At first, this commercial for the Santa Fe didn't make much sense to me:
This kid has a group of friends who seem to be freakishly strong. What's even more confusing is how they come running to help him as soon as he shows up. How did they know what he wanted?
It finally made sense when I realized who the child was: Charles Xavier!
The boy in this commercial is obviously a young Professor X. He used his mutant telepathy to locate other mutants who could help him out. And the reason they already seem to know what's going on is because he contacted them psychically and asked them for help.
And just who are these junior X-Men that he has assembled?
The Brawn Brothers - Two brothers with amazing strength!
Welder - With the power to construct any device! (Want more proof that this is really Charles Xavier? Look at what Welder is building. It looks a lot like Professor X's Cerebro machine.)
Phyla - He can channel the power of any animal on Earth!
Asbestos - The Fireproof Boy!
Together, they shall join together and vanquish the evil bullies who have stolen Xavier's ball!
Now you might be wondering why Xavier didn't just use his powers against the bullies and be done with it.
That's a good question, but it is consistent with Xavier's behavior in the comics. Why use your powers to stop the bad guys when you can recruit a group of super-powered children to do the job for you?
Rating - 4 TVs - This commercial has gotten me quite excited to see the next X-Men movie. Good job Hyundai!
The next Super Bowl commercial up for review comes from Speed Stick:
After waiting a long time for a dryer, a man becomes impatient, takes someone else's clothes out, and throws them on the floor.
I think he was quite justified in doing so.
In a communal laundry setting, it is common courtesy to remove your clothes in a timely manner. By washing your clothes at a laundromat, you're basically agreeing to a social contract that says, "I will remove my clothes soon after they are done, or I run the risk of having them thrown on the floor."
Unfortunately, he is caught in the act by the owner of the laundry, and she happens to be an attractive woman.
I think this is the root of the problem. Being an attractive woman, she is probably used to getting her way. If she wants to let her clothes linger in the dryer, then everyone should just accept that her clothes shall linger.
She is probably shocked that someone would dare throw her majestic laundry onto the floor. This is probably one of the worst insults she has ever suffered.
I mean, shouldn't she find it strange that a random stranger is offering to fold her laundry? I guess when you live in "Attractive Woman Land" you expect people to do these kinds of things for you.
And when you're done folding, carry them to my apartment!
What a f***ing princess. Rating - 2 TVs - What is Speed Stick trying to tell us here? That we should just bow to the wishes of attractive women? I don't think so, Speed Stick.
The Super Bowl has come, and the Super Bowl has gone. Now there's nothing left to do but debate whether or not that should have been a holding call.
Or we could talk about the commercials. That's always fun too.
I thought that this year's game featured a particularly weak crop of commercials. You might think that would make my job easier. You might think that bad ads are more easily mockable, and so that would give me much more material to write about.
But my goal is not to mock. My goal is to analyze and review. Sure, I'll mock the mockable, but that really isn't what I set out to do. At least not usually.
Despite the disappointing fare, I'm still going to power through and deliver some reviews. The first ad I'll look at comes from Cars.com:
Let me get this straight: The car dealership has a wolf on-site so that they can provide their customers with drama?
How could anyone have thought this was a good idea? Didn't they watch The Grey?
Admittedly, I didn't watch it either. But I know the basic storyline: Liam Neeson fights wolves, because wolves are horrible, predatory creatures who would like nothing better than to tear into the flesh of a human being.
Even if you didn't see The Grey, surely you remember children's fairy tales like Little Red Riding Hood and The Three Little Pigs. The basic moral was the same: Wolves are evil, and must be destroyed at all costs.
It seems like the dealership is going to cost themselves a sale. First of all, I don't think I'd want to buy a car from a dealership that has a live wolf roaming the grounds. Even if I did still want to buy the car, I probably wouldn't be able to, because I would likely be attacked and killed by the wolf.
Shouldn't the dealer be more concerned? He's the one who's been keeping the wolf cub captive. Isn't he the first person that the wolf would attack?
It's actually kind of amazing that the couple even made it this far into the process considering that there is A WOLF ROAMING FREE THROUGH THE OFFICE! The chances of the wolf not attacking any of the customers is insanely small, especially since the wolf has already been provoked by the abduction of its young.
I hope whoever came up with this idea was fired. Or better yet, they should feed the person to the wolf so that it doesn't maim or kill any of the customers.
I can't emphasize enough how bad of an idea this was
Rating - 1 TV - This is really not a good advertisement for Cars.com. Sure the app might help people find a car they want and negotiate the price. But it is clear that the app doesn't provide customers with the most important information that they would need: THE DEALERSHIP THREATENS CUSTOMERS WITH A LIVE WOLF! AVOID AT ALL COSTS!
Before the big game, I wanted to give you one last retro Super Bowl ad. This one is from 2002 and features Jason Alexander.
Alexander stops by a Super Bowl party, and comments on how lackluster it is.
Well isn't he just Johnny Party Snob? You'd think that a famous actor would have something better to do than show up at random Super Bowl parties and make fun of them.
