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 Frost is an unpublished science fiction writer.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.”    

Julie and Julia (4/5 Stars) August 26, 2009

The story of an extraordinary cook who wrote an extraordinary book and the woman who read it, cooked it, and didn’t learn a thing! 


“Julie and Julia” is director Nora Ephron’s latest film, which is an adaptation of two memoirs. The first is “My Life in France,” by Julia Child, which chronicles her culinary education in France and the writing of her book “Mastering the Art of French Cooking.” The second is “The Julie/Julia Project,” a blog by Julie Powell chronicling her self-appointed quest to cook all 525 recipes in Child’s “Mastering the Art of French Cooking,” within a year. The two lives though separated by a good fifty years are interspersed with each other. The Julia Child story is far more enjoyable than the Julie Powell story but it is important that both stories are told (though it may have not been the maker’s intention) because it provides a contrast between different attitudes towards the art of cooking. The food in both stories looks fantastic and I’m sure tasted great. 

Meryl Streep plays Julia Child in one of those roles you can only see Meryl Streep inhabiting. Here she grows several inches and perfects Child’s buoyantly cheerful accent. Her husband played by Stanley Tucci is an ambassador in Paris in the early fifties. She has nothing to do. Noticing that what she really likes to do is eat, she signs up at a chef’s school and the rest as they say is history. Her scenes bristle with Child’s extraordinary passion for French cuisine. In one early scene she exclaims, “I just can’t get over it. How the French eat French food…everyday!” Child’s enthusiasm is contagious. In a letter her husband describes watching her cook like watching a conductor in an orchestra. Streep’s performance lives up to the description. (She will surely garner another Oscar nomination for this performance. According to IMDB that would make her total of nominations to a record setting sixteen times.) One problem Child comes upon rather early is that at that time there was not a single book about French Cooking in English. This becomes her mission in life, as she cannot imagine something that would be more important or fun to do. She corroborates with a French cook named Simone Beck in creating that book over a course of more than a decade. At one time a publisher rejects her work because it is too long. A first planned version of the book clocks in at the size of a seven-volume set. She abhors making it any smaller lest something be left out and the world bereft of the recipe. Finally after several revisions the book catches the eye of a publisher who takes it home and cooks up a recipe of Child’s Boeuf Bouguignon (Beef Stew in Red Wine, with Bacon, Onions, and Mushrooms.) Yum, how about a book deal? Halfway through this story we are treated with the arrival of Child’s even bigger and equally flamboyant sister, who is played by the fabulous improviser Jane Lynch. It’s a treat to watch the two of them go at it together in some of the best scenes in the movie.

Amy Adams plays Julie Powell in a role that could have been played by any number of actresses provided that the set had a competent makeup artist who was capable of drawing tear stained cheeks on every other day. A lowly cubicle worker, Julie Powell devised a way to use her talent for cooking into a scheme that would provide meaning to her life (i.e. get a book deal) and show up her relatively successful friends. Her plan to cook all 525 recipes in Child’s “Mastering the Art of French Cooking,” is a Herculean task and the movie shows it. Amy Adams spends a majority of her screen time in a gloomy tired mood. She frets continually that nobody is reading her blog, has several meltdowns, feels her marriage strained, and worries that her great effort will not result in the attention she hoped to gain. Meanwhile she makes great food and praises the spirit of Julia Child quite a lot. 

She does accomplish her dream of getting a book deal, which is why we are watching a movie about her, but there is very interesting moment near the end of the film where Julie receives a phone call from a reporter in CA who had asked the real Julia Child of what she thought of Julie’s blog. In short the real Julia Child wasn’t too thrilled about it. We can only imagine why the now deceased Julia didn’t like Julie’s blog (the movie hints that she felt it was “disrespectful”) but perhaps we can guess at it. Could it possibly be that Julie kind of missed the point of the book completely? 

The point I gathered from the Child storyline is that cooking can be a passion akin to any other kind of art form. A person can take up cooking, much like drawing, dancing, or writing, and use it to expand one’s horizons, experiment, and have good fun. And like any other art form it can be used not only for personal fulfillment but also to bring friends and family closer together. (The portrayal of the Child marriage in this film is perhaps one of the happiest I have seen in any movie.) Cooking is perhaps especially adept at this because it provides real physical nourishment and regular intervals in the day to do so. We are especially beholden to Julia for giving us directions on how to use cooking in this way. 

Julie Powell did not use cooking in this way. What she did was perform a stunt in the attempt to intrigue complete strangers at the detriment of her life, her job performance, her marriage’s well being, and the enjoyment of the food itself. Powell was going to write a blog about something anyway. She chose cooking because it was the one thing that she was already good at. And then her purpose wasn’t to learn about French Cuisine or to have fun cooking French food; it was to get a book deal. At one point, it is articulated that the whole thing really is but an exercise in narcissism. I couldn’t agree more. 

Once Julie gets that book deal however everything is forgiven and she is treated as a triumphant hero by the movie. This is a mistake of the movie as much as it is a problem we may have as a society. If she succeeded a book deal then the way she went about it was okay, right? One of the more disturbing things in this movie is how Julie constantly talks of Julia as this incredible role model while having an attitude toward cooking that is at complete odds with her. Julie says things like, “Julia Child changed the world,” and “I was lost until I found the Mastering the Art of French Cooking.” When she is joined for dinner with Amanda Hesser, the food critic at the NY Times, she admits to having regular imaginary conversations with Julia Child in her kitchen. You know, just like they were best friends! As a cook would say she’s really “laying it on thick.” 

