O Masterpiece
O Excellent
O Good
O OK
X Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 17, 2008
Well, at least they tried, right? I mean, why not? Looking back through the extinct-cartoon archives (you know, those cartoons that are no longer on TV?), someone decided it would be a good idea to make “Inspector Gadget” and “Fat Albert” into live-action flicks. So, why not “Speed Racer”?
Well, because it’s not a very good idea. That’s why. “The Simpsons Movie” (2007) took a popular cartoon that’s still on TV and made an animated feature film and it went over quite well at the box office. But digging up old fossils like “Speed Racer” probably isn’t the best way to invest several million dollars, unless you want to lose it.
Young children will thoroughly enjoy “Speed Racer.” It is chock-full of flashy, splashy colors and revving, ramping, race cars. It even has ninjas! And though it has been heavily promoted as a “family film,” and though it has a PG rating, “Speed Racer” has a noticeable amount of profanity. … Why?
I mean, obviously the filmmakers weren’t worried about entertaining the adults — obviously. So, why include the profanity at all? There aren’t any humdingers like the F-word, but it has plenty of the smaller offenders. Protective parents beware.
I’ll tell you what there isn’t much of in “Speed Racer”: plot. After all, it’s a race-car movie. Speed Racer (Emile Hirsch) has a gift for racing. In fact, he is utterly obsessed with it. His late brother, Rex Racer, taught Speed how to tear up the track, and the young prodigy’s talent attracts significant attention.
One day the Racer family is approached by the president of Royalton Industries, E.P. Arnold Royalton (Roger Allam), a corporate mega-giant who becomes dangerously disgruntled toward Speed Racer when the kid refuses to join Royalton’s racing team. And so, races are run (and won) to try to inexplicably settle some intangible moral score; meanwhile, the bad guys cheat worse than Dr. Jones while playing Short Round.
Basically, watching “Speed Racer” is like having your head stuck inside a kaleidoscope for more than two hours. Its ultra-fast editing could even make the so-called MTV Generation dizzy. “Speed Racer” is not much more than a vibrant, green-screen extravaganza: If it were possible for a spectator to overdose on CGI, “Speed Racer” would be a killer.
Directed by Andy Wachowski and Larry Wachowski
Emile Hirsch / Christina Ricci / Matthew Fox
Action / Sports 135 min.
MPAA: PG (for sequences of action, some violence and language)
U.S. Release Date: May 9, 2008
Copyright 2008: 291
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
What Happens in Vegas... (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
O Good
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 17, 2008
I’ve often wondered why we enjoy watching movies where couples fight; I think it makes us feel better about our own relationship predicaments.
“What Happens in Vegas…” is one of those battle-of-the-sexes movies where it’s crystal clear to us that the feuding parties ultimately deserve each other. And it’s a good time, I guess … that is, if you have nothing else to do and “Family Guy” isn’t on TV.
Jack Fuller (Ashton Kutcher) is kind of a goof-off who can even manage to get fired by his own father. And Joy McNally (Cameron Diaz) is Jack’s antithesis, driven and nitpicky, which may be why her fiancé breaks up with her. The two New Yorkers take their best friends with them to forget their sorrows in Las Vegas, where Jack and Joy meet, party it up, and get married. The next day, as they part ways, they win $3 million from a slot machine.
All the above is revealed in the trailer, which also shows us how they end up in court, trying to get the money, but the cash is frozen while they are “sentenced to six months hard marriage.” From this point on, it becomes a war movie: We watch as the two try to break each other. And unless you’ve never seen a movie before, you can probably guess where this goes.
But it’s surprisingly fun getting there. The highlight of “What Happens in Vegas…” is Joy’s best friend, Tipper (Lake Bell), whose disdain for Jack’s best friend, Hater (Rob Corddry), is legendary. So, we get hilarious lines from Tipper, like, “If I could make someone dead with my mind, it would be you.” Not bad. Obviously, the writer, Dana Fox, has been in a relationship before.
Directed by Tom Vaughan
Ashton Kutcher / Cameron Diaz / Lake Bell
Comedy 99 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for some sexual and crude content, and language, including a drug reference)
U.S. Release Date: May 9, 2008
Copyright 2008: 292
O Excellent
O Good
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 17, 2008
I’ve often wondered why we enjoy watching movies where couples fight; I think it makes us feel better about our own relationship predicaments.
“What Happens in Vegas…” is one of those battle-of-the-sexes movies where it’s crystal clear to us that the feuding parties ultimately deserve each other. And it’s a good time, I guess … that is, if you have nothing else to do and “Family Guy” isn’t on TV.
Jack Fuller (Ashton Kutcher) is kind of a goof-off who can even manage to get fired by his own father. And Joy McNally (Cameron Diaz) is Jack’s antithesis, driven and nitpicky, which may be why her fiancé breaks up with her. The two New Yorkers take their best friends with them to forget their sorrows in Las Vegas, where Jack and Joy meet, party it up, and get married. The next day, as they part ways, they win $3 million from a slot machine.
All the above is revealed in the trailer, which also shows us how they end up in court, trying to get the money, but the cash is frozen while they are “sentenced to six months hard marriage.” From this point on, it becomes a war movie: We watch as the two try to break each other. And unless you’ve never seen a movie before, you can probably guess where this goes.
But it’s surprisingly fun getting there. The highlight of “What Happens in Vegas…” is Joy’s best friend, Tipper (Lake Bell), whose disdain for Jack’s best friend, Hater (Rob Corddry), is legendary. So, we get hilarious lines from Tipper, like, “If I could make someone dead with my mind, it would be you.” Not bad. Obviously, the writer, Dana Fox, has been in a relationship before.
Directed by Tom Vaughan
Ashton Kutcher / Cameron Diaz / Lake Bell
Comedy 99 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for some sexual and crude content, and language, including a drug reference)
U.S. Release Date: May 9, 2008
Copyright 2008: 292
Iron Man (2008)
O Masterpiece
X Excellent
O Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 17, 2008
Every once in a while Tinseltown gets it right. “Iron Man” is one of those jubilant occasions. Another oft-cited example is “Batman Begins” (2005), and I suspect this summer’s “The Dark Knight” will follow suit. The antithesis of these is something like “Ghost Rider” (2007), which is a veritable abomination.
