Yearly Archives: 2011

Movie Review: 30 Minutes or Less

Leave a reply

Who knew that a bunch of perverted, back-stabbing slackers based on the true story that ended in the death of an innocent person could end up being funny?

“30 Minutes or Less” is that movie that asks us to love characters we want to hate. The film never has any trouble “going there” but at a paltry 83 minutes, I can only feel that it reached just half of its potential.
Jesse Eisenberg, plays Nick, perhaps the least likable character in an oeuvre that includes Mark Zuckerberg. Unlike Zuckerberg, Nick has no motivation. He works as a delivery man for a 30 minutes or less pizza restaurant. I’ve never actually seen a 30 minutes or less pizza restaurant in my life, but they did exist in “Dirty Work” and “Spider-Man 2.” In the spirit of those films, Nick can never deliver a pizza on time.
The only person who can stand to be around Nick is his friend Chet (Aziz Ansari), who has advanced slightly farther than Nick has in the world (he is a grade school teacher). Nick is as fast and smart-mouthed as the comedian who plays him, and he likes to be mean to kids. As always, adults making fun of kids is hilarious.
On the other side of the slacker spectrum are Dwayne (Danny McBride) and Travis (Nick Swardson). Dwayne is delusional and psychotic. His view towards women cannot be redeemed by any form of charm. Travis, the more rational of the two, has a slight intelligence that is totally masked by his slow wit. The two of them seem to believe they are characters from “Die Hard,” all while doing unspeakable things to a 3D television.
Dwayne’s father (Fred Ward), a former army major, just wants Dwayne to get out of the house. Conversly, Dwayne just wants him to die so he can have his fortune. So, he hires a hitman (Michael Pena) to kill his father. In order to get the $100,000 necessary to hire the hitman, he kidnaps Nick, straps a bomb to his chest, and forces him to rob a bank. In a panic, Nick reluctantly turns to Chet for help. Chet is not happy about this. After all, Nick did hook up with his sister.
“30 Minutes or Less” is dirty. It is vulgar mostly in the verbal, rather than visual, sense. Strangely, it never gets overwhelming and it never feels forced. It just sounds like people talking with each other.
The film’s casting choices are basically flawless. All of these actors have basically played these characters before, but that doesn’t mean they still can’t play them well. McBride channels his Kenny Powers charmlessness into something very sinister while Swardson plays off the child-like idiocy that helped him steal the show in “Grandma’s Boy.” Eisenberg is often mistaken for Michael Cera. I never understood this, as Cera’s social awkwardness makes him seem sweet while Eisenberg’s awkwardness makes him seem mentally unstable. It works out perfectly here. Eisenberg and Ansari make a great duo, whether they are robbing a bank or slap fighting.
Most uncomfortable comedy focuses on the hilarity of things totally falling apart. Sometimes, that moment before things totally fall apart is so painful that its funny. “30 Minutes or Less” does the opposite: it puts all of its incompetent characters into situations in which failure seems inevitable, and allows them to succeed. Yes, it makes little sense that they were able to hijack someone’s car without getting caught, but its hilarious that they say “thank you” to the person who’s car they steal.
No matter how much I laughed during “30 Minutes or Less,” I had the continuous feeling that something was missing. Most comedies don’t need a very long running time in order to feel complete. “Duck Soup” clocks in at just 68 minutes. A comedy so short should feel like a manic race to make the audience laugh as much as possible rather than a manic race to wrap the story up. While “30 Minutes or Less” is more the latter than the former, it still left so much out. I would have preferred more emphasis on the buddy comedy aspect of the film as opposed to that whole confrontation with the hitman. This might be a mainstream summer comedy, but they didn’t have to stick to plot structure that strictly. The film acts like the bank robbery and closeness to death changed Nick for the best. While things feel different in the end, it still feels as if he didn’t deserve his maturation.
At first, I felt relieved that in its ending, “30 Minutes or Less” didn’t cheat itself as much as the ending of “Horrible Bosses” did (in terms of solving everything with that navigation system). But the film ends with the attitude that money can solve everything. However, this can’t negate the fact that Nick is still an unlikable loser.
“30 Minutes or Less” wants to be a Coen Brothers caper gone wrong filled with lowlifes mixed with the dirtiness of the typical Apatow comedy. However, Dwayne and Travis’s desperation can’t elicit the pity from pathetic desperation. And while the characters in this film are all fun to watch, they possess no redeeming qualities. Perhaps that is fully intended, but not even Nick’s love for Kate (Dilshad Vadsaria) can redeem him at all.
With an all star cast and a promising young director (Ruben Fleischer’s last feature was “Zombieland”), “30 Minutes or Less” had the potential to be a well above average comedy during the summer doldrums. In the end, it turns out to be an average one. It is short, and never too deep. And as Swardson’s Travis would obviously forget to say, “that’s what she said.”
It’s safe to say that Aziz Ansari steals most of the scenes he is in. It would have been nice if they let him throw a few nicknames in though.

The Shawshank Redemption: On Life in Prison and Life in General

Leave a reply

Warning: Spoilers Ahead.

