Archive for the ‘Comedy’ Category

The Man in the Iron Mask

Posted by will on January 7, 2011

This is the movie loosely based on the 1939 same-titled film, also loosely based on a tale from Alexandre Dumas’ d’Artagnan Romances which, this story in particular, is loosely based on the real L’Homme au Masque de Fer, a prisoner arrested as Eustache Dauger in 1669. Yet, you probably remember it as that box-office success with future-star Leonardo DiCaprio who was coming off absurd amounts of outrageous triumph from his role in Titanic from the previous year. The mid-90’s prepubescent 14-year old girl in you probably remembers this as the movie with not one but two Leos (!!!).

What you might not remember is that The Man in the Iron Mask is a predictable, plodding film that has a few recognizable faces (Jeremy Irons, John Malkovich, Peter Sarsgaard, and Hugh Laurie to name a few) but nothing much to offer other than a little splash of action and adventure, awkward cuts of romance, a reunion of the O.G. Musketeers, and did I mention … two Leos?

After forgiving the campy dialogue, ridiculous slapstick elements, and slow forming story, the thing that was most cringe-worthy, I found, was the stiff and unforgiving acting. And, to top off your cocktail of misery, it seemed the poisonous effect was contagious throughout the cast. To think, the person who put the most life in his character was Gérard Depardieu (the only actual Frenchmen out of the four Musketeer actors), the oafish, drunken, STI-riddled boor. While the other three played up their hackneyed roles (the converted Jesuit priest who can still kick some ass in the name of the Lord, the mourning patriarch who was wronged by the king, and the distinguished military hero who is now under employ of the Man), they do so with such uncertainty and stiffness I couldn’t decide if particular parts of the movie were either painful or laughable (painfully laughable / laughably painful?).

And back to Leo. Both of them. Re-watching this film after a number of years, and seeing a good portion of Mr. DiCaprio’s body of work, this certainly was not his best effort. I mean, who could blame him? He was playing not only dual roles, but dueling roles as well. There is one thing I have noticed, from a personal standpoint, and this movie only helped to reinforce it. Leo has this particular and distinct vocal tone and inflection that he seems to always employ, whether he’s playing a con artist, historical megalomaniac, Rhodesian mercenary, or literary figure of tragedy … he always sounds the same, regardless of flavor of accent. While, my judgement is that he is a very, very talented actor, I always have a hard time blurring the line between him and whomever he is playing (because of his voice particularities). You might as well replace the “DiCaprio is …” perceptions with the “DiCaprio as …” realities in my judgement.

Off the tangent and back to the film. For what it’s worth, which is not too much, The Man … is certainly, in some small measure, entertaining (mindlessly, almost) but a very dated work that doesn’t hold a lot of potential as something you want to re-watch. But then again … it is two Leos.

The Verdict:

Comments on this post | Published in Action, Adventure & Epic, Comedy, Romance

In the Loop

Posted by robert on December 27, 2010

Too soon? In the Loop (2009) didn’t wait for the cessation of combat operations in Iraq to venture a comedy about the War’s origins, and the official end of the War last August does little to lighten the weight of the film’s subject.  But like Robert Altman’s MASH (1970), a shift in setting creates enough emotional distance for viewers to laugh at the tragically farcical lead-up to America’s latest imperial foray.  For its American audience anyway, In the Loop’s change in vantage point, is two-fold; first, the film primarily follows a British cabinet minister, and second, when the plot reaches American soil, it features the political maneuverings of low-level State Department staffers.  Filtered through the lens of political turf battles and public relations mishaps, over this film’s 106 minute runtime, comedy trumps tragedy.

Tom Hollander plays the equally earnest and incompetent Minister for International Development, Simon Foster, whose bumbling sound bites make him the pawn of both hawks and doves in the US State Department.  Foster’s new press aide, Toby Wright (Chris Addison), does little to keep his boss from running afoul of Malcolm Tucker (Peter Capaldi), the Rahm-tongued operative representing No. 10 Downing St., as Foster first calls war “unforeseeable,” only to clarify that the UK may have to “climb the mountain of conflict.”  Foster can’t keep his foot out of his mouth, despite himself, as he tries to repair a constituent’s collapsing retaining wall and sway the UN’s vote on war.

You’ll recognize a few faces in the supporting cast, including James Gandolfini as a dovish General, Zach Woods, The Office’s Gabe, as a State Department sycophant, and Anna Chlumsky, who you may not have seen since My Girl (1991), or My Girl 2 (1994) if you are less fortunate.  All deliver solid performances, but Hollander and Capaldi stand out.

In the Loop scores some easy laughs through fish out of water mishaps, which are laughs nonetheless, but is at its best with snappy (or hilariously sloppy) dialogue (Disclaimer: if you are sensitive to obscenity-laced tirades you should avoid this film). Since we know how this story ends, the drama lies seeing who will retain their careers, pride, and/or their integrity through the political one-upmanship of operatives on either side of the Atlantic.  You can’t see this laugh out loud movie too soon.

The Verdict:

Comments on this post | Published in Comedy

Cars

Posted by benjamin on December 21, 2010

When I tell people that I had not seen Cars yet, I’m given the look as if I hadn’t watched the birth of my first born. I’ve always loved the Pixar films but Cars previously slipped through my viewing eyes until now.

Cars is a great story of a car that wanted to be the best but didn’t realize that it takes a team sometimes to make everyone excel. Its a sweet story and Pixar nails it with their wit, sincerity, and flashy visuals. With each film from the Emoryville studio, it seems that the animators, actors, and directors become closer to the characters they are placing on the screen for everyone to enjoy.

