Category Archives: Arrested Development

Emmys 2013: The Snubs

Leave a reply

Enlightened

Perhaps genre confusion was one of the reasons “Enlightened” was robbed. Yes, it’s a half hour show, but it’s often more serious than funny. “Enlightened” was part of a select group of shows committed to reinventing the half hour format. To call it a failed experiment would be unfair though; it now belongs in the pantheon of great shows cancelled too soon. Co-creator Mike White did something that was nearly unthinkable by making a bunch of unlikable characters, including one who’s basically the equivalent of the girl you wish you hadn’t started a conversation with at a party, very likable through his kind touches of empathy. Until the show’s legacy kicks in, at least we have Laura Dern’s nomination for Best Actress to carry us through.

Key Episodes: Higher Power, The Ghost Is Seen, Agent of Change

New Girl

At first, “New Girl” was nothing special. Two seasons later, it’s the funniest sitcom on network television (RIP “Happy Endings”). I could cite it’s rapid fire dialogue, or the mere presence of Schmidt (Max Greenfield) alone. But the real triumph of season two was that it brought new life to the “will they or won’t they” arc. The moment where Nick (Jake Johnson) and Jess (Zooey Deschanel) finally kiss is surprisingly electrifying. It is so well done that I found myself watching it over and over again and feeling just as surprised on each viewing. If season one of a TV show is all about introducing us to the characters, season two is about building character history and further familiarity. In that and many other regards, “New Girl” triumphed where others would fail.

Key Episodes: Fluffer, Cooler, Virgins


Michael Cera (Arrested Development)

The new season of “Arrested Development” was a mixed bag that didn’t really take off until its final stretch. While it’s great to see Jason Bateman up for an Emmy, he wasn’t the only one worthy of the prize. I didn’t want to fill the list up with “Arrested Development,” and it was hard to choose from the likes Will Arnett, David Cross, and Jessica Walter. In the end, I decided to go with Michael Cera. Those who say that Cera always plays the same character should look no further than this current season of “Arrested Development” to see his incredible range. In the episode “It Gets Better,” it is such a joy seeing Cera turn George Michael from timid and awkward to a confident liar of a Bluth man. Cera is not just good comic support; he is a full fledged leading man.


Nick Offerman (Parks and Recreation)

It’s okay I guess that the Emmy voters have snubbed the man who plays Ron Swanson for five years. He already wins at life anyway.

Analog This: Season Four of Arrested Development (So Far)

Leave a reply

SPOILER ALERT: I have not finished the fourth season yet, but there may be some light spoilers ahead. Read with caution.

Seven years ago.

That’s when the original series finale of “Arrested Development” aired. That’s also how long I waited for TV’s greatest comedy to come back on the air.

“Arrested Development” holds a special place in my heart. The first three seasons have been like a Comedy Bible to me. It taught me to embrace details as well as the slow buildup to a laugh. I’ve rewatched and deconstructed every episode so many times, yet I always find something new to marvel at. In the universe of “Arrested Development,” no comedy stone is left unturned.

For years, I was constantly teased with the idea that there could be an “Arrested Development” movie. Any mention of the movie itself (without any promise of it actually happening) became something of a recurring joke worthy of the “Arrested Development” universe. That is, until the day that it was announced that a fourth season that would lead up to an eventual movie would be released.

Suddenly, “Arrested Development” was on the level of hype and public scrutiny that no cancelled cult TV series would normally face.  Essentially, season four would have to be the greatest event in television history, because that’s what every hyperbolic blogger labeled it as. However, it is rare that anything that is labeled as “the greatest ever” before it is actually released will actually be the greatest ever. Narrowing it down to film and television, most of the greatest works came out of nowhere with very little hype behind it. Or, as was the case with the first three seasons of “Arrested Development,” it could take years for the public to ever come around to it (despite multiple Emmy wins).

Continued After the Jump



There is no denying that season four of “Arrested Development” is among the greatest events in television history. First off, in an age where everyone is creating a Kickstarter to bring back their favorite cancelled shows, “Arrested Development” was able to return on strong word of mouth alone. The fact that the new season premiered on Netflix is something of a middle finger to all of the networks that wouldn’t give it a chance.* My theory for the original cancellation of “Arrested Development” was that it was too ahead of its time. The circumstances that it premiered in did not support the needs necessary for watching it. It is a show that is meant to be paused, rewound, and fast forwarded. Unfortunately, it hit the air before the proliferation of the DVR. While I have my problems with the binge watching that is caused by releasing an entire season of a show at once, “Arrested Development” was meant for Netflix. It set the stage for the existence of other shows that are jam-packed with jokes, such as “30 Rock,” “Community,” and “Archer”.

During the buildup to season four, I tried my best to resist calling this “the greatest television event of all time.” After all, that is a big label to give something that the world hasn’t yet seen. While this new season is far from perfect, to call it’s existence important would be an understatement.

