CONAN O'BRIEN CAN'T STOP (2011)

Conan O'Brien can't stop. Nor, before and after this documentary - do I want him to. I recently watched Never Say Never, the Justin Bieber doc about his rise to stardom and his experience of preparing for a show at Madison Square Garden. While fascinating and undoubtedly interesting for a teen at the start of Bieber's career, what would a tour; a schedule; a fresh start and an obsession be like for someone who's been in the public eye for two decades? Someone who's suddenly forced into what seemed like an early retirement? The answer comes to us in the form of the funny, sensitive and oddly dark Conan O'Brien Can't Stop.

On January 22, 2010, O'Brien left his gig at The Tonight Show (and NBC) forever. While I don't need to go into the details it was after an invariable raping by NBC that highlighted their lack of commitment to a decision (put forth by them), as well as their utter talent for disorganization. I understand that there are two sides to this story, but as a longtime fan of O'Brien, I will (and always have) side with him. Can't Stop follows O'Brien after his departure from The Tonight Show and fills us in on just what happened in those six months he was contractually obligated to stay off of television.

Turns out, O'Brien did stay off the air waves. The stages of the US of A on the other hand, are fair play. O'Brien created the tour for one reason only - because he literally couldn't stop. He had become accustomed and addicted to entertaining crowds of people; to introducing them to surprise guest stars and celebrities. And unlike Charlie Sheen's recent bout of banter aimed at Hollywood execs, O'Brien does it with class and dignity - showing that while it was a difficult ordeal it's less about him and more about what he was doing for the people. Let's not forget that O'Brien snagged a healthy 45 million from NBC as part of his severance package. To my friend Rowan, that spells private island and a communication-less existence for the rest of days - a road O'Brien could have easily taken. The fact he didn't shows just how dedicated to his art he is and how much he truly loves what he does.

If there's a flaw in this film is that there's not enough about O'Brien's past and that it all seems a little rushed. While I find this part in O'Brien's life very intriguing, I did find myself wanting to see more about his life and his career. If anything (even though there's plenty of source material out there), I want to see a documentary more about The Late Night Battle - as it was called. Another time perhaps.

Conan O'Brien Can't Stop is a wonderful little doc thought that easily snags an open door. It's honest, it's up front and it's funny as hell. A truly likable guy, I sincerely hope Conan O'Brien can't and doesn't stop until he literally has to.

*Stills courtesy of Pariah

Read more...

BRIDESMAIDS (2011)

Always an Arthur, never a Bridesmaids.

Well it's about damn time a good comedy came along. The last comedy I saw that even came close to how funny Bridesmaids is was Tangled, and that was seven months ago. Perhaps it's too much to ask for a really good comedy to come along more than twice a year, but thankfully Bridesmaids leads the way for what looks to be a promising summer for comedies.

Kristen Wiig stars as Annie, a mid-30's woman who's more or less devastated when her friend Lillian (Maya Rudolph) gets engaged. The only thing Annie has to look forward to is that Lillian has asked her to be her Maid of Honour. On a budget and up against super-wedding-planner Helen (Rose Byrne), Annie realizes she may have bitten off more than she can chew.

No sooner does Annie mistakenly give all the bridesmaids food poisoning does her other ideas get pushed aside for Helen's better (and more expensive) ideas. It's a battle for Annie who has known Lillian since they were kids, but apparently losing your friend to a snobby whore is all a part of growing up -as is cute-meeting your way into the arms of a geeky lovable cop with an accent (Chris O' Dowd).

Now, Bridesmaids is more than likely going to be referred to as the women's Hangover - that's more or less true. While I thought The Hangover was pretty funny and have grown to like it more over time - I actually enjoyed Bridesmaids more. Much like The Hangover it even has an Office alumni as part of the cast (Ellie Kemper). I don't know if it was the toilet humour or projectile vomiting that put me over the edge, or if Kristen Wiig (in her first leading role) carried the movie like a champ and made Bridesmaids what it was. Wiig, by the way, is also responsible for writing this film so the fact the part was literally tailor-made for her is yet another reason I believe it worked on almost every level.

I am giving Bridesmaids an open door. While it would do just fine to list all the funny parts of this film (that thankfully didn't all appear in the trailer), it doesn't matter. The whole film is funny and works on several levels (funny, touching, inspiring, etc) and is an easy front-runner for best comedy of the year. I guess we'll have to wait and see as on May 26th The Hangover Part II shows up in theatres. Until then...

*Stills courtesy of Universal Pictures

Read more...

SUPER (2010)

Shut up, crime!

If you're wondering why I'm reviewing an 'old' movie, than shut up - you don't know nuttin' about nuttin'. While Super was made in 2010, it's been trickling down the festival spout and finally ended up in a screen near you just last week. So, now that I've gotten that out of the way we can talk about the movie - which needles to say, is actually quite super.

I think the most obvious comparison anybody is going to make to Super is Kick-Ass, and I don't blame them. In fact if I had to, I would imagine the Crimson Bolt in Super (played really well by Rainn Wilson) and Kick-Ass share the same universe in the way that Metropolis and Gotham City co-exist. Both superheros live in the real world in this case and both have motivations for getting their start. While Crimson Bolt is easily the weirder (or quirkier) of the two, he's also the most motivated to get the job at hand done and is less motivated to do because they're 'cool' - as I feel Kick-Ass does. But, this is a debate that could (and probably will or has) go on forever - so I will leave it alone and get back to just Super.

Wilson plays Frank, a man so easy to relate to whatever's on TV that that he falls in love with an ex-druggie named Sarah (Liv Tyler), who seems to be just as into the romantic ideals that rarely live in reality. This is where you begin to see just how much of the story of Super exists in the real world, as well as the oddities that embody a man named Frank. Not long after the honeymoon is over - the honeymoon is over and Sarah leaves Frank for greener pastures. The greener pastures in this case are played by Kevin Bacon, a drug-dealin' scum who preys on Sarah's former weakness for cocaine' and other sitch things. Powerless as he is, Frank reports a kidnapping to the police with no avail. So, quite logically, he becomes a superhero and calls himself the Crimson Bolt.

With Frank's general distaste for drug-dealers, child molesters and people who butt in line at movie theatres (damn straight!), it doesn't take long for the Crimson Bolt to do some damage around town - nor does it take him long to get noticed. Soon people are reporting a masked criminal running around assaulting people. It's not until he gets a new sidekick named Boltie (Juno's Ellen Page) that folks start recognizing Frank for his heroic efforts to clean up the city. Eventually though, he has to face his ultimate enemy in Bacon's Jacques, and fight to get his wife back.

