Wet Hot American Summer (5/10): More like Wet Hot Absurd Mess

“Hey, let's all promise that in ten years from today, we'll meet again, and we'll see what kind of people we've blossomed into.”

Its been almost 15 years since David Wain’s Wet Hot American Summer was released and I honestly had never heard of it. This was Wain’s first feature film but it bombed at the box office and wasn’t warmly received by critics either. Somehow over time it has become a cult teen comedy thanks to its wonderful cast, and now Netflix is about to release a comedy series with the same cast in the form of a prequel. The series will revolve around the first day of Summer camp in Camp Firewood in 1981, while this film focuses on the last day. The comedy plays out as a satire of camp films from the 80’s and it honestly feels like a movie made in that period. The actors wear tight shirts, colorful short shorts, and long white tube socks with eighties hair styles. The look and style of the film itself is worth a couple of laughs and Wain’s love and homage for these campy films transcends the screen. Unfortunately I didn’t find much else worth recommending other than a couple of hilarious scenes, but as a whole I found the absurdist humor a bit lame. This is a very different comedy than what we are used to seeing and it’s hard to point out any other film that has a similar style. That is why I believe it has become such a beloved cult comedy. Wet Hot American Summer is a parody in which you have no idea what direction the story is going to go and it constantly shifts its tone and introduces plenty of twists. Even though this film is basically a satire of camp films it doesn’t miss the opportunity at gleefully playing with familiar genre conventions such as teen rom-coms and sport cliches. These individual scenes work extremely well but they don’t make up a whole movie. That is why despite not being a fan of this film, I’m looking forward to the Netflix series because in shorter segments this could work well and the characters are worth revisiting.

On the final day of Summer Camp there is still so much things to look forward to such as the camp director, Beth (Janeane Garofalo), falling for an astrophysics professor played by David Hyde Pierce. There is also a romantic triangle formed between camp counselors Coop (Michael Showalter), Katie (Marguerite Moreau), and Andy (Paul Rudd). Katie is worried about Coop not having hooked up with anyone during the Summer and she promises to help him find someone special for him before the end of the day. What she doesn’t know is that Coop is in love with her, but she is currently dating Andy. Andy however doesn’t seem to care too much for her since he cheats on her with Lindsay (Elizabeth Banks). Susie (Amy Poehler) and Ben (Bradley Cooper) are focused on directing a musical for the talent show later that night, while Gail (Molly Shannon) is struggling to teach her arts and crafts class because her husband has recently left her. Victor (Ken Marino) and Neil (Joe Lo Truglio) are in charge of taking another group of kids water rafting, but Victor is eager to get back to camp so he can make out with Abby (Marisa Ryan). This is just a small sample of the many activities that are taking place on this final day with plenty of surprises and twists along the way, including an innocent escape into the city by a group of counselors that degenerates into something crazy and unexpected.

David Wain’s most successful film to date is probably Role Models, but Wet Hot American Summer has been growing on people ever since. Paul Rudd has collaborated with Wain in all his films and here he plays a cocky and egocentric character to perfection. There isn’t one main character, although if I was forced to pick one I’d say it is Michael Showalter’s Coop which isn’t really a surprise considering Michael co-wrote the screenplay with Wain. There are also some funny scenes involving the chef played by Christopher Meloni who is still suffering post traumatic stress disorder from the Vietnam War. The cast is fantastic here but there are so many characters that they don’t actually get much screen time. Bradley Cooper is now an Oscar nominated actor, but this was his first film so he doesn’t get much screen time. Marguerite Moreau was fantastic as well and it’s a shame she hasn’t really had much success after this. I recognized her from The Mighty Ducks franchise and it was fun to see her in a different role like this. The performances from this recognizable cast is probably the highlight of the film, but there are also several individual scenes that stand out such as the trip to the city and a hilarious motorcycle chase sequence.           

Ant-Man (8/10): Surprisingly better than Age of Ultron.

“Imagine a soldier the size of an insect, the ultimate secret weapon.”

