia Louis-Dreyfus as Elaine (who I have fallen in love with a little bit in 1993) and the physical slapstick timing of Michael Richards as Cosmo Kramer (surely one of the most memorable characters in sitcom history) have both left me aching with laughter time after time after time. Just a glance or an expression is often enough.
And the great thing is, it never seems to get old. They are always finding new ways and new situations that keep it fresh. Some trick! Even in the final season of the 9, when there is a small melancholia creeping in because they all know it is coming to an end, it still manages to create moments that aren’t just repeats of previous gags. Which means, as future background watching it is 100% perfect. Leave it on whilst doing something else, look up once in a while, and like the best of all long running US comedy shows each episode is indistinguishable from any other in the best way – it is like having a friend in the room.
I can’t imagine ever saying it is amongst my very favourites, maybe because I missed out on it first time around – which I put down to an inherent middle aged appeal, rather than a youth appeal – but I wouldn’t also ever argue with anyone that did say that it was one of their favourites. Because I get it now. And I’m so glad I got to do it, no matter how late to the party!
One random day with nothing else inspiring me I finally took the plunge and put an episode on. Guess what happened? I laughed, I found it completely charming and witty and easy to watch, with some great lines and likeable characters. 3 hours later I had done 6 episodes and was as hooked as anyone can be with anything. It was just so nostalgically and completely 90s! And I loved that!
A show doesn’t run for 9 years and over 170 episodes without being some kind of special, especially taking into account the depreciation due to being dated, as all sitcoms eventually are, and it really is quite remarkable – deserving of a place in the conversation of the greatest ever American half hour shows. Sure, there is an element early on in the preoccupation with everyone’s sex life and dating habits that is a little creepy in 2020, but I am totally willing to forgive it.
Shows that are hyper aware of themselves and the audience are odd creatures the minute they take themselves too seriously, and Seinfeld never does that. It knows it is trivial, essentially about nothing and going nowhere, and style-wise it is always winking at us for being in on the joke and a part of it, even to the point of applauding new characters on their entrance, which is a uniquely American thing to do.
The secret of the show is undoubtedly the chemistry of the four leads, so mismatched that it someone works a spell and creates magic, much in the same way Friends managed to do, times six. Jerry Seinfeld himself is a very likeable everyman, and the schtick of each show beginning and ending with 30 seconds of stand up is a gimmick that grows on you, as does everything about it: the more you watch, the more you love it for what it is.
Jason Alexander as the balding, quirky, self-conscious, opinionated best friend is perhaps my least favourite of the regular quartet, but he has some amazing moments over the course of things, and plays great dead-pan. But the other two are on a plane of equal genius. The verbal timing of the super cute, super smart Julia Louis-Dreyfus as Elaine (who I have fallen in love with a little bit in 1993) and the physical slapstick timing of Michael Richards as Cosmo Kramer (surely one of the most memorable characters in sitcom history) have both left me aching with laughter time after time after time. Just a glance or an expression is often enough.
And the great thing is, it never seems to get old. They are always finding new ways and new situations that keep it fresh. Some trick! Even in the final season of the 9, when there is a small melancholia creeping in because they all know it is coming to an end, it still manages to create moments that aren’t just repeats of previous gags. Which means, as future background watching it is 100% perfect. Leave it on whilst doing something else, look up once in a while, and like the best of all long running US comedy shows each episode is indistinguishable from any other in the best way – it is like having a friend in the room.
I can’t imagine ever saying it is amongst my very favourites, maybe because I missed out on it first time around – which I put down to an inherent middle aged appeal, rather than a youth appeal – but I wouldn’t also ever argue with anyone that did say that it was one of their favourites. Because I get it now. And I’m so glad I got to do it, no matter how late to the party!
Kevin Phillipson (10072 KP) Jul 29, 2020