Thanks to AMC, which would be the best movie station on TV if not for all the f—ing bleeps, “The Shawshank Redemption” has been playing nearly every week this summer. Despite being the banner image of this blog for well over a year, “The Shawshank Redemption” has not gotten its moment in the sun here. It’s time for that to change.
“The Shawshank Redemption” has earned its place among cinema’s finest. That’s a huge feat for a movie that was critically and commercially shunned upon initial release. Today, it is famously ranked as the greatest movie of all time on IMDB’s Top 250; just one notch below “The Godfather.” The legacy of “Shawshank” has increased over the years. That is in large part because of its emotional impact. This is one of the few movies that could make a grown man cry. You might get teary eyed from Brooks’s final monologue. Or, perhaps it will hit you after that last shot, as the gentle Pacific and the endless stretch of beach frames two friends reuniting for the first time, finally free. That’s the one that always gets me.
Much of the film’s emotion comes from Frank Darabont’s incredibly human direction. He lives by the rule that what can’t be seen is more powerful than everything we do see. During the aforementioned scene in which Brooks says his final goodbye to the world, the camera makes his suicide all the more devastating. We never actually see him hang himself, but instead we see the pieces of wood coming off the wall as he writes “Brooks is Here,” and finally we see his the table fall from under him as his feet shake, and then remain in a still, and eerily peaceful, state.
“Shawshank” is a film that carries strong ethos to match its pathos. Its story of a corrupt prison is as much about a corrupt prison as it is about corrupt society as a whole, and how the human mind and soul fit in.
Before we get into that, let’s start from the beginning. Andy Dufresne (Tim Robbins) is a banker sentenced to life in prison after his adulterous wife is found dead, and he is found guilty of the murder., despite his claim of innocence. Dufresne is a quiet man, and this makes people misinterpret him as a cold man with no remorse. Really, his silence hides an intelligence far beyond most others. Andy is sent to the corrupt Shawshank Prison, where forms a friendship with Red (Morgan Freeman) during his two decade imprisonment. Red tells Andy that he is “the only guilty man in Shawshank.”
It seems customary at this point that every film about a life of imprisonment must have a lead character who doesn’t belong. In “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest,” R.P. (Jack Nicholson) wasn’t actually insane (like most of the other men at the hospital). And while Luke from “Cool Hand Luke” actually did commit a crime, he has a spirit too big for the hellish southern prison he’s been placed in. Perhaps it is through all of these eccentric characters that we see that these institutions offer punishment, but no rehabilitation, for any of the people that are sent to them.
In “Shawshank,” prison is more than a dehumanizing place. It is an industry, and a world of its own. In this industry though, cigarettes are used as currency.
It makes sense that a place as isolated as prison would become a world of its own. What is so interesting about “Shawshank” is that it mirrors the creation of society. The men are supposed to enter from the real world with something of a blank slate, as they are expected to eventually feel guilt and want to change as a result of their prison sentences. There are many ways to “save” men. The Warden (Bob Gunton) believes salvation is found through Jesus Christ. Every man who wants to follow this path seems to do it just as a cover up for wrongdoing. Then, there is Andy’s way of thinking. During the scene in which he plays Mozart over the loud speaker, he is exposing the deprived prisoners to culture. None of the prisoners understand what the woman is saying in the song, but they know that it is moving. There is a sort of universal language that runs through every work of art, a kind of language that those obsessed with power are too blind to understand. Andy is not a machine, he is a record player: he has the cheerful, care-free flow of great music constantly flowing through him.
In these respects, “Shawshank” is about the relationship between the powerful and the powerless. Darabount uses this idea to give, well, sympathy to some people who don’t really deserve it. The scene in which Bogs (Mark Rolston), Andy’s tormentor, gets what is coming to him ends up being more painful than cathartic. That is because Bogs is literally dragged into his own cell by the ruthless Captain Hadley (Clancy Brown). Even if someone is bad, once they become helpless, you immediately feel for them. This is a case of “A Clockwork Orange” Syndrome: no fight is fair if both sides cannot stand up for themselves. It is someone’s right to choose whether they want to defend themselves. Once that right is taken away, that man ceases to truly live.
And that is what the redemption of “The Shawshank Redemption” truly is: gaining freedom. It is not just the freedom to return to the outside world. The outside world is a place that “got itself in a big damn hurry.” It is about achieving inner freedom: the freedom to explore, learn, and make decisions for oneself.
“The Shawshank Redemption” is many more things that a few more viewings might help me find. It uses religion as a way to raise its hero into savior status, all while showing the ways that religion can be linked to the triumph of evil. It is a brilliant choice of letting Red, rather than Andy, narrate the story. This is not just because Morgan Freeman is the only person who could emulate what God would probably sound like, but because it adds a narrative complexity. Andy is a mystery. So is his overall escape mission. If the film were told from Andy’s perspective, the mystery would be gone. Andy also doesn’t quite seem to understand why he is so unique. Only an outsider could explain why. Another brilliant narrative technique? The fact that the clothing worn by three different women (Rita Hayworth, Marilyn Monroe, Raquel Welch) marks the passage of time in the film.
I don’t take much credence in the IMDB Top 250, but the fact that “The Shawshank Redemption” tops the list gives me some faith in it. Even if it isn’t the greatest film of all time, this top spot shows that the next generation that will control the movies, and the common opinion of movies, actually has some good taste. Perhaps, “The Shawshank Redemption” will one day be considered as timeless as “Casablanca” and “Citizen Kane.” I don’t think anyone would really mind.

