Our Idiot Brother (4/5 Stars)

Good writing and nice people: A typical Paul Rudd comedy

The majority of comedies are about mean and obnoxious people. The idea being that gleeful and aggressive shocks of violence and rude behavior elicit laughs. And they do. Quite a lot of these movies are very funny. But every once in a while it is a pleasure to see a comedy take the opposite route and have the running joke be that the characters are too trusting, lovable, and sweet. Or in Ned’s case (played by the funniest nice guy in movies, Paul Rudd) all those characteristics to an idiotic degree.

What a good and compassionate heart Ned has. In the first scene we see him happily running a biodynamic vegetable stall at the local farmer’s market. He charges fair prices and lets little kids steal strawberries with a smile. A uniformed cop walks up to him and asks for marijuana. Ned is hesitant. The cop confides in Ned that it’s been a really rough week for him. Ned, ever so trusting and empathetic, decides to give him a bag of marijuana on the house. No, the cop insists, he wants to pay for it. Ned relents and gives a price that must be a rather large discount for that amount of marijuana. The cop pays and informs Ned that he is being arrested for selling drugs. It takes Ned awhile to realize that the nice cop had been lying to him all along.

Ned is thrown in prison for eight months and is released four months early for being “Most Cooperative Inmate” three months straight. Outside he finds that he has lost his job, his girlfriend, his place to live, and his much loved dog, Willie Nelson. The way he handles all this would make Socrates, Thoreau, and Jeffrey Lebowski very proud. He even makes dudely peace with his girlfriend’s new boyfriend, played here by the very funny T.J. Miller. He drops by his mother’s house where there are still family dinners routinely held. Around the table are his three sisters. One is Emily Mortimer, a wife and mother to an oily Steve Coogan and ten-year-old Dillon respectively. Another is Elizabeth Banks, a hard-working journalist on the verge of a career-making story. Finally there is Zooey Deschanel, a stand-up comedian currently engaged to Rashida Jones, a hipster lawyer with a must-mention sense of style. This is a very good cast. Most of them have worked together before and it has a way of showing. Elizabeth Banks was Rudd’s opposite in “Role Models” and Rashida Jones was Rudd’s opposite in “I Love You, Man.” Those movies too were very nice and funny comedies about good people. You can put this one up there with them. Good writing and nice people. I think it can be said that Paul Rudd is developing a solid reputation for these types of movies.

From there on, Ned couch surfs from home to home causing problems with his honesty and humility. Generally speaking, the problem already exists but Ned has a way of bringing them out in the open because of how his compassion and empathy (which makes him very easy to confide in) combines with his complete inability to tell a lie and childlike belief that the truth brings out the best in people. People tell him things he shouldn’t hear and he shares things to others he isn’t supposed to tell. Soon Emily’s marriage to Steve Coogan is on the rocks (as it should be because the guy is no good), Elizabeth’s career is put in danger (as it should be because her employers are telling her to do shady things), and Zooey’s relationship with Rashida is endangered (as it should be because Zooey has a bad habit of infidelity). All of this happens because of “our idiot brother.”

The first half of the movie is enjoyable but there were very few laughs. The movie did pick up steam, however, as it went along and by the end the laughs were big and numerous. The characters in general are so likable that laughing becomes a very easy reaction to indulge in. I especially liked the raid on the organic farm by Ned and Rashida Jones to steal back Willie Nelson. It goes bad almost immediately and they don’t get the dog back, but T.J. Miller is a really cool dude about the midnight trespassing and all. He even goes so far as to sort of apologize for not giving Ned the right information for when him and the girlfriend would be out of town to see a Dixie Chicks concert. “Next Thursday” apparently in Miller’s mind means every Thursday down the road that isn’t “this Thursday.” Ned kindly informs him that for future reference he should say “Next Next Thursday” if he means the Thursday after next. Sorry Dude, my bad. That’s totally okay, Dude, sorry for the trespassing. The movie did miss an opportunity in its underutilization of Zooey Deschanel though. This is an actress I have seen being truly hilarious before (The Good Girl, (500) Days of Summer). In this movie she plays a stand-up comedian. It would have been funny if she had a decent act that made people laugh or something.

