Category: Comedy

Review: ‘Year One’

year one

It was in 335 BC in his works entitled “Poetics” that Aristotle divided poetry into three categories: Tragedy, Comedy, and Epic verse.  The term “Comedy” was set by the Greeks and the Romans to mean any form of stage play that ended with a happy ending.  It was in later years that the term became synonymous with laughter.

‘Year One’ takes place long before this period of time, and, to watch it, you begin to wonder if comedy even existed before Aristotle came along.   The writers and director behind this movie, Harold Ramis, Gene Stupnitsky and Lee Eisenberg, are no strangers to comedy.   Between the three of them, they have been behind such modern classics as ‘Vacation,’ ‘Groundhog Day,’ and the American version of “The Office.”  Unfortunately, the three of them together have come up with ‘Year One,’ a “comedy” only in the sense that it challenges its audience to laugh even if it never quite succeeds in doing so.

The first laugh of the movie is nothing horrible.  A group of cavemen are hunting a yak through a forest area.  They stalk their prey ever so diligently, and, just as they are ready to attack, a spear comes in from the side of the frame piercing one of the cavemen’s back.  The spear was thrown by Zed (Jack Black), a rather lethargic and unintelligent hunter.

Zed’s best friend in the tribe is Oh (Michael Cera), a gatherer who never quite knows if he is coming or going.  After partaking in the fruit of the tree of knowledge, Zed and Oh find themselves banished from the tribe, and we follow them in their adventures out into the unknown landscape of this prehistoric world.

‘Year One’ plays like the last sketch of a middle-of-the-season episode of “Saturday Night Live” strung over the course of a 90-minute frame with every kind of bathroom joke known to man.   It seems like Ramis and crew have written out a checklist of every known form of gross-out humor and go down the list, marking them off as they toss them into their screenplay. Every time the film feels like it hasn’t tried to make you laugh for 10 minutes, someone has to urinate upside down into their own face or someone else decides they have to eat bear feces as part of being a tracker.

The form of humor found in ‘Year One’ is extremely amateurish. It is amazing to consider the levels of comedy created by the people behind this movie, and that’s not even including Black and Cera who have been in some of the finer comedies over the past few years. You begin to wonder what happened in the film’s script phase that warranted this idea to throw in as many easily discarded bathroom jokes as possible.

The movie’s script does have a few moments here and there that could have, in more capable hands, come off as near great. Zed and Oh stumble upon Cain and Abel (David Cross and Paul Rudd, respectively).   They are a pair of bickering siblings, and you know how their story ends up from your Sunday school. It’s violent comedy at first when you watch Cross begin to beat Rudd with a large rock. However, the joke grows extremely weak extremely fast as Rudd’s Abel appears to be resurrected time and time again only to be beat down with increasing force. One flurry of rock smashes into the skull equals funny. Eight or nine equals mind-numbing coarseness.

Later Zed and Oh come across Abraham (Hank Azaria) just as he is about to sacrifice his son, Isaac (Christopher Mintz-Plasse). It isn’t very long before circumcisions are introduced and jokes abound about people getting the ends of their penises sliced off. Earth-shattering comedy here, folks.

Black and Cera, like most of the cast, make as much out of what they have. Black throws his crazy and arrogant gazes around whenever he can. Cera plays honest and confused better than anyone. It really is inspired casting that put these two in these roles. It is just so evident that neither they nor Ramis can get the film’s pace moving more than a meandering crawl. It is rather fitting that the film features a chase scene involving laggard yaks pulling bulky carts. It is one of only a few times the film pulls out more than a slight chuckle from its audience. Even the chuckles show themselves with decreasing frequency as the film progresses.

Oliver Platt shows up as a homosexual High Priest and Vinnie Jones makes an undersized appearance as a member of a royal army. They both do what they can with what they have, but that isn’t saying much. An early candidate for Best Supporting Performance of the year goes to Platt’s fake chest hair in a scene involving rubbing oil. It’s very gross, and it doesn’t even come close to making you laugh.

It appears Ramis, Stupnitsky, and Eisenberg’s screenplay was a victim of the Writers Guild strike, as there really isn’t much that could have been written here. The shooting schedule of the film fell right in the middle of that time, and it seems whenever they came to a hole in their screenplay, they filled it with every form of juvenile humor they could get their hands on.

