Role Models

Look, I've been on a comedy binge lately and I'm about to give Role Models *** right after giving Observe and Report ***. That isn't to say I liked them the same. They're different types of movies. Role Models is more accessible and funnier, though disappointingly conventional. I could see the ending coming from a mile away. It had an 80s nerd comedy feel to it (albeit much more crass).

It has it charms. Its supporting cast is wonderfully fresh and exciting comedically. And while the leads piece together some happy smiles, there isn't anything terribly memorable about the journey to its grand finale on the battlefield.

The language is profane and often so only for laughs, but there are some R-rated hijinks that won me over in spite of my better judgment. These "littles" throw their "bigs" for loops, and it's when Rudd and Scott are reeling in disgust and/or exhaustion that the film won me over. It's a fine little diversion.

***

I Love You, Man

This is the funniest movie I've seen in years. Paul Rudd is so delightfully awkward that he induces raucous laughter even with a wonderfully failed accent. As good as he is, Jason Segal is even better as the new friend that gets Rudd in touch with his basic masculinity. Apatow movies have played up the Peter Pan complex of modern men, but ILYM plays up a different side - the need for male camaraderie. Is there another movie that plays up male friendship more comedically (or more honestly) than ILYM? (Sure there is, but allow me to play up my gleeful hyperbole.) The fun is watching Segal and Rudd together. A perfect comic duo, each playing off of each others' types while challenging the limits of those types. Segal's character is supposed to have a devil-may-care attitude about life, but he cares. Rudd's character is supposed to out of touch with his primal manhood (and all the shenanigans that includes), but he's better adjusted to adulthood and romance than either will admit. The movie winks at romantic comedy staples - the tearful breakups, breaking up the wedding, first dates - without breaking from its story. And it's a good story well told and well acted. I laughed out loud.

****

Hamlet 2

There isn't much to crow about in Hamlet 2. It's a sock to the gut of the familiar inspirational teacher movies (and they might have needed a good sock or two), perhaps too obvious to win me completely over. But Steve Coogan as the obliviously optimistic, faux inspirational drama teacher in lame duck Tuscon, AZ (take that, Tuscon) is a revelation. It's one of the single most amazing comedic performances I've seen. There are obvious jokes made by the man, but Coogan always plays it straight to the max. He is funny without playing down to his character. He's a loser, but there's a real humanity there comes out of Coogan's portrayal that you may not have expected from such a farce of a film. Playing to the obvious rise-fall-and-rise of our hero's quest to save drama, gain respect, and become the talent he always hoped to be, Hamlet 2 doesn't offer too many surprises. It how Coogan pushes his character's obvious flaws and winning optimism that kept me glued to my 13 inch TV set. And he dances, too, to a Grease-like rock number for the ages.

***1/2

Observe and Report

This was a hit and miss, balls-to-the-wall film. It pulled no punches, but in the process went too far or too hard. Subtlety will get you everywhere. This is a dark, dark comedy - perhaps a bit too heavy on the dark. This is Seth Rogen's movie. Everyone else is merely a distraction from him. It's a brave performance. Rogen is a likable guy. His mall cop is not all that likable. He wants to be liked, so at least he's moving in the right direction. It's sometimes too sad to see him trying so hard to be liked, to useful, and loved. Hence the dark in the dark comedy. The best laughs are from the physical comedy. Rogen tearing down opponents on the police academy obstacle course was hilarious. And though it was crude and obscene, the final chase and subsequent shooting at the end were just the sort of absurdist water the fish shenanigans I hoped for. I expected less, and they went further at that moment (for once successfully). The plot is slight and doesn't stretch far. The key is Rogen, who mines his awkward a-hole asides for light chuckles. But a one-man-light-chuckle band does not for a great movie make. The talent is there: Michael Pena has one or two good scenes but mostly falls flat as Rogen's right hand man; Anna Faris is an all-too-familiar slut and tease party girl; and Ray Liotta is a detective pushed past any tolerance of buffoonery. But these are one note characters. And though Rogen's mall cop is beyond abrasive - he at least has an arc, a motive, and intriguing qualities. By the time the tidy bow is tied at the end, he grew on me. The movie had not.

***

Fast and Loose

updates with corrections to be made later

Star Trek

It seems weird to give a summer tentpole four stars, especially when it has glaring flaws. But that's the grade for Star Trek. I'm grading the experience, paying tribute to the fun I had. Star Trek moves at warp speed (!), but unlike the previous weekend's boxoffice champ XO: Wolverine, Star Trek is happy to develop it's characters (each and every one). The visuals are exciting, the humor surprisingly amusing (I was expecting campiness), and the science fiction nerdery in the plot just accessible enough not to anger the audience but keep us talking about more than the budget after the movie.

Flaws? Well, Eric Bana has very little to do as the villain. His ship (oh, what a COOL ship!) makes more of an impression than he does. I'll fault the writing over Bana, but still, a film with such rewarding heroes needs villains to match. The acting? Solid, but I still think some of the actors (Quinto as Spock and Karl Urban as Dr. McCoy) were trying to emulate rather than create. Obviously, this was a danger from conception. Luckily, Chris Pine (!) makes Captain Kirk his own. He's charming, disarming, funny, and just badass enough to be an adventure's hero. It's not the calling card of the next great actor of our generation, but it may be a calling card of the next great star(?).

And for the filmmakers, the summer blockbuster earns its stripes. It's epic and sprawling while moving quickly and deliberately while remaining accessible and entertaining. Director J.J. Abrams and writers Robert Orci and Alex Kurtzman have made me care about a storied franchise that meant little to me before. And they did it with style.

