Review: The Other Guys

The "Other Guys" did it for me and made me "That Guy" in the theatre!  You know that guy, the one who is laughing uncontrollably and seemingly enjoying the film too much at the expense of the other moviegoers.  I just could not stop laughing.  Will Ferrell kept the straightest of straight faces while delivering some of the most classic one-liners I've heard in a movie since Chris Tucker and Ice Cube in "Friday".  The pairing of Ferrell opposite Mark Wahlberg was perfect and (Spoiler Alert) the infusion of Samuel Jackson and Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson in what appeared to be a full role but early on catches you totally by surprise as it reverts into a clever extended cameo.

Wahlberg and Ferrell deliver a one, two punch playing opposites and Wahlberg at times steals the show as a nerdphobic tough-guy who is seemingly oblivious to the hypocrisy of his actions by doing things like "learning ballet in order to teach those pansies a lesson".  But not to be outdone WIll Ferrell comes back and leaves the lasting imprint and almost caused me to go into cardiac arrest with his flashback to the persona of "Gator" (wont' spoil that one-go see the movie!!).  The Other Guys is a buddy cop movie that replaces the good cop bad cop routine with the dumb cop and dumber cop but pulls it off with a degree of clever comedy not seen in the genre since the last Bad Boys franchise starring WIll Smith and Martin Lawrence.  This film is a definite must see and a must own for your collection.

Anchorman 2 (agree)

This is in response to Ty Burr of the Boston Globe's review of Anchorman 2.

I agree that Anchorman 2 is an overload of silliness as Burr  put it.  The movie gave me exactly what I expected which was 2 hours of mind-numbing funny ignorance.  The success of the original Anchorman was composed of exactly the same thing without the added pressure and expectations on Mckay and Ferrel to produce a winner because no bar had previously been set.  As with all sequels the challenge is to come close to the original and Anchorman 2 pretty much followed the same script.

I also agree that there was just entirely too much movie!  I could have done without about 45 mins of the film and absolutely 20 mins of the forced laughter and still enjoyed the production.  I do think that the film could have been a bit more cohesive and at times it felt as if I was part of the editing process or watching the deleted scenes at the end of a DVD.

But all in all Will Ferrel delivered with Anchorman and with the bevy of one-liners I'm sure just as with the first film that over time and especially in light of the new "medicinal" laws in places such as Colorado that over a period of time this film  after repeated home viewings will also attain a similar status.  Enjoyable, Fun, and classic Ferrel.

Themed Column- WIll Ferrell- The odd duckling.

Who says that acting your shoe size does not pay?  WIll Ferrell surely would not agree.  Will Ferrell has made a household name for himself not just as a lead on Saturday Night Live (SNL) but by brilliantly tapping into the desire of most men to above the age of 21 to act like they are 21!  His career in film should be carefully studied by even the most devout and structured thespian for what it delivers onscreen-sincerity.  Yes that sincerity on the surface to the casual observer may look like nothing more than buffoonery but if you peel back a layer or two it can be seen for what it truly is-Genius.

The genius that I am referring to is WIll Ferrell's consistent deadpan delivery of in some of the most outrageous characters.  In the 2003 film "Old School" Ferrell plays opposite Vince Vaughn as middle-aged men looking to recapture their college glory days by opening up a fraternity at their alma mater.  Silly? Quite.  But what makes the movie hilarious is not necessarily the one-liners written into the script- It's that deadpan "Hey I am really serious" delivery that makes Ferrell a joy to watch onscreen.  Staying in character and not breaking form while portraying an enlightened  womanizing playboy guru of some sorts who has developed the art of picking up distraught women at funerals to an art form to the point that his only "logical" ascension is to do the same at funerals, all of this while still living with his mother.  Ferrell captures the man-child image absurdly and perfectly.