In the end, that is all ‘Year One’ amounts to, a rather large hole filled with scatological comedy, an empty vessel that throws toilet humor at its audience like a monkey throwing…wait for it…bananas. Whether it is a more offensive film than the recent ‘Land of the Lost’ remains to be seen, and the comparison between the two is rather valid. Both feature a cast and crew that you would think would deliver a first-rate comedy. Unfortunately, both deliver a solid 90 minutes of injected indelicacies posing as something funnier than it is. Being on the receiving end of a stoning is more fun than ‘Year One.’ Maybe that’s pushing it, but not by much.

Clip from ‘Redo’, a Movie within ‘Funny People’

In ‘Funny People’ Adam Sandler plays a comedian (George Simmons) who has a string of horrible comedies that in the end are really successful. From the clip below his character could be a dig at The Wayans Bros, but just for yourself.

Here is the description from the video which Justin Long posted on FunnyorDie.com

Craig, a workaholic lawyer, never made time for his relationships. Alone and depressed on his 40th birthday, he wonders about the life he could have lead. But be careful what you wish for… you might just find yourself in diapers! When a wizard gives Craig a second chance at his youth, he discovers that sometimes it takes becoming a baby to learn how to be a man

Thanks to /Film for the heads up.

Sean Penn Not Playing a ‘Stooge’

sean penn

If you, like most of us, thought the idea of Sean Penn playing Larry in the updated version of ‘The Three Stooges’ sounded like a horrible idea, you weren’t alone.  In fact, the most important party of this story thought it was a bad idea, as well.  Penn has dropped out of the role claiming he wants to take a step away from Hollywood for a while to spend time with his family.

We brought you word back in March that Penn had been cast in the role, while Jim Carrey had been cast as Curly, and Benicio Del Toro had been cast as Moe.  The Farrelly Brothers have spent the better part of a decade trying to get a ‘Three Stooges’ project off the ground, and it looked like  this time, they would finally get something moving.  However, this news about Penn stepping out only makes the pre-production stage that much longer for the writing/directing team.

This hiatus is also causing Penn to step out of his role in the Universal thriller, ‘Cartel.’  No official word on how long Penn plans to stay out of hte Hollywod spotlight, but sources claim it could be up to a year.

Source: The Hollywood Reporter

CineVegas Review: ‘The Revenant’

therevenantmovie

Friendship and strange relationships seems to have been one of the major themes represented at CineVegas 2009.   We had not one, but two love stories told out of sinc (‘500 Days of Summer’ and ‘Mercy).   We had two, straight friends who decide to make a porno for artistic value in ‘Humpday.’   We even had an intergalactic relationship between a rugged outlaw and a little girl with ‘Stingray Sam.’   However, nothing seen all week at CineVegas would prepare us for the strangeness found in the horror comedy film, ‘The Revenant.’

Joey (Chris Wylde) is a slacker, a real low-life who would rather sell drugs than go out and find a real job.   He has just buried his best friend and roommate, Bart (David Anders), a soldier who has died in Iraq.   Joey is about to go on with his life when Bart, resurrected from the grave, comes knocking on his door.

Bart has become, for no reason given, a revenant, a member of the undead who must satisfy his cravings for human blood by night.   He dies again each dawn, only to be brought right back once the sun goes down.   So, what do you do with a friend who is completely immortal and is only able to go out at night?   You party your heads off, right?

The narrative for ‘The Revenant’ doesn’t just stop at the level of two friends dealing with newfound immortality in one of them.   It delves into violence, gets more complex, and, by the end of the film, completely goes way out on the limb.   Joey and Bart become a duo of vigilantes, taking out murderers and drug dealers allowing Bart to suck them dry of their blood.   If ‘The Revenant’ would have stuck with this storyline and allowed the majority of the film to follow this path, it would have worked successfuly in several different ways.   However, writer/director Kerry Prior only gives the two a small amount of screen time to work any violent magic on the criminal underworld.   Much of the film’s earlier scenes is played out for absolute comic relief with the hanging out, getting drunk, and, basically, being the adolescent partiers Joey has always wanted them to be.

These early moments could have easily been cut out.   If nothing else, they could have been shortened immensely.   It seems like most of the scenes found in ‘The Revenant’ are about twice as long as they need to be.   It is well into the film before the real plotline begins to reveal itself.   Don’t get me wrong.   There is a lot of fun to be had in the first half of ‘The Revenant.’   Anders and Wylde are clearly having a blast playing these two characters, and it seems much of their early scenes together were improvised while the two were just hanging out.   Anders just happens to have crazy, zombie makeup covering his face and Kerry Prior just happens to be there with a camera to film it all.

The first half of ‘The Revenant’ offers up some bloody good fun, as well.   Prior’s interest in directing the film more towards horror is evident.   He never holds back from showing us the red stuff.   Unfortunately, the story behind all the fun horror just isn’t as interesting as it should have or even could have been.

