Welcome to Me (3/5 Stars)

Well, what is a borderline personality disorder? I concede that it is a thing because it sounds vaguely familiar to me, but I would not trust myself to describe it accurately. And I just watched an entire movie in which the main character a woman by the name of Alice Klieg (Kristin Wiig) explores all of its facets in a very public way. The very public way she does socially awkward things I suspect is part of her disorder. But in another sense she does a lot of things that utterly stupid though completely sane people are capable of as well. The distinction is important especially in a comedy because stupid people are funny but mentally ill people are not. So which of Alice Klieg’s actions fall into what camp? A better definition of what ails her would help the audience out quite a bit. As it is, the prevailing feeling in the theater is, “should we be laughing at this?”

Alice Klieg lives alone and with the TV on nonstop. She especially likes talk shows like Oprah. One day she wins the lottery, a seventy million dollar jackpot. She has a conversation with her psychotherapist (Tim Robbins) in which she explains that she will stop taking her medication and move into a casino hotel room. She also has big plans for an Oprah like talk show. She pitches the idea to a local access production channel. “I want it to be about me,” she explains, “and I want to come in on a Swan boat.” The head of the channel (James Marsden) asks for 150K per show for 100 shows. She immediately takes out her checkbook. After the meeting the other members of his production company, his brother (Wes Bentley) and two producers (Jennifer Jason Leigh and Joan Cusack), balk at the idea. But Marsden explains that they are almost broke. They either take the money or start laying people off.  So “Welcome to Me,” a show written, directed, and hosted by a crazy person is born on the local access channel in the 10am two hour time slot.

This is a very interesting premise with lots of potential as a movie but the pitfalls should be rather obvious. The main one is that making fun of a person with mental illness is not a nice thing to do. And if you don’t make fun of them, than where is the comedy going to come into play. The best example of a movie making that leap is David O. Russell’s ‘Silver Linings Playbook’ that has several characters with some sort of madness in them. But at the same time they aren’t completely defined by their madness. That is to say they are people with personalities that have disorders not just clinical manifestations of the disorder itself. This allows their behavior to be guided by choices. Choices maybe influenced by the illness sure, but choices nevertheless. The clear demarcation of where illness ends and personality begins is how the viewer knows whether to laugh at Bradley Cooper wearing a garbage bag while he is running. There is reason behind it. He wants to lose weight and the bag helps him sweat. And yes he knows he looks ridiculous but he doesn’t care because he is very excited and focused on what he is doing. The “excited” and “focused” is part of his disorder but Cooper puts on the bag ultimately for sane reasons: he wants to lose weight. His disorder doesn’t compel him to wear garbage bags while jogging for no reason. If it did, it would not be funny. It would be sad.

When Alice Klieg is shown sleeping on a bed in a sleeping bag as opposed to under the covers it is not explained why she wants to do this or even whether a borderline personality disorder would influence a person’s choice to do this. (I assumed germophobic reasons but then again I’m not sure what that has to do with bordline personality disorder). Or take the several instances in which she states that winning the lottery was not luck but due to believing in herself, an idea she got from watching Oprah. Now for all I know that could be part of the disorder. But it could also be the case that she is just a stupid person. I wish I knew because its mean to make fun of retarded people for being retarded and I’m not sure if that is what is going on here. Here is an example of an opportunity wasted: Very early on in the story we are told that Alice is off her medication. Well, okay. But what was she like when she was on medication? That would be a good clue as to what is happening with her. This is not explored by the movie.

To be clear the movie does not impinge upon the viewer any guilt from watching the proceedings. (If they were funnier perhaps they would. I am reminded a little bit of the remake of a French movie in which a group of elites host a competition to bring the biggest idiot they can find to dinner party.) The main reason is that Alice Klieg’s friends, family, and ultimately her cash-strapped employees act in good faith around her. Nobody tries to ouright steal her winnings. Sure having a TV show is an incredible waste of money but lottery money is fit to be wasted and to the production company’s credit, they try to do a competent job of realizing her vision. The TV show itself is the most interesting thing going on in this movie. Here Alice recreates dramatic scenes from her life, fake fights with her mom (an off-screen Joan Cusack) who always wins, makes and eats her favorite recipes, and even uses her past veterinary skills to neuter and spay any dogs the audience wants to bring into the studio. Something is going on in that studio and it may or may not be special but it is at least original. The reactions of the people working there are mixed. For instance Jennifer Jason Leigh’s character quits but it is not entirely clear whether she does so because she thinks the company is taking advantage of Alice or because she thinks the work is below her. Maybe both. Wes Bentley takes Alice out on a couple of dates because she asks him to. She is very intent on sleeping with him right away. Again it might be nice to know if that is the disorder working or plain horniness.

