Showing posts with label Disney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Disney. Show all posts

Thursday, November 10, 2011

What the Kids Are Watching: Jessie

With all of my student loan problems under control, right now, my biggest concern isn't that I'll get thrown into some Dickensian debtor's prison/that I'll have the sort of horrible credit score that'll prevent me from purchasing the robo-hacienda style condo of my dreams, it's that someone will walk in on me while I'm watching Jessie--this inane Disney Channel show loosely based on the child procurement practices of the Jolie-Pitts.

Here's what the Disney Channel website has to say about the show and the characters (I've included a few annotations):










The only thing more disconcerting than being inexplicably compelled to watch Jessie is that while visiting the show's website I was actually excited about the prospect of playing "hide and seek with the Ross kids."

On one level, watching Jessie is just one more manifestation of my struggle to stay young--I really became aware of my age when I read this comment on YouTube:


What the hell is this person talking about? If you know what any of these things are or understand the use of the interrobang (!?) at the end of the sentence I am super jealous of you and your youth.


On another level, I think we're all genetically predisposed to watching shows about rich kids who are being cared for by working class people. Jessie was created by the same woman who created Charles in Charge AND the Nanny!?


Oh, and can any young people reading this please explain how Wizards of Waverly Place backfired?

Monday, August 22, 2011

Bummer #2: Angels in the Outfield

With complete, innocent, and sort of enviable Christian sincerity, a friend of mine once told me that she'd be thrilled to finally be face-to-face with her guardian angel. As far as I'm concerned, there's no scenario where an angel just appearing out of nowhere could be anything less than 100% horrifying.
Despite the foreboding title, Angels in the Outfield is not a horror film; it's one of those heart-tugging, inspirational jobs. 


But it's also kind of a drag. 


Perhaps, not an overt or overwhelming drag like My Girl, but it definitely has it's moments. One scene specifically sticks out in my mind and, next to the phrase "it could happen," is what I associate most with this movie...


Al and his seraphim horde have "helped" the last-place California Angels advance to the division championship. When the final game starts, Al materializes in the dugout and tells Roger that the team must win this one on their own--angels apparently have a real arbitrary sense of morality. Al then serves up a delicious piece of gossip about grizzled pitcher Mel Clark--who'd been taken off the disabled list during the initial stages of the angel infestation.
Mel only has six months to live and Al delivers the news with such nonchalance, sort of sugar-coating the tragedy of it by saying that after Mel eventually succumbs to lung cancer or emphysema or whatever (Al mentions that Mel has been a smoker for years), he's going to become an angel. 


Wings are cool; not being dead is slightly cooler. 


This scene probably isn't going to make anyone cry, but still, it's a total bummer. It's also incredibly calculated, obviously meant to heighten the emotional drama and give the outcome of this championship game more weight. Al says he's dropped by to "check up on Mel." Seriously, what's he checking? I'm no expert on the subject but I'm pretty sure that angels can "check up" on people from Heaven or the 8th dimension or wherever they're from. So, why is he really there? The whole thing feels kind of contrived and plot device-y. Somehow, though, that fails to diminish my enjoyment of  Mel slow-mo catching that game-winning ball.
In spite of my usual anti-angel stance, I'm definitely pro-Angels in the Outfield. Sometimes, I suppose, it's all right to have your heart manipulated a bit by conveniently tragic plot points, if that manipulation is (a) in service of a really good finale and (b) thorough enough to spawn two direct-to-video sequels. 

Thursday, February 24, 2011

Newsies is better than Citizen Kane--Put that in your pape and smoke it!**UPDATE**

The #1 movie on the American Film Institute's "Top 100" list is Citizen Kane. And how did Disney's live-action musical Newsies rate? It isn't even on the list, my friends. Well, I'm calling shenanigans on AFI and all 1500 of the film artists, critics, and historians who compile their lists because not only is Newsies a far superior depiction of the late 19th century/early 20th century newspaper industry and "yellow journalism" or whatever, but it's also just unmistakably better than Citizen Kane* in almost every imaginable way. Citizen Kane, ha! More like Citizen Lame!



  • Citizen Kane is so old! Like, seriously. It isn't even in color. What the hell?

Newsies, on the other hand, was filmed in 1992 and is in color and therefore, automatically, less boring for me to watch.

  • In Citizen Kane, newspapers abound, but no one calls them "papes." Fact: calling newspapers "newspapers" or even "papers" is so dumb, calling newspapers "papes" is cool (and clearly more time efficient).








  • In Citizen Kane, artsy or "clever" camera shots and angles are used to mask a lack of singing and dancing, ergo, the movie is tedious to the point of being a piece of crap.




  • There isn't a single cast member from the 90s Nickelodeon variety show, Roundhouse, in Citizen Kane, whereas Newsies has four.

(Here's another picture for those of you who aren't Newsies scholars/as eagle-eyed as I am/enthusiastic about finding Roundhouse cast members in movies.)
Of course I understand that Roundhouse wasn't around in 1941, but that's no excuse, as far as I'm concerned. 



  • Bill Pullman is sexier than Orson Welles.

Yes, Welles does have a certain Vincent D'Onofrio quality about him but he just doesn't do anything for me. Pullman, though...well, I guess I've always been into men who look like they could be a friend's dad.



