Category Archives: Seth Rogen

Eight Nights of Hanukkah, Eight Entertaining Jews: Night #6

Leave a reply

The old insult goes, “Jews run show business.” To that I say “thanks.” 

Jews make up about 0.2% of the world’s population yet they have always been a loud (emphasis on the loud) and prominent voice in film, television, music, and comedy. 

The next eight days are Hanukkah, which is not the most important Jewish holiday, but we do get presents. For each night of Hanukkah, I will share one Jewish entertainer who has had a big impact on me. For the sixth night of Hanukkah, let’s talk about Judd Apatow:


And the fourth face on Mount Rushmore of Jewish Comedians is Judd Apatow.

Unlike Mel Brooks, Woody Allen, and Larry David, Apatow’s work is done almost exclusively behind the camera. Yet, he is one of the most recognizable faces in Hollywood. That is most likely because he is so good at what he does.

As discussed with Sarah Silverman yesterday, Judd Apatow endured a string of brilliant “failures.” Most notably, both “Freaks and Geeks” and “Undeclared” were cancelled after just one season a piece. Now, “Freaks and Geeks” is in the pantheon of greatest TV shows of all time and “Undeclared” is slowly making its way there.

Judd has had a long history of comedy. You could call him the original podcaster, as he used to get private interviews with comedians for his high school radio station. He interviewed such big names as Steven Wright, Garry Shandling (whom he would later work with), and Jerry Seinfeld. 

Since his early years of struggle, Apatow has become the go-to writer/director/producer of good comedy in Hollywood. His first two efforts in the director’s chair, “The 40-Year-Old Virgin” and “Knocked Up,” were master classes in free flowing hilarity. They turned two possibly unlikable leads into lovable anti-heroes. He made the Jewish Schlub into an archetype, made Seth Rogen a star, and thought of some genius one-liners along the way (“well you still have a tiny dick, Cartman”). Apatow has received mixed reviews for “Funny People” and “This is 40,” but I give him all the credit in the world for his insatiable ambition.

Part of comedy is about helping others, and Apatow has made a career of just that. Some of the people he has helped propel to stardom include Seth Rogen, James Franco, Steve Carell, Kristen Melissa McCarthy, Jason Segel, and Lena Dunham. This is just a few of the many names. Apatow simply has an eye for talent unparalleled in the comedy world (except maybe for Lorne Michaels). There is something special about having an eye for good talent, and then using your own power to help that person out. It takes a lot of self-confidence to know that you have found someone good, and a lot of heart to dedicate that much time to a person. Judd is a mensch of the finest order.

Judd Apatow has always been my gateway into comedy. In 2007, the magical year in which both “Knocked Up” and “Superbad” came out, comedy nerdom came full swing. I also didn’t even realize that he was influencing me from such a young age: Judd Apatow wrote “Heavyweights.” Yes, you heard me correctly. That movie where a bunch of Jewish kids (ex: Josh Birnbaum) from Long Island (“never heard of it!”) go to sleep away camp. If anyone gets the humor of the Jewish identity, it is Judd Apatow.

Fun Fact: Judd Apatow was born in Flushing and raised in Syosset. He probably knows your cousin.

Movie Review: This is the End

Leave a reply

Movies can teach us a lot about ourselves. For example, “This is the End” taught me that I will actually enjoy the site of Michael Cera being impaled. As long as it is preceded by him slapping Rihanna’s ass and trying to give drugs to McLovin. Maybe what I’m trying to say here is that I am a terrible person. Or maybe it is that celebrity is whatever you make of it. I don’t know, I’m not a celebrity.

Much has been said in the press about “This is the End,” but nothing could prepare for this one shocking twist: the star of the movie is actually Jay Baruchel. While his leading role in “Undeclared” might not have helped, perhaps this will finally give him the recognition he deserves as an actor. 

“This is the End” is a Hollywood satire where all of the actors play themselves. That would seem incredibly self-congratulatory, if it wasn’t for the fact that the actors don’t try and make themselves look like saints. The film begins as Seth Rogen walks through an airport to meet his best friend Jay Baruchel. Seth is accosted by a man with a camera (who I assume is from TMZ). The man asks Seth why he plays himself in every movie he’s in. Rogen co-wrote the film, and is clearly aware of what people think of him, as does everyone else involved.
In the film, Seth and Jay’s relationship is based off of them drifting apart. Seth has new friends now, and Jay wonders whether or not he is still in the picture. This is the same separation anxiety that made up “Superbad,” another film that was co-written by Rogen and his best friend Evan Goldberg. Every film they write together also serves to show how their friendship grows and changes. In a film that contains a lot of false perceptions, the truest part of it is this friendship.

