get him to the greek: still in theaters!

Get Him to the Greek: movie starring jonah hill and russell brand

as opposed to what i've been reviewing lately, get him to the greek is actually available on the big screen. the question of to see or not to see may have been already answered by most people, because it was released at least two weeks ago, of course, but i thought i'd weigh in now-ish, because i can.

and i think you should see it. mostly to watch p diddy eat his own head.

no, i think you should see it. for a variety of reasons. mostly because it's interesting, and it's not trying to be something other than it is--though it might not be being what it is, either, which is where things get confusing. it's not that funny, though there are funny parts--sean combs is really really hilarious, in part because you know he's acting, because he knows he's funny, but you're kind of not sure he's acting, because he's got fire in his eyes. i like it when he's on the phone and having a shouted conversation about the snak packs being next to the go-gurts or something and his kids are dressed up like the lakers. i thought russell brand was pretty fantastic, and i thought jonah hill inhabited the part well, but...

there's a but to this film (hoo boy). like, jonah hill as the kid who bought the platform boots in 40-year-old virgin? flipping fantastic. jonah hill as the gayest and most belligerent of all the housemates in knocked up? goddamn amazing. jonah hill, period, in superbad? yeah, i really like jonah hill as the crazy devotee with no moral center, and he plays the heckity heck heck out of that character. he's like the perfect piece of toast, after your first experimental toasting, when you've tweaked the toaster dial to the exact degree, where the toast comes out golden brown and still fluffy on the inside--he's the second toasting. oh, you know exactly what i'm talking about.

but jonah hill as the nice guy? i don't know. it seems like a waste of perfectly good crazy eyes. i mean, the character that he plays is likeable, and he makes said character likeable, but hill's eyes are capable of such exquisite insanity, and he really doesn't get to unleash it at all in this film. he's playing a believable person with believable personhood, and i believe it, but i think it's a bit of a waste. not NEARLY on the scale of bill murray as polonius, or, worse yet, bill murray in broken flowers, but, yeah, a bit of a waste.

the same sort of thing is true of russell brand. now, i'm not good with names, just as a disclaimer, and though i don't understand the (quantum?) mechanics of how judd apatow is involved in get him to the greek, i do realize that senor apatow is not directly responsible for it--that is, he did not write or direct it (right???). but the russell brand character shares an aesthetic with the characters of freaks and geeks, a show that i know judd apatow is responsible for, and one that admire intensely, but at the same time kind of can't get into. it's too theoretical for me. i can't really explain how, or not without taking up way more of this page than is anywhere near necessary. if anyone objects to the idea of freaks and geeks as too theoretical, i should add that it's in good company, because the second two lord of the rings-es are also too theoretical for me...and i am totally losing track of the point here. i feel like russell brand's character is very freaks and geeks-ian--a veneer behind a veneer behind a veneer, caring and self-destructive at the same time, etc. etc., which makes for good watching but not necessarily great watching. again, i think russell brand plays the hell out of the part. not since colin firth as mr. darcy have i been so involved in watching what a pair of eyes are saying while the mouth is saying something else. and that subtlety of interaction gets played out between the brand and hill characters in a way that is...uh, really cool. i liked it especially when (i'm not going to quote this right) the hill character says, like, "you keep talking nonsense, but it doesn't sound like nonsense because you're smart, but it is*." and the relationship gives you something to think about, because the russell brand character is deep.

but then the slapstick stuff, the fantasy over-the-top bro-dom that was so good in 40-year-old virgin and superbad, seems weirdly out of place. or only not out of place because one isn't sure what should be in its place. in knocked up, this amalgam between the awesomely crass and the bizarrely sweet and true was already getting a little weird, but the bro-dom was so funny** that it made up for the feeling of imbalance; in get him to the greek, however, as with forgetting sarah marshall or pineapple express (though i did think a lot of pineapple express was really funny), the crassly funny stuff isn't funny enough to carry itself. all the bad sex that jonah hill character keeps having, the scenes featuring illicit or illegal substances, and the awkwardest threesome are relatively amusing, but not amusing enough. the best joke is when they all touch the furry wall, and it's funny, but it's not funny like paul rudd's hand tasting like a rainbow.

it's like the slapstick is the excuse by which guys allow themselves to watch judd apatow-based movies, which are about non-sexual love between men. which is a pretty beautiful thing to base a story around, plus it's interesting for women because we get to see how men think they live. but in order for the judd apatow version of the formula*** to work, the slapstick has to be good. and the slapstick in get him to the greek is adequate.

i don't know what could have gone in its place, though. just like i don't know how jonah hill's character could have been improved, or how he could have done a better job with it. i don't make movies. i just critique them, at length and probably pretty unfairly.

