Short Review: Remember back in the old days when comedies were funny because they contained things like jokes and gags instead of just awkward sexual references and crude language masquerading as humor? Man, those were good times.

This is pitched as a risque sex comedy. Two confirmed bachelors crash weddings to bed the bridesmaids and other female attendees. The obvious point here is the deliver a bawdy comedy. With the exception of three scenes, this film doesn’t deliver on this central selling point. Let’s be clear, while it may appear that I’m complaining this film wasn’t filthy enough, I am not…well, I am - but I’m not. I would prefer that none of the film was dirty. Truth be told, I'd prefer the movie wasn't made at all. The last thing this fledgling culture needs is another dim-eyed sex comedy. That said, this is indeed a sex comedy and the point of the production is ribald humor and it simply doesn't deliver on that front.

The central issue with this comedy is that it is just not funny. The humor is not nurtured throughout the film. The jokes are transitory. Stupid one-liners and inorganic situations abound and the heart of comedy - character is ignored. This is a shame since the premise of the film and the basic plot could have produced a crass but solid comedy.

We are offered quick sketches of the characters at their introduction and then expect to fill in the rest ourselves. None of the characters manage any real change or development and this is the fatal flaw to the whole movie. Wilson’s character isn’t as mean as he should be, Christopher Walkin’s character isn’t as threatening as he could be, the insane sister isn’t crazy enough. Each of the characters is given traits but no personality. The crazy sister Gloria (Isla Fisher) is denounced by the film as being crazy, but acts more spoiled than anything else. She performs some antisocial sexual acts but her insanity is only present when it suits the plot. This is a good example of my main complaint with the film. The characters are not allowed to the time and space to flourish and so we are left with unfulfilled areas where a good deal of humor could be mined.

This lack of internal movement in the characters is what makes scenes with John (Owen Wilson) and his love interest Claire (Rachel McAdams) come across as staged and wanting. The two are supposedly falling in love but the script offer no reason why they would. Other than a cruel fiancee, played by Bradley Cooper, there is literally no explanation why Claire would overturn her life for a man she literally just met. Instead of carefully constructed character work, we are treated to seemingly endless montage sequences showing John and Claire falling in love and later missing one another. These sequences are there because it gives the illusion of content. It’s the cinematic equlivant of someone telling a story and stuttering out “Well, anyway, they fall in love. As I was saying…”

Like a majority of the movies made by Owen Wilson, Vince Vaughn, Ben Stiller, Will Ferrell, Steve Carell, Jack Black and the other comedic actors of this generation, this is a strong concept ruined by spotty execution. It seems that we have lost the ability to enjoy well-written and well executed comedies. We have gone from Blazing Saddles, The Jerk, the Monty Python films and Airplane! to yawning, common denominator crud such as this. When you go from Mel Brooks and Steve Martin to Ben Stiller and Vince Vaughn, your culture is in trouble. The bottom line is that American comedy is stagnant.


Related reviews:
Owen Wilson movies
Cars (2006)
Shanghai Noon (2000)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Film Critics United
eFilmCritic



Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See:
Watching Movies Through a Christian Lens

Labels: Christopher Walkin, comedy, Owen Wilson, Vince Vaughn

This production gives stupid movies a good name. Rick Moranis and Dave Thomas meld their asinine SCTV characters with Shakespeare’s Hamlet in this funny, but not hilarious, comedy. This is one of the rare exceptions where the poor production values actually helps the overall movie.

This film sports a performance that is a family favorite. During the 1980's Swedish actor Max von Sydow, a favorite of director Ingmar Bergman (Wild Strawberries, The Seventh Seal, The Virgin Spring) had been reduced to taking scrap roles well below his skills, such as this production and Ice Pirates. He hasn't really redeemed himself and return to great art. He is now in higher priced productions (Robin Hood, Rush Hour 3, Shutter Island) with talented directors who should be making far better films. In my home he is simply known as "Brewmeister Smith" and he is loudly called that when he first arrives on screen.