Before I delve into the details of the new season, I must clarify that I am not yet finished with it. I mean that in two senses. I say that both because I have not watched every episode yet, and that I will not be finished with this season until I have rewatched it and picked up on every hidden detail that I can possibly find. With “Arrested Development,” that is a job that never really ends. I begin here not because this seems like a perfect place to start, but because I couldn’t wait much longer.  It’s been seven years, and while there are always new things to say about “Arrested Development,” finally there are new episodes to write about.

The fourth season is even more confusing and convoluted than any season before it, which is both a good and bad thing. This makes sense, as the Bluths are currently worse off than they’ve ever been. This season brings us to the present day, after a mysterious “Dark Period” has left the family in shambles. Even Michael Bluth (Jason Bateman), who was always the most sane one in the family, can’t quite keep it together.

Perhaps because of a bigger production budget, the Bluths are able to leave their beloved Newport Beach. George Michael (Michael Cera) heads off to college, as his father follows a little too closely behind (leading to one of the most overt incest moments in the show’s history). Meanwhile, Lindsay (Portia de Rossi) tries to find herself in India, George Senior (Jeffrey Tambor) and Oscar (Jeffrey Tambor) become unlikely business partners on the Mexican border, and Gob (Will Arnett) still just wants everyone to be his friend.

While structure is crucial to any story, only in “Arrested Development” is it such an integral part to the show’s uniqueness. The first three seasons of the show were described by Jason Bateman as “‘The Royal Tenenbaums’ shot like ‘COPS’.” It was a great spin to the dysfunctional family comedy, and a response to the rising popularity in reality television. Ten years have passed since the pilot premiered, and since then, reality shows make up a majority of the TV landscape. Since then, the Internet has changed how content is viewed. It is a bold move for a show to tinker with its format, but this is a show that defines bold creativity. While Ron Howard’s flawless narration remains intact, each episode now focuses on one character and then ties them back into everyone else’s lives. The concept of past and present is now all over the place. This season feels like somebody with very short attention span jumping back and forth between several YouTube videos.

This new experiment is not necessarily a bad thing, but it was something I had difficulty coping with for a while. While one could make an argument that any one of the Bluths are the best character of the show, the Bluths work best when they are all together. Tobias’ (David Cross) innuendos are nothing without Michael’s deadpan reactions to them (“There has got to be a better way to say that”). Nobody should be safe from Lucille’s (Jessica Walter) insults (“well joke’s on her because she doesn’t know how little I care for Gob”). This show is powered by human dysfunction.

While dysfunction makes the show funny, some sense of order is needed. In an interview, Hurwitz said that he only likes to watch something where he understands the direction it is headed in. In a way, he is praising formula. While formula often goes hand-in-hand with unoriginality, “Arrested Development” created a winning one that never got old. It has veered away from that original formula in many ways. The show is no longer constrained to 30 minutes broken up by commercials. Some of the new episodes run over 30 minutes, and some run under 30 minutes. Some feel a bit too long, and some feel like they could have used more. Hurwitz and crew could have tightened things up a bit and hurt nothing.

I hope that none of this gives the impression that I dislike the new season. Perhaps I’m just lamenting something that I will never get back. Somewhere around episode three (“Indian Takers”), the season began to turn. The farcical, heightened reality of “Arrested Development” had returned. The show had settled back into itself and eased up on the exposition. Then, when it felt comfortable, it took an even more meta turn than it did in season two with the “Scandalmakers” plot line. Ron Howard, the show’s offscreen narrator, became a character onscreen, and Michael finds himself the producer of a movie about his own family. Before it can be made, he must get the life rights from each of his family members. This is a little wink to the supposed purpose of the fourth season: once we’re completely caught up on the Bluths, perhaps “Arrested” fans will finally get the movie they were waiting for.

Some shows can’t recover when they go meta (many believe that the downfall of “The Simpsons” began after it went meta). However, “Arrested Development” has proven over and over again that it can constantly go over the edge and then climb back up. The behind-the-scenes stuff ultimately feels more fun than exclusive and it just makes absolute sense for this story. During its early run, “Arrested” provided some of the best satire on the Iraq War and the Bush Administration. While this season has offered some sharp commentary on the financial crisis and immigration, “The Daily Show” is always there to cover that front. Nobody else has made a portrait of the modern movie industry as funny as “Arrested Development” has.

One of the main things that threw me off most when starting the new season of “Arrested Development” was that the return felt surreal to me. This would be the first time in seven years that I would see a new episode of “Arrested Development.” Seven years. The last time I saw a new episode, it was the last four that ever aired, and they were crammed together on one Friday night in a time slot that nobody watched. As ridiculous as it sounds, I would now get to watch the Bluths say words that I had never heard them say before.

When laughs seemed scarce, I tried hard to remember what it was like seeing an episode of “Arrested Development” for the first time. I remembered that one viewing barely scratched the surface. In that regard, “Arrested Development” is like Freud’s Iceberg of comedy. Watching “Arrested Development” is an art form all its own. Viewing it requires one to multitask. What is happening in the background is just as important as what is happening in the foreground. A billboard can be just as funny or important as a line of dialogue.