Seth and Jay’s first stop is James Franco’s house. Here, Franco is as weird and artsy as everyone thinks he is. However, he’s more obsessed with Seth Rogen than he is with himself. It’s equal parts creepy and hilarious. Franco is both earnest and funny all while being a huge dicknose. Who knew someone could show such range while playing themselves?

While Rogen and Goldberg are pro writers, “This is the End” is their first stab at directing. The two blend together as directors as well as they do as writers, which is why it always seems like a singular vision. The two of them strongly embrace buildup. The apocalypse doesn’t happen for a little while, which provides plenty of time to understand Jay and Seth’s friendship as well as both of their relationships to everyone else around them. It is in this time period where the film truly gets its heart. Action films, comedies, and well, most films in general could learn a lot Rogen and Goldberg: it’s good to know the characters before you let the bodies hit the floor.

“This is the End” is a great Inside Hollywood comedy because it never goes meta. It’s less about the wink and more about the inviting nod. For every joke about “Flyboys,” there is also an extended riff about Danny McBride’s use of James Franco’s bathtub. In fact, by making a bunch of celebrities face the apocalypse, the film shows that they aren’t that special after all. What also keeps “This is the End” from becoming too much of an in-joke is how carefully crafted all of these fictitious personas are. Clearly Michael Cera doesn’t treat Rihanna like that. I’ll have to get back to you on James Franco’s weird taste in art.

At a time when Hollywood is creepily obsessed with the end of the world (see: “Oblivion,” “After Earth”*), it is refreshing to see a film that doesn’t take ridiculous apocalyptic scenarios so seriously. Yet, Rogen and Goldberg still manage to lay out all of the rules of this new world with so much detail. And the vision is so inspired. Just take the demons: they look exactly like the beasts from “Ghostbusters,” but with one major exception (you’ll understand when you see it).

“This is the End” clocks in at just under two hours and the length feels neither too long nor too short. In terms of its characters, it gets nearly as much done in that running time as any season of any TV show. Plain and simple: this is high concept comedy at its absolute best.

*Actually, don’t see “Oblivion” or “After Earth”

Movie Review: 50/50

1 Reply

The famous cliché goes: “Laughter is the best medicine.” Humor has always been a way to cope with the inexplicable things that life throws our way. So in their first film together, director Jonathan Levine and writer Will Reiser did the right thing and madetheir cancer dramedy one about living rather than one about dying.


In “50/50,” Adam’s (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) life comes to a standstill after finding out he has a rare form of neural cancer. The needy and slightly neurotic Adam is the kind of person who avoids risk; he’s too afraid to even get his driver’s license. His fear of death paralyzes him, and his dependence on the people closest to him escalates. His go-to person is his best friend Kyle (Seth Rogen), who is not opposed to using Adam’s cancer as a pickup line. There are also the three women in his life: his overbearing mother (Angelica Huston); his girlfriend (Bryce Dallas Howard), who stays with Adam only because she feels obligated; and his young therapist (Anna Kendrick), who probably needs to sort out her own life before she can help others.


“50/50″ isn’t exactly a cancer comedy, or even a comedy about cancer. Rather, it is a comedy about how people deal with something so dire in their lives. It makes no attempts at a cheery tone and doesn’t settle for artificial characters or a soundtrack consisting of Top 40 hits. It is also a romantic comedy of sorts with its storyline of a successfultwentysomething vying for an unlikely love interest; he even has a goofy sidekick and a burdensome mother. But what distinguishes “50/50″ from the norm is that these characters feel drawn from real life and not from the typical Hollywood playbook. They function as actual, affecting parts of Adam’s life rather than caricatures put in simply for laughs.


The reason that “50/50″ feels so personal is because, through the film, Will Reiser has documented his real-life battle against cancer. Diagnosed six years ago, he has been in remission since then. Reiser bases his humor off of everyday awkward situations and pop culture references such as: “You smell like the cast of ‘The View.’” The jokes and observations laced in his script could only come from someone who came out of a situation this bad. The film doesn’t downplay the reality of such a grave situation, and the underlying current of fear and unpredictability feel all too real.


Because Reiser is writing about himself, he rightfully doesn’t pull a sympathy card with Adam. He is, like the other characters in the film, selfish and small-minded at times. Reiser’s unabashed honesty toward his own actions is reflected in Adam’s character and contributes to the sincerity of the movie.

