Der Kommissar you got it right. In the 1800's, fuck was a word, but it wasn't said often or used the way they use it in this movie. In reality they would be saying goddamn or goddammit or hell.
Ryan Reynolds should have been the main character and Seth should have been Ryan Reynolds character as a quick cameo for the guy working behind the scenes.
I agree with this, the reason Ryan Reynolds is in the movie is a reference to Ted, because Ryan was Patrick Warburton's gay lover and had no lines so Seth thought it would be funny to put him in this movie again with no lines, what an amazing payoff for that joke eh?
@@yaass9180 Sadly, in family guy, it has reached a really bad point, way before you posted your comment. It is surprising for the episode to not start off by immediatly cutting off to a TV show being made fun off. They constantly want to be taken serious but also as a joke, but also then teach completely wrong things like it is okay to rape someone when you are lonely or the one who sexually harasses you is the victim and you are the problem for not letting him/her fuck. They literally revived Brian in 2 weeks and then made him the worst person in the universe. I mean, other shows like Spongebob got out of the dark ages and are good again, but I think Family Guy already burried themself in their grave. You can keep your opinion, but in my opinion, the jokes are too disgusting, boring, out-of-nowhere, played out, long, relying on shock and unfunny.
George Lucas: “The auteur theory of film actually is very true if you know directors, because they are very much like their movies. And in the case of somebody who writes and directs, you know, it is my life. I mean, everything I write is my life, I’m not writing some sort of hypothetical thesis on something, I’m writing a story that I have to get extremely emotionally involved in because it’s going to take two or three years of my life to do it. So I can’t just sort of say, ‘Oh this will be fun,’ and knock it off in a week. This is like a marriage … you have to be in love with this thing for at least four or five years, and probably for the rest of your life.” In the run up to The Force Awakens, I couldn’t even begin to count how many times I’ve seen people saying, Oh thank God that George Lucas won’t be involved.It’s been a popular notion for some time now that Star Wars needed to be saved from George Lucas. It took me a long time to work out how people could seriously think something so nonsensical.There is no Star Wars without George Lucas. Where do these people think that Star Wars came from?To get around the conundrum of loving Star Wars but hating George Lucas, fans have created entire alternate realities. The Secret History of Star Wars is a book-length attempt by fan/possible mental patient Michael Kaminski to give credit for everything good about the original three films to somebody, anybody, besides George Lucas. It was Ralph McQuarrie, Gary Kurtz, it was Lawrence Kasdan, Irvin Kersher, Marcia Lucas, it was maybe the craft service guy, but it was most definitely not the guy who wrote, directed, and originated the entire thing. Kaminski makes baroque conspiracy theories about how Lucas has lied about the development of all of the films, based on the fact that Kaminski has “uncovered” that the story did in fact evolve over the different script drafts and didn’t originate fully formed in the version that Lucas has chosen to finally present. The way that fans are able to twist reality to fit their preferred version of events is displayed in fact that he presents these revelations as “secret” when he has no special access of any kind and all of his research is based on information readily made available by Lucas and Lucasfilm themselves.Almost all those other contributors I mentioned did in fact make important contributions to Star Wars, but to say that their contributions negate Lucas’, or that it means that these films are not Lucas’ creations, simply displays a basic ignorance of how art is created.Everything about Star Wars- The love of fast cars, the Saturday matinee influences, the Kurosawa influences, the Joseph Campbell influences, the daddy issues, the editing style, all of it- this is George Lucas’ life on screen. Star Wars is what happens when you take his life experiences, things that he absorbed and that inspired him, and throw them in a pot together. The stew that happens is Star Wars.This is how any work of art happens, really. Film is of course an especially collaborative medium, but in any work of art, even a novel, every person that enters the artist’s life directly or indirectly has an effect on the person that they are and the life experiences they are drawing upon to create their art. This does not mean that the novel doesn’t have an author. Those other people are influences, but the artist is the final arbiter, the lens through which those experiences are combined into a piece of art. Not all Star Wars fans feel that way, obviously. They’ve even created a feature-length documentary, The People vs. George Lucas, to present their case, without any apparent irony, that Lucas should be held accountable to them, and that he owes it to the fans to make the movies he is told to make. If you’d like to see a long parade of people who have never created anything in their lives talk about how they