Overall, “Arrested Development” requires patience. Things might not make sense the first or even the second time around, but the reward for sticking around is worth it. Just as there is always money in the banana stand, there is always something new lying beneath the surface of any given episode. I look forward to honing my ability to observe the Bluths, and seeing what else season four has to offer.

*While it is fun to blame Fox for the show’s cancellation, they deserve some credit here. They really did try with the show. They could have cancelled it after one season but they knew how good it was and tried for three seasons to find it the audience that it deserved.

Analog This: Archer

Leave a reply

Analog This is a new segment where I shift the spotlight away from movies to focus on a TV show, old or new, that is worthy of your attention. 


With the glut of great comedy currently being shown on both network and cable television, I find myself wavering day-to-day on which one I can currently pin as my favorite. “Community” (which I can include because it is indeed coming back) is the most sophisticated and thought provoking. “Parks and Recreation” is the warmest and most consistently funny. “Louie” is the most daring and unique, like “Seinfeld” as a documentary shot by Woody Allen. Then, there is “Archer,” the most surprisingly witty of them all.

“Archer” is “Arrested Development,” “Mad Men,” and an Adult Swim show all rolled into one. The “Arrested Development” comparison is not one that should be used lightly, even though I am guilty of using it too often. However, if any show could objectively receive this honor, it should be “Archer.” Adam Reed, the show’s creator, has himself remarked on the show’s influence. Indeed, Jessica Walter voices Malory Archer, the aging, alcoholic head of the ISIS spy agency. Like her previous performance as Lucille Bluth, she also has a troubled relationship with her son(s), whom she always manages to both smother and distance herself from. Judy Greer once again plays a sometimes ditzy, but always unhinged secretary, while Jeffrey Tambor has a role in a few episodes here and there.

“Archer” deserves the comparison much more because it takes the essence of what made “Arrested Development” so smart and so funny, and uses it perfectly. It is full of references ranging from literature to Burt Reynolds movies. Its constant use of wordplay and skewing of the English language is worthy of multiple viewings. Who knew an ongoing joke about idioms, seen in “Heart of Archness,” could be that funny? Go back to the very first episode, and see if you can understand that joke about “being into Greek” now.

No matter how elaborate the jokes and references in “Archer” are, they can be within anyone’s range of understanding. They often just involve the kind of time and effort that a lot of shows don’t demand of their audience. Even if a reference does go over your head (it will happen), it doesn’t detract from the humor of an episode in any sense. “Archer” should truly be commended for being possibly the first show in history to reference “Hud.” And you can make fun of me all you want for actually getting that reference. Watching “Archer” can be like hanging out with a bunch of culturally aware kids who aren’t pretentious and are willing to clue you in on the reference, without specifically clueing you in on the joke.  

“Archer” also has one of the finest arrays of characters currently seen on television. The show made a major shift from season one to two, when it began to delve deeper into backstories. After finding out that Pam (Amber Nash) was a skilled street fighter in order to pay for college, she is no longer just the hilariously inappropriate HR lady. While Pam’s actions are almost always repellent, her strength and hidden intelligence make her a standout. Same can be said for Woodhouse, who in one episode reveals himself to be much more than just the Archer family’s longtime “slave.”

And of course there’s Mr. Sterling Archer himself, the alcoholic, mommy-issue riddled center of the universe (and the show). Sterling has the capacity to be both the dumbest and one of the smartest members of ISIS. What seems to get him in trouble most is not his intelligence but rather his ego and his inability to stop talking. “Archer” is an experiment of how long a character can talk, and how long a joke can go on, before it becomes hard to watch.

“Archer,” now in its third season, has made some serious breakthroughs in its characters, and shows no signs of slowing down anytime soon. Recent episodes have explored Sterling’s dangerously addictive personality in ways that are both funny and tragic. The most recent episode saw him inadvertently causing the death of the man who might have been his father. It was a moment clarity and sadness that could bring the show in a new direction. But hopefully not too new: there can be no true “Archer” without a lewd, boozed up Sterling.

“Archer” is atypical in many ways. Many episodes are left unresolved, and each usually ends not with a revelation, but with a character saying something ridiculous, before cutting to credits. “Archer” is less a show about plot, and more a show about characters. They are the reason I come back to “Archer” every single week. To make a show where watching the characters is more enticing than story arcs is a rare feat. It is what makes “Archer” television’s best animated show since the start of “South Park.”*


*Sorry, but “Family Guy” was ruined for me after a certain point.

What Your Thanksgiving TV Watching Says About You

Leave a reply

James Bond Marathon (SyFy)
The Bond marathon is a staple of just about every Thanksgiving. You are likely knocking a few back, and desperately wishing you were James Bond. Given that this marathon consists largely of the most recent movies, it will most likely be an excuse for your dad to talk about how everything was better during his day.


