Saturday, June 28, 2008
Coming Soon: Reviews for Wall-E and Wanted
Wall-E and Wanted reviews are coming in the next day or so. For a sneak peak at my thoughts here are the grades Wall-E (C+) and Wanted (C+). If you saw them this weekend and want to chime in before my reviews, go ahead and use this entry to comment.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Get Smart Review
Overall Grade: C-Short and quick review here. Giving Get Smart a (C-) is a sad thing for me, and many people might even think I’m picking on the film, but I think it adequately relays my displeasure for the film. There really isn’t much to say critically about the film apart from the fact that I just didn’t care much for it. I felt that most of the jokes were oddly timed, and really out of context.
Although Maxwell Smart (played fairly well by Steve Carell) has a little more consistency to his character than the Guru Pitka did in The Love Guru, there were still several odd inconsistencies that ruined much of the character for me. What Maxwell supposed to be dumb or smart? Was he supposed to be a good fighter or clumsy? The film at times wants us to laugh at his ineptness, but at other times marvel at his action prowess. I liked the sweetness that they gave the character, but felt like many more of the scenes and jokes could have been rooted in this sweetness. There are a couple moments when Max’s sweetness is brought up, but I felt it was a wasted opportunity in total.
If I were trying to find something from the film to recommend to you, it would be the closing action scene, as it really is the best of the movie and it contains the films best joke. Outside of that scene, I didn’t care for the film at all and really saw some wasted opportunities. Get smart and wait for the DVD.
Although Maxwell Smart (played fairly well by Steve Carell) has a little more consistency to his character than the Guru Pitka did in The Love Guru, there were still several odd inconsistencies that ruined much of the character for me. What Maxwell supposed to be dumb or smart? Was he supposed to be a good fighter or clumsy? The film at times wants us to laugh at his ineptness, but at other times marvel at his action prowess. I liked the sweetness that they gave the character, but felt like many more of the scenes and jokes could have been rooted in this sweetness. There are a couple moments when Max’s sweetness is brought up, but I felt it was a wasted opportunity in total.
If I were trying to find something from the film to recommend to you, it would be the closing action scene, as it really is the best of the movie and it contains the films best joke. Outside of that scene, I didn’t care for the film at all and really saw some wasted opportunities. Get smart and wait for the DVD.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
The Love Guru Review
Overall Grade: D+
Mike Myers makes me laugh. I laugh at his critically acclaimed stuff, and I laugh at his critically scuttled stuff; I even laughed at The Cat in the Hat (and bought the DVD!). The Love Guru however, does not make me laugh. If I were to end the review here, it would give you an accurate recommendation for The Love Guru.
Instead of a review, what follows will be more of a rant, so prepare yourself. The Love Guru is a disaster of a film. It’s not only not funny or “anti-funny” as A.O. Scott in the New York Times called it, but it’s an offensively vulgar PG-13 film as well. Much like The Happening has done for Shyamalan, The Love Guru makes one look back upon the previous works and wonder how things went right. This movie shows no signs of being written by someone who has several comedy films under his belt.
There are several areas to begin with this film, but the one that stands out the most to me is the complete lack of context, depth, and consistency within the lead character, the Guru Pitka (played by Mike Myers). What we get on the screen is a weird mash up of Myers’ Cat in the Hat trickster personality (including the same out of breath style laugh and hand movements that the Cat featured), mixed with the “everything’s sexual” personality of Austin Powers. Its creates a weird mash of personality and ultimately the movie never provides an adequate back story or context as to why the Guru Pitka is this weird mix, and this causes a serious problem for the movie. It was ok when the Cat in the Hat fouled up and messed with the kids’ plans because part of his role in the story was to teach the children that rules are important. It was ok when Austin Powers saw the world through sex-colored glasses, because his character was a send-up of the swinging 60’s. It’s not ok to see Guru Pitka do any of these things (and several of the things he does are direct Cat and Powers rip offs), because his character is supposedly a Guru full of guidance and wisdom. Instead he’s an inconsiderate jerk horndog who spouts off nothing of use. This isn’t a character, this isn’t a send-up, this is just someone looking to make stupid jokes disregarding all story and context.
