Capitalizing on Our Childhoods: Part 48(!)

…And now they’re making a 21 Jump Street movie.

OMG stop it! Just stop it!

21 Jump Street was one of my favorite TV shows as a child. For a while, when asked what I wanted to be when I grew up, I would respond that I wanted to work for Jump Street. That’s right. Lil Baxter wanted to be a professional narc. Blame it on Johnny Depp’s sexy double denim look.

johnnydeppThis is one of those shows that does not stand the test of time at all. It is incredibly cheesy and heavily influenced by the Nancy Reagan era. Come to think of it, it’s a lot like Walker: Texas Ranger in its profound use of hyperbole. But with hotter, younger folk.

Since Jonah Hill is producing, I’m sure he will cast himself in the Peter DeLuise role. Maybe it’s because he stole my more talented friend’s career, but Jonah Hill kind of bugs me. Not unlike the way in which I am bugged by a movie version of 21 Jump Street!

Capitalizing on Our Childhoods: Part 47

Variety has reported that the guy who made that animated movie about Little Red Riding Hood will be taking the reins on a live action version of Fraggle Rock.
What do you want to bet that Jack Black will be somehow involved? Perhaps as Junior, the Gorg Prince? Actually, when I think about potential casting for this film, all I can think of are Apatow alums.

Ooh! I smell a geeky hypothetical casting session coming on!! Continue reading

Mamet vs. Mamet: A Revelation

I’d always had mixed feelings about David Mamet’s work. Some of his films are far too preachy and all the characters’ voices blend together into one long expletive. Others are quiet meditations on a subject with underpinnings of truth about life in general. It wasn’t until I read his book, “Bambi vs. Godzilla”, that I really understood what was going on in Mametville.

The book is basically an existential rumination on filmmaking. I can easily picture it as the cornerstone of a film school theory class. It’s funny, thoughtful, clever and honest. Just like the best of Mamet. But what really struck me was the voice of the writing. I’d heard it somewhere before…And then it hit me.

My favorite Mamet film, and one of the best films about filmmaking period is State and Main. It’s considered the least “Mamety” of his films. It feels toned down. I think it’s due in large part to having found a cast that perfectly grasps the tone of his dialog. In particular, he found the great Philip Seymour Hoffman. Hoffman is downright adorable in the role Joseph Turner White; an earnest playwright turned screenwriter who is frustrated by having to rework his script. The film is called “The Old Mill” but the crew, having been run out of the previous location thanks to the errant actions of their leading man (Alec Baldwin basically playing himself) now must complete production in a town which does not have an old mill. This is the film industry exposed, forsaking story for drama and dollar signs. White doesn’t want to lose the heart of the story. The director doesn’t care what happens so long as the producer is happy. In short, White is Mamet is why Mamet prefers to direct his own films.

stateandmainTurner White is also a gentle, soft spoke, thoughtful man. He is charming and morally upright. He falls for a like-minded local girl (the quintessential Mamet actress Rebecca Pidgeon who, by happy coincidence, is married to Mamet). She is a fan of his plays and attempts to help him find his new story without selling out. They both have an old-timey manner of speaking which shows that they are cut from the same cloth. There is not an expletive uttered between them. They are clearly meant for each other.

State and Main could have just as easily been called Mamet in Love. And when one reads “Bambi vs. Godzilla”, one hears Joseph Turner White.

But the true revelation occurred when I watched Mamet’s new film Redbelt, starring Chiwetel Ejiofor. Ejiofor is another incredibly gifted actor. Like Hoffman, he can convey a rainbow of emotions with a simple look. His deep, dark eyes are pools of insight. In Redbelt he plays Mike Terry, a teacher of Brazilian Jui Jitsu who lives by a very strict moral code. But he sees only truth and justice which allows him to be taken by evil men. Like Joseph Turner White, he speaks softly, earnestly and without profanity. The profanity is reserved for the bad people. People like Tim Allen’s spoiled aging Hollywood star and Joe Mantegna’s corrupt producer (tell us how you really feel about producers, Dave). They drop the F-Bombs like Nagasaki. And that is your clue to the Mametverse. As a viewer you know they are nefarious the minute they open their mouths. Swearing is the mark of corruption. Mamet has injected a natural spoiler into his scripts. The good people control their speech and their volume. They choose their words carefully. They speak like David Mamet.