Arrested Development Marathon (IFC)

Your family is loud, insane, and probably a little dysfunctional. Watching the Bluths lie to each other as they cheat and steal might make you feel a little better about your own dysfunctional family. Watching the many insults of Lucille Bluth will put that racist comment your relative yells about Barack Obama into a lighter perspective. You’ve also seen every episode over 200 times, but you can still find another pun in Tobias’s dialogue every time you watch. And for that, I salute you.
The Godfather Marathon (AMC)
This is a different kind of dysfunctional family story. Here’s if your family enjoys talking about the secret sauce in their cooking, and occasionally killing people. But more likely you enjoy stories about American history as much as your dad; you will also likely be switching between this and the History Channel all day long. You are also probably a movie buff, and drool over the mise-en-scene during the scene in which Michael kills Sollozzo and McCluskey. And for that, once again, I salute you.
The National Dog Show (NBC)
Dogs are more entertaining than cats. There, I said it. Watching this also probably brings up great memories of “Best in Show” for you.
NFL Football: Green Bay Packers at Detroit Lions (FOX)
Thanksgiving wouldn’t make sense for you without football. That, or you just really enjoy watching Detroit suffer (current score: 24-0).
Now, get off the internet and go stuff your faces. Happy Thanksgiving everyone.

And Five Years Later the Lord Said, "Let There Be More Arrested Development"

Leave a reply

Ever since “Arrested Development,” arguably the best sitcom ever put on television, was cancelled in 2006, speculation has been rampant on what will happen to The Bluths next. Creator Mitchell Hurwitz and cast members have hinted at a movie. However, the more they hyped it, the less likely it seemed to happen, and the more fans have been let down.

For the past five years, every time Jason Bateman has been asked about the movie and a soundbite such as “it’s happening” comes out of his mouth, bloggers and journalists alike have been quick to jump on it as evidence that the movie is on its way. But today, cast and crew released some news that actually seems a bit more tangible: ten new episodes of “Arrested Development” will air sometime next year. The movie will pick up where the last new episode left off. This news excited me so much that I accidentally spilled coffee all over my $6300 suit.
Each episode will supposedly focus on each character individually, and where they are in their lives since the show ended. I, for one, think this is a perfect idea, as the movie could now be about basically anything imaginable. It will also allow both the new episodes and the movie to take place in the present. What I hope is that the show keeps its mockumentary style, and that Ron Howard stays on as narrator.
All us loyal fans can do is hope this bit of news is true. If it is not, then the cast and crew of “Arrested Development” will be solidified as the smartest internet trolls of all time.
For any of you who aren’t a loyal fan of “Arrested Development” (and if you aren’t then for your own sake, start watching immediately), you may wonder why we haven’t moved on at this point. Well, it’s for good reason. Every episode of the show packed in so much wit and humor that repeated viewings are the only way to give this show any justice. However, three seasons of the Bluths simply isn’t enough. There can never be enough instances of Gob dancing like an idiot to “The Final Countdown,” Buster forgetting he has a hook for a hand, or Tobias taking the idea of a Freudian slip to the next level. What I’m trying to say is that no amount of “Arrested” puns could some up my excitement for the prospect of new episodes. But that won’t stop me. As the way-too-literal doctor from the show would say: everything is going to be “all right.” And by that I mean, he’s lost the use of his left hand.
See, Obama actually has gotten something accomplished while in office!

Movie Review: Scott Pilgrim vs. the World

3 Replies

There are some movies that, no matter their subject matter, just give you a new sort of energy after walking out. With its hilariously gimmicky comic book inspired universe, “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World” did just this.