****

The Wrestler

The Wrestler seems to alternate between very good and mediocre. Mickey Rourke is excellent, but his level of skill isn't enough to lift the film to great heights. And in criticizing it's flaws (as I'm about to do), I don't want to insinuate that The Wrestler isn't a very good film (it is). Marisa Tomei and Evan Rachel Wood, while both capable actresses doing solid work in each of their roles, seem to be the movie's weak points. The story, which is often void of underdog or indie drama cliches, seems to gravitate toward mediocrity in Rourke's scenes with either actress.

In truth, the film loses some of its authenticity when Tomei's stripper with a heart races to the arena for Rourke's title characters triumphant return. It's awkward. And even when the wrestler goes the unconventional route in that scene, it feels forced, awkward though clearly true to character. Good final shot though. Ram Jam.

In it's favor, The Ram is a real man. He is sad, incorrigible, sweet, kind, and manipulative in real ways. When he tells Wood his sob story, I sobbed. Rourke earned that kind of genuine response. Even when the story doesn't take us to unexpected places, Rourke is new. He's a completely new (thing). He doesn't look the same. He doesn't sound the same. He doesn't ACT the same. It's a highlight of his career, clearly, but also one of the best male performances of recent years.

***1/2

What Doesn't Kill You

What Doesn't Kill You is an actors' showcase for it's stars and a fine drama for any interested in honesty over style (or honesty as style). Their isn't much pizazz to the way the filmmakers tell this story, but there is plenty to love about writer-director Brian Goodman's autobiographical tale of men making or avoiding the tough choices that make good men just that. I get a sense this is how "organized" crime really works. Strip away the style and larger than life characters of The Sopranos or Goodfellas and I suspect you'll get WDKY - mid-level lackeys miserable and depraved with only the notion that it's supposed to be better to move them on to each new day.

Ethan Hawke has never been better. The twitchiness to his "method" is toned down and instead of the sniveling loser or dreamy eyed slacker, Hawke becomes a witty, dangerous man with vague ambitions and no smarts to achieve more than he's already know. Lead Mark Ruffalo is excellent as well, lending an intensity and vulnerability to his character. Goodman has an ear for authenticity and a no-nonsense sensibility, but he needs to learn dramatic pacing, editing, and develop a more captivating aesthetic to match his actors' skills. I'll say this - he can cast like a crackerjack. The child actors who play Ruffalo and Amanda Peet's (solid as usual in a supporting role) quietly suffering offspring. They don't show off. They're not playing at anything (over-thinking, over-physicalizing, etc.), they're just being real kids in a rotten situation.

WDKY hit me like a ton of bricks, but it's dramatic finale was stale - a kin to a Movie of the Week. It's as though Goodman, in wanting to avoiding a Hollywood ending, didn't know how to provide any sense of closure to match everything that came before it. Still, for the performances and the real dramatic heft to it's story, WDKY (kudos for ending the title at that) is one of my favorite films from 2008.

***1/2

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

While not an utter failure, XO: Wolverine does create a considerable amount of disappointment in this fan's memory. From the opening scene, something was...off. Watching the sickly young Wolvie lashing out in grand fashion was played for drama and shock, but instead introduced the audience to the film's most glaring fault - actors playing for dark, deep drama and missing at most every turn. Nothing about about XO: Wolverine rings with any authenticity. After facing this flaw early on, I was ready and willing to just accept the film on another level - a fun summer blockbuster. That doesn't really work either. The film employs a mess of side characters and a blistering pace to head toward its even bigger mess of a climax. At the point Wolverine learns he's been duped, I said to myself, "Well, duh. It was choreographed a long time ago." When Ryan Reynolds (?!) shows up ragged and mad and evil in the end, I was not surprised nor interested at all. Was he really ever a good guy? Was he ever important to the story before this? No for both. How about after the bad ass surgeries? No. Hugh Jackman as Wolverine is really the only bright spot (though the opening credits war montage was stunning in its own irrelevant way). It's clear Jackman cares about the character and brings that interest to the role each time out. But he can't make any new impressions when the director Gavin Hood, writers David Benioff and Skip Woods, and their film editors won't allow their story to find any footing in any given scene before blasting off to the next sequence (even if it's just Jackman and the awful (but awfully attractive) Lynn Collins chatting and/or making lovey dovey eyes at each other. A sense of real weight to ANY (ANY!) of the scenes would have paid huge dividends. Sadly, Liev Shreiber (my great hope for a compelling villain) can't save his dialogue. Likewise, the wonderful, Danny Huston (please see The Proposition) fails to improve or match Brian Cox's performance as General Striker in X2. I'll watch it again with lowered expectations with the hope of new entertainment, buy my first viewing left me hungry for Terminator: Salvation (and McG?!?). Wolverine is a great character. The franchise is far from dead. I just hope new blood behind the scenes can renew my interest again.

**

Transsiberian

Transsiberian was the not the nail-biter I expected from writer director Brad Anderson, but it was a tense thriller worth checking out if you have patience for plot and characters to develop. Anderson was the filmmaker behind The Machinist. That film made a big impression on me to the point where I'll check out anything Anderson makes from here on out. Transsiberian, his most recent film, doesn't shake me to the core the way watching Christian Bale waste away physically and mentally did, but it does offer another excellent lead performance from Emily Mortimer. Her plight is a traveler's nightmare's ditch that only gets deeper as she stands quivering with a shovel wondering if she'll ever make it home alive. Transsiberian is not Hostel. It is not Saw. Its scares and thrills are earned. And even when the plot zig zags haphazardly to a close, Anderson knows how to satisfy his viewers at the end. I've been thinking "Hitchcock" since I've seen the movie, but maybe that's just because of the Russians, trains, and women under duress. And honestly (don't stone me in town square) I'd rather watch an Anderson movie than Hitchcock's best.

***1/2