In Bluth We Trust

In these harsh and depressing economic and political times, Americans look for some place to rest their dreams of a brighter future, and apparently we've chosen....Arrested Development. For the past few years the cast and crew seem to have been under some sort of "play with the public's emotions" pact in which anytime they were asked in an interview, they would say just enough to help you believe the show would get revived as a feature film. Yesterday, at an Arrested Development reunion at the New Yorker Festival, the cast and creators took a bold new step in making promises they may or may not be able to keep. If the many many headlines, Facebook statuses, and tweets are to be believed, not just a movie, but a new run of TV episodes are as good as done. Call me a pessimist, or just call me someone who's actually taken the time to read what was actually said at this Festival appearance, but I don't believe the supposed AD second coming is a sound place to invest my hopes for the future entertainment of myself, my children, and generations to come.

Before you start accusing me of not being a true believer, of not being a true AD fan, let me state that I am still one of the only people I've ever met that watched the show when it aired - from episode one, to the end. I did not just jump on the hipster 'watch it on DVD/IFC years later' bandwagon. I was there from the start, watching it in whatever out-of-order/ different time slot every week capacity Fox forced us into. I was already watching everything else Fox was offering on Sunday nights (Oliver Beene anyone?), so it was natural for me to check out the new kid on the block. I liked it and I stuck with it until the end, and have spent the years since nodding knowingly as the rest of the world caught up with the Bluths. So don't tell me I don't really love AD - while the rest of you were watching NFL on Fox then turning off the TV to fall into a drunken nacho & buffalo wing induced stupor, I was waiting patiently for the game to end so I could stay up until 11:30 getting my fix of Fox's too often pre-empted Sunday night line-up. So yes, I'm a long-time fan, and I'm even hesitantly excited about the prospect of a movie and more TV episodes, but at the same time I'm old enough to know that some things are best appreciated for what they were, and not everything we love needs to be revived or go on indefinitely, as often longevity or revival can cast a shadow on something we once loved (The Simpsons anyone?).

So what are the real "facts" pertaining to the Arrested Development revival?
Fact #1 - The cast and creators are creatively on board. This is a long time coming and admittedly should not be downplayed. If you want to get something like this off the ground, obviously you need buy in from all those who should be involved. Any future AD projects would be sorely lacking without any one of the main cast. Except maybe....
Fact #2 - It could be really hard to see Michael Cera as George Michael now, and not just that Michael Cera character he's played in 50 movies since AD. I only recently started rewatching AD (Netflix Streaming) and have been asking myself the question - did AD create Michael Cera's trademark persona, or was it already a reflection of who young Michael Cera was? It doesn't really matter I suppose, but I don't think I can believe in George Michael anymore - there's just Michael Cera being Michael Cera.
Fact #3 - The cast being on board can be both a help and a hindrance to making this happen. Will Arnett is on another show that could very possibly get picked up for a full season and beyond. Jason Bateman and Michael Cera have launched significant film careers since the show ended and certainly require much larger paychecks than they once did. Their star power can make the project attractive to the studios, but it can also make it financially difficult.
Fact #3 - Creator Mitch Hurwitz has clearly said, even yesterday at the New Yorker Festival, that there are still a lot of stumbling blocks to overcome to get this made. No studio has announced backing of this project or plans to distribute it. Show me where the money is coming from, give me a website or a teaser trailer, and I'll become considerably less skeptical. In the meantime, I'll believe it's going to happen because the the cast and creators want it to like I believe my 7 year old daughter when she says she's going to save up enough money to buy herself a 3DS.

So while the rest of America seems ready to will this project into existence by ignoring the disclaimers and pretending that it's all green lights from here, I remain here sipping coffee from my Bluth Company mug, cautiously optimistic, but ultimately content to leave it as it is - a pretty perfect show that given the circumstances we're pretty lucky we even got three seasons of.

Apatow/Rogan remake Disney

So I was home ill yesterday and pleased to find some pay-cable channel or another showing "Knocked Up". I had seen it in the theaters and enjoyed it and identified with it strongly (Paul Rudd's character, not so much the porn-site running stoners or the pregnant girl). It is certainly the strongest offering in the now oversaturated Judd Apatow/Seth Rogen market (though I'm yet to see Pineapple Express).