“Scott Pilgrim vs. the World” felt so fresh and inviting because it simply did its best in trying to achieve so many things. It made use of action and comedy quite effectively because it comes from a director who can mash both genres like few others working today.
To like “Scott Pilgrim” and Scott Pilgrim, it is your task to throw away all of your hatreds you may have toward the film’s star. The titular hero is portrayed by Michael Cera. Scott Pilgrim is a timid bassist playing for a struggling Toronto band. Pilgrim doesn’t have as much trouble getting girls, as he does keeping them.
Pilgrim can’t get over the horrible way his last relationship ended. His relationship with a girl (Ellen Wong), who’s quite a bit younger is a bit troubling. But then, Scott sees Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) and knows he has found the one.
Ms. Flowers doesn’t come easy though. The girl with the constantly changing hair color has also had quite a number of bad breakups in the past. In order to win her over, Scott must battle her seven evil ex-boyfriends. With such competition as skateboarder Lucas Lee (Chris Evans), tough lesbian Roxy (Mae Whitman), and powerful record producer Gideon Graves (Jason Schwartzman), the task will prove to be just as hard as it sounds.
I wouldn’t call “Scott Pilgrim” flawless (some scenes ran on slightly longer than they needed to), but I still found so few things I could complain about. Everyone involved, whether writer, director, or actor, fulfilled their roles to the highest of their abilities. When this happens, a strange sort of tangible magic occurs. It is one that can’t easily be broken.
Cera made a name for himself early on as the teenager who’s too awkward for words. From “Arrested Development” until “Juno,” this image worked in his favor. Then of course, the backlash formed. Anyone who won’t give “Scott Pilgrim” a chance because they think it’s just another awkward performance will miss the point entirely. Cera has been developing a new character since “Youth in Revolt.” It’s basically a slightly deeper extension of his old one. It is awkward with a mix of pretentiousness and a lack of respect for both himself and others. Cera is no longer just playing himself. He knows how to be a comedic actor.
While the film is all about Scott Pilgrim, it is not just centered on him. “Scott Pilgrim” does an excellent job developing its entire ensemble. All of the characters have very well established backgrounds and traits. Each band member and everyone else in Scott’s life have at least one certain odd defining characteristic.
Aside from Cera, some of the cast highlights include Kieran Culkin as Scott’s gay and gossipy roommate Wallace. He manages to steal every scene he’s in. Then there’s Anna Kendrick, who manages to prove herself a better actress with every role. Aubrey Plaza, as the always present Julie Powers, continues to find a perfect dry humor in her monotone voice and even more monotone attitude toward life.
“Scott Pilgrim” is following a new series of graphic novel adaptations that are almost jokes on the whole comic book genre itself. In addition, its the first comic book movie I’ve seen that truly felt like a comic come to life.
This story is complete with onomatopoeic sounds bursting out in word form. Just like a comic book, the audience sees every Boom! and every Bam! The characters can see every one of these effects as well, giving the film a much more self aware element.
The film also ties in elements from video games. Every evil ex is like a level from a video game. “Scott Pilgrim” could best be described as “Mortal Kombat” meets “Kick-Ass.”
I hope to credit as much of this as possible to the film’s co-writer and director, Edgar Wright. Wright has garnered a great reputation over the years for tongue-in-cheek satire of various entertainment genres. Perhaps he’s so good at it because he truly seems to know his stuff. Within all of the jokes about video games and comic books, Wright infuses a dose of satire of everything from the typical action film to the tired rom-com.
Like his past efforts, Wright shows great talent for getting big laughs out of such small details. To really laugh at an Edgar Wright film, one must have a very keen eye for detail. Take for instance one moment in “Shaun of the Dead,” where if you look close enough in the background, you might spot a homeless man about to eat a live pigeon.
Wright also constantly challenges what the human brain can laugh at. Wright can hurt his characters without being mean and tell jokes about gay people without seeing homophobic in the slightest bit.
The action in “Scott Pilgrim” is directed in a way that is both silly and serious. As hilarious as it can be, it is also a feast for the eyes. So much effort was put into every little shot. Much of the action feels like a hybrid between a video game and a comic book, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing.
In this way, the action can be seen as a comment on our current fast-paced, video game obsessed culture. It’s better though to ignore this fact and just see the film as the hilarious product of entertainment that it truly is.
For a film that is so unique and inventive, “Scott Pilgrim” ends almost exactly the way anyone could have predicted. Yet, how it gets to that moment is a bit surprising, and extremely mature for a film like this. “Scott Pilgrim” is a film that truly cares about its characters. Think of it as the most thoughtful video game movie ever made.
To all of you die hard “Arrested Development” fans out there, watch out for a few very good references.

TV Review: Modern Family

Leave a reply

I’m so sorry. I feel like I’ve committed a crime.

