Forgetting Sarah Marshall Review

Forgetting Sarah Marshall is the latest movie that is in some way associated with Judd Apatow (he produces here). It is written by and stars Jason Segel, one of Apatow’s troupe from the late great Freaks and Geeks (though most people probably know him from the mediocre How I Met Your Mother and will soon know him for his full frontal). In Forgetting Sarah Marshall,  Segel’s character, a slacker “musician”  gets dumped by his TV star girlfriend (Kristen Bell) for a famous “musician”, falls into a state of depression and disrepair, goes on a vacation to Hawaii to try to get over the break up, but ends up vacationing at the same resort as the ex and her new boyfriend and meeting a new girl. Antics ensue.

All Judd Apatow flicks have some things in common: They follow a traditional romantic comedy storyline, there is some kind of gross out or off-colour humor running throughout every scene and they are all at least twenty minutes too long (even the good ones–40 Year Old Virgin, Knocked Up and Superbad needed massive editing) because…you know the ending of each of his films at some point in the first half hour of the film. Forgetting Sarah Marshall is no exception. Unfortunately, it is not one of the better versions using Apatow’s template.

Forgetting Sarah Marshall’s biggest problems stem from the director, Nicholas Stoller (his debut) and who ever did the editing. They expect you to know the romantic comedy formula, so they do not develop the plot beyond a cursory sketch. With those brief moments of film out of the way, one is left to decide if they like the film based on a series of comedy, probably improv’d, scenes; many of which in no way relate to or further the storyline (I do not like when films do this). If you like enough of the scenes (I started keeping a tally somewhere in the middle of the film) and don’t care that you knew the story before you walked into the theater, than you will like this film. I don’t mean this sentiment to be derogatory. I have read other reviews that are quite positive not because the story is so original, they admit that it is not, but because they like the road that was taken to get back home. There are plenty of films I like that fit this same mold (Ex. staying in the rom com field, Notting Hill; or staying with Judd Apatow, Knocked Up). Forgetting Sarah Marshall just did not happen to be funny enough to push me over the edge into liking this film.

Virtually every one of the attempted comedy scenes (i.e. the whole film) involves two characters one of whom is Jason Segel. The biggest laughs come from Russell Brand who play Kristen Bell’s new love interest. He steals every scene he is in. Paul Rudd playing a dimwitted surfer has the second best scenes. Sadly–because I like him a lot–Jonah Hill’s scenes are the worst by far. Kristen Bell is serviceable, but does not quite have the comedic chops to hang with the rest of the crew (the scenes from her fake TV show, which is purposefully ripping on CSI:Miami, are pretty hysterical, though). Other actors are hit or miss.

Ultimately, the best person in this film is Mila Kunis (That 70’s Show). She is the only one who is able to elevate the movie into actually including both Romance and Comedy–even at the same time. It was really nice to see, and I hope she gets more opportunities to show off her skills.

If you are bored you could do worse than going to see Forgetting Sarah Marshall (you could rent Shooter. Man, I hate that movie.), but I would probably wait until it comes out on video.

My rating…55.

 

 

Street Kings Review

As the last scene of Street Kings, a new movie starring Keanu Reeves, Forest Whitaker and countless other famous actors, cut to black, a kid sitting a few rows behind the wife and I made the simple, yet eloquent statement that summed up the whole of the film: “Man, that was shitty as hell.”

The wife and I immediately started laughing. The kid said it all.

Street Kings is penned by James Ellroy who also wrote the brilliant L.A. Confidential and directed by David Ayer who wrote the good, but not as good as people think it is Training Day  (the acting made that film).  And Street Kings plays like an amalgam of these two pictures, only without any of the subtlety and nuance in story and acting that made those films what they are. Those films, but especially L.A. Confidential, deftly show the allure of power and how easy it is to fall into an existence based on corruption, greed and justification.  Street Kings, on the other hand, tells you–repeatedly and with increasing volume–“This is a film about power and corruption and greed and justification! Can You See The Gray? Look, There Is More Gray! And There! DO YOU SEE? HE IS DRINKING HIS COPING MECHANISM AGAIN!! There are a lot of films where you don’t have to think much to get the point. This film must be what osmosis is like.

A couple of other points…The best dialogue in the film is the very first dialogue of the film. It is quick, clever and biting, and never threatens to show itself again the entire film. Maybe James Ellroy wrote the opening and some other scribe took over from there…The ‘twist ending’ is painfully obvious somewhere around the twenty-twenty-five minute mark, and all side twists are unnecessary, intermittently ridiculous, and do not alter the path of the film one bit…On the acting, the cast of this film includes Keanu Reeves, Forest Whitaker, Hugh Laurie (House), Chris Evans (Fantastic Fours), Jay Mohr (from countless shitty things, as well as, one of the greatest failed sitcoms ever, Action), Amaury Nolasco (Prison Break), John Corbett (Northern Exposure), Cedric the Entertainer (The Kings of Comedy), Common (he can’t really act, but he is a great musician) and The Game (he also can’t really act, but has been known to blow up the charts), and almost every single one of these guys overacts their terrible dialogue, especially Forest Whitaker. Toward the end of the film he attempt to out Idi Amin himself. The one exception to this overacting–and I may be about to ruin myself as a reviewer–was Keanu Reeves. I am not the Keanu Reeves basher that many are (how can an actor be terrible, yet be in a number of good movies? It can’t always be “in spite of”), but I have no problem pointing out when he is terrible. I have read other reviews of this film since seeing it, and some of them have said the things reviewers always say about him–he is wooden, emotionless, etc–but he is not these things and shame on them for lumping him in with the rest of this mess. His performance is solid and carries far more depth than any of the other characters.

