Goddamn promotions. They’ll be the death of me. Every single time I see “2 for £20” or something similar, I creep over like a starved film-goblin and eagerly check out what’s on offer. I have no self control. Anyway, said phenomenon happened today and I picked up “A Knight’s Tale”. Let the anachronistic mayhem begin!
A Knight’s Tale (2001)
I remember watching this film years ago and really enjoying it. I loved the fact that it was deliberately anachronistic, what with things like a Medieval London Eye making an appearance. It’s a barmy idea, but then nearly all of the great ideas are. I mean, when you really analyse them, films like “Star Wars” and “Back to the Future” are fucking loopy.
“He’s blond, he’s pissed, he’ll see you in the lists, Lichtenstein!”
It’s odd watching “A Knight’s Tale” in a post “Dark Knight/deceased Ledger” world. It’s a bit of a bitter pill. Firstly, there’s an undercurrent of sadness that Ledger has actually gone. I get this with quite a few films these days- especially the early Bonds with the irreplaceable Desmond Llewelyn as “Q”. Anyway, I digress. The point I’m trying to make is that even though I would count myself as a Ledger fan (not purely because of the Joker either) I am not reviewing this all misty-eyed and the like just because the guy is dead.
On the other hand, now I’ve seen Ledger in “Brokeback Mountain” and “The Dark Knight” I know he can do better. At times, I’m ashamed to say it seemed like he was phoning it in. Fair enough, one could argue that the script doesn’t exactly allow for fantastic dramatic moments but the supporting cast of Mark Addy, Paul Bettany and Alan Tudyk do extremely well with the little they are given. In fact, talking of Mr. Bettany, I think he is fantastic as Chaucer. I love the fact he seems to be having a lot of fun in the role, stealing scenes effortlessly as he goes along. That’s not to discredit any of the other actors though. I’m a big fan of Addy and Tudyk in this film as well.
The film is surprisingly funny too, especially when Chaucer and Wat are having a go at each other. The real triumph of the film though is the soundtrack. Who’d have thought Thin Lizzy, AC/DC and David Bowie would somehow fit into the Medieval setting? It’s brilliant. Add into that some cracking action courtesy of the jousting tournaments and you’ve got a recipe for some lighthearted fun.
“Yes, Master Falhurst, I’m well aware a good fonging is on the way.”
That’s the thing. “A Knight’s Tale” is fun and damn entertaining. Sure, the plot’s hardly original but who the Hell cares when you’ve got the splintering of lances and a rockin’ soundtrack to listen to? Not me, that’s for sure.
During these past couple of Internet-free weeks, I realised something. I was guilty of a crime. Something different to that time I set all those cats on fire. I had never seen “The Shawshank Redemption”. It’s not like I wasn’t aware of it either- it frequently appears in “Greatest Ever Film” lists and the below poster and tagline are both iconic. So, I slapped the stupid out of myself and bought a copy. Here are the results:
The Shawshank Redemption (1994)
I swear it’s got to be one of the greatest feelings a (non-pornographic) film can give you. Whilst watching “The Shawshank Redemption” I was very aware that I was in the company of brilliance. It’s that almost indescribable quality something has when you just know it’s really, really good.
“I believe in two things: discipline and the Bible. Here you’ll receive both. Put your trust in the Lord; your ass belongs to me. Welcome to Shawshank.”
I get the feeling I don’t need to tell you the basic plot as apparently I was the only person on the planet who hadn’t seen it. However, just in case, I’ll give you the lowdown. The plot is based on the Stephen King novella “Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption” and follows Andy Dufresne (Tim Robbins) as he is imprisoned for the murder of his cheating wife and her lover. Andy is carted off to Shawshank, probably the worst prison to ever exist to serve out a life sentence. Whilst in prison, Andy eventually befriends Ellis “Red” Redding (Morgan Freeman) a man who he’s heard can “get things”. As the story goes on, Andy asks Red to get Rita Hayworth for him. The story is engaging and simply fantastic. I was really caught up in it all. Shawshank is presented as a horrific, cruelly unfair place. The thing I loved most about the film, apart from some truly great dialogue, was the relationship between Andy and Red. It’s presented with a degree of subtlety that you just don’t see these days. I really like the fact that their friendship feels real, rather than forced for the plot’s sake. Of course, most of the accolades for this can be placed upon Tim Robbins and Morgan Freeman who play the characters with such skill that it’s impossible not to like them.
