Barbie (4/5 Stars)

“There is only one thing worse in life than being talked about, and that is not being talked about.”

- Oscar Wilde

Barbie is a movie that is full of ideas. Don’t be distracted by all the pink, Ryan Gosling’s biceps, or Margot Robbie’s plastic smile. A definite feature of the movie is an exploration of what the doll means, to society, to consumerism, to the little girls that play with the dolls. Barbie’s baggage is as extensive as her wardrobe. And the creators, writer/director Greta Gerwig and co-writer Noah Baumbach are dealing with it head-on and with great comedic effect.

There is money to be made in taking an existing trademark and making a movie out of it. The Transformers movies are the most profitable example I guess. But, the gold standard, for me at least, is The Lego Movie, which was action packed and funny but also had a clear sense of what made playing with the toy a worthwhile experience. This was beautifully articulated in a perfect ending scene by the boy’s father (played by Will Ferrell) who had lost the original point of the toy by supergluing his perfect creations so that they could never again be taken apart. 

Barbie doesn’t have such a clear vision of what makes the toy work, but then again, Barbie is means many things to many people. The movie, with cleverness and humor, presents both sides: that Barbie is an icon of feminism, out there in the workforce doing very smart and prestigious jobs like President and Scientist. And then the other side: that Barbie is an icon of tyranny, that she has an unattainable physical beauty that depresses the young girls who play with her and make them feel terrible about themselves. Many think pieces have been penned about this. I remember seeing a Simpsons episode about it when I was very young.

What is missing from all these philosophical musings is what is closer to the actual truth. That Barbie doesn’t have much of an effect either way and for that reason it shouldn’t be controversial. However, this is the last argument the Mattel corporation would ever use in its defense. Like Hollywood’s weird obsequiousness to critics of diversity representation, they would rather be a bad guy than admit that they are unimportant. And the same goes for the big speech about society’s expectations for women in this movie. The only thing worse about society having unrealistic expectations is the awful truth: that no one really cares. The thing that makes Barbie such a hot topic is its interaction with women’s vanity. Women can complain all they want about having to do so much to keep up appearances, but so much of why they are so high in the first place is because women are competing with each other. In other words, it is women that are setting such high expectations. All one has to do from letting Barbie get one down is to be less shallow. 

I’m skipping much of the plot which for the most part doesn’t make much sense. Actually, this movie is quite good at doing just enough to keep the plot going and not worrying too much about whether it is doing enough. Sometimes, the lack of a coherent explanation forms the basis of a knowing joke. I mean, how much does it matter how one gets from Barbieland to the Santa Monica boardwalk? This movie would prove that it doesn’t matter all that much at all and makes a pretty good joke out of how illogical it is. In any event, the plot is this: Everything is perfect in Barbieland until the girl playing with Barbie in the real world starts making her doll go about doing depressing things. This provokes an existential crisis to Barbie, who then takes a trip to the real world and delves into philosophical musings about her purpose and yada yada yada. At the same time, Ken also takes a trip to the real world and, in doing so, he discovers patriarchy (power and horses) and a purpose other than beach. He brings it back to Barbieland and transforms Barbie's Dreamhouse into the Mojo Dojo Casa House (coming soon to a fraternity near you).

For most of this I was wishing Greta Gerwig had expended her considerable talents on a more personal type of movie like her first exceptional ones, Lady Bird and Little Women. I was at least comforted by the fact that she was getting paid and perhaps, like Christopher Nolan and other directors, would have more of an opportunity to make personal movies because she was a good sport that did some big budget movies as well. (In this scenario, Barbie is Greta’s Batman). That is, until I witnessed the Great Ken Beach Battle and Musical Number. That sequence won me over and is one of the best things I’ve seen in the movies in 2023. Ryan Gosling has been nominated for an Oscar for his performance in this movie. That is no mistake. The man is committed.

Overall, Barbie is a lot of fun, which is the right attitude to have towards the doll in general. I mean, come on, it’s a toy. Noone is actually asking women to look like her. Certainly not Ruth Handler, the creator of Barbie, who is portrayed here by Rhea Perlman, a very not-barbie like woman. Sometimes it’s just nice to have an excuse to wear bright pink. 

Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of Fire Saga (4/5 Stars)

Earlier this year I was going through the movies of Bong Joon Ho and watched “Snowpiercer” for the first time. It was a decent movie about the last living humans spending time on a high-speed train whose cars were divided by class. The poor cars were in the derelict overcrowded caboose and each subsequent car being nicer and more luxurious. The content of each car was a mystery before the main characters invaded them, so there was a pleasant anticipation every ten minutes in the movie. The second to last car was a electronic music rave party. Lots of music, lights, drugs, and grinding. I felt that was an odd choice for the highest strata of society. Then I saw “Eurovision Song Contest: The Son of Fire Saga”. Now I get it. This movie is the last car on the apocalypse train.

This is a Will Ferrell comedy, written by Will Ferrell and a recent collaborator Andrew Steele. Andrew Steele was the main writer for the very funny miniseries “The Spoils of Babylon” and the just funny “Spoils Before Dying”. This movie has a certain comedic professionalism to it. The story telling is very efficient. Within the first five minutes we know the lifelong goal of the protagonists Lars Erickssong and Sigrit Ericksdottir is to win the Eurovision song contest, that Lars Erickssong has a disapproving father and that Sigrit Ericksdottir is secretly in love with Lars but Lars doesn’t know it (and they might be half-siblings?).

These are all well-worn comedic premises but they still work not less because of general wit of the screenplay and the performances of Ferrell as Lars, Pierce Brosnan as his father, and Rachel McAdams as Sigrit. Besides everything about Eurovision is a ridiculous music video fantasy. The freshness of the subject matter enlivens the entire movie.

Not that Eurovision is a new thing. Apparently it has been going on since the end of the World War II. Its huge in Europe and no-one in America knows anything about it. That dichotomy, Will Ferrell, says is what drew him to the project. Eurovision is a contest in which European countries sponsor home-grown acts in a singing contest held in a giant stadium and shown to millions of people on TV. We are shown a clip of ABBA singing a song about Waterloo in the early 1970s.

Lars and Sigrit are from a small fishing village in Iceland. When Lars learns that he and Sigrit get into the semifinals for Iceland, Lars rings the emergency bell in the local church tower. This is against the law and Lars promptly gets arrested. But in the police station, Lars and Sigrit plead with the local cops to just “be cool” and the cops just let Lars go. At another point, after Lars and Sigrit have inexplicably gotten into the Eurovision contest, they take part in what is called a Song-A-Long in a gigantic mansion. Every participant has ridiculous over-the-top makeup, hair, and costuming and check all the boxes in terms of ethnic and sexual identity. These people don’t have a care in the world. This musical interlude is the last car on the Apocalypse train.

Eurovision was directed by David Dobkin, who has done some pretty bad work in comedies before (see the lost opportunity that was Wedding Crashers). He is probably better appreciated for his music videos. The material here is a much better fit for him than his other movies. The movie has music throughout and Dobkin knows how to shoot in stage choreography for film. In particular, the closest this movie has to an antagonist, the Russian Alexander Lemtov (played by Dan Stevens), has two kind of ridiculously number involving taming lions, lions represented by male dancers with chiseled abdominal.

I had a lot of fun watching this movie. I enjoyed all of the songs, even Ya Ya Ding Dong. This movie is like the opposite of all the concurrent crises we have in America. We could probably use something like Eurovision here. The closest thing I guess would be American Idol, but that is a celebration of individualism and Coca-Cola, when it isn’t explicitly an exercise in sadism, not something that would bring people together.

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.   

The Campaign (4/5 Stars)

Five-term incumbent congressional candidate for North Carolina, Cam Brady, played by Will Ferrell, has invited his challenger, the local tour guide/novice political contender, Marty Huggins, played by Zach Galifinakis, to a civility brunch. Marty unwittingly attends it. Both candidates step up to the podium and profess their wish to have a civil campaign for Congress devoid of all the negative smear tactics that mar the American political landscape. Then as Marty sits down, Cam comes up and announces that he has a slideshow of his opponent, a helpful introduction he has put together for the press corps. Cam shows several embarrassing photos of Marty, digs in a few passive aggressive slights, and shows a picture of Marty's two pet pug dogs. Pug dogs, Cam explains, are Chinese, just an interesting fact for everyone in the press ought to meditate about. Then Cam sits down and as Marty is confusedly trying to figure out what just happened, Cam whispers with venom, “Welcome to the fucking show.”

