Funny People (2009)

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

O Good

X OK

O Mediocrity

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / July 31, 2009

Movie previews seem to either reveal too much, or they mislead our expectations. The trailer for “Funny People” does the latter because it suggests a hilarious film fueled by stand-up routines of proven comedians, like Adam Sandler, Seth Rogen and Jonah Hill.

“Funny People” is disappointing, as it is only occasionally humorous — never side-splitting — and overall, just OK.

Now, I realize my lukewarm verdict will amount to blasphemy for some fans, since we’re talking about a film by Judd Apatow, whose cinematic batting average is nearly as consistent as Pixar’s, in terms of viewer appeal. You’ll remember Apatow’s comedic handiwork from “The 40-Year-Old Virgin” and “Knocked Up.”

“Funny People” sporadically sprinkles mediocre clips of stand-up acts, like we’ve seen on “Seinfeld,” but the film doesn’t revolve around comedy club performers or their scene. In fact, rather than amusement, the predominant tone of “Funny People” is unhappiness.

And why wouldn’t the mood be dismal, since the movie begins with George Simmons (Adam Sandler) getting devastating news that he has a form of leukemia and a grim prognosis. Simmons is a successful comedian-movie star who has earned his clout by paying his dues, trudging up through the ranks of the comedy club circuit.

Sandler’s Simmons character is unmistakably parallel to Sandler himself. Like Sandler, Simmons has starred in a host of moronic movies, where he plays idiotic characters with idiotic voices. (Because “Funny People” features a successful star in an unflattering, autobiographical role, I was reminded of “JCVD,” an uncomfortable film where Jean-Claude Van Damme plays a half-real, compromising version of himself.)

Counterpoint to the Sandler character we have Ira Wright (Seth Rogen), a young and ambitious comedian who, along with his pals, is trying to break into show business. Simmons’ celebrity status requires him to play various publicity events, but he doesn’t feel as funny after learning of his illness, so he hires Wright as his assistant and joke-writer.

The first half of “Funny People” involves the relationship of the two contrasting comedians; the second half seems like a new film altogether, as Simmons tries to right his wrongs and win back his lost love.

Although “Funny People” was written and directed by Apatow, its plot gives the impression that Sandler is symbolically “handing over the reins” to the likes of Rogen, Hill and Apatow. For the past 20 years or so — particularly in the ‘90s — we’ve had Saturday Night Live character movies and Happy Madison productions. Now Sandler and his cronies are passing the torch to a new generation of funny people.

Directed by Judd Apatow

Adam Sandler / Seth Rogen / Jonah Hill

Comedy / Drama 146 min.

MPAA: R (for language and crude sexual humor throughout, and some sexuality)

Orphan (2009)

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

X Good

O OK

O Mediocrity

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / July 24, 2009

In the movies, horror often happens to families that deserve it least. From earlier this year, “The Haunting in Connecticut” depicts a family whose primary haunting victim also suffers from cancer.

“Orphan,” which is also set in Connecticut, afflicts a family already afflicted by the loss of their baby. The characters’ vulnerability evokes our pity for them. Our concern heightens the suspense of watching their peril.

“Orphan” is another “evil child flick,” akin to “The Good Son” (1993), “Godsend” (2004) or “Children of the Corn” (1984). John and Kate Coleman (Peter Sarsgaard and Vera Farmiga) have two children, but after their third child is stillborn, they decide to “give their love to another child who needs it.”

At St. Mariana Home for Girls they find Esther, a 9-year-old orphan from Russia who is well-mannered, intelligent and uncommonly insightful. After quickly deciding that Esther should be a part of their family, the couple adopt her.

But “something is wrong with Esther.” Among other things, she seems to be an evil seed, a cunning master manipulator whose propensity for violence is reminiscent of a Joe Pesci wise guy.

Isabelle Fuhrman plays Esther. In preparation for her role, the young actress learned some sign language and studied Russian to develop an accent, which isn’t always consistent, but it’s an admirable performance for a 12-year-old. Fuhrman’s creepy character demonstrates the power of lighting and makeup: Note the contrast in Esther’s appearance from her introductory scene with her final scene.

This film reminded me of how masterful Alfred Hitchcock was at conjuring terror in broad daylight. It’s genuinely scary when nightmares erupt from typically benign situations or people — such as a child. “Orphan” is disturbing because we wouldn’t expect a child who needs a home to try to destroy it.

