Tag Archives: Comedy

Julie & Julia-2009

Julie & Julia-2009

Director Nora Ephron

Starring Meryl Streep, Amy Adams

Scott’s Review #588

Reviewed January 7, 2017

Grade: A-

Julie & Julia (2009) is a darling film about cooking that centers and centers on the legendary chef Julia Child. It is for the foodie or culinary geek in all of us.

The film is lighthearted and will ruffle no feathers, but it is a delicious well-told treat.

The film tells of the life of Julia Child (Meryl Streep), at one time an aspiring chef, contrasted with the life of a young New Yorker, blogger Julie Powell (Amy Adams), who is determined to cook all five hundred twenty-four recipes in Child’s famous cookbook, Mastering the Art of French Cooking, within one year.

The film, of course, would not be half as good without the amazing talents of Streep, who portrays Julia Child herself. All of Julia Child’s personality characteristics are portrayed exceptionally well by Streep.

Her laugh, voice, and zest for life, are all perfect. Of course, since Streep is not nearly as tall a woman as Child was, liberties had to be taken by way of camera trickery.

Regardless of Streep’s performance, props for a nice performance by Adams, too.

Julie & Julia (2009) is a cute, charming, light, fun movie. I thoroughly recommend it.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actress-Meryl Streep

Zombieland-2009

Zombieland-2009

Director Ruben Fleischer

Starring Jesse Eisenberg, Woody Harrelson

Scott’s Review #586

Reviewed January 6, 2017

Grade: B

Zombieland (2009) is a fun, entertaining, popcorn-style flick. The film is not designed to be taken very seriously given the subject matter of zombies- nor should it.

Rather, the film goes over the top frequently to elicit a good time and plays for laughs. Sometimes it is successful, adding dark comedy to the story, other times the film comes across as silly.

The story takes place during a time when zombies have overtaken the world, and humans are left to fend for themselves and survive.

The film is a more cartoon version of the popular television series, The Walking Dead, despite pre-dating it. It lacks the heavy drama of the series.

Still, for 2009, the film is a novel idea and the movie works more often than not.

Woody Harrelson is amusing and charismatic. Jesse Eisenberg is falling into the Ben Stiller and Will Farrell trap of playing the same character over and over again, and I am personally a big fan of Abigail Breslin and she does not disappoint in this film.

Zombieland (2009) will likely only be remembered as a fun midnight, Saturday night fluff film if that.

Everybody Wants Some!!-2016

Everybody Wants Some!!-2016

Director-Richard Linklater

Starring Blake Jenner, Zoey Deutch

Scott’s Review #585

Reviewed January 5, 2017

Grade: A-

A follow-up to the successful 2014 film Boyhood, directed by Richard Linklater, Everybody Wants Some!! is another slice of life story with interesting characters, trials and tribulations, and a coming of age theme centering around the main character’s struggles to identify with themselves and each other.

Like Boyhood, a timeline is used, but instead of taking place over seventeen or so years, it takes place throughout a long weekend preceding the start of the college semester- a blissful, yet melancholy time for many.

The setting is steamy Texas in the late summer of 1980.

A few freshman baseball prospects, superstar athletes in high school, but unknown here, move into a large house inhabited by other baseball players all hoping to make it to the majors.

The college is fictional but is a Southeast Texas Cherokees team. The main character, freshman Jake, arrives to find a bevy of drunken jocks carousing for a good time. He bonds with the other guys, but is more introspective and complex, and embarks on a flirtation with a theater student, Beverly, while also connecting with various other jocks with whom he lives.

The film is successful in that it is a quiet story, Linklater, similar to Boyhood, chooses to focus on relationships and good storytelling rather than big bombastic moments or cliched stereotypes. We simply observe a large group of acquaintances living life and getting to know each other, having fun, rather than taking life too seriously.

At the same time worrying over their futures and choosing to live for the moment, not knowing what tomorrow will bring- they are stuck in a moment in time.

The musical soundtrack is wonderful- interspersing 1980’s bands like Van Halen (known for the title song), Pat Benatar, Devo, and a myriad of others while mixing in classic artists like Neil Young and Led Zeppelin. The film focuses on a bonanza of rock n roll history.

Everybody Wants Some!! is well written and intelligent. Fellow intellectual jock, Willoughby, neither he nor Jake quite fitting in with the other, loud and self-centered jocks, forge a close friendship, discussing intricate aspects of rock songs by Led Zeppelin, and dissecting the arrangements and simply talking about life, rather than guzzling beer and chasing girls.

Ironically, Linklater chooses to have Willoughby diss Van Halen as a corporate rock band, despite branding the title name of the film.

One may argue that nothing happens throughout the film, but that is the beauty, and what makes it work as an honest, truthful piece of filmmaking.

How novel that the film does not contain any contrived plot devices intended to create tension between the characters- the film simply is, and that is the beauty of it.

Everybody Wants Some!! is intended to be observed.

The romance between Jake and Beverly is sweet and unassuming. They come from different backgrounds- he a jock, she a theater major, yet they connect innocently.