know more about making movies than the guy who made movies they are obsessed with does, then go ahead and check it out, but I’m not responsible for the headache it could create. When you judge a piece of art, the criteria you’re supposed to use is how closely the artist achieved their goals. If you don’t like musicals, that’s fine. That doesn’t mean that all musicals are bad. They could be a very well done example of something that you don’t enjoy. There’s a fine line there many people struggle to understand, which is the difference between talking about the piece of art, and talking about yourself and your own tastes and emotions. George Lucas isn’t interested in traditional story structure. This should be obvious if you’ve seen THX or American Graffiti. In fact, he’s actively interested in subverting traditional story structure, and in completely non-narrative films. They’ll point out that Lucas wasn’t the director of episodes V and VI… which just illustrates a lack of knowledge of how those films were made. The directors contributed, especially Kershner, but they were hired by Lucas to make his movie for him. Lucas also worked with other screenwriters, but the story and situations originated from him, and he was the final arbiter and had final cut, too. From beginning to end, they were his films and he was in control, no matter how many other people worked with him, and everybody knew that. The argument is grasping at straws. Hmmmmm… Tough call.There’s the big one, of course, which is Han not “shooting first…” This change doesn’t actually alter the movies any more than a dozen others, but people like to cling to it because they can say that it’s not just a change to the effects, it’s a change to the character and his story, and this makes it look like their concerns about the changes to the films come from their place as high minded cultural critics with a deep insight into narrative, rather than, say, their desire for the movie to always look like it did when they were six.The thing with this change is that it’s barely a change at all. Greedo was always ABOUT to shoot Han. It’s there in the dialog. He means to shoot Han and kill him in every version of the scene. Han never has shot Greedo in cold blood. That scene doesn’t exist except in the minds of some particular butthurt man children obsessed with a movie. So if Greedo always meant to shoot Han, the only difference is that in the altered versions he gets a shot off, and Han’s actions and motivations are identical. So then why change it? It’s just a clarification. The idea that Greedo was about to shoot Han is clear from the dialog, but not as obvious visually, and as always Lucas wants these films to operate on a visual level first. Regardless of that you can say that if, functionally, Han’s motivations in both versions are the same, then the clarification is unnecessary. Which is funny, because that’s where the people complaining about the change prove Lucas’ point for him, since it should have been clear and easy to understand before the change, but it obviously wasn’t since these people, 18 years after the Special Editions came out, are still struggling to wrap their heads around it.
honestly one of Seth biggest problems, across all of his stuff from Family Guy to his movies, is jokes never ending, I have a theory that he runs a joke untill he thinks its funny/ funny enough
I think he mentioned this once, that the joke where Peter falls down and hurts his knee then nurses it for like a solid minute of screen time was such a hit with fans that he spent a lot of his career trying to recreate that, and whenever anyone complains about too many drawn-out anti-jokes in Family Guy he will claim that this is what the show was always about, even though quite a few people don't like the show after that point.
@@handsomebrick well that was the time to not listen to the fans or maybe analyse just why it worked in that case and if it could actually work all the time
LazerDog Laz yeah, well, that’s like, your opinion man. After the eighth time it gets really boring and cheap run time IMHO. It’s like a visual Wilhelm Scream.
@@RubenGarcia-rt7us have you ever seen George Bush painting? It's sad in a way when people insist on fields theyre really bad at when they're otherwise highly talented
There is a rule in comedy movies most people are unaware of. Never stop telling the story to tell a joke. Look at Back to the Future, there is no scene or even really a line that you could remove from the movie. Same thing with Ghostbusters. Even (the good) John Huges movies aren't strong on narrative, but every scene works together to tell a larger narrative. Even Airplane never really stops the movie to tell a joke. Pretty much all the gags happen inside the narrative of the story. Stryker talks about his drinking problem then pours water on his face. That's funny, but it never stops the story. Lots of modern comedies dont seem to understand this concept.
gplechuckiii Ralph covered exactly what you mentioned in his Ghostbusters 2016 video regarding the comedy. He compared the original and reboot versions and said that the original was so much better at the comedy due to the fact that the film had a competent and decent script and the story and jokes intertwined naturally with each other without any awkward stops to tell a joke.
