iwishicouldthink-1 Reviews

Funny People (2009)

When Funny People are in Bad Movies or Pathetic Product Placement a la Judd Apatow

[5 August 2009]

To say that Judd Apatow takes his movies way too seriously is an understatement – is in fact in an understatement in and of itself. Here is a film that attempts to "re-examine" a plot-line that we have all seen dozens of times and probably has been done over a hundred times in the history of film. When I first heard of the plot – a man finding out that he has some fatal disease and then realizes, after re-evaluating his life of course, that he, in fact (gasp) is miraculously cured (the experimental treatment with the slimmest percentage of being possibly successful worked) – I was disappointed. Apatow is as prominent a figure in the film industry, in terms of mainstream comedy, than perhaps we've ever seen before. His string of success trumps the 90s version of him, the Farrellly brothers, and with this success he opts to make the least original film of all time.

After reading some interviews that Apatow did my interest in the film was re-born. For one, he stated that it was his aim to go through these typical motions but have the character learn nothing. This, I thought, was an interesting angle and so I went into the film with an open-mind. To me, if he made true on his aim – and his protagonist was a true anti-hero, in which the lessons all movie characters learn when faced with death he simply does not learn – I would be impressed. To reveal whether or not Apatow makes good on that promise would be unfair.

What can be revealed is that Funny People is two things: one, a film that is filled with funny people, and two, a very poorly made film. Apatow has a certain gift for humor. To write any review that debates the merits of his writing, at this point, would be both unsubstantiated and out-of-touch. Apatow is a great comic writer. His regulars, Rogen and Hill, understand the material so well that it is as natural comedy as any of film's comic legends. Jason Schwartzman, who usually tends to a more quirky style of humor, fits in well in this role. But as strong as the humor in the film is, and it is very strong, it's torch of having to carry the weight of this plot is far too enormous. The problem with the style of humor, and the actors who make the jokes, is that the jokes and the way they are told are all pretty much the same. Unlike 40-Year-Old Virgin, where the characters were much more of an ensemble and Steve Carell didn't really fit the Apatow-mold, with Funny People they all are funny but they all tell jokes about balls, and penis sizes, and sexual acts. A film of over two hours requires more range, more arch, and more ambition if its humor must carry the film's weight. And it must.

While Apatow may understand how to write jokes and how to be funny, his construction of the film is sloppy. There is a sequence in which Adam Sandler's character and his lost-love played by Leslie Mann argue. This is interrupted by a rough cut in which the characters continue their argument in a different location. Again, another change of location in the same conversation. The sequence of long-shot, to medium-shot, back to long-shot is choppy and horribly executed. The film feels stale and and scenes linger on in cumbersome ways. The movie doesn't even exhibit a hint of cinematic considerations. Each scene is built around two characters in a frame telling jokes. This isn't to suggest that most comedies pay attention to the technical aspects of cinema. They certainly don't. This is what is most troubling about Funny People: it is not content just being a comedy.

I think about Wayne's World, a film that had no misconceptions about just being a comedy. In it, commercials are lampooned and the best satire I can recall every seeing against product placement takes place. Wayne and Garth talk to the camera claiming they would never sell out while throughout doing so they cheerfully pitch for Pepsi, Nuprin and Doritos (in tradition of their current commercial advertising schemes). In Funny People there is sequence donated to MySpace. The founder, Tom – who we all know so well, is there. They make fun of Facebook. The fact that MySpace is borderline obsolete makes the scenes every more, well, just embarrassing. Seth Rogen make an iTunes playlist and I know when I make playlists for people I always make sure to clarify it is on "iTunes" in every sentence. These scenes are clumsy, transparent, and pathetic. Some of the most generally distracting scenes you'll find in any film.

Continue reading at A Reel Perspective C- (55.5)

The Merry Gentleman (2008)

The Merry Gentleman

[14 July 2009]

The Merry Gentleman is one of the most patient and subtle American films I've seen in some time. It involves two characters who will meet, who both have secrets, and who are both alone. We know their secrets. We know their predicaments. This film is not about plot, suspense, mystery, but about two people and their relationship.

