to the Muppet Central Forum!
are viewing our forum as a guest. Join
our free community to post topics and start private conversations. Please
contact us if
you need help with registration or your account login.
Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Winslow Leach, Jun 12, 2007.
Love Norm Macdonald and Colin Quinn! Both very funny guys!
I dunno, if you're talking Weekend Update anchors, NOBODY holds a fricken candle to Kevin Nealon. The BEST Weekend Update anchor ever. He played it so straight like he was actually doing the news. Funny stuff
So can somebody tell me when that was suddenly no longer a swear word since you guys claim it isn't anymore?
Chevy Chase was the best, IMO.
freaking? phricken? free king? peking? chicking? frogging? frog king? phishing? Fomething Kung Fu King? seriously.
last night I saw The Three Amigos at a friends house. I forgot how funny and almost pointless that movie is! loves it!
Ill have to agree with Winslow on this one! You cant argue with Chevy....snowthy what word are you talking about?
The F-word that rhymes with stricken that Daniel always says; I was always taught it was a swear word, but you guys say it isn't anymore, and I'd just like to know what that happened so I can stop looking an even bigger idiot.
I have always thought that was a reasonable substitution for the big F-word. Just like Dang was better than the other word, and Dangnabit, let's face it, that's just a good word for just about anything. Fricken is a lot better than what I coulda used. Trust me, I don't curse, but if I did, i wouldn't use the work Fricken. lol.
I will say this... the Flintstones was just about the ONLY sucessful live action version of a cartoon their was, and I think one of the only ones done RIGHT (dispite an off cast... Rosie as Betty? She had the laugh... but not... well... If anyone's seen the cartoon, you know how thin they're drawn). Right up there with George of the Jungle.
I mean, Inspector Gadget (I've said a trillion times before) got EVERY possible aspect wrong... down to dropping the S in Wowsers. Wrong town Name, wrong dog Brain, wrong Dr. Claw, wrong Penny, Wrong gadget... wrong cheif... Wrong Wrong Wrong. The second one was a slight improvement, at least gadget was less "Loveable Lug" and more oblivious concieted fool... but it was still off (he was whiney). I give them credit for referencing the names of some of the villains in the show and hiding Dr. Claw, but other than that it still reaked. It was basically a bunch of McDonalds, Mickey Mouse, and Paul Frank product placements... YUCK.
Dudley Do-Right was enjoyable in parts, but overall it didn't work, and it seemed like Alfred Molina was the only one who actually WATCHED the series. Eric Idle was Ok in it... but the only highlights were the animated opening and the Phox Box and the Lox Fariy Tale (an old script written by Bill Scott himself).
I've got a Huge feeling Underdog's on this list very soon... so far...
1) They managed to completely screw up the ENTIRE point of the cartoon, using a real dog, and not an Anthropomorph like the real Underdog/Shoe Shine Boy should be. Riff Raff is ALSO a live Dog as well
2) Turning it into a talking Dog and his boy movie Disney keeps squirting out
3) Casting Jim Belushi in it. Seriously... he's UNFUNNY... his brother had all the talent, and unfortunately took it to the grave!
4) Hiping it up for the "new generation" who won't watch it, while raping the memories of those cartoon lovers who DO love it.
Oh well... at least Classic Media is releasing them in real box sets this time.. and they have wonderful Bobble Heads...
I mentioned this movie earlier in the post, but the live-action Mr. Magoo with Leslie Nielsen and Jennifer Garner was a big mistake.
Dracula: Dead and Loving It (1995)
This is Mel Brooks's last film to date, a "companion piece" to his Young Frankenstein (1974). Unfortunately, unlike his earlier homage to classic horror films of the past, Dracula falls flat.
The film more or less follows the structure of Tod Browning's 1931 Dracula, starring Bela Lugosi, with nods to the bloody Hammer Dracula films of the 50s-70s, and to Francis Ford Coppola's Bram Stoker's Dracula.
The casting for the film is hit or miss. In his earlier films, Brooks had a knack for casting actors in roles that fit them like a glove. Even Cary Elwes in Brooks's Robin Hood: Men in Tights made a better Robin than Kevin Costner and some of the other actors who have played the part over the years ("Unlike other Robin Hoods, I speak with an English accent!")
