Ugh, Camp! Space Jam Is A Ridiculous Sports/Science Fiction Film!

The Good: Performances are all right
The Bad: Silly live action/animation blends, No character development, Ridiculous plot
The Basics: Michael Jordan makes a big public relations push with Space Jam, which is an otherwise worthless movie.


My wife and I have very different tastes in movies, but one thing I have noticed is we both have some attachments to films that were very much a part of our respective childhoods. So, some of the movies I used to sell, rolling my eyes the entire time, when I was working at a department store in college are some of her childhood favorites. There are movies she loves that were released after the time it would have been age appropriate for them to garner my attention. I feel like Space Jam, which was beloved by the boy I babysat in high school and afterward, was one such film. Recently, my wife was on a nostalgia trip and had me watch it with her.

And wow, is it terrible! As rumors of Space Jam 2 abound, watching Space Jam might well be the best argument against making a sequel. While at the time, Space Jam might have played as an audacious sports comedy that blended live-action and animated components, it has aged poorly. Now, it stands as a pretty pathetic advertisement for Michael Jordan – not the person, so much as the brand. In Space Jam, Michael Jordan is a brand, a corporate entity and the film takes autobiographical elements of the famous basketball player’s life and combines them with a goofy story of space aliens. The thing is, from a branding perspective, Space Jam is troublingly brilliant. Instead of looking like a basketball player who had the arrogance to assume his talent naturally extended into other sports – namely baseball - Space Jam characterizes Michael Jordan as a man who became successful enough to follow his dreams, fail at them, and then return legitimately to doing the thing he loved and made him a superstar in the first place.

In deep space, the planet of Moron Mountain is run by Swackhammer. Swackhammer’s interstellar amusement park needs some new entertainment and he believes the Looney Tunes would ideal. He sets his henchmen, the Nerdlucks, to conscript Bugs Bunny and his pals to come work for him. The Nerdlucks are very small and Bugs Bunny, Elmer Fudd, Sylvester the cat, and Daffy Duck are not at all threatened by them. In his arrogance, Bugs agrees to a competition against the Nerdlucks with the freedom of the Looney Tunes in the balance. Bugs Bunny chooses basketball.

When the competition is named, the Nerdlucks reveal their true powers. They begin absorbing the basketball talents of people like Charles Barkley and Patrick Ewing and they grow to monstrous sizes. So menaced, Bugs Bunny turns to Michael Jordan for aid. Jordan, who is trying to seriously focus on his baseball career, is initially uninterested in creating a basketball team with the Looney Tunes. But, seeing his friends lose their skills, some cajoling from Bill Murray (who wants to play on the same team as Jordan) and the desire to avoid Stan Podolak lead Michael Jordan to put on the jersey again and return to basketball.

Space Jam is very much a kid’s movie. Children are the only ones likely to be at all surprised about the plot or character direction of Space Jam and not be insulted by the product promotion and blatant Brand Jordan feel of the film. Frankly, the film is insulting to sports fans, film aficionados, and black people. The stereotypes in Space Jam are troubling. The fictional representation of Michael Jordan is “keeping it real” with the urban demographic by having collard greens cooked for him by the lady of the house.

That said, the acting in Space Jam is not terrible. Bill Murray and the basketball players – including Michael Jordan – are essentially playing themselves, so they don’t have to stretch. But the live actors interface with the virtual characters flawlessly. The cartoon characters look utterly ridiculous in the real world (one suspects that Space Jam 2 would feature characters that have a CG feel to them), but the actors get their eyelines right for making it appear like they are actually interacting with the animated characters.

Ultimately, Space Jam was a sign of the times; Michael Jordan wanted to return to playing basketball and, after his very public retirement, he had to prove he was still a draw. Space Jam has him playing basketball against animated monsters and if he can take them, of course he can hold his own against humans. Groan.

For other films that mix live action and animated characters, please visit my reviews of:
Rock-A-Doodle
Looney Toons: Back In Action

2.5/10

For other film reviews, please visit my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing.

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

An Obvious Disney Hero Journey, Hercules Disappoints!

The Good: Decent voice acting
The Bad: Predictable plot, Obvious Disney conceits, Light on character development/complexities, Largely unmemorable songs
The Basics: One of the less memorable Disney films, Hercules is not at all enduring or very interesting at all.


My wife is a big Disney fan and she has helped give me an appreciation of the animated films that are largely for children. Hercules is not one that she has gotten me to appreciate. In fact, Hercules is one of the more disappointing Disney films with some wildly erratic animation. While it might not be the worst film, it lacks notable music or consistently good animation. It has a somewhat stylized form of animation, as opposed to realistic proportions and a realistic sense of physics to the universe.

Hercules retells the story of the classic Greek hero, in a Disney way. Unfortunately, the whole “Disney thing” is alive and well in Hercules. In addition to the usual comic relief sidekicks (in this case Phil – short for Philoctetes – and Pegasus), Hercules has comic relief dimwitted adversaries Pain and Panic who help to kill the momentum of the film.

Set in ancient Greece, the gods overthrow the Titans and take to Olympus. There, Zeus and Hera have a son, Hercules. Zeus’s brother, Hades, is deeply jealous of the boy and he learns that Hercules is the only thing that will stop him from releasing the Titans from their prison in eighteen years. Being a big picture guy, Hades enlists his minions, Pain and Panic, to get rid of Hercules. Unable to kill him, they drop him on Earth where he is adopted by two humans.

As a teenager, Hercules is told by Zeus who he is and to train as a hero, he is joined by Phil and Pegasus to learn to be powerful and responsible. Hercules is waylaid by Megara, a woman he rescues from Nessus, though she is not truly a damsel in distress. A pawn for Hades, Meg gets Hercules to perform heroic tasks, which make him a celebrity and put him in the crosshairs of Hades. With Hades planning to dispose of Hercules, Phil and Meg try to save Hercules, even as the hero loses his godlike powers!

Hercules is presented as a pretty unremarkable hero in Hercules. He is not particularly cute or inspiring and his fame quickly goes to his head. Meg is, initially, an interesting Disney Princess who seems to be more than just a simple damsel in distress. Unfortunately, even Meg’s initial sarcasm and inner strength turn into needing a man to rescue her and that is disappointing.

Danny DeVito provides a decent vocal performance as Phil, but the role is not one of his funniest or even more interesting parts. Similarly, Bobcat Goldthwait and Matthew Frewer play off one another well to embody Pain and Panic, though they are remarkably monolithic supporting villains and screw-ups. Both actors deserve better.

Hercules marks one of the first truly significant voiceover roles for James Woods and his portrayal of the villainous Hades. Woods is hilarious and expressive and Hades steals the show frequently from the other characters. In fact, Woods’s jokes and deliveries make him the most interesting character to watch, even when he is evil.

Even James Woods, though, cannot make Hercules worth watching or adding to one’s permanent collection.