I wasn’t too excited about this film considering the premise of a hero who can shrink to the size of an ant and telepathically communicate with them seemed a bit too far fetched even for a Marvel film. That and the fact that Edgar Wright decided to back down from the director’s chair after a dispute with Disney; it looked as if everything was set out for failure. Despite not being a huge fan I’ve enjoyed all the Marvel films, but I have become increasingly weary of them as well. The Thor films and the first Captain America being my least favorites, I was sure this one was going to rank somewhere among them. I definitely wasn’t expecting Ant-Man to be better than Age of Ultron, but I have to admit that the light tone worked here and this movie was much more entertaining. So, how did they pull it off? They got Peyton Reed to fill in for Wright as the director, and continued to build on Wright’s screenplay. If Reed was able to make a film about High School cheerleaders entertaining, than this Ant-Man premise would be a piece of cake for him. By lowering the stakes, approaching the material with a lot of tongue in cheek humor, and aiming at being a crowd pleaser, Ant-Man ended up being a fun and entertaining film. I wouldn’t go as far as saying this was as clever as Guardians of the Galaxy in its approach to humor and pop culture references, but it did come close. Perhaps it helped that I went in to it with very low expectations, but I walked out of the movie with a smile on my face. For once this felt like an origin story that worked on its own and didn’t have to be a gigantic setup for the next Avengers films. The premise is silly and stupid at times, but the film is big on laughs.

One of the main reasons why Ant-Man worked so well was because of Paul Reed’s lead performance as the titular character. Rudd delivers with his usual charm and perfect comedic timing. He embodies the character almost as well as Robert Downey Jr. does with Iron Man. With his smirky and cocky delivery, Downey Jr. makes Tony Stark more entertaining than when he’s wearing the actual suit, and that felt very similar with Rudd here as Scott Lang. He plays a con-man who is trying to make an honest living, but finding it incredibly difficult due to his criminal record. He has a seven year old daughter, Claire (played by the adorable Abby Ryder Fortson), who he isn’t allowed to visit until he can find stability and provide for her. Dr. Hank Pam (Michael Douglas) has kept a close eye on Scott and seems to have big plans for him. Hank has developed a special suit which allows him to shrink a man to the size of an ant and also increase his strength. Hank is too old for the suit now, but he believes Long is the ideal man for the job. He begins mentoring Scott, although his daughter Hope (Evangeline Lilly) believes she should wear the suit. Ever since his wife died, Hank has had a terrible relationship with his daughter, but she has approached him after discovering that his former protege, Darren Cross (Corey Stoll), has developed a similar technology and wants to sell the formula to the wrong people. Scott’s mission is to infiltrate Cross’s building and destroy what he has been working on before it is too late. 

Although it does follow a similar structure as most superhero films, Ant-Man feels at times more like a comedic heist movie. Of course due to the subject matter it also reminded me a lot of Honey, I Shrunk the Kids (which also seems to be very fond of ants by the way). These elements gave the film a more breezy and light touch. Even in the final act of the film where the superhero movies tend to go big with a climactic battle scene, there are some great comedic moments involving a Thomas the train track and so forth, which continually downplay the film and lighten the mood. It is definitely a huge change of tone from Age of Ultron and The Winter Soldier, so it manages to stand out on its own as a superhero movie although it still shares some of its generic flaws. Despite the great visual effects during the shrinking scenes, there are still some structural elements that don’t work as well. The family dynamic between Hope and her father and between Lang and his ex (played by Judy Greer) seem to be recycled and silly at times. Hank waits for too long in the film to explain what happened to his wife, which was more of a plot convenience than anything else. However, Paul Rudd’s comedic performance elevate this film, as do the supporting cast. Michael Peña as Rudd’s sidekick, stands out during his scenes (especially during his monologues) and he delivered some of the funniest moments of the film. Lilly also proved to be a strong female character, while Douglas is someone you can always bank on as a solid actor. Stoll wasn’t a very menacing villain, and that seems to be a common flaw in most Marvel films, but considering the stakes were much lower here it wasn’t that much of a letdown. Ant-Man was a pleasant surprise despite its silly premise and I’m actually looking forward to what Rudd can bring to the Marvel franchise.       

The Cider House Rules (7/10): Choosing your own destiny or the one drawn for you

“Goodnight, you princes of Maine, you kings of New England.”

Michael Caine’s second Oscar win came from his 1999 supporting role in The Cider House Rules, and despite delivering a solid performance I wouldn’t even rank it amongst his best work. The true standout here was Tobey Maguire who delivers a very subtle performance and is the main reason why the story works so well. I’d say it’s the best performance of his career. The film is old-fashioned (and the references to Dickens’ David Copperfield reinforce that claim even more) as it manages to capture the humanity in the story with a wonderful adaptation from John Irving of his own 1985 novel. The film isn’t afraid of tackling some moral dilemmas such as abortion and incest, and it does so without forcing a point of view on the audience. Lasse Hallstrom directs this film with his characteristic beautiful visual style although at times the melodrama can be a bit too sentimental. I felt like the film was much more similar in style to his prior film, What’s Eating Gilbert Grape, as it focuses on several family dynamics and various subplots in a similar way. This is also as close as a Dickens movie we will get set in America. The film isn’t perfect however and there are several relationships that feel forced, but I assume it has to do with trying to fit the most important elements of the novel into a two hour movie. 

