‘Get Him to the Greek’ is Not Even Sarah Marshall Lite September 26, 2010

Oh, the spin-off. A few good movies and a few good TV shows have spawned by spinning off from the original material. But let’s face it: Usually the spin-off sucks. ‘Get Him to the Greek‘ doesn’t suck, but it is nowhere near as fun, fresh, or entertaining as ‘Forgetting Sarah Marshall.’ As I often say with spin-offs and sequels, “You would be better off just watching the original again.”

I will admit that Aldous Snow was the funniest character in ‘FSM,’ so naturally a spin-off about him would make sense. Sadly, though, even with the same character, with a new writer the material isn’t a guaranteed success. Nicholas Stoller is close to the source material, having directed ‘FSM,’ but the director is not the writer. Jason Segel wrote the first film and it was a hit. He didn’t write the spin-off and it’s not a hit.

I will also admit that I do not find Jonah Hill funny. Ever. He has the same syndrome as Michael Cera, his co-star in ‘Superbad,’ that he is always playing the same character. It gets tiring, especially here when him and Aldous run the same joke for 109 minutes. Moderaretly related, it saddens me that I share the same birthday as Jonah Hill.

There are a handful of good moments that could optimally have been edited into bonus footage of the original movie. Mainly they include Elisabeth Moss (Peggy from ‘Mad Men’). She is endearing and funny in her stock role, mostly, I think, because viewers will be used to seeing her in the great show ‘Man Men,’ where she is much more conservative.

The only other memorable moment comes when Jonah Hill’s character encounters Tom Felton (Malfoy from ‘Harry Potter’) playing himself in a club. Laughs are had, but let me illustrate a point: I claimed “Jonah Hill’s character” because I cannot even remember his character’s name. That is how unmemorable this whole ordeal is.

So finally I must conclude that if you were looking to kill about 2 hours there are much better ways to do it, but if you absolutely must watch this movie, you will survive. I did. But I cringed at some shameless jokes along the way.

The Graduate April 13, 2010

The first time I watched ‘The Graduate‘ I was in my first real phase of movie-loving. I think I was going down the AFI 100 Movies list (note: before the 10th anniversary one) and checking off at least a movie a day. I was a teenager.

And ‘The Graduate’ was ranked as the 7th best film of all time. At the time, I thought: Really? Better than ‘Some Like It Hot’ or ‘Psycho’ or (the poorly ranked and yet undeniably fantastic) ‘Fargo’? I like the rankings on the old list better than the 10th Anniversary list, all films considered, but that is a topic for another post.

So the first time I watched ‘The Graduate’ I was underwhelmed because I did not relate much to any of the characters. I was just pleased to have seen another ‘classic’. Now, having watched it again at a new stage in life, it has left a completely different taste in my mouth, despite Ben’s awkwardness and the tonal dichotomy being the same.

Burn After Reading March 4, 2010

There is something undeniably awesome about Joel Coen and Ethan Coen. Yes, they have made bad movies, but the great ones more than make up for it. It’s hard to find a film in the last 20 years better than ‘Fargo’. I will even challenge any of my readers to come up with one.

The first time I saw ‘Burn After Reading‘ it seemed like an exercise, or even a warm-up, for something else. In hindsight, it seems like they needed to get all the silliness out of their system before making ‘A Serious Man’, which, while serious, shares more with ‘Burn After Reading’ than the credited writers and directors. Much of the humor is the same, just in ‘Burn’ it is much more voluminous and zany.

Great Film Clips: Adaptation. January 29, 2010

Oh, Adaptation., how I love and loathe thee.

This is a great movie. As a whole it is good, and as a study it is outstanding. But there are flaws I cannot overlook on my third or fourth viewing.

However, one of those flaws is definitely not the story seminar. Charlie Kaufman’s brother Donald recommends that he attend a story seminar. At this point Charlie has written some great material, including ‘Being John Malkovich’, but he is stuck, so he goes. The seminar is led by Bob McKee, played by the great Brian Cox (who is consistently underrated as a great actor).

