The Death of Stalin (5/5 Stars)

Democracies get all the bad press as dictators and totalitarian governments don't allow their citizens to complain about them. So there seem to be several movies a year that feature the failings of American politics (not to mention daily editorial pieces in press) but not so many concerning the truly awful governments. When the truly awful governments are covered, they get the Nazi treatment so to speak. They are the evil antagonists in the action blockbuster or serious drama. Almost never are unspeakably bad governments used for laughs. That makes the horrifying and hilarious satire “The Death of Stalin” a rare treat. Watching it will not only make you laugh but thank your lucky stars no movie like this could ever be made about America.

The writer-director of “The Death of Stalin” is Armando Ianucci. It is a perfect meeting of man and material. Mr. Ianucci has spent the last decade and a half satirizing British politics (“The Thick of It”) and American politics (“Veep”) and at least one time both (“In the Loop”). Mr. Ianucci specializes in cruelty. In British and American politics this played out in bullying, betrayals and language whose foulness was only matched by its creativity. In Soviet politics, women are raped and men are murdered. Mr. Ianucci may be the only person in the business that could have pulled off the black humor in this picture as well as he does.

If one ignores the sheer terror of it all, Russia under Stalin had a lot that was funny about it. When Stalin collapses from a stroke late one night, his guards are so scared of Stalin’s potential anger for needlessly interrupting him that they pretend not to hear anything. Stalin is not discovered until the morning. When he finally is discovered, it is determined that a doctor should be called. However, Stalin had previously ordered the murder of all the best doctor’s in Moscow because he believed that Western medicine was a conspiracy. The inferior doctors are brought in to help. However, they do not use the equipment that would save Stalin’s life because it was manufactured in the United States. Stalin eventually dies betrayed by the incompetence his despotic rule bestowed upon his country.

The movie is the comedic version of “1984”. Everyone participates in ‘double-think’. That is the ability to know something is untrue and to believe it anyway because Stalin said so. Everyone knows that Stalin is a homicidal maniac. When they hear of his death, they grovel and weep and mourn deeply their country’s awesome loss. Meanwhile a power vacuum has opened and the member’s of Stalin’s highest committee start vying for power. There is a great scene where they must pretend to continue to believe Stalin is without error while making their first order of business to stop the latest round of political assassinations Stalin had just ordered the week before.

The two men vying for ultimate power after Stalin’s death are Lavrenti Beria (Simon Russell Beale), the head of Stalin’s secret police, and Nikita Khruschev (Steve Buscemi). Stalin’s successor-in-name is his deputy Georgy Malenkov (Jeffrey Tambor). Rounding out the committee is Vyacheslav Molotov (Michael Palin). Mr. Ianucci makes an interesting choice in directing the actors to use their regular voices instead of adopting Russian accents. This choice is confusing and then illuminating. After all, Russians do not hear accents when they speak to each other. (The best version would be for all the actors to speak Russian. However, that would impair Ianucci’s ability to write sharp satire in his style.) So everyone might as well speak in their native accents. This reminded me of the American accents in “Amadeus”, which also worked remarkably well.

The performance of Steve Buscemi is a revelation. Like the actor, the man Khruschev seems a harmless character actor. But this betrays a deep political cunning, which Iannucci and Buscemi slowly develops until the moment of action when Nikita outmaneuvers his enemies and takes control. Then the comeuppance is chilling and exhilarating. As Khruschev also seems to be the least worst of all the members of the committee, this brutal satire also unexpectedly has a happy ending. Jeffrey Tambor as well is perfectly cast as a weak man. Michael Palin’s presence appropriately connects Iannucci’s style with its most obvious predecessor, Monty Python. This is a great movie. Unsurprisingly, it has been banned in Russia. Apparently they are still afraid of Stalin over there.  

The Hangover: Part II (2/5 Stars)

“10: The author shall make the reader feel a deep interest in the personages of his tale and in their fate; and he shall make the reader love the good people in the tale and hate the bad ones. But the reader of the “Deerslayer” tale dislikes the good people in it, is indifferent to the others, and wishes they would all get drowned together.”