*that really was not the line.

**for instance, the scene in vegas, which kind of really didn't need to be there, but was so hilarious that i think i actually cried in the theater.

***i'm talking "the formula" like the one for romance novels, which isn't actually a formula (check the harlequin website if you don't believe me). rather, it's a series of ingredients combined a certain way to create a certain effect. like, i love you, man is kind of an example of a judd apatow movie, but i don't think judd apatow was involved (again, i don't think, but i don't understand the [quantum] mechanics of moviemaking, so maybe he was in the mix somewhere).

loser: shut up!

Loser: film starring jason biggs and mena suvari

jason biggs is awesome in this. greg kinear is always awesome, and my theory on him is that it's pretty impressive how awesome he always is because he's handsome and so he doesn't actually have to be any good but he really is always. mena suvari is pretty awesome. and, dude, the lead macpoyle from it's always sunny in philadelphia is in this, and, as always, he is extremely funny. the plot's a little free-ranging, but not bad--it's like go, but, you know, pretty good. or like the squid and the whale, but with less dialogue. and more soundtrack.

yeah. mostly what i'm objecting to is the soundtrack. not even that the songs are terrible; it's kind of funny to go back over the excesses of the mid-'90's. it's like whenever i hear whitney houston i think middle school dance, and whenever i hear the lyric "pretty fly for a white guy" i think...well, mostly, "thank god i wasn't cool enough to listen to quasi-rock in high school." because the $7.50 i might have spent back then on the PUSA c.d. containing the song with the lyric "moving to the country going to eat a lot of peaches" has instead been spent much more recently on a music for animals c.d. containing the song with the lyric "all my bare skin is black and blue i don't know how to convince[?] you." it's perhaps a fine distinction, but one i'm proud to be able to make.

it's just that the soundtrack is so RELENTLESS. there is not a moment of soundtracklessness. we slide straight through the top hits of my high school years, from garbage to *nsync to everclear and straight on 'til morning. what really got me was the segue from whatever it was to simon and garfunkel. it just doesn't stop. it's like the producer wasn't convinced that the movie would sell, so he or she let the director do what she wanted but threw at least 85% of the budget at making sure the soundtrack was insistently up to date. "sure, the movie's a little weird," said production company hoped one just post-teen would say to another, "but the soundtrack sure makes this movie worth seeing!"

yeah, it doesn't. but the movie's pretty good.

oh, oh, it's like the whackness, but less making me want to hire an entire college marching band just so that each member can slap ben kingsley across the face with his or her respective instrument.

the ugly truth, or...uh...wow.

The Ugly Truth: movie starring katherine heigl and gerard butler

living in the 21st century in america during the vacation between semesters, pretty much jobless, entails certain responsibilities. for instance, i have netflix. i have a computer. if netflix has both the entire avatar: the last airbender series AND the full eight seasons of red dwarf available instantly, i have a duty to watch them, because i have the time, the inclination, and am circumstanced to be able to do so. this may not be the greatest of all my possible obligations, but it's somewhere on the list.

anyway, in between watching seasons and seasons of awesome sci-fi/fantasy shows, i have taken to giving myself mental breaks of the romantic comedy variety. this is where the ugly truth comes in: i have freely given of myself in the pursuit of excellent t.v. for my country, and in return my country has made the ugly truth for me.

thank you, america.

okay, is what happened to katherine heigl that everyone thought she was hot hot hot and then suddenly they all found out she smoked and now she has less of a career? cuz that's just weird. she's still gorgeous, but there's no way that the ugly truth didn't take a bite out of her pride. and gerard butler...welllll, ANYTHING, including porn, is a step up from ANY joel schumacher film (not to say that butler's phantom wasn't entirely the best thing about phantom of the opera...aside from raoul's haircut). i didn't much care for 300, plus i liked his performance in the ugly truth, so...he can be commended for what he did in the ugly truth. in my opinion. which counts for so much.

it wasn't that heigl didn't have moments where her acting was pretty fabulous. but butler pretty much forged a character out of nothing, and for that i sing, "go go gerard butler!" to the tune of that power rangers themesong.

in fact, i kind of think that the main thing wrong with the ugly truth is a massive failure of the rom-com plot algorithm that brought us such films as love actually. the characters are kind of cute--nothing we haven't seen before, but cute. it was a moderately interesting premise--guy who doesn't fit the "list" points out the list and tightly wound girl sacrifices her standards for true love (that part was less interesting--poor katherine heigl). sort of he's just not that into you meets hope floats...