The film displays different social groups coming together- a major accomplishment of the film. We witness the jocks attend a theater-style party and enjoy themselves.

The film successfully merges differing social groups as one, but the key here is that the film never does this in a contrived manner- it simply happens organically.

Some complaint about the age of some of the actors- many considerably older than teenage years- donning wigs, but that did not bother me. I enjoyed the maturity of the seasoned actors in these roles.

Linklater is a modern director daring to tell interesting stories about ordinary individuals with who the audience can immediately identify and that is what makes him a worthy talent of today.

A Serious Man-2009

A Serious Man-2009

Director Joel Coen, Ethan Coen

Starring Michael Stuhlbarg

Scott’s Review #582

Reviewed January 4, 2017

Grade: B

A Serious Man (2009) is a quirky, odd film that is a character study.

Directed by the Coen brothers who typically have an offbeat style to their films (No Country For Old Men-2007, and Fargo-1996 spring to mind), A Serious Man is no different, offering wonderful, richly written supporting characters.

The film, however, lacks the violence of other Coen Brothers films, instead, adding more humorous situations and an overall comical premise.

It tells the story of a Jewish Professor, Larry Gopnik (Michael Stuhlbarg), living in the 1960s, and has a string of bad luck. People close to Larry begin to drop dead all around him and he seems cursed with a string of bad luck.

The film centers around how he deals with crisis after crisis.

The first half of the film admittedly drags a bit, but the second part picks up nicely. The plot suddenly comes to a head rather quickly.

To stress, A Serious Man is a witty, dark comedy, so much of the dialogue is either tongue-in-cheek or dry.

The rabbis that Larry meets, combined with his son Danny and wife Judith are very funny and well-carved-out characters, many certain “types”.

The character of Larry also contained elements of the Larry David character on TV’s Curb Your Enthusiasm.

Also, for those cinema lovers who pay close attention to or have an appreciation for good set design, the film captures the 1960’s style (dress, furniture, cars), perfectly.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Original Screenplay

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 2 wins-Best Director-Joel and Ethan Coen, Best Cinematography (won), Robert Altman Award (won)

A Wedding-1978

A Wedding-1978

Director Robert Altman

Starring Carol Burnett, Mia Farrow, Paul Dooley

Scott’s Review #539

Reviewed December 17, 2016

Grade: A

A Wedding (1978) is an obscure, brilliant gem penned and directed by Robert Altman- a film genius and one of my most adored directors.

I love most of his movies and A Wedding is no exception. The creative way that Altman weaves intersecting storylines and dialogue, thereby creating a real-life tone, gives immense realism to his films.

In A Wedding, he takes a basic life event and turns it into a well-nuanced, fascinating, comical, yet dramatic story.

He is known for having enormous casts (in A Wedding it is forty-eight principles), but every character serves a purpose.

The viewer will feel that they are a fly on the wall of a real wedding.

Altman’s actors primarily improvise the dialogue, speaking at the same time, bringing a realistic edge. I adore this quality.

The film is a satire- people either love or loathe attending weddings and Altman’s film caters to the latter. He creates a setting, from the ceremony to the reception, riddled with awkward moments, and social guffaws.

In pure satirical, soap opera fashion, two wealthy families gather at a lavish estate for the ceremony to commence. Hilarity ensues when the corpse of the matriarch of one family lies in her bed, nobody realizing she is dead.

Other hi-jinks, such as the revelation of a nude, life-size portrait of the bride, the caterer falling ill, and a tornado wreaking havoc.

Slowly, secrets are revealed by the families, as the alcohol flows and the characters become involved in the perilous situations.

Altman does it again as he creates a masterpiece based on real-life situations that most can relate to.

Desperate Living-1977

Desperate Living-1977

Director John Waters

Starring Mink Stole, Liz Renay

Scott’s Review #534

60027260

Reviewed December 4, 2016

Grade: B

Desperate Living (1977) will not be everyone’s cup of tea. It is a raunchy, late-night comedy, similar to other John Waters-directed cult classics.

This one, however, suffers from the absence of Waters staple, Divine, who did not appear due to scheduling conflicts.

For this glaring omission, Desperate Living is not the greatest of the Waters films, but it is a fun experience all the same.

The film has choruses of political satire, specifically fascism, and overthrowing the government.

Mink Stole (Peggy Gravel) takes on the lead role as a crazed, mentally unhinged, neurotic woman on the lam with her maid, Grizelda, after they accidentally cause the death of Peggy’s husband.

Peggy has been in and out of mental hospitals and is clearly off her rocker as she yells at neighbors about communism.

After an encounter with a lewd police officer, the duo is banished to Mortville, a town filled with outcasts and social deviants. They align with others in the town to overthrow the tyrannical Queen Carlotta, played by Waters fixture Edith Massey.

Carlotta plots to spread rabies throughout the community and is at war with her daughter, Princess Coo Coo.