See that's a big issue for Seth because that is his whole fucking shtick. 80% of the jokes in Family Guy are "Hey remember that time we ..." then cut to a scene that has nothing to do with the plot this episode for a cheap laugh.
Isaac Cruz Your forgetting his *classic* joke “see this reference, this is a different property that you know being shown in MY property, doesn’t that remind you of this piece of media that is way funnier or better than mine”
@@deinVater9983 Not to mention “guy got dumped or divorced, and his spouse replaced him with a larger, presumably black man” or “repeated action that goes on for 30 seconds in pure silence”
@@courier6960 and the racist jokes too. "Oh look this guy's black isn't that funny?," oh look at that guy he's Asian and he's doing stereotypical Asian stuff isn't that funny?"
I think that rants usually mean people rant without reason. I think that when Ralph does it, it's because he reads a thought out script, but he gets into the acting mood and starts ranting accidentally.
Ryan Reynolds is a running gag in MacFarlene films I believe. He was in Ted for about 5 seconds too. In the commentary they said the joke was they had Reynolds but they weren't even using him.
Tonyis2lazy2writehis2names I see the comparison but no, it's not. Nobody in the common audience looks at Reynolds and goes "I wish I had Ryan Reynolds" I agree the joke isn't funny, but that comparison isn't really there.
You wanna know how to make this move almost 100% more funny than it is? Switch the roles of Ryan Reynolds and Seth MacFarlane and boom almost guaranteed to be a much better movie.
Seth McFarland plays a good unlikeable but still funny side character, but he’s only funny as a side character. Imagine if Brian was the main character of family guy: it would be completely awful.
Samuel James Whittaker Having the writer/producer/director show up for five seconds, not say a word, then get killed might actually be a funny quick gag.
Wasn't one of them an expert on the Medieval Ages and King Arthur and that's why it is the way it is? Like you gotta know the rules to know where to break them
"I'm the guy in the crowd making fun of the hero's shirt" Then be *that,* holy shit. The reason we don't have movies about those people is because they turn out like this movie!
Honestly, you can have films about those people, but it's not a good idea to force them into the role of a typical hero, as it can feel forced and uncomfortable, as it does here.
I think that it also works better when there's an actual typical hero for the cynical character to react to, rather than shooting them in the gut as a weak gag.
The fact that he can get away with showing such long unbroken clips without copyright strikes just goes to show that NO ONE gives a shit about this movie
Seth isn't even a character in this movie. He's literally just a guy who narrates stuff that's happening around him. He makes the basic mistake of telling instead of showing
TheCephalon and to make things worse, like he does in fuckin family guy he plays himself, and just like in real life he’s a pretentious prick who gets off to his Own farts
Another interesting side note, in the scene where McFarlane and Theron are using one of those sharpshooting games where you win prizes, you can actually see Ewan McGregor as one of the spectators. A very good actor who isn't even mentioned at all in the film, he's literally an extra.
Which makes me even more pissed because I watched this movie before I even knew what “a Django” was. Which is in and of itself a way better Western with some great comedic writing in it that can rival a lot of comedy movies nowadays
8:05 This scene is being filmed by several cameras, contains multiple major actors, and is being worked on dozens of hard working crewmen, and is filled with numerous extras. All the while it is being overseen by 2 other producers. How in God's name did this scene even make it into the film. How is every single person in this scene not thinking to themselves, "dear, god, I'm embarrassed to even be associated with this film, let alone be on camera." I mean, just imagine how horribly awkward it must have been to act out that scene. To have no sound effects except Neil Patrick Harris grunting, and just be standing there, waiting for this painfully long and pointless scene to be over.
Just imagine a casting director reading through Neil's resume in 2015: CD: So, what major role you did last year? Neil: Yeah, I shat in a hat for nearly two minutes straight. CD: Umm... alright...
