Category Archives: Satire

Movie Review: Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story

Leave a reply

That I had not seen “Walk Hard” up to this point is a mystery even to me. This is the kind of comedy that throws everything at the wall to see what sticks and for the most part, it all does.

“Walk Hard” is somewhere between “Walk the Line” and “Ray” with a dab of every other musician’s life story that has ever been made into a movie. Even The Beatles’ “Yellow Submarine” can be seen in the mix.
“Walk Hard” is basically the typical biopic movie structure in simplest form. It begins as Dewey Cox (John C. Reilly) prepares to go on stage, his face bathed in spotlight. But he can’t go on yet, because according to Sam (Tim Meadows, with some great deadpan delivery), Dewey Cox, “has to think about his entire life before he goes on stage.” Flash to years earlier, when Dewey was just a young boy on a southern farm faced with the childhood tragedy of accidentally slicing his brother in half with a machete. Haunted by accidental murder and his father’s disapproval, Dewey decides to become a musician.

Dewey becomes a sensation with his provocative country jams, which cause some to dance and others to punch priests in the face. He marries Edith (Kristen Wiig), who keeps telling him he won’t be a famous musician even when he actually becomes one. Soon, Dewey will fall for June Carter stand-in Darlene Madison (Jenna Fischer), and leave Edith for her. Dewey’s marriage ends in a reveal that manages to be uncomfortable and hilarious.

One thing I have never really expressed here is my deep admiration for Johnny Cash, and my deep discontent for some of the ways in which Cash’s life is portrayed in “Walk the Line.” The biggest problem I’ve always had with “Walk the Line” is the way in which they demonized Cash’s first wife, and totally abandons her character in favor of Cash’s relationship with June Carter. “Walk Hard” actually does a much better job in judging its character, mainly in what an oblivious idiot he is and how someone like him really can’t function in society.

Knowledge of the history of American music is not required to enjoy this movie, but it would certainly help. When the end of the 1960s rolls around, Cox’s music begins to resembles that of Bob Dylan, prompting the film to briefly mimic “I’m Not There.” After hanging out with The Beatles in India (with uncanny impressions of the Fab Four), he turns into an LSD addict and tries hopelessly to create his opus. The over-the-top orchestra, which includes a few animals, is funnier when you realize that Cox has turned into Brian Wilson when he was making “Pet Sounds.”

“Walk Hard” does to the biopics of the 2000s what “Spinal Tap” did to the “Behind the Music” documentaries of the 1980s: it skews them by becoming one of them. “Walk Hard” proves what is wrong with the format by following its formula and then reducing each trope to its most basic terms. For example, Meadows’s Sam is the character who is always introducing Dewey to a new drug, first by telling him that he shouldn’t try it, then by telling him how much it will benefit his life to a degree that he can’t say no. Biopics consist of a lot of characters who serve as nothing more than plot points in order to introduce the subject to the next thing that will ruin their life.

Another part of what makes “Walk Hard” work is that it not only talks like a biopic, but walks like one as well. The sets and costume choices all match each time period they are a part of consistently. The Lifetime Achievement Award ceremony seen later in the film looks and feels exactly like a real lifetime tribute to a musician. This goes to show that the only people who can satirize the life of a musician the right way are those who truly admire music. Therefore, it comes off as more truthful than mean-spirited.

The movie sometimes loses its satirical edge when it veers into more crass, over-the-top comedy. Now, I am not against crass, over-the-top comedy when it isn’t just thrown in for the sake of being there. Here, it is thrown in for the sake of being there.

While watching “Walk Hard,” I was frequently reminded of “MacGruber” (released after “Walk Hard”), another genre-mocking genre entry. That movie also went over-the-top at times. However, as seen most prominently in its sex scenes, it served more as a way to knock down everything we hold near and dear in movies. In “Walk Hard,” perhaps the penis that suddenly appears on the side of the scene was meant to make fun of unnecessary gratuitous humor, but in the end, it came off as exactly that. The movie also loses a little steam following Dewey’s LSD rampage.

Despite this, “Walk Hard” delivers the kind of laughs you rarely get, the kind that forces you to stop and recompose yourself. Imitation is supposedly the sincerest form of flattery, and the pseudo-Cash ballads resemble many songs from the Man in Black in ways that only someone who deeply admired his work would know. And if Jack White wants to make a cameo in your movie, then something must be going right.

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.
Most Anticipated Movies of 2011 - Paul

Movie Review: Machete

1 Reply

One of the most controversial social issues of the day deserves to be Mexploited. Well, I guess there was no one else who could complete this task better than Robert Rodriguez, with the opening of his highly awaited “Machete.”