Then again, he does have a point. That party doesn't look especially exciting.
Alexander implies that the reason the party is subpar is because of the food they're eating. I'd say the reason that the party sucks is because it's just four dudes sitting on the couch.
Now, I understand that watching football is a guy thing. We don't necessarily want the women around to get in the way and ask stupid questions like, "You mean the coaches are brothers? Oh that's so cute!"
(By the way, you KNOW there are going to be people who say something like that on Sunday. When they do, try to limit the eye rolling.)
But come on, this is the Super Bowl! We have seventeen weeks of the regular season to be into the games. Unless you really care about one of the teams, the Super Bowl should be about socializing, food, and commercials.
And for a group of guys who wanted to watch the game together, they don't seem to be too into it. Maybe it's a lousy game, but these guys aren't talking to each other, and they barely even seem to be paying attention.
I suspect that these guys aren't actually friends. I'm guessing that their wives or kids are friends, and so their wives forced them all to get together to watch the game, even though they'd probably be somehwere - anywhere - else.
The mood changes in a hurry thanks to the arrival of former NFL stars Jim McMahon and William "The Refrigerator" Perry. The two former Philadelphia Eagles are ready to party, and they brought along some KFC Honey BBQ Wings!
KFC wants us to believe that the wings are the reason for the party's turnaround. But I'm willing to bet that just about any party would be improved by having two NFL players randomly show up.
It wouldn't really matter what kind of food they brought. They could bring nothing but a platter of corn and Doritos, and I'd still think it was pretty awesome.
If KFC really wanted to show how good their product was, they wouldn't have had two former NFL stars bring the wings. They would have had the KFC wings delivered by two people who most guys wouldn't want to watch the game with.
For instance, why not have the wings delivered by Rosie O'Donnell and Fran Drescher? If the party still became good, then I'd believe that the wings can truly make a party awesome.
Who's ready for some football?
Rating - 2 TVs - Sure, the party definitely improved. But did KFC have anything to do with it? Doubtful.
Sometimes when looking back at these ads from the past, I find it difficult to interpret them correctly. While some of them might seem quite dated now, I'm sure they felt modern at the time.
So when reviewing this IBM ad from 1986, I tried to put myself in the mindset of a person living in 1986.
Obviously, 1986 was quite a few years ago, and I was relatively young at the time. So my memories of the time might be a little fuzzy.
If I recall, here was the basic setup: Ronald Reagan was fighting the Communists, Bill Cosby was entertaining the nation every Thursday night, and Falco was educating the world about Mozart.
OK, I think I'm ready to look at this commercial from the 1986 Super Bowl.
We see a few instances where people have misspelled words. Obviously this is quite embarrassing for them. Although in a couple of those cases, I think that a simple proofreading would have saved them from a lot of the embarrassment.
For those of us who can't spell well and can't take the time to review our work, IBM has a solution. They have created a typewriter that will analyze typing and beep if it detects a misspelled word.
What?
How is this possible? A typewriter is just a machine. How could it possibly know what we were typing? Unless...
Oh no. Oh no! Have the machines have gained intelligence? Holy crap! Was The Terminator (which was of course released two years ago) correct? Are the machines self-aware now? Are they preparing to rise up and enslave mankind?
IBM has doomed us all!
We're screwed now
Rating - 1 TV - If you're reading this, that means that I've managed to survive the robot apocalypse. I am assuredly searching for other survivors so that I can form some sort of human resistance movement.
Please wish me luck, and may God have mercy on us all.
Cutter's Note: Since her first ad review was so good, I decided to have Mini-Blonde (Now knowns as Mandy the Mini-Blonde) come back and join in the amazing fun that is Super Bowl Retro Week!
Today, I will be looking at a commercial that first
aired during the 2000 Super Bowl:
As an owner of two kittens and someone who does business
with the federal government, I can relate to both the literal and figurative
messages of this commercial.
My Pretty Kitties
Lint rollers! Yarn! Kitty scratches! Sneezes! Trouble
wrangling things together! I understand all of those things. But what I don’t
understand is what EDS actually does.
Nowadays, I can use my Droid to look up the
company without leaving the couch. In 2000, I would have had to walk over to my
desktop, wait for dial up, and then hope I remembered the company name or the
AOL keyword because I’m sure EDS wouldn’t come up in the Yahoo search results
for “cat herders.” Then again, maybe it did.
Maybe that’s why we Google things now?
I have a problem with a business-to-business company
advertising on the Super Bowl. The competition for attention during the Super
Bowl is so fierce that it’s unlikely that you’ll really resonate with your target
audience.
What if the few people who figuratively needed their
e-business cats herded were distracted by their kids playing Pokemon? Or rejoicing
over AOL’s acquisition of Time Warner by popping opening a can of Surge? Or
trying to figure out how to respond to their friend’s poorly delivered “I see
dead people” joke?
Then all you’re left with is a bunch of
football lovers and their friends who remember that "cute cat commercial," but
not your company.
Surge: Gone but not forgotten
I work for a professional services firm, so I understand how
hard it is to explain in layman’s terms what your company does. So bravo to EDS
for a valiant (and really cute) try.