Technically, “Orphan” is a thriller and a drama, with moments of horror violence. This film escalates from uneasy to unlikely, to unseemly to unsettling. One of the movie’s greatest strengths is the way it doesn’t rely on supernatural phenomena for its nightmares; instead, it has many cringe-eliciting moments where we think, “Oh no, surely they (the filmmakers) won’t do that” — and sometimes they do.

A note to the sensitive and the squeamish, “Orphan” has several upsetting elements, such as violence involving children, both perpetrated by — and against — children. The stillborn baby subplot could be upsetting for some, as well as a couple of brutal, semi-graphic murders.

Directed by Jaume Collet-Serra

Isabelle Fuhrman / Vera Farmiga / Peter Sarsgaard

Thriller / Horror 123 min.

MPAA: R (for disturbing violent content, some sexuality and language)

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

X Good

O OK

O Mediocrity

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / July 16, 2009

Few visions are more entertaining than seeing an old wizard going berserk and unleashing some angry wizardry. “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” delivers one such display.

In fact, each filmic adaptation of author J.K. Rowling’s series has provided numerous imaginative images, giving double meaning to the phrase “movie magic.” “Half-Blood Prince” represents the series well, with intriguing concepts like memory-filled vials, “liquid luck,” unbreakable vows, and of course, the revelation of the half-blood prince’s identity.

Not all the “Harry Potter” movies are equal, but I’m happy to report that “Half-Blood Prince” is one of the better films (along with “Prisoner of Azkaban” and “Order of the Phoenix”).

In “Half-Blood Prince,” Dumbledore seeks to convince Horace Slughorn, a professor of potions, to return to Hogwarts because his memory contains a valuable secret that could finally end Harry Potter’s conflict with Voldemort. This new movie also has the creepy Tom Riddle (Voldemort as a young pupil) played by Hero Fiennes-Tiffin, the nephew of actor Ralph Fiennes, who plays the adult Voldemort.

The “Harry Potter” movies hit the big screen in 2001, and the “Half-Blood Prince” is the sixth installment of the saga. The remaining two films (which both will be adapted from the seventh and final book, “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows”) are slated for release in November 2010 and July 2011.

Looking over the eight-year span of the currently released movies, it’s interesting to see how the three principal actors — Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter), Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley), Emma Watson (Hermione Granger) — have grown up before our eyes.

This cinematic, age-archiving phenomenon reminds me a little of Michael Apted’s incredible “Up” documentaries, which have revisited several individuals every seven years for the past 42 years (so far) to see how closely their lives have unfolded, relative to their plans.

Assigning a one-word verdict to summarize a movie is as inadequate as trying to label a person using the same method. I’m often asked why I rate movies like the “Half-Blood Prince” as merely “good,” instead of “excellent.” Simple. There has to be room for distinguishing even better films — excellent ones like “Fargo,” “The Shawshank Redemption,” “Unforgiven” and “Monster.”

And rarer still, the controversial “masterpiece” rating is only given to truly extraordinary films like “Goodfellas,” “Hoop Dreams,” “Life Is Beautiful” and the “Up” documentaries mentioned above.

Directed by David Yates

Daniel Radcliffe / Michael Gambon / Alan Rickman

Fantasy 153 min.

MPAA: PG (for scary images, some violence, language and mild sensuality)

Bruno (2009)

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

O Good

O OK

O Mediocrity

X Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / July 10, 2009

Not everyone knows what Sacha Baron Cohen’s films are like. Let’s just say they’re challenging to describe — even in general terms — in a family newspaper.

Those who appreciated his 2006 film, “Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan,” will probably love “Bruno” even more. For those who haven’t experienced Cohen’s work before, read on before buying your movie ticket.

The word “obscene” has never seemed so feeble. Cohen makes Judd Apatow’s raunchy productions seem timid. “Bruno” is comparable to Tom Green’s disgusting “Freddy Got Fingered” (2001).

Cohen plays Bruno, a 19-year-old homosexual man from Austria whose flamboyance both earned and lost him a job as the host of a fashion show called Funkyzeit. After getting ousted from Fashion Week in Milan, Italy, Bruno moves to Los Angeles to become an “uber-famous celebrity,” a quest that fills the balance of the 83-minute film with his sordid attempts at notoriety.