Das The Saucemaster yea and the fact that back to the future 3 is set in 1885 in California, whereas this is set in Arizona in 1882. and yes I got that from half in the bag, and I prefer their theory that this movie was made because MacFarlane wanted to make a movie about Amanda seyfried and Charlize Theron fighting over him
Wrong. Seth saw Adam Sandler getting with ANY actress he wanted in his movies, including all the Jessicas, the Underworld girl Kate Beckinsale and so on. They made this entire movie for him to get to know Theron better.
Idk i thought that scene was the funniest one. Just cause of the interaction between nph and the guy with the hat. Not the stupid pooping sound effects
@@famowx hell, he even played the one man from How I Met Your Mother, who’s a womanizer. I didn’t even know he was gay until someone else told me out of their own surprise. All because of that role. Kinda crazy.
I am glad I actually have seen someone give Sandler some points. I agree completely that he can be very good when he puts any level of effort into a performance, otherwise he is quite terrible, he ruined himself.
Le Leedler I just don't get it though. Why doesn't he put any effort into his work? He can actually be funny, and I'm sure he can make just as much money actually putting in effort
Those scenes were probably so painfully long for the same reason Seth voices half of the characters on his shows: he really likes to hear himself talk.
The thing that would be great is in the middle of some chase scene or something in the climax, they then use footage from a scene in back to the future 3 and digitally put then fighting in the background of it. Like what they did at the end of Deadpool 2
I was diagnosed with cancer when I was 25, and I still think it’s funnier than this shit. Seriously, though, cancer sucks. I went through chemo for four months. I don’t wish that shit on anyone. Kinda like this movie.
Pundit07 ah, it happens. I could have gotten a worse diagnosis than the one I did, and I’m in remission right now. The longer I go without signs of it appearing again, the better my prognosis. I’m hopeful about it. Thank you.
I've never seen the movie but I sure as hell won't see it now. Just those small clips were enough to tell this movie sucks. I've never thought crude humor was very good (because I'm not fucking 12) but I could maybe get a few chuckles if it was properly placed. But this movie is nothing but fart, piss and shit jokes. The movie has clearly stepped over the border of being funny, and run head long into being just gross and disgusting. When I see the piss, shit, and fart jokes, I don't laugh. In fact it doesn't even register to me that it's meant to be a joke. It's just fucking gross and I wish it would stop is the only thing I'm thinking of.
CriiRye my family members wanted to see this movie when it came out so I came along, I can't remember much, but the story was atrocious, the comedy was mediocre at the most, and the characters where incredibly stereotypical.
***** Oh come on, the thing where Peter tries to pick up the frog with the box. I really liked that one. There were other, worse, gags but I thought they were fine.
Nah man, some stuff in Family Guy overstay their welcome. There was a video of some guy singing (not animation, a real life singer) and they showed all of it, there's also a Mickie Jager clip they said was the gayest thing ever, and they showed the WHOLE fucking thing. American Dad does a much better show, they don't treat their audience like retards who can't look up what reference they are doing on Google.
CaptainKster this movie also brought in almost double the revenue in box office sales though. While your comedic taste may vary between individual preference, this film did better in sales.
Brad Jones of The Cinema Snob had a great idea that Seth McFarlane should've had the climax of "Back to the Future Part III" with the Delorean on the railroad going on in plain sight in the background during the finale of this movie. Now that would've made Christopher Lloyd's cameo make sense lol.
The Family Guy brand of comedy of relying on gross-out, long unfunny dialogue where a character complains about something, and random silly crossover cameos is on full display in this movie
I won't lie, when Neil Patrick's character started reaching for the hat the second time in the diarrhea scene, and the guy was knocking his hand away, it got a little chuckle out of me. But then the rest of that scene was garbage.
Brian is the voice of reason and a cool talking dog, not a Gary Stu. This guy, the main character in "A Million Ways to Die in the West", he's a Gary Stu, and a hateful prick.
The endless dragging out of a joke seems to be a recurring feature of MacFarlane's work, at least I've seen him do it a couple of times. Including Family Guy. I guess he's going for the comedy through repetition thing where you repeat a joke to the point of in being funny again. This can work but you need very good comedic chops to make it work. Sadly, Seth MacFarlane is a hack.
Stewart Lee is the best at this. Bit of an unfair comparison though cos he's one of the best comedians currently alive and Macfarlane is a hack fuck moron.
