Patrick McGinlay's Internet Tendency

- - - -


February 21, 2003

- - - -


A review of the film "Analyse That" I read not too long ago said, "If anyone is to analyse this latest outing, it should be De Niro and Crystal, who would be well advised to don their Mafioso personas and shoot the writers. And the director."

Now, not only did this reviewer not check that the writer and director were the same person but in fact none other than one of the best comedic actors I have seen: Harold Ramis.

For those of you who do not know who Harold Ramis is, let me throw out a couple of hints - Animal House, Meatballs, Caddyshack, Stripes, Ghostbusters... jogged your memory yet? No? Well, Harold was responsible for the writing all of these great films, directing some of them as well. These films have been considered some of the greatest comedies of our time and yet this reviewer wanted him shot.

Before anyone says, "That's one opinion and why should you care?", I respond to you with the fact that I too saw this film and took my father with me. Now for those who don't know my family, let me tell you that my father hates bad films and especially bad comedies, so I thought the best person to test this reviewer's opinion would be him. Lo and behold: my father loved this film, he couldn't stop laughing in some parts. With this knowledge at hand I decided to write this piece to defend against bad reviewing and stupid fucked up comments.

Also Harold was part of the cast of Second City Television, a sketch comedy show set in a fictitious TV station in 1976, this show has been considered one of the best comedy shows of all time. There he met other great comedians like John Candy and Eugene Levy, another fine comedy actor who often isn't acknowledged for his work.

The point, my friends, is that reviewers A) Should check their facts
before insulting people like Harold Ramis, and B) Don't try to be funny by saying the people who made the film should be shot. Because then I demand that once they're done they should go after you. In my opinion this film was quite good and once again showed how talented Harold Ramis is.



If it were up to me, this piece would be called "WHY LOUISE KELLER SUCKS". She's the reviewer who wrote the "writers and director should be shot" thing quoted above. It's a harsh thing to say. I imagine if I wrote something like "Louise Keller is the worst movie reviewer I have ever come across, and Andrew Urban would be well advised to kick her ass to the curb, then shove a stake through her heart to make sure she doesn't rise again", I would be criticised for it. And rightfully so, because it's a nasty thing to say.

The only proper way for a movie reviewer to insult a moviemaker is by drawing attention to their ON-SCREEN missteps. For instance, if I wanted to insult Harold Ramis, I might wonder loudly what possessed him to get involved with sequels to both "Ghostbusters" and "Caddyshack". But I would never say that, because (1) I respect Harold Ramis immensely, because (2) I didn't mind "Ghostbusters II" and because (3) I haven't seen "Caddyshack II".

Similarly, the proper way for a moviemaker to insult a movie reviewer would be to draw attention to their LOUSY WRITING. If Harold Ramis were to point out that Louise Keller is a humongous brown-nose who bases the content of her reviews largely on whether she will be quoted on the movie's poster, and relies far too much on excruciating food-related phrasing like "deliciously quirky" and "a sumptuous feast for the senses", nobody would complain. He's foregone the personal attacks and insulted her professional conduct and writing skill.

Of course, Harold Ramis wouldn't bother. He's too classy for that.

Ramis has been consistently funny for a very long time, as both a writer and actor. He writes funny films, he is funny onscreen (as recently as 2002's "Orange County"), and he's -- at the very least -- a serviceable director. He wrote, directed and appeared in "Groundhog Day", which is perhaps his (and star Bill Murray's) artistic peak. Coming, as it did, a good 17 years after he first appeared on television, and 13 years after he directed his first movie ("Caddyshack"), it is obvious that Harold Ramis is in it for the long haul, is not headed for arrogant oblivion like contemporary Chevy Chase, and is surely not a man to be underestimated, much less shot.

I haven't seen "Analyse That", though. Is it any good?


- - - -