Showing posts with label Nicholas Stoller. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nicholas Stoller. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 20, 2014

Like Some Good Neighbors...

It's fair to say that just a few years ago, R-rated comedies kinda sucked. Sure, there were a few standouts, from Tropic Thunder to Edgar Wright's Three Flavours Cornetto trilogy, but for a while R-rated comedies were synonymous with unimaginative, gross-out humor and uber-offensive stereotypes. The drought was so great that people overrated The Hangover to so hilarious degree that it spawned two sequels that didn't feel the need to try. That trend of un-inspriation took a sharp upward turn in 2012, when Ted and 21 Jump Street raised the bar by being clever and intelligent, while also keeping the silliness and gross-out humor that has become a staple of the genre. Was everything adult comedy oriented great? God no, not by a long shot, but for the first time in seemingly forever there was reason to actually look forward to R-rated comedies again. And Neighbors is definitely another step along that same direction.
And yet, not quite Rogen's usual fare.
Directed by Nicholas Stoller (The Five-Year Engagement, Forgetting Sarah Marshall), Neighbors stars Seth Rogen and Rose Byrne as newly-minted parents and homeowners Mac and Kelly Radner, whose life is changing fast and complexly enough without the arrival of a fraternity in the house next door. Though both sides attempt to be amicable, a misunderstanding between the party-hardy frat and the sleep-deprived family ignites a war between their houses, as each side thrives to make their neighbor's life a living hell.
So yeah, it's got something for the ladies.
The reason Neighbors is so good is for the two reasons I often state as necessary for the making of a quality motion picture, but often lacking in R-rated comedies: plot and character. While presented as a somewhat simple clash of ideologies - adults vs. college kids - the depth of the conflict between the two parties is presented in a way that is balanced, intelligent and really quite interesting. It would be so easy to portray the fraternity (represented primarily by Zac Efron and Dave Franco) as so annoying that they MUST be the bad guys, or the Radners as SO out of touch with their younger days that they blow things out of proportion. But Stoller - with a screenplay by relative newcomers Andrew J. Cohen and Brendan O'Brien - chooses not to go that route, instead giving both sides equal reason to both respect and aggravate the other. Yes, the frat boys are too loud, but they're also young people afraid of what will come after college, wanting to make their marks in life. And perhaps Mac and Kelly are overreacting a bit, but they're worried that parenthood means that their young lives are completely over. This wealth of personality makes these people, their motivations and the story very real to the audience. Yeah, there are some one-note characters in the bunch, but they're mainly filler to build up some of the laughs, and most of them work fine.
Wow, they really raided their closet for those.
Now, granted, good characters and a good story can actually BACKFIRE when the execution is shoddy, and Stoller should know all about this: his 2012 flop The Five-Year Engagement was a host of great ideas bogged down by poor pacing and direction. Fortunately, Stoller seems to have learned his lesson this time around, as Neighbors knows it's a fast-paced romp and never slows itself down to think too much about what it's doing, while still maintaining its surprisingly strong narrative. Sadly, its humor is merely second-rate. The dialogue is SMART, the antics are humorous, and the physical humor is well-timed. And yet, it never quite musters the courage to deliver on the hilarity it promises. It's sad, because Rogen is funnier than I've seen him in years, Byrne shocks - in a good way - with a performance that goes totally against her dramatic background, and Efron and Franco deliver equal portions of excellence in their roles as fraternity heads. Efron especially impresses - and not just due to his natural six-pack abs - quite possibly making 2014 the year he finally broke out in Hollywood.
I'm... not sure what to do with this...
If only second rate humor was the least of Neighbors' problems, though to be honest the list of negatives is not that long. Some of them are basic plot points - with this much partying, how are the Radners the only people complaining? - and others the misuse of certain actors - sure, Christopher Mintz-Plasse isn't the greatest ever, but all he gets is a glorified, unimportant cameo? - but most of those can be brushed aside as minor complaints. Slightly worse is the soundtrack, which includes no stand-outs, sounding like they were taken from the local Top 40 dance mixes at the time of filming. For a movie with so much heavy parting, a great soundtrack might have improved things greatly. Now, the presence of Ike Barenholtz and Carla Gallo as Mac and Kelly's divorced best friends presents a real problem. Their characters are as one-noted as many of the others, which wouldn't be a problem if they only played a small part in the movie. Unfortunately, the pair are jammed into the main story for little to no reason, chewing up precious screen-time and pumping out pure bile whenever they grace the screen. Their scenes are largely unnecessary, and ought to really have been edited out.
Yes, they're judging you.
Thankfully, that pair doesn't stop Neighbors from being a good movie; it merely stops it from being a great one. It's not everyday that a smart, clever, adult-oriented romp hits the big screen in such a successful way as this one has, and its success already at the box office means many folk already seem to agree. Should you see it? Well, while it's not on the same level as Ted or 21 Jump Street, if you're feeling the hankering for an R-rated smorgasbord of unfiltered, outrageous and absolutely juvenile laughs, then this is definitely worth your time. I promise you will be surprised.