Above all, “The Campaign,” is funny. Its best attribute is that it allows two veteran and extremely skilled comedians with vastly different styles to play off each other. Will Ferrell uses his best alpha male aggressive egomaniacal man-boy techniques to play Cam Brady, a politician who will remind you of several of the more alpha male aggressive egomaniacal man-boys of American politics in the recent past. He has the hair of Jon Edwards, the libido of Bill Clinton, the grammar of George W. Bush, and the camera techniques of Anthony Weiner. Marty Huggins, will remind you less of American politicians than of Zach Galifinakis himself, in that he has an out-of-shape physique, an out-of-style facial hairstyle, and an effeminate weirdo aura. This generally plays out with Marty trying to attack in a terribly feeble and ineffective way, while Cam counterattacks with far too much power ending up causing himself as much if not more damage than he inflicts on Marty. See the scene where they trash talk each other in the first debate or the attempt to kiss the same baby afterwards.

The movie also does a great job of setting up a comic technique that let’s just call “Line-o-Rama.” A “Line-o-Rama” is a set-up that allows several punch lines to fit into the same joke. The best instance of this is when Marty tells his family at the dinner table that he is running for Congress and thus they will all be under much media scrutiny. Marty promises his sons that he will not be mad as long as they come clean to him about anything embarrassing before the press does. What follows is a series of confessions about increasingly weird and perverted things, all of which are funny because Marty has promised he would not get mad no matter what they may be. Comedically speaking, “Line-o-Ramas” are great because of the efficiency they entail. For every one setup you can get five-to-ten laughs and “The Campaign” does this several times in the span of the movie.

The movie also does a fine job of playing comedic jujitsu with its marketing trailers. A huge problem with trailers for comedies is that they invariably give away the best jokes. Jokes generally need to be a surprise, so it is always a bad idea to put the best ones in a trailer. But here, either the jokes in the trailer are actually not in the movie, or they are tweaked in such a way that they still work as surprises. The hunting scene in the trailer where Marty shoots Cam in the leg with a crossbow actually works better in the movie because of what they changed. In fact, the trailer may have even made what happened in the movie funnier. How “The Campaign” was marketed is something that should be imitated by other comedies.

The movie’s main weakness is its length. At 97 minutes it sometimes feels like it is skipping scenes. It usually is a good idea to make a comedy as lean as possible in order to keep up a fast pace, but were losing something in terms of character development and targets for satire. There is too much to make fun of with this subject and too little of it gets onto the screen. What is there though works is relevant scathing social satire. 

The satire comes from how either of these candidates could ever reasonably get elected. The movie employs the Motch brothers, a pair of billionaire brothers played by Jon Lithgow and Dan Akroyd to pull this off. They have supported Cam Brady with untold amounts of money in the last five elections and have succeeded getting him elected each time. This time however Cam has drunk-dialed and left a very salacious and adulterous voicemail on the wrong answering machine (Seth Macbreyer’s to be exact). His numbers plummet and the Motch brothers look for someone to replace Cam. They settle on Marty Huggins, as he is the son of a well-known ex-politician (Brian Cox). The Motch brothers hire a campaign manager, played by a snaky Dylan McDermot, to form Marty into less of a weirdo and more of an American. First step is redecorating Marty’s house with lots of rustic wood paneling and replacing Marty’s beloved pugs with a Chocolate Labrador and a Golden Retriever. As the campaign manager explains, focus groups want their politicians to be Authentic. So Marty is completely re-tailored in order to achieve Authenticity. And it works too because I don't know, Americans (or at least the majority of them) tend to view eccentricities of character (i.e. what makes a person an individual) as phony fakery. 

And also notice how little attention is paid to actual issues during the debates. Supposedly Cam Brady is a Democrat and Marty Huggins is a Republican but you wouldn’t hear anything about either party’s platform in this movie. All the attacks and defenses are about personal foibles, suspicious alliances with Communism and Al Qaeda, and which one supports the troops or loves Jesus more. This seems less of the movie actually being ignorant of the issues and more as deliberate satire of actual politics. In one scene an intern brings up the idea of running an advertisement about how multi-national corporations get tax credits for outsourcing American jobs to other countries. Cam Brady yells the intern out of the room and decides to put out a sex-tape instead. Cam Brady is a Democrat keep in mind, but that is beside or may just be the point. The point might be that both parties should logically be against tax breaks for corporations who fire American workers, but neither candidate has any plans to change it or even talk about it because well, they have a better chance of winning the election by focusing on trivial bullshit. As for the Motch brothers, they don’t care at all whether they help elect a Democrat or a Republican just as long as the people they put in power remember who put them there.