“Machete” first existed as the trailer that opened up 2007′s “Grindhouse.” It was a satirical, B-movie idea so perfect for a trailer, and even more promising for a full length feature. This can be seen pretty much as a passion project for Rodriguez. It combines everything he’s loved throughout his career: westerns, Mexicans, samurais, and Danny Trejo.
The titular Machete, played by Trejo, was once Mexico’s hardest yet most honest federal agent. After losing his wife to drug lord Torrez (Steven Seagal), Machete flees to America and works as a day laborer.
One day, Machete is chosen by a mysterious man named Booth (Jeff Fahey) to kill the xenophobic Texas state Senator McLaughlin, who’s attempting to launch a campaign to keep all Mexicans out of America.
After a setup and a few more unfortunate events, Machete joins forces with an underground network and a cop (Jessica Alba) for a very bloody culture war.
“Machete” is one of those movies that’s made for the kind of people who like to do nothing but watch movies. Look closely and you’ll spot the occasional Mexican standoff, or blood spurting out only like it would’ve in “Shogun Assassin.” The score defies genre, as it switches between horror and action at times.
Mostly though, “Machete” is Rodriguez’s second movie that embodies the grindhouse feeling. The grainy, cut up frames add a strange authentic value to every shot of the film. “Machete” is grindhouse in both look and feeling. It is constantly over-the-top and ridiculous on purpose. “Machete” is also the kind of movie that truly revels in shock value. Pretty much anything is turned into a weapon in this movie. That doesn’t exclude someone’s intestines. I won’t say more than that though. Good shock value should stay shocking through surprise.
I think Rodriguez should continue making films that aim low. Why? Because that’s the kind of filmmaker he is. He famously made his feature debut, “El Mariachi” with just $7,000. He has a unique talent of making trashy seem classy.
While he is certainly one of those filmmakers who draws so heavily on his influences, his substance still can’t match his style. The storyline of “Machete” lacked some of the fluidity of those of his best features, including “Planet Terror” and “Sin City.” “Machete” has three different bad guys, yet it is continually confusing who is truly the worst and who is really in charge. Rodriguez may be paying tribute to shoddy storytelling, but some of the plot holes here simply can’t be excused by that notion.
Something I wasn’t expecting from “Machete” was how heavy of a satire it was going to be. It likely wasn’t meant to be that way when the story was first thought up but once the immigration debate reignited, I guess it was impossible to ignore. The satire is relevant and most effective when it isn’t so overt. The political ads randomly placed throughout the film might be off pace, but they’re certainly hilarious. Though I wish the movie could’ve balanced trashiness with smart satire about race and social issues like last year’s “Black Dynamite” did. Both films were tributes to exploitation films of the past.
I will try not to spend too much time criticizing. After all, “Machete” does contain the first instance of Robert De Niro actually acting in years. Trejo is also about as entertaining an action star as Sylvester Stallone and Bruce Willis in their prime. At 66-years-old, some of the stunts he can pull off were truly impressive.
Also, when “Machete” isn’t trying so hard to have an actual plot, it has moments of genuine entertainment and hilarity. I just think it should’ve put less time into being relevant and more time into being a B-movie.
If anyone is to see “Machete,” it must be said that it is definitely one worth seeing in theaters with the biggest audience possible. Like the true grindhouse experience, “Machete” is more entertaining when seeing how the audience feels and reacts to everything going on on the screen. If everyone laughs at Cheech Marin as a gun wielding priest or Machete texting someone “You’ve just f**ked with the wrong Mexican,” than you’ll know you’ve picked the right showing.

Movie Review: Get Him to the Greek

2 Replies

Hollywood loves sequels. They love it. They’re a little too in love though. If Hollywood wants to continue banking off of franchise-worthy films, they should consider spin-offs over sequels. “Get Him to the Greek” shows that perhaps individual characters, and not entire plots, were meant to be seen again.