The issue with Desperate Living is the absence of Divine, originally set to play Mole McHenry, a self-loathing female wrestler, determined to receive a sex change operation.

One imagines the Divine in this important role, which was played by Susan Lowe, a capable star, but no Divine. With Divine in the part, the hilarious possibilities are endless.

Mink Stole carries the movie well, but traditionally being a supporting player in Waters’s films, is not quite the star the film needs to be a true success.

This is not to say that the film is a dud- it is entertaining and will please most Waters fans. It contains gross-out moments and vulgarity from the very first scene- as the opening credits roll, we see a roasted rat, daintily displayed on good china, on an eloquent dinner table, presumably to be served.

Later, Carlotta meets her fate by being roasted, pig style, on a spit with an apple in her mouth. Another character is executed by being shot in the anus. The offensive moments never end!

There also exists a quite controversial scene that I am surprised made the final cut. Peggy, already in a frazzled state due to a neighbor boy accidentally shooting out her bedroom window, is shocked to find another boy playing “doctor” with a little girl in her downstairs basement.

Both children are completely naked, leaving not much to the imagination. This scene is tough to watch as one wonders what the child actors thought of all of this.

I have never viewed another scene quite like this in film.

Otherwise, Desperate Living is filled with cartoon-like characters, lots of sexually deviant leather men, grizzled men with facial hair, and other odd-looking characters, making up the community of Mortville.

Water’s set creations for the exterior scenes of the town are great using mainly cardboard and rubbish he found throughout Baltimore where the film was shot, the sets show a bleak yet colorful underworld.

Desperate Living (1977) is a raunchy good time with over-the-top acting, trash-filled moments, and laugh-out-loud fun.

The lack of any Divine makes it not the first offering to watch from the Waters collection. Pink Flamingos (1972) and Female Trouble (1974) would take that honor.

Despicable Me-2010

Despicable Me-2010

Director Pierre Coffin, Chris Renaud

Starring Steve Carell, Jason Segel

Scott’s Review #526

70115629

Reviewed November 25, 2016

Grade: B-

My immediate reaction upon seeing Despicable Me (2010) is that it’s a cute film, just custom-made for the masses- children and families alike. This is fine, but I was honestly hoping for something a bit edgier or of more substance, but I did enjoy it at the same time.

The film is a fun, family-style affair for all ages with a nice story.

It tells of a villain, named Gru, who is in competition with other super-villains and hatches a plan to shrink and steal the moon.

He is reformed through three orphans (Margo, Edith, and Agnes) he first uses in his plan, but later comes to love and eventually adopts.

The orphans predictably reform Gru and bring out the nice man within him.

They change his life for the better.

There is nothing wrong with this film, nor is there anything tremendous about it either. I know some people loved it.

To me, Despicable Me (2010) was decent, but I wanted a bit more and perhaps a more complex or interesting plot, but that is just my taste talking.

You Again-2010

You Again-2010

Director Alan 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 parlay much credit to the film.

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 have undoubtedly been the case.

Bell is not my favorite actress, but alas she seems to be currently receiving 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 cliched with typical gags, and a “we have seen this before” story.

A gripe- Kristen Bell is a cute, sort of all-American, girl next door, but I would be remiss if I did not point out 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 fiancé and Bell’s character- they were high school rivals a generation before), You Again (2010) does get some meager credit.

Not much, but some.

Solitary Man-2009

Solitary Man-2009

Director Brian Koppelman, David Levien

Starring Michael Douglas, Susan Sarandon

Scott’s Review #508

70117589

Reviewed November 3, 2016

Grade: B-

Solitary Man (2009) is an indie drama that has good points and bad.

Michael Douglas stars as a one-time successful, but womanizing, car dealership owner who hits rough times and loses everything.

Michael Douglas’s performance is very good and believable as a cad who hits a difficult stretch in his life. As an actor, Douglas still possesses his good looks and charm despite being an older leading man by this time- he plays 60 very well.

The film centers around him and wisely so- despite the film containing other notable actors. His character of Ben Kalman has swagger and is narcissistic, but yet lovable at the same time and this is unmistakably due to Douglas’s talents.

Annoyingly, the supporting characters played by Susan Sarandon, Danny Devito, and Jesse Eisenberg are quite one-note and not interesting, which is a shame in light of their immense talents.

The story is okay, but nothing fantastic.

I felt as though I had seen films like this many times before- the quirky edge and the attempted dark humor with laughs and some melodrama mixed in was forgettable.

However, as a character study, the movie succeeds.

Solitary Man (2009) is recommended for Michael Douglas’s performance only.

April Fool’s Day-1986

April Fool’s Day-1986

Director Fred Walton

Starring Amy Steel, Jay Baker

Scott’s Review #498

60024022

Reviewed October 24, 2016

Grade: B-

Emerging at the tail end of the late 1970s and early 1980s slasher film craze that encompassed that period in cinema (for better or worse), April Fool’s Day (1986) capitalized on the “holiday theme” marketing tool that escalated Halloween and Black Christmas to superstar ranks.