- Mark Twain, Fenimore Cooper’s Literary Offenses

Comedy happens when somebody gets exactly what they deserve. Tragedy happens when bad things befall good people. If you do not have the ability to grasp this very simple basic difference than you might just be one of the makers of “The Hangover: Part 2,” a movie that discards nearly everything that made Part I a superior comedy and leaves behind a mess of awkwardness, unpleasantness, and a story that, if it took place in the real world, would be really sad.

The original conceit of the first Hangover movie was nothing short of brilliant. Four guys go to Vegas for a bachelor party. The next morning, Alan (played by Zach Galifinakis), Stu (played by Ed Helms), and Phil (played by Bradley Cooper) wake up in a trashed hotel room with disastrous hangovers. The groom is missing and nobody can remember where they lost him. But there are several clues around: a hospital band, a receipt from an ATM, a tiger, a chicken, a baby, and a police car. The rest of the movie concerns the three trying to piece together the mystery and meeting many different comic characters along the way. “The Hangover: Part II” follows this formula but in a vastly inferior way. This time it is Stu getting married. The wedding is taking place in Thailand. A couple of nights before the wedding, the four guys plus the bride’s 16-year-old nephew, Terry, have one beer by a campfire. Stu, Alan, and Phil wake-up the next morning with disastrous hangovers in a vagrant apartment in Bangkok and Terry is missing. But instead of a multitude of clues there is but two, a monkey and a severed finger. Both are dead ends and don’t lead to anything. In fact, whenever a clue or lead is finally brought to light it is usually entirely explored in the very next scene. Thus, there is very little mystery to Part II and that is a huge problem both in terms of the movie’s pace and comedy.

One of the more brilliant things about the first movie’s structure was the way it efficiently set up subplots. A clue was shown at the beginning and this gave the movie an excuse to switch tracks from one comic situation to another via some hilarious shock moments. Some good examples are the cops busting into a room, Mike Tyson waiting for the guys in their hotel room, or an Asian gang purposefully ramming the guys’ car. These moments don't exist in Part II because nothing is ever set up. So instead of quick comical transitions we are left with the guys walking around in depressed moods to locations that seem arbitrarily chosen. This movie isn't nearly as intelligent nor as interesting to watch unfold.

But this wouldn’t be nearly as big a problem if the movie were funny. And this is where “The Hangover Part II” inexplicably fails consistently. For one thing, all the characters have turned into jerks. The most notable transformation is Alan. What was a very funny weird but well-meaning oddball in the first movie has turned into a total asshole. He is mean to his parents, his friends, and most notably to Terry, who hasn’t done anything to deserve all the insults. This isn't funny. It's awkward. Generally speaking, a movie should make the audience like the good people in the story and dislike the bad. That way the movie is enjoyable when good stuff happens to the good people and bad stuff happens to the bad. (You would think that this would go without saying). But here there is no difference between the good and bad. They are all assholes. This goes for all the side characters in the sub-plots as well. Where Part I had some variability in the types of people the guys met (like say sweetheart Mike Tyson, heart of gold hooker Heather Graham, macho cop Rob Riggle, the annoyed doctor, etc.) everyone in Part II seems to be slightly different versions of the same jerk. The tattoo guy is a jerk. The Buddhist Monks are jerks. The drug dealers are jerks. The father-in-law is a jerk. The crime boss, played by Paul Giamatti, is a huge snarling screaming jerk. Nobody seems to be having any fun. Even the flashbacks of the night before don't show anybody having fun. The one exception is Mr. Chow, played once again by Ken Jeong, and he’s dead for half the movie. The story takes place almost entirely in a dank cesspool of inner city Bangkok. Everything is the color of puke. The funniest lines are spoken by Alan and these are mostly non-sequitors. You know a comedy is in trouble when the best jokes are funny precisely because they have nothing to do with the storyline.