For most people, Mamet is a love-him-or-loathe-him kind of guy. I have always been on the fence. I don’t care for Glengarry Glen Ross’. But I adore State and Main and I similarly took to “Bambi vs. Godzilla” and Redbelt. They always say you should write what you know. Now that I’ve cracked the Mamet code, I can safely say that he is at his best when he’s just being himself.

Harold and Kumar Escape the Sophomore Slump

On my way to see “Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay”, I tried to get into the same head space I was in when I saw the first one. You see, I wasn’t always a member of the Harold and Kumar congregation. When the first one opened in theaters, I was not interested.

“From the creators of ‘Dude, Where’s My Car…’ ” they said.

“Keep it,” I replied.

But then I started hearing murmurs from people I respected telling me that it was actually pretty funny.

“But…it’s a stoner comedy,” I argued. “Remember “Half Baked”? That starred frickin’ Dave Chapelle and it was still a disaster. Besides “Death to Smoochy”, it’s Jon Stewart’s favorite bad-career-move punch line.”

All that aside, I am usually willing to start any movie that I can procure for free from the library. And that, my friends, is how “Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle” ended up in my DVD player.

I sat stone-faced during the opening credits. Arms crossed, I dared the movie to draw even a snicker out of me. And then…it did. By the time the cheetah showed up, I had to admit I was having a pretty good time. When Kumar and Roldy sang at the top of their lungs along to Wilson Phillips, I came to terms with my new found love. I immediately watched the movie again with commentary.

Sequels are rarely a good idea and I wasn’t in the mood to get my heart broken but I was exited to hang out with my favorite odd couple again.

The movie opens with the two heading to Amsterdam to find Roldy’s new girlfriend, Maria. Kumar, true to Id-laden form, decides to smuggle some weed onto the plane. To Amsterdam. Panic ensues when the already on-edge passengers mistake the boNG for a boMB, resulting in Kumar and his “accomplice” being shuffled off to the titular Cuban prison.

Unlike getting to White Castle, escaping from Guantanamo Bay is, apparently, pretty easy. Their challenge this time around is making their way to Texas to find the one man who can exonerate them; an acquaintance with government ties who just happens to be the fiancé of Kumar’s lost love. On the way they are pursued by an overzealous and naive FBI agent (the brilliant Rob Corddry) and must also contend with the KKK. And as an early promotional poster suggested, Neil Patrick Harris is back as the sex-crazed, drug-addled…Neil Patrick Harris.

haroldandkumarI was apprehensive that this would be the worst part of the movie. The reason the NPH gag worked so well in the first film was because we didn’t see it coming.

“What’s the deal with Neil Patrick Harris?” Roldy asked after their initial run-in. “Why is he so horny?”

Why indeed. But it turns out there is more funny to be gleaned from the NPH persona. No spoilers here but rest assured, the unicorn pays off. Plus Neil Patrick Harris really has that character nailed.

Another highlight concerns a flashback to college where we learn that Kumar wasn’t always so fancy-free and Roldy wasn’t always so Old Navy. Granted, these are moments for the already converted. Many of you are probably still thinking, “But the first one looked so dumb. Did we really need two of these? I’d rather see what is currently in the works for that delightful Dax Shepard.”