Monday, May 7, 2012

Too Long a Wait

Last weekend, the much-awaited (by yours truly, at least) comedy The Five-Year Engagement was released to theaters. With only one week before the rise of eventual juggernaut The Avengers, the film's producers obviously thought they could make a quick cash grab with a strong romantic comedy and make out like thieves before the Marvel Comics' movie could simply take everybody's money. On paper, everything looked more than solid. Judd Apatow was producing, and Apatow's career seemed to be going upwards after he bankrolled a little film last summer called Bridesmaids. The film also reunited director Nicholas Stoller and star Jason Segel, whose former collaborations were the popular and successful Forgetting Sarah Marshall and The Muppets. Add rising star Emily Blunt to the mix, and what you should have is a hilarious romantic comedy that excels on all levels.

Well, let that be a lesson as to just how unpredictable this industry really is.

Audiences largely ignored The Five-Year Engagement, and in hindsight it's easy to see why. Its attempts to cling to the Bridesmaids's coattails were obvious ploys, as nothing in the trailer indicated that there was anything connecting Engagement to the 2011 box office giant whose popularity alone caused it to flirt with Best Picture nomination at the Academy Awards. Secondly, there was already plenty of romance in theaters when the film released, especially two titles released the previous weekend (the Nicholas Sparks adaptation The Lucky One and surprise hit Think Like a Man both dominated Engagement at the box office in their second weekend), and nobody really cared that a new romance film was available to see. What at first glance seemed like a slam dunk became anything but, and to add insult to injury, critics seemed to agree with our collective apathy. Were they right? Is The Five-Year Engagement deserving of its failures? I was still too intrigued by the title's premise to completely ignore it.

Look at the happy couple. What can we do to change that?
The film starts with lovebirds Tom Solomon (Segel) and Violet Barnes (Blunt) in San Francisco on New Years Eve, the night Tom proposes, and Violet of course says yes. While the pair are planning their upcoming nuptials, Violet, a psychology PHD graduate, gets a job offer for a post-doctorate program. The problem is that she did not get into a California program, but one at the University of Michigan, which puts the couple's plans on hold since they want to marry in California with their families present. Because the program lasts two years, Tom moves up with Violet, leaving his sous chef position at a popular restaurant and confident that he can "cook anywhere". Things get complicated in Michigan however, and as Violet's career surges forward, Tom is left behind, and the prospective wedding date gets further and further away. Soon it becomes a question of if, not when, the pair will ever tie the knot.

Tom just realized he's not wearing any pants. Violet just realized the same.
If there's one thing The Five-Year Engagement does well, it's that it establishes right from the beginning that these two people are absolutely perfect for one another. From the start, this is a couple that remember the moment they met one another, make each other laugh, and genuinely love one another in a way that communicates to every character in the film and every member of the audience that these two are meant to be together. It was a good call then to bring together Segel and Blunt, as the two share a chemistry that by itself nearly carries the whole movie. Segel is of course in his usual teddy-bear adorable mode, the one that makes women love him and men wish they were him. Segel defies the romantic lead stereotype in such a refreshing everyman way that it almost seems as though he can do no wrong. Blunt is also a hit, and her demeanor is more relaxed (and less "British") than I've seen in any of her other work. The pair obviously work hard to make this film a hit, but sadly it's due to forces outside their control as actors that hamper the title's effectiveness.

