TheyCallMeMrGibbs Reviews

Family Guy (1999– )

The History of the Decline and Fall of the Family Guy Empire

[6/10 · 8 December 2011]

The Shark is just waiting to be jumped.

Leave it to Fox to cancel the show while it was still good. That's always been the pattern of many really good shows. Brought back with the help of a strong fanbase, Family Guy should have stuck to the original formula that had made it funny. True, it was raunchy, it was scandalous, it was blasphemous. But it was tight, and that's what made it work.

Now, Family Guy's problem is they think they can get away with anything. It's what I like to call the "dictator effect." Bear with me. In their early stages, a dictator's reign is often on thin ice, but they often initially want to help their people. But as they solidify their standing, they'll consolidate power until it would be a death sentence to criticize them. Family Guy is no different.

Comedy is comedy, but you reach a certain point where it ceases to be this way. Family Guy has replaced jokes like "did you know Jesus and Moses used guns to fight the Romans?" with "I have Down's Syndrome and my mom is Governor of Alaska." If the writers of Family Guy are trying to make a political or social statement, they go about it the wrong way. The best jokes about pop culture are being replaced with the worst jokes about abuse, abortion, homosexuality.

I do enjoy most of the pop culture references on the show, especially when I've observed what they're trying to convey. Who thought Liam Neeson's American accent was awful? I did, and I'm glad to know Family Guy did too. But it's losing its touch. If Dennis Miller was being tortured into doing a show, that is what Family Guy is like now. The awkward jokes that drag on for a minute or more are just awful. We understand that the music video for Dacing in the Street was gay, but do you have to show the whole video just to prove your point?

In the sense of the bigger picture, Family Guy is the prime example of the declining value of comedy in today's society. We have lowered our expectations, and so we get this. Comedy used to be about a good punchline and careful observation. Now it almost brings a tear to my eye to see what has happened. Look at those Comedy Central roasts they do. If you want to see what comedy is really about, look up the Dean Martin roasts on youtube or watch Sinbad. But now? Vagina? I just booked me a spot on the Tonight Show. Sex? I'm winning me a Mark Twain Prize!

In conclusion, Family Guy is still a pretty good show. Not great, but not as bad as some of the other shows out there. But those writers need to get their act together. No doubt they were going to hell for presenting such blasphemous material. But now they can't go with a smile knowing that it was still funny. Instead, they have only their regret to contemplate.

Late Night with David Letterman (1982–1993)

The Real Top 10 List

[5/10 · 7 November 2011]

Setting: An overpriced studio set overlooking New York City.

Time: Present Day, though if anyone had common sense it wouldn't be.

Tone: Deaf

DRAMATIS PERSONAE

David Letterman: The gap-toothed Host of Late Night. A cynical man who is jealous of Jay Leno because Jay's funny and he's not.

Paul Shaffer: A rare breed of shaved parrot. Serves to repeat everything that Dave says and act as what I'm guessing is a bandleader.

Alan Kalter: Announcer for the show. Not his fault.

Dave: Alright Ladies and Gentlemen, here's tonight's top 10 list.

(Music enters) Dave: Tonight's top 10 list: Top 10 Reasons I'm Not Funny.

(Applause sign lights up, people forced to clap, dually regretting an evening wasted)

Dave: Number 10:I'm a cynic

Paul: Oh, a cynic, huh?

Dave: Number 9: I'm whiny-Carson retired twenty years ago and I treat Jay Leno like he's Moby Dick.

Paul: Moby Dick.

Dave: Number 8: I think it's funny if I repeat words I say like "political pundit." Paul: Political Pundit.

Dave: Number 7: I'm crotchety.

Paul: Crotchety.

Dave: Number 6: I actually have to use laugh signs.

Paul: Oh, laugh signs huh?

Dave: Number 5: I don't ask guests real questions that stimulate their minds-instead I'll interview Hugh Laurie and ask him if his name is Hugh Laurie.

Paul: Ah, Hugh Laurie.

Dave: Number 4: If a guest says something awkward, I'll just look at the audience and furrow my brow.

Paul: Furrow your brow, huh? Dave: Number 3: I won't appear even mildly interested in what my guests are saying.

Paul: What your guests are saying Dave.

