While Judd Apatow’s modus operandi of late is to bookend the summer with movies that gross over $100 million, that doesn’t stop his troupe of actors from acting in their own films. Paul Rudd (“The 40 Year Old Virgin”) and Seann William Scott (“American Pie”) are two of those actors, and they perform the typical roles in “Role Models.”
Rudd plays the typical sensitive guy who is so devastated by the end of his relationship that he loses control. Scott plays a typical hard partying, womanizing guy that he has cashed so many checks as. Rudd is clean shaven and wears collared shirts, while Scott is stubbled and wears MMA shirts.
While the casting offers nothing new for either actor, there is a reason that they continue to play these roles. They are very good at them. Maybe even more importantly, they have the timing down with each other that they can constantly produce laughs.
Add in the usual cast, such as Jane Lynch (“Best in Show”) and Christopher Mintz-Plasse (“Superbad”) and it’s hard not to chuckle as they riff off of each other.
The plot isn’t anything fancy, and it doesn’t have to be. Rudd, distraught over his break-up decides to play tug of war with his company’s vehicle and a tow truck, while a police officer looks on. This lands the duo in a predicament: go to jail for 30 days, or spend 150 hours mentoring troubled youth.
Rudd is assigned to Mintz-Plasse, who brings back his McLovin persona in all its awkward glory. Scott is assigned a rowdy child with a filthy mouth played by cinematic newcomer Bobb’e J. Thompson.
The story gets very trite from here on out, with both men initially dreading their service, before coming to enjoy their assigned punishment. There is the obligatory moment where it all comes crashing down (with a high-voiced, acoustic guitar playing singer singing a mournful tune on the background of course), and then the rest of the movie is spent rebuilding.
What keeps it fresh is the interaction between the characters. Whether it is a camping trip, or a weekend spent participating in a medieval role-playing game, the characters always find time to exchange snide remarks.
Basically the whole movie plays out like an Apatow-inspired remake of “Problem Child” which is an intriguing possibility. The movie is much funnier than the few cheap laughs played in the trailer, and while it won’t be making a dent this awards season, it is a great way to spend two hours.
Whether it is worth your ten dollars, well, that depends on your sense of humor.
Rating - $8.50
Showing posts with label buy on dvd. Show all posts
Showing posts with label buy on dvd. Show all posts
Friday, November 7, 2008
Friday, August 8, 2008
Pineapple Express
If this summer has taught us anything (besides the fact that comic-book movies are back for good), it’s that the name Judd Apatow practically guarantees a blockbuster.
“Pineapple Express” is no exception. Effortlessly combining the stoner genre with an action-packed thriller, the film manages to pay tribute to both while staying original.
The plot, while it won’t be putting Tarantino out of business any time soon, does what it needs to. That is, put Apatow’s usual cast of cronies is as many improv-inducing situations as possible.
Whether it is Seth Rogen and James Franco waxing about their newfound friendship, or Gary Cole and Rosie Perez alternating their desires for each other with murderous impulses, the film has enough give-and-take to make anyone crack up.
As a twenty-something process server with an 18-year-old girlfriend, Rogen requires massive amounts of cannabis to get through his day.
His dealer (Franco) is the closest thing he has to a friend, which is the reason Rogen hides at his place after witnessing a murder.
The addition of action allows Seth Rogen to flex his acting muscles, and he does a passable job of being furious, scared to death or overcome by emotion.
The comedy is also much more phycisal than previous Apatow films. There is plenty of witty back-and-forth, but there are slapstick scenes that are done with such reality that it makes the viewer laugh and cringe at the same time.
It seems that every Apatow move brings another potential comic superstar to the forefront. Last year it was McLovin, this year is Red. Played by the previously unknown Danny McBride, the invincible Red steals almost every scene he’s in.
When you consider he’s trading lines with as many established actors as there are in the film, his performance is even more impressive.
