WatchAnything

I think the reason I keep coming back to The Nostalgia Critic is because I value his opinion and, like I said before, he's so smart and observant. That couldn't be better exemplified by this video. I usually disagree with his Top 11 lists and this one is no exception. But, it's usually the order I question and his choices are typically very good. Since the topic at hand is Animaniacs, the show itself was usually brilliant, and Doug is a big fan of it, of course he's at his best here. His argument begins with - the reason he's even looking at Animaniacs is that it was more intelligent than the average children's show. And culminates with - it was also so adult that it occasionally was dipping into big time controversy, only they got away with it because the censors didn't catch it. However, for example, the entire clip taken from the "Chalkboard Bungle" episode I got. Even as a kid. And I'm sure the censors got it too. Unless they didn't sit through the episode.

That's not the only thing funny here. I can admit that if the first two entries on Critic's list are as risqué as he claims, I don't get the implications they're making. #11 is from the "Hooked on a Ceiling" episode, where a feigning shocked Yakko says to Michelangelo, the infamous Renaissance painter, "You expect us poor, innocent children to climb up dangerous scaffolding and paint naked people all over a church? ...WE'LL DO IT!" Obviously, the combination of children and naked people in the dialogue isn't the only racy thing being implied in this joke if it's making this list. Doug made sure in his intro to mention that the jokes he chose were chosen for their sneakiness. And, as stated, there's nothing sneaky about that line. Neither is #9, which I believe is taken from the episode "No Pain, No Painting," where Dot shouts out at the end, "I've got the buns!" and proceeds to wiggle hers. Along with #'s 1 and 3, this is the funniest moment on the list.

#10 is the most confusing choice on the list for me. Just because we see a Madonna caricature in her Truth or Dare outfit doesn't imply anything naughty apart from the dialogue. Although, this was 1993 and her infamous Sex book had come out the year before. But even then, very few people ever thought of Madonna as much of a slut. Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but there isn't a single censor at that time who was going to insist this moment be cut out of the cartoon. The most risqué thing about it is that she might have had big boobs, but so did the Hello, Nurse character as well as the Julie Bruin character from Tiny Toons. I think we have Who Framed Roger Rabbit? to thank for that, personally. #4 is also no big surprise or anything really naughty for any kind of children's TV show. Thanks to adult content becoming more accepted on other shows like The Simpsons and Ren & Stimpy.

Is the worst thing, in your opinion, to be bored? I've heard for a lot of people it is. But, have you heard the old saying- if you're bored, then you're boring? I never much paid attention to it most of my life but when I hear people say certain movies are boring, and I decide to respond to that, this rings in my ears. I don't know whether or not I'm boring, but I am almost never bored. So, The Cat in the Hat is about 2 bored children who need entertainment on a rainy day because rainy weather just bums some people out. That lame starter is a good indication of how weak this made-for-television special will be. The problem could be the source material (the only thing I remember being an annoyance in the book was the entire Thing 1, Thing 2 sequence), but I wouldn't go that far. I mean, this adaptation may stick unbelievably close to the (very short) children's book. But this version of the story relies heavily on getting the cat to stay in the house which itself results in cartoon calamity- the reason these filmmakers see as being why you'll want to stick around.

As he first begins to leave, he gets his foot in the door by angrily (then tearfully) claiming that one of the children or their pet fish have stolen a piece of his property in the 2 minutes he's been there. Now, I understand logic has very little to do with a Suess story, but it's nonetheless hard to accept this when we know there's no way the kids or fish could have taken anything from the cat. And despite the logic excuse, there is actually a little emotion in the characters as the cat annoyingly whines and the children actually react to this by suspecting the fish of foul play. The children really are great, aren't they? They're kind enough to go all out in helping the cat look for his missing item but not thoughtful enough of their mother as they begin running around the house writing all over everything with markers. Did they even stop to say "that's wrong"? No. But forget all that, this special really goes to hell when Thing 1 and Thing 2 show up. Even the cat busts a gasket and can only say "they can find anything, anything, anything under the sun" even though what they're doing has nothing to do with finding something. Instead they ignore the cat's dilemma and terrorize the fish.

Since I'm not going to convince anyone of anything by trying to take logic apart, let's look at the artistic aspects of the movie. How's the music? Well scored. It's good music. But vocally and lyrically, the songs are not good (although the international language-learner "Cat Hat" comes close). Take out the words, sung by singers I wouldn't care to hear from again, and I'd love to hear the music in a better animated short. But the performers are entirely, well- underwhelming at best (except for Thurl Ravenscroft- the one voice you'll recognize from Disney's Haunted Mansion theme, the classic "Grim Grinning Ghosts"). Especially Allan Sherman as the cat, who rushes through most of his lines. However, Cat in the Hat is not all bad. In fact, the animation is pretty darn good at times. Especially during the Cat's song about how he's no good and the "Cat Hat" song.