“Get Him to the Greek” uses the 2008 instant classic “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” as its starting point. It pulls away Aldous Snow (Russell Brand), the self-absorbed English rocker. Snow still exists in the same universe as “Sarah Marshall.” After the success of such songs as “Do Something” and “Inside of You,” his career was almost totally destroyed after the failure of the accidentally offensive “African Child.” And don’t worry, you will get your music video.
Snow also got married and divorced. After seven years of being sober, he took up drinking and drugs once again. Across the pond and an entire land mass over, Aaron Green (Jonah Hill) is a rising executive at a record label with a doctor girlfriend (Elisabeth Moss) that he rarely has time to share a moment with. Green is what Hill’s character in “Sarah Marshall” (who is totally different) would have become if Snow actually ever listened to his demo.
But the music business is changing. Green’s boss Sergio (Sean ‘P. Diddy’ Combs), who is always mad about something, wants a game changer. Green suggests the winning idea: bringing back Snow to do a show at the Greek Theater in Los Angeles. The only catch is, Green has to get him himself and bring him from London to New York to Los Angeles in just 72 hours. Basically, it’s a good set-up that makes room for even better jokes.
The humor of “Get Him to the Greek” stems from a mixture of awkwardness and over-the-top gags. Sometimes, these two styles interact with one another. The awkwardness works because the actors play the characters that way, and the slapstick works because it’s well directed.
Yet, the one comedic aspect of “Get Him to the Greek” that could be considered close to brilliant is its satire of the music world and entertainment industry in general. Snow’s songs are always laced with innuendos. At another moment, Sergio plays the music he thinks will sell right now. It’s basically just a string of curse words, but it sounds nearly identical to modern mainstream rap. Satire is at its best when it seems too ridiculous to be true, but too truthful to be just a joke.
Like most of the other films in the Apatow oeuvre (Judd produced this), there is a strong reliance on the actors. And the actors deliver. This is Hill’s first true lead performance (in “Superbad” I’d say it was a co-leading performance), and with it he proves that he’s more than just the creepy guy in the background who does cringe-worthy things. What this kind of comedy needs to work (besides good jokes) is relatable characters. Green’s uptight nature feels genuine and not forced. Hill works to make him not only likable, but also hatable. He’s nice when he should be, and extremely selfish when he should be. Moss is essentially playing Peggy from “Mad Men” yet she adds a dash of humor to it which makes it very effective.
So Hill may be a great leading man, but there are two absolute scene stealers here. I thought from the time I first saw “Sarah Marshall” that Aldous Snow was a character worthy of his own movie, and he finally got it. He is transformed from ex-druggy musician to a character worthy of being in “Spinal Tap.” Some might call Brand’s performance effortless, because he is essentially playing himself. However, I enjoy performances like that because what it really means is that no other actor could play this character. It belongs distinctly to someone.
Brand makes the character real by adding little distinct features to him such as a pretentious way of pronouncing words and an even more pretentious walk. While his character is a huge jerk most of the time, there are little moments that make him seem relatable. Making a caricature relatable is what should be defined as fine acting.
I agree with many who are saying that Diddy’s Sergio deserves a movie of his own. His character is too big, bloated, and hilarious for one film. Diddy channels the angry boss role flawlessly. His performance reminded me of a variation of Malcolm Tucker from “In the Loop” with less of a good reason for being so angry all of the time.
“Get Him to the Greek” is written and directed by Nicholas Stoller. Like he also displayed in “Forgetting Sarah Marshall,” Stoller has this amazingly rare talent of creating a huge ensemble full of three dimensional characters.
While some of the backstories in “Greek” certainly don’t feel as original as the ones in “Sarah Marshall,” they no less bring understanding to the characters. And why, do you ask, is backstory so important in a comedy? Because it’s easier to laugh with people you like than people you despise. Green could’ve been nothing more than a selfish, cold businessman. Snow could’ve been nothing more than a self-absorbed and emotionless rock star. Yet, “Greek” is better than that. It doesn’t need to stoop down to that level.
“Get Him to the Greek” lacks some of the finer points of its predecessor, yet I find few things here I could really complain about. In a summer season that has so far been pretty tepid, “Greek” seems less interested in trying to sell something to you and more interested in actually trying to give you a good time at the movies. At that I say, it nobly succeeds.

Movie Review: MacGruber

Leave a reply

To my absolute greatest shock I will say: after a dry spell, someone was finally able to make a good “Saturday Night Live” movie. All it took was some inspiration, and a guy who is involved with the existence of “Hot Rod.”