However, the explanation of EDS in this
commercial is so vague, I could use the same commercial for my firm, and I’m
not sure if they even provide the same services as my firm (I looked it up. They do not).
Despite their flagrant misuse of ad dollars, EDS actually
survived the dot-com bubble burst and went on to be acquired by
Hewlett-Packard. I’m sure many people were laid off, and the person who decided to
buy space for this commercial during the Super Bowl was probably among them.
But this commercial is really, really cute. If cat
herder was a real job, I would be the first in line when an opening became
available.
I wonder where they are herding the cats to? My guesses:
To serve as the front lines to successfully thwart the Great Dog Invasion of 2000.
To a magical place called Cat Mountain where cats always stay kitten-sized and they love to cuddle.
It was most likely none of those things because the last two
don’t exist and the first would be really unsanitary. But maybe, just maybe,
with EDS’s ability to bring together information, ideas, and technology, we
could make Cat Mountain happen.
This Sunday is the Super Bowl. You know what that means? That's right, it's Super Bowl Retro Week here at The Ad Pundit!
For the third year in a row, we're going to take a look at some Super Bowl ads from years past. Why? Because there's nothing quite as awesome as nostalgia.
The first retro ad aired during the 2007 Super Bowl, and I will admit that it was a personal favorite of mine:
We start off normally enough with a couple of lions talking about the campers and their Taco Bell steak grilled tacquitos.
Wait, did I say we started off normally enough? I must have somehow overlooked the fact that HOLY CRAP, THERE ARE TALKING LIONS!
Okay, maybe I should calm down a bit. Maybe this is just a case where the lions are actually speaking some sort of lion language, (Do lions have their own language?) and it's being translated for our benefit.
I kind of understand why they would do that. In all honesty, a commercial featuring a couple of lions growling at each other probably wouldn't be too interesting, and it probably wouldn't do much to push Taco Bell's product.
But if that's the case, why does the lion mention Ricardo Montalban? How would the lions even know who Ricardo Montalban is?
Even if the lions had somehow been able to watch television, there is no way they should have known who Ricardo Montalban is...unless the lions can understand English.
Which brings me back to...HOLY CRAP THERE ARE TALKING LIONS!
Rating - 3.5 TVs - I like this commercial. But I'll be honest with you: I'd really like to know more about how the lions are able to speak and understand English.
I decided to add an extra star to the rating for the excellent voice over work done by the esteemed Mr. Montalban. That man was a class act all the way.
One of the more popular commercials from the Super Bowl was this offering from Doritos:
We're supposed to believe that Doritos taste so good that by using them as a bribe, the dog is able to buy the man's silence.
But I don't think that the Doritos are what's keeping the man from snitching on the dog. I think the man remains silent because he is deathly afraid of the dog.
His fear is probably well founded, as this is obviously not an ordinary dog. Not only is the dog quite large, but he seems to be able to move with great speed and stealth. Look at the way he seems to appear directly in front of the man. You wouldn't expect a dog of that size to be able to sneak up on the man like that.
And perhaps most importantly, the dog is able to write notes in English. This is far beyond the capabilities of most canines.
So we have a super-intelligent, super-fast dog with no qualms about murder. Yeah, I'd say the man has good reason to be scared of the dog. If I were him, I'd probably keep my mouth shut too.
Rating: 2.5 TVs - Doritos seems to be saying that they're the preferred snack chip of intelligent, murderous dogs and the people they threaten. But the commercial doesn't give any indication if the rest of us will enjoy them too.
The next commercial from the Super Bowl to be reviewed is Happy Grad from Chevrolet:
At first, this appears to be just a big misunderstanding.
But upon closer inspection, I think that it was only natural for the grad to get the wrong impression. I believe that the parents, and possibly the neighbor, have conspired to intentionally deceive their son.
Look at the evidence:
If I'm blindfolded before receiving a gift, my expectations are raised. I would expect to see an expensive gift like a new car. Is a mini-fridge really a blindfold worthy gift?
Why did they give him the mini-fridge in the yard? They could have easily brought it into the house.
Why did the neighbor park his car in front of their house? He didn't have a driveway, or there weren't any spots in front of his house? Based on the neighbor's reaction, it seems possible that he was not actually in on it. That might have been the most convenient spot for him to park, and he was just an innocent pawn in the parents' scheme.
Here's the most obvious tell: When the mother brings him outside, she could have brought him directly in front of the mini-fridge. Instead, she placed him so that the first thing he saw would be the car.
It seems clear that this "mix-up" was in fact a deliberate attempt by the parents to mess with their son's mind. They may look worried as he is celebrating his "gift," but they're probably enjoying every last second of it, as they await the inevitable heartbreak that he is soon to suffer.
And while I'm sure he'll be upset at first, eventually the graduate will come to realize that he's better off with the mini-fridge.
I assume that he'll be heading off to college in the Fall. Having a car on campus, especially as a freshman, can be a real hassle. Parking is usually limited, and he'll probably grow tired of people always asking him for a ride.