For other Disney animated films, please visit my reviews of:
Wreck-It Ralph
Brave
Tangled
Toy Story 3
A Christmas Carol
Up
Ponyo
The Princess And The Frog
Bolt
WALL-E
The Incredibles
Lilo & Stitch
Atlantis: The Lost Empire
Monsters, Inc.
Mulan
The Lion King
Beauty And The Beast
The Little Mermaid
Lady And The Tramp
The Sword In The Stone
Sleeping Beauty
Fantasia

3.5/10

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.
| | |

Two Directors Create A Series That Becomes The Best Cinematic Example Of The Law Of Diminishing Returns: The Batman Anthology

The Good: The first two films are good, Val Kilmer is decent, Great DVD/Blu-Ray bonus features!
The Bad: Joel Schumacher’s works, Repetitive plots, Series inconsistencies, Even the good films have not agd particularly well
The Basics: With no consisted story or direction, the Batman movies of Tim Burton and Joel Schumacher make for an unfortunately inconsistent series that gets worse with each installment after a point.


With the recent end of the Dark Knight Trilogy (reviewed here!), the cinematic Batman franchise is once again in limbo. That is a state not entirely unfamiliar to Warner Bros., who owns the rights to the franchise and is the studio that produces all of the films based on DC Comics properties. With the abrupt end of the Batman movies of the 1990s, the franchise had to regroup and reboot. Before the powerful, thematically complex and decidedly adult The Dark Knight Trilogy, there were the Batman films of 1989 – 1997, now encapsulated in a boxed set known as Batman: The Motion Picture Anthology 1989 – 1997.

Batman: The Motion Picture Anthology 1989 – 1997 is an incredible example of what happens when a surprise hit becomes a lucrative cash cow for a studio and that cow is milked too frequently and too hard. It is also a prime example of what happens to a franchise when the creative teams behind the camera and the talent in front of the camera are not kept consistent (in The Dark Knight Trilogy only one performer was recast!) and the vision by the later forces working on the series is clearly an attempt to capitalize on the formula as opposed to build upon the story and prior successes. The result is that Batman: The Motion Picture Anthology 1989 – 1997 is a film series that starts intriguing, rises well, and then steadily declines until its abrupt and painful crash.

Batman: The Motion Picture Anthology 1989 – 1997 consists of the films:
Batman
Batman Returns
Batman Forever
and Batman & Robin. The first two are directed by Tim Burton, the latter two by Joel Schumacher and three different actors play Bruce Wayne/Batman over the course of the four films!

In Batman, a young Bruce Wayne witnesses his father and mother being killed by a mysterious assassin. As an adult, Bruce Wayne manages the giant company left to him by his father by day and at night, he takes up armor and a cape to dispense vigilante justice on the streets of Gotham City. As the press pushes the police to admit that the Batman exists, a local gangster is smoked during a robbery of a chemical factory that goes horribly wrong. However, when Batman accidentally lets the gangster fall into a vat of chemicals, the man is not killed, but rather transformed into a psychopathic killer. Waging a battle with chemical weapons, the Joker menaces Gotham City and threatens to undo all the good Batman is working for.

Batman Returns happens around Christmastime a short time later. Gotham City is hit with a crime wave from a gang of thugs who use old circus equipment. While Batman keeps them in check, he is not prepared for the city to have to deal with more threats. Those threats come in the form of a mysterious man, Oswald Cobblepot, who literally rises out of the sewers to save an abducted baby and a catburgler who seems bent on wreaking vengeance at night to make up for her unsatisfying daytime life (and the fact that her boss tried to kill her). While Bruce Wayne fends off a corporate attack from his rival, Max Shreck, he finds romance with Selena Kyle and it slowly begins to dawn on him that she is the same person as the mysterious Catwoman he fights at night. When Shreck uses Cobblepot as a pawn to take the mayor’s office, the fallout creates a villain who wants to kill all the firstborn of Gotham City.

Joel Schumacher took over behind the camera and Val Kilmer took on the role of Bruce Wayne in Batman Forever. In that, a demented former-District Attorney, Harvey Dent, begins a reign of terror and violence (focused on bank robberies) as the villainous Two-Face. Bruce Wayne’s problems are multiplied, though, when one of his employees creates a device that can drain the brains of the citizens of Gotham City and unlock all the secrets the people there have. As Batman squares off against Two-Face and the Riddler, he is aided by a forensic psychologist and a young acrobat who lost his parents and wants to fight crime as well . . . Robin.

George Clooney’s only outing in the cape and cowl comes in Batman & Robin where Batman and Robin are assisted by Alfred’s neice, who takes up the alter ego of Batgirl. The pair could use her help as they are bickering over how to take down the formidable Mr. Freeze and they fall under the love spell-style charms of Poison Ivy and her thug, Bane.

To his credit, Tim Burton’s two outings – in addition to being appropriately weird (as one expects from Tim Burton’s works) – have larger themes. Batman explores crime and the nature of justice vs. the pitfalls of revenge and Batman Returns has a great deal about empowering women and the snares of political corruption. Unfortunately, by the time Batman Forever comes up, the writers and director are working for big action, flamboyant villains, and star power, as opposed to trying to create films of substance. This is not to say that Tim Burton got everything right in his two films. While the miniatures look great, even by today’s standards, Batman is surprisingly slow and the focus on the Joker is far less compelling in-context of Batman’s story than it is as a stand-alone film.

That said, it is almost inarguable that Tim Burton helped effectively usher in the youth culture mindset of the 1990s with Batman and then the even more violent Batman Returns. The two films created a nihilistic sense of the world; crime ran rampant and the victories were more ambiguous than celebratory and the hero uses many of the same methods as the villains, just with nobler purpose.

Val Kilmer was not a bad choice to replace Michael Keaton as Bruce Wayne and Batman and he had the physical presence to pull off the dual roles more plausibly than Keaton, who played the part of Bruce Wayne as more goofy than gallant. Kilmer, however, was saddled with a particularly weak script with Batman Forever and a film that was intended to be a Jim Carrey vehicle and ended up disappointing on so many fronts. Joel Schumacher’s Batman Forever also prioritized casting (the entire series has pretty impressive guest cast members from the major – Jack Nicholson, Danny DeVito, Michelle Pfeiffer, Tommy Lee Jones, Jim Carrey, Uma Thurman and Arnold Schwarzenegger – to the supporting players who flesh out surprisingly minor roles – Kim Bassinger, Robert Wuhl, Christopher Walken, Drew Barrymore, John Glover, Vivica A. Fox) over fidelity to the series thus far. To wit, in Batman, Harvey Dent was played by Billy Dee Williams and in Batman Forever he is recast with Tommy Lee Jones. It takes a lot more than an acid bath from a mobster to make Billy Dee Williams into Tommy Lee Jones!

The epitome of Schumacher’s obsession with star power and spectacle over substance is in Batman & Robin. There, Arnold Schwarzenegger appears as Mr. Freeze, a character written with a thin backstory surrounding his attempts to cure his wife (who is in suspended animation), but is executed as a character constructed almost entirely of catchphrases. To wit, his big monologue from the film’s trailer, where he introduces himself as a threat to Gotham City appears in the film’s middle, after he is incarcerated, when he introduces himself to two people (his jailers) who know exactly who he is! It is this type of stupidity that shook the series and almost gutted this franchise.

