Category Archives: Screwball Comedy

The Hangover-2009

The Hangover-2009

Director Todd Phillips

Starring Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, Zach Galifianakis

Scott’s Review #590

Reviewed January 7, 2017

Grade: B+

It was not my idea to see this particular film- the raunchy, mindless “guy” films have always seemed lackluster and cheesy to me. Still, I confess to finding The Hangover (2009) a novel and entertaining summer blockbuster film.

I did not expect much from this film but instead found it comical and fun.

It has the “dumb frat boy/jock” shenanigans, and not much thought is needed, but it is good old boy entertainment.

Similar to the American Pie films of the 1990s, in which a group of guys finds themselves mixed up in amusing, and sometimes humiliating, situations after a night of boozing, The Hangover has a likable cast led by then-up-and-coming star Bradley Cooper.

What sets The Hangover apart is the great chemistry among the cast (Ed Helms and Zach Galifianakis, specifically) that other flaws or generic writing can be overlooked or forgotten altogether.

The group goes from one hysterical situation to another.

Set in Las Vegas (a great decision), three men awake to find the groom missing after a night of debauchery- they are there to celebrate via a wild bachelor party.

In their hotel room are a tiger and a six-month-old baby, and they have no idea how either has gotten there.

From this point, the film goes back to the arrival of the gang and the events that transpired leading up to the hotel room acquisitions.

This is fun and keeps the audience engaged in the hijinks.

The Hangover (2009) was followed by the inevitable two sequels, neither of which was as good or as successful at the box office, to the surprise of nobody except maybe movie studio executives.

You Again-2010

You Again-2010

Director Andy Fickman

Starring Kristen Bell, Jamie Lee Curtis, Sigourney Weaver

Scott’s Review #510

70127239

Reviewed November 4, 2016

Grade: C

If not for the cast (Jamie Lee Curtis, Betty White, and Sigourney Weaver), You Again (2010) would have been a bad experience and a dimwitted, by-the-numbers comedy.

But the talent involved has helped matters greatly.

This is not meant to give the film much credit.

As it is, it is not a great film, and quite silly and dumb, but the cast successfully turns it into a light, fun, dumb movie instead of solely drivel. With a less likable cast, this would undoubtedly have been the case.

Bell is not my favorite actress, but alas, she seems to be getting star turns in these types of films.

The premise is basic and tried and true- a twenty-eight-year-old “beautiful” woman (Kristen Bell) who was an ugly duckling in high school returns to her hometown for her brother’s wedding, and his fiancé turns out to be her high school nemesis.

It is a standard Hollywood comedy cliché, with typical gags and a “we have seen this before” story.

A gripe: Kristen Bell is a cute, all-American girl-next-door, but I would be remiss not to point out that she is not the beauty they make her out to be.

Thanks to the aforementioned cast and the wit that Curtis and Weaver bring to their rivalry (as mothers of the respective fiancés and Bell’s character- they were high school rivals a generation before), You Again (2010) does get some meager credit.

Not much, but some.

Date Night-2010

Date Night-2010

Director Shawn Levy

Starring Steve Carell, Tina Fey

Scott’s Review #481

70121501

Reviewed September 17, 2016

Grade: D+

Date Night is a perfect example of mediocrity in modern filmmaking.

We have two current comedic actors here- Steve Carell and Tina Fey- circa 2010- at the top of their game.

The filmmaker’s idea is to pair these two and make an appealing romantic comedy for the masses.

The main issue with this film is that the result is generic and quite an average offering.

The entire film is incredibly plot-driven, with no character development to speak of.

If I am being too harsh, admittedly there is nice chemistry between the two leads, but it is wasted by sloppy writing.

A couple from the New Jersey burbs, Carrell and Fey portray husband and wife, Phil and Claire Foster. Saddled with two kids and their romance reaching dullsville, Phil decides to take Claire to a ritzy Manhattan restaurant.