On the other hand, that mini fridge will probably prove very useful for his dorm room.
And as for the girlfriend who wants to marry him just because he got a new car? Yeah, that relationship probably isn't going to last a month once he goes away to college.
Rating - 4 TVs - I can only assume that as my daughter grows up, I'll look for every chance to mess with her mind. I just hope that one day, an opportunity this great arises.
The big game has been played, a champion has been crowned, and now there's nothing left to do but analyze the commercials!
The first one I'll take a look at is Matthew's Day Off by Honda.
I'm still peeved about these companies pre-releasing their Super Bowl ads on the internet.
I want to see these ads for the first time while watching the game. When everyone has already seen the best commercials ahead of time, it feels like much of the magic is gone.
But as for the ad itself...
Matthew Broderick's career clearly peaked with Ferris Bueller. The role was simply too iconic.
That's probably why he hasn't really been successful as an adult actor. Because no matter what the movie was, we couldn't help but see Ferris Bueller on the screen. As a result, we were disappointed by him.
Ferris wouldn't have allowed himself to be stalked by a cable guy. Ferris would have done more to stop Godzilla!
That's probably also a big reason why those movies fared poorly at the box office. Well, the fact that they sucked also might have had something to do with it.
When it comes down to it, nobody wants to see Ferris as an adult. We want to think of Ferris Bueller as an eternal teenager. We want to think that he always remained the coolest kid around, living life to its fullest and defying authority.
We certainly don't want to see him as a dumpy middle-aged man driving a CR-V, trying in vain to recapture past glory.
And here's the scariest thing about it. Ferris didn't go on to marry his high school sweetheart Sloan. No, this is what Ferris went on to marry:
Well, there goes my appetite.
Thank you for reminding us of that, Honda! Rating: 1 TV - We should all just pretend that this never happened. Don't watch the commercial. Just go put Ferris Bueller's Day Off into the DVD player and watch that instead.
Before the big game, I decided to do one final Retro ad. This commercial from the 2004 Super Bowl comes from Pepsi and is titled Bears.
There are obviously several major problems with the bears' plan.
First, I think they were extremely fortunate that they raided the cabin of a large, hairy man. If the cabin owner had been skinny, non-bearded, or a woman, they wouldn't have been able to use his ID.
I'm also confused why the bears chose to use subterfuge in order to purchase the Pepsi. They had no qualms about breaking into the cabin and raiding it of food. So what's stopping them from simply bursting into the convenience store and taking some Pepsi?
It is possible that they had scouted the cabin and knew that nobody was home, and they weren't going to encounter any resistance. On the other hand, there would obviously be someone working at the convenience store, and they'd have to deal with them in order to get the Pepsi.
Of course this ignores the fact that they're bears! If the clerk or his wife tried to stop them, they could simply maul them, and take all the food and Pepsi they wanted.
Maybe the bears were worried that mauling a convenience store clerk and his wife might draw unwanted attention from the law. But really, haven't they done enough already to merit some intervention by the authorities anyway?
Breaking and entering, robbery, and identity theft are all serious crimes. Perhaps not as serious as assualt or murder, but they are serious nonetheless. I think that these bears are already deep enough in trouble, that they shouldn't have restrained themselves. In fact, by leaving witnesses, they've probably gotten themselves into more trouble. Rating: 3 TVs - Maybe I'm being too hard on them. While their plan may have some flaws, I guess it is pretty ingenious for bears.
Often times, advertisers take beloved cartoon characters and use them to promote their products. It makes sense. People like the cartoon characters, so they'll have good feelings when thinking about the product.
This Pontiac commercial from the 1998 Super Bowl features the Road Runner and his arch nemesis Wile E. Coyote.
The commercial starts out in a familiar manner: The coyote is trying to catch the Road Runner. To gain an advantage, he utilizes technology from the ACME corporation. But the technology backfires, and the Road Runner gets away.
So far, this is just like the cartoons we all used to know and love.
But the next time around, something has changed! This time, Wile has wisely ordered a Pontiac Wide Track. Thanks to the Pontiac, he is able to stay in pursuit and eventually catch up to his feathered nemesis.
Wait a second...aren't we rooting against the coyote? Aren't we supposed to want the Road Runner to escape?
Why the hell did they give the featured product to the cartoon's antagonist? Is this the message they really wanted to send: It helps the bad guys win?
The commercial thankfully ends before we actually see the coyote catch the Road Runner, but it seems obvious how this is all going to eventually play out: The Road Runner is going to be the coyote's dinner.
I'm surprised that Pontiac didn't follow this up with a commercial where Bugs Bunny gets run over by Elmer Fudd's Grand Prix. Rating: 1 TV - If there was anyone out there who had really been clamoring to see Wile E. Coyote finally win, then this commercial is for you. For the rest of the country, I think it might be a little disturbing.
As I was trying to determine which ad to review next, I asked myself: What company do I most associate with Super Bowl ads?
While there are several companies who have produced good ads over the years, I think that overall, the most memorable commercials have been brought to us by Budweiser.