It’s very, very easy to point out when a bad film turns bad. You can pinpoint it with laser-guided accuracy. However, it is extremely difficult to pinpoint when a good film becomes a good film. I’ve tried to pin down what makes “The Shawshank Redemption” so good, but have been unsuccessful so far. I think it’s the overall quality of everything combined. The acting and dialogue are stellar for one. Every character that’s introduced is well fleshed out and given something to do, which is something most films can only dream of.
“Get busy living, or get busy dying. That’s goddamn right.”
The ending has got to be one of the most satisfying (non-pornographic) endings ever. It’s incredibly well done, avoiding the mawkish and cheesy traps that most films fall into. The best thing about “The Shawshank Redemption” however, is more of a personal thing. It has proved to me that even after watching films for years and years, I can still be blown away by the exceptional few. If you haven’t guessed by now, I give this film a full five stars.
I know what you’re thinking- “That’s a funny way to spell Pineapple Express”. I didn’t get to see “Pineapple Express”. Why? Well, since I’m not an awesome paid reviewer who gets escorted to film showings, I rely on friends to get me there. Friends with crappy cars. So the crappy car crapped out on us and I spent the evening freezing my ‘nads off instead of (hopefully) laughing them off. Ah well. My “Pineapple Express” review will be up soon though- I promise. Until then I bought “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” and will now post my thoughts thusly. Zounds!
Forgetting Sarah Marshall (2008)
I’m not sure why, but I went into “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” with low hopes. I think it maybe because of the “ultimate break-up film” tagline it was advertising itself to be. I normally avoid Romcoms (but I love
Rom-zom-coms) as a genre anyway- sure there are good ones out there, but they are lost in a seemingly never-ending sea of liquid shite (I apologise for that mental image). I wasn’t too sure when I heard that Russell Brand had been cast. The man’s a funny guy, but I’d never seen his acting and there’s nothing sadder than watching what is referred to in gaming culture terms as a “n00b” flail around trying to look like they are acting.
“When life gives you lemons, just say “Fuck the lemons!”‘ and bail.”
The basic story is that broken-hearted Peter Bretter (Jason Segel) travels to Hawaii to try and forget about his break-up with TV actress Sarah Marshall (Kristin Bell). Unfortunately, Sarah is there too- with her new British rocker boyfriend Aldous Snow (Russell Brand). The set-up is a sound one and while it does seem familiar, it’s not too
Biggest surprise of the film for me was Russell Brand. I would like to go against all the reviews I’ve read and say that he was bad, but I can’t. He was great. When I heard about his casting I was expecting a lot of British jokes at his expense and him to be forced into a suit and drink tea. Luckily, Brand pretty much played himself and the film was all the better for it. A breakout performance if ever there was one. The other standout performance for me was Mila Kunis. She’s been threatening to break the bigtime for a while now and I hope that this film and the forthcoming “Max Payne” does it for her. She’s a great actress who deserves more attention.
“How you served five years under her, I don’t know. You deserve a medal, or a holiday or at least a cuddle from somebody.”
The one thing that bugged me about “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” is it was like a game of “Oh, that’s the guy/girl from…” Maybe it’s because I’ve seen all the Apatow masterminded/produced films but I kept being taken out of the film to remember where I knew the actor/actress on screen from. I was like “Oh, that’s the guy from “Superbad”, and that’s
the guy from “The 40 Year Old Virgin” and that’s
the guy from…
All in all though, “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” is a funny, entertaining film. Personally, I felt it could have been funnier in places but I never glanced down at my watch during its (surprisingly long) 112 minute runtime. Good stuff.
I was at a bit of a loss as what to review before my review of “Pineapple Express” tomorrow. I decided to just scan my film collection from beginning to end. I didn’t even get past the first film. (Yes, I put my DVDs/Blu-rays in alphabetical order. E-mail me and tell me how sad I am) Back on track- it’s “300” reviewing time.