It’s funny how one of the funniest “Saturday Night Live” movies has come from what is usually one of the least funny sketches. That might be harsh. “MacGruber” is usually funny with the right guest, but usually they kind of just thud. Maybe because the concept, not the execution, was so rich that they were able to make the movie version of “MacGruber” this good.
“MacGruber” can be defined as a satire that’s tonuge-in-cheek, but is not too showy about it. If you haven’t seen the skits, the titular MacGruber (Will Forte) is a secret agent that’s a riff on MacGyver. Like MacGyver, MacGruber is known for making weapons out of random household objects. However, MacGruber sucks at this. Also, he acts like a huge, pompous jerk to everyone he meets. Once again, his weapons don’t even work.
For some reason though, MacGruber is actually widely revered and feared for his skills. In a Ramboesque opening, MacGruber is forced to come out of hiding to foil the evil plans of Dieter Von Cunth* (Val Kilmer). Slo-mo shootouts and dramatic montages ensue.
In a way, it sounds like I just described a mediocre action film. Well, I was. I was also referring to “MacGruber.” While most directors seem to believe that satire comes through lame mimicry, Jorma Taccone, John Solomon, and Forte know that true satire comes through a mix of imitation and originality. The character of MacGruber is both a satire, and his own separate entity.
“MacGruber” has followed suit of several comedies made in the last few years and managed to bring out the 1980s. I never experienced a single year of the 80s and I used to look at it as kind of a joke, but now it isn’t. “MacGruber” might poke fun at 80s action films, but in a very meta way, it becomes one. The wink is so subtle that you won’t even notice it. I would put it more into the category of “Black Dynamite” rather than “Hot Tub Time Machine.” That’s part of what makes “MacGruber” such a great filmgoing experience: it asks for those with a great eye for cinema.
“MacGruber” seems like an 80s action film in its over-the-top action and even more over-the-top storytelling. In “MacGruber” these two elements are maximized to be both ridiculous and endearing. Mainly ridiculous though.
“MacGruber” allows its hero to embody nothing but the worst of the typical action hero. He has that pompous, bossy personality, but he just isn’t a real hero. He always says he has a plan, but that plan always falls apart. He thinks he can make gadgets with anything he finds, but they always fall apart. MacGruber is essentially one of the least likable comedy characters I’ve seen. Even Austin Powers knew how to shoot a gun.
For those who grew up in this era, “MacGruber” will be seen as a great piece of nostalgia. For those who didn’t, there’s still more than enough humor for anyone to thoroughly enjoy. Since it comes from The Lonely Island team, the humor can best be described as absurdist and extremely awkward. It is visual and very situational. One such example involves a scene in which the always great Kristen Wiig as Vicki St. Elmo tries to order a cup of coffee in a MacGruber disguise. She back tracks, and perfect mumbling awkwardness follows.
Meanwhile, Forte is very obviously taking advantage of the lack of TV censors. “MacGruber” might’ve even pushed some MPAA boundaries in the process. Most of the excessive sex and cursing is not for shock value, or just for the sake of it, but mainly because it is actually made funny.
Forte’s “Saturday Night Live” career might be coming close to an end, but he has true potential in the movies. He could carry the weight of a story for 90 minutes and create a unique character. Everyone else in the cast manages to bring something, even if it is small, to the table. Wiig proves as always that no one does awkward quite like her. Ryan Phillippe does some surprisingly good comedic work making fun of the straight man who does nothing but tell the hero he can’t do whatever he’s doing.
What should be considered something of a career comeback, Kilmer shows that his greatest skill lie in comedy. He both looks and acts like a villain on the level of Hans Gruber, mixed with that bad guy with the pony tail from “Kindergarten Cop.”
While most have been panning it left and right, I feel like “MacGruber” is by far the most enjoyable film I’ve seen this summer. It deserves to be mentioned with the other successful “Saturday Night Live” adaptations: “The Blues Brothers,” and “Wayne’s World.” It wasn’t trying to impress us. It wasn’t hiding any agenda (mainly, a sequel). It’s simply doing what it can to make us laugh. Whether that be in a ridiculously out-of-place car, or an unorthodox use for celery, it worked.
*Note: Yes, I’m aware.

Movie Review: Kick-Ass

2 Replies

Remember those people that always said that you should never be the hero? They never told you why: because you might get knifed repeatedly before being mixed up with a bazooka and some samurai swords. Thank you for that valuable lesson, “Kick-Ass.”

