Nov 14: The Campaign

"In order to gain influence over their North Carolina district, two CEOs seize an opportunity to oust long-term congressman Cam Brady by putting up a rival candidate. Their man: naive Marty Huggins, director of the local Tourism Center."

Directed by: Jay Roach, Rated: R, 85 minutes

This year has been ridiculous when it comes to politics. From the most expensive campaign in history to Southern states threatening to secede, it's been a crazy few months. Riding on this wave of unnecessary, The Campaign, a political spoof comedy, attempts to poke even more fun at the situation. Pitting Will Ferrell against Zach Galifianakis sounds like a great idea, but unfortunately the film never really takes off and suffers from the "saw-it-in-the-trailer-so-it's-not-as-funny-anymore" effect.

Believe it or not, baby punching actually gets old. 

Cam Brady (Ferrell) is a four-term congressman from Hammond, NC. He's a womanizing jerk off who lies, cheats, and does whatever he can to maintain his office. In his own words, he's a great politician but a horrible congressman. Enter Mary Huggins (Galifianakis), a simple man obsessed with his little town who also happens to be the son of Raymond Huggins, a successful campaign manager. When the Motch Brothers (Dan Aykroyd and John Lithgow) decide to back Huggins for congressman, in hopes of manipulating him, Brady goes into defensive mode to keep his office while facing off against the very incapable Huggins. What ensues are campaigns of the two men that are full of the worst things concerning politics (scandals, lying, baby punching, etc) and their continued attempts to outdo the other to win the election.

 Two pugs don't make a right. 

As I mentioned, The Campaign loses a lot of its jokes to the advertisements and trailers littered everywhere before its release. Every scene that would be funny is nothing new and the majority of the film feels like it's something you've seen before. You can tell while these scenes were used in the advertising, because they really are the most interesting parts of the movie. Everything else is just boring and drags on, and by the end of the film, both men have very little going for them and prove to be pretty awful human beings. Even the somewhat likable Huggins becomes too annoying to really cheer for and the end result leads to more frustration than anything else. Any attempt to be a true spoof of the political environment gets thrown out of the door because of the shear over-the-top ridiculousness of The Campaign. What starts out as a smart idea simply catapults itself into stupidity and loses any excitement or creativity about twenty minutes into the movie. I can't quite call this a big shame as I wasn't expecting much for the film but a part of me was enthusiastic about the possibility of something as fun as say, Anchorman or Step Brothers.

If only there was more room for activities...

I like to think of myself as a patient man but Will Ferrell and Zach Galifanakis continue to test me over and over. Both funny men have amazing talent and can make me laugh like no one else, but their continued recycling of the same characters, voices, and even jokes is getting tiresome. The Campaign is no exception and while it's not as stupid as all of Adam Sandler's messy turds, it really lacks any focus or heart and loses itself along the way. It's not that it tries too hard as much as it seems that the film was kind of a dud right off the bat. It's simply too uninspired and really not that funny to call an instant classic and it's hardly quotable like all of Ferrell's other films. The Campaign is something that can easily be missed and forgotten and I would not recommend checking it out. However, if you do have a strong curiosity to take a peek, it's not as bad as a lot of other stuff that's out there now.

The Good:

very few moments that warrant a chuckle and a rather interesting buildup to the story

The Bad:

that same buildup almost immediately falters and you're left bored, not entertained, and very frustrated

The Ugly:

wondering if Ferrell and Galifanakis will ever find their feet again and produce quality comedies that are both fresh and funny

Overall: 5.0/10

Discussion Question:

Are you surprised there are not more political movies out there? Or is that genre too uninteresting and familiar to be funny anymore?

Trailer:

Sept 24: Mansome

"A documentary that explores the question: In the age of manscaping, metrosexuals, and grooming products galore - what does it mean to be a man?"

