Hot Tub Time Machine
Godard once said the best way to criticize a movie is to make another movie. Steve Pink’s “Hot Tub Time Machine” certainly takes valuable swipes at the 1980’s, and the amazing thing is that for two-thirds of the film, it does transform itself into a highly enjoyable 80’s romp. It’s just that the other third, obsessed with that displeasing state of “now” humor (which equals improvised comedy full of vulgar, mean spirited put downs and gross out sight gags) high jacks some of the fun. Still, for an hour or so, “Hot Tub Time Machine” is a sharp comedy with cosmic overtones. Starring the always likable John Cusack- who established himself in 80’s comedies and seems to feel right at home as one of the four modern men who find themselves trapped back in 1986 on one eventful night that- “Hot Tub Time Machine” also develops a sweet relationship between him and music writer April, played to dizzying perfection by Lizzy Caplan. It’s this peripheral romance that gives the film its zeal. Caplan, who is a newcomer to me but has obviously been around on the small screen for years, hits the perfect mixture of 70’s hippiness and 80’s sweet girl persona. From the first time they meet on-screen at a party, Cusack and Caplan make their connection feel real and inspired. I almost wish the entire film could have been about them. But, director Pink has more important things on his mind, such as a male-on-male blowjob and hand soap designed to look like ejaculate on someone’s face. I understand today’s comedy has to reach a certain shock value (which is depressing), and “Hot Tub Time Machine” has that built in for audience acceptance. It’s just the film really soars when it tries to connect on a smaller level. That’s the kind of comedy film we could use more of today.
Greenberg
And speaking of independent comedy, Noah Baumbach’s “Greenberg” certainly qualifies as that. Yet it’s probably more ugly and unappealing than the problems I had with the big budget “Hot Tub Time Machine”. Baumbach’s films have always been a niche commodity, dealing with upper class growing pains and intelligentsia. But with this film and his previous one, “Margot At The Wedding”, Baumbach has apparently given up connecting with anyone in middle America- or really anyone outside the ledges of New England or uber-pretentious Los Angelites. Ben Stiller is Roger, a cynical and troubled man just released from a mental hospital who travels to Los Angeles to house-sit for his brother. Once there, he begins an on-again-off-again relationship with Greta Gerwig, his brother’s personal assistant. If you thought Nicole Kidman was a psychological terror on wheels, just wait until you see Stiller as Greenberg. Continually pushing everyone away at a moment’s notice and constantly complaining about the minuscule habits or ticks of other people, Baumbach has created a genuinely chaotic protagonist that alienates with full force. I felt as if maybe I should’ve donated my 9 bucks for Baumbach to visit a therapist instead of working out the problems of his upper class life with such virulent cinematic skills. It wasn’t always this way. “Kicking and Screaming”, while meandering a bit much on the sours of love, was an absorbing ensemble. Likewise, “The Squid and the Whale” gave us a young man confused and pessimistic, wrapped in a cloak of growing up awkwardness which allowed the viewer to review the awkwardness of our own teenage years. With “Greenberg”, there’s nothing but a wasteland of pretension and West Coast grunge. The one thing I did like- Stiller making a grocery list with two things on it, whiskey and ice cream sandwiches.
Showing posts with label comedy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label comedy. Show all posts
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
The Laugh Factory
Usually reserved for the dregs of summer blockbusters as a dumping ground akin to the month of February, something unusual has happened this month. Comedies are reigning supreme. First there was "Pineapple Express", followed these last two weeks by not one or two, but 4 comedies- "The Rocker", "The House Bunny", "Hamlet 2" and "Tropic Thunder". Maybe in some weird counter-programming move, the studios have decided that we need a lighter prospect before entering the drama-laden Oscar 'baiters' of September and October. Either way, I'm sure the dregs are still not far behind ("Babylon AD" anyone?).
Though I've yet to see "Hamlet 2", "The Rocker" or "The House Bunny" (which of the 3, only the comedic sexiness of Anna Faris appeals to me), I can say I was delighted and dumbfounded by the other two films mentioned. I loved one and disliked the other. In one corner, we've got the stoner buddy/action parody written by and starring the golden boy of modern comedy Seth Rogen, directed by one of my favorite quirky young independent directors and rolled out to the public by that oh-so popular Apatow camp. In the other corner there lies the broad, satirical meta-movie about film making that stars name brand faces, injects larger than life cameos and wears its smarmy in-jokes brazenly on its sleeve. "Pineapple Express" vs. "Tropic Thunder". And "Tropic Thunder" lands the knock-out blow, becoming the smartest and most enjoyable satire about movie-making since "Bowfinger" (I know... I know... I'm waaay in the majority in my praise for Oz's 1999 comedy but deal with it). So where did the "Pineapple Express" camp go so wrong and the "Tropic Thunder" crew rack up the laughs?
