Category Archives: Comedy

Movie Review: 30 Minutes or Less

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.

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.

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.

Movie Review: Midnight in Paris

Leave a reply

“Midnight in Paris,” Woody Allen’s fantastic new film, begins with an overly long, yet beautifully crafted montage of Paris. The introduction gives off the impression that Allen doesn’t even want to make a movie, he just wants to sit back and see what the streets of Paris have to offer. And that is exactly what he does.

For over a decade, the Woody Allen we once knew has seemed pretty lost. He tried to find himself by leaving New York and exploring Europe. Even with the successes that has brought (“Match Point,” “Vicky Cristina Barcelona”), he just hasn’t been able to equal the success of his early days. However, “Midnight in Paris” shows that everyone’s favorite neurotic Jew has not only rediscovered his voice, but figured out how to turn it into perfect comedic cinema.

“Midnight in Paris” details hack screenwriter Gil (Owen Wilson) and his fiancee Inez (Rachel McAdams) as they venture through Paris. While Inez focuses on their wedding and future, Gil focuses on his first novel, and his dream of living in Paris in the 1920s. While trying to find inspiration for his work, Gil finds something totally unexpected in Paris after midnight. What he finds is a mystery that would feel almost like a crime to reveal.

I wouldn’t call “Midnight in Paris” Allen’s big comeback, because he’s had so many comebacks over the years. When you make as many films as he does, there are bound to be misses. Yet, this is his first film in a long time that feels informative, free, and most importantly, fun. Sometimes, you don’t have to sell your soul and buy a ticket for “Fast Five” in order to have fun at the movies.

“Midnight in Paris” is a mixture of everything Allen is great at. In the film, he is given a chance to mock the pretentious intellectuals of the world as he slips subtle literary references into the story. Its combined slapstick and whimsical tone made me think of “Sleeper.” Its light and fast mood also evoked the great comedies of the era Gil wished he could have lived in.

Wilson, meanwhile, is the best Allen reincarnation there could possibly be. He perfectly takes on Allen’s wisecracking, neurotic New Yorker-type personality. He delivers every line with the right amount of anxiety. The rest of the ensemble is utilized well. It would be easy for someone who is writing about themselves to only focus on the character based off of themselves, yet Allen never forgets that there are many people involved in Gil’s life. Most notably is Michael Sheen as the way-too-sophisticated-for-his-own-good Paul and Kurt Fuller as Gil’s always furious father-in-law. McAdams is also an always enjoyable screen presence even when she’s being a cold and unsupportive girlfriend.

Oh yeah, and that writing. Comedy is one of the most intelligent forms of writing, yet few ever do it right. Only Allen can be so funny and so observant. After all, the greatest observations about life are the funniest ones.

Whether he be in New York, London, Barcelona, or Paris, setting is an essential part of every Allen story. Even with such strong characters, location is always key to the story. It usually sets the mood, whether that be uptight, mysterious, or free-spirited. In “Midnight in Paris,” Paris might as well be the center of the entire universe. It exudes both light and life, it is the center of creation. Just as he knows his beloved New York so much, Allen acts as if he’d lived in Paris for centuries, nailing the culture down right.

As I continue to write this review, I am debating going deeper into the plot. It would be great for further discussion, yet I feel like I’d be ruining something. In a world where it’s usually movies never keep their best parts unspoiled, “Midnight in Paris” offers plenty of surprises that are best to see for yourself. In one short film, the excitement of many years of culture, the beauty of a city, and the over-analyzing complexities of being a writer are captured. Most importantly, this film is just so full of joy. It is the very reason why escapism was created. And that is why it is my favorite film so far this year.

Movie Review: The Hangover Part II

Leave a reply

If not for the presence of Zach Galifianakis, a monkey might have been the best part of “The Hangover Part II.” That tends to happen when good comedies are given sequels: monkeys tend to take over.

“The Hangover Part II” is exactly what I expected. Even though that means a lot of funny moments, it is also a big disappointment. Having a film meet meager expectations is a decent thing, yet having a film exceed them is really something special. What “The Hangover Part II” unfortunately assumes is that if a formula worked once, it will work again and again.

As with before, a bachelor party goes terribly wrong, and someone important goes missing. This time though, replace Las Vegas with Bangkok, and fill in Stu’s (Ed Helms) wedding. Then replace missing Doug (Justin Bartha) with Teddy (Mason Lee), the son of Stu’s father-in law, who already hates Stu to begin with. Also replace a missing tooth, baby, and tiger with an accidental face tattoo, a shaved head, and a monkey with shady moral standing. The stakes are bigger, and the city is more dangerous.

