Bug's Take:
It’s pretty sad when the best part of your movie is when Jessica Alba’s acting is better than yours. So it goes for Mike Myers in The Love Guru. The fact is (hard-pressed I am to admit it), I’ve seen a lot of Alba movies and she usually ruins a lot of them for me whether it’s her lack of ability to act, or that her body and face is so beautiful, I find myself wanting to leave the movie theater (or stop the DVD player) and immediately begin purging my popcorn and Milk Duds and replace them with a hundred ab crunches. She’s that pretty. But here, she outshines (barely) all the other players in a little film I consider disastrous from beginning to end.
Plot line: Myers is a love guru who is hired by the owner of the Toronto Maple Leafs hockey team (Alba) to reunite their superstar (Romany Malco) with his wife (Meagan Good) because he plays terrible while they’re apart but she’s so heartbroken she’s shacking up with another hockey player (played by Justin Timberlake). It’s supposed to be a comedy, right? I heard a lot of things prior to this movie being released into the theaters. Myers himself promoted the hell out of it from cameos in other previews, to popping up on award shows on MTV in character, to doing the standard interview shows and cracking jokes from his own movie . . .
I don’t have to sugarcoat anything seeing that it’s just B! Child and I writing the reviews and I’m fairly certain that both of us aren’t offended by each other’s words. So I’m going to put this very bluntly: The Love Guru is a terrible terrible movie and any DVD sales it generates only fills the pockets of the unworthy. At least for this film. Because it was Myers’ film to make or break, and this time, he breaks it. There just isn’t enough highlights to justify the many cameos/famous people that agreed to be in this film: the great Ben Kingsley, Jessica Simpson, Kanye West, Stephen Colbert, and a personal favorite of mine, Jim Gaffigan who holds the movies’ only truly funny character. But even he’s not enough to save this pitiful script.
The one guy I always like in his roles is Romany Malco – who plays Darren Roanoke – but unlike his characters in 40-Year Old Virgin and Baby Mama, Malco is not given as many funny one-liners I know him to be capable of. More than likely it’s the bad writing. Timberlake makes a few nice comedic moments (check out the Celine Dion karaoke moment) as the hockey player who steals Roanoke’s girlfriend and is well-known for having a rather “large male appendage,” but it’s a joke that really only gets half a laugh the first time, then becomes stale much like the rest of the movies’ blasé theme.
I’m usually the girl who tries really hard to find something good within each movie knowing that whatever film I write one day will have several flaws I wish I would’ve caught and changed, but in The Love Guru, I really didn’t try because the movie fizzled quickly and the only reason I didn’t turn it off was because I can’t write a full review with only half a flick watched.
I think you catch my drift. Skip this movie. Go get something else, anything else, that resembles a comedy. Odds are, it has more laughs than the Guru.
B!'s Take:
Wow. That’s all I have to say about this movie. Just . . . wow.
That’s not a good wow by the way. Not even close. I am actually fighting a very strong urge right now to make this a three-word film review.
Those three words: This movie sucked. Balls. Sorry, that’s four words, but the balls were definitely needed in this case as a modifier to let you know exactly how bad this movie sucked.
Look, I’m not that much of a fan of Mike Myers anymore. I liked him on Saturday Night Live, and the whole “Wayne’s World” thing was hilarious to me at one point. I even saw “Wayne’s World 2” in the theater to give you an idea of how much I liked that character. “So I Married An Axe Murderer” is definitely up there on my favorite comedies list (I take that back, it’s not really that high up there, but it is very quotable and entertaining to say the least).
Myers started to lose me when he did the Shrek films (I’m not a fan of animation of any kind, especially computer animation) and his turn as “The Cat In The Hat” was so bad I never made it through the whole movie when I tried to watch it on HBO.
I’m not even going to get into the whole “Austin Powers” film library because those were movies I absolutely loved to watch over and over (and over and over). And that over watchability is the biggest problem I have with “The Love Guru” because it absolutely doesn’t have that. In fact, I fell asleep three times while trying to get through this movie, and this is from a guy who LOVES movies.
You could say this film was a swing and a miss, but I have a better analogy for it. This movie was like Mike Myers walking into a reunion party full of friends who love and missed him while he was gone and at the perfect moment of silence during the party trying to fart but trying so hard to squeeze the potentially hilarious fart out he accidentally crapped his pants. There still humor in seeing someone crap his pants on accident, but the fart would have been much funnier and far less stinky in the long run.