For months now, I’ve been meaning to write about “Modern Family,” the best comedy currently playing on television. With the season finale fast approaching, some might think it’s too late. Me, I think it’s the perfect time. As the entire season has now unfolded, and the characters are totally developed, it’s time for me to convince you to watch “Modern Family.”
Like any good sitcom, “Modern Family” takes a tired subject (dysfunctional families) and breaths new life into it. In fact, it’s the best family-centered comedy on TV since the end of “Arrested Development.”
Like “The Office,” “Parks and Recreation,” and “Summer Heights High,” “Modern Family” is shot entirely in an interview mockumentary style. It focuses on three different but connected families. The main patriarch is scotch guzzling Jay (Ed O’Neill) who loves his family as much as he loves making racist comments. He’s recently married to young Colombian Gloria (Sofia Vergara) who has brought along with her 10-year-old son Manny (Rico Rodriguez), who acts about 40 years older than he actually is.
Then, there’s Jay’s daughter Claire (Julie Bowen), who is the definition of uptight yet caring mother. She’s married to Phil (Ty Burrell), who has the body of an adult, but the mind of a child. Together, they have three kids: a ditz (Sarah Hyland), a brain (Ariel Winter), and another ditz (Nolan Gould).
And finally, there’s Claire’s gay brother, Mitchell (Jesse Tyler Ferguson). His boyfriend is the flamboyant, yet always hilarious Cam (Eric Stonestreet), and the two recently adopted a Vietnamese baby.
This is the premise, boiled down. I could go in deeper and deeper but then I’d have no room to analyze. So what I will say is that from there, the show deals with the relations between each family, and how they cope with the idea of staying together when external factors serve to pull them apart.
Though, even that doesn’t do the show justice. Hopefully, this will: it’s sick, it’s twisted, and in that, it’s beyond hilarious. It has a degree of boldness that seems to be lacking from most network TV shows.
“Modern Family” has what every good comedy needs: great writing. What’s even greater is that the show never restricts itself to one brand of humor. Each character in some way embodies a different style of humor. Phil, who seems to always either be falling or being locked in port-o-potties embodies the show’s slapstick side. Claire and Mitchell embody the concept of the “straight-man.” Jay and Alex are examples of good old wit. And Haley is just an example of why stupidity can just be so funny.
It is a testament to the greatness of the writers that they can constantly balance slapstick and sophistication along with stupidity and wit and never lose balance. There are big visual punchlines involving fake mustaches and spicy food, along with brilliant, snappy one-liners.
“Modern Family” is an ensemble show so of course it would’ve suffered with poor actors. Fortunately, the acting is quite strong. If I would, I’d find praise for every single actor in the cast but instead, I’ll just point out the most notable ones. O’Neill’s entire character seems to be a reference to his role on “Married…With Children,” yet here he seems to have a little more of a heart.
Meanwhile, Burrell and Stonestreet play two characters that easily could’ve become caricatures. Yet, they find the right way to emphasize both their quirks and their humanity without losing sight of either. Then there’s Vergara who’s sassy attitude never gets old. She turns Gloria into something endearing and she is well on her way to becoming a big, new name in comedy.
At the end of the day, the best comedies are great not just in how they make you laugh, but in how they make you feel. Some might enjoy “Modern Family” by finding common ground with it. While its documentary style could’ve provided the viewer with an objective, mocking look at modern American family life, it instead totally invades the home and becomes a part of it.
In this respect, the audience is therefore forced to see both ridiculous actions, and the justifications for them. That could be poor intentions, or just plain misunderstandings. When quirks are emphasized, so are flaws, and when flaws are emphasized, characters escape becoming nothing more than cardboard cutouts. The show’s complex look at family matters evokes the tagline of “The Royal Tenenbaums”: “Family isn’t a word…It’s a sentence.”
There are a lot of good comedies on TV right now. “Modern Family,” in its very first season, manages to stand above them all because it manages to remain so consistently funny. Even in weaker episodes, there is always a laugh to be had. This is a great sign that the creators, the writers, and the cast know exactly what they’re doing, and exactly where this show is heading. With hit-and-never miss humor like this, “Modern Family” looks like it’ll be around for years and years to come.

Movie Review: Youth in Revolt

2 Replies

January is that time of year when the only movies people are going to see are December holdovers and Oscar contenders. So studios dump bad movie upon bad movie on us. It seems more like at this time of year, they release movies with so much potential, yet don’t even try. A perfect example of this is “Youth in Revolt.”

“Youth in Revolt” had the ingredients for a solid film: good cast, (supposedly) good source material, and great trailer. In the end, all of these adding up to only a decent product.
As the title suggests, “Youth in Revolt” is the story of teenage rebellion. The teen in question is Nick Twisp (Michael Cera), a sixteen-year-old virgin and an aspiring writer. His lonely existence is not helped by his cash-strapped mother Estelle (Jean Smart) and her loser boyfriend Jerry (Zach Galifianakis).
After Jerry gets into some trouble, the three hide away in a remote lake town. There, Nick falls in love with Sheeni Saunders (Portia Doubleday). In order to prove to her that he is more than just a good boy, he creates a destructive alter ego named Francois Dillinger. Then, Nick destroys some property and that’s pretty much it.
“Youth in Revolt” had two main problems: weak story, and weak humor. The problem with the story is that it hinges on to one plot detail and never seems to make any new developments from there. Why not delve deeper into Nick’s destructive impulses? While Nick is by far the most developed character in the film, why not show some depth on the other characters? “The 40-Year-Old Virgin” was able to tell a story for each character in its huge ensemble in under two hours, so why couldn’t “Youth in Revolt” do the same?
Also, throughout the film, Sheeni refuses to go all the way with Nick unless he does something really bad. However, director Miguel Areta makes absolutely no attempt to turn her into any sort of rebellious child. She seems more like the kind of girl who’d like a more civilized boyfriend than one who destroys his parents’ cars.
Other parts of the story seem very unfocused, such as the sporadic narration. Sometimes we see the story from Nick’s perspective, and other times we don’t.
Perhaps something I’m most upset about is the poor use of Zach Galifianakis. He’s given few funny lines (and practically no depth) here. They could’ve at least given him something funny to say but “The Hangover” did prove that Galifianakis doesn’t need a good one liner to be funny; all he really needs is a jock strap and a ridiculous laugh. Galifianakis had less screen time in “Up in the Air,” yet he still managed to make something hilarious out under two minutes of screen time.
Despite these flaws, the film does have a few redeeming qualities. It does manage to have a few funny scenes, not to mention that actors Fred Willard and Ray Liotta manage to steal every scene they are in. The main attraction here really is Cera. During his short career, Cera has turned himself into the nice, awkward teenager through his roles in “Arrested Development,” “Superbad,” and “Juno.” Here, he slightly throws George Michael out the window. What was so impressive about his performance was not merely that he was playing good as opposed to bad, but that he was playing a character with truly complex emotions. You never know when he’s going to be good, and when he’s suddenly going to snap. This unpredictability is a rare talent, and I hope in the future he sticks to complex roles like this. Next time, lets hope he does it with better material.
“Youth in Revolt” represents what happens when a massive heap of potential is given no effort at all. The film’s director and writer seem to treat it more like an ignored child than a baby that needs to be nurtured to grow. What the people of Hollywood need to realize is that even though moviegoers must realize that January isn’t the best time for movies, we aren’t suckers. So please, stop treating us like we are.