Directed by: Morgan Spurlock, Rated: PG-13, 82 minutes

I've always been a fan of Morgan Spurlock. Ever since his breakout documentary, Super Size Me, I've followed the guy and all of his work. From his TV show, 30 Days, to even his lesser known (and liked) docs, Where in the World is Osama Bin Laden? and The Greatest Movie Ever Sold, I've liked his work. His newest film, Mansome is far from his best, but still is very entertaining as a whole. While it is an incredibly short, flawed, and confused little documentary, there are still a handful of laughs and much to discuss. 

You can't say Mansome without the Old Spice guy. 

The documentary discusses what it means to be a man. Breaking the doc into segments like "Mustaches" and "Beards", each bit discusses a particular manly feature and its significance in the world, what's okay and what's not cool, and wonders how much time and effort should be put into each. The film follows a couple of rather eccentric men, from a competitive "beardsman" (who's absolutely crazy and full of himself), to men who try way, way too hard to look good and end up looking like vain fools obsessed with every little detail.  Between each segment, we see Jason Bateman and Will Arnett (who co-produced the film) having their own pamper time at a spa, discussing what it means to be a man and continually trying to out-man the other guy. Along with these two stars, Spurlock also interviews other comedians, like Judd Apatow, Paul Rudd, Zach Galifianakis, and Adam Carolla. 

This guy is one of the most arrogant douche bags I've seen, and Spurlock rewards him with 15 minutes of screen time. 

The problem with the film is that it never knows where to go. The film's segments make sense at first, but then as you realize the whole premise behind the title goes out the window. Going in, I was expecting the movie to discuss the entire "metrosexual" phenomena that has plagued mankind in the past decade or so, talking about hair products and going to the spa more so then beards and facial hair. Without this focus, Mansome just jumps around all over the place and turns into a rather forced, sometimes funny documentary. The subjects Spurlock decided to focus on are at times, the most annoying self-involved people I've ever seen and instead of almost poking fun at them in a spoof-haha kind of way, he lets them be on screen doing whatever they want for way too long. Bateman and Arnett's presence also is very out of place. Sure, they're funny and I could watch them talk to each other for ages, but for the most time it feels forced and even more so out of place. As their bits could have been used as a quasi-narration, they turn into almost scripted pieces that don't fit in with the rest of the doc at all. One thing I did really enjoy, however, are the small interviews Spurlock does with random people, standing in front of a simple white screen, talking about facial hair, waxing, and what it takes to be a real man. These moments are very enjoyable and feel the least bit scripted, as opposed to large portions of the rest of the film. 

Arrested Development needs to come back... NOW

Even with it's flaws, the film is worth checking out. If you can get past the fact it's all just jumbled together in a very short run-time, and just watch it for a couple of laughs, you'll have a great time. If, however, you go into Mansome thinking that it's going to be some message ridden doc, full of mind-blowing facts or looks into the world of being a man, you'll be highly mistaken. Most of the movie feels like short stand-up bits strung together with seasoned comedians thrown in to spice things up a bit. While the insight of some of our favorite funny guys would seem to be more than something we'd welcome, it takes a lot away from the film. Mansome has a great idea behind it, but it's execution is just too choppy and messy to really enjoy. 

The Good:

moments of brilliance that are not only laugh-out-loud funny, but make you wonder about your own 'grooming' habits

The Bad:

those same moments almost immediately washed away by stories no one cares about and the realization Spurlock is giving screen time to people far deserving of it

The Ugly:

knowing that a great premise like this could have produced a much better documentary, had there been a stronger focus and better narrative

Overall: 6.3/10

Feb 11: Puss in Boots

"A story about the events leading up to the sword fighting cat's meeting with Shrek and his friends."

   Puss in Boots is another unnecessary entry in the now overdone and overplayed Shrek franchise. Yet, Puss in Boots has really no references to the Shrek films. Sure, it's a prequel and he has not met the ogre and his ass of a friend, but there are no mentions of Far Far Away and very very little "fairy tale" elements. The whole film does not pinpoint an exact setting, but feels like it's actually in Mexico. Head to Cancun, talk to that strange looking man in the corner at the bar, and he'll give you what's apparently needed to get to the land of Shrek.