When they arrive, they cannot get a table, so they pretend to be another couple a get one after the other couple no-shows. This leads to a tale of mistaken identity as the other couple possesses a flash drive that a mobster (Ray Liotta) wants.

This leads to a chase through Manhattan as they try to outrun and outwit their pursuers.

Wahlberg plays a hunky client of Claire’s, always shirtless, who threatens Phil and Claire’s marriage.

Several others of the current Hollywood elite- Kristen Wiig, James Franco, Mila Kunis, and Mark Ruffalo- make small and somewhat pointless appearances. Specifically, Franco and Kunis as a stoner-type bickering couple are silly and unnecessary to the story.

Carrell and Fey are quite funny as individuals and as a duo. Date Night, though, does not capitalize on or showcase their respective talents.

The film tries too hard to come up with scenario after scenario of the two on the run and encountering one problematic situation after another.

As the plot of Date Night wears on, I notice that each situation is a matter of convenience.

Conveniently, Claire has a client in town (Wahlberg), who is a security expert. They go to him for help and, predictably, his hunkiness bothers Phil and piques Claire’s interest- though, of course, we know full well Phil and Claire will end up together- that is how these mainstream films go.

In another scene. Phil and Claire can break into an office building unnoticed, trigger the alarms, conveniently find a needed file, and escape, miraculously all before the police arrive minutes later.

Very plot-driven.

The lead actors in Date Night are appealing and even charming together, but it falls flat. Still, the inane plot makes it unappealing to watch, and the slew of stars that somebody decided would be a great addition to a lukewarm film is odd.

The roles written have little bearing on the central plot, so it was apparent why they were added.

Date Night (2010) is a film we have seen time and time again with other actors in similar roles.

This Is 40-2012

This Is 40-2012

Director Judd Apatow

Starring Paul Rudd, Leslie Mann

Scott’s Review #473

70244168

Reviewed September 6, 2016

Grade: B

I must admit, I wasn’t looking forward to seeing this movie, and my initial thought was “typical dumb comedy” that’s been seen a million times before.

While This Is 40 (2012) contains those elements and is marketed toward a specific target audience, it’s surprisingly smart and intelligent overall.

I have not viewed Knocked Up (2007), but I understand it’s somewhat of a follow-up to that film, as the two central characters are now married and traversing through a different time in their lives.

Adulthood.

I enjoyed Paul Rudd’s, Melissa McCarthy’s, and whoever played the oldest daughter’s performances the most. However, Rudd has become the latest actor to play the same role over and over again.

I enjoyed the rock n roll elements and the confrontation scenes, as these were very cleverly written and nicely acted.

Sadly, at times the film relies on the standard bathroom humor done thousands of times before- a clear attempt at a laugh, and Jason Segel’s and Megan Fox’s characters are unnecessary to the main plot.

This Is 40 (2012) is a film that, at its heart, shows the trials and tribulations of generations of families, humorously, and done rather well.

Trainwreck-2015

Trainwreck-2015

Director Judd Apatow

Starring Amy Schumer

Scott’s Review #463

80036402

Reviewed August 13, 2016

Grade: B

Trainwreck is a raunchy 2015 comedy/romantic comedy that owes much of its success to its star.

Amy Schumer makes this film as good as it can be (after all, she wrote it), and despite the raunchy girl power themes that are currently the popular trend in films of this genre, Trainwreck has some laughs and good times thrown in, thanks to Schumer.

Judd Apatow directs, who has successfully made a gazillion of these types of films in modern times.

The film teeters into predictability toward the conclusion. It has its moments of fun and is not boring.

Unapologetic, sexually promiscuous, and boozy, Schumer plays a successful magazine writer (Amy) given an assignment she despises- to interview a sports medicine doctor named Aaron (played by SNL alum Bill Hader).

Amy hates sports and knows nothing about them; she also goes from man to man, nothing serious, and is currently dating a sexy bodybuilder named Steven (John Cena), who she thinks may be gay.

Predictably, Amy and Aaron fall in love.

