Giants and Cowboys in action last season. (Photo: Jim McIsaac/Getty Images)

The injuries.

Both teams are getting key personnel back from niggling injuries through the preseason, with the Giants getting back star wide receiver Hakeem Nicks, after he was initially under some doubt. However Giants coach Tom Coughlin came out yesterday and stated that he would play, and that the Giants decided just to hold him back from practice. Nicks understood the procedures put in place.

“I know they just want to take care of my foot. We don’t want any setbacks. It’s a big game, opening game of the season; I’m looking forward to that,” Nicks said to Giants.com.

He rejoins an intimidating offence, with Eli Manning and Victor Cruz already hitting the straps in the pre season. Running back Ahmad Bradshaw was also under some doubt, but he trained on Monday and is also expected to start on Wednesday night.

Dallas also have big names expected to play, star tight end Jason Witten is expected to make a comeback, after spleen troubles held him at bay during the pre season.

“If I get cleared, we’re playing,” Witten told DallasCowboys.com. “But it would be great to get a big win up there, regardless of whether I play.”

Number one WR, Miles Austin is also tipped to start for the Cowboys, after a hamstring injury limited his preseason.

The Cowboys, led by QB Tony Romo seem to have the right names coming into the side at the right time, but lack of preseason game time might just swing to the favour of the Giants, who have had no real setbacks, bar Nicks and Bradshaw.

The lead up.

With big pay cheques and big exposure, come big words, and the NFL’s heavyweights of the NFC East have not been shy in extending the hostilities before the kickoff.

Pundits may remember that the last time these two met, they were both at 8-7. The Giants won, clinched the wildcard, and as history shows, won the Super Bowl. The Giants’ fans have no problem in taunting Dallas supporters about this, and a subsequent war of words has begun to erupt.

Way back in July, Cowboys’ high profile owner, Jerry Jones, promised the Cowboys crowd he was looking forward to “beating the Giants’ ass” this season.

In response, Giants’ linebacker Mathius Kiwanuka stated: “The Giants have been whupping his ass for a long time. It’s gotta be tough on the outside looking in on all these championships lately.”

Cowboys’ owner Jerry Jones and Mathius Kiwanuka. (Photo: Getty Images)

That didn’t sit well with arguably the competition’s best pass rusher, in DeMarcus Ware. Ware retorted: “When you think about when players talk, you got to walk the walk.”

It’s just a shame that these two number 94s can’t go head to head on the field, but if one thing can be guaranteed, they will both be doing all they can to ‘walk the walk’ on Wednesday night.

Key Matchups.

This game is a tantalising prospect; the Giants hoping to have aged another year well, and the Cowboys have done their best to fill the gaps in their squad to have a tilt at the championship. These are just some of the areas to look out for on Wednesday Night.

The Cowboys’ secondary vs. the Giants’ receivers.

The Cowboys have had issues the last few years with secondary coverage. They managed to pick up cornerback Morris Claiborne in the draft for a steal, and he moves into the number one spot on the right. The Cowboys also picked up former Kansas City left corner in Brandon Carr, and these two have pushed last year’s starters Mike Jenkins and Orlando Scandrick into the second string. Barry Church fills the strong safety position, whilst Gerald Sensabaugh retains the free safety spot.

They come up against names such as Victor Cruz, former Cowboy Martellus Bennett and Hakeem Nicks. Cruz and Nicks made up over 2,600 of the passing yards thrown by Eli Manning, and combined, caught 16 touchdowns. They will cause trouble for the Cowboy defence, and seeing Claiborne and Carr try and tackle two of the best in the business could mean make or break for the Cowboys.

Cowboys’ pass rushers vs. the Giants’ pass rushers.

Both offensive units are as good as any on their day. This means that the defensive line which can break through and stop the ball from being thrown, will probably win the match.

Eli Manning will have to face the might of DeMarcus Ware, Anthony Spencer and Sean Lee- and a defensive team which has begun to gel, and just may be one of the most formidable in the league, come the end of the year. Ware coming off the side would have most QBs worried in the back of their mind, as he was second for sacks in the league last year, with 19.5.

Tony Romo battled pass rushers all throughout last year, and with his rib injury gone, he may just be more confident to stand up in the pocket. But the Giants’ defence should not be treated lightly, again, one of the best in the competition.

Jason Pierre-Paul is in only his third year, and the defensive end sacked 16.5 times last year, and had a combined 86 tackles throughout the year. Holding him will be Cowboy tackle Tyron Smith, and this battle will be the one to watch with great interest.

Pierre Paul harassing Cowboys’ QB Tony Romo (Photo: Tom Pennington/Getty Images North America)

Joining Pierre-Paul is teamed up with linebacker Mathius Kiwanuka, who tackled 84 times last year, as well as Justin Tuck, Osi Umenyiora and Chase Blackburn, who make up possibly the best pass rush in NFL.

DeMarco Murray vs. Giants’ defence.

The Cowboys’ new number one runner in the game, DeMarco Murray, started only seven games last year, but they proved pivotal in moving his ranking to the number one spot on the Cowboys’ depth chart. He has been dynamic in the preseason, and showed glimpses of brilliance on the back end of last season, where he ran for just shy of 900 yards. The unique thing about Murray is his ability to take a catch, and the Cowboys will look to exploit the screen.

Will the relatively unknown Murray be able to break the lines of the Giant defence? Will the use of the screen work against Chase Blackburn and Mathius Kiwanuka?

Prediction.

With the Giants looking to secure a home win first up, they’ll be a little bit too strong on the big stage (where they already know how to win). Giants to win the game, 24 – 17.

Hewitt in action at the US Open. Source: AAP

Overnight, Hewitt ground out an intense five set victory over Luxembourg’s Gilles Muller, 3-6, 7-6, 6-7, 7-5, 6-4. Muller may not be a household name, but he is the bloke that pops up for that one major a year and always has a good showing at it.

Muller won the junior title at Flushing Meadows way back in 2001- funnily enough, when Hewitt won the men’s draw in New York. Muller has also displaced (now retiring) American Andy Roddick when he was ranked third in the world , and he also made the quarter finals in ’08, and the fourth round last year.

For Hewitt, it was always going to be a tough match. He gained confidence from his first round win against Tobias Kamke – his first win at Flushing Meadows since 2009, and after realising he would play Muller his mental preparations began.

Muller, as it stands, draws a rough resemblance in height and left handedness to fellow Australian and part time doubles partner in Chris Guccione.

“He’s (Muller) a big left-hander with a big serve with a big, aggressive game,” Hewitt told Tennis Australia.

“Tomorrow I’ll get ‘Big Red’ (Guccione) out and he can hit some big left-handed serves to me.”

It served Hewitt well, pardon the pun, as he pulled of an inspiring win (as only Hewitt knows how) in five sets, over five hours. Hewitt encountered blistering heat, a tough opponent that blasted down 35 aces and a niggling foot problem that stemmed from toe surgery back in February.

“More just the toe nails were giving me some issues, just needed to get them taped and a little bit of padding to relieve them a little bit,” Hewitt said after the match.

“These are the times that still motivate me (being a wild card), this is why I’m still playing – to play Grand Slams – and it was a great atmosphere out there, especially in the fifth set, the crowd support that I got was great.”

The definition of an Aussie battler came through, and now sets up an even more daunting meet with Spanish fourth seed, David Ferrer in the third round.

More good news for Australia, with Sam Stosur looking in great form heading into the harder part of the draw. She dispatched US import Varvara Lepchenko in straight stes 7-6 (7-5), 6-2.