Another unique aspect of Ferrell's career which sets him apart and further goes to showcase his talent is one that is also overlooked is his size.  Will Ferrell stands extremely tall at a full 6'3 and he is not of slight build.  He's a really big guy-not fat but FAR from what you would look at as typical leading man material (Lets just say he won't be doing any Calvin Klein commercials in the near future). Yet he owns it.  In hollywood being big AND tall tends to make casting directors look past you.  If you look at the majority of male actors they are overwhelmingly very short in stature- there are a variety of theories on the "why's" this but it really boils down to the fact that it's more difficult to varying camera angles when your leading man is so much taller than not only your leading lady but the rest of the entire cast.  Aside from a few roles by NBA players looking to scratch the acting bug you really don't find tall big actors in leading roles. It's an unwanted distraction from the goal of filming and usually avoided. Ferrell turns that reality into an advantage by embracing it and owning it in every one of his films.  Instead of finding a way to "fit in" on the bigscreen Ferrell makes a point of putting his size right in your face.  An example of that is can be seen in the 2003 film "Elf" where Ferrell plays a man who was raised by elves and actually believes he is one.  Diving into the role all the way to the hilt Ferrell once again delivers all of his lines in this outrageously ridiculous plot in a elf suit complete with stockings!  All the while doing a great job of acting and embracing the role with a serious face.  The more outrageous the more serious he seems to come across and that is a true talent.  WIll Ferrell's acting career is one which seems to time and time again defy the odds.  His release 9 years ago of the film "Anchorman" was met with a lukewarm response in theatres but follow-on video sales and word of mouth combined with Will Ferrell's shameless and once again deadpan-comedic promotion of the character Ron Burgundy has led to it's  eagerly anticipated sequel "Anchorman 2" set to debut at #1 the box-office this week.  There are many layers to what Will Ferrell does and at the end of the day call it outrageous, call it absurd, call it crazy, call it whatever you want but it's funny and it's him.  As long as he sticks to his now tried and true method of acting-that will continue to be a winning formula for WIll Ferrell.

Themed Column: Christopher Nolan and the New Face of the Superheros of Darkness

Batman Begun, Batman the Dark Knight, Batman rose and rose again. Christopher Nolan was the mind and genius powering the juggernaut of a task to make a movie about Batman. Oh! did he do that and more. Who is Christopher Nolan and why did he just set the bar for the common comic book fan like myself so high? It actually begins with his style of directing. Christopher Nolan has a style he has used in all of movies. This style is called the "film noir", which is a cinematic term used to describe stylish hollywood crime dramas, particularly those that emphasize cynical attitudes. Christopher Nolan commonly merges the narrative and miss-en-sćene with a psychological and philosophical subtext. What does this mean? Nolan manages to tell a story that uses editing as a way to represent the characters' psychological state which merges their subjectivity with the audience. In Batman Begins, he uses this when Bruce Wayne goes into his memories of the past to remember where he came from, his old fear of the dark and bats. This method of telling his story to the audience is what Nolan is an expert at. I kind of say it is similar to telling you the present and reminding you of your past which shaped your future. Nolan's protagonists are commonly psychologically damaged….hence Batman. Nolan has a style which is a strong attribute of him which is his use of having a protagonist and antagonist having mirror images of each other. Batman and the Joker were clearly mirror images of one another and the Joker made him realize this clearly from the beginning.

Why is this important to my main topic about the new face of the superhero and how dark is the way to being good? The Batman trilogy directed by Christopher Nolan is what I considered dark and adult oriented upon comparing the previous Batman films and their directors. Tim Burton was the director of the original Batman film made in 1989 with Michael Keaton and Jack Nicholson at the helm. That film pales in comparison to the grandeur of Nolan's films. Jack Nicholson as talented and multi faceted he may be…I can not take him seriously as his role of the Joker. Nolan clearly made it known that his Joker was the same psychopathic killer depicted from the comics which the great Heath Ledger played to perfection. This enemy of Batman set the tone for the Dark Knight. He was dark, he was medically crazy, he was the catalyst to the success of the second film which set the standard for superhero movies to follow. Bane followed in his wake in the last film of the trilogy as a genius steroid pumped killer with an evil plan of destruction on his agenda. Nolan directed this trilogy that explored the themes of chaos, terrorism, and escalation of violence.