What I really liked about Super was the realism writer and director James Gunn used as not only a comedic device but as a commentary on what being a real life superhero could be like. Not only once but twice do we get to see the vast amount of loitering the Crimson Bolt (and later Boltie) experience while "waiting around for crime to just happen". Other realistic approaches come in the form of the surprising (and unexpected) deaths in Super as well as Ellen Page's yearning to just be part of something bigger than the role she plays as someone who works in a comic book store.

Super easily gets an open door and while it's basically the same thing as Kick-Ass, I still found it better in tone. I'm not sure if it's because I like the person Frank is (a lovable loser, really), or if I've just spent so many years watching Wilson as Dwight on The Office that I know nobody else could have played this role better. Everything works really well though, and by the end you find yourself relating with Frank immensely - especially when you get to see things through his own eyes. And let's not forget Nathan Fillion as The Holy Avenger and that whole shtick. It's the cherry on top of this whole, wondrously fun and sorta touching film.

*Stills courtesy of This is That Productions

Read more...

PAUL (2011)

Huh ... Who knew being a Canadian meant Seth Rogen would be an alien in the US? (ba dum da)

Simon Pegg and Nick Frost not only star in, but are the writers behind Paul, a comedy about two beer-bellied buddies who are obsessed with everything 'geek'. During a road trip in the US to see all the UFO hot spots, they stumble upon a car crash - and who should emerge from the wreckage but Paul (voiced by Seth Rogen, The Green Hornet), an extraterrestrial who's attempting a daring escape from the famed Area 51.

Soon enough Paul befriends Graeme (Pegg) and Clive (Frost) and begins to share stories of his origins (he was nicknamed after the dog he killed when crash landing). Paul also tells how he's spent the last sixty years on Earth living at Area 51 (mainly inspiring pop culture by giving movie ideas to Spielberg for flicks like ET and Close Encounters of the Third Kind). A crucial scene in the film even happens at the iconic Devil's Tower in Wyoming (read about my friend Luke's experience at the Devil's Tower HERE). Also on the roster for making an appearance as Ruth Buggs is the always welcome Kristen Wigg (Date Night, MacGruber). She nearly steals the whole movie once again proving the SNL star is capable of almost anything. We also get a nice performance from Bill Hader - another SNL favourite.

Now, Paul had a lot going for it, including the long awaited reunion of Simon Pegg and Nick Frost (last seen together in 2007's Hot Fuzz. Yet it fell short and was 'just okay' for me. So what happened here exactly? I loved Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz and I also thoroughly enjoyed Superbad, also directed by Greg Mottola who helms this film. Fact of the matter is - I'm not sure. This movie has all the right theoretical ingredients - great actors, great director, great story, great effects, etc (the list goes on.) It could be that a lot (if not most) of the funny moments are in the trailer for Paul (leaving little surprise); it could be that I thought perhaps it would get a bit more racy than it did being rated not-PG ; we could also blame some of it on the idea that I felt Graeme and Clive were a bit underwhelmed by Paul's presence and the whole thing seemed to lack some awe; or perhaps it was the fact that the filmmakers thought we as viewers would be more surprised by Sigourney Weaver's cameo at the end of the film (despite her voice being heard throughout the entire film prior to her reveal). Although I will say there is a laugh out loud funny moment centered around a certain famous line of Weaver's (that a shockingly small amount of people laughed at in the theatre - for shame).

Despite the shortcomings though, Paul ultimately gets an open door. While it has some weaker moments, Paul still comes through in the end and does have some decent laughs as the decent comedy it is. If I were to consider it the third film that exists under the Pegg/Frost label, it's my least favourite - but barely. But there are far worse pieces of cinema out there - and compared to them (I'm looking at you Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus) this film is ahead by leaps and bounds. The effects and animation are wonderful (as expected) and it'll undoubtedly find an audience. While you may at times forget who wrote Paul, or who directed it - you won't forget it could be funnier (or a little more clever, witty, etc.). Even if you don't know how or where it could use improvement, like life on other planets - you know it could very well be possible.

*Stills courtesy of Relativity Media

Read more...

GULLIVER'S TRAVELS (2010)

Be honest, guys. Do I look fat to you?

Jack Black stars as Lemuel Gulliver in Gulliver's Travels - the big screen adaptation of a book I was supposed to read (but didn't) in my English 101 class. In this version, Gulliver accidentally ends up as a travel writer in an attempt to impress his co-worker, Darcy (Amanda Peet). She sends him off to the Bermuda Triangle and dang it, wouldn't you know it? He gets caught in a storm and ends up in the undiscovered midget land of Lilliput - and by midget I mean little people, like actual, tiny people.

The Lilliputians know not of our land (the rest of the world) as they stay away from a looming fog that surrounds their island. This allows Gulliver to use all means of popular culture to fabricate his own historic and heroic stories - usually in the form of Star Wars, Titanic and Avatar. I don't quite remember the chapter summaries or cliff notes from the literary version - but I'm pretty sure that wasn't in there. Also not present in the original novel by Johnathan Swift - the discovery of electricity by the local Lilliputians, giant robots and cell reception via iPhone absolutely everywhere. But lets face it - a modern day adaptation of a 280 year-old novel with Jack Black in the lead probably isn't going to take itself seriously. And thankfully, Gulliver's Travels does not.

There's a lot to be said for what director Rob Letterman (Monster's vs Aliens [2009]) has done here. The usual attempt may have been to do a faithful adaptation of the novel down to the last pantaloon, but Letterman recognized from the get-go that this film needed to be different and that at a certain point you can borrow all you want from the source material, but in the end it's about having fun. That's exactly what Gulliver's Travels is all about.

I am giving this film an open door. While some moments in the film veer on the edge of going too far (and ending up in the same crap-humour category as Vampires Suck), more often then not you have a smile on your face and can enjoy the witty, harmless and often hilarious dumb fun that comes with a film such as this. Speaking of dumb fun, Jason Segal also stars in this film - which should give you a bit of an idea of what I'm talking about.

*Stills courtesy of Twentieth Century Fox

Read more...

LITTLE FOCKERS (2010)

Go fock yourself... seriously.

Robert De Niro and Ben Stiller star as grumpy father-in-law and the subject of his ridicule (respectively) in the third installment of this fockin' silly series, Little Fockers. This time around Jack is having heart problems, Greg is getting boners over Jessica Alba (due to a new Viagra-like drug they're promoting together), and the Focker kids are having a birthday party (enough to name a movie after, apparently). Now, when it came to Meet the Parents (2000), I didn't mind the flick. It was funny enough and one could make light of poor Gaylord Focker's name, as well as the series of unfortunate incidents he got himself into.

