Laggies (2014) – Review

Review: Laggies is a light and fun dramedy elevated by great performances.

The film is about Megan, a woman in her late twenties who is just sort of floating through life unsure of what she wants. She has been in a relationship with Anthony and a part of the same group of friends since high school; but, she feels herself growing apart from them. She is also afraid to admit this fact to herself. When Anthony proposes to her, she gets freaked out. She says yes, but then drops out of her life for a week, hiding out with a teenage girl named Annika. Megan connects with both Annika and her dad Craig, making her decision of whether she really wants to go back to her old life all the more difficult.

Director Lynn Shelton is known for making very realistic, character-driven micro-budget dramedies, utilizing improvised dialog and naturalistic performances and production design. Laggies is no different. It has a lower-budget feel and look (costing one million, by far Shelton’s highest budget), yet flourishes on its rich characters and strong performances. Shelton’s style is unglamorous (even when she casts beautiful movie stars), telling stories about normal people leading normal lives.

In Laggies, Megan is stuck. She does not know what she wants and just staying put feels safer than actually taking a risk in pursuit of being happy. In many ways, Megan serves as a surrogate for many of us. In high school and college, we do not need to know what we want, not really at least, as we go from class to class, exam to exam, year to year, propped up by our group of friends. As we grow older, we change, however, and these high school friends are not necessarily right for us anymore. We also are faced with life outside of school – having to actually do something somewhat productive to generate money so that we can survive (without leaching off our parents too much). In a world in which we grow up being told we can do anything (be that true or not), these limitless options become intimidating – if we can do anything, how can we possibly choose what is right for us? We are told to do what makes us happy, but it is not as easy as that – at least not for most of us – because we do not really know what makes us happy. Many of us find it challenging to grow up and take responsibility for our own lives, clinging to the hope that things will just fall into place for us (magically).

It is clear that Megan no longer fits where she is; she is unhappy, but afraid to make a change. It is not until she experiences something new that she really realizes what is out there – what she might actually want for herself. Shelton does a great job here, exaggerating the two worlds Megan experiences. Her life with Anthony and her high school friends grown up is one of constant stress, as they have drifted apart, finding themselves on a different life paths (yet no one is willing to admit it). Shelton more or less presents these characters as being awful. The alpha dog of the group Allison is like a thirty-year-old version of Regina George from Mean Girls, dictating what is right and wrong maintaining control over her group. Allison sees Megan as a problem because she no longer fits in with the group and tries her hardest to make decisions for Megan to arrange her life so that she will better fit into where the group is heading. Megan’s relationship with Anthony is also presented as being terrible. He is smothering her.

Meanwhile, Annika and her friends just accept Megan as she is, letting her have fun and making her feel cool again – something that she has not felt in a long time, maybe not since high school. In Craig, Megan finally has met a man that she can have fun with and engage with her on a higher level. Shelton presents Megan as being a completely different person. She is her best self around Annika and Craig, while she is stifled and put down constantly by her friends. This creates empathy for her plight even in a situation that seems ridiculous (hanging out with a teenage girl to avoid your own life). The audience likes Megan, seeing her excel around these characters, and roots for her to finally have the guts to make a change in her life.

The film is fairly simple, narratively, and we pretty much know where things are going from the beginning. The drama is presented in a very light way as well – nothing is very heavy or intense, even though the deeper theme of broken marriage can be very painful and destructive. This theme is all over the film, but Shelton still keeps things light by infusing the film with lots of great humor. Again, the performances are fantastic and fun, which plays a big role in the humor and light tone. The film’s biggest drawback is that while it does venture into more dramatic places it never lingers for very long, retreating back to the lighter tone always. Things are difficult for the characters, but also maybe a little too easy. That said, however, Shelton never really seems to want Laggies to be a full on drama, which is why she actively keeps thing light. And, we need fun, light films too.

Laggies is not a powerful drama that endeavors to deeply resonate with its audience, but it still gets its message across, one of taking risks and striving to find happiness in one’s life – not allowing oneself to just float unhappily through life, settling for what is easy. It is a funny and entertaining dramedy, using its indie aesthetic and performances very well.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Lynn Shelton started out making micro-budget indie films (known as Mumble Core), like Humpday. Lately, she has been making similarly small films but with better known actors, like Your Sister’s Sister. Laggies is her best film to date, as she garners great performances while balancing the humor and drama very well.

