A Matter of Taste

I was reflecting on Ben Stiller's career recently and found myself very split about everything that he has offered the masses. I love whenever he tries his hand at being an auteurish writer/director/star evidenced by the fantastic comedy romps Zoolander and last year's Tropic Thunder that blend outrageousness with actual sentimental comedy. And his characters in both are outlandish and hysterical.

In addition to these personal moments, he has also managed to completely steal some movies through his portrayal of some ridiculous characters in which he completely loses himself in the quirks and nuances of some particularly hateful people. In this case, I'm thinking of his roles in Heavyweights, Happy Gilmore, Dodgeball and even The Royal Tenanbaums to a certain extent.

These characters are not what the movies are remembered for but everytime I see them again (on tv of course) I find myself amazed at how he basically set a precedent for the Will Ferrell ignorant archetype that the team of Danny McBride and Jody Hill has perfected in recent times (more on that later). Like take his retirement home wacko in Happy Gilmore. He only apears in a few scenes, but when I was watching it, a mere glipse of the home reminded me of the hilarity which was about to ensue as Ben Stiller was about to intimidate Happy's grandma.

The problem is, these priceless characters are juxtaposed rather negatively with his romantic comedy roles where he always seems to try and act like the down-to-Earth guy that's frustrated with the ridiculous people around him. (Perhaps this rom-com character has become exasperated with the much funnier characters that replace him) In this vein, we're talking Meet the Parents, Duplex, Along Came Polly, The Heatbreak Kid, even Starsky and Hutch (where he's supposed to be outlandish) and my much beloved There's Something About Mary. Whenever I think about his roles in these films, I think of him yelling in that Ben Stiller, frustrated way such as appeared in all the Heartbreak trailers as I remember. I absolutely hate this character even if some of the movies are close to my heart.

The only conclusion I can come up with is that he's doing a Steven Soderbergh type thing where he does mainstream rom-coms in that realistic way making his independent outlandish turns a reality in an unspoken deal with studios. He seems like he enjoys being a Zoolander type more often than not (as evidenced by his Joaquin Phoenix turn at the Oscars this year) but then why does he come back to the rom-com role time and time again. Is this what audiences want to see? For now, I'll place him in the Brad Pitt category of being a character actor stuck in a leading man's body. This would explain the relative unattractness of all of his characters (both physically and mentally). I mean: what's not to love?

The Marlon Welles Awards

Introducing the Marlon Welles Awards, the awards dedicated the whatever the fuck I thought was cool in cinema year to year. Note: technical categories cut in favor of what I just described.

Current categories include (but may be extended upon later):

Best Picture
Best Director
Best Actor
Best Actress
Best Supporting Actor
Best Supporting Actress
Best Original Screenplay
Best Adapted Screenplay
Best Animated Picture

The Real Deal (my top 10)
Best Line
Best Montage
Best Comedic Performance
Best Scene Stealer
Most Surprising Moment
Most Ridiculous Moment
Most Innovative Moment
Best Opening Credits
Best Music
Best Use of a Song
Best Trailer
Best Use of a Song in the Trailer
Best "Best Moment of the Film"


I'll have to update previous posts now. Damn.

Quick Hits

A few movies that I have been catching up on lately.

Synecdoche, New York

I was determined that, after watching this movie, I wouldn't be as befuddled as everyone else seems to be when they see it. And frankly, I failed. It seems that with each of these Charlie Kaufman films I never quite get invested in the story and seem to always think about what possibly could go through Kaufman's mind in envisioning these films. After watching one of the DVD features, Kaufman was described as an auteur and he is one in every sense of the word. While the auteur theory seems to apply to directors more often than not, Kaufman established himself as one through his sheer bizarre writings and now, with this film, established himself from the director's chair.

I kept thinking to myself throughout the film how cool the idea is: to look at oneself truly, one has to build a replica of his life and observe himself. I think the movie is generally about observing oneself from the outside similar to how posthumous narrators in movies like Sunset Blvd. and American Beauty seem to revel in their pathetic existence but I couldn't quite grasp everything that Kaufman was throwing at me. Wikipedia tells me the significance of motifs like the burning house but I don't think my mind can wrap itself around these things (sidenote: I REALLY need to stop consulting wikipedia while I watch movies). There is no denying my respect for the film and for pretty much anything PSH does but I never seem to able to understand Kaufman.

