Showing posts with label Ed Helms. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ed Helms. Show all posts

Friday, 29 June 2018

Review: Tag





Tag
Cert: 15 / 100 mins / Dir. Jeff Tomsic / Trailer



So, I see Hollywood's quest to recreate the lightning in a bottle which was The Hangover continues apace, with an ensemble comedy featuring the crap one out of Hangover, the crap one out of Avengers, the crap one out of Jurassic World, the crap one out of Baywatch and the crap one out of Baby Driver.

Three guesses what's happened.

Initially telling the story of a 30 year game of tag through the device of a reporter keen to write about the gang, the cast roster quickly expands to a number of players it can't realistically juggle. We're treated instead to a series of clockwork-timed set-pieces which have the air of something that was originally written for some movie anyway, but pulled off the shelf and dusted down for this.

Playing the living fuck out of its tenuous True Story™ card, the film has, admittedly, more laughs than it deserves. Although these come from choreographed slapstick rather than the half-baked script which feels like it's been written by a committee. A committee who decided that waterboarding and miscarriage were fine to use as punchlines*1. At least we now know that playing tag with this writing team would be so thuddingly predictable that it'd be a piece of piss to stretch the game out to 30 years...

We get a montage of camcorder footage before the mortifyingly self-indulgent end credits, showing the real life participants' tags over the years. This has more wit and sincerity than anything in the hour and a half before it.

Not enough ideas to actually justify its own existence, Tag is essentially 100 minutes of middle-aged men making dick jokes. Adjust your expectations accordingly.



So, what sort of thing is it similar to?
Game Night, Mike & Dave Need Wedding Dates.


Is it worth paying cinema-prices to see?
Nope.


Is it worth hunting out on DVD, Blu-ray or streaming, though?
If you're desperate and it's £3 in Asda.


Is this the best work of the cast or director?
I should hope not.


Will we disagree about this film in a pub?
That's entirely possible.


Is there a Wilhelm Scream in it?
There isn't.


Yeah but what's the Star Wars connection?
Level 2: Jeremy Renner's in this, and he's been in those Avengers films with (among others) Sam 'Windu' Jackson


And if I HAD to put a number on it…


*1 No word in the film's final moments on whether the waterboarding, miscarriage or cancer sub-plots were based on factual events or the screenwriters' idea of upping the comic/dramatic ante.
The cancer thing in particular feels horribly ill-judged. Did this happen? If it did and the guy died, then it might be an idea to put up a card dedicating the film to his memory. If it did and he survived, it might be an idea to put up a card letting the audience know. If it didn't happen at all, it might be an idea to drop it from the fucking screenplay after what's come earlier with the fake-miscarriage debacle. Not going to lie, I didn't stay 'til the very end of the rolling-names, but then I didn't think I should have to. "By the way, Terry died" is hardly a post-credits stinger, is it? [ BACK ]

DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Wednesday, 28 February 2018

Review: Father Figures





Father Figures
Cert: 15 / 113 mins / Dir. Lawrence Sher / Trailer



Well, you know you've had a challenging day at the flicks when you're pinning your hopes of a smile on a Warner Bros comedy about an absentee sperm-donor...

Twin brothers Peter and Kyle Reynolds (Ed Helms and Owen Wilson, and before you ask - no, their completely differing looks aren't the punchline for a single joke in here. Twins don't have to be identical of course, but it's almost as if one of them was second-choice casting after the script had been completed). I'll start again...

Twin brothers Peter and Kyle Reynolds are both nominally successful in their chosen fields as a proctologist and the branding-face of a barbecue sauce respectively, but both have a midlife crisis on the horizon. This is accelerated when their mother Helen (Glenn Close) lets slip that their estranged father isn't the man she always said he was. Now, the two have to overcome their superficial differences to venture on a cross-country road trip and track down their real, biological dad. Hilarity ensues. Or at least I imagine those were the final two words of the pitch that secured funding for this to be made.

My laundry-list of complaints with Father Figures is lengthy, broad and simultaneously petty, but I'll try to keep this brief. First and foremost, it's actually amazing - considering their genre-history - that two established comic actors such as Helms and Wilson share absolutely no chemistry on-screen. Their characters have been written to be diametrically opposite at the beginning of the film, but there's little-to-no closure of the gap as it wears on. The road trip formula provides the pace and changing scenery required to drive (no pun intended) a movie of this type forward, but it lacks the sincerity to be either moving or funny, both of which it's clearly aiming for.