Stosur has lost only thirteen games for the tournament so far (eight against Lepchenko), and has not dropped a set.

“I think as the match went on I probably became a little more comfortable,” she explained, “Once I got that first set I relaxed a bit more.”

Stosur has to face Melbourne born Briton and giant killer, Laura Robson in the fourth round, and having never met previously, Stosur explained that she won’t get complacent.

“I’ve never played Laura before, and she’s obviously full of confidence and had two very, very good wins, so I definitely can’t go into that match lightly,” Stosur told the media.

Robson, 18, would be full of confidence leading into the match, after she pulled off shock upsets again Li Na and Kim Clijsters, in the third and second rounds.

Laura Robson has now defeated Li Na and Kim Clijsters at the US Open. Source: Ella Ling/AMA/Matthew Ashton/AMA/AMA/Corbis

“When I heard I was playing Li Na after I played Kim, I knew it was going to be an extremely tough match,” she said, after defeating the Chinese woman in three sets: 6-4, 6-7 (5-7), 6-2.

The Olympic silver medallist in the mixed doubles understood the daunting task of taking on Stosur in the fourth round: “I think I play Stosur now, and she’s the defending champ, so that’s going to be tough,” she admitted, “I’m just going to work hard tomorrow, and recover as best I can for the next match.

“But, no, I have always thought that I can play with the top girls. Whenever I’ve practiced with, you know, Caroline or Maria, I’ve always felt that the level was there. It was just taking that onto the match court and keeping the level up for the whole match,” she said.

Robson is the first British woman to make the fourth round at a Grand Slam in 14 years.

Having said that, today’s result still did not fall the way of the Jets, as they fell to a 0-4 record for the pre season with the 28-10 loss to Philadelphia.

Not only that, but the touchdown was not thrown by Tim Tebow, or the Jets’ interchangeable first string QB Mark Sanchez. It was thrown by third stringer, Greg McElroy. It took 37 possessions, 201 minutes and 5 seconds of elapsed time, and then finally, in their 199^th play of the preseason, they reached the endzone.

Third stringer Greg McElroy in action earlier today (Photo: Michael Perez / AP)

McElroy looked comfortable in the QB position, and calls have since gone out that he should be the Jets’ number two QB, however a lack of regular season experience is his drawback.

Many have begun to read into the Jets’ winless preseason, declaring that they will falter this year, and fall below last year’s standings of 8-8. Bringing Tebow in was supposed to help improve that, as they hoped to rekindle form from 2010-11 when they finished with an impressive 11-5 record.

The winless preseason shouldn’t be too much of a worry for Head Coach Rex Ryan, but he would be beginning to feel the pressure. NFL football is big business.

However the Jets are a young team, both on and off the field.

A second year starting quarterback in Tebow, a rookie defensive end filling that gap from last year that has looked promising, young receivers, and a gaping hole left by superstar running back LaDanian Tomlinson, who retired at the end of 2011.

Not to mention, six of their coaching staff have been with the Jets for one year or less. Some of the names on that list are Tony Sporano, Offensive coordinator. He was signed after the Jets meagre 8-8 season, after he was head coach at Miami, so this is his first regular season in charge of the Jets’ offence.

It is also Dave Degugliemo’s first season with the Jets, and he is in charge of their offensive line- protecting the QB and creating holes to run for the backfield. It will take time for the O-line and Degugliemo to gel.

Sanjay Lal was also appointed post last season, and he is New York’s Wide Receiver Coach. Again, time will help the receivers and Lal gel as a group.

Perhaps the criticism of the Jets’ offense is unfair, new coaches in means new plays, new styles of training, new everything. Perhaps this preseason has been about getting the processes right before the regular season.

The Jets just need to leap the mental boundaries that have begun to creep in. Tebow needs to throw a touchdown.

The O-line needs to gel, a receiver that isn’t Santonio Holmes (who has signalled his want for a trade no less) needs to stand up and stamp authority on the game. They will do fine this year, a wildcard entry into the play-offs would be a very good result; but for them to achieve that, they need to start winning games.

Carlton’s true coaching intentions were revealed on Thursday morning after club president Stephen Kernahan paused in a telling five seconds of pure silence. Asked if Brett Ratten would still be coaching if Mick Malthouse had never stated his ambition to coach again; neither he, nor CEO Greg Swann, could deny it.

Stephen Kernahan described the ‘blood on his hands’ to the media frenzy at Princes Park, after telling long-time friend, premiership teammate and Carlton coach Brett Ratten that he would not fulfil the remaining year of his contract with the Blues.

Kernahan was adamant that this was not a knee-jerk reaction, and that speculation over the head coaching position had been under review since the middle of the season.

However he subscribed to the idea that Carlton was driven by success, and personal relationships could not affect the running of the footballing department.

“I think the club has been impatient for 120 years”, he said of Carlton’s desire to compete in the highest echelon of the AFL.

Ratten echoed his long time friend’s sentiments.

“Carlton is ruthless in its quest for success,” he understood, “No contract is guaranteed at Carlton.”

From the dark and uncertain period at the Carlton Football Club, Ratten stood tall, making a graceful exit from Princes Park.

He maintained dignity and class as questions of betrayal, honesty and Mick Malthouse came to the fore. Just as he had been as a three-time Best and Fairest-winning player, Ratten was brave walking into the firing line.

He delivered a departing speech depicting his deep passion for the football club, giving a reflection worthy of the 25 years he spent within the walls of Princes Park.

“I love the club and losing my job saddens me,” Ratten confessed, “Maybe I was too passionate about Carlton, (if I had to change anything) maybe I should have redirected my energy.

“But my journey as a coach will continue. The passion and drive is always there.”

Perhaps a sense of disconnectedness being away from Carlton could serve Ratten in good stead at another club, with Port Adelaide rumoured to be circling for the axed Blues coach.

“I’d be open to sit down and take a look at a lot of things. I will have a chat to a few clubs.”

Ratten also put his dismissal as Carlton coach into perspective with other matters inside the club.

“You look at Sam Rowe, he’s just a kid battling cancer, or Sophia Saly (Carlton events manager who passed away two weeks ago) and then I look at my own life, I’m doing okay.”

It was announced that Ratten would coach the final game of the season against St Kilda on Sunday.

“Coaching the last game is a personal thing. Why hide? Why run away? You have to confront the hard situations. I started this year and I want to finish this year. I don’t need to hide from that.”

Carlton president Stephen Kernahan lamented injuries and poor player performances throughout the season, which only added to the downfall of Ratten.

“We had 19 post season surgeries last year,” added Kernahan, “You can’t foresee losing 15 blokes during the [2012] season.

“I’ve spoken to a number of the senior players (after the loss to the Gold Coast on Saturday night). I said harsh things.

“But at the moment, my thoughts are strictly with Brett and his family. It’s been a tough day, a tough time. It rips my heart out.”

Carlton CEO Greg Swann reaffirmed these thoughts.

“It’s incredible how positive he’s been. He’s acted with dignity and resilience. It’s an absolute credit to him,” he remarked about Ratten’s tenure, having brought the club from 15^th in 2007 to fifth last year.

“He’s always upbeat. He believes in what’s best for the club, what’s best for him is secondary.”

Questions then turned to the vacant position that Ratten’s departure had opened up.

Kernahan was firm: “We will not be approaching anyone until the end of the season.

“[But] we will be speaking to people like Mick Malthouse” he added, “I think we should also be speaking to Paul Roos.