Every year, when people discuss their favorite Super Bowl commercials, a Bud or Bud Light ad is almost always listed among them.
So I figured that for my next review, I'd pick a Bud commercial. But with such a large catalog to select from, which one should I choose?
I went with this ad from 2006, mostly because it reminded me of a personal experience.
We learn that one of the company's employees - Davis - decided to spend his weekend hiding bottles of Bud Light around the office. He claimed that it was done to give his fellow employees a boost in morale.
Why would hiding Bud Light improve morale? If he really wanted to improve morale, shouldn't he have simply put the Bud Light in the break room? Did he think that the Bud Light would somehow be more satisfying if the people discovered it?
When I'm at a bar, I typically don't want to go on a scavenger hunt in order to get a beer. I prefer to have the bartender simply hand it to me. It tastes just as good, and it requires considerably less effort.
I am also confused why hiding the beer took him "most of the weekend." This seems like a task that would take maybe an hour at the most.
Then again, he works at a company that apparently is fine with their employees openly consuming alcohol during business hours. So maybe expectations are a bit lowered there.
I'd say that this is the type of company I'd like to work for, except I don't think I could handle wearing a suit to work every day.
As we can see, Davis' plan hasn't necessarily raised morale, but it has certainly gone a long way towards the destruction of the office.
At 20 seconds in, another question is raised when a man punches holes in the drywall and pulls out a couple of bottles.
How exactly did Davis hide the beer behind the drywall in the first place? Are we to believe that he planted the beer in the wall and then replaced the drywall over the weekend? That seems like a lot of extra effort. Although that would explain why it took him most of the weekend.
Normally, I'd say that the office workers tearing apart the office in search of Bud Light requires too much suspension of disbelief. But based on personal experience, I could see this scenario actually taking place.
In 2009, Mrs. Cutter and I decided to invite some friends over for an Easter party. We decided to fill plastic Easter eggs with candy, coins, and other fun surprises, and then hide them around our condo, so that people could look for them in an Easter egg hunt.
Unfortunately, quite a few of our guests had been drinking beforehand (Don't ask) and when we began the hunt, chaos ensued.
It might not have been the wholesale destruction we see in this commercial, but rest assured that we almost immediately regretted our decision. People tore through our furniture with abandon in hopes of locating a plastic egg that might contain a quarter or a Jolly Rancher.
So I have no trouble believing that these office workers would tear apart their office building in search of beer. And as they drank the beer, I can imagine the madness only got worse.
I'd say that Davis deserved to get fired for this, but considering the company openly condones drinking beer on company time, can they really hold him accountable?
Rating: 4 TVs - This is a very realistic portrayal of what happens when you tell drunk people to search around a room for prizes.
In the days leading up to this year's big game, I'll be taking a look back at commercials from past Super Bowls.
Since I covered 2011's commercials rather extensively last year, I'll start out by looking at an ad from 2010. This one is from Snickers and stars Betty White:
We start off watching a football game in which one of the players is not having a good game.
Apparently his hunger has caused him to transform into Betty White.
Personally, I'd be pretty excited if one of my teammates transformed into Betty White. She's one funny lady, and I can only imagine that having her at the football game would make it that much more memorable.
But Betty - or "Mike" as they call him - is not being appreciated by his teammates. In fact, they seem to be downright mad at him.
I can understand that Betty White might not be the best player out there, but the others should have recognized this long ago, and dealt with it accordingly.
In most pickup games, talent levels can vary greatly. Some players aren't going to be as good as others, and most people accept this. Once the weaker players are identified, those players typically don't get the ball as much. And if there is an effort to get those weaker players involved, expectations are usually lessened.
In other words, if a guy sucks, and you throw him the ball, you shouldn't get too upset when he doesn't catch it.
So they shouldn't have expected Betty to have caught the ball. And they certainly shouldn't have gotten so upset with him considering how off target the pass appears to be. That would have been an amazing catch had he made it.
It feels like there's something else going on here.
Look at how Betty is laid out by the defender. It seemed as if the defender could have intercepted the ball, but instead chose to deliver a big hit.
I think it is very telling that none of Betty's teammates got upset by what appeared to be a cheap shot. In the NFL, that hit probably would have resulted in a fifteen yard penalty.
You'd expect his teammates to be angry about the hit or at least check to see if he was hurt. But none of them even seem to care. They just yell at him for not catching the ball.
It seems clear that none of the other players like this guy, and it has nothing to do with him turning into Betty White.
I think the real cause for their dislike is sitting in the bleachers.
Mike was probably once a fun guy. He could be counted on to hang out with the guys and have a good time.
Now? He's just a whipped loser who can't go anywhere without bringing his girlfriend along.
You know what most guys enjoy when they're arguing with their friends? When their significant others interject themselves into the argument and feed them candy bars.
Yeah, THAT would have gone over well.
Mike should have been spending the rest of the game listening to taunts from the others. They should have been referring to him as "baby," and asking if he "needed a candy bar from mommy," or if he'd like to have his girlfriend sub in for him.