Here is the key to a good superhero movie: Make it as believable as possible. Yes, credibility is the elusive, common thread that links the greatest examples of the genre. Think about it: Superhero movies, by nature, are far-fetched fiction. Sure. But if a movie can sweep me away for two hours by persuading me to believe that this super-person has a feasible way to exist, then I am under its spell. Now then, in this day and age of convincing CGI, anything can appear to be possible because we can see it with our incredulous eyes. Peter Jackson’s “King Kong” (2005) is a great example. So the burden of credibility ultimately falls upon the screenwriters, provided the CGI personnel aren’t clowns who give us cartoony CGI.
“Iron Man” joins the short list that does justice to the genre. Its director, Jon Favreau, is obviously an Iron Man fan, who evidently wanted to empower his hero with credibility, because “Iron Man” is refreshingly realistic … inasmuch as that is possible for a superhero movie.
As with any first superhero movie (or comic book), “Iron Man” is largely composed of the origin story. Mostly I find this tradition tiresome, which is why I prefer superhero-movie sequels. Here’s how origin stories go: The hero is usually physically weak in some way — initially. Something tragic yet remarkable happens to make him (yes, the hero is usually is a him) powerful, insomuch that his new ability exceeds that of typical human beings’ capabilities. Alas, said power is almost always a two-edged sword, a blessing and a curse, and it tends to alienate the lonely hero from fitting in with others. And then there’s the costuming issue (which is excellently non-existent in “Unbreakable”), coupled with a fumbling, often painful training on learning to wield the newfound superpower.
Most of “Iron Man” is origin story, but surprisingly, it’s not tiresome. Even the origin story is interesting. The secret to this particular movie’s success, however, is its casting, namely, Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man. He is exceptionally entertaining in this movie.
Again we’re brought to the writing. The movie’s story is fine, but it’s the humorous dialogue and Downey Jr.’s delivery that make the movie great. Everyone loves a caped crusader’s battle scenes. But the time the hero spends running from the telephone booth decked out in Technicolor tights and the time he spends as his timid secret identity differ greatly. There are usually precious few superhero-in-action scenes compared to his bumbling, loser, alter-ego scenes.
But that’s another admirable aspect of “Iron Man”: The development and set-up scenes aren’t boring like they were, in say, “Superman Returns” (2006). Nope, instead, Downey Jr.’s Tony Stark is just as interesting and flashy as Iron Man. It is his dialogue and the actor’s delivery of it that make his secret identity so intriguing.
Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is a world-renowned weapons developer who is demonstrating his newest wares for the U.S. military in Afghanistan when he is captured by “bad guys,” essentially terrorist types who want Stark to be their personal weapons designer. And so he does, except, he doesn’t build any weapons for his captors, he builds his first Iron Man suit. This invention marks the beginning of a superhero and all that entails, as described above.
I can comfortably recommend “Iron Man,” because it is excellent summer-blockbuster entertainment. And for “Iron Man” fans that have followed the comics and anxiously await this franchise’s sequel(s), keep watching after the credits begin to roll; otherwise, the 10-second bone isn’t much of a scrap.
Directed by Jon Favreau
Robert Downey Jr. / Gwyneth Paltrow / Jeff Bridges
Action / Sci-Fi 126 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for some intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence, and brief suggestive content)
U.S. Release Date: May 2, 2008
Copyright 2008: 288
X Excellent
O Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 17, 2008
Every once in a while Tinseltown gets it right. “Iron Man” is one of those jubilant occasions. Another oft-cited example is “Batman Begins” (2005), and I suspect this summer’s “The Dark Knight” will follow suit. The antithesis of these is something like “Ghost Rider” (2007), which is a veritable abomination.
Here is the key to a good superhero movie: Make it as believable as possible. Yes, credibility is the elusive, common thread that links the greatest examples of the genre. Think about it: Superhero movies, by nature, are far-fetched fiction. Sure. But if a movie can sweep me away for two hours by persuading me to believe that this super-person has a feasible way to exist, then I am under its spell. Now then, in this day and age of convincing CGI, anything can appear to be possible because we can see it with our incredulous eyes. Peter Jackson’s “King Kong” (2005) is a great example. So the burden of credibility ultimately falls upon the screenwriters, provided the CGI personnel aren’t clowns who give us cartoony CGI.
“Iron Man” joins the short list that does justice to the genre. Its director, Jon Favreau, is obviously an Iron Man fan, who evidently wanted to empower his hero with credibility, because “Iron Man” is refreshingly realistic … inasmuch as that is possible for a superhero movie.
As with any first superhero movie (or comic book), “Iron Man” is largely composed of the origin story. Mostly I find this tradition tiresome, which is why I prefer superhero-movie sequels. Here’s how origin stories go: The hero is usually physically weak in some way — initially. Something tragic yet remarkable happens to make him (yes, the hero is usually is a him) powerful, insomuch that his new ability exceeds that of typical human beings’ capabilities. Alas, said power is almost always a two-edged sword, a blessing and a curse, and it tends to alienate the lonely hero from fitting in with others. And then there’s the costuming issue (which is excellently non-existent in “Unbreakable”), coupled with a fumbling, often painful training on learning to wield the newfound superpower.
Most of “Iron Man” is origin story, but surprisingly, it’s not tiresome. Even the origin story is interesting. The secret to this particular movie’s success, however, is its casting, namely, Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man. He is exceptionally entertaining in this movie.
Again we’re brought to the writing. The movie’s story is fine, but it’s the humorous dialogue and Downey Jr.’s delivery that make the movie great. Everyone loves a caped crusader’s battle scenes. But the time the hero spends running from the telephone booth decked out in Technicolor tights and the time he spends as his timid secret identity differ greatly. There are usually precious few superhero-in-action scenes compared to his bumbling, loser, alter-ego scenes.
But that’s another admirable aspect of “Iron Man”: The development and set-up scenes aren’t boring like they were, in say, “Superman Returns” (2006). Nope, instead, Downey Jr.’s Tony Stark is just as interesting and flashy as Iron Man. It is his dialogue and the actor’s delivery of it that make his secret identity so intriguing.
Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is a world-renowned weapons developer who is demonstrating his newest wares for the U.S. military in Afghanistan when he is captured by “bad guys,” essentially terrorist types who want Stark to be their personal weapons designer. And so he does, except, he doesn’t build any weapons for his captors, he builds his first Iron Man suit. This invention marks the beginning of a superhero and all that entails, as described above.