Unfortunately, for this film, it is not a traditional horror flick, in that it has plenty of comic elements, but also contains the standard slasher characteristics, thereby making it a blockbuster failure.

It does not know what its identity truly is.

From a story perspective, the film has one great twist but otherwise suffers from mediocre writing and unmemorable characters that nobody cares about.

We are treated to an ensemble of actors, most of the unknown variety, except for horror maven Amy Steel, (Friday the 13th Part 2), who portrays Kit, arguably the most relatable of the female characters.

A clever facet, weaved by director Fred Walton, is the casting of eight principals in April Fool’s Day, all with similar amounts of screen time, rather than one obvious “final girl” surrounded by minor characters, who we know will be offed.

The set-up is all too familiar in the slasher genre- the group of college-aged kids escapes mundane life for a spring break weekend getaway at their wealthy classmates, Muffy St. John’s, island estate.

Conveniently, her family is away- leaving the friends to have the run of the mansion, with a dinner party as part of the plan. Even more convenient is that the ferry the group takes does not run on weekends, so once they are dropped off at the island, they stay until Monday.

This sense of foreshadowing gets the anticipated peril and dread going.

We also sense that there is something very off with Muffy- despite being everyone’s friend. When Muffy finds a jack-in-the-box stored in her attic and has a childhood recollection, we know this is the set-up to the mystery.

Is she mentally unstable? Is someone out to get Muffy for a childhood prank or event that once occurred?

Since it is April Fool’s Day weekend, the groups spend most of the film playing pranks and amateurish jokes on each other (a whoopee cushion, an exploding cigar), mixed with a dash of intrigue- someone is leaving trails of history as part of the jokes.

One girl had an abortion, so the prankster leaves an audiotape of a baby crying. In another room, heroin paraphernalia is left for someone with a former drug habit.

Slowly, one by one, the college kids disappear, but is it just a hoax? Or is the hoax just a hoax?

The final twenty minutes or so is really the main reason to watch this film. As Kit and boyfriend Rob is the last remaining “alive” there is suddenly a startling twist that changes the entire dynamic of the film- in one moment everything the audience thinks of the story is turned upside down-this is wise writing, but comes too late in the game.

Sadly, some parts of the film are downright silly and most of the characters are of the stock variety- the flirtatious blonde, the obnoxious jocks, the stuck-up preppy, which ruins the creative twist that is aforementioned.

With glimpses of genius and striving for something more clever than the standard, run-of-the-mill 1980s horror film, April Fool’s Day (1986) has some potential but ultimately winds up with something missing.

Show Me Love-1998

Show Me Love-1998

Director Lukas Moodysson

Starring Alexandra Dahlstrom, Rebecca Liljeberg

Scott’s Review #496

60000454

Reviewed October 22, 2016

Grade: B

Throughout the latter part of the 1990s, films with more of an LGBT perspective (then simply referred to as the gay and lesbian genre) were being released more readily, though it was not until the 2000s when mainstream offerings on the subject (Monster-2003, Brokeback Mountain-2006) hit the big screen to wide acclaim.

Show Me Love (1998) is a Swedish coming-of-age story about two high school girls, opposites in social acceptance, who find love.

Interestingly, the film was directed by a male- Lukas Moodysson.

Show Me Love originally had a different title, a crude reference to the town the film is set in, in western Sweden, but when the film was considered for Academy Award contention (it did not cut), filmmakers were advised to modify the title for the film to have any shot.

The film contains a grainy look- using handheld cameras in parts and, of course, is in the Swedish language.

Agnes is sullen, introverted, and brooding. Known throughout the high school hallways as the angry, weird lesbian, she has few friends, and the ones who are kind to her, she shuns away.

Elin, by contrast, is popular, lively, and charming- everybody loves her. However, Elin is restless in the tiny Swedish town where she lives and yearns for excitement. When Agnes develops a crush on Elin, she confesses all to her computer, but nobody else.

The film is nicely put together and given the time of 1998, is quite brave. Today, many years have passed and progress within the LGBT community made, a film like Show Me Love is a more common occurrence.

Director, Moodysson, does not go for anything gratuitous or steamy but rather spins a sweet coming-of-age tale, not only of teen love and hormones but of outcasts and feelings of loneliness.

It’s a film that most can relate to in some way.

The actresses portraying the leads (Dahlstrom and Liljeberg) are fantastic in their roles and play the parts with conviction and believability. Despite being opposites, we buy their attraction and chemistry. Nothing is forced or dishonest.

My favorite scenes are the awkward 16th birthday party for Agnes, thrown by her well-meaning yet clueless parents. When nobody except a handicapped girl shows up, Agnes viciously insults her, causing her to leave.

The family sits in the living room eating the food that was planned for anticipated guests. It’s a poignant moment and rather sweet. Despite Agnes’s unpopularity at school, she has a very strong, loyal family unit- that is nice to see.

Later, Elin and her sister attend the party, but more as an excuse to avoid another one. Finally, Elin and Agnes share a kiss, but is it a mean dare or is it authentic?