In typical fashion, Trainwreck contains stereotypical characters or characters who are merely there to bounce off the main action.

SNL alum Vanessa Bayer and Tilda Swinton are the most obvious examples, as the loyal best friend and rigid, type-A boss, respectively.

Brie Larson and Colin Quinn co-star as Amy’s family members. Both give one-note performances that are fine but unspectacular, and one surmises that Brie Larson agreed to this role before her Oscar-winning turn in Room (2015).

Despite the comedy clichés, I had some good fun with Trainwreck.

Schumer is likable as an ordinary girl; think of her as the new Melissa McCarthy, someone many people can relate to.

I am not sure Schumer and Hader had the best chemistry, but the point was that she found love with a “regular” guy, a tad dull, to counter-balance her big, loud personality.

And they do make a charming pair.

Some scenes work. When Amy encourages a naked Steven to “talk dirty to her” in the bedroom, and he attributes everything to bodybuilding, the scene is funny.

When Amy and Steven banter with an angry couple at the movie theater, it falls flat.

Certainly not high art, but for the raunchy comedy genre, Trainwreck is a treat and entertaining to watch, largely thanks to Amy Schumer’s comedic talent.

More often than not, when the masses rave about a current comedy as being “great”, I am usually disappointed.

Trainwreck (2015) isn’t great, but it’s good, with some laughs.

Otherwise, it is a rather by-the-numbers film.

Sisters-2015

Sisters-2015

Director Jason Moore

Starring Tina Fey, Amy Poehler

Scott’s Review #458

80063604

Reviewed July 31, 2016

Grade: B-

Slapstick comedy isn’t my genre of choice, though I will watch some for light entertainment or to see just how bad (or good) current offerings are.

Nonetheless, I have tried to keep a expectations low for these films, which are usually fluff and plot-driven.

In Sisters (2015), the film is pretty much what you would expect: vulgar, crass, and raunchy.

Yet, due to the chemistry between the leads (Amy Poehler and Tina Fey) and a few heartfelt romantic moments, something does work. It is not as mean as one might think.

This is not to say that Sisters is a great film. Hardly. But not as bad as I feared.

Poehler and Fey play Maura and Kate Ellis, two late-thirties sisters living in other parts of the country, who return home to Orlando, Florida, when their parents (James Brolin and Dianne Wiest) sell their childhood home.

Maura and Kate must clean their bedrooms in time for the sale.

The sisters decide to throw one final bash and invite their high school classmates, who conveniently still live in the same town. Events go awry, and the party gets way out of hand.

Mixed in with the main plot are subplots: a romantic interest for Maura and a rival for Kate, played by Maya Rudolph.

The best part is the chemistry between Poehler and Fey. They “have it” whether it is a Saturday Night Live sketch, hosting the Golden Globe Awards, or starring in Sisters.

The banter and jokes work because the two comics play off each other, and it shows on screen.

They are believable as sisters despite looking nothing alike.

Otherwise, Sisters is a traditional vulgar comedy. One irksome recent trend (now more female-driven than in years past) is the leading ladies being classless.

This must be an attempt at female empowerment or the assumption that since adult comedies were once a man’s world, female characters should be written like men.

Do we need Kate and Maura swearing like sailors, making poop jokes, and being so raunchy? Behaving like ladies would now be the exception, not the norm (Bridesmaids, 2011, set this precedent).

Not surprisingly, the supporting characters are all caricatures, as is typical in films of this genre. The parents are a bit clueless and have kinky sex much to the girl’s chagrin.

Brinda, bitchy, judgmental, yet insecure, the Korean (big stereotype) nail technician who cannot properly pronounce English words; the new owners of the house are snobbish, uptight, and clueless; and finally, James, the guy next door, who is Mr. Fix-it and the straight man in the high jinks.

He is sugar-sweet and the male hero.

The romantic scenes between Maura and James are sweet and sentimental, nicely balancing the vulgarity and raunchiness that the rest of the film encompasses. They are a nice couple and have a rich rooting value.