For instance, as seen in the trailers, Verne Troyer (mini-me of Austin Powers fame) here plays a role as the head coach of the Toronto Maple Leafs. When the Guru Pitka first meets the coach we get him blurting out “Midget” (a rip-off the mole scene in Austin Powers 3 which was itself a rip-off of the glass eye scene in Wayne’s World 2), “Your small!” and then later making several more midget jokes every time he’s around the coach. When Austin Powers fought mini-me and made jokes it was because they were enemies, mini-me being the clone of Dr.Evil and attempting to kill Powers; that’s context and motivation. There is absolutely no motivation for the midget jokes in The Love Guru. In fact, if writers gave it thought, Pitka should be going the opposite way with the hockey coach instead of the cheap insults. What if Pitka was so loving and such a good guru that he was able to bring out abilities in midgets that no one knew they were capable of. How funny would it be to see midgets doing super things, rather than seeing them put down in this film? The joke would then work and a message would even be brought through.
Unfortunately the film isn’t concerned with things like context and motivation, and all we get is an hour and a half of Mike Myers acting stupid in front of the camera spouting off vulgar puns and entendre’s one after the other. Myers surrounds himself with even weaker characters (if that is possible); including an out of his league Justin Timberlake (who can be funny, just not here). There is nothing to recommend here, even for die-hard fans of Mike Myers. The film is not funny, its’ story is weak, characters flat, and its relentlessly crude (Elephants having sex is even a bit much for Myers). Do yourself a favor and stay away from this Guru.
Instead of a review, what follows will be more of a rant, so prepare yourself. The Love Guru is a disaster of a film. It’s not only not funny or “anti-funny” as A.O. Scott in the New York Times called it, but it’s an offensively vulgar PG-13 film as well. Much like The Happening has done for Shyamalan, The Love Guru makes one look back upon the previous works and wonder how things went right. This movie shows no signs of being written by someone who has several comedy films under his belt.
There are several areas to begin with this film, but the one that stands out the most to me is the complete lack of context, depth, and consistency within the lead character, the Guru Pitka (played by Mike Myers). What we get on the screen is a weird mash up of Myers’ Cat in the Hat trickster personality (including the same out of breath style laugh and hand movements that the Cat featured), mixed with the “everything’s sexual” personality of Austin Powers. Its creates a weird mash of personality and ultimately the movie never provides an adequate back story or context as to why the Guru Pitka is this weird mix, and this causes a serious problem for the movie. It was ok when the Cat in the Hat fouled up and messed with the kids’ plans because part of his role in the story was to teach the children that rules are important. It was ok when Austin Powers saw the world through sex-colored glasses, because his character was a send-up of the swinging 60’s. It’s not ok to see Guru Pitka do any of these things (and several of the things he does are direct Cat and Powers rip offs), because his character is supposedly a Guru full of guidance and wisdom. Instead he’s an inconsiderate jerk horndog who spouts off nothing of use. This isn’t a character, this isn’t a send-up, this is just someone looking to make stupid jokes disregarding all story and context.
For instance, as seen in the trailers, Verne Troyer (mini-me of Austin Powers fame) here plays a role as the head coach of the Toronto Maple Leafs. When the Guru Pitka first meets the coach we get him blurting out “Midget” (a rip-off the mole scene in Austin Powers 3 which was itself a rip-off of the glass eye scene in Wayne’s World 2), “Your small!” and then later making several more midget jokes every time he’s around the coach. When Austin Powers fought mini-me and made jokes it was because they were enemies, mini-me being the clone of Dr.Evil and attempting to kill Powers; that’s context and motivation. There is absolutely no motivation for the midget jokes in The Love Guru. In fact, if writers gave it thought, Pitka should be going the opposite way with the hockey coach instead of the cheap insults. What if Pitka was so loving and such a good guru that he was able to bring out abilities in midgets that no one knew they were capable of. How funny would it be to see midgets doing super things, rather than seeing them put down in this film? The joke would then work and a message would even be brought through.