Little Fockers, however, is something else entirely. Not only does it not center itself around the Focker children enough to make that the title, but simply and purely, it's not funny. It's insulting to anybody that's made a good comedy movie (or enjoys them), and when one of your scenes relies on a five minute back-and-forth using the term GodFocker continually like it's actually funny, you know your in trouble. We get it, Focker sounds like a swear word. You want to make the movie funnier? Rename it and don't mention the last name unless applicable - it was worn to death after the sequel.

Relying on the wholly un-clever wordplay shouldn't have been a factor anyways. Little Fockers has three (count 'em - THREE) two-time Academy Award winners - Dustin Hoffman, De Niro and Barbara Streisand. Between those three (and their awful managers), perhaps somebody could have thrown out some better ideas to make this movie a little more likable - or maybe they did, at which point I shudder to imagine how bad it was before. Also, Owen Wilson is back again? He adds nothing to the story besides the presence of a rich idiot who's still in love with Pam (Teri Polo). Don't get me wrong, I like Wilson - just not here.

Simply put, Little Fockers doesn't measure up to something that's worth seeing, so it gets a closed door. I get the likability of it's 'just okay' predecessor, Meet the Fockers (2004) but this one just isn't worth your time. The storyline is weak, the characters typical and predictable and the humour is absent. If this isn't the last one, trust me, I won't be going to see the sequel - which will probably be titled Look Who's Focking.

*Stills courtesy of Universal Pictures

Read more...

DUE DATE (2010)

JK, LOL, HI - hop in.

To say that I've enjoyed Robert Downey Jr. as an actor is an understatement. Noticing him first in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (2005) and than again in Iron Man and Tropic Thunder in 2008, I began to really like and appreciate his very recognizable acting style. In Stepbrothers (2008), Dale and Brennan get to know each other by asking off the cuff questions. One of the questions they ask each other is "Alright, if you were a chick, who's the one guy you would sleep with?". They answer John Stamos simultaneously. My answer would be Robert Downey Jr. So, it's no surprise that I would not only look forward to seeing Due Date, but that I would also enjoy it.

Due Date is a buddy comedy about a man named Peter (Downey) who is on his way from a work excursion in New York to his home in LA, where his wife is having their first child. As soon as he gets to the airport he begins to have problems at the hand of a chubby, bearded, permed hair fellow named Ethan Tremblay (Zach Galifianakis). First Peter's chauffeur loses a door as he's parking (due to Ethan's drunk friend who was dropping him off). Then Peter's bags get lost (due to Ethan inadvertently switching them curbside), and finally Peter is kicked off the plane because Ethan won't pipe down about terrorists and bombs and they both end up on the No Fly List - and since Peter left his wallet and ID on the plane, he is left with no other choice than to hop in with Ethan. Peter does so hesitantly.

That's when the Odd Couple-esque adventure begins, as the two have only three days to get across the country to be there in time for Peter's first child to be born, C-Section style. If you thought the problems at the airport were bad, you`re in a for a few more (and hilarious) doozies. No need for me to go any further. All I could think think to do is talk about the funny situations they get into (including a few decent scenes with Jaimie Foxx and Juliette Lewis) and doing so would be the equivalent to seeing all the funny scenes in a movie while watching it's trailer.

Now obviously we all know Galifianakis from last year`s The Hangover, which was pretty good, but not nearly as funny as a lot of people made it seem. He does his same kind of clueless schtick in Due Date, and it works for the most part. I cite the moment where Ethan and Peter are standing at the edge of Grand Canyon, and Ethan asks Peter "Are you sure it's not man made? I could have sworn that's what I heard...", to which Peter replies "Perhaps you're thinking of the Hoover Dam." Then (because the funny guy always has to get the last word), Ethan deduces "No, I'm not thinking of the Hoover Dam - everybody knows that was built by the Pilgrims!". What a lot of people may find surprising is that Due Date is just as much Downey's movie as it is his bearded co-star - even if Galifianakis is the face publicly associated with the film. Scenes like the one I just mentioned don't work if you don't have Peter constantly telling Ethan to be quiet, shut-up or to stop jacking off in the car.

In short, I am giving Due Date an open door. In the end it has enough heart to weigh against the comedy, and enough shock humour to weigh against the heart. It's a good mix of all. Downey and Galifianakis make just as good a pair as any, and Peter's quick witted, sarcastic attitude plays well off of Ethan's childish nature and bumbling naivety. It's just as funny a movie as The Hangover (which will be it's obvious comparison), and looking into Galifianakis's eyes it's a no-brainer that he's going straight to the top - to the point where you know he'll be playing a pedophile in some Oscar nominated drama in the next five years. You never know - he did handle that baby pretty well in his last film. JK. LOL. HI. Hop in.

*Stills courtesy of Warner Bros. Pictures

Read more...

JACKASS 3D (2010)

Jackass 3D - so real it'll make you vomit, then laugh, then vomit.

I don't know if there's actually been any films quite like the Jackass movie series, which started in 2002 with Jackass: The Movie and continued in 2006 with Jackass Number Two. Over the years (and starting with the initial show on MTV in 2000) Johnny Knoxville (Men in Black II [2002]) has given us the gift of an intentional, R-rated version of America's Funniest Home Videos. You think its funny to see a kid throw a baseball at his dad's groin? What if the dad knows it's coming and you can see the "Holy shit" look in his eyes? Now that's funny. What Knoxville has now done (being the pioneer that he sorta is) is said, okay, okay - that is funny. But what if we do it all in... (wait for it) super cool, state of the art 3-D?!

I know what you're thinking - because I (and anybody else with a slight distaste for sheep culture) are thinking the same thing. "No, Johnny! Don't! Jackass is perfect with its home video style the way it is! Don't jump on this band wagon and ruin it!" I guess I should say, that's what I thought. That somebody so cool like Johnny Knoxville would sell out due to studio pressure, blah blah blah. I was dead wrong.

Here's a guy that says "Look at what Hollywood is doing with 3-D. It's fucking everywhere. It's too fucking everywhere. And nobody is doing anything that looks remotely 3-D with it either. It makes things look pretty, sure, but where's all the shit that flies out at you? Where's the illusion that you can reach out and touch something that's not really there? I think we should do that. Yeah, yeah. A 3-D Jackass!" The thing you will be able to reach out and "touch"? A flying dildo, feces (lots of it) and maybe a penis or two (and not your own or the stranger next to you, please).