Almost every bit player in a Christopher Guest, Adam McKay or Apatow flick is given their zingers, and the result is a comedy that feels very familiar, but new at the same time.
There is plenty of gore, plenty of violence and more than enough f-words, but the film shows just how easy it is to make a funny movie when you cast funny people. The sense of comic timing between all the cast members is excellent, and the lines that are in the cutting room floor must be just as good.
It even resists the temptation to become a straight spoof of the action genre. It uses a few clichés, but only in carefully measured doses.
Quite simply, if you want to see a funny, obscene movie featuring funny, obscene people, then this movie hits the spot.
Rating - $10.00
“Pineapple Express” is no exception. Effortlessly combining the stoner genre with an action-packed thriller, the film manages to pay tribute to both while staying original.
The plot, while it won’t be putting Tarantino out of business any time soon, does what it needs to. That is, put Apatow’s usual cast of cronies is as many improv-inducing situations as possible.
Whether it is Seth Rogen and James Franco waxing about their newfound friendship, or Gary Cole and Rosie Perez alternating their desires for each other with murderous impulses, the film has enough give-and-take to make anyone crack up.
As a twenty-something process server with an 18-year-old girlfriend, Rogen requires massive amounts of cannabis to get through his day.
His dealer (Franco) is the closest thing he has to a friend, which is the reason Rogen hides at his place after witnessing a murder.
The addition of action allows Seth Rogen to flex his acting muscles, and he does a passable job of being furious, scared to death or overcome by emotion.
The comedy is also much more phycisal than previous Apatow films. There is plenty of witty back-and-forth, but there are slapstick scenes that are done with such reality that it makes the viewer laugh and cringe at the same time.
It seems that every Apatow move brings another potential comic superstar to the forefront. Last year it was McLovin, this year is Red. Played by the previously unknown Danny McBride, the invincible Red steals almost every scene he’s in.
When you consider he’s trading lines with as many established actors as there are in the film, his performance is even more impressive.
Almost every bit player in a Christopher Guest, Adam McKay or Apatow flick is given their zingers, and the result is a comedy that feels very familiar, but new at the same time.
There is plenty of gore, plenty of violence and more than enough f-words, but the film shows just how easy it is to make a funny movie when you cast funny people. The sense of comic timing between all the cast members is excellent, and the lines that are in the cutting room floor must be just as good.
It even resists the temptation to become a straight spoof of the action genre. It uses a few clichés, but only in carefully measured doses.
Quite simply, if you want to see a funny, obscene movie featuring funny, obscene people, then this movie hits the spot.
Rating - $10.00
Friday, July 25, 2008
Step Brothers
With the hype vacuum created by the release of “The Dark Knight”, Will Ferrell’s latest has slipped somewhat under the radar.
By the time award season rolls around, critics and audiences alike should have recognized the brilliance of this story of two grown men experiencing life, love and happiness while trying to be loved by a world that isn’t ready for them.
Okay, maybe that’s going a little too far. Rather, “Step Brothers” is a comedy in the vein of Ferrell’s other movies such as “Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy” and “Old School.”
His co-pilot on this magic carpet ride is John C. Reilly (“Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story,” “Chicago”), making this the duo’s second pairing after “Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby.”
Both of them are six-year-old children (although ones that wear Pablo Cruise and “Star Wars” t-shirts) trapped in grown-up bodies.
Unlike “Talladega Nights,” this movie doesn’t operate under the guise of a family flick, it earns its ‘R’ rating. Any time the plot threatens to get serious on us, something ridiculous or obscene happens, which keeps the laughs coming.
The script was penned by Ferrell and Adam McKay, who teamed up for “Anchorman” and “Talladega Nights.” McKay also directed.
Ferrell and Reilly play two 40-year-old men (virgins?) who still live with their mother and father respectively. When the two parents get married, the bliss of their childish worlds suddenly changes.
