Dinner for Schmucks

As I learn time and time again, funny actors and interesting concepts don’t always make a movie successful. The first issue came when I learned the film is based on a French film, Dinner for Dolts. European humor is not the same as American and if this film defines what the U.S finds funny then I’m embarrassed. From the mean-spirited ridicule to the cringe worthy situations I was saddened more than I was entertained.

Schmucks stars Paul Rudd who plays Tim, a businessman who strives for a promotion in order to impress his girlfriend. His boss then invites him to a dinner where each person brings an “idiot” with them and the group proceeds to make fun of them. He then meets Barry, played by Steve Carrell, who creates detailed dioramas using dead mice dressed as people. A gut-wrenchingly sad story ensues in the build up to the dinner party where the audience learns about Barry’s loneliness, and witnesses Tim’s relationship go down in flames. It completely disgusts me how the packed movie theater was laughing hysterically as these characters suffered.

I understand the desire to create sympathetic characters but in this context it just made me pity them. America knows that Carell can play awkward and his Schmucks performance is a less confident Michael Scott with a psychological disorder. Keeping with that similarity to his persona on The Office, Barry flip flops between unfortunate and infuriating. Rudd continues his reign as the straight man of modern comedy. He has found a niche there and does well playing average, and likeable protagonists. The ability of the actors was not the issue in Dinner for Schmucks. Zach Galifianakis and Jermaine Clement also gave strong performances in support.

When the film finally gets to the dinner some of the discomfort is replaced with laughs but there aren’t enough. While the characters preach understanding and respecting the talents of others, it subtly covers shallow knocks meant to get chuckles out of the callous members of the audience. Movies are intended to showcase different perspectives to broad demographics of people. That does not mean they should insult the people filling up theaters by assuming they enjoy laughing at the misfortune of others to make themselves feel superior. I may be ending with a cheesy resolve but it might as well be called ‘Movie for Schmucks.’ (4.0 out of 10)

Inception

While the movie going public waits for the sequel to The Dark Knight director Christopher Nolan decided that it was the right time to release Inception, which he directed, produced and wrote. The film is a concept where individuals can penetrate the minds of others during dreams to find out personal information, or in rare cases plant information. I try to see a lot of movies and Inception is one of only a few original concepts I can think of that was released this year. It’s no secret that studios are focusing on established franchises in order to make a sure buck so, the mid-July release date for Nolan’s Inception is a bit of a surprise, but a welcome one.

The film’s cast is the strongest I’ve seen in a few years with Leonardo DiCaprio receiving top billing followed by the likes of Ellen Page, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Tom Hardy, Ken Watanabe, Marion Cotillard and others. When Michael Caine is in a movie and doesn’t get mentioned in the first handful of names you know how many great actors are there. Plus, it says something when a large ensemble goes through a two and a half hour movie without missteps. There are no cheesy lines, or scenes that should have been re-shot, just strong performances all around. Nolan’s attention to detail is what makes his big budget films successful when so many others fail either critically or monetarily.

While the plot is not the easiest to follow, the conflicts are resolved in a clear enough way that I wouldn’t deem the film confusing. I imagine it’s not for everyone though. Thinking tends to be an optional aspect of film lately, but Inception basically says keep up or get out of the theater because we’ll go on without you. I look forward to seeing the film again now that I know the conclusion, because the layers of complexity makes Inception original enough to be viewed frequently like other classic motion pictures.

Nolan’s films have developed such a specific look and feel to them that outside influences get lost behind the scale and tone that is reminiscent of The Dark Knight, The Prestige and his other projects. There is no doubt that this film will be emulated for years to come and all the young filmmakers and writers that were impressed with his Batman films have now found their icon. In my humble opinion, Inception is the best film of the decade. (10 out of 10)

Cyrus

When you go to the movies do you ever say to yourself, I hope this movie is a less funny version of Step Brothers with an independent budget and academy award nominated actors playing static, uninteresting characters? Cyrus hopes you do. John C. Reilly plays a down on his luck divorcee who meets a fun loving woman, played by Marissa Tomei. They then have the beginnings of a relationship, as Reilly’s character must deal with the possessive and weird son of the woman, played by Jonah Hill.

Reilly finds a role that is a balance between some of the more serious jobs of his past and his current run with Judd Apatow projects. The character is not the funniest but Reilly does put an awkward twist on his performance that makes, the aptly named, John a sympathetic and likeable character. Tomei is obviously a good actress and there’s not much more to add. Hill proves to be the wild card however. Playing the title character (Cyrus), he uses the uncomfortable comedy that he has become famous for to make the audience cringe. Then when serious situations come about he fails at being believable. While he tends to be funnier than Reilly in this film, the serious moments separate the actor from the comedian.

Cyrus boasts some unconventional editing techniques to pump up the “artsy-ness” of some scenes. Mostly seen within conversations, jump cuts create some interesting visuals but toy with the viewer’s ability to completely submerge into the plot. It seemed that these occurrences are mostly intended to remind the viewer they are not watching a big budget comedy, but a more civilized indie effort. I wasn’t buying it.

The script skirts the issue of Tomei’s obsessive relationship with her son to the point that I expected their to be some sort of twist or shocking realization. I don’t think that would have been necessary but since there ends up being no twist everything comes off as very repetitive. Numerous funny moments carry the film but nothing comes close to hysterical and slight chuckles aren’t enough to make a movie. (7 out of 10)

The Karate Kid (2010)

When scrolling through my film reviews they tend to be in order by release date. However, sometimes I don’t get around to seeing one for a while. The Karate Kid is one of those instances. It’s not that the trailers didn’t look entertaining; it’s just something about a two and a half hour children’s movie that is a completely altered version of a cult classic. I guess since the first incarnation was not incredibly original the studio thought it acceptable to change things.