One thing, however, that is interesting about the film’s plot is the notion that Prior never gives us a reason for Bart’s resurrection.   Late scenes give an indication that this is a small part of something bigger, but there still is no explanation given.   It’s not needed, and it would have just slowed down the film more than it already was.

Needless to say, at some point, Joey becomes a member of the undead, as well, and this is where the film begins to take more of a dramatic turn.   It is a very interesting study to have two friends become members of the undead, conscious as they are, and show that they have two, opposing views on what they should do with the power.   Bart feels the two are doing good in the world, taking out bad guys and feeding his own thirst for human blood at the same time.   Joey just wants to run off to Vegas where day and night are pretty much flipped anyway.   I say this is a very interesting study, but Prior doesn’t allow this much screen time, either.   And this is saying something considering the film’s running time of just under two hours.

One element that is given just enough amount of screen time is the relationship between Bart and his girlfriend, Janet, played by Louise Griffiths.   Prior hits on it a few times here and there, but, for the most part, it just lingers in the background.   One scene between Bart and Janet actually delves into the realm of high emotion.   It doesn’t hurt that Prior has some nicely placed Muse playing in the background.

‘The Revenant’ feels like a statue that is half chiseled.   You know there is a masterpiece under there somewhere, but the artist involved still has a lot of work to do on it.   The film feels like it was rushed through production extremely fast.   This is a definite possibility.   They could have rushed through production just to get a workable print to show at CineVegas.   Special effects are not polished at all.   The editor involved needs to go back and work through the flow of the film again.   There are several scenes late in the film that make absolutely no sense, and they don’t offer anything to the overall story, either.   At a certain point late in the film, Bart begins attempting suicide.   It might have been effective earlier in the film, but, after seeing him getting shotgun-blasted by drug dealers more than a few times, it doesn’t really mean anything to see him trying and failing to hang himself.

There are about half a dozen points where ‘The Revenant’ could have ended.   It probably should have picked one of these moments.   As more and more false endings come our way, our interest in what happens to Bart and Joey grows less and less.   By the end of the film, the storyline gets so convoluted that the whale-sized plot holes found in the film’s ending aren’t even of note.   You just don’t care by then.

‘The Revenant’ is a film that could have been a lot of fun.   Everyone involved seems to have been having a grand time shooting it, and this level of comraderie really does comes through for most of the film.   Unfortunately, what could have been a fast-paced and highly entertaining horror comedy gets lost in the middle of a film that still needs a whole lot of post-production work.   If the film gets picked up for distribution, I’m sure these problems will get fixed.   Plain and simple, ‘The Revenant’ seen at CineVegas was an unfinished version of a much better film.   There is just one more piece of evidence that the film wasn’t complete.   The final credit in the opening credits reads: PRODUCED, WRITTEN, AND DIRECTOR BY KERRY PRIOR.   That just about says it all.

CineVegas Review: ‘Black Dynamite’

black-dynamite

Listen up, all you jive turkeys.   It’s time to get your ass to the nearest movie theater, pop down your Lincolns, crack open an Anaconda, and check out ‘Black Dynamite,’ the most badass exploitation movie to come out in years.   It’s mean.   It’s hard.   It’s in your damn face.   ‘Black Dynamite’ delivers all the goods in every department.   Action.   Comedy.   Even a bit of political espionage.   But don’t let the goofy nature of the movie’s more humorous side steer you clear.   This is one, badass ride, and anyone who says otherwise is liable to get a nunchaku upside the cranium.

Okay, Blaxploitation voiceover aside, ‘Black Dynamite’ is a real treat, a balls-to-the-wall action comedy that incorporates everything that made films like ‘Super Fly’ and ‘Shaft’ so memorable.   Loosely inspired by ‘Three the Hard Way,’ screenwriter and star Michael Jai White wanted to make a film that poked fun at as much as embraced all the elements of a quintessential Blaxploitation film.   His narrative follows the title character, a former CIA operative whose brother, an undercover agent, has been gunned down.   Fast kicks, fast dialogue, and fast comedy ensue with a serious verocity.

White and director Scott Sanders really know the genre they are working with.   ‘Black Dynamite’ seems like an effortless collage of everything Blaxploitation, with a few, added elements thrown into the mix.   The camera is completely unstable, sometimes even wandering off to the side.   Sometimes the actors will look directly at the camera, read screenwriters notes out loud as if they were lines of dialogue, and even break character a time or two.   At one point, a character slaps another, and Sanders makes it seem like the really was a connection.   The actor who was slapped starts to call the other a dirty name, there’s a cut, and the shot is redone with a completely new actor in the role of the slapee.   It’s such a minute moment in the overall film, but it’s one of the more memorable bits of fourth-wall comedy found in ‘Black Dynamite.’