A clever aspect of the film is how Moodysson distinguishes both Elin and Agnes’s sexuality. Agnes is gay, open, and out. Elin is very different and has boys interested in her.

The girls could not be more different and this adds a layer of complexity as each is in a different place in self-discovery. This feature also makes Show Me Love very honest in its storytelling.

The film is not a masterpiece and could have dared to venture into more controversial territory. Could they be harmed for being lesbians given the town they live in? Why is Agnes so sullen?

This is a stereotype (the brooding lesbian) that needs to be changed- though, given the time of the film, I will give it a slight pass. Why not make Agnes a happy, cheerful girl who is gay? How will Elin’s sister deal with Elin’s sexuality or is it merely a phase for her?

All sorts of darker issues might have been explored, but Show Me Love (1998) is tender, sweet, and lighter fare, but still an adventurous offering.

The Witches-1990

The Witches-1990

Director Nicolas Roeg

Starring Angelica Huston

Scott’s Review #483

20282991

Reviewed September 20, 2016

Grade: B-

The Witches (1990) is a G-rated family film with a slightly dark tone that is done softly as the film is targeted at children. However, it is a film that adults may love too.

I found the film to be entertaining, with impressive special effects, and a dazzling comedic performance by Angelica Huston, but ultimately The Witches has a silly quality, though admittedly not trite, that does not completely make it a success in my book.

The film is based on a Roald Dahl children’s book – with predictably a child as the central character- similar to other Dahl novels that became films like James and the Giant Peach and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

I cannot help but wonder if my mediocre rating of The Witches has to do with the fact that I have not read the novel, as I have the other aforementioned novels in his collection.

Our hero in the story is Luke- a  kindly, innocent young boy living in Norway with his parents and grandmother- Helga. When his folks are tragically killed, his grandmother takes him to London to begin a new life for themselves.

When Helga falls ill, they stay at a seaside resort where they stumble upon a convention of witches disguised as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children.

Luke and his plump friend Bruno become victims of the witch’s plot to turn children into mice. The witch group is led by the Grand High Witch (Huston), whom the other witches fawn over with grandiose praise.

Huston is fantastic as she overacts the part she plays- this is not a bad thing but makes the role quite fun and energetic.

When she transforms from a glamorous woman to a shriveled monster, the transformation is interesting to watch and an impressive part of the film.

Furthermore, the way that Luke and Bruno interact when they are mice is also cute and a positive to the film.

I enjoyed the aspect that, if watched closely, can be seen involving the reveal that numerous witches are men with female wigs on. This successfully gives the witches a grotesque, obviously mannish quality and emits a chuckle of pleasure at the same time.

Still, there is something slightly childish or juvenile about the offering- while the film appears dark on the surface. The subject is rather played for laughs instead of going full steam ahead as a dark film.

Undoubtedly this is due to the target audience that the film is going for. For instance, the hotel manager and his affair with a hotel maid seem slightly unnecessary.

The Witches (1990) is a decent offering due to respect for the creative aspects that it elicits- I just felt the story might have been done a bit more seriously.

Additionally, the ending feels slightly forced and abrupt- a Hollywood-intended ending perhaps?

Date Night-2010

Date Night-2010

Director Shawn Levy

Starring Steve Carell, Tina Fey, Mark Wahlberg

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 Carrell 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 appealing to the masses.

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

And the entire film is incredibly plot-driven with no character development to speak of. If I am being too harsh, admittedly there is rather nice chemistry between the two leads, but it is wasted because of 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 but pretend to be another couple (the Tripplehorns) to obtain their table after the other couple’s no-shows. This leads to a tale of mistaken identity as the Tripplehorns possess a flash drive that a mobster (Ray Liotta) wants.

This then leads to a chase throughout Manhattan to outrun and outwit their pursuers. Wahlberg plays a hunky client of Claire’s, always shirtless, who is meant to threaten 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 nor 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 find myself noticing that each situation that occurs is a measure 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 the silly, 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.

Easy A-2010

Easy A-2010

Director Will Gluck

Starring Emma Stone

Scott’s Review #478

70123920

Reviewed September 10, 2016

Grade: B-

Easy A (2010) is an example of a film where some parts are good, and other parts are dumb. However, at the end of the day it is forgettable and who will remember a film like this in ten years?

The film is a teen comedy about a girl who makes up a rumor about herself to gain attention from her peers.

Emma Stone is great in this movie and shows the enormous potential of her budding film career. She reminds me a bit of Lindsay Lohan. She is likable and great at comedy and presents a fun persona.

Also deserving of credit is Lisa Kudrow who appears in the movie.

At times, the dialogue is intelligent and witty, other times it turns into a typical dumb comedy and that is sad because based on the star power involved, Easy A (2010) might have been a better film than it was.

Babe-1995

Babe 1995

Director Chris Noonan

Starring James Cromwell

Scott’s Review #475

268776-1

Reviewed September 9, 2016

Grade: B

Babe (1995) is a cute, charming family film about a pig who becomes a hero while living on a farm with a family of other animals and a farmer and his wife.