Frank Logan is a hit man. No film that I can instantly recall has told such a subtle and human story about man of that occupation and it has been covered extensively. We have our hit man comedies, we have our hit man dramas, we have our hit man action, we have our hit man at a crossroads stories, we have our idiot hit men, we have our desperate hit man stories. The list is so substantial that making a film about a hired hand is almost one of the least original stories that could exist. Merry Gentleman seems to have contradicted that claim though, but it does so by not making it the centerpiece of the film. We see Frank Logan kill. We know Frank Logan kills others during the film. However, he could just as easily not be a hit man. In this film his being a hired killer is only a device to meet the character Kate. That we don't look at him as a hired killer, don't think of him like that, is the genius of him happening to be one.

Kate Frazier starts the film leaving her husband. She was beaten. Again, this is a familiar situation in films. We have our full gamut of battered wives films. Kate's story, like Frank's, is not about being a battered wife. Again, it's just a reason for her to leave, to find a new job, a job that when leaving she'll see Frank, standing on the ledge of the building across the street. She yells and startles him to stop him from jumping. He falls backwards. Of course, Frank was on that roof to shoot a man that worked in the same building as Kate. Frank and Kate actually meet when he helps her bring her Christmas tree into her apartment building – a scene that may have been a little forced. Again, Frank is there attending to business and again he encounters Kate. From this point on a friendship is formed.

That the film keeps their relationship a friendship is admirable. They both just need a friend. Their lives are complicated enough, although that doesn't stop most films from adding a romantic line when it makes no sense. Kate, naturally doesn't know that Frank was the one on that building, what he was doing there, and why he was really showing up at her apartment. And Frank knows nothing of Kate's reasons for her sudden relocation. Why are so they good for each other if they don't really know each other? The film leaves that open to interpretation. Where does the film go? Well, that can't be explained but it comes to a head when Kate's husband shows up.

What is so enjoyable about the film is having way more knowledge than the two characters. We know the secrets of both sides and Keaton lets the film play out so patiently that the film is enthralling. It has its humor, it has a bit of twists, but the film is all about the nuanced friendship that grows between two people and where that inevitably has to lead. We know where this film has to go – the characters have to figure out what we know. Don't they? And when they do what will happen? These are the questions that Keaton allows a very moody atmosphere to hide in the back of our heads while he tells and portrays half of the Frank and Kate friendship.

It's always interesting when a long-time actor directs their first picture. For Michael Keaton, who went from decent 80s comedies, to being Tim Burton's go-to guy for a stretch, to a string of mid-90s romantic dramas and comedies, and spending the last ten years appearing sporadically primarily in kids movies, it was hard to know what to expect. It's safe to say that Keaton was never in a film reminiscent of The Merry Gentleman. For an actor that does have a good amount of range but has always been a little spastic and energetic, his performance was impressively understated and well played. His acting mimics the patience and mood of his filming, everything is allowed to happen in its own time.

The film makes a point of showing Kate as looking like an angel when Frank looks down at her from the rooftop. Frank regards her as a gift when he finds her trapped under her own Christmas tree. Kate makes a comment halfway through the film that their isn't much difference between a ghost and an angel, one guides you and one haunts you but they both need something. It isn't clear if Frank and Kate are angels and ghosts to each other, but certainly they came into each other lives as we expect angels and ghosts do. We fear they'll have to leave each other just as a ghost and angel would as well. In the film, we'll question whether these characters are real at all, and what does it means if they're not. The ending of this film is as bittersweet as a story about ghost and angels would be. This is a film of sacrifice and of two people being gifts for one another and also of having to be ghosts and angels for each other too.

B+ (67.5) @ A Reel Perspective

Management (2008)

The Management of a Genre

[14 July 2009]

Management is one of the rare films that is able to transcend the limits of a predictable plot-line. Ten minutes into the movie it becomes clear that there are two path the film could go down: the well traveled path of the stereotypical romantic storyline or take the film down a road that ends in disappointment for our protagonist, Mike. That the film journeys down the safe road and is able to come out as respectable as having gone down the honest road is a testament to the film's acting and the characters the script provides for them.