I can comfortably recommend “Iron Man,” because it is excellent summer-blockbuster entertainment. And for “Iron Man” fans that have followed the comics and anxiously await this franchise’s sequel(s), keep watching after the credits begin to roll; otherwise, the 10-second bone isn’t much of a scrap.
Directed by Jon Favreau
Robert Downey Jr. / Gwyneth Paltrow / Jeff Bridges
Action / Sci-Fi 126 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for some intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence, and brief suggestive content)
U.S. Release Date: May 2, 2008
Copyright 2008: 288
Made of Honor (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 17, 2008
You know, people chuckle at this movie’s title, but it happens. In fact, I have a good pal named Rich whose female best friend asked him to be her “dude of honor” when she got married. And he dutifully did. So yeah, it happens.
“Made of Honor” is a successful romantic comedy, which means it’s a perfectly good rental for date night. It follows that familiar formula that we all love, and hate.
Tom (Patrick Dempsey) and Hannah (Michelle Monaghan) have grown to be more or less inseparable best friends during the past 10 years. But their relationship has been strictly platonic. Tom has complicated, self-imposed rules that enable him to enjoy meaningless sex with numberless women, without settling down with any of them. But when Hannah goes to Scotland for six weeks on a business trip, Tom realizes what an important, happy role she plays in his life. He decides, as the previews have revealed, that Hannah is a keeper, and the woman he should marry.
But Hannah returns from Scotland with big news for Tom: She’s engaged to Colin (Kevin McKidd), a seemingly perfect man’s man. Hannah asks Tom to be her maid of honor, and he agrees. But Tom has a scheme to try to break up Colin and Hannah’s engagement and prevent their wedding. And in the process of his nefarious plotting, Tom has to convince Hannah that he’s a keeper, too.
“Made of Honor” is predictable but funny. Patrick Dempsey plays these kinds of characters perfectly. The movie also has some nice, little touches. For instance, when Hannah breaks the news of her engagement to Tom, he is dazed and his head is figuratively spinning. Director of photography Tony Pierce-Roberts enhances this moment visually with a swirling camera that encircles Tom, Hannah and Colin. This classic cinematographer’s trick enables us to experience what Tom is experiencing.
I’ve seen Michelle Monaghan in several movies now, and I have to say, she’s quite likable. In fact, I predict that she’ll be the next Meg Ryan, with her girl-next-door amiability.
Speaking of likability, sometimes the enjoyment of a movie comes from the person you’re watching it with. I saw “Made of Honor” with my mom when she was visiting me in Utah from West Virginia. And I like my mom lots, naturally, so the movie was even more fun because she enjoyed it, too. Indeed, had I not chosen Dave Eaton to be the best man at my wedding, I might have just as easily chosen her: She could have been my “best dudette,” or something like that.
Directed by Paul Weiland
Patrick Dempsey / Michelle Monaghan / Kevin McKidd
Comedy / Romance 101 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for sexual content and language)
U.S. Release Date: May 2, 2008
Copyright 2008: 289
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 17, 2008
You know, people chuckle at this movie’s title, but it happens. In fact, I have a good pal named Rich whose female best friend asked him to be her “dude of honor” when she got married. And he dutifully did. So yeah, it happens.
“Made of Honor” is a successful romantic comedy, which means it’s a perfectly good rental for date night. It follows that familiar formula that we all love, and hate.
Tom (Patrick Dempsey) and Hannah (Michelle Monaghan) have grown to be more or less inseparable best friends during the past 10 years. But their relationship has been strictly platonic. Tom has complicated, self-imposed rules that enable him to enjoy meaningless sex with numberless women, without settling down with any of them. But when Hannah goes to Scotland for six weeks on a business trip, Tom realizes what an important, happy role she plays in his life. He decides, as the previews have revealed, that Hannah is a keeper, and the woman he should marry.
But Hannah returns from Scotland with big news for Tom: She’s engaged to Colin (Kevin McKidd), a seemingly perfect man’s man. Hannah asks Tom to be her maid of honor, and he agrees. But Tom has a scheme to try to break up Colin and Hannah’s engagement and prevent their wedding. And in the process of his nefarious plotting, Tom has to convince Hannah that he’s a keeper, too.
“Made of Honor” is predictable but funny. Patrick Dempsey plays these kinds of characters perfectly. The movie also has some nice, little touches. For instance, when Hannah breaks the news of her engagement to Tom, he is dazed and his head is figuratively spinning. Director of photography Tony Pierce-Roberts enhances this moment visually with a swirling camera that encircles Tom, Hannah and Colin. This classic cinematographer’s trick enables us to experience what Tom is experiencing.
I’ve seen Michelle Monaghan in several movies now, and I have to say, she’s quite likable. In fact, I predict that she’ll be the next Meg Ryan, with her girl-next-door amiability.
Speaking of likability, sometimes the enjoyment of a movie comes from the person you’re watching it with. I saw “Made of Honor” with my mom when she was visiting me in Utah from West Virginia. And I like my mom lots, naturally, so the movie was even more fun because she enjoyed it, too. Indeed, had I not chosen Dave Eaton to be the best man at my wedding, I might have just as easily chosen her: She could have been my “best dudette,” or something like that.
Directed by Paul Weiland
Patrick Dempsey / Michelle Monaghan / Kevin McKidd
Comedy / Romance 101 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for sexual content and language)
U.S. Release Date: May 2, 2008
Copyright 2008: 289
Baby Mama (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 17, 2008
Kate Holbrook (Tina Fey) is 37, single, and a professional woman with a flourishing career in Philadelphia. She has almost everything she’s ever wanted — except a baby. Yes, Kate wants to be a mom more than anything; she’s basically tried all the modern medical methods, short of adoption (which is not a medical method), but Kate is told that she has a “hostile uterus.”
Now, up to this point, “Baby Mama” has a tinge of underlying sadness to it. There’s nothing funny about someone who desperately wants to be a parent but cannot. Take heart, the movie cheers up.
Kate eventually uses a surrogate service, which is a business contract where the mother-hopeful pays another woman to carry her baby to term, at which point the surrogate hands the baby over to the new mom and happily departs with her considerable financial compensation.
In “Baby Mama,” Kate doesn’t have much say over her surrogate’s selection process, so she ends up with Angie Ostrowiski (Amy Poehler), a childlike woman who is Kate’s opposite in every way. Naturally, with Kate’s ultra-carefulness and Angie’s relative carelessness, conflicts abound.