Mary Steenburgen (“What’s Eating Gilbert Grape”) plays Ferrell’s mother, and Richard Jenkins (“Six Feet Under”) plays Reilly’s father. They create good screen chemistry with each other as well as Ferrell and Reilly.
Though the fact that they both have sons still living at home initially attracts them to one another, it soon becomes apparent that the arrangement won’t work.
The movie takes on the feel of an extended “Saturday Night Live” skit, which isn’t a bad thing. There is a reason why Ferrell was its highest paid cast member.
There are entire scenes which consist of nothing but traded insults between Reilly and Ferrell. It is clear that everyone involved in the movie had a great time filming it, and it becomes contagious.
Yes, it features Ferrell going to another level with his signature nudity. It also contains arguably the most awkward first kiss and brotherly hug in film history. Viewers will never be able to take the Guns ‘N’ Roses tune “Sweet Child o’ Mine” seriously again either.
It’s not ground-breaking, it’s not a cinematic tour-de-force, but it is a raunchy, funny movie, and it doesn’t try to be anything more than that.
If there is any lasting lesson to be taken, it’s that no matter how tough things get, there are always crossbows and Chewbacca masks to make it all better.
Rating - $10.00
By the time award season rolls around, critics and audiences alike should have recognized the brilliance of this story of two grown men experiencing life, love and happiness while trying to be loved by a world that isn’t ready for them.
Okay, maybe that’s going a little too far. Rather, “Step Brothers” is a comedy in the vein of Ferrell’s other movies such as “Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy” and “Old School.”
His co-pilot on this magic carpet ride is John C. Reilly (“Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story,” “Chicago”), making this the duo’s second pairing after “Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby.”
Both of them are six-year-old children (although ones that wear Pablo Cruise and “Star Wars” t-shirts) trapped in grown-up bodies.
Unlike “Talladega Nights,” this movie doesn’t operate under the guise of a family flick, it earns its ‘R’ rating. Any time the plot threatens to get serious on us, something ridiculous or obscene happens, which keeps the laughs coming.
The script was penned by Ferrell and Adam McKay, who teamed up for “Anchorman” and “Talladega Nights.” McKay also directed.
Ferrell and Reilly play two 40-year-old men (virgins?) who still live with their mother and father respectively. When the two parents get married, the bliss of their childish worlds suddenly changes.
Mary Steenburgen (“What’s Eating Gilbert Grape”) plays Ferrell’s mother, and Richard Jenkins (“Six Feet Under”) plays Reilly’s father. They create good screen chemistry with each other as well as Ferrell and Reilly.
Though the fact that they both have sons still living at home initially attracts them to one another, it soon becomes apparent that the arrangement won’t work.
The movie takes on the feel of an extended “Saturday Night Live” skit, which isn’t a bad thing. There is a reason why Ferrell was its highest paid cast member.
There are entire scenes which consist of nothing but traded insults between Reilly and Ferrell. It is clear that everyone involved in the movie had a great time filming it, and it becomes contagious.
Yes, it features Ferrell going to another level with his signature nudity. It also contains arguably the most awkward first kiss and brotherly hug in film history. Viewers will never be able to take the Guns ‘N’ Roses tune “Sweet Child o’ Mine” seriously again either.
It’s not ground-breaking, it’s not a cinematic tour-de-force, but it is a raunchy, funny movie, and it doesn’t try to be anything more than that.
If there is any lasting lesson to be taken, it’s that no matter how tough things get, there are always crossbows and Chewbacca masks to make it all better.
Rating - $10.00
Friday, May 9, 2008
Iron Man
It has become just another Hollywood contrivance. Make a superhero movie and spend money on special effects, not the script. The movie then pulls in $100 million based on the built in fans of the comic.
Everything the “Spider-Man” and “X-Men” movies accomplished for the superhero genre were soon undone by the “Fantastic Four,” “Hulk,” “Daredevil,” “Ghost Rider” and “Elektra” movies that tried to CGI their way past their narrative shortcomings. If you’re wondering when the term CGI became a verb, it was
“Iron Man” is a return to glory for the superhero franchise. While not as much as a household name as Spiderman, Iron Man is still one of the marquee characters in the Marvel universe. He has also never been represented on film, save for a straight-to-DVD cartoon adventure.