All joking aside, “Kick-Ass” is a grand new addition to a genre of meta satire where the story becomes both satire and the subject in which it is actually satirizing (on purpose, of course).
The subject being satirized in “Kick-Ass” is a hybrid of the worlds of both comic books and movies. In order to dive into this world, “Kick-Ass” uses Dave Lizewski (Aaron Johnson). Dave is the archetypal comic book hero pre-transformation: he’s a nerdy teenage outcast with girl troubles. Dave escapes his miserable, almost meaningless existence through an extreme comic book obsession.
Dave’s obsession goes a little too far when he believes being a hero is as easy as putting on a costume, so he sets out to rid the streets of crime. Despite becoming a pop culture phenomenon, his super hero name is Kick-Ass not because he wins every fight but rather because he always seems to get beaten to a pulp.
“Kick-Ass” has what is almost two interwoven plots. The two plots serve as the two separate films “Kick-Ass” strives to be: a comic book movie, and a comic book satire. Dave’s transformation into Kick-Ass serves most of the film’s satirical moments. These moments serve to tell us that the great heroes such as Spider-Man, Superman, and Batman were kept flat on the page for a reason. These heroes served as fantasies for a reason. That reason is that they’re not supposed to exist in reality.
There is another part of “Kick-Ass” that always remains funny, yet also tries to be like a true comic book. The film gives us the dynamic duo of the young, foul-mouthed, and very skilled Hit-Girl (Chloe Moretz) and her weapon-loving father Big Daddy (Nicolas Cage). Wherever they fight crime, they leave an extremely gory trail behind.
“Kick-Ass” has generated a lot of controversy for its sometimes less-than-serious look at ultra violence. To simply dismiss it as a product of violence-loving culture would be to totally miss the point. “Kick-Ass” comments on a society enamored by superheroes and explosions by in a way, becoming a very product of it as well. For example, Hit-Girl’s shocking fighting techniques might produce laughter. This isn’t because the act of murder is supposed to be funny but rather because these moves are all carried out by such a young child. One of the most important rules of comedy is breaking away from the expected. Then again, the often humorous view shows how little the characters understand reality.
Not all of the violence in “Kick-Ass” is pure humor. Director Matthew Vaughn has a Tarantinoesque ability to balance out over-the-top violence with much more realistic (and even dramatic) violence. Nobody gets injured and then heals instantaneously. Vaughn never neglects to remind the audience that in the end, these are just a bunch of inexperienced kids fighting people with guns.
“Kick-Ass” is supported by a flawless cast. Johnson creates a neurotic persona so awkward that it manages to rival the reputation for awkwardness created by co-star Christopher Mintz-Plasse. It was nice to see Nic Cage actually acting for once, or better yet actually playing a character fine-tuned to his own personality. He’s had too long of a streak playing characters abusing women while wearing a bear costume.
Of all the cast, the biggest standout was the most inexperienced actress. Moretz handled such a gutsy role with such gusto. She gave off the sort of ease and believability that only a pro could ever pull off. Despite having such a small role, Moretz turns Hit-Girl into the funniest and most memorable character of the film. She’s even worthy enough of her own spinoff.
The reason that “Kick-Ass” is my favorite film so far this year is because of how courageous it truly is. In this day, it’s hard to make a movie that truly feels daring, that feels as if societal norms were broken in order to make it. “Kick-Ass” is that rare film that seems like a shock that anyone ever produced it. It contains violence that is at times uncomfortably gruesome and at other times uncomfortably funny. It even uses a four-letter word that is still taboo to say.
Yet, the film is never shocking for the sake of shock value. It is shocking because it earns the right to be shocking. It’s shocking because parts of it feel like the kind of story you’d hear on the local news at 11, and then later watch it become a YouTube phenomenon. It’s daring in both its hardcore violence and its storytelling. Vaughn carefully balances both realism and jet pack absurdity into one film. It’s stylish and ridiculous at the same time.
In a world where people can watch movies on laptops and phones, “Kick-Ass” feels like the kind of film that was made to be see in a theater. Its unique story is worthy of a variety of responses. One scene can make some happy, and others angry. It’s also shot well, and contains some humor that works best in collectivized laughter. “Kick-Ass” has something to say and something to give. It’s both a disturbing look at the world, and a hilarious comic book fantasy. Genius couldn’t have come in a more stylish, more fascinating package.

Movie Review: Black Dynamite

Leave a reply

Something very interesting happened while I was watching “Black Dynamite.” For about an hour, I understood what it was getting at, and what it was trying to do. At that, it was doing well. What I couldn’t help but wonder was: where’s the big punchline?