The Top 10 TV Shows of the 2000s

1 Reply

Sure, this is a film blog, but I can’t forget to mention the forgotten art form: television. Unfortunately, this decade was a breeding ground for the worst form of television imaginable: reality television. Throughout the decade, our TV screens were constantly invaded by trash like “Joe Millionaire,” “The Littlest Groom,” and “Jersey Shore.” However, art wasn’t gone forever. HBO, Showtime, FX, and AMC showed that the new television was no longer only on basic cable. However, basic cable didn’t totally disappoint. What this decade proved was quite simply, that the best shows had the best writing. Here now, are the best TV shows of the decade. Note that only shows that began during the years of 2000-09 are eligible; so unfortunately “Freaks and Geeks,” “The Daily Show,” “South Park,” and “The Sopranos” just missed the cut:

1. Arrested Development- Not just the best of the decade, but perhaps one of the greatest shows ever made. This mockumentary comedy about Michael Bluth (Jason Bateman), a good man simply trying to bring together his dysfunctional family and failing company, scores from a mixture of ingenious writing, brilliant directing, and a pitch-perfect ensemble. One could attribute this show’s greatness to its ridiculous ensemble of characters, led by Bateman’s straight man. One could also point to its writing, which blends social satire with double entendres. Or one could say it’s both factors, as “Arrested” is a rare show where the stars aligned and everything works out perfectly. The fact that this show was cancelled after only three seasons is an atrocity (hey, I guess it was just too smart for America). However, its future influence is worth more than a million “Two and a Half Men”s. What genius could have invented characters who are nevernudes, alcoholics, and cocky magicians, all in one show? Mitch Hurwitz, that’s who.
2. 30 Rock- Pure comedic bliss. Tina Fey left “Saturday Night Live” and blessed the world with this brilliant showbiz satire. In “30 Rock,” Fey plays the lonely, overworked Liz Lemon, the creator of an NBC sketch comedy show whose world is turned upside down thanks to a pushy new boss (Alec Baldwin). Like “Arrested Development” before it, the show embraces every member of its ensemble (also like “Arrested,” it was in serious danger of cancellation). But what really makes the show tick is its writing, headed by Fey which mixes pop culture references with the weird and the avant garde.
3. Mad Men- The 1960s never looked so vividly alive, and gloriously sinful. This AMC drama portrays the advertising industry in the 60s, through the eyes of the well-spoken, philandering ad man Don Draper (Jon Hamm). “Mad Men” wows for nailing every detail of the time period, from the clothes to the wallpaper. Mainly, it’s incredible that creator Matthew Weiner could spend so much time on style, yet still tell such amazing stories all while keeping the audience attached to such compelling characters.
4. The Colbert Report- It seems rare that an alumni of “The Daily Show” could go off and become just as successful than Jon Stewart. Stephen Colbert is that rare exception. Colbert created a Conservative alter ego and put it on a talk show four nights a week–and it worked. Colbert’s totally deadpan portrayal of a Bill O’Reilly reincarnation is convincing at every turn, from his segments “The Word” to “The Threat Down.” Colbert made America aware of the dangers of bears (“Godless killing machines”), and even saved US Olympic Speed Skating. He even brought his show to the White House, and fooled the president, too. Only someone as brave and brilliant as Colbert could pull this off.
5. Lost- There are two stages of TV drama: before “Lost,” and after “Lost.” “Lost” changed the rules of how time and space work by eliminating both concepts and exploring the infinite abyss of a world in limbo. “Lost” is a modern day “Twilight Zone” for its creative take on the sci-fi genre. However, what truly sets “Lost” apart is its human story. Despite the chaos of its look between fate and freewill through the context of time travel, “Lost” never loses its central theme of being about the little connections that lie between every member of the human race.
6. Planet Earth- Here it is, the best nature documentary ever filmed. “Planet Earth” consists of 11 episodes, each one exploring a different habitat of the earth. What makes this nature show different from every other nature show is that it uses the latest in groundbreaking HD technology. Each image seems so vividly real, that it feels like the action is happening right in your living room. From a shark devouring a seal in slow motion to the rare mating habits of the birds of New Guinea, you’ll never see this planet the same way again.
7. The Office (US)- What we have here is the rare remake that’s actually original. “The Office” managed to take on a life of its own rather than just imitate its predecessor. It helped make the mockumentary sitcom style popular (“Parks & Recreation” and “Modern Family” would later follow). What truly made “The Office” come into its own were its characters, whom the writers made so real by giving them real emotions; they were capable of doing horrible, unforgivable acts and then earning believable redemption. Not to mention, a tour de force in some of the most uncomfortable humor you’ll ever see.
8. It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia- Some have described this show as “‘Seinfeld’ on crack.” That sounds just about right. “Sunny” follows the lives of five losers who run a bar and in their free time, do horrible, misguided acts in attempts to become successful. Some of these deprived acts include faking handicaps, making terrorist videotapes, and operating secret sweatshops. Oh yeah, did I mention this was a comedy?
9. Curb Your Enthusiasm- If you thought the characters of “Seinfeld” were bad, wait until you meet its creator. “Curb” revolutionized the improv comedy by following the life of the selfish, inconsiderate “Seinfeld” creator Larry David. Just to get an idea of who Larry David is, he once told a teenage girl to “shut the f**k up” and another time tried to dig up his mother’s body and move her into a Jewish cemetery. There are many, many, more horrible things that Larry David has done. And this is all pretty good. Prettaay, prettaay, pretty good.
10. Summer Heights High- It seems that the leading sitcom style of the 2000s was the mockumentary. This Australian import about the lives of a drama teacher, a troublemaker, and an exchange student, is one of the finest examples. Maybe what is funniest about this show is that creator Chris Lilley plays all three of the main characters, even the girl, and makes them seem ridiculous yet endearing. Also, you might quite simply enjoy its hilarious writing, which turned “Puck you miss!” into a national catchphrase.
Honorable Mentions: How I Met Your Mother, Pushing Daisies, Family Guy (Seasons 1-3), Chappelle’s Show, Parks & Recreation, Scrubs, Modern Family
What shows might you include as the best of the decade?

