One might be able to argue that Dane Cook or Nickelback’s success is funny, but one of the big taboos in comedy is cancer. You typically don’t see much humor derived from an ailment that affects millions each year. Screenwriter Will Reiser though effectively manages to take the topic of cancer and turn it into a honest, genuine, and surprisingly funny look on the craziness surrounding an already terrible predicament in 50/50.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays Adam, essentially a stand-in for Reiser, who learns he has a rare form of cancer along his spine in the peak of his life. Seth Rogen, from reports who basically plays himself as he did to Reiser, is the supportive, opportunistic, and (of course) foul-mouthed friend to help along the way. We also meet Adam’s super-supportive girlfriend Rachel (Bryce Dallas Howard), his overbearing mother (Anjelica Huston), and his new-to-the-field therapist (Anna Kendrick) as they try and support Adam though the diagnosis, treatment, and aftermath.

While the previews mostly portrayed this film as more comedic in tone, 50/50 is primarily a drama with a sprinkling of comedy, usually courtesy of Rogen. There is only so much light you can make of a film about a debilitating illness without it coming across as inappropriate or crass. Fortunately, Reiser’s script walks a pretty fine line between making a mockery of the suffering of millions and taking what comes from life in stride. The film succeeds on this front as it is not a heavy-handed “live your life to the fullest” affair but also addresses the hardship that comes with the plights of Adam’s fellow cancer buddies played by Philip Baker Hall and Trashcan Man Matt Frewer.

Not many actors can pull of such a varied performance as Gordon-Levitt did as he hits every stage of the process in perfect form with scenes filled with joy, anger or grief and some all combined together. I would say it is an award-worthy performance but apparently the powers that be do not agree. The rest of the actors merely revolve around Adam in some shape or form with Rogen not breaking too much new ground and Kendrick playing the same young and sensitive, yet inexperienced role that she has in other films. Huston in minimal screentime had quite an impact as the mother that Adam purposefully distances himself from yet relies on when everything comes down to the wire.

Director Jonathan Levine takes what you would anticipate being an ensemble effort and focuses superbly on Adam and his struggle. From the first diagnosis when the “State University” doctor remarks that his cancer is quite interesting because it is rare and yada yada yada, Levine pulls back and focuses solely on the ear of the patient as he tries to comprehend the words being causally tossed at him. We follow Adam throughout the entire ordeal as he has his first chemotherapy, gets high on weed-laced macaroons, and comes to terms with the probable outcome that he will die. The emphasis on Adam and the events in his life during his treatment put you in the mindset of someone in that situation. It is not a joyous, “to hell with rules” mindset but one of reason, despair, and sorrow.

On one hand, 50/50 is not a feel-good movie as it evokes many emotions that most (including myself) would disregard while watching a film. But it is not only a strong movie off the back of Gordon-Levitt’s great performance, but also one that can help you see the bright side in even the worst situation.

I’ve already said my piece (twice actually) regarding The Hangover Part II, namely that I would not cry if it died in a blazing inferno. No such luck though as the film was released last Memorial Day weekend to buckets of money being thrown at it. I guess that means we can expect another sequel in a year and a half or so much to my chagrin since this entry was just like the first, except not funny.

Perhaps that is too harsh. Perhaps Hangover II is in fact funny but I was too biased to notice. I don’t think that is the case though unless you equate lazy storytelling with funny. Much like the last film, there is a wedding involved, the “Wolfpack” getting into trouble with the locals and the authorities, a missing member of the group, a new addition to the group (this time there are three in fact), and shenanigans as our leads attempt to piece together the previous night’s events. And there is even a random song from Ed Helms and an appearance by Mike Tyson. What a coincidence! At this point, I can’t tell if writer/director Todd Phillips and co-writers Craig Mazin and Scot Armstrong are merely trying to emulate the first film or just have nothing else for our trio of Bradley Cooper, Zach Galifianakis, and Helms to do other than recreate the first.