Is this satire relevant? Take our current presidential campaign. Why should I know that Mitt Romney once put his dogs on the roof of his car for a road trip, or that he has a car elevator, or his opinion of the London Olympics, or that he beat up a gay kid in high school? There is no reason to know these things. None of it matters when it comes to actually running a country. Hell, you know how little personal morals matters to being an effective politician. Lyndon Johnson boned every woman he could get his hands on. He also happened to be one of the best senator majority leaders this country ever had. Shit, lots of it, was actually accomplished in Congress when he was in charge. As Cam Brady states during his Capra-esque moment of preposterous humanity at the end of “The Campaign,” being a great politician and being a great congressman are two entirely different things.

"The Campaign," is director Jay Roach's second great political movie of the year. (The first was HBO’s “Game Change,” about the vice presidential pick of Sarah Palin.) One is a fictional comedy and the other is a historical drama but the theme is the same, the idiotic way that we as a people tend to choose our leaders. The brilliant thing about “Game Change” was not that it bashed Sarah Palin. It was brilliant because it explained quite clearly why Sarah Palin was a choice that made sense and for a couple weeks looked like a home run. I figure we got lucky that Obama seems to have a brain, because quite frankly, we elected him because he looked nice and gave great speeches. That seems to be the most important ingredient nowadays and everything else is frosting. 

If I had a suggestion to the American people it would be to ignore national politics and the national media that covers it in general. Local politics are far more important. Those people actually affect the day-to-day lives of citizens. They are the ones that make the zoning decisions, administer the schools, pick up the garbage, and provide police and fire services among many many other things. What’s more, these are people you can actually influence. One, because your vote has much more power on the local level than on the federal level and two, nobody else gives a shit. 

  

Everything Must Go (3/5 Stars)

Nick Halsey has just been fired from his job of 16 years as vice-president of sales. It wasn’t a problem with his work. It was a problem with his drinking. There may have been an incident with a woman at a conference in Denver. It’s hard for him to explain his behavior because he can’t remember what happened. It seems though, from the way he walks and talks (one part resignation, one part vague guilt mixed in with a measure of self-loathing/pity) that he certainly believes he could have done something bad. On the way home from work he stops by the mini-mart and stocks up on PBR. He intends to drink it as quick as is comfortably possible. The house he comes home to is empty. All the locks on the doors have been changed. All of Nick’s furniture and stuff has been moved to the front lawn. On the door is a letter from his wife explaining that this is the last of these letters. Nick finds his easy chair, plops down on it, and continues drinking. His suburban neighborhood has bylaws that state a yard sale can be held for, at the most, five days. So given the front of selling his stuff, Nick has about that amount of time to hang out on his front lawn, drink some more, and decide whether he has hit rock bottom or if there is still plenty of self-destruction left to go.

“Everything Must Go” is directed by Dan Rush and based on a short story by Raymond Carver. I haven’t read any of Carver’s stuff but after seeing this movie and Robert Altman’s “Short Cuts” (itself a very good movie that compiles several of Raymond Carver’s stories), he makes my impossibly long list of books that would be so great to read some day if only it didn’t take so damn long to read books. The movie itself is very much like an elongated short story. It is contained entirely within five days, it takes place almost entirely on Nick’s front lawn, and attention is spent more on small details than big action. The ambition and budget is limited. For what it is, as they say, it is what it is, and as they also say, it does a fine job of doing what it does. There is nothing wrong with “Everything Must Go.” It’s just a small movie. If you are in the mood for that sort of thing, add a star or two to the rating up top.