It is not a risky film from a story perspective- any doubts about a happy ending?- though here are props for some visual creativity.

And let’s face it- the film is sweet and heartwarming with not a mean bone in its body.

The film is an inspirational one, nice for kids no doubt, and the visual effects, i.e. how they edited the animal movements with voices successfully are well done and not tacky.

The film is predictable and harmless and I’m not sure I agree with the Best Picture or Best Supporting Actor (for James Cromwell) nominations it garnered, but it was enjoyable all the same.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Director-Chris Noonan, Best Supporting Actor-James Cromwell, Best Screenplay Based on Material Previously Produced or Published, Best Art Direction, Best Film Editing, Best Visual Effects (won)

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 was not looking forward to seeing this movie, and my initial thought was “typical dumb comedy” that has been seen a million times before.

While This is 40 (2012) does contain those elements and is marketed toward a certain target audience, this movie is, surprisingly, smartly written and intelligent…overall.

I have not viewed Knocked Up (2007), but I understand it’s a somewhat 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, though 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 Segal’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.

Bernie-2011

Bernie-2011

Director Richard Linklater

Starring Jack Black, Shirley MacLaine, Matthew McConaughey

Scott’s Review #472

70189906

Reviewed August 30, 2016

Grade: C-

Bernie (2011) is a film that, surprisingly, received critical acclaim, as well as Golden Globe and Independent Spirit Award nominations, but I was left quite disappointed with it.

Categorized as a dark comedy, it contains a morbid premise, which is not the issue, I just did not find it very good overall.

Despite being a true story of Bernie (Jack Black) marrying and murdering millionaire Marjorie Nugent (Shirley MacLaine) in Texas, the film is not compelling and is written too over the top.

Inexplicably, the townspeople refuse to believe Bernie’s obvious guilt.

To be fair, the film does contain a few funny and interesting moments and was based on factual events, but I didn’t feel connected to this movie as much as I expected and honestly found it a bit dull.

Jack Black is impressive as the title character but only because it is a departure from his usual slapstick film roles. I don’t get the accolades being heaped on him for his performance.

Shirley MacLaine and Matthew McConaughey are capable of the parts written for them, but one-note characters.

Meh.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Feature, Best Male Lead-Jack Black

Results-2015

Results-2015

Director-Andrew Bujalski

Starring-Guy Pearce, Kevin Corrigan

Scott’s Review #471

80038442

Reviewed August 29, 2016

Grade: C-

Other than one fantastic supporting performance by Kevin Corrigan, who should have been the star of this film, Results is an independent romantic comedy that lacks any real identity.

The film has trouble deciding which couple the audience is meant to root for leaving me to root for none of them, and frankly, a bit bored with the overall script.

Still, Corrigan and to some degree Guy Pearce makes it a tolerable watch.

Corrigan plays Danny, a newly wealthy average joe type, who joins a gym presumably to achieve a supportive network of friends, as he is new in town- Austin, Texas.  He meets Trevor (Pearce), who owns a local gym, and is trained by the moody Kat (Cobie Smulders).

The three individuals’ lives intersect as a triangle of sorts develops.

Kevin Corrigan, who has appeared in numerous independent films over his decades-long career, as well as blockbusters such as Goodfellas, completely steals the show and is the main reason to tune in.

His acting is effortless as he plays a lonely, rich man looking for human connections. He is troubled but has a comic, sardonic wit that shines and gives him needed vulnerability. We want him to find happiness despite being unlikable.

Speaking of unlikeable, Smulders as Kat is a frigid iceberg with attitude for miles. Why anyone- let alone two men- would have interest in her is beyond me.

Pearce is appealing as the good-natured, aspiring to be successful businessman named Trevor, who is buff beyond belief- to enormous credit since Pearce is no spring chicken. Otherwise, we know little about his character. He is not in love with Kat, then suddenly seems to be.

Kat warms to Danny but then is in love with Trevor. The entire romantic entanglement is quite silly and no chemistry exists among any of the principles.

The casting of Giovanni Ribisi as a stoner lawyer and Anthony Michael Hall (The Breakfast Club from the 1980s) as a fitness guru are pointless.

The fitness/gym angle is sort of cool if one- as I am- is a fan of physical fitness. It is a nice little lesson as Kat teaches Danny basic core exercises. But after too many scenes of Kat drinking kale shakes and jogging incessantly, or Trevor eating egg white omelets and body strengthening, the message is overkill. They are fitness buffs- we get it.

The biggest fail is how the film begins focusing on Danny and Kat as a potential romantic couple, then suddenly shifts gears, making Kat and Trevor the main couple, with Danny on the outside looking in. It really makes little sense, and by that point, I was rather bored anyway and the film just petered out for me.