Then, it came. And then I saw that “Black Dynamite” was not just an homage, nor was it a product, it was a twisted, brilliant little movie of its own.
“Black Dynamite,” a film released last year, is a throwback to the ever influential Blaxploitation genre of the 1970s. As the name suggests, it was a genre that exploited black stereotypes (as well as violence) for the sake of entertainment. In the latest addition, Black Dynamite (Michael Jai White) is a former CIA agent who knows Kung Fu.
After his brother, an undercover agent, is murdered in a drug deal gone wrong, Black Dynamite gets his license to kill back and seeks revenge. In the process, he cleans the streets of drugs and uncovers, a deep, and possibly very lethal, conspiracy.
“Black Dynamite” is more than just an homage to Blaxploitation cinema, it is Blaxploitation. This movie could’ve been released amongst films like “Shaft” and “Foxy Brown” and blended in just fine. It transports us back to a simpler time, when it was still acceptable to call a white person “honky.”
Before I go further, I will admit that I’m only loosely familiar with Blaxploitation films. I know more about them through reputation than actual viewing. Having said that, “Black Dynamite” could capture more than a genre; it even captures an entire era. While watching it, I felt reminded of the underrated “Grindhouse.” Both are films that could easily fit into their eras as they both mimic the little things of the films they emulate such as the lighting and even the sound effects.
On that note, “Black Dynamite” has a score that sounds like the great, smooth Funk of Isaac Hayes. That warm glow of the light makes for a light-hearted, utterly entertaining work of film. Meanwhile, the often grainy, documentary-like cinematography, was common in shoe string budget exploitation films.
Now, as I mentioned earlier, lets talk about that little turning point. “Black Dynamite” goes from purposefully silly exploitation to a sort of over-the-top ridiculousness that becomes almost sublime in a scene where Black Dynamite and his men figure a conspiracy out. In one way, it’s mocking ridiculous explanations for twists in films (I’ll never look at the white board scene in “Shutter Island” the same again). In another way, it hops from one point to another in such a form that only someone with a knowledge of film both great and bad could ever come up with. You’ll be astounded not at the fact that you couldn’t come up with it, but that anyone could ever think of something like this in the first place.
I would definitely credit much of the film’s success to Scott Sanders’ 70s style direction. But much credit should be given to the screenplay, which is co-written by star Jai White. It remains totally in the era and manages to make several running jokes (such as the repeated use of the phrase “jive turkey”) fresh throughout. Despite the film’s extremely short running time, it still manages to get most of what it sets out accomplished. There were a few strands, like a corrupt congressman character, that remained somewhat unsolved at the end. Then again, this is a tribute to imperfect cinema.
“Black Dynamite” is the kind of film I could see myself watching several times and not tiring of it. In its goal of not only evoking a past era, but becoming a part of it, it succeeds admirably. Oh, and I forgot to mention that odd yet almost audacious thing it does with a certain former President of the United States. Guess you’ll just have to find that out for yourselves.

Movie Review: In the Loop

Leave a reply

Some things are too ridiculous to be true. Other things, when put into the right context, are too ridiculous to not be true. This is the very case for “In the Loop.” Its a very relevant political satire about ridiculous characters and situations during a very ridiculous period in history.