Related Reviews:
Max von Sydow Movies
Le scaphandre et le papillon (2007)
What Dreams May Come (1998)


Other Critic's Reviews:
FilmCritic.com
The Independent Critic



Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See:
Watching Movies Through a Christian Lens

Labels: comedy, Dave Thomas, film, Max von Sydow, movie review, Rick Moranis

Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See and learn
to change the world from your couch

Labels: comedy, film, Lou Martini Jr, movie trailer, Susan Varon

This is a 90-minute long Saturday Night Live skit. Literally, back in 1986 SNL guest host Joe Montana performed in a skit called Sincere Guy Stu. The premise? Sincere Stu always says what's on his mind. He says a whole bunch of odd stuff to his roommate and his roommate's date. The skit ends with Stu walking upstairs stating "Oh, you won't disturb me. I'll be in my room masturbating." Back in 1986, this was quick a striking line for a respected football star to say on national television. That was 25 years ago. Now, we're lucky if news broadcasters can refrain from calling average citizens "teabaggers".

Co-writers/co-directors Ricky Gervais and Matthew Robinson drag this premise out and then beat it to death with all of the finesse of Andre the Giant threading a needle. They even begin their film by having Mark Bellison (Gervais) arriving at Anna McDoogles' (Jennifer Garner) apartment for a date. She opens the door and quickly expresses her distaste for his physical appearance and her doubts that the two will copulate anytime soon. You see, its a world where everyone tells the truth - get it? Anna lets Mark in and he takes a seat on the couch. She explains she needs to finish getting ready for the date and this will include her, what? - that's right - masturbating upstairs while he waits. Oh, how edgy and unique.

Even though it is simple, Gervais and Robinson are incapable of remaining committed to their stated premise. What they show isn't a world that can't lie. They're in a world where people simply say what's on their mind. Everywhere Mark goes in the film, people casually distribute insults to him. Unprompted, he is told he is less than attractive, that people despise him, that no enjoys him. If this was written as its sold, it is far more likely the people would simply avoid subjects rather than blurt out socially unacceptable put-downs.

As it turns out, the other characters in the film are right to loathe Mark. He is a bad guy with no redeeming values at all. As the title states, he invents lying. Once he learns he can manipulate people by lying to them he then begins to serve his self with his new skill. He steals, attempts a rape (lying to someone to force them into sex is a form of rape, sorry) and generally acts like an ass. Here is a tip - make your hero likable. He doesn't have to be a saint but he really needs to have at least one approachable quality. It makes things so much more engaging for the audience.

To make matters worse Gervais and Robinson allow themselves to be misled by their lack of script development two-thirds of the way through. Since there isn't any real villain and therefore very little tension or conflict, the writing duo are forced to scrounge up a conflict. Marks' mother is on her deathbed and he "lies" to her about there being a Heaven and God. She dies with a smile on her face but Mark is overheard. At this point he becomes a prophet and is burdened with having to make-up religion.

The remainder of the film gives itself over to the conceit that all religion is made-up and are lies people are told to keep them from wallowing in existential misery. This is, of course, bunk and how the subject is presented proves it.

The fake religion Mark devises presents God in vague, childish terms. Gervais and Robinson make a theological straw-man by having Mark describe God with all of the depth of a Sunday School drop-out. Presenting God in the most simplistic terms possible, God is a conflicted old man in the clouds kind of theology, Gervais and Robinson make it easy for themselves to lampoon the ideas being expressed. They avoid actual theology, not out of respect, but because they are more interested in kicking faith in the shin than actually arguing the point.

The whole "religion is a lie" overtakes the final third of the film. It changes the tone and saps the comedy from a script that is already desperate for laughs. Again, this all a reaction by Gervais and Robinson because they have no other road to travel. Their script mishandles the premise and the characters and the two paint themselves into a corner. To close their script they're forced to pull this Deus ex machina (ironically enough).

What they should have done is present the world where no one lies. You then have Mark invent lying. He begins with small ones but they beget larger ones. He then tries to put the genie back in the bottle - thus creating conflict.

or

What they should have done is present the world where no one lies. You then have Mark invent lying. This start out okay but then his lies catch up to him and he is found out by society. This makes him an outcast. When he tries to warn people of something, we are given a modern retelling of The Boy Who Cried Wolf.

Both of these ideas would also do something Gervais and Robinson failed to do in their sophomoric script - it would present lying as a moral wrong.

To sum things up, skip this one. A comedy without laughs is a hideous thing.



