The Skeleton Twins (3/5 Stars)

‘The Skeleton Twins,’ is a perfect example of great performances elevating the original source material. By itself, the screenplay could be considered as a merely a drama about estranged twins with an inclination towards suicide, but the casting of two of the most talented comedians in movies, Bill Hader and Kristin Wiig, in the starring roles turns the drama into a bittersweet mix of humor and pathos. Laughs are mined out of every crevice in the scenery imaginable and a few big ones seem to be concocted by pure improvisation on the movie set. Who gets credit for what is always up for grabs as movies do not contain footnotes as to who came up with what when, but I think it is fair to assume that the movie two best scenes, the one’s taking place in the dentist office and then the lip sync dance are cast innovations. Even if they were transcribed word for word in the script, the performances are what make it.

What makes them pop and sizzle so is not merely the stand alone power of the likes of Kristin Wiig (who I have raved about before) or Bill Hader (who I will rave about in a moment) but the combination of them together in the same scene. Hader and Wiig both got their start together on Saturday Night Live during what was arguably the best years of that show. The platonic chemistry and comic timing that was perfected there has been transplanted flawlessly here. Do they come off as twins? Well, they look nothing alike, but they sure act like they are.

The drama in the story comes from several places. Their dad committed suicide when they were fourteen. Their mother is selfish in a severely deluded sort of way. Bill moved to Los Angeles to be an actor but failed continually for a decade before trying to commit suicide. He moves back to New York to live with his sister for the time being (they have not spoken in ten years but I’m not going to say why). She is engaged but is too screwed up to take advantage of her good luck in a partner (Luke Wilson, being goofy, endearing, and an all around naive good guy). You may say that she has an overdeveloped sense of guilt and is too busy punishing herself to be a truly good person (again I’m not telling you why.) The last subplot has to do with Bill being a homosexual. When he gets back to his New York small town he spies a former lover (who is significantly older) working in a bookstore and decides to say hi. It is not cool that he does this. (I’m not saying anything less vague about that either).

Generally I do not like watching movies about the trials and tribulations of actors. There a few too many of these movies out there and they all seem to glaze over the fact that the job is a predictably impossible thing to achieve. Predictably impossible things aren’t tragic things. You don’t get sad when somebody really wants to win the lottery and doesn’t succeed. But here I forgave Bill Hader for his character. It is a superb acting job. The character is gay but isn’t in your face flamboyant about it. It is a subtle performance that sneaks under your attention. By the end, I just stopped thinking of Bill Hader as anything but automatically gay. And I wasn’t thinking of his character Stefon on SNL either. As far as I know Bill Hader has not done a dramatic role in a movie before. This is his first and it is another great example of comedians being more than able to perform drama capably. They do not get awards for being funny but all the evidence suggests that a good comedic performance is harder than a dramatic performance given how well comedians do drama and how not so well drama people do comedy.

I had one little note for the subplot (that I won’t tell you about) between Bill Hader and Ty Burrell. I felt that the story would have made more sense if it had taken place at least ten years ago or at least in a place that was more conservative than New York. What happened in the character’s past will always be controversial, but how much of a scandal would any present relationship be in 2014. I expect the screenplay for this movie was written at least several years ago. Times have changed very fast indeed. 

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.

Blades of Glory 06/22/07

A comforting, unambitious, solid comedy from people who are venturing into well known waters. This has to be Will Ferrel's third sports movie (following KIcking and Screaming, and Talladega Nights) and the umpteenth time he played a droll, unmitigating badass. Again he knocks it out of the park. Why? Because like a very good Broadway star he manages to keep basically the same performance looking fresh and new. He's definitely the heart of the comedy, although another great part of this movie is the number of small parts that are given to well known faces. This movie has enough second tier comedians to rank it with a Christopher Guest film. In supporting roles we have Rob Corddry, Luke Wilson, Craig T. Nelson, Andy Richter, that gay guy from Reno 911, various skating stars (including an inspired cameo by Sasha Coen), the duo of Will Arnett and Amy Poehler who are perfect sister and brother villains, and Jen Fishcer, from the Office, as the shy love interest. All of them are playing roles they've played a thousand times before, but all of them play them well. So it's no surprise that the movie doesn't suck. Then again it's no surprise the movie is good. There you have it: no surprises period.

