Category Archives: comedy

Setter’s ‘Spectives: Leaving Halfway Through ‘The Trip’

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613Films that think they’re funnier than they actually are bug me.

The Trip is one of those. The documentary-esque story of two friends (Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon) journeying through Northern England as they dine at fancy restaurants and do not-always-successful impressions of famous actors, this film is only sporadically amusing and meanders quite a bit. I guess that’s the point, but it’s virtually without any conflict whatsoever, and that wears on me. Hence, I was only able to get halfway through the movie before leaving it last night for the comfort of my bed.

Ah, to sleep, perchance to dream … of movies that are much better than The Trip.

Coogan’s a talented actor; I like him a lot. If I wanted to watch a series of impressions, however, I’d digest some stand-up comedy. A movie filled with impressions as a substitute for funny business just isn’t my cuppa tea. Plus Coogan and Brydon are always talking over each other, so after a while their efforts become grating. The ability to generate laughter is lost.

Ultimately, the feeling I got about The Trip is that it tries to hard. I don’t like to watch a film flailing around. I prefer something with direction. In general, this Trip doesn’t have drive. And I don’t regret stopping it halfway one bit.

Skip’s Quips: Favreau’s ‘Chef’ Fantasy Lingers Long on the Palate

~

Blog Sketch 082813There’s a lot of good stuff in Jon Favreau’s culinarily driven film Chef, which documents the fall and rise of a famed toque-meister (portrayed by Favreau himself) as he journeys from restaurant to food truck. But realistic it is not.

I enjoyed it … to a certain extent. It’s breezy, amusing, touching at times. The characters are likable. The food looks, well, tasty.

It’s a fantasy, however, and doesn’t ring true on many levels. The protagonist, a divorced dad who connects with his son through food, has this only-in-the-movies relationship with his kid, who is just plain worshipful, agreeing to clean his truck with little complaint and nearly jumping at the chance to “help” his pop as a line cook after school and on weekends. An offer you can’t refuse, right? If I were his child, I’d be asking for overtime.

Then there’s the colleague, deftly played by John Leguizamo, who joins Favreau’s character on his food truck for no pay after leaving his job as a sous chef at a high-end restaurant. Really? This is loyalty going a little far. Plus, the truck is shown as becoming an immediate success, which is also hard to believe. This is a tough business. It’s difficult to make money right away.

So the picture strains credibility at times. It also overstays its welcome; a lot of the final act could’ve ended up on the cutting-room floor. And everything wraps up all too neatly; yes, it’s a feel-good type of flick, but the Dickensian way everything falls in place is just a little too easy. It’s pleasant, yes, Believable, no.

All in all, Chef has too many issues to be called a great film. If you want a fun science-fiction movie about the trials and travails of being a chef, this is a good option. It’s just not what I perceive to be a realistic document of one man’s adventure in the profession.

Setter’s ‘Spectives: Staying for All of ‘This Is Where I Leave You’

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613I should’ve left early before I finished This Is Where I Leave You. But no – I stayed for the whole thing.

My loss. It was absolutely horrible, as glib and smarmy as I didn’t predict it would be. So much for my capacity for prediction.

And so much for enjoying the two hours I spent in the theater. The film – directed by Shawn Levy and concerning, in a nutshell, the gathering of a group of semi-Jewish (the question does, self-consciously, arise during the proceedings as to whether they are of this religion) siblings at the family home after the death of their father – strained credibility to the nth degree in its attempt to blend coarse humor with heartfelt sensitivity. Neither worked, and the fact that this ensemble piece featured quite a few ill-defined characters made it all the less credible.

A number of good actors worked on this project. Jason Bateman, Tina Fey, Adam Driver, among others. They couldn’t save it, however, and despite their innate charm, the picture went to pieces. The script, adapted by Jonathan Tropper from his novel, was snarky without being believable and showcased plenty of less-than-credible situations, including what seemed like an endless series of fights, arguments and couplings that never went anywhere plausible. Couple that with a time span that was way too long, and you’ve got a rambling, tiresome picture.

So why did I see this? Why did I pass the time watching this flick when I could’ve exited with my dignity intact?

I don’t know. All I can say is I’m only human. It was a lapse in judgment. I could’ve saved those two hours for something productive.