The story is simple with a twist of completely absurd. Mike works and lives at a small hotel run by his parents. His mother, Trish, loves the work, the interaction with their clients. His father, Jerry, is less than enthused with his responsibilities as a glorified-landlord for this property. Mike is immediately taken with Sue who is in town as a traveling commercial art seller. Mike's plan to win her is not very well thought out: he finds an old dusty bottle of wine in one of the hotel's storage rooms (apparently an unwanted Christmas present from years ago) and with the wine in hand shows up at Sue's door. His story is that the hotel randomly provides complimentary bottles of wine. He goes on to say that most people invite him in their room to not only pour a glass (or rather one of the plastic covered plastic cups that we all find in hotel rooms) for them but he is usually also invited to partake in the drinking festivities. Nothing comes of this first encounter, but the next night Mike shows up with a bottle of champagne (evidently purchased new) and this encounter leads somewhere. Mike tells her she has a nice ass. Sue takes this in stride, and we can tell here that despite her beauty she is not accustomed to this type of open compliments. Sue questions how often Mike does this type of thing and does it ever work. Of course, it doesn't ever work. Sue asks him if he'd be satisfied if she'd allow him to touch her ass, ruling out sex as a possibility. Mike, naturally, accepts this offer. And so, Mike touches Sue's ass.

Now, if this is your first introduction to the plot of this film, don't lose your faith in it on the grounds of absurdity. Yes, the film begins on an absurd premise and continues down that path. Why does successful and beautiful Sue allow Mike, who lives at his parent's hotel remember, into her room and allow him such intimate contact? That question is answered and it is almost entirely done so through the performances of Steve Zahn and Jennifer Aniston.

For Zahn he has to play a character that is pathetic, borderline creepy, but does so in a way that he is charming and he is trustable. He plays a character that we have seen before, the lovable loser, with such believability that the plot could have gone just about any direction and we never would have doubted our hero. This is Zahn's best comedic film that I've seen. Jennifer Aniston, who can add this feature to her string of "lower-budget" successes such as Friends With Money, The Good Girl, and She's The One, has the impeccable ability to play characters that it doesn't seem someone of her looks and personal reputation should be able to play so effortlessly. In Friends With Money she is used by one man and then is somehow taken with an overweight, lazy man who seems like everything you don't want a guy to be other than nice, of course. In The Good Girl she finds herself married to John C. Reily and in love with a teenage, and fully immature, Jack Gyllenhaal. In this feature her character plays soccer, is an advocate for recycling, hands out vouchers to the homeless, and aspires to build a large soup kitchen and shelter. She seems like the type of girl that could not exist in real life and if she did she'd certainly not belong with Mike. If her character was only surface-deep, this film would never work. Her performance again makes her more complex and explains why she could find herself interested in this man who only has "sweet" going for him.

The bulk of the film after the meet-cute consists of Mike trying to win Sue's heart. This consists of traveling cross country, pawning his belongings, window serenades, and jumping from an airplane, to name a few. Mike's parents retain a prominent and significant role as does Sue's boyfriend, turned fiancé, but the film is about Mike and his pathetic, yet sweet, efforts to win Sue. It's the rare film that goes where we fear it might, that goes down the worn-thin territory we're all familiar with but by the graciousness of fine performances we don't mind getting exactly what we thought we would. In this case, we want it to happen so bad for Mike, and even for Sue too, that we allow ourselves to forget that it would never happen like this is real life.

B+ (66.5) @ A Reel Perspective

Brüno (2009)

Its Humor Does Not Make Up for its Lack of Substance

[14 July 2009]

The praise heaped onto Borat was sensational and, for me, completely inexplicable. How could a film billed as being spontaneous, that no one was in on the joke, get a nomination for Best Original Screenplay? What screenplay? Not only was it getting critical praise and 4-star reviews it raked in over 128 million.