Frankly the two cooks couldn’t be more different. What Julia saw in food naturally excited her intellect and curiosity. Julie’s main like about cooking is its consistency. She is comforted by the fact that after a long day at work she can go home add eggs to milk and flour and know that it will thicken. Phew, no hard thinking necessary there. Watching this movie I became aware of something actually quite profound. What I was witnessing was the portrait of two talented people approaching the same subject in two very different ways. One was an artist, the other was a sell-out. Can you tell which is which?

Role Models 11/08/08

Role Models is a successfully funny comedy about two friends, Wheeler (Sean William Scott) and Paul Rudd, who work at a Red Bull-like energy drink company called Minotaur. Their job is to around to high school campuses pitching the green poison with the slogan "Say no to drugs, and Yes! to Minotaur!" (I sure hope this isn't based off of real life.) Paul Rudd hates his job (which he should) and is depressed about his life. Wheeler loves his job, (which he shouldn't) and is way to happy to enjoy prancing around in a Minotaur suit at his age. Rudd, in an act of desperation, proposes to his long time girlfriend. She sensibly dumps him. He goes into a tailspin of anger, disillusionment, and despair. He follows the great movie tradition of doing it in front of a large group of impressionable children. A couple of my favorites variations on that theme are Billy Crystal's monologue in 'City Slickers' and Billy Bob Thornton drunken fight with a fake reindeer in 'Bad Santa'. Long story short the duo finds themselves faced with a month of jail time or 150 hours of community service. They choose the lesser of two evils and get involved in a big brother organization named 'Sturdy Wings.' Paul Rudd is assigned a super nerd named Augie, played by Christopher Minz-Plasse ('McLovin' of Superbad fame) who spends his days in a fantasy role-playing game named LAIRE. Wheeler is assigned to Bobby, a fatherless child of 10 with an aggressive mouth and wild demeanor. The two match-ups provide good arcs for both characters. Rudd in an attempt to guide Augie into manhood becomes more of a kid. Wheeler in an attempt to tame Bobby grows up. This is all accomplished in good fun, clever dialogue, and a few outrageous scenes. Providing solid supporting work as a the leader of 'Sturdy Wings' is a reformed coke whore played by the beloved Jane Lynch. It really is one of those roles that only she can pull off. (Well maybe Whoopi Goldberg) She repeatedly mentions her very sordid past and yet still has a commanding sense of moral authority. At the same time she is consistently funny. I wouldn't be surprised if Lynch had completely improvised three quarters of her lines. 
Wheeler's storyline is good, but the real meat of the movie lies in Paul Rudd's relationship with Augie. The context for this storyline is much more intricate. We spend a great deal of time in the world of LAIRE, a game that although being super nerdy really grows on you after awhile. In time Rudd, like us, learns to understand that it really isn't all that bad. The people Augie hangs out with are somewhat deluded yes but they aren't creepy. Joe Lo Truglio (long a staple cameo in Apatow films like 'Pineapple Express,' and 'Superbad,') gets his first substantial supporting role as Fuzzik, a man who is so into LAIRE that he never ceases to talk in loud oratory Medieval speak. I can only imagine how fun it was on the set when he pontificated all his scenes. Everyone in LAIRE is participating in a mass hysteria and it is done with such joy of performance that the entire idea of dressing up like knights to fake battle in the local park is forgivable. Paul Rudd (and us) slowly come around to this and little by little he drop his shell of cynicism. 
Then come a couple of scenes that make this good comedy, somewhat great. Augie, not surprisingly, is ridiculed and made fun of. The most painful scene involves his well-meaning parents that constantly berate him about LAIRE. This is where Paul Rudd's performance really transcends the genre. It's the sort of scene that should get him a Golden Globe nomination. Rudd defends Augie by going so far as to tell his parents that they are wrong about their own son. What does he say to Augie: "Do what makes you happy." and to his parents: "I would be psyched if he was my kid." Christopher Minze-Plasse's reaction to all of this is perfect. It hits just the correct note and is very close to real life. 
The last part of the movie takes place in a grand make believe battle royale in LAIRE land. The swordplay was choreographed by the guy who did the fight scenes in 'Bourne Ultimatum.' The last battle is between Augie and the king of the battlefield (you might remember him as the doctor from 'Knocked Up') who had picked on him earlier. It is an incredibly entertaining, suspenseful, and satisfying ending to the story.
Like all good comedies, 'Role Models' gives us good reasons to care about the characters. And like all great comedies the makers spend this emotional capital to bring us down only to shoot us even higher. This is what I call a comedy's daredevil jump. The deeper emotionally the story gets the bigger the jump. The story's payoff is the landing. The longer the jump the more spectacular the landing or crash. The greatest jump I've ever seen landed was in 'Little Miss Sunshine.' Other notables that I can think of right now are 'Forgetting Sarah Marshall' 'There's Something about Mary' 'Hamlet 2' and 'American Pie.' Good comedies take jumps. Great comedies land them. This one does both.

The 40 Year Old Virgin 09/21/05

Quite the movie. As a comedy it's funny. As a romance it's satisfying. My only regret is that since it had built up so much, it didn't seem to need that extra gratuitous slapstick and melodrama in the end. ( i.e. Bicycle accident) Not that that really bothered me. I just thought it wasn't needed. Cahoots to the Carell for making a sex-comedy with heart. This type of film doesn't come along that often. Quite a fresh tomato.