My chief concern for this film, even just hearing about it during production, was that it would be a soulless cash grab missing any of the “charm” of the original. The fact that the main cast members (except Heather Graham, sad) returned was remarkable to avoid a painful recasting or written-out character. From the acting front, everything still clicked as Cooper, Galifianakis, and Helms have a good chemistry together which makes the events fairly easy to watch. Ken Jeong randomly reemerges as Chow but he was quite entertaining in his brief screentime. Even Doug (Justin Bartha) returns although he is left out of the fun and games but not because he is the missing person. That honor goes to Mason Lee as Teddy, who is Stu’s soon-to-be brother-in-law but his interactions with the gang are few thus making his disappearance not as impactful as Doug’s in the first.

So while the cast was good enough here, the really issue lies with the story which is just a shameless rip-off of the original. Many of the scenes that originally drew big laughs from myself and I’d imagine many others are almost painstakingly recreated here which just leads to a yawn and fond rememberance of a film that was wild and unpredictable, as opposed to this film that was unpredictable only in how many callbacks to the first it could jam into the 1 hour 40 minute running time. While I didn’t pick up on the location of Teddy like Stu did (although that seemed a bit forced as well), pretty much everything else in the film is so predictable and easy to see coming. That is of course unless you haven’t watched the original.

Everything else on a technical level was sound with quite impressive shots of not only the gritty, urban Bangkok locale but also of the remote private Thailand island where the wedding is to take place. Honestly, it was the end of the film which solidified that I did not care for this movie with the random realization of where Teddy is, followed by Alan taking control of a speedboat to get back to the wedding (nothing can go wrong, right?), and then Stu finally standing up to his douche of a father-in-law. It all seemed so forced and convenient since the rest of the movie has established that everything will happen just like the first so we know that Stu’s nuptials are not in any real danger.

Whereas I liked the first Hangover because it was crass, silly, and unexpected, I dislike its sequel because it has all of those same characteristics but nothing else to bring to the table. Was it funny learning that Stu has “semen in him?” Quite. The random monk beating Helms and Cooper with a cane? Pretty funny. But there are so few moments in this film that are not almost directly lifted from its predecessor to make it anything more than Hollywood’s poster child for churning out sequels that no one (well, maybe just me) wants to see.

George: A Zombie Intervention (or George’s Intervention) comes to us via Breaking Glass Pictures. It’s quite an interesting take on the genre, but poorly executed.

The film opens with an educational film shown to school children. The opening was actually quite clever. It serves as exposition to us, and is meant to teach children the facts about zombies. Zombies have become members of society. So much so that there is a zombie technical support line.  There are spores in the air that humans inhale. The spores lie dormant until the human dies. The spores then wake up and keep the brain functioning thus turning the human into a zombie. Not mindless Romero zombies. Rather, they simply remain their former selves, and are self aware that they are the undead. Unlike your typical film zombies, shooting them in the head does not kill them. It only makes them brain dead which turns them into the standard flesh seeking walkers. They only way to kill a zombie in this universe is to dismember them and burn them.

After the introduction, we see a group of friends having a pre-intervention for their friend George. He has a bit of an addiction problem. Much like you may have seen on television (or perhaps in an actual intervention), the friends are tasked to write down how George’s addiction has affected them. They arrive the next day at George’s home and he is quite resistant. George is a zombie, and he eats people. His friends plead with him to stop but he does not want to. As the group takes a break, people begin to be killed and George tries to eat them. One of George’s friends thinks that they are having a party, so George is constantly interrupted by guests arriving. He throws his victims in the basement to eat later.

This film is purposefully over the top. The gore is excessive and that’s fine. The problem is that there is an obvious attempt to make the film seem realistic at the same time, which places emphasis on its flaws. The performances are quite sub par, especially with the constant eye rolling and face acting.  Right away as the friends arrive at the pre-intervention, they act as if they hate each other. So there was a bit of confusion as to why they are friends since they were all acting like jerks. This eventually changes as Sarah reveals that she likes Ben, and we learn that Steve is just a general dick.