A common rule I’ve learned about writing is that what we don’t see is always more powerful than what we see. For some reason, “The Hangover” saga can’t seem to pick up on this important lesson. In comedies, what we don’t see is funnier than what we do see. “The Hangover Part II” never bothers to leave anything up to the audience’s interpretation. Gross out comedy is coming to a point where the only way to gross out the audience is to show them everything. “Animal House” didn’t have to actually show Flounder throwing up on Dean Wormer’s desk, and yet its hard not to laugh every time.

I believe this over emphasis on gross out humor results from both an over reliance on shock value and excuses to not write a stronger screenplay. The original “Hangover” doesn’t have the best writing for a comedy, and it certainly doesn’t have the best developed characters, but it worked. The story fits together, the mystery makes sense, and the laughs are earned. The sequel puts more emphasis on shocking the audience rather than making them laugh.

One over-the-top element of the film that works best is Galifianakis’s performance. He is given more screen time than in the original and is therefore given more time to make the character even more bizarre than he was before. All of the characters from the first film are used well here, yet many new side characters are eventually forgotten. They are treated as plot devices rather than as actual characters.

I cannot tell whether “The Hangover 2″ fails as a comedy or whether it just somehow succeeds at self-awareness. The beginning of the movie is similar enough to the original that it almost seems like parody; director Todd Phillips seems smart enough to understand how unoriginal the whole film is. However, at some point it leaves self-awareness behind and becomes a very unaware Hollywood sequel.

This review cannot end without acknowledging the scenes of hilarity that do exist. Besides most of the lines that come out of Galifianikis’s mouth, the monkey makes for a surprisingly great addition to the crew. And to Ken Jeong, your willingness to bare everything qualifies as some form of bravery. I will not even bother to analyze the funniest scenes further, as the best comedy can never be analyzed.

Another redeeming feature is the film’s decision to locate the story in Bangkok. The seedy, rapidly expanding city is the perfect place to set a sprawling mystery involving a missing person.

With all of the quibbles to be had about “The Hangover Part II,” what can’t be forgotten is that the homegrown feel from the first film is now gone. “The Hangover Part II” is a pop comedy. The series is a blockbuster with blockbuster expectations now. If you are looking for a great summer comedy that won’t be forgotten soon after leaving the theater, see “Bridesmaids.” If you just want something mindless and entertaining to escape reality for a short period, go to “The Hangover Part II.” Just don’t expect the repeat viewings that made the original such a sensation.

Movie Review: Bridesmaids

Leave a reply

In most of the reviews for “Bridesmaids,” there seems to be a common consensus that this is the movie that proves that women can succeed in comedy. Well, that is wrong, considering the ongoing success of Tina Fey and plenty of other female comedians who have been working for years.

Nevertheless, “Bridesmaids” quite impressively breaks down the gender barrier between male gross-out comedy and female rom-com and creates, well, a gross-com. Or maybe a rom-out? You think of a better name.

The great thing about “Bridesmaids” is that, despite its nearly all female cast, it can connect to a variety of crowds. Kristen Wiig stars in that role she’s become known for: that awkward girl who moves her body too much and never says the right thing. Her character, Annie, has been assigned to the task of being maid of honor at her best friend’s (Maya Rudolph) wedding. Any attempts Annie makes at planning the wedding are sabotaged by Helen (Rose Byrne), a bridesmaid who is a little too good at planning fancy events. This turns into a jealousy fest that doesn’t spur a bride war, but rather a way for a lot of people to realize how screwed up they all are.

Everytime “Bridesmaids” headed down the usual rom-com path, it always took another turn that managed to prove me wrong. That’s because the film isn’t a rom-com, it’s a usual Apatow film that replaces men with women. While the film was advertised as the female “Hangover,” I would say the story is closer to “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” or “Knocked Up,” minus the weed. That is to say, Wiig is just as much of a sorry slacker as Jason Segel and Seth Rogen were in those movies. However, Wiig’s Annie proves to be even more pathetic than either of them ever were, even at their lowest points.

I think what helps the comedy mixture work best is the fact that the female writers (Wiig and Annie Mumolo) are paired with a male director (Feig). This team works well in other ways. Both the writers and the director know how to make awkwardness funny, and the director is also especially good at stepping aside and letting good writing and acting speak for itself.

Let’s discuss the writing: it is the main factor of why “Bridesmaids” has clicked so much with audiences. Unlike most mainstream comedy seen today, none of the jokes, dialogue, or situations feel forced. Most of them feel like they could have been improvised. Even the visual gags feel real. One visual gag I kept thinking about involves Wiig getting stuck on top of a gate after a morning walk of shame gone awry. Perhaps it is the character’s reaction that truly makes it work; it just feels like the way anyone would act in that situation. Feig is great at getting “real reactions” out of people (just watch “Freaks and Geeks” already, please).