Now, as with all of the great film clips I post, the scene will be much more effective if you have seen the whole movie. But let me tell my fellow artists, ‘Adaptation.’ is about writing, and not only this clip, but the whole film, can be a lesson. Notice how when McKee says, “God help you if you use voice-over in your work, my friends. God hep you. That’s flaccid, sloppy writing. Any idiot can write voice-over in narration to explain the thought of a character,” the voice-over in the movie itself (Adaptation.) stops completely. It is totally self-aware, and for that reason, it is both smarter than 90% of the films ever made and worth a watch by every person who enjoys quality cinema.

And how about when Brian Cox tells off Nic Cage in one of the best condescending monologues of all time?

Many people have seen Charlie Kaufman’s work. ‘Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind’ is a popular favorite. That is a good film. But to really get an experience, one should either watch ‘Being John Malkovich’ or ‘Adaptation.’. Both are completely excellent and both should be considered required viewing.

In Hindsight… January 20, 2010

In hindsight, I like ‘A Serious Man‘ a lot more than when I first finished the film. It is a funny and great thing how movies by Joel and Ethan Coen do that.

The film itself is so good because it puts a logical, everyday man, like so many of us (or maybe woman) into everyday situations where we too would make the same choices as Larry Gopnik. He often responds rationally and logically to the ridiculousness of the outside world, and the world tells him that he is wrong. No one can say that they have not felt the same before.

And that final scene, oh, wow. What a powerhouse, maybe the final two scenes, one where Larry gets a phone call and the final one with his son. Between the visuals of the oncoming phenomena and the soundtrack, is there a more haunting scene this (last [2009]) year?

‘Julie & Julia’ & The Crazies December 17, 2009

I am forming a theory that if a woman in a movie is a little crazy (the adjective is crucial), then she is much more likable than if she was not. Take, for example, Audrey Hepburn in ‘Sabrina’ or Kate Hepburn in ‘Bringing Up Baby’. A more recent example is Amy Adams as Julie Powell in ‘Julie & Julia‘. She is infatuated with Julia Child, but fortunately for everyone she is kicked back to reality at the very end of the film.

The star of this movie is not Amy Adams, but Meryl Streep. Then again, Ms. Streep is always the star of any film she is in. Is there a better working actress today? The only one who comes close is Kate Winslet. We can see Streep’s talent here in her dedication to an accurate portrayal of Julia Child. But that is not what I intend to talk about in the blog today.

Sabrina is a Little Creepy December 12, 2009

If you pinned me in a corner and forced me to pick the best writer/director of all time, I would choose Billy Wilder. Any one of these movies on their own are great films, if not masterpieces: Double Indemnity, The Lost Weekend, Sunset Blvd., Ace in the Hole, Stalag 17, Some Like It Hot, The Apartment, Sabrina…. That’s 8, and he had some other good ones, too. Sure, some great directors have made that many great films, but few have done so many genres. He won 6 Oscars, had 15 other nominations, and took home the Irving G. Thalberg Award in 1988. He had mainstream and critical success and made films that can fit every mood, even today. Why he did so well was because he told straightforward stories. No gimmicks. And, of course, his famous ten commandments. “The first nine are, thou shalt not bore. The tenth is, thou shalt have right of final cut.”

I have nothing but admiration for Mr. Wilder. Now that that is out of the way….

Watching ‘Sabrina‘ again for the fourth or fifth time, instead of Sabrina (Audrey Hepburn) seeming like the cute, hopelessly romantic chauffeur’s daughter, she seemed quite creepy. In the 1950s I’m sure no one thought too much of it, but unlike in ‘The Apartment’ (1960), where Miss Kubelik is a former lover who has problems and tries to kill herself, Sabrina is an obsessive stalker who has problems and tries to kill herself.

In the beginning of the film, during the course of an elaborate party, Sabrina watches David Larrabee from afar — perched on the branch of a tree. When David sneaks out of the party with his usual two champagne glasses and a bottle of bubbly, she greets him, but he brushes her off. David meets with the girl in the indoor tennis court while Sabrina watches through a window. This is quite voyeuristic. Billy Wilder was keen on the sexual humor and, had the sensors at the time allowed it, I’m sure he may have had David and the girl do a little more than sip champagne while Sabrina watched.