I know that’s a pretty crass way to put it, but I think I might have nailed it. This movie tries WAY too hard to be funny, even to the point of laughing at itself as if to tell you, “Hey, that thing I just said is a joke. I’m laughing, you should too.” The plot even seems like it is an afterthought and just a skeleton so Myers could string an endless stream of gags end to end until the final credits rolled.
There are funny parts, of course, since this is Mike Myers we are talking about, but you keep getting the feeling that you already saw a different, better version of the same joke in one of his other films. Case in point, there are scenes of Myers’ character Guru Pitka riding a motorized “magic carpet” through an airport that are so reminiscent of his scenes as Dr. Evil’s motorized chair in the Austin Power’s trilogy that I kept wondering when The Love Guru was going to go to his secret lair.
To go through the performances briefly, Jessica Alba seemed to have been cast based solely on the fact she is Canadian and has to play one in the movie (and even then I didn’t believe it for one second. Why is she famous again?), Verne Troyer plays a skeezy asshole which hits too close to home if you’ve ever seen him on a reality show, Justin Timberlake (who I normally find to be very likeable and entertaining) tries really hard to make his character funny but ends up sounding like a bad impersonation of John Cleese’s Insulting Frenchman character from “Monty Python and The Holy Grail,” Romany Malco seems to be good at everything he does but his character has such a ridiculous “problem” that I don’t think Meryl Streep could have done any better than he did.
Good God this movie was bad. The best thing about it was that it lost $20 million at the box office (I still don’t see how it could have possibly cost $67 million to make unless Myers took $20 million off the top) so we don’t really have to worry about a Love Guru Part 2 anytime soon. Hopefully.
B!
Friday, December 5, 2008
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
"Quantum Of Solace" Film Review
Bug's Take:
It’s official. Daniel Craig IS the new James Bond. There was enough evidence in his first showing in Casino Royale and after watching Quantum of Solace, I saw there was more proof he’s the number one reason these films work and should bode well in the box office. The action, the dialogue, the acting, the plotline – all crucial to any great film and the cherry on top of the Bond Sundae is the addition of Craig as the debonair leading man.
Let’s start in order: the action. It’s all there and it’s all there from the get go. Don’t settle in your seat too well and stop slurping your soda because you might accidentally swallow your straw. Think of the action as bookends that appear at the beginning and end and are hard pressed to hold everything in between. Bond can do it all. Ride a scooter, steer a crappy boat around faster nicer ones, drive an Aston Martin through the streets of any country and still look stunning. I love that the writers of these new Bond movies aren’t afraid to beat up their hero in addition to kicking the crap out of bad guys. It creates a very exciting movie.
Next up: the dialogue. I imagine it’s a tough job to write a Bond film for it needs to contain all the elements of an action film without losing the edge of crisp, believable “spy speak”. The writers have to maintain Bond’s suave talk with the ladies but also include a harsh disdain for his enemies without cheesing it up (like those bad puns at the beginning of every CBS drama shows). Don’t fret; there isn’t any of that in Quantum. As a wannabe writer, I absolutely love (and dwell) on fresh, fun, and believable characters who sound like (surprise) their characters! Although the action and special effects make for great visual stimulation, you’ll find yourself liking films more that have excellent writing for it keeps the movie running along smoothly.
Okay, now another element: the acting. Throw in a beautiful lady who can hold her own with the fine Bond chops of Daniel Craig, mix in a veteran creeperton villain, and add a few large doses of Dame Judi Dench and your producer and director can breathe easy while doing their jobs because they know the people on the other side of the camera can more than do theirs. Craig has a thing about him, like he doesn’t have to try that hard to be Bond, but I’m sure he is. That’s the beauty of it though; he appears to fall into the role without much effort and in doing so, creates his own Bond apart from all the previous ones. He’s tougher, he’s in better shape, and he’s rugged and raw like any new promoted spy should be. And Dench, well, she’s Dench. I don’t have to tell anyone – Brit or American – that she’s awesome in all that she does.
Finally, the last part: the plotline. Do not underestimate the design of a good plotline. If you have everything else – the actors, the action, the dialogue – it doesn’t make a good movie if you have Bond chasing after a flock of killer robot ducks who drop egg bombs over the valleys of England. I have to admit I didn’t follow the story right away because there were a few tangents going on, but they eventually fall in place and you find yourself in your seat exhaling. It makes sense. With economies failing all over the world, it makes sense there are those who are trying to make money on the naiveté of smaller countries. Pay attention, there’s little things you need to catch to make sense of the overall storyline.