"Brad Jones of The Cinema Snob had a great idea that Seth McFarlane should've had the climax of "Back to the Future Part III" with the Delorean on the railroad going on in plain sight in the background during the finale of this movie. Now that would've made Christopher Lloyd's cameo make sense lol." --Feline Fatale
@@channel4ripoffcompany404 a lot of it is overblown. Yes he did something wrong but people were literally trying to put him on the same level as harvey weinstein. Which was totally unfair
@@iimmannii she didn't defend him, she said he asked if he could do it with her and she said yes, but made a point of saying her experience didn't invalidate others and that what he did was shitty
This review was funnier than the fuckin' movie. Imagining a script saying "Niel Patrick Harris shit into a hat for 20 minutes" is funnier than seeing it onscreen because it's surprising. Nobody would ever write that with the expectation of making it happen. Seeing the scene happen is somehow predictable.
I’m sorry to hear that... it must have been hard to sit through this movie. On a real note, if your for real diagnosed with cancer I hope everything goes well
God the dialog has so much modern slang and sensibility to it that i can't help but be constantly pulled out of the setting. Feels so off and wrong when they don't react the way they should to various things in this film, why does Seth's character know about the silver miners?, it hurts.
Seth's honestly a talented guy on the whole, but he just tries to take on so many things that pretty much everything ends up terrible. If he wanted to full ass everything he would need some kind of time machine to live everyday 3 times over, so instead he just ends up having to half-ass everything and jump to the easiest solution. It wouldn't be so bad if he felt more capable of delegating control of his projects to other people that are more capable of, say, directing, producing, etc. He just seems to take too much pride in his role in every single section of the credits to ever grant that kind of democratically creative atmosphere. Purely speculation of course, but not, I suspect, far off
It really is disappointing how Seth works so hard and yet is undermined by his demand to adhere to his style and his alone. Sorry if I repeated something you said.
@Emperor Swagatine I mean, I don't know about that. While I don't find family guy all that funny either, it definitely has its audience, and just going by how hard the guy seems to work and how multi-talented he is, I don't think it luck was the only factor in his success, maybe just the biggest factor. His self-depracation seems more like another part of his humour, just like repetition and pointless references and cutaway gags.
Seth in the editing room: Editor: "Hey Seth, this scene here, of Neil Patrick Harris' character taking a long diarrhea shit in front of the whole village, you sure you want it to be that long?" Seth: "Oh yeah, it's going to be hilarious." Editor: "Okay, but it's like, an entire 60 seconds of just that, without anybody saying a single word, and silently staring at him dealing with his explosive bowels, are you sure?" Seth: "Oh yeah, it's going to be hilarious." Editor: "But, I mean, it just gets a little tiresome, and after a while you just feel bad for the guy, even if he is a prick." Seth: "Oh yeah, it's going to be hilarious." Editor: "Maybe if we just make the scene 5-10 seconds, instead of a minute, you let the audience know what's going on, without making them feel uncomf-" Seth: "I SAID IT'S GOING TO BE HILARIOUS YOU BASTARD!" Editor: "GOD DAMNIT SETH I'M TRYING TO TELL YOU IT'S NOT FUNNY IT'S JUST FUCKING AWKWARD AND ANNOYING YOU ASSHOLE!" Seth: "I MADE FAMILY GUY AND TED I'M FUNNY!" Editor: "FUCK THIS DO YOUR OWN EDITING!"
Sometimes working hard is simply not enough. His costar on this movie said in an interview that Seth is at his very best in this movie, and I can't shake the feeling that she was stealth insulting him by implying "this is the best he can do, this shit on the screen will NEVER improve beyond diarrhea jokes."
ismellrudolph yeah....just don't make a film. if you can't open yourself up to critism from regular people all over the internet, then its not really meant for you, it seems.
There's a standard pseudonym in Hollywood that many directors have used when they don't want to be associated with a particular work: www.imdb.com/name/nm0000647/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm They've used it for decades to distance themselves from a movie when it, ahem, doesn't turn out the way they envisioned it. It's mostly a running joke in Hollywood at this point.