But that’s not all there is to “Baby Mama.” It has a number of refreshingly unexpected developments that horrify and delight us. The writer, Michael McCullers (who is also the director), has given us a good movie that conjures within us a wide range of emotions, some of them complex.
No. I’m not claiming it’s the best movie of the year, but “Baby Mama” delivers.
Directed by Michael McCullers
Tina Fey / Amy Poehler / Greg Kinnear
Comedy 99 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for crude and sexual humor, language and a drug reference)
U.S. Release Date: April 25, 2008
Copyright 2008: 285
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 17, 2008
Kate Holbrook (Tina Fey) is 37, single, and a professional woman with a flourishing career in Philadelphia. She has almost everything she’s ever wanted — except a baby. Yes, Kate wants to be a mom more than anything; she’s basically tried all the modern medical methods, short of adoption (which is not a medical method), but Kate is told that she has a “hostile uterus.”
Now, up to this point, “Baby Mama” has a tinge of underlying sadness to it. There’s nothing funny about someone who desperately wants to be a parent but cannot. Take heart, the movie cheers up.
Kate eventually uses a surrogate service, which is a business contract where the mother-hopeful pays another woman to carry her baby to term, at which point the surrogate hands the baby over to the new mom and happily departs with her considerable financial compensation.
In “Baby Mama,” Kate doesn’t have much say over her surrogate’s selection process, so she ends up with Angie Ostrowiski (Amy Poehler), a childlike woman who is Kate’s opposite in every way. Naturally, with Kate’s ultra-carefulness and Angie’s relative carelessness, conflicts abound.
But that’s not all there is to “Baby Mama.” It has a number of refreshingly unexpected developments that horrify and delight us. The writer, Michael McCullers (who is also the director), has given us a good movie that conjures within us a wide range of emotions, some of them complex.
No. I’m not claiming it’s the best movie of the year, but “Baby Mama” delivers.
Directed by Michael McCullers
Tina Fey / Amy Poehler / Greg Kinnear
Comedy 99 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for crude and sexual humor, language and a drug reference)
U.S. Release Date: April 25, 2008
Copyright 2008: 285
Deception (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
O Good
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 17, 2008
“Deception” might have been a better movie had its trailer not spoiled all its surprises. I realize it’s rather cliché to gripe about movie previews “giving away too much,” but in this case the spoiling is blatant.
Basically, we know where the entire movie is going from the moment it begins. I’m sure if I could have gone into “Deception” cold, I would have thought more of it. If you haven’t seen the trailers, you could probably call it “Good.” For those who are still in the dark about the premise revealed in the previews, I’ll summarize the plot gingerly.
Jonathan McQuarry (Ewan McGregor) is a lonely, friendless man. There’s nothing wrong with him, per se; he simply leads an unexciting life. Jonathan is an audit manager who crunches the numbers at big companies, making sure everything adds up as it should.
But it is through this job that Jonathan meets Wyatt Bose (Hugh Jackman), his antithesis. Wyatt is a charismatic, influential lawyer with an exciting life. Wyatt belongs to a sex club where the members receive anonymous phone calls from a list of willing, one-night-stand lovers. No names are exchanged; it’s just physical and that’s that: It’s “intimacy without intricacy for people that are too busy for love.”
Needless to say, Jonathan is dazzled by his new friend’s lifestyle. One day the two accidentally switch cell phones right before Wyatt takes a trip overseas to London. Now, Jonathan is in the driver’s seat of Wyatt’s exhilarating life. Best of all, Wyatt doesn’t mind one bit.
Well, that’s about as far as I’ll describe, except for one last thing: Wyatt’s lifestyle has dire consequences for Jonathan; when something seems too good to be true, it usually is.
With a premise like this, you’re probably wondering about the film’s sexual content. Though it sounds more prevalent, the sex club is merely a vehicle or a subplot to help carry the plot along. Even so, there are a couple semi-graphic sexual scenes, so “Deception” deserves its R-rating.
But when it’s all said and done, “Deception” is far too contrived, which means it’s so unlikely that these events would ever happen to someone that the movie loses its power of suspense. We know we are being toyed with by a work of pure fiction. As we watch “Deception,” we are not effectively drawn into the drama surrounding the characters. We are not, in fact, deceived … unless you count being duped into buying a ticket to see this movie.
Directed by Marcel Langenegger
Hugh Jackman / Ewan McGregor / Michelle Williams
Drama / Mystery 108 min.
MPAA: R (for sexual content, language, brief violence and some drug use)
U.S. Release Date: April 25, 2008
Copyright 2008: 286
O Excellent
O Good
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 17, 2008
“Deception” might have been a better movie had its trailer not spoiled all its surprises. I realize it’s rather cliché to gripe about movie previews “giving away too much,” but in this case the spoiling is blatant.
Basically, we know where the entire movie is going from the moment it begins. I’m sure if I could have gone into “Deception” cold, I would have thought more of it. If you haven’t seen the trailers, you could probably call it “Good.” For those who are still in the dark about the premise revealed in the previews, I’ll summarize the plot gingerly.
Jonathan McQuarry (Ewan McGregor) is a lonely, friendless man. There’s nothing wrong with him, per se; he simply leads an unexciting life. Jonathan is an audit manager who crunches the numbers at big companies, making sure everything adds up as it should.
But it is through this job that Jonathan meets Wyatt Bose (Hugh Jackman), his antithesis. Wyatt is a charismatic, influential lawyer with an exciting life. Wyatt belongs to a sex club where the members receive anonymous phone calls from a list of willing, one-night-stand lovers. No names are exchanged; it’s just physical and that’s that: It’s “intimacy without intricacy for people that are too busy for love.”
Needless to say, Jonathan is dazzled by his new friend’s lifestyle. One day the two accidentally switch cell phones right before Wyatt takes a trip overseas to London. Now, Jonathan is in the driver’s seat of Wyatt’s exhilarating life. Best of all, Wyatt doesn’t mind one bit.
Well, that’s about as far as I’ll describe, except for one last thing: Wyatt’s lifestyle has dire consequences for Jonathan; when something seems too good to be true, it usually is.
With a premise like this, you’re probably wondering about the film’s sexual content. Though it sounds more prevalent, the sex club is merely a vehicle or a subplot to help carry the plot along. Even so, there are a couple semi-graphic sexual scenes, so “Deception” deserves its R-rating.