Results have shreds of potential with better-structured story-telling, but the film misses good potential in many areas- underdeveloped characters and a meandering plot are a couple of major problem points.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Supporting Male-Kevin Corrigan

Trainwreck-2015

Trainwreck-2015

Director-Judd Apatow

Starring Amy Schumer, Bill Hader

Scott’s Review #463

80036402

Reviewed August 13, 2016

Grade: B

Trainwreck is a raunchy 2015 comedy/romantic comedy that lends its success largely to its star.

Amy Schumer makes this film as good as it can be (after all, she wrote it) and despite the raunchy, brazen, 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.

Directed by Judd Apatow, who has successfully directed a gazillion of these types of films in modern times.

The film does teeter off 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- 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 many stereotypical characters or characters who are merely there to bounce off of the main action- SNL alum Vanessa Bayer, and Tilda Swinton is 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.

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

Schumer is quite likable as the ordinary girl- think of her as the new Melissa McCarthy- that many people can relate to. I am not sure Schumer and Hader had the best chemistry, but the point was more 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 very funny. Others, as when Amy and Steven banter with an angry couple at the movie theater, fall flat.

Certainly not high art, for the raunchy comedy genre, Trainwreck is a treat and entertaining to watch, in large part due to the comedic talents of Amy Schumer.

More often than not, when the masses rave about a current comedy as being “great”, I am usually disappointed. While Trainwreck is not great, it is good, with some laughs.

Otherwise, it is a rather by the numbers film.

Café Society-2016

Café Society-2016

Director-Woody Allen

Starring-Jesse Eisenberg, Steve Carell

Scott’s Review #462

80106775

Reviewed August 11, 2016

Grade: B+

Having received sub-par reviews, but wanting to see this film for me, as it is a Woody Allen film, and I have yet to see an Allen film I did not like, I traversed to my local theater to see this flick.

I was not disappointed, though others did not share my opinion.

To love Woody Allen films is to love quirky characters who are either neurotic, damaged, or more often than not, both.

Also notable to Café Society is the stellar cast of who’s who- many in small cameo roles, but which is another trademark of Woody Allen films.

Marisa Tomei, Daniel Radcliffe, and Anna Camp (True Blood) have very small roles as do stars such as Sheryl Lee (Twin Peaks), and Tony Sirico (The Sopranos).

Additionally, Woody Allen himself narrates the film- a highlight.

The main stars of Café Society, though, are Jesse Eisenberg and Kristen Stewart, both perfectly cast.

The setting (which I adored) is 1930’s Hollywood and the action traverses between California and New York City- another common bond of Allen films.

Eisenberg plays Bobby Dorfman, a Jewish son of a working-class jeweler, who has many siblings. Tired of New York, he flies to Los Angeles to obtain work with his hot shot Uncle Phil, played by Steve Carrell, who knows every celebrity under the sun.

There, he meets Vonnie (Stewart) and they fall in love, Bobby unaware of her on and off love affair with Phil.

The set and costume designs are to die for and, being a fan of this glamorous time in history, is a wonderful treat from a visual perspective.

Café Society is a prime example of a film that feels authentic to its time rather than appearing staged with actors merely dressed up in appropriate attire. This is tougher to achieve than one might imagine.

Despite opinions of the contrary, I enjoyed how most of the characters were wishy-washy and unsure of their motivations or feelings toward other characters.

Vonnie loves Phil, then she warms to Bobby, who has been in love with her since their first meeting as she innocently showed him around the palatial mansions of Hollywood.

She is real to Bobby, but then makes a decision and becomes everything that she once despised about Hollywood- a shallow trophy wife.

Ironically, back in New York, Bobby then becomes involved with a stunning new woman with the same name as his ex. The importance of this coincidence is crucial to the film’s point. He transfers his feelings to another woman, but is he really happy?

It did not bother me, though perhaps it should have, that several characters were introduced for a scene or two and then mysteriously dropped.

For instance, the novice hooker, Candy, having tried to make it as an actress and failed, has a heart of gold. But after her awkward attempt at a tryst with Bobby, the character is never seen again.

Another characteristic of the film that I enjoyed is the natural, overlapping dialogue between the characters. It makes them that much more genuine and harkens back to my fondness for Robert Altman films, which used a similar technique with his actors.

The point of Café Society is that nobody ever gets what they want or, the film is making a point of, nobody ever really knows what they want.

Containing elements common to other Woody Allen films, Café Society is intended for fans of his lengthy body of work.

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 is admittedly not my genre of choice, though I will watch some for light entertainment purposes or to see just how bad (or good) current offerings are.

Nonetheless, I have tried to put myself in a mindset of having low expectations for these types of films that are by and large fluff and plot-driven.

In the case of Sisters, the film is pretty much as one 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, there is something that works about this film- 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, respectively, two late thirties sisters, living in other areas of the country, who return home to Orlando, Florida, when their parents (James Brolin and Dianne Wiest) sell their childhood home. Maura and Kate have been tasked with cleaning out their bedrooms in time for the sale.

The sisters come up with an idea to throw one final bash and invite their high school classmates, who all 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 sub-plots consisting of a romantic interest for Maura, and a rival for Kate, played by Maya Rudolph.