“Our list is at a time when we need to strike. That’s why we’re after an experienced coach.”

Yet Ratten wasn’t interested in speculation regarding the next coach of the Blues.

“I don’t really care who coaches next year, it’s not me.”

When the dust settles, Ratten may move on to new horizons, however in the immediate future he plans to just focus on his family and getting some alone time.

“For now I think I’ll just go fishing. I haven’t done that for five years,” an optimistic Ratten remarked before leaving the press conference to conduct his final training session as Carlton coach.

Riley Beveridge is a first-year Bachelor of Sports Journalism student at La Trobe University. You can follow him on Twitter: @RileyBev

Matt Walsh is a first-year Bachelor of Sports Journalism student at La Trobe University. You can follow him on Twitter: @MattWalshMedia

Reining champ and seventh seed Sam Stosur takes to the second court against Edina Gallovits-Hall early tomorrow morning (Australian time), whilst Lleyton Hewitt tries to rekindle his 2001 US Open winning form, in his match against Tobias Kamke. If Hewitt progresses, he sets up a tough second round match with one of Mikhail Youzhny, or Gilles Muller.

Anastasia Rodionova will have to overcome American Varvara Lepchenko, and Casey Dellacqua faces Chinese hopeful Li Na.

Bernard Tomic is already through to the second round after a tough four set match against Carlos Berlocq, winning 4-6, 7-5, 6-3, 6-4. He now faces home town hero Andy Roddick.

Other big names on court later tonight, Victoria Azarenka takes on Kirsten Flipkens, followed by John Isner and Xavier Malisse, whilst tomorrow morning Australian time, third seeds Maria Sharapova and Andy Murray get their first look at the Arthur Ashe Stadium.

Matt Walsh

A potential rogue tournament that supposedly would hit Dubai this coming January has already been thwarted, and AO chief Craig Tiley has faith for a successful and uninterrupted 2013 Australian Open.

Tiley stressed to Tennis Australia: “We’ve paid more prize money than any other event annually.” He also added that the prize money for the upcoming tournament was under review.

However it isn’t without reason that this new furor over prize money has emerged. This pay increase that has been called for, will be given to those that falter in earlier rounds. Only A$2860 is paid out to players that make an early exit in qualifying for the Australian Open, and those that have shock losses in the first and second rounds make only A$20,000 and A$33,300 respectively.

This may seem like a lot, but the ATP Player Council is adament that it does not go far. Players organise their own travel, accomodation, travel and various taxes, as well as year round coaching, medical, and every day household spendings. Some players are often left at a loss after tournaments.

“We sympathise with the players, and we know that making tennis for the lower ranked players something that is more viable, is certainly an attractive thing for our sport,” said Tiley.

Andy Roddick told the Tennis Australia website: “The guys ranked 80 to 90 to 1000 in the world aren’t making the big bucks right now, and they’re paying their own expenses.”
“That is who any action would benefit.”

Matt Walsh.

McLintock Gold

Oh the inspiring lessons on negligence in the work place that this man could teach.  As the fictional Director of Communications for the fictional Vice President (played by Julia Louis-Dreyfuss) on HBO’s effing hilarious show Veep, Mike McLintock is making an art out of just getting by. His  work ethic is based entirely on a fake dog to get him out of staying late in the office and “plausible denial” which is the technique of actively trying to know absolutely nothing about a subject so when he’s asked to comment by press he can genuinely and believably deny all knowledge of absolutely any and every important issue at hand.  Brilliant.

IDK / IDC

The perfect combination of bad attitude and ginger charm (and kinda looks like C.K. too), McLintock realized a long time ago that life isn’t perfect, so now he strives for the mediocre which leaves him in a perpetual state of an undeserved sense of accomplishment and total darkness. Essentially, McLintock is a relic of the D.C. past, when buying a beer and a blow job for a reporter kept a politician’s name out of an embarrassing or damaging media story (thanks for nothing Woodward and Bernstein).  However, the times have a changed, where now the 24-hour news cycle means stories never sleep and bloggers opinions are taken as fact (hey, there’s a word for this…). But instead of taking a few night classes to learn how to use the internet or gracefully bowing out from the game, the truly inspiring McLintock just keeps on keeping on utterly unfazed and unaware that he has to change.

What are you excited about? Are you the new face of fucking Louis Vuitton?

This is where Mike McLintock proves himself the guru of slacking with his master Zen-like understanding of not giving a fuck.  We all have shit jobs that we all are underpaid and under appreciated at, but what really trips us unenlightened up is that we insist on taking it home with us.  We loose sleep and we grow tumors either as side affects to the self medicating alcohol consumption or just plain all consuming obsession over the missed CC on an email.  We hate it yet we can’t stop thinking/ talking about it.  McLintock on the other hand, shit this dude doesn’t stress over work even when he’s at work.  Some may call this incompetence, but we call this staying cool as a mother fucking cucumber because if his ways have taught us anything, it’s that this crisis too shall pass, or at least be over shadowed by a much bigger crisis like pregnancy scares and oil guys on your clean jobs task force.  

Special Programming Note: Chicagoland native and huge Bear’s fan, check out Matt Walsh’s podcast this season, appropriately titled, Bear Down.

Indie favorites Jay and Mark Duplass co-direct this wry look at modern love and family dysfunction. John C. Reilly plays a divorced man who thinks he’s found just the right woman (Marisa Tomei) to help him recover and move on. Unfortunately, the woman’s son, played by Jonah Hill, has no interest in allowing another man into their lives — a stance he proceeds to demonstrate in a variety of obnoxious ways. My Rating: 5 out of 5.

]]> http://timsfilmreviews.com/2012/08/06/ted-2012-review/ Mon, 06 Aug 2012 08:00:07 +0000 Tim The Film Guy http://timsfilmreviews.com/2012/08/06/ted-2012-review/ http://abloginthedark.wordpress.com/2012/08/02/ted/ Thu, 02 Aug 2012 22:26:50 +0000 joshunderscoreglenn http://abloginthedark.wordpress.com/2012/08/02/ted/ REVIEW

Ted

(Seth MacFarlane, 2012, Universal)

Mild spoilers ahead. You have been warned.

‘Fuck you M. Night Shyamalan! You can suck my dick. You can’t get me, M. Night Shyamalan, ’cause you’re just God’s farts. Pft.’

When did Family Guy lose it? At the peak of its popularity – which I’d guess is sometime around its fourth season, in 2005, following its renewal – it was everywhere; everyone seemed to have the DVDs, everyone could quote at least one sketch verbatim and you couldn’t turn without seeing a Peter/Brian/Stewie/Evil Monkey t-shirt. It’s hard to dispute its quality during this period, too, with its zany comedic energy harking back to the slightly-more-innocent anarchy of Looney Tunes. It never touched ‘90s Simpsons, admittedly, but its combination of clever-ish pop-culture gags and button-pushing political-incorrectness acted as a sub-South Park reflection of our highly confused times. So how did it morph into the lazy, outdated mess it is today?

I don’t know, to be honest. Nor do I care. This isn’t a review for Family Guy, after all. Regardless, it’s interesting to look at Ted next to MacFarlane’s flagship show and see how it compares. The good news is that it displays a far more mature MacFarlane, investing much more in character-based comedy than easy targeting/movie-referencing. That isn’t to say the latter is nonexistent, it just feeds into the characters instead of substituting for them. Indeed, it’s unfortunate that the hefty amount of goodwill the debut-director has squandered over the past few years casts this movie in a negative light: there’s a surprising amount of depth here.

