Paul (3/5 Stars)

Paul isn’t a rip-off of every other science fiction movie. Every other science fiction movie is a rip-off of Paul…according to Paul that is.

Well it didn’t take long to find an exception to my “Ripoff/Homage” theory. A full week. “Paul” is an exception to that rule mostly because of the odd way that it uses its references. For example, the Alien in “Paul” has most of the same special abilities of classic movie aliens. He can heal people like E.T. and he can mild-meld like Spock. But this movie isn’t simply taking undue credit for coming up with these abilities like an ordinary rip-off; it goes even further than that. It declares that Paul the Alien is actually the inspiration for E.T. and Spock. There’s even a flashback scene where Paul, in the warehouse from Raiders of the Lost Ark, counsels Steven Spielberg over the phone and gives him the idea for E.T.’s healing power. Such is one of the most interesting conceits of this movie: the Alien didn’t just crash land here yesterday. He came over forty years ago right about before “Star Wars” came out. He’s been kept secret at Area 51, but the government has allowed him to counsel movie producers in an effort to ease the general public to the idea of alien life through cultural osmosis. So Paul may look like an unimaginative stereotypical Alien, the small green type, but that’s only because the government has been secretly brainwashing you the last 40 years that Aliens should look like that so when you finally see one you won’t be so freaked out. So “Paul” relies heavily on its references, but in a way it has too. I’ll get back to this.

“Paul” is directed by Greg Mottola and constitutes the reunification of Team Pegg and Frost, who wrote and star in this movie, their first collaboration since “Hot Fuzz.” Frost is an unpublished science fiction writer. Pegg is his illustrator. They hail from England and are visiting the United States for the first time on their dream trip. First, Comic Con in San Diego followed by a road trip through the American Southwest with stops at all the famous UFO sites (Area 51, Roswell, etc.). Some of this borders on the absurd. One stop is something called “The Black Mailbox.” It looks just like a mailbox in the middle of a barren desert. The only odd thing is that it is covered with fanboy graffiti and is actually white. Pegg and Frost stand across from it, stare at it for a while, and agree that it is awesome. They must know something I don’t know. (Actually I’m assuming that they saw it in a really good movie or something. If so, then I understand the interest. Ever since I saw “Being John Malkovich” I’ve always wanted to visit that one spot on the New Jersey Turnpike and take pictures. I can’t explain it. You would have to see the movie.) Then in the middle of the night, the car in front of them runs off the road and crashes. They stop, get out, and find that the driver is an alien on the LAM who needs their help getting to a rendezvous point. Frost faints and pisses his pants.

The Alien is voiced by Seth Rogen, perhaps the last person you would think an alien would sound like. It’s odd for the first minute or two and then I got to liking it. Paul acts like Seth Rogen. He’s a laid back and comfortable alien, quick to make immature gestures and amusing jokes. Pegg and Frost are endearing good sports that take a liking to the little guy. In fact, everybody here gets along fine. Everything is all like cool and mellow and because Paul has already been on Earth for so long, nothing has to be explained to him. So I wasn’t hearing worn out explanations of stuff like food and love. Instead Paul explains things to Pegg and Frost. (Actually this is stuff I’ve heard before because I’ve seen most of the movies that Paul is taking credit for.) Anyway, the movie settles into a comfortable tone. There are plenty of campfires with beer and brats and just a little bit of weed. It wasn’t all that funny, but then again it was never annoying. I wouldn’t mind having a beer with these guys.

Then the movie makes a strategic mistake. It gets violent in a not funny way. Some serious Men in Black are tailing the trio. The lead guy is Jason Bateman and two ordinary policemen, Bill Hader and Joe Lo Truglio, help him along. These are all gifted comedians and that’s a problem given what the movie eventually makes them do. It really is imperative that a villain who meets an untimely demise be unlikable. A huge problem here is that Bill Hader and Joe Lo Truglio spend most of the movie being funny and then right about the third act, they take out their guns and start shooting with intent to kill. When a movie casts likable comedians in violent roles it is a tactical error. Especially in a movie that has as its best quality a laid back comfortable feeling to it. I didn’t want to see anybody here put in mortal danger. Buzzkill, man, Buzzkill. Either they shouldn’t have cast Hader and Truglio at all or they should have reworked the story.