  • Newsies helped me pass my AP U.S. History exam, while Citizen Kane has yet to prove its usefulness.

Not only did I pass, but I got a "4" (which is pretty good). Thanks to the statue that appears at the beginning of the movie, I was able to answer the Horace Greeley multiple-choice question correctly. Boo-yah!



  • Citizen Kane misrepresents the power, or lack thereof, of pape headlines. 


  • And finally, Christian Bale is a better actor than Orson Welles. Yeah, I said it.

At the very least, Bale is more committed to his craft than Welles. Do you think that Christian Bale knew how to dance before he stepped onto the set of Newsies? No, he didn't. But he broke it down anyway.


In Citizen Kane, Orson Welles ages from the beginning of the movie to the end of it. This is accomplished through the use of makeup. But if Christian Bale were to play a character who started off as a young man and progressively got older over the course of the film, he would literally force his body to age 20 or 30 years. 


In summation, Newsies is rad, Citizen Kane sucks, and any of AFI's esteemed film experts who also happen to be members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences can partially redeem themselves in my eyes by giving Christian Bale an Academy Award this Sunday. 




*I haven't necessarily or even actually seen Citizen Kane.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justice
Suddenly/I'm respectable/staring right at 'cha/ lousy with stature...Victory!/ front page story/ guts and glory/ I'm the king of New York!

Thursday, January 13, 2011

Looks Like We've Made It, We're Kids Incorporated

Before the creation of Kidz Bop, if you wanted to hear children bastardize your favorite pop songs with their creepy, high-pitched voices, you had to watch Kids Incorporated.
The show aired from 1984-1993 and the ever changing line-up of incorporated kids included Stacy "Fergie" Ferguson, Jennifer Love Hewitt (who went by "Love" in those days), and Eric Balfour--who was somehow cast even though he couldn't sing, dance, or pantomime "guitar playing" believably. 
Mario Lopez was a back-up dancer in the late 80s and occasionally "played" the drums--he would later go on to perfect his "drumming" as a member of The Zack Attack. Like Menudo, the kids would "age-out" of the cast once they hit puberty (because "Pubes Incorporated" just doesn't have the same ring to it).


The premise of the show is perplexing, to say the least, but on the most basic--but still incomprehensible--level, it's about these five (sometimes six) kids who perform for their peers at what appears to be some kind of children's nightclub/cabaret called "The P*lace." There wasn't a parent to be found. 


(I hope that someone who lives in Brooklyn--where the show is supposed to be set--can tell me if kiddie nightclubs are popular out there.)


As children, I think that we were into this show because it was about a group of independent kids. This is the same reason why a movie like Home Alone was so cool to us. We like to see kids running things. But watching it now, I have all these financial questions that make it impossible for me to suspend disbelief. Like, what were their overheads?


How--as children--were they able to fund these elaborate performance numbers? They couldn't have been charging for admission because kids don't have money--I don't remember ever having more than $4 at any given moment when I was younger than 18--and selling sodas and milkshakes ain't gonna keep that fog machine running, my friends. 


Even if there were, say, a $4 cover, there's no way that they'd be able to keep that place so jam packed full of pre-teens every day. Whose parents are going let them see Kids Incorporated daily? I have this image in my head of some 9-year-old's intervention. Her parents telling her that she's spending too much time at "The P*lace" and that they refuse to continue supporting her Kids Incorporated habit.


Anyway, let's take a look at some of the Kids Inc. gold I dug up over at the youtubes.


In this video J. Love plays the saddest girl to ever rock a sweatband.
Since I couldn't find the entire episode on youtube, I have no idea what brought about this state of utter desolation and world wariness. 


Nevertheless, I just want to shake this kid and say, "Girl, you'd better buck up! How can you be that sad with bangs that fly?"
The best part of this video, aside from all of the soulful head-shaking, is the sullen-girl tableau--chin rested in palms, eyes tilted up toward the heavens, wristbands hiding self-inflicted wounds.


I think this cover is a prime example of why 10-year-olds should never sing this particular Peter Gabriel song...actually, no one, not even Peter Gabriel should ever sing this song, or at least should never be filmed singing it. Case in point: The original video for the Gabriel-Kate Bush collaboration, in which the two embrace/fondle each other for six disturbing minutes.

Here, little Fergie sings Lionel Richie's hit "Say You, Say Me."
I could try to come up with some mildly amusing commentary about this video, but I think it speaks for itself.

  WHAT. IS. HAPPENING?

Finally, we have the whole 1991 Kids Inc. gang covering Rod Stewart's "Forever Young." And when you watch this grainy video, I want you to pay attention to the little boy in the front row of the audience. 

Bet you didn't know that "Forever Young" was a club jam. That boy was breakin' it down! I have so much respect for him, because when I tried to dance to this song, I almost had a heart attack. I don't know if that kid was on speed or pixy sticks or what.


Thursday, November 5, 2009

My B-day presents were in this rad bag

IMG_0236

Look at this bag,
isn't it neat?
What do you think of her shell-covered teats?
Wouldn't you think she's the girl,
the girl who does... sexy things?