But when it’s all said and done, “Deception” is far too contrived, which means it’s so unlikely that these events would ever happen to someone that the movie loses its power of suspense. We know we are being toyed with by a work of pure fiction. As we watch “Deception,” we are not effectively drawn into the drama surrounding the characters. We are not, in fact, deceived … unless you count being duped into buying a ticket to see this movie.
Directed by Marcel Langenegger
Hugh Jackman / Ewan McGregor / Michelle Williams
Drama / Mystery 108 min.
MPAA: R (for sexual content, language, brief violence and some drug use)
U.S. Release Date: April 25, 2008
Copyright 2008: 286
Harold & Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
O Good
O OK
X Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 17, 2008
Nope. I did not see “Harold & Kumar Go to White Caste” (2004), and I count myself fortunate, based on this sequel. “Harold & Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay” is a filthy, satirical comedy whose filmmakers obviously have something to say, but their points are undermined by the movie’s unflinching tastelessness.
This is not to say that I hated “Escape From Gitmo,” because it was better than I feared it might be. But even at that, this movie is mediocrity — at best.
Just to be clear about what you’re in for if you choose to subject yourself to “Escape From Gitmo,” you’ll get plenty of bathroom humor; pubic-hair, masturbation, and semen humor; racism humor (can there be such a thing?); disabilities humor (also tasteless), and so on and so forth.
I could go on, but it’s basically as low-brow and as gallows as you can get, without being “Freddy Got Fingered” (2001) or “Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan” (2006). I’m not sure the bar of decency can be lowered any further for a comedy than it was for those two movies, but if it can, I don’t want to know.
Anyway, here’s the premise: Best pals Harold (John Cho) and Kumar (Kal Penn) are flying to Amsterdam, but their new destination suddenly becomes Guantanamo Bay when the plane’s passengers mistake the two for terrorists. The duo is imprisoned and escapes, and the rest of the movie follows the pair on their idiotic quest to exonerate themselves. Meanwhile, Secretary Ron Fox (Rob Corddry) from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security fiercely pursues them like Tommy Lee Jones chases Wesley Snipes in “U.S. Marshals” (1998). Oh, and along the way, Harold and Kumar encounter a psychedelic Neil Patrick Harris, whom you’ll probably remember as Doogie Howser, M.D.
To point out a more constructive criticism, I was most displeased with the inconsistency of Kal Penn’s Kumar character. He is a human paradox. We learn along the way that Kumar is exceptionally intelligent — even brilliant. Yet, he is also the character whose stupidity is so profound at times, it’s bewildering. Perhaps I could get behind these characters and their zany adventures if they were credible human beings. But to be fair, I don’t really have a problem with John Cho’s character.
Speaking of John Cho, it comes to mind that I know another guy with that same name. The John Cho I know is a brilliant young man, similar to Kumar. But he had a weird habit of climbing on top of apartment complexes and lurking about, a tendency that might be called stupid, if not bewildering. Perhaps paradoxical humans are possible … I think they’re called Geminis.
Directed by Jon Hurwitz and Hayden Schlossberg
John Cho / Kal Penn / Rob Corddry
Comedy 102 min.
MPAA: R (for strong crude and sexual content, graphic nudity, pervasive language and drug use)
U.S. Release Date: April 25, 2008
Copyright 2008: 287
O Excellent
O Good
O OK
X Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 17, 2008
Nope. I did not see “Harold & Kumar Go to White Caste” (2004), and I count myself fortunate, based on this sequel. “Harold & Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay” is a filthy, satirical comedy whose filmmakers obviously have something to say, but their points are undermined by the movie’s unflinching tastelessness.
This is not to say that I hated “Escape From Gitmo,” because it was better than I feared it might be. But even at that, this movie is mediocrity — at best.
Just to be clear about what you’re in for if you choose to subject yourself to “Escape From Gitmo,” you’ll get plenty of bathroom humor; pubic-hair, masturbation, and semen humor; racism humor (can there be such a thing?); disabilities humor (also tasteless), and so on and so forth.
I could go on, but it’s basically as low-brow and as gallows as you can get, without being “Freddy Got Fingered” (2001) or “Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan” (2006). I’m not sure the bar of decency can be lowered any further for a comedy than it was for those two movies, but if it can, I don’t want to know.
Anyway, here’s the premise: Best pals Harold (John Cho) and Kumar (Kal Penn) are flying to Amsterdam, but their new destination suddenly becomes Guantanamo Bay when the plane’s passengers mistake the two for terrorists. The duo is imprisoned and escapes, and the rest of the movie follows the pair on their idiotic quest to exonerate themselves. Meanwhile, Secretary Ron Fox (Rob Corddry) from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security fiercely pursues them like Tommy Lee Jones chases Wesley Snipes in “U.S. Marshals” (1998). Oh, and along the way, Harold and Kumar encounter a psychedelic Neil Patrick Harris, whom you’ll probably remember as Doogie Howser, M.D.
To point out a more constructive criticism, I was most displeased with the inconsistency of Kal Penn’s Kumar character. He is a human paradox. We learn along the way that Kumar is exceptionally intelligent — even brilliant. Yet, he is also the character whose stupidity is so profound at times, it’s bewildering. Perhaps I could get behind these characters and their zany adventures if they were credible human beings. But to be fair, I don’t really have a problem with John Cho’s character.
Speaking of John Cho, it comes to mind that I know another guy with that same name. The John Cho I know is a brilliant young man, similar to Kumar. But he had a weird habit of climbing on top of apartment complexes and lurking about, a tendency that might be called stupid, if not bewildering. Perhaps paradoxical humans are possible … I think they’re called Geminis.
Directed by Jon Hurwitz and Hayden Schlossberg
John Cho / Kal Penn / Rob Corddry
Comedy 102 min.
MPAA: R (for strong crude and sexual content, graphic nudity, pervasive language and drug use)
U.S. Release Date: April 25, 2008
Copyright 2008: 287
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (2008)
O Masterpiece
X Excellent
O Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 17, 2008
In “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” there’s a quiet scene where Ben Stein stands face to face, confronting a statue of Charles Darwin. This brief moment is a metaphor for the whole film, which is a documentary where Stein investigates the scientific community’s attitudes toward Darwinism and Intelligent Design.