Is Ned truly an idiot? The sisters treat Ned with that special kind of passive aggressive disdain women reserve for honest and humble men. Ned isn’t really an adult in their eyes. Ned tolerates this not only because he has to in that he is sleeping on their couches but also because he loves his family and understands their various problems. There is a very telling scene where Ned finally gets angry. Here is a man who was unjustly sent to prison via an act of compassion, lost his job, his home, his girlfriend, and essentially the respect and dignity in the eyes of his family. Does this make him bitter? No, he is still a good person, tries to do better, and spends much of the movie apologizing to those who are unfairly pissed off at him. What does he get angry about? He gets angry when on family night his sisters essentially ruin a game of charades. They break the rules, won’t have fun, and treat the concept of a family game as a stupid waste of time. It is easy to roll one’s eyes and claim that this is an idiotic thing to get angry about. Or one could perhaps reflect on their priorities in life.

One more thing, and I say this with but the expertise of a person who has seen an almost ridiculous amount of movies. Movies do not glamorize drugs, at least not the good ones. I have seen people drink themselves to death (Leaving Las Vegas), I have seen people ruin their lives with heroin (The Wire, Requiem for a Dream, Basketball Diaries), I have seen people make ridiculously bad decisions while on cocaine (Goodfelllas, Casino, Scarface, Boogie Nights, Bad Lieutenant). I have seen drug overdoses aplenty (Pulp Fiction, Traffic, Trainspotting, SLC Punk). Not once have I seen the movie where somebody smoked marijuana, became addicted, overdosed, or routinely went about their self-destruction. I think the worst I have seen was the case in Dave Chappelle’s Half Baked where one of the characters literally smoked himself retarded. True I have seen potheads that are lazy and stupid, but being lazy and stupid is not a crime and here is the point I want to make. We don’t need to be wasting the police’s time and the taxpayer’s money putting people like Ned behind prison bars. It has been argued that marijuana may lead to heavier drugs and more criminal behavior. You can say the same about losing your job, your girlfriend, and your home, which has a tendency to happen when someone gets thrown in prison. The problem isn’t being solved. Thank God that in this movie, Ned had a good family to fall back on. I think we must remember that there is a difference between behavior that is morally objectionable and behavior that is criminal. It can definitely be said that it would be better for the smoker or drinker to exercise prudence and refrain from intoxicants. But it must also be understood that indulging in mind-altering substances is a universal thing amongst human beings as a species. Basically every religion on the face of the planet has some kind of drug that they use in their functions or tolerate in society. It is a truth that people in general have rough weeks and look for a chance to escape every now and then. When this is made a crime, there will be a ludicrous amount of people behind bars that otherwise could be functioning productive citizens (ex. the United States of America). Drugs use is a very serious thing and those that are addictive, manipulative, and dangerous should be illegal. Marijuana is not one of those. If you would like to know exactly what it does, please read Michael Pollan’s “The Botany of Desire.” Of course, like anything else, marijuana may be abused. But that is a problem that should be dealt with by a family, a church, a support group, or a community. Using lawyers, courts, prisons, and parole officers to solve such a problem is akin to swatting flies with a baseball bat. You’re bound to cause far more damage than if you did nothing at all. 

The Other Guys (4/5 Stars) August 12, 2010

The most recent collaboration between comedian Will Ferrell and writer/director Adam McKay (Talladega Nights, Anchorman, and Step Brothers) is a stereotypical action adventure movie about an odd couple of N.Y.P.D cops. One is a take charge tough guy played by Mark Wahlberg, and the other is a nerdy desk mammal played by Will Ferrell. They are known as the Other Guys as opposed to The Popular Guys who are played by Samuel L. Jackson and Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson. Those Guys specialize in the types of car chases and action packed machismo you see in run of the mill superhero/cops movies. Wahlberg, relegated to being Ferrell’s partner because he accidentally shot Derek Jeter, bemoans his sorry existence and takes it out on his partner. He calls Ferrell a “fake cop,” kidnaps him at gunpoint, hijacks his Prius and they both head out into the world to fight crime like The Popular Guys. Can Will Ferrell man-up and stop being such a pussy? Watch and find out!