When it comes to the Jackass movies you probably know the drill - mix two parts gross out humour with one part insanely stupid stunts and three parts 'how the hell did they think of that?' The result? Pure enjoyment. Although I had my doubts about what the cast could do this third time around (and in 3-D nonetheless), Jackass 3D may be short on a few ideas that made the original shows and movies so endearing - but I'll damned if it doesn't work. Not only that, but the 3-D in this installment of Jackass makes this film the best 3-D movie of the year. Also added to the repertoire? A super slow mo camera you'll find more at home in TV shows like Time Warp and Mythbusters. Remember that shot in The Matrix Revolutions (2003) where Neo punches Agent Smith in the face and it goes crazy super slow? Lots of that stuff in Jackass, only real, and with more than just a punch to the face. Awesome.

Jackass 3D gets an open door, easily. Definitely one of the more entertaining pieces of cinema I've seen this year and one of the best times I've had at a theatre in a while. If you think a horror movie makes you cringe to the point where you cover your eyes and peak through your fingers, think again. I don't know how many times I sunk into my seat thinking nothing but "Holy shit..." (pun intended). Go see this movie. Go see it in 3-D. You won't regret it.

*Stills courtesy of Dickhouse Productions

Read more...

SCOTT PILGRIM VS. THE WORLD (2010)

Thank GOD this wan't in 3-D...

Michael Cera stars as the sad, lonely and surprisingly tough Scott Pilgrim in Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, which is definitely Cera’s most ambitious work to date. Now, Cera has gotten a lot of attention in the movie scene since 2007’s Superbad, at which point he began to land roles in movies left and right. Some were pretty decent (Juno [2007] and Nick and Nora’s Infinite Playlist [2008]) and some were not so good (Year One [2009]). In all of his movies, however, he plays the same shy, dimwitted, girl-hunting hipster who can never seem to get a break. With Scott Pilgrim, this is still the case. Cera has unfortunately been type cast into what are probably referred to as “Cera roles” by now. With Pilgrim though, he works on so many good levels it’s ridiculous.

Scott Pilgrim is a young Mr. Lonley-hearts who thinks that (after a nasty break up over a year ago) he may have figured out life when he starts dating Knives Chau (Ellen Wong) – a high school Chinese girl. His sister Stacey (Up in the Air’s Anna Kendrick) and his best friend and roommate Wallace (Kieran Culkin) mock him for dating such an inexperienced youngster. At one point Knives tells Scott she’s never kissed a boy, to which Scott replies “It’s okay, I’ve never kissed one either.” – what a nice guy he is. That is at least until he breaks up with Knives to pursue a relationship with Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabteh Winstead), who becomes Scott’s obsession to the point of daydream insanity and borderline psychosis.

Scott eventually feeds his addiction of Ramona by stalking to her to the point where he finally hooks up with her and gets his way. Just when Scott (once again) thinks life couldn’t be more perfect, he receives a threatening email notifying him of the League of Exes (or something to that effect). It seems in order to be with the girl of his dreams he must first destroy her seven evil exes (which includes Fantastic Four’s Chris Evans and Superman Returns’ Brandon Routh).
The fact that even a small summary of the movie’s plot sounds so original is a testament to how original Scott Pilgrim actually is –and boy howdy is it a hell of a lot of fun. I don’t even know where to start on how well done this movie was.

A few weeks ago I mentioned Inception was the best movie we were likely to see in a long time and labelled it my favourite movie of the year. That was because Inception was a deep story for me and seemed perfect and epic in every way, from the tale itself to the amazing acrobatics and visuals. Now, Scott Pilgrim comes along and does damn near everything it can to knock that mind frame out of the water. That’s because this movie (who’s tagline is “The epic of epic epicness.”) is also a perfect movie. It is perfect in a different way than Inception though. As aforementioned, Inception felt like it hit the deep core of me and my reason for being a filmmaker, while Scott Pilgrim was something to wholly admire. Now, I am a fan of pop culture and consider myself to be fairly well-informed when it comes to movies and TV and actors and actresses, etc. In that sense I get a good amount of the references and music cues used in this film. The other layer to this awesome madness comes from video games and comic books. The video games of course provide fun visual and audio stimuli, while the comics provide an outstanding array of really, really neato effects – some of which are so quick if you blink you may miss them, but always beautifully done.

As if the visuals (its main source of originality, no doubt) weren’t enough in Scott Pilgrim, as a filmmaker I had to admire the incredibly done, amazingly tight editing of the movie. I haven’t seen a movie where I noticed the editing to this extent in a long, long time. It’s as if the director (Shaun of the Dead’s Edgar Wright) thought “If someone needs to get from A to B, why not just show A, then show B?”. That style means Scott Pilgrim NEVER has a dull moment. The editing and sheer planning in advance that this movie would have needed (and lots of storyboards I imagine) is where the admiration comes in. Where Inception hooked me with idea, Scott Pilgrim hooked me with style. It’s like Stephen Hawking vs Johnny Depp. They are different in totally different ways, but I’ll be damned if they don’t both get your attention.

None of what I’m saying here even touches on the quirky humour with this movie, either - because that’s on an entirely different level all by itself that enriches the film even morseo. If you’ve seen Shaun of the Dead (2004) or Hot Fuzz (2007) you’ll know what kind of humour to expect here. It, like the editing is quick paced and if you blink you may miss it. Unlike Shaun and Fuzz though, it’s like Wright put his humour creator on speed because there is twenty times as many funny moments in this movie than in any of the director’s previous work.

As all of these elements come together it’s like watching a lot of the best movie moments you’ve ever seen come together in a mash-up of epicness for 112 minutes, and done right, too. None of it feels awkward or forced and you never question its purpose. This is the type of movie I hope gets nominated for an Oscar next year and I hope wins. Best Picture Oscars are given as an award for excellence in filmmaking. Scott Pilgrim is an excellence in filmmaking. War stories and dramas are great because they provide a political insight as to what’s going on in the world at that time, but they are the expected winners and something like Scott Pilgrim would be a nice change of pace as it provides just as much social commentary for this generation as well as the last 30 years of pop culture. I wouldn’t even mind it if Michael Cera was nominated here. He plays a lot if so perfectly that even though the role was undoubtedly tailored for him, it’s still has to be a lot of work to be so precisely awkward.

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World gets a wide, wide open door from me. I don’t think I’ve enjoyed a movie this much in a very long time. And yes, it’s worth seeing in theatres as lot of the little details may be missed on smaller screens. If you don’t enjoy this movie you have no soul -simple as that.