Movie Review: Cowboys & Aliens

3 Replies

A lot of unusual things happen to the unassuming western folk of “Cowboys & Aliens.” Mainly, aliens land on earth. Yet, nobody seems to react to it. In fact, these people don’t react to anything at all. Is this a movie, or an assembly of cardboard cutouts?

“Cowboys & Aliens” has a cast of cutouts that includes some of Hollywood’s best action stars being reduced of their charms and talents. Daniel Craig plays a cutout named Jake Lonergan, a wanted man who wakes up one morning with a mysterious metal band around his arm and blurry memories that might involve aliens.
As he tries to piece this puzzle together, he wanders into town and captures the attention of the townspeople by standing up to the local rough-and-tumble outlaw, Percy Dolarhyde (Paul Dano), who thinks he owns everything. Among the other people in town include the timid doctor (Sam Rockwell), and the token hot lady (Olivia Wilde). After Percy’s father Woodrow (Harrison Ford) rides into town, a series of “flying machines” begin attacking and what is deemed by the priest as “demons” is most certainly an extraterrestrial attack. Now, everyone must unite and fight for the future of humanity.
Where exactly did “Cowboys & Aliens” go wrong? In too many places to even keep count. With Jon Favreau at the helm, his direction feels more like it did in the second “Iron Man” as opposed to the original. That is, it feels like he started directing an action sequence and then halfway through it, gave up. As a director, Favreau hasn’t yet gotten to the stage where he can phone it in, and still pull it off. No, that takes many more years of experience.
“Cowboys & Aliens” was penned by “Lost”co-creator Damon Lindelof. It contains all of the intrigue of “Lost” without an of the wonder. If you are trying to put us into a time where the idea of life outside of earth is as foreign as the idea of cell phones, you must also put the audience into that sense of wonderment. Instead, all anyone can feel the whole time is, oh they are being attacked by evil aliens from space. Where is the film’s extra hook to really surprise us; where is the film’s polar bear in the jungle? How can we expect to take an alien species seriously when their spaceship looks like Squidward’s house?
The cutouts of “Cowboys & Aliens” consist mainly of a series of western archetypes. There is the young outlaw who’s seen too little, the old outlaw who’s seen too much, the knowledgeable doctor who can’t defend himself, the old coot with no teeth, and the guy who has to march down the town’s streets and yell about how he gets free drinks because he owns this town. None of the characters turn into anything above those stereotypes. I don’t blame this on the actors as much as I do on the writers.
The actors do the best they can, which is really all an actor can do with weak material. Craig, who has deservedly become the new face of James Bond, seems to struggle with his American accent. It doesn’t even come close to sounding like a grisled outlaw, it sounds more like an English guy trying to sound American. Besides the Bond movies, he should just stick to playing badass Jews from now on.
Harrison Ford, meanwhile, was the person I was most excited to see and yet, he doesn’t bring any of the typical Ford charm to his performance. Ford has played Cowboys before, in varying forms (Han Solo; Indiana Jones), yet Woodrow carries no outlaw spirit. He seems less angry about the aliens he has to fight and more angry that he is involved in this movie. He never even seems too concerned about the missing son that he is fighting the whole movie to get back. Shocking, as Ford is usually a master at yelling about missing family members.
I will say this, though: the closest the film ever comes to an actual human interaction is the scene in which Ford gives a young boy his knife. It is never very well explained, but these two characters are the only ones in the film that ever seem to have any chemistry. The fact that nothing is ever done with this represents all of the film’s underutilized potential.
“Cowboys & Aliens” strives to combine two genres that have been combined many times over, with much better results. In fact, the sci-fi western has been considered a genre for decades already, ever since “Star Wars” first came out in 1977. “Cowboys & Aliens” tries to fall under this genre, but it never makes these two very different genres seamlessly blend. The point of “Star Wars” was that if it took place in the Old West, it basically could have been “The Searchers.” I don’t even know what “Cowboys & Aliens” could have been. All I know is that it really made me want to keep watching “Firefly,” the TV series that did exactly what “Cowboys & Aliens” wanted to do, but in a much more exciting and coherent fashion.
The worst part of “Cowboys & Aliens” is that it isn’t very fun. I appreciate that Favreau wanted to tackle this story in a serious manner, but he takes the idea of straight-faced a step too far. Even Leone’s great western opuses had a sense of humor about themselves.
As for the sci-fi part of the film, the aliens feel less like an enemy, and more like a plot device. The aliens in the film look like those from “District 9,” but with way less personality. The reason why the aliens are here at this very moment remains totally unexplained. Even though “Super 8″ somewhat failed in that respect, at least they tried to make us understand its creature.
Amongst the seriousness, the makers of “Cowboys & Aliens” forgot that this is a summer blockbuster, and blockbusters can be both smart and serious while providing entertainment. This isn’t entertainment, this starring blankly at a bunch of preposterous characters and situations. Westerns are supposed to be slow, not boring.