The most recent collaboration between comedian Will Ferrell and writer/director Adam McKay is a sly social commentary that isn’t as much a parody of regular cop movies as it is a veiled insult to the entire demographic the earlier paragraph (and this movie’s marketing campaign) would appeal to. Out on the beat fighting petty crime, Ferrel and Wahlberg stumble assbackward into something much bigger. The only problem is that they have no idea what it is. It involves a sleazy Wall Street type played by Steve Coogan (Hamlet 2) and a huge investment bank named Llendl Corporation. Llendl’s company motto is “Were into Everything.” Wahlberg persistently assumes that drugs are involved. But as the movie points out, he only does this because he’s an idiot. It is the Will Ferrell character that figures out that they are witnessing a $32 billion dollar theft from unwitting investors in order to make solvent the huge investment bank. (In contrast, that high speed chase involving the Popular Guys at the beginning of the movie achieved nothing but the arrest of a couple of Jamaican’s selling marijuana). The Will Ferrell character is routinely bullied by the other cops (Rob Riggle amongst them) and called a pussy, a queer, a bitch, and several other epithets. His Prius, which gets great mileage, is also routinely derided for its unmanliness. This is all done in Ferrell/McKay style. So the insults are clever and we are invited to laugh at Ferrell. But then the movie’s plot does something quite extraordinary. It gives Ferrell’s character a smoking hot wife played by Eva Mendes and has him almost single-handedly solve an enormous crime that has as much complexity as the scheme in “Chinatown.” So was it wrong to laugh at Ferrell? Am I the idiot for having done so? 

The most recent collaboration between comedian Will Ferrell and writer/director Adam McKay is an absurdist comedy where realism is abandoned at every whim in order to get laughs. This is most evident in the presence of several ridiculous characters. One is a mild-mannered police chief played by Michael Keaton who moonlights at Bed, Bath, and Beyond and inexplicably quotes song lyrics from TLC. Another is Dirty Mike and the boys, a gang of homeless men that like stealing Priuses and having orgies in the back of them (“Soup Kitchens” I believe they’re called). There are also a host of very funny comic situations like a whisper fight at a funeral, Ferrell’s back-story as an accidental pimp, and the deaths of the Popular Guys via mind-blowing stupidity. Finally there is plenty of funny dialogue, the best of which is an argument about whether a lion or a tuna would win in a fight. The big question though is whether you can still take a movie seriously once the writer/director casts himself as Dirty Mike. Does Adam McKay want us to think? Or is this all for shits and giggles?

Perhaps this movie’s biggest fault is that it is intent on being all three movies. This makes the movie feel like it is constantly interrupting itself. Near the end when one of the movies becomes a little more interesting than the others (for me it was the social commentary) it seemed like a distraction when it changed course again. The parts of this movie are all very good, but there are too many parts and makes the movie seem overlong at points. This is a small complaint though. I would rather a movie gave me too much than too little and there is quite a lot here. 

Given the movies that Will Ferrell and Adam McKay have collaborated on, one might get the impression that they specialize in portraying arrogant alpha males behaving badly, but that would be an oversimplification. Alpha People are entitled to be arrogant to a certain degree if they actually know what they’re doing and are better at it than most people. What Ferrell and McKay are particularly good at conveying is Overconfidence. They know inside and out the type of guy who acts like he’s Alpha without actually being better. This type of guy is oftentimes confused with the Alpha Male because, at first impression, they both display a stunning amount of confidence. But there is usually a way you can tell them apart. In my opinion the main giveaway is if the guy equates his ignorance and stupidity with being manly. For example, it is common overconfident man-knowledge that the manliest beer in the bar is always the worst tasting god-awful swill you can find. Now if you knew anything about beer you might confidently point to a better brand. But it certainly takes more confidence to adamantly proclaim that the worst is the best. You may even go so far as to say that anyone who likes his alcohol to taste good is a pussy or fag. By the way, just the act of calling a guy a pussy is also very bold. Pussy, as we all know signifies feminine traits. So to call a guy a pussy in a derogatory sense is like insulting every woman in the room. If the main goal of your night out drinking is to get laid it should follow that you wouldn’t go out of your way to insult women. BUT, wouldn’t it also signify the enormity of your self-confidence to do exactly that and then be as forward as possible. I mean only someone who is truly better than other people, an Alpha Male, could get away with that sort of thing. So the logic goes around like this: You aren’t better than anybody. But to give the impression that you are better, you do something incredibly stupid because only a truly better person could afford to get away with it. And people do fall for it. Take for example, the death of the two Popular Guys. If they had actually survived their idiocy (which action movie stars do all the time), would you think they were stupid or badass? Why are some women attracted to bad boys? I mean that’s just retarded.