The director Todd Phillips has always been very skilled at casting groups of comedians with different comic styles (Road Trip, Old School, Starsky and Hutch). In the first Hangover he hit the motherlode with the oddball Galifinakis, the neurotic Helms, and the laid back Bradley Cooper. The three played off each other very well. This was especially true whenever things would get too crazy. At that point the movie could depend on Cooper to be a relaxing agent. They wake up in a trashed hotel room. “Looks like we had a bit of fun last night,” Cooper wryly remarks, hardly worried. A valet brings around a cop car instead of their Rolls Royce. Cooper volunteers to drive it, not missing a beat. In Part II, this dynamic falls apart completely and the main reason is that Cooper can’t realistically be a relaxing agent without sounding like an uncaring asshole. The situations the guys find themselves in are far too serious. Do you understand the comedic difference between getting tasered as a punishment for stealing a cop car as opposed to getting shot for no reason whatsoever? Do you understand the difference between a very bad sunburn and a permanent face tattoo? Or how about the difference between cheating on an unfaithful shrew of a girlfriend by accidentally marrying Heather Graham as opposed to cheating on your faultless fiancé via sodomy with a transvestite prostitute? If you do, then I would argue you have a much keener understanding of what is funny and what is not than the makers of this movie. There is a very telling scene in this movie as far as the audience’s laughter level in the theater with me was concerned. It dealt with Stu’s father-in-law giving a toast. It starts with a couple of insults at Stu’s expense, which the audience definitely laughed at. It goes on for several more insults, each one drawing less laughter than the one before. And then the toast just keeps on going for much longer than the movie needed to make absolutely clear that the father-in-law isn’t telling jokes at all. Instead, he is expressing outright hatred of his son-in-law and maliciously intends to humiliate him in front of his bride to be, his entire family, and all his friends. By the end of the toast, the audience had stopped laughing. It wasn’t funny. It was just really fucking mean. 

The Hangover Part II has made so much money already that I’m sure there is more than enough financial incentive to make Part III. I am of the belief that Part III could still be very funny if it stayed competently faithful to the formula of the first movie. The first step I would think is to hire back the original writers, Jon Lucas and Scott Moore, and fire the hacks they hired to write this one.

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.”    

Hellboy II: The Golden Army 07/13/08

It's sometimes hard to pin down a definition of art but the best I've heard is this. Art occurs when something is much better than it has to be. Take a look at Hellboy II. Search the corners of the screen. The imagination, the originality, the attention to detail contained within every frame of this movie. Did they need to put such effort into a sequel adapted from a little known comic book. Certainly Hellboy II doesn't garner the type of expectations that a movie like 'The Dark Knight' will. It didn't need and certainly wasn't expected of it to be this good. The makers simply had a passion and a drive to make a superior product. To produce something truly original. This movie is art.
If this movie is art, than the artist would have to be the film's director, Guillermo del Toro. He's sort of like the Spanish Tim Burton, in that all his films are infused with a certain style that simply can't be mimicked. Like Tim Burton and the 'Batman' franchise, Guillermo has found a sympathetic franchise in 'Hellboy.' 
Hellboy, played by Ron Perlman, is a cigar smokin', gun totin' demon that works for a not so secret top secret government agency. His partner is Abe, some sort of bipedal fish and Liz, his literally hot girlfriend played by Selma Blair. Blair has a tendency to burst into flames when she gets angry. It's pretty cool. The story involves an ancient truce between humans and fairy tale creatures that is interrupted by a Prince who feels betrayed by human greed and, I think, their environmental policies. Not so sure. I don't think he likes how we're cutting down forests or something. Either way, the story isn't much to write home about. What is really cool are the characters, the entire universe of different creatures that Guillermo invents en masse. I don't even know how to describe most of them or what myths they are based on. I apparently was not read the same fairy tales Guillermo read when he was a child. It's really cool when a movie like this gains some recognition come awards time. This could be this year's 'Bourne Ultimatum' in terms of, art direction, makeup, and costumes. It's not the best movie of the year, or even the best comic book blockbuster out there, but this movie could be taught in film schools just in terms of the qualities I've mentioned.
Also I will say that this movie has a weird goofy sense of humor to it. And the first half has many good laughs. I especially liked Jeffery Tambor, the only human with any sizable role. Abe, the fish genius, is given much to work with. Somehow they infused that fish face with emotion I could understand just by looking at it. And that guy can't even move his mouth. I still don't really know how they did that.