Most of the action takes place at Kate and Maura’s childhood home, where posters of 1980s films like E.T. and Out of Africa, and a poster of heartthrob Tom Cruise, hang on the walls.

This, along with many other references Generation X will delight in, is pointed out, which is a treat and a positive of the film.

As the party gets off to a slow start, the thirty- and forty-somethings appear dull and either talk about their kids or their various maladies and suddenly, after being fed drugs, are back to their college party days; they are both dumb and cute at the same time.

Sisters (2015) (hopefully) knows what it is. It is a late-Saturday-night, raunchy comedy affair, meant as fluff and escapist fun. It is not a masterpiece, nor does it intend to be one.

Rather, a full-length SNL sketch including many alums.

It is harmless fun.

Ted-2012

Ted-2012

Director Seth MacFarlane

Starring Mark Wahlberg

Scott’s Review #428

70218756

Reviewed June 21, 2016

Grade: D-

So many times I will watch a comedy deemed “the funniest movie of the year”, or some other grand touting, and be disappointed in it.

This is the case with Ted (2012).

To be fair to the creators, I did enjoy the 1980s references, and the teddy bear has a charming, gruff, witty, crude personality that was funny at times, but that’s it for the positives.

The main storyline (a loyal male slacker with a successful girlfriend) has been done to death, and this was one of the most predictable, sappy movie endings I’ve ever seen, so I don’t get why people think it is so great.

Think happily ever after, as if the result was ever in question.

Ted was filled with stereotypical characters, specifically Asian stereotypes, and a myriad of dumb situations.

The actors could handle stronger material.

Raunchy comedies need not have a surprise ending, but the sappy love story was too lame to take at times.

At least the film should have taken some risks and given it an edge.

And Lord help us if there is an inevitable sequel to Ted (2012).

Oscar Nominations: Best Original Song-“Everybody Needs a Best Friend”

That’s My Boy-2012

That’s My Boy-2012

Director Sean Anders

Starring Adam Sandler, Andy Samberg

Scott’s Review #423

70220030

Reviewed June 19, 2016

Grade: D

That’s My Boy (2012) is an incredibly bad film, yet something strangely kept my attention.

With oodles of stereotypes and either sexist, homophobic, or racist jokes throughout the film, it should have made me angry, but somehow it did not.

This movie was so completely over the top that it couldn’t possibly be taken seriously.

One laughable aspect that I did enjoy was the, albeit odd, cameos by Vanilla Ice and Todd Bridges who seem to have no problem degrading themselves, and the references to the 1980s.

Otherwise, That’s My Boy is pretty rock bottom for filmmaking.

This isn’t a knock on the dumb comedy genre, as other recent similar films are well written (like This is 40-2011).

But alas, That’s My Boy (2012) isn’t one of those films and will not go down in history as such.

True to form, the ending is predictable and uninteresting.

Spy-2015

Spy-2015

Director Paul Feig

Starring Melissa McCarthy

Scott’s Review #386

80027379

Reviewed March 20, 2016

Grade: C+

Spy is a 2015 comedy spy spoof starring funny lady Melissa McCarthy as a loser desk CIA analyst who is suddenly thrown into the field and assigned to rescue a missing agent she is also in love with.

Carrying the film in every way, McCarthy is funny and adds to an otherwise formulaic, by-the-numbers comedy.

Admittedly, the “action-comedy” genre isn’t my favorite, and I have seen much worse than Spy, but the premise is nice; the second half, however, sinks into the ridiculous and is loud and overly long.

McCarthy plays Susan Cooper, a frumpy 40-year-old CIA analyst with a decent job as a CIA analyst (she tracks the field agents’ cameras and warns them of impending peril). Still, the higher-ups deem her dispensable and a loser, and assign her more important duties.

She is single, overweight, and lonely, pining after her sophisticated partner Bradley Fine (Jude Law), a field agent and stylish James Bond-type.