This line of logic leads to the sort of hilarious idiocy that is on full display in Ferrell/McKay comedies and especially in “The Other Guys.” The NYPD is full of officers that take macho pride in cracking down on petty crime while their very livelihoods are being put into risk through complicated financial schemes they find to boring and faggy to understand. A $32 billion theft is huge, but nobody besides the Will Ferrell character cares about the case. The Other Guys are ordered to turn over all the evidence to SEC, only to find out that the SEC agent is also the lawyer of the Wall Street scumbag he is supposed to be investigating. I assume that the makers of this movie we’re angered by the Wall Street fiasco of the past years. They wanted to make a movie about it but, at the same time, wanted to stay true to their chops of action/comedy. So in effect, what we have here is a subterfuge movie like Blood Diamond or Quantum of Solace. The audience walking into the theater has been promised silly action and comedy. The movie delivers on this promise but has an ulterior purpose. In this case: veiled ridicule for society’s idealization of ignorance. Of course the funny thing about making fun of overconfident people is that they won’t ever admit they’ve been insulted. They take the insult and brag about it. You can trick them, insult them, and laugh at them all you want but you will never win the argument. Take that Wall Street. 

Oh and by the way, Ferrell and McKay are huge pussies by having the safe, competent accountant married to an incredibly hot doctor. I mean she actually likes him and there is even a comic riff about them having great sex which apparently they enjoy equally. What fags.

In the Loop (5/5 Stars) September 7, 2009

Climbing the Mountain of Conflict like a Nazi Julie Andrews! 


Writer/Director Armando Ianucci should be crowned the British King of insult comedy for his new political satire “In the Loop.” This is Iannucci’s feature film debut. He is best known for his TV Show “In the Thick of It,” which contains many of the same actors playing the same characters. That show and this movie are about the same thing: A no holds barred, hysterical, unsympathetic, and way too realistic feel of how a bureaucratic democracy works. They say that policy is like sausage: good to eat but you probably wouldn’t want to see how it is made. Well, welcome to the Sausage Factory, I sure hope this isn’t really what it looks like. “In the Loop” concerns the buildup to an American invasion into some Middle Eastern country based on faulty intelligence provided by the British Government. We get to witness the ground war of this bureaucratic obstacle course as the many ministers, senators, and office aides battle it out over the course of committees, lunch meetings, cocktail parties, and what not. It’s like as if ‘The Office’ was not about paper but weapons of mass destruction and everybody cursed like a sailor. The expletives and insults contained within this movie flow so freely and creatively and nonstop that sometimes I simply was astounded by the incivility of some of it (especially when the characters wouldn’t hesitate to direct their profanity at women). I was astounded that is when I wasn’t laughing my ass off. I haven’t laughed so hard and so often in a movie since I watched ‘The Hangover’ earlier this year. Before that I would have to go as far back as ‘Tropic Thunder.’ What I’m trying to say is that this movie is hysterical. At times I was literally rolling in my seat. And It Is nothing but laughs despite the serious subject matter. There is not a single dramatic scene and only one dramatic pause in the entire movie (I will talk about that later). The rest of the movie is simply nonstop clever insults and witty dialogue. I will now quote several lines courtesy of IMDB as there is no way I could possibly give the movie any justice by only describing the scenes. 

Simon Foster: Tobes, I don't want to have to read you the riot act but I am going to have to read you some extracts from the riot act, like section one, paragraph one: don't leave your boss twisting in the wind and then burst in late, smelling like a pissed seaside donkey. 
Toby Wright: Look, alright, I was late for the meeting, Simon, I am sorry, but it's not like I threw up in there, is it? 
Simon Foster: No, you're right, I'm being unfair. I should be thanking you for not throwing up. Well done, you're a star. You didn't wet yourself, did you? You're in the right city. You didn't say anything overtly racist. You didn't pull your cock out and start plucking it and shouting "Willy Banjo". No, I'm being really unfair. You'd got so much right, without actually being there in the beginning of one of the most important moments of my career. Thanks, you're a legend.

Or:

Lt. Gen. George Miller: 12:30. 
Bob Adriano: Hold on. General? Yeah... Secretary Linton Barwick asked me to let you know that his last meeting looks like it's overrunning, he sends his apologies. 
Lt. Gen. George Miller: When will he be here? 
Bob Adriano: I don't have that information at this moment. 
Lt. Gen. George Miller: What the fuck? Huh? Did he stand me up? 
Bob Adriano: No, no, sir. You're more than welcome to wait. 
Lt. Gen. George Miller: Do you know what I'm gonna do? I'm going to take a nice big shit on his desk, just to let him know that I was here. Is that OK with you? 
Bob Adriano: I don't think he'd like that too much, sir.

