Two Laughless Hours Later . . . The Ridiculous 6

The Good: Three lines, perhaps.
The Bad: Wastes the decent cast members, Not funny, Dull plot.
The Basics: Netflix is not doing its subscribers any favors by producing the Adam Sandler-led Western parody The Ridiculous 6.


When it comes to Adam Sandler comedies, I have long known to keep my expectations low. I grew up while Sandler was making his transition from Saturday Night Live to making blockbuster comedy films and they just did not grab me. Until Punch-Drunk Love (reviewed here!), Sandler did not really impress me with his acting abilities. I have also come to have fairly low expectations for Netflix original films as the majority of ones I've seen have left me unimpressed. So, the idea of a Sandler/Netflix film was one I went into with low expectations. The film is The Ridiculous 6 and it is not doing anything to improve my opinion on Adam Sandler comedies or Netflix original films.

The Ridiculous 6 is not Adam Sandler's attempt to make Blazing Saddles (reviewed here!), though Blazing Saddles is generally considered the gold standard of Western comedies. The Adam Sandler parody of a Western film is basically a generic Adam Sandler comedy set in the West. As such, it includes fart and shit jokes mixed in with dry deliveries of ridiculous lines that are hardly unique to the film, like generic baseball jokes. The Ridiculous 6 has bestiality jokes, physical humor and gross jokes involving smearing ointment on humans and flatulent burros indiscriminately. Much of the humor in The Ridiculous 6 falls flat and large chunks of the movie are just gross.

Opening with White Knife, a white man raised by Apaches, going into a nearby town to pick up some flour, he and his fiance are preyed upon by a gang of one-eyed bandits. Tommy "White Knife" Stockburn easily thwarts his adversaries and returns to the tribe that raised him before his biological father, Frank, shows up. Frank Stockburn wants to give his son the treasure he has amassed, but the next morning, the outlaw Cicero appears with his gang and kidknaps Frank for his treasure. Tommy goes off to steal $50,000 to cover the treasure that will not be there when Cicero's gang tries to have Frank dig up his treasure near a singing windmill.

While Tommy searches for places to rob, he encounters various half-brothers - other sons from Frank Stockburn. Tommy meets Ramon, his Mexican half-brother and Ramon encounters their idiot half-brother Pete while Tommy is clearing out the local bank. They discover an Asian half-brother, Herm; a black half-brother, Chico, and Danny, their white half-brother. Together, they try to steal a gold nugget worth $25,000. After their heist, the brothers sing around a campfire, play the first baseball game, and work together to rescue their father.

The Ridiculous 6 is generally a comedy that fails to inspire laughter. The two-hour film got me to smile three times and none of those smiles even came from Sandler. Given that Terry Crews is able to illicit more of a smile than Adam Sandler in The Ridiculous 6, it is hard to even call the movie an Adam Sandler comedy.

It is tough for me to rate movies with performers like Jorge Garcia (totally wasted as he does not have any lines that allow him to emote!), Harvey Keitel (who proves himself to be a definitively dramatic actor by illustrating no talent for comic timing in The Ridiculous 6) and Luke Wilson, so low, but when a movie just sucks, it just sucks.

The Ridiculous 6 just plain sucks.

None of the actors in the flick illustrate any new range or genuine talent - which is sad given that several of the actors are talented. The Ridiculous 6 is not clever, nor is it funny. It is simply a waste of two hours.

For other Netflix exclusive films, please check out my reviews of:
Mascots
ARQ
XOXO
Tallulah
The Fundamentals Of Caring

0/10

For other movie reviews, please check out my Film Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2016 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Unremarkable Sequelland: Hotel Transylvania 2.

The Good: Decent-enough animation and performances
The Bad: Overbearing soundtrack, Not funny, Nothing compelling or original in the plot or characters
The Basics: Hotel Transylvania 2 unremarkably strings together random jokes about monsters to continue the franchise in an unimpressive way.


As a reviewer, I see a lot of movies and one of the real tests of a film's endurance is how well the viewer remembers it when and if a sequel is made. With the release of Hotel Transylvania 2, I got to thinking about Hotel Transylvania (reviewed here!). I know I saw the first Hotel Transylvania, but it was so utterly unmemorable that as the sequel began, I realized I could not recall a single moment from the original. Hotel Transylvania 2 leaps right in, so those not invested in the characters from the first one are likely to find the new movie somewhat inaccessible.

Hotel Transylvania 2 is an odd blend of monster jokes mixed with the non-sequitor of monsters talking about ridiculous or pop-culture things. So, people are supposed to find it hilarious when Dracula kvetches about "good fats" or Wayne the werewolf refuses to hunt because Pop-Tarts make killing animals unnecessary. At the other end, Mavis's journey almost entirely consists of her shock at seeing the mundane aspects of the human world - like the variety of potato chips and 24 hour gas station/convenience stores. The result is a thoroughly lackluster film.

Opening with the wedding of Mavis and Johnny, the daughter of Dracula and her human boyfriend, the Hotel Transylvania is packed with monsters and Jonathan's very unsettled human parents. The wedding goes off without a hitch and a year later, Mavis tells Dracula she is pregnant while the two are out flying as bats. Soon after, Dennis is born and appears to be human. While Dennis is growing up, Johnny tries to get Dracula to use social media and technology like smartphones. Dracula begins to worry that Dennis is not learning how to be a proper vampire and tries to get the boy to activate his powers, to no avail. After Dennis goes to a birthday party for a litter of werewolf pups and loses a tooth there, Mavis suspects that Dennis is not actually a monster and she tells her father that she is thinking of moving away to a place that will be safer for her young son.

Mavis and Johnny head to California to see if it will be an appropriate place to raise Dennis, while Dracula and the monsters take Dennis to try to get him into real monster culture. Unfortunately, the trip to the dark forest reveals that it is now a park filled with suburbanites on vacation. While Mavis is thrilled by exploring the human world with Johnny, the monsters try to teach Dennis how to be monstrous, but they run into adoring fans, physical problems like back spasms, and the monsters' refusal to be truly monstrous. The monsters make it to the camp where Dracula learned to be monstrous as Mavis makes it to the California suburb where both discover that things are not as they remember or want.

Much of Hotel Transylvania 2 is a series of shtick jokes with monster subjects or "values" used to replace the mundane subjects. The concept gets very old exceptionally quickly and given that lines like "stake my heart and hope to die" from Dracula barely elicit a smile the first time around, it's hard to imagine how the studio thought this would perform well. Hotel Transylvania 2 feels like a direct-to-video sequel that has the voice talents from the first project, but predictably lacks a compelling story or jokes that make it a worthy continuation of the characters' journey.

The voice performances in Hotel Transylvania 2 are fine, but nothing extraordinary. Selena Gomez does fine as Mavis, but she's not given any challenges that would allow her to be particularly expressive. Adam Sandler and Andy Samberg play Dracula and Johnny as very minor variations on their previously-established characters. Sandler, especially, falls into a voice that is particularly generic for his shtick.

Hotel Transylvania 2 is marred by an overbearing pop music soundtrack as much as it is by characters who utterly unremarkable. The story is painfully generic and if the characters were not monsters, it's hard to imagine the movie ever would have been made. Within minutes of finishing the film, I realized that there was no defining moment that stuck with me. It is a forgettable sequel for a forgettable film.

