Inexplicable Movie Review: The Star Wars movies (the good ones)

I don't know why the cover image is a shirtless Luke.

Note: Spoilers follow for the entire Star Wars movie series, although I mostly stay away from the newest movie.

Because Karen didn’t remember seeing them, I recently re-watched the original trilogy with her. It was probably my fourth or fifth viewing of them in order like this – A decent chunk of time, but nowhere near a true fanatic’s devotion level.

I actually gave my thoughts on the first six movies and how I’d rank them in this post on the Family Guy telling of the Star Wars saga. (It would be humorous if I now ranked them Family Guy movies, but, eh, they’re mostly shot-for-shot remakes; decent, but Robot Chicken has the vastly superior Star Wars episode.)

My ranking wouldn’t really shift from back then, except that I’d probably have Sith and A New Hope ranked about equal, instead of the former being better than the latter. I seem to be in the minority of really liking Sith, although I’ll admit that it’s a pretty dark, intense movie. I don’t really have any interest in re-watching scenes about child killing and flesh mutilation via lava.

A New Hope definitely still drags in the beginning, especially since I’m not watching it with the advantage of youth. However, the last of the first act – when they get to the cantina – and onward is all good stuff. Plus, it has a cool showdown between Obi-Wan and Darth, and while you might remember a bunch of lightsaber duels in the movies, there are really only three.

I still think Jedi is better than Empire, or at least, I like the replay value more. Yeah, some of the Ewok stuff can be a bit hokey and cutesy, but I want that on a second (and third, and fourth) viewing. I don’t want to re-watch the edition that ends with Han Solo in carbonite and Luke nursing his robotic hand.

One thing I definitely noticed on this watching – the seams from on-the-fly plot decisions. You know, like deciding Darth Vader is Luke’s father or that Leia is Luke’s sister. They both seem like “wtf???” moments because they were seemingly just made up on the fly, as opposed to always planned by George Lucas.

Karen’s review: “I like the second one because they cut off his hand. But then it just came back, so whatever. I think it sends a bad message to kids. ‘Don’t worry if you get your hand cut off, you can just get a new one!’ When did that black dude [Lando] come into play? The second one? I didn’t like him in that one because he was a dick. He should have figured out some way to warn them. But I liked that the big blobby dude [Jabba the Hut] died and I was glad he wasn’t in the universe anymore. But I didn’t like that pit [sarlacc]. Probably the first one was better, because it helped me understand what it was all about.”

Note: We still haven’t watched The Force Awakens, so that’ll be our homework for some point in the next few weeks. Also, I’m going to be watching some Gilmore Girls too apparently.

Want to support Steve’s blogging? Then purchase something via the Amazon clickthru link for Your Parents Basement, Steve’s other project! To read all of Steve’s past Inexplicable Movie Reviews, click here! For Inexplicable TV Reviews, click here! For Inexplicable Video Game Reviews, click here! And for Inexplicable Book Reviews, go here!

Inexplicable TV Review: American Dad, somehow the best MacFarlane project

The Smith family.

I’ve always had a soft spot for American Dad, the animated show that was Seth MacFarlane’s first sort of spin-off after the (eventual) success of Family Guy. But while I loved the initial pilot episode, with the world’s oldest dog, it sometimes slips from my attention, and then I scramble to catch up on episodes.

Unlike Family Guy, which has gotten more disgusting as its gone on, American Dad has mostly stayed at the same “ew” factor. Yes, there are lowlights, like when Roger decides he has to go live in the South to become a real country singer. But for the most part, the show stays focused on the Smith family’s exploits in the D.C. area.

It’s interesting how the two shows have developed. Family Guy is almost nihilistic in its pursuit of gags and jokes. There’s little continuity from episode to episode, and things just get more crude and “shocking” as time goes on.

The problem I’m alluding to from the quote usage there is that because you know the show is going to go for the most horrible thing, it’s seldom surprising when they actually do it. Family Guy has also shifted away from the experimental vibe it has a few years ago, when it was doing bottle episodes and murder mysteries. (By the way, it makes me feel old that I’ve been writing about this show on-and-off for six god damn years. Holy hell.)

American Dad has essentially slotted into the role that The Cleveland Show used to take, a show that I liked. There is just a bit more of a focus on character development vs. gross-out gags. It probably helps that American Dad is now on TBS, which cares a little bit less about ratings than a traditional broadcast network like FOX.

