Movie Comparison: Dinner for Schmucks vs. The Other Guys

Its not often I get to do a comparison piece, but I found these two movies to be too eerily similar and seeing them just a week apart from each other gave me a great opportunity to scrutinize them as sort of a competition. It seems that all “blockbuster” comedies are the slapstick buddy comedies (or some derivative of guys asserting their masculinity in some awkward way). Cases in point Tommy Boy, Caddyshack, Dumb & Dumber…the list goes on and on. Both Dinner for Schmucks and The Other Guys unabashedly follow this genre rule to a clichéd degree, but luckily, both know it and wear it out in the open despite the risk of appearing as been there, done that films.

In comparison, both are pretty outlandish. There are characters and situation so implausible that you laughing at the sheer audacity of the movie before the punch lines are spewed. Both have a love/hate relationship between the two leads that for better or worse makes the movie all the more cringe inducing. Both feature a kaleidoscope of characters that come passing through with more and more crazy stunts and quirks to drive home the laughs. I can honestly say that both made me laugh out loud, both had great audience reaction and both were brash, fun and a little on the edge.

In the case of these two films then, the winner was the one that showed a little more restraint. The one that knew which punches to hold back and the one that honestly developed its characters beyond the annoying weirdo and the annoyed shlub that has to put up with him. Dinner for Schmucks has a heap of Physical Comedy. Steve Carell just cemented himself in my pantheon of greatness with his turn in Dinner for schmucks. There are a few choice scenes that will have you laughing with queasy delight.

However, Dinner goes a little too far with its comedy. There are times I felt it was a little out of control, like each joke was trying to top the previous and the end result was a lot of crude humor and sexual innuendos. Don’t get me wrong, a well-placed zinger can say a lot about societies reservation and even make some commentary on our culture in general. Unfortunately, Dinner for Schmucks failed to capitalize on this when it was the film with the plot that shouted for satire. A dinner is held by bigwigs in a firm monthly to make fun of the biggest idiot. Before he is promoted Tim (Paul Rudd) is asked to come to the dinner with one Barry (Carell) putting Rudd as the identifiable character in the film. Unfortunately, we never identify with him because the premise is so dang mean and there was really no reversal or appraisal of the dinner organizers as the schmucks. There is a lesson about dreaming and moving on in there somewhere, but without the character buildup. There isn’t much payoff.

The Other Guys however shows Farrell at his best. I know some argue that Ricky Bobby or Anchorman are untouchable, but in those he played a straight up SNL character, in this film he actually plays a flawed person. Mark Wahlberg is passable as Terry his police partner, both who are absolutely going nowhere. Before going into these pics I was more excited see the Rudd/Carell pairing but who knew a Farrell/Wahlberg would have so much more chemistry. The mismatched pair stumbles upon a crime that may be bigger than they can handle. Wahlberg’s character is itching for a chance while Farrells Allen is content to push paper. What we come to realize is he is hiding some demons that he is afraid might make him revert to a version of himself he has repressed for so long.

As the hijinks ensue, Farrell lets loose with the one-liners and the bickering awkward cadence of dialogue that results in some seriously funny reasoning (who would win between a lion and a tuna). Allen’s obliviousness to the beauty of his wife (Eva Mendez) irks Terry so much it completely throws him off his game. In the end though, the bond these two develop in trying to repress what makes them the happiest sends more of a message than Schmucks ever could. Not that comedy is about message, but it sure helps to have some emotional clout behind those one-liners, and some investment in the characters that are saying them.


Final Consensus: Dinner for Scmucks
See it now!!!!
See it in theaters!!!
Rent it on DVD/BluRay!!
Wait for it on TV!
Don’t BotherShare

Final Consensus: The Other Guys
See it now!!!!
See it in theaters!!!
Rent it on DVD/BluRay!!
Wait for it on TV!
Don’t BotherShare

Inception: Movie Review

Movies as a general rule are a visual and audible experience. There have been attempts to add smells and or movement gags in old cinemas that never amounted to anything that stuck permanently. For this reason, Films in general are a passive experience where the most physically interactive you may get is laughter or an increased heart rate. Rarely have I had a physical experience with a film. I can remember gripping my hand rests so hard in Jurassic Park that they hurt later and that All my muscled were tense afterward.