*Stills courtesy of Universal Pictures

Read more...

VAMPIRES SUCK (2010)

Team Jacob, BITCH!

To suck, or not to suck, that is Edward’s question. Unfortunately for him and the rest of the cast of Vampire’s Suck, the answer is… to suck. Where the hell do these movies keep on coming from?! Oh, I know - from the team of “I can’t believe they’re still giving us money!” idiots that brought you 2008’s POS mess of awfulness Disaster Movie (which still has a 0% rating under Top Critics at Rotten Tomatoes, btw).

Attention all movie studios: PLEASE STOP GIVING WRITER/DIRECTORS JASON FRIEDBERG AND AARON SELTZER MONEY!!! In fact, they actually lost money with Disaster Movie. These guys have been riding the ‘people will watch anything’ train since they started with Scary Movie (2000). I actually liked Scary Movie - a lot. But its success is perhaps the one to blame for this onslaught of crappy parody movies - the first downer being Date Movie (2006) which failed to be quite as funny. Now four years later we’re still dealing with this junk. After Disaster Movie (and yes I am aware of the ironic title) I breathed a sigh of relief knowing that would be the end. After all, when a movie genre loses money and actually starts to be hated rather than just “disliked”, what studio says “We need to make more of these!”? Like, really?!

I like to think this is Friedberg’s and Seltzer’s last shot. That they went into the studio offices and said “Okay, look, I know we screwed up, but vampire movies are hot right now and we need to create some social commentary on them “. Then the execs hummed and hawed and finally gave in – after all, these guys did bring them money-making movies before. Surely they won’t mess up again. Both thankfully and unthankfully, they did. Unthankfully because this was a wasted 77 minutes I’ll never get back, and thankfully because surely the studio that brought us Fight Club (1999) will learn their lesson and never let these guys back onto studio property or near a camera again.

From this little rant o’ mine surely you can figure out I really didn’t like this movie at all. Any little laughs or giggles came from inside jokes or guilty pleasures like potty humour. Past the first half hour though it started to get a little tedious and by the end I was just plain annoyed. The jokes are obvious and unimaginative. At one point in the film Edward (Matt Lanter) tells Becca (Jenn Proske) that he is a vampire and she can guess what he needs to eat in order to live. At that point she holds up a box of f***ing Count Chocula cereal. Seriously?! Why oh why can’t these guys learn that a good parody film is something like Shaun of the Dead (2004). It’s still funny because (gasp) it has original jokes, but does a beautiful play on the zombie movie genre. Even SNL’s parody skit Firelight is a better spoof of Twilight. Hell, the Twilight movies are a better spoof of themselves.

Vampires Suck sucks. Period. Closed door all the way. In fact, I’m putting about twelve deadbolts on this closed door in case you get curious and bored one afternoon. I don’t care if you are stuck in a room for 76 minutes with a copy of this movie and the dictionary. Pick up the dictionary, and when you’re done reading through letters A and B, use the damn thing to smash this film to pieces – even though it does just a fine job of destroying itself.

*Stills “courtesy” of Regency Enterprises

*This review has also appeared on Ain't It Cool News! Check it out HERE.

Read more...

THE OTHER GUYS (2010)

Like a peacock, this movie spreads it's wings and flies...

The guys who brought you the hilarious Step Brothers (2008) are back, and this time sibling rivalry is out the door for a more “serious” take on the buddy cop side of things. If you say to yourself “Nah, it’s okay, I’ve seen Cop Out…” than slap yourself in the face and realize this film is much, much better than that wholly unsatisfying ‘Kevin Smith is part of the cool kids club’ piece of junk (save for Tracy Morgan who may only been entertaining due to his hilariously dumb 30 Rock alter ego Tracy Jordan).

With Other Guys it’s much different as Will Ferrell and new funny man Mark Wahlberg take on a bunch of fat cat CEOs who are aiming to steal $32 billion from a lottery company. Holtz (Wahlberg) is itching to get out of the office and out of the shadows of their station’s two top detectives (played hilariously by Dwayne Johnson and Samuel L. Jackson), while Gamble (Ferrell) is fine staying indoors where it’s safe and snatching up every bit of paperwork he can. Once the opportunity to get some action (as they say) does arise, they seem to almost instantly screw up. It seems they eventually screw up so much they find their way out of the proverbial paper bag and stumble onto those pesky CEO’s plan – a plan, by the way, that’s just alright and along with all the chatter about it from both police and criminal alike, is about the only thing that slows this pretty funny comedy down and maybe makes it 15 minutes too long. That’s me nitpicking though.

The rest of the film is right on par with the quirky behaviour I fell in love with during this team’s other films like Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (2004). The wackiness of it all lends itself well to this film, and it never really seems out of place. It rarely gets tiresome and if it weren’t for those pesky ‘we have to talk about the story to keep the film going‘ moments, this film would have been hella funny. There are lots of instances where you will look at the person next to you as you’re laughing and say “What the what?” because it’s so ridiculous. It’s better in a movie like this than in something that’s supposed to be serious.

I think the reason I liked Other Guys so much, was the presence of usually more serious actors like Wahlberg or Michael Keaton (who plays the police Captain). The fact that Keaton here is just as serious as he was reading lines as Batman makes for a hell of funny thing when he keeps on spouting titles of TLC songs without knowing who they even are. The same goes for Wahlberg when he keeps comparing himself to a peacock who “needs to get out and fly” – even though he knows they don’t. It doesn’t matter though.

The Other Guys gets a definite open door from me and is right up there with Date Night and Hot Tub Time Machine as being the funniest movie of the year. Sure it has its flaws, but maybe that’s why the funny parts are so funny.

*Stills courtesy of Columbia Pictures

Read more...

MACGRUBER (2010)

I’ll never look at vegetable-anal relations the same way ever again.

Growing up I watched a lot of movies I didn’t realize were based on SNL sketches (screw you - IMDB didn’t exist yet) that guided me through my childhood and into my late teens. A lot of them were some of my favourites for a while. These included The Blues Brothers (the first SNL movie made), Wayne’s World and Wayne’s World 2, It’s Pat and A Night at the Roxbury. They all performed decently well enough that with the exception of 1991, 1996 and 1997 there was an SNL movie every year (sometimes twice a year) in the 90’s. The last SNL movie The Ladies Man (2000) sucked bad enough that another movie based on a sketch would not return for another 10 years. That brings me to the film I’m reviewing today – MacGruber.