Related Reviews:
Rickey Gervais movies
Ghost Town (2008)
For Your Consideration (2006)


Other Critic’s Reviews:
USAToday
DarkMatters

Labels: comedy, film, Jeffrey Tambor, Jennifer Garner, Jonah Hill, Louis CK, movie review, Ricky Gervais, Rob Lowe

As someone who is forced to watch an endless parade of crappy movie trailers, I tell you, these folks nail it.

Labels: comedy, miscellaneous, movie trailer

Remember all of those Saturday Night Live skits where they propose a simple comedic concept and then proceed to hammer the bit into dust? Imagine one of those insufferable skits dragging on for over one hundred minutes and you'll have a good idea of what this movie has to offer.

Jim Carrey plays Carl, a junior loan officer who has a pathetic existence. He is divorced, has been passed up for a promotion and losing his friends due to his being an unreliable dope. After some highly contrived situations, Carl finds himself running into his old friend Nick (John Michael Higgins) who is exciting and free. You see, Nick has adopted the "Yes" lifestyle. He says "yes" to everything and magically life has become a wonderful adventure. Nick invites Carl to attend a conference where guru Terrence Bundley (Terrence Stamp) invites attendees to pledge to say "yes" to everything for a year. Of course Carl takes the pledge and, of course, his life magically becomes a wonderful adventure.

For the next hour or so, Carrey sprints from one inorganic situation to the next saying "yes" to whatever preposterous offer comes his way. It's all so zany.

I like the concept, it is so pro-existence, so for living life to the fullest….wait no, that’s crap – it stinks and stinks overtime. Saying “yes” to everything saps you of your humanity. You have an ingrained sense of right and wrong. This provides you with your basis for choice. It would be better, more life fulfilling to follow your conscious for a year. Your conscious is God's reminder that you have free will and responsibility. Do what you know is right for a year, heck, do it for a month and you life WILL CHANGE. Saying “yes” doesn't change a single thing, doing what you know is right in your gut will.

There is a couple things in this film which struck me. Carrey is in his late forties. At the time this was filmed he was forty-seven years old. He is almost fifty, yet our culture is fine with him portraying a half-man loser who still hangs with his buds at the local sports bar, no kids and who is a JUNIOR loan officer - honestly, he has a scene where he's passed out over a toilet. If you're nearing fifty and you're still getting drunk like you're in college, you either have a drinking problem or a thinking problem - take your pick. This role belongs to an actor half Carrey's age.

What does it say about our culture that a fifty year old is comfortably shown in this role? Would we be as comfortable if Carrey's love interest was his age? No. Zooey Deschanel, his love interest, was twenty-nine during the filming. Because, as we all know, your average good looking woman in her late twenties is hot on the heels of any man nearing fifty who has no prospects.

To push the age thing a little further. In the film Carl receives a sexual favor from an old woman. Carl is disgusted by the old biddy but relents to her advances. This is played up for laughs...well, its not funny so they try to play it up for laughs. The point is that the idea that Carl would hook up with an older woman is deemed wacky.

Here is the deal: The actress who portrays the old woman Tilly is Fionnula Flanagan, born in 1941, making her 67. Carrey was 47. Deschanel was 29. Its fine for Carrey to be slobbering all over a woman 18 years his junior but its disgusting that a woman 20 years his senior would be doing the same to him. The fact is, both are troublesome. Again, the bit works better if Carl is portrayed by a thirty-year-old actor.

Perhaps Carrey should drop the roles where he portrays middle-age, half-men and focus on making real comedies like he was supposed to do back when he was funny fifteen years ago.

As a final note, at one point they actually turn to anti-George W. Bush paranoia. Carl dates a Syrian woman, offers someone a loan to buy fertilizer and takes some planes trips. During a flight, a security guard who looks suspiciously like W. pulls Carl from the terminal insinuating he is a terrorist- thank god this BDS crap is over.

There is little in this film that isn't complete, unwatchable bunk. I recommend you say "no man".





Related Reviews:
Jim Carrey movies
The Number 23 (2007)
Dumb & Dumber (1994)


Other Critic’s Reviews:
USAToday
Big Fan Boy

Labels: Bradley Cooper, comedy, film, Jim Carrey, movie review, Zooey Deschanel

Short Review: This film is not #$%@ eloquent.