Composer Benjamin Gibbard’s score does a good enough job supporting the dramatic moments in the film, but is mostly unremarkable. Benjamin Kasulke’s cinematography gives the film a naturalistic feel. He does good job lighting the faces of his stars, as everyone looks good. Production designer John Lavin does a great job creating a very realistic feel, as the sets look lived in.

Laggies succeeds overall thanks to its great performances. Gretchen Mol has very little screen time but is very good as Annika’s absent mother. Ellie Kemper plays Allison off-type – a mean girl who wants to corral Megan, fitting her back into her compartment within their group. Mark Webber is quite good at playing needy, and does so here. Kaitlyn Dever plays Misty, one of Annika’s friends. She is a star in the making, bringing a lot of fun energy to the supporting role. Sam Rockwell is very charming and a little goofy as Craig. He is very enjoyable to watch. Chloe Grace Moretz plays Annika projecting a vibe of coolness, veiling her vulnerability. In lesser hands the nuance of the role would have been lost but Moretz plays it wonderfully. Keira Knightley is fantastic as Megan, creating an American accent that works well placing her socially and culturally. Knightley is a fine actress, bringing more gravitas to Megan than one might expect to find in lighter fare such as Laggies. Her emotional turmoil resonates to a greater extent in her capable hands. Her work also pulls the audience in. Plus, she has great chemistry with Rockwell and Moretz (which makes the film), while seemingly having no chemistry with Webber making their relationship feel all the more wrong.

Summary & score: Laggies is a good little indie, featuring terrific work from its cast (especially Knightley, Moretz and Rockwell). It is funny and sweet. 7/10

21 Jump Street (2012) – Review

Review: 21 Jump Street is a funny action comedy that hits the right comedic, action and dramatic notes, while making fun of itself at the same time. The film is about two cops who are screw-ups, and as such are transferred to a recently revived undercover unit forcing them to go back to high school to bust a drug ring. Directors Phil Lord and Chris Miller create sort of a duality to the film, in that it exists within its own real world while also breaking the fourth wall pointing out the almost post-nostalgia inherent in reviving a TV series in film form that most of the targeted audience never watched and the genre stereotypes of action comedies (and/or buddy comedies). For example, the two lead characters Schmidt and Jenko have a movie-based expectation of what being a cop should be like – explosions, car chases, shootouts, and so on – only to realize that their jobs are more mundane than action movies would have them believe, and then all these things happen within the course of their case. Another example has their police captain explaining that they are being transferred to a revived department from the 1980s, and goes off on a tangent about there being no more original ideas, eluding to what is going on in Hollywood currently (and for the last decade or so). These jokes work really well, because they invite the viewers in on the joke, in a sense speaking directly to them. But this would be all for naught if the characters were not relatable, Lord and Miller however do present Schmidt and Jenko in such a manner to get the audience behind them. Something that works really well is that Schmidt and Jenko are shown in the prologue (when they were in high school) as being the loser nerd and cool jock, respectively, but when they return undercover Lord and Miller reverse their roles, which creates both dramatic tension and comedic moments for the characters (which are again relatable to us the viewers). However, aside from Schmidt and Jenko, the supporting characters are not really given much to do other than to fill generic place holders like love interest or villain, holding back the narrative slightly. The audience cares about Schmidt and Jenko, which is the most important thing, but the stakes are not that high because none of the other characters really matter. The villains are never really developed so Schmidt and Jenko are never really in any real peril from the audience’s perspective. Molly is underwritten (though saved by a good performance) so the audience does not really care if it works out between her and Schmidt (we would like it to work out obviously, as we are told they go together narratively, but since Molly is underdeveloped it is not an essential dramatic moment for us). All that said, the point of 21 Jump Street is to be a very entertaining and funny action comedy, and that is what it is. Plus, it is a good overall film too.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Phil Lord and Chris Miller now have two well-received comedies to their names (this and Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs). They twist genre expectations and stereotypes for comedic effect making seemingly played out genres feel renewed (which is nothing new, but they do it well). With a sequel in the works (and assuming they return to helm it), I am interested to see if they can continue to keep the material fresh. Mark Mothersbaugh’s score fits the tone of the film, but mostly plays second fiddle to the great soundtrack (featuring among others Eminem, The Clash and N.W.A). Barry Peterson’s cinematography is fairly standard for the genre, as well, but the car chases and other action set pieces are very good and well-shot (but nothing special). Peter Wenham’s production design stands out among the aesthetics in the film. His sets for the 21 Jump Street station and Schmidt’s house are fantastic. The cast throughout does a good job delivering funny material. Johnny Simmons, Ice Cube, Nick Offerman, Jake M. Johnson, Ellie Kemper, and Johnny Depp all provide great bit stuff (especially Ice Cube and Kemper). Rob Riggle and Dave Franco are good in support, but they are not given too much to do really (Riggle just acts like he is slightly on the edge and Franco like he is super cool). Brie Larson is great as Molly, bringing spunk and humanity to an underdeveloped character. Both leads are fantastic, and are in large part responsible for the film being as good as it is. Jonah Hill plays Schmidt to be unconfident and desperate to be liked, which is a perfect match against Channing Tatum’s overly confident and entitled Jenko (never would have guesses that I would actually really enjoy performances by Tatum, but that is five in a row now, even sometimes in otherwise bad films).