Will Forte plays MacGruber, a MacGyver wannabe with a “knack” for taking everything from a paperclip to a celery stick and using it as a weapon of mass non-destruction. His partners in crime are the very funny Kristin Wiig as Vicki St. Elmo and Ryan Phillippe as Lt. Dixon Piper. They are put on the task of finding the film’s bad guy, Dieter Von Cunth played by a heavy set, double-chinned Val Kilmer. Poor Val, ever since Batman Forever he just hasn’t tried. It doesn’t stop him from being entertaining though, bless his heart.

So what, as a viewer do you get from MacGruber? Well, nothing you won’t expect. It’s an hour long, F-bomb filled excuse for making a 2 minute SNL sketch a little more riské. It’s by no means a filthy movie – but it’s definitely not as kid friendly as previous movies based on sketches. That doesn’t make it a bad movie, it in fact probably helps it a whole lot, actually. The only thing I did expect was a cameo by the original MacGyver, Richard Dean Anderson. He unfortunately was nowhere to be found and could have brought in some charming comedy (as easy a target as that would have been).

The film parodies itself and other 80’s movie clichés with a series of montages, and typical action sequences. MacGruber’s biggest strength is definitely that it doesn’t take itself too seriously and has a lot of LOL moments where the ridiculousness of a situation is either going to make you howl or roll your eyes with discontent. I mentioned celery earlier – you’ll see why I remembered it so vividly. Some of the funniest stuff comes from MacGruber’s one liners and over-clarification of certain phrases and the notion that he himself is an action hero from the movies. That mixed with some of MacGruber’s obsessions for saving money and his whacky behaviours makes this a fun film to watch.

It’s directed by Jorma Taccone who played Andy Samberg’s brother in the similarly written and comedically timed Hot Rod. I’m actually going to say if you liked Hot Rod you won’t have a hard time enjoying MacGruber – which I’m giving an open door. It’s not ground breaking stuff but it made me laugh a lot – which is sometimes the only thing that matters.

*Stills courtesy of Paramount Pictures

Read more...

SHREK FOREVER AFTER (2010)

Shrek Forever better than Shrek the Turd.

It’s a usual tale we’ve heard a million times and seen in a hundred movies and TV shows. The main character wakes up to their “awful” life where they don’t realize how good they have it – so they ask a magical fairy (or a magical fairy man) to make it all better and give them the life they crave. It’s your typical “what if…?” proposal that creates a story full of lessons learnt. I will admit, however, I wasn’t crazy about seeing this typical plot being brought to the likes of Shrek Forever After.

Don’t get me wrong. I wasn’t worried about the idea that this instalment would be the worst thing to happen to the series. Shrek was magical, Shrek 2 was hilarious (and perhaps my favourite) and Shrek 3 was a typical, disappointing and awful sequel and comparable to the likes of Spider-Man 3. So the Shrek series had already let me down so I didn’t expect much from Forever After, especially when I heard the premise behind it.

The movie starts when we find out Shrek (Mike Myers) has actually hated his life since getting married and having kids. No one fears him anymore (turns out he was happier during those times), everyday is the same and he has become somewhat famous since becoming and unbecoming the King of Far Far Away. It’s the same routine for him every day and frankly he misses the golden era of life he was leading when we first met him in Shrek.

After becoming easily frustrated at his triplets’ first birthday party, he leaves the party and goes for a stroll. By the way, the funniest and most catchy line of the movie goes to the fat kid at the birthday party who keeps telling Shrek to “do the roar” (and it’s not that line either-but he’ll say it and you’ll laugh). So along the walk Shrek runs into Rumpelstiltskin (Walt Dohrn) who says he will let Shrek be like he used to be for one day before he met Fiona (Cameron Diaz), and all ol’ Stiltsy wants in return is one day from Shrek’s childhood. Subsequently, he picks the day Shrek was born and Shrek wakes up in the plot of Back to the Future 2.

In this life Fiona doesn’t know him, Donkey (Eddie Murphy) is afraid of him and Puss in Boots (Antonio Banderas) is a fat, fat mess. It’s up to Shrek to gain Fiona’s kiss by the end of the day to break the spell and put Rumpel in his place.

Shrek Forever After may not be as funny or refreshing as Shrek 2, but it still delivers on the laughs in a lot of unexpected places. There wasn’t much wrong with this film, just stuff I would have like to have seen. In the alternate universe he visits, Shrek theoretically never existed (paradox much?) - therefore his actions done in the first film are null. I would have found it clever and endearing if perhaps during his adventures in Oz he ran into the first film’s villain, Lord Farquaad. Even a small cameo would have reminded us a bit more of where this film series came from and created a more nostalgic feel for what is supposedly the end of the series. Plus John Lithgow’s height-challenged character was one of the more entertaining characters in Shrek. But his absence is about the only complaint I have.

There’s nothing to really hate in Forever After, and that doesn’t make it the worst movie of the year by any means. But what it does have doesn’t make it an amazing movie either. For me, Forever After was simply fun and something I was able to get into relatively easily. I had a great time watching it, and it further adds to my belief that animated films can actually benefit from 3-D. The door is open for this 4th and final instalment of this lovable green ogre’s quadrilogy, and I recommend it to anyone wanting a little harmless fun added to the beginning of what is sure to be a great summer for movies.

*Stills courtesy of Dreamworks Animation

Read more...

THE LOSERS (2010)

A-Team who...?

The Losers is a movie about people who are not actually losers (well maybe a bit, but not in the traditional sense). No, they are a group of ex-military folk who literally lose the battle they playing between the good (them) and the evil (a guy named Max [Jason Patric]).

The not-yet losers are sent to destroy a village of bad guys of some sort, when they realize these guys have a group of twenty or so kids as hostages. This noble group of soldiers consists of Clay (played by Javiar Bardem look-a-like Jeffrey Dean Morgan), Jensen (upcoming Captain America’s Chris Evans), Roque (Idris Elba), Pooch (Columbus Short) and Cougar (Oscar Jaenada). Once the group finds out there are children in the compound, they call off the pending air strike. The heartless, faceless Max then proceeds to come on the radio and explain this will not be an option. The team then heads into the camp anyways, successfully rescues the children and puts them onto a helicopter. The team stays behind because they are informed they can’t fit in the bird with all the kids. They celebrate the victory until the helicopter they were meant to be in explodes killing all souls inside of her and leaving the soldiers to fake their own death and disappear forever. Or do they?.....