Hotel Transylvania 2 is utterly unnecessary; The Addam's Family and The Munsters have done all these types of jokes before and there's nothing so compelling about the characters, animation or plot to make this feel at all worthwhile.

For other works with or by Selena Gomez, please visit my reviews of:
The Fundamentals Of Caring
Revival (Deluxe Edition)
The Big Short
Behaving Badly
For You - Selena Gomez & The Scene
Stars Dance
When The Sun Goes Down - Selena Gomez & The Scene
A Year Without Rain - Selena Gomez & The Scene
Kiss & Tell - Selena Gomez & The Scene
Horton Hears A Who!

2/10

For other movie reviews, please check out my Film Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2015 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Technically Magnicifent, Actually Miserable: Men, Women & Children Makes Us Want To Bail!

The Good: Amazing cast, Good direction
The Bad: Oppressive mood, Neglected character motivations
The Basics: Complicated and engaging, Men, Women & Children is enough to make any viewer absolutely miserable.


These days, it takes a lot to sell me on watching a movie by the preview. I've been busy and previews tend to either tell me not nearly enough or way too much (like, the entire film). When my wife was trying to choose a film for us to watch today, Men, Women & Children came up as an option and it suddenly reminded me that I had seen a preview for the film that made it look real good. It lived up to the previews - Men, Women & Children was awkward, insightful, and well-presented, though it was disturbing on a number of fronts.

Co-writer and director Jason Reitman does a decent job of capturing the way people are disconnected today by weaving together several thinly-related stories of people living in Austin, Texas in modern times. Reitman and Erin Cressida Wilson adapted the film from the book by the same name and it is worth noting that I've not read the book upon which it is based. This review is entirely of the film, not any sort of comparative analysis with the book.

Men, Women & Children is much like Magnolia (reviewed here!) or Cradle Will Rock (reviewed here!) in that it has a large cast of characters and explores relationships more than it tells a single, solid, cohesive story. Don Truby and his wife, Helen, have lost all passion for one another and both consider having affairs. Their son, Chris, has gotten so deep into online erotica that when he is faced with the potential of affection from one of his peers, he is utterly uninterested and unable to engage with her. Tim Mooney was a once-promising football player, but when his mother abandons him and his father, he quits the team and tries to find his own path. He becomes enamored with Brandy Beltmeyer, a girl whose mother is so incredibly overprotective of her that she oppressively monitors both her physical locations and her entire online presence.

Chris begins a relationship with Hannah Clint, a girl whose mother is actively trying to make her a celebrity (with a pretty skanky website). And there's Allison Doss, an anorexic who feels immense pressure to not eat and have sex. As Hannah's mother and Tim's father begin to explore a relationship, Don and Helen explore extramarital affairs and most of the teenagers become sexually active to varying degrees.

Men, Women & Children is a great example of a film that perfectly captures and characterizes the disconnect between people in the modern age of connective devices like smartphones and tablets. Virtually all of the characters are miserable and the performers do an excellent job of characterizing how fast societal and technological changes have come and families have not had the time or ability to respectfully adapt.

This is one of those films that is difficult to discuss in depth and I liked it for that. The performances are almost homogeneously raw. The brilliance of Jason Reitman as a director is that he captures some powerful and realistic performances out of both the young and seasoned castmembers and there is not a single moment of the film that felt like "first take theatre." The moments seem perfectly rendered and at times incredibly painful to watch, but the movie never feels like it was clumsily arrived at.

Arguably the best performances in Men, Women & Children come from Dean Norris, Jennifer Garner, and Adam Sandler. Sandler's best moment comes in a wordless moment late in the film that reminds viewers that the goofy former Saturday Night Live performer has evolved into a real dramatic powerhouse of an actor. Garner is cold and distant as Patricia and Dean Norris manages to make his role of Kent unlike his Breaking Bad part. Judy Greer delivers her usual wonderful performance as Donna Clint and is anything but goofy (as some of her talent often inspires her to be). Even the young cast is marvelous and well-utilized by Reitman.

But the film is far from perfect. Garner's Patricia is overbearing and controlling . . . for no stated reason. Similarly, Allison's storyline is unsatisfyingly unresolved and her relationship with her parents is underdeveloped. Men, Women & Children wastes the talents of J.K. Simmons in the role of Allison's father. Reitman managed to not be salacious with the teenagers who are having sex, but characters like Hannah are just troubling to watch.

Men, Women & Children did what great films ought to do; it inspired conversations in my household. My wife and I have been talking about it since we finished watching it (it unsettled both of us) and both of us remain delighted to be childfree by choice after watching the movie. But much of Men, Women & Children is plagued by characters who simply are not communicating and that is not a new problem at all, despite the filmmaker's attempts to blame that on the internet. The internet did not suddenly make people stop communicating or have affairs, though Men, Women & Children accurately explores how online porn has ruined the mystique and imagination people used to have for sex.

The other thing my wife and I realized was that despite the film's importance, Men, Women & Children is unlikely to reach the audience it needs to. Are overprotective parents going to watch Men, Women & Children and suddenly say, "Patricia is just crazy!"? No. They're likely to say, "if that mom was more lenient, their kid would end up like Allison." Men, Women & Children is like the interpersonal story analogous to Blood Diamond (reviewed here!). Is it going to make people feel terrible? Absolutely. Will it inspire conversations? Sure. Will it lead to profound change? Absolutely not.

Worth watching once, Men, Women & Children is difficult and unsettling in a way that makes one not want to ever watch it again.

For other works with Rosemarie DeWitt, please visit my reviews of:
The Odd Life Of Timothy Green
The Watch
Rachel Getting Married

7.5/10 (Not Recommended)

For other movie reviews, please check out my Film Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2015 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Serious Sandler: Funny People (Mostly) Succeeds.

The Good: Good performances, Interesting characters, Moments of empathy/themes
The Bad: Mood is often oppressive, Pacing issues
The Basics: Adam Sandler effectively delves into his dramatic side with Funny People, a Judd Apatow flick that reasserts the writer/director’s ability to plumb the depths of drama . . . with mixed results.


Regardless of how both films might have underwhelmed at the box office, Judd Apatow’s Funny People owes quite a debt to P.T. Anderson’s Punch-Drunk Love (reviewed here!). Punch-Drunk Love was the first major film to truly use Saturday Night Live alum Adam Sandler in a dramatic role with any real success. Funny People also explores Sandler’s ability to play a deeply serious role and had Punch-Drunk Love not softened American audiences up for such a twist from the comedian, it might have been even more off-putting than the film already was.

Unfortunately, Judd Apatow’s endeavor into getting a serious performance out of Adam Sandler feels more clogged and problematic than Anderson’s more compact, focused role for Sandler. Sandler’s ability to play rage in Punch-Drunk Love plays somewhat better than his character’s apathy in Funny People and the somewhat sprawling nature of this film. Even so, George Simmons is one of Sandler’s better performances and more memorable roles following his career in dippy comedy blockbusters. Sandler makes Simmons substantive and compelling to watch, even if he is not always interesting.