As Adam, whose success as a radio producer comes to a halt following his cancer diagnosis, Gordon-Levitt does a pitch-perfect job of delivering some great deadpan humor and acting both self-assured and scared out of his mind. The scene in which he shaves his head, the film’s poster image, shows him bravely taking this act as a joke. In a later scene, he breaks down. The emotional outburst is more frightening than anything you’d see in a modern horror movie, perhaps because it feels absolutely right at that point in the movie.


In the supporting cast, Rogen shows how much he has matured as an actor. As the habitually loyal Kyle, who cares deeply despite his cynical outlook on life, he is the kind of friend we all wish we could have. Kendrick is another example of a cast member who is getting better and better by the film; no longer just the girl who had that really annoying crying scene in “Up in the Air.” Her character gives off an innocently funny vibe and radiates a warm presence.


Writing and acting tend to drive this kind of comedy, with the director usually taking the backseat. However, Jonathan Levine makes his presence known, and adds something to “50/50″ that few other comedy directors ever could. While someone like Judd Apatow might keep the camera totally still during a long conversation between a group of friends, Levine moves the camera around. The blurred vision of many shots makes these parts of the movie seem more like meditative talks as opposed to witty banter between friends. Reiser writes it like a comedy while Levine directs it like a drama.


In an interview with Movieline.com, Reiser remarked that when he found out that he had cancer, he and real-life good friend Rogen dealt with it through humor. He said it might have just stemmed from the immaturity of his age at the time. But making the absolute best out of a bad situation is a strength that few have. So in that sense, “50/50″ does what movies have the rare power to do: turn mortality into something both life-changing and life-affirming. If you didn’t think an F-bomb laden R-rated comedy could pack an emotional effect, then you just haven’t seen “50/50″ yet.

Check this review out here at The Daily Orange. It is also available in print form…because newspapers still exist.

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

More Thoughts on Funny People

1 Reply

This is an unofficial second review of Funny People. Some movies are just so big, they need to be reviewed twice.

Usually, once I review a film, it’s done. But sometimes, I am so conflicted over a film that I can’t help but go back to it. This happened with “Funny People.” Critical consensus is telling me not to like this movie, but something inside me is telling me not to listen.
I finished my review of “Funny People” still partially undecided. I am still mixed on my opinion, but if I had to choose one end of the spectrum, “Funny People” would fall towards the “good” end.
The reason I have decided to revisit “Funny People” is because so much happens in this long movie, and I feel like I barely got to cover everything I wanted to in one review. One thing I really would like to talk more about is the film’s massive supporting cast. I talked plenty about Seth Rogen and Jonah Hill, but not enough about Jason Schwartzman. Schwartzman is one of my favorite comic actors today, and his performance in “Funny People” as an actor who caught a lucky break on a horrible sitcom was a highlight of the film. His performance reminded of his performance in “Rushmore;” like Max Fisher, his “Funny People” character always casts off an air of superiority for minor achievements. He was born to play smug.
Also worth mentioning is the always great Leslie Mann and the breakout performance by Aubrey Plaza. On that note, a post on PopWatch today made a fascinating observation about the portrayal of women in “Funny People.” While some wrongly accused Judd Apatow’s “Knocked Up” of being sexist (*cough* Katherine Heigl *cough*), the women in this film are portrayed as being no different then the men. Plaza’s Daisy is just a struggling comedian like the rest of the guys. Meanwhile, Mann’s Laura seems much less reactionary than Debbie in “Knocked Up,” despite hiding much more sadness.
There are so many great characters in “Funny People.” The real problem with the film was that even with its long running time, you still feel like you want more from the characters. Maybe the problem with the film wasn’t that it was too long, but that it wasn’t long enough. I’m not much of a sequel person but I would not at all mind seeing more of these characters’ lives (luckily, a Randy movie is reportedly in the works).
Overall, it seems impossible not to recommend this movie because overall, it is a well made movie. It’s a comedy that’s not like most comedies coming out nowadays: it’s not formulaic, it’s not predictable, and it’s real. Each of these characters feel like real people with conflicting emotions and even the power to change. But then again, it is an Apatow film.
“Funny People” is definitely different from the rest of Apatow’s oeuvre. Most of his film’s endings are decided from the beginning, but it’s the path to the end that is unpredictable. “Funny People” takes the opposite approach. In “Knocked Up,” you know from the beginning that one way or another Alison will have the baby, and Ben will one way or another be there. In “Funny People,” we know that George will try and win Laura back. Whether or not he’ll succeed at it, remains unclear. I don’t know which approach is better but in the end, both work. I am excited to see whether Apatow continues this new approach to comedy. If he does, then “Funny People” was just an experiment, something that wasn’t meant to be perfect. His next film then, should be comic gold.