That scene is just one of many examples of Wiig’s fantastic performance in the film. It is not surprising that a backlash has been forming against her recently. Unfortunately, the backlash makes some sense: she was basically pulling the same shtick in every single one of her performances. Here, she is playing that same uncomfortable, twitchy faced oddball she always plays. However, in “Bridesmaids,” she actually feels like a real person.

Wiig has matured as an actress, giving us a multi-faced character who changes throughout the course of the film. It might be fun to watch Wiig play with her hair and do her whole Penelope routine, but a little change every once in a while is never a bad thing.

Some of the other acting highlights of the film include Jon Hamm, who shows as always that he can play comedic sleaze as well as he can play dramatic sleaze. A few newcomers make a big impact on the film. Irish comedian Chris O’Dowd is perfectly deadpan and very sweet as Annie’s love interest.

The most notable scene stealer, however, is Melissa McCarthy as the slobbish bridesmaid with a heart of gold. McCarthy delivers hilarious (and very weird) dialogue at a pace that you have to try and keep up with. She establishes this with the very first lines she delivers. She is also the most riotous and disgusting part of the movie’s soon to be famous, ultimate gross-out scene. Oh yeah, about that scene; I will try and keep it mostly secret, but what I will say is that it will one day end up in the pantheon of comedy’s funniest poop/puke scenes. The fact that it is able to combine both and make it not just shocking, but actually funny, is an accomplishment worth celebrating.

The only real problem with “Bridesmaids” is one that is common with Apatow helmed comedies: running time. Sure, the story flows smoothly and all the jokes are funny, but some jokes run on just a little too long. Some of the improvised bits definitely could have been cut down and been saved for a future blooper reel. Also, the ending seems a bit too formulaic. However, a little twist in the end credits puts an end to that.

Despite this, “Bridesmaids” is a special movie that, after over two hours, won me over. “Bridesmaids” is a testament to the fact that female comedy should be left to female writers because men don’t know anything about women, and women don’t know anything about men; that’s just life.

Most importantly though, “Bridesmaids” shows that the difference between a good and a truly memorable comedy is to have likable characters who have flaws and, in the end, are able to redeem themselves. That’s not just great comedy, that’s great writing.

I predict in the near future that this image of Jon Hamm will become a meme. Make it happen, internet.

An Open Letter for Everyone Involved in The Hangover Part II (a.k.a. Don’t Make this Suck)

Leave a reply

Dear Cast and Crew of The Hangover Part II,

As I have stated on this blog before, I am a devoted fan of “The Hangover.” I still stuck by it, even when people pointed out the glitches in the plot, and others accused it of not being funny. I stuck by it, and even mentioned it as one of my favorite films of 2009. I was surprised by how well this film did in theaters, and I know you are, too. Because “The Hangover” did so well, Hollywood has decided to do what it does for any movie that does well: give it a sequel. Even though this sequel is very unnecessary, make it count. However, by the looks of the trailer, I am afraid that that just may not be the case.

Yes, I have watched the trailer for “The Hangover Part II.” I will say this briefly because so many others have already stated this more eloquently than I have: it is exactly the same as the first film, beat by beat. Changing the location and replacing a baby with a monkey doesn’t mean that the plot will be any different. Here is the plot of both films as I see it: Zach Galifianakis does something ridiculous, everyone blacks out, Ed Helms wakes up with something weird on his face, they lose someone important, and then they search for clues. This formula works for both films.

All of this worries me a lot because all of the actors involved, and the director at helm, seem above the typical Hollywood game. That is what the first film showed. It had a unique gross out hilarity, great characters, and a good, unpredictable mystery behind it. That formula worked great once, so why redo it? Whenever a great comedy is given a sequel, it typically is the exact same plot with a few minor tweaks. This ruins the authenticity of the original. Just look at what happened to the “Austin Powers” series. Comedy sequels such as “Wayne’s World 2″ and “Get Him to the Greek” are re-watchable because they took the characters we already liked and put them into new situations.

One thing I hope the trailer represents, is false advertising. Perhaps the reason you have decided to make your film seem like the original is to get the support of all of the first film’s fans so they will come back and see the sequel. Maybe the plot is actually much more different than the trailer leads on. Or perhaps the story is tounge-and-cheek; perhaps you’ve decided to make fun of how unoriginal and formulaic Hollywood sequels have become. The recent Entertainment Weekly article I read about your film suggests you guys put a lot of effort into it. So unless you are lying (which I highly doubt), then at least I know that “The Hangover Part II” isn’t just everyone phoning it in for a paycheck. As Galifianakis said, he already did that for “G-Force.”