Bottom line? If you miss something in this movie, don’t worry . . . you’re going to want to watch it again. But you have to see it once at least.
B's Take:
I’ve got to be honest, I’ve never been that big of a James Bond fan. I remember watching a few of the films when I was a little kid (during the Roger Moore era), mostly because my dad thought he was cool. I always got the impression he was TOO cool, if that’s possible, so I never got too deep into the character of James Bond.
Of course, when I hit puberty, James Bond took on a whole new level of coolness to me solely based on the women he got to hang around with and, presumably, do naughty things with. But even then I didn’t watch the movies for Bond, I watched because there were all kinds of “sort of” naked girls in the opening credits and peppered throughout the movie. This was well before I was old enough to get my own Playboy subscription.
So now that I have seen my share of beautiful naked women both in magazines and in person (thanks TD’s Strip Club, but can I have my money back though?), James Bond has to do a whole lot more than be cool and show pseudo-naked women to get me involved.
This one did.
I don’t know what the title means, honestly. I could warrant a guess that would probably be at least in the ballpark of correct, but I couldn’t say for sure without Googling it. I didn’t see the movie before this one with the “new” James Bond (Casino Royale starring Daniel Craig), because all the buzz around that movie had to do with how good he looked in his little Speedo shorts on the beach. Since I don’t swing that way, a movie has to show me a lot more than a dude gallivanting around in a banana-sling to get me to go see it.
The real reason I saw this movie was because my other choice was “Madagascar 2.” I did what any rational human male without kids would do and I opted for the boobs and the violence and I took the calculated risk that the male swimsuit model shots would have all played out in the first movie. Luckily I was right about that and I got to see a pretty good film because of it.
The first thing that struck me about the movie was that whoever set up the locations must have one of the coolest jobs in the world. And the Director of Photography must have had a field day with his job. I can honestly say that every single static shot in the movie is visually stunning, and the vast majority of the moving shots are equally so. It would normally be a bad thing to be paying attention to the background instead of the actors in an action movie, but in this one it just made the whole 007 aura seem more vibrant than usual.
From the very opening shot of the movie you are taken on a colorful, visually stimulating, exciting joyride. You are able to throw some of your beliefs of reality out the window because, hey, this is James Bond we’re talking about. One of the best things about the movie is that the “how the hell is that possible” moments are very few and far between. The director (Marc Forster of “Finding Neverland” fame) and writers have done a phenomenal job of taking the cartoon version of James Bond (played impressively by Daniel Craig) and throwing him out the window, instead replacing him with a James Bond that is more like Jason Bourne than Superman.
There are still the required scenes of Bond in a tuxedo, and Bond does get the women and all the cool cars (along with some not-so-cool cars). The best thing about the movie to me, besides the locations and photography, was the fact that James Bond was portrayed as a human. He has flaws. He gets his ass kicked. He shows an amount of rage that I’ve never seen before in a Bond film, yet it is rage underneath a very cool façade. It becomes fun to watch after a while.
There were a few missteps in the movie, most notably Olga Kurylenko in a curious bit of casting that puts an inordinate amount of spray-tan on a Ukrainian model so she can play a Latin American hottie with one very beautiful but vapid facial expression. And a small, but glaring, annoyance in that the car selection pretty much played out like an action-packed Ford product commercial thanks to that Aston-Martin, Land Rover, Ford Ka driven by Kurylenko and, unfortunately, the Ford Edge he drove in the latter part of the film (Really? James Bond in a mid-range SUV? Really?).
But the bottom line is this movie was a fun movie to watch. It stands on its own as long as you go into the movie knowing that his girlfriend got killed at the end of Casino Royale. You may feel a little lost during some of the scenes, but most of it will make sense in the end, and you will have a good time while you are heading to the end of the movie.
I would definitely recommend seeing this one in the theater because it's a good film and the added bonus of getting to see all of the locations on the big screen.
B!
It’s official. Daniel Craig IS the new James Bond. There was enough evidence in his first showing in Casino Royale and after watching Quantum of Solace, I saw there was more proof he’s the number one reason these films work and should bode well in the box office. The action, the dialogue, the acting, the plotline – all crucial to any great film and the cherry on top of the Bond Sundae is the addition of Craig as the debonair leading man.