And then, as we all know, Sabrina goes to kill herself in the garage. Linus Larrabee ends up saving her, and the next morning she’s off to Paris.

Things escalate when she returns. If David had any common sense, during the next few scenes he would have made a run for it. But as Billy Wilder and his co-writers Samuel Taylor and (the very talented) Ernest Lehman showed us before, David doesn’t use much sense and only thinks about how girls will look once their cocktail dresses are on his floor.

First, she has a new dog and named David. Now, dogs are often named for characters or things we like, but David is not a dog name and it is quite odd to name a pet for someone you’ve been pining over for a few years.

Sabrina and David get back to her house and they chat, they make plans, she still loves him, etc. etc. etc. Sabrina’s reveal here is what David should be worried about: She recites all of his moves (which I mentioned above). “You saw a lot from that tree,” David says to her. She continues on, ignoring that comment. Shouldn’t David be a little concerned that Sabrina is a little too in tune with his methods?

Sabrina’s father seems to be the only one who thinks this whole thing is a problem (not counting Linus and the senior Larrabee). When Sabrina is in Paris and writes home, the rest of the Larrabee house staff is sad that she is still in love with David, but once she returns, they are so happy that she is being accepted they forget how she used to feel. Her father tells Sabrina that David is engaged. “I know,” she says. “He’s not married yet,” she declares. She plans to snatch David away. “I don’t like that. I don’t like the sound of it,” her father says. He believes that Sabrina should find someone respectable and live a humble, happy life. Not to reach for the moon. He tells her that before Paris, and she agrees. But on her return, oh, “The moon is reaching for me.”

It is interesting to see how Sabrina manipulates David, but fortunately for everyone, Linus is working in the background. He makes a play for Sabrina to get her away from the family. But she starts to like him as well (David is confined to bed… because of Linus’ doing). “Dear David. Yes, I did get over that. I’m cure. Now, how to get over the cure?” As she diagnoses, Linus is the cure for her. Funny how it is called a “cure.” Sure, it sounds like a good line, but it also cures her possibly psychotic obsession.

And so she is cured and goes to Paris with Linus. Sabrina finds love, Linus realizes business isn’t everything, and David grows up a bit and does what is best for the family. It is a happy ending, for sure, but Sabrina herself isn’t quite as pleasant as she first appears. With each viewing I begin to imagine her more and more as Glenn Close in ‘Fatal Attraction’… except with a slightly less violent ending. A valid comparison? I think so.

Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs December 5, 2009

‘Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs‘ can best be described in one word: fun. In this short and sweet animated film we have quite a bit of fun watching Flint Lockwood make food fall from the sky.

The core of the film is, as I said, about fun. Flint (voiced by Bill Heder) makes inventions which complicate simple things, like a TV remote where, instead of the channel changing, the TV sprouts legs and walks to you so that you can push the button. His crowning invention is a machine that turns water into food. This is supposed to fix the problem of there only being sardines to eat on his home island, which is hidden under the T where ‘Atlantic Ocean’ is written on a map.

Quirks like these make the film great. The father/son storyline isn’t the freshest thing out there, but it is enough to string together our characters and the falling food.

The cast includes Bill Heder, Anna Faris, James Caan, Andy Samberg, Bruce Campbell, Mr. T, and Neil Patrick Harris. It’s one of those great ensembles which makes me think, “Who isn’t in this movie?” Other than Faris and Heder, the others are only minor characters, but each is unique in their own way.

Odd that I watched this on the same day as ‘2012’. I watched ‘2012’ first, and I wanted to follow that disaster movie with something upbeat. ‘Meatballs’ was much more upbeat, but to my surprise it was also quite the disaster movie. At least this one had some flavor to it.

