Category Archives: Ed Helms

Movie Review: Jeff, Who Lives at Home

Finally, a slacker “comedy” where no one utters the words, “what are you going to do with your life?” Instead, there is a fair heaping of “get your ass of the couch.” I find this much more reasonable and realistic.

“Jeff, Who Lives at Home” is a nice film that’s also more than a nice film. It’s about a slacker, but it’s also about a hero. To my greatest surprise, this is a refreshingly irony free ride.

Jeff (Jason Segel) is 30 and still living in the basement of his parents’ house, which drives his widowed mother Sharon (Susan Sarandon) crazy. Jeff has but one simple task for the day: buy a new wooden panel for the broken door. Even this proves difficult for Jeff. While Jeff is a slacker, he certainly isn’t lazy. Let’s call him a very motivated stoner lost in his own little world.


The first words to come out of Jeff’s mouth, which are stated like a confession into a tape recorder, that he watched “Signs” again. Jeff finds meaning in it that no one else can. Jeff believes that the world is ruled by some sort of invisible cosmic order, and everything around him serves as a sign. It is a testament to how careful Jay & Mark Duplass are with their characters that this comes off as enriching rather than ridiculous. It is also important to add that this brief monologue is given as Jeff sits on the toilet, a private place that could fittingly serve as a suburban slacker’s confessional.

Jeff is the complete opposite of his brother Pat (Ed Helms). Pat is the perpetually angry, middle class office drone that can be found more often in a Mike Judge movie. Pat only gives off the appearance that his life is together, when in reality his marriage is falling apart. His wife Linda, brought to life with Judy Greer’s genuine pathos, feels neglected by her husband. He buys a Porsche when all she really wants is to go on one romantic date at a fancy restaurant. Pat refuses to be around those “snobs” even for a second.

The fact that the two brothers pair up on a quest on this irregular day turns out to be a coincidence. It’s the kind of coincidence that Jeff would claim has a greater significance in the larger scheme of things. While in his basement domicile, Jeff receives a phone call from someone who has dialed the wrong number (which basically seems like the only purpose that land lines serve nowadays) looking for Kevin. Jeff deviates from his trip to Home Depot and instead tries to find out who Kevin is. After running into Pat, Jeff and him witness Linda having lunch with an unknown man, and pursue them to find out whether or not she is having an affair.

There is no limit to how funny someone’s lack of sneakiness can be.

Set in Louisiana, where the Duplass Brothers grew up, “Jeff, Who Lives at Home” is basically about ordinary people on an ordinary day, save for a few big twists. However, it would be a fallacy to say that nothing happens. Nothing is still something. A prolonged conversation about how to keep the love between two people alive can be considered the world on an insignificant day. “Jeff, Who Lives at Home” is really about one regular dude with big ambitions. Those ambitions do not exactly include starting a new life, but rather finding more purpose in his existence than there actually is. This fits the Duplass Brothers’ approach to filmmaking very well, as they always find that even the most mundane events can be turned into interesting stories.

Surprisingly, “Jeff, Who Lives at Home” is more drama than comedy. I guess I should have come to expect that from the Duplass Brothers at this point. They tend to use comedic actors even when the material bends towards something darker and much more serious. Perhaps they cast this way because the best comedic actors seem to be prepared for anything, and “Jeff, Who Lives at Home” constantly veers towards the unexpected.

Helms has played someone who is afraid of life (“The Hangover”) before, but he has never been this hard to root for since he first joined “The Office” as Andy Bernard and found ways to get on everybody’s nerves. At first, it is frustrating in how close-minded Pat is. Helms does well in keeping Pat  in a little delusional universe until fate crashes into him. Strangely, it is easy to root for him when he tries to win Linda back. When he sees that his wife feels no reason for them to be together anymore, he realizes every reason why they should be.

Segel, meanwhile, gives one of his best performances to date. He turns Jeff into one of those people you want to have in your life not necessarily because they provide anything useful to you, but simply because they give you a more positive outlook on life. Jeff will surprise you more and more as the film moves along. He can be at once child-like yet also more mature than anyone else around him. While his sheltered lifestyle cuts him off from real human interaction, it also makes him less likely to hurt others intentionally. And when he is listening to others, you can feel that he is giving his full, undivided attention. People with no real problems tend to be much more helpful to those who do.

The hilarity of “Jeff, Who Lives at Home” lies in little moments that pack a big punch. In a testament to how vital the actors are, Segel’s height turns into a recurring joke. In one scene, Jeff can’t even hide behind a vending machine without the top of his head sticking out.