Movie Review: I Heart Huckabees

1 Reply

Like any David O. Russell movie, “I Heart Huckabees” begins with a character talking faster than they can think. Or in the case of Albert Markovski (Jason Schwartzman), he’s thinking faster than any normal human being should ever think. Then again, that’s just the kind of behavior we should expect from any character played by Jason Schwartzman at this point.



“I Heart Huckabees” is what would happen if “Being John Malkovich” crossed paths with “The Royal Tenenbaums.” Most descriptions of this film (even the negative ones) will describe it as “quirky.” This is an overused and condescending term to describe odd character-driven films. Yes, this film is full of strange moments and eccentric characters, but to call it quirky would be like calling it cute. Frankly, there is nothing cute about existentialism.



Albert is an environmental activist currently fighting the development of a major department store, Huckabees, on open marshland. While Albert feels that his work isn’t appreciated, a strange coincidence triggers an internal crisis. In order to solve his coincidence, he turns to existential detectives Bernard and Vivian Jaffe (Dustin Hoffman and Lily Tomlin). Quite fittingly, their office lies at the end of a long, blank, confusing maze of a hallway. The detectives study human motives as opposed to actual crimes, and they go through a process of psychology and stalking their clients.

Albert is brought further down an existential rabbit hole after he meets Tommy Corn (Mark Wahlberg), who is able to disprove the Jaffe philosophy. Corn is inspired by another existentialist, Caterine Vauban (Isabella Huppert). While the Jaffes follow the belief that everything in the universe is connected, Vauban believes the opposite. The Jaffes and Vauban soon partake in a philosophical tug-of-war for Albert’s psyche. After Albert’s company teams up with the vacuous Huckabees boss, Brad Stand (Jude Law), the existential problems become a little too public, and it prompts Brad to hire the Jaffes to explore his own problem. Lost yet? Just hang in there, please.



“I Heart Huckabees” is ambitious in all of the existential ground that it covers. Some think “Huckabees” gets lost at times sniffing Sartre’s existential farts. The film definitely has a few loose ends and some factors that don’t quite add up. For example, if the detectives follow Albert around, and he can see them spying on him, then how can they know that everything they see is the candid truth?



Then again, one could argue that the film is as flawed as the sprawling theory that it sets out to explore. And with the passage of time, the film has taken on a new meaning. It also represents the time following the War in Iraq that was ruled by “existential threat.” I am sure that David O. Russell didn’t intend for this to happen, but it is funny what the passage of time can do. The best example of this would be the scene in which Tommy argues about the significance of oil with a nice Christian family, and unravels all of their lives comforts in such a flawlessly deadpan matter. That is what existentialism does: it takes apart the meaning of existence, and reduces it to its most simplistic form. For this scene alone, “Huckabees” is a film that was just one slight step ahead of its time.

The sum of “I Heart Huckabees” can be viewed in two ways: whether it works as a philosophical whole, and whether it works as a film. Let’s just say it works out in both ways. The film’s loose ends are somewhat smoothed by its undeniably curious nature, its wit, and its chaotic and totally free form.



The characters’ enlightened meltdowns are all understandable and abide by the idea that one can only see their flaws once they are fully laid out in front of them. That is why it is understandable when the Huckabees model (Naomi Watts) tries to hide her beauty when she realizes that she is totally replaceable, and when a story Brad repeatedly tells ends up making him physically ill. That scene represents the one of the best moments in Jude Law’s acting career.



As for the rest of the ensemble, Tomlin plays into the film’s free structure and brings out her improvisational past. While Hoffman, under that mop of gray hair, plays one of the strangest neurotic messes he has ever played. Wahlberg, meanwhile, shows why he has become a coveted actor. His character doesn’t seem like someone who would ever transform into a brilliant philosopher, but he fits the role with the sort of subtle comedy chops that I never thought he was capable of. And then Schwartzman is just playing what I assume is a heightened version of himself, which he has gotten better and better at playing.



“I Heart Huckabees” may lose a lot of people early on. However, there is a sense of genuine and convincing connections that exist between the characters that becomes more apparent upon a second viewing. Also, its rebellious spirit, including its putdown of corporations and most mainstream American ideas isn’t exactly daring but it is definitely is refreshing. With “Three Kings” before it and “The Fighter” after it, “I Heart Huckabees” shows what a versatile filmmaker David O. Russell truly is. He deserves an extra accolade for turning a philosophy by some of the world’s darkest thinkers into slapstick comedy.



There is one exchange at the very end of “I Heart Huckabees” that stands out (don’t worry, this quote barely gives anything away). When discussing a protest involving chaining themselves to a bulldozer, Tommy asks, “Should I bring my own chains?” Albert ambiguously and succinctly replies, “We always do.” Once you’ve seen the whole movie you’ll understand that he wasn’t just talking about the protest.

Harry Potter: From an (In)different Perspective

Leave a reply

WARNING: This article contains a brief, but pretty major spoiler for “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2,” If you care that much, I suggest you stop reading now.