I no longer want to watch a superhero movie with childish plots. Batman was dark it was violent and it was amazing. Nolan's work in this trilogy just became the epitome of what super hero films shall strive for. Nolan actually did have a hand in the latest Man of Steel movie, but he gave the chair to Zack Snyder based on his adaptations of 300 and Watchmen. The Man of Steel did in fact became successful, I can only wonder just how more successful it would have been with Nolan at the helm. This is of course my opinion, if any future super hero movies are in work, I hope they take a page out of Christopher Nolan's books.

Theme Review - Alfred Hitchcock

Theme Review – Alfred Hitchcock

Carla Cooper - Review Writing Fall 2013

Sir Alfred Joseph Hitchcock was born in London, England in August, 1899. After his father’s death when he was 15, Hitchcock left the school he was attending and went to school to become an engineer. After dabbling in the arts, writing short stories for a local publication, Hitchcock moved from worker as an estimator to writing for the advertising department.  He then took an interest in photography which would later lead to film.

Hitchcock Having made over 50 years during his six decade career, he began working in films in 1920. It took him only five years to work up to directing films. After directing more than a dozen films in the UK, Hitchcock decided to make the jump across the pond to the US. In 1939, Hitchcock left for Hollywood. During his career he was nominated five times for the Academy Award for Best Director and four films were nominated for Best Picture. I was surprised to learn that he never won an Oscar, but that his very first American film, Rebecca won the Academy Award for Best Picture for 1940.

Dubbed the “Master of suspense”, Alfred Hitchcock is one of my favorite film Directors by far. His style combines intelligent characters with a suspenseful plot that takes the viewer on a roller coaster ride of mis-directions that usually leads to an unforeseen ending. I love the ride and love all the detail in his films.

For instance in the “Rope” with Jimmy Stewart, the rope literally becomes your focus as it is used as a murder weapon and then used to tie up a stack of books. The two murders think they’ve out smarted everyone else and hold a dinner party with the body hidden in the room. Watching Stewart’s interaction with these two is like watching a psychiatrist analyze a “functioning” crazy person.

In “Suspicion”, after a scene that leads the audience to believe that the main character, played by Cary Grant, does not intend to murder his wife for the money, we are left with a final impression of the character. He ascends a long staircase on his way to deliver a glass of milk to his wife, who is resting after he rescued her from falling off a cliff. Hitchcock uses light bulb to illuminate the milk, to cast suspicion that it is tainted with poison. The scene is quiet, with no words spoken, which makes it even more eerie. I’m still not sure if he poisoned his wife!

Not known to be “warm and fuzzy” with actors and actresses, Hitchcock was quoted as saying were like cattle. When an actress brought cows onto the set of the movie they were filming, he said he was misquoted and that he actually said that “actors had to be treated like cattle”. This I’m sure did not make him any friends with the actors’ guild, but his success with movies made it hard to turn down an opportunity to work with him. Creative in every detail, Hitchcock invented the film term “MacGuffin” to ‘illustrate that the object the villains were after needed no explanation; it was just something used to drive the story’. He felt he didn’t need to explain everything to the audience. The term is still used in modern film making.

Some of Hitchcock best known movies are “The Birds”; “Notorious”; “Rear Window”; “Suspicion”; “North by Northwest”; “The Man Who Knew Too Much” and of course “Psycho”. Psycho is considered a classic suspense/horror film. It is the standard by which other films in the horror genre are judged and that many attempt to emulate.

In considering which Hitchcock film is my favorite, I found it hard to choose. My top four are “Rear Window” with Jimmy Stewart and Grace Kelly; “The Man Who Knew Too Much” with Jimmy Stewart; “To Catch a Thief” with Cary Grant and “Notorious” with Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman.

Although it was one of Hitchcock’s most famous films, I never watched Psycho until this year as I was afraid to watch the shower scene. I thought it was more graphic than I can tolerate in a film, but it turned out to be more suspenseful than gory. Psycho having the reputation as being the quintessential horror movie was enough to keep me away. Imagine a film made in 1960 that still has that kind of reputation and power 50+ years later. Psycho does. Most notably, it had considerable influence over the horror movie Halloween. In both films the serial killer feels betrayed by a female character he thought of as pure. In Psycho, the mother takes a lover and the son feels abandoned. In Halloween, the brother witnesses his older sister having sex with her boyfriend and feels betrayed. In both films the betrayer and their lover is murdered by the betrayed.