This probably isn't the first time this has happened, so they don't even bother anymore. Instead, they just try their best to get him to quit.
It's very possible that the QB might intentionally be throwing those balls to him in hopes that he'll get knocked out of the game. And the defense is probably hitting him with impunity, knowing that the guy won't retaliate with his girlfriend present.
Everything is supposedly better after he eats a Snickers. But in my opinion, things have gotten much worse.
I can see some advantages in being Betty White. But after he eats the Snickers, he's still whipped by his girlfriend, his friends still hate him, and now he looks and acts like a douche.
After playing like crap all game, he really has the nerve to shout "I'm open?" Who screams "I'm open!" anyway? What a tool.
The commercial's conclusion raises a very important question as well: Why would you make Abe Vigoda your quarterback?
He's 91 years old! They didn't have anyone else who could play QB?
Rating: 1.5 TVs - This commercial is saying that by eating Snickers, you'll transform from a beloved actress into a whipped douche bag. Is that really the message that Snickers wants to send?
This may be my last full Super Bowl ad review before I do a quick round up of some leftover ads tomorrow.
Here is the ad for the Suzuki Kizashi:
At the beginning of the commercial, we see a man driving his Suzuki down a snow covered road. I'd like to give this guy credit for his driving skills. Living in the DC area, most of my fellow motorists do not know how to handle driving in wintery conditions. Faced with this scenario, most of them would just stomp heavily on the brake and skid out.
This guy clearly knows how to drive in the snow. The key is to not overreact, and from the look of things, this guy isn't fazed by much. He comes under seige by an army of demonic snowmen, and yet he doesn't panic.
Let me repeat that: He comes under seige by an army of demonic snowmen and he doesn't panic. And look at the way those snowmen were moving! This was not some leisurely chase. They were definitely coming for him.
Although if we take a closer look, he does seem to make a questionable decision in the face of the snowman attack. He swerves to avoid the snowballs, but I have to wonder if that was really necessary. Wouldn't it have been a better strategy to simply concentrate on staying on the road?
We've already seen the car get hit by a few of the snowballs early on and it doesn't seem to suffer any damage. Yet, if he were to swerve off the road and crash, then he might be faced with some real danger.
Still, I guess I can forgive a little bit of nervousness in this situation. I'm assuming he doesn't get attacked by living snowmen all that often.
Ultimately, he gets away, but I think that had more to do with the poor strategy emplyed by the snowmen rather than any special abilities of his car. If you notice, the snowmen choose to surround him right as he comes to a side path, allowing him to get off the road.
Why didn't the snowmen in front of him wait further back? He still might have turned off the main road, but they would have been able to continue their pursuit. And as we saw, the snowmen can move faster than the car.
Come to think of it, is that such a good message for Suzuki to be sending? "This car does not move as fast as demon snowmen."
Regardless, the guy might have escaped from this attack, but is he truly safe? Are we to believe that this was just an isolated incident of snowmen rebelling against their human creators? Isn't it more likely that these unholy creatures are a product of the apocalypse?
What happens when the car finally runs out of gas? Hopefully he'll have made it to a warmer climate where he won't fear snowmen, but I'm sure there will be other demonic creatures lurking.
There's a good chance that those creatures will attack him with something much more substantial than just snowballs. Wouldn't he better suited with an SUV that might be able to store supplies and withstand some damage?
Come to think of it, if he had a Hummer or something like that, couldn't he have just run over the snowmen and been done with it? Rating: 3.5 TVs - Demonic snowmen are kind of cool, and I like seeing someone actually be able to drive well in the snow. But still, I am left with the impression that the Kizashi truly isn't the best car for this situation.
A lot of people were talking about Chrysler's commercial featuring Eminem:
I guess we're supposed to be moved because Eminem is showing pride in his hometown. And if Eminem can show pride in Detroit, we should all show pride in Detroit. And nothing says "Detroit pride" like driving a Chrysler.
Basically, they're trying to tell us that if we don't buy the Chrysler 200, we're un-American.
Is it just me, or would Eminem's message have more impact if we hadn't seen a cartoon version of him promoting Lipton iced tea earlier in the game?
Do you think he mentioned this fact to Chrysler? "Hey guys, I know you're paying me a ton to be in your commercial, but just to let you know, I'll also be doing an ad for Lipton in which I kind of kill my credibility."
If not, I would have loved to see the look on their executives' faces as they anticipated seeing their ad, only to see them become crestfallen upon watching cartoon Eminem tell us how brisk Lipton iced tea is.
He should have just gone the full mile and worn the Alf shirt.
So now, the reaction that many of us had to the ad isn't "We should all buy a Chrysler!" but rather, "Wow, Eminem really sold out."
Assuming we hadn't just watch cartoon Eminem whore himself out earlier, the commercial might have worked really well. It is clearly trying to be "epic," and for the most part it succeeds. "Lose Yourself" works well in building the mood of the commercial, and the "Imported from Detroit" tagline brings the message home. Rating: 3 TVs - A good commercial, ruined by circumstances.