When “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part Two” concluded, a saga that had lasted over a decade had ended. Some people in the audience cried, others cheered, and pretty much everyone clapped wildly. For these people, it was a truly emotional moment.
Me? I made a fart sound with my mouth.
Maybe my reaction was a little bit immature. However, it summed up why I could just never get into this series. No matter how eye popping or imaginative “Harry Potter” could be, it just never clicked with me, whether in novel or film form.
My indifference to “Harry Potter” was never too personal. I read the first two books, and thoroughly enjoyed them. I saw the first two movies, enjoyed those, too. The series started to lose me around the fourth film, though I have always appreciated the increasingly dark tone of the series. Looking back on it, the “Harry Potter” series did many good things. Most importantly, J.K. Rowling inspired children not only to read, but to enjoy reading, and to want to read, and to finish a book that was over 800 pages in one sitting. Even Dr. Seuss and Roald Dahl would have had trouble pulling that off.
I never made it to the seventh book, and after giving up on movie number four, I only saw the second half of the seventh film (longest second act, ever). Harry’s original story, as a misfit who doesn’t understand his potential power is easily relatable to any young teen trying to figure out who they are. I could relate to this (no, I am not a wizard and no, my parents never forced me to live in a closet under the stairs). Yet, no real emotional connection ever forged between me and the young witches and wizards of Rowling’s universe.
When I was younger, I became attached to certain sagas and passed over all others. The world of “Harry Potter” never appealed to me. I tried “The Matrix” for one film and while I love “Star Wars” I could never call myself a fanboy. Rather than obsessing over Potter, I spent most of elementary and middle school as a “Lord of the Rings” geek. Later on, it was the two part universe of “Kill Bill” that somehow got the best of me and made me embark on my never-ending journey to watch every movie I could find at the public library.
“Harry Potter” has always felt strangely cartoonish to me. Even in its most serious moments, I never got a grasp in my mind that this world of magic could actually exist, that Hogwarts was a place I could put myself into. As far as the movies ago, I was never a fan of its mentality of making a gripping and dark action scene and then trying to end it with a light-hearted moment. That one little one liner would always devalue some of the previous scene’s seriousness. That’s just taking the idea of comic relief too far. Maybe it’s just an English thing.
At this point you are probably wondering: where the hell is my review? I just spent $10.50 and two and a half hours of my life on this movie, so shouldn’t I have some clear, formulated opinion? Well, here it is: “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows: Part 2″ is a highly entertaining summer blockbuster. Its special effects are dazzling and show the very best Hollywood has to offer in the latest CGI. This film shows how much the series has changed since its humble roots. However, if this is your first “Harry Potter” film, or your first “Harry Potter” film in quite some time, then you will not find yourself enjoying it so much. I would offer another big blockbuster for you to see but unfortunately, the only other ones currently out are sequels. So instead, I’ll request you go watch the pristine images and dinosaurs in “The Tree of Life.” That’s what you get for not liking “Harry Potter” more, you resentful jerk.
Anyway, there are some things I really do like about “Harry Potter.” I really like what the series did with Snape. I also admire the film’s special effects, which are the moviemaking equivalent of magic. The CGI felt organic, not forced. But because this film took place in the middle of a story that I was never involved in, I don’t feel I can properly review this film to the highest degree. Therefore, I leave you with these last two paragraphs.
All in all, not feeling an emotional connection with Harry and his friends doesn’t mean you’re missing a piece of your heart. Those tears that people felt once future Harry, Ron, and Hermione sent their kids away to Hogwarts is the exact way I felt after watching Andy give away all of his toys last year in “Toy Story 3.”
When some people walked out of “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2,” a piece of their childhood ended along with the franchise. Everyone my age grew up alongside the “Potter” kids. Their awkward changes once they hit puberty only rivaled our own.
For me, once the screen faded to black, I just continued living from where my life had left off right before the film. However, I did feel an immense sting of disappointment that I didn’t stick around for the trailer for “The Dark Knight Rises” that played following the credits.

Horrible Snubs: Why the Emmys Made Three Huge Mistakes this Year

Leave a reply

Yes, this year’s Emmy nominations include not one, not two, but three horrendous snubs. Well, there are more; but three of them in particular are really bothering me. Only rarely do I cover other mediums besides film, but I figured this was worth it.