Let’s start in order: the action. It’s all there and it’s all there from the get go. Don’t settle in your seat too well and stop slurping your soda because you might accidentally swallow your straw. Think of the action as bookends that appear at the beginning and end and are hard pressed to hold everything in between. Bond can do it all. Ride a scooter, steer a crappy boat around faster nicer ones, drive an Aston Martin through the streets of any country and still look stunning. I love that the writers of these new Bond movies aren’t afraid to beat up their hero in addition to kicking the crap out of bad guys. It creates a very exciting movie.
Next up: the dialogue. I imagine it’s a tough job to write a Bond film for it needs to contain all the elements of an action film without losing the edge of crisp, believable “spy speak”. The writers have to maintain Bond’s suave talk with the ladies but also include a harsh disdain for his enemies without cheesing it up (like those bad puns at the beginning of every CBS drama shows). Don’t fret; there isn’t any of that in Quantum. As a wannabe writer, I absolutely love (and dwell) on fresh, fun, and believable characters who sound like (surprise) their characters! Although the action and special effects make for great visual stimulation, you’ll find yourself liking films more that have excellent writing for it keeps the movie running along smoothly.
Okay, now another element: the acting. Throw in a beautiful lady who can hold her own with the fine Bond chops of Daniel Craig, mix in a veteran creeperton villain, and add a few large doses of Dame Judi Dench and your producer and director can breathe easy while doing their jobs because they know the people on the other side of the camera can more than do theirs. Craig has a thing about him, like he doesn’t have to try that hard to be Bond, but I’m sure he is. That’s the beauty of it though; he appears to fall into the role without much effort and in doing so, creates his own Bond apart from all the previous ones. He’s tougher, he’s in better shape, and he’s rugged and raw like any new promoted spy should be. And Dench, well, she’s Dench. I don’t have to tell anyone – Brit or American – that she’s awesome in all that she does.
Finally, the last part: the plotline. Do not underestimate the design of a good plotline. If you have everything else – the actors, the action, the dialogue – it doesn’t make a good movie if you have Bond chasing after a flock of killer robot ducks who drop egg bombs over the valleys of England. I have to admit I didn’t follow the story right away because there were a few tangents going on, but they eventually fall in place and you find yourself in your seat exhaling. It makes sense. With economies failing all over the world, it makes sense there are those who are trying to make money on the naiveté of smaller countries. Pay attention, there’s little things you need to catch to make sense of the overall storyline.
Bottom line? If you miss something in this movie, don’t worry . . . you’re going to want to watch it again. But you have to see it once at least.
B's Take:
I’ve got to be honest, I’ve never been that big of a James Bond fan. I remember watching a few of the films when I was a little kid (during the Roger Moore era), mostly because my dad thought he was cool. I always got the impression he was TOO cool, if that’s possible, so I never got too deep into the character of James Bond.
Of course, when I hit puberty, James Bond took on a whole new level of coolness to me solely based on the women he got to hang around with and, presumably, do naughty things with. But even then I didn’t watch the movies for Bond, I watched because there were all kinds of “sort of” naked girls in the opening credits and peppered throughout the movie. This was well before I was old enough to get my own Playboy subscription.
So now that I have seen my share of beautiful naked women both in magazines and in person (thanks TD’s Strip Club, but can I have my money back though?), James Bond has to do a whole lot more than be cool and show pseudo-naked women to get me involved.
This one did.
I don’t know what the title means, honestly. I could warrant a guess that would probably be at least in the ballpark of correct, but I couldn’t say for sure without Googling it. I didn’t see the movie before this one with the “new” James Bond (Casino Royale starring Daniel Craig), because all the buzz around that movie had to do with how good he looked in his little Speedo shorts on the beach. Since I don’t swing that way, a movie has to show me a lot more than a dude gallivanting around in a banana-sling to get me to go see it.
The real reason I saw this movie was because my other choice was “Madagascar 2.” I did what any rational human male without kids would do and I opted for the boobs and the violence and I took the calculated risk that the male swimsuit model shots would have all played out in the first movie. Luckily I was right about that and I got to see a pretty good film because of it.
The first thing that struck me about the movie was that whoever set up the locations must have one of the coolest jobs in the world. And the Director of Photography must have had a field day with his job. I can honestly say that every single static shot in the movie is visually stunning, and the vast majority of the moving shots are equally so. It would normally be a bad thing to be paying attention to the background instead of the actors in an action movie, but in this one it just made the whole 007 aura seem more vibrant than usual.