I really wouldn’t expect anything less from Pixar’s crown champion, John Lasseter. John has provided us with Toy Story, Toy Story 2, and A Bug’s Life and many more. He’s primarily known as the man behind Pixar as he was one man who always believed that great 3D animated films could be produced. He has succeeded before and here with Cars and we can only hope he will succeed again with whatever his next movie will be.

Before Cars, only The Incredibles sat atop my Pixar list but now that spot is shared by the two films. I loved the subtle car puns (VW bugs as…bugs, gas can beer hat, etc.) as well as the multitude of racing cameos. From NASCAR to Formula 1, Cars nails the racing genre with the little kid spin. Only knowing the real life racers enhances your experience during the movie. It reminds me of the same way the models were used in Zoolander. Sure the movie was making fun of the profession but it was also trying to push it into the mainstream even more.

With the sequel on the horizon for next summer, I’m hoping that Cars 2 will be able to live up to the original. Though, it won’t be easy.

The Verdict:

1 Comment on this post | Published in Action, Adventure & Epic, Comedy, Family

Matchstick Men

Posted by will on December 13, 2010

Nic Cage is a weird guy. Not just on the big screen, but in real life as well. So, playing a master con artist who also suffers from agoraphobia, mysophobia, and obsessive-compulsive disorder should be right up his alley.

Cage is Roy Waller, a con artist with a personally groomed and taught partner (Sam Rockwell) who are pulling off small-time cons to the tune of a small fortune. The fantasy world they sell to their unsuspecting victims is a lot more stable than Roy’s personal life. When Roy’s small “episodes” and an extremely unnerving panic attack start to infringe on the business, Frank (Rockwell) suggests that he seek psychiatric help.

Waller seeks a quick-fix from psychiatrist Dr. Klein but ends up with a 14 year old daughter, Angela (Alison Lohman), a product of he and his ex-wife who divorced him a little under 15 years ago. With Angela now in his life, things are getting more complicated for the neurotic Roy and his orderly routine.

While most cons in films focus on large, grandiose capers and rewards, Matchstick Men is a little bit more mundane (it’s hard to make selling overpriced water filtration systems glamourous). Roy, if not for his fragile mental state and exotic profession, could pass for your average, divorced middle-aged suburbanite. That almost makes him very likable as he plays the role of underdog. You want him to succeed, especially as he plays catch-up to being the father he never was to Angela.

The plot of the film is pretty quaint but it is not without its own excitement and appropriate amount of really large twists and turns. Stable situations turn, realities are distorted, even more past Roy’s cerebral faults, and at the end, reality is flipped end upon end. Cage, Rockwell (for what little part he actually plays), and Lohman deserve praise for their performances. As the plot coagulates and the story becomes even more overwrought and unbalanced, the three stars really turn in very believable, very real performances.

This movie, overall, is fun to watch. It’s light-hearted, interesting, and is in the same vein as another movie based on a series of cons, Catch Me If You Can. Yet, in the end, Matchstick Men is less a movie about a con but a movie about a con artist.

The Verdict:

2 Comments on this post | Published in Comedy, Mystery & Thriller

The Brothers Bloom

Posted by will on November 23, 2010

The con artist is one of the most common and classic characters in film. Whether it is Frank Abagnale Jr. in Catch Me if You Can, Professor Harold Hill of The Music Man fame, or Redford and Newman’s Johnny Hooker and Gondorff in The Sting, movies about hoodwinking and bamboozling are big draws. What is so interesting about these type of films? I think, for me, it is the thrill of the hoax. We not only are on the inside of the fraud, but we also get to revel once the wool has been lifted from the victim’s eyes (something that gives us a sense of joy … as long as we are not the ones being cheated).

Naturally, most of the time, the scam artist has the tables turned and we get a moralistic victory. Or, there is a internal struggle to “go straight”. Either way, movies with these snake oil salesmen are normally highly entertaining. I can say The Brothers Bloom is, as well, for the most part.

The Brothers Bloom presents us with Stephen, three years senior, and his brother Bloom – professional con artists since childhood. Stephen creates what he deems “stories”, bizarre and complex scenarios. These tales put Bloom in the forefront to create confidence and trust with their marks.

25 years later, after another successful and elaborate con, Bloom comes to the realization that Stephen has forever, with his cons, controlled the outcome of his life. Essentially, Bloom is going under an identity crisis as well as a problem with reality and what has been constructed for him through Stephen’s cons. With that, Bloom decides he wants out of the game and moves to Montenegro.

Three months go by and Stephen finally hunts down Bloom. The premise – one last hurrah. The con is on Penelope Stamp, a rich but secluded heiress living in New Jersey. As the story plays out, three problems arise: Penelope is much more an eccentric wildcard then the boys thought, Diamond Dog, the brothers mentor-turned-arch-nemesis is back into the picture, and Bloom is finding himself falling in love with Penelope, the one thing he can not do to it compromises the con.

This movie reminded me of a half-as-quirky-not-as-eccentric Wes Anderson film (it is not as pretentious nor is there an epic soundtrack). As quick paced and interesting as the first half of the film is, the second half is a real drag. Rian Johnson wrote a pretty good script, it just should have been condensed.

Ruffalo and Brody are really great and play off each other naturally. Ruffalo is a natural as the smarmy, know-it-all big brother. I have not had a chance to see Ruffalo in a leading role and in Bloom, I liked what I saw.

Overall, the characters are interesting yet somewhat surprisingly, in the end, a bit mundane. Watch it for the performances, hate it for the dragging storyline.

The Verdict:

Comments on this post | Published in Action, Adventure & Epic, Comedy