I saw Borat. I laughed at parts. I thought most parts were stupid. I respect the style of humor and its difficulty. When Borat brings down his own feces wrapped in toilet paper and asks his hostess what he should do with it, I laughed. During the blurred out wrestling sex scenes, I did not. The scene with Pam Anderson: Did people really fall for that? After a film makes 128 million, garners an Oscar nomination and becomes, to exaggerate somewhat, a cultural sensation, I stand by the notion that it is impossible for Bruno to exist on the same ground that Borat did. I don't believe that anyone in Bruno, other than maybe Ron Paul, were not part of the jig. Either that or Cohen was forced to go to the regions of the world most under rock cover. That's why the film is a failure. The film either has to work on the notion of people not knowing Bruno is a character being played by an actor or else it fails. If to avoid failure the film only goes to parts of the country, or world, where people wouldn't know who Cohen is then it loses its social commentary completely. If some backwards guys in the woods that he goes hunting with actually fell for his character (therefore must not have heard of Borat) than that puts them so far on the edge of society that it makes their reaction predictable and erases the only value a film like Bruno could have outside of its humor. Is it surprising that some hunters and some other people that fell for Bruno's ridiculous act are homophobic? That is hardly an unsettling realization to make. Yes, homophobic people exist and for them to be in this film they have to be the most sheltered and idiotic people in the world. Thus, the film makes a stance against being homophobic – but it doesn't point out a problem within our society. Moreover, unlike Borat where it pointed out certain prejudices we have against those from the Middle East without even noticing them, this film just points out the stereotypes of the gay community. We live in a country where our first minority President does not support giving full rights to another minority group. We're at a juncture in history when it seems like we've made huge progress, yet the progress just illuminates the continued oppression – the lack of true progress and only symbolic progress.

That's why Bruno fails. It's a film that deserves a place in today's society. We deserve a film that would point out the prejudices of the society, point out the absurdity of what we think about a minority group. Interviewing people that don't even know who Sacha Baron Cohen is not an attack on society – it's just proving something everyone already knows.

To give the film a good review insinuates that direction, screenplay, cinematography, art direction, ensemble acting, and essentially every other technical aspect of film-making can be ignored, neglected, and as long as the film makes you laugh it is then great. By this standard, The Tom Green Show must have been the best TV show of all time and that America's Home Videos: The Movie has the potential to be considered the greatest film of all time. Think of it, different segments that have no relation to another, hand-held (sometimes secret) filming, real people's reactions, and best yet, we can pretend that it's great on the grounds of it makes us laugh and it's social commentary too. You can't just say your movie is social commentary and have it be so. These comparisons to John Waters are horrid. John Waters planned his films and had actual ideologies he was attacking. His movies were horrible too. Social commentary and an occasional laugh are not merits for great film-making – it actually goes against everything that critics use to normally assess films. Then, we'd call John Waters sick and his movies would only be seen by die-hards and weirdos. Today, we like sick, but we don't like liking sick – so give Bruno a good review, call it social commentary, allow ourselves stupidly to believe it isn't all scripted, so that we can feel good about liking sick and gross. We can laugh at how funny it is how people hate gay people and forget that this movie isn't going to do a thing to change that.

E @ A Reel Perspective

The Proposal (I) (2009)

The Proposal

[14 July 2009]

The Proposal actually had me for quite awhile. It never had me thinking to myself "wow, this is an amazing film," but it did have me laughing, liking the characters and thinking it a solid-romantic comedy. By the film's end those sentiments were almost entirely erased because of a handful of incredibly stupid scenes that were either not needed or trying to force additional conflict where none was needed. It's a shame because if the film were to be left to the style it held throughout the first half it could have ended up being a middle-ground romantic comedy. For anyone that hasn't seen the preview, which fully outlines the plot, let me give you the run down. Andrew works for Margaret at a book publisher. Everyone fears Margaret. There are a number of scenes to display and explain that. The conflict begins when Margaret is notified that her visa application was denied and she has to move back to Canada and then won't be able to work for the company. Why her visa was denied? Not really explained. Why she still couldn't work in some capacity for the company? Not explained at all. I was able to move pass those because I'm sure visa applications do get denied, especially if steps are missed as is mentioned, and I'm sure some corporations are stingy on American employment. Move on. To fix this Margaret blackmails Andrew into marrying her. They'll stay married for a year or two and then divorce. In turn, he won't get fired when she leaves the company as she reassures him he would. Andrew also would be able to move up to editor after the fake marriage is broken up. Later, Andrew, when Margaret is in a compromising position, is able to negotiate an immediate promotion and the publishing of a certain book he found. At this point we know what to expect. Andrew, who at this point loathes Margaret, will end up falling in love with her. And her, well her icy demeanor will certainly melt when they go off to Alaska to meet his family, and of course, tell them they're engaged. For awhile, the performances of Ryan Reynolds and rom-com vet Sandra Bullock are enough to carry the film and keep it interesting. The film lingers for long enough to make me wonder: Are they going to marry and not end up falling in love? To have me wonder, given the cast and plot, is a testament to the film staying patient with the material. Reynolds carries the comic load with only minimal help from some minor characters, primarily his grandmother, played by Betty White. Alaska brings a bitter father and an ex-girlfriend but it never brought that scene that I feared. The scene where they admit they really love each other. In only fairness, I'll leave the ending ambiguous. I give the film credit for not lending itself to having scenes that it could have, going down roads that would have ruined it much faster and quicker. It let its two leads play back and forth for just long enough and it gave them enough back story, enough good lines, to make them both likable. We root for them. Unfortunately, the film crumbles as quickly as its delicate balance built it up by scenes that were out of place (you'll know them) and by things happening that would never occur (again, you'll know them). It forces things. It ignores its formula of letting things play out, letting the actors bring it to where we want it go. It tries to escalate things when all we want is for things to settle and continue on as they're meant to. To end predictability after navigating past predictable plot-holes (confusing confessions of love, for example) would have been a marginal success, but to fail so badly with that chance in hand makes it a disaster.

