Image via New York Post

So, where do you even start a review of a movie that stopped world news and got the attention of the President of the United States? Just focus on the movie, that’s the mantra. Just focus on the movie. Let’s see how far that gets us.

The Interview, the second film directed by writing duo Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg, has caused a huge a stir (Damn! Broke it already!). When you see what all the fuss is about, you might realize that people are really good at getting offended before getting the full story. Political satire has been around since humans were grunting at each other in caves, so making a movie poking fun at Kim Jong-Un shouldn’t feel that radical. 

But let’s get back to that later. I don’t want this review to become about everything around the movie, rather than about the movie itself, because Rogen and Goldberg are smart enough to give us a lot to talk about. In The Interview, Rogen doesn’t smoke a single joint or crack a joke about his Jewish background. It is nice to see him leave his comfort zone, but luckily, he doesn’t venture too far away from it.

In The Interview, Rogen plays Aaron Rapaport, a producer on a light-hearted entertainment news show with a “gotcha!” spin to it. Host Dave Skylark (James Franco) is great at getting entertainers to reveal big secrets. He would probably make a great journalist if he only had a brain. While Dave is content with his work, Aaron dreams of doing something that is more important. When an offer to interview Kim Jong-un comes across his desk, he gladly accepts it. As satire of entertainment journalism, it works fairly well, as it gets to the root of every journalist who ends up focusing on the wrong part of every story.

The film gets off to a bit slow start out of the gate, but at 112 minutes long, this is a marathon, not a sprint, of a comedy. Most of the scenes before the film gets to North Korea focus on a sort of bromance between Dave and Aaron. If the film simply focused on that and had not taken the characters out of New York and into Pyongyang, then that would have been enough. However, Rogen and Goldberg have certainly said their piece about male friendship through movies like Superbad and This Is the End, so it is refreshing to see that The Interview focuses more on an unbreakable professional bond. Despite his status as one of the biggest comedy stars in Hollywood, Rogen is always willing to play the straight man. Franco, who is sometimes known as the self-serious artist, has no problem playing the nutcase. Both these actors play against type so well and mesh perfectly together.

The real scene-stealer here is Randall Park as Kim Jong-un. This is the kind of role that will probably land him a ton of work in the future. He gives the feared North Korean dictator the kind of three dimensionality you might not even see in an Oscar begging genre. He plays him as somebody who is really evil but also somebody who just want to be one of the guys. If the Golden Globes weren’t a complete fraud, then they would have nominated him for Best Actor.

Given the events of the past week, The Interview has been under more pressure than ever to be this mind-blowing satire that blows the lid off this whole Communist Cult of Personality thing. Bad news: it does not. Good news: that does not make it a failure. The idea that North Korea is a sad, impoverished nation under a shoddy facade of happiness is something that was covered excellently by Vice. The idea that Kim Jong-un just wants to please his dead father was basically assumed the moment he took power in Pyongyang.

Instead of hoping for the next Dr. Strangelove, let’s embrace The Interview for being a solid action comedy. While it does not top This Is the End, The Interview proves that Rogen and Goldberg are two of the best comedy directors working today. Cinephiles beware, with its hyper-kinetic violence and history-bending twist, The Interview takes more cues from Inglourious Basterds and Sam Peckinpah than Knocked Up or Superbad. This is not to say that they have abandoned all of their principles, just that they are exploring new territory.

The Interview also shows how much this pair knows how to write and film comedy. I appreciate the first half of this film even more after seeing how much of it converges in the grand finale. Normally, the use of pop songs in a film can be an annoying crutch, as if to profit off something that is already profitable. Here, the use of one certain pop hit helps to create a genius comedic sight gag. Some idiots tried to ruin it on the internet before any of us even got to see the film, but nobody was able to do the irony justice.

Years down the road, once the hype has dissipated, we might see The Interview in a completely different light. But if you are going to sit down to watch it, whether on YouTube or at your local art house theater, I beg you not to look at it as some courageous act of patriotism. Rather, just sit back, relax, and enjoy the sight of a grown man shitting his pants.