A few years pass and we catch up with the team somewhere south of the equator where an opportunity arises courtesy of Aisha (Avatar’s Zoe Saldana). She knows where to find Max and gives the in-hiding soldiers a chance to get their sweet, sweet revenge. And of course, what kind of movie would it be if they didn’t take the opportunity?

The Losers is the comic book world’s angle on the A-Team, which the movie version of is being released in June. It may have been thrown together relatively quickly, and is certainly set up to be a competing series and money maker, but it’s actually not too bad. As expected Chris Evans provides a lot of the funny lines and actions in the movie, including the infamous trailer scene where he shoots three guards with his finger-gun (it’s actually his soldier buddy with a sniper rifle). The scene is expected but still delivers laughs. The acting in this film is fine, and there is certainly no problem with the action. It’s some of the best real-life action since Casino Royale or the Bourne movies. The movie overall is like those movies, mixed with Tropic Thunder and Ocean’s Eleven (2001). So you can see where the fun in it kind of comes from here.

The problem with this movie is the lack of originality. You watch this movie and feel like you’ve seen if before. It’s not ‘bad familiar’, but it’s not ‘good original’ either. But what can you really expect from the director of I’ll Always Know What You Did Last Summer? Amongst all the movies out and coming out it’s most likely to get lost. If a sequel was planned or is coming, it will probably be released in the slower winter season, and a couple of the characters may be replaced by different actors, or written out entirely due to this films inevitable lacklustre performance.

Overall, The Losers is a fun movie, and it’s too bad it won’t be seen by more people. Part of it is poor timing for its release, and part of it is the unoriginality and lack of prior fan base. I am giving this movie a slight open door, but maybe see it at a discount theatre or on DVD, where it may pick up some steam by that point. But I wouldn’t be surprised to see it in the Wal-Mart $5 DVD bin by next summer, either.

*Stills courtesy of DC Entertainment

Read more...

DATE NIGHT (2010)

Steve Carell and Tina Fey play the Fosters in Date Night, a movie I am calling the funniest comedy of the year. That’s a bold statement to make you say? Is it though?...

The Fosters head out one evening for their weekly, predictable date night. Normally they are found at their friendly neighbourhood eatery, chowing down on potato skins while making fun and doing impressions of other couples who are out and about. However, both Claire and Phil are terribly bored by this regiment and attempt to do something different. They head into the city to the newest, hottest restaurant and ask for a seat. After the maitre d’ scoffs at their request for not booking a seat sometime in the 1970’s, the Fosters take a reservation from a pair of mysterious no shows called the Triplehorns.

A beat or two later we (the viewer) and the Fosters find this to be a bad idea as they no sooner are ridiculed for taking someone’s reservation before having guns shoved in their faces. They soon find themselves on the run from another pair of bad guys who don’t know how to aim at a running target or can’t seem to keep people in their grasp. The best part about this usually-terrible movie cliché? Somehow we believe it! Whether it’s the fact we absolutely adore the two most talented actors on TV, or whether it’s the fact the movie doesn’t take itself too seriously, you soon find yourself rooting for the Fosters and laughing almost uncontrollably.

There is a lot to be said about a PG-13 comedy that keeps the laughs going without resorting to toilet humour or having every funny part being shown in the trailer. Although a lot of the dialogue is definitely written by two quirky comedians, real truths are revealed in the film that no matter what type of situation a person is in, most would honestly be thinking about as they are being chased around Manhattan with a gun. Exempli gratia, climbing up a fire escape to break into an apartment, Tina Fey’s character notes to her husband that he should remember – everything he is doing, she is doing in heals. Random - but funny because it’s true.

Mark Wahlberg, Mark Ruffalo, James Franco, Kristin Wiig and Mila Kunis also appear randomly throughout this film, and are there to serve a purpose, but definitely don’t overstay their welcome. The thing that concerned me walking into Date Night, was that Tina Fey and Steve Carell would constantly be vying for center stage. Either that or one or the other might accidentally upstage the other, as both are stars and can carry their own. It does not happen. In fact, they play well enough off of each other one could only hope to see them paired up again soon in something else. Their chemistry is divine.

The door is open for date night, not only because it’s a funny and witty comedy that doesn’t take itself too seriously, but because it’s well written and it’s a movie that proves that clean comedy still exists. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy swears and gore as much as the next person if it applies to a film, but too many comedies rely on cheap laughs nowadays that’s it’s nice to see something that’s worth your $10.

*Stills courtesy Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation

Read more...

SHE'S OUT OF MY LEAGUE (2010)

Read more...

UP IN THE AIR (2009)

Angry Charlie Reviews 'Up in the Air' from Angry Charlie on Vimeo.

Read more...

SHERLOCK HOLMES (2009)

What up, Holmes? (you knew that was coming...)

.

Robert Downey Jr. continues his "how could anyone else have ever played this part?" movie streak with the very entertaining Sherlock Holmes. Traditionally Holmes would be played in a drier, prudelier way. I would have imagined it to be more an extension of Pride and Prejudice meets Nancy Drew kiddie movie than an adult action flick with Matrix-style slow mo effects (that are actually there for more than just aesthetic purposes).

Jude Law plays the reluctant Dr. Watson and plays extremely well off of Downey despite both men are used to playing leading roles. Downey in particular does well with his role do to his charming and quick-witted ways. There was nothing that got me giddier than seeing him explain the entire plot’s secrets towards the end of the film in a calm and cocky manner. That technique in movie, however, is sometimes a double-edged sword.

The reason for my saying this is because there was a lot we didn’t know about the bad-guy characters until the very end. It reminded me a lot of movies like the Ocean’s 11 series. Towards the third one it was nice seeing how tricky the hero characters were and how everything came together, but at the same time it can get cumbersome not knowing anything until the very end. It’s nice to be in on some of the secrets sometimes – not everything (that would have made Sixth Sense really suck) but some things. In Holmes we didn’t get a whole lot, but Downey’s whit was enough to distract us.

The definite plus here is the studio and writers were definitely in it for a sequel or two by setting up upcoming villains like Professor Moriarty, and keeping the quality of the film at a decently high level. They avoided the cheesy clichés by not making Downey where the famous Holmes’ hat (there was a pipe though), and not one did he utter the words “elementary, my dear Watson”. Thank… God… But as aforementioned, this is not your typical version of Conan Doyle’s legendary crime fighter.

Rachel McAdams does her best here as Sherlock’s unobtainable love, Irene Adler, but her performance is nothing amazing nor is it memorable. She seems to be there as an often comedic setup for Downey, and as a way for Holmes to connect the dots and get information about Moriarty he may have otherwise never gotten.

