‘The Other Guys are the ones I would like to meet’
Let me begin by saying, I AM NOT A WILL FERREL FAN. In fact, I find the majority of his movies juvenile and ridiculous to a fault. Something about what he does doesn’t appear to me as comedy, but more as just one dimensional stupidity. However, his most watchable movies are always the ones directed by Adam McKay such as Talladega Nights and Anchorman. That and the amusing trailer with Samuel L. Jackson and Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson driving into a bus and giving an awesome quote made me think that maybe this would be a good spoof of buddy cop movies. Thank God I was right.
I don’t know if it was the script or if the movie was just perfectly cast, but instead of being a Will Ferrel stupid comedy hour, it is an ensemble piece where everyone is just nuts enough to fit in and out of the storyline and take turns being the spotlight. Next to Will Ferrell, Michael Keaton and Mark Wahlberg shine like you haven’t seen in years. Who knew Marky Mark had such a gift for comedy? His casting was genius since Wahlberg’s best movie the Departed where he played a bad ass cop, now let’s have him play a slightly deranged angry cop with terrible animal metaphors. Also, his chemistry in this movie is legendary. Let’s have Michael Keaton play the captain of the police force and manager at Bath and Body Works who has a hard time with quoting the group TLC. Even Samuel Jackson and Dwayne Johnson are hilarious as the ultimate alpha duo of the police force where it is made clear early on that they are put up with because the city needs heroes. Everything and everyone in the movie works. The part that at times seems sketchy are the scenes involving Eva Mendes. True, she is HOT. But there is something about mistreating women and speaking badly to them that is a little off-putting. Thankfully, Will Ferrell’s absurdity has a point and is so out there that it actually balances the terrible treatment. One of my favorite things about this movie is that it is soo bizarre and absurd and yet all the actors commit to it. It is as if you looked through the looking glass and found a bizarre Ferrell world where his brain created it and it was real. The only underutilized person would probably be Steve Coogan. He wasn’t bad, but he could have been anyone else and probably would have fit in fine. Not only was the acting excellent, but the visual gags were spot-on and amazing as well. I loved Wahlberg’s shark screen.
I can honestly say that I haven’t laughed this hard at the movies in a while and I have never laughed so much at Will Ferrell. This movie solidifies the idea that Will Ferrell needs Adam McKay. My question is, does McKay need Ferrell? McKay manages to bring back the awesomeness of Michael Keaton and Mark Wahlberg in the same film and still make Will Ferrell look hilarious. I am not sure if it is his casting, but it is apparent that he is the only director that seems to know how to correctly use Will Ferrell in leading roles and balance the rest of the cast and script. In the future, count me down for Adam McKay movies, whether they have Will Ferrell or not.
8.5 out of 10
Wannabe
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Dinner for Schmucks
'Schmucks goes for too many yuck-yucks'
Dinner for Schmucks seems like a brilliant concept. A wonderful exploration of schadenfreude, or harm to others. Everyone has done it. We have all laughed at the kid who tripped over his own feet, or the one who has the ridiculously convoluted true story that somehow involves G.I. Joes, a turtle, and a cactus. The best part is that, on the outset, the movie seems to have everything going for it. Hilarious one-liners in trailers, Steve Carell doing his version of early Jim Carrey and being goofy and silly, people laughing in the movie at the other people, and the director of Meet the Parents which is perhaps the best example of schadenfreude comedy in the last 20 years outside of Something About Mary. Heck, The Hangover was an entire film of terrible events happening that are hilarious and look how well it did. However, the movie becomes a painful lesson in what could go wrong with such a delicate style of comedy that seems on the outside a hilarious setup but always ends with someone in pain.
One flaw with the film is the trailer. We know from the trailers that Carell is essentially a one-man wrecking crew. Therefore, going into the film we expect for him to do terrible things that mess up Paul Rudd’s life, goofy ridiculous things which according to movies are always misunderstandings and people being too nosey and ridiculous. This creates a problem with executing the desire to laugh at the terrible things that happen. As an audience member I can see the bad things happening a mile away. The nuance is simply not there. The absurdity of the surprise terrible things that only makes sense upon reflection do not occur because the absurdity is given to Carell’s character in terms of how ridiculous he is and not to what he is doing. There is no reflection and no surprise because we see it coming a mile away. Therefore, in a film meant to be about schadenfreude with a twist at the end to make the audience feel bad about having laughed at these people throughout the film, there is no feeling sorry or bad. Why? Because through most of the film instead of laughing at the horrible things that have happened to Paul Rudd, we have been hiding our heads, ashamed and embarrassed for him. Therefore the movie becomes an exercise in empathy pain for the characters instead of learning or reproaching ourselves.
The acting: Well, it is safe to say that the actors were a little too over the top. Instead of dialing it down a notch, it feels as if they were told to go with it. Carell’s character goes far too far a majority of the time and doesn’t seem even plausibly real. I feel afraid to be laughing at a mental patient. Because he is Carell, he does receive some laughs for his great timing, but it should be noted that even the script should have been doctored to show him as an idiot in one field. At least Carell’s acting was given an excellent spotlight and his moments of hurt and vulnerability are exquisitely Paul Rudd’s character is the guy that people can sympathize with. Everyone wants to be promoted and get the good life. Everyone wants the girl. However, it is hard to sympathize with someone who so quickly lies to his girlfriend consistently, promises not to lie, and then continues on his crazy quest to achieve power by essentially setting someone else up. While Rudd can play an everyman in this, this movie feels a little bit dialed in on his part. A certain straight man angst is missing. He seems to expect these horrible things constantly which takes away from his surprise and ours. His feelings for Carell’s private woes are well done but otherwise he comes across a little too typical, a little too ehhh about his woes, and little too driven at times for what he wants. Sure, he becomes a good boy in the end, but he spends a majority of the movie treating others as beneath him and there were several times when he could end the whole mess by doing the right thing instead of going along with ridiculous ideas that come from Carell’s head. Perhaps the best part about the movie is the blind swordsman and Zach Galifianakis (I hope I spelled that correct). Zach’s part is ridiculously stupid yet somehow believable and he does an excellent job of lending his jackassery toward creating feelings for Carell’s character. He is absurd and yet somehow slightly believable. Congratulations to him since I am not naturally a fan of his. Oh yea, and the painting guy is just weird and at times amusing.