What they never say about weddings: all that free cake!
As you can probably guess, it's the story that is the main culprit in Engagement, and the blame for that falls squarely on the heads of Segel and Stoller. Yes, I did say that Segel was blameless, but only in an acting capacity. Unlike The Muppets, which the duo previously penned, this script has none of the wry wit and bursting humor that made Kermit and crew's return such a fun time. It would be easy to blame this on simply not having a female perspective, but it's plainly obvious that these men cannot describe exactly what it is that makes relationships work. As a movie, Engagement lacks subtlety, and the film's funniest moments are when the scenes are almost trying too hard to stand out. Too often does the movie rely on the comedic talents of its actors to make something much funnier than it actually is, and the result is a mishmash of drama and occasional spurts of laughter that doesn't quite pay off.

The couple we wish the movie had been about.
The film is not without its charms, but most belonging to Tom and Violet burns out quickly. Eventually a shitty situation turns the happy couple against one another, and as the audience we just wish that we could stop focusing on this pair until they can get their act together. Best friends to the rescue! Community's Alison Brie and Parks and Recreations' Chris Pratt are easily the best parts of the film as Violet's sister and Tom's best buddy, respectively. Besides being the funniest actors in this comedy (no, I agree that's not saying much), Brie and Pratt act as a calendar of the world outside our main pairing, and their development as characters is the one thing that works amid a sea of poor film pacing. Also standing out is Animal Kingdom's Jacki Weaver as Violet's wickedly fun mother, who says what's on her mind and to hell with the consequences. I really wish Weaver had been used more, but her effectiveness is sadly restricted to the film's opening half-hour. The cast is rounded out by Rhys Ifans, Mindy Kaling, and Kevin Hart, and if the talent here doesn't prove to you just how poorly the script fails the movie, nothing will.

Don't worry, big guy... you know you're getting the happy ending.
What we are left with at the end is a barely funny, overly-long (at two hours, I shouldn't believe that) movie that wraps itself up way too quickly to be believable. While the film does have a few funny bits, I'm hard-pressed to remember any single one. It DOES however contain one of the more memorable wedding scenes in cinema in recent memory. The Bridesmaids comparisons may ultimately have been what killed this film, as it was probably impossible for most people to imagine this title one-upping that modern classic. It's a shame, as with a few changes behind the scenes The Five-Year Engagement could easily have been a funny, competent and engaging romantic comedy. Instead it's barely humorous, and there can be no doubt that it deserved all those empty seats opening weekend. This might seem like small fries after I watched The Avengers twice in the past three days, but Engagement was one of more looked-towards titles this past spring, and I can't help but feel a moderate level of disappointment in its failure.

Thursday, November 24, 2011

Professional Puppet Productions

Well, what's a decade between friends?

It's 2011, a dozen years since the Jim Henson-created puppet characters known as "Muppets" appeared on the big screen, in 1999's Muppets from Space. The franchise, which began as a variety show and had been most popular in the seventies and eighties, was hitting popularity canyon around that time, as Muppets from Space was a financial failure and a signal to the entertainment industry that the franchise as a whole was no longer popular enough for mass entertainment. What followed was less than thrilling, as the puppet troupe pulled out a couple more made-for-television movies, and the Muppets themselves slowly faded into obsolescence. Well, that wasn't enough for How I Met Your Mother and Forgetting Sarah Marshall star Jason Segel, who along with running buddy Nicholas Stoller pitched a new entry to the series, a tall order considering the aforementioned lack of presence in today's pop culture. Still, that persistence (and a fiercely loyal fan base) paid off, and this Thanksgiving weekend became host to The Muppets, the first appearance of our favorite cast of misfits and divas on the big screen in twelve years.

Kudos for fitting them all into one station wagon
Gary (Jason Segel) and Walter (a new Muppet) are brothers, living in the small town of Smalltown, USA. Always feeling like an outcast, Walter has survived mainly thanks to the love and care of Gary and his fascination with the old Muppets television show, the characters of which are his idols and heroes. When Gary and his girlfriend Mary (Amy Adams) bring Walter along on a trip to Los Angeles with the intent of seeing the renowned Muppet Studios, they unwittingly set off a chain of events that sees them get a group that hasn't performed together in over a decade back into show business. The Muppets are constantly told that they are no longer popular, but they hope to shock the world in their big comeback that will include wisecracking bears, pig and frog duets, a barbershop quartet, and perhaps even Walter as the troupe's newest performer.