Leslie Nielsen is completely miscast as Dracula. If Brooks had hired a more "serious" actor in the role, it may have worked to see the Count engage in some of the cheap slapstick Brooks has him go through. But I never saw Dracula in this film. I saw Leslie Nielsen as Frank Drebin (his Police Squad/Naked Gun character) as Dracula. Seeing Nielsen slip on bat poop and cross his eyes just isn't funny, as I've seen it all before. Brooks seemed content to let Nielsen take his bag of tricks from the Zucker Brothers comedies, and use them again here, without giving him fresh direction.
I thought Leslie Nielsen was hilarious in Airplane! Police Squad! The Naked Gun and its sequels, especially when one remembers he was once a serious dramatic actor. But aside from adapting a Bela Lugosi accent, Nielsen brings nothing new to Dracula: Dead and Loving It.
Steven Weber and Amy Yasbeck are okay in their roles, but are a far cry from Marty Feldman and Madeline Kahn. Brooks himself appears in the juicy role of Van Helsing, but hams it up. The only actors who really seem to be having fun are Harvey Korman as Dr. Seward (doing a vocal imitation of actor Nigel Bruce, who played Watson to Basil Rathbone's Holmes in a series of films in the 1930s and 1940s) and Peter MacNicol (Ally McBeal) as the bug-eating Renfield, who patterned his performance after Dwight Frye's in the 1931 film.
Co-written by Brooks, Dracula: Dead and Loving It is uneven. In some spots, it is even intentionally played for drama and horror. If one were to remove the bad puns and silly slapstick, this film would almost seem like a carbon-copy of the Lugosi film.
I'm a fan of comedy, horror, Leslie Nielsen, Mel Brooks and the Dracula legend. But overall, Dracula: Dead and Loving It just doesn't cut it for me. IMO, a funnier spoof of Dracula is the 1979 film Love at First Bite, starring George Hamilton, Artie Johnston, Susan St. James, Richard Benjamin, Sherman Helmsly and Dick Shawn (The Producers). This is a case where an actor previously known for his dramatic work (Hamilton) plays Dracula relatively straight, but the laughs are still there because of the surroundings and situations the Count finds himself in.
How can you not love it, man? The singing bush? The invisible swordsman? Steve Martin cawing "up here! look up here!" to an oblivious Chevy and Martin Short? "My Little Buttercup"? It's a classic!
Yeah, I had high expectations for this one, especially since these were the kind of films Mel grew up on. You'll notice he plays with the camera a bit, shaking it slightly (as in the 1931 film), and composing some interesting shots. But these little technical things don't save it from being a let down.
I liked Robin Hood, though.
Speaking of Don Adams...I wonder why he never worked with Mel in film? Mel and Buck Henry created Get Smart, and Mel himself wrote several episodes (I don't know if he directed any). I just read Mel's new autobiography, It's Good to Be the King, and he mentions he wanted Don Adams for Maxwell Smart from the beginning, although Tom Poston was originally going to play the role.
And as you say, Spaceballs was great because it spoofed a whole genre of sci-fi, not just Star Wars. My favorite scene is the Alien spoof with John Hurt.
Getting back to Norm Macdonald for a moment...(nothing like reviving a dead conversation we had days ago, eh? )...
Remember when he was cheated out of a million dollars on Who Wants To Be a Millionaire?
Norm was part of one of the celebrity-studded editions of Who Wants To Be a Millionaire? From day one, Regis was poking gentle fun at Norm, as if to say, "what's he doing here?" The teasing intensified as celebrity after celebrity beat Norm to the hot seat. Finally, Norm was the only one left out of the 10. Norm's fastest-finger question was, "put these letters in order," and they were N-O-R-M.
Norm gets to the hot seat. Regis pokes more fun at him, and they get down to business. Surprisingly, Norm isn't the dim bulb that Regis thought, and he answers question after question correctly. Finally...
Norm Macdonald was the only celebrity to reach the million-dollar question on that particular edition. He had one life line left, which was 50/50, which he took. When he was sure what the right answer was, he answered definitively. I'm paraphrasing what happened next, but this is the gist of it:
Regis: Are you sure (of the answer)?
Regis: How sure?
Norm: Pretty sure.
Regis: Don't want to change your mind?
Norm (after a brief pause): No.