The whole thing is just so slack, as if the string of setpieces have been penned by a different writers who have never met, or been given character outlines*1. The twists in each strand are so telegraphed that the film may as well include a synopsis in the opening titles, and the gags use lowest common denominator humour (to be expected), but delivered by a cast who are at least 25 years too old to be doing so with any level of confidence. While (despite the best efforts of writer Justin Malen) the film never quite crosses the line into hateful territory, it's oddly bereft of atmosphere, zest or flow. Like a dress-rehearsal for blocking and lighting purposes, but where the cast assume that the cameras aren't rolling.

Naturally, all of this builds to a sentimental crescendo and closing moral-message which the film has not earned in any way whatsoever. It's by no means the most ill-judged movie I've watched in recent memory, but Father Figures fundamentally fails in its remit as a comedy. Although what can we really expect from a screenplay which uses special needs, incest and colon cancer as throwaway punchlines?

To be fair, one patron found the movie consistently and vociferously funny. Then they packed up their vast collection of snacks and left fifteen minutes before the end, not to return.

Even the fans of Father Figures fucking hate Father Figures...



So, what sort of thing is it similar to?
Imagine a car crash involving a gender-flipped Mamma Mia! and Identity Thief, except worse than that sounds.


Is it worth paying cinema-prices to see?
No.


Is it worth hunting out on DVD, Blu-ray or streaming, though?
Stream in haste; repent at leisure.


Is this the best work of the cast or director?
It's not.


Will we disagree about this film in a pub?
Well I'd be delighted to hear your opinions about the film, put it that way.


Is there a Wilhelm Scream in it?
There isn't.


Yeah but what's the Star Wars connection?
Level 2: Well this film's got that Ving Rhames in it, and he was in that Pulp Fiction alongside Sam 'Mace Windu' Jackson, Bronagh 'Maoi Madakor' Gallagher and Phil 'Rebels Bail Organa' LaMarr.


And if I HAD to put a number on it…


*1 Most telling dialogue exchange: "Hey, at least buy me dinner first, next time!" quips Peter's patient at his proctology clinic. "That's really funny, I've never heard that one before" he deadpans back. But the jaded medical professional does this 30 seconds after saying "Well, the good news is I've found your car keys in here!", which one assumes he uses at least six times a day, pretty much negating any criticism of clichéd responses. It's this sort of glaringly inconsistent characterisation which further embarrasses a cast who appear to plotting how to get the film removed from the IMDB while it's still being made... [ BACK ]


DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Friday, 28 July 2017

Review: Captain Underpants - The First Epic Movie





Captain Underpants: The First Epic Movie
Cert: U / 89 mins / Dir. David Soren / Trailer



Well it's not every day I'm pleasantly surprised by a film that's essentially a mashup of Weird Science and a 1986 Viz character. Not least when it deftly borrows the freeze-frame fourth-wall-breaking of Deadpool, the evil genius with a shrink/enlarge weapon from Ant-Man and the mass-mutation beam of the X-Men movies, and manages to clock in with a U certificate, to boot.

Dreamworks' Captain Underpants is the big-screen debut of Dav Pilkey's books by the same name (and alas clocking in too late for this year's Adaptation series) and follows school-friends Harold and George as they unwittingly bring to life their own cartoon creation, the eponymous captain.

First things first, this is a silly film. Delightfully, masterfully silly, in fact. Don't let the BBFC rating make you think it's been unduly sanitised on its journey to the cinema, although there's comparatively little in the way of double-entendres*1 'for the parents'. If you're going to enjoy this with your youngsters, it'll be because you're on the same level*2. Which is, in all honesty, the best way anyhow. While the film isn't entirely devoid of 'message', comedy is the foundation here. And if the grown-ups can have movies like that, why shouldn't the kids? The bottom line is, I laughed more in the first five minutes of this film than I did in the entirety of Cars 3.

Although it dips in and out of various animation styles for small set-pieces, the majority of presentation is in smooth CGI models (thankfully in the artwork style of the source-text). Personally I'd have preferred something which felt like it held a little more weight, ie stop-motion style, even if that was simulated. But at the end of the day, this is Dreamworks, not Laika. And speaking of such matters, the two lead characters would probably be better if they'd been voiced by kids instead of 'enthusiastic sounding men', but it's not like this pulled me out of the fun at all.

At 89 minutes this is a lean show, but the runtime fits the story that's being told and the film ends just before it runs out of narrative steam (there's a mid-credits scene if you're so-inclined). Sure, in the long-term maybe it's a little forgettable, but as some animated features are forgettable while you're watching them, it's ridiculously entertaining throughout. And in the Summer-holidays, that counts for a lot.

