Neighbors (2014) – Review

Review: Neighbors is a funny R-rated comedy, but fails to aspire to anything more ambitious, interesting, or compelling. The film is about Mac and Kelly Radner, a young couple who has recently purchased their first home and had their first child. Life seems good. Everything changes, however, when a fraternity purchases the house next-door, constantly having wild parties and otherwise making life almost unbearable for Mac and Kelly. They have no choice but to engage in an escalating war of pranks in the hopes of getting the frat kicked out of school.

At face value, Neighbors is basically a film about warring generations: young college kids just looking to party and have a good time versus adults in their early to mid thirties (who still think they are young enough to lead the same lifestyle as the college kids, but old enough to have responsibilities and horrible hangovers to know that they are really just adults now and need to grow up). Director Nicholas Stoller tries his hand at a few broad jokes about the generational gap, but really the film does not quite capitalize on all the humor potential apparent in the narrative setup. More so, the film goes out of its way to undertake jokes that reference pop-culture, aim to shock, and of course pratfalls (because who does not like physical comedy – I wish I had not already seen the airbag jokes in the trailer though; they would have played so much better without the trailer spoiling them). Overall, the film is very funny – more or less checking all the boxes for modern R-rated comedy.

That said, the film never really tries to be anything more, which is fine, but the audience never really cares about any of the characters. What works really well about the best comedies is that not only do they make us laugh but we also feel absorbed in the story. Here, the story is an afterthought, merely existing as a way to allow the filmmakers to move from one joke to the next. The plot serves the jokes instead of the jokes supporting the overall narrative. Mac and Kelly are likable characters, and the supporting cast is made up of funny and enjoyable characters, but the narrative is very weak, and Stoller never gives the audiences moments to invest in Mac and Kelly – everything is just a joke, while the plot and characters (for the most part) are very thin. There is no real drama or emotion, which ultimately leaves the film feeling unsatisfying overall, even with the laughs.

The narrative structure too is very weak. The first two acts are actually fairly well done, but what brings down the narrative overall is its third act. Stoller wraps up the film seemingly very suddenly without a sense of real resolution. The film asks the audience to also care about the main frat characters and then leaves them out of the ending. Teddy, the frat president and nemesis of Mac and Kelly, is given a very vague and wholly unsatisfying conclusion as well. The film feels like it just ends in the middle of the third act, the audience left feeling like there is something missing.

The main narrative arc for Mac and Kelly is rather unsubstantial as well. They start out as new parents, not ready to accept their new life as responsible caregivers to their child and give up the fun life they knew before of hanging out with friends and going out at night. After the ordeal with the frat, they have come to terms with their situation and feel satisfied with their new life as parents – basically, before they wanted to go out and party with their friends, but now they do not. This is far from a transformative revelation, likely one that will be see them revert back to the urge to get out and go out in a couple weeks (or even days), as it is only natural. And if not, is it not a little sad to suggest that once we have kids we should be satisfied with a life in which we go to work, come home, never go out, and never interact with other people in social situations? But really none of this matters; the plot is just a jumping-off point. The point of this film is to laugh at jokes, nothing else.

Neighbors is really about Mac and Kelly. It is their narrative, but the film also sort of tries to be a college frat comedy as well, utilizing many of the classic troupes of the genre (hazing pledges, wild parties, students who seem to only care about their fraternity and never go to actual school, kooky members of the frat, and a struggles against a Dean that wants to quick them off campus – it pretty much just tries to throw everything in). Thus, in trying to make his comedy more than it is, Stoller loses his ability to devote time to his characters (which in the end makes this a throwaway comedy); instead, he is just trying to create a comedy genre mash-up to garner laughs for the sake of laughs.