Unfortunately the film isn’t concerned with things like context and motivation, and all we get is an hour and a half of Mike Myers acting stupid in front of the camera spouting off vulgar puns and entendre’s one after the other. Myers surrounds himself with even weaker characters (if that is possible); including an out of his league Justin Timberlake (who can be funny, just not here). There is nothing to recommend here, even for die-hard fans of Mike Myers. The film is not funny, its’ story is weak, characters flat, and its relentlessly crude (Elephants having sex is even a bit much for Myers). Do yourself a favor and stay away from this Guru.
Friday, June 20, 2008
A Night in Casablanca (1946) Review
Overall Grade: B-
Over the years I have grown to love the Marx Brothers. I say “Grown” because I honestly didn’t initially like their films. The first film I saw of the brothers was their classic Duck Soup, and the film was so manic, and schizophrenic that I didn’t really get it. The plot was paper-thin, the one-liners were fast and furious, and then all of a sudden out of nowhere, there were extended scenes of piano and harp playing; very weird. Over time however, and many more viewings of their films, I have come to understand that Marx Brothers comedy films (are there any other type of Marx Brothers films?) are a genre in and of themselves. There is a formula to their style, and once you become accustomed to it, then a whole world of comedy opens up.
So how does A Night in Casablanca stack up in the Marx Brothers catalogue? Its not a homerun or a triple, but the film is at least a solid double, with a wide turn looking to third. Most of the great Marx brother’s staples are here; Groucho’s one liner’s; Chico’s misunderstandings (including a classic game of charades with Harpo); and Harpo’s anarchic antics (including a sword fight that just falls flat). So if everything is present, what makes it not a homerun?
Comedy is a very tricky thing, its not just about writing a punch line, or an awkward situation; timing and delivery are also just as important. While the punch lines and delivery are spot on, the timing is quite another thing. It could be the director or the editor, but for some reason, several comedy gags are either too short, or (as is mostly the case) extremely too long. Certain gags are played well beyond their funniness, and past the point at which the audience is laughing. One scene in particular is reminiscent of the changing rooms scene in A Night at the Opera, where the three brothers have to hide in a room and slowly change items in the room, in order to drive someone mad. A good concept, but its played for what feels like 20 minutes, and with plenty of dead space in between the good laughs.
This seemed to be true of several gags. With that major criticism aside, the film really has some fun bright spots. Groucho gets some very memorable lines, and the musical numbers are top notch this go round. If I had to rank my favorite Marx Brothers films, I would place this one somewhere near the top rung. If A Night at the Opera, Duck Soup, Horse Feathers, and The Coconauts are my favorites, this would fit in nicely right above Animal Crackers and Monkey Business. Comedic genius is on display here, but even comedic genius can be tempered without a good director or editor to end a joke.
So how does A Night in Casablanca stack up in the Marx Brothers catalogue? Its not a homerun or a triple, but the film is at least a solid double, with a wide turn looking to third. Most of the great Marx brother’s staples are here; Groucho’s one liner’s; Chico’s misunderstandings (including a classic game of charades with Harpo); and Harpo’s anarchic antics (including a sword fight that just falls flat). So if everything is present, what makes it not a homerun?
Comedy is a very tricky thing, its not just about writing a punch line, or an awkward situation; timing and delivery are also just as important. While the punch lines and delivery are spot on, the timing is quite another thing. It could be the director or the editor, but for some reason, several comedy gags are either too short, or (as is mostly the case) extremely too long. Certain gags are played well beyond their funniness, and past the point at which the audience is laughing. One scene in particular is reminiscent of the changing rooms scene in A Night at the Opera, where the three brothers have to hide in a room and slowly change items in the room, in order to drive someone mad. A good concept, but its played for what feels like 20 minutes, and with plenty of dead space in between the good laughs.
This seemed to be true of several gags. With that major criticism aside, the film really has some fun bright spots. Groucho gets some very memorable lines, and the musical numbers are top notch this go round. If I had to rank my favorite Marx Brothers films, I would place this one somewhere near the top rung. If A Night at the Opera, Duck Soup, Horse Feathers, and The Coconauts are my favorites, this would fit in nicely right above Animal Crackers and Monkey Business. Comedic genius is on display here, but even comedic genius can be tempered without a good director or editor to end a joke.
Here is a clip from the film that I think you might enjoy. The genius of Groucho
