Is Seth McFarlane funny?

Many people absolutely adore the television show known as Family Guy. Personally, I don't understand it: the jokes seem to be utterly random and possess no real punchlines. South Park had a great example:

• "Peter, did you do the laundry?"
• "No, but let's not forget my date to Mexico with Gary Coleman!

...Um, what? Did I just hear that correctly? Because I thought this show was supposed to be comedic. Of course I am referring to Family Guy, as South Park is quite hilarious, if a tad foul. If someone enjoys McFarlane's work, then I won't hold it against them. I just don't see the appeal.

Yet in a recent trailer review for Seth McFarlane's new movie Ted, which to me looks like a similar strain for comedic attention, which it somehow receives, the YouTube comments absolutely blew a fuse when the reviewer said it didn't look good, and claimed that "no one can match up to Seth's bad-ass jokes" and that "anyone who doesn't like [his works] has no sense of humor." The sad thing is, many people are of this rigid closed-mindedness and similar forms of it, and yet a good deal of them are far less vicious in person, when there's no computer screen behind which they may hide as they type trollish spam to other users. In addition to that, it would be a miracle if more than an eighth of them passed basic English classes. It still makes me cringe when people type things like "im gud, u?" If they're in a rush, that's one thing, but people now use text language all the time just out of laziness and stupidity. One of my biggest pet peeves is when a person writes the possessive pronoun "your" in the place of the contraction of "you are" - in other words, I want to add an apostrophe and an "e" along with "an idiot." "You're an idiot." And I have Mr. Nantz to thank for that example, although I was no stranger to the urge then either. But this seems to have become a grammatical tangent. My main point is still that people have a right to opinions, and while I do not always respect the opinions, I generally try to respect the person.

Top Five Best Movies of 2011

I decided on five as I cannot currently think of ten. And yes, I do realize this is a few months late. And these are in my opinion, although I think I am being as objective as possible. In no particular order:

1. The Artist
2. War Horse
3. Super 8
4. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2
5. Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

I am in a bit of a hurry, so feel free to suggest movies to me. I did not see all of them, and I enjoyed several that I simply do not think ought to be honored due to my critical side. But I definitely recommend all five of these to anyone who loves a very well-made picture, regardless of genre.

-- Lewis

Confidence vs. Arrogance

"Ah, short trip!" - Captain Jack Sparrow in Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

"I call it luck." - Han Solo, Star Wars (1977 - not going to say "A New Hope," because that was not the original title)

"I'm awesome." - Barney Stinson from How I Met Your Mother, not sure about the episode's name, but Barney is played by the legendary Neil Patrick Harris. Need I say more?

---

Quite simply, I think that the difference lies on two things: whether one is really as great as one thinks or is kidding oneself; and whether one lets pride get in the way of the continuation of one's success. Savvy?

Critical Enjoyment

"A film is--or should be--more like music than fiction. It should be a progression of moods and feelings. The theme, what's behind the emotion, the meaning, all that comes later." - Stanley Kubrick

"I don't take movies seriously, and anyone who does is in for a headache." - Bette Davis

"You're only as good as your last picture." - Marie Dressler

---

I think there's a difference between types of good and bad movies. One is whether it is well-written, acted, directed, etc., and the other is enjoyment. Sure, they're contributory to one another, but one doesn't entirely change the other. For example, Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides had a few plot holes (and I'd  have to give it a C rather than my earlier B), yet it still was funny and exciting. Same with the newer Star Wars films, Eragon (the movie), Van Helsing, and the Inheritance books as well (which include Eragon and don't have bad plots, just somewhat unoriginal ones). There is a book I had to read for school called Anthem (by Ayn Rand) that was terribly lazy in its plot, had ridiculously blown-out ideas, and took itself way too seriously. Not something I'd read for pleasure, yet it somehow stood the test of time and is for some reason hailed as a "philosophical" classic.