George Simmons is a highly successful comedian who came up from the stand-up circuit before he started making million-dollar blockbusters and became one of the highest grossing actors in America. Depressed and somewhat lethargic, Simmons encounters aspiring comedian Ira Wright and his roommate, Leo Koenig. Wright hates his job serving sandwiches and he leaps at the opportunity to write jokes for Simmons for a MySpace event – if for no other reason than to show up his hack roommate Mark. After the big event, Ira begins working for George and George admits to his new assistant that he is dying of leukemia. As George has Ira start selling off his stockpiles of swag, he starts pining for the woman who got away, Laura.

Ira finds working for Simmons to be a largely losing proposition. Working for George keeps him distracted, which gives Mark time to move in on his love interest, Daisy. It does, however, get him some exposure on the stand-up circuit, but he finds that hanging out with Simmons doesn’t get him laid and he gets mired in Simmons’ depression. But as Simmons wrestles with his own mortality, Ira helps him find Laura and George disrupts her unhappy marriage. The result makes Ira a witness to a life he has always dreamed of having and forces him to decide if it is the way he wants to live going forward.

Funny People departs from Judd Apatow’s other films by, despite the title, being anything but a comedy. The film reminds viewers of the more character-based, dramatic moments that made Apatow’s Freaks & Geeks (reviewed here!) a cult-smash. Unfortunately, while Seth Rogen has no trouble embodying a serious Apatow-written character (Rogen plays Ira), the role has him meandering around the much more cinematically-powerful Sandler. Even when Sandler’s Simmons is acting bored and depressed, Rogen is unable to steal the spotlight from him. The more significant character journey in Funny People is, arguably, Wright’s arc, but Rogen does not make the film feel like it is truly his.

To his credit, writer-director Judd Apatow manages to create a film where almost every significant (male, at least) stand-up comedian alive shows up. For sure, many – like Paul Reiser, Norm MacDonald, and Dave Attell – have roles that are little more than cameos, but the fact that they show up at all makes the world of Funny People feel very real and the drama within it compelling.

That said, Funny People takes far too long to get going. Apatow thoroughly develops the relationship between Simmons and Wright and by the time the viewer is bored with the two of them, the film makes the shift into the relationship between Simmons and Laura. When that transition is made, Wright becomes something of a hapless sidekick and his role as witness robs him of a character arc where he actually keeps real control over his life. Instead, he reacts to how Simmons throws a bombshell into Laura’s family and the result hardly makes Wright compelling. Apatow alum Leslie Mann plays a less-bitchy version of her prior characters and Apatow makes viewers wait for Eric Bana long past the point that he is able to carry any enthusiasm from seeing his name in the opening credits.

Bana and Mann have pretty poor on-screen chemistry, but their characters are supposed to be estranged, so it is hard to complain too much about that. Unfortunately, Sandler and Mann have no real on-screen charm together and the result is that it is hard for viewers to be convinced that they have more of a chance than the married couple that seems set in every way, but the passion department. The problem with Funny People is that none of the characters have innate chemistry with the others: Jonah Hill and Jason Schwartzman lack real chemistry with Seth Rogen in Funny People, so it is off-putting at the beginning even to make the viewers believe that they are all actually roommates!

Despite the chemistry problems and the fact that Mann plays a very familiar type of character, Funny People is well-acted. Seth Rogen plays the up and coming, very awkward comedian well and Jason Schwartzman plays the jackass roommate with complete plausibility. Jonah hill is fine as Leo, though his character does not get nearly angry enough when Ira’s big secret is finally revealed to him.

But that is the way of Funny People: the film takes a long time setting up, developing, redirecting and expositing until, like life, if just goes nowhere. That makes it a film with so many winning elements, but an ultimately underwhelming resolution and execution.

For other works with Eric Bana, please visit my reviews of:
Hanna
The Time Traveler’s Wife
Star Trek
Hulk

6.5/10

For other movie reviews, please check out my Film Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2014 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Am I The Only One In The World Who Did Not Enjoy Anger Management?!

The Good: Moments of humor, Generally good performances
The Bad: Agonizing tone, Predictable plot, Irksome character development
The Basics: When Dave Buznik is sentenced to 20 hours of anger management therapy, he ends up getting more than he bargained for when noted author and expert Dr. Buddy Rydell antagonizes him.


There are a number of movies that came and went in their theatrical run that I had absolutely no interest in watching that I now find myself catching thanks to my wife. Pretty much any film featuring Adam Sandler falls into that category; my wife is a fan and I’m not a huge fan – though there are some that I have enjoyed. Despite the presence of Jack Nicholson in it, I never had the urge to watch the Adam Sandler film Anger Management. That avoidance ended last night when my wife and mother-in-law were in the mood to watch Anger Management and I was in the mood to hang out with them.

Hated it.

The thing is, I don’t recall what I knew about Anger Management going into it, but from the outset the movie set me off because the protagonist seemed woefully misdiagnosed with anger issues. Adam Sandler is possibly the ultimate actor for portraying seething rage beneath a good-guy persona. He did it masterfully in Punch-Drunk Love (reviewed here!), so Sandler has abilities. For sure, there are many different ways people who have anger under the surface might act, but in Anger Management, Sandler’s character of Dave Buznik exhibits no recognizable traits of someone who is truly angry and struggles to deal with that. Instead, in Anger Management, Dave is constantly provoked and he is surrounded by angry people who overact to his calm rejections of their behavior.

Dave Buznik has been dating Linda for years and he remains too timid to commit to her, despite the fact that she pals around with Andrew, an ex who shows no respect for her relationship with Dave. Dave has a great idea that his boss takes credit for. That leads to Dave traveling for his boss and on the plane, he moves seats to sit next to Dr. Buddy Rydell. In asking for headphones, Dave is forced to wait and when he gently puts his hand on the stewardess’s elbow, the plane lands and he is charged with assault. He is sentenced to twenty hours of anger management therapy . . . with Dr. Rydell.

Rydell begins almost immediately making offers to Dave and then betraying him. Dave’s sentence is expanded to forty hours and the group sessions Dave attends include the legitimately violent Chuck, a porn star couple, and a guy who is far long in Rydell’s program, Lou. Traveling together, Dave and Rydell go through a number of exercises, like Rydell having Dave pick up a woman at a bar, then telling Linda about it. Rydell has Dave confront his childhood tormenter and then starts dating Linda himself. In the process of Rydell agitating Dave, Dave comes to stand up for himself and his relationship with Linda.

Anger Management is unpleasant to watch because almost immediately, the viewer has the sense that Dave is being played. Watching a generally nice guy get railroaded by an erratic manipulator is not my idea of entertaining. As a result of the transparent way that Rydell works Dave, the “surprise” twist near the end is more obvious than audacious. Anger Management telegraphs itself and it is frustrating to watch a film where the protagonist is so far behind the curve.

That said, Anger Management has an impressive cast that is utilized remarkably well . . . outside Sandler. Sandler’s Dave is not written to be particularly angry, clever or distinct and that leaves Sandler with remarkably little to play. Anger Management does not give Adam Sandler one of his interesting or quirky characters to play and the result is that much of the movie has the viewer watching an indistinct tool.