The one part of the movie that could have been better was Jon Heder. The main problem with this guy is that his acting conflicts with the part he's playing. He's supposed to be an infemminite, graceful, figure skating star. Instead Heder plays the guy like he's Napolean Dynamite's cousin. He's not graceful, he's clumsy and stupid. It doesn't fit well. and since the main love interest is between him and Jen Fischer I would have liked a guy that deserved to have someone fall in love with. Jen likes this guy because of the script, not because he's in anyway good looking or interesting. The role would have been better cast with a Topher Grace or maybe even a Jason Schwartzman.

But I'm getting carried away. The movie works and to it's credit it's not all gay jokes which was a relief. Some of it is clever wordplay. Notice a banter that takes place when the kids realize they have to spend the night in the same room. Ferrel objects and says deeply "Nights are a dark time for me." Which Heder retorts with "Nights' are a dark time for everyone." Ferrel shoots right back "Not for those living in Alaska and Men with night vision goggles." Very true, this movie relies on snappy lines like that. The movie's climatic scene is climatic and I was apprehensive and caught in the moment. The movie ends on a note that in a lesser comedy would have been bonehead ridiculous, but since I liked the movie I let the filmmakers get away with it and enjoyed it instead. 

The best part is a new twist on the old movie cliche "the nervous first telephone conversation," between Jen and Jon. What's great about is that both are receiving insane advice from Will Ferrel and Amy Poehler respectively. They both awkwardly throw heavily weighted innuendo at each other and are pleasantly surprised when the other responds positively even though they aren't really talking to each other and they're sages have completely different agendas. Those are good ingredients in any comedy, convenient complications.

My Super Ex-Girlfriend 07/27/06

:fresh: I have found that in my life there is only a fine line between what is cheesy and what is cool. They have the same basic elements and from a distance look quite the same. What separates them is whether I like it or not. Something I like is cool. Something I don't is not. 
I bet I could change places with a film critic, say the same exact sentences, describe the same exact scenes, and pontificate on the same exact desperate implausibility of this movie but come away with a different conclusion about it. I think it's cool. Everyone else thinks it's cheesy. 
Looking back on my reviews, I find that I give much more fresh tomatoes than rotten tomatoes. I'm beginning to think that the real difference between regular critics and me is that maybe just maybe I like movies, in general, just a little bit more.
To think we've all heard complaints about the amount of sequels and rip-offs in Hollywood. The end of originality and all that crap. We'll I've seen two incredibly original comedies this summer (Nacho Libre and My Super Ex-Girlfriend) and they truly aren't getting the respect they deserve. No wonder Hollywood makes sequels galore when we truly tend to embrace the mediocre. 
This movie is funny first of all. I laughed the entire way through. It had everything. From quiet facial twitches to huge special effects shots. Comedy, Adventure, Sex, Romance, The Human Problem. It has more insights into what being a superhero might actually feel like in one scene than "Superman Returns" had in an entire movie.
And it's cast superbly. Uma Thurman as the supervixen. Great! Luke Wilson as the normal everyday guy. Inspired! Wanda Sykes and Rainn Wilson as flat one-dimensional clowns. Perfect! and Anna Faris, one of the best woman comedians out there. (Not to mention incredibly beautiful).
What's more is I never knew what would happen next. This is one of those movies where I had a set view of what was going to happen when I came in. (I based it off the minute and a half preview.) But instead of going where I thought it would go, it bounced all over the place and took me by surprise half the time. True I was a bit dissapointed that my own vision had not come apparent on the screen, but I'm not about to be bitter about that sort of thing. It was still funny, and they pulled off everything and more that I thought they could accomplish. 
They had one of those great Seinfeld endings that all comedies, I think, should strive for. Through twists and turns, everyone ends up in the same room. Not forced, not predictable. It was smooth and seemed so easy. Seamless and easy. As we all know, for a comedy, that's one of the hardest and the greatest things it can do.