Even less subtle is the use of the name of the hero from Psycho in Halloween. Sam Loomis in Psycho saves an innocent woman from the psychotic Norma Bates dressed as his dead mother and Dr. Samuel Loomis saves an innocent girl from the enraged Michael Myers, who disguised himself by wearing a mask.

Hitchcock uses music, lighting, heights; characters ascending or descending slowly up or down staircases and much more to make the audience experience fear or suspense; and to sometimes distract or misdirect their attention.

Hitchcock died at the age of eighty in April 1980. Considered one of the greatest film makers of the twentieth century, Alfred Hitchcock has forever changed the way suspense and horror films are made. He has set the standard so high, that I do not believe many will ever surpass his cinematic genius. 

Themed Column:John Hughes' Films and the 1980's Teenager

Themed Column: John Hughes’ Films and the 1980’s Teenager

Review Writing- Fall ‘13

Sean Cooper

9 Dec 2013

When looking back at the films that helped to shape the 1980’s Generation X’s view of the World, it would be nearly criminal to not consider the work of John Hughes. Hughes’ films both influenced and represented a generation of teenagers in similar manner to the generation of horror movies from the 1950s and 60’s. They created memories in a generation that helped define some form of our identity at a time when we were both naïve and omnipotent. The collection of Hughes films, seventeen in all from 1982 through 1989, touched on subjects such as teenage bullying, angst, embarrassment, rejection, dating, crushes, family issues, jealousy, love, alienation, etc. Within this particular collection of films there was subject matter that nearly every teenager could identify with. The real beauty of his work lies in the fact that Hughes grew up in the previous generation, yet had his finger on the pulse of ours. He successfully marketed an understanding of what it was like to be a teenager in the 1980’s.  

The issues facing each of his characters were not entirely original, but Hughes had chosen an avenue of approach that defined his authority as a filmmaker, business man and a ubiquitously understood grown-up. This is notable in 1984’s The Breakfast Club. Hughes wrote, produced and directed this feature in which, a cross section of socially juxtaposed teens were brought together to serve one day of Saturday detention for varied offenses. What the characters find out is that each one of them has some weakness, level of insecurity, along with some misunderstanding about themselves and each other.  Hughes’ narrative brings these characters together through their own realizations and they learn from one another. They also understand that on Monday morning no one in their own social circles would accept any of the others. Another example of where Hughes demonstrates this understanding can be seen in 1985’s Weird Science. This film followed two wildly unpopular teens (Anthony Michael Hall and Ilan Mitchell-Smith) as they create a Frankenstein-like goddess, built to worship only them, because no other females will give them the time of day. The film culminates with their acceptance into new greater social circles without conforming to social pressure.

When we look at Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, another Hughes- written, produced and directed production, we meet the protagonist, Matthew Broderick who plays Bueller. He is widely adored within his school and community. This drives his jealous sister, played by Jennifer Grey, crazy. In this Hughes film, Ferris has everything going for him, except that his principal is also exceedingly jealous of his popularity and works tirelessly to catch him cutting school. Its arguable Principal Rooney, played by Jeffrey Jones, represents an older more serious generation. Rooney’s character grew up in a stiff black and white world, deprived of the freedom and privileges the modern Reagan-era bestowed upon 1980’s youth.  Sound familiar? Think upper middle class Archie Bunker.