Funny People November 18, 2009

There is a fundamental problem with the new* Judd Apatow movie, ‘Funny People‘: None of the people in the movie are actually funny. They talk about the jokes they are writing and we see the writing process, but all of the jokes told on stage are punctuated with mild laughter, which is all this movie ultimately gets as well.

There is some heart and some humor here, but Apatow has gone for broke and fallen overboard. ‘The 40 Year Old Virgin’ was a slim 116 minutes, and while ‘Knocked Up’ trickled over two hours, it was bearable. ‘Funny People’ is a 100 minute movie stretched so far that by the end I was just hoping George Simmons would get hit by a freakin’ bus.

The problem here is that the film puts heart over humor, and Apatow and his actors have a lot of trouble pulling it off. ‘Virgin’ and ‘Knocked Up’ were funny and ended up having a heart under the vulgarity. ‘Funny People’ tries to be serious business, with the disease and the old love and the new family, and we don’t really care enough about the characters to think anything they do is funny. The relationship between George and his old lover Laura (Leslie Mann) is forced in an awkward scene where he regrets cheating on her. Maybe this would work if the parallel scene where Ira (Seth Rogen) watches the kids was amusing, but it isn’t. Seth Rogen is usually insufferable, but he did some good work in this movie. Too his source material wasn’t better.

Don’t get me started on Jonah Hill. This kid has no business being in any movie and is pretty easily the worst component of anything he touches. Yet Judd Apatow loves him, so he keeps popping up.

‘Funny People’ is completely underwhelming. I give this advice often about many new movies where the cardinal people have done better work: Don’t waste your time–watch ‘The 40 Year Old Virgin’ again.

* Since I am currently in South Korea, sometimes it takes me longer than usual to see movies. I try to keep up to date, but there is only so much I can do.

500 Days of Summer November 6, 2009

‘500 Days of Summer‘ is one of those films where some of the pieces are touching and original, but as a whole, they don’t add up to much more than expected.

To start with the good: Joseph Gordon-Levitt has become quite a talented actor, growing a lot since his ’10 Things I Hate About You’ and ‘3rd Rock from the Sun’ days. Here, his Tom is idealistic and played so well that we mimic his feelings for Summer (Zooey Deschanel). And we fall into this trap, despite being warned by Summer that nothing serious will happen and by Tom that it all does not end well.

There is some quick wit, mostly revolving around Tom’s sarcasm and inverted perspective of the situation, or in the way that he misinterprets a comparison of him and Summer to Sid and Nancy. Yet it’s not all wit, like when Tom and Summer play the ‘penis game’. I didn’t know this film took place around the time of my 6th grade P.E. class. I found myself thinking, ‘Really?’

We can learn lessons from Tom, though. His precocious younger sister tells him something like “Just because she likes the same weird crap you do doesn’t make her your soul mate.” During brief interviews towards the end, Tom’s friend Paul is talking about the girl of his dreams. Her “bodacious rack”, etc. But he concludes, about his girlfriend of 10 years, “Robin is better than the girl of my dreams. She’s real.” These quirky touched tickle us, but the laughs are rare.

While the film feels like it is certainly breaking some convention, like all that have failed before, it turns to convention at the end. Yes, we know Summer moves on and is not with Tom, and then to fit the movie mood, Tom gets his act together towards the end and encounters another potential girl and gets to start over. The film dares to be different for 90% of its run-time, then falters at the last stretch. But at least this ending has some resemblance to real life, and for that I guess I cannot fault it.

What I do fault is its gimmicky storytelling which at times seems to play the same tune as ‘Amelie’, which was fresher. We have the omniscient narrator telling us the protagonist’s feelings, we have inserts of old films, the character projecting himself into scenarios on a movie-in-a-movie, childhood flashbacks (this happens all the time, but here, they feel eerily similar), and expectations vs. reality scenes. They are different films, but some of the similarities in minor elements annoy me. ‘Amelie’ was a much better film.

I saw ‘500 Days of Summer’ with big hopes due to buzz from friends and the internet and a good trailer. That was a mistake. I will not say I was disappointed, but I will say that this is not the new-wave romantic comedy that some are portraying it as.