The rest of the cast of Anger Management is impressively utilized. Jack Nicholson plays Dr. Rydell with an energetic quality that borders on the sadistic and makes the role instantly credible. Nicholson gets through the psychobabble with a brilliant straight face and when his character turns toward the charming and erratic, he lends some continuity to the performance that makes it seem like it is the same character going through everything. Nicholson has amazing facial acting and director Peter Segal captures that wonderfully. The supplemental cast of Marisa Tomei, Luiz Guzman, Kurt Fuller, Woody Harrelson, John Turturro, Heather Graham and John C. Riley flesh out the world around Dave and Rydell to keep Sandler playing off an intriguing number of other talents.

Unfortunately, the humor in Anger Management is slapstick and not at all shocking. Telegraphed well in advance, much of the film has mediocre jokes broke up by long stretches of Rydell antagonizing Dave. Anger Management is like watching torment on film and for as much as Dave is tormented, so is the viewer.

For other works with January Jones, please visit my reviews of:
X-Men: First Class
Unknown
Love Actually
Bandits

4/10

For other movie reviews, please check out my Film Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2014 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

A (Mostly) Amusing Animated Film, Hotel Transylvania Is Not Great.

The Good: Moments of imagination, Much of the voice acting
The Bad: One-hit humor, Predictable character arcs and plot
The Basics: An amusing concept, Hotel Transylvania has a decent set-up that fails to evolve in an interesting or unpredictable way.


There are, these days, very few films that I miss that I feel like I have actually missed. When a movie is important enough to me, I tend to find a way to get out to see it. So, I was not feeling any great deficit in my life when I uprooted last year and moved from New York to Michigan when Hotel Transylvania came out. It was not a film I prioritized checking out after my move and, having seen it now, I am glad I did not make the effort (getting to the movie theaters out here can be a real pain!). Hotel Transylvania is not bad, but it is hardly as funny, audacious or even interesting as one might hope.

That is not to say that Hotel Transylvania is bad. However, it does not take long for the initially fun-feeling animated feature to turn into pretty much what one expects from an Adam Sandler movie. In addition to utilizing the voice talents of virtually all of Adam Sandler’s old Saturday Night Live buddies – Jon Lovitz, Molly Shannon, David Spade – Sandler’s initial voice performance as Dracula soon slips into his familiar timbre. The result is that the film slowly becomes one of Adam Sander’s feel-good comedies, though this one has a pretty low rewatchability factor because the jokes might illicit a smile the first time around, but not much more than that on subsequent viewings (rewatching even the trailer after seeing the film, I found myself unfortunately unamused).

As her 118th birthday approaches, Mavis – the vampire daughter of Dracula - begs her father to honor his word to her and let her leave their monster sanctuary hotel as he promised her she could at that age. To her surprise, Dracula does let her go – starting with a visit to a nearby village. There, Mavis is horrified to find villagers with torches who want to eat her toes, exactly like her father warned her about. As Mavis flees back to the hotel sanctuary, Dracula has the zombie bellhops from the hotel – who were disguised as humans for the show – strike the village set he created to freak Mavis out. The ruse has the desired effect and Mavis expresses no further desire to leave the monsters-only hotel.

Unfortunately, the show Dracula puts on for his ignorant daughter has an unexpected consequence; a human hiker follows the zombies back to the monsters hotel. While Dracula works to conceal young Jonathan’s humanity (a real difficulty considering the hotel chef, Quasimodo, has a rat with a nose like a bloodhound) to insure his guests will continue to stay at his monster’s hotel and get the young man off the grounds, Jonathan meets Mavis and the two have an instant connection. Forced to keep Jonathan around when he explains to Mavis, Frankenstein and the others that Jonathan is a party planner (and the Frankenstein monster’s cousin), Dracula struggles to keep Jonathan and Mavis from getting closer while keeping his human identity from the guests and chef!

Hotel Transylvaniaquickly abandons its sense of originality – the whole premise that classic gothic monsters are actually fun-loving, misunderstood, and still exist in this day in age is fun – in favor of a predictable plot so obvious and formulaic that only children will be surprised by it. Mavis and Jonathan hit it off, but Dracula is the classic disapproving parent. So, much of Hotel Transylvania is his journey toward a modern, tolerant viewpoint when he realizes just how much Mavis likes Jonathan.

In fact, Hotel Transylvania is so canned and predictable that virtually every formulaic plot point for this type of romantic comedy occurs. Dad disapproves, has a moment of understanding where he comes to like the potential suitor, sees the daughter and suitor together and freaks out, encounters an obstacle that forces him to rely upon the suitor and the boy and girl bond. But, to keep the suitor safe, he must reject the girl (which hurts both young people) and only then does the father realize that the story of these two youth in one form or another mirrors his own romance with his dead wife and he comes to a position of tolerance, which forces him to pursue the suitor to bring about a reconciliation, at great personal peril.

That fact that the main characters are monsters and a human does not make the character journey or plot any more original.

On DVD, I was caught by how much of the animation is clearly oriented toward the 3-D thrill aspect. Seeing it only in 2-D, I was largely unimpressed, but given that spectacle is only 1 point in my reviewing standards, this is not a dealbreaker. That said, the animation style is fun and Hotel Transylvania looks good. Director Genndy Tartakovsky makes Hotel Transylvania look good with a decent sense of motion and color vibrancy that feels fresher than the story does.

As for the performances in Hotel Transylvania, they are generally average. The cast is led by Adam Sandler (Dracula) and Andy Samberg (Jonathan) and they play off one another very well. Considering Sandler and Samberg are working with talents they are familiar with, it is unsurprising that Hotel Transylvaniasounds good. Given that none of the stars in the film are particularly adept outside comedy (save Steve Buscemi), it is unsurprising that things like Adam Sandler’s accent slip occur as the film progresses.

On the flip side, Selena Gomez does surprisingly well as Mavis. She emotes well using her voice and makes Mavis sound like a fun young woman eager to experience life outside the walls of Hotel Transylvania. On DVD, the film comes with minimal bonus features and we only watched the trailers for other films soon to be released and none were particularly thrilling. Then again, neither was Hotel Transylvania, so the DVD is par for the source material’s course.

For similar animated films, please visit my reviews of:
ParaNorman
Coraline
The Nightmare Before Christmas

4.5/10

For other film reviews, please check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2013 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Oppressive Mood Theater Continues With The Spoon-fed Reign Over Me!

The Good: Performances by the great cast, Compelling story, Use of mood
The Bad: Underdeveloped relationship between Alan and his wife, Spoonfeeds the important character elements, Lack of decent bonus features
The Basics: Despite a great start, this character-centered drama falls short when it tries to be something different and dumbs itself down for the audience.


There are a number of movies I have seen that begin with a great deal of potential only to fall flat in the middle and end. Usually, it comes from a setup that is extraordinary that ultimately falls flat. Movies that set themselves up for greatness, but then collapse away from that greatness leave me disappointed. Lately, it seems this happens most frequently with me when a movie dumbs itself down and makes what is implied more obvious. I like films that engage me and assume I am both intelligent and engaged.