WHY THE H & K MOVIES WORK:
Yes there are gross-out jokes and plenty o’ Porky’s-esque nudity. Sure the film opens with a joke about crapping. I agree that prison rape humor is played out. But in this context it works because Harold and Kumar are unique protagonists. Not because they’re Asian leads, although that is tragically unusual. Nay, they are unique because they are completely accessible. I gleefully followed their quest to go to White Castle amidst persecution from bullies and awkward encounters with the opposite sex because I know those guys. I have been those guys (albeit a female version). They may be above average in the looks department, but they also have job stress and pressure from their parents. They get into some wacky adventures, some of which might seem pretty contrived, but in the end they want the same things we all want: Love, tasty food and the service of justice. The “stoner comedy” is still an unfortunate genre, but Harold and Kumar rise above it because it’s not a movie about smoking weed. Not really. It’s about being a citizen of 21st Century America. And it’s hilarious.

Don’t Be Scared of Scarecrow Video

X-Posted from 98105.net.

It’s true. It can be a bit intimidating to rent videos at Scarecrow Video, whatwith their two stories of rare and imported DVDs on top of all the usual fare. More intimidating still is the staff that actually has to take a test as part of their employment application. Perhaps it is passing this trial that gives some of the staff a bit of an ego.
I will always remember my experience when attempting to rent the Monkees movie…

As a general rule, I dislike asking staff in shops for help, so I first looked for it myself in the music section next to the Monkees TV show. It was not there. I slunk downstairs and located an employee. I knew what the movie was called, but I felt weird asking if they had “Head”, so I opted for what I deemed to be a less risqué, more informational method of inquiry.

“Do you have the Monkees movie?”

The man behind the counter scoffed (yes, scoffed). “You mean “Head”?”

“Yeeees.”

Without hesitation or the aid of the store’s database, he responded “That would be in the Bob Rafelson section.”

We blinked at each other for a couple of seconds and then I headed to the directors’ section.

Now, I am a bit of a movie geek myself so I was familiar with Rafelson, who also directed “Five Easy Pieces” and “The Postman Always Rings Twice”. But forgive me if I didn’t think the man warranted his own section in a video store. This particular employee did not forgive me.

This experience is certainly not typical at Scarecrow. Most of the employees are helpful and enthusiastic. But there are enough encounters like this to give myself and others I’ve spoken to pause when they want to rent a silly Hollywood movie like, say, “Hot Rod”. If you don’t have a specific film in mind, however, or you have a very specific RARE movie in mind, the folks at Scarecrow (mostly) can and will be more than happy to help you out.

Check out their blog for recommendations, news about new releases and sale announcements.

5030 Roosevelt Way NE 98105
(206) 524-8554
www.scarecrow.com

Do you have a Scarecrow horror/help story? Tell it in the comments!

Funny Games: A Critical Essay on a 1/2 Dimentional Film

Austrian filmmaker, Michael Haneke, sure thinks a lot of his “ideas”. He has come to the conclusion that people have not only become desensitized to violence, but that we crave it in our cinema. And that makes us jerks. Jerks who must be punished. By him.

The punishment comes in the form of Funny Games, a film deemed so important by the filmmaker, that he made it twice: First in 1997 in his native country and then again in 2008, shot for shot and in English, because he knows that many Americans would miss an Austrian film. Well, it turns out most Americans will miss the film in English. I am among the unhappy few.

It begins with Ann, George and George Jr. Farber, an uninteresting yuppie family, driving to their vacation home. They are immediately unlikeable but that's OK because torture is on the horizon. What you don't know is that it will be you, the audience, who is tortured.

The Farbers arrive at their home and proceed to settle in. Ann (Naomi Watts) sets about cooking dinner while the Georges (Tim Roth, lacking the deliciousness of his bad guy characters, and wide-eyed child Devon Gearhart) work on their boat. Of course they have a boat.