meets in the mouth of madness. obvious, inexplicable plot holes, such as the one about why heigl's character is still in sacramento, being answered by a few oblique references to some sort of familial tie to the t.v. station (or did i miss something?)--i mean, what was that whole part of the plot doing there? did they just forget to tie up that loose end? it's not like they had to put in the full explanation for why heigl-character hasn't gone to the big city to broadcast--we all know, because we've seen it a thousand times, that she's in sacramento because her dad or someone inspired her to get into t.v. production and used to be the producer of the show that she now runs...but it's just creepy that that information isn't actually in the script. same type of thing with the question craig ferguson asks of gerard butler in regards to who the woman was that made him so bitter: butler takes away from the camera in an obvious moment of remembered heartache over one girl--ex-fiancee who cheated with his best friend, ex-wife who cheated with his best friend, someone who cheated with his best friend, THERE IS NO OTHER EXPLANATION that can come out of that look--and then later tells heigl's character that it wasn't one girl who cheated with his best friend but rather a series of women looking for a list of attributes. now, the series of women explanation is much more interesting than the cheated-with-his-best-friend girl explanation, but it isn't possible as a sequel to the look that he's taken away from the camera earlier.

there are three solutions to this problem: 1. the script wasn't finished before the scene was filmed. 2. the script was finished, but unfortunately the director was too busy doing very very hard drugs to finish reading it before the scene was filmed. 3. we are entering a post-apocalyptic world in which even the fictions that prop up our existence are losing their integrity. the equations that write our entertainment for us are failing us miserably.

in which case i say, "FOR GOD'S SAKE, FIX THE ALGORITHM!!! FIX IT NOW!!! WHO KNOWS WHERE THIS PATH MAY LEAD IF WE DON'T GET OFF IT QUICK??! NEXT YOU'LL BE TELLING ME THAT GERMANY CAN'T AFFORD ROOMS FULL OF MONKEYS WITH TYPEWRITERS IN ORDER TO PEN BACKSTREET BOYS SONGS!!!" i mean, besides which, if the logarithms that shore up this reality are losing their force, how am i going to be able to finish red dwarf? c'mon, america. don't fail me now.

some notes on the first half of robin hood: prince of thieves

i'm not sure why i started watching this, but i blame netflix instant viewer. i only got about halfway through before giving up completely, but within the first five seconds i realized that if i didn't have anyone to share my wisecracks with i'd probably go nuts (er). taking that into account, i jotted down a few notes, mystery science theater 3000-style (not that i could hope to successfully emulate such a style, but i do frequently emulate it unsuccessfully). i know that said notes are close to 20 years too late, but here they be anyway, starting from the beginning and working through to, as aforesaid, about the middle:

-bayreux tapestry vision--for all your beyreux tapestry vision needs.
-try universal '90's soundtrack! universal '90's soundtrack: wonderfully at home in robin hood: prince of thieves, it can also double as accompaniment to home alone II. or my father the hero. and possibly face/off.
-yes, real arabs were found to be unnecessary for the making of this film. same goes for characterization and historicity.
-meanwhile, in the camel-choked streets of what is most definitely agrabah or something, a giant lemon is eaten.
-locksley senior played by henry the eighth.
-nothing screams late 1100's (? i'm not good with dates) like a new mohawk and getting to second base with sand.
-kevin costner: englishman, pacifist, action hero.
-robin hood proves his princeliness in regards to thievery by the brilliant and entirely historically anachronistic technicolor dreamcoat heist. and how does he prove himself to have enacted such a theft? he wears the spoils. at all times.
-alan rickman tells an eagle to shut up.
-costner. cutter.
-maid marian, for whom the costumer went to new mediums, has plenty of hair and shows her spirit by chin thrusts and whining.
-little john: "here [in the sherwood forest] we're safe...to grow our hair out, and to look vaguely like elizabeth taylor."
-duncan: oh no no no.
-the whole morgan freeman character is making me quite uncomfortable. perhaps this is the film's purpose--to drive the discomforts of race relations out into the open. but somehow i don't think so.
-alan rickman: not sure if what he's doing quite qualifies as acting, but whatever it is it's entirely amazing.
-ACTION ARROW-MAKING! thank you, soundtrack, for turning an otherwise somewhat pointless montage into...um... never mind (said in an emily litella voice).
-rowan atkinson as mr. bean IS action scribe!!

i don't remember, but i think it's edward said who is entirely correct about depictions of arabic people and culture in america. seriously, movie? seriously? i know it's the '90's but come on.