On the other hand, if I didn’t see it, I wouldn’t have written this review. Maybe it was meant to be.

Mysterious ways. If only there was a bit of that in This Is Where I Leave You.

Skip’s Quips: ‘Bad Words’ Dials ‘O’ for ‘Obnoxious’

~

Blog Sketch 082813I sure wish the movie Bad Words was a lot funnier.

It wasn’t horrible. In fact, it was eminently watchable, this story of an obnoxious 40-year-old no-goodnik out to prove himself on the children’s spelling-bee circuit. But it felt like a lot of humor was either left on the cutting-room floor or forgotten. The movie tried so hard to be outrageous that it lost out on a lot of laughs.

Director and star Jason Bateman steered the flick with more assuredness than I expected, and the cinematography had an interesting washed-out quality. Still, there was something unsatisfying about this picture, as if it was attempting to be two things at once: a broad comedy and a sensitive drama delving into the protagonist’s background.

I think the film took some easy routes. It’s hard to be funny. Perhaps the thought process was that the wackiness of the plot would generate laughs on its own. It didn’t, though. So in that regard, the movie misfired.

Oh, well. Shoulda, coulda, woulda. I’m sure Bateman will try for more success with other projects. Bad Words is definitely one to learn from.

Setter’s ‘Spectives: Downgrading ‘Easy A’

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613When good actors appear in bad movies, I sometimes want to scream at the TV, crying, “Why? Why? Why?”

So it was with Easy A, a horrid film about a high school girl pretending to be a tramp in order to become more popular. In this offense to lovers of quality celluloid everywhere were stalwart actors Thomas Haden Church, Lisa Kudrow, Stanley Tucci and, yes, Malcolm McDowell (playing the principal of the school, no less). Directed by Will Gluck, the picture featured glib, unfunny dialogue masquerading as wit and a host of not credible situations that dragged the flick into a swamp of ludicrous plot developments.

Needless to say, the movie was hard to watch. And I stopped doing so after the first 30%. Once a film gets that far on the lousiness spectrum, it can’t come back, in my opinion. I’ll refrain from giving Easy A a chance to redeem itself, given such a probability level.

High school movies are not my cup of tea, anyway, but making a good one requires sincerity, not smugness. You can be tongue-in-cheek without featuring smarmy situations and self-conscious dialogue. Easy A, unfortunately, suffered from the latter issues. And that doesn’t make me want to watch more.

Meanwhile, I say unto the talented actors who participated in this mess: “Wherefore art thou making such films? You can do better.”

Alas, there’s no chance that they’ll listen to my pleas. Guess I’ll hafta continue to rant at the empty air, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Setter’s ‘Spectives: What Makes an Offensive Movie?

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613Eons ago, when VCRs ruled the world, my parents were showing my cousin and his wife the original 1968 film of The Producers. When the movie came to the sequence where Zero Mostel’s Max Bialystock gets a “toy” for a present to himself – basically a beautiful woman for him to ogle – my cousin’s wife spoke up with indignation.

“That’s so sexist,” she said.

Well, yeah. Yes, it is.

Of course it’s sexist. It’s horribly, absurdly sexist. And that’s the point. Bialystock is something of a disgusting person. I mean, he’s trying to scam people with a show glorifying Hitler. If that’s not reprehensible, I don’t know what is.

There’s an issue here, though: What makes a movie offensive? Obviously, my cousin’s wife was offended by the inherent sexism of the character and the scene. But I feel it’s within the context of the film, which is no-holds-barred offensive, anyway. This is a flick that makes fun of (sometimes unfairly) Jews, homosexuals, seniors, hippies and other groups. There are few left out. And the whole point of the movie is to make fun of bad taste. Even Brooks reportedly said of his pictures that they “rise below vulgarity.”

Is my cousin’s wife right to be indignant, though? Is it all a matter of taste? Can offensiveness be subjective, all in the eye of the beholder? Or is there an objective quality to it that legitimizes the act of taking umbrage even to what many people regard as a classic: The Producers?

It’s hard to answer this question. If someone feels strongly that something is offensive, how could we mark that person as wrong? On the other hand, can someone miss the point or context of something altogether? That’s totally possible. Maybe both are totally possible. I’m not sure.