From the very opening shot of the movie you are taken on a colorful, visually stimulating, exciting joyride. You are able to throw some of your beliefs of reality out the window because, hey, this is James Bond we’re talking about. One of the best things about the movie is that the “how the hell is that possible” moments are very few and far between. The director (Marc Forster of “Finding Neverland” fame) and writers have done a phenomenal job of taking the cartoon version of James Bond (played impressively by Daniel Craig) and throwing him out the window, instead replacing him with a James Bond that is more like Jason Bourne than Superman.
There are still the required scenes of Bond in a tuxedo, and Bond does get the women and all the cool cars (along with some not-so-cool cars). The best thing about the movie to me, besides the locations and photography, was the fact that James Bond was portrayed as a human. He has flaws. He gets his ass kicked. He shows an amount of rage that I’ve never seen before in a Bond film, yet it is rage underneath a very cool façade. It becomes fun to watch after a while.
There were a few missteps in the movie, most notably Olga Kurylenko in a curious bit of casting that puts an inordinate amount of spray-tan on a Ukrainian model so she can play a Latin American hottie with one very beautiful but vapid facial expression. And a small, but glaring, annoyance in that the car selection pretty much played out like an action-packed Ford product commercial thanks to that Aston-Martin, Land Rover, Ford Ka driven by Kurylenko and, unfortunately, the Ford Edge he drove in the latter part of the film (Really? James Bond in a mid-range SUV? Really?).
But the bottom line is this movie was a fun movie to watch. It stands on its own as long as you go into the movie knowing that his girlfriend got killed at the end of Casino Royale. You may feel a little lost during some of the scenes, but most of it will make sense in the end, and you will have a good time while you are heading to the end of the movie.
I would definitely recommend seeing this one in the theater because it's a good film and the added bonus of getting to see all of the locations on the big screen.
B!
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
"Role Models" Film Review
Bug's Take:
Asshole. Boobs. Fuck. Spontaneous gay jokes. Do any or all of these offend you? I guess on some levels any and all should, but in Role Models, they are referenced often and often humorously.
Role Models starts off as most comedies should – with a dysfunctional duo demonstrating their role in life and franchising witty, hilarious banter. But there has to be plenty of funny in a movie where the premise is two thirty-something male friends who after some unfortunate and slightly illegal shenanigans, are sentenced to community service and if they don’t complete it, they’re off to jail. Simple enough, but Danny (played by Paul Rudd who also co-wrote the movie) and Wheeler (played marvelously and quaintly chauvinistic by Seann William Scott) are great at making the plot seem less transparent. Wheeler in his ‘dumb but means well most of the time’ personality and Danny with his downtrodden mannerisms and “realistic” view on life (how it sucks and is unfair, etc.)
I don’t mind reviews of movies including quotes, but in Role Models, there’s far too many and they start shortly after the credits. It’s the little things – the funny within the funny – that writers Rudd and David Wain (who also directs) include throughout the charming, albeit somewhat predictable, film.
The word charming is not one I like to use often because it’s a boring way to describe a movie, any movie, but using the MS Word thesaurus seems like cheating. Besides, it comes up with words like attractive, delightful and captivating, which Role Models isn’t. But the film does make you like all its characters, such as Danny’s girlfriend (played by the adorable Elizabeth Banks), the young four-letter word using, boob-loving Ronnie (Bobb’e J. Thompson) who is Wheeler’s “little”, and even the dirty-minded, overly-chatty-about-her-drug-addictions “founder of Sturdy Wings” played by Jane Lynch.
As the film goes on (in the middle especially), the “funny fog” lifts momentarily and goes for the heartstrings but at that point, you almost want it to because you’re routing for Danny and Wheeler and the boys they are “mentoring” to get everything they want out of life.
The movie ends on some comic high notes and overall, the film is a go-seer. On the list of top great comedies, Role Models wouldn’t meet the standards required to make it, but there’s enough in it to go watch it, chuckle some at the silliness of Augie’s (check out McLovin in his new role!) fantasy world, and feel good that you spent an hour and a half of time increasing the dents in your laugh lines around your cheeks.
B!'s Take:
Let’s get to the business at hand, which is my male perspective review of the movie “Role Models” starring Paul Rudd and Seann William Scott, written by Paul Rudd, David Wain, Ken Marino and Timothy Dowling, and directed by David Wain.