The most bothersome thing in this film is George’s house. It’s like a billion square feet. No one in the house knows where anyone is and can’t hear the constant bludgeoning of guests, even after the loud music is turned off. The house also is apparently self cleaning, as blood seems to disappear from the floor.

There also is some inconsistency as one zombie discovers that he has no pulse and cannot feel pain and therefore must be dead, but in another scene, a zombie complains that being shot hurts.

The film was definitely entertaining, and some of the dialogue was quite humorous. However, most of the time is was poorly written and badly delivered. And not in  a funny, quirky, Army of Darkness type way.

The very end is probably the funniest thing about the film. It is a “commercial” for a zombie rehab clinic and shows zombie supports groups and George eating Tofu Flesh.

The concept of the film is quite clever, and there are definitely some great moments. Very reminiscent of Dead Alive as far as style. I recommend a viewing, but must say that there is a lot to suffer through to get to the enjoyable parts.

During my personal dark ages of movies, otherwise known as the mid 2000s, there were a host of films that demanded viewing that I casually disregarded. Some of those I have come to regret. Others I have not seen at all. One that I made a point to see though was Shaun of the Dead. There was something about the film that stood out to me as important enough to see in theaters even though I ended up seeing it alone in a showing of about six people.

It was billed as the zom-rom-com (or zombie romantic comedy) but only two of those adjectives really fit. With numerous hints and winks to other zombie films and properties in general, Shaun of the Dead is a movie that is crafted so well and foreshadowed so effectively, I almost guarantee that you can watch it many times over and find something new to grin or chuckle about. Our lovable slacker Shaun (Simon Pegg) is an everyman with no ambitions, no drive, and no desire for anything other than playing video games with his pal Ed (Nick Frost). All it takes is the pending end of the world to snap Shaun out of his ways and spring into action as the reluctant action hero who rarely has a plan or even skills to carry out what plans he does have.

Even if you are not a fan of zombie movies or of British comedy (if both, exit now please), there is plenty to sink your teeth into with this film. As a horror fan, there are more than enough references to other zombie films (especially the Romero variety) to make you pleased as punch. As a comedy fan, the film is stock full of other references and even a humorous foreshadowing of future events that become more apparent the more you watch it. The script by Pegg and director Edgar Wright (of Scott Pilgrim fame) is equal parts zany, and horror-y, and funny all combined into one satisfying package.

Unlike other zombie films that precede it, SotD is rarely lacking on the acting front with top-notch performances from everyone involved. There is gore and carnage and all the other sorts of things you would expect from a zombie movie. There is even a Romero-esque social commentary on everyday people going about their affairs and how they relate to the cinematic zombies portrayed here. But at the very least, this is a horror/comedy which does everything right for anyone who might be watching. If you don’t like this movie, you are probably already dead.

For our 300th review, we decided to do something different. We chose my favorite comfort movie, Weekend at Bernie’s. It is mentioned all through this blog that I like this film but for some reason we had not reviewed it yet. For this review, however, we recorded a podcast of us watching it. We basically just make fun of it, but we do give it credit when it is due. Enjoy!

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

First off, I have never read the graphic novel, so I swear to God, if you negate my review if this film wasn’t faithful to the source material, I will sick Kane Hodder on you.

Scott Pilgrim is 100% pure entertainment. Every fucking thing about it. From the comic booky words that fly on the screen, to the insanely clever script that is basically a group of well constructed lines stacked in order of hilarity that assemble a story. Visually, aurally, intellectually and otherwisely this film is extremely pleasing.  It’s almost guerilla like in its blatant disregard for seamless scene transitions. Which, by the way, is awesome. Pretty much every scene or line is completely unexpected and hilarious. There literally is a laugh about every 1.5 seconds.

I have accused Michael Cera of being repetitive in his characters.  This is the first film in which even though he still employs some of the same traits, I did notice that he does actually distinguish his character from all others.