Summary & score: 21 Jump Street delivers on what it promised to be: funny, action packed and highly entertaining. 7/10

Bridesmaids (2011) – Review

Bridesmaids is funny (very funny at times), but lacks a strong narrative structure and developed characters. Directed Paul Feig and writer/star Kristen Wiig are able to create a number of hilarious bits on par with the best comedies (male oriented or otherwise). There are a number of scenes (of course depending on your comedy preferences) that will find you laughing, giggling or otherwise occupied with fits of hilarity. There is no questioning this film’s ability to be funny and entertain, because it is and it does. The issues arise more from its pacing, characters and overall narrative structure. The funny scenes are held together by an underdeveloped story centering on Wiig’s Annie (the best friend of the bride who feels threated by another seemingly more successful bridesmaid, as she fears losing her friend). Annie may not be an overly likable character (but comedic protagonists do not have to be likable), but Feig does a good job with her character (she may even be overdeveloped, with a few unnecessary character scenes undermining the forward momentum of the narrative). However, all the other characters for the most part are one-note jokes, caricatures or narrative stereotypes and not fleshed out characters (leaving the audience with only Annie to relate to and connect with). Thus, the stakes of Annie’s journey are not as impactful, leaving only the humor to carry the film (which it does for the most part; though, the best comedies have funny jokes and great characters we can connect with). The film feels hollow without developed characters regardless of how funny some of the scenes and characters are. An even bigger problem is the terrible pacing. The film feels longer than it is, losing momentum (and the audience) a number of times, which directly relates to the weak narrative and trivial characters. As funny and enjoyable as moments of Bridesmaids are, overall it is disappointing given the poor structure.

Technical and acting achievements: Director Paul Feig has an excellent resume for comedy on TV (The Office, Freak and Greeks and many others), but he needs to refine and improve his feature narrative storytelling, as it is by far the weakest part of this film (and really stops it from being something special). He is able to garner very funny work from his actors, and his filmmaking style is suitable for standard comedies (he does not have much of an artistic style, more of a straightforward Hollywood style). Character development among co-starring and supporting characters is also an area that needs improvement for future feature films, but this is also the case for writers Wiig and Annie Mumolo (this being their first feature as well). The score by Michael Andrews, the cinematography by Robert Yeoman and the production design by Jefferson Sage are all good and fitting, but nothing more – the performances taking center stage. The supporting cast features a number of very amusing bit parts, highlight by performances from: Jon Hamm, Ellie Kemper and Rebel Wilson. Jill Clayburgh is quite good as Annie’s mom, both sweet and caring, but strong and challenging. Rose Byrne is good, but Melissa McCarthy steals much of the comedy (and scenes) awarded to the supporting cast and Chris O’Dowd provides a needed break from the exaggerated bit humor, with more personal and heartfelt scenes (and also providing some laughs; if only his character had more development and screen time). Wiig is very funny and proves she is deserving of more leading roles in comedies as she certainly can carry a film and deliver the laughs.

Bridesmaids is funnier than the score may suggest, but as a narrative film it is not quite good enough. 7/10