Inception gave me a rare physical experience where after the movie I realized four things. One, I had been crying. Two, I was exhausted and needed to calm myself down. Third, I had been sweating from some physical exertion and the third is that I never realized I was going through these physical responses while the film was going…It was that engrossing. This film starts off full speed an never lets up through almost the full 2 and a half hours of screen time. It’s a huge summer spectacle with giant set pieces and action scenes that rival the matrix. On the other hand it is a tender love story, a Greek tragedy and a catharsis tale layered on top of one another. Just for good measure, writer/director Christopher Nolan throws in the most intellectual and thought provoking plots I’ve seen since artsy film school.

The big question however is does this all work. At first, I thought it was wonderful but still did not enjoy it as much as some of the lighter fare of the summer like How to Train Your Dragon. But then I realized a few hours after, and into the next day that it still had a hold of my brain, forcing me to try an figure out plot points, looking for holes or merely exclaiming in my thought... ”How did they do that?” This is a movie that will stick with you for a long time and a few minutes after seeing it, you will want to go back and watch it again. That is if you weren’t so exhausted after the first screening.

Inception centers around Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) who works with his partner Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) as an extractor, someone who enters your mind through subconscious dreams to steal its secrets. Cobb has personal issues that interfere with his job in the subconscious dream state and that he must resolve to ever be reunited with his family. The main problem with this line of work though is it becomes very difficult to know if you are physically present or in some sort of dream…or dream within a dream etc. Of course this premise gives the filmmakers excuse to do anything they want…cause it’s a dream right. Hence the visuals are incredible. I give credit to the set designers and special effects crew who relied on creating and destroying physical spaces as well as using real stunts to create the scenes rather than rely on computer graphics. When the computer is used however it fits seamlessly into the story so you don’t even notice how visually ‘cool’ they really are.

Christopher Nolan has established himself here as a truly great auteur. His unblemished record…Memento, Insomnia, Batman Begins, The Prestige, and The Dark Knight have led the way to Inceptions capstone of brilliance. Here’s a director who is concerned more with the reason people do things. About ordinary men going through extraordinary challenges to get out of harrowing situations. Films where moral ambiguity is pushed aside for the protagonist to stake his claim on choosing the right path and becoming more than a regular man. These are the kinds of films Alfred Hitchcock would be making had he lived long enough to see special effects and film budgets to bloom within reach of his imagination. What both do so well is to make these grand spectacles seem very personal and human, both toughing and epic in their attempt to present a story that effects your heart and body as much as it sears into your eyes and brain. I am just glad there is someone there with enough blockbuster clout and macabre brainpower to take on the task. This is by no means a perfect movie or as much fun as some other popcorn flicks this summer, but it is a worthy and wonderful headtrip that is well worth the admission price...or two.

Final Consensus:
See it now!!!!
See it in theaters!!!
Rent it on DVD/BluRay!!
Wait for it on TV!
Don’t Bother

Share

Killers: Movie Review

I should never write a movie review on an empty stomach, which is exactly what I’m doing now. Too bad because Killers didn’t have enough filler for me to even remotely feel satisfied. I should have taken it as a bad omen that the studio refused to screen it for critics before its release but they cleverly stated that they wanted word of mouth and online buzz to push the ticket sales rather than reviews or standard advertising. Man, that advertising machine duped me. Killers is a completely forgettable experience that made me long for the smart snappy dialogue and chemistry of Carey Grant and Grace Kelly in To Catch a Thief. Instead we are left with tepid performances by Ashton “I look so good I don’t have to act” Kutcher and Katherine “How did I get famous again” Heigl in a film that couldn’t decide if it was a slapstick, dark comedy or drama.

Katherine plays a stunning and smart woman Jen who has recently been dumped by her ugly looking nerd boyfriend and goes on vacation to France for the heck of it with her parents (sounds believable). Ashton plays a covert assassin Spencer on a mission in the same hotel. For some reason they find time to talk and get acquainted for what seems like months (I want that vacation) before getting married. Jen’s dad played by Tom Selek is skeptical of the union while her mom Catherine O’Hara just lets life go by with a scotch in both hands. Thank goodness for O’Hara who seems like the only one having fun in a comedy. Obviously this is her turf and Ashton, Katherine and Tom are all trying to fit in. Unfortunately they don’t.

