Category Archives: Seth Rogen

The Fabelmans-2022

The Fabelmans-2022

Director-Steven Spielberg

Starring-Gabriel LaBelle, Michelle Williams, Paul Dano

Scott’s Review #1,324

Reviewed December 17, 2022

Grade: A

At seventy-five years old, Steven Speilberg continues to churn out heartfelt films, personal and resonating with anyone who sees them. Rebounding with creative energy with the remake of the brilliant West Side Story in 2021 he continues to impress the older he gets.

In what is certainly his most personal film, The Fabelmans (2022) is semi-autobiographical, telling the story of a young boy’s venture into the world of filmmaking.

The boy is presumed to be Spielberg himself.

The Fabelmans is Spielberg’s thirty-third film and I’d be hard-pressed not to say it’s one of his best. He loses no ground in creating a lovely tale of family, dreams, human bonds, and a bit of scandal.

The director takes a fond look back to his boyhood in New Jersey and the family’s subsequent move to his primary childhood home in Arizona. From there he goes to California to launch his film career.

Of course, obstacles and trials and tribulations of the Fabelman family sometimes get in the way.

Young Sammy Fabelman (Gabriel LaBelle) falls in love with movies after his parents take him to see ‘The Greatest Show on Earth’ a film about a carnival, in 1952. His life changes forever after viewing the riveting train crash.

Sammy starts to make his films at home, much to the delight of his supportive mother Mitzi (Michelle Williams), who is at heart a dreamer and an artist like Sammy. His father Burt (Paul Dano), who is a computer engineer, sees filmmaking as merely Sammy’s hobby and something he will outgrow.

The story is heartfelt and compelling with sentimentality and emotion that only Spielberg can create without it ever feeling phony or forced.

To my surprise, I was teary-eyed more than I ever thought I would be mostly because the characters feel genuine and filled with humanistic sensibility. They are good people trying to do good things for each other.

Particular standouts are LaBelle, Williams, and Dano, but the cast is tremendous all around. Seth Rogen gives a career-best as Sammy’s father’s best friend and colleague who harbors a family secret.

Judd Hirsch hits it out of the park in the small but powerful role of Mitzi’s uncle. He provides invaluable words of wisdom to Sammy and a bit of understanding about his mother.

I was enthralled the most by Williams and several of her scenes made me choke up. She delivers a beautiful performance as an artist who never saw her dreams realized, instead living vicariously through her son, another dreamer.

That doesn’t mean that Mitzi is unhappy, quite the opposite. She is often childlike in her approach, buying a monkey for entertainment simply because she needs a laugh. When a secret about his mother is revealed to Sammy while editing his film it threatens to ruin their close relationship.

Dano, stoic as the methodical and quiet Burt, has deep-seated thoughts and emotions. The actor is brilliant as his range of emotions remains within himself while brimming to be let out.

Finally, LaBelle anchors the film in his debut effort. Showcasing his talent as the insecure lone Jewish boy living in affluent and white, Christian northern California, he nonetheless finds love and companionship with a classmate.

Besides the wonderful characters and storytelling, Spielberg crafts tremendous editing to reinforce the beauty of the creative filmmaking process.

Technically impressive, it also exudes a passion for creating the film. As Sammy intertwines bits of film and videotapes together to create art it’s inspiring to any lover of cinema.

The Fabelmans (2022) may be a personal story but Spielberg masterfully shares it with his audience as an homage to his own family revealing experiences and secrets held close to him over the years.

The viewer will overwhelmingly connect to his silver screen family and his love of cinema so that they may also conjure a feeling of belonging. The film contains tremendous acting, cinematography, storytelling, and everything else.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Director-Steven Spielberg, Best Actress-Michelle Williams, Best Supporting Actor-Judd Hirsch, Best Original Screenplay, Best Original Score, Best Production Design

The 40-Year-Old Virgin-2005

The 40-Year-Old Virgin-2005

Director Judd Apatow

Starring Steve Carell, Catherine Keener, Paul Rudd

Scott’s Review #1,214

Reviewed December 31, 2021

Grade: B-

I am not a fan of director/producer Judd Apatow. His brand of silly comedy that includes objectification of women, homophobic language, and plain old unfunny attempts at slapstick comedy doesn’t go very far or sit particularly well with me.

His directorial debut is The 40-Year-Old Virgin (2005) which contains a fresh feeling and would ultimately lead to less worthy efforts like Knocked Up (2007) and This is 40 (2012).