The latest film to set itself up with intelligence and subtlety only to turn around and disappoint me in the latter portions is Mike Binder's Reign Over Me. What begins with promise degenerates into a film that sacrifices its potential and subtlety for explicit and obvious conflict that is nowhere near as engaging. Given the quality of the first half of the film, it is only that which keeps this from being both unwatchable and even making it to a cointoss for a "recommend/not recommend." Yes, as I begin this review, I'm not sure which way I'm falling yet.

While driving from his troubled dental practice one night, Alan Johnson sees his old college roommate, Charlie Fineman riding a Segue through the streets of New York City. Charlie, adorned with giant headphones, does not acknowledge Alan and a few weeks later when they run into one another, he does not seem to remember him. Charlie, exhibiting all of the signs of shellshock, slowly recalls Alan as his roommate and the two return to Charlie's apartment which he is in the process of redoing the kitchen of.

Soon, Alan is spending more and more time with Charlie, despite Charlie's occasional violent outbursts. This strains his marriage to his wife and she wonders why Alan is so obsessed with helping Charlie. While fighting a lawsuit from a woman who made a pass at him in his office, Alan struggles to get Charlie into counseling to deal with the trauma he is experiencing in regards to the loss of his wife and daughters.

Unfortunately, as the movie progresses, Reign Over Me becomes unsatisfied with being a struggle between one man and his sense of loss and another man's efforts to save him. It degenerates into a courtroom drama and a piece that attempts to add a dramatic tension outside the mood piece that makes it work successfully. But more than that, in its latter portion, it makes explicit the loss Charlie Fineman is experiencing and in the process, it dumbs down all that was clever about itself.

Writer and director Mike Binder, whose only other work I had seen before this was Man About Town (reviewed here!), scatters like breadcrumbs the allusions that Charlie's wife and daughters were aboard one of the planes that was hijacked and destroyed on September 11, 2001. Up until the moment that is actually spelled out for the viewer, the film is clever, smart and bold. The universal act of a survivor of the act of violence done against the nation is made as a very personal character struggle. We have not seen anything on those left behind before now and Binder starts it out as something clever and vital and heart wrenching. The moment it is made explicit and the courtroom drama that the movie descends into after that become something significantly less and it feels and views like simple, dull pandering. What was a character study is transformed into a political statement and the movie does not work on that front at all.

Reign Over Me works when it is a deeply personal story and Binder and his cast pull that off beautifully for a time. The conflict that arises from Alan and Janeane is oversimplified, but it acts as a foil to the conflict and struggles between Alan and Charlie. In other words, as Alan tries to intervene in Charlie's life and set him back on a path to normalcy, he does so at the expense of his relationship with his wife. Alan and Janeane share a very cold, rational marriage, whereas Charlie's wounds make him a very passionate - if completely dysfunctional - character. the magic of the contrast is lessened some in the latter portion of the film wherein Janeane is barely featured and the conflict between her and Alan is completely sublimated to the Charlie legal story.

Reign Over Me would be a far better movie if only it had continued with the two character struggles and worked harder to develop the two relationships that pull Alan in very different directions. Indeed, the peak of the movie is quite possibly the moment when Alan realizes that he is not happy in his marriage and that he is gaining some satisfaction out of trying to put Charlie's life back together. The consequences of that realization, though, fail to resonate when Charlie's in-laws pop back into the movie to cause him legal grief . . . for no good reason.

Reign Over Me also has decent use of music and a directoral style that Binder deserves some credit for. The film looks good and Charlie's obsession and connection to music allows for a decent soundtrack to arise from it. But more than the cinematography, it is the character depth that works, which makes it all the more disappointing when Binder surrenders to absurd plot elements to finish off the story.

Charlie's story is far too complex to be resolved through the forced conflict of the legal battle that ensues and that abrupt right turn in the movie leaves viewers with a sour taste in their mouth. Indeed, it is Charlie's complexity that leads to a mood that is dark and compelling throughout most of Reign Over Me. This is not an upper of a movie and Charlie's sullen and shell-shocked nature, combined with his occasional loud and angry outbursts, makes Reign Over Me a difficult movie to watch. That difficulty is mediated by the sense the viewer has that the film is going somewhere. Unfortunately, it gets lost along the way and when it gets lost, it gets lost in the tallest of the tall grasses.

As for the acting, much has been made of Adam Sandler's ability to perform in Reign Over Me. I assert that those who make a fuss over Sandler's performance as Charlie simply did not see his genius performance in Punch-Drunk Love (reviewed here!). In that, as in Reign Over Me, Sandler illustrates that he can be edgy, dangerous and still create a character that is not silly or stupidly crazy. Sandler's Charlie is deeply empathetic and pitiable and it is much of Sandler's work that makes him that way. Sandler - even in some of his more ridiculous comedies - has exhibited the ability to go from quiet to violently angry in the blink of an eye. So, when Charlie is provoked by difficult questions he does not want to answer, the performance Sandler gives is one that is shocking, but not when one considers the source. This is what Sandler is good at, arguably a master of.

The real acting genius in Reign Over Me comes from star Don Cheadle. Cheadle continues to impress as an actor who has great range and in this movie, he performs in a way I've not seen from him before. He easily emotes the strain in his character's marriage with minimal lines but explicit body language through the beginning of the movie. In his earliest scenes, Cheadle makes Alan seem henpecked and disinterested in the life he has through the way he moves more than anything his character says. This is almost the definition of great acting. Cheadle mirrors Sandler's ability to play a tormented character and in Reign Over Me the portrayal of lovelessness in contrast to loss of love is played out with genius by Sandler and Cheadle. Cheadle, though, provides an impossible-to-define solid quality that roots the viewer with Alan, despite his disaffected quality in his performance. It is Cheadle that makes the shaky end at all watchable with the compassion he portrays.

On DVD, Reign Over Me has remarkably few bonus features. There is a featurette on the making of the movie which is not incredible or memorable and a jam session with Sandler and Cheadle. The only other thing on the disc is a photo montage which seems somewhat pointless after watching the movie.

So, here at the end, I am left to consider the impression this left with me. Fans of drama will love the beginning; it is dark, murky and compelling. But the people to whom that appeals most will be disappointed when the film dumbs itself down in the middle and end. As a result, it's hard to recommend this for the buy.

For other films featuring Jada Pinkett Smith, please check out my reviews of:
The Women
The Matrix Revolutions
The Matrix Reloaded
Princess Mononoke

6/10

For other film reviews, please check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2012, 2008 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Messing With You Don’t Mess With The Zohan On DVD Is A Waste Of Time.

The Good: Moments of message
The Bad: Not funny, Wastes good cast members, Predictable, Lame character development, Moments of message
The Basics: A terrible film not worth anyone's time or attention, You Don’t Mess With The Zohan is not funny, not clever and certainly not constructive.


Sometimes, it is only in assembling lists that I discover I have overlooked something I thought I had reviewed. For example, when I was making my list of the "Worst Films Of 2008,” I discovered that I had never actually penned a review of the film You Don’t Mess With The Zohan, even though it easily made that list. Now on DVD, You Don’t Mess With The Zohan is just as bad and a film I loathed having to suffer through again.