Mr. Franco has spent his fair amount of time in "Far Far Away"

   As a stand alone film, Puss in Boots is just a decent animated movie. It does have a handful of pretty well done action sequences and the visuals are great, but the story is lacking and the actually funny bits are few and far between. So much of the story feels forced and unnecessary. I never wondered how Puss got his boots or where he came from. I just don't care and Puss in Boots didn't help with that fact. It lacks the magic and imagination that great animated movies have, and because of that, it quite frankly feels like it should have been a straight to DVD release (and not nominated for an Oscar like it is). 

Enjoyed here, but not for $10 in a grown up theater. 

    Overall, Puss in Boots could have been a lot better... wait never mind. Anything to do with the Shrek universe needs to stop. Forever. If you want to see how to rape a franchise for everything it's worth, pop in Shrek the Third and Shrek Forever After (Not to mention all of the TV Christmas specials and shorts added to DVD bundles). Puss in Boots is just another rape attempt (bad kitty) and Dreamworks needs to learn to let things die so we, as a movie-going audience, can live happily ever after (wink wink). 

The Good:

Great visuals and action sequences

The Bad:

Recycled familiarity but misplaced in misfit setting and it doesn't work

The Ugly:

Everything is just so bland and feels forced, it's ugly because it's nothing special

Overall: 5.0/10

Best Quote:

Kitten Puss trying to hiss. Cute and funny. 

Watch This Instead:

Spirited Away- animation done in the most perfect way

Lion King- the right way to tell the story of a cat

Anything with the Muppets- they know how to blend kid and adult humor

Or you could always get paper and pencils and probably draw something up more creative than Puss in Boots.

P.S. Listening to the handful of votes on the poll I posted and working on my first Top 10 (or 8?) list. Should be posting soon.

Jan 20: The Hangover Part II

"Two years after the bachelor party in Las Vegas, Phil, Stu, Alan, and Doug jet to Thailand for Stu's wedding. Stu's plan for a subdued pre-wedding brunch, however, goes seriously awry."

   A couple of years ago, I saw a movie called The Hangover. It was a great movie featuring three somewhat unknown actors who went on one hell of an adventure in a night in Vegas. It was not just hilarious, but original and very unexpected. Before the film even hit theaters, Warner Bros. green-lit a sequel. Not only does The Hangover Part II utterly and absolutely fail as a sequel, it fails as a film. Part II is exactly, and I mean exactly, the same movie as the first one. In the rehashing and recycling, I became very frustrated and I actually grew to hate the first Hangover as well. One film, to have the power to ruin itself and another film, is quite atrocious, and in the end, laughable. The fact that Warner Bros. had the balls to literally "re-release" the same movie they did two years ago, albeit a change in location, is disgusting, yet you almost want to give them a pat on the back for getting away with it. The film did not just succeed at the box office, it surpassed the first film's gross and became the highest grossing R-rated comedy of all time. So with that, I politely tell you to f**k off, Warner Bros. as you manipulated the entire world. But hey, good for you right? WRONG. There may be millions of people out there who do not know any better and sure, you can take advantage of them. But there is only so much you can get away with. Movie viewers are getting smarter each and every day. With every new film we absorb into our consciousness, we grow wiser and become harder to impress. We catch on to cliches and rip-offs and we see that some things aren't as shiny gold as you would like them to be. We can sense when something is rushed, and when no care is given to the film's script or production value. And with The Hangover Part II, you may have made a ton of money, but we have all now seen what you tried to do. And if you think you can even ATTEMPT to make The Hangover Part III anywhere near the same as the first two, you will see it in the box office numbers and reviews. Go on, I dare you to try and rehash and feed us the same shit again. You guys will be the ones waking up in the middle of nowhere, hungover from excessive alcohol and drug use. But this isn't a movie and simply emptying your pockets won't give you the clues needed to figure out what happened. 

I will not be rating this film. I saw it when it was just called The Hangover.  

   Oh, and P.S. Will all of you studios stop casting Ken Jeong as the racist stereotyped "over-Asian". In fact, don't cast him at all. 

He's not f**king funny. At all. Not one bit. Stop it.