Category Archives: Zach Galifianakis

Movie Review: The Campaign

“The Campaign” didn’t necessarily need to exist. Jay Roach could have just shot footage of Will Ferrell and Zach Galifianakis together in the same room, and I still would have bought the ticket. However, the fact that “The Campaign” gives them a purpose makes it all the better.

At this point, political satire has nailed down all of the main points pretty well: politicians will do anything they can to win, and they will also take any excuse to label their opponents as Communists. But the devil is truly in the details, and the challenge is in finding ways to make stale jokes seem fresh. The best example might be when Cam Brady (Will Ferrell) accidentally punches a baby in the face. The baby punching isn’t the funniest part; the fact that the scene is played out in slow-motion really seals the deal. And here I thought that showing the clip on every single talk show would make it less funny in the actual movie.

At the beginning of “The Campaign,” Ferrell’s Brady is going around telling everyone from auto workers to Filipino amusement park ride operators that they are the “backbone of America.” Political junkies will be surprised by how well versed writers Chris Henchy and Shawn Harwell in American political jargon. This isn’t quite “The West Wing” penned by comedy writers (“Parks & Rec” and “Veep” are more in that league). It’s more like if “Step Brothers” focused on a bunch of Washington insiders. That is very high compliment.
I think this is my favorite performance that I have seen from Ferrell in quite a few years. He is in his element as a Ron Burgundy-type politician with less of a heart. Cam Brady is a congressman for a small district in North Carolina. His years in Washington have turned him into a corrupt womanizer. Despite a sex scandal involving a voicemail on the wrong person’s machine (to be far, who still uses an answering machine?), Brady runs totally unopposed.

In Washington, the Motch Brothers (which sounds an awful lot like Marx Brothers when said out loud), senior congressmen played by Dan Aykroyd and John Lithgow, look for a way to bring cheap, illegal Chinese labor to the Carolina district. Aykroyd plays a version of one of the men who made him homeless in “Trading Places.” How the tables have turned. The Motch Brothers’s plan is almost a cartoonishly evil plot. I could picture them coming up with this on Looney Tunes before getting blown up by some disguised dynamite.

The Motch Brothers decide their plan will succeed if they bring their own player into the race. They go with Marty Huggins (Galifianakis), who takes ‘inexplicable choice’ to a whole new level. Huggins, who is a variation of Galifianakis’s Seth Galifianakis, is the effeminate tourism director of Hammond. He knows many interesting facts about the town, such as the one regarding the time that Rosie Perez stopped in town because she needed to use the phone. They say people resemble their dogs, and Huggins is essentially a pug walking on its hind legs. His family, meanwhile, could have their own reality show. Galifianakis is a great comic actor because everything he does as Huggins perfectly fits the character right up to the way he runs, which can be better described as skipping with style.

“The Campaign” is a little like a political “My Fair Lady,” with Huggins learning how to walk, talk, and dress like a politician. Dylan McDermott gives a subtlety hysterical performance as Huggins’s campaign manager. He’s a man who often acts much more like a spy. Perhaps one of the funniest scenes in the movie is when he shows up in Cam Brady’s shower, seeing as he doesn’t even seem to open the curtain in order to get in.
Will Ferrell continues to amaze me in the sense that he always seems to star in the projects that he wants to star in. He seems to enjoy putting himself into “gross-out” stories with a very heavy social context. Even when he doesn’t write a movie, it seems as if he did. And now, I’m starting to feel the same way about everything Galifianakis does as well. After all, Galifianakis is a native of North Carolina. However, Ferrell isn’t actually a scumbag in real life.
“The Campaign” goes beyond the politics that push the plot forward. Roach allows a lot of the humor to come from the moments when the characters aren’t campaigning. In simplest terms, it’s about a lot of odd, funny characters doing odd and funny things. “The Campaign” may be a plot-oriented comedy, but something that stood out to me was that it was willing to take a break from itself in order to show the Huggins family dinner. And when one of his children starts confessing his darkest secrets, it appears that everyone goes off script. And for that it works all the better.
The living embodiment of Awkward Family Photos.
“The Campaign” obviously comes out during an election year, and it was definitely released at this time for a reason. It shows a sense of unabashed idealism that can only be found in a movie. However, that is the end. The means show a more bitter look at politicians. This time, there is no knight in shining armor. Everyone realizes that the only way to win is through dishonesty. Yet, despite all of Marty Huggins’s idiosyncrasies (to put it lightly), he becomes the movie’s hero because he is the innocent. Every comedy needs one. He is the only man in the room who actually wants to make good things happen. 
To me, “The Campaign” wasn’t as subtlety brilliant (there, I said it) as “Step Brothers.” And it definitely didn’t have all of the memorable one liners of “Anchorman.” And as far as political satires go, it doesn’t quite reach the top on a scale of one to “Election.” It doesn’t reinvent the wheel on political satirizing, but then again, I never should have assumed it would. It crams more laughs into 85 minutes than any other comedy this summer. And it wasn’t a sequel, prequel, remake, or comic book adaptation of any sort. 
Sometimes, a good comedy doesn’t have to tell a story that hasn’t been told, but rather make us laugh at jokes we’ve never heard. “The Campaign” may be flawed, and maybe it would have been  better with Adam McKay in the director’s chair, but I can say this: it certainly is pure. The political parties of the two candidates are mentioned only once and never again. Maybe that’s because campaigns are rarely about actual issues nowadays. Regardless, this is a comedy about the ridiculousness of American politics that anyone of any ideology can sit down and enjoy. That is, as long as you have a sick sense of humor.
If you liked this movie, you’ll also like: Anchorman, Step Brothers, Walk Hard, Zoolander, Trading Places