Whenever people pitch the "worst movie of the year" or make grandiose claims that certain films are the worst film of a certain time frame, I suspect they forget about works like You Don’t Mess With The Zohan. So, for example, for all of the problems some reviewers had with Twilight, it is hard to take them seriously when they declare that film to be worse than You Don’t Mess With The Zohan or The Love Guru. Similarly, when people claim that 2008 wasn't all that bad in the theaters, my first questions tend to be "Did you see Disaster Movie or (Stupid) Quarantine?" I preface my considerations of You Don’t Mess With The Zohan with these thoughts because it is an utter waste of time, talent and the DVD medium. And sitting through it twice now just left me feeling robbed of time and life.

Zohan is an Israeli secret agent who has no greater ambitions than to cut hair. A superstar in Israel, he dances, plays hackey sack, has sex with many women and catches numerous things - like a fish - in his butt. As the violence between the Israelis and the Palestinians escalates, Zohan sees no potential end to the violence and the rise of an equally powerful adversary, the Phantom, leaves him wishing for more.

So, Zohan fakes his own death by appearing to let the Phantom defeat him in hand-to-hand combat. As many women mourn the loss of Zohan, he escapes to the United States where he assumes an alter ego as a hairdresser. As a corrupt real estate developer moves in on a New York City neighborhood, Zohan raises business at Dahlia's boutique by cutting hair and having sex with all of her clients. Soon, though, Zohan is spotted by a man he once wronged, Salim, who is furious over Zohan taking his goat some years before. Salim threatens to expose the Phantom as a fraud for not killing the Zohan and they converge upon Zohan at a sham hackey sack tournament as the real estate developer hires some white supremacists to burn everything down.

Every now and then, there is a movie that just makes one sit up and say "wow, this is a stupid movie." You Don’t Mess With The Zohan is one such stupid movie, but not for all of the reasons one might think. For example, a comedy about Arab and Israeli relations is about due. The fundamental concept of this flick is not a bad one. The problem is in the execution. So, for example, watching Adam Sandler as the Zohan grill naked and shoot a fish out of his butt has no real redeeming value. And by the time that the viewer gets to more telling, quirky funny bits like Salim's obsession with the goat Zohan once took, the viewer already does not care. Why? In between there are a slew of jokes that virtually all boil down to the idea that it is somehow funny that Zohan has sex with middle aged women or senior citizens of all body types.

Moreover, You Don’t Mess With The Zohan is so forced with its generic and stupid form of humor that it has to telegraph it. This is essentially the function of Gail's son. Gail takes the Zohan in and her son walks in on Zohan and her repeatedly having sex. The joke then is about the son's revulsion and as most of the things with that character, the lines he delivers are essentially saying, "this is what you ought to be laughing at." The problem is, this type of humor is likely to only appeal to the 13 year-old members of the PG-13 audience. And of those, it's not even the brightest and certainly not the most mature 13 year-olds that will find it funny.

By the time the humor gets around to actually being political, it is far too late and hardly funny. So, when Zohan's friends in New York City begin talking politics, the conversation soon degenerates into a conversation on which politician's wives each of the men would be willing to have sex with.

Far more insidious in the film is the equation of Israelis and Arabs with terrorists, though to be fair to Sandler, Smigel and the other writers, they are indiscriminate in their prejudice. Both the Israeli characters and the Palestinian ones are heavily armed and have all sorts of weapons just laying around. This - even in the context of a comedy - reinforces the prejudice that "they" are all terrorists. And it is in that regard that the film has its one decent exchange of dialogue. One Arab character says "People hate us because they think we are terrorists!" to which an Israeli character notes, "People hate us because they think we are you!" There is plenty of hate to go around in You Don’t Mess With The Zohan and unfortunately, when it is not overtly combating the hate, it is subversively reinforcing the worst prejudices about the Israelis and the Palestinians.

At least as offensive is the sheer amount of talent that You Don’t Mess With The Zohan wastes. Talented comedians show up for quick appearances that do not utilize their talents or make them the butt of jokes pertaining to one aspect of their personality. So, for example, Chris Rock's appearance as a cab driver is short and disappointing. That George Takei, Dave Allen and Kevin Nealon went anywhere near this movie is unfortunate.

And of the principles, one tends to expect what they get from both Adam Sandler (who plays Zohan) and Rob Schneider, who is "disguised" as the Arab Salim, but that John Turturro gets sucked into this crapfest is just offensive. Turturro has a great ability to play comedic as well as dramatic. And I had to watch Cradle Will Rock (reviewed here!) after seeing this movie on DVD just to cleanse my palate because Turturro plays a character of such integrity in that film. But in You Don’t Mess With The Zohan, Turturro is wasted, even with his sense of comedy. As the Phantom, he flops with the physical comedy and the verbal gags are hardly funny enough to waste his abilities on.

Now on DVD, You Don’t Mess With The Zohan includes a bevy of deleted scenes which add nothing to the movie, featurettes on the behind-the-scenes antics and development of the movie and commentary tracks that are not funny either. Those who find this movie funny are hardly the type who will enjoy commentary tracks and Sandler and Schneider, who both appear on the commentary track, are particularly unenlightening about anything in regards to the movie.

For those even considering You Don’t Mess With The Zohan, just ask yourself if there isn't some better way to waste two hours of your life. Having wasted over four hours on this insipid "comedy," I can tell you: there are better uses of your time!

For other works with Nick Swardson, please be sure to visit my reviews of:
Jack And Jill
30 Minutes Or Less
Just Go With It
Bolt
I Now Pronounce You Chuck And Larry
Almost Famous

1.5/10

For other movie reviews, be sure to check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2012, 2009 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.

| | |

Disappointing, But Still Enough Good To Recommend, I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry.

The Good: Moments of humor, Ultimately a pro-tolerance stance, Moments of acting, DVD bonus features
The Bad: Pulls punches, Pacing, Predictable plot
The Basics: Funny, but hardly a timeless comedy, I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry has a basic premise and ultimately promotes tolerance of gay and lesbian civil rights.


Lately, I have found myself watching a lot of movies to keep my partner happy, though I am generally glad to do that. The other day, she had a rough day at work - she works at a pet store and a puppy had to be put down because another worker administered the dog a pill, which ended up in the animal's lung! - and she wanted a movie to take her mind off her day. So, we went to our library and I let her pick out a film. The one we ended up watching was I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry and it served its purpose, to distract her from what was going on.

The problem with I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry is that once one hears the title, they pretty much get the entire concept of the movie and the execution of that concept offers few surprises or laughs. The movie is entirely predictable, is unimpressive in terms of scope or even the delivery of its message. For those looking for a pro-gay rights film, the comedy makes jokes that are often too awkward to be considered truly open minded and the movie takes no real risks in terms of storytelling. In many ways, it becomes a very typical Adam Sandler film.

Chuck and Larry are New York City firefighters who are best friends. They wisecrack as they put out fires and perform rescues and their lives seem generally content. Chuck is a womanizer who is happily promiscuous and untied to any one woman, while Larry is a widower raising two children. When Chuck nearly plummets to his death during an investigation of a burnt-out building, he is rescued by Larry. Larry, in the process, comes to realize that his children are not protected by his benefits package, which still names his dead wife as the beneficiary. Because of an administrative error, the benefits cannot be transferred unless Larry gets married.