Animal! We LOVE Animal!
I was surprised to discover that The Muppets was in fact a full-blown musical, a fact that could have been suspected had I actually paid attention to the trailers but still somehow caught me unawares. Naturally I expected there to be a few songs from the Muppets themselves, and the film doesn't disappoint, especially when you have Kermit the Frog singing the original song "Pictures in My Head" and later on playing a duet with Miss Piggy of the classic Muppets' tune "The Rainbow Connection". And of course the original Muppet Show theme is still around, as delightfully cheer-inducing as ever. Only a couple of songs fail to entertain, though that isn't entirely the music director's fault (okay, some of it is, but we'll get to that later). Even though these specific song-and-dance numbers don't quite work out as planned, they still contain a ton of charm, and don't detract much from the film.

Seriously, who's that big blue guy in the back? Why is he there??
What does detract unfortunately is the human element that has almost ungraciously inserted itself into the narrative. Oh, I'm not talking about Amy Adams. Adams, for whom the part was specifically written, is the perfect actress to take on this kind of light parody of a real human being. As an elementary school teacher who fixes cars and speaks in a consistently high-pitched accent, there's no actress I can imagine besides Adams in the role. And of course when it comes time to actually sing, Adams' pipes come in handy for fending off critics of the relative simpleness of the songs themselves. I am also not dissing Chris Cooper, who but for an ill-advised albeit short hip-hop scene is perfectly at home as sleazy businessman Tex Richman, the film's main antagonist. And I'm not speaking of the hosts of guest cameos that make their way into the Muppet's latest film endeavor. The never-ending list includes Jack Black, Alan Arkin, James Carville, Whoopi Goldberg, Neil Patrick Harris, John Krasinski, Sarah Silverman, Mickey Rooney, Emily Blunt, Donald Glover, Dave Grohl and Zach Galifianakis, and those are just the interesting ones.Well used, the constant stream of cameos makes for at the very least an interesting ride and at best shows how influential the Muppets are among the current Hollywood stars. No, when I say that the film's human element is underwhelming I'm really talking about Jason Segel, which is a shame for several reasons. I hate to discredit his work because I love his role on How I Met Your Mother (no, I haven't seen Forgetting Sarah Marshall yet, sorry) and because of the obvious love he has shown in pushing this film forward, both in its creation and in its marketing. While he nails the huggable teddy-bear type for much of the film (that's pretty much HIS role...), this can't block the fact when the music numbers roll around he's not that good a singer and obviously suffers from having two left feet. When he's just called on to act he's fine, but the film would have been better with another, more musically-oriented actor in the lead role.

Uhm, yeah, you don't want to see that
Of course, the best (and perhaps only) reason to see The Muppets is... well... The Muppets! It was fun to see the film poke fun at how out of touch the characters are with the times; they constantly rock out to "We Built This City" and reference Dirty Dancing, and Kermit tries to get President Jimmy Carter to be their show's celebrity guest host. If you have a favorite character from the old show, new show or any of the movies, you likely won't be disappointed by their absence. Most of the "classics", as well as a few newer personas, make at least sporadic appearances, though you might have to hunt visually for them. The focus of the story is very top heavy, and most of the light is shone on stars Kermit, Piggy, Fozzie and Walter. Some effort is made with a few others, most notably Animal, but some fan favorites such as Gonzo and Rowlf the Dog are almost completely cast aside. This wouldn't be too bad in itself, but Walter's story of finding himself isn't always fun to watch. That some characters were pushed to the sides to make room for such a short-sighted character seems wasteful.

There's nothing like taking in The Muppets live on stage!
But perhaps I'm being a bit too critical. The fact is that if you can stand sitting in a theater surrounded by small children with short attention spans, The Muppets is a fun way to spend less than two hours of your weekend. As Jim Henson always intended, and Jason Segel dutifully followed, the film is silly enough for kids while still being entertaining for the adults who brought them there. That makes sense, as it would hardly be appropriate to alienate that nostalgic audience who made this title a reality to begin with. While not perfect, lacking perhaps the ability behind the camera to match the wit and bravado of titles earlier in the franchise's history, it's a nice opportunity to try and take this oft-neglected property as far as it can go. If people come out and support this film, good things will happen. I don't see any reason that shouldn't be, as the real crime would be to take something with this much promise and tuck it into a dark corner to stagnate and dull.