The 2010 version follows Dre Parker (Jaden Smith) and his mom Sherry (Taraji P. Henson) as they move from Detroit to Beijing after she gets transferred. Dre then encounters some overly vindictive children who continually beat him up. With the help of maintenance man, Mr. Han (Jackie Chan), he learns kung fu in order to gain the respect of his peers and fight in a tournament.

On the surface the plot is pretty straight forward, except for the fact that some aspects just don’t add up. First, take the bullies. They are twelve year olds who brutally abuse Dre because he is different. This might be my ignorant, middle class upbringing here but children do not beat the shit out of each other just for the hell of it. In reality, I could understand some pushing and shoving or name calling but kicks to the face hurt. Adults would notice. The next problem is the kung fu instructor of the bad kids. He tells them to show no mercy in life and condones the pre-pubescent violence. This guy would not have hundreds of students because their parents would notice that little Johnny has been kicking the cat across the room ever since he began these lessons.

The last problem I will mention is the constant flip flop between touching realism and over the top video game style. A children’s kung fu tournament would not have a jumbo-tron projecting professional promo photos of the competitors. This isn’t Major League Baseball. As tough of a transition as this may be, I will now try to comment on the positives. Jackie Chan gave a strong performance for the majority of the film highlighted by a compelling scene in which he confides a past tragedy with Dre. Plus, he probably looks better than he actually is next to Smith’s forced attempts at humor and whiny brat personality. It’s hard to feel bad for a kid who constantly acts like a jerk.

The overall adaption addressed some of the flaws in the 1984 release and using China as the backdrop produced some great looking scenes. Chan and Henson did well to carry the cast of mostly children. Plus, I think it would be tough to find someone who questions Jackie Chan’s ability as a martial artist. I was very impressed when he fought… a group of five middle school kids… well at least he didn’t try to act ghetto like in the Rush Hour trilogy. (6.6 out of 10)

The Sorcerer's Apprentice

The creative team behind the National Treasure films gives their take on fantasy in a film that seems to have fallen between the cracks of the summer’s biggest releases. Nicholas Cage plays Balthazar, a former apprentice of Merlin who must train a normal guy to become a powerful sorcerer and defeat two powerful villains. Jay Baruchel plays the normal/ geeky guy, Dave, who is forced to play a part in this centuries old struggle the world never knew existed.

With Baruchel and Cage as the two leads it’s hardly difficult to predict the types of performances these actors will give you. Baruchel has become a pro at the likeable geek persona and Cage is, well he’s Nicholas Cage. If you’re not familiar with his style see any one of his films and he’ll be acting similar. The addition of Alfred Molina as Horvath, Balthazar’s archenemy, brings the quality of performance up a bit. Now don’t get me wrong, Baruchel and Cage are good, but predictable.

The story is also a tad on the predictable side, but it is well done. The film is not as complex as a Harry Potter type fantasy but as it’s based on the Fantasia cartoon it doesn’t have any kind of commitment to an epic novel with boatloads of detail-obsessed fans. This allows the story to flow well and build as a fun film that could end with this venture or continue on in a sequel if Disney sees fit.

My main gripe comes with the stuffy dialogue between Dave and his love interest, Becky, played by Teresa Palmer. Being a recent college graduate, whenever a film portrays my age group as a stereotypical archetype it bothers me. Becky is a sort of artsy, music obsessed character who at one point claims that her college radio show is the only thing she enjoys in her life. Dave on the other hand gives a similar impression with science. It was just overly dramatic. Both characters have friends in the film. The audience sees them. So, they’re not as lonely as everyone is supposed to think.

Otherwise, the film is very easy to watch with lots of laughs and an exciting story. It’s your typical Disney movie. Though the most important question of course is, will it make your typical Disney movie money? (7.9 out of 10)

Despicable Me

For whatever reason I expected Despicable Me to be the best animated movie I’ve ever seen. It most likely had something to do with the colossal marketing campaign that begin last summer and the voice talents of three of the biggest comedic stars in the world right now, Steve Carell, Jason Segal, and Russell Brand. However, the result was a situation where I saw the majority of the film’s best jokes in the trailers. They were still funny in context but not as fresh.

The story follows a super-villain named Gru, voiced by Carell, as he attempts to steal the moon and win back the respect of his evil community. He has to battle a new villain in town and adopts three innocent children to unwillingly break through his enemy’s defenses with their charm.

Gru is, as one would expect from a children’s film, not that evil and in reality just misunderstood. Though what the audience does not usually get is an explanation that delves into abandonment issues from childhood and a fear of failure. Children (and probably a lot of adults) would overlook those details, as they are masked in humor, but they do provide some depth to the story.

The dozens of “minions” are probably the most memorable aspect of the film as they were used in advertising and feature prominently on screen. They provide quite a few laughs as well. The humor combined with the overall story structure and likability of the characters makes Despicable Me a hit, although I don’t think it was the best animated movie ever.

Another interesting characteristic is how the voice actors mask their voices with accents and different dialects. There is not the usual realization of who the voice belongs to when they come on screen that tends to happen in other animated pictures. This instance takes a bit longer. Brand plays an elderly scientist and Carell’s Gru has an Eastern European accent. I can’t remember either of them playing parts like that anywhere else so that should be enough to get you into the theater. Well that’s if the billions of commercials fail to do so. (7.6 out of 10)