Stoller wants to film to be a frat comedy, a generational war comedy, and an adult coming-of-age comedy, but just sort of scatters elements of all these narrative types without committing to a fully cohesive and engaging story. Neighbors is funny and thus achieves its goal, but the laughs are hollow as the narrative never fully feels compelling or interesting and there are not enough character moments to create characters the audience can invest in or care about.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Nicholas Stoller has a very good comedy track record with the very good comedies Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Get Him to the Greek, and The Five-Year Engagement, but Neighbors is his weakest film to date. Jason Segel provided Stoller with good material for his best films, but here the script and characters are just too thin. Hopefully, Stoller and Segel will work together again in the future, as they collaborate very well together.

Michael Andrews provides a serviceable score, but the film’s use of its soundtrack completely overshadows it. Brandon Trost’s cinematography is fairly straightforward, but there are a few instances that allow him to light in a more interesting manner (mostly involving the party scenes). Julie Berghoff seems to have some fun with her production design, especially in her design for the fraternity.

The cast works fairly well overall. There are a few very funny small roles. Notably Lisa Kudrow, Craig Roberts, Jerrod Carmichael, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, Dave Franco, Carla Gallo, and Ike Barinholtz are all good in small supporting roles. Zac Efron is okay as Teddy, but there does not seem to be much to the character. Most of the time, Efron just feels like an excuse to have someone who looks good shirtless. Rose Byrne is very funny as Kelly and is the best part of the film. She feels believable as her character, while bringing enough energy and timing to also bring the biggest laughs. Seth Rogen is funny as well, but he somewhat lazily seems to just be playing himself.

Summary & score: Neighbors is funny, with a few big laughs, but there is not much more to it than that. 6/10

This Is the End (2013) – Review

Review: This Is the End is hilarious, insane, and above all very entertaining. The film is about best friends Seth Rogen and Jay Baruchel who decide to get together for a weekend of hanging out (playing video games and smoking weed). Jay, being from Montreal, does not really like the celebrity-obsessed atmosphere of LA but begrudgingly agrees to accompany Seth to a party at James Franco’s house. Seth and Jay begin to feel at odds as Seth is very comfortable in the surroundings and with his ‘new’ friends, while Jay just wants to leave (and hates everyone there). However, suddenly, what seems like The Apocalypse happens, with many of the party guests being killed. Now, Seth and Jay are stuck in James Franco’s house with James, Jonah Hill, Danny McBride, and Craig Robinson. Will they survive?

Writer-directors Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg have created something comically wonderful with This Is the End pairing Judd Apatow style (self-deprecating) improvisational humor with what amounts to be a horror style action-thriller. Much in the style of Ricky Gervais’s Extras, the actors all play somewhat exaggerated versions of themselves (for comedic and dramatic effect), allowing them to basically make fun of each other and themselves in sort of a meta way (as presumably the audience has seen most of these actors’ films and TV shows and knows who they are). In a strange way, even though the characters are still fictional depictions, the drama seems heightened as well due to the audience connecting to these famous people (as themselves). Thus, the audience enjoys the humor more because they are laughing with and at the actors, fully aware of their past work and personas, and are more dramatically engaged as well, which combined amplifies the overall experience.

However, if the viewer is oblivious to these actors and their past work, a lot of the jokes and elevated sense of excitement will probably be lost, and the film will not play nearly as well (and may not work at all). The story is very simple and not a lot of character development occurs (because they filmmakers assume the viewer does know going in). Additionally, the humor is almost completely dependent on the viewer knowing (to some extent) the personas of these actors (like James Franco being really into reading literature and studying art or Danny McBride personifying his Eastbound & Down character Kenny Powers). In this way, the film is like a sequel to the actors’ careers up until this point in time. To appreciate the sequel, the viewer must see what comes before it first.

But if the viewer is in the know, the humor throughout is very funny thanks to a talented cast (these are basically the best young comedians in Hollywood right now, for the most part). All these actors have come up through the ranks of or have frequently worked with Judd Apatow and the overall style of comedy in this film is very much in his mode. It feels like these actors (who are all friends in real life) just got together with a thinly outlined plot and just improvised jokes and scenarios (Evan Goldberg even made it his mission to get the actors to do more and more outrageous gags until they were too embarrassed or offended and said no – Rogen and Franco both never said no). Many of the jokes are very crude in nature, and there is a sense of each actor competing to come up with better, funnier stuff. The result is a comedy that is hysterical all the way through (and easily the funniest film so far this year) and there is a camaraderie among the actors that the audience can feel.

