This Is 40 (2012) – Review

Review: This Is 40 combines very funny comedy with well-developed characters and strong dramatic moments. The film is about married couple Pete and Debbie. They have been married for about fourteen years and have a seemingly comfortable life, but troubles at work and at home begin to fray their relationship.

Writer-director Judd Apatow is known for his brand of comedy – mixing crude ‘R’ rated jokes, usually derived in an improvisational manner, with heartfelt drama and strong characters. This Is 40 in many ways is the culmination of his style. It has numerous scenes of fantastic comedy and big laughs, ranging from realistic to over-the-top (as jokes are exaggerated for comedic effect), but it all works. And, it also has what is ultimately very realistic feeling drama, focusing on domestic issues that the audience can relate to. Pete and Debbie might as well be real people the audience knows, that is how authentic their drama feels and is presented.

This results in two reactions. Either way viewers will relate to the drama and characters, however for some viewers it will be too much, too realistic and cutting. Cinema is still viewed as an escape, and a mainstream ‘comedy’ like This Is 40 is often viewed as something that should not have material that will bring the audience back into their own lives asking them to relate by looking at the highs and lows in their own relationships – it is supposed to be an escape and just make them laugh. The film is too good a drama in this sense and thus for viewers that just want to laugh it might hit too close to home, as even though Pete and Debbie essentially only have ‘white-people problems’ (and yuppie white people at that) the deeper drama is universal. However, for viewers that enjoy being completely emotionally engaged, the film works quite well showcasing the ups and downs of life and the struggles people go through to make their relationship work.

While Pete and Debbie struggle in their relationship with each other, their kids, and their parents, most of the supporting characters outside their family are there primarily to provide comedy. Apatow has put together a wonderful group of very funny people (like with all his films) and they deliver hilarious material. Viewers who enjoy Apatow’s brand of humor will not be disappointed. This is a very funny film, even with all the drama. Plus, the ending very much makes it a comedy in the classical sense.

Narratively speaking, Apatow’s films have often been criticized for being overly long and over indulgent in the material left in – in other words he is not an economical storyteller, which is an important component of good Hollywood filmmaking. This Is 40 is no different. It really just amounts to a snapshot taken from Pete and Debbie’s life. Yes, there is a deep emotional and dramatic significance to the drama, as they are at a crossroads, but the film does not leave the audience feeling life everything will be happy forever after. There will still be highs and lows, but for now they are okay – in a better place in their relationship than when the film starts. Thus, the film works more as dramatic experience (which also happens to be very funny) than a more straightforward narrative story. The viewer takes in the drama, relates to it, and takes something away from the experience.

This will also have one of two results for the viewer. It will either feel too loose and rambling, as if Apatow merely shot a bunch of footage and then found some semblance of a story in editing but did not want to lose any of the jokes or performances so he over stuffed it. Or, it will resonate with the viewer as a dramatic journey, again showcasing the ups and downs in Pete and Debbie’s relationship(s).

Despite Apatow’s filmmaking style, and how it seems to somewhat be moving further away from typical comedic narrative filmmaking, This Is 40 is both a very funny comedy and an in depth and emotionally true look at marriage that entertains and dramatically engages its audience (something few comedies achieve).

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Judd Apatow has now directed four films, each straddling a difficult tonal line between comedy and drama. His first two films (The 40 Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up) clearly felt like comedies, but with good dramatic moments and characters (again, his trademark). But, his last two films (Funny People and This Is 40) have come much closer to being dramas, and in many ways are as the characters and their issues outweigh the jokes. Viewers (steered by marketing) go into these films expecting comedies but are met with character-based dramas that also happen to be really funny and have happy endings. This seems to be splitting opinion much more, as many just want funny movies not character pieces, while others recognize what Apatow is doing with his films and appreciate them for what they are (something different and interesting). I for one really enjoy what he is doing with his films and look forward to his next.

Jon Brion’s score works to accentuate the dramatic shifts in the film, while Apatow also greatly uses a good soundtrack to strong effect. Phedon Papamichael’s cinematography is very good as well. The film is shot in a very straightforward fashion, but visually everything looks great. Jefferson Sage’s production design is used to ground the characters in reality, but Sage also has fun with some of the sets (like Pete’s office, which looks like a rock nerd’s fantasy).

The film is very well acted with a great and very funny supporting cast. Jason Segel’s, Chris O’Dowd’s, and especially Melissa McCarthy’s (who is hysterical) performances standout among the smaller supporting roles. Megan Fox is also surprisingly good in her supporting part. Albert Brooks is great in support, capturing the essence of the film, playing Pete’s father to both be funny and dramatically compelling. This is the third time Apatow has used his own daughters (Maude and Iris Apatow) in his films, but never with so much dramatic responsibility. They are both fantastic, and casting ‘real’ young actors in the roles would not have been an improvement. Paul Rudd is wonderful in the film. He gives Pete such a carefree cool vibe, but underneath there is so much stress and worry that just eat away at him boiling up when he can no longer bare it. Rudd also has perfect comedic timing. However, it is probably Leslie Mann who steals the film. Debbie just wants to have the perfect life and she tries to control everything around her to make it so, but this leaves her perpetually disappointed and ultimately unhappy. She just seems so frustrated all the time, but desperately wants to be happy.