First things first, this movie is funny. Not funny in the sense that there are a few spots put here and there that make you giggle and you remember laughing at the movie while you are walking to your car. Nope, it’s funny in the sense that the next day you will think of something you saw during the movie and it will still make you giggle inside your head so much that you want to just shout out the line that made you laugh at some innocent person standing in the next line at the grocery store.
I won’t go as far as to say it was the funniest movie I’ve ever seen, because I don’t think that can truly be measured. It was definitely the funniest movie I saw that night, and there is something to be said about that. It is always a nice turn of events when a comedy actually makes me (and everyone around me in the theater) laugh out loud several times instead of having me sit there wondering what idiot green-lighted this script.
The strength of this movie does not come from its plot, which seems to be in place just so the writers could have an excuse to show some of the funny characters they have created. Usually it is a bad sign when there are more than one or two writers on a script since in writing more writers almost never creates better writing. Instead, the strength comes from the casting and performances of the vast majority of the parts in the movie from the leads on down to the bit actors.
Seann William Scott plays yet another version of Stiffler from the American Pie franchise, which is okay by me because as far as I’m concerned, that’s exactly where he belongs on screen. He plays the character that gets all the hot girls even though he is mostly an idiot and sort of a douche. He manages to say all the things most guys want to say but don’t and he gets to hook up with all the girls most guys want to hook up with but can’t. He’s sort of my hero.
Paul Rudd also plays another version of every character he has played in every movie he has been in (except for the very funny surfer-guy character he played in Forgetting Sarah Marshall), and this character is almost an extension of the character he played in Knocked Up. And, once again, that is exactly where he belongs on screen. Nearly everything that comes out of his mouth is funny, and I get the impression that one reason he got a lead writing credit on this film is because he improvised a great deal of it (think of the Line-O-Rama DVD extras on any Judd Apatow film for reference).
The other characters in the movie are so well cast and so well performed that most of them need to be seen to be appreciated. I honestly cannot think of one bit part that wasn’t funny in some way or another. A special warning, though, for those of you who are sensitive to adult humor: This movie is rated R for a very good reason. It wouldn’t have been one quarter as funny if they’d toned it down to catch a PG or even a PG-13 rating. It is the rated R language and visuals that make this movie what it is.
That being said, let me tell you what this film has: comedy, cussing, boobs, swordplay, a big truck shaped like a bull, some more boobs, more comedy, male nudity (for some reason that is ALWAYS funny) and a pretty nice dose of Elizabeth Banks and a very nice dose of some other girls.
Now for what the film doesn’t have: Academy Award aspirations, a compelling plot (you can see the plot points coming from miles away), grandparents in the audience (seriously, unless you have one of those “cool” grandmas who gets drunk or high at family gatherings and flashes everyone, don’t bring her along, grandpa might like some of the boob shots at the very least since they aren’t grandmas for once) or a reason for them to make a crappy sequel.
My recommendation: this movie is definitely Worth Full Price. I need to go back and see it again in the theater so I can catch some jokes I missed because the audience was laughing too loud. And I can’t wait for it to come out on DVD, just for the Line-O-Rama.
B!
Asshole. Boobs. Fuck. Spontaneous gay jokes. Do any or all of these offend you? I guess on some levels any and all should, but in Role Models, they are referenced often and often humorously.
Role Models starts off as most comedies should – with a dysfunctional duo demonstrating their role in life and franchising witty, hilarious banter. But there has to be plenty of funny in a movie where the premise is two thirty-something male friends who after some unfortunate and slightly illegal shenanigans, are sentenced to community service and if they don’t complete it, they’re off to jail. Simple enough, but Danny (played by Paul Rudd who also co-wrote the movie) and Wheeler (played marvelously and quaintly chauvinistic by Seann William Scott) are great at making the plot seem less transparent. Wheeler in his ‘dumb but means well most of the time’ personality and Danny with his downtrodden mannerisms and “realistic” view on life (how it sucks and is unfair, etc.)
I don’t mind reviews of movies including quotes, but in Role Models, there’s far too many and they start shortly after the credits. It’s the little things – the funny within the funny – that writers Rudd and David Wain (who also directs) include throughout the charming, albeit somewhat predictable, film.