Performances in the Batman movies in this set are generally good. Michael Keaton is an intriguing Bruce Wayne and he pulled off the action sequences for Batman better than most might have suspected. Jack Nicholson performed opposite him in Batman with a flamboyancy and menace that worked beautifully to define the character of the Joker. Danny DeVito gives one of his most underrated performances as Oswald Cobblepot (the Penguin) and Michelle Pfeiffer and Keaton had great on-screen chemistry in Batman Returns. While Val Kilmer and Chris O’Donnell did fine as Bruce Wayne and Dick Grayson, George Clooney seemed unusually stiff when he took up the mantle in Batman & Robbin. The less said about Jim Carrey, Uma Thurman, and Arnold Schwarzenegger, the better.

On DVD and Blu-Ray, the Batman Anthology is chock full of goodies. There are extensive featurettes on the production of the films, from concept designs through casting and the bonus features provide a wealth of insight into how moviemaking was done, especially at the birth of CG effects. Fans of Batman may want to champion the whole series, but given how most people will only watch bonus featurettes once, the full Batman Anthology is hardly worth investing in. Tim Burton’s works might be worth picking up, but Joel Schumacher’s outings oscillate between the disappointing and the outright insulting.

For other live-action DC superhero works, please check out my reviews of:
Green Lantern
Jonah Hex
Watchmen
Superman Returns
Catwoman
Batman & Robin
Supergirl
Superman
Wonder Woman

3.5/10

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

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

So Many Contrivances Rob When In Rome Of An Actual Relationship!

The Good: Most of the acting is not actually terrible.
The Bad: No remarkable performances, Thinly painted characters, Absurd plot, Pounding soundtrack.
The Basics: Kristen Bell makes an all-around dud of a romantic comedy with When In Rome, a film that forgets to put any romance in the film!


When I reviewed Confessions Of A Shopaholic (reviewed here!), I used a title that I find I wish I could continue using. So very many movies, especially romantic comedies, are predicated on the idea that women are idiots that it is shocking how many women continue to support Hollywood’s ridiculous notions of them by buying tickets to movies where women are portrayed as simpletons at best, idiots at worst. I am always pleasantly surprised when I uncover a romantic comedy that defies that tradition.

Unfortunately, When In Rome is not one of the romantic comedies that defies the notion that even smart women are lovestruck into becoming idiotic in the most unfathomable ways relative to the rest of their character traits.

I picked up When In Rome based on the presence of Kristen Bell, who bought quite a bit of cache with me from her performance in Veronica Mars (reviewed here!). She illustrates none of that potential or talent in When In Rome.

In When In Rome, Bell plays Beth, a young woman who loves her work more than she has ever loved a man. Waiting for the right man to come along, she works hard at her New York City art gallery on a major installation. However, as she makes plans for that installation, her sister meets a man whom she intends to marry rather abruptly. Beth flies off to Italy for the wedding and at it, she finds herself charmed by the best man, Nick Beamon. Nick seems pretty smitten with Beth as well, but at the fountain of love outside the church, Beth witnesses Nick getting kissed by another woman and she assumes her feelings were wrong. Taking some coins from the fountain, Beth finds herself pursued by five men, including Nick, when she returns stateside.

As Beth attempts to get rid of Lance (the magician), Antonio (the crazy artist), Gale (a self-obsessed male model), and Al (an older divorcee), she finds her problems at the art gallery bailed out by Nick. But soon, she realizes she loves him more than her job and she works to undo the magic that binds the other men to her.

The fundamental problem with When In Rome is that the relationship between Nick and Beth is so unimpressive and indistinct as to be no more significant than any of the contrived relationships from the fountain magic. There is nothing special about their relationship and, sadly, Kristen Bell and Josh Duhamel (Beth and Nick, respectively) have less than no on-screen chemistry. There is no sexual chemistry on screen between them and their lack of passion makes much of the film dull, though not unbearable.

In fact, When In Rome devotes so much time to presenting all of the insignificant characters that in order to keep the film down at the ninety minute range (the standard minimum running time for most movies and, apparently, the ideal running time for contrived romantic comedies) , it neglects to significantly develop the relationship between Nick and Beth. Their relationship is not the only one that is underwhelming: Beth’s sister, Joan, pops in entirely for plot support. In addition to providing the plot point that allows Beth and Nick to meet, Joan calls from Italy to relay the myth of the fountain and, as the film goes on, the various steps needed to defeat the magic that Beth is subject to.

The other suitors are all “types” with one discerning character trait each and their schtick gets very old very quick (especially Jon Heder’s Lance, who is paired yet again with his Napoleon Dynamite co-star Efren Ramirez).

On the acting front, When In Rome is a terrible waste of the talent involved. None of the performers give anything the viewer has not already seen from them before – Will Arnett, for example, is essentially playing, alternately, his characters from Arrested Development and 30 Rock as Antonio. It is hard to say whose talent is wasted more: his, Danny DeVito’s or Anjelica Huston, all of whom are relegated to bit supporting roles.

When In Rome is not funny, not clever, and uses all of the usual conceits for a romantic comedy geared at getting the 18 – 24 year old women’s audience’s dollars. On DVD, When In Rome features a blooper reel, deleted scenes, and 2 music videos, none of which make the film any better. When In Rome is an all-around dud that seems determined to continue insulting the intelligence of women by appealing to an outdated sense of romance with the most ridiculous conceits imaginable.

For other works with Alexis Dziena, please visit my reviews of:
Nick And Norah’s Infinite Playlist
Invasion
Havoc
Strangers With Candy

1.5/10

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.
| | |

The Lorax Is The Logical Successor To FernGully!

The Good: Great message, Decent 3-D Effects, Moments of character, Voice acting
The Bad: Very predictable plot, Some moments toned down for children
The Basics: In an artificial, manufactured future, a boy goes on a quest to bring back trees in order to impress a girl in The Lorax!


It occurs to me as I contemplate the latest cinematic endeavor based upon the works of Dr. Seuss, The Lorax, that I had only seen one other recent Dr. Seuss adaptation. I was one of the few critics not overly impressed by Dr. Seuss’s How The Grinch Stole Christmas (reviewed here!) and I did not even bother checking out Dr. Seuss’s The Cat In The Hat with Mike Meyers as a result. So, I was either overdue for some cinematic Dr. Seuss or I was just intrigued enough by the promotions for The Lorax to risk disappointment when I went to the screening.

Fortunately, The Lorax is a lot of fun. More than just being fun, The Lorax has a strong, smart environmental message tailored toward educating and alarming the younger and recently disaffected generations. Perhaps the last time such an overt effort has been made to wake young people up to pending environmental catastrophes was FernGully: The Last Rainforest (reviewed here!). The Lorax succeeds at educating without ever feeling like it is browbeating, probably because the film is so consistently entertaining. As usual in circumstances like these, it has been decades since I read the book The Lorax, so this is a very pure review of the film, without any comparison to the children’s book that spawned it.

