The Other Guys (second review)

Reviewed by Steve Kochems

To say that this was a film I had high hopes for would certainly be a true statement, but I hadn’t anticpated it would also be a fairly smart film. What some might see as a loss in laughs, The Other Guys makes up for with solidifying characters and a concrete plot, two things lost by many films in this day and age (see Dinner for Schmucks).

The Other Guys follows two very real characters and wisely decides to not follow a common buddy cop trend, one misfit and one wild card. Instead, Terry (Mark Wahlberg) is an emotional train wreck disguised by a tough guy facade and Alan (Will Ferrell) is an action figure confined to a box but once he’s opened up runs wild a la Frank the Tank. When the two super cops of New York City (Samuel L. Jackson and Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson) have a tragic, and hilarious, accident, our two average Joe’s see their opening to become heroes.

Now, I certainly wouldn’t say that the film wasn’t funny. Walhberg and Ferrell are a great comedic team and the supporting cast works nicely, from Rob Riggle’s ball busting top cop to Michael Keaton’s Captain Gene, whose side job brought laughs to a slowing finale. For the average American, it may get too slow. To me, it’s a necessary drop that even the best buddy comedies go through to maintain a well structured film. That being said, it has noticeable sag in the middle.

The amount of mockery this film brings was certainly expected, but Director Adam McKay goes for all out by streamlining their investigation along with the moral center of the movie. This is really all brought back around at the end credits, which could come off as preachy but instead are more of a revelation that no one would’ve expected from the guys who last served up the shit-sandwich Step Brothers.

Overall, my expectations for this film may have been too high. What it lacks in huge laughs, it makes up for with a quality plot, theme, and characters that will have you kicking the chair in front of you when you are laughing. If it’s not a theatre must-see, I’m sure the DVD will be even better with gag reels and outtakes. Other Ferrell/McKay projects like Anchorman or Talladega Nights gave me a similar initial feel but grew with each viewing, so I’m going to learn from my mistakes and trust in a second time around.

3.5 out of 5 stars

The Other Guys

Reviewed by Mike Kamrowski

This hasn't been the best summer for comedy films, so I was a bit weary about checking this one out. I thought it looked great when I watched the first trailers a few months back, but so did Dinner For Schmucks...

The Other Guys is your typical good-cop bad-cop film, except it isn't that at all. That might be what it set out to do, but in the end it is really just an extreme exaggeration of the genre and it worked perfectly.

The characters are what made this movie for me, from Will Ferrell's timid desk-jockey character of Allen Gamble, who wants nothing more than to finish his oh-so important paperwork to Mark Wahlberg's anxious, over-the-top hero-wannabe role as Terry Hoitz. Michael Keaton steps in to play the not so hardass police Captain who constantly wants to see the duo in his office, while Steve Coogan (Hamlet 2) plays the role of wealthy money man David Ershon.

And, in one of the most spectacular jobs of movie casting ever, Sam Jackson and Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson play the hot-shot lead detectives that the women love and the rest of the police force (mainly Wahlberg) envy. They are your typical rouge cop team, the type that the phrase "shoot first, ask questions later" was designed for. They are (not surprisingly) hilarious together during the short amount of screen-time they have, which is probably a good thing because Ferrell and Wahlberg would have spent the film in their shadow. The supporting cast works well in my opinion- the movie is clearly about Gamble and Hoitz. Rounding everything off is a ridiculously funny cameo by Derek Jeter and the voice of your humble narrator, Ice T.

The plot was very predictable, but the story was interesting. After the death of Samuel L. and The Rock, Wahlberg and Ferrell decide (although Ferrell was forced... at gunpoint) to fill the very big shoes of their idols and throw their hats in the ring for top cops. They discover a ponzi-type scheme being cheifed by Coogan and his thugs. Eventually the good guys win and blah-blah-blah. Very predictable, but like I said, the story wasn't really the drawing point.

Will Ferrell is on the money funny and Wahlberg is right there with him. In fact, everyone is funny in this movie. It's one of those movies where everything is genuine and the jokes keep coming in rapid succession. While some of them might be duds, other's will catch you off guard and the next thing you know the theater is rolling (the hobo orgy in Ferrell's car was one such moment).

When all is said and done (...or blown up, crashed, etc.) The Other Guys is an exaggeration of an exaggerated cop flick (Starsky & Hutch and Rush Hour come to mind) and is completely unapologetic about it. It mixes action with comedy -not the other way around- and does it with every trick in the book: physical humor, random gimmicks, hilarious one-liners (some that you might not even catch during the first viewing), ridiculous situations and the comedic styles of Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg play perfectly off of each other.

4 out of 5 stars

And if all of that isn't reason enough to go see The Other Guys, here's one more: Eva Mendes wearing low-cut shirts. Fantastic.