The film opens with a voiceover narration from Dr. Wilbur Larch (Michael Caine) explaining how he became the orphanage director at St. Cloud, Maine. He takes special interest in a young boy named Homer Wells who is returned back to the orphanage immediately by every foster parent who attempts to adopt him. After a while it becomes evident to Dr. Larch that Homer will stay with them for a long time so he begins to teach him everything he knows about being a doctor. After several years, now Homer is a grown man (Tobey Maguire) who becomes Dr. Wilbur’s assistant in the orphanage. When Lt. Wally (Paul Rudd) and his pregnant girlfriend Candy (Charlize Theron) show up at the orphanage to have an abortion that Dr. Larch is willing to do, Homer decides it is time to explore the outside world and leaves with the young couple. Wally offers him a job at his family’s apple farm which he gladly accepts. Before heading back to war, Wally and Candy take Homer to see the ocean for the very first time and this is just the first of many first time experiences that Candy will go on to introduce him to. Meanwhile, Dr. Wilbur has hopes that Homer will return and carry on the work which he has groomed him for, but he refuses to consider himself a doctor and seems to be enjoying life picking apples and spending time with Candy. 

There are a couple of strong supporting performances from Delroy Lindo as one of the men in charge of the apple picking group and Erykah Badu who plays his daughter. Jane Alexander and Kathy Baker are two of the nurses in the orphanage who work with Dr. Larch. Some of the child actors playing orphans deliver some strong scenes as Kieran Culkin, Erik Per Sullivan, and Paz de la Huerta specially stand out. My greatest complaint with the cast however is that J.K. Simmons is given absolutely nothing to do here playing Candy’s father. He seems to be only in a couple of montage scenes, but they completely misuse him. One of the strengths of the film however is that despite a shocking discovery surrounding Delroy Lindo’s character, he is never portrayed as a one dimensional character. There is some complexity to his character and he isn’t simply portrayed as a villain. On the moral dilemma surrounding the issue of abortion we have two characters with differing points of views, on the one hand Dr. Larch is very much for it, while Homer who has more faith in humanity is against it. The film may take a slightly pro abortion stand, but it doesn’t feel heavy handed considering the main issue here is Homer’s struggle to discover his own identity or follow the destiny Wilbur has traced for him. 

My Review: Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues (7/10)

"You made one mistake today. You messed with somebody from San Diego."

Director Adam McKay and Will Ferrell have teamed up once again for the sequel to their most successful film after nearly 10 years with very big shoes to fill. Despite having worked together in Step Brothers, The Other Guys, and Talladega Nights (which is my personal favorite), Anchorman was their most quoted and remembered film so expectations were high for this sequel. Despite not being as great as the first film, this sequel manages to entertain thanks to several hilarious scenes and many memorable characters that are just fun to be around. Some of the jokes are a bit familiar and repetitive, but Will Ferrell brings in the laughs and reminds us why he is such a big star. Anchorman does feel a bit overlong and several scenes could have been cut out (his relationship with Linda for example), but I did have a really fun time with this entertaining but ridiculous comedy. In the midst of all the familiar sexist, racial, and blind man jokes, I loved the satire on the 24 hour news networks in the way it criticized their lack of ethics in reporting. Without giving away any spoilers I have to admit that the funniest moment of the film came near the end with some hilarious and unexpected cameos so stick with this film to the end. 

The screenplay was written by McKay and Ferrell following the success of their first film and using familiar elements. Ron Burgundy (Will Ferrell) and Veronica Corningstone (Christina Applegate) now live and work together in New York with their son Walter (Judy Nelson). Their happy lives are shook when their boss (Harrison Ford) promotes Veronica to lead anchor and fires Ron. Ron asks her to choose between him and her job and returns to San Diego on his own. Living a miserable life, Ron gets a second chance when a man named Freddie Schapp (Dylan Baker) comes knocking at his door to offer him a position as an anchor for Global News Network (GNN), the first 24 news channel. Ron accepts and decides to bring along his former local news team: Champ (David Koechner), Brick (Steve Carell), and Brian (Paul Rudd). Together they come up with an idea to change the way people watch news and rise to the top once again.