Regis: If you miss, you lose (however much you lose) for your charity.
(Norm stares at the question in front of him again; again, he nods in certanty. He's going to go with his first answer)
Regis: You're sure now?
Regis: Don't want to take time out and go over the question one more time?
Regis: Remember, if you miss this one...
Regis: ...you lose...(however much)
(Norm stares at the question again; the pressure is on; Regis prods him, seemingly trying to sway him from what he thinks is the correct answer)
(For some reason, Norm SWITCHES his answer at the last minute from the one he had been clinging to)
Regis: Gonna make that your final answer?
Norm (after a pause): Yeah...
Regis: Oooh, I'm sorry, Norm, the correct answer was...(the one Norm had all along)
Norm looked crushed; dazed. Regis congratulated him, and said his charity was still going to get a nice chunk of change, but Norm had a shaken look as he rose from his seat and walked off the set.
I don't recall Regis "pushing" or "badgering" the other celebs. Was he supposed to, once a celeb reached such a high level? Did he honestly want Norm to win? Or would it have looked funny if a snarky stand-up comedian with a biting humor won the million instead of say, Joey Lawrence?
I only brought this up because it was one of Norm's most famous post-SNL gigs. Around this time he also had his own sitcom, The Norm Show, later changed simply to Norm.
I'm going to agree completely to that entire thing. I was hugely disappointed after I first saw it. It really was just a few jokes shy of being straight forward, and I was hoping there'd be much more in terms of comedy in that film. It's basically 2 funny lines and falling down while doing the movie almost straight. Look at Space balls... they made fun of everything in the Genre of Space Operas, not just star wars. There was huge potential in Dracula, Dead and Loving it (wonder what it would have been like if Don Adams played Dracula... they essentially took that line from Get Smart) but Mel fell flat, and it took him years to recover... with a little musical called the Producers.
But as for Magoo... I rather liked it. You just mentally have to change the title to "Naked Gun 4 x 4: Older, and Unwiser" for it to really work. It played out more like the rest of his films. And with the exception of Dracula, I like the cheeseyness he can bring to the role. Dispite the fact his last good one was Naked Gun 33 1/3. Plus Weird Al didn't have a cameo in those two, which took away from it.
How 'bout Scream 2 and Scream 3?
The original was interesting...who knew it would open the floodgates for so many imitations? Entertaining enough, with a good cast/premise.
The sequel was sloppy, the victim of re-shoots (whereas the original was shot almost verbatum from the script). Apparently the script Craven and Co. planned to use for part 2 somehow leaked onto the net while the film was in production. So what did the filmmakers do? Revise/rewrite/change and change the identity of the killer(s). Has some good moments, but suffers from slow pacing, and the aforementioned reshoots. BTW, I never had a problem with the death of one of the main characters. People are still complaining that it wasn't fair that he got killed off, but in the world of these films, no one's supposed to be safe, right? Too bad none of the other key characters suffered an identical fate in this one, or the third film...playing it too safe.
Part 3 was slightly better than part 2, but not by much, especially once you got to the rather silly ending that supposedly wraps up the trilogy. One of those moments, when it is revealed, that make you go "huh?" I think the main problem was Kevin Williamson (who wrote the first two) wasn't around while Part 3 was in production. He was working on Dawson's Creek, so didn't have time to write the screenplay for this one. I think he only had an outline or something, and another writer came in. Not sure if he used the outline, but the 3rd film doesn't really connect like the first two.
I did enjoy all3 of the Scream's, but do agree with your points Sr. Winslow. The first one still is and will always be my fav.
Have we already touched on the Final Destination's yet? Another set of films that I do like, but after a while they seem to become to formula.
I forgot to add some stupid film IO saw on TV once called "Me and the Kid" or "Me and the Boy" or something like taht, about a mobster that bonds with an annoying bratty kid.
I think the first Scream is probably Wes Craven's best film (although I liked Kevin Williamson's original title better: Scary Movie, which was rejected, but of course later used for the parody series). Not a big Craven or Elm Street fan. But Scream is (or was, before the countless imitations, ripoffs and spoofs) a clever, fresh original horror/comedy that nicely plays with slasher film conventions. It's got a great cast as well.
Not much of a Final Destination fan, either. Some of the deaths are interesting, but as a whole...meh.
Separate names with a comma.