The comedy in ‘Black Dynamite’ is all over the top, some jumping way ahead of other parts.   We see the invention of chicken and waffles.   We see an underground meeting of all the major pimps that includes stellar cameos by Arsenio Hall, Bokeem Woodbine, John Salley, and Cedric Yarbrough, whose Chocolate Giddy-up has probably one of the best character names in recent memory.   The “ah-ha” moment when Black Dynamite and his crew figure out the conspiracy behind what is going on is as ludicrous as it is hysterical.   Let’s just say it involves everything from M&Ms to Greek Gods to Little Richard.   It’s really a scene to behold and words cannot do it justice.

The lead character is amazingly written, a juggernaut of martial arts who, evidently, everyone in the world knows about, even the President of the United States.   Every time Jai White’s Black Dynamite enters a room, everyone is effected in various ways.   Some run from him.   Some begin quaking in their boots.   One woman in particular can’t stop from tearing up.   It’s so much fun to watch Jai White play the character he himself has written.   You can just feel it oozing from the screen how much fun everyone had in making this film.

‘Black Dynamite’ isn’t all about the comedy, either.   There is some really nice fight scenes in this film courtesy of Jai White’s martial arts background.   Regardless of how you view these fight scenes, whether through the glasses of comedy or action, you will not be disappointed.   They work so well either way.   And, because of that, ‘Black Dynamite’ really comes out as a brilliant mesh of action and comedy, a la ‘Hot Fuzz.’   It really is to Blaxploitation films what ‘Hot Fuzz’ was to buddy cop movies.

This isn’t to say the film is perfect.   There is a perfect end point to the film that takes plance on a locale known as Kung Fu Island.   This should have been the finale of the movie, but it goes on from there.   The very last action scene is unnecessary, and it really lowers the film’s standards a bit.   I won’t go into detail what the last scene is about or who is revealed to be behind the whole conspiracy.   I will, however, say that Jai White and Sanders’ film doesn’t fall into pure spoof until those last moments, and it is completely unneeded.   The first 9/10 of the film worked perfectly, because it didn’t feel like the filmmakers behind it were trying to be funny.   It truly felt like a serious action movie from the ’70s that just wasn’t working, and, because of that, the majority of this film is brilliant.   It is in those last few moments that Jai White and Sanders feel like they are trying too hard, attempting to inject a brand of comedy that just isn’t necessary.

What more, though, can be said about Jai White’s performance here.   The man is so talented as a screenwriter and as an actor, and his fight scenes are incredible to watch, as well.   Funny when he needs to be, intimidating when he needs to be, and absolutely charming when he needs to be, Michael Jai White is everything in his performance here, and nothing is held back, nor should it have been.

‘Black Dynamite’ is a blast, a hilarious action comedy that delivers everything you would want from a film whose forefathers were the classic Blaxploitation films of the ’70s.   Jai White and Sanders clearly have a lover for that genre, and they show it in the best way imaginable.   They have crafted a picture perfect reenactment of one of those films, and they have made it their very own.   When you have the chance, check out ‘Black Dynamite,’ sucker.   Your ass just might depend on it.

CineVegas Review: ‘In The Loop’

cinevegas_intheloop

‘In the Loop,’ the feature film adaption of the BBC series “The Thick of It,” is an aggressively funny, and oftentimes startling, depiction of the current, political structure.   Dividing the time between the US and the UK, it takes just about everything you believed to be true in terms of foreign affairs and political backstabbing, and turns them into a series of verbal sparring where each character tries to get the upper hand in the most lewd and intense way.   The backstabbing is pretty much reiterated, though.

It all starts with one, precise word, “unforeseeable.”   That is how the British Secretary of State for International Development refers to military action by the US.   That word becomes the catalyst for a series of conversations, some halfway civilized, some downright ugly, about whether the UN should or should not vote for the war.   Eccentric and, most of the time, fairly vile characters make for interesting window dressing along the way.

Directed by Armando Iannucci, ‘In the Loop’ is a film about politics, but the director never shows his cards or attempts to sway the audience.   Filmed in a style akin to “The Office,” Iannucci displays the characters and events in the film with ever-moving camera angles, zoom-ins and outs, and a jarring sense of place to bridge the audience into the film.   Every character within the film has their own opinions, and each is, deep down, a rather immoral person who will stop at nothing to get their way.   Iannucci does an incredible job keeping the different characters seperate, never allowing any one of them to get an upper hand in terms of importance to the story.