This Is the End also works as an action-thriller. First-time directors Rogen and Goldberg keep the film moving, which is vital to the film’s thriller aspect. The narrative does not lose momentum, and they also strike a good balance with the ‘empty space’ moments that are needed for the improv-comedy and the action sequences. Rogen and Goldberg also escalate the stakes and the danger as the film progresses – as things get rather insane and the third act is brilliantly funny and exciting. While it is certainly a comedy first, it is also a good action-thriller.

All in all, This Is the End is a marvelous comedy that is engaging as an action-thriller and riotously funny. However, again, liking and being aware of these actors and their past work is probably essential to maximizing the enjoyment of this film.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Evan Goldberg and Seth Rogen have written some very funny stuff in the past (Superbad and Pineapple Express), but This Is the End clearly shows that they have a talent for directing comedy as well. The film has sort of a loose documentary style, fitting the premise, and Goldberg and Rogen often just let the camera linger on the actors allowing them to perform (and be funny). In addition to getting the pacing right (which is probably the hardest part of feature narrative filmmaking), they also find the right tone for the film – completely ridiculous, keeping things funny, while still with a constant feeling of impending thrills. In this way, it works much like a horror film. The audience is constantly expecting something frightening to jump out or a character to suddenly and gruesomely be killed. The audience is laughing, but on their toes – a great combination.

Henry Jackman’s score works well, underlining the tone and emphasizing the apocalyptic aspects, but it is the film’s brilliant soundtrack to steals the show. Goldberg and Rogen seem to find the perfect song to fit each moment (they probably spent as much acquiring the rights to use all the great and fitting songs as on the rest of the film itself, and it pays off). Brandon Trost’s cinematography also fits the tone well. His lighting creates a heightened, darker reality – an atmosphere for the crumbling of society that looks gritty and stylized. By the end of the film, LA basically looks like how we might imagine Hell. Chris Spellman’s production design is strong too. His set for James Franco’s house is great, as it works both as a joke on Franco and as the perfect bunker for a catastrophe. I also loved the juxtaposition of the neighbor’s house that the characters enter later. It is so neat and polished in comparison.

While the story is fresh and original and the soundtrack is great, the cast really makes the film. This Is the End features small supporting work from tons of great comedians (all of whom have worked on Apatow projects in the past – many from as far back as Freaks and Geeks and/or Undeclared). And, there are some fun cameos. Michael Cera (who is rambunctiously silly) and Emma Watson (who seems to be having a blast) are both good in their supporting roles. However, most of the film is spent with its six stars. Danny McBride is so much fun, as he exudes misguided swagger and mischievousness. Jonah Hill plays himself as someone who just wants everyone to like him and think he is cool, coming off like a complete tool. Craig Robinson is brilliant playing himself as being insecure and lovable. James Franco is very funny, as he plays off his own lore. He is also not afraid to make himself out to be ridiculous (much like McBride). Jay Baruchel does a good job as well playing the outsider, which also works in bringing the audience into the story. To some extent, he plays their perspective in the film. And finally, Seth Rogen is good as well. He is the element that brings all these characters together and is the peacemaker, but also secretly selfish and not a hero.