In Thneedville, everything is artificial, manufactured to serve the needs of Mr. O’Hare’s business interests. There, the twelve year-old Ted is growing up with a huge crush on Audrey. When Audrey tells Ted that all she truly wants is to see a real, live – not artificial – tree, Ted leaps at the opportunity to win over her heart. This takes Ted, with the help of his Grandma Norma, on a quest outside the walls of Thneedville. Beyond the city, the world is pretty much a stripped, deserted wasteland. Out beyond the boundaries, Ted finds the hermit Once-ler.

The Once-ler tells Ted his story, the story of how he began the deforesting of the world and his encounter with the Lorax. The Lorax, a small creature that advises strongly against cutting down any trees, and the Once-ler get into a conflict. The Lorax wants desperately to save the forests and the creatures living there, while the Once-ler is caught up in producing his Thneed, a device with 100 uses. Eager to win the heart of Audrey, Ted implores the Once-ler to help him find a tree!

The Lorax is much less about the title character and much more about the Once-ler and Ted, though the Lorax is the highlight of the film. The story is very simple and because one goes into the movie knowing a fair amount about the message, it is very hard to complain about the fact that it pretty much goes exactly where one might expect it to. That said, there are far worse things than when a story about saving the world actually pounds that message home and illustrates the potential consequences of failing to protect the environment. The Lorax promotes that message well and delivers a few snappy, fun songs with it to boot.

The Lorax also works well on the character front. Ted and the Once-ler are characterized as foils, just as the Once-ler and the Lorax are opposites. Ted has a wonderful childhood crush on Audrey and the depth of his affection leads him on a quest that helps him love the world (the environment). In stark contrast, the Once-ler is motivated mostly by greed, a self-love. Ignorant to the consequences, the Once-ler is enamored with his own cleverness in creating the Thneed, and he allows his ambition to get the better of him. The dichotomy may be obvious, but it is potent; Ted’s love is positive and flows from him, the Once-ler’s love is concerned more with self-gratification than anything else. And there are worse reasons to want to save the environment than love or romance!

So, the appearance of the Lorax challenges the Once-ler’s sense of ambition and, despite the logic of the argument, fails to sway the Once-ler. The Once-ler is caught in the moment, unable to deal with hypothetical futures. He needs something concrete and the Lorax comes spouting possibilities (albeit high probabilities). In that way, writers Ken Daurio and Cinco Paul (and Dr. Seuss) also make a potent argument for the usefulness of the bearer of bad news. The Lorax is absolutely right in many of his warnings, but he does not present his argument in a way that the Once-ler can actually hear his point. That introduces the intriguing idea that, had the Lorax (and environmentalists in the real world) simply changed their message to suit the recipient, all of the destruction might have been prevented.

The Lorax is presented in beautiful 3-D much the way Despicable Me (reviewed here!) was. The characters are cute and stylized with big eyes and flawless skin. The fur on the Lorax is beautifully rendered on the big screen making the spectacle a surprisingly high selling point for such a substantial film.

As an animated movie, The Lorax features a voice cast, in this case one of the best I have seen and heard in a while. The Lorax might contain the only performance by Rob Riggle (Mr. O’Hare in the film) that I could stand! Zac Efron, Taylor Swift and Betty White dominate the voice talents of the Ted-portion of the movie. Taylor Swift actually impressed me with how her voice is lower in The Lorax than it is on many of her recordings. The Once-ler and Lorax are vocally created by Ed Helms and Danny DeVito, two people who seem exceptionally comfortable in the realm of voiceover work. All of the vocal talents perform well.

This weekend, for a change, audiences have a very clear-cut decision to make when going to the theaters. There is the comparatively highbrow, socially-conscious, solidly entertaining film (The Lorax) and the disappointingly raucous, vacuous, vomit-inducing flick depicting terrible people behaving badly (Project X). I, for one, hope viewers make the smart decision and help Dr. Seuss’s The Lorax bury the other film. If it does, perhaps a bleak, artificial world like the one depicted in The Lorax shall not come to pass.

For other animated films, please check out my reviews of:
Bolt
The Secret World Of Arietty
Wonder Woman

7/10

For other movie reviews, please visit my Movie Review Index Page for an organized list of the hundreds of movies I have reviewed!

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

| | |

Living Well Through Living Out Loud

The Good: Actors and acting, Strong characters
The Bad: Weak plot
The Basics: An easy recommendation for women looking for a film to bond together during. There's a lot for thinking men as well. A must for Ally McBeal fans.


What happens if you took two great actors (Danny DeVito and Holly Hunter) and one of today's better newcomers (Queen Latifah) and put them in a weakly scripted character driven film? You'd have Living Out Loud which was met with generally high critical acclaim, but failed to produce at the box-office mostly because word of mouth on the film was less supportive.

Living Out Loud is uniquely narrated, much in the way Ally McBeal was originally, with thoughts being presented immediately in such a way that it is difficult for the viewer to tell that they are not real. Some of these are done with humor and pulled off effectively. It may take a second viewing for the casual watcher to pull the real out of the unreal.

So, we're left with a film filled with excellent characters doing . . . well, not much. Danny DeVito portrays Pat Francato, a lonely man whose family life is turmoil, Holly Hunter's character, Judy Moore, is getting over being left by a man and Queen Latifah plays . . . here's a surprise, a nightclub singer, named Liz Bailey. Latifah does a good job and one of the funniest scenes is easily the fictional meeting between Liz and shy Judy.

While Pat interacts honestly with Judy, it becomes clear that she's the exception in his life. Pat's brother, Phil, appears for a few scenes where he alludes to past failures. But Pat has real tragedy; his daughter Liz is not well. His earthy empathetic condition roots the film as he plays elevator operator to the out of touch Judy. Pat - via DeVito, gives the audience some grounding.

The movie is good in that it teams the mousy Hunter up with the more substantial Latifah and mixes in DeVvito in a pretty lonely experience. This is not a film to see when you're depressed. Why? While the characters overcome - generally - the depths they sink to en route are not much fun. In fact, some of the best moments - on a human level - are as DeVito's character is being berated for his ideas by his brother.

More substantial than your average "chick flick," this film has greater endurance and depth than your average women's empowerment film, too. And I'm someone who despises the whole group dance scene thing, I find the scene wherein Judy and Liz go to a club to dance surprisingly relevant.

At the very least, it's well acted and interesting! At its best moments, it says something wonderful about the way people think when they are burdened with emotions.

For other strongly romantic movies, be sure to check out my reviews of:
One Day
Kama Sutra: A Tale Of Love
Friends With Benefits

7.5/10

For other movie reviews, please visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2011, 2002 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Appropriately Perfect, One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest Makes For A Substantial DVD Release!

The Good: Amazing acting, Engaging story, Wonderful DVD bonus features, Memorable characters.
The Bad: A weird obsession with zooming early in the film.
The Basics: Funny, emotionally-resonant and filled with amazing performances, One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest is a true classic of American cinema.


When the worst one can say about a movie is that it is annoying early in the film how the director avoids static shots by doing simple, slow pans in on the faces of characters, the film has to be pretty amazing. For me, it says something when a classic movie endures even when viewed now, but One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest is a good model for perfection in that it remains as relevant, funny and engaging now as when it was released, almost thirty-five years ago. In fact, as my partner and I watched the film last night, after about twenty minutes, she frowned, sat up in bed and began watching the movie in earnest after noting, "This is MUCH better than I remember it being." I was surprised because for all of my love of American cinema, I'd only seen the last ten minutes of the film before last night.