Will Ferrell pulls it off once again considering he plays a despicable character who is racist and sexist, but somehow we still pull for him because deep down he's a nice but ignorant guy. Several of the gags and jokes feel repetitive, but it's still worth hanging around with these funny characters who we never know what stupid thing they are going to come up with next. Steve Carell being the most unpredictable of the bunch, and in this film he shares some very funny scenes with the always hilarious Kristen Wiig. Their scenes together were much more entertaining than the ones involving Ferrell and Meagan Good (who plays Linda, their producer). Other than the hilarious cameos and the clever spoofs on the 24 hour TV news channels, I also found several other memorable scenes like the one involving the four friends in a car accident, and Ferrell's character living in a lighthouse after he's gone blind for some time. Of course there are also several scenes that didn't work at all, but I still laughed a lot during these ridiculous moments. I really like these characters and despite their somewhat crazy rants they still win me over every time. This sequel may not have as many memorable quotes as the original, but it was still a lot of fun to see these characters reunited taking punches at the 24 hour News networks.

My Review: Admission (4/10)

"You all want to know the secret formula for getting in. Of course everyone thinks we're sadists, that we like saying no. We are in this job for one reason, to say yes."

Paul Weitz became a household name in Hollywood after his successful 1999 comedy, American Pie, but everything he has directed since has been a bit of a let down for me. I haven't seen all of his films, but the ones I got to see were not actually good. I had higher expectations for Admission considering it had two of today's most successful comedy actors: Tina Fey and Paul Rudd. Tina is just so smart and hilarious, while Paul Rudd has great comedic timing and the pair usually choose their roles wisely. I guess this was one of those movies where the comedy worked more on paper, because on screen it really didn't. One may argue this wasn't actually supposed to be a comedy, but I didn't feel it worked well as a drama or a romantic film either. The characters weren't developed very well and I don't know why Tina Fey didn't just butt in and re write the entire script which would've helped this movie a lot. Tina Fey is such a great writer, I would simply let her write the entire dialogues for me. Admission is actually based on a novel written by Jean Hanff Korelitz and it was adapted for the screen by Karen Croner (who hadn't written a screenplay since 1998, One True Thing). It is a shame that the potential of these actors was put to waste here with such an awkward and weak script. Stay away from Admission, this is one film you won't want to be enrolling in.

Portia Nathan (Tina Fey) has spent the last 16 years of her life working at the admissions department for Princeton University. Her boss, Clarence (Wallace Shawn), is getting ready for his retirement so Portia is really looking forward to the promotion. The position could be hers or Corinne's (Gloria Reuben) since they both are the main admissions officers. Princeton has always ranked as the number one University students want to apply for, but this year they are number two. All Clarence wants before retiring is to leave on top so everyone is working overtime. Portia begins visiting several schools around the nation to look for the perfect candidates for Princeton. She receives a call from a former college classmate who is now overseeing an alternative school. John Pressman (Paul Rudd) wants her to come visit his school because there is a special kid named Jeremiah (Nat Wolff) who he wants her to meet. Portia visits the school but doesn't think much of its students. The real reason why John invited her is because he believes that Jeremiah is Portia's son who she gave up in adoption during their college years. He asks Portia to get to know the kid without having to commit to anything because he hasn't mentioned anything to Jeremiah about her. When Jeremiah shows interest in wanting to go to Princeton, Portia will try to do her best to help him. Some complications and funny situations ensue as Portia's life begins to unravel when the man she's been living with for seven years (played by the talented Michael Sheen) bails on her for another woman.

The characters in this film are all pretty much stereotypes we've seen before. I think these stereotypes usually work in comedies, but this film was a little more serious. You have the classic elements were two co-workers begin competing for a same position, a man abandons his companion for another woman, and a romance ensues between two distinct characters with opposite personalities. Rudd and Fey are great actors but I really never believed the chemistry between them here despite their natural likability. The film doesn't work at any level really, not as a comedy and not as a romantic story. There are some funny moments but they are too few and too scattered through. The film is predictable although there are a few surprises here and there that you might not see coming, but they are just smaller details in an otherwise formulaic film. This isn't your typical slapstick college comedy, but it is rather predictable on the romantic side. There are a few witty and cultural jokes thrown in here and there, but it simply wasn't enough. Despite some interesting subjects tackled in the film, Weitz really doesn't take any risks and the film felt bland.