Many people only know Ben Stein as the monotone, roll-calling economics teacher from “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” (1986). But he was also once Richard Nixon’s speechwriter and a pundit, of sorts. In “Expelled,” Stein travels the globe with his unexcitable — almost sleepy demeanor, wearing a suit and tennis shoes. His interviewing style is remarkable: His lines of questioning are driving but never threatening, so his subjects feel compelled to answer, but they do not become combative.
And naturally, as documentaries tend to be, “Expelled” is clearly slanted. Indeed, Ben Stein is a “believer,” meaning, in God, the Creator. Consequently, the Darwinists of the scientific community are, perhaps unfairly, vilified. All too often, Hollywood movies portray religious people as manic zealots, obsessed and potentially dangerous. But “Expelled” does the opposite: This film’s editing includes highly spirited, sometimes irrational overreactions from the evolutionist types, while those who consider the question of Intelligent Design are portrayed as reasonable, calm and collected.
“Expelled” is sometimes troubling, other times sad. Stein draws parallels between Darwinism and Nazism, and he digs up what he calls “the darkest chapter of American medicine,” the implementation of eugenics, where 50,000 people were sterilized or prevented marriage, all in the name of “helping evolution along,” because they were “feeble-minded.” Stein goes so far as to claim that Planned Parenthood is a form of eugenics that still exists today.
“Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” is one of the best films of 2008, an overlooked, underrated gem that will particularly be enjoyed by “the believers,” but probably not as much by the nonbelievers. Stein uses a metaphor that employs the Berlin Wall, and it’s brilliant.
In the beginning of the movie, there are interspersed clips of silliness, animations and old film footage that are included to spice up the material, add humor and to mock Stein’s antagonists. These childish insertions are unnecessary and detract from the film’s power.
But if you see “Expelled” for no other reason, watch it so you can catch a climactic showdown between Ben Stein and Richard Dawkins, a vehement nonbeliever who is described by another colleague in the movie as “a very smart guy but a little bit of a reptile.” It seems an unfair classification, but if Darwinism is accurate, perhaps there could be some truth to it.
Directed by Nathan Frankowski
Ben Stein / Steven Meyer / Richard Dawkins
Documentary 90 min.
MPAA: PG (for thematic material, some disturbing images and brief smoking)
U.S. Release Date: April 18, 2008
Copyright 2008: 282
X Excellent
O Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 17, 2008
In “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” there’s a quiet scene where Ben Stein stands face to face, confronting a statue of Charles Darwin. This brief moment is a metaphor for the whole film, which is a documentary where Stein investigates the scientific community’s attitudes toward Darwinism and Intelligent Design.
Many people only know Ben Stein as the monotone, roll-calling economics teacher from “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” (1986). But he was also once Richard Nixon’s speechwriter and a pundit, of sorts. In “Expelled,” Stein travels the globe with his unexcitable — almost sleepy demeanor, wearing a suit and tennis shoes. His interviewing style is remarkable: His lines of questioning are driving but never threatening, so his subjects feel compelled to answer, but they do not become combative.
And naturally, as documentaries tend to be, “Expelled” is clearly slanted. Indeed, Ben Stein is a “believer,” meaning, in God, the Creator. Consequently, the Darwinists of the scientific community are, perhaps unfairly, vilified. All too often, Hollywood movies portray religious people as manic zealots, obsessed and potentially dangerous. But “Expelled” does the opposite: This film’s editing includes highly spirited, sometimes irrational overreactions from the evolutionist types, while those who consider the question of Intelligent Design are portrayed as reasonable, calm and collected.
“Expelled” is sometimes troubling, other times sad. Stein draws parallels between Darwinism and Nazism, and he digs up what he calls “the darkest chapter of American medicine,” the implementation of eugenics, where 50,000 people were sterilized or prevented marriage, all in the name of “helping evolution along,” because they were “feeble-minded.” Stein goes so far as to claim that Planned Parenthood is a form of eugenics that still exists today.
“Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” is one of the best films of 2008, an overlooked, underrated gem that will particularly be enjoyed by “the believers,” but probably not as much by the nonbelievers. Stein uses a metaphor that employs the Berlin Wall, and it’s brilliant.
In the beginning of the movie, there are interspersed clips of silliness, animations and old film footage that are included to spice up the material, add humor and to mock Stein’s antagonists. These childish insertions are unnecessary and detract from the film’s power.
But if you see “Expelled” for no other reason, watch it so you can catch a climactic showdown between Ben Stein and Richard Dawkins, a vehement nonbeliever who is described by another colleague in the movie as “a very smart guy but a little bit of a reptile.” It seems an unfair classification, but if Darwinism is accurate, perhaps there could be some truth to it.
Directed by Nathan Frankowski
Ben Stein / Steven Meyer / Richard Dawkins
Documentary 90 min.
MPAA: PG (for thematic material, some disturbing images and brief smoking)
U.S. Release Date: April 18, 2008
Copyright 2008: 282
The Forbidden Kingdom (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
O Good
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 17, 2008
I love movies just as much as the next guy, probably more in most cases. So I rarely ever fall asleep during a movie, no matter how paltry it is, unless it’s something utterly reprehensible like “Batman & Robin” (1997). But it is a bad sign when I, who am a lover of martial arts, keep drifting off during a martial-arts action flick. That is what happened to me during “The Forbidden Kingdom.” I know. Nobody cares.
But to be fair, I have a new baby who keeps me up at night, so I may give “The Forbidden Kingdom” another viewing someday because of my intermittent head-bobbing. Rick Moody’s rule is, don’t review a movie unless you’ve stayed to watch the whole thing. Well, I was physically there for the whole thing — if not consciously — so I’ll live on the edge and review it, anyway. And if anyone who reads this review feels I have not described “The Forbidden Kingdom” accurately, then you can correct me. But I think I’ve got a good handle on it, and the movie was merely OK.
“The Forbidden Kingdom” has an awfully risky curtain-raiser: It’s one of those scenes that look so preposterous that people walk out of the theater and demand their money back. But if you stick it out, you’ll obtain some relief by finding out that it was just a dream sequence. Unfortunately, that relief is short-lived because there continue to be storm-out-of-the-theater scenes that are not dream sequences.
Jason Tripitikas (Michael Angarano) is a martial arts nut — he even dreams in kung fu! Little does he know, his dreams are shadows of things to come. Jason loves to visit “Old Hop’s” pawnshop in Chinatown in South Boston. The old merchant (Jackie Chan) who owns the shop is fond of Jason, perhaps because he faithfully buys old martial arts movies from his store. During one of his visits, Jason sees a peculiar bo staff (a martial arts weapon that is essentially a stick) that Hop claims has been there ever since the store opened 100 years ago.