Since I’ve seen rather a lot of films, I would consider my averageflick-o-meter to be pretty bang on the money. Imagine my surprise when I walked out of “300” with a satisfied smile on my face and read the reviews. The words “average” and “splatter-fest” were the most common. OK, it’s no “Citizen Kane” or “The Godfather” but it’s an above average film in my eyes.
The film itself is an adaptation on Frank “Sin City” Miller’s comic mini-series (as in a comic book, not slapstick or stand-up!) “300”. The story is loosely based on the historical battle of Thermopylae in which 300 Spartans fought against the entire Persian army (a force consisting of many hundreds of thousands of soldiers).
“A thousand nations of the Persian Empire descend upon you. Our arrows will blot out the sun!”
“300” is a very visually striking film. A lot of effort has been put in to make it as much like the comic as possible. This is by no means a bad thing as Frank Miller, in my opinion, has one of the most visually accomplished minds in recent years. The man’s a born cinematographer. The fact that some of the most interesting shots in both “Sin City” and “300” were ripped directly from the pages of his graphic novels cannot be ignored. I love the style of “300”. The grainy, sepia toned picture gives the impression of a true battle story, told to the soldiers to inspire them- exactly what is presented to us in the opening of the film. Sure, “300” isn’t exactly historically accurate what with the monsters, rhinos and so forth, but I believe this is a clever trick by the filmmakers. We are being presented with a fireside story, something which would be embellished and changed over time.
As for the “splatterfest” remarks, well yes, I will admit that it is very violent. Dismemberment is as commonplace as rippling six packs. However, this is stylised violence and whilst pretty gory at times, it’s fun to watch rather than being stomach churning.
“Give them nothing! But take from them everything!”
The actors and actresses are all fine. There’s no dodgy acting to weigh it down. Gerard Butler’s Leonidas started to get on my nerves after a while as Butler’s Scottish accent kept coming through, especially the way he delivers the “Earth and water. You’ll find plenty down there” line. It sounded like he was spoiling for a fight in a rough Glasgow pub, rather than threatening a Persian messenger. This is minor nit-picking though.
The one thing that actually annoyed me about “300” was the constant references to freedom and being free. To me, this just seems like a lame attempt to get American audiences to identify with the film. They seem to be expecting Johnny P. Yankee to scream “Whoo! Freedom! Fuck yeah!” everytime the damn word is uttered. Surely to get an audience to identify with the film you focus on the story and rely on the strength of it, rather than making tenuous links with the present political situation?
As I’ve said- “300” is a great film. If you were put off by decidedly average reviews or pretentious history devotees, see it. Make up your own mind-for freedom, for glory, for honour, for Sparta!
Since I’ve been slumming it lately and not watching that many films, I figured I’d watch an old favourite I haven’t seen for a while and deliver my thoughts via the magic of the thing colloquially known as “t3h interwebs!!11”
The Rock (1996)
As I said in my “Transformers” review, I’m a bit of a closet Michael Bay fan. It’s entirely the fault of “The Rock”. I remember seeing it in the late ’90s and being blown away. As the years have gone by I’ve learned to appreciate it more and more. I know the phrase “blockbuster with brains” is chucked about a lot (most recently used towards “The Dark Knight”) but I think the phrase perfectly captures what “The Rock” is all about.
“Got my first chemistry set when I was seven, blew my eyebrows off, we never saw the cat again, been into it ever since”
The basic plot (according to IMDB) is a group of U.S. marines, under command of a renegade general, take over Alcatraz and threaten the city of San Francisco with biological weapons. A chemical weapons specialist and the only man to have ever escaped from the Rock are the only ones who can prevent chaos. In terms of action films it’s pretty standard. It’s what they do will this framework that makes “The Rock” so special.
Firstly, we have great leads. Sean Connery is fantastic as Mason. He just brings an effortless charm to the character which you’d be hard pressed to get from any other seasoned actor. Nicolas Cage is very good as Stanley Goodspeed- thank God “The Rock” was made before he turned into a virtual parody of himself with increasingly ridiculous wigs. I think the tour de force of this film though is Ed Harris’ General Hummel. It’s so rare to have a villain with a sympathetic cause like Hummel does. You understand why he’s doing what he’s doing. He isn’t bent on World domination or anything like that, he just wants an injustice fixed.