The ‘depth’ in question sprouts from MacFarlane’s probing of arrested development and man (the gender)’s paradoxical reluctance/need to grow the hell up, via the hugely entertaining back-and-forth established by Wahlberg’s man-child John and the unnervingly adorable man-bear of the title. Flexing the comedic muscles he developed in the half-hilarious/half-tedious The Other Guys and Python-esque masterpiece The Happening, Wahlberg is a hoot, perfectly distilling the idea at the heart of Ted by maintaining a look of innocence amidst the endless bong hits. Utilising seamless CGI to bring the bear to life, MacFarlane invests his cuddly avatar with more than a little Peter Griffin DNA, but the ‘this is like that time I…’ jokes don’t feel forced or tired. Instead, they give a lived-in feel to the central relationship and are, amazingly, somewhat charming.

Behind the dynamic duo is an impressive supporting cast. Mila Kunis is given enough to do to make you fall as in love with her as Wahlberg, keeping her requisite nagging understated enough to add another dimension to her stock character type. Elsewhere, Community’s Jeff Winger (a.k.a. Joel McHale) brings his own unique brand of sleaze, sitcom stalwart Patrick Warburton plays a gay version of Puddy from Seinfeld (replete with a genius cameo boyfriend) and Matt Walsh mines deadpan gold as Wahlberg’s boss. There’s also the best prolonged ‘80s-superstar(ish) cameo this side of Zombieland. I won’t spoil it for you (although others will), but his contribution to the party at the climax of act two will thoroughly bust your gut.

How many prostitutes?

Alas, despite the resonant undertones, an able cast of funny people and a smattering of flat-out belly laughs, you can’t escape the feeling that MacFarlane cottoned on to this fantastic concept and can’t quite figure out what to do with it. The first two acts meander in and out of various different plot-lines, not progressing so much as just… being there. It’s amusing enough, don’t get me wrong, but it gives the film a very uneven feeling. For every masterful fart joke (and this film does make something of an art of them), there’s a lazy ‘satirical jab’ that falls completely flat and reeks of the ‘that’ll do’ attitude that plagues the current run of Family Guy. It’s immensely frustrating. And then there’s the small matter of the final stretch.

Hinted at early on with the introduction of Giovanni Ribisi, Ted’s ultimate destination is, unfortunately, a very creaky, poorly-executed, badly misjudged kidnap ‘thriller’. Even this manages to milk a couple of decent laughs (generally at the expense of the admirably game Aedin Mincks), but it’s such a cheap and unnecessary plea for drama that it makes a hash of the emotions that were simmering along nicely enough beforehand. As a result, the resolution comes off as schmaltzy and unearned where it should have been, and almost was, genuinely touching.

In the end, though, there are enough quiet character moments dotted throughout, thanks to the cracking chemistry between Marky Mark and his teddy bear, for the underlying emotions to register. MacFarlane is undeniably a talented guy, despite what his detractors say, and he goes some way towards silencing his critics (myself included) with the deft handling of character that is on display – however fleetingly – here. However, until he can really focus and channel these concepts he has into one streamlined, dynamite idea, he’ll keep derailing his projects and end up with a muddled, schizophrenic, frustrating mess. There’s good stuff in here – some of it great, even – but it’s buried beneath so much flab that the temptation arises to simply write it off. Don’t. The Provocative Knight will rise and make a good film one day, when he finally escapes those ham-fisted satirical tendencies. Fingers crossed he’ll exhaust himself by running Family Guy into the ground. Until then, though, you’ll have to make do with merely-okay films like Ted.

VERDICT:

6/10

-

Directed by Seth MacFarlane

Written by Seth MacFarlane, Alec Sulkin and Wellesley Wild

-

Mark Wahlberg – John Bennett

Mila Kunis – Lori Collins

Seth MacFarlane – Ted

Joel McHale – Rex

Giovanni Ribisi – Donny

Patrick Warburton – Guy

Matt Walsh – Thomas

Jessica Barth – Tami-Lynn

Aedin Mincks – Robert

The Groundlings dedicate this theater to the memory of Phil Hartman.

The Groundlings circa 1979. Phil Hartman is in the second row. Photo taken by John Mayer (not that one).

Here’s a video of Mindy Sterling and Jim Rash talking about their approach to improv. The video is aimed at those in the L.A. acting scene and are probably only interesting for those already interested in the Groundlings and improv. The opening is so serious that I wondered whether a parody was on its way, but it’s a very serious interview about funny stuff and what makes improv work.

I know some people who are interested in applying the techniques of improv to the business and social services world, and now I’m motivated to ask them how much they focus on that primary “being in the moment” approach.

I’ll be going to the Upright Citizens Brigade tonight. Here’s Matt Walsh, Ian Roberts, and Matt Besser getting interviewed by the same outfit who talked to the Groundlings above. Again, probably only interesting if you’re interested in the improv scene. For me, what’s interesting is that both UCB and the Groundlings emphasize the importance of writing, even though they focus on improv.

I love the fun and exhilaration of improv and sketch comedy, although stand-up comedy remains my main comedy interest. Stand-up goes to a darker place, and for me that actually means that it taps even deeper into the roots of comedy.

Around Azeroth: Mistaken identity, Elizabeth Wachowski, WoW Insider, 7/10/12.

I never expected an Around Azeroth post to make it here, but this is just so cute. It’s a screenshot of a gnome at the Darkmoon Faire competing with the NPC that ports players back to the cannon.

Know Your Lore: The final boss of Mists of Pandaria, Anne Stickney, WoW Insider, 7/15/12.

The Old Gods are known to cause destruction and chaos around them. Who’s causing destruction and chaos in the upcoming expansion? We are.

WoW Archivist: The evolution of Alterac Valley, Scott Andrews, WoW Insider, 7/13/12.

A great look at how Alterac Valley has changed. While they were clearly flaws in the original, and I’m glad I can do AV relatively quickly, this article does make me think that Blizzard’s has gone too far.

Reflections on moving from a PvP to a PvE realm, Matt Walsh, WoW Insider, 7/9/12.

After moving from a PVP to a PVE server, Matt realized he didn’t have to be afraid out in the world anymore, but it also felt like something was missing.

Team Matticus takes on the updated Pet Battle system, Matt Low, WoW Insider, 7/17/12.

Matt gives a tour of pet battles!

Grandpappy Frostheim on dumbing the game down, Brian Wood, WoW Insider, 7/12/12.

Is the game really getting easier, or is it just getting more accessible? Grindings not hard; it’s time-consuming.

Obsidian Nightwing now available as Recruit-A-Friend mount, Daniel Whitcomb, WoW Insider, 7/16/12.

Take a look at the new RAF mount.

48 dailies are 48 dailies too many, Olivia Grace, WoW Insider, 7/18/12.

There are up to 48 Mists of Pandaria dailies to do each day, and Olivia Grace thinks that’s 48 too many.