Like all martial arts movies with an initially wimpy protagonist, Jason is afflicted by bullies. And these bullies are of the same caliber of startling cruelty as those found in “Drillbit Taylor.” Is it me, or has the viciousness of bullies waxed worse lately? These hoods make Johnny Lawrence, Danielson’s arch-nemesis, look tame. (By the way, why doesn’t some smart casting director give Billy Zabka another chance, so he doesn’t have to keep playing in movies like “Python 2”?)
Anyway, in the midst of Jason’s flight from the meanies, he takes the bo staff, which magically transports him to rural, old-school China, where he encounters more magical phenomena and more bandits, but is rescued by the martial arts skills of the usually-drunken Lu Yan (also Jackie Chan). This double-role casting that spans characters in both of the protagonist’s worlds is reminiscent of Dorothy’s familiar-faced pals in “The Wizard of Oz” (1939).
Lu Yan immediately recognizes the bo staff as the one that belonged to The Monkey King (Jet Li), the most painfully annoying character since Jar Jar Binks. According to legend, the idiotic Monkey King was magically imprisoned, or banished, or something, by a really mean meanie called the Jade Warlord (Collin Chou), which I thought was kind of a sissy name. (I’m the Sapphire Prince. Fear me.)
The legend also tells of “a seeker” (Jason) who will return the powerful staff to the Monkey King that he might finally conquer the Jade Warlord. So, it becomes their quest to return the staff to its rightful owner, and along the way, they are joined by the helping hands and feet of Golden Sparrow (Yifei Liu) and the Silent Monk (Jet Li). And naturally, the Jade Warlord doesn’t want the staff to return to the Monkey King, so he makes the journey difficult for our intrepid travelers.
That’s the premise. This sets the stage for some martial arts action, but the problem is the movie’s pacing: It has short bursts of fighting action, then long, slow, drawn-out sequences of several quiet, plot-furthering dialogue scenes in a row. Then a quick fight scene. Then long, slow sequences again. It is enough to lull a movie critic to sleep.
According to the Internet Movie Database’s trivia page, “The Forbidden Kingdom” went through five script re-writes, some of which occurred during filming. Yes, such a thing isn’t all that uncommon, but it’s typically symptomatic of bigger problems. Indeed, if “The Forbidden Kingdom” had re-writes, it shows. And if it didn’t, maybe it should have.
But those who were excited about “The Forbidden Kingdom” were not looking forward to a dazzling, coherent script, they were anxious to see Jackie Chan and Jet Li team up for the first time. Yes, that is interesting, but aside from one really good fight against each other, the two are on the same side most of the movie. But I suppose that seeing their one fight against each other would be worth admission for martial arts fans. I guess it’s similar to the way I paid so much money to see Billy Joel and Elton John play together on their Face to Face Tour; as a piano man, I had to see it. And I stayed awake for the entire show.
Directed by Rob Minkoff
Jet Li / Jackie Chan / Michael Angarano
Martial Arts / Comedy 113 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for sequences of martial arts action and some violence)
U.S. Release Date: April 18, 2008
Copyright 2008: 284
O Excellent
O Good
X OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 17, 2008
I love movies just as much as the next guy, probably more in most cases. So I rarely ever fall asleep during a movie, no matter how paltry it is, unless it’s something utterly reprehensible like “Batman & Robin” (1997). But it is a bad sign when I, who am a lover of martial arts, keep drifting off during a martial-arts action flick. That is what happened to me during “The Forbidden Kingdom.” I know. Nobody cares.
But to be fair, I have a new baby who keeps me up at night, so I may give “The Forbidden Kingdom” another viewing someday because of my intermittent head-bobbing. Rick Moody’s rule is, don’t review a movie unless you’ve stayed to watch the whole thing. Well, I was physically there for the whole thing — if not consciously — so I’ll live on the edge and review it, anyway. And if anyone who reads this review feels I have not described “The Forbidden Kingdom” accurately, then you can correct me. But I think I’ve got a good handle on it, and the movie was merely OK.
“The Forbidden Kingdom” has an awfully risky curtain-raiser: It’s one of those scenes that look so preposterous that people walk out of the theater and demand their money back. But if you stick it out, you’ll obtain some relief by finding out that it was just a dream sequence. Unfortunately, that relief is short-lived because there continue to be storm-out-of-the-theater scenes that are not dream sequences.
Jason Tripitikas (Michael Angarano) is a martial arts nut — he even dreams in kung fu! Little does he know, his dreams are shadows of things to come. Jason loves to visit “Old Hop’s” pawnshop in Chinatown in South Boston. The old merchant (Jackie Chan) who owns the shop is fond of Jason, perhaps because he faithfully buys old martial arts movies from his store. During one of his visits, Jason sees a peculiar bo staff (a martial arts weapon that is essentially a stick) that Hop claims has been there ever since the store opened 100 years ago.
Like all martial arts movies with an initially wimpy protagonist, Jason is afflicted by bullies. And these bullies are of the same caliber of startling cruelty as those found in “Drillbit Taylor.” Is it me, or has the viciousness of bullies waxed worse lately? These hoods make Johnny Lawrence, Danielson’s arch-nemesis, look tame. (By the way, why doesn’t some smart casting director give Billy Zabka another chance, so he doesn’t have to keep playing in movies like “Python 2”?)
Anyway, in the midst of Jason’s flight from the meanies, he takes the bo staff, which magically transports him to rural, old-school China, where he encounters more magical phenomena and more bandits, but is rescued by the martial arts skills of the usually-drunken Lu Yan (also Jackie Chan). This double-role casting that spans characters in both of the protagonist’s worlds is reminiscent of Dorothy’s familiar-faced pals in “The Wizard of Oz” (1939).
Lu Yan immediately recognizes the bo staff as the one that belonged to The Monkey King (Jet Li), the most painfully annoying character since Jar Jar Binks. According to legend, the idiotic Monkey King was magically imprisoned, or banished, or something, by a really mean meanie called the Jade Warlord (Collin Chou), which I thought was kind of a sissy name. (I’m the Sapphire Prince. Fear me.)