Or:

Linton Barwick: My golly, I can't see why anyone would choose to work in a glass office, huh? Glass offices, in my opinion, are for perverts. 
Bob Adriano: I could request the glass be frosted. 
Linton Barwick: Frosting is on cakes, Bob. Now, what else happened in London?
Bob Adriano: Ah, generally positive, two glitches... 
Linton Barwick: Really, what? 
Bob Adriano: Karen flagged a report by one of her staffers. She's obviously trying to use it as some kind of roadblock. It's called PWIP PIP. 
Linton Barwick: PWIP what? 
Bob Adriano: PWIP PIP. 
Linton Barwick: What is it, a report on bird calls? What does it even stand for? 
Bob Adriano: I can't recall. It's factish. Intel for and against intervention. 
Linton Barwick: We have all the facts on this we need. We don't need any more facts. In the land of truth, my friend, the man with one fact is the king. You said there was something else, what is that? 
Bob Adriano: In the meeting with the Foreign Office, the committee was accidentally and briefly alluded to. 
Linton Barwick: Which committee? 
Bob Adriano: The... 
[quietly] 
Bob Adriano: The war committee, sir. 
Linton Barwick: All right, Karen is not to know about this, huh? She is an excitable, yapping she-dog. Get a hold of those minutes. I have to correct the record. 
Bob Adriano: We can do that? 
Linton Barwick: Yes, we can. Those minutes are an aide-memoire for us. They should not be a reductive record of what happened to have been said, but they should be more a full record of what was intended to have been said. I think that's the more accurate version, don't you?

Or: 

A.J. Brown: So, you made it in OK, right? 
Malcolm Tucker: Yeah, hunky-dory, thanks. Can I get a coffee? 
A.J. Brown: Sure, sure. If we just get started, my assistant should be bringing in coffee shortly. 
Malcolm Tucker: Your assistant? 
A.J. Brown: Yeah. So, item. We need to have a conversation about the mood of the British Parliament, the bumps in the road ahead and what not. 
Malcolm Tucker: I'm sorry, I don't... This situation here is... Is this it? No offence, son, but you look like you should still be at school with your head down a fucking toilet. 
A.J. Brown: Your first point there, the offence? I'm afraid I'm going to have to take it. Your second point, I'm 22, but item, it's my birthday in nine days, so... if it will make you feel more comfortable, we could wait. 
Malcolm Tucker: Don't get sarcastic with me, son. We burned this tight-arsed city to the ground in 1814. And I'm all for doing it again, starting with you, you frat fuck. You get sarcastic with me again and I will stuff so much cotton wool down your fucking throat it'll come out your arse like the tail on a Playboy bunny. I was led to believe I was attending the war committee. 

These quotes are simply a taste of what is in this movie. Every conversation, every line of dialogue is at par with what you have just read. “In the Loop” more than deserves a nomination for best Original Screenplay.
As far as the performances go, the movie goes the extra effort to make sure each actor has some sure-fire great lines and great scenes. Ianucci seems to have brought along the entire cast of “In the Thick of It,” including Peter Capaldi (Malcolm Tucker), Chris Addison (Toby Wright), Enzo Cilenti (Bob Adriano), Paul Higgins (Jamie MacDonald, the crossest man in Scotland) and others. I hadn’t heard of them before seeing them in this, but they are some very talented cursers and I can only imagine that Britain has much more lenient censors than we do as they have obviously had an awful lot of practice. On the other side of the pond are the Americans David Rasche (Linton Barwick), Mimi Kennedy (Karen Clark), and Anna Chlumsky (Liza Weld). I’ve never heard of them either (but still very funny). The only actors that I recognized were James Gandolfini (Lt. Gen. George Miller), Zach Woods (Chad) from the UCB, and Tom Hollander (Simon Foster) who you might remember as the bad guy in Pirates of the Carribean. Every part in this movie is basically equal making this the best ensemble I have seen in a movie this year. 
As I mentioned before this movie has only one pause in it and it belongs to Peter Capaldi. He has just been cursed out by David Rasche and basically ordered to cook up some intelligence so that the Americans can have something to show the UN Security Council. The camera focuses on Capaldi’s face for a couple of seconds. That’s it and then he swears at the rest of the people in the room and leaves. The movie picks up the breakneck speed of jokes and curses once again. What I noticed is that this sort of running-by-the-seat-of-your-pants pacing not only helps the comedy by keeping the jokes coming but it also explains the characters so much. It is evident that the crisis that takes place is actually quite ordinary. The characters aren’t speeding up to take care of it. They are always this fast, desperate, uncivil and angry. That explains why the only people who keep these jobs are incredible assholes like Malcolm Tucker. The job draws these people because they are the only people who can survive in this environment. Nicer or shall I say less manic men like Simon Foster don’t have a chance. That’s as far as I will get in describing philosophy. I probably went farther than the writer/director wanted me too. His main purpose is definitely not to have us debate politics afterwards but to make us laugh until we have a heart attack. Mission Accomplished.