Summary & score: This Is the End is something fresh in a genre that has become complacent and boring. It strives to be something different and bonkers (much like The Cabin in the Woods), and it achieves it in all the right ways. 8/10  

Take This Waltz (2012) – Review

Review: Take This Waltz is a character drama with a complex protagonist. The film is about Margot, a married woman who meets Daniel while writing an article. They have an instant powerful connection, and to make matters worse they are neighbors. Margot flirts with the idea of being with Daniel but also loves her husband Lou and does not want to hurt him. Writer-director Sarah Polley crafts the narrative to be sympathetic to Margot, when in most cases she would probably be viewed as the villain. She is somewhat troubled (or seems to be) and naturally restless. This attribute is paramount to Polley making her likable while toying with the idea of leaving her husband (it also helps to have Michelle Williams in the part). The viewer recognizes in Margot their own aspirations outside their trapped life. But rather than Margot be fully functional, her restlessness or even inner sadness gives her a pass. Polley is almost commenting on it not being enough for someone to have a powerful connection with someone else while already being in a relationship (with all the attached social magnitudes) to break from said relationship. For society to accept that she can be with someone that is not her husband, either her husband needs to be presented as deficient (which he is not, at least not outside any realistically reasonable expectations) or Margot need to be deficient, otherwise the audience will likely turn on Margot and thus the narrative will not work (and by deficient I mean, a palpable reason for the audience to side with and understand where Margot is coming from – and in this, her restlessness allows the audience to relate and see that it is not that she is a bad person for wanting something different, it is just who she is, rather than her wanting to be with Daniel in spite of Lou even though that is true). Even with Daniel, who is new and seems to make Margot happy(ier), there is noticeably something missing. Polley does this also to illustrate that while new seems exciting and different new still fades and becomes old and the same. Polley has more complex characters than are typically found in romance dramas (dramedies). These characters are much more realistic than the audience is use to for the genre, and it is refreshing. The film in a way is also a comment on the nature of relationships, specifically the difference from the day-to-day normalcy for couples that have been together for a while and the high of the ‘honeymoon’ period. There is not really anything wrong in Margot’s marriage. She is just restless and imagines something different as she faces the day-to-day tedium of her life (the pros and cons of it). Daniel is different (and is presented as being noticeably different than Lou personality wise). Polley does not condemn nor condone Margot or her choices; she just presents them as they are. The other marriage in the film is between Lou’s sister who is an alcoholic (who goes off the deep-end sometimes) and her husband. Again, Polley presents it as it is without commenting on whether it is good or bad. Relationships are complicated. The film is more about the complexity of life and relationships than the typical cookie-cutter characters and narratives that populate the romance genre. The film does have comedy as well, mostly coming from the absurdity of everyday life (the scene in which Margot is participating in water aerobics is very funny, when it is turned on its head as being seen by a third party). Issue wise, Polley has a lot of slow moments in the film, which somewhat work against the momentum of the narrative. The dramatic weight of Margot’s restlessness and neediness is not lifted with enough comedic moments making the film feel more burdensome for the viewer when the overall tone seems lighter, creating a conflict in the tone which subconsciously confuses the view, as they are not sure what kind of film they are watching which again can make it seem slow. Also, Margot is not going to be likable for everyone, and thus the narrative will not work for everyone. Take This Waltz works overall however because Polley has created characters and relationships that feel very real to the viewer, and thus is a good romance and character drama.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Sarah Polley is probably best known as an actor, but with two commercial features that are both solid she is making a name for herself as a very good dramatic director. I look forward to her next film. Jonathan Goldsmith’s score fades into the background, while the found music soundtrack plays a bigger role in reinforcing the emotions of the film. Cinematographer Luc Montpellier does fantastic work (I really look forward to his future work). The film takes place during the summer and needs to both convey the heat of summer and of the passion Margot is feeling towards Daniel. Montpellier and Polley accomplish this by having the camera intimately shoot Margot and for the lighting to be natural and soft, with lots of reds and yellows and other warm colors. This is also accomplished in Matthew Davies’s production design. Polley often has Margot taking in the warmth of the sun through the kitchen window as Lou is otherwise occupied (which makes the ending reveal more telling). Polley and Davies have selected the perfect Toronto neighborhood to fit the feel of the film (even if it does not work logically taking into consideration the economic welfare of the characters). The performances from the small cast are fantastic. Sarah Silverman is good in support bringing both comedy and a serious edge to the film. Seth Rogen is very charming as Lou, but also seems somewhat blind to Margot’s needs (and/or troubles). Luke Kirby has a breakout performance as Daniel, playing somewhat of a master seducer. He knows just the right buttons to push. Michelle Williams is excellent carrying the film, and playing Margot to be the complex character she is. In a certain light, she really is not a likable person, but Williams’s intrinsic adorableness seems to help overcome this.