Anyway, it dawned on me as I watched parts of it this time that it's a remake of Lady and the Tramp, sans songs and siamese cats. Rogen is a tramp who struggles with this woman pulling him away from his Bohemian lifestyle, and Heigl's character is (obviously) Lady, slowly being charmed by the tramp's carefree attitude. Rogen's character is truly a tramp, unemployed and living off the last $900 of an accident settlement he believes will carry him for a few years. She slowly warms to aspects of his lifestyle, even helping him screen movies for celebrity nudity to log on his website; much like Lady was willing to throw off her muzzle and scrounge for hand-outs with Tramp. I didn't make it through to the end on this viewing, but if I recall correctly it is almost identical to the end of the Disney film - in the same way that Tramp ends up domesticated with Lady and a litter of puppies, Rogen ends up domesticated with Heigl and a newborn.

Then "Hot Fuzz" was on next....seems I miss a lot of good movies by being gainfully employed.

Fletch

Fairly funny movie that I don't think I'd seen since either its theatrical release or intial VHS release...but it gets my vote for absolute worst 80's soundtrack ever. Harlod Faltermeyer, though extremely hot at the time (he had just done Beverly Hills Cop) sounds incredibly dated now. Though that's probably not fair to say....I'd have to admit he sounds dated because he created and shaped much of what we now think of as a stereotypical 80's sound. His music is more than just another generic example of it. So, kudos to Harry, but it still sounds pretty crappy now. (Yes, I must admit I can still plunk out a few lines of "Axel F" on the piano).

Checking out his wikipedia article, he has apparently been working only in Germany for many years, but just scored the much anticipated RPG game "Two Worlds".

The soundtrack has a few vocal numbers too, but noone I can put a name too...all utter garbage. I'll take the Beverly Hills Cop Soundtrack (Pointer Sisters!) over this any day.

Recent Movies

So I hate to be Comic Book Guy and start blogging about the Simpsons Movie right after seeing it, but at least I'm not doing it from a laptop in the movie theater (I swear!).
I'm not going to get into many details, just a few thoughts on why this movie is a bright spot in the Simpsons franchise -

• It has what the show has lacked for a very long time - a solid emotional core. Think "Bart vs. Lisa" or almost any 1st season episode. Shows that had a heart without being sappy. (The movie at times pushes the limits, but manages not to go overboard).
• The movie doesn't try and do too much. This really is an extended Simpsons episode (a good one). Yes, they throw jokes in there that say we know this a movie, but plot-wise it stays very true to the Simpsons format.
• It has continuous broad and subtle satire that mostly hits its mark. There were a number of things that I was surprised weren't get laughs in the theater and I came to the conclusion that it was a young audience - Saturday afternoon and a ton of families. Homer's antics were getting tons of laughs, but some of the more current affairs related jokes were going over people's heads.
• They didn't take license to be vulgar. Unlike the consistently obscene direct-to-DVD Family Guy movie, The Simpsons movie makes only gentle, infrequent use of it's PG-13 rating. With one or two exceptions, it may even be more suitable for kids than your average Simpsons episode these days.
• While there were a number of plot points that were reminiscent of past Simpsons plots, there was only one instance where I really thought they were lingering too long on a plot element that had been done before (see "The Mysterious Voyage of Homer")
  

What's missing:

• Sideshow Bob. Maybe they're holding out for a Sideshow Bob centered sequel?
• Guest stars. There are 2 1/2 guest stars. I expected a lot more.

The other movie I've seen this summer is Ratatouille, which turned out to be a nice choice for my daughter's first movie theater movie (she did pretty good - apologies to the couple sitting front of us. We now know to sit in the rocking chair seats, behind the fixed seats). As far as Pixar films go, not the best one for kids. The cute animal screen time is minimal, while the adult humans doing unspectacular adult human things time is lengthy. It's a beautifully drawn and written movie though. Anyone who loves food should love this movie.

What kills me, is that Pixar has this almost unblemished (overlooking "Cars") track record of superb CGI cartoon movies (I can't even bring myself to refer to them as "kids'" movies). The stories are incredibly unique and well written, and appeal to both adults and kids, and almost completely avoid pop culture references and bodily function humor. Why are the other studios not taking note of this? Why do they keep putting out Shrek and other regurgitated crap? It seems to me a simple formula - imaginative, well written stories and good looking animation. You don't even need celebrity voices (Pixar does make extensive use of celebrity voices, but they're beside the point - they invite actors to come in an act out a character that was created for the story - not an animated version of themselves). I couldn't identify a single voice in Ratatouille, which is the way it should be.

In 30 years, Pixar movies will still be around (okay, even if they weren't from Disney, which guarantees that they will be re-released every 5 - 10 years to infinity and beyond). If Disney would let them, you'd be seeing Criterion editions of these films. With any luck, Shrek will just be a disgusting green pop-culture side note on VH1's "I Love the 00's"