One trait from Family Guy that is still used strongly on American Dad though – unusual voice acting choices. You wouldn’t expect Patrick Stewart to be on this show, but he’s always great as CIA director Bullock, and they get him to say some ridiculous things. Then again, he was also great on Extras.

Want to support Steve’s blogging? Then purchase something via the Amazon clickthru link for Your Parents Basement, Steve’s other project! To read all of Steve’s past Inexplicable Movie Reviews, click here! For Inexplicable TV Reviews, click here! For Inexplicable Video Game Reviews, click here! And for Inexplicable Book Reviews, go here!

Dear FOX, stop letting monkeys plan your television schedule.

Generally, I like FOX. Well, not their news product, or their tendency to cancel great shows even if their ratings haven't caught up to where they should be. (I did think that Alyssa Rosenberg brought up a good point on her blog when she noted that FOX gives chances to a ton of weird shows that the networks don't want to touch, so they are going to have a higher cancel rate as well. I'm not sure when she said this, so instead, let me just plug her blog in general here.) But in general, I like several of their programs.

I do not like their scheduling habits though. I'm not sure why, but they consider it a good idea to air a couple episodes, then take three weeks off. I imagine that this practice started because, back in the day, FOX aired a lot more live sports in the middle of the week, when they had less live programming. They still don't run a full programming slate, since they aren't active in the 10 p.m. hour, or late night.

Also, this practice was more defensible in the past because it allowed people to catch up on shows if they missed some episodes. For example, if you did miss the wonderful first four episodes of Glee this year, they are being replayed in repeats now. However, you could have just watched them on Hulu or downloaded them from iTunes or... uh... other sources. In this wonderful digital age, you don't really have to wait for shows to be re-broadcast.

With that in mind, FOX, here is what I suggest - Just run shows in order from start to finish. The only exception should be if there is a holiday, in which case, sure, run a repeat or a holiday special. Let me actually see new episodes of Family Guy, The Cleveland Show and Glee in proper order instead of breaking them up with repeats. Thanks!

Note: I included random pictures from Robot Chicken because I like Robot Chicken. Deal with it!

Pitching Perfect Projects: Bill and Ted... THREE.

Welcome to another installment of Pitching Perfect Projects. In the past, I pitched completely made-up great ideas of mine, like Eating Dinner, Looking for Work, Black Ghostbusters, and Four Lesbians Two Babies and An Elephant. Well, imagine my excitement when I read (a month late) that a third Bill and Ted movie actually has the backing of Keanu Reeves and others!

Even more shockingly, while movie sequels way after the fact are normally derisively mocked on the Internet, all the comments on that story are pretty positive. I think it reflects the original movie series well. Although Excellent Adventure and Bogus Journey seemed like stoner movies, they were both really well-made. Heck, even Ebert gave Bogus Journey three stars in his review.

The question is, what do you do in the third movie? Here is my humble short list of ideas:

- A time wormhole that transports Bill and Ted from the 1990s to present day. There can be the obligatory "fish out of water" adapting that they have to do, like trying to get used to crap like Jersey Shore on television, and the whole concept of computers and the Internet. Their wives - the princesses - could also be a source of comic relief, as they presumably would be in their 30s now. And finally, the plot could hinge on the boys remembering that they had left money in a bank years ago, and now, the interest made them RICH. Or, something similarly cheesy.

- Bill and Ted get transported in the distant future, in order to see how it all ends. I envision something similar to a Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy story, with plenty of loopy dialogue and side characters. (Mos Def, I like your music, but you really stunk as Ford Prefect.)

- The telephone booth can transport them to alternate dimensions, and they have to help additional Bills and Teds fix their respective life situations. This idea would be even better if they could also get Eddie Murphy to cameo as five different characters, although that might be far-fetched with the budget.

-----
Regardless of which way they go with the new installment, I'd definitely like to see some characters come back. First off, Death needs to make an appearance. William Sadler, the actor that portrayed him, is still alive, and I'm sure he's up for the role. If not, then there are other guys who could fill in. You could even go meta and cast Norm MacDonald or Adam Carolla (or both!), two guys who have played Death on Family Guy.

One role that shouldn't be mentioned is Rufus, Bill and Ted's time traveling mentor. He was originally played by the deceased George Carlin, and you don't want anyone trying to fill his shoes. If you absolutely must have a time guide though, I think Kevin Smith in his Silent Bob persona would be a decent choice.