The legend also tells of “a seeker” (Jason) who will return the powerful staff to the Monkey King that he might finally conquer the Jade Warlord. So, it becomes their quest to return the staff to its rightful owner, and along the way, they are joined by the helping hands and feet of Golden Sparrow (Yifei Liu) and the Silent Monk (Jet Li). And naturally, the Jade Warlord doesn’t want the staff to return to the Monkey King, so he makes the journey difficult for our intrepid travelers.
That’s the premise. This sets the stage for some martial arts action, but the problem is the movie’s pacing: It has short bursts of fighting action, then long, slow, drawn-out sequences of several quiet, plot-furthering dialogue scenes in a row. Then a quick fight scene. Then long, slow sequences again. It is enough to lull a movie critic to sleep.
According to the Internet Movie Database’s trivia page, “The Forbidden Kingdom” went through five script re-writes, some of which occurred during filming. Yes, such a thing isn’t all that uncommon, but it’s typically symptomatic of bigger problems. Indeed, if “The Forbidden Kingdom” had re-writes, it shows. And if it didn’t, maybe it should have.
But those who were excited about “The Forbidden Kingdom” were not looking forward to a dazzling, coherent script, they were anxious to see Jackie Chan and Jet Li team up for the first time. Yes, that is interesting, but aside from one really good fight against each other, the two are on the same side most of the movie. But I suppose that seeing their one fight against each other would be worth admission for martial arts fans. I guess it’s similar to the way I paid so much money to see Billy Joel and Elton John play together on their Face to Face Tour; as a piano man, I had to see it. And I stayed awake for the entire show.
Directed by Rob Minkoff
Jet Li / Jackie Chan / Michael Angarano
Martial Arts / Comedy 113 min.
MPAA: PG-13 (for sequences of martial arts action and some violence)
U.S. Release Date: April 18, 2008
Copyright 2008: 284
Forgetting Sarah Marshall (2008)
O Masterpiece
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 17, 2008
Jason Segel, the actor who plays Pete Bretter in “Forgetting Sarah Marshall,” claimed in a late-night-talk-show interview that a girl broke up with him once while he was naked, which is quite possibly the most vulnerable time to get dumped.
And since the best material is inspired by real life, “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” opens with a birthday-suit breakup that includes full frontal male nudity. Some actors, like Jason Segel, take substantial risks. Pure bravery. And to think I used to be impressed with Christian Bale’s dangerously extreme weight-loss for “The Machinist” (2004).
But this is the kind of movie “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” is. Yes, it’s the same funny, over-the-top smut as “The 40-Year-Old Virgin” (2005), “Knocked Up” (2007), and “Superbad” (2007); in short, another Judd Apatow production whose R-rating should not be taken lightly.
After being dismissed by his TV-actress girlfriend, Sarah (Kristen Bell), Peter takes his best friend’s advice and goes on a solo vacation to Hawaii. Unfortunately, Sarah is also vacationing at the same resort with her British, rock-star, Aldous Snow (Russell Brand). Snow is one of the movie’s funniest characters. And after seeing Peter mope around for a few days, we get to see him begin to emerge from the breakup, “discover” himself, make new friends, and even meet a new, hip gal named Rachel (Mila Kunis).
There is an overall good feeling to “Forgetting Sarah Marshall.” It has that zesty invigoration of a fun vacation, which is a credit to director Nicholas Stoller, because that’s exactly what he was supposed to depict. The inevitable run-ins between the two couples are truly entertaining. Sometimes the social awkwardness makes you squirm a little in your seat, but it’s always funny.
And in addition to the naked breakup scene, “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” has one other refreshingly original idea that I’ve never seen in a movie before, and probably never will again: a Dracula puppet rock opera. Nice.
In the end, I suspect most people will love this movie, that is, if they go in already aware of its sexual content. “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” is essentially an edgy romantic comedy; it’s kind of like that deodorant called Secret: “Strong enough for a man [and] made for a woman.”
Directed by Nicholas Stoller
Jason Segel / Kristen Bell / Mila Kunis
Comedy / Romance 112 min.
MPAA: R (for sexual content, language and some graphic nudity)
U.S. Release Date: April 18, 2008
Copyright 2008: 283
O Excellent
X Good
O OK
O Mediocrity
O Avoid
Review by Jason Pyles / June 17, 2008
Jason Segel, the actor who plays Pete Bretter in “Forgetting Sarah Marshall,” claimed in a late-night-talk-show interview that a girl broke up with him once while he was naked, which is quite possibly the most vulnerable time to get dumped.
And since the best material is inspired by real life, “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” opens with a birthday-suit breakup that includes full frontal male nudity. Some actors, like Jason Segel, take substantial risks. Pure bravery. And to think I used to be impressed with Christian Bale’s dangerously extreme weight-loss for “The Machinist” (2004).
But this is the kind of movie “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” is. Yes, it’s the same funny, over-the-top smut as “The 40-Year-Old Virgin” (2005), “Knocked Up” (2007), and “Superbad” (2007); in short, another Judd Apatow production whose R-rating should not be taken lightly.
After being dismissed by his TV-actress girlfriend, Sarah (Kristen Bell), Peter takes his best friend’s advice and goes on a solo vacation to Hawaii. Unfortunately, Sarah is also vacationing at the same resort with her British, rock-star, Aldous Snow (Russell Brand). Snow is one of the movie’s funniest characters. And after seeing Peter mope around for a few days, we get to see him begin to emerge from the breakup, “discover” himself, make new friends, and even meet a new, hip gal named Rachel (Mila Kunis).
There is an overall good feeling to “Forgetting Sarah Marshall.” It has that zesty invigoration of a fun vacation, which is a credit to director Nicholas Stoller, because that’s exactly what he was supposed to depict. The inevitable run-ins between the two couples are truly entertaining. Sometimes the social awkwardness makes you squirm a little in your seat, but it’s always funny.
And in addition to the naked breakup scene, “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” has one other refreshingly original idea that I’ve never seen in a movie before, and probably never will again: a Dracula puppet rock opera. Nice.
In the end, I suspect most people will love this movie, that is, if they go in already aware of its sexual content. “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” is essentially an edgy romantic comedy; it’s kind of like that deodorant called Secret: “Strong enough for a man [and] made for a woman.”
Directed by Nicholas Stoller
Jason Segel / Kristen Bell / Mila Kunis
Comedy / Romance 112 min.
MPAA: R (for sexual content, language and some graphic nudity)
U.S. Release Date: April 18, 2008
Copyright 2008: 283
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