The film is the first of Marvel’s movies to be financed by Marvel Studios, and it gives hope that they are paying closer attention to the product that carries their name.
One of Iron Man’s fundamental appeals is the fact that he has no “super powers.” There was no exposure to radiation, nor was he born with any special abilities. All of his powers come from his own mind, from the suit of armor that he has designed for himself.
Most superhero movies cast actors on their way up. Tobey Maguire, Eric Bana and most of the ‘X-Men’ cast used their roles to transition from working actor to superstar. This is what makes Robert Downey Jr. an interesting choice for Iron Man and his alter ego, Tony Stark.
Stark is a work-hard, play-hard weapons contractor who has no sleepless nights due to the nature of his business. It helps that he is often accompanied to bed by a beautiful woman and expensive whiskey.
Sooner or later we all have to pay the piper, and Tony Stark is no exception. His convoy is attacked in the Middle East and he is captured by terrorists intent on having him design their next superweapon. Instead of a missile, Stark develops a prototype of his iron suit.
Stark’s captivity teaches him a lesson about what exactly his weapons do, and he vows to change the effect he has on the world.
It is a testament to Downey’s acting chops that he is able to pull off the transition from a witty yet unlikable weapons contractor to a genuine superhero. Unlike many superhero movies, the story actually shows the changes in Stark, rather than just tells you that he has changed.
Gwyneth Paltrow plays his secretary Pepper Potts. She plays the part well, she is attractive but not gorgeous, and she has just a hint of the neurotic, insecure woman character that she is so well known for.
A bald Jeff Bridges plays the film’s villain, Obadiah Stane. Besides having a great name, Stane is a good villain, ruthless in the boardroom and on the battlefield. One of the things that kept Iron Man from seeping into the general comic book landscape was the lack of notable villains. Bridges does a good job of bringing a credible threat to Iron Man.
The Fantastic Four had Dr. Doom, the X-Men had Magneto, Superman had Lex Luthor. It could be argued that the most famous superheroes (Spider-Man, Batman, Superman, X-Men) were so successful because of the myriad of memorable villains they had to face.
Second-tier superheroes like Iron Man, Captain America and Daredevil do not face quite the same caliber of villains. Since there are already two more “Iron Man” sequels in the works, the producers would do well to put time and effort into creating notable villains.
A major strength of this film is it leaves the viewer wanting more. There is not much CGI, which allows the film to rely on the narrative and the dialogue. There are only a few scenes with Iron Man in his armor, which whets the audience’s appetite for possible sequels.
The major weakness of the film is that almost half of its 126 minutes is taken up with Iron Man’s origin. While this makes a strong foundation for future movies, it doesn’t help when “Iron Man 2” is still at least two years away.
If you do see this movie in the theatre, make sure you stay until the credits run out. There is a short teaser that features an expected but welcome cameo.
The movie is well worth seeing, and there are enough subtle nuances to invite repeated viewings. Stan Lee makes his best cameo in a Marvel film yet. Hopefully this is a sign that studios will no longer be content with churning out mindless superhero movies, but rather will take the time and effort required to bring these print heroes to life.
Rating - $10.00
Everything the “Spider-Man” and “X-Men” movies accomplished for the superhero genre were soon undone by the “Fantastic Four,” “Hulk,” “Daredevil,” “Ghost Rider” and “Elektra” movies that tried to CGI their way past their narrative shortcomings. If you’re wondering when the term CGI became a verb, it was
“Iron Man” is a return to glory for the superhero franchise. While not as much as a household name as Spiderman, Iron Man is still one of the marquee characters in the Marvel universe. He has also never been represented on film, save for a straight-to-DVD cartoon adventure.
