A Very Stoner Christmas

We can look back at the entire year of 2011 and never see anything like this. Only one film released this year features burning Christmas trees, multiple ethnic stereotypes, claymation dongs, drug addicted babies, a White House associate director, a pot-smoking Santa Clause, and a fictional representation of Neil Patrick Harris, played by Neil Patrick Harris. No, I'm not talking about Melancholia; this film is unlikely to garner any Oscar nominations, and is definitely for the more lowbrow set. The latest in the the series heralded as a modern day Cheech and Chong, A Very Harold and Kumar 3D Christmas has just about everything your stoner mind needs. That being said, the lovable duo (borne from a small scene in American Pie and a breakthrough role in National Lampoon's Van Wilder) can be enjoyed entirely Cannabis-free if you so choose. I still have fond memories of seeing the original Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle with my friends back in 2004; the raucous combination of raunchy humor with surprisingly wry wit was truly inspired, and while it surely wasn't one of the blockbusters of the year, it cemented its place with an audience who craved something a little off the beaten track.

This won't end well

Taking place six years after the events of Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle and it's sequel Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay, we learn that former stoner buddies Harold Lee (John Cho) and Kumar Patel (Kal Penn) have grown apart from one another in the years since. Harold has given up marijuana in his attempts to father a child with his wife Maria (Paula Garces), and tries to gain the favor of Maria's strict father (Danny Trejo) with a perfectly-executed Christmas. Kumar is still enjoying his leisurely style of life, though it has gotten him suspended from work and separated from his sweetheart Vanessa (Daneel Harris). When a package arrives at the duo's old apartment for Harold, it unexpectedly sets the two on a journey where the old friends reunite and rediscover why they had been so close in the first place. On that journey, they are run into underage beer pong champions, Russian gangsters, an evil snowman, Neil Patrick Harris and Santa Claus himself as they learn the true meaning of Christmas. Oh, yeah, and it's in 3D.

We don't condone punching a priest... most of the time

That last sentence would usually mean an upcoming diatribe about the mediocrity in which most films use 3D in the first place. Maybe it would be particularly volatile and obscenity-laced. But I'm not going to do that today? Why? Well, for one thing I'm tired of making the argument when most people seem to agree with me in that regard already. Secondly, the 3D in this Harold and Kumar outing is actually fairly well done. This is mainly due to two things. One: the film was made using actual 3D cameras without additional post-production material except in a few specific sequences. The second reason is that the movie parodies itself by questioning whether the technology has "jumped the shark", an obvious shot at just about every major studio that treats 3D almost as if it was the second coming of "talkies". Overall there is no real surprise in the 3D use in this film; most of the more obvious examples are featured in the trailers and therefore the use has no lasting impression on the overall body of work.

What were they doing with that squirrel in the tree? The world may never know

Whatever else you may think of the people involved in this series, there is no doubting the chemistry between the film's stars, Penn and Cho. As Kumar, Kal Penn is allowed to let loose and simply enjoy himself in a way that his more critically-hailed works have not. It's obvious that this young man has talent; his appearance on the TV show House MD and his lead role in The Namesake are proof enough of that. However he really seems to shine when he is allowed to cut loose, free of the confining restraints of Hollywood politics. John Cho has also enjoyed some commercial success, but like Penn has gained most of his attention from this series. As Harold, Cho is far more cautious, perfectly pairing with Kumar's take-no-prisoners attitude. This is why the two have gained such notoriety in recent years; their ability to convey just how their friendship has worked is the main reason these titles haven't been completely ignored. The support cast is talented but of course does not get nearly as much attention as the film's leads. Paula Garces proves underutilized as she can change on a dime between sex-craving vixen and sweet daddy's girl, showing a talent we knew she had in recent years. It's sad then that in this third outing she's barely given as much to do as she had in the first two films. Harris carries a strong performance but goes almost unmentioned between her scenes at the beginning and end of the film. Though both are supposed to be important parts of Harold and Kumar's lives, neither gets as much to do as they deserve. It's good to see Danny Trejo succeed in a comedic role, the actor usually known for his action work gets probably the most chances to shine among the secondary cast and never misses a beat. Newcomer Thomas Lennon also puts in a solid performance; as a change-up, Lennon forgoes much of his usual silliness to play an everyman, and while not perfect he still does a lot right with his work. The only disappointment in the cast is the failure of Law & Order: SVU performer Christopher Meloni to return to the series a third time. The character obviously intended for him, Russian mob boss Sergei Katsov, is reliably played by Elias Koteas. Koteas, while no Meloni, is a strong actor who doesn't mince with comedy and menaces throughout the entirety of his performance

The next step to global domination

Of course, it would be folly to ignore the effect that Neil Patrick Harris has had on the Harold and Kumar films, or the influence that the series has had on his own acting career. Playing the fictional, drug addicted womanizing version of himself in Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle rejuvenated his stagnant acting career, there can be no doubt. Without White Castle, there would be no Barney Stinson. Without Barney Stinson there would be no How I Met Your Mother. And of course without Neil Patrick Harris there would likely be no Harold and Kumar sequels, as his character is probably the only one to be arguably more popular than either of the lead roles. Since his appearance in Christmas takes place chronologically after Harris came out of the closet, his sadly brief showing covers for that pop culture event while also making room for a cameo by his real life beau David Burtka. The only complaint I have is that there is far too little of Harris' craziness, packed into too short a period of time. He briefly appears, is great, and then disappears into the woodwork, never to be heard from again.