Part of the reason this is such a surprise to me is that One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest boasts one of the most impressive casts of all time. Led by Academy Award winners Jack Nicholson and Louise Fletcher, this was an impressive cinematic outing that also included a young Brad Dourif, Christopher Lloyd and Danny DeVito! As well, character actors Vincent Schiavelli and Michael Berryman are recognizably present. As always in such cases, this is a review of the film One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest. I read the book many years ago and this is not it. The only difference I'll even bother mentioning (because the two are entirely different works of art and because it is the only one I remember) is that Nurse Ratched was characterized as having much more prominent breasts in the book.

Dr. Spivey, chief administrator of a in-patient mental institution, takes in R.P. McMurphy from a prison work farm. Initially charged with statutory rape, McMurphy arrives as a troublemaker and despite his initial characterization, he sits quietly at the morning meeting on the ward. While more vocal inmates, like Taber, rail against some of the failings of other inmates, McMurphy watches and seems content to lay low for a while among "the crazies." Soon, he is befriending and swindling the inmates and using a giant Native American Indian (rumored to be deaf and mute) to prepare to go over the gate. When the World Series comes around, McMurphy tries to challenge Nurse Ratched's routines so the men can watch the game.

In danger of being sent back to the penitentiary for not being crazy enough, McMurphy leaps the fence and takes the men of the ward on a fishing trip. This leads Ratched to redouble her efforts to maintain control on the floor of the ward and McMurphy to more openly rebel against her.

One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest is a funny, character-driven film where the characters are all amazingly portrayed. However, the impression of some of the characters is very much based on hype or interpretation as opposed to an objective view of the source material. For example, the DVD case declares that Nurse Ratched is one of the greatest villains in cinematic history, but Ratched is coolly efficient and actually is motivated by a strong desire to do good. She keeps order on the ward and she does so without any overt cruelty until the penultimate scene of the movie when she confronts the young Billy about his actions. Until then, she is reserved, but generally reasonable. In fact, it is only when McMurphy directly challenges her authority about the change in schedule that she becomes picayune and punitive. Outside that, she is very much an archetype of a mental health professional working to better the lives of her charges.

One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest is not a film where a lot happens; most of it is set within the walls of the mental ward and the trip on the boat is a notable departure in the latter half of the film. Far more what the movie is about is a man in a jam trying to organize his escape and infuse chaos into an ordered, but arguably inefficient, system. McMurphy arrives on the ward and begins carefully noting the way things are done as well as testing the holes in the security. He makes several valid points, most notably about the obsessive use of medication without real evaluation within the facility, but much of the rebellion is self-serving. McMurphy wants to watch the World Series, so he organizes the vote to change responsibilities. McMurphy wants to get laid, so he abducts his fellow wardmates and takes them to the open sea. If Ratched is supposed to be a villain, McMurphy cannot be considered a hero because his sense of purpose is so self-involved.

In many ways, One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest is a film where a classic Freudian interpretation works wonderfully. McMurphy is an Id, Ratched is a superego and arguments can be made about who represents the ego and what the health of that is. Largely, though, the film isn't even about a conflict between McMurphy and Ratched as it is about McMurphy challenging his fellow wardmates to not surrender to the idea that they are mentally ill in a way that needs to be fixed by institutionalization. He finds an almost immediate ally in Cheswick and soon after in the arguably-psychotic Taber. But when the film turns into a real rebellion led by McMurphy, the film turns quickly and the eruption that results leads to one of the quickest and most powerful cinematic resolutions of all time.

The acting in One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest is homogeneously excellent, with Will Sampson and Sydney Lassick holding their own with the much more famous cast members. Christopher Lloyd has an auspicious outing as Taber where he carries quick reversals with a simple bugging out of his eyes or the turn of his smile. Similarly, DeVito is distinctly different than his more famous roles as Louie DePalma and he plays the quieter, more shy role of Martini with a wonderfully reserved body language.

Appropriately the winner of the Best Actress Oscar and Golden Globe, Louise Fletcher is amazing as Nurse Ratched. Having seen her for years as a political/religious villain on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine her ability to play cold and efficient is no surprise. What is surprising is how she carries herself as so humane in scenes with Dr. Spivey and how she makes her character's statement of desire to help reform McMurphy seem real and true. Fletcher is an amazing actress and as she holds her nurse's cap at the end of the film, it is hard not to feel something for her character.

And Jack Nicholson deserves the accolades he receives as McMurphy. Seldom mentioned, Nicholson (and several other actors) are required to yell throughout the movie and Nicholson throws himself into the crazed scenes with a gusto that is entirely convincing. As well, in the scenes where he plays quietly indignant or hurt, it becomes very easy to empathize with his character.

On the two-disc DVD set, One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest arrives with the options of widescreen or standard viewing. As well, there is a list of all of the awards the film won and the original trailers for the film. There is a new commentary which is informative and entertaining. The second disc features a documentary that is even more extensive and includes some great outtakes from the filming of the movie. Anyone who loves to study classic films will enjoy seeing all of the featurettes on the new edition of the film.

But for those who just like to watch films, One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest is an amazing film which lives up to its hype for greatness, even if some of the characters are not as monolithic as the packaging would like viewers to believe!

[As a winner of the Best Picture Oscar, this film is part of W.L.'s Best Picture Project, online here! Please check it out!]

For other works featuring Christopher Lloyd, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Piranha 3D
The West Wing - Season 6
The Back To The Future Trilogy
Star Trek III: The Search For Spock

10/10

For other movie reviews, be sure to check out my index page by clicking here!

© 2011, 2009 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.


| | |

A Romance With A Bit Of Comedy, Terms Of Endearment Is Good, But Not Great.

The Good: Funny, Good character development, Decent acting
The Bad: Time leaps are problematic, Characters do unlikable things, Light on DVD bonus features, Soundtrack.
The Basics: Funny until it takes a turn to the depressing, Terms Of Endearment is a remarkably safe tear-jerker.

As my wife and I finish watching Frasier (reviewed here!), I've been trying to find things by people involved in that to keep exposing her to. My wife has grown to love Frasier and trying to find things with the same actors or by those who were involved in the production of it has kept us both entertained. I mention this at the outset of my review of Terms Of Endearment because my wife was excited about watching it with me because I told her that the writer/director of the film, James L. Brooks, was one of the co-creators of her now-beloved Frasier. As it turns out, Brooks is the creator of The Critic, which my wife loves, not Frasier. But this digression is not as pointless as it might seem; there are a lot of parallels between Terms Of Endearment and Frasier.

Like Frasier, Terms Of Endearment is character-driven story with both romantic and dramatic elements to it. Both are written with higher levels of diction and span many years in terms of storytelling. But, truth be told, Terms Of Endearment is no Frasier and while it had its moments, I found myself more neutral to the film than truly impressed by it. Terms Of Endearment is based upon a novel by Larry McMurtry, but this review is solely of the cinematic rendering of the story. Any of the problems or aspects of the book not included in the film remain unknown to me.