Admittedly, the title alone had me and many others brimming with curiosity.

The freshness is mostly because of leading actor Steve Carell in a role that would propel him to film stardom and much better roles in the future.

So, I guess The 40-Year-Old Virgin deserves credit for that.

Typically, in Apatow’s films, the female characters are written as uptight, shrewish, and bitchy whereas the male characters are goofy and fun-loving. The audience is ‘supposed’ to root for the men and dislike the women.

The 40-Year-Old Virgin is no exception.

Still, the film does have a sweet-natured and innocent feeling amid the stereotypes, potty jokes, and obscenity that lie within. We root for the underdog to succeed in life and champion his plight despite it being a carnal and sexual one.

Andy Stitzer (Carell) is a tender yet socially inept man who works a lowly job at a big-box store. Single and living alone, 40-year-old Andy whiles away the days playing video games and admiring his action-figure collection. He is your classic, lovable nerd.

He harbors an embarrassing secret.

Despite his age, Andy has never engaged in sex, so his friends, including his closest friend David (Paul Rudd), encourage Andy to lose his virginity.

While attempting to get over his awkwardness around female customers, Andy meets a local shop owner Trish (Catherine Keener), and they begin an early romance.

With any Apatow film, the rest is highly predictable and the blueprint is formulaic and easy to figure out.

Andy will face humiliation due to his predicament and because of the bumbling yet good intentions of David and his other friend Cal, played by Seth Rogen.

He will inevitably have awkward encounters with a few other female characters, in this case, the aggressive Beth, played by Elizabeth Banks, before finding love with the ‘good girl’ Trish.

They will ride off into the sunset to live happily ever after. Spoiler alert- they have sex!

The best, and arguably only good part of The 40-Year-Old Virgin is Carell’s Andy. The character brings a warmth and a vulnerability that causes the audience to sympathize with his plight. While the majority of the viewers will not relate to being a virgin at his age they can at least relate to having an embarrassing issue to deal with.

I am glad that this film led to meatier roles for Carell. Foxcatcher (2014) and his storied role as Michael Scott in television’s The Office (2005-2013) immediately spring to mind.

Keener, mostly known for her dramatic rather than comedic roles is decent as the main love interest, Trish.

She, like Andy, is a rootable character though we don’t know too much about her. She is fond of Andy so, therefore, we like her and hope she takes Andy’s cherry.

The rest of The 40-Year-Old Virgin is riddled with standard comic setups and situations. When Andy slips and reveals his virginity by the next day his entire store knows his secret. From there, the insulting additions of a transvestite prostitute and a weird speed dating situation arise.

We know all along that Trish is the girl he will be with.

Apatow unwisely gives an interminable two-hour and thirteen-minute running time to his film which feels too long for a situation comedy.

One hour and thirty minutes would have been ideal and more desirable.

The 40-Year-Old Virgin (2005) is not the worst offender of the Apatow collection but it lacks any surprises or attempts at diversity.

It’s a perfect example of a tried and true adult sex romp with, thankfully, a likable central character.

50/50-2011

50/50-2011

Director Jonathan Levine

Starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Seth Rogan

Scott’s Review #1,001

Reviewed March 17, 2020

Grade: B+

The subject matter of cancer is an incredibly tricky one to portray in a film. Especially tough when any comedic bits are incorporated- the risk lies with jokes not going over well or being misinterpreted.

With 50/50 (2011), director Jonathan Levine and writer Will Reiser craft an intelligent and genuine story, based on a true one, led by upstart actor Joseph Gordon-Levitt, shining in the lead role.

Comic actor Seth Rogan is on board to cement the comedy elements.

Healthy twenty-something Seattle resident, Adam Lerner (Gordon-Levitt) experiences severe back pain and is shocked to learn he has a malignant tumor in his spine. Devastated, his world is turned upside down.

Adam is usually accompanied by his best friend Kyle (Rogan).

While Kyle is brash and outspoken, Adam is reserved and mild-mannered. They are opposites, but inseparable friends. Adam is dating artist Rachael (Bryce Dallas Howard), whom Kyle despises adding conflict to the story.

The screenplay and Gordon-Levitt’s performance are the superior aspects of 50/50. The title of the film is poignant because Adam is given the dubious news that he has only a 50/50 chance of surviving his cancer.

The young actor provides heart and soul to his challenging role and his acting is such that scenes do not feel cliched or manufactured. This, naturally, is due to the excellent writing by Will Reiser.