I think part of the problem with "Pineapple Express" lies in the fact that so much of its comedy stems from the fact that these are two guys getting high 65% of the time. It's not funny unless, gasp, maybe you are high. Certain scenes carry on for far too long (namely the first meeting between Rogen and Franco and the Danny McBride character, as well as any other McBride scene) and director David Gordon Green fails to exact any sense of timing in the jokes. "Pineapple Express" is a clear example of a comedy whose best parts are worn thin in the trailer. Outside of that, you're left with dialogue scenes that feel made up on the fly. This improvised feel has served other Apatow produced vehicles well, but in "Pineapple Express" it feels like filler for a comedy that lasts way too long and wears out its welcome. It may be fun to watch these guys freak out in a wooded area at night time if your high like them, but if your sober then the jokes on you. Taking the loosest framework of a plot- guys on the run from drug dealers- "Pineapple Express" is a schizophrenic mixture of stoner comedy and over-the-top action that fails to generate many laughs or thrills in either genre pastiche.
"Tropic Thunder" is just as rambling with the same loose sense of plot. But what holds that film together (outside of the gloriously funny details such as the "Simple Jack" poster which features the 'retarded' Jack happily chasing a butterfly with a hammer) are sharp moments of spoken dialogue, humorous reaction shots mostly from Robert Downey Jr. and an ensemble that understands when to cut the joke short. I certainly feel I owe "Tropic Thunder" a second viewing because I was laughing so hard over certain portions of dialogue that I missed some other comedic nuances. That's always the sign of a good comedy that hits its intended mark. Unlike "Pineapple Express" which loses steam in its characters laborious search for laughs, "Tropic Thunder" feels like a script (and a cast) who understand the natural climax of comedy. For my money, humor isn't found in watching the gears of an actor grind as he improvises on the fly (yes, looking at you Will Ferrell) but in carefully planned and reactionary comedy in which one line of dialogue progresses into another. In "Tropic Thunder", the laughs are precise and furious.
I wrote an earlier post about the degradation of good comedy and the infusion of the Will Ferrell style of generating laughs... comedies full of non-sequiter images and scenes that shuffle on for way too long (and which "The Family Guy" corners the market). "Pineapple Express" is a milder example of this new form of comedy, and if Seth Rogen and James Franco weren't so endearing and genuine in certain scenes, I fear "Pineapple Express" would hover even closer to the bottom of the comedy genre than it already does. That's a hard thing for me to say because so much of my personal favorite talents were involved in its creation. The hype factor very well may have killed the buzz, and in that regard, it was only a matter of time before a sharp, unassuming comedy like "Tropic Thunder" came along and blew me away much like "Bowfinger" did many years ago. Even now, thinking about the almost throwaway line of dialogue in "Tropic Thunder" where Downey Jr realizes that Nolte has hands, it makes me smile. That's the essence of good comedy- it continues to give long after the lights have gone up.
Though I've yet to see "Hamlet 2", "The Rocker" or "The House Bunny" (which of the 3, only the comedic sexiness of Anna Faris appeals to me), I can say I was delighted and dumbfounded by the other two films mentioned. I loved one and disliked the other. In one corner, we've got the stoner buddy/action parody written by and starring the golden boy of modern comedy Seth Rogen, directed by one of my favorite quirky young independent directors and rolled out to the public by that oh-so popular Apatow camp. In the other corner there lies the broad, satirical meta-movie about film making that stars name brand faces, injects larger than life cameos and wears its smarmy in-jokes brazenly on its sleeve. "Pineapple Express" vs. "Tropic Thunder". And "Tropic Thunder" lands the knock-out blow, becoming the smartest and most enjoyable satire about movie-making since "Bowfinger" (I know... I know... I'm waaay in the majority in my praise for Oz's 1999 comedy but deal with it). So where did the "Pineapple Express" camp go so wrong and the "Tropic Thunder" crew rack up the laughs?