The film is the first of Marvel’s movies to be financed by Marvel Studios, and it gives hope that they are paying closer attention to the product that carries their name.
One of Iron Man’s fundamental appeals is the fact that he has no “super powers.” There was no exposure to radiation, nor was he born with any special abilities. All of his powers come from his own mind, from the suit of armor that he has designed for himself.
Most superhero movies cast actors on their way up. Tobey Maguire, Eric Bana and most of the ‘X-Men’ cast used their roles to transition from working actor to superstar. This is what makes Robert Downey Jr. an interesting choice for Iron Man and his alter ego, Tony Stark.
Stark is a work-hard, play-hard weapons contractor who has no sleepless nights due to the nature of his business. It helps that he is often accompanied to bed by a beautiful woman and expensive whiskey.
Sooner or later we all have to pay the piper, and Tony Stark is no exception. His convoy is attacked in the Middle East and he is captured by terrorists intent on having him design their next superweapon. Instead of a missile, Stark develops a prototype of his iron suit.
Stark’s captivity teaches him a lesson about what exactly his weapons do, and he vows to change the effect he has on the world.
It is a testament to Downey’s acting chops that he is able to pull off the transition from a witty yet unlikable weapons contractor to a genuine superhero. Unlike many superhero movies, the story actually shows the changes in Stark, rather than just tells you that he has changed.
Gwyneth Paltrow plays his secretary Pepper Potts. She plays the part well, she is attractive but not gorgeous, and she has just a hint of the neurotic, insecure woman character that she is so well known for.
A bald Jeff Bridges plays the film’s villain, Obadiah Stane. Besides having a great name, Stane is a good villain, ruthless in the boardroom and on the battlefield. One of the things that kept Iron Man from seeping into the general comic book landscape was the lack of notable villains. Bridges does a good job of bringing a credible threat to Iron Man.
The Fantastic Four had Dr. Doom, the X-Men had Magneto, Superman had Lex Luthor. It could be argued that the most famous superheroes (Spider-Man, Batman, Superman, X-Men) were so successful because of the myriad of memorable villains they had to face.
Second-tier superheroes like Iron Man, Captain America and Daredevil do not face quite the same caliber of villains. Since there are already two more “Iron Man” sequels in the works, the producers would do well to put time and effort into creating notable villains.
A major strength of this film is it leaves the viewer wanting more. There is not much CGI, which allows the film to rely on the narrative and the dialogue. There are only a few scenes with Iron Man in his armor, which whets the audience’s appetite for possible sequels.
The major weakness of the film is that almost half of its 126 minutes is taken up with Iron Man’s origin. While this makes a strong foundation for future movies, it doesn’t help when “Iron Man 2” is still at least two years away.
If you do see this movie in the theatre, make sure you stay until the credits run out. There is a short teaser that features an expected but welcome cameo.
The movie is well worth seeing, and there are enough subtle nuances to invite repeated viewings. Stan Lee makes his best cameo in a Marvel film yet. Hopefully this is a sign that studios will no longer be content with churning out mindless superhero movies, but rather will take the time and effort required to bring these print heroes to life.
Rating - $10.00
Friday, May 2, 2008
Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay
The movie "Harold and Kumar go to White Castle" promised in its final moments a sequel in which the pair head to their nirvana, Amsterdam. Since this movie is called “Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay,” we are left to wonder what went wrong.
The film opens to find the drug-addled duo, hunger satisfied, planning their next move. After a quick shower from Harold and a trip to the bathroom from Kumar (at the same time in the same bathroom, they are nothing if not efficient), they are ready to board an international flight.
Amsterdam is the destination, besides the legal drugs, there is a hot neighbor for Harold to track down. Even the best laid plans can run afoul, as a battery powered piece of drug paraphernalia leads to the two being arrested as terrorists.
It becomes apparent in the first few minutes that the film is raising the bar on the crude humor its predecessor was based on. Human and animal defecation provides the punch line to several early jokes.