Nick is played by comedian Will Ferrell in a role that is hard to believe anyone else could pull off as well. The sight of a man living on his front lawn with all his stuff is absurd and the location of this movie, being a suburb in sunny Arizona, lends the movie lots of light, which bounces off all the furniture in bright colored hues. All the lawns around him are bright green. Nick even owns a Tiki Bar and a George Foreman grill. This lends the movie a cheery tone even if its subject is so dreary. Nick isn’t getting drunk in a dark bar like Nic Cage in “Leaving Las Vegas.” He’s out in the open and fresh air. A comedian like Ferrell looks like he belongs in such a situation. And since all of this creates such an expectation of comedy, it is that much more effective as a drama when Ferrell doesn’t try to go for any jokes whatsoever. Sure there may be some witty asides to smile with (especially the talks with a bored kid played by Christopher Jordan Wallace whom Nick hires as a salesperson), but overall this movie takes alcoholism seriously. And watching a funny man that is too drunk to be funny is not funny. It’s especially sad. Even more so when one considers that the irresponsible man-boy characters that Will Ferrell usually portrays would perhaps at one point meet the same fate if they lived in the real world. It has been noted with surprise from many critics that Will Ferrell is a good actor in this movie. I agree but do not take it as a surprise. I can only assume that those critics don’t consider comedy acting as “Acting!” Watch “Old School” again and see Will Ferrell strike some of the same notes he does here. Besides being hilarious in that movie, he also realistically loses both his wife and home to drinking.

I’m sure there are a myriad of reasons why some people drink too much. Nick Hasley here seems to be doing it almost as a self-imposed punishment. A major theme of the movie involves Nick’s quest to find a reason as to why he deserves to be a happy functioning sober person. In this search, he employs the kid, a neighbor who just moved in next-door, played by Rebecca Hall, and his AA sponsor played by Michael Pena. He even goes so far as to contact a woman, played by Laura Dern, he hardly knew in high school and hasn’t spoken to in 20 years. She wrote in his yearbook that she considered him to be a diamond in the rough and suspected him to be nice even though he was a jock. So Nick, because I guess he was curious as to why someone who hardly knew him would think something like that, looks her up and shows up on her doorstep. He says he was just in the neighborhood, but come on, this is the suburbs. Nobody goes anywhere on accident there.   

And here I’m going to now pause and take my geeky liberty to talk about city planning and real estate development. If anyone living in the suburbs decides to watch this movie, please take a special interest in the scene between Will Ferrell and Laura Dern. It is the perfect example of why every house needs a porch. A grown man that just shows up on your doorstep after 20 years is inherently a weird thing. Under no circumstances should that man be let inside the house. This is something Laura Dern conveys quite explicitly in her body language. However, it is perfectly fine to talk to him on the front porch. After all, there is a possibility that he isn’t insane and you still have the ability of being able to walk inside the house and lock the door. Thus, having a porch gives one the ability to talk to strangers without sacrificing privacy or safety. It is elemental to making friends in a neighborhood. This nice conversation could not have realistically happened had Dern not had a porch. Now contrast this with the fact that Nick’s house doesn’t have a porch. In fact, even though this neighborhood is in Arizona, a place with such great weather that porches would be the most obvious things ever, none of the surrounding houses have porches. That is distressingly normal in suburbs that have been built in the last quarter century. What effect this has on the neighborhood is keenly observed in this movie. Take note that the only neighbors Nick has regular conversations with during his five day yard sale is the woman who has recently moved in across the street and the kid on the bike. In my opinion, this is completely realistic. Really, the only time one can strike up a random conversation with a suburban neighbor is the week they move in. After that it is awkward and usually an invasion of privacy. After all, you need a reason to invite yourself into somebody’s living room. Without a porch, taking the initiative to talk to people in the suburbs is more likely to be rude than friendly. The kid by the way doesn’t live in the neighborhood. His mother works there as a home nurse. She can’t afford daycare so she brings him along. He spends his days biking the desolate streets. He talks to Nick mainly out of sheer boredom. That too, I can personally attest, is completely realistic. 

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.