My Review: This is 40 (5/10)

¨All of a sudden we`re a magnet of negativity. What did we do? ¨

Judd Apatow has produced, written, and directed some of the best comedies since the late 90`s. There is no doubt that he has reinvented the genre and made some memorable comedies like The 40 Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up. With Funny People he switched to dramedy, a more serious type of comedy that`s sort of a reflection on today`s society. This is 40 is sort of a sequel to Knocked Up since it focuses on some of the supporting characters in that movie, but it follows a similar premise as Funny People because it is much more serious in tone. It has some really funny moments, but at the same time it is an authentic portrayal of an upper middle class Beverly Hills family facing a midlife crisis. Apatow not only directed this film, but he wrote the screenplay as well and worked with his family, so this was a very personal project. The script is funny, but sometimes Apatow relies too heavily on sex and bathroom gags that have already grown old. For the most part this film is enjoyable, but it suffers from an overlong screenplay and some pacing issues. I enjoyed Funny People a little more than this because This is 40 was kind of the same thing. There were some very funny performances and some great cameos as well, but the film gets irritating at times. Some scenes worked really well, while others felt completely out of place making most jokes either hit or miss.

If you haven’t seen Knocked Up it really doesn’t matter because the film works independently from that one since we only follow a few supporting characters from that movie. The story takes place a few years after the events of the previous movie focusing on the lives of Pete (Paul Rudd) and Debbie (Leslie Mann), a middle class married couple living in California with their two daughters: Sadie (Maude Apatow) and Charlotte (Iris Apatow). When the film begins Debbie is turning 40 and she is having trouble accepting her age, while Pete doesn’t think it`s a big deal. Debbie doesn’t want a party, she passes the day with her family while they plan Pete`s party which will be in a few days as well. The plot is pretty simple as it follows their everyday ordinary lives and the problems they face. Pete`s routine revolves around riding his bike and working at his independent record company, while Debbie works out with her trainer Jason (Jason Segel) and owns a clothing store. Both Pete and Debbie are going through some financial issues as the record company is having trouble selling and someone has stolen 12000 dollars from the store. Debbie suspects it`s Desi (Megan Fox), but doesn’t want to say anything because she is her best saleswoman. Jodi (Charlyne Yi) also works in the store and blames Desi. Due to their financial troubles, Debbie asks Pete to stop helping out his father, Larry (Albert Brooks), but he can`t help it. Pete and Debbie must find a way to adapt to their midlife crisis before their entire family and marriage collapses. 

Despite playing really spoiled and unlikeable characters, Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann, manage to give very strong and likeable performances. The supporting cast was also pretty strong with some very funny scenes between them and Albert Brooks. There is also a great scene involving Melissa McCarthy which I thought was the highlight of the movie. Leslie Mann gave one of her best performances and she must have enjoyed working alongside her husband Judd and two daughters. Their performance wasn’t really strong and at times it felt that they were reading off scrip cards, but I didn’t have a major problem with it. The story felt real and authentic, but I just couldn’t sympathize with these spoiled characters. The comedy has its moments, but it is just too little in such an overlong and difficult to bear story. I wouldn’t say that Apatow has lost his touch, but this film is probably his weakest effort to date. Everyone can have a strike or a miss; hopefully he will come back with another home run, but in order to do so he needs to bring something new and original back to the genre instead of remaking his films over again. We do have to appreciate the honesty he brings to his films, and that is why he has had such a successful career.

My Review: The Perks of Being a Wallflower (8/10)

¨We accept the love we think we deserve.¨

This was truly a wonderful and beautiful film. The Perks of Being a Wallflower is one of those rare teen movies that feels honest and authentic. We`ve seen similar stories told in other movies, but not in the same way that Stephen Chbosky tells it here with such a natural flow. This is Chbosky`s first major film as a director and he does a brilliant job by giving us a heartfelt authentic teen drama with some very funny moments and a romantic love story. This film is based on Chbosky`s novel which he also adapted for the movie, and his passion and love for this project really comes through in the film. I don’t know if it could have worked as well as it did if it weren’t for the three leading performances from Logan Lerman (Percy Jackson), Ezra Miller (We Need to Talk About Kevin), and Emma Watson (Harry Potter). They were perfectly cast in their roles and they had such great chemistry together. This film made me even more excited for Aronofsky`s next movie, Noah, considering that Emma Watson and Logan Lerman were both cast in it. Watson and Lerman share some unique and emotional moments together on screen, but the true star of the film was Ezra Miller who delivered a very powerful performance as Patrick. His role was very different from the one in We Need to Talk About Kevin, and he was just so amazing. The film isn’t afraid to tackle dark subject matters such as homosexuality, mental illness, and child abuse, but Chbosky manages to tackle these issues in an honest way while mixing these dark moments with some humor. Ezra Miller really facilitates those transitions with his performance. The Perks of Being a Wallflower reminded me of some other indie teen films that I liked such as The Art of Getting By and It`s Kind of a Funny Story, but it also has a sort of late 80`s vibe to it that reminded me a lot of Dead Poets Society (one of my all time favorites).