Even if “The Hangover Part II” proves to be extremely similar to its predecessor, I still feel like it’ll be funny. As long as these people are involved, humor should follow. However, there is more humor to be found in a new joke than an old one. The whole wolf pack thing can get old when people tell you it over and over again.

Also, it is interesting that you decided to include the phrase “Part II” in your title rather than just call your movie “The Hangover 2.” Believe it or not, the word “Part” and having roman numerals actually mean a lot. You are suggesting that this isn’t just some sequel, but rather a second part. Like “The Godfather” and “Star Wars,” you suggest with that title that this sequel was made not to make more money, but to further advance a certain story. So, I hope the purpose of this film isn’t just to bank off of the success of the first one, but rather to advance further into this gang’s maturity and show their friendship develop even deeper.

Please, everyone involved in “The Hangover Part II,” prove my fears (and those of many others) wrong.

Sincerely,

The Reel Deal

P.S. On my Humor Scale: Drug Dealing Monkey > Misplaced Baby. So yes, I do have hope.

Movie Review: Paul

Leave a reply

Comedies that have been made since, let’s say the 90s, have been strongly derived from science fiction. It seems odd to think that the people who were raised on “Star Wars” and “Star Trek” went on to make “Clerks” and “Knocked Up.” I never really connected the dots until I watched “Paul.” Sci-fi, in either the best or worst sense, can also be comedy.

“Paul” is one of those satires that’s a little mocking, yet very loving, at the same time. Only someone so in love with sci-fi and comic book culture could ever make fun of it in this way. “Paul” is one of those movies that was much better than it had any right to be, or at least much better then I ever thought it would be.

“Paul” begins in a place where the new heroes of the 21st century seem to dwell: Comic-Con. Best friends Graeme (Simon Pegg) and Clive (Nick Frost) come all the way from England to experience the convention. On the way back, they stop off at some alien landing sites and come across Paul (Seth Rogen), a foul-mouthed, weed smoking alien who just wants to go back home. Now, the duo must help Paul safely meet his ship, while avoiding some very sinister FBI agents (including an intentionally robotic Jason Bateman, along with the much more ridiculous Bill Hader and Joe Lo Truglio). Along the way they also pick up a Jesus freak (Kristen Wiig) and flee her psychotic father (John Carroll Lynch).

“Paul” might not land my 10 best list for the year, but I will say that it’s probably the best put together comedy I’ve seen so far this year (though the competition is pretty slim). Though this shouldn’t be surprising, based on the people involved. Pegg and Frost have already gracefully mocked zombie movies with “Shaun of the Dead” and action movies with “Hot Fuzz.” In both cases, they wrote movies that both mocked the genres while becoming entries into them. “Paul” is no exception. These people have obviously partaken in enough sci-fi to know how to make fun of it correctly.

“Paul” has such a sprawling cast of comedic talent, and each actor contributes exactly the way they should be. Pegg and Frost have been practicing British bromance for close to a decade now, and they really know how to do it right. Though this time, their relationship had a much difference balance. It was a little less of one actually trying to get things done, and the other being a total idiot. This time, their friendship was basically played up as a romance, with hilarious effect.

The best comedic minds in Britain blend with America’s funniest comedians in “Paul.” I guess someone who can make characters as awkward as Wiig can was destined to one day play a half blind hard-core Christian; I guess she fulfilled her destiny. Rogen meanwhile is good as ever, even in alien form. At times, Paul never seemed very alien, because no one bothered to make his character any different from the real Seth Rogen. This actually turns out to be a good thing, as Paul becomes a likable, almost human character. He’s like E.T., if only E.T. could speak fluent English and chain smoke.

“Paul” nailed all of its sci-fi and pop culture references, from the never-ending mothership to the meeting spot at Devil’s Tower. The film is directed by Greg Motolla, who impresses more and more with the range of comedies he can direct. He can go from gross out (“Superbad”), to a little dramatic (“Adventureland”), to one that has an FX alien as a main character.

What Motolla does best is make sappy ideas seem very sweet. Think about the power of the friendship in “Superbad.” That’s why I really wish “Paul” had a little more emphasis on the friendship between Graeme and Clive, because very little development and change occurs in it throughout the film. This is too bad, as this was always a strong and hilarious aspect in the other films Pegg and Frost made together. Nothing against Motolla, but perhaps frequent collaborator Edgar Wright would’ve been a good directorial choice here.

Then again, how do you fit a fully developed buddy comedy into a movie about a half naked alien? If Motolla, Pegg, and Frost could’ve pulled that off, they’d forever be comic geniuses. Maybe they didn’t get there, but they still made a perfectly acceptable, unstoppably hilarious satire. They have certainly followed this rule of good satire quite well: if you want to make a good satire (especially of pop culture), you must be both familiar, and a little in love, with the content you are making fun of.