Semi-Pro 03/16/08

(This movie is only slightly rotten) Early in Will Ferrel's career he was known as a scene stealer. (This is meant to be complimentary.) He would play these bit parts in movies such as Dick, Starsky and Hutch, Zoolander, and Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back. He would come into the movie, take it over for a couple minutes with a ridiculous character, and then high tail it out of there on a high note. I bring this up because Will's character in Semi-Pro is not unlike the hilarious one dimensional scene stealers he once played, except in this one, Will (Jackie Moon) stays for the entire picture. 
I never thought I would say this, but I think this movie would have been better if there was less Will Ferrel. Not that he isn't funny, its just his character is not someone you base a movie around. His character would make a kick ass scene stealer that enters when the movie needs a boost true, but then he should leave until the movie needed him again. Unfortunately Ferrel is such a big star he may not ever play those small great roles again. It was imperative that this movie was made about him, after all he was being paid the most. But the character is ridiculous and it hurts the movie that the camera would be so close that one starts seeing the impossibility of such a person. 
The movie should have been about Monix (Woody Harrelson) and Black Coffee (Andre Benjamin). These two are capable actors, though not comedians, that could have provided this movie a greater center. Instead their stories are somewhat ordinary and cliche and Andre sort of disappears in the second half. There is a host of other comedians here in bit roles. I recall seeing Rob Cordry, Ed Helms, Will Arnet, Andy Richter, and David Koechner. Andrew Daly provides the movie with some of its funniest lines as the commentator Dick Pepperfield. But the movie itself doesn't juggle these guys as well as Ferrel's other sports movies like Talladega Nights and Blades of Glory. When it comes to WIll Ferrel sports movies, this movie is not up to par with the rest. (I will say though, that a poor Will Ferrel movie is better than a lot of mediocre comedies. This movie does contain laughs)

I think this ought to be the last sports movie Will does. He's pretty much said all there is to say, and in this one, he wears his welcome out a bit. He needs to move on. (Actually looking at his future projects, it seems that he has. I'm looking forward to Step Brothers this Summer)

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.

Stranger than Fiction 02/20/07

Going to this movie is like going to a really good lecture by your favorite professor on literature. It's about as interesting and funny. It's a concept piece, a story that saves it's own shallow one-joke concept by giving the story a layered approach, mostly by bringing literary philosophy into the mix. So now instead of having a movie where Will Ferrel fights with an imaginary voice and embarrasses himself in front of a bunch of people who are unsuspecting, we have that and Dustin Hoffman's, as the college professor, intellectual approach to the problem. We also have Emma Thompson as the writer and Queen Latifah as the writing assistant. Both of their parts aren't incredibly interesting. I was kind of wondering what Latifah was doing in this movie at all. I can also say that about Will Ferrel. 
These are both very exuberant actors and their capabilities are endless. How they found themselves in this quiet little movie is a bit out of place. Ferrel and Hoffman's scenes don't really fit as they bounce off each other a little awkwardly during their conversations. And for the life of me I really don't understand why an actor would get so much recognition for a role (Golden Globe nomination) when his charachter does practically nothing whatsoever. I mean, Will Ferrel has been better in so many movies. Why does he get nominated for this. This type of acting is not his strong point.

Anyway the movie is interesting but somewhat flawed as Dustin Hoffman points out. It would have been a hell of a tragedy, but as a comedy it's only somewhat okay.

The Producers 01/02/06

There is a common belief that remakes, in terms of art, are subpar. That sequels can never be better than the original and back in the day we all lived in a cinematic utopia where story and art fused together to make the best stuff ever possible at all times forever.
How complete crap that idea is.
I've seen a good deal of movies this year. And some of the best of those movies were remakes. Here's a few "Pride and Prejudice" "King Kong" and now the "The Producers." To say that these are subpar because of the fact that they are remakes is, for lack of a better word, crap. I think these are perfect examples that old material can be resurrected and shown in as bright a way (sometimes better) as the original movie. This is not new. In regular theater, we constantly regurgitate Shakespeare. Is that a crime. Would tomorrow's Hamlet not be as good as yesterdays because of the different actors, directors, settings yada yada yada. In my opinion great stories are timeless and if people want to hear them again from different people than where's the harm in that. In fact it's probably a good thing. Different people give different takes on the story, giving it extra levels and more meaning. Sometimes it's bad, but in many other ways it can be good. A good example of that is "The Producers" a remake of the Broadway musical that was a remake of the 1968 movie. 
I saw both the 68' version and this version. They are both funny, they are both likable in all their own way.
What the 68' version lacked in any way was made up by this movie. The added musical numbers and choreagraphy was inspired. Instead of the low-budget sets the first gave us, now we have what unlimited budget can produce. There's new jokes, new great performances, and new storylines that tie up different points. Alot is taken out also. Which is more a testament to how much new material was put in. The show is a good hour longer, and contains great new scenes. (Genius Accounting scene with Jon Lovitz). If there's too much, than there's too much of a good thing. One final note: I loved especially, how happy this movie was. It was joyful singing and dancing the entire time. The makers knew that they were simply putting on a show and did nothing but that. This movie is pure entertainment. No stops for morals or lecturing. Classic Mel Brooks. All the stops are pulled out for a good time or else period.