“The Rock” could have easily been just another action film. Apart from Harris’ brilliant villain, I think the reason “The Rock” works is the interplay between Connery and Cage. They are another* great example of how to do the “chalk and cheese” buddy dynamic. The dialogue between them is great too, the “prom queen” bit is one of my all time favourite exchanges. In fact, the dialogue is good period. In action films, the dialogue is usually just a way to get from one explosion to another. In “The Rock” it is actually noteworthy – the below exchange, whilst not the best example, may give you an idea what I’m talking about:
“General Hummel: Then you probably have no idea what it means to lead some of the finest men on God’s earth into combat and then watch their memories get betrayed by their own fucking government.
John Mason: I don’t quite see how you cherish the memory of the dead by killing another million. And, this is not combat, it’s an act of lunacy, General Sir. Personally, I think you’re a fucking idiot.
General Hummel: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” -Thomas Jefferson.
John Mason: “Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious,” according to Oscar Wilde.
[Hummel strikes him, and he falls to his knees]
John Mason: Thank you for making my point.”
Doesn’t sound like your average action film exchange now, does it?
That’s just it. “The Rock” isn’t average by any stretch of the imagination. Any Michael Bay haters out there (and there are quite a few) I ask you one thing- watch “The Rock” and then make up your mind. There’s enough here to blow most of your arguments out of the water.
I really like the music too. Sure, it’s mostly military pomp when the soldiers are doing something bad-ass, but the softer themes really work. Nice to hear in a market crowded with films which have crappy rock serving as a soundtrack in most cases.
If I haven’t convinced you too see this film yet, I will leave you with this- this film has Nicolas Cage and Sean Connery pitted against Dr.Cox from “Scrubs” and a man with the squarest jaw in the World.
I can’t help but give this film full marks. It’s so damn enjoyable.
*see my “Men in Black” review
New film review time. Today it’s the turn of “Tropic Thunder” to fall under the increasingly cynical eyes of me. Take it away, myself.
Tropic Thunder (2008)
I knew “Tropic Thunder” was going to be my type of film when it started with some fake trailers. They were all brilliant, but I think the Kirk Lazarus (Robert Downey Jr.) starring “Satan’s Alley” was one of the funniest things I’ve seen in a long time. It was a great cameo by Tobey Maguire too. Gay Gregorian monks? Played by Iron Man and Spider-Man? Hell yes! I could hardly breathe amidst the lip biting and rosary bead caressing.
“They found me in an alley in Burbank trying to re-enter the Earth’s atmosphere in an old refrigerator box.”
So onto the actual film. The basic story is that with the film’s budget and actors spiralling out of control, it is decided that something must be done. Therefore, the prima donna actors are dumped in the real jungle still under the pretense that everything they see is part of the film. I really liked the story. When one takes a step back it is easy to see how ridiculous Hollywood can be. What I liked about “Tropic Thunder” is that it nails some of these observations. Example? Kirk Lazarus and his “method acting”- it allows for lines like “I don’t read the script, the script reads me” which I’m pretty sure I’ve heard said in all seriousness in an interview or something.
Whilst we’re talking about Kirk Lazarus, Downey Jr. steals the show. I know I wasn’t the only one walking out of the cinema doing Sgt. Osiris impressions (Lazarus’ character). Hats off to the man by pulling himself up from the depths to do things like “Iron Man” and now “Tropic Thunder”- two of the most fun films I’ve seen in years. This is not to discredit the other actors though. OK, Ben Stiller is still playing Derek Zoolander with a few details changed each time and I felt Jack Black and Nick Nolte were underused but everyone was great. I’m fairly sure I’m the only one who picked up on Black’s channeling of the late Chris Farley too.
There are also references many other films (this is so my sort of flick). “Apocalypse Now” being the main one but there are sneaky references to “Nutty Professor II: The Klumps” and even “Raiders of the Lost Ark”. There are so many cameos in this film it’s unreal- Tobey Maguire, Tom Cruise, Jennifer Love Hewitt, Jon Voight and Tyra Banks to name but a few.