Hughes’ writing wasn’t confined to illustrating 1980’s teen issues alone. His work also highlighted, and parodied, family life during this time period with focus on his younger characters as completely normal people. The Vacation Trilogy: Vacation in 1983, European Vacation in 1985, and Christmas Vacation in 1989, best exemplify his most successful franchise and single longest look at a caricature-like family: The Griswolds. In this series of films Hughes depicts a typical middle class family travelling on vacation under the auspices of a well-meaning, yet goofy father, Clark Griswold. Clark is played by Chevy Chase. Beverly D’Angelo plays Ellen Griswold, his wife. Anthony Michael Hall plays Rusty their son and Dana Barron plays Audrey, their daughter. Hughes’ defining teenage angle in the Vacation films is humorously illustrated by the generational distance between parents and teens, Clark and Ellen; and Rusty and Audrey. What’s notable in these films is that Hughes wrote the Griswold children’s characters as being closer to reality than their parents. Within the Griswold family structure, it’s the parents who are out of touch, albeit humorously, not the teenagers. This is another concept not original to Hughes, but he captured it with his own style and twist. Tales of teens understanding the World better than their parents is a cross-generational storyline and has been used for longer than Hughes was making movies. In his own fashion, he built it up within the comedic frame work of family life that we Gen-Exers could identify, understand or relate to in some manner.  

Finally, Mr. Mom, 1983, starring Michael Keaton was written by Hughes and contributed to the Gen-Ex perspective early on. When Mr. Mom was released the U.S. economy was beginning to rise out of a recession, which had lingered since the late 1970’s. Higher unemployment rates, economic uncertainty, and the changing landscape of the traditional family within the previous decade left, an impression and influence on Gen-Ex. In this film, Jack Butler, played by Keaton loses his job and his wife Caroline, Terry Garr, finds work before he does. Jack is forced to shift roles and Hughes fittingly, and humorously, presents this shift in American family life with a sense of hope, but also as recognition of a sign of the times. When this film was released most of us Gen-Exers were in our early teens. A significant number of us had experienced family breakups, hardships and the evolving nuclear family. Though not his best film, Hughes had a light-hearted frame of reference on the pulse of the American family. This film lacked the gravity of 1979’s Kramer V. Kramer, which was not a Hughes film, but substantially popular nonetheless. “Kramer” focused on a newly single father, played by Dustin Hoffman, who painstakingly adjusts to raising his son and juggling a career in a tough economic and competitive environment. By the time Mr. Mom was released the mood in the U.S. had changed and the outlook appeared much brighter.  

In total John Hughes wrote seventeen screenplays that evolved into released films. Of those, he produced nine and directed seven, and he did this all in a seven year time frame, between 1982 and 1989. His films are still respected, in part because of his delivery and narratives, but also, because, they’re still relevant. To be honest, we didn’t see his films because they were his, but because there were so many of them. At the time who wrote them was not important, but I clearly recall Monday morning classroom discussions about these films and others such as Sixteen Candles and Planes, Trains and Automobiles. The 80’s were a great time to be a teen and John Hughes continues to let us let us laugh at life and, now, ourselves.

Critic Watch Blog #3 Review of "Rush" by Susan Wloszczyna

With a Metacritic score of 50 and only 2 stars, rogerebert.com critic Susan Wloszczyna doesn't seem to be a fan of the new Ron Howard feature film, Rush.

Based on a true story about Formula One race car drivers James Hunt (Chris Hemsworth) and Niki Lauda (Daniel Bruhl), Rush depicts the rivalry between the two drivers during the 1976 season.

Wloszczyna doesn't seem to like much about the movie, except maybe the physical appearance of Hemsworth in the role of James Hunt. She states that no movie featuring the "musclebound Aussie can be all bad". However, that where her admiration ends and her criticism of the film begins.

I do agree with Wloszczyna reason for disliking the genre altogether since she believes that the sport of racing is difficult to film since it can become repetitious after lap after lap after lap. And when the off track moments between the characters is not fulfilling, the film becomes redundant.I think the good old boys club structure of the film was a turn off for Wloszczyna and perhaps women in general. There is a lot of sex, women and drugs and plenty of strong language to justify the R rating.

The racing season brings many highs and lows for the two main characters, with one becoming seriously injured after his car catches fire during a race. The men earn each other's respect because of, as Wloszczyna puts it, Director Ron "Howard and writer Peter Morgan eventually show how these bitter adversaries form a bond of mutual respect that can only be achieved when you both put your lives on the line to do what you love".

I think Wloszczyna was too harsh with her rating of Rush because it was a genre that did not appeal to her. Although it does seem difficult to make a film that captures the sport and fully develops the characters off the "playing field".