Enter Daily Show alumnus Rob Corddry as a bigoted government bureaucrat with questionable personal hygiene. While he is a caricature of any sort of real person, in the farcical world of Harold and Kumar he is a funny and formidable foe.
Alliteration (and assonance) aside, the movie provides a deeper look into Harold and Kumar. The first film showed Harold’s insecurities while painting Kumar as an underachiever concerned only with his next bong hit.
This film delves a little deeper into who both characters are, including a scene of what the dyad were like pre-cannabis. A love interest for Kumar is also introduced, making him a slightly more dynamic character.
While the movie isn't in any danger of being an Oscar sleeper, it does have a coherent plot structure. Besides the conflict between the twosome and Corddry, tension build throughout the film between the two
A believable conflict between Harold and Kumar, as well as between them and the government guides the movie through its various funny scenes.
Of course, no Harold and Kumar movie would be complete without the obligatory Neil Patrick Harris appearance. Harris’ scene in the first film has shaped his legacy to anyone born after “Doogie Howser, M.D.” NPH's perversions in this film manage to climb to another level, including a memorable farewell.
Between drug humor and full frontal nudity the movie does have a message about the inaccuracy of stereotypes and the dangers of racism. The pair encounters a tobacco-chewin’ redneck who happens to live in a modern ranch house with a beautiful wife. Of course, for comedic purposes all isn’t as it seems, but the point gets across.
Anyone looking for a poetic and epic story of man’s redemption over circumstances that threaten to destroy him should probably search elsewhere. Anyone looking for 102 minutes of a crude buddy comedy that isn’t too taxing on the noggin, will find this movie very enjoyable.
Rating - $10.00
The film opens to find the drug-addled duo, hunger satisfied, planning their next move. After a quick shower from Harold and a trip to the bathroom from Kumar (at the same time in the same bathroom, they are nothing if not efficient), they are ready to board an international flight.
Amsterdam is the destination, besides the legal drugs, there is a hot neighbor for Harold to track down. Even the best laid plans can run afoul, as a battery powered piece of drug paraphernalia leads to the two being arrested as terrorists.
It becomes apparent in the first few minutes that the film is raising the bar on the crude humor its predecessor was based on. Human and animal defecation provides the punch line to several early jokes.
Enter Daily Show alumnus Rob Corddry as a bigoted government bureaucrat with questionable personal hygiene. While he is a caricature of any sort of real person, in the farcical world of Harold and Kumar he is a funny and formidable foe.
Alliteration (and assonance) aside, the movie provides a deeper look into Harold and Kumar. The first film showed Harold’s insecurities while painting Kumar as an underachiever concerned only with his next bong hit.
This film delves a little deeper into who both characters are, including a scene of what the dyad were like pre-cannabis. A love interest for Kumar is also introduced, making him a slightly more dynamic character.
While the movie isn't in any danger of being an Oscar sleeper, it does have a coherent plot structure. Besides the conflict between the twosome and Corddry, tension build throughout the film between the two
A believable conflict between Harold and Kumar, as well as between them and the government guides the movie through its various funny scenes.
Of course, no Harold and Kumar movie would be complete without the obligatory Neil Patrick Harris appearance. Harris’ scene in the first film has shaped his legacy to anyone born after “Doogie Howser, M.D.” NPH's perversions in this film manage to climb to another level, including a memorable farewell.
Between drug humor and full frontal nudity the movie does have a message about the inaccuracy of stereotypes and the dangers of racism. The pair encounters a tobacco-chewin’ redneck who happens to live in a modern ranch house with a beautiful wife. Of course, for comedic purposes all isn’t as it seems, but the point gets across.
Anyone looking for a poetic and epic story of man’s redemption over circumstances that threaten to destroy him should probably search elsewhere. Anyone looking for 102 minutes of a crude buddy comedy that isn’t too taxing on the noggin, will find this movie very enjoyable.
Rating - $10.00
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)