Summary & score: Take This Waltz walks a thin line with its complex protagonist being likable (as she can also be seen as the antagonist if she is unlikable). If the viewer relates to her, the film is a good romantic character drama. If not, the film will play very tediously. 7/10

TV Series of the Month – Undeclared

This month’s TV series is Undeclared (2001-2002).

The comedy is about six freshmen starting college, and all the fun and strange experiences that come with that. After working as a producer on Freaks and Geeks, Judd Apatow created this show, which like Freaks and Geeks only lasted one season despite being really funny and good. The show served as a launching point for a number of Hollywood’s current comedic writers and directors like Seth Rogen (doing his first writing), Nicholas Stoller, Jay Chandrasekhar (who had also just directed Super Troopers), John Hamburg, and Greg Mottola. It featured Jay Baruchel, Carla Gallo, Charlie Hunnam, Monica Keena, Seth Rogen, Tim Sharp, and Loudon Wainwright III as series regulars. Jason Segel, Kevin Hart, Jenna Fischer, Kevin Rankin, Kyle Gass, David Krumholtz, Samm Levine, Busy Philipps, Martin Starr, Adam Sandler, Will Ferrell, Amy Poehler, Ben Stiller, Sarah Hagen, Allen Covert, Mike White, Fred Willard, Felicia Day, Geoffrey Arend, Simon Helberg, and many more have reoccurring to cameo roles in the series as well. Undeclared works as both a sitcom about a bunch of college freshman studying, falling in love, doing homework, coping with being on their own and classwork, and lots of other typical college stuff, and a great comedy with unique and interesting characters. It is a shame that Fox did not trust the show enough to see it through, cancelling it during its first season. It is a must-see for fans of good comedy sitcoms and Apatow’s work. Check out the trailer.

Available on DVD

TV Series of the Month – Freaks and Geeks

This month’s TV series is Freaks and Geeks (1999-2000).

The comedy is about the outcasts of high school society, taking place in the 1980s. The show focuses on the Weir family. Lindsay Weir, who has always been a stellar student, is disenfranchised and falls in with the burnout kids (freaks), while her younger brother Sam is a freshman and is having a tough time fitting in thanks primarily to his best friends being very nerdy (geeks). The show was created by Paul Feig (who has also worked as one of the main creative forces behind The Office and became a known name in 2011 directing Bridesmaids) and executively produced by Judd Apatow (who has since become the main producers in current cinematic comedy, and he also produced Bridesmaids). The cast is fantastic featuring many now famous comedians. Linda Cardellini and John Francis Daley star, and James Franco, Samm Levine, Seth Rogen, Jason Segel, Martin Starr, Becky Ann Baker, Joe Flaherty, and Busy Philipps round out the principal cast. The show also has a ton of great guest stars/cameos, including: Sarah Hagan, Dave Allen, Thomas F. Wilson, Ben Foster, Samaire Armstrong, Rashida Jones, Shia LaBeouf, David Koechner, Kevin Corrigan, Jason Schwartzman, David Krumholtz, Lizzy Caplan, Leslie Mann, Allen Covert, Mike White, and Ben Stiller. Like an alarmingly high number of fantastic shows, Freaks and Geeks was cancelled after its first season. But, it still is one of the best comedy and high school series and a must-see for fans of either genre. It really speaks to its viewers and even if you did not go to high school during the 1980s the stories are very relatable. Check out the trailer.

Available on DVD

Movie of the Week – The 40 Year Old Virgin

This week’s movie is The 40 Year Old Virgin (2005).