That story, by the way, grows ever more complex as the deadline grows near and the vulgarities grow ever more crass.   It is a complex story, and, if you aren’t paying very close attention, it is easy to get mixed up in the myriad of opinions and political discourse.   I wouldn’t go so far as to say it is ever convoluted.   The screenwriters at work here, Jesse Armstrong, Simon Blackwell, Tony Roche, and Iannucci, keep the film just entertaining enough throughout to never be on the wrong end of confusion.   The overall idea is very simple.   Some people think war is a good idea.   Others don’t.   The red tape, career threats and reprehensible attitudes are all just part of the show.   These elements add seasoning (and a little gristle) to an already sizable steak.

The film leads you to believe that debates never really go anywhere.   You can never sway a politician’s initial ideaology.   You can only insult his mother and tell him where he can shove his belief system.   The film becomes extremely episodic through the thick, middle scenes.   I almost expected a scoreboard to pop up at the bottom of the screen, counting up insults from either side so that, once the scene was over, we might have a better understanding of who actually won.

Playing the parts of these crass characters are some extremely talented actors.   First and foremost is Peter Capaldi, who reprises his role from the BBC TV series as Malcom Tucker, the main spin-doctor for the Prime Minister.   Capaldi seems like he could insult someone in his sleep and without much thought put into it.   I hate to speculate on whether someone’s scenes are or are not improvised, but Capaldi never stammers over his lines.   I’m not even sure he ever even repeats himself on any of his insults.   Before the film is over, you will definitely have more than a few new ways of telling someone off.   They come from all of the characters, but Capaldi’s Malcom Tucker is the keynote speaker in this film, to put it one way.

Other notable performances come from James Gandolfini as a military general, Tom Hollander as the mush-mouthed, and oftentimes witless, Secretary of State who starts the whole mess, and David Rasche as a US State department official who uses a live hand grenade as a paper weight.   Each of these actors, and others too numerous to name here, gives an outstanding performance, and each brings in their own level of charisma that either turns you on or turns you off to that, specific role.   Steve Coogin pops up about halfway through as a citizen of the private sector who can’t get the UK officials to hear him about his decaying, brick wall.   It’s a fun performance, and the role is pertinent to the underside of the story, but it just seems a bit too heavy-handed in the realm of dry humor the rest of the film creates.

Complex, intelligent, and, most importantly, all-out funny, ‘In the Loop’ is a look at the political system you may have never seen before.   It is intensely comical, and it offers up enough different kinds of humor to just about satisfy anyone.   The lude nature of most of the characters might be a bit much to some people, and hearing Peter Capaldi scream for nearly two hours might not seem all that much fun to some people.   However, ‘In The Loop’ is anything but bland.   On the contrary, it is a riotous film for anyone willing to give it the time.

CineVegas Review: ‘Saint John of Las Vegas’

stjohnlasvegas

Lady luck is a fickle woman. She can be the most splendid, incredibly beautiful apparition you may ever behold. Then again, she can also be a cold, cold heartless wench without mercy. For John, played by Steve Buscemi, she’s mostly the later, relentlessly teasing John with plenty of luck, just not the right kind. John used to be a big shot, a high roller in Las Vegas. Everyone knew his name and they knew his game, but that’s before his luck changed.

First-time director Hue Rhodes scores a winner right out of the gate with this comedy about John, an average middle-aged Joe who had his time of glory on the strip but now settles for the simple life of a quaint little house in a gated community of Albuquerque, New Mexico. John works in a cubicle, filing insurance claims for his arrogant boss Mr. Townsend, played by character actor Peter Dinklage.

The only really positive thing John has in his day is being cubicle neighbor to Jill, played by Sarah Silverman, an obsessively, perhaps even psychotically nice woman who is literally fixated on those annoying yellow smiley faces. Her cubicle is covered with them, she wears them and even paints them on her fingernails. Silverman somehow manages to be both cute and a little scary at the same time. Sort of in that, she’s such a nice girl she may actually be able to rip your head off if you get out of line, sort of way.

John is about to get a raise, or so he thinks, as he meets with his boss and finds himself thrown into learning the ropes of becoming a fraudulent claims investigator. Mr. Townsend send him out on a job with his seasoned investigator Virgil, played by Romany Malco (Weeds, 40-Year Old Virgin),   and the two never quite hit it off. Virgil doesn’t like John and John doesn’t trust Virgil. The awkward relationship at play here is the focus for most of the movie, but the underlying story involves John’s gambling addiction which permeates every aspect of his life and career.