There is no chemistry in Killers, and did I mention that for a comedy…there’s really none of that. I only laughed out loud at some parts with the mom; otherwise I sat visually perplexed. I even left the theater to go to the bathroom, get a drink and talk to some of the theater staff in the middle of the movie, and when I returned…I don’t think I missed anything. OK, so I may be a little hard on the movie. There are some pretty cool fight scenes, and some of the married couple banter between Heigl and Ashton seems funnier when killing is involved (is that possible?) The scenes in France are gorgeous and everything technically is very professionally done.

Which leads me to my biggest question. How can a film that looks great with great actors in a pretty funny set-up in a gorgeous location end up being so mundane and, well…bad? I have to blame the director on this one. The editing, script, lighting, acting in general was all very sustainable but nothing gelled. None of the parts or characters in Killers seemed cohesive, believable, developed or for that matter relatable and that job falls distinctly on the director. I won’t name him here, but if you do want an undercover crime romance set in France to watch…see To Catch a Thief with a director who knew how to get things right named Hitchcock!

Final Consensus:
See it now!!!!
See it in theaters!!!
Rent it on DVD/BluRay!!
Wait for it on TV!
Don’t Bother

Share

Prince of Persia: Movie Review

SPOILER ALERT!!

There are stories here and there that use what we could call the ‘cop-out’. You know the ones. The protagonist suddenly wakes up in his bed to realize the whole thing is a dream. The kids finally get rid of the killer but he’s really not dead. You know. These are the films and stories I honestly believe one of two things happened. The original writer was fired and the finished the movie without a script, or the original writer died and a studio executive finished it for them. In either case, no self-respecting writer would ever do that to his or her own book, script, and screenplay what-have-you…until recently. I have seen way too many movies this year that ruin a perfectly enjoyable experience at the theater by killing the ending. They set it up for another sequel, they wrap it up to quickly or, as in the case of Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time…they just pretend it never happened.

OK, sorry, now that I’ve ruined the movie for you…feel free to sit back and enjoy a movie that is actually a lot of fun and really light popcorn fare. Jake Gyllenhaal plays the title character that was plucked as a homeless beggar from the streets to become an adopted son of the king. All grown up, he and his brothers are on conquest and make a fateful decision to attack a holy city who’s princess is charged with protecting a certain dagger. Of course by now you know the price falls for the princess and there is some backstabbing along the way. Believe you me; it is definitely not the plot that makes this movie enjoyable. Rather, it is the cast that seems to have a blast and we just go right along with it.

Jake Gyllenhaal has always been a conundrum to me playing in quirky 'indies' as well as spectacle pictures. But rarely has he seemed so alive and confident in this picture. And Gemma Arterton can actually act if she is given something other to do than be eye candy like in Clash of the Titans or Quantum of Solace. The real scene-stealer in the movie is Alfred Molina as the thief Nizam who throws himself with reckless abandon into the con artist ostrich-loving quasi bad-guy. Everyone else in the film is serviceable being led by Ben Kingsley doing his best Ben Kingsly impersonation and a slew of other characters that takes their roles a little to seriously for a movie based on an old Nintendo game.

The special effects could be amped up a bit, but it didn’t bother me too much since the best parts of the film had little or no effects in them. It’s a good thing the film is called Sands of Time because there is a lot of sand…I mean a LOT. So much so I started getting itchy thinking about how much sand poor Jake had to roll around in. Of course this movie is in no way a great film. I bet there are a few of you who would argue that this is an adequate film at best, but compared to some of the really agonizing stupidity that has come out this past year, Prince of Persia dares to be all out and does so with a healthy dose of tongue in cheek. Now if only we could get Hollywood to stop firing or killing of any descent writer, we might have a winning combination sooner or later.