The comedy is about Andy, a forty-year-old man who is still a virgin. When his co-workers find out, they make it their mission to get him laid, but Andy is really looking for something more (like love). Writer-director-producer Judd Apatow (coming off the success of producing Anchorman and two excellent but cancelled TV series: Freaks  and Geeks and Undeclared) made his feature debut as a director. He worked with composer Lyle Workman (who has since scored many other Apatow produced films), cinematographer Jack Green and production designer Jackson De Govia. It also features a number of comedians that are firmly apart of the Apatow brand, including: Carla Gallo, Loudon Wainwright III, Jonah Hill, Leslie Mann, Jane Lynch, Seth Rogen, Paul Rudd, and Steve Carell (his first starring role, coming off a hilarious supporting part in Anchorman and picking up the lead in The Office). Elizabeth Banks, Romany Malco and Catherine Keener also star. More so than Apatow’s other films to date, The 40 Year Old Virgin introduced his ability to create a comedy that was very funny, rude and dirty and also full of heart and real characters that the audience could connect with. Basically, Apatow changed the genre (for better or worse). Carell is great in the film, but it is the work and improvisation of the supporting players (namely Rudd, Malco and Rogen) that makes the film a comedic gem. It is, however, the story that makes it special. The 40 Year Old Virgin is a must-see for R-rated comedy fans and those who like Apatow’s work (both as a director and producer). Check out the trailer.

Available on Blu-ray, DVD and Streaming

50/50 (2011) – Review

Review: 50/50 is just what it sets out to be – a dramedy that is both very funny and dramatically impactful (with some tear-jerking scenes). Director Jonathan Levine does a great job focusing the attention completely on the characters, even the setting (Vancouver doubling for Seattle), plays into the characters. In doing this, he has set the audience up to be fully invested in them, especially Adam – who is played to be a very average guy, but it works quite well in this film because Adam is completely relatable to the whole audience (for the most part), which makes his journey all the more powerful and emotional. The film is actually surprisingly intense (in a ‘wow this is really sad’ sort of way), due in most part to the very good performances and the frank nature of Will Reiser’s writing. However, there is some fantastic comedy that lightens the film wonderfully, and changes the overall complexion of the film as a whole – this probably the hardest thing to get right – balancing the drama and comedy (especially the comedy). Creating tear-jerking scenes is one thing (Lifetime movies do a great job at it, but are any of them really that good?), but creating truly impactful dramatic scenes and scenes that are very funny (some being one in the same in 50/50) that flow together is very difficult, and Levine does it very well. This is the strongest aspect of the film. A small criticism that I have is that I wanted more scenes between Katherine and Adam (though, many directors believe it is good to leave your audience wanting more). Their relationship makes sense and works in the narrative, so that it not the issue; rather I just enjoyed their scenes and would have liked a few more, which also speaks to the lack of a fully satisfying ending. The ending works fine (as it plays a bit like The Graduate’s ambiguous ‘what now’, as many films have done since), but again I wanted more (a sense of closure for the characters’ relationships I guess, though the film does sort of have that, really I just want to see what happens next). However, this is really a minor issue. Overall, the narrative does work very well and Levine’s structure both plays off the drama and comedy while keeping the plot moving forward. 50/50 is both a very well played drama and a funny comedy. It is a film about relationships (with friends, parents and significant others) and how good relationships bring so much to our lives.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Jonathan Levine, now three features in, has shown himself to be one of the best young filmmakers working with 50/50. The best aspect of the film is the performances he garners from his actors, and the way he allows them to just play their scenes without big camera moves or tons of cuts. This is also due to the great work of cinematographer Terry Stacey, composer Michael Giacchino (whose scores usually stick out, but here he toned it down to match the mood of the film, I mean this is the composer who scored Lost, Up, Super 8 and Let Me In after all) and production designer Annie Spitz – all three of whom created visuals and music to perfectly fit the tone of the performances and play off and reinforce the characters, which is so important in character pieces such as 50/50. The performances overall were very good. Philip Baker Hall, Matt Frewer and Anjelica Huston provide great work in their small supporting roles. Bryce Dallas Howard is a lot of fun playing the girlfriend in a difficult position. Seth Rogen plays his typical pop-culture referencing comedy self, but in this film he works very well playing against the lead. Anna Kendrick is again fantastic (in really her second real dramatic performance). Joseph Gordon-Levitt is just right in his role as Adam – he plays the average guy very well, but also put enough anima into it that the audience not only connects but really feels for him.