‘Saint John of Las Vegas’ is filled with bizarre characters and uncanny situations, including a love triangle involving John, Jill and Mr. Townsend that plays out brilliantly. Danny Trejo and Tim Blake Nelson appear in cameo roles that, despite their short time on screen, add some great color to the story. As always, Dinklage is a hit with the audience and injects his welcome sense of sarcastic humor into the mix that plays well against Buscemi’s portrayal of the neurotic man who once lived in Vegas.

Amidst the most bizarre scenarios in the film include the stripper named Tasty Delight who has filed the claim Virgil and John are investigating, whereas she is confined to a wheelchair while still working as a waitress. One of my favorite scenes involves Virgil and John visiting Smitty the Fire Lord (John Cho) at a circus side show attraction. Smitty the Fire Lord, who doubles as a tow truck operator to supplement his income, is questioned in connection to the fraud investigation, but the scene plays out comically as his fire suit is malfunctioning, producing one perfectly constructed scene between Cho and Buscemi.

Watching Steve Buscemi perform is a joy, as always, and Sarah Silverman delivers with her trademark style of humor (in reverse) to great effect. Generally speaking, ‘Saint John of Las Vegas’ has few flaws. The only thing about the movie I found difficult to embrace was John’s dream sequences, which were fine in and of themselves, but their relative place within the film was lost on me.

Ultimately, the movie is about whether John will ever reacquire his gambling mojo, regain his good luck or just plain find some sort of happiness in his life. ‘Saint John of Las Vegas’ has een touted as being inspired by Dante’s Inferno, and I suppose some of that can be seen in the movie, but for me it’s all about one man’s struggle to figure out what what went wrong in life, attempting to recover some of his dignity and in the process, ends up finding something much more simple and fulfilling to live for.

Throwback Thursday: ‘Clue’

throwbackthursdayclue

The 1985 murder comedy ‘Clue’ is a rare breed.  It is one of the few films that whenever I stumble upon it as I flip through channels, regardless of how far into the film it is, I have to stop and watch.  Sometimes five minutes.  Sometimes until the next commercial break.  Sometimes all the way to the end.  It’s a kind of fix that only a film as funny and as timeless as ‘Clue’ can provide.

It wasn’t the first comedy to broach the subject of murder.  It wasn’t even the first murder mystery comedy.  Screenwriter and director Jonathan Lynn (‘My Cousin Vinny’ and ‘The Whole Nine Yards’) was definitely influenced by classic films like ‘Arsenic & Old Lace’ and even more recent murder mystery comedies like ‘Murder by Death.’  However, there is an intensity to ‘Clue’ that is unmatched.  The comedy thrown out at its audience comes a mile a minute and just as consistent.  Not only do the jokes come fast, they come nonstop and just about every one it hit out of the park.  Some are campy.  Some are witty.  Some incorporate the best sight gags since the silent era.  ‘Clue’ is a comedy that has something for everyone, and each brand of humor is executed just as flawlessly as the next.

More than 20 years later, the idea of taking a board game and turning it into a feature film is becoming a trend.  With feature film adaptations of ‘Battleship,’ ‘Ouija,’ and ‘Monopoly’ just on the horizon, you have to give credit to ‘Clue’ for being the frontrunner on the trend more than two decades prior.  Lynn takes the best elements of the board game (the creepy house, the eccentric characters, the various weapons, etc.) and puts each one to good use.

The casting in ‘Clue’ is flawless.  Michael McKean plays the dorky Mr. Green who keeps insisting he “didn’t do it”.  The late and great Madeline Kahn plays the melancholy Mrs. White, who may or may not have murdered her husband. Eileen Brennan plays the somewhat senile and overly naive Mrs. Peacock.  Christopher Lloyd plays the sex-crazed Professor Plum.  Martin Mull plays Colonel Mustard, who seems tough until he is faced with death and who misses his mommy and daddy.  Lesley Ann Warren plays the seductive Miss Scarlet.  Each actor is phenomenal in their own way, bringing the equally phenomenal characters to life.  Every actor brings out the best in the character, and none of them fall behind in the laughs department.  I dare you to not, at least, crack a smile during the scene where Madeline Kahn’s Mrs. White goes off on how much she hates Yvette, the maid.

However, the real standout performance in ‘Clue’ is for a character that is completely made up for the movie.  Tim Curry stars as Wadsworth, the butler, who has brought the other six to the mansion.  Curry is a force within this film, hardly taking a breathe for seemingly minutes at times.  The film’s final act, where Wadsworth essentially runs through every event leading up to that point, is a juggernaut of comedy and Curry keeps the pace of the film without effort.