“In the Loop” might be so brilliant because of its stunning realism, or just because of how funny it is. The film is shot in a mockumentary style and spans a wide range of characters across an entire ocean. It takes place in the days leading up to a major war with a Middle Eastern country (no name is mentioned, but the film is obviously alluding to Iraq).
The film follows the lives of incompetent bureaucrats as the US and Britain prepare for war. The British side is headed by the Prime Minister’s enforcer Malcolm Tucker (Peter Capaldi), a man who curses more than he thinks. The war plans are constantly compromised by Minister for International Development Simon Foster (Tom Hollander) and his new assistant Toby (Chris Addison).
On the American front, Liza Weld (Anna Chlumsky) writes an anti-war report. As the two countries try and thwart the invasion, the more they work together, the less they get done.
“In the Loop” works so well for so many reasons. For one, it does not encompass one single style of humor, but rather a very broad comedic range. The film seems to have a combination of humor from both sides of the pond, which is a perfect fit. At times, it embraces British deadpan and visual humor. At other times, it uses the American humor of awkwardness and slapstick.
The great thing is that it doesn’t restrict British humor to the British characters and American humor to the American characters. One of the best examples in the film is when Toby stumbles into a meeting late, and he uncomfortably tries to find a good excuse. Of course, he has no clue what he’s talking about.
“In the Loop” is also blessed by hilarious dialogue from writer Jesse Armstrong. At times, some of the lines seem too natural to be scripted; I would not be surprised if improv took place in this film. The lines contain many pop culture references, and a fair amount of cursing. However, the cursing is not just thrown in for the sake of being there. It seems to have a purpose. At times, it can reveal frustration. Other times, it shows abundant emotional immaturity. Mainly though, it just manages to make you laugh. Rarely has the f-word been used this creatively.
“In the Loop” is boosted by an incredible ensemble. No one actor dominates. Rather, each is given a moment to shine. James Gandolfini shines as a US general. He manages to be hilarious by being intimidating at some times, and at other times delivering lines about murdering kittens and puppies without sounding angry.
The strength of the cast lies not just in the strength of each actor, but in the way they all communicate with each other. While great chemistry between actors is usually defined by how convincing it is that they like each other, the great chemistry in “In the Loop” is defined by how well the characters fight with each other. The fact that this was passed on by SAG for the Best Ensemble Award is something of a crime.
“In the Loop” works not just as comedy, but as spot-on political commentary. Armando Iannucci has created a satire worthy of being mentioned alongside “Dr. Strangelove,” the greatest political satire of all time. Like “Strangelove,” “In the Loop” shows miscommunication as the most powerful starter of war. However, unlike “Strangelove,” “In the Loop” is based more off something that actually happened rather than something that could’ve happened. Both are inevitably about trying to stop a crisis that’s already started.
All joking aside, “In the Loop” does have a very serious message to tell. Of course, it does this through humor. It portrays a world in which everything we’re told is essentially a lie, and the real, dirty business goes on way behind closed doors. Also, by having pretty much every person working for the US and British government be way too young, Iannucci is saying that Iraq War might as well have been planned by children. This balance of humor and serious message is something we don’t see enough in modern American comedies.
I really hope in the next two weeks, Oscar voters take this film into some serious consideration. Mainly, a surprise nomination for Capaldi and a Screenplay nomination for the bleeding gums scene alone would be just fine.
In the end, there is really one reason you should go and see “In the Loop”: it’s the most intelligent comedy you’ll see involving diarrhea jokes.

Movie Review: Zombieland

Leave a reply

There is a little, important secret of horror filmmaking I’ve been picking up on lately. That little secret is that less is more, that what we don’t see is scarier than what we actually do see. Even though much blood and guts is spilled in “Zombieland,” much is still left up to the imagination. This helps keep the film from being wannabe shlock to a totally satisfying horror satire.

“Zombieland” takes place in a post-apocalyptic Earth, long after a virus has turned most humans into cannibalistic zombies. The world has now become a Darwinian society, where all you need are a few basic skills to get by. One of those people lucky enough are Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg). Columbus is a scrawny, awkward college student who manages to get by unscathed because he’s so used to loneliness.
While trying to reach his parents in Ohio, Columbus meets the tough, potty-mouthed, yet ultimately tender Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson). As they head east, they meet two con women: Wichita (Emma Stone) and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin). The rest of the plot mainly consists of them traveling cross country, searching for safe haven as Columbus begins to fall for Wichita.
As you’ll notice, each character is named after a different city. They each name themselves after the destination they are headed to, whether it still exists or not out of confidentiality reasons. It seems kind of ironic that they want their names to be secret though, as they end up becoming something of a family in the end.
In my introduction, I made the film seem like too much of a pure horror film. That, it isn’t. I only felt frightened at a few moments in the film, but then again, “Zombieland” was meant to be a satire, and not a horror film. That doesn’t mean it’s not directed like a good horror film though. Take the convenience store scene. The most brutal death involves Tallahassee, a zombie, and a pair of hedge trimmers. We don’t see what exactly the trimmers do, but we do see them slide across the floor, covered in blood. It’s inferring what happened, rather than actually seeing what happened, that challenges the viewer, builds suspense, and just makes it even creepier to ponder. However, “Zombieland” does show us a good amount of graphic blood and guts. However it’s much more sparse than you might imagine, and it mainly happens at the way beginning. It’s almost like director Rubin Fleischer’s way of saying “there’s the gore. Happy now? Can we just move on?”
I can’t forget that “Zombieland” is first and foremost a satire. Unfortunately, I’m not well-versed enough in the zombie genre to say whether or not “Zombieland” effectively both pokes fun and pays tribute to the popular genre. However, the film may also be a satire of the horror genre in general (I picked up a reference to the banjo scene in “Deliverance”). I could spot even smaller possible satirical spots. Some of them could even be the more predictable moments of the film, possibly mocking how formulaic the genre has become.
The humor of “Zombieland” is buoyed by its two central performances. While it might be cool at this point to bash Eisenberg for playing the same character he played in “The Squid and the Whale” and “Adventureland” I’m going to go against the tide and say he gave a good performance because I like him and well, if someone is good at playing a certain personality, why shouldn’t they be allowed to keep playing it?
Mainly, Harrelson’s performance as Tallahassee steals the show. The writers give him a few great lines (“That’ll do, pig”), and he does such a great job at delivering each one. Harrelson plays Tallahassee slightly like Mickey from “Natural Born Killers,” if Mickey had a soft spot and a love for Twinkies.
Stone doesn’t bring a huge amount to the table, but she doesn’t really detract from the story at all either. Breslin, however, does a great job with the material. After this and “Little Miss Sunshine,” she proves that she can handle more adult material better than most girls under 18 [Editor’s Note: Let’s say for example, Hannah Montana, who’d I’d love to see be eaten by zombies]. The film also includes an extremely random, yet hilariously and even refreshing cameo. I dare not give it away here; I don’t want to ruin the fun for you.
“Zombieland” isn’t perfect. It’s short and it isn’t the first zombie satire ever made (there’s also “Shaun of the Dead” which, for the record, I still haven’t seen). But why did I like it so much? Mainly, its 81 minutes of pure, blissful, escapism. It’s the kind of escapism that will draw you out of reality and further and further into the world of movies. This isn’t a Seltzer-Friedberg satire, it’s the kind that has a deep knowledge, and even a deep respect, for the subject its consistently mocking. Not only that, but it stands as a comedy in its own right, with its own, original jokes, as well.