Let’s start with the most surprising snub: “Community.” It got absolutely nothing, besides being considered a shoo-in as a nomination for a few categories. I consider “Community” to be the best comedy on television. And if some don’t think it’s the best, then they at least have to admit that it’s the most inventive. What other show has brought back the traditional sitcom format while simultaneously tearing it to shreds? Think about “Paradigms of Human Memory,” in which the show mocked the clip show episode that every comedy has. Yet, instead of showing clips from previous episodes, they showed flashbacks that had never been seen, and acted like we knew all about it. They also went meta with Jesus, and became the second show to make “Dungeons & Dragons” seem cool (the first, of course, being “Freaks and Geeks”). All of this should usually lead to recognition. I guess voters don’t find a monkey named Annie’s Boobs as funny as I do.
To be honest, I wasn’t prepared to write about “Community” in a post about Emmy snubs. In fact, “Community” being snubbed didn’t cross my mind in the slightest bit. However, there were two shows I unfortunately expected to not get a thing: “Bored to Death” and “Archer.”
“Bored to Death” probably could’ve gotten more consideration, had its season been more than ten episodes and ended after Thanksgiving. But that’s part of what makes the show so special: it’s short, and that likely helps the creators focus more on making the show so good. While some shows are forced to churn out over 20 episodes a season, a shorter season allows more time to focus on making each episode nearly perfect.
In its second season, Jonathan Ames’s hipster noir tale of a struggling writer who moonlights as an unlicensed detective found its voice. “Bored to Death” is a rare show that actually benefitted from going more over-the-top than its previous season. It brought out the very best in its characters. And for the record, watching characters solve mysteries while stoned is a lot more entertaining than watching detectives find semen on everything a la every cop show that exists.
“Bored to Death” found an almost Woody Allenesque quality in its satire of all things pretentious. Also, “Bored to Death” is one of those shows that has a formula that it follows pretty much every episode. While following an episode-by-episode formula can sometimes harm even the best of shows (admit it: every once in a while, the structure of “Modern Family” can be slightly tiresome), it never hurt “Bored to Death,” as it still maintained a forward moving plot.
What other nominations were missing from “Bored to Death”? Most unfortunately is the inexplicable snub of Ted Danson as Jonathan’s (Jason Schwartzman) boss, who’s age hasn’t quite caught up to him yet, George Christopher. Danson so eloquently delivered some of George’s most inexplicable and offensive lines. I laughed when he tried to alter the evidence of a negative drug test, and then felt oddly inspired when he decided to quit his job at season’s end. And I am going to say it now, lest I totally forget, that Zach Galifianakis, as Ray, is equally deserving of a nomination. In his season long battle to win his girlfriend back, he proved himself more than just the guy who said “ruh-tard” in “The Hangover.”
The next show that lost big, like “Bored to Death” and “Community,” improved ten fold in its second season. However, while those two shows became more manic in order to become better, this one surprisingly went the opposite direction. Well, with a few exceptions.
Animated shows rarely get the credit they deserve with the Emmys. Even in its fifteenth season on the air, “South Park” was still brilliant enough to deserve something. I guess Matt Stone and Trey Parker will just have to live with all of the Tonys that “The Book of Mormon” just won. It is “Archer” that really should have made the cut.
This year, “Archer” went from FX’s answer to an Adult Swim show to something entirely different. Yes, it maintained insanity, but it also became a real story, and it did what any good, developing show should do: it focused on its characters backstories. And not just it’s bumbling, womanizing, alcoholic secret agent whose name bears the show’s title; everyone involved became equally important. Season two delved deeper into Sterling’s mommy issues, revealed Cheryl as a millionaire, and made the old servant Woodhouse into more than just some old servant. Throw in some pretty brilliant wordplay (one word: Meowschwitz), and a darkly hilarious cancer plot line, and ISIS becomes the new funniest place to work television.
“Community,” “Bored to Death,” and “Archer” may have trouble ever getting their due. Maybe it’s because their styles of humor aren’t just some simple laughs, or maybe its because the popularity of each hasn’t reached their peak yet. I don’t know what it is, but the fact that these shows will be empty handed come Emmy night somehow makes them all the better.
While “Parks and Recreation” got a variety of nominations (including Best Comedy), voters totally left out Nick Offerman, who plays the government-hating government employee Ron Swanson. Swanson is literally the best comedic character on television right now. Why he was snubbed is beyond the act of head scratching.

Movie Review: Horrible Bosses

1 Reply

Twelve years ago, Mike Judge mastered the cubicle comedy with “Office Space.” His workers just wanted freedom. In this summer’s “Horrible Bosses,” all the workers want to do is have their bosses killed. It’s funny how things change like that.