I Love You, Beth Cooper (2009)

I Don't Love You, Beth Cooper

[14 July 2009]

By my recollection this is only the second high school wide release film of the year (the other being the equally unoriginal 17 Again). Yet, despite it not being worn thin this year, the high school genre needs major help. It's a time of life that is of significance to everyone. Obviously, for some it is much more prominent than for some others. But at that time, the world seems magnified as never before. Why has no film been able to even come close to capturing that sentiment? Of course there are some that are brilliant The Last Picture Show, Dead Poet's Society, than there's ones that don't really have all that much to do with high school like Rushmore, Boyz N' the Hood, and oldies like Rebel Without A Cause and a huge collection from the 1980's with Say Anything being the strongest of the bunch, but over the course of cinematic history this genre, more than any other, has been completely butchered. The last ten years has been the worst. The main problem is that every high school film has it in their head that there is this hierarchy that simply does not exist. I don't know if it ever did, but in my life and my frequent conversations with others on the topic it has been confirmed that it doesn't. Perhaps, in the 1980's there was such division. There were these groups of nerds, jocks, losers, weirdos and, well, the "it" girls. Maybe these groups collided in the ways we still see in films, you know, swirlies, and locking freshman in lockers, and wedgies too. Jocks are always dumb. Always. Nerds are always picked on and they never ever get the girl. Ask Duckie. "It" girls are vicious, hate everyone, especially their parents and their best friend, they usually have a really bad life and that's why they hate everyone and all they want is someone to listen to them. Losers are stupid too, like jocks. Pretty much you're either stupid or a nerd getting your ass kicked. Thing is, high school is nothing like that. Valedictorians are not always nerds. They don't even always give speeches at graduation commencement – I know, what about that mandatory valedictorian speech scene. Jocks can be smart. Yes, a human can exist that is both athletic and academic. I've seen it myself. I know, they might have to reinvent the whole formula. Nerds sometimes drink alcohol other than on the last day of high school. Yeah, I know, I don't know how that required "nerdy kid" cutting loose scene is going to happen then either. Sure, they're are groups in high school. Some kids you're friends with and others you're not. Sure some kids are smart and some are good at sports but it seldomly if ever defines their entire being. Thing is, adolescents are not one-dimensional people that resemble how they're represented in the twenty year formula that Hollywood has been using, subbing in new role players as they age. The fact that nothing that happens in I Love You, Beth Cooper would ever happen in real life isn't that big of a deal if not for the fact that a good movie about the topic deserves to be made. One not at a boarding school, one that doesn't involve drug addiction, one that doesn't involve being in a gang – one that is just a simple story of what it is really like at that moment when life is changing for everyone you know. That decisions that you're too young to be making end up dictating the years of your life that you haven't really even thought out. Where's that film? It could still be funny. It could still have a beautiful actress on the poster. It would certainly make more money that I Love You, Beth Cooper will. That film doesn't exist during any moment of Beth Cooper. Nor does a plot-line you haven't seen, a character you ever met in real life nor one you haven't met in film, an original line of dialogue, or anything than justifies its existence as cinema.

E @ A Reel Perspective