Of course, what ‘Clue’ is most notable for to the general public is the idea that three, different endings were shot.  Random endings were shown depending on what theater you attended.  It was a bold attempt at marketing, sadly one that didn’t work all that well in ‘Clue’s favor.  The film was anything but a box office success, pulling in just over $13 million in its entire run.  It didn’t help the film’s chances that it came out on the same day as ‘The Jewel of the Nile,’ the sequel to ‘Romancing the Stone.’  Audiences had a choice between comedies, and most headed for adventure instead of mystery.

Despite its box office receipts, the various endings for ‘Clue’ is probably what the film is most remembered for.  When it was released on VHS, all three endings were included.  It wasn’t until the film was released on DVD in 2000 that I had the opportunity to watch it with a completely random ending.  In more recent years, the film has gained a cult following, particularly among fans of Tim Curry’s other, famous film, ‘Rocky Horror Picture Show.’  Theaters will sometimes acquire a print of ‘Clue’ and show the film, once again, as it was intended to be seen with a completely random ending.

No matter how you watch it, on VHS or DVD, in theaters with a crowd of hundreds or late at night starting an hour in, ‘Clue’ is a hilarious film that is just as funny today as it was nearly a quarter of a century ago.  It is an intensely fun movie that, despite its central theme of murder and blackmail, is anything but a “dark” comedy.  If you’ve never seen ‘Clue,’ do yourself a favor and check it out.  If you have seen it, go back and watch it again.  I guarantee it to be just as funny now as it was when you first watched it.

Review: ‘The Hangover’

thehangoverreview

I was pretty excited for this movie when I heard that it was based in Vegas and revolved around a ridiculous night of debauchery for a bachelor party. Not to mention it starred Zach Galifianakis and Ed Helms both of whom I have man crushes on really like. ‘The Hangover’ is more than just the funniest movie of the year, it is the funniest movie I have seen in a very long time.

Doug (Justin Bartha) is getting married in 2 days, and his “boys” (Phil and Stu) decide to take him out to Vegas for the craziest bachelor party known to man. Alan (Zach Galifianakis) is his soon to be brother in law and tags along for the event despite some more than questionable antics and warnings from his future in laws.

When they get to Vegas Alan skips out for a little bit to pick up some “party” needs and they all meet up on the roof for Jager shots to start the evening off right. Alan delivers one of the greatest speeches I have ever heard, I even teared up a little bit by the end. They all do the shots and set out for a night of binging, strippers, and whatever else they can get their hands on or into(pun intended).

The next morning they wake up only to find the extravegant penthouse they are staying in is completely trashed, their best friend is missing, they have Mike Tyson’s tiger, and there is a baby in a closet. Having no idea what happened they set out to find Doug and get some answers to their crazy night.

I dont want to spoil anymore of the movie for you so I am going to stop there with the plot outline and now I will just tell you that the only reason not to see this movie is because you hate yourself or you dont like laughing until you pee your pants. Either way we arent your friends because this movie instantly went on all of our best of 2009 lists as it will on yours as well.

I should also point out that this movie is definitely deserving of its ‘R’ rating, and if you are easily offended, dont enjoy male full front nudity, granny blowjobs and other debauchery then this probably isnt your type of movie. Also, if thats the case then you need to lighten up friend! Please don’t take your kids to this movie, unless you let your kids watch unsavory things to corrupt their minds then its definitely OK for them to see this.

Overall Rating: 4.5 out of 5

Review: ‘Land of the Lost’

landofthelostmovie

Lame.   There are two, different types of the word.   There’s the lame that is almost sweet, endearing in the way the source of the incompetency attempts whatever it is attempting to do.   This is a rare breed of lame, but one example of this definition of the word is the original Sid and Marty Krofft “Land of the Lost” television series.

The other type of the word is what is most commonly seen, where something is attempted without much conviction.   As such, the attempt is mired in failure and drags the overall experience down so much as to create a sense of pity.   I think you probably know where this is going.

The feature film remake of the “Land of the Lost” TV show is a reckless, unconvincing failure of such a project, a strange mixture of genres that never quite gets a foothold on any one in particular.   It’s not as if the people behind it aren’t trying.   They clearly are.   I can’t speak for the screenwriters involved, that being Chris Henchy and Dennis McNichols, but it seems like this film went through a certain amount of stages.

In the beginning, it probably read like a big-budget reenactment of the TV show.   A trio of explorers fall through a tear in the space-time continuum and end up in a fantastical land of intelligent dinosaurs, a half-man/half-monkey named Cha-Ka, and lizard people called Sleestaks.   It could have been a winner on a certain level loaded with trivial references and, perhaps, an almost charming update to what has come before.