I think part of the problem with "Pineapple Express" lies in the fact that so much of its comedy stems from the fact that these are two guys getting high 65% of the time. It's not funny unless, gasp, maybe you are high. Certain scenes carry on for far too long (namely the first meeting between Rogen and Franco and the Danny McBride character, as well as any other McBride scene) and director David Gordon Green fails to exact any sense of timing in the jokes. "Pineapple Express" is a clear example of a comedy whose best parts are worn thin in the trailer. Outside of that, you're left with dialogue scenes that feel made up on the fly. This improvised feel has served other Apatow produced vehicles well, but in "Pineapple Express" it feels like filler for a comedy that lasts way too long and wears out its welcome. It may be fun to watch these guys freak out in a wooded area at night time if your high like them, but if your sober then the jokes on you. Taking the loosest framework of a plot- guys on the run from drug dealers- "Pineapple Express" is a schizophrenic mixture of stoner comedy and over-the-top action that fails to generate many laughs or thrills in either genre pastiche.
"Tropic Thunder" is just as rambling with the same loose sense of plot. But what holds that film together (outside of the gloriously funny details such as the "Simple Jack" poster which features the 'retarded' Jack happily chasing a butterfly with a hammer) are sharp moments of spoken dialogue, humorous reaction shots mostly from Robert Downey Jr. and an ensemble that understands when to cut the joke short. I certainly feel I owe "Tropic Thunder" a second viewing because I was laughing so hard over certain portions of dialogue that I missed some other comedic nuances. That's always the sign of a good comedy that hits its intended mark. Unlike "Pineapple Express" which loses steam in its characters laborious search for laughs, "Tropic Thunder" feels like a script (and a cast) who understand the natural climax of comedy. For my money, humor isn't found in watching the gears of an actor grind as he improvises on the fly (yes, looking at you Will Ferrell) but in carefully planned and reactionary comedy in which one line of dialogue progresses into another. In "Tropic Thunder", the laughs are precise and furious.
I wrote an earlier post about the degradation of good comedy and the infusion of the Will Ferrell style of generating laughs... comedies full of non-sequiter images and scenes that shuffle on for way too long (and which "The Family Guy" corners the market). "Pineapple Express" is a milder example of this new form of comedy, and if Seth Rogen and James Franco weren't so endearing and genuine in certain scenes, I fear "Pineapple Express" would hover even closer to the bottom of the comedy genre than it already does. That's a hard thing for me to say because so much of my personal favorite talents were involved in its creation. The hype factor very well may have killed the buzz, and in that regard, it was only a matter of time before a sharp, unassuming comedy like "Tropic Thunder" came along and blew me away much like "Bowfinger" did many years ago. Even now, thinking about the almost throwaway line of dialogue in "Tropic Thunder" where Downey Jr realizes that Nolte has hands, it makes me smile. That's the essence of good comedy- it continues to give long after the lights have gone up.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Not Always the Best Medicine
I've been writing alot about comedy lately. First, there was my previous post ranking the Top 50 comedies of all time and now this. Is it because I'm growing more and more wearied at the increasingly violent quagmire we've gotten ourselves into in Iraq? Nah, I'm not that politically minded. I just don't usually fall hard for comedies. While all of my friends eagerly anticipate the next served laugh, I've always been the one anticipating something else. Comedies rarely get me to the theater. The recent exception, of course, being "Hot Fuzz". And fyi.. you have to hear the commentary on this one- did you know that Cate Blanchett was the mask-covered woman who breaks up with Simon Pegg in the beginning, or the 1 second clip of a Santa Clause shanking Pegg was Peter Jackson? The entire commentary is simply movie-drunk and a fascinating listen.
So, what got me out to see the new comedy, "Hot Rod", was it's slightly amusing trailer and amiable word of mouth on Aint It Cool News. What got me out to see "The Simpsons Movie" was its seventeen year history of generating enormous laughs through visual puns and carefully constructed situations. These two films couldn't be further apart as far as comedies go- one is the granddaddy of animated art, still emanating a heartbeat after all these years and reflecting laughs off current events and pop culture iconography, and the other is a mildly diverting comedy featuring Saturday Night Live alum Adam Samberg and espousing that oh-so hip manner of dead pan filmmaking combined with non-sequiter humor. Both of these films represent modern comedy, although they score wildly different results.