After a mishap leaves Bradley thought dead, Susan goes undercover in France, Rome, and Budapest to solve the case without being noticed.

Spy is a film with a star who completely carries the film.

As a big fan of McCarthy and her performances in whatever she appears in (comedy or drama), I need her charisma and comic timing here.

Spy contains a few laugh-out-loud moments, especially when McCarthy is forced to take on the persona of one loser after another- a divorcee with multiple cats and a wardrobe to cringe over-throw in a 1980s perm, and got a great SNL-type moment.

The film itself reminds me of a long SNL skit. When McCarthy delivers her one-liners, they connect and amuse.

An apparent homage to spy films and James Bond, Spy feels closer to an Austin Powers film, leaning more into silliness, but not quite as over the top.

Still, the European locales add a pleasant Bond-film element. McCarthy as an apparent female James Bond is also cute.

A noticeable negative is the unnecessary two-hour running time.

With a genre of this nature, a ninety- to one-hundred-minute running time is all that is necessary, and any more than that the jokes wane, become redundant, and usually go into the ridiculous.

Another problem with Spy is the supporting characters.

A well-known cast, including Rose Byrne, Allison Janney, Jason Statham, and Bobby Cannavale; each of these actors is cast in cartoon-like, one-note roles.

Cannavale and Byrne play the villains (Sergio and Rayna) in a one-dimensional way, as evil as possible, but they may also be overacting.

This could be the director’s fault, or simply what is accepted in this genre.

Janney, as the tough-as-nails CIA director, and Statham, as the dumb, temperamental field agent, also overplay their roles.

Why are all of these characters loud, unpleasant, insulting, or all of the above?

The answer is that caricatures might allow better comedy than characters, but that is a debate for another time.

On the other hand, Miranda Hart as McCarthy’s sidekick Nancy, a very tall, awkward woman and Susan’s best friend, is great and shares equally in the comic success that McCarthy brings.

Their chemistry is evident, and it would be worth exploring as a second pairing. Unlike the other characters, I felt myself rooting for her and wished her a love interest, though 50 Cent’s romantic introduction was strange.

The plot is more or less trivial and unimportant in a film like this. Rationally, almost nothing that happens would ever occur in real life, but alas, this is the movie, so you have to suspend disbelief big time.

Spy is escapist fare at its most extreme.

A hot mess, if not for the wit and comic timing McCarthy brings, Spy (2015) has an interesting premise but delivers little beyond the silly formula that has existed for decades in film comedy.

I finished the film with mixed emotions.

Caddyshack-1980

Caddyshack-1980

Director Harold Ramis

Starring Chevy Chase, Rodney Dangerfield

Scott’s Review #353

343044

Reviewed January 9, 2016

Grade: A

Caddyshack is one of the funniest slapstick comedies of the 1980s, arguably the decade of “mindless comedy”.

Made in 1980, the cusp of the decade, it led the pack during a time when, one after another, comedy films were churned out in a cookie-cutter style, based largely on the success of Caddyshack.

While not every aspect of the film works, the parts that do are hysterical, and its influence on film history is unquestionable.

More than merely a “dumb comedy”, Caddyshack features funnymen of the day (Bill Murray, Chevy Chase, and Rodney Dangerfield), and the talent and timing are good.

Clean-cut teenager Danny Noonan works as a caddy at a posh resort named Bushwood Country Club. An “underachiever”, he lacks direction in life while being pressured by his parents to attend college.

While spending the summer at work pondering his future, high jinks ensue as a rivalry develops between the club co-founder, Judge Smails (Ted Knight), and the outrageous Al Czervik (Rodney Dangerfield), who is a nouveau riche real estate developer.

Meanwhile, bordering on psychotic, Bill Murray as groundskeeper Carl Spackler is engrossed in his feud with a gopher running rampant on the golf course.

Mixed in with all of this are the standard teen romance themes, bathroom gags, and sexual jokes.