On a very special CSI: North Pole

And in the end, this is what is flawed about A Very Harold and Kumar 3D Christmas. While it is funny at times, I can't help but feel that director Todd Strauss-Schulson, in his first feature film, didn't understand what made this dynamic pair so great in the first place. The script tries far too hard to shock you into groans rather than to actually try and make you laugh. While I really did have myself a good time seeing this picture, this lack of execution is what puts the third entry to this series a tick behind its predecessors. Between bong-wielding Santas and crack-addicted babies, there is more than enough to either enjoy or wag a finger at, and I hope the next entry to this series can get back to the level of quality we've enjoyed from Harold and Kumar in the past.

Bad... Just Bad

Sometimes as a film reviewer I absolutely KNOW when I'm going to hate a movie well before I've purchased a ticket for entry. While some films have surprised me as to the levels of their suckitude, such as Sucker Punch, many more have met expectations well below even baseline standards, their ranks flush with titles like The Eagle, Your Highness, and Red Riding Hood. At a certain point I can only justify so much, and often I go into a theater knowing that I won't emerge pleased with the experience, ready to warn you my readers of crimes against your sensibilities and your wallets. Bad Teacher is another in that growing list of titles in which I knew any preexisting standards would be too high. For one, I can't think of a single film I'VE seen where Cameron Diaz has proven her star status. Sure, she was good in The Mask, but what has she done lately that has been remotely interesting? Secondly, the trailers seemed to rely on vulgarity over anything actually comedic, a sad trend to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Finally, the story that was presented came down to a complete insult to educators in general, portraying the "hero" of the tale as someone who doesn't care at all about her students, only bothering with them when there's something in it for her. As someone who is friends with teachers and holds great respect for the work they do, I couldn't help but feel like this subversive fantasy paints these hard-working sorts in a negative light with little to no redemption on the horizon.

So who's the bigger tool?

Elizabeth Halsey (Diaz) dislikes her chosen profession as a teacher, a career that she for some reason at one point chose. After a failed engagement to a rich sucker ended an early attempt to quit teaching, Elizabeth is forced to return to the classroom she hates. Determined to escape, she tries to gain the attentions of the new substitute teacher Scott Delacorte (Justin Timberlake), who has a substantial family fortune, and to that end is trying to save up for a super expensive boob job. Elizabeth is confronted on many sides, however; the teacher across the hall, Amy Squirrell (Lucy Punch), suspects the worst in Elizabeth, while gym teacher Russell Gettis (Jason Segel) vies for her affections.

Diaz won this year's "Wrinkled Fish" competition hands down

I'm really not sure where the appeal for this type of film lies. It's certainly not in the storytelling, which is haphazard and all over the place like a drunk driver on New Year's Day. That's an appropriate comparison to Elizabeth, who is so unlikable that it's amazing that she's portrayed as the hero of the tale, not to mention a potential romantic interest for not one but two characters. Is it me, or is the whole notion of the "good guy" being the person who has no compulsion to help her students out of the goodness of her heart while the "bad guy" is one who actually has the interests and well-being of the children in mind completely insane? Not helping matters is the focus of the film. Concentrating on the three least sympathetic characters does Bad Teacher no favors, with the story and dialogue failing to provide amusement through either comedy or commentary. There's nothing here about the rigors, excitement or rewards of being a teacher; students are mere caricatures and the people making up the faculty aren't much better.

The most balls the film can muster

A little bit of humanity wouldn't have hurt, especially distributed among the main cast. What attracted Diaz to this offensive role is in serious question, as she usually chooses more audience-friendly fare in which to be seen, such as the crowd-pleasing Charlie's Angels. I guess she liked the idea of being part in such a foul-mouthed comedy, but there's very little to the character Elizabeth Halsey that is either challenging or deep. Diaz is fine as a uncaring educator, but this is just more proof of a low-ceiling role that Diaz takes to make a buck while neglecting to challenge herself, which is why she's not and will never be a top-flight talent. Timberlake is similarly wasted, as even his trademark charm does him no good with the realization that his character is a brainless tool, deserving of neither Elizabeth's nor our admiration. Unlike last year's Social Network, which utilized near the entirety of Timberlake's charisma, there's no reason this film couldn't have cast a nobody performer; the audience probably wouldn't have noticed the difference. Punch is the best of the three, but of course her character is villainized due solely to her opposing Elizabeth. She does get a few moments to shine, but she's neither a well-known enough actress nor particularly consistent enough to engage us.

No, those aren't Muppets with Segel, but I can see what you're talking about

It's with the secondary characters of Bad Teacher where you can start to see where things could have gone right for the film. Jason Segel is great in his smallish role of the gym teacher with interests in Elizabeth. Segel does a great job with these "nice guy" roles, further evidenced here with a character that is as fun to watch as he is underutilized. This also comes through as the film uses its smaller roles to inflict its best impacts upon the audience, with Modern Family's Eric Stonestreet, The Office's Phyllis Smith, and Reno 911's Thomas Lennon sharing not only the best dialogue and comedic elements, but the film's best overall acting talent with Segel

Why do I suddenly have Fountains of Wayne going through my head?

I could go on for paragraphs about the twisted morality of rooting between the characters of Elizabeth and Amy Squirrell, but I have no interest in giving this film more attention than it deserves. Among the worst that 2011 has so far offered, Bad Teacher could have been more than the obtuse, crude fantasy for the teachers out there who really hate their jobs, but not by much. This is likely the worst from director Jake Kasdan, and since he was responsible for the farce that was Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story, that says a lot about what I thought of this Bad Teacher. There are a lot of forgivable crimes in the world of film and Hollywood, but a comedy that isn't funny doesn't get a lot of respect or leniency from me, and it shouldn't from you, either.