So anyway, what are your thoughts? I think this could do some dynamite business, and be a pretty good flick in its own right, like the first two films are.

Pickin' Pigskin: Week 5 (and Randy Moss and Minnesota and cat talk)

Matt: While I'm immersed in Randy Moss-revival joy, I thought I'd send in my picks early. Minneapolis was abuzz on Wednesday. It was like how DC felt on the day of Strasburg's first start. I get to wear my Moss jersey from 5th grade again. Zygi Wilf is going all in, and there is literally no NFL player that I would be more excited to acquire than Moss. Not saying Andre Johnson isn't a better receiver, but with the history, Moss is a more exciting acquisition.






-----

Steve: Whew - Another week, another batch of picks. But of course, let me digress...

My relationship with my roommate's cat is much like Quagmire's relationship with his cat on Family Guy. You can view that clip here. Mundane cat activities, like Cleo sleeping on my bed and rubbing against my legs, are fascinating to me. Cats are neat creatures, I must say.

In contrast, I agree with the Penny Arcade guys - Birds Are Weird. Big Bird is okay in my book, and I don't consider ducks to be birds. All of those other birds though? Ick. They're noisy and they shit everywhere. I'm glad that cats eat birds, and hopefully someday Sylvester the Cat will actually get his paws on Tweetie Bird. That big yellow forehead mother effer.

Oh yeah, football. Uh, I have no friggin' clue what's going on with the NFL. I blame my work schedule, which has caused me to worry about tons of things that are not NFL games. Also, I blame birds - Many NFL teams are named after birds, which as we have discussed, are weird. Also, last week's records:

Kristin: 7-7 (25-34)
Bob: 6-8 (29-30)
Matt: 6-8 (27-32)
Steve: 4-10 (26-33)

So, pretty craptastic for all of us, and especially horrible for me ;_;

-----
Bob: It's a good thing you "own" this blog, Steve, because otherwise I don't think we would be allowed to pick football games anymore. As a matter of fact, we should add a coin flip to see how random picking performs against us. I wish I had some funny input (all the more reason that we could get "fired" from the blog), but we have family in town and it was a dull week.

Except for the Randy Moss trade. God, I am so disappointed. Not to say that I disagree with the trade (in Belichick I trust), but I will miss having that electrifying presence on the field. And to see him go to appease the latest dong text-er is all the more disappointing. I really hope they can beat the Jets this week. I am so sick and tired of them, particularly that cocky ass Rex Ryan.

Without further adieu, my picks (that you clearly should not follow), at the bottom of this entry.

-----
Kristin: Woohoo! I was the winner last week, and breaking even is super fun! So Matt, thanks for bragging about acquiring Randy Moss, thanks a lot for giving us some time to recover before rubbing it in. Well, I guess Brady won all his rings with no big names to throw to, maybe this is some kind of good karma / sign. Also, I notice that I picked almost entirely underdogs this week, so let’s see how that turns out.

-----
Matt: Just remember, Randy was mine long before he was yours!

-----
Steve: To be fair to Matt, I think he’s going to need the comfort of Randy “Straight Cash Homie” Moss now that the Twins have joined the Red Sox on the sidelines of the playoffs. And we pretty much raped the whole state of Minnesota on that whole Kevin Garnett trade. But enough procrastinating! Finally, the picks:

	Steve	Bob	Kristin	Matt
JAX (1.5) at BUF	JAX	JAX	JAX	JAX
NYG at HOU (-3)	NYG	HOU	HOU	NYG
KC (7) at IND	IND	KC	KC	IND
TB at CIN (-6.5)	CIN	CIN	TB	CIN
GB (-2.5) at WAS	GB	GB	WAS	GB
STL at DET (-3)	STL	DET	STL	DET
CHI (3) at CAR	CHI	CHI	CHI	CHI
ATL (-3) at CLE	ATL	ATL	ATL	ATL
DEN at BAL (-7)	BAL	BAL	DEN	DEN
NO (-7) at ARI	NO	NO	NO	NO
TEN at DAL (-7)	DAL	DAL	DAL	TEN
SD (-6.5) at OAK	SD	SD	SD	SD
PHI (3) at SF	PHI	PHI	SF	PHI
MIN at NYJ (-4)	NYJ	NYJ	MIN	MIN