Movie Review: Contempt

Leave a reply

“The cinema is truth twenty-four times per second.”

-Jean-Luc Godard
The very first shot of “Contempt” is something of a mind trick. From off in the distance, it looks like we’re seeing a few small children, running with the wind, as one of them holds a white balloon. It is a moment of simplicity and freedom. Suddenly, as the children get closer, we see that these are no children.
What it really is is a man holding a boom mic, and a camera on a track following a wandering woman. We are not in reality right now. Welcome to the world of movies, within this movie.
“Contempt” was released in 1963, riding toward the end of the brilliant French New Wave. It makes sense, as in a way it seems to encapsulate the new feelings toward the art of cinema in the era.
The story focuses on struggling screenwriter Paul Javal (Michel Piccoli). Javal is invited to Italy by American producer Jeremy Prokosch (Jack Palance) to write a screenplay for a new version of “The Odyssey.” Prokosch is having some creative struggles with the film’s director, Fritz Lang (Lang plays himself). Paul reluctantly accepts, hoping that writing this screenplay will give him the money to pay for his apartment. While Paul finds himself struggling with Prokosch, he also struggles to keep his marriage with the beautiful Camille (Bridgitte Bardot) from falling apart.
“Contempt” is one of those movies that’s about making movies. While most movies of this nature focus on biting the hand that feeds it, “Contempt” only takes nibbles. It seems more sad than angry. Paul must give up the sanity of his life just to get this screenplay done. And what is he doing it for? Just the money?
I wouldn’t be surprised if director Jean-Luc Godard faced these conflicts himself while making his films. Each film he made expresses some form of the audacity of the New Wave. “Contempt” takes it to a new level. The images of Camille’s nude form may be among the first in cinematic history. This was something that could never be done in American movies at the time, thanks to the Hays Code. Along with this, there are also a few grizzly images of violence, and a scene where Camille spews out a list of curse words. This scene is somewhat funny; it’s like Godard’s way of showing off that this is his film, and he can do whatever he pleases with it.
Then again that’s also sort of the theme of the French New Wave: that the film is in the hands of the director. The director is the author of the film. And Godard, of course, is a fine director. Every shot of “Contempt” is filled with the utmost passion. Godard makes brilliant uses of tracking shots and long shots. Also, he uses the objects within the film such as statues and walls to emphasize character relationships. The bizarre version of “The Odyssey” contains shots of the camera staring at statues of the gods. Meanwhile, as Paul stands on one side of a wall and Camille on the other, we can already tell this relationship is going south. And of course, the shots of the rocky Italian coast are absolutely breathtaking.
While Godard is a great filmmaker, he never seems to get inside his characters’ heads. Each one can often seem a bit trite and artificial. Maybe he did that on purpose here, as most of the people are well, trite and artificial. In the New Wave era, Godard was the master of technique and Truffaut was the master of character.
However, one character in “Contempt” doesn’t feel artificial: Paul. Godard makes him out to be like Odysseus. Like Odysseus, he’s strong-willed yet the forces of nature seem to be against him as he tries to achieve his goals. But unlike Odysseus, there is no loyal wife at home waiting for him.