Hamlet 2 09/02/08

“Oh!! my life is a parody of a tragedy!” wails Marshzt, a down and out drama teacher in godforsaken Tucson, Arizona (described in this movie as the place where ‘dreams go to die.’) His life is full of pain. His father abused him, his acting career has gone nowhere, he’s a recovering alcoholic, he can’t get his wife pregnant, he doesn’t own a car. He doesn’t even own a bike, he uses roller skates, and not rollerblades mind you, roller skates. And he doesn’t even use them well. He skates down the street uncoordinated, heckled by the incredibly anti-pedestrian streets of Tucson. His job is worse than his life. He works as a drama teacher in a school that has just cut drama because of its budget. This is insult to injury since it appears that the theater budget was nothing to begin with. They use the cafeteria for a classroom and after they are thrown out of there they have to use the gym during Volleyball practice. The principal breaks the news to Marshzt in front of a wall long trophy case, thereby making clear the point. They certainly have enough money for sports programs to have winning teams every year. They simply don’t give a shit about theatre, or Marshzt for that matter. Even the school critic, a fifth grader completely bags on every play Marshzt puts out. To his credit the plays are pretty bad and the critic is actually quite wise. He gives Marshzt the idea to put on an original play that would be so great it would save theater and perhaps Marshzt failing life. 
Marshzt’s idea for the play is a sequel to Shakespeare’s Hamlet, aptly named Hamlet 2. His wife takes one look at the script and says “A sequel to Hamlet, doesn’t everybody die at the end of the first one?” True everyone does, which is probably why Shakespeare didn’t write a sequel. The idea is very appropriate though. Marshzt wants to do the impossible: write a happy ending onto the Hamlet story. If he can do this then maybe he wring out a happy ending to another tragic tale: the story of his life. Both are equally impossible and as Act III is aptly titled: Hope is a Demon Bitch. 
On top of all this, the writer/director of this movie, Andrew Fleming (I’ve never heard of him), wants to make it funny. My God this movie will need some sort of a miracle. And they get it in the form of Jesus’s time machine and British comedian Steven Coogan. The ridiculous thing about this movie is that it tried and succeeded to make the subject plausible, even going so far as to make the fake play actually very good. Someone out there needs to get the bright idea to adapt the three to four scenes we see of the play into a full-length musical. The numbers “Raped in the Face,” and “Rock Me Sexy Jesus,” are very fun and that part where Hamlet saves everybody from dying and forgives his father. That was actually quite touching. 
But the one thing that holds this movie together and keeps the over the top ideas from going completely overboard is the tour de force performance of Steven Coogan. His feverish, hilarious portrayal of a man whose life is crumbling before his very eyes is incredible. The desperation is palpable in his word and deeds. He wants to be an inspirational teacher a la Mr. Holland’s Opus or Dead Poets Society, but the limitations of his own personality and the crushing atmosphere of Tucson perform daily hosings of his psyche. At scenes you can see his sanity crumbling in his eyes. (Now is the time to Just Give Up!) He also manages to say something incredibly funny every other sentence. (Oh Gravel! The Bane of my Existence!) How this is done takes not only great dramatic talent but also great comedic talent. Mr. Marshzt may be a terrible actor but Steven Coogan is a fantastic one. This turn is Oscar Nomination worthy. It is the best performance I have seen so far this year. (My God, I have said that for three movies in a row. But I swear I meant it each time. I wonder how many more times I will say it this year.) Of course the academy will probably forget him and nominate some other really depressing dramatic actor who plays a really depressing paraplegic or some shit. This is like the one arena that the MTV movie awards actually gets it right. Oh well, a toast to Steve Coogan, before this summer I had never really noticed you. I wonder if you will ever get such a great role again. I sure hope so. 
Extra notes: I think this movie would constitute half of a great double feature will Littlle Miss Sunshine, another movie about lovable losers who find their home in the godforsaken deserts of Arizona and New Mexico. pss. And keep in mind that this movie has one annoying character. It’s a stupid racist white girl. Did not laugh once at her. I also really wanted to hear what the ten-year-old critic would say about Hamlet 2, but apparently he couldn’t get into the R rated play since we never hear his opinion. 