But how would you rework this story and keep the conflict. Here’s a suggestion: find someway to get rid of the guns. Violence is funny up to a certain line, and guns, once they start firing with any realism, cross it very quick. Without guns, violence is physical comedy. For one thing, a person with a gun is stationary, and a person who is shot with a gun stops moving very quickly. This literally kills the kinetic momentum of good physical comedy. For a second thing, a wound from a gun is a serious wound, emphasis on the word “Serious.” Here, they should have ditched the guns and had everyone fight with fake light sabers or something.

There’s an impressive cast in this movie. In supporting roles we have Jane Lynch (used well), David Koechner (used not so well), and Jeffrey Tambor. Most importantly the inimitable Kristen Wiig joins the RV crew along the way. Wiig runs an RV camp and is what you would call a Jesus Freak, a firm believer in Creationism and not in aliens. This leads to arguments between her and Paul. It’s a bit of an unfair debate. Perhaps in somebody’s next movie an arcangel will come down from heaven and explain to some UFO enthusiasts the unlikelihood of a government conspiracy. But anyway, shaken in her belief of God, Heaven, and Hell, Wiig decides to let loose. She spends the second half of the movie cursing like a sailor. In any other actor’s hands this wouldn’t be nearly as funny, but Wiig is a wizard at line delivery. I keep seeing her in small parts in the movies of lesser comedians (Will Forte in Macgruber anyone?). This May we will finally see what she can do with a lead role. That’s when “Bridesmaids” comes out. She writes and stars in it. It’s about time.

Anyway let’s go all the way back to the beginning. This movie relies on plenty of references. Some work much better than others. So let’s put down a few rules that will clarify Ripoff/Homage does and don’ts. First Rule: Jokes cannot be retold. A reference can be used as a joke, but you can’t use a joke from a reference. A bunch of times in this movie, characters will actually quote jokes and catchphrases from other movies. Jason Bateman at one point while talking on a car radio, disagrees with the person on the other side, takes out his gun, shoots the radio, and says “Boring Conversation anyway.” That’s a direct rip-off from “Star Wars.” It was only sort of funny when Han Solo said it. It’s less funny now. Any pleasure I get from that line will come directly from my experience of watching “Star Wars.” It makes no sense to put a line into a movie that will only make the viewer want to watch something else that did it better. Second Rule: References can be used to create a mood or character for a scene but they can’t make the scene. A great use of this in “Paul” was the casting of Sigourney Weaver as the head bad guy. A viewer with knowledge of the Aliens franchise will know that Weaver is the ultimate merciless alien killer. It helps create suspense in the scene just by having Weaver show up. BUT, that doesn’t mean the scene is going to be any good. The maker still has work to do.

The main problem with this movie about fanboys is also the main problem with fanboys in general. They will quote movies without adding anything to the conversation about them (i.e. they keep telling you things you already know.) It may make sense that this movie does that because the characters are fanboys, but that doesn’t make the movie any better. Ask yourself this question as you watch the movie: Would you rather see “Paul” or any of the movies it alludes to like “Star Wars,” “Aliens,” “E.T.,” etc again? “Rango” was an affirmative to that question. I can’t say the same about “Paul.”    

Rango (4/5 Stars)

Alright all you cinema lovers you’ve got a Netflix assignment before watching “Rango.” Knowledge of the following should enhance your viewing enjoyment ten-fold: Francis Ford Coppola’s “Apocalypse Now,” Sergio Leone and Clint Eastwood’s “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly,” at least the first chapter of Hunter S. Thompson “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas,” the chapter “Red Queen” from Marc Reisner’s “Cadillac Desert,” and most importantly Roman Polanski’s “Chinatown.” It also wouldn’t hurt if you’ve familiarized yourself with the walking style of John Wayne, the Indian from "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest," the Eye of Mordor from “The Lord of the Rings,” the wheelchair movement of the Big Lebowski, cursory knowledge of desert flora and fauna, Shakespeare’s “Twelfth Night,” and any and all Looney Tunes parodies or something to do with a “New Sheriff in Town.” You don’t need to have seen any of these to enjoy “Rango,” but then again you won't be in on some of the jokes. Unlike most movies that dumb themselves down to the lowest common denominator in order to appease the ignorant, “Rango” has absolutely no shame for looking peculiar, channeling classic movies, and counting on the audience to appreciate the quirky references not to be turned off by them. Overall, “Rango” is a good movie that was made by people who love great movies for people who love great movies.