ABOUT THE ENDING (SPOILER ALERT DUH): Part of me really wishes the film ended with the image of Aaron and Dave sitting on that boat, floating out to sea. Look, I understand that you have to wrap everything up, and people would be furious if they didn’t get to see Dave finally write his tell-all while Aaron Skypes with his North Korean girlfriend (great way to bring back what seemed like a throwaway line). But that ending just seems too neat, and seeing everything in North Korea be tied up with a nice bow feels just the slightest bit contrived. So why not just have the two of them sitting on a boat together, wondering what the hell is going to happen next?

Help! I’m stuck in a bad Kevin Smith movie! Image via Bloody Disgusting

Oh Kevin Smith, why hath thou foresaken us?

Tusk, the latest Kevin Smith joint, has received a lot of hype both for its weird premise and the weird way in which the story was first conceived. Like the scientific experiment seen onscreen, Tusk is equal parts bizarre and inexplicable. But most of all, it never justifies its reason for existence.

The idea for Tusk was spurred by an episode of Smith’s podcast. So of course, Tusk centers around a pair of podcasters who host a podcast called the Not-See Podcast. Say it out loud. That’s the only running joke this film is able to provide. What nobody told Kevin Smith is that if you have a running joke, you have to vary it a little bit. Yeah, Not-See sounds like Nazi. I didn’t get it the first ten times.

Anyway, Justin Long and Haley Joel Osmont play a pair of mismatched podcasters named Wallace Bryton and Teddy Craft. They host what I presume is the morning drive equivalent of podcasts. The two of them mainly enjoy making fun of people who make fools of themselves on the Internet. One of them is a Canadian boy who accidentally cuts his own leg off while trying to reenact Kill Bill. Wallace makes a trip up to Manitoba to interview him.

Here is Tusk‘s first big red flag: this movie tries to crate a despicable lead character. That is fine, as movies that have a-holes as main characters can be great. However, Tusk keeps telling us that Wallace is a big meanie, yet it never really convinces us as to why. Making fun of people on YouTube is what Daniel Tosh gets paid millions for. And we all know that if you’re rich, then you’re automatically a good person.

A lot of bad things happen to Wallace in Tusk, and it seems like Kevin Smith wants you to believe that he had this coming. But where is the build up. One second, Wallace is in cushy LA recording studio. And the next, he is deep in the Canadian woods with a deranged mad man (Michael Parks) who wants to turn him into a walrus. But the movie never takes anytime to explore his Los Angeles relationships. Sure, a few flashbacks are clumsily incorporated. However, those moments could have been strung together to make a solid first act that would have served as the film’s emotional backbone.

Changes like that could have been made if there had been a rewrite. Now, I have no proof that Kevin Smith didn’t rewrite Tusk, but I have a strong suspicion that he didn’t even bother. Tusk started off as a story Smith and his co-host made up in a podcast episode. I wish it stayed that way. I feel like a lot of the story might have actually worked if it just remained in podcast form. Once you see the actual walrus creation, it is hard to know if you should be frightened or amused. Tusk lingers between horror and comedy. It can never quite decide which one it wants to be. It could have been both, but it doesn’t even want to do that, either. Hey man, whatever will get you that paycheck fastest.

Being so harsh on Kevin Smith, because I am a huge fan. Well, at least I am a huge fan of the Kevin Smith who made Clerks, Mallrats, and Dogma. Being a cinephile at age 12 and then getting to see Clerks is like a revelation. But everything that made him so cool in the 90s seems to have vanished. I hate to say that he’s gone too mainstream, but he has gone from writing politically charged monologues about the Death Star to actually getting to visit the set of Star Wars. In Tusk, Johnny Depp (oh yeah, he’s in it) mentions The Big Lebowski one time and we are all expected to magically applaud. Oh cool, you’ve heard of a movie that we have also heard of! How relatable! With a few Degrassi references to boot, Tusk is a parody of a Kevin Smith film written by somebody who also has a thing for walrus erotica.