The cleanest toilet-humour you'll see this year, and all the better for it. If you don't laugh during this film, you were probably never a child.



So, watch this if you enjoyed?
Minions, Weird Science, things containing fart-jokes.


Should you watch this in a cinema, though?
If you have padawans you'll probably be dragged along to it anyway.
That's no bad thing
.


Does the film achieve what it sets out to do?
Yep.


Is this the best work of the cast or director?
Well, I think Kevin Hart has found his natural cinematic home…


Will I think less of you if we disagree about how good/bad this film is?
Nope.


Yes, but is there a Wilhelm Scream in it?
No.
Which, in a film like this, is frankly ridiculous
.


Yes, but what's the Star Wars connection?
Level 1: This film features the work of Thomas 'additional voices in The Old Republic' Middleditch.


And if I HAD to put a number on it…


*1 That said, the 'uranus' joke is mined on more than one occasion and like a Stewart Lee routine, just gets funnier each time. [ BACK ]

*2 Because y'know, not every building in a movie that's numbered '213' is a reference to Jeffrey Dahmer/Slayer. I accept that now. [ BACK ]


DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Sunday, 6 December 2015

Review: Christmas With The Coopers

World of Blackout Film Review

Christmas With The Coopers Poster

Christmas With The Coopers (aka Love The Coopers)
Cert: 12A / 107 mins / Dir. Jessie Nelson / Trailer
WoB Rating: 3/7


Oh. Is this where Diane Keaton and John Goodman are at, now? As actual actors? I expect this level of afternoon-whimsy from Ed Helms and Amanda Seyfried (and even The Voice Of Steve Martin™, to be honest*1), but even so.

Still, I imagine a guaranteed seasonal repeat-fee is a nice little earner, isn't it?*2

As four generations of the Cooper family congregate for their annual festive celebrations, we get an insight into their individual lives; their ups, their downs, their loves and losses. Yeah, it sounds like hard work, doesn't it? Don't blame me, I didn't write the film…

As is so often the case with Hollywood's Portmanteau-Lite™ subgenre of gentle comedy*3, Jessie Nelson spins far more plates than is feasible for a feature film, and only a couple of those feature anything worth picking over. Like any buffet though, you're not really supposed to like everything that's on offer (even though, crucially, you've paid for it all anyway). Like the film's metaphorical progenitor Love Actually, the viewer here can't spend enough time with the individual threads to build the emotional connection that the finale expects. Although you don't have to worry too much as the film will tell you what to feel, anyway.

Stylistically, not to mention narratively, the film is all over the place; barely even a first-draft of a screenplay, more a notebook full of ideas - good and bad - exorcised equally by releasing them onto paper. Only in this case, followed by no further revision process. Occasionally witty, charming and touching (courtesy of Marisa Tomei and Olivia Wilde's respective segments), two minutes later the film goes back to being mawkish, condescending and about as spiritually earnest as the Coca Cola truck…

Oh, and which casting director managed to sneak through the idea of Diane Keaton (69) and Marisa Tomei (51) playing siblings with a six-year age gap*4? Don't get me wrong, they're both fine actresses, but when Tomei finally referred to her 'sister' while looking directly at Keaton, I nearly choked on my mince pie. Both actresses look fantastic 'for their age'*5, but they don't look the same age. Even cinematographer Elliot Davis has noticed the visual disparity, and whenever Keaton's alone in a shot, the focus is so soft that I thought I'd developed cataracts. Which only insults everyone further, to be honest. And speaking of casting, at least none of the film's exorbitant $18m budget went on those expensive child-actors. Oh, there are plenty of children in the film of course, just not actors...

But despite my moaning (and this is the truncated version, believe me), the film never becomes completely unbearable, but it's an over attentive host making small-talk with all the guests while neglecting the meal they're meant to be serving.

Ultimately, Christmas With The Coopers is probably a passable analogy for the gatherings which fill the holiday season, where you'll tolerate a room filled with fifteen people you don't like just to catch up with two that you do.

Perhaps this is the perfect Christmas movie, after all..?



Is this film worth paying £10+ to see?
Nope.


Well, I don't like the cinema. Buy it, rent it, or wait for it to be on telly?
Telly.


Does this film represent the best work of the leading performer(s)?
*looks over spectacles*


Does the film achieve what it sets out to do?
The film doesn't even fulfil its remit to itself, no.