He crafts a sincere script that is straightforward, avoiding razzle-dazzle, but one that is also heartfelt.

My only criticism with 50/50 is that I would have liked a bit more darkness. As we all know, real-life cancer patients must endure the ravages that brutal disease inflicts. The film never really goes there and shows how devious the disease is and what happens to the human body.

I get that the film toes the line carefully, but despite shaving his head, Adam does not lose much weight or suffer other visible indignities.

The toned-down approach feels PG-rated rather than R-rated as it might have been.

This can largely be forgiven because the main message of the film supersedes this point. The film shows that love and friendship can be the best healers and the root of good, kind, humanity. This is something every viewer can take and learn from and it makes the film lovely and worthy to witness.

The romantic comedy elements do not work, and I am not even sure they are necessary. The main draw is the undying friendship between Adam and Kyle and Adam’s experiences with other cancer patients along his journey.

Combining comedy and cancer is not an easy task, but thanks to exceptional writing and a talented cast, 50/50 (2011) succeeds in its achievements.

The film and Gordon-Levitt were rewarded with Golden Globe nominations but missed out on any Oscar nominations. If the intended result of the film, is to ease cancer patient’s minds about their situations and provide some meaningful entertainment, the film is a major win.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 1 win-Best Feature, Best Supporting Female-Anjelica Huston, Best First Screenplay (won)

The Lion King-2019

The Lion King-2019

Director-Jon Favreau

Voices-Donald Glover, Alfre Woodard, Seth Rogen

Scott’s Review #981

Reviewed January 17, 2020

Grade: B

An impossible feat would have been to eclipse the magic of the stage version or the loveliness of the animated version, but The Lion King (2019) offers a different approach well.

Arguably, animated in a way and in a way not, this version is heavily CGI (or in this case computer-generated animation-CGA) infused with marvelous visual effects and creativity. Partial to the two-former offering, this telling is lovely and perfect for the entire family.

The realism of the animals and scenery is remarkable.

To recap new viewers, the story centers on a den of lions living among the creatures in the “Pride Lands of Africa”. They hunt, prance, love, and guard their territory, mostly from the hungry hyenas, who are kept at bay during peaceful times.

King Mufasa (James Earl Jones) and Queen Sarabi (Alfre Woodard) are fair rulers and anticipate their son, Simba (Donald Glover), taking over the throne one day much to the chagrin of Mufasa’s evil brother, Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor), who was passed over for the crown.

Envious of Simba, Scar tricks him and his friend Nala (Beyonce) into wandering in the land of the hyenas hoping to cause their deaths. When his plot is foiled by a heroic Mufasa, Scar ups the ante and hatches a scheme to kill his brother.

He not only succeeds but makes Simba believe he caused his father’s death. Ashamed, the youngster runs away to begin a new life unaware that he will one day return to save the day.

Props must be given to the filmmakers for inclusion and cultural authenticity as many of the characters, especially those front and center, are voiced by African- American talent. This is a high achievement since the film is set in Africa and why would the voices be Caucasian?

Heavyweights like Jones and Woodard sound polished, especially Jones with his deep and dominant, yet fatherly voice, perfectly cast as the King. Woodard provides gentle warmth and confident complexity.

The musical numbers are terrific.

The film begins with an energetic and tribal rendition of “Circle of Life” where a legion of wild animals dance around together in a warm example of diversity. The song appears later in the film. The powerful and romantic “Can You Feel the Love Tonight” is performed against a lovely moonlight sky with decadent stars.

The new song “Spirit” performed by Beyonce is adequate but does not figure into the story as much as it should, seeming more like an afterthought.

The best parts of The Lion King, however, are the astounding visuals.

With contrasting sequences of bright, sprawling African terrain and a magical oasis of colorful flowers and running water, set against the dark and foreboding land of the dangerous hyenas, offers the viewer a multitude of treats to dine on.

The orange and red colors during the climactic finale are unrivaled in the dazzling bombast of adventure.

As realistic as the elements are in the film, they are also negative. Watching the animals talk and prowl amid the lush landscape felt wonderful, until realizing that all of it is fake. Real animals were never used, and it is all a virtual reality tool making the effects look real.

This aspect slightly saddens me as the genuine quality left me feeling robbed. The possibility of another alternative would have meant a reboot of the animated classic and I am not sure that would have been wise.

Favreau, once an actor and now a director, known for creating films such as Iron Man (2008) and Iron Man 2 (2010), certainly knows his way around an adventure film.

