Tag Archives: Casey Wilson

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 primarily good if I’m judging in overall terms- most I liked with a bit of criticism.

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

Still, I was both impressed and unimpressed by James Franco’s performance in the lead role. I was awed at the actor’s emergence 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 to make 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 nonfiction book The Disaster Artist. The book 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 ever made.

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

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

The Los Angeles setting resonates with me, as does the recurring theme of struggle in the Hollywood scene. These are significant pluses of the film as a whole.

Los Angeles can appear to be a sunny and glamorous town, but beneath its shiny exterior, it always has a gloomy, dark underbelly.

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

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

When Tommie brazenly approaches an influential 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 fantastic 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 genuinely love it.

The sweet, empowering theme of friendship and empowerment is also to be celebrated, especially given the cutthroat 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 initial audience reaction to The Room premiere.

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

It is interesting to note, and not evident to me while watching the film, 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, long, stringy brown hair, and seemingly cross-eyed. The role is comedic and ideally suited for an unusual actor like 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. It stays true to some fine Hollywood history—the famous James Dean is referenced, and the spot where he died is even visited—nice touch! Franco is both good and disappointing in the main role.

All in all, this one is worth watching for those who enjoy filmmaking, Hollywood, or L.A.-set films.

Oscar Nominations: Best Adapted Screenplay

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: Best Male Lead-James Franco

Why Him?-2016

Why Him? -2016

Director John Hamburg

Starring John Franco, Bryan Cranston

Scott’s Review #704

Reviewed December 6, 2017

Grade: D

Why Him? (2016) is epic film drivel starring quite capable actors in a mish-mash of dull, predictable stories, obnoxious characters, and a need to attempt to go raunchier and raunchier for a cheap laugh.

Why there is a market for films like this is beyond me as no thinking is required (maybe the film will please those fans!), but the film scores slightly higher than a solid “F” based solely on a few chuckles uttered thanks to the only dim bright spots in this mess, Bryan Cranston and Megan Mullally.

A story told dozens of times before in “slapstick comedy” fare, the premise is tired beyond belief. A good girl meets a bad boy, they fall head over heels in love and must deal with the aftermath of her parent’s meeting, and hating the bad boy.

The main gimmick is the rivalry between boyfriend and girlfriend’s father, like an unfunny Meet the Parents (2000).  A silly and uninteresting plot point about each character’s business success or lack thereof is mixed in as if anyone cares.

As with all films of this ilk, the story is wrapped up in a neat, tidy little bow by the time the credits roll, and all characters live happily ever after in perfect harmony.

In one of his most disappointing roles, James Franco plays Laird Mayhew, the wealthy, eccentric, thirty-something CEO of an upstart video game company.

He is foul-mouthed and comically speaks his mind or absentmindedly shows his ass on a Skype chat with his girlfriend Stephanie (Zoey Deutch) while her parents are linked to the chat at a birthday party.

Stephanie, a college student and girlfriend of Laird, invites her parents, Ned and Barb (Cranston and Mullally), along with their fifteen-year-old Scotty, for the Christmas holidays.

Predictably, Stephanie’s parents are appalled by Laird and want her to have nothing to do with him. When Stephanie arranges for Ned, Barb, and Scotty to stay at Laird’s spacious home, the antics take off as feuds and misunderstandings erupt.

The main problem with Why Him? is that director John Hamburg (famous for mainstream comedies such as Along Came Polly, 2004, and I Love You, Man, 2009) seems determined to push the raunchy comedy elements further with this idiotic film.

He makes Laird as obnoxious and crass as possible yet tries to make the character more “likable” by giving him a clueless quality; therefore, he is not mean-spirited and should be beloved by the audience.

The character does not work. Franco has played terrific roles- specifically in 127 Hours (2010) and  Howl (2010). As a fan of the talented actor, I expected more from him, but alas, some performances are only as good as the written material.

If there is a bright spot worth mentioning, it is with the casting of Cranston and Mullally.

Two actors are undeniably good at physical comedy. They do as much as they can with poorly written, stock-type roles. Cranston’s Ned, a middle-class small business owner from Grand Rapids, Michigan, is both envious and resentful of Laird, perhaps admiring the young man’s business savvy and regretting not being as successful.

Barb is a one-note, ditzy yet lovable wife, a role made slightly better by Mullally’s goofy portrayal. In one of the best scenes, Barb smokes pot and becomes a mess in her bedroom.

The following day, Ned is trapped on the toilet and has an embarrassing experience with Laird’s best friend, Gustav. While these scenes are juvenile, they are made better by the funny actors.

Suffering greatly from a tired and overused storyline that falls flat, unlikable, and dull characters, the film offers nothing of substance or worth.

Why Him? (2016) is entirely plot-driven with no character development or well-written characters.

The film is a complete waste of time. It results from a studio hoping to achieve box office success by churning out a poor comedy with wasted talent that will please only those audiences not expecting much from their films.

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 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).

Julie 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

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.