Seth should've leaned towards the Mel Brooks style of filmmaking and have some meta-humor thrown in here or there. Like that nighttime desert scene that pissed Ralph off so much; just end the scene with the two of them getting up, Seth turns toward the camera and says "C'mon guys." Then the camera shifts to see the crew turn off a dozen lights and packing everything up before following Seth down the hill. It would be funny!
Seth Macfarlane is one of those rare instances where he works best with people around him controlling what he's doing. I know this because before he made family guy, he wrote Johnny Bravo. As long as he has someone telling him what's wrong or giving certain limitations, he can do amazing stuff. That's also why Family Guy turned from decent to complete shit, because seasons one and two had set rules of what Seth can and can't do on his show.
A Million Ways to Die in the West was Seth MacFarlane's first shot at doing live action and taking on so many roles behind the scenes and on screen was never a good move on his part. He cannonballed straight into completely foreign territory and it didn't work. At all. If you look at his most recent live action project, The Orville, it's clear he's started to find his footing in the new medium. I don't think A Million Ways to Die in the West was so much an ego thing, but rather Seth being overambitious. He knows it was a bad movie. He's taken a jab or two at it on Family Guy. Hell, he's outright called himself a talentless douche numerous times throughout the series.
Unknown I never said it was. In Ted, Seth was a voice actor. A Million Ways to Die in the West was his first live action film where he was in front of the camera.
I agree with most of your points, but Monty Python and the Holy Grail is more authentic to real life in the Dark Ages than most any other film committed to celluloid, besides the silly visuals & jokes. There really WAS a man with a cart collecting the week's dead. Peasants really DID "farm" mud, etc. All of that stuff was quite authentic. That movie is funny because of the talent--obviously--plus the restrictions on budget, time, etc. They made the film work, regardless of limitations. They flourished in spite of the obstacles, while staying true to their vision. It's absurd, authentic, and hilarious, all at the same time. Seth MacFarlane does not possess that sort of discipline, especially when he's given carte blanche. Plus, Terry Gilliam/Jones are real filmmakers. And while Seth is a multi-threat in the talent department, filmmaking isn't one of them. This movie sucks.
It’s funny because the two Terrys absolutely HATED each other and the whole production by the end of it all, but they still managed to make a movie and make it good because that’s what professionals do
No there wasn't. I've seen the movie and while yes it is funny, no it is not authentic. People have a small "epcot" level of understanding the middle age period, which literally lasted for about a thousand years. It's easy to see why, most of us get our medieval knowledge from Arthurian epics or disney movies or other romanticized stories. Deadcarts existed yes, but that was in times of plague when normal means of burial become strained. No peasants didn't just farm mud, that obviously can't provide for an extended family. They actually had a lot of local diversity in their food, well enough to support their families and the taxes they had to pay. I don't fully remember the movie but I think the armor was done properly for a crusades-era film, plate armor wasn't really a thing until the late middle age period.
Monthy Python And The Holy Grail looks like shit? Are you fucking high? It has that gritty look most medieval/ fantasy films had at the time, with all the smoke, dirt and everything.
I mean, you can't really say that if the movie was made in the 70's, but MPATHG was still a very funny movie. Although, the movie was made to look bad on purpose to make it even funnier, which worked.
MPATHG looked bad (probably purposely) but that added to the wackiness of the film and had a better effect. His point was that seth shoud have either went with one extreme of looking super gritty and realistic or super crappy and low budget rather than trying to balance them because one or the other would have a fuller effect depending on what type of feel he wanted to have.
It’s funny when Ralph starts describing Seth because it sounds a lot like what you would say about Brian. I always thought Brian was him self projecting.
Surprise. surprise, surprise. Seth McFarland used the same level of humor he pretty much always does (gross out humor, pointless cultural references and some idiot pointing things out about society) and it was terrible. The only thing I don't understand is why is it that "American Dad" while suffering being on TBS seems to actually be funnier than everything else with his name on it? I mean yeah some of the plots have been kind of week in the last season or so but it still manages to be way funnier than the rest of his output. Maybe a big part of his trouble is working on too much at once and maybe he needs to back off some stuff.