Pepsi MAX has had a few commercials in the Super Bowl, and they've all been fairly good. In my opinion, this one was the best of the bunch:
I will give this ad a lot of points for realism. This is probably the mindset of just about every person who has ever gone on a first date.
I would like to point out the first thing that the woman wondered: How much does he make?
Yes, this is the most pressing question in her mind. Apparently, how much money a guy makes is more important to women than his relation with his mother and whether he wants kids.
I'm sure this does not come as a surprise to anyone.
By the way, what is with the goofy face that she makes after she wondered if he was the one? Unless he can read her thoughts, then that look is really kind of bizarre. If I was on a date with a woman, and she made that face, I'd be a little weirded out.
Of course, by the end of the commercial, it appears that maybe they can in fact read each other's thoughts. If this is the case, you'd think that they would be doing a better job of hiding their thoughts. If I was on a date with someone who could read my mind, I don't think I would keep thinking "I want to sleep with her."
More likely, he'd be trying to cover his thoughts by thinking of stuff like baseball statistics. Of course, this commercial would have made a lot less sense if the guy was just thinking about baseball stats the whole time.
When the woman gets her Pepsi MAX, the guy's one track mind goes from wanting to sleep with her to wanting her Pepsi MAX.
Why exactly is he so obsessed with getting her Pepsi MAX? They're at a restaurant. She must have just ordered a Pepsi MAX, so what's stopping him from ordering one too?
And wasn't he listening when she ordered the Pepsi MAX in the first place? If he wanted a Pepsi MAX so badly, why didn't he just order one when she did?
It's not like he watched her drink it and saw her enjoy it, prompting his desire to have one as well. No, it was just the arrival of the can that prompted his obsession. Is the can that appealing that it could prompt this kind of desire? The can certainly doesn't appear that spectacular at first glance.
I think it's a bit odd that the waiter just dropped off a can at the table. Wouldn't most restaurants serve their sodas in glasses?
Maybe, they were having some shortage of soda at the restaurant, and they only had a few canned sodas left lying around? If so, I suppose it is possible that this was the last Pepsi Max left, and that would explain why the guy wanted it so badly.
If that is the case, then maybe they should have picked a better restaurant for their date. You'd hate to have poor soda selection at a restaurant ruin a potential relationship. At the very least, I hope they received some sort of discount. Rating: 4 TVs: Aside from the potential mind reading, it's nice to see some realism in a commercial. Men are obsessed with sex and women are gold diggers. That sounds about right.
Another review of a first half ad. This one wasn't quite as good as the Doritos ad:
The guy finishes with a date, gets in his car, and the first thing he wants to do is check Facebook.
I can understand this. In this age of smart phones, people can't seem to go more than a couple seconds without updating their statuses or checking in on Foursquare. So I get that for some people, the ability to check Facebook via voice interface in their car could be appealing.
But are people really going to buy cars just because it can read Facebook updates to them? I mean, while it might be an attractive option, I can't believe they're using this as the main selling point.
I am also a bit skeptical about how accurately the car is going to be able to read things from Facebook. My mother-in-law has caller ID on her phone that reads off the names of the person who is calling. But the names get so garbled to the point that they're almost unintelligible.
Yet, we're supposed to expect the car to read people's names correctly? Not to mention some of the things that people post as their statuses.
I might consider this feature just for the amusement factor of listening to my car try to read Facebook statuses, but that seems like an expensive way just to amuse myself.
As for the commercial itself, the premise is a bit ridiculous. This was their first date, and they're already Facebook friends? Did they add each other before they even went on their first date? Wouldn't that be a bit awkward if it didn't work out?
Or maybe the date was going so swimmingly that they felt that they had to add each other as Facebook friends while still on the date.
Is this what dating has come to in 2011? You take time out from the date to get on your smart phones and add each other as friends? Maybe it's just a sign of the times that even on "best first dates ever" people can't turn off their phones.
Anyway, Facebook reveals that the girl enjoyed the date as well. I wonder if he doesn't feel a little bit of regret as he drives off. If she enjoyed the date so much, maybe he could have gotten more than a quick kiss at the end.
You've got to think that on their next date, he's going to be more aggressive. Rating: 2 TVs - I would have liked this commercial better if her status was something like "Worst date ever. The guy is such a loser." At least that would have been funny.
While the Black Eyed Peas are performing, I decided to do a quick review of a commercial from the first half.
Overall, I'd say the commercials in the first half have been solid. Much better than the fare from recent years.
I'd say the best ads have come from Doritos. So, here's a review of one of their ads:
I'll move past the fact that I personally hate Doritos, and say that at first watch, I thought this guy was someone who I could relate to. Much like him, I'm the type of person who insists on getting every last bit of food out of the bag.
In my younger days, whenever people didn't finish their meals, I would be quick to eat whatever they left over. Heck, sometimes I didn't even have to order my own food. I'd just eat a little bit of everyone else's scraps.
Would I have ever gone to the point of licking someone else's fingers? No, that is clearly over the line, and the finger licker is obviously a bit crazy.