Growing up with her ultra-controlling mother, Emma looks forward to fleeing the nest. As a result, at the earliest possible time, she marries her high school fling, Flap. Despite her mother, Aurora's, insistence and protests that Flap is entirely wrong for her, Emma marries Flap and together they run off to Des Moines because of his teaching job. As Emma and Flap have children and struggle to maintain their marriage, Aurora overcomes feeling old about her age by starting to see the promiscuous former-astronaut who lives next door. While Aurora slowly overcomes her timidity and begins to fall in love with Garret, Emma deals with her family's poverty and the growing distance between her and Flap.

Not wanting his lifestyle to change, Garret eventually freaks out on Aurora and Emma and Flap grow even more distant as Emma suspects the young professor is cheating on her. Even as Emma has an affair of her own with a local banker, Flap is offered an opportunity in Nebraska. With the demands of raising their children and a health problem overwhelming her, Emma begins to turn to her mother in a way she never expected herself to.

Terms Of Endearment is an interesting character study that is laugh-out-loud funny in points and actually heartwrenching at others, but how it won the top Oscar prize remains a mystery to me. Perhaps this was another year when there were no truly great choices. Or perhaps it is because after not moving for an hour and a half, Terms Of Endearment becomes a surprisingly powerful drama. What Terms Of Endearment does very well is capture the randomness of life and the way that one’s fortunes are never truly anticipated. The early antagonist in the film, Aurora, has a decent arc whereby she slowly begins to loosen up and enjoy life, which is a far cry from the character who timidly enters her daughter's room convinced the baby is dead (preferring the screaming child to the sound asleep girl).

But what it failed to do for me was create empathetic characters. Terms Of Endearment is largely considered a classic tear-jerker because of the health issue with Emma in the last portion of the film, but before that, her character does a lot of things that make it hard to actually be on her side. The film never definitively establishes if Flap is actually cheating on her or if it is her being overly suspicious . . . until long after she is engaged in an extramarital affair herself. So, while by and large fans want to root for her, she does some things which are low and obvious that we do not see Flap engage in. In fact, his only confirmed affairs come after Emma is already cheating on him and the first time we see her “evidence,” he is trying to talk an amorous student off him.

In some ways, Terms Of Endearment is unfair to the female characters; Aurora is neurotic and Emma is rebellious, suspicious and ultimately a cheating wife, so there is a lot of moral ambiguity to the characters. In fact, Sam, the man Emma has the affair with, is almost characterized as noble for sticking with his crippled wife while he has an affair, whereas one interpretation of Terms Of Endearment would be that Emma’s illness is Fate biting her in the butt for her own infidelity.

That said, what makes Terms Of Endearment fun and worthwhile – not the obvious, overbearing annoying ?’s soundtrack through all the most poignant moments! – is the acting. Jack Nicholson appears as Garrett and this comedic turn actually prepares viewers for later roles like the one he had in As Good As It Gets. Clearly different from his McMurphy character, Garrett is a womanizer who actually seems to enjoy life and have some moments of depth to him. Nicholson plays the role with a wonderful sense of physical comedy as well as line deliveries that make the verbal humor work.

Similarly, Jeff Daniels, Danny DeVito (whose role is little more than a cameo) and John Lithgow all have decent supporting roles which allow them to do the best they can with the roles they are given. The one who shines, though, is Shirley MacLaine as Aurora. She is energetic as the character develops, but solemn through most of the film. MacLaine makes it easy for viewers to not like Aurora, but she plays the role of the protective mother without any of the shrill quality she possessed for Postcards From The Edge.

Unfortunately, the nature of the story rides Debra Winger a bit hard. Debra Winger looks young as Emma, disturbingly so in the movie’s earliest scenes. But the film jumps awkwardly into the future at intervals that take a moment or two for the viewer to catch up with. The problem is Winger does not age as the movie goes on a sufficient amount. Emma’s children grow up, Winger looks essentially as she did the day the first one was born. Her performance does not develop the character with any additional sense of maturity either. This becomes a problem the longer the film goes on, especially when Emma gets ill.

That said, Terms Of Endearment is a worthwhile film and it is a family drama the whole family may enjoy. Moreover, unlike some films that come later, the struggles in this movie are a bit simpler and more realistic, making it much more accessible. On DVD, Terms Of Endearment comes with a commentary track and the theatrical trailers for the film. It is more than enough for this drama, as the commentary track is remarkably thorough with the behind-the-scenes information on the movie.

[As a winner of the Best Picture Oscar, this is part of my Best Picture Project here! Please check it out!]

For other works with Danny DeVito, please check out my reviews of:
It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia - Season 3
It’s Always Sunny In Philadelphia - Seasons 1 & 2
Big Fish
The Rainmaker
L.A. Confidential
Batman Returns

6/10

For other movie reviews, please check out my index page on the subject by clicking here!

© 2011, 2009 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.


| | |

Nothing Extraordinary About The Rain: The Rainmaker Is Utterly Unmemorable!

The Good: Good acting, Good characters, Good pacing
The Bad: Idealistic themes and plot
The Basics: Simple and predictable, The Rainmaker doesn't fail to please, but it does little beyond meeting our expectations.


There are some novelists who write one or two good novels, then spend the rest of their careers churning out the same two stories over and over again. Their works populate every bus station, airport and drug store. John Grisham, Tom Clancy and V.C. Andrews are three such authors who have written enough garbage such that their paperbacks will always be available in any grocery store that has books.

So, as you may figure, I went into John Grisham's The Rainmaker with pretty low expectations. It turns out that The Rainmaker is one of Grisham's two works that were pretty good, one of the two that established him, it appears, as a paperback staple.

The superlative aspect of this film is the acting. Four actors especially give extraordinary performances. They are: Matt Damon (rather predictably as his character Rudy Baylor, is the lawyer protagonist), Danny DeVito (the loser lawyer Deck Schifflet), Claire Dane (as an abused wife) and Danny Glover (as the strangely uncredited Judge Tyrone Kipler). The real standout of the four is Claire Danes. Danes plays Kelly Riker with amazing versatility. She is vivid as a broken, lost, hurt and depreciated human being. Her acting took me by surprise. She's truly quite fabulous as Kelly.

The Rainmaker focuses on Rudy Baylor, a newly bar-approved lawyer. He is taking on an insurance company for denying the claim (and payment) of a youth with leukemia. With the aid of the sloppy Deck, Rudy makes and tries a case against a corporate law team that seems to have all of the advantages. Interspersed with his big trial, Rudy comes to the aid of Kelly, a victim of domestic abuse by her alcoholic husband. Rudy's special interest in the young woman comes from the fact that he grew up watching his father beat his mother.

That's the type of character fact that is slipped into The Rainmaker throughout. Usually, the details involve Rudy. Occasionally, we get a fact about Deck or Judge Kipler that flesh them out as viable individuals. Character is something sufficiently built up in The Rainmaker and that's refreshing.