Sadly, the directing in the movie feels off. The person I admired the most by the end of the film is whoever the real guy was who created all of those wonderful mouse paintings and dioramas that were quite skillful. Roach did things much better when he had Stiller playing the screw up because Stiller plays it completely straight and normal and the ridiculous things that happen occur without warning or foreshadowing and he reacts honestly as does the family and De Niro. While I did look forward to the film and it did have some hilarious moments, in the end it goes from being a sophisticated film dealing in a delicate style of comedy to being a schlapstick adult film that is as goofy as a cartoon and not as kid friendly. Better luck on Little Fockers.
Verdict: 3 out of 10
Wannabe
Dinner for Schmucks seems like a brilliant concept. A wonderful exploration of schadenfreude, or harm to others. Everyone has done it. We have all laughed at the kid who tripped over his own feet, or the one who has the ridiculously convoluted true story that somehow involves G.I. Joes, a turtle, and a cactus. The best part is that, on the outset, the movie seems to have everything going for it. Hilarious one-liners in trailers, Steve Carell doing his version of early Jim Carrey and being goofy and silly, people laughing in the movie at the other people, and the director of Meet the Parents which is perhaps the best example of schadenfreude comedy in the last 20 years outside of Something About Mary. Heck, The Hangover was an entire film of terrible events happening that are hilarious and look how well it did. However, the movie becomes a painful lesson in what could go wrong with such a delicate style of comedy that seems on the outside a hilarious setup but always ends with someone in pain.
One flaw with the film is the trailer. We know from the trailers that Carell is essentially a one-man wrecking crew. Therefore, going into the film we expect for him to do terrible things that mess up Paul Rudd’s life, goofy ridiculous things which according to movies are always misunderstandings and people being too nosey and ridiculous. This creates a problem with executing the desire to laugh at the terrible things that happen. As an audience member I can see the bad things happening a mile away. The nuance is simply not there. The absurdity of the surprise terrible things that only makes sense upon reflection do not occur because the absurdity is given to Carell’s character in terms of how ridiculous he is and not to what he is doing. There is no reflection and no surprise because we see it coming a mile away. Therefore, in a film meant to be about schadenfreude with a twist at the end to make the audience feel bad about having laughed at these people throughout the film, there is no feeling sorry or bad. Why? Because through most of the film instead of laughing at the horrible things that have happened to Paul Rudd, we have been hiding our heads, ashamed and embarrassed for him. Therefore the movie becomes an exercise in empathy pain for the characters instead of learning or reproaching ourselves.
The acting: Well, it is safe to say that the actors were a little too over the top. Instead of dialing it down a notch, it feels as if they were told to go with it. Carell’s character goes far too far a majority of the time and doesn’t seem even plausibly real. I feel afraid to be laughing at a mental patient. Because he is Carell, he does receive some laughs for his great timing, but it should be noted that even the script should have been doctored to show him as an idiot in one field. At least Carell’s acting was given an excellent spotlight and his moments of hurt and vulnerability are exquisitely Paul Rudd’s character is the guy that people can sympathize with. Everyone wants to be promoted and get the good life. Everyone wants the girl. However, it is hard to sympathize with someone who so quickly lies to his girlfriend consistently, promises not to lie, and then continues on his crazy quest to achieve power by essentially setting someone else up. While Rudd can play an everyman in this, this movie feels a little bit dialed in on his part. A certain straight man angst is missing. He seems to expect these horrible things constantly which takes away from his surprise and ours. His feelings for Carell’s private woes are well done but otherwise he comes across a little too typical, a little too ehhh about his woes, and little too driven at times for what he wants. Sure, he becomes a good boy in the end, but he spends a majority of the movie treating others as beneath him and there were several times when he could end the whole mess by doing the right thing instead of going along with ridiculous ideas that come from Carell’s head. Perhaps the best part about the movie is the blind swordsman and Zach Galifianakis (I hope I spelled that correct). Zach’s part is ridiculously stupid yet somehow believable and he does an excellent job of lending his jackassery toward creating feelings for Carell’s character. He is absurd and yet somehow slightly believable. Congratulations to him since I am not naturally a fan of his. Oh yea, and the painting guy is just weird and at times amusing.
Sadly, the directing in the movie feels off. The person I admired the most by the end of the film is whoever the real guy was who created all of those wonderful mouse paintings and dioramas that were quite skillful. Roach did things much better when he had Stiller playing the screw up because Stiller plays it completely straight and normal and the ridiculous things that happen occur without warning or foreshadowing and he reacts honestly as does the family and De Niro. While I did look forward to the film and it did have some hilarious moments, in the end it goes from being a sophisticated film dealing in a delicate style of comedy to being a schlapstick adult film that is as goofy as a cartoon and not as kid friendly. Better luck on Little Fockers.
Verdict: 3 out of 10
Wannabe
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