“Jeff, Who Lives at Home” is not perfect, and it never tries to be. There is something positive to be said about imperfection, and Mark and Jay embrace quick cutaways and blurring in and out of focus. They also don’t mind letting the camera run longer than it should, a technique that more directors should embrace nowadays. However, a big flaw that the film could have done without is Sharon’s story, in which she tries to figure out who her secret admirer is at work. This part of the plot isn’t necessarily bad, it just feels out of place in a film in which a series of random coincidences connect so well. It actually ends up being kind of intriguing until the big reveal.

“Jeff, Who Lives at Home” is filled with revelations that are surprisingly significant despite seeming so simple. By the end, Jeff is disappointed to find out that his destiny isn’t so unique after all (he is only half right). After some major occurrences, Jeff finds himself back in nearly the same place he was at the beginning. While most films of this nature would include a montage of clips of the main character righting a series of wrongs before their love interest finally agrees to take them back (see: “Knocked Up,” “Forgetting Sarah Marshall,” “Bridesmaids”), “Jeff, Who Lives at Home” decides to cut us off just as the change is about to occur. The Duplass Brothers like to do that (see: “The Puffy Chair,” “Cyrus”), but it’s never worked as well as it is here. Maybe just knowing that it happened is good enough. Maybe change isn’t about going to the gym or bring someone you love a bouquet of flowers. Maybe it’s just about doing something good without being told to do so. 

Movie Review: The Hangover Part II

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.

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

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: Cedar Rapids

When done right, two genres can somehow fit together quite well. Even if one of them is a little immature, and the other tries to be sophisticated.

This is what the minds behind “Cedar Rapids” try to do. Whether or not it succeeds depends on how much you think laughs cover up for cliches.
If I could think of two words to describe “Cedar Rapids,” they would both begin with “Q”: quaint and quirky. Maybe it’s a little too quaint, and a little too quirky. “Cedar Rapids” begins in a very small Wisconsin town. Insurance salesman Tim Lippe (Ed Helms) has inhabited this town his whole life, and has yet to go very far. He’s also sleeping with his former teacher (Sigourney Weaver).
One day, Tim gets the opportunity of a lifetime, or at least, the opportunity of a lifetime for someone like him. He gets asked to speak at an insurance convention in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Things in the outside world are not as comfortable as they are in his small town. He’s forced to room with the misguided, insane, and slightly brain dead Dean Ziegler (John C. Reilly), and Ronald Wilkes (Isiah Whitlock Jr.), a man who needs to cut loose and have a little fun.
On his trip, Tim also befriends a prostitute (Alia Shawkat), and a woman who could just be the love of his life (Anne Heche). And he has to deal with some unexpected corruption in the insurance industry.
“Cedar Rapids” seems to be following a new trend of making raunchy, edgy stories on an independent budget, something similar to last summer’s “Cyrus.” Like “Cyrus,” the result of “Cedar Rapids” is pretty hilarious with a lot of problems. What I ask for in a modern independent film, especially one that comes from Fox Searchlight, is some originality.
Its plot and style are very similar to that of last year’s “Up in the Air,” except it takes that film’s amazing twist and doesn’t make it surprising at all. That’s what more comedies could use today: surprise.
The film also seemed to be aspiring to be “The 40-Year-Old Virgin.” It has that same character who’s too good of a guy, yet he needs to grow up. However, “Cedar Rapids” doesn’t reach that film’s subtlety, hilarity, nor its surprising insightfulness. The real problem with “Cedar Rapids” is that it thinks its much deeper than it actually is.
The real strength of “Cedar Rapids” lies in its characters. Mainly, Ed Helms as Tim Lippe. As Lippe, Helms brings humanity, joy, and even some knowledge to such a strange role. This former “Daily Show” correspondent fills in the awkward leading man role perfectly.
The rest of the supporting characters also fill out the movie quite well. Reilly is hilarious as always, playing someone who has the potential to either be a serial killer or simply someone with a minor degree of down syndrome. Whitlock basically steals the entire movie when he pulls out a little impression from “The Wire.”
“Cedar Rapids” aspires to be one of those comedies where setting is the driving point of the story, and the whole thing would be a sort of geographical satire. It doesn’t quite reach that point and instead it gets caught up in a few over-the-top (yet very funny) gags in addition to a lot of gay innuendos. Instead, character becomes a driving point of the story. Maybe with just a little more focus this could have been a unpredictable, inspiring, and insightful independent comedy rather than just, well, a pretty funny one.