Eren Jaegar Not sure that effects my point. He has some hits and some misses but the general tone of all of the stuff he works on (regardless of if he actually writes it or just comes up with the ideas) is always the same. It boils down to gross out humor, shock humor and pop culture references. That's what he does. Sometimes he's good at it, other times not so much but no one can pretend they don't know this and act surprised when they watch something he's involved with and that's what it is. We should all, pretty much, know what we're getting at this point.
Probably because it was co-created Matt Weitzman. Evidently McFarlane even credits Weitzman (wikipedia but still) for it's success. It's a shame he hasn't worked on anything else.
Joponyhere I'm glad of that because while "Family Guy" is stale as a month old potato chip, "American Dad" is still funny. Granted some of the actual stories, since movie to TBS, are not that strong but the jokes still are and Roger hasn't become an annoying shadow of his former self.
Near the ending when you were complaining about the fart jokes, the editing you used actually made me laugh when the guy said "That came out my penis". Normally that'd infuriate me, but that just proves that editing makes the movie, and Seth does not understand that.
I saw five minutes of on tv the other night and I couldn't stand it. The only reason I let it go for five minutes was morbid curiosity. I kept waiting for something funny to happen.
@GallifreyanFox42 I'm not saying that the Chris Farley movies are hilarious or comedic masterpieces but most of this movie just made me hate Seth's guts.
@GallifreyanFox42 Some of it might be just generational humor or something. I watched a lot of chris Farley with my older siblings as a kid, whereas a lot of people grew up with Family Guy and American Dad as their main source of comedy. Farley could definitely be obnoxious, but I think I just loved how wholeheartedly he threw himself into every act. Like how the motivational speaker skits on snl cracked up the other actors, and he kept going.
Idk Ralph's schtick used to be whinging about how shit films were but you know he was kind of kidding but it's been going on long enough you start to think he's smoking his own shit
@@commentcopbadge6665 I think it's fair, he's using his own student film to show that he can do a music cue better than McFarlane can. *King Candy* isn't horrible, it's an interesting concept because that's what clubs in my high school did, sold candy as a fundraiser.
V HAS COME TO I actually liked the part where he was drunk and went to his Ex-girlfriends house... "You're being a fucking jerk!" "K, see you tomorrow!"
As someone who spent seven months straight in the desert, you absolutely can see by the light of the stars and moon. People did that shit for centuries.
Wanetta Renay Adam Sandler makes movies for 50 year olds. Do you notice how every movie he makes now talks about how good the 80s were and plays montage music.
To me it seems like Seth is too much of a workaholic. With everything that he does for his shows and these movies, it's a miracle that he hasn't hit burnout. He needs to take a break and reflect on his style of humor.
The Cornetto trilogy is probably one of my favorite movie series of all time. Each one has so much care put into it and to top it off they're funny as hell without resorting to using cheap bullshit.
Word. Those movies are what MacFarlane tries to do: funny homages to things he loves. But Edgar Wright actually made homages, whilst MacFarlane just steals stuff.
This movie left me with an incredibly strange feeling because Liam Neeson and Charlize Theron's characters felt super misplaced in this. Either they're too good at acting or they didn't get the memo that this was supposed to be a comedy. When you actually fear the villain and fear for the victim, and then in the next scene there's a guy getting pissed on by a sheep, or another guy parading his moustache like it's a Ferrari and making every woman wetter than a... well, a guy who's just been pissed on by a sheep, it just feels wrong. The tone of this movie is wrong, the self-casting by McFarlane is wrong, the script is wrong. There's nothing salvageable here. I dislike Family Guy in general, but it should be more than obvious even for those who enjoy the show - and especially for those who make it - that animation works differently than live action, and it requires a different approach. What makes you chuckle when it's done by an animated character probably won't make you chuckle when it's a real actor doing it. It doesn't translate. Which is why the live action remakes by Disney suck, btw.
I agree! Those two are too talented for this awful movie. I feel bad that egotistical Seth had to rope them into it, especially Liam Neeson. I adore Liam Neeson.
rodster6 Definitely not, I've seen tons of people shit on his work. Personally find family guy hilarious most of the time and american dad occasionally but that's about it for me.
Adam Sendler good actor? Dude in every single movie acted same person-himself, sometimes it just happens to be version of him that is mentally challenged.