Dave: Number 2: I meanly pounce on celebrity scandals like a Tiger-Speaking of Tiger, did you know that his wife is threatening to wedge his nine-iron?

(Laughter sign blinks, fake laughter)

Paul:Nine-iron, wedge, golf.

Dave: And the number 1 reason I'm not funny: I actually have to make out a list.

(Applause sign blinks, fake applause ,or it could be real, the show end in seconds)

Paul: You have to make a list!

Alan: This is Alan Kalter speaking: Good night everybody, better than mine anyway.

The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson (2005–2015)

Craig-Hope You're On Tomorrow and Our Future Yesterday

[7 November 2011]

Upon a chance, I was awake at 1 in the morning, flipping through the channels. Let's see. Keeping Up With the Kardashians. No. Kitchen Nightmares. No. Jersey Shore. Hell no. Upon a chance, I flipped to CBS, and I saw Craig Ferguson for the first time. Within 30 seconds, I loved the man! Craig is easily the funniest late-night talk show host. Not because he has headlines, not because he has a top 10 list. Not because he has enough money to pay for an audience that will laugh at anything he says. He is the best because he is funny! There are certain kinds of funny. Self-deprecating, deadpan, satirical. Craig can be all of these, but instead, he is spontaneous. To add to that, he is genuine. Unlike many talk-show hosts, who should consider themselves lucky that they have a job at all, Craig knows that he is lucky he has a job, and this adds to his appeal. He is sincere and empathetic, as evinced when he refused to make fun of Britney Spears b/c he once had a drug addiction. Only Craig would do that, and only Craig could do that well. Craig's guests are also better by far. The show actually allows guests to open up and say what they want for eight minutes, no cue cards involved. Jay Leno: "So I hear you're from the United States?" David Letterman: "So I hear you're from the United States?" Craig Ferguson: "Have you ever explored bisexuality?" Only Craig could ask these questions so well, and only in that environment could guests answer honestly. I also applaud Craig for treating all guests equally. Unlike some talk-show hosts, who would offer special treatment to a Will Ferrell or a Julia Roberts, Craig accepts guests who in their field might be underrated or underutilized. No band either. No Kevin Eubanks or Paul "Parrot" Shaffer or Andy Richter. It's all Craig, and I love him for it. I will admit that Geoff can get a little repetitive, and double entendre's on the show are becoming kind of clichéd. In conclusion, I'll give the show a 9 out of 10. In truth, it should be a 10 out of 10, but nobody's perfect, and Craig plays that to perfection.

The Passion of the Christ (2004)

All I Can Say After Watching This Is...Jesus Christ!

[7 November 2011]