Summary & score: This Is 40 is not going to work for everyone. It is not just a funny comedy, but also a cutting character drama. For those it does work for, it is a wonderful experience full of hilarious comedy and emotionally resonate drama. 8/10

Movie of the Week – Knocked Up

This week’s movie is Knocked Up (2007).

The comedy is about two young people who un-expectantly get pregnant after a one-night stand, neither prepared. The film is by comedy guru (writer-director-producer) Judd Apatow (the creative force behind The 40-Year-Old Virgin, Undeclared and he worked as a director and producer on Freaks and Geeks). He has a great team with composer Joe Henry and songs by Loudon Wainwright III (who also makes a cameo), cinematographer Eric Alan Edwards and production designer Jefferson Sage. The cast is phenomenal with a ton of funny people. It stars Seth Rogan and Katherine Heigl (before she started making terrible rom-com after terrible rom-com) and co-stars Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann (Apatow is currently filming a sequel revolving around Rudd and Mann’s characters called This Is Forty). Jason Segel, Martin Starr, Jonah Hill, Jay Baruchel, Charlyne Yi, Harold Ramis, Alan Tudyk, Kristen Wiig, Bill Hader, Ken Jeong, Craig Robinson, Adam Scott, and BJ Novak round out the supporting cast. The film is hilarious, but has Apatow’s unique blend of being both an R-rated comedy and heartfelt. It is a must see for fans of comedies and romantic comedies (you would be hard pressed to find a better comedic cast). Check out the trailer.

Available on Blu-ray, DVD, Streaming, and to Rent

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

Paul (2011) – Review

Paul is a funny and sci-fi nostalgia filled comedy. Structured as a road-comedy/buddy-comedy, the film works as a tale of friendship and growth along the journey. The nostalgic aspect is focused on popular science fiction (mostly from film and TV) – things like Star Wars, Star Trek (I love the reenactment of the worst fight in TV history), Close Encounters of the Third Kind, E.T., and many others (especially Steve Spielberg films, and his voice makes a cameo). These references work to be both funny and enjoyable for those that know them. However, this may also be an issue for viewers without a strong knowledge of popular sci-fi, as a ton of jokes will not work for them (or not even play as jokes or references). But, this is a film not made for those viewers – this is clearly made for sci-fi fans who will get all the references and jokes. Thus, the film does have a somewhat limited appeal, though there are also lots of jokes and comedy that do not require a strong knowledge of sci-fi films and TV as well, but some of the full enjoyment will be lost. There is also another pitfall that arises from the film being heavily geared towards referential jokes, (much like with the film Fanboys) its narrative seems to be structured more around these jokes than telling a good story. Director Greg Mottola is very good at telling nostalgic comedy stories that are very funny, while maintaining a strong dramatic narrative. Here, Mottola is able to bring the drama out of the story amidst the comedy, helping the audience feel more connected to the characters, which benefits the film. The issue is that the narrative is not quite tight enough, as it feels a tad slow in parts and most of the comedy is generated from outside factors and not so much from the main characters (played by Simon Pegg and Nick Frost). The supporting cast is funny, especially Ruth Bugs and Paul, but for the film to be really good, the comedy should generate from the main characters. The road trip aspect of the narrative delivers most of the comedy and excitement, while the buddy aspect, which should really generate both the crux of the drama and comedy, only delivers drama and character to the film. This would be fine if at its heart it were a coming of age or growth drama, but it is a comedy, so having most of the laughs come from references, locations and supporting characters and not the main characters (though they do have their moments) hurts the film in terms of its overall success as a comedy and cinematic experience (i.e. its ability to entertain). Paul is quite funny, with great and well integrated nostalgic references, but despite its nagging issues is still good, but not great.

Technical and acting achievements: Paul is Greg Mottola’s third feature film. He yet again shows his knack for addressing his material in such a way that resonates with the audience, both through his use of character connection to the audience and nostalgia. However, this is his weakest film to date. It is not funny enough to be a great comedy and not dramatic, moving or interesting enough to be a great dramady, so we are left with a good comedy (but really only if you like popular sci-fi and get the references). The script by Pegg and Frost is a good road trip and shows their love of science fiction, but it seems as though there is more interested in the references than the story, which does hurt the narrative. David Arnold’s score is good, playing off the nostalgia and genre the characters love. The cinematography by Lawrence Sher is mostly straight-forward, but in certain scenes is better than what comedies typically get. Production designer Jefferson Sage must have had a fun time with the sets and locations in the film (I particularly liked the choice and look of Tara Walton’s house and grounds – it reminds me of Superman coming to Earth, and maybe it is supposed to). The cast is funny overall. Joe Lo Truglio is the standout among the bit players in the film; he is really silly, in a good way. Simon Pegg and Nick Frost have tons of chemistry and go together well, but they did not generate much of the best stuff in the film. Principal supporting characters Kristen Wiig and Seth Rogen (who voices Paul) steal the show. Wiig is hilarious, while Rogen’s Paul has the charisma that focuses the audience’s attention.

Films centered around nostalgia often endear themselves to their intended audience, and Paul does that. It is funny and entertaining, but not everyone will like or get it. 7/10