Caddyshack is not high art, nor does it need to, or intend to be. It is simply pure juvenile fun. It is not even that well written, but it works. The portions that work so well do not even involve the caddies who were originally set to be the focal point of the film.

Rather, the real scene-stealers are the two oldest members of the cast- Rodney Dangerfield and Ted Knight. The bickering and barbs traded between the two characters are delicious and downright funny.

When Al mocks Smail’s hat, or dances with his snobbish wife, or crashes into his new boat, each scene is rich with goofy comic timing.

Without a doubt, my favorite scene is the “doody” scene in the resort pool. It is laugh-out-loud raucous, as a candy bar tossed into the water is mistaken for something else.

The star of this scene is Lois Kibbee, who plays Judge Smail’s wife.

Her comic mannerisms and upper-crust looks make her a perfect choice for the role, and she arguably steals the show in her limited appearances.

When Al jokes that she must have been something before electricity, her facial expressions perfectly emit comic horror.

There are points of the film that really are unnecessary and do not work well- I have never understood Bill Murray’s character, Carl. Bordering on silly, with a stuffed animal as the gopher, Murray himself is fantastic- improvising, but the role does not seem necessary to the rest of the film.

More scenes between the Judge and Al, or more from Chevy Chase’s character, Ty, and the Judge’s wife, would have been preferable.

Also, the attempted teen triangle between Danny, Maggie, and Lacey is dullsville- plain Maggie cannot compete with gorgeous and slutty Lacey.

These criticisms, however, are small gripes compared to the hilarity and perfect timing of the rest of the film, which is why it ranks among my favorites.

Caddyshack, along with Animal House, paved the way for the plethora of slapstick comedies to follow- a few good, most bad, but must be recognized as the influence that it was, and a must-see for fans of golf, sports, and good, clean fun.

The elements of Caddyshack (1980) come together and work so well.

Neighbors-2014

Neighbors-2014

Director Nicholas Stoller

Starring Zac Efron, Seth Rogen

Scott’s Review #229

70297085

Reviewed March 15, 2015

Grade: F

By far one of the worst movies I have seen, Neighbors (2014) is a silly, redundant, nonsensical, plain-old bad film. Whoever thought this film was a good idea and green-lit it should be examined.

Successful comedies, even raunchy, slapstick comedy, have perfect comic timing, likable characters the audience roots for, and at least a shred of creativity and originality.

Neighbors has none of these qualities.

Bridesmaids (2011) is a modern raunchy comedy that works and is hysterical; sadly, Neighbors is a far cry from Bridesmaids.

Neighbors stars Seth Rogen, a familiar face in the slapstick comedy genre, and Rose Byrne as Mac and Kelly Radner, a married couple in their thirties with a newborn baby named Stella.

Former college party animals, the two live in a college town and try to raise their daughter.

One day, Delta Psi Beta, a fraternity known as one of the rowdiest frats, moves into the house next door to the Radners and begins causing chaos with their never-ending parties.

Teddy (Zac Efron) leads the frat.

Initially, the Radners and Teddy strike up mutual respect, but a misunderstanding involving the police being called one night ruins their relationship.

The rest of the film focuses on Mac and Kelly’s attempts to get the fraternity out of their house by sabotaging parties and pitting frat brothers against each other, causing hijinks and war between parents and college kids.

If Neighbors is an attempt to harken back to the days of delicious college comedies such as Animal House (1978) or American Pie (1999), the film fails on every level.

It is simply not funny.

By this point, the plot is so unoriginal, and the jokes are so worn out in similar films (bathroom humor, frat jokes, drug jokes, male and female anatomy jokes) that if you have seen one Seth Rogen film, you have seen them all.

He is a one-trick pony and has become what Adam Sandler became- tired and dull.

Rose Byrne’s annoying character made me think she was using a poor Australian accent, only to realize she’s Australian. This is not a testament to Ms. Byrne’s acting ability.