Summary & score: 50/50 is much more than just an R-rated comedy or manipulative tear-jerking drama, it is a wonderful dramedy that will have you laughing and probably crying both through genuine emotion. 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

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 

The Green Hornet (2011) – Review

The Green Hornet is an entertaining buddy action comedy that takes full advantage of its cast, script and subject matter. Michel Gondry (known for his unique style) directs maybe his most straight-forward film to date, however his style is not completely gone as he does place his camera interestingly creating some nice shot composition (not always common for big action or comedy movies). However, this feels much more like a film by writing team Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg than it does a Michel Gondry film. That is not a bad thing, as it is very funny and the dialog and overall silliness of the situations and characters allow to film to stand out and in many ways stand above most other recent buddy action comedies. However, liking this film is probably contingent (to some degree) on liking their other two produced screenplays: Superbad and Pineapple Express, as the comedy in this film is in much the same vein as those films. The relationship between Britt Reid (The Green Hornet) and Kato – their dialog, interactions, friendship and so on – is the best part and generates most of the entertainment in the film. Sure there are good action set pieces, funny scenes with the villain and other characters, but Reid and Kato’s relationship develops in such a manner that the audience enjoys watching (and to some extend being a part of it), thus caring about the characters and outcome – making the film successful overall. The villain Chudnofsky also brings humor to the film with the continuous joke that he is not very menacing or cool. It is fairly refreshing and works quite well (I thought, at least). The issue with the film though is that outside the relationship of Reid and Kato and the exploits of Chudnofsky there is not much else there. All the other characters fill specific story roles, but do not feel real or even necessary. Plus, the major factors in Reid wanting to be The Green Hornet stems from both a need to help people and his relationship with his father, neither is given enough emotional weight to make Reid’s actions feel real or have the audience care (however, I think while important and ultimately what stops this from being a better film, this is not as important by a long shot to the relationship between Reid and Kato, which the film does very well). Despite some narrative flaws in building full characters, The Green Hornet is a blast, filled with fun action and lots of laughs.

Technical and acting achievements: Michel Gondry tackles his most ambitious film here, having not really shot big action set pieces before and not to mention that this seems out of his comfort zone. The result does not really resemble a typical Gondry film, but his aesthetics and keen sense of composition still creep their way in; they are just not blatant (like his other films). James Newton Howard provides a good score for the film that while not overly memorable fits the visuals and tone well. Cinematographer John Schwartzman’s work also fits the tone of the film well – letting the actors play out their comedic roles while also presenting the action in an exciting manner. A lot of credit also goes to editor Michael Tronick who did great work on the film. Owen Paterson’s production design grounds the film in the real world, but also includes grand sets (like the newspaper building) and cool ‘home bases’ for the characters (I like Chudnofsky’s construction trailer office, for example). Tom Wilkinson, David Harbour, Edward James Olmos and especially Edward Furlong (who is hilarious in his small role) provide good supporting work. Cameron Diaz is really given little to do in the film and it is hard to believe that they cast her or anyone as famous as her for the part, and thus ends up merely being just a pretty face, and she has some funny moments too. James Franco has a fantastic cameo in the film. His scene with Christoph Waltz is maybe the best in the film (it is awesome). Waltz is wonderful as a crime lord with seemingly low self-esteem. He pretty much steals every scene he is in (but what else did you expect). Leads Rogen and Jay Chou make a great team and their performances are very funny and charismatic, carrying the film.

The Green Hornet is very funny, has good action and will entertain. 7/10