As of my writing this, I've seen all 9 of the DVD-released Dr. Suess specials and this is easily the weakest of all of them.

The Nostalgia Critic, Doug Walker, is barely older than I am. Which makes relating to him a strange experience. We both were part of the generation of kids so impressed by Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles that today, we have to give the show and movies the benefit of doubt before re-watching them (I couldn't possibly have fonder memories of either, although trying to watch the 3rd film in theaters was a nightmare due to the other patrons' kids: that was a sign right there). Though I assume it's part of his shtick that he'll go far enough to say something like 'this is gonna be awesome(!)' before sitting through them again. Even I'm (definitely a Power Rangers kid, which shows you how scary I used to be as a developing young person) more realistic than that.

Anyway, so Doug wasn't a Power Rangers kid. He even says that when the show first aired, he felt the show would never become a hit. Don't most kids just say "this sucks!" when they see something they don't like and change the channel? Or, was cute little 11-year old Doug sitting in front of the TV in a little jacket and hat and marker-drawn goatee, playing Critic back then too? Aww... I however wasn't so lucky. I had a similar experience in that, when I first saw the show I knew how popular it was and didn't want to have anything to do with it (my younger brother, who I hated bitterly for many years, loved it immediately and that's probably why I went on the warpath against it). But somehow I changed my mind and became obsessed. From '93 to early '96 (which is I believe when the show went into its' Zeo incarnation), I watched every single episode (almost all of them on the very day they premiered), the movie (in the theater and on VHS, religiously, though I actually don't own the DVD as of yet), and I even had to watch the TV special the cast did promoting the movie. I still have the interview they did on Regis & Kathy Lee on tape. OH! I forgot about the video games!! I never owned the ones they did for Sega (I got the first 2 they did for SNES and spent hours playing them every single week), but I played both, as well as the racing game they did for SNES.

Today, I know how bad the show was but I can't bring myself to stop being a geek and say I hate it. So, give Doug credit for not completely freaking out (like he did with Good Burger) and roasting the show as the worst thing he's ever had to sit through. But I can agree with him on almost all of his criticisms. In fact, had he focused more on the show and less on the movie, he could have expanded a lot upon the characters' bland personalities and the show's awful jokes. In the movie, it's less "story" and a lot more "action." As a matter of fact, that's the most unbearable thing about the show. So, since he's doing the movie, the Nostalgia Critic has no choice but to make fun of how bad the costumes and special effects are.

First Thoughts Last: Is The Nostalgia Critic funny? Well, he's definitely smart and very observant. So, based on the cleverness of his observations, he damn well can be. Some of his videos have sent me into hysterics (The Neverending Story 2, Care Bears Movie 2, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: the cartoon). But here, the only thing you'll remember is his "up and down" bit with the Dulcea character. That is not funny, and neither are most of the moments in his videos where he repeats a single word or phrase too many times or screams loudly to overemphasize a point. But, he was right about how much the Rangers procrastinated given that their beloved godhead, Zordon, was... um... DYING!

To bask in this show's brilliance (which I do like it's a beam of light shining down from the sky), you don't really have to know anything about how it came to be. Though you still have to wonder. Is someone on the writing team a lot like Gareth Blackstock- an imposing, intimidating, raving, angry, shouting perfectionist? Or is this based on another, real-life, Chef, for example- the way Fawlty Towers' Basil character was based on an actual person (God help those who actually know him)? Either way, the character here is (from what I can tell) fairly ground-breaking and original and several other Professional Psychos (usually doctor characters) to follow in his wake are only pale imitations when you strip them of their differences (the guy Hugh Laurie plays on House being the best example).

What I like best about the show is that it's a real shock to the system after the ultimate blandness that is The Cosby Show. Cliff and Clair Huxtable were probably fine for their time (and how would I have known? I was about 2 when their show first debuted and barely ever watched it, I was so bored stiff by it). They were wise old types in verbally sturdy forms, and of course their scheming, running-amok kids had a lot to be taught and so, each lesson (of course, why the audience was continually being put in a child's position again and again - as though they hadn't learned anything already - is anyone's guess) had to be handled with such care that it required a lengthy series of discussions. The dialogue in Chef! is just as long-winded, so how could Cosby be so boring and this show not be? It could be the fact that Gareth and Janice don't have kids... But Cosby devoted a great deal of time showing us what the parents were like as a couple without the kids around and they damn well treated each other as though they were kids often enough.