While others seem to be rooting for its downfall, I really wanted to like Tusk. I was hoping a guy who helped pave the way for podcasts everywhere might have something insightful to say about it. Instead, Tusk is lost miles up Kevin Smith’s own self-referential ass, in search of an editor.

Brain Farts From The Edge

• When Waterworld came out, many people referred to it as “Kevin’s Gate” and “Fishtar,” as a way to mock what a big flop it was. Both those nicknames could apply to Tusk. For now, let’s just assume that a walrus is a type of fish.
• Kevin Smith is one of those directors who draws a lot of strong feelings out of people, whether positive or negative. He’s like Wes Anderson in jorts!
• Tusk could be used as propaganda for anti-Marijuana legalization.
• Canada jokes were always a big part of the View Askewniverse. But like I said, this is a parody of a Kevin Smith film. We get it, they like maple syrup and hockey. Smith seems like he’s ten years behind; How I Met Your Mother owns the market on Canada jokes. And it’s not even on the air anymore.
• Haley Joel Osment. He’s still alive.
• Michael Parks. Let’s give him some credit here. An amazing actor who deserves mainstream recognition.
• Part of me just the film stayed in LA and was just a meandering look at the lives of podcasters. As somebody who has forayed into that world, I would have found that much more relatable. If somebody pitched to me “Mallrats but with podcasters,” I would buy it on the spot.
• “BM in the PM’s coffee.” Okay, that line got me.
• I can’t knock Kevin Smith for his ambition. There is an interesting idea in here. “What makes man? What makes walrus?” Maybe Smith should have thought a little more before asking everyone on Twitter if he should make a movie. #WalrusNo

The trailer for Are You Here is under three minutes, and yet I can still spot two Don Draperisms in it (“you were the squeaky wheel, so you got all the oil!” “the best way to get the soda out of the bottle is to shake it, and shake it, and shake it!”). Yet, the trailer looks something between “alright” and “pretty good.” It also feels like it is concealing a lot of information: they want people to come and see all of these funny people, yet they are in what I assume is a much more serious film than the trailer makes it out to be. So what we get is a slightly watered down version of dramedy.

Yet, I will still see this. Partly because Matthew Weiner’s track record is fairly spotless, partly because Amy Poehler and Zach Galifianakis can do no wrong (even Out Cold) and partly because every possible Owen Wilson career renaissance should not be taken for granted. Watch the trailer for Are You Here below:

I’m still laughing at this scene. Image via Ace Showbiz

It’s a classic setup: a rag-tag fraternity goes up against their stuffy, adult neighbors. The underdog rebels go up against the establishment. However, what Neighbors wants to presuppose is: what if we are actually rooting for the adults?

Here comes Neighbors, which is the first big comedy blockbuster of the summer. It promises big laughs and gratuitous party scenes. It delivers on both these promises, but more on the latter than the former.

Neighbors is ambitious, to say the least. It throws a lot of shit at the wall, and a lot of that shit actually works. Neighbors sees Seth Rogen growing up just a little bit from bachelor stoner to stoner with a baby. Rogen plays Mac Radner along with Rose Byrne, who plays his wife Kelly Radner. The Radners are in that weird stage where they are both adults but they still feel like they are kids. I sense a theme emerging.

Just as the couple is starting to get used to their boring suburban life, a fraternity moves in next door. The brothers we will come to know the most are Teddy (Zac Efron) and Pete (Dave Franco). We know that Teddy is a meathead because he always has his shirt off, and we know that Pete is smart because sometimes he wears glasses. The two of them are also trying to hold on to the last days of their youth.

Now, I know that last paragraph sounded abrupt, but that’s because it all happens very abruptly in the movie itself. At one moment, a gay couple is looking at the house next door and then suddenly, a bunch of fraternity brothers are already moving all of their stuff in. The biggest problem with Neighbors is that it rushes through every important plot point as quickly as possible and it never gives its story any time to breath. Neighbors is a comedy that relies heavily on its plot, yet it seems more interested in moving from one penis joke to the next.