Also, Kieran Culkin extremely hilarious as his roommate. But, then again, so is every person in this film.

I suppose I should mention the plot. In a nutshell, Scott Pilgrim is in love with Ramona Flowers. She is resistant to his “charms,” but eventually succumbs due to his persistence. However, they both discover that if they are to be together, Scott has to defeat Ramona’s 7 ex boyfriends. What ensues is a film that will delight video game, music, comic book and just anything fans.

I am really serious when I say that there is something to like every single second of this film. Whether it is a funny line, a bright color, a word flying across the screen, I have never seen a film that has stimulated so many different parts of my brain for the entirety of its running time.

I realize that this is a short review, but when you have nothing but positive things to say about a film, brevity is the result. I am probably the last person on Earth to see this, but I’m glad I did.

It’s a universal truth that we’ve all had bosses, or superiors if you’d like, that deserve to be taken out back and eliminated in one way or another. I suppose that is the sad truth of growing up, becoming an adult, and dealing with bullshit day in and day out. Horrible Bosses is not the first film that addresses these frustrations of the workplace. In fact, the template (for me that is) of aggravating employment is and will probably always be Office Space. Director Seth Gordon and his team of writers don’t pull off the malicious nature of inter-office politics to the same success but damn if they didn’t create a film I believe will be highly regarded for some time.

It is unfair though to outright compare Bosses to Office Space. Similar themes exist but the crux of the movie is wildly different since no one actually wanted to kill Bill Lumbergh. Nick (Jason Bateman) is practically a yes-man who comes to work early and stays late thinking he is in for a big promotion. Kurt (Jason Sudeikis) loves his accounting job at a small chemical firm and is especially fond of his aging boss. Dale (Charlie Day) is miserable as a dental assistant but he cannot find better employment due to a mishap with some urine and an adjacent playground. Later, Nick is dicked over by his boss Harken (Kevin Spacey) while Kurt’s mentor dies and is replaced by his misfit/cokehead son Pellitt (Colin Farrell) and Dale is inundated with sexual advances by his employer Julia (Jennifer Aniston). After realizing they have no other employment prospects, the trio consider the idea of killing their bosses to make their lives much easier.

It would be a twisted and immoral tale if the same thought had not crossed the mind of anyone working under a soulless, money-hungry, or just plain inept superior. That is where Horrible Bosses succeeds the most in the cathartic pondering of “doing the world a favor” and wiping some ass off the planet while attempting to rationalize it. This concept would fall flat though if the “villains” (ie. the bosses) were just working stiffs trying to do the right thing but they are far from that.

I love me some Kevin Spacey and he is right at home in his role at the cut-throat top exec that is a chilling reminder of what Lester Burnham might have become in his later years. Aniston is pretty vile as the walking professional-workplace nightmare Julia and she plays it superbly between almost innocent and almost batshit crazy. Farrell takes the cake as the son of a successful businessman who would much rather invite strippers to his cocaine extravaganza instead of dealing with paperwork … during business hours of course.

The bulk of the story though focuses on Bateman, Sudekis, and Day as they scheme under the tutelage of “Motherfucker” Jones (Jamie Foxx) to stage the deaths as accidents. This being a comedy, all three are completely inept at the standard tasks of this type of tale including keeping a low-profile or reconnaissance. Of course, comedic mayhem ensues as the story unfolds in a largely unpredictable way as the trio try to dispatch their bosses with prejudice even with their incompetence standing in the way.

The main three of Bateman, Sudeikis, and Day are perfectly cast and fit their roles nicely. Nick is almost a carbon-copy of the straight-laced Michael Bluth from Arrested Development and I am totally fine with that as it is my favorite comedy series ever. Sudeikis (even in lesser roles) has a great sense of comedic timing and even Day was hilarious in his overly exuberant mannerisms. There is nothing of note that falls flat or awkwardly unfunny throughout the film. Most recent comedies are a “see-it-once-and-forget-it” affair but Horrible Bosses will stand out for years to come.