The protagonists are quite irritating and not likable. What is the rooting value? Mac and Kelly are irresponsible parents.

They presumably leave Stella at home to visit the frat house and wind up getting drunk and high, staying out late, and waking up early the next day.

Kelly attempts to feed Stella using tainted breast milk, which leads us to an unfunny scene between Mac and Kelly focusing on Kelly’s vein-popping breasts, which makes no sense anyway.

Other suspensions of disbelief and logic pop up left and right.

Why would the police reveal to the fraternity the names of those who had called to complain about them and, after catching the Radners in a lie, tell them never to call the police again?

How unrealistic.

Mac and Kelly live in a college town, and the risk of a fraternity or sorority being close never occurred to them. They acted surprised that college students existed.

The wonderful Lisa Kudrow is cast in a ridiculous role as the college Dean, but it’s completely wasted on a hysterical, bubble-headed, dumb character.

If I had to give Neighbors (2014) a positive, it would be that Zac Efron does a halfway decent job portraying his character, Teddy, and he does have a good deal of acting talent (think The Paperboy from 2012).

I am being quite generous and looking for a bright side to a train wreck.

The film is poor.

Bachelor Party-1984

Bachelor Party-1984

Director Neal Israel

Starring Tom Hanks, Adrian Zmed

Scott’s Review #163

60020725

Reviewed September 1, 2014

Grade: D

Watching Bachelor Party (1984) for the very first time, circa 2014, and the last time I plan on watching this film, I realized almost immediately how dated it is and that, at this point, it can only be enjoyed for nostalgia.

I can’t fathom anyone watching Bachelor Party for the first time and thinking it is a great film- it is not.

If not for Tom Hanks becoming a huge star, this comedy would be forgotten, as there are dozens of like-minded films from the 1980s that resemble it- think Pretty in Pink (1986), National Lampoon films, etc.

The premise is basic- Rick (Hanks) and Debbie (Tawny Kitaen) are engaged, and Rick’s friends throw a Bachelor party while Debbie goes out with the girls.

Of course, Debbie’s parents hate Rick and, along with her ex, scheme to break them up.

Every decade seems to have a similar carbon copy of this party-themed film- Animal House (1978), American Pie (1999), and The Hangover (2009), though not as entertaining as the aforementioned films.

All the characters are caricatures, one-note, and types. There is a little backstory for any of them.

The plot is silly and predictable, and the film’s 1980’s look does not hold up well.

The film contains every stereotype imaginable- the meddlesome parents, Debbie’s vicious ex-boyfriend, who is the film’s foil, various frat boys and sorority girl types, and Rick’s inept siblings.

Avoid it unless a trip down the 1980’s bad-film memory lane is needed.

Tower Heist-2011

Tower Heist-2011

Director Brett Ratner

Starring Ben Stiller, Eddie Murphy

Scott’s Review #160

70202145

Reviewed August 29, 2014

Grade: D

Tower Heist (2011) is a completely formulaic, by-the-numbers comedy with absolutely no surprises or, frankly, creativity.

It follows Josh Kovacs, a luxury high-rise apartment manager weakly played by Ben Stiller in New York City, whose favorite tenant, a businessman Arthur Shaw (Alan Alda), is arrested for involvement in a Ponzi scheme.

The entire staff’s pensions have been squandered after Josh entrusts Shaw with the funds, and he tries to return the money to the rightful owners with a team of staff and an ex-con, played by Eddie Murphy.

They team up and attempt to locate millions of dollars hidden in Shaw’s apartment.

If this film was a starring vehicle for Ben Stiller, it was done horribly. He has been much funnier in There’s Something About Mary (1998) or Meet the Parents (2000).

Tower Heist has some similarities to Ocean’s Eleven (2001) because the score is recognizable and mirrors that film. The group of players is similar to that film, and its look reminds me of it too.

Murphy plays a silly, stereotypical role, and the group has zero chemistry as they try to keep the money.