Overall, Sherlock Holmes seems like it knew what is was doing from concept to screen, and it appeared as though they had the full cast in mind the second they started writing it. This is either a compliment to the writers or the actors or both (as usually and should be the case), and that makes it a prime action flick suited for audiences in the 21st century. I personally hope the next one (and I guarantee you there will be a next one) is a step above this chapter, and I see no reason it won’t be. I compare the few problems this movie has to nothing more than a new TV series getting its footing. Once it’s found it’s voice and if the writers don’t sell out and screw up, I see no reason to not be excited nor enjoy the inevitable second and third chapters to come.

*Stills courtesy of Warner Brothers

Read more...

ALVIN AND THE CHIPMUNKS: THE SQUEAKQUEL (2009)

You mean they ACTUALLY gave us another movie??!!

So, I walk into the theatre and I ask myself, will I really like this movie? I didn’t know. But after a long December, taking part in the hustle and bustle of Christmas and shooting ROBO Hobo 4, I was just happy period to be getting in to see something - anything.

Albeit, I wasn’t dragged to this movie kicking and screaming as some might have been. The first Chipmunks flick wasn’t awful, and had some decent moments. I don’t necessarily recommend it, but on a lazy Sunday afternoon, it’s not a bad way to kill a couple hours. So I said, whatever, let’s see what this movie is like.

Alvin, Simon and Theodore are doing a show in France when Dave, played like Jason Lee needs a paycheck) gets in a stage accident and has to be hospitalized in Paris for the rest of the movie as he is too injured to go back to the US right away. Before the Chipmunks depart back to the US, Dave tells them that he wants them to live a “normal childhood”. For talking chipmunks I’m not sure if it’s possible, but whatever. So he sends them to school and his nephew Toby (played by Zachary Toby) ends up watching over them. Sort of…

While attending high school, talking to pissed off jocks’ girlfriends (no seriously, the jocks get jealous of the chimpmunks) they run into the chipettes, who have been placed in the same school for no other reason than Ian (played by David ‘I for some reason ended up in this again’ Cross) has placed them there to win a music competition the school is having so he can sign them and gain the same amount and fame he once had with the original Chipmunks. And wouldn’t you know it, they can sing too!

I won’t ruin the ending (Ian gets effed over again and the Chipettes end up moving in with Dave and the Chipmunks) but the movie itself flowed alright but was filled with gags such as an old lady falling down a flight of stairs in a wheelchair and, no shitting you, fart jokes. I have no doubt kids between 5 and 10 might get a kick of this over-acted movie, but if you’re any older there’s probably something else playing that would probably entertain you more. And to top it off, before I had seen the movie I checked on a couple other reviews, and read a brilliant observation in a review written by Capone, who is mainly featured on Ain’t It Cool News:

"First off, explain this bit of logic to me. Why have the makers of the motherfucking SQUEAKQUEL hired some solid comic actors as Justin Long, Amy Poehler, Anna Faris, and Christina Applegate to do the digitally altered voices of chipmunks? Why? You can't tell who is doing the voices; you can't even tell if it's a man or a woman doing the voice of any given chipmunk. For all I know, the makers of the motherfucking SQUEAKQUEL hired an army of she-males to play the rodents. When you totally obliterate the voice of the actor you've hired to play an animated character, any nuances that might enhance the comedy are lost. Dummies!"

He makes a hella-good point here. I wanted to bring it up but why write something yourself when someone else has said EXACTLY what you’re thinking?

So, in case you can’t tell by now, I’m not gonna recommend you walk through this door. Although by now it’s probably in most cheap theatres meaning it won’t cost you $10/pop to see it. Even then, there’s some good stuff from last year that’s probably playing too that could be worth checking out if you missed it. Your life won’t change if you see Alvin 2, and if you are thinking about spending $10 to see it, go see Avatar instead. And if you’ve already seen it, see it again.
*Stills courtesy of Twentieth Century Fox

Read more...

COUPLES RETREAT (2009)

Vince, why do ya look so tired all the time?

Vince Vaughn plays, well, every character he’s ever played in this, touchy-feely, let’s talk about our feelings newest comedy from, well, Vince Vaughn … and friends.

Basically, the premise here is that Jason, played Jason Bateman, and his wife Cynthia, played by Sarah Marshall’s Kristin Bell, decide that if they don’t go on this “couple’s retreat”, their marriage will end and they will have to waste another three years or so finding other partners and marrying and having kids, and well, that just doesn’t make sense financially nor does it fit into their business plan – and they have the slide show to prove it. But, in order for them to afford it, they have to take a cheaper group rate and end up suckering in their friends Dave (Vince Vaughn), Shane (Faizon Love), Joey (John Favreau) and their wives.

Then, unexpectedly – hilarity ensues as the gang realizes this isn't going to be as relaxing as they thought. And wouldn't you know it, they can't even watch the "big game" on TV as this retreat ain't got no TV's. Awww, shucks, I sure hope a lesson gets learnt here...

Okay, not really. Now, don’t get me wrong. I laughed during this movie. Due to the persistence of watching some terribly bad movies with my friend Luke, I am able to find humour in almost anything, and one moment can make a movie funny for me, and make it worth it. Except Norbit, nothing can make that movie funny – NOTHING. So, yes, I was able to enjoy the movie enough and enjoy the company of the people I saw it with.

However, I am growing tired of Vince Vaughn’s sarcastic/obvious outlook on the world and impatience towards stupid people. Sure, he does what he does well, and he’s a nice enough guy, but that man has NO acting spectrum whatsoever.

Couple’s Retreat is not realistic. It is convenient, uses cheap laughs and really makes it seem like everything can be solved in a problem marriage by having an epiphany, being honest with one another, and recognizing the mistakes you made are – well, mistakes. Sure, key points are made on how a successful marriage should work, it’s clear the writers may have cracked open 'Marriage for Dummies' and read the index, if not a couple of chapters. But it still doesn’t inspire as much as it maybe should, and it’s mostly forgettable. Oh and it ends with a happy ending. Literally, a happy ‘you learned your lesson and that’s what I was planning the whole time’ ending. Really.

Retreat may have been saved if it actually looked into the heart of what a simplistic yet terribly complicated thing marriage is, and if it took it more seriously than a sitcom romance or a black man showing his best friend’s wives his ginormous – love – tackle…. A lesson from Knocked Up or any Apatow flick could and should have been taken into consideration more when making this film. The door is closed on this one, save your $10 and put it towards a real vacation.

*Still courtesy of Universal Pictures

Read more...