What isn't is the plot. It plods along without any real intensity or passion. It's slow and it feels slow. The idealism gets tired early on. The sense of hope throughout the film is labored.

In all, I'd recommend the film for a rainy afternoon where you're bored and want a film you don't have to think much about. Outside that . . .

For other films involving lawyers, please check out my takes on:
The Verdict
The Social Network
Philadelphia

5.5/10

For other film reviews, please check out my lists of movie reviews by clicking here!

© 2011, 2001 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.




| | |

It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia Season Three Is Hilarious, With Characters Who Are Loathsome!

The Good: Absolutely hilarious, Generally decent acting
The Bad: Limited DVD bonus features, Lack of value (only fifteen episodes)!
The Basics: One of the funniest shows ever continues with utterly unlikable characters with It’s Always Sunny In Philadelphia Season Three!


For those who do not regularly follow my reviews, character is of utmost importance to me when it comes to continuing watching any television series. So it might seem incongruent that I find the characters on It’s Always Sunny In Philadelphia to be utterly without redeeming traits, yet I still rate the third season of the show so highly. The reason for that is simple: the characters are not supposed to be good people and they are not even supposed to be marginally likable. Instead, It’s Always Sunny In Philadelphia Season Three continues to explore how self-absorbed, destructive and idiotic Frank, Dennis and Dee Reynolds, Mac and Charlie can be.

And it is delicious. For those who did not tune into It’s Always Sunny In Philadelphia Seasons One & Two (reviewed here!), the advantage to starting with It’s Always Sunny In Philadelphia Season Three is that one manages to avoid the early episodes without Danny DeVito and jump in as the cast hits their stride. The half-hour comedy with fifteen episodes in Season Three is almost entirely episodic (there is one two-part episode), so what came before and what comes after has no bearing on where the characters are in this season.

It’s Always Sunny In Philadelphia Season Three is exceptionally funny, mostly from crude humor and concept episodes that set up the five most nihilistic and self-centered people in the world for zany experiences. In this season, Mac and Dee try to make a dumpster baby famous and with Dennis they try out for the Philadelphia Eagles. While Charlie tries to determine if Frank is his father, he continues to pine for the waitress. The McPoyles take everyone hostage, leaving it to Frank to rescue them and Mac and Frank start a sweatshop to make dresses that Dee designed.

After trying to sell the bar and getting jobs at a competitor, the gang finds itself back at Paddy's Pub and in the drug-dealing business, which puts them in the crosshairs of Philadelphia's warring gangs. Dee dates a guy that Dennis claims is retarded, Dennis has trouble in the neighborhood because he bears a strong resemblance to a registered sex offender and when Mac starts seeing his pre-op transsexual friend, the gang comes to believe he is a serial killer. And after impersonating cops and vigilantes, the gang has to dance in a dance-a-thon to save Paddy's.

It’s Always Sunny In Philadelphia Season Three succeeds because it truly is funny. Some of the humor writes itself. Pretty much all of the jokes in “Dennis Looks Like A Registered Sex Offender” have to do with molestation, pedophilia or just how hard it is for sex offenders to reintegrate to society. But from the title, one pretty much can figure the show is going to go lowbrow and it does . . . very fast.

But some of the humor is riotous dialogue that is expertly delivered. While the writers essentially milk the same joke twice in “The Gang Sells Out,” their conversations in front of the potential buyer are laugh-out-loud funny and hold up very well over multiple viewings. So, Charlie, Mac and Dennis arguing in front of the “corporate drone” about the perks the CEO must have (like the helicopter) is funny and trumped only by the conversation inspired by the same businessman admitting to the guys that he is gay. The conversation that ensues at the strip club about the type of gay men is incredibly funny and so smartly written that it manages to not be at all homophobic.

In the third season of It’s Always Sunny In Philadelphia, the principles really have a bead on their characters and while they play despicable characters, they each do it exceptionally well. Danny DeVito does more than just breathe life into the ensemble; the accents Charlie Day's manic performances.  Glenn Howerton proves himself a master of the authoritarian deadpan in episodes like "The Gang Sells Out" and "Frank Sets Sweet Dee On Fire."  Kaitlin Olson is great with playing angry and self-righteous and Rob McElhenney continues to rock Mac as an often clueless and quiet protagonist.

Given that the cast of It’s Always Sunny In Philadelphia is stable in the third season, it helps to know who the characters are. The characters in this season are:

Dennis Reynolds - Seduces an environmentalist by posing as one and makes his mother's mansion into a party house. After going toe-to-toe with a registered sex offender, he works as a male prostitute at the local country club. He impersonates a police officer and believes he has the dance moves to save the bar,

Dee Reynolds - Dennis' twin sister, she is exceptionally self-absorbed. She tries to raise the dumpster baby with Mac and is on her way to being a new kicker for the Philadelphia Eagles during open tryouts. Challenged by the other loser she knew growing up, she designs dresses on a lark and she desperately tries to become famous . . . which only gets her set aflame by Frank. She dates a white rapper that Dennis insists rode the special bus back in the day and she is the first one dumped when it looks like the guys will sell the bar,

Mac - The dimwitted friend of Dennis and Dee, he tries to start a band just because he thinks he'll look cool on stage. Accused of being a serial killer when he continues to pursue the transsexual, he works with Frank to keep the sweatshop running for Dee's dresses. His father gets out of prison and in an attempt to bond with him, he makes his life that much worse. With Dee, he becomes a vigilante trying to rule the streets with fear,

Charlie - Writer of the song "Nightman," he is the most disheveled of the bunch and most manic. Still interested in the waitress, he and Frank team-up to make a business out of selling garbage. When that fails, he drops acid and assumes the role of Green Man and gets held hostage by the McPoyle's. He tries to impress the waitress by managing the competing bar better than his friends and he goes on a Law & Order kick to try to defend Mac when they think he is a serial killer,

and Frank - Dennis and Dee's (and Charlie's?!) father, he is now pretty much destitute and he hunts for a will hidden in Paddy's Pub to get financially better. He leads the exploitation of the group when they try to make Dee famous and he pimps Dennis out at the country club. After getting bumped from the fake police force with Dennis, he puts a ringer into the dance-a-thon to win the bar.

Despite only having fifteen episodes, It’s Always Sunny In Philadelphia Season Three holds up very well over multiple viewings and it makes for a decent viewing investment, though when the series ends, there will be an ultimate boxed set which will be even better.

For other comedy show reviews, please check out my takes on:
30 Rock Season Four
Glee Season Two, Volume One
The Big Bang Theory Season Three

7/10

For other television program or DVD set reviews, please visit my index page for an organized listing!

© 2011 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.





| | |

Seventeen Episodes Of Crude Humor Almost Sell It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia Seasons 1 & 2 On DVD!

The Good: Moments that are riotously funny, Danny DeVito, Moments of character, Daring quality, Price
The Bad: Very crude humor, Lack of character, Some of the acting.
The Basics: With seventeen episodes on three discs It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia presents a poorly-acted sitcom with hilarious shock value.