Cohen must be admired for his unflinching commitment to his comedic art. An unfortunately unforgettable wrestling match during his “Borat” film situated his face in an unthinkable place. But gross-out humor is only part of Cohen’s gig: He is a master instigator and equal-opportunity offender who obviously aims to shock, antagonize and provoke as many viewers as possible.

Cohen’s filmmaking has made him no stranger to litigation. Much like the methods of the TV shows “Candid Camera,” and more recently, “Punk’d,” Cohen’s gimmick is to use his bizarre characters to elicit reactions from unsuspecting “victims.” Under such unusual circumstances, these regular, everyday non-actors respond to the comedian in surprising ways that land them in his films’ final cut — hence the humor and the lawsuits.

For both “Borat” and “Bruno,” some of the scenes are scripted with actors. The latter has cameos from surprisingly “big” celebrities who chose to participate willingly, as well as some who vehemently did not.

Though Cohen succeeds in amusing, shocking, disgusting and offending, I can’t recommend “Bruno” — even a little bit — despite its having several laugh-out-loud moments. This film is vile and somehow, paradoxically, shameful and shameless. “Bruno” is rated R for pervasive strong and crude sexual content, graphic nudity and language. (Its original rating was NC-17, which it still deserves.)

Less than 30 minutes into the screening I attended, three 20-something guys vocally refused to watch any more and left the theater. Cohen no doubt would be pleased.

Directed by Larry Charles

Sacha Baron Cohen / Gustaf Hammarsten / Clifford Banagale

Comedy 83 min.

MPAA Rating: R (for pervasive strong and crude sexual content, graphic nudity and language)

Public Enemies (2009)

O Masterpiece

O Excellent

X Good

O OK

O Mediocrity

O Avoid

Review by Jason Pyles / July 2, 2009

According to The Encyclopedia of American Crime, by Carl Sifakis, the term “public enemies” was coined by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover and was meant to identify armed “stickup men” of the 1930s. The notorious John Dillinger was dubbed “Public Enemy No. 1.,” which Sifakis noted, was a status he attained with a criminal career that spanned only 11 months in 1933 and 1934.

Apparently Dillinger was a somewhat chivalrous bank robber and incredible prison-escape artist whose loyalty to his cohorts even promoted some honor among thieves. Despite his designation as a public enemy, Dillinger was actually widely admired during the Great Depression era as a kind of Robin Hood for insisting that bank patrons keep their money, while assuring them that he only wanted to steal from the bank.

These and many other tidbits from Dillinger’s life are portrayed in Michael Mann’s “Public Enemies,” a convincing period film that features Johnny Depp as Dillinger, Christian Bale playing his pursuer, and Marion Cotillard as his love interest. Mann’s movie is authentically set in many of the historical locations where Dillinger briefly dwelled, including the Biograph Theater in Chicago.

The subtle master stroke of “Public Enemies” is when we see Dillinger watching the film “Manhattan Melodrama” in the theater mentioned above. Mann pulls a clever trick whereby he places us, the viewers, in the same theater with Dillinger, as the images on the movie screen he’s watching eventually fill the screen we’re watching. It’s been done before, but not this well.

For better or for worse, the film’s episodic plot is merely a cycle of bank robberies, gun battles, arrests and jailbreaks — over and over again. Though it is refreshing to see Depp step out of his typically bizarre, macabre roles to play a relatively normal person, overall, “Public Enemies” isn’t overly intriguing. Gangster film fans will know what I mean when I say this movie is more a “Road to Perdition” than a “Goodfellas.”

Certainly Dillinger couldn’t have been worse a menace to society than Albert Fish, one of his criminal contemporaries who was executed in 1936. Fish was a convicted child killer and cannibal who thrilled at the prospect of getting to experience the electric chair. (I bet he was shocked by his disappointment.)

Movies have the peculiar effect of glamorizing war and crime. So does the media. Oliver Stone’s “Natural Born Killers” (1994) demonstrates both glamorizers in action by satirizing the way the media tends to sensationalize criminals, which of course, is depicted cinematically with stylistic flair. In the 1930s, Dillinger also captivated the media, and therefore, the nation. Indeed, here we are 75 years after his death, and Dillinger’s name is still appearing in newsprint.

Directed by Michael Mann

Johnny Depp / Christian Bale / Marion Cotillard

Crime 140 min.

MPAA Rating: R (for gangster violence and some language)