Really, if there's anyone I relate to, it is the guy with the bag. This guy knows what he's doing. He finished off the chips and now he's dumping the crumbs into his mouth. I'd say there's a good chance that his next move is to lick his own fingers. Because that's what I would do.
That's why the finger licker's actions are so egregious. He didn't even give the guy a chance to lick his own fingers.
This appears to be taking place in an office somewhere, and I have to wonder, in this era of political correctness, is there any way that this guy would remain employed at this company?
This guy is clearly obsessed with Doritos, so I would be surprised if this was his first time doing something like this. Wouldn't someone have complained about him by now? Unless he works for Dunder Mifflin, I'd think something like this would be a fireable offense.
At the very least, wouldn't word have spread around the office not to eat Doritos because crazy finger licker guy might practically molest you to get the crumbs? By this point, I'd think that people would know not to get Doritos from the vending machine. So maybe the guy who got his fingers licked had it coming a little.
And the guy at the end of the commercial kind of deserved what he got too. First, he wipes the crumbs on his pants. The slob couldn't find a napkin anywhere?
And the guy did wipe a lot of crumbs on his pants. If he's going to waste that much food, then should he get upset when others want to have some?
Not to mention that he should probably invest in some higher quality pants. It didn't look like the pants were pulled on that strongly, and yet they ripped quite easily. Maybe this is what he deserves for wearing such cheap pants.
Rating: 3.5 TVs - It was a funny ad, but I couldn't rate it any higher, because I'm not sure if the message we're getting is clear. Are they saying that Doritos are so good that it might lead to crazy, obsessive behavior? Or are they saying the Doritos are the snack food of choice for the mentally unstable?
Throughout the years, one of the more prominent Super Bowl advertisers has been Budweiser. They can usually be counted on for at least one clever ad each year.
One of their most memorable ads came in 1995. The commercial featured three frogs who said "Bud," "Weis," and "Er."
Naturally, the frogs became a big hit. It was a simple but brilliant commercial. It featured animals (which are always popular in commercials) and a catchphrase that everyone in America would be repeating for months.
The frogs went on to appear in more commercials over the next few years. But Bud knew that as great as those frogs were, they wouldn't remain popular forever. Even the cutest of animal mascots can grow tiresome (anyone seen Spuds McKenzie lately?) and people can only watch frogs say three syllables so many times before the appeal is lost.
So in 1998, they gave the frogs a nemesis: Louie the Lizard.
Unlike the frogs, Louie - who hung around with his pragmatic friend Frank - had a lot to say. Most of it was regarding his jealousy over the frogs being chosen for the original ad instead of him.
This was a definite game changer, as we're no longer supposed to think that we're watching a commercial. Instead, we're supposed to be watching a behind the scenes look at the original series of frog commercials. It's very meta.
As the commercials progressed, Louie's bitterness grew to the point where he sought to violently eliminate the frogs. During the 1998 Super Bowl, he hired a ferret hitman to electrocute them.
Louie's plan seemed to fail as the frogs somehow survived the ordeal.
But as it turned out, he was actually successful. After the attempted hit, the "Weis" frog began to suffer post traumatic stress and couldn't fulfill his role in the commercial anymore.
Much to Louie's delight, he was chosen to be the replacement:
Like all good things, eventually these ads had to end. In the commercial world, (remember that according to the logic of the commercial, these aren't actual commercials, but a behind the scenes look) Budweiser grew tired of the frogs - mostly due to Louie's unscripted improv attempts - and fired them.
The frogs were not happy. Finally, after years of only saying one syllable, they revealed that they could indeed speak, and got some revenge on Louie.
This probably prompted a bunch of kids to whip each other with towels and scream, "Squirt some tears, punk!"
If the frogs were truly actors, you've got to give them a lot of credit. Even when they're about to be electrocuted, they don't deviate from the script. No, they continue to say only "Bud," "Weis," and "Er" even though their lives are in danger.
I believe Louie and Frank might have continued to appear in some commercials after this one, but I'm pretty sure that the saga of the frogs was complete.
Rating - 4.5 TVs - These were some of the best ads that Bud has ever done. They managed to turn a simple concept - Frogs reading the Budweiser sign - and turn it into a multi-year epic.
In addition to successfully advertising their product, Bud got the added bonus of being able to merchandise the characters. They sold hats, shirts, and posters featuring the frogs and Louie. I believe there were also stuffed animals made of all the characters.
There is probably a whole generation of Americans who feel loyalty to Budweiser because they had a ferret doll. Now that's marketing!
Rating - 4 TVs - This commercial has gotten me quite excited to see the next X-Men movie. Good job Hyundai!
Rating - 1 TV - This is really not a good advertisement for Cars.com. Sure the app might help people find a car they want and negotiate the price. But it is clear that the app doesn't provide customers with the most important information that they would need: THE DEALERSHIP THREATENS CUSTOMERS WITH A LIVE WOLF! AVOID AT ALL COSTS!
Rating - 4 TVs - I can only assume that as my daughter grows up, I'll look for every chance to mess with her mind. I just hope that one day, an opportunity this great arises.