There is also no chemistry between Stiller and Tea Leoni, who plays an FBI agent with a phony Queens accent that I found laugh-out-loud bad.

Nothing worked in this film since it was one tired gag after another and completely predictable.

I will admit two minor positives in Tower Heist: Alan Alda, who’s always great to see in films, and the interesting choice of a luxurious high-rise setting with cool, ritzy interiors taken from real buildings in New York City.

Otherwise, Tower Heist (2011) is a complete dud.

Ace Ventura: Pet Detective-1994

Ace Ventura: Pet Detective-1994

Director Tom Shadyac

Starring Jim Carrey

Scott’s Review #106

215309

Reviewed July 12, 2014

Grade: D-

Ace Ventura: Pet Detective is a silly comedy from 1994 starring Jim Carrey as a goofy private investigator specializing in pet rescue.

He is fairly inept but is hired by the Miami Dolphins to find their stolen mascot.

The film is ridiculous on almost every level- bad clichés, bad acting, mostly by the football players, and a dumb plot.

The saving grace of the film is Jim Carrey, who defined the goofy, slapstick film star of the 1990s and, although over-the-top, is quite funny with his weird gestures and absurd mannerisms.

If the writing were only slightly better- think Dumb and Dumber (1994) or The Mask (1994), this film would have been almost enjoyable, but.

Still, it’s the definition of dumb fun, just a little too far, and sooner rather than later, it becomes convoluted and tedious.

A cameo appearance by Dan Marino, obviously a poor actor, just made this movie seem sad and desperate.

Sean Young is appealing as the villain.

The Guilt Trip-2012

The Guilt Trip-2012

Director Anne Fletcher

Starring Seth Rogen, Barbra Streisand

Scott’s Review #89

70243456

Reviewed July 3, 2014

Grade: C+

The Guilt Trip (2012) is a lightweight, fun piece of fluff.

It stars Seth Rogen as a thirty-something single guy from New Jersey with a Jewish (in every clichéd way) overbearing mother played by Barbra Streisand.

Through circumstances at his job, they are forced to take a road trip cross-country to California, where they are to meet a long-lost beau of hers.

If not for the talents and humor of Barbra Streisand, this movie would have been a dud. It’s a dumb movie, but Streisand plays her overbearing, annoying character to the hilt and makes her lovable.

There is nice chemistry between Streisand and Rogen, though frankly, I wonder why Streisand has turned to mindless comedy instead of more highbrow work.

Rogen plays a character he has played time and time again in these types of films.

The film screams predictable throughout; like similar road-trip comedies, it hits all the United States’ geographical stereotypes (cowboys, steakhouses, bull-riding, etc.).

A dumb film made somewhat enjoyable by the two leads.

Outrageous Fortune-1987

Outrageous Fortune-1987

Director Arthur Hiller

Starring Bette Midler, Shelley Long

Scott’s Review #85

836062

Reviewed July 2, 2014

Grade: D

Outrageous Fortune (1987) is one of many silly, plot-driven comedies from the late 1980s.

It stars two huge comedic actresses of the time (Bette Midler and Shelley Long) as opposites- Midler brash, Long refined- who are acting students and in love with the same man (Peter Coyote).

Of course, they meet, hate each other, and then become friends. This sets off a series of misunderstandings and standard comedy fare.

It’s a female buddy movie. I must say I enjoyed the chemistry between Long and Midler, as it is evident on screen.

Besides the chemistry, the only other positive is the New York City location scenes and the acting/theater workshop setting.

Whose idea was it for Midler to use a horrible, phony New York accent??

It was distracting throughout the film, which isn’t great to begin with. Otherwise, this is a dud, completely plot-driven and predictable.

It has a pure 1980s comedy feel to it (by that I mean overdone hairstyles, bad music, and a silly plot).

Shelley Long is the highlight of this film as she is great at comedic timing, but unfortunately, her film-starring career was short-lived.

Golden Globe Nominations: Best Actress-Comedy or Musical-Bette Midler