Larry, then, decides to call in Chuck's promise of doing anything for his friend in gratitude for being saved by him; he asks Chuck to be his domestic partner so his if he dies, Chuck could take care of his kids. After a patent reluctance, Chuck agrees. Soon after they become domestic partners, a special investigator - Clint Fitzer - is dispatched to look into the partnership, alleging fraud. Chuck moves in with Larry, their boss finds out about the partnership and subsequent marriage and soon all of the firehouse is disturbed by Chuck and Larry being "out." As the two men work to save themselves from jail, Chuck finds himself attracted to their lawyer, Alex, who is eager to defend the two men and their right to their marriage.

I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry is a pretty standard Adam Sandler vehicle, including appearances by Sandler's Saturday Night Live alums Rob Schneider - in an utterly insulting role as the Asian priest who marries Chuck and Larry in Canada - and David Spade. This means that Adam Sandler plays yet another generally mild-mannered guy who speaks abrasively with a sense of innocence about him. Sandler as the womanizing Chuck has little real difference from his character in Mr. Deeds (reviewed here!), save that Chuck is smarter. As is his (apparent) trademark, there is also the requisite scene of extreme violence where Sandler beats the crap out of someone with a supposedly comedic flair. Sandler's characters almost always have an angry outburst and Chuck is no exception. This is disturbing more for what the screenwriters are apparently saying about women - virtually everyone who looks at Chuck and Larry as a couple suspects Chuck takes a traditionally feminine role in their relationship - than it does about gays.

Kevin James plays Larry and this might be the first role I've actually seen James play that is a major film role. He seems pretty much like he appears in the few clips of King Of Queens I've caught which suggests that his presence as a good, generally happy guy is the result of good casting as opposed to any form of inspired acting. The problem here is that Larry has moments when he has a melancholy that James seems unable to play. He does not carry the emotional resonance of a man pining for his wife who has been dead for two years. Instead, he slouches through the role alternating the comedic and dramatic moments with little differentiation in his performance.

Supporting roles by Jessica Biel, Ving Rhames and Dan Aykroyd all outshine Sandler and certainly James. Biel plays the lawyer, Alex, and while she and Sandler might have only minimal on-screen chemistry, she plays the role with an earnest innocence that makes her part funny and believable. She plays Alex as educated in her field, but somewhat ignorant outside it, which works. Similarly, Aykroyd's supporting role has him as a believable gruff leader and he pulls the part off quite well.

I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry is alternately funny and offensive and this is a movie where it largely gets away with its gay jokes because Chuck's use of an anti-gay slur change by the end of the movie. As well, the ultimate message of the film is one of tolerance, that homosexuality ought not to be a limiting factor to one's quality of life or experiences and as a result, there is still some social value to the movie.

Realistically, that value is somewhat limited and there are much better movies about actual gay or lesbian love, like The Incredibly True Adventure Of Two Girls In Love whereas this explores a legal loophole in domestic partnership law which few gay and lesbian activists care about (i.e. we'd rather have domestic partnership and actual marriage laws that heterosexual couples might abuse as opposed to being denied them entirely). The plot is entirely predictable, as are the character arcs. Because the "rightness" of freedom and the rights of all people to be married and be happy are so strong, the viewer knows that Chuck and Larry will not get away with their deception (it's that kind of movie where an absolute right must be preserved for any suspension of disbelief to be maintained). As well, because Chuck is a womanizer, the viewer pretty much figures that he will grow by the end and lo and behold, he does.

The DVD presentation of I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry includes about ten minutes of deleted scenes, one of which answers the question of how a guy like Chuck manages to go so long without having sex with a woman once he is married to Larry. There is a commentary track and a featurette and these are pretty much standard for a comedy of this type. They are not bad, but they are hardly exceptional.

But that is pretty much how best to define I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry; it is remarkably average, but not superlative in any way.

For other works with Nick Swardson, please be sure to visit my reviews of:
Jack And Jill
30 Minutes Or Less
Just Go With It
Bolt

6/10

For other movie reviews, be sure to visit my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing of all the films I have reviewed!

© 2012, 2009 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Mr. Deeds Is A Surprisingly Good Comedy.

The Good: Funny, Quirky, Surprisingly well-written, Decent acting
The Bad: Somewhat predictable plot, Standard setup
The Basics: A surprisingly decent Adam Sandler film that actually makes the audience laugh, Mr. Deeds forces us to ask “What is the world coming to?!”


Every once in a while, I decide it is time to even out the old bell curve of my ratings. Because I didn't want to completely waste my time, I got out A.I.: Artificial Intelligence (reviewed here!) with Mr. Deeds, which was the DVD I figured I would not enjoy. Who would have guessed that I would have found Mr. Deeds to be the superior movie? Those readers of my reviews will know that I usually rate comedies fairly poorly as they do not stand up well over repeated viewings. Mr. Deeds seems to be an exception to that.

When Preston Blake dies, his multi-billion dollar corporation looks for any heir to his empire. They find Longfellow Deeds, a laid back pizza delivery guy who seems to enjoy his simple life in a small town in New England. Cecil, the company's chief counsel, and Chuck Cedar, the company's CEO, hunt Deeds down and bring him back to New York. There, Deeds is taken in by investigative reporter Babe Bennett, who needs a story before she gets fired. Deeds falls in love with Babe, who has been lying to him all along about who she really is. While Chuck works to swindle Deeds out of his stock, Deeds begins to figure out that being a part of this particular company is pretty decent.

What Mr. Deeds lacks in original plot material, it more than makes up for with humorous characters and a rather unique use of an assortment of character actors. The movie almost immediately establishes itself as something different with a quirky use of dialog between Cecil and Murph, Deeds' best friend. When Cecil arrives in Deeds' hometown, the exchange between him and Murph is quick, funny and utterly disarming. Prior to that, the movie is just a bunch of stupid jokes that are obvious and simple. But with that one exchange of dialog, the viewer is sucked in to a movie we know is going to be a bit different.

The differences do not come in the form of the plot. This is the most hackneyed, obvious, overdone Hollywood plot there is. After all, we could probably name fifteen movies and/or episodes of television shows wherein the protagonist suddenly is bequeathed lots of money and has a decision to make about it while those around him (or her) manipulate them or attempt to get their money. It's a standard plot. The originality of Mr. Deeds is not in that element.

What Mr. Deeds does is it takes the standard and plays with it, populating it with some weird characters. Deeds himself is happy-go-lucky and simple, often ending up as the butt of other people's jokes. Babe, the reporter investigating him, is a compulsive liar who pulls all of her lies out of To Kill A Mockingbird. Cecil is an eccentric lawyer who does more than deadpans, he actually connects with Deeds and plays into his simpleton joy. Deeds new housekeeper, Emilio, seems to move at the speed of light and is a wonderful straightman. All through the movie, there are weird characters that seem to defy our expectations for what characters in this situation would do. And some of the cameos are wonderful, including John McEnroe playing a raging version of himself.