The word charming is not one I like to use often because it’s a boring way to describe a movie, any movie, but using the MS Word thesaurus seems like cheating. Besides, it comes up with words like attractive, delightful and captivating, which Role Models isn’t. But the film does make you like all its characters, such as Danny’s girlfriend (played by the adorable Elizabeth Banks), the young four-letter word using, boob-loving Ronnie (Bobb’e J. Thompson) who is Wheeler’s “little”, and even the dirty-minded, overly-chatty-about-her-drug-addictions “founder of Sturdy Wings” played by Jane Lynch.
As the film goes on (in the middle especially), the “funny fog” lifts momentarily and goes for the heartstrings but at that point, you almost want it to because you’re routing for Danny and Wheeler and the boys they are “mentoring” to get everything they want out of life.
The movie ends on some comic high notes and overall, the film is a go-seer. On the list of top great comedies, Role Models wouldn’t meet the standards required to make it, but there’s enough in it to go watch it, chuckle some at the silliness of Augie’s (check out McLovin in his new role!) fantasy world, and feel good that you spent an hour and a half of time increasing the dents in your laugh lines around your cheeks.
B!'s Take:
Let’s get to the business at hand, which is my male perspective review of the movie “Role Models” starring Paul Rudd and Seann William Scott, written by Paul Rudd, David Wain, Ken Marino and Timothy Dowling, and directed by David Wain.
First things first, this movie is funny. Not funny in the sense that there are a few spots put here and there that make you giggle and you remember laughing at the movie while you are walking to your car. Nope, it’s funny in the sense that the next day you will think of something you saw during the movie and it will still make you giggle inside your head so much that you want to just shout out the line that made you laugh at some innocent person standing in the next line at the grocery store.
I won’t go as far as to say it was the funniest movie I’ve ever seen, because I don’t think that can truly be measured. It was definitely the funniest movie I saw that night, and there is something to be said about that. It is always a nice turn of events when a comedy actually makes me (and everyone around me in the theater) laugh out loud several times instead of having me sit there wondering what idiot green-lighted this script.
The strength of this movie does not come from its plot, which seems to be in place just so the writers could have an excuse to show some of the funny characters they have created. Usually it is a bad sign when there are more than one or two writers on a script since in writing more writers almost never creates better writing. Instead, the strength comes from the casting and performances of the vast majority of the parts in the movie from the leads on down to the bit actors.
Seann William Scott plays yet another version of Stiffler from the American Pie franchise, which is okay by me because as far as I’m concerned, that’s exactly where he belongs on screen. He plays the character that gets all the hot girls even though he is mostly an idiot and sort of a douche. He manages to say all the things most guys want to say but don’t and he gets to hook up with all the girls most guys want to hook up with but can’t. He’s sort of my hero.
Paul Rudd also plays another version of every character he has played in every movie he has been in (except for the very funny surfer-guy character he played in Forgetting Sarah Marshall), and this character is almost an extension of the character he played in Knocked Up. And, once again, that is exactly where he belongs on screen. Nearly everything that comes out of his mouth is funny, and I get the impression that one reason he got a lead writing credit on this film is because he improvised a great deal of it (think of the Line-O-Rama DVD extras on any Judd Apatow film for reference).
The other characters in the movie are so well cast and so well performed that most of them need to be seen to be appreciated. I honestly cannot think of one bit part that wasn’t funny in some way or another. A special warning, though, for those of you who are sensitive to adult humor: This movie is rated R for a very good reason. It wouldn’t have been one quarter as funny if they’d toned it down to catch a PG or even a PG-13 rating. It is the rated R language and visuals that make this movie what it is.
That being said, let me tell you what this film has: comedy, cussing, boobs, swordplay, a big truck shaped like a bull, some more boobs, more comedy, male nudity (for some reason that is ALWAYS funny) and a pretty nice dose of Elizabeth Banks and a very nice dose of some other girls.
Now for what the film doesn’t have: Academy Award aspirations, a compelling plot (you can see the plot points coming from miles away), grandparents in the audience (seriously, unless you have one of those “cool” grandmas who gets drunk or high at family gatherings and flashes everyone, don’t bring her along, grandpa might like some of the boob shots at the very least since they aren’t grandmas for once) or a reason for them to make a crappy sequel.
My recommendation: this movie is definitely Worth Full Price. I need to go back and see it again in the theater so I can catch some jokes I missed because the audience was laughing too loud. And I can’t wait for it to come out on DVD, just for the Line-O-Rama.
B!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