Generally, I don’t hold out for much when viewing #$%@ puppets. This film has done nothing to #$%@ change that.

This film made a splash in two-thousand #$%@ four when it was released because of its attack on #$%@ celebrity hubris and #$%@ terrorism. Out of that context the film loses most of its #$%@ punch. What is left is a partially humorous #$%@ ditty with copulating puppets. At its heart it is a #$%@ cheaply written script about #$%@ nothing.

South Park creators Matt Stone and Trey #$%@ Parker are funny and potent satirists. Unfortunately, they are also very #$%@ crass and childish. There are so many #$%@ instances of crudity used senselessly in this #$%@ film I can’t list them in one posting. The whole piece is slathered in harsh curse words for absolutely no purpose. #$%@ Parker and Stone must giggle like twelve year olds when they hear #$%@ or #$%@ because that’s all you hear. Swear words are usually not effective punch lines. If you’re going to #$%@ use them, use them sparingly. Overuse is just #$%@ stupid and juvenile. It shows a lack of thought and cheapens your #$%@ piece.

I’m not going to roll out the usual #$%@ canards about how this stuff is immoral and wrong like South Park. What would be the #$%@ point? If you can't figure that out you must be a #$%@'in #$%@. These guys are not eloquent and their efforts are certainly not for #$%@ kids. They give dead-on satire in many cases in their movies and in their show, but the #$%@ problem is that they have no #$%@ sense of when enough is enough. Just because something makes you #$%@ laugh in a story meeting doesn’t mean its going to be funny #$%@ years later on DV #$%@ D.

I appreciate the politics and the #$%@ attack on celebrities but because of the #$%@ curse words I simply can not #$%@ recommend this #$%@ film.



Related Reviews:
Political #$%@ movies
Michael Moore #$%@ Hates America (2004)
Rated-R: Republicans in Hollywood (2003)


Other Critic's #$%@ Reviews:
Celluloid Heroes
#$%@ FilmCritic.com

Labels: Best Films of 1968, comedy, Matt Stone, movie review, politics, Trey Parker

Short Review: I have a rule about films with full-frontal male nudity: I don't watch them.


For those of you who sat through Borat: Cultural Learnings Of America For Make Benefit Glorious Nation Of Kazakhstan, this review is simple. Remember that disturbing scene in the hotel room? Remember how you were laughing but it wasn't really that funny. It was laughter based in being shocked not amused. Many would rather have skipped that scene if they could. This movie is that scene stretched to eighty minutes.

Sasha Baron Cohen is a chameleon and gets laughs through making the audience uncomfortable by putting his wild characters into uncomfortable social situations. This time Cohen becomes Bruno, a flamboyant homosexual media personality. Cohen's wallowing in faux pas has the ability to be funny, even insightful, but he descends into brutish, gross displays. With the exception of his mockery of celebrity adoption of third-world kids, Cohen seems unable to develop his humor beyond the most base sex jokes available. It is a shame. He is obviously very talented and has a gift for comedy.

This movie is not funny. It could be funny, but it fails.


Related Reviews:
Other comedies
The Big Lebowski (1998)
Blades of Glory (2007)


Other Critic’s Reviews:
The Critical Critics
USA Today

Labels: comedy, film, movie review, Sacha Baron Cohen

Related Reviews:
Luke Wilson movies
Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (2004)
Henry Poole is Here (2008)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Reel Film Reviews
Film Critics United

Labels: comedy, Dax Shepard, film, Luke Wilson, Maya Rudolph, Mike Judge, movie review

Related Reviews:
Comedies
Larry the Cable Guy: Health Inspector (2006)
Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story (2004)


Other Critic's Reviews:
The Phantom Tollbooth
Cinetology

Labels: comedy, film, Kevin James, movie review

One of the quirkier comedies of the 1980's and one of the better teen comedies of the era, this film still holds up quite well today. Considering how entrenched this movie is in the time in which it was made, the fact that its still enjoyable is surprising. Yes, its a cheaply made and flawed movie, but the inventiveness of the script saves the production. John Cusack does well as Lane Meyer a despondent teen who has been dumped by his girlfriend and who is taunted by a psychotically obsessed paperboy.