Final Consensus:
See it now!!!!
See it in theaters!!!
Rent it on DVD/BluRay!!
Wait for it on TV!
Don’t BotherShare

Robin Hood: Movie Review

Word of mouth (or of finger) has the ability to make or break a movie after its released. Take for instance How to Train Your Dragon (still my #1 of 2010), which kept doing well in the theaters week after week because people told other people how good it was. On the other hand you have Clash of the Titans, which did menial box office despite it being one of the studios larger releases of the summer. Another caveat to the word of mouth phenomenon is the critics’ score. As regular people we like to think we don’t care about what all those hoity-toity critics write, but believe me, we are all eventually influence by them. And that was the very reason I was apprehensive about seeing Robin Hood. The critics trashed it so much, I didn’t even go see it opening weekend.

But there is a silver lining to such advice. Every now and then you are pleasantly surprised because your expectations are so low. I was really expecting this movie to suck…and here’s the kicker, it doesn’t. Could it be the critics are wrong? Heaven forbid! But in this case, I can honestly say they were. Robin Hood is an adventure movie pure and simple. It has your requisite corny lines, bad guy, good guy, love interest, totally unbelievable plot points and I though it was great. What dooms the movie however is that its lead actor/director tandem don’t live up to anywhere close to their previous Gladiator. Russell Crowe as Robin Hood is just as gloomy in this film as in Gladiator, but he really doesn’t have a reason to be. And poor Ridley Scott can’t seem to decide if he wants to be the man who directed Matchstick Men or the one directing Alien.

That aside, the movie is an escapist period piece that serves for very passable entertainment. We follow Robin Longstride as he assumes another’s identity to make it in a post-war England where he has no family. His antics win him the admiration of The Loxley patriarch played by a superb Max von Sydow and the ire of the widowed wife Maid Marion (Cate Blanchet). Of course throw in the merry men and Friar Tuck and we have a good time. This plot only brings us up to the moment where Robin becomes the outlaw…and doesn’t really delve into the legend. This irked me, as it seemed the ending of the movie was quickly wrapped up, re-edited and closed down for the sole purpose of making a sequel. It was done in such a rushed way that the pace totally threw me off.

Scott is at his best filming the fight scenes here. Reminiscent of Gladiator, they none-the less pull a few punches to keep the PG-13 rating. There are great action scenes but none that rival the wow factor of the adrenaline pumping 300 or Gladiator. What Robin Hood does try to do is present the story of the man with all the requisite entertainment required. In one aspect I do agree with the critics, it does take itself too seriously at times, but it’s nowhere near as brow-furrowed as Clash of the Titans. This is by no means a great movie, but I am very glad the critics were so off on this to lead me into enjoying it so much; and after Blade Runner..I have to forgive Scott of everything.

Final Consensus:
See it now!!!!
See it in theaters!!!
Rent it on DVD/BluRay!!
Wait for it on TV!
Don’t BotherShare

Shrek Forever After: Movie Review

My wife is constantly amazed that I seem to know plot points or at least memorable sequences to almost every movie I have ever seen. This has served me well, especially when categorizing my favorite films or deciding if I want to watch one film over another. Sometimes a movie comes along that I don’t really remember. Such is the case with the Shrek films. Whenever I remember anything about the Shrek movies, for some reason it always comes from the first one. Other than that, the rest all kind of run together and there is nothing really special or memorable about any of them. Unfortunately such is the case with Shrek Forever After. After a whole week has gone by, there is very little I remember about the film at all.

According to my notes, this Shrek finds our title hero giving up a day in his life so he can be an Ogre again. I know that this is a made up animated movie, but I can’t for the life of me remember or figure out how this worked or what the reason was behind it. Shrek supposedly wanted to be mean again, but I never remember him being all that scary to begin with. Anyway, Rumplestilskin is the guy who performs this deed and gives him a day, but something-something happens and Shrek has to do something before the day is through or he’ll never go back to the way it was. Now its never hard to suspend disbelief in a Shek movie, but even my fantastical suspension couldn’t get over this horrid plot which is basically It’s a Wonderful Life, with ogres.

There were some great parts for the kids. I went with my son who laughed out loud at some parts and even repeated some lines. Unfortunately, I don’t even remember chuckling that much. That was kind of a let down considering Shrek has always been good at eliciting laughs. I really wanted to see a comedy. What did happen though was totally unexpected. The movie was actually fairly moving. I wasn’t expecting to feel so proud of being a dad or so lucky to have the family I do. Granted, It’s a Wonderful Life does a much better job of this, but when it sneaks out of know where, it kind of gets you.