“I’m just like a little boy, playin’ with his dick when he’s nervous.”
I remember asking “Where have all the good comedies gone?” in my review of “Meet The Spartans”. Well, this is a good comedy. I won’t go as far to say that it will go down as one of the all -time comedic greats, ‘cos there are a few flaws that stop it from perfection. However, none of them big enough to be mentioned here. The theatrical poster for “Tropic Thunder” instructs you to “get some” and I heartily recommend you do.
Phew! Review done. Now if you’ll excuse me- I’m off to drink some “Booty Sweat”
The planets must have aligned and dogs and cats must have put aside their differences to go skiing in Hell because when my Mum asked if I wanted to see a DVD screener (i.e. the DVD that is passed around for awards an’ that) of “Mamma Mia!” I said “Yes. Yes I do”.
Mamma Mia! (2008)
I swear to God, if you cracked open my head and looked at my brain, apart from facing a life in prison, you’d see that the songs of Abba are burned on me ol’ grey matter. I’m sure it’s the same for many people, but Abba’s music was always the played by my mum whilst doing housework. So, when I hear any Abba song I instantly think of mums and housework. It’s not the worst thing to think of whilst watching “Mamma Mia!” either. This is their film. It is the sort of film that you walk out of thinking “Right, that’s my mum’s/sister’s/grandmother’s/auntie’s/girlfriend’s/strangely effeminate drinking buddy’s Christmas present sorted”
“Somebody up there has got it in for me. I bet it’s my mother”
The basic plot is that Sophie (Amanda Seyfried) is getting married and she realises that she still doesn’t know who her father is. According to her mother, Donna’s (Meryl Streep) diary, it’s one of three men. So naturally, Sophie decides to invite all of them to the wedding. Cue the rest of the story. It’s not the sort of plot that holds up to close scrutiny as at the end of the day, it’s just a device to loosely string Abba songs together. Most of the musical numbers fall into place with an almost audible “clunk!” as the film decides that we haven’t seen Meryl Streep overacting for a couple of minutes. It’s actually a bad film, but has so much damn charm you can’t help but like it.
Many things can be said about “Mamma Mia!”, but like “Speed Racer” it knows its audience. This may explain why screenings were sold out and to the best of my knowledge are still selling out at the moment. It’s a feel good, fun film. Around the 50 minute mark I casually looked down and to my horror my toes were indeed a’ tappin’ (the song was “Voulez-Vous” fact fans) After making a panicked call to the gay hotline to check if this meant that I was now a homosexual, I realised that this film isn’t trying to be anything deep. It makes about as much sense as a film can that’s set in Greece, whilst everyone sings Swedish pop songs. To be honest, I lost interest in the plot after a while. I reckon you could get a similar experience to the whole “Mamma Mia!” thing by going through your Mum’s embarrassingly small DVD collection (“Captain Corelli’s Mandolin”, “Bridget Jones’s Diary” and a stray 90’s Bond film) whilst listening to “Abba Gold” on the stereo.
In fact, talking of James Bond, what was everyone’s problem with Pierce Brosnan’s singing? Fair enough, he doesn’t exactly have the best singing voice in the World, but then neither does Meryl Streep (in fact, she grated on my nerves). I paid close attention to Brosnan’s face whilst he was singing “S.O.S.” and I think I know the problem. He looks surprised. His face remains still whilst his mouth does all these big movements. It’s an odd thing and I think that it probably threw a lot of people when he was performing next to Meryl Streep and other seasoned “sing-y” types. Still, I think he did well- good on you, Pierce.
“Typical. You wait 20 years for a father and then three show up at once!”
I think many critics/reviewers have been too harsh on “Mamma Mia!”. I can’t say I’m a huge fan of it, but it is a fun film. It couldn’t be more female-orientated if it tried, but I think a few men will have to hide their tapping feet (it’s strangely involuntary) too.