What I Watched Wednesday

Hey folks, we've decided to broaden our horizons from just recently released films into our souls of movies that we love. Or ones we just happen to have seen in the last week. So here is the first What I Watched Wednesday post- feel free to ad your thoughts at the bottom and even throw some movies you saw in as well.

Steve watched: Slap Shot!

I walked through Target the other day to get a puzzle so I could drink and be productive on a Monday (don't ask) and came across Slap Shot! in the $5 bin. I don't think I've ever spent a better finski in my life. It was funny when I was 9 and still is now.

Not only does this film bring great physical comedy but it also really brings theatrics and violence in sports to the forfront not only to expose it for the distractions that they are, but openly mock them in an example of how they are ruining sports. Guys like Sean Avery and Ochocinco aren't examples of athletes who excel in a sport but rather in manipulation.

The fact that Slap Shot! was released in 1977 and some of its message still rings true today is one reason it is an old favorite of mine. More importantly, the fact that it maintains this as an underlying theme with a surface of such stupidity and low class humor is perhaps its greatest feat.

Still waiting to buy you that soda Oggie.

Random Comment from Mike: Fucking best hockey movie ever! I just finished reading a book about the WHA (The Rebel League by Ed Willes), which is the hockey league Slap Shot! was based on. Favorite line from the flick? "We're just puttin' on the foil, coach!"

Dinner for Schmucks

Reviewed by Steve Kochems & Mike Kamrowski

Steve:

This film called for a less intensive review than I normally give, not just because of the content and plot of the film, but because I feel like I’ve narrowed down the fundamental problem that I have with it. However, this flaw is not one I can simply admit to.

It falls into the category of a film trying to balance heart and comedy. Its laughs are ones that come in bunches, with gaps in between that try to be filled with heart and feeling, led by Tim (Paul Rudd). The laughs often come at the expense of Barry (Steve Carrell), an idiot that overshadows Michael Scott by misreading the simplest situations and dressing up dead mice and placing them into romantic settings for his own nostalgia. Alright I’ll be fair, those scenes (including the opening) were adorable, but it runs contrary to the predictable thematic message of the film.

The film also struggles to build tension by not evolving to new problems but rather regurgitating the same ones over and over. It’s becomes a more predictable movie as it progresses and that really drags it down.

If you’re looking for straight laughs, this might be the film for you. A good gauge: how much Michael Scott you can stand in The Office. If you can’t stand him, this isn’t the film for you because very little else is offered up to the audience other than Carrell. Unfortunately, I think the main problem in this film is Rudd. I never thought I’d say that, but he simply looks uncomfortable and tame in this movie. He’s constantly overshadowed by Carrell’s over the top goofiness. He doesn’t have the lax attitude like in Role Model’s or the sexism of Brian Fantana in Anchorman. Instead, Rudd seems to be trapped in a lifeless character that doesn’t really make much of a change in the film.

Overall, I’m torn on what to think about this movie. Being a huge fan of The Office, I laughed every time Carrell opened his mouth, but couldn’t help but notice the flab showing. Unnecessary characters, an imprisoned lead, and a static conflict all seem to drag the film down. In the end though, I found that I still enjoyed the film.

3 out of 5 stars

Mike:
In the latest venture for director/producer Jay Roach (Bruno, Meet the Parents), Paul Rudd plays a character who's one goal is to move up the coporate ladder. He finally gets an opportunity to do just that after his boss invites him to a dinner and explains that each guest must bring someone for the rest of the party to make fun of. To this, Rudd replies "It's a dinner for idiots?" In my opinion, you can replace "dinner" with "movie" and it would prefectly describe Dinner for Schmucks.

Paul Rudd films are usually pretty funny, if not great due to the acting of Rudd, the hilarious storyline and the support of a great cast; I'd say this was the exception. Steve is right on the money with his review: it tried to balance heart and comedy and the scale just wasn't even at the end. Supporting characters (there were a lot) were introduced too rapidly and took up too much screen time- generally, most were unnecessary and didn't do much to move the film along.

I hate The Office and I'm not the biggest Steve Carrell fan (40 Year-Old Virgin and Anchorman being the exceptions) so this movie was very hard for me to sit through. I went into the theater with the mentality of "Oh, Paul Rudd, Steve Carrell and Zach Galifianakis are in a movie together; how could this go wrong?" Looking back, I probably should have just went to see Toy Story 3.

I thought that Carrell's character was just too ridiculous to be believable. He has no common sense and wasn't likable no matter how hard the movie tried. Rudd's character was in the same boat. I found myself thinking "no one is like this in real life" whenever the two were on the screen. The characters and situations just weren't believable to me (Rudd's stalker ex-girlfriend? Come on) and the only reason I was satisfied at the end was the fact that I got to go home.