"Hot Rod", in and of itself, is not a terrible movie. I laughed a few times. But it's the manner in which it goes about its laughs that's disturbing. It belongs in that camp of comedy that I'm guessing originated with the films of Will Ferrell; or perhaps even further back with other Saturday Night Live spin-offs such as "A Night At the Roxbury" and "The Ladies Man", or dare I say "The Coneheads". Then again, I could be wrong and the blame lies at the feet of David Zucker with his 1980 "Airplane" (which is a great comedy by the way). Simply put, these are sketch comedy films, stretched out to feature length proportion through odd, humorous tangents. When you watch a film such as "Hot Rod", or "Talledega Nights", or "Dodgeball", or most certainly "Anchorman", it feels like an insider's club; you can imagine the cast and crew sitting around thinking up improvisational bits to levy the unsubstantial structure of the script. Think of the cameos that come flying at you in "Anchorman", or the prolonged riot that breaks out, or the scenes that carry on long after they should end as a character laughs or suffers (specifically the images of Ferrell running around the racetrack in his undies). In "Hot Rod", there are so many I lost count, including the scene where our hero trips and rolls.... and rolls... and rolls down the side of a mountain for what feels like 3 minutes. There's another moment when Rod Kimble, stuntman extraordinaire, summons the spirits of a dolphin, a wolf, and a house cat before he proceeds to jump. If that bit of outer space humor fails to register with the audience, we're given quick insets with pictures of the mentioned animals circling his head. Or there's the character who desperately wants to help Rod and his crew, and anytime he's on screen, he breaks into an 80's type thrust dance (you have to see it to believe it). And if that's not enough, when Rod visits heaven briefly, we're entertained by the images of a stuffed taco and grilled cheese sandwich fighting (don't even ask, it'd take waaay to long to explain). Yes, it's all there along with the kitchen sink. Where did this type of humor come from? Why does it often stop a comedy dead in its tracks when I see such an out-of-body comedy moment? In "Hot Rod", that's all the film has going for it. You watch because you just can't believe what writer Pam Brady may throw at you next. This may work in films such as "Napolean Dynamite", which I consider a personal favorite and the film that "Hot Rod" has been unjustly coupled with, but only because writer-director Jared Hess earns my respect for his characters. It's also probably unfair to mention the comedic canon of Judd Apatow at this point, but if one wants to see how comedy should be done right, then go watch "Knocked Up" or, even better, his 1999 television series "Freaks and Geeks". Not only do his characters make us laugh at them, but certainly laugh with them. His films (and writing) surface something human in their comedy which Will Ferrell, Adam Samberg and Adam Sandler don't understand.
Then you temper that with "The Simpsons Movie". This, in all essence, shouldn't work. It shouldn't garner the amount of laughs it ultimately draws from the audience. Alot of its success depends on its zeitgeist cult following (a following that Fox's "The Family Guy" is slowly eroding with much more tawdry humor). The amazing thing about "The Simpsons Movie" is that, after 17 years, it still packs a humorous wallop. Maybe even more so due to the fact that we've grown up with these characters. We feel for them in a way. And, like the best of the Simpsons episodes, it begins in one place and ends a world apart, defying our expectations in glorious ways. Like "Hot Rod", it relies on tangential laughs- Homer and a pig, Homer whipping a pack of dogs, even the cut to a picture inside Homer's head as a monkey plays while Marge talks. This is not far removed from the sense of humor that received a resounding "thud" in a similar scene in "Hot Rod". Does the animation, illicitly reminding us this not the 'real world', make excuses for laughs found in "The Simpsons Movie"? I'd wager that "Hot Rod" feels less 'real world' than The Simpsons. The humor there feels forced upon us while in "The Simpsons Movie", it settles into a routine that feels familiar. I'm not sure how much of a slam that is to "Hot Rod", but its never good when you take away more emotive connection from an animated film than with a flesh and bone acted movie. Both films intend to make us laugh, but only one really succeeds.
So what does this tell us about the comedy genre itself? Nothing. This is a genre that will always succeed and continually make money. I'm not sure if I care to see Adam Samberg in another comedy, but the next big breakthrough will be supported by Saturday Night Live and more comedy 'thuds' will be heard in theaters. As long as we have plenty of Judd Apatow films and "The Simpsons" to curb those moments, we'll probably be ok.
So, what got me out to see the new comedy, "Hot Rod", was it's slightly amusing trailer and amiable word of mouth on Aint It Cool News. What got me out to see "The Simpsons Movie" was its seventeen year history of generating enormous laughs through visual puns and carefully constructed situations. These two films couldn't be further apart as far as comedies go- one is the granddaddy of animated art, still emanating a heartbeat after all these years and reflecting laughs off current events and pop culture iconography, and the other is a mildly diverting comedy featuring Saturday Night Live alum Adam Samberg and espousing that oh-so hip manner of dead pan filmmaking combined with non-sequiter humor. Both of these films represent modern comedy, although they score wildly different results.