The film takes place during the 90`s in Pittsburgh where we are introduced to Charlie (Logan Lerman) who is about to begin his freshman year in High School. His best friend killed himself a few months ago and he is going through some sort of mental illness as he experiences black outs and has flashbacks of his Aunt who passed away when he was little. He is quiet and nervous about his first day in school and finds it difficult to make new friends, but when he meets Patrick (Ezra Miller), an outgoing and friendly senior, his life changes completely. Patrick introduces him to his stepsister, Sam (Emma Watson), and the rest of his friends who call themselves The Wallflowers. In his first party with them he accidently gets stoned after eating a brownie and everyone becomes amused with him and his honest remarks. Charlie feels accepted and begins to enjoy spending time with the group, especially with Sam. Sam begins dating a college boy, and Charlie ends up forcefully dating Mary Elizabeth (Mae Whitman) since he is too nice to say no. Charlie dreams of becoming a writer and he really enjoys his classes with his English teacher Mr. Anderson (Paul Rudd) who sees a lot of potential in him. Despite being very smart, Charlie has trouble communicating his feelings to others, and after experiencing a setback with his friends he begins to suffer more black outs. The question remains whether or not he will find the courage to express his feelings towards Sam before the year is over, and if he can unlock the secrets from his past that he is restraining.  

There are several things that reminded me of Dead Poets Society although this film doesn’t focus as much with students bonding with their professor, Lerman does share some interesting scenes with Rudd, the professor. Lerman reminded me of the young and introvert Ethan Hawke, while there is also the issue of one of the students fearing what his father might think about him. Ezra Miller is sort of the Robert Sean Leonard character, although the fears he faces with his father are manifested in his boyfriend and not him, but he does have that sort of outgoing personality and also acts in a play honoring the Rocky Horror Picture Show. The Wallflowers do have some similarities with the Dead Poets Society, but this film does have a much more romantic side thanks to the chemistry between Lerman and Watson. We all saw how Emma Watson grew in the Harry Potter franchise, but here she delivers her best performance to date. I already had liked her in her small role in My Week with Marilyn, and here she gives a believable performance as an American girl. Her accent was just perfect and I really loved her performance. Lerman and Miller also have a great future ahead of them and they proved their talent here in this film. There are also some smaller performances from known faces such as Dylan McDermott and Kate Walsh who play Charlie`s parents and Melanie Lynskey his aunt. Joan Cusack plays a doctor and Johnny Simmons is Miller`s love interest. The Perks of Being a Wallflower is really a well crafted film worth checking out as one of the best teen movies of the year.

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com

My Review: Our Idiot Brother (7/10)

¨I just figured, looking at your sheet, that since you sold grass to a uniformed police officer that you must be retarded.¨

Our Idiot Brother is the latest Paul Rudd comedy directed and written by relatively unknown Jesse Peretz (who is better known for his music videos). I really wasn’t expecting much from this film, but I have to admit that I was hooked with the story and the characters from the very beginning. I mean, it`s hard not to like Paul Rudd when he is playing the dumb nice character. I really thought he was miscast in Dinner for Schmucks where he had to play a much more serious and means spirited role. This time he gets to play the dumb innocent character and he is just hilarious. The rest of the cast in this film is also great and I really laughed throughout the movie. It is dumb and lighthearted, but I was really entertained. There isn’t anything original about Our Idiot Brother and we`ve laughed at similar jokes in other movies, but I just had a great time with this film and I can`t really explain why. I guess it had to do with Rudd`s easygoing character. He was one dimensional like most of the other characters, but sometimes this works in a comedy when you are actually making fun of these typical stereotypes. The story also works thanks to the great chemistry Rudd has with the rest of the cast and the dynamics between these characters. Rudd is the main character, but he interferes in most of his family`s life in one way or another and everyone seems to suffer from his decisions. The movie really works well and had me laughing throughout it.