Unfortunately, somewhere along the way, it appears execs got their hands on the project and felt the need to “liven it up.”   They brought Will Ferrell on board.   A monster in the industry, Ferrell is sure to garner the film some much-desired box office returns.   Of course, you can’t just throw Will Ferrell into the middle of a family film and just look the other way.   As such, it seems an attempt was made to inject as much Sophomoric and outrageous humor into the mix as humanly possible.   Where there was once a sweet, family-driven adventure now sits a lewd, noisy example of PG-13-rated comedy that likes to push the envelope without really pushing the envelope.   We even get a mouthed F-bomb in there for good measure.

You can’t blame Ferrell for this mess.   He’s doing exactly what he’s done a thousand times before.   Much of the film’s humor, though, seems to be culminated from cut snippets of film from previous Ferrell movies the comedy is so similar.   By the time Ferrell is blurting out exclamations like “Captain Kirk’s nipples!” I was out of the film’s reach altogether.

It’s not just Ferrell, either.   Cha-Ka is played out like a sex-crazed horndog of a monkey-man, constantly reaching for Anna Friel’s breasts and talking about the beautiful women of his village.   Friel, to her credit, seems genuine in her part, never once acting embarrassed at all to be a party to all of this.   Danny McBride is, once again, playing Danny McBride to a tee.   It works masterfully when he’s allowed to go all out, but the antics of Kenny Powers just aren’t accepted in a PG-13-rated comedy.   His scenes feel like he is trying to swim with his hands tied.   McBride is a funny man, but ‘Land of the Lost’ gives him hardly anything to do to demonstrate his talents.

All of this humor might work in a different film.   Unfortunately, this is ‘Land of the Lost,’ and it’s not even that I am trying to work out this level of comedy against the original television series.   This brand of comedy doesn’t work within the confines of this film alone.   The styles clash fiercely, and it all creates a mixture of banality that is the death knell of any comedy.

But even injecting all of this ridiculously unnecessary comedy into this film can’t ruin it entirely.   This is where you can blame the screenwriters, the director, and, yes, even the actors involved.   Nothing seems to be working here.   Whatever the exact opposite of a well-oiled machine might be, that is exactly what this film is.

The screenwriters seem to be making it up as they go along.   A sidestory involving a Sleestak ruler bent on taking over the entire world gets touched on then completely swept aside for the next hour.   Then, at the eleventh hour, it’s as if they were going back over their earlier pages, saw some of the plot-lines they had begun, and felt they had to finish them out.

There’s a minor plot-point involving fireworks that comes completely out of the blue late in the film, is even acknowledged by a character that it would have been helpful earlier in the film, and then brushed aside for a wholly unfunny sight gag.

The handling of Ferrell’s Rick Marshall is also jerky.   Sometimes, actually most of the time, he comes off like a complete numbskull who doesn’t even know which way is up let alone how to rip doorways between universes.   Other times, he’s a brilliant scientist who knows exactly what to do.   This level of split personality in the character is minute, but it serves as one, more distraction from the rest of the movie.

The direction of the film is all messed up, as well.   Never mind the fact that the special effects are atrocious.   They are, but that is not the pinnacle of this film’s problems in the execution department.   Director Brad Silberling (‘Moonlight Mile’ and ‘Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events’) doesn’t quite seem to know how he wants to handle the material.   Sometimes, the shots are smooth as silk, and you almost feel you’re in the hands of a gifted cinematographer.   Other times, particularly in certain action scenes around the middle of the film, he uses a hand-held running alongside Marshall and the other two.   Do we really need Greengrass-type shots in a remake of ‘Land of the Lost’?   I think you already know the answer.

To it’s credit, very little, though it may be, ‘Land of the Lost’ is able to make us laugh a time or two.   There are a few surprisingly funny moments, and these stand out like giant waterholes in the middle of an arid desert.   There aren’t many of them, and they are hell to get to, but, once we actually find ourselves in the middle of one of them, for those few, brief moments, we can let out more than a slight sigh of relief.

Despite these waning moments that don’t amount to much in the long run, ‘Land of the Lost’ is a trainwreck in so many ways.   Everything about it works towards the exact opposite reaction that seems to have been intended.   It’s boorish antics don’t make it funny, it’s cheap sight gags don’t make it lively, and neither Will Ferrell nor Danny McBride can save it from itself.   It’s a cheap reenactment of an already cheap television show, and its lack of charm puts it on the wrong side of lame from beginning to end.

Overall: 1.5 out of 5