Ninjas vs. Vampires is writer director Justin Timpane’s follow up to Ninjas vs. Zombies (which I have not seen). I must apologize to Mr. Timpane. While viewing this film, I sent Puck a text calling this film terrible. I rescind that. There are some terrible things in the film, but I now find that adjective to be not applicable to the film as a whole.

Aaron and Alex are hanging out late at night at what is sure to be an unsafe location. They have known each for years, and Alex considers Aaron to be her best friend. Aaron on the other hand, has stronger feelings and would like to be her boyfriend. He vocalizes this and is quickly shot down. To further ruin his night, the pair is suddenly attacked by vampires. Just when it appears a feeding is to occur, a group of ninjas appear and save them. “What the fuck?” you say? I assure you, I type the truth. The group is part actual ninjas, as they practice martial arts, but they are also some sort of X-Men type group in which each one has a special attribute. Kyle (Daniel Ross) can run really fast, Lily (Carla Okouchi) is a vampire but does not feed from humans, Ann (Melissa McConnell) practices magic. Then there is Cole (Cory Okouchi) who is the leader. Other than owning a comic book store and looking like Professor X, I am not sure what his special attribute is. There is some kind of plot involving an amulet, and the vampires wanting to create some new breed of undead and I think a war against humans. The plot is mostly irrelevant and just serves as the reason that ninjas and vampires must fight each other, and appear together in a film.

The comedy in this film is pretty dead on funny. Very funny lines, and best when delivered by Daniel Ross. There are some cheesy throw away lines, but this is a low budget film that is self aware, so even those work.  On the whole, the blend of comedy action and gore is rather well balanced and enjoyable.

The directing and editing were spot on as well. Timpane knows what he is doing and put his knowledge of the films he loves in to his film.  When you are watching a low budget picture you can usually tell where the sacrifices were made to stay within budget, and aside from the horrible CGI, nothing was so terrible that it screamed, “This is when we ran out of money!” And the CGI was bad. And there was a lot of it.

I don’t feel qualified to judge a fight sequence (which is unfortunate as there were a lot) because action films are not really something I gravitate to. However, there were some decent fights but, they usually ended with terrible CGI. They were entertaining enough, though.

One thing you will have to put up with is the constant references. Just to name a few: numerous comic books, Kevin Smith characters, the Karate Kid, Ghostbusters, endless mentions of vampires that sparkle, G.I. Joe. There are plenty more.

Before watching this film (and I do recommend it) keep in mind that the budget was $15,000. It doesn’t really look like the budget was that low, but it will help you lower your expectations a bit. The positives outweigh the negatives, and it is an entertaining 89 minutes. It’s just good fun.

After commenting on Twitter that I had seen and pretty much dug Bridesmaids, good ol’ Wifi Pirate from 3SMOVRadio attempted to clarify by asking if it was The Hangover for females. It is very Hangover-esque but featuring women, not necessarily just for them. As The Hangover was very reminiscent of previous movies by Judd Apatow, it seems fitting that this is one of his productions and directed by Paul Feig, one of the many people I love just for being involved with Arrested Development.

As you can probably guess, Bridesmaids centers around a wedding. The bride-to-be Lillian (Maya Rudolph) wants her lifelong friend Annie (Kristen Wiig) to be her maid of honor but Annie’s life is in shambles. She is broke after a failed business attempt and shares a small apartment with a quirky English brother and sister. She is also quite jaded from a recent breakup and probably should not be anywhere near the planning of a couple’s everlasting happiness. Yet, Annie puts on a happy face and endures even though her expression betrays her desire to yell profanities at all the happy couples throughout.