As far as the animation goes…. it’s adequate. It looks exactly the same as the first Shrek, which came out almost 10 years ago. I’m glad they kept the look consistent but c’mon guys; there is a decades worth of technological advances you could have used here. We did see this version in 3-D and other than a few gimmicks, I’m not sure it actually added anything to the visual experience for me. The Voices were adequate as well and the directing…well, adequate. I guess that is the best way to describe Shrek Forever After, adequate. Unfortunately, adequate won’t pull you out of the forgetful hole that Shrek 2 and 3 sunk into. Luckily, there is a little bit of emotion to go with this one.

Final Consensus:
See it now!!!!
See it in theaters!!!
Rent it on DVD/BluRay!!
Wait for it on TV!
Don’t Bother

Share

Iron Man 2: Movie Review

For some reason we Americans love rooting for the big brash super hero, aka cowboy, aka chosen one in our entertainment (and I guess political) choices. If the said hero is also a narcissistic smart mouth we seem to love him even more. If this indeed hold true then you will have a blast with Iron Man 2. Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) returns as Iron Man but unlike most superhero movies and cliché’s we’re used too, he doesn’t have an alter ego and isn’t in hiding. On the contary contrary, as a matter of fact, Tony Stark is louder, more childish, more irresponsible (for good reason) than ever and we love him for it. I’m not saying that these are redeeming qualities, but is nice to see a superhero with some actual character flaws beyond just a tortured past.

The film does a wonderful job pleasing both the fan-boy and the regular theater-go'er alike. As for me, I’m an avowed comic book nerd, so to see parts or at least homage paid to War Machine, Whiplash, Black Widow, Nick Fury, S.H.I.E.L.D., Hammer, Captain America, The Avengers and Thor sure tickled my nerdy-bone. But for all you people who have not a clue what those things are…no worries. Less than two of them are actually named and the character development shows you how each superhero/villain came to be…or at least how they are tied in with Iron Man. I actually find that a rare feat to please both the comic nerds and the general audience.

A lot of that pleasing comes from the acting. Robert Downy Jr. steals the show of course as stark, but Sam Rockwell as Hammer does an equally dis-likable and smarmy arms dealing nemesis Hammer. Vanko is the real villain here; creating electric whips to take down Tony Stark after previous injustices he perceives Stark enterprises put his family through. Unfortunately, Mickey Rourke seems like a Shakespearean actor stuck in a freewheeling roller coaster ride. Maybe it was just that I couldn’t get over his horrible Russian (I couldn’t understand what he was saying…thank goodness for subtitles) or the fact that a man who lives for revenge, never gets angry.

Other actors did adequate. If it weren’t for the Oceans movies, I would have thought that Don Cheadle (Rhodes) hasn’t a funny bone in his body. I’ve never been one to like Scarlett Johansson’s inability to act, but she did OK as Natasha, Stark's new assistant, mainly because she is supposed to be full of mystery and psychologically unreadable. Perfect for an actress with the emotional range of toast. Don’t worry everyone; Gwyneth Paltro (Pepper Pots) is still on Tony’s radar, even though she has a new position that misses some of the senior/jr. employee love interest dynamic. The love triangle story is about as anemic as the first one, but does have some excellent tension and a sizable payoff…with whom, I won’t say.

Now the real question, was the movie as good as the first. The truthful answer is, yes…but the actual answer may be different to different viewers. There’s not anything totally amazing that we did not see in the first film. The requisite explosions, fast cars, cool special effects and bad guy suits but I couldn’t help but think this movie wasn’t as spectacular as the first. There are some slow parts to explain some things (a dude was snoring behind me in the theater at one point, honest to goodness), and even parts that were a little belabored (the audience figured out where the secret was before the master mind Tony Stark). But those didn’t affect the film. I think where the film suffers is in comparison to its fist incantation. When we all saw the first film, we enjoyed the humor, the over the top acting, the awesome special effects and the happy ending. The second has nothing new or different to share and so therefore doesn’t pack the same wow punch we all experienced when watching the first with fresh eyes. But I promise you; this will be no less enjoyable.

Final Consensus:
See it now!!!!
See it in theaters!!!
Rent it on DVD/BluRay!!
Wait for it on TV!
Don’t Bother

Share