I am left to imagine what reviewers and the kid sitting behind the wife and I might have said if the plot and the dialogue had not been so absurdly awful.

My score…41

 

I am Legend–DVD Review

I was only going to do new movie reviews on this blog, but there has not been much worth seeing out there in the theaters, so here is a DVD review of the recently released I am Legend.  I was unable to go see this in the theaters in part because I was seeing other things–possible Oscar flicks– and in part because my wife had no interest in it. As it turns out, to no great surprise, my wife was right on.

I generally like this type of film if it is done well or is meant to be completely frivilous. I suppose that means that I have not seen many movies like this that I have liked. Anyway, I am Legend starts off very well. The first hour or so plays very much like Cast Away once it gets on the island. The lead is a skilled actor who is able to carry a movie with no other person in a single frame. The lead character is a ridiculously gifted survivalist. The lead character goes insane, then comes back from the padded walls of his mind. The lead character carries on a friendship and running dialogue with a non-human (volleyball v. dog). And hey, while we are at–they are both on an island! 

Also like Cast Away, I am Legend completely breaks down in its final act. First, I am Legend completely abandons its very thoughtful pacing and cinematic scope once the absurd CGI zombie-things show up in a major way. Second, it introduces new characters who, unless they can fly, have no business being in New York, and then largely does not explain how they could possibly accomplish some of the things that they accomplish once in the City. Third, and I guess I might as well wrap it up here, after the even pacing is literally blown up, the ending comes at blistering speed; attempts are made to tie up every loose end in mere milliseconds; and the Legend concludes with a sentimentally heroic–and as is normally the case when what happens, happens–and unneccesary action.

Did you see how over the course of my review the sentence structure got blown all to hell, until I was basically writing in unfinished phrasings and numerous asides? Well, that is kind of how I am Legend ends. See it if you have seen everything else. Better yet, watch the first hour and then shut it off. Afterward imagine it had a satisfactory ending. I guarantee you will not be disappointed this way.

my score…51

 

The Bank Job

My second movie of 2008…The Bank Job.

After spending a couple of days straight without leaving the house, watching the snow fall and fall and fall, the wife and I dug ourselves out and went to the movies. I don’t know what we would have done this weekend had it not snowed 15 odd inches, but anytime you cannot leave the house, all you really want to do (after eating a Digiorno Pizza and watching a thousand episodes of Law & Order) is leave the house. The Bank Job served as a worthwhile reason for getting out of the house, and sure beat shoveling the front and back walk and steps…which I did after the movie.

Look, I am predisposed to like a movie like The Bank Job. I like action and intrigue; I like Jason Statham, in all of his movies, his good ones (Lock Stock, Snatch), his guilty pleasures (The Transporters–come on, you like ’em) and his silly/awful flicks (Crank, The Italian Job); I like the idea that we live in a world that things like the government hiring criminals to break into a bank to steal incriminating photos (and other incriminating photos and much, much more) really happens. Elliot Spitzer gives me hope that I do live in that world.

In truth, we cannot know what in The Bank Job is real. We do know that the robbery happened, so I am willing to go along for the ride that the writers have created, especially since the film was crafted and acted in such a minimalist fashion (for this type of film–we are not talking Gus Van Sant or Wim Winders) that it makes the more outlandish elements of the conspiracy seem plausible. Besides, in politics, the more absurd something seems, the more possible it is. 

This film offers a good opportunity to show you more about my grading scale. Some films, most films, are not aiming for a 100 on my scale. They want to be entertaining, time diverting, funny, action-packed, ironic, sneaky, whatever, but they do not wish to rise to level of transcendence (I was thinking about what word to use here, high art, etc., and they all come off snobby–so be it), where the world we live in creates art and art changes that world, or at least the way we see that world. This is why I love Dr. Strangelove. It does happen that a film that sets out to be one of those adjectives listed above is so good that it rises beyond itself, but it is very rare (for me, Once, is such a film). The Bank Job does not extend beyond its adjectives, but it is good. I would say that The Bank Job, done perfectly, would be able to garner a grade of 85. The actual movie is not perfect–I would have preferred if it was shot more in the style of the era of the film, the 70s, maybe like The Day of the Jackal, and there are a few unneccesary scenes, mostly involving death, that attempt to make the film darker than it really is or wants to be–but it is pretty close.