Though I wasn’t able to get the triple feature I was hoping to when I went to see Spider-Man, a double feature was within my abilities.  It required that I first wait outside in the scorching Las Vegas summer temperatures for an hour, but it had the potential to be worth it.  If nothing else, it would make for a review.  And a request, as this movie was requested by my cousin Jeremy.  This movie caused many strange feelings for me, mainly because I didn’t feel like I wanted to see it.  This was strange because I love the guy that wrote and directed it and I’ve been a fan of his TV show for quite some time.  Yet, when he brought out a movie, I looked at the trailer and turned my nose up at it.  When it came out, I had been told by numerous people that it was worth seeing, but I could not be swayed.  Apparently, they all forgot that I review movies and take requests, and that requesting it might actually make me go see it.  Well my cousin didn’t forget as stupidity does not run in our bloodline … at least not on the male side.  And so I bring my review of Ted, written, directed by, and starring Seth MacFarlane, and also starring Mark Wahlberg, Mila Kunis, Giovanni Ribisi, Aedin Mincks, Patrick Stewart, Joel McHale, Matt Walsh, Patrick Warburton, Ralph Garman, Alex Borstein, Jessica Barth, Norah Jones, Sam J. Jones, Ryan Reynolds, and Tom Skerritt.

Young John Bennett has no friends.  For Christmas, he gets a large teddy bear that he cleverly names Ted.  But its limited vocabulary is not enough for John, so he wishes that Ted would learn how to talk.  Miraculously, his wish comes true and Ted comes to life.  After his parents (Alex Borstein and Ralph Garman) get over their initial shock, they take part in making Ted a brief celebrity.  In 2012, Ted (voiced by Seth MacFarlane) has lost his celebrity and now lives with John (Mark Wahlberg) and his girlfriend of four years, Lori (Mila Kunis).  Over their anniversary dinner, John comes to realize that Lori was hoping he would propose, but doesn’t want to marry a 35-year-old who hangs out and smokes weed with his teddy bear.  Lori doesn’t want to lay down a him-or-me ultimatum, but it may come to that anyway.  Also in the mix is Lori’s boss, Rex (Joel McHale), who really wants to bang her and a crazed stalker named Donny (Giovanni Ribisi) and his son Robert (Aedin Mincks) who want to kidnap Ted.

I still can’t really put into words why I didn’t find myself interested in this movie, but I’m very happy that I finally relented to seeing it.  It’s not the greatest comedy ever (but it does reference the greatest comedy ever, in my opinion), but it’s a solid movie with lots of laughs throughout.  I don’t know why I didn’t expect it, being such a fan of the Family Guy and American Dad as I am, but it’s always nice to be surprised.  A lot of the humor is not far removed from what you’d see in a typical episode of Family Guy or American Dad, but they never do any of the flashback or cutaway jokes that people have complained about in Family Guy.  It’s just straight up funniness.  And a lot of it is nerdy jokes, which I always appreciate.  They recreate the dance scene from Airplane! for crying out loud!  Any movie that does that is alright in my book.  I got confused by one nerdy joke in the movie though, when it was revealed that Lori’s ringtone on John’s phone was the Imperial Death March.  What’s wrong with that?  That’s the ringtone I use for my mom on my phone.  (That is not a joke).  There’s also a scene where Ted and John do coke at a party, and that scene is all the way hilarious.  How does that count as a nerdy joke?  ‘Cause fuckin’ Flash Gordon (the real one!) is in that whole scene.  There may have been jokes that were lost on me in this scene as I have never seen Flash Gordon, but I think I got the gist of it.  I didn’t understand how this party was the straw that broke the camels back for Lori in their relationship though.  How are you going to get mad at your guy for going to that party?  Does he often get to hang out with his childhood heroes?  I understand you were reaching the end of your rope with the guy, but you have to let that one go.  There were some pretty sweet fights in the movie as well.  There was one near the end of the movie that reminded me of the fight from the third Bourne movie, but slightly different because one half of it was a teddy bear and not a big black guy.  There’s also a point where a kid gets punched in the face, and that’s just delicious.

The performances in this movie are all alright by me.  I’ve never really been too big of a fan of Mark Wahlberg, but I liked him in this movie.  He was funny in the movie, and there were even parts where he was downright cute, like when he was cowering in the kitchen yelling at Lori as she tried to clean up hooker poop.  Mila Kunis was very cute in the movie, and you felt for her very frequently in the movie.  But she’s always cute.  She probably can’t help it.  And at least she wasn’t Meg, am I right?  Seth MacFarlane brought a great deal of the comedy to the movie as Ted, and he brought even more to it as the writer of the movie.  You could expect that when looking at the trailers for the movie, but MacFarlane does share the funny pretty evenly with the rest of the cast.  I had gotten myself all smug and self-satisfied to say that Ted’s voice occasionally goes into Peter Griffin territory, but then they made the joke and made me look like a real dick-hole.  One of my favorite parts for Ted was a smaller moment in the movie, but it was when he was interviewing for his job, or pretty much all of his interactions with his boss.  Giovanni Ribisi was also in this movie, and he was as creepy as he was funny.  Norah Jones is also in the movie, but all I can say about her is that a Norah Jones concert looks like a boring time.  Not because of the music, but because the audience just seems to stand there and sway back and forth.  Where’s the mosh pit?  I had also heard that Ryan Reynolds was in this movie in a small part, but even that feels like an understatement.  He might as well have just wondered by in the background and waved.

I had inexplicably low expectations for Ted going in, but it blew them out of the water.  Turns out Seth MacFarlane can make funny in various different scenarios.  The movie is often laugh out loud funny, amusing the rest of the time, and even manages a good deal of emotional scenes.  Though I’d say the ending was not unexpected, it was the enjoyable way to end the movie.  The performances all help the movie along to their inevitable goal of being a fun and enjoyable movie.  This movie is definitely worth a watch in the theaters, so go do it.  Ted gets “Look what Jesus did!” out of “Somewhere out there are four terrible fathers I wish I could thank for this great night.”

Let’s get these reviews more attention, people.  Post reviews on your webpages, tell your friends, do some of them crazy Pinterest nonsense.  Whatever you can do to help my reviews get more attention would be greatly appreciated.  You can also add me on FaceBook and Twitter.  Don’t forget to leave me some comments.  Your opinions and constructive criticisms are always appreciated.

I wrote this review awhile back, and it’s fairly well-written, so I’m going to use it here.  My feelings on the movie remain almost the same, except I gave it another half a star this time.

Generally every time that a new Will Ferrell movie comes out, I’m subjected to a ridiculous amount of advertising in relation to the movie, mostly in the form of commercials that barely register with me as they’re filled with the most ridiculous scenes and absurd dialogue. Those commercials never highlight the little things that make me want to pay to see a movie, like scene-stealing bit players or awkwardly delivered lines, things like that. Eventually I’ll see the movie though, because there is something about the Frat Pack movies and Judd Apatow productions that intrigue me. I know that no matter how bad it may appear to be on the outside, when Apatow is involved with a film, at the very least I’ll think it’s just average.

Step Brothers was a bit of a different beast, as I thought the R-rated trailer that I saw a couple months ago was filled with comedic promise. John C. Reilly was absolutely perfect in Walk Hard, and the idea of Dewey Cox being the step-brother to a weird mash-up of Ron Burgundy and Buddy the Elf was enough to make me want to see Step Brothers. Thankfully, my non-paying gig as a movie czar (I actually prefer movie guru) led to me lucking into some free passes to a preview screening.

This movie reunites Ferrell with his Talladega Nights and Anchorman director, Adam McKay, and had I remembered that awhile back, my enthusiasm for Step Brothers might have been dampened considerably. Thankfully I went into the movie with hardly any preconceived expectations for the movie. Well that’s not entirely true. I knew that there were going to be at least six strikingly funny scenes from what I saw in the trailer, and I was holding out hope that the entire movie would be a laugh riot.