The best part of the film is the chemistry between Poehler and Fey. They simply “have it” whether it is a Saturday Night Live sketch, hosting the Golden Globe awards, or starring in Sisters. The banter and the jokes work well because the two comics work well together 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 in this style of the film (now more female-driven than in years past) is the leading ladies being class-less and 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 set this precedent).

Not surprisingly, the supporting characters are all caricatures as is typically the case in films of this genre. The parents are a bit clueless, 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 rather 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 such 1980’s films as E.T. and Out of Africa, as well as a poster of heartthrob Tom Cruise, hang on the walls.

This and many other references that Generation X’ers will take delight from in this film are pointed out, so that is a treat and a positive of the film.

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

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

Rather, a full-length SNL sketch including many alumni. It is harmless fun.

Frankenweenie-2012

Frankenweenie-2012

Director Tim Burton

Starring Catherine O’Hara, Martin Short

Scott’s Review #454

70219496

Reviewed July 23, 2016

Grade: B

Frankenweenie is a very creative Tim Burton-made, stop-motion film that received a nomination for Best Animated Feature at the 2012 Oscars.

On the dark side, it is a pleasure to watch for the thought-invoked and left-of-center approach as compared to many safe modern animated features.

The story revolves around a lonely young man who experiments on his recently deceased dog to bring him back to life.

It is a black and white film, has nice horror references (Frankenstein, Bride of Frankenstein) and interesting characters.

It is also heartwarming as the child’s love for the dog is evident.

The movie is easy to compare to 2012’s ParaNorman in multiple ways (lonely male teen, both dark films).

As much as I give major props to this film for the creativity involved, somehow it did not completely connect with me (I liked ParaNorman better) and I’m not sure why, but I have great respect for the creative achievements it encompasses.

Oscar Nominations: Best Animated Feature Film

ParaNorman-2012

ParaNorman-2012

Director Chris Butler, Sam Fell

Starring Kodi Smit-McPhee, Anna Kendrick

Scott’s Review #453

70217914

Reviewed July 23, 2016

Grade: B+

ParaNorman (2012) is a highly imaginative and very enjoyable, animated film that I admired a great deal.

Creative colors and images are key and the film is stop-motion.

Despite being animated it is not a kid’s movie but rather geared toward the teenager or older demographic.

It is among the strongest, along with Frankenweenie, a similar type film, of the five nominated films for Best Animated feature, in the year 2012.

ParaNorman is so similar to Frankenweenie that they could almost be simultaneously reviewed or watched on the same day.  Both center around an isolated young male coping with his surroundings and both contain a light horror feel to them.

In ParaNorman, an army of zombies invades a small, suburban town, and our hero, Norman, a strange young man who can communicate with the dead, must save the day.

The film contains sympathetic peers, but the adults in the film present various obstacles.

I have gone on record as being not much of an animated film fan, but I do view the best of each year and this one impressed me immensely.

Oscar Nominations: Best Animated Feature Film

Ruby Sparks-2012

Ruby Sparks-2012

Director Jonathan Dayton, Valerie Faris

Starring Paul Dano, Zoe Kazan

Scott’s Review #442

70213510

Reviewed July 4, 2016

Grade: B

Ruby Sparks is a smart, creative, indie film released in 2012.

The film’s theme is fantasy versus reality as the main character is a troubled writer who envisions a character he has created is real.

Is she real or isn’t she?

The film centers around a writer (Paul Dano) with writer’s block who creates an imaginary dream girl (Zoe Kazan), who magically comes to life, one day.

This is an interesting premise and the film has some big-named actors (Annette Bening, Eliot Gould, Antonio Banderas) in small roles which is a delight to see.

The chemistry is lacking between the two leads and the film delves too much into a typical romantic comedy.

Additionally, the film never explains if it is going for seriousness or purely the writer’s imagination, but I admire its creativity and thoughtful premise.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Screenplay

Gayby-2012

Gayby-2012

Director Jonathan Lisecki

Starring Jenn Harris, Mathew Wilkas

Scott’s Review #441

70234883

Reviewed July 3, 2016

Grade: C+

Gayby (2012) is a sketch-type comedy about two best friends (a gay man and a straight woman) who decide to have a child together.

Both have reached a certain age and are unhappy to have not found the perfect mate. The story is not novel and feels more like a Saturday Night Live sketch than a film.

The film is also playing on the success of television comedies like NBC’s Will and Grace, the obvious dynamic of the central characters.

The two leads are quite appealing in a comic way, have wit (Jenn Harris is deliciously neurotic), and have great timing.

The subject matter is interesting, though as years go by and more LGBTQ+ topics are covered,  it is becoming rather dated and not novel anymore.

The negative is the frenetic, quick pacing of the film, ultimately making it rather off-putting and annoying, to say nothing of the irritating stereotypical, supporting characters.

They are written so over-the-top that it is tough to take the film as seriously as it should be taken.

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best First Screenplay