Movie Review: Extract

1 Reply

It seems fitting that “Extract” takes place in a vanilla extract factory, since the film is about as plain as the flavor itself. And the saddest part is, it comes from one of Hollywood’s most creative directors.

“Extract” is a comedy. Sometimes, it’s a spoof on work hell. Other times, it’s a spoof on suburbia. And then the rest of the time, it’s supposed to be a comedic crime caper. It never really takes a stand at specifically which one it will be, and not a single one of these ideas ever seems to connect.
“Extract” is directed by Mike Judge, whose previous comedy about life at work is, of course, “Office Space.” This time, rather than being from the perspective of the miserable mid-level worker, it’s from the perspective of the stressed out boss. Joel (Jason Bateman) owns a successful flavor extract company. He’s about to make a fortune by selling his company to General Mills until a freak accident in the factory leaves a worker without a testicle. His replacement is an attractive con woman named Cindy (Mila Kunis). She seems nice, but she’s secretly trying to con the company out of millions of dollars.
Back at home, Joel’s life is even more complicated. He has major sexual troubles with his wife (Kristen Wiig). This is what will eventually set the stage for some bad advice from a drug-loving bar tender (Ben Affleck) and a doomed relationship with Cindy.
Those are the two plots of Extract. If Judge wanted to make a better movie, he should’ve just stuck to one of them. And in my opinion, it should’ve been the hard working, frustrated boss tries to make things work at work and home. The con woman plot goes absolutely nowhere.
How Judge could make such a poorly executed comedy is beyond me. Not only did he direct “Office Space,” he also created “Beavis and Butt-head.” While many people without a sense of irony thought this show was just plain dumb, it’s actually about the humor of observing dumb people. “Extract” certainly could have had some of that. At one point, Joel points out how all of his workers are giant babies, and he is like their babysitter. We see the workers’ work habits. While the workers’ work habits are annoying, they’re never particularly hilarious. None of them seem to have those Milton-like qualities.
Like any Mike Judge film or show, “Extract” is filled with a wide variety of characters defined by their quirks. Usually these quirks include a less than intelligent brain, or a strange way of speaking. Maybe the best one in “Extract” is Joel’s nosy neighbor Nathan (David Koechner). However, his quirks aren’t shown in a lovable way. They’re shown in a more “I want to punch this guy in the face” way.
Maybe the reason many of the characters don’t work is because Judge underutilizes his obscenely talented cast. J.K. Simmons is barely given a funny line, and his role in the film is never defined. Wiig is great at playing shy and asexual, but again, she’s given few chances to be truly funny. And while I was most looking forward to seeing Affleck (what? he’s funny), he is given too little screen time. I always enjoy Jason Bateman, and here I think he did his best to re-create his other famous frustrated boss role: Michael Bluth–if only this film could’ve been more like “Arrested Development.” However, there are two bright spots. Kiss’s Gene Simmons does a hilarious job portraying a sleazy lawyer, and Dustin Milligan gets some of the film’s best laughs for playing the brain dead gigolo Brad.
I don’t want to give “Extract” as bad a review as I could because I know there’s potential for a great movie in here. That potential is perhaps best seen at the film’s end. The ending has an underlying, subtle humor to it and an almost moving, human quality. It is the ending to a film that never actually existed. That end scene showed the film’s true, wasted potential.
Judge is one of Hollywood’s most under appreciated talents, and I thought “Extract” would become another underrated cult hit. It had potential. If only it had emulated that ending scene and been the kind of satire of American life Judge is so great at doing, than this comedy would’ve been an instant classic.