“Horrible Bosses” follows the lives of three men who are troubled at work: Nick (Jason Bateman), Kurt (Jason Sudekis), and Dale (Charlie Day). Nick goes by the life theory that good things only come when you work too hard and take orders excessively. His psychotic, manipulative boss Dave Harkin (Kevin Spacey), takes advantage of him and eventually takes over the job that would have been Nick’s.
Of the three of them, Kurt is happiest at his job as an accountant at a small chemical company until his boss’s son Bobby Pellitt (Collin Farrell) takes over the company. Bobby is a Scarface wannabe who has no regard for the company he works for. At one point, he tells Kurt to “trim the fat” from the company (by that, he means, fire all the fat people).
Then there is Dale, who’s only purpose in the world is to be the perfect husband. Though he does need some money to support himself, so naturally he becomes a dental hygienist. Unfortunately, his incredibly inappropriate boss, Julia (Jennifer Aniston), is sexually harassing him and prepares a blackmail plan to get him to have sex with her.
The three men constantly reconvene at Applebee’s and discuss their problems until one day they realize that they must kill their bosses in order to achieve happiness. So, they hire a criminal (Jamie Foxx) to help them out. As accordance to the law of comedy, things don’t work out quite as planned.
“Horrible Bosses” is a great summer blockbuster comedy and it succeeds where many other in this field have failed in both being funny and being entertaining. Films like this usually have to deal with following a stringent plot structure and arrive at a certain plot point (think of “The Hangover” movies). While “Horrible Bosses” must not veer from its murder attempt plot line, it also doesn’t hesitate to let everyone involved enjoy themselves a little. What can be picked up from the hilarious outtakes seen in the credits is that improvisation is not out of the “Horrible Bosses” formula.
I’ve always believed that comedy consists of a good mix of good acting, and even better writing. Writing makes a good comedy smart and plausible, and good acting makes the characters and every bit of dialogue spring to life. Yes, “Horrible Bosses” can be described as a dirty comedy in every sense of the word. However, the dirtiness seems more of showing a way people behave and think rather than a way to simply be shocking. A lot of the dirty humor is simply conversational, such as the scene in which the guys argue about who would be most likely to get raped in prison.
It is safe to say that “Horrible Bosses” has one of the best comedic ensembles assembled in many years. All three of the main stars have each developed a certain character and personality through their roles. Bateman plays the vulnerable workaholic straight man that he created in “Arrested Development.” Luckily, that persona never died once that show was cancelled. Day is basically playing the same version of his character in “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia”: a loveably inept idiot who shouldn’t be around, seeing as he screws everything up, but having him there makes the story all the better. Then there is Sudeikis, who can now be named a movie star. Here, he continues the horny everyman character he created in this past February’s underrated “Hall Pass.”
The villains are all perfectly cast as well, with Farrell giving the best (or maybe, the most believable) performance out of all of them. Spacey goes a little too over-the-top for comfort at times, but it definitely seems like he was enjoying himself. Aniston, usually the good girl, is surprisingly the dirtiest character in the whole film. Now, that is good shock humor: making an actor go totally outside their comfort zone, and then making them really good at it.
“Horrible Bosses” consistently works. It’s not perfect (I’m still not used to computers as being a main plot point a movie), but it does everything it can for laughs without debasing itself. Like any good comedy, it has a great sense of recall. As opposed to dropping side characters it introduces early on, it brings them back and ties them into the story in very neat ways. Also, it is not as predictable as, say, “The Hangover: Part II.” I think I can now forgive director Seth Gordon for having previously made “Four Christmases.”
The one thing I keep going back to in “Horrible Bosses,” is the strength of its characters. In good comedy, it is forgivable to have an implausible plot as long as the characters feel real. After all, humor usually comes from sticking ordinary people into a heightened reality. Because there’s nothing funnier than watching three white guys from the suburbs walk into a bar in downtown Los Angeles.

Movie Review: Terri

Leave a reply

So little does Terri (Jacob Wysocki) care about everything that he wears his pajamas everywhere. Even in school.

“Terri” is the under the radar gem of the summer. It is sweet without being saccharine, funny without being unrealistic, and insightful without being preachy. Most of all, it earns every minute of its slow-paced running time.
Our titular anti-hero, Terri, is an overweight outcast in his small town high school. He lives with his mentally unstable uncle (Creed Bratton), who feeds his nephew toast and beans for basically every meal.
Terri’s demeanor at school worsens every day, and his principal, Mr. Fitzgerald (John C. Reilly) takes notice. Fitzgerald begins to meet with him frequently, and makes a real effort to turn Terri’s life around.
That last paragraph might have sounded like the premise for a Hallmark movie; but that would be looking at “Terri” incorrectly. It doesn’t look to solve all its problems by a few exchanged sentences and a lot of tears, but rather it goes deep into all of the problems the characters experience.
What also enriches the experience is the film’s ability to cover each character’s perspective and its ability to speak truly. Chad (Bridger Zedina), at first seems like nothing more than one of those people Fitzgerald describes as a “bad heart.” But then, writer and director Azazel Jacobs remarkably finds a way to keep him in the film, and his insecurities that are revealed turn him into more than a caricature. The same goes for Heather (Olivia Croicchia), whom Terri helps save from nearly getting kicked out of school. While “Terri” advertises itself as being mainly about the relationship between Terri and Fitzgerald, it is really about Terri’s relations with everyone in his life.
“Terri” is one of the rare films that can be described as a comedy relying on honesty. This is the kind of film that finds malted milk balls and long, awkward silences to be hilarious. A lot of this can be attributed to the sharp, realistic dialogue by Patrick DeWitt as well as Jacobs’s painfully sincere direction.
“Terri” benefits from having a mainly unknown cast. Most of its actors will breakout into bigger roles over the next few years. The most famous actor in the cast, Reilly, has jumped back and fourth over the years between drama (“Magnolia”) and comedy (“Step Brothers”). In “Terri,” he balances the two out perfectly. One of his funniest skills has to do with his voice, and how he can raise it to a level so loud and ridiculous that it could never be taken seriously. He also acts exactly as a corny high school principal who gives his students sunglasses would act.
And then, there are those moments where Reilly makes Fitzgerald more than that inspirational principal. It might just be the way he reacts to an important hug in the film that shows that he really cares. There are few characters I say this about in modern film, but Reilly makes Fitzgerald, well, inspirational. His lessons to Terri feel believable and actually make sense. It makes you wonder why Fitzgerald isn’t off doing bigger and better things. But then again, inspiring teenagers isn’t so bad.
To put it simply, “Terri” believes that everyone has their problems and justifications for bad behavior. To make that point a little deeper, “Terri” also believes that the only way to fight through those problems is to connect with other people, rather than distance yourself from them. “Terri” is a film that requires patience, but like its main character, the more you wait, the more you realize there is something truly great there.