My grade is…75

Take it easy.

 

In Bruges

I have seen my first 2008 movie (finally)! I have spent the first two months of the year catching flicks from last year, some still out in the theaters, others new to DVD, and avoiding the mostly awful fair that gets released in January and February each year. But now March is here and good indie movies and decent studio films are beginning to be released (or at times, unleashed) upon the public. And much to my surprise my first 2008 movie is undoubtedly going to win Best Picture at next year’s Oscars…10,000 BC! This film is amazing… no I am kidding. I will never see this movie. It looks awful. I hate that movies like this are allowed to be made and that so many of them make money, thus mandating that more of these films get made. Roland Emmerich clearly knows no shame.

In reality, my first film of 2008 is not going to win any Oscars, but I did enjoy it quite a bit. The film is called In Bruges and stars about a quarter of the cast of Harry Potter (Ralph Fiennes, Brendan Gleeson and Clemence Poesy) plus Colin Farrell. I don’t want to tell you too much about the plot, but it concerns two hitman (Gleeson and Farrell) being ordered by their boss (Fiennes) to hide out in Bruges after a hit goes awry.

The film attempts to do something very difficult to achieve in film, and that is combine comedy (often at the expense of the city of Bruges) and drama within the context of every scene. It is not a film that gets you laughing and then turns serious on you; instead, at all moments, it attempts to be both light and dark. And probably about 8 out of every 10 scenes, In Bruges, nails it. A great deal is owed to the writing and the acting and occasionally to the directing (mostly for not ending a scene short even when it seems to be starting to drag–the payoff is almost always worth the time invested). The movie’s best scene, which surrounds a telephone call, demonstrates the prowess of all involved (especially Ralph Fiennes) and the wonderful use of light and dark motifs.  

A moment should be spent on Colin Farrell, as he is the lead. At first, my wife and I were not sure if we were into his performance, but as the crux of the story filled in around him, his performance choices made sense and, I believe, helped elevate the film. Farrell is essentially a child (not literally, remember, he is a hitman), and the good  and  bad nature of humankind surrounding his child-like innocence plays very effectively. Farrell, like most children, must learn that the innocence of childhood eventually leaves, usually through our own actions in the world.

If there is a problem with the movie it is the ending. It does not ruin the film by any stretch, but it may be a bit too self-important for this type of film. This film does not attempt to be a ‘Big’ film, but the ending makes you think that the filmmakers forgot that. But again, the ending does not undo all the fine work of the first hour and forty-five minutes. 

There are many other subtle and not so subtle metaphors and such that could be mentioned, but this should be enough for you to know if you would be in to this film or not. In Bruge is rated R, but there is plenty of crude language and bloodshed for teens to be happy (just kidding, sort of). It is only playing at one theater where I live, so you will probably have to wait until DVD, but definitely give it a shot.

My rating…78

Take it easy.  

 

2007 Movies

I am going to try to stay as up-to-date as possible with my movie reviews, but I thought you might like to know where I am coming from. So here is my top ten list for 2007 along with the full disclosure of the films I have yet to see (I live in a good-sized city, but we still don’t get every movie).

10. Gone Baby Gone (74)

9. 3:10 to Yuma (75)

8. Zodiac (76)

7. Darjeeling Limited (77)

6. Michael Clayton (79)

5. Bourne Ultimatum (84–really the best of the recent trilogies)

4. Eastern Promises (88)

3. Once (88)

2. There Will Be Blood (90)

1. No Country for Old Men (95–this is the best movie I have seen in the past few years. There Will Be Blood is probably the second best movie I have seen in the past few years. It was a good year for movies; the last few years, not so much.)

Movies I have yet to see that might make the top ten (if a movie you are thinking of is not on one of these two lists, you should mention it. I probably have seen it, but did not think it was good enough, however, it is all together possible some hidden gem as snuck through on me):

-The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

-Atonement

-Away From Her

-Charlie Wilson’s War

-The Diving Bell and the Butterfly

-Into the Wild

-Lars and the Real Girl

-Persepolis

-The Savages

-Sweeney Todd

 Take it easy.

 

Movies

I will probably spend a decent amount of time reviewing movies. I like to use a 100 point scale (part of my real life is as an education professor) because it allows me to knit-pick on films more than thumbs or stars. If you were to compare my scale to grades, an F would be 0-20, D, 21-40, C, 41-60, B, 61-80, A, 81-100.  You should also know that I am a snob and have never seen a ‘100’ film (Don’t worry future students, I am not nearly as snobish with my school grading, I am there to help you learn, not fail you); Dr. Strangelove is my top-rated film with a 98. I cannot remember what my lowest rated film is, but I remember giving Fantastic Four an 8. For any Metacritic fans out there, I actually was doing this 100 point scale before I discovered Metacritic, but Metacritic is the best clearinghouse I know for reviews. I hope you like the reviews. Let me know what you think.