I broached the subject of racism and films that I feel should be taught in schools or museums at CURNBLOG recently here. My point suggests that there is an objectivity to offensiveness, that some films are inherently, unequivocally racist.  But the comments to this post indicate that people have differing views on the subject. Perhaps there’s something to that.

We should continue to explore it. It’s the only way to address the issue.

Skip’s Quips: Why ‘Big’ Really Grows on You

~

Blog Sketch 082813The first time I saw the Penny Marshall film Big was in Los Angeles as part of a double feature. The other flick on the bill: Everybody’s All-American.

Needless to say, I appreciated the former movie a lot more after I saw both in one day.

Recently, I watched Big again, and I have to say it has aged well. It’s still charming, with wonderful dialogue, sharp cinematography and terrific performances – notably by Tom Hanks as the child who magically grows up overnight. Marshall has a light touch with the direction, and it never becomes plodding.

Why can’t more comedies today be like this? Big never seems to take the easy way out, and it wraps up everything nicely, even credibly, despite the fantastic aspect of the whole thing. It’s low-key, but I think it’s one of the best things Hanks has done.

It’s always the ones that fly under the radar, right?

Skip’s Quips: Give ‘To Be or Not to Be’ a Medal

~

Blog Sketch 082813I love Ernst Lubitsch’s To Be or Not to Be.

Brilliant script. Terrific performances by Jack Benny, Carole Lombard, Sig Ruman and the rest of the brilliant cast. And of course perfect, sly direction by the immortal Lubitsch.

Sure it’s in questionable taste – what with a story concerning a company of Polish actors and their wartime efforts to foil a Nazi plan – and even now some of the material seems iffy. But it remains razor-sharp, as well as still topical to this day. I watched this film again last night for what may have been the 45th time, and it’s still fresh. That’s the mark of a great movie. It just doesn’t get old.

I’ve seen the remake with Mel Brooks, too, and it’s just not the same. The Lubitsch version is tops; there’s no comparison. I’m giving the medal to that one for quality.

Skip’s Quips: Picking Apart ‘The Oranges’

~

Blog Sketch 082813There’s a lot of good stuff in The Oranges – so much that I wonder why it got such a low rating on IMDb.

This tale of adultery with your New Jersey neighbor has a pretty tight script, some good direction by Julian Farino and fine casting that results in sparkling turns by the likes of Hugh Laurie, Oliver Platt, Alia Shawkat, Catherine Keener and Allison Janney. The plot features some not-so-credible points, and I feel everything wrapped up in an all-too-pat manner, but there’s humor and drama in hefty amounts along the way, plus sensitive treatment of a familiar subject.

And no, I didn’t turn it off halfway through. That’s something in itself.

OK, it’s not a great film. I don’t think it tries to be, though. Surprisingly, it’s quite unpretentious; I think that’s partly why I enjoyed much of it.

Director Farino has done a lot of TV work in the past. Perhaps that’s one reason why it felt so crisp. Maybe the ending was a little TV-esque, too, but there’s potential here.

Good show.

Setter’s ‘Spectives: Revisiting ‘A Hard Day’s Night’ Is Still a Pleasure

~

Setter Drawing for Blog 082613Some things stay fresh centuries after they’ve been created. I have a feeling Richard Lester’s A Hard Day’s Night will be one of them.

I caught it on TCM yesterday, and it was as good as it ever was – and possibly better. I marveled at the quick editing and snappy cinematography. I chuckled at the charming script and deadpan performances. And I tapped my feet to the sounds of The Beatles’ John, Paul, George and Ringo.

This never gets old, in my opinion. It’s a seminal rock film constructed like a music video with virtually no plot and one-liners zinging around. Everything has a “you are there” feel, which adds to the intimacy of the picture. And it retains an off-the-cuff feel, though it was scripted (well) by Alun Owen.

This is really the benchmark for all such rock ‘n’ roll pictures. In its genre, it bests Elvis and everything that came after it. It’s so good that it transcends its category, becoming a comedy to be placed with the likes of The Marx Brothers, Laurel and Hardy and other comedy teams.

It’s true: Some things always stay fresh. Fifty years after it debuted, A Hard Day’s Night still rings true.