Tropic Thunder 08/18/08

Earlier this year, I felt that ‘Forgetting Sarah Marshall’ had sent an ultimatum to the rest of the comedic moviemaking world. Make a movie as fresh and funny as this first time outing by Jason Segal. The youngster had thrown down the gauntlet and one by one the veterans had trouble stepping up to the plate. Some were decent (Carell’s Get Smart, Ferrell’s Step Brothers), some were above par but still fell short (Rogen’s Pineapple Express) and some landed flat on their face (Myer’s Love Guru, Murphy’s Meet Dave.) None could match the quality (laughter and quality of story) quotient of ‘Forgetting Sarah Marshall.’ That is until Ben Stiller’s ‘Tropic Thunder’ came out this week. Not only did it match the quality quotient of ‘Forgetting Sarah Marshall’ it was also a demonstration of what can only be done by a seasoned veteran with a hell of a lot of money and connections. 
The two movies couldn’t be more different. Tropic Thunder isn’t a romantic comedy, it a biting satirical swipe at the movie industry. It is impressive the amount of new subject material that has been brought into the comedy forefront by this movie: Vietnam, Blackface, the mentally retarded, heroin withdrawls, environmental disasters. Does that sound like anything that might offend you if treated the wrong way? The incredible thing about this movie though is that all of this material is somehow okay because the joke always ends up on the door of a subject that’s perfectly fine to make fun of: Hollywood, obscene producers, method actors, pretentious directors, gung ho pyrotechnics, and crazy writers. 
Tropic Thunder is the name of an Vietnam movie that stars Ben Stiller as Tugg Speedman the action star, Robert Downey Jr. as Kirk Lazarus the five time Oscar winner, Jack Black as a Hollywood badboy, and Brandon T. Jackson as rapper Alpa Chino. Steve Coogan is the first time director Damian Cockburn. Up and coming character actor Danny McBride is the gung ho explosives expert. Nick Nolte, plays the crazy Vietnam Vet turned writer. Matthew McCoughnahay is Stiller’s overzealous agent. Tom Cruise, in his best role since Magnolia, plays an obscene producer. Bill Hader, who seems to be in everything nowadays, is his assistant. That leaves out a score of other parts, but you get the sense of star power here. All of these parts are juggled effortlessly. Every single person has a great scene, or a great macho line, or a great back and forth dialogue. It’s hard to tell who’s stealing the scene from who. Ben Stiller, as a director here, has produced his finest movie, maybe even the best he’s ever been in. It is simply brilliant how truly an ensemble this movie is when it consists of so many over the top characters. You’d think they’d drown each other out but instead the nuttiness of one complements directly the nuttiness of another. 
The two greatest performances are given by Tom Cruise and Robert Downey Jr. At last Cruise super focused intensity is put to comic use. His profane producer is truly frightening and hilarious at the same time. You even get to see him dance. This movie has done the impossible. It’s made the guy cool again. Robert Downey Jr. on the other hand, was already super cool. With this movie, he probably will be remembered for many many many years to come as super cool. In the best performance of the movie, he plays a method actor from Australia that becomes black in order to play the part of the African American seargent. When the entire movie goes terribly wrong, his dedication is such that he still stays in character. I got the sense while watching that everyone involved was having a ball the entire time they filmed this. To be in that same room with Cruise or Downey Jr. would have been something to behold. Robert Downey Jr. has got to be nominated for this movie. Between him, Heath Ledger, James Franco, and Tom Cruise, the supporting actor category has filled up fast this year. I’ve got a feeling that this will be the year of the comedy

Night at the Museum and Oscar-Talk 02/28/07

This is really good family entertainment. Not only is it a great idea, it's well put together and scripted. I say family entertainment because there really isn't a chance that anyone anywhere will be offended by anything in this movie. no one whatsoever. well, maybe monkeys. But because of that, it's also not as hilarious as great comedies. It's amusing is what it is, yes that's the right word. Amusing, and perhaps cute. (Owen Wilson) Listen kiddos put this into the DVD player when your parents are around. That way they won't get embarrassed or nervous those poor impressionable parents. 
I specifically liked watching Ben Stiller high tail it across the screen a bunch of times. Museums really are the best places to run around in.