Grade: C+

Kill Me Again

As part of my film noir class, we've finally reached the neo-noir section and I'm loving it. Michael Madsen is the true modern embodiment of the noir actor and Val Kilmer does a quaint job filling in the gumshoe character established by Bogie et al. I think Joanne Whaley is trying to be a femme fatale but tends to fail and just be more of a nuissance and a damsel in distress, even when she shoots Jack Andrews (such a gumshoe name) at the end. I was surprised that I had never hear of this John Dahl fellow beforehand but you can really tell how much he loves film noir and this film only proves how the noir has to be adapted so hard for it to work in modern society. It's not that I didn't like the movie, I just didn't feel the dark tones of a true noir and instead only got the general plotline of one.

Thematically, though, it's a pretty good homage to the themes of the golden age. The desert provides a haunting backdrop for the existentialist, isolationist ideas that makes noir so gritty. By the end of the film, these were relatively thrown out in favor of James Bond action sequences even down to the bad guys driving their car into a gas thing and exploding. (It even had the 80s Timothy Dalton look to it.) I think this is a good debut for John Dahl and I look forward to seeing his other movies like Red Rock West and The Last Seduction which I hear are quite good.

Grade: B

Groundog Day

Words cannot begin to describe how much I loved this movie. Every second I think about it I like it more and more. I think my favorite part about it is the fact that the overall message is nothing that hasn't already been tred upon in films like The Christmas Carol: A Bad man finds himself frozen in time and reflects upon the life he has led. I have found that Harold Ramis can do no wrong (leading to my ever increasing expectations for Year One this Summer) and he shapes this film with as little cynicism as possible (except of course coming from the mouth of the legendary Bill Murray). And that's where this reflection begins and ends: with Bill Murray.

I like to think that the audience's emotional roller coaster follows the same path as Phil Conners as he slowly goes from comedic to tragic to hopeful about his predicament (by the way, I love that we never know why he's repeating the same day; it doesn't matter). Bill Murray manages to make every scene he is in somewhat comedic, dramatic, and tragic all at the same quirky time. I honestly felt invested in his tribulations, something that rarely happens to me, and felt generally ecstatic at the end (although I wish the movie would go on as long as Phil Conners' day). Best line by far: "Don't drive angry. Do not drive angry." I found out that Tom Hanks was wanted by Ramis for the film and Hanks said that the audience couldn't see him as a bad man so it wouldn't work. Murray is the rarest of actors: likeable and unlikeable, funny and sad, great and bad, all at the same time.

Grade: A

Seven Pounds

WHAT? That's all I can really say about this. Will Smith and Rosario Dawson do a good job but this movie was doomed when the writer thought of the idea. All I will write is questions: Why the jellyfish? Couldn't his brother have come earlier? Why is everyone crying the entire time? Barry Pepper? Woody Harrelson? Why is it so obvious that he's going to die from the beginning? Why does the editing suck? Why do Rosario and Woody cry and hug without any other words? WHY DIDN'T ANYONE STOP WILL SMITH FROM DOING THIS? (This refers to both the actor and to his character in the film)

Grade: D

This is Spinal Tap

This was one of those inevitable films that I hadn't yet seen up until this weekend. As these films usually go, my expectations going into it are far greater than the movie could possibly deliver. The best movies in my mind are the ones that sneak up on me and, even with expectations, still manage to subvert what I thought I would be watching.

My point is, while watching this rockumentary/mockumentary, I was amused yet not blown away. Blame it on the 1AM screening or perhaps the sleep deprivation but all I could think about was the futures that these people would go on to have. Rob Reiner would go on to When Harry Met Sally and then other iconic rom-coms. Harry Shearer found a place with five other kunckle heads at this thing called The Simpsons. Michael McKean would go on to mediocre SNL status and finally, Christopher Guest would of course go on to legendary status in the cringe department through more mockumentaries.

As always happens in mockumentary style entertainment, I enjoyed the film but nothing was particularly laugh out loud funny. I find improv very intriguing and, since Robert Osbourne told me beforehand that most of the dialouge was improved, I was fascinated by the things that the guys were saying as well as their attempts to keep a straight face. Suffice to say, everything about the movie was well done but I'm not quite in Spinal Tap mania right now.

Grade: B

Recent Times

I figured I should reflect on the new movies I've been seeing (while I'm still catching up on the festival films of 2008).

Coraline

I had not read the book before seeing this neither did I have amazing expectations for it when I saw it. I remember seeing James and the Giant Peach when I was a kid and thinking it was pretty cool. As I sometimes do, I waited to hear some critics opinions of it before seeing it.