Will I think less of you if we disagree about how good/bad this film is?
I will a bit, yeah.


Oh, and is there a Wilhelm Scream in it?
There isn't.


…but what's the Star Wars connection?
This disappointing movie features Olivia Wilde who also appeared in Cowboys And Aliens alongside Harrison 'Solo' Ford.


And if I HAD to put a number on it…




*1 And before anyone gets all pissy in the Comments Section about me taking Steve Martin's name in vain, let me remind you that he plays a talking dog in this film. And that's not even the lowest point of his career, okay?

*2 Even after you offset it against your credibility. Or dignity. Or soul.

*3 Or so I gather, since I usually avoid them as they tend to involve Ashton Kutcher or Jon Bon Jovi. Or Matthew Morrison. Christ.

*4 That's a rhetorical question. Venus Kanani and Mary Vernieu are responsible for the casting of the film, I just didn't want to name them in the main body of the review. Not that they deserve any less admonition than the rest of the crew, mind…

*5 And seriously, I feel fucking awful for even using those words, but since the bone of contention is the gap between their ages, it's kind of a necessary evil. Look, don't blame me; I'm not the one walking up to Keaton and Tomei in a bar and saying "why, you two could be sisters!".

*6 And hey, thanks for reading all these footnotes. That means a lot. Although if you're reading this one then you've just skimmed down them in one go because there's no corresponding *6 in the review above. Which means you've probably read the others out of context, too. Fine. Not judging, just saying…


DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Wednesday, 19 August 2015

Review: Vacation

World of Blackout Film Review

Vacation Poster

Vacation
Cert: 15 / 99 mins / Dir. John Francis Daley / Trailer
WoB Rating: 5/7


Well, there's a turn-up. The trailer for Warner Bros' retooling of the National Lampoons' Vacation franchise has been played to death in recent weeks, and it did less to boost my confidence with each re-watch. That the movie has had a right kicking from reviewers in the US didn't help either, so I braced myself for the worst as I sat down for a preview-showing. I mean, I've seen worse in the last month, right?

Well actually, yes. Sure, the minimalistically rebranded Vacation isn't quite as sweet-natured or nostalgic as it'd like to think it is, the gross-out moments aren't as subversive or anarchic as they probably felt in the script-meetings, and the references and in-jokes to the earlier films aren't as clever or subtle as the screenwriters had hoped. But the film more than passed the laugh-test. The chemistry of Ed Helms, Christina Applegate, Skyler Grisondo and Steele Stebbins papers over the cracks and makes for a consistently amusing series of interlinked sketches (which is no more or less than what these movies are intended to be, to be fair).

I laughed, the audience laughed, the film went down very well. Tellingly, most of the gags from the trailer fell a little flat, probably as a result of repeated exposure in recent weeks, so the film's going to be funniest the first time you see it (although the plastic-bag joke worked just as well, probably because it's longer and even more sadistic in the film). Vacation doesn't get too misty-eyed for the past, littered with more than its fair share of bad language and questionable subject matter, but by the same token, it never forgets that it's a film about the Griswold family. And just when you think Chris Hemsworth has overplayed his comedic hand a little, Chevy Chase is wheeled out for a few scenes in the final act and threatens to derail the entire thing. He's not awful (and obviously deserves a place at the table) but his performance is, to put it politely, batshit.

Far better than it has any real right to be, Vacation mixes the farce of The Griswolds with the faeces of The Hangover and just about gets away with it. This time.

Against my wiser instincts, I rather enjoyed it.
Don't tell anyone.



Is this film worth paying £10+ to see?
I'm not sure I'd go that far…


Well, I don't like the cinema. Buy it, rent it, or wait for it to be on telly?
This is a DVD with some friends and a few drinks. It won't be a bad movie to have on the shelf, but don't buy it until the price drops.


Does this film represent the best work of the leading performer(s)?
Again, not sure I'd go that far, although Skyler Gisondo and Steele Stebbins steal the show as the squabbling Griswold kids.


Does the film achieve what it sets out to do?
Be an entertaining, disposable Summer comedy? Yes.
Reinvigorate the Vacation franchise for another run of movies? …I'm not sure I'd go that far
.


Will I think less of you if we disagree about how good/bad this film is?
Not at all.


Oh, and is there a Wilhelm Scream in it?
There isn't.


…but what's the Star Wars connection?
The film features Chris 'Thor' Hemsworth who was in the Avengers movies, of course, with Sam 'Windu' Jackson.


And if I HAD to put a number on it…




DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.