But what makes Mr. Deeds even funnier is the use of the actors. Adam Sandler is surprisingly good as Longfellow Deeds and he plays Deeds with more understatement than he does in most of his other movies. Gone is the mumbling sketch comedian that Sandler uses in far too many of his other, less worthwhile movies. Here, he stretches his creative wings and he rewards the audience with a different type of comedic performance than his usual portrayal which is almost completely derived from his Saturday Night Live routines. Still, he has not completely done away with that person and his little violent side makes its usual appearance in this piece.

John Turturro is great as the speedy butler Emilio. He gives a great comedic performance that is very different from his incomprehensible character in O Brother, Where Art Thou?, his manic protagonist in The Luzhin Defense, and his driven family man who is the backbone of Cradle Will Rock. Instead, here he plays a muted character who has presence only in the movie's climax and then never stealing the scenes from Sandler's Deeds.

The person who does steal the movie is Eric Avari, who plays Cecil. Avari, who might be best known to mass audiences as Elektra's father in Daredevil (reviewed here!), is an unlikely candidate for comedy and then he has the dignity and bearing for a sidekick, a straightman whose straightlaced nature plays off the wackiness of those around him. It is therefore, casting genius that Avari is used as a quirky, funny, emotive character. Avari's character flirts, joins in singing a David Bowie song and has a love of Wendy's frosty's. He plays the part expertly, using his facial expressions to twist a joke even further. He makes the movie even more interesting than Sandler.

I went into Mr. Deeds expecting to not enjoy it and instead, I found a movie I was consistently laughing at. It was funny. And it held up as funny when I watched it a second time. It's not Monty Python's Flying Circus or Kids In The Hall, but it is funny and it is worth a viewing when you're in the mood for a laugh.

For other films with John Turturro, please visit my reviews of:
Transformers: Dark Of The Moon
Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen
Transformers
The Luzhin Defence
O Brother, Where Art Thou?
Cradle Will Rock
Rounders
Miller’s Crossing

7/10

For other film reviews, be sure to check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing of all the films I have reviewed!

© 2012, 2003 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Sandler's Continued Reinvention Leads To Dramedy With 50 First Dates

The Good: Funny, Sweet - in a kind or lame way, Character, Acting
The Bad: Mostly predictable plot, Somewhat repetitive
The Basics: When Henry falls for a woman who continues to relive the same day of her life, he must woo her each day in a surprisingly good dramedy.


I'm not, per se, a fan of Adam Sandler. Nor am I particularly endeared with Drew Barrymore. Actually, that part may not be entirely true; I'm not a fan of the "Hollywood Rumormill Drew Barrymore." That is to say, I get pretty sick and tired of hearing all of the b.s. gossip about her, but have nothing in particular against her as a person nor as an actress. So, in short, my expectations were pretty low for 50 First Dates.

50 First Dates, then, came as a pleasant surprise. That was a kind of backhanded way of recommending this movie; I would have recommended it regardless of my expectations. It was that much better than I had anticipated. Basically, I've seen a string of bad movies that I had high expectations for, so that when a movie meets or exceeds my hopes it's something these days! But I digress.

50 First Dates follows Henry Roth, a geeky marine biologist in Hawaii who meets Lucy Witmore one morning at a local restaurant. Taken with her, he arrives the next morning to discover she has no memory of him. Locals quickly reveal to Henry that Lucy had a severe accident and has spent some time reliving the day over and over again. Her father and brother continue to protect Lucy by allowing themselves to be trapped in Marlin's (Lucy's father) birthday day after day. Henry shakes up Lucy's world and he falls in love with her, trying each day to get her to fall in love with her while earning the trust and respect of Marlin.

The thing about 50 First Dates is that it's not entirely absurd or without its charms. In fact, the only real drawback of the movie is that the plot becomes somewhat repetitive. Henry's attempts to woo Lucy begin to get old around the middle of the movie and that is where the film takes a shift from absurd comedy into something endearing and dramatic. There's also a stretch where the movie becomes less about Henry and Lucy and more about Marlin and Henry, shifting from the romance into the story of a man convincing a protective father he's an all right guy.

The other drawback is the beginning; the movie sets itself up as a ridiculous comedy that isn't quite sure what it wants to be. In establishing Henry at work, the viewer is treated to lame animal gags, stupid vomit humor and a pointless androgynous coworker character that dilutes from the movie's sensibilities and sensitivities.

Once the movie decides to be about Henry's infatuation and growing love for Lucy, it begins to hit its stride. There is genuine humor - though most of those scenes were in the previews - like Henry's use of a penguin to get Lucy's attention and him staging a mugging with his friend Ula. Lucy's psychopathic romp on Ula is hilarious and her brother's steroid-lisp scenes are enough to keep the audience smiling.

What makes this dramedy shine, other than the fact that it quickly rejects the ridiculous humor that would have made it like most any other Adam Sandler movie, is that the characters are interesting and the acting clicks. Henry is pretty much the standard quirky, repressed maniac that Sandler does in just about all of his movies. However, Henry is surrounded by characters that force his realism and make him have more depth. Lucy is more than just a pretty face and an amnesia patient; she is a realistic young woman struggling through her days with different moods and reactions. Part of the charm of 50 First Dates is in seeing Henry adapt to the fact that what works one day will not necessarily win Lucy over the next.

A lot of credit has to go to the acting. Sean Astin plays Doug, Lucy's brother, with an incredible ridiculous quality that is a refreshing change from his role in The Lord Of The Rings. Moreover, Astin's weird lisping character forces Adam Sandler to play Henry more straightlaced. Sandler continues to extend his range beyond what we've seen of him in Mr. Deeds and Punch-Drunk Love, to include more subtlety and less of his rehashing of his Saturday Night Live characters. In 50 First Dates, Sandler explores the depth of sincerity that he began to reveal in Punch-Drunk Love (reviewed here!). Thus, it is Sandler's acting that convinces the viewer of Henry's genuine nature and makes it believable that he could convince Lucy's dad.

Blake Clark plays Martin, Lucy's dad. He's a character actor that usually plays blue collar father-figures and here he plays pretty much the same thing. However, unlike the slacker dad he played in Boy Meets World, his genuine, down-to-Earth nature prevails and makes for a very believable, very loving father. Clark has an aspect to him that makes his characters instantly likable and plausible and it is a pleasure to see him getting work in a decent movie.

It is Drew Barrymore, however, who steals this movie. She's a likable person and the role of Lucy is perfect for her. It allows her to illustrate her cute, flirtatious persona, her fun-loving, genuine side and her angry and disturbed side. Barrymore convinces us that Lucy is more than a cheap joke of someone with memory loss. She enhances the character with unpredictable eye movements and body language, infusing the character with a realism that is seldom achieved in romantic comedies.

In the end, 50 First Dates is a romantic comedy with a surprising amount of depth to it and it's worth your time when you want something lighter, but don't want your intelligence insulted.

For other films involving Drew Barrymore, please check out:
Going The Distance
Whip It
He’s Just Not That Into You
Donnie Darko
Charlie's Angels
Ever After
Batman Forever

7/10

For other movie reviews, please be sure to visit my Movie Review Index Page for a complete listing of the films I have reviewed!

© 2012, 2004 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |