"Snob Classics" - Mike dumps on some comedies

[Dr.Impossible]

http://www.cracked.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1215

Aww.... I liked Rushmore and Being John Malkovich. Haven't seen most of the others, though I agree with his assessment of Annie Hall.

I've always found criticism of comedies to be a strange thing. You either laugh or you don't, and it seems like Mike has taken some comedies people actually laugh at and said "You're faking it!"

I also disagree with the idea that strangeness isn't in and of itself funny. I'm a big fan of absurdity. Mike proved that absurdity is inherently funny with his reference to "the guy in the pajamas who stands on the corner near my house beating on an empty paint can with a stick and screaming 'The sonova bitchin? donkeys stole my whistle!'" That's pretty much just strange and quite funny. That's why I laughed so hard at Sam Elliot's character in Big Lebowski.

Oh well. Anyone else still think Rushmore was a good movie?

[Shinigami]

Actually, Mike's assesment was pretty spot on.  While several of those movies are entertaining, NONE of them are funny.  Rushmore is a terrible movie.  It's only real appeal is its campy absurdity, which does not a movie make.  In fact, I would like to personally thank Mike for finally saying the Rushmore sucks.  I felt like I was alone in the world.  You sir have vindicated me.

Dr. Strangelove is a good movie, but I have never considered it a comedy.

[SmilinJackRoss]

Rushmore is a great movie, and it is not because it is singularily strange.  It is strange, but it is also very funny, in a wry, off-center way.  The main character's persona is developed to fine point, and then we get to see him squirm within a system meant to cage him when he just cannot be caged.  And that uncomfortable predicament, watching teachers, students, and parents wrestle with him, trying to push this square peg into their round hole, can be a very funny thing.

Strange does not equal funny.  But if you have a good movie buried in a strange one, it's still a good movie.

[Shinigami]

Rushmore is a great movie, and it is not because it is singularily strange.  It is strange, but it is also very funny, in a wry, off-center way.  The main character's persona is developed to fine point, and then we get to see him squirm within a system meant to cage him when he just cannot be caged.  And that uncomfortable predicament, watching teachers, students, and parents wrestle with him, trying to push this square peg into their round hole, can be a very funny thing.

Strange does not equal funny.  But if you have a good movie buried in a strange one, it's still a good movie.

Isn't that precisely the snobbiness Mike was talking about?

[Dr.Impossible]

Rushmore is a great movie, and it is not because it is singularily strange.  It is strange, but it is also very funny, in a wry, off-center way.  The main character's persona is developed to fine point, and then we get to see him squirm within a system meant to cage him when he just cannot be caged.  And that uncomfortable predicament, watching teachers, students, and parents wrestle with him, trying to push this square peg into their round hole, can be a very funny thing.

Strange does not equal funny.  But if you have a good movie buried in a strange one, it's still a good movie.

Isn't that precisely the snobbiness Mike was talking about?

No, this is: "Pffft, you just don't GET it. I get it though and that makes me better."

[SmilinJackRoss]

Isn't that precisely the snobbiness Mike was talking about?

I think if you try to "define" comedy, and have two categories of "FUNNY" and "NOT FUNNY", you are already missing the point.

It's not snobbiness to think that something is funny.  The comedy in Rushmore I find more insightful and thoughtful than, lets say Ace Ventura (A movie I also love).  Those two movies are both funny to me, but in completely different ways.

[Cibernético II]

Sam Elliot's character in the Big Lebowski wasn't strange. He was just the narrator, he was the least strange  character in the movie.

Right on , Mike.  I agree with him 100% on his article. I think all of Woody Allen's movies are self-stroking and completely unfunny. I liked Rushmore, I think ita movie worth watching, but I didn't think it was very funny. But I HATE Bill Murray's other dry comedy movies that are kinda in the same vein. The Life Aquatic made me want to drown myself. It was like some kind of wierd unhumor from outer space

[Dr.Impossible]

Sam Elliot's character in the Big Lebowski wasn't strange. He was just the narrator, he was the least strange  character in the movie.

He was strange (or absurd, if you will) because he was out of time and out of place. He was an old west cowboy in 1990's california. Also he had kind of a wholesome tone, which contrasted amusingly to the other characters in the movie.

Maybe it's more ironic than absurd? But still absurd.

[Shinigami]

Sam Elliot's character in the Big Lebowski wasn't strange. He was just the narrator, he was the least strange  character in the movie.

He was strange (or absurd, if you will) because he was out of time and out of place. He was an old west cowboy in 1990's california. Also he had kind of a wholesome tone, which contrasted to the movie.

Maybe it's more ironic than absurd? But still absurd.

He just wanted to sell some BEEF

[BBQ Platypus]

Sam Elliot's character in the Big Lebowski wasn't strange. He was just the narrator, he was the least strange  character in the movie.

Right on , Mike.  I agree with him 100% on his article. I think all of Woody Allen's movies are self-stroking and completely unfunny. I liked Rushmore, I think ita movie worth watching, but I didn't think it was very funny. But I HATE Bill Murray's other dry comedy movies that are kinda in the same vein. The Life Aquatic made me want to drown myself. It was like some kind of wierd unhumor from outer space

I felt the same way about "I Heart Huckabees."  More like "I FART SUCK-abees!" (hehe - get it?)  Or "I Heart Myself so Much That I Masturbate in Front of a Mirror - A Humorless Tribute to Whiny Solipsism."

[Joe Don Faker]

While I do like a couple of these movies, Mike's criticisms are pretty well-founded, I thought.

1.  Diner.  No opinion from me -- but Mike continues the vendetta against Ruth Gordon, equating her with an orangutan as he did in Megacheese, presumably because he was once forced to imagine the aged Gordon consummating her relationship with the cherubic Bud Cort.  Though some readers might not like Gordon either and think "Huge slam on orangutans, out of nowhere!"

2.  Being John Malkovich  Found this one to rely too much on its gimmicky premise, and just seems overly-pleased with itself.  Some critic called it "creativity for dummies."  Huge slam on the Dummies series of books, out of nowhere.

3.  Dr. Strangelove  Agree that this is a well-acted, landmark movie that does in fact have some boring bomber sequences.  Great movie, though.

4.  Annie Hall  A very funny movie, that Mike criticizes not for its lack of laughs but for its Woody creep factor.  As someone who also married his ex-girlfriend's adopted daughter, I do not find that so unsettling, I'm sorry.

5.  Rushmore  Mike finds this more 'weird' than funny.  The word I would have used is 'precious.'  There is probably only one 'joke' in the movie, the one about O.R. scrubs (oh, are they?")  However I did find the movie engaging, though I was also grateful that the main kid Max Fisher is provided with some checks on his personality (bullies, teachers, friends), because he does make you want to punch him in the nose sometimes.

And Smilin Jack, your defense of Rushmore was well-said.  Comedy snobs, unite!  

[PlayMSTie]

Hee! What a great article! I KNEW I loved you, Mr. Nelson. 

[MontyServo]

The question I have about that article is, why no Rifftrax mention in Mike's bio at the end of the article???

Seems like that is something that should be plugged whenever Mike does extra-curricular activity oustide Rifftrax.

[SmilinJackRoss]

The question I have about that article is, why no Rifftrax mention in Mike's bio at the end of the article???

Seems like that is something that should be plugged whenever Mike does extra-curricular activity oustide Rifftrax.

He's a regular contributor to their magazine, so I'm sure his bio was written before rifftrax, and doubt it's something they really care about updating.

[MontyServo]

The question I have about that article is, why no Rifftrax mention in Mike's bio at the end of the article???

Seems like that is something that should be plugged whenever Mike does extra-curricular activity oustide Rifftrax.

He's a regular contributor to their magazine, so I'm sure his bio was written before rifftrax, and doubt it's something they really care about updating.

It's only issue number 2, so I doubt his bio was written too far ahead of the Rifftrax project.  I'm sure they could rewrite it for him for upcoming issues.