Movie Review: Funny People

1 Reply

Judd Apatow is the comedy legend of our day. It seems that just about everything he touches turns to gold. After a few years of small producing and writing efforts, Apatow returns with his first directorial effort in two years with “Funny People.” At first, it might not seem like comic gold. But under its scratched surface, lies a diamond in the rough.

“Funny People” is probably Apatow’s most personal project to date. He incorporates real life experiences into every movie he does, but never so much as in “Funny People.” In fact, “Funny People” starts off with real footage of Apatow and Adam Sandler making prank calls when they were just starting off in the comedy business.
But forget reality, lets head off to movieland. “Funny People” is a dramedy about George Simmons (Adam Sandler). Simmons is based partly off the life and career of Sandler; he’s a comic legend who’s become one of the biggest movie stars in the world. He may have a big, beautiful home, but like Charles Foster Kane, that home is completely empty.
Now, Simmons has discovered that he has come down with a terminal disease. In his near-death experience, Simmons decides to seize the moment and reevaluate his life. First, he decides to return to his standup career. Then, he hires struggling young comic Ira Wright (Seth Rogen) to be his writer and something of an assistant. Next, he decides to win back an old flame (Leslie Mann) who is currently married to an Australian man (Eric Bana).
“Funny People” isn’t just a personal project for Apatow–it’s just as personal for Sandler. And because of that, he gives the best performance he’s given since “Punch Drunk Love.” However, “Funny People” isn’t as much of a flat-out drama as “Punch Drunk Love” was. Maybe it’s not seriousness that makes Sandler’s performance so good, perhaps it’s maturity. In “Funny People,” he’s just as funny as in classics “Billy Madison” and “Happy Gilmore.” However, here, there is a degree of self-awareness. The style of humor of George Simmons is something like the style of humor that made Sandler famous in the 90s. Those bothered by Sandler’s sense of humor won’t be bothered here.
A performance less acknowledged by critics is Rogen’s. He projects a high level of awkwardness, especially when Ira is struggling through stand up routines. It’s funny, but we’re not laughing at him; in a way, we’re cheering for him. Rogen also brings probably the most emotion he’s ever brought to a role when expressing his feelings towards George in their very rocky friendship.
The film contains a fine ensemble of comedians both old and very new. Apatow regular Jonah Hill is a scene stealer in his portrayal of a comedian who realizes the key to comic gold is YouTube videos of cats. Meanwhile, newcomers like Aubrey Plaza (“Parks & Recreation”) pull their own weight as well. Most surprisingly is how hilarious Eric Bana is. Then again, I shouldn’t be too surprised. Before becoming a serious actor, Bana was a standup comic Down Under, and even had his own comedy show.
Along with being a dramedy, “Funny People” is also a self-reflexive show business satire. It contains fictional movies and TV shows within a fictional movie. There are actors playing actors, and actors playing themselves. Many are celebrities you would never expect to be funny, yet it turns out a certain rapper who I won’t name happens to have a very good sense of humor about himself. Meanwhile, the movie within a movie “Re Do” and the show within a movie “Yo Teach!” show the somewhat dismal state of mainstream comedy.
Although all of these aspects of the movie–the actors, the satire, the drama–are all great, they all serve as part of the film’s bigger problems. The first real flaw with the film is that it’s too long. “Funny People” is around 145 minutes long, and you can feel every minute of it. Some scenes drag on too long. The film also tries to tackle way too much. It’s central focus should be the relationship between George and Ira, and George’s quest to win back Laura’s affection. However, the film also goes off trying to tackle Ira’s girl troubles, as well as the careers of a few other rising comics.
The only problem is, I don’t think I would want to remove a single scene from the movie because every scene is so good, every character is so fascinating, and every joke is so funny. The editors must have had a more difficult time than they could ever have imagined with this film.
But there is also another reason it would be impossible to cut a single scene out. The film isn’t meant to focus solely on George and Ira. “Funny People” is an ensemble film, and as an ensemble film, it must cover a wide amount of people rather than a small amount. Apatow decided with “Funny People” to make both a personal relationship film and a collage of the lives of assorted comedians.
So now I sit here, wondering whether to tell you to see or not to see this movie. Instead, I’m going to do what a good critic does best: give you my opinion, and then let you decide for yourself whether or not you should see it. This is a movie made for people who don’t just like comedy, but are diehard fans of it. Even if you’re not, you’ll still laugh at the brilliant stand up routines and be wowed at the human connections that Apatow’s career has become defined by. To put it in short, this is the first comedy epic I’ve ever seen.
On the Apatow Scale: 1. The 40 Year Old Virgin 2. Knocked Up 3. Funny People