There isn’t necessarily anything wrong with that. Randomness and chaos can make a comedy great. However, something like Neighbors should be focused more on the latter than the former. Something like Step Brothers, which is, no joke, one of the best comedies of the 21st century, can be as random as it wants because it never really claimed to have a plot. When you do something like Neighbors, which borders on some form of high concept, you have to commit to the story you laid out for yourself. One of the biggest problems with Neighbors is that it wants to have it both ways. It wants to be both an Apatow comedy and an 80s comedy where a bunch of slobs challenge the establishment. When you try and have it both ways, you end up defeating yourself.

This is not to say that Neighbors is a failure as a comedy. When it works, it really works. There is one scene depicting a parade of Robert De Niro impressions. Part of this scene is already in the trailer, but that doesn’t make the actual scene any less funny. Maybe the funniest part of the whole scene is that there is a Jackie Brown reference in it. But really, the best part is watching Dave Franco claim to be “Robert De Niro from Meet the Fockers” as he spouts out quotes from Meet the Parents. Neighbors does pop culture references better than a lot of comedies I have seen in a while.

Then, next to some of the smarter jokes, there is a lot of broad slapstick humor. A lot of it works very well, such as a climactic fight between Seth Rogen and Zac Efron that uses objects in the room masterfully. Then, there are parts like the airbag joke, which would have been a lot funnier if they spread it out and built up to it. It also would have been funnier if they didn’t play that same gag on TV every ten minutes.

Neighbors is good, light summer entertainment. It is worth many laughs. However, it is unfortunate when you think of the wasted potential. It is constantly at odds with itself about whether it wants to be stupid or smart. In that mix, you have a lot of funny and charismatic people trying to figure out what to do with themselves. Neighbors is not a bad movie. In fact, at times, it is a very enjoyable movie. Yet, in the end, it feels less like a movie and more like a collection of side gags looking for a more complete comedy.

Brain Farts From The Edge

• I would like to think that Neighbors is secretly a piece of comedy fan fiction and that the Radners are actually related to Gilda Radner. That would be awesome.
• Ike Barinholtz, who you might know from The Mindy Project, is fantastic as the goofy and inappropriate friend. I wish he was given more to do.
• Okay, Zac Efron is shirtless just a little too much. At least the guy has some acting chops, though.
• Oh good, Carla Gallo is getting work.
• Integrating new media and technology into movies is tough. Probably the worst way a movie could do it is by putting text conversations and Skype calls on the screen. Neighbors does just that, and it bothered me maybe a little too much.
• The baby actors that they got here are pretty great. Look forward to some hilarious baby reaction shots. Extra points to Nicholas Stoller to figuring out how to direct a baby.
• I really wish that they let Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg write this. They could have turned it into Superbad set in college.
• Usually, a movie like this would be told from the perspective of the fraternity and the parents would be the villains. Neighbors tries to utilize both sides and it only works sometimes.
• This movie is really about how nobody prepares you for adulthood. Maturity kind of just happens. I like that a lot. I just wish they focused on that a little bit more and cut down the penis molding scene just a little bit.
• Also, they could have cut down on the party scenes. I just graduated from college and don’t need to see your found footage frat party scenes.
• One more thing: I could have watched Seth Rogen and Rose Byrne saying “keep it down” for 20 more minutes. As well as an additional 20 minutes of Hannibal Buress’ laugh.

Harold Ramis, during his Barton Fink look-a-like days

Actor, writer, director, and producer Harold Ramis died earlier today in his home. He had been battling illness for a long time. He was 69.

Ramis’ body of work is extraordinary. He started as an improviser and during his long career, he wrote and starred in such 80s classics as “Ghostbusters” and “Stripes.” He has had small but memorable roles in modern comedy classics like “Orange County,” “Walk Hard,” and “Knocked” Up.” He also directed the likes of “Caddyshack” and “Analyze This.” Let’s not talk about “Year One.”

Perhaps Harold Ramis’ defining film as a director is “Groundhog Day.” “Groundhog Day,” the story of a man who relives the same day over and over again, has gotten better with every passing year. It has one of the best scripts ever written, and it is a shining example of how to execute an insane idea with the utmost sincerity. Dave Itzkoff said it perfectly: every radio station should be playing “I Got You Babe” today.