The story, while containing some menacing moments, also feels a bit safe and lacks the freshness or edginess that the 1994 version possessed. Something seems watered down and the excitement and heart of the original feel missed.

I will always go back to the animated 1994 treasure for a cinematic feast, but while The Lion King (2019) could have been a disaster, it isn’t. With modernized songs and enough CGA to last a lifetime, I could easily see some people hating the film, but I embraced it for what it is.

Spectacular visual treats await any fan of cinema as one will ponder how the project all came together.

Oscar Nominations: Best Visual Effects

The Disaster Artist-2017

The Disaster Artist-2017

Director-James Franco

Starring-James Franco, Dave Franco

Scott’s Review #781

Reviewed July 2, 2018

Grade: B

The Disaster Artist (2017) is a biography-comedy that I found to be middle of the road to mostly good if I’m judging in overall terms- most I liked with a little criticism.

Due to the many accolades, I confess to having anticipated a bit more from the finished product and hardly found it any sort of masterpiece.

Still, I was both impressed and unimpressed by the performance of James Franco in the lead role, awed at the emergence of the actor as a director, and the Los Angeles setting is great.

At times the film teeters almost into bad slapstick or shtick, and a bit silly, and as much as I respect his performance, this criticism is directed at Franco. Nobody can deny his acting talent if he chooses the right films.

His attempt at making his character peculiar is noticeable within seconds so it seems Franco also makes him a bit of a goof and I was not able to take the character seriously all of the time.

And the weird accent threw me.

This film is based on the non-fiction book called The Disaster Artist. The work chronicles the making of 2003’s The Room, not to be confused with the 2015 film, Room. The Room was considered amateurish and one of the worst movies to ever have been made.

Told repeatedly that his acting stinks, oddball Tommie Wiseau (James Franco), a European-American aspiring actor decide to screw Hollywood and produce, direct, and star in his own film.

Mysteriously, Wiseau has an endless amount of bank funds, which he uses towards the film. Roommate and friend, Greg Sestero (Dave Franco), stars in the film and thus gets his big break. The duo, and various others, pitch in to create the project, which suffers from a level of ineptness on the part of Wiseau.

The Los Angeles setting really resonates with me as did the recurring theme of struggle within the Hollywood scene. These are major pluses to the film as a whole.

Los Angeles can appear to be a sunny and glamorous town but always contains a gloomy dark underbelly beneath the shiny exterior.

The film realistically depicts struggle and success- from the central characters to the supporting players making the film resemble an ensemble.

Thousands struggle daily for a break with no respect or appreciation given and The Disaster Artist scores a win focusing on this.

When Tommie brazenly approaches a powerful producer in a restaurant, he is unceremoniously dismissed for having no talent and told he will never get anywhere. In addition to Tommie, several actors associated with the film struggle.

In a wonderful scene, an older actress states that being on a bad movie set beats any other job by miles. The message here is that people in Hollywood are there because they truly love it.

The sweet, empowering theme of friendship and empowerment are also to be celebrated, nice especially given the cut-throat backdrop. Tommie and Greg are best friends and have each other’s backs through thick and thin. Neither gives up on the other, even during the tortuous initial audience reaction to The Room premiere.

Could the film have been slightly darker? Yes, certainly, as very few scenes of drug destruction or the porn that many hopeful talents turn to are mentioned. But the film is not really about that, it’s an enchanting tale of hope and fun.

Interesting to note and not evident to me while watching the film is that brothers James and Dave Franco play opposite one another. While there is somewhat of a physical resemblance, the chemistry works between the two actors as best friends.

James delivers a worthy portrayal of an unusual character with a strange dialect and long, stringy brown hair, and seemingly cross-eyed. The role is comedic and perfectly suited for an unusual actor such as Franco- he must have had a ball with the part.

Movies about movie-making always fascinate me. What goes on behind the scenes?

The Disaster Artist (2017) provides enough good film meat to make it an overall good experience. Staying true to some fine Hollywood history- the famous James Dean is referenced and the spot where he died even visited- nice touch! Franco is both good and disappointing in the main role.

All-in-all, for those who enjoy film making, Hollywood, or L.A. set films, give this one a chance.

Oscar Nominations: Best Adapted Screenplay

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Male Lead-James Franco

Steve Jobs-2015

Steve Jobs-2015

Director Danny Boyle

Starring Michael Fassbender, Kate Winslet

Scott’s Review #288

80049358

Reviewed November 25, 2015

Grade: B+

Steve Jobs is a name that almost everyone has heard of. Most associate him with Apple products or at least know that he is some technological genius who has influenced the modern world in some fashion.