Is it possible to be cured of borderline personality disorder? The movie ends with Alice doing several things differently than she usually does in her normal routine like for instance sleeping under the covers instead of in a sleeping bag. I’m not sure what that means. As for Kristin Wiig’s performance, since I did not really understand the character, I’m not sure how to gauge its excellence. She is always interesting to watch and it speaks of good casting to put her into the main role here but her comic potential is limited by all the above. Comedy writers take note for your future endeavors: It is not enough that a person enters a room in a swan boat. That situation is not inherently funny. You have to know why they are doing it.

Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues

“Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues,” the sequel to the 2004 movie “Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy,” may serve as an insightful comparison for those interested in charting the career evolution of the long partnership of Actor Will Ferrell and Director Adam McKay. The two have certainly changed in the almost decade since the original movie came out. Someone in Clown College could totally write a thesis about the transformation. No, not me, I don’t have the credentials or motivation suited to such a task. Oh, all right I’ll do it.

Back in the way back day when dinosaurs ruled the world and the Mayans had not yet arrived on their galactic starships, there were two Saturday Night Live alumni named Will Ferrell and Adam McKay. Their SNL colleagues, obsessive, neurotic, and urbane New Yorkers, all of them I tell you, incessantly wrote about the trivial and not so pleasant pleasantries of daily life of people who live close or at least nearby people. But not these two for they hailed (or at least Ferrel) from a land of strip malls, culdesacs, and an almost ludicrous amount of grass fields, I mean really. It was known as “The Bubble,” for legend has it nobody from the outside ever came in and anyone from the inside who ever wanted to ‘do something’ had to leave the city limits, generally in bumper-to-bumper rush hour traffic, a feat few ever accomplished, at least on a regular basis. But to Ferrel it was merely called Irvine, California. Out from “The Bubble” came a new kind of comedian, the Ferrel Man Child: loud, brash, and wholly absurd. But above all other lowly adjectives, the Ferrel Man Child was defined by his overconfidence. He was a man not challenged in any meaningful way by society or civilization and walked this great land like a King: that is with a deluded sense of self-importance and entitlement.

The Ferrel Man Child was first seen in the realms of cinemadom in “Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy,” as a local anchorman in sunny 1970s San Diego. It was ripe territory for the Ferrel Man Child. The employment allowed his character to take all the credit for an entire bureaurcracy and think he deserved it too. He had a grand mustache at a time when that sort of thing was without shame. And he had a news team of enablers. Brian Fantana (Paul Rudd) was the man on the street. Champ Kind (David Koechner) was sports. And who could forget dear Brick Tamlin (Steve Carell) on weather. Turns out, the man was retarded, but nobody knew for years because doing weather in San Diego takes no brains at all. It’s Sunny! Everyday!

But Hark! What’s this?!?!? Out of nowhere and not taking notes or bringing coffee was a woman, a female reporter named Veronica Corningstone (Christina Applegate). The original movie relied heavily on one Ferrel Man Child joke in particular: that is making Christina Applegate look as uncomfortable as possible. Ten Years later, the Legend Continues, and even though there is still plenty of deluded male chauvinism still around, the themes are an entirely different animal, like say a sneaky snake instead of a giant panda, that sort of metaphor. Starting around 2010, after one great movie about NASCAR (Talladega Nights) and one okay movie about forty-something men living with their parents (Step-Brothers) the Ferrel Man Child reinvented himself in that grand old country of satire, lampooning Wall Street (The Other Guys) and Politics (The Campaign).  

It should be said that the choice of a sequel for ‘Anchorman’ by Team Ferrel/McKay is not simply a ‘get-the-gang-back-together-for-another-paycheck’ kind of job. They chose this sequel because even though the original movie was not a satire there lay in the promise of a sequel, the good territory for it. After all, it is a decade after the 70s (that means it’s the 80s) and although dinosaurs no longer roam the Earth, there is this new thing called 24 hour NEWS. This too is ripe territory for the Ferrel Man Child. Turns out everything that is stupid and petty about the 24 News Networks is Ron Burgundy’s fault. While enjoying a breakfast buffet in the New York Headquarters of his new workplace, Ron has an idea to get more ratings. “How about instead of telling people what they need to know, we just tell them what they want to hear?” What an idea! Cut to lots of patriotic talk about how great America is, a ridiculous amount of flashy graphics, highlight reels of only home runs and touchdowns (Whammy!) and sticking Brick Tamlin outside in the middle of a hurricane. They also have the idea of using police car chases as Breaking News. Ron has the great idea of speculating on air as to who is being chased and why when he has no real information to go on. The ratings for the 24-hour news network go through the roof.