It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia is a tough sell on DVD, though I will admit I enjoy watching it when it's on and I'm around a set that has cable. Now out on DVD as It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia - Seasons 1 and 2, is a shaky seventeen episode sitcom that trades on its vulgar humor and ability to shock. The show starts out with a daring, if somewhat vile, quality and progresses into something that is remarkably standard, if still edgy in its content. This FX comedy illustrates that the satellite network to Fox, is interested in producing daring comedies as well as their edgy dramas like Nip/Tuck.

Over three discs, this boxed set explores the owners of Paddy's Bar in Philadelphia. Two mid-twentysomethings and their two friends own and operate the bar while finding themselves getting into outrageous situations. Their problems are exacerbated by the appearance of Frank, the father of twins Dennis and Dee when he divorces their mother. He falls in with the slob, Charlie, and soon is misbehaving with the gang. Accompanied by Mac, the gang finds themselves getting into trouble, usually involving drinking, gambling and/or illegal activities.

It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia is a sitcom that is not afraid to go where many other comedies are afraid to. The series opens with Paddy's being turned into a gay bar, which pits two of the gang who are neglected by the gay clientele against the other two, one who gets attention (which he's happy with despite not being gay) and one who's thrilled over the money they are making. In similarly edgy or depraved episodes, the show explores the abortion debate, has a character trying to get sympathy sex by claiming he has cancer, having Paddy's becoming a safe haven for underage drinkers, and finding one of the characters in an ethical bind over a fraudulent child molestation lawsuit. As well, Frank pops up and buys into the bar after the others go on a jihad against a Middle Eastern neighbor, the twins try a welfare scam, and they try to get rich by running for public office with the intent to get bribed.

This is not highbrow humor. Indeed, this is something very far from it. The show deserves credit for being edgy and it often is funny. So, for example, in the episode "Charlie Got Molested," when it appears that Charlie may have been victimized by his high school gym coach, the show rapidly becomes complex and surprisingly funny for a show trading on molestation humor. Dee and Dennis, who have studied psychology, stage an intervention where they try to force Charlie into admitting he was victimized. Charlie, for his part, suspects who is making the accusation and is mortified to discover they got the idea to sue the coach from one of Charlie's drunken rants! And Mac becomes obsessed with trying to get the coach to molest him now as an adult because he feels like he was left out and not attractive enough as a kid for the coach to molest.

The Mac part of the storyline turns the show from something that is on the edge of good taste well over the line and into territory that is disturbing, yet hilarious. Many of the episodes end up that way and the truth is the show manages to be funny.

What it doesn't succeed with is much of anything else. Honestly, almost no one looks to comedies for their moral center and It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia is unapologetic in its ruthless humor. The problem is, most of it hinges on the characters being self-centered slackers. The bulk of the humor in these episodes comes from most of the characters being lazy, self-involved and out only to better themselves. They generally do not look out for one another and as a result, they have no problem with scheming against one another. The last show I truly enjoyed that did that was Arrested Development and that was far smarter and classier in its execution than this show.

What drove me into the series was Danny DeVito, who begins his tenure on the show beginning with the second season premiere. DeVito plays Frank and it's a sufficiently different role from his prior ones to keep me watching. No, this is not DeVito reprising his role from Taxi and it's certainly different from his eccentric turn as the Penguin in Batman Returns (reviewed here!). Here DeVito is more subdued - until his character is angry - and actually has moments where he seems to be trying to learn the slacker lifestyle. It does not come naturally to Frank and it does not come instantly to DeVito. He lends the show some credibility and sense of perspective. And, as the seasons progress, it is DeVito who is increasingly given some of the show's best lines. DeVito's sense of comic timing is more seasoned than the rest of the cast, which is in its mid-twenties and his appearance changes the tenor some, giving it some points for acting at least.

The series does not have the most impressively defined characters and part of the problem with It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia is that because they are mostly morally ambiguous and out for their own gain, they are almost universally unlikable. And while the Bluth family in Arrested Development was unlikable from a human standpoint, they were entertaining and they made some sense. The denizens of Paddy's just seem like a stereotype about young people these days and it does not ring quite as true. The principles of the show include:

Dee Reynolds - Dennis's twin sister. She drinks a lot and is a bartender at Paddy's. She has not finished college, though she took courses that had her geared up for a psychology degree, and is trying hard to find acting gigs in Philly. She takes acting classes and meets a lot of men, though she ends up single constantly either because of who she is hitting on or because of her own issues,

Dennis Reynolds - Dee's twin brother and one of the co-owners of Paddy. He is a college graduate and generally the most successful of the gang. Despite being exceptionally narcissistic and a liar (actually all of the principles in this series are liars), he is open-minded and sometimes even tries to do the right thing. As part of a welfare scam, he ends up trying crack with Dee, which gets them condemned to the worst work at the bar,

Mac - A co-owner of Paddy's and childhood friend of Charlie. He is gullible, his father is in jail on drug charges, and he is awkward with women and claims to be spiritual, despite being somewhat short tempered,

Charlie Kelly - A co-owner of Paddy's and long-time friend of Mac, he's given the worst jobs around the bar. Often disheveled and living in a gross apartment, he is ill-informed, illiterate and the most overt liar of the bunch. He spends much time lusting after a waitress,

and Frank Reynolds - Dennis and Dee's father, he has a lot of money following his divorce from their mother. Frank planned to do good with his fortune but decided he'd rather emulate his kids and their self-absorbed lifestyle. When the opportunity presents itself, he buys into the bar, moves in with Charlie and schemes to destroy his ex-wife while starting a gambling ring at the bar.

None of the characters are particularly likable and they are certainly not easy to empathize with. The show frequently illustrates terrible consequences to the lies, schemes and indifference of the main characters, but in this boxed set there are no episodes that focus well on the consequences to those peripheral to their machinations. Sure, Charlie might get his comeuppance in one episode, but those he hurt along they way just stay hurt and inconsequential after their departure from the episode. It makes it quite difficult to like any of the characters.

The other half of that is in the performances. It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia does not have a magic cast. Instead, Glenn Howerton (Dennis), Kaitlin Olson (Dee), Rob McElhenney (Mac) and Charlie Day (Charlie) fill their roles but do not add anything distinctive or interesting to their characters. Indeed, there are moments in both seasons where they either completely telegraph their jokes or they miss the beats to make their performances carry any real humor. In short, the performances are not as funny as they could be and that drags the show down some.


On DVD, the series looks good, at least. Bonus features include commentary tracks on a few of the episodes, outtakes, two featurettes, a "making a scene" special and clips from the original pilot that was used to sell the series. There are no deleted scenes and while the featurettes are informative, they are not earthshattering. This is about all one might expect from a series that very few people have yet heard of or seen.

In the final analysis, it's a tough sell. Those who like Strangers With Candy are likely to find the humor in this appealing. If you're looking for something a little more highbrow or less . . . well, filthy, this boxed set will not fit the bill.

For other works with audacious humor, check out my takes on:
Family Guy Presents Partial Terms Of Endearment
The Hangover Part II
Glee Season Two, Volume One

6/10

For other television reviews, be sure to visit my index page that has organized listings of all the television sets I have reviewed by clicking here!

© 2011, 2007 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.





| | |