After an excruciatingly long period of watching the family “be real”, a young man dressed in white arrives at the door asking to borrow some eggs. (The white outfit is no doubt meant to invoke A Clockwork Orange, one of many superior films with a similar message.) He “accidentally” drops them and then asks for some more. It slowly dawns on Ann that she isn't in control of the situation and she begrudgingly complies in order to get him to leave. Eventually, he does, but of course later returns with his companion played by the once cherubic Michael Pitt. (Does anyone besides me remember him as the sweet, fawning Henry on Dawson's Creek?!) Soon, but not nearly soon enough, the would-be Droogs make it clear that they are there eff up some white suburban azz.

Here's where things get interesting. Or at least they would have in the hands of a thoughtful auteur. But Haneke would have none of this, how do you say, story and character. “You want torture?” he implicitly asks. “Ooh, yes please!” say my $9. “Well, here's your torture! It will all happen off camera under the ruse that the audience's brain naturally draws more horrific conclusions, but really it's because I am prudish and lack imagination, as proven by the fact that I made a film whose sole purpose is to reprimand people who like violent movies.”


Oh, Henry!

This isn't an interpretation of a subtle film either. He says as much in interviews, but moreover, has his characters say it. Directly to the audience. Michael Pitt's antagonistic Paul (or Jerry or Butthead as he sometimes refers to himself…GET IT??!!) continuously breaks the fourth wall, asking if we've had enough or who we will bet on as the victor. George asks Paul why they are doing this and Paul jokingly delivers a series of cliche excuses for his companion's motives including sexual and classicist frustration and a history of abuse. You see, they are just two evil sons of bitches getting off on hurting people. George replies that he “gets it”, as if to anticipate the audience's response to this transparent sermon. But Paul just laughs. “He gets it. That's awesome,” he cackles. It is the voice of Haneke himself condescending to the people who were foolish enough to buy a ticket. At the halfway mark, you definitely “get it”, but the movie is far from over. Haneke will continue to drive his point home for another hour. It isn't clever and it doesn't make me feel guilty for wanting to see a horror movie. It just makes me wish that I could break Haneke's knee with a golf club.

Haneck's torture of the audience doesn't stop with preachy speeches and the elimination of compelling characters and creative bloodshed. He also draws out every single action and shot to an agonizing length. The worst case of this occurs during the “eye of the storm” in which the boys leave Ann and George to their false sense of security. The audience, having seen movies before, knows that they will be back. But they don't come back until after, in a mostly still shot, George struggles to sit up despite a broken leg and Ann hobbles around the living room and kitchen in her underwear attempting to cut her bindings. Next she helps him (without any help from he with one unbroken leg) into the kitchen where they take turns blow drying a cell phone battery. I don't know how long this scene is. Maybe 20 minutes. It feels longer. But all of this non-action happens in real time. We are relieved when the boys finally come back to finish the job. Of course, that takes forever too.

Michael Haneke is wrong about his audience, anyway. Most of us don't go to violent movies because we are violent people. We enjoy them as a way to relieve aggression without actually hurting people. A Clockwork Orange, Natural Born Killers and The Devil's Rejects have messages about society but they work, in addition to being superior scripts, because there is something satisfying about watching engaging characters kill and/or die in unusual ways. I don't seek out real life violence. Hell, I'm a vegetarian. I know the difference between fiction and reality. But Haneke's smug polemic doesn't just fail because he is wrong, it also fails because he made a bad film. Twice. Perhaps he will now dedicate his life to remaking the film in every language. Perhaps too, he will eventually make a version that doesn't suck.

X-Posted from The Reel

A Most Unexpected Comedy

A friend of mine recently stated that he does not care for most comedies because he always sees the punchline coming. In order for him to enjoy a comedy, he must be surprised by the joke. In that case, I truly believe that he would LOVE The Brothers Solomon.

The titular brothers, John (Will Arnett, Arrested Development) and Dean (Will Forte, Saturday Night Live), were raised by their father (Lee Majors, The Six Million Dollar Man, of course) in the Arctic, having moved there on a whim after the death of their mother. As a result of their isolation, their social skills leave much to be desired. This proves to be a problem when it comes to dating. When their father falls into a coma, after expressing a desire for grandchildren, the brothers surmise that the only way to save him is to become fathers themselves. But how?! Cue the socially awkward hyjinks!

I admit, the premise sounds a bit iffy and sitcom-esque. In the wrong hands, it could have been catastrophic. But scribe, Will Forte, pulls it off and manages to create a comedy that is at once irreverent, uncomfortable and even somewhat heartwarming. Forte and Arnett deliver potentially disastrous jokes with perfect timing and even a little depth.


They want to put a baby in you.

The hilarity begins with the opening credits: A simple matter of the Wills popping their heads in and out of frame and making faces to the tune of the Flaming Lips “Yeah Yeah Yeah Song”. Again, something that could have fallen flat, but the face-making mastery of the Wills had the tears of laughter streaming down my face before one word of dialog was spoken.

Kristen Wiig (Saturday Night Live, Knocked Up, Walk Hard) plays the straight role, against type, as the woman who dares to carry the Solomon seed for money. This may be one of the film's only disappointments, as her dry witty delivery is somewhat squandered in a role that could have gone to any un-funny actress.

This is the third feature film directed by ex-Mr. Show co-creator, Bob Odenkirk. While I practically worshiped the Mr. Show oeuvre, and loved Odenkirk's short films (The Pity Card series, The Frank International Film Festival), I was yet to be impressed by his feature work. Melvin Goes to Dinner was interesting, but the characterization felt forced. Drama is not Odenkirk’s forte. Let's Go to Prison was great in concept, and starred the usually flawless Will Arnett. However, its fatal shortcoming was that it also heavily featured comedic downer, Dax Shepherd. That guy is just not at all funny.

But with The Brothers Solomon, (due, in no small part, to the writing talent of Will Forte), Bob Odenkirk has finally returned to his Mr. Show-level perfection. And thank god. I was really starting to worry.

X-Posted from the Reel.

God, I Hate You Michael Bay

Guess who wants to remake Rosemary's Baby?

So yet another classic film (and one of my favorites) is being stripped of its soul and artistic credibility and crapified for the blockbuster crowd.

I take some small solace in the fact that Michael Bay have probably never heard of Straight to Hell or Cemetery Man. I would make some joke about a Brett Ratner remake of Chinatown or a Zach Snyder remake of Re-Animator, but I'll probably just come to find that it's true. When I heard about Bay remaking the Transformers movie, I joked about a Clash of the Titans remake and THAT came to fruition.

Hollywood makes me feel sad and hollow.

Semi-Pro is Semi-Funny

X-Posted from The Reel.

I used to think that the hardest reviews to write were those for films that I really loved. There are, it seems, far fewer interesting ways to say you love a film than to say it stinks. As Harvey Danger says, “Happiness writes white”.

It turns out that there is a harder review to write: Those for films that are just OK. Will Ferrell's new period-piece sports comedy, Semi-Pro, is just that.

Everyone seems to agree that Will Ferrell is well suited to play the lovable arrogant dim-wit which is why he is back for the 45th time to play that role again. This time, his name is Jackie Moon, and he owns an ABA basketball team in 1976, just before the ABA is abolished, and four of the teams absorbed into the NBA. Moon desperately wants his rag tag bunch of misfits, the Flint, Michigan Tropics, to be one of the new NBA teams and so he recruits a washed-up, jaded ex-NBA player named Monix (Woody Harrelson) to help. While Monix is in Flint, he calls upon an old flame (Maura Tierney), thus bringing some breast and thigh to this sausage fest.

The supporting cast is rounded out by Andre Benjamin (A.K.A. Andre 3000), Will Arnett (TV's Arrested Development, the pants-soiling hilarity of The Brothers Solomon) and Rob Corddry (The Daily Show). Benjamin is *good* as the straight man (and only legitimately talented player on the team) who dreams of playing for the NBA. Arnett and Corddry are *funny* as a sports commentator and the jilted boyfriend of Maura Tierney who doesn't seem to mind. The jokes amusing. The story is engaging and Will Ferrell is competent. But we are pretty much just reinventing the wheel here.

When I think about it, a tropical-themed basketball team in snowy Flint, Michigan should be very funny. Will Ferrell having a dramatic moment whilst dressed as the sun and addressing his teammates in seahorse costumes should be hilarious. As should Will Ferrell fighting a bear, a mustachioed Will Arnett constantly drinking and smoking and insulting his co-anchor, Will Ferrell inciting a brawl during a commercial break and more. But it's nothing more than moderately amusing. Not a waste of your time, but you wouldn't miss much if you decided to read a book instead. If this movie were a pizza topping, it would be pepperoni. Sure, it's good, but it's nothing to write home about.

Film Threat Review: Life with Fiona

Originally Posted on FilmThreat.com (now defunct).

2007
Un-rated
85 minutes
1 Star

 

Writer/Director/”actor” Greg Lobb looks and sounds exactly like John Hodgman. Unfortunately, that’s where the similarities end. While Daily Show correspondent, satirist, and P.C. anti-spokesperson Hodgman has an intellectual buffoonish charm, Greg Lobb makes me want to “lobb”. I can’t believe I spent 85 minutes with him and his inane film.

“Life with Fiona” tells the story of a man named Steve who is unlucky in love. This seems to have a lot to do with the fact that the guy is a total loser. Not a lovable loser, mind you. He’s more like that unnerving dork who works in your office with whom you hate to get stuck in the break room because no matter what crappy small talk he makes, he’s obviously just staring at your boobs. Luckily, Steve works in some sort of alternate-dimension office (they sell golf pencils or something. I don’t know) wherein every employee is exactly like him. There are no women apart from an infantile secretary named Jessica (no relation) who plays with dolls and is inexplicably lusted after by everyone else in the office. I suppose when there is only one female in your office, your lusting options are kind of limited.

Anywho, Steve doesn’t need to worry about being rejected by Jessica for long because there are plenty of other bat-shit fish in the sea. One day Steve runs into an enchantingly nutso lady at his BFF’s apartment. Her name is Fiona and she’s enchanting because she answers the door naked and she’s just had a three-way with Steve’s BFF and wife of BFF. This means she’s super slutty and therefore, Steve, coincidentally the protagonist of this film, totally has a chance with her.

What follows is scene after scene of boring old Steve and crazy as the day-is-long Fiona (but god, isn’t she HAWT?!) having some sort of weird-ass relationship. She’s needy and he’s uncomfortable with that (even though she is without question, the best he can do). Then he’s needy and she’s slutty. This is followed by scenes wherein I guess we’re supposed to think they’re a happy, cute couple. Next she becomes bitchy and breaks up with him. He reacts by becoming needy and whiny which miraculously results in them getting back together. After that she’s paranoid about him cheating on her with Wife of BFF. He assures her she’s the only woman for him and then he promptly goes out and cheats on her with Wife of BFF. I may have the order a little wrong but trust me, it doesn’t really matter. Why we’re supposed to like any of these characters or care what happens next is really beyond me. And don’t even get me started on the story structure. It’s like ‘Ol Lobbo couldn’t decide between the options in the holy triumvirate of irritating narration styles (voice-over, titles, or the one wherein the main character stands in a black limbo and breaks the 4th wall) so they decided to go with all three.

I suppose this movie is supposed to be funny and sometimes, if the writing is strong, you can make up for a lack of sympathetic (or even multi-dimensional) characters and still have a pretty good comedy. (Alex Cox’s “Straight to Hell” and “State and Main” come to mind). This did not happen with “Life with Fiona.” At all. Greg, don’t quit your day Lobb.