inkheart: or how we skipped all of it

Inkheart: movie starring brendan frasier and a man i love so won't put his name on here because i hated this movie (not that i don't love brendan frasier, but he can take it)


oh my god. i didn't watch most of this. just enough to know that i would rather...hmm. name a thing that can be done, and ten to one i'd rather do it than watch this movie.

the kid was cute. she looked kind of like sarah chalke. that's a good thing. and at least helen mirren character's reaction to the burning of her first editions was quite believable. i kind of turned my back on the movie at that moment. there are some things that a human shouldn't be forced to watch, even if they're not real.

paul bettany, eat something!

it was awful. the end.

zombie strippers!, or, how the apocalypse gets naked

Zombie Strippers!: film starring jenna jameson, and several live dead nude others

the whole time i watched it, i was thinking, "so writing this script--that's what philosophy majors do with their masters' degrees."

dude. this movie was so much more than you'd expect, and from a movie called zombie strippers, you'd expect kind of a lot, if you're a certain type of person.

for one thing, the production values weren't distractingly bad.

but there's even more. the plot is funny and the lines are funny. the anti-george w. stuff is funny. i mean, i for one am glad to know that some part of the pornography industry hangs to the left (does that count as a double entendre? lamely, maybe?). the idea of turning the strippers' self-esteem issues into a conversation about various major philosophical viewpoints is really funny. jameson really freaking delivers the line about nietzsche making so much more sense after death.

i guess it might be possible to take offense at the idea that the set-up of strippers being philosophical is supposed to be funny...maybe? maybe that's offensive? but i feel like the movie sells the whole idea as more honest than that. it's like the super-hot lady soldier character who specializes in badassery--she's maybe a kind of unapologetically exploitative character, but she's also unapologetically rad. i mean, all the characterizations are unapologetically exploitative, and unapologetically rad, from paco to lilith. that girl who quotes rousseau's is the only characterization that kind of falters, i think, but at least the script and filmmakers are trying for something.

which, in an age in which the imaginarium of doctor parnassus counts as a film with ideas, in the words of captain malcolm reynolds, ain't nothin'.

sunday school musical: i watched sunday school musical

Sunday School Musical: dvd release starring some very talented teens

i have one thing to say about the experience of watching this: its musical aesthetic was SO MUCH BETTER than that of camp rock.

now there are several directions that a person can take that comment. first one that springs to mind: "she watched sunday school musical." we did rent it to make fun, to some extent, and i'll acknowledge that. it's not nice to make fun, and i'd never disrespect someone else's beliefs, but i would disrespect their moviemaking, and i kind of did by renting this movie in a spirit of "holy WHAT THE FRAK?"

2: "she watched camp rock." well, in my defense, councillor, it was there. like you never watched...something with a jonas brother in it...on purpose. plus demi lovato was quite adorable. and some of her friends were quite...um, never mind. some of her friends were quite dressed like jem. that's safe.

3. "she seems to be claiming that camp rock has a musical aesthetic."

yeah. that one i can't really argue.

4. "she is contrasting the proposed aesthetic of camp rock with that of sunday school musical." okay, but the sunday school musical music was good. or at least it wasn't terrifying. it wasn't wildly overproduced (though it wasn't, you know, underproduced), and if the aesthetic to the music was a little, like, basic for me*, i did think it was solid--good--genuine. there was something to it. which is really an excellent lesson, because it shows me another facet of the fact that a genuine aesthetic can override the sum of its parts--that is, it can overwhelm itself. i wasn't expecting to really approve of anything about sunday school musical, which is why i begged to rent it (again, i admit to being a jerk--not about christianity, but about the teen movies that it may perpetuate). but the performances and the songs were really good. i don't know.

5. "better? seriously? you're choosing?"

HECKETY HECK HECK YES, COUNCILLOR!


*you have to realize that this critique of the musical aesthetic is being written by someone who's been listening to nothing but ann peebles' album i can't stand the rain and the brahms piano quintet for the last two weeks or so. i like my musical aesthetic extremely complex--though maybe complex isn't the word, in regard to the brahms. multifaceted. overwhelming. breathless. inconclusive in meaning, though extremely conclusive in effect. you know? the sunday school musical music's aesthetic wasn't that. but it held together. which is just...cool. i mean, the gospel that i like to listen to (not that i know anything about gospel) is stuff like that mighty clouds of joy song "pray for me," in comparison to which the sunday school musical music is pretty unison, simply rhythmic, unilateral. but still good. yeah. notice i'm being cautious, but not apologizing.