Paul Rudd is Ned, a hippy and idealistic guy who grows organic vegetables in a farm with his girlfriend Janet (Kathryn Hahn) and his dog Willie Nelson who he absolutely adores. One day Ned is caught selling weed to a uniformed police officer and is sent to prison. Ned is just a simple guy who puts his absolute confidence in people expecting the best from them, and that is why people end up taking advantage of him. It`s easy to say he`s idiot, but in my opinion he`s just pure hearted and has the best intentions for everyone; even though those best intentions end up hurting his family. He has three sisters: Miranda (Elizabeth Banks) who is a writer and is working on her first real important article, Natalie (Zooey Deschanel) who is a model for a nude painter named Christian (Hugh Dancy) and is moving in with her girlfriend Cindy (Rashida Jones), and Liz (Emily Mortimer) a mother of two boys who is married with an important documentary director, Dylan (Steve Coogan). When Ned is released from prison for good behavior he returns to the farm only to find out that Janet is with another man named Billy (T.J. Miller). Ned isn’t welcome anymore and he isn’t even allowed to take his dog with him. Without a home and without a job, Ned has to return to live with his mother Ilene (Shirley Knight). He also spends a few days with his sisters making their lives a bit complicated due to his sincerity, and thus is where all the comedy ensues.  

Even though Ned causes a lot of trouble back home, he isn’t actually guilty for his sisters` mistakes. It`s just that he seems to say the wrong things at the wrong time. He is a very sincere person and for that he gets other people into a lot of trouble, but at the end they learn that sincerity is the best way of going about things. He is a little slow and naïve, which in today`s society we sometime consider to be stupid since he expects always the best from everyone and never considers that most people are opportunists or just plain mean spirited. The heart of the film relies on this ingenuity and how it ends up complicating things for his sisters who decide to blame him for having a big mouth instead of realizing that their mistakes have put them in that situation. The cast in this film is just fantastic. Steve Coogan, Emily Mortimer, Zooey Deschanel, and Elizabeth Banks all give funny performances. Paul Rudd however, is the heart of the film and he is a lot funnier than in his recent films. I really enjoyed this comedy and found it very entertaining. I think the world would be a better place with more people like Ned. Kudos for Jesse Peretz and his direction in Our Idiot Brother.

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com

My Review: Dinner for Schmucks (5/10)

¨Vincent Van Gogh: everyone said to him, you can’t be a great painter, you only have one ear. And you know what he said? I can’t hear you.¨

I was expecting great things from this slapstick comedy that featured some of today`s best and funniest comedians, but the truth of the matter was that I left disappointed because it was painful to watch at times. Surprisingly despite starring Steve Carell and Paul Rudd there are very few funny scenes. Not even Zach Galifianakis was able to save the movie. All these actors have made much better films in the past and they usually are reliable actors, but this time around they failed due to a very weak screenplay. The movie was actually based on a 1998 French film named Le Diner de Cons and the screenplay was adapted by David Guion and Michael Handelman. Together with director Jay Roach (Austin Powers and Meet the Parents) they managed to do the impossible: turn these hilarious actors into your average wannabe comedians. There is no other reasonable explanation as to why this comedy didn’t work. They merely managed to create very uncomfortable situations and ridiculous characters. The moral of the story seems to be telling us how evil these men are who simply invite the most idiotic guests for dinner just to have a good time, but at the same time that is exactly what we are supposed to be laughing at. So they seem to be pointing at us and making us realize how wrong it is for the businessmen to make fun of these characters, but at the same time we are supposed to be laughing at them for being so stupid. Talk about being hypocritical this is number one.

Tim (Paul Rudd) is an executive who is working his way up in the equity firm. One of the top employees has been fired so Tim finds the opportunity to climb the corporate ladder. His boss Lance (Bruce Greenwood) is impressed by Tim`s new ideas and offers him the opportunity to replace the fired Jacobson, but first he will have to find the most idiotic person he can find and invite him for a monthly dinner he and his colleagues share called ¨dinner for idiots.¨ Tim knows this is his chance to impress his boss although he feels morally wrong about making fun of other people. Tim accidently runs into an IRS employee named Barry (Steve Carell) who happens to have a hobby: creating mouseterpieces (he imitates famous works of art with stuffed dead mice). Tim knows Barry is the perfect candidate for this dinner so he decides to invite him. Big mistake; Barry ends up pretty much stalking Tim and following him everywhere and at the same time destroying everything around him, including his relationship with his long time girlfriend, Julie (Stephanie Szostak). Julie, who works for an egocentric artist named Kieran (Jemaine Clement), is a very sweet girl, but when she finds out about the dinner she gets in a big fight with Tim. The situation gets worse thanks to a couple of mix ups with Barry and Tim`s life begins to go downhill.