For those who liked the first movie there are plenty of sequel jokes, that is jokes that are just like the ones in the first movie but bigger. So Ron recites even more absurds warmup phrases before airtime, plays his Jazz Flute in bigger fashion, and has an even bigger newsman brawl with even more famous celebrities in cameos. That’s great as long as there is plenty of fresh material and there is plenty of fresh material, but my personal problem with it is that I happen to be regular viewer of “The Daily Show with John Stewart.” That show skewers the 24-hour news networks on a regular basis so the jokes that are supposedly fresh for Team Ferrell/McKay is actually stuff I am already familiar with. I bet though that those who don’t watch “The Daily Show” on a regular basis will find all the 24-hour news network satire on the money.

My favorite part of the movie is neither a sequel joke nor a 24 Hour news satiric piece. For me that would be the inclusion of the great Kristin Wiig as a love interest for Brick Tamlin. It’s a match made in comedy heaven. She is as big an idiot as he is if which seems impossible but hey that’s how you know that they are meant for each other. It is a little dismaying though to see Wiig in this role at all. After the critical and commercial success of ‘Bridesmaids,’ I bet that she would finally become a movie star with her own annual string of movies. Somehow though Melissa McCarthy became the breakout star of that movie and Kristin Wiig has once more been relegated to supporting roles in the movies of inferior comedians. (I don’t include Ferrell/McKay in that group. I would say they are equals in comedy). This is idiotic and makes the capitalist in me a little sad. There is plenty of money to be made on the Kristin Wiig ticket and the studios are refusing to make it due to what has to be a sexist lack of imagination. 

The weakest part of the movie deals with a series of racial jokes. Ron Burgundy’s new boss at the station is a black woman. This unfortunately is as far as her character development goes as much of the scenes she is in don’t go further than Ron’s bewilderment as to what a black woman is doing in the room. Inexplicably she likes him enough to start dating him and eventually brings him home to her classy Upper East Side African American family. Ron spends his time at the table loudly talking jive, in order to instill racial harmony you see. The black people don’t do much of anything other than gasp in shock and anger. There is something that doesn’t quite work about this scene and it is kind of been milling around humor for a while now. Let’s say you had two white guys making racial jokes about ghetto blacks. That would not be okay, right? But for some reason this is okay here because of the presence of well-dressed and educated middle class blacks looking offended. Who is the joke on here? Is it on Ron Burgundy who can’t tell that the people at the table are not the type of people he thinks they are? Or is it on the black people at the table who are made to be nothing but insulted and uncomfortable? And what does it actually say? I think it says that Burgundy is deluded because these particular black people are not poor and uneducated and thus would not be speaking jive. But it also sidesteps any recognition that there are indeed black people who are underpriviledged, in poverty, and live in violence who do speak jive. This would be especially true in 1980s NYC, which had some of the most dangerous and dilapidated ghettos in the country at that time.

How about if this were the scene? The black woman takes Ron Burgundy back to a family dinner in a scary ghetto, but Ron Burgundy mistakes the family for a version of The Jeffersons. He makes idiotic references to moving on up to the East Side and doesn’t seem to notice that people are underemployed, come from terrible schools, and that brother 15-Year-Old Keenan was shot last week in an escalating series of gang violence. Ron can even start singing the theme song at one point and declare the virtues of Reagan Era trickle-down-economics. Edgy Satire, right? And it should make everybody not just black people uncomfortable to see it. Anyway that’s just a thought. Otherwise all the other jokes in this comedy land pretty well and I look forward to the next comedy by Team Ferrel/McKay.   

Death at a Funeral (4/5 Stars) April 18, 2010

Different Corpse. Same Laughs.