Now let's get down to business. Oscars. I think they did a pretty good job this year. I only saw three of the five best picture nominees, but the three I saw were good enough to be there. But let's say this shall we: Let's ask this question. What were my favorite movies, as opposed to What do I think was the best movie. This way i'm truly voting for the movies that deserve to win.
The five best movies I saw this year were:
Little miss Sunshine (Finally a comedy made it to the best picture list!)
The Departed (Way to go Scorcese!)
Marie Antoinette (Perfect)
Casino Royale (The best bond I've seen)
The Prestige (The thinker of the bunch)(Director Christopher Nolan is now on my "see every movie he makes" list.)
I will probably buy all of these and watch them bunches of times. Although I love Scorcese and support his best director oscar, I would vote Little miss Sunshiine for best picture. The lead acting prizes I can't comment on because I haven't seen those films. I wasn't completely blown away by Jennifer Hudson, but then again I can't really think of anyone else for supporting actress. But my God, what the fuck happened in the Supporting Actor category! Alan Arkin! Are they insane! Not only was Eddie Murphy the best, far and away, of anyone else in the category, Alan Arkin shouldn't have even been nominated. I felt Greg Kinnear and Steve Carell put in better charachters than that guy did. He was the weak link in the movie if anyone was. This is such bullshit. It reminds me of when Morgan Freeman won for his do-nothing role in Million Dollar Baby, beating a very deserving Thomas Haden Church who had the role of a lifetime in Sideways. It begs the question of what the hell do they think they're doing. Listen if they want to give Arkin a lifetime achievement award then they should just do it. They shouldn't give him an Oscar for a sub par performance based on a long career. If I were Eddie Murphy I'd be heartbroken. Here's a huge salute to that guy, who was really slapped in the face this year. Hopefully he gets other chances.

Marie Antoinette 10/04/06

fresh: This is a perfect movie. As good as they come and as well made as they get. Like Gandhi or Mozart never will there be another movie about Marie Antionette. An ace in the hole this one is. It's perfect and complete. There is no need for another.
Why do I love it so: Two good reasons. Here we have a subject much like Paris Hilton, but instead of making fun of a person like that here we are invited to sympathise. This movie is not a criticism of Marie Antoinette as it easily could have been (How many of us bad mouth Paris Hilton), it is just a picture into her life. Her exhorbitant, extravagant, ridiculously dreamy life.
Sofia Coppola does an incredible feat and pulls off a story about a person who basically does nothing and is about nothing but lives in the most extravagant place in the world. I'm of course talking about the palace of Versailles, where the movie was shot. By the way, if there ever was a lock on oscar nods for costume, makeup, set design, and cinematography this movie has it. It is one of the best looking movies ever made. Having said that here's another feat. We have all these great specatacles but none of them overwhelm the story. ln fact most of the jokes are subtle, and brought to our attention by the great acting chops of Kirsten Dunst (who I haven't liked all that much in the past) and Jason Schwartzman (who is quickly becoming a seriously respected actor) who have the confidence to underplay their roles in order to create an absurdist atmosphere between the normal people they are and the ridiculous wealth that is bestowed upon them. For us history buffs, recognition of those tiny bits of reality that poke their head into the movie at various times are especially gratifying.
All of this goes back to Sofia Coppola's direction. From what I saw this movie is flawless. From the transitions through montages to the modern rock music to the unabashed American accents, everything works in this film. Like her fathere she has great visual style and although I probably could not quote a great deal of lines from the movie, I could describe many a great shot of artistic and visual delights from ballroom dancing, to morning breakfast, to fireworks, to sunrises. Many people complained about the lack of a guillotine but I think the last shot says it all. I didn't find anything at all wrong with it.
Here's the second reason. Not only is this movie great, it's important. It's important because this type of movie is very rare. It is about a woman written and directed by a woman. It has a feminime touch to it. Not saying that this is better just saying its not prevalent. As we know most movies are about men, they are directed by men and they are written by men. Even in a movie about Queen Elizabeth or Joan of Arc, most of the characters are men. This movie is different. Most of the supporting characters are woman. This is great since it gives great character actresses such as Molly Shannon and Asia Argento worth while roles that usually don't exist. 
I was not completely blown away by "Lost in Translation" but this movie proved to me that Sofia has earned a seat at the table with all the other A-list directors. I'm calling at least an Oscar nod for her directing. Best picture nod might be a stretch.