Nancy Huff (Mary Steenburgen) and Dr. Robert Doback (Richard Jenkins) are two middle-aged single parents who meet and fall in love over the shared embarrassment of both having their 40-year-old sons still living with them. Brennan Huff (Ferrell) has been raised to be a petulant mama’s boy with almost zero knowledge of how to survive in the outside world. Dale Doback (Reilly) is like a man-child version of a lumberjack or trucker, and both boys seem to hate each other on first sight. Eventually, a shared hatred of Brennan’s younger, more successful brother Derek (Adam Scott) brings the two step brothers together and wacky hijinks ensue that threaten to tear the family apart.

I realise now that I’m being spoiled by these Apatow-produced and directed movies, as generally flicks in the wacky comedy genre tend to pull their punches and don’t deliver full belly laughs from being surprised at the audaciousness of the dialogue or situations. With every well-placed f-bomb and concussion-inducing injury or absurd and off-putting situation, I eagerly drink up more of the Apatow-flavoured Kool-Aid. The sheer fun that Ferrell and Reilly put into their performances make the movie all the more enjoyable that it rightfully should be.

It’s not a perfect movie by any means, since if you really stop to think about it, the main characters should actually be loathed and mocked, not celebrated. Thankfully, Ferrell puts more Buddy than Burgundy into his performance so Brennan doesn’t come across as unlikable. Reilly was great as usual, Jenkins delivered his usual decent if not noteworthy performance, and Mary Steenburgen kind of freaked me out every time she was onscreen. Adam Scott was particularly loathsome as the super-successful asshat brother, and generally everyone played their role to maximize the funny.

For a movie of this type, it is super hard to get a perfect score in my ratings books. A movie like There’s Something About Mary would rate full marks from me, and while I enjoyed Step Brothers, it was no Mary. Hell, it wasn’t even an Out Cold, but it wasn’t a waste of my time and I enjoyed it for what it was. And me typing that the way that I did is why I come across as a pretentious movie snob sometimes.

3.5 / 5

Mild Spoilers!

Mark Wahlberg is a outcast as a kid. Once Christmas he gets a stuffed bear as a present from his parents. So he becomes attached to it and wishes it was real one day. In turn the bear comes to life and grows up with Wahlberg, with some mild media attention. I mean seriously, it’s a talking fuckin’ stuffed toy. Who wouldn’t be interested in it. Eventually, everyone forgets about it and they move into a apartment. Wahlberg eventually finds love in Mila Kunis while he works at a car dealership. Eventually Kunis gets tired of being the third wheel, so Wahlberg asks him to move out. Ted (Seth MacFarlane) find himself needing a job in order to move out.

This is not one of the funniest movies of all time, but it had some of the best dialogue and transitional plot that I’ve seen in a long while. On top of all that just about everything added in the movie helps develop the characters. From the dorky movies they watch (like Flash Gordon) to the weird cultural references. To a certain extent the characters feel real and genuine. It’s almost like ya know them through the actors ease of emotional transition and vocal patters…well this is getting a bit in depth.

As you can guess anything with Seth MacFarlane is sure to have lots of laughs. Well it really does. Dozens even. Although some of the jokes not only didn’t make sense, but were just really odd. It isn’t that they weren’t funny, but they were more or less exceedingly awkward. There’s one scene when Ted and Wahlberg are at a aquarium and Ted starts talking about fish in a anthropomorphic manner. He does two dialogues while panning to different fish and one talks about a frightened man going to New York. Either I missed the first half of the joke, or it was just so odd that I had to laugh. Also the increase of smut humor, without nudity, was a little higher then previous works of Seth MacFarlane, or anyone for that matter.

Everyone does a decent job acting. It’s actually good to see Mark Wahlberg NOT going around punching people in the face and shooting others up. Giovanni Ribisi, as usual, is astoundingly great, considering how creepy his role was. There were a few side characters who didn’t really add anything to the plot, so I don’t see why they were there. Like near the beginning one comes on the screen as an astoundingly bright and happy character, then he has a whopping two lines and isn’t really seen again until the end. I will say it’s refreshing to see Mila Kunis in a normal role where she isn’t being a complete bitch (see That 70′s Show & After Sex). She did a great job as the more ‘mature’ one of the group while Wahlberg developed from party-teen-man to a actual man.

All in all this is probably one of the best Bromance/Romcom’s I’ve seen in a while. However, the humor isn’t for everyone. On top of that a lot of it is really odd, even to my taste. A lot of it is cultural references, word play, and quick wit. This sounds standard, for anyone who knows comedy formula, but it’s how they’re structured and how they’re written. So I can’t recommend it to everyone, but then again that’s the charm of the whole movie: the unique characters. Whatever, I’ll be buying it when it comes out.

Please go see this in theaters. It is a real treat.

8.5/10

IMDB – 7.8

I forgot to mention look out for Mila Kunis‘s towel scene in the movie. Le-hubahuba.

If nothing else, Ted certainly deserves the award for funniest trailer of the year (at least when it comes to the red band version). It’s packed with some of the silliest, raunchiest jokes in any comedy this year. Unfortunately, while it’s far from a disaster, the film itself never ends up as much more than that. Plenty of jokes are strung about, but the story itself  is so bereft of value that it never comes together as a whole.

Mark Wahlberg stars as John Bennett, who, as a child, made a wish that his teddy bear would come to life. And wouldn’t you know it, thanks to a shooting star, that happened. The film then takes the natural progression from there; we cut to thirty years later, and the bear (named Ted, voiced by MacFarlane) and him are living together. Both are perpetual stoners; John is managing to hold down a job at the local car rental. When his relationship with Ted begins to interfere in his seemingly perfect romance with Lori (Mila Kunis), they come to the agreement that for John to grow, Ted needs to move out.

This obviously isn’t a film I’m going to come at from any distinct critical angle. Most broad comedies are so ridiculous that judging them that way is pointless. Instead, I come at it from the most important angle; how funny is it? Ted certainly has its share of great jokes; an extended subplot featuring the star of Flash Gordon Sam Jones and a large amount of cocaine, as well as John’s boss boasting of his friendship with Alien star Tom Skerritt are truly inspired bits of zaniness, something we’ve come to expect from MacFarlane. Unfortunately, the majority of the movie’s best jokes are featured in the trailer; the rest is a collection of various racist, sexist bits. I have no problem with racist or sexist jokes; but if they’re not funny and are just going that far to get “oh no they didn’t” laughs, they just come across as lazy. And the majority of the jokes in here come across that way.

I’ve always been lukewarm on Wahlberg. While he’s certainly had his moments (The Fighter, The Departed, I <3 Huckabees), most of his work has been exactly what I would expect from a white rapper turned actor. Surprisingly, I was quite pleased with his work here. The “deer in the headlights”-ness of a good chunk of his performances is still there, but it’s quite toned down. Mila Kunis is giving a better performance than what was written for her; her character is honestly paper-thin, but she really gives it her all. MacFarlane is just doing Peter Griffin, so don’t expect anything more than that.

The film’s best (and wackiest) performance has to come from the so-called villain of the piece, an obsessed former fan of Ted’s glory days played by Giovanni Ribisi. Well known for the extremes he likes to go to with his characters (he was fantastic earlier this year with Wahlberg in Contraband, quite an underrated genre thriller if you haven’t seen it). His Tiffany dance sequence near the end is just one of the greatest things ever. Finally, Joel McHale as Lori’s boss, who desperately wants to have sex with her. The character goes from the incredibly generic romantic comedy douchebag, to possibly something more complex, before the film decides to drop that more interesting angle almost immediately. If you see it, let me know what you thought on that; I was quite disappointed they didn’t try to take it somewhere more interesting.