If its before your time, you may still get something out of it but ultimately its a pop-cultural trinket for us suburban Gen-X types.


Related Reviews:
80's Teen comedies
Sixteen Candles (1984)
The Breakfast Club (1985)


Other Critic’s Reviews:
A Nutshell Review
Moviews

Labels: comedy, film, John Cusack, movie review

If you love physical humor you’re not going to find anything funnier than the first five minutes of this film – at least from anything made in the last twenty years. Even after all of these years, it still slays me.

After peaking with their brand of humor The Naked Gun: From the Files of Police Squad!, the Zucker Brothers and Jim Abrahams released this sequel. It's a faded copy of the original. The jokes are a little more forced (amazing that it is even possible) and there is a serious, SERIOUS political agenda being played out. Detective Frank Drebin (Leslie Nielsen) is nearing retirement from Police Squad. His relationship with Jane (Priscilla Presley) has fallen apart and she has moved on. Jane is now paired with the corrupt Quentin Hapsburg (Robert Goulet). Goulet is perfectly cast as the mustache twisting villain/straight man. He deserves a good amount of attention. As a straight man, his reactions are priceless in contrast to Nielsen’s hammy performance. Hapsburg’s big sin is fronting a conspiracy which will lead to environmental destruction. This film was one of the early attempts at the openly political films we’ve come to know today. The political agenda is slathered on pretty thick and the audience is forced to look beyond it to get to the good stuff. If you can stomach the all business men and Republicans are Satan nonsense sprinkled liberally (literally) you will find some very smart jokes. The bomb site in the first act – hilarious.

Note that beyond just an obtuse political agenda, this is just like the rest of the Zucker/Abrahams comedies. It often will be crude. It is not for kids. If you are sensitive to low humor you will want to avoid this film.


Related Reviews:
Comedies
Best in Show (2000)
Parenthood (1989)


Other Critic’s Reviews:
Spirituality and Practice
Roger Ebert

Labels: comedy, David Zucker, film, leslie nielsen, movie review, Police Squad, Zucker Brothers

Seth Rogen has cut out a niche for himself. As he did with Knocked Up, he portrays a stumbling loser who is completely amoral and emotionally stagnant. He’s a lovable loser however because he knows he’s a lost cause and is able to find humor in his pathetic existence. Actually, his character in this film, Dale Denton, is almost exactly like his character Ben Stone from Knocked Up with the only exception is that he’s just a little more pathetic this time around. Dale is a bumbling part time process server, fulltime pothead. He has a lousy job, wastes his time smoking dope and hangs out with his girlfriend who is still in high school, he’s much older. After buying a new brand of pot that has hit town called Pineapple Express from his wheezing pot dealer Saul (James Franco) Dale witnesses local drug kingpin Ted (Gary Cole) murder a competitor. Dale and Saul spend the rest of the film being chased by Ted’s thugs. Essentially, this production attempts to combine a pot comedy like Up in Smoke or Half-Baked with the simple structured comedic action-adventure film like Hot Fuzz or The Blues Brothers. The combination is possible to pull off, but in this case it fails.

The film fails because it’s just not very funny. It is amusing in spots, but the script and performances lack any life. For most of the film there’s sarcastic interaction in place of wit, buttressed by sophomoric physical humor. Screenwriters Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg (Superbad) avoid mining any humor from their scenes and stick to offering awkward juxtapositions instead. Everyone in the film is a softy, concerned about being friendly and not having their feelings hurt. Drug dealers are openly worried whether people like them or not. Hired killers complain they’re not spending enough time with their family. Characters capable of ruthlessly shooting people are easy to get misty eyed over insensitive remarks. These character contrasts are played over and over until they become wearisome. The entire cast literally acts like eleven year old boys deciding they’re going to be friends. While this may be amusing at first, it quickly loses its edge and it becomes clear Rogen and Goldberg don’t have any other tricks up their sleeve.