The only saving grace, in my opinion, was the character of eccentric artist Kieran Vollard played by the very funny Jemaine Clement (Flight of the Conchords). Clement's character is a Gaia loving, self-centered ego-maniac and he plays it prefectly. The absurdity of his art (one giant photograph at his art show is him holding a baby zebra- the ensuing conversation with Paul Rudd's character is hilarious) suits his character perfectly and he delievers some of the films most memorable lines.

Despite the fact that this is the third film Steve Carrell and Paul Rudd have been in together, the third time's not the charm.

2 out of 5 stars

Inception

Reviewed by Steve Kochems

Talking with an average movie go-er made me realize something the other day. CGI has gotten so good that very few could really see the difference of a computer graphic and what actually could be shot on film. Then Inception came along. If nothing else is taken away from this film, I was reminded that some films are still made, not blurred. For a film this good, I've done an extensive review and breakdown of the points system. Normally, I'll grade out of 5 stars (that will also be listed at the bottom) but I figured I'd treat you blog-readers for my first review.

Cinematography:

What director Christopher Nolan has done with a narrative so deep and complex is perfectly translated to his use of hydraulics and elaborate sets to wow a viewer beyond anything imaginable. While Avatar was beautiful, it was ultimately still computer generated. Nolan’s use of spinning floors and folding cities hides any use of CG so well that we are fully enveloped into this world.

Each shot and scene moves beautifully and blends the real with the surreal so well, the fact that it mirrors the narrative is simply a bonus. This is why the film will succeed with average movie go-ers, because it leaves the audience in awe of what he has been able to do in front of a camera. Even those who get lost in the complex plot will find a great deal of entertainment in everything from eroding cities to MC Escher’s world coming to life. Simply incredible.

25 out of 25

Narrative Flow:

The plot for Inception is obviously a complex one, and those who have seen Nolan’s films before (The Prestige, Memento) will not be surprised by that. Though, most will go in with only experiencing his blockbuster smash, The Dark Knight, and its predecessor (Batman Begins), which are well structured narratives in their own right. Inception follows dream manipulators Cobb (Leo DiCaprio) and Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) in the most dangerous and uncharted place known to man: the subconscious.

Structurally, the film hits each point nicely and keeps the tension high from the moment Cobb accepts a job his comrades aren’t sure is even possible, with a nice balance between the impossibility of the quest as well as the inner demons of Cobb that constantly threaten the team’s safety.

Ultimately, it falls more on the possibility of things that can happen rather than things that do happen to maintain tension late in the film, which may lose some people. It leaves the emotional weight on Cobb’s shoulders and ultimately delivers, but never reaching the release I got at the end of The Prestige.

23 out of 25

Characters:

Joseph Gordon-Levitt will be a star after this film. He stands out as the logical and calculated Arthur and comes off as one of the most likable characters on the screen. The rest of the crew do well at bringing their unique attributes to the group like a surreal Ocean’s 11. Tom Hardy’s lax and roguish Eames brings a good deal of comedic relief and some of the best fight scenes. This is only the second film I’ve seen Marion Cotillard in and she shines again as Mal, often going from charming to chilling in the blink of an eye. Ken Watanabe and Cillian Murphy Jr. deliver their roles, but add little more than what the script gives them.

The true flaws lie in Cobb and Ariadne, DiCaprio and Ellen Page respectively. Nolan has been criticized for leaving his female leads underdeveloped, and that might be the case here. Ariadne is curious without much cause and we never get to know her as much as we should for her to take on the roles she does late in the film. The major reason I lacked the cathartic release after the film is Cobb. He’s abrasive and often too closed off from the viewer for us to build suspense, but it comes at the cost of us never getting to feel what he is feeling. Ultimately he is never likable enough or we don’t understand his strife well enough for the ending to give that satisfaction it should.

21 out of 25

Overall Thought:

Many of these issues are probably due to high expectations. I’ve come to expect perfection from Nolan and was extremely satisfied with his previous work, so perhaps there was no way to be satisfied. Nevertheless, it stands and a monumental film that feels as real as the cinematography is. That is what really carries this film for me. The narrative itself is interesting and compelling but ultimately it falls just short because of the distance from Cobb, which is not at the fault of DiCaprio but rather a risk Nolan took to maintain the suspense of the film.

This is certainly worth seeing on the big screen and will definitely be a DVD buy. Repeat viewings will only give a greater appreciation for the work put into this film and it should get better with time. It definitely warrants a second viewing in theaters because it seems like it will only get better with each viewing and for that, it scores major points.

24 out of 25

Overall: 93 out of 100

4.5 out of 5 stars.