Ted isn’t a great movie. I wouldn’t even call it a very good movie. It follows the standard Hollywood movie formula to a T; you know where every scene is going to go, right up to the cheesy as hell ending. But it has its moments, some truly brilliant, esoteric bits of comedy, and some suprisingly well-done CGI. If nothing else, it’s worth a rental.

C+

Two comedies came out this past weekend for which I am not the target audience. I readily admit that right off the bat. What then is the purpose of my reviewing these films? There were massive flaws in both Ted, Seth MacFarlane’s feature film debut, and Madea’s Witness Protection, what felt like a feature film debut but was actually Tyler Perry’s twelfth theatrical release. Pacing issues, structure issues, character development issues, but the chief issue for me personally was that I didn’t laugh very often. Ted had a more polished visual style but dragged to the point of exhaustion. Madea’s Witness Protection made me laugh more than Ted, but its visual style and utter contempt for economic use of film and dialogue baffled me. At the end of the day, the overwhelming majority of the target audience for both of these films will inevitably accuse me of thinking too much, that it’s a comedy, that I should “lighten up.” But the films didn’t make me laugh very much. Should I break down why? Or should I merely accept that these are comedies made for target audiences uninterested in character, plot, structure, and pacing?

Ted is about a boy who wishes for his bear to come to life, and sure enough, it does. Up until the opening credits, the film covers the teddy bear’s rise to fame and spiral downward, and it feels pretty fresh and interesting. However, the second the credits end, it becomes clear that MacFarlane wants to focus on what he *actually* finds funny– a teddy bear drinking, smoking pot, having sex, and saying the F word. If you think these things are inherently funny, then this might be the funniest movie ever made in your opinion. Because he smokes pot a lot, he swears a lot, and he has sex a lot. Many of the punchlines in the film are the bear saying the F word or saying something like, “Can we smoke pot now?” If that line just made you laugh, you’re in for a treat. If that line made you wonder, “Huh, where’s the wit necessary to elevate the concept to its highest potential?” then you’re asking yourself the same question I asked myself throughout Ted’s considerable run time.

Certain one-liners here and there stand out, usually the ones that don’t have any swear words. Don’t misunderstand: swearing can be hilarious when combined with wit. The British satire In The Loop is more hilarious and shocking than Ted aspires to be. Not that I should even compare the two, since I guess MacFarlane fancies this adventure to fall into the Apatow wheelhouse where a manchild learns to grow up. The problem is… that doesn’t happen here. The film’s structure is: girlfriend mad, boyfriend promises to act right, bear tempts boyfriend, boyfriend parties, girlfriend mad, lather, rinse, repeat. This goes on for what the press release claims is 106 minutes but what felt longer than Return of the King. It also has more endings than Return of the King– there’s a big climax and confession of love at a concert that felt like the end, until I realized we had at least a half hour left. They spend the final act of the film not on the characters and their story arcs, but on rescuing Ted from Giovanni Ribisi’s utterly gratuitous character (he plays it well, for what that’s worth).

Madea’s Witness Protection doesn’t have the same pacing issues: for all of the problems it has, it does succeed in feeling shorter than its run time. The jokes fly quickly, Perry plays the characters of Madea and Joe with great energy, and there’s no woman-scorned plotline to drag down the comedy and shift the tone– a usual Tyler Perry trademark, I’m led to understand (this was my first Tyler Perry film experience in its entirety). The problems with Madea’s Witness Protection are largely technical. Perry’s theatrical background is clear, as shots are framed like a play, complete with characters standing facing out. There’s no action to speak of, outside of one car chase which is incoherently shot– everyone just stands and talks, often delivering huge amounts of exposition. Characters repeat lines three or four times in a row, and not just Perry, which leads me to believe the script is asking these actors to repeat lines constantly. No one ever says, “I can’t believe it!” They say, “I can’t believe it! This is unbelievable! I simply can’t believe it!”

More baffling than any of this is the second and a half of silence after every joke that Perry leaves in the film. When shooting, directors usually roll for a couple of moments after the final line is delivered before yelling “Cut!” so they have some extra footage to toy with in the editing room. It seems like Perry, in anticipation of raucous laughter at every turn, left in ALL of this extra footage. If a joke works, it feels like actors pausing for laughs, adding to the feeling like I’m watching a play, but if it doesn’t, then it feels like an actor forgot a line or an editor simply missed an extra two seconds needing trimming. It’s beyond explanation. There are other things beyond explanation as well– people go out of their way to avoid explaining Ponzi schemes, to the point where I wondered if the writer understood how they work, and in one utterly mind-boggling sequence of horrible writing/directing/editing, a five-character family is introduced individually by name to three new characters in three scenes in a row– but the pausing for laughter is the main jewel in this film’s Crown of Incompetence.

This leads to my main question: what’s the point? I already know how this article is going to play out. I will inevitably be called many profane names for stating my opinion on the various problems in these two comedies, insulted for attempting to use intelligence. Since I didn’t have a predilection for the humor of MacFarlane or Perry before entering the theatre, perhaps I never should have seen them in the first place. Besides, what’s the point in informing people that the films aren’t funny when I’m not the target audience and those reading the review likely aren’t either? People who think a teddy bear swearing is funny don’t see that trailer and think, “Hmmm… although that looked utterly hilarious, perhaps I should wait and see what some snooty bloggers think before I purchase my ticket.” They just see the film, turn off their brain, and enjoy themselves, as is anyone’s right. Lord knows I love turning off my brain for certain genres (made-for-Syfy-Channel creature features!), and I don’t begrudge those who do love this humor. Many people in my theater for Ted laughed very hard consistently, and I I actually enjoyed the communal experience of the Madea film, where folks laughed, yelled at the characters on screen and sang along to the hymns in the church scenes– it might have contributed to the aforementioned perceived energy of the film. It’s just tough to even want to write reviews of comedies that are flawed to the point where it affects their attempts at humor. Some people will read this and feel like I loved writing this article, because reviews of bad movies can be very fun to write. Sadly, I take zero pleasure in describing bad comedies. This’ll be my last MacFarlane or Perry film I see or review for the foreseeable future, because all I wanted was for these films to make me laugh consistently. For the combined nearly four hours of their run time, I laughed for maybe five minutes– less time than I spent afterward wondering what people would call me in the comments section of this review.

Note: I’m giving Ted a slightly higher score, because it does have more polish, stronger camera movement… in short, it looks more like a film made by professionals. However, it made me laugh less than Madea’s Witness Protection did. So take these scores with a grain of salt. If you even care anyway– if you’re still reading at this point, you likely weren’t going to see them anyway.

Ted:

Madea’s Witness Protection:

Seth MacFarlane’s Ted took the number 1 spot at the box office this weekend, bringing in  $54.1 million.  Who knew the demand for foulmouthed teddy bears was so high?

I’ll be seeing it sometime this week.  My girlfriend doesn’t see the appeal, but what’s not to like about a swearing, drinking, pot smoking teddy bear best friend?

[Update: I saw Ted a few days ago and really enjoyed it.  For all of its foul mouthed humor, the movie has a lot of heart.  If you're looking for a laugh, there is no better place to go than a showing of Ted.]

For my write-up of the epic 14th Del Close Marathon, please click here.