"Hot Rod", in and of itself, is not a terrible movie. I laughed a few times. But it's the manner in which it goes about its laughs that's disturbing. It belongs in that camp of comedy that I'm guessing originated with the films of Will Ferrell; or perhaps even further back with other Saturday Night Live spin-offs such as "A Night At the Roxbury" and "The Ladies Man", or dare I say "The Coneheads". Then again, I could be wrong and the blame lies at the feet of David Zucker with his 1980 "Airplane" (which is a great comedy by the way). Simply put, these are sketch comedy films, stretched out to feature length proportion through odd, humorous tangents. When you watch a film such as "Hot Rod", or "Talledega Nights", or "Dodgeball", or most certainly "Anchorman", it feels like an insider's club; you can imagine the cast and crew sitting around thinking up improvisational bits to levy the unsubstantial structure of the script. Think of the cameos that come flying at you in "Anchorman", or the prolonged riot that breaks out, or the scenes that carry on long after they should end as a character laughs or suffers (specifically the images of Ferrell running around the racetrack in his undies). In "Hot Rod", there are so many I lost count, including the scene where our hero trips and rolls.... and rolls... and rolls down the side of a mountain for what feels like 3 minutes. There's another moment when Rod Kimble, stuntman extraordinaire, summons the spirits of a dolphin, a wolf, and a house cat before he proceeds to jump. If that bit of outer space humor fails to register with the audience, we're given quick insets with pictures of the mentioned animals circling his head. Or there's the character who desperately wants to help Rod and his crew, and anytime he's on screen, he breaks into an 80's type thrust dance (you have to see it to believe it). And if that's not enough, when Rod visits heaven briefly, we're entertained by the images of a stuffed taco and grilled cheese sandwich fighting (don't even ask, it'd take waaay to long to explain). Yes, it's all there along with the kitchen sink. Where did this type of humor come from? Why does it often stop a comedy dead in its tracks when I see such an out-of-body comedy moment? In "Hot Rod", that's all the film has going for it. You watch because you just can't believe what writer Pam Brady may throw at you next. This may work in films such as "Napolean Dynamite", which I consider a personal favorite and the film that "Hot Rod" has been unjustly coupled with, but only because writer-director Jared Hess earns my respect for his characters. It's also probably unfair to mention the comedic canon of Judd Apatow at this point, but if one wants to see how comedy should be done right, then go watch "Knocked Up" or, even better, his 1999 television series "Freaks and Geeks". Not only do his characters make us laugh at them, but certainly laugh with them. His films (and writing) surface something human in their comedy which Will Ferrell, Adam Samberg and Adam Sandler don't understand.
Then you temper that with "The Simpsons Movie". This, in all essence, shouldn't work. It shouldn't garner the amount of laughs it ultimately draws from the audience. Alot of its success depends on its zeitgeist cult following (a following that Fox's "The Family Guy" is slowly eroding with much more tawdry humor). The amazing thing about "The Simpsons Movie" is that, after 17 years, it still packs a humorous wallop. Maybe even more so due to the fact that we've grown up with these characters. We feel for them in a way. And, like the best of the Simpsons episodes, it begins in one place and ends a world apart, defying our expectations in glorious ways. Like "Hot Rod", it relies on tangential laughs- Homer and a pig, Homer whipping a pack of dogs, even the cut to a picture inside Homer's head as a monkey plays while Marge talks. This is not far removed from the sense of humor that received a resounding "thud" in a similar scene in "Hot Rod". Does the animation, illicitly reminding us this not the 'real world', make excuses for laughs found in "The Simpsons Movie"? I'd wager that "Hot Rod" feels less 'real world' than The Simpsons. The humor there feels forced upon us while in "The Simpsons Movie", it settles into a routine that feels familiar. I'm not sure how much of a slam that is to "Hot Rod", but its never good when you take away more emotive connection from an animated film than with a flesh and bone acted movie. Both films intend to make us laugh, but only one really succeeds.
So what does this tell us about the comedy genre itself? Nothing. This is a genre that will always succeed and continually make money. I'm not sure if I care to see Adam Samberg in another comedy, but the next big breakthrough will be supported by Saturday Night Live and more comedy 'thuds' will be heard in theaters. As long as we have plenty of Judd Apatow films and "The Simpsons" to curb those moments, we'll probably be ok.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)