His name is a household one.

The film Steve Jobs (2015) presents a slice of his life, mostly focusing on his professional leap to success, his damaged personal life, and his inability to stay close to people within his circle.

Michael Fassbender plays the title role. He looks nothing like Steve Jobs, but this did not bother me.

It is quickly revealed that Steve Jobs is a competitive, cut-throat, and sometimes unkind man. He is driven, ambitious, and willing to do what it takes to succeed in business. He is also complex and as the film rolls along we witness the complexities of this man, arguably deemed a “genius”.

But where he has flaws is in his personal life as the film makes abundantly clear.

Kate Winslet is excellent in the supporting role she plays. Joanna Hoffman, Jobs’s loyal marketing executive, stays in his corner through the years, enduring ups and downs, yet their relationship never goes beyond the platonic. They are colleagues and both are absorbed in their creations.

Her character is a bit under-explored as we never are exposed to much of her personal life. Winslet in a rare “dowdy” role, makes the most of Joanna as she is the type of woman who throws herself into her work at the expense of her private life.

The film is primarily set during the three important software launches and, predictably, all are filled with issues and stress.

The bulk of the first act occurs in 1984 when Jobs and Hoffman struggle and fret during an Apple Macintosh launch in front of an auditorium filled with industry types eager to see the new technology.

The scene is tense as the new computer will not say “hello” as advertised and Jobs demands lead engineer, Andy Hertzfeld, fix it.  The scene escalates in its intensity.

We immediately bear witness to the fact that Steve Jobs is a shark. He is demanding and unlikable and the film is not afraid to stress that fact as the action continues.

We are next introduced to Jobs’s personal life. A beautiful young woman arrives at his office with a young girl. They are both on the brink of being destitute and thrown out of their home, yet Jobs refuses to help them and coldly calculates the probability that the young girl (Lisa) is biologically not his.

As the film chugs along Steve Jobs has a turbulent relationship with Lisa as the film spans the period from 1984-1998.

The film is a character study of sorts and we learn the complexities of Jobs. Fassbender gives a nuanced performance allowing the audience to absorb these character traits and ultimately feel emotional sympathy for him.

I admire this character study of Steve Jobs and feel that I know him quite a bit more, on a human level, than I once did.

Perhaps the supporting characters might have been fleshed out a bit more, but in large part, Michael Fassbender’s portrayal of a real-life person makes this film successful.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actor-Michael Fassbender, Best Supporting Actress-Kate Winslet

Neighbors-2014

Neighbors-2014

Director Nicholas Stoller

Starring Zac Efron, Seth Rogan

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, and 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, contain perfect comic timing and likable characters that the audience roots for, and at least a shred of creativity and originality.

Neighbors has none of these qualities.

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

Neighbors stars Seth Rogan, 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 party animals in their college days, the two live in a college town and attempt to raise their daughter.

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

The frat is led by Teddy (Zac Efron).

Initially striking up mutual respect, the Radner’s relationship with Teddy is ruined due to a misunderstanding involving the police being called one night.

The remainder of the film focuses on Mac and Kelly’s attempts at getting the fraternity out of their house by sabotaging parties and pitting various 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.

It contains a plot that is so unoriginal and the jokes featured to death in similar films (bathroom humor, frat jokes, drug jokes, male and female anatomy jokes) by this point, if you have seen one Seth Rogan 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 had me believing the actress was using a poor Australian accent only to realize that the actress is Australian. This is not a testament to Ms. Byrne’s acting ability.

The protagonists are quite irritating and not likable at all. 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, stay out late, and wake up early the next day when 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 Radner’s 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 at all.

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

If I had to give a positive to Neighbors (2014), it would be that Zac Efron does a halfway decent job portraying his character Teddy and Efron does possess 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.

The Guilt Trip-2012

The Guilt Trip-2012

Director Anne Fletcher

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

Through circumstances from 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 loveable.

There is nice chemistry between Streisand and Rogan, though frankly, I wonder why Streisand has turned to mindless comedy over more highbrow film work.

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

The film screams predictable throughout as with similar road trip comedies, they encounter all of the United States’ geographical stereotypes (cowboys, steakhouses, bull-riding, etc.).

A dumb film made somewhat enjoyable by the two leads.