Let it be known that I throw my full support behind Hollywood remaking good movies that nobody has seen. Death at a Funeral is a remake of a 2007 British film by the same name. I remember when it first came out. It got good reviews but almost no distribution. None of the theaters where I lived were showing it so I never saw it. It must have been hilarious though because the remake is pretty funny and is currently getting a low 40% on RottenTomatoes. That sort of rating baffles me. I can only assume that most of the critics actually saw the British version and simply didn’t think the American interpretation was enough like it. Sort of like how people who saw the original British TV Show “The Office” don’t like the American version. Now, I’ve seen both versions of “the Office” and I’ve liked them both equally. In fact I got sort of a kick out of seeing different people interpret the same material. I bet I would like the British version of "Death at a Funeral" as much as this one. I'm not about to say that remakes somehow denigrate the original version. That's just stupid. With that logic we should stop putting on new productions of Shakespeare. I hope the movie industry remakes more good movies for several reasons. 1) A good remake will raise awareness of the classic movie it reinvents. The reason I saw the original “Manchurian Candidate,” an awesome movie, was because I liked the remake. 2) Not all classic movies are perfect! They have flaws that can and should be improved upon. The best example of this Peter Jackson’s “King Kong” which not only updates the special effects and action sequences but provides much more depth into the relationship between the girl and the Big Ape. 3) Hardly anybody has seen the original movie. When a movie ages a couple generations all the jokes become new again. I find it deplorable that a movie like “Date Movie” can come out with absolutely nothing creative in it when the writer could have simply watched a bunch of Billy Wilder movies, plagiarized all the great jokes, and incorporated the ones that still work into his screenplay. Keep in mind that it is the studios that own the original movie. There’s nothing illegal about sifting words you own from the past. You may find that somewhat unethical but as far as I’m concerned it is much better than the alternative: Knowingly putting out a bad movie. 

“Death at a Funeral” takes place all within a single day at a single place: Chris Rock’s house on the day of his father’s funeral. His entire family has shown up to share their respects. Each one of them has their own storyline. There is Rock’s brother played by Martin Lawrence. Lawrence is the successful one in the family who never visits and owes everybody money. There is a sibling rivalry rising from the fact that Lawrence is a published author and Rock isn’t. There is Rock’s wife Regina Hall who is on the last day of her cycle and wants Rock to take time out of his busy day to help make a baby. There is his mother Cynthia who won’t stop crying about her husband’s death and the lack of grandsons. There is his cantankerous Uncle Russell played by Danny Glover and his infantile helper Norman played by Tracy Morgan. There is his niece played by Zoe Saldana who is in the middle of a romantic triangle with Luke Wilson and James Marsden. Her father, Rock’s other Uncle, hates the one she likes and likes the one she hates. James Marsden, the one he hates and she likes, is super nervous to meet him again. She calms him down by giving him one of her brother’s, Rock’s nephew Jeff (Columbus Short), valium. Except it isn’t Valium. Jeff happens to be a chemist and Zoe just gave her nervous fiancé a hallucinogenic that will last the entire movie. The priest is played by an underused Keith David. Finally there is a strange little person who inexplicably shows up to the funeral and wishes to talk to Rock privately about his relationship with his father. The little person is played by the only holdover from the British Cast: the irreplaceable Peter Dinklage. He informs Rock that his father was having an intimate affair, with him, and that he’s got pictures to prove it. He wants $30,000 or he will walk into the next room and show the pictures to Rock’s mother. All of this happens in the first 30 minutes. The increasingly complex plot builds up from there into some pretty funny screwball territory for the rest of the movie. 

Complex ensemble movies are harder to write and direct but it really pays off in the comedic department. For one thing it adds in the spontaneity of all the jokes. A big scene for one of the characters can also serve as a subtle setup for the next big joke for another one. Also it helps the pace of a movie when there is always a different person to go to for a cutaway joke even if it is only for a second. The director Neil Labute does a very good job of organizing the whereabouts of everyone and keeping the comedic rhythm between all of the different storylines as they expand and interweave with each other. I don’t want to give away too much of the intricacies of the plot except to say that it gets pretty manic near the end. And yes, it’s all very funny. 

I hate to say this about Chris Rock but this might be the best movie he has ever starred in. That’s not much of a compliment. Rock may have been a classic standup comedian at his peak but he has almost never been in a good movie. His best before this just may have been 2000’s “Nurse Betty.” In this movie he’s not that funny either but that’s mostly because he is pulling his weight as the straight man all the other crazy characters goof off around. I can say basically the same thing about Martin Lawrence. This is his best movie since 2000’s “Big Momma’s House.” He's consistently funny though. He spends a significant portion of the movie hitting on the youngest girl at the funeral. When his brother bothers him about it, he tells him to take a hike because he’s too busy grieving. If there were a character that is probably nothing like his British counterpart it would have to be Tracy Morgan. I got the impression that he was ad-libbing most of his lines in his “30 Rock” persona. I can’t imagine the British screenwriter coming up with the story he tells the priest about finding God in a strip club. 