Lillian introduces the rest of the wedding party including the raunchy mother of three Rita (Wendi McLendon-Covey), the obnoxiously innocent Becca (Ellie Kemper), the improper and foul-mouthed Megan (Melissa McCarthy), and the controlling perfectionist Helen (Rose Byrne). As the five embark on what would normally be numerous scenes of gossiping or backstabbing in a typical female-biased comedy, there are many inspired moments of gross-outs and physical comedy galore. As such, this is far more satisfying, not to mention hilarious, than the title alone would have you think.

It’s no surprise that I don’t hold out a lot of hope for Hangover 2, so thus Bridesmaids may be the talked-about R-rated comedy of the year. It certainly strives for that title with the knowledge that infantile women and their bodily functions are just as funny as similarly plotted male characters. Yet, much like the best of the entries in this genre, the film is filled with characters who are wacky, yet still realistic which makes it much easier to connect with the story instead of just laughing at the obviously telegraphed portions.

The script from Wiig and Annie Mumolo does not fall into the trap of random sequences strung together for comedic effect or the typical tear-duct cleansing sessions of a normal romantic comedy. There are strong and well-developed characters, genuine character arcs especially with Annie and her romantic flings with Jon Hamm (!) and Chris O’Dowd, and a true sense of comradery between the women as they embark in their quest for the perfect wedding complete with brutal diarrhea or run-ins with an air marshal.

The biggest fault of the movie is its runtime at a hefty two hours and five minutes. Basically, there is no reason a normal comedy should run this long and neither of the two editors seemed to be able to craft a solid narrative out of the (admittedly very funny) interconnecting scenes. I guess then they just stitched it together as good as possible but that left a very uneven and plodding pace present with scenes that easily could have been excised. Considering the strength of the actors and the story itself though, I can almost excuse a bit too much moreso than not enough. In fact, Bridesmaids may be the best movie to bridge the gap between typical male and female movie tastes. That is definitely worth applause.

Sadly, I was late getting into MST3k when it was still around. In my area, we didn’t have Comedy Central until just before the show switched to Sci-Fi so the only option for Joel/Mike and the ‘bots was overly expensive VHS copies or one hour long segments at 2 AM on Saturdays. As such, Mystery Science Theater 3000: The Movie (henceforth referred to as whatever acronym I feel like) was an easy way to get your bad movie fix rife with sarcastic commentary. That is, until I realized that the movie is actually quite different from the show.

You should know about MST3k by now considering that we’ve had two previous posts about it, not to mention the dozens of other pages and wikis about the show. The long and short is that a man is trapped on an orbiting satellite just above Earth who is forced to watch bad movies to amuse his captors. Not content to suffer in silence, the first man, Joel, builds four robots, some to aid in the ship’s operation and others to make witty quips with him while watching the chosen horrendous films.

One of the most endearing qualities about a typical episode of the long running series was the reliance on rapid-succession jokes full of obscure references that only make sense after researching it. But, since this was designed to be a feature film to (I presume) increase the show’s exposure, the rifts were not as sophisticated or plentiful. It also helps (or hurts depending) that the film featured was not some DTV piece starring Joe Estevez but rather, the 1950s classic-for-the-time-period This Island Earth. This Island Earth is certainly cheesy with questionable special effects and performances that are mostly on par with other sci-fi movies from this time period but considering the depths of cinematic ineptitude this series has uncovered through the years, this one is Oscar worthy.

Mike (Joel’s replacement) and his robot pals have fun riffing the movie and most of their lines stand out as laugh-out-loud funny as opposed to the hit or miss barrage of jokes from the series. But I still feel a little cheated that a good portion of This Island Earth is excised which makes it look more vapid and nonsensical than the movie actually is. Also that the feature length film runs a good ten or fifteen minutes shorter than an average episode with seemingly longer host segments is almost inexcusable as well. Reportedly, there was a bit of animosity during the production with the almost certainly free-spirited MST3k folk battling corporate bigwigs. Perhaps that is the cause of the significant shift in execution or its truncated length but regardless, MST3k:TM is a much funnier and enjoyable time than your average Adam Sandler movie.