I fancied a bit of a departure from my normal film watching/reviewing habits. After hearing massively mixed reviews about “Speed Racer” I thought the only way to be sure in this crazy, crazy world was to watch it myself. Here are the results:
Speed Racer (2008)
The first thing that is noticeable about “Speed Racer” is the fact that it is more colourful than anything else you’ve seen. You’re like a child going into a sweet shop and being in awe of the sheer colours and numbers of all the tooth-rotting treats on display. You get feeling that the Wachowskis (yes, the brothers that directed “The Matrix” trilogy) have really tapped into the mind of a child. Fast cars, sweets, loud noises, a chimp and eye searing colours are all accounted for.
“Go, Speed, go!”
The basic plot is that Speed, the middle child of the Racer family, is obsessed with racing. After the death of his older brother Rex, Speed stiffens his resolve to become the best of the best. Blah, blah, blah. You’ll pick it up soon enough- it’s hardly groundbreaking. Plus, Wikipedia is your friend. The film is based on the “Speed Racer” anime series that was screened in America in the 1960’s and then again in the ’90s. I’m guessing that the “Speed Racer” phenomenon bypassed the good ol’ British Isles.
Anyway, the actual story was much more bearable than I intially thought. Sure, it’s cheesy but with an important difference- it’s not trying to be anything else. It aims directly for the family market and never waivers from trying to be the best family film it can be. It even handles some of the monumental amounts of cheese with surprising skill. Example? Take a look at the opening scene where Speed is close to beating Rex’s record time. Speed deciding to slow down to preserve his late brother’s record could have been a schmaltzfest, but it is done in such a way that it threw me off guard a bit-in a good way. A rare achievement for a film, let alone a film aimed at children.
You may think I’m edging closer and closer to giving “Speed Racer” a glowing review. I’m not. I’m just making it clear that I really respect what the Wachowskis have done. They set out to do a live action anime, and they’ve done it. However, I have problems with some of the other things they’ve done.
Firstly, why is nearly every “bad” character British? Ranging from the aristocratic British toff to the Cock-er-ney thugs, the Hollywood spectrum of British accents is represented here (i.e. two) I don’t notice it in films as much these days, what with terrorism and all its related words making every villian Middle Eastern. But why,”Speed Racer”,why? I thought we were past this, Hollywood! Secondly, as much as I like the primary coloured neon visuals, it can get a bit much sometimes. It’s like having a huge bag of Skittles poured into your eyes. It’s pretty, but it starts to hurt after a while.
“No, he’s going to be the best… if they don’t destroy him first.”
Despite all its flaws, “Speed Racer” does what it set out to do and you can’t help but respect that. Would I recommend it? Yeah- but only because even if you love it or hate it, it’s unlike anything you’ve seen before.
Having not seen this film for years, I decided to check it out again. I was around 10/11 when it was theatrically released and it’s one of the first films I remember seeing at the cinema (some of the others are “Aladdin” and “Batman Forever” just in case you were wondering…) Anyways, does it hold up a staggering 11 years later? Let’s find out before I start to feel old again:
Men In Black (1997)
“Men in Black” is probably one of the first films I really loved. It’s an odd choice for a young filmic love in retrospect. Before I start the “proper” review, let me tell you a little story. I remember begging my father to buy “Men in Black” for me when we were in a shopping mall, I remember his annoyed face as he handed the video over the counter for purchase. I even remember drawing Will Smith’s character in full MIB garb (I guess Tommy Lee Jones’ trademark crag-tacular face was too intricate for my artistic skills at the time) However, just because I loved this film as a kid, it doesn’t mean I’ll be reviewing it through rose-tinted glasses. I mean as a child, I thought drinking white spirit was a good idea (true story) so I’m looking at this film objectively and reviewing what I see, not what I remember.
“You know what the difference is between you and me? I make this look good.”
The plot revolves around a secret organisation called the Men in Black. Their job is to monitor and control alien life on this planet. When veteran Agent Kay (Tommy Lee Jones) is forced to recruit a new partner, he picks young, dynamic N.Y.P.D. officer James Edwards (Will Smith). I could tell you more but then I’d have to “flashy thing” you…
So, is “Men in Black” the film I remembered it to be? Well, yes and no. Yes as in it’s still great but no in the way that I get much more out of this film now. I love the weird ‘n’ wonderful Rick Baker creations that permeate the film. Some of the aliens are just fantastically designed. I love the whole concept of the film too. I think we’ve all got a conspiracy theorist in us somewhere, telling us aliens have landed and it’s all covered up, man. All of that stuff really appeals to me.