Perhaps the best performances though are by the non-comedians Peter Dinklage and James Marsden. Dinklage has the very modern task of presenting his character in a way that is not offensive in terms of race, sexuality, and height discrimination. He does a very good job in still being hilarious. I think it works even better when his motivation isn’t shady greed but a sense of betrayal and outrage that he wasn’t included in the will of the man he had a serious relationship with. As far as Marsden is concerned, his performance is the type that is very hard to critique on any level. He spends the majority of the movie tripping on acid and the entire second half buck-naked and freaking out on the roof of the house. I’m just going to go ahead and say it: This is the best performance I’ve ever seen him give (Other movies of his are, “The Notebook,” “X-Men,” and “Enchanted.” He’s usually the fiancé of somebody) and he deserves some sort of award. (Oh and there are gratuitous shots of his ass. He like totally works out.) 

If I ever see the original someday I will add a caveat here that says which one is better. Till then I’m pretty sure either one would be enjoyable.

Superman Returns 07/03/07

rotten: It's funny the things I was thinking of when I wasn't paying attention to the screen. First, I had a recurring fantasy about those two muppet hecklers, y'know those old guys in the box seats. I yearned to be like them. This isn't one of those movies you should watch in a theatre. This is one of those that are best watched at home with all your friends adding a group commentary track. There should be a disclaimer at the beginning: Please talk through this movie it will only make it better. Feel free to loudly comment on how trite the experience is, give cat-calls to Lois Lane, root when Superman inevitably wins, mock the bald Lex Luther, and call out the bowtied Jimmy on his homosexuality. It'll make the movie experience much more thrilling. 
The second fantasy that recurred was a better idea for a Superman movie. It'll have to change sixty years of storyline but here goes: Superman gets a high on the yellow sun which gives him superman strength etc. His only weakness: He's mentally retarded. Think of the possibilities. Here you have a genius like Lex Luther who has brilliant plans of world domination but somehow this mentally deficient Superman ass-clowns his way into foiling his evil plans every episode, usually by mere accident. That way there would be some suspense on whether Superman would succeed and we wouldn't have to use kryptonite every single frickin' time.
um...I should review the movie a little huh. 3 quarters of it don't really work. It gets better at the end but then it reverts back into those melodramtic scenes where one charachter says something like "I knew you'd say that." There's a huge dramatic pause with single tears running down cheeks then the other charachter whispers "I know." oh such dialogue! I haven't slightest idea why Lois Lane is in love with either Clark Kent or Superman. Neither said anything interesting or funny the entire movie. Of course Superman is a great hunk-of-man but that doesn't really do anything for me. 
I don't know, I haven't the slightest idea of how this movie could have been better. I was too busy thinking of other things.

X-Men: The Last Stand 05/27/06

This movie, the third installment of the X-Men series, literally killed the franchise. I mean seriously, everyone's dead. LIke most characters in today's blockbusters, they are the victims of great special effects. This movie has some of the best visuals one will ever see, but I don't know about you, I seriously couldn't give a shit about landscapes. That's why I didn't paticularly like Brokeback Mountain and that's why I can't give this one a passing grade either.
They call it X-Men but what they should call it is a freak show. This movie suffered like I thought it would in the absence of Bryan Singer, the director of the first two movies. I don't know who directed this one but he didn't much care about the characters. (Rogue has about 3 scenes, Cyclops dies in the first ten minutes, Pyro is incredibly one dimensional) Any identification with any of them comes predominantly from the first two movies in the series, in fact if I hadn't seen the first two already I don't think I would have the slightest idea what was going on in this one. This movie is a roll call for special effects. Since the effects are mutants, the characters basically show up on screen, give us a show, and then leave. Just like the circus. 
It also is a bad sign when the most effective line in the movie is a ripoff of Shakespeare and the funniest line is an expletive. This movie suffers from the disease called no-more-than-two-syllables-in-a-conversation syndrome. Talk about dumb downed for mass appeal.
Another thing I'll say before I stop complaining. Remember how I said alot of people died. Well most of them are shredded into many many pieces. Kids should definetely not see this movie, and it really should have been rated R. 
Two years ago after seeing the horrible Men in Black II, I promised myself, no more sequels. Why oh why do I betray myself so readily