I kept on waiting for the comedy to begin, but as the movie progressed I kept on finding it more and more mean-spirited up to the very end when the actual dinner takes place. The situations just kept on getting more and more awkward kind of in the same way Meet the Parents did, except this time without the comedy. It was hard to root for any of the characters because they were just poorly developed. Rudd seemed like a nice guy, but he would do anything to move up the corporate ladder and get the promotion, Carell was just too annoying and overly characterized to sympathize with, and Galifianakis was perhaps the funniest in the film but had very little screen time. Szostak was the only character I really liked, but she deserved much better than Rudd. By the end of the film I really didn’t care much what happened to any of them. The movie just ended up building a lot of unwanted tension without ever being funny. The screenwriters and director just went way too far out with Carell`s character and it was impossible to sympathize with him. They missed the mark by making his character really unlikeable and irritating. I’m always amused as to how these doomed characters always find some sort of enlightenment near the end of the film and somehow save the day. It`s as if Carell`s character is a completely different person at the end in order for everything to fit in its place. This is a forgettable film and another remake gone bad: definitely worth a skip.

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/

My Review: How Do You Know (5/10)

¨We are all just one small adjustment away from making our lives work.¨

How do you know when you’re in love is one of the questions one of the characters asks in this film. Director James L. Brooks (Terms of Endearment, As Good As it Gets) tries to answer that question in this romantic comedy (although I would actually label it as a dramedy) by creating a love triangle, but he fails at really trying to come up with an honest answer. The answer Matty receives to his question is ¨I know that I`m in love when I put on condoms when I´m with other girls.¨ A very superficial answer, which actually fits with this superficial movie. Brooks has directed really good films in the past, but he really missed his mark this time around. There were a few funny moments, some memorable quotes here and there, but the script (written by Brooks himself) was just too weak and the pace too slow. The first hour was torturous for me, I absolutely hated every character and every situation, but the second half of the film built up to a somewhat satisfying ending and tolerable characters. I was really disappointed with this movie because I know James L. Brooks is a very talented director and he always tries to make original movies, and I also liked the cast in this film, but the script was just too weak and the performances felt really awkward and out of place at times. I like the cast, just not how they worked together in this movie. The only positive thing I can say is that at least Brooks tries to make a different kind of romantic comedy with less clichés than most other romcoms.

The story actually centers around Lisa (Reese Witherspoon), a star softball player who has recently been cut from the National team because she will turn 31 by the time the next Olympics take place. Her life revolved entirely around the sport and now she`s at the point of her life where she doesn`t know what step to take next. She has always dated athletes and is currently seeing Matty (Owen Wilson), a professional baseball player both on and off the field. Matty is a star who is used to dating a lot of girls but really doesn’t know anything about relationships. He is clueless and really doesn’t know how to help Lisa, but he does like her a lot and realizes she is different from what he has felt for other girls. Lisa, although hesitant at first, finds comfort in George (Paul Rudd) who loves listening to her and trying to ease her. At first she thinks he`s a weirdo, but later their friendship blossoms. George is going through difficult problems himself, but he puts them aside to try to help Lisa, with whom he`s fallen in love. George is a businessman who has just been indicted from his father`s company. Charles (Jack Nicholson) actually has set up his son to become the target of a federal investigation by falsifying some corporate financial documents. If George takes the blame he will only have to pay a sentence of 2 to 3 years of jail, while Charles would have to face 25 years if his son doesn`t ¨help him out¨. Charles is that kind of father who would let his son take the blame, while George is that kind of son who is too nice and honest and way too ethical to belong in the business world.

My major problem with this movie is that the performances felt too forced at times. I didn’t like Reese Witherspoon in this movie, she was selfish and mean, and really didn’t deserve someone like George who is just way too much of a nice guy. There wasn`t much chemistry between neither of the relationships (Matty-Lisa or Lisa-George). The second half of the film picks up a little and Lisa seems to become nicer, but she really doesn’t seem interested in George`s problems which are really much larger than hers. All she has to deal with is retirement from softball, but that is really all she cared for anyways. George doesn`t seem to mind however, all he likes to do is stare at her. The funniest character in this movie is George`s secretary, Annie (played by Kathryn Hahn) and she steals each scene she`s in. That is a major problem when you have such talented and funny comedians as Jack Nicholson, Paul Rudd, and Owen Wilson. The scene where Annie is giving birth to her child and her boyfriend is proposing to her is one of the best in the movie and the chemistry those two characters have in those three minutes is much stronger than any other one in the film. This distant romance could have used a lot more comedy coming from Owen Wilson and Paul Rudd who should have been given more opportunities to improvise and loosen up.

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/