To put it bluntly- these two don't have time to mess around like that. They, in fact, treat you like an adult who had better not make a child's mistake in dealing with them or you're going to be absolutely squashed by a storm of heated, perhaps abusive, insults in the form of a kind of lesson: don't waste their time! As the episodes go on and Janice gets very hands-on with running Le Cheateau Anglais, they act as a perfect kind of team and we see from the start that she's every bit as sharp and unyielding as he can be (as you can tell, I mean that as a compliment). In short- she would flatten Clair Huxtable, and even though Louise Jefferson always says she's part of George's business, Janice actually works at it.

As for the other characters, I can't help but smile there. I'm not black but watching sous-chef Lucinda toast white boys like the cute "American" Piers (Gary Parker; bad accent- and yes, it sounds like he's doing an accent) and the stunning beating she heaps on Gregory, this only a taste of what she would continue to do throughout the rest of the season (call it a series if you want to, but how long did these first 7 episodes really stretch out to? 2-3 months of airings), is marvelous. I mean, even though Piers was cute, I missed her the most when the second series started the following year (without her and, to an extent, without a replacement). And... all I can ever say about Everton is, "poor Everton." (Well, actually there is more but let's see if I don't save that for another time.)

The show is so immaculately made in every aspect and respect, it's simply dazzling to watch. It's almost in poor taste to compare the way the show is done with the way the Chef! would probably be cooking the food, but it's perfection. As I sat and watched the first 6 episodes, I was practically blown away by how highly artistic the show always was. My favorite scenes are of Gareth and Janice in the kitchen. The last of which here (where they discuss the shocking fact that he's never fired anyone before) is where it occurred to me that there might have been a moment, as he sat down at the breakfast table while she stood, that they were playing with the husband and wife dynamics. No food on the table but she's standing- will they actually talk about cooking something? If this were The Jeffersons, you could bet money on the fact that he would have been expecting Louise or Florence to at least be taking orders from him. What do you think the first question she asks him is?

Last Thoughts First: Cinema attracts all forms of oddballs, don't it? Why anyone with any notion of The Bible or sin sits through a film like this is anyone else's guess- but who has time to play games? ME! People who could need a film like this to tell them anything about the world we live in or confirm what they already believe are only useful to this movie in, hopefully, having bought a ticket or copy of the home video. I on the other hand am such a freeloader- I first saw this on VHS, borrowed a copy from someone else who paid the rental fee. And this morning, I watched it on DVD- again, not my copy and I've never paid to rent it.

The Movie: Morgan Freeman is always intelligent and thoughtful, that's his gimmick. He's the real star of the movie, yet he doesn't get top billing because he isn't white- like international heartthrob, Brad Pitt. Pitt is always obnoxious and annoying, even when he's playing a whiny vampire. I'm not much of a fan of either. They're both still doing their gimmicks. But only one of them annoys me. Surprisingly, it's the one who plays the guy who's always on some kind of sugar rush / caffeine high. Does his character Mills have ADHD or something? Either way, I don't care. I get it, he can't control himself and expects others to do it for him; he needs to shut up or simmer down. They're the hard-boiled detectives covering the case of The 7-Sins Killer - my nickname for the guy, not something you hear in the movie. The movie's too busy with actor gimmicks. Gwyneth Paltrow plays the same sweet-hearted pretty blonde chick she always is. That guy who's always on The Military Channel actually plays a fairly perceptive chief / commissioner type- although he has the single dumbest line in the movie (the "Southern Baptist upbringing" quip). Kevin Spacey plays a fanatic, which we all know he's good at. And Scrubs' John C. McGinley plays a skinheaded SWAT team psycho, with the movie's single nastiest line of dialogue (do you remember what it was?).

The Moral of the Story: The world sucks and nobody cares. And Brad Pitt needs to learn more about subtlety. His attempts to bull viewers into paying more attention to him rather than Freeman are feeble and if this movie caused any of his "Sexiest Man Alive" admirers to sleep with one eye open... Good. But, I doubt what the killer said rang very true. About what he does being studied and followed for years. Instead, it was just hollowed out for brainless copycats like Saw (2003). If people were smart enough to appreciate the killer and his work in the context of his mission... why does Saw currently have a 7.7 rating on IMDb? Sounds like he had just a little too much faith in the human race.