“Rango,” is about a pet chameleon wannabe thespian that spends his days in his glass case acting out Shakespeare with inanimate props. Then a crisis occurs, the speeding convertible transporting his case hits an armadillo, and he is thrown out of the back where he subsequently almost hits a red shark and lands in a desert wasteland in the middle of nowhere. Actually circumstantial evidence suggests he is somewhere around Barstow on the edge of the desert on the road to Las Vegas. We don’t know the chameleon’s given name although again circumstantial evidence suggests he’s one of those “Goddamn Animals!” Anyway in search of water, he comes upon a town aptly named Dirt. The place looks like a Spaghetti Western inhabited by Ralph Steadman drawings. The characters are various desert animals dressed in western attire, all of them looking like there hasn't been enough water for showers in years. The amount of detail that went into the visual aspect of Rango suggests somebody put a lot of love into this thing. Gore Verbinski, who previously directed the “Pirates of the Caribbean” franchise, is at the helm here. It may be a few movies too soon to say this, but I think one day he may be regarded as an equal among such other great artistic directors like Tim Burton, Terry Gilliam, and Guillermo Del Toro. Animation in general has reached such a level of sophistication that I wonder if movies like this will ever be recognized by the Academy for Art Direction or Costume Design. I mean most of the design in last year’s “Alice and Wonderland” was entirely CGI. Why wouldn’t “Rango” be considered?

 Johnny Depp continues his career long quixotic quest to not look attractive by voicing the odd-looking chameleon with different size eyes and a potbelly. Upon coming to the town, he decides to put his acting skills to the test. Instead of simply admitting he’s lost, he calls himself “Rango” and tells a far out story about how he killed seven members of the same family with one bullet. He must have seen “True Grit.” I liked that movie too. This chameleon has good taste. Unfortunately for him, the town is in an enormous water crisis and actually needs a really good sheriff, what with the last one getting killed and all. So you can see where this is going.

The dialogue in “Rango,” is verbose and witty. The level of vocabulary in “Rango” is on the level of “Pirates of the Caribbean.” It should be. John Logan (Aviator, Gladiator) wrote the screenplay but Gore and James Ward Byrkit both straight from “Pirates” also get story credit. The Pirate accents have been switched for Western accents, but everything is still gruffly poetic delivered in a slurred multisyllabic rough and ready converse. Isla Fisher voices a lizard named Beans, giving us the least romantic name for a love interest ever. Abigail Breslin provides the voice of Priscilla, who I think might be some sort of Jewish possum. Bill Nighy is Rattlesnake Jake with suspiciously familiar eyes. Ned Beatty continues his dominance in evil cartoon voices (see Toy Story 3) with the Mayor. This time he's channeling John Huston in “Chinatown.” The Spirit of the West also shows up to counsel Rango in the form of Clint Eastwood in his Man-with-no-name garb driving a golf cart with a bunch of Oscars in the carriage. It’s a scene on par with Ed Wood getting advice from Orson Welles in “Ed Wood.” Unfortunately Eastwood didn’t voice himself. It was Timothy Olyphant. That’s too bad. It would have been so cool if he did.

The story of “Rango” is a movie cliché and one well-versed in movie knowledge will perhaps guess all the plot points before they happen. That didn’t bother me at all really because the movie itself is counting on me knowing everything anyway and instead spends its enormous energy in making all the old memories fresh and new. This movie is a great example of what the difference is between rip-off and homage. A Rip-off is a cynical attempt to capitalize on a popular trend. Homage is a nostalgic callback to something remembered fondly. Actually in practice they are exactly the same thing. What makes a movie one or the other is how deserving it is to be in the same class as that it is imitating. If a movie is lazy and dumb, then it is almost an insult to the classic to see itself in the inferior product. However, when the movie is creative and smart, as is Rango, a callback can be a compliment between artists who are on an equal level. “Rango” does not rely on its references. Take out every homage and it still would be funny and look great. That’s why it is full of homages and not rip-offs. Depp and Verbinski aren’t riding any coattails here.