The pairing of Tommy Lee Jones and Will Smith is a perfect example of how to do the “chalk and cheese” buddy comedy duo. Below is how not to do it:
Another thing “Men in Black” has going for it is the Danny Elfman score. It’s brilliant. Elfman just strikes the tone perfectly with the main MIB theme and is in my opinion some of his best work. It’s also very funny. Some of the interactions between Jay and Kay are genius.
So, anything bad about this film? Well, not really. The “bug” is villainous, Jay and Kay are great and Dr. Weaver (Linda Fiorentino) is suitably sexy and sarcastic in the role. The aliens are all good (especially the Worm guys) and the scale is fantastically judged. Talking of scale, I remember the ending blowing my mind as a child and it really made me smile this time. Mind-fuckery at its most family friendly.
“You don’t like it, you can kiss my furry, little butt.”
Eurgh! I know- a sappy “I love this film” review. I really do, though. I wish they made more films like this these days (MIB II was so disappointing). Watching this and then reflecting on “Step Brothers” and the god-awful “Meet The Spartans” leaves me asking one question- “Where have all the good comedies gone?”
Anyway- “Men in Black” gets an awesome
With the words “sophomore” and “slump” ringing in my ears it’s time for my review of “Step Brothers”. Let’s start the show.
Step Brothers (2008)
There hasn’t been a great comedy for a while now. In my personal opinion there hasn’t been a good one since “Superbad” last year. Unfortunately, “Step Brothers” doesn’t break that streak. It’s good with elements of greatness. It’s no “Anchorman”, let’s put it that way. Hell, it’s not even on the same level as “Talladega Nights”.
“Sticks and stones may break my bones, but I will kick you repeatedly in the balls!”
The basic plot is that two live-at-home middle aged wasters become competitive step brothers after their single parents get married to each other. It’s pretty standard as far as this type of film goes. Obviously, the plot is just an excuse to watch Ferrell and Reilly act like idiots- the very reason I went to see it. I’m not sure why but the film would start to work and then something jarringly unfunny would happen and you are taken out of it again. It’s very stop/start.
Let’s start with the things that work. Firstly, there are no complaints from me about either Ferrell or Reilly. They proved they have great chemistry in “Talladega Nights” and it shows in “Step Brothers”. Obviously they are perfectly suited for the roles of 40 year old man-children and it’s great watching them play off each other. The bonkers one-liners are back too, with lines like “I’m going to take a pillowcase and fill it full of bars of soap and beat the shit out of you!” and “You have the voice of an angel. I mean, it’s like Fergie meets Jesus.” The film is funniest when it lets the two leads do their own thing. Also it was nice to see Mary “Doc Brown’s wife in Back to the Future III” Steenburgen again.
Now for the things that don’t work. It does seem to be too sweary for its own good. It’s not that I hate bad language or anything, it just seemed a bit too much. It’s like when a 5 year old child learns his new favourite four-letter word and says it often. The first few times are funny, but after the 50th time it’s time to smack the child in the head (joking, people!), y’know? Funny doesn’t need to be sweary all the time. I think “Step Brothers” was trying to be a bit of everything. Part gross-out comedy, part satirical, part pop culture referencing- you get the idea. Trouble is, it is always hard to pull something like that off. I think what I liked about “Superbad”, “The 40 Year Old Virgin” and “Anchorman” was the fact that they were focused on what they wanted to do, whereas “Step Brothers” was trying to please everyone, which is always an impossible task. The cold, hard fact is that I expected it to be funnier than it was. That’s not to say it wasn’t funny, just not funny enough.
“Goddamn it, you’re seventeen, stop being a fucking dinosaur and get a job!”
So, would I recommend seeing it? Not sure to be honest. All I know is that I walked away throughly entertained but slightly disappointed as well (also known as KOTCS* syndrome)
*”Kingdom of the Crystal Skull”