Movie Review: Bad Teacher

Leave a reply

It’s always a bad sign when the first point you have to make about a movie is that you have nothing interesting to say about it. It is also bad when the second thought you have about a movie is this: why does it even exist?

“Bad Teacher” doesn’t make the case for worst film of 2009, but it doesn’t really go much above mediocre. The “hero” of “Bad Teacher,” Elizabeth Halsey (Cameron Diaz), certainly could make the case for the worst teacher in America. Rather than actually teach her students, she shows them films like “Stand and Deliver” and she frequently smokes pot in the school parking lot.
Also, she uses men for their money, and couldn’t care less whether or not her students are learning. She instead aspires to scam the school out of enough money to pay for a new surgery she wants to get in order to impress a new teacher, Scott Delacorte (Justin Timberlake). A chirpy, overachieving teacher (Lucy Punch) tries to sabotage Ms. Halsey’s plans.
“Bad Teacher” is a movie in which nothing deserving happens, neither to the characters nor the audience. Comedies are fueled off characters who do bad things, but it is not enough to just be a bad person. In “Bridesmaids,” Kristen Wiig might say some terrible words to a young girl, but at least she wanted to open a bakery. Elizabeth Halsey, meanwhile, only does actions to serve herself. Once she has the chance for redemption, it barely feels earned.
Yet, the bright side of “Bad Teacher” lies most in its undervalued supporting cast. I would have preferred to see a movie about the chipper Ms. Squirrel, played by Lucy Punch. She gives off more personality and is funnier in one scene than Diaz is during the entire movie. Jason Segel steals many scenes as the school’s gym teacher. Timberlake, meanwhile, is surprisingly bland for an actor who is usually so energetic.
The reasons that Diaz’s teacher is so easily hatable isn’t just because of her lack of interest in her job as well as her ability to use people; that was intended. The other reason is that Diaz doesn’t make her character even worth giving a chance. Nefarious characters are meant to be looked down upon but they don’t necessarily have to be totally despicable. Characters doing bad things can often be ground to even more humor. Yet, Halsey is given so little charm or charisma that her crimes aren’t even entertaining to watch. Each one is just an excuse for her to get to her ultimate goal. The moment her character decides to turn around is basically a ripoff of a scene from “Billy Madison.” And stealing from “Billy Madison” is unacceptable.
I believe that most comedies (the high concept ones, mainly) run on karma, and characters becoming liked because they change. “Bad Teacher” follows neither of these as it punishes rewarding characters and doesn’t really change the bad ones. In its attempt to be dark and edgy, “Bad Teacher” fails as a possible black comedy. It is impossible to ever be funny or edgy when anything in your movie that could possibly be funny or edgy is revealed in the trailer.

The Plot of Quentin Tarantino’s Next Movie

Leave a reply

Two posts in one night? I must be crazy. No, this only happens when something truly newsworthy comes along.



The plot for Quentin Tarantino’s next film, entitled “Django Unchained,” has been released today. All that was known before was that it was a slave revenge film. Here is what that actually entails:
Django is a slave who’s liberated by a German dentist-turned-bounty hunter and taught the tricks of the trade by his mentor. Django’s major goal in life is to recover his wife, and to do it he needs to get past the villainous ranch owner Calvin Candie (DiCaprio), who runs Candyland, a despicable club and plantation in Mississippi where female slaves are exploited as sex objects and males are pitted against each other in “mandingo”-style death matches. Candie is a slave’s worst nightmare, and that [sic] is where Django’s wife Broomhilda is an abused slave. [Deadline]


Yes, whenever Quentin says he is making an historical epic, it is not just some historical epic. Earlier this week it was announced that Jamie Foxx would play the lead role. While he did win an Oscar for “Ray,” he also starred in “Booty Call.” Then again, this is from the same director who turned John Travolta into a hitman after starring in “Look Who’s Talking.”


The rest of the cast is enticing. Of course, Samuel L. Jackson will be fantastic, as long as he is given a Bible or some dialogue that he can shout unnecessarily loud. While I have never seen DiCaprio play a flat out villain, his acting has improved with each film he does, so I have a feeling he can do this. As for Christoph Waltz, I have a feeling the German bounty hunter role was written directly for him. And yes, he can act his way out of a paper bag.


For now, it seems too hard to tell what direction this plot will take the film in. Is Tarantino aiming for a classic Grindhouse experience like “Death Proof,” or a classier revenge fantasy like “Inglourious Basterds”?


Something that I wonder even more about, however is what Tarantino will do filming in a time period before movies even existed. In “Basterds,” he was able to find conversation in the films of G.W. Pabst, but what will the 19th century characters of “Django Unchained” discuss? Maybe the characters can sit around a southern manor and discuss the significance of “Moby Dick.”


Whatever he decides to do, I will be there on opening weekend.