Legendary comics Ian Roberts and Matt Walsh celebrate the 10th Anniversary of their indie feature film Martin & Orloff with a screening and Q&A—plus free wine—at UCB East

Tonight’s recommendations for the best in New York City comedy (in chronological order, with top picks noted and shows over $10 marked with $) include:

[FREE] 6:00 pm: Dan St. Germain (quick-witted & enormously likeable rising star; Jimmy Fallon, The Electric Company, MTV, VH1) is tonight’s guest on this open-mic storytelling show, with audience members chosen from a bucket of names getting to tell tales for 8 minutes each at The PIT downstairs lounge along with host Jake Hart: The Dump

[FREE] 6:00 pm: An open-mic stand-up show running about 90 minutes at The Creek upstairs theatre in Queens’ Long Island City with host Chris Gaynor: Open Mic Mondays

[MEGA-TOP PICK] 7:00 pm ($5; includes free wine!): The NYC UCB theaters are closed today to enjoy the hangovers from this weekend’s epic Del Close Marathon…except for this show, which is a 10th Anniversary celebration screening of Matt Walsh’s & Ian Robert’s indie feature film Martin & Orloff at UCB East (which used to be a movie theatre) and that will include a Q&A afterwards with comedy legends Ian & Matt: Matt Walsh & Ian Roberts and Martin & Orloff

[FREE] 7:30 pm: Four improvisers form teams with comics they’ve never performed with before atThe Creek upstairs theatre in Queens’ Long Island City: The Kaleidoscope

[TOP PICK] 9:00 pm ($5): Myq Kaplan (one of the quickest minds in comedy, and rapidly rising star; finalist on most recent Last Comic Standing; David Letterman, Conan O’Brien, Jay Leno, Comedy Central Presents, hit comedy CD Vegan Mind Meld), Dan St. Germain (quick-witted & enormously likeable rising star; Jimmy Fallon, The Electric Company, MTV, VH1), Kendra Cunningham, Chad Plaines, and more performing at this weekly show at Brooklyn’s Bar Matchless back room (557 Manhattan Avenue, near the G subway’s Nassau Avenue stop) hosted by Mike Denny, Michael Che, and Nimesh Patel, and often featuring free beer: Broken Comedy

[TOP PICK] 9:30 pm ($5): Sketch comics Jon Bass (Book of Mormon), Matthew Robert Gehring (The Story Pirates), Anna Drezen (Famous Last Words), and Emma Tattenbaum-Fine (Political Subversities) each show off their solo character work for this unique show at The PIT upstairs theatre, hosted by Branson Reese & Sam Martin: Comedy Expo

[FREE] 9:30 pm: Following a club format, hosts Nore Davis & Andrew Short perform stand-up throughout for a total of 25 minutes, two comics each perform a 15-minute set, and then a seasoned headliner closes out the show with a 20-minute set, all at The Creek upstairs theatre in Queens’ Long Island City: On the Road

[FREE] 9:30 pm: NYC stand-ups Luke Thayer (Tyra Banks; co-host of The Living Room), Hilary Schwartz, Tim Warner, J-L Cauvin, Adi Blotman, and Angry Bob performing at Brooklyn’s Freddy’s Backroom (627 5th Avenue) with host Pat O’Shea: Ed Sullivan on Acid

[FREE] 10:00 pm: Open-mic storytelling show at The Magnet hosted by Kelly Buttermore: Storytelling Mixer

[FREE] 10:30 pm: Improv students are welcomed onto the stage at The PIT downstairs lounge for this weekly open access show hosted by Gary DeNoia & Keith Huang: Base Jam

[FREE] 11:00 pm: Exceptionally supportive stand-up open-mic at The PIT upstairs theatre hosted by Jared Reed: Fresh

For more, please visit HyReviews.com.

I bring all of this up so that you get an idea of how I feel regarding Seth MacFarlane’s particular schtick. I don’t find him as horrid as some people do, nor do I worship at his altar. Even the earliest episodes of American Dad weren’t as amazing as everyone makes them out to be. They don’t reach the level of classic Simpsons episodes or even early or modern Futurama installments in my honest opinion. But MacFarlane did inject a bit of fresh air into the animated comedy genre and made a name for himself based on a very specific type of humor. Do his sensibilities cross over into live action?

I have to say that with Ted, MacFarlane hits far more than he misses. He’s smartly put Mark Wahlberg in the lead and let him play the role completely straight. Wahlberg is surprisingly great in comedic roles. His turn in The Other Guys is enough to prove that point. He adds enough comedic flourishes to let us know that he isn’t phoning it in or taking himself too seriously, but at the same time he doesn’t go out of his way to act wacky or cartoonish. That would have sunk this film fast. Even MacFarlane plays the titular teddy bear as if he were an ordinary guy. The humor comes from that ordinary guy being a teddy bear and interacting with the real world. Honestly, I feel as if this movie could have been written without the element of Ted being a teddy bear but instead being Wahlberg’s human best friend and much of it could have remained mostly unchanged until the third act.

I also need to point out that it almost feels as if this movie is an apology to Mila Kunis from MacFarlane because her character is well written and treated with much more respect than her role on Family Guy. I suppose it was Seth’s way of saying “I’m sorry for all that horrible shit we put you through.”

Simply put, this is a better film than it has any right to be. Yes, MacFarlane is still overly dependent on 80′s pop culture to make a joke (which works with all the Flash Gordon references but falls on its face when he tries to parody the dance scene from Airplane! which was in and of itself a parody) and the third act seems to go off on a really weird tangent, but overall the film just works. I would recommend at least giving it a watch when it hits Redbox. You could do far worse.

It’s a good movie, with some major third act problems (mostly revolving around Mila Kunis, whose character arc isn’t believable); Ted goes between being a heartwarming Rob Reiner picture Reiner never made and mocking Rob Reiner pictures. MacFarlane’s direction is surprisingly strong and confident, though he does have a cinematographer (Michael Barrett) who can’t shoot video.

And while MacFarlane and his fuzzy little alter ego are the “star” of Ted, leading man Mark Wahlberg does the film’s heaviest lifting. He makes it believable he’s acting opposite, for extended periods, this talking stuffed animal. There’s an absolutely astounding fight scene between Wahlberg and Ted; it’s too amazing in fact, because one can’t help but wonder how they were able to do it. The special effects technicals overpower the scene’s effectiveness.

The script has a lot of great jokes–the best humor sequence is probably the first one, which had me choking for air–and the supporting cast is strong.

Only Kunis, as Wahlberg’s love interest, falters. She can’t pull off the sophistication required.

Ted‘s an outstanding comedy.

CREDITS

Directed by Seth MacFarlane; screenplay by MacFarlane, Alec Sulkin and Wellesley Wild, based on a story by MacFarlane; director of photography, Michael Barrett; edited by Jeff Freeman; music by Walter Murphy; production designer, Stephen J. Lineweaver; produced by Jason Clark, John Jacobs, MacFarlane, Scott Stuber and Wild; released by Universal Pictures.

Starring Mark Wahlberg (John Bennett), Mila Kunis (Lori Collins), Seth MacFarlane (Ted), Joel McHale (Rex), Giovanni Ribisi (Donny), Patrick Warburton (Guy), Matt Walsh (Thomas), Jessica Barth (Tami-Lynn), Aedin Mincks (Robert), Bill Smitrovich (Frank) and Sam J. Jones as the Savior (of the Universe); narrated by Patrick Stewart.

Related posts:

• Role Models (2008, David Wain), the unrated version
• Blades of Glory (2007, Will Speck and Josh Gordon)
• Loom (2012, Luke Scott)
• Traveller (1997, Jack N. Green)
• Scream 3 (2000, Wes Craven)