As I was watching (in 3D, naturally), I was astounded. I could not believe these images were being processed in my mind at the moment. I think my favorite part of it is that there is nothing too subtle thematically about the movie. Too often movies are hindered by unnecessary metaphors and themes that seem out of place (here's looking at you, Doubt). Not here. I guess it's the fact that animated movies are supposed to attract children that they structure it so simply. By the way, there is no way that 1) children understood what the fuck was going on and 2) that movie should have been rated PG (under normal conditions). Coraline is dark, deceptive and artistically rich. I loved Ian McShane and got really excited when I heard John Hodgeman's voice. This easily is the best movie I've seen in 3D (for reasons critics have already stated) and I was emotionally invested in ways that live action movies can never do so. If this movie isn't nominated for Best Animated Picture, I will be woefully disappointed (especially since it came out in January).

Grade: B+

2009 Marlon Welles Awards Nominee:

Best Animated Picture

Watchmen

I'm really only writing about this out of necessity since I haven't seen too many new movies recently (Paul Blart is not very appealing) and since I read the graphic novel (book?) right before. I can see why so many people were anticipating the movie beforehand. I don't read many comic books but Watchmen was so rich in each issue and I was amazed by how each issue was an individual piece of art while still maintaining the general themes and plots throughout the series.

But I digress, this is supposed to be about the movie. I generally walked out of the theater feeling "meh." I wasn't blown away but I appreciated seeing the characters I had read about come to the screen. Zack Snyder didn't do anything very revolutionary in making the movie (can we please stop calling him a visionary? he has adapted two graphic novels and remade a horror classic, nothing original) but he still did justice to the novel. I was not distracted by the length simply because I was following the novel in my mind while I was watching (I think I'm immune to lengthy movies. Case in point-BenjButt was a piece of cake for me). I WAS however distracted by Snyder's incessant need to add horror aspects to the movie simply because he can. The fight scenes were rightfully brutal but a little convaluted while seeing Rorschach throw an axe into that sleazebag's head was really unnecessary. I did like Jackie Earle Haley and Jeffrey Dean Morgan (they should go on SNL's Neal Patrick Harris three name show) but thought everyone else was just mediocre. Not necessarily bad but the movie wasn't about the actors to begin with. I did warm up to the music in the end though it was distracting at first. Overall, Snyder has created something not too memorable but very safe in adhering to the novel.

Grade: B-

P.S. Now about that sex scene...

2009 Marlon Welles Awards Nominee:

Best Opening Credits
Best Trailer
Best Use of a Song in a Trailer: "The End is the Beginning is the End" by The Smashing Pumpkins
Best Montage: Opening credits
Best Use of a Song: "The Times They Are a-Changin'" by Bob Dylan during the opening credits


I Love You, Man

I'm still reflecting on this one and am actually wanting to go see it a second time to be sure about it. What I do know is that I absolutely adore both Paul Rudd and Jason Segal and thought this movie really worked if only for the leads. I actually walked out of it thinking that as opposed to many Apatow films where the leads usually get the spotlight taken from them by a far supreme supporting cast, this film was all about the leads and less about the supporting cast. Afterwards I realized that it wasn't that the supporters (Favreau, Jaime Pressley, Samberg, J.K. Simmons, the Hulk, Joe Lo Truglio and others) were necessarily bad but that Segal and Rudd were just THAT much better.

I loved everytime the two of them had any sort of interaction. I loved the interweaving of Rush mania (continuing the theme of bringing back old bands from the Kisstastic Role Models). And I absolutely adored watching Rudd struggle with trying to make a guy friend. I don't think I've still had an opportunity to think about whether the movie worked because of the actors solely or because of a combination of the actors and the script. This was not an Apatow film (John Hamberg=Meet the Fockers? really?) but it had everything having to do with one. I'll definitely see it again to be sure about it.

Grade (tentative): B

2009 Marlon Welles Awards Nominee:

Best Comedic Performance: Jason Segal
Best Line: "I'm slappin' da bass!"
Best Music
Best Use of a Song in the Trailer: "Campus" by Vampire Weekend, "Guero" by Beck

Adventureland

I literally just got back from seeing this movie and I have to say this is the best movie I have seen this year so far.