The final act of the film is a complete mess thanks to a lack of consistency. The final act revolves around a prolonged gunfight. This battle is rather violent. Is it way over the top, ala Tarantino? No, there isn’t too much here most audiences haven’t seen before. The issue with the final fight sequence is that it is starkly different from the previous portions of the film. There was violence in the first acts but the overall tone of the movie was still lighthearted and the violence was displayed within that frame. The final act removes the humor and tries to portray itself as a full out action movie. Director David Gordon Green mishandles this transformation and ends up delivering a nonsensical flurry of guns and death. Given the half-man losers he has as his heroes, this transformation is also lacking any logic. You can't say the hero is a pothead dolt who is sent into a panic because he’s scared of being a dark woods alone and then have him magically discover the internal fortitude to single-handily attack a gang of drug runners. It doesn’t work.

To sum up, if you are lacking any standards and pretty much thoughtlessly consume whatever comes down the pipe, you’ll probably enjoy yourself with this film. If you’re a little more discerning, say by wanting actual jokes or at least something clever, you’re out of luck. This is a very predictable and unoriginal film. Yes, there’s not that many pothead action films out there, but you’ve seen these characters and situations under different name a hundred times before.



Related Reviews:
James Franco movies
Annapolis (2004)
Spider-Man 2 (2004)


Other Critic’s Reviews:
Cinema Verdict
Cineopinion

Labels: comedy, Danny McBride, drugs, film, Gary Cole, James Franco, movie review, Seth Rogen

Labels: comedy, David Korchner, film, Maura Tierney, movie trailer, Will Ferrell, Woody Harrelson

This is more brilliant than it appears (even while watching it). Goofiness abounds in this parody of 70’s airplane disaster films. This deceptively simple movie is one of the most influential comedies of all time as well as one of the most quotable.

Labels: comedy, film, leslie nielsen, movie trailer, Zucker Brothers

Screenwriters: Gene Stupnitsky, Lee Eisenberg and Harold Ramis (Ghostbusters)
Director: Harold Ramis (Bedazzled)
Actors: Jack Black (Be Kind Rewind) and Michael Cera (Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist)

Labels: comedy, film, Harold Ramis, Jack Black, Michael Cera, movie trailer

I'm looking forward to seeing how Zack Snyder is possibly going to get Watchmen to work in movie form. The thrill of an impending cinematic train wreck is so much fun. If it crashes and burns there's a spectacle to enjoy. If it succeeds we get a good movie. Its a win-win.

With all of the fanboy marketing that's been going around online it isn't surprising someone has begun mocking the excess. Check out the modified trailer below. Maybe its just me, but I think this is funny.

Labels: comedy, movie trailer, watchmen, Zack Snyder

The tag line for the movie is “Fast Food. High Times. This is truth in advertising. It is what it is, a pot comedy about two stoners who go searching for a White Castle Restaurant. On their way they get into a number of situations all resulting in low brow humor. Obviously, this is not meant to be more than just a hollow comedy for audience members who themselves are probably high. The jokes aren’t that funny, the situations are forced and episodic. The acting by leads Kal Penn and John Cho are good, they’re a good pairing but they’re like being the best garbage man in town. No matter how good they do, in the end they’re just delivering a piece of trash.


Related Reviews:
Comedies
Half-Baked (1998)
Semi-Pro (2008)


Other Critic's Reviews:
PopMatters
ScreenIt!

Labels: comedy, film, John Cho, Kal Penn, movie review

The tagline for the movie begins with the statement, “They were just a couple of losers from Queens...” - and they still are.

Launched into low grade celebrity in the nineties thanks to their filthy-mouthed crank phone call routine, the Jerky Boys hoped to translate that into movie stardom. It didn’t take.

This is notably bad. It says something that even with no expectations of quality they could still under perform. The sniping John G. Brennan can deliver a line but he is given no material to work with. His partner Kamal Ahmed is a doughy prop who talks. He has no stage presence and seems dazed most of the time. His role could have been improved by removing all of his dialog and simply having him trail Brannan while nodding. The duo fumbles through sophomoric dialog and fail to produce any laughs.

The only thing of interest about this movie is the presence of Alan Arkin. Sure, people do plenty of things for money in the industry but still, what was he thinking? Did he owe someone big time? Is there a relative who asked him for a solid? Arkin is hardly Laurence Olivier but he is a known commodity, why risk it doing pap like this?


Related Reviews:
Alan Arkin movies
Glengarry Glen Ross (1992)
13 Conversations About the Same Thing (2001)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Washington Post
Kids-in-Mind

Labels: Alan Arkin, comedy, film, movie review