Bored to Death Gets Cancelled: Blame It On Brooklyn

I guess three seasons is the charm. Today, HBO cancelled its smart and continually underrated comedy series “Bored to Death.” The announcement was not followed by outrage or backlash but simply, a series of copied press releases. 

  Unlike other shows that have struggled in the ratings in the past (“Arrested Development,” “30 Rock,” “Community”), “Bored to Death” never gained a loyal following. Viewers were few but those who watched it knew it was smarter and funnier than most of the shows they were used to. Unlike the other shows previously mentioned, “Bored to Death” has just as many, if not more, detractors as it has followers.

  One piece of criticism on the show that struck me most was a column publish for Entertainment Weekly’s website, in which writer Darren Franich said he felt exactly the feeling described by the title every time he watched an episode. Now there’s a joke even Jay Leno wouldn’t put into his opening monologue.

  What bothered me more than that joke was an accusation made by the author, which was repeated by many in the comments, that a show with a Brooklyn-centric appeal doesn’t belong on television. Why is it that the only base that writers, directors, and producers alike have to appeal to is “Middle America”? Maybe it is because Middle America is apparently into so-called mindless entertainment, and they makes up the majority of America. However, television has changed drastically in the past few years. Shows like “Breaking Bad” and “Boardwalk Empire” are more talked about than the “CSI” franchise, and while “Two and a Half Men” still dominates the ratings, a show with a twisted narrative like “How I Met Your Mother” can now occupy the classic sitcom format. Thanks to specialized cable networks, audiences have become more specialized than ever before, and niche shows can now survive and thrive alongside shows with mass appeal. 


 HBO is certainly justified in its cancellation, as the show never pulled in ratings, and it wrongfully never garnered a single Emmy nomination. But HBO is known for edgy programming, and it is a shame that they never gave “Bored to Death” the chance that it deserved. With a little bit of effort, this show could have had much wider appeal. So what if it takes place in Brooklyn? So what if a majority of its jokes center around Jewish neuroticism? “Curb Your Enthusiasm” targets basically the exact audience, and it has been running strong for eight seasons.

 “Bored to Death” is not just inhabited in the world of hipsters, but it is also an inside satire of sorts of that culture which anyone who has ever been to a big city or a modern college campus can appreciate.

 “Bored to Death” is also first and foremost a detective story, and each mystery is as surprising as it is entertaining. This show also pulls off the rare balancing act of having a season full of self-contained episodes that also fit in to a larger plot. Despite running on the exact same formula, each and every episode still feels refreshing and original. I would wager that a value of Middle America is familiarity, and any show with a consistent formula is usually able to build a loyal following. The Jews may run Hollywood (according to Professor Mel Gibson M.D.), but making them the center of any story will apparently make most of the country want to change the channel.

 “Bored to Death” did have some limitations in its stories, as it involves something of a literature and pop culture prowess to enjoy, but most of its humor was so madcap that anyone could have laughed at it. One of the gags that first got me into “Bored to Death” was in the second episode of the series when Ray (Zach Galifianakis) randomly falls on top of a baby stroller. In a later episode, he spills iced coffee all over another baby. Franich writes in his article that he thought the only growth that Danson’s George did was in the amount of pot smoking he does. First off, that element of the show has always been hilarious, as his habits once lead him to tamper a drug test by adding soap to a urine sample. But really, Danson grew into the character whether it was through his relationship to his daughter in the most recent season, or his brave decision to leave his job as magazine editor. Galifianakis was also more than just a prop for slapstick, and he showed more dramatic range in this role than he ever has during any other point in his career. 

  Thanks to Jonathan Ames, “Bored to Death” had some of the highest quality writing on television. Each season was better than the last. Some highlights have included a diner scene in season two that felt reminiscent of the finale of “Pulp Fiction” in the best way possible, and an episode where Jonathan (Jason Schwartzman), Ray, and George have a wild night in New Jersey that ends with them rear-ending a cop car. There was something habitually funny about the show’s writing and performances. Each of its three seasons were only eight episodes in length, or about one third shorter than the length of the average TV comedy series. The best part about this was that it allowed Ames to put an extra amount of focus and detail into every episode, as opposed to other shows where the writers have to create episodes like an assembly line. It is no wonder that each episode of “Bored to Death” felt like a serial in a larger novel series and not just a half hour television episode. 

   I know out there somewhere, there is a compassionate cult of “Bored to Death” fans who have yet to come together and express their outrage. This Hipster Noir of a comedy will eventually earn its place among the pantheon of great shows that were cancelled too early. Until that day comes, I say #OccupyBoredtoDeath all the way.  

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: Youth in Revolt

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

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