Too often teenage coming of age tales get bogged down by some mission that the protagonist has to go on (Superbad, Nick and Norah, The Wackness...these are just ones I've seen recently and by the way, I love Superbad) but Adventureland is much more than just a vehicle for James Brennan (the fabulously layered Jesse Eisenberg) to get rid of his virginity. He already went through the high school years and we meet him as he's about to finally escape from his hometown to something artistically better. But of course he doesn't have money and needs to work at a shitty theme park to pay for his art. The trick about this movie is that sentimentality is perfectly blended with comedy to make outlandish statements like "I think I'm falling in love with her" seem plausible. Adventureland doesn't try to be anything besides Brennan's exploration of his life through his job at a theme park. On the other hand, Nick and Norah tries to be a love letter about New York while The Wackness tries to be something about the 90s and self realization.

Adventureland doesn't do anything like this. It is set in the 80s but you couldn't tell through Brennan's attire or through his actions. The setting just serves for comedy in the way everyone else is dressed and how everyone is obsessed with Rock Me Amadeus. Case in point, any time Lisa P. seems to be overly challenged, she can just dance her way out of it. Every single love scene in the movie is shot without irony by Greg Mottolla and you can tell he loves every single frame he has shot. I thought Kristen Stewart showed amazing range throughout the movie and I'm eager to see what she has to give in the future. Jesse Eisenberg is wonderfully layered as he escapes from the awkward Michael Cera stereotype set before him to become an awkward kid who realizes he is awkward is isn't bogged down with untouchable earnestness (as in, Michael Cera in Superbad). Brenna is an artistic intellectual who simply has not much experience is trying to woo girls. If he does one thing better than Cera it's sarcasm.

And the supporting cast is just as good and hypocritical. I like how Martin Starr's Joel claims to be in love with Lisa P. at the beginning supposedly driven by his male impulses but then gets mad at Brennan for pursuing his own impulses. See, this is real life. There are no perfectly moral characters in the real world and everyone says things that oppose other things they believe in. In a similar fashion, Ryan Reynolds is a stock type character as the rocker who uses stories to get girls yet he also has his own shit to deal with. He is married against his will and releases his frustration in seducing other girls. And the movie doesn't waste time with setting up some kind of rivalry between Brennan and Connell. That's real. I also like how the movie didn't try to make Bill Hader and Kristen Wiig the center of attention in every scene they're in. Of course they steal all their scenes ("I ran out of googly eyes a while ago...", "just give me a reason!") but they're not set up to.

In the end, yes Brennan goes to New York and tries to get Emily back and succeeds but Mottolla makes it seem like it really doesn't matter how long they last afterwards. The fact is that Brennan finally has realized that he wants to pursue what he wants and not what is convenient to him (Lisa P.). I absolutely adored the experience inside the theater and wanted to watch it again immediately. Everyone and anyone that had something to do with this movie gets "big ups" from me (thank you Ali G.)

Grade: A-

2009 Marlon Welles Awards Nominee:

Best Picture
The Real Deal
Best Scene Stealer: Bill Hader and Kristen Wiig's duo
Best Music
Best Use of a Song: "Rock Me Amadeus" by Falco
Best Use of a Song in the Trailer: "Blister in the Sun" by The Violent Femmes

Meanwhile...In TV Land

As I was settling in to watch a gloriously geeky new episode of "The Big Bang Theory," I was audibly distracted by the incessant laugh track forcing me to laugh. Then I began to wonder: why has nobody ever minded the laugh track? I realize it's supposed to make audiences at home feel like their among other people so they'll enjoy it more, but wasn't the time for that at the beginning of television? Don't get me wrong, Seinfeld is arguably the most consistently funny show in history and it used a laugh track, but I feel like I would have liked it just as much if it didn't have a laugh track.


And then we have shows like Scrubs, Arrested Development and 30 Rock which have no laugh track and seem like they are classier because of it. Are laugh tracks supposed to symbolize mainstream shows. Think about it. The highest rated comedies on television right now are Two and Half Men and apparently Rules of Engagement for CBS. Both are only on because of viewership and are not very intelligent comedies. Whereas the struggling shows like 30 Rock and Scrubs and past casualties like Arrested Development have no laugh track and people seem to shun them because of it. Is it that laugh tracks have become so commonplace that anything without one is deemed higher brow and complicated? Seinfeld defied this. It got high ratings and it was a moderately intelligent comedy (it's a show about nothing?). I dream of a day when people will warm up to intelligent comedies without bothersome laugh tracks.