Sometimes what we watch for fun isn't award material, but still fun. Also I wanted to mention that a movie based on a book can be unfaithful and still good, if done well in its own right (such as several Dracula films, Stardust, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory [the old one], Frankenstein [1931], etc.) I haven't read The Lovely Bones, but I enjoyed the adaptation. Stanley Kubrick's version of Stephen King's contemporary horror classic The Shining is disliked by many who have read the novel, yet I and many others love it (funnily enough, despite my being a King fan, I haven't read the book). I've heard similar things about Secret Window, another Stephen-King-based movie derived from "Secret Window, Secret Garden" - a novella featured in his collection Four Past Midnight. But Johnny Depp is in it and he's great. Plus I recall the writing and directing being interesting. But who knows? It has been a while.

James Cameron's Avatar is often accused of relying on special effects to tell a story. I disagree. While the story may not have been the most spectacular tale ever spun, there was not much wrong with it. I would say that there are two directors who do use effects to tell a story: Michael Bay (Transformers 1, 2, and 3 - please don't make a 4) and Roland Emmerich (2012, Independence Day, The Day After Tomorrow). At least Mr. Emmerich does not include as much sexism and racism as Mr. Bay. I think. I don't actually recall, but I won't willingly watch them again, although the effects in 2012 were at least entertaining.

But some movies are just torture to watch, like reading a phone book or tax records in place of a novel. These include Michael Bay films, any parody along the lines of Epic Movie (though I saw part of one Scary Movie installment, and it seemed OK), Son of Godzilla, Land of the Lost (Will Ferrell one), and anything by Tyler Perry. The reason I dislike Perry's movies is that they seem to all resolve in luck, meaning something JUST HAPPENS to go perfectly out of the protagonist's control, like a rich relative he or she didn't know about dying (Meet the Browns, which I was forced to watch once). And the humor is repetitive.

But don't worry, I do like plenty of movies. Just pointing out the not-enjoyable ones for me. I also have to wonder at people who base their opinions off of those of critics, such as my maternal grandmother. Many people I know didn't like the new Clash of the Titans, whereas I thought it was better than the original - a rare case with me. Maybe I missed something.

The point is, people should be free-thinking on media, not love everything but not hate everything either (like someone I know does [the latter]), and take in multiple factors. Don't ruin a movie for yourself because of a couple plot holes. And at the same time, look out for them! And don't love a movie because it's critically good but not enjoyable.

To quote a movie I don't remember the goodness of, but remember loving the book it was based on:

"Yes! That is all!" (Iorek Byrnison (voiced by Ian McKellen [also Gandalf], The Golden Compass, 2007 - based on the novel by Philip Pullman)

----Lewis

Right and Wrong Opinions

About a year back, when Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland came out, Emily R posted on Facebook about what an awesome movie it was (which it was). Ezra said something along the lines of "No it is not, but I respect your opinion, no matter how wrong it may be." Laugh I did (he is a funny guy when his jokes make sense), but it got me thinking: Can an opinion be wrong?

If I am correct about opinions, yes. Not that one, of course. No. But say (I use a lot of analogies) there is a hippo and my opinion is that it is a rhinoceros. I may think that, but facts are facts. It's different if one says "Roses are beautiful" or "Fish sticks are nasty!" (both true, ha). It's to do with elementary fact-and-opinion reasoning. I'm not altogether sure about the whole factual thinking part (getting facts wrong), about whether those count as opinions. But another thing I'll mention is ill-founded opinions (I believe I have mentioned them) - when someone forms judgment without proper evidence. In other words, haste (hastiness?). Take the aforementioned hippopotamus. I have friends - very good ones - who could argue until purple-faced that it was a rhino, and not produce a shred of proof. Humans hate being wrong, I guess. Not excluding myself: I can certainly be wrong, but I am more cautious about not assuming stuff and getting my facts straight, etc.

Moreover, you should see here that I  stated I've been told different things about what is and isn't an opinion. I try to be as careful as I can (Treebeard comes to mind). So most of the time when someone is dead certain they've caught me jumping to conclusions, his or her (opinion?) is wrong.

Thanks for reading,
Lewis