“Groundhog Day,” which is a metaphor for many things, could also serve as a metaphor for Ramis’ career. Perhaps he was living the same day over and over again, and that’s why he could do so many things at once. Ramis even directed multiple episodes from the golden age of “The Office.” This guy made comedy, film, and television better during his life time. Probably the best thing he ever did in his lifetime was turn Bill Murray into one of the funniest people ever.

The best way to understand what makes comedy great is to just watch it. Here are some of my favorite clips of Ramis, either from something he starred in, wrote, or directed:

I can’t stop laughing at this. Image via Hulu

I have a theory about people who say they hate certain funny TV shows*: they’ve never actually watched a full episode of that show.

Maybe they have seen five minutes of the actual show, but mostly  they have just watched the commercials for it. “Don’t judge a book by its cover” is a cliche, but it applies especially well to comedy. Even I have fallen victim to the commercial trap before (a dumber version of me once said “that show “Arrested Development” looks stupid”), and it seems to really be taking a hold on “Kroll Show.” This is a shame, as “Kroll Show” also happens to be one of the funniest shows on television right now.

“Kroll Show” definitely doesn’t give off the best first impression. One guy dresses up as a woman, a bouncer, a gay man, and an old Jew, amongst many other characters. At first, this just sounds like a whiter version of an Eddie Murphy movie. But plug in some irony, and suddenly you’ve got something brilliant.

Here is the basic gist of the show: it’s a sketch show where Nick Kroll (you might know him as Ruxin on “The League”) plays a variety of different characters. Unlike “Saturday Night Live,” there is no audience or musical guests. Just pure madness.

“Kroll Show” is now a few episodes into its second season. Season two is usually when comedies tend to find their voice, but “Kroll Show” was already pretty confident throughout all of season one. However, that didn’t stop Kroll and his creative team from taking the show into some new territory. Probably a smart idea to change up the format before critics and bloggers (pffft those jerks) can complain that the show is getting stale.

But the show didn’t change too much. In season one, skits were broken apart by a brief monologue from Kroll, who told a story that somehow tied the theme of the episode together. This is common in shows helmed by stand-ups (see: “Seinfeld,” “Louie,” “Inside Amy Schumer”). Instead, he now brings out cast and crew members for mini interviews, which basically amount to a bunch of friends screwing around with each other. One-on-one interviews are common in comedy shows today; they serve as a replacement for the live audience as the surrogate between character and viewer. This show seems to have a small, loyal enough fan base that it no longer needs to tell us what it is.

“Kroll Show” doesn’t quite feel like a show that gets made anymore. It is a part of Comedy Central’s renaissance, in which they have actually started to put good comedians on TV. At times, “Kroll Show” doesn’t even feel like a sketch show. It shares a lot with the great “Mr. Show” in that it seems more determined to create a world as opposed to just a bunch of standalone sketches.

During each episode, characters and story lines tend to intertwine. One character will get a new reality show that allows them to become part of the life of another character. It’s a product of an age where it seems like just about anybody who is desperate enough can get their own show. In general, “Kroll Show” is like a comedic chameleon, as it can perfectly take on the form of a Bravo dating show, an action movie, and a Canadian teen drama all in the span of one episode.

But overall, “Kroll Show” is just hilarious. Sure, it can be hit-or-miss a lot of the time, but that’s what sketch comedy is most of the time anyway. Go back and watch episodes of “SNL” from any of its Golden Ages. For every Matt Foley there is a stinker that nobody remembers. What counts is when there is more gold. “Kroll Show” is definitely a sketch show made for the DVR age, with plenty of moments that get funnier on repeat viewings.

In terms of ambition and commitment to performance, Nick Kroll is pretty close to being a modern Sid Caesar. “Kroll Show” also proves that smart comedy about dumb people is the best kind of comedy out there. You probably won’t be able to get either of those out of just one commercial.

*This theory does not apply to “The Big Bang Theory.” I have watched a full episode and still rule that it is not funny.

Some of my favorite skits/moments (Some of these are just pieces of longer sketches):