data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/49df3/49df31d5e0bd7bd727fd01d97d5c5c5525cd89d2" alt=""
-August 11, 2010
I rated this show positively a couple years ago, but only 3/5 stars. Watching it again, I'm changing that to 4/5. Greg Fitzsimmons has claimed that Bob Odenkirk's directing ruined the performance, and I might see what he's getting at. The camera zooms in and out. It pans across the stage. The audience's heads show-up on screen, even crossing Gould in parallax as the angle of the shot shifts. The audio has more echo than the smallish room needs. It's not bad direction, it's just a noticeably filmed set. I like that it highlights Gould's shifting and starting rhythm. There's a controlled mania there.
That is another really weird thing I developed from my father: just this bizarre genetic inability to create muscle tone. I barely eat. I could do sit-ups all day. I stand up: I'm still built like a condom full of walnuts.
Leukemia will still be there. Multiple sclerosis will be fine. We've gotta crack the old guy boner draught!
To me, you can just feel that the people who made Airplane! were just, were really into it and were just you know just love these dumb jokes and were like, 'Look at all these dumb jokes everybody. Isn't this so funny? Aren't we all just having fun?' Whereas like, those disaster movies just feel like cheap cash-ins, they feel really lazy.
But are you sure that it's that and it's not just because at the time, that we were a little bit more just impressed with it at the time that it was happening?That we were younger and therefore more susceptible to laughing at those things? And now there's an establishment associated with it that there isn't associated with the disaster movies.