Religion is not my area of expertise, but I know the parables and cool passages I can use as a memorable book title and hyperbolic hypocrisy. I don't judge religious movies on their accuracy. Rather, I judge them on their ability to combine religious themes and compelling cinema and give us that oomph! That beauty that transcends controversy and makes even the most zealous of men appreciate the art of film. Ben Hur had it, Barabbas had it, to some extent, The Last Temptation of Christ had it (though I could have easily passed on Jesus being from Wisconsin and Judas from Brooklyn). The Passion of the Christ, compelling though it may be, doesn't seem to have this oomph. I remember in 2004 when my Dad went to see the movie. When he got back I asked him how it was. He simply replied, "Very sad." My father is a devout Catholic, making sure to attend church every day (no exaggeration, at 4 AM!). But he is also very open-minded. So, I don't really know if his statement was from the devout Catholic, who meant, "Very sad how Jesus suffered through so much to deliver us from our sins," or from the open-minded person who meant, "Very sad how I spent twenty bucks I'll never get back on this ticket and lost out on the large popcorn I was ready to enjoy until the movie came on and I lost my appetite." I'll never know, and quite frankly, I don't want to ask him. But enough about my Dad, I don't speak for him. I saw the movie a little over a year after it came out. As a fifth grader, I didn't really know what to think. Now in college, I've had many opportunities to go back and see the film. First, I'll get to the things I liked about the film. The fact that the film seeks authenticity; Using Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin give a legitimacy to the film's setting. I only wish they could translate everything being said. Sure beats the old epics where every Roman had to be from England. The beautiful cinematography of Caleb Deschanel, who is able to exploit camera angles like no other. The haunting score by John Debney, who is severely underutilized by the film industry for emotional stuff like this. Very sad to see him score movies like this and then movies like the Change-Up. That would be like John Williams doing the score for Gigli. Nevertheless, wonderful music. The scenes with Judas, who is in my opinion one of the most fascinating figures in all of religion. When he is contemplating hanging himself, you feel the sorrow and remorse for what he has done. An expanded and human portrayal of Pontius Pilate, who is not treated as the man who killed Jesus, but the one who let him die. And finally, the performance of the consistently underrated Jim Caviezel. In the scenes where Jesus is being tortured, you feel each and every emotion being tested. In the flashback sequences, you understand the man. Easily robbed of an Oscar nomination. Now we come to the bad. I'm sure when Mel Gibson was making the movie he had in mind to convey the idea that Christ gave his life to alleviate the sins of mankind. However, it's very hard to see and appreciate that message through two hours of violence. People will say this is the most violent movie ever made. It isn't. It is, however, the most violent movie ever made in order to convey violence. The pacing of the movie is consistent throughout. Agony in Garden. Torture. Flashback. Torture. Flashback. Torture. Flashback. Torture. Flashback. Death. The movie is more focused on symbolizing that he died for us than explaining why he died for us. Perhaps the movie should have been split into two parts: one focusing on the life and work of Christ and one focusing on his sacrifice. Instead, we get "Oh my God I loved that flashback of him washing the feet of his disciples and OH MY GOD!!They just tore his flesh off!" Kudos to you, Mel Gibson, for tackling such a controversial subject and, for the most part, making it work. But sorry Mel, I'll have to take back some Kudos for turning pathos into BloodBathos.

Conan (2010–2021)

You Can't Teach An Old Dog New Tricks-Or Jokes!

[7 November 2011]

I'll admit-I love watching late night talk shows. My average bedtime last year was 2 AM just because I wanted to stay up and watch them all. Personally, my favorite is Craig Ferguson, who just seems so spontaneous and genuine. I like Leno because I'm a traditionalist. I can't stand Letterman, or Paul Shaffer (who knew you could shave a parrot and teach it to be your bandleader). Kimmel is OK, but does he have to keep looking at Cleto to get a laugh?

And now we get to Conan.

In my opinion, this tonight show conflict is total bulls**t. Don't blame Jay Leno, don't blame Conan, blame the executives at NBC. Plus people, is it really a stab in the back if you're given $45 million to walk away? All business aside, I'll admit I watch Conan out of sympathy. I always hope that one night Conan will have jokes flying this way and that...to this day I'm still hoping. True, Conan does occasionally tell a good joke or two, but that's it. Now I'm not saying Conan O'Brien isn't funny. Indeed, when I saw him on Inside the Actor's Studio he was hilarious. He was being himself! Conan the show does not equal the wit and humanity of Conan the man. When I watch Conan, I always get this feeling that Conan would rather be anywhere but there. He always appears nervous, and his self-deprecation and weird bumpkin dances do more to enhance his stick-bug physique than his comedic talent. His mad scientist voices are just, well, weird. His interviews are awkward, mainly because of this nervousness. Any transition to another question is a very sad-sounding "um." To add evidence to this assumption of Conan's anxiety, I'll recount to you an episode where Conan had a martial arts expert as a guest. When the stunts required Conan to take his jacket off, he revealed his underarms, which were drenched in sweat. I'm no comedian (professionally), but I always learned that one of the top 10 rules of a comedian is that they should never laugh at their own jokes more than the audience. Evidently Conan left the rulebook back in New York, because he does it all the time. My mother stated, and I would have to agree, that Conan looked better with bangs. Now it looks like the Lorax is living on his head. Andy Richter doesn't help either. Again, probably a very decent, humble man, but not fit for the comedic podium. Still, a sight better than Paul "I'll just repeat what Dave said so it's funny" Shaffer. I rate Conan a 7 out of 10. Truth be told, it should be a 6, but I really feel bad for Conan. The show's format and expectations of the audience don't allow him to be himself, a genuinely funny man. He is a better man than a talk-show